• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Genetic study The arrival of the Near Eastern ancestry in Central Italy predates the onset of the Roman Empire

Felsina under the etruscans only existed for 70 years.
is it really important ?
 
Vitruvius said:
Do archaeologists consider bronze age Feslina a participant in the MBA Terramare phenomenon or is it outside of such a material context?
Click to expand...


From what I have read, so far archaeologists have come to study up to the Final Bronze Age in Felsina. In the sense of concluding that there is archaeological continuity in Felsina from the Final Bronze Age to the Iron Age, thus aligning with Tyrrhenian Etruria (here Tyrrhenian in the sense of the sea, not of the Tyrrhenians of Greek accounts).

Lately I have been witnessing discussions among people who have studied archaeology talking about Etruscan continuity in northern Italy, based on material culture, up to the Polada culture, thus including the Terramare culture (as Polada---→Terramare). This is as far as northern Italy is concerned.

While for Tyrrhenian Etruria (Tuscany and northern Latium) Prehistoric and Protohistoric archaeologists have already been talking for more than 30-40 years about continuity from the Bell Beaker to the Iron Age (with the previous Rinaldone cultures in Tuscany and Latium, and Remedello in northern Italy, as a possible last Preindoeuropean culture where the ancestor of the Etruscan and Rhaetic languages was spoken).
 
One piece of information about Republican Romans that we lack are LATIN GENOMES.

All we have are ETRUSCAN ones.
It would be cool to have the ones of the actual Romans.
 
Miguel said:
One piece of information about Republican Romans that we lack are LATIN GENOMES.

All we have are ETRUSCAN ones.
It would be cool to have the ones of the actual Romans.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Why this misinformation? We have analyses of 6 individuals from Latin graves from Latium vetus. We would need more but it is completely false that all samples from the Roman Republican period are Etruscan.
 
Miguel said:
One piece of information about Republican Romans that we lack are LATIN GENOMES.

All we have are ETRUSCAN ones.
It would be cool to have the ones of the actual Romans.
Click to expand...
Furthermore the Etruscans were "actual Romans". Rome was a political entity that survived and thrived by assimilating other Italians into its citizenry and it remained this way for 941 years, up until the rule of Caracalla - who himself was a barbarian emperor.
 
Vitruvius said:
Furthermore the Etruscans were "actual Romans". Rome was a political entity that survived and thrived by assimilating other Italians into its citizenry and it remained this way for 941 years, up until the rule of Caracalla - who himself was a barbarian emperor.
Click to expand...

Yes, Early Romans were a group of Latins who assimilated very early both groups of Etruscans and Sabines (and also along with the Etruscans there must have been groups of Faliscans who spoke a language more like Latin but were in fact politically and culturally within the Etruscan world). After all, Rome stands in Latium vetus but right on the border with southern Etruria and Sabina. One in Rome only had to cross the Tiber to the north to be in Etruria, and one only had to go a few kilometers to the east to be in Sabina. So in early Rome all 3 elements will have been represented: Latino-Faliscan, Etruscan, and Sabellian/Osco-Umbrian.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Yes, Early Romans were a group of Latins who assimilated very early both groups of Etruscans and Sabines (and also along with the Etruscans there must have been groups of Faliscans who spoke a language more like Latin but were in fact politically and culturally within the Etruscan world). After all, Rome stands in Latium vetus but right on the border with southern Etruria and Sabina. One in Rome only had to cross the Tiber to the north to be in Etruria, and one only had to go a few kilometers to the east to be in Sabina. So in early Rome all 3 elements will have been represented: Latino-Faliscan, Etruscan, and Sabellian/Osco-Umbrian.
Click to expand...
And in the context of the Late republic, which we speak on, nearly all of Italy had citizenship by this period. Notable exceptions include, Sardinia, Sicily, Istra and the extreme alpine regions of northern Italy.

Istra was quickly given citizenship and formally added to Roman Italy by Augustus at the very beginning of his reign.

Sicily would briefly gain citizenship via senatorial bribes which were given by Marcus Antonius (carried out from the order of Julius Caesar posthumously) but then had the decision reversed due the political scandal. Cicero wrote briefly on this topic in his letters.

The Italic alps would gain citizenship roughly a generation after their conquest by general Tiberius (under the reign of Augustus) and were assimilated into the preexisting voting tribes of Italy. We know this because tablets have been archaeologically discovered in these regions which confirm their voting and citizenship rights.
 
I'm new but i sometimes look for new "studies" published by those scientists. What i always asking is:
Why is it that they always find "near eastern" populations but never native italic ones? Or did i miss them? On every paper i read about archeological researches on skeletons, dna etc... it's like they always come to the conclusion, that imperial roman Italy was ABSOLUTELY packed with near easterners. But where did the natives go? Did they extinct? And what about that one "theory" from Khan where he said, that native Italic people on the countryside repopulated the cities destroyed by wars, famine and plagues? Is it true? Why did the Dna of the italians went back to resemble Iron Age italians (or central europeans because of the supposed germanic people.... which were a tiny minority and which wouldn't make any sense)?
 
