There is a linguistic assumption by some scholars that Daco-Thracian certainly came from somewhere to the north much nearer to where Baltic and Slavic (particularly the former) were initially spoken. Assuming that most of Poland, Belarus and North Ukraine were most probably Balto-Slavic-speaking in the Iron Age, Daco-Thracians could realistically have come from north/northwest of the Carpathians, near or even in Pannonia. Of course their "Southern-looking" genetic makeup can have been an artifact of their arrival in the Balkans and eventual heavy admixture with the local peoples, but what if they were already more "Southern European" than "Northern European" in their homeland?
I think it depends on which "Thracians" we're discussing.
Ages ago, there was a paper that did an analysis on samples from elite graves, and then a sample from a poor grave, who might have been a sacrifice. The samples from the "elite" graves (some from the Bronze Age, but also some from the Iron Age) came out looking "French" and also "British, so basically Western and Northwestern European. The man who was sacrificed was, however, variously "Tuscan" like or "Oetzi" like, but at any rate much more EEF like.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29957-Genome-of-Iron-Age-Thracian?highlight=Thracian+samples
That finding was ridiculed, but I wonder if those same samples were retested in Mathiesen et al.
Might we be seeing something similar in Szabo, i.e. people who didn't really stay and put down roots, and really change the local gene pool? Maybe they passed through after a couple of hundred years, or, even if they stayed, maybe they just didn't change the gene pool because there weren't enough of them.
Maybe the majority or at least a big chunk of the population remained or became "Tuscan like", i.e. maybe even Mycenaean like originally, changed a bit, maybe 1/4 of them, to become "Tuscan like", although some remained even more southern, only to really change later on with the arrival of the Slavic migrations, which might have been more numerous.
In Hungary, yesterday's Pannonia, you also have lots of "Germanic" migrations east to change the people even more.
This is all speculation. We need more samples, and I really should start delving into the Mathiesen samples, but I think it's worth investigating. Those people in Szolad who were not only Tuscan like, but Sicilian like, couldn't have been the odd person descended from Roman soldiers. There was a community of them, and we know about them.
It's all in this thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34923-Ancient-Lombard-DNA?highlight=Lombard+dna
I still think this statement is valid:
"
I doubt there were any Tuscans in Pannonia, though, so I have a feeling perhaps it's that people pretty similar to modern Tuscans were still living in Pannonia all the way into the post Roman era? Perhaps it's like the fact that Globular Amphora people were pretty close to modern Tuscans, or Spain Chalcolithic? "
"Tuscan like" genetically means a very "southern" Neolithic like population admixed with perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 more northern elements?
This is the group we were talking about. Wonomyro brought it to our attention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keszthely_culture
@Wonomyro,
Wash out your mouth with soap!
I'll make a prediction, though: I think their elites might be more "northern" than people expected, going by that one PCA we have. That could still mean they were a mix of some sort, with perhaps some extra southeastern ancestry arriving in the late Bronze Age, to overlay the ruling more northern perhaps more IE like elite. None of that will tell us what average Etruscans were like, however, because they didn't get big grandiose graves.