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

Who published the analyses of bone remains from the Gava culture?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1
A Hungarian study. Female but she closely clusters autosomally with earlier Hungarian "Scythians", at whose two sites Gava urns were found (and I found that in some Hungarian archeological sources). So Hungarian Scythians were direct descendants of the Gava culture people as I have predicted some months before this new study. One Hungarian Scythian was R-YP340. Ottomany culture sample from the study is R-Z280. Gava developed on the Ottomany basis in good part.

What studies state that E-V13 is totally related to the Girla-Mare culture which was non-IE speaking?

Upcoming Bulgarian study shows two samples of Pšeničevo culture are E-V13. 15 year old sample of the same culture shows the same. Pšeničevo is ultimately derived of Girla Mare/Dubovac. This culture is considered by the archeologists to have been non-IE. Having 3 out of 3 finds from two sites belong to the same hg shows its strong relation to it.

Pšeničevo was Thracian ofc but in the previous stage it is known Gava people merged with Girla Mare people.

These are complex topics and cannot be simplified in this way. First of all, these are material cultures, not ethnicities. Villanovan culture is an Iron Age culture exclusively Etruscan. It is true that it shows similarities with various cultures of the Urnfield cultures of Central and Eastern Europe. But before the Villanovan culture there is the Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture which is almost supranational in Italy.

Material cultures can be and are in great many cases directly associated with different linguistic and genetic makeup. Otherwise Yamnaya or the EEF's would not have been so uniform...

I am talking of proto-Villanovan culture. Proto-Villanovan urns were very similar to Gava urns..

There is definitely a relationship in the material culture between the Etruscans of the early Iron Age and some Urnfield cultures between the northern Balkans and the Danubian-Carpathian plain but this relationship is very complex. Including the Proto-Tyrrhenian language in the discourse must explain not only the Etruscan language but also the Raetic language. The Raetic people in the second Iron Age are associated with the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture and before that, between the end of Bronze and the first Iron Age, with the Laugen-Melaun culture.

Per some old sources Raetic speakers were migrants from the South. Also remember that in the Balkans existed the Lemnian language. I know some of your have dismissed them as Etruscan traders but in the light of new finds connecting the E-V13 demographic expansion with Girla Mare, the fact that E-V13 is a Neolithic hg stemming from Western Balkans, as well as the nature of Girla Mare cultures, such views must be taken with great reserve.

I do not want this discussion to descend into petty nationalism where some members of modern day X, Y, Z ethnicities consider certain old cultures as part of their own identity and that therefore they must originate within the territory of the X, Y, Z ethnicity, as ofc its modern descendants are legitimate heirs and for some culture to have originated elsewhere is an affront to the "modern national unity and cohesion".. It cannot be an affront, there are no modern Etruscans speakers anymore and only Etruscan speakers would have a right to bring such an argument to the table.

The last time I talked about this it did have such undertones..
 
That's great news, these studies are long overdue.
That's what I think too, it is likely these groups in the south mixed together, especially by the Imperial era. By then, their cultural identity would have been "Roman" in that era.

Just like in the United States, you have people who are a mix of "white ethnics", that couldn't be described as anything other than "American". Very few people are descended from the Mayflower stock, of WASPs. So too is the dynamic of the various people in Italy, who identify as "Romans". I think some people are hung up on the idea that only Latins were the "True Romans". The difference though is that in the USA, these white ethnics are immigrants, while many of the people in Italy were already there prior to the Romans.
 
A question, when are Italic languages supposed to enter Italian peninsula? Did they enter with Proto-Villanovans (Late Bronze Age), or earlier?

There is great confusion about this and very few studies on this. In general, only the Osco-Umbrian languages are strictly considered to be linguistically Italic. Sometimes the classification includes also the Latino-Faliscan languages. In any case, it is generally assumed that the Latino-Faliscan group and the Osco-Umbrian group arrived in two different moments, with a later linguistic convergence due to contacts in Italy. The first to arrive would be the Latin-Faliscan group, then the Osco-Umbrian one. Some people say that they arrived during the protovillanovian culture from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures. Perhaps the Latino-Faliscan group from Velatice-Baierdorf and Osco-Umbrian group from a more eastern area. But these are only suppositions. I have yet to find anything convincing texts on this topic.


Material cultures can be and are in great many cases directly associated with different linguistic and genetic makeup. Otherwise Yamnaya or the EEF's would not have been so uniform...

I am talking of proto-Villanovan culture. Proto-Villanovan urns were very similar to Gava urns..

