Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

During that time period a Jewish tribe was Exiled by the Assyrians IIRC. Tribe of Dan.

"As part of the Kingdom of Israel, the territory of Dan was conquered by the Assyrians, and exiled; the manner of their exile led to their further history being lost."

Again... just speculation from the History I know.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Dan)

The lost tribes is probably somewhat true, but they didn't wander into Italy and they don't exist anymore!

 

[Archetype0ne]

I Agree with you on both points. Legends are legends and that is it. Was just using my knowledge of legends to address this:

"Quote Originally Posted by RyukendoClarifying: no, this component was not present in the other populations in the ADMIXTURE (incl all other European Ancients or Italians prior to Iron Age, not even Anatolia BA) and its sporadic distribution (in a few individuals at very high levels, rest have less or none) in the Iron Age to Imperial was clearly intrusive to the population at the time. Later Italians have it at a low level homogeneously.


The PCA represented modern populations only plus the ancients in this study and plotted only the cluster centroids of moderns as crosses with population labels, with ancients as masses of points, so the S _IT and SICILIAN referred clearly to the populations labeled and nothing else.


I don't know if it was "more levantine than it was now" but there was definitely a long tail of admixed individuals pointing towards Syrians and Iraqi Jews in the Imperial period."

 

[Pax Augusta]

Good grief! The Naso book is $330.00. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan.

The Turfa book can now be bought used for 40 and a new paperback version for 60, so it's come way down. I might get it for reference.

Knowledge, the real one, has a price.

Smith's book costs no more than 12 euros in Europe. Or something like that.

Thanks a lot Pax.

Is " The Mysterious Etruscans by Steven L. Tuck" Any good?

Most books I consume in Audiobook format nowadays. I find it is a great trade-off for my time... that triology is sadly not on Audible.

But I will definitively get my hands on the trilogy you suggested one way or the other.

PS: out of upvotes today so I owe you one

I never see Tuck's book mentioned in the bibliographies, not necessarily those of the specialists. Anyway Tucks is a Classicist.

If you want to start with a high-level book, very up-to-date, but quick to read and inexpensive, buy Smith's book.

These are the cheapest ones. If so we can say. Turfa's book is the richest in information but it is also the most complex to understand.


1) Sybille Haynes, Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2000.

2) Jean MacIntosh Turfa, The Etruscan World. London: Routledge, 2013.

3) Christopher Smith, The Etruscans: A Very Short Introduction, 2014


These are the most expensive ones. I only have the first one, while the second one was bought by a friend of mine who is an archaeologist and occasionally lends it to me.

4) S. Bell and A. Carpino, A Companion to the Etruscans, Oxford; Chichester; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.

5) Alessandro Naso, (ed.) Etruscology (2 vols.). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2017


If you read Italian this is a must-read. It's still a college-level reading. Then there's a lot of books. If I get any more, I'll let you know. I have several of them, but a friend of mine who is a lover of archaeology has now exceeded 100 books on the Etruscans alone.

Gilda Bartoloni, Introduzione all'Etruscologia, Hoepli, 2012.

https://www.amazon.it/Introduzione-alletruscologia-G-Bartoloni/dp/8820348705

 

[Angela]

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...from-Aegeans-and-Levantine-admixture&p=545645





More from poster who went to the talk.

I honestly don't understand the furor over this, unless it's just the usual agenda idiots including Sikeliot and his socks, and the supposed Ashkenazim on there who not only want to descend from us, but want us to descend from them.

He says: "in a few individuals at very high levels, rest have less or none) in the Iron Age to Imperial was clearly intrusive to the population at the time.

OK. So, since we don't have burial information or isotope data, I would say let's wait and see, although I don't think it would be wild speculation to suggest they are people from Ostia or Isola Sacra, or perhaps some members of the Jewish community which we know has a long history in Italy.

How do we jump from that to saying there's all this Levantine Neolithic even in Southern Italians and Sicilians. For goodness sakes' of course there's a tail toward Syrians in the imperial period if they got a bunch of samples of Jews. Where exactly is the surprise here?

I just don't get it.

There was some conversion of Gentile men to Judaism, but once Christianity started spreading, that ended, because as "The Acts of the Apostles" makes clear, the early Christian leaders helpfully said people converting to belief in the one God didn't have to convert to Judaism first. Having to get circumcised as an adult male wasn't all that attractive to Gentile men of any persuasion.

What the Jews did do was take Gentile women as mates until the Church passed laws against it. Perhaps sometimes the women converted, perhaps not. Doesn't make any difference. The offspring became part of the Jewish community.

Plus, he's just wrong about the Anatolian Bronze Age, or this PHD student is wrong. I vaguely recall seeing a posting about their beloved Global 25 or whatever it is which showed exactly that. It showed high levels in Crete too if I recall correctly. Did a lot of Jewish slaves get sent there too?

