New work sheds light on the Etruscans, who may have founded Rome

The main thing is that there's a lot of prehistory. The Stone Age was 3 million years long; people have been cooking their food for 1.75 million years; anatomically modern humans are 250,000 years old; behavioral modernity (elaborate graves, fishing, artifact diversity, common figurative art) is from 50,000 years ago, or perhaps as long as 80,000; the first proto-cities like Çatal Höyük date from 10,000 years ago; the city of Eridu is from 7500 years ago.

In places, "history" (in the sense of written records) is only 500 years old; in most of Europe it's less than 2000 years old. Imhotep built the first Egyptian pyramid only 4700 years ago, but in his day, people had already had brains pretty much the same as our own for ten times that long. 90% of the time of people painting pictures and burying their dead happened before Imhotep; half of the time of people living in cities happened before Imhotep. And 99% of the time of people with brains pretty much the same as our own was before Columbus.

That is, the founding of proto-cities like Çatal Höyük was as long ago for Imhotep as Imhotep is for us. But Imhotep didn't have writings from Çatal Höyük to read or archaeologists to investigate it.

It seems overwhelmingly likely that when later emperors kept using it, they were referencing the dynasty that Augustus founded, not Julius Caesar personally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title)#Sole_Roman_Empe...

However, as the article mentions, it's unwise to assume there is a 100% correlation between genetic markers and culture/language. The Baltic Sea region has been a trade hub since before the the first indo-european migrations into the area, and some genetic mixing must have been unavoidable.