New Felsina Etruscan Paper by Zaro et alia 2024

In extreme summary, the Etruscan samples from Felsina/Bologna, northern Italy, have a profile quite similar to the Etruscan samples from Tuscany and Latium, and thus also to the Latins. The uniparental markers are also the same, R1b, G2a and I2a. Among the nonlocals, the largest group is of Celtic origin.

Considering all the studies that include the autosomal DNA testing of Etruscan samples (2019, 2021, 2023, 2024, the other known one that is still a preprint, and this doctoral dissertation) the Etruscan samples by eye I would say more than 100 by now.

From the thesis:

With regard to Iron Age samples, as previous work [115, 117] has already shown, there is a clear prevalence of haplogroup R1b (74%), represented by the polymorphisms R1b-P312 (R1b1a1b1a1a2) and its derivative R1b-L2 (R1b1a1b1a2b1), which were widespread in Europe in parallel with the steppe component in association with the Bell-Beaker culture [106]. Their high frequency is consistent with the arrival of steppe-related ancestry in the regions of peninsular Italy during the Bronze Age.

In lower frequency appear the haplogroups G2 (particularly G2a, 10%) and I (I2a, 2%). The former, already reported for Italian individuals of the Iron Age [117], is the haplogroup prevalent in Italy during the Neolithic; since it is the dominant haplogroup in the early farmer-farmer populations of northwestern Anatolia, its spread to the European continent is associated with the Neolithic revolution [115]. The sub-clades of haplogroup I2a are, after haplogroup G, among the most widespread in the farmer-farmer populations of Central Europe [200]; sub-clade I2a1, to which the only sample with macro-haplogroup I (AZZA005) belongs, seems to have originated before the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) and to have survived thanks to refugia located in southeastern Europe [201].

For the Roman imperial age (the imperial Roman samples are CAS067, CAS090, CAS095, and possibly also the outlier CAS054).

The Y-chromosome haplogroups of the two male samples dated to the Roman Imperial Age fall within macro-aplogroups R1b and J (specifically in sub-clade J2a, already attested by previous studies in hunter-gatherer groups in Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia [93, 94]).
eNrdtLe.png

jpw2kSW.png
 
Tuscan-like moderns clustering with the Felsina Roman Imperial average is a big revelation with this study. It's only four samples but the implication here is that Aegean ancestry is dropping significantly by the time it reaches the southern extent of Po Valley. The next major question is the cross comparison between iron age and imperial populations of Lombardy, Veneto, FVG and Piedmont. Based off this trend, changes will be even smaller or none. We are now piecing together an imperial cline which showed stronger aegean influence compared to modern Italy. Despite this, there is a very high likelyhood all of the modern Italian genomic cline will still be represented within it. Consider for a moment that the modern Tuscan genetic structure is quite close to that of Emilia Romagna so as we continue to venture North from Central Italy it would appear the genetic structure is becoming less and less modified from the imperial era and probably also the iron age.

Felsina PCA.png
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see a YHG: J2-L24 (J2a1a4, CAS090) from Casalecchio del Reno, probably from Imperial times, ( from Pg 102 "anche i due campioni non ancora datati provenienti da Casalecchio di Reno (CAS090 e CAS095) possono essere verosimilmente associati al periodo imperiale.") probably a descendant of a Roman colonist from the central/souther part of the peninsula mixed with local Etruscans (Bologna_Imperial), due to his ADmixture. It would be great to have a further subclade of this J2-L24, I suppose J2L70 could be a chance, we already have an ancient (Republican/imperial) sample, from Marche (Urbino area), and is the most spread J2 subclade in the whole peninsula.
 
