New Felsina Etruscan Paper by Zaro et alia 2024

It is undoubtedly a beautiful fairy tale. But I am sorry Vitruvius I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago. It has symbolic value, but only true scholars are capable of analyzing this symbolic value, certainly not forumists, including myself.
That's fair. You are free to your opinion as is everyone. I'm more than willing to accept a solid refutation of the story if evidence exists for it. The same goes for evidence in favor of the idea. As you said it's a beautiful story but I am personally ambivalent as to whether it occurred or not. I don't pretend to know one way or the other.
 
The Magna Graecian colonization of Italy is archaeologically backed as real in countless of sites with several cities hosting populations that were larger than Rome. We have definitive proof large sums of greeks were already living in Italy by the early iron age. This is not a strange theory but a well validated reality.
You talk about the Graecian colonization of Italy, like the British colonization of India, it doesn't mean a huge migration from Greece to Central Italy, this study doesn't talk about Greek ancestry but Iranian-related ancestry, something which is common between Greek and Italic people, as two IE people.
 
You make some valid points about the historicity of the Iliad. But excavations at the site of Troy by Heinrich Schliemann and others have uncovered evidence of a city that was destroyed around the time traditionally associated with the Trojan War, adding some credibility to the story.

You mention the long gap between The Trojan War and the foundation of Rome. However Aeneas didn't found Rome but Lavinium.His son Ascanius founded Alba Longa c. 1200 BCE according to the legend. Archaeological evidence confirms that Alba Longa was founded around the 12th or 11th century BCE. Excavations at the site have revealed artifacts and structures dating back to this period. Alba Longa was abandoned by 700 BCE.

So the Trojan immigrants didn't need to hibernate for centuries. What doesn't make sense is the genealogy of the kings of Alba Longa, as some generations seem to be missing (although not necessarily). But even if it was the case that would be understandable. Society was still relatively primitive back then and they needed simple (which means often 'simplified') stories to tell the people. Or the people themselves simplified it over time as they couldn't remember everything through oral tradition.


We cannot know for sure which language the Trojans spoke, but it was almost certainly Indo-European, like most of the languages in the region at the time.

The dominant Indo-European haplogroup in the region (Bulgaria, Greece, Western Anatolia) was R1b-Z2103.

The Trojan War was immediately followed by the Bronze Age collapse and the invasion of the Sea Peoples, who happened to be genetically closest to the inhabitants of Thrace and Western Anatolia at the time (based on the analysis of the Philistines, a group of Sea Peoples, in Israel at the time of the Bronze Age collapse). If the Sea Peoples could travel over all the Eastern Mediterranean to raid and conquer and they came from the same region as Troy, I don't see why a group of people from Troy in the same period could not have settled in the Latium. It's nearer than Israel or Egypt.


The oldest Latin sample we have from Iron Age Latium is R1016 from Castel di Decima (between Rome and Lavinium) dating from 900-700 BCE and this sample happens to be R1b-Z2103. It could be a coincidence. We certainly need more samples from the Latium from that period. But I wouldn't completely discredit the hypothesis yet.
There is more evidence for a West to East migration from Peninsular Italy to the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of the so called sea peoples than the opposite. Subapennine pottery was locally made at Chania in Crete, Tyrins and Midea in mainland Greece, and in many other sites such as at and Tell Kazel and Tell Arqa in Syria and North Lebanon respectively, an area that was was back then known as Amurru, one of the places ravaged by the sea peoples. Italian type razors and weapons also arrived in said places during that time. There is also evidence for a type of pottery similar to the Terramare ceramics of North Italy being produced in the Aegean at this time, suggesting that the collapse of the Terramare might've sparked a domino effect that caused or propelled these migrations.

There is no evidence for any Anatolian pottery making it to Italy at the time, only Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery, indicating that direct trade with Anatolia was non existent or extremely rare, making the idea that a group of Anatolians decided to migrate all the way to a place that they didn't know at all and that was full of war-like tribes that were themselves migrating at the time, very unlikely. Anatolian pottery did make it further East and South to Amurru, Cyprus and Egypt, in small numbers, indicating that they probably moved to those places, but not Westward. The Lukka were very likely Lycians as we know from Egyptian, Ugaritic and especially Hittite sources, which put a spotlight on the geography of Bronze age Anatolia. So the Anatolians did take part in the migrations of the sea peoples, but eastward, not westward. After all places like Egypt or the Levant were much richer and more inviting than Latium at the time, and that's were most of these migrating tribes decided to try to settle.
 
