A Genome-Wide Study of Modern-Day Tuscans: Revisiting Herodotus's Theory on the Origi

[Sile]

@Sevennini

Interesting opinion but linguistics and archeology do not support the Anatolian origin.

Now we have also genetics and the haplotype R1b U152, the only one which correlates with Etruscans, originated North of the Alps.

Tacitus states that Raetian lands start at the danube river and go south into the Alps.

The Raetian language based on some hungarian linguistics is said to originate from west-semitic ( modern Syria )

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...w#v=onepage&q=tacitus and the raetian&f=false

there are no Raetian towns between the alps and the danube river as they are only Roman built towns, Trent seems the only town.

The Reeti were divided, according to Pliny, into many states or tribes. Of these the most important were, 1. The Lepontii, in the southwestern part of the province. 2. The Tridenlini, in the southeastern. 3. The Genauni, whom Horace mentions, east of the Lepontii. 4. The Vennoncs, near the sources of the Athesis, now Adige. 5. The Brixentes, north of the Tridentini. 6. The Brenni or Brcuni, north of the Raitian Alps, also mentioned by Horace.

The great chain of the Alps passes almost through the center of this province, and bears various names in different parts of it. On the western borders are the Alpcs Pennina, in the northwest are the Alpes Leponiia, and on the north are the Alpcs Summa, succeeded by the Alpes Ralica. These mountains were all inhabited by various tribes of the Raeti.
Several large rivers rise in these mountains, of which the most important were, 1. The Rhenus or Rhine, rising in the Lepontine Alps. 2. The Rhodanus or Rhone, rising in the same vicinity. 3. The Ticinus or Tesino, a tributary of the Po, rising in the same division of the Alps. 4. The Addua or Adda, another Italian river, rising in the Raetian Alps. 5. The Athesis or Adige, rising in the same Alps, and flowing into the Adriatic; and, 6. The (Enus or Inn, a tributary of the Danube.
The valleys between these mountains were very fertile, and were particularly celebrated for their grapes, from which excellent wine was made. The Raetian wine was the favorite wine of Augustus.

The only place of importance in Raetia was Tridentum, now Trent.


there is little similarly between etruscan and raetian script
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/germ/runealph.htm

 

[giuseppe rossi]

What do you think about this study?

'The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA'

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1614/1175.long

In Ghirotto et al 2013, the Etruscan mtdna is identical to the Neolitich Central mtdna from Germany and the like.

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2013/02/etruscan-mtdna-origins-ghirotto-et-al.html

The ancestorts of Etruscans and modern Antolians separated over 5000 years ago.

For these tests we chose the mutation rate (μ) estimated from the data in the previous ABC analyses (very close to the figure accounting for the time-dependency of the mitochondrial molecular clock [13], μ = 0.003). Tests were also run using the value incorporating a correction for the effects of purifying selection [23] (μ = 0.0014), always finding that it results in a further increase of the estimated separation times (Figure S7B). Only assuming very high mutation rates, at least twice as large as estimated in Henn et al. [13], was it possible to obtain separation times less than 5,000 years (Figure S7B). With both Anatolian samples, any degree of gene flow after separation between the ancestors of Tuscans and Anatolians resulted in more remote separation times.

Tacitus states that Raetian lands start at the danube river and go south into the Alps.

The Raetian language based on some hungarian linguistics is said to originate from west-semitic ( modern Syria )

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...w#v=onepage&q=tacitus and the raetian&f=false

there are no Raetian towns between the alps and the danube river as they are only Roman built towns, Trent seems the only town.

The Reeti were divided, according to Pliny, into many states or tribes. Of these the most important were, 1. The Lepontii, in the southwestern part of the province. 2. The Tridenlini, in the southeastern. 3. The Genauni, whom Horace mentions, east of the Lepontii. 4. The Vennoncs, near the sources of the Athesis, now Adige. 5. The Brixentes, north of the Tridentini. 6. The Brenni or Brcuni, north of the Raitian Alps, also mentioned by Horace.

