Toward A New Understanding of Etruscan Origins

As this now archived thread on Anthrogenica shows, the two sides to the Etruscan debate are like ships passing in the night.  They can't seem to agree on much.  This post attempts to reconcile them, sort of, while debunking what I call the Contemporaneous Anatolian Origin of the Etruscans (CAOE) Model.

When talking about the origins of a people, it is important to specify timing as well.  Even the best scientists are guilty of disobeying this rule when they speak or write in shorthand.  The most obvious example is this: do you have any African blood?  Do you have an African origin?  You might answer, "no" if you took the question to mean in the genealogical time period (the last 500 years) or even during the post-Paleolithic time period (the last 40,000 years)!

But, as you know, everyone on the planet has an African origin if you go back long enough.  All modern humans migrated out of Africa.  So the same statements, "that population is of African origin" is both true and false, depending on the time context.

Let's apply this to the Etruscans.

What we have learned recently is that ALL Europeans descend from three primary groups:  Western European Hunter Gatherers (who originated in Western Europe during the Mesolithic), Farmers (who migrated from the Near East during the Neolithic), and Steppe People (who migrated from the flatlands between Europe and Asia during the early Bronze Age).

When the CAOE "Etruscans are exotic" folks ply their wares, they argue that Etruscans had an origin in Anatolia or the Aegean, right before they appeared in Italy.  Now, the first Etruscan sites date from approximately 900 BC.  We have clear Etruscan inscriptions dating to 750 BC, so they were probably writing by 800 BC.

I have always doubted there was a mass migration of Etruscans (from the Near East) before their appearance in Italy.  There are just too many facts weighing against it.

Then it dawned on me: we *all* came from the Middle East at some point.  Is it possible this argument is one of degrees?  That the CAOE folks have their timing wrong?  That the CAOE folks should have the "C" knocked off their theory, and the disagreements would be synthesized?

Here is how it might have worked:

There was mass migration to Europe of farmers from the Near East, and it appears to have been quite strong around 3000 BC.  The final waves of farmers were migrating to Europe around 2500 BC.  Now is it proper to call these "Anatolians" or "Aegeans" or "Near Easterners."  Insofar as those designations are intended to mean anything beyond geography: no.  This was pre-race, and since these people "became" modern Europeans, any such designation is pretty meaningless.  Most modern Europeans are about 40% descended from these people.

Is it possible that the Etruscans, having a stable, affluent, consistent civilization, retained more of their cultural practices, traditions, and indeed language, and thus some vague collective memory of this mass migration?  Is it possible that the first Italian culture to have writing was able to transmit more culture down between the generations because of it?  Because that is how it works.

In other words, ALL peoples in Europe then and now are partly descended from farmers who originated in the Middle East a long time ago.  If the Etruscan people (bringing the language) was from one of the later waves, and the Etruscan society was stable and had the ability to transmit culture, could these transmissions and uniqueness be the signals that the CAOE folks misinterpret and cite as evidence for a later Anatolian origin of the Etruscans?

Let's be clear: the land of the Etruscans overlaps perfectly with the land of the Villanovans, and there is no evidence for discontinuity or rapid replacement or trauma when Villanovan culture becomes unequivocally Etruscan.  I firmly believe the odds of an Etruscan "migration" event around 900-750 BC is sheer fantasy.

BUT, I think it is possible that of the peoples in Italy, the Etruscans, by holding the richest, most fertile, most well-defended, and most defendable pieces of real estate, simply did not suffer any further migrations and inflows after they established themselves in say, 2000 BC.  In other words, the Indo-Europeanized peoples of Italy ALSO descend from Western Hunter Gatherers and Neolithic Farmers (and the genetic evidence CERTAINLY backs me up on this point), BUT the Indo-Europeanized peoples of Italy (Latins, Umbrians, Oscans), experienced a more recent inflow of both people and genes, which resulted in language and culture change.  The Etruscans, for reasons already given, did not.

