2,500-year old Etruscans

[Faklon]

2,500-year old Etruscans (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

From a Biology of Genomes poster (pdf (http://maria-avila.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AvilaArcos_BOG2015.pdf)) on "Assessment of Whole-Genome capture methodologies on single-and double-stranded ancient DNA libraries from Caribbean and European archaeological human remains" by Ávila-Arcos et al.

All that can be said based on this is that they seem broadly southern European and not particularly Tuscan.

[Faklon]

So much for ancient Turks with squinty eyes (http://johnthewitness.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/etruscan-sculpture.jpg) and unbrownwashed Germanics.

[Tacitus]

Meshes well with this older study too: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?161618-The-Etruscans-are-among-us-Origins-and-Evolution-of-the-Etruscans%92-mtDNA

[Scholarios]

But da prehistoric white dnay conquered da swarty brownz slaves!

[Prisoner Of Ice]

You can't know if there is a link to anatolia unless we get ancient anatolian DNA. There is no genetic continuity there.

I wish the study said what haplogroups they found.

[Sockorer]

They obviously tested one of the Etruscan's slaves.

It's pretty obvious because the Slave comes out as Pan-Southern 'European'.

[Shqipez]

No slaves had that much impact on a population genetically.. if anything some MTDNA might come from Slaves raped, and some low percentage types of Y-DNA.

[Tacitus]

You can't know if there is a link to anatolia unless we get ancient anatolian DNA. There is no genetic continuity there.

I wish the study said what haplogroups they found.

The Barbujani study is the closest we get, but still has a couple holes (doesn't reveal haplogroups despite testing mtDNA and doesn't say whether their Anatolian samples were from modern or ancient populations).

See here: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?161618-The-Etruscans-are-among-us-Origins-and-Evolution-of-the-Etruscans%92-mtDNA


"The comparison with DNA from Asia shows that between Anatolia and Italy there were migrations, but they occurred many years ago, during prehistoric times, and thus have no relationship with the appearance of the Etruscan civilization in the 8th century BCE," explains Guido Barbujani. "Thus the idea of an eastern origin of the Etruscans is refuted, resumed a few years ago by genetic studies based only on modern DNA."

And here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519


An Etruscan Origin in Anatolia?

Going back to the issue of the Etruscans’ origins, if the genetic resemblance between Turks and Tuscans reflects a common origin just before the onset of the Etruscan culture, as hypothesized by Herodotus and as considered in some recent studies [2], [6], [18], we would expect that the two populations separated about 3,000 years ago. To discriminate between the potentially similar effects of remote common origin and recent gene flow, we ran four independent analyses based on the IM method [19], [20]. In the model we tested, the two populations originate from a common ancestor, and may or may not exchange migrants after the split (Figure S7A). Assuming an average generation time of 25 years [16], [21] and no migration after the split from the common ancestors, the most likely separation time between Tuscany and Western Anatolia falls around 7,600 years ago, with a 95% credible interval between 5,000 and 10,000 (Figure 5). These results are robust to changes in the proportion of members of the initial population being ancestral to the two modern populations (Figure S7B). We also considered an expanded Anatolian sample (total sample size = 123 [11], [22]) coming from all over Turkey, to test whether a founder effect might have enhanced the role of the genetic drift in the previous analysis, inflating the divergence time estimates; the resulting distributions of separation times completely overlapped with those previously estimated, with a lower bound of the 95% credible interval never smaller than 5,300 years ago (Figure 5).


