Southern Ancestry in "Steppe"

Proto-Italic was a PIE dialect, sound changes mostly happened after migrations to other lands.
I doubt highly that proto-Italic was a direct PIE dialect. The mainstream theory is it was part at first of a Celtic-Italic group of languages which origin could have been in the northern BB's continuum of dialects.
 
The folk group history named Italics were not yet born at the immediately post-PIE times IMO! I stop here on this question!
 
Elamites were actually an Italic people who lived in Hidali/Idali (Itali): https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali Hatamti people lived in the same region, Akkadians called both of them as Elamites.

The term "Italia" doesn't have anything to do with "Elam". It derives from the Oscan "Vitalus" (Pronounced: we-tah-loose) which means "Calf" or "Young Bull". Italy was named after the Oenotrean King Vitalus (Bull King) who was famed for converting his society from crop based to a pastoral/cattle based society. His tribe had taken up his title as an endonym which would've been pronounced as "Vitali/Itali" or "Vitalae" as plural. According to Antiochus of Syracuse this was the first Italic tribe the Greek colonists had come into contact with, so they simply applied their endonym to all related tribes which they would later encounter in Italy. The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily. Anyways the term seemed to be accepted amongst most other Italic tribes and later the Romans would go on to adopt it as a descriptor of their own ethnic group. Once all of Italy had fallen under the Roman domain, it would be used to define the tribes that were considered part of the Roman nation state (Roman Italy) in contrast to foreigners such as Gauls, Carthaginians, Germanics etc.
 
Good answer Vitruvius - this *vitali/witali word seems in tight relation with the other Romance words as vitello, veau, vedel (Italian, French, Occitan) for calf - as a rule Greek lost the initial I-E *w- at the beginning of words.
 
The term "Italia" doesn't have anything to do with "Elam". It derives from the Oscan "Vitalus" (Pronounced: we-tah-loose) which means "Calf" or "Young Bull". Italy was named after the Oenotrean King Vitalus (Bull King) who was famed for converting his society from crop based to a pastoral/cattle based society. His tribe had taken up his title as an endonym which would've been pronounced as "Vitali/Itali" or "Vitalae" as plural. According to Antiochus of Syracuse this was the first Italic tribe the Greek colonists had come into contact with, so they simply applied their endonym to all related tribes which they would later encounter in Italy. The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily. Anyways the term seemed to be accepted amongst most other Italic tribes and later the Romans would go on to adopt it as a descriptor of their own ethnic group. Once all of Italy had fallen under the Roman domain, it would be used to define the tribes that were considered part of the Roman nation state (Roman Italy) in contrast to foreigners such as Gauls, Carthaginians, Germanics etc.
Name of Hidali in Elam also means "land of young cattle", it is from Elamite hidu "young goat, sheep" https://ids.clld.org/units/216-110 cognate with Latin haedus "young goat, sheep" and English goat.
 
Name of Hidali in Elam also means "land of young cattle", it is from Elamite hidu "young goat, sheep" https://ids.clld.org/units/216-110 cognate with Latin haedus "young goat, sheep" and English goat.
However a goat or sheep is not the same as a calf/bull. The etymology here is different. Also, we already know that the Italics have no genetic links with Iran. They very clearly show European, Anatolian and Caucasian origins, but that's about it.
 
The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily.
However a goat or sheep is not the same as a calf/bull. The etymology here is different. Also, we already know that the Italics have no genetic links with Iran. They very clearly show European, Anatolian and Caucasian origins, but that's about it.
About Calabria and Sicily look at these Genetic studies:

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy


41598_2021_82591_Fig4_HTML.png
 
there is no direct link between (W)Itali and Hidali + first Italics seem bing come from North after a common cradle with Celts and other Western I-E peoples and evident contacts with Germanics and even Slavs at least at the linguistic level.
It's possible and even probable they had early contact after with Italy Greeks and so absorbed another "dosis" of so called 'Iranic' genomic input (a "second hand" one in fact) through the Metal Ages Anatolian contacts and inputs. A relatively light input doesn't imply this input was the ethnically founding one, far from that indeed.
 
About Calabria and Sicily look at these Genetic studies:

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy


41598_2021_82591_Fig4_HTML.png
I've seen these studies in the past. The issue with them is the fact that they do not bother to try to differentiate between Neolithic N. Caucasian, S. Caucasian, Mesopotamian and Iranic input. They treat them all as if they are the same. All of these components while having a degree of relation are not identical. If you differentiate between these ancestries, what you find is that all southern Europeans, in fact derive their eastern ancestry ultimately from Neolithic Armenia and not Neolithic Iran. The same is true for BA and IA Anatolians who transported this profile to southern Europe in the first place. Western Sicilians are the only population that score any Iran_N whatsoever and I'm more inclined to think this is probably an calculator error due to our relative lack of samples needed to better map the full breadth of the Neolithic S. Caucasian profile.

Italy modern neolithic sources.png
 
I've seen these studies in the past. The issue with them is the fact that they do not bother to try to differentiate between Neolithic N. Caucasian, S. Caucasian, Mesopotamian and Iranic input. They treat them all as if they are the same. All of these components while having a degree of relation are not identical. If you differentiate between these ancestries, what you find is that all southern Europeans, in fact derive their eastern ancestry ultimately from Neolithic Armenia and not Neolithic Iran. The same is true for BA and IA Anatolians who transported this profile to southern Europe in the first place. Western Sicilians are the only population that score any Iran_N whatsoever and I'm more inclined to think this is probably an calculator error due to our relative lack of samples needed to better map the full breadth of the Neolithic S. Caucasian profile.

View attachment 14858
But these studies say different things, for example in the first one we read:

We detect definitive evidence of Iranian-related ancestry in an Iron Age Sardinian I10366 (391-209 calBCE) with an estimate of 11.9 ± 3.7.% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry.
In the Sardinian_LateAntiquity group (the earliest dating to 256-403 calCE), we detect even higher proportions of Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry: an estimated 29.6 ± 4.6.%.
We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA (Fig. 2b). Specifically, two of the Middle Bronze Age individuals can only be fit with models that in addition to Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG, include Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.
 
But these studies say different things, for example in the first one we read:

We detect definitive evidence of Iranian-related ancestry in an Iron Age Sardinian I10366 (391-209 calBCE) with an estimate of 11.9 ± 3.7.% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry.
In the Sardinian_LateAntiquity group (the earliest dating to 256-403 calCE), we detect even higher proportions of Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry: an estimated 29.6 ± 4.6.%.
We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA (Fig. 2b). Specifically, two of the Middle Bronze Age individuals can only be fit with models that in addition to Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG, include Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.

These models you posted exclude the possibility of neolithic Armenian ancestry so they will always default to using different types of ancestry in its place. They key word here is "Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry", which if you read the study it specifies that this is actually a combination of CHG and Iranian Neolithic. The authors are just broadly generalizing an ancestry component that's associated with Caucasian hunter gatherers and Iran. They're not investigating the matter further, nor do they touch on the neolithic Caucasus:

"Mosaic plot of admixture ancestry profiles as inferred by qpAdm. Admixture profiles of Italian population groups included in the modern extended dataset have been tested using a four-population model including CHG/Iran_Neolithic, WHG, Steppe_EMBA and Anatolian_Neolithic as putative ancient source groups."
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 36664 times.

Back
Top