Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

[Ygorcs]

How about various Europeans spreading simultaneously to the New World bringing similar plants and animals, technology, religion, etc but different languages? The Plains Indians are another interesting case, they were somewhat hemmed in but there were Algonquian, Siouan, Athabaskan, Kiowa-Tanoan, and Uto-Aztecan language families involved, I may be forgetting some - Salishan and Kutenai marginally participated - who converged to very similar lifestyles and material goods, shared religious practices, etc, after the horse was introduced. The Kiowa Apaches were a branch of the Kiowa who lived with them and were basically indistinguishable from them except that they spoke Apache, and then there were the Kiowa Comanches who lived with the Comanches but they spoke Kiowa. Almost if not entirely impossible to distinguish archaeologically even though it was only a few centuries ago.

Actually your example of the Plains Indians is also excellent for the pre-Columbian period. The Mississippian proto-civilization was almost certainly multilingual (not just multiple languages, but multiple language families), but they shared similar architecture, religion, political structure, social hierarchy, economy and many traditions even though they did form a reasonably interconnected zone that went way beyond mere economic trade, including significant political and religious interactions among different ethnicities who were linked by a common "way of life". But they still had many language families associated with the same general material culture, despite obvious distinctions that could still be identified on a regional basis. That is why I wonder if regional subcultures clearly distinguished from the others can be identified for Urnfield (and BB, too, since we already know autosomally different people had the same BB package). In the case of an expansionist culture, I think it is totally likely that some will shift to the foreign dominant language, some will not. Language was not always the main determiner of ethnic identity in the world.

 

[Ygorcs]

I didn't pick any photos of Renaissance people, it was early Roman Emperors - and by the way, Julius Caesar wasn't an Emperor (though he did have dark hair, and though his reign was short he was far greater than Augustus).

Again, just to emphasise - those who contributed to Roman success are ancestral to the Italian nation first and foremost, not otherwise. It's just a fact that a lot of the patricians were described as light featured, and this is especially clear with the early Roman emperors. To prove otherwise requires giving sources, as I have mine from Roman authors.

Also, I never said this blondism described would be "Swedish" blonde - that seems unlikely to me even. Here's Augustus, from Suetonius (born after Augustus died, but roughly contemporary with other Roman emperors he described as blonde - I guess blonde to mean something a bit lighter than de Rossi, so a dirty blonde):

[FONT=q_serif]In person he was handsome and graceful through every period of his life. But he was negligent in his dress; and so careless about dressing his hair, that he usually had it done in great haste, by several barbers at a time. His beard he sometimes clipped, and sometimes shaved; and either read or wrote during the operation. […] His eyes were bright and piercing; […]. But in his old age, he saw very imperfectly with his left eye. His teeth were thin set, small and scaly, his hair a little curled, and inclining to a yellow colour. His eye-brows met (1) ; his ears were small, and he had an aquiline nose. His complexion was betwixt brown and fair; his stature but low; though Julius Marathus, his freedman, says he was five feet and nine inches in height (2). This, however, was so much concealed by the just proportion of his limbs, that it was only perceivable upon comparison with some taller person standing by him.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]He is said to have been born with many spots upon his breast and belly […]. He had besides several callosities resembling scars, occasioned by an itching in his body, and the constant and violent use of the strigil (3) in being rubbed. He had a weakness in his left hip, thigh, and leg, insomuch that he often halted on that side; but he received much benefit from the use of sand and reeds. He likewise sometimes found the fore-finger of his right hand so weak, that when it was benumbed and contracted with cold, to use it in writing, he was obliged to have recourse to a circular piece of horn (4). He had occasionally a complaint in the bladder; but upon voiding some stones in his urine, he was relieved from that pain.[/FONT]

By first Roman emperors you mean Claudians? Or other dynasties too? An unusually high frequency of light features could be due to just a few gens, not representative of the whole patrician class, dominating the imperial politics, and not something much deeper than that. Roman gens were at least until the Late Republican era quite inward-looking and perhaps quite endogamous too. Also, it might have been that they simply liked exotic looks like Greeks did especially with their prostitutes with bleached hair, and that reinforced their genetics for fairer features. In any case, it seems Suetonius describes Augustus as between brown and fair, that is, not particularly pale in skin color, and hair "inclining to yellow" does not sound like truly blonde hair, but more like light brown or maybe very dark blonde. I do not think that description is "lighter than any Italians today".