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055519.g005

Figure 5. Separation time estimated by the IM model.
Estimation of the separation time between the gene pools of Anatolians (whether only Western Anatolians, or the expanded sample) and contemporary Tuscans (Casentino and Volterra). Means, upper bound and lower bound of the 95% credible intervals in four independent runs, obtained fixing the migration rate (indicated by dashed arrows) at 0, with mutation rate = 0.003 and assuming that the proportion of the ancestral population is equal in each descendant population (i.e. s = 0.5). Each analysis consisted of five coupled Markov chains, and 10,000,000 steps. Any degree of gene flow between the ancestors of Anatolians and Tuscans results in an increase of the estimate of the time since the population separation.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055519.g005

So the link between Etruscans and Anatolians goes back to Neolithic migrations, with the Etruscan culture/civilization growing organically within the Italian peninsula. Obviously these Neolithics mixed with different peoples within Italy (Proto-Celts? Proto-Italics?)

[Insuperable]

They were quite northern shifted compared to areas they supposedly came from and areas they settled.

[Highlands]

^ I was going to say this too. Why are they so northern shifted?

[Faklon]

They actually do seem to have a Balkanic affinity the way I understand the plot.

Etruscans?

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2hwd8no.jpg

Etruscan league?

http://oi57.tinypic.com/1z357h2.jpg

[Insuperable]

So the link between Etruscans and Anatolians goes back to Neolithic migrations, with the Etruscan culture/civilization growing organically within the Italian peninsula. Obviously these Neolithics mixed with different peoples within Italy (Proto-Celts? Proto-Italics?)

That is the most likely explanation and lets hope that it is the right one. If not, then most of South Europeans are post-neolithic mongrels in varying degrees.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yeah, any link is certainly in neolithic times. The etruscans were there long before the italics came.

[Highlands]

they clustered with Bulgarians apparently so just a little north-east of modern day Tuscans.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European

[Faklon]

they clustered with Bulgarians apparently so just a little north-east of modern day Tuscans.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European

Aren't they a bit more relatively "Western"-shifted than Bulgarians?

Anyway,Tengri says that they don't seem Turkic nor Anglo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKFCs5m19pQ

[Gaston]

Waiting for a deeper analysis.

What is sure is they are like modern Southern Europeans, not modern Northern Europeans ("core" Europeans), with their clear Near Eastern-shift (Neolithic). I'm curious to see if they are more ANE-admixed than Tuscans or if they have even more divergent types of ancestry or not.


EDIT: as usual, a thumb down for no reason, from the bitch.

[Ares]

They obviously tested one of the Etruscan's slaves.

It's pretty obvious because the Slave comes out as Pan-Southern 'European'.

The burials are all upper-class Etruscans. Obviously you know nothing.



^ I was going to say this too. Why are they so northern shifted?

Because they are Villanovans. Most Etruscans descended from Villanovans (Proto-Italics) that mixed with Neolithic farmers. Villanovans came from central-eastern Europe.



So the link between Etruscans and Anatolians goes back to Neolithic migrations, with the Etruscan culture/civilization growing organically within the Italian peninsula. Obviously these Neolithics mixed with different peoples within Italy (Proto-Celts? Proto-Italics?)

Yes.


they clustered with Bulgarians apparently so just a little north-east of modern day Tuscans.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European

One sample plots apparently with Bulgarians. Another one is closer to Tuscans, third one to Spanish.



Yeah, any link is certainly in neolithic times. The etruscans were there long before the italics came.

Yes, the link with Anatolia is in Neolithic times clearly not later. Then arrived the proto-Italics. Part of the proto-Italics (proto-Villanovans) mixed with Neolitich farmers and they created the Etruscans (the language was of the former), others created the Italics (but also these one mixed with Neolitich farmers but more gradually at the beginning).

[Highlands]

One sample plot apparently with Bulgarians. Another one is closer to Tuscans, third one to Spanish.

Thanks for the information. Do you happen to know the gedmatch results for these samples? It would be really interesting to see the breakdown of components since plots aren't always accurate and are sometimes difficult to interpret. many thanks

[Sikeliot]

I actually suspect modern Tuscans to have a higher Near Eastern shift than the ancient Etruscans. Modern Tuscans are similar in levels of West Asian admixture to southern Balkanites.

[wlkwos]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?161800-Etruscans-and-their-beloved-swastika