Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in

[Jovialis]

Perhaps this is a better map for showing Osco-Umbrian language:

Here is evidence of the Oscan language still being spoken in Pompeii, during the Imperial era.

HAVE is the Oscan equivalent of AVE.

 

[torzio]

Perhaps this is a better map for showing Osco-Umbrian language:

Here is evidence of the Oscan language still being spoken in Pompeii, during the Imperial era.

HAVE is the Oscan equivalent of AVE.

the two maps are different time period

the first is early iron age and
the second map after the celtic invasion of the Boii and Semnones tribes

is the first map a linguistic or ethnic map as the second would be considered neither

 

[Angela]

I agree with most of what the map shows, but it may be downplaying the extent of Greek speaking areas a bit.

Others go even further:

In the end, no one today can know how far inland the Greek language spread from the initial settlements. There also is the fact that very few people lived, for example, in the Aspromonte mountains, so the majority of the population probably spoke Greek and did some admixing, imo.

Of course, everything also depends on the time period being represented. At earlier periods, for example, the Ligures extended much further into Emilia-Romagna and down into Toscana, and, of course, all the way down into Spain.

Originally, in fact, they were even above the Apennines.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Nice maps, very informative (post #59 to #63). Thanks Jovialis, Torzio and Angela.

Any thoughts on the language of the Elymians and Sicani. The Elymians definitely adopted Greek culture as their Temples in Segesta, Trapani suggest but they still wrote in their own language which the Linguistic Scholars are not totally sure on what type of language it is (some scholars suggest Indo-European connected to the Ligurians or Anatolians). Sicani I don't think left any traces of their language or very little and it too is not classified. The Sicels I think it is pretty well agreed spoke a similar language to what was spoken in Southern Italy.

 

[Jovialis]

Here are maps showing the type of Greek dialects being spoken in Magna Graecia

@Angela, great maps,

Here is another also showing Greek influence in Sardinia:

 

[torzio]

Nice maps, very informative (post #59 to #63). Thanks Jovialis, Torzio and Angela.

Any thoughts on the language of the Elymians and Sicani. The Elymians definitely adopted Greek culture as their Temples in Segesta, Trapani suggest but they still wrote in their own language which the Linguistic Scholars are not totally sure on what type of language it is (some scholars suggest Indo-European connected to the Ligurians or Anatolians). Sicani I don't think left any traces of their language or very little and it too is not classified. The Sicels I think it is pretty well agreed spoke a similar language to what was spoken in Southern Italy.

I thought Elymian was late Hittite language before it became purely Luwian...........Luwian died out in modern Lebanon circa 600BC

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Torzio: very debated, some say tied to Ligures, some Anatolian Hittite, which is why it is as today the best of my knowledge, unclassified. There is even less known about Sicani. The connection to the Ligures is do to many of the names of towns and cities in the area of the Elymians are also found in modern Liguria. So that is the reason for the hypothesis that the Elymian language is connected to the Ligures.

 

[Angela]

Here are maps showing the type of Greek dialects being spoken in Magna Graecia

@Angela, great maps,

Here is another also showing Greek influence in Sardinia:

This is why there's absolutely no surprise for me in the fact that Iran Neo exists in Italians, even without considering that it was already in central Italy, according to Antonio et al, in the Neolithic and Copper Age and Bronze Ages.

The first to colonize Southern Italy were the Euboeans, who with the move to Pithecusae (on the isle of Ischia), founded a series of cities in that region. The second city that they founded was Cumae, nearly opposite Ischia. The colonists from Cumae founded Zancle in on Sicily, and nearby on the opposite coast, Rhegium. Further, the Euboeans founded Naxos, which became the base for the founding of the cities of Leontini, Tauromenion and Catania. In this effort they were accompanied by small numbers of Dorians and Ionians; the Athenians had notably refused to take part in the colonization.^{[quotes 1]}
The strongest of the Sicilian colonies was Syracuse, an 8th-century B.C. colony of the Corinthians. Colonists of that same period from Achaea founded the cities of Sybaris and Croton in the Gulf of Taranto but also in the Metapontum in the same district. In the same area, refugees from Sparta founded Taranto which evolved into one of the most powerful cities in the area. Other Greek states that founded cities in Southern Italy were Megara, which founded Megara Hyblaea, and Selinous; Phocaea, which founded Elea; Rhodes, which founded Gela together with the Cretans and Lipari together with Cnidus, even as the Locrians founded Epizephyrean Locris.^[1]
Many cities in the region became in turn metropolis for new colonies such as the Syracusans, who founded the city of Camarina in the south of Sicily; or the Zancleans, who led the founding of the colony of Himera. Likewise Naxos, which we see taking further part in the founding of many colonies while the city of Sybaris founded the colony of Poseidonia to its north. The city of Gela which was a colony of Rhodes and Crete founded its own colony, Acragas.

Gela and Lipari seem to be the only colonies founded by Island Greeks.

 

[Shahmiri]

Bronze Age influences in the gene pool of Southern Italians have been in fact associated to a non-steppe Caucasian-related ancestry carried along the Mediterranean shores at the same time, but independently from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe migrations that occurred through Continental Europe. Consistently with this viewpoint, genetic analyses performed by comparing our modern populations with the main ancient ancestral sources have displayed the clustering of analysed Southern Italian groups with Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Anatolian, Aegean Minoan and Mycenaean populations, as opposed to the affinity of Northern Italy with Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age samples from continental Europe (Suppl. Figure S8). Accordingly, both f3-outgroup, qpGraph and qpAdmixture analyses (Fig. 4, Suppl. Figure S9, Suppl. Figure S10) revealed influences related to a Steppe ancestry in the Northern Italian groups, instead paralleled in Southern Italy by an analogous Caucasian-related contribution from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source.

Northern Italy (Etruscan, Raetic and other non-IE people) from Steppe
Southern Italy (Greek, Oscan and other IE people) from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source

Did I get it correctly?

 

[blevins13]

This is why there's absolutely no surprise for me in the fact that Iran Neo exists in Italians, even without considering that it was already in central Italy, according to Antonio et al, in the Neolithic and Copper Age and Bronze Ages.

The first to colonize Southern Italy were the Euboeans, who with the move to Pithecusae (on the isle of Ischia), founded a series of cities in that region. The second city that they founded was Cumae, nearly opposite Ischia. The colonists from Cumae founded Zancle in on Sicily, and nearby on the opposite coast, Rhegium. Further, the Euboeans founded Naxos, which became the base for the founding of the cities of Leontini, Tauromenion and Catania. In this effort they were accompanied by small numbers of Dorians and Ionians; the Athenians had notably refused to take part in the colonization.^{[quotes 1]}
The strongest of the Sicilian colonies was Syracuse, an 8th-century B.C. colony of the Corinthians. Colonists of that same period from Achaea founded the cities of Sybaris and Croton in the Gulf of Taranto but also in the Metapontum in the same district. In the same area, refugees from Sparta founded Taranto which evolved into one of the most powerful cities in the area. Other Greek states that founded cities in Southern Italy were Megara, which founded Megara Hyblaea, and Selinous; Phocaea, which founded Elea; Rhodes, which founded Gela together with the Cretans and Lipari together with Cnidus, even as the Locrians founded Epizephyrean Locris.^[1]
Many cities in the region became in turn metropolis for new colonies such as the Syracusans, who founded the city of Camarina in the south of Sicily; or the Zancleans, who led the founding of the colony of Himera. Likewise Naxos, which we see taking further part in the founding of many colonies while the city of Sybaris founded the colony of Poseidonia to its north. The city of Gela which was a colony of Rhodes and Crete founded its own colony, Acragas.

Gela and Lipari seem to be the only colonies founded by Island Greeks.

This study adds to the Anatolian route of Mycenaeans.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Jovialis]

Northern Italy (Etruscan, Raetic and other non-IE people) from Steppe
Southern Italy (Greek, Oscan and other IE people) from a non-Steppe CHG/Iran_N source

Did I get it correctly?

All of those groups in the south still have still have some Steppe in them though.

My opinion is that after a while, the spread and development of language and culture probably had less to do with genetics and more to do with acculturation. Sort of like how farming was adopted by central Anatolians, via acculturation. (Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau | PNAS)

I think this was done more for pragmatic reasons, than romanticized sentimental ones that some hobbyists believe. People needed systems that worked, in order to organize their societies.

 

[Cato]

The Oscan group had to have steppe in their DNA, they came from Central_eastern Italy. According to Giacomo Devoto Oscans were preceded by Latin faliscan people like the Aenotrians, Opici etc.

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Shahmiri]

All of those groups in the south still have still have some Steppe in them though.

My opinion is that after a while, the spread and development of language and culture probably had less to do with genetics and more to do with acculturation. Sort of like how farming was adopted by central Anatolians, via acculturation. (Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau | PNAS)

I think this was done more for pragmatic reasons, than romanticized sentimental ones that some hobbyists believe. People needed systems that worked, in order to organize their societies.

