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

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.


Neither the Goths nor the E-V13 have anything to do with the Germans. There is not a single classic author who to claim such nonsense about the Goths. However, the Goths are directly related to the Getae, who are Thracians. During Antiquity, the Goths were repeatedly identified with the Getae by authors who knew them. We know for sure that they inhabited the Balkans from the 2nd to the 9th century. Maximin the Thracian was born in the 2nd century, and his father is said to be a Goth, on the other hand, Valafrid Strabo testified about the use of the Gothic language in Dobrogea in the 9th century. If the Goths (Getae) of Urfila (Wulfila) spoke German, then for such a long period - 700 years, the Balkans must have been dotted with five to ten thousand German names of rivers, settlements, places.
There are none, I repeat NONE.
 
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

a summary of Bronze-age Italy

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humani...anacs-transcripts-and-maps/italian-bronze-age
 
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.

To everyone: I'm completely out of juice. Sorry. I'll have to just post my agreement, or disagreement, although I don't really disagree with anyone so far.

So, ihype, other than calling Italy strange, I agree with all of this. :)
 
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.

20% is inflated. Replicating the model with any available tool, a value of 20% Iran_N never comes out to modern Tuscans.


DoeSrdQ.png


81AF041.png


dp9TtOT.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.




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

https://i.imgur.com/NIi8Baj.png

Indeed, there's something wrong with their model.
 
To everyone: I'm completely out of juice. Sorry. I'll have to just post my agreement, or disagreement, although I don't really disagree with anyone so far.

So, ihype, other than calling Italy strange, I agree with all of this. :)

I meant "strange" to model them genetically, it's hard to comprehend what is happening genetically.
I should've used a better word.
 
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.

This is precisely my problem. Why didn't they try to model using later Anatolian sources, or IA Aegean, or Greek Empuries? It makes no sense to me. It's like genetic malpractice. Was Krause sleeping throughout this process?
 
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

How many of these G2a are in the L497 line ?..................as the 2013 Berger paper of Austrian Tyrol shows 80% have L497
 
20% is inflated. Replicating the model with any available tool, a value of 20% Iran_N never comes out to modern Tuscans.


DoeSrdQ.png


81AF041.png


dp9TtOT.png

until we separate data from BC-italy and AD-italy ............the data will be false
 
How many of these G2a are in the L497 line ?..................as the 2013 Berger paper of Austrian Tyrol shows 80% have L497

from what i see now in the
supplemental table s1:
2/8 G2 are derived for L497
 
from what i see now in the
supplemental table s1:
2/8 G2 are derived for L497


ok

so is Otzi connected with this G2a ?...................he is stated as connected with G2a from Dalmatia in the recent croatian paper of august 2021

there might be only a trade link of etruscans with tyrolese?
 
My results using just the samples from this paper:
Distance to:Angela
6.95926002C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
7.98552440C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
8.58821285C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
8.79924429C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
9.20103255C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
9.91873984C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
9.93290491C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
10.06553526C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
10.16278997C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
10.56473379S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
11.08476432C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018
11.14067323C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
11.39288374C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
11.66276983C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010
11.86686142C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
12.09408947C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
12.50501100S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
13.06735627C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023
14.51831257C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
14.80954422S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
14.81942981:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
14.95600548S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
15.01333074C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012
15.14463932C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
15.32393879C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021


Next I added the new samples from this paper to Jovialis' complete set as of 9/11. (Are the Danubian Limes samples in here?)

Distance to:Angela
5.32520422MOK17A:Zegarac_2021
5.88072274Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018
6.32650773I8475:Olalde_2019
6.38935051Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R111:Antonio_2019
6.43122072C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1287:Antonio_2019
6.44030279C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1285:Antonio_2019
6.46676117Szolad43:Amorim_2018
6.62573015ETR010:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
6.84008041Bulgaria_EBA:I2176:Mathieson_2018
6.91508496I1979:Olalde_2018
6.95926002TAQ022:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
6.95926002C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
7.03668956Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018
7.36718399Bulgaria_EBA:I2175:Mathieson_2018
7.39940538MA2197:Damgaard_2018
7.46848043POP001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
7.88178279Collegno36:Amorim_2018
7.89148275MOK31:Zegarac_2021
7.98552440VET001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
7.98552440C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
8.01499844TAQ006:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
8.15250268Scythian:scy197:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)
8.36475343Szolad28:Amorim_2018
8.58821285TAQ020:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
8.58821285C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020

Target: Angela
Distance: 0.5797% / 0.57969296 | ADC: 0.25x RC
30.2Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome
28.7TAQ006
20.6TAQ022
8.1Latini_IA
7.0I4936
4.4Baden_LCA
1.0Croatia_LBA



