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

[Vallicanus]

I am counting 13 r1b u-152 branches (that include L2 )
There are also other r1b in this 82 ancient samples ...
It was defiently the dominant haplogroup in etruscans..

Maybe the most common single type, but what about all the J2 and G?

 

[Hawk]

Maybe the most common single type, but what about all the J2 and G?

This makes it difficult to tackle it down. I assume G2a and those H and I2-M223 are the Proto-Etuscan ones and all R1b were assimilated Italics.

I don't know how to comment J2b2-L283, in what context. I mean if we go by the single rule that Etruscan was an EEF derived language, or EEF + WHG, then we can exclude J2b2-L283 as well.

All in all, looks like Etruscans were diverse within the context of Italian Peninsula.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Maybe the most common single type, but what about all the J2 and G?

I believe once the context is out it will be clearer. Since it all depends on the dates.

My biased opinion is that the older branches in Etruscans could not possibly be R1b, but rather some pre IE haplos. But then even some.of these J2a, and G2a, and L283 are IE lines. So without context we wont know

Taking absolute numbers right now regarding samples without knowing their chronological dispersion or concentration, or the material context might not be wise.

Ps: how does one upvote on the app? Zzz

 

[Pax Augusta]

This makes it difficult to tackle it down. I assume G2a and those H and I2-M223 are the Proto-Etuscan ones and all R1b were assimilated Italics.

I don't know how to comment J2b2-L283, in what context. I mean if we go by the single rule that Etruscan was an EEF derived language, or EEF + WHG, then we can exclude J2b2-L283 as well.

It's especially difficult if you keep making the same mistakes. It is a mistake to define every R1b Italic for example. The Italic one is first of all a linguistic classification, there is not even consensus that the Latin-Faliscan languages are Italic, so let alone if all R1b that was present in Italy long before can be defined Italic. J2b2-L283 depends on the clades. If it is similar to that of R474 then we are dealing with arrivals between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, in the context of the already known relations between Etruria and the rest of Europe.

It is clear that, being that the Etruscans spoke a Pre-Indoeuropean and Paleo-European language like the Raeti of the Alps (this is the consensus, like it or not), the linguistic ancestors descend from some neolithic or eneolithic culture, Rinaldone and Remedello being the main candidates since many years, but they cannot be defined neither Etruscans nor Protoetruscans, because the Etruscans exist only when the ethnogenesis between the end of the bronze and the beginning of the iron age is completed, and according to archeology the Protoetruscans are the ancestors lived in the last quarter of the II millennium a. C. in the same area. Before then it is Prehistory. The ethnogenesis of the Etruscans also seems to include people with Steppe ancestry since the beginning, who are for all intents and purposes Etruscans, not people assimilated from an already formed ethnos, despite the language coming from an older stratum. Then there is the question of when Etruscans show ethnic self-awareness. But these are concepts that are valid for all the peoples of pre-Roman Italy and not only for Italy but for all of Europe. Unfortunately, in the earliest stages the Etruscans practiced incineration, and so there are few remaining bone remains.

All in all, looks like Etruscans were diverse within the context of Italian Peninsula.

Based on what since we only have the DNA of Etruscans, Latins and a few Daunians? I remind you that the peoples of pre-Roman Italy were very many. Of the majority we have less information than on the Etruscans.

I believe once the context is out it will be clearer. Since it all depends on the dates.

My biased opinion is that the older branches in Etruscans could not possibly be R1b, but rather some pre IE haplos. But then even some.of these J2a, and G2a, and L283 are IE lines. So without context we wont know

Taking absolute numbers right now regarding samples without knowing their chronological dispersion or concentration, or the material context might not be wise.

Ps: how does one upvote on the app? Zzz

The answers above apply to you as well.

 

[Jovialis]

location? age? random autosomal data test...Positive

CSN001 TAQ001 VOL001 matches Etruscan R473

CSN001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.72,0.11,0.39,8.33,0.27,48.59,0.44,0.00,8.23,32.93,0.00,0.00
TAQ001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.77,0.73,0.00,7.77,0.32,48.64,0.00,0.00,7.52,34.25,0.00,0.00
VOL001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.00,0.93,0.01,8.56,0.51,46.30,0.42,0.39,8.49,34.38,0.00,0.00

Fantastic job!

