Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian

Ygorbr · Oct 11, 2017

Was Villanovan R1b even R1b-M269? I don't really remember, but I don't think so. In my opinion there isn't necessarily a continuous genetic relationship between Villanovan people in northern Italy and R1b-U152 heavy Italian regions nowadays. The R1b subclades of Villanovan, Iron Gates and other European hunter gatherers may simply have gone the same way of C1a2 and other Paleolithic haplogroups, i.e. extremely low and dispersed presence. I suppose that subclades of R1b-M269 proper would've arrived from further east, near the Ukraine (Carpathians? Black Sea coast?).

Angela · Oct 12, 2017

Ygorbr said:
Was Villanovan R1b even R1b-M269? I don't really remember, but I don't think so. In my opinion there isn't necessarily a continuous genetic relationship between Villanovan people in northern Italy and R1b-U152 heavy Italian regions nowadays. The R1b subclades of Villanovan, Iron Gates and other European hunter gatherers may simply have gone the same way of C1a2 and other Paleolithic haplogroups, i.e. extremely low and dispersed presence. I suppose that subclades of R1b-M269 proper would've arrived from further east, near the Ukraine (Carpathians? Black Sea coast?).

Villanovans are Iron Age people, Ygorbr. Are you thinking perhaps of Villabruna? That would be different. We have his R1b clade. We don't have anything for any Bronze or Iron Age people of Italy except for Remedello who were European farmer like with some additional WHG, and they carried I2a. It can get confusing with such similar names.

Sile · Oct 13, 2017

Pax Augusta said:
In fact north of the Po River there are proto-Villanovan sites according to this map. In Lombardy to be exact.

Are you sure this has not been superseded by more recent studies?
Is it not confused with Golassca culture?
https://www.ancient.eu/Villanovan_Culture/
.
.
here is a link which will interest you in regards to early iron-age italy
http://www.bollettinodiarcheologiaonline.beniculturali.it/documenti/generale/1_NIJBOER.pdf

Pax Augusta · Oct 13, 2017

Sile said:
Are you sure this has not been superseded by more recent studies?
Is it not confused with Golassca culture?.

More Canegrate than Golasecca. Golasecca is more recent.

Anyway, they all, including proto-Villanovans, derive from the same culture, the Urnfield culture. So it's pretty obvious that these sites were considered overlapping.

David W. Anthony in "The Horse, The Wheel and Language"

The widely separated pockets of Yamnaya settlement in the lower Danube
valley and the Balkans established speakers of late Proto-Indo-European di-
alects in scattered islands where, if they remained isolated from one another,
they could have differentiated over centuries into various Indo-European
languages. The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary
suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population
of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just
through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both
pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Buda-
pest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600
BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and
Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects
spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed
into Proto-Celtic. 31 Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects
that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the
Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the
argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migra-
tion stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both. 32
Archaeologically, however, the Yamnaya immigrants here, as elsewhere,
left no lasting material impression except their kurgans.

Ygorbr · Oct 18, 2017

Angela said:
Villanovans are Iron Age people, Ygorbr. Are you thinking perhaps of Villabruna? That would be different. We have his R1b clade. We don't have anything for any Bronze or Iron Age people of Italy except for Remedello who were European farmer like with some additional WHG, and they carried I2a. It can get confusing with such similar names.

Yes, sorry, I misread the terms, they're so similar, and to make things more confusing R1b was also found in the Villabruna cluster! LOL

Sile · Oct 18, 2017

Pax Augusta said:
More Canegrate than Golasecca. Golasecca is more recent.
Anyway, they all, including proto-Villanovans, derive from the same culture, the Urnfield culture. So it's pretty obvious that these sites were considered overlapping.
David W. Anthony in "The Horse, The Wheel and Language"

Thanks , I have this book
Since you noted this highlight part, you must then fall in with italian scholars in saying that the italic people originated on the northern side of the alps ( south germany ) which is urnfield and then that the proto-umbrians where the first into Italy ...................which leads to the conclusion of some scholars that etruscans are a branch of the umbrian group ....this is referred to as the indigenous etruscan theory and not the migrational one

IronSide · Dec 19, 2017

IronSide said:
If there is continuity between the Etruscans and Villanovans then that does contradict any Iron Age Anatolian migration.

I find it interesting that R1b-U152 (the supposed Italic IE subclade) distribution in Italy fits Villanovan and Etruscan territory more than it does for the Italic tribes.

