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

Top 25 Distances to R437 (Circa 300 BC) from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Republican Roman Sample from that paper. Very close to VEN005 from Basilicata.

Distance to:Mediterranean_C6:R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
2.63738507S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
3.65334094C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
5.15021359C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.29974603S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
7.11796319C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
7.24782036S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
8.21681812C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.62706787C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
8.78415619C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.16498227S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
9.29248621S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
9.79295665C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
9.81352638C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
9.93343344C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003
10.23923337S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
10.33045014C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
10.40081728C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
11.01331921C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
11.32265428C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
11.48361877C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
11.49127060S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
11.83600017S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
12.03713006C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
12.55524193S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
13.30567172C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002

 
Too much R1b in a supposedly non IE speaking people. Something doesn't sum up.
 
So basically,

Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomonon in Rome:

Conversely, the decline in the geographic scale and number of people involved in transMediterranean movements following the Empire’s decline is reflected in the fact that in laterperiods, Eastern Mediterranean influence largely disappeared in both the city of Rome and inthe large towns of the Balkans. An important topic for future ancient DNA research will be tosystematically characterize populations in cities and towns as well as rural locations across theEmpire, to understand how these patterns differed across geographic locations.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn on pretty broad conclusions and very limited amounts of data.


Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.
 
Last edited:
So basically,

Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomenon in Rome:



This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn pretty broad conclusions are very limited amounts of data.


Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.


This paper pretty much says the Eastern Mediterranean in general augmented the whole of Southeastern Europe. So what are they saying that modern Balkan people too are derived from Imperial age immigrants? This would be a contradiction to the Reich Lab paper:


"During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations."


This is not adding up, and frankly, while I respect the Max Planck Institute, I have to disagree with them on this.
 
Jovialis post#10 :)

Distance to:Dodecadk12bStuvanè
4.12127407C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
5.96436920C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
6.18798836C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
6.31981012C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
6.68472139C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
7.80932776C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
8.33039615C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.15716659C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
10.23210145C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
10.26249970S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
10.50968601S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
10.54409788C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
10.71946361C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
10.81554437C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
11.19209096C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
11.35817327C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
11.38123016S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
11.93949748C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.07552069C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006
12.56003583S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
12.81852566C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
12.93006961S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
13.61044819S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
13.78004717C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
13.92520736S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015

Combos

Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.9099% / 0.90986668 | R2P

56.4C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
43.6C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu


Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 1.1280% / 1.12802062 | ADC: 0.25x RC

80.5C.Italy_Early.Medieval
19.5C.Italy_Etruscan_undated


Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.4537% / 0.45374920

28.5C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related
24.6S.Italy_Venosa
19.8C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
11.2C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu
8.3C.Italy_Etruscan_undated
4.8
2.8S.Italy_Venosa_related


Distance to:Dodecadk12bStuvanè
1.1268940460.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005
1.2354261816.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007 + 83.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.3086784148.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-520BCE:CAM002 + 51.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
1.4110846980.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
1.4174911882.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
1.4240626417.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 83.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.4322553879.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
1.4399682817.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003 + 82.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.4633161881.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018
1.4717195979.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
1.4720776581.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:pRZ001
1.4800804619.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001 + 81.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.5078706720.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 + 79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.5267530084.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
1.5314340384.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012
1.5545141620.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005 + 79.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.5987873282.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004
1.6166821579.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
1.6323272381.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
1.6402262282.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 17.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
1.6444478520.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013 + 79.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.6548245215.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004 + 84.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
1.6753477677.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 22.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
1.6804388980.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 19.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
1.7325156781.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005

 
The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

I'm missing something, I guess.

Thinking back to Maciamo's neat summary of the Boattini Y dna figures for northern Tuscany (and a bit of Liguria), provinces of La Spezia/Massa and Pistoia, R1b still comes in at 60-70pc, and little of it is Germanic.

Central and southern Tuscany (Siena/Grosseto) has under 50pc R1b, and some of it is Germanic.

The new Etruscan study mentions no Imperial Age or Medieval samples north of Chiusi (Clusium).
 
... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.

pagXhy1.jpg


uuCBakF.gif


Middle Ages[edit]

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Venusia was sacked by the Heruls, and in 493 AD it was turned into the administrative centre of the area in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, although later this role was moved to Acerenza.

The Lombards made it a gastaldate in 570/590.


In 842 Venosa was sacked by the Saracens, who were later ousted by Emperor Louis II.

Next rulers in the 9th century were the Byzantines, who lost control of it after their defeat in 1041 by the Normans. Under the latter, Venosa was assigned to Drogo of Hauteville. In 1133 the town was sacked and set on fire by Roger II of Sicily.


His later successor Frederick II had a castle built here where a Lombard outpost existed before, which was to house the Treasury (Ministry of Finances) of the Kingdom of Sicily.


