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

Jovialis said:
My maternal grandfather's last name is a latinized Norman surname. That combined with the modeling I put forward, and given this history of the region; I think it is intriguing to say the least. He and many on his side has people over six feet tall, with light eyes.
Click to expand...

You should get male relatives from this side tested (yDNA).
 
Riverman said:
You should get male relatives from this side tested (yDNA).
Click to expand...

I wish I could, but he wouldn't go for DNA testing, and my uncle will not either. My uncle is also the last male desendant, and he has no children.
 
Riverman said:
J2a was so far found in relation with Yamnaya R-Z2103 and Channelled Ware related groups (Kyjatice, one new possible sample from Pannonia in the British study). So J2a was established in the Pannonian sphere in the Bronze Age, as a minority element. The new sample has almost exclusively modern matches in the North Caucausus (like Chechens), so it will be interesting to see to which context it really belongs. Its close to F�zesabony samples, which probably contributed to Kyjatice, so there could be a continuity in the North Pannonian region.
Click to expand...

What about R1b-Z2103? I think very little of it came with Imperial Rome.

R1b-z2103 has been found in Etruscans. Most Italian clades of R1b-z2103 are shared with other Europeans, especially Western Europeans. Most of it is probably Italic. It is also uniformly spread in Italy, which suggest a native origin. It is higher than average in Eastern Sicily and Calabria if this is not due to sample bias (very low sample size), then ancient Greeks probably gave it a bust in those regions.

Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png
 
ihype02 said:
What about R1b-Z2103? I think very little of it came with Imperial Rome.

R1b-z2103 has been found in Etruscans. Most Italian clades of R1b-z2103 are shared with other Europeans, especially Western Europeans. Most of it is probably Italic. It is also uniformly spread in Italy, which suggest a native origin. It is higher than average in Eastern Sicily and Calabria if this is not due to sample bias (very low sample size), then ancient Greeks probably gave it a bust in those regions.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. I checked now in Table_S1, and the only Z2103 found in the study is from the Imperial era, so R1b-Z2103 has not been found in Etruscans yet.

I don't remember who and in what context but there were those who claimed that one of the samples of Latin individuals from Latium vetus (perhaps the one that was R-M269 in the study) was actually R1b-Z2103.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Maybe I'm missing something. I checked now in Table_S1, and the only Z2103 found in the study is from the Imperial era, so R1b-Z2103 has not been found in Etruscans yet.

I don't remember who and in what context but there were those who claimed that one of the samples of Latin individuals from Latium vetus (perhaps the one that was R-M269 in the study) was actually R1b-Z2103.
Click to expand...

It must have been a Latin then. Let me check again.
 
ihype02 said:
There is Z2103:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?25183-Etruscan-amp-Latin-Y-DNA-Coastal-vs-Inland-Pattern

R-L23-Inland-non-L23-Coastal-small.jpg
Click to expand...


C'mon, what would be the source? A forum? The usual Anthrogenica? I remind you that OP is simply a poster and that the most incorrect interpretations about the Etruscans have been spread on Anthrogenica for years. It is a reading based on the usual circular reasoning and it is yet another amateurish attempt to revive the fairy tales of the oriental origin of the Etruscans that has not been believed to be true for over 50 years by specialists, and that only among hobbyists, some of whom have a clear agenda, can be taken seriously.

Could you point me to exactly which Etruscan and Latin samples would be R1b-Z2103?

This division between coastal and inland sites is inaccurate. If you take J2b-L283 among the Etruscans, it was found in the Mattonara necropolis of Civitavecchia in Lazio (this is really a coastal site) and in the Casenevole necropolis in the province of Grosseto (Tuscany) and the latter is not a coastal site.

While it is plausible that the coastal sites are those that had the most contact with the outside world, the data are too few and to draw conclusions requires a rigorous analysis that is completely lacking in this case.
 
Pax Augusta said:
C'mon, what would be the source? A forum? The usual Anthrogenica? I remind you that OP is simply a poster and that the most incorrect interpretations about the Etruscans have been spread on Anthrogenica for years. It is a reading based on the usual circular reasoning and it is yet another amateurish attempt to revive the fairy tales of the oriental origin of the Etruscans that has not been believed to be true for over 50 years by specialists, and that only among hobbyists, some of whom have a clear agenda, can be taken seriously.

Could you point me to exactly which Etruscan and Latin samples would be R1b-Z2103?

This division between coastal and inland sites is inaccurate. If you take J2b-L283 among the Etruscans, it was found in the Mattonara necropolis of Civitavecchia in Lazio (this is really a coastal site) and in the Casenevole necropolis in the province of Grosseto and the latter is not a coastal site.
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing, i didn't saw any R1b-Z2103 sample among Etruscans.
 
Hawk said:
I was wondering the same thing, i didn't saw any R1b-Z2103 sample among Etruscans.
Click to expand...