The great chain of the Alps passes almost through the center of this province, and bears various names in different parts of it. On the western borders are the Alpcs Pennina, in the northwest are the Alpes Leponiia, and on the north are the Alpcs Summa, succeeded by the Alpes Ralica. These mountains were all inhabited by various tribes of the Raeti.
Several large rivers rise in these mountains, of which the most important were, 1. The Rhenus or Rhine, rising in the Lepontine Alps. 2. The Rhodanus or Rhone, rising in the same vicinity. 3. The Ticinus or Tesino, a tributary of the Po, rising in the same division of the Alps. 4. The Addua or Adda, another Italian river, rising in the Raetian Alps. 5. The Athesis or Adige, rising in the same Alps, and flowing into the Adriatic; and, 6. The (Enus or Inn, a tributary of the Danube.
The valleys between these mountains were very fertile, and were particularly celebrated for their grapes, from which excellent wine was made. The Raetian wine was the favorite wine of Augustus.

The only place of importance in Raetia was Tridentum, now Trent.


there is little similarly between etruscan and raetian script
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/germ/runealph.htm

Raeti were heavily mixed with Italo Celtic people.

Indeed the oldest Celtic inscriptions have been found the Lepotian territory.

Read here.

http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/kalender/arkiv_2012/celtic_spring/Lepontisch_WS_2010.pdf/

Ligures are also now considered to be mostly of Celtic stock based on place names and personal names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligurian_language_(ancient)

According to Plutarch Ligures called themselves Ambrones which indicates a strong link with the Ancient Ambrones tribes of Jutland.

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

Celtic presence has been found as far South as Umbria. Indeed the ancient Umbri were assumed to be of Celtic/Gaulish stock by many ancient Roman writers and closely related to the Celto Germanic Ligures/Ambrones.

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

Some interesting stuff if you are able to read Italian.

Celtic origin hypothesis for the stone heads found in the Emilian and Ligurian Appennines: http://kenoms3.altervista.org/mummie/CATALOGO.pdf

In particular:

Riproposta recentemente da Maini (E viandare, n. 9, pp. 69 -74) è la teoria che ritiene i volti di pietra altorenani di derivazione celtica; nella cultura celtica, infatti, la testa rappresenta la sede delle maggiori virtù dell'uomo per cui era usanza, presso i guerrieri gallici, usare le teste dei nemici uccisi per "abbellire" le proprie case. Di questa tradizione fanno menzione sia Strabone che Diodoro Siculo: "Al ritorno dalla battaglia i celti appendono le teste dei nemici al collo dei cavalli, per poi attaccarle come ornamento ai portici delle case. Dice Posidonio di aver visto spesso coi propri occhi tale spettacolo e di essersi in principio disgustato, finendo però dopo col sopportarlo per abitudine. Le teste degli uomini illustri poi, conservate con olio di cedro, le mostravano agli ospiti e non acconsentivano al riscatto, neppure a peso d’oro " (Strabone, “Geografia”, IV, 4,5).

Rinvenimenti archeologici hanno mostrato che nel santuario gallico di Entremont (in Provenza) teste litiche facevano mostra di sé accanto a "têtes coupées" di uomini offerti in sacrificio. Il motivo delle teste è, in generale, assai rappresentato nell’arte celtica al punto che “si è potuto parlare dell’esaltazione della testa nel pensiero e nell’arte dei Celti (Lambrechts, 1954): la testa separata dal resto, la maschera umana, infatti figura spesso in quest’arte, che pure è così poco figurativa”
(Enciclopedia Treccani dell’Arte Antica, vol. II, Roma, 1959, P. 462). Arte e tradizione che non è affatto morta coi Celti come mostrano epigoni sorprendenti ai giorni nostri.

