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

Regio X

Regular Member
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
480
Points
0
The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

Abstract
The origin, development, and legacy of the enigmatic Etruscan civilization from the central region of the Italian peninsula known as Etruria have been debated for centuries. Here we report a genomic time transect of 82 individuals spanning almost two millennia (800 BCE to 1000 CE) across Etruria and southern Italy. During the Iron Age, we detect a component of Indo-European–associated steppe ancestry and the lack of recent Anatolian-related admixture among the putative non–Indo-European–speaking Etruscans. Despite comprising diverse individuals of central European, northern African, and Near Eastern ancestry, the local gene pool is largely maintained across the first millennium BCE. This drastically changes during the Roman Imperial period where we report an abrupt population-wide shift to ~50% admixture with eastern Mediterranean ancestry. Last, we identify northern European components appearing in central Italy during the Early Middle Ages, which thus formed the genetic landscape of present-day Italian populations.
 
ea7lsb4.jpg
 
[FONT=&quot]48 individuals from 800 to 1 BCE (Iron Age and Roman Republic), 6 individuals from 1 to 500 CE (Imperial period), and 28 individuals from 500 to 1000 CE (12 from central Italy and 16 from southern Italy)[/FONT]

sciadv.abi7673-f1.jpg
 
By contrast, the newly reported central Italian individuals from 800 to 1 BCE show ~75% frequency of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, mostly represented by the R1b-P312 polymorphism and its derived R1b-L2, that diffused across Europe alongside steppe-related ancestry in association with the Bell Beaker complex. This suggests that this R1b Y-chromosome lineage spread into the Italian peninsula with steppe-related movements during the Bronze Age.
 
if i have understood well the Venosa samples are from the Middle Age, right?

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Here are the samples with the archeological IDs for Dodecad K12b format:

