italian people look more ancient etruscans or ancient italic tribes?

[spanish catalan]

which people had more impact on the population

[Sikeliot]

We don't have any way of knowing what either one looked like..

[wvwvw]

Italic tribes

[Smeagol]

We don't have any way of knowing what either one looked like..

We do, from skeletal remains, and contemporary depictions.

[Smeagol]

Not so much about the Etruscans. We know that contemporary central italians look like the latium mix during the middle and possibly early republic (not enough sample size on the later) but the Etruscans and original italics are mostly the subject of hypothesis, many of which have been shattered by anthropological data later on.

There is a lot of anthropological data on Etruscans. They also left many depictions of themselves, but maybe they were stylized.

[Smeagol]

Where?

Don't remember, I read a bunch of studies of Etruscan skulls, but I don't remember what sites they were on. Here are two I remembered off the top of my head though:

''In conclusion, the Etruscan skulls from Tarquinia were
gracile and showed similarities in metrical traits to those
of Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria and Lat~
ne-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due
to these similarities with neighbouring skeletal remains
on the other side of the Alps the hypothesis could be supported
that the Etruscans are more original inhabitants of
Etruria than immigrants from Asia Minor.''

from: The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical collection - How do they compare with the skeletal findings of the first thousand years B.C.?
Horst Claassen and Andreas Wree



The cranial evidence from Etruscan tombs substantiates the belief that these non-Indo-European, non-Semitic speakers were typical examples of the earlier Bronze Age population of the eastern Mediterranean. As with the earlier el Argar people of Spain, a mesocephalic mean for the cranial index covers the presence of pronounced long heads and round heads, with the two extremes, in this case, forming about equal proportions. Actually, the metrical characteristics of the two series are much alike, but the Etruscan skulls were a little larger, which is not surprising, for the el Argar crania were for the most part rather small.

The Etruscan skulls are notably smooth in surface relief, with little in the way of browridges; the side walls of the vaults, seen from above, are not parallel, as with the longer Mediterranean forms, but converging, with the greatest breadth in the parietals and a narrow forehead; the orbits are high and rounded, and the nose narrow. The Etruscans, with a typically Near Eastern cranial form, resemble both the Cappadocian type found in the Hittite period at Alishar, and the planoccipital brachycephals which appeared in the Bronze Age cemeteries of Cyprus. By Roman times these two varieties had blended, to a large extent, into a variable mesocephalic form, to which the Phoenicians as well largely belonged.

It would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of the migrations of eastern Mediterranean peoples by sea to Italy, Spain, and the islands between these two peninsulas in protohistoric as well as in prehistoric times. Especially in Spain and Italy, large numbers of peoples immigrated, who added, to the basic Mediterranean population of Neolithic origin, Near Eastern elements which may still be discerned among Italians and Spaniards today. The debt of the Romans to the Etruscans, genetically as well as culturally, was especially great.-C.S. Coon-Races Of Europe

[Ulla]

So basically central and southern italians are metrically similar to Etruscans rather than northern italics or am I misinterprating the study?

You're misinterprating the study.

[Peter Nirsch]

Italians are an extremely mixed race.

I don't think they look like ancient caveman.

[Smeagol]

So basically central and southern italians are metrically similar to Etruscans rather than northern italics or am I misinterprating the study?

They showed some similarities to Celtic Skulls in South Germany/Austria too, but they seem to be closest to Central Italians.

[Smaug]

They showed some similarities to Celtic Skulls in South Germany/Austria too, but they seem to be closest to Central Italians.

So according to that there was a continuum between the La Tene/Hallstatt and Terramare/Villanova cultures?

[Smeagol]

So according to that there was a continuum between the La Tene/Hallstatt and Terramare/Villanova cultures?

Yes.

[Smaug]

Yes.

Could it be used to back up the Italo-Celtic hypothesis?

[Smeagol]

Could it be used to back up the Italo-Celtic hypothesis?

Maybe, but for example, Coon's data seems to contradict in some ways from the first study I posted. He also believed that skeletal evidence proved Etruscans came from Anatolia. I think it's more likely that the original Etruscans probably came from Anatolia, but eventually the population was mainly native Central Italian in origin. I read some study somewhere that said typologically the Etruscans were mainly Mediterranean, and Dinaric, with more minor Alpine influences.

[Ulla]

They showed some similarities to Celtic Skulls in South Germany/Austria too, but they seem to be closest to Central Italians.

Those probably are the pre-Italic (Villanovan culture) component in Etruscan people (in their early steps they were the "common people" in their civilization). Still today, 50% of central Italian males, especially in Tuscany are R1b with peaks around 70% in northern Tuscany.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Proto-Celto-Italic theory probably has more to do with the Bell Beaker Cultural Horizon.

By the time you get to Hallstat, that's clearly already a distinctly Celtic culture.

Pre-historic Italics were probably contemporaneous to Hallstat culture not descended from.

[Ulla]

I was going with Coon as Claasen didn't expand much on it.

The Etruscan skulls are notably smooth in surface relief, with little in the way of browridges; the side walls of the vaults, seen from above, are not parallel, as with the longer Mediterranean forms, but converging, with the greatest breadth in the parietals and a narrow forehead; the orbits are high and rounded, and the nose narrow. The Etruscans, with a typically Near Eastern cranial form, resemble both the Cappadocian type found in the Hittite period at Alishar, and the planoccipital brachycephals which appeared in the Bronze Age cemeteries of Cyprus.

These parts made me think of central and southern (penisular, not sicily) italy.

Coon just needs to be throwed in the trash.

[Ulla]

italian people look more ancient etruscans or ancient italic tribes?

Italic tribes were more numerous than Etruscans.

However Etruscans weren't never genetically homegenous. Probably the Etruscan middle and lower classes were Etruscanized pre-Italics (Umbrians), plus some assimilated Ligurians. While Etruscan elites in early steps were probably more similar to an ancient Mediterranean melting pot with some Indo-European element from Anatolia (but currently we don't know if Etruscans came from Anatolia or if they were "native" of central Italy and then they settled in Aegean Islands and Anatolia and then they definetely come back later).

While Italics were surely Indo-Europeans (Italo-Celts) that assimilated the Neolithic farmers.

[Ulla]

How so?

The study cited by Deidara shows just the opposite of your interpretation.

[Faklon]

Found something on dienekes and a board on Arch Hades' blogspot about Etruscans.

http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2009/07/genetic-discontinuities-between.html

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6121/5981560194_83a33ca236_b.jpg

SOURCE : Brace CL and Tracer DP. 1992. Craniofacial continuity and change: A comparison of Late Pleistocene and recent Europe and Asia

http://archhades.blogspot.gr/2011/06/craniometrics-show-ancient-etruscans.html

[Insuperable]

Not so much about the Etruscans. We know that contemporary central italians look like the latium mix during the middle and possibly early republic (not enough sample size on the later) but the Etruscans and original italics are mostly the subject of hypothesis, many of which have been shattered by anthropological data later on.

Some Greeks described Pelasgians as Greeks and some Greeks thought that Etruscans were Pelasgians. I think that gives some idea of how they looked even though the term 'Pelasgian' can be a broad one.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The opinions on the Etruscans have been plentiful to say the least over the years regarding their physical anthropology:

Coon:


The cranial evidence from Etruscan tombs substantiates the belief that these non-Indo-European, non-Semitic speakers were typical examples of the earlier Bronze Age population of the eastern Mediterranean. As with the earlier el Argar people of Spain, a mesocephalic mean for the cranial index covers the presence of pronounced long heads and round heads, with the two extremes, in this case, forming about equal proportions. Actually, the metrical characteristics of the two series are much alike, but the Etruscan skulls were a little larger, which is not surprising, for the el Argar crania were for the most part rather small.

The Etruscan skulls are notably smooth in surface relief, with little in the way of browridges; the side walls of the vaults, seen from above, are not parallel, as with the longer Mediterranean forms, but converging, with the greatest breadth in the parietals and a narrow forehead; the orbits are high and rounded, and the nose narrow. The Etruscans, with a typically Near Eastern cranial form, resemble both the Cappadocian type found in the Hittite period at Alishar, and the planoccipital brachycephals which appeared in the Bronze Age cemeteries of Cyprus. By Roman times these two varieties had blended, to a large extent, into a variable mesocephalic form, to which the Phoenicians as well largely belonged.

It would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of the migrations of eastern Mediterranean peoples by sea to Italy, Spain, and the islands between these two peninsulas in protohistoric as well as in prehistoric times. Especially in Spain and Italy, large numbers of peoples immigrated, who added, to the basic Mediterranean population of Neolithic origin, Near Eastern elements which may still be discerned among Italians and Spaniards today. The debt of the Romans to the Etruscans, genetically as well as culturally, was especially great.

A more recent synopsis:


First all we should recognize a variety of types which, despite their different frequencies, are fundamentally dolichomorphic, ellipsoid, or ovoid type of average stature (Mediteranean) the brachymorphic type with curved occipital bone and average or short stature (Alpine) and possibly the brachymorphic type with flat occipital bone (Dinaric). In particular we should remember that in Benacci and Arnoaldi stages as well as among the Etruscans we can observe dolichomoprhic ellipsoidal, very long skulls, typically Mediterranean, and not to be found in the previous periods; moreover the frequency of the dolichomorphic and brachymorphic types among Arnoaldi and Etruscan remains is nearly the same.

Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=MtbacYKEInEC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=etruscans+physical+anthropology&source=bl&ots=-OVX2bNLR2&sig=ioDCUVxEQxR9kb3MXvuYAHP13T4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DvKjUsDQLuzjsATBk4DYBA&ved=0CHAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=etruscans%20physical%20anthropology&f=false)

[Ulla]

His sources were divided however. I went with Coon as his was the most descriptive and I know more about him than the other ones.

Coon isn't really reliable.


Whatever the case they seemed to be a mixed population.

Etruscans were surely a very mixed population. It's said that Etruria was a confederation and never a real nation. There were even linguistic differences between Northern Etruscan language and Southern Etruscan language.

The ethnonym itself is a problem. Etruscan (Tuscum) is an Umbrian-Latin world (Indo-european). They called themselves Rasna (but we don't know for sure). They were anciently called Thyrrenians and sometimes Pelasgians (means nothing) by Greeks.


Some Greeks described Pelasgians as Greeks and some Greeks thought that Etruscans were Pelasgians. I think that gives some idea of how they looked even though the term 'Pelasgian' can be a broad one.

I agree, Pelasgian means nothing.

[Ouistreham]

Modern Italians are overwhelmingly descended from ancient Italics.
The Etruscans were most probably a tiny colonial aristocracy. Otherwise their culture wouldn't have vanished so quickly and so completely.

They possibly left some genetic trace, perhaps.
Wide-spaced eyes that are so distinctive for Central Italy are an Etruscan legacy perhaps?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Etruscan_sarcophagus.jpg

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan8.gif http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan9.gif

[Faklon]

Modern Italians are overwhelmingly descended from ancient Italics.
The Etruscans were most probably a tiny colonial aristocracy. Otherwise their culture wouldn't have vanished so quickly and so completely.

They possibly left some genetic trace, perhaps.
Wide-spaced eyes that are so distinctive for Central Italy are an Etruscan legacy perhaps?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Etruscan_sarcophagus.jpg

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan8.gif http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan9.gif

These look unrealistic but some Coarse-med/Berid types give kind of similar perceptions and the affinity with Sardinians in the board above may be a hint.

[Ulla]

How so? His theories aren't, I know, but this is purely data.

http://geek.coolstreaming.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cestino.jpg

[Ulla]

Modern Italians are overwhelmingly descended from ancient Italics.
The Etruscans were most probably a tiny colonial aristocracy. Otherwise their culture wouldn't have vanished so quickly and so completely.

They possibly left some genetic trace, perhaps.
Wide-spaced eyes that are so distinctive for Central Italy are an Etruscan legacy perhaps?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Etruscan_sarcophagus.jpg

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan8.gif http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscan9.gif

This is unrealistic art style. You should know that. But I agree that Etruscans were probably a tiny colonial aristocracy.

[aherne]

Italian people generally look towards elements brought to Italy during Neolithic and Copper Age (Med, Dinaric, Alpine) from Near East. Etruscan and Italic influences, while visible still throughout Italy, are secondary...

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Italian people generally look towards elements brought to Italy during Neolithic and Copper Age (Med, Dinaric, Alpine) from Near East. Etruscan and Italic influences, while visible still throughout Italy, are secondary...

In what kind of backwards world does that make sense? Do you know how chronological order works?

[Ulla]

These look unrealistic but some Coarse-med/Berid types give kind of similar perceptions and the affinity with Sardinians in the board above may be a hint.

Wide-spaced eyes are just an artistic style.

The Etruscan portraiture in its early steps is not realistic. Wide-spaced eyes are also found in the archaic Greek sculpture (example: the Kouros). Probably both Etruscan and archaic Greek sculpture received influences from the Egyptian sculpture.

With the Romans portraiture became realistic.


Example of Greek Kouros (about 580 BC from Argos in the Peloponnese, but found at Delphi)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Ac.kleobisandbiton.jpg/442px-Ac.kleobisandbiton.jpg

Example of Greek Kore (marble statue, discovered in Keratea, Greece, 580-560 BC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Woman_with_pomegranate_580-560_BC_%28Sk_1800%29_2.JPG/403px-Woman_with_pomegranate_580-560_BC_%28Sk_1800%29_2.JPG

[Ianus]

Italian phenotype and genotype is at the same level at pre Roman age. Etruscan immigrated from Anatolia were only a small elite, the population was for the most part Italic.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Italian phenotype and genotype is at the same level at pre Roman age. Etruscan immigrated from Anatolia were only a small elite, the population was for the most part Italic.

I would think this would be common sense for people.

[Ianus]

I would think this would be common sense for people.

Nordicist people says that Romans were nordic and that Italy became swarthy after too many MENA slaves imported.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Nordicist people says that Romans were nordic and that Italy became swarthy after too many MENA slaves imported.

I've heard such stupidities before. I would hope no one with any brain cells would take it seriously.

[Ouistreham]

Nordicist people says that Romans were nordic and that Italy became swarthy after too many MENA slaves imported.

The Romans also imported as many (probably more) slaves from Gallia and Germania (even from Brittania), so the end result didn't bring out any significant change.

Germanic and Gallic veterans of the Romans armies used to be given acres of land when they went into retirement, often on Italian soil.

To put it short, centuries of invasions and population transfers in ancient times didn't really alter the genetic make-up of European regions.
At any rate much less than a few years of immigration are currently doing, right now.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

The Romans also imported as many (probably more) slaves from Gallia and Germania (even from Brittania), so the end result didn't bring out any significant change.

To put it short, centuries of invasions and population transfers in ancient times didn't really alter the genetic make-up of European regions.
At any rate much less than a few years of immigration are currently doing, right now.

100%

[Immortal Technique]

Both

[quaquaraqua]

Lol the slave trade of Romans is on pair laughable with the Nordic Romans. Btw I think they were all castrated and It's just an hollywood fantasy.

[Aodhan]

Nordic romans? what?

[Faklon]

Wide-spaced eyes are just an artistic style.

The Etruscan portraiture in its early steps is not realistic. Wide-spaced eyes are also found in the archaic Greek sculpture (example: the Kouros). Probably both Etruscan and archaic Greek sculpture received influences from the Egyptian sculpture.

With the Romans portraiture became realistic.


Example of Greek Kouros (about 580 BC from Argos in the Peloponnese, but found at Delphi)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Ac.kleobisandbiton.jpg/442px-Ac.kleobisandbiton.jpg

Example of Greek Kore (marble statue, discovered in Keratea, Greece, 580-560 BC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Woman_with_pomegranate_580-560_BC_%28Sk_1800%29_2.JPG/403px-Woman_with_pomegranate_580-560_BC_%28Sk_1800%29_2.JPG

Or maybe even all got it from a common source.
Noted so,Kouros also seems to get more "conventional" looking in immediate later ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kouros#Development

The connection with Sardinians and at the same time with Pelasgians is interesting nevertheless,especially since Otzi clusters with the first.

[Piccolo]

I've heard such stupidities before. I would hope no one with any brain cells would take it seriously.

Yes, as Ianus mentioned it is a dumb Nordicist idea. You see it pop up every now and then, and it is a popular idea among some American hillbilly racist types. The theory is that the original Italics, or at least their elite, were all blond, blue-eyed Scandinavian people and "race mixing" with darker folk caused the downfall of the Roman Empire. Some people find it hard to believe that the ancient Italic people were genetically largely the same as modern Italians because supposedly modern Italians are all swarthy, mandolin-playing bums. :rolleyes: