posted
The only question to ask is...who are these Neolithics
Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean Margaret L. Antonio1*,
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Pritchard explained that it wasn’t until around 3,000 years ago that the inhabitants of Rome started to genetically resemble modern residents of today.
The analysis found that ancient Romans were from all around Europe, the Near East and northern Africa - rather than just an isolated enclave of Rome and its surrounding areas.
Jonathan Pritchard, co-author of the study and geneticist based in Stanford University, said: “Rome was a cosmopolitan, melting-pot kind of place.
We know indigenous North Africans and Arabs are black not like the Turks that occupy today,
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The 'Romans' proper are but a subgroup of the ethnicity known as Latines, with Rome originally being one of various city-states in the nation of Latium in west central Italy until the Rome conquered all the others and unified Latium under its leadership.
That they possess Sardinian Neolithic ancestry makes them no different from many Italians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big surprise for me was that Iron Age/Republic-era Romans were apparently closest to northern Italians as far as modern populations are concerned. I would've thought the southern Italians would be closer to the original Latins since northerners would presumably have received more admixture with Gallic and Germanic peoples. But then, who would have admixed with the southern Italians to pull them away from the founding Latins?
posted
^ That's a good question and this topic was actually first broached well over a decade ago when I was new in this forum and the Egyptology and Ancient Egypt boards were one and the discussion then was about alleged racial differences between Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians.
I recall bringing up the fact that such regional differences between populations especially along latitudinal lines of north vs. south is a common occurrence and can be seen for example in Italy. Anthropological differences. The Italians vary anthropologically from area to area. The results of a survey based on about 300,000 conscripts born between 1859 and 1863 have been confirmed by subsequent research. They provide interesting conclusions about Italians from different regions in the late 19th century, though internal migration has made great subsequent changes. The cephalic index, a measure of the proportions of the skull, decreases from north to south; that is, brachycephalic (squat-headed) people are found in the Po Valley and around the Alps, extending into central Italy as far as the province of Rieti, though less marked. A similar area, even narrower, includes part of the Abruzzi, Campania, and Basilicata. Conversely, all the south is generally dolichocephalic (long-headed), particularly Calabria, southern Puglia, and Sicily, and most of all Sardinia. The north has some areas of pronounced dolichocephaly in east Liguria, southern Piedmont, and particularly northwest Tuscany. In stature the inhabitants are generally smaller in the south. Three areas have relatively tall inhabitants: the largest area covers part of Venetia, the second is halfway between Tuscany and Emilia, and the third is in northeast Lombardy. The areas of small stature stretch from southern Marche to the south, becoming gradually more pronounced, especially in Sardinia. Although the greatest dolichocephaly and the smallest stature seem to coincide, there is no correlation; the small stature is largely the product of socioeconomic environment. Italians are predominantly dark, though fair types are found in northern Italy, relatives of the fair natives of Savoy, Switzerland, and Austria. Throughout the Po Valley the people are notably darker than in Tuscany, Umbria, and Marche, in central Italy. Another area with fair types is found slightly farther south, in Sannio and Irpinia. Sardinia, again, has the highest frequency of dark types. Despite modifications through internal migration, this analysis of anthropological characteristics is still reliable for studying the origins of Italians from Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol 22, 15th Ed.; Italy
Even today Italian people themselves distinguish themselves between north and south and this distinction often has racial connotations with those of the Padan Plain of the north viewing themselves as 'whiter' than the darker southerners, while the Central Italians of modern Rome seem to have an intermediate ambiguous position.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Cosmopolitan Roman Empire incrued Levantines and Mediterranean & North Tropical Africans Pre Repulic/Imperial Rome Italians would have less of those elements Physical geography may suggest earliest flow with supra Alpine Europeans
Ancestral Latians themselves crossed down from supra Alpine Europe, probably living near Gauls etc before then
Just guessing the N Trop & Med Afrs and Levantines & Arabs pulled southern Italians away from the Latian 'founding Latins'
posted
^ No doubt some of the admixture you speak of occurred back in the Neolithic with the Supra-Saharan component even confirmed by dental evidence as cited by Irish not to mention Sub-Saharan influence in Sicily via Benin HBS etc. I wonder about the Anatolian influence since there is a growing body of evidence connecting the Etruscans with the certain pre-Hellenic groups in Greece and Lemnos who are culturally related to those in Western Anatolia. As for Levantines, I know for a fact that during Imperial times Sicily was the major port of Levantine slaves into Italy.
