Upcoming genetic study about Ancient Rome

[Sweet Perv]

I think north Italians in ancient times were a mix of Celts, Mediterraneans (even before the latin domination) and what ? Eagles, Marmots ? I mean : there were people before Celts came.

From which parts of nowadays France people would have they look like ? South of France ? Like I said to Samnium, Gallia Narbonensis was a senatorial roman province and barely inhabited by Celts before.

Central French, possible. Central Europeans, I would say no. You must take into account the mediterranean influence.

NB for non-Italians. Terrone/terroni is a pejorative term for south Italians. The academic term is "meridional".

[Percivalle]

Etruria was a confederation of cities that had in common the etruscan religion (their sanctuary was in Volterra if I remind), but otherwise yes they were probably a little bit different ethnically and received various influences, depending on the location. We don't have Tarquinia samples but I bet that they will show some degree of East-Med ancestry as the paintings of Tarquinia depict peoples with very med/east-med phenotypes (but also "white" people).

The federal Etruscan sanctuary is believed to be in Velzna/Volsinii, modern-day Orvieto, Western Umbria, surely not in Volterra.

That painting from Tarquinia (Lazio) you've posted (date 530-520 BC), like the whole series, has nothing to do with how the fully native Etruscans looked like, since it was painted by a Ionian Greek painter. The presence of foreigners in Etruria is attested, Greeks, for example, and many Ionian Greeks precisely. Although I doubt that there were so many to change the entire population. In any case, these foreigners have nothing to do with the origin of the Etruscans or with how the Etruscans were.

[Samnium]

The federal Etruscan sanctuary is believed to be in Velzna/Volsinii, modern-day Orvieto, Western Umbria, surely not in Volterra.

My bad I confused Volterra with Volsinies.

That painting from Tarquinia (Lazio) you've posted (date 530-520 BC), like the whole series, has nothing to do with how the fully native Etruscans looked like, since it was painted by a Ionian Greek painter.

The truth is that Etruscans had already adopted partially greek art and symbolism, you don't need an ionian painter for each tomb. Then, that's not an excuse, we have hundreds of painted tombs (here a thread where I show several of those coming from Tarquinia : https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...rical-insights) and the people represented here are etruscans. There isn't any evidence so far that these paintings were only fictional representations of etruscans. Actually it's the contrary of what historians of art and archeologists tell us about Tarquinia paintings, they are a vivid relict of etruscan civilization, along with symbolical themes and subjects there is an emphasis on the realism of the figures and the chromatism is carefully chosen. The first archeologists that "discovered" these tombs had the same sensation and the same opinion about that.

The presence of foreigners in Etruria is attested, Greeks, for example, and many Ionian Greeks precisely. Although I doubt that there were so many to change the entire population.

One of the etruscan samples in the study can be modeled as 53% moroccan so I think that there was definitely mixing and overall changes in the genetics of the population, principally towards East Med populations (maybe not the most powerful families but still).

In any case, these foreigners have nothing to do with the origin of the Etruscans or with how the Etruscans were.

I definitely don't think that these are foreigners. There is nothing as element of proof to assert that. Also if you want to know, Etruscans were mainly N.Italian-like genetically. However a shift towards East Med populations could have happened during the 6th century and the following centuries as Greeks were already around in southern Italy at this era.

[Percivalle]

My bad I confused Volterra with Volsinies. The truth is that Etruscans had already adopted partially greek art and symbolism, you don't need an ionian painter for each tomb. Then, that's not an excuse, we have hundreds of painted tombs (here a thread where I show several of those coming from Tarquinia : https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...rical-insights) and the people represented here are etruscans. There isn't any evidence so far that these paintings were only fictional representations of etruscans. Actually it's the contrary of what historians of art and archeologists tell us about Tarquinia paintings, they are a vivid relict of etruscan civilization, along with symbolical themes and subjects there is an emphasis on the realism of the figures and the chromatism is carefully chosen. The first archeologists that "discovered" these tombs had the same sensation and the same opinion about that.
One of the etruscan samples in the study can be modeled as 53% moroccan so I think that there was definitely mixing and overall changes in the genetics of the population, principally towards East Med populations (maybe not the most powerful families but still).I definitely don't think that these are foreigners. There is nothing as element of proof to assert that. Also if you want to know, Etruscans were mainly N.Italian-like genetically. However a shift towards East Med populations could have happened during the 6th century and the following centuries as Greeks were already around in southern Italy at this era.

The truth? It is the scholars who claim that it was painted by a Greek Ionic painter. There is maximum consensus on this. As scholars write that these frescoes are not faithful representations, is still an artistic convention, the realism is much later. But you obviously know more than they do. It doesn't surprise me at all.

It's known, the Etruscans adopted Greek symbols from the orientalizing period onwards, and in the transition between the orientalizing and archaic phases there is the arrival of Greek Ionic artists in southern Eturia. That fresco belongs to the archaic phase. The mixed Etruscan has North African blood and in the PCA it goes in the opposite direction to the Italian cline. Actually it is the two mixed Latin samples who have East Med ancestry and go exactly in the direction of the Italian cline.

Could the Etruscans have mixed with the foreigners who arrived in Etruria? Most likely, yes. Why worry about it? A lot more foreigners arrived in Roman times.

[Samnium]

The truth? It is the scholars who claim that it was painted by a Greek Ionic painter. There is maximum consensus on this. As scholars write that these frescoes are not faithful representations, is still an artistic convention, the realism is much later. But you obviously know more than they do. It doesn't surprise me at all.

Not faithful representations ? Well the painting that I've sent is considered as a realistic painting so your point is false.



(Otto J. Brendel, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1958), pp. 240-242)

And again you're exagerating, there are some tombs that have purely symbolical themes like *La tomba dei demoni blu* but aside with these there are lot of tombs that represent naturalistic and realistic subject like la tomba del Cacciatore.

The fact that it was painted by an ionian painter doesn't change nothing.

It's known, the Etruscans adopted Greek symbols from the orientalizing period onwards, and in the transition between the orientalizing and archaic phases there is the arrival of Greek Ionic artists in southern Eturia. That fresco belongs to the archaic phase.

No it belongs to the orientalizing period (between 700 BCE and 500 BCE) you can verify, his name is "Tomba degli Auguri".

The mixed Etruscan has North African blood and in the PCA it goes in the opposite direction to the Italian cline. Actually it is the two mixed Latin samples who have East Med ancestry and go exactly in the direction of the Italian cline.

We don't have more Etruscans samples but as you find individuals like the outlier with 53% moroccan I definitely think that you will find people with East Med heritage, it's simply already non-proven because we lack samples and studies but we will see.

[Percivalle]

Not faithful representations ? Well the painting that I've sent is considered as a realistic painting so your point is false.

From a recent book.

"Nancy T. de Grummond, "Ethnicity and the Etruscans", in Jeremy McInerney (eds), "A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean", Chichester, Uk, John Wiley & Sons, 2014, pp. 413-414.

Is it possible to tell anything about the actual physical appearance or ethnicity of the Etruscans from these depictions? (...) The facial features, however, are not likely to constitute a true portrait, but rather partake of a formula for representing the male in Etruria in Archaic art. It has been observed that the formula used—with the face in profile, showing almond-shaped eyes, a large nose, and a domed up profile of the top of the head—has its parallels in images from the eastern Mediterranean. But these features may show only artistic conventions and are therefore of limited value for determining ethnicity.

No it belongs to the orientalizing period (between 700 BCE and 500 BCE) you can verify, his name is "Tomba degli Auguri".

Tomb of the Augurs is dated 530-520 BC, therefore Archaic period.

[Creoda]

False. Ancient Italians were like North Italians, early Romans were already mixed with Eastern Mediterranean type of DNA. Romans were mostly like modern South Italians.
Most of the Eastern Mediterranean DNA in ancient Romans and modern South Italians came from Aegean sources, not direct admixture from the Middle East.

And don't come with that old S.Italians are ''mixed with slaves'' theory because most slaves in Rome were from up north and resembled more your kind than any MENAs.

Sure pal. I didn't mention slaves but...

By sharp contrast, all analyzed individuals from the Roman Imperial and Late Antique periods (1 to 500 CE) show a marked shift in ancestry toward populations of the eastern Mediterranean. While the strength of this shift might be influenced by the changing frequency of different burial practices—such as cremation and inhumation—among groups through time (43, 44), it clearly depicts the role of the Roman Empire in the large-scale displacement of people in a time of enhanced upward or downward socioeconomic and geographic mobility. In central Italy, including around Rome itself (17), the incoming ancestry detected so far mainly originated from the Near East rather than other areas of the Empire. The genetic replacement of ~50% of the preceding Etruscan-related gene pool was likely influenced by the movement of slaves and possibly soldiers, along with a larger pattern of human mobility from the eastern Mediterranean toward Italy (45–49). In the Roman Empire, citizenship was progressively extended to more classes of free people until the Edict of Caracalla in 212 made it universal among them, and expanding citizenship likely facilitated intermixture between local and other populations. Our new data from Etruria show that the influx of Near Eastern ancestry spread far beyond the greater capital region itself and suggest that this broader pattern of population movement may have affected larger portions of the Italian peninsula..

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

[Insuperable]

Sure pal. I didn't mention slaves but...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

And what is the influence of Ancient Greeks (Magna Grecia)? I doubt all of it comes from slaves and Middle Eastern migrants.