Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 30 of 30

Thread: Population history of southern Italy during Greek colonization

  1. #26
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,144


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I was not talking about colonization. My hypothesis was that the Greek language gradually decreased due to many reason the firstmost being the Latinization, however it was never completely ''defeated''. But after the Byzantine imperial rule it started to increase but not because of colonization.

    Did old Greeks sent women when they colonized Sicily?
    It's very difficult to say, I think. English archaeologists of the Imperial Period imo drew conclusions more on the practices of the British in India, etc. than on actual evidence from Magna Graecia when declaring that "of course" the Greek migrants brought their own women with them and didn't intermarry with the indigenous population.

    Modern archaeologists take the opposite view.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=0N...onists&f=false

    I don't know who is right. What I think is true is that it might have been different for different time periods. Even in colonizations which ultimately became very "racist", like the settlement of South Africa by the Dutch, there was a lot of "breeding" with local and Asian women in the early years, if not outright marriage. The up to 10% of "exotic" ancestry in Afrikaners is proof of that, and must have come as highly unwelcome information.

    Not that I mean to equate the ancient Greek attitude toward mingling with locals to that of Afrikaners. There's no evidence, to my knowledge, of that kind of societal imperative at all.

    So, I would say that my personal opinion would be that eventually it happened, and the populations blended. There's also the fact that the hinterland would have been less changed genomically than the coastal Greek cities.

    Once again, I think that archaeology sets the parameters, but ancient genomics is going to provide a lot of the answers.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #27
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    546


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It's very difficult to say, I think. English archaeologists of the Imperial Period imo drew conclusions more on the practices of the British in India, etc. than on actual evidence from Magna Graecia when declaring that "of course" the Greek migrants brought their own women with them and didn't intermarry with the indigenous population.

    Modern archaeologists take the opposite view.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=0N...onists&f=false

    I don't know who is right. What I think is true is that it might have been different for different time periods. Even in colonizations which ultimately became very "racist", like the settlement of South Africa by the Dutch, there was a lot of "breeding" with local and Asian women in the early years, if not outright marriage. The up to 10% of "exotic" ancestry in Afrikaners is proof of that, and must have come as highly unwelcome information.

    Not that I mean to equate the ancient Greek attitude toward mingling with locals to that of Afrikaners. There's no evidence, to my knowledge, of that kind of societal imperative at all.

    So, I would say that my personal opinion would be that eventually it happened, and the populations blended. There's also the fact that the hinterland would have been less changed genomically than the coastal Greek cities.

    Once again, I think that archaeology sets the parameters, but ancient genomics is going to provide a lot of the answers.
    They surely brought some of their women, but to what extend would be the right question (compared to my earlier one).
    Last edited by ihype02; 05-03-20 at 21:32.

  3. #28
    Regular Member New Englander's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-16
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    373

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b U-152
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c8

    Ethnic group
    Italian, Jewish, British
    Country: United States



    "About 18% of the people in post‐colonial times were of Greek ancestry and lived equally distributed across Greek colonies and indigenous villages."

    I mean, that's pretty significant is it not? Is that 18% of total ancestry, or that of those tested positive for Direct Greek Ancestry meaning only 18% have any ancestry at all, even if its very dissipated?

    And I guess the Greek ancestry was not enough to change anything, because they were all too similar to begin with.

    Now if the mobility was very low pre-colonization, how did the natives get to Southern Italy in the first place and stay distinct from continental Europe assuming they arrived by land? Was Western and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry not differentiated at that time? These are Bell-Beakers correct, Im not to great with ancient groups.

  4. #29
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,144


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    ^^Let's not forget that this paper isn't about genetics. It's about the characteristics of teeth. I'll wait for the dna. :)

    Likewise, as for whether the "natives" of Southern Italy during the latter part of the first millennium BC were similar to the incoming Greeks we'll have to wait for the ancient dna.

  5. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,193

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    ^^Let's not forget that this paper isn't about genetics. It's about the characteristics of teeth. I'll wait for the dna. :)

    Likewise, as for whether the "natives" of Southern Italy during the latter part of the first millennium BC were similar to the incoming Greeks we'll have to wait for the ancient dna.
    Yep we need more ancient DNA. As far as whether the colonists sent back for Greek women, at least judging from recent emigrations to the US or Germany, yes they did. Now, again judging from recent emigrations, the second generation colonists were more open to local women, the third more so. But the local women would have to "convert" so they had to learn to speak Greek, pray to the Greek gods, etc.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •