A Genome-Wide Study of Modern-Day Tuscans: Revisiting Herodotus's Theory on the Origi

giuseppe rossi

Before the advent of genetics I also thought the Basque has some link to Caucasus but the genetics show that the Basques lack the Western Asian component that is very high in Caucasus.
Nevertheless the presence of Armenian and Georgian cognates in Basque language is very intriguing.

The only explanation I have is the time when R1b-M269 was in North of Near East (but it is neolithic ?!)

Concerning the Etruscan. What You think about the idea that Etruscan is someway related to IE?
 
Another study that found an admixture from places even farther East at North Iran.
We analyzed the genetic characteristics of 110 Tuscan mitogenomes in the context of a large dataset of mitogenomes representing the worldwide phylogeny. There is strong evidence suggesting the existence of a Near East component in the Tuscans, thus adding further support to previous findings based on mtDNA control region data and autosomal data. If we consider #60 (T2d2), #29 (J1b1a3a), #24 (T2n1), #95 (J1d6), #92 and #105 (HV9c), #66 (U7a4a1a), #22 (H92) and #63 (H97) as haplotypes recently introduced to the Tuscan area from the Near East, the introgression of Near East haplotypes would account for 8.2% of the total mtDNA Tuscan pool. This signal is significantly lower than the one observed at a genome-wide scale (21%). Moreover, the autosomal data indicate that carriers of Near East mitogenomes do not correspond to migrants arriving recently to Tuscany from the Near East (S1 Text).

Within the Near East, the main genetic signature comes from Iran, although this view could be distorted by an overrepresentation of this region in the database of mitogenomes from the Near East.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119242
 
I like this interview, very balanced, smart, beautifully worded and objective.
Thanks

Of course I completely agree with you. We need more scholar like Perkins. I'm pleased that you like it.

Thanks for the link, Pax Augusta. Well, I'd never heard that Etruscan has some similarities to Finnish and Hungarian, which are Uralic languages. That certainly doesn't sound like Etruscan would have been spoken in Anatolia does it? Unless they were some late arriving non-Indo-European speaking people from the northern steppe who just passed through Anatolia. That would certainly over turn things.

Angela, as I know, the connection between the Etruscan and the Old Hungarian (and so the Finnish) is mainly due to an Italian linguist, Mario Alinei, who taught at the University of Utrecht and now lives in Tuscany. But Alinei wasn't the first to make this connection. Etruscan and Old Hungarian/Finnish are considered both agglutinative language. Some of the ancient languages of Near Est were agglutinative: Hattic, Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartian... But also the Basque is considered by many linguists an agglutinative language. Agglutination is an ancient typological feature and does not imply a linguistic relation according to many scholars though. I have read Alinei's work some years ago and I found it not very believable on a historical level not to mention that Alinei is commonly criticised for his theories. The very ancient typological feature of Etruscan could be due to an ancient migration from Near East or as well to a very ancient Mediterranean pre-Indo-European substratum (in the ancient Greek is called the pre-Greek substrate).

Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian (Il Mulino, Bologna – 2003).

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf


https://www.mulino.it/isbn/9788815093820


His view of the "Oriental" nature of their culture as probably being "cultural" and acquired through trade and that the same process took place in Greece is an argument I've heard before. It's very difficult to sort all these things out, because there are fashions in science as there are in everything else. First archaeologists were certain that everything was cultural diffusion, and now geneticists are certain that every cultural change is due to mass migration. How about just looking at each civilization on its own and trying to figure it out?

I really think that geneticists need to start to ask the collaboration of archaeologists, as Perkins said, historians and linguists. In my opinion geneticists have a Ferrari but they still don't know how to drive it.
 
The only explanation I have is the time when R1b-M269 was in North of Near East (but it is neolithic ?!)

Concerning the Etruscan. What You think about the idea that Etruscan is someway related to IE?

Of course I completely agree with you. We need more scholar like Perkins. I'm pleased that you like it.
The very ancient typological feature of Etruscan could be due to an ancient migration from Near East or as well to a very ancient Mediterranean pre-Indo-European substratum (in the ancient Greek is called the pre-Greek substrate).

I also think there is a big chance that Etruscans spoke original Neolithic Farmer's language. The same substratum might be showing through in Basque and Georgian.
 
I also think there is a big chance that Etruscans spoke original Neolithic Farmer's language. The same substratum might be showing through in Basque and Georgian.

