Genetic study Population changes in northern Italy from the Iron Age to Modern Times

Where Gauls expelled from Gallia Cisalpina?
A lot of them at least. Maybe not all.

And of those ones, they were of the 5th-4th Century BCE invading tribes, not the already long-established ones further North (Lepontics, Insubres, etc...)
 
I can't access this article.

Can you summarise it?
The social, political and economic conditions during the late republic caused by the Samnite Wars, Punic wars, and social wars, combined with the expulsion of many Gauls from the Po Valley, left something of a vacuum in said region. A vacuum that the city of Rome could not fill itself due to being depleted by long wars. The settlement of the Po Valley by Samnites was convenient for both the Roman Republic and for Samnite agriculturalists looking for better opportunities and land (and probably good to have a war-hardy people as a buffer between the Northern/Alpine tribes and the rest of Italy)
Epigraphic evidence shows a marked increase of Samnite gens names in the Po Valley, supposedly making for a significant proportion, and a decrease of them in Samnium... from what I understand.
 
Where Gauls expelled from Gallia Cisalpina?
Yes. Polybius does indeed recount this and also said that very few remained after the expulsion. This is also likely why none of the regions in the Augstan organization of Roman Italy included the name "Gallia/Gaul". To the Romans, these populations were seen as intruders to Italy and the Etruscan domain and they consequentially received a similar treatment to the Punics in Sicily who were also expelled.
 
To the Romans, these populations were seen as intruders to Italy and the Etruscan domain and they consequentially received a similar treatment to the Punics in Sicily who were also expelled.
It's curious though, culturally they hadn't to be too different from the already established Ligurians and Lepontii for example.
 
Yes. Polybius does indeed recount this and also said that very few remained after the expulsion. This is also likely why none of the regions in the Augstan organization of Roman Italy included the name "Gallia/Gaul". To the Romans, these populations were seen as intruders to Italy and the Etruscan domain and they consequentially received a similar treatment to the Punics in Sicily who were also expelled.

The ancient writers, both Roman and Greek, did a lot of propaganda, stating what suited them best to justify their actions. They should not be read as disinterested historical testimony.
 
The ancient writers, both Roman and Greek, did a lot of propaganda, stating what suited them best to justify their actions. They should not be read as disinterested historical testimony.
After all it wouldn't look good on them to name one part of the peninsula "Gallia" (Gauls-free or not).
 
There's no doubt that there was a massive Romanization in northern Italy - especially of the Cispadana - by Roman and/or Italic colonists. The traces of the centuriation still remain evident along the Via Aemilia.
Be careful, however, not to take Polybius with his mass expulsions at face value. I don't deny that those news about him seem to me more like a way to exorcise what was a centuries-old fear of the Romans towards the Gauls, and in the end, as Pax says, a propaganda tool. I consider it very unlikely - or at least limited - a complete Roman "ethnic cleansing" of the indigenous people, if only because

1) the arriving settlers still needed a substantial workforce on site to manage the territory in such a widespread manner. More likely, in this sense, Romanization mainly concerned urban centers or advantageous agricultural territories, marginalizing the local population in more rural, peripheral or disadvantaged areas (then perhaps generating that reservoir of "bagaudae" or similar "ghost" populations, which came back into vogue towards the end of the Empire and rearrange the genetic makeup of the Italian population on more continental values), but not eliminating it completely;

2) the Po Valley is Celtic/Gallic in a completely singular way. The Roman military intervention perhaps concentrated on more backward and rebellious groups (Senones on the Picen region and Boi between Romagna and Bologna) and it is more likely that the Romans carried out a targeted screening. Northern Italy was in fact characterized by a strange koinè which rather had integrated or hybridized on several occasions and in various phases a Gallic superstratum on consistent, older and also quite diversified backgrounds of Ligurian, Venetian, Rhaetian, Etruscan or semi-Etruscan populations... It is unlikely that Rome would use the iron glove even on groups on the path of a marked "mediterranean" acculturation (in fact it will then be the "soft" policy of the Romans adopted with the Transpadane groups), and the demographic and ethnic reality of Northern Italy and part of Central Italy in relation to the Gallic world is much more complicated and nuanced than the ancient sources are willing to communicate to us with their schematisms (in this sense the various contributions by Daniele Vitali can help us);