A similar situation to Ancient Iberians (a non-IE people) and R1b-DF27

And of course, Basque speakers are predominantly R1b.

A better surrogate for the Italic tribes would be J2a1-L70, and the Etruscans would basically be R1b-U152 and the older Neolithic G2a2, which would be the source of the Etruscan language. If any real relationship exists between Etruscan and Nakh languages then it would be in some common origin in the Anatolian Neolithic.

Yes I changed my mind.

If we accept Etruscans as continuation of Villanovan, which has its origins in the Urnfield culture, and since we know it doesn't belong to the Indo-European language family, then it must have been descended from an Anatolian Neolithic farmers language, these farmers quickly expanded from a single community of speakers in north western Anatolia to LBK and Cardial, and thus must have had a single proto-language that was ancestral to most European Neolithic languages, of which only the Tyrsenian group that includes Etruscan survived.

You could say it was similar to how Levantine farmers spread Afro-Asiatic languages to Africa, the relatability of EEF languages in Europe could have been on a similar scale.

But what about Basque ? given it doesn't have any strong connection to Tyrsenian languages, and thus "theoretically" doesn't descend from the same language family, it may not have been a farmers language at all, but descended from western hunter-gatherers, maybe another language family beside "Ancestral Tyrrhenian" existed that spread with the Megalithic cultures from south western Europe, Basque could be descended from such a group.

Cato · Dec 20, 2017

U152 in Tuscany is Bell Beaker or due by Polada-influenced culture like the Asciano facies/culture IMO

eblashko · Dec 21, 2017

This is interesting. It could explain the presence of R1b-L277 in modern day Italians, which is otherwise seen almost exclusively in Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Kurds, and Jews. Estruscans having a Causasian origin would certainly explain this. I also remember a study done some years back on bovine mtDNA from the Tuscany area which showed that modern day cows there were more similar to cows in Anatolia than to cows in the rest of Italy.

I happen to believe that L277 and L584 were both branches of R1b-z2013 which "stayed behind" in around the region of the Caucasus, and both became minor components of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture, (which was probably mostly J2). It seems at least linguistically that there could be some support for Etruscan either arising from or being a related to this culture.

It should be noted that Starostin also believed that in addition to Etruscan, Hurrian is related to the Dagestani langauges as well.

Angela · Dec 21, 2017

Problem is the vast majority of R1b in Tuscany, and there's a lot, is R1b U-152.

Even Jean Manco finally admitted that reliance on bovine dna is bogus, as I said for I don't know how many years. Those cows could have come with the Neolithic or Early Bronze. There's absolutely no way of knowing.

Same for the ancient mtDna we got from them. Samples from two areas carried mtDna which can be found in modern day Turkey. Problem is, again, that at the resolution they were able to get, it was so old that it could have been there since the early Neolithic.

Maybe all the speculation and some of the ancient writers were correct (one thought they were autocthonous), about a late Bronze migration directly to central Italy. Although, the equal and higher amounts of "Caucasus" in the Balkans will have to be explained. Maybe it will turn out to be as incorrect as viewing the Basque as Paleolithic survivors. Who knows?

I know people have fun speculating, but until we get some whole genomes from the Etruscan elite, there's just no way of knowing that I can tell.

eblashko · Dec 21, 2017

Of course, I agree that L277 represents a very small minority of Tuscan R1b (it also happens to represent a minority of Armenian R1b as well). I'm sure the vast majority of present-day Italian R1b, including in Tuscany, arrived with the proto-Italic Indo-Europeans. But that shouldn't preclude at least a partial Anatolian or Caucasian origin for the Etruscans.

And you're right about the cows... I guess we can let our imaginations run a little wild sometimes.

Lenab · Dec 21, 2017

IronSide said:
If there is continuity between the Etruscans and Villanovans then that does contradict any Iron Age Anatolian migration.

I find it interesting that R1b-U152 (the supposed Italic IE subclade) distribution in Italy fits Villanovan and Etruscan territory more than it does for the Italic tribes.

A similar situation to Ancient Iberians (a non-IE people) and R1b-DF27

And of course, Basque speakers are predominantly R1b.

A better surrogate for the Italic tribes would be J2a1-L70, and the Etruscans would basically be R1b-U152 and the older Neolithic G2a2, which would be the source of the Etruscan language. If any real relationship exists between Etruscan and Nakh languages then it would be in some common origin in the Anatolian Neolithic.

Yes I changed my mind.

