Genetic study Genomes from 82 Etruscans and Southern Italians.(800 BCE – 1,000 CE).

[Angela]

It seem that some Nordicists like to use Levantist rhetoric, to explain why ancient people from the past are not like them today. That's why people like that get along well over at that other site.

However, the fact of the matter is that Etruscans, like Latins only had a minority Steppe component, with an equivalent CHG/IN component, and were predominately Anatolian_N

Furthermore, Ancient Greeks had more CHG than Steppe, which is a likely source for the increased amounts in Southern Italy.

It is also a fact that none of the most recent studies like Sarno et al. 2021 do not model Southern Italians at all with Levantine. This is only an invention of G25, because it is an inferior means of determining ancestry.

So sorry Iḿ out of juice already. The evidence was overwhelming even before the analysis of ancient Etruscan dna. It is just that people refused to believe it because it contradicted their own biases. I don´t think it will ever end if on certain sites they ignore even ancient dna evidence.

 

[Angela]

Indeed, and my mother from La Spezia and the provincia di Massa Carrara (the ancient Lunigiana in general), so the same applies.

I will admit thereś Gallic in there too, and some Aegean as well, especially from my mother.

 

[torzio]

Actually I was more in favour of an Pannonian origin of Etruscans than most early on. Influence from the Eastern Mediterranean doesn't mean that Etruscan itself came from there. If you read what I wrote, I rather argued for the opposite, namely Italian-Western Mediterranean derived Sea People connecting the West with the East and indeed establishing networks. This could influence Etruscans without them having come from the East or moving out themselves. Eteocypriot is no older than 1.100 BC, or at least not attested before, which means it could have spread with Sea People too.

I have no identity issues conntected with the Etruscans

I see Umbri as "Pannonian" or central european origin .............and Etruscan in the direction of western Med.

there was a paper on this , which I posted a few years ago ..............I don't know how to search here for it

 

[Riverman]

I see Umbri as "Pannonian" or central european origin .............and Etruscan in the direction of western Med.

there was a paper on this , which I posted a few years ago ..............I don't know how to search here for it

If you come across it, please keep me posted.

 

[torzio]

If you come across it, please keep me posted.

if you know how to search , let me know.....it was before July 2019......because it was with my old PC

 

[Archetype0ne]

Tnx Jovialis:

K12B

Globe 13

Feels good using a mouse again, and most importantly having the upvote button!

Edit: WTF is that distance?! Just noticed, but when my previous closest samples where 4-5+, 2.8 is just amazing?
Now I am really invested into this ETR007, its likely a female since its missing Y STRs. What was her story. What sort of parents had to mingle, to give me such a cool cousin.

 

[Angela]

Tnx Jovialis:

K12B

Globe 13

Feels good using a mouse again, and most importantly having the upvote button!

Edit: WTF is that distance?! Just noticed, but when my previous closest samples where 4-5+, 2.8 is just amazing?
Now I am really invested into this ETR007, its likely a female since its missing Y STRs. What was her story. What sort of parents had to mingle, to give me such a cool cousin.

If I had to guess, I think she might have been from far northern Greece bordering on Albania.

You're close to Mas, which might be Massa Maritima, as am I.

Mas 1 has very similar results.

They'd better provide burial contexts and information on where these people were born and raised.

 

[Pax Augusta]

If I had to guess, I think she might have been from far northern Greece bordering on Albania.

You're close to Mas, which might be Massa Maritima, as am I.

Mas 1 has very similar results.

They'd better provide burial contexts and information on where these people were born and raised.

MAS001 in a PCA with modern populations is close to Romanians and other Balkan people. ETR007, who should be an Imperial age sample, is close to Northern Greeks and Albanians.

 

[Archetype0ne]

MAS001 in a PCA with modern populations is close to Romanians and other Balkan people. ETR007, who should be an Imperial age sample, is close to Northern Greeks and Albanians.

In some other calculators TAQ022>>11 also show very close affinity. Any insight on them?

 

[Stuvanè]

In some other calculators TAQ022>>11 also show very close affinity. Any insight on them?