3) at least until Caesar, northern Italy - still Cisalpine Gaul - is from an administrative point of view something different from Italy proper (and we are practically already halfway through the Roman historical parable). The passage of the Rubicone was not a politically and militarily neutral event, and the waterway - probably to be identified with the current Pisciatello/Fiumicino rather than with today's Rubicone - flows quite south (between Cesenatico and Bellaria, so to speak) . This means that the same Cispadane territorial band from there to the Po, at least until Caesar and despite the intense Romanisation, was not yet completely pacified and sufficiently homogeneous socially, ethnically, culturally to be able to consider it on the same level as peninsular Italy (which which only happened from Caesar onwards - in view of the loyalty of the local legions - extended Roman citizenship to those territories, which were incorporated into Italy a few years later);

4) however, the specificities remain. Already in the late imperial age, northern Italy returned to being "Annonaria" Italy, for a combination of political, military, administrative and social reasons which in fact once again characterized the region, separating it from the "Suburbicaria" area. Still today - despite a massive romanization of this part of the country - we continue to be able to generally distinguish northern Italians, highlighting undeniable linguistic specificities in their dialects, or to notice that in genetic models and oracles - both professional and amateur - the northern group tends to get closer to the Iberian or Franco-Iberian area cluster. And if we are saying that the late imperial or early medieval Germanic superstratum was not such as to overturn the local population, this implies that a significant pre-Roman indigenous substratum still remained.

It's clear that northern Italy cannot be considered "Celtic" as could be the case in central Europe or the British Isles, but neither should we fall into the temptation to classify it as absolutely homogeneous with the rest of the peninsular territory
 
After all it wouldn't look good on them to name one part of the peninsula "Gallia" (Gauls-free or not).
We cannot disregard Polybius' contemporary evidence about the expulsion of the Gauls (or most of them) apart from a few locations near the Alps. The Po valley was full of Roman and Latin settlers in colonies, and as individual migrants.
 
The ancient writers, both Roman and Greek, did a lot of propaganda, stating what suited them best to justify their actions. They should not be read as disinterested historical testimony.
This is a first hand account, not a distant propaganda tale for emotive purposes. Unless you are trying to claim that Polybius is a liar, this expulsion actually did happen and he had personally confirmed it with his own two eyes:

"Such was the end of the war against the Celts, a war which, if we look to the desperation and daring of the combatants and the numbers who took part and perished in the battles, is second to no war in history, but is quite contemptible as regards the plan of the campaigns, and the judgement shown in executing it, not most steps but every single step that the Gauls took being commended to them rather by the heat of passion than by cool calculation. As I have witnessed them not long afterwards entirely expelled from the plain of the Po, except a few regions close under the Alps, I did not think it right to make no mention either of their original invasion or of their subsequent conduct and their final expulsion; for I think it is the proper task of History to record and hand down to future generations such episodes of Fortune, that those who live after us may not, owing to entire ignorance of these incidents, be unduly terrified by sudden and unexpected invasions of barbarians, but that, having a fair comprehension of how short-lived and perishable is the might of such peoples, they may confront the invaders and put every hope of safety to the test, before yielding a jot of anything they value.” - Polybius, The Histories, Book II, Chapter 35
 
It's curious though, culturally they hadn't to be too different from the already established Ligurians and Lepontii for example.
I have to disagree here. I think there is a much greater divide between Lepontic speakers and Transalpine Gauls than modern language reconstructionists give credit to. Ancient authors more commonly view the two as entirely different populations and do not equate them to each other. Golaseccian cultures had quite close cultural material contacts with the Etruscan and Rhaetic world and on a surface level in my opinion likely derive more of their cultural origins from Polada.

I'd very much like to see a genetic comparison of Raeti and Insubri because my guess currently is that there will not be any significant divides. The Romans very clearly made a distinction as well, allowing all of the preexisting Lepontic speakers to remain and eventually be classified as Roman Italians, where as the Transalpine gauls were entirely or mostly expelled and treated as provincials.
 
