The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

[Leopoldo Leone]

They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.

Interesting, do you know perhaps when it is coming out?
Also, this paper hasn't told apart north Levantines from Anatolians, though the paper about the Danubian limes showed it is very easy to do. As I said on another thread, you can theoretically use Anatolians from the imperial age to model Italians. given they are rich in CHG but have virtually no levantine ancestry in excess to what older samples had. Though, that paper also argued that people harbouring that genetic profile died out in the Balkans and in Rome (though it wasn't in the original paper to be honest): it would seem it was wrong for Italy.

[Archetype0ne]

It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.

My guess is as a tool. Since from the PCAs, and the coordinates Jov shared, they seem the closest to modern Italians. Hence they are used in the sample to make a point about potential continuity.

Check the title of the paper. The Etruscan might be a good clickbait, and raise media attention. But the 2000 year part was bound to deal with their legacy, since by the CE we could no longer talk about Etruscan per se.

[Salento]

Really they are different from native Apulians?

I’ve seen modern Apulian results (in the hundreds) been used by amateurs as substitutes for Ancient theoretical extinct Balkan and Greek samples that have no modern line or continuity.
They don’t take into account and disregard that there was a native Apulian population there for at least 20,000 years!

[Archetype0ne]

48 individuals from 800 to 1 BCE (Iron Age and Roman Republic), 6 individuals from 1 to 500 CE (Imperial period), and 28 individuals from 500 to 1000 CE (12 from central Italy and 16 from southern Italy)

"The mtDNA diversity does not seem to change substantially before and after year 1 CE (fig. S5A). By contrast, the newly reported central Italian individuals from 800 to 1 BCE show ~75% frequency of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, mostly represented by the R1b-P312 polymorphism and its derived R1b-L2, that diffused across Europe alongside steppe-related ancestry in association with the Bell Beaker complex (16). This suggests that this R1b Y-chromosome lineage spread into the Italian peninsula with steppe-related movements during the Bronze Age. In the first millennium CE, its frequency is reduced to ~40% with higher oc-currence of Near Eastern–associated Y-chromosome lineages such as J (fig. S5. While we cannot rule out substantial female mobility, the marked shift in Y-chromosome haplogroup frequency indicates that male mobility played an important role in the observed genetic turnovers from the Imperial period onward"

Now we need Magna Grecia paper to come out. Both papers were presented at the same conference if I am not mistaken.

I also found out the Albanian samples wont be published on a separate/Illyrian study, but along with more regional samples, not sure if just Balkans or even beyond. Meaning the team is international.

[Pax Augusta]

Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:

Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped. The work of geneticists has improved since the whole genome of ancient DNA can be analyzed, but the tricks and gambles of geneticists have remained as they always have.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman Iron Ag Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.

Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.

Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

[Jovialis]

Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

I wish I had more upvotes to give!

[Leopoldo Leone]

Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

[torzio]

Jovialis post #10

Distance to:	Duarte
9.25598725	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ001
10.20708088	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
10.35823827	:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
10.40551777	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
10.82643524	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
10.97969490	C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
11.01859338	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
11.06370191	C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
11.12235587	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
11.19851329	C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
11.23924375	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
11.48003484	C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002
11.50595498	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
11.53930674	C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001
11.64089773	C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
11.66283842	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
11.81583260	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
11.83354131	C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
11.87767233	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
11.93160090	C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
12.00538629	C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010
12.08740253	C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
12.08808091	C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003
12.10366473	C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
12.13397297	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005

Target: Duarte Distance: 4.9802% / 4.98016616
30.8	:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
25.5	:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
24.5	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
8.1	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR012
5.1	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 670-775CE:VEN010
3.2	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
2.8	S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_6 50-800CE:VEN002

Distance to:	Duarte
5.71283954	55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
6.14483435	55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005
6.25573479	69.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 30.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
6.42054177	51.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 48.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
6.43117110	52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
6.52224720	52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
6.56370470	67.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 33.00% S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
6.67938654	55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
6.68125709	60.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
6.70205573	60.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
6.77249138	56.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
6.77491340	46.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023 + 54.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 60-200BCE:VET005
6.79509036	44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.80827790	61.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 38.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
6.82035602	62.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 38.00% :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
6.83632398	54.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 45.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
6.84279399	35.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007 + 64.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.92103862	49.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 50.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
6.92468012	39.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004 + 60.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.94008642	60.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
6.94447338	47.20% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 + 52.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.04884449	75.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 24.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
7.06419513	43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003 + 56.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.06468641	44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001 + 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.07728941	56.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005

we are a long way away from these etruscans

Distance to:	Torziok12b
7.47945854	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
7.77274083	C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
8.85378450	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
9.41315569	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
9.57447649	C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
9.89305312	C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
10.99554455	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
11.05177814	C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002
11.17633214	C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
11.32613350	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
11.63097588	C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
11.80943267	C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
11.86362508	C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_804-557BCE:MAS004
11.98595845	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
12.05735460	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
12.13428201	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
12.20780898	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
12.54692393	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
12.64932014	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
12.85277402	C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_T uscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
13.01492220	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
13.27414027	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
13.36240248	C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
13.51870186	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
13.52757184	C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002

[Jovialis]

We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

With a paper from the Max Planck Institute, I have to defer to their expertise. Thus I should have more respect towards the position that the Imperial era had a larger impact on the Modern Italians. This paper makes it a viable conclusion, by the virtue of the fact that the Max Planck Institute supports it. So, I have to say this does support what some of the people on Anthrogenica have said. I still have to read it fully, but based on the salient points I have seen, it doesn't support what I have been saying. Nevertheless, I have faith that as more samples come out, such as the ones from Magna Graecia, it may change the story.


The Venosa samples would have been more interesting if they at least included Iron Age samples from the area, to compare to.

[Palermo Trapani]

My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

Distance to:	PalermoTrapani_Combined
2.38784422	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
4.04278369	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
4.24855269	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
4.61280826	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
6.12952690	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
6.18293620	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
6.18618622	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.44542473	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.46209718	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
7.28809303	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.15834542	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
8.49709951	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
9.17092689	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
9.23174415	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.35309040	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
9.52039915	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
9.73570747	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.87760092	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
10.49192547	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
10.62509765	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
10.67940541	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
10.73998603	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
11.58488671	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.44673049	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
12.70596317	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

Unrestricted Model

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

Restricted to 2 Populatons

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval

[Archetype0ne]

My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

Distance to:	PalermoTrapani_Combined
2.38784422	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
4.04278369	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
4.24855269	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
4.61280826	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
6.12952690	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
6.18293620	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
6.18618622	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.44542473	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.46209718	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
7.28809303	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.15834542	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
8.49709951	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
9.17092689	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
9.23174415	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.35309040	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
9.52039915	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
9.73570747	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.87760092	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
10.49192547	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
10.62509765	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
10.67940541	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
10.73998603	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
11.58488671	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.44673049	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
12.70596317	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

Unrestricted Model

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

Restricted to 2 Populatons

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval

Nice results, especially now that we know the context.
Coca Cola has got nothing on you, your formula has remained original for 1300 year ;)

[Jovialis]

Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:



Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.

We need to see what Southern Italian Greeks were like during the IA.

[Pax Augusta]

We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

Geneticists generally follow narratives and tend to defend the work of colleagues with whom they collaborate, even when the conclusions are wrong or not entirely correct. For years two distinct groups of Italian geneticists have been dealing with the question of Etruscan origins, which is very debatable because they began to deal with Etruscans far too soon when prehistoric migrations were not even clear.

The first group (universities of Turin and Pavia, mainly, and others) has never analyzed the DNA of a single Etruscan or single Lydian, and, siding with the eastern origin from the beginning against what archeology concluded, has only analyzed modern samples. Their working method has always consisted in attributing anything found in modern samples, which could be traced to the eastern Mediterranean, to the eastern origin of the Etruscans, thus producing a series of ridiculous studies that claimed to have proved that Herodotus was right. Wthout proving it as something related to the Etruscans, they left a legacy in the debate that there was something in modern Tuscans' mtDNA attributable to Iron Age Anatolia (which is not even so true, so much so that they have never published new samples for the fear of self-discrediting), also making believe that the Tuscans were a kind of special case in Italy, which has been regularly refuted by other more impartial geneticists who have analyzed all of Italy.

