PDA

View Full Version : Ancient DNA confirms Estruscans were Southern European



Pages : [1] 2

Krefter
05-07-2015, 09:25 PM
http://www.historytravelswithnancy.com/etruscans/etruscan-images/sarcophagus-spouses-villa-giulia-rome.JPG
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html)

2,500-year old Etruscans (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html). Dienekes.

The Estuscans are clustering just north and east of modern Tuscans. Davidski recreated the PCA(without the Estrucans genomes of course), and Bulgarians seem to fit where the Estruscans did.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWjl1WHU3UllSYms/view

It'd be naive to say Estruscans are proven to be closest to Bulgarians. I'm confident to say they were Southern European in the modern sense though. They certainly weren't Anatolians, and if anything less West Asian-like than modern Tuscans. If Estruscans came from Anatolia, by 500BC they had heavily admixed with the natives. If these Estruscan genomes are representative of most of Italy in 500BC, then Italy has been mostly stagnant genetically since 500BC.

Looking at ~5,000 year old genomes from Spain, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and Russia, we can see that there's a shift towards West Asia in modern South-Central Europeans which didn't exist in those ancient genomes. Although over 50% of South-Central European's ancestry can be explained these ancient genomes, so mostly have the same population history as the rest of Europe. The shift looks very real to me not noise.

This shift was already in Italy 2,500YBP. We need more ancient genomes from Mediterranean and Central Europe Europe to understand where this shift comes from.

Generalissimo
05-07-2015, 10:37 PM
If these Estruscan genomes are representative of most of Italy in 500BC, then Italy has been mostly stagnant genetically since 500BC.

Then why do most Italians, judging by the position of the modern Tuscans, cluster south of the ancient Tuscans?

Krefter
05-07-2015, 11:05 PM
Then why do most Italians, judging by the position of the modern Tuscans, cluster south of the ancient Tuscans?

Hinxton Celts and Anglo-Saxons are northeast of modern British, but modern British still can fit as being majority Celtic and Anglo-Saxon. Tuscans could have some Near eastern ancestry Etruscans didn't, but can fit as being mostly Etruscan. So, that's what I mean by mostly stagnant.

I do understand the Estruscans being Northeast of Tuscans may be significant, and point towards recent West Asian ancestry.

Jean M
05-08-2015, 10:19 AM
I do understand the Estruscans being Northeast of Tuscans may be significant, and point towards recent West Asian ancestry.

Makes sense. I was rather concerned by your conclusions in the first post on this thread. You seemed to be comparing ancient and modern populations without regard for chronology. Modern populations are the descendants of ancient ones, not their source.

Southern Europeans have more EEF than northern Europeans, as you know. We can expect EEF to reflect ancient Anatolian populations more closely than modern ones. (Turkey has had various kinds of input since the Neolithic.) At least two areas of southern Europe seem to have had a further Anatolian/West Asian input after the spread of the Indo-Europeans across Europe. One is southern Spain, where both Phoenicians and the El Agar people settled. The other is Tuscany/NE Italy, where the Etruscans made inroads into what had been Indo-European-speaking territory. Since then of course there has been much mixing and migration. I would be amazed if the present Tuscan population was 100% descended from Etruscans. But the sample of Tuscans in Haak 2015 had a startling lack of WHG.

Hando
05-08-2015, 01:34 PM
http://www.historytravelswithnancy.com/etruscans/etruscan-images/sarcophagus-spouses-villa-giulia-rome.JPG
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html)

2,500-year old Etruscans (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html). Dienekes.

The Estuscans are clustering just north and east of modern Tuscans. Davidski recreated the PCA(without the Estrucans genomes of course), and Bulgarians seem to fit where the Estruscans did.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWjl1WHU3UllSYms/view

It'd be naive to say Estruscans are proven to be closest to Bulgarians. I'm confident to say they were Southern European in the modern sense though. They certainly weren't Anatolians, and if anything less West Asian-like than modern Tuscans. If Estruscans came from Anatolia, by 500BC they had heavily admixed with the natives. If these Estruscan genomes are representative of most of Italy in 500BC, then Italy has been mostly stagnant genetically since 500BC.

Looking at ~5,000 year old genomes from Spain, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and Russia, we can see that there's a shift towards West Asia in modern South-Central Europeans which didn't exist in those ancient genomes. Although over 50% of South-Central European's ancestry can be explained these ancient genomes, so mostly have the same population history as the rest of Europe. The shift looks very real to me not noise.

This shift was already in Italy 2,500YBP. We need more ancient genomes from Mediterranean and Central Europe Europe to understand where this shift comes from.



Do you still think Etruscans originally came from Anatolia and then heavily admixed with ancient Southern Europeans? I am confused by your statement because I do not know if you mean that you think Etruscans originally came from Anatolia and then admixed with ancient Italians or that they were native ancient southern Europeans autosomally?

Krefter
05-08-2015, 08:39 PM
Do you still think Etruscans originally came from Anatolia and then heavily admixed with ancient Southern Europeans? I am confused by your statement because I do not know if you mean that you think Etruscans originally came from Anatolia and then admixed with ancient Italians or that they were native ancient southern Europeans autosomally?

I know close to nothing about Estruscans. Based on that PCA we can see the Etruscan samples cluster in southern Europe. I've heard some think they originated in Antolia, and if true they must have been heavily admixed with locals.

Krefter
05-08-2015, 08:44 PM
Makes sense. I was rather concerned by your conclusions in the first post on this thread. You seemed to be comparing ancient and modern populations without regard for chronology. Modern populations are the descendants of ancient ones, not their source.

Southern Europeans have more EEF than northern Europeans, as you know. We can expect EEF to reflect ancient Anatolian populations more closely than modern ones. (Turkey has had various kinds of input since the Neolithic.) At least two areas of southern Europe seem to have had a further Anatolian/West Asian input after the spread of the Indo-Europeans across Europe. One is southern Spain, where both Phoenicians and the El Agar people settled. The other is Tuscany/NE Italy, where the Etruscans made inroads into what had been Indo-European-speaking territory. Since then of course there has been much mixing and migration. I would be amazed if the present Tuscan population was 100% descended from Etruscans. But the sample of Tuscans in Haak 2015 had a startling lack of WHG.

Based on genetic data the Balkans show just as strong of a West Asian-signal as Italy. Tuscans are apart of a tend that's strongest in southern Italy and weakest in northern Italy. I don't think it's specific to Tuscany or Estruscans. There's a West Asian signal as far north as England.

