Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

Admit what? What are you trying to prove? I dont get it...

She doesn't want to prove anything while you who are probably a West Asian living in Germany is quite blatant what you are desperately trying to prove.
 
Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.

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

The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.

Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.

The Etruscan alphabet, the Greek Alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet are all descended from the Sumerian alphabet.
 
Well, ultimately the WHG also came from West Asia... This kind of discusson over who's reeeeeeallly native is always circular if a specific timeline is not defined, it can be endless.

Thats what I am saying, people should not talk about native to Italy, when the EEF are a population moved from West Asia. And what is trying to be proved, that the Etruscans lived 10.000 years ago in Italy, and their ancestors did not even make one migration out of Italy?
 
She doesn't want to prove anything while you who are probably a West Asian living in Germany is quite blatant what you are desperately trying to prove.

I am just interested in the origins of ancient Italy, nothing more, and you are being quite ugly, I wont go into further discussion with you...
 
Thats what I am saying, people should not talk about native to Italy, when the EEF are a population moved from West Asia. And what is trying to be proved, that the Etruscans lived 10.000 years ago in Italy, and their ancestors did not even make one migration out of Italy?

In the Iron Age, Etruscans were native to Italy, because the bulk of their ancestry (and probably language and culture) had been local/European for several millennia. That's more than enough time to call a population "native" or "local" in a given timeline. People are only native or local as they are compared with newer arrivals of people, otherwise the term is meaningless. If you become too demanding about chronology in order to call a population "native" or "local", then everybody is African and there are no natives in Eurasia.
 
2 theories about etruscan origins are, they migrated after Croesus conquered the west asian greeks. The other is they come from one of the greek islands. I think it was called lemnos. This was speculated because etruscans wrote from right to left, and the greek inscriptions was found in that fashion on that island.
 
2 theories about etruscan origins are, they migrated after Croesus conquered the west asian greeks. The other is they come from one of the greek islands. I think it was called lemnos. This was speculated because etruscans wrote from right to left, and the greek inscriptions was found in that fashion on that island.

Lemnian is far too similar to Etruscan for Etruscan to be a much earlier split from the language spoken in Lemnos. It's more probable that Lemnos simply had an Etruscan settlement. Besides, if those reasons you mention are the main grounds for the speculation that Etruscan came from West Asia, then the evidence is extremely scant.
 
Lemnos is a lovely island and while the two languages maybe similar, it is too small of an island to be the source of the Etruscan population.
Did the Lemnians have trade relationships with the Etruscans? Possibly.

Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?
 
Last edited:
Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?

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.
 
Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.

The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.

Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.

You're right. It's all about the cross-fertilization of cultures.

However, I have to disagree slightly with Pax. I do think the Etruscan civilization at its zenith was more advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period and certainly than the preceding Bronze Age cultures. We're talking about the Iron Age after all. That fact alone means it was more advanced. The Romans learned a lot from the Etruscans. It may be because the Etruscans had exposed themselves to, and absorbed more of the advancements which had made their way from the East through the Greeks, the Phoenicians, etc. before the Latins were exposed to them. The arteries were the trade routes. It was through them that ideas spread and improvements made as they spread. If you are isolated from these cross currents, or if you deliberately isolate yourself, you lose. You have to remain open even to your enemies' ideas.

Just one small example from Rome and Carthage as it's fresh in my mind because I just re-read a text on it. When the rivalry first began and turned to conflict the Romans were not a naval power at all. They stole all the technology they could, made improvements and assembled a formidable naval fleet.

People who want to claim the advancements of humanity for one culture, one "pure" ethnicity, are sadly mistaken in my opinion.

It's also quite ironic in this instance. The Nordicists used to claim that the Roman Empire was so mighty because they were Nordics. It's quite funny that the more they insist all the Romans were just Greeks or Anatolians, the more they disprove their original thesis.
 
However, I have to disagree slightly with Pax. I do think the Etruscan civilization at its zenith was more advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period and certainly than the preceding Bronze Age cultures. We're talking about the Iron Age after all. That fact alone means it was more advanced. The Romans learned a lot from the Etruscans. It may be because the Etruscans had exposed themselves to, and absorbed more of the advancements which had made their way from the East through the Greeks, the Phoenicians, etc. before the Latins were exposed to them. The arteries were the trade routes. It was through them that ideas spread and improvements made as they spread. If you are isolated from these cross currents, or if you deliberately isolate yourself, you lose. You have to remain open even to your enemies' ideas.


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.
 
Lemnos is a lovely island and while the two languages maybe similar, it is too small of an island to be the source of the Etruscan population.
Did the Lemnians have trade relationships with the Etruscans? Possibly.

Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?

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.
 
Lemnos, a Pelasgian island.
 
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.

1920px-Iberia_300BC-en.svg.png
 
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.

1920px-Iberia_300BC-en.svg.png

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

This thread has been viewed 326363 times.

Back
Top