Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

I was trying to put some bits of testimonies in the game, but look at an answer I made to Torzio. I never said Etrsucans/Tyrsenoi was the same thing as Luwians (even drunk I would not say that), I just said they could have been "neighbours" (in what kind of contacts,???) or have occupied close regions in W-Anatolia at some stage of history. But it's a marginal side of the topic.

I get what you mean. I dont think Herodotus was necessarily wrong, he only lived 700-800 years after the times of the bronze collapse and sea peoples. He was closer to them in age that us from Charlemagne. Contrasted with Plato and the Atlantid, Herodotus was a man of History and Geography, he lived short after Cresus King of Lydia wich Kingdom probably was big and up the the Aegean Sea and Greek world, ancient legends and contemporary to him, could have influence his jugement. The fact that we have the decency to say " he lied, he was wrong, modern historian [ knows ] what He said and Why he said it " are a little bit pretentious. I think there can be a link between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians, i mean this study even shows that ancient Italians had huge impact of a population close to Mycaneans, and nobody makes the link with Aegean Sea, Lemnian Language, Western Anatolia.
 
I get what you mean. I dont think Herodotus was necessarily wrong, he only lived 700-800 years after the times of the bronze collapse and sea peoples. He was closer to them in age that us from Charlemagne. Contrasted with Plato and the Atlantid, Herodotus was a man of History and Geography, he lived short after Cresus King of Lydia wich Kingdom probably was big and up the the Aegean Sea and Greek world, ancient legends and contemporary to him, could have influence his jugement. The fact that we have the decency to say " he lied, he was wrong, modern historian [ knows ] what He said and Why he said it " are a little bit pretentious. I think there can be a link between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians, i mean this study even shows that ancient Italians had huge impact of a population close to Mycaneans, and nobody makes the link with Aegean Sea, Lemnian Language, Western Anatolia.

You haven't even read Herodotus' text, nor the comments of contemporary scholars on what Herodotus wrote. It has nothing to do with Herodotus being right or wrong, it is not Herodotus' opinion nor his judgment. Herodotus reports what "Lydians" say. While in the case of Dionysius of Halicarnassus that's really his opinion.

The island of Lemnos is part of the Greek world, the names in the inscriptions in the Lemnian language belong mainly to Greek onomastics. The guy in the Lemnos stele is a Greek Phocean. The alphabet used in Lemnos to write inscriptions is the most common in Greece and Italy and not the one used in Asia Minor.

The connection between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians has nothing to do with the Lydians, as the Lydians are never called Tyrrhenian. It is the Pelasgians who are sometimes associated and confused with the Tyrrhenians, this is just another story line.

Following the chronology of the story reported by Herodotus, which is based on the classic narrative model of Greek colonial foundation, we can date the facts to before 1200 BC. The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence of this mass migration.

It is really unlikely that the Lydians kept memory of events that happened 800 years ago, events never mentioned before by other authors and ignored even by Lydian historians. This people migrated from Lydia did not even speak the Lydian, since there is now enormous linguistic consensus that the Etruscan language and Lydia language are not related.
 
This is the kind of filth we have to deal with day after day. This deranged Romanian is a perfect example of it.

I'm leaving it up so you can see the kind of ethnic slurs and racism that come bubbling up when people can hide behind sock accounts on the internet.
 
You haven't even read Herodotus' text, nor the comments of contemporary scholars on what Herodotus wrote. It has nothing to do with Herodotus being right or wrong, it is not Herodotus' opinion nor his judgment. Herodotus reports what "Lydians" say. While in the case of Dionysius of Halicarnassus that's really his opinion.

The island of Lemnos is part of the Greek world, the names in the inscriptions in the Lemnian language belong mainly to Greek onomastics. The guy in the Lemnos stele is a Greek Phocean. The alphabet used in Lemnos to write inscriptions is the most common in Greece and Italy and not the one used in Asia Minor.

