David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

a) R1b comes from Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Ancestral North Eurasians or just ANE), R1b where present in some Tarim Basin early mummies (90% ANE ancestry). Native Americans and native Siberians are the present-day people more close to the ANE.
b) It's a paper of 2012 and talks about PRESENT-DAY Y haplogroups, not ancient ones. But even if R1b was present in ancient Assyrians, it could be due from neolithic Iranians (they had ANE admixture).

I0443-L23 Displaced all in Khvanysk including ydna R1a.
3tUPjiOeNHMvleYH0ohgx7lZzOWt89k8rMj91-8Nb0o=w300-h436-no


Srubnya R1a Z93 was totally displaced not only from its northern sphere but also from Sintashta and Arkaim. There are only a few scattered remnants. Sintashta was supposed advanced chariot warrior society. Nothing remains of it, and like the Assyrians R1b-Z2103 has expanded population aka Bashkirs. Sintashta Arkaim are in top right hand corner of map.
6182b6c25897a6d43e48106e545083bb.jpg


Haplogroup-R1a-Z93-Eurasia.png
 
@eupator

That's exactly what I wrote, see "Iranics", this includes Medes. Old Persians/Medes regularly referred to themselves as "Aryans".For example in Naqsch-e Rostam Darius the Great proclaimed
"I am Dariush, great King... a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, of Aryan stock."
The wikipedia article is informative as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
 
Absolutey right, Angela, I am always bewildered when people refer to the PIE people as "Aryans". The term is only used in scientific debate when referring to the Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans and/or Iranics. There is zero evidence that it was ever used by other peoples as an ethnonym.

My understanding regarding R1b-Z2103 in the Near East is that it arrived in two waves. First in the 3rd millennium BC with fleeing tribes from the steppe looking for refuge in the Southern Caucasus because Abashevo-culture was pushing into the steppe and largely replaced Yamnaya/Catacomb. This first wave is probably related to Assyrian and Armenian R1b-Z2103. It seems Reich also thinks the same. At least this is my understanding of this quote from the Southern Arc paper:


The second wave of R1b-Z2103 into the Near East probably arrived with the Iranics from Central Asia in the Iron Age. Lurs and Talysh, both Iranics, have about 25-40% of R1b-Z2103.

---

It it still possible that there is R1b-M269 in an unadmixed (before 6000BC) CHG/Iran populations but I think the chances of finding it are rather small. An unadmixed CHG/Iran population that also went into the Eneolithic Steppe gene pool was likely J1 and J2, since there is already J1 far north in Khavlynsk. There has to be more J1 and J2 in places further south, closer to the Caucasus, Lower Don and Lower Volga might be the places to search for this southern signal. R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 could be assimilated haplogroups that survived over the long run. Anyway, let's wait for the paper.

R1b-Z2103 not only expanded in ancient warlike Hittite/Assyrian/Iranian/Greek(Southern Arc EF regions) it also has more descendants in Ossetia than R1a(I count 3 modern day samples). The R1b-in Ossetia are related to original early Sarmatian samples and Albanians(Y5586).
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian?iframe=yresults
 
Basques and Bashkirs also carry large numbers of R1b and they don't speak IE languages.

Etruscan data also show a similar situation (R1b but no IE). Ancient Greeks spoke IE but no R1b so far, maybe Southern Arc will provide some?

The relation between the spread of IE and R1b is not yet clear cut.

One R1b sample was found in classical Greece (unpublished), according to the video below by a Dr. Nikolaos Psonis (at about the 15 minute mark), as well as various mtDNA.

https://youtu.be/HGKZKoH4yv0
 
Absolutey right, Angela, I am always bewildered when people refer to the PIE people as "Aryans". The term is only used in scientific debate when referring to the Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans and/or Iranics. There is zero evidence that it was ever used by other peoples as an ethnonym.

My understanding regarding R1b-Z2103 in the Near East is that it arrived in two waves. First in the 3rd millennium BC with fleeing tribes from the steppe looking for refuge in the Southern Caucasus because Abashevo-culture was pushing into the steppe and largely replaced Yamnaya/Catacomb. This first wave is probably related to Assyrian and Armenian R1b-Z2103. It seems Reich also thinks the same. At least this is my understanding of this quote from the Southern Arc paper:


The second wave of R1b-Z2103 into the Near East probably arrived with the Iranics from Central Asia in the Iron Age. Lurs and Talysh, both Iranics, have about 25-40% of R1b-Z2103.

