Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Basque, Iberian, Etruscan, Rhaetian,... Y-DNA haplogroup

  1. #51
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    And those names are?
    Bashkunsi and Bashkir, of course as I said according to Arabic/Persian sources, they were either the same people or neighbors.

    Yeah, modern scholars call them Kurgans, using the Turkic word, but that doesn't mean the Kurgans in the context of Bronze Age Europe have anything to do with Turkic populations.
    What is your source for these Caspian Steppe tumuli that you claim are connected to Etruscans?
    You yourself say Bronze Age Europe, of course Turkic people who lived in the Central Asia also built Kurgans/Tumulus, but we can't find them in the Middle East and South Asia, so it just relates to Turkic and European people who lived in the north of Eurasia and probably some Iranian-speaking people who migrated to those lands, like Scythians.

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,905
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,905, Level: 28
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 445
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Bashkunsi and Bashkir, of course as I said according to Arabic/Persian sources, they were either the same people or neighbors.
    The source you provided on this, when translated into English, did not say what you claim. Do you have another source that supports your statements? So far I've not found any sources which make the same claim as you.

    You yourself say Bronze Age Europe, of course Turkic people who lived in the Central Asia also built Kurgans/Tumulus, but we can't find them in the Middle East and South Asia, so it just relates to Turkic and European people who lived in the north of Eurasia and probably some Iranian-speaking people who migrated to those lands, like Scythians.
    Come again? I'm not sure I agree with that statement. There are tumuli, burial mounds, barrows or whatever you want to call them in Turkey, Israel, India, Pakistan. What matters is the time period they were constructed, what is also important to consider is that the modern expansion of cities and other infrastructure can remove a mound from the landscape making it no longer "exist". Burial mounds do not relate only to Turkic and European people, burial mounds are found in Africa, North America, Japan, China, etc.

  3. #53
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    The source you provided on this, when translated into English, did not say what you claim. Do you have another source that supports your statements? So far I've not found any sources which make the same claim as you.
    I don't know how your translator works, according to Dehkhoda Dictionary, https://www.vajehyab.com/dehkhoda/%D...A9%DB%8C%D8%B1 باشکیر. (اِخ ) صورت دیگری از نام قوم باسک "Bashkir is another form of the name of Basque people." Ask those who know Persian.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Come again? I'm not sure I agree with that statement. There are tumuli, burial mounds, barrows or whatever you want to call them in Turkey, Israel, India, Pakistan. What matters is the time period they were constructed, what is also important to consider is that the modern expansion of cities and other infrastructure can remove a mound from the landscape making it no longer "exist". Burial mounds do not relate only to Turkic and European people, burial mounds are found in Africa, North America, Japan, China, etc.
    What about interior decorations?


  4. #54
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    About the name of Euskal (Basque Country), it is interesting to mention that according to Persian/Arabic sources Uskal was also a name of a major sea/river in the west of the Altay Mountains in Central Asia, in the land of Khallokh (Karluks): https://www.vajehyab.com/dehkhoda/%D...A9%D9%88%D9%84 There is also a river with the name of Oskol in Russia/Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskol_River

    And about the name of Oskol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stary_Oskol

    Accurately confirmed information about the meaning of the word Oskol does not exist today, but there are many hypotheses and assumptions. At present, two hypotheses are widespread.

    Candidate of Historical Sciences, Anatoly Pavlovich Nikulov believes that the word “Oskol” is of Turkic origin, since the lands of modern Stary Oskol in the early Middle Ages were part of the Khazar Kaganate, being in constant proximity to the lands inhabited by ancient Slavic tribes. At the same time it was proved that the settlements appeared in the V century AD. er and the main occupation of the population was the mining of iron ores and the smelting of metal. Then these lands in the 9th — 10th centuries became part of Kievan Rus and remained frontier for two states, then the so-called “Wild Field”.

    According to the second, the word "Oskol" can be divided into two: "Os" and "Kol". The first "Os" means Rus, the Russians, since it is known that in the 7th-8th centuries in Byzantium the people living in the northern Black Sea region were called the people of Ros and the Arabs took this word to their arsenal. But in the Turkic languages there is no clear pronunciation of the sound “R”, and it is replaced by a softening of the next sound, so instead of a clear “Ros” there was a softened “Os”. The word “Kol” in Turkic languages means “pond”, “lake” or “river”.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by binx View Post
    Etruscans were said to be of Lydian origin in Asia Minor, Lydians who spoke an Indo-European language, or from Thessaly in Greece or autochthonous from Italy. Today there is more consensus that the Etruscans were completely indigenous from Italy, also Etruscan DNA proves it. In any case, the Etruscans had nothing to do with Western Afghanistan.

    Edreskan doesn't sound at all like Etruria.
    There's a theory that the Etruscans were related linguistically to the Lemnians, who lived on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Neither Etruscan nor Lemnian are believed to be Indo-European.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    There's a theory that the Etruscans were related linguistically to the Lemnians, who lived on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Neither Etruscan nor Lemnian are believed to be Indo-European.
    The native people of Lemnos were Thracian, according to the sources and there are Mycenaean-related elements early. The myths connect them to Hephaestus, Kabeiroi etc. and, in general, for me it is more likely to have been related to Thracians and/or Phrygians than anyone else.

    That incription is misused by people who have various agendas, imho. The similarities with 'Etruscan' seem superficial and even if there was a real movement the direction could have been the opposite.

    See the Phrygian texts and consider if what is read as L is really L or their equivalent of Latin C, Greek Γ.

    One of the names, that are attested in the later (I think c. 4th century BC) Greek inscriptions of the island is Perkon, which looks Balto-Slavic related. How would you explain that?

    That inscription is from Myrina, a toponym that is apparently mentioned in the inscription, by the way.

    https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/7...-126%2C448-456

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    245
    Points
    2,162
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,162, Level: 13
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 288
    Overall activity: 41.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Z17107>A24048
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Qun, Ermi
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Already at Greek DNA project there are some interesting results from Lemnos island which was inhabited by speakers of an Etruscan related language.

    1. Firstly G-Y8903* at Lemnos, this is a basal G-L497 clade. So I wonder whether Rhaetic languages might have been preserved and spread by this subclade. Some of it's later migrations were Celtic but still..

    2. Another seems like a G-L91, a Neolithic lineage

    So two candidates on the island for the Lemnian speakers! And out of 3 tested they form a majority (3rd is I1). I suspect a larger sample would also show a higher hg G percentage.

    As far as I know Lemnian is considered to have branch off from the Etruscan after Etruscan had split from Rhaetic. IMO This speaks in favor of the G-L497 link because Lemno-Etruscan link is younger and it does seem logical that languages so related to each other would be propagated by a younger but more robust lineage and G-L497 is only such lineage under P15. I took a look at Boattini et al and I see they haven't tested anything under G-P15, I'd have to manually look for G-L91 and G-L497..

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •