Thursday, January 14, 2021
David Anthony on Y-haplogroup R1a
Archeologist David Anthony has a new theory which attempts to explain why Y-haplogroup R1a hasn't yet been found in any Yamnaya graves. Basically, he thinks that it was carried by Yamnaya men who weren't buried in kurgans, because they were part of a social underclass, and so their remains are now difficult to locate. See here.
This is an interesting attempt to find a socio-archeological solution to a genetic question, but it's unnecessarily complicated and, in fact, also unnecessary.
The important thing to understand about R1a is that it's rarely seen in the ancient DNA record before the rise of the Corded Ware culture (CWC). Moreover, the vast majority of the R1a lineages in the world today belong to the R1a-M417 subclade, which is a relatively young (Eneolithic era?) marker and closely associated with the CWC population and its rapid expansion.
Indeed, modern R1a lineages show a very strong star-like phylogeny indicative of a series of rapid and massive expansions starting from a handful of lineages only a few thousand years ago.
So if R1a was actually present in the Yamnaya population, then the obvious reason why it hasn't yet been found in any Yamnaya remains is because it was only carried by a very small group of Yamnaya men. Simple as that.
Its expansions from the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe, predominantly via the highly successful R1a-M417, may have coincidentally and rather ironically started in a socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan.
But my view is that R1a-M417 just happened to be present in a small group of early Yamnaya or Yamnaya-related males who came up with an economic package that allowed them to expand out of the PC steppe like no one else before them, and so they did just that.
Anthony is currently collaborating on a new paper about the Eneolithic era on the PC steppe with scientists from Harvard's David Reich Lab (see here). I'm really hoping that they get this right.
See also...
Fatyanovo as part of the wider Corded Ware family
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213@Simon_W
"The predominant view among specialists nowadays is that the Villanovan culture was already Etruscan"
These are not specialists, they are just ordinary shameful deceivers. More recently, all centrally European experts unanimously argued that CWC is a purely local culture and no one from Eastern Europe has ever formed it, and for a different opinion they were expelled from the university. They naturally cheated directly. The truth could only be found anywhere outside Central Europe, just as the truth about the Etruscans can only be found outside Italy.
Brittanica is not an authority, it is not respected by specialists, but only it spreads own nonsense.
"In Bologna a vase was excavated, dating to the late 7th century BC."
Etruscan conquerors Umbras (Villanovan), before coming to Italy in Italy there was no writing at all. It was the Etruscans who brought the alphabet to Italy from the Aegean islands (see Lemnos inscriptions) related with Phoenicia and Greece and Lydia. The Umbras did not know how to write at all, they wrote in the language of their masters.
@Simon_W
Compare
Distance to: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
0.02968973 Helladic_MBA:Log02 Aegean
0.03004929 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03251184 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033 Aegean
0.03413927 Helladic_MBA:Log04 Aegean
0.04088484 Cycladic_EBA:Kou01 Aegean
0.04291899 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885 Aegean
0.04379155 Minoan_EBA:Pta08 Aegean
0.04379589 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.04431230 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.04448550 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478
0.04517300 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006 Aegean
0.04544887 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4891
0.04557214 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920 Aegean
0.04590654 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.04614130 Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759
0.04616655 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4888
0.04620844 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.04718760 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041 Aegean
0.04827888 Cycladic_EBA:Kou03 Aegean
0.04976203 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.04980412 Helladic_EBA:Mik15 Aegean
0.05043550 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4896
0.05163952 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4889
0.05325082 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi:I0070 Aegean
0.05331482 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979
Distance to: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
0.02261813 Helladic_MBA:Log02 Aegean
0.02347254 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.02462072 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478
0.02885931 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.02891954 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.03067246 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033 Aegean
0.03328919 Helladic_MBA:Log04 Aegean
0.03358571 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
0.03445519 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6623
0.03509900 Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759
0.03566202 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I5665
0.03587172 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4891
0.03830287 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.03843228 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6472
0.03846388 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4888
0.04006095 ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015
0.04035901 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041 Aegean
0.04155827 Helladic_EBA:Mik15 Aegean
0.04161202 Minoan_EBA:Pta08 Aegean
0.04185690 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.04231619 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4896
0.04246175 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.04282581 Cycladic_EBA:Kou01 Aegean
0.04289499 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4946
0.04310267 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920 Aegean
Distance to: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b
0.02954640 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.03214110 Helladic_MBA:Log02 Aegean
0.03595650 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03631845 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.03960114 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033 Aegean
0.04079939 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.04090905 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920 Aegean
0.04166521 ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015
0.04210855 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6472
0.04252740 Helladic_EBA:Mik15 Aegean
0.04297476 Minoan_EBA:Pta08 Aegean
0.04324257 ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.04340703 Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759
0.04345872 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10365
0.04355984 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979
0.04359128 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6539
0.04385590 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041 Aegean
0.04391298 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3709 Aegean
0.04477376 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478
0.04485477 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I5665
0.04495331 Helladic_MBA:Log04 Aegean
0.04516260 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045
0.04532218 Cycladic_EBA:Kou01 Aegean
0.04554196 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010 Aegean
0.04609610 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
to
Distance to: ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016
0.02448387 ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015
0.02504616 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979
0.02778309 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.02961773 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6539
0.03269052 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045
0.03343725 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0461
0.03517997 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10365
0.03798631 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.03828015 Cycladic_EBA:Kou03
0.03839805 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.03850013 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6588
0.03863444 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I5665
0.03907595 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I4229
0.03936242 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
0.04003623 Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.04003736 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7214
0.04089474 Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6472
0.04108041 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4945
0.04166101 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:SUA001
0.04179426 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4886
0.04185833 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.04229125 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7213
0.04265935 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920
0.04304463 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10554
0.04348540 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7282
@Simon_W
One set
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 0.6079% / 0.00607915
33.2 Bell_Beaker_CZE
17.8 TUR_Barcin_N
17.4 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
15.6 Bell_Beaker_ITA
9.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
2.8 GRC_Mycenaean
2.2 Helladic_MBA
1.2 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
0.0 Bell_Beaker_CHE Bell_Beaker_CZE_o Bell_Beaker_HUN Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_o Bell_Beaker_ITA_o Cycladic_EBA GRC_Minoan_Lassithi GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res GRC_N GRC_Peloponnese_N Helladic_EBA HRV_Cardial_N HRV_EBA HRV_Impressa_N0 HRV_MBA HRV_Sopot_MN HRV_Starcevo_LN HRV_Vucedol ITA_Remedello_BA ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic Minoan_EBA
0.0 HRV_IA
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b
Distance: 0.4881% / 0.00488109
21.4 Bell_Beaker_CZE
18.4 HRV_Vucedol
17.8 TUR_Barcin_N
11.4 MAR_Taforalt
9.0 Bell_Beaker_CHE
4.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
4.0 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
3.6 GRC_Peloponnese_N
3.4 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
3.2 Helladic_MBA
2.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
0.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
0.4 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.4 GRC_Mycenaean
0.0 Bell_Beaker_CHE Bell_Beaker_CZE_o Bell_Beaker_HUN Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_o Bell_Beaker_ITA_o Cycladic_EBA GRC_Minoan_Lassithi GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res GRC_N GRC_Peloponnese_N Helladic_EBA HRV_Cardial_N HRV_EBA HRV_Impressa_N0 HRV_MBA HRV_Sopot_MN HRV_Starcevo_LN HRV_Vucedol ITA_Remedello_BA ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic Minoan_EBA
0.0 HRV_IA
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_Ashkelon_LBA
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 0.7119% / 0.00711902
25.6 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
22.4 Bell_Beaker_CZE
20.6 TUR_Barcin_N
11.2 HRV_EBA
6.8 GRC_Peloponnese_N
4.6 Bell_Beaker_ITA
3.8 GRC_Mycenaean
3.2 HRV_Cardial_N
1.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
Distance: 1.4446% / 0.01444641
32.6 GRC_Mycenaean
23.8 Levant_Ashkelon_LBA
18.4 Bell_Beaker_CZE
15.6 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
5.8 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
2.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
1.0 Helladic_MBA
0.4 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016
Distance: 1.2147% / 0.01214715
29.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
27.8 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
12.4 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
10.6 HRV_EBA
6.8 GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
You can reduce to 5 populations, since all samples are very different and they have different origins, none of them constitutes a single population. The set of population sources is the same.