South Dutch, Belgium, and West Germans can fit pretty nicely as 50% North Italian and 50% Urnfield, something changed that isn't entirely because of EEF. This is a widespread signal which is appears to only be absent in Ireland, Basque and SW France, Scandinavia, and East Europe.

Agamemnon
05-08-2015, 08:48 PM
From a linguistic standpoint (considering Etruscan's genetic relationship to Lemnian and Rhætic), a migration from the Aegean would make the most sense.

Anabasis
05-08-2015, 09:21 PM
I think EEF (Or Southern Europe) oriented from West Anatolia. Being Southern Europe does not disprove the hypothesis of Estruscans came from Anatolia, in contrast that makes them much more close to Anatolia. That just disprove the "Armenian like" theory which modern Armenians have more west asian input rather then EEF.

Krefter
05-08-2015, 09:26 PM
I think EEF (Or Southern Europe) oriented from West Anatolia. Being Southern Europe does not disprove the hypothesis of Estruscans came from Anatolia, in contrast that makes them much more close to Anatolia. That just disprove the "Armenian like" theory which modern Armenians have more west asian input rather then EEF.

EEF are south European are not the same thing. (most)South Europeans are over 50% EEF, and are EEF's closest relatives. Unless Antolians were like Southern Europeans back then, Estruscans were probably mostly South European. Estruscans could be from China for all we know, if they mixed like crazy with locals.

Megalophias
05-08-2015, 09:35 PM
I'm not sure how to read these PCAs. Are they not northwest of modern Tuscans? One actually falls in Spain, directly between Tuscans and British; one is pulled toward somewhere between Finns and British; and the last pretty much directly toward Finns.

Heck, maybe they did come from Urnfield, like their mortuary customs.

vettor
05-08-2015, 09:51 PM
some papers do not support an etruscan origin from Anatolia

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22319/abstract



http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519


Anyhow, professors of linguistics have over 10000 etruscan words and they still cannot figure out the etruscan origin

Krefter
05-08-2015, 09:53 PM
I'm not sure how to read these PCAs. Are they not northwest of modern Tuscans? One actually falls in Spain, directly between Tuscans and British; one is pulled toward somewhere between Finns and British; and the last pretty much directly toward Finns.

Heck, maybe they did come from Urnfield, like their mortuary customs.

They're clearly in south Europe.

vettor
05-08-2015, 10:04 PM
From a linguistic standpoint (considering Etruscan's genetic relationship to Lemnian and Rhætic), a migration from the Aegean would make the most sense.

The Euboen Alphabet was used by Lemnian and raetic people, The ONE similar script finding on Lemnos which has etruscan writings means very little. Etruscans traded with Greeks for Greek pottery, so One script by a etruscan traded is the likely scenario........especially since Lemnos used an eastern form of the Eubeon Alphabet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets

Agamemnon
05-08-2015, 11:31 PM
The Euboen Alphabet was used by Lemnian and raetic people, The ONE similar script finding on Lemnos which has etruscan writings means very little. Etruscans traded with Greeks for Greek pottery, so One script by a etruscan traded is the likely scenario........especially since Lemnos used an eastern form of the Eubeon Alphabet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets

I'm talking from a purely linguistic standpoint, the script doesn't matter that much at this point.


I'm not sure how to read these PCAs. Are they not northwest of modern Tuscans? One actually falls in Spain, directly between Tuscans and British; one is pulled toward somewhere between Finns and British; and the last pretty much directly toward Finns.

Heck, maybe they did come from Urnfield, like their mortuary customs.

That's a possibility we must entertain, still the Etruscans probably ruled over a population which was largely Italic (Osco-Umbrian) in origin so I'm not exactly sure what these results really mean.

Larth
05-09-2015, 11:53 PM
The Estuscans are clustering just north and east of modern Tuscans. Davidski recreated the PCA(without the Estrucans genomes of course), and Bulgarians seem to fit where the Estruscans did.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWjl1WHU3UllSYms/view

It'd be naive to say Estruscans are proven to be closest to Bulgarians. I'm confident to say they were Southern European in the modern sense though. They certainly weren't Anatolians, and if anything less West Asian-like than modern Tuscans. If Estruscans came from Anatolia, by 500BC they had heavily admixed with the natives. If these Estruscan genomes are representative of most of Italy in 500BC, then Italy has been mostly stagnant genetically since 500BC.

Looking at ~5,000 year old genomes from Spain, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and Russia, we can see that there's a shift towards West Asia in modern South-Central Europeans which didn't exist in those ancient genomes. Although over 50% of South-Central European's ancestry can be explained these ancient genomes, so mostly have the same population history as the rest of Europe. The shift looks very real to me not noise.



Etruscans were clearly Southern Europeans, they certainly weren't Anatolians. The proto-Etruscans were the people from the Villanovan culture branched from the Urnfield culture of Central Europe. Basically Etruscans were a mix of IE (Yamna) and EEF just as modern Tuscans are. These Etruscan samples plot a bit more north than average modern Tuscans because these samples were still a bit less EEF admixed but they were undoubtedly southern European. Obviously Etruscans had contacts with Anatolia through the Aegean islands but there is no evidence for a mass migration from Anatolia.





The other is Tuscany/NE Italy, where the Etruscans made inroads into what had been Indo-European-speaking territory. Since then of course there has been much mixing and migration. I would be amazed if the present Tuscan population was 100% descended from Etruscans. But the sample of Tuscans in Haak 2015 had a startling lack of WHG.

EEF were already admixed with 10/20% of WHG.

Jean M
05-10-2015, 09:43 AM
The proto-Etruscans were the people from the Villanovan culture branched from the Urnfield culture of Central Europe.

You have summed up the anti-migrationist position beloved by archaeologists for decades.

Linguistic evidence tells a different story. The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Raetic appears to be an offshoot of Etruscan, but Lemnian seems more archaic, suggesting a people who settled in the Aegean earlier than Italy. Words borrowed from Anatolian languages such as Hittite are a further clue to an arrival from the eastern Mediterranean. In Italy Etruscan appears to be an intrusion into a pre-existing pattern of Indo-European languages. There are Umbrian place-names in Tuscany.

Ancient DNA has proved anti-migrationist archaeologists wrong in every case so far where they have disagreed with linguists.