The connection between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians has nothing to do with the Lydians, as the Lydians are never called Tyrrhenian. It is the Pelasgians who are sometimes associated and confused with the Tyrrhenians, this is just another story line.

Following the chronology of the story reported by Herodotus, which is based on the classic narrative model of Greek colonial foundation, we can date the facts to before 1200 BC. The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence of this mass migration.

It is really unlikely that the Lydians kept memory of events that happened 800 years ago, events never mentioned before by other authors and ignored even by Lydian historians. This people migrated from Lydia did not even speak the Lydian, since there is now enormous linguistic consensus that the Etruscan language and Lydia language are not related.

The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians. The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related. Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing. I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute.

How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.
 
CNW Italy you meant Central-North-Western Italy? Right?

It's not known for sure if Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi are all the same people, there is also a suspicion that Tyrsenoi in Greek sources may not always refer to the Etruscans. This issue has been discussed for many years.

The Sea People are a highly speculative argument, because archaeologically there is little or nothing, beyond that line of research carried out by some archaeologists according to which we can actually assume raids from Italy to the Aegean and the Levant in the second half of the Bronze Age. There is a growing consensus that many of these Sea People came from Italy. But from here on to the Etruscans, it's a good jump, although one of the Bronze Age weapons found in the Aegean and Levant, comes from one of the Bronze Age facies that belongs to the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Etruscans. But once again also in this case the Etruscans do not differ much from the other peoples of northern and central Italy, because this type of findings also exist for others.


We talked about it here


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...e-invasion-of-South-Italy-and-the-Sea-Peoples


This is also a worth reading

A Sword of Naue II Type from Ugaritand the Historical Significance of Italian-type Weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean


https://www.academia.edu/225687/M._...diterranean_Aegean_Archaeology_8_2008_111_136

I prefer this answer of yours than the first one you made about Greek legends.
 
9tkal3I.png


d61ospo.png


Interesting similarities to other ancient samples.
 
The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians.

The first Greek source to mention the Tyrrhenians is Hesiod, many centuries before Herodotus. Hesiod makes no mention of an eastern origin of the Tyrrhenians and places them exactly in central Italy close to the Latins. There is no other ancient source before Herodotus that associates the Tyrrhenians with the Lydians. Also for the Herodotus' story, the Tyrrhenians are those who are in Italy, not in Lydia.

As reported by Dionysius, Xantos of Lydia, the historian considered the highest authority in the history of the Lydians, makes no mention of Tyrrhenus as son of Atis, or of a Lydian colonization in Italy. As many scholars have pointed out, the Herodotus' story is based on false etymologies. It is not Herodotus' fault, since he reports what others had said.

In fact, according to Xantos of Lydia, Atis' sons were Lydus and Torebus and they, "having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned. (...) "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."

By mistake, Torebus and the Torebians have become Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. But Torebus and the Torebians were clearly not Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians.

Xantos of Lydia reported by Dionysius:

"But Xanthus of Lydia, who was as well acquainted with ancient history as any man and who may be regarded as an authority second to none on the history of his own country, neither names Tyrrhenus in any part of his history as a ruler of the Lydians nor knows anything of the landing of a colony of Maeonians in Italy; nor does he make the least mention of Tyrrhenia as a Lydian colony, though he takes notice of several things of less importance. He says that Lydus and Torebus were the sons of Atys; that they, having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned received their names. His words are these: "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."


The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related.

So you're basically turning the whole thing and claiming that the migration from Lydia to Etruria is the one that brought DNA from the steppes. Am I hearing you correctly? Really weird this ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, huh. By magic the Etruscans did not speak Lydian but another language, even pre-Indo-European, which at this point came from the sky.

There is not a single inscription found in Anatolia that resembles the Lemnian language and then there is the insurmountable problem that there is also the Rhaetian language spoken in the Alps that resembles the Etruscan language, and perhaps even the Camunic language. It is very unlikely that all these languages have come from Anatolia, when in Anatolia there is no inscription similar to these languages and when in Anatolia IE languages are attested long before in Europe, and when Pre-Indoeuropean ancestry constitutes the majority in southern Europe, and also in the rest of Europe remains a very important part.

