Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 327

Thread: The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2,000-year archeogenomic time transe

  1. #141
    Registered Users
    Posts
    295
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b U152
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by Nino90 View Post
    Why are there Italians with extreme little of this "East-Med-Levantine-Jewish-" admixture still?

    I agree that people from the provinces who were culturally and linguistics Hellenic changed much of the demography of post Iron age Italy.

    But also we don't have genomes from South Italy yet. It is not like the whole Italian Peninsula were West Med before the Imperial Age.
    Northern italy wasn't much less romanized than the south, and in late antiquity Northern Italy became the center of the Western Roman Empire. But, Northern Italy was far less Greek and far more Gaulish. I think that's the explanation.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ariel90 For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (06-06-2021),  J.delajara (06-06-2021),  Nino90 (06-06-2021),  vettor (06-06-2021)

  3. #142
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,050
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    NW Tuscan/Italian
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+Z36+
    mtDNA (M)
    U6a7a

    Scotland Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nino90 View Post
    Slaves from Anatolia and the Levant were often highly skilled. They often won their freedom, became Roman citizens and bred.

    You basically say that Gauls and Germanic were idiots that only could work in mines but that people from Anatolia and the Levant were "high skilled".
    I did not say that.

    Any book on the society and economy of the Roman Late Republic and Empire will inform you that Anatolia and the Levant had far more educated, literate people than the West including Italy, which Roman masters could use as secretaries, scribes, teachers, traders, craftsmen, small shopkeepers, etc. and eventually free in their wills.
    Last edited by Cascio; 06-06-2021 at 11:38 AM.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cascio For This Useful Post:

     Andrewid (06-06-2021),  dosas (06-06-2021),  Erikl86 (06-06-2021),  peloponnesian (06-06-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021),  Saetro (06-08-2021)

  5. #143
    Registered Users
    Posts
    438
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascio View Post
    Slaves from Anatolia and the Levant were often highly skilled. They often won their freedom, became Roman citizens and bred.

    This anti-East Med/Levant bias is becoming tedious.

    Many Gauls and Iberians were worked to death in mines or in other forms of hard labour. Many were unable to produce progeny.

    What do you suggest for the cline you mention?
    So your idea is that in a world where most populations everywhere were farmers or food producers, somehow there was such huge differences in "skill" between populations so that Eastern Med populations had such higher birth rates? And you talk about anti-East Med bias? Seriously? This idea is unjustified.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Nino90 (06-06-2021)

  7. #144
    Registered Users
    Posts
    438
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascio View Post
    I did not say that.

    Any book on the society and economy of the Roman Late Republic and Empire will inform you that Anatolia and the Levant had far more educated, literate people than the West including Italy, which Roman masters could use as secretaries, scribes, teachers, traders, craftsmen, small shopkeepers, etc. and eventually free in their wills.
    And yet illiterate farmers were still the vast majority of the population, the idea that native Italics and other West med populations were out-bred by a hoard of people whose advantage was being more "educated"(as if most of the population was educated) or were able to read(which is also not the case) is non-sense, this literally has not happened anywhere else in history in verifiable fashion.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Nino90 (06-06-2021)

  9. #145
    Registered Users
    Posts
    868
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a CTS11962+L1029+
    mtDNA (M)
    H80

    European Union Germany Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Cascio View Post
    Slaves from Anatolia and the Levant were often highly skilled. They often won their freedom, became Roman citizens and bred.

    This anti-East Med/Levant bias is becoming tedious.

    Many Gauls and Iberians were worked to death in mines or in other forms of hard labour. Many were unable to produce progeny.

    What do you suggest for the cline you mention?
    granted the romans enslaving the hellenistic east is equi. to americans enslaving the dutch, french and british, but the integration had little to do with skill

    the dog is burried in the second century and the marian reforms
    marius freed the slaves (and criminals) for recruitement into his new legions (107BC/BCE) Lucan.2.94-98, Flor.epit.2.9(11) and Plutarch Mar. 9 and 41 and this also entitled the freed slaves (now legions) to grants of lands upon discharge; and there might be a diff. to hellenistic slaves altogether (in cotrast to spartacus) and this might be the reason; but the abrupt integration into society (population-wide) a mass event has indeed the best chance, in the sense of such (freed)masses, via the military (marian reforms)
    Last edited by alexfritz; 06-06-2021 at 02:47 PM.
    GENO2.0 51SEURO 19WCEURO 13SCANDINAVIA 5ASIAMINOR 4EEURO 4GB/IRELAND 3ARABIA myOrigins 26ITA.PENINSULA 13GREECE&BALKANS 12SARDINIA 18GREATBRITAIN 14IRELAND 10CEN.EUROPE 8SCANDINAVIA DNA.Land 49NWEURO 27SEURO 13MED.ISLANDER 11SARDINIAN myHeritage 51.8NWEURO 33.2ITALIAN 7.9GREEK/S.ITALY 7.1BALKAN gencove 29NITALY 19EMED 15NBRITISLES 12SWEURO 10NCEURO 9SCANDINAVIA 6NEEURO GenePlaza 54.4NWEURO 37.6GREEK/ALBANIAN 5.6WASIAN 2.4SWASIA LivingDNA 70.7SGERMANIC 16.3TUSCANY 9.2N.ITALY 3.8SARDINIA