Yes a remnant of a Neolithic farmers' widely spoken language, with a likely common substratum "in Basque, Sumerian, Urartian, Hurrian, Etruscan and North Caucasian languages". As seen in Ivanov, Gamkrelidze, Starostin, Diakonoff, Orel and others.



Another interesting contribution.

DNA and Etruscan Identity by Philip Perkins

https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/14 Perkins-pp.pdf
 
Of course I completely agree with you. We need more scholar like Perkins. I'm pleased that you like it.

Angela, as I know, the connection between the Etruscan and the Old Hungarian (and so the Finnish) is mainly due to an Italian linguist, Mario Alinei, who taught at the University of Utrecht and now lives in Tuscany. But Alinei wasn't the first to make this connection. Etruscan and Old Hungarian/Finnish are considered both agglutinative language. Some of the ancient languages of Near Est were agglutinative: Hattic, Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartian... But also the Basque is considered by many linguists an agglutinative language. Agglutination is an ancient typological feature and does not imply a linguistic relation according to many scholars though. I have read Alinei's work some years ago and I found it not very believable on a historical level not to mention that Alinei is commonly criticised for his theories. The very ancient typological feature of Etruscan could be due to an ancient migration from Near East or as well to a very ancient Mediterranean pre-Indo-European substratum (in the ancient Greek is called the pre-Greek substrate).

Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian (Il Mulino, Bologna – 2003).

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf


https://www.mulino.it/isbn/9788815093820

I really think that geneticists need to start to ask the collaboration of archaeologists, as Perkins said, historians and linguists. In my opinion geneticists have a Ferrari but they still don't know how to drive it.

Very informative, Pax Augusta...thanks.

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that it depends which archaeologist or linguist they choose as their "source".

In terms of the Etruscans, I think the vast majority of archaeologists see Etruscan culture as growing out of the prior Villanovan culture, with the "Orientalizing" features being absorbed through trade and other cultural exchanges. However, to be fair, archaeologists have been very anti-migration for many groups for many years. Many of them didn't even allow for gene flow into Europe from the Near East with the Neolithic Advance.

However, J.P. Mallory, an editor of the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture can hardly be classified as a rabid anti-migrationist, and he concludes that the Etruscans were most likely "native" in the area.
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=snippet&q=Etruscans&f=false

I don't know if his views have changed since then.

Ed. to clarify the source of the opinion and correct the link.
 
Last edited:
Certain linguistic similarities do not necessarily mean genetic relatedness. In case of Etruscan and Georgian/Kartvelian both might have borrowed these words from some other source in Anatolia.

OK, I agree - that said, same loanwords made from the same third language can prove geographic proximity at some stage of History, so have some worth -
 
The question is were was that geographic proximity :)
this man thinks Armenians brought their Etruscan parallels from Balkans.
https://www.academia.edu/11493537/ETRUSCAN_AND_ARMENIAN
But how then Georgians have their cognates with Etruscan?

Look at the plural suffix discussed in the other thread. German,Armenian, Hittite and Etruscan had similar plural suffixes! So how that happened? Neolithic? But why so different language families?

I start to think that the Tree model of languages is not able to explain everything and we need to revisit the Wave model of languages.
 
The question is were was that geographic proximity :)
this man thinks Armenians brought their Etruscan parallels from Balkans.
https://www.academia.edu/11493537/ETRUSCAN_AND_ARMENIAN
But how then Georgians have their cognates with Etruscan?

Look at the plural suffix discussed in the other thread. German,Armenian, Hittite and Etruscan had similar plural suffixes! So how that happened? Neolithic? But why so different language families?

I start to think that the Tree model of languages is not able to explain everything and we need to revisit the Wave model of languages.

concerning the armenian connection, I'm not convinced for some comparisons in the short abstract you linked to us, but but I'm ready to accept a possible link between Balkans (proto?)armenian and etruscan - that said, it's not contradicting an other link georgian-etruscan: if a pre-I-Ean language were spoken at some time from Caucasus to Balkans, across Anatolia, I don't see any dramatic obstacle here - it could date from a stage of Neolithic or even later...
concerning the plurals in different languages, I'm without opinion today - coincidences can occur, we need more than that to make our opinion, I think - and some very archaic lnguistic traits can remain in today separate families: the personal pronouns in some Uralic languages shows ties with I-Ean too, and it didn't signify the current classification is wrong (this type of words are not too often subject to borrowings)-
 
Another study that found an admixture from places even farther East at North Iran.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119242


It's just another study from the same authors of the paper discussed in this thread. Anyway their newer study shows a lower post-Neolithic gene flow (8%) from their previous paper (21%). They haven't proved that this gene flow is due to Etruscans though.


Very informative, Pax Augusta...thanks.

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that it depends which archaeologist or linguist they choose as their "source".

In terms of the Etruscans, I think the vast majority of archaeologists see Etruscan culture as growing out of the prior Villanovan culture, with the "Orientalizing" features being absorbed through trade and other cultural exchanges. However, to be fair, archaeologists have been very anti-migration for many groups for many years. Many of them didn't even allow for gene flow into Europe from the Near East with the Neolithic Advance.

However, J.P. Mallory, the head of the Journal of Indo-European Studies for decades, who I don't think can be labeled a die hard anti-migrationist, believes roughly the same thing, and based not only on archaeology, but also on linguistics. His views can be found in these pages of his "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", which is available as a google book .
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...u_jsATtzIHIDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=J.P. Mallory on the Etruscans&f=false

I don't know if his views have changed since then.

Yes, if someone is genuinely interested about the origins of the Etruscans can not exclude both cases:

1) Etruscan is the remnant of a non-IE language of central Mediterranean, that later absorbed various elements from east Mediterranean and from the IE Italic languages

2) Etruscan is a language originally from east Mediterranean carried in central Mediterranean by some newcomers (merchants, warriors, priests...), that later absorbed various elements from the IE Italic languages and the non-IE language of central Mediterranean

Actually we know very little about a non-IE language spoken in western-central Mediterranean except the Basque language. But some other non-IE languages were for sure spoken in western and central Mediteranean. Furthmore many scholars believe that a pre-IE substrate (also called Mediterranean substrate) exists in the Italic languages, as it exists in the acient Greek.

If someone is not genuinely interested about the origins of the Etruscans then he will try to force one of the two hypotheses.


A Mediterranean pre-Indo-European substratum is also found in the ancient Ligurian language according to some scholars.

The language of the ancient Ligurians is attested by some glosses, place-names and personal names and a few inscriptions on the stelae in Lunigiana. The study of these few data between from 19th c. to Second World War years shown an Indo-European language and close to the Celtic, with some own features which were due to a Mediterranean pre-Indo-European substratum, according some scholars.

https://www.academia.edu/3674003/Gl...atti_del_convegno_Bordighera_2008_pp._143-154



The question is were was that geographic proximity :)
this man thinks Armenians brought their Etruscan parallels from Balkans.
https://www.academia.edu/11493537/ETRUSCAN_AND_ARMENIAN
But how then Georgians have their cognates with Etruscan?

Look at the plural suffix discussed in the other thread. German,Armenian, Hittite and Etruscan had similar plural suffixes! So how that happened? Neolithic? But why so different language families?

I start to think that the Tree model of languages is not able to explain everything and we need to revisit the Wave model of languages.

You need more reliable sources. It's true that since the past Etruscan language has been linked with Armenian (Robert Ellis), but to be honest Etruscan has been linked with many other modern languages (Slovenian, Albanian, Basque, Hungarian...) and ancient languages (Lydian, Luwian, Hurrian, Tartessian... ).


concerning the armenian connection, I'm not convinced for some comparisons in the short abstract you linked to us, but but I'm ready to accept a possible link between Balkans (proto?)armenian and etruscan - that said, it's not contradicting an other link georgian-etruscan: if a pre-I-Ean language were spoken at some time from Caucasus to Balkans, across Anatolia, I don't see any dramatic obstacle here - it could date from a stage of Neolithic or even later...
concerning the plurals in different languages, I'm without opinion today - coincidences can occur, we need more than that to make our opinion, I think - and some very archaic lnguistic traits can remain in today separate families: the personal pronouns in some Uralic languages shows ties with I-Ean too, and it didn't signify the current classification is wrong (this type of words are not too often subject to borrowings)-

Agree, these languages could have some very ancient common ancestors, but it doesn't imply that are strictly related.
 
Last edited:
Agree, these languages could have some very ancient common ancestors, but it doesn't imply that are strictly related.

The fact that those few common words between Georgian/Kartvelian and Etruscan are practically identical, probably indicates more to borrowing from a common source rather than to belonging to common language family.
 
