Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

[markod]

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.

Pre-Indo-European isn't really a valid category. Etruscan and Basque aren't related.

[binx]

Pre-Indo-European isn't really a valid category. Etruscan and Basque aren't related.

First they are not categories but linguistic families and I don't see the connection to what I wrote.

Etruscan and Basque are not considered related and the Basque is preserved in its contemporary form but not in that of 3000 years ago. We know little or nothing about the pre-Indo-European linguistic family, since the vast majority of pre-Indo-European languages died out before the spread of the alphabets.

[markod]

First they are not categories but linguistic families and I don't see the connection to what I wrote.

Etruscan and Basque are not considered related but we know little or nothing about the pre-Indo-European linguistic family, since the vast majority of pre-Indo-European languages died out before the spread of the alphabets.

We know enough about Etruscan. Even Venneman didn't include it in his Vasconic.

[binx]

We know enough about Etruscan. Even Venneman didn't include it in his Vasconic.

It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Since I am absolutely not suggesting that they were strictly connected.

[markod]

It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Since I am absolutely not suggesting that they were strictly connected.

So what's your point

[binx]

So what's your point

The preservation of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe was something more ordinary than many people think.

[markod]

The preservation of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe was something more ordinary than many people think.

But if their languages are unrelated, we're back to the question of who these pre-IEs were. It makes no sense.

[alais]

What do you think about this language and its likelihood of being related to Hittite?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language

Is it possible that the Italic IE languages were linked to the Anatolian IE languages?

Or was Elymian of Sicily alone a language derived from Hittite? However Wikipedia says it has been speculated, not that there's a certainty about Elymian and its likelihood of being related to Hittite.

[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.

I must say I don't appreciate your tone, especially as I've never treated you with anything but the utmost respect, and defended you vociferously against claims you were some Nordicist from Italicroots. I also have lauded you for standing your ground in the face of attack here and elsewhere for insisting it was highly unlikely that the Etruscans were just transplanted West Asians. It's almost as if some of my analysis of these leaks has set you off. If you disagree, we can certainly debate it in a civil manner.

You compared the following civilizations to the Etruscans. This is a direct quote.

"The neighbors of the Etruscans were the Latins, the Umbrians, the Veneti, and the Golasecchian Celts... "

Golasecchian Celts? Really?

There is absolutely no comparison with the Etruscans in terms of the sophistication of their civilizations, not even the Latins before their adoption of Etruscan influences.

What is the difference? That's a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious: earlier exposure to and absorption of advancements from the east, some directly through long trade contacts, some perhaps through Southern Italy. That's just a fact. Those advancements "did not" come from central Europe. Is that a problem?

[Pax Augusta]

I must say I don't appreciate your tone, especially as I've never treated you with anything but the utmost respect, and defended you vociferously against claims you were some Nordicist from Italicroots. I also have lauded you for standing your ground in the face of attack here and elsewhere for insisting it was highly unlikely that the Etruscans were just transplanted West Asians. It's almost as if some of my analysis of these leaks has set you off. If you disagree, we can certainly debate it in a civil manner.

You compared the following civilizations to the Etruscans.

There is absolutely no comparison in terms of the sophistication of their civilizations.

What is the difference? Earlier exposure to and absorption of advancements from the east. That's just a fact. They "did not" come from central Europe.

Your specific quote was the following:

I don't really understand what this answer of yours has to do with what's being discussed, honestly.

[Pax Augusta]

@Pax Augusta: good post.
I regreat I've not red your last post before to write my one to Ygorcs; I was not aware of this old IE substrata in Etruscan. (spite I'm surprised of so a precise statement for a supposed badly known language).

Merci beaucoup, Moesan.

The statement is clearly not mine, but comes from a series of recent publications on the Etruscan language.


The problem with the Etruscan language is that the type of inscriptions do not allow to progress with the knowledge of the Etruscan language, because they are often repetitive inscriptions that contain roughly the same type of terms.


You, who are French, about the Etruscans I recommend you to read any text or study written by your compatriot who is really a great scholar and connoisseur of the Etruscans: Dominique Briquel.

[Angela]

I don't understand why the fact that Etruscan is not related to Vasconian or Basque or Iberian means it can't be a pre-Indo-European language.

By this time, the "farmers" had been in Europe for 5,000 years. Is that long enough for differences in language to have developed?

Are Iberian and Vasconian or Basque closely related?

Plus, we have so little actual written Etruscan, I don't know how hard and fast conclusions can be reached. It seems linguists are all over the place in this matter.

Or, we could go back to the hypothesis that some R1b people, as perhaps in Spain, carried non-IE languages. Of course, we don't yet know the yDna of the Etruscans.

Are some people still writing elsewhere that there was an "elite" migration from Asia Minor and the language came from them? It would have to have been very small as the autosomal signature is not only close to Tuscans, North Italians, Spaniards, but one is close to the French.

Also, to correct a misstatement above, there was disagreement among the ancient authors as to whether the Etruscans were "local" or from Lydia.

[Pax Augusta]

Golasecchian Celts? Really?