Misericordia117 said:
I'm new but i sometimes look for new "studies" published by those scientists. What i always asking is:
Why is it that they always find "near eastern" populations but never native italic ones? Or did i miss them? On every paper i read about archeological researches on skeletons, dna etc... it's like they always come to the conclusion, that imperial roman Italy was ABSOLUTELY packed with near easterners. But where did the natives go? Did they extinct? And what about that one "theory" from Khan where he said, that native Italic people on the countryside repopulated the cities destroyed by wars, famine and plagues? Is it true? Why did the Dna of the italians went back to resemble Iron Age italians (or central europeans because of the supposed germanic people.... which were a tiny minority and which wouldn't make any sense)?
Click to expand...
The only reason is that the Indo-European Italic people were those who had the Near Eastern ancestry, Etruscans and other non-Indo-European people were natives.
 
Misericordia117 said:
I'm new but i sometimes look for new "studies" published by those scientists. What i always asking is:
Why is it that they always find "near eastern" populations but never native italic ones? Or did i miss them? On every paper i read about archeological researches on skeletons, dna etc... it's like they always come to the conclusion, that imperial roman Italy was ABSOLUTELY packed with near easterners. But where did the natives go? Did they extinct? And what about that one "theory" from Khan where he said, that native Italic people on the countryside repopulated the cities destroyed by wars, famine and plagues? Is it true? Why did the Dna of the italians went back to resemble Iron Age italians (or central europeans because of the supposed germanic people.... which were a tiny minority and which wouldn't make any sense)?
Click to expand...
A lot of studies are performed by fanatics with a political agenda. The Italics and Italiotes whose blood permeates heavily in modern Italians are ignored and any sense of Italian identity is sacrificed to the bottomless pit stomach that is multiculturalist propoganda. If we take the population of Italy during the Roman late republic as a starting point of who we are to consider Italian, then there has been very, very little foreign contribution to Italy from this point onward. There is plenty of internal mixing, but all Italians today with the exception of Sardinia (neolithic isolates) can be modelled as a cline of Magna Graecian to IA Picene.
 
Misericordia117 said:
I'm new but i sometimes look for new "studies" published by those scientists. What i always asking is:
Why is it that they always find "near eastern" populations but never native italic ones? Or did i miss them? On every paper i read about archeological researches on skeletons, dna etc... it's like they always come to the conclusion, that imperial roman Italy was ABSOLUTELY packed with near easterners. But where did the natives go? Did they extinct? And what about that one "theory" from Khan where he said, that native Italic people on the countryside repopulated the cities destroyed by wars, famine and plagues? Is it true? Why did the Dna of the italians went back to resemble Iron Age italians (or central europeans because of the supposed germanic people.... which were a tiny minority and which wouldn't make any sense)?
Click to expand...
near eastern in many programs include greeks......so malta, corsica , southern france and any other ancient greek colonies as near eastern
 
adriatic italy has the lowest greek input in italian admixture......if anyone has anything that differs, then link the article
 
torzio said:
adriatic italy has the lowest greek input in italian admixture......if anyone has anything that differs, then link the article
Click to expand...
The Adriatic south has plenty of Greek input, but I'd agree that the Adriatic north likely has the lowest out of anywhere else other than maybe Sardinia.
 
unless you think that the messapics are greek and that taranto is in the adriatic sea.....i see no greek on the italian side
 
Well, Ancona on the central Adriatic coast was a Syracusan Greek colony.
 
torzio said:
unless you think that the messapics are greek and that taranto is in the adriatic sea.....i see no greek on the italian side
Click to expand...
Last I checked we don't have any Messapics sequenced, so I'm not sure why you think you can quantify their input in moderns. What is clear is that all modern southern Italians (regardless of whether they are local to the historic magna graecian colonies) strongly reflect the LBA Greek genome found between at least the Peloponessian peninsula and Crete. We also already know that Greek blood was found in abundance as far north as Pesaro by late antiquity, so to pretend the descendents of magna graecians never moved beyond their city states to other parts of Italy after Oscan & Roman Italianization seems rather silly to me.
 
Last edited:
your fishing

syracusan traders arrived 287Bc
in conflict with picene populace from 268Bc
and then became Roman from 178Bc after the picenes where annexed by the Romans
 
i asked yourself on messapics
its not my call
clearly we know the daunians are not greek even after being annexed by the samnites

the only greek trading cities in the adriatic are in albania.....they are corinthian greek town, durres being one........but this is not the italian side
 
torzio said:
your fishing

syracusan traders arrived 287Bc
in conflict with picene populace from 268Bc
and then became Roman from 178Bc after the picenes where annexed by the Romans
Click to expand...
And the majority of the late antiquity inhabitants of Pesaro still look like LBA greeks, so I'm not sure what your point is here. There is one that is feasibly from Anatolia, one that looks Northern Italic and another that looks punic. The rest look typically aegean, comparable to the norms of central italy during this era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top