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

[Francis Drake]

Spicy, excited to see these non-east med magna grecians, if I wasnt banned I would be taking pictures of anthrogenica nerds faces ; P

 

[Francis Drake]

^^Completely disagree.

If Thessalians and Macedonians can be modeled with substantial Anatolian, then so can the Albanians. Albanians are just part of Greek variation, and plot with those two groups. You're not pure steppe imports or whatever you think. The northern shift mainly happened later, as with the Greeks. Levantine is another issue. G25 misleads a lot of people.

I don't even know what the heck you mean by East Med. If you mean people with Anatolian Neolithic but more Iran Neo, it started in the Neolithic, we know it was in Bronze Age Sicily. Whether it was in mainland Southern Italy I don't know yet. I don't know why it would be in Sicily but not right across the straits of Messina. The trade winds and currents from Crete flow right toward both areas. However, we'll have to wait and see.

I don't know what this antipathy is in Albanians against the idea that first millennium BC Greeks influenced Southern Italian and possibly at least Central Italian genetics. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the period knows there were many city states. Now we have ancient samples which prove their presence in at least Campania.

So now what's left is that because their city-states weren't as powerful as time went on they just disappeared? I don't know if they admixed in the early stages, but after hundreds of years I would think the men at least would take local wives.

As for the Romans importing people from EVERYWHERE to Southern Italy, the vast latifundia all over the Roman world were manned by slaves. They were the nucleus for a good number of Medieval manors. Now, whether these people impacted the local gene pools to a substantial degree is another issue. It would seem to me that the slaves who would be manumitted would be the literate ones, i.e. accountants, overseers, or at least people with advanced artisanal crafts to practice, not subsistence farmers from wherever, so there's that to consider.

I have no idea what you mean by the Romans "transformed" the Greeks.

Altogether, I must say, a very disappointing post with absolutely no proof for your assertions. Why don't you wait for some data before making some generalized and dogmatic points.

Well northern greeks and Albanians certaintly dont need any anatolian in qpadm (olaide 2021), there should be some near-east in Albanians that wouldve come from marrying Roman females in Urban centers (as the proto-Albanians descended downwards from Kosovo), but by and large the Albanian component hasnt much to do with this.

 

[Francis Drake]

Deleted --- Deleted

 

[Pax Augusta]

I am not denying East Med influx in Southern Italy, because if it happened to Tuscany it happened to Southern Italy and Greece too.
I just don't think it came essentially with Magna Graecia in Italy, Hellenistic era Italians in both Pax's leak and the Daunians seem untouched by this East Med influx. I don't believe the Greeks were "transformed" earlier in Italy, and later Rome came and made the Italians just like the Greeks, that is too much of a coincidence.

Also Ancient Greeks need less East Med to plot Imperial Era Tuscans than Italic people do. We know that Greek cities were more advanced than the Italic ones, are we to believe that Romans brought more Middle Easterners outside of the biggest cities of Southern Italy?

For historical data, during the Hellenistic Period, for a good amount of that period, Magna Graecia declined and was isolated by the Roman Empire from the rest of Greek speaking zones.

Just to say, the Romans of the imperial era are 6 individuals from southernmost Tuscany to the border with Umbria and Latium, and from northern Latium, when the Tuscan population today lives 2/3 north of the Arno, and all modern samples come from areas south of the Arno. I repeat for the umpteenth time, it is clear that the contribution of the imperial era has not completely vanished into thin air, and it has not vanished into thin air in all Italians, and even in some other Europeans, but 6 samples is too few to get accurate and plausible results. If 10 samples for the Iron Age may be sufficient, from the Imperial Age onwards it takes but many many more in ratio, and in this study the population most analyzed is that of the Iron Age.

The users in the forums these days who take them seriously is because they are trying to prove something or because they have time to waste. Because anyone who follows genetics studies knows that the picture is still too rough.

As for Albanians, forget that 10% Levantine, Albanians are too northern shifted to be modelled with any South Balkans sample, modelling with substantial Anatolians and Levantine is out of question. Bulgaria and Greece are a different story.

