Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
![]() |
Suum cuique-ancient ochre elite burial cultures in Seredny Stih phase II, Yamnaya - ochre burials with wagons, copper cudgel ,tanged daggers,iron-powder, beads, iron tools -weapons. Turganik Dom2 -horses; horse head shaped scepters, Kernosovkiy idol horse .
I have no strong opinions on the origin of the Proto-Italics, since I'm not too educated on the topic. But my point is that the steppe admixture they brought was via intermediate groups ( i.e. Bell Beakers).
I've read on Anthrogenica that the data collected by that fake Italian of Principe shows that Sicilians have Levantine Y haplos at significant amounts: I hate this idea that somehow data "collected" by delusional individuals with identity issues are preferred over the dozens of studies and samples from said studies.
Nobody should be using private collections of genomes to prove anything whatsoever about anyone. Even if the "collectors" are honest, it's not a scientific sample.
It's like people who post polls from the readers of a certain magazine and think it's as valuable as a poll by a polling company like Gallup which follows statistical rules in collecting random samples.
Or, heck, it would be like me getting yDna from the people in the Apennines of Emilia and saying all the people in Emilia Romagna are 85% U-152.
It's just stupid, and anyone with half a brain should know it.
Plus, who could take seriously someone who thinks he's Jewish because he carries what he thinks is a Jewish yDna. Even if it's true about the yDna, whatever "Jewishness" was in him washed out long ago. What goes on in the minds of some of these Italian wannabe Jews, like that Calabrian rabbi, is beyond me. Why can't they accept their actual identity? What makes them feel better about themselves when they do this?
Well, I suppose I could ask the same question of the idiotic Nordicist Italians.
It just has to be accepted that there are some disturbed, identity confused people out there who are attracted to this hobby. The pity is that one branch of them has taken over a long- established site dedicated to population genetics.
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
I have no idea who you are. If you're a recently banned Albanian posting under a sock, I'll make that two month ban a permanent one. Clear?
Second of all, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Nobody was talking about Albanians or analyses using ancient samples. We were talking about a supposed Italian using MODERN SICILIAN samples from a private collection.
For God's sake, EVERYTHING IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT ALBANIANS! Most of us don't give a damn about the ethnogenesis of a small group of people in the Balkans.
What I can SEE, is that a good many Italian areas show up as being very close to ancient Balkan samples, so you're rather proving the point of the thread.
Also, the Iron Age samples under discussion are NOT just the ones from "Illyricum". Get a grip or you're going to be out of here before the end of the day.
@Lufta
Stop evading ban you goddamn moron.
You‘re correct, the Corded Ware population was dominated by one single lineage: R1a-M417. With that being said, they weren't 100% R1a-M417. The Bohemia ancient DNA paper revealed that R1b-L151 is the most common Y-DNA among early CW men and one branch ancestral to R1b-P312, the dominant Y-lineage in Bell Beaker. So, the spread of hg. R1b-L151 (including the subclade R-U106) is now certainly associated with the expansion of the early Corded Ware people. Therefore, as suggested in the study, Bell Beakers probably formed to the west of Bohemia, closer to the Rhine, and spread from there in all directions ( into France, Italy, and Iberia, and northwest into Britain and Ireland).
So, Bell Beaker was just a development from Single Grave Corded Ware. Furthermore, Proto-Italics partly descended from these Central European BB. That‘s why the Etruscans and Latins were majority R1b, specifically R1b-L2 and R1b-P312, which were of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware origin.
“If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.” – Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book VI, 21
I think you are right here. I think the time we saw every IE "family" arriving directly from Steppes as successive waves of pure tribes is over even if it could be true for some of them (to be proved). More than a step led to the BA/IA diverse cultural/geographic situations. I see also Celts and Italics (and others) as descendants for a big part of BB's, what does not exclude later mixes and evolutions of course, which explain their differenciation. Personally I suppose that compared to proto-Celts, proto-Italics at some stage of their cristallisation stayer more in contact with Austria/Croatia pop's, so more southern and central Europe influences from Hungary and Balkans. Maybe seen from too high a point of view?