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

By first Roman emperors you mean Claudians? Or other dynasties too? An unusually high frequency of light features could be due to just a few gens, not representative of the whole patrician class, dominating the imperial politics, and not something much deeper than that. Roman gens were at least until the Late Republican era quite inward-looking and perhaps quite endogamous too. Also, it might have been that they simply liked exotic looks like Greeks did especially with their prostitutes with bleached hair, and that reinforced their genetics for fairer features. In any case, it seems Suetonius describes Augustus as between brown and fair, that is, not particularly pale in skin color, and hair "inclining to yellow" does not sound like truly blonde hair, but more like light brown or maybe very dark blonde. I do not think that description is "lighter than any Italians today".

Clearly blonde/dirty blonde hair isn't very Italian though as a trend, surely you see that. Ignoring Greek commentators from hundreds of years later, it seems at least the first handful of Emperors had generally light features. I reckon it's about as light if a bit lighter than this, but obviously just a guess (though it surely wouldn't be darker):

But in any case it was enriched among the early Emperors. My guess was that, like today (where the upper classes basically everywhere are definitely, without doubt lighter), wives would be taken with preference for lighter features. It isn't "Nordic" tribes ruling over Mediterranean peasants (although, I could see something on the tone of that as being true for the Spartans and helots) is my point - but they were nevertheless lighter (as far as sources tell us).

With ancient Greece I think it's a different story, and I think a lot more blondism would be segregated amongst the upper classes. Best evidence for this is with the Macedonians and Spartans to the point where if you examine it you'd have to assume contemporary writers were idiots (i.e. not able to distinguish between colours) to get around the point. As for the Mycenaeans - I don't know. I'd guess e.g. classical Athenians to be pretty similar to modern-day Greeks. I still can't get over the Antikythera mechanism, stuff like that is insane to imagine. There's 0 chance it was a lone inventor who was paid to come up with this entire schema either, there must have been a (small) tradition of analogue computers.

 

[Alyan]

Depigmentation has been found in Scandiavian HGs and other HGs. There's no need to appeal to imaginary caste systems when in actually the capability for such looks would be among many Europeans (who as a rule have European HG mixture).

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Depigmentation has been found in Scandiavian HGs and other HGs. There's no need to appeal to imaginary caste systems when in actually the capability for such looks would be among many Europeans (who as a rule have European HG mixture).

I'm only appealing to the idea of hierarchy, which is documented and obviously existed anyway. What have Scandinavian HGs got to do with anything? Surely you aren't suggesting I think blonde hair originated with social elites lol. I'm just trying to reason why the early Emperors had disproportionately light features. Taking beautiful wives (with lighter features) is imo the best explanation - it's certainly the most Italian-friendly explanation too. I really doubt the early Emperors were genetically, say, more like Bronze Age Italics to any significant degree.

 

[markod]

So where do you think Celts and presumably also Italics (their respective proto-languages were very similar in many ways) came from if not from Urnfield?

Besides, was Urnfield homogeneous culturally or does the name pertain to only a few shared cultural aspects like burial rites and so on? If the latter, I can definitely see an expansion of similar cultural practices by people who were linguistically and ethnically distinct, but perceived themselves as part of a common macro-culture, like e.g. medieval Western Christendom. It might also be that the main language of Urnfield was simply not adopted uniformky by everyone who got acculturated by it, with some taking part of the cultural package but not the language.

The most common view would be that Urnfield material culture had an irregular penetration that didn't necessarily correspond to Geography. There are Urnfield centers on the German-Polish plain, in Bavaria, North Italy, Slovenia and the Paris basin while in between the Urnfield material might have been more sparse.

