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

Thanks for all new coordinates Salento. Results with Jovialis and Salento’s coordinates for Dodecad Global 13:

Distance to:Duarte
5.65621782Olalde_et_al_2019:I12514
6.13415031Olalde_et_al_2019:I10895
6.24398110Olalde_et_al_2019:I10866
6.26891538Olalde_et_al_2019:I10853
6.39570168Olalde_et_al_2019:I10892
6.55540235Olalde_et_al_2019:I1313
6.74273683Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R110
6.89459208Olalde_et_al_2019:I12516
6.91129510Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R109
6.92270901Saupe_et_al._2021:utigBRC003
6.92582125Olalde_et_al_2019:I10852
6.93939479Olalde_et_al_2019:I3584
6.94108061Olalde_et_al_2019:I6490
7.11523014VOL001_Dod_Globe13
7.29715013C_Valdiosera_et_al._2018- por003
7.43433924Saupe_et_al._2021:utigBRC002
7.48911877VET001_Dod_Globe13
7.49508506Olalde_et_al_2019:I3585
7.51214350Saupe_et_al._2021:utigGCP003A1
7.51417993Saupe_et_al._2021:utigGCP002A1
7.59223946S_Brunel_et_al._2020:ERS88
7.61400683Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R1289
7.67329786Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R474
7.71966321Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R63
7.71978627Olalde_et_al._2018:I4890
7.78762480Olalde_et_al_2019:I7673
7.79531911Olalde_et_al._2018:I5524
7.85466740Olalde_et_al_2019:I7675
7.96866363Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R61
7.99977500Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R473
8.00427386Olalde_et_al_2019:I12649
8.08500464Olalde_et_al._2018:I7043
8.12419227Olalde_et_al_2019:I12515
8.13916458Olalde_et_al_2019:I3574
8.19093401Mathieson_et_al_2018:I4332
8.21292274Olalde_et_al_2019:I7498
8.22487690Olalde_et_al._2018:E09538
8.44349454Furtwängler_et_al_2020:SX18
8.56320034TAQ001_Dod_Globe13
8.57638036Mathieson_et_al_2018:I4331
8.62099182Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R105
8.81215638Olalde_et_al_2019:I3982
8.84378313Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R435
8.97885850Olalde_et_al._2018:I7040
9.00066664Olalde_et_al_2019:I7692
9.12229686Mathieson_et_al_2018:Bul10
9.14476353CSN001_Dod_Globe13
9.25861761Olalde_et_al._2018:I2364
9.26784225Olalde_et_al._2018:I7041
9.26906684Olalde_et_al._2018:I2478
9.26906684Olalde_et_al_2018:I2478
9.29907522Olalde_et_al._2018:I3594
9.29951612S_Brunel_et_al._2020:NOR2B6
9.32172731Mathieson_et_al_2018:I2520
9.39716979Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R33
9.43533783Olalde_et_al_2019:I3981
9.44830143Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R1021
9.47892926VET003_4_Dod_Globe13
9.48451369Olalde_et_al_2019:I7457
9.48753920Mathieson_et_al_2018:I3313
9.51954306Mathieson_et_al_2018:Bul8
9.53737909Olalde_et_al._2018:I6581
9.67708634Olalde_et_al_2019:I10897
9.69157366Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R851
9.76192604Olalde_et_al_2019:I8213
9.76610465Olalde_et_al_2019:I3809
9.79486600Antonio_M_et_al_2019:R1015
10.00395422cl23_dod_globe13
 
Pax Augusta said:
The situation that has arisen is paradoxical. We have the samples downloadable but we don't even have the preprint paper. Your doubts are my doubts, too. I haven't been able to find out who the archaeologists involved are, and that's not a good sign.
Click to expand...

I'm out of juice. Anyway, completely agree. Haven't these guys seen the Geary group's "Lombard" paper? Don't they see how much clearer some closer attention to context, including isotopic analysis is toward interpreting the results? It's as if these people never took any history or archaeology classes.

It's disheartening. Some German goes on pilgrimage to Rome and dies along the way bequeathing us a sample, or some Greek dies in some Etruscan, or, later, Tuscan or Roman town, and we're supposed to deduce profound conclusions about the origin and continuity of Etruscans in Italy???

We get more out of looking at the autosomes of each sample and using Dienekes' old calculator.

It's a travesty of how this is supposed to work. Shame on the authors of Antonio et al, and I hope I don't have to say the same thing about this paper. How hard is it to tell us if this sample was born and brought up in Germany or Greece or Turkey or whatever???
 
