Genetic study The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

The VEN samples basically stayed as Samnite until after the

[h=2]Third Samnite War (298 to 290 BC)[/h]
A ceremonial Attic helmet typical of many found in Samnite tombs, c. 300 BC


[h=3]Outbreak[/h]In 299 BC, the Etruscans, possibly due to the Roman colony set up at Narnia in next-door Umbria, prepared for war against Rome. However, the Gauls invaded their territory, so, the Etruscans offered them money to form an alliance. The Gauls agreed, but then objected to fighting against Rome, claiming that the agreement was only about them not devastating Etruscan territory. So, instead, the Etruscans paid the Gauls off and dismissed them. This incident led the Romans to ally with the Picentes (who lived on the Adriatic coast, in the south of modern Marche) who were concerned about their neighbours, the Senone Gauls to the north, and the Pretutii to the south. The latter had allied with the Samnites. The Romans sent an army to Etruria led by the consul Titus Manlius Torquatus, who died in a riding accident. The Etruscans saw this as an omen for war. However, the Romans elected Marcus Valerius Corvus Calenus as suffect consul (an office which lasted for the remainder of the term of a deceased or removed consul) and he was sent to Etruria. This led the Etruscans to remain in their fortifications, refusing battle even though the Romans ravaged their land. Meanwhile, the Picentes warned the Romans that the Samnites were preparing for war and that they had asked them for help.[86]
Early in 298 BC a Lucanian delegation went to Rome to ask the Romans to take them under their protection as the Samnites, having failed to bring them into an alliance, had invaded their territory. Rome agreed to an alliance. Fetials were sent to Samnium to order the Samnites to leave Lucania. The Samnites threatened their safety and Rome declared war.[87][88] Dionysius of Halicarnassus thought that the cause of the war was not Roman compassion for the wronged, but fear of the strength the Samnites would gain if they subdued the Lucanians.[89] Oakley suggests that Rome might well have deliberately sought a new war with Samnium by allying with her enemies.[90]
 
Imagine anyone paying attention to "Of individuals associated with the first time interval, the vast majority (40 of 48) form a genetic cluster here named “C.Italy_Etruscan” that overlaps with present-day Spanish individuals in a principal components analysis (PCA) built with West Eurasian populations from the Human Origins dataset (Fig. 2A) (21). "

Too much talk about Levantines. When we have the value for A, we know we need to add (+) X, to get B (present) Italians.
Everyone out here discrediting the models. When qpADM, F3-f4 stats as well as PCAs were used, and only the models with apropriate P values were selected for conlusions, while the others mentioned in passing why they do not statistically provide the best fit.

Meanwhile, a simple PCA, non accurate historical populations, and a .20 P value for the Albanians was provided on the Danubian limes paper, and authority could not be questioned.

Really revealing.

You have A, you have B, find a better additional source X, with apropriate P value, then lets talk.

I myself proposed, CZE Early Slav on the Danubian Limes paper, would just have to account for the Gothic/Germanic component, and such model would have beat the "foremost scientists" or whoever they were. If not the best model certainly better than some fino Urgic population out of space and time to have contributed to the Balkans. And yet, in the end I made the concession, that if the scenario of a frame model to push a narrative was not the case, then certainly the authors had unpublished samples, to support using Mordovian/Russian, for Middle Age Slavs.

Here, we have 1) populations that were part of the Antonio paper, namely C4/5. 2) Populations that according to the unpublished Marathon sample used in the Danubian Limes had an impact on the whole, what has been attributed on Eupedia as, East Med Genetic continuum.

Now. What could bring Modern Spanish like autosomal populations, towards Venosa like samples?

There is a method to find out, where you run a calculator on the difference A - B.
Here I do not know the answer. But I am proposing a falsifiable, verifiable test.

I will go find out on Anthro, and let you know where this leads.

I proposed a way to test a hypothesis. Without having a clue what the results would be.
The results are in line with the thesis of the paper.

pCgBcDz.png

q3ZvAlF.png

uxbrVjk.png

Pi6E8C2.png

bsk52PZ.png



I hope you all can follow this.
 
