Origin of the Basques

[Angela]

See:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology...xPUwkQ.twitter

"Genetic origins, singularity, and heterogeneity of Basques

• André Flores-Bello
• Frédéric Bauduer
• Jasone Salaberria
• Jaume Bertranpetit
• Lluis Quintana-Murci
• David Comas[COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7)][/COLOR]

Highlights

• Clear genetic singularity of Basques is observed at wide- and fine-scale levels
• Basque differentiation might lie on the absence of gene flow after the Iron Ages
• Genetic substructure correlated with geography and linguistics is detected

Summary

Basques have historically lived along the Western Pyrenees, in the Franco-Cantabrian region, straddling the current Spanish and French territories. Over the last decades, they have been the focus of intense research due to their singular cultural and biological traits that, with high controversy, placed them as a heterogeneous, isolated, and unique population. Their non-Indo-European language, Euskara, is thought to be a major factor shaping the genetic landscape of the Basques. Yet there is still a lively debate about their history and assumed singularity due to the limitations of previous studies. Here, we analyze genome-wide data of Basque and surrounding groups that do not speak Euskara at a micro-geographical level. A total of ∼629,000 genome-wide variants were analyzed in 1,970 modern and ancient samples, including 190 new individuals from 18 sampling locations in the Basque area. For the first time, local- and wide-scale analyses from genome-wide data have been performed covering the whole Franco-Cantabrian region, combining allele frequency and haplotype-based methods. Our results show a clear differentiation of Basques from the surrounding populations, with the non-Euskara-speaking Franco-Cantabrians located in an intermediate position. Moreover, a sharp genetic heterogeneity within Basques is observed with significant correlation with geography. Finally, the detected Basque differentiation cannot be attributed to an external origin compared to other Iberian and surrounding populations. Instead, we show that such differentiation results from genetic continuity since the Iron Age, characterized by periods of isolation and lack of recent gene flow that might have been reinforced by the language barrier."

So, the rest of Iberia changed, but they did not?

[Vallicanus]

In the supplementary info, (Figure S4 part E) Tuscans have the same low Steppe mixture (about 15pc) as Sardinians and apart from a little WHG in Sardinians, sardinians and Tuscans are almost the same while Bergamo Italians are shown with about twice as much Steppe.

Are Tuscans merely modified Sardinians?

[Angela]

In the supplementary info, (Figure S4 part E) Tuscans have the same low Steppe mixture (about 15pc) as Sardinians and apart from a little WHG in Sardinians, sardinians and Tuscans are almost the same while Bergamo Italians are shown with about twice as much Steppe.

Are Tuscans merely modified Sardinians?

Well, in a way, all Italians, and all Southern Europeans, in fact, are just modified Sardinians. Sardinians are the closest group we have to late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Southern and even Central Europeans.

I'll have to take a look at the exact analysis; I'm still on the paper. :) 15% Steppe seems very low for Tuscans. One of my closest populations is the Fiorentine Tuscans, and I have 25% steppe.

Off-hand, Tuscans and northern Italians are quite similar. Tuscans are not genetically Central Italian. Both Northern Italians and Tuscans have lots of EEF (as do Sardinians); it's just that Tuscans have less WHG than Northern Italians. Remember too that Bergamo is pretty far north. There is a cline from there to Toscana.

I guess you could say that Tuscans are eastern shifted Sardinians, leaning toward the Balkans and Greece, and slightly southern shifted Northern Italians, leaning toward Lazio/Umbria.

[MOESAN]

In the supplementary info, (Figure S4 part E) Tuscans have the same low Steppe mixture (about 15pc) as Sardinians and apart from a little WHG in Sardinians, sardinians and Tuscans are almost the same while Bergamo Italians are shown with about twice as much Steppe.

Are Tuscans merely modified Sardinians?

Firstable, I don't think Toscana was genetically a compltely homogenous region; but taken at a global level, I doubt Sardinians and Toscans could form an almost single population.

[MOESAN]

I have no proof just now, but I even think the EEF elements in both are not exactly the same.

[Angela]

Firstable, I don't think Toscana was genetically a compltely homogenous region; but taken at a global level, I doubt Sardinians and Toscans could form an almost single population.

It isn't to this day. Things start to change south of Siena, with Tuscans starting to become more like northern Lazio, and northwest Toscana is more like eastern Liguria and Emilia Romagna.