The second group (universities of Ferrara and Florence, and then also Max Planck, Harvard, Tubingen), which includes the authors of this study released today, instead decided to focus more on ancient DNA, and their conclusions since 2013 were diametrically opposed to the first group and more in line with archaeology. But even this group has distinguished itself by some exaggeration. They never openly criticized the other group, they played along and accepted the narrative about the modern Tuscans created by the other group, and to discredit their work from the beginning this group claimed that there was very little Etruscan DNA left in the modern samples from Etruria (it's clear why they did it, isn't it?). The problem is that they started to support it initially on the basis of only mitochondrial DNA of Etruscans and modern samples. If we see the results of today with mtDNA H which is dominant both in Etruscans and in modern Tuscans it appears they were wrong. But of course today they are using other arguments to support it, and no longer the comparison based on mitochondrial DNA.

It is clear that the migrations of the imperial age have left traces in modern central Italians. No doubt, but the problem is who were they? They weren't from just one place. An ancestral component does not always tell us exactly the origin of someone at that time. In any case it is highly unlikely they did not leave it in the rest of Italy as well. The problem is that this group has an interest in exaggerating this, especially in the relationship between Etruscans and modern central Italians. We will have a clearer picture only in a few years. As I've already said, in Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a single Italian population without involving all Italians.

[Angela]

They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
How do those samples fit the scenario?

The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

I'm missing something, I guess.

[Salento]

... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.

[Palermo Trapani]

Top 25 Distances to R437 (Circa 300 BC) from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Republican Roman Sample from that paper. Very close to VEN005 from Basilicata.

Distance to:	Mediterranean_C6:R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
2.63738507	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
3.65334094	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
5.15021359	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.29974603	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
7.11796319	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
7.24782036	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
8.21681812	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.62706787	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
8.78415619	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.16498227	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
9.29248621	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
9.79295665	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
9.81352638	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
9.93343344	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
10.23923337	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
10.33045014	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
10.40081728	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
11.01331921	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
11.32265428	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
11.48361877	C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
11.49127060	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
11.83600017	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
12.03713006	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
12.55524193	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
13.30567172	C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

[Hawk]

Too much R1b in a supposedly non IE speaking people. Something doesn't sum up.

[Jovialis]

So basically,

Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomonon in Rome:

Conversely, the decline in the geographic scale and number of people involved in transMediterranean movements following the Empire’s decline is reflected in the fact that in laterperiods, Eastern Mediterranean influence largely disappeared in both the city of Rome and inthe large towns of the Balkans. An important topic for future ancient DNA research will be tosystematically characterize populations in cities and towns as well as rural locations across theEmpire, to understand how these patterns differed across geographic locations.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...08.30.458211v1

This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn on pretty broad conclusions and very limited amounts of data.


Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.

[Jovialis]

So basically,

Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomenon in Rome:



This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn pretty broad conclusions are very limited amounts of data.


Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.

This paper pretty much says the Eastern Mediterranean in general augmented the whole of Southeastern Europe. So what are they saying that modern Balkan people too are derived from Imperial age immigrants? This would be a contradiction to the Reich Lab paper:


"During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations."


This is not adding up, and frankly, while I respect the Max Planck Institute, I have to disagree with them on this.

[Stuvanè]

Jovialis post#10 :)

Distance to:	Dodecadk12bStuvanè
4.12127407	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
5.96436920	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
6.18798836	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
6.31981012	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
6.68472139	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
7.80932776	C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
8.33039615	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.15716659	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
10.23210145	C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
10.26249970	S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
10.50968601	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
10.54409788	C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
10.71946361	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
10.81554437	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
11.19209096	C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
11.35817327	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
11.38123016	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
11.93949748	C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.07552069	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
12.56003583	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
12.81852566	C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
12.93006961	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
13.61044819	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
13.78004717	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
13.92520736	S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015

Combos

Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè Distance: 0.9099% / 0.90986668 | R2P
56.4	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
43.6	C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu

---

Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè Distance: 1.1280% / 1.12802062 | ADC: 0.25x RC
80.5	C.Italy_Early.Medieval
19.5	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated

---

Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè Distance: 0.4537% / 0.45374920
28.5	C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related
24.6	S.Italy_Venosa
19.8	C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
11.2	C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu
8.3	C.Italy_Etruscan_undated
4.8
2.8	S.Italy_Venosa_related

Distance to:	Dodecadk12bStuvanè
1.12689404	60.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 60-200BCE:VET005
1.23542618	16.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007 + 83.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.30867841	48.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002 + 51.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
1.41108469	80.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
1.41749118	82.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
1.42406264	17.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 83.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.43225538	79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
1.43996828	17.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003 + 82.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.46331618	81.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
1.47171959	79.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
1.47207765	81.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001
1.48008046	19.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001 + 81.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.50787067	20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001 + 79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.52675300	84.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
1.53143403	84.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
1.55451416	20.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005 + 79.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.59878732	82.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
1.61668215	79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
1.63232723	81.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
1.64022622	82.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 17.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
1.64444785	20.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013 + 79.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.65482452	15.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004 + 84.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.67534776	77.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 22.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
1.68043889	80.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 19.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
1.73251567	81.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005

[Vallicanus]

The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

I'm missing something, I guess.

Thinking back to Maciamo's neat summary of the Boattini Y dna figures for northern Tuscany (and a bit of Liguria), provinces of La Spezia/Massa and Pistoia, R1b still comes in at 60-70pc, and little of it is Germanic.

Central and southern Tuscany (Siena/Grosseto) has under 50pc R1b, and some of it is Germanic.

The new Etruscan study mentions no Imperial Age or Medieval samples north of Chiusi (Clusium).

[Jovialis]

... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.

Middle Ages[edit]

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Venusia was sacked by the Heruls, and in 493 AD it was turned into the administrative centre of the area in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, although later this role was moved to Acerenza.

The Lombards made it a gastaldate in 570/590.


In 842 Venosa was sacked by the Saracens, who were later ousted by Emperor Louis II.

Next rulers in the 9th century were the Byzantines, who lost control of it after their defeat in 1041 by the Normans. Under the latter, Venosa was assigned to Drogo of Hauteville. In 1133 the town was sacked and set on fire by Roger II of Sicily.

His later successor Frederick II had a castle built here where a Lombard outpost existed before, which was to house the Treasury (Ministry of Finances) of the Kingdom of Sicily.

Frederick's son, Manfred of Sicily, was perhaps born here in 1232. After the latter's fall, the Hohenstaufens were replaced by the Angevines; King Charles of Anjou assigned Venosa as a county to his son Robert.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venosa

This town was sacked many times, imho, much of the genetic continuity of modern Southern Italians in this region begins in the 1200s AD. Like in the case of my father's town, which was re-settled in the 1200s after 300 years of abandonment. These Venosa samples are from the 700s, from before the Saracen sacking.

[Archetype0ne]

You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.

The paper on Campania is coming out, and it concludes that the Campanian/Italics were like Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.

That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?

[Jovialis]

That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?

I think we all expected Italics, even those that went to the south to be similar to Etruscans. But what about these IA Greeks?


They land in the range of modern Southern Italy.


But also, what about the people that lived in the south before the arrival of Italics, and Greeks? If they're similar to the proceeding ones, it doesn't make the paper very viable imo, and could disrupt their conclusions.

[Archetype0ne]

I can really not make up the squares in that graphic. Either I am very blind or they are few and far between.

But assuming that is correct, Lazaridis Minoan paper should be what we base our discussion at the moment. In expectation of the Magna Grecia paper (where I assume this graphic is from) and the Marathon paper.

I really suspect, that Minoan/Mycenean sources were pulled further east, before the IA when they had an impact on the Italian colonies. Anatolian connection in my mind is a given, the question for me is really the Levant connection. But again I do not know a lot of details, so could be wrong.

Edit: Made up the squares. Guess I am blind after all. It is the cline, two squares I guess. They seem to plot on one end of the spectrum of some Italics. Neat.