Frederick's son, Manfred of Sicily, was perhaps born here in 1232. After the latter's fall, the Hohenstaufens were replaced by the Angevines; King Charles of Anjou assigned Venosa as a county to his son Robert.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venosa

This town was sacked many times, imho, much of the genetic continuity of modern Southern Italians in this region begins in the 1200s AD. Like in the case of my father's town, which was re-settled in the 1200s after 300 years of abandonment. These Venosa samples are from the 700s, from before the Saracen sacking.
 
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.

That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?
 
That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?

I think we all expected Italics, even those that went to the south to be similar to Etruscans. But what about these IA Greeks?


They land in the range of modern Southern Italy.


But also, what about the people that lived in the south before the arrival of Italics, and Greeks? If they're similar to the proceeding ones, it doesn't make the paper very viable imo, and could disrupt their conclusions.

mQwkAlS.jpg
 
I can really not make up the squares in that graphic. Either I am very blind or they are few and far between.

But assuming that is correct, Lazaridis Minoan paper should be what we base our discussion at the moment. In expectation of the Magna Grecia paper (where I assume this graphic is from) and the Marathon paper.

I really suspect, that Minoan/Mycenean sources were pulled further east, before the IA when they had an impact on the Italian colonies. Anatolian connection in my mind is a given, the question for me is really the Levant connection. But again I do not know a lot of details, so could be wrong.

Edit: Made up the squares. Guess I am blind after all. It is the cline, two squares I guess. They seem to plot on one end of the spectrum of some Italics. Neat.
 
I can really not make up the squares in that graphic. Either I am very blind or they are few and far between.

But assuming that is correct, Lazaridis Minoan paper should be what we base our discussion at the moment. In expectation of the Magna Grecia paper (where I assume this graphic is from) and the Marathon paper.

I really suspect, that Minoan/Mycenean sources were pulled further east, before the IA when they had an impact on the Italian colonies. Anatolian connection in my mind is a given, the question for me is really the Levant connection. But again I do not know a lot of details, so could be wrong.

In my speculation,

I think we will see that the Southern Italian BA will have individuals who show a pull towards Anatolian_ChL/BA, prior to the arrival of the Greeks of Magna Grecia.

The Magna Grecia IA individuals will be similar to Mycenaeans, and will be mixed with local pre-Greek Southerners.

The Italic/Etruscan contribution to the south will probably not be very high, but almost certainly not as much as the aforementioned groups.

Thus, this pull towards the southeast, will most likely come mostly from within Italy, rather than a massive change from more recent Eastern Mediterranean people (who I assume are from Anatolia, and not the Levant, as was the case in the Balkans pre-print).

Basically, what I am saying is that this upcoming paper may introduce some elements that will at most, call into question this extent of the Imperial era contributions. Because for me, the demographic shifts mentioned by others in Late Antiquity are viable scenarios; as they are to Stanford, and Harvard.
 
Too much R1b in a supposedly non IE speaking people. Something doesn't sum up.
This is exactly what it is already known from linguistics and history: R1a and R1b are not the original IE markers.
 
In my speculation,

I think we will see that the Southern Italian BA will have individuals who show a pull towards Anatolian_ChL/BA, prior to the arrival of the Greeks of Magna Grecia.

The Magna Grecia IA individuals will be similar to Mycenaeans, and will be mixed with local pre-Greek Southerners.

The Italic/Etruscan contribution to the south will probably not be very high, but almost certainly not as much as the aforementioned groups.

Thus, this pull towards the southeast, will most likely come mostly from within Italy, rather than a massive change from more recent Eastern Mediterranean people (who I assume are from Anatolia, and not the Levant, as was the case in the Balkans pre-print).

Basically, what I am saying is that this upcoming paper may introduce some elements that will at most, call into question this extent of the Imperial era contributions. Because for me, the demographic shifts mentioned by others in Late Antiquity are viable scenarios; as they are to Stanford, and Harvard.

Very plausible scenario, albeit I find it unlikely that the whole shift originated within Italy itself.

This made me think, your point, Paxes and Leopoldos.

What if. And hear me out.

What if Anatolia of the time had a profile in part similar to BA Levant. Say Anatolia IA was part Anatolia BA, part Levant BA?
Could this not make both hypotheses of Levant, or Anatolia contribution to Italia not mutually exclusive.
This would just make so the eastern contribution in Italy would be Anatolia derived, just like the Danubian lines paper was hinting regarding Balkans, but at the same time, this Anatolian derived people would have been a vector for partial Levant admixture?

This is just my attempt to synthesize contradicting claims and evidence. But I find this scenario not totally impossible.
 
Thinking back to Maciamo's neat summary of the Boattini Y dna figures for northern Tuscany (and a bit of Liguria), provinces of La Spezia/Massa and Pistoia, R1b still comes in at 60-70pc, and little of it is Germanic.