Target: Angela
Distance: 0.8599% / 0.85992465
31.5C.Italy_Early.Medieval
22.5C.Italy_Etruscan_undated
10.1
9.5C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated
9.5C.Italy_Imperial
8.9C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related
7.5C.Italy_Etruscan
0.5S.Italy_Venosa
 
How many of these G2a are in the L497 line ?..................as the 2013 Berger paper of Austrian Tyrol shows 80% have L497
Two G-L497
Three non-G-L497
Three G-P303 with unknown status for G-L497

Ötzi was G2a2a (no sample in this study).
 
ok

so is Otzi connected with this G2a ?...................he is stated as connected with G2a from Dalmatia in the recent croatian paper of august 2021

there might be only a trade link of etruscans with tyrolese?



no
oetzi is under g-L91

G2a2a1a2a1a FGC5672 (8524959 C->T) Germans, Oetzi the Iceman

https://popgen.us/2014/09/oetzi-the-icemans-y-haplogroup-update/


https://www.yfull.com/arch-4.09/tree/G-FGC5672/


he share common ancestor with g-L497 to far back in time
in this level
https://www.yfull.com/arch-4.09/tree/G-L1259/
 
I imagine like the Balkan_IA, you could say the Italian version would be C.Italian_IA + Aegean_IA.

The issue with that is, that if rumors are true, and Aegean IA turns out Marathon like... Then that pretty much creates an equivalence of Etrsucan + East Med/Levant to C.Italian_IA + Aegean_IA. So beware that that model, might not mean what you might expect, and could turn this papers methodology equivalent to Danubian limes methodology.

That would be unfortunate.
 
# 10

Distance to:Florere
5.60857379C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
6.61916913C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
6.96063934C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
7.00121418C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
7.23359523C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
7.36524270C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
7.56171277C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
8.92213539C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
9.04014380C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
9.12575476C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
9.52810055C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
9.58956203C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006
9.62791255S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
9.92597099C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
10.08955896C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
10.15176832C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
10.47115562C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
10.58337375S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
10.58490435C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
10.69274988C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
10.90399468C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
11.01745887C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
11.03102896C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
11.08548601C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
11.20923280C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
11.45245389C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
11.51390029C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001
11.70232456C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:MAG001
12.00868436C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
12.30540938C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
12.70068896C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
12.72209495C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018
12.78776759C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:pRZ001
12.90349178C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
12.94664435C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001
 
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.

The East-Med pull seem to be essentially Middle Eastern and Northern African influenced not Greek (expect in Calabria and Sicily). There is a reason why Abruzzes plot really close to other southern Italians without having any Greek colony.

Also the ratio of distance of Tuscans to Etruscans seem to be pretty much similar to the ratio of Daunians and Apulians in PCA.
 
The East-Med pull seem to be essentially Middle Eastern and Northern African influenced not Greek (expect in Calabria and Sicily). There is a reason why Abruzzes plot really close to other southern Italians without having any Greek colony.

Abruzzo has been part of Kingdom of Naples for many centuries, it is obvious that it has become part of the southern Italian cluster. A Middle Eastern influence was certainly there in Greece and the Balkans as well. Many ancient Greeks, when their results will be published, will go in the most disparate directions. A potential North African influence moves most of the Italians out of their cluster, can't have contributed much.


Also the ratio of distance of Tuscans to Etruscans seem to be pretty much similar to the ratio of Daunians and Apulians in PCA.

It can be, but in Italy there were not only Etruscans and Daunians. We need the genome of at least another twenty ancient peoples.


Indeed, there's something wrong with their model.

Most definitely.

This is precisely my problem. Why didn't they try to model using later Anatolian sources, or IA Aegean, or Greek Empuries? It makes no sense to me. It's like genetic malpractice. Was Krause sleeping throughout this process?

From Krause, what can we expect? Not much, I'm afraid.

The narrative has changed. The Etruscans from Middle Eastern migrants have become completely European, even more European than Italians, and now the new game of the geneticists are the imperial migrations. :LOL:
 
Abruzzo has been part of Kingdom of Naples for many centuries, it is obvious that it has become part of the southern Italian cluster.
Yeah but the point I was trying to make is that this ancestry hit a good part of Italy the same. As you mentioned Italy is genetically cline. If it was essentially Greek we would see a massive genetic break, like there is between Croats and modern Northern Italians.

It can be, but in Italy there were not only Etruscans and Daunians. We need the genome of at least another twenty ancient peoples.
There is an official PCA with Daunians, they plot west of Tuscans in the same way Etruscans plot west of Northern Italians.
I think other Southern Italians will be similar to Daunians and Messapians in particular a bit more shifted towards BUL_IA.
 

This thread has been viewed 133796 times.

Back
Top