Not to mention the fact, that archaeologically it is now widely demonstrated that the Etruscans do not differ from other peoples of pre-Roman Italy, and there is no evidence of the arrival of the Lydians, while there's evidence of contacts with the Mycenaeans.


Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing.

If the Lydians are the among the first to learn to write, why then do the Etruscans learn to write only after the Greeks arrive in Italy? As soon as they arrived in Italy, did the Lydians unlearnt to write?

For the sake of precision, the Lydian language is attested long after the Etruscan language in Italy. It is the Luvian language, among the languages of the Anatolian family, which is the first to be attested using the Anatolian hieroglyphs, a script of which there is no trace in Italy.


I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute.

I perfectly understand that legends have a greater influence on the public's opinion than specialist readings, also because legends are easier to understand, but this is your personal choice. You are obviously free to believe all the fairy tales you want, even in the historical existence of Santa Claus.

If we believe more in ancient authors, why not also believe in the ancient stories about the origins of other peoples? I think it is odd, to say the least, that only with the Etruscans is it believed that the ancient sources are true.


How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.


Can you show me where this paper speak of high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy?


I prefer this answer of yours than the first one you made about Greek legends.


I appreciate it. It should be stressed that Greek legends have most likely nothing do to with the Sea People.
 
9tkal3I.png




Interesting similarities to other ancient samples.


Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?

I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.

In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria.

Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?

It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.
 
Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?

I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.

In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria.

Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?

It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.

I do not, but if I did I wouldn't post it in a public forum.
 
Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?

I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.

In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria.

Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?

It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.

Do you mean this one? All the others I match get Tuscans as the closest modern population.


23. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 10.77 - R64 -
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
2. Tuscan (10.47)
3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
4. Maltese (12.42)
5. South_Italian (13.62)
6. East_Sicilian (13.86)
7. Central_Greek (14.21)
8. North_Italian (15.11)

3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 6.017 - R60 -
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)



It's the same reason they label some of the samples from Cordoba Spaniard from Cordoba, or the ones from the Visigothic site either Slavic Visigothic or Spaniard Visigothic.

Actually, I think it's probably helpful for people who don't know the samples. They're trying to show the "ethnic" composition of the samples. Clearly, there were a lot of Tuscan like people in that particular burial in that particular era, versus Aegean like people or Spanish like people or on and on .

Some of them are not great matches, of course. All that it indicates, I think, is that people in Lazio might have been closer to Tuscans in the Middle Ages. Migration from Abruzzo and other southern regions might have changed them so that now they skew further south. Of course, who knows, it could have been a bunch of southern Tuscans.

Without more context from the burials everything is speculative to one degree or another.
 
I don't think anyone has ever posted this graphic from the paper:
ptUdF9q.png


Through the Copper Age 45A2 was still at 50%. That seems awfully low for the LP gene, given they eat so much cheese, but I guess that's a bit different, with cheeses having less lactose.

The changes related to fatty acid metabolism may have begun in the Mesolithic, but they shot up during the Neolithic, as expected.

Odd that GRM5 was studied. It's almost never used, and it's questionable how much effect it has. They had to go all the way back to Beleza et al for that one.

I don't get this one either:

Ergothioneine has antioxidant properties in vitro.[2][23] Under laboratory conditions, it scavenges hydroxyl radicals and hypochlorous acid, inhibits production of oxidants by metal ions,[24][25] and may participate in metal ion transport and regulation of metalloenzymes.[25]
Although potential effects of ergothioneine are under preliminary research, its physiological role in vivo is unknown.[5]


 
Last edited:
The first Greek source to mention the Tyrrhenians is Hesiod, many centuries before Herodotus. Hesiod makes no mention of an eastern origin of the Tyrrhenians and places them exactly in central Italy close to the Latins. There is no other ancient source before Herodotus that associates the Tyrrhenians with the Lydians. Also for the Herodotus' story, the Tyrrhenians are those who are in Italy, not in Lydia.