But I believe there is a strong relation between genetics and culture, a few days ago I wrote a Persian article about Janu and Satun gods in the northwest of Iran and proved that they have Indo-European origins based on Italic mythology.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani_(god)

In Etruscan mythology, Ani is god of the sky. He is shown as living in the highest heaven. He is sometimes shown with two faces, possibly showing a link with the Akkadian god Anu and the Roman god Janus.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7285.html

In Babylonian myth the Sumerian An appears as Anu, first in the line of gods and kings. And according to the best authorities on Babylonian astronomy, the god Anu was mysteriously linked to the planet Saturn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(mythology)

Saturn was sometimes regarded as the first king of Latium or even the whole of Italy. At the same time, there was a tradition that Saturn had been an immigrant god, received by Janus after he was usurped by his son Jupiter and expelled from Greece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubanini

Anu-Banini seems to have been contemporary with Simurrum king Iddin-Sin. Another well-known Lullubi king is Satuni, who was vanquished by the Mesopotamian king Naram-Sin circa 2250 BCE.

My another article: Hidali (Idali), land of young cattle, in the northeast of Elam (Zagros area), the original land of Italic people

 

[Jovialis]

But I believe there is a strong relation between genetics and culture

To a certain extent imo, I take a middle of the road approach to this.

For example, if have a group that is able to metabolize alcohol better than others, it is more likely you will have a culture that has a tradition of specialized alcohol production.

 

[Shahmiri]

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesMiddEast/AnatoliaMap3000-2000BC.htm

First it was believed that just Anatolians migrated from the south of Caucasus, but genetic studies show this region could be also the source of Indo-Iranians, Hellenic and Italic people too. I don't know why some people don't want to believe it was the original land of Indo-European, as David Reich and some other scholars have said.

 

[Jovialis]

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesMiddEast/AnatoliaMap3000-2000BC.htm

First it was believed that just Anatolians migrated from the south of Caucasus, but genetic studies show this region could be also the source of Indo-Iranians, Hellenic and Italic people too. I don't know why some people don't want to believe it was the original land of Indo-European, as David Reich and some other scholars have said.

I don't rule it out for the PIE. Especially considering David Reich's sentiments in Who We are and How We Got Here.

 

[Jovialis]

 

[Maciamo]

Interesting study. This PCA shows that Calabria is most similar to the Copper & Bronze Age Anatolia and Mycenaean Greece.

Did I miss something or did they not provide any Y-DNA data?

 

[Angela]

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesMiddEast/AnatoliaMap3000-2000BC.htm

First it was believed that just Anatolians migrated from the south of Caucasus, but genetic studies show this region could be also the source of Indo-Iranians, Hellenic and Italic people too. I don't know why some people don't want to believe it was the original land of Indo-European, as David Reich and some other scholars have said.

You seem to be confused. Italic speakers came from Central Europe and were steppe admixed. Etruscans DID NOT come from Anatolia, as recent ancient samples have proved. They are also steppe admixed. Same is almost certainly true for the Ligures.

Iran Neo or Caucasus like ancestry was in Central Italy by at least the Neolithic (in this case perhaps as part of the admixture within Anatolian farmers), in the Copper Age (perhaps for the same reason or because of movement of Copper producers from the Balkans), and certainly from the Bronze Age. It would have come from Anatolia either directly or via Greece and the Balkans or both. Then there is Iron Age settlement by the Greeks of Southern Italy and Sicily. Then we get to the Imperial Age. All of this has to be sorted out with more ancient dna.

What is clear is that Iran Neo started to arrive in the Mediterranean very early. HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with the Italics who are also our ancestors, or the Anatolian farmers who are ancestors of all Europeans to one degree or another.

 

[Jovialis]

You seem to be confused. Italic speakers came from Central Europe and were steppe admixed. Etruscans DID NOT come from Anatolia, as recent ancient samples have proved. They are also steppe admixed. Same is almost certainly true for the Ligures.

Iran Neo or Caucasus like ancestry was in Central Italy by at least the Neolithic (in this case perhaps as part of the admixture within Anatolian farmers), in the Copper Age (perhaps for the same reason or because of movement of Copper producers from the Balkans), and certainly from the Bronze Age. It would have come from Anatolia either directly or via Greece and the Balkans or both. Then there is Iron Age settlement by the Greeks of Southern Italy and Sicily. Then we get to the Imperial Age. All of this has to be sorted out with more ancient dna.

What is clear is that Iran Neo started to arrive in the Mediterranean very early. HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with the Italics who are also our ancestors, or the Anatolian farmers who are ancestors of all Europeans to one degree or another.

Absolutely right, the evidence is clear that the Italics come from central Europe, and Etruscans did not come from Anatolia.

For the record, my comments were more in relation to the possible origin of the first Indo-European speakers.