Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

By quoting "northern" and "southern" and following them with question marks I was trying to undercut the notion of them as designating origination, rather than simply where they ended up, in Italy.

Who the Etruscans or the Latins were and where they originated is a mystery. All we know with any security is that the Etruscans didn't speak an Indo-European language and the Latins did. It is quite possible that the noble "Etruscan" group were more Aegean/Anatolian (or "southern") in origination, while the peasant "Latin" group were more European/Steppe (or "northern"). Or maybe not.

That both the Etruscans and Latins, archaeologically, appear to have emerged from the preceding Villanovan/Urnfield culture presents us with a language conundrum - both can't be right. It is possible that the Etruscans were later intruders who became heavily admixed with the underlying ("urnfield") culture, imposing their language more than their genes. Or were the Latins the intruders, adopting the underlying ("urnfield") culture, but keeping their language? Or both were intruders? Who knows?

That's about where I wind up. :)
 
Any brief summary? :)
- - - - -
 
It's official: The Romans weren't Nordics!:)
 
It's official: The Romans weren't Nordics!:)

Yup, should have been obvious by the way they described Germanic tribes. Blonde hair was seen as a trait from beyond the Rhine, to the point of stereotype. I will say just to be impartial that I do think the patricians WOULD without doubt have been lighter than even modern day Northern Italians - many were described as having light features, and those describing them surely were not so incompetent as to mix up dark and light hair/eyes. That being said, I can't see the patricians as being any lighter than modern-day Swiss (who I guess are most similar to those Iron Age Italics from the North), which is to say definitely not Nordic. The Alps were an effective phenotypical barrier.

Also, that isn't to say that the patricians were somehow more "Nordic" genetically - light features are more common amongst the elite all over Europe, despite the elite having as far as can be seen identical admixture to the masses. In Britain, class has a huge effect on appearance - I'm not exaggerating when I say confidently that you can often tell if someone is of lower class by their appearance. The logical conclusion, then, would be something like lighter hair being a Roman preferred trait of beauty (which it was, dying hair blonde was a big trend), and that such types disproportionally mated with elites, in exactly the same way that rich people often take beautiful wives. That's my view at least.

While I'm at it and slightly off-topic, I'll just say that I think the Bell Beakers were phenotypically most similar to modern-day Ladins (but with more red hair and paler - see video below for a close frontal example); and that the phenotypical calculators for hair are all wrong. If Genetiker is anything to go by (and he's basically always been accurate), modern-day Brits should be significantly blonde - but they aren't, even if many are blonde when young. Equally, red-hair is underrepresented by the phenotypical calculators. So basically, blondism is overestimated and rufosity is underestimated (at least by looking at predictions for modern day Brits, who are majority standard brown in hair colour with significant levels of light and dark brown and (relatively speaking) red hair, but with true blondes being a small minority)

 
Clearly, once again you didn't read the link. That was one of the founding myths, just like it was a founding myth in Rome. How the heck do you know it wasn't believed in the Britain of that time? Are you another mind reader, only this time able to go back a thousand years?

You are also mistaken about the Greek input. I think it was large enough in Massalia to have an impact, probably in Liguria too, or where did all that E-V13 we carry come from?

5tpSqX4.png


Same for central Italy around the Adriatic. That's a big hotspot in Italy for J2 and there is abundant archaeological evidence for contacts with Greece. You know, the big green blob NORTH of Rome in the map you posted.

ddSeZVr.png


As for the Phoenicians, I do think they might have had a small impact in northwestern Sicily and Sardinia, the only places where they actually had their own settlements. It just didn't extend beyond that. Also, the Greeks went in for folk migrations, and imo the Phoenicians, at least originally, were much more about just establishing trading emporia and exploiting natural resources. Sort of like the European cantonments in 19th century China.

It's amazing to me how people distort my positions.
There was a thread by Johane Derite not long ago about the similarities between the Albanians and the Arvan valley in France and a study mentioning a spike of J2b-L283 in Piedmont, as well as Pokorny's hypothesis of a link between the Ligurians and Illyrians. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-community-in-France-or-Illyrians-confirmed

My point is that maybe the E-V13 and J2 (J2b2) spike could be way more ancient than Greek influence, say Hallstatt or IE. The same goes to the R1b-Z2103 in Liguria and Massalia, only to be reinforced later by the Greeks.
 