In any case Proto-Villanovan is not ancestral only to Villanovan/Etruscans, but to almost anyone in Italy. Really complicated to explain. Protovillanovan and Villanovan are named after the place of the first Villanovan discovery (Villanova, near Bologna, mid-1800s) and then in the 1930s archeologists also discovered the Bronze Age Protovillanovan which they initially thought was only ancestral to the Villanovan. Later they discovered that it was not so, but the name has not yet been changed.


Per some old sources Raetic speakers were migrants from the South. Also remember that in the Balkans existed the Lemnian language. I know some of your have dismissed them as Etruscan traders but in the light of new finds connecting the E-V13 demographic expansion with Girla Mare, the fact that E-V13 is a Neolithic hg stemming from Western Balkans, as well as the nature of Girla Mare cultures, such views must be taken with great reserve.

At present the scenario that Raetic speakers were migrants from the South is not supported by archaeology. There have just been some very recent papers published in the last couple of years. The idea that in the Balkans existed the Lemnian language is a hypothesis not supported unfortunately by inscriptions. It would have made everyone happy if Lemnian inscriptions were found in the Balkans. I'll get back to you on the rest tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
There is great confusion about this and very few studies on this. In general, only the Osco-Umbrian languages are strictly considered to be linguistically Italic. Sometimes the classification includes also the Latin-Faliscan languages. In any case, it is generally assumed that the Latin-Faliscan group and the Osco-Umbrian group arrived in two different moments, with a later linguistic convergence due to contacts in Italy. The first to arrive would be the Latin-Faliscan group, then the Osco-Umbrian one. Some people say that they arrived during the protovillanovian culture from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures. Perhaps the Latino-Faliscan group from Velatice-Baierdorf and Osco-Umbrian group from a more eastern area. But these are only suppositions. I have yet to find anything convincing on this topic.




In any case Proto-Villanovan is not ancestral only to Villanovan/Etruscans, but to almost anyone in Italy. Really complicated to explain. Protovillanovan and Villanovan are named after the place of the first Villanovan discovery (near Bologna, mid-1800s) and then in the 1930s they also discovered the Bronze Age Protovillanovan which they initially thought was only ancestral to the Villanovan. Later they discovered that it was not so, but the name has not yet been changed.




At present this scenario is not supported by archaeology. There have just been some very recent papers published in the last couple of years. I'll get back to you on the rest tomorrow.



for further reading if you like

https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Li...llic Languages of Ancient Italy (Wallace).pdf
 
Probably in the Early Bronze Age from the North. One Appenninic sample from Grotta Regina Margherita is already 25% Steppe

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
According to Salvatore Puglisi the Appenninic culture is Proto Italic. In the Late Bronze Age, groups from the Terramare culture brought the rite of cremation in Central Southern Italy but according to him they were not invaders but farmers who intermingled with the Appenninic shepherds.

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
According to Salvatore Puglisi the Appenninic culture is Proto Italic. In the Late Bronze Age, groups from the Terramare culture brought the rite of cremation in Central Southern Italy but according to him they were not invaders but group of farmers who intermingled with the Appenninic shepherds.

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

These are old theories. His book on Apennine Civilization is from the late 1950s. In the past there was a tendency to attribute anything to the Italics.
 
These are old theories. His book on Apennine Civilization is from the late 1950s. In the past there was a tendency to attribute anything to the Italics.
1959 [emoji846]

64fd329d7440c8b9fcfdca4cadb0e9fb.jpg


Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Villanova urns were likely of Gava origin but Gava people were R1a and very Northern autosomaly unlike all V13 finds. E-V13 is totally related to Girla-Mare culture which was non-IE speaking and it may well be this culture held the proto-Etruscan language. Or that simply put Lemnian language was just a survivor of what used to be formerly much more widespread language (instead of them being some recent migrants as some have suggested).

We know all Thracians were E-V13 as the Girla Mare merged with Gava elements to form the entire range of proto-Thracian cultures.
There are clear implicit suggestions E-V13 might have relation to Etruscans:
1. Pšeničevo - all 3 finds are E-V13
2. Pšeničevo derived of Insula Banului
3. Insula Banului = Girla Mare + Gava
4. Gava were R1a so that leaves Girla Mare for E-V13
5. Girla-Mare was non-IE speaking
6. Villanovan urns very close to Gava urns.
7. The only Etruscan Y-DNA J-L283 find is of certain MBA Balkan origin.
All Thracians EV13? Where did you get that info?
 
Thank you, Brick

Dodecad K12b

Code:
ETR001,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0

... with Admixture Studio:

Dodecad K7b
Code:
ETR001_Imperial_Roman_Chiusi_Dod_K7b,0,23.89,0,0,38.90,36.78,0.43

Dodecad Globe 13
Code:
ETR001_Imperial_Roman_Chiusi_Dod_Globe_13,0,0.48,0,0,17.32,0,40.95,0,2.47,20.90,17.89,0,0

dod 7
MTjPlrc.gif


dod 13
jgcEmAX.gif
 
All Thracians EV13? Where did you get that info?