@Angela,
Look at this map. The amount of Greek colonies in this map compared to many others is smaller, but I am not really sure if some of the cities were neglected by the author or all of them were abandoned or destroyed by this period of time. Magna Grecia started to decline during the 4th century. And Zancle, for example, in Sicily was destroyed by the Romans who killed all the men and took their women. The city was later renamed as Messina, which is what is called today. There are cases were some cities were destroyed by other Greeks, or absorbed by a big mother-city as Syracuse. One thing is that most those cities had a greater population than the average Italic settlement. I, specifically, left Sicily and Calabria ("in my list") out for obvious reasons. Also Sicilians and Calabrese migration in other Southern Italian provinces increased the Greek component and vice-versa the Apulian migration in Calabria and Sicily decreased the Greek component. To be honest I believe old Greeks made a modest impact in mainland South Italy outside of Calabria pretty much similar to Pontus or maybe less.
tARy19H.jpg
 
I proposed a way to test a hypothesis. Without having a clue what the results would be.
The results are in line with the thesis of the paper.

pCgBcDz.png

q3ZvAlF.png

uxbrVjk.png

Pi6E8C2.png

bsk52PZ.png



I hope you all can follow this.

No, I'm afraid I can't, Archetype, or rather, I can follow it, but I don't agree. I have no idea how you could say that your modeling supports the conclusions of the paper, at least as concerns the "legacy" of the Etruscans. No one is still arguing that the Etruscans came from Anatolia.

R850 was extensively analyzed and discussed in the Antonio et al paper. That sample was half local and half Aegean Islander like, NOT SOUTHERN LEVANTINE.

Maybe you can go back and check the work that was done in that thread.
 
Personally, I've shared the criticism that the slavic input is overestimated ( I think it is between 10%-20% in southern Balkanites) because 1) they chose Greek empuries for the whole Balkan,2) Mycenean average and Empuries average worked essentially in the same way but the former has high heterogeneity because it was the result of a recent invasion (so individuals with relatively high steppe and other with almost none) and the latter because of extremely likely Anatolian admixture so it isn't clear it would be a good proxy for IA greeks,3) from what I've seen they didn't take into consideration the inputs due to invading Germanics and east Iranics, 4) the haplo didn't support the estimated autosomal admixture, and Angela's post shares this concern too.
What was relentlessly bashed was the theory that Albanians were somehow pure logkas-like Balkanites that came to plot like north Greeks despite not sharing the same genetic processes with them (basically Albanians were already "north" whereas the Greeks were first pulled south and then north by "east meds" and Slavs). That theory is unattainable for obvious reasons; also I've said that it can well be that some of the "northern" ancestry in Albanians comes from a northern Balkanite population, while in Greeks it came straight with the Slavs, but if so I doubt it can account for much.

This paper has so many flaws that it is illogical, and I am willing to bet future papers will set the records straigh; to recapitulate some of these flaws, first of all it makes wild assumptions based on just six samples from the imperial period (and I am certain that they got their south Levantine fit because they've averaged also a guy that has some north african ancestry, it is the MAS003 sample that plot with an Etruscan that had north african admixture), and it doesn't take into consideration even the possibilities of much more proximate sources, individuals like the latin outliers first of all (this is a matter to investigate, but there were these individuals with Armenian BA-like or Croat IA-like admixture in Italy well before the empire), then the Balkans and Greece, and then Anatolia since the danubian limes paper showed that they made up the bulk of the near eastern immigrants (and it seems that the "east med" cluster of Antonio et al 2019 is made up of such individuals too); I get that they followed statistical procedures (but I believe I've already caught their "trick"), but when one gets such "odd results" such as straight half south Levantine admixture in Tuscany they usually caution "not too read too much" into them and to wait for future studies to settle the matter, but this one made a bold and so highly implausible claim, that "it was slaves and soldiers", that it makes the crazy "analysis" and theories I read on anthrogenica look sophisticated and plausible: were all north and central European slaves killed when their utility expired? Were all those that came from the east spared and apparently did they become so extremely wealthy and influential that they had no problems at outcompeting the locals in the "mating game"? Also, as with the Danubian limes paper, the haplo analysis is comical to say the least: they really sorted out all J1 and J2 clades in the branch J and claimed that "it came from the middle east": all the studies I've checked show that almost all the J subclades in Italy look Southeastern European (ultimately all from the caucasus), except a particular Italian subclade. This is really something I expected from Anthrogenica.