Anche nella monetazione compare il motivo del capo mozzato, ad esempio le monete con la legenda DUBNOREIX, un capo degli Edui, recano la raffigurazione di un guerriero che tiene in una mano una testa mozzata. L'eco di questa macabra usanza potrebbe sopravvivere nelle espressioni che, abbiamo già avuto modo di ricordare, si presentano non di rado, in queste figure, deformi e inquietanti. In alcuni miti del celtismo insulare (ad esempio in quello di Bran) teste decapitate sono in grado di parlare e vivere per anni separate dal proprio corpo, mentre nella saga irlandese di Cù Chulainn è descritto un vasto locale adibito all’esposizione delle teste recise ospitato nel castello di Conchobar. I capi mozzati sarebbero, in quest’ottica, il prezioso contenitore di un’energia misteriosa, soprannaturale, che può mettere in comunicazione il mondo visibile con quello invisibile consentendo di elevarsi (specie nel rituale druidico) alla sfera del sacro.

Ettore Scagliarini (nei numeri 30 e 38 di “la Musola”) ha instaurato un rapporto tra le teste mozzate dell’arte celtica insulare (Irlanda e Regno Unito) che alcuni scalpellini locali hanno, poi, effettivamente mutuato nelle loro opere (vedi la maschera di via Panoramica, a Vidiciatico. È probabile che anche le zucche, intagliate a guisa di faccia deforme e spaventosa, usate in Nord America nella notte di Ognissanti siano collegate ad antiche tradizioni celtiche. In effetti, val la pena ricordare che l’uso d’intagliare zucche per farne dei visi era tradizione popolare, sino alla prima metà del XX secolo, anche in alcune parti del Centro (Toscana compresa) e Nord Italia (cfr. E. PERCIVELDI, “I Celti”, Firenze, 2003, p. 72; AA.VV. “Cultura contadina in Toscana”, Firenze, 2004, pp. 246 - 247).

Oltre al culto dei capi mozzati esiste un ulteriore, importante, indizio che sembra andare nella direzione dell’ipotesi celtica e che si riferisce direttamente al concetto di maschera: “Le lingue celtiche non hanno una parola per ‘maschera’, ma l’hanno tratta dal latino; gli archeologi hanno comunque ritrovato un certo numero di maschere celtiche (e numerose rappresentazioni) e si potrebbe dedurre da alcune descrizioni mitologiche irlandesi, che certi personaggi o inviati dell’Altro Mondo portavano una maschera. La scomparsa di ogni termine celtico originario dopo la cristianizzazione fa sospettare l’esistenza di un dato tradizionalmente
importante che non c’è più accessibile” (J. CHEVALIER – A. GHEERBRANT, “Dizionario dei simboli”, vol. II, Milano 1988, p. 73).​

This also shows a cultural feature shared by the Celts and their Italic close cousins (namely the Umbri): https://sites.google.com/site/viaromea/Home/lemarcolfe

On the Appennino Tosco-Emiliano, in the Frignano area, can still be found some heads sculpted into the stone and placed at the front of the houses. Some researchers date it back to a macabre rite that the North Umbri, an ancient population living in these mountains, used to do at the end of every battle. To protect themselves and their own families from the evil spirits, they used to behead the enemy warriors and after sticking the tips of their spears into their heads, they put them in front of their houses.


Here is an interesting read abot a possible Celtic presence as far south as Umbria: http://umbriaceltica.webs.com/umbriambrones.htm

Altro fatto curioso è rappresentato dalla Stele di Todi, che oggi si trova a Roma presso il Museo Gregoriano. Questa stele, è scritta in Lepontico-celtico ( o alfabeto di Lugano), molto simile alla lingua primitiva Umbro celtica e antico latino. Il nome antico di Todi era Tular, che significa confine.Una curiosità è l'analogia fra gliAmbrones (detti oggi Liguri) ed i paleo-umbri-leponti .Secondo "Novelle letterarie "del 1765"Insubres erant Vmbri inferiores:Vmbri cum Siculis fuere primi Italiae incolae......Vmbri genere erant Celtae: Celtica vocabula uti in Latinam linguam transmissa fuerint. Altera de origine Insubrum. Elenchus: Celt-Vumbri commigrarunt in Regiones Transpadanas,&in Liguriam. Vera Ligurum nominis Etymologia explicat uti tam late reoeriantur Ligures. Ligures erant Ambrones genere: Ambri Ambrones, Vmbri,Vmbrones, idem erant genus -Vmbri Ligures, atque adeo Vmbri inferiores, idest Insubres profecti funt ab Ambris sive Ambronibus, qui erant Vmbri superiores : ambrones ciusdem fuere generi ac Sicambri. Sicambri eiusdem ac Cymbri. Vmbrorum ex Cymbris origo confirmatur, &nomine,& facto :quae aetas nomen Cymbrorum primum extulerit."Degli Ambri, come degli Umbri, si dice fossero sopravvissuti ad una inimmaginabile alluvione.​

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Why have mods deleted my post? Nevermind.

What do you think about this study?

'The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA'

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1614/1175.long

So what?

According to Ghirotto et al 2013, the Etruscan mtdna is identical to the Neotlich Central European mtdna from Germany.

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2013/02/etruscan-mtdna-origins-ghirotto-et-al.html

On the other hand Etruscans and Anatolians separated over 5000 years ago.

For these tests we chose the mutation rate (μ) estimated from the data in the previous ABC analyses (very close to the figure accounting for the time-dependency of the mitochondrial molecular clock [13], μ = 0.003). Tests were also run using the value incorporating a correction for the effects of purifying selection [23] (μ = 0.0014), always finding that it results in a further increase of the estimated separation times (Figure S7B). Only assuming very high mutation rates, at least twice as large as estimated in Henn et al. [13], was it possible to obtain separation times less than 5,000 years (Figure S7B). With both Anatolian samples, any degree of gene flow after separation between the ancestors of Tuscans and Anatolians resulted in more remote separation times.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Tacitus states that Raetian lands start at the danube river and go south into the Alps.

The Raetian language based on some hungarian linguistics is said to originate from west-semitic ( modern Syria )

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...w#v=onepage&q=tacitus and the raetian&f=false

there are no Raetian towns between the alps and the danube river as they are only Roman built towns, Trent seems the only town.

The Reeti were divided, according to Pliny, into many states or tribes. Of these the most important were, 1. The Lepontii, in the southwestern part of the province. 2. The Tridenlini, in the southeastern. 3. The Genauni, whom Horace mentions, east of the Lepontii. 4. The Vennoncs, near the sources of the Athesis, now Adige. 5. The Brixentes, north of the Tridentini. 6. The Brenni or Brcuni, north of the Raitian Alps, also mentioned by Horace.

The great chain of the Alps passes almost through the center of this province, and bears various names in different parts of it. On the western borders are the Alpcs Pennina, in the northwest are the Alpes Leponiia, and on the north are the Alpcs Summa, succeeded by the Alpes Ralica. These mountains were all inhabited by various tribes of the Raeti.
Several large rivers rise in these mountains, of which the most important were, 1. The Rhenus or Rhine, rising in the Lepontine Alps. 2. The Rhodanus or Rhone, rising in the same vicinity. 3. The Ticinus or Tesino, a tributary of the Po, rising in the same division of the Alps. 4. The Addua or Adda, another Italian river, rising in the Raetian Alps. 5. The Athesis or Adige, rising in the same Alps, and flowing into the Adriatic; and, 6. The (Enus or Inn, a tributary of the Danube.
The valleys between these mountains were very fertile, and were particularly celebrated for their grapes, from which excellent wine was made. The Raetian wine was the favorite wine of Augustus.

The only place of importance in Raetia was Tridentum, now Trent.


there is little similarly between etruscan and raetian script
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/germ/runealph.htm

Raeti were heavily mixed with various Italo Celtic tribes.

