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

[Angela]

Yup Magna Grecia peaked in Classical Period, and it had a dramatic fall during the Hellenistic period, where Archimedes was killed. Many Greek cities faced genocide by Carthaginians and Romans. Why did it took 400 years after of it's peak for this "east med" admixture to spread inland Southern Italy?

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Grecia

I absolutely agree with "romantic reading" part, that is mostly the case.

Sorry, I'm not following. Metapontum and Heraclea, which would have influenced Venossa, to whose samples our Southern Italian posters are pretty close, were settled in 700 and 600 BC respectively.

The parts of Calabria not showing the Greek dialects are extremely mountainous and inaccessible, although even there the Greek language ultimately penetrated, as the survival of Calabrian Greek dialects in the interior are of Reggio Calabria can attest.

We don't know how far inland the Greek influence "traveled" or when. We just have the samples the scientists have at their disposal, with their accompanying date. How do you know when it arrived?

 

[Angela]

It was an interesting choice to plot Etruscans on a West Eurasian background. They don't seem to have done one on a European dataset. (It would be interesting if someone could produce one for comparison.

However, they did do one on an Italian dataset, and it can be found in the Supplement. They seem to plot closest to people from Bologna from what I can see.

[/IMG]

Another interesting graphic is the one below. It's based on qpAdm. They're showing an increase in Iranian Neolithic in modern Tuscans versus even Imperial and Early Medieval, yes? Does anyone know where it was explained? There is no possible mass migration which could explain it, to my knowledge.

[/IMG]

 

[Archetype0ne]

Another interesting graphic is the one below. It's based on qpAdm. They're showing an increase in Iranian Neolithic in modern Tuscans versus even Imperial and Early Medieval, yes? Does anyone know where it was explained? There is no possible mass migration which could explain it, to my knowledge.

[/IMG]

Very interesting point Angela.

Which of the 3 Etruscan Pops has any purple in it? Which outlier?

I wonder if whatever pop contributed the purple to that outlier, did not further do so to shift the modern pops where we are.

 

[Salento]

Vahaduo site (Ancient Dod. K12b) + Jovialis post #10, + samples below:

ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0
BRC001_023_Broion_Italy,0,0,3.47,0,54.97,4.94,0,0.75,9.95,0,24.98,0.94
GCP002A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,2.18,0,3.15,3.26,44.5,29.77,0,0,5.27,0,11.87,0
GLR001A1_Gattolino_Italy,0,1.77,4.40,0,58.27,5.15,0,0,11.05,0.22,17.72,1.41
LSC002_004_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,62.94,2.45,0,0,6.28,0,26.23,2.11
VK442_Viking_Sweden_Oland,6.44,0.77,1.92,0.48,37.64,36.49,0.00,0.00,1.01,0.00,13.03,2.23
VK538_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.67,0.03,1.37,1.02,31.40,31.69,0.00,0.00,7.51,0.17,19.83,1.30
I0700_Malak_Preslavets_Balkans_MP_Neolithic,0,0,2.21,0.37,42.93,36.24,0,0,7.78,0.22,9.65,0.61
KOB003_Kolin-Staralka_Funnelbeaker_Bohemia,0,0,3.81,0,53.94,16.35,0,0,8.50,0,17.40,0
BRC002_Broion_Italy,0.87,0,1.36,0,45.47,25.27,2.32,0,4.39,0,18.99,1.33
BRC003_Broion_Italy,1.48,0,2.35,1.33,46.70,24.27,0,0,5.74,0,17.40,0.74
BRC007_019_Broion_Italy,3.5,0,1.75,0.58,48.28,18.96,0,0,9.11,0.52,16.2,1.1
BRC010_018_Broion_Italy,0,0,5.13,0.5,47.79,19.51,0,0,7.86,0,18.69,0.51
BRC011_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0,37.8,0,0,0,42.9,0,19.29,0
BRC012_Broion_Italy,0,15.45,0,0,40.8,0,0,0,43.74,0,0,0
BRC013_Broion_Italy,0,0,6.28,0,57.75,0,0,0,6.97,0,29,0
BRC022_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0.94,62.87,3.14,0,0,10.14,0,22.91,0
BRC024_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0,52.32,30.37,0,5.35,0,0,10.84,1.12
GCP003A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,7.58,1.55,0.86,0,49.29,22.95,0,0,4.32,0,13.45,0
GCP004A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,22.15,0,0,0,37.5,23.7,6.64,0,10.01,0,0,0
GLR002A1_Gattolino_Italy,0,0,6.65,0,63.81,1.89,0,0,5.79,0,21.86,0
GLR003B1_Gattolino_Italy,0,0,9.49,4.97,65.66,0,0,0,0,0,17.94,1.93
LSC005A1_013_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,2.64,1.84,57.50,6.67,0,0,9.34,0,21.45,0.55
LSC007A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,95.95,0,0,0.6,3.45,0,0,0
LSC011A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,8.94,0,53.32,7.47,0,0,14.31,0,15.96,0
LSC012A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,97.48,0,0,0,0,2.52,0,0
Kars537_LBK_EN_Karsdorf_Germany,0,0,3.81,0.14,50.90,0,0,0.68,15.71,0,28.76,0
VK534_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,4.06,0.00,3.55,0.35,22.53,17.31,0.00,0.85,12.20,1.21,36.33,1.61
VK535_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,8.59,0.00,5.60,1.09,27.21,14.69,0.00,0.80,12.43,0.00,28.19,1.39
VK536_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.89,1.85,3.79,0.00,32.54,15.84,0.00,0.00,8.95,0.00,29.54,1.61
VK537_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.21,0.93,4.78,0.00,26.19,16.86,0.95,0.70,11.33,0.35,31.41,1.30
VK17_Viking_Russia_Ladoga,2.47,2.89,0.05,0.68,28.23,60.27,0.00,0.00,0.06,0.00,3.77,1.58
VK398_Viking_Sweden_Skara,8.38,2.47,0.53,0.00,35.05,41.08,0.00,0.00,0.48,0.00,9.88,2.14