I think these authors may have trouble distinguishing between WHG and steppe, which is about 60% EHG of which WHG is the majority component.

Tuscans do NOT have much if any WHG other than that which is EEF.

Haak et al graph:

[Gaska]

See:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology...xPUwkQ.twitter

"Genetic origins, singularity, and heterogeneity of Basques

• André Flores-Bello
• Frédéric Bauduer
• Jasone Salaberria
• Jaume Bertranpetit
• Lluis Quintana-Murci
• David Comas[COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7)][/COLOR]

Highlights

• Clear genetic singularity of Basques is observed at wide- and fine-scale levels
• Basque differentiation might lie on the absence of gene flow after the Iron Ages
• Genetic substructure correlated with geography and linguistics is detected

Summary

Basques have historically lived along the Western Pyrenees, in the Franco-Cantabrian region, straddling the current Spanish and French territories. Over the last decades, they have been the focus of intense research due to their singular cultural and biological traits that, with high controversy, placed them as a heterogeneous, isolated, and unique population. Their non-Indo-European language, Euskara, is thought to be a major factor shaping the genetic landscape of the Basques. Yet there is still a lively debate about their history and assumed singularity due to the limitations of previous studies. Here, we analyze genome-wide data of Basque and surrounding groups that do not speak Euskara at a micro-geographical level. A total of ∼629,000 genome-wide variants were analyzed in 1,970 modern and ancient samples, including 190 new individuals from 18 sampling locations in the Basque area. For the first time, local- and wide-scale analyses from genome-wide data have been performed covering the whole Franco-Cantabrian region, combining allele frequency and haplotype-based methods. Our results show a clear differentiation of Basques from the surrounding populations, with the non-Euskara-speaking Franco-Cantabrians located in an intermediate position. Moreover, a sharp genetic heterogeneity within Basques is observed with significant correlation with geography. Finally, the detected Basque differentiation cannot be attributed to an external origin compared to other Iberian and surrounding populations. Instead, we show that such differentiation results from genetic continuity since the Iron Age, characterized by periods of isolation and lack of recent gene flow that might have been reinforced by the language barrier."

So, the rest of Iberia changed, but they did not?

NO, NO , NO, the rest of Iberia has hardly changed, the contribution of North Africans is barely 5% in Extremadura and Galicia, and it is especially curious in the case of Galicia, which was never populated by Muslims and yet is the Spanish region with the highest percentage of North African blood. The rest of the Iberian peninsula is very uniform genetically speaking (certainly much more than the Balkans, Italy or Greece) - We Basques are Iberians from the Iron Age descendants of the first Iberian BBs and the rest of Spaniards are like us, except for a small percentage of Romans and Moors in some regions. Of course, that means that Iberians (and Basques especially who have never spoken an Indo-European language) have never been Indo-European, neither we nor our ancestors R1b.P312. Forget the fairy tales they have been telling us for years. By the way, I have read your comments about Italy, the Etruscans were not Indo-European either, and in spite of the Levantines they were very similar to us, they have nothing to do with Anatolia, Levant etc. etc. .... when you want we discuss it calmly.

[Gaska]

Sardinia is a wonderful island, but it has a very different genetic history than the Basque Country and Spain in general. We are only united by the fact that we have a high percentage of EEF and that it belonged to the crown of Aragon and Castile for many centuries. But their uniparental markers are very different from ours, and therefore their genetic roots are different.

[Gaska]

+ A genetic overview of movements and transitions in Italy from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age.-Saupe et al (2.021)-The prehistory of Italy has been extensively studied in the context of social and cultural shifts using archaeological and historical records. However, genetic studies of ancient Italians have been limited so far to a small number of ancient samples.Here, we present a time-series study of genetic data from ancient individuals generated at the aDNA laboratory of the Institute of Genomics, Tartu, Estonia together with published samples, spanning from the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Europe (~16.5k years ago) to the Bronze Age (2200-900 BCE). We generated 23 new whole-genome sequences (average coverages between 0.0016× and1.2353×) from five archaeological sites geographically located in Northern and Central Italy dated to Paleolithic, Copper Age, and (Early) Bronze Age. We used time-series approaches to estimate the genetic affinities of the ancient individuals to contemporary Eurasian individuals in relation to the two major movements during the Neolithic (7000 - 3500 BCE) and the transition from Chalcolithic to Bronze Age. We found that the Paleolithic sample, dated to 17ka, already falls within the broader European Western hunter-gatherer showing a genetic affinity to the previously described Villabruna Cluster (Fu et al. 2016). Additionally, we present new data from the (Early) Bronze Age time period in Italy and show the arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in Northeast Italy at least as early as 1950 BCE.