 

[Archetype0ne]

It's especially difficult if you keep making the same mistakes. It is a mistake to define every R1b Italic for example. The Italic one is first of all a linguistic classification, there is not even consensus that the Latin-Faliscan languages are Italic, so let alone if all R1b that was present in Italy long before can be defined Italic. J2b2-L283 depends on the clades. If it is similar to that of R474 then we are dealing with arrivals between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, in the context of the already known relations between Etruria and the rest of Europe.

It is clear that, being that the Etruscans spoke a Pre-Indoeuropean and Paleo-European language like the Raeti of the Alps (this is the consensus, like it or not), the linguistic ancestors descend from some neolithic or eneolithic culture, Rinaldone and Remedello being the main candidates since many years, but they cannot be defined neither Etruscans nor Protoetruscans, because the Etruscans exist only when the ethnogenesis between the end of the bronze and the beginning of the iron age is completed, and according to archeology the Protoetruscans are the ancestors lived in the last quarter of the II millennium a. C. in the same area. Before then it is Prehistory. The ethnogenesis of the Etruscans also seems to include people with Steppe ancestry since the beginning, who are for all intents and purposes Etruscans, not people assimilated from an already formed ethnos, despite the language coming from an older stratum. Then there is the question of when Etruscans show ethnic self-awareness. But these are concepts that are valid for all the peoples of pre-Roman Italy and not only for Italy but for all of Europe. Unfortunately, in the earliest stages the Etruscans practiced incineration, and so there are few remaining bone remains.





Based on what since we only have the DNA of Etruscans, Latins and a few Daunians? I remind you that the peoples of pre-Roman Italy were very many. Of the majority we have less information than on the Etruscans.





The answers above apply to you as well.

Keyword: context. Unless you have some acess to this paper that I do not.

For all we know, the original YDNA of the EEF protoetruscans might not have even survived, and the language been a case of cultural continutity sans Y continuity.

For some questions there is just not enough data.

Do we know what haplogroups are EEF? [emoji848]

 

[Archetype0ne]

Since Trojet must be too busy to also share here:

I quickly looked at these J2b samples. I wish they did sequencing, instead of "1240K" as the coverage is not good for Y-DNA terminal placement.

ETR007 and VET007 do not have any Y-DNA reads, so they're probably females.

CSN004 is: J2b-L283>>Z597>Z2507>Y15058>Z38240 (did not find anything informative below this level)

VEN006 is: J2b-L283>>Z597>Z2507 (did not find anything informative below this level)

VEN013 is: J2b-L283>>Z597>Z2507>Y15058. Below that, he does indeed have one positive read for Y86930, however, I don't think this is a safe call since it's a C>T transition, and did not find any positive SNPs between Y15058 and Y86930 to support that.

One or more may further be under J-CTS6190>CTS473, as is the case with Etruscan R474 from a previously published paper.

All three are downstream of MBA HRV L283. Consistent with the previous Etruscan L283.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Keyword: context. Unless you have some acess to this paper that I do not.

For all we know, the original YDNA of the EEF protoetruscans might not have even survived, and the language been a case of cultural continutity sans Y continuity.

For some questions there is just not enough data.

Do we know what haplogroups are EEF? [emoji848]

I don't have any advance notice of the paper and I don't know what the geneticists have written. But I do know the archaeology texts and I am talking about it with some archaeologists who at the end of the day are the ones who had come to the right conclusions first.

I agree with you, for some questions there is just not enough data, in fact some questions are even unnecessary to ask. As some archaeologists have already written many years ago.

Yes, the "original" Y-DNA of the people who spoke the ancestor of the Etruscan language might not have even survived, it is a scenario that absolutely cannot be excluded.