 

[ihype02]

Sorry, I'm not following. Metapontum and Heraclea, which would have influenced Venossa, to whose samples our Southern Italian posters are pretty close, were settled in 700 and 600 BC respectively.

The parts of Calabria not showing the Greek dialects are extremely mountainous and inaccessible, although even there the Greek language ultimately penetrated, as the survival of Calabrian Greek dialects in the interior are of Reggio Calabria can attest.

We don't know how far inland the Greek influence "traveled" or when. We just have the samples the scientists have at their disposal, with their accompanying date. How do you know when it arrived?

I was assuming a similar case as in Tuscany, I am not sure, but I believe it was like that.

Apulian samples from pre-Roman Imperial era seem mostly untouched by Greeks in the pervious study, which makes me assume in case of Campania and Basilicata.
Of course after and during the late antiquity there was movement from all areas. It is just that I believe before the Imperial Rome, Italians were pretty much Italic-like expect for some coastal Greek-cities. (in case of Campania, Apulia, Abruzzo and Basilicata )

 

[Salento]

I find it hilarious when the ‘so called’ “outliers” are ignored, … and the spinning is even funnier

 

[Angela]

I did find the section on the archaeological context for these samples. To Big Snakes' point, there was archaeological Etruscan context for a lot of the remains. The Imperial remains are problematic, imo, and, I think, to anyone attempting to look at these samples in as objective a light as possible.

"Located along the route of the consular Via Cassia and near the Clanis River, which was once connected to the Tiber and therefore to Rome, Chiusi had a considerable commercial importance during both Etruscan and Roman times. The continuous occupation of the city from the Etruscan period until modern times led to the disappearance of the Etruscan and Roman villages, but several necropolises around the city have been preserved (1). All the analyzed samples from Chiusi are teeth acquired from the skull collection of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology of the University of Florence. According to the museum’s catalogue, the skulls sampled for this study were collected at the end of the 19th century and identified as Etruscans, probably following criteria based on the analysis of tomb architecture and grave goods. However, radiocarbon dating of these teeth shows that only individual, ETR005 (850-770 cal BCE) can be associated to the Etruscan period: This is expected, as it is the only skeleton for which a tentative chronological attribution (5th century BCE) was reported in the catalogue. Radiocarbon dating of the other genetically characterized specimens revealed an age corresponding to the Roman Imperial period for two (ETR001, ETR015) and to the Medieval times for other five individuals (ETR003, ETR006, ETR007, ETR013, ETR014). Finally, individual ETR016 dates to an intermediate interval between the Roman Imperial and the Early Medieval periods (410-530 cal BCE). It was not possible to obtain radiocarbon dates for the remaining three individuals (ETR004, ETR010, ETR012) because of insufficient preserved collagen. Although the archaeological documentation regarding the context of this excavation is almost completely absent, the different areas of Chiusi from which some of the individuals come are mentioned in the catalogue. Both individuals ETR003 and ETR004 come from the area surrounding Palazzo Tosoni, while ETR010 was found near Podere dell’Arcipretura. Samples ETR005, ETR012, ETR013 and ETR014 derive from different localities around Chiusi specified as Fonte Rosella, Montebello, Romitorio and Poggiovalle, respectively.graves made of tuff blocks or stone consisting of a chamber and an antechamber (104, 105). Unfortunately, the tombs had been largely looted by clandestine excavations. The graves were dated to a period between the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th century BCE according to the style of the tuff chests, funerary beds and grave goods found within Radiocarbon dating of the genetically evaluated individuals indicates that the three individuals belong to more recent periods (MAS001: 350-100 cal BCE, MAS002: 240-380 cal CE, MAS003: 400-530 cal CE). These results suggest a prolonged occupation of the site at least until the 4th-5th century CE.

