Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 558

Thread: The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

  1. #401
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The impact of the Langobards should have been even bigger than that of the Goths and there were other Germanic movements as well. Its also noticeable that the Germanic shift started even before the Goths, because of ever larger numbers of Germanics being in Italia, while the flow from the East was more restricted, especially in the North and centre, in comparison to the centuries before. It became more clear with the partition of the Empire, when the Eastern provinces started to concentrate on the new centre, instead of the migrants and slaves from the East moving West, to Italy. As soon as that split happened, the flow from the Western provinces became proportionally much more important than before. This included slaves, general migrants and soldiers.
    Also there were the Normans in the South of Italy and some constant trickling in of French and Germans in Medieval times.
    There is, to my knowledge, no ancient Dna on Germanics who invaded Italy other than the dna from Collegno. Nor do we have ancient dna samples from the period before the "Early Middle Ages" which show this "Germanic" shift. Therefore, the first bolded comment is pure conjecture with no basis in fact. I think we can safely say it adds no weight to a claim of more "northern" ancestry arriving in Italy. More importantly, we'd still be talking about Germanic yDna, and we know how much there is NOW, and it would only have increased since the invasion period.

    As to your second statement, once again you produce absolutely no data to support your claim.

    What I will say is that the capital didn't move to Byzantium until 330. From that point onwards, the Western Empire became a poor backwater. There were no slaves being taken from Gaul or Britain or Spain because those areas were completely Romanized. The same was true for parts of Germany. The people who still had money could have gotten slaves from the east had they so wished, I suppose, but they were fewer in number. (After all, they were importing olive oil and metal goods in Tintagel in Cornwall in after the full withdrawal of all Roman forces in.)

    Once the first invasions began, non-Germanic invading tribesmen wouldn't be going traveling or trading anywhere. The roads didn't become anywhere near safe enough for travel or trade for hundreds of years.


    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. #402
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Once the first invasions began, non-Germanic invading tribesmen wouldn't be going traveling or trading anywhere. The roads didn't become anywhere near safe enough for travel or trade for hundreds of years.
    There was always trade, just a more limited one. But the few specialised merchants won't produce a genetic shift, so it won't be the same as the frequency of travelling before.

    In the Imperial Roman paper it was, if I'm not mistaken, there was a peak of Southern/South Eastern shift in Imperial times, and in Late Antiquity, already before the collapse, the Northern backshift started. Like you said yourself before, the flow of migrants from the East was ebbing and the urban mass quarters were rather sinks than sources. At the same time from the Western and Northern provinces, people were still coming, travellers, merchants, migrants, soldiers and evacuated refugees for example.
    Anyway, I thought somebody might know something about the issue. Its well known in Austria and Southern Germany, as well as in parts of Hungary, that a large portion of the local provincial Romans moved out, according to the sources in the direction of Italy. And we're really talking about a lot of people, regardless of which kind of genetic profile they had. Would have liked to know whether there are any sources on where they ended up. Apparently, some ended up in Southern Italy, if we follow the bones of Severinus. But that's a special case for the church people. Where people working in the administration down to simple peasants ended, might have been a very different story.

  3. #403
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    We're just going around and around.

    We have no idea what "Romans" meant to these chroniclers, or how many "Romans" fled to Italy versus fled to the Balkans all the way to Greece. The Goths totaled 100,000 to a maximum of about 200,000 people. The reports of the Langobards themselves are that 60,000 of them went to Italy, along with 20,000 Saxons (the latter are said to have returned to Central Europe), plus assorted small groups. Many historians put the number at about 100,000 maximum. A few ouliers say 150,000. The Lombard League in Italy found one historian who said 400,000 Langobards arrived. The percentage of Germanic yDna in Lombardia makes that higher figure highly unlikely, imo, but whatever.

    Figures higher than, say, 100,000? for "Romans" from Pannonia and Noricum who went "solely" to Italy are highly unlikely to be more than that. Plus, and most importantly, we have samples from Szolad in Pannonia who were not Germanic, and autosomally they are Tuscan to far Southern Italian like. So, I don't see how they could have made Northern Italians and Tuscans more "Northern".

    Of course, we need more samples. If samples turn up of people archaeologically attested to come from Noricum and Pannonia in the correct time period who are autosomally significantly northern enough that they would pull Northern Italians and Tuscans "north", then new modeling could be done.

