# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Etruscans, where from, Anatolia, Africa or Italy?

## Sile

New paper which supports Etruscans came from ancient Libya and not Lydia

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013...-anatolia.html

there is also other internal links.

Some have said that Etruscans have always been in Italy

----------


## ebAmerican

There is nothing about Libya. It was a comment on the blog by another user, and not in Dienekes' post. The article is about indigenous or Anatolian.

----------


## Sile

> There is nothing about Libya. It was a comment on the blog by another user, and not in Dienekes' post. The article is about indigenous or Anatolian.


I agree with you, but the guy always quotes from Jewish biblical books.
Similar to this above theory from the book 
*The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria* By George Dennis 

States that the first inhabitants of Sardinia was the libyans, then etruscans, then greeks and lastly Iberians. It was only under Tiberius that the "etruscans" claimed they where from Lydia .............well that's another story

----------


## adamo

The stupidest thread I've ever seen. The Etruscans came from Lydia, western turkey, not Libya, and they set foot in Tuscany.

----------


## adamo

The "Etruscans where Libyans", now that is about the stupidest thing I think I've ever heard.

----------


## Sile

you need to open your eyes when talking about the ancients and throw away modern national borders. the libyans in the ancient times where a mix of egyptian, phoenician and cyrene greeks.

I also doubt that the etruscans where from Libya even more so since lately they have been assigned as coming from modern Georgia. The lydian connection seems dead now.
Ancient egyptian and greek scholars state


*It is possible, therefore, that the "Tursha" were the " Turseni," and that in consequence of this defeat they left their native land and founded the Etruscan colonies on the west coast of Italy — which were commenced about that time. Dr. Deecke has already pointed out the probability that the Tuirsa who attacked Egypt by sea in the time of Ramses III (twentieth dynasty, 980-810 B.C.) were the Turseni or Etruscans. They are represented on the paintings with pointed beards and hel- mets of Etruscan form.§ The very early signs of Egyptian culture visible in ancient Etruria, on which Deecke lays stress, may be explained by the proximity of the Libyo-Etruscans — the Tuirsa — to the Nile valley before they founded their Italian colonies. It is quite sure that the main body of the army of Mar-ajui was composed of the blonde type of the Berbers, as the Egyptian name applied to them on the monuments is thuheni, "the light-colored or fair- corn plexiohed people." 

*Again, while I agree my opinion of etruscans came more easterly, the lesson is to avoid modern ideas of people based on todays borders

----------


## adamo

The Lydian connection is not "dead" it doesn't matter where in the Middle East or Aegean region they came from, at one point, they established themselves ( these per-Etruscan types)'in western Anatolia as the "Lydians", so they may very well have come from Georgia or most probably turkey, before arriving in italy. Who knows, they may have been a Greek branch of middle eastern substratum types, such as Achaean or Ionian Greeks who are considered "pelasgians", a barbaric and non-Hellenic type of Greeks from the Middle East. What is known is that the fathers of tuscany's Etruscans was probably a man of Lydian origin (from western turkey).

----------


## Nobody1

> It is possible, therefore, that the "Tursha" were the " Turseni," and that in consequence of this defeat they left their native land and founded the Etruscan colonies on the west coast of Italy — which were commenced about that time. Dr. Deecke has already pointed out the probability that the Tuirsa who attacked Egypt by sea in the time of Ramses III (twentieth dynasty, 980-810 B.C.) were the Turseni or Etruscans. They are represented on the paintings with pointed beards and hel- mets of Etruscan form.§ The very early signs of Egyptian culture visible in ancient Etruria, on which Deecke lays stress, may be explained by the proximity of the Libyo-Etruscans — the Tuirsa — to the Nile valley before they founded their Italian colonies. It is quite sure that the main body of the army of Mar-ajui was composed of the *blonde type of the Berbers*, as the *Egyptian name* applied to them *on the monuments* is *thuheni*, "the light-colored or fair- corn plexiohed people"


The theory about the _Etruscans_ being Blonde (Berbers) Libyans is an old one;
There is also a theory about the _Etruscans_ being one of the Sea-Peoples [Teresh]

But im sticking to the ancient-Greek sources _Herodotus / Dionysius / Hellanicus_ that place the _Etruscans/Thyrrenians_ in the East Aegean [_Lydia/Thessaly_] as the Pelasgian _Tyrsenoi_;


also the study you quote doesnt mention anything about the _Blonde Berber_ theory; it just questions the Etruscan-Anatolian link based on modern Tuscan DNA;

_Tassi et al 2013_
_In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period._

----------


## Sile

> The theory about the _Etruscans_ being Blonde (Berbers) Libyans is an old one;
> There is also a theory about the _Etruscans_ being one of the Sea-Peoples [Teresh]
> 
> But im sticking to the ancient-Greek sources _Herodotus / Dionysius / Hellanicus_ that place the _Etruscans/Thyrrenians_ in the East Aegean [_Lydia/Thessaly_] as the Pelasgian _Tyrsenoi_;
> 
> 
> also the study you quote doesnt mention anything about the _Blonde Berber_ theory; it just questions the Etruscan-Anatolian link based on modern Tuscan DNA;
> 
> _Tassi et al 2013_
> _In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period._


You know how theories work, when theory A is replaced by theory B and later theory B is replaced by theory C, then theory A is revisited


Comparison of Libyan personal names from Corippus with Etruscan personal names from Corssen : LIBYAN. ETRUSCAN. 
afun, afuna. 
alantas, aledna.
ancus, ancan.
anestus, anes. 
arcan, arcenzios.
azan, ezunu. 
bezina, felzinal. 
buranto, fardana.
caggun, caicun. 


Something we can think about.


I am against this theory of libyan is Etruscan due to etruscan having very little of the ancient libya E-V65 marker

----------


## adamo

If Etruscan and Libyan names are in fact similar, this probably has a Phoenician explanation or derivation through Anatolian.

----------


## Bardhyl

Sile's theory seems logical, Similar names etc., 

Could there be a misinterpretation, cause Lydia Lybia is very similar too?

----------


## John123

Big misinterpretation. The Etruscans who changed their name to Tyrrhenians (after their leader tyyrhenus) derived from their Lydian ancestors that came from western turkey.

----------


## Nobody1

> Sile's theory seems logical, Similar names etc.,
> 
> Could there be a misinterpretation, cause Lydia Lybia is very similar too?


That the Tyrsenoi came from Lydia is from Herodotus and he is very specific about Thyrrenus and his people sailing/departing from Smyrna [I/XCIV]; Tyrsenoi was also the Greek designation of Pelasgians - usually found in the Aegean area;

The story about the blonde warriors called Tuirsa from Lybia being the Tyrsenoi is mostly a construct;
The Tuirsa were never even described as being from Lybia in the first place - they are described to have attacked Ramses III Egypt as pirates coming from the sea (abroad);

----------


## Sile

> That the Tyrsenoi came from Lydia is from Herodotus and he is very specific about Thyrrenus and his people sailing/departing from Smyrna [I/XCIV]; Tyrsenoi was also the Greek designation of Pelasgians - usually found in the Aegean area;
> 
> The story about the blonde warriors called Tuirsa from Lybia being the Tyrsenoi is mostly a construct;
> The Tuirsa were never even described as being from Lybia in the first place - they are described to have attacked Ramses III Egypt as pirates coming from the sea (abroad);


what about these 2013 papers

*Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia* 

Francesca Tassi et al. 

The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period. 

Link

----------


## Nobody1

> what about these 2013 papers
> 
> *Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia* 
> 
> Francesca Tassi et al. 
> 
> The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period. 
> 
> Link


addressed on post#8 / 03-08-13_

Tassi et al 2013
In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period._ 

It simply states that the Tuscan - Anatolian link is older (pos. Neolithic) than the Historic Pelasgian migration recorded; How certain that is i dont know; and how the blonde Libyans are supposed to factor into all this (the Anatolian link / Tassi et al 2013) i also do not know;

----------


## John123

And then there are other studies that DO show a genetic link, and the stories as Nobody1 pointed out of the Lydian's having left turkey from Smyrna. And the stories of founders of colonies all along the Swahili coast including Zanzibar having come from the port of Hormuz (Hormuz straight) near Oman spreading T in these tribes as far away as Madagascar and Mogadishu.

----------


## John123

This migration took place long afterwards of course. In what concerns the Lydians, I believe their motivation for not having settled nearby Greece was that they were heavily associated with Troy and their ancient Hittite derivatives, thus the Greeks would have been their enemies.

----------


## albanopolis

> This migration took place long afterwards of course. In what concerns the Lydians, I believe their motivation for not having settled nearby Greece was that they were heavily associated with Troy and their ancient Hittite derivatives, thus the Greeks would have been their enemies.


how did they know Toscany? Why Other Toscans let them settle in their lands? How many of them were? How did they get there?All these questins lead one to beleve that Toscan were a native of Italy.

----------


## John123

They didn't know Tuscany. They simply landed there and found the environment to be favourable to Their needs in terms of space and relative land fertility. The Etruscans sacked 300 Umbrian cities, to give you an idea of how. They got there by boat, they did so before Greek colonizations of magna graecia but after the Phoenicians sailed the Mediterranean.

----------


## Diviacus

> They didn't know Tuscany. They simply landed there and found the environment to be favourable to Their needs in terms of space and relative land fertility. The Etruscans sacked 300 Umbrian cities, to give you an idea of how. They got there by boat, they did so before Greek colonizations of magna graecia but after the Phoenicians sailed the Mediterranean.


The origin of the Etruscans have been explained in the Vth century: Hellanicos of Lesbos for the Pelasgian hypothesis, Herodotus for the Lydian origin. These stories are clearly considered as legends by the present scholars.
On the opposite, Dyonisius claimed they were autochtonal, as he wanted to show that Rome was a Greek town, and the only one. 
All these stories are of the same type than the stories claiming Rome has been founded by the Trojans or Caesar decsended from Venus, and the multitude of other fanciful stories.

----------


## John123

And where did the pelasgians come from, when they landed in Crete for example? Western turkey, the pelasgians invaded the Mediterranean (brought some of their people) to the Mediterranean via turkey.

----------


## John123

Historically, there must have been across Greece, 1. An invasion of people from Turkey (look at how high % J2a haplotypes there are on Crete, pelasgians) and I postulate 2. Egypt (the danaids). These were two different groups bringing independently J2 and E3b towards Greece. As I've postulated many times Minoan culture (centered on Crete) was predominantly J2/J2a and later/conquering Mycenean culture was E-V13 (E3b)/J2 (J2b predominance).The Dorians where likely indo-European R1 people, I suspect R1b.

----------


## John123

Minoan: J2a
Mycenean: E-V13/J2b
Dorian: The R1 arrivals (R1b) postulation is in parentheses.

I think the "Aegyptus" and danaids story is legend as it was a progressive (historical) rather than direct migration. A movement over many generations from egypt towards the levant, eventually ending up in Anatolia and then migrating directly to the southern Balkan Peninsula

----------


## MOESAN

> what about these 2013 papers
> 
> *Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia* 
> 
> Francesca Tassi et al. 
> 
> The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period. 
> 
> Link


what we need is ancient DNA from well identified Etruscans sepultures and even like that we are not sure the Etrucans nobility did not incorporate members of the autochtonous previous elite: it seems Etruscans were firstable a small sized elite population having taken the strong side over Villanova culture people, among whom there was surely already some heterogeneity so... and had they a well balanced males-females original population at first arrival? it looks as everybody have some agenda in these tudies?... I prefer, waiting more sure data, believe in an pre-indo-european speaking population (language close to one of the Caucasus ones?) from Western Anatolia or even from North Levant - as a whole the present days Toscan population shows less lonks with these eatsern countries than Southern Italians or Greeks -

----------


## MOESAN

Pelasgian is a confusing term, used for I-Eans and not I-Eans - 
just for the pleasure I recall the Alinei thesis, seeing the Etruscans as people came through land and speaking a kind of Turkic language which some terms were inbodied in today magyar language of Hungary - the only link I see and_ it seems very uncertain_, is the hardening of stops in magyar, in the rhaetic ancient zone and the non-sonorization of romance in central and southern Italy, contrary to castillan, portuguese, french, walloon - the present day rhaetic lands knew big changes during history I think, albeit in some valleys, beacuse the Celts and Ligurians were neigbouring the Rhaetians - the today Switzerland romance language are closer to gallo-italic and french dialects concerning this sounds problems, than to central Italians... by the way, romanian did not sonorize as italian - with a very great imagination we could figure out a way from Anatolia through Danau river unti the Alps and then southwards into Italy, replacing "turkic" by something else, non I-Ean???... speculations

----------


## MOESAN

I add that Etruscans seemed good sailors so a maritime way still seems the better bet, helas for Alinei's thesis!

----------


## Sile

> addressed on post#8 / 03-08-13_
> 
> Tassi et al 2013
> In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period._ 
> 
> It simply states that the Tuscan - Anatolian link is older (pos. Neolithic) than the Historic Pelasgian migration recorded; How certain that is i dont know; and how the blonde Libyans are supposed to factor into all this (the Anatolian link / Tassi et al 2013) i also do not know;


your forgetting something important from the paper.
The Etruscans have been known to us in Italy from around 800BC ...............to today which = less than 3000 years. 
The paper indicates that *IF* they came via anatolia there is a 4000 year gap between Anatolia and Italy times, which means, where did these Etruscans "hide" in this 4000 year period?

----------


## Sile

> what we need is ancient DNA from well identified Etruscans sepultures and even like that we are not sure the Etrucans nobility did not incorporate members of the autochtonous previous elite: it seems Etruscans were firstable a small sized elite population having taken the strong side over Villanova culture people, among whom there was surely already some heterogeneity so... and had they a well balanced males-females original population at first arrival? it looks as everybody have some agenda in these tudies?... I prefer, waiting more sure data, believe in an pre-indo-european speaking population (language close to one of the Caucasus ones?) from Western Anatolia or even from North Levant - as a whole the present days Toscan population shows less lonks with these eatsern countries than Southern Italians or Greeks -


Lets looks logically at the facts
Its stated that the etruscans and raeti are related, its stated in the paper that there is a gap of thousands of years between leaving "anatolia" and settling in Italy. The only logical choice is that ........since raeti are older than Etruscans and the paper states etruscans are from modern german alpine area, then the logic would be that Etruscans are a sub-branch of the raeti..........I see no other system which makes logical sense.

----------


## Nobody1

The Etruscans are ultimately Pelasgians (Tyrsenoi);

Thucydides (IV/CIX) equates the Tyrsenoi with the Pelasgians that once inhabited Lemnos - which corresponds perfectly to the discovered *Lemnos stele* and its similar language to Etruscan on it;


Herodotus (I/XCIV) describes how the Tyrsenoi migrated from Lydia to the land of the Ombrici/Ούμπρι (i.e. Indo-Europeans Umbrians / Urnfield-Villanova) and the Pelasgians as a people are variously recorded (Homer/Herodotus and others) in Thessaly, Arcadia, Anatolia, Crete and Lemnos; Dionysius (I/XVIII) describes how a vast Pelasgian migration took place (11th cen BC) from Thessaly into Italy and how these Pelasgians allied and inter-mingled with the Aborigines (Umbrians);

The latest study _Ghirotto et al 2013 -_ [30 Etruscan samples / 6 diff. sites]
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0055519

Has revealed that the maternal lineage (mtDNA) of the Etruscan civilization is almost identical with that of Neolithic (European) farmers; Which would mean that either the Indo-European Umbrians (Ombrici/Ούμπρι) inter-mingled with the female Neolothic pop. and thus preserved that lineage or the Tyrsenoi from the East Medit. brought their own females and are essentially of the same stock as the Neolithic pop.; Something i see with the Raeti;

An amateur on the i-net managed to deduce most Etruscan mtDNA Hg's to be JT or U5;
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...-comments.html

----------


## John123

This several thousand year gap thing needs to be re-explained to me I don't get it. The Etruscans were heavily decimated by Gauls arriving from the north (just as they had terrorized the Umbrians earlier) and they arrived in Tuscany before the Greek colonization of magna graecia; this could explain their weaker signature in Tuscany than the Greek signature in the south. I've actually seen tdna maps showing higher middle astern HV and several more near eastern U clades having a light extra higher frequency perfectly distributed across Tuscany.

----------


## Nobody1

> your forgetting something important from the paper.
> The Etruscans have been known to us in Italy from around 800BC ...............to today which = less than 3000 years. 
> The paper indicates that *IF* they came via anatolia there is a 4000 year gap between Anatolia and Italy times, which means, where did these Etruscans "hide" in this 4000 year period?


But the study does clearly confirm the Tuscan-Anatolian link just like previous studies before it;
It only does *not* (like previous studies before it) conclude and connect it to Herodotus and the Lydians but from way before that migration - pos. the Neolithic;

_Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period. 

_Now all that is based on modern Tuscans not Etruscans;
Which could mean that the Pelasgians are virtually (not much surprise) of the same stock as the Neolithic pop. and thus just an additional boost;

----------


## Sile

> But the study does clearly confirm the Tuscan-Anatolian link just like previous studies before it;
> It only does *not* (like previous studies before it) conclude and connect it to Herodotus and the Lydians but from way before that migration - pos. the Neolithic;
> 
> _Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period. 
> 
> _Now all that is based on modern Tuscans not Etruscans;
> Which could mean that the Pelasgians are virtually (not much surprise) of the same stock as the Neolithic pop. and thus just an additional boost;


but the gap in years is too too much, they ( etruscans) must have lived somewhere between Lydia and Tuscany.
Also the Mesolithic Pelasgians seem only ancient pre-proto Greeks ( achaens) to me. did the etruscans live in these southern modern Greek lands?

----------


## LeBrok

> but the *gap in years is too too much*, they ( etruscans) must have lived somewhere between *Lydia and Tuscany*.
> Also the Mesolithic Pelasgians seem only ancient pre-proto Greeks ( achaens) to me. did the etruscans live in these southern modern Greek lands?


You realize that one is temporal distance the other geographical? Just because there is a "time distance" when we don't know much about them, it doesn't mean they needed to be somewhere else than Lydia or Tuscany. They've could have been all the time in Tuscany. Just because we don't have any previous records it doesn't mean they couldn't exist there,...and of course they might have been anywhere else too.

----------


## Taranis

> The Etruscans are ultimately Pelasgians (Tyrsenoi);
> 
> Thucydides (IV/CIX) equates the Tyrsenoi with the Pelasgians that once inhabited Lemnos - which corresponds perfectly to the discovered *Lemnos stele* and its similar language to Etruscan on it;
> 
> Herodotus (I/XCIV) describes how the Tyrsenoi migrated from Lydia to the land of the Ombrici/Ούμπρι (i.e. Indo-Europeans Umbrians / Urnfield-Villanova) and the Pelasgians as a people are variously recorded (Homer/Herodotus and others) in Thessaly, Arcadia, Anatolia, Crete and Lemnos; Dionysius (I/XVIII) describes how a vast Pelasgian migration took place (11th cen BC) from Thessaly into Italy and how these Pelasgians allied and inter-mingled with the Aborigines (Umbrians);
> 
> The latest study _Ghirotto et al 2013 -_ [30 Etruscan samples / 6 diff. sites]
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0055519
> 
> ...


I agree on the Etruscan-Lemnian connection, but I'd advise caution on the usage of the term "Pelasgian", as that term meant a various number things to ancient authors, including _the ancestors of the Greeks themselves_. In the linguistic sense, it may mean "pre-Greek substrate", there is no connection with Etruscan. Whatever Pre-Greek languages (Minoan?) were spoken in Greece, Etruscan wasn't one of them.

I'm personally in favour of the idea that the Etruscans were immigrants from Anatolia (though where exactly there, is a lot less clear, but you should consider that the ethnic makeup of Anatolia was changed several times over), that probably arrived in Italy during the Bronze Age collapse in the eastern Mediterranean.

There's also the (minority) view that the Etruscans were "autochthonous" to Italy. Or, at least, technically, _Neolithic_ immigrants rather than Bronze Age ones, also originally from Anatolia and if we are fair, the genetic evidence is ambiguous of that. However, I have my doubts about that view.

I would rule out an African origin, because Etruscan has no proven genetic relationship with any one of the Afrasian language families along the Mediterranean (Berber, Egyptian or Semitic).

----------


## Sile

> You realize that one is temporal distance the other geographical? Just because there is a "time distance" when we don't know much about them, it doesn't mean they needed to be somewhere else than Lydia or Tuscany. They've could have been all the time in Tuscany. Just because we don't have any previous records it doesn't mean they couldn't exist there,...and of course they might have been anywhere else too.


yes that's true, but if they stayed in anatolia, they would be linked by someone to some tribe and this link would be written down.
they are ONLY "recognised" in Tuscany from 800BC .......and yes these might be on bardic tales

If they where in Tuscany older than 800BC then they where known as something else

----------


## Nobody1

> I agree on the Etruscan-Lemnian connection, but I'd advise caution on the usage of the term "Pelasgian", as that term meant a various number things to ancient authors, including _the ancestors of the Greeks themselves_. In the linguistic sense, it may mean "pre-Greek substrate", there is no connection with Etruscan. Whatever Pre-Greek languages (Minoan?) were spoken in Greece, Etruscan wasn't one of them.


*Herodotus -* I/LVII
_What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any certainty....if, I say, we are to form a conjecture from any of these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language. If this were really so, and the entire Pelasgic race spoke the same tongue, the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body;_ 

Not even the Greek scholars of the 5th cen BC knew what language the Pelasgians spoke; Despite Herodotus going on in LVIII that the Hellenic race is a branch of the Pelasgic but is clear that the Hellenic body rejected this '_barbarous language_';

I understand the caution with the term "Pelasgian" - however Dionysius specifically states (I/XVII-XVIII) that it was *Pelasgians*/Πελασγῶν who migrated from Thessaly via the Adriatic into the mouth of the Po and intermingled with the Aborigines when moving south into Apennines; Specifically *Πελασγῶν*; And both Thucydides and Sophocles used Tyrsenoi as a synonym for Pelasgian; Also Hellanicus (_Phoronis_) describes a Pelasgian migration from Thessaly into Italy and makes these Pelasgians the ancestors of the Etruscans; Dionysius further describes the union (hybrid) with the pre-existing Aborigines/Umbrians;




> I'm personally in favour of the idea that the Etruscans were immigrants from Anatolia (though where exactly there, is a lot less clear, but you should consider that the ethnic makeup of Anatolia was changed several times over), that probably arrived in Italy during the Bronze Age collapse in the eastern Mediterranean.


The Bronze-age collapse also corresponds with the dating in Classical History; The Pelasgians entering Italy in Dionysius (I/XVII-XVIII) is connected to the expulsion of the Siculi which fled/migrated to Sicily acc. to Thucydides (VI/XVIII) 300 years before the first Greek Colony existed in Sicily; First Greek colony was Naxos ~735BC - meaning 11th cen BC i.e. after the Bronze-age collapse; 
Where exactly the Tyrsenoi/Pelasgians came from whether Anatolia/Thessaly/Lemnos is actually secondary - same region same culture same (Pelasgian) people;

The Etruscan civilization is a hybrid of Tyrsenoi and Umbrians - with the Umbrians being Indo-Europeans of the Urnfield expansion [~1200BC] and the Tyrsenoi being Pelasgians from the East Medit. Bronze-age and arriving after the Umbrians; One of the main Archaeological aspects (+many more) that illustrate the hybrid civilization and influence is the burial rite;

*Roland Fell -* Etruria and Rome (1924) - Cambridge Uni. 
_Cremation is characteristic of cemeteries of the Villanova type, but the Etruscans undoubtedly used both cremation and inhumation at an early time. It is difficult to see why if the Etruscans were merely the same Italic stock as the Villanova people in a later stage of culture, they should have adopted a different rite in south Etruria almost universally....Further north (especially round Chiusi, Perugia and Volterra) cremation was far commoner....at Marzabotto cremation is prevalent though not universal...the Etruscan necropolis of Bologna, according to Grenier, shews both cremation and inhumation in the proportion of 2:3....in the 'circle-tombs' of Vetulonia the remains were nearly always cremated, in the large necropolis of Marsiliana which has yielded precisely similar furniture inhumation predominates, and there is no distinction in locality or contents between the cremation and inhumation tombs._

----------


## Diviacus

> The Etruscans are ultimately Pelasgians (Tyrsenoi)


*RSP Beekes: Pre-Greek, Leiden 2007*
_As to `Pelasgian' and related theories which assume an Indo-European substratum in Greece, these theories have failed, and I no longer mention them (in my etymological dictionary). The theory has been extensively discussed by Furnee (37-68). `Pelasgian' has done much harm, and it is time to definitely reject it. The latest attempt was Heubeck's `Minoisch-Mykenische' (discussed by Furnee 55- 66), where the material was reduced to some ten words; the theory has been tacitly abandoned._

----------


## Nobody1

> *RSP Beekes: Pre-Greek, Leiden 2007*
> _As to `Pelasgian' and related theories which assume an Indo-European substratum in Greece, these theories have failed, and I no longer mention them (in my etymological dictionary). The theory has been extensively discussed by Furnee (37-68). `Pelasgian' has done much harm, and it is time to definitely reject it. The latest attempt was Heubeck's `Minoisch-Mykenische' (discussed by Furnee 55- 66), where the material was reduced to some ten words; the theory has been tacitly abandoned._


Pelasgian is not an Indo-European language and neither is Thyrrenian nor Lemnian;
The Quote you Quoted is about Linguists being false at asserting an Indo-European substrate in Greece via the Pelasgians/Minoans;

----------


## kamani

Just throwing a random fact out there: Kosovars autosomally on 23AndMe score almost 100% Balkan, which makes them very old in the area. They also score very close to Tuscans on the genetic distance map; paradoxically much closer than Albanians who have more genetic influence by the Romans. This to me is proof of a Neolithic/Early Bronze Age link between the Balkans and Tuscany.

----------


## Sile

> Pelasgian is not an Indo-European language and neither is Thyrrenian nor Lemnian;
> The Quote you Quoted is about Linguists being false at asserting an Indo-European substrate in Greece via the Pelasgians/Minoans;


IIRC, pelasgians are placed from modern istanbul to modern greek thrace province land, bordering modern greek macedonia province. They have always been european and not associated with the phygians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komotini
being its central (epicentre) spot

----------


## Greying Wanderer

I had assumed "Pelasgian" refers to the pre Indo-European farmer population that were gradually over-run by the IE expansion so my answer would be Anatolia (or the Levant) originally but via a lot of other steps i.e.
Anatolia/Levant -> Thessaly/Thrace
Thessaly/Thrace -> daughter colonies either along the coast or up the Danube
daughter colony -> daughter colony
daughter colony -> daughter colony
daughter colony -> daughter colony
etc
until finally arrive in Tuscany.


edit: also nb there were two routes from the same place to the same place i.e. Thessaly/Thrace to Etruria via the Danube route or via the coastal route so just for example if the Etruscans were originally Rhaeti via the Danube route and got pushed into Etruria by the advancing IE Umbrians also from the Danube route while the IE Latins arrive south of them via the coastal route. (I'm not suggesting this as I don't know the details just saying the two routes should always be borne in mind as it allows all kinds of odd results.)

----------


## Nobody1

> IIRC, pelasgians are placed from modern istanbul to modern greek thrace province land, bordering modern greek macedonia province. They have always been european and not associated with the phygians.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komotini
> being its central (epicentre) spot


Not just there;
Pelasgians (in Ancient/Classical History) are placed in Anatolia, Thessaly, Peloponnese, Attica, Crete, Lemnos and Italy;

Exactly;
Pelasgians are not associated with the Phrygians; 
Phrygians are Thracians (Indo-Europeans) that crossed into Anatolia after the Hittite Empire (Indo-European) collapsed;
Pelasgians are the pre-(non)-Indo-European people of that region - a Bronze-age people that emerged from the vast Neolithic stocks and cultures in that region; Which could be the link to the Raeti (i.e. broader neolithic stock);

----------


## Sile

> Not just there;
> Which could be the link to the Raeti (i.e. broader neolithic stock);


well, studies show ( 2013 Austrian studies of G ) the raetic G marker is said to originate on the northern black sea coast , while the Greek G is more Caucasian area

----------


## Nobody1

> well, studies show ( 2013 Austrian studies of G ) the raetic G marker is said to originate on the northern black sea coast , while the Greek G is more Caucasian area


Thats correct;
But is the Raetic G closer to Ötzi (G2a-L91) or closer to modern-day Alpine pops. (G2a-L497)?

