Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Almost last:

98. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) ..... 20.79 - I0184
Top 95% match vs all users

ajUdYU7.jpg
 
Moesan hypothesis about Tyrrhenians / Etruscans relationship in terms of Ethnonymy is not necessarily wrong. It's a bit awkward in terms of Linguistic considering Lydians were Indo-Europeans and Etruscans not, but an Ethnonym dont necessarily have to do with Linguistic. Also, Tyrrhenian being a Xenonym coming from the Greek, it could have described originally a ethne unrelated with Ethnic Etruscans and adopted by Italics. Dont forget that Etruscans called themselves Rasenna. Now, let's not think too much that ancient people were stupid or that they did not encounter the peoples they talk about to know a little bit about them. After all, Greeks called themselves Acheans, Danaans, Dorians, Eolians, Ionians, Hellens... Maybe Tyrrhenian effectively was a synonym related with Etruscan ( ethnically speaking ), but will we ever know one day?
 
The Greeks from Empúries in Spain are probably Phocaeans, so Ionian Greeks, who lived in Mainland Greece and Anatolia. The Phocaeans are also credited with founding colonies in southern France and Corsica.

Many Ionian Greeks founded colonies in southern Italy, and certainly many of them took refuge in Italy (Southern Etruria, Magna Grecia) after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.

Greek Herodotus born in Halicarnassus himself was half Carian-Anatolian and spent the last years of his life in Thurii, Magna Grecia, modern-day Calabria.

Agree for the most.
Just to come back to Herodotus, here is maybe some facts or old writings which could excuse him?
my translation from NK Sandars about Sea People:

We still know little or nothing about the Sea People. In any case, the Sea People are long before the formation of the Iron Age ethnic groups.

I no longer know how to say it, the story told by Herodotus, which he attributes to the Lidyans themselves, is no longer considered plausible since many years by etruscologists. Only a few non-etruscologists and amateur scholars have proposed it again.

Even for the ancient Veneti and the ancient Romans there are stories of Anatolian origins, but they are not taken seriously.

These stories reflect the mentality of the time and are written many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

There is nothing on the archaeological, historical, linguistic, and, now even, genetic level that connects the Etruscans to the Lidyans. All possible matches took place long after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, both directly and indirectly in the orientalizing and archaic periods also through the many Ionian Greeks that settled in southern Eturia and Magna Grecia after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.
 
Should samples from a rich, elite Etruscan burial from an early enough period ever be available, and show lots of Anatolian in a number of them, then let me know.

Until then, it's dead.

Plus, that "small elite" idea is not what Herodotus was talking about, and not what all the pop gen "experts" on anthrofora were talking about. That was all about a whole scale migration of Lydians coming to the area just north of Rome, despite the fact that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language.

Why, also, was Dionysius not as worthy of belief? That's a rhetorical question. It's because for some people Herodotus built the narrative they preferred. Let's not be any more naive than we have to be.
 
Should samples from a rich, elite Etruscan burial from an early enough period ever be available, and show lots of Anatolian in a number of them, then let me know.

Until then, it's dead.

Plus, that "small elite" idea is not what Herodotus was talking about, and not what all the pop gen "experts" on anthrofora were talking about. That was all about a whole scale migration of Lydians coming to the area just north of Rome, despite the fact that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language.

Why, also, was Dionysius not as worthy of belief? That's a rhetorical question. It's because for some people Herodotus built the narrative they preferred. Let's not be any more naive than we have to be.

At this point, we cannot be sure Western Anatolians ( Aegean Anatolia ) of Iran Age were either Anatolian-like or Iran-like related and not Myceneans. If it turns out to be the third option, then it would make a huge links between Mycenean-related ancestry and ancient Italy.
 
The "Piedmont" cluster and the Ligurian cluster are almost identical because those "Piedmont" samples are mountain Ligures. They only became "part" of Piemonte very recently, they speak a Ligurian dialect, and every town has "Ligure" in its name. They're also pretty close to Apennine Emilians. So, yes, CL36 is probably closest to mountain Ligures, and therefore to eastern Liguria. It makes absolute sense I'd get a 4.5 similarity to CL36, since my father's family comes from that adjoining area of Apennine Emilia. I get almost the same "fit" on calculators to that Piedmont sample when it's on calculators, although actually a bit higher.

As for SZ43, my highest match at 3.4, it has absolutely no Iran related ancestry, and Marche with its 12%, plus 5% Levant/Natufian seems too "southern" to me, so I don't think Marche is quite right, and it might be closer to Romagna, but I won't quibble because we have no sample from there, and there's the whole Northern Marche vs Southern Marche thing as well. :)


Many of the Italian G25 samples are those released by the Raveane 2019 study, although those released are only a fraction of those used in the Raveane study. In Raveane's study new samples were collected, particularly for the northernmost areas of northern Italy, and from areas not yet covered by previous Italian studies.

