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

[Vallicanus]

Deleted

 

[Vallicanus]

i have only ever seen , italian, swiss, german , french and british for myself as an admixture and again i state, i doubt these programs are any good

Agreed!

 

[torzio]

it seems some people here are stating that without greek in your admixture you cannot be italian

the thread is about migration i to western central italy of near easterns.....is it iron age period ?

it cannot be about adriatic central italy in the iron or bronze ages

 

[Jovialis]

it seems some people here are stating that without greek in your admixture you cannot be italian

the thread is about migration i to western central italy of near easterns.....is it iron age period ?

it cannot be about adriatic central italy in the iron or bronze ages

Sorry, do you purport yourself to be a pure Italic from the Iron Age?

 

[Jovialis]

Here's a better question for you, who was it that brought Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N to Northern Italy which was non-existent in Italics/Etruscans? So YES, to be (Modern) Italian is to account for this admixture that happened centuries ago. The question is how it got there, and to me, Magna Graecia is a more plausible explanation than others.

I have some news for you, Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N wasn't brought by the Germanics or Celtic people...

I don't take these assumptions from "programs", I take it from these studies conducted on Italian DNA, which the two graphics below are taken from. Whatever I do with on my own is to replicate what is already known, to provide my own novel insights. It is astounding how long you have been on this website, and how little you know about Italian genetics. Seems like willful ignorance, frankly.

 

[torzio]

Italian within and of itself, do I really have to search for the abstract? It is clear the "Eastern ancestry" they model the north with is likely, Greek, rather than "Near Eastern" as they purport.

link this abstract

hope you are not using Moots and the agenda she has for italians

 

[torzio]

Italian within and of itself, do I really have to search for the abstract? It is clear the "Eastern ancestry" they model the north with is likely, Greek, rather than "Near Eastern" as they purport.

show me only the indigenous etrusci and liguri populuce data without other populace added.....
and then we can chat about it

i am not going to argue about any mix without seeing there data on its own

 

[Jovialis]

link this abstract

hope you are not using Moots and the agenda she has for italians

Clearly you do not read my posts.

 

[Jovialis]

link this abstract

hope you are not using Moots and the agenda she has for italians

This was linked by Franscesco, who took it from Nrken on X. It is an abstract from an upcoming study. There's a thread on it somewhere on eupedia. Other users who are paying attention can vouch for this:

 

[Jovialis]

show me only the indigenous etrusci and liguri populuce data without other populace added.....
and then we can chat about it

i am not going to argue about any mix without seeing there data on its own

Are you kidding me, have you not been a participant on this website for the past 10 years? There's a number of studies that are posted here specifically on Etruscans (nothing about Liguri yet) you are welcome to use the search bar in the top right hand corner. I am not going to educate you on the topic from square 1.

 

[torzio]

Are you kidding me, have you not been a participant on this website for the past 10 years? There's a number of studies that are posted here specifically on Etruscans (nothing about Liguri yet) you are welcome to use the search bar in the top right hand corner. I am not going to educate you on the topic from square 1.

i have not been able to use this site properly since its change....so

show me greek in liguri or etrusci origins and then we can discuss

i was one of a few that fought to say the etrusci are indigenous to italy, and NOT accept an asia-minor origin

as for non indigenous italians for north and central italy, the bulk came in via north-east italy and not via any greek/aegean area....stop looking beyond bronze and early iron age period

 

[torzio]

since my account has not worked properly since eupedia changed...maybe my account needs to be reset or terminated

 

[torzio]

This was linked by Franscesco, who took it from Nrken on X. It is an abstract from an upcoming study. There's a thread on it somewhere on eupedia. Other users who are paying attention can vouch for this:

another useless data that has a huge range of years of italians/etruscans and shows no clarity on any type of admixture ?

yea.....lets mix hundreds of years and thus claim clarity on national identity, .........we do not need to fight fot national identity....

 

[Vitruvius]

I think it's very feasible based on the Picenes that pure iron age italics with little to no Greek admixture could very well continue to exist in Italy, but I also think it's totally incorrect to state that Adriatic Italy has no Greek admixture. Places like Veneto and Friuli are debatable as far as how much if any Greek influence affected them, but places like Apulia are a closed case of heavy and significant Greek influence. Personally I think the ancient Greco-Italic cline that Italians have today is a rather beautiful synthesis of cultures and ethnic groups that historically drew heavily from one another. I also don't particularly see one or the other has being more Italian in a modern sense because the formation of unified Italy as we know it today was politically first manifested by the Romans. Whatever Italy and it's various warring ethnic groups were in the early iron age and bronze age are mostly lost to time, but our conscious understanding of Italian history draws itself mainly from the Roman era onward. It was the Romans who chose to fuse their populations with the descendants of the Italiotes when they were given citizenship and the Italians of today are the result of this choice.