My opinion that the answer is here

Ötzi and Tuscany: long-distance connections in the Copper Age

"The new data confirm extensive links between the Neolithic civilisations in Central Italy (Rinaldone culture) and those to the north of the Apennines (Spilamberto, Remedello), extending to the populations of the southern arc of the Alps where the Iceman was found."

https://www.iceman.it/en/oetzi-and-tuscany-long-distance-connections-the-copper-age/

 

[Archetype0ne]

I don't have any advance notice of the paper and I don't know what the geneticists have written. But I do know the archaeology texts and I am talking about it with some archaeologists who at the end of the day are the ones who had come to the right conclusions first.

I agree with you, for some questions there is just not enough data, in fact some questions are even unnecessary to ask. As some archaeologists have already written many years ago.

Yes, the "original" Y-DNA of the people who spoke the ancestor of the Etruscan language might not have even survived, it is a scenario that absolutely cannot be excluded.


My opinion that the answer is here

Ötzi and Tuscany: long-distance connections in the Copper Age

"The new data confirm extensive links between the Neolithic civilisations in Central Italy (Rinaldone culture) and those to the north of the Apennines (Spilamberto, Remedello), extending to the populations of the southern arc of the Alps where the Iceman was found."

https://www.iceman.it/en/oetzi-and-tuscany-long-distance-connections-the-copper-age/

Interesting. Thanks.

Still can't figure out how to upvote on mobile.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Since Trojet must be too busy to also share here:


All three are downstream of MBA HRV L283. Consistent with the previous Etruscan L283.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Hawk]

It's especially difficult if you keep making the same mistakes. It is a mistake to define every R1b Italic for example. The Italic one is first of all a linguistic classification, there is not even consensus that the Latin-Faliscan languages are Italic, so let alone if all R1b that was present in Italy long before can be defined Italic. J2b2-L283 depends on the clades. If it is similar to that of R474 then we are dealing with arrivals between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, in the context of the already known relations between Etruria and the rest of Europe.

It is clear that, being that the Etruscans spoke a Pre-Indoeuropean and Paleo-European language like the Raeti of the Alps (this is the consensus, like it or not), the linguistic ancestors descend from some neolithic or eneolithic culture, Rinaldone and Remedello being the main candidates since many years, but they cannot be defined neither Etruscans nor Protoetruscans, because the Etruscans exist only when the ethnogenesis between the end of the bronze and the beginning of the iron age is completed, and according to archeology the Protoetruscans are the ancestors lived in the last quarter of the II millennium a. C. in the same area. Before then it is Prehistory. The ethnogenesis of the Etruscans also seems to include people with Steppe ancestry since the beginning, who are for all intents and purposes Etruscans, not people assimilated from an already formed ethnos, despite the language coming from an older stratum. Then there is the question of when Etruscans show ethnic self-awareness. But these are concepts that are valid for all the peoples of pre-Roman Italy and not only for Italy but for all of Europe. Unfortunately, in the earliest stages the Etruscans practiced incineration, and so there are few remaining bone remains.





Based on what since we only have the DNA of Etruscans, Latins and a few Daunians? I remind you that the peoples of pre-Roman Italy were very many. Of the majority we have less information than on the Etruscans.





The answers above apply to you as well.

Fair enough, was just wondering about possibilites.

 

[Archetype0ne]

location? age? random autosomal data test...Positive

CSN001 TAQ001 VOL001 matches Etruscan R473

CSN001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.72,0.11,0.39,8.33,0.27,48.59,0.44,0.00,8.23,32.93,0.00,0.00
TAQ001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.77,0.73,0.00,7.77,0.32,48.64,0.00,0.00,7.52,34.25,0.00,0.00
VOL001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.00,0.93,0.01,8.56,0.51,46.30,0.42,0.39,8.49,34.38,0.00,0.00

Well done per usual Salento.

Would you be so kind to compare the L283 samples mentioned in the post above, with reference to R374, Daunians, and MBA HRV L283, Maros L283.

Such an analysis/comparisons might end up even more revealing that whatever the authors might be cooking regarding the Etruscan L283 analysis.

 

[Salento]

can you do the 2 with ydna of O

@Torzio

VET001_Dod_K12b,1.52,0.00,2.24,1.15,42.15,23.87,0.00,1.18,6.30,0.00,21.57,0.00
VET003_4_Dod_K12b,1.33,0.00,2.66,0.00,47.08,21.20,0.25,0.26,7.04,0.15,20.03,0.00

VET001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,1.36,0.46,0.09,7.78,0.86,44.61,0.00,0.00,11.07,33.61,0.00,0.15
VET003_4_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.00,0.49,0.01,10.63,0.00,48.66,0.00,0.50,6.88,32.61,0.00,0.23

fyi ... for Morley and Yseq VT003_4 is R1b-L128 - R1b1a2a1a1c1a3, but maybe he's O

 

[kingjohn]

So the 2 e-m2 are actually j
According to teenpan47 from anthrogenica:
I took the kit made with pileupCaller and converted it to 23andme format. I also used my own version of extract23 to create another. For both Cladefinder says J-Z643.


P.s
I have to admitt this paper is going to be a disaster for e1b1b1
Out of 82 we only have 1 e-L618
Thats it

 

[Hawk]

So the 2 e-m2 are actually j
According to teenpan47 from anthrogenica:
I took the kit made with pileupCaller and converted it to 23andme format. I also used my own version of extract23 to create another. For both Cladefinder says J-Z643.
P.s
I have to admitt this paper is going to be a disaster for e1b1b1
Out of 82 we only have 1 e-L618
Thats it

Why a disaster?

E-V13 in Italy is the lowest in and around Tuscany, so people said before that it might be low to inexistent.

As for those samples, i doubt they were even J1. Low coverage. Let's wait for the paper. Jumping from E-M2 to J1 is wild to me. :wink:

 

[Jovialis]

location? age? random autosomal data test...Positive

CSN001 TAQ001 VOL001 matches Etruscan R473

CSN001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.72,0.11,0.39,8.33,0.27,48.59,0.44,0.00,8.23,32.93,0.00,0.00
TAQ001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.77,0.73,0.00,7.77,0.32,48.64,0.00,0.00,7.52,34.25,0.00,0.00
VOL001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.00,0.93,0.01,8.56,0.51,46.30,0.42,0.39,8.49,34.38,0.00,0.00

Naturally, they cluster with the other Etruscans.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Salento: Thanks again for the work, well done. Just quick run of VET001 and VET003 vs. Dodecad 12B Updated Modern populations. The results are 100% consistent with what we have all seen with the Iron Age Antonio et al 2019 samples, with the exception of R437 (Southern to Central Italy) and R850 (Greece to Southern Italy), all of them cluster from/with Central to Northern Italy with some plotting towards Iberia (both Spanish and Portuguese modern populations). I think Duarte has already done some analysis showing he is close to some of these Etruscan samples and If I remember correctly he gets some good distances with some of the Iron Age Romans from Antonio et al 2019.

Distance to:	VET003_4_Dod_K12b
9.45572313	Spanish_Castilla-Leon
9.46827862	Spanish_Valencia
9.58280230	Italian_Lombardy
9.75439388	Spanish_Baleares
10.31790192	Spanish_Andalusia
10.50557947	Spanish_Catalonia
10.58927287	French_Corsica
10.66431432	Spanish_Aragon
10.73728085	Italian_Liguria
10.82464607	Swiss_Italian
11.00153626	Portuguese
11.53035559	Italian_Piedmont
11.56637800	Spanish_Galicia
11.57327093	Spanish_Asturias
11.59428307	Spanish_Cantabria
11.62759218	Italian_Emilia
12.24170331	Spanish_Canarias
12.52008387	Italian_Aosta_Valley
12.61448770	Italian_Tuscany
12.64666755	Spanish_La_Rioja
12.73732704	Italian_Trentino
12.90905883	Italian_Veneto
15.25414698	Italian_Romagna
15.36119462	Italian_Friuli_VG
16.44658019	French_Southwest