More importantly, Lazaridis found it and published about it in his Mycenaean paper. Goodness, one has to remember what has been published or people could tell you just about anything.

"Bronze Age AnatoliaThe population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1)population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture(Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithicor Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithicancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that theBronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans andMycenaeans."

"In addition to the common Neolithic Anatolian and eastern (Caucasus/Iran-related) ancestry, theMycenaeans also had extra ancestry related to eastern European hunter-gatherers and UpperPaleolithic Siberians, while the Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians had extra ancestry related toLevantine Neolithic populations."

This is from the supplement, people, often more important than the paper. Page 32, table 2.9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/#SD1

I've always maintained, for what it's worth, that if Anatolian Bronze like people came to Italy they would have brought some Levantine Neo with them. So what? We have a few Carthaginians in northwest Sicily and Sardinia too. What's the big whups?

Needless to say, the ten lost tribes of Israel have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

 

[berun]

realy it will be difficult to recognize who was who in ancient Italy with DNA, by 1200 BC it was a melting pot, Veneti, Celtics, Ligurians, Italics crossing the Alps, Illyrians crossing the Adriatic, Pelasgians crossing the Jonian Sea... I only expect that someone could get DNA from Mordor orchs as to understand who caused such giant flight.

 

[JajarBingan]

Also, what do you know? Republican Romans show the following:
"Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further."

So, the most northern samples, perhaps the more upper class Romans? overlap with Northern Italians, and the rest with Southern Italians. Tsk, tsk, I guess the Romans who, how did the poster put it, started European civilization were NOT Germans, or Scandinavians, or North East Europeans, or pure Indo-Europeans, or Corded Ware, or Central European Beakers. They're closest to modern day North Italians.

Man, sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few sane people in these forums.
So the guy states that, prior to the Republican period, Romans are closest to Sardinians albeit with a noticeable Iran Neolithic shift. Then after they are closest to Sicilians and South Italians in general.
In between, 60% overlap with North Italians and 40% with South Italians. Yet somehow this is read as Republican Romans "closest to modern day North Italians. ".
No, this means that they were diverse and the average would fall somewhere in the middle, where one should expect modern Central Italians to plot.

 

[gidai]

Sa nu se fi inteles gresit. Deci sters.

 

[suyindik]

Lemnian is already accepted as being related to Etruscan... by the way, are you that guy who spammed everyone's Twitter with nonsense talk about the Sumerians?

I dont know what you are talking about, and what is your point? I already wrote that Lemnian and Etruscan is related. I gave the name of an academician that read the Lemnian/Etruscan Inscriptions. People interested can research that study. And what is your nonsense about "nonsense talk about the Sumerians"?

 

[markod]

Man, sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few sane people in these forums.
So the guy states that, prior to the Republican period, Romans are closest to Sardinians albeit with a noticeable Iran Neolithic shift. Then after they are closest to Sicilians and South Italians in general.
In between, 60% overlap with North Italians and 40% with South Italians. Yet somehow this is read as Republican Romans "closest to modern day North Italians. ".
No, this means that they were diverse and the average would fall somewhere in the middle, where one should expect modern Central Italians to plot.

But the question should be why imperiale Romans don't cluster with Central Italians. The modern Central Italian cluster must be a result of medieval northern admixture.

 

[JajarBingan]

But the question should be why imperiale Romans don't cluster with Central Italians. The modern Central Italian cluster must be a result of medieval northern admixture.

As the guy's said, there are few samples, but I think it means that Central Italians are a product of these two mixing with one another.

There were very few samples from the Iron Age to republican period, at most 8 or smth like that, so the N Italy overlap group had few samples too.

The vast majority were imperial and late antiquity samples, 40% of the total sampling.

There were many more sites than Isola Sacra.

 

[Angela]

Man, sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few sane people in these forums.
So the guy states that, prior to the Republican period, Romans are closest to Sardinians albeit with a noticeable Iran Neolithic shift. Then after they are closest to Sicilians and South Italians in general.
In between, 60% overlap with North Italians and 40% with South Italians. Yet somehow this is read as Republican Romans "closest to modern day North Italians. ".
No, this means that they were diverse and the average would fall somewhere in the middle, where one should expect modern Central Italians to plot.

The notes point out that none of the samples fall into the modern Central Italians cluster.

You have two separate groups. An average of them would only be meaningful if the following period showed a population similar to modern Central Italians. It doesn't. The following period doesn't show the blending of those two populations, so talking about an average of the two groups is irrelevant. The imperial period for the area of Rome is strictly more Southern Italian. Of course, if you knew anything about Italian genetics, you'd know that southern Italy begins just south of the city of Rome itself.