---

It it still possible that there is R1b-M269 in an unadmixed (before 6000BC) CHG/Iran populations but I think the chances of finding it are rather small. An unadmixed CHG/Iran population that also went into the Eneolithic Steppe gene pool was likely J1 and J2, since there is already J1 far north in Khavlynsk. There has to be more J1 and J2 in places further south, closer to the Caucasus, Lower Don and Lower Volga might be the places to search for this southern signal. R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 could be assimilated haplogroups that survived over the long run. Anyway, let's wait for the paper.

Excellent post. Sorry I'm out of juice. :)
 
I don't know about intelligence genes, however to build a solid wheel to go 1000+km or a spoked wheel, would take a good craftsman.
As for the culture of farming, and EF Near Eastern genes,and high density living, king Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines a different style. Even though most kurgans are R1b-Z2108 there are kurgans with females. And perhaps this movie was made with Alan-Sarmatian Z-2108 females in mind
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/sarmatian.shtml




Silesian, this post makes absolutely NO SENSE. Are you quite all right?
 
Silesian, this post makes absolutely NO SENSE. Are you quite all right?

I'm feeling great, thanks. Womens rights are an interesting comparison between steppe and Arc region- EF farming. I feel sorry for women who had to live in a harem; better to have freedom on the steppe as warrior, how do you feel about it?
On a side note I remembered when Germans used to say Slavs were dirty/filth and smelled bad, uncivilized heathen. Is that a form of hygenic profiling I don't know, why do people judge others?
 
Basques and Bashkirs also carry large numbers of R1b and they don't speak IE languages.

Etruscan data also show a similar situation (R1b but no IE). Ancient Greeks spoke IE but no R1b so far, maybe Southern Arc will provide some?

The relation between the spread of IE and R1b is not yet clear cut.

bashkirs are the remnants of very old wars/kidnapping etc etc same goes for the all the R1B among central asians. myceneans also had some steppe admixture while apparently the indo european anatolians did not yet ancient greek supposed to come from there...

the steppe people were the horse and cart folk, meaning their language could have became a lingua franca of sorts.

The group with highest degree of J2 is the ingushetians yet their language tree is neither related to indo european or semitic languages.
 
i wonder when are those 3 papers of the Southern Arc will be finally published:unsure:
i asked david reich in email
he didn't answere
 


So am I, RE, whether you mean the steppe people or the Celts and Germanics, just as you are a descendant of the civilized core people of "Old Europe". No offense is intended, but I notice a "forgetfulness" in some northern Europeans that many of them, especially in northwestern and Central Europe, are 40-50% Anatolian Neolithic like through admixture by the steppe people with people of the "civilized core" in "Old Europe". Even the Balts have a significant amount of Anatolian Neo. Then there's the Iran Neo like ancestry in steppe people, varying by area, of course. We're all a mash up of the same groups, RE, just in different proportions.

I referred to myself as the descendant of the "Barbarians" because you brought up the Barbarians at the Gate and their predatory nature.



................

As was pointed out by a later post, Rome initially fought defensive wars, but yes, it eventually became an empire seeking expansion, an expansion that was sometimes to protect its trade routes(Etruria and Greece), or for grain (Egypt), and other raw materials, for a very simplistic summary of its wars. Then it became about reaching defensible borders.

The thing is in the eyes of the Romans, ALL of their wars were defensive and thus legitimate. Hence they justified their wars either with self-defense, protecting and avenging friends, and punishing wrongs, etc. For example, when exactly did the Persian or Parthian Empire threaten, declare war on or tried to attack and invade Rome when Caesar, Crassus, or Antonius planned a military campaign against them? The truth of the matter is some wars of Rome were rather defensive and others not so much. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more capable they were of further expanding their Empire. Romans were not satisfied with conquering only land near to them. They realized that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Once again glory and honor were extremely important in Rome. Hence, to me, it's not entirely convincing that Rome's wars were all defensive and that Rome became accidentally a great Empire by being busy defending itself.


As someone pointed out, that's actually an Etruscan symbol.