In the thead about the Daunian paper, before the danubian limes paper was published, I said that, if Anatolians turned out to be roughly a mix of CHH/iran_N and Anatolian_N, then they would theoretically be available as a source of gene flow for Italians since virtually all models of Italians have steppe, Iran_N/CHG, WHG and Anatolian_N, without any need for extra levantine_N, thus that I know that the bulk of the near easterners in the empire was made up of Anatolians (modelled as half balkan_IA and Anatolian_BA) I entertain the possibility that they left a not trivial genetic impact in Italy, I am even open to the possibility that there's some true Levantine in the mix in low amounts (less than 5%, that would explain why it went undetected so far): I have no "loath" towards the Levantines and I would sleep fine even if I turned out to be more than half Jordanian, not everybody has the same biases that are somehow common among those in this hobby, but I accept only rational, well backed up theories; the accusations I've seen on anthrogenica and sometimes here made towards those that criticise the "east med models" of beeing hidden antisemites slide off of me, and won't make up for the lack of a viable theory.

Speaking of Anthrogenica, I have browsed it and I've seen (again) peaks of ethnonarcisism that you usually find in nordicists in (at least allegedly) jews: their theory that the ethnogenesis of the western Jews happened overwhelmingly in the Levant, with little admixture during the diaspora, and they have this idea that they somehow "built hellenistic Greece and imperial Rome" and were the driving force in their development, and it is just because of a secondary matter of "necessary corollary theories" to explain other facts that they came up with their theories about Italy and Greece, and that's why many nordicists tagged in. I've read the post of one that commented the PCA leaked from the upcoming study about Campania who stated that "the campanian samples dated between 600 BC and 400 BC show an obvious pull towards Anatolians and Syrians", as if it were even remotely plausible that at the time Campania was swarming with such individuals or that Greek colonies had mostly Anatolians and Syrians.
First of all it flies on the face of historical evidence, because the hard truth (contra what many folks on anthrogenica believe) is that Greeks were quite xenophobic for a long time ("the invention of racism in classical antiquity" is my main reference, but usually Greek literature has plenty of "not politically correct" remarks towards many "barbarians"), and second there is no archeological evidence of such a massive presence of Anatolians and Syrians at those times. I swear that the only way I can "see" how they come up with such theories is that many think "southern Italians = super swarthy> Semitic admixture!" (because many Americans have quite a distorted idea of how southern Italians look like, let's say for questionable casting choices in Hollywood and especially those at anthrogenica have been exposed to the photos and results of "Sicilians" and other "southern Italians" in Sikeliot's threads).

To end this post, I've seen they are again after the theory that "the east med shift was caused by hellenistic greeks that were actually a mixture of Anatolians, Levantines and original Greeks", yet this paper is against such a theory: it has central Italians (and by implication other Italians) as a two way mixture of Latin/Etruscans and south Levantines, no greek or anatolian showing up, that is where the hellenistic culture was weakest outside the Decapolis, unless they came all from Jerusalem, Joppa and beersheba.

P.S. with "central Italians" I mean imperial central Italians (and other Italians south of them)

I agree with some of your points here.

One question, however; it concerns the two samples from TAQ. It's ETR001 and ETR015 which are Imperial Era, yes? ETR016 is slightly later.
 
No, I'm afraid I can't, Archetype, or rather, I can follow it, but I don't agree. I have no idea how you could say that your modeling supports the conclusions of the paper, at least as concerns the "legacy" of the Etruscans. No one is still arguing that the Etruscans came from Anatolia.

R850 was extensively analyzed and discussed in the Antonio et al paper. That sample was half local and half Aegean Islander like, NOT SOUTHERN LEVANTINE.

Maybe you can go back and check the work that was done in that thread.

Though we don't know the ultimate sources yet, in the Antonio et al paper he was modelled as something locals ( I can't recall if it was latin or copper age farmers) plus anatolia BA. Interesting enough also the one "near eastern" Etruscan outlier is modelled with Anatolia_BA.
My hunch is that it just works as a way to encrease caucasus-related ancestry, and the actual source was from somewhere in SE Europe or maybe western Anatolia.
P.S. It is ETR001 and ETR016 that are imperial (pink squares in the PCA)
 
@Angela,
Look at this map. The amount of Greek colonies in this map compared to many others is smaller, but I am not really sure if some of the cities were neglected by the author or all of them were abandoned or destroyed by this period of time. Magna Grecia started to decline during the 4th century. And Zancle, for example, in Sicily was destroyed by the Romans who killed all the men and took their women. The city was later renamed as Messina, which is what is called today. There are cases were some cities were destroyed by other Greeks, or absorbed by a big mother-city as Syracuse. One thing is that most those cities had a greater population than the average Italic settlement. I, specifically, left Sicily and Calabria ("in my list") out for obvious reasons. Also Sicilians and Calabrese migration in other Southern Italian provinces increased the Greek component and vice-versa the Apulian migration in Calabria and Sicily decreased the Greek component. To be honest I believe old Greeks made a modest impact in mainland South Italy outside of Calabria pretty much similar to Pontus or maybe less.
tARy19H.jpg

I'd be happy to look at any actual "proof" you have of that, but otherwise I'll wait to decide how much of an impact actually existed.

