ToBeOrNotToBe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,110
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 0
But the Troy myth pertained to the Romans
I know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization#Possible_founding_of_Rome
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But the Troy myth pertained to the Romans
Does anyone know if emperor Claudius spoke Etruscan at home as a kid (Similar to how some Italians speak their dialect only with friends and relatives.), or if he learned it from his Etruscan wife?
I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.
I would doubt the imperial family spoke Etruscan at home, so it was probably from his wife. It's a great pity that all the books he wrote on the Etruscans were lost. He was certainly fascinated by them.
The links between the Rhaetians and Etruscans are surely related to the Brenner pass based on the theoretical distribution of Rhaetic. Interestingly enough, archaeologically, that would suggest a Bell Beaker origin. I find that hard to believe though - basically I'm really confused if that isn't obvious enough. I still think Minoan is related to Anatolian, and the more I Google the more likely it seems.
IIRC, in early 2018 or 2017 , a paper that north Picene and its script was Liburnian ....while southh Picene was Umbrian , the two Picene was not named after a populace, but of an area.It would be necessary to read something first on the subject. What you consider is irrelevant. If you really want to discuss it seriously. Unsopported claims in forums do not change what archeology has found. There is no evidence that North Picene language is linked to Proto-Villanovan. Various regional cultures emerge from the Proto-Villanovan, including Atestine culture.
Proto-Villanovan culture has nothing to do with West Asia. A West Asian influence does not tell us anything, and is in any case intrusive.
If you were really prepared on the subject and not so busy trying to prove what you like, you would know that the practice of incineration was still very common in Villanovan. And that J in Italy is much more common in the Italic areas, especially the Oscan-Adriatic ones.
So what does it prove? That the Italics also come from Asia Minor?
your #1 is OK and they are the first farmersI understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.
If we consider:
1. The place of origin for E to be in the "Levant" and "North Africa".
2. The place of origin for L and T to be in "Mesopotamia", "Eastern Turkey" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Southern Caucasus").
3. The place of origin for G and J to be in "Southern Caucasus" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Mesopotamia").
It means that in the Neolithic period(after 8000 BCE), these 3 groups formed one group by mixing, and discovered the "Farming".
After this they made migrations to Europe starting in the Neolithic. Cultures like LBK are the groups of people that came within the Neolithic migration from West Asia.
This doesnt mean that after this, there wasnt a second(or third, or more) migration (by the groups of people with the same Neolithic West Asian origin).
Maybe the same group that is often being labeled by the scientists as "Iranian farmers", made migrations to the Italian region during the Bronze and Iron Ages also. The starting point of these secondary migrations doenst have to be Mesopotamia. Maybe people with the same farming-origin from EEF regions(Germany, France, Hungary, etc..), migrated during the Bronze/Iron Age to Italy(after the groups of people from the Steppe regions came into their regions). And at the same time maybe groups of people with the same farming-origin who lived during the Bronze/Iron Ages still in West Asia(Eastern Turkey, Mesopotamia, Western Iran) made migrations to Italy through Western Turkey and Greece?
This all doesnt change the fact that they are the same people from before the Pre Pottery Neolithic period. They only made multiple migrations during multiple periods.
I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.
If we consider:
1. The place of origin for E to be in the "Levant" and "North Africa".
2. The place of origin for L and T to be in "Mesopotamia", "Eastern Turkey" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Southern Caucasus").
3. The place of origin for G and J to be in "Southern Caucasus" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Mesopotamia").
It means that in the Neolithic period(after 8000 BCE), these 3 groups formed one group by mixing, and discovered the "Farming".
After this they made migrations to Europe starting in the Neolithic. Cultures like LBK are the groups of people that came within the Neolithic migration from West Asia.
This doesnt mean that after this, there wasnt a second(or third, or more) migration (by the groups of people with the same Neolithic West Asian origin).
Maybe the same group that is often being labeled by the scientists as "Iranian farmers", made migrations to the Italian region during the Bronze and Iron Ages also. The starting point of these secondary migrations doenst have to be Mesopotamia. Maybe people with the same farming-origin from EEF regions(Germany, France, Hungary, etc..), migrated during the Bronze/Iron Age to Italy(after the groups of people from the Steppe regions came into their regions). And at the same time maybe groups of people with the same farming-origin who lived during the Bronze/Iron Ages still in West Asia(Eastern Turkey, Mesopotamia, Western Iran) made migrations to Italy through Western Turkey and Greece?
This all doesnt change the fact that they are the same people from before the Pre Pottery Neolithic period. They only made multiple migrations during multiple periods.
Took my thoughts and suspicions right our of my head with that post bro.
Do we know if Etruscans were homogeneous genetically? Or even linguistically?
From the research I did all linguistic analysis of Etruscan we have is combinatorics. Meaning no "Rosseta Stone" key to make our life easier in that regard. Do we even know if this Etruscans were homogeneous linguistically?
If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.
Too bad genetic samples for the period in Asia minor are so scarse...
Took my thoughts and suspicions right our of my head with that post bro.
Do we know if Etruscans were homogeneous genetically? Or even linguistically?
From the research I did all linguistic analysis of Etruscan we have is combinatorics. Meaning no "Rosseta Stone" key to make our life easier in that regard. Do we even know if this Etruscans were homogeneous linguistically?
If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.
Too bad genetic samples for the period in Asia minor are so scarse...
If someone could suggest some reading materials, I would appreciate it.
Prof.Dr. Firudin Ağasıoğlu Celilov, from Azerbaijan, has books regarding the origin of the Etruscans. He has read the Lemnos Inscriptions(located at the stele at the Aegean Sea) which is linked to the Etruscans.
yes, from etruscan tradersLemnian is already accepted as being related to Etruscan... by the way, are you that guy who spammed everyone's Twitter with nonsense talk about the Sumerians?
Ajeje Brazorf said:Also, Ryukendo's post nowhere says that "Sicilian-like" individuals were half Roman and half Levantine, it just says that there are individuals with Levant_N which is very vague since this component was already present in Greeks and other Europeans for example. What is labelled as South Italian could also include people not closely related to them like Mycenaeans or STR_300 who are read as South Italians because they are the closest population, yes but still a distant one genetically.
Ryukendo said:Clarifying: no, this component was not present in the other populations in the ADMIXTURE (incl all other European Ancients or Italians prior to Iron Age, not even Anatolia BA) and its sporadic distribution (in a few individuals at very high levels, rest have less or none) in the Iron Age to Imperial was clearly intrusive to the population at the time. Later Italians have it at a low level homogeneously.
The PCA represented modern populations only plus the ancients in this study and plotted only the cluster centroids of moderns as crosses with population labels, with ancients as masses of points, so the S _IT and SICILIAN referred clearly to the populations labeled and nothing else.
I don't know if it was "more levantine than it was now" but there was definitely a long tail of admixed individuals pointing towards Syrians and Iraqi Jews in the Imperial period.
This thread has been viewed 41676 times.