Last edited:
Warlike tribes didn't stop the Greeks from setting up colonies/ city states in Southern Italy, Sicily and southern Gaul (Massilia,etc)
 
Warlike tribes didn't stop the Greeks from setting up colonies/ city states in Southern Italy, Sicily and southern Gaul (Massilia,etc)
The difference is that for the Greeks we have tons of pottery and other kind of material evidence. In fact Greek Euboean pottery made it all the way to Iberia already by the 9th century BC. There is no evidence that even a single fragment of Anatolian pottery made its way to the Western Mediterranean during the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, the era where these supposed Trojan migrations would've taken place.
 
According to Fernandes et al. (The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean), "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean; and there was large-scale population replacement after the Bronze Age."

There are many archaeological evidences about this migration, like rock-cut tombs of Pantalica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necropolis_of_Pantalica Dating from the 13th to the 7th centuries BC.

Panatlica, Italy:

aee3ece5-2611-4687-949a-f32104b47261_800x600.jpg


Marvdasht, Iran:

3516259.jpg
 
According to Fernandes et al. (The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean), "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean; and there was large-scale population replacement after the Bronze Age."

There are many archaeological evidences about this migration, like rock-cut tombs of Pantalica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necropolis_of_Pantalica Dating from the 13th to the 7th centuries BC.

Panatlica, Italy:

aee3ece5-2611-4687-949a-f32104b47261_800x600.jpg


Marvdasht, Iran:

3516259.jpg
Please let's not confuse completely different time periods and cultures, that's not how archaeology works. The Iranian N ancestry started entering Italy well before the Late Bronze Age. Rock cut tombs are found everywhere in the world in different cultures and different time periods, those you posted are not even contemporary to Pantalica and have nothing to do with Troy anyway. And for the record, much earlier rock cut tombs are found in the Castelluccio culture of Sicily, dating to the Early Bronze age, and even earlier elaborate rock cut tombs were made in Neolithic Sardinia during the fourth millennium BC, so rock cut tombs in the Western Mediteranean have nothing to do with the arrival of Iran N ancestry.
 
Last edited:
Please let's not confuse completely different time periods and cultures, that's not how archaeology works. The Iranian N ancestry started entering Italy well before the Late Bronze Age. Rock cut tombs are found everywhere in the world in different cultures and different time periods, those you posted are not even contemporary to Pantalica and have nothing to do with Troy anyway. And for the record, much earlier rock cut tombs are found in the Castelluccio culture of Sicily, dating to the Early Bronze age, and even earlier elaborate rock cut tombs were made in Neolithic Sardinia during the fourth millennium BC, so rock cut tombs in the Western Mediteranean have nothing to do with the arrival of Iran N ancestry.

About the Castelluccio culture of Sicily, look at this book: The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

Sicily.jpg
 
About the Castelluccio culture of Sicily, look at this book: The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

View attachment 16272

There is also much evidence for a westward artistic influence from the Iberian Peninsula impacting Sicily during the same time:


And things like checkboard patterns, chevrons, wavy lines, are all attested in earlier Neolithic rock cut tombs in Sardinia.
By the way, I'm not denying any possible connection with the Eastern Mediterranean or the Near East in general. The Cetina culture for example connected the Aegean with South Italy, Sicily included. Asian elephant ivory was exported westward and it arrived as far as Iberia and Sardinia during the third millennium BC. An Eastern Mediterranean type axe made with Aegean copper was found in a Rinaldone burial in Latium. And how not to mention the famous ossi a globuli? They were found both in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, including the much discussed Troy itself! too bad that they date to roughly 2200 BC, not 1200 BC. So there were more or less direct contacts between the two sides of the Mediterranean already by at least by the third millennium BC, though it's hard to say how exactly they occurred and who the main agents were. DNA seems to support that there were Westward movements which reached Italy and beyond during the third millennium BC. But for Sicily for example, there is also some DNA evidence that seems to support migrations from the Iberian Peninsula too. So the opposite is also true.
The problem is that when we discuss the Trojan migration we're talking about another period, the end of the Late Bronze Age, not the beginning of the Bronze Age or the Copper Age, and about a specific migration from Troy taking place. There isn't any material evidence for that. There is clear evidence for some Eastern Mediterranean groups traveling westward during the Late Bronze Age, especially Greeks and Cypriots, but not Trojans, and seeminly mostly to trade rather than to settle.
 
Last edited:
You talk about the Graecian colonization of Italy, like the British colonization of India, it doesn't mean a huge migration from Greece to Central Italy, this study doesn't talk about Greek ancestry but Iranian-related ancestry, something which is common between Greek and Italic people, as two IE people.
It means a huge migration from Greece to Southern Italy. This is not a debatable topic and is not something that is even questioned. You're going to have to get over these Iranian mass migration fantasies. Italy's "Iranian-Related" DNA is actually from the Caucasus, just like any other part of Europe, including Greece.
 