TAQ022 and TAQ011 seem to be rather close to Romagna and Marche respectively, thus individuals more likely to be related by origin to an Umbrian/Picene (?) and Adriatic context, then slightly more shifted towards the Balkans.
Like ETR007 and MAS001 it is therefore very unlikely to call them ethnic Etruscans, whose main and original core seems to be even further north-west than the same northern Italians of today.
(I believe the following PCA was passed to me by Pax himself)

 

[Archetype0ne]

TAQ022 and TAQ011 seem to be rather close to Romagna and Marche respectively, thus individuals more likely to be related by origin to an Umbrian/Picene (?) and Adriatic context, then slightly more shifted towards the Balkans.
Like ETR007 and MAS001 it is therefore very unlikely to call them ethnic Etruscans, whose main and original core seems to be even further north-west than the same northern Italians of today.
(I believe the following PCA was passed to me by Pax himself)


View attachment 12868

Thank you Stuvane. However, I would guess TAQ022 to indeed be ethnically an Etruscan.
Whereas we know about ETR tag from previous study denotes Republic-Imperial era tombs from Etruria as a region.
TAQ likely is Tarquina. And Tarquina is a pre Roman, Etruscan mausoleum.
https://www.marthasitaly.com/articles/20/tarquinia-etruscan-tombs
Seems to me that to get Etruscans, some sort of symbiosis happened between Latin populations, and more Balkan like population, shifting as you say the PCA to Marche.

Edit: My apologies, it seems I missread your statement. We do have similar on ETR, whereas about MAS I have no opinion. Not sure we agree on TAQ though.

Somehow a lot of my matches show affinity with Romagna, Marche and Lazio. Not sure why.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Since you can not edit a post twice.

https://www.marthasitaly.com/articles/31/populonia-etruscan-tombs

Another of my closest distances is to POP1, the only Populonia(?) sample IIRC.

https://www.marthasitaly.com/articles/31/populonia-etruscan-tombs

"The ancient Etruscan town of Populonia dates from the 9th century BC. It was one of the 12 powerful Etruscan cities and the only one with a harbor."

 

[Pax Augusta]

Generally speaking there is no evidence, even if a label does belong to an Etruscan area, that all the samples under the same label belong to the same period and are indeed 100% Etruscan or ethnically Etruscan. As I've understood, the abstract of the study seems to mirror that of Stanford 2019, and so if a fully Etruscan genetic profile existed it is the cluster forming west of the northern Italians. So any sample that moves in other directions, to eastern central Italy or the Balkans or whatever, is because most likely it was not fully Etruscan from a genetic point of view (but of course he could identify himself as Etruscan, but this is an argument much more complex than the same genetic). We don't know anything about what the study claims except the abstract, though, we do know that in the samples considered fully Etruscan there is no evidence according to the abstract of recent DNA from Anatolia (which is instead present in modern Italians, Greeks and Albanians and so on). As I said, to know in detail who the Etruscans were at the beginning of their history we would only need samples between 950 and 750 BC. We have a Villanovan sample from the Stanford 2019 study and in this study the oldest ones look like 800 BC but we don't even know how many there are.

Using both the 11 Iron Age samples from Stanford 2019 with these new 82, there appears to be an Etruscan cluster, with greater concentration west of the northern Italians.

 

[Stuvanè]

@Archetype0ne,

Pax preceded me and has already answered on several points adding a new PCA.

There is no doubt that Tarquinia/TAQ is a fundamental Etruscan centre. But if you notice, most of the samples from Tarquinia/TAQ are in the "northern" cluster (so quite close to the current Iberians and Italian Lombards), apart from a minority of individuals that are either of "mixed"/foreign origin (outliers?) and/or could be dated to a later phase, when Tarquinia becomes Roman (it was so since the beginning of the III century BC), with probable deduction/immigration of external people.


After all, the Etruscan population was spread over a large area of the Peninsula, which - sooner or later - put them in contact with other peoples, diversifying them. A similar hypothesis could be advanced on POP001 (from Populonia? which by the way - as a mining and metallurgical centre - I expect attracted various immigrants).


However, these are just conjectures, just to entertain the wait for the publication of precise data: in addition to solving the riddle of the initials of the locations (although it seems to me that on the identification TAQ = Tarquinia we are all quite ready to bet), it would be really useful to know the dating of the samples, which also cover periods after the flourishing of the Etruscans. Otherwise we risk a bit of what happened with the Moots/Antonio paper 2 years ago, where all the inhabitants of Rome in the imperial age are made to pass as paradigmatic of the entire Italic population, without regard to the actual historical phases and the many locations other than Rome.


Pax will be able to be more precise than me here: Latins and Etruscans seem to be rather similar or related from a genetic point of view in their early phases, but I think more that a certain closeness of the Etruscans to the Central-Eastern European world is due to that steppe component present in the Etruscans incubated in some Bronze Age phase of the Danubian-Balkan area (the major suspects should be the cultures of Mokrin and Maros), some fringes of which will move a little further West, giving rise to the proto-Italic populations and/or overlapping with the Anarian substratum (Neolithic + WHG) from which the Etruscans will emerge, while those remaining in situ will proceed with the Indo-Europeanisation of the Balkans.


