Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

Archaeologically speaking Latins and Etruscans can be differentiate in the LBA IE...Protovillanova facies of Tolfa Allumiere (North Latium) and Colli Albani (Rome) are different in many ways

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Salento said:
Does anyone know if emperor Claudius spoke Etruscan at home as a kid (Similar to how some Italians speak their dialect only with friends and relatives.), or if he learned it from his Etruscan wife?
Click to expand...

I would doubt the imperial family spoke Etruscan at home, so it was probably from his wife. It's a great pity that all the books he wrote on the Etruscans were lost. He was certainly fascinated by them.
 
suyindik said:
I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.
Click to expand...


The place of origin for these haplogroups has nothing to do with the origins of the Etruscans who are an ethnos emerged between the late Bronze Age and first Iron Age. Of course Etruscans could have also carried some of these haplogroups but like almost any other ethnos of Pre Roman Italy.
 
Angela said:
I would doubt the imperial family spoke Etruscan at home, so it was probably from his wife. It's a great pity that all the books he wrote on the Etruscans were lost. He was certainly fascinated by them.
Click to expand...

Briquel explains why, saying it between the lines, Etruscan texts were likely lost.

Etruscan religion was the last obstacle to Christianization. Used by the pagan Romans themselves as a identity defence against the new religions coming from the East, including the Christianity.

http://www.fondazionecanussio.org/atti2007/9_briquel.pdf
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
The links between the Rhaetians and Etruscans are surely related to the Brenner pass based on the theoretical distribution of Rhaetic. Interestingly enough, archaeologically, that would suggest a Bell Beaker origin. I find that hard to believe though - basically I'm really confused if that isn't obvious enough. I still think Minoan is related to Anatolian, and the more I Google the more likely it seems.
Click to expand...

You probably know that despite the lack of decipherment of Linear A there are some Egyptian inscriptions in the Keftiu language i.e. Cretan/Minoan, but as far as I have read about them no scholar has been able to convincingly demonstrate they can be read as Anatolian IE:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]http://www.musiklexikon.ac.at:8000/buecher/files/aegypten_und_levante1/Band_12/12_Kyriakidis_211-220.pdf

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]http://minoablog.blogspot.com/2010/02/minoan-incantations-on-egyptian-papyri.html[/FONT]
 
Pax Augusta said:
It would be necessary to read something first on the subject. What you consider is irrelevant. If you really want to discuss it seriously. Unsopported claims in forums do not change what archeology has found. There is no evidence that North Picene language is linked to Proto-Villanovan. Various regional cultures emerge from the Proto-Villanovan, including Atestine culture.

Proto-Villanovan culture has nothing to do with West Asia. A West Asian influence does not tell us anything, and is in any case intrusive.

If you were really prepared on the subject and not so busy trying to prove what you like, you would know that the practice of incineration was still very common in Villanovan. And that J in Italy is much more common in the Italic areas, especially the Oscan-Adriatic ones.
So what does it prove? That the Italics also come from Asia Minor?
Click to expand...
IIRC, in early 2018 or 2017 , a paper that north Picene and its script was Liburnian ....while southh Picene was Umbrian , the two Picene was not named after a populace, but of an area.
while Josef Niederle stated they are Creole-Greek.
.
Another angle is this recent findings stating the sabellic entered italy from noricum and settled in south-central Italy , with one group settling in Picene lands
Strabo claims sabines are Picenes ...........and we know sabines and sabellic are the same people
http://onomastics.ru/sites/default/files/doi/10.15826/vopr_onom.2018.15.2.017.pdf
unsure of this papers value
 
suyindik said:
I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.
If we consider:
1. The place of origin for E to be in the "Levant" and "North Africa".
2. The place of origin for L and T to be in "Mesopotamia", "Eastern Turkey" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Southern Caucasus").
3. The place of origin for G and J to be in "Southern Caucasus" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Mesopotamia").
It means that in the Neolithic period(after 8000 BCE), these 3 groups formed one group by mixing, and discovered the "Farming".
After this they made migrations to Europe starting in the Neolithic. Cultures like LBK are the groups of people that came within the Neolithic migration from West Asia.
This doesnt mean that after this, there wasnt a second(or third, or more) migration (by the groups of people with the same Neolithic West Asian origin).
Maybe the same group that is often being labeled by the scientists as "Iranian farmers", made migrations to the Italian region during the Bronze and Iron Ages also. The starting point of these secondary migrations doenst have to be Mesopotamia. Maybe people with the same farming-origin from EEF regions(Germany, France, Hungary, etc..), migrated during the Bronze/Iron Age to Italy(after the groups of people from the Steppe regions came into their regions). And at the same time maybe groups of people with the same farming-origin who lived during the Bronze/Iron Ages still in West Asia(Eastern Turkey, Mesopotamia, Western Iran) made migrations to Italy through Western Turkey and Greece?
This all doesnt change the fact that they are the same people from before the Pre Pottery Neolithic period. They only made multiple migrations during multiple periods.
Click to expand...
your #1 is OK and they are the first farmers
Numbers 2 and 3 can be palced together in the south caucasus and all began as EHG , all 2 and 3 can be also be found north of the caspian seas and also in eastern kazakstan
 
suyindik said:
I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.

If we consider:

1. The place of origin for E to be in the "Levant" and "North Africa".
2. The place of origin for L and T to be in "Mesopotamia", "Eastern Turkey" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Southern Caucasus").
3. The place of origin for G and J to be in "Southern Caucasus" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Mesopotamia").

It means that in the Neolithic period(after 8000 BCE), these 3 groups formed one group by mixing, and discovered the "Farming".
After this they made migrations to Europe starting in the Neolithic. Cultures like LBK are the groups of people that came within the Neolithic migration from West Asia.
This doesnt mean that after this, there wasnt a second(or third, or more) migration (by the groups of people with the same Neolithic West Asian origin).

Maybe the same group that is often being labeled by the scientists as "Iranian farmers", made migrations to the Italian region during the Bronze and Iron Ages also. The starting point of these secondary migrations doenst have to be Mesopotamia. Maybe people with the same farming-origin from EEF regions(Germany, France, Hungary, etc..), migrated during the Bronze/Iron Age to Italy(after the groups of people from the Steppe regions came into their regions). And at the same time maybe groups of people with the same farming-origin who lived during the Bronze/Iron Ages still in West Asia(Eastern Turkey, Mesopotamia, Western Iran) made migrations to Italy through Western Turkey and Greece?

This all doesnt change the fact that they are the same people from before the Pre Pottery Neolithic period. They only made multiple migrations during multiple periods.
Click to expand...

Took my thoughts and suspicions right our of my head with that post bro.

Do we know if Etruscans were homogeneous genetically? Or even linguistically?

From the research I did all linguistic analysis of Etruscan we have is combinatorics. Meaning no "Rosseta Stone" key to make our life easier in that regard. Do we even know if this Etruscans were homogeneous linguistically?

If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.

Too bad genetic samples for the period in Asia minor are so scarse...
 
Archetype0ne said:
Took my thoughts and suspicions right our of my head with that post bro.

Do we know if Etruscans were homogeneous genetically? Or even linguistically?

From the research I did all linguistic analysis of Etruscan we have is combinatorics. Meaning no "Rosseta Stone" key to make our life easier in that regard. Do we even know if this Etruscans were homogeneous linguistically?

If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.

Too bad genetic samples for the period in Asia minor are so scarse...
Click to expand...

The Dodecapolis surely was homogeneous linguistically.
 
For the perhaps thousandths time: WE HAVE NO PUBLISHED AUTOSOMAL DNA FOR THE ETRUSCANS.

All we have is some old, very unresolved mtDna which tells us nothing to resolve these questions, because at that state of resolution it's impossible to tell if it came in the Bronze/Iron Age or the Neolithic. Indeed, taken as a whole they most resemble the Central European Neolithic, or at least German mtDna, which has large percentages of Neolithic mtDna, as does most of Europe.

Please use the search engine under Etruscans and you'll get the discussions.

It is off-topic for this thread. THEY HAVE NO ETRUSCAN samples.