Code:
C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001,1.38,0.19,1.2,0,47.62,24.58,0,0,6.88,0,17.87,0.27
C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-520BCE:CAM002,4.72,0.03,0,1.59,40.47,34.19,0,0,4.64,0,13.94,0.44
C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003,0.93,0.04,0.79,0,49.21,23.83,0,0,7,0.18,16.98,1.04
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001,0.74,0,1.6,0.73,46.5,23.83,0,0,7.19,0,19.25,0.16
C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002,0,0.36,0,0,41.12,32.35,0,0,0,0,26.17,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003,0.97,0.01,2,0,49.14,21.97,1.05,0,7.95,0.53,15.93,0.45
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004,1.49,0,2.17,0.71,51.75,19.41,0.13,0,5.2,0,18.21,0.93
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005,1.48,0,4.65,0,39.23,28.19,0.65,0,6.11,0.54,19.16,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006,3.62,0,0,1.53,45.77,24.02,0.29,0,4.9,0,19.6,0.27
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007,0,0,0,0.5,50.29,20.45,0,0,10.86,0,17.91,0
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008,4.93,0,0,0.4,43.71,27.95,0,0,4.16,0,18.84,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009,2.52,0,2.03,0,39.86,27.95,0,0,2.52,0.43,23.93,0.75
C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010,4.43,0.27,3.49,0,40.36,31.59,0,0,5.33,1.81,11.48,1.25
:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012,7.01,0,10.55,0,41.84,29.45,0,0,0,0,11.15,0
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013,4.87,0,0.54,0,45.93,21.96,0.41,0,5.92,0.25,19.55,0.57
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003,10.36,0,2.55,0,30.58,19.47,0,0,10.98,0,25.66,0.41
:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004,17.44,0,0,0,19.59,19.63,0,0,11.7,0,31.64,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005,2,0,0,1.54,45.54,20.52,0.17,0,9.35,1.02,18.73,1.13
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006,3.87,1.22,0,0,39.39,15.01,0,0,12.67,0,26.45,1.39
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007,5.51,0,2.37,1.28,30.11,25.01,0,0,8.81,0,26.92,0
C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010,4.58,0.05,1.08,0.22,37.3,17.15,0.08,0,9.4,0,29.53,0.6
C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR012,17.52,1.96,0,0,41.58,12.98,3.45,0.35,5.74,0,16.42,0
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013,6.64,0.06,1.86,0,35.44,14.98,0,0,9.51,0,31.24,0.28
C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014,3.51,0,2.87,0,27.31,14.86,0.51,0,14.53,0,36.4,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:MAG001,0.84,0,0,0,47.05,24.88,0.37,0.08,3.46,0.47,22.84,0.02
C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001,7.2,0.84,4.18,0,26.73,30.23,1.6,0.6,6.25,1.12,21.08,0.18
C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002,6.49,1.52,3.63,0,23.56,7.82,0,0.48,18.33,0.02,38.16,0
C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003,2.81,0,8.6,1.47,34.71,11.66,0,1.28,11.86,0,26.84,0.76
C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_804-557BCE:MAS004,1.12,0,0.85,0,44.63,29.23,0,0,1.36,1.35,21.46,0
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:POP001,4.72,0.15,0.86,0,35.02,19.76,0,0,8.74,1.36,28.84,0.55
C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001,1.55,0.11,0,0,48.41,23.78,0,0,6.08,0.13,19.22,0.71
C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002,0,0,2.6,0.54,47.1,27.43,0,0,4.06,1.06,17.2,0
C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ001,2.36,0,4.12,0.57,47.15,23.95,0,0,4.6,0,17.25,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002,0,0,1.15,0.26,46.51,23.88,0,0,5.81,0,21.27,1.12
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003,5.6,0,2.14,1.3,29.31,17.09,0.1,0.93,11.36,0,31.59,0.58
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004,1.71,0.66,0.95,0.36,48.5,23.89,0,0,5.59,0,17.87,0.48
C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005,1.39,0.44,5.14,0,46.29,17.75,0.22,0.33,8.86,0.41,18.68,0.49
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006,1.18,0,3.59,0,42.96,25.05,0.15,0,2.83,0,24.24,0
C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007,3.25,0.65,8.19,0,33.36,6.55,0.82,0,13.72,0.07,31.87,1.52
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008,4.27,1.3,0.28,0.84,49.67,21.5,0,0,3.99,0,17.53,0.63
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009,4.13,0.23,2.43,0.82,33.16,19.69,0.14,0,9.54,0,28.81,1.06
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ010,0,0,1.32,0.05,48.43,24.81,0.71,0,4.04,0,20.41,0.24
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011,6.51,0.15,1.38,0.03,33.17,19.02,0,1.09,10.21,0,27.5,0.96
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012,3.32,0,1.79,0,51.8,17.96,0.72,0,7.3,0,16.79,0.33
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013,2.83,1.64,1.78,0,46.46,21.33,0,0,6.68,0,19.04,0.23
C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015,1.72,0,2.42,0,46.31,21.99,0,0,6.46,0.63,19.66,0.81
C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016,2.43,0,1.67,0,46.91,24.12,0.84,0,5.34,0,18.06,0.63
C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017,4.08,0,1.96,0,48.92,20.11,0,0,5.6,0,19.12,0.21
C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018,0,0,0.47,0,48.53,20.84,0.43,0,6.5,1.43,20.91,0.89
C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019,0.49,0,2.18,0,47.66,24.5,0.17,0,5.48,0.04,19.27,0.21
C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020,9.02,0.66,1.49,0.5,34.13,18.73,0.12,0,7.43,0,27.92,0
C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021,3.74,0,2.51,0,33.22,11.47,2.01,0,12.62,0,34.44,0
C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022,5.66,0,2.84,0,34.54,19.74,2.22,0,6.34,0,28.11,0.54
C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023,0.11,0,9.86,0,38.6,11.68,0.88,1.34,10.18,0,26.04,1.31
C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024,1.55,0.2,4.01,0.27,46.92,21.83,0,0.36,4.57,0,20.29,0
C.Italy_Etruscan_UDC_P:Chiostraccio(Siena_Tuscany)_174-53BCE:UDC_P,0,0,4.31,0,52.14,29.39,0,0,0.89,0,13.22,0.04
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001,5.14,0,3.87,0.01,28.18,17.6,0,0,11.33,2.38,29.77,1.73
S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002,2.79,8.01,0,12.59,16.3,9.93,3.89,0.01,6.34,27.43,12.71,0
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005,6.66,0,4.28,1.53,32.55,10.92,0,0,10.86,0.37,32.83,0
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006,8.51,0.54,5.29,0.22,27.14,16.32,0,0,9.76,1.99,30.08,0.16
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008,4.55,6.58,0,0,36.17,16.54,2.72,0,8.77,0,23.04,1.63
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009,4.96,0,10.9,0.28,29.02,16.26,0,3.03,6.57,0,28.99,0
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010,16.14,0,2.12,1.09,37.1,15.42,0,0.05,13.2,0,14.88,0
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012,2.86,0,1.41,0.17,24.58,14.71,0,1.75,12.7,5.77,36.03,0.03
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013,7.7,0,5.12,0,28.43,14.81,0,0,10.94,1.22,30.32,1.45
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN014,12.68,0,5.83,0,33.04,0,0,0.24,17.71,1.35,28.74,0.42
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015,7.16,0,3.85,0.73,28.62,13.96,0.39,0,13.73,0,30.9,0.64
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016,6.56,0,6.02,0,25.63,16.98,0,0,13.65,0.44,30.73,0
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017,1.13,1.55,0,0.12,32.91,17.47,3.75,0,12.37,3.07,27.62,0
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018,9.33,0,3.69,0,27.33,17.18,0,0,19.59,0,20.74,2.14
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN021,8.65,0,0.51,3.3,17.54,14.06,0,2.43,21.68,1.47,30.37,0
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN022,7.04,0,0,5.28,15.13,25.83,0,0.13,20.82,0,25.77,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001,1.52,0,2.24,1.15,42.15,23.87,0,1.18,6.3,0,21.57,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002,0.77,1.24,2.59,0,48.74,18.77,0,0,7.8,0.08,20.03,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4,1.33,0,2.66,0,47.08,21.2,0.25,0.26,7.04,0.15,20.03,0
C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005,7.72,0.55,0,0,43.13,37.83,0,1.41,1.61,0,7.74,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007,0,0,2.57,0.68,51.02,20.09,0.22,0,6.74,0.42,17.63,0.63
C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008,0.41,0,8.27,0,38.29,9.06,0,1.75,12.78,0.04,28.42,0.99
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010,0,0,4.61,0.76,48.22,21.92,0.27,0,3.53,0,20.12,0.57
:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011,0,0,6.57,0,51.11,17.17,0,2.72,3.32,0,19.1,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001,0,0,1.86,2.69,45.76,22.07,0,0.83,3.79,0,23.01,0
C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001,0.94,0,1.77,0,44.5,24.66,0.61,0.03,5.61,0,21.4,0.48
 