In fact there isn't, I haven't found it either. If someone can provide us with a source it would be greatly appreciated. I'm serious, can someone point us to exactly which Etruscan and Latin samples would be R1b-Z2103 and R1b-Z2118?

It is amazing how on Anthrogenica the data is manipulated to give credence to various agendas, and how the users who have obvious agendas rush to feed these interpretations.

I showed that thread to two of my contacts who are archaeologists and they laughed.
 
@Pax Augusta the thread in Anthrogenica says Etruscans and Latins not just Etruscans.

It was not an Etruscan but it was a Latin and it is fairly old too 700BC-900BC.
[TABLE="class: cms_table_outer_border, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Sample[/TD]
[TD]Location[/TD]
[TD]Date[/TD]
[TD]Haplogroup[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R1016[/TD]
[TD]Castel di Decima (Rome)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]900-700 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-Z2103[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R435[/TD]
[TD]Palestrina Colombella (Praeneste)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]600-200 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-CTS6389 (Z145)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R1021[/TD]
[TD]Boville Ernica (Bovillae - Frosinone)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]700-600 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-Z2118 (L51)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R437[/TD]
[TD]Palestrina Selicata (Praeneste)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]400-200 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-PR3565 (L2>ZZ56)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R850[/TD]
[TD]Ardea[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]800-500 BCE[/TD]
[TD]T1a-L208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R851[/TD]
[TD]Ardea[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]800-500 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-FGC29470 (L2>DF90)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ient-Roman-families-through-their-descendants
 
ihype02 said:
@Pax Augusta the thread in Anthrogenica says Etruscans and Latins not just Etruscans.

It was not an Etruscan but it was a Latin and it is fairly old too 700BC-900BC.
[TABLE="class: cms_table_outer_border, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Sample[/TD]
[TD]Location[/TD]
[TD]Date[/TD]
[TD]Haplogroup[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R1016
[/TD]
[TD]Castel di Decima (Rome)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]900-700 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-Z2103[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R435[/TD]
[TD]Palestrina Colombella (Praeneste)
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]600-200 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-CTS6389 (Z145)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R1021[/TD]
[TD]Boville Ernica (Bovillae - Frosinone)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]700-600 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-Z2118 (L51)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R437[/TD]
[TD]Palestrina Selicata (Praeneste)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]400-200 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-PR3565 (L2>ZZ56)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R850[/TD]
[TD]Ardea[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]800-500 BCE[/TD]
[TD]T1a-L208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]R851[/TD]
[TD]Ardea[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]800-500 BCE[/TD]
[TD]R1b-FGC29470 (L2>DF90)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ient-Roman-families-through-their-descendants
Click to expand...


Those are both Latins. This is your original post.


ihype02 said:
What about R1b-Z2103? I think very little of it came with Imperial Rome.

R1b-z2103 has been found in Etruscans.
Click to expand...

So, do you agree with me that there is no evidence that R1b-Z2103 has been found in Etruscans?
 
Pax Augusta said:
Those are both Latins. This is your original post.




So, do you agree with me that there is no evidence that R1b-Z2103 has been found in Etruscans?
Click to expand...

If it was in Latins it was in Etruscans too and the rest of Italians. The main point was that it was found in pre Imperial era Italy, whenever it was found in Etruscans or Latins it does not matter, as the sample size is extremely small for Y-Dna lines.


I cannot seem to find the list of Etruscan Y-Dna (I have seen it before though) in the official paper. If you can send to me I would appreciate it.
 
Regarding Etruscans, eight to ten samples from the Archaic period backwards (with Y-DNA assigned) include G2a2b2 at 30-37.5% (plus R1b at 50-60%, J2b at 10-12.5%...), and afaik the Gs and J samples confirmed for this period show no sign of recent Anatolian admix. Neither the R1b. Actually one of the early Etruscan samples belonging to G2a is more shifted to Central Europe.
 
ihype02 said:
If it was in Latins it was in Etruscans too and the rest of Italians. The main point was that it was found in pre Imperial era Italy, whenever it was found in Etruscans or Latins it does not matter, as the sample size is extremely small for Y-Dna lines.


I cannot seem to find the list of Etruscan Y-Dna (I have seen it before though) in the official paper. If you can send to me I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Table_S1a from sciadv.abi7673_Table_S1.xlsx

https://www.science.org/doi/suppl/1...suppl_file/sciadv.abi7673_Tables_S1_to_S4.zip
 
Etruscan TAQ024 is R1b-Z2118. The date of the sample is set from 356BC to 96BC.
Thank you, Pax Augusta.
 
Regio X said:
Regarding Etruscans, eight to ten samples from the Archaic period backwards (with Y-DNA assigned) include G2a2b2 at 30-37.5% (plus R1b at 50-60%, J2b at 10-12.5%...), and afaik the Gs and J samples confirmed for this period show no sign of recent Anatolian admix. Neither the R1b. Actually one of the early Etruscan samples belonging to G2a is more shifted to Central Europe.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the G2a/Tyrrhenian ultimate origin was some Encrusted Pottery Culture remain from somewhere from Hungary. Because so far it looks like the Encrusted Pottery Culture during Bronze Age were the culture with the highest EEF survivor lineages.
 
ihype02 said:
Etruscan TAQ024 is R1b-Z2118. The date of the sample is set from 356BC to 96BC.
Thank you, Pax Augusta.
Click to expand...