Let's not even mention the extra doses of African and Levantine ancestry that came in during the Islamic invasions.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The male J2 traces could be Neolithic as much or more as Bronze/Iron Ditto for some mtDNA traces Etruscan contrary to Latin is nonIndoEuropean. Etruscans and Latins are seemingly biological close relatives autosome-wise
I dunno Kinda complex from the Alps down to Sicily And the other Italics aren't yet in the thread Not forgetting Greek major settlers either
Hope you T and Xyy chime in w/more info 'be nice to pick an era and go back in time from there and maybe limit probing to a prescribed region or adjoining regions
posted
The "Sardinian Neolithic" people were the descendants of Neolithic migrants into Europe who originated mostly in Anatolia.
Much of Italy was populated by such people. The reason they are identified with Sardinia now, is that Sardinia still retains a very high % of Neolithic ancestry relative to the rest of Western Europe.
But that Anatolian Neolithic ancestry is present all over Europe, from Scandinavia to Iberia to Italy.
The Latini were in part the descendants of Yamnaya steppe immigrants. They were mixed with Neolithics, and long before they'd entered Italy. Some claim that the original Romans also included Trojans, also descendants of the Indoeuropean "Yamnaya" people.
In a discussion of anywhere in the Mediterranean world, it must be remembered that people were migrating all around that sea since the Upper Palaeolithic. Europeans and Levantines in the Maghreb, Eurasians in Egypt, Africans in the Levant and SE Europe, Maghrebians in Iberia... and on and on.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marija: The "Sardinian Neolithic" people were the descendants of Neolithic migrants into Europe who originated mostly in Anatolia.
Much of Italy was populated by such people. The reason they are identified with Sardinia now, is that Sardinia still retains a very high % of Neolithic ancestry relative to the rest of Western Europe.
But that Anatolian Neolithic ancestry is present all over Europe, from Scandinavia to Iberia to Italy.
The Latini were in part the descendants of Yamnaya steppe immigrants. They were mixed with Neolithics, and long before they'd entered Italy. Some claim that the original Romans also included Trojans, also descendants of the Indoeuropean "Yamnaya" people.
In a discussion of anywhere in the Mediterranean world, it must be remembered that people were migrating all around that sea since the Upper Palaeolithic. Europeans and Levantines in the Maghreb, Eurasians in Egypt, Africans in the Levant and SE Europe, Maghrebians in Iberia... and on and on.
Interresting theory you have.
quote:
Dataset preparation for population genetic analyses Genotypes were called in GD13a at sites which overlapped those in the Human Origins dataset (Lazaridis et al.17, filtered as described in Jones et al.24) using GATK Pileup44.
[...]
whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4)
[...]
The phenotypic attributes of GD13a are similar to the neighbouring Anatolian early farmers and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers. Based on diagnostic SNPs, she had dark, black hair and brown eyes (see Supplementary). She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but likely had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait. The derived SLC24A5 variant has been found in both Neolithic farmer and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer groups5,15,24 suggesting that it was already at appreciable frequency before these populations diverged. Finally, she did not have the most common European variant of the LCT gene (rs4988235) associated with the ability to digest raw milk, consistent with the later emergence of this adaptation5,15,21”
~M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al. The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
quote: “Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations. We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.
Discussion
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.”
~Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 8912. doi:10.1038/ncomms9912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9912.Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ish Gebor you are replying to Marja who has left the forum plus as usual posting a lot of quotes with no explanation as to why you think the quotes relate to the subject
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quick glance. Quote:
We know indigenous North Africans and Arabs are black not like the Turks that occupy today,
You can claim that Arabs were black and modern Arabs are Turks all you want but it won‘t be true. Too bad for you that modern Arabs have their own Arabic genetic makeup distinct from Turks. Plus your claim is debunked and refuted by DNA studies on MODERN Arabs. Once again modern Arabs are no Turks not matter how much you want that to be true. Besides after Lebanese MODERN Arabs are genetically the closest people to ancient Phoenicians from 4000 years ago. Such much for Arabs being Turks. It‘s beyond me how some black people think they can pride themselves with Arabs who enslaved millions of black Africans since ancient times till in the 20th century. There are Arabs in these days and ages with African grandmothers or even mothers that were slave wifes of Arabs. Furthermore, the Northern African DNA found among these admixed residents in ancient Rome resembled that of modern Algerians and Tunisians. So give it a rest.
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I know how to read DNA studies I detect that some people can‘t read a study without twisting or distorting it in order to suit their bias and wishful thinking. The ancient ethnic/Italic Romans, the founders and creators of the Empire were through and through European. The migrants or Roman subjects that settled in Rome came from Asia Minor, Greece, the Middle East/Levant, and North Africa. Since the city-state, Rome was the center of the empire she received diverse people from all over the empire. Many of these tested “Romans“ were very likely slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. They seem to be poor people since they are without substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets.
