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

ihype02 said:

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.4560% / 0.01456027[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]81.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]19.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Swedish[/TD]
The results are on track with the paper.

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.4560% / 0.01456027[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]81.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]19.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Swedish[/TD]
Click to expand...
Piedmont fits better. :)


[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.2229% / 0.01222937[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]50.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Italian_Piedmont[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]49.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.2229% / 0.01222937[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]50.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Italian_Piedmont[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]49.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]
 
ihype02 said:
^^The 20% was specifically referring to the medieval Tuscans not modern ones.
Click to expand...

You're right.

b2JHXg1.png


c6LCjco.png
 
Regio X said:
Piedmont fits better. :)


[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.2229% / 0.01222937[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]50.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Italian_Piedmont[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]49.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Medieval_Etruria_800_1200CE
Distance: 1.2229% / 0.01222937[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]50.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Italian_Piedmont[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]49.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Imperial_era_Etruria[/TD]
Click to expand...

I also suspect something that. The Y-DNA lines fall in serious contradiction with the official model that we were given, not only because of the Germanic lines, but even the Italic ones are quite high for the model.
 
ihype02 said:
I also suspect something that. The Y-DNA lines fall in serious contradiction with the official model that we were given, not only because of the Germanic lines, but even the Italic ones are quite high for the model.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the people in Piedmont after the fall of Rome were like the people of today? In the Collegno cemetery none of the "Italians" were similar to the northern Italians of today.
 
binx said:
Do you think that the people in Piedmont after the fall of Rome were like the people of today? In the Collegno cemetery none of the "Italians" were similar to the northern Italians of today.
Click to expand...
We were not implying a migration from Piedmont, especially when that region was underpopulated for the standards of Tuscany in Late Antiquity. We were implying different sources for the northern shift of Tuscans in Late Antiquity and early Dark Ages, not just strictly a Germanic one.
 
ihype02 said:
We were not implying a migration from Piedmont, especially when that region was underpopulated for the standards of Tuscany in Late Antiquity. We were implying different sources for the northern shift of Tuscans in Late Antiquity and early Dark Ages, not just strictly a Germanic one.
Click to expand...
Goths, or they did not leave a genetic impact?
 
ihype02 said:
We were not implying a migration from Piedmont, especially when that region was underpopulated for the standards of Tuscany in Late Antiquity. We were implying different sources for the northern shift of Tuscans in Late Antiquity and early Dark Ages, not just strictly a Germanic one.
Click to expand...

It's something about all the northern and central Italians, not just the Tuscans.
 
binx said:
It's something about all the northern and central Italians, not just the Tuscans.
Click to expand...

Something what? East med shift? I know, but it still does not cover everything.

I am not sure what your point exactly is?
 
Angela said:
My apologies, Ihype. I thought you were referring to something else.

As to MS. Ariel's calculations, Tuscany never received a 20% admixture from Langobards. The yDna doesn't support it.

If she has time on her hands, and knows how to use qpAdm she might want to occupy herself trying to model Medieval Tuscans as first millennium BCE Etruscans, plus Empuries, or plus Aegean Iron Age, or plus Roman_Greek, either the sample of Lazaridis or the Greek Roman samples we already have from Antonio et al.
Click to expand...
Sounds too similar to my struggle to pinpoint that a max 10-15% Slavic Y-DNA in Albanians cannot contribute to 38% autosmal input, but most people were fine with that logic.

Perhaps we don?t have enough ancient/medieval samples from Tuscany and Northern Italy in general to account for the full impact of the earlier Celtic and later Germanic inputs.

You could for instance be testing the tombs of Roman or North Italian/Tuscan citizens exclusively and completely miss the suburbs or villages that could have had originally Celtic/Germanic populations. Just an example by the way, don?t hang me for the village/city details.

I say this because the further back in time we go, the more homogeneous populations tended to be.
 
I think to say the entire genetic profile of the Italian peninsula was 100% Etruscan/Italic during the Iron Age is pretty naive imo. Why is it that our neighbors to the east exist on a cline from North to South in the IA (Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA), but the MPI paper doesn't investigate that in Italy, due to not having the samples, and to protect the main premise of the paper, which is to use Imperial samples for the model. Also, the so-called outliers and individuals from Daunians, as well as Aegean/Greek IA samples show that this cline existed back then during the IA in Italy. So we already know it was there. This is without even have a comprehensive paper on the south.
 
What are the autosomal affinities of this sample?