PF7589/Z2118 to be more precise.

pfJIHmw.png


In any case it's dated 356-96 BCE, it's Hellenistic period, it is not the most appropriate date to draw conclusions concerning world systems.
And as you've seen, no R1b-Z2103.

ecbDnbc.png
 
Hawk said:
I wonder if the G2a/Tyrrhenian ultimate origin was some Encrusted Pottery Culture remain from somewhere from Hungary. Because so far it looks like the Encrusted Pottery Culture during Bronze Age were the culture with the highest EEF survivor lineages.
Click to expand...
Yeah, interesting!
Don't know about the Encrusted Pottery Culture in specific, but the hypothesis of an ultimate origin to the North(east) sounds nice, if we consider the presence of the G-L497 subclade among early Etruscans, and the affinity of the language to Rhaetian. There's no evidence of G-L497 in Neolithic Western Europe (so far). The main G2a type in NE Italy must have been the G-PF3359 (also found in an early Etruscan sample), judging by the Broion samples. Neo/Chalco Italy also includes several I2, G2a2a (Ötzi's), J2, H...
One of the G-L497 hotspots nowadays is Switzerland, but the G2a type in Neolithic Switzerland was mostly Ötzi's, till its almost complete replacement by R1b (from ~4600 ybp onwards). In addition, virtually all those G2a2b2a in the paper on France were either confirmed negative for L497 equivalents or were confirmed for different subclades. On the other hand, regarding the G-L497, we have a co-presence of the immediate subclades G-CTS9737 and G-Z27264 respectively in Hungary (Baden Culture) and Bohemia (Unetice Culture). There's also a G-L497 (probably pre-G-CTS9737 or pre-G-Z27264) in Bohemia, virtually as old as the one from Baden. Finally, there's this "possible" Austrian G-L497 from 700 BCE (Hallstatt), perhaps indicating that part of the G-L497 men could have adopted a "foreign" language, while others would have kept speaking their original Tyrsenian language for a while longer (?).
Still regarding Etruscans (or their ancestors), Grugni et al. did suggest a possible migration from Central Europe, based on the relevant presence of G-L497 in modern Volterra, whereas the R1b could indicate a local origin (the Broion samples evidence an early arrival of the clade to Italy).
So who knows!

There must have been EEF-rich people in Central Europe that survived for long. See, for example, the Eastern Swiss SX18 (172-12 BCE), whose Autosomal resembles FN2's, interestingly.
 
Regio X said:
Yeah, interesting!
Don't know about the Encrusted Pottery Culture in specific, but the hypothesis of an ultimate origin to the North(east) sounds nice, if we consider the presence of the G-L497 subclade among early Etruscans, and the affinity of the language to Rhaetian. There's no evidence of G-L497 in Neolithic Western Europe (so far). The main G2a type in NE Italy must have been the G-PF3359 (also found in an early Etruscan sample), judging by the Broion samples. Neo/Chalco Italy also includes several I2, G2a2a (Ötzi's), J2, H...
One of the G-L497 hotspots nowadays is Switzerland, but the G2a type in Neolithic Switzerland was mostly Ötzi's, till its almost complete replacement by R1b (from ~4600 ybp onwards). In addition, virtually all those G2a2b2a in the paper on France were either confirmed negative for L497 equivalents or were confirmed for different subclades. On the other hand, regarding the G-L497, we have a co-presence of the immediate subclades G-CTS9737 and G-Z27264 respectively in Hungary (Baden Culture) and Bohemia (Unetice Culture). There's also a G-L497 (probably pre-G-CTS9737 or pre-G-Z27264) in Bohemia, virtually as old as the one from Baden. Finally, there's this "possible" Austrian G-L497 from 700 BCE (Hallstatt), perhaps indicating that part of the G-L497 men could have adopted a "foreign" language, while others would have kept speaking their original Tyrsenian language for a while longer (?).
Still regarding Etruscans (or their ancestors), Grugni et al. did suggest a possible migration from Central Europe, based on the relevant presence of G-L497 in modern Volterra, whereas the R1b could indicate a local origin (the Broion samples evidence an early arrival of the clade to Italy).
So who knows!

Anyway, there must have been EEF-rich people in Central Europe that survived for long. See, for example, the Eastern Swiss SX18 (172-12 BCE), whose Autosomal resembles FN2's, interestingly.
Click to expand...

The Encrusted Pottery Culture was a Bronze Age Culture from Bronze Age Pannonia, Alps/Carpathian border-zone, they show high survival of male lineages from old Europe, they participated on forming Urnfield Culture, cremation on urn was their main burial type hence why i am wondering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top