There have been many university studies in the last 30 years on this association. In particular, the subject has been dealt with by Raffaele De Marinis who teaches archeology at the University of Milan.

https://www.iipp.it/wp-content/Curri...vembre2008.pdf


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. It is the same kind of fusion that is also found in the late Bronze Age in non-Celtic cultures in Italy.


These are all texts adopted in university courses.

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "I Celti golasecchiani", in "I Celti", Catalogo della Mostra di Palazzo Grassi a Venezia, Milano 1991, pp. 93-102.

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "La civiltà di Golasecca: i più antichi Celti d'Italia", 2007

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, ''L’abitato protostorico di Como'', in "Como fra Etruschi e Celti. La città preromana e il suo ruolo commerciale", Catalogo della Mostra, Como, pp. 25-38.

- Studi sulla cultura celtica di Golasecca, Roma 2017

https://www.lerma1896.com/preview/zixu-1.pdf


This from the University of Padua:

La Civiltà di Golasecca gli Insubri, primi Celti d'Italia

https://www.beniculturali.unipd.it/w...celti-ditalia/


From the University of Venice - Ca' Foscari.


- Sull’alfabeto del celtico d’Italia, Patrizia Solinas (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia)

In questa chiave di lettura ci si sofferma su due momenti specifici: in primo luogo quello in cui nell’area della cosiddetta ‘cultura di Golasecca’ (ormai unanimemente riconosciuta come celtica)

English translation:

In this interpretation, two specific moments are discussed: first, the one in which, in the area of the so-called 'Golasecca culture' (now unanimously recognized as Celtic).

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...62-4-ch-04.pdf

[xiaodragon]

"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."

It seems the route between Black sea and Caspian sea is a migration corridor . a cross road for northern people to travel down to the south, or from the south up to the north .

[Pax Augusta]

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.

Yes, indeed. In fact, the name of the island north of Lemnos is precisely Samothrace (Samothraki). Can you find any sources in Greek to explain the name of this island?

[Johane Derite]

[torzio]

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.

never heard of etruscan iron

noric steel , made by illyrian celts in noricum was the best iron weapons made ...........

The proverbial hardness of Noric steel is expressed by Ovid: "...durior [...] ferro quod noricus excoquit ignis..." which roughly translates to "...harder than iron tempered by Noric fire [was Anaxarete towards the advances of Iphis]..."^[1] and it was widely used for the weapons of the Roman military after Noricum joined the empire in 16 BC.^[2]

[Demetrios]

Yes, indeed. In fact, the name of the island north of Lemnos is precisely Samothrace (Samothraki). Can you find any sources in Greek to explain the name of this island?

The literal meaning of Samothrace/Samothraki is "tall Thrace". This is a synthetic word. Samothrace happens to have the tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. The same is true with the island of Samos, which also translates as "tall" which happens to have the second tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. Supposedly the word "samos" is a Phoenician loanword, originating from Phoenician "sama" meaning "high", although it could also be a Greek original.

[torzio]

There are a lot of similarities, and the Greek culture is also originated in West Asia.



The Etruscan alphabet, the Greek Alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet are all descended from the Sumerian alphabet.

you mean euobean alphabet

Euboean

The Euboean alphabet was used in the cities of Eretria and Chalkis and in related colonies in southern Italy, notably in Cumae and in Pithekoussai. It was through this variant that the Greek alphabet was transmitted to Italy, where it gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including Etruscan and ultimately the Latin alphabet. Some of the distinctive features of the Latin as compared to the standard Greek script are already present in the Euboean model.^[34]
The Euboean alphabet belonged to the "western" ("red") type. It had Χ representing /ks/ and Ψ for /kʰ/. Like most early variants it also lacked Ω, and used Η for the consonant /h/ rather than for the vowel /ɛː/. It also kept the archaic letters digamma (Ϝ) for /w/ and qoppa (Ϙ) for /k/. San (Ϻ) for /s/ was not normally used in writing, but apparently still transmitted as part of the alphabet, because it occurs in abecedaria found in Italy and was later adopted by Etruscan.^[34]
Like Athens, Euboea had a form of Λ that resembled a Latin L and a form of Σ that resembled a Latin S. Other elements foreshadowing the Latin forms include Γ shaped like a pointed C (), Δ shaped like a pointed D (), and Ρ shaped like R ().^[34]
The classicist Barry B. Powell has proposed that Euboea may have been where the Greek alphabet was first employed in the late 9th century BC, and that it may have been invented specifically for the purpose of recording epic poetry.^[35]