You also can't just look at the number of city-states; you have to look at the population and how far the farms etc. spread into the inland areas, remembering, as I pointed out with the pictures of the topography, the mountainous areas could support much smaller populations.

Fwiw, my husband's ancestors come from Napoli and Calabria, and in Calabria from the areas of Caulonia and Rhegium. Some of them were still speaking Greek until about 200 years ago.

That brings me to the comments about Greek speaking in southern Italy. From my recollection, Sicilians spoke both a Latin based language and Greek. I believe it was the same in mainland Southern Italy. How could it be otherwise?

"During the eighth and seventh centuries BC, Greek settlers founded many colonies (settlements) on the coast of southern Italy (Magna Grecia). In Calabria they founded Chone (Pallagorio), Cosentia (Cosenza), Clampetia (Amantea), Scyllaeum (Scilla), Sybaris (Sibari), Hipponion (Vibo Valentia), Locri Epizefiri (Locri), Kaulon (Monasterace), Krimisa (Cirò Marina), Kroton (Crotone), Laüs (comune of Santa Maria del Cedro), Medma (Rosarno), Metauros (Gioia Tauro), Petelia (Strongoli), Rhégion (Reggio Calabria), Scylletium (Borgia), Temesa (Campora San Giovanni), Terina (Nocera Terinese), Pandosia (Acri) and Thurii, (Thurio, comune of Corigliano Calabro).Rhegion was the birthplace of one of the famed nine lyric poets, Ibycus. Metauros was the birthplace of another of the nine lyric poets, Stesichorus, who was the first lyric poet of the western world. Kroton spawned many victors during the ancient Olympics and other Panhellenic Games. Amongst the most famous were Milo of Croton, who won six wrestling events in six Olympics in a row, along with seven events in the Pythian Games, nine events in the Nemean Games and ten events in the Isthmian Games and also Astylos of Croton, who won six running events in three Olympics in a row.[43] Through Alcmaeon of Croton (a philosopher and medical theorist) and Pythagoras (a mathematician and philosopher), who moved to Kroton in 530 BC, the city became a renowned center of philosophy, science and medicine. The Greeks of Sybaris created "Intellectual Property."[44] Sybaris benefited from "vinoducts" which were a series of pipes that carried wine to the homes of its citizens.[45][46] The Sybarite founded at least 20 other colonies, including Poseidonia (Paestum in Latin, on the Tyrrhenian coast of Lucania), Laüs (on the border with Lucania) and Scidrus (on the Lucanian coast in the Gulf of Taranto).[47] Locri was renowned for being the town where Zaleucus created the first Western Greek law, the "Locrian Code"[48][49] and the birthplace of ancient epigrammist and poet Nossis."





maxresdefault.jpg
 
I'd be happy to look at any actual "proof" you have of that, but otherwise I'll wait to decide how much of an impact actually existed.

Fwiw, the first map you posted of the range of the Greek dialects spoken is much more accurate.

Italian wiki regarding Magna Grecia has the best informative page (way better than the English one):
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Grecia

Apulia had 3 Greek cities compared to numerous native settlements. Abruzzes are very close to Apulians with zero Greek cities, that for me kinda makes it seem that it was more (primary) of an Imperial Rome inspired shift.

Also not all Greek cities were functional at the same time, there were cases when Greeks left one city to created another for whatever reason.
I've been proved wrong for my hypotheses quite a lot so ... I would wait too.
 
To end this post, I've seen they are again after the theory that "the east med shift was caused by hellenistic greeks that were actually a mixture of Anatolians, Levantines and original Greeks", yet this paper is against such a theory: it has central Italians (and by implication other Italians) as a two way mixture of Latin/Etruscans and south Levantines, no greek or anatolian showing up, that is where the hellenistic culture was weakest outside the Decapolis, unless they came all from Jerusalem, Joppa and beersheba.