MOESEN, Pax Augusta

My interest is not to link Etruscan to Anatolia or whoever else. I want to understand the broader picture with the help of Etruscan. And in this broader context to understand what is interesting to me: the origins of Hurro-Urarteans. Some time ago I also thinked that this old languages are related to Neolithic farmers. But now I am not sure anymore. Now I start to think that the IE was not a simple phenomena. Perhaps there was a first archaic layer of IE that spread around before the main known IE languages appeared. And Etrsucan is part of it.
There is a genetic discontinuity in Europe at 4500-5000 BP. So basically there are three options here.
1. Etruscan is a Neolithic language related to G2a and Oetzi before 5000BP
2. Etruscan is a Bronze Age language (or Late Neolithic) related to R1b (ANE) or J2 (West Asian). Between 5000 and 3200 BP
3. And the Etruscan is an Iron Age people moved from Anatolia as in Herodotus. After 3200 BP.

I don't believe in 3-rd option. The article of Perkins convinced me that it is not an option. But I am not sure about the first option also. So I am more inclined to the 2-nd option.
And such researches are favouring the second option.

Gianfranco Forni. Etruscan as an Anatolian (non-Hittite) Language
https://www.academia.edu/3801969/Etruscan_as_an_Anatolian_Language
 
Last edited:
The Etruscan language was a mixture of some native Neolitich language of Italy and some other language from North of the Alps.

According to Boattini et al 2013, the haplogroup R1b U152 is the only y-dna lineage which correlates with the ancient Etruscans in Italy.
 
Thanks Giuseppe
That was the thing I was suspecting.
I think there was a two waves of R1b in Europe. The first one was not IE. like Basque ( or it was a very archaic IE like languages ).
The second wave was the true IE.
 
The Etruscan language was a mixture of some native Neolitich language of Italy and some other language from North of the Alps.

According to Boattini et al 2013, the haplogroup R1b U152 is the only y-dna lineage which correlates with the ancient Etruscans in Italy.

From where that Neolitihic language would originate?
 
Gianfranco Forni. Etruscan as an Anatolian (non-Hittite) Language
https://www.academia.edu/3801969/Etruscan_as_an_Anatolian_Language

Forni is an amateur scholar. You can find hundreds amateur studies on the Etruscan language with all different theories.

The Etruscan language was a mixture of some native Neolitich language of Italy and some other language from North of the Alps.

According to Boattini et al 2013, the haplogroup R1b U152 is the only y-dna lineage which correlates with the ancient Etruscans in Italy.

Isn't still today R1b U152 the most common Y-Dna haplogroup in Tuscany?
 
The Etruscan language was a mixture of some native Neolitich language of Italy and some other language from North of the Alps.

According to Boattini et al 2013, the haplogroup R1b U152 is the only y-dna lineage which correlates with the ancient Etruscans in Italy.

It is very possible that a scenario similar to the Basques took place in Etruria. R1b-P312 (especially U152) invaded in Italian peninsula, but for some reason (more developed Neolithic/Chacolithic culture ?) the invaders didn't impose their Italic language as elsewhere, but adopted the local language. If it happened with the Basques, who are heavily R1b-P312 despite speaking a non-IE language, I don't see why the same couldn't have occurred with the Etruscans.

But that doesn't rule out a third population source, neither Neolithic G2a nor Italic R1b. I could very well be that a mixture of J1, J2, E-M34 and T people migrated from the Eastern Mediterranean to Etruria some time during the late Copper Age or the Bronze Age. Like R1b newcomers they might have adopted the local Neolithic language.

What I am trying to say is that there isn't necessarily a connection between language and ethnicity, and when more than two peoples mix in one region, more than one language disappears. Genes can mix easily, but there aren't so many examples of truly hybrid languages with more than a few percents of loanwords from one other language (only English and Japanese come to mind).
 
I view the Etruscans as a non-Indo-European people from Anatolia, who in the time of the Sea People around 1200 BC came to Italy, and settled there as a ruling elite over Italic tribes there, bringing with them their language, just like the Magyar did in Hungary. It does not make sense to me that Etruscan was already spoken in Italy before the Italics came in, because unlike the Basque area, Tuscany is not some isolated place.
 
@Sevennini

Interesting opinion but linguistics and archeology do not support the Anatolian origin.

Now we have also genetics and the haplotype R1b U152, the only one which correlates with Etruscans, originated North of the Alps.
 

This thread has been viewed 162797 times.

Back
Top