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

I can’t seem to locate Latin Ardea R850 in the new lists … my favorite y T Latin :)


only change for me after adding R850 is

Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.9865% / 0.98653744
27.4 ITA_Daunian_low_res ...............this lowered slightly
26.7 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
24.4 ITA_Etruscan_Vetulonia_CEU
12.4 ITA_Etruscan_Civitavecchia
6.8 ITA_Etruscan_Marsiliana
2.3 ITA_Etruscan_Tarquinia_o



BTW ................is he still from Crete in origin .............or is it the newer....he is a Greek-Corsican who married an etruscan woman ?
 
Maybe this have already been brought up, but do we have the Y haplogroups of the so called etruscan imperial samples? The paper seems to assume they were individual representative of a newly formed mixed population of etruscans and levantines, but I find this hypothesis a bit unlikely, since it would imply a very high demographic turnover in just a century, with etruscans suddenly stopping mating with each other and choosing instead a partner from the levant. I find more plausibl to assume that they could have just been a relatively unadmixed aegean-like migrants from Magna Grecia. The distal population modeling they provide seems consistent with this scenario. Maybe the Y haplogroups could shed some light on the matter.


The paper never suggests that these were mixed populations of Etruscans and Levantines of recent formation, which makes no sense either historically or archaeologically, although this part is the decidedly more confusing part of the paper. The paper theorises that with Romanisation and the Roman imperial period so many non-local individuals arrived in Italy, not specifically Levantines but from the wider eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Anatolia), even from culturally Greek parts (Lazaridis and Haak in later contributions speak of an Anatolian_BA-like population that had an impact in the Roman imperial period not only on Italy but also on the Balkans, even northern ones such as Serbia), as to create a genetic shift in the local population of the Italian peninsula. Foreigners also arrived earlier, during the Iron Age, but not enough to change the demography of the native and local population of Etruria.

The paper focuses on Etruria, and therefore talks about Etruria, but it is clear that this genetic shift applies to the whole of Italy and other parts of Europe. Now, the problem is that this particular study holds very few samples from the imperial period in Etruria, and too hastily eclipses the hypothesis of a local resurgence, and therefore must necessarily bring up the Germanic Middle-Age Lombards inflating, likely, their later contribute. The other problem is that the population of the imperial period, a mix of early Iron Age locals from central and northern Italy and immigrants from the eastern Mediterranean, has a genetic profile very similar in many cases to the modern Italians of southern Italy. The model proposed by this study is unable to distinguish internal from external movements within the Italian peninsula.

We will know more when the genetic studies on the rest of Italy from the early Iron Age finally come out, some of which have already been presented in the course of 2021 and have not yet been published.
 
The paper never suggests that these were mixed populations of Etruscans and Levantines of recent formation, which makes no sense either historically or archaeologically, although this part is the decidedly more confusing part of the paper. The paper theorises that with Romanisation and the Roman imperial period so many non-local individuals arrived in Italy, not specifically Levantines but from the wider eastern Mediterranean [...]

They modeled the imperial era etruscan as a two way mix of Iron Age Etruscans and Alaka Bronze Age, so I (erroneously?) supposed they were implying that these imperial era samples were indeed part of a new mixed population.

Maybe their haplogroups could help seeing things more clearly.
 
They modeled the imperial era etruscan as a two way mix of Iron Age Etruscans and Alaka Bronze Age, so I (erroneously?) supposed they were implying that these imperial era samples were indeed part of a new mixed population.
Maybe their haplogroups could help seeing things more clearly.


First of all they are Imperial Romans, not Etruscans. It's Anatolia_Alalakh_MLBA and Alalakh always comes from Turkey even if we are a few kilometers from Syria and you're right it's not identical to Anatolian Bronze age, if I remember well it's more like a mix of Anatolia_BA with some Levantine ancestry.

Yp3rE6A.png


They also use a sample of Israel_IA, so to speak. But these are just models, not smoking guns. You can use other samples as well. Of course, they are implying that they were mixed in the Imperial period, is what the paper argues, with "a contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations", not just from the Levant (and it is quite evident that they really were, but they are still only 6 samples from the border areas). The paper also argues that in Rome the impact of these Levantine-Anatolians was greater than in Etruria.