To this day there is very little genetic difference between the people of Tuscany and their neighbors in Italy.  The ancient Etruscans cluster with Southern Italians genetically, which would be consistent with this theory: that the ancient Etruscans had a smidge more Neolithic Farmer, plus cultural continuity, because they did not suffer an upheaval like the other peoples, when the Iron Age Indo European speaking Steppe people invaded.

This makes good sense.  This would explain also why the Etruscan language survived as a relic amidst a sea of Indo-European.

So next time you meet someone who thinks the Etruscans were contemporaneous (and ethnic) migrants to Italy from the Near East, remind them of the wealth of evidence against it.  And then, if they are the reasonable type, explain to them how ALL Europeans descended in a large part from people, who DID migrate to Europe from the same areas, just 1000 years before.  They could be spouting a mere truism, and be off by 1000 years or so.

Intact Samnite Tomb Discovered; Will They Recover DNA?

With all the focus in Southern Italian history being on exotic influences (which as we've posted before make up a very small part of the Italian genome), people often forget that there were people in Italy, in great numbers, who were highly civilized, before the peninsula was Romanized, and aside from the [insert invasion name here].

One of the most influential civilizations in Italy was that of the Samnites (Italian: Sanniti), a group of Oscan-speaking tribes, sometimes called "Sabellian," who lived in the interior of Italy.  If you are Italian and come from any region from Rome southward (including eastern Sicily), chances are that you are of predominantly Sabellian stock.  For hundreds of years, these hardy southern Italics fought off Roman domination and Greek colonization.

For a while it was even unclear who would be the master of Italy: the Romans or Samnites.  After the battle of the Caudine Forks (Samnite victory over Rome, 321 BC) and right before the battle of the Colline Gate (Roman victory over Samnites, 82 BC), it looked like the Samnites would be the masters of Italy (and perhaps an empire).

Archaeologists recently discovered an intact Samnite tomb, dating from 2400 years ago.  This was at the peak of Samnite ascendancy.

Let us hope they extract DNA.  We will confidently predict here that the DNA will be related to living people in Campania (incl Naples), Molise (the heart of Ancient Samnium), Basilicata, and Calabria (especially Cosenza province).

Here is the story if you want to read it.

Ancient DNA Provides A New Understanding of Haplogroup I2a1a M26

Below is a map of confirmed instances of I-M26 found in prehistoric remains.  Lots of others could have potentially been added -- ancestral clades, closely related sister clades, and ones where the coverages is insufficient to determine whether it is indeed M26 (or L672 L160 etc.)  But we decided to err on the side of being conservative.

Going chronologically, we have M26 in what is now Sweden, at the Motala site, at 7730 BP (Before Present).  These were Hunter/Gatherers.

Next, we have it at the La Spina site, in modern Spain, at 5765 BP.  This was a Megalithic site, during the Neolithic.  Farming was already in Spain at that time.

Next we find it at Treilles, modern France, at 5015 BP.  This was a Megalithic/Neolithic site of farmers, near the coast.

Next we find it in the Remedello culture, of Northern Italy, at 4758 BP.  This was a Chalcolithic (Copper Age) site.  Per Robert S.P. Beekes, "bears all the marks of an Indo-European invasion: a new style of ceramics, a new burial rite, changes in the social structure, the introduction of a warrior aristocracy, the intro- duction of metallurgy, the horse and the chariot. But it is still not possible to assign language groups to particular culture."

Finally, for now, researchers have found it in the Megalithic culture of central France, near the Dolmen of Villaneuve-Sur-Yonne, 4753 BP, and again, of course, farming was present.  

In modern times, we find M26 at 37% in Sardinia, certainly an outlier due to substantial founder effect.