Well, there is a controversy around the She-wolf.

"We know that the She-wolf embodies the story of Rome’s founding, but the statue’s origins are not so widely known. Originally, the She-wolf was recognized as an Etruscan statue, meaning that it was made in the early part of the 5th century BC."


https://emarlowe.colgate.domains/arts101/student-posts/the-capitoline-she-wolf-who-am-i-and-where-do-i-come-from/


This specific statue of a She-wolf may well be of Etruscan origin. Nevertheless, a She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus is definitely a Latin/Roman folklore and as far as I know not an Etruscan myth. Or did I miss something, and Romulus and Remus are Etruscan mythological figures? Furthermore, Mars, the God of war is not just the Greek version of Ares. There is the tendency to deny the Latins/Romans anything of their own- they either got it from the Etruscans or from the Greeks, people say.



So, I by no means believe that "Old Europe", for example, was a peaceful paradise, a la Gimbutas. We have evidence of warfare which occurred in times of scarcity, for example, which makes sense given the nature of all human beings.

However, can you deny that the balance in favor of a mythology of war and conquest is higher in steppe culture? Don't some in the amateur pop gen community admire the steppe people specifically because they were a war-like people who claimed to be superior to other groups and therefore entitled to conquer them, slaughter those who needed to be slaughtered, enslave the rest, and take all the women for themselves?


The same is true for history. When looking at certain periods, states in conflict, it's often not a question of black and white, good versus evil, but shades of grey. Look at World War I. I studied it in great depth at university and after, and it was a senseless war where there were "only" shades of grey

Agreeing completely.


I also think it's undeniable that as empires go, Rome was a pretty good one, and not just because of the Monty Python list of the advancements it brought to conquered peoples. :)

Despite your implication that Rome too was "racist" or, shall we make up a word and call it "ethnicist", that isn't true in any way that affected the real lives of the people in the Roman world. If you accepted the conquest and paid your taxes, usually to your old headman, your people weren't slaughtered, and even if you resisted, everybody wasn't enslaved, all the women weren't taken for the Latin-Romans etc. Everything went on as before. With time, non-Latins or Italics of any kind could acquire property, honors, eventually become accepted into the Equestrian Order, become Senators, or go the military route, enlist, and eventually become generals and even Emperors. With time, anyone living in the Empire became a Roman citizen and could aspire to any office.

Where did I indicate or allude to that Rome was racist? The Romans certainly believed in their own superiority over basically everybody, they were crystal clear about it in their own written records. Anyway, the Romans were xenophobic rather than outright racist. Plus I literally wrote that is better to be conquered by the Romans than by many other people.


Yes, slavery is one of the absolute evils imo, but tell me which state or kingdom or group of people DIDN'T practice it in the ancient world? Did the Gauls whom the Romans conquered not practice slavery and fight wars for land or booty? Why else did they fight the Etruscans in north-central Italy and sack the city of Rome itself? What about the Britons or the Germani? What, as a matter of fact, about the Lombards and what they did to the "Romans" they conquered, or the Anglo-Saxons and the way they treated the Britons, or the Vikings? Wasn't most of the wealth of the latter from the slave trade they ran all over Europe? The Lombard and AS Laws make very interesting reading.

It always amazes me when Northern Europeans bemoan the slavery of the Roman Empire without ever mentioning any of that. Slavery was, unfortunately, the NORM in the ancient world. At least under the Romans you could escape it through manumission or buying your freedom, and rising as high in society as your abilities would dictate.


Slavery was indeed the norm in most cultures. However, the scale of slavery in Rome was on another level compared to, for instance, in Germanic societies. It's believed that 2/3 of the Roman population were slaves.

Btw, slavery in Ancient Rome isn't really bemoaned but mostly the transatlantic slave trade.


Here's a article about slavery in Germanic society.

"Germanic tribes in dealing with their slaves, says that they treated them neither to chain nor to forced labor and killed them rather in a fit of anger' than from inclination toward cruelty."

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/250761


The thing is, that enslaved people no matter where deserve their suffering to be acknowledged. If you ask me these
Roman slaves from present-day France and Britain were rightfully bemoaning their enslavement and I feel for them. Even in death, these enslaved unfortunates were shackled and with their iron color around their necks, they couldn't escape their chains untill their last breath.