----------


## Taranis

> Not just there;
> Pelasgians (in Ancient/Classical History) are placed in Anatolia, Thessaly, Peloponnese, Attica, Crete, Lemnos and Italy;
> 
> Exactly;
> Pelasgians are not associated with the Phrygians; 
> Phrygians are Thracians (Indo-Europeans) that crossed into Anatolia after the Hittite Empire (Indo-European) collapsed;


Again, what, if anything, is "Pelasgian"?  :Wary: 




> Pelasgians are the pre-(non)-Indo-European people of that region - a Bronze-age people that emerged from the vast Neolithic stocks and cultures in that region; Which could be the link to the Raeti (i.e. broader neolithic stock);


By your definition then, "Pelasgian" is more or less synonymous with "Pre-Greek". I ask you though, what evidence is there for an Etruscan substrate in Greek? Michael Ventris had the working hypothesis that Linear B would uncover an early form of Etruscan, but he was wrong about that because to his surprise, Linear B turned out to actually yield an earlier form of Greek...  :Laughing: 

In my opinion, its likely that Minoan was one of these Pre-Greek languages, and I would also say that - likely - one of the Pre-Greek languages was a Semitic language, but I have yet to see evidence for an Etruscan substratum in Greece.

I would be likewise careful with the interpretation of "Rhaetian". While it is undoubtably true that some of the "Raetian" inscriptions show a language that is very similar to Etruscan, these have been only found in the region around South Tyrol. The rest of "Rhaetia" was inhabited by Indo-European (Celtic, but not only that) peoples. For instance, there is no evidence for a "Rhaetic" presence at Lake Constance or Lake Geneva. I find it unlikely that the Rhaetians were the remnants of a Neolithic peoples (wouldn't they be more widespread all across the Alps?). In my opinion, its more plausible that these "Rhaetians" were the remains of those Etruscans that originally inhabited the Po river plain and were driven into the mountains by the Gallic incursions into northern Italy.

----------


## Sile

> Again, what, if anything, is "Pelasgian"? 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, its more plausible that these "Rhaetians" were the remains of those Etruscans that originally inhabited the Po river plain and were driven into the mountains by the Gallic incursions into northern Italy.


The problem with your scenario is that east raetic, west raetic, lepontic, camunic and venetic ( I see it originally as euganei script) script, are very similar. Etruscan does not exactly belong to all these clearly. It seems to be another branch

2 - Who do you mean by gallic incursions?..........as some refer to ancient Liguri as the first gallic invasion, the next incursions brought the cennomani and similar. 

3 - I agree that etruscan and raetic are only linked in south west south tyrol, .............but that could only be due to linguistic trade and commerce

Going by 2013 papers I believe the etruscans came from raetic stock and not that raetic came from etruscan stock

----------


## Taranis

> The problem with your scenario is that east raetic, west raetic, lepontic, camunic and venetic ( I see it originally as euganei script) script, are very similar. Etruscan does not exactly belong to all these clearly. It seems to be another branch


Sile, you are confusing something here, namely the _script_ and the _language recorded with that script_. I do not deny your claim that all the alphabets used at the edge of the Alps (Raetic, Camunnic, Lepontic, Venetic, etc.) are all very similar, and different from the original Etruscan alphabet, but I was not talking about the scripts in my post, I was talking about the languages. As I said, the only area where the "real" Raetic inscriptions (in the sense that record a _language_ that is similar to Etruscan) have turned up is the region around South Tyrol. The other languages were clearly unrelated with Etruscan: Lepontic for one was a Celtic language (the oldest uncontested samples of a Celtic languages, in fact), while Venetic was also an Indo-European language that was however closer related with the Italic languages. By definition, neither were related with Etruscan.




> 2 - Who do you mean by gallic incursions?..........as some refer to ancient Liguri as the first gallic invasion, the next incursions brought the cennomani and similar.


I meant the incursions that eventually lead to the siege of Rome under Brennus in the 380s BC. As I posted in the link, the Roman authors were well aware that the Po river plain was originally Etruscan, while by the time that the Romans conquered said area, it was dominated by Celtic peoples.




> 3 - I agree that etruscan and raetic are only linked in south west south tyrol, .............but that could only be due to linguistic trade and commerce
> 
> Going by 2013 papers I believe the etruscans came from raetic stock and not that raetic came from etruscan stock


Where is your evidence though (as I said, the genetic evidence points towards an immigration from Anatolia, what I concede is that the timing of that immigration can be debated), and what do you make of Lemnian in your scenario if you say the languages were originally native to the Alps?

----------


## Nobody1

> Again, what, if anything, is "Pelasgian"?


For starters - 
All those who were designated as Pelasgian/Pelasgoi [Tyrsenoi/Arkades/Aigialees] in classical History;




> By your definition then, "Pelasgian" is more or less synonymous with "Pre-Greek". I ask you though, what evidence is there for an Etruscan substrate in Greek? Michael Ventris had the working hypothesis that Linear B would uncover an early form of Etruscan, but he was wrong about that because to his surprise, Linear B turned out to actually yield an earlier form of Greek...


Yes; acc. to my definition Pelasgian is a part of the pre-Greek (pre-Indo-European Hellenic) population but not a substrate in Greek; Because my understanding of your premise and expectations to find a Pelasgian substrate in Greek is false; 

What *Lemnian* substrate is there in Greek?

Thucydides (IV/CIX) describes that the Pelasgians - specifically the _Tyrrheno-Pelasgians_ - inhabited Lemnos; From Archaeology and Linguistics we know that the Language on all the inscriptions from Lemnos and Etruria are of an identical language and correspond with Hellanicus (_Phoronis_) Dionysius (I/XVII-XVIII) and Herodotus (I/XCIV) describing a Pelasgian migration into Italy and derive them to be the ancestors of the Etruscans; 

Based on that Lemnian and Etruscan are *a* (_maybe the_) Pelasgian language; It does not get any more clearer than Ancient Historians describing them as Pelasgians (common/same people) and Archaeology and Linguistics confirming a belonging to a common language family - i.e. having identical languages;




> In my opinion, its likely that Minoan was one of these Pre-Greek languages, and I would also say that - likely - one of the Pre-Greek languages was a Semitic language, but I have yet to see evidence for an Etruscan substratum in Greece.


What this non-Greek substrate is i do not know but its not Etruscan or Lemnian - which are the only languages fit to be Pelasgian; And that no Pelasgian substrate exists in Greek is not surprising from Herodotus (I/LVII) - keeping in mind that Pelasgian was still spoken in his times on the Hellespont;




> I would be likewise careful with the interpretation of "Rhaetian". While it is undoubtably true that some of the "Raetian" inscriptions show a language that is very similar to Etruscan, these have been only found in the region around South Tyrol. The rest of "Rhaetia" was inhabited by Indo-European (Celtic, but not only that) peoples.


The Raeti and the peoples of Raetia is something me and Sile have already discussed on another thread - 
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...n-Italian-Alps

Just a quick summery (sources in the thread above):
The Alpine section of Raetia was non-Indo-European Raeti and Indo-European Illyrian the Veneti further south being equally Illyrian as the Vindelici (Genauni/Breuni);
The Alpine section of Noricum was Indo-European Keltic;
The Raeti would be the independent remnant of the Neolithic pop. (passage in Strabo) not the subjugated one i.e by emerging Indo-Europeans;
Raetic is not identical (1to1) with Etruscan and so the similarities could be a broader connection and not a specific one;




> In my opinion, its more plausible that these "Rhaetians" were the remains of those Etruscans that originally inhabited the Po river plain and were driven into the mountains by the Gallic incursions into northern Italy.


Thats the fable of the Keltic prince-brothers Segovesus and Bellovesus - recorded by Livius and Plinius; 

The reason the 600 BC Keltic migration of Prince Bellovesus remains a fable is because it does not correspond to Archaeology; No changes/breaks in the Po-valley (Golasecca) and no changes/breaks in the Alpine area (Laugen-Melaun); Which would be a necessary must with such migrations; On the other hand the Keltic/Gauls migration of Livius and Plinius of 400 BC shows all these necessary Archaeological (LaTene) changes and inputs; 

Another aspect is of course the language - if it were Etruscans from the Po-valley lead by Raetus than Raetic itself would not differ that greatly to Etruscan it would be / should be exactly the same; 

*LMU München*: Raeti/Raeter
http://videoonline.edu.lmu.de/en/node/621/0
http://videoonline.edu.lmu.de/en/node/610
http://videoonline.edu.lmu.de/en/win...r-2008-2009/07

----------


## Taranis

> For starters - 
> All those who were designated as Pelasgian/Pelasgoi [Tyrsenoi/Arkades/Aigialees] in classical History;


The problem is that the designations used by ancient authors are often vage, and should be questioned if they actually hold up as valid definitions for ethnic or linguistic groups.




> Yes; acc. to my definition Pelasgian is a part of the pre-Greek (pre-Indo-European Hellenic) population but not a substrate in Greek; Because my understanding of your premise and expectations to find a Pelasgian substrate in Greek is false;


The premise isn't false. Greek very much has a share of vocabulary that it hasn't inherited from Proto-Indo-European (an example would be "_χρυσος_", gold, and "_ξιφος_", sword, which both can be linked with the Semitic languages), and its likely to assume that this is a substrate (or, perhaps, an adstrate). The problem really starts when you make far-out assumptions like claiming that the substrate was Indo-European. As I said, its probably that one of the Pre-Greek languages certainly was Minoan, but since the language itself is virtually undeciphered (Linear A), we do not know for certain. My point is merely that if the Etruscans (and related languages, including Lemnian) were originally native to Greece we should expect an Etruscan/Lemnian/Raetic substrate in the language. Since we do not see it, my hunch is that - Lemnos excluded for obvious reasons - there is no evidence for an extensive Etruscan settlement in Greece.