I can only speculate about Italic and Celtic. For the Former I prefer a MBA entry into the peninsula for reasons pertaining to the archaeology and also to account for the relatively deep split between Italo-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian. I'm pretty confident after those primers that this is what the DNA will show but we shall see.

Celtic is more difficult. The Celts emerge within the geographical boundaries of former Urnfield culture, but at the defininf phases their material seems so unlike Urnfield that I'd almost prefer to see them as invaders. No idea though.

 

[Ygorcs]

Clearly blonde/dirty blonde hair isn't very Italian though as a trend, surely you see that. Ignoring Greek commentators from hundreds of years later, it seems at least the first handful of Emperors had generally light features. I reckon it's about as light if a bit lighter than this, but obviously just a guess (though it surely wouldn't be darker):

But in any case it was enriched among the early Emperors. My guess was that, like today (where the upper classes basically everywhere are definitely, without doubt lighter), wives would be taken with preference for lighter features. It isn't "Nordic" tribes ruling over Mediterranean peasants (although, I could see something on the tone of that as being true for the Spartans and helots) is my point - but they were nevertheless lighter (as far as sources tell us).

With ancient Greece I think it's a different story, and I think a lot more blondism would be segregated amongst the upper classes. Best evidence for this is with the Macedonians and Spartans to the point where if you examine it you'd have to assume contemporary writers were idiots (i.e. not able to distinguish between colours) to get around the point. As for the Mycenaeans - I don't know. I'd guess e.g. classical Athenians to be pretty similar to modern-day Greeks. I still can't get over the Antikythera mechanism, stuff like that is insane to imagine. There's 0 chance it was a lone inventor who was paid to come up with this entire schema either, there must have been a (small) tradition of analogue computers.

I know and accept that a certain preference for lighter SKIN was almost universal in the upper classes of pre-modern, rural societies for obvious economic reasons, but I am not as sure that there was also consistently a preference for lighter hair or eyes in every place and in every generation. I think skin pigmentation may have influenced the elite's mating decisions more. Nonetheless, that description does not suggest Augustus was very light skinned, "between brown and fair" is basically like a modern and typical Central Italian. In my opinion this whole issue is relevant only if it can be proven that other Roman dynasties were also more lighter in hair and/or eyes, not just the first ones, who must have been Claudians anyways, a small pool of people with common roots and not representative of the entire society.

 

[etrusco]

This discussion is baseless.
The marker of light skin and blonde hair was already present among the early farmers. Since we know that southern europeans are mostly EEF, the fact that a roman turns out to be blonde this doesn't make him a non native, a northern european as much as a brown hair scandinavian is not necessarily a mediterranean.

 

[Jovialis]

Julius Ceasar, who was part of the most illustrious patrician family had dark hair, dark eyes, and was not pale.

 

[Angela]

Julius Ceasar, who was part of the most illustrious patrician family had dark hair, dark eyes, and was not pale.

Facts don't matter. They don't register with some people, or maybe they don't want it to register, which is why they don't even read linked threads.

In one of those threads the Biasutti map of blondism in Italy was linked. This is an easier to decipher version.

[/IMG]


So, sorry to disappoint, but fairer hair and eyes are not unknown among modern Italians, as they weren't unknown then.

It doesn't matter. The dogmas of Nordicism as interpreted by theapricity are the only things that matter.

The whole topic is completely inconsequential. I'm sorry I got drawn into it. Another thread ruined.

 

[Jovialis]

Facts don't matter. They don't register with some people, or maybe they don't want it to register, which is why they don't even read linked threads.
In one of those threads the Biasutti map of blondism in Italy was linked. This is an easier to decipher version.

[/IMG]
So, sorry to disappoint, but fairer hair and eyes are not unknown among modern Italians, as they weren't unknown then.
It doesn't matter. The dogmas of Nordicism as interpreted by theapricity are the only things that matter.
The whole topic is completely inconsequential. I'm sorry I got drawn into it. Another thread ruined.