Couldn't care less whether or not Albanians have levantine or Anatolian admixture, I wouldn't even spend five minutes of my time modeling Albanians to try to prove it, but so much northern shifted that Albanians plot with Greeks.

 

[Jovialis]

Sorry, where are these results trickling in from? Have any new samples been released from Ancient Greece (or rumors)?

They are similar to Aegean BA, who I assume are the blue triangle.

 

[Jovialis]

They are similar to Aegean BA, who I assume are the blue triangle.

They Aegean BA and IA form a cluster that is south east of Modern Southern Italians and Sicilians, as well as Balkans_IA, according to the Olalde et al 2021 PCA.

 

[Francis Drake]

They Aegean BA and IA form a cluster that is south east of Modern Southern Italians and Sicilians, as well as Balkans_IA, according to the Olalde et al 2021 PCA.

Since when do South Italians plot between Myceaneans/Empuries and Albanians?

 

[D.L.M]

Deleted with the agreement of ihype2

 

[Archetype0ne]

@Jov. I am not sure why you got so animated. I was not referring to you mate. Unless you feel you got blindsided by the recent rumors I do not get why you would not get along with me.

I do not have to think who I am to the question "Who do you think you are... high and mighty yada yada". I am the guy with a long enough memory to recall you banned a Greek member for merely sharing the rumor that Ancient Greeks might have Anatolian, Levantine imputs, and for calling Asian Minor Western Asia. I am also the guy who remembers the arguments flowing here before, and surprisingly even after the Minoan Mycenean paper, the Roman Crossroads Paper, The Danubian Limes Paper, and this Paper:
1. They were the minority.
2. They were the ones living in cities, the countryside was purely autochthonous.
3. They were likely slaves, brought by their overlord.
4. They did not reproduce.
5. Local resurgence.
6. Everyone with any sort of Eastern Ancestry who ever stepped on the peninsula simply POOF, disapeared. LEFT NO TRACE. :O
Edit: 7. Ah I forgot the classic. They were the plebs, the citizens were all pure blood, not some muts. Imagine if some of these elites turn out anyway but the way you expect them.
... I mean you said it yourself 800BC samples with eastern input? The person likely brining the first Eubonean script to some illiterates folks? Damn must have been a slave or smth.

I also remember you telling me I am no one to question the Danubian Limes paper when you have been going at this paper with 100x more fervor and with 10x less arguments that I was. I said it then and I am saying it again. Info that is public, you just have to be willing to see it. But on the other hand you are banning the messengers because you do not like the message. Such as that Greek member you banned. The rumors are free flowing on fora. I am not claiming to have inside sources, just I have eyes to read what is written in public boards.

About the excerpt you shared. Yet again it proves my point. Not sure you understand what you just read. You do not have to share it with me.

^Check the date of the download.

That is where I get my info, on the front face of these institutions, and keeping my eyes and ears open when people share what they know, instead of banning them for irrelevant semantics.


Then you do not like peoples attitude ... If I was the only one. Then touché. But this has become like your moto, "I do not like the way you speak to me", " I do not like your tone" etc etc to every second guy who disagrees on a topic, even when you are not even mentioned. Who even mentioned you?
We are talking Anthropology and Archeogenetics here, I could care less about your feelings.

Next thing I know, you are going to use your mod powers to edit this post cause truth stings, further proving my point, that the ratio of your ego to your IQ is approaching infinity.

I would ask you who you think you are now? But I think I know by now who you think you are. You think your self proclaimed 135IQ, 1% status gives your word any more weight than the others around here. Quite pitiful.

Alas no hard feelings from my part. As a Balkanite this sort of drama feeds my mood. I find it quite amusing. Maybe you need your safe space here. Get rid of anyone who disagrees with you. Gulag style.

Edit: PS: As a northern shifted person, Imagine I have to be the one to make these points.
Is this site Apricity at this point? Or the Italic equivalent?

 

[Jovialis]

Since when do South Italians plot between Myceaneans/Empuries and Albanians?

It is common knowledge since Lazaridis et al. 2017, that South Italians and Sicilians plot between Myceaneans and Modern Mainland Greeks/Albanians.