Larth
05-10-2015, 12:50 PM
You have summed up the anti-migrationist position beloved by archaeologists for decades.

I have said that basically Etruscans were a mix of IE (Yamna) and EEF. EEF were already in Tuscany before the arrival of IE, there is no need of a migration from Anatolia around 1000 BC to find EEF in Tuscany as in whole Europe.


Linguistic evidence tells a different story. The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Raetic appears to be an offshoot of Etruscan, but Lemnian seems more archaic, suggesting a people who settled in the Aegean earlier than Italy. Words borrowed from Anatolian languages such as Hittite are a further clue to an arrival from the eastern Mediterranean. In Italy Etruscan appears to be an intrusion into a pre-existing pattern of Indo-European languages. There are Umbrian place-names in Tuscany.

Ancient DNA has proved anti-migrationist archaeologists wrong in every case so far where they have disagreed with linguists.

There isn't any consensus among linguists about the origin of the Etruscan language. There are even linguists according to which Etruscan is a very archaic Indo-European. By the way it doesn't exist an Etruscan-like language in Anatolia around 800 BC and Lydian is considered an Indo-European language clearly not related to the Etruscan.

As you said, assuming that Etruscan language is not Indo-European, it's sure that non Indo-European languages were already spoken in Tuscany as in the rest of Europe. We don't need to wait a migration from Anatolia around 1000 BC to find non Indo-European languages in southern Europe.

Borrowings and place-names means very little, assuming that these borrowings are really proved. Etruscan language has many IE loanwords. It's obvious, Etruscan speakers were sorrounded by Italic people that spoke IE languages.



Raetic appears to be an offshoot of Etruscan, but Lemnian seems more archaic,

There is no consensus even about this. According to some linguist the Lemnian could be an offshoot of Etruscan, while the relations between Rhaetian and Etruscan are very archaic.

Jean M
05-10-2015, 01:15 PM
I have said that basically Etruscans were a mix of IE (Yamna) and EEF.

Quite likely, but you haven't proved it. Even if you had, this would not rule out incomers from Anatolia after the IE arrivals. Inter-marriage with IE speakers in both the old Etruscan homeland (Anatolia) and new homelands (Greece and Italy) would result in the Etruscans carrying some Yamnaya input.


There isn't any consensus among linguists about the origin of the Etruscan language.

I am well aware of the endless debate about Etruscan. That is why I gave the reasoning and evidence that convinced me of an Anatolian or nearby origin. See L.B. van der Meer, Etruscan origins: language and archaeology, BABesch, 79 (2004), 51-57. https://www.academia.edu/8283111/Etruscan_origins._Language_and_archaeology_BABESCH _79_2004_51-57


There are even linguists according to which Etruscan is a very archaic Indo-European.

But you don't believe that surely?


Lydian is considered an Indo-European language.

Herodotus reported that the Etruscans were from Lydia. He treats them as Lydians – whom we know to be an Indo-European speaking people. That is clearly a mistake. So Beeks argues that the Etruscans were probably thrust out of north-western Anatolia by the expanding Lydians. That would make total sense of their arrival on Lemnos, which is off the coast of Anatolia.

Larth
05-10-2015, 01:36 PM
Quite likely, but you haven't proved it. Even if you had, this would not rule out incomers from Anatolia after the IE arrivals. Inter-marriage with IE speakers in both the old Etruscan homeland (Anatolia) and new homelands (Greece and Italy) would result in the Etruscans carrying some Yamnaya input.

As you said, you haven't proved it, it's just your opinion. By the way the most common Y-Dna among Tuscan males is R1b U-152 clearly related to proto-Villanovans.


I am well aware of the endless debate about Etruscan. That is why I gave the reasoning and evidence that convinced me of an Anatolian or nearby origin. Herodotus reported that the Etruscans were from Lydia. He treats them as Lydians – whom we know to be an Indo-European speaking people. That is clearly a mistake. So Beeks argues that the Etruscans were probably thrust out of north-western Anatolia by the expanding Lydians.

There is no archeological, historical and linguistic evidence that can prove that Herodotus was right. Even all the studies on ancient DNA can not prove a mass migration from Anatolia.


But you don't believe that surely?

Clearly not. Etruscan is more likely the remnant of a non-IE language spoken in Europe rather than an archaic Indo-european language.

Jean M
05-10-2015, 02:16 PM
the most common Y-Dna among Tuscan males is R1b U-152 clearly related to proto-Villanovans.

1. I would be amazed if modern Tuscans were 100% Etruscan in origin.
2. We have no R1b-U152 from ancient DNA. We have only its modern distribution, compiled conscientiously by R. Rocca, which shows a relatively high density core in northern Italy and Corsica (though nowhere greater than 36%). I can see why you might think from that pattern that it must be related to the Etruscans, but we need to wait and see.

Agamemnon
05-10-2015, 03:05 PM
There are even linguists according to which Etruscan is a very archaic Indo-European.

I've also seen linguists claim that Basque is IE, does that mean Basque is IE all of a sudden? Certainly not.

Larth
05-10-2015, 03:06 PM
I am well aware of the endless debate about Etruscan. That is why I gave the reasoning and evidence that convinced me of an Anatolian or nearby origin. See L.B. van der Meer, Etruscan origins: language and archaeology, BABesch, 79 (2004), 51-57. https://www.academia.edu/8283111/Etruscan_origins._Language_and_archaeology_BABESCH _79_2004_51-57

Thanks for the link. Well, all the reconstruction of Van Der Meer (Beekes's colleague at the Leiden University) is extremely interesting. As Beekes Van Der Meer is alligned with the east-west migration theory, he speculates that there were two or three waves of immigrants, that Etruria was already inhabited by "the autochthonous Subapennine, Indo-European population" and these hypothetical "newcomers mixed peacefully with the autochthonous" since 1100 BC. If they mixed peacefully, basically he is saying that there were elite migrations with no or little impact on the autochthonous population and these newcomers became part of the Villanovan culture. He disagrees with "Pallottino and Briquel that Etruscan and Lemnian belonged to aMediterranean, non-Indo-European language spoken in a very large area before 2000 BC, before the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Italy and Greece". Interesting, but all what Van Der Meer is saying is disputable such as Pallottino and Briquel. Anyway Pallottino and Briquel are already in the history of Etruscology, Van Der Meer not yet.


