Spanish posters should stop having these inferiority complexes over Italians, so much so that they participate in these discussions just to provoke. What is your contribution to this discussion? Nothing. Only very puerile provocations.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
Pretty unlikely. Italic shares the many innovations that define LPIE and link all known IE subgroups together with the exception of Anatolian IE. Besides, Italic clearly shares many more similarities (not just vocabulary, but morphology and syntax too) with Celtic. Anyway, the Wikipedia article itself makes it clear that the association of Elymian to Anatolian IEs is just a tentative hypothesis, the evidences are too scant even to analyze and classify the language at all, let alone to link it to Hittite.Quote:
Originally Posted by alais
Anyway, Italy does have some Anatolia_BA-related ancestry (not that much if you include other more proximate sources with more EEF, like Minoan_Lasithi, and others with more CHG/Iran_Chl, like Hajji Firuz_Chl), and South Italians and Cretans look closest to BA Anatolians (which of course must not imply direct descent, but rather an accumulation of similar admixtures over the millennia)... But we will never be sure those movements involved Anatolian IE speakers unless we find strong evidences of Hittie, Luwian or other Anatolian IE language in Italy.
Based on what I can notice in modern Italians, I'd still link (pre-)Proto-Italic people to an EEF-enriched BB split, maybe with some Western CWC (Germany) input mixed into them, too.
I have noticed that some people are treating Herodottus as if he was like a modern historian with all the modern advantages of communication, records and travel. Think a lot of his histories are based on myths or stories he has picked from traders that travelled to those places. I do not for a moment believed that he travelled all over the Balkans and wrote down all the borders between the different tribes of Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians. Think of his writings as a guideline.
I don't think we can already rule out the possibility(not likelihood) that Etruscan/Tyrsenian languages came from Anatolia or more broadly from the East Mediterranean... but onlyat least 2,000 years before some people had thought. In all of Italy, even North Italy, some of the best models that I can reach, using only Eneolithic & Bronze Age samples, include a good chunk (~20-30%) of Minoan-like ancestry. Of course that does not mean "from Minoans", but "similar to the genetic structure found in those few Minoan samples". There is also a lot of extra CHG/Iran_Chl-related admixtures. So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family (and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?). In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Ignorance knows no national borders, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
We have great posters from Iberian descended areas, like Duarte and Ygorcs, for example.
Just an example: did you know that Etruscans have nothing to do with iron metallurgy? :) If it weren't so sad it would be funny.
Sometimes I get very frustrated by the level of ignorance out there, usually married to very noxious agendas. It's even more dangerous when someone does have knowledge of basic dna and the samples or superficial knowledge of, say, Imperial Rome, and just massages it all to fit into their agendas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
Minoans were mostly EEF + minor CHG, their closest population was Anatolian_N. So also Minoan language was likely an EEF/ENF language.
https://i.imgur.com/SHjZcj8.png
On Etruscans. Nothing revolutionary, a bit long, but worth watching, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSggIhQknVA
Etruscan language. What did it sound like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtzg5uEpiOI
I agree with much of this post. I was merely asking questions. I have no issue with Etruscan being possibly not a language of EEF people on the Italian peninsula but rather a language which made its way up the boot of Italy through Bronze Age Migrations from the east, most likely by way of Greeks, although there are other possibilities. Heck, one linguist thinks its Uralic in origin (Hungarian).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
I fail to see how any of this could be proved either way unless we have in the future a "Rosetta Stone" like moment with some language spoken/written elsewhere.
However, going by the evidence we have so far, which is the "leaked" PCA, at least 2 of the Etruscans plot with the Iberians. Do they have 20-30% Minoan like ancestry too? How about the French? One of them plots near the French too. Maybe we just really don't have the right samples yet for some of these "runs".
I'm sure when we have the actual samples things will become clearer. It would also help to have Neolithic Era samples from Italy, particularly from the cultures around or immediately to the south of Tuscany, and some samples from that 1000 year blank slate in between some Italian samples and the Iron Age.
I'm open to whatever the evidence will show.
@Binx,
Indeed.
Etruscan as Uralic in origin is unlikely imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Moreover, in my opinion, closer we get to the end of Bronze age/Iron Age the more a language is no longer in close connection with the genetics of the population.
The Mycenaeans spoke an Indo-European language but how much genetically can be defined as Indo-European? The Mycenaeans are more EEF than genetically Indo-European and are still very close to the Pre-Indo-european language Minoans.