  4. #404
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    There are excerpts here about Noricum. The textile industry there seems to have been established by businessmen from the Veneto. Padova is mentioned in one of the inscriptions, and also places further south. There is a conclusion which states that the inhabitants of the Roman towns were people from Italy as well as some local Celts. No mention is made of the people in the surrounding farms in the countryside, who would also have been Celts. (No wonder people from the Romagna get such high matches with the "Romans" of Szolad.)

    Making Textiles in Pre-Roman and Roman Times - Google Books

    This is a paper on Pannonia:
    (3) (PDF) Siscia in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Fate of a Post-Roman Town in Southern Pannonia | Hrvoje Gračanin and Goran Bilogrivić - Academia.edu

    I don't know the sub-clade breakdown of the yDna in Austria and Slovenia, so I can't pronounce on how much of the R1b, for example, is U-106, and how much might date to the pre-Germanic invasion period.

    This is the data from Maciamo's chart in the Genetics section of the site:

    Region/Haplogroup I1 I2*/I2a I2b R1a R1b G J2 J*/J1 E1b1b T Q N Sample size
    Albania 2 12 1.5 9 16 1.5 19.5 2 27.5 1 0 0
    Austria 12 7 2.5 19 32 7.5 9 1 8 1 0.5 0.5
    Tyrol 16 1 2.5 14 42 7.5 9 - 5.5 1 0.5 0
    Slovenia 9 20.5 1.5 38 18 1.5 2.5 0 5 1 0 0
    Croatia 5.5 37 1 24 8.5 2.5 6 1 10 0.5 1 0.5

  5. #405
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There are excerpts here about Noricum. The textile industry there seems to have been established by businessmen from the Veneto. Padova is mentioned in one of the inscriptions, and also places further south. There is a conclusion which states that the inhabitants of the Roman towns were people from Italy as well as some local Celts. No mention is made of the people in the surrounding farms in the countryside, who would also have been Celts. (No wonder people from the Romagna get such high matches with the "Romans" of Szolad.)
    There is definitely a need for more samples. With more samples, individual biographies of ancient buried people might be possible, reconstructing in more detail where they came from. Like the Crypta Balbi non-Germanics could be locals for centuries, locals with a migration background in the last generations or newcomers with the Germanics. That's hard to say unless they did an isotopic analysis, which can just cover 1+2 vs. 3.

  6. #406
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,034

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    There was always trade, just a more limited one. But the few specialised merchants won't produce a genetic shift, so it won't be the same as the frequency of travelling before.

    In the Imperial Roman paper it was, if I'm not mistaken, there was a peak of Southern/South Eastern shift in Imperial times, and in Late Antiquity, already before the collapse, the Northern backshift started. Like you said yourself before, the flow of migrants from the East was ebbing and the urban mass quarters were rather sinks than sources. At the same time from the Western and Northern provinces, people were still coming, travellers, merchants, migrants, soldiers and evacuated refugees for example.
    Anyway, I thought somebody might know something about the issue. Its well known in Austria and Southern Germany, as well as in parts of Hungary, that a large portion of the local provincial Romans moved out, according to the sources in the direction of Italy. And we're really talking about a lot of people, regardless of which kind of genetic profile they had. Would have liked to know whether there are any sources on where they ended up. Apparently, some ended up in Southern Italy, if we follow the bones of Severinus. But that's a special case for the church people. Where people working in the administration down to simple peasants ended, might have been a very different story.

    IMHO, I think the Aegean_IA samples from the upcoming paper on Campania, as well as the samples shown in Olalde et al. 2021 indicate to me that this source was in the South, prior to the imperial era. When they became part of Rome, it was Italics/Etruscans that pulled them north, and other northern sources like Lombards and Normans, that contributed to pulling them North/East. Which is why South Italy is "North/east" of the Aegean_IA today. Likewise, when these people traveled up the boot, they pulled the people there towards the south as well.


  7. #407
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,034

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    IMHO, I think the Aegean_IA samples from the upcoming paper on Campania, as well as the samples shown in Olalde et al. 2021 indicate to me that this source was in the South, prior to the imperial era. When they became part of Rome, it was Italics/Etruscans that pulled them north, and other northern sources like Lombards and Normans, that contributed to pulling them North/East. Which is why South Italy is "North/east" of the Aegean_IA today. Likewise, when these people traveled up the boot, they pulled the people there towards the south as well.

