Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

I think that the Basque language would come from WHG and the Etruscan language from NorthEastEuropeHG.

Map-of-the-Bell-Beaker-Phenomenon-and-neighbouring-influenced-territories-Background-map.png


I found this map. A rough way is a little what I want to say about the HG origin of the Basque and the Etruscan, I had no idea that the thing was like that, but look where it is good to stage my hypothesis. The Basques in a matter of language would have been the redoubt of the orange color on the map and the Etruscans the redoubt of the green color, as an idiomatic trunk because there would have been a multitude of derived dialects.
 
8PdsFvY.png


Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).

Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).

The people that lived in Italy during the Renaissance, have their origins in a genetic-renaissance.
 
8PdsFvY.png


Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.
 
someone posted it in anthrogenica
don't know which calculator he used :

results look logic by shortest distance :)

  1. Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR37
    0.03472320Spanish_Soria



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR38
    0.03236586Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR39
    0.01990150Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR40
    0.02753859Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR41
    0.01886577Romaniote_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR42
    0.02329748Lebanese_Christian



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR43
    0.03473337Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR44
    0.03783763Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR45
    0.03371377Italian_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR47
    0.01862262Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR49
    0.01958219Italian_Basilica



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR50
    0.02653126Greek_Crete



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR51
    0.03052100Sicilian_East



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR66
    0.04277771Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR67
    0.02938263Georgian_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR68
    0.02375481Iraqi_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR69
    0.03778518Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR70
    0.02694747Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR71
    0.03685558Greek_Central_Anatolia



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR72
    0.03173555Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR73
    0.03195050Romaniote_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR75
    0.02542093Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR76
    0.03396961Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR78
    0.04106184Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR80
    0.03542737Moroccan_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR81
    0.02347214Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR111
    0.03250955Italian_Umbria



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR113
    0.03530855Italian_Apulia



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR114
    0.02672989Greek_Crete



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR115
    0.02004098Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR116
    0.01809474French



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR123
    0.02300978Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR125
    0.03049942Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR126
    0.02337482Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR128
    0.03250066Greek_Central_Anatolia



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR131
    0.02333972Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR132
    0.06779557Libyan_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR436
    0.02568965Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR835
    0.02058905Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR836
    0.02718180Italian_Apulia



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1543
    0.02213186Sephardic_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1544
    0.02345995Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1545
    0.03406077Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1547
    0.02958786Lebanese_Christian



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1548
    0.02598342Greek_Crete



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1549
    0.03439954Italian_Abruzzo



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1550
    0.02256962Palestinian_Beit_Sahour



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1551
    0.03413629Greek_Trabzon



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30
    0.02191906Italian_Calabria



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR31
    0.03159048Welsh



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR32
    0.02463914Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR33
    0.01759383Italian_Bergamo



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR34
    0.01876256Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR35
    0.01836963Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR36
    0.02130072Italian_Marche



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR104
    0.02236527Sardinian



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR105
    0.02504601Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR106
    0.02623729Belgian



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR107
    0.02414862Italian_Apulia



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR108
    0.02438511French_Provence



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR109
    0.02528145Spanish_Baleares



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR110
    0.02577841Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR117
    0.02349091Italian_Calabria



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR118
    0.02794022Italian_Umbria



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR120
    0.02765728Italian_Marche



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR121
    0.02694788Italian_Marche



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR122
    0.01962059Sicilian_East



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130
    0.02602672Cypriot



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR133
    0.02726685Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR134
    0.02090265Romaniote_Jew



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR136
    0.01626674Italian_Campania



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR137
    0.02620622Greek_Kos



    Distance to:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016
    0.03957103Spanish_La_Rioja


Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are?

If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher.

Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about?

I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?
 
@Pax about Burial 6 at Campo del Fico

Do you a know if they’re talking about R850 or someone else ???

... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...


Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper.

https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC


Why are certain people from Nazi sites pushing for a west Asian origin for etruscans? Wouldn't they instead want them to be indo European? Lol it kinda boggles my mind bc the etruscans were very influential


There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins.


Here the responsibility is also due to the many non-Etruscologist scholars, especially the Indo-Europeanist linguists and some Orientalists, who have supported over time the most unlikely hypotheses about the Etruscans, even against the archaeological evidence.


Stories of eastern origins in the Greek writers also exist for the Latins and the ancient Veneti, but nobody has ever taken them seriously.


However, the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language. So if the Etruscans had been of Lydian origin, they would have spoken an Indo-European language. Instead, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language, like the Basques still today (although Etruscan language and Basque do not seem related).


Speaking a pre-Indo-European language in the Iron Age does not imply that one was genetically pre-Indo-European. This is demonstrated by the fact that these analyzed Etruscans all have more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans. Although it is necessary to remember, the former live in the Iron Age, the latter in the Bronze Age.
 
For those who haven't got to the supplement yet: Ardea was part of the Latin League, but it was NOT Rome, and in fact at times was allied AGAINST Rome.

56jlEyl.png

Only two samples are from Ardea.
mOn26n5.png
Anything on the ANAS, Angela?
 