In fact, many samples of Raveane 2019 come from previous studies of the University of Pavia. For example, among Tuscans, in addition to TSI, there is some old sample from Murlo and Volterra, and those from the Marche region are all from Ancona and come from an old study, not by chance, realized by the University of Pavia in 2011. The labels coincide perfectly in this case. In the northern area of the Marche (Pesaro-Urbino) a Gallo-Italic language is spoken. Starting from Ancona, the local language of the Marche region, which is a median dialect, begins to be spoken.



https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021029


Certainly Italian Piedmont is from Val Borbera and in this case does not come from Raveane 2019, which has not released samples from Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont.


At this point, we cannot be sure Western Anatolians ( Aegean Anatolia ) of Iran Age were either Anatolian-like or Iran-like related and not Myceneans. If it turns out to be the third option, then it would make a huge links between Mycenean-related ancestry and ancient Italy.


There is no migration from western Anatolia to Etruria attested archeologically towards the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.


The documented contacts are with the Mycenaeans in the second half of Bronze, and do not concern only Etruria.
 
The Greeks from Empúries in Spain are probably Phocaeans, so Ionian Greeks, who lived in Mainland Greece and Anatolia. The Phocaeans are also credited with founding colonies in southern France and Corsica.

Many Ionian Greeks founded colonies in southern Italy, and certainly many of them took refuge in Italy (Southern Etruria, Magna Grecia) after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.

Greek Herodotus born in Halicarnassus himself was half Carian-Anatolian and spent the last years of his life in Thurii, Magna Grecia, modern-day Calabria.



We still know little or nothing about the Sea People. In any case, the Sea People are long before the formation of the Iron Age ethnic groups.

I no longer know how to say it, the story told by Herodotus, which he attributes to the Lidyans themselves, is no longer considered plausible since many years by etruscologists. Only a few non-etruscologists and amateur scholars have proposed it again.

Even for the ancient Veneti and the ancient Romans there are stories of Anatolian origins, but they are not taken seriously.

These stories reflect the mentality of the time and are written many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

There is nothing on the archaeological, historical, linguistic, and, now even, genetic level that connects the Etruscans to the Lidyans. All possible matches took place long after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, both directly and indirectly in the orientalizing and archaic periods also through the many Ionian Greeks that settled in southern Eturia and Magna Grecia after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.


I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " [Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia ".
 
Bulgaria_IA? Croatia_IA?



Maybe nMonte/G25 inflates WHG, I don't know. However yes, the higher WHG is the reason why the Latins and some Etruscans go in the direction of Iberia/South France.





Later I post all the individual results from Imperial samples.





The more "Italian" like samples from the Langobard paper


Bv8ufiL.png



The G25 Italian averages

5Xket97.png



The G25 Balkans averages (including Greece and Crete)

7O8kAfo.png





PCA

SZ43 plots in the Tuscan cluster (the yellow one), Z36 more with Marche, CL23 with Lombardy/Bergamo.


Evi7wO8.jpg

Barcin is in ancient thracian Bithniya province...a anatolian province which was thracian since the late bronze age or earlier...........the only region in anatolia which was thracian.

CL23 from the paper was noted as born in Bulgaria, raised in Pannonia and died in Lombardy ........................yet for some reason has some "iberian" markers

I have no issue with your data though
 
Last edited:
I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " [Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia ".

you need to treat the etruscans like the basques .........the etruscans have been in Italy a very long time, spoke a non indo european language....where divided into 12 kingdoms which only got together once a year for a religious ceremony........traded with Greeks and eventually kicked the Greeks out of corsica to get the olive plantations, traded in the aegean and set up some colonies there
If these 12 cities ever got together under 1 leader, they would have done more conquering

The baltic prussians where one many tribes of a west-baltic people called prusi and lived where the nogat river meets the baltic sea ................the Junkers of saxony and thurnigia germans took over there lands, eventually the settlement of these saxons and thuringians absorbed what was left of these west-baltic people into germans
 
I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " [Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia ".


You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.

You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.

The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.

The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.
 
You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.

You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.

The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.

The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.

Made no sense Etruscans be from Anatolia. At that time one's world was as much as one can travel on horse back for one week. Etruria was way far one can reach on horse back or sailing ship. At the time Greeks wrote the story about Etruscans there was no free travelling. You had to fight the way to occupy new lands. Pellasgian theory seems to be true for southern Italy. There is genetic similarity between Balkans and southern Italy
 
Barcin is in ancient thracian Bithniya province...a anatolian province which was thracian since the late bronze age...........the only region in anatolia which was thracian.

CL23 from the paper was noted as born in Bulgaria, raised in Pannonia and died in Lombardy ........................yet for some reason has some "iberian" markers

I have no issue with your data though

The Barcin from which the data was taken is THOUSANDS of years older than that. It's Neolithic, hence the N. The gene pool we're talking about has nothing to do with Thracians.

On a slightly different note, I believe most of the "Greek" mainland samples are from Thessaly. Of course, no Peloponnese samples are included as a separate category in any of Eurogenes' analyses.

As for the Sea Peoples, if anything, Etruscans might have been Sea Peoples leaving their genes in the Levant, not Anatolian Sea Peoples leaving their genes in Etruria but no trace of their arrival in the archaeology.
 
