It's is oversimplifying writing that the Italics came from the west (from where? France? Spain?) and the Etruscans from the east (from where? Veneto? Marche? Balkans? Pannonia? Siberia? Japan? Everything comes from the east, even Indo-Europeans, EEFs and hunter gatherers). Just as the concept of North-West Indo-European makes one smiles a lot, but it does exist in the scientific literature, I remember at least in Mallory.
On this I suggest you to read this
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEurope...rthwest_indoeuropean_generally_accepted_as_a/
Particularly this. CQ does have a weirdo Western bias. Then there would be a discussion about how much Indo-European linguists like Adrados and Beekes have been overrated (and how many of their theories were very old and outdated). The damage done by Indo-European linguists is enormous. Just as other well-known amateur bloggers have a weirdo Eastern bias, let's be clear.
Samples are few, and the interpretation of sample analysis cannot be separated from what other disciplines have been saying for years. Just as the concepts of ethnogenesis, cultural formation, self-identification and ethnic self-awareness must be taken into account.
In both cases, in the case of the Latins and the Etruscans, the consensus is that they were formed in Italy where their ethnogenesis took place, and that only from the beginning of the Iron Age we can speak of Latin and Etruscan ethnicity.
In the post Italics are being pitted against Etruscans, but the analyses in Antonio 2019 are primarily concerned with Latins except R1, not Italics. Italics is first of all a linguistic classification, and there is no consensus that Latin (or better, Latino-Faliscan) is an Italic language. Sometimes, instead, it happens to read that Latino-Faliscan is Western-Italic and Osco-Umbrian is Eastern-Italic. Strictly speaking only the Osco-Umbrian languages are considered truly Italic, with the idea that the Latino-Faliscan and the Osco-Umbrian group are two distinct IE linguistic groups and that any similarities are due to convergences of historical age due to numerous contacts. At present we do not know with certainty if Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian really descend from a common ancestor, when they split from this common ancestor, if they are languages arrived together or separate in Italy and they are really part of the Italo-Celtic family.
Specific studies on the origins in prehistory and protohistory of the ancestors of the speakers of Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian languages are few (they were all too busy writing crap about the origins of the Etruscans). From time to time you will read that the Latin-Faliscan speakers are thought to have arrived before the Osco-Umbrians and yet both have some relationship to Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures. In older studies, however, they were both related to older archaeological cultures of Prehistoric Italy.
I'll be back soon with another post, I'm busy right now.
Because in modern Northern Italians and Tuscans WHG has decreased (compared to CA/EBA samples) and clearly they have moved closer to bronze age Balkan/Pannonian samples. This can be due to multiple reasons. One is undoubtedly the continuous relations between Italy, which is at the center of the Mediterranean, and the Balkans since the prehistory.