Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I wasn't aware we had ancient Ligurian samples. If we don't, how do we know they plot anywhere near modern Cypriots? Modern Ligurians certainly don't. Are you saying these imperial Roman samples were found in Liguria?

Well, if that's the case, that's easy. Genua was a Greek city and then a Roman city, and Luni was founded by Romans and was used by them to try to pacify the area.

I think it's likely the Italics were more "Northern Italian" like and had more "steppe" than the "Imperial Romans". More than modern Southern Italians, for example. That's not "Northern" by any means. Northern Italians don't plot anywhere near Germans, much less Scandinavians. I'm also not convinced that this more "northern" like ancestry only arrived in Central Italy with "Etruscans" and "Celts", the latter of whom only raided in these more southern areas by the way, not settled. I think it might be earlier.

Are people on other forums fixating on those four samples that drift toward the Cypriots? For goodness' sakes. Talk about focusing on the minority.

Also, Mycenaean people were pretty darn "Aegean" like, and I think people like that were feeding into Italy at least from the Helladic Era. The Greek sample found in North Eastern Iberia in the Imperial Era still plots near Mycenaeans, who plot near Ashkenazi Jews, btw.

I don't personally find any of this very controversial.

We also still don't know what Neolithic Southern Italians were like, so maybe some people might be getting a little ahead of themselves.

Are the usual posters foaming at the mouth again about a flood of "Levant" like people coming into southern Italy? Fine with me if true, but where is the evidence? Is there any contemporary evidence of large migrations in writings, inscriptions, etc.? Did they just materialize out of thin air? I mean, the Carthaginians were only in the northwest corner of Sicily. That's giving them a little too much credit, don't you think? Or, are the Jewish members of some forums or the ones who think they're secret Jews or something proposing that floods of Jews moved to Italy but converted eventually? How many specifically Jewish yDna clades are there in Southern Italy or among imperial Romans?

The Moots leaks, btw, said that there was a "tail" leading toward the Near East at a certain time in the Imperial Era. They also mentioned some "sporadic" "Levantine" samples. I assumed the latter caused the former. That "tail", according to the leaks, then disappeared. I think it disappeared because a lot of the Jews moved on into the Rhineland.

Were the authors of this paper careful to distinguish local Roman from "foreign" burials? Did they do isotope analysis? I sure hope so.

This reminds me of all those "GOT" fan youtube sites where the creators would weave all these elaborate theories of what happened, garnering hundreds of thousands of views in the process, while the reality was much more simple. :)

---

Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.

I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.

I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markod

Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.

I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.

I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.

---

That's what I think too.

If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.

There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians.

If this information about the Etruscans turns out to be true, how things change, yes? I don't remember if you were here during that period, but I remember so well our then resident skadi types insisting all of Anatolia and the Levant had moved to Tuscany in the first millennium BC and the proof was all those really dark Etruscans on the wall paintings. :) I wonder if "he who must not be named" will acknowledge he was wrong. I suppose not; none of them ever do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markod

Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.

I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.

I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.

---

I agree, and I'm pretty sure there were migrations of people with lots of CHG into southern Italy and Greece during those periods as well, even before classic Greece. Just a guess, guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markod

So it's exactly what one would expect considering the archaeological evidence. The position of the Romans relative to the Mycenaeans is interesting, as it indicates that the Proto-Italics either had higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks, or that they absorbed fewer natives than did the Greeks. I'm guessing it's #2.

---

Can you elaborate on that? As far as I can see in the PCA, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the Mycenaeans plot closer to Anatolia_N than the Romans, who are mostly slightly to their north (some to the northeast toward modern Caucasians/Levantines), some to the northwest toward Central/Eastern Europeans). Why should Proto-Italics have higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.

There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians.

---

So that would mean that, as many of us speculated after the Iberia paper, there was lot of genetic and cultural mixing causing a high degree of inter-ethnic convergence, but some groups ultimately shifted their language and others did not? I mean, your hypothesis looks like Ligurians, Etruscans and Iberians would be genetically (and culturally too?) similar to each other, but speaking 3 completely different languages (IE Ligurian probably being the newcomer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markod

Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.