Now, these were Etruscan tombs, so samples which can be dated to the Etruscan Era can, I think, be presumed to be Etruscans. However, teeth scattered around? I'm a bit skeptical. Doing some testing to see if they were locally born and raised would have helped a bit, but, like Antonio et al, wasn't done.

Two of the Imperial samples come from the following site, and it's even more of a mess.

"Necropolis of Le Pianacce of Poggio Pozzino, n=3- Geographical coordinates: 42.5384802,11.33358 (Marsiliana d’Albegna)- Radiocarbon dates range (n=3): 350-100 cal BCE; 240-530 cal CE- Analyzed individuals: MAS001, MAS002, MAS003

"This area is characterized by the presence of four tumulus graves made of tuff blocks or stone consisting of a chamber and an antechamber (104, 105). Unfortunately, the tombs had been largely looted by clandestine excavations. The graves were dated to a period between the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th century BCE according to the style of the tuff chests, funerary beds and grave goods found withinRadiocarbon dating of the genetically evaluated individuals indicates that the three individuals belong to more recent periods (MAS001: 350-100 cal BCE, MAS002: 240-380 cal CE, MAS003: 400-530 cal CE). These results suggest a prolonged occupation of the site at least until the 4th-5th century CE."

(I don't think it suggests any such thing. The two imperial area skulls could be of looters, thieves, travelers forced to camp out for the night and set upon by bandits, anything.)

A lot of samples come from Tarquinia.
"The city of Tarquinia (Etruscan: Tarchna, Tarchuna; Latin: Tarquinii) was one of the largest and most important cities of Etruria. It was situated on the Pian di Civita plateau, about six kilometers from the Tyrrhenian Sea. According to archaeological findings, Tarquinia originates from a Villanovan settlement. The foundation of the maritime port of Graviscae forwarded Tarquinia’s development into a prosperous and powerful city during the 6th century BCE. After a period of decline in the 5th century, Tarquinia became the dominant Etruscan city in the 4th century BCE as a major opponent of Rome and gradually expanded into Etruscan territory during the 4th to 2ndcentury BCE. After the Roman conquest, the city gradually lost its power until its decline by the 3rd century CE,"

"The studied individuals derive from the osteological collection of the German anthropologist and ethnographer Prof. Emil Schmidt, housed in the Anatomical Institute of the University of Leipzig in Germany. The catalogue he compiled in 1887 comprises 131 skulls from Tarquinia associated to the Etruscan civilization (128).Schmidt purchased them from the curator of the Etruscan tombs in Tarquinia. According to the limited catalogue descriptions on the provenance, the majority of the analyzed skulls derived from either private or municipal excavations in the Monterozzi necropolis conducted between 1877 and 1879. However, an assignment of the skulls to the associated burial contexts or to certain areas of the necropolis is not possible due to the incomplete available information."

"Two other skulls (TAQ020, TAQ021) belong to the same numbering system, but date to the Imperial Roman period.

"seven are referred to as tomba romana (Roman tomb) or deposito romano (Roman deposit) (TAQ012, TAQ015, TAQ016, TAQ017, TAQ018, TAQ019, TAQ023), without an explanation of how this classification had been performed. Most likely classification was performed by grave goods and/or tomb building style. According to radiocarbon dating, all five dated individuals listed as tomba romana or deposito romano have an age that is in line with the Roman Republic period."

(It would be interesting to compare these to the earlier Etruscan periods.)

So, of the 6 Imperial samples, 2 are from Chiusi, 2 from Tarquinia a major trading port on the sea, and 2 from near Poggio Pozzino. None of them have any identifying information other than radio carbon dates, and the remains were found there.

This is worse than I thought, at least for people supposedly trying to model the "legacy" of the Etruscans.

 

[bigsnake49]

I do not understand what you mean but this is the Etruscan chronology supported by the most important Etruscologists.

I thought Lazzio was Latin tribe territory.

 

[Anhanguera]

We need their Gedmatch kits!

 

[Pax Augusta]

Another interesting graphic is the one below. It's based on qpAdm. They're showing an increase in Iranian Neolithic in modern Tuscans versus even Imperial and Early Medieval, yes? Does anyone know where it was explained? There is no possible mass migration which could explain it, to my knowledge.

It is clearly wrong and does not even fit the narrative of this study. It mirrors the miscalculations of Sarno who attributed 15% of Iran_N to northern Italy, Sardinians, and then double that to southern Italy. The whole part the Etruscan legacy and calculations on the last two thousand years is extremely weak and based on a few samples. While it is evident that the population of imperial Rome did not disappear entirely, it is certainly not this study that can accurately determine the various contributions.