The difference is that for the Greeks we have tons of pottery and other kind of material evidence. In fact Greek Euboean pottery made it all the way to Iberia already by the 9th century BC. There is no evidence that even a single fragment of Anatolian pottery made its way to the Western Mediterranean during the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, the era where these supposed Trojan migrations would've taken place.
Western Anatolian pottery by the early Iron age was in fact Greek pottery as well. These areas of Anatolia had adopted all aspects of Greek culture, religion, language and material culture. Obviously that does not prove migrations from Troy, but it is a great oversight to assume Greece and W. Anatolia were at all materially disconnected or highly distinct during the iron age.
 
Did the Greeks not actually see the Trojans as some sort of Greek?
 
Western Anatolian pottery by the early Iron age was in fact Greek pottery as well. These areas of Anatolia had adopted all aspects of Greek culture, religion, language and material culture. Obviously that does not prove migrations from Troy, but it is a great oversight to assume Greece and W. Anatolia were at all materially disconnected or highly distinct during the iron age.
The migration is supposed to have taken place in the Late Bronze Age, and back then the Western Anatolians produced their typical Anatolian Gray Ware, distinct from Mycenaean pottery, Anatolian Gray Ware is not found in Itay. Now, in Hissarlik they used and produced Mycenaean pottery too, in addition to their Anatolian Gray Ware pottery, but that goes for coastal communities all over the Eastern Mediterranean too, and even for some Italian communities, mostly coastal ones.
 
Last edited:
There is more evidence for a West to East migration from Peninsular Italy to the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of the so called sea peoples than the opposite. Subapennine pottery was locally made at Chania in Crete, Tyrins and Midea in mainland Greece, and in many other sites such as at and Tell Kazel and Tell Arqa in Syria and North Lebanon respectively, an area that was was back then known as Amurru, one of the places ravaged by the sea peoples. Italian type razors and weapons also arrived in said places during that time. There is also evidence for a type of pottery similar to the Terramare ceramics of North Italy being produced in the Aegean at this time, suggesting that the collapse of the Terramare might've sparked a domino effect that caused or propelled these migrations.

There is no evidence for any Anatolian pottery making it to Italy at the time, only Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery, indicating that direct trade with Anatolia was non existent or extremely rare, making the idea that a group of Anatolians decided to migrate all the way to a place that they didn't know at all and that was full of war-like tribes that were themselves migrating at the time, very unlikely. Anatolian pottery did make it further East and South to Amurru, Cyprus and Egypt, in small numbers, indicating that they probably moved to those places, but not Westward. The Lukka were very likely Lycians as we know from Egyptian, Ugaritic and especially Hittite sources, which put a spotlight on the geography of Bronze age Anatolia. So the Anatolians did take part in the migrations of the sea peoples, but eastward, not westward. After all places like Egypt or the Levant were much richer and more inviting than Latium at the time, and that's were most of these migrating tribes decided to try to settle.

I double checked it and it looks like you're right. The ancient Trojans, particularly those associated with the Late Bronze Age site of Troy (Hissarlik), were part of the extensive trade networks of the eastern Mediterranean, which connected the Aegean, Anatolia, Cyprus, the Levant, and Egypt. However there is no evidence of trade with Italy during this period, nor of any West Anatolian pottery in Italy.

That being said, the fall of Troy or the Late Bronze Age collapse in general could have led to the kind of diaspora/migration /colonisation from West Anatolia to the Eastern Mediterranean (as you suggest) with a few minor offshoots going to other places like Italy. If it was just a few people they would have left no archaeological trace and would have blended with the local population. In the myth of Aeneas, he marries the daughter of the local king of the Latins. But the myth also says that Aeneas first sought refuge in Carthage, which is a clear anachronism as Carthage was only founded 400 years after the fall of Troy. The problem is myth is that even when they're based on historical events they end up being embellished by all kind of unlikely stories, and ancient Greece often with gods and monsters, so that it looks like all of it is just one big made-up story, a fairy tale (as Pax Augusta likes to put it). So I agree it's better to just leave it at that as we won't to be able to confirm whether there is any truth to it.
 
Last edited:
The migration is supposed to have taken place in the Late Bronze Age, and back then the Western Anatolians produced their typical Anatolian Gray Ware, distinct from Mycenaean pottery, Anatolian Gray Ware is not found in Itay. Now, in Hissarlik they used and produced Mycenaean pottery too, in addition to their Anatolian Gray Ware pottery, but that goes for coastal communities all over the Eastern Mediterranean too, and even for some Italian communities, mostly coastal ones.
Of course. I don't disagree that they were much more distinct in the bronze age. But by the iron age there likely is a significant amount of W. Anatolians migrating to Italy in the Magna Graecian sphere. At this point these peoples simply considered themselves Greek and not very distinct from Greeks of Greece proper (even if we today know there remained a genetic cline).
 
