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

I agree with your entire post, Jovialis.


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

Because he is following the typical narrative of this group of geneticists (which is based on Barbujani's studies) to discredit the work (which deserved to be discredited, but mostly for other reasons) of the other group of Italian geneticists (which is based on Alberto Piazza's work). I explained this in a previous post.
 
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.

Seems impossible to tell based on how this paper models the samples in the graphics. I don't see any Natufian components used which would verify if it is Anatolian or Levantine. Levant_BA is bascially 50% Natufian. Anatolia_IA would surely not have that much, Anatolian_BA was only 5% according to Lazaridis et al. 2017.

Also what I find peculiar is the use of Morocco Neolithic, they should at least have used Paleolithic samples from this area. Which imo help decipher out if it is Anatolian or Levantine. Since Natufian has a noticeable amount of Moroccan Paleolithic-like DNA.
 
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.

zvfz03q.jpg

Thanks for the information, regarding this paper yet to be publish, I think it is relevant to read again the Andrea Finocchio et Al paper from 2018 'A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean''. Some of its statements are interesting and will probably help us to understand some points. For example, regarding J2 L397 , that is considered by scientists as a ''clear sign of Greek colonization of Magna Graecia''. They stated ''This work revealed that signs of Holocenic Hg J radiations are subtle, but nevertheless concentrated mainly in the Bronze Age, a critical period for the establishment of genetic structure in Europe'', They also concluded ''We provided here the strongest temporal and distributional evidence so far for markers which can be attributed to the Greek settlement of Magna Graecia.''
''J2a-L397 in Central-Southern Continental Italy accounts for only 13% (24/182) of Hg J. At a face value this can be taken as a bottom figure for the Greek contribution to the gene pool of the region. Though the true value may be higher than this, it is unlikely that the bulk of diversity has a Greek origin. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that unequivocal genetic traces of the Greek colonists in Continental Italy have gone undetected so far''. I think we need to take all this conclusions in consideration when the papar will be out.
 
Early Medieval Tuscans plot with Marche Italians based on my eye and late antiquity Tuscans plot with Abruzzes. Pretty much 8% Germanic impact which is not far off the Y-DNA that Maciamo gave. K12b misses many samples (both ancient and modern) can't use that calculator. Sorry.

The fit is very tight.

Target: Italian_Marche
Distance: 0.9814% / 0.00981370

92.0Italian_Abruzzo
8.0SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna

Target: Italian_Marche
Distance: 0.9814% / 0.00981370

92.0Italian_Abruzzo
8.0SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
 
I have reread the paper, and it is still a piece of historical research, which means it must be subject to the same standards that guide historical scholarship; I am no genetist but I have studied my great deal of historiography, and the consensus here is that the assumptions that ground the statistics are weak if not unattainable, so I have decided to keep "sticking to my guns" and besides the points I've already raisen I add:

1) the authors didn't communicate with the team that worked on the Danubian limes paper, and that's why they've written the already "debunked" line that "it was thanks to the Roman empire that southeastern Europeans came to occupy the place in the PCA between the rest of Europe and the near east" since the balkan cline already existed.
2)they didn't use the already published samples from Antonio et al 2019 (especially to integrate their very small dataset of imperial samples, also especially after verifying that Etruria and Latium were very similar both pre and post the imperial period).

Now some remarks: they have seen another individual modelled with a good chunk of Armenia_BA in Etruria, yet they "dismissed" him as an individual with recent near eastern ancestry, which would have been the most plausible explanation if there were not already two latin outliers that show the same make up and the whole paper about the Daunians: something either from the Balkans or Italy itself is much more parsimonious in this case.
Most here agree that the weakest part of the paper are the claims about the "legacy" of the Etruscans, and I wonder why they haven't checked some models with even the already published latin outliers just to see how they work, to see if they "hinted at something", or better some models with samples from the paper about the Daunians (better yet if they tried some samples from the Danubian limes paper).
I have a hunch, and If true it would show dishonesty if not straight manupulation from the authors, that they got their model with half Etruscans and half south Levantines (ashkelon has higher P values than Alalakh) as the best fit because they averaged at least a guy (MAS003 it seems from the graphs) that is partially north african since he overlaps with the etruscan samples that were partially north african, and there is another sample (I don't know if he has Levantine admixture or Anatolian admixture, since I can't tell from the PCA) that is an outlier compared to the other four imperial age samples. I have run some models with G25 and it seems to be the case that MAS003 has north african admixture, but I'll let others verify this.
Both 20% germanic in Tuscany and a very high Levantine admixture seem very implausible to me.
 
