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

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.

History of Italy is a bit longer and more complicated than the history of the Greeks in Italy. The Greeks arrived on the Adriatic side as far as northern Italy (Adria) and central Italy (Ancona), and can hardly be compared to the Slavs who arrived centuries later in Croatia. It is clear that Romanization was a bit a factor of homogenization as I have been repeating for more than 6 years, when everyone instead claimed that Romanization had distributed in Italy R1b U152 and the Etruscans were Middle Eastern. Then Rome falls, and many centuries pass before modern Italians are finally formed. There were also the so-called Byzantines in Italy. Just saying.

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 too but a bit more shifted towards BUL_IA.

As I've been saying since yesterday, apparently Italics from Campania turned out to be similar to Etruscans and Latins of the early Iron Age. If so, they will turn out to be different from the Daunians. On the other hand the Daunians were not Italic.
 
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.
Goths were from Scandinavia.
 
Then how can the presence of North Germanic Y-dna clades in the Balkans be explained ?
(small percentages of I-Z58, I-L22, R1b-U106 etc... )
In many different ways and different historical periods of time as is the case with typical Balkan haplogroups all over the Europe.
There is no historical or linguistic evidence that any Germans or Scandinavians left traces at Balkans, in the area where the Goths were attested historically for 700 years. However, Turkish toponyms are still very visible after 500 years of presence. Explanation ?! It had to have some traces of cultural influence for 700 years of presence but there's zero!
In addition, Western scholars are known to use science for propaganda purposes and to make historical forgeries. Important one that really covers and this subject is the "Silver Code"- a proven forgery from 17th century, which should be from the 4th century. Or Vinland map is supposed to be from the 15th century, but its analysis also shows that it is an absolute forgery from the 20th century (ink), on the top of 15th century old paper.
You can't make up a "history" on someone else's back. Not and today at 21st century.
 