As reported by Dionysius, Xantos of Lydia, the historian considered the highest authority in the history of the Lydians, makes no mention of Tyrrhenus as son of Atis, or of a Lydian colonization in Italy. As many scholars have pointed out, the Herodotus' story is based on false etymologies. It is not Herodotus' fault, since he reports what others had said.

In fact, according to Xantos of Lydia, Atis' sons were Lydus and Torebus and they, "having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned. (...) "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."

By mistake, Torebus and the Torebians have become Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. But Torebus and the Torebians were clearly not Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians.

Xantos of Lydia reported by Dionysius:

"But Xanthus of Lydia, who was as well acquainted with ancient history as any man and who may be regarded as an authority second to none on the history of his own country, neither names Tyrrhenus in any part of his history as a ruler of the Lydians nor knows anything of the landing of a colony of Maeonians in Italy; nor does he make the least mention of Tyrrhenia as a Lydian colony, though he takes notice of several things of less importance. He says that Lydus and Torebus were the sons of Atys; that they, having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned received their names. His words are these: "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."




So you're basically turning the whole thing and claiming that the migration from Lydia to Etruria is the one that brought DNA from the steppes. Am I hearing you correctly? Really weird this ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, huh. By magic the Etruscans did not speak Lydian but another language, even pre-Indo-European, which at this point came from the sky.

There is not a single inscription found in Anatolia that resembles the Lemnian language and then there is the insurmountable problem that there is also the Rhaetian language spoken in the Alps that resembles the Etruscan language, and perhaps even the Camunic language. It is very unlikely that all these languages have come from Anatolia, when in Anatolia there is no inscription similar to these languages and when in Anatolia IE languages are attested long before in Europe, and when Pre-Indoeuropean ancestry constitutes the majority in southern Europe, and also in the rest of Europe remains a very important part.

Not to mention the fact, that archaeologically it is now widely demonstrated that the Etruscans do not differ from other peoples of pre-Roman Italy, and there is no evidence of the arrival of the Lydians, while there's evidence of contacts with the Mycenaeans.




If the Lydians are the among the first to learn to write, why then do the Etruscans learn to write only after the Greeks arrive in Italy? As soon as they arrived in Italy, did the Lydians unlearnt to write?

For the sake of precision, the Lydian language is attested long after the Etruscan language in Italy. It is the Luvian language, among the languages of the Anatolian family, which is the first to be attested using the Anatolian hieroglyphs, a script of which there is no trace in Italy.




I perfectly understand that legends have a greater influence on the public's opinion than specialist readings, also because legends are easier to understand, but this is your personal choice. You are obviously free to believe all the fairy tales you want, even in the historical existence of Santa Claus.

If we believe more in ancient authors, why not also believe in the ancient stories about the origins of other peoples? I think it is odd, to say the least, that only with the Etruscans is it believed that the ancient sources are true.





Can you show me where this paper speak of high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy?





I appreciate it. It should be stressed that Greek legends have most likely nothing do to with the Sea People.

1) My point was never to make a link between Anatolians Lydians and Italians Etruscans and Tyrrhenians if this is what you understood. My point was to make a deal between modern hypothesis like linking Lemnian, Rhaetian and Etruscan languages with ancient greek myths, like a kind of syncretic legend between an ancient tribe mainly Tyrrhenians and Etruscans. Like this roman idea that germanic tribes were all originally Suebii, then later different tribe of this ethnogenesis came with different ethnonyms. To me the Lydians in this scenario do only matter because of Geography, old and contemporary myths are overlapping with the conclusion Ancient Tyrrhenians ancestors of contemporary Etruscans came from Lydia = Near Lydia not Lydians.