I thought Lazzio was Latin tribe territory.

All the northern Latium up to the doors of Rome was Etruscan (and also all the western part of Umbria, including Perugia), except a Faliscan enclave, and something of Sabine in the eastern part.

 

[bigsnake49]

It is clearly wrong and does not even fit the narrative of this study. It mirrors the miscalculations of Sarno who attributed 15% of Iran_N to northern Italy, Sardinians, and then double that to southern Italy. If those of the imperial age moved the Etruscans further south than the modern Tuscans, and then you need the northern Europeans to form the modern Tuscans and bring them to their current location, it makes no sense that the modern Tuscans have more Iran_N than the imperial samples. The whole part the Etruscan legacy and calculations on the last two thousand years are extremely superficial and based on a few samples. While it is evident that the population of imperial Rome did not disappear entirely, it is certainly not this study that can accurately determine the various contributions.

All the northern Latium up to the doors of Rome was Etruscan (and also all the western part of Umbria, including Perugia), except a Faliscan enclave, and something of Sabine in the eastern part.

Interesting, thanks!

 

[Pax Augusta]

@Pax Augusta
I am referring to MAS003,MAS002,TAQ020,TAQ021,ETR1 and ETR016, those samples marked by pink squares on the PCA

Thank you.

These are the locations where these samples came from. That is, two at the most peripheral end of Tuscany, and one from the north of Lazio, when today 2/3 of the Tuscan population lives in the opposite part of the region, north of the Arno. They're not exactly samples you can use to draw conclusions.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Imagine anyone paying attention to "Of individuals associated with the first time interval, the vast majority (40 of 48) form a genetic cluster here named “C.Italy_Etruscan” that overlaps with present-day Spanish individuals in a principal components analysis (PCA) built with West Eurasian populations from the Human Origins dataset (Fig. 2A) (21). "

Too much talk about Levantines. When we have the value for A, we know we need to add (+) X, to get B (present) Italians.
Everyone out here discrediting the models. When qpADM, F3-f4 stats as well as PCAs were used, and only the models with apropriate P values were selected for conlusions, while the others mentioned in passing why they do not statistically provide the best fit.

Meanwhile, a simple PCA, non accurate historical populations, and a .20 P value for the Albanians was provided on the Danubian limes paper, and authority could not be questioned.

Really revealing.

You have A, you have B, find a better additional source X, with apropriate P value, then lets talk.

I myself proposed, CZE Early Slav on the Danubian Limes paper, would just have to account for the Gothic/Germanic component, and such model would have beat the "foremost scientists" or whoever they were. If not the best model certainly better than some fino Urgic population out of space and time to have contributed to the Balkans. And yet, in the end I made the concession, that if the scenario of a frame model to push a narrative was not the case, then certainly the authors had unpublished samples, to support using Mordovian/Russian, for Middle Age Slavs.

Here, we have 1) populations that were part of the Antonio paper, namely C4/5. 2) Populations that according to the unpublished Marathon sample used in the Danubian Limes had an impact on the whole, what has been attributed on Eupedia as, East Med Genetic continuum.

Now. What could bring Modern Spanish like autosomal populations, towards Venosa like samples?

There is a method to find out, where you run a calculator on the difference A - B.
Here I do not know the answer. But I am proposing a falsifiable, verifiable test.

I will go find out on Anthro, and let you know where this leads.

Personally, I've shared the criticism that the slavic input is overestimated ( I think it is between 10%-20% in southern Balkanites) because 1) they chose Greek empuries for the whole Balkan,2) Mycenean average and Empuries average worked essentially in the same way but the former has high heterogeneity because it was the result of a recent invasion (so individuals with relatively high steppe and other with almost none) and the latter because of extremely likely Anatolian admixture so it isn't clear it would be a good proxy for IA greeks,3) from what I've seen they didn't take into consideration the inputs due to invading Germanics and east Iranics, 4) the haplo didn't support the estimated autosomal admixture, and Angela's post shares this concern too.
What was relentlessly bashed was the theory that Albanians were somehow pure logkas-like Balkanites that came to plot like north Greeks despite not sharing the same genetic processes with them (basically Albanians were already "north" whereas the Greeks were first pulled south and then north by "east meds" and Slavs). That theory is unattainable for obvious reasons; also I've said that it can well be that some of the "northern" ancestry in Albanians comes from a northern Balkanite population, while in Greeks it came straight with the Slavs, but if so I doubt it can account for much.

This paper has so many flaws that it is illogical, and I am willing to bet future papers will set the records straigh; to recapitulate some of these flaws, first of all it makes wild assumptions based on just six samples from the imperial period (and I am certain that they got their south Levantine fit because they've averaged also a guy that has some north african ancestry, it is the MAS003 sample that plot with an Etruscan that had north african admixture), and it doesn't take into consideration even the possibilities of much more proximate sources, individuals like the latin outliers first of all (this is a matter to investigate, but there were these individuals with Armenian BA-like or Croat IA-like admixture in Italy well before the empire), then the Balkans and Greece, and then Anatolia since the danubian limes paper showed that they made up the bulk of the near eastern immigrants (and it seems that the "east med" cluster of Antonio et al 2019 is made up of such individuals too); I get that they followed statistical procedures (but I believe I've already caught their "trick"), but when one gets such "odd results" such as straight half south Levantine admixture in Tuscany they usually caution "not too read too much" into them and to wait for future studies to settle the matter, but this one made a bold and so highly implausible claim, that "it was slaves and soldiers", that it makes the crazy "analysis" and theories I read on anthrogenica look sophisticated and plausible: were all north and central European slaves killed when their utility expired? Were all those that came from the east spared and apparently did they become so extremely wealthy and influential that they had no problems at outcompeting the locals in the "mating game"? Also, as with the Danubian limes paper, the haplo analysis is comical to say the least: they really sorted out all J1 and J2 clades in the branch J and claimed that "it came from the middle east": all the studies I've checked show that almost all the J subclades in Italy look Southeastern European (ultimately all from the caucasus), except a particular Italian subclade. This is really something I expected from Anthrogenica.

In the thead about the Daunian paper, before the danubian limes paper was published, I said that, if Anatolians turned out to be roughly a mix of CHH/iran_N and Anatolian_N, then they would theoretically be available as a source of gene flow for Italians since virtually all models of Italians have steppe, Iran_N/CHG, WHG and Anatolian_N, without any need for extra levantine_N, thus that I know that the bulk of the near easterners in the empire was made up of Anatolians (modelled as half balkan_IA and Anatolian_BA) I entertain the possibility that they left a not trivial genetic impact in Italy, I am even open to the possibility that there's some true Levantine in the mix in low amounts (less than 5%, that would explain why it went undetected so far): I have no "loath" towards the Levantines and I would sleep fine even if I turned out to be more than half Jordanian, not everybody has the same biases that are somehow common among those in this hobby, but I accept only rational, well backed up theories; the accusations I've seen on anthrogenica and sometimes here made towards those that criticise the "east med models" of beeing hidden antisemites slide off of me, and won't make up for the lack of a viable theory.

Speaking of Anthrogenica, I have browsed it and I've seen (again) peaks of ethnonarcisism that you usually find in nordicists in (at least allegedly) jews: their theory that the ethnogenesis of the western Jews happened overwhelmingly in the Levant, with little admixture during the diaspora, and they have this idea that they somehow "built hellenistic Greece and imperial Rome" and were the driving force in their development, and it is just because of a secondary matter of "necessary corollary theories" to explain other facts that they came up with their theories about Italy and Greece, and that's why many nordicists tagged in. I've read the post of one that commented the PCA leaked from the upcoming study about Campania who stated that "the campanian samples dated between 600 BC and 400 BC show an obvious pull towards Anatolians and Syrians", as if it were even remotely plausible that at the time Campania was swarming with such individuals or that Greek colonies had mostly Anatolians and Syrians.
First of all it flies on the face of historical evidence, because the hard truth (contra what many folks on anthrogenica believe) is that Greeks were quite xenophobic for a long time ("the invention of racism in classical antiquity" is my main reference, but usually Greek literature has plenty of "not politically correct" remarks towards many "barbarians"), and second there is no archeological evidence of such a massive presence of Anatolians and Syrians at those times. I swear that the only way I can "see" how they come up with such theories is that many think "southern Italians = super swarthy> Semitic admixture!" (because many Americans have quite a distorted idea of how southern Italians look like, let's say for questionable casting choices in Hollywood and especially those at anthrogenica have been exposed to the photos and results of "Sicilians" and other "southern Italians" in Sikeliot's threads).

To end this post, I've seen they are again after the theory that "the east med shift was caused by hellenistic greeks that were actually a mixture of Anatolians, Levantines and original Greeks", yet this paper is against such a theory: it has central Italians (and by implication other Italians) as a two way mixture of Latin/Etruscans and south Levantines, no greek or anatolian showing up, that is where the hellenistic culture was weakest outside the Decapolis, unless they came all from Jerusalem, Joppa and beersheba.