Last edited:
An internet friend from Emilia Romagna province who's interested in the topic responded to the idea I shared that most 4th Century Gallic invader populations were driven out of the Po Valley/Italy.

Translated from Italian so a bit hard to read but:
It's a proven exaggeration by some ancient authors, some of them even greeks. Completely against any archeological, genetic, ethnolinguistic proves. The only who faced a severe reduction of their presence and a PARTIAL emigration were the Senones and the Boii, who were the most anti-roman and authors of some betrayals against the peace treaties with Rome (the Senones even sacked Rome and the Boii invited Hannibal in Italy). The Senones lost the costal plain after the conquest and were completely demilitarized and survived in the Appennines. Anyway, they mixed again in the successive generations with the Picene-Roman coast population, and the regions of Flaminia/Romandiola and Ager Gallicus remained influenced by the cisalpine koiné until NOWADAYS. The other confederation, the Boii (from nowadays Bavaria and Bohemia, Czechia) were, in fact, a collective of c.a. 120 different tribes. Polibius is the main source for the emigration ed expulsion of the Boii from the Po Valley. Anyway, a deeper analysis of the historical sources clearly shows that during and just after the Hannibalic tragedy, the Boii confederation appeared to break up into many different "districts", with different approaches with the Romans. The eastern districts, around Bologna - which appear to still use the name "Boii", fought till the end and faced some violent eradication of minor cities and villages. The towen surrended and than was partially re-colonized by Italic-Roman colonist, but there isn't trace of a destruction or an ethnic cleansing. The western districts, around Modena, Parma and Brixellum appeared to have a different, opposite behavior than Bologna even during the hannibalic war, and the name "Boii" seems to be ceased in use by such districts. We see abitative continuity in many places, we see a celtic-like cult of Minerva in the lower Appennine hills of such districts, and some places mantained celtic names. We have also to say that the celtic tribes were also part of a koiné with a numerically strong (celticized) etruscan and ligurian population. If Modena, Brixellum, Rubiera, Parma, were allied communities, it's very unlikely that the romans expelled people from such places in the aftermath of the war. What it's sure is that the name Boii ceased in use, and probably because of a form of damnatio memoriae for their role in the hannibalic invasion, and that - differently from the Insubres, Cenomanes and others people (Taurini from Piedmont, Anamari from western Emilia and southern Lombardy, etc.) did not maintain their own institution. Probably, after an inter-celtic civil war, the part who was philo-roman identified more into the birth of the cisalpine-roman """nationality""" losing faster than others their late La Tene culture (already partially abandoned for "etruschization"). The so called "expulsion of the Celts" was an archeologically almost invisible phenomenon: probably it regarded some handful of very anti-roman chieftains and their strict armed followers, together with family and servants. They may had enforced the migrating communities of mercenaries and semi-nomadic military operations in the Balkans, Pannonia or even further, but we are talking about some hundreds/thousands of people. Not an exodus.
"What work assumption should be taken the idea according to which the 112 Boic tribes Catone is talking about should be equated to clans, while in the human groups settled in the various "districts" of the ager Boicus a form of social organization (maybe endowed with an ethnic dimension) of an intermediate scale between that of tribes and that of the ethno-political entity. Among the collective activities where the temporary unity of the latter could express itself (involving a large number of its potential components) are wars and religious rites.
In the classical literature, you can see some further aspects of the social and institutional organization of the Boic ethno-political entity between the late IIIrd and the beginning of the IInd century. Various top figures with roles differently labelled and sometimes quoted by their own names appear implicated in the exercise of power, in times of war or preparation for it, involving the boic ethno-political entity and not its individual fractions. The institution of the “diarchy” has been certified and it’s presumably that the re/reucci were appointed to carry out specific missions. There is also traces of an internal article to the boic "aristocracy" and, perhaps, of age classes with different roles in the war, as well as of assembly institutions, possibly divided between a more "popular" council and a more elite one.
