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

@Vitruvius
You wrote:
"Just look at how drastically Etruscan and Latin languages were differentiated despite the two regions sharing the same material culture and geography in the final bronze age. These two places also have identical autosomal patterns, just like Northern Italians and Illyrians. Languages can be learned in less than a generation and history has shown phenomenal overturns in ancestral tongues. I see no reason to assume prehistory was any different. Genetic overturn is much more difficult to achieve by comparison."

I saw this debate on Eurogenes too.
No, languages shifts doesn't and didn't occur in a generation at a collective level for I know. Collectiivities are not individuals. Whoever the winner, when one of the competing tongues dies, it requires often 300 or 400 centuries. What can occur is a bilinguism among the elites or one of the elites (on both direction: look at Roman in Gaul > < Frankish in Gaul, Saxon in Britain, English in Ireland, Scotland, Wales... We have still bilinguism in some well developped countries.
And even if slow, everytime some conditions are required for the winner language to impose itself: centralism and well organized administration based also on military domination, or neat overnumber, also superior civilisation (technical and civilisational superiority. As a whole, the number could not be the most effective element.
Like the most of us I'm puzzled by the Italic-Etruscan question! So I 'm trying to find an explanation. Not easy.
I suspect that Italicspeaking and Etruscanspeaking pop's have been in longlasting contacts at the Urnfields times, perhaps already before,at first maybe by only exogamy and trade. Beginning of the autosomal levelling.
a long term bilinguism could have existed on both sides and even intrication of pop's, whatever the prefered language of the basis pop. Later, moves of sets of pop's and choice for a prefered koine?
Another hypotesis: the easternmost Italics "tribes", more and sooner in contact than other ones with (proto-)Etruscans in Central Europe (I think a well developped Tell culture by origin, these Etuscans?), after some generations (not one or two) shifted language and adopted an Etruscan language after a bilinguism period. When the Urnfield/early IA put these peoples in move, some Italics spoke still an Italic dialect when others, spite a roughly stayed common constition, spoke Etruscan. Result of a diffusion of culture with transfusion of language, but not as large as the material osmosis???
Only a try to project things on a screen, because I have no new fact to send.
I 'm maybe not uptodate for Y-haplos. Have somebody more data about Republican Italics and Etruscan male markers?
 
It will always depend on what sources and calculator you use so it's all relative. That's the hard part with these discussions. Every single topic discussed either in good faith or bad hinges around the idea that participants are using the exact same limited source populations with the same calculators. If you start adding in the significant amount of non steppe caucasian ancestry which arrived to Italy from the Aegean, then the calculations change drastically. Additionally areas in central and northern Europe appear not affected at all by this Aegean type of influx so their calculations aren't necessarily comparable to the exact same source populations of Italians or Greeks. If you're looking for what Langobards looked like prior to entering Italy, I would assume the Icelandic/N. Euro like cluster from Collegno is your best bet as a proxy. The rest are likely native Italic or perhaps mixes of Italic/Germanic.

As far as prior Northern introgressions the definite pattern I see is that Italy's broad ancestry shifts south not north by the early empire and this quantitatively seems more impactful in central and probably also southern Italy more than the north based off this thread abstract. It appears that the spread of Roman civilization simultaneously coincided with the spread of aegean related ancestry at a bare minimum. This ancestry from what we know right now reaches Felsina and Torino but does it reach Milan in any significant quantity? What of Verona, Bergamo, or Padua and yet also deeper into the prealps and alps such as Ticino? Torino EMA is particularly interesting specifically because if we assume that S. Italian like ancestry found in the EMA arrived by at least early imperal era like in all other zones of Italy then it implies that either the city retained a broad spectrum of N., C., and S. Italian elements for ~500+ years or that northern Italian elements came from migratory populations outside of Torino from more rural places like Bardonecchia which appear unaffected by any aegean shift.
north italian ancient languages are all different to each other and that the camunic is the only one scholars cannot figure out

The Camuni was one of the names of the 3 ancient indigenous tribes of the Euganei


Dr. Corinna Salomon (University of Vienna) explains and answers questions about ancient North Italic alphabets used in the Alps, which many scholars have speculated could be a source of the rune futhark alphabets. From a live conversation held on Zoom with Jackson Crawford's Patreon supporters on April 23, 2023.
 
In regards to Venetic being a latin-Faliscan language, same as the Romans had, would seem to be true from about circa 100BC ...........the Venetics and Romans where always in alliance since the Hannibal wars and with the Roman colony of Aquiliena , my guess is that the Venetics adopted a Roman Latin at this point
Old Venetic seems to be from early iron age linked with the Liburnians language in speaking an old Italic language mixed with a Central European one ( same as the Liburnians )
 
The Basques were one of the examples I had in mind exactly, as they have such high level of WHG although they aren't a northen population though very much western. If I had to give labels (shaky as they are) I'd assume the "northern" label goes to the Steppe component if anything.

Thanks for the explanation.
'Steppe' is rather "northeastern" - and 'WHG' rather "northwestern" - this partial trend towards "north" for WHG is explained by the fact that in today pop's this component is the strongest among Balts and then among Scandinavians, roughly said.

apart:
I maid a simplified but arithmetically correct simulation about the 20% Longobards - sure, the % of admixture I presupposed are pure fiction spite they are surely not too far from reality, I hope it at least.
pseudo-Longobards (pure) 50% Steppic - 15% WHG - 35% EEF -
preceding Italian pop (central? 30% " - 5% " - 65% " -
contribution Longobards 20% > 10% " - 3% " - 7% "
contribution Italian pop 80% > 24% " - 4% " - 52% "
complete new pop 34% " - 7% " - 59% "
 
'Steppe' is rather "northeastern" - and 'WHG' rather "northwestern" - this partial trend towards "north" for WHG is explained by the fact that in today pop's this component is the strongest among Balts and then among Scandinavians, roughly said.

apart:
I maid a simplified but arithmetically correct simulation about the 20% Longobards - sure, the % of admixture I presupposed are pure fiction spite they are surely not too far from reality, I hope it at least.
pseudo-Longobards (pure) 50% Steppic - 15% WHG - 35% EEF -
preceding Italian pop (central? 30% " - 5% " - 65% " -
contribution Longobards 20% > 10% " - 3% " - 7% "
contribution Italian pop 80% > 24% " - 4% " - 52% "
complete new pop 34% " - 7% " - 59% "
OK. I'll bite.

Can you explain your figures a bit more fully or is this all an educated guess?
 
OK. I'll bite.

Can you explain your figures a bit more fully or is this all an educated guess?
These pseudo geographic namings are kind of mental projection of PCA on a map. It isn't the arbitrary projection of position of ancient pop's PCA's on a map (what meaning BTW?) but rather the position of the modern pop's rich for these components (pur ones or a mix for 'steppe' (but the HG part of 'steppe' is rather EHG).
It's based on amateurish calculations (not mines, I think someones made by a forumer in Anthrogenica) comparing distances between ancient pop's and modern ones. But it seems confirming scientific works and archeology.
This for the first part of my thoughts.
Concerning the possible imput of 20% of Longobards it's only arithmetic just to show what results could have this proportion. Maybe interesting concerning WHG in Italy. Purly theorical because I haven't the genuine %'s of admixture components for early Longobards.
Educated guesses, let's wait for confirmation or infirmation. But when we discuss here the 'northern' or any other cardinal position for modern pop's, I find these projections accurate enough.
 
These pseudo geographic namings are kind of mental projection of PCA on a map. It isn't the arbitrary projection of position of ancient pop's PCA's on a map (what meaning BTW?) but rather the position of the modern pop's rich for these components (pur ones or a mix for 'steppe' (but the HG part of 'steppe' is rather EHG).
It's based on amateurish calculations (not mines, I think someones made by a forumer in Anthrogenica) comparing distances between ancient pop's and modern ones. But it seems confirming scientific works and archeology.
This for the first part of my thoughts.
Concerning the possible imput of 20% of Longobards it's only arithmetic just to show what results could have this proportion. Maybe interesting concerning WHG in Italy. Purly theorical because I haven't the genuine %'s of admixture components for early Longobards.
Educated guesses, let's wait for confirmation or infirmation. But when we discuss here the 'northern' or any other cardinal position for modern pop's, I find these projections accurate enough.
We need to take into account that the Longobards were not really an ethnic group on the move but a collection of foederati loyal or disloyal to the Eastern Roman Empire at different times according to expediency and mostly male and polyethnic.

Their Germanic language was largely replaced by Vulgar Latin in Italy within about 4 or 5 generations. They only wrote in Latin and used Latin terminology like "dux" or "iudex".
 
Last edited:
We need to take into account that the Longobards were not really an ethnic group on the move but a collection of foederati loyal or disloyal to the Eastern Roman Empire at different times according to expediency and mostly male and polyethnic.

Their Germanic language was largely replaced by Vulgar Latin in Italy within about 4 or 5 generations. They only wrote in Latin and used Latin terminology like "dux" or "iudex".
My calculation was just to provide some scale of impact with 20%, say in first place concerning WHG.
Sure, theory is not reality. Agree with you.
 

This thread has been viewed 11014 times.

Back
Top