2) I have no idea what Steppe ancestry is doing here. You are putting way too much value to those ancestries. Steppe signal will only show us " there was a migration linked to the Steppe ", it doesn't tell us the contemporary political applications. We already knows that Mycanean Greeks and " Anatolians [ if those samples matters ] " did not have much Steppe ancestry even tho they spoked IE languages. Etruscans had their Steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker ancestry in Italy, only by interactions and SEX. What is Mycanean Culture? Why do we assume it was originally a Greek-Speaking Culture, and not a Pelasgian, non-indo european one at some point being lead by IE/Steppe peoples? Bell Beakers were a fusion of steppe and central european neolithic peoples right? And their culture came from Spain, wich had peoples with different genetic ( even tho still linked to EEF ) ancestry right? We have no clue if in the Mycaenean period, the Aegea was populated only by IE and not non-IE speaking people and that Tyrrhenian / Etruscan were not one of them.

3) The point here is that ancient people Do Not Forgot that much history, especially if they have a Writing system. Why did Lydians believed that Etruscans and Tyrrhenians were coming from Lydia as Lydians in the name of Herodotus Lydians 800 years after the Bronze Age Collapse and the eventual departure of Tyrrhenians to Italy. Was that made up by Herodotus or did Lydians had ancient records of it? As for why Etruscans would have lost the ability to write, probably because if we follow the idea of the Sea Peoples, ancestors of Etruscans were like Mediterranean " Steppe people ", young men in a männerbund trying to found new home by the Sea. And not some kind of elite or scholar that new all those intellectualities.

4) To be honest, i do not believe in " legends " but in words. To me, Herodotus, if he was wrong ( if he lied that's a shame ), is in the same position as a modern scholar to say anything. Rationality here plays the role that there is absolutely nothing a modern scholar can do to say what's true or not. We can argue about " modernly analyzed ancient rethoric used by ancient authors and their absolut rethorical goal ". Wich sounds as pedantic as i can imagine it. But no Etruscologist or specialist of Anatolia / Aegea really can have a clue about it, they only have point-of-views. I think every myths of ethnogenesis is somewhere right. To what extent? is not known.

5) To be honest², i have no clue. I just read what everyone is saying, the study shows mostly Anatolia and Iran Neolithic ancestry and little Steppe and what not Morocco Neolithic. But then people are arguing that the ancestry namely Anatolia and Iran Neolithic is actually similar and linked with some Myceaneans samples. I guess some " runs " were made, and people comparing their own ancestry with those samples, it's all up to you, but then i had the self conclusion that ancient italian samples mostly looked like coming from the Aegea. My bad if i got that wrong.

Conclusion: I dont have any conviction in all this topic. I'm talking about it, because it's still an interesting idea. To imagine that Bronze Age Collapse and movement of populations would made the Aegean world go by the sea in all direction for their survival.
 
1) My point was never to make a link between Anatolians Lydians and Italians Etruscans and Tyrrhenians if this is what you understood. My point was to make a deal between modern hypothesis like linking Lemnian, Rhaetian and Etruscan languages with ancient greek myths, like a kind of syncretic legend between an ancient tribe mainly Tyrrhenians and Etruscans. Like this roman idea that germanic tribes were all originally Suebii, then later different tribe of this ethnogenesis came with different ethnonyms. To me the Lydians in this scenario do only matter because of Geography, old and contemporary myths are overlapping with the conclusion Ancient Tyrrhenians ancestors of contemporary Etruscans came from Lydia = Near Lydia not Lydians.

2) I have no idea what Steppe ancestry is doing here. You are putting way too much value to those ancestries. Steppe signal will only show us " there was a migration linked to the Steppe ", it doesn't tell us the contemporary political applications. We already knows that Mycanean Greeks and " Anatolians [ if those samples matters ] " did not have much Steppe ancestry even tho they spoked IE languages. Etruscans had their Steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker ancestry in Italy, only by interactions and SEX. What is Mycanean Culture? Why do we assume it was originally a Greek-Speaking Culture, and not a Pelasgian, non-indo european one at some point being lead by IE/Steppe peoples? Bell Beakers were a fusion of steppe and central european neolithic peoples right? And their culture came from Spain, wich had peoples with different genetic ( even tho still linked to EEF ) ancestry right? We have no clue if in the Mycaenean period, the Aegea was populated only by IE and not non-IE speaking people and that Tyrrhenian / Etruscan were not one of them.