May they soul rest peace and they run free.


"Roman slaves are unearthed . . . still with their iron collars and shackles in place." One of the slaves was a shackled child.

23BF7ED000000578-0-image-a-89_1417729995201.jpg

23BF7ED400000578-0-image-a-87_1417729964565.jpg


23BF7ECC00000578-0-image-a-90_1417729999846.jpg



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...excavation-Roman-graves-southwest-France.html


Shackled skeleton discovered by workmen building a home extension in Rutland is of a Roman slave who was thrown in a ditch 1,800 years ago and is an 'internationally significant' find


43924643-9659363-image-a-53_1623068264441.jpg



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-slave-bound-shackles-discovered-Rutland.html


I'm sorry, but I think it is "your" view of the past, and that of those who post similar opinions, which is romanticized and doesn't comport with the facts of the situation.

Why? Because I don't see all the good on the side of the so-called civilized people and all the bad on the Barbarian side?


My God, the Nazi Empire of what, eighty to ninety years ago, slaughtered millions of people in a war of conquest, not just to get territories which contained German minorities but for "lebensraum", land to breathe, or land needed for natural development, and not just Jews and gypsies and the infirm or deficient, but many Eastern Europeans. In Poland they decimated most of their elites and officer corps, and subjected the rest to virtual slavery. The plan was to completely exterminate all Slavic peoples.......

Nowhere did I compare the Romans to the Nazis but I was rather trying to demonstrate that the Romans were pretty much comparable to Steppe people in terms of their expansionism and warlike behavior. That's all.








 
real expert;653592 said:
[/COLOR]

I referred to myself as the descendant ofthe "Barbarians" because you brought up the Barbarians at the Gate and their predatory nature.

You're probably aware of it, but that was an allusion to Augustine writing as the Vandals surrounded his city. As I already said, I have some of that "Barbarian" blood too.




The thing is in the eyes of the Romans, ALL of their wars were defensive and thus legitimate. Hence they justified their wars either with self-defense, protecting and avenging friends, and punishing wrongs, etc. For example, when exactly did the Persian or Parthian Empire threaten, declare war on or tried to attack and invade Rome when Caesar, Crassus, or Antonius planned a military campaign against them? The truth of the matter is some wars of Rome were rather defensive and others not so much. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more capable they were of further expanding their Empire. Romans were not satisfied with conquering only land near to them. They realized that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Once again glory and honor were extremely important in Rome. Hence, to me, it's not entirely convincing that Rome's wars were all defensive and that Rome became accidentally a great Empire by being busy defending itself.

It should be clear from my prior posts that I'm no admirer of war like cultures and the building of empires through force. Of the two of us it is you, I think, who exhibits more admiration for those kinds of cultures. It is, in fact, the extreme value which the steppe people put on warfare and the conquest of other peoples, and the way in which they treated the conquered which I most dislike about their culture. It is far more "Nazi-like" than anything Rome ever did. I would say the same about the Germanic tribes which toppled Rome and the Anglo-Saxons who created an apartheid system in Britain.




Well, there is a controversy around the She-wolf.

"We know that the She-wolf embodies the story of Rome’s founding, but the statue’s origins are not so widely known. Originally, the She-wolf was recognized as an Etruscan statue, meaning that it was made in the early part of the 5th century BC."


https://emarlowe.colgate.domains/arts101/student-posts/the-capitoline-she-wolf-who-am-i-and-where-do-i-come-from/


This specific statue of a She-wolf may well be of Etruscan origin. Nevertheless, a She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus is definitely a Latin/Roman folklore and as far as I know not an Etruscan myth. Or did I miss something, and Romulus and Remus are Etruscan mythological figures? Furthermore, Mars, the God of war is not just the Greek version of Ares. There is the tendency to deny the Latins/Romans anything of their own- they either got it from the Etruscans or from the Greeks, people say.


I don't get all the emphasis you place on this. The Russians have a bear, the Americans an eagle, the British a lion, and the Germans have always had the black eagle. So what? Is being suckled by a wolf scarier and more ominous? Is it more indicative of being warlike and fierce? Really? Enough of this discussion.