that is better with the mtdna also and name of the sites

Sample ID
Site (Province, Region)2-sigma calibration (IntCal13)ClustermtDNA HaplogroupY-chr HaplogroupY-chr haplogroup SNP
CAM001Campiglia dei Foci (Siena, Tuscany)780-540 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H1at1 R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
CAM002Campiglia dei Foci (Siena, Tuscany)770-520 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu H18 G2a2b2a1L140/S316
CAM003Campiglia dei Foci (Siena, Tuscany)770-540 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan J2a1a1 G2a2b2a1a1bL497/S317
CSN001Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H1 --
CSN002Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)427-265 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related H45 --
CSN003Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)380-204 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H1at1 R1b1a1b1a1a2d1aZ2247
CSN004Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated X2b J2b2a1L283
CSN005Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H2a1 R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
CSN006Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)533-392 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan J1c2 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2/S139
CSN007Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H1b --
CSN008Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H7c1 --
CSN009Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)427-265 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H45 R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
CSN010Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)380-204 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_related HV0 R1b1a1b1a1a2d1aZ2247
CSN012Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-- U4a1a1 n/an/a
CSN013Casenovole (Grosseto, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H4a1a--
ETR001Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)139-326 CEC.Italy_Imperial T1a8a--
ETR003Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)997-1149 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval HV0 R1b1a1b1aL51
ETR004Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)-- HV n /an/a
ETR005Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)805-774 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan V15 --
ETR006Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)772-888 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval H1e --
ETR007Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)775-945 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval J1c15 --
ETR010Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated H5 --
ETR012Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)-C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated HV2a n /an/a
ETR013Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)899-1016 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval J1c8a --
ETR014Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)977-1022 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014 H26b J1a2a1a2P58/Page8/PF4698
ETR015Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)40-190 CE- H7f n/an/a
ETR016Chiusi (Siena, Tuscany)407-534 CEC.Italy_Imperial R2b I1-
MAG001Magliano in Toscana (Grosseto, Tuscany)790-550 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan T2b R1b1a1b1a1aL151
MAS001Marsiliana d'Albegna (Grosseto, Tuscany)350-100 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 T2h2 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1CTS5990/Z1903
MAS002Marsiliana d'Albegna (Grosseto, Tuscany)240-380 CEC.Italy_Imperial H74 R1b1a1b1bZ2103
MAS003Marsiliana d'Albegna (Grosseto, Tuscany)400-530 CEC.Italy_Imperial K1b2a1 R1b1a1bM269/PF6517
MAS004Marsiliana d'Albegna (Grosseto, Tuscany)804-557 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan R1b1 R1b1a1b1a1P310
POP001Poggio Pelliccia (Grosseto, Tuscany)772-960 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval H4a1a R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
PRZ001Poggio Renzo (Siena, Tuscany)794-543 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan U5b3b --
PRZ002Poggio Renzo (Siena, Tuscany)772-436 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
TAQ001Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)356-96 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_related T2e --
TAQ002Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)103 BCE-54 CEC.Italy_Etruscan H R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
TAQ003Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)729-942 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval X2n --
TAQ004Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H R1b1a1b1a1a2bU152
TAQ005Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)346-51 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_related T2d2 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
TAQ006Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated HV22 G2a2b2a1a1b1CTS9737/Z1815
TAQ007Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)391-207 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Afr H5 --
TAQ008Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated HV0 --
TAQ009Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)899-1021 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval T1b2 I1a2a1a1a1aS1954/YSC0000261
TAQ010Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H13a1a1d R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
TAQ011Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)895-1016 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval L2a1c3a --
TAQ012Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H1 --
TAQ013Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated U5a1a2a R1b1a1b1a1a1M405/U106/S21
TAQ015Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)346-51 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H5a7- -
TAQ016Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)-C.Italy_Etruscan_undated H1bz --
TAQ017Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)356-96 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_related T2e R1b1a1b1aL51
TAQ018Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)346-51 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_related W6a R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
TAQ019Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)358-98 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan J1c3 --
TAQ020Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)89-236 CEC.Italy_Imperial H44a J2a1a1a2Z2229
TAQ021Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)262-424 CEC.Italy_Imperial X1 J2a1a1a2b1bM319
TAQ022Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)1018-1151 CEC.Italy_Early.Medieval H --
TAQ023Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)396-216 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Afr U5b2a3 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1CTS5990/Z1903
TAQ024Tarquinia (Viterbo, Lazio)356-96 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan T2e R1b1a1b1a2PF7589/Z2118
UDC_PChiostraccio (Siena, Tuscany)174-53 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan_UDC_P HV0 R1b1a1b1a1a2P312
VEN001Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)650-800 CES.Italy_Venosa N3a J2a1a1a2b2a2b3aL210
VEN002Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)650-800 CES.Italy_Venosa_VEN002 U5a1c --
VEN005Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)650-763 CES.Italy_Venosa HV0e --
VEN006Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)650-763 CES.Italy_Venosa T1a J2b2a1L283
VEN008Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)660-766 CES.Italy_Venosa H6c E1b1b1a1b1L618
VEN009Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)660-766 CES.Italy_Venosa_related L2b1a --
VEN010Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)670-775 CES.Italy_Venosa_related W6 J2bM12
VEN012Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)670-775 CES.Italy_Venosa J1c3 G2a2b2a1L140/S316
VEN013Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)670-775 CES.Italy_Venosa H14a J2b2a1L283
VEN014Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)670-775 CES.Italy_Venosa H --
VEN015Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)670-775 CES.Italy_Venosa H1 --
VEN016Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)672-800 CES.Italy_Venosa I1b --
VEN017Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)672-800 CES.Italy_Venosa_related H35 n/an/a
VEN018Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)672-800 CES.Italy_Venosa H5a1g1a --
VEN021Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)672-800 CES.Italy_Venosa_related U5a2d1 --
VEN022Venosa (Potenza, Basilicata)672-800 CES.Italy_Venosa_related H7a1 G2a2b2aP303/Page108/PF3340/S135/Z765
VET001Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)750-406 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H5'36 --
VET002Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)790-550 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan J1c3 G2a2b2b1a1aPF3378
VET003.4Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)800-590 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan J1c9 --
VET005Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)360-200 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu H79 --
VET006.9Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)359-199 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Afr_VET006.9 J1c3 --
VET007Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)806-599 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan T2b --
VET008Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)372-204 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan.Afr H3 --
VET010Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)788-545 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H58 --
VET011Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)750-413 BCE- J1b1a1 n/an/a
VEU001Vetulonia (Grosseto, Tuscany)790-550 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan V R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
VOL001Volterra (Pisa, Tuscany)200-60 BCEC.Italy_Etruscan H13a1a1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1L2
 
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.

