Genetic History of Anatolia during Holocene

[Pax Augusta]

I don't think you can prove that with what we have available. It's just wishful thinking.

I can run qpAdm models of your liking, with samples you provide as references, to explore this further.

Reserve these little games for others, do you understand?

I have nothing to prove, I accept what have been the conclusions of the greatest specialists of the Etruscan world for decades. Which you, for reasons of personal narcissism, do not like, but I could care less about your personal narcissism and your identity research which is not compatible with this forum.

[eupator]

Reserve these little games for others, do you understand?

I have nothing to prove, I accept what have been the conclusions of the greatest specialists of the Etruscan world for decades. Which you, for reasons of personal narcissism, do not like, but I could care less about your personal narcissism and your identity research which is not compatible with this forum.

So what are these conclusions, I am genuinely interested to know. Who were the potential first Etruscan speakers?

[Pax Augusta]

So what are these conclusions, I am genuinely interested to know. Who were the potential first Etruscan speakers?

I have already answered you. Don't make me lose my patience.

[eupator]

I have already answered you. Don't make me lose my patience.

Okay. Nice chat.

[torzio]

@Real expert

They even made Zeus black, it is completely unwatchable.

Someone tried to justify it to me by saying they were fictional characters, so it didn't matter...

I'm waiting for the Mexican, and Asian version of characters in a production of Porgy and Bess to come along.

As for Achilles, a modern eastern Peloponnesian would be sufficient. They're ethnically Greek, and the closest to the Ancients.

agree

The producers went for a cast of people that where milky white or black in colour, no in-betweens ............there is a huge argument on u-tube on this films cast members

[Angela]

I am talking about the paper, everything I write is in relation to Anatolia?

Also, I keep seeing this comment as some sort of jack-of-all-trade rebuttal in relation to Herodotus, but the Etruscan paper did not prove him wrong necessarily, let me explain.

The Etruscan paper provided the proof that Etruscans carried Iron-Age Steppe R1b-P312 lineages and had significant Steppe autosomal input but did very little to explain why the Etruscan language is not part of the (Italo-Celtic?) IE/CW grouping that those lineages spread in other parts of their expansion.

As a result, If Etruscan is not an IE/CW language but rather has its origin in the neolithic farmer civ substratum that predated that expansion/invasion, then Herodotus wasn't really wrong, it's just the dating details that got lost in the mix. You have to give the historian some credit, Etruscans were too far detached to the Greek world at the time to get all the details right.

Please. What he said never made any sense, given that he stated they came from Lydia in Anatolia. Dionysius of Halicarnassus certainly didn't believe it, and held that the Etruscans were autochthonous, as they were. Now you're going to pretend that being in part descended from Neolithic farmers, which of course Herodotus somehow knew, made them NOT autochthonous? After 4,000 years? And, you're going to pretend Herodotus was somehow prescient and knew all about it?

You're making yourself absurd.

I'd have more respect for your posts if you'd just admit what is obvious to everyone: he was wrong, and you were wrong in relying on him.

Not that I'm singling him out from among the ancient writers.

When are some people going to get it in their heads that these writers were not historians in the modern sense, and certainly not geneticists or even "ethnographers", which is probably just above the level of "Women's Studies". Most of them were paid hacks writing political tracts, even if they were beautifully written political tracts.

I mean, do you take the Aeneid seriously too? Or the writing of the "historians" for the Kings of France that they were descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalen? I mean, who is going to be brave enough to rebel against the descendants of Jesus Christ himself? As for Rome, well, hey, they weren't the descendants of some mangy shepherds in some huts on hills above the mosquito infested swamp land; they were descended from the aristocracy of Troy. :)

I think some posters on anthrofora would be the better for some university level courses on the nature of "historical" writing in certain eras; what it was and what it was not.

Now, MOVE ON, and I mean it.

It's not the full moon is it? This is like trying to herd cats.

[bigsnake49]

Some people even elevate Homer as a historian when the actual archaeology does not support a 10 year war with the number of combatants present. We would have found a lot more arrowheads, swords, pottery, heck even scat.

Same thing with the battle of Thermopylae in which Herodotus estimated the strength of the Persian Army at one million. Can you imagine the sheer logistical challenge of supplying a million strong army? Can you also imagine the detritus they might have left behind? We have found no where near the amount that should have been there. His travels do not make him an expert on the tribes of Anatolia or the Balkans. He himself said that he wrote about things he had seen personally and things he had been told. So he depended on others to when it comes to geography and ethnography. Second, third and fourth hand accounts or myths do not qualify him as a historian. Even Thucydides accused him of being a story teller.

[kingjohn]

i saw this in anthrogenica

some medieval mtdna from west turkey

Ancient mtDNA from 13th-15th century Kadıkalesi Anaia, Turkey

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2457274

p.s
interesting to see some L mtdna

[enter_tain]

This isn't the apricity or Stormfront or wherever you people usually indulge your obsession with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Angela, you do this 1000x more than me. I have never posted pictures of modern day people, simply ancient people that are relevant. Looks are not really relevant when talking about a 5 to 6,000 year period, but they are relevant when it comes to comparing closely related/unrelated neighbouring populations.

I simply wanted to point out that grouping all ancient people under "southern Europe" is disingenuous.

These people like ancient Greeks, Phrygians, Minoans, the true "southern Europeans" don't exist anymore. They've all been killed off or assimilated. Spaniards, Illyrians and Italians largely derived from Central European cultures. Why do think authors used "Sardinian-like" as a point of comparison? What does "Sardinian-like" mean? They are an Indo-European people but that's the closest they have to old southern Europe. It means they have no real proxy. Modern day southern Europeans are largely Iron Age central Europeans, while modern day centrals are largely Northern European.

[Philjames100]

What does "Sardinian-like" mean?

Similar to Sardinians.

[Philjames100]

"Sardinian like" means they wore costumes like these guys:

[Jovialis]

Angela, you do this 1000x more than me. I have never posted pictures of modern day people, simply ancient people that are relevant. Looks are not really relevant when talking about a 5 to 6,000 year period, but they are relevant when it comes to comparing closely related/unrelated neighbouring populations.
I simply wanted to point out that grouping all ancient people under "southern Europe" is disingenuous.
These people like ancient Greeks, Phrygians, Minoans, the true "southern Europeans" don't exist anymore. They've all been killed off or assimilated. Spaniards, Illyrians and Italians largely derived from Central European cultures. Why do think authors used "Sardinian-like" as a point of comparison? What does "Sardinian-like" mean? They are an Indo-European people but that's the closest they have to old southern Europe. It means they have no real proxy. Modern day southern Europeans are largely Iron Age central Europeans, while modern day centrals are largely Northern European.

What the hell are you even saying? I'm 2 seconds away from banning you, because I am not going to have you ruin our discourse here with your own idiosyncratic terms, and unsubstantiated claims and conjecture. Either you debate based on real life facts, or I'm going to put an end to this nonsense.

[Angela]

Angela, you do this 1000x more than me. I have never posted pictures of modern day people, simply ancient people that are relevant. Looks are not really relevant when talking about a 5 to 6,000 year period, but they are relevant when it comes to comparing closely related/unrelated neighbouring populations.

I simply wanted to point out that grouping all ancient people under "southern Europe" is disingenuous.

These people like ancient Greeks, Phrygians, Minoans, the true "southern Europeans" don't exist anymore. They've all been killed off or assimilated. Spaniards, Illyrians and Italians largely derived from Central European cultures. Why do think authors used "Sardinian-like" as a point of comparison? What does "Sardinian-like" mean? They are an Indo-European people but that's the closest they have to old southern Europe. It means they have no real proxy. Modern day southern Europeans are largely Iron Age central Europeans, while modern day centrals are largely Northern European.

What are you talking about? I was pointing out that it's absurd to think that Achilles would have looked like Brad Pitt. Unless you're all driving me mad, YOU weren't the one who posted that picture, so what the hell are you on about?

If you're going to post pictures of ancient people, it can't be of a fictional character, and on top of that a picture created maybe 1000 years after the supposed event and expect to pass it off as a good likeness of that fictional ancient character. Are you high or just not very bright?

Since when also, are Sardinians Indo-Europeans??? They may speak an Indo-European language, but they're not Indo-Europeans. They're genetically the closest modern population to Copper Age Europeans. You know, OLD EUROPE, before the steppe admixed people arrived.

And stop with the stupidity that Spaniards and Italians are Central Europeans. Central Europeans are close to 45-50% steppe. I'm half that. Some Bell Beaker like admixed people crossing the Alps and coming into Italy and imposing their language doesn't make me Central European. I'm Southern European and proud of it, and so are you, buddy! You're also no Illyrian! You may have some ancestry from them, but you're way too Southern. Stop licking the boots of people who, if they can even locate your country on a map, think you're all gangsters.

Plus, you really must be on some drug if you think that modern Italians are like Iron Age Central Europeans. Iron Age Central Europeans were like, depending on the area, the Irish or the Southern Germans.

How could you be so ignorant after so long lurking around here. Have you ever read any of the relevant papers? Or is it that you can't understand them?

Now stop with the nonsense or so help me you're out of here.

You people can't derail academic threads with this idiocy.

[Angela]

"Sardinian like" means they wore costumes like these guys:

Keep it up and you can go on the watch list too.

[Philjames100]

Ok you didn't realise I was mocking 'enter_tain's' questions.

I love Sardinians and all southern Euros.

[Angela]

Ok you didn't realise I was mocking 'enter_tain's' questions.

I love Sardinians and all southern Euros.

My apologies.

These loons are enough to cause even saints to lose their patience.

[real expert]

@Angela,

I don't want to leave this comment unanswered. Here's the thing, dianatomia mentioned blond Achilles, the possible association of higher Steppe ancestry with blond hair in Ancient Greeks - you, me, and others responded to his original statement. To make just one thing clear, I personally never started a thread or conversation about blond hair, Steppe people or them being the super blond chads, etc. So why do you single me and for that matter enter_tain or Silesian out? Someone posted a Roman mosaic of a blond Achilles and I showed other Roman mosaics to make the case that the Greek term "xanthos" in the context of Achilles likely meant blond or reddish blond and not just brown. What I find a bit disappointing is that you don't even bother to read my comments carefully. I said that Brad Pitt was ethnically speaking not a good choice but that he still portrayed the character Achilles beautifully.

I was talking about the aesthetics here and not about historical accuracy. What's wrong with that? That said, I rightfully pointed out that Pitt resembles more the Roman depictions of Achilles than the black actor. You are free to disagree with me on that. In addition, Greeks freaked out about the black Achilles but were rather cool with Brad playing their mythological hero. Btw, how many Greek actors are in Hollywood that could play in blockbusters that attract millions of viewers? Furthermore, Anfänger wrote a comment to me, Am I not allowed to respond to him to explain my case?

It's normal that people who happened to be blond and blue-eyed themselves to be interested in the origin of blond hair and blue eyes or historical people with similar phenotypes, for that matter.

For goodness' sake is it possible to talk about blond hair, blue eyes, and Steppe people or highly attractive blonds without folks thinking you're going full Stormfront or summoning up some Nazi demons? Sorry, but I had to rant here since I want to express my opinion about physical traits or ancestral groups without being pushed into a corner or being put under general suspicion. It's just not fair.

[Vallicanus]

Modern day southern Europeans are largely Iron Age central Europeans, while modern day centrals are largely Northern European.

What absolute detritus is this?

[Hawk]

The black Achilles in that TV Show was a complete miscast and terribly gone wrong, it's completely on the opposite edge of Brad Pitt who in fact played the character quite good. If they wanted to put a black character they had the script ready made from Homer himself, Memnon the king of Aethiopia who was one of the most powerful fighters in Iliad next to Achilles and Hector. Homer states that he was almost Achilles equal, perhaps even stronger than Hector, he killed Nestor son, then Nestor pleaded Achilles to revenge his son. It's probably a fiction for sure, but genuine fiction from the originator himself.

Anyway, the TV Show was a complete failure.

[Jovialis]

Ancient Greeks and Phrygians being almost fully EEF is NOT a real fact? What fact is it? A virtual fact?

Wasn't the whole point of the Southern Arc paper that Anatolia has no Steppe ancestry?

Where do you find people like this today?

I have already explained this to you in another thread!

EEF are considered to have a small amount of WHG in addition to a majority Anatolian_N.

Minoans are a small amount of CHG in addition to a majority Anatolian_N.

Mycenaeans are on average 90% Minoan and 10% Steppe.

[Jovialis]

Who the hell says Southern Europeans don't exist because they're not fully EEF? That's your own BS standard, not the rest of the world's.

By that standard, almost nobody exists if they are not like their Neolithic ancestors. What a bunch of baloney!

[Jovialis]

The black Achilles in that TV Show was a complete miscast and terribly gone wrong, it's completely on the opposite edge of Brad Pitt who in fact played the character quite good. If they wanted to put a black character they had the script ready made from Homer himself, Memnon the king of Aethiopia who was one of the most powerful fighters in Iliad next to Achilles and Hector. Homer states that he was almost Achilles equal, perhaps even stronger than Hector, he killed Nestor son, then Nestor pleaded Achilles to revenge his son. It's probably a fiction for sure, but genuine fiction from the originator himself.

Anyway, the TV Show was a complete failure.

Indeed, I read it was a complete flop with a very poor amount of viewership. Nobody who is actually interested in the source material wants to see such an inauthentic rendition of it. They deserved to lose their money for it.

[Francesco]

I would like to express an opinion regarding Herodotus and his version on the Etrucan origins. Despite his theory on a anatolian - and specifically lidian - origin of the etruscans has been pretty much disprooved both by archeological and genetic analysis, I think we might consider it as some sort of collective memory of actual contacts between the early etruscan/tyrsenian world and the lidian/anatolic context in the late bronze age, maybe during the so called bronze age collapse.

We know that many peoples around this time were indeed active as pirate, mercenaries and adventurers in the eastern mediterranean. Some of this peoples have been linked to the mycenaean world, other to the italic one. Its therefore possible that during the late bronze age and the early iron age mercenaries and pirates from the tyrsenian world were operating in the Aegean Sea, maybe hired by some mycenaean or lidian king. We do know that the etruscans were actually active in the aegean context in the Iron age, at least on isalnd of Lemnos.

So, maybe, the fabled and now disproved anatolian origin of the etruscans could actually be interpreted as a mere memory of contacts between this two worlds.
Of course, this is just an hypothesis, but it could conciliate the autoctonous origin of the etruscans with the account of Erodotus.

[Pax Augusta]

I would like to express an opinion regarding Herodotus and his version on the Etrucan origins. Despite his theory on a anatolian - and specifically lidian - origin of the etruscans has been pretty much disprooved both by archeological and genetic analysis, I think we might consider it as some sort of collective memory of actual contacts between the early etruscan/tyrsenian world and the lidian/anatolic context in the late bronze age, maybe during the so called bronze age collapse.

We know that many peoples around this time were indeed active as pirate, mercenaries and adventurers in the eastern mediterranean. Some of this peoples have been linked to the mycenaean world, other to the italic one. Its therefore possible that during the late bronze age and the early iron age mercenaries and pirates from the tyrsenian world were operating in the Aegean Sea, maybe hired by some mycenaean or lidian king. We do know that the etruscans were actually active in the aegean context in the Iron age, at least on isalnd of Lemnos.

So, maybe, the fabled and now disproved anatolian origin of the etruscans could actually be interpreted as a mere memory of contacts between this two worlds.
Of course, this is just an hypothesis, but it could conciliate the autoctonous origin of the etruscans with the account of Erodotus.

I have never read of archaeological evidence of contacts between the Proto-Etruscan and Lydian worlds during the Late Bronze Age, let alone migrations. As Etruscologists have been explaining for years, it was the archaeologists of Prehistory and Protohistory, after more than 40 years of excavations, who concluded that there are no archaeological traces of migrations to Etruria who may support the Greek accounts (Etruscologists deal mainly with the Iron Age, for obvious reasons). Trying to give credence to Herodotus' account, as Enrico Benelli recently wrote, is like claiming that the earth is flat.

Only in the pseudoscientific world the Greek accounts on the Etruscans have remained popular (which are based on two separate traditions that arose separately and many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans), and in non-specialist studies on the Etruscan world (e.g. in some Indo-European linguists). For various reasons. Not least the fact that the Etruscans have been instrumentalised for years by any nationalistic claims.

The contacts are between the Etruscans and the Greek Ionian world, and it is within this world that this invented tradition was born. Like the other, the Pelasgian one, which probably originated in Athens. As scholars of these topics have explained many times (in the forums no one reads but everyone has an opinion), Greek authors speak to themselves first. By the Lydian origin and the Pelasgian origin, the Greeks mean that the Etruscans are somehow connected to the Greek world, albeit in a peripheral way (it is the Greeks who are connected to the Pelasgians and the Lydians). When Dionysius of Halicarnassus lives, the relationship between the Etruscans and the Greeks has changed. The Greeks now have an interest in tying themselves to the Romans, and no longer to the Etruscans (an interest shared by the Romans themselves, who want to ennoble themselves). So, the Etruscans finally become autochthonous, and according to Dionysius it is the Romans who are of Greek origin. The theme of origins in Greek authors always reflects a Greek point of view, it should not be interpreted as if they were history and anthropology books written today. But Dionysius' account finally also contains information that turned out to be true, including even the name used by the Etruscans themselves.

The first Greek source to mention the Tyrrhenians is Hesiod, many centuries before Herodotus. Hesiod makes no mention of an eastern origin of the Tyrrhenians and places them exactly in central Italy close to the Latins. There is no other ancient source before Herodotus that associates the Tyrrhenians with the Lydians. Also for the Herodotus' story, the Tyrrhenians are those who are in Italy, not in Lydia.

As reported by Dionysius, Xantos of Lydia, the historian considered the highest authority in the history of the Lydians, makes no mention of Tyrrhenus as son of Atis, or of a Lydian colonization in Italy. As many scholars have pointed out, the Herodotus' story is based on false etymologies. It is likely not Herodotus' fault, since he reports what others had said.

In fact, according to Xantos of Lydia, Atis' sons were Lydus and Torebus and they, "having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned. (...) "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."

By mistake, deliberately, Torebus and the Torebians have become Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. But Torebus and the Torebians were clearly not Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. This is where the Lydia origin story starts, from a linguistic manipulation.

Xantos of Lydia reported by Dionysius:

"But Xanthus of Lydia, who was as well acquainted with ancient history as any man and who may be regarded as an authority second to none on the history of his own country, neither names Tyrrhenus in any part of his history as a ruler of the Lydians nor knows anything of the landing of a colony of Maeonians in Italy; nor does he make the least mention of Tyrrhenia as a Lydian colony, though he takes notice of several things of less importance. He says that Lydus and Torebus were the sons of Atys; that they, having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned received their names. His words are these: "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."

The origins of the Etruscans have nothing to do with the Greek and Aegean worlds. Unless we want to see a Neolithic connection, but this concerns the whole of Europe, not just the Etruscans. Therefore the story reported by Herodotus would have no value in any case. Even the presence at Lemnos of two inscriptions in a language similar to Etruscan, after 100 excavations, did not yield any clues in favour of Greek accounts. Small groups of Etruscans were indeed around the Mediterranean. Not to mention foreign presences in Etruria, starting with the Ionian Greek painters who were very active in Etruria in the Archaic phase and whose style contributed to further confusion. But this does not change the general picture of their origins. The Etruscans were a people who had many contacts with all those around them, including clearly the Greeks who were the link, together with the Phoenicians, between the eastern and the central and western Mediterranean. Unfortunately, we know nothing about what the Etruscans really thought of the Greeks (and even of the Romans and the others), as only Greek and Latin texts have survived.

[Hawk]

For me the only confusing part about the Etruscans is regarding Proto-Villanovan ties with Pannonian Urnfield Cultures, was the Urnfield/Proto-VIllanovan driven by some invasion/migration or just cultural adoptions, were the Proto-Etruscans just native Early Bronze Age native descended or some Urnfield migrants mixed with native EBA population?