Furthermore, even if the bulk of the Italics turns out to be like the Latin, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with a more "eastern" genetic make up existed well before the imperial period.
It remains an open question how much they would feature in an explanation for the archeogenetics of Italy though.
 
Both 20% germanic in Tuscany and a very high Levantine admixture seem very implausible to me.

Agreed.

20% northern European rather than Germanic (you know, even Swiss Germans or south Tyroleans are Germanic but they are not northern European). ^

I explained why this paper proposes this model, and that today we are to the idea that the Etruscans are vanished (starting with the opposite idea a few years ago that they were Middle Eastern).

This article released in Science shows how everyone can be wrong. For example, the idea that the Etruscans founded Rome is not supported by archaeology studies, and the fact that Michael McCormick, a historian at Harvard is a co-author of this study makes you realize that you really can never completely trust these studies, because no one is infallible.

https://www.science.org/content/art...anished-work-sheds-light-mysterious-etruscans
 
I agree with your entire post, Jovialis.
Because he is following the typical narrative of this group of geneticists (which is based on Barbujani's studies) to discredit the work (which deserved to be discredited, but mostly for other reasons) of the other group of Italian geneticists (which is based on Alberto Piazza's work). I explained this in a previous post.
I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.
 
Agreed.

20% northern European rather than Germanic (you know, even Swiss Germans or south Tyroleans are Germanic but they are not northern European). ^

I explained why this paper proposes this model, and that today we are to the idea that the Etruscans are vanished (starting with the opposite idea a few years ago that they were Middle Eastern).

This article released in Science shows how everyone can be wrong. For example, the idea that the Etruscans founded Rome is not supported by archaeology studies, and the fact that Michael McCormick, a historian at Harvard is a co-author of this study makes you realize that you really can never completely trust these studies, because no one is infallible.

https://www.science.org/content/art...anished-work-sheds-light-mysterious-etruscans

if you take other sources and not germanic the % of new ancestry just increases. it is more probable though that the shift was introduced not only by longobards but also by populations in northern italy or celts from gaul and central europeans. considering this together with the earlier 50% shift towards eastern mediterranean then yes, real etruscan ancestry is probably a small minority component in the total ancestry of modern central italians. which is not surprising at all after all this time. i expect that the same is the case for example for switzerland and the continuity with populations that lived in that region at that time. strong genetic continuity after such a long time period is very unlikely.
 
I sort of "kept my powder dry" on this thread because I didn't get a chance to read the whole paper and supplement until this morning. For personal reasons my time for this hobby is much more limited than it used to be. I must say that while there are things in the Limes paper which I think are problematical, especially as regards Albanians, given the disjunct with the yDna and their presence in the CNE cluster rather than the Kuline cluster, that paper looks like a masterpiece compared to this one, I'm sorry to say. The actual authors are second string, but I'm disappointed in Johannes Krause's supervision.

I think Leopoldo has made some very pertinent points, among which are the two immediately upthread.

"1) the authors didn't communicate with the team that worked on the Danubian limes paper, and that's why they've written the already "debunked" line that "it was thanks to the Roman empire that southeastern Europeans came to occupy the place in the PCA between the rest of Europe and the near east" since the balkan cline already existed.
2)they didn't use the already published samples from Antonio et al 2019 (especially to integrate their very small dataset of imperial samples, also especially after verifying that Etruria and Latium were very similar both pre and post the imperial period)."

The first point, in particular, calls their whole analysis into question.

Jovialis' point about how it seems odd that the authors just make a blanket statement that there was no Iran Neo in mainland Southern Italy until the Imperial Age when they don't use any ancient samples from that area, ignoring samples which do, in fact, show such admixture is very well taken.

I also find it odd that the paper says the following: "
As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D).", yet then proceeds to show a graphic with only ancestry from the southern Levant. Did they, like the authors of the Limes paper, attempt to model the admixture with ancient Anatolian samples? If they did, where is it in the paper or Supplement?

There also has to be a degree of common sense when one analyzes data like this. Is it at all conceivable, to reword Leopoldo's other point about the conclusions here, that "slaves, soldiers, and mobile citizens" ONLY from the Levant went to the former Etruscan lands and all the Anatolian ones went to the Balkans? It doesn't make any sense. It also flies in the face of contemporary Imperial documents pointing to the large number of Greeks in Etruria. What, did all the Germanic and Gallic slaves get sent to latifundia and galleys and mines and died off, and what we are left with are the more educated people from the east? O.K. I'll buy that, as it fits with what the Limes paper shows, but again, ONLY from the Levant?

That's not to mention that they're talking about 6 samples for a 500 year sample. Why didn't they at least use the Antonio et al samples if they were going to draw conclusions about all of Italy? They do point out that burial practices might figure into the representativeness of those 6 samples, but then drop it there.

Speaking of this, where is the archaeological context for these samples, like what was provided in the Limes paper?

I'm intrigued by Archetypes' point that perhaps the Anatolian samples of the last millennium B.C. leaned more toward the Levant than prior Anatolian samples. Perhaps we'll discover that's true, but enough to make the admixture show almost 50% Southern Levant admixture?

I am really disappointed that the use of yDna seems to have gone out of fashion with the major genetics labs, to one degree or another. The weakest part of the Limes paper, to me, was the disjunct with the Albanian analysis and the yDna of Albania. How does their yDna support a 48% admixture rate with Slavs? If some E-V13 came with Germanics, ok, but Slavs?

Likewise here the yDna doesn't fit with the conclusions. To Ailchu's point, where are the Celts in all of this? There's only 5-10% of Germanic yDna in Toscana based on Maciamo's charts and graphic. That seems to fit the historical evidence very well; I mean, we're talking about a total of 60,000 Langobards, people, and a Gothic elite presence. The majority of the Langobard castles were in the northeast, and the strategically placed castles further into the peninsula could not and the records show did not have large numbers of actual Langobards manning them. Then, take into account the paucity of I1 and U-106.

In the Limes paper they explained this "problem" away by saying that the admixture was mostly female mediated, as also shown by their analysis of the X chromosome. That one leaves me scratching my head. Did the male lines die out because they were doing the fighting? Did the female Slavs, and Langobards in the case of this paper, find the locals irresistible? If the latter it would be a departure from the scenario in all cases of invasion and subjugation in which the arriving males mate with the local females, but their own females are sacrosanct. Typical male behavior, in other words.

All in all, I'm quite confused by this paper. It makes no difference to me whatsoever if Tuscans, who constitute at least 1/4 of my ancestry, or maybe if you take into account that eastern Liguria may be very like Toscana around Florence, 1/2 of my ancestry, are Anatolian or Levantine or Balkan or whatever. However, it has to make sense.
 
source: apricity


780-540 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312

770-520 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu G2a2b2a1 L140/S316
770-540 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2a1a1b L497/S317
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
427-265 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related - -
380-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2d1a Z2247
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated J2b2a1 L283
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
533-392 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2/S139
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
427-265 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
380-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2d1a Z2247
- - n/a n/a
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
139-326 CE C.Italy_Imperial - -
997-1149 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval R1b1a1b1a L51
- - n/a n/a
805-774 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
772-888 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
775-945 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
- C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated - -
- C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated n/a n/a
899-1016 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
977-1022 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014 J1a2a1a2 P58/Page8/PF4698
40-190 CE - n/a n/a
407-534 CE C.Italy_Imperial I1 -
790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a L151
350-100 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903
240-380 CE C.Italy_Imperial R1b1a1b1b Z2103
400-530 CE C.Italy_Imperial R1b1a1b M269/PF6517
804-557 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1 P310
772-960 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2

794-543 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
772-436 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related - -
103 BCE-54 CE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
729-942 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2b U152
346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated G2a2b2a1a1b1 CTS9737/Z1815

391-207 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
899-1021 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval I1a2a1a1a1a S1954/YSC0000261
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312

895-1016 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a1 M405/U106/S21
346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
- C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a L51
346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2

358-98 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
89-236 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2 Z2229
262-424 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2b1b M319

1018-1151 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
396-216 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903
356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a2 PF7589/Z2118
174-53 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_UDC_P R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
650-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2a1a1a2b2a2b3a L210

650-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002 - -
650-763 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
650-763 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2b2a1 L283
660-766 CE S.Italy_Venosa E1b1b1a1b1 L618

660-766 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related - -
670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related J2b M12
670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa G2a2b2a1 L140/S316
670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2b2a1 L283

670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related n/a n/a
672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related - -
672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related G2a2b2a P303/Page108/PF3340/S135/Z765
750-406 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2b1a1a PF3378
800-590 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
360-200 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu - -
359-199 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr_VET006.9 - -
806-599 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
372-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr - -
788-545 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
750-413 BCE - n/a n/a
790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
200-60 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2


p.s
ben affleck branch in imperial central italy
:cool-v:262-424 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2b1b M319
 
Last edited:
I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.

They will follow narratives. In the end, only the ancient DNA samples will make the real difference. But for everything that has happened in the last 2000 years you need a lot of samples, much more than you have now. Not to mention that there were factors such as the Black Death in the Middle Ages that drastically reduced the population.
 