3) The point here is that ancient people Do Not Forgot that much history, especially if they have a Writing system. Why did Lydians believed that Etruscans and Tyrrhenians were coming from Lydia as Lydians in the name of Herodotus Lydians 800 years after the Bronze Age Collapse and the eventual departure of Tyrrhenians to Italy. Was that made up by Herodotus or did Lydians had ancient records of it? As for why Etruscans would have lost the ability to write, probably because if we follow the idea of the Sea Peoples, ancestors of Etruscans were like Mediterranean " Steppe people ", young men in a männerbund trying to found new home by the Sea. And not some kind of elite or scholar that new all those intellectualities.

4) To be honest, i do not believe in " legends " but in words. To me, Herodotus, if he was wrong ( if he lied that's a shame ), is in the same position as a modern scholar to say anything. Rationality here plays the role that there is absolutely nothing a modern scholar can do to say what's true or not. We can argue about " modernly analyzed ancient rethoric used by ancient authors and their absolut rethorical goal ". Wich sounds as pedantic as i can imagine it. But no Etruscologist or specialist of Anatolia / Aegea really can have a clue about it, they only have point-of-views. I think every myths of ethnogenesis is somewhere right. To what extent? is not known.

5) To be honest², i have no clue. I just read what everyone is saying, the study shows mostly Anatolia and Iran Neolithic ancestry and little Steppe and what not Morocco Neolithic. But then people are arguing that the ancestry namely Anatolia and Iran Neolithic is actually similar and linked with some Myceaneans samples. I guess some " runs " were made, and people comparing their own ancestry with those samples, it's all up to you, but then i had the self conclusion that ancient italian samples mostly looked like coming from the Aegea. My bad if i got that wrong.

Conclusion: I dont have any conviction in all this topic. I'm talking about it, because it's still an interesting idea. To imagine that Bronze Age Collapse and movement of populations would made the Aegean world go by the sea in all direction for their survival.

You don't understand the topic. You seem not to be interested in science. So, I don't know why you're posting or on this site at all.

Really, some people just belong on ignore.
 
Do you mean this one? All the others I match get Tuscans as the closest modern population.


23. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 10.77 - R64 -
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
2. Tuscan (10.47)
3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
4. Maltese (12.42)
5. South_Italian (13.62)
6. East_Sicilian (13.86)
7. Central_Greek (14.21)
8. North_Italian (15.11)

3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 6.017 - R60 -
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)



It's the same reason they label some of the samples from Cordoba Spaniard from Cordoba, or the ones from the Visigothic site either Slavic Visigothic or Spaniard Visigothic.

Actually, I think it's probably helpful for people who don't know the samples. They're trying to show the "ethnic" composition of the samples. Clearly, there were a lot of Tuscan like people in that particular burial in that particular era, versus Aegean like people or Spanish like people or on and on .

Some of them are not great matches, of course. All that it indicates, I think, is that people in Lazio might have been closer to Tuscans in the Middle Ages. Migration from Abruzzo and other southern regions might have changed them so that now they skew further south. Of course, who knows, it could have been a bunch of southern Tuscans.

Without more context from the burials everything is speculative to one degree or another.

p1osPeB.png


Actually, I think it may have been an opposite trajectory. People from Lazio were more Southern-Italian-like on average in the Middle Ages, and were pulled more northern towards the position of modern Central Italy. However, some of them were in fact Tuscan-like, according to figure C.

r5urnqH.png
 
The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians. The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related. Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing. I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute.

How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.