 

[torzio]

I am not denying East Med influx in Southern Italy, because if it happened to Tuscany it happened to Southern Italy and Greece too.
I just don't think it came essentially with Magna Graecia in Italy, Hellenistic era Italians in both Pax's leak and the Daunians seem untouched by this East Med influx. I don't believe the Greeks were "transformed" earlier in Italy, and later Rome came and made the Italians just like the Greeks, that is too much of a coincidence.

Also Ancient Greeks need less East Med to plot Imperial Era Tuscans than Italic people do. We know that Greek cities were more advanced than the Italic ones, are we to believe that Romans brought more Middle Easterners outside of the biggest cities of Southern Italy?

For historical data, during the Hellenistic Period, for a good amount of that period, Magna Graecia declined and was isolated by the Roman Empire from the rest of Greek speaking zones.

As for Albanians, forget that 10% Levantine, Albanians are too northern shifted to be modelled with any South Balkans sample, modelling with substantial Anatolians and Levantine is out of question. Bulgaria and Greece are a different story.

what is the northern shifted Albanians ? ...........they look more Dardanian with a Paeonia mix and then with a Macedonian mix ...................The Taulanti where a dardanian tribe which moved to northern Albania
Your northern mix ...is it with later goths or is it with ancient bosnian tribes ?


The end of the Taulanti
In 314BC, one of Alexander's successors, Cassander of Macedonia, invaded the land of the Taulanti, subdued the tribe, and added the Greek towns of Apollonia and Epidamnus to his realm, essentially creating a land route from the Aegean Sea to the Adriatic Sea.

I think people are mixing up Cleitus of Dardania (335-295 BC) with Cleitus of "Illyria" ( actually Cleitus of the Autariatae tribe )

Cleitus of Dardania is son of
Bardylis of Dardania
Birthdate: -448
Death: -358 (89-90)

Bardylis was killed in a battle against Philip II of Macedon in 358 BC after Philip rejected his offer of peace based on Bardylis retaining conquered lands.

his Dardanian realm/kingdom went to another family under the new "king" Grabos

 

[torzio]

what is the northern shifted Albanians ? ...........they look more Dardanian with a Paeonia mix and then with a Macedonian mix ...................The Taulanti where a dardanian tribe which moved to northern Albania
Your northern mix ...is it with later goths or is it with ancient bosnian tribes ?


The end of the Taulanti
In 314BC, one of Alexander's successors, Cassander of Macedonia, invaded the land of the Taulanti, subdued the tribe, and added the Greek towns of Apollonia and Epidamnus to his realm, essentially creating a land route from the Aegean Sea to the Adriatic Sea.

I think people are mixing up Cleitus of Dardania (335-295 BC) with Cleitus of "Illyria" ( actually Cleitus of the Autariatae tribe )

Cleitus of Dardania is son of
Bardylis of Dardania
Birthdate: -448
Death: -358 (89-90)

Bardylis was killed in a battle against Philip II of Macedon in 358 BC after Philip rejected his offer of peace based on Bardylis retaining conquered lands.

his Dardanian realm/kingdom went to another family under the new "king" Grabos

Log02 and Log04 are also associated with albanians but they came from northern Greece site.............close to ancient Macedon lands

 

[D.L.M]

I think it's an error done by the academics related to the "average" sample of Medieval Tuscans.
When I ran the "average" medieval Tuscany as a sample source versus Swedes and Imperial Tuscany. I got 19% Swedish.

I have 5 samples out of 9.

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_East_Med_Profile:ETR014
Distance: 5.8434% / 0.05843383[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]100.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruria_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

---

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR013
Distance: 4.2658% / 0.04265800[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]97.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruria_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]2.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]SWE_IA[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

---

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR010
Distance: 4.1774% / 0.04177429[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]94.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruria_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]6.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]SWE_IA[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

---

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR007
Distance: 3.9967% / 0.03996698[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]76.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruria_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]23.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]SWE_IA[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

---

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR003
Distance: 3.7818% / 0.03781795[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]90.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruria_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]9.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]SWE_IA[/TD]

As we see 1 East-Med Medieval Tuscan cannot be modeled, he comes as fully Imperial Tuscan. It's also obvious on the PCA if you add Germanic the average Imperial it only becomes more distant from that particular sample. The one that plots more northern probably scores 20%, as for those in the Middle vary from 2.2% to 9.6% as seen in G25. I suppose if you remove the 2 outliers you will get a one digit percentage. The fit is not tight though


(If you use Pre-Roman Etruscan vs Imperial Tuscan vs Iron Age Swede, you loose nearly all the Germanic and get a better fit.)

---

Even with Cypriots as a source, Imperial Tuscans don't score 50% East Med. Imperial Tuscans only hit 50% with Imperial Romans, who are more West than Anatolians and Levantines. Can someone run K12b? I know that in K12b I got similar results about Germanic percentages.

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 3.4598% / 0.03459770[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]55.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]44.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Cypriot[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 3.2179% / 0.03217913[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]57.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Rome_Imperial[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]42.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 3.5390% / 0.03538998
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]64.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]35.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Levant_LBN_Roman[/TD]

 

[Pax Augusta]

Even with Cypriots as a source, some Imperial Tuscans don't score 50% East Med. Imperial Tuscans only hit 50% with Imperial Romans, who are more West than Anatolians and Levantines. Can someone run K12b? I know that in K12b I got similar results about Germanic percentages.

 

[D.L.M]

I don't get it.

 

[Angela]

Spicy, excited to see these non-east med magna grecians, if I wasnt banned I would be taking pictures of anthrogenica nerds faces ; P

If you mean Iranian Neo enriched ancestry similar to what we might expect to find in Aegean Iron Age or western Anatolia, who here said that it wouldn't be in Magna Graecians?

I haven't examined any of those samples yet.

If you have inside information, please share.

 

[Francis Drake]

If you mean Iranian Neo enriched ancestry similar to what we might expect to find in Aegean Iron Age or western Anatolia, who hear said that it wouldn't be in Magna Graecians?

I haven't examined any of those samples yet.

If you have inside information, please share.

I mean manga grecians that plot with Empuries/Myceaneans, not Rome Imperials.

As for the inside informatioin, I am refering to the PCA posted by Jovialis a few posts up and what ihype has discussed already.

 

[D.L.M]

I got 34% for Alalakh MLBA, compared to +50% in the study and 23% for Israel.

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 3.5484% / 0.03548405
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]66.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]34.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]TUR_Alalakh_MLBA[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 4.7065% / 0.04706451
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]71.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]28.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ARM_LBA[/TD]

[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
Distance: 4.6646% / 0.04664600
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]77.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]ITA_Etruscan[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]22.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Levant_ISR_C[/TD]

 

[Pax Augusta]

I don't get it.

It suggests that compared to Iron Age Etruscans, modern Tuscans have most likely a shift toward Iron Age Anatolia/Iron Age Aegean, not toward the Levant. This potentially involves northern Italians, Albanians, and northern Greeks as well, if their Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestors turned out to be like the Etruscans (and we know that for the Greeks this is not true, because Iran_N has been present in large quantities on their side since much earlier). Then in Italy may have contributed Levant but in this case it does not seem the main reason for the shift. Imperial age samples are too few and do not provide the full picture, so it's pretty pointless to model them.

 

[D.L.M]

It suggests that compared to Iron Age Etruscans, modern Tuscans have most likely a shift toward Iron Age Anatolia/Iron Age Aegean, not toward the Levant. This potentially involves northern Italians, Albanians, and northern Greeks as well, if their Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestors turned out to be like the Etruscans (and we know that for the Greeks this is not true, because Iran_N has been present in large quantities on their side since much earlier). Then in Italy may have contributed Levant but in this case it does not seem the main reason for the shift. Imperial age samples are too few and do not provide the full picture, so it's pretty pointless to model them.

Imperial Tuscans score below 30% even with LBA Armenians, something definitely is wrong. Germanic admixture with individual samples fell below 10%, in G25.