Plus, we don't know the identity of these two separate groups in the Republican period. Was the more northern group "higher" class, with more "steppe" ancestry? Was the more southern Italian group perhaps the Plebeian group? Or were patricians and plebeians very similar, and, depending on the date of the samples, is it possible this 40% group isn't as "local" and represents people from newly incorporated regions like Campania?

We won't know until we get detailed burial context information and isotope data. Or did you not notice that the notes say none is yet available?

Let me correct my statement above to be more precise: THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA AROUND ROME IN THE REPUBLICAN ERA WERE LIKE NORTHERN ITALIANS WHILE THE REST WERE LIKE MODERN SOUTHERN ITALIANS, 60/40 SPLIT.

Happy now?

 

[JajarBingan]

The notes point out that none of the samples fall into the modern Central Italians cluster.
You have two separate groups. An average of them would only be meaningful if the following period showed a population similar to modern Central Italians. It doesn't. The following period doesn't show the blending of those two populations, so talking about an average of the two groups is irrelevant. The imperial period for the area of Rome is strictly more Southern Italian. Of course, if you knew anything about Italian genetics, you'd know that southern Italy begins just south of the city of Rome itself.
Plus, we don't know the identity of these two separate groups in the Republican period. Was the more northern group "higher" class, with more "steppe" ancestry? Was the more southern Italian group perhaps the Plebeian group? Or were patricians and plebeians very similar, and, depending on the date of the samples, is it possible this 40% group isn't as "local" and represents people from newly incorporated regions like Campania?
We won't know until we get detailed burial context information and isotope data. Or did you not notice that the notes say none is yet available?
Let me correct my statement above to be more precise: THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA AROUND ROME IN THE REPUBLICAN ERA WERE LIKE NORTHERN ITALIANS WHILE THE REST WERE LIKE MODERN SOUTHERN ITALIANS, 60/40 SPLIT.
Happy now?

Mate, if in the following period they are predominantly similar to South Italians and you believe that the two didn't mix then you'd expect the North ones to be the non-Roman ones in this case. So yes, your conclusion was puzzling and it came just a couple of posts down after your complaints with regards to Davidski and Nordicism.

 

[Archetype0ne]

The unmanifest shadow is the most corrupt.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nalytic_Psychology_and_Existential_Philosophy

Real knowledge cant be bough with gold. It can however be found for free. Time is the problem.

@both Angela & Pax,

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

 

[Angela]

But the question should be why imperiale Romans don't cluster with Central Italians. The modern Central Italian cluster must be a result of medieval northern admixture.

It depends what you mean by the "modern Central Italian cluster". Geographically, Tuscans may be in Central Italy, but they are pretty close to Northern Italians like the people of Emilia/Romagna and Liguria.

The Abruzzi are in central Italy but they are Southern Italians genetically and linguistically.

Modern Lazio itself doesn't have many real, authentic, "Central Italians" left, but generally speaking, anything south of the environs of Rome itself is southern Italy, mostly because of re-partitioning of the provinces which added parts of Campania to Lazio.

Hopefully, Pax will respond, but I would say you'd be looking at Umbria, Marche, northern Lazio, and you might want to include Toscana.

I can't speak to Umbria, the Marche, northern Lazio, because there are no academic samples for them, but we have a lot of academic samples for Toscana, and it runs about 25-30% ancestry from Yamnaya, depending on the study. However, that's the total for all sources, all time periods. (Bergamo is 33% I think, and the south somewhere around 20-25%).

Remember this? It's an oldie but a goody.

Speaking of periods closer to the modern era, yes, there were some Celtic incursions, and some Langobards ruled there. However, the problem arises that the yDna doesn not, to my knowledge, show large incursions. We know the Langobards were primarily U-106 and II. Those are not present in large quantities. There's a lot of R1b, mostly U-152. When the different subclades arrived is not yet clear, however.

 

[Saetrus]

Mate, if in the following period they are predominantly similar to South Italians and you believe that the two didn't mix then you'd expect the North ones to be the non-Roman ones in this case.

We have a PCA from Ávila-Arcos et al. showing Etruscans as more northern than modern Tuscans

So considering the two populations didn't mingle that much and Romans eventually prevailed in the region without getting much admixture from the more northern population, Etruscans fit perfectly as those "north Italian" samples.

 

[Angela]

Mate, if in the following period they are predominantly similar to South Italians and you believe that the two didn't mix then you'd expect the North ones to be the non-Roman ones in this case. So yes, your conclusion was puzzling and it came just a couple of posts down after your complaints with regards to Davidski and Nordicism.

It's not a question of what I BELIEVE. It's a question of what has been posted about the periods in question. The Republican period samples, all 8 of them, show a population where 60% of them are "Northern Italian" like and the remainder (40%), are "Southern" Italian like. The samples from the Imperial period are said to cluster with Southern Italians.

In what math universe would 60% N +40% S average out to 100% S?

Perhaps math is not your strong suit.

