Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.
Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.
2. The Etruscans colonized the Villanovans.
The problem is that there is nothing to distinguish the Latium tribes from the broader Villanovan culture.
So the Etruscans colonized themselves, being that the Villanovans are the Etruscans. Villanovan is not the name of a people, it is the name of an Etruscan cultural facies.
Not true, archaeologically there are differentiations.
There is a window of about 200 years between the establishment of the archaeological culture and the first Etruscan inscriptions in which conquest, elite domination or the like might have occurred. I don't think it's likely but something like that seems to be the 'mainstream' view in English language scholarship at the time, see Mallory, Anthony before that Gimbutas etc. .
The window may be due to the introduction of the alphabet. None of these scholars is a specialist and there are many English speaking scholars who do not support what you say.
There is a window of about 200 years between the establishment of the archaeological culture and the first Etruscan inscriptions in which conquest, elite domination or the like might have occurred. I don't think it's likely but something like that seems to be the 'mainstream' view in English language scholarship at the time, see Mallory, Anthony before that Gimbutas etc. .
That's the view of people studying the Indo-Europeans, not of archaeologists, certainly not of Etruscologists from any country, not, at least, since the mid-twentieth century. They may be wrong, of course. That's a separate matter.
As we've discussed, there's no sign of a conquest in the archaeological layers. A slow infiltration by an elite is possible, but when, from what direction?
People have been debating this since the classical era. The resolution may come from ancient dna, but even then it's going to have to be put in the context of ancient dna both north and south of the Etruscan area.
yes, but a slow infiltration would have left some genetic markers
which, despite efforts have not been detected yet
my guess is Estruscans are 'urbanised Villanovans', as CrazyDonkey puts it
in which case Villanovans would have been multilingual
Hittite empire and Urartu were multilingual too
in Urartu, Armenian language came into the written record, only after a dynastic switch
Well, we don't know their yDna, not even at low resolution.
Let's say, for example, some J2 shows up. We would need the ydna of the "proto-Vilanovans" or "Villanovans" etc. Let's say they don't have any. Would that be it? I don't think so. We'd have to see if the same or related J2 shows up at the same time or earlier in southern Italy, which might mean it just filtered up over centuries or even a millennia.
We would also have to check across the Adriatic. Perhaps there was a movement into Italy in the mid-to-late Bronze, but it was by people from parts of Greece or the Balkans.
It's much more complicated than amateurs have been proposing because they refused to accept that "additional" CHG/IN had been moving into southern Europe, and not just Italy, for a very long time.
I wonder about E-V13 too. When did it arrive? Was it really only with Magna Graecia, or was it also in the Bronze Age?
I do agree there's nothing to say that some people intruding from the north or northeast might have adopted the language of the locals. The Basques did it, after all.
To get back to this paper, one of the conclusions which some people are losing sight of is that most of the "admixture", even the most recent ones, took place from within Italy, i.e. people from the south moving north. That basically stopped with the fall of the Roman Empire, which led to some drift. It has resumed, which will change Italian genetics once again. Even I have contributed to it.
yes, but a slow infiltration would have left some genetic markers
which, despite efforts have not been detected yet
my guess is Estruscans are 'urbanised Villanovans', as CrazyDonkey puts it
in which case Villanovans would have been multilingual
Hittite empire and Urartu were multilingual too
in Urartu, Armenian language came into the written record, only after a dynastic switch
Hum, you get the same paradox to find up Urnfield (Celts) in a region that afterwards is not Celtic? a similar casa happens in Catalonia with Iberian, the Urnfield deliver cremation in pots and new pots but... language was not Celtic either.
what language would the people from the south, coming to northern Italy have spoken?
Semitic, Greek, something else?
Etruscan is not completely isolate, like Basque, but still it has very few relatives
what language would the people from the south, coming to northern Italy have spoken?
Semitic, Greek, something else?
Etruscan is not completely isolate, like Basque, but still it has very few relatives
I associate Semitic with the expansion of bronze from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. Which IMO would be the first candidate if Etruscan wasn't native to Italy.
But my guess is, Etruscan was an old neolithic/chalcolithis local laguage, which was adopted by some incoming IE people, which as you suggested may also have happened in Basque.
So the Etruscans colonized themselves, being that the Villanovans are the Etruscans. Villanovan is not the name of a people, it is the name of an Etruscan cultural facies.
Not true, archaeologically there are differentiations.
This thread has been viewed 333828 times.