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

Imperial Tuscans score below 30% even with LBA Armenians, something definitely is wrong. Germanic admixture with individual samples fell below 10%, in G25.

Again. Imperial samples unlilkely give an accurate picture. It's a matter of common sense. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do about it.
 
Again. Imperial samples unlilkely give an accurate picture. It's a matter of common sense. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do about it.

I was implying something could be wrong the percentages they gave. I am well aware that a bigger picture is needed as in more samples from different regions in and outside of Tuscany and perhaps a better narrative. I believe some Estrucan-like profiles could've survive in less urban areas. When I modelled individual Medieval Tuscans with Estrucans and Imperial Tuscans I got a better fit than with Nordic samples. In fact using all the three together, Nordic decreases to zero or very close to it. Expect for one outlier, which if I remember well falls from 22% to 14% Nordic.
 
I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

3wNRg20.png
[/IMG]

The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.
 
I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

3wNRg20.png
[/IMG]

The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.

I find it strange that they choose to model these samples with Morroccan_EN, because that population has a lot of overlap with other components they are testing for.

qa6P6ST.png
 
I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.

They tested only Petrarca's mtDNa, and it was J2 (likely they didn't tested a possible subclade). His Y-DNA hasn't been tested yet.

Btw the remains found in Arquà, Padua, have been assumed to belong to him, but I don't think it's sure, I remember another study came out that claimed the bones were from a woman.


I was implying something could be wrong the percentages they gave.

Got it, and I agree with you.
 
They tested only Petrarca's mtDNa, and it was J2 (likely they didn't tested a possible subclade). His Y-DNA hasn't been tested yet.

Btw the remains found in Arquà, Padua, have been assumed to belong to him, but I don't think it's sure, I remember another study came out that claimed the bones were from a woman.




Got it, and I agree with you.

You're right; I misremembered.
 
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

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

zvfz03q.jpg
I don't understand why did they name the title "Magna Graecia" when they have only have 2 Ancient Greek samples? There is no Magna Graecia to see there. Plus not to mention that they are both Ionians, I mean if they were Mainland Dorians it would've at least end the northern Doric impact discussion, since 2017 no official study for that matter has shown up. We have pretty much figured it out that it did not happen, just like the Balkan IA cluster was revealed with just one sample. A non drastic northern shift by the late Roman period seem (in IA Balkan cluster) to have taken place which was expected and that was it.


The Iberian paper had 4 Mycenaean-like samples from 3 historical periods (Roman, Hellenistic and Classical) plus a couple more outliers and it was not called "Ancient Greek colonies of Iberia". Just name it Iron Age Campania.
 
Last edited:
I find it strange that they choose to model these samples with Morroccan_EN, because that population has a lot of overlap with other components they are testing for.

qa6P6ST.png

Using Iberomaurisians presents its own problems, I think, given it has so much Spanish like ancestry? Still, at least those samples have more coverage, though, yes?
 
Using Iberomaurisians presents its own problems, I think, given it has so much Spanish like ancestry? Still, at least those samples have more coverage, though, yes?
The coverage is pretty standard for aDNA. I know the files are about as big as the others in size, like Yamnaya. However, these Iberomaurisians from Grotte des Pigeons were not found to have European gene flow according to the 2018 study.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380

There was a 2013 study that did find it among Iberomaurisians they analyzed however.

The 2018 study models them as SSA plus Natufian. However, Lazaridis modeled Natufian as 25% Taforalt plus Dzudzuna. This is consistent with Antonio et al modeling Natufian about 25% taforalt plus Anatolian_N, which is supposed to be very similar to Dzudzuna.
 
I don't understand why did they name the title "Magna Graecia" when they have only have 2 Ancient Greek samples? There is no Magna Graecia to see there. Plus not to mention that they are both Ionians, I mean if they were Mainland Dorians it would've at least end the northern Doric impact discussion, since 2017 no official study for that matter has shown up. We have pretty much figured it out that it did not happen, just like the Balkan IA cluster was revealed with just one sample. A non drastic northern shift by the late Roman period seem (in IA Balkan cluster) to have taken place which was expected and that was it.
The Iberian paper had 4 Mycenaean-like samples from 3 historical periods (Roman, Hellenistic and Classical) plus a couple more outliers and it was not called "Ancient Greek colonies of Iberia". Just name it Iron Age Campania.

I think because Ischia/Pithekoussai is considered the first Greek colony in order of time of "Magna Graecia", and the Greeks who arrived there around 780-770 a.C. is thought were from Eretria and Chalcis in Euboea and so they spoke a Ionic dialect indeed, if I'm not mistaken. Then certainly in Italy arrived also the Ionic/Ionian Greek from Anatolia, but these first in southern Italy should be the original ones from Greece.

To these early Greeks of Euboea is attributed the spread of the Greek alphabet in Italy, which for this reason is also called Euboian. Which is the alphabet that the Etruscans adopted, and also the Italic populations.

For the title I agree with your considerations, and I think we all expect too much from geneticists. Very often titles are overpromising. In the end geneticists analyze what they gave them to analyze and it's possible to analyze, and it's not always enough but the studies have to be published anyway.

In Italian there is an idiomatic expression that I think is perfect for this case, but I do not know how to translate it. Since geneticists don't seem to have always a sufficient number of samples, at least not those we expect, they are often forced "ad arrampicarsi sugli specchi" (to grasp at straws? I don't know if that makes sense and has exactly the same significant as in Italian).


1920px-AncientGreekDialects_%28Woodard%29_en.svg.png
 
Many think of Florence as a Medieval or a Renaissance city, but it could have begun as a Roman barracks built by Julius Caesar for his Legionaries.

… Continuity :)
I spent over a year in Tuscany, ... Arezzo, Pisa, but most of it in Florence, alla Simoni when it used to be the headquarters of the Rep. Com. RMTE, near S. M. Novella, a few minutes walk from the Duomo, Ponte Vecchio, the Uffizi (but we pronounce it with two Z).

… though Lecce is called the Florence of the South, we call Firenze the Lecce of the North :grin:
 
Many think of Florence as a Medieval or a Renaissance city, but it could have begun as a Roman barracks built by Julius Caesar for his Legionaries.

… Continuity :)
I spent over a year in Tuscany, ... Arezzo, Pisa, but most of it in Florence, alla Simoni when it used to be the headquarters of the Rep. Com. RMTE, near S. M. Novella, a few minutes walk from the Duomo, Ponte Vecchio, the Uffizi (but we pronounce it with two Z).

… though Lecce is called the Florence of the South, we call Firenze the Lecce of the North :grin:

Florence was Caesar's colony Florentia, but nearby Fiesole is of Etruscan origin and much older.
 
I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

3wNRg20.png
[/IMG]

The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.

From BA Levant to the Roman Lebanon period, the Levantine component in 2-way model scores from 30% to 34%.
It seems like 33% using Northern Levantines, I bet it falls below 30% using Southern Levantines.
I used G25 for Slavic paper, the results were nearly identical.

Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 3.7282% / 0.03728237
67.8ITA_Etruscan
32.2Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
 
Target: Sicilian_West
Distance: 2.0083% / 0.02008266

74.2Italian_Tuscany
25.8Lebanese_Christian
Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.6201% / 0.01620098

67.0Italian_Tuscany
33.0Lebanese_Christian


Target: Italian_Sicily
Distance: 3.4670% / 3.46703597

59.1Italian_Tuscany
40.9Lebanese_Christian


You can check the PCA of Lazaridis, Sicilians are exactly shifted 25% to 33% towards Lebanese in comparison to 40% given in K12b.
31914214_10156333355707264_2216759469029720064_o_10156333355697264.jpg

Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.6201% / 0.01620098

67.0Italian_Tuscany
33.0Lebanese_Christian
 
I doubt the Sicilian samples in G25 are even remotely reliable.
However, by using Etruscan and Levant Beirut Hellenistic on G25 as source populations and I've obtained very similar results to those obtained by ihype02 for Etruria imperial but for Bulgaria IA.


P.S. I can't insert the image so these are the values: distance: 0.03958062, ITA_etruscan: 70.4, Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic:29.6, Target: BGR_IA.
 

Attachments

  • Cattura.jpg
    Cattura.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 141
Deleted: slow internet connection, it showed that the editings were successful after a while.
 
I doubt the Sicilian samples in G25 are even remotely reliable.
However, by using Etruscan and Levant Beirut Hellenistic on G25 as source populations and I've obtained very similar results to those obtained by ihype02 for Etruria imperial but for Bulgaria IA.


P.S. I can't insert the image so these are the values: distance: 0.03958062, ITA_etruscan: 70.4, Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic:29.6, Target: BGR_IA.

They are clearly different in G25View attachment 12944
 
How are they different? For what reason has someone used identical samples to replace Sicilians. It's just pointless stupidy.
Run Ancient Greeks in G25, they pop first along with some other Italians.
 
How are they different? For what reason has someone used identical samples to replace Sicilians. It just pointless stupidy.

Run Ancient Greeks in G25, they pop first along with some other Italians.

I was reffering to the G25 neolithic component breakdown of BGR_IA,Etruscan, Etrucsan Imperial
 
Florence was Caesar's colony Florentia, but nearby Fiesole is of Etruscan origin and much older.

Yes indeed, Fiesole which is on a hill above Florence was Etruscan.

In the historical center of Florence they found archaeological remains, including tombs, from the Villanovan era, and then Etruscan objects from later periods. So the area was definitely frequented by Etruscans for centuries before the Roman colony was formally founded.
 

This thread has been viewed 129877 times.

Back
Top