Looking at the plan of purely ethnic phenomena, the profile that we have been able to draw of the boic ethno-political entity between the end of the IIIrd and the beginning of the IInd century seems to correspond to a social organization composed of individuals who, plausibly, could invoke ethnic affiliations of a smaller scale than that to whom the endo-ethnonym “Boii” was to be sent back, affiliations that, again as a job assumption, we could imagine refer to human groups housed in various “districts”. If there really were ethnic groups that, for the parties concerned, were sub-groups of the Boii, it’s impossible to recover their names. On the supposedly ethnic dimension of the conceptualization and mobilization of the Boii as a unitary group by those like Boii who could situationally recognize themselves, some considerations are however possible, at least starting from what we have called "dossier Boiorix". The latter has in the center the case reported by Livio for 194, when the regulus named Boiorix, together with his two brothers, raised against Rome the gens of Boii completely. We have assumed that it was in connection with the events that occurred in the 194 mobilization that Boiorix took on such a name, a name that, in the context to which it was passed, has a good chance of being fully felt as an appellation meaning "King of Boii". Boiorix seems to be assured of the leadership of a large collective that, in the peculiar circumstances of the era, had to have forcefully activated the level of identity expressed by the ethnonym "Boii". We don’t know what attribute criteria implied by the end-defination of which we believe to have identified traces for the beginning of the 2nd century. In this way, we cannot say what extent it had, that is, on the basis of more or less inclusive criteria, the population bounded by the social boundary was large, which, in this case, at the beginning of the II century, opposed the Boii to the non-Boii. On a very speculative plan, it is, however, possible that the era of extraordinary mobilization of 194 coincided with the time when it began to express itself that denial of the boycott, which could perhaps be traced in the light of the events of 193, when Boii intended to continue the clash with Rome may have denied the boycott to the “Modenesi” lined up with the Urbe. It is possible but indestructible is that the templum sanctissimum of the Boii cited by Livio was a physical place (not localizable) that, at least towards the end of the 3rd century, had among its functions that of the symbolic center of the Boic ethno-political entity, which contributed to building, maintaining and strengthening the union of the components of this entity. During the III-2nd centuries, it is theoretically possible that, in the “scale” of identities invoked by Cisalpini who at certain occasions thought and eventually presented as Boii, they had placed not only labels designing subsets of “Boii”, but also a label referring to a higher level group than the one designated by the surname “Boii”, if not more labels indicating more “over-boic” identity levels. Based on the survived written documentation, it is impossible that there could have been ethno-political groups of this or these “over-boic” levels, but not that, in case, “over-boich” identity statements could have been exploited in the political-military sphere, in the relationship with Cisalpini and/or Transalpini. Unfortunately, however, no certain conclusion can be reached in this regard. It is also very problematic to evaluate the specifics of the point of view on the labels “Celtic”, “Galati” and “Galli” of how many are defined as Cisalpini Boii by classical authors and/or how Boii could recognize themselves in pre-Roman Northern Italy. There is at least one line of inquiry that might make you think that, in the late 3rd century, members of the Boic ethno-political entity knew an ethnic based on Galat-, but, for the majority, did not recognize themselves in it. This is, however, a conclusion that is not at all obligatory.
As far as the representation of the Cisalpine Boii within the classical ethnography is concerned, we have found that if the Celts/Galati/Galli have been the subject of fairly extensive ethnographic developments, for the classical authors, the Cisalpina Boii did not represent an autonomous “ethnographic center of interest” compared to the inclusive group (the Celti/Galati/Walli). Although the songs about the Roman-Boic conflicts carry various potentially informative data about the social structure and political organization of the communities that appear in the lyrics under the label “Boii”, we only have brief statements that can be classified as explicit ethnographic notes. Among other things, in various cases, these are attributes of characters assigned to Boii not as specifically Boii, but as members of the larger Celtic/Galatic/Gallic family. It is missing, then, a place in the classical literature where a criterion of exo-attribution of boycott is unmistakably activated. Only in Livio is it possible to assume the presence of a latent criteria that, in practice, defined the Boii as the Cispadian Galli, the irreducible enemies of Rome.