Where did I indicate or allude to that Rome was racist? The Romans certainly believed in their own superiority over basically everybody, they were crystal clear about it in their own written records. Anyway, the Romans were xenophobic rather than outright racist. Plus I literally wrote that is better to be conquered by the Romans than by many other people.

Every country, on some level and to some degree, at least in the past, thinks/thought it's the best. What matters is how that country treats immigrants, or people it conquers, as in the bad old "empire" days.

There is no comparison between being conquered by the steppe people versus being conquered by Rome? Did the Romans kill all the men in Gaul or Britain and take all the women, virtually extinguishing certain local y lines? Could a man conquered by the steppe invaders buy himself out of slavery, become the equal of his conquerors? It's an absurdity. Being conquered by Rome was also better than being conquered by the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. As I advised you, you should read their law codes, and compare them to Roman law. That's over and above the fact that the Germanic tribes brought down all the carefully decided legal cases under Roman law and brought back Trial by Combat!!!

Indeed, it was better living as a "Roman" in the Empire than as a "barbarian" beyond the borders, imo. Look up how people lived outside the borders of the empire and compare to life within it. Later, what happened wasn't that people feared being conquered by Rome; they wanted to be let INTO the Empire, fed by it, and protected by it. Rome just couldn't absorb them all, a problem facing European countries today, and the U.S.A. as well. Nor were the tribesmen prepared for life within the Empire, stabling their horses, for God's sake, in the magnificent public buildings, fearing death if they went to the public baths, totally incapable of continuing civilized life because, for starters, they were all illiterate.

Or, think of the suffering which the Jewish people could have avoided had they just done as Jesus advised: "Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's." Instead, the zealots took over and their travails began. People have made the same mistake over and over again over the centuries and indeed millennia. Revolutionaries never really want to give freedom to everyone; they just want to become the ruling hierarchy, and impose their own rigid rules.





Slavery was indeed the norm in most cultures. However, the scale of slavery in Rome was on another level compared to, for instance, in Germanic societies. It's believed that 2/3 of the Roman population were slaves.

Btw, slavery in Ancient Rome isn't really bemoaned but mostly the transatlantic slave trade.


Here's a article about slavery in Germanic society.

"Germanic tribes in dealing with their slaves, says that they treated them neither to chain nor to forced labor and killed them rather in a fit of anger' than from inclination toward cruelty."

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/250761


The thing is, that enslaved people no matter where deserve their suffering to be acknowledged. If you ask me these
Roman slaves from present-day France and Britain were rightfully bemoaning their enslavement and I feel for them. Even in death, these enslaved unfortunates were shackled and with their iron color around their necks, they couldn't escape their chains untill their last breath.

May they soul rest peace and they run free.


"Roman slaves are unearthed . . . still with their iron collars and shackles in place." One of the slaves was a shackled child.

That figure is absurd, almost as absurd as your quote about German slavery. I'm sure the poor slaves killed in a fit of anger would feel much better about it knowing it wasn't part of some plan, or something.

I've given your posts a lot of time, and due respect as a member of the site, but it's not my job to teach ancient history to people who have never really studied it. Your posts are getting as bad as those of Silesian. Please pick up some volumes by respected historians and archaeologists on the Roman Empire, and Germanic culture of the time as well. As to the latter, please don't mistake the musings of the Roman version of Rousseau when describing the "Noble Savages" for reality; it was to shame his own people into better behavior. It's not enough to present quotes from ancient authors; you have to know the CONTEXT.
 
i think all empires were brutal
some more than others
but you can't be an angel and rule so many people
and such a great territory without force .
 
I0443-L23 Displaced all in Khvanysk including ydna R1a.


Srubnya R1a Z93 was totally displaced not only from its northern sphere but also from Sintashta and Arkaim. There are only a few scattered remnants. Sintashta was supposed advanced chariot warrior society. Nothing remains of it, and like the Assyrians R1b-Z2103 has expanded population aka Bashkirs. Sintashta Arkaim are in top right hand corner of map.

The figure of R1b lineage is from an research of 2015.

There are a research of 2021 "The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" in which is said: "although limited in number, the two Xiaohe males belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1c, which falls outside of the R1b1a clade representative of the Yamnaya and Afanasievo individuals".

I repeat: the question is the ancient Assyrians, not the modern ones.
 