---

The difference between Ligurians (green) and Tuscans (pinkish) is very small and the sample used in this PCA for Tuscans is TSI, and there are so many Tuscans who are further north genetically than TSI. Then there are even internal differences between Ligurians, both from an autosomal and uniparental markers point of view. Lunigiana is a world apart because of its long isolation, eastern Liguria is on pair with Western Emilia, Western Liguria has receveid strong recent influence from nearby Piedmont.

https://i.imgur.com/ZuUuGjZ.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

That's what I think too.

If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.

There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians..

---

It is quite incredible that when it comes to the Etruscans we move from one exaggeration to another. :)

What we call ancient "Ligure" ancestry is nothing more than a western Neolithic plus Bell Beaker, both archeologically attested also in Tuscany. The only difference is that from the south and center of Tuscany there are contacts (from Rinaldone onwards) with central Italy (which in turn has contacts with southern Italy) that are missing in Liguria given the geographical location of Liguria.

Obviously the Etruscans were not Ligurians, modern Ligurians are just part of Italian cline, northwest of Tuscans and southeast of Iberians and other northwest Italians (Lombards and people from Piedmont). If we then add that the Ligurians on a theoretical level were also "Celtized" modern Ligurians were expected to plot even further north than where they actually plot. Etruscans seem to plot near Spaniards due likely to a larger Neolithic DNA and a Bell Beaker-like DNA. Which is quite normal for a population of 3000 years ago, even the Mycenaeans had much more Neolithic DNA than the Greeks and South Italians and plot west of them. Not to mention that Mycenaeans form a pretty large cluster in a PCA despite being only four.

What Etruscans and Ligurians have in common are pieces of Neolithic and the Bell Beaker and maybe even something related to proto-Villanovan. Nothing strange. Ancient ethnos (in the sense of self-awareness of belonging to an ethnos) are formed between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Not before, and are due to contacts first with the Mycenaeans and then with the Greeks, who in turn had learned in the east.

It is true that the Ligurians and the Etruscans had much more contacts than is usually thought (see for example the Etruscan remains found in the ancient port of Genoa) but they were clearly two distinct ethnos, and the Etruscans had the most fruitful relationships in north Italy with Golasecca, the Rhaetians and the Veneti. The Ligurians left no inscriptions and very few archaeological remains, a civilization that has not shone by the IA great developments, while the Etruscans on the contrary spread the euboic alphabet in northern Italy and became very rich and prosperous thanks to trade with populations further north, further west, further south and further east.

As today we know that the Etruscan language is related to another language spoken in Italy, the Rhaetian language spoken in the Alps. We now know enough about the Etruscan language to be able to exclude some of the most flimsy assumptions made in recent and less recent years. The problem of a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures is the lack of inscriptions in ancient Ligurian but certainly before celtization the Ligurians spoke a pre-Indo-European language.

Just as it cannot be excluded the existence in Etruria itself of other languages, in particular of an IE language due to the influences arrived with the proto-Villanovan or maybe even earlier (Terramare, Bell Beaker...). The Etruscan language, which is a pre-Indo-European language, has two types of IE "strates". One very ancient, the other one more recent due to contacts with the Italic languages.




https://i.imgur.com/QmXGlFc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/COC7BrW.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

If this information about the Etruscans turns out to be true, how things change, yes? I don't remember if you were here during that period, but I remember so well our then resident skadi types insisting all of Anatolia and the Levant had moved to Tuscany in the first millennium BC and the proof was all those really dark Etruscans on the wall paintings. :) I wonder if "he who must not be named" will acknowledge he was wrong. I suppose not; none of them ever do.

---

The issue was already solved many years ago by archaeologists, only that in the forums few have read the most important texts of etruscology. Not to mention the obvious manipulations.

Apart from the fact that most of those wall paintings come from northern Lazio (Tarquinia, Cerveteri), the wall paintings have clearly nothing to do with the origins of Etruscans and belong to the orientalizing period which was an artistic-cultural movement clearly of eastern mediterranean origin and which did not influence only the Etruscans, but first of all the Greeks, many Italic populations and even the Venetis. There were also movements of artists from the East, the orientalizing had indeed a huge impact on the Etruscans (who had become so rich that they could afford to exhibit these orientalized objects as a status symbol), but once again it reveals nothing significant about the origin of the Etruscans. The Etruscan civilization begins in fact around the tenth century BC with the Villanovan culture considered the most ancient phase of the Etruscan civilization. Once again nothing anomalous, because this is the period of formation of all the ethnos in pre-Roman Italy.