 

[Vitruvius]

Here's a better question for you, who was it that brought Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N to Northern Italy which was non-existent in Italics/Etruscans? So YES, to be (Modern) Italian is to account for this admixture that happened centuries ago. The question is how it got there, and to me, Magna Graecia is a more plausible explanation than others.

I have some news for you, Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N wasn't brought by the Germanics or Celtic people...

I don't take these assumptions from "programs", I take it from these studies conducted on Italian DNA, which the two graphics below are taken from. Whatever I do with on my own is to replicate what is already known, to provide my own novel insights. It is astounding how long you have been on this website, and how little you know about Italian genetics. Seems like willful ignorance, frankly.

While I do mainly agree with what you're saying, especially in the point that the majority of Caucasian ancestry in Italy was likely Greek derived, we do have to remember populations like the Italic Picenes and likely other yet unsampled northern italics carried notable excess caucasian neolithic like ancestry outside of what is typical within BA steppe ancestry, similar to the Illyrians. I think that's a large part of what makes the Northern Italian genetic profile so unique today - it really has an origin in common with the bronze age northern balkans and carpathian basin which is no longer found in these regions.

 

[Vitruvius]

This was linked by Franscesco, who took it from Nrken on X. It is an abstract from an upcoming study. There's a thread on it somewhere on eupedia. Other users who are paying attention can vouch for this:

Is this separate from the Felsina study?

 

[torzio]

veneto and friuli are venetic tribes they are trading with liburnian island traders since the late bronze-age.....usually grain from veneto for liburnian wine from Issa (Viz)....picenes as their history states also traded with Liburnians from trading towns of Tronto and Martinscuro, to name 2.
there is no way that i will dismiss Liburnian contribution to the adriatic italians.

we have already discussed the heel of Italy and the Messapics.....if they are Greek in origin, then i am in error.
when the Romans took Durres during the hannibal war, might be the first time a roman-greek mix occurred.

as for myself...proud to be from italy, but do not try to thrown any greek on me when it does not exist....same with slavic

 

[Vitruvius]

That is what the results suggest no doubt. Frankly I find highly unrealistic that the late antiquity population of Pesaro (as of today, probably very much like Romagna genetically speaking) could be genetically Greek, excluding merchants and possibly military elements from the Byzantine Empire.

In fact something we should take into account for southern and to minor extent central Adriatic Italy, when considering a possible Greek input beyond Magna Graecia, is the Medieval Byzantine era.

I've just read a book by John Julius Norwich about Norman Sicily ("Kingdom in the Sun"), and the author describes Bari in Apulia (as well as many other areas in the south, for example Messina or the whole Calabria) as predominantly Greek, inhabilted for the most part by Greeks. And we're speaking of as late as the 12th century.

It would've been a similar phenomenon to the rest of C. Italy. They were effectively swamped with an Aegean genetic structure during the early empire and then later likely diluted to their current position by an influx of northern Italians in late antiquity and the middle ages. My presumption is that the northern Italian outlier is not a continuation of local Picene ancestry but someone from Po Valley or the alps.

 

[Vallicanus]

veneto and friuli are venetic tribes they are trading with liburnian island traders since the late bronze-age.....usually grain from veneto for liburnian wine from Issa (Viz)....picenes as their history states also traded with Liburnians from trading towns of Tronto and Martinscuro, to name 2.
there is no way that i will dismiss Liburnian contribution to the adriatic italians.

we have already discussed the heel of Italy and the Messapics.....if they are Greek in origin, then i am in error.
when the Romans took Durres during the hannibal war, might be the first time a roman-greek mix occurred.

as for myself...proud to be from italy, but do not try to thrown any greek on me when it does not exist....same with slavic

Why did the Picenes speak an Osco-Umbrian language and not an Illyrian language?

 

[Vallicanus]

Here's a better question for you, who was it that brought Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N to Northern Italy which was non-existent in Italics/Etruscans? So YES, to be (Modern) Italian is to account for this admixture that happened centuries ago. The question is how it got there, and to me, Magna Graecia is a more plausible explanation than others.

I have some news for you, Non-steppe-related CHG/Iran_N wasn't brought by the Germanics or Celtic people...

I don't take these assumptions from "programs", I take it from these studies conducted on Italian DNA, which the two graphics below are taken from. Whatever I do with on my own is to replicate what is already known, to provide my own novel insights. It is astounding how long you have been on this website, and how little you know about Italian genetics. Seems like willful ignorance, frankly.

Charts C and D show how alike are modern Italians and Greeks.