P.S. with "central Italians" I mean imperial central Italians (and other Italians south of them)

 

[torzio]

@Pax Augusta
I am referring to MAS003,MAS002,TAQ020,TAQ021,ETR1 and ETR016, those samples marked by pink squares on the PCA

@Torzio
The idea is just to see how the samples "fare" in various scenarios, especially if the bulk of the "east med shifted " samples could be modelled by the already published samples from Italy, the two latin outliers especially. and the norh african admixed Etruscan samples work as a proxy for north african (and Levantine to a lesser extent) admixture. For the "east med shifted" samples the two latin outliers work really well, and in this thread (maybe somewhere else too) it has been noted how close they are to samples from Venosa; now it can be that both happen to be similar because of two unrelated but similar gene flows or because there is some continuity (maybe some combination of both).

Why would you confuse people on these Etruscan samples and where they originate by using any sample in AD times?

We know that VEN samples are not etruscan , but samnites a off branch of ancient Umbri people speaking an indo-euro language ............it this not enough to see various scenarios ?

 

[torzio]

Vahaduo site (Ancient Dod. K12b) + Jovialis post #10, + samples below:

ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0
BRC001_023_Broion_Italy,0,0,3.47,0,54.97,4.94,0,0.75,9.95,0,24.98,0.94
GCP002A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,2.18,0,3.15,3.26,44.5,29.77,0,0,5.27,0,11.87,0
GLR001A1_Gattolino_Italy,0,1.77,4.40,0,58.27,5.15,0,0,11.05,0.22,17.72,1.41
LSC002_004_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,62.94,2.45,0,0,6.28,0,26.23,2.11
VK442_Viking_Sweden_Oland,6.44,0.77,1.92,0.48,37.64,36.49,0.00,0.00,1.01,0.00,13.03,2.23
VK538_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.67,0.03,1.37,1.02,31.40,31.69,0.00,0.00,7.51,0.17,19.83,1.30
I0700_Malak_Preslavets_Balkans_MP_Neolithic,0,0,2.21,0.37,42.93,36.24,0,0,7.78,0.22,9.65,0.61
KOB003_Kolin-Staralka_Funnelbeaker_Bohemia,0,0,3.81,0,53.94,16.35,0,0,8.50,0,17.40,0
BRC002_Broion_Italy,0.87,0,1.36,0,45.47,25.27,2.32,0,4.39,0,18.99,1.33
BRC003_Broion_Italy,1.48,0,2.35,1.33,46.70,24.27,0,0,5.74,0,17.40,0.74
BRC007_019_Broion_Italy,3.5,0,1.75,0.58,48.28,18.96,0,0,9.11,0.52,16.2,1.1
BRC010_018_Broion_Italy,0,0,5.13,0.5,47.79,19.51,0,0,7.86,0,18.69,0.51
BRC011_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0,37.8,0,0,0,42.9,0,19.29,0
BRC012_Broion_Italy,0,15.45,0,0,40.8,0,0,0,43.74,0,0,0
BRC013_Broion_Italy,0,0,6.28,0,57.75,0,0,0,6.97,0,29,0
BRC022_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0.94,62.87,3.14,0,0,10.14,0,22.91,0
BRC024_Broion_Italy,0,0,0,0,52.32,30.37,0,5.35,0,0,10.84,1.12
GCP003A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,7.58,1.55,0.86,0,49.29,22.95,0,0,4.32,0,13.45,0
GCP004A1_Regina-Margherita_Italy,22.15,0,0,0,37.5,23.7,6.64,0,10.01,0,0,0
GLR002A1_Gattolino_Italy,0,0,6.65,0,63.81,1.89,0,0,5.79,0,21.86,0
GLR003B1_Gattolino_Italy,0,0,9.49,4.97,65.66,0,0,0,0,0,17.94,1.93
LSC005A1_013_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,2.64,1.84,57.50,6.67,0,0,9.34,0,21.45,0.55
LSC007A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,95.95,0,0,0.6,3.45,0,0,0
LSC011A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,8.94,0,53.32,7.47,0,0,14.31,0,15.96,0
LSC012A1_La-Sassa_Italy,0,0,0,0,97.48,0,0,0,0,2.52,0,0
Kars537_LBK_EN_Karsdorf_Germany,0,0,3.81,0.14,50.90,0,0,0.68,15.71,0,28.76,0
VK534_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,4.06,0.00,3.55,0.35,22.53,17.31,0.00,0.85,12.20,1.21,36.33,1.61
VK535_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,8.59,0.00,5.60,1.09,27.21,14.69,0.00,0.80,12.43,0.00,28.19,1.39
VK536_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.89,1.85,3.79,0.00,32.54,15.84,0.00,0.00,8.95,0.00,29.54,1.61
VK537_Viking_Foggia_Apulia,5.21,0.93,4.78,0.00,26.19,16.86,0.95,0.70,11.33,0.35,31.41,1.30
VK17_Viking_Russia_Ladoga,2.47,2.89,0.05,0.68,28.23,60.27,0.00,0.00,0.06,0.00,3.77,1.58
VK398_Viking_Sweden_Skara,8.38,2.47,0.53,0.00,35.05,41.08,0.00,0.00,0.48,0.00,9.88,2.14