In contrast, if the Etruscans were originally from Anatolia, however, the situation is a lot less clear as the ethnic makeup of the peninsula was changed multiple times over before the Hellenistic period, so it might be that some of the linguistic evidence we look for is now lost.




> What *Lemnian* substrate is there in Greek?
> 
> Thucydides (IV/CIX) describes that the Pelasgians - specifically the _Tyrrheno-Pelasgians_ - inhabited Lemnos; From Archaeology and Linguistics we know that the Language on all the inscriptions from Lemnos and Etruria are of an identical language and correspond with Hellanicus (_Phoronis_) Dionysius (I/XVII-XVIII) and Herodotus (I/XCIV) describing a Pelasgian migration into Italy and derive them to be the ancestors of the Etruscans; 
> 
> Based on that Lemnian and Etruscan are *a* (_maybe the_) Pelasgian language; It does not get any more clearer than Ancient Historians describing them as Pelasgians (common/same people) and Archaeology and Linguistics confirming a belonging to a common language family - i.e. having identical languages;
> 
> What this non-Greek substrate is i do not know but its not Etruscan or Lemnian - which are the only languages fit to be Pelasgian; And that no Pelasgian substrate exists in Greek is not surprising from Herodotus (I/LVII) - keeping in mind that Pelasgian was still spoken in his times on the Hellespont;
> 
> The Raeti and the peoples of Raetia is something me and Sile have already discussed on another thread - 
> ...


The Vindelici were evidently Celtic, as evidenced by even the name itself (plus other names, notably Kempten, _Cambodunum_), and little to do with the Illyrians. I'd also be careful with the ad-hoc identification of the Veneti as "Illyrians". Based on the names found in their area, there appears to be a connection between the Liburnians and the Veneti, but the Dalmatians were unrelated (they are also, in my current opinion, the best candidates for the ancestors of the current Albanians, but I do not wish to start on that matter in here).

The point I was trying to make is that the concept of "Rhaetians" that the Romans is a very vage one, and it does not hold up to a closer analysis, since the "Rhaetians" can be boiled down into different ethnolinguistic groups.




> The Alpine section of Noricum was Indo-European Keltic;
> The Raeti would be the independent remnant of the Neolithic pop. (passage in Strabo) not the subjugated one i.e by emerging Indo-Europeans;
> Raetic is not identical (1to1) with Etruscan and so the similarities could be a broader connection and not a specific one;





> Thats the fable of the Keltic prince-brothers Segovesus and Bellovesus - recorded by Livius and Plinius; 
> 
> The reason the 600 BC Keltic migration of Prince Bellovesus remains a fable is because it does not correspond to Archaeology; No changes/breaks in the Po-valley (Golasecca) and no changes/breaks in the Alpine area (Laugen-Melaun); Which would be a necessary must with such migrations; On the other hand the Keltic/Gauls migration of Livius and Plinius of 400 BC shows all these necessary Archaeological (LaTene) changes and inputs;


Whatever the source of that story by Livy is, I wasn't refering to it. I was refering to the La-Tene expansion.




> Another aspect is of course the language - if it were Etruscans from the Po-valley lead by Raetus than Raetic itself would not differ that greatly to Etruscan it would be / should be exactly the same;


Stop. You're making an assumption here that I did not. Namely that the annectode of Raetus is necessarily to be held true to the word, and that the name "Raetians" explicitly applies to the "real" Raetians.

There is no necessary reason it should be "exactly the same". First off, despite the relatively limited corpus, Etruscan is known to have had a bit of variability in it (the Cortona Tablet is an example that immediately comes to my mind). Also, look at the modern world. I'm not talking about the differences between American and British English (though that's an example, too), but look at the difference between English spoken around London, and the English of Yorkshire. Or, in German, the difference between Hessian and Kölsch. Why should a Raetian from the area around (modern) Bolzano have spoken exactly the same language as someone from, say, Tarquinia?

----------


## Sile

> The problem is that the designations used by ancient authors are often vage, and should be questioned if they actually hold up as valid definitions for ethnic or linguistic groups.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise isn't false. Greek very much has a share of vocabulary that it hasn't inherited from Proto-Indo-European (an example would be "_χρυσος_", gold, and "_ξιφος_", sword, which both can be linked with the Semitic languages), and its likely to assume that this is a substrate (or, perhaps, an adstrate). The problem really starts when you make far-out assumptions like claiming that the substrate was Indo-European. As I said, its probably that one of the Pre-Greek languages certainly was Minoan, but since the language itself is virtually undeciphered (Linear A), we do not know for certain. My point is merely that if the Etruscans (and related languages, including Lemnian) were originally native to Greece we should expect an Etruscan/Lemnian/Raetic substrate in the language. Since we do not see it, my hunch is that - Lemnos excluded for obvious reasons - there is no evidence for an extensive Etruscan settlement in Greece.





> In contrast, if the Etruscans were originally from Anatolia, however, the situation is a lot less clear as the ethnic makeup of the peninsula was changed multiple times over before the Hellenistic period, so it might be that some of the linguistic evidence we look for is now lost.


do not know when lemnos became greek,? the 2013 paper states the etruscans left anatolia around 5600BC...........lemnos can easily be classified as anatolia and its close enough to be pelasgian.




> The Vindelici were evidently Celtic, as evidenced by even the name itself (plus other names, notably Kempten, _Cambodunum_), and little to do with the Illyrians. I'd also be careful with the ad-hoc identification of the Veneti as "Illyrians". Based on the names found in their area, there appears to be a connection between the Liburnians and the Veneti, but the Dalmatians were unrelated (they are also, in my current opinion, the best candidates for the ancestors of the current Albanians, but I do not wish to start on that matter in here).


Vindelici where named after two previously named raetic rivers in the area, its celtinization change was when the celts moved from central and central northwest germany into alpine germany.

- Veneti .............we wait on Harvard testing the 27 skeletons found in Turkmenistan which some claim to be the birth place of the veneti ..............but logically the veneti "inherited" venetic script/languages from the existing raetic/euganei tribes .............something like the normans learnt french after taking normandy.

Dalmatians as albanians..?.........doubt this...there is Dalmatian written text up to the 16th century ............it would have already been "married" to albanian if they where similar.




> The point I was trying to make is that the concept of "Rhaetians" that the Romans is a very vage one, and it does not hold up to a closer analysis, since the "Rhaetians" can be boiled down into different ethnolinguistic groups.


yes there where 45 tribes, but that could be said about the illyrians as well............a geographical term


To conclude , 2 hungarian linguistics deciphered Raetic as an ancient semetic language ............no comment

----------


## Bardhyl

Sile you're making a mistake aswell, dont mix up texts of dalmatians of the 16th century with ancient dalmatians, because those of the 16th century were slavicized, romanized, and maybe earlier even celtizized already. i have seen texts of dalmatia of the 16th century most is latin. if it has anything to do with ancient dalmatian or not thats another question which we cant know for sure cuz there are no ancient texts besides names. 

You cant rule it out that fast, and by the fact knowing that south balkan resisted best slavic invasion there MAY be the possibility of people going south because of slavic invasion.
And the first time the albanian language was mentioned was in Dubrovnik (Dalmatia)
Wikipedia: Origin of the Albanians: ''1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians 

Keep in mind the ancient place called RAGUSA in Dubrovnik can be POSSIBLY translated in Albanian Rrush which means grapes in albanian. And wine was major agricultural activity in Dubrovnik Republic and wine isnt done without grapes, so there may/ and possibly is a connection between that.
And by the fact that: '' At the time of the Dubrovnik Republic growing grapes was major agricultural activity. The production and export of wine were of high importance for the economy of the then Dubrovnik Republic, which flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The Statute passed in 1272, comprises 56 articles which determine growing grapes and wine production.'' http://www.tzdubrovnik.hr/eng/lifestyle_novost.php?id=1680&id_main=1680 

Greetings.

----------


## Sile

> Sile you're making a mistake aswell, dont mix up texts of dalmatians of the 16th century with ancient dalmatians, because those of the 16th century were slavicized, romanized, and maybe earlier even celtizized already. i have seen texts of dalmatia of the 16th century most is latin. if it has anything to do with ancient dalmatian or not thats another question which we cant know for sure cuz there are no ancient texts besides names. 
> 
> You cant rule it out that fast, and by the fact knowing that south balkan resisted best slavic invasion there MAY be the possibility of people going south because of slavic invasion.
> And the first time the albanian language was mentioned was in Dubrovnik (Dalmatia)
> Wikipedia: Origin of the Albanians: ''1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians 
> 
> Keep in mind the ancient place called RAGUSA in Dubrovnik can be POSSIBLY translated in Albanian Rrush which means grapes in albanian. And wine was major agricultural activity in Dubrovnik Republic and wine isnt done without grapes, so there may/ and possibly is a connection between that.
> And by the fact that: '' At the time of the Dubrovnik Republic growing grapes was major agricultural activity. The production and export of wine were of high importance for the economy of the then Dubrovnik Republic, which flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries.
> The Statute passed in 1272, comprises 56 articles which determine growing grapes and wine production.'' http://www.tzdubrovnik.hr/eng/lifestyle_novost.php?id=1680&id_main=1680 
> ...


slavitized was in the 19th century

*Dalmatian*: _E el daic: Jon ciairt jomno ci avaja doi feil, e el plé pedlo de louro daic a soa tuota: Tuota duoteme la puarte de moi luc, che me toca, e jul spartait tra louro la sostuanza e dapù pauch dai, mais toich indajoi el feil ple pedlo andait a la luorga, e luoc el dissipuat toich el soo, viviand malamiant. Muà el ju venait in se stiass, daic: quinci jomni de journata Cn cuassa da me tuota i ju bonduanza de puan e cua ju muor de fum.