I dont see how anyone can claim etruscans are from aegean/anatolian areas when the lemnian stelae is 400 years younger in time to what etruscans where speaking in italy......logically lemnos would be an etruscan colony of traders setup to trade along anatolia or in the black sea.......a stop off port for etruscansQuote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
Well, nobody said Etruscans - the people and its culture - came readily from Aegrean/Anatolian areas, let alone by the time of the Lemnian stelae. I'm talking of much earlier migration events that could possibly have brought the language (or rather its mother or even gradmother language) and some ancestral admixture to Italy. Lemnian is too late to serve as either evidence or counter-evidence for what we've speculated here. Profound East Mediterranean influence in Italy, especially South Italy, is a fact, it's not controversial. What needs to be determined is whether they were the bringers of some language still spoken in the Early Roman era in Italy.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
I don't know why, but Hungarians seem to be like Turks in that their ultranationalists have tried to link it with basically any ancient language connected with a great civilization and not properly classified as of now (language isolates). It's weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
Repost；
It is now accepted by many scholars that from Golasecca Celtic type ethnic groups emerge. Also because the language of the inscriptions associated with the Culture of Golasecca is Lepontic language that is considered a Celtic language to all intents and purposes. There is now a great consensus on this. Golasecca is the final result of a fusion of Ligurian-like elements (pre-Indo-European elements) with migrants who arrive from Urnfield culture and are proto-Celtic.
Golasecca : 45° 42′ 0″ N, 8° 39′ 0″ E
I've already answered that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
"The Etruscans were obviously the most advanced civilization of the early Iron Age of Italy. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise."
Quote:
Originally Posted by xiaodragon
Why are you copying and pasting my posts?
which Etruscans? looking at recent papers on ancient and modern samples I would not accept their lack of social or cultural discriminationQuote:
Originally Posted by Angela
It's not just that, even.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsnake49
Other ancient historians believed that the Etruscans were descended from local people. Some only remember what they choose to remember, or they quote what someone else says without doing the actual research.
I wrote this in 2014:
"Well, the conclusion of Briquet, and my conclusion after reading the chapter again, is that none of what these ancient writers say should be taken as a "scientific inquiry about the identity of a people."
As Briquet shows quite compellingly, I think, these ancient writers were not historians in the modern sense of the world. They wove together the stories of their gods and ancient heroes and modern cultural and trade associations into one big mish mash, and, as is the case for some people nowadays as well, they often had an agenda to promote.
Dionysius, as has been seen, supported the autochthonous origin. However, given the tenor of his entire work, some scholars believe he supported this theory largely to denigrate the Etruscans by showing them not to be Greek or civilized, but rather the barbarian pirates of common Greek perception.
As to Herodotus' claim, I would suggest reading the whole chapter by Briquet; it's not very long. To recap it, it appears in a much longer exposition of who invented the games. In the course of it he says that the Lydians maintained that they invented the games at the same time that they sent some settlers to "Tyrrhenia". It doesn't seem they were necessarily correct about who invented the games, and, of course, the area around the northern Aegean was also called "Tyrrhenia" at one point. Meanwhile, the Etruscan/Tyrrenians called themselves Rasenna. You see how it goes?
Also, as has been pointed out, Lydians spoke an Indo-European language, and the Lydian historian of the 5th century BC, Xanthos, had, according to Dionysius, never heard of the story.
As for the "Pelasgian" theory of Hellicanus, among others, both the Greeks and the Etruscans promoted it, but from the explanation of Briquet, both the Greeks and the Etruscans, although sometimes rivals in trade, were also allies in trade, and it was in both their interests to support a theory whereby the Greeks and the Etruscans were somewhat related.
From the text:
"Etruscans were barbarians; this connected them with a people whom the Greeks represented as having been established on the soil of Hellas even before themselves and constituting the source of several Hellenic populations of later times (especially the Athenians presented by Herodotus 1.56 as the finest example of a Greek people descended from the Pelasgians.)...He well understood an aspect that would have been a positive in the eyes of the Greeks: being of Pelasgian origin, the Etruscans could be perceived, if not as Greeks in the strict sense (because they did not speak Greek) at least as related to a people with whom the Greeks were linked. In short, considered as ancient Pelasgians, the Etruscans were quasi-Hellenes."
This putative "Pelasgian" origin was also helpful to the Etruscans. "It is no coincidence either that around the time that Hellicanus developed the tradition of the Pelasgian origin of the Etruscans (firth century BC)... these two Etruscan cities (Spina and Caere) were centers of active trade with the Greek world. They presented themelves as founded by Pelasgians, highlighted their syngeneia" with this nearly Hellenic people, and conferred on themselves a prestigious foundation for the bonds of exchange and commercial partnership."