Interesting paper, especially for all those knuckleheads who still think that R1b has its origin in the Ukrainian steppes.

[Gaska]

Anthony's NEW video talking about Yamnaya culture is especially pathetic. They have over 300 samples from the steppes, and they have decided that the Yamnaya culture is descended from Sredni Stog. However, they still don't know what the origin of chg-iran related ancestry is, and THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MALE UNIPARENTAL MARKERS OF SS CULTURE ARE (CURIOUSLY ALL THE NEW SAMPLES FROM THAT CULTURE ARE FEMALE- BAD LUCK???????)

[Angela]

NO, NO , NO, the rest of Iberia has hardly changed, the contribution of North Africans is barely 5% in Extremadura and Galicia, and it is especially curious in the case of Galicia, which was never populated by Muslims and yet is the Spanish region with the highest percentage of North African blood. The rest of the Iberian peninsula is very uniform genetically speaking (certainly much more than the Balkans, Italy or Greece) - We Basques are Iberians from the Iron Age descendants of the first Iberian BBs and the rest of Spaniards are like us, except for a small percentage of Romans and Moors in some regions. Of course, that means that Iberians (and Basques especially who have never spoken an Indo-European language) have never been Indo-European, neither we nor our ancestors R1b.P312. Forget the fairy tales they have been telling us for years. By the way, I have read your comments about Italy, the Etruscans were not Indo-European either, and in spite of the Levantines they were very similar to us, they have nothing to do with Anatolia, Levant etc. etc. .... when you want we discuss it calmly.

Never said that Basques and Sardinians are the same. Why are you bringing it up?

Basques and "Iberians" are different; not grossly different, but different. The difference has to be post Iron Age.

As for Indo-Europeans, I'm not going to re-debate Olalde et al. Indo-European speaking Beakers invaded Iberia, leaving their R1b lineage behind them and their autosomes as well. That R1b is thousands of years younger than the R1b you're discussing, and came from the East. The Basques, like the Etruscans, are an example of Indo-European men adopting the language of their EEF wives.

[etrusco]

+ A genetic overview of movements and transitions in Italy from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age.-Saupe et al (2.021)-The prehistory of Italy has been extensively studied in the context of social and cultural shifts using archaeological and historical records. However, genetic studies of ancient Italians have been limited so far to a small number of ancient samples.Here, we present a time-series study of genetic data from ancient individuals generated at the aDNA laboratory of the Institute of Genomics, Tartu, Estonia together with published samples, spanning from the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Europe (~16.5k years ago) to the Bronze Age (2200-900 BCE). We generated 23 new whole-genome sequences (average coverages between 0.0016× and1.2353×) from five archaeological sites geographically located in Northern and Central Italy dated to Paleolithic, Copper Age, and (Early) Bronze Age. We used time-series approaches to estimate the genetic affinities of the ancient individuals to contemporary Eurasian individuals in relation to the two major movements during the Neolithic (7000 - 3500 BCE) and the transition from Chalcolithic to Bronze Age. We found that the Paleolithic sample, dated to 17ka, already falls within the broader European Western hunter-gatherer showing a genetic affinity to the previously described Villabruna Cluster (Fu et al. 2016). Additionally, we present new data from the (Early) Bronze Age time period in Italy and show the arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in Northeast Italy at least as early as 1950 BCE.


Interesting paper, especially for all those knuckleheads who still think that R1b has its origin in the Ukrainian steppes.

Which paper are you quoting, is it a new one? I guess so because the mention of steppe ancestry in the north east is quite new. The first steppe sample in northern Italy IIRC was the Parma Bell Beaker R1b from the early bronze age ( Polada Culture)

[Gaska]

Never said that Basques and Sardinians are the same. Why are you bringing it up?

Basques and "Iberians" are different; not grossly different, but different. The difference has to be post Iron Age.

