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

As you read about the etymology of Etruscus: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Etruscus#cite_note-4 some scholars have proposed that the term might be connected to the Turkish autonym Türk.

I think north of Eurasia should be generally considered as the land of Altaic, Uralic and some European non-IE people, there were certainly contacts between them in the ancient times, but IE-speaking people such as Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, ... came later to this region, probably in the 1st millennium BC, in the 2nd millennium BC they lived in the south of Eurasia, from India to south of Italy.
 
I think north of Eurasia should be generally considered as the land of Altaic, Uralic and some European non-IE people, there were certainly contacts between them in the ancient times, but IE-speaking people such as Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, ... came later to this region, probably in the 1st millennium BC, in the 2nd millennium BC they lived in the south of Eurasia, from India to south of Italy.
It could be, they say yamnayans were dark complexioned, brown eyed people like today's west asian people so they could be Southern eurasian originally.
 
I'm aware, however the Rus' Khaganate was set up by the Rus' people and the Rus' are described by all contemporary sources as "Norsemen". The Rus' Khaganate is a predecessor to both the Rurikid Dynasty and the Kievan Rus'. Secondly, the Rus' Khaganate was not strictly populated by only Rus' people, but also by Slavic, Finnic, Finno-Ugric, and Turkic people along with Rus' people. The etymology of Rus' has a perfectly reasonable explanation from Old Norse as previously mentioned a few posts back by another user, not to mention archaeological and genetic data showing there were Scandinavians active in Eastern Europe in locations known to be associated with Scandinavian activity there.

I am interested in which contemporary sources say they were Scandinavians.

Constantine VII in DAI mentions some river rapids, and their names ρωσιστί and σκλαβηνιστί. But he also mentions their meaning. In general those of the 'Normanists' who haven't completely disregarded the text, imply that the meanings refer only to the Slavonic names. When I was reading the text I was thinking he was referring to both, though the syntax is consistent with both possibilities.

The 5 Rus names he mentions are
Ulvorsi (based on the text we expect something like 'island')
Aifor (based on the text we expect something like 'nest' or something to do with pelicans and their nests)
Varuforos (based on the text we expect something like 'great lake')
Leanti (based on the text we expect something to do with movement of water)
Strukun (based on the text we expect with a meaning like 'small')

And there is also one
Essupi (supposedly meant something like 'don't sleep' in both languages)

Normanists have done various weird things with that source. Like changing λίμνη (lake) to δίνη etc.
The etymologies you would find don't make much sense, are inconsistent and I doubt there would be semantic parallels in Germanic speaking areas.
 
I am interested in which contemporary sources say they were Scandinavians.
Constantine VII in DAI mentions some river rapids, and their names ρωσιστί and σκλαβηνιστί. But he also mentions their meaning. In general those of the 'Normanists' who haven't completely disregarded the text, imply that the meanings refer only to the Slavonic names. When I was reading the text I was thinking he was referring to both, though the syntax is consistent with both possibilities.
The 5 Rus names he mentions are
Ulvorsi (based on the text we expect something like 'island')
Aifor (based on the text we expect something like 'nest' or something to do with pelicans and their nests)
Varuforos (based on the text we expect something like 'great lake')
Leanti (based on the text we expect something to do with movement of water)
Strukun (based on the text we expect with a meaning like 'small')
And there is also one
Essupi (supposedly meant something like 'don't sleep' in both languages)
Normanists have done various weird things with that source. Like changing λίμνη (lake) to δίνη etc.
The etymologies you would find don't make much sense, are inconsistent and I doubt there would be semantic parallels in Germanic speaking areas.
I'm on my mobile at the moment so I can't quite scrounge for the sources as yet. However, I'll gladly link them when I'm at a desktop.
Honestly, in my own opinion I would see at as much more likely the Rus' polities were multiethnic states of Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic and some Scandinavian people along with other ethnolinguistic groups, considering the samples of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe from the Viking Genome paper it's reasonable to assume a multiethnic state.
However, I don't see anything really convincing that would link Rus' to Rasna or anything Etruscan or Rhaetian.
 
There is possibility a relation between Rus and Latin/Old Persian Rus "village, country", compare to Persian Rustak "rustic". The Persian word seems to be a loanword but it is too old, so it couldn't be from Latin.
 
Name of Basque is very similar to Bashkir (Baskara), R1b has a high frequency among Bashkirs too.

completely irrelevant, Cyrus.
the first element 'Bask' is a local pronounciation (local, in fact common to a vaste area from Northern Spain to Northern Corsica encompassing Gascogne and Languedoc) of 'Vask' = 'Wask' which gave *Gwask in Romance, we find in the modern name Gascogne - I 'm not sure at all that ethonyms in Bask- are endoethnonym - I think the Basque name themselves with a root like Euskal- in Euskladunak - the /v/ pronunciation of /w/ seems indicating the name passed through late Latin speakers that had lost the /w/ -
 
As you read about the etymology of Etruscus: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Etruscus#cite_note-4 some scholars have proposed that the term might be connected to the Turkish autonym Türk.
I think north of Eurasia should be generally considered as the land of Altaic, Uralic and some European non-IE people, there were certainly contacts between them in the ancient times, but IE-speaking people such as Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, ... came later to this region, probably in the 1st millennium BC, in the 2nd millennium BC they lived in the south of Eurasia, from India to south of Italy.
I do not know where you are going with this, but turkic
people only arrived in modern turkey only 1000 years ago. If this etruscans are related to turkey , then it has nothing to do with turks
 
completely irrelevant, Cyrus.
the first element 'Bask' is a local pronounciation (local, in fact common to a vaste area from Northern Spain to Northern Corsica encompassing Gascogne and Languedoc) of 'Vask' = 'Wask' which gave *Gwask in Romance, we find in the modern name Gascogne - I 'm not sure at all that ethonyms in Bask- are endoethnonym - I think the Basque name themselves with a root like Euskal- in Euskladunak - the /v/ pronunciation of /w/ seems indicating the name passed through late Latin speakers that had lost the /w/ -

It is possible that the original name of Bashkirs was almost the same as Euskara/Euskal, because we know Persians/Turks/Arabs used a very similar names for Basques.
 
I do not know where you are going with this, but turkic
people only arrived in modern turkey only 1000 years ago. If this etruscans are related to turkey , then it has nothing to do with turks

I believe those who migrated from modern Turkey to Italy were an IE people, not Etruscans. But Turkic people who built Kurgan (Turkic word for Tumulus) in the Caspian steppe related to Etruscans.
 
It is possible that the original name of Bashkirs was almost the same as Euskara/Euskal, because we know Persians/Turks/Arabs used a very similar names for Basques.

And those names are?

I believe those who migrated from modern Turkey to Italy were an IE people, not Etruscans. But Turkic people who built Kurgan (Turkic word for Tumulus) in the Caspian steppe related to Etruscans.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/باشکیر باشکیر. (اِخ ) صورت دیگری از نام قوم باسک "Bashkir is another form of the name of Basque people." Ask those who know Persian.

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?

bljb_kurgan.jpg
 
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/اسکول 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”.
 
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.
 
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/79185?hs=118-126,448-456
 
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..
 

This thread has been viewed 28059 times.

Back
Top