Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

Why not just replaced by Germanics and later Slavs? These groups are all relatively closely related IE languages so it makes sense they'd be nearby; there is no Central European culture that can account for warlike Tyrsenian tribes

A Germanic association is much more likely. Both Jastorf and Wielbark preserve many Urnfield traditions in a quite unadulterated form. In the 20th century German politicians used precisely that argument to convince the Poles to cede territory, lol. Kossinna's brainchild.

In Hallstatt we see the opposite: elite warrior males are inhumed with lavish implements, weapons, chariots etc., while in the peasantry Urnfield burials persist for some time. Contrary to the Urnfield taboo on funerary objects, there's evidence that Celtic warriors even had their women, relatives and slaves killed to accompany them in death :indifferent:
 
A Germanic association is much more likely. Both Jastorf and Wielbark preserve many Urnfield traditions in a quite unadulterated form. In the 20th century German politicians used precisely that argument to convince the Poles to cede territory, lol. Kossinna's brainchild.

In Hallstatt we see the opposite: elite warrior males are inhumed with lavish implements, weapons, chariots etc., while in the peasantry Urnfield burials persist for some time. Contrary to the Urnfield taboo on funerary objects, there's evidence that Celtic warriors even had their women, relatives and slaves killed to accompany them in death :indifferent:

Lol, those German politicians - when Germany was showing signs of reuniting, Helmut Kohl actually had the balls to ask the Soviets for all of pre-WW2 Germany back! Obviously, that didn't work, just like it didn't any of the other times in the 20th century...

Also let me know if you agree with what I wrote above about Etruscan origins, it seems logical to me
 
Finished editing my post above about Etruscans. If Rome is to be traced ultimately all the way back to 3000 BC Troy or probably more accurately just thereabouts, as well as the Etruscan language, well that's pretty epic.
 
Lol, those German politicians - when Germany was showing signs of reuniting, Helmut Kohl actually had the balls to ask the Soviets for all of pre-WW2 Germany back! Obviously, that didn't work, just like it didn't any of the other times in the 20th century...

Also let me know if you agree with what I wrote above about Etruscan origins, it seems logical to me

I don't know really. DNA might help. I'm sure the Etruscans were autosomally mixed, but their Y-DNA might be suggestive of their origin. I'd say it's between majority G/I from EEF, Beaker descended R1b and Aegean/Anatolian haplogroups. All of those ancestries must have been present in the Alpine region in the MBA.
 
I don't know really. DNA might help. I'm sure the Etruscans were autosomally mixed, but their Y-DNA might be suggestive of their origin. I'd say it's between majority G/I from EEF, Beaker descended R1b and Aegean/Anatolian haplogroups. All of those ancestries must have been present in the Alpine region in the MBA.

I'd guess the original Etruscans, before they arrived in Italy from the East Med around 1300 BCE (forming the 1200 BCE proto-Villanovan culture), would have been heavily Y DNA J2. Similar to Minoans. Perhaps they did actually have an influence on the Urnfield culture - I remember Maciamo speculating about Urnfield's extra West Asian ancestry being from Eastern Mediterranean influences (seen via cremation). The chance of Urnfield speaking Rhaetian is effectively nil, but a mere influence from the proto-Etruscans seems likely. When is Riegsee dated to? (EDIT: Apparently at virtually the same period as Urnfield begins - 1300BCE, so perhaps this branch spoke Rhaetian?).
 
I'd guess the original Etruscans, before they arrived in Italy from the East Med (forming the 1200 BCE proto-Villanovan culture), would have been heavily Y DNA J2. Similar to Minoans.

Unusually high frequencies of J in Villanova would definitely sell me on the Asia Minor hypothesis. Amazing that we still have no samples from those sites.
 
Proto Villanova is not a West Asian culture and it's not Etruscan either, it covered the whole peninsula

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Proto Villanova is not a West Asian culture and it's not Etruscan either, it covered the whole peninsula

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Proto-Villanovan is too early for Etruscan. I'd consider North Picene which is in all likelihood non-IE another PV descendant.

How do we know PV didn't have any West Asian influence?
 
Proto-Villanovan is too early for Etruscan. I'd consider North Picene which is in all likelihood non-IE another PV descendant.

How do we know PV didn't have any West Asian influence?


It would be necessary to read something first on the subject. What you consider is irrelevant. If you really want to discuss it seriously. Unsopported claims in forums do not change what archeology has found. There is no evidence that North Picene language is linked to Proto-Villanovan. Various regional cultures emerge from the Proto-Villanovan, including Atestine culture.

Proto-Villanovan culture has nothing to do with West Asia. A West Asian influence does not tell us anything, and is in any case intrusive.

Unusually high frequencies of J in Villanova would definitely sell me on the Asia Minor hypothesis. Amazing that we still have no samples from those sites.

If you were really prepared on the subject and not so busy trying to prove what you like, you would know that the practice of incineration was still very common in Villanovan. And that J in Italy is much more common in the Italic areas, especially the Oscan-Adriatic ones.

So what does it prove? That the Italics also come from Asia Minor?
 
It would be necessary to read something first on the subject. What you consider is irrelevant. If you really want to discuss it seriously. Unsopported claims in forums do not change what archeology has found. And from what you write you did not even understand what the proto-Villanovan is.

IIRC you believe that Osco-Umbrian and Latino-Faliscan entered Italy separately. I can't disprove it, so any discussion is pointless. It's a fringe position though, and just a cursory comparison of Italic dialects makes me think it's very wrong.
 
IIRC you believe that Osco-Umbrian and Latino-Faliscan entered Italy separately. I can't disprove it, so any discussion is pointless. It's a fringe position though, and just a cursory comparison of Italic dialects makes me think it's very wrong.

It is not something that I believe, it is something that some scholars believe and that can not be completely excluded.

The discussions are pointless when people insist on supporting thesis without even having read much of what has been written. As happens in all the forums.
 
Source?

It looks like the Etruscans and similar tribes were associated with the Sea Peoples

Also, for any Italians I found this (Google translate sucks here for whatever reason):

Il linguista Massimo Pittau sostiene che la lingua protosarda o "sardiana" e quella etrusca fossero strettamente legate, essendo entrambe emanazioni del ramo anatolico dell'indoeuropeo. Secondo l'autore i "nuragici" erano una popolazione lidica che importò sull'isola la propria lingua di tipo indoeuropeo la quale si andò a sovrapporre su una lingua preesistente di tipo pre-indoeuropeo parlata dalle popolazioni pre-nuragiche; le concordanze rilevate dal Pittau investono in realtà un quadro più ampio della stessa area lidica, dato che si estendono, in modo non dirimente, più spesso a tutta l'area egeo-anatolica. Appellattivi nuragici/sardiani di matrice indoeuropea sarebbero ad esempio[15]:

  • calambusa «rametto di ciliegio coi frutti» Ulassai e (Osini), probabilmente relitto sardiano o nuragico [suff. egeo-anatolico -ús(s) a], forse da confrontare – non derivare - col greco kaláme«canna, stelo» (indoeur.).
  • élimu/a, èlamu, èlema/e, éluma, èlma, èramu, (Lodè, Posada) sèlema «àlimo» (Atriplex halimus L.), relitto sardiano o nuragico, da confrontare – non derivare - col greco hálimos (indoeur.).
  • meulla, méurra, meúrra, miúrra, maúrra «merlo» (camp.), relitto sardiano o nuragico (-ll- conservato e suff.), da connettere con mérula «merlo» (vedi) [che invece deriva dal seg. vocabolo latino] e da confrontare – non derivare – col lat. merula che probabilmente è di origine indoeur. (DELL, DELI).
  • saurra «umidità della notte, brina, rugiada» (log.), toponimi Saurrecci (Guspini), Zaurrái (Isili), Aurracci (Ussassai), Urracci (Guspini) (suffissi e accento); relitto sardiano o nuragico, probabilmente da confrontare – non derivare - con una metatasi, coi lat. ros, roris, lituano rasà, ant. slavo rosa, vedico rasá «rugiada» e col sanscrito rásah «umidità» (DELL) e quindi indoeur. (corrige DILS, LISPR).