I see I have rather similar results to yours, comparing them with these samples, I'm not surprised, the reasons may be more than one and we may never get to the bottom of it. I stick to the following 3, which are not mutually exclusive:
1) equal shares of ancestral components between central-northern Italians and preslavic Balkan populations, which almost automatically overlaps us in the oracles
2) precisely that probable common steppe background mentioned above, from which both the Indo-European Balkans and the Proto-Italic ones proceeded
3) more recent migrations, also of Roman and medieval/Byzantine age, along the Adriatic Sea

Distance to:	Dodecadk12bStuvanè
4.12127407	ETR007
5.96436920	TAQ009
6.18798836	POP001
6.31981012	TAQ011
6.68472139	TAQ022
7.80932776	TAQ020
8.33039615	ETR003
9.15716659	ETR010
10.23210145	CSN009
10.26249970	VEN017
10.50968601	VEN001
10.54409788	VET001
10.71946361	CSN005
10.81554437	TAQ003
11.19209096	MAS001
11.35817327	ETR013
11.38123016	VEN008
11.93949748	ETR006
12.07552069	TAQ006
12.56003583	VEN006
12.81852566	VOL001
12.93006961	VEN013
13.61044819	VEN016
13.78004717	CSN008
13.92520736	VEN015

Distance to:	Dodecad_Glob_13Stuvanè
3.50182809	ETR007
6.47319087	TAQ011
7.28703643	MAS001
7.68488126	TAQ009
7.78856213	TAQ022
8.38830734	VEN010
8.41722638	POP001
8.55021637	VEN009
9.11615050	ETR003
9.54094335	VEN008
9.94562718	ETR010
10.04199681	VET001
10.51667723	VEN018
10.61888883	CSN005
10.63110060	ETR006
10.66085831	ETR013
11.68427148	CSN009
11.74483716	VEN001
11.87424945	TAQ003
11.94143626	CSN013
11.99305632	CSN006
12.04318064	TAQ006
12.27419651	VOL001
12.35918687	TAQ015
12.66158758	TAQ016

 

[jrumore77]

In regards to "distance to:" What does that mean, generations, percentage, etc.?

 

[kingjohn]

it is possible that TAQ007
has some punic ancestery:cool-v:
that is very cool hope to know soon what is his date

 

[Angela]

MAS001 in a PCA with modern populations is close to Romanians and other Balkan people. ETR007, who should be an Imperial age sample, is close to Northern Greeks and Albanians.

Itś not a surprise for me personally. On modern calculators, if there are no Northern Italian or Tuscan samples, I get either Albanian/Kosovar, or Bulgarian. The distances are much further, however.

 

[Angela]

@Archetype0ne,

Pax preceded me and has already answered on several points adding a new PCA.

There is no doubt that Tarquinia/TAQ is a fundamental Etruscan centre. But if you notice, most of the samples from Tarquinia/TAQ are in the "northern" cluster (so quite close to the current Iberians and Italian Lombards), apart from a minority of individuals that are either of "mixed"/foreign origin (outliers?) and/or could be dated to a later phase, when Tarquinia becomes Roman (it was so since the beginning of the III century BC), with probable deduction/immigration of external people.


After all, the Etruscan population was spread over a large area of the Peninsula, which - sooner or later - put them in contact with other peoples, diversifying them. A similar hypothesis could be advanced on POP001 (from Populonia? which by the way - as a mining and metallurgical centre - I expect attracted various immigrants).


However, these are just conjectures, just to entertain the wait for the publication of precise data: in addition to solving the riddle of the initials of the locations (although it seems to me that on the identification TAQ = Tarquinia we are all quite ready to bet), it would be really useful to know the dating of the samples, which also cover periods after the flourishing of the Etruscans. Otherwise we risk a bit of what happened with the Moots/Antonio paper 2 years ago, where all the inhabitants of Rome in the imperial age are made to pass as paradigmatic of the entire Italic population, without regard to the actual historical phases and the many locations other than Rome.


Pax will be able to be more precise than me here: Latins and Etruscans seem to be rather similar or related from a genetic point of view in their early phases, but I think more that a certain closeness of the Etruscans to the Central-Eastern European world is due to that steppe component present in the Etruscans incubated in some Bronze Age phase of the Danubian-Balkan area (the major suspects should be the cultures of Mokrin and Maros), some fringes of which will move a little further West, giving rise to the proto-Italic populations and/or overlapping with the Anarian substratum (Neolithic + WHG) from which the Etruscans will emerge, while those remaining in situ will proceed with the Indo-Europeanisation of the Balkans.