If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.
It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. The native re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.
 
It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. The native re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]
xlWc1oF.png
[/FONT]

mP8wDnt.jpg

AH8HTPW.jpg

4DJzdh8.jpg
[SUB][/SUB]
 
8PdsFvY.png


Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).

Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).

I just find it extraordinary that the authors of the paper spent all that time, as evidenced in the Supplement, modeling later samples in Central and Southern Italy as mixtures of Copper/Iron Age people and Germans, Scandinavians etc., but never bother to model them using Iron Age samples.

In what history or archaeology of the period do they see mass migration of Goths and Lombards to the depths of Calabria???? Where is all the y dna which would show that??? There would have to have been a lot of it to explain this amount of change.

They go to the effort of finding the ydna but then never incorporate it into their analysis? Maybe you could make an argument for Sicily and some Normans, although given how few they were in number they must have each fathered fifty children to explain it, but Calabria? And Calabria not near Sicily I might add.

Listen, it's fine with me either way. I accept the data whatever it shows. They just should have tested it.

I wonder if some of these researchers worked with Piazza, he who was so completely wrong about the Etruscans, by the way. His disciples couldn't even tell the difference between Linearbandermilk Neolithic dna and Iron Age Anatolian dna. Notice how the paper doesn't dwell on how these results make mincemeat of the "Etruscans from the East" hypothesis. :)
 
someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :unsure::

The outlier from IA Ardea
looks interesting:



[1] "distance%=3.8939"

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o

Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
Natufian,11.8
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian!









The outlier from Praeneste
has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:


[1] "distance%=1.6679"

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o

Barcin_N,37.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0
 
someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :unsure::

The outlier from IA Ardea
looks interesting:



[1] "distance%=3.8939"

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o

Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
Natufian,11.8
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian!









The outlier from Praeneste
has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:


[1] "distance%=1.6679"

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o

Barcin_N,37.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.
 
Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper.

https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC





There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins.


Here the responsibility is also due to the many non-Etruscologist scholars, especially the Indo-Europeanist linguists and some Orientalists, who have supported over time the most unlikely hypotheses about the Etruscans, even against the archaeological evidence.


Stories of eastern origins in the Greek writers also exist for the Latins and the ancient Veneti, but nobody has ever taken them seriously.


However, the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language. So if the Etruscans had been of Lydian origin, they would have spoken an Indo-European language. Instead, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language, like the Basques still today (although Etruscan language and Basque do not seem related).


Speaking a pre-Indo-European language in the Iron Age does not imply that one was genetically pre-Indo-European. This is demonstrated by the fact that these analyzed Etruscans all have more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans. Although it is necessary to remember, the former live in the Iron Age, the latter in the Bronze Age.

I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic?

Excellent information in this post, btw, but I'm out of ammunition. :)
 
I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.


it is not samuel
anyway get your point

last example they did :

The Etruscan outlier looks weird, as though he had North African admixture:

[1] "distance%=2.954"

ITA_Etruscan_o

Barcin_N,65.6
Yamnaya_Samara,14.7
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,11.4 :)
WHG,6
Yoruba,1.3
Natufian,1
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Han,0
 
If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

I'm sure a lot of port cities would have had immigrants and immigrant remains in their cemeteries. What will future archaeologists say about the cemeteries of Marseilles, or Hamburg?

Most of the large cities of the Empire were probably similar to some degree. Look at London today, or NYC, or some cities in Germany or France. How would they look to future archaeologists?

With time, with human nature being what it is, would there have been some admixture with "locals", with the probably exception of the Jews? Yes, I'm sure there would have been.

The issue is, what happened to the people in the cities? Cities get destroyed in times of war, and pestilence, i.e. Justinian's Plague, take a greater toll in crowded cities. People die or flee.

Even before the worst of it, the actual sacking(s) of Rome and most major cities throughout the Empire, the depredations of the "Barbarians" were taking their toll on the Western Empire. Everything started shifting to the east, to the "New Rome", Constantinople, and thank God for it, because they were able to maintain the culture and learning for longer.

Those who still had connections in the East, from where they could continue their mercantile and "industrial" activities, undoubtedly left for greener pastures. The poor, as is always the case, are the ones who have to just wait to die.

I by no means mean to imply that the more heavily Iran Neo/CHG ancestry didn't remain in Central Italy. We had it in the Neolithic. I'm convinced it moved into Southern Italy in greater numbers in the Bronze Age, and particularly in the Iron Age with Greek colonization. That ancestry moved northwards. We have it already appearing in very early Latins in Ardea.

What I am talking about is this "tail" into the Levant with which the people at anthrogenica are so enamored. It disappeared. I think the authors should have considered the possibility that it disappeared because the migration from that area ceased, and those who carried it might either have been transients, or after a generation or two left for other regions, or, just were more impacted by the calamities which befell the Western Empire because they were congregated in the cities which were hit the hardest.
 

This thread has been viewed 357910 times.

Back
Top