1. I would be amazed if modern Tuscans were 100% Etruscan in origin.
2. We have no R1b-U152 from ancient DNA. We have only its modern distribution, compiled conscientiously by R. Rocca, which shows a relatively high density core in northern Italy and Corsica (though nowhere greater than 36%). I can see why you might think from that pattern that it must be related to the Etruscans, but we need to wait and see.

R1b-U152 is clearly related to the IE migrations in Italy. The Etruscan is a civilization composed of different components. It's a common error to believe that the Etruscans were these supposed "newcomers" only or more in general those who imposed the language even if they were autochthonous.

Jean M
05-10-2015, 03:31 PM
R1b-U152 is clearly related to the IE migrations in Italy.

I think that is pretty obvious even without ancient DNA. Its parent P312 (and subclades) correlates with the later distribution of the languages of Italo-Celtic branch. So how can it be related to Etruscans?

Larth
05-10-2015, 03:53 PM
I think that is pretty obvious even without ancient DNA. Its parent P312 (and subclades) correlates with the later distribution of the languages of Italo-Celtic branch. So how can it be related to Etruscans?

They are related through "the autochthonous Subapennine, Indo-European population" or the later proto-Villanovans, that they mixed with these supposed "newcomers" according to Van Der Meer or with the remnant non-IE population according to others.

vettor
05-10-2015, 06:32 PM
You have summed up the anti-migrationist position beloved by archaeologists for decades.

Linguistic evidence tells a different story. The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Raetic appears to be an offshoot of Etruscan, but Lemnian seems more archaic, suggesting a people who settled in the Aegean earlier than Italy. Words borrowed from Anatolian languages such as Hittite are a further clue to an arrival from the eastern Mediterranean. In Italy Etruscan appears to be an intrusion into a pre-existing pattern of Indo-European languages. There are Umbrian place-names in Tuscany.

Ancient DNA has proved anti-migrationist archaeologists wrong in every case so far where they have disagreed with linguists.

I do not see raetic as an off shoot of etruscan especially with the 2014 raetic script findings in Innsbruck relating to the bronze-age.

As of 2014, the Raetic corpus can be augmented with a number of linguistically relevant finds: From the Inn Valley come the considerable inscription on a bronze tablet, published in detail in De Simone & Marchesini 2013, as well as the shorter IT-6, IT-7 and IT-8. In two locations in the Inn Valley and the Ammergau in Bavaria did the ANISA – Association for rock art and settlement in the Alps discover rocks bearing Raetic inscription comparable to the ones at Steinberg. Only this year, three very utilisable new inscriptions from the Non Valley (NO-15, NO-16, NO-17) were published by Simona Marchesini.

http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/index.php?title=IT-5

There has only been ONE Etruscan alphabet/script found in Raetic lands and that was near bolzano. Clearly we cannot rule out this as just a "trading script"

Megalophias
05-11-2015, 05:33 AM
Ancient DNA has proved anti-migrationist archaeologists wrong in every case so far where they have disagreed with linguists.

Genes and languages spreading with Urnfield is not an anti-migrationist position, this ancient DNA does not particularly look like it came from Aegean, and linguists are hardly unanimous on the subject of Etruscan origins.

Jean M
05-11-2015, 09:02 AM
Genes and languages spreading with Urnfield is not an anti-migrationist position.

The anti-migrationist position is the desire to see the Etruscan civilization as native to Italy and representative of a pre-IE population. This is similar to the assumption that the Iberes in Spain were a pre-IE population. Once upon a time the simple view of European linguistic history was that any non-IE language must be a pre-IE language. I even believed that myself once upon a time. Once I dug deeper, I began to see that the evidence was against this for both the Iberes and Etruscans. Both seem to be intruders into a territory which (on place-name evidence) was previously IE speaking.


linguists are hardly unanimous on the subject of Etruscan origins.

Linguists are seldom unanimous on any topic, so we have to make up our own minds which of them are making a convincing case from the evidence.

Larth
05-11-2015, 11:47 AM
The anti-migrationist position is the desire to see the Etruscan civilization as native to Italy and representative of a pre-IE population. This is similar to the assumption that the Iberes in Spain were a pre-IE population. Once upon a time the simple view of European linguistic history was that any non-IE language must be a pre-IE language. I even believed that myself once upon a time. Once I dug deeper, I began to see that the evidence was against this for both the Iberes and Etruscans. Both seem to be intruders into a territory which (on place-name evidence) was previously IE speaking.

And the migrationist position is the desire to see Etruscan civilization (as any other civilization) as non native. No one is unbiased on these issues, so please let's all keep on the facts before interpreting them.

For a long time I believed myself that Herodotus was right. Then I started to read anything on the Etruscans. By the way Etruria was previously IE and non IE speaking. Before the IE migrations, central Italy was already inhabited by non IE. That's a fact.


Linguists are seldom unanimous on any topic, so we have to make up our own minds which of them are making a convincing case from the evidence.

So linguists hardly can solve this problem.

Generalissimo
05-11-2015, 11:58 AM
We can't say that those genomes don't look Aegean, since we haven't yet seen any ancient genomes from this region.

Larth
05-11-2015, 01:18 PM
I do not see raetic as an off shoot of etruscan especially with the 2014 raetic script findings in Innsbruck relating to the bronze-age.

As of 2014, the Raetic corpus can be augmented with a number of linguistically relevant finds: From the Inn Valley come the considerable inscription on a bronze tablet, published in detail in De Simone & Marchesini 2013, as well as the shorter IT-6, IT-7 and IT-8. In two locations in the Inn Valley and the Ammergau in Bavaria did the ANISA – Association for rock art and settlement in the Alps discover rocks bearing Raetic inscription comparable to the ones at Steinberg. Only this year, three very utilisable new inscriptions from the Non Valley (NO-15, NO-16, NO-17) were published by Simona Marchesini.

http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/index.php?title=IT-5

There has only been ONE Etruscan alphabet/script found in Raetic lands and that was near bolzano. Clearly we cannot rule out this as just a "trading script"

Based on text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate Marchesini believes that Etruscan and Retic are deeply connected and related, not as a result of contacts but as they shared a "common structural heritage".

Megalophias
05-11-2015, 03:39 PM
The anti-migrationist position is the desire to see the Etruscan civilization as native to Italy and representative of a pre-IE population... Both seem to be intruders into a territory which (on place-name evidence) was previously IE speaking.
I fail to see how Villanovan origin would make the Etruscans autochthonous, non-immigrant, or pre-IE. You know perfectly well what period that is.