P.S. with "central Italians" I mean imperial central Italians (and other Italians south of them)

i think the authors never really tried to find out the exact source populations that caused the shift. after all they only made a few 2 population models to get a rough direction, wrote a short hypothesis and that's it.
we have the etruscan cluster and we have the medieval central italian cluster and somehow this shift happened. i do think it was probably caused more by anatolians(which are also near eastern btw) and to a lesser extent maybe from people from the levant. and the authors themselves keep this option open.
 
Though we don't know the ultimate sources yet, in the Antonio et al paper he was modelled as something locals ( I can't recall if it was latin or copper age farmers) plus anatolia BA. Interesting enough also the one "near eastern" Etruscan outlier is modelled with Anatolia_BA.
My hunch is that it just works as a way to encrease caucasus-related ancestry, and the actual source was from somewhere in SE Europe or maybe western Anatolia.
P.S. It is ETR001 and ETR016 that are imperial (pink squares in the PCA)

I was going by what was written in the Supplement about which samples were Imperial Roman. I quoted it above.

As to the "mixed" sample, certainly not half Levantine.
 
I guess it needs to be said again: Apulia* was ruled by Byzantium and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the latter of which means that there was unrestricted travel and change of residence within its borders for over 1000 years.

It is a Southern Italian region, whether it is perhaps Central Italian geographically or not. You can't use modern populations to figure out ancient admixture.

I realize it may be difficult for some people to accept the huge impact Greece had on the ancient world, but it's a fact, in Italy as in Asia Minor and down into the Levant and into the northern coast of the Black Sea. It is what it is. It does no good to deny the obvious. There's a reason that the English, who saw their Empire as a descendant of the empires of the Classical Era, taught their upper class boys both Greek and Latin.

* The Abruzzi
 
Last edited:
I guess it needs to be said again: Apulia was ruled by Byzantium and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the latter of which means that there was unrestricted travel and change of residence within its borders for over 1000 years.

It is a Southern Italian region, whether it is perhaps Central Italian geographically or not. You can't use modern populations to figure out ancient admixture.

I realize it may be difficult for some people to accept the huge impact Greece had on the ancient world, but it's a fact, in Italy as in Asia Minor and down into the Levant and into the northern coast of the Black Sea. It is what it is. It does no good to deny the obvious. There's a reason that the English, who saw their Empire as a descendant of the empires of the Classical Era, taught their upper class boys both Greek and Latin.


Did you mean Abruzzo, right?
 
I guess it needs to be said again: Apulia was ruled by Byzantium and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the latter of which means that there was unrestricted travel and change of residence within its borders for over 1000 years.

It is a Southern Italian region, whether it is perhaps Central Italian geographically or not. You can't use modern populations to figure out ancient admixture.

I realize it may be difficult for some people to accept the huge impact Greece had on the ancient world, but it's a fact, in Italy as in Asia Minor and down into the Levant and into the northern coast of the Black Sea. It is what it is. It does no good to deny the obvious. There's a reason that the English, who saw their Empire as a descendant of the empires of the Classical Era, taught their upper class boys both Greek and Latin.

I have previously assumed a 15% to 20% of Greek impact in Apulia simply as a guess, I suppose maybe I am lowering it.

Again all my assumptions are done based on papers and historical data. I gave my reasoning why. Before that I used to believe Southern Italians were quite similar to the Greeks which turned out to be false. So I could be wrong again.
 
I'd be happy to look at any actual "proof" you have of that, but otherwise I'll wait to decide how much of an impact actually existed.

You also can't just look at the number of city-states; you have to look at the population and how far the farms etc. spread into the inland areas, remembering, as I pointed out with the pictures of the topography, the mountainous areas could support much smaller populations.

Fwiw, my husband's ancestors come from Napoli and Calabria, and in Calabria from the areas of Caulonia and Rhegium. Some of them were still speaking Greek until about 200 years ago.

That brings me to the comments about Greek speaking in southern Italy. From my recollection, Sicilians spoke both a Latin based language and Greek. I believe it was the same in mainland Southern Italy. How could it be otherwise?