@Ygorcs: you wrote:
"If I had to guess, I'd put the ultimate origin of Italo-Celtic between France/Belgium and West Germany/Netherlands, and that of Italic somewhere in the vicinity of Northeastern Italy, in the vicinity of the Alps, maybe Austria, Slovenia or Hungary."

Hungary-Austria as Italics cradle was the bet of a lot of old scientists, if I don't mistake. And I think so. Veneti of Italy could have stay some time more northern -
Less prudently I could say one possible hypothesis for Etruscans would have been Hungary too; after all, their auDNA or at least their mtDNA has been found to be closer to 3000 BC pops of Central Europe than to specifically more recent Anatolian pops - The Rhaetia position is maybe not due to a South-North move and could be ancient. Maybe too Italics and Etruscans links could be ancient too. Intrications of languages in shared material cultures and religions could be commoner and older that I thought before, and linguistic homogeneization could have taken generations of bilinguism before a language took the strong side. Maybe the basque question is here too?

@Pax Augusta: good post.
I regreat I've not red your last post before to write my one to Ygorcs; I was not aware of this old IE substrata in Etruscan. (spite I'm surprised of so a precise statement for a supposed badly known language).

Some interesting food for thought here as I "refined" these models for the genetic ancestry of the Italians. I first used dozens of different steppe-related samples, which is a somewhat "dangerous" thing given that many of them are just so close to each other that unrealistic and misleading artifacts of the algorithms may happen. But I did that just to try and identify the closest steppe-related peoples involved in the peopling of Italy (apparently Catacomb/Western Yamnaya-like, BB and Western CWC), so later I used fewer samples, and these are quite intriguing (but in my opinion not implausible) results:

https://imgur.com/vhkNoIZ

How do I personally interpret the data above? In my opinion, some conclusions and important questions that it inspires are these:

1) Sardinia is known to have spoken a non-IE language (according to some linguists, possibly distantly related to Etruscan, but it's just little more than a tentative conjecture) as late as after the Roman conquest in the 3rd century B.C. These samples (probably from the Barbagia?) clearly lack non-negligible steppe ancestry and are by far the most EEF-related among all the Italian populations. It seems to me then that EEF can be safely concluded as the "default" non-IE language family/families of ancient Italians, so Indo-European could only have been brought by the other elements that are present in all the regions of Italy: Steppe-related (CWC, BB, Catacomb) or CA/BA Transcaucasus-related (Armenia_Chl, Kura Araxes). For many reasons I don't think the latter makes much sense.

2) CWC_Germany seems to be correlated, in other aDNA and modern DNA samples I have analyzed, with Germanic populations, but also perhaps with some neighboring Celtic (or Italo-Celtic) populations in North-Central Europe (it's also present when I model BA Britain samples). CWC_Germany is curiously present in very similar frequencies in North Italy (Bergamo) and in South Italy, Sicily and Eastern-Central Italy (Abruzzo - wasn't it where the Duchy of Spoleto was located? Do you know how large was the Lombard migration to it?). But Tuscany and Sardinia lack it. Could it be the signal of the Migration Period Germanic tribes, or maybe earlier IE peoples that spread from the Adriatic coast southward to South Italy and then Sicily were also reasonably close to the Western CWC (CWC_Germany)? Who could they be? I think it's unlikely the Italic languages were spread by such a people. I wish the North Picene language had already been fully deciphered and classified. People even still discuss over whether it was just a highly divergent IE language with a strong non-IE substrate, or a non-IE language.

3) Catacomb-like ancestry only appear in South Italy, Sicily and Abruzzo (did it have Greek or more broadly BA/IA Balkanic settlement?), but not in North Italy (Bergamo), Tuscany and Sardinia. In all the models I have done, at least a very small proportion of Mycenaean DNA comes off as Catacomb-like, and the proportion increases if I don't use any BB and Yamnaya samples, too. Could Catacomb or Catacomb-like be the "Proto-Greek signal" correlating with the parts of Italy where Greek settlement had a large genetic impact? (perhaps Late Western Yamnaya? In other models the best proxies for the steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans is a mix of Yamnaya_Bulgaria + Yamnaya_Ukraine)