We can't say that those genomes don't look Aegean, since we haven't yet seen any ancient genomes from this region.
When we get aDNA from the Aegean then of course we can revise our conclusions. At present to say that shifting towards Spanish, British, and Finnish "does not look particularly Aegean" is hardly outrageous.

Jean M
05-11-2015, 03:48 PM
I fail to see how Villanovan origin would make the Etruscans autochthonous, non-immigrant, or pre-IE.

Jolly good. Neither do I.

palamede
05-11-2015, 04:51 PM
I do not see raetic as an off shoot of etruscan especially with the 2014 raetic script findings in Innsbruck relating to the bronze-age.

As of 2014, the Raetic corpus can be augmented with a number of linguistically relevant finds: From the Inn Valley come the considerable inscription on a bronze tablet, published in detail in De Simone & Marchesini 2013, as well as the shorter IT-6, IT-7 and IT-8. In two locations in the Inn Valley and the Ammergau in Bavaria did the ANISA – Association for rock art and settlement in the Alps discover rocks bearing Raetic inscription comparable to the ones at Steinberg. Only this year, three very utilisable new inscriptions from the Non Valley (NO-15, NO-16, NO-17) were published by Simona Marchesini.

http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/index.php?title=IT-5

There has only been ONE Etruscan alphabet/script found in Raetic lands and that was near bolzano. Clearly we cannot rule out this as just a "trading script"

Interesting, but Raetic script can be on a bronze tablet from Iron Age or begiining of the Roman Empire, but certainly not frim the Bronze Age. The first Celtic, Etruscan, Italiot, Venetian scripts of North Italy are from the 7th-6th centuries, not before 700BC.

Otherwise, the problem are the origins of the Sea People described by Egyptian around 1300-1150BC. For Italy the concerned people are Skekelesh, Shardanes and Tusci.
Skekelesh/Sicules are certainly IE Italiots from Italy.
I am inclined to think Shardanes come from Sardinia and Tusci come from Toscana and not an Asiatic people which got refugia in these regions.

I read Pylos on west coast of Peloponese was destroyed by invaders comin from Nort West by sea, this explains the element of surprise. An Italian writer speaks of an tsunami in West Med. which ruined some coastal areas at this timeand left traces in the Sardinian landscape.

The Elymes of nortk-west Sicilia would be come from Liguria (and not from Troy according to their legends.
The Sicanes were toldparents of the Iberians of the East coast of the Spain.

Rhetian langage spred in Central Alpes is cousin of Etruscan and certainly not a batardized descendant of the Etruscan as described by some Latine historians. tThis is the probable true hese of Pallatino. The cultural oriental period in Etruria is contemporary of the contact with Phenicians and Greeks starting in the 8th century and blooming in 7th-6th centuries with an important presence of Phenicians, Carthagenians and Greecs in Etruscan ports These are the real oriental contribution and not the Indo-european speakers of Anatolia.
We know the pelasgian population of Lemnos has been expulsed from Attica. We can suppose in this case Pelasgian was Tusci and this explain Lemnian script and Lemnian and Etruscan were near parentlanguages.

Larth
05-11-2015, 04:58 PM
I fail to see how Villanovan origin would make the Etruscans autochthonous, non-immigrant, or pre-IE. You know perfectly well what period that is.

You're right of course. But the range is between a development in situ and an imported civilization. Of course it exist many shades in between.



Interesting, but Raetic script can be on a bronze tablet from Iron Age or begiining of the Roman Empire, but certainly not frim the Bronze Age. The first Celtic, Etruscan, Italiot, Venetian scripts of North Italy are from the 7th-6th centuries, not before 700BC.

Yes, not before 700 BC.

vettor
05-11-2015, 06:28 PM
Interesting, but Raetic script can be on a bronze tablet from Iron Age or begiining of the Roman Empire, but certainly not frim the Bronze Age. The first Celtic, Etruscan, Italiot, Venetian scripts of North Italy are from the 7th-6th centuries, not before 700BC.

Otherwise, the problem are the origins of the Sea People described by Egyptian around 1300-1150BC. For Italy the concerned people are Skekelesh, Shardanes and Tusci.
Skekelesh/Sicules are certainly IE Italiots from Italy.
I am inclined to think Shardanes come from Sardinia and Tusci come from Toscana and not an Asiatic people which got refugia in these regions.

I read Pylos on west coast of Peloponese was destroyed by invaders comin from Nort West by sea, this explains the element of surprise. An Italian writer speaks of an tsunami in West Med. which ruined some coastal areas at this timeand left traces in the Sardinian landscape.

The Elymes of nortk-west Sicilia would be come from Liguria (and not from Troy according to their legends.
The Sicanes were toldparents of the Iberians of the East coast of the Spain.

Rhetian langage spred in Central Alpes is cousin of Etruscan and certainly not a batardized descendant of the Etruscan as described by some Latine historians. tThis is the probable true hese of Pallatino. The cultural oriental period in Etruria is contemporary of the contact with Phenicians and Greeks starting in the 8th century and blooming in 7th-6th centuries with an important presence of Phenicians, Carthagenians and Greecs in Etruscan ports These are the real oriental contribution and not the Indo-european speakers of Anatolia.
We know the pelasgian population of Lemnos has been expulsed from Attica. We can suppose in this case Pelasgian was Tusci and this explain Lemnian script and Lemnian and Etruscan were near parentlanguages.

But you all fail to understand, the raeti based on script, archeology etc are older than the etruscans, so the theory that etruscans fled into the Alps to create the raeti is 100% wrong.
Since venetic , east raetic and west raetic are all the same languages more or less and the venetics have archaeological finds from 1200BC and the raetic likewise, one needs to explain WHY etruscan civilization only appears in Italy from 800BC ?
Clearly we have :
1 - Raetic people did not come from Etruscans
2 - Raetic people are older than Etruscans in Italy
3 - Raetic script is closest to Venetic script and more distant the Etruscan script
and more

Answer why, the Etruscans only appear in Italy from 800BC

Then we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script

based on what we know about the ages of these races, and the above link, we can only say ..........wherever the etruscans came from or if they where already there the script was learned from the Raetic and adapted into etruscan language .