If you're interested in them, there's quite a few recent large compendiums on them in addition to the work by Italian experts. Three of them are listed in this article. I can personally attest that Jean McIntosh Turfa's is excellent. They're extremely expensive. I read it on inter-library loan, which is not optimum because you can't write notes on it or go back to check things. One or more of them may be available on google books.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018-04-41.html
 
Archetype0ne said:
Took my thoughts and suspicions right our of my head with that post bro.

Do we know if Etruscans were homogeneous genetically? Or even linguistically?

From the research I did all linguistic analysis of Etruscan we have is combinatorics. Meaning no "Rosseta Stone" key to make our life easier in that regard. Do we even know if this Etruscans were homogeneous linguistically?

If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.

Too bad genetic samples for the period in Asia minor are so scarse...
Click to expand...

Prof.Dr. Firudin Ağasıoğlu Celilov, from Azerbaijan, has books regarding the origin of the Etruscans. He has read the Lemnos Inscriptions(located at the stele at the Aegean Sea) which is linked to the Etruscans.
 
Archetype0ne said:
If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...


In English, some of the most outdated books on Etruscans.


1) Sybille Haynes, Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2000.

2) Jean MacIntosh Turfa, The Etruscan World. London: Routledge, 2013.

3) Christopher Smith, The Etruscans: A Very Short Introduction, 2014

4) S. Bell and A. Carpino, A Companion to the Etruscans, Oxford; Chichester; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.

5) Alessandro Naso, (ed.) Etruscology (2 vols.). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2017



For a quick start it's enough to read this (number 3 in the list)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Etruscans-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199547912
 
Is " The Mysterious Etruscans by Steven L. Tuck" Any good?

Most books I consume in Audiobook format nowadays. I find it is a great trade-off for my time... that triology is sadly not on Audible.

But I will definitively get my hands on the trilogy you suggested one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
suyindik said:
Prof.Dr. Firudin Ağasıoğlu Celilov, from Azerbaijan, has books regarding the origin of the Etruscans. He has read the Lemnos Inscriptions(located at the stele at the Aegean Sea) which is linked to the Etruscans.
Click to expand...

Lemnian is already accepted as being related to Etruscan... by the way, are you that guy who spammed everyone's Twitter with nonsense talk about the Sumerians?
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
Lemnian is already accepted as being related to Etruscan... by the way, are you that guy who spammed everyone's Twitter with nonsense talk about the Sumerians?
Click to expand...
yes, from etruscan traders
oldest lemnian is only 500 BC .......over 400 years younger than etruscan
Lemnians spoke something else before 500BC
 
Good grief! The Naso book is $330.00. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan.

The Turfa book can now be bought used for 40 and a new paperback version for 60, so it's come way down. I might get it for reference.
 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...from-Aegeans-and-Levantine-admixture&p=545645

Ajeje Brazorf said:
Also, Ryukendo's post nowhere says that "Sicilian-like" individuals were half Roman and half Levantine, it just says that there are individuals with Levant_N which is very vague since this component was already present in Greeks and other Europeans for example. What is labelled as South Italian could also include people not closely related to them like Mycenaeans or STR_300 who are read as South Italians because they are the closest population, yes but still a distant one genetically.
Click to expand...

Ryukendo said:
Clarifying: no, this component was not present in the other populations in the ADMIXTURE (incl all other European Ancients or Italians prior to Iron Age, not even Anatolia BA) and its sporadic distribution (in a few individuals at very high levels, rest have less or none) in the Iron Age to Imperial was clearly intrusive to the population at the time. Later Italians have it at a low level homogeneously.

The PCA represented modern populations only plus the ancients in this study and plotted only the cluster centroids of moderns as crosses with population labels, with ancients as masses of points, so the S _IT and SICILIAN referred clearly to the populations labeled and nothing else.

I don't know if it was "more levantine than it was now" but there was definitely a long tail of admixed individuals pointing towards Syrians and Iraqi Jews in the Imperial period.
Click to expand...

More from poster who went to the talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 41286 times.

Back
Top