Istria was italian for 1000 plus years
Until 1975 treaty between italy and yugoslavia...treaty of osimo...
Istria then returned to italy in 1991 and slovenia and croatia paid the remaining fee to italy that remained because yugoslavia defaulted on their payments

Your motion is sustained, torzio.


I should have said "who doesn't even have a traditional/mainstream/common Italian surname".


Deal?
 
Sorry. I put it in the other post.
 
The Barcin from which the data was taken is THOUSANDS of years older than that. It's Neolithic, hence the N. The gene pool we're talking about has nothing to do with Thracians.

On a slightly different note, I believe most of the "Greek" mainland samples are from Thessaly. Of course, no Peloponnese samples are included as a separate category in any of Eurogenes' analyses.

As for the Sea Peoples, if anything, Etruscans might have been Sea Peoples leaving their genes in the Levant, not Anatolian Sea Peoples leaving their genes in Etruria but no trace of their arrival in the archaeology.

on Barcin , we need to consult hittite texts as they note a people which indicate thracians........but I understand what you say

on Sea peoples......I believe they are the from the collapse of the hittite nation, same time period...........be these people Luwian, hittite or hatti linguistically ...........IMO, the etruscans where already in italy at the time of this hittite collapse

I have been following this below for some time , which seems to have no conclusion
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...iption-lost-language-and-lot-doubt-180965244/
 
on Barcin , we need to consult hittite texts as they note a people which indicate thracians........but I understand what you say

on Sea peoples......I believe they are the from the collapse of the hittite nation, same time period...........be these people Luwian, hittite or hatti linguistically ...........IMO, the etruscans where already in italy at the time of this hittite collapse

I have been following this below for some time , which seems to have no conclusion
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...iption-lost-language-and-lot-doubt-180965244/
The samples labeled Barcin are prehistoric Neolithic farmers who lived in what's now "Barcin". They spread and introduced agriculture from Anatolia to Europe.
 
What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.


What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname.


Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.

Political forces of both sides weaponize ignorance. Far-leftists use the 19th, and 20th century Nordicist standard of race, to make their arguments. It is an outmoded straw man only used by people that don't know anything about human population genetics. They have to use the most extreme rhetoric, to make their own stupid ideas pale in comparison, I guess. The scientific community has long known that all people are on a gradient of mix of different source populations. But all of the sudden, just certain groups are a mix of immigration. All of these social scientists, and benighted journalists are just catching up, while trying to put their useless sociology degrees to work. Obviously, they want to shoehorn a pro- or anti- immigration argument, depending on who is looking at the data. Ironically, the study in fact shows that there were Northern, and Southern Italian-like people in Italy since at least the Iron age, and they have consistently lived there since. Before, and after all of these overblown events, that these ignorant ideologues try to use for their own perverse agendas.
 
Last edited:
We are in a perverse era where everyone uses things as they please and dares to share identities in the same way.

You are the Moors

Take a test: look in the mirror; That olive complexion, that dark brown hair, don't you think it's suspicious?

Spend one of these days in any North African city and tell me if its inhabitants could not be your first cousins. Who do you look more like? A Moroccan or a Norwegian? Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from further north .

Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from farther north .

No, you are not pure and carry in the blood and in the culture and in the language that foreigner that you paint like the devil.

najat-hachmi-1505750823056.jpg


https://www.elperiodico.com/es/opin...-son-ustedes-articulo-najat-el-hachmi-7084418

Well, this is what we have to put up with, our democracy can allow even this, but it seems very dirty that obsession that everyone has with Spain and its Muslim era when for us it is a paragraph of our history or better something that happened in Our soil is not even considered ours.
 
We are in a perverse era where everyone uses things as they please and dares to share identities in the same way.

You are the Moors

Take a test: look in the mirror; That olive complexion, that dark brown hair, don't you think it's suspicious?

Spend one of these days in any North African city and tell me if its inhabitants could not be your first cousins. Who do you look more like? A Moroccan or a Norwegian? Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from further north .

Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from farther north .

No, you are not pure and carry in the blood and in the culture and in the language that foreigner that you paint like the devil.

najat-hachmi-1505750823056.jpg


https://www.elperiodico.com/es/opin...-son-ustedes-articulo-najat-el-hachmi-7084418

Well, this is what we have to put up with, our democracy can allow even this, but it seems very dirty that obsession that everyone has with Spain and its Muslim era when for us it is a paragraph of our history or better something that happened in Our soil is not even considered ours.

maybe Vox is wrong, but this author is worse

she is identifying todays North Africans with the Moors
the Moors are something of the past, they are neither todays Spaniards nor todays North Africans
their cultural identity was something completely different
and I am not an expert in history, but there even is not such thing like 'The Moors', because the Moors of the 8th century were quite different from the Moors of the 14th century
 
^^
I agree.
But this we have to endure constantly used by each other and always related to current policy or that makes it even more dirty. And many times even Spaniards and other Europeans support these hypotheses if it can be called that bypassing the danger they entail as if it were a fun game like innocent provocation, but you have to be careful with these things because they can be more dangerous than what they apparently represent.

We need reinforcements because these things are not as innocent as they represent.
 

This thread has been viewed 357938 times.

Back
Top