Thankfully nobody in the real world, especially in academia would give a damn about that website. Raving lunatics that are as dismisable as the ones you'd find living in the street.

 

[Sile]

The blonde or red haired
blue, green or grey eyed
people have been in Italy before the romans and before the etruscans
i really do not know why you guys are wasting your time on this

 

[Ygorcs]

I think it's related to the Habiru getting kicked out of Egypt, so it isn't too early. The Habiru are documented as being slaves in Egypt, and I make (like others) the obvious Habiru-Hebrew link. The Habiru also originated in Mesopotamia, and were not indigenous to Israel/Canaan/whatever. I looked into this a while ago, but this article stands out:

https://www.newenglishreview.org/Ro...o_Hebrews:_The_Roots_of_the_Jewish_Tradition/

Well, the (excellen) article you linked above in fact confirms what I have told you befor: ther is a "kernel of truth" in the religious scripture, but the facts were not like thy are narrated ther, they are clearly a somewhat romanticized and summed up version of a sequence of facts and a process of ethnogenesis that probably spanned centuris, not one big dramatic event. The author claims exactly that the biblical scholars fail to see the connection of Hebrews with the Habiru right because they expect them to fit the biblical narrative closely, but they don't. The Habiru were not a mass of slaves with a common ethnic identity and who ran away all at once. They were more like a social class of semi-nomad outcasts who lived on the fringes of the state and of the sedentary and civilized society, and they absorbed runaway slaves and all sorts of people who had to flee the farms and towns for some reason. They would have become sedentary after they settled in mountainous Palestine, but they would have existed in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Mesopotamia, tey were a class of people, not a unified ethnicity initially, and they definitely did not flee, migrate and settle in their new homeland once and at the same time. The article confirms my former observation that many foundation myths are based on a true story, bu the details get lost and facts get muddled amidst so many fantasies and dramatic adornments, so they must be read with a grain of salt. In the case of the Exodus as in the Rigveda the myth may be a bit closer to the truth due to the strong relevance of those facts for the religion and social/political structure of their nation, so they preserved their histoy much bette and consolidated it much earlier than other peoples. So in other nations/ethnicitis the foundation myths must be even less reliable.

 

[Jovialis]

I e-mailed the author of this presentation, asking when the paper will be made available, and received this reply:

Thanks so much for your email! Yes, we are working on an ongoing project on the genetic history of Italy using ancient DNA and hope to have the first publication out later this year (hopefully in the next 6 months) as well as follow up publications.

Looking forward to sharing more details once we've published!

Many thanks and all the best,
Hannah

 

[Cato]

The blonde or red haired
blue, green or grey eyed
people have been in Italy before the romans and before the etruscans
i really do not know why you guys are wasting your time on this

likely they augmented after receiving Steppe+Central European EEF (apparently fair)

Utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Sile]

likely they augmented after receiving Steppe+Central European EEF (apparently fair)
Utilizzando Tapatalk

one cannot predict your children's hair colour as it could come from any line in the last 6 generations ..........besides hair colour changes over time
eye colour is far easier to understand, there are only 2 base colours, brown and blue, and your parents eye colour has a big say in it
.
my gfather first document stated hair colour is dark red.......his military record states hair colour chestnut
my oldest son hair colour when he was getting his shots and being weigh in those early 3 years state hair blonde ...........he has currently dark brown hair

 

[MOESAN]

Depigmentation has been found in Scandiavian HGs and other HGs. There's no need to appeal to imaginary caste systems when in actually the capability for such looks would be among many Europeans (who as a rule have European HG mixture).

Caste or social class can and do have influence upon pigmentation in certain places and times. To ignore it is blindness. And it is difficult sometimes to tell if comes from different origins or internal selection (both can play together). It has influence upon stature too for diverse reasons.