Indeed the oldest Celtic inscription has been found among the Lepontii.

Read here.

http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/kalender/arkiv_2012/celtic_spring/Lepontisch_WS_2010.pdf/

Nowaday also Ligures are considered as Celtic based on place names and personal names.

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

Celtic art has been found as far South as Umbria.

Read here.

http://umbriaceltica.webs.com/umbriambrones.htm

https://sites.google.com/site/viaromea/Home/lemarcolfe

Indeed according to Plutarch the Ligures called themselves "Ambrones" just like the Celto Germanic tribe of Jutland who invaded Italy in the 2 century BC.

Ambrones were related to the Umbri, who were considered to be a Celtic/Gaulish tribe by many Roman writers.

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

 

[Kardu]

Why have mods deleted my post? Nevermind.



So what?

According to Ghirotto et al 2013, the Etruscan mtdna is identical to the Neotlich Central European mtdna from Germany.

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2013/02/etruscan-mtdna-origins-ghirotto-et-al.html

On the other hand Etruscans and Anatolians separated over 5000 years ago.

For these tests we chose the mutation rate (μ) estimated from the data in the previous ABC analyses (very close to the figure accounting for the time-dependency of the mitochondrial molecular clock [13], μ = 0.003). Tests were also run using the value incorporating a correction for the effects of purifying selection [23] (μ = 0.0014), always finding that it results in a further increase of the estimated separation times (Figure S7B). Only assuming very high mutation rates, at least twice as large as estimated in Henn et al. [13], was it possible to obtain separation times less than 5,000 years (Figure S7B). With both Anatolian samples, any degree of gene flow after separation between the ancestors of Tuscans and Anatolians resulted in more remote separation times.

You could have continued with Dienekes' full comment:

'If Etruscans did originate in Anatolia then presumably the historical Etruscans were not descended entirely from them but from a mixture of pre-Etruscans with the incoming population. So, it would seem that the inferred dates are incompatible with a folk migration model of Etruscan origins, but not necessarily with a model that accommodates admixture (e.g., initial mtDNA gene pool separation c. 8,000 years ago with the onset of the Neolithic + later admixture during the Bronze Age). On the other hand, the close similarity between Etruscan and Central European Neolithic mtDNA is a good argument for (mostly) continuity in this case.

That things did happen in Italy in the last 5,000 years can be inferred on the basis of the Iceman's genome. It will certainly be interesting to extract Y chromosomes and/or autosomal DNA from some of these Etruscan samples.'

 

[giuseppe rossi]

You could have continued with Dienekes' full comment:

'If Etruscans did originate in Anatolia then presumably the historical Etruscans were not descended entirely from them but from a mixture of pre-Etruscans with the incoming population. So, it would seem that the inferred dates are incompatible with a folk migration model of Etruscan origins, but not necessarily with a model that accommodates admixture (e.g., initial mtDNA gene pool separation c. 8,000 years ago with the onset of the Neolithic + later admixture during the Bronze Age). On the other hand, the close similarity between Etruscan and Central European Neolithic mtDNA is a good argument for (mostly) continuity in this case.

That things did happen in Italy in the last 5,000 years can be inferred on the basis of the Iceman's genome. It will certainly be interesting to extract Y chromosomes and/or autosomal DNA from some of these Etruscan samples.'

Are you able to read English?

Dienekes is just saying that Etruscan were identical to Neoltich Central Europeans when it comes to mtdna and separated from Anatolians over 5000 years ago.

According to Boattini et al, Etruscans were mostly R1b U152 carriers which means that they were a mix of variouts Neolitich farmers/herders and Copper/Bronze age invaders from North of the Alps.

