The genetic origin of Daunians

[blevins13]

Of course we need to analyze new data as it comes in. What I am saying is that despite augmentation, Greeks have continuity, according to Lazaridis. Apulians are just as distant to the Daunians, but as mentioned above they're just one component among other Pan-Mediterranean groups. Nevertheless, they're all part of the same soup. Their affinity is just as close.

Scenarios are different, in this paper the discussion is about a certain region not the Italian people. To make it comparable, it should be for example Peloponnesus vs Apulia, if they have continuity from BA or IA.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Leopoldo Leone]

Another reason why this paper claims discontinuity is that IA samples are different from Medieval and modern ones. Once again, within the same Mediterranean continuum, but not closest to them.

"Three samples located at the bottom of the PCA (ORD004, ORD019, SAL007) and one (SAL010) falling in the middle did not include modern Apulians among the top 25 results of an f3 outgroup analysis(Figure S3). All of them showed an affinity to Copper and Bronze Age Italians11 as well as the Aegean and the Mediterranean worlds (including Minoans, Greece, Croatians, and Gibraltar). A similar distribution is mirrored in the Multi-Dimensional scaling (MDS) built from the f3 outgroup134 measures, where the oldest IAA individual (SAL001; 1235 - 1048 calBCE (95.4%)) lies farthest from the modern samples, while the medieval ones (ORD010: 1078 - 1156 cal CE (95.4%) and SGR001: 670 - 774 cal CE (95.4%)) are the closest (Figure S4). The peculiar positioning of the IAA individuals casts doubt on when the major population shift resulting in modern Italian genetic composition took place. The shift towards the modern Italian genetic variability can be seen with the Republican-Imperial Roman samples6 , the latter being more “similar” to modern Italians (Figure 1C). Whether Apulian individuals dating back to the Imperial phase would also show a repositioning towards modern genetic variability remains an open question, although the later, medieval samples of this study point in that direction."

I agree that "continuity" is a subjective label and it is just the interpretation of the authors that decides when there is continuity or not (except in clear cut cases), but that bit is very misleading because it states that it is just the three samples located at the bottom and only of those in the middle that do not include modern Apulians among the top 25 results, which inplies that the rest does: it glosses over the fact that the majority of the IA samples do get modern apulians among their top 25 results.
As for Italians' biases, I too have the impression that some of their political ideologies get in the way of their interpretations: I do not mean they are ideologues, but it is telling how the 4%-16% variation in steppe ancestry in Myceneans didn't get interpreted as "a signal of cosmopolitanism" and how even the lately paper about the 22 samples from north east Italy that showed quite a bit of variation doesn't interpret that said variation as a sign of cosmopolitanism; for a comparison, it was evident that Rome was cosmopolitan and even the Etruscans to an extent, but I doubt that a population that was so ethnocentric that even resisted cultural influences from the neighbouring high-estimed Greek culture could have been cosmopolitan.
on the other hand I do think that Greek authors overestimate the continuity of modern Greeks with their ancestors: I've the impression that we can speak of high similarity but not of complete or near complete continuity as it seems the case in other areas, but also, I'd like to add, the nordicist theories, as of late reproposed in other anthrofora, do not explain the observed shift.

[torzio]

No, but I will check it out. Nevertheless, the point I was making was that Daunians are as close to modern Apulians, as Mycenaeans are to Modern Greeks, and Iron Age Latins/Etruscans are to Modern Northern Italians.

That's a given, since they are known to have been in Italy since at least 1000BC ...early iron-age

[torzio]

Well to be fair, I did say upthread that the Iapygians are just a component of Apulian ancestry. There are others that lived in the area, before and after them. As I also say, the father of ORD001 is possibly more representative of the population that was there prior to the Iapygians. But yes, they are all part of the pan-Mediterranean genetic continuum. If anything, I think those medieval samples are somewhat irrelevant, considering the history of Foggia, and demographic shifts during this period, due to ethnic cleansing.



We need to see the bronze-age samples from the region, as well as samples from the Messapii.