Distance to:	Torziok12b
1.89726118	R55_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.40054542	I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge
4.63928874	R105_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
4.65137614	R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
4.82277928	Collegno23
4.86300319	R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
5.02880702	I4332_Balkans_BronzeAge
5.15625833	R33_Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
6.00532264	Szolad28
6.35530487	VK538_Viking_Foggia_Apulia
6.41286208	France_IA_NOR3-15
6.56872895	France_IA_ERS88
6.60955369	Collegno49
6.88000000	I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
6.93799683	Collegno94
7.28685117	R1221_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
7.57478052	I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.62312272	Collegno57
7.70831369	Collegno36
7.72828571	Collegno47
7.79092421	GironaSantJuliadeRamis_I10853
7.86207988	R110_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
7.88022842	R61_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.89459942	Bavaria_BB_II5524
7.93197958	Szolad45

 

[ihype02]

To end this post, I've seen they are again after the theory that "the east med shift was caused by hellenistic greeks that were actually a mixture of Anatolians, Levantines and original Greeks", yet this paper is against such a theory: it has central Italians (and by implication other Italians) as a two way mixture of Latin/Etruscans and south Levantines, no greek or anatolian showing up, that is where the hellenistic culture was weakest outside the Decapolis, unless they came all from Jerusalem, Joppa and beersheba.

Aspar has the right idea. I don't know why are they so desperate to turn this into a Greek thing. How do they know those "hellenized" Middle Easterns spoke Greek? And if they did most of them did not identify as Greek.
St Paul was not Greek. And even the Greek-speakers exchanged their language for Latin. This was happening even in ACTUAL Greek colonies of Sicily.
Magna Grecia and Imperial Rome are two different concepts, historically, genetically and culturally. Stop trying to romanticize everything.
The REAL Greeks of Italy were broadly Mycenaean-like with some Italic input.

 

[torzio]

I was assuming a similar case as in Tuscany, I am not sure, but I believe it was like that.

Apulian samples from pre-Roman Imperial era seem mostly untouched by Greeks in the pervious study, which makes me assume in case of Campania and Basilicata.
Of course after and during the late antiquity there was movement from all areas. It is just that I believe before the Imperial Rome, Italians were pretty much Italic-like expect for some coastal Greek-cities. (in case of Campania, Apulia, Abruzzo and Basilicata )

If you read the Daunian paper it states they did not want to associate themselves with Greeks or Epirotes until about 400BC when they first began making their own pottery and not getting the pottery via Croatian lands ( Liburnians and Dalmatians ) ................they basically defended their privacy with force

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Why would you confuse people on these Etruscan samples and where they originate by using any sample in AD times?

We know that VEN samples are not etruscan , but samnites a off branch of ancient Umbri people speaking an indo-euro language ............it this not enough to see various scenarios ?

I used in the first try all the republican age samples from antonio et al 2019 to model all the samples from this study, both those from BC and those from AD: the Etruscans before the empire get very good fit with the other Latin and Etruscan samples (unsurprisingly), the etruscans with partial north african ancestry get very good fit with the previous Etruscan sample with north african admixture; interestingly, the "east med shifted" samples get very good fits as a combination of the two latin outliers and Latins and Etruscans, if other samples from SE europe (from Myceneans to Croatians) ranging from the BA to the IA you get such fits that even after adding Levantine pops in the source pops there's no Levantine showing up: now, I don't know if those "east med" Italics were the result of recent, sporadic east med gene flows and so it is mere chance they cluster close to (and can modell very well) those east med shifted imperial samples (these used in this study) or if there's something else going on.
It can as well be I've made some mistakes: I wanted just to see the input of others.

 

[torzio]

I used in the first try all the republican age samples from antonio et al 2019 to model all the samples from this study, both those from BC and those from AD: the Etruscans before the empire get very good fit with the other Latin and Etruscan samples (unsurprisingly), the etruscans with partial north african ancestry get very good fit with the previous Etruscan sample with north african admixture; interestingly, the "east med shifted" samples get very good fits as a combination of the two latin outliers and Latins and Etruscans, if other samples from SE europe (from Myceneans to Croatians) ranging from the BA to the IA you get such fits that even after adding Levantine pops in the source pops there's no Levantine showing up: now, I don't know if those "east med" Italics were the result of recent, sporadic east med gene flows and so it is mere chance they cluster close to (and can modell very well) those east med shifted imperial samples (these used in this study) or if there's something else going on.
It can as well be I've made some mistakes: I wanted just to see the input of others.

thanks

The Etruscans ruled the Romans for over 200 Years
North-african ?...........Numidians? ................. Carthagians/Punic people did not start until 780BC in north-africa

 

[Angela]

I was assuming a similar case as in Tuscany, I am not sure, but I believe it was like that.