Why is it that professors of languages can read raetic script but not read or understand etruscan script


http://www.archaeotirol.at/
click der_verein
Venetic inscription [vhilone.i. /filo(:)nej/] from Demlfeld, Tyrol;
Demlfeld and the entire Ampass area correspond to the Breuni (Βρεῦνοι) and Genauni (Γεναῦνοι) tribal areas;

ADW_1981
05-11-2015, 09:10 PM
We don't have ancient genomes from Anatolia and cannot state what they did or did not look like on a PCA. It appears that Etruscans were more "West Asian" than modern Spaniards, and more "North European" than modern Tuscans. Eastern, and probably some additional SW Asian immigration is likely the root cause of the shift in southern Europe.

Christina
05-12-2015, 02:21 AM
You have summed up the anti-migrationist position beloved by archaeologists for decades.

Linguistic evidence tells a different story. The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Raetic appears to be an offshoot of Etruscan, but Lemnian seems more archaic, suggesting a people who settled in the Aegean earlier than Italy. Words borrowed from Anatolian languages such as Hittite are a further clue to an arrival from the eastern Mediterranean. In Italy Etruscan appears to be an intrusion into a pre-existing pattern of Indo-European languages. There are Umbrian place-names in Tuscany.

Ancient DNA has proved anti-migrationist archaeologists wrong in every case so far where they have disagreed with linguists.

Except there is now evidence that ancient peoples of the Italic peninsula were migrating and trading EAST, and that explains several examples of "script" in the eastern parts. Witness this example, concerning the "Sea Peoples." Just because eastern society was "older" and similar cultural items appear there and in Italy, does not mean the migration was east to west.

http://www.aegeussociety.org/en/index.php/new-articles/an-eteocretan-inscription-from-praisos/

Christina
05-12-2015, 02:29 AM
Can any of the migrationists give an example where a people engaged in a very long-distance migration, and left no shreds of evidence or colonies on the way? This would be like the Portuguese being in Brazil but not the Azores. The Spanish in Florida, but not Cuba. Etc.

The cities and lands of the Etruscan are the most temperate, beautiful, fertile, and strategic cities in all of Italy. And remember, there are dozens of Etruscan cities, most often at the top of a very fortified hill.

I simply cannot imagine a people "migrating" en masse in sufficient numbers, picking one faraway land seemingly at random, and then taking out 20 or so hill forts. (From my military science, I remember that an invading force typically needs numbers of 8 to 1 to take out an embedded force holding the high ground).

Given the smallish capacity of ancient ships, the number it would have taken to take an entire people west is mind boggling. We are talking hundreds if not thousands.

And if the invaders were that mighty (i.e., were living in central Anatolia, had enough wealth to build 900 ships, and just decided to pack up one day and do it), why would they not take the coastal towns in western Anatolia? Why not a colony on the Balkan peninsula? Why is Etruria on the western shores of Italy, and not the east? Did a starving (or powerful) people deign to land in Umbria and Emilia Romagna, and wanted to take the scenic route around the toe instead?

Christina
05-12-2015, 02:35 AM
And the migrationist position is the desire to see Etruscan civilization (as any other civilization) as non native. No one is unbiased on these issues, so please let's all keep on the facts before interpreting them.

For a long time I believed myself that Herodotus was right. Then I started to read anything on the Etruscans. By the way Etruria was previously IE and non IE speaking. Before the IE migrations, central Italy was already inhabited by non IE. That's a fact.



I agree so much. There is a very strong tendency for some people to see any novel civilization as exotic in origin, particularly in Italy, for some reason.

As someone who has read every ancient Greek and Roman history text, I can tell you what those who have done the same already know: mythical origins were invented all the time to (a) create a sense that a new people was more ancient; (b) to create a sense of kinship between two powers; (c) simply to make the story better.

This applies even to serious historians. Suetonius, for example, will go into great (historical) detail about something which we can corroborate in other sources, and then go off on a tangent about how Hercules kissed an eagle or something, it laid an egg with two heads, and that was a foreshadowing of some emperor ascending to the throne.

Krefter
05-12-2015, 04:56 AM
Can any of the migrationists give an example where a people engaged in a very long-distance migration, and left no shreds of evidence or colonies on the way? This would be like the Portuguese being in Brazil but not the Azores. The Spanish in Florida, but not Cuba. Etc.

The cities and lands of the Etruscan are the most temperate, beautiful, fertile, and strategic cities in all of Italy. And remember, there are dozens of Etruscan cities, most often at the top of a very fortified hill.

I simply cannot imagine a people "migrating" en masse in sufficient numbers, picking one faraway land seemingly at random, and then taking out 20 or so hill forts. (From my military science, I remember that an invading force typically needs numbers of 8 to 1 to take out an embedded force holding the high ground).

Given the smallish capacity of ancient ships, the number it would have taken to take an entire people west is mind boggling. We are talking hundreds if not thousands.

And if the invaders were that mighty (i.e., were living in central Anatolia, had enough wealth to build 900 ships, and just decided to pack up one day and do it), why would they not take the coastal towns in western Anatolia? Why not a colony on the Balkan peninsula? Why is Etruria on the western shores of Italy, and not the east? Did a starving (or powerful) people deign to land in Umbria and Emilia Romagna, and wanted to take the scenic route around the toe instead?

It's not impossible for the Etruscan(*language*) to be from Anatolia. Crazier stuff has happened. I don't have an opinion on it, just I want to point out that total foreigners could appear to be native if no written records trace their migration. This is because human memory doesn't last generations.

After one generation an immigrant pop could feel like they have been there for 1,000s of years. Just look at the Americas! In the USA for example, arguable the most diverse and young(in terms of when people's ancestors arrived) nation in the history of man, and we can be very patriotic and nativist. Many Americans have no idea where their family came from and don't care.

We have to understand that the same was true for ancient people. They had no idea where they came from, and a recent immigrant(ex.Neolithic farmer from near east, Bronze age Indo European from East Europe) were seen as just as native as the people who lived there for 1,000s of years.

Larth
05-12-2015, 08:38 AM
It's not impossible for the Etruscan(*language*) to be from Anatolia. Crazier stuff has happened. I don't have an opinion on it, just I want to point out that total foreigners could appear to be native if no written records trace their migration. This is because human memory doesn't last generations.

After one generation an immigrant pop could feel like they have been there for 1,000s of years. Just look at the Americas! In the USA for example, arguable the most diverse and young(in terms of when people's ancestors arrived) nation in the history of man, and we can be very patriotic and nativist. Many Americans have no idea where their family came from and don't care.

We have to understand that the same was true for ancient people. They had no idea where they came from, and a recent immigrant(ex.Neolithic farmer from near east, Bronze age Indo European from East Europe) were seen as just as native as the people who lived there for 1,000s of years.

The Etruscan civilization advanced rapidly through metallurgy as well. Tuscany is very rich in mines used since the Bronze Age. Really do we believe that an entire people moved so far away and discovered casually one of the richest mining areas in Italy that was already inhabited by IE and non-IE? If we must assume a migration, for the Tyrrhenians was more likely a return.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 10:28 AM
Except there is now evidence that ancient peoples of the Italic peninsula were migrating and trading EAST, and that explains several examples of "script" in the eastern parts.

Yes indeed trade eastwards along the Mediterranean could and did happen. There is nothing new or surprising about that. And indeed that is an alternative explanation that has been proposed for the Etruscan-type inscription on Lemnos. But if you take the trouble to read the paper I cited by L.B. van der Meer, Etruscan origins: language and archaeology, BABesch, 79 (2004), 51-57, you will see that this does not explain the evidence. As I said, Lemnian seems more archaic than the Etruscan of Italy.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 10:37 AM
The Etruscan civilization advanced rapidly through metallurgy as well. Tuscany is very rich in mines used since the Bronze Age. Really do we believe that an entire people moved so far away and discovered casually one of the richest mining areas in Italy ....

Of course not. The mines would already be well-known by this time and an attraction to any people looking for a livelihood.


already inhabited by IE and non-IE?

Where is the evidence that Tuscany had a non-IE language before the Villanovan culture?

[Added] Not that I'm entirely hooked on the idea that the Villanovan culture was ancestral to the Etruscan cities. I think it is possible that the Etruscans were groups of incomers who built themselves well-protected hill-top settlements to cow and control an IE-speaking populace. They may have initially been traders, who gradually formed colonies.

That would be a parallel (though earlier) development to the Greek colonization of southern Italy.

Larth
05-12-2015, 12:33 PM
Of course not. The mines would already be well-known by this time and an attraction to any people looking for a livelihood.

So, you think that Tyrrenians were just lucky people. I see.


Where is the evidence that Tuscany had a non-IE language before the Villanovan culture?

Bronze age Rinaldone culture with ties with Aegean-Anatolian area, one of the first metallurgical production of the region, rich of metal resources. But I guess that you will say that there is no evidence and that they were Indoeuropean them too.


[Added] Not that I'm entirely hooked on the idea that the Villanovan culture was ancestral to the Etruscan cities. I think it is possible that the Etruscans were groups of incomers who built themselves well-protected hill-top settlements to cow and control an IE-speaking populace. They may have initially been traders, who gradually formed colonies.

That would be a parallel (though earlier) development to the Greek colonization of southern Italy.

Basically you're a super-migrationist. Interesting.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 01:35 PM
So, you think that Tyrrenians were just lucky people.

Why would I think that? Sources of metal become known through trade. Once a source is known, it can attract prospectors. Just like the Californian Gold Rush. People turning up looking for gold in California already knew that some had been found there. Metal sources in Italy were known millennia before the Etruscan cities.


Bronze age Rinaldone culture with ties with Aegean-Anatolian area, one of the first metallurgical production of the region, rich of metal resources. But I guess that you will say that there is no evidence and that they were Indoeuropean them too.

I doubt that Rinaldone people were IE speakers - at least of the IE branch which moved up the Danube. The culture seems too early for that. We have a complex picture in the Alps and northern Italy. We can attribute the discovery of the Brixlegg ores in the Alps to Balkan copper workers turning their sights westwards. It dates to before the collapse of the rich Balkan towns of the 5th millennium BC. In Sardinia the arrival of metallurgy around 4000 BC suggests a flight direct from that collapse. The most recent dates for Rinaldone burials centre around 3500 BC, too late for the Balkan exodus, yet too early for Yamnaya wanderings. Knowledge of metallurgy could have spread down from the Alps into central Italy. Or as you suggest, Rinaldone could owe more to prospecting from the Aegean.

Either way, we could see it as the manifestation of people living before the wash of IE over the peninsula. The question is whether that language and/or the Neolithic languages that we can expect to have been spoken in Italy survived the incoming of the IE speakers.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 01:52 PM
Basically you're a super-migrationist.

:biggrin1: A later date of arrival would make more sense of certain aspects of this puzzle i.e. the place-name evidence and the fact that some vague recollection of the Etruscans as arrivals survived as late as the earliest Greek historians.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 02:05 PM
Here is an interesting aside from Herodotus, 1, 57: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm


What language however the Pelasgians used to speak I am not able with certainty to say. But if one must pronounce judging by those that still remain of the Pelasgians who dwelt in the city of Creston above the Tyrsenians,...

The Pelasgians are mentioned by a number of ancient Greek writers as non-IE-speakers who lived in Greece before the Greek-speaking Hellenes. What is interesting here is that he refers to some of them at 'Creston above the Tyrsenians'. This is clearly not in Italy. It is presumed to be Crestonia in Thrace. So the Tyrsenians/ Tyrrhenians lived to the south of Thrace, which would fit the settlement on Lemnos.

The account Herodotus gave of the Lydian colonization of Etruria is at 1, 94: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1090.htm

It was taken by him from the Lydians. This is the problem. Some Lydians may well have thought that some vaguely recalled story taken from their non-IE predecessors actually related to them. It caused dissent even back then. Other historians could not believe that the Etruscans were related to the Lydians. Neither can most modern historians.

ADW_1981
05-12-2015, 04:06 PM
:biggrin1: A later date of arrival would make more sense of certain aspects of this puzzle i.e. the place-name evidence and the fact that some vague recollection of the Etruscans as arrivals survived as late as the earliest Greek historians.

Didn't studies from a few years back determine the livestock of the Etruscans(through DNA) originated in West Asia or SW Asia? I suppose this could have been through trade, but Europe certainly had domesticated animals at this point. I don't see why they would have needed to important foreign animals if they had local ones already. Unless of course, the Etruscans weren't natives of Italy.

giuseppe rossi
05-12-2015, 05:36 PM
1. I would be amazed if modern Tuscans were 100% Etruscan in origin.
2. We have no R1b-U152 from ancient DNA. We have only its modern distribution, compiled conscientiously by R. Rocca, which shows a relatively high density core in northern Italy and Corsica (though nowhere greater than 36%). I can see why you might think from that pattern that it must be related to the Etruscans, but we need to wait and see.