Sorry, but the first bolded comment is so broad a generalization and such an overstatement that to address it adequately would take pages of examples and citations. This is not the thread for it.

I'll just say that if the merged societies were a template of Indo-European culture then they would all be pastoralist societies where people carted their belongings with them as they trundled from place to place with their herds of sheep and cows, they would have no metallurgy, no pottery, no female goddesses and their associated fertility rites and on and on.

Are there in these societies elements of steppe culture such as the lionization of warfare and conquest, the host-client relationships, the training of young males, parts of the religion? Yes, there are, but to say the template of the societies was completely Indo-European is a fallacy. Nor, I would point out, is the lionization of war and conquest unique to the Indo-Europeans. I think the Assyrians would have something to say about that.

Turning to the issue of language, yes, it's important to know the genesis of language, but it's largely a matter of intellectual interest for the specialized few. It's irrelevant to most people. Nor does it determine culture. The Amerindians of the New World had Indo-European languages imposed upon them. Do you think it was the language the "natives" and the mestizos of Mexico were forced to learn which made Mexico a basically European culture? It wasn't. It was the fact that Amerindians and Mestizos were herded into missions or haciendas and forced to learn farming, and indeed to accept the notion that land could be owned. I could go on and on with more examples. Immigrants to the U.S. from India, China, Africa, learn an Indo-European language. It doesn't make them Indo-European. I speak English with native fluency, but it isn't my "native" language, and speaking it most of the time and now even thinking in it most of the time doesn't make me English or give me an English cultural identity or personality. I still watch British film and television and marvel at the repression of emotion, the inability to express one's true thoughts and feelings to others, and on and on........


In my opinion, many underestimate the importance of language in the formation of culture and society and how very much language is ingrained in culture. My take on this issue is (and linguistics would agree) that language reflects perception, but it also reflects the history of culture and explains why certain ideas and beliefs are so prominent. Why do you think politicians and people in charge are policing the language in our society?

Besides, I'm quoting scholars who suggest that the Etruscans differ from the Romans not only linguistically but also culturally.

They found that the Etruscans shared a genetic profile with neighboring populations, such as the Latins that inhabited Rome at the same time, even though the two groups had significant linguistic and cultural differences.


As with most other European populations, a large proportion of this genetic profile can be attributed to steppe-related ancestry. It’s unclear, then, how such significant differences arose between the Etruscans and their neighbors.

https://ancient-archeology.com/dna-has-finally-revealed-the-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans/

To me it makes perfectly sense that the Etruscans differ also culturally from their Roman neighbours. I believe that each language carves up the world somewhat differently. So each language provides its speakers with a particular worldview that won’t be quite the same as the one that speakers of other languages have. In other words, we see the world according to the framework.


Furthermore, in analyzing Roman culture one should be very aware of the fact many, many aspects of their culture which made Rome great were actually Etruscan in origin. Without the Etruscans there would have never been "the greatness which was Rome". Whole volumes and hundreds and hundreds of articles have been written on the subject. You should give them a read...........

Dear Angela, let me clarify some things. The Etruscans are no strangers to me. However, I had specific things in mind and focused on language as an integral part of human identity. It's strange to me how you deduced that I was talking about "greatness" or the lack thereof. But just for the sake of the argument, let me point out, that the Romans had to conquer the Etruscans, and subjugate them and all of Italy in order to become "great." In order to get access to the Etruscan achievements, they had to conquer them first. The bottom line, without their military, the Romans would be probably forever in the shadow of the Etruscans and Greeks.



Captive Greece took captive her savage conquerer and brought the arts to rustic Latium
― Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones.

In addition, I didn‘t write anything disparaging about the Etruscans, to begin with. Again, what I rather was doing was engaging in the idea that culture is reflected by language. In fact, I didn‘t claim that the Romans were better or worse than the Etruscans nor did I link them to the Nazis. Here's the thing, conservations would be less frustrating and less prone to misunderstanding if the discussion partners try to avoid reading too much into other people's comments or attributing words to others they actually didn't say. My point was that the Etruscans kept more of their pre-Indo-European culture than the Latins which is reflected by their language.

 
You're probably aware of it, but that was an allusion to Augustine writing as the Vandals surrounded his city. As I already said, I have some of that "Barbarian" blood too.