Why we dealing with a population that did not exist from anywhere between 250BC and 177BC ............when the romans repopulated the area with greeks and eastern-med people from 177BC?

clearly we need to stick to a population that existed from 1000Bc until 250BC

A population that imported all its pottery until 440BC, when they made their own and began trading with Greeks, Italians and Epirotes

We are confusing everyone once we jump outside this range of dates

[torzio]

Considering that I am not a academic in this field, the studies for Greece IMBO are not as comprehensive as they should when attesting continuity. They don’t have samples from each period. They just conclude that modern population and Mycenaean are similar so conclusion continuity. But who knows what might have happened in 3000 years without samples. For example, for the people of Dyrrahum it will be a surprise to have continuity to Modern Albanians even though they might be Greek-like aka Albanian.

Or as you said the Italian Academics might be woke. This is a plausible argument as well.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

yes they are greek like and Peloponnese greek and not attica or thessally greek like

Dyrrachium, now know as Durrës was founded by Ancient Greek colonists from Corinth and given the name Epidamnos

[Jovialis]

Why we dealing with a population that did not exist from anywhere between 250BC and 177BC ............when the romans repopulated the area with greeks and eastern-med people from 177BC?
clearly we need to stick to a population that existed from 1000Bc until 250BC
A population that imported all its pottery until 440BC, when they made their own and began trading with Greeks, Italians and Epirotes
We are confusing everyone once we jump outside this range of dates

Are you suggesting that the population was completely supplanted by Greek and East Med people? No doubt there must have been some genetic influences. However, I do not believe the entire population that was living there disappeared. Vagnari shows that slaves were mostly taken from local sources.

[torzio]

I agree that "continuity" is a subjective label and it is just the interpretation of the authors that decides when there is continuity or not (except in clear cut cases), but that bit is very misleading because it states that it is just the three samples located at the bottom and only of those in the middle that do not include modern Apulians among the top 25 results, which inplies that the rest does: it glosses over the fact that the majority of the IA samples do get modern apulians among their top 25 results.
As for Italians' biases, I too have the impression that some of their political ideologies get in the way of their interpretations: I do not mean they are ideologues, but it is telling how the 4%-16% variation in steppe ancestry in Myceneans didn't get interpreted as "a signal of cosmopolitanism" and how even the lately paper about the 22 samples from north east Italy that showed quite a bit of variation doesn't interpret that said variation as a sign of cosmopolitanism; for a comparison, it was evident that Rome was cosmopolitan and even the Etruscans to an extent, but I doubt that a population that was so ethnocentric that even resisted cultural influences from the neighbouring high-estimed Greek culture could have been cosmopolitan.
on the other hand I do think that Greek authors overestimate the continuity of modern Greeks with their ancestors: I've the impression that we can speak of high similarity but not of complete or near complete continuity as it seems the case in other areas, but also, I'd like to add, the nordicist theories, as of late reproposed in other anthrofora, do not explain the observed shift.

you cannot have "continuity" of apulia daunian populace if it was fully replaced by the romans with Greeks and East-Med people from 177BC

[torzio]

Are you suggesting that the population was completely supplanted by Greek and East Med people? No doubt there must have been genetic influences. However, I do not believe the entire population that was living there disappeared. Vagnari shows that slaves were mostly taken from local sources.

the Vagnari are all greek and east-med populace replacing the daunians ...that is why it shows are completely new group of DNA

It is stated that the Romans replaced these daunians in that paper and in other papers ...........................one needs to remember that the further in time you go back the smaller the populace was and the easier it was to replace

[Jovialis]

the Vagnari are all greek and east-med populace replacing the daunians ...that is why it shows are completely new group of DNA

It is stated that the Romans replaced these daunians in that paper and in other papers ...........................one needs to remember that the further in time you go back the smaller the populace was and the easier it was to replace

Where is this written?

[torzio]

Where is this written?

Following the establishment of the Roman republic in 504 BCE, Rome conquered and expanded its territory into central and southern Italy. Roman armies conquered and acquired territories in central Italy starting in the 5th century BCE, defeating the Samnites over the span of three major wars (343 – 290 BCE), and expanded to areas of southern Italy by the 3rd century.