As for Indo-Europeans, I'm not going to re-debate Olalde et al. Indo-European speaking Beakers invaded Iberia, leaving their R1b lineage behind them and their autosomes as well. That R1b is thousands of years younger than the R1b you're discussing, and came from the East. The Basques, like the Etruscans, are an example of Indo-European men adopting the language of their EEF wives.

In a previous comment you said-"Well, in a way, all Italians, and all Southern Europeans, in fact, are just modified Sardinians"

and I simply say that Sardinians and Basques (and the rest of Spaniards) have very different genetic histories in spite of sharing a high percentage of EEF.

If you refer to the Iberian peoples that inhabited Iberia at the arrival of the Romans, they were not different from the Basques, they were exactly the same (both in their uniparental markers and in their autosomal composition), that is to say, the Basques are Iberians who have kept their language despite the conquest. If when you say Iberians, you mean the current Spaniards, it is true that some regions of Spain are very similar to the Basques (Castile, Aragon, and the entire Mediterranean coast) and that in some regions such as Galicia, Extremadura are somewhat different because of the Roman and Muslim conquest.

As for "Indoeuropeans", I am fine with you not wanting to debate, but you will understand that this explanation of R1b men from the steppes adopting the language of their women is simply speculation with little scientific basis. Because in any case, not only the Basque R1b men changed their language but all the historical Iberian peoples of the peninsula did it (Andalusia, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, Aragon, Pyrenees, large areas of Castile, Navarra, Basque Country and the south of France up to Herault, including Aquitaine and Occitania), it would be the first time in the history of mankind that conquerors did not impose their culture and language on a conquered people.

Regarding the etruscans, we have little data on them at the moment. I think they may be related to the Sardinians (certainly much more than to the Balkans, Anatolia or Levant). We don't even know if they were "R1b Indo-Europeans" who lost their language thanks to their women. I guess the new paper on Italy will bring data on the Bronze Age and clarify if the Etruscans are descended from the Italian BBs.

[Gaska]

R1b-P312 came from the east?. I don't think so. Certainly not from the steppes. And regarding their ancestors R1b-M269/L51 etc, the debate is open until the Harvardians find those lineages in the steppes.

[Pax Augusta]

In the supplementary info, (Figure S4 part E) Tuscans have the same low Steppe mixture (about 15pc) as Sardinians and apart from a little WHG in Sardinians, sardinians and Tuscans are almost the same while Bergamo Italians are shown with about twice as much Steppe.

Are Tuscans merely modified Sardinians?

It's clearly inaccurate, there is nothing that might suggest that Tuscans are so similar to Sardinians. Nothing in academic papers and nothing in private testing. Figure S4 part E is a graph, and if you see Figure S4 part C, Tuscans are never similar to Sardinians. Modern and ancient Western Eurasian samples used in this study, not the Spanish ones I mean, are those already used in numerous papers of the past, Tuscan in this paper is the 8-individuals Tuscan HGDP sample from southern Tuscany according to the Ceph coordinates, just the same used by Haak 2015 posted by Angela.

PCAs are much more informative, even though 2D, than these models. Genetic studies are plenty of errors, reckless calculations, many of these studies are done by PhD candidates, by novice scholars, and in this paper the focus is on Basques, not on the Tuscans.

Not the exact thing, in Table S1 for example Tuscans end up with Italian_Bergamo in the gItalian_North and Sardinians are alone in their own cluster.

Tuscans do NOT have much if any WHG other than that which is EEF.

Haak et al graph:

In this case they used LBK_EN as a proxy for EEF and LBK_EN has some hidden WHG. Also one of the two Spanish samples has no WHG.
Tuscan used by Haak is the Tuscan HGDP as well, the CEPH coordinates point to the territory of the municipality of Gavorrano in the province of Grosseto.

http://www.cephb.fr/hgdp/main.php

Firstable, I don't think Toscana was genetically a compltely homogenous region; but taken at a global level, I doubt Sardinians and Toscans could form an almost single population.

Indeed. They are using the usual Tuscan HGDP sample that is present in hundreds of papers. If there was this similarity between Tuscans and Sardinians it would have already emerged over 10 years ago.

[Pax Augusta]

and I simply say that Sardinians and Basques (and the rest of Spaniards) have very different genetic histories in spite of sharing a high percentage of EEF.

Most probably true although I would avoid using such peremptory tones. Now I don't know the prehistory of Sardinia in detail, but there may have been some old connection, although I don't think it was such as to make the Sardinians a carbon copy of the Basques and vice versa.