I am gonna do the math now.
If there was a 39% East Med/Near Eastern contribution onto Tuscany during the Antiquity and later in Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages there was 20% Northern European contribution, for modern Tuscans it would make them 27% Near Eastern, 20% Northern European and 53% Italo-Etruscan. I now believe a good chunk of E-V13 is actually of Germanic origin. But the 20% AUTOSOMAL impact still doesn't make sense to me, unless the Goths were mixed which is not the case as seen in the study itself. And the J2 in modern Tuscans is around 13% including both J2b and J2a. Some subclades of which are probably Italic. And J1 with (non E-V13) E subclades are like 4%.

Greeks are extremely easy to model, with both historical data and Y-DNA. When I used port-Bronze Age Anatolian vs Levantine in Cretans, it showed zero or very close to zero Levantine and over 30% Anatolian which makes sense by both a historical and Y-DNA data.

Using Slavic, Anatolian and Ancient Greco-Thracians for Greeks works just fine. Italy is soooo strange.
 
I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.

the imperial samples in this study all clustering together despite beeing seperated in space and time implies that this was a rather homogenous ethnicity. if this just existed in the cities? unlikely imo.
 
the imperial samples in this study all clustering together despite beeing seperated in space and time implies that this was a rather homogenous ethnicity. if this just existed in the cities? unlikely imo.

It is a completely wrong reading and it is completely inappropriate to talk about an homogenous ethnicity. But I totally understand why you're doing it.
 
It is a completely wrong reading and it is completely inappropriate to talk about an homogenous ethnicity. But I totally understand why you're doing it.

why? there are outliers i know, not extreme though, and i understand that saying this society was created by the introgression of 50% or even just 39% purely eastern mediterranean ancestry is almost certainly wrong. the numbers in this stuy can not be true simply because they are based only on 2 population models. i'm sure the authors know this.
but from where should the people have come from that repopulated the cities so that we end up with the medieval profile?
 
Figure S3 in the Supplementary Material compares C.Italy_Etruscan; C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu (more north-shifted); C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr (Outliers shifted towards North Africa); C.Italy_Imperial (Roman period); C.Italy_Early.Medieval with 2 very similar modern Tuscan series...TSI.SG and Tuscan.DG.

There are 5 distal sources...Anatolia Neolithic, Russia Yamnaya, Morocco EN, WHG and Iran Neolithic.

We need to account for over 20pc Iran Neolithic in modern Tuscans not found in the main C.Italy.Etruscan group.
 
I am gonna do the math now.
If there was a 39% East Med/Near Eastern contribution onto Tuscany during the Antiquity and later in Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages there was 20% Northern European contribution, for modern Tuscans it would make them 27% Near Eastern, 20% Northern European and 53% Italo-Etruscan. I now believe a good chunk of E-V13 is actually of Germanic origin. But the 20% AUTOSOMAL impact still doesn't make sense to me, unless the Goths were mixed which is not the case as seen in the study itself. And the J2 in modern Tuscans is around 13% including both J2b and J2a. Some subclades of which are probably Italic. And J1 with (non E-V13) E subclades are like 4%.

Greeks are extremely easy to model, with both historical data and Y-DNA. When I used port-Bronze Age Anatolian vs Levantine in Cretans, it showed zero or very close to zero Levantine and over 30% Anatolian which makes sense by both a historical and Y-DNA data.

Using Slavic, Anatolian and Ancient Greco-Thracians for Greeks works just fine. Italy is soooo strange.


Since there is a cline in Italy, you can apply that model to all Italians following the cline. Increase Near Eastern and decrease Northern European the further south you go, and do the opposite when you go north.

Of course, it is simply a model. Even if it were true, the Tuscans would remain at least half Italian-Etruscan.


Figure S3 in the Supplementary Material compares C.Italy_Etruscan; C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu (more north-shifted); C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr (Outliers shifted towards North Africa); C.Italy_Imperial (Roman period); C.Italy_Early.Medieval with 2 very similar modern Tuscan series...TSI.SG and Tuscan.DG.

There are 5 distal sources...Anatolia Neolithic, Russia Yamnaya, Morocco EN, WHG and Iran Neolithic.

We need to account for over 20pc Iran Neolithic in modern Tuscans not found in the main C.Italy.Etruscan group.:unsure:

Iran_N is more in modern Tuscans than in Imperial Age Romans. Something is not working.

https://i.imgur.com/NIi8Baj.png
 
Since there is a cline in Italy, you can apply that model to all Italians following the cline. Increase Near Eastern and decrease Northern European the further south you go, and do the opposite when you go north.

Of course, it is simply a model. Even if it were true, the Tuscans would remain at least half Italian-Etruscan.

Delete. Already answered.
 

This thread has been viewed 133616 times.

Back
Top