Besides they had nothing to do with the foundation of the Roman civilization. Juvenal and Cicero, for instance, were lamenting and complaining about all the migrants that flooded Rome. They expressed their concerns about Rome losing her Roman identity. Juvenal wrote many pretty xenophobic satires and what Cicero and Tacitus wrote about the Jews would be considered anti-semitic in modern times. So like today in the USA or Europe, there was some kind of ethnic tension in Rome too.
The bulk of the foreign DNA found in ancient Rome according to this study came from the Eastern- Mediterranean population that hailed from Hellenized Asia Minor and Greece. Sicily and not entire Italy was invaded by Muslims. Just saying.
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish Gebor you are replying to Marja who has left the forum plus as usual posting a lot of quotes with no explanation as to why you think the quotes relate to the subject
I cited from papers the relevant parts. So what is there to explain, when it's crystal clear? Not to bash on you, but I assume people have certain intelligence when they speak of these things.
And I have seen your "don't hit the door" post to Marja.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quick glance. Quote:
We know indigenous North Africans and Arabs are black not like the Turks that occupy today,
You can claim that Arabs were black and modern Arabs are Turks all you want but it won‘t be true. Too bad for you that modern Arabs have their own Arabic genetic makeup distinct from Turks. Plus your claim is debunked and refuted by DNA studies on MODERN Arabs. Once again modern Arabs are no Turks not matter how much you want that to be true. Besides after Lebanese MODERN Arabs are genetically the closest people to ancient Phoenicians from 4000 years ago. Such much for Arabs being Turks. It‘s beyond me how some black people think they can pride themselves with Arabs who enslaved millions of black Africans since ancient times till in the 20th century. There are Arabs in these days and ages with African grandmothers or even mothers that were slave wifes of Arabs. Furthermore, the Northern African DNA found among these admixed residents in ancient Rome resembled that of modern Algerians and Tunisians. So give it a rest.
The Phoenicians became a very mixed people do to them seafaring people, navigating to many different places.
Perhaps you can show some ancient Phoenician art that shows them in comparison with modern Phoenicians, hmm I mean Lebanese.
See, back when that paper came out I didn't know that much about genetics, but I was told by a Moroccan academic (female) that that paper was political. I believe it's the paper I have cited below.
You do know that the Phoenicians beefed a lot with Romans?
quote: This involved comparing historically documented Phoenician sites with neighboring non-Phoenician sites for the identification of weak but systematic signatures shared by the Phoenician sites that could not readily be explained by chance or by other expansions.
From these comparisons, we found that haplogroup J2, in general, and six Y-STR haplotypes, in particular, exhibited a Phoenician signature that contributed > 6% to the modern Phoenician-influenced populations examined.
Our methodology can be applied to any historically documented expansion in which contact and noncontact sites can be identified […]
PCS3+ scores strongly as a Phoenician-colonization candidate and is strongly associated with the SNP haplogroup E3b, but it does not show the wide geographic coverage that the other PCS+S demonstrate. It represents the strongest of the lower-coverage STR+S. [...]
Both PCS1+ and PCS2+ contain multiple haplogroups, primarily J2 but including J*(xJ2) and E3b, with PCS1+ containing the greatest diversity. [...]
The Phoenicians were a distinctive and independent civilization that dominated the Mediterranean Sea during the first millennium BCE, emerging from a coastal section of the Eastern Mediterranean, including the four main Bronze Age maritime cities of Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Arwad and located in the modern countries of Lebanon and southern Syria.
~P. A. Zalloua et al., Identifying genetic traces of historical expansions: Phoenician footprints in the Mediterranean, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 83(5):633-642, 2008 DOI:
Note* E-M215, also known as E1b1b and formerly E3b
In layman's terms:
quote:
E-V22 is found primarily in western Ethiopia, northern Egypt and in the southern Levant. In Europe it is therefore associated with the Phoenicians and the Jews. The Phoenicians could have disseminated E-V22 to Sicily, Sardinia, southern Spain and the Maghreb, and the Jews to Greece and mainland Italy and Spain.
[…]
Phoenician, Greek and Roman diffusions of E-M34
The classical antiquity brought new waves of colonisation across the Mediterranean. The first colonists were Phoenicians, who came from present-day Lebanon and the Tartus province of Syria. The Phoenicians possessed a variety of paternal lineages reflecting the complex ancient history of the Middle East. One of them was E-M34 (notably Levantine clades like Y15558 and Z21421), which makes up about 15% of modern Lebanese Y-DNA, but was probably higher before the Greek, Roman, Arabic, Byzantine, medieval crusader and Ottoman occupations altered the local gene pool. E-M34 is the main Middle Eastern variety of E1b1b and is thought to have arrived with the Proto-Semitic people in the Late Copper to Early Bronze Age. The Phoenicians would have spread E-M34 to Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Ibiza and southern Iberia.
quote: In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy.