I see I have rather similar results to yours, comparing them with these samples, I'm not surprised, the reasons may be more than one and we may never get to the bottom of it. I stick to the following 3, which are not mutually exclusive:
1) equal shares of ancestral components between central-northern Italians and preslavic Balkan populations, which almost automatically overlaps us in the oracles
2) precisely that probable common steppe background mentioned above, from which both the Indo-European Balkans and the Proto-Italic ones proceeded
3) more recent migrations, also of Roman and medieval/Byzantine age, along the Adriatic Sea

Distance to:	Dodecadk12bStuvanè
4.12127407	ETR007
5.96436920	TAQ009
6.18798836	POP001
6.31981012	TAQ011
6.68472139	TAQ022
7.80932776	TAQ020
8.33039615	ETR003
9.15716659	ETR010
10.23210145	CSN009
10.26249970	VEN017
10.50968601	VEN001
10.54409788	VET001
10.71946361	CSN005
10.81554437	TAQ003
11.19209096	MAS001
11.35817327	ETR013
11.38123016	VEN008
11.93949748	ETR006
12.07552069	TAQ006
12.56003583	VEN006
12.81852566	VOL001
12.93006961	VEN013
13.61044819	VEN016
13.78004717	CSN008
13.92520736	VEN015

Distance to:	Dodecad_Glob_13Stuvanè
3.50182809	ETR007
6.47319087	TAQ011
7.28703643	MAS001
7.68488126	TAQ009
7.78856213	TAQ022
8.38830734	VEN010
8.41722638	POP001
8.55021637	VEN009
9.11615050	ETR003
9.54094335	VEN008
9.94562718	ETR010
10.04199681	VET001
10.51667723	VEN018
10.61888883	CSN005
10.63110060	ETR006
10.66085831	ETR013
11.68427148	CSN009
11.74483716	VEN001
11.87424945	TAQ003
11.94143626	CSN013
11.99305632	CSN006
12.04318064	TAQ006
12.27419651	VOL001
12.35918687	TAQ015
12.66158758	TAQ016

Great analysis, Stuvane, as always. Coming to the site at close to 11 leaves me little to add. You guys were fast off the mark!

Odd that in Globe 13 Mas comes up the ladder from it´s position in K12b.

 

[Angela]

Generally speaking there is no evidence, even if a label does belong to an Etruscan area, that all the samples under the same label belong to the same period and are indeed 100% Etruscan or ethnically Etruscan. As I've understood, the abstract of the study seems to mirror that of Stanford 2019, and so if a fully Etruscan genetic profile existed it is the cluster forming west of the northern Italians. So any sample that moves in other directions, to eastern central Italy or the Balkans or whatever, is because most likely it was not fully Etruscan from a genetic point of view (but of course he could identify himself as Etruscan, but this is an argument much more complex than the same genetic). We don't know anything about what the study claims except the abstract, though, we do know that in the samples considered fully Etruscan there is no evidence according to the abstract of recent DNA from Anatolia (which is instead present in modern Italians, Greeks and Albanians and so on). As I said, to know in detail who the Etruscans were at the beginning of their history we would only need samples between 950 and 750 BC. We have a Villanovan sample from the Stanford 2019 study and in this study the oldest ones look like 800 BC but we don't even know how many there are.

Using both the 11 Iron Age samples from Stanford 2019 with these new 82, there appears to be an Etruscan cluster, with greater concentration west of the northern Italians.

Excellent analysis as always, Pax. The logic is irrefutable. Thanks for the PCA as well.

 

[Stuvanè]

Great analysis, Stuvane, as always. Coming to the site at close to 11 leaves me little to add. You guys were fast off the mark!

Odd that in Globe 13 Mas comes up the ladder from it´s position in K12b.

Thanks, Angela


Dodecadk12b and Dodecad Global k13 use quite different components, with the latter much more skewed towards non-European components away from the Mediterranean, surely more "exotic". In my opinion the k12b is more suitable for us (and for Romans, Etruscans, Greeks...)

Dodecadk12b

Gedrosia
Siberian
Northwest_African
Southeast_Asian
Atlantic_Med
North_European
South_Asian
East_African
Southwest_Asian
East_Asian
Caucasus
Sub_Saharan

Dodecad Global k13

Siberian
Amerindian
West_African
Palaeo_African
Southwest_Asian
East_Asian
Mediterranean
Australasian
Arctic
West_Asian
North_European
South_Asian
East_African