Apulian samples from pre-Roman Imperial era seem mostly untouched by Greeks in the pervious study, which makes me assume in case of Campania and Basilicata.
Of course after and during the late antiquity there was movement from all areas. It is just that I believe before the Imperial Rome, Italians were pretty much Italic-like expect for some coastal Greek-cities. (in case of Campania, Apulia, Abruzzo and Basilicata )

I think it could be said that Calabria is pretty well covered by Greek settlement, except for the still almost impassable mountainous interior.

The same is true of Basilicata.

In fact, I think in all these discussions the topography of Italy is an important player. We haven't been able to feed ourselves for at least 2500 years for a reason: lots of babies in the past, and not enough arable land. Think of it like the Peloponnese, but worse.

In Southern Italy, the majority of the people live very close to the coast.


As for Puglia, the prior paper looked only at the area where we find the Daunians, which was in northern coastal Puglia. Now, it may very well be that the Percetians and Messapians were very similar to them, but I try never to stray too far from the available samples. Also, given the large area of Greek influence from Taranto and Callipolis in southern Puglia, I would think that area had a large amount of Greek influence from the time of the first settling.

[/IMG]

I don't at all mean to imply that there was a replacement of whatever local people were there by the Greeks. All I think we would probably see is admixture. That I definitely took place, because Greek settlement was a folk movement due to their own problems with food supply and overcrowding because of their terrain, and not a more completely mercantile settlement like that of the Phoenicians.

In fact, I'm not quite sure who was living in Calabria when the first Greek city-states were established. It has to be kept in mind that the Italics were also relatively late in arriving in the south.

The Greeks had a very convenient story for the source of the "original" inhabitants of Calabria.

"Around 1500 BC a tribe called the Oenotri ("vine-cultivators"), settled in the region. According to Greek mythology, they were Greeks who were led to the region by their king, Oenotrus. The Greeks used the term 'italoi', which according to some ancient Greek writers was derived from a legendary king of the Oenotri, Italus and according to others from the bull. Originally the Greeks used 'italoi' to indicate Calabrians and later it became synonymous with the rest of the peninsula. Calabria therefore was the first region to be called Italia (Italy).^{[38][39][40][41][42]}During the eighth and seventh centuries BC, Greek settlers founded many colonies (settlements) on the coast of southern Italy (Magna Grecia."

Now, others believe these "first" people were Italics. How do we know that, however? I certainly don't know. What I do know is that it would be difficult to say who were first "on the scene" in Calabria, the Oscan speaking Brutti, or the Greeks. What is undeniable is that the Brutii were very successful against some of the Greek city-states.

"The Itali were the first established people of Calabria. Later came the Bruttii from Lucania. These occupied Calabria and called it Bruttium. The Bruttii were very advanced culturally. The Greek cities of Calabria came under the pressure from these Lucanians, an Oscan people who lived in the present day region of Basilicata. They conquered the north of Calabria and pushed further south, taking over part of the interior, probably after they defeated the Thurians near Laus in 390 BC. A few decades later Calabria came under pressure from the Bruttii. They were Lucanian slaves and other fugitives who were seeking refuge on the steep mountains of Calabria. Their name was Lucanian and meant rebels. They took advantage of the weakening of the Greek cites caused by wars between them. They took over Hipponium, Terina and Thurii. They helped the Lucanians to fight Alexander of Epirus (334–32 BC), who had come to the aid of Tarentum (in Apulia), which was also pressured by the Lucanians. After this, Agathocles of Syracuse ravaged the coast of Calabria with his fleet, took Hipponium and forced the Bruttii into unfavourable peace terms. However, they soon seized Hipponium again. After Agathloces' death in 289 BC the Lucanians and Bruttii pushed into the territory of Thurii and ravaged it. The city sent envoys to Rome to ask for help in 285 BC and 282 BC. On the second occasion, the Romans sent forces to garrison the city. This was part of the episode which sparked the Pyrrhic war.

I detect some partisanship in this second quote, so I take it with a grain of salt.

I quote all of this to show the history of period of the establishment of the Greek city-states is very murky. I mean, just as one example, what happened to the original Neolithic EEF like inhabitants? They settled Calabria in 3500 B.C. after all.

As for Toscana, there was no Greek settlement at all, but for what it's worth, the Romans thought it, and Rome itself was over-run with Greeks, as one would expect, I suppose, given all the trade contacts and subsequent "Orientalizing" of Etruscan culture. To the Romans, of course, it was the source of the "weakening" of Roman culture. The actual site of trade was perhaps in Sardinia, and mediated through the Etruscans???