If I remember correctly the myth of Sardinians being similar in every way to Basques is just another myth fed by geneticists. Just goes to show how geneticists are always to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Vallicanus]

@ Pax Augusta

Thanks for clearing up the Sardinian/Tuscan matter.

[Angela]

In a previous comment you said-"Well, in a way, all Italians, and all Southern Europeans, in fact, are just modified Sardinians"

and I simply say that Sardinians and Basques (and the rest of Spaniards) have very different genetic histories in spite of sharing a high percentage of EEF.

If you refer to the Iberian peoples that inhabited Iberia at the arrival of the Romans, they were not different from the Basques, they were exactly the same (both in their uniparental markers and in their autosomal composition), that is to say, the Basques are Iberians who have kept their language despite the conquest. If when you say Iberians, you mean the current Spaniards, it is true that some regions of Spain are very similar to the Basques (Castile, Aragon, and the entire Mediterranean coast) and that in some regions such as Galicia, Extremadura are somewhat different because of the Roman and Muslim conquest.

As for "Indoeuropeans", I am fine with you not wanting to debate, but you will understand that this explanation of R1b men from the steppes adopting the language of their women is simply speculation with little scientific basis. Because in any case, not only the Basque R1b men changed their language but all the historical Iberian peoples of the peninsula did it (Andalusia, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, Aragon, Pyrenees, large areas of Castile, Navarra, Basque Country and the south of France up to Herault, including Aquitaine and Occitania), it would be the first time in the history of mankind that conquerors did not impose their culture and language on a conquered people.

Regarding the etruscans, we have little data on them at the moment. I think they may be related to the Sardinians (certainly much more than to the Balkans, Anatolia or Levant). We don't even know if they were "R1b Indo-Europeans" who lost their language thanks to their women. I guess the new paper on Italy will bring data on the Bronze Age and clarify if the Etruscans are descended from the Italian BBs.

I'm not going to debate either the Indo-European impact on Iberia, about which you are completely wrong, or the Etruscans, of which you seem to know extremely little (We know what a good number of them were like autosomally and in terms of uniparental markers), or even the genetic history of Iberia i.e. percentages of ancient clusters in Iberians, who are, in fact, remarkably homogeneous, except for Pais Vasco, perhaps because of deliberate state ordered relocations. The data is there in multiple papers. It can even be seen in the Haak et al graph above where "Northern Spanish" is roughly Pais Vasco, and Spanish is the rest.) If you don't choose to believe it, then don't.

I don't debate issues where the genetic data is so astoundingly clear.

What I will discuss is your misunderstanding of the two statements I have highlighted. BOTH are true. Please go to the thread started by Maciamo on ancient Europeans (see link below) and his charts of autosomal percentages organized chronologically. If you look at the Neolithic/Chalcolithic chart you will see that all the areas in Southern Europe, including Iberia, and even parts of Central Europe were roughly the same, i.e. roughly similar to Neolithic/Chalcolithic Sardinia. That is not because Sardinia invaded these other areas (not even Spain), but because ALL of these areas, including Sardinian and Iberia, were settled by farmers from Anatolia who mingled with the remaining WHG hunter-gatherers. I'm sorry if it bothers or insults you that Neolithic Iberia was not very different from Neolithic/Chalcolithic Sardinia, but it's an undeniable fact.

With the invasion of the Indo-Europeans and then later the historic periods, things changed, people changed. I've never and would never deny it.


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...942#post621942

[Cato]

Sardinians and Basques&Iberians share the same kind of EEF, the last study suggest that EEF came in Sardinia from Southern France,

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

[Gaska]

@Angela

I think the one who does not understand anything about the impact of the Indo-Europeans in Iberia is you and I don't think you understand the impact of the Indo-Europeans in Etruria either. In the first case, because the genetic continuity in Iberia is absolutely demonstrated from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. The uniparental markers are the same (males R1b-P312/Df27). To say that these men changed their language because of their women seems to me a simplistic and unscientific explanation. Genetic continuity is the only way to demonstrate which language a culture spoke in prehistoric times. In Iberia we are fortunate to be able to demonstrate that the Iberians/Basques and Tartessians (all of them overwhelmingly P312) did not speak Indo-European languages in the Iron Age but Iberian/Basque and Tartessian. In other words the BB culture did not speak an Indo-European language. In order to prove that IE was spoken in the steppes and that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 brought those languages to mainland europe you need to prove the genetic continuity between the Yamnaya culture (or any other steppe culture) and the BB culture, and you know what? so far nobody has been able to prove it. When you do it then we all will have to accept that R1b-P312 (and the BB culture) spoke an IE language, but meanwhile the only thing they have been able to demonstrate is the Z2013 and R1a migration to mainland Europe, and you know what? neither of them reached western europe and they have never been found in the BB culture.