4) North Italy and Tuscany clearly have a very significant Bell Beaker, mainly a mix of France+Netherlands+North Italy (circum-Alpine?) BB ancestry, and Tuscany lacks CWC or Catacomb ancestry. North Italy also stands out from South Italy/Sicily and even from Tuscany in having much less CA/BA West Asian ancestry. Could it be that Etruscans/Rhaetians (Tyrsenians) and Italic peoples were initially very similar, and it just happened that some tribes shifted to the incoming BB language while others instead retained their traditional (North?) Italian language? Might BB France+Netherlands+Germany be related to the later Italic arrivals in the LBA/EIA (IIRC Proto-Italic split is estimated to have happened pretty late, ~1200 B.C., like that of Proto-Celtic), whereas the BB North Italy is more connected to the "ancient IE strata" that Pax Augusta mentioned in his last past?

5) Levant_N ancestry is found in all of Italy but Sardinia (it has a small North African ancestry though) and North Italy, and it's found in reasonably high proportions in South Italy (the highest proportion, so I don't think this Levant_N signal has much to do with "recent" events like the Muslim/Arab conquests), Abruzzo and Sicily. What could explain that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ygorcs

Can you elaborate on that? As far as I can see in the PCA, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the Mycenaeans plot closer to Anatolia_N than the Romans, who are mostly slightly to their north (some to the northeast toward modern Caucasians/Levantines), some to the northwest toward Central/Eastern Europeans). Why should Proto-Italics have higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks then?

---

I meant Anatolia Bronze Age ancestry, my bad. So lots of CHG and some Levant_BA + ANF.

..........

I put the labels in the PCA on the basis of other PCAs.



https://i.imgur.com/SHjZcj8.png

Attachment 11098

the Etruscan is quite suspect, it is like an outlier, someone can provide cases of Etruscan bones? the trend in Italy is like if all Sea Peoples from the Aegean came there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berun

the Etruscan is quite suspect, it is like an outlier, someone can provide cases of Etruscan bones?

---

One is outlying but the other 4 are where they are supposed to be.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKS.../etruscans.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berun

the trend in Italy is like if all Sea Peoples from the Aegean came there.

---

A fairy tale.

I posted this in the mytrueancestry thread but I think it really belongs here.

"This is all conjecture until we have the samples from Moots, this paper if it's different, and hopefully, future ones from lots of other cultures in Italy, including some Terramare, samples from the ancient Veneto, from the Ligures and Celt Ligurians, some samples from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Calabria, eastern Sicily, Puglia, colonization sites in Magna Graecia, Classical Greece including the islands and on and on, even Greek settlements in Rhodes, for example, or Phocaea.

So, my ideas are just "guesses" as are those of other people here and on other sites. I'm certainly not married to mine, and neither should they be married to theirs.

As for the "accomplishments" of the Romans, they span a huge period from the beginning of the Republic to the Imperial period to the fall. Different types of people may have contributed relatively more to one period than to another. Were the founders and early leaders of the Republic, particularly the "patricians", more "Northern Italian" like? I don't know. Were people like Cicero, a plebeian, more "Northern Italian" like or as a Plebeian more "Southern Italian" like? , Niebur, a 19th century historian, thought the Plebeians were foreigners who settled in early Roman who got citizenship. I don't know and maybe we'll never know. Even if they were foreigners, foreigners from where? Or were they the "original" inhabitants when the Latini arrived? I don't know yet.

"From 494 to 287 BC, the so-called "Conflict of the Orders" resulted in the establishment of plebeian offices (the tribunes and plebeian aediles), the publication of the laws (the Law of the Twelve Tables), the establishment of the right of plebeian–patrician intermarriage (by the passage of the Lex Canuleia), the opening of the highest offices of government and some state priesthoods to the plebeians and passage of legislation (the Lex Hortensia) that made resolutions passed by the assembly of plebeians, the concilium plebis, binding on all citizens."

This inclusion of other groups, often hostile groups, was part of the genius of the Romans, and the thing I like best about them.