Distance to:	VET001_Dod_K12b
4.82312140	Italian_Lombardy
6.19209678	Swiss_Italian
6.30357042	Italian_Liguria
6.75784729	Italian_Piedmont
7.39512677	Italian_Emilia
7.63998691	Italian_Veneto
8.06459546	Italian_Trentino
8.62826170	Italian_Tuscany
8.75213117	Spanish_Baleares
8.93741014	French_Corsica
9.27474528	Italian_Aosta_Valley
10.00591825	Portuguese
10.09055499	Italian_Friuli_VG
10.10696295	Spanish_Castilla-Leon
10.44944496	Spanish_Valencia
10.87392753	Spanish_Canarias
11.15032735	Spanish_Catalonia
11.25371050	Italian_Romagna
12.08900740	Spanish_Andalusia
12.17343419	Spanish_Galicia
12.61313601	Spanish_Aragon
13.01853294	Spanish_Cantabria
14.09290602	Spanish_Asturias
14.35757584	Italian_Marche
14.80557665	Italian_Lazio

 

[Angela]

I don't have any advance notice of the paper and I don't know what the geneticists have written. But I do know the archaeology texts and I am talking about it with some archaeologists who at the end of the day are the ones who had come to the right conclusions first.

I agree with you, for some questions there is just not enough data, in fact some questions are even unnecessary to ask. As some archaeologists have already written many years ago.

Yes, the "original" Y-DNA of the people who spoke the ancestor of the Etruscan language might not have even survived, it is a scenario that absolutely cannot be excluded.


My opinion that the answer is here

Ötzi and Tuscany: long-distance connections in the Copper Age

"The new data confirm extensive links between the Neolithic civilisations in Central Italy (Rinaldone culture) and those to the north of the Apennines (Spilamberto, Remedello), extending to the populations of the southern arc of the Alps where the Iceman was found."

https://www.iceman.it/en/oetzi-and-tuscany-long-distance-connections-the-copper-age/

Excellent. It is these connections which have always been at the heart of the matter.

 

[Angela]

Just a word of caution as per assignment of yDna. These samples cover a huge span of time, all the way to 1000 AD. All of them will not be Etruscans, but Tuscans of various eras, although clearly many of them will be able to be labeled that way. It remains to be seen how many come from actual Etruscan contexts (other than the ones already labeled "Etruscan"), and what yDna those will carry.

Fwiw, however, 40% carry R1 of one form or another, and of those, the ones with high coverage are predominantly U-152 and L2.

I am leaning toward thinking that the U-106 and the I1 may be from the Langobard post fall era, but we'll see; that's only some speculation.

Unless the authors of the paper can distinguish the yDna rigorously in ways we can't, I personally will ignore the extremely low coverage samples in terms of the assignment of yDna. The autosomal analysis will tell us a lot more.

 

[Pax Augusta]

@Torzio

VET001_Dod_K12b,1.52,0.00,2.24,1.15,42.15,23.87,0.00,1.18,6.30,0.00,21.57,0.00
VET003_4_Dod_K12b,1.33,0.00,2.66,0.00,47.08,21.20,0.25,0.26,7.04,0.15,20.03,0.00

VET001_Dod_Globe13,0.00,1.36,0.46,0.09,7.78,0.86,44.61,0.00,0.00,11.07,33.61,0.00,0.15
VET003_4_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.00,0.49,0.01,10.63,0.00,48.66,0.00,0.50,6.88,32.61,0.00,0.23

fyi ... for Morley and Yseq VT003_4 is R1b-L128 - R1b1a2a1a1c1a3, but maybe he's O

Great job, Salento.

Excellent. It is these connections which have always been at the heart of the matter.

Indeed.

Just a word of caution as per assignment of yDna. These samples cover a huge span of time, all the way to 1000 AD. All of them will not be Etruscans, but Tuscans of various eras, although clearly many of them will be able to be labeled that way. It remains to be seen how many come from actual Etruscan contexts (other than the ones already labeled "Etruscan"), and what yDna those will carry.

Fwiw, however, 40% carry R1 of one form or another, and of those, the ones with high coverage are predominantly U-152 and L2.

I am leaning toward thinking that the U-106 and the I1 may be from the Langobard post fall era, but we'll see; that's only some speculation.

Unless the authors of the paper can distinguish the yDna rigorously in ways we can't, I personally will ignore the extremely low coverage samples in terms of the assignment of yDna. The autosomal analysis will tell us a lot more.

Totally agree but not all will be Tuscans of various eras, there will be also Latials of various eras and southern Italians (Campanians?) of various eras.