I think it is likely these Anatolian_Chl+Iran_N people, who I would suggest constitute the actual source of this ancestry. I think "East med" is the "near east" cluster of the Balkans paper. It had made some impact genetically to some degree in some places more than others, perhaps. But I think the impact shown is this paper is incorrect in my opinion. I don't know how much, but certainly not like the way they modeled it in my opinion. I still support the idea of local-population
resurgence, broadly for Italy, nonetheless. We will need to see ancient samples from Southern Italy and more other IA ethnic groups in the region to draw more decisive conclusions.
 
I think it is likely these Anatolian_Chl+Iran_N people, who I would suggest constitute the actual source of this ancestry. I think "East med" is the "near east" cluster of the Balkans paper. It had made some impact genetically to some degree in some places more than others, perhaps. But I think the impact shown is this paper is incorrect in my opinion. I don't know how much, but certainly not like the way they modeled it in my opinion. I still support the idea of local-population
resurgence, broadly for Italy, nonetheless. We will need to see ancient samples from Southern Italy and more other IA ethnic groups in the region to draw more decisive conclusions.

Once the samples come out for that paper, I think they will overlap with C5, the east med samples from Antonio et al. 2019.
 
I did not know that Etruscans were so ever present. I am assuming that they labeled them as Etruscans because of the funereal context?
 
I have played around with G25, because I can't find easily the samples I need on dodecad (I do not like the arragement and nomenclature there to be honest), and the MAS003 sample always takes a good chunk of north african related admixture, so the average of those six imperial central Italians from Tuscany picks south Levantines in the two way models as their best fit because it is practically a mixture of Italic-like, Greek-like and north african-like components (maybe some Anatolian and true Levantine?).

Always on G25, if one uses all the samples from Italy (outliers included) before the imperial period one can model pretty well the samples from this study; slightly better results are obtained if one uses also samples from SE europe, and apparently no need for extra Levantine shows up.

I tend to trust more the models used in the papers, but in this case I make an exception; it would be interesting if others that are more skilled than me tried to run some models to see what comes up; Palermotrapani's post showed that one of the latin outliers was really close to Venosa: at this point we can't say whether there was continuity or whether they happen to be similar because of two unrelated but similar gene flows, but I suspect that investigating why some individuals that have a more "eastern" genetic profile (those that need either something from the Balkan or Armenia BA) keep popping up in these studies, and the daunian paper showed that they weren't just "flukes" but existed somewhere in Italy.

This is a very rough conjecture, but at this stage it seems that the pre-italic substrate might have been more "east med" that is they had more caucasus related ancestry, while the Italics were more "west med": we know that the "classical" IE languages weren't the first to spread (for example, well before Sicels in Sicily there was steppe ancestry and very likely IE languages; similar cases seem to have happened all over Europe), and I wonder if before the Italics there was something that had come from the Balkans (we know that in Sicily there was a pull towards the Minoan/Mycenans in the middle bronze age: I think that it wasn't Minoans or Mycenans in the flesh but something that had a similar genetic make up from SE europe).
 
I did not know that Etruscans were so ever present. I am assuming that they labeled them as Etruscans because of the funereal context?

I do not understand what you mean but this is the Etruscan chronology supported by the most important Etruscologists.

BEQjZF4.png
 
History of Italy is a bit longer and more complicated than the history of the Greeks in Italy. The Greeks arrived on the Adriatic side as far as northern Italy (Adria) and central Italy (Ancona), and can hardly be compared to the Slavs who arrived centuries later in Croatia. It is clear that Romanization was a bit a factor of homogenization as I have been repeating for more than 6 years, when everyone instead claimed that Romanization had distributed in Italy R1b U152 and the Etruscans were Middle Eastern. Then Rome falls, and many centuries pass before modern Italians are finally formed. There were also the so-called Byzantines in Italy. Just saying.
As I've been saying since yesterday, apparently Italics from Campania turned out to be similar to Etruscans and Latins of the early Iron Age. If so, they will turn out to be different from the Daunians. On the other hand the Daunians were not Italic.
There were Samnites and Lucanians in Campania. Estrucans were not Italics either. I believe you. It's just that we don't know the details yet, who those Southern Italians were.
That would make Campanians as 50% Italic still, not Greek transplants.
 
I have played around with G25, because I can't find easily the samples I need on dodecad (I do not like the arragement and nomenclature there to be honest), and the MAS003 sample always takes a good chunk of north african related admixture, so the average of those six imperial central Italians from Tuscany picks south Levantines in the two way models as their best fit because it is practically a mixture of Italic-like, Greek-like and north african-like components (maybe some Anatolian and true Levantine?).

Always on G25, if one uses all the samples from Italy (outliers included) before the imperial period one can model pretty well the samples from this study; slightly better results are obtained if one uses also samples from SE europe, and apparently no need for extra Levantine shows up.

I tend to trust more the models used in the papers, but in this case I make an exception; it would be interesting if others that are more skilled than me tried to run some models to see what comes up; Palermotrapani's post showed that one of the latin outliers was really close to Venosa: at this point we can't say whether there was continuity or whether they happen to be similar because of two unrelated but similar gene flows, but I suspect that investigating why some individuals that have a more "eastern" genetic profile (those that need either something from the Balkan or Armenia BA) keep popping up in these studies, and the daunian paper showed that they weren't just "flukes" but existed somewhere in Italy.

This is a very rough conjecture, but at this stage it seems that the pre-italic substrate might have been more "east med" that is they had more caucasus related ancestry, while the Italics were more "west med": we know that the "classical" IE languages weren't the first to spread (for example, well before Sicels in Sicily there was steppe ancestry and very likely IE languages; similar cases seem to have happened all over Europe), and I wonder if before the Italics there was something that had come from the Balkans (we know that in Sicily there was a pull towards the Minoan/Mycenans in the middle bronze age: I think that it wasn't Minoans or Mycenans in the flesh but something that had a similar genetic make up from SE europe).


Interesting observations. Where are the six imperial central Italians from? Chiusi?
 
I have played around with G25, because I can't find easily the samples I need on dodecad (I do not like the arragement and nomenclature there to be honest), and the MAS003 sample always takes a good chunk of north african related admixture, so the average of those six imperial central Italians from Tuscany picks south Levantines in the two way models as their best fit because it is practically a mixture of Italic-like, Greek-like and north african-like components (maybe some Anatolian and true Levantine?).

Always on G25, if one uses all the samples from Italy (outliers included) before the imperial period one can model pretty well the samples from this study; slightly better results are obtained if one uses also samples from SE europe, and apparently no need for extra Levantine shows up.

I tend to trust more the models used in the papers, but in this case I make an exception; it would be interesting if others that are more skilled than me tried to run some models to see what comes up; Palermotrapani's post showed that one of the latin outliers was really close to Venosa: at this point we can't say whether there was continuity or whether they happen to be similar because of two unrelated but similar gene flows, but I suspect that investigating why some individuals that have a more "eastern" genetic profile (those that need either something from the Balkan or Armenia BA) keep popping up in these studies, and the daunian paper showed that they weren't just "flukes" but existed somewhere in Italy.

This is a very rough conjecture, but at this stage it seems that the pre-italic substrate might have been more "east med" that is they had more caucasus related ancestry, while the Italics were more "west med": we know that the "classical" IE languages weren't the first to spread (for example, well before Sicels in Sicily there was steppe ancestry and very likely IE languages; similar cases seem to have happened all over Europe), and I wonder if before the Italics there was something that had come from the Balkans (we know that in Sicily there was a pull towards the Minoan/Mycenans in the middle bronze age: I think that it wasn't Minoans or Mycenans in the flesh but something that had a similar genetic make up from SE europe).


You get a different story if you only use the BCE samples ............................
 