    Food for thought, considering the fact that these people also existed in Szólád in Late Antiquity; sample just like the ones in Central Italy. Could these Roman southern Italians be a source for pulling Europe in general in their direction? Didn't they find an Italian-signal in Norway in the Middle Ages? Could the Roman empire acting as a conduit for this kind of ancestry, be responsible for the marked shift across the board in Europe?

    What else could have brought a shift towards CHG and Anatolian_N ancestry, in all of Europe, if not Southern Italian-like ancestry, enriched by the Roman empire? Which just happens to be right after the Roman Empire!

    Last edited by Jovialis; 04-10-21 at 14:35.

  8. #408
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    IMHO, I think the Aegean_IA samples from the upcoming paper on Campania, as well as the samples shown in Olalde et al. 2021 indicate to me that this source was in the South, prior to the imperial era. When they became part of Rome, it was Italics/Etruscans that pulled them north, and other northern sources like Lombards and Normans, that contributed to pulling them North/East. Which is why South Italy is "North/east" of the Aegean_IA today. Likewise, when these people traveled up the boot, they pulled the people there towards the south as well.

    I certainly hope that in the Reich paper on Italian genetics they have some Bronze Age samples from Southern Italy, or it's going to be very difficult to get the full picture. It seems from the abstract on the paper about Campania that the residents of the settlements on the coast were Italics, Etruscans, and Greeks. That makes sense because it was a trading center which all three groups were battling to control. However, what about the countryside? Did the Bronze Age people survive there or not?

  9. #409
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Food for thought, considering the fact that these people also existed in Szólád in Late Antiquity; sample just like the ones in Central Italy. Could these Roman southern Italians be a source for pulling Europe in general in their direction? Didn't they find an Italian-signal in Norway in the Middle Ages? Could the Roman empire acting as a conduit for this kind of ancestry, be responsible for the marked shift across the board in Europe?
    What else could have brought a shift towards CHG and Anatolian_N ancestry, in all of Europe, if not Southern Italian-like ancestry, enriched by the invasion of Roman empire? Which just happens to be right after the Roman Empire!
    If they sample a larger portion of the Roman era inhabitants of Britain, France and Germany, they surely will find Italic-like, Greek-like and Near Eastern individuals, especially in the urban areas, no doubt about that. Their overall impact and survival rate was not that big, but its there. Additionally, I wouldn't underestimate the constant gene flow in Medieval and early modern times either. Its small, not that big, but constant and going in both directions. Northern Italy got French and German, but Germans and French got Italian also. It won't be the main factor, but it definitely contributed to balance things out somewhat. In Lombardy the surname Schmidt is far more common than in Apulia, to give an example. The gene flow between Northern Central Europe and Northern Italy was definitely stronger than with Southern Italy, which was much closer to the Balkans and Greece for most of its time.

  10. #410
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Food for thought, considering the fact that these people also existed in Szólád in Late Antiquity; sample just like the ones in Central Italy. Could these Roman southern Italians be a source for pulling Europe in general in their direction? Didn't they find an Italian-signal in Norway in the Middle Ages? Could the Roman empire acting as a conduit for this kind of ancestry, be responsible for the marked shift across the board in Europe?

    What else could have brought a shift towards CHG and Anatolian_N ancestry, in all of Europe, if not Southern Italian-like ancestry, injected by the Roman empire? Which just happens to be right after the Roman Empire!

    I think different processes may have been going on in different areas. For the British Isles CHG seems to be pretty constant from the Bronze Age through the Iron Age, except for one outlier, and then in the Anglo-Saxon period it decreased, which makes sense. The increase in "CHG" took place from 1000 CE to 2000 CE. I've always felt that might be due to "resurgence" of native stock plus migration from the continent starting with the Normans. The Scandinavian element was elite and small, and they brought with them lots of Celts, Belgians etc. Then, a steady stream of French wives and all their hangers on, plus the fact that they ruled Aquitaine for so many years, might be responsible for a small part of the increase we see.

    As you mentioned, there is also an increase for the Norwegians. In that case I think there definitely may have been a sort of "seepage" northwards of more Southern ancestry.

    The Czechs do seem to show an upswing in both CHG and Anatolia Neolithic, but we're missing the samples "in between".