[Demetrios]

you mean euobean alphabet

Euboean


The Euboean alphabet was used in the cities of Eretria and Chalkis and in related colonies in southern Italy, notably in Cumae and in Pithekoussai. It was through this variant that the Greek alphabet was transmitted to Italy, where it gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including Etruscan and ultimately the Latin alphabet. Some of the distinctive features of the Latin as compared to the standard Greek script are already present in the Euboean model.^[34]
The Euboean alphabet belonged to the "western" ("red") type. It had Χ representing /ks/ and Ψ for /kʰ/. Like most early variants it also lacked Ω, and used Η for the consonant /h/ rather than for the vowel /ɛː/. It also kept the archaic letters digamma (Ϝ) for /w/ and qoppa (Ϙ) for /k/. San (Ϻ) for /s/ was not normally used in writing, but apparently still transmitted as part of the alphabet, because it occurs in abecedaria found in Italy and was later adopted by Etruscan.^[34]
Like Athens, Euboea had a form of Λ that resembled a Latin L and a form of Σ that resembled a Latin S. Other elements foreshadowing the Latin forms include Γ shaped like a pointed C (), Δ shaped like a pointed D (), and Ρ shaped like R ().^[34]
The classicist Barry B. Powell has proposed that Euboea may have been where the Greek alphabet was first employed in the late 9th century BC, and that it may have been invented specifically for the purpose of recording epic poetry.^[35]

Also Sumerians didn't have an alphabet, but a logographic and syllabic script. Phoenicians also didn't have what we would today consider a real alphabet, but an abjad/consonant script.

[Angela]

never heard of etruscan iron

noric steel , made by illyrian celts in noricum was the best iron weapons made ...........

The proverbial hardness of Noric steel is expressed by Ovid: "...durior [...] ferro quod noricus excoquit ignis..." which roughly translates to "...harder than iron tempered by Noric fire [was Anaxarete towards the advances of Iphis]..."^[1] and it was widely used for the weapons of the Roman military after Noricum joined the empire in 16 BC.^[2]

How could you possibly not know that one of the hallmarks of Etruscan civilization was their mastery of iron metallurgy??? Any Wiki article, encyclopedia, heck even the Khan Academy for high schoolers would tell you that.


"The Etruscan civilization flourished in central Italy between the 8th and 3rd century BCE, and their prosperity was largely based on their exploitation of local mineral resources, both through manufactured goods and trade. The Etruscans exchanged goods not only with their fellow cities in Etruria but also with contemporary Mediterranean civilizations such as the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Near East cultures. Especially noted for their production and export of iron, the Etruscans received in exchange, amongst other things, ivory from Egypt, amber from the Baltic, and pottery from Greece and Ionia. With these trade relations came cultural influences as seen in both Etruscan daily life and art."

Do I have to go on????

[torzio]

Agree



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.
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.

my opinion of the etruscans is that they are an offshoot of the Umbrians

what we factually know by scholars
Sabines are an offshoot of Umbrians
Sabellics are an offshoot of Umbrians
Samnites are an offshoot of Sabines ......................so, this means that the highest percentage of ancient Italian tribes would be proto-umbrian

[Angela]

There have been many university studies in the last 30 years on this association. In particular, the subject has been dealt with by Raffaele De Marinis who teaches archeology at the University of Milan.

https://www.iipp.it/wp-content/Curri...vembre2008.pdf


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. It is the same kind of fusion that is also found in the late Bronze Age in non-Celtic cultures in Italy.


These are all texts adopted in university courses.

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "I Celti golasecchiani", in "I Celti", Catalogo della Mostra di Palazzo Grassi a Venezia, Milano 1991, pp. 93-102.

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "La civiltà di Golasecca: i più antichi Celti d'Italia", 2007

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, ''L’abitato protostorico di Como'', in "Como fra Etruschi e Celti. La città preromana e il suo ruolo commerciale", Catalogo della Mostra, Como, pp. 25-38.

- Studi sulla cultura celtica di Golasecca, Roma 2017

https://www.lerma1896.com/preview/zixu-1.pdf


This from the University of Padua:

La Civiltà di Golasecca gli Insubri, primi Celti d'Italia

https://www.beniculturali.unipd.it/w...celti-ditalia/


From the University of Venice - Ca' Foscari.


- Sull’alfabeto del celtico d’Italia, Patrizia Solinas (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia)





English translation:





https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...62-4-ch-04.pdf

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of any of this.

Yes, I know all about the Golasecca culture and have read the material. What does it have to do with this statement of yours, to which I have been reacting?

This is what you posted.

"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."

Imo, all civilizations are not "equal" in terms of the "hallmarks" of civilization, or their sophistication: some have more remarkable achievements than others.

You want to believe that Golasecca was as sophisticated and "remarkable" a civilization as the Etruscans? That's your prerogative, although nothing in that material shows that in any way, imo. So, I completely and utterly, but respectfully disagree.

The reasons are myriad, but one of the chief ones, as I emphasized above, was intense contact with the east.

This is NOT about genetics. I'm not trying to undermine your claim that some of the ancestors of the Etruscans were from earlier migrations from Central Europe. It remains to be seen how close the Etruscans were to that particular earlier Northern Italian culture or if they picked up additional local Neolithic like ancestry. They seem pretty EEF heavy. In fact, it remains to be seen how "northern" Golasecca looks. Remedello was supposed to be really "steppe" heavy too. Fine with me either way.

[berun]

Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers

well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.

[Angela]

Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers

well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.

And you can continue to deny ancient dna in preference to your outdated theories.

Do you even read other people's posts, or look at PCAs? Do you know what a PCA is? Do you know what ancient DNA is?

It seems some of the Etruscans plot pretty damn close to the Iberians. Hello, fellow Pelasgian. :)