Etruscans, where from, Anatolia, Africa or Italy?

@nobody1

There was a paper last year which had this break down
- Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as "para-Celtic“ and "pre-Celtic")
- Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)
- Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)
- Veneti (close to Italic, but with a few other affinities, Raeti and possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)

Would you say, that these "illyrians" being called in other forms like, raeti norici, pannonian, venetic, euganei, vindelic etc are a "central european/alpine " mix which eventually got absorbed piecemeal by celts from the north and gallics from the west?
 
Nobody1 said:
So the only reason you think the Vindelici to be Keltic is based on onomastics or in fact just the interpretations of them; A bit weak given the Historical and Archaeological evidence standing against it;

I start by pointing out that the Vindelici are not a tribe - they are a tribal confederation i.e. consisting of numerous tribes; One of them the Vennones/Venosten others the Genauni and Breuni and it is these tribes that are designated as Illyrian equally the Veneti/Enetoi are designated Illyrian;

And Archaeologists have found in the territory of the Geneuni and Breuni inscriptions with an identical language to Venetic; What do we learn from this?

We learn that the Vindelici (Vennones/Venostes/Genauni/Breuni) had the same language as the Veneti and both are designated by History as Illyrian; And we are equally faced again with this bizarre situation that a common language of peoples being called Illyrians is not allowed to be designated Illyrian; Just as before when a common language of peoples being called Pelasgians is not allowed to be called Pelasgian; Keeping in mind that this common language is Archaeologically and Linguistically attested;
Click to expand...

Sorry, a discussion of the Vindelicians certainly would belong into another thread, but tell me something, which data that you have is better than onomastic data (Celtic names, and I should add, unambigously Celtic, unless you can demonstrate to me that "-duno", "-briga" or "-rix" can be somehow Venetic) and archaeological data (bearers of the La-Tene culture - including coinage with the triskelion motif that can be found elsewhere in Celtic areas)?

I should specifiy, by the way, to avoid confusions, I was talking about the Adriatic Veneti here, not the Gaulish or the Baltic ones. Likewise, Sile, I was talking about the ancient Dalmatae. But as I said, this belongs elsewhere.

Also, do you have a quote (or ID) for the purportedly Venetic Genauni inscription?

The reason I avoid the term "Illyrian" is because its not clearly defined, unlike, for instance, the term "Venetic". Regardless of the question of the ethnicity of the Vindelicians, its clear that regardless of wether you think of them as Celtic or Venetic, there is no evidence in the Alps for a language akin to Etruscan (Rhaetian) outside the Bolzano region. And to me, the idea that they retreated there from the Po river plain is an elegant solution.

Goes without saying;
In fact something me and Sile already thoroughly discussed and agreed on;



Than you are confusing the sources and their content;
Raetus and Bellovesus are connected (not separated) and its all a fable;
The actual migration of 400 BC was described as such:

Plinius - (III/XVII) Nat. Hist. - quoting C. Nepos
interiere et Caturiges, Insubrum exsules, et Spina supra dicta, item Melpum opulentia praecipuum, quod ab Insubribus et Bois et Senonibus deletum eo die, quo Camillus Veios ceperit, Nepos Cornelius tradidit.
The Caturiges have also perished, an exiled race of the Insubres, as also Spina previously mentioned; Melpum too, a place distinguished for its opulence, which, as we are informed by Cornelius Nepos, was destroyed by the Insubres, the Boii, and the Senones, on the very day on which Camillus took Veii.

And no one ever claimed the Etruscans from Melpum or Felsina to have fled with Raetus into the Alps; The actual migration of 400BC did not involve the Etruscans disappearing into the Alps the fable of 600BC does;

Because acc. to your scenario that Raetian from Bolzano would be an Etruscan;
And that is obviously not the case;
Click to expand...

When I meant "Etruscan" in regard for the Po plain, I meant it in the sense of "Tyrrhenian". My bad.

Back to the Etruscan origins, the assumption of an Anatolian origin has a strength that we admittedly know relatively little about the ethnic situation in western Anatolia before the Bronze Age collapse. We know that much of Anatolia was Anatolian-speaking (as in, languages of the Indo-European language family) by the time that this region was Hellenized, but, we do not know if that was the case a thousand years earlier. As I mentioned, the ethnic makeup of Anatolia changed multiple times over. In this scenario, the Etruscans (and their relatives, the Raetians) would be immigrants at the end of the Bronze Age.
 
Taranis said:
When I meant "Etruscan" in regard for the Po plain, I meant it in the sense of "Tyrrhenian". My bad.

Back to the Etruscan origins, the assumption of an Anatolian origin has a strength that we admittedly know relatively little about the ethnic situation in western Anatolia before the Bronze Age collapse. We know that much of Anatolia was Anatolian-speaking (as in, languages of the Indo-European language family) by the time that this region was Hellenized, but, we do not know if that was the case a thousand years earlier. As I mentioned, the ethnic makeup of Anatolia changed multiple times over. In this scenario, the Etruscans (and their relatives, the Raetians) would be immigrants at the end of the Bronze Age.
Click to expand...