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to alexfritz For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (06-22-2021),  Erikl86 (06-06-2021),  grumpydaddybear (06-06-2021),  Saetro (06-08-2021)

  11. #146
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,050
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    NW Tuscan/Italian
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+Z36+
    mtDNA (M)
    U6a7a

    Scotland Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    And yet illiterate farmers were still the vast majority of the population, the idea that native Italics and other West med populations were out-bred by a hoard of people whose advantage was being more "educated"(as if most of the population was educated) or were able to read(which is also not the case) is non-sense, this literally has not happened anywhere else in history in verifiable fashion.
    Respectfully, you really need to read a lot more about Roman economic and social history.

    What is YOUR opinion on the new Etruscan paper and the ethnic shifts it suggests over time?
    The abstract is brief but others have commented on the summarised details.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cascio For This Useful Post:

     dosas (06-06-2021),  Erikl86 (06-06-2021)

  13. #147
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,511
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Y-DNA (P)
    Q-YP3924
    mtDNA (M)
    K1a1b1a
    mtDNA (P)
    K2a2a

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Star of David
    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    Talking about the East Med influx in late Republican/Early Imperial Italy, I still don't get why exactly this influx happened, some people here argue for internal migration of free people being the primary factor but to me that seems unlikely to cause such a shift, because I don't think you can justify such migration rates in antiquity when Italy was not a thinly populated to begin with and when most of the population would have still remained rural food producers.
    Magna Graecia in Southern Italy, which existed since at least the 9th century BCE, and was connected culturally as well as financially and politically to the Hellenistic empires of the East, would undoubtedly be highly developed, and populated, and could provide significant source for such admixture.

    I don't know if they were the vast majority and completely replaced all IA-like native Italians even in South Italy by the time Magna Graecia was annexed to the Roman Republic (circa 275 BCE), but no doubt they constituted the a very significant part of the population demographically. They would also be the type of population that would be highly sought for in the Roman Republic and Empire in terms of their education and cultural attribution. For instance, I don't know what was the level of literacy among the Samnites or Messapians, but surely most Hellenic poleis citizens would be literate and be educated in the Classical education much admired by the Romans. This alone could very well cause internal migration up north, but not alone.

    I also don't buy the idea that the pre-Roman southern Italian peninsula was already mostly Hellenic, the geography and political situation before the Roman came hardly justify that theory, even if most of the population south of the Napoli-Bari line were Greeks by 300 BCE this would hardly justify the cline we see today which extends much more northward.
    I think we drastically downplayed just how Hellenized South Italy was, but while Magna Graecia was only incorporated by 275 BCE, it wasn't until the Social War in 87 BCE, almost 200 years later, that all of these regions gained Roman citizenship, thus pretty much opened the entire peninsula to internal mixing.

    But if slavery is the culprit then why didn't the influx of Celtic and even Germanic slaves not have a similar effect, demographically Gaul and Iberia had as many people as Anatolia+Levant.
    I don't think slavery played such a big role in this admixture event, it might have to some degree, but in my opinion what played the most important factor in this admix are:
    1. The Pyrrhic wars and the annexation of the Greek poleis to the Roman Republic.
    2. The Social War in the first century BCE and the Romanization of all the inhabitants in the Apennine peninsula (exc. Sicily, Sardinia and Cisapline Gaul btw).
    3. The expansion of the Empire to the Eastern provinces.
    4. The Edict of Caracalla in the beginning of the 3rd century CE granting Roman citizenship to all, but effectively acknowledging in what had already become very common (Roman citizenship) a century earlier.
    5. The continued holding of the Southern parts of the peninsula by the Eastern-oriented and Hellenic centered Eastern Roman Empire (some parts up until the 11th century!), which opened up the possibility of movement from Anatolia, Greece and the Byzantine Near East during all that period.

    As I said before, whatever the different levels of East Med admix variations in South Italy were, later on after the region was unified within the realms of the Kingdom of Naples it all pretty much solidified into what we know today, "protected" (I hope this doesn't give any wrong connotations) from more Northern admixtures which the rest of Italy wasn't.
    Last edited by Erikl86; 06-06-2021 at 12:27 PM.
    Check out my Hidden Content

  14. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     alexfritz (06-06-2021),  Andrewid (06-06-2021),  Ariel90 (06-06-2021),  Cascio (06-06-2021),  grumpydaddybear (06-06-2021),  J.delajara (06-06-2021),  leorcooper19 (06-06-2021),  peloponnesian (06-06-2021),  Saetro (06-08-2021),  SUPREEEEEME (06-06-2021)

  15. #148
    Registered Users
    Posts
    438
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ariel90 View Post
    But the Italian peninsula historically was connected to the Greek world for a longer period of time, you are starting to see outliers even before the Republican period, that shows that there was a connection for a very long time.
    Insofar as we can tell it really only started in 750 BCE, you might say that's a long time and yet that presence was fairly confined geographically, I doubt the inland regions saw any direct Greek admixture until the Roman expansion.
    Also the biggest problem with the sudden shift is that you will have to bring literally milions of people in a span of 50-100 years. It's not a credible or plausible hypothesis.
    Why 50-100 years? The earliest imperial sample are from the start of the common era, meaning you have 200-150 years since the start of Roman expansion in Greece and 150-100 years for Anatolia.
    It's more likely that you have a East-Med shift since the Hellenic era,
    Sure but this was likely limited to coastal Italy and mostly the south and was a far smaller shift given Greeks aren't like Anatolians as far as we can see.
    You have a similar phenomena in Greece itself apparently, since and before the classic era.
    What do you mean by that exactly?
    That, of course, has nothing to with the Romans. Ultimately that type of Anatolia, Greek, Levantine ancestry was present in the Balkans with and before the Romans.
    I honestly don't see any reason to believe that Levantine-types were in peninsular Italy in significant numbers before the Romans brought them there, there were no Punic colonies on the mainland of Italy and the idea that traders alone or migrants could affect the population at large doesn't seem plausible. As for Anatolians, the question is where Anatolian Greeks sit in the cline between mainland Greeks and Central Anatolians.
    What you see with Imperial Roman ancestry getting North, is simply Romans getting North, we know that because in medieval Hungary you have that genetic profile. Those people would have been provincial Romans, not slaves, or migrants. You have to imagine that the richest and more populated part of the Empire was Central\Southern Italy. And we don't have a good idea about the genetic profile of those areas in the middle to late republican period, it's the huge gap, the info that we are truly missing.
    But the evidence we have right now shows that the very same founding populations from Latium was itself mixed by southern populations, the idea that the imperial Roman mix was already created before the Roman conquests and was only spread by the Romans doesn't fit the actual evidence and doesn't make any sense, because it would mean that somehow Latium was flooded by Eastern Greeks(more eastern than anything we actually have attested from the Minoan period) without having any actual Greek colony there(unlike in the south), which is why we have just a couple Eastern(or Southern considering North Africa) outliers in a sea of Italic populations that have little East med admixture in the pre-Roman period, in any way you put it there must have been some large influx at some point between 750BCE and the start of the common era and genetic evidence makes it unlikely for it to have happened in the first few centuries of this period and historic evidence also makes it unlikely, because while we do attest the mass influx of slaves and Greeks during the Roman expansion, we don't see such evidence before, or do you think that Rome was already full of Greeks in 350 BCE?
    Also, another evidence is that apparently no one retained the Italic genetic profile in early Imperial Rome (from the other paper), not even a little bit. That is something that you would see after hundreds of years, homogenization takes time.
    Yes that's problematic but it doesn't justify this theory anyway, because even within this theory one would expect more Western Med like populations to still be around given the cosmopolitan nature of the capital and in any case it's not like the samples we have right now are homogenized to begin with, which according to the same logic points to recent migrations.

    Also the problem is that this theory doesn't just deal with Latium or Rome but also with the inland areas of the Italian peninsula, where the presence of early Greek merchants or migrants is far less likely and I don't think the Romans somehow replaced all Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians and so on with their own East Med mixed Latins, because the numbers and admixture levels simply don't match up, you still need a lot of further and direct east Med admixture.

  16. #149
    Registered Users
    Posts
    295
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b U152
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    Insofar as we can tell it really only started in 750 BCE, you might say that's a long time and yet that presence was fairly confined geographically, I doubt the inland regions saw any direct Greek admixture until the Roman expansion.

    Why 50-100 years? The earliest imperial sample are from the start of the common era, meaning you have 200-150 years since the start of Roman expansion in Greece and 150-100 years for Anatolia.

    Sure but this was likely limited to coastal Italy and mostly the south and was a far smaller shift given Greeks aren't like Anatolians as far as we can see.