 

[Arame]

Maciamo

Not only the Basque and Etruscan. But also the Iberian language that survived until Roman era in Spain that was non-IE and probably very high in R1b. Maybe the Pictish is also a pre-IE language.
Probably there was a first archaic layer of IE-like languages that spread with R1b and later came the genuine IE that was bringed by mix (R1b, R1a, J2 ) people. This second wave was not very powerful enough to enter the Spain and more advanced regions of Italy.

 

[Kardu]

Are you able to read English?

Dienekes is just saying that Etruscan were identical to Neoltich Central Europeans when it comes to mtdna and separated from Anatolians over 5000 years ago.

According to Boattini et al, Etruscans were mostly R1b U152 carriers which means that they were a mix of variouts Neolitich farmers/herders and Copper/Bronze age invaders from North of the Alps.

And those Neolithic farmers/herders did come from Eastern Mediterranean didn't they (with their cattle, which apparently still shows genetic affinity to Anatolia)? I meant that, not that Etruscans came after Troan war like some old authors believed.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

If you go enough back with the time, we were all African monkeys once....

 

[Angela]

And those Neolithic farmers/herders did come from Eastern Mediterranean didn't they (with their cattle, which apparently still shows genetic affinity to Anatolia)? I meant that, not that Etruscans came after Troan war like some old authors believed.

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at...that ancestry is all over Europe indeed, as this Haak et al graphic shows:

It's based on the genome of the LBK farmer, and before anyone starts telling me how WHG or UHG she was, the original "academic" estimate is about 20%. We'll see how much similarity there is when we get an ancient sample from the Near East. As you can see, the only countries where that component is very low is in the outlying and very lightly populated areas of northeastern Europe. I believe the number for the European average as a whole is in the mid 60s.

That's not to mention how much of that ancestry came by way of the Indo-Europeans as per other modeling in Haak et al. Then, as far as Italy is concerned, you have movements form Greece (Crete and Mycenae, and later migration in the first millennium BC), and however much the Phoenicians might have contributed through their trading posts in northwestern Sicily. I don't know how much Cretan and Mycenaean genomes or those of the classical Greeks might have differed from those of the original Neolithic peoples because the migration movements into southeastern Europe after the Neolithic are still a mystery. Also, that entered via the south and/or the east. Still, it might have filtered northward.


However, none of that is being discussed here. It isn't the topic under discussion.

As for that paper on the cows, I've always considered it one of the more nonsensical papers I've ever read, or at least the conclusions drawn from it are nonsensical in my opinion. The Neolithic advance came with cattle. There was some interbreeding with native aurochs, but not everywhere, and even where it occurred it differed in degree. Nowhere in that paper do I see a "date stamp", or anything to indicate that even if you could "date stamp" them it couldn't arrive through trade.

This entire field of study seems to me replete with people opining on the matter who have an ax of one type or another to grind or a pre-conceived notion of some sort based on obscure agendas, and they just, in the words of Pax Augusta, try to "force" all the data into their theory.


Just so it's clear, my speculation, and we're all only speculating here, is that it's certainly possible that a mostly male elite migration arrived in generally the area where we later find the signature of "The Etruscans" in the late 2nd millennium/1st millennium BC. I don't think we'll be able to tell until we get some detailed analysis of mtDna, yDna and autosomal Dna from an ancient sample. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that this ancient dna will totally solve this riddle because any bones taken from elite burials will come from the elite class.

No one has yet persuaded me that the Tuscans are descendents of a mass migration from the east in that time period, and absolutely not with an admixture rate of 40%. That flies in the face not only of even the more questionable assertions about mtDna, but autosomal dna as well. If that were the case, why do the Tuscans fit so seamlessly in the Italian cline, and why are Tuscans so similar to a Copper Age farmer from Spain?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29796.html

I actually don't find this very welcome news as I would very much like to be a descendent through some pseudo-Tuscan ancestry of Priam's and Hector's people, but that's not what the data shows in my opinion.

 

[Kardu]

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at...

What can I be diving at apart from what I've said so far?

 

[Kardu]

If you go enough back with the time, we were all African monkeys once....