There was a thread by Johane Derite not long ago about the similarities between the Albanians and the Arvan valley in France and a study mentioning a spike of J2b-L283 in Piedmont, as well as Pokorny's hypothesis of a link between the Ligurians and Illyrians. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-community-in-France-or-Illyrians-confirmed

My point is that maybe the E-V13 and J2 (J2b2) spike could be way more ancient than Greek influence, say Hallstatt or IE. The same goes to the R1b-Z2103 in Liguria and Massalia, only to be reinforced later by the Greeks.

A link between Ligurians and Illyrians?
 
A link between Ligurians and Illyrians?

"Julius Pokorny[FONT=&quot] adapted the Celto-Ligurian hypothesis into one linking the Ligures to the [/FONT]Illyrians[FONT=&quot], citing an array of similar evidence from Eastern Europe. Under this theory the "Ligures-Illyrians" became associated with the prehistoric [/FONT]Urnfield[FONT=&quot] peoples."

[/FONT]
"[FONT=&quot]Henning, Andersen (2003). [/FONT]Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 16–17."
 
A link between Ligurians and Illyrians?
That's not my point nor am I interested in that. Yet too many coincidences could mean something when it comes to the spike of E-V13, J2b, and R1b-Z2103.

I'm not saying they are Illyrians, but that we know all the 3 aforementioned haplogroups were found in Bronze Age Croatia (and earlier) not far from Hallstatt and that proto-Illyrians did migrate South while proto-Celts went West.

The Ligurians could have been one of those waves similar to what will later be known as Illyrians since we can also notice some concentration of J2 and E-V13 on the Eastern coast of Italy which had contact with the Illyrians/Liburnians.
 
That's not my point nor am I interested in that. Yet too many coincidences could mean something when it comes to the spike of E-V13, J2b, and R1b-Z2103.

I'm not saying they are Illyrians, but that we know all the 3 aforementioned haplogroups were found in Bronze Age Croatia (and earlier) not far from Hallstatt and that proto-Illyrians did migrate South while proto-Celts went West.

The Ligurians could have been one of those waves similar to what will later be known as Illyrians since we can also notice some concentration of J2 and E-V13 on the Eastern coast of Italy which had contact with the Illyrians/Liburnians.


Lets not forget that J2a and J2b split 27,700 years ago (older than R1b / R1a split) and we should be clear which J2's are spiking where.

J2a in general seems to be Greek, so if that is spiking in certain italian areas its most likely greek. J2b-l283 specifically is the one connected with Illyrians, and doesn't fit arriving with greeks.
 
"Julius Pokorny adapted the Celto-Ligurian hypothesis into one linking the Ligures to the Illyrians, citing an array of similar evidence from Eastern Europe. Under this theory the "Ligures-Illyrians" became associated with the prehistoric Urnfield peoples."

"Henning, Andersen (2003). Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 16–17."


I doubt there's great consensus on this hypothesis. At most, it's common Urnfield influence in Celto-Ligurians and Illyrians.
 
I doubt there's great consensus on this hypothesis. At most, it's common Urnfield influence in Celto-Ligurians and Illyrians.


We know for sure that J2b-M241 (parent clade of L283) appears in Piedmont, Po Valley and Apulia from very recent papers.

They didn't test deeper on the clades, but since 99% percent of J2b-M241 in europe is L283, we can be pretty sure that its also L283.

So there is an already confirmed genetic relation between L283 in Albania and Piedmont/Po valley, etc areas, there needs to also be a historical explanation.

I don't see Arberesh being present in Po Valley historically to explain it as being medieval.

I am not attached to that Pokorny hypothesis or anything, its just literally the only hypothesis I could find that could explain this L283 connection. I am open to any speculation


Source and link for the paper:

"J2b is most frequent in the Tortona-Voghera sample, which is located in the open Po Valley, and in Apulia, which faces the Adriatic Sea, while it is present at low frequencies in the Tyrrhenian sample of Calabria and not observed in Sicily. Interestingly, its incidence in the Volterra sample is comparable to that observed along the Salentina Coast and, as in the northern samples, it is mainly represented by the “Balkan” J2b-M241(J2b2-L283’s parent clade).
Similar to J2b-M241, the E1b-V13 sub-clade, which spread from the "Balkans" is mainly observed in the South of Italy, with frequencies higher than 10% in Apulia; however, unlike the Balkan J2 branch, it is also found in Sicily.
“J2b-M241(J2b2-L283’s parent clade) marks a seaborne route whose contribution is still detectable along the Adriatic coast as well as in populations along the Po Valley, Italy.
E1b-V13 is also observed in Volterra and the Northern Italian groups, mainly in the most accessible areas. This observation supports a "Balkan" influence in Northern Italian populations as well, most likely through an Adriatic route and along the Po Valley and, to a lesser extent in lateral, more isolated, mountainous valleys. ”


"Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective"
Viola Grugni, Alessandro Raveane




LINK
: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801?journalCode=iahb20

 
Romans weren't Nordics, who would have thought it? :)

It was dogma when I got involved in population genetics. Partly, so many people have no background in art, have never seen hundreds of busts and statues from the Roman era, particularly the ones in the realistic periods when they just carved them as they were. I remember telling people on dna forums and 23andme forums, and even on here in the beginning that if the ancient Romans turned out to be even Central Europeans I'd eat my hat.

And no offense to the Swiss, but they didn't look anything like them. :)

cicero-quote-1.png


Caesar.jpg


At the opposite end of the spectrum I had people telling me Scipio Africanus must have had black ancestry because of his name and because one of his busts was made out of black stone. :)

I personally always thought he looked a bit like Mussolini:

ZHspKIxT_400x400.jpg
benito-mussolini-C2JNKM.jpg

Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg


132527-004-830E33D4.jpg


Anyway, on to more important matters. Maybe if men propose it, certain people will listen:

If you're talking about Central Italians, Tuscans are not a good proxy. Half of them overlap with people further north. The Abruzzesi are to all intent and purposes Southern Italians. Central Italians proper are Umbria, Lazio, Marche. How many times do the papers have to prove that before people get the message?

When thinking about what MIGHT show up in more southern Italian samples, perhaps we shouldn't expect a TON of steppe in Oscans or any people further south. The "trail" of that kind of ancestry might become smaller as you go further south: still there, of course, but becoming progressively smaller. Look at Greece

It would be very funny if after all the vitriol expended on anyone who dared to suggest it, it turns out that modern Southern Italians aren't that different from the southern Italians of the Iron Age. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
@Angela
@Pax Augusta

Thank you for the brief summary. :)
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960204800323?via=ihub
The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical collection — How do they compare with the skeletal findings of the first thousand years B.C.?*
Dedicated to Professor Dr. med. J. Fanghänel on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
Author links open overlay panelHorstClaassen
AndreasWree
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0940-9602(04)80032-3
Get rights and content
Summary
Seven Etruscan skulls were found in Corneto Tarquinia in the years 1881 and 1882 and were given as present to Rostock's anatomical collection in 1882. The origin of the Etruscans who were contemporary with the Celts is not yet clear; according to Herodotus they had emigrated from Lydia in Asia Minor to Italy. To fit the Etruscan skulls into an ethnological grid they were compared with skeletal remains of the first thousand years B.C.E. All skulls were found to be male; their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of about thirty. A comparison of the median sagittal outlines of the Etruscan skulls and the contemporary Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria showed that the former were shorter and lower. Maximum skull length, minimum frontal breadth, ear bregma height, bizygomatical breadth and orbital breadth of the Etruscan skulls were statistically significantly less developed compared to Hallstatt-Celtics from North Bavaria. In comparison to other contemporary skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls had no similarities in common with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria. Compared to chronologically adjacent skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls did not show similarities with Early Bronze Age skulls from Moravia but with Latène-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due to the similarities of the Etruscan skulls with some Celtic skulls from South Bavaria and Austria, it seems more likely that the Etruscans were original inhabitants of Etruria than immigrants.


also, how wrong was herodotus
Lydians have now been found to have spoken Luwian ...........etruscans do not speak Luwian
 
Interesting, but I'll wait for the dna.
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960204800323?via=ihub
The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical collection — How do they compare with the skeletal findings of the first thousand years B.C.?*
Dedicated to Professor Dr. med. J. Fanghänel on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
Author links open overlay panelHorstClaassen
AndreasWree
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0940-9602(04)80032-3
Get rights and content
Summary
Seven Etruscan skulls were found in Corneto Tarquinia in the years 1881 and 1882 and were given as present to Rostock's anatomical collection in 1882. The origin of the Etruscans who were contemporary with the Celts is not yet clear; according to Herodotus they had emigrated from Lydia in Asia Minor to Italy. To fit the Etruscan skulls into an ethnological grid they were compared with skeletal remains of the first thousand years B.C.E. All skulls were found to be male; their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of about thirty. A comparison of the median sagittal outlines of the Etruscan skulls and the contemporary Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria showed that the former were shorter and lower. Maximum skull length, minimum frontal breadth, ear bregma height, bizygomatical breadth and orbital breadth of the Etruscan skulls were statistically significantly less developed compared to Hallstatt-Celtics from North Bavaria. In comparison to other contemporary skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls had no similarities in common with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria. Compared to chronologically adjacent skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls did not show similarities with Early Bronze Age skulls from Moravia but with Latène-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due to the similarities of the Etruscan skulls with some Celtic skulls from South Bavaria and Austria, it seems more likely that the Etruscans were original inhabitants of Etruria than immigrants.