No, I expect that there was a replacement, IF the samples are representative. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we don't have burial context or isotope data. We don't really know who the hell these people are...

If you think I'm racist against southern Italians then you either haven't read very many of my posts on the subject of Italian genetics, or your reading comprehension is very poor.

I'd be a strange anti-southern Italian to have been married to a Calabrese/Neapolitan for decades now and to have borne him children.

 

[JajarBingan]

We have a PCA from Ávila-Arcos et al. showing Etruscans as more northern than modern Tuscans

So considering the two populations didn't mingle that much and Romans eventually prevailed in the region without getting much admixture from the more northern population, Etruscans fit perfectly as those "north Italian" samples.

Dunno, time will tell. I don't care either way personally, but I hope we find out soon. The paper should be out in a couple of months if I'm not mistaken.

 

[JajarBingan]

It's not a question of what I BELIEVE. It's a question of what has been posted about the periods in question. The Republican period samples, all 8 of them, show a population where 60% of them are "Northern Italian" like and the remainder (40%), are "Southern" Italian like. The samples from the Imperial period are said to cluster with Southern Italians.
In what math universe would 60% N +40% S average out to 100% S?
Perhaps math is not your strong suit.
No, I expect that there was a replacement, IF the samples are representative. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we don't have burial context or isotope data. We don't really know who the hell these people are...
If you think I'm racist against southern Italians then you either haven't read very many of my posts on the subject of Italian genetics, or your reading comprehension is very poor.
I'd be a strange anti-southern Italian to have been married to a Calabrese/Neapolitan for decades now and to have borne him children.

Angela, calm down and abstain from using ad hominem replies. I'm not used to those kinds of forums.
Nah, it means that (60+40)/2=100 North Italians. I know quite well what you thought of when you wrote that. You assumed that North Italians were the R1b rich royals, whereas South Italians were the plebs with whatever is left. Again, a person you love always shares the same ideas of royalty steppe vs peasant locals, despite being contradicted consistently by what he just brushes off as outliers.
South Italians also have a wealth of Yamnaya admixture and just like the ones in the North they could have easily formed a population continuum (we see wide/loose clusters all the time in Indo-Euros). Then they all mixed with perhaps quite numerous farmer and Iran Neolithic rich locals, to become more or less homogenised by the Imperial period.

 

[markod]

It depends what you mean by the "modern Central Italian cluster". Geographically, Tuscans may be in Central Italy, but they are pretty close to Northern Italians like the people of Emilia/Romagna and Liguria.

The Abruzzi are in central Italy but they are Southern Italians genetically and linguistically.

Modern Lazio itself doesn't have many real, authentic, "Central Italians" left, but generally speaking, anything south of the environs of Rome itself is southern Italy, mostly because of re-partitioning of the provinces which added parts of Campania to Lazio.

Hopefully, Pax will respond, but I would say you'd be looking at Umbria, Marche, northern Lazio, and you might want to include Toscana.

I can't speak to Umbria, the Marche, northern Lazio, because there are no academic samples for them, but we have a lot of academic samples for Toscana, and it runs about 25-30% ancestry from Yamnaya, depending on the study. However, that's the total for all sources, all time periods. (Bergamo is 33% I think, and the south somewhere around 20-25%).

Remember this? It's an oldie but a goody.

Speaking of periods closer to the modern era, yes, there were some Celtic incursions, and some Langobards ruled there. However, the problem arises that the yDna doesn not, to my knowledge, show large incursions. We know the Langobards were primarily U-106 and II. Those are not present in large quantities. There's a lot of R1b, mostly U-152. When the different subclades arrived is not yet clear, however.

I was thinking more of migrations within the Italian peninsula. Come to think of it even the Middle Ages might be too early for the northern shift. Medieval Rome probably wouldn't have attracted many newcomers.

 

[Angela]

realy it will be difficult to recognize who was who in ancient Italy with DNA, by 1200 BC it was a melting pot, Veneti, Celtics, Ligurians, Italics crossing the Alps, Illyrians crossing the Adriatic, Pelasgians crossing the Jonian Sea... I only expect that someone could get DNA from Mordor orchs as to understand who caused such giant flight.

Honestly, thank God for the Alps. We're inundated by the Barbarians even today, although now they come by plane and train and usually spend some money. In a recent year we got 52 million tourists for a population of 60 million. It may be even worse in Spain.

I don't know: the weather, the scenery, the food, the clothes?

"You may have the universe if I may have Italy"[FONT=&quot] – Giuseppe Verdi

[/FONT]“Open my heart and you will see Graved inside of it, “Italy.”[FONT=&quot] – Robert Browning

[/FONT]"Italy, and the spring and first love all together should suffice to make the gloomiest person happy."[FONT=&quot]–[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Bertrand Russell

[/FONT]Just kidding, just kidding.