Haplogroups I'm afraid do not allow us more clarity. What will allow us greater clarity are a very great number of samples from all over Italy, both from the Iron Age and from the Imperial Roman era. Because what happened in Rome and in Etruria is evident that it happened everywhere, except perhaps the less urbanized and more isolated areas.
 
they are implying that they were mixed in the Imperial period, is what the paper argues, with "a contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations", not just from the Levant (and it is quite evident that they really were, but they are still only 6 samples from the border areas). The paper also argues that in Rome the impact of these Levantine-Anatolians was greater than in Etruria.

My point, wich may easily be wrong, is that those six samples from imperial era Etruria don't necessarily have to be mixed, since they plot in the Aegean area and could be immigrants from Greece or from Southern Italy.

Of course, I'm not saying that they weren't admixed individuals in the imperial era, I'm just speaking of those six samples, whose distal population modeling could be coherent with an aegean ancestry.
 
My point, wich may easily be wrong, is that those six samples from imperial era Etruria don't necessarily have to be mixed, since they plot in the Aegean area and could be immigrants from Greece or from Southern Italy.
Of course, I'm not saying that they weren't admixed individuals in the imperial
era, I'm just speaking of those six samples, whose distal population modeling could be coherent with an aegean ancestry.


Agreed. As I've said in a previous comment, this study may be unable to distinguish internal from external movements within the Italian peninsula during the Roman Imperial period.
 
Unsure if talked about already here, but I find it interesting how (as far as I'm aware) the L2 lineages found in Etruscan samples so far are all more closely related to ones found in La Tene Celts (L20) than to ones found in Ancient Latins/Italics (DF90 and ZZ48)
View attachment 13788
There was even at least one Etruscan sample who was tested Z36, another clade associated with Alpine Celts.

In the case of the Etruscans, despite heavy Indo-European paternal influence on genes, the language of the native Neolithic population persisted (another example of this being the Basques), as opposed to the Italics, in which Indo-European languages dominated.

The Indo-European influence among both of them early on being from separate strains would make sense in this regard, likely representing different contexts of migration, invasion, assimilation, and whatnot.
 
Unsure if talked about already here, but I find it interesting how (as far as I'm aware) the L2 lineages found in Etruscan samples so far are all more closely related to ones found in La Tene Celts (L20) than to ones found in Ancient Latins/Italics (DF90 and ZZ48)
View attachment 13788
There was even at least one Etruscan sample who was tested Z36, another clade associated with Alpine Celts.

In the case of the Etruscans, despite heavy Indo-European paternal influence on genes, the language of the native Neolithic population persisted (another example of this being the Basques), as opposed to the Italics, in which Indo-European languages dominated.

The Indo-European influence among both of them early on being from separate strains would make sense in this regard, likely representing different contexts of migration, invasion, assimilation, and whatnot.


Interesting observation but the problem is that the Latins analysed so far number are only 6 against the 60/70 Etruscans. And so far no Osco-Umbrian-speaking Italics have been published. They are too few to make a comparison.

I also expect the ancient Veneti to be rich in L2 lineages. And possibly also Raetians, although we know that the Raetians had numerous contacts with the Celtic world (especially La Tene culture) in the Second Iron Age and many Celts were assimilated into the Raetic ethnic group, even though Raetians continued to speak their non-Indo-European language related to Etruscan.
 
Interesting observation but the problem is that the Latins analysed so far number are only 6 against the 60/70 Etruscans. And so far no Osco-Umbrian-speaking Italics have been published. They are too few to make a comparison.

I also expect the ancient Veneti to be rich in L2 lineages. And possibly also Raetians, although we know that the Raetians had numerous contacts with the Celtic world (especially La Tene culture) in the Second Iron Age and many Celts were assimilated into the Raetic ethnic group, even though Raetians continued to speak their non-Indo-European language related to Etruscan.

Fair point. The so few ancient Latin samples and non-existent Osco-Umbrian samples are a bit frustrating. I look forward to more published results of these in the future.

If Maciamo's work connecting haplogroups to potential Roman gens holds any water, then I wouldn't be too surprised at substantial U152>Z193 showing up among Sabines, Samnites, and whatnot.

That makes sense re Veneti, considering that the ancient Liburnians appear to have been heavy in L2 as well (And speaking a related language?)
 
Fair point. The so few ancient Latin samples and non-existent Osco-Umbrian samples are a bit frustrating. I look forward to more published results of these in the future.

If Maciamo's work connecting haplogroups to potential Roman gens holds any water, then I wouldn't be too surprised at substantial U152>Z193 showing up among Sabines, Samnites, and whatnot.

That makes sense re Veneti, considering that the ancient Liburnians appear to have been heavy in L2 as well (And speaking a related language?)