The first people on lemnos where the thracian Sintian tribe from late bronze-age....there are no Lydians in lemnos and etruscans used the island of lemnos as a trading stopover circa 500BC.....thats more than 400 years after the etruscans where already settled in Italy

The etruscans where never noted as Asiatics ( from Asia Minor ...Anatolia ) .......the Liburnians where
https://www.academia.edu/33029236/_Liburni_gens_Asiatica_Anatomy_of_Classical_Stereotype
 
Last edited:
There needs to be clarity on what is Goth in this thread and mytueancestry thread

There are Visigoths ( pure Goths ) .....no steppe admixture ..........and then there are Ostrogoths ( eastern Goths ) which have some steppe admixture

I am not 100% sure , but visigoths ended up in Spain and ostrogoths ended up in Italy

I just need some more clarity on this
 
There needs to be clarity on what is Goth in this thread and mytueancestry thread

There are Visigoths ( pure Goths ) .....no steppe admixture ..........and then there are Ostrogoths ( eastern Goths ) which have some steppe admixture

I am not 100% sure , but visigoths ended up in Spain and ostrogoths ended up in Italy

I just need some more clarity on this

When I read history soon I have a substrate, but I don't remember the details. Let's see I remember that the Goths are divided and those who enter Spain are called Visigoths and those of Italy do not remember anymore. A few years ago I was talking to a biologist and he told me that these people are all the same despite their names, they would refer to their most ancestral origin, I don't know.


With regard to the Visigoths or Goths in Spain, it acquires all the epic and historical significance as something of ours in perceiving the situation as soon as they are part of us, we are going to mix. Bone as they are part of the Spanish genetic heritage so that we understand each other, as with the rest of the ethnic groups that have to do with the history of Spain. We do not have a vision of the typical "pure" goth in reference to our history or as part of us. It is like any historical event of a Norwegian princess who travels to the court of Castile to marry, it is like drinking a glass of water, but her descendant or knowing that El Cid disdained Goths, Latinos or whatever it is when we acquire all the relevance for putting an imaginary example. I don't know if I have understood. So when it is part of us, what is known by history, archeology e.t.c. It is when it makes sense for a migration to our historic country and won by hand that integrates into the whole contributing.


I hope it is understood, it is not about idolizing a blonde hair and blue eyes riding towards Spain, it is the history of a country, it is beyond that.

In the sample that I obtained from the hillock of the pig at the beginning it appeared as vascones e.t.c. Well, now he's like Iberian, Latin ...
The ilergetes also appeared at the beginning as Vascones / ilergetes

I think there were people who would tell you something and they may be super bundled. If the term vascones refers to the Iberian peninsula in times of the bronze age, it would be an appropriate term for samples of the entire peninsula provided that the results correspond. It is not about modern Basques.


I think we are going to waste a lot of time today if in MTA they begin to pay attention to current socio-political issues because in a matter of 10 years all this will be clarified almost 100% I imagine when the calculators are ready. So why waste time today if in a few years the whole truth is going to be known? We lose the current time.

In the case of the Moorish era, for example, there are other totally different circumstances when it comes to sociology, religion, e.t.c. There are Spaniards who do not show their results because the small percentage of North Africa is not seen, but even that I think has a socio-political motive, historical religious or whatever you want to call it. Even when the news came out that the percentage of Spaniards in North Africa could be that it did not respond to the Muslim era, I saw that they still did not show their results, I do not understand it sincerely, sharing snp with Moors or Goths does not make you moro or goth, it It is about what I explained above, it is about knowing our Spanish genetic heritage, one thing or the other will not make us more Spanish or less modern Spanish.

In some forum to get from the Red Sea I think or North East Africa another Spanish said it was black, then you could only answer: Eat my cock, you think: what do you care about and ignore it like a jerk. And yet these types of people do not show their results, it is what I do not see proportional in the forums, some give everything and others comfortably allow themselves to judge others by their ethnical results that obviously does not show so that they insult him but for the general knowledge, beyond politics etc. In short, the truth that will be found sooner or later.
 
p1osPeB.png


Actually, I think it may have been an opposite trajectory. People from Lazio were more Southern-Italian-like on average in the Middle Ages, and were pulled more northern towards the position of modern Central Italy. However, some of them were in fact Tuscan-like, according to figure C.

r5urnqH.png

You may be right. I should have gone back to the graphic in the paper.