The fact that you posted Pittau reveals the big confusion in your head.


Pittau claims that the Lidians migrated to Sardinia and that the Sardinians then migrated to Etruria giving rise to the Etruscans. Pittau also supports that Etruscan was an IE language.


It is one of the most ridiculous theses ever hypothesized. Which in fact is no taken seriously by anyone, except some users like you who writes in the forums and helps to make any discussion unreadable and pointless.
 
This is what Piazza(2007) said in the past about "Origin of the Etruscans: novel clues from the Y chromosome lineages":


Here we show the genetic relationships of modern Etrurians, who mostly settled in Tuscany, with other Italian, Near Eastern and Aegean peoples by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA variation in 1,264 unrelated healthy males from: Tuscany-Italy (n=263), North Italy (n=306), South Balkans (n=359), Lemnos island (n=60), Sicily and Sardinia (n=276). The Tuscany samples were collected in Volterra (n=116), Murlo (n=86) and Casentino Valley (n=61).
We found traces of recent Near Eastern gene flow still present in Tuscany, especially in the archaeologically important village of Murlo. The samples from Tuscany show eastern haplogroups E3b1-M78, G2*-P15, J2a1b*-M67 and K2-M70 with frequencies very similar to those observed in Turkey and surrounding areas, but significantly different from those of neighbouring Italian regions. The microsatellite haplotypes associated to these haplogroups allow inference of ancestor lineages for Etruria and Near East whose time to the most recent common ancestors is relatively recent (about 3,500 years BP) and supports a possible non autochthonous post-Neolithic signal associated with the Etruscans.


I cant believe that since 2007 there has not been a serious study published about the Y-DNA of ancient Etruscan skeletal remains.


This was an abstract based on modern samples. Ask yourself why Piazza has never published this study. Because he would have been ridiculed. Near Murlo there was an Etruscan estate that was abandoned relatively early, but there is no evidence that there was an Etruscan settlement other than this and that it was in continuity with what then became the medieval village of Murlo. Even archaeologically the premise of Piazza is completely wrong.


No one today thinks that these 4 haplogroups can be proof of a recent migration from Anatolia and of an origin from east of the Etruscans between LBA and IA as told by the Greek historiography.


G2 * -P15. At low-percentage G2a is found throughout Italy and Europe. It was found in medieval remains in a high-level seventh-century tomb in Ergolding, Bavaria, Germany. G2a was very common among the EEF. Even Otzi was G2a.


K2-M70 was renamed T-M184 and was found in the German Neolithic.


J2a1b * -M67 is found throughout Italy and in other parts of Europe. In Italy it is stronger in non-Etruscan areas as shown by other more recent studies.


E3B1-M78. E3B has been renamed E1b1b, and it's even upstream to E-V13, one of the most common E1b1b found in all of Europe.


 
It is not something that I believe, it is something that some scholars believe and that can not be completely excluded.

The discussions are pointless when people insist on supporting thesis without even having read much of what has been written. As happens in all the forums.

I don't really have any hypotheses except Italian Urnfield = probably brought Etruscan. It's not exactly controversial although one might disagree. I also do not necessarily believe that these cultures are associated with J, though If they turned out to be it would lend support to a West Asian origin in my mind. I think G or R1b are more likely though.
 
I admire Hannah Moots! Because she is a PhD at the Stanford Center for Archeology and the Department of Anthropology at Stanford University. So I trust all the research, which she presents. I believe that she is a very intelligent woman who can not only put forward a scientific hypothesis but also knows how to present these hypothesis. Many scientists do not know how to do this because they have a mathematical type of thinking and they do not know how to form thoughts into speeches correctly. Therefore, they turn to the research paper writing service that helps them write speeches that the researchers tell for the audience afterwards. But she has a comprehensively developed type of thinking - she can put forward a hypothesis and create a speech. She is very smart and I admire the fact that she is smart in all areas that exist!
Spamer robot? Does anyone care about this? There are every day many dozens of new robotic posts on topics!:useless:
 
You have to evolve.
Because you are a robot you can not understand!
 