I'm quite aware that there are people who would interpret this claim by the Etruscans as meaning they must indeed descend from the "Pelasgians". The Etruscans are like a Rohrschack test; people see what they want to see.
In that regard it should be noted that the Pelasgian spoken, according to Herodotus, in Placia and Sylace near the Hellespont, and in Chalcidice , not in Cortona, as sometimes averred, is held by Dionysius not to resemble Etruscan at all. Well, at least it seems everyone is in agreement that Pelasgian was still spoken in some areas even at this late date. :)
Chalcidice is in Macedonia, by the way, so we are circling that area again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalkid...Chalidikis.png
I'm rather persuaded by Briquet's conclusions about these stories: "Whether for the autochthonist thesis, or that identifying the Etruscans with the Pelasgians, or that they derived from Lydian colonists, their primary function was to account for the connections that existed at the time that these traditions were disseminated between the historical Etruscans and the Greeks. The meaning of a doctrine such as this, making the Etruscans natives, carried the corollary that they were mere Italian barbarians and were unrelated to Hellenism and its values: we recognize a development by hostile Greeks, probably the Syracusans at the time of their struggles against the Etruscans. The other two doctrines were rather favorable presentations: whether that of the Lydian origin...or that of the Pelasgian origin...With all of this we are far from scientific discourse."
I was particularly amused by the author's citation for a situation where, to facilitate trade, the Spartans asserted "brotherhood" with the Jews through their common origin from Abraham. Who knew? :)
That isn't to say that some historical memories might not have survived of an ancient population movement from the Aegean or other areas to the east into portions of Italy. We in fact know from archaeology that there was movement during the Bronze Age from Greece proper and Crete into Italy. The point is that we don't know if an additional migration happened specifically around 1000 BC to central Italy from either the northern Aegean or some other part of Anatolia, because the ancient writers contradict one another, and the stories are based on assertions that could be seen as agenda driven. I'm back to the beginning on this...if it happened, we don't know if it happened around 900 to 1000 BC, we don't know from where, and we don't know what they were like autsomally. Hopefully we'll know more soon.
What we do know, as the author points out, is that " we cannot reduce a people to a single origin to account for all they have been in history. Every people has been the result of a melting pot, formed by the superposition and mixing of diverse elements. Any attempt to explain it in terms of origin is historically simplistic and wrong."
It doesn't matter how often facts are presented. People will believe what they want to believe.
I fully agree with this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsnake49
by the way it's funny to see reactions about Lemnian, Etruscans setting a colony just in an Aegean island, poor Greeks.
Or the Shekelesh and Sardana as Sea Peoples, like those Tuscan Tershen. Well, why expend time with those that don't like maths.
Have you ever done any research before opining?Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
As an illustration that Etruscans created trading centers in other parts of the Mediterranean, see the following thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ight=Etruscans
I also posted this in 2014, and it was discussed at length:
""As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. "
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-03-02.html"
By the way, statistics is math, and it's math which creates Admixture, and all the other statistical tools which come up with conclusions you don't like. Oh, and PCAs too.
Don't have a response yet as to how these "Pelasagian", West Asian, like Etruscans plot so close to some modern Iberians? Cat got your tongue? :)
I'm posting the accompanying source to these images here because he lays out the most supported arguments and himself develops an interesting and attractive argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
"The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochthonous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties.
The first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lemnians wereboth remnants of population groups surviving the onset of Indo-Europeanimmigrations, runs up against the fact that the two languages were so closelyrelated that such a long period of independent development is highly inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean date back to at least c.2300 BC).
The second option, according to which the north-Aegean regionwas colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early 7th century BC,is, considering the slight dialectal differences, a priori possible, but lacks aproper archaeological and historical basis.
...
From an archaeological perspective, the colonization of Etruria at the endof the Bronze Age is highly unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-Villanovan (=an earlier phase of Villanovan)2, but, as demonstrated convincingly by HughHencken, the latter shows close affinities with the European urnfields. Thusthe typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily discovered in theregion of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, the houseurns, which are so well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villanova, find their closests parallels in northern Germany (Behn 1924, 90-1; Tafel 6, d-e) (see Fig. 2)3. In line with these observations, it seems reason able to assume that new population groups have entered Italy, as Henckendoes, only not from the Aegean, but from Europe. These new populationgroups can plausibly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italicpeoples of the Umbrians, Oscans4, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languagesshow the closest affinity to Celtic and Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrianshave the same name as the German tribe of the Ambrones as recorded forJutland in Denmark (Altheim 1950, 56-7), branches of which can, on the basisof related place and river names, be traced as far afield as France, Spain andeven northern Italy (Schmoll 1959: 83, 119), whereas that of the Oscans orAusones is obviously related to the Celtic ethnonyms Ausci of the people nearAuch in southern France and Ausetani reported for Ausa-Vich in Catalonia(Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40). � Note in this connection that, as demonstrated byHans Krahe (1964: 90-1, 43-4), both ethnonyms are rooted in his OldEuropean river names, the first being based on *embh-, *ombh- �moist,water� and the second on *av-, *au- �source, stream�.
