Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,846
- Reaction score
- 880
- Points
- 113
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
I'm posting the accompanying source to these images here because he lays out the most supported arguments and himself develops an interesting and attractive argument:
"The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochthonous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties.
The first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lemnians wereboth remnants of population groups surviving the onset of Indo-Europeanimmigrations, runs up against the fact that the two languages were so closelyrelated that such a long period of independent development is highly inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean date back to at least c.2300 BC).
The second option, according to which the north-Aegean regionwas colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early 7th century BC,is, considering the slight dialectal differences, a priori possible, but lacks aproper archaeological and historical basis.
...
From an archaeological perspective, the colonization of Etruria at the endof the Bronze Age is highly unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-Villanovan (=an earlier phase of Villanovan)2, but, as demonstrated convincingly by HughHencken, the latter shows close affinities with the European urnfields. Thusthe typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily discovered in theregion of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, the houseurns, which are so well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villanova, find their closests parallels in northern Germany (Behn 1924, 90-1; Tafel 6, d-e) (see Fig. 2)3. In line with these observations, it seems reason able to assume that new population groups have entered Italy, as Henckendoes, only not from the Aegean, but from Europe. These new populationgroups can plausibly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italicpeoples of the Umbrians, Oscans4, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languagesshow the closest affinity to Celtic and Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrianshave the same name as the German tribe of the Ambrones as recorded forJutland in Denmark (Altheim 1950, 56-7), branches of which can, on the basisof related place and river names, be traced as far afield as France, Spain andeven northern Italy (Schmoll 1959: 83, 119), whereas that of the Oscans orAusones is obviously related to the Celtic ethnonyms Ausci of the people nearAuch in southern France and Ausetani reported for Ausa-Vich in Catalonia(Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40). ? Note in this connection that, as demonstrated byHans Krahe (1964: 90-1, 43-4), both ethnonyms are rooted in his OldEuropean river names, the first being based on *embh-, *ombh- ?moist,water? and the second on *av-, *au- ?source, stream?.
This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of the Bronze Age, whichassumes a relation between urnfield culture and the historical peoples of theUmbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Massimo Pallottino. He putmuch effort in an attempt to disconnect the Italic Indo-European languagesfrom the (proto-)Villanovan culture, the bearers of which he considers to bethe forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he presents a map showing the distribution of archaeological cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC,which he compares with the distribution of the various languages as attestedin about the 5th century BC (Pallottino 1988, 68; Abb. 1-2). This is a dangerous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the proto-Villanovan phase,which cannot be separated from Villanovan and which spread far to the south,reaching Apulia, the Lipari islands and even northern Sicily ? regions wherelater evidence of Italic languages is found (see Fig. 3)5. Secondly, the use ofthe distinction between cremation and inhumation burial rites as an ethnicmarker is, as far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplification.After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, thereis a revival of the rite of inhumation spreading from the south of Italy to thenorth, reaching Caere in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. Similarly, the Etruscansare also acquainted with both rites ? be it that their cremation burials are clearly distinct from the Villanovan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus Etruscan style cremations and inhumations ? a line of approach actually applied byIngrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere (Pohl 1972).Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria withthe forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according towhich the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them outof their original habitat (Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112). As a matter offact, there are numerous reminiscences of the Umbrians originally inhabitingthe region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region calledtractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes andSarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identificationof Cortona as an Umbrian town (Altheim 1950, 22-3). At any rate, the siteswhich have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringeof the Villanovan style cremation area (Poultney 1959, 3) and there even havebeen found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of theAppenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona,Ariminum, Ravenna and Spina to the north (Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon1988, 701) ? regions where (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 3)."
Colonization in the Early Iron Age
The question which remains to be answered is whether the colonization ofItaly by the Etruscans from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos does fit intothe period of the Early Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and colonization of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and Greeks. Wasthere among these explorers and colonists of the far west a third party, namely Luwians from western Anatolia?
First of all, it is important to note that only from c. 700 BC onwards Etruriais characterized by an archaeological culture that with certainty can be identified as Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions conducted inthe Etruscan language are found (Hencken 1968, 631). One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tombunder tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumationor a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre arecollected in a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth,is placed in a loculus of the grave. The closest parallels for such ?lite-cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs under tumulus at Salamison Cyprus (D?Agostino 1977, 57-8)8. The rite in question is meticulouslydescribed by Homeros in connection with the burial of Patroklos, for whichreason one often speaks of a Homeric burial.
...
The inference that colonists from various regions of western Asia Minormigrated to Etruria may receive further emphasis if we take a look at thescript. As mentioned in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan language date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is assumed that theEtruscans have borrowed their alphabet from the Greeks, in particular fromthe Euboians at Pithecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are characterized bysigns and sign-forms unparalleled for Greek inscriptions. In the first place wehave to consider in this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f]as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) innorth-Etruria, which consists of a vertical stroke with a small circle on eithertop. As time goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-eight[f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the south ultimately to replacethe digraph of wau and e?ta (< he?ta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscanalphabets. The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian alphabet,where during the same time it knows exactly the same development! Next, alate 7th century BC inscription from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoenician original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for this sign can be discovered inthe local script of Side in Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it liesat hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the north to Side in the south, simplyhave taken their script with them (Woudhuizen 1982-3, 97; for the Sidetictsade, see Woudhuizen 1984-5b, 117, fig. 5).
The colonists not only introduced their own type of grave and their own typeof alphabet, they also settled themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks,in urban centres founded according to neatly circumscribed rituals(Woudhuizen 1998, 178-9). An often heard argument in favor of the continuity between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods is that theEtruscan cities are founded on locations where in the previous periodVillanovan villages are situated (Hencken 1968, 636). It should be realized,however, that the Greek colony in Cumae is also preceded by an indigenousItalic settlement and that there is ample evidence for intermingling betweenthe original inhabitants and the new arrivals (M?ller-Karpe 1959, 36-9)10. Thesame model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as suggested by thelarge number of Italic names in Etruscan inscriptions dating from the 7th and6th centuries BC. To give some examples, one might point to: Cventi, Eknate,Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Mamerce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu,Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie, Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, andSarsina (cf. Vetter 1953). As a matter of fact, the colonists from western AsiaMinor constitute an ?lite, who impose their superior culture on the by far morenumerous indigenous Italic population. A vital component of the colonial culture is formed by their language.
A first hint at the nature of the language can be derived from the name ofsome of the newly founded cities. Thus Tarquinia (= Etr. Tarchna-) is, on the analogy of Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia and Herakleia,which are also based on a divine name, named after the Luwian storm-godTarh≠unt-11. In addition, a number of Etruscan personal names, like Arnth,Mezentie, Muchsie, Thifarie or Thefarie, can be traced back to Luwian counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic elements (masana-?god?, Tiwata- or Tiwara- ?sun-god?); the same applies to family names likeCamitlna (< Luwian h≠anta- ?in front of?) and Velavesvna (< Luwian walwa-?lion?), be it that the diagnostic element -na- is an Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomastics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary showsmany correspondences with Luwian, like for instance the very common verbmuluvane- or muluvani- ?to offer as a vow?, the root of which is related toLuwian maluwa- ?thank-offering?.
Of a more profound nature are similaritiesin morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of (pro)nominaldeclension (genitive-dative singular in -s or -l, ablative-locative in -th(i)or -r(i), nominative plural in -i, genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd person singular of the present-future in -th(i)), the use of sentenceintroductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic conjunctions (-c or -ch, -m),negative adverbs (nes or nis), etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscancan be classified as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the EarlyIron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in certain aspects already showing developmentscharacteristic of Lycian (genitive plural in -?i > -e1) and Lydian (dative singular in -l1, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-locative ending, sentenceintroductory particle nak, enclitic conjunction -k) of the Classical period.Finally, Etruscan shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shareswith Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the past tense in -ce, -keor -che, the vocabulary word avi- ?year? and the enclitic conjunction -m?and?. "
LINK: http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/up...5xZ-5UKKpYOWepKO9O8UprrohuKNEIkTxsRjeLZ4m2hgQ