"During the Second Samnite War (326–304 BC), plebeians who had risen to power through these social reforms began to acquire the aura of nobilitas, "nobility" (more literally "notability"), marking the creation of a ruling elite of nobiles that allied the interests of patricians and noble plebeians.^[2] From the mid-4th century to the early 3rd century BC, several plebeian–patrician "tickets" for the consulship repeated joint terms, suggesting a deliberate political strategy of cooperation.^[3] Although nobilitas was not a formal social rank during the Republican era, in general, a plebeian who had attained the consulship was regarded as having brought nobility to his family. Such a man was a novus homo ("new man"), a self-made noble, and his sons and descendants were nobiles.^[4]"Mariusand Cicero are notable examples of novi homines in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of Optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorialprerogatives. By contrast, the Populares, which sought to champion the plebs in the sense of "common people", were sometimes led by patricians such as Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher."


Marius famously married into the family of Julius Caesar. By the time of the Empire, we have people like Agrippa, a plebeian of low birth who married into the family of Augustus and whose descendants were Emperors . Was he part "Southern Italian" like? Then we have Livy, who seems to have been from Northern Italy. Many of the engineers who built all those roads and aqueducts all over Europe, and formed the first legions, and managed provinces, and worked in the law courts, helping to create the basis of the law of much of Europe, would have included many Southern Italian like "Romans".

Going all the way back to the earlier Romans, there would have been no Rome without the Etruscans, from whom they borrowed a great deal. However, from whom did the Etruscans learn those things? They learned from the Greeks and the Phoenicians. Cultures build one upon another. Modern populations are similarly one layer of ancient groups on top of another, then subject to drift.

I think there's plenty of "glory" to go around. I find the kind of hyper-identification of certain people on other sites with one group they want to claim as ancestors to the exclusion of all others, and the actual attempt, certainly in the past, to actually want to change the "ethnicity" of certain groups because they don't like their modern descendants really upsetting as well as clearly just wrong both factually and ethically.

Now I sound like a preachy Sunday school teacher, and in a response to someone who has nothing at all to do with the issues that bother me, but I guess I just took the opportunity to "unload" a little bit. Sorry. :)"

If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy (also many Eastern Med people too). Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.

If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study.

Very interesting developments.

Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.

The continuing saga of this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-leaders.html

The disappearance of the men, with some women remaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Messier 67

If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy. Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.

If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study.

Very interesting developments.

Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.

The continuing saga of this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-leaders.html

The disappearance of the men, with some women remaining.

---

I don't think you can read a PCA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brick

I don't think you can read a PCA.

---

Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner.

The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this.

Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.

In haplogroups, I am referring to paternal line, not maternal admixture. Central Italy and Southern Italy have nearly identical paternal lines.

I feel compelled to err on the side of caution in assuming the Italics could be the natives because I don't want to falsely judge them as the conan the barbarian (R1s).

And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.

No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.

In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner.

The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this.

Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.

---

Thank you Someone should provide circles on that chart because they are all one color and one shape (for Italy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner.

The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this.

Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.

---

My comment was very civil. He thinks that Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. That's simply not possible and certainly that's not what the PCA shows.

Greeks in the PCA have a different symbol from the rest of southern Europe (Greek Macedonia, Greek Thessaly...). Starting from the Greeks, almost everything else is reconstructed.


The original PCA

https://i.imgur.com/HM671qo.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Messier 67

In haplogroups, I am referring to paternal line, not maternal admixture. Central Italy and Southern Italy have nearly identical paternal lines.

And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.

No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.

In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...n-ancient-dna/

---

Angela, so I suppose you agree with this.

Good thing this isn't Eurogenes. Such wrong comments are rarely read on Eurogenes.

There is no data on the ancient Italic tribes who morphed into the cities with the Greeks and Romans.

Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.

If they are right:

Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).

Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age.

Then I am right. The Celts split the Germanic language speaking people to the north and the Italic speaking speaking to the south, into two different groups. Each developed their own new dialect, and thus language.

29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania:
both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brick

I put the labels in the PCA on the basis of other PCAs.



https://i.imgur.com/SHjZcj8.png

Attachment 11098

---

Thanks for sharing. So Etruscans range from Iberians to North Italians and Tuscans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Messier 67

The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.

---

Nobody believes in this theory anymore. Even Davidski doesn't believe in it.


Davidski:

"It should be interesting to see how the authors of the paper(s) explain the obvious genetic similarity between the Italic speakers and Etruscans, but to me it looks like the Etruscan language was adopted by some Italic speakers without any significant accompanying gene flow from outside of Iron Age Italy."