Is that slavic?

You slavics and albanians are dreaming for it to be either


the dalmatian language is split..vegliot on the islands and ragusan on the mainland
_

----------


## Bardhyl

I didnt say the texts are slavic, Seems like you didnt read my text, i qoute myself:'' _ i have seen texts of dalmatia of the 16th century most is latin. if it has anything to do with ancient dalmatian or not thats another question which we cant know for sure cuz there are no ancient texts besides names.'' 

And your text you showed is pretty pure LATIN and on wikipedia Dalmatian language from which you took the text, you can see similarities of italian latin and the romance-dalmatian you are talking about which is like almost 1 to 1, so that is definetly not the real dalmatian language (ancient)

_You cant rule it out that fast, and by the fact knowing that south balkan resisted best slavic invasion there MAY be the possibility of people going south because of slavic invasion.
And the first time the albanian language was mentioned was in Dubrovnik (Dalmatia)
Wikipedia: Origin of the Albanians: ''1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians 

Keep in mind the ancient place called RAGUSA in Dubrovnik can be POSSIBLY translated in Albanian Rrush which means grapes in albanian. And wine was major agricultural activity in Dubrovnik Republic and wine isnt done without grapes, so there may/ and possibly is a connection between that.

And by the fact that: '' At the time of the Dubrovnik Republic growing grapes was major agricultural activity. The production and export of wine were of high importance for the economy of the then Dubrovnik Republic, which flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The Statute passed in 1272, comprises 56 articles which determine growing grapes and wine production.''http://www.tzdubrovnik.hr/eng/lifestyle_novost.php?id=1680&id_main=1680

So you know my fact about Ragusa and albanian rrush is not a lie or invented straight away by me here the link:

_Ragusa-Ragusium_ "grape"; cf. Proto-Alb. _ragusha_ (Mod. Alb. _rrush_) and the source is: Orel, Vladimir; Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Brill, 1998 ISBN 90 04 11024 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyria..._with_Albanian

You're welcome

----------


## Sile

> I didnt say the texts are slavic, Seems like you didnt read my text, i qoute myself:'' _ i have seen texts of dalmatia of the 16th century most is latin. if it has anything to do with ancient dalmatian or not thats another question which we cant know for sure cuz there are no ancient texts besides names. 
> 
> And your text you showed is pretty pure LATIN and on wikipedia Dalmatian language from which you took the text, you can see similarities of italian latin and the romance-dalmatian you are talking about which is like almost 1 to 1, so that is definetly not the real dalmatian language (ancient)
> 
> _You cant rule it out that fast, and by the fact knowing that south balkan resisted best slavic invasion there MAY be the possibility of people going south because of slavic invasion.
> And the first time the albanian language was mentioned was in Dubrovnik (Dalmatia)
> Wikipedia: Origin of the Albanians: ''1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians 
> 
> Keep in mind the ancient place called RAGUSA in Dubrovnik can be POSSIBLY translated in Albanian Rrush which means grapes in albanian. And wine was major agricultural activity in Dubrovnik Republic and wine isnt done without grapes, so there may/ and possibly is a connection between that.
> ...


create another thread about it

----------


## Alan

> New paper which supports Etruscans came from ancient Libya and not Lydia
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013...-anatolia.html
> 
> there is also other internal links.
> 
> Some have said that Etruscans have always been in Italy


According to newest papers about ancient admixtures (lazaridis) it looks like they came from Anatolia.

----------


## Bardhyl

Sile I know I should thanks for the motivation but I am afraid of creating a thread, lol dont know why I just leave it for now :)

----------


## Nobody1

> The problem is that the designations used by ancient authors are often vage, and should be questioned if they actually hold up as valid definitions for ethnic or linguistic groups.


Thats not the problem; 
And def. not a problem when Archaeology confirms the Historical accounts; 




> The problem really starts when you make far-out assumptions like claiming that the substrate was Indo-European.


Where did i make such an assumption? 
I have always said that Pelasgians are a pre-(non)-Indo-European people as is the Etruscan and Lemnian language; 

The problem is that you claim that the common language of Etruscans/Tyrrhenians and Lemnians/Tyrrhenians is not Pelasgian despite both clearly being designated in ancient/classical History as being Pelasgians; And you claim that based on the non-Greek substrate which you claim is (the real) Pelasgian; Now i doubt that this non-Greek substrate is Pelasgian because you cant connect it to any actual Pelasgian language in order to designate it (factually) as Pelasgian; 

And Pelasgian being not a substrate in Greek is not even much of a surprise since Herodotus (I/LVII) has already informed us about it 2400 years ago; And indeed the only two languages (Etruscan/Lemnian) that can be termed Pelasgian because its speakers (Tyrrhenians) were termed Pelasgian is *not* a substrate; And it is equally not surprising that these two languages (Etruscan/Lemnian) are of a common root - same family; 

Essentially the Etruscan civilization is/remains a hybrid of Pelasgians from the Aegean/East-Medit. intermingled with the pre-existing Indo-European Umbrians of the Villanova-Urnfield complex;

----------


## Nobody1

> The Vindelici were evidently Celtic, as evidenced by even the name itself (plus other names, notably Kempten, _Cambodunum_), and little to do with the Illyrians. I'd also be careful with the ad-hoc identification of the Veneti as "Illyrians". Based on the names found in their area, there appears to be a connection between the Liburnians and the Veneti, but the Dalmatians were unrelated (they are also, in my current opinion, the best candidates for the ancestors of the current Albanians, but I do not wish to start on that matter in here).


So the only reason you think the Vindelici to be Keltic is based on onomastics or in fact just the interpretations of them; A bit weak given the Historical and Archaeological evidence standing against it;

I start by pointing out that the Vindelici are not *a* tribe - they are a tribal confederation i.e. consisting of numerous tribes; One of them the Vennones/Venosten others the Genauni and Breuni and it is these tribes that are designated as Illyrian equally the Veneti/Enetoi are designated Illyrian;

And Archaeologists have found in the territory of the Geneuni and Breuni inscriptions with an identical language to Venetic; What do we learn from this?

We learn that the Vindelici (Vennones/Venostes/Genauni/Breuni) had the same language as the Veneti and both are designated by History as Illyrian; And we are equally faced again with this bizarre situation that a common language of peoples being called Illyrians is not allowed to be designated Illyrian; Just as before when a common language of peoples being called Pelasgians is not allowed to be called Pelasgian; Keeping in mind that this common language is Archaeologically and Linguistically attested;




> The point I was trying to make is that the concept of "Rhaetians" that the Romans is a very vage one, and it does not hold up to a closer analysis, since the "Rhaetians" can be boiled down into different ethnolinguistic groups.


Goes without saying; 
In fact something me and Sile already thoroughly discussed and agreed on;




> Whatever the source of that story by Livy is, I wasn't refering to it. I was refering to the La-Tene expansion. Stop. You're making an assumption here that I did not. Namely that the annectode of Raetus is necessarily to be held true to the word, and that the name "Raetians" explicitly applies to the "real" Raetians.


Than you are confusing the sources and their content;
Raetus and Bellovesus are connected (not separated) and its all a fable;
The actual migration of 400 BC was described as such:

*Plinius* - (III/XVII) Nat. Hist. - quoting C. Nepos
_interiere et Caturiges, Insubrum exsules, et Spina supra dicta, item Melpum opulentia praecipuum, quod ab Insubribus et Bois et Senonibus deletum eo die, quo Camillus Veios ceperit, Nepos Cornelius tradidit._ 
_The Caturiges have also perished, an exiled race of the Insubres, as also Spina previously mentioned; Melpum too, a place distinguished for its opulence, which, as we are informed by Cornelius Nepos, was destroyed by the Insubres, the Boii, and the Senones, on the very day on which Camillus took Veii._

And no one ever claimed the Etruscans from Melpum or Felsina to have fled with Raetus into the Alps; The actual migration of 400BC did not involve the Etruscans disappearing into the Alps the fable of 600BC does;




> There is no necessary reason it should be "exactly the same". First off, despite the relatively limited corpus, Etruscan is known to have had a bit of variability in it (the Cortona Tablet is an example that immediately comes to my mind). Also, look at the modern world. I'm not talking about the differences between American and British English (though that's an example, too), but look at the difference between English spoken around London, and the English of Yorkshire. Or, in German, the difference between Hessian and Kölsch. Why should a Raetian from the area around (modern) Bolzano have spoken exactly the same language as someone from, say, Tarquinia?


Because acc. to your scenario that Raetian from Bolzano would be an Etruscan;
And that is obviously not the case;

----------


## Sile

> According to newest papers about ancient admixtures (lazaridis) it looks like they came from Anatolia.


this August 2013 paper basically says .....the etruscans could have come from anatolia, but there was a 3000 year gap from anatolia to tuscany. Where did they go in between this period.

did they go to lemnos and was that not part of anatolia, maybe the gallipoli peninsula that's in europe, not thracian, but pelasgian..........I need to see some logic...........unless the paper is a complete fictional story!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...22319/abstract

thanks

----------


## Sile

> Sile I know I should thanks for the motivation but I am afraid of creating a thread, lol dont know why I just leave it for now :)



just continue it on one of the dozens of albanian thread.........I scanned quickly through venetian archives and no mention of any Dalmatian and albanian link between 1280 to 1797

----------


## Sile

@nobody1

There was a paper last year which had this break down
- Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as "para-Celtic“ and "pre-Celtic")
- Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)
- Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)
- Veneti (close to Italic, but with a few other affinities, Raeti and possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)

Would you say, that these "illyrians" being called in other forms like, raeti norici, pannonian, venetic, euganei, vindelic etc are a "central european/alpine " mix which eventually got absorbed piecemeal by celts from the north and gallics from the west?