~G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa p. 427 General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa
John Welsh (Harvard University) interviews Raymond Jonas (University of Washington) about his book "The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Empire" (Harvard University Press).
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Since I know how to read DNA studies I detect that some people can‘t read a study without twisting or distorting it in order to suit their bias and wishful thinking. The ancient ethnic/Italic Romans, the founders and creators of the Empire were through and through European. The migrants or Roman subjects that settled in Rome came from Asia Minor, Greece, the Middle East/Levant, and North Africa. Since the city-state, Rome was the center of the empire she received diverse people from all over the empire. Many of these tested “Romans“ were very likely slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. They seem to be poor people since they are without substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets.
Besides they had nothing to do with the foundation of the Roman civilization. Juvenal and Cicero, for instance, were lamenting and complaining about all the migrants that flooded Rome. They expressed their concerns about Rome losing her Roman identity. Juvenal wrote many pretty xenophobic satires and what Cicero and Tacitus wrote about the Jews would be considered anti-semitic in modern times. So like today in the USA or Europe, there was some kind of ethnic tension in Rome too.
The bulk of the foreign DNA found in ancient Rome according to this study came from the Eastern- Mediterranean population that hailed from Hellenized Asia Minor and Greece. Sicily and not entire Italy was invaded by Muslims. Just saying.
The Romans were cosmopolitan people/ society and they looked down upon Germanic tribes from the North. That is all you need to know.
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Since I know how to read DNA studies I detect that some people can‘t read a study without twisting or distorting it in order to suit their bias and wishful thinking. The ancient ethnic/Italic Romans, the founders and creators of the Empire were through and through European. The migrants or Roman subjects that settled in Rome came from Asia Minor, Greece, the Middle East/Levant, and North Africa. Since the city-state, Rome was the center of the empire she received diverse people from all over the empire. Many of these tested “Romans“ were very likely slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. They seem to be poor people since they are without substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets.
Besides they had nothing to do with the foundation of the Roman civilization. Juvenal and Cicero, for instance, were lamenting and complaining about all the migrants that flooded Rome. They expressed their concerns about Rome losing her Roman identity. Juvenal wrote many pretty xenophobic satires and what Cicero and Tacitus wrote about the Jews would be considered anti-semitic in modern times. So like today in the USA or Europe, there was some kind of ethnic tension in Rome too.
The bulk of the foreign DNA found in ancient Rome according to this study came from the Eastern- Mediterranean population that hailed from Hellenized Asia Minor and Greece. Sicily and not entire Italy was invaded by Muslims. Just saying.
Hey Real Expert, the OP starter Xyyman is horrible at reading genetic studies (which is an understatement) and has a penchant for twisting the findings to fit his agenda though many of us attribute this to medical reasons like dementia.
What do you make of the hypothetical Italic homeland? Do you believe to be the Padania region as many scholars presume with the Villanovan culture or something else? Remember that Roman sources themselves say that their first kings were Etruscans who were invited to rule them during the early periods. What's strange is that the earliest Roman kings were not succeeded by their sons but rather son-in-laws which suggest some matrilineal pattern.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This trope on ES that the modern tawny Arabs in NA and the Middle East are really Turks is a bit silly to say the least, and its kinda sad that more serious posters keep using it.
Its ironic because the Turks were originally an Asiatic people who respmbled Mongols. the modern Turks probably got their look from admixing with Arabs, Persians, Albanians and Greeks etc. So if anything modern Turks are more "Arab" looking than the other way around
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quick glance. Quote:
We know indigenous North Africans and Arabs are black not like the Turks that occupy today,
You can claim that Arabs were black and modern Arabs are Turks all you want but it won‘t be true. Too bad for you that modern Arabs have their own Arabic genetic makeup distinct from Turks. Plus your claim is debunked and refuted by DNA studies on MODERN Arabs. Once again modern Arabs are no Turks not matter how much you want that to be true. Besides after Lebanese MODERN Arabs are genetically the closest people to ancient Phoenicians from 4000 years ago. Such much for Arabs being Turks. It‘s beyond me how some black people think they can pride themselves with Arabs who enslaved millions of black Africans since ancient times till in the 20th century. There are Arabs in these days and ages with African grandmothers or even mothers that were slave wifes of Arabs. Furthermore, the Northern African DNA found among these admixed residents in ancient Rome resembled that of modern Algerians and Tunisians. So give it a rest.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Historians debate the Eutruscan origin of the Romans, as clearly they were two distinct peoples. The Etruscans did have an impact on the Romans and influenced them heavily.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Since I know how to read DNA studies I detect that some people can‘t read a study without twisting or distorting it in order to suit their bias and wishful thinking. The ancient ethnic/Italic Romans, the founders and creators of the Empire were through and through European. The migrants or Roman subjects that settled in Rome came from Asia Minor, Greece, the Middle East/Levant, and North Africa. Since the city-state, Rome was the center of the empire she received diverse people from all over the empire. Many of these tested “Romans“ were very likely slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. They seem to be poor people since they are without substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets.