"During the eighth and seventh centuries BC, Greek settlers founded many colonies (settlements) on the coast of southern Italy (Magna Grecia). In Calabria they founded Chone (Pallagorio), Cosentia (Cosenza), Clampetia (Amantea), Scyllaeum (Scilla), Sybaris (Sibari), Hipponion (Vibo Valentia), Locri Epizefiri (Locri), Kaulon (Monasterace), Krimisa (Cirò Marina), Kroton (Crotone), Laüs (comune of Santa Maria del Cedro), Medma (Rosarno), Metauros (Gioia Tauro), Petelia (Strongoli), Rhégion (Reggio Calabria), Scylletium (Borgia), Temesa (Campora San Giovanni), Terina (Nocera Terinese), Pandosia (Acri) and Thurii, (Thurio, comune of Corigliano Calabro).Rhegion was the birthplace of one of the famed nine lyric poets, Ibycus. Metauros was the birthplace of another of the nine lyric poets, Stesichorus, who was the first lyric poet of the western world. Kroton spawned many victors during the ancient Olympics and other Panhellenic Games. Amongst the most famous were Milo of Croton, who won six wrestling events in six Olympics in a row, along with seven events in the Pythian Games, nine events in the Nemean Games and ten events in the Isthmian Games and also Astylos of Croton, who won six running events in three Olympics in a row.[43] Through Alcmaeon of Croton (a philosopher and medical theorist) and Pythagoras (a mathematician and philosopher), who moved to Kroton in 530 BC, the city became a renowned center of philosophy, science and medicine. The Greeks of Sybaris created "Intellectual Property."[44] Sybaris benefited from "vinoducts" which were a series of pipes that carried wine to the homes of its citizens.[45][46] The Sybarite founded at least 20 other colonies, including Poseidonia (Paestum in Latin, on the Tyrrhenian coast of Lucania), Laüs (on the border with Lucania) and Scidrus (on the Lucanian coast in the Gulf of Taranto).[47] Locri was renowned for being the town where Zaleucus created the first Western Greek law, the "Locrian Code"[48][49] and the birthplace of ancient epigrammist and poet Nossis."





maxresdefault.jpg

I have always believed Calabrese were "enriched" with ancient Greek ancestry, aside from the fact the region was more largely in the hand of the Greeks but also because even it's cities were not damaged by wars in the same it happened to Sicilian Greeks (mainly during the Punic wars).
I am not really sure if the map is disagreeing with my opinion.

Either way Greeks might have been more numerous in Apulia, Basilicata and Campania than the Imperial Roman migrants, it's just that the shift maybe ... MAYBE was not was great as it was from the Imperial Rome, because Greeks, Mycenaean-like Greeks were closer to Italic and Native Apulian people than Imperial Roman populations thus causing a smaller shift despite being greater in numbers ... just my opinion.
 
I have always believed Calabrese were "enriched" with ancient Greek ancestry, aside from the fact the region was more largely in the hand of the Greeks but also because even it's cities were not damaged by wars in the same it happened to Sicilian Greeks (mainly during the Punic wars).
I am not really sure if the map is disagreeing with my opinion.

Either way Greeks might have been more numerous in Apulia, Basilicata and Campania than the Imperial Roman migrants, it's just that the shift maybe ... MAYBE was not was great as it was from the Imperial Rome, because Greeks, Mycenaean-like Greeks were closer to Italic and Native Apulian people than Imperial Roman populations thus causing a smaller shift despite being greater in numbers ... just my opinion.


what Greek influence in Apulia ? did you read the Daunian apaer

the Daunians, a Iapygian population from northern Apulia, were first mentioned in the 7th-6th century BCE7, 8. Similarly to their neighbouring populations, Peucetians and Messapians (living in central and southern Apulia, respectively), the name of the Daunians comes from ancient Greek documents and, given the absence of written Daunian records, the scant information we have on their social, political and religious life are wholly reliant upon the material record, such as their one-of-a-kind stelae8. For instance, we know that they were mainly farmers, animal breeders, horsemen and maritime traders with an established trade network extending across the sea with Illyrian tribes810. A fascinating aspect of this population, as opposed to their neighbours in Apulia, was their tenacious resistance to external influences. For instance, they did not acquire either social or cultural Hellenic elements and no Greek alphabet inscriptions have been found in their settlements. Indeed, they retained a strong cultural identity and political autonomy until the Roman arrival in the late 4th - early 3rd century BCE8.

Within the described Pan Mediterranean landscape, the IAA/Daunians show a compelling heterogeneity, and the highest genetic affinity to Republican Romans and Iron Age Croatians, while Minoans and other Iron Age Greek samples show absent or reduced WHG contribution

Daunian culture and may also help in unravelling their mysterious origin. In particular, the forearm decorations on a female stela have been interpreted as tattoos and, while tattooing practices were considered barbarian among the Greeks27, they were customary in populations from Tracia and Illyria and, more generally, among the women of status from the Balkans8, 28.