You somehow seem to be uncomfortable with it.
Or with a possibility of Etruscan relationship with Anatolia, for the matter

 

[giuseppe rossi]

You somehow seem to be uncomfortable with it.
Or with a possibility of Etruscan relationship with Anatolia, for the matter

Weren't you the clown who banned me for saying that Georgians are basically Iraqis with some Slavic admixture or something along those lines???

 

[Kardu]

Weren't you the clown who banned me for saying that Georgians are basically Iraqis with some Slavic admixture or something along those lines???

Not sure, there are several other half-wits apart from you around here as well, but if you've said that kind of provocative BS, probably I did ask for your ban. Same will be now

 

[Pax Augusta]

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at...that ancestry is all over Europe indeed, as this Haak et al graphic shows:

It's based on the genome of the LBK farmer, and before anyone starts telling me how WHG or UHG she was, the original "academic" estimate is about 20%. We'll see how much similarity there is when we get an ancient sample from the Near East. As you can see, the only countries where that component is very low is in the outlying and very lightly populated areas of northeastern Europe. I believe the number for the European average as a whole is in the mid 60s.

That's not to mention how much of that ancestry came by way of the Indo-Europeans as per other modeling in Haak et al. Then, as far as Italy is concerned, you have movements form Greece (Crete and Mycenae, and later migration in the first millennium BC), and however much the Phoenicians might have contributed through their trading posts in northwestern Sicily. I don't know how much Cretan and Mycenaean genomes or those of the classical Greeks might have differed from those of the original Neolithic peoples because the migration movements into southeastern Europe after the Neolithic are still a mystery. Also, that entered via the south and/or the east. Still, it might have filtered northward.


However, none of that is being discussed here. It isn't the topic under discussion.

As for that paper on the cows, I've always considered it one of the more nonsensical papers I've ever read, or at least the conclusions drawn from it are nonsensical in my opinion. The Neolithic advance came with cattle. There was some interbreeding with native aurochs, but not everywhere, and even where it occurred it differed in degree. Nowhere in that paper do I see a "date stamp", or anything to indicate that even if you could "date stamp" them it couldn't arrive through trade.

This entire field of study seems to me replete with people opining on the matter who have an ax of one type or another to grind or a pre-conceived notion of some sort based on obscure agendas, and they just, in the words of Pax Augusta, try to "force" all the data into their theory.


Just so it's clear, my speculation, and we're all only speculating here, is that it's certainly possible that a mostly male elite migration arrived in generally the area where we later find the signature of "The Etruscans" in the late 2nd millennium/1st millennium BC. I don't think we'll be able to tell until we get some detailed analysis of mtDna, yDna and autosomal Dna from an ancient sample. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that this ancient dna will totally solve this riddle because any bones taken from elite burials will come from the elite class.

No one has yet persuaded me that the Tuscans are descendents of a mass migration from the east in that time period, and absolutely not with an admixture rate of 40%. That flies in the face not only of even the more questionable assertions about mtDna, but autosomal dna as well. If that were the case, why do the Tuscans fit so seamlessly in the Italian cline, and why are Tuscans so similar to a Copper Age farmer from Spain?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29796.html

I actually don't find this very welcome news as I would very much like to be a descendent through some pseudo-Tuscan ancestry of Priam's and Hector's people, but that's not what the data shows in my opinion.

Very informative as usual, Angela.

In my opinion Haak et al. basically shows that a LBK farmer-like migration in Tuscany was very ancient. We know that the Villanovans were followed by the Etruscans. But before the Villanovans there were a middle Bronze Age culture (15th-14th centuries BC), called Apennine culture, and a Copper Age culture, called Rinaldone culture, that spread between the 4rd and the 2nd millennium BC in southern Tuscany and northern Lazio exactly where was located the main religious and political center, especially in their early stages, of Etruscan civilization. Proto-Villanovans were IE but Rinaldone people could be indeed those who spoke a non-IE language.