First part is right

Lenab · Dec 21, 2017

Etruscans similar to Caucasian Iberians Neolithic WHG mixed

Angela · Dec 21, 2017

eblashko said:
Of course, I agree that L277 represents a very small minority of Tuscan R1b (it also happens to represent a minority of Armenian R1b as well). I'm sure the vast majority of present-day Italian R1b, including in Tuscany, arrived with the proto-Italic Indo-Europeans. But that shouldn't preclude at least a partial Anatolian or Caucasian origin for the Etruscans.

And you're right about the cows... I guess we can let our imaginations run a little wild sometimes.

If that's the yDna they carried, they were a very small group, because there's very little of it in Tuscany, and thus their autosomal impact would have been minor.

Let's not forget, also, that this y Dna is present at similar levels in the Balkans and Greece as well. It has been speculated that its presence in the latter is because it is a Yamnaya lineage. Why does a lineage that is Yamnaya in Greece and the Balkans suddenly become a late arrival from Anatolia in the late Bronze/Iron Age when the subject is Italy? I've never understood that.

Lenab · Dec 21, 2017

Angela said:
If that's the yDna they carried, they were a very small group, because there's very little of it in Tuscany, and thus their autosomal impact would have been minor.

Let's not forget, also, that this y Dna is present at similar levels in the Balkans and Greece as well. It has been speculated that its presence in the latter is because it is a Yamnaya lineage. Why does a lineage that is Yamnaya in Greece and the Balkans suddenly become a late arrival from Anatolia in the late Bronze/Iron Age when the subject is Italy? I've never understood that.

Depends if you consider Etruscans one of the early people to arrive in Italy

Salento · Dec 22, 2017

Lenab said:
Lol is that ********? Alpine from the Alpine races a sub Caucasian race, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race

Eastern Mediterranean can be anyone who has genetics that matches up with whatever is historically identified as the Eastern Mediterranean basin.

Example the Greek guy at the top classical Mediterranean phenotype

View attachment 9560

I wonder if a Superiority Complex is part of Your “Alpine Mediterranean” background.

Lenab · Dec 22, 2017

Salento said:
Thank you for your kind remarks.

No problem!

Angela · Dec 22, 2017

This isn't a thread on Balkan people or about phenotypes. Get back on topic.

Angela · Dec 22, 2017

Did you all not get the message? Get back on point. This thread is about the ETRUSCANS.

I am removing all off topic material.

Pax Augusta · Dec 22, 2017

eblashko said:
This is interesting. It could explain the presence of R1b-L277 in modern day Italians, which is otherwise seen almost exclusively in Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Kurds, and Jews. Estruscans having a Causasian origin would certainly explain this. I also remember a study done some years back on bovine mtDNA from the Tuscany area which showed that modern day cows there were more similar to cows in Anatolia than to cows in the rest of Italy.

I happen to believe that L277 and L584 were both branches of R1b-z2013 which "stayed behind" in around the region of the Caucasus, and both became minor components of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture, (which was probably mostly J2). It seems at least linguistically that there could be some support for Etruscan either arising from or being a related to this culture.

It should be noted that Starostin also believed that in addition to Etruscan, Hurrian is related to the Dagestani langauges as well.

eblashko said:
Of course, I agree that L277 represents a very small minority of Tuscan R1b (it also happens to represent a minority of Armenian R1b as well). I'm sure the vast majority of present-day Italian R1b, including in Tuscany, arrived with the proto-Italic Indo-Europeans. But that shouldn't preclude at least a partial Anatolian or Caucasian origin for the Etruscans.

And you're right about the cows... I guess we can let our imaginations run a little wild sometimes.

Saying again with new and old accounts that the Starostin theory is true isn't going to make it any more true.

At present the only working linguistic theory is that of the Tyrrhenian language family, which does not rule out the arrival in a time between the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic.

The few Italian R1b-L277 found so far aren't Tuscan but they are from other parts of Italy. So what do the Etruscans have to do with it? There are also Dutch and Swiss who are R1b-L277. And in any case the presence of L277.1 is so extremely low and it's an unwarranted gamble to try to link it to an old civilization. Also because the few found so far could all have arrived in more recent times.

And the ony Italian in the L584 yfull tree is a Sardinian from Cagliari (and L584 seems quite dispersed in Europe, even among Northern Europeans).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L584/

Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian

Regular Member

Elite member

Banned

Elite member

Regular Member

Banned

Elite member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Elite member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member