[Gaska]

Regarding the Etruscans I am glad to know that you know a lot of uniparental markers, I guess you won't mind sharing those data with us. Regarding the male markers I only know of one (R474 HapY-J2b2a-L283), which I believe has so far only been found in Croatia and Sardinia, which casts doubt on the origin of the Etruscans in the Italian peninsula. However, I suppose that when some geneticist will be interested in analyzing well the bronze and iron age in Italy, it will be demonstrated that the Etruscans have their origin in the Northern Italian BBs. And then we will find the same case that in Iberia, that is to say men R1b-P312 that did not speak a language IE. Too much coincidence, isn't it?. Although I guess your explanation will be the same as for Iberia, i.e. those men simply adopted the language of their women.

[Gaska]

I agree with you, I don't debate issues where the genetic data is so astoundingly clear, but if you are truly interested in the genetic history of Iberia, I recommend you to read this recently published doctoral thesis. You will certainly learn something more about R1b-P312, the Basques and the rest of Spaniards.

+ New insights in the paternal genetic landscape of southwestern Europe: Dissection of haplogroup R1b-M269 and forensic applications-P.Villaescusa

[Gaska]

@Angela

Of course I don't mind being genetically similar to the Sardinians, first because of the obvious historical connections of that island first with the crown of Aragon and then with the Spanish Monarchy, and secondly because I know the island and I know that its inhabitants are friendly and welcoming (at least with the Spaniards).

You don't seem to want to understand what I have said about Sardinia and its relationship with Iberia/Basques- I have said twice that despite sharing similar percentages of EEF, and the more than evident relationships since the Neolithic period, their genetic histories are very different. This is so because of the excessive geographic isolation of both Basques and Sardinians throughout history. This has made that in relation to the uniparental markers Sardinia and Iberia are as similar as an egg to a chestnut and this despite the fact that Chalcolithic migrations from Iberia have been demonstrated (among them the BB culture). Then to say that we southern Europeans are modified Sardinians seems inappropriate to me.

[Pax Augusta]

Regarding the Etruscans I am glad to know that you know a lot of uniparental markers, I guess you won't mind sharing those data with us. Regarding the male markers I only know of one (R474 HapY-J2b2a-L283), which I believe has so far only been found in Croatia and Sardinia, which casts doubt on the origin of the Etruscans in the Italian peninsula. However, I suppose that when some geneticist will be interested in analyzing well the bronze and iron age in Italy, it will be demonstrated that the Etruscans have their origin in the Northern Italian BBs. And then we will find the same case that in Iberia, that is to say men R1b-P312 that did not speak a language IE. Too much coincidence, isn't it?. Although I guess your explanation will be the same as for Iberia, i.e. those men simply adopted the language of their women.

There is only one thing that complicates the question of the origins of the Etruscans: the lack of knowledge of the many studies dedicated to the subject, especially those of archaeology.

The presence of J2b2a-L283 among the Etruscans does not complicate anything and doesn't cast any doubt, the one found among the Etruscans is decidedly more related to the one found earlier in Croatia than to the ones found in the Nuragics, and archaeologists for years have argued that between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Etruria arrived migrations of male "warriors" from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture (from an area ranging from the northern Balkans to the Danubian plain).

To be clear, these who arrive from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture are not the Etruscans, which is widely shown to have formed in Italy, but they are simply the migrations of a component, probably of IE languages, assimilated by the people who already lived in Etruria, and these newcomers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

It is methodologically wrong to trace an Iron Age ethnos back to only a specific material culture from many hundreds of years earlier, such as the Bell Beaker, which there really was in Etruria, much more than we think.

[Angela]

I will say only one thing in response to the verbiage by Signor Gaska: MtDna counts too.

As to the rest, when I say I won't waste time arguing with people who want to ignore genetics I mean exactly what I say.