Last edited:
There were Samnites and Lucanians in Campania. Estrucans were not Italics either. I believe you. It's just that we don't know the details yet, who those Southern Italians were.
That would make Campanians as 50% Italic still, not Greek transplants.

lucanians are a branch of Samnites and the samnites are a branch of umbri peoples

By the late Republic and early Empire,authors often distinguished Lucanians in their narratives from other Italic people by means of their territory (Lucania) and common origins(Wonder2014; Isayev2007, 1126 and2010;Musti2005,261284; Horsnaes2002,119129).Pliny(HN3.71)and Strabo(Geog.6.1.23) both describe Lucanians as a people of Samnite origin who migrated south displacing populations in Lucania.
 
There were Samnites and Lucanians in Campania. Estrucans were not Italics either. I believe you. It's just that we don't know the details yet, who those Southern Italians were.
That would make Campanians as 50% Italic still, not Greek transplants.


It would not even be strange, Campania is first of all Italic than Greek. But a romantic reading has always preferred to describe it as only Greek.
 
It would not even be strange, Campania is first of all Italic than Greek. But a romantic reading has always preferred to describe it as only Greek.


Yup Magna Grecia peaked in Classical Period, and it had a dramatic fall during the Hellenistic period, where Archimedes was killed. Many Greek cities faced genocide by Carthaginians and Romans. Why did it took 400 years after of it's peak for this "east med" admixture to spread inland Southern Italy?

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Grecia

I absolutely agree with "romantic reading" part, that is mostly the case.
 
@Pax Augusta
I am referring to MAS003,MAS002,TAQ020,TAQ021,ETR1 and ETR016, those samples marked by pink squares on the PCA

@Torzio
The idea is just to see how the samples "fare" in various scenarios, especially if the bulk of the "east med shifted " samples could be modelled by the already published samples from Italy, the two latin outliers especially. and the norh african admixed Etruscan samples work as a proxy for north african (and Levantine to a lesser extent) admixture. For the "east med shifted" samples the two latin outliers work really well, and in this thread (maybe somewhere else too) it has been noted how close they are to samples from Venosa; now it can be that both happen to be similar because of two unrelated but similar gene flows or because there is some continuity (maybe some combination of both).
 
Imagine anyone paying attention to "Of individuals associated with the first time interval, the vast majority (40 of 48) form a genetic cluster here named “C.Italy_Etruscan” that overlaps with present-day Spanish individuals in a principal components analysis (PCA) built with West Eurasian populations from the Human Origins dataset (Fig. 2A) (21). "

Too much talk about Levantines. When we have the value for A, we know we need to add (+) X, to get B (present) Italians.
Everyone out here discrediting the models. When qpADM, F3-f4 stats as well as PCAs were used, and only the models with apropriate P values were selected for conlusions, while the others mentioned in passing why they do not statistically provide the best fit.

Meanwhile, a simple PCA, non accurate historical populations, and a .20 P value for the Albanians was provided on the Danubian limes paper, and authority could not be questioned.

Really revealing.

You have A, you have B, find a better additional source X, with apropriate P value, then lets talk.

I myself proposed, CZE Early Slav on the Danubian Limes paper, would just have to account for the Gothic/Germanic component, and such model would have beat the "foremost scientists" or whoever they were. If not the best model certainly better than some fino Urgic population out of space and time to have contributed to the Balkans. And yet, in the end I made the concession, that if the scenario of a frame model to push a narrative was not the case, then certainly the authors had unpublished samples, to support using Mordovian/Russian, for Middle Age Slavs.

Here, we have 1) populations that were part of the Antonio paper, namely C4/5. 2) Populations that according to the unpublished Marathon sample used in the Danubian Limes had an impact on the whole, what has been attributed on Eupedia as, East Med Genetic continuum.

Now. What could bring Modern Spanish like autosomal populations, towards Venosa like samples?

There is a method to find out, where you run a calculator on the difference A - B.
Here I do not know the answer. But I am proposing a falsifiable, verifiable test.

I will go find out on Anthro, and let you know where this leads.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 

This thread has been viewed 135753 times.

Back
Top