It should be clear from my prior posts that I'm no admirer of war like cultures and the building of empires through force. Of the two of us it is you, I think, who exhibits more admiration for those kinds of cultures. It is, in fact, the extreme value which the steppe people put on warfare and the conquest of other peoples, and the way in which they treated the conquered which I most dislike about their culture. It is far more "Nazi-like" than anything Rome ever did. I would say the same about the Germanic tribes which toppled Rome and the Anglo-Saxons who created an apartheid system in Britain.






I don't get all the emphasis you place on this. The Russians have a bear, the Americans an eagle, the British a lion, and the Germans have always had the black eagle. So what? Is being suckled by a wolf scarier and more ominous? Is it more indicative of being warlike and fierce? Really? Enough of this discussion.



Every country, on some level and to some degree, at least in the past, thinks/thought it's the best. What matters is how that country treats immigrants, or people it conquers, as in the bad old "empire" days.

There is no comparison between being conquered by the steppe people versus being conquered by Rome? Did the Romans kill all the men in Gaul or Britain and take all the women, virtually extinguishing certain local y lines? Could a man conquered by the steppe invaders buy himself out of slavery, become the equal of his conquerors? It's an absurdity. Being conquered by Rome was also better than being conquered by the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. As I advised you, you should read their law codes, and compare them to Roman law. That's over and above the fact that the Germanic tribes brought down all the carefully decided legal cases under Roman law and brought back Trial by Combat!!!

Indeed, it was better living as a "Roman" in the Empire than as a "barbarian" beyond the borders, imo. Look up how people lived outside the borders of the empire and compare to life within it. Later, what happened wasn't that people feared being conquered by Rome; they wanted to be let INTO the Empire, fed by it, and protected by it. Rome just couldn't absorb them all, a problem facing European countries today, and the U.S.A. as well. Nor were the tribesmen prepared for life within the Empire, stabling their horses, for God's sake, in the magnificent public buildings, fearing death if they went to the public baths, totally incapable of continuing civilized life because, for starters, they were all illiterate.

Or, think of the suffering which the Jewish people could have avoided had they just done as Jesus advised: "Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's." Instead, the zealots took over and their travails began. People have made the same mistake over and over again over the centuries and indeed millennia. Revolutionaries never really want to give freedom to everyone; they just want to become the ruling hierarchy, and impose their own rigid rules.









I've given your posts a lot of time, and due respect as a member of the site, but it's not my job to teach ancient history to people who have never really studied it. Your posts are getting as bad as those of Silesian. Please pick up some volumes by respected historians and archaeologists on the Roman Empire, and Germanic culture of the time as well. As to the latter, please don't mistake the musings of the Roman version of Rousseau when describing the "Noble Savages" for reality; it was to shame his own people into better behavior. It's not enough to present quotes from ancient authors; you have to know the CONTEXT.


Some clarification here. My motive for playing devil's advocate is to provoke into thinking about what we mean when we say something or someone is "predatory", is being predatory in nature restricted to"Barbarians" only? "


[/QUOTE]
That figure is absurd, almost as absurd as your quote about German slavery. I'm sure the poor slaves killed in a fit of anger would feel much better about it knowing it wasn't part of some plan, or something.


My bad, I mistakenly typed 2/3 but I meant 1/3. At least according to my history teacher and some books I've read around 30% of the population in Rome was enslaved. It's undeniable that Romans brought advancement and civilization, but they also brought tremendous suffering and misery to some people. No matter how glorious empires are they have their dark and grim side. Yes, not a few slaves could buy their freedom but many died in their shackles. Occasionally a slave owner would free (emancipate) a slave of their own volition.

