I contacted the organizer of the event that took place in February 2019, in which Hannah Moots presented some of her research, and she wrote the following, "I don't have an exact date. I believe this work is part of ongoing dissertation research, and will be published when she completes her degree.". By the way, after a little additional research from my part i found out that she is to graduate in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
The EEF component is just Anatolian farmer with a little WHG picked up in Europe. The Late Neolithic peoples of Europe, like the people of "Old Europe" in the Balkans and Ukraine, and Iberia, Italy, etc. had picked up more WHG, up to 25% or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
The relationship of the Anatolian farmers to the Iranian farmers to the farmers of the Levant is complicated. Anatolian farmers can be modeled with or as part Levant Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic can be modeled with Anatolian Neolithic, and Anatolian Neolithic can be modeled with even a bit of Iran Neolithic.
The point is that after the Anatolian farmers had left for Europe, there was a pinzer movement into Europe beginning in the Bronze Age from two directions: the steppe (60% EHG/40%CHG/IranNeo like ancestry) and the southern Caucasus by way of what used to be called Asia Minor. The ancestry which arrived by way of this southern route also contained some Anatolian farmer, but was very Iran Neo heavy. I personally think the wave may be Kura Araxes related.
It seems that both the Etruscans and the Italics are a combination of LN farmers (EEF plus up to 25%WHG) and some steppe input that probably arrived from Central Europe. So, they seem to have been very similar.
Autosomal analysis is quite different from analysis using yDna or mtDna. You don't need thousands of samples, although you have to be certain you got the dating correct, the burial context correct, and hopefully you've done some analysis so you know if the samples were born and raised in that area.
As for theories about the Etruscans, archaeologists always leaned toward them being local, but virtually everyone writing on genetics, from the academics, to Jean Manco, with whom I argued for ten years, to Eurogenes, to all the people on "biodiversity" sites, was convinced they came straight from the Near East. On here Pax and I and some of the other Italian posters who had studied the Etruscans a lot were the only ones who were skeptical of that idea. Not that you'd know that given the deafening silence on the subject on other sites. You'd think they always knew it.
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Angela
I dont think local is the right term to use. So, if the proto Etruscans and their language were the Early European Farmers, then it means their initial migration to Italy was from West Asia(through Turkey and Greece) after all, only it happened in the Neolithic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Also, considering the fact that the Proto Iberian Bell Beakers were a mix of EEF and WHG, the leaked ancestry component of Bell Beakers could be related to the EEF people participating in the formation of the Bell Beaker culture in Iberia.
But what I think is that when the Steppe people and their Indo European language(coming from Central/North-Western Europe) replaced the populations in a lot of European areas in the Bronze Age, it could have been possible that these Early European Farmers from Italy migrated back towards the Aegean region (remaining unmixed in there, retaining their neolithic EEF autosomal ancestry component) when they met the expansions of the Corded Ware culture. And then during the Early Iron Age, a back migration happened from the Aegean region to Central Italy, mixing with the Italic people who were there since the Late Bronze Age.
Maybe a preprint will be published earlier, but when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
By that criterion, NOBODY is local to Europe. Even the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were not "local". They came from elsewhere. The LN farmers were a mix of Anatolian farmer and WHG. They were the only indigenous population of all of western Europe and the Balkans at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
There is no sign in the archaeological record of a folk migration from the Aegean. Period. That is and was always the case. People preferred to believe otherwise, choosing one ancient author over others in order to so so.
As far as I know, the WHG component is considered to be local(before 8.000-10.000 BCE) to Central/Northern/Southern/Western Europe. The First Farmers came from West Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Firstly, we cannot ignore the hypothesis of ancient historians. Without the combination of historical records and archaeology we cant know anything about the identities of ancient populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
How can we explain the Iron Age people (and their inscriptions) in Lemnos? Maybe, skeletal remains from Iron Age Lemnos should also be studied, to be compared with a larger sampled set of ancient Etruscan individuals(not only 5-10 samples).
And also secondly, the Etruscan archaeological findings(cultural and religious materials) have a lot of similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia. The Etruscan alphabet itself has its origin in West Asia.
Yes, well, that's incorrect. Who is local in any given area is time specific. Europe is a genetic sink. Paleolithic people were the first to arrive. There's shockingly little of their dna left in anyone in Europe. Mesolithic WHG is next, then EEF then Bronze Age migrations. Europeans in the modern sense didn't exist until at the earliest 4,000 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
You can argue all you want. Ancient dna doesn't lie. IF the leaks are accurate, people are just going to have to admit they were WRONG.
Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.
Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.