EIA Pshenichevo finds are E-V13, one LIA Thracian also. E-V13 flooded the Thrace in LIA. Thracian language has strong affinities to the Baltic group, and Gava culture carried R-Z282, Gava played part in Pshenichevo ethnogenesis.. Thracians were a LBA/EIA people, there were no Thracian speakers in "Thrace" in MBA in all likelihood. Also one "Scythian" (i.e. Getae) from Moldova was E-V13, another was R-Z2106. So basically out of 6 Iron Age finds that can be attributed to Thracians 5 were E-V13.

R-Z2103 is unlikely to have been related to Thracians. Especially as after the EBA in MBA/LBA there was an influx of some R-Z93 groups to Thrace who probably spoke Iranic languages so they likely left some influence.
aDNa indicates multiple replacement events have occurred in Thrace.

So E-V13 is to Thracians what I-Y3120 is to the Slavs, except in much higher percentage.
 
EIA Thracian language has strong affinities to the Baltic group,


that's an old herodous story ................the link of these languages is that the baltic goths moved to the black sea circa 150BC and stayed there for more than 300 years
 
... with Admixture Studio:

Dodecad K7b
Code:
ETR001_Imperial_Roman_Chiusi_Dod_K7b,0,23.89,0,0,38.90,36.78,0.43

Dodecad Globe 13
Code:
ETR001_Imperial_Roman_Chiusi_Dod_Globe_13,0,0.48,0,0,17.32,0,40.95,0,2.47,20.90,17.89,0,0

dod 7
MTjPlrc.gif


dod 13
jgcEmAX.gif

Thanks, Not at my PC at the moment but I will check it out.
 
EIA Pshenichevo finds are E-V13, one LIA Thracian also. E-V13 flooded the Thrace in LIA. Thracian language has strong affinities to the Baltic group, and Gava culture carried R-Z282, Gava played part in Pshenichevo ethnogenesis.. Thracians were a LBA/EIA people, there were no Thracian speakers in "Thrace" in MBA in all likelihood. Also one "Scythian" (i.e. Getae) from Moldova was E-V13, another was R-Z2106. So basically out of 6 Iron Age finds that can be attributed to Thracians 5 were E-V13.

R-Z2103 is unlikely to have been related to Thracians. Especially as after the EBA in MBA/LBA there was an influx of some R-Z93 groups to Thrace who probably spoke Iranic languages so they likely left some influence.
aDNa indicates multiple replacement events have occurred in Thrace.

So E-V13 is to Thracians what I-Y3120 is to the Slavs, except in much higher percentage.

So out of 4 samples they are 4 E-V13, possibly related. Come back when they have 100's of samples. So no R-Z2103 in Thrace? It's everywhere else in the Balkans but not in Thrace?
 
So out of 4 samples they are 4 E-V13, possibly related. Come back when they have 100's of samples.

LOL Why don't you ask for 100's of samples for Natufians, Yamnaya.. They are not possibly related to Thracians but certainly very related because those EIA cultures flooded and shaped the entire Daco-Thracian world.


So no R-Z2103 in Thrace? It's everywhere else in the Balkans but not in Thrace?

No, I mentioned there was plenty of R-Z2103 in EBA Thrace. But they were probably not Thracian speakers. Possibly Greek related (well that is the idea of one person involved in Bulgarian study anyway).

You see today that Balkan Z2103 generally fail to form some widespread Iron Age, MBA clusters. Especially this goes for Bulgaria. So it seems R-Z2103 were the losers in MBA/LBA/EIA periods.
 
that's an old herodous story ................the link of these languages is that the baltic goths moved to the black sea circa 150BC and stayed there for more than 300 years

Nothing to do with Herodotus but modern linguistics.. R-Z280 is very involved, R-Z93 is also there.. It seems that the Thracian stems from the R1a not R1b.. Earlier in Thrace existed Yamnaya and Ezero (Anatolian) elements.
 
Couldn't Etruscan language be brought by a R1b tribe, same as Basque along the Indo-European, what are the linguistic odds?

If the Etruscans come up as mostly R1b then that's a bit strange considering people have always associated them with EEF.
 
So EV13 did spread in Balkans during the LBA/EIA. I'm starting to believe that in Greece EV13 was one of the main haplogroups carried by Dorians
 
I frequently read that Etruscan culture sprung from villanovan, which itself was part of the Urnfield. However I also read that Italic culture sprung from Villanovan. Can both be correct?
 

This thread has been viewed 98704 times.

Back
Top