Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

(The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

"For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"
 
I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

(The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

"For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"

That's a copy and paste of a Beekes' text who tried to prove that Herodotus was right. Beekes was an Indo-Europeanist with the typical bias of Indo-Europeanists who think that pre-Indo-European languages are intrusive in the Iron Age Italy. In time this too will be completely discredited. In fact Etruscologists, even foreigners, did not accept the Beekes' attempt. It is a long speculation on the Lydians, given that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language and the Etruscans did not, Beekes is forced to speculate on a hypothetical proto-Lydian non-IE population of which we know nothing and not attested archeologically and linguistically.

More recently, his co-author L. Bouke van der Meer, has accepted that Lemnos' inscriptions may have come with Etruscan colonists.

L. Bouke van der Meer (2015)

"As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language. The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages. The idea that the language families mentioned above have a common root (around 40,000 BC) is highly speculative. "
 
The alphabet in Italy was brought by the Euboean Greeks when they settled in Campania, southern Italy. So in Italy we only have inscriptions starting from 700 BC. Many centuries later the proto-Villanovan.

We can't know what were all the languages spoken in Italy before the spread of the alphabet, and above all it can not be excluded that many languages ​​(both IE and non IE) spoken in Italy are not documented by the inscriptions.

The oldest Etruscan inscription is considered one found in Tarquinia, in the north of Lazio (c. 700 BC). There are other inscriptions, not only Etruscans, that are still to be studied.

Anatolian languages ​​such as the Luvian are already attested before the spread of the Euboean alphabet, and were written in two different writing systems, the Cuneiform Luwian and the Hieroglyphic Luwian, never found in Italy.

Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.
 
Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.

Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins.

It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.

Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.

- Vasconic languages
- Proto-Basque
- Aquitanian language
- Iberian language
- Tartessian language
 
Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins.

It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.

Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.

- Vasconic languages
- Proto-Basque
- Aquitanian language
- Iberian language
- Tartessian language

My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.

But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.
 
I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

(The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

"For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"

All this fuss comes from a lie a Greek historian told long ago. Greek historians were caught lying many times during antiquity, and one of many lies they told were the origin of Etruscans. There was no way for Etruscans to travel that far with so many people at that time. They are local people who got in touch with Greek culture somewhere in Sicily
 
The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.




There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

2iRAi2B.jpg

furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE
 
I think the Etruscans were an elite who became very wealthy trough trade and mining.
They lived in fortified places in order to defend their wealth.
Maybe they adopted some local language to differentiate themselves from the common people, who probably were IE in northern Italy by that time.

Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?

We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan".

We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians.

What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.

Markod: I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something :embarassed:

Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.

I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.
 
To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.

This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.

Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”

"To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."

https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288


Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3296527.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes

http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1998-9/Pipes.htm


Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?

https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_of_Lies



Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
The Truth About The Great Pyramid
By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.211.575&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
 
This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.

Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”

"To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."

https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288


Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3296527.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes

http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1998-9/Pipes.htm


Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?

https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_of_Lies



Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
The Truth About The Great Pyramid
By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.211.575&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

I know. It's still stupid.
 
Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?

We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan".

We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians.

What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.



I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.

Another thought: What if they carried J2a or J2b, but it came with IE speaking people from the Balkans who adopted the local language?

Why do I think even ancient dna might not solve this?

Fwiw and not to de-rail this thread, I don't think it's a done deal that even the Balkan specific J2b is an originally "steppe" lineage. It's just as likely, imo, that it was picked up in the more eastern Neolithic settlements and spread from there, or even just got absorbed further south as well. Anything showing up in the Armenia would be just about the time for an arrival of the Phrygians and the Armenian language from the Balkans. Until we find J2b on the steppe it's by no means certain, as I said, that it's an "original" steppe lineage.
 
Last edited:
The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.




There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

2iRAi2B.jpg

Why do you have Atestine culture ( este culture) as part of proto-villanova ?, .....when Villanova culture was never north of the Po river....and ...Polada culture seems to have been the main culture north of the Po river
 
My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.
But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.
one theory is that the etruscans came into Italy from north of the alps with the umbrians and could be a sub-branch of the umbrians...plus...mixing with a people whose lands where once connected, that is , Sardinia, Corsica and tuscany.
of the ancient texts, of etruscan, rhaetian and venetic.....rhaetian is the youngest
 
This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.
Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”
"To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."
https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288
Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3296527.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes
http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1998-9/Pipes.htm
Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?
https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_of_Lies


Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
The Truth About The Great Pyramid
By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.211.575&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Its like tacitus about Germanic people .............he never went there and relied on others bardic stories from travellers ..............same with Jordanes ( the goth ) and his fabricated, plagiarism of others or
even the historians who labeled the 14 epirote tribes as illyrian just to make them not Greek
 
I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.