 
The figure of R1b lineage is from an research of 2015.
There are a research of 2021 "The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" in which is said: "although limited in number, the two Xiaohe males belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1c, which falls outside of the R1b1a clade representative of the Yamnaya and Afanasievo individuals".
I repeat: the question is the ancient Assyrians, not the modern ones.
I'm really surprised to see the extent of Assyrian empire at its peak expansion. Yet what remains of this once dominant Mesopotamiam bronze age culture, according to Grugni 2012 is a steppe lineage R1b-Z2103 at levels of 20-50+/- percent. Looking at the position of Hajji Firuzz Steppe R1b-Z2103 in relation to ancient Assur has me wondering what the actual ydna of ancient Assyrians was made up, of. Whatever the actual Assyrians were, it is evident that Mesopotamia is the cradle of many inventions like pottery wheel, and sometime around the bronze age +/- 1000 years R1b-Z2103 moved from the steppe to replace some of the males lines, as evidence by Eupedia R1b-Z2103 Anatolia map showing variance from 15-40 percent in modern day the Southern Arc regions. I would imagine that this region has been heavily populated compared to the steppe. Similar situation in Southern Italy, in places like Sicel(aka Sicily). Similar pattern modern day replacement of fortified settlements with warrior chariot culture(R1a-z93Srubnaya type the supposed ancestors of Indo-Iranian language and the first to supposedly have Dom2 horses,predating Turganik) on the steppe in Sintashta-Arkaim .
 
Last edited:
Just a clarification.

The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.

Hajji-Firruz is a damaged sample positive for R-M12149* (which is upstream of both Z2106 and L584) that YFULL considered as too low quality to include in their tree. Hasanlu F38 (Medes?) is L584 so not associated with Yamnaya, as of yet.
 
Just a clarification.

The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.

Hajji-Firruz is a damaged sample positive for R-M12149* (which is upstream of both Z2106 and L584) that YFULL considered as too low quality to include in their tree. Hasanlu F38 (Medes?) is L584 so not associated with Yamnaya, as of yet.
Excellent post, thank you.
 
but it also reflects the history of culture and explains why certain ideas and beliefs are so prominent. Why do you think politicians and people in charge are policing the language in our society?

Besides, I'm quoting scholars who suggest that the Etruscans differ from the Romans not only linguistically but also culturally.



https://ancient-archeology.com/dna-has-finally-revealed-the-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans/

To me it makes perfectly sense that the Etruscans differ also culturally from their Roman neighbours. I believe that each language carves up the world somewhat differently. So each language provides its speakers with a particular worldview that won’t be quite the same as the one that speakers of other languages have. In other words, we see the world according to the framework.


Dear Angela, let me clarify some things. The Etruscans are no strangers to me. However, I had specific things in mind and focused on language as an integral part of human identity. It's strange to me how you deduced that I was talking about "greatness" or the lack thereof. But just for the sake of the argument, let me point out, that the Romans had to conquer the Etruscans, and subjugate them and all of Italy in order to become "great." In order to get access to the Etruscan achievements, they had to conquer them first. The bottom line, without their military, the Romans would be probably forever in the shadow of the Etruscans and Greeks.


― Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones.

In addition, I didn‘t write anything disparaging about the Etruscans, to begin with. Again, what I rather was doing was engaging in the idea that culture is reflected by language. In fact, I didn‘t claim that the Romans were better or worse than the Etruscans nor did I link them to the Nazis. Here's the thing, conservations would be less frustrating and less prone to misunderstanding if the discussion partners try to avoid reading too much into other people's comments or attributing words to others they actually didn't say. My point was that the Etruscans kept more of their pre-Indo-European culture than the Latins which is reflected by their language.



You keep talking about things you know very little. You don't have a point because you don't have knowledge on these topics that has nothing to do with this thread.


If you had a minimum of knowledge, which you don't, you would know that for years archaeologists have used a term to define the entire context before Romanization which is Etruscan-Italic world and sometimes Etruscan-Italic koiné. You keep bringing up concepts that are not only outdated, completely false, based on a dichotomous reading of old 19th century ideologies, that are even to be considered outdated in a forum today, let alone in a context of higher knowledge.


L'archeologia delle pratiche cultuali. Mondo etrusco-italico


https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/l-archeologia-delle-pratiche-cultuali-mondo-etrusco-italico_%28Il-Mondo-dell%27Archeologia%29/


Dai primi insediamenti al fenomeno urbano. Mondo etrusco-italico e romano


https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedi...italico-e-romano_(Il-Mondo-dell'Archeologia)/

 
Almost everything on this forum becomes about italians. Whether to 'criticize them' or 'defend them.' This is very tiring and tedious. People could leave Italians alone, at least on topics that have nothing to do with them.
 

This thread has been viewed 203040 times.

Back
Top