Still a difference between the categorizations in terms of similarity to Tuscans, however.

These samples from Medieval Villa Magna, to which I get hits, are all labeled as closest to modern Tuscans by mta, but the paper has them in the South Italian cluster: 60, 57, 59, 54, 52.

Normally, I'd say that of course the academic paper has to have it more right than something based on K=15, but this paper is so disappointing in so many ways that I'm not sure.
 
You may be right. I should have gone back to the graphic in the paper.

Still a difference between the categorizations in terms of similarity to Tuscans, however.

These samples from Medieval Villa Magna, to which I get hits, are all labeled as closest to modern Tuscans by mta, but the paper has them in the South Italian cluster: 60, 57, 59, 54, 52.

Normally, I'd say that of course the academic paper has to have it more right than something based on K=15, but this paper is so disappointing in so many ways that I'm not sure.

These are the samples I get; I get deep dive with 4 of them:

15. Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 12.13 - R1290 -


1. Tuscan (6.839)
2. West_Sicilian (7.269)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (9.541)
4. East_Sicilian (11.36)
5. South_Italian (11.55)
6. Central_Greek (11.99)
7. North_Italian (12.51)
8. Greek (13.32)


Top 96% match vs all users


18. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 12.45 - R60 -


1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)


Top 96% match vs all users


21. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 12.59 - R54 -




1. Tuscan (8.612)
2. West_Sicilian (9.976)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (10.72)
4. East_Sicilian (11.97)
5. South_Italian (12.22)
6. Central_Greek (12.57)
7. North_Italian (13.75)
8. Greek_Thessaly (14.61)


Top 98% match vs all users


26. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 13.28 - R56 -




1. West_Sicilian (8.118)
2. Tuscan (10.29)
3. South_Italian (11.31)
4. Italian_Abruzzo (11.42)
5. Maltese (12.27)
6. East_Sicilian (12.32)
7. Central_Greek (13.14)
8. Italian_Jewish (13.43)


Top 97% match vs all users


40. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 14.69 - R64 -




1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
2. Tuscan (10.47)
3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
4. Maltese (12.42)
5. South_Italian (13.62)
6. East_Sicilian (13.86)
7. Central_Greek (14.21)
8. North_Italian (15.11)


Top 97% match vs all users


44. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 15.14 - R57 -




1. Tuscan (9.781)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (11.51)
3. West_Sicilian (12.69)
4. North_Italian (13.42)
5. Central_Greek (14.03)
6. East_Sicilian (14.32)
7. South_Italian (14.46)
8. Greek (15.09)


Top 97% match vs all users
 
Here are mine:

3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 6.017 - R60 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)

18. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 10.37 - R57 - [FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (9.781)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (11.51)
3. West_Sicilian (12.69)
4. North_Italian (13.42)
5. Central_Greek (14.03)
6. East_Sicilian (14.32)
7. South_Italian (14.46)
8. Greek (15.09)

25. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 10.87 - R59 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (10.70)
2. West_Sicilian (11.21)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (13.10)
4. Maltese (13.70)
5. North_Italian (13.98)
6. South_Italian (15.72)
7. East_Sicilian (16.12)
8. Central_Greek (16.71)




31. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 12.19 - R54 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (8.612)
2. West_Sicilian (9.976)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (10.72)
4. East_Sicilian (11.97)
5. South_Italian (12.22)
6. Central_Greek (12.57)
7. North_Italian (13.75)
8. Greek_Thessaly (14.61)

37. Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 12.76 - R52 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (11.30)
2. West_Sicilian (12.07)
3. North_Italian (13.82)
4. Maltese (15.23)
5. Italian_Abruzzo (15.41)
6. South_Italian (16.62)
7. East_Sicilian (16.94)
8. Spanish_Andalucia (17.33)









[/FONT]
 

This thread has been viewed 357901 times.

Back
Top