Well, ultimately the WHG also came from West Asia... This kind of discusson over who's reeeeeeallly native is always circular if a specific timeline is not defined, it can be endless.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
This is a quote from David Reich's book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
So, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe were the locals of central and western Europe(and parts of Northern / Souther Europe). Majority of them were the Mesolithic population you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Reich
Admit what? What are you trying to prove? I dont get it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
She doesn't want to prove anything while you who are probably a West Asian living in Germany is quite blatant what you are desperately trying to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
There are a lot of similarities, and the Greek culture is also originated in West Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
The Etruscan alphabet, the Greek Alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet are all descended from the Sumerian alphabet.Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
Thats what I am saying, people should not talk about native to Italy, when the EEF are a population moved from West Asia. And what is trying to be proved, that the Etruscans lived 10.000 years ago in Italy, and their ancestors did not even make one migration out of Italy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
I am just interested in the origins of ancient Italy, nothing more, and you are being quite ugly, I wont go into further discussion with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
In the Iron Age, Etruscans were native to Italy, because the bulk of their ancestry (and probably language and culture) had been local/European for several millennia. That's more than enough time to call a population "native" or "local" in a given timeline. People are only native or local as they are compared with newer arrivals of people, otherwise the term is meaningless. If you become too demanding about chronology in order to call a population "native" or "local", then everybody is African and there are no natives in Eurasia.Quote:
Originally Posted by suyindik
2 theories about etruscan origins are, they migrated after Croesus conquered the west asian greeks. The other is they come from one of the greek islands. I think it was called lemnos. This was speculated because etruscans wrote from right to left, and the greek inscriptions was found in that fashion on that island.
Lemnian is far too similar to Etruscan for Etruscan to be a much earlier split from the language spoken in Lemnos. It's more probable that Lemnos simply had an Etruscan settlement. Besides, if those reasons you mention are the main grounds for the speculation that Etruscan came from West Asia, then the evidence is extremely scant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
Lemnos is a lovely island and while the two languages maybe similar, it is too small of an island to be the source of the Etruscan population.
Did the Lemnians have trade relationships with the Etruscans? Possibly.
Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?
Certainly the Etruscans stood out, also thanks to the large network of cultural and commercial exchanges, but it is absolutely not true that only the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization. Also this is just another commonplace. The neighbors of the Etruscans were the Latins, the Umbrians, the Veneti and the Golasecchian Celts... All civilizations that had remarkable developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsnake49
You're right. It's all about the cross-fertilization of cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by binx
However, I have to disagree slightly with Pax. I do think the Etruscan civilization at its zenith was more advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period and certainly than the preceding Bronze Age cultures. We're talking about the Iron Age after all. That fact alone means it was more advanced. The Romans learned a lot from the Etruscans. It may be because the Etruscans had exposed themselves to, and absorbed more of the advancements which had made their way from the East through the Greeks, the Phoenicians, etc. before the Latins were exposed to them. The arteries were the trade routes. It was through them that ideas spread and improvements made as they spread. If you are isolated from these cross currents, or if you deliberately isolate yourself, you lose. You have to remain open even to your enemies' ideas.
Just one small example from Rome and Carthage as it's fresh in my mind because I just re-read a text on it. When the rivalry first began and turned to conflict the Romans were not a naval power at all. They stole all the technology they could, made improvements and assembled a formidable naval fleet.
People who want to claim the advancements of humanity for one culture, one "pure" ethnicity, are sadly mistaken in my opinion.
It's also quite ironic in this instance. The Nordicists used to claim that the Roman Empire was so mighty because they were Nordics. It's quite funny that the more they insist all the Romans were just Greeks or Anatolians, the more they disprove their original thesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Disagree on what? Where would I have written that Etruscan civilization was less advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period? The Etruscans were obviously the most advanced civilization of the early Iron Age of Italy. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Without the cultural influence of the Etruscans, the Latins would never have grown so quickly. The influence of the Etruscans reached as far as the Celts of central Europe. The Etruscans expanded from northern Italy (at the border with the populations of the Alps) to southern Italy in Campania. Etruscans were very receptive and were the first Pre-Roman era civilization to have such a wide range of interlocutors.
The commonplace is that only the Etruscans developed in the Italian Iron age. There were also differences in development between the various pre-Roman civilizations. Not all of them remained as isolated as the Ligurians. Other civilizations developed, even in northern Italy not only in southern Italy.
Certainly the Etruscans developed rapidly thanks also to the influences from the East. The important role of the Greeks in southern Italy, who did not profoundly influence the same Etruscans only, who had some settlement in Campania, but also the Latins and later Romans and other Italic populations. Just as important was the role of the Phoenicians who had settled in Pithekoussai, especially in the orientalizing phase.
The Etruscans influenced the Italic populations but in turn they were influenced by the Italic populations. It is precisely this continuous mutual influence that creates that ferment that will bring Rome from a small settlement to become first the capital of a Republic and then of an empire within a few centuries.
An advantage they had over other Mediterranean cultures was their control of transalpine trade. The Hallstatt chiefs were the richest men in Europe at the time, and they bought Etruscan iron, textiles and other crafted goods.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsnake49
Lemnos, a Pelasgian island.
Lemnos was inhabited by the Thracian tribe of Sintians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintians, among other Greeks who probably settled in the Archaic Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
I do not understand why it sounds strange to some people that the Etruscan language was a pre-Indo-European language, when the Iberian Peninsula had long been dominated by pre-Indo-European languages and many people in Iberia still spoke a pre-Indo-European language around 300 BC! Were the Iberians of Pelasgian origin?
If I remember correctly about the Tartessians there are theories that want them of Middle Eastern origin, but perhaps they too were only pre-Indo-European.
Interesting however the numerous Phoenician and Greek colonies in Iberia.
Aquitanian, Proto-Basque, Iberian and Tartessian were all pre-Indo-European languages and still spoken around 300 BC.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0BC-en.svg.png