Besides they had nothing to do with the foundation of the Roman civilization. Juvenal and Cicero, for instance, were lamenting and complaining about all the migrants that flooded Rome. They expressed their concerns about Rome losing her Roman identity. Juvenal wrote many pretty xenophobic satires and what Cicero and Tacitus wrote about the Jews would be considered anti-semitic in modern times. So like today in the USA or Europe, there was some kind of ethnic tension in Rome too.
The bulk of the foreign DNA found in ancient Rome according to this study came from the Eastern- Mediterranean population that hailed from Hellenized Asia Minor and Greece. Sicily and not entire Italy was invaded by Muslims. Just saying.
Hey Real Expert, the OP starter Xyyman is horrible at reading genetic studies (which is an understatement) and has a penchant for twisting the findings to fit his agenda though many of us attribute this to medical reasons like dementia.
What do you make of the hypothetical Italic homeland? Do you believe to be the Padania region as many scholars presume with the Villanovan culture or something else? Remember that Roman sources themselves say that their first kings were Etruscans who were invited to rule them during the early periods. What's strange is that the earliest Roman kings were not succeeded by their sons but rather son-in-laws which suggest some matrilineal pattern.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a bit more complicated than that..no? I mean Tacitus wrote favorably on the Germans in Germania. Even if they did, the Romans interacted with a whole host of Europeans, for example the Celts as compared to the Germanians were far more civilized and produced advanced cultures, These were the ancestors of the modern Spanish, French, English....etc. The Gauls and Gallo-Romans, would go as far as to influence the Romans themselves and adopt Roman law and ways.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Since I know how to read DNA studies I detect that some people can‘t read a study without twisting or distorting it in order to suit their bias and wishful thinking. The ancient ethnic/Italic Romans, the founders and creators of the Empire were through and through European. The migrants or Roman subjects that settled in Rome came from Asia Minor, Greece, the Middle East/Levant, and North Africa. Since the city-state, Rome was the center of the empire she received diverse people from all over the empire. Many of these tested “Romans“ were very likely slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. They seem to be poor people since they are without substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets.
Besides they had nothing to do with the foundation of the Roman civilization. Juvenal and Cicero, for instance, were lamenting and complaining about all the migrants that flooded Rome. They expressed their concerns about Rome losing her Roman identity. Juvenal wrote many pretty xenophobic satires and what Cicero and Tacitus wrote about the Jews would be considered anti-semitic in modern times. So like today in the USA or Europe, there was some kind of ethnic tension in Rome too.
The bulk of the foreign DNA found in ancient Rome according to this study came from the Eastern- Mediterranean population that hailed from Hellenized Asia Minor and Greece. Sicily and not entire Italy was invaded by Muslims. Just saying.
The Romans were cosmopolitan people/ society and they looked down upon Germanic tribes from the North. That is all you need to know.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Many Historians debate the Eutruscan origin of the Romans, as clearly they were two distinct peoples. The Etruscans did have an impact on the Romans and influenced them heavily.
When did I say the Romans originated from Etruscans or were the same people?? I merely pointed out that they were ruled by Etruscans voluntarily, and the Etruscan influence on Latin culture both linguistically, religiously, cuisine & drink (wine) etc. is an understatement. There is more question to Etruscan origins as they appear foreign to most Italic peoples in the Peninsula.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Its a bit more complicated than that..no? I mean Tacitus wrote favorably on the Germans in Germania. Even if they did, the Romans interacted with a whole host of Europeans, for example the Celts as compared to the Germanians were far more civilized and produced advanced cultures, These were the ancestors of the modern Spanish, French, English....etc. The Gauls and Gallo-Romans, would go as far as to influence the Romans themselves and adopt Roman law and ways.
My argument was about the Vandals (Germans) interacting with the Romans and how the Romans looked down upon them. I did so deliberately. "Real Expert" understands why, that is why I posted that German video along.
Btw, I am not sure if law etc was adopted, or rather forced upon these conquered populations.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sarcophagus of the Spouses, detail with upper bodies
Sarcophagus of the Spouses, c. 520 B.C.E., Etruscan, painted terracotta, 3 feet 9-1/2 inches x 6 feet 7 inches, found in the Banditaccia necropolis, Cerveteri (Museo Nazionale di Villa Giulia in Rome) photo: Steven Zucker
Facsimile of painting on right wall, left side, Tomba degli Scudi
DESCRIPTION Original in the Tomba degli Scudi (Tarquinia, after 350 B.C.). On a richly decorated couch Velthur Velcha and his wife Ravnthu Aprthnei, identified by inscriptions, are banqueting entertained by a flute player and a lyre player. (NY Carlsberg Glyptotek Catalogue)
Side note. (Dr Phil Perkins claimed in part 2 that Africans are/ were less diverse as the left Africa in small pockets. This as we know is false)
What Etruscan Sounded Like - and how we know
Italy's lost language? They gave Rome the alphabet, but we hardly know them. Here's how we pieced together the extinct language of an early Italian civilization. (2017)
Who were the Etruscans? Come listen to Prof. Francesco Bonavita, a linguist, educator, lecturer and author talk about the people often labeled as enigmatic, gluttons, and bon vivants, but who supposedly gave us wine, love of music, and taught us to live life in style! Prof. Bonavita is a native of Rome and holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature. (2019)
Side note. (He shortly adresses the city of Ankor as well, at 27:42 minutes in.)Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A recent Y-DNA study from 2018 on a modern sample of 113 individuals from Volterra, a town of Etruscan origin, Grugni at al. keeps all the possibilities open, although the last scenario is the one most supported by the percentages, and concludes that
"the presence of J2a-M67* (2.7%) suggests contacts by sea with Anatolian people, the finding of the Central European lineage G2a-L497 (7.1%) at considerable frequency would rather support a Northern European origin of Etruscans, while the high incidence of European R1b lineages (R1b 49.8%, R1b-U152 24.5%) cannot rule out the scenario of an autochthonous process of formation of the Etruscan civilisation from the preceding Villanovan society, as suggested by Dionysius of Halicarnassus".[58]
In Italy Y-DNA J2a-M67*, not yet found in Etruscan samples, is more widespread on the Adriatic Sea coast between Marche and Abruzzo, and not in those where once lived the Etruscans, and in the study has its peak in the Ionian side of Calabria.[59][60] In 2014, a late Bronze Age Kyjatice culture sample in Hungary was found to be J2a1-M67,[61] a couple of J2a1b were found in Late Neolithic samples from the LBK culture in Austria,[62] a J2a1a was found in a Middle Neolithic Sopot culture sample from Croatia,[62] a J2a was found in a Late Neolithic Lengyel Culture sample from Hungary.[63] In 2019, in a Stanford study published in Science, two ancient samples from the Neolithic settlement of Ripabianca di Monterado in province of Ancona, in the Marche region of Italy, were found to be Y-DNA J-L26 and J-M304.[15] Therefore, Y-DNA J2a-M67 is likely in Italy since the Neolithic and can't be the proof of recent contacts with Anatolia.
[58]Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective Viola Grugni,Alessandro Raveane,Francesca Mattioli,Vincenza Battaglia,Cinzia Sala,Daniela Toniolo, show all Pages 44-56 | Received 31 Jul 2017, Accepted 20 Nov 2017, Published online: 30 Jan 2018
Brisighelli, Francesca (2012). "Uniparental Markers of Contemporary Italian Population Reveals Details on Its Pre-Roman Heritage". PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science (published 10 December 2012).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050794. Boattini, Alessio (2013). "Uniparental Markers in Italy Reveal a Sex-Biased Genetic Structure and Different Historical Strata". PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science (published 29 May 2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "the presence of J2a-M67* (2.7%) suggests contacts by sea with Anatolian people, the finding of the Central European lineage G2a-L497 (7.1%) at considerable frequency would rather support a Northern European origin of Etruscans, while the high incidence of European R1b lineages (R1b 49.8%, R1b-U152 24.5%) cannot rule out the scenario of an autochthonous process of formation of the Etruscan civilisation from the preceding Villanovan society, as suggested by Dionysius of Halicarnassus".[58]
What is the source of this? I can't find it.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There are obvious flaws in using samples of modern Tuscan people to represent their alleged ancient Etruscan ancestors. This is like using modern Egyptians to represent ancient Egyptians and we all know of the Nature study claiming moderns to be more Sub-Saharan. One can argue modern Tuscans are more European than their ancestors.
We've discussed Etruscan origins many times before including here, but they represent only a fraction of Rome's imperial foundation.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Hmm, lol that is what I assumed. And yes, the sources I have posted state the same as what you've stated.