Historic records indicate that the Peucetian community was secured by a Roman consular army in 306 BCE. Depopulation of these southern Italian Iron Age populace was between the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, and by the 2nd century BCE with the establishment of Roman colonies.


you can also look up Civitates and decuria of roman populace .................a decuria is , 1 for every ten men between the age of 15-50, no women, children or the aged


an example is roman Illyricum as per Pliny......total populace before the great Illyrian revolt was 207000 men ( not women, children or elderly ) , then divide this into decuria system ....................so total population would not have exceeded 500000 ...........take the 50000 dead and the relocation of 150000 ( as per roman historians ) and we have not much left in early AD times

[blevins13]

Following the establishment of the Roman republic in 504 BCE, Rome conquered and expanded its territory into central and southern Italy. Roman armies conquered and acquired territories in central Italy starting in the 5th century BCE, defeating the Samnites over the span of three major wars (343 – 290 BCE), and expanded to areas of southern Italy by the 3rd century.

Historic records indicate that the Peucetian community was secured by a Roman consular army in 306 BCE. Depopulation of these southern Italian Iron Age populace was between the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, and by the 2nd century BCE with the establishment of Roman colonies.


you can also look up Civitates and decuria of roman populace .................a decuria is , 1 for every ten men between the age of 15-50, no women, children or the aged


an example is roman Illyricum as per Pliny......total populace before the great Illyrian revolt was 207000 men ( not women, children or elderly ) , then divide this into decuria system ....................so total population would not have exceeded 500000 ...........take the 50000 dead and the relocation of 150000 ( as per roman historians ) and we have not much left in early AD times

Illyrian proper did not revolt at that time.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[torzio]

Illyrian proper did not revolt at that time.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

what are you talking about .................I said as an example

There was no illyrian revolt in italy , what are you thinking of ?

[Leopoldo Leone]

the Vagnari are all greek and east-med populace replacing the daunians ...that is why it shows are completely new group of DNA

It is stated that the Romans replaced these daunians in that paper and in other papers ...........................one needs to remember that the further in time you go back the smaller the populace was and the easier it was to replace

What are you referring to with "completely new group of DNA"?
Is there a paper that shows that a region in Italy, Vagnari, was all Greek adn "east med" (by this I understand near east, from the Levant to Anatolia)?

[Jovialis]

Following the establishment of the Roman republic in 504 BCE, Rome conquered and expanded its territory into central and southern Italy. Roman armies conquered and acquired territories in central Italy starting in the 5th century BCE, defeating the Samnites over the span of three major wars (343 – 290 BCE), and expanded to areas of southern Italy by the 3rd century.
Historic records indicate that the Peucetian community was secured by a Roman consular army in 306 BCE. Depopulation of these southern Italian Iron Age populace was between the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, and by the 2nd century BCE with the establishment of Roman colonies.
you can also look up Civitates and decuria of roman populace .................a decuria is , 1 for every ten men between the age of 15-50, no women, children or the aged
an example is roman Illyricum as per Pliny......total populace before the great Illyrian revolt was 207000 men ( not women, children or elderly ) , then divide this into decuria system ....................so total population would not have exceeded 500000 ...........take the 50000 dead and the relocation of 150000 ( as per roman historians ) and we have not much left in early AD times

My question was actually, where is this written in the Vagnari paper, based on aDNA, that specifically said they were supplanted by Greek and East Med people. As far as I know, they said the people were mostly locals and not imported slaves.

[torzio]

My question was actually, where is this written in the Vagnari paper, based on aDNA, that specifically said they were supplanted by Greek and East Med people. As far as I know, they said the people were mostly locals and not imported slaves.