    What do you mean by that exactly?

    I honestly don't see any reason to believe that Levantine-types were in peninsular Italy in significant numbers before the Romans brought them there, there were no Punic colonies on the mainland of Italy and the idea that traders alone or migrants could affect the population at large doesn't seem plausible. As for Anatolians, the question is where Anatolian Greeks sit in the cline between mainland Greeks and Central Anatolians.

    But the evidence we have right now shows that the very same founding populations from Latium was itself mixed by southern populations, the idea that the imperial Roman mix was already created before the Roman conquests and was only spread by the Romans doesn't fit the actual evidence and doesn't make any sense, because it would mean that somehow Latium was flooded by Eastern Greeks(more eastern than anything we actually have attested from the Minoan period) without having any actual Greek colony there(unlike in the south), which is why we have just a couple Eastern(or Southern considering North Africa) outliers in a sea of Italic populations that have little East med admixture in the pre-Roman period, in any way you put it there must have been some large influx at some point between 750BCE and the start of the common era and genetic evidence makes it unlikely for it to have happened in the first few centuries of this period and historic evidence also makes it unlikely, because while we do attest the mass influx of slaves and Greeks during the Roman expansion, we don't see such evidence before, or do you think that Rome was already full of Greeks in 350 BCE?

    Yes that's problematic but it doesn't justify this theory anyway, because even within this theory one would expect more Western Med like populations to still be around given the cosmopolitan nature of the capital and in any case it's not like the samples we have right now are homogenized to begin with, which according to the same logic points to recent migrations.

    Also the problem is that this theory doesn't just deal with Latium or Rome but also with the inland areas of the Italian peninsula, where the presence of early Greek merchants or migrants is far less likely and I don't think the Romans somehow replaced all Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians and so on with their own East Med mixed Latins, because the numbers and admixture levels simply don't match up, you still need a lot of further and direct east Med admixture.
    There is an unpublished paper about Greece with many outliers apparently from the classical era onwards.
    I'm not saying that Romans were already mixed before expanding. But they were remarkably mixed by early Imperial period, which suggest it happens before, at least a couple of hundreds years. Think about how long would it take for a modern European country to change genetically to a point that you see only genetic migrants, it will takes hundreds of years even with today's level of migration.
    Is it a fair point? The overnight sudden change is not a compelling hypothesis.
    We have Romans from Marche (0-200 CE), that already have a similar mix to modern Southern Italian, but without extra Northern European admix.
    ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR835,0.102441,0.14319,-0.006411,-0.038114,0.017849,-0.017012,-0.010575,0.002077,0.001023,0.019135,0.006008,0.001 199,-0.009217,-0.004542,-0.008822,0.009679,0.003912,0.003801,-0.003142,-0.007754,-0.004492,-0.005193,0.005176,-0.001928,-0.001197
    ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836,0.119514,0.158423,-0.007542,-0.037791,0.011387,-0.01757,-0.005875,-0.009692,-0.007567,0.024966,0,-0.004496,-0.014717,-0.002202,-0.014386,-0.001591,-0.003781,-0.007728,0.013073,-0.004752,-0.004866,0.011252,-0.000493,-0.00482,-0.002874
    These two samples are similar to each other, and again somewhat homogeneous. What is less understood about the 2019 paper about Rome, is that many of the samples are from early Imperial period, and some of the samples are from relatively nice burials. Also, before DNA research it was suggested that the influx of migrants to Rome was in late antiquity after the good Emperors. It made sense considering the influence of middle eastern culture and religion during the Severan period and during the third century crisis.
    Last edited by Ariel90; 06-06-2021 at 01:39 PM.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Ariel90 For This Useful Post:

     peloponnesian (06-06-2021)

  18. #150
    Registered Users
    Posts
    295
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b U152
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Israel
    ok, an example:

    Target: Ariel90_scaled
    Distance: 2.7841% / 0.02784146
    42.6 Sicilian_East
    32.8 ITA_Etruscan
    24.6 German

    Target: Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151
    Distance: 2.7741% / 0.02774062
    82.4 ITA_Etruscan
    12.6 German
    5.0 Sicilian_East

    I'm a clear example of push and pull, I even get a lot of central European on myheritage, since I have ancestry from the Alps and from central Italy. I don't plot far from Etruscans on the PCA. But it's misleading in my case. Whereas there are some Northern Italian that are clearly mostly Italic-like.
    Last edited by Ariel90; 06-06-2021 at 05:10 PM.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ariel90 For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (06-06-2021),  Nino90 (06-06-2021)

Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 09-04-2019, 09:07 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-14-2019, 11:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-17-2017, 05:39 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2017, 12:19 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 05:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •