contribution to dream (or to nightmare)
Etruscans Italics
It's partially off topic 'spite evocated in this very thread) but I think Etruscans could have been pre-IE Central Europeans (Balkans?). This position could explain possible moves towards West (Italy at Urnfields/IA times, maybe Switzerland/Baviera), along diverse Italics tribes, and towards East (Sth-Balkans, where they could have been in contact to people like Dardani who passed into West Anatolia). The list of the Sea People is confusing because it mixes names of tribes (maritime/coastal for the most) we find TODAY linked to central-western Mediterranean as well as Egea Sea and coastal western Anatolia. Plus the "tribes" cited among the Sea People were in fact only mercenaries bands and not complete ethnies. ATW, it seems « Egyptian » 'shardana' were from W-Syria by origin, near Ugarit, and we can think that Trs, Teresh, Tiruisha, Tyrsenoi were the same one people, not ‘Shardana’ but Etruscans maybe, people situated by Hittits north to Assuwa, close to Troiad. Troyans were Dardani (at least for a big part), supposed to be of Moeso-Dacian origin as today Albanians and based in Sth-Central Balkans (Sth Serbia) but who colonized W-Anatolia. Concerning Shardana as well as Tyrsenoi, it’s possible their settlements in coastal Anatolia-Near-East were only counters, how to be sure ? But my above (timid) hypothesis of an inland presence in Sth Balkans is not completely basurd, at least with the poor knowledge I have.
An amateur’s work made by an Anthrogenica « boarder », made on G-25 autosomes groupings, spite not scientific, is interesting nevertheless, spite very often the differences ar tiny :
1- The Bulgarian IA person a bit closer to modern Greeks and Southern Italians than to North Italians, when the Croatian IA person is a bit more akin to North Italians, and at a lower level, closer to Iberians as a whole, but more to Eastern Iberians.
2- The Proto-Villanovan person seems very close to the Croatian IA one. The distance from East-Balkans and Carpathians, Romania, Bulgaria) seems less than in subsequent stages.
3- The Villanovan person shows greater differences : he(she) is the closest to modern Corsicans and Iberians, mostly to Nth-Nth-East Castile Spanyards and to Valencia Spanyards ; in Italy, it peaks in Toscane Latium, Veneto and Peri-Tyrol regions (+ parts of Switzerland), all that in a spotty way, without too soft gradiants; some links with Southern France appear too. As a whole he/she shares less ties with Southern Italians and Greeks, and is more Iberia oriented. All the way, he/she seems less « Italian » than 1, 2 & 4 !!!
4- the Etruscan or so called person shows in return a more conventional set of affinities with preceding periods, coming back closer to Southern Italians, to Greeks spite an evident preference for Northern and North-Central Italy, the gradiants are smoother ; it remains that some proximity to Spanyards is still here, but more general and level, not so spotty, and again some proximity to France.
5- The Ardea Latini IA person is not too far from the Etruscan, but it gets away a bit from Southern Italians and Greeks, and shows same attraction towards Northern Italians, Southern French people and Iberians, even a bit stronger.
Concerning Sardigna, the distances are always great. The Proto-Villanovan appears the most distant from the dominant regions of Italy, spite it seems very « pan-Italian », Sicily comprised in the sketch. The Ardea Latini IA person is the LESS far from modern Sardinians. This last case could be explained by a beginning of colonization by continental Romans ?
How can we link all this to History ? (if we rely on this amateur ‘s work accuracy for details, what I do in some part and because it’s easier to me than studying detailed data of scientific works)
- It seems he IA Bulgarian is less ‘old-EEF’ than IA Croatian, as he is geographically closer to Anatolia roads and post-neolithic new partial inputs of CHG or ‘iranianlike’ elements. BTW he’s a bit closer th modern Alabnians than to Greeks, what is not in contradiction.
- The allover ressemblance of IA Croatian and Proto-Villanovan is striking ! Both seem ‘PAN-ITALICS’ ! The Villanovan could be the most Etruscan, It doesn’t exclude some contacts with Italian BB’s.
- The Villanovan is the black swan in the game : very more Western, less « common » in general ; curiously, no stronger ties elsewhere, only a bit more with Balts and Bela-Russians, a little bit with Sardinians, and at the opposite, less ties with modern Anatolians (Turcs) and Yougoslavs - some kind of Central Europe pop with some drift by relative isolation rather than by geographical distance, maybe caused by langage barriers ? ! Could he be the true proto-Etruscan, or just an outlier with a curious mix ? The so called Etruscan is rather on the way to IA Ardea Latini : what remains is some similarity with what will be the Northern Italians : weight of Spanyard-like affinities, less affinities to Greece and lesser affinities to Anatolia than preceding times. Maybe the result of Etruscans mixing with Italics and Pre-Italics ?
A striking contrast with Rome Imperial times !
It think the Proto-Villanovan person could be the closer to Italics tribes : if Italics made Rome, and their descendants present in every part of the Republic, he is the best candidate (confirmed by presence even in Sardigna, spite weak). And he proximity to IA Croatian seems a confirmation of the supposed history of Italics, at least the ones who came first into Italy.
The not too strong differences between IA Bulgarian and IA Croatian plaids for Balkans as a shaker of ethnies at those times ; when we know the exogenic matings of IE elites (and surely some females grabbing of commoners), we can imagine some tribes having kept the males lineages habits (Y-haplo’s) when their autosomal makings were arrived almost level, before subsequent times.
The IA pop of Italy (I know I have’nt the allover Italy pop here), Greek colonies kept aside, a bit more « northern » but mostly more « western » (EEF remnants) than today Italy mean. If Etruscans were come from Hungary or Balkans, pushed by IE tribes, thay had already a mix close enough to these North-Balkans/Central Danube IE descendants. If they had kept the « philosophy » of ancient Tell pops of farmers-southeastern bronzers origin, they would have accepted more diverse foreign male lineages (so Y-haplo’s) than did the clannic pops of steppic origin, I think.
Aside but not completley out of topic, it seems Hallstatt is today divided into three groups : 2 options : Italics cut down a Celtic-Illyrian group of exchanges, or Illyrians cut down a Celtic-Italic contact. It seems the last solution would have more supporters. Perhaps the Venetics are the last para-Italics members to join N-E Italy after the rupture caused by supposed Illyrians ?
OR as we know now that true, Illyrians were settled more southwards, what was called the « Illyrians » in Austria was in fact the para-Italics (Venetics) come from North, some of them stayed in S-W Poland to form the Lusacian culture ?.
Just a bunch of bets for people who cannot sleep in the evening. A game, when new facts are not yet come to distroy imagination.
Phillistins : para-Italics ! Sea people also !