----------


## Taranis

> So the only reason you think the Vindelici to be Keltic is based on onomastics or in fact just the interpretations of them; A bit weak given the Historical and Archaeological evidence standing against it;
> 
> I start by pointing out that the Vindelici are not *a* tribe - they are a tribal confederation i.e. consisting of numerous tribes; One of them the Vennones/Venosten others the Genauni and Breuni and it is these tribes that are designated as Illyrian equally the Veneti/Enetoi are designated Illyrian;
> 
> And Archaeologists have found in the territory of the Geneuni and Breuni inscriptions with an identical language to Venetic; What do we learn from this?
> 
> We learn that the Vindelici (Vennones/Venostes/Genauni/Breuni) had the same language as the Veneti and both are designated by History as Illyrian; And we are equally faced again with this bizarre situation that a common language of peoples being called Illyrians is not allowed to be designated Illyrian; Just as before when a common language of peoples being called Pelasgians is not allowed to be called Pelasgian; Keeping in mind that this common language is Archaeologically and Linguistically attested;


Sorry, a discussion of the Vindelicians certainly would belong into another thread, but tell me something, which data that you have is _better_ than onomastic data (Celtic names, and I should add, unambigously Celtic, unless you can demonstrate to me that "-duno", "-briga" or "-rix" can be somehow Venetic) and archaeological data (bearers of the La-Tene culture - including coinage with the triskelion motif that can be found elsewhere in Celtic areas)?

I should specifiy, by the way, to avoid confusions, I was talking about the _Adriatic_ Veneti here, not the Gaulish or the Baltic ones. Likewise, Sile, I was talking about the ancient Dalmatae. But as I said, this belongs elsewhere.

Also, do you have a quote (or ID) for the purportedly Venetic Genauni inscription?

The reason I avoid the term "Illyrian" is because its not clearly defined, unlike, for instance, the term "Venetic". Regardless of the question of the ethnicity of the Vindelicians, its clear that regardless of wether you think of them as Celtic or Venetic, there is no evidence in the Alps for a language akin to Etruscan (Rhaetian) outside the Bolzano region. And to me, the idea that they retreated there from the Po river plain is an elegant solution.




> Goes without saying; 
> In fact something me and Sile already thoroughly discussed and agreed on;
> 
> 
> 
> Than you are confusing the sources and their content;
> Raetus and Bellovesus are connected (not separated) and its all a fable;
> The actual migration of 400 BC was described as such:
> 
> ...


When I meant "Etruscan" in regard for the Po plain, I meant it in the sense of "Tyrrhenian". My bad.

Back to the Etruscan origins, the assumption of an Anatolian origin has a strength that we admittedly know relatively little about the ethnic situation in western Anatolia before the Bronze Age collapse. We know that much of Anatolia was Anatolian-speaking (as in, languages of the Indo-European language family) by the time that this region was Hellenized, but, we do not know if that was the case a thousand years earlier. As I mentioned, the ethnic makeup of Anatolia changed multiple times over. In this scenario, the Etruscans (and their relatives, the Raetians) would be immigrants at the end of the Bronze Age.

----------


## Nobody1

> When I meant "Etruscan" in regard for the Po plain, I meant it in the sense of "Tyrrhenian". My bad.
> 
> Back to the Etruscan origins, the assumption of an Anatolian origin has a strength that we admittedly know relatively little about the ethnic situation in western Anatolia before the Bronze Age collapse. We know that much of Anatolia was Anatolian-speaking (as in, languages of the Indo-European language family) by the time that this region was Hellenized, but, we do not know if that was the case a thousand years earlier. As I mentioned, the ethnic makeup of Anatolia changed multiple times over. In this scenario, the Etruscans (and their relatives, the Raetians) would be immigrants at the end of the Bronze Age.


The Geographical origins (or the point of departure) of the Tyrrhenians is one of the aspects and there Anatolia is the (also my) favorite; But the point thats is evident is that these Tyrrhenians whether from Thessaly (Hellanicus/Dionysius) or Anatolia (Herodotus) are Pelasgians; This isnt even a discussion in the likes of are the Trojans Pelasgians? or are the Minoans Pelasgian? those discussions are based on interpretations; The discussion whether the Tyrrhenians are Pelasgians is actually given word by word as such in ancient/classical History by the Greek scholars; On top of that is of course the Archaeological/Linguistical connection to Lemnos (an island equally inhabited by Pelasgians) and the sheer fact that the name Tyrrhenians/Τυρρηνοί is synonymous (Hesiod/Sophocles/Thucydides) with Pelasgian itself; 

All i am actually pointing out is that the Tyrrhenians did come from the East Medit. (not autochthonous) and that they are not 'Mysterious' they are actually well classified as Pelasgians;

----------


## Sile

hittite seals send to places in western anatolia where only written in luwian text. the logic is that hittite scribes would write in the language of the destination of the seal. Hittite seals in Luwian text have been found all along western anatolia, from Troy in the north to the lycians in the south. There are no other seals of any other language in the noted area.........and the hittite lasted until roughly 1200BC. In other areas they found hittite seals in akkadian text in assyria, cannite text in the levant etc . 

Logic dictates that a king would sent messages to its neighbours in the text of its neighbours.

http://www.academia.edu/464165/Hitti...an_Hieroglyphs

I have never seen on the net any other hittite seals in western anatolia which is other than Luwian (luvian)

----------


## Taranis

I have moved the discussion about the Vindelici, Veneti, etc. to here (feel free to continue there  :Smile:  ), so that this discussion goes back to the origins of the Etruscans.

----------


## Vinnie

What's the most recent study on the subject?

----------


## Vinnie



----------


## Vinnie



----------


## Aberdeen

Read the previous posts on this subject. The subject has already been discussed on this forum. Although there are legends about the Etruscans originally being from Asia Minor, there's not a lot of actual proof of that. It could just be a foundational myth, like the fantasy about the Romans originally being from Troy.

----------


## Vinnie

> Read the previous posts on this subject. The subject has already been discussed on this forum. Although there are legends about the Etruscans originally being from Asia Minor, there's not a lot of actual proof of that. It could just be a foundational myth, like the fantasy about the Romans originally being from Troy.


You think they were native to the region? Do you have a link?

----------


## Aberdeen

> You think they were native to the region? Do you have a link?


If you're too lazy to look for the previous threads that I referred to, I'll be lazy and just quote a dubious source, Wikipedia.

"Culture that is identifiably Etruscan developed in Italy after about 800 BC approximately over the range of the preceding Iron Age Villanovan culture. The latter gave way in the 7th century to a culture that was influenced by Hellenic Magna Graecian and Phonecian contacts. After 500 BC, the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands.[7] The latestmtDNA study (2013) shows that Etruscans appear to fall very close to a Neolithic population from Central Europe and to other Tuscan populations."

That pretty much seems to be the current scholarly consensus about the Etruscans. But, as I said, there have been some previous discussions about the Etruscans on this forum. One poster who seems to know a lot about the Etruscans is Angela, but she's currently not posting here at the moment - she said she was going on holiday to her native Italy for several weeks. When she gets back, she can probably tell you all about the Etruscans, but there are already a few old threads on that subject.

----------


## Vinnie



----------


## Vinnie

Compare to Thracian:

----------


## Vinnie



----------


## Yetos

> If you're too lazy to look for the previous threads that I referred to, I'll be lazy and just quote a dubious source, Wikipedia.
> 
> "Culture that is identifiably Etruscan developed in Italy after about 800 BC approximately over the range of the preceding Iron Age Villanovan culture. The latter gave way in the 7th century to a culture that was influenced by Hellenic Magna Graecian and Phonecian contacts. After 500 BC, the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands.[7] The latestmtDNA study (2013) shows that Etruscans appear to fall very close to a Neolithic population from Central Europe and to other Tuscan populations."
> That pretty much seems to be the current scholarly consensus about the Etruscans. But, as I said, there have been some previous discussions about the Etruscans on this forum. One poster who seems to know a lot about the Etruscans is Angela, but she's currently not posting here at the moment - she said she was going on holiday to her native Italy for several weeks. When she gets back, she can probably tell you all about the Etruscans, but there are already a few old threads on that subject.


Hatria was build in 1200 BC, is half Mycenean -half minor Asian but trully Etruscan.

Etruscan is the one before last wave from minor Asia and Aegean, last is GreeK colonisation, but before that we had many, starting from late neolithic.

----------


## Vinnie

Compare to Roman paintings from Pompeii.

----------


## Yetos

the link is an older discuss but full of interesting data,

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...frica-or-Italy

----------


## Aberdeen

> Hatria was build in 1200 BC, is half Mycenean -half minor Asian but trully Etruscan.
> 
> Etruscan is the one before last wave from minor Asia and Aegean, last is GreeK colonisation, but before that we had many, starting from late neolithic.


There are two places in Italy called Atria, previously Hatria. The more northerly one was founded by Etruscans and later colonized by Greeks, but there's nothing about it to connect it to Anatolia, except to the extent that most of the population of western Europe, including Italy, seems to be descended from people who migrated there from the Middle East during the Neolithic. The Etruscans did speak a non-IE language, but it was probably one that developed in situ.

----------


## Vinnie

> the link is an older discuss but full of interesting data,
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...frica-or-Italy


Strange thread..