As per the Daunian thread....the only close Greek city was Taranto which never was messapic and in fact the Messapic destroyed a Spartan army coming from Taranto to attack them
 
Did you mean Abruzzo, right?

Yes, sorry, I just edited it.

I had to leave the computer and didn't check it before pressing submit reply.
 
I have always believed Calabrese were "enriched" with ancient Greek ancestry, aside from the fact the region was more largely in the hand of the Greeks but also because even it's cities were not damaged by wars in the same it happened to Sicilian Greeks (mainly during the Punic wars).
I am not really sure if the map is disagreeing with my opinion.

Either way Greeks might have been more numerous in Apulia, Basilicata and Campania than the Imperial Roman migrants, it's just that the shift maybe ... MAYBE was not was great as it was from the Imperial Rome, because Greeks, Mycenaean-like Greeks were closer to Italic and Native Apulian people than Imperial Roman populations thus causing a smaller shift despite being greater in numbers ... just my opinion.



We really need samples from, say, the Bruttii as well as from first millennium B.C. Greek settlers, yes?

If the Greek settlers were Mycenaean like, they wouldn't be very close to Italic like peoples, who would have more WHG and more steppe. If samples are found of late Bronze Age mainland South Italians, then perhaps they would be closer to Mycenaeans.

Does anyone remember how the Bronze Age Sicilians compared to the Mycenaeans?

Of course, if the settlers were more northern shifted, then indeed it might be difficult to tell them apart from the Italics. Going by that PCA leaked from the Napoli paper, however, that doesn't seem to be the case, I don't think. It will be interesting to compare those Greek settlers from Napoli to the Daunians.
 
what Greek influence in Apulia ? did you read the Daunian apaer

the Daunians, a Iapygian population from northern Apulia, were first mentioned in the 7th-6th century BCE7, 8. Similarly to their neighbouring populations, Peucetians and Messapians (living in central and southern Apulia, respectively), the name of the Daunians comes from ancient Greek documents and, given the absence of written Daunian records, the scant information we have on their social, political and religious life are wholly reliant upon the material record, such as their one-of-a-kind stelae8. For instance, we know that they were mainly farmers, animal breeders, horsemen and maritime traders with an established trade network extending across the sea with Illyrian tribes810. A fascinating aspect of this population, as opposed to their neighbours in Apulia, was their tenacious resistance to external influences. For instance, they did not acquire either social or cultural Hellenic elements and no Greek alphabet inscriptions have been found in their settlements. Indeed, they retained a strong cultural identity and political autonomy until the Roman arrival in the late 4th - early 3rd century BCE8.

Within the described Pan Mediterranean landscape, the IAA/Daunians show a compelling heterogeneity, and the highest genetic affinity to Republican Romans and Iron Age Croatians, while Minoans and other Iron Age Greek samples show absent or reduced WHG contribution

Daunian culture and may also help in unravelling their mysterious origin. In particular, the forearm decorations on a female stela have been interpreted as tattoos and, while tattooing practices were considered barbarian among the Greeks27, they were customary in populations from Tracia and Illyria and, more generally, among the women of status from the Balkans8, 28.

As per the Daunian thread....the only close Greek city was Taranto which never was messapic and in fact the Messapic destroyed a Spartan army coming from Taranto to attack them

Haven't you answered your own question for goodness' sakes?

The Greeks of Taras (Taranto) and Calliapolis were in PUGLIA, right next to the Messsapians. They just weren't in the northern part of Puglia.
 
There's an odd portion of the Supplement where they talk about Venosa. They first talk about the fact that the samples are carbon dated up to 800 C.E. Then they wax prolific about the "Muslim" presence, a presence which began in 850 C.E. Irrelevant, much?

Any "Muslim" influence on Basilicata or northern Puglia, whether from the extremely short lived (unlike Sicily) Muslim "kingdom" there, or the settling of some "Saracen" soldiers near Foggia, before they were executed or enslaved, would have had no effect on samples dated before 800 C.E.

I'd also point out that our Southern Italian members get decent matches with Venosa samples, despite the lack of Muslim input. :)

The best way of gauging Saracen input is E-M81. There's not tons of it.

If I'm missing something obvious, let me know. It's late and it's been a hell of a day. :)
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 137715 times.

Back
Top