The Geographical origins (or the point of departure) of the Tyrrhenians is one of the aspects and there Anatolia is the (also my) favorite; But the point thats is evident is that these Tyrrhenians whether from Thessaly (Hellanicus/Dionysius) or Anatolia (Herodotus) are Pelasgians; This isnt even a discussion in the likes of are the Trojans Pelasgians? or are the Minoans Pelasgian? those discussions are based on interpretations; The discussion whether the Tyrrhenians are Pelasgians is actually given word by word as such in ancient/classical History by the Greek scholars; On top of that is of course the Archaeological/Linguistical connection to Lemnos (an island equally inhabited by Pelasgians) and the sheer fact that the name Tyrrhenians/Τυρρηνοί is synonymous (Hesiod/Sophocles/Thucydides) with Pelasgian itself;

All i am actually pointing out is that the Tyrrhenians did come from the East Medit. (not autochthonous) and that they are not 'Mysterious' they are actually well classified as Pelasgians;
 
hittite seals send to places in western anatolia where only written in luwian text. the logic is that hittite scribes would write in the language of the destination of the seal. Hittite seals in Luwian text have been found all along western anatolia, from Troy in the north to the lycians in the south. There are no other seals of any other language in the noted area.........and the hittite lasted until roughly 1200BC. In other areas they found hittite seals in akkadian text in assyria, cannite text in the levant etc .

Logic dictates that a king would sent messages to its neighbours in the text of its neighbours.

http://www.academia.edu/464165/Hitt..._and_the_Development_of_Anatolian_Hieroglyphs

I have never seen on the net any other hittite seals in western anatolia which is other than Luwian (luvian)
 
I have moved the discussion about the Vindelici, Veneti, etc. to here (feel free to continue there :) ), so that this discussion goes back to the origins of the Etruscans.
 
Etruscans came from Asia minor?

What's the most recent study on the subject?
 
Etruscan_Painting_1.jpg
 
Read the previous posts on this subject. The subject has already been discussed on this forum. Although there are legends about the Etruscans originally being from Asia Minor, there's not a lot of actual proof of that. It could just be a foundational myth, like the fantasy about the Romans originally being from Troy.
 
Aberdeen said:
Read the previous posts on this subject. The subject has already been discussed on this forum. Although there are legends about the Etruscans originally being from Asia Minor, there's not a lot of actual proof of that. It could just be a foundational myth, like the fantasy about the Romans originally being from Troy.
Click to expand...

You think they were native to the region? Do you have a link?
 
Vinnie said:
You think they were native to the region? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

If you're too lazy to look for the previous threads that I referred to, I'll be lazy and just quote a dubious source, Wikipedia.

"Culture that is identifiably Etruscan developed in Italy after about 800 BC approximately over the range of the preceding Iron Age Villanovan culture. The latter gave way in the 7th century to a culture that was influenced by Hellenic Magna Graecian and Phonecian contacts. After 500 BC, the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands.[7] The latestmtDNA study (2013) shows that Etruscans appear to fall very close to a Neolithic population from Central Europe and to other Tuscan populations."

That pretty much seems to be the current scholarly consensus about the Etruscans. But, as I said, there have been some previous discussions about the Etruscans on this forum. One poster who seems to know a lot about the Etruscans is Angela, but she's currently not posting here at the moment - she said she was going on holiday to her native Italy for several weeks. When she gets back, she can probably tell you all about the Etruscans, but there are already a few old threads on that subject.
 
Aberdeen said:
If you're too lazy to look for the previous threads that I referred to, I'll be lazy and just quote a dubious source, Wikipedia.

"Culture that is identifiably Etruscan developed in Italy after about 800 BC approximately over the range of the preceding Iron Age Villanovan culture. The latter gave way in the 7th century to a culture that was influenced by Hellenic Magna Graecian and Phonecian contacts. After 500 BC, the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands.[7] The latestmtDNA study (2013) shows that Etruscans appear to fall very close to a Neolithic population from Central Europe and to other Tuscan populations."
That pretty much seems to be the current scholarly consensus about the Etruscans. But, as I said, there have been some previous discussions about the Etruscans on this forum. One poster who seems to know a lot about the Etruscans is Angela, but she's currently not posting here at the moment - she said she was going on holiday to her native Italy for several weeks. When she gets back, she can probably tell you all about the Etruscans, but there are already a few old threads on that subject.
Click to expand...

Hatria was build in 1200 BC, is half Mycenean -half minor Asian but trully Etruscan.

Etruscan is the one before last wave from minor Asia and Aegean, last is GreeK colonisation, but before that we had many, starting from late neolithic.
 
Last edited:
Yetos said:
Hatria was build in 1200 BC, is half Mycenean -half minor Asian but trully Etruscan.

Etruscan is the one before last wave from minor Asia and Aegean, last is GreeK colonisation, but before that we had many, starting from late neolithic.
Click to expand...

There are two places in Italy called Atria, previously Hatria. The more northerly one was founded by Etruscans and later colonized by Greeks, but there's nothing about it to connect it to Anatolia, except to the extent that most of the population of western Europe, including Italy, seems to be descended from people who migrated there from the Middle East during the Neolithic. The Etruscans did speak a non-IE language, but it was probably one that developed in situ.
 
It seems to be already existing thread on this subject. I'm merging them into one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 63623 times.

Back
Top