I got it out of here

A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN SIEGE OF BOTROMAGNO/SILVIUM: THE EVIDENCE OF SLINGSHOTS FROM GRAVINA IN PUGLIA (PROVINCIA DI BARI, PUGLIA)


Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2019

Giuseppe Schinco and
Alastair M. Small



Of 1,257 fragments of black-gloss ware found in the surface survey of San Felice, can be classified by type and (on visual evidence) by fabric. The earliest are drinking vessels—"Ionian" type cups and "Metapontine" skyphoi—in use in the sixth century BC. During the fifth century they gave way to new types mostly made in Metapontum or Tarentum in imitation of Attic forms, especially skyphoi and jugs suitable for use in the symposium. They illustrate the hellenization of the site in this period. "Salt cellars" used in banqueting are common from the late fifth to the beginning of the third century, and show significant typological development. Some other pieces straddle the turn of the fourth/third centuries, but the absence of types most typical of the third century suggests that occupation of the site came to an end around the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century BC. Since San Felice is likely to have been a dependency of Botromagno/Silvium, which was sacked by the Romans in 306 BC, that the site was abandoned as a consequence of this event. A few later sherds are likely to be casual scatter from the Roman villa below the scarp of the plateau. In addition to its contribution to the history of the late Iron Age in this area, the study is important for understanding the background to the foundation of the villa and of the village of Vagnari situated in the valley below it.

[ihype02]

I think the continuity between Ancient Greeks, and Modern Greeks is there, especially for Southern Greeks. I find it odd that despite similar results for Iron Age Apulians, and Modern ones are basically just as distant if not closer, yet the authors do not suggest continuity.


IMHO, Maybe it is because Italian academics are more left-wing/woke, and have a conscious or even sub-conscious inclination to deracinate Italians from their homeland to facilitate a cosmopolitan ideal. This is purely subjective interpretation of the data; I much prefer the way someone like Lazaridis would interpret it.

Yeah, I did get what you were trying to imply.
I think there is continuity between old Greeks and modern ones, but I also think both papers were a bit extremist but in different directions.

The greatest demographic change in Greece came with Slavs, there were other people too, sure. But Slavs were by far the most numerous overall compared to Albanians, Celts etc. It's a historical fact. Even though the vast majority of Albanians in Southern Greece were in zones that were free from Slavic inclusions during the Dark Ages, like Eastern Peloponnese, Attica, Boetia and severall Aegean Islands. Which means that some zones that were less Slavicised became less populated by the late medieval times.

[Archetype0ne]

Man I am starting to find this insufferable. Maybe its time to use the ignore function again. Two forums I frequent now every thread is spammed by this incoherence, or even worse maliciously quoting papers, replying to oneself etc.

"iSoTOpEs sTatE DaUnIaNs wErE Liburnians" posts x10 - proceeds to quote paper on archeology/material culture and diets that has no connection with that statement.

I am not surprised though. Couple of years ago Illyrians were I2a-Din 100% according to his wiki sources. Now nope, they were Liburnians. Bruh chillax.

[torzio]

What are you referring to with "completely new group of DNA"?
Is there a paper that shows that a region in Italy, Vagnari, was all Greek adn "east med" (by this I understand near east, from the Levant to Anatolia)?

there are about 6 papers .....starting in 2012, 2014, 2017, 2019 and others i cannot remember

[torzio]

Man I am starting to find this insufferable. Maybe its time to use the ignore function again. Two forums I frequent now every thread is spammed by this incoherence, or even worse maliciously quoting papers, replying to oneself etc.

"iSoTOpEs sTatE DaUnIaNs wErE Liburnians" posts x10 - proceeds to quote paper on archeology/material culture and diets that has no connection with that statement.

I am not surprised though. Couple of years ago Illyrians were I2a-Din 100% according to his wiki sources. Now nope, they were Liburnians. Bruh chillax.

as I stated many many years ago ............I follow the roman method of...there are no Illyrians , there are dalmatians, liburnians, pannonians etc etc living in illyricum province/region of the roman empire

It would be easier for you if you think as per what the romans thought about the area

[Jovialis]

@Torzio

"Many people have this idea that when Rome came into an area they would boot everyone out and then import foreign slaves... but that's not what happened here. This estate relied more heavily on local populations."

[Leopoldo Leone]

I got it out of here

A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN SIEGE OF BOTROMAGNO/SILVIUM: THE EVIDENCE OF SLINGSHOTS FROM GRAVINA IN PUGLIA (PROVINCIA DI BARI, PUGLIA)


Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2019

Giuseppe Schinco and
Alastair M. Small



Of 1,257 fragments of black-gloss ware found in the surface survey of San Felice, can be classified by type and (on visual evidence) by fabric. The earliest are drinking vessels—"Ionian" type cups and "Metapontine" skyphoi—in use in the sixth century BC. During the fifth century they gave way to new types mostly made in Metapontum or Tarentum in imitation of Attic forms, especially skyphoi and jugs suitable for use in the symposium. They illustrate the hellenization of the site in this period. "Salt cellars" used in banqueting are common from the late fifth to the beginning of the third century, and show significant typological development. Some other pieces straddle the turn of the fourth/third centuries, but the absence of types most typical of the third century suggests that occupation of the site came to an end around the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century BC. Since San Felice is likely to have been a dependency of Botromagno/Silvium, which was sacked by the Romans in 306 BC, that the site was abandoned as a consequence of this event. A few later sherds are likely to be casual scatter from the Roman villa below the scarp of the plateau. In addition to its contribution to the history of the late Iron Age in this area, the study is important for understanding the background to the foundation of the villa and of the village of Vagnari situated in the valley below it.

An abandoned site isn't evidence that the whole area was depopulated of his original inhabitants and resettled by Greeks and Near Easteners: it just means that the local populations diminished, but it says nothing about a resettlement by Greeks or Near Easteners.

[torzio]

@Torzio

"Many people have this idea that when Rome came into an area they would boot everyone out and then import foreign slaves... but that's not what happened here. This estate relied more heavily on local populations."

The discussion we have about the Daunians is basically between you defending your plotting with Greek influence and I defending the paper in defending that their was no greek influence ...........something you have already posted

for clarity, you either need a new plot system which covers bronze-age to 200BC

or

write to the authors and ask them why there is no Greek in their paper in regards to the daunians

this back and forth is basically useless if you are attacking what is stated in the paper

[torzio]

@salento

Maybe your pula is

https://www.istrianet.org/istria/arc...tium/intro.htm


In the late 180s, the Histrians united under a king named Aepulo or Epulon, and attacked the new Roman colony at Aquileia. After several campaigns, the Romans invaded Histria and laid siege to Nesactium in the spring of 177 BCE. According to Livy, the first Roman commanders, Aulus Manlius Vulso and Marcus Junius, failed to take the city, but their successor, consul Gaius Claudius Pulcher, was more successful. He first redirected the river that prevented an attack from the east, allowing the hill to be stormed from a different direction. When the defenders knew that their town was about to be taken, they killed their wives and children. Still, more than 5,000 Histrians were sold as slaves. King Aepulo committed suicide.^note
Ear of a jar from Nesactium In the Roman age, the new capital of Histria was Pola (modern Pula), twelve kilometers to the west, a hillfort with a perfect harbor. Nesactium, however, remained in use, and under the Roman Empire, it was small provincial town. The old Histrian gods were still venerated – archaeologists have found altars dedicated to Eia, Trita, and “the Histrian sea and land”.

[torzio]

An abandoned site isn't evidence that the whole area was depopulated of his original inhabitants and resettled by Greeks and Near Easteners: it just means that the local populations diminished, but it says nothing about a resettlement by Greeks or Near Easteners.

that's what the paper says ............No Greek influence ...........so see my reply to Jovialis above

[Jovialis]

The discussion we have about the Daunians is basically between you defending your plotting with Greek influence and I defending the paper in defending that their was no greek influence ...........something you have already posted
for clarity, you either need a new plot system which covers bronze-age to 200BC
or
write to the authors and ask them why there is no Greek in their paper in regards to the daunians
this back and forth is basically useless if you are attacking what is stated in the paper

First of all, I don't appreciate the tone of your post in regards to mine. I was not rude to you, do not be rude to me.

Secondly, I am talking about Apulia in general, not just the Daunians. You falsely claim the population of all of Apulia was completely supplanted by the Romans with Greeks and East Med people, and offer no proof of it. In fact I have provided proof of the opposite.

Thirdly, the father of ORD001 leaves the speculation open to the idea of higher CHG people living among them, with his proclivity to Greece_N