 

[Arame]

2500 ya Etrsucan aDNA is more shifted to North and little bit to East than todays Tuscans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html

 

[Pax Augusta]

2500 ya Etrsucan aDNA is more shifted to North and little bit to East than todays Tuscans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html

Thanks Arame. One sample a little bit more west shifted if IBS is Iberia Spain. Diekenes: "All that can be said based on this is that they seem broadly southern European and not particularly Tuscan."

We need more info about the Etruscan samples they used, but I think that once again a study on ancient Dna of Etruscans shows that there is no evidence of a mass migration from Anatolia in that time period. There were contacts, probably, between Italy and Anatolia but as there were between the whole Europe and Anatolia and these contacts must be dated much further back in time.

 

[Arame]

My error I didn't noticed that one Etruscan in IBS cloud.

 

[Angela]

Thanks Arame. One sample a little bit more west shifted if IBS is Iberia Spain. Diekenes: "All that can be said based on this is that they seem broadly southern European and not particularly Tuscan."

We need more info about the Etruscan samples they used, but I think that once again a study on ancient Dna of Etruscans shows that there is no evidence of a mass migration from Anatolia in that time period. There were contacts, probably, between Italy and Anatolia but as there were between the whole Europe and Anatolia and these contacts must be dated much further back in time.

Does anyone know where the paper can be found?

Indeed, one western shifted. One pretty close to TSI, one a bit north. As Dienekes pointed out, southern European, but not particularly Tuscan. Had they inter-married heavily with the Villanovans, if indeed some came from elsewhere? Or are we looking basically at Villanovan genomes? Of course, these would be elite burials. I don't know that any remains exist from more "common" people.

I wonder where slightly more northern Italians would plot on that graph? The Lunigianesi, for example, or the people of Emilia Romagna, to where the Etruscans extended their dominion? In the interests of science I am ready to provide my genome!

It's become clear from the latest papers that people 4,000 years ago were not exactly like us...now, it seems that genetic signatures had not totally set even 3,000 years ago. The Hinxton genomes weren't a perfect match for the modern English either.

Not that it matters, but why are Spanish scientists so interested in the Etruscans? Don't they have some moldering bones of their own to study?

Ed. Sorry, that was a little snarkey.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Does anyone know where the paper can be found?

Not yet published, I guess. Probably the study has been or will be presented during the talks of BOG 2015, that started on 5th May and ends on 9th May 2015 (The Biology of Genomes, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA - May 5-9, 2015).

Here is the title

"Avila-Arcos, M.C. Assessment of whole genome capture methodologies on single- and double-stranded ancient DNA libraries from Caribbean and European archaeological human remains"

http://nextgenseek.com/2015/04/2015-...ers-announced/

http://meetings.cshl.edu/meetings/2015/genome15.shtml

Indeed, one western shifted. One pretty close to TSI, one a bit north. As Dienekes pointed out, southern European, but not particularly Tuscan. Had they inter-married heavily with the Villanovans, if indeed some came from elsewhere? Or are we looking basically at Villanovan genomes? Of course, these would be elite burials. I don't know that any remains exist from more "common" people.

I wonder where slightly more northern Italians would plot on that graph? The Lunigianesi, for example, or the people of Emilia Romagna, to where the Etruscans extended their dominion? In the interests of science I am ready to provide my genome!

It's become clear from the latest papers that people 4,000 years ago were not exactly like us...now, it seems that genetic signatures had not totally set even 3,000 years ago. The Hinxton genomes weren't a perfect match for the modern English either.

That sample probably even a bit more north shifted than Lunigianesi or Emilians, we need to wait further infos. I will back on this.

Not that it matters, but why are Spanish scientists so interested in the Etruscans? Don't they have some moldering bones of their own to study?

I was wondering just the same thing. There are many ancient populations to be studied in Spain. By the way Maria Avila Arcos is a Mexican Postdoctoral researcher at Stanford.