It could be debated but it seems that the Urnfields label covers a lot of ethnies at diverse times in diverse places: it has been more a stage than an uniquely ethnic introgression. We see sometimes (Germany) "urnfield" women cremated along "local" men nhumated with "urnfield" swords! So, an Italics (and Celtic) genesis doesn't exclude at all a BB >> "Urnfield" route, with always the same male lineage until some late stage.
I agree, it was more like a cultural complex, but it looks like the first Urnfielders came from somewhere in Carpathian Mountains.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
An admixture between the Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur and between the Carpathian "Urnfielders" in Carpathian-Pannonian basin is what triggered in Late Bronze Age the Urnfield Cultural Complex and the spread of idea.
I think that R1b-L51, some G2a, some I2a on Western Urnfielder side and most of E-V13, R1a in Eastern Urnfielder side is what constituted this cultural complex.
I think that Provo-Villanovans being rather associated with the Venetic people, rather than the Italics, which just adopted these elements secondarily and were already there. DNA evidence for Urnfielders is always a tricky thing, because cremated remains can't be tested. Like we wouldn't know about the I2a Tollense warriors, which were presumably Eastern Urnfield Lusatians for the most part, without them having died in such a battle without being properly buried according to their customs.
I am not a specialist. When I try to figure out a global sketch, It seems to me that the core region was somewhere between Eastern Austria, Hungary (rather northern?) , at first, with the cremation thing (spiritual and material) being by nature a "Hungarian" thing (geographically) inherited from more ancient Tells cultures of Neolithic origin, even if already at this time mixes with people of 'steppic' origin were born. Some scholars (Hungarian or Croatian origin, I forgot) spoke of a network generated on the long time by trade contacts and maybe exogamy, having created kind of an "intercompatibility" which has permited later some populations moves at rather average to small scale; it isn't impossible. Females and some skilled "professionals" (metallurgy etc...) could have taken part in this; that some elements of the ancient clannic pop's lineages more 'steppic'like would have changed habits and joined more "open" lineages of neolithic origin is very possible; between LBA and IA it seems the total monopole of some male lineages had disappeared even if some numerical dominance can perdure.
But at first, Urnfields isn't really a Tumuli thing. They needed time before accept it.
Concerning Riverman's remark, it's hard to answer safely without writings. Proto-Villanovans = S-E Veneti? Very possible, but... That some Italics were already in Northern Italy by this time? Possivle too. Some old scholars thought the Terramare (which accepted Urnfield with some "prudence") were ancestors of the Qw- Italic people, or of proto-Latins more precisely. But someones thought about Ligurians, I think. Question: Could the brutal passage to Urnfields in Eastern Emilia be put on the account of Veneti? I don't know. possible: someones say Veneti cut Qw- Italics from P- Italics; maybe first southern Veneti were expelled there by subsequent Osco-Umbrians???
Only guess without texts.
The issue with the Tumulus people adopting cremation must be seen in the context of their expansion into the Carpathian. First they pushed and largely annihilated the Encrusted Pottery people, which remains fled to the Balkans, then they pushed onwards to Fzesabony-Otomani.
They created a kind of colony with the Carpathian Tumulus culture (important site/old name Egyek) and Egyek centre influenced the remains of the Pannonian groups which were gathered in Piliny (pre-Kyjatice). Therefore Piliny is a syncretistic culture with contacts to both the Western Tumulus culture and the Eastern Otomani-Suciu de Sus people, which practised cremation. Piliny-Kyjatice is therefore the direct link between the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture and the cremating East Carpathian people (early East Otomani, Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg).
There was a fluent border from: Middle Danubian Tumulus culture -> Carpathian Tumulus culture -> Piliny -> Berkesz-Demecser -> Suciu de Sus/Lapus. Berkesz-Demecser and Lapus being the primary Pre-Gva groups.
I guess it was from this mixed Tumulus-Carpathian context that the new religious ideas being spread in the Tumulus culture sphere and this created the Urnfield phenomenon as such. There were also Greek-Mycenaean aspects involved, which too might have been transmitted by the intermediate groups to the South and East, because Suciu de Sus being noted as having close Mycenaean contacts also, for such a relatively Northern group.
I came across R.Rocca's response on Riverman, saying that he is completely wrong about Naue II swords and that the origin is Terramare Culture, and he backs his assumption and complain with a youtube video lol.
