Does anyone else hate how people apply modern nationalities/ethnicity to those of antiquity? Or even any other modern concept of the ilk?
For instance
>modern Italians are people from Italy
>ancient Italians are from the south-west region of the peninsula
Modern Italians are of course related to Ancient Italians but in effect completely different peoples as near 3,000 years of changing cultures, and migration/immigration has changed them completely.
>ancient greeks and modern greeks
Other urls found in this thread:
biorxiv.org
twitter.com
>completely different people
bait, sage
Nice counter-argument. What similarities do they have? What do the Italians of 8th century B.C. have in common with modern Italians? Some of them might be related?
In that they derive most of their ancestry from them.
When did this hypothetical population displacement take place? No memes or imaginary scenarios, and provide citations for these claims.
Are you telling me that the ancient Romans didn't speak like modern Italians?
>Ey I'm sieging here! I'm sieging here!
>Mama mia that's a spicy fish sauce!
I don't want to live in a world where this wasn't the case
Are you saying that over near 3000 years there hasn't been any change to the culture or ethnicity of the people of Italy? Did the conquests of the Ostorogoths, Franks, Normans, Byzantine Empire, Catalans/Aragonese, have no influence on the culture and racial identity of the peninsula?
How long has a unified Italy even existed? Two hundred years? What existed before that? Different states with different people. If the Florentines of the 19th century were different to the Sicilians of the 19th century, why are they the same people now? Why are the same people as they were in 8th century BC? The peninsula didn't even 'speak' a shared language till 1861.
>In that they derive most of their ancestry from them.
>people from Milan have the same ancestry as people in Sicily
if anyone replies seriously to this bait hes a retard
Modern Italians have about as much in common with the Romans as Tunisians today have with Carthage.
Oops, didn't mean to quote.
In what capacity is that bait?
in the capacity of your mental incapacity
>can't disprove anything
>hurr durr this is bait
Why are you even here? Why are you posting in this thread if it is bait?
That's why I always use the term Anatolia and not Turkey. It even sounds better.
Even if the populations were genetically identical, it wouldn't matter. Modern ethnicities are wrapped up in fundamentally different cultures, symbols, and modes of thought. Modern Greeks share more in common with Han Chinese than ancient Greeks.
to waste ur internet data duh
what a retard
He's right though.
The commonalities of modern life mean everyone living today in a relatively developed country has much more in common with each other than any of their ancestors thousands of years ago and even a couple hundred years ago
that wasnt op's point
>ancient Italians are from the south-west region of the peninsula
Ancient italians, better call them ITALIC PEOPLES, were pretty evenly spread from the deep south to the Alps actually, only missing from Etruria and the western Po plain.
I have the distinct feeling that you're getting confused with the ITALIOTES, who were the inhabitatns of a league of greek cities in western south Italy before roman times.
>in effect completely different peoples as near 3,000 years of changing cultures, and migration/immigration has changed them completely
Wrong. Cavalli-Sforza's studies proved that Italy's genetic make-up is basically still the same since the iron age, with Magna Graecia being the last noticeable change.
Insofar as changing cultures, well cultures are always changing. At what point do you decide that it has been long enough to consider one culture separate from the same one from a preceding period of time? It's not really a decent way to look at things.
its not the same but its very close of course, op's a retard
Were the Italians not a rival tribe to the Romans? I thought they were one of the main rivals between them and the Etruscans, Latins, Samnites, etc?
It's 19th century autism that has somehow lingered. There's a ridiculous statue of Kaiser Willhelm outside frankfurt near some Roman ruins with our boy dressed up to look like Hadrian.
Don't get me started on the Boudicca statue in Westminster
Isn't 'Italia' the southern part of modern Italy? I don't know too much about Roman history but didn't they differentiate hugely between the home 'Roman' provinces and 'Italia'?
cont'd
And Italia is where the Socii came from, right?
>Cavalli-Sforza
Yep top science here. Genetically you can barely tell what continent someone is from let alone narrow it down to countries
We don't have many Iron Age roman samples, so it was only 'proved' based on modern day genomes.
>Genetically you can barely tell what continent someone is from let alone narrow it down to countries
But you can. You can even tell which part of europe someone derives their ancestry from. The problem in genomic testing is a lack of pop references from certain populations, but this is improving all the time.
It's getting more accurate.
There is a reason why North Italians and South Italians hate eachother.
Fucking TERRONE
>DNA from North Italian Roman graves
>they cluster closely with South Italians
>the apricity: ummm, I bet they were Jewish immigrants or at least Greeks! R-real Romans were Nordic!
Those were really late samples, though, from the migration period.
No that's wrong. We only have genetic data from the present. We have no way of knowing what genes were present in Italy even 150 years ago let alone in classical antiquity. It's impossible to verify which are the 'true' Roman genes and which came from the vandals or the moors
The italics were a group of related tribes of which the latins were part. The romans weren't even an actual tribal group, as they were the inhabitants of the latin city of Rome, and composed pretty much since foundation of at least latins and sabines.
Latins, samnites, oscans, venetics, etc were all italic peoples, the etruscans weren't tho. Insofar as rivalry goes, well the samnites were extremely hostile to Rome at various points, but other peoples like venetics and vestini were traditional allies of Rome and were absorbed more or less peacefully.
>Isn't 'Italia' the southern part of modern Italy? I don't know too much about Roman history but didn't they differentiate hugely between the home 'Roman' provinces and 'Italia'?
At the point in history when Rome distinguished between Italy as a region and the provinces as different entities, Rome's definition of Italy already included everything south of the Alps, so it's kind of a moot point. Cisalpine Gaul was a province for less than 50 years, and it was a very weird region, institutionally speaking. It was really more of a militarized border than a proper province, governed by a propraetor instead of a proconsul, already chockful of socii and municipia, and generally only not considered part of the ager romanus proper because there was a rather large amount of gauls in the western part of the region.
>we don't have shitloads of graves from all points in history going as far back as before the founding of Rome
user if you don't know shit just shut up.
But how much of DNA is noticeably different? Is it easy to construe whether a person is from East-Asia or South-America?
Gotcha. I could've sworn in ThoR that he mentions the 'Italians' as a separate tribe.
It's very different and yeah, it's possible to trace migrations like that. For example DNA proved that the famous Kennewick Man was in fact an Amerindian.
Interesting. Is there that much difference in say, a person of Frankish stock and a person of Italian stock? Can minute differences in DNA create large differences to the eye? For instance a swarthy complexion?
>ThoR
Look user, I know this shit gets shilled all the time around here, and it surely isn't John Green tier bullshit, but it's still just a fucking podcast, made by a total amateur with no real history background. I couldn't even manage to make it to the end of the regal period before quitting it. It's extremely entry level and it should be considered, at best, something to start your interest on the subject, not even enough to take the place of an introductory book on the subject.
>Can minute differences in DNA create large differences to the eye?
Certain alleles can, so we can predict hair, skin and eye color from ancient samples.
Citation needed
>>modern Italians are people from Italy
>>ancient Italians are from the south-west region of the peninsula
I am Assyrian
1. The "Italian" ethnicity did not exist until the late 1800s. It is artificial, and it certainly didn't exist in antiquity.
2. Genetic testing shows Italy's population remains largely unchanged since the Roman Era, North Italy remains mostly of Romanized Celtic descent, Central Italians are mostly Etruscan and Roman and South Italians are largely of Greek descent, as shown in this map: Short of genocide, once agriculture is established, populations tend to remain the same.
>2. Genetic testing shows Italy's population remains largely unchanged since the Roman Era, North Italy remains mostly of Romanized Celtic descent, Central Italians are mostly Etruscan and Roman and South Italians are largely of Greek descent, as shown in this map
This is all based on modern populations.
>Short of genocide, once agriculture is established, populations tend to remain the same.
Population replacements happened many times.
that chick on the left has arguably the worst chest I have ever seen
This is based on his fantasies, as genetic tests show that Italy is pretty much homogenous from the Alps to the Campania, then veers greek in the deep south and Sicily. The map he posted is wildly inaccurate.
>Population replacements happened many times.
Not really, they're quite rare and mostly only happen to very small populations. Italy has been hosting millions for the last 2500 years, a replacement even would have required Gaul to completely empty itself and move into the peninsula.
"n 2008, Dutch geneticists determined that Italy is one of the last two remaining genetic islands in Europe (the other being Finland.) This is due in part to the presence of the Alpine mountain chain which, over the centuries, has prevented large migration flows aimed at colonizing the Italian lands.[48]"
You picked the wrong country to say that aout retard
People don't understand change, but also think more change has happened than has. See all the autism about anglo 'saxon' and american english claiming that they are 'an even mix of all ethnicities' or that they are irish/german/french/danish/swedish/spanish because a couple ancestors out of many were.
This is completely inaccurate.
>this is based on his fantasies
On ancient samples.
>as genetic tests show that Italy is pretty much homogenous from the Alps to the Campania
>pretty much
Even 10% difference when it comes to DNA is a lot. And it's all based on modern (sometimes isolated) populations.
>Not really, they're quite rare
We thought they are rare, but they aren't. British farmers were almost completely replaced, most farmers from Central Europe were also replaced.
DNA proved that Amerindians descend in part from Kennewick man or peoples related to him.
>Even 10% difference when it comes to DNA is a lot.
They still cluster far closer together than they do with transalpine celts, so it's retarded to call northern italians romanized celts, especially in light of venetics and etruscans (and ligurians, whose actual origins are still heavily debated) controlled most of the Po plains.
And since you're talking of replacements, let's not forget that the romans went full slaughter on the cisalpine celts after the second punic war, and many roman historians mention tribes that just took up and left rather than keep facing the encroaching romans. Also the cimbric wars were said to have seen the germs go full genocide on them too, so yeah.
>However, rather than being clustered
close to their respective modern countries of origin, samples from Szólád and Collegno can be placed along the major northern and southern axis of modern European genetic variation
biorxiv.org
Northern Italy and Hungary. Lonbard masters are fully North/Central European while their Roman slaves (?) are closely related to Central/South Italians.
>Our two cemeteries overlap chronologically with the historically documented migration of
Longobards from Pannonia to Italy at the end of the 6th century. It is thus intriguing that we observe that central/northern European ancestry is dominant not only in Szólád, but also in Collegno. Based on modern genetic data we would not expect to see a preponderance of such ancestry in either Hungary or especially Northern Italy. While we do not yet know the general genomic background of Europe in these geographic regions just before the establishment of Szólád and Collegno, other Migration Period genomes from the UK and Germany show a fairly strong correlation with modern geography (while also possessing a similar central/northern European ancestry component to that found in Szólád and Collegno). Going further back in time, Late Bronze Age Hungarians show almost no resemblance to populations from modern central/northern Europe, especially compared
>to Bronze Age Germans and in particular Scandinavians, who, in contrast, show considerable overlap with our Szólád and Collegno central/northern ancestry samples. Coupled with the strontium isotope data, our paleogenomic analysis suggest that the earliest individuals of central/northern ancestry in Collegno were probably migrants while those with southern ancestry were local residents.
>This is all based on modern populations.
No.
>Multiple DNA studies confirmed that genetic variation in Italy is clinal going from the Eastern to the Western Mediterranean (with Sardinians as outliers) and that all Italians are made up of the same ancestral components, but in different proportions, related to Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements of Europe. In their admixture ratios all Italians are similar to other Southern Europeans and that is being of Early Neolithic Farmer ancestry. The only exception are certain northeastern Italian populations who cluster with Germanic and Slavic speaking Central Europeans.
>There is a noticeable genetic difference between Sardinians, Northern Italians and Southern Italians. People from the North seem to be close to the French population, while those from the South overlap with Balkan and other southern European populations. Yet, the genetic distance between Northern and Southern Italians, although pretty large from a single European 'nationality' point of view, is only roughly equal to the one between Northern Germans and Southern Germans. The genetic gap between Northern and Southern Italians is filled by an intermediate Central Italian cluster, creating a continuous cline of variation down the peninsula and the islands (with Sardinians as outliers) that mirrors geography.
>Molecular anthropology found no evidence of significant Northern geneflow into the Italian peninsula over the last 1500 years. On the other hand, the bulk of Italian ethnogenesis occurred prior to Germanic or non European invasions. Dna studies show that only the Greek colonization of Sicily and Southern Italy had a lasting effect on the local genetic landscape.
I agree with you. It's pretty ridiculous to think there's a neat little line that connects modern people to people of antiquity.
Actual races of people living in Afro-Eurasia have only barely changed in the last few millenniums. Culture might have changed though
>Does anyone else hate how people apply modern nationalities/ethnicity to those of antiquity?
Not really
what irritates me is when they apply nationality to feudal entities or city states
>le they werent hellenic, they were le athenian!! xd
>not german but le prussian and le saxe-coburg-weimar-kohary-sheisse-gothian!!!:D:D:DXD
What I hate more is when people apply modern morals and philosophies to the distant past. Absolute twats
Being an Athenian meant a lot more to people like Peracles than being a Hellene. Your fetishism is showing.
Feelings don't matter, moron
Show me those ancient samples then. It's literally all based on comparisons of modern populations.
>le pseudoscience face
Most genetic ancestry tests involve the analysis of small snippets of DNA passed down only through the mother, or only through the father. These tests can identify related individuals who share a common maternal or paternal ancestor, and even where in the world people with your genetic signature live today.
A common misconception about genetic ancestry testing, Bolnick said, is that it can reveal information about an individual's ancestry. It cannot.
"People assume these tests can tell you your race or ethnicity and reveal exactly where your ancestors lived or exactly what social group they identified with," she said.
Recently, the Web site Ancestry.com rolled out a new service that allows people to mail in DNA samples to see if they have "genetic cousins" in the company's database and reveal their ancient origins.
One problem with this approach, scientists say, is that because such tests analyze less than 1 percent of a person's genome, they will miss most of a person's relatives.
"If you take a mitochondrial DNA test, you learn something about your mother's mother's mother's lineage," Bolnick said. "If you go back 10 generations, that's telling you something about only one out of more than a thousand ancestors."
Such tests also cannot account for recent migrations of peoples from their ancient homelands. "Present-day patterns of residence are rarely identical to what existed in the past, and social groups have changed over time, in name and composition," the scientists write.
Bolnick and her colleagues encourage professional genetic and anthropological associations to issue policy statements about genetic ancestry testing that urge either caution on the part of consumers or set limits on the claims companies can make.
Turkey has renamed parts of itself to Anatolia (which weren't called that before) for supposedly genocidal purposes.
So people with european ancestry are not europeans, and therefore have no right to identify themselves with their ancestors?
Sounds like anti-white propoganda.
Europe is a made up thing? As is whiteness. If you want to draw and arbitrary line and we-wuzz people on one side of it go ahead, but we don't have to take you seriously.
>pan-white identity
Nice try American, but this made up rubbish doesn't make you any less Irish.
>If you want to draw and arbitrary line
Like the point where "ancient" ethnicities become "modern" ones? This whole thread was started upon arbitrary concepts.
Yes exactly. There no real connection between ancient groups and modern ones. Genetically or culturally.
Doesn't matter, Athens was their polis, not their tribe(ionic) or nation(greek), you rootless American
>There no real connection between ancient groups and modern ones. Genetically or culturally.
Italians share the DNA of their ancestors on the Italian peninsula and speak a language originating on the peninsula that culturally dominated and eradicated/partially subsumed the others.
>Italians share the DNA of their ancestors on the Italian peninsula
Do they? Does Mario Balotelli? All the millions of soldiers who have marched across Italy in the centuries since the fall of Rome didn't get laid with local women? Nobody has moved to Italy from outside Italy for hundreds of years?
I got laid in Italy last summer, and certainly not a conquering army. I do admire your trust in the virtue of Italian females though.
Also
>language
So I guess everyone in America must have come from England
So, it's a peninsula of inbred and jewish-cuckolded people?
Man, this post is cancer.
>All the millions of soldiers who have marched across Italy in the centuries since the fall of Rome didn't get laid with local women? Nobody has moved to Italy from outside Italy for hundreds of years?
So? Point being? Their genes have been a minor impact on the native genetics, it's like piss in the sea
Why so mad, Mutt?
>everyone in America is Indian because newcomers and conquests have no impact on the native genetics
>Do they? Does Mario Balotelli?
>Does some nig born from immigrants?
Are you being facetious comparing the son of two Africans to the native population and thus questioning their heritage? wew
>All the millions of soldiers who have marched across Italy in the centuries since the fall of Rome didn't get laid with local women?
The foreign armies that have marched across Italy over the centuries were minute in number relative to the size of the population, that's tens of thousands compared to millions, and not all of them raped ten women and then settled down with a family fool. There'd be a few outrages perhaps in the less disciplined armies where the soldiers were allowed to leave to seek out women who didn't flee for whatever reason and rape them willy nilly (because that's a tactic that wins wars), nothing significant.
>I got laid in Italy last summer, and certainly not a conquering army.
fuggen ebic win bro
>So I guess everyone in America must have come from England
False equivalency, America was virgin territory for all the European nations who were willing to be under the yoke of Anglo cultural hegemony in the land of the US and speak the tongue. Italy was never in the situation of the new world, dumb burger.
The natives in USA were pushed back by American colonists, there was no mixing between them, the genetics of Anglo colonists remained Anglo.
>Are you being facetious comparing the son of two Africans to the native population and thus questioning their heritage? wew
So what makes someone authentically Italian? Because I guarantee you will not find a single individual without a one ancestor from outside the peninsula. Balotelli is useful for coaxing out your racism though. I know you want to believe in discreet ethnic and racial populations to justify your ignorant views, it's a shame the science doesn't back you up.
>Because I guarantee you will not find a single individual without a one ancestor from outside the peninsula.
Of the rare individuals who could produce a concise delineation of their ancestors or a family tree you'd find perhaps an ancestor from France or Spain from the 17th century I'm sure, but odd ancestors here and there scattered over centuries will have that DNA and that genetic heritage subsumed in the native population of whatever country the foreigner moved to.
>ur raycis ur ignint
whatever fag
>every soldier who entered italy raped a woman and the rapebaby survived to adulthood with the social status and resources to raise successful offspring of their own
nah, it doesn't work like that
Sometimes invaders would kill all the men and rape all the women, it is true, but most of the time their goal was to replace the local ruler while keeping most of the local institutions and economy intact.
Okay, just go away and read about how genetics works. What is this background native genetics that can't very changed no matter what interbreeding is done? You are an imbecile
Americans aren't people
>has changed them completely.
nope
>implying rape
>what are brothels
>what are camp followers
Ancient greeks are closest to modern greeks than any other modern population though, are you retarded?
Also
>So what makes someone authentically Italian?
Heritage and ancestry giving your roots in Italy (IE. not a fresh off the boat nigger) and a reason to consider it home, it not just being the place closest for the ship to dock that rescued your parents from drowning, or the best place your parents moved for job opportunities, but being the home of your ancestors going back thousands of years to the ethnogenesis of your ethnic group rooted in historical occurrences and events.
Followed then by being born in Italy, speaking Italian, have 'Italian characteristics' or whatever.
t.grand master of anthropology who read a buzzfeed article which finally proved he doesn't need to care about being an amerimutt
>What is this background native genetics that can't very changed no matter what interbreeding is done?
It was never on a large enough scale to effect the genetic makeup, historically that is, you dumb cunt. They didn't have interracial breeding grounds then like they do in the US of A today, Juan Carlitos.
>Even if the populations were genetically identical, it wouldn't matter.
HAHAHA
They are still pretty far away from them due to more Slavic admixture.
And that's a good thing!
>all these stormmutts getting triggered by facts
Go back to your safe space and fight the Jewish conspiracy from there
>we've been here three generations
>we are proper italians, not those two generation scum
>people have only been in Italy for 3 generations
whoa..............................
grow a brain you deracinated mutt
The difference is that in USA the natives never had large scale agriculture. This is the factor that allows a population to establish themselves in a territory.
Mexico under the Aztecs had 25 million people while the continental US had around 3.8 million according to the most recent estimates. Then in the centuries that followed, the US would receive over 30 million European immigrants (each having in average 5-10 children) while natives fell to disease and conquest. This explains why Mexico is brown and the US is whiter.
Anyway, the conquest of the Americas is an extreme example that has nothing to do with Italy. Black pest aside, Italians were immunized to Old World diseases, and they never experienced mass migration like the countries of the New World. Most conquests before the modern era had little impact on the local population, it was mostly an elite establishing itself as the new rulers.
>Mexico is brown and the US is whiter.
Really DNA has proven that modern Sicilians are extremely close to their 4000 years old Bronze age ancestors. The genetic difference between modern and Roman Age samples would be even smaller. And Sicily have been invaded from many different people.
Sicilians are also extremely close to Mycenaeans, if one compares the two plots.
>those charts