But it is also found at up to 10% in Samnite country in Molise, Italy (and in significant numbers in Cosenza province of northern Calabria).  It is found at 5-9% in Spain, including Basque country.  At up to 7% on Sicily.  And 3% in many areas of England and Ireland, especially places like the Channel Islands.  It is still found at 1% in Southern Sweden.

So, given all that we know, what is a sensible theory for M26's distribution and spread?  

We've heard them all, and each has merit: that is represents Megalithic Mariners, who went around old Europe converting local populations and building huge monuments like Stonehenge and the Nuraghe.   That it represents the spread of Cardial Ware culture, along the western Mediterranean seaboard.  That it represents the spread of farming, either as hunter/gatherers who adopted farming quickly, or as a rare clade of Haplogroup I that was predominantly farmers since the dawn of agriculture.  Finally, some posit that it represents a caste (or not) of people embedded in other haplogroups in motion, most often listed as G2a or R1b.

All have merit, none are perfect.  Let's go through the logical conclusions and form a model.

The presence of M26 amongst the hunter/gatherers of Motala, and its widespread ancient distribution by the dawn of the Neolithic tell us that it is a most ancient indigenous European clade.  

We believe that it is safe to say that the first modern humans in Europe, Aurignacians, aka Cro-Magnons, bore haplogroup C.  (Although during the Paleolithic, that far back, it is really anyone's guess whether Hg C came in during one the next phases).

M26, along with its brother clades within Haplogroup I2, most likely formed a part of the second wave of European hunter/gatherers, and was presumably present among the Epi-Gravettians and the Magdalenians.

How then does one explain its wide distribution and adaptive nature throughout the continent during the Neolithic? 

Perhaps the answer is simple.  These were people who have been in Europe for a long time, and are adaptable, and are survivors.

Europe was settled in waves, and not just the three big ones (Hunter/Gatherer, Farmers, Steppe Horsemen), which is an oversimplification.  

Imagine Europe as a pipe.  It has three entry points: the steppes of Russia from people heading due west, the Balkans/river corridors from people heading northwest, and the Mediterranean from people heading north.

Imagine a party.  The "Emtwentysix" family was among the first to arrive.  When they got to the house, they represented maybe 15% of the guests.  But as more guests arrived, some through the front door, some through the back door, and some through the side door, the Emtwentysix family became a smaller percentage of the total guests, now just 0.5-3%.  

When the family arrived, they were playing foosball together.  But at some point, some members of the family joined a group of other guests who were dancing, and some joined groups of other guests who were playing video games.

You get the analogy.  

None of the above theories may be 100% accurate, and yet all theories may be accurate in their own way. 

For example, it is doubtful that I-M26 first showed up in Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture, but it could have been among the groups (as it was clearly in Italy for a long time) that encountered the Cardial peoples, and then became a component of said peoples, heading west along the western Mediterranean seaboard.  

Similarly, in Northern Italy, M26 peoples could have been among the first who were Indo-Europeanized, in the Remedello culture, and then part of the secondary expansion into Italy, which formed the Oscan-speaking Sabellic tribes (Samnites, Brutti, and Sicels).  

In other places, clearly M26 was Megalithic acculturated, and its odd distribution in places where Megaliths appear is intriguing for sure.  

And lastly, some of its distribution could reflect later movements by obsidian traders or something similar.

Prehistory is a series of periods of demographic expansion followed by demographic crisis.  Good hunting, good weather, good crops, absence of disease, and other factors make people have more babies.  Then luck turns, and some lines die out, while other lines come to the party.  Since the Bronze Age in Europe, it has mostly been a demographic march to more population as time goes by.  

We would like to see a study comparing the M26 in Sweden, Ireland, Spain, the Italian mainland, and Sardinia, to see who is ancestral to whom, or how and when the different groups separated.

But the bottom line appears to be that M26 has been in Europe a long time, and like all lineages that were there a long time, its distribution will have changed a bit and its absolute numbers will have gone down, but these Most Adaptable Hunter Gatherers (MAHGs) continue to intrigue.