    Hungary puzzles me a bit. The papers I referenced talk about the fact that people from the Veneto and further south, i.e. possibly as far south as Romagna, moved to areas in Noricum to set up various businesses. However, that seems to have started around 300 B.C. Even if it also happened in Pannonia that early it wouldn't explain the change. Perhaps it's just resurgence of local ancestry? It's difficult to say. For all of Central Europe we're missing the crucial samples for 1 to 1000 C.E. However, you make a good point that given the clear presence of Italian like people specifically in Pannonia, they might very well have had an impact on the genetics of the area. The internet is obsessed with the impact of "outsiders" on the Italian peninsula and islands, but pays very little attention to the possible impact of the people of Italy on other regions.

    Likewise, because it lacks samples from important eras, this particular graph doesn't make completely clear what happened in Iberia. We have Bronze Age Portuguese which show no CHG from steppe whatsoever. Could the people who went into Portugal and Spain have been steppe people who were mainly EHG?

    It would be important to know when the "green" appeared. Given how many samples we have from Iberia in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, the answer is there. Certainly, a paper showed that there was an effect on their genetics because of Imperial Era admixture, which is to your point. Given that I'm a very close match to an Italian like sample from Roman Era Catalonia, that makes sense to me. :) There are also all those Italian like or Italian admixed like samples in the south where so many Roman colonies were established.

  11. #411
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,034

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    I wonder if it is also because during the Holy Roman Empire, Fredrick II made the Kingdom of Two Sicilies the administrative state under his rule, and had a lot of influence. Which reflects the reason why it is the largest state on the map. I wonder if during this era there was also some notable gene-flow within this empire, from South, and Central Italy, far north into Northern Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freder..._Roman_Emperor


  12. #412
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I wonder if it is also because during the Holy Roman Empire, Fredrick II made the Kingdom of Two Sicilies the administrative state under his rule, and had a lot of influence. Which reflects the reason why it is the largest state on the map. I wonder if during this era there was also some notable gene-flow within this empire, from South, and Central Italy, far north into Northern Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freder..._Roman_Emperor

    I would be surprised, frankly, if there was much change in Italy from about 1000 C.E. to the late 19th century, which is when the North started to industrialize and there was inter-Italian movement of peoples.

    Elites moved around, and traders, and soldiers, of course, but common people needed permission to move from the jurisdiction of one area to another. Peasants, who formed the vast majority of the population, usually didn't move very far from their ancestral areas. I think that was true for most of Europe. In eastern Europe, for example, the vast majority of the population were serfs no better than slaves, literally tied to the land almost until the 20th century. In the west it was different, with the Black Death helping to bring about its end, but still, the serfs who managed to leave the lord's demesne would go to the growing town in their own area. Some serf from Toscana wouldn't move to the Veneto, although a merchant might. Jews, for example, were highly mobile.

    I once met a Sicilian with ancestry from Catania, who had the surname Costantino, which is also not uncommon near La Spezia. He was also a dead ringer for my maternal grandfather, so much so that it gave me a pang in the heart to look at him. I asked him about his ancestry, and he said his male line was descended from a merchant from Genova. So, on an individual level you'd definitely find things like this. I just don't know how much impact it would make region wide.

    The same holds true in the reverse direction. As just one example, St. Petersburg was literally built by Italians, architecture, overseeing the construction etc. Italian artisans and painters did the internal decoration. Musicians went there, and dance teachers. It must have had some impact, but would we see it genome wide in Russians of that area? I don't know.

    As for Frederick, despite his Norman and German ancestry, he was a Sicilian through and through, speaking German, of course, and Latin, but also Greek, Arabic, and a Latin based Sicilian. He was born in Ancona, and spent almost all of his life in Italy, visiting Germany very infrequently. He did spend a lot of time fighting the Northern Italian city states, and I'm sure had a large "Sicilian" retinue, but again, I don't know how much influence that had.

    Despite being someone with lots of Ghelfi surnames in my ancestral line, and my sympathies with the communes, I have to give Frederick his due. He was a remarkably tolerant man for his times, a very good steward of Sicily and Southern Italy, and had the right strategy for dealing with the Muslims of the Holy Land. Unfortunately, his accomplishments died with him, and the south suffered terrible rulers for another couple of hundred years.

    The Papal States and in particular the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, was different. You could move freely within those areas.

  13. #413
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I would be surprised, frankly, if there was much change in Italy from about 1000 C.E. to the late 19th century, which is when the North started to industrialize and there was inter-Italian movement of peoples.
    That is how I see it too. South Italy, for one, remained nearly the same, with some negligible (1% to 3%) Moorish impact.