Naue II clearly has more diversity in Carpathian-Pannonian basin, the Naue I prototype of Naue II origin is somewhere in Germany, and it comes as no surprise that we can assume that the Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus warriors when they crossed the Alps toward Carpathian Mountains somewhere in 1600-1500 B.C brought the Naue I swords with them, and much probably Naue II were invented somewhere in Carpathians as an improvement over the older Naue I. That's logical.
Now, Naue II might have been introduced in Northern Italy via Urnfield influence, Proto-Villanovan culture has some peculiar similarities with Balkan-Carpathian Vatin, Gava and some other Pannonian Urnfield Cultures. So, there you have the connection. No direct migration should be involved from Gava, Vatin, just shared ideas, cultural flow. The people who might have migrated and influence Proto-Villanovans might have been western neighbors of Vatin/Gava. Middle-Danubian Urnfielders likely!?
Check the figure below, the density, it just make more sense what i am saying. What other connecting dots would there be between Carpathian-Pannonian basin and Jutland/North except for Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur as initial originator of Naue I, then Naue II early development?! Fully formed Naue II might have been already spread and formed not only by Tumulus but also Eastern Urnfielders like Gava and related Balkan-Carpathian tribes.
Density of Naue II swords. The isolines represent the average number of swords within a radius of 250km. The highest density (c. 180) occurs in Jutland. The dots represent one or more Naue II finds.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_292397599
We know that Urnfield artisans migrated and created workshops. E.g. Gva smiths did move to Lusatian and Middle Danubian areas, or down the Balkans. But while these migrations are proven, bullet-proven is only the migration of a master and probable of some of his workers, not necessarily something on a larger scale.
The development of this sword type is a complicated matter in some ways, but what is known for sure is that it spread in the Balkans North of Greece primarily via Gva-related workshops. That's really beyond doubt. Greece itself received direct input from Italy and the West Balkans from the Middle Danubians of course.
I made a map for the main groups of interest and the related sword finds:
Based on the distribution map from the same paper:
https://www.academia.edu/21306979/Th...tance_Mobility
Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
Grandfather paternal mtdna ... T1a1e
Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155
"Fear profits man, nothing"
I just marked the Naue II finds of this map. The total distribution of the cultures could differ. Belegis II-Gva gor example did expand with daughter groups down, derp into the Balkans.
Just when you thought you had begun to understand Balkans archaeology, they start coming up with new cultures and sticking them together with new compound names. (joke btw)
Naue II sword finds have been from North -Italy
https://www.bronze-age-craft.com/Naue_II.htm
As early as 1450 BCE in northern Italy came an early type of a sword now known as the Naue II.
The ignoramus was a sock of a previously banned user.
Balkanites can be modeled with similar "Southern" Ancestry to Southern Italian/Greeks which is early Aegean Bronze Age or Minoan. The "Northern" ancestry was modeled as Slovenian_IA which is similar to modern Northern Italians. When combined it created a cline of people that overlap with Tuscans and Sicilians/South Italians. Later on in history, Slavic and Avar migrations pulled them "North" and "East".
Some of it is coincidence, but some of it are probably from the same sources, namely the "Southern" ancestry, at least in the case of Southern Italians. Btw, Minoans for example are indeed on a south-west axis from the south of Italy. At least every respectable PCA shows that; unlike (G)arbage 25.
Last edited by Jovialis; 14-11-22 at 16:16.
I read on multiple accounts that the earliest Naue II-like models are from Northern Italy and the Carpathian Basin. They appear nearly simultaneously and its hard to determine who got it first. As you can read in the link provided, the exact dates are sometimes disputed.
In any case, the big distribution of the swords started with the three main groups:
- Proto-Villanovan
- Middle Danubian Urnfield
- Eastern Urnfield, especially Gva
That's when it really kicked off with a refined mass production of the sword type.
And its remarkable that all these groups were not just part of Urnfield, but also had a similar pottery (burnished, channelled ware), weaponry, warrior ethic etc. So while they might have been different ethnicities, patrilineages and autosomal profiles, speaking different languages, they being very clearly interconnected within the Urnfield sphere and more to each other than to other UF groups, with some exceptions (like Gva was particularly close to Kyjatice and Lusatians).