In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point.

I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:

ita.gif



My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.

If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.
 
In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point.

I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:.


Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages.


My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.

If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.


Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.

The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.
 
The Etruscans just sort of seem to be there in the first millennium BC: there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. The later developments might be the result of intensive contact with the east, i.e. the "Orientalizing period", through trade. Other peoples scramble to come up with an "identity" for them, with the two most famous myths about them being that 1) they came from somewhere in Anatolia, 2) they were indigenous to Italy. Had they left more copious writings that we could interpret perhaps they could have provided some insight, but they didn't.

It's possible it was an elite migration specifically to what is now Tuscany, but if so it's a very strange one. Perhaps it is instead a case of the filtering northward from Southern Italy of more heavily CHG/Iran Neo people from the Aegean bringing metallurgy with them?

I don't know. We'll have to see what the ancient dna tells us.

Indeed, there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. It is also necessary to clarify Etruria does not coincide with modern Tuscany, but included all of western Umbria as far as Perugia the regional modern capital, and more than half of Lazio up to the northern bank of the Tiber, which is now in the historic center of Rome. Rome was built a few meters from the border with Etruria. The Falisci and Capenates also lived within the Etruscan borders, they participated in the meetings of the "Etruscan peoples" at the Fanum Voltumnae although they spoke two Indo-European languages. The Fanum Voltumnae, which was located either in Umbria or in northern Lazio (archaeologists think it was at the foot of Orvieto in Umbria that is located about 350 meters above sea level) was the most important place in the Etruscan nation and the Etruscan peoples. Moreover, today archaeologists such as Sassatelli who teaches in Bologna are saying that there is no evidence of an Etruscan colonization of the Emilian area, but that Bologna was always Etruscan since the times of Villanova and that what is considered the foundation of Bologna is nothing more than the beginning of the phase of urbanization that comes later than southern Etruria. Here too, the matter is by no means closed.

I don't think DNA testing can be the definitive answer, because burials belong to the elite anyway (and inhumation). Obviously no one today in 2018 believes that "Orientalizing period" can indicate some ethnic origin, being a cultural phenomenon that also spread among non-Etruscans, also among Greeks, Veneti, Italics, Piceni and many others. During this period there were undoubtedly also movements of small artisans and artists, as well as merchants. But these were foreigners who perhaps in some cases were also assimilated.




E6Z1XJ7.png




My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.

But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.

In fact it cannot be ruled out that the language comes from the Alps, where they could still exist between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age survivors of pre-Indo-European languages. Obviously the equation language = ethnos = DNA is much more complex than it appears in these discussions in the forums. Even the Rhaetian peoples (who are identified with the culture of Fritzens-Sanzeno in the middle Iron Age) first had contacts with Urnfield cultures.

The arrival of these pre-Indo-European populations from the Alps is possible to have happened during the culture of Terramare.

Frattesina in Veneto could be the key. Certainly the formation of ethnos, in a cultural sense, could be due to the contacts with the eastern Mediterranean sea documented in Frattesina, which could have been one of the causes of the regionalization of the proto-Villanovan.

If it is true what various archaeologists claim, including Jung, that from the late the Bronze Age there were movements from Italy to the east (Greece, Aegean Sea and Levant), the picture could be really complex, much more complex than we think.


furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE

Yes, almost certainly, as they almost certainly mixed with the previous inhabitants.


What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.

Of course, it is possible that some Etruscans were J2a, but what should J2a prove? J2a is much more common in Italy where the Etruscans never settled down to begin with, and there were also foreigners in the elite, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was of Greek origin, for example.


"J2 sample was found, in the Sopot and Proto-Lengyel cultures in Hungary, dating from 7,000 years ago."

"one J2a1b sample in Hungary dating from the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1150 BCE, see Gamba et al. 2014), in the minor Kyjatice culture, an offshoot of the Urnfield culture, which differs from typical Indo-European cultures by its use of cremation instead of single-grave burials."
 
Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages.

Impossible, the split within Italic isn't deep and scholars do not consider Venetic to be within the Italic branch. There were usually no other migrations into Italy at the time.

Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.

The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.

Pastoralists from the Apennines. Villannova and Latial (hence formerly Southern Villanova) are clearly Urnfield cultures. They are intrusive. Latial culture is much more similar to Pomeranian culture of Poland than it is to the inhuming Apeninne culture it neighbours on. Migrations are responsible for this stark difference.
 

This thread has been viewed 327469 times.

Back
Top