  14. #414
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,381

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I wonder if it is also because during the Holy Roman Empire, Fredrick II made the Kingdom of Two Sicilies the administrative state under his rule, and had a lot of influence. Which reflects the reason why it is the largest state on the map. I wonder if during this era there was also some notable gene-flow within this empire, from South, and Central Italy, far north into Northern Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freder..._Roman_Emperor


    The lands of the holy roman empire (HRE ) changed all the time depending on what they conquered and what they lost over time...........ie, The Venetian nation was never ever under the HRE and as the venetians conquered Padua, Treviso, Verona lands from the HRE families of the Carrara, Scalinger, Ezzelini families to name a few, these lands where removed as HRE lands..........but while under the HRE they moved people from one part of the empire to another area based on either merchants or troops with families to stabilse the frontier .........eg, Swabians settled around Treviso , Thurnigians settled around Vicenza ...........later, Cimbri from Bavarian went into the Venetian alps

    While under the Hungarian kings of the HRE, these hungarians moved hungarian and galician ( not spain ) troops to Friuli Italy ( eventually losing the lands by 1400 to Venetian troops ) .
    Under german emperors others troops where moved , like Hessians, Hanovenians etc

    We will never know the impact of these families who moved for good from one part of the empire to another
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-Z282

  15. #415
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    That is how I see it too. South Italy, for one, remained nearly the same, with some negligible (1% to 3%) Moorish impact.
    Well, there were the Arbereshe too, but most of them blended in eventually.

  16. #416
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Well, there were the Arbereshe too, but most of them blended in eventually.
    Speaking of Arbereshe, Venetians had the exact numbers they settled. In 16th/15th century roughly 15,000 in all of Italy. (Several other thousands migrated later too.)
    Italy had censuses back then similar to modern ones (meaning not just "stock" figures, but actual ESTIMATIONS). I suppose if some substantial migration from other Western Europeans took place in Tuscany, it would be well-documented.

  17. #417
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    718


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    IMHO, I think the Aegean_IA samples from the upcoming paper on Campania, as well as the samples shown in Olalde et al. 2021 indicate to me that this source was in the South, prior to the imperial era. When they became part of Rome, it was Italics/Etruscans that pulled them north, and other northern sources like Lombards and Normans, that contributed to pulling them North/East. Which is why South Italy is "North/east" of the Aegean_IA today. Likewise, when these people traveled up the boot, they pulled the people there towards the south as well.

    considering the pull north from whatever source after the imperial times, wouldn't that mean that the etruscans were mixed roughly 50% with aegean iron age like people before that, if we assume an aegean source for the shift south? assuming parts of southern italy were aegean-like, why was it affected way less by more northern people?
    they tried to model imperial samples with myceneans in this study, but the fit was not good and it required 80%+ of mycenean admixture in central italy. maybe it's because of the imperial sampels beeing shifted more towards the east but for them, even if we exclude the possibly north african admixed individual, a more eastern anatolian source would make more sense for the pull south.
    for the pull north i also think there probably was constant inflow of more northern people in central italy the entire time. but because there were also people coming from the south/east the effect started to show only after this southern migration stopped with the fall of the empire.

  18. #418
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,531


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Speaking of Arbereshe, Venetians had the exact numbers they settled. In 16th/15th century roughly 15,000 in all of Italy. (Several other thousands migrated later too.)
    Italy had censuses back then similar to modern ones (meaning not just "stock" figures, but actual ESTIMATIONS). I suppose if some substantial migration from other Western Europeans took place in Tuscany, it would be well-documented.
    Agreed with you. If I'm not mistaken, Tuscany is, perhaps along with the Republic of Venice, the region with the largest number of documents from the Middle Ages onward, and perhaps one of the most studied as well.

  19. #419
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,381

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Speaking of Arbereshe, Venetians had the exact numbers they settled. In 16th/15th century roughly 15,000 in all of Italy. (Several other thousands migrated later too.)
    Italy had censuses back then similar to modern ones (meaning not just "stock" figures, but actual ESTIMATIONS). I suppose if some substantial migration from other Western Europeans took place in Tuscany, it would be well-documented.

    was their not more of these people under the kingdom of Naples from 16th century onwards ?

    I have seen numbers of 40000 plus

  20. #420
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    was their not more of these people under the kingdom of Naples from 16th century onwards ?
    I have seen numbers of 40000 plus
    In Sicily
    " La loro consistenza numerica andava da circa 7.500 unità originarie a 8.234 nel 1570 ed a 8.958 nel 1589. E questo quando la popolazione complessiva dell'isola non arrivava in quegli anni alle 800.000 unita."
    The 7,500 WAS given in 1550.
    In 1542 Southern Mainland Italy: 5775 people.
    So in 1550 there were around 13,000-14,000.