Tuscan-like moderns clustering with the Felsina Roman Imperial average is a big revelation with this study. It's only four samples but the implication here is that Aegean ancestry is dropping significantly by the time it reaches the southern extent of Po Valley. The next major question is the cross comparison between iron age and imperial populations of Lombardy, Veneto, FVG and Piedmont. Based off this trend, changes will be even smaller or none. We are now piecing together an imperial cline which showed stronger aegean influence compared to modern Italy. Despite this, there is a very high likelyhood all of the modern Italian genomic cline will still be represented within it. Consider for a moment that the modern Tuscan genetic structure is quite close to that of Emilia Romagna so as we continue to venture North from Central Italy it would appear the genetic structure is becoming less and less modified from the imperial era and probably also the iron age.

View attachment 16263
Why do they refer to sample CAS054 as SubSaharan when figure 6.15 shows that this sample from Casalecchio is over 80pc Anatolian Neolithic+Yamnaya_Samara (no WHG) with under 20pc Moroccan Early Neolithic.

Only the mtDNA is typically SubSaharan but also found in North Africa.
 
Interesting to see a YHG: J2-L24 (J2a1a4, CAS090) from Casalecchio del Reno, probably from Imperial times, ( from Pg 102 "anche i due campioni non ancora datati provenienti da Casalecchio di Reno (CAS090 e CAS095) possono essere verosimilmente associati al periodo imperiale.") probably a descendant of a Roman colonist from the central/souther part of the peninsula mixed with local Etruscans (Bologna_Imperial), due to his ADmixture. It would be great to have a further subclade of this J2-L24, I suppose J2L70 could be a chance, we already have an ancient (Republican/imperial) sample, from Marche (Urbino area), and is the most spread J2 subclade in the whole peninsula.

I agree. L70, and more specifically its Z435 subclade, is the branch of J2 that I predicted would be found among ancient Romans/Latins/Etruscans in my genetic history of the Italians in 2013. If I'm not mistaken this is the first Etruscan J2a1 sample. There has been a few J2b before though.
 
I agree. L70, and more specifically its Z435 subclade, is the branch of J2 that I predicted would be found among ancient Romans/Latins/Etruscans in my genetic history of the Italians in 2013. If I'm not mistaken this is the first Etruscan J2a1 sample. There has been a few J2b before though.

Sorry, Maciamo, but this J2a is not an Etruscan, CAS090 is considered by the paper an Imperial Roman sample.

So, it is not true that J2a was found among Etruscans and Latins. To date it can only be said that J2a was found in Roman times.

From over 100 Etruscans tested so far, it is now clear that the Etruscans are R1b predominantly, with a minority of G2a and I2a. The only type of J2 found among the Etruscans, but which is a very tiny minority, is J2b.
 
Why do they refer to sample CAS054 as SubSaharan when figure 6.15 shows that this sample from Casalecchio is over 80pc Anatolian Neolithic+Yamnaya_Samara (no WHG) with under 20pc Moroccan Early Neolithic.

Only the mtDNA is typically SubSaharan but also found in North Africa.

In fact, if one reads the doctoral dissertation (which in any case contains inaccuracies here and there), one can see that the author is unable to determine whether she is a North African or a sub-Saharan. From what you understand, the autosomal DNA is more like a North African, although the mtDNA could come from sub-Saharan areas where it was formed much much much earlier.
 
This study says: "gli antenati degli Etruschi, originari della zona dell’attuale Iran, si sarebbero dapprima espansi verso il Caucaso meridionale ed in seguito verso le coste occidentali della Turchia da qui, attraversando il Mediterraneo, avrebbero poi raggiunto l’Italia Centrale intorno a 2600-3100 anni fa, entrando in contatto con le popolazioni locali."

Translation:

"the ancestors of the Etruscans, originating from the area of present-day Iran, would have first expanded towards the southern Caucasus and later towards the western coasts of Turkey from here, crossing the Mediterranean, they would then have reached Central Italy around 2600-3100 years ago, coming into contact with local populations."

??
 
This study says: "gli antenati degli Etruschi, originari della zona dell’attuale Iran, si sarebbero dapprima espansi verso il Caucaso meridionale ed in seguito verso le coste occidentali della Turchia da qui, attraversando il Mediterraneo, avrebbero poi raggiunto l’Italia Centrale intorno a 2600-3100 anni fa, entrando in contatto con le popolazioni locali."