This was an abstract based on modern samples. Ask yourself why Piazza has never published this study. Because he would have been ridiculed. Near Murlo there was an Etruscan estate that was abandoned relatively early, but there is no evidence that there was an Etruscan settlement other than this and that it was in continuity with what then became the medieval village of Murlo. Even archaeologically the premise of Piazza is completely wrong.


No one today thinks that these 4 haplogroups can be proof of a recent migration from Anatolia and of an origin from east of the Etruscans between LBA and IA as told by the Greek historiography.


G2 * -P15. At low-percentage G2a is found throughout Italy and Europe. It was found in medieval remains in a high-level seventh-century tomb in Ergolding, Bavaria, Germany. G2a was very common among the EEF. Even Otzi was G2a.


K2-M70 was renamed T-M184 and was found in the German Neolithic.


J2a1b * -M67 is found throughout Italy and in other parts of Europe. In Italy it is stronger in non-Etruscan areas as shown by other more recent studies.


E3B1-M78. E3B has been renamed E1b1b, and it's even upstream to E-V13, one of the most common E1b1b found in all of Europe.

I understand, but what is important is the place of origin for these haplogroups. So we have to go a little bit before the farming was invented. This is the period during the Pre Pottery Neolithic, around 8000-10000 BCE.

If we consider:

1. The place of origin for E to be in the "Levant" and "North Africa".
2. The place of origin for L and T to be in "Mesopotamia", "Eastern Turkey" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Southern Caucasus").
3. The place of origin for G and J to be in "Southern Caucasus" and "Western Iran" (and maybe even in "Mesopotamia").

It means that in the Neolithic period(after 8000 BCE), these 3 groups formed one group by mixing, and discovered the "Farming".
After this they made migrations to Europe starting in the Neolithic. Cultures like LBK are the groups of people that came within the Neolithic migration from West Asia.
This doesnt mean that after this, there wasnt a second(or third, or more) migration (by the groups of people with the same Neolithic West Asian origin).

Maybe the same group that is often being labeled by the scientists as "Iranian farmers", made migrations to the Italian region during the Bronze and Iron Ages also. The starting point of these secondary migrations doenst have to be Mesopotamia. Maybe people with the same farming-origin from EEF regions(Germany, France, Hungary, etc..), migrated during the Bronze/Iron Age to Italy(after the groups of people from the Steppe regions came into their regions). And at the same time maybe groups of people with the same farming-origin who lived during the Bronze/Iron Ages still in West Asia(Eastern Turkey, Mesopotamia, Western Iran) made migrations to Italy through Western Turkey and Greece?

This all doesnt change the fact that they are the same people from before the Pre Pottery Neolithic period. They only made multiple migrations during multiple periods.
 
The fact that you posted Pittau reveals the big confusion in your head.


Pittau claims that the Lidians migrated to Sardinia and that the Sardinians then migrated to Etruria giving rise to the Etruscans. Pittau also supports that Etruscan was an IE language.


It is one of the most ridiculous theses ever hypothesized. Which in fact is no taken seriously by anyone, except some users like you who writes in the forums and helps to make any discussion unreadable and pointless.

I agree with all of that lol - well I don't think it's necessary for a migration from Sardinia - but the rest of it makes sense to me. Tell me, why was there an Anatolian homeland (almost always Troy) myth in the first place? And where did the Etruscan language come from - had it been there since the Neolithic?
 
Does anyone know if emperor Claudius spoke Etruscan at home as a kid (Similar to how some Italians speak their dialect only with friends and relatives.), or if he learned it from his Etruscan wife?
 
I agree with all of that lol - well I don't think it's necessary for a migration from Sardinia - but the rest of it makes sense to me. Tell me, why was there an Anatolian homeland (almost always Troy) myth in the first place? And where did the Etruscan language come from - had it been there since the Neolithic?

But the Troy myth pertained to the Romans :unsure:
 

This thread has been viewed 40997 times.

Back
Top