----------


## LeBrok

It seems to be already existing thread on this subject. I'm merging them into one.

----------


## Yetos

> There are two places in Italy called Atria, previously Hatria. The more northerly one was founded by Etruscans and later colonized by Greeks, but there's nothing about it to connect it to Anatolia, except to the extent that most of the population of western Europe, including Italy, seems to be descended from people who migrated there from the Middle East during the Neolithic. The Etruscans did speak a non-IE language, but it was probably one that developed in situ.


so you found Hatria, now you know about 1200 BC as Etruscan existance, and not 800 BC.

not sharin the below, since my knowlwedge is limited to that, but many scholars say that even the word Helvetie (swiss) is from Pelasgian origin,

besides how can you explain that the Etruscan cemeteries in Lemnos are at least 1000 +- 100 BC

----------


## Vinnie

> so you found Hatria, now you know about 1200 BC as Etruscan existance, and not 800 BC.
> 
> not sharin the below, since my knowlwedge is limited to that, but many scholars say that even the word Helvetie (swiss) is from Pelasgian origin,
> 
> besides how can you explain that the Etruscan cemeteries in Lemnos are at least 1000 +- 100 BC


Etruscans were Greeks?

----------


## Yetos

> Etruscans were Greeks?


no, 

Etruscan are the ones in Italy,
Pelasgians are the ones in Greece,

Greeks or Ellenes are IE, at least spoke IE, either from minor Asia either from Istros
Pelasgians are the 
or 1 all the pre IE substractum (Eteo-Cretans, Lycaones, Carinthians, Phillistines)
or 2 a non IE Asian population that passed from Greece and ended to Thyrrenia (Hattians?)
or 3 the Troyans (Hattians?)
or 4 last of Summerians

except the remants from Ottomans, all the non IE words in Greek are consider Pelasgian,

----------


## Vinnie

> no, 
> 
> Etruscan are the ones in Italy,
> Pelasgians are the ones in Greece,
> 
> Greeks or Ellenes are IE, at least spoke IE, either from minor Asia either from Istros
> Pelasgians are the 
> 1 all the pre IE substractum (Eteo-Cretans, Lycaones, Carinthians, Phillistines)
> 2 a non IE Asian population that passed from Greece and ended to Thyrrenia (Hattians?)
> 3 the Troyans (Hattians?)



What I mean is did Etruscans came from Pelasgians? Meaning did they live first in Greece and then moved to Italy. You don't think they came from Central European/ Villanovan?

----------


## Yetos

> What I mean is did Etruscans came from Pelasgians? Meaning did they live first in Greece and then moved to Italy. You don't think they came from Central European/ Villanovan?


That is the point, what we call Etruscan is mostly after 800 BC, but many things indicate that Etruscans were before 1200, can't rememember where but I read about another wave of same people at 1700m+-,
for example we also know that in Istros/Slovenia exist 3 Carni+... cities (Carnios Apollo. Corinth, Caria, Karia alla are connected) which might have or maybe not have corelation, although seems that it has. 

I mean that maritime road was known from the times of Hettit,
All these populations created vilanovan culture, but the max/last is what we say Etruscan.

compining ancient writers even Hesiodos Theogony, except Dionysios, all fit with what we call non IE Greek toponyms and vocabulary for example Attika 

also the dates fits well, the majority left minor Asia 50 years before Bryges moved from Balkans to Asia and named as Phrygians.

the time that sea paoples are silenced or stop piracy in East meditterenean starts Etruria/Thyrsenia

to enter in Genetics the problem is the 2 groups of G2a3***, the Aeagean, the Alpen, in some Etruscan tomps found G2a3 Alpen Group, which lead to be from Swiss, yet J2 seems to be Asian minor,
Dogs and cattle DNA shows minor Asia,

the ancient Greek dog Alopekis (estimeted entrance in Greece 3500 BC) is found also in Thyrrenians pets.

NOW THE BIG PROBLEM WHICH I CAN NOT SOLVE.
THEY WERE HATTIANS? OR THEY WERE VINCA/VARNA TRIBES?

for Characteristic in an Etruscan tomp a pottery writes Elluveitie which might mean Helveti?, or something like goodmornig?

remember the term Hellas can be explained by both IE and Akkadian

----------


## joeyc

Etruscans were native pre indoeuropean Italians.

----------


## Diviacus

As already said, the present scholarship no longer debates on this subject (since Pallatino) as they don't have any consensus on the answer.
The Etruscans are certainly a mix of native and oriental people. This thread can go on indefinitely.

----------


## albanopolis

> Etruscans were native pre indoeuropean Italians.


Absolutely correct! Most of forum's people here think that magically from Anatolia, with wooden ships Etruscans disembarked were today Tuscany is. Randomly. Its recorded in ancient books of Greeks that there were Pre-Greek, pre Latin populations in the area, that corresponds with early farmers Ev-13 and J2 people. Those people had occupied most of today's Europe. In Balkans there were Pellasgs, so were in south and central Italy. Etruskcs are just a branch of them.

----------


## LeBrok

> As already said, the present scholarship no longer debates on this subject (since Pallatino) as they don't have any consensus on the answer.
> *The Etruscans are certainly a mix of native and oriental people.* This thread can go on indefinitely.


 That's right, why not both.

----------


## joeyc

Please show genetic evidence for Anatolian origin of the Etruscans.

----------


## John Doe

> Please show genetic evidence for Anatolian origin of the Etruscans.


You can find links for studies supporting both hypotheses here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrusc...netic_evidence

----------


## Yetos

> Absolutely correct! Most of forum's people here think that magically from Anatolia, with wooden ships Etruscans disembarked were today Tuscany is. Randomly. Its recorded in ancient books of Greeks that there were Pre-Greek, pre Latin populations in the area, that corresponds with early farmers Ev-13 and J2 people. Those people had occupied most of today's Europe. In Balkans there were Pellasgs, so were in south and central Italy. Etruskcs are just a branch of them.


E-V13 is upsent in Neolithic farmers, read the thread, it was not in Summerians, not in Anatolian farmers, it very late, same time with Hettits.
All late search show no E-V13 until 2-2500 BC.

except if you have a scientific research like a TV show.

better read this 

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ions-in-Europe


There was no E-V13 in Vinca and Varna and Sesklo

----------


## Yetos

> Please show genetic evidence for Anatolian origin of the Etruscans.


I am a G2a3*.
I spoke about that in my post #85
also you can find about alopekis dog origin, also name as the 'Pelasgian Dog'

----------


## Aberdeen

> You can find links for studies supporting both hypotheses here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrusc...netic_evidence


If you read the pro-Anatolian studies carefully, they basically say "We're really grasping at straws here, but we still want to believe that Etruscans came from Anatolia."

The "Middle Eastern" influences that arrived in Italy after the Neolithic were mostly brought there by Greek colonists.

----------


## Sile

> That is the point, what we call Etruscan is mostly after 800 BC, but many things indicate that Etruscans were before 1200, can't rememember where but I read about another wave of same people at 1700m+-,
> for example we also know that in Istros/Slovenia exist 3 Carni+... cities (Carnios Apollo. Corinth, Caria, Karia alla are connected) which might have or maybe not have corelation, although seems that it has. 
> 
> I mean that maritime road was known from the times of Hettit,
> All these populations created vilanovan culture, but the max/last is what we say Etruscan.
> 
> compining ancient writers even Hesiodos Theogony, except Dionysios, all fit with what we call non IE Greek toponyms and vocabulary for example Attika 
> 
> also the dates fits well, the majority left minor Asia 50 years before Bryges moved from Balkans to Asia and named as Phrygians.
> ...


G2a3a is the Anatolian group
G2a3b is the caucasus group..................where otzi came from

----------


## John Doe

> If you read the pro-Anatolian studies carefully, they basically say "We're really grasping at straws here, but we still want to believe that Etruscans came from Anatolia."
> 
> The "Middle Eastern" influences that arrived in Italy after the Neolithic were mostly brought there by Greek colonists.


I didn't say I supported that hypothesis, in fact I'm pretty sure the latest studies suggest an indigenous European origin rather than a near eastern one. I just posted a link that shows both sides of the argument.

----------


## bicicleur

> If you read the pro-Anatolian studies carefully, they basically say "We're really grasping at straws here, but we still want to believe that Etruscans came from Anatolia."
> 
> The "Middle Eastern" influences that arrived in Italy after the Neolithic were mostly brought there by Greek colonists.


there is no genetic proof
but the knowledge of iron smelting must have come from somewhere
it must have been a small band of fugitives or adventurers with that knowledge who were attracted to the ores to be found in Tuscany
they build villages on steep hilltops, easy defendable
they must have formed a small eltie ruling over the local celtic/italic tribes
they were so small in numbers, soon some local celts/italics infiltrated into the elite
they didn't leave any detectable genetical trace

that seems to be a parsimonious explanation to me

----------


## Aberdeen

> there is no genetic proof
> but the knowledge of iron smelting must have come from somewhere
> it must have been a small band of fugitives or adventurers with that knowledge who were attracted to the ores to be found in Tuscany
> they build villages on steep hilltops, easy defendable
> they must have formed a small eltie ruling over the local celtic/italic tribes
> they were so small in numbers, soon some local celts/italics infiltrated into the elite
> they didn't leave any detectable genetical trace
> 
> that seems to be a parsimonious explanation to me


One theory is that the Iron Age came out of the collapse of the Bronze Age elites. Once the supply of bronze became much more limited, people were more interested in developing the use of iron as a cheap substitute that could be created from local materials. Such a change needn't have been dependent on large migrations or invasions of the type that seem to have been typical of the coming of the Bronze Age in Europe.

----------