Distance to:Jovialis
3.64458502C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
4.09070899S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
4.15604379S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
5.08536134S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
5.39290274S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
6.16317288S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
6.78350942C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
7.04449430C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
7.08010593C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
7.10228836C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
7.24289997C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
7.74268687S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
8.41327522C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
8.57403639C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
8.62318387C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
9.44833848C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
9.48255767C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
9.76431769C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
9.92680714S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
11.06943991S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
11.16845110S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
12.35336796C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003
13.35992515C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
13.99985714:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
14.12746262C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007

 
Of individuals associated with the first time interval, the vast majority (40 of 48) form a genetic cluster here named “C.Italy_Etruscan” that overlaps with present-day Spanish individuals in a principal components analysis (PCA) built with West Eurasian populations from the Human Origins dataset (Fig. 2A) (21). Across this temporal interval (800 to 1 BCE), three groups of PCA outliers are identified, i.e., four individuals shifted toward northern African populations (C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr), three individuals shifted toward central European populations (C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu), and one individual shifted toward Near Eastern populations (C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001) (table S1A). To further inspect the genetic clustering of the central and southern Italian populations studied, we performed unsupervised ADMIXTURE on 71 individuals (Fig. 2, B and C) after the exclusion of genetically related individuals (table S1B and fig. S2). C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers. The latter is also present in C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr individuals alongside an ancestry component identified in an Early Neolithic Moroccan group.


p.s
the E-L618 individual VEN008 was found out of the 7 males remains from venosa
also found in supplemental
https://i.imgur.com/Biz7MwF.png
 
Jovialis post #10 (y)

Distance to:Duarte
9.25598725C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ001
10.20708088C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
10.35823827:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
10.40551777C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010
10.82643524C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
10.97969490C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
11.01859338C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
11.06370191C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
11.12235587C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
11.19851329C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
11.23924375C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
11.48003484C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:pRZ002
11.50595498C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004
11.53930674C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001
11.64089773C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
11.66283842C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008
11.81583260C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001
11.83354131C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
11.87767233C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
11.93160090C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
12.00538629C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010
12.08740253C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
12.08808091C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003
12.10366473C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
12.13397297C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005

Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.9802% / 4.98016616
30.8:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
25.5:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
24.5C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010
8.1C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR012
5.1S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010
3.2S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
2.8S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002

Distance to:Duarte
5.7128395455.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
6.1448343555.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005
6.2557347969.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 30.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
6.4205417751.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 48.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
6.4311711052.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
6.5222472052.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
6.5637047067.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 33.00% S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
6.6793865455.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
6.6812570960.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
6.7020557360.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012
6.7724913856.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
6.7749134046.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023 + 54.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005
6.7950903644.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.8082779061.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 38.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018
6.8203560262.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 38.00% :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
6.8363239854.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 45.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008
6.8427939935.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007 + 64.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.9210386249.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 50.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
6.9246801239.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004 + 60.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.9400864260.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
6.9444733847.20% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 + 52.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0488444975.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 24.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
7.0641951343.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003 + 56.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0646864144.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 + 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0772894156.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005

 
The Venosa samples are medieval samples. Makes sense.

Yeah unfortunately for some, they are not Levanto-Greek East Med ubermenschen 400-BC-400AD Magna Greacian samples. They are from the Dark Ages.
 
It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.
They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
How do those samples fit the scenario?
 
They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
How do those samples fit the scenario?

It remains unclear to me what those samples have to do with the Etruscans.
 
I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.

Yet, there are a couple of things that raise my brows:
1) 20% germanic input in Tuscany seems really impossible given all the archeological and historical evidence, it would mean that somehow heavy germanic presence went unrecorded and didn't leave much of a trace on the haplogroups.
2)This paper and the paper about the Danubian limes are incompatible insomuch this paper shows that apparently all or the vast majority of the Near Easterners were Levantines whereas the other paper shows that all minus one were Levantine. The paradox would be resolved if somehow it can be shown that all Anatolians went to the Balkans but all Levantines went to Italy, yet it sounds so implausible to be rejectable.
3)The paper claims that the near eastern influx was due to slaves and soldiers, but if it were so then one ought to expect also a big chunk of northern Europeans since many slaves and soldiers (and about soldiers near the empire most were Germanic) came from central-north Europe. The theory that just those that came from the east survived and reproduced seems extremely implausible.
4) The paper is really sloppy in using just Iran_N as a marker for near east gene flow, since, as the last paper about the Danubian limes showed in accordance with other samples from Anatolia, this region was clearly distinct from the Levant for it virtually lacked the Levant_N ancestry that is present in the Levant (so much that the single outlier that had it was told apart from the main near east cluster thanks to it in the paper about the Danubian limes).
5) when there are already samples from Italy that have Iran_N or CHG (and the paper about the Daunians shows that it was common outside Latium in south Italy) it becomes an unwarranted assumption to think that all of it came to Tuscany from near eastern "slaves and soldiers", actually it gets really unparsimonious.
6) The authors of the paper claim their model explains the distribution of southeastern Europeans as "between Europe and the near east" (sic), though in the same PCA format the Balkan_IA cline is already inbetween.
7) As for the C6 cluster in Antonio et all 2019, it seemed first it was made up of western Anatolians, the Near Easterners from the paper about the Danubian limes, but in this study it seems they are half Etruscan/Latin and half Levantine: the Antonio paper did use Jordanian_BA yet it stated that the fits were low, so it talked about the possibility that actually it was (or partially was) a population yet unsampled, and the paper about the Danubian limes seemed to have found that population.
8) The authors don't take into account the possibility that there was movements from within Italy, as the paper about the mitogenome of south Italy in the BA suggested.