    Their population did grew over 40,000 within time of course.

    Some other waves came in next centuries.

  21. #421
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    IMHO, I think the Aegean_IA samples from the upcoming paper on Campania, as well as the samples shown in Olalde et al. 2021 indicate to me that this source was in the South, prior to the imperial era. When they became part of Rome, it was Italics/Etruscans that pulled them north, and other northern sources like Lombards and Normans, that contributed to pulling them North/East. Which is why South Italy is "North/east" of the Aegean_IA today. Likewise, when these people traveled up the boot, they pulled the people there towards the south as well.


    Doesn't the new paper show Iron-Age southern italians plotting with other Italics/Etruscans? Why would south italy be like Aegean IA beforehand? They were just italics with some Greek settlement later on.

  22. #422
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Did someone check if Etruscan G2a subclades and the recent samples from Croatian Encrusted Pottery Culture G2a subclades have relations?

  23. #423
    Regular Member Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    1,058


    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Did someone check if Etruscan G2a subclades and the recent samples from Croatian Encrusted Pottery Culture G2a subclades have relations?
    The types from the paper on Etruscans:
    - 7 G2a2b2a-P303;
    - 1 G2a2b2b-PF3359 (the type found in Broion).

    790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2b1a1a PF3378
    770-540 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2a1a1b L497/S317
    770-520 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu G2a2b2a1 L140/S316

    396-216 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903
    350-100 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903

    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa G2a2b2a1 L140/S316
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related G2a2b2a P303/Page108/PF3340/S135/Z765

    Undated C.Italy_Etruscan_undate G2a2b2a1a1b1 CTS9737/Z1815
    The types from the paper on Croatia:
    - 7 G2a2a-PF3147 (like Ötzi);
    - 1 G2a2b2a-P303.

  24. #424
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    ITA_Venosa_EMA,0.1050424,0.1436249,-0.0135226,-0.0436973,0.0116944,-0.0189247,-0.0026859,-0.0041207,0.0030094,0.0223107,0.0020183,0.0027191,-0.0031644,-0.00464,-0.0074646,-0.000682,0.0017136,-0.0048684,-0.0049921,-0.0003751,-0.0026204,-0.0029854,7.04e-05,0.0025993,0.0008039


    Venosa average sample:
    Distance to: ITA_Venosa_EMA
    0.01430933 Italian_Campania
    0.01729271 Italian_Calabria
    0.01892498 Italian_Basilicata
    0.02029252 Italian_Apulia
    0.02150771 Sicilian_East
    0.02325459 Italian_Jew
    0.02350433 Italian_Abruzzo
    0.02771079 Italian_Molise
    0.02794914 Sicilian_West
    0.03255640 Italian_Lazio
    0.03542975 Italian_Umbria
    0.03593792 Italian_Marche
    0.04578576 Italian_Tuscany
    0.05564931 Italian_Piedmont
    0.06399863 Italian_Liguria
    0.06521908 Italian_Lombardy
    0.06876166 Italian_Bergamo
    0.07082667 Italian_Veneto
    0.07601314 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
    0.07906500 Italian_Northeast
    0.08582995 Italian_Aosta_Valley

  25. #425
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,381

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Venosa average sample:
    Distance to: ITA_Venosa_EMA
    0.01430933 Italian_Campania
    0.01729271 Italian_Calabria
    0.01892498 Italian_Basilicata
    0.02029252 Italian_Apulia
    0.02150771 Sicilian_East
    0.02325459 Italian_Jew
    0.02350433 Italian_Abruzzo
    0.02771079 Italian_Molise
    0.02794914 Sicilian_West
    0.03255640 Italian_Lazio
    0.03542975 Italian_Umbria
    0.03593792 Italian_Marche
    0.04578576 Italian_Tuscany
    0.05564931 Italian_Piedmont
    0.06399863 Italian_Liguria
    0.06521908 Italian_Lombardy
    0.06876166 Italian_Bergamo
    0.07082667 Italian_Veneto
    0.07601314 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
    0.07906500 Italian_Northeast
    0.08582995 Italian_Aosta_Valley

    might as well call sample...Samnite ..........Brutti, Lucania , Campania, benevento all samnite lands

Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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