 

[Angela]

I think it might be helpful to see if the results of Raveane et al are helpful in throwing light on the hints coming out of this talk. We discussed the paper here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/12/13/494898.full.pdf

I think this is useful:

""Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples here included (3,400-2,800 BCE, Before Current207 Era), were composed by high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker208 samples of Northern Italy (2,200-1,930 BCE) were modelled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG,209 although ABA was characterised by large standard errors but the detection of Steppe ancestry, at210 14%, was more robust. On the other hand Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2,500-1,900 BCE) were211 modelled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA.""

So, Sicily would have gotten some more "Northern" ancestry from Italian Lombards, i.e. northwestern Italians, and the "Normans" might have contributed something, so to balance out their ancestry, the Moors would have had a part to play, but that isn't the case in southern mainland Italy, where neither of those things occurred, so I don't see a place for all this "additional" "Byzantine" ancestry, not to mention that the reports from this new upcoming paper with ancient dna seems to indicate things didn't really change much after the imperial age.

And this...

""Clusters from Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified all across Italy as best231 proxies for the admixing sources, while Middle Eastern and African clusters were identified as best232 proxies only in Southern Italian clusters and Sardinia (Fig. 3B, C). We noted that when we extended233 the search for the best-proxies to include also Italian clusters, these were as good as or better proxies234 than clusters from the Caucasus and the Middle East.""

That supports what I've been saying for years, and which has been so vehemently attacked, which is that it's definitely a possibility that the gene flow especially south to north, might have been from within Italy.

It also might have been from Greece and the Balkans, both before and during the first millennium BC.

""The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and308 Iceman) but the occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians might be explained by different309 scenarios, not mutually exclusive: 1) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy,310 reflecting different affinities to CHG; 2) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions,311 characterised by different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; 3) the combination of a post312 Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; 4) A313 substantial historical contribution from Southern East Europe across the whole of Southern Italy.""

I realize that everyone would like to save his or her analyses, but, while I hate to blight hopes, not ALL or even a majority of the Greek poleis which sent colonists to southern Italy and Sicily were from the "Aegean" as in Crete or close to or on the Anatolian coast.

In fact, the majority of the settlements were from the Peloponnese, which makes sense given the paper on the modern genetics of the Peloponnese, which shows overlap with Sicily.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

There were, of course, many smaller settlements.

 

[bigsnake49]

I have never seen anybody go through so may iterations of straight/curly/wavy hair and dark/red/blonde as my son. Like he could not make up his mind to save his life. He currently has dark brown wavy hair which turns curly if he lets it grow. My father and younger sister have blue gray eyes and blonde/light hair that got darker as they aged. On his mother's father side Scottish/Irish/English and his mother's mother side ancestry from the Apulia and Calabria regions. On my side of the family there is also plenty of light skin/blonde hair, except for me and my older sister which have dark hair/dark eyes but light skin. We are carbon copies of my mother :grin:. My two kids are of Greek (Thracian)/Italian/Scottish/Irish/English ancestry. Let future geneticists figure that out, lol. Wouldn't it be funny if their Italian ancestors were actually descendants of Greek colonists?

 

[markod]

I have never seen anybody go through so may iterations of straight/curly/wavy hair and dark/red/blonde as my son. Like he could not make up his mind to save his life. He currently has dark brown wavy hair which turns curly if he lets it grow. My father and younger sister have blue gray eyes and blonde/light hair that got darker as they aged. On his mother's father side Scottish/Irish/English and his mother's mother side ancestry from the Apulia and Calabria regions. On my side of the family there is also plenty of light skin/blonde hair, except from and my older sister which have dark hair/dark eyes but light skin. We are carbon copies of my mother . My two kids are of Greek (Thracian)/Italian/Scottish/Irish/English ancestry. Let future geneticists figure that out, lol. Wouldn't it be funny if their Italian ancestors were actually descendants of Greek colonists?

If the geneticists triangulate your childrens' respective ancestries they might infer that they are approximately Moldavian. Bun venit!

My sister's husband is Russian and their son clusters with Poles.