Pax Augusta said:
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt the raetic spoke etruscan...........raetic is from 600Bc ( and not found before this date ) and is closest to venetic , .....Venetic a language very close to latin-faliscan and also a indo-european language

etruscan is non-indo european ...................when did it become indo-european ?
 
torzio said:
I doubt the raetic spoke etruscan...........raetic is from 600Bc ( and not found before this date ) and is closest to venetic , .....Venetic a language very close to latin-faliscan and also a indo-european language

etruscan is non-indo european ...................when did it become indo-european ?
Click to expand...

Again. Please start reading serious books about these topics instead of just randomly copying and pasting. It's 2021 and you still don't get it. Raetic is not Indo-European and not close to Venetic.
 
Salento said:
@Torzio

Code: 
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

Code: 
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
Click to expand...



thanks ...raises the question that if some are O .............does the MTA read on sample R1 ( a female ) paternal line having O2a2 also legit ?
 
Pax Augusta said:
Again. Please start reading serious books about these topics instead of just randomly copying and pasting. It's 2021 and you still don't get it. Raetic is not Indo-European and not close to Venetic.
Click to expand...

The term "Raetic" refers to a few hundred inscriptions found mainly in the Trentino and in South and North Tyrol, as well as sporadically in the Veneto, in Graubünden, and in Slovenia. These inscriptions, written with North Italic alphabets, are roughly dated between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, and are the only documents of the Raetic language.

It could be delimited in relation to the other script provinces of Northern Italy and associated through its distribution area and find types with the archaeologically defined Fritzens-Sanzeno culture (see Archaeology in the Raetic area).

Raetic patronymic system was productive at the time of it's documentation – a number of names are attested both as individual names and as base of a patronym, but most important is the testimony of ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 with the names of three related men. The following names are attested as both individual name and patronym:

places of Raetic inscriptions were sanctuaries (Magrè, Montesei di Serso, Sanzeno), we do not know the names of the deities. Unlike, for example, in Venetic, where the name of the adressee / recipient of the votive gift is regularly mentioned in the inscriptions, the theonym is not part of the Raetic dedication formulae. Nevertheless, there are three candidates for theonyms, only one of them from sanctuary context:

  • tianu(s): Of doubtful auslaut, the name appears four times in the Non valley; the interpretation as a theonym (in the benefactive genitive) is based mainly on NO-15. Possibly the deity of the Sanzeno sanctuary?
  • θiuθi: Attested only once, in a context which might not be sacral; the interpretation as a theonym is due to its appearing in the (benefactive) genitive and the lack of a patronym, which would be expected in the name of a secular recipient. Note that Rix reverses the functions of genetive and pertinentive in the inscription, and consequently assumes the sequence śniχe to represent the recipient/deity. Accordingly, he also interprets eθsu* (in the pertinentive) on the Paletta di Padova as a theonym; the respective genetive form here is (a)θaris.
  • kusenku: Suspected to be a theonym for exactly the same reasons as θiuθi (and (a)θari), but mind the dubious segmentation of the sequence.


Even under the assumption that a considerable number of the names attested in the Raetic corpus are foreign, the lack of parallels with Etruscan in the sphere of onomastics is surprising.


There is a chance they used etruscan especially as a trading language like everyone else did with other languages, but to be fully etruscan is a stretch
 
Jovialis said:
@Pax Augusta,

What do you think VEN is short for?
Click to expand...

if you think Venetic from Etruscan adria/atria ...............why did they not use ATR or ADR ...........as all the other codes seem to be towns/cities

it would be odd if they meant venetic
 
torzio said:
The term "Raetic" refers to a few hundred inscriptions found mainly in the Trentino and in South and North Tyrol, as well as sporadically in the Veneto, in Graubünden, and in Slovenia. These inscriptions, written with North Italic alphabets, are roughly dated between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, and are the only documents of the Raetic language.

It could be delimited in relation to the other script provinces of Northern Italy and associated through its distribution area and find types with the archaeologically defined Fritzens-Sanzeno culture (see Archaeology in the Raetic area).

Raetic patronymic system was productive at the time of it's documentation – a number of names are attested both as individual names and as base of a patronym, but most important is the testimony of ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 with the names of three related men. The following names are attested as both individual name and patronym:

places of Raetic inscriptions were sanctuaries (Magrè, Montesei di Serso, Sanzeno), we do not know the names of the deities. Unlike, for example, in Venetic, where the name of the adressee / recipient of the votive gift is regularly mentioned in the inscriptions, the theonym is not part of the Raetic dedication formulae. Nevertheless, there are three candidates for theonyms, only one of them from sanctuary context:

  • tianu(s): Of doubtful auslaut, the name appears four times in the Non valley; the interpretation as a theonym (in the benefactive genitive) is based mainly on NO-15. Possibly the deity of the Sanzeno sanctuary?
  • θiuθi: Attested only once, in a context which might not be sacral; the interpretation as a theonym is due to its appearing in the (benefactive) genitive and the lack of a patronym, which would be expected in the name of a secular recipient. Note that Rix reverses the functions of genetive and pertinentive in the inscription, and consequently assumes the sequence śniχe to represent the recipient/deity. Accordingly, he also interprets eθsu* (in the pertinentive) on the Paletta di Padova as a theonym; the respective genetive form here is (a)θaris.
  • kusenku: Suspected to be a theonym for exactly the same reasons as θiuθi (and (a)θari), but mind the dubious segmentation of the sequence.