VEN008Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)660-766 CES.Italy_Venosa H6c E1b1b1a1b1L618
 
Pax Augusta said:
No, it has nothing to do with north south movements. Tuscans share many surnames with Emilia and Lombardy, mainly because of linguistic factors. Among other things, these surnames are clearly reminiscent of the nascent Italian language, which as we know was born in Tuscany and are not based on surnames recalling the Gallo-Italic languages. Then of course there was also a bit of gene flow, Tuscany has always been rich. Do Humanism and the Renaissance mean anything to you?
Click to expand...
Maybe.... But it's impossible to know without a genealogical research. I read about these similarities here:http://www.iagiforum.info/index.php?sid=905c7cd37de77095932e7307696f4a98 so it's not farina del mio sacco

End ot

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Hawk said:
What are the autosomal affinities of this sample?
VEN008Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)660-766 CES.Italy_Venosa H6c E1b1b1a1b1L618
Click to expand...

In k12b updated:
French corsica

[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TH="align: right"]Distance to:[/TH]
[TH="align: left"]VEN008:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFC200, align: right"]9.30416573[/TD]
[TD]French_Corsica[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFBC00, align: right"]9.47580603[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Tuscany[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFAE00, align: right"]9.89631244[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Romagna[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFA900, align: right"]10.01872746[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Emilia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFA300, align: right"]10.21595810[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Liguria[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF9600, align: right"]10.60266495[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Marche[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF7D00, align: right"]11.32723709[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Lazio[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF6800, align: right"]11.94739721[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Lombardy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF5600, align: right"]12.47193249[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Piedmont[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF3800, align: right"]13.33967016[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Veneto[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0700, align: right"]14.78553347[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Abruzzo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0400, align: right"]14.86854734[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Friuli_VG[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0001, align: right"]15.04210299[/TD]
[TD]Swiss_Italian[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0003, align: right"]15.08517484[/TD]
[TD]Albanian[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF000D, align: right"]15.37701857[/TD]
[TD]Greek_Thessaly[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0011, align: right"]15.49013234[/TD]
[TD]Albanian_Kosovo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0011, align: right"]15.49732235[/TD]
[TD]Greek_Thrace[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF001E, align: right"]15.87305579[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Trentino[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0028, align: right"]16.17098018[/TD]
[TD]Greek_Central[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0029, align: right"]16.21218986[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Canarias[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF002D, align: right"]16.32917022[/TD]
[TD]Italian_Campania[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF002E, align: right"]16.35761291[/TD]
[TD]Macedonian_South[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF002F, align: right"]16.39074129[/TD]
[TD]Greek_Athens[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF002F, align: right"]16.39354446[/TD]
[TD]Greek_Peloponnese[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FF0034, align: right"]16.51583785[/TD]
[TD]Macedonian_Vardar
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Cato said:
Maybe.... But it's impossible to know without a genealogical researach

Yes I know what that the Renaissance is, I've studied Architecture, thanks [emoji6]

End ot

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I have been part of genealogical research groups for years, and studied these topics in college. There is no such assumption in studies that the surnames Tuscany shares with northern Italy are due to migrations from northern Italy, especially Emilia, Romagna and Lombardy. There was certainly contact, but in both directions.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Società_dei_Toschi

So much so that abroad the Tuscans were sometimes called "Lombards" like the Italians of northern Italy, but mass migrations are not documented.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collège_des_Lombards

What I see that now is starting again the circus of unfounded assumptions, I do not refer to you in particular, as already happened with the Etruscans in the past. When then the DNA showed that most were wrong, even those who pretended to be experts on Anthrogenica, who are the vast majority there.

Samples are too few to reconstruct exactly what happened in the last 2000 years. The Etruscan legacy part is the weakest, and the geneticists who authored this study are only responding to the other group of geneticists, who have produced numerous studies in the past rather useless and ridicolous based on circular argumentation going looking for signs of Eastern Mediterranean contacts in samples of modern Tuscans to attribute them to Etruscan origin. When what you find in Tuscans you can also find in the rest of Italians (and sometimes in many other Europeans).

That said, it is obvious that there has been a shift, and that the population of Italy today has in its genes also the contributions of the last 2000 years and that it was not due to the Etruscans. Just think of what has happened in the last 80-90 years in Italy, with the great demographic changes taking place. If they go and randomly sample the inhabitants living now in cities like Milan, Turin, Bologna, Florence, Rome, what do they find?

If for the first iron age a certain number of samples is enough, for everything that happens from the imperial age onwards you need a much larger number of samples that still do not exist. Not to mention the fact that we have so far only analyzed samples of Etruscans, Latins, Daunians, Nuragics for the Iron Age, and must be analyzed the others, because we can not exclude that some surprise will come.

Jovialis said:
I think to say the entire genetic profile of the Italian peninsula was 100% Etruscan/Italic during the Iron Age is pretty naive imo. Why is it that our neighbors to the east exist on a cline from North to South in the IA (Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA), but the MPI paper doesn't investigate that in Italy, due to not having the samples, and to protect the main premise of the paper, which is to use Imperial samples for the model. Also, the so-called outliers and individuals from Daunians, as well as Aegean/Greek IA samples show that this cline existed back then during the IA in Italy. So we already know it was there. This is without even have a comprehensive paper on the south.
Click to expand...

In fact, the picture is still incomplete, and will be for a long time to come. Unlikely the entire genetic profile of the Italian peninsula was 100% Etruscan/Italic during the Iron Age.
 
Jovialis said:
I think to say the entire genetic profile of the Italian peninsula was 100% Etruscan/Italic during the Iron Age is pretty naive imo. Why is it that our neighbors to the east exist on a cline from North to South in the IA (Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA), but the MPI paper doesn't investigate that in Italy, due to not having the samples, and to protect the main premise of the paper, which is to use Imperial samples for the model. Also, the so-called outliers and individuals from Daunians, as well as Aegean/Greek IA samples show that this cline existed back then during the IA in Italy. So we already know it was there. This is without even have a comprehensive paper on the south.
Click to expand...

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2021...of-some-languages-despite-gene-flow/#comments

I made these points in the gnxp comments section.
 
binx said:
Not claiming this modelling is valid.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Perhaps next time you might explain what you mean when you just post a model.

I'm glad we're not going to hear from the American-Padanian Association or their Italian equivalent and their mythology of 500,000 Germans victoriously pouring into mainly Northern Italy to make them Ubermenschen.

Personally, I find the estimates based on the earliest records the most persuasive, and they put the number of Lombards moving into Italy at 60,000 Lombards plus 20,000 Saxons, and some sundry small additional groups, putting the total number, as proposed by some historians, at 80-100,000 people. The same sources propose that the Saxons supposedly subsequently returned north. However, even if they didn't it would make little difference. Other historians place the number at 150,000. One puts it at 200,000.

The Padania contingent found one American professor who supported the idea of a much larger group. It is a minority position from what I can find. Doctoring up the Lombard entry in Wiki, and implying Paul the Deacon was prejudiced against his own people because he was a Christian is pretty low, as well as being quite obvious to anyone who has studied the history. By the way, his "prejudice" is "proved" by the fact that he thinks one of the stories about how they got their name is "silly". I have no idea what that has to do with their original numbers. If anything, his "prejudice" is squarely with his own people, and against the people in whose country he lived. His descriptions of the differences between northerners and southerners could have come out of some Nordicist handbook.

As for their entrance into Italy, they were no horde of heroic conquerors. We know from the paper on the Langobards that they entered Italy as a group of ragged, starving, battle scarred survivors of wars with other wandering "Barbarian" groups who had defeated them. They were seeking refuge in an Italy plundered and supine from the depredations of both the Goths and the Byzantines, but with a population still numbering in the millions.

Since none of us has crystal balls or a time travel machine, other than contemporary documents, which also, it is true, might be problematical, we must turn to genetics, both uniparental and autosomal.

We have ancient Langobard dna. They have, so far, been northern Germanic R1b lines, one I1 at each site if I remember correctly, 1R1a and maybe some I2a2. On could add in some more I1 for the Goths, maybe. That still doesn't bring you anywhere near 20% for Toscana based on the yDna found in this province. Now, I see from Khan's blog that Mr. Rocca is proposing the idea that the invading Germans could have carried some clades of U-152.

It's possible, but I doubt it. I don't remember any from the paper on the Langobards. He is basing this on the fact that U-152 was probably already in Hungary, Austria, Southern Germany etc., by the time of the "Germanic invasions". I agree that this lineage was already present in the modern areas he listed before the arrival of the Germanic tribes. However, I see no evidence that the Germanic or even Balto-Slavic tribes moving from much further north carried those lineages, nor that the ones who made it to Italy absorbed lots of men carrying those lineages. The Langobards certainly did not.

Nor does autosomal analysis support such high levels of Germanic admixture into Toscana, leading me to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the modeling in this paper.
 
Last edited:
ihype02 said:
I know I was just testing the accuracy of the result, I doubted there was a "20% shift" to begin with. I thought maybe the Germanic samples of Italy were mixed, but when using modern Swedes it turns out they were not.
Click to expand...


You are too smart not to know that the samples are too few yet to draw conclusions.
ihype02 said:
I thought Ariel was a man? I know the username is feminine but something ...
Click to expand...


Ariel is an Hebrew/Jewish name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top