With that being said:
quote: Haplogroup R is the most frequent (50.1%) with its two main branches, R1a (4.7%) and R1b (45.3%), the latter mainly accounted for by R1b-U152 (49.5% of the total R1b); R2 was not observed. Next is haplogroup J (19.2%), mostly observed as J2 (17.6%), and third is haplogroup E, as E1b (14.6%), mostly represented by its ‘Balkan’ sub-clade E1b-V13. The other main haplogroups show frequencies lower than 10%: haplogroup G (8.4%) and haplogroup I (4.8%).
The frequency distributions of the three main haplogroups (R, J and E) and those of their sub-clades in Italian populations are illustrated in Figure 3.
Frequencies of the main Y-chromosome haplogroups E1b, J2 and R1b and their sub-clades in the 10 analysed Italian population samples. Black sectors in the primary pies are proportional to the frequency of the main haplogroup in each population. Coloured sectors in the secondary pies are proportional to the frequencies of sub-haplogroups within the relative main haplogroup.
~Grugni, Viola (2018). "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective". Annals of Human Biology (published 30 January 2018). 45 (1): 44–56. doi:10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801. PMID 29382284
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The Romans were cosmopolitan people/society and they looked down upon Germanic tribes from the North. That is all you need to know.
The feeling was mutual. The Germanic tribes looked down on the Romans as rapacious and savage as they were pompous and arrogant as well as greedy in their quest for domination and tribute, but they also admired Rome for their organizational and logistic skills as well as technological ingenuity. Historically it was a love-hate relationship where Roman imperialism inspired the Germans to similar imperialist goals in uniting the various tribes into a united reich which they eventually realized. One could say the Germans wanted to replace Rome itself, and interestingly of the 7 total times Rome was sacked six of those times was done by Germans with the first sacking being done by the Celtic Gauls. Speaking of which...
quote: It's a bit more complicated than that..no? I mean Tacitus wrote favorably on the Germans in Germania. Even if they did, the Romans interacted with a whole host of Europeans, for example the Celts as compared to the Germanians were far more civilized and produced advanced cultures, These were the ancestors of the modern Spanish, French, English....etc. The Gauls and Gallo-Romans, would go as far as to influence the Romans themselves and adopt Roman law and ways.
From what I recall of both archaeology as well as Roman sources themselves, the Germanians weren't that less civilized than the Celts. Technologically they were similar and both lived in tribal societies with farming and pastoring economies, though the Germanics had poorer farmland which is why they did more hunting and raiding. Even Tacitus had difficult time differentiating between Celts and Germans in the area of the Lower Rhine where they initially encountered the Germans. The Celts became Romanized by force after they lost the war against the Romans who as punishment slaughtered most of their menfolk and established Roman schools for the children. It was an organized ethnocide which is why Celtic culture became eradicated from the continent and only survived in the British Isles. The situation of the Germanics was different in that their tribes were more mobile and there was a great expansion during the decline of the Roman Empire which is why Rome was never able to conquer them and large swaths of Europe became Germanized and even Rome was sacked on multiple occasions. After the 1st sacking by the Gauls, the 2nd sacking was done by the Visigoths, the 3rd by the Vandals, the 4th by the Ostrogoths, the 5th by the Normans, the 6th by the 1st Reich (Holy Roman Empire), and later in the modern era the 7th time by the 3rd Reich (Nazi Empire).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The feeling was mutual. The Germanic tribes looked down on the Romans as rapacious and savage as they were pompous and arrogant as well as greedy in their quest for domination and tribute, but they also admired Rome for their organizational and logistic skills as well as technological ingenuity.
From what I recall and have learned since the days of high-school, the Germans weren't that advanced at all. They were brut and backwards living, as was I told. I have to do some investigation into that. But from what I see in linguistics and culture etc, what I was told testifies to that, with Romans being "the cream of the crop".
As I said, I will do some more in-depth research into Celts, Vandals ect. First I have this book on the Batavian to read.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No more "backwards" than the Celts. The Celts had more influence from the more advanced civilizations of the Mediterranean yes but overall, their mode of life wasn't much different from the Germans in that they lived in wooden and thatched hut settlements and did some farming. The Germans were "brutes" but not the Celts who did ritual head-hunting? And the sophisticated Romans were not brutes even when they raped women, men, and children they took captive?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You are right about the brutes being with all of them. I guess it's about prejudice, convince snd convenience?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Abstract The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.