Central and southern Tuscany (Siena/Grosseto) has under 50pc R1b, and some of it is Germanic.

The new Etruscan study mentions no Imperial Age or Medieval samples north of Chiusi (Clusium).

does the "northern european" have to be germanic? part of it is probably celtic and i could imagine also female mediated especially during and after the conquest of gaul.
 
This town was sacked many times, imho, much of the genetic continuity of modern Southern Italians in this region begins in the 1200s AD. Like in the case of my father's town, which was re-settled in the 1200s after 300 years of abandonment. These Venosa samples are from the 700s, from before the Saracen sacking.

... some of the 650-800 AD Venosa samples totally match their modern (and us) counterparts, ... 650 AD or 2021 AD doesn't make a difference.


Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
4.99756941Italian_Abruzzo
5.46375329Italian_Apulia
5.71401785Italian_Lazio

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
4.45478395Italian_Abruzzo
4.99337561Italian_Apulia
5.44355582Italian_Sicily

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
3.72090043Italian_Abruzzo
3.98852103Italian_Sicily
5.30699538Italian_Apulia

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
4.91174104Italian_Apulia
5.21448943Italian_Sicily
5.52336854Moldovan_Jewish

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
3.40978005Italian_Sicily
3.99129052Italian_Campania
4.16998801Italian_Abruzzo

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
5.49456095Italian_Campania
6.34406810Italian_Sicily
6.54599114Italian_Abruzzo

Distance to:S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
10.32048933Italian_Abruzzo
10.49089129Italian_Lazio
10.52835695Italian_Sicily

Edit …
and me:

Distance to:Salento
2.20406443Italian_Apulia
3.47764288Italian_Abruzzo
 
That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?

I don't know, but there is a lack of samples, even this study that is coming out can't be conclusive.
 
Thinking back to Maciamo's neat summary of the Boattini Y dna figures for northern Tuscany (and a bit of Liguria), provinces of La Spezia/Massa and Pistoia, R1b still comes in at 60-70pc, and little of it is Germanic.

Central and southern Tuscany (Siena/Grosseto) has under 50pc R1b, and some of it is Germanic.

The new Etruscan study mentions no Imperial Age or Medieval samples north of Chiusi (Clusium).


Siena/Grosseto is probably the sample of 86 individuals from Murlo which is south of Siena. There was also the Garfagnana study that found 76% were R1b.

At this point it is clear that R1b in Tuscany and even and Emilia and Liguria, and in particular that under R1b-P312 (R1b-U152 and L2), which in the past was attributed to the Ligurians with the usual circular argument, may be due everywhere also to the Etruscans, including northern Tuscany. Prehistoric archaeology has maintained for years that the Ligurian presence in northern Tuscany is more recent than the Etruscan one and that the border between the two was always unstable, with large population exchanges between the two.

Chiusi is on the border with Umbria. They have analyzed those samples because they had them in the museum, but it is obvious that many more samples are needed for the last two thousand years. One thing is to analyze the Early Iron Age, when the population is likely smaller, and another is to analyze the Christian and medieval ages, when the population is much larger.
 
Very plausible scenario, albeit I find it unlikely that the whole shift originated within Italy itself.

This made me think, your point, Paxes and Leopoldos.

What if. And hear me out.

What if Anatolia of the time had a profile in part similar to BA Levant. Say Anatolia IA was part Anatolia BA, part Levant BA?
Could this not make both hypotheses of Levant, or Anatolia contribution to Italia not mutually exclusive.
This would just make so the eastern contribution in Italy would be Anatolia derived, just like the Danubian lines paper was hinting regarding Balkans, but at the same time, this Anatolian derived people would have been a vector for partial Levant admixture?

This is just my attempt to synthesize contradicting claims and evidence. But I find this scenario not totally impossible.

It seems the study does acknowledge the arrival Iran-related ancestry in Sicily and Sardinia. But say it didn't happen in Italy. I am not sure how they can say that with confidence, maybe that was the case for Etruria. They cannot say the same for the south. The mixed individual among the Daunians, leads me to believe there certainly were individuals like that. The PCA with the two Greek IA samples seems to verify this.
 
thanks jovialis(y)

Distance to:adam
5.13144229S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
6.05410604S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
6.56462489S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.61878388S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
7.52345001C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
7.93422964C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
8.38703166S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
9.54353708S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
10.20452351C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002
10.32028100S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
11.63581540:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
11.72975277C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
11.83413284C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
12.40366478S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN021
12.76552780S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
12.92574563C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
12.97334961C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
13.35012734C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
13.98837374C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
14.65017406C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
15.05478661C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
15.05876821C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
15.08146545S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
15.27518576S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
15.38769963C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
 

This thread has been viewed 130992 times.

Back
Top