Keeping all these points in mind, if south Italy was already more Balkan_IA like, as the paper about the Daunians seemed to suggest, then the interpretation of the results in this paper would be really off the mark. I venture to say that I suspect that some political agenda might induce the authors to reconstruct implausible scenarios, though if wrong future studies will settle the records straight, otherwise I can take on the new evidence to reconstruct the likeliest historical scenario.
 
I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.

Yet, there are a couple of things that raise my brows:
1) 20% germanic input in Tuscany seems really impossible given all the archeological and historical evidence, it would mean that somehow heavy germanic presence went unrecorded and didn't leave much of a trace on the haplogroups.
2)This paper and the paper about the Danubian limes are incompatible insomuch this paper shows that apparently all or the vast majority of the Near Easterners were Levantines whereas the other paper shows that all minus one were Levantine. The paradox would be resolved if somehow it can be shown that all Anatolians went to the Balkans but all Levantines went to Italy, yet it sounds so implausible to be rejectable.
3)The paper claims that the near eastern influx was due to slaves and soldiers, but if it were so then one ought to expect also a big chunk of northern Europeans since many slaves and soldiers (and about soldiers near the empire most were Germanic) came from central-north Europe. The theory that just those that came from the east survived and reproduced seems extremely implausible.
4) The paper is really sloppy in using just Iran_N as a marker for near east gene flow, since, as the last paper about the Danubian limes showed in accordance with other samples from Anatolia, this region was clearly distinct from the Levant for it virtually lacked the Levant_N ancestry that is present in the Levant (so much that the single outlier that had it was told apart from the main near east cluster thanks to it in the paper about the Danubian limes).
5) when there are already samples from Italy that have Iran_N or CHG (and the paper about the Daunians shows that it was common outside Latium in south Italy) it becomes an unwarranted assumption to think that all of it came to Tuscany from near eastern "slaves and soldiers", actually it gets really unparsimonious.
6) The authors of the paper claim their model explains the distribution of southeastern Europeans as "between Europe and the near east" (sic), though in the same PCA format the Balkan_IA cline is already inbetween.
7) As for the C6 cluster in Antonio et all 2019, it seemed first it was made up of western Anatolians, the Near Easterners from the paper about the Danubian limes, but in this study it seems they are half Etruscan/Latin and half Levantine: the Antonio paper did use Jordanian_BA yet it stated that the fits were low, so it talked about the possibility that actually it was (or partially was) a population yet unsampled, and the paper about the Danubian limes seemed to have found that population.
8) The authors don't take into account the possibility that there was movements from within Italy, as the paper about the mitogenome of south Italy in the BA suggested.


Keeping all these points in mind, if south Italy was already more Balkan_IA like, as the paper about the Daunians seemed to suggest, then the interpretation of the results in this paper would be really off the mark. I venture to say that I suspect that some political agenda might induce the authors to reconstruct implausible scenarios, though if wrong future studies will settle the records straight, otherwise I can take on the new evidence to reconstruct the likeliest historical scenario.

You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.

The paper on Campania is coming out, and it concludes that the Campanian/Italics were like Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.
 
You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.

The paper on Campania is coming out, and it suggests that the Campanian/Italics were like the unmixed Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.
Really they are different from native Apulians?
 

This thread has been viewed 128272 times.

Back
Top