Even under the assumption that a considerable number of the names attested in the Raetic corpus are foreign, the lack of parallels with Etruscan in the sphere of onomastics is surprising.


There is a chance they used etruscan especially as a trading language like everyone else did with other languages, but to be fully etruscan is a stretch
Click to expand...

languages should never be used to match ethnicity to each other ...past or present
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Angela:

I went to vahaudo genetics and copied the coordinates that Salento put together into the Dodecad 12B spreadsheet (Deleted all over coordinates) for the new Max Plank samples and cut and paste the Iron/Age Republican samples from Antonio et al 2019 from the Dodecad 12B ancient into the Source Tab with the Max Plank ones. Here is the tab with those coordinates in it. You can paste your personal ones in the target and run them. If the link does not work, you can cut and paste perhaps from my post (copied what I ran as source and pasted them)?. First link has the ancient Dodecad coordinates. The 2nd one is the updated modern.

http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/dodecad-k12b-ANCIENT-vahaduo.htm


http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/dodecad-k12b-vahaduo.htm

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
R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro,5.02,1.78,1.33,0,35.08,26.46,0,0,5.43,0,24.5,0.4
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia,1.56,0.19,2.85,0.26,47.15,21.66,0,0,5.46,0,20.85,0
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima,3.86,0.98,1.53,0.19,47.23,20.37,1.43,0,3.31,0,21.1,0
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica,2.11,0,1.96,0.6,47.7,24.04,0,0,1.33,0,22.26,0
R435_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella,4.84,0.64,0.65,0,47.12,28.54,0.15,0,4.13,0,13.4,0.53
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata,6.45,0,3.03,0,33.19,11.94,0,0,11.63,0,33.74,0.02
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia,1.01,0,0.68,0.15,47.26,22.79,0,0.21,7.39,0,20.17,0.34
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia,7.14,0.17,2.38,0,39.08,25.74,0,0,5.98,0,18.84,0.66
R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia,0,0,13.01,0,38.12,12.14,0.37,1.98,11.26,0,22.7,0.42
R850_Iron_Age_Ardea,7.3,0,4.52,1.08,21.26,10.54,0,0.43,14.77,0,40.1,0
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea,1.59,0,1.39,0,49.28,24.97,0,0.14,1.93,0,20.26,0.45
CSN004_Dod_K12b,1.49,0.00,2.17,0.71,51.75,19.41,0.13,0.00,5.20,0.00,18.21,0.93
VEN006_Dod_K12b,8.51,0.54,5.29,0.22,27.14,16.32,0.00,0.00,9.76,1.99,30.08,0.16
VEN013_Dod_K12b,7.70,0.00,5.12,0.00,28.43,14.81,0.00,0.00,10.94,1.22,30.32,1.45
ETR001,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0


Cheers, PT
Click to expand...

thanks

mine

Distance to:Torziok12b
4.65137614R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
4.86300319R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
9.57447649VET001_Dod_K12b
11.17633214VOL001_Dod_K12b
13.27414027CSN001_Dod_K12b
13.80754142TAQ001_Dod_K12b
14.00105710R435_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella
14.07015281R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
14.20373190R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
14.41937585R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica
14.46134157VET003_4_Dod_K12b
14.47632550R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
15.48482160R851_Iron_Age_Ardea
18.11788895VEN006_Dod_K12b
18.85241894VEN013_Dod_K12b
19.21809564CSN004_Dod_K12b
20.73986982ETR001
21.46553983R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
21.70035484R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
31.09767515R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
 
torzio said:
if you think Venetic from Etruscan adria/atria ...............why did they not use ATR or ADR ...........as all the other codes seem to be towns/cities
it would be odd if they meant venetic
Click to expand...
Okay, but I never said it would be Venetic.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Again. Please start reading serious books about these topics instead of just randomly copying and pasting. It's 2021 and you still don't get it. Raetic is not Indo-European and not close to Venetic.
Click to expand...

If I could give you multiple up votes I would.