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 0.6096% / 0.00609576 | R5P
32.0 Bell_Beaker_CZE
22.0 TUR_Barcin_N
16.6 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
16.4 Bell_Beaker_ITA
13.0 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
Target: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b
Distance: 0.5175% / 0.00517515 | R5P
30.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
28.6 TUR_Barcin_N
21.2 HRV_Vucedol
12.0 MAR_Taforalt
7.6 Bell_Beaker_CHE
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 0.7298% / 0.00729765 | R5P
33.0 TUR_Barcin_N
27.4 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
26.2 Bell_Beaker_CZE
11.6 HRV_EBA
1.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
Distance: 1.4487% / 0.01448744 | R5P
36.0 GRC_Mycenaean
25.6 Levant_Ashkelon_LBA
18.2 Bell_Beaker_CZE
15.8 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
4.4 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA:RMPR851
Distance: 0.5978% / 0.00597759 | R5P
23.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
22.6 TUR_Barcin_N
20.8 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
17.4 Helladic_MBA
15.6 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
Target: ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016
Distance: 1.2326% / 0.01232590 | R5P
36.0 Bell_Beaker_CZE
28.2 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
17.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
12.4 TUR_Barcin_N
5.6 GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 0.6647% / 0.00664720 | R3P
56.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
23.6 TUR_Barcin_N
19.6 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
Target: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b
Distance: 0.6482% / 0.00648185 | R3P
49.6 TUR_Barcin_N
39.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
10.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 0.8719% / 0.00871927 | R3P
39.2 Bell_Beaker_CZE
35.8 TUR_Barcin_N
25.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
Distance: 1.5468% / 0.01546787 | R3P
40.2 GRC_Mycenaean
38.2 Levant_Ashkelon_LBA
21.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA:RMPR851
Distance: 0.6853% / 0.00685336 | R3P
48.4 Bell_Beaker_CZE
30.4 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
21.2 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
Target: ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016
Distance: 1.2854% / 0.01285426 | R3P
36.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
34.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
29.4 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
@Archi
Quotation from Marco Sazzini et al. 2020:
"In particular, N_ITA individuals, which clustered close to people from the Iberian Peninsula (IBS) within the bulk of modern southwestern Europeans, showed a particular affinity with Central European, Hungarian, and British Neolithic samples; Copper Age subjects from Hungary and the Balkans ; a Corded Ware Czech remain; and Iberian and Hungarian individuals belonging to the Bell Baker culture. Moreover, the centroid of the N_ITA cluster lay in proximity to the Copper Age Northern Italian Remedello sample."
Archi:
"So my model is correct, yours is deeply flawed and contrary to scientific evidence."
How does the above quotation back up your model? It doesn't. That modern North Italians plot close to modern Iberians has been known for a long time. So what? Ancient Latins are even closer to modern Iberians. While Etruscans are closer to modern North Italians. It's because Latins and Etruscans lacked the South Italian-like Greco-Anatolian admixture which pulls modern Tuscans and modern central Italians southwards and away from Iberians and North Italians. Neolithic samples from central Europe, Hungary and Britain are just Barcin_N + WHG. Copper Age subjects from Hungary and the Balkans, as well as Iberian and Hungarian Bell Beaker individuals may be similar, or have some Steppe admixture - it depends on the individuals. The same may apply to the Czech Corded Ware individual - I don't know which one they are referring to. Naturally North Italians have more affinity with all the aforementioned samples than South Italians, because the latter have substantial Anatolia_BA admixture and hence less of the Barcin_N + WHG + Steppe mix. To call the centroid of the N_ITA cluster close to a Remedello sample sounds strange, though. Because the Remedello samples lack steppe ancestry, while modern North Italians obviously don't.
"The words Protovilanovan meant Villanovan also, there is no difference between them in the models."
What models? So far there's only one Villanovan and one Protovillanovan in the Global25 sheet, and they are quite different. Sure, the Protovillanovan culture and the Villanovan culture are close relatives, but the former is Bronze Age, the latter Iron Age, and they differ a lot in their distribution.