Translation:

"the ancestors of the Etruscans, originating from the area of present-day Iran, would have first expanded towards the southern Caucasus and later towards the western coasts of Turkey from here, crossing the Mediterranean, they would then have reached Central Italy around 2600-3100 years ago, coming into contact with local populations."

??

The author is recapitulating old studies, moreover not based on Etruscan samples, and talking about earlier theories contained in studies that turned out to be completely wrong. This is not something that supports this study. With the DNA of the Etruscans, it is impossible to support an origin of the Etruscans from Iran, the Aegean, Greece or any area further east than Italy.
 
This study says: "gli antenati degli Etruschi, originari della zona dell’attuale Iran, si sarebbero dapprima espansi verso il Caucaso meridionale ed in seguito verso le coste occidentali della Turchia da qui, attraversando il Mediterraneo, avrebbero poi raggiunto l’Italia Centrale intorno a 2600-3100 anni fa, entrando in contatto con le popolazioni locali."

Translation:

"the ancestors of the Etruscans, originating from the area of present-day Iran, would have first expanded towards the southern Caucasus and later towards the western coasts of Turkey from here, crossing the Mediterranean, they would then have reached Central Italy around 2600-3100 years ago, coming into contact with local populations."

??
The ancestors of the Etruscans did not come from the area of Iran.
As an ethnic group, Iron Age Etruscans were, in the main, a blend of Copper Age Italians (the majority) with Steppe-like incomers, probably Beaker folk.
 
In fact, if one reads the doctoral dissertation (which in any case contains inaccuracies here and there), one can see that the author is unable to determine whether she is a North African or a sub-Saharan. From what you understand, the autosomal DNA is more like a North African, although the mtDNA could come from sub-Saharan areas where it was formed much much much earlier.
This is in the of abstract of this article in English:

"Individuals dated to the Roman Imperial period are genetically distinct from the previous Iron Age samples and show an increased affinity to Iranian-related ancestry accompanied by a close genetic link to ancient Caucasian populations (mainly from Armenia and Iran)."

Who were these people?
 
The ancestors of the Etruscans did not come from the area of Iran.
As an ethnic group, Iron Age Etruscans were, in the main, a blend of Copper Age Italians (the majority) with Steppe-like incomers, probably Beaker folk.

Since the doctoral thesis is written in Italian, if one extrapolates some sentences from the thesis as Moja did, he gives them a different meaning. In that case the author of the thesis is making a recap of old studies not based on ancient DNA, which with circular argumentation supported the eastern origin of the Etruscans. The author is making the recap precisely to demonstrate the usefulness of ancient DNA, because the analyses of the Etruscans decisively disproved the thesis of an Eastern origin.

At this point it is clear that the Etruscans are Bell Beaker folks + Rinaldone/Remedello folks, a mix that formed around 2000 B.C., and with a minor component coming from the Urnfield culture in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C.
 
This is in the of abstract of this article in English:

"Individuals dated to the Roman Imperial period are genetically distinct from the previous Iron Age samples and show an increased affinity to Iranian-related ancestry accompanied by a close genetic link to ancient Caucasian populations (mainly from Armenia and Iran)."

Who were these people?

Are we talking about Imperial Rome samples? I don't know, their origin has no connection with the origin of the Etruscans anyway.
 
pretty bummer
not to see in all those etruscan papers
again and again
not a single E
not even the european e-v13 🤔

p.s
about the mtdna L3e1a3b yes likely it came from north africa
though might originated in sub- sharan africa
here is the modern location site of this imperial CAS054
1717332404379.png
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Maciamo, but this J2a is not an Etruscan, CAS090 is considered by the paper an Imperial Roman sample.

So, it is not true that J2a was found among Etruscans and Latins. To date it can only be said that J2a was found in Roman times.

From over 100 Etruscans tested so far, it is now clear that the Etruscans are R1b predominantly, with a minority of G2a and I2a. The only type of J2 found among the Etruscans, but which is a very tiny minority, is J2b.
The Admix of this sample, is labelled as: Bologna_imperial, so with some specific characteristics of that area, a mixture of local Etruscans with more "East med", related to a Roman-Etruscan culture, together with a R1b-U152!!. Although I agree with you with Etruscans, I can't be so sure yet for Latins and/or some other Central/south italics, because we haven't got yet enough samples, and the presence, specifically of J2 Z435 in central Italy is relevant, and it could be a sign of a presence of this clade long before Imperial times. Come lei sa, Roman tradition also involves an East Med (Aegean-Anatolian) component, the "Trojans", that could mean people from that part of the Mediterranean or even hellenic people, which I still think played a relevant role on the expansion of this clade in the western part of "Mare Nostrum". Saluti
 
Are we talking about Imperial Rome samples? I don't know, their origin has no connection with the origin of the Etruscans anyway.
Etruscans were not massacred by Romans in the Imperial period, so ancient samples from this period could be still related to Etruscans, unless you prove they were another people. It can be assumed that those Iron Age Etruscans were actually Italic people who adopted Etruscan culture.
 
Last edited:
Etruscans were not massacred by Romans in the Imperial period, so ancient samples from this period could be still related to Etruscans, unless you prove they were another people. It can be assumed that those Iron Age Etruscans were actually Italic people who adopted Etruscan culture.

I understand that you would love for the whole world to come from Iran, but at some point one should grow up and stop dreaming. Life is very short. The Etruscans had nothing to do with Iran.

Come lei sa, Roman tradition also involves an East Med (Aegean-Anatolian) component, the "Trojans", that could mean people from that part of the Mediterranean or even hellenic people, which I still think played a relevant role on the expansion of this clade in the western part of "Mare Nostrum". Saluti


Trojan origin traditions are fables, devoid of historical corroboration. The Odyssey was for centuries the most popular soap opera of the ancient world. Clearly everyone wanted to be descended from the Trojans, not because it was true but because everyone wanted to belong to the myth by ennobling their origins.

The French Wikipedia has an interesting article showing that the myth of Trojan origins is a founding myth for the most diverse peoples. Even the Franks claimed to be of Trojan origin. None of these really had Trojan origins.

 
This is in the of abstract of this article in English:

"Individuals dated to the Roman Imperial period are genetically distinct from the previous Iron Age samples and show an increased affinity to Iranian-related ancestry accompanied by a close genetic link to ancient Caucasian populations (mainly from Armenia and Iran)."

Who were these people?
Likely Southern Italians who had received a large amount of ancestry from assimilated Magna Graecians. Magna Graecians in turn of course originate from both sides of the Aegean, and as all Greeks do, bare significant ancestry from the neolithic Caucasus (most specifically the Armenian highlands) which was transported in large amounts to the whole of Anatolia during the early copper age and tail end of the late neolithic.

A less likely theory that others have proposed is that Italy was swamped Greek migrations directly from the Aegean at the end of the republic. This I have a harder time believing due to a lack of historic documentation on this phenomenon. Because there is no obvious cultural/linguistic overturn, but there does appear to be huge genetic overturn in central Italy, the phenomenon almost certainly occurred through the conduit of a heavily latinized population with a lot of Greek DNA. Magna Graecia is the only area that fits the bill here culturally and genetically.
 
Sorry, Maciamo, but this J2a is not an Etruscan, CAS090 is considered by the paper an Imperial Roman sample.

So, it is not true that J2a was found among Etruscans and Latins. To date it can only be said that J2a was found in Roman times.

From over 100 Etruscans tested so far, it is now clear that the Etruscans are R1b predominantly, with a minority of G2a and I2a. The only type of J2 found among the Etruscans, but which is a very tiny minority, is J2b.
Thanks for clarifying this. I haven't had time to check the paper yet.
 

This thread has been viewed 4223 times.

Back
Top