Some people never read anything except what agrees with their biases. It doesn't help when people don't even understand what is written.
 
torzio said:
There is a chance they used etruscan especially as a trading language like everyone else did with other languages, but to be fully etruscan is a stretch
Click to expand...

You still don't understand what linguists are arguing about the Rhaetic.
 
Pax Augusta said:
You still don't understand what linguists are arguing about the Rhaetic.
Click to expand...

stop wasting peoples time in linking languages to ethnicity ...............zero links

where were you born in England ?
 
Last edited:
Pax Augusta said:
You still don't understand what linguists are arguing about the Rhaetic.
Click to expand...
Poor Jean Manco God rest her soul, was almost driven mad trying to explain it all. Didn't work.
 
torzio said:
stop wasting peoples time in linking languages to ethnicity ...............zero links

where where you born in England ?
Click to expand...


Ahahahah.


Angela said:
Poor Jean Manco God rest her soul, was almost driven mad trying to explain it all. Didn't work.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what else to say.


Angela said:
I'm out of juice. Anyway, completely agree. Haven't these guys seen the Geary group's "Lombard" paper? Don't they see how much clearer some closer attention to context, including isotopic analysis is toward interpreting the results? It's as if these people never took any history or archaeology classes.

It's disheartening. Some German goes on pilgrimage to Rome and dies along the way bequeathing us a sample, or some Greek dies in some Etruscan, or, later, Tuscan or Roman town, and we're supposed to deduce profound conclusions about the origin and continuity of Etruscans in Italy???

We get more out of looking at the autosomes of each sample and using Dienekes' old calculator.

It's a travesty of how this is supposed to work. Shame on the authors of Antonio et al, and I hope I don't have to say the same thing about this paper. How hard is it to tell us if this sample was born and brought up in Germany or Greece or Turkey or whatever???
Click to expand...

It's not far from reality.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Ahahahah.




I really don't know what else to say.




It's not far from reality.
Click to expand...

if linguistics and ethnicity are linked according to you......then the britains that spoke latin according to you must have come from rome , ..........I do not understand how this is logical

language and ethnicity is impossible to link and is of zero value to DNA/origins
 
torzio said:
if linguistics and ethnicity are linked according to you......then the britains that spoke latin according to you must have come from rome , ..........I do not understand how this is logical

language and ethnicity is impossible to link and is of zero value to DNA/origins
Click to expand...


I have never supported anything you write. You still don't understand what scholars claim about the Rhaetic language.
 
Coordinates Dodecad Globe 13 produced by Salento in this thread:

Code: 
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier][I]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[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier][I]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[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier][I]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[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier]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[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier]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[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier]CSN004_Dod_Globe13,0.00,0.12,1.47,0.06,7.23,0.96,52.03,0.31,0.25,6.32,31.25,0.00,0.00[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier]VEN006_Dod_Globe13,0.00,1.89,1.00,0.50,16.52,1.70,36.12,0.00,0.00,22.96,19.31,0.00,0.00[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#262626][FONT=Courier]VEN013_Dod_Globe13,0.25,0.00,1.21,0.45,15.79,1.19,36.86,0.00,0.16,22.65,20.35,0.00,1.09[/FONT][/COLOR]

Distance to:Duarte
7.11523014VOL001_Dod_Globe13
7.48911877VET001_Dod_Globe13
8.56320034TAQ001_Dod_Globe13
9.14476353CSN001_Dod_Globe13
9.47892926VET003_4_Dod_Globe13
11.52980486CSN004_Dod_Globe13
23.83090850VEN013_Dod_Globe13
25.21808875VEN006_Dod_Globe13

 
My Dod_Global 13. As Duarte noted, thanks to Salento for the hard work and sharing the coordinates. I also used the Antonio et al 2019 Republican/Iron Age samples as well.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani_Combined
3.08883473VEN013_Dod_Globe13
3.99646093VEN006_Dod_Globe13
5.17402165Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata_:R437
10.34807712Iron_Age_Ardea_:R850
16.76541977Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro_:R1
17.13085520Iron_Age_Civitavecchia_:R475
21.01384306VET001_Dod_Globe13
21.62074929Iron_Age_Civitavecchia_:R474
22.28193214Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima_:R1016
22.81246808Iron_Age_Civitavecchia_:R473
23.08448397VOL001_Dod_Globe13
23.21106633VET003_4_Dod_Globe13
23.31277761CSN001_Dod_Globe13
23.36822843Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia_:R1015
24.74823428TAQ001_Dod_Globe13
25.12776353Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica_:R1021
25.70631245CSN004_Dod_Globe13
26.91876483Iron_Age_Ardea_:R851
29.21811082Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella_:R435
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 101641 times.

Back
Top