We considered samples of three main historical periods: the Etruscans (with specimens dated around 2,500 years ago, on average), the medieval Tuscans (dated around 900 years ago), and modern subjects. The Etruscan sample is composed of 30 sequences from different necropolis (Vernesi et al., 2004; Ghirotto et al., 2013). The Medieval sample comprises 27 sequences collected in various Tuscan localities (Guimaraes et al., 2009). The modern sample comprises the following: (a) two Tuscan populations [Casentino, 122 sequences and Volterra, 114 sequences (Achilli et al., 2007)] for which we previously demonstrated a high level of genealogical continuity since Etruscan times (Ghirotto et al., 2013) and (b) a population from Western Anatolia [35 sequences (Di Benedetto et al., 2001)], representing the putative Etruscans’ homeland according to Herodotus.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No more "backwards" than the Celts. The Celts had more influence from the more advanced civilizations of the Mediterranean yes but overall, their mode of life wasn't much different from the Germans in that they lived in wooden and thatched hut settlements and did some farming. The Germans were "brutes" but not the Celts who did ritual head-hunting? And the sophisticated Romans were not brutes even when they raped women, men, and children they took captive?
I dunno wood&thatchroof housing is a sign of low civ?
Yeah kinda like the civilized still brutes of Germany, though rape happens when soldiers are in a vilage town or city as a consequence of war for nearly every culture.
Damn we do things actual brute beasts do not. Brutal is actually 'humanal', though we can be humane.
But man hip me to more of that Keltic headhunting.
one book that was big in my youth, never vetted it, was
Asking cs remember u into comparative mythology and what not.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I dunno wood&thatchroof housing is a sign of low civ?
I never said it was. I merely pointed out that they had the same type of architecture. The word "civilis" is a Latin word from the Romans referring to city living. Is living in a city, particularly one with centralized urban planning alone a sign of high culture? There are in fact many high cultures who lack such an attribute including ironically Egypt, which is traditionally known in archaeology as "a civilization without cities".
quote:Yeah kinda like the civilized still brutes of Germany, though rape happens when soldiers are in a vilage town or city as a consequence of war for nearly every culture.
Germany
Damn we do things actual brute beasts do not. Brutal is actually 'humane', though we can be humane.
The line between "civilized" and "savage" is very thin or as some philosophers observed, 'civilization is but a veneer that cages the savagery of humanity'. Nazi Germany was the most advanced nation in Europe especially in science and engineering yet they commit mass murder and even torture. Their ancient predecessors the Romans-- from whom they copied their system of fascism-- were also the most advanced civilization in Europe yet by rape of captives I don't simply mean soldiers raping people during warfare but actual selling of captives into slavery and upon their purchase their bodies sexually belong to their masters whether male or female, young or old.
quote:But man hip me to more of that Keltic headhunting.
In Celtic religious belief, the head was the seat of spirit or life force therefore warriors would take the heads of their enemies as a sign of dominion over spirits of defeated foes. Such was a common custom and belief in many parts of the world including Austronesian folks such as my own Philippine ancestors.
quote:one book that was big in my youth, never vetted it, was
Asking cs remember u into comparative mythology and what not.
Looks like an old Orientalist source with the idea that druids are derived from Indian brahmins. While there are many similarities between the two, most experts agree that such stems from a common Indo-European heritage rather than one group deriving from the other.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Abstract The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.
We considered samples of three main historical periods: the Etruscans (with specimens dated around 2,500 years ago, on average), the medieval Tuscans (dated around 900 years ago), and modern subjects. The Etruscan sample is composed of 30 sequences from different necropolis (Vernesi et al., 2004; Ghirotto et al., 2013). The Medieval sample comprises 27 sequences collected in various Tuscan localities (Guimaraes et al., 2009). The modern sample comprises the following: (a) two Tuscan populations [Casentino, 122 sequences and Volterra, 114 sequences (Achilli et al., 2007)] for which we previously demonstrated a high level of genealogical continuity since Etruscan times (Ghirotto et al., 2013) and (b) a population from Western Anatolia [35 sequences (Di Benedetto et al., 2001)], representing the putative Etruscans’ homeland according to Herodotus.
Have you heard of the 'Etruscan Elite' or 'Foreign Superstrate' theory? Since genetics shows the majority of the population of Etruria is indigenous yet the language and cultural features are Anatolian, then perhaps the original Etruscans were a small minority who became rulers or elites in Italy.
posted
By the way, the Etruscan element is just one fraction of the topic as it pertains to the foundation of the Roman Empire. To look at the foundation of the empire, one must look at the foundation of Rome and Etruria is only one part.
Latium before the Latin Civil War that unified it under Rome
Latium after the Latin Civil War
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...when looking at the original image of comparison, when moving left to right what are we seeing exactly? Is the data from the left supposed to skin of oldest remains found with newest going right? Why are some brown when other regions that were brown during the same time (mesolithic example for egypt) not when they were till two hundred years ago?
With regards to sardinia, is it fair to say they are a great examnple, somewhat genitically, of ancient romans as opposed to modern italians? Its interesting they carry diff data then other mediterranians.
Posts: 17 | From: earth | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic