Talk:Daunians

The Illyrian origin of the Dauni is debatable.

The original text talks of the Illyrian origin of the Dauni as it is a certainty, which is not the case, and does not follow from the reference of Charles Anthon either. It is a propability, undeniably a high one. This reference cites Diomedes of Argos, who came here after the conquest of Troy as an alternative. The Italian entry of Wikipedia for the Dauni also refers to the Cretans as another alternative, which is a reference to Herodotus (The Histories) and is uncited. (Please be kind with me, it's my first time opening a discussion.)--Alhktw (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since noone is answering I guess I will correct this. In a week maybe.

Alhktw (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I still have to add sources:

a)Stephanus of Byzantium who states Daunos was the son of Lycaonas, brother to Iapigas and Peucetios, from Arcadia.

b)Herodotus in Histories states that the Daunii are Cretans.

c)Incorporate text from Diomedes. Especially "Life in Italy" and "Cities founded by Diomedes" which includes all sources from Aeneas, Pliny, Plutarch, Pindar, Justin, Strabo, Pausanias and Scylax. Alhktw (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Uria

Daunian Uria is obviously Uria Garganica and Orra as the links would give if they were in order. I will thus delink.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Genetics and Minoans

From the study: When we performed f3 analyses to investigate the nearest possible source for each IAA individual using Minoans, Iron Age Croatians and the local Roman Republicans (Fig. 3A), we found that none of the IAA individuals shows higher affinities with Minoans.Three of them, which clustered close to modern Italians in the PCA (ORD001, ORD014 and SGR003, Fig. 1C), show higher affinity with the Iron Age Croatian sample (ORD004 followed this pattern too, but with lower f3 values). However, the remaining majority are closest to the Roman Republicans, which can be interpreted as representative of local Iron Age peninsular Italy ancestry, as also indicated by our MDS results The autosomal ancestry of the specific samples which can be called Daunian is between Republican Rome and IA Croatia. That this particular set of profiles can be said to be within a Mediterranean cline which starts in Iberia and reaches the Levante is not related to their ancestry. The excess of WHG ancestry, tentatively suggesting a local origin, is somewhat blurred by the genetic similarity of the two most probable sources - Illyrians (Croatia EIA) and an autochthonous one (Roman Republicans), which together make part of the same Mediterranean continuum. (..) Within the described Pan-Mediterranean landscape, the IAA/Daunians show a sizeable heterogeneity, comparable to the one of the broader and cosmopolitan Republican and even more so Imperial Roman civilisation, and the highest genetic affinity to Republican Romans and Iron Age Croatians, while Minoans and other Iron Age Greek samples show absent or reduced WHG contribution when compared to IAA. This makes a Cretan or Arkadian origin less likely, even though some tales have connected them with the Greek hero Diomedes (..)--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up the Minoans? I didn't add anything about the Minoans. Here's what I added: The study places the Daunians in a pan-Mediterraean genetic continuum that stretched from Crete and the Levant to Republican Rome and the Iberian peninsula. and although ancient authors claimed such an origin for their neighbors, the Peucetians and Messapians. A parsimonious explanation of the Daunian's origin favors autochthony, although influences from Croatia (ancient Illyria) cannot be excluded.. This exactly what is in the paper's discussion section: The new genomic sequences of Daunian samples reveal that Iron Age (pre-Roman) Southern Italy (Apulia) can be placed within a Pan-Mediterranean genetic continuum that stretches from Crete (Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017)) and the Levant (Sea People (Feldman, Master, et al.2019; Molinaro et al. 2019)) to the Republican Rome and the Iberian Peninsula (Antonio et al. 2019), and From a parsimony perspective, the genetic results point to an autochthonous origin (e.g. a genetic continuity of Daunians with the population that inhabited the area prior to the examined historical period), here mainly marked by the presence of WHG signature, although we cannot exclude additional influences from Croatia (ancient Illyria), as described by available historical sources and by the material remains (De Juliis 1988; Norman 2016). Why the blanket revert [1]? When one reads a scientific publication, one should read it in its entirety, including the "Discussion" section. When one quotes scientific literature, one should do so in an intellectually honest manner. Khirurg (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The full paper is publicly available here [2]. Khirurg (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• The particular continuum which describes the Daunians ranges from Republican Italy to EIA Croatia.
• You wrote that A parsimonious explanation of the Daunian's origin favors autochthony, although influences from Croatia (ancient Illyria) cannot be excluded It's not what the source discusses if you compare the specific quote from the source. It discusses a continuity with the population which lived in the region prior to the examined historical period (Middle to Late Iron Age) and describes WHG admixture as possibly deriving from additional influence from Croatia. The point is that the specific profile of the Daunians was formed in the EIA via migrations + local poulation and remained stable throughout the IA ("prior to the examined historical period") although additional influences/migrations cannot be excluded. Bato's edits are a good expansion of the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)