"You have no idea about the genomes of the Aegean region, its islands and Troy, northern Greece, you just do not have such data. "
Yes I do. I have GRC_Minoan_Lassithi, GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res, GRC_Mycenaean, GRC_N, GRC_Peloponnese_N, TUR_Barcin_N, TUR_Barcin_C, TUR_Kumtepe_N, TUR_Kumtepe_N_low_res, and moreover Helladic_EBA, Helladic_MBA, Minoan_EBA and Cycladic_EBA. The data shows gradual infiltration of the Aegean region by Anatolia_BA-like, Iran/CHG shifted geneflow in the course of the Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age. However, this shift was only weak towards northern Greece and even absent in MBA northern Greece.
"I have clearly shown on PCA that the genomes that emerged from Northern Greece are closest to the Etruscans because they are Luwians."
No, you didn't show this. You have shown that the MBA genomes from Northern Greece plot somewhat close to modern Tuscans, which is quite a different thing.
@Archi
"Although these models are very bad, they are erroneous in two parameters, but they clearly prove that the Etruscan aliens are from the Aegean Region (Helladic_MBA), and not some not Villanovans heirs, in spite of the fact that the ProtoVillanovan sample was prepared by himself who came from the Balkan-Carpathians."
Well, the Villanovan sample is rather Latin-like than Etruscan-like. I don't deny this. It doesn't gel well with my assertion that the Villanovans were Etruscans. But it's only one individual, and we don't know how typical this one was. And it's conceivable that during the Villanovan era Proto-Etruscans and Italic substrate were not yet completely mixed with each other. I don't understand what you mean by "the Protovillanovan sample was prepared by himself who came from the Balkan-Carpathians", it sounds cryptic.
Simon_W quoting Genos Historia:
"So still seems more likely still that Etrusucans came from Western Balkans."
Archi:
"Obviously, this is an illogical nonsense, since Helladic_MBA is the southern Balkans themselves, this is what is directly called the Aegean region. HRV_IA=0. Checkmate, you deceived yourself."
Please note that I didn't write myself what you quoted there, Genos Historia wrote it, I just quoted him in order to reply.
"More recently, all centrally European experts unanimously argued that CWC is a purely local culture and no one from Eastern Europe has ever formed it, and for a different opinion they were expelled from the university. They naturally cheated directly. The truth could only be found anywhere outside Central Europe, just as the truth about the Etruscans can only be found outside Italy."
True, central European archaeologists not long ago favoured an autochthonous origin of the CWC in central Europe. This is an example how archaeologists can be wrong. They were ultimately proven wrong by ancient DNA.
"Brittanica is not an authority, it is not respected by specialists, but only it spreads own nonsense."
It's a lexicon, so naturally it's not used by experts, but they do their best to reflect the current mainstream opinion among scholars and specialists.
"Etruscan conquerors Umbras (Villanovan), before coming to Italy in Italy there was no writing at all. It was the Etruscans who brought the alphabet to Italy from the Aegean islands (see Lemnos inscriptions) related with Phoenicia and Greece and Lydia. The Umbras did not know how to write at all, they wrote in the language of their masters."
First of all, it's called Umbrians or Umbri - not Umbras. And secondly there are lots of Umbrian inscriptions in Italy, as well as many other inscriptions in other ancient languages of Italy, like Venetic, Oscan, Messapian, etc. See:
https://katherinemcdonald.net/research/maps/
Even though none of these peoples invented writing, they adopted the Greek alphabet, modified it slightly, and wrote in their own language. Apparently it's not hard to come up with the idea of doing this.
@Archi
As for your Global25 modelling and the question if Etruscans had Anatolia_BA-like eastern shifted CHG/Iran-related admixture as you say, or not, as I say - I will try to explain it once again:
The Global25 PCA is basically a space with 25 dimensions. This cannot be grasped visually by our mind. But it's similar to a space with 3 dimensions, just with more dimensions. The principle stays the same. Now, it's indisputable that most modern Europeans are a 3-way mix of Barcin_N-like West Anatolian farmers, WHG and Yamnaya-like Steppe herders. It doesn't matter if these were exactly the true source pops or if some other, similar pops were the true sources. In any case they are 3 important points in the space, and most modern Europeans plot inbetween these 3 points, that is, inside the triangle formed by these points. Only in some parts of Europe other, additional sources matter. These are: In the Northeast the Uralic admixture associated with the spread of Uralic languages. In the South and in the Southeast Anatolia_BA admixture. And only marginally a little Levantine and North African admixture from Southwest to Southeast Europe. In order to test if the Etruscans had Anatolia_BA-like admixture, we just have to look if they are pulled out of the basic European triangle into the direction of Anatolia_BA. That is, if they score some Anatolia_BA in addition to Yamnaya, WHG and Barcin_N. As I have shown many times, they don't. They are not pulled out of the triangle by this type of admixture. Because they don't have it. It doesn't matter if Anatolia_BA is used or something similarly eastern shifted, something ancient Anatolian pulled into an eastern CHG/Iran direction. If the basic European triangle doesn't suffice any population similar to Anatolia_BA will score some points.