also, how wrong was herodotus
Lydians have now been found to have spoken Luwian ...........etruscans do not speak Luwian

Very interesting. Skull measurements ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd mentioned South Bavarian Urnfield earlier in the thread citing the similarities in the material culture. Can't wait to see the DNA.
 
Circassians were ethnically cleansed and scattered across West Asia, so their current Y DNA % doesn't reflect much. Also, I don't believe that's entirely true.

proto-Armenian to me seems unlikely as Anatolia was densely populated, and there's no records of masses of people invading and migrating into Northern Turkey (on the scale of the Völkerwanderung, and even that has relatively low genetic legacy).

In contrast, a huge amount of Circassians migrated to Turkey - like hundreds of thousands at least I think.

The really massive exodus of Circassians to West Asia and Turkey in particular is too recent to account for that. Most Circassians lived in the northern Caucasus piedmont area as late as the late 18th century. Circassian roots are still very vivid memory among present Turkish people. Anyway, there is nothing to suggest to us that Circassians were ever heavily R1b-Z2103 to make such an impact on lands that were already heavily populated since Antiquity. In the Middle Ages they were brought mainly as slaves, but they were forcibly settled where their owners mainly lived (they were some of the main sources of the Mamluks) and not in more remote areas of Pontic Turkey.
 
The really massive exodus of Circassians to West Asia and Turkey in particular is too recent to account for that. Most Circassians lived in the northern Caucasus piedmont area as late as the late 18th century. Circassian roots are still very vivid memory among present Turkish people. Anyway, there is nothing to suggest to us that Circassians were ever heavily R1b-Z2103 to make such an impact on lands that were already heavily populated since Antiquity. In the Middle Ages they were brought mainly as slaves, but they were forcibly settled where their owners mainly lived (they were some of the main sources of the Mamluks) and not in more remote areas of Pontic Turkey.

I don't see why it's too late, but I agree we can't know for sure that they belong to Y DNA Z2103. I'm just trying to figure out why Pontic Turks have more light types. One other thing - if Pontic Turks are in general the same colour as normal Turks but given they have more light types, it suggests a recent introduction of those light types. In any case, there's something different for Northern Turkey in terms of having individuals with light features at much greater rates than the rest of Turkey, and it correlates with Z2103.
 
I definitely won't post this link by the way...

https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

The Romans weren't idiots, dark does not equal light. The patrician class were not Swedes, but it appears they were lighter than modern Italians. I stand by my theory of elites marrying lighter women resulting in enrichment of light features amongst the patrician class. It's true even today - someone like Tom Hiddleston oozes upper class in a uniquely British way. Most British people of the lower classes look like something between Arya from GoT and Jamie Vardy, a footballer.

I'm being contrarian on purpose, but I'd like to see somebody in favour of the Italian-looking Emperors theory explain the contents of that link. I'd also like to ask whether the modern Northern Italian upper class is lighter pigmented - I don't know any names so I can't check.

Is it so impossible?

Beatrice_Borromeo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Borromeo#/media/File:Beatrice_Borromeo_2017.jpg

Her ancestors seem to be fully Italian going back at least 4 generations

Renaissance Italian ideals of beauty are chock-full of blondes - blondes might even be more common than brunettes, and definitely so among angels. Why would Renaissance elites not prioritise marrying natural blondes? Is Augustus having blonde hair such an insult to the world view of Italians on this forum? I don't know why, but even posting something like this below seems to physically pull at the soul of Italians on anthroforums. Augustus would have been genetically no or barely different to modern (perhaps Northern) Italians, so why is his pigmentation such a fundamental issue?

main-qimg-f5742f5ea1edabccc0ef0346e89a115d.webp

Beatrice_Borromeo
 

This thread has been viewed 40304 times.

Back
Top