Let’s also synthesize what was said about the famous ethnographic song included by Polibio in his excursion on the Keltoiv/Galavtai lived in the pre-Romanian Cisalpine. We argued that, in this fine example of the complexities inherent in the cognitive dimension of ethnicity, the data exposed by Polibio, regardless of their various origin, are put at the service of a device of inferiorization of Celts/Galatians. It is clear that the historian, compared to the data available to him, forces the picture in a direction he considers primitivist, levelling the entire Cisalpine Celticity on how, in his opinion, it was simpler and archaic. According to what is possible to draw from classical sources in this not contradictory archaeological record, the boic ethno-political entity perceptible in the Cispadana of the end of III - beginning of II century, with its population predominantly scattered, its articulation in "districts" and the absence of a "capital" in the political-military sense, yes Candidate like one or one of the models for the polybian painting. Finally, we argued that the question of the “final fate” of the Cisalpine boycott after the final submission to Rome of northern Italy can be addressed by distinguishing between three different analytical plans. As for the fate of the ethno-political entity in the political-military sphere, the situation seems fairly clear. After 191, as an autonomous political entity, the Boii ceased to exist: they had to undergo very harsh interventions and, politically, face rapid destruction. Moving on to the second floor, regarding the fate of the physical persons already subjected/participated in the sovereignty of the Boic political entity, it can be said that, most likely, the individuals recognized by Rome as Boii were not all or almost removed from the Cispadana with extermination, abduction of prisoners to be sold as slaves or expulsions in mass from Italy: in particular, definitely doubtful is the history of the migration to the area south of the middle Danube with which, according to Strabone, the Boii would have responded to the Roman exile. An unquantifiable, but not ridiculous, number of Cispadani known as Boii should be allowed to live on portions of the ex ager Boicus or nearby areas. It is also allowed to cautiously assume that, in Strabone, there is a trace of ethnic discrimination implemented by the Urbe in Cispadana, to be understood both as a categorical distinction between members of different groups, and as a consequent differentiated treatment. At least on certain occasions, representatives of the public res could have reserved a favorable treatment to those they recognized as Cispadani settled among the Boii, but not the Boii themselves.
 
@stuvane
I agree with the bulk of what you state, but add

-The Veneti and Romans where always in alliance ( from circa 300BC ) and never fought against each other from what I recall, this makes roman influence in NE Italy easier.

- The Alpine italian/celtic tribes where only conquered under imperial Rome and not under republican Rome.
 
They're trying to find "Near-Eastern" ancestry because in the 2019 Rome study it was discovered that CHG-derived ancestry as well as other non-steppe ancestries were close to 100% in the genomes between the East of the Empire to the city of Rome
 
An internet friend from Emilia Romagna province who's interested in the topic responded to the idea I shared that most 4th Century Gallic invader populations were driven out of the Po Valley/Italy.

Translated from Italian so a bit hard to read but:
I don't buy any of the ethnographic/historic revisionism here. This strikes me as a book's worth of flowery speculation which attempts to substitute the actual witness to the matter. It would be one thing to critique the author's familiarity with the event from a place of extreme distance (chronological or physical), but this is not applicable here. Polybius witnessed the event himself and the genetic evidence is beginning to come out of the woodwork to confirm his statements. Northern Italians today, overlap the Picenes of Italy, not the Gauls of France. Whatever impact such Gauls had on the northern Italian genome was very small if present. This can mean at least one of two realities:

A: The original Gallic migrations did not include very large numbers of individuals.

B: Said Gauls were expelled en masse by the Romans to not leave many behind.

Neither of these scenarios are mutually exclusive and personally I find both rather likely based off of the rather small forces the Gauls were able to levy against the much larger Roman military. I will have to dig up the figures but I strongly recollect that the difference was immense.
 
New study on northern Italy between the Iron age and the roman era. There is an etruscan-italic like substratum during the iron age, while the increase of the eastern mediterranean component during the roman era might be connected to movements from Magna Grecia, mediated by the roman colonization. The germanic input might be a bit inflated, maybe due to the absence of celtic samples in the study.


View attachment 15456


Northern Italian modeled with Swiss Bellbeaker (Proto-Italic proxy) + Minoan (Magna Grecia proxy)

raZE0bG.png
 

This thread has been viewed 13797 times.

Back
Top