Liburnian language as I know is not attested. Everything we think we know about the Liburnian language is based on speculation or circular argumentation. Some think it was even a non-Indo-European language. But there is no certainty about that either. So nothing is certain.

Whereas for the Venetic language, which is attested, the debate is still open as to whether or not it was an Italic language (and if it was an Italic language to be understood in addition whether of the Latin-Faliscan or Osco-Umbrian language families).
 
The archaic Venetic alphabet seems to have featured a rare form of Theta, Θ2 s, which is found in a handful of inscriptions from 6th-century Chiusi and Volsinii (Cl 2.8, Cl 2.6, Cl 2.5, Vs 1.23 and Vs 1.14, see Colonna 1972: 470), as seen in *Es 120. *Es 122 shows that the digraph <vh> was used to write /f/, rather than the new character addF1 s, which was introduced no sooner than the middle of the 6th century. The table shows the characters contained in the above mentioned inscriptions (disregarding minor variants). Pi is missing, but note that *Es 122 has L s, read l by Prosdocimi; cp. Pi in the form L s in Chiusi. Syllabic punctuation is absent.

The younger alphabet of Este is unusually well documented on a number of votive writing tablets from a sanctuary-cum-writing school and distinguished by syllabic punctuation, both of which phenomena, together with the actual content of the inscriptions, connect it with the 6th century writing tradition of the Portonaccio sanctuary in Veii in the South of Etruria. The background of syllabic punctuation is debated.
 
Poor Jean Manco. How long did she spend on the difference between language and script???
 
Liburnian language as I know is not attested. Everything we think we know about the Liburnian language is based on speculation or circular argumentation. Some think it was even a non-Indo-European language. But there is no certainty about that either. So nothing is certain.

Whereas for the Venetic language, which is attested, the debate is still open as to whether or not it was an Italic language (and if it was an Italic language to be understood in addition whether of the Latin-Faliscan or Osco-Umbrian language families).

It seems suppositions about Liburnian language are based for the most (if not only) on personal names, different from more southern names considered more seriously as true Illyrian names.
 
This Liburnian anthroponymy is very close to the Venetic one. And Venetic is more and more considered as very close to Italic dialects, in it more ties with Latin than with the Osco-Umbrian group. One supposition is that the ancient group they would have formed had been broken off by the Osco-Umbrian locutors.
 
It seems suppositions about Liburnian language are based for the most (if not only) on personal names, different from more southern names considered more seriously as true Illyrian names.


many liburnian names are shared with venetic, japodes and illyrian personnel names in east Austria ( noricum ) .................mostly likely with histrian as well

 
many liburnian names are shared with venetic, japodes and illyrian personnel names in east Austria ( noricum ) .................mostly likely with histrian as well


Yes. But could"Illyrians" of Noricum be considered as genuine Illyrians? Or only people accultured by them?
 
Unsure if talked about already here, but I find it interesting how (as far as I'm aware) the L2 lineages found in Etruscan samples so far are all more closely related to ones found in La Tene Celts (L20) than to ones found in Ancient Latins/Italics (DF90 and ZZ48)
View attachment 13788
There was even at least one Etruscan sample who was tested Z36, another clade associated with Alpine Celts.

In the case of the Etruscans, despite heavy Indo-European paternal influence on genes, the language of the native Neolithic population persisted (another example of this being the Basques), as opposed to the Italics, in which Indo-European languages dominated.

The Indo-European influence among both of them early on being from separate strains would make sense in this regard, likely representing different contexts of migration, invasion, assimilation, and whatnot.
Z36 Etruscan sample? Which sample exactly? I can't find it in supplementary material.
 
Yes. But could"Illyrians" of Noricum be considered as genuine Illyrians? Or only people accultured by them?


they are the only people noted in the area prior to the celtic invasion from modern germany of 1000BC ( halstatt culture phase one )

There are no genuine illyrians, there are many tribes living in an area ..................illyrian is a geographical term ........................the term is like Scandinavian
 
Z36 Etruscan sample? Which sample exactly? I can't find it in supplementary material.

CAM001; R1b-U152>Z36>CTS5531>Z54>Z37; 780 - 540 BC; Campiglia dei Foci, Siena, Tuscany (Posth 2021)
R10338; R1b-U152>Z36>CTS5531>BY201216; 759 BC - 3 AD; Tarquinia (Moots 2022)
discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z36/tree
 

This thread has been viewed 136950 times.

Back
Top