There is also much evidence for a westward artistic influence from the Iberian Peninsula impacting Sicily during the same time:


And things like checkboard patterns, chevrons, wavy lines, are all attested in earlier Neolithic rock cut tombs in Sardinia.
By the way, I'm not denying any possible connection with the Eastern Mediterranean or the Near East in general. The Cetina culture for example connected the Aegean with South Italy, Sicily included. Asian elephant ivory was exported westward and it arrived as far as Iberia and Sardinia during the third millennium BC. An Eastern Mediterranean type axe made with Aegean copper was found in a Rinaldone burial in Latium. And how not to mention the famous ossi a globuli? They were found both in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, including the much discussed Troy itself! too bad that they date to roughly 2200 BC, not 1200 BC. So there were more or less direct contacts between the two sides of the Mediterranean already by at least by the third millennium BC, though it's hard to say how exactly they occurred and who the main agents were. DNA seems to support that there were Westward movements which reached Italy and beyond during the third millennium BC. But for Sicily for example, there is also some DNA evidence that seems to support migrations from the Iberian Peninsula too. So the opposite is also true.
The problem is that when we discuss the Trojan migration we're talking about another period, the end of the Late Bronze Age, not the beginning of the Bronze Age or the Copper Age, and about a specific migration from Troy taking place. There isn't any material evidence for that. There is clear evidence for some Eastern Mediterranean groups traveling westward during the Late Bronze Age, especially Greeks and Cypriots, but not Trojans, and seeminly mostly to trade rather than to settle.
Something which can be related to Iran dates back to 2200 BC and 4.2-kiloyear event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event As you read "This time was one of great upheaval for ecological reasons. Prolonged failure of rains caused acute water shortage in large areas, causing the collapse of sedentary urban cultures in south central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and India, and triggering large-scale migrations. Inevitably, the new arrivals came to merge with and dominate the post-urban cultures."

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean:
1717567759067.png


Did you know that the northwest of Iran is closer to the south of Italy than southeast of Iran?

IranItaly.jpg
 
Last edited:
Did you know that the northwest of Iran is closer to the south of Italy than southeast of Iran?
What an incredibly dumb and irrelevant comment, moreover considering the most extreme geographical points of the two countries. Did you know that Como si closer to Copenhagen than to Palermo? What is that supposed to mean in genetics term?

Are you suggesting that NW Iranians are genetically closer to Southern Italians than to SE Iranians?
 
Of course. I don't disagree that they were much more distinct in the bronze age. But by the iron age there likely is a significant amount of W. Anatolians migrating to Italy in the Magna Graecian sphere. At this point these peoples simply considered themselves Greek and not very distinct from Greeks of Greece proper (even if we today know there remained a genetic cline).
Yes, if by Iron Age you mean the 7th-6th century BC, and not the Early Iron Age then that's right. During the Early Iron Age most of the Aegean merchants in Etruscan soil would've been Euboean, who founded Pithekoussai and Cuma, and Corinthians. Around the 7th and especially during the 6th century BC the inhabitants of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, especially the Ionian ones, started visiting the Western Mediterranean with increased frequency. That's when Phoecea founded powerful colonies like Marseille. That's also when Miletus reached its apex both culturally and economically, before getting conquered by Persia. The inhabitants of these colonies would've very probably been mixed with the Anatolians to some extent, and there probably were also full fledged Anatolians with them. In the busy coastal emporium of Gravisca, the port of Tarquinia, one of the dedicatory cups found there, dated to c. 540 BC, is inscribed with the Lydian name Paktyes.
 
Last edited:
What an incredibly dumb and irrelevant comment, moreover considering the most extreme geographical points of the two countries. Did you know that Como si closer to Copenhagen than to Palermo? What is that supposed to mean in genetics term?

Are you suggesting that NW Iranians are genetically closer to Southern Italians than to SE Iranians?
Recent genetic and linguistic studies show that a region in the northwest of Iran and east of Anatolia was the homeland of Indo-Europeans, for example look at Heggarty et al. 2023, I meant a migration from this region to Italy is not a strange thing.
 
Recent genetic and linguistic studies show that a region in the northwest of Iran and east of Anatolia was the homeland of Indo-Europeans, for example look at Heggarty et al. 2023, I meant a migration from this region to Italy is not a strange thing.

Paul Heggarty never assumed a direct migration from northwest of Iran to southern Italy or Italy more in general, though.
 

This thread has been viewed 4430 times.

Back
Top