This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of the Bronze Age, whichassumes a relation between urnfield culture and the historical peoples of theUmbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Massimo Pallottino. He putmuch effort in an attempt to disconnect the Italic Indo-European languagesfrom the (proto-)Villanovan culture, the bearers of which he considers to bethe forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he presents a map showing the distribution of archaeological cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC,which he compares with the distribution of the various languages as attestedin about the 5th century BC (Pallottino 1988, 68; Abb. 1-2). This is a dangerous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the proto-Villanovan phase,which cannot be separated from Villanovan and which spread far to the south,reaching Apulia, the Lipari islands and even northern Sicily � regions wherelater evidence of Italic languages is found (see Fig. 3)5. Secondly, the use ofthe distinction between cremation and inhumation burial rites as an ethnicmarker is, as far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplification.After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, thereis a revival of the rite of inhumation spreading from the south of Italy to thenorth, reaching Caere in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. Similarly, the Etruscansare also acquainted with both rites � be it that their cremation burials are clearly distinct from the Villanovan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus Etruscan style cremations and inhumations � a line of approach actually applied byIngrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere (Pohl 1972).Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria withthe forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according towhich the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them outof their original habitat (Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112). As a matter offact, there are numerous reminiscences of the Umbrians originally inhabitingthe region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region calledtractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes andSarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identificationof Cortona as an Umbrian town (Altheim 1950, 22-3). At any rate, the siteswhich have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringeof the Villanovan style cremation area (Poultney 1959, 3) and there even havebeen found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of theAppenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona,Ariminum, Ravenna and Spina to the north (Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon1988, 701) � regions where (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 3)."
Colonization in the Early Iron Age
The question which remains to be answered is whether the colonization ofItaly by the Etruscans from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos does fit intothe period of the Early Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and colonization of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and Greeks. Wasthere among these explorers and colonists of the far west a third party, namely Luwians from western Anatolia?
First of all, it is important to note that only from c. 700 BC onwards Etruriais characterized by an archaeological culture that with certainty can be identified as Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions conducted inthe Etruscan language are found (Hencken 1968, 631). One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tombunder tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumationor a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre arecollected in a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth,is placed in a loculus of the grave. The closest parallels for such �lite-cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs under tumulus at Salamison Cyprus (D�Agostino 1977, 57-8)8. The rite in question is meticulouslydescribed by Homeros in connection with the burial of Patroklos, for whichreason one often speaks of a Homeric burial.
...
The inference that colonists from various regions of western Asia Minormigrated to Etruria may receive further emphasis if we take a look at thescript. As mentioned in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan language date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is assumed that theEtruscans have borrowed their alphabet from the Greeks, in particular fromthe Euboians at Pithecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are characterized bysigns and sign-forms unparalleled for Greek inscriptions. In the first place wehave to consider in this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f]as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) innorth-Etruria, which consists of a vertical stroke with a small circle on eithertop. As time goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-eight[f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the south ultimately to replacethe digraph of wau and e�ta (< he�ta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscanalphabets. The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian alphabet,where during the same time it knows exactly the same development! Next, alate 7th century BC inscription from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoenician original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for this sign can be discovered inthe local script of Side in Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it liesat hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the north to Side in the south, simplyhave taken their script with them (Woudhuizen 1982-3, 97; for the Sidetictsade, see Woudhuizen 1984-5b, 117, fig. 5).
The colonists not only introduced their own type of grave and their own typeof alphabet, they also settled themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks,in urban centres founded according to neatly circumscribed rituals(Woudhuizen 1998, 178-9). An often heard argument in favor of the continuity between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods is that theEtruscan cities are founded on locations where in the previous periodVillanovan villages are situated (Hencken 1968, 636). It should be realized,however, that the Greek colony in Cumae is also preceded by an indigenousItalic settlement and that there is ample evidence for intermingling betweenthe original inhabitants and the new arrivals (M�ller-Karpe 1959, 36-9)10. Thesame model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as suggested by thelarge number of Italic names in Etruscan inscriptions dating from the 7th and6th centuries BC. To give some examples, one might point to: Cventi, Eknate,Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Mamerce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu,Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie, Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, andSarsina (cf. Vetter 1953). As a matter of fact, the colonists from western AsiaMinor constitute an �lite, who impose their superior culture on the by far morenumerous indigenous Italic population. A vital component of the colonial culture is formed by their language.
A first hint at the nature of the language can be derived from the name ofsome of the newly founded cities. Thus Tarquinia (= Etr. Tarchna-) is, on the analogy of Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia and Herakleia,which are also based on a divine name, named after the Luwian storm-godTarh≠unt-11. In addition, a number of Etruscan personal names, like Arnth,Mezentie, Muchsie, Thifarie or Thefarie, can be traced back to Luwian counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic elements (masana-�god�, Tiwata- or Tiwara- �sun-god�); the same applies to family names likeCamitlna (< Luwian h≠anta- �in front of�) and Velavesvna (< Luwian walwa-�lion�), be it that the diagnostic element -na- is an Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomastics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary showsmany correspondences with Luwian, like for instance the very common verbmuluvane- or muluvani- �to offer as a vow�, the root of which is related toLuwian maluwa- �thank-offering�.
Of a more profound nature are similaritiesin morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of (pro)nominaldeclension (genitive-dative singular in -s or -l, ablative-locative in -th(i)or -r(i), nominative plural in -i, genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd person singular of the present-future in -th(i)), the use of sentenceintroductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic conjunctions (-c or -ch, -m),negative adverbs (nes or nis), etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscancan be classified as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the EarlyIron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in certain aspects already showing developmentscharacteristic of Lycian (genitive plural in -�i > -e1) and Lydian (dative singular in -l1, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-locative ending, sentenceintroductory particle nak, enclitic conjunction -k) of the Classical period.Finally, Etruscan shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shareswith Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the past tense in -ce, -keor -che, the vocabulary word avi- �year� and the enclitic conjunction -m�and�. "
LINK: http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/upl...TxsRjeLZ4m2hgQ
To my knowledge the only Etruscan remains are those of ELITE Etruscans, the ones who could afford big sarcophagi.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
In the end, the same things are always repeated with the Etruscans. Sometimes it gets boring.
This is a paper by Fred C. Woudhuizen written over 15 years ago. Everyone who has read a lot about the Etruscans already knows it.
The vision of Fred C. Woudhuizen and his master Beekes is typical of Indo-Europeanists. Indo-Europeanist linguists have done enormous damage to linguistics. Neither of them is an etruscologist. And you can see it clearly from their work that lacks of deep and accurate knowledge of the Etruscan world.
Fred C. Woudhuizen believes that Etruscan is an Indo-European language and derives from colonial Luvian. Nothing could be more wrong. In fact, Woudhuizen's work does not have a good reputation among etruscologists. The consensus is that Etruscan is a pre-Indo-European language and does not belong to the Anatolian language family.
Woudhuizen's conclusions go in the opposite direction even of archaeological discoveries.
Much more interesting than Woudhuizen's paper are the two images that you posted (and that Woudhuizen had taken from other texts and published in his paper).
The first image (fig. 1) comes from a work by Hugh O'Neill Hencken from 1968. It's a bit outdated work but Hencken was a very good archaeologist.
In essence Hencken sees that the biconical urns present in the Etruscan Villanovan are present in the southernmost extension of the Urnfield culture, roughly where today is the Banat, between Hungary, Serbia and Romania. It may be. Others have also found similarities between the Gáva culture (subtype of the Urnfield culture) and the Villanovan, where there are also biconical urns. Hencken's work being over 50 years old, it may be that in the meantime biconical urns have been found in a larger area.
https://books.google.it/books?id=vXljf8JqmkoC&pg=PA598
The second image (fig. 2) comes from a more recent (1997) work by Jan Bouzek.
According to this image house urns are distributed both in Etruria (Tuscany and Lazio) and in the Latial culture (central Lazio).
So, house urns are absolutely not just typical features of the Latial culture according to Bouzek, but also of the Etruscan villanovan culture. This contradicts what Woudhuizen tries to prove.
Good lord, even you suddenly don't understand that ancient dna trumps any theorizing by individuals? Do I really have to post all the archaeologists who think this is C***?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
I have no more "juice", Pax, or I would upvote your post.
Suddenly some sanity from someone who actually knows a lot about the Etruscans.
To think someone would actually endorse the theorizing of that crackpot, Woudhuizen!
They're all irrelevant at the end of the day, so I should just put all the usual suspects with an ax to grind on ignore and save myself the aggravation.
Ancient DNA, if these reports turn out to be true, trumps all the stupidity written in the past about the Etruscans, whose remains, as I said above, come, to the best of my knowledge, from the cemeteries where prominent Etruscans were buried.