Now why do the Etruscans score Anatolian, Greek and Levantine admixture in your models? I can explain this. If you use the entire Global25 sheet as source pops, then inevitably they will form some kind of cloud around the target pop. Lots of points everywhere. And especially if you don't limit the output, the algorithm will pull and push from many sides in order to approximate the target as closely as possible. This has nothing to do with the true ancestry of the target pop, because the approximation can be achieved in many different ways that differ only marginally in distance. So to say: the best, lowest distance isn't what it's all about. The goal isn't always to find the best possible approximation, nor is this a safe way to find the true ancestry.
Just ask yourself: Why don't the Etruscans score some Anatolia_BA in the simple model with 4 pops? If it was true, they should score it there as well, not just in the complex models.
@Simon_W
Your meaningless words will not help you.If you shamefully do not understand what they write to you, then understand - I am right in everything, you are wrong in everything. I have provided a text from a third-party source that confirms that I have chosen the absolutely correct populations, you have chosen completely wrongs. My Distances even for three populations of 0.6%, against your shameful 2.2194%, suggests that I have completely correct populations and models, yours are completely wrong. It destroys all of your meaningless collection of words.
"No, you didn't show this."
Learn to read and understand, I fully showed the correctness of my models and reasoning, you completely showed the fallacy of your models and your opinions in everything, and now you just pose as a fool who pretends not to understand anything. It is not clear at all how you can write anything, you do not understand at all what you are reading.
"Even though none of these peoples invented writing, they adopted the Greek alphabet, modified it slightly, and wrote in their own language."
The Umbrians did not accept the Greek alphabet in any form, they adopted the Etruscan alphabet, like the Latins and all of Italy. All Italic alphabets are derived from the Etruscan alphabet. It was the Etruscan who taught them all to write, not the Greeks.
This fact has long been rigorously proven by science.
The rest of your sentences are just a meaningless set of words from a person who does not understand anything. You literally do not understand that we do not have a single Western Anatolian of the Bronze Age, we do not have not only a single Luwian, but not even a single Hittite. But we have the genomes of the Sea Peoples from the Levant, which I showed you strictly and you could not argue anything, just turned a blind eye to it. The Tyrrhenians belonged to the Sea Peoples, which is now well proven, and they come from the Aegean region anyway. That is, the Etruscans belong to the Sea Peoples, which is now strictly proven, and they come from the Aegean region anyway. The model picks the closest match, the Sea Peoples of the Levant are much closer in time to the Etruscans than those from the Middle Ages of northern Greece.
Fine proved. Checkmate.
Wow!! Considering this history of R1a, it's amazing that my Paternal a R-L664 ancestors made it so far Northwest! East Lothian Scotland. I believe those paternal Ancestors entered during the Scoto-Norman Era with origins in Flanders.
All I have to say is... this is what happens when you emphasize so much energy on one subject, so much is said with nothing accomplished.
You're becoming no better then Afrocentrics with their black Egyptians.
Pottery has no ethnicity right? Ethnicity sometimes is bilingual too right? This etruscan enigma reminds the wenedian one on southern baltic/suebi/sarmatian sea shore.
Considering that almost all R1a man that are living todau descendent from a single male 5.500 years ago, could us consider the R1a The most succeful linage on the Planet? We have milions of brothers that were just related in arround 200/250 generations. It is literraly creepy. Our ancestor might be a High Class individual for a clan,probabily related tô Sredny Stog not to Yamnaya dirrectly, since they might be cousins, not direct ancestors.
Post a Comment