You clearly have no idea about what you are talking about.

R1b U152 makes over than 50% of total y-dna lineages in Eastern Lombardy.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/roman_colonies_italy.jpg

The complete list of sources can be found here.

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

giuseppe rossi
05-12-2015, 05:39 PM
So, you think that Tyrrenians were just lucky people. I see.



Bronze age Rinaldone culture with ties with Aegean-Anatolian area, one of the first metallurgical production of the region, rich of metal resources. But I guess that you will say that there is no evidence and that they were Indoeuropean them too.



Basically you're a super-migrationist. Interesting.

Why are you wasting your time arguing with this retard?

They are in total denial of genetic evidence.

Both Autosomal and mitocondrial dna have proved that Etruscans were indigenous to Italy.

If the Etruscans plotted with the Chinese, these nutjobs would claim that ancient Anatolians were East Asians to fit with their ludicrous theories.

Aquilifer
05-12-2015, 05:54 PM
Since it appears nobody has linked the Barbujani study from a couple years ago, these recent findings do indeed support it.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519


Abstract

The Etruscan culture is documented in Etruria, Central Italy, from the 8th to the 1st century BC. For more than 2,000 years there has been disagreement on the Etruscans’ biological origins, whether local or in Anatolia. Genetic affinities with both Tuscan and Anatolian populations have been reported, but so far all attempts have failed to fit the Etruscans’ and modern populations in the same genealogy. We extracted and typed the hypervariable region of mitochondrial DNA of 14 individuals buried in two Etruscan necropoleis, analyzing them along with other Etruscan and Medieval samples, and 4,910 contemporary individuals from the Mediterranean basin. Comparing ancient (30 Etruscans, 27 Medieval individuals) and modern DNA sequences (370 Tuscans), with the results of millions of computer simulations, we show that the Etruscans can be considered ancestral, with a high degree of confidence, to the current inhabitants of Casentino and Volterra, but not to the general contemporary population of the former Etruscan homeland. By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores.

If anything, they were probably a mix of Neolithic Anatolians and other peoples who settled in Italy (Proto-Celts/Proto-Italics/etc).

ADW_1981
05-12-2015, 05:58 PM
Why are you wasting your time arguing with this retard?

They are in total denial of genetic evidence.

Both Autosomal and mitocondrial dna have proved that Etruscans were indigenous to Italy.

If the Etruscans plotted with the Chinese, these nutjobs would claim that ancient Anatolians were East Asians to fit with their ludicrous theories.

Retard? Seriously? Who are you arguing with? The accredited author and historian or the johnny come lately troll with 11 posts?

Moderator
05-12-2015, 06:12 PM
Why are you wasting your time arguing with this retard?

[MOD] Please be advised that you are in breach of site rule 3.11:


Invectives and posts devoid of substance (e.g. threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content or triviality) will be considered junk postings and deleted. Anthrogenica encourages its members to engage in debate with each other, but discussions that degenerate into little more than flaming and inanity will be considered spam (see Rule 3.9).

This is a WARNING. Any further violations of the forum's rules will result in the temporary or permanent revocation of your posting privileges. Thank you for your cooperation.

vettor
05-12-2015, 06:21 PM
Here is an interesting aside from Herodotus, 1, 57: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm



The Pelasgians are mentioned by a number of ancient Greek writers as non-IE-speakers who lived in Greece before the Greek-speaking Hellenes. What is interesting here is that he refers to some of them at 'Creston above the Tyrsenians'. This is clearly not in Italy. It is presumed to be Crestonia in Thrace. So the Tyrsenians/ Tyrrhenians lived to the south of Thrace, which would fit the settlement on Lemnos.

The account Herodotus gave of the Lydian colonization of Etruria is at 1, 94: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1090.htm

It was taken by him from the Lydians. This is the problem. Some Lydians may well have thought that some vaguely recalled story taken from their non-IE predecessors actually related to them. It caused dissent even back then. Other historians could not believe that the Etruscans were related to the Lydians. Neither can most modern historians.

while I like the works of Herodotus, he is sometimes wrong................he claims the Adriatic Veneti are illyrians IIRC, is he correct there.!

The simple fact is ............bronze-age ethnicity in Italy are the Ligures, Raeti, Venetic, Liburni and Umbri ....................iron-age are Etrusci ( i do not discuss Southern Italy here )
Villanova culture can easily be associated also with the Umbri

Who where the bronze-age People of Etruria ..........is it the Etrusci or someone else ................simple question

Jean M
05-12-2015, 07:26 PM
Didn't studies from a few years back determine the livestock of the Etruscans (through DNA) originated in West Asia or SW Asia?

One study anyway. Marco Pellecchia, The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA, Proc. R. Soc. B, 274 (2007), 1175–1179. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1614/1175.full.pdf+html


The Etruscan culture developed in Central Italy (Etruria) in the first millennium BC and for centuries dominated part of the Italian Peninsula, including Rome. The history of the Etruscans is at the roots of Mediterranean culture and civilization, but their origin is still debated: local or Eastern provenance? To shed light on this mystery, bovine and human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) have been investigated, based on the well-recognized strict legacy which links human and livestock populations.

In the region corresponding to ancient Etruria (Tuscany, Central Italy), several Bos taurus breeds have been reared since historical times. These breeds have a strikingly high level of mtDNA variation, which is found neither in the rest of Italy nor in Europe. The Tuscan bovines are genetically closer to Near Eastern than to European gene pools and this Eastern genetic signature is paralleled in modern human populations from Tuscany, which are genetically close to Anatolian and Middle Eastern ones. The evidence collected corroborates the hypothesis of a common past migration: both humans and cattle reached Etruria from the Eastern Mediterranean area by sea. Hence, the Eastern origin of Etruscans, first claimed by the classic historians Herodotus and Thucydides, receives strong independent support. As the Latin philosopher Seneca wrote: Asia Etruscos sibi vindicat (Asia claims the Etruscans back).


Considering the persistence of the same cattle breeds in Tuscany at least since the first century AD, as recorded by the Roman writer Columella (De re rustica, VI, 1–2), the migratory event suggested in this paper should pre-date the Roman age. The event is also unlikely to date back to the Neolithic colonization of Italy (ca 6000 BC), since this process took place gradually from the southern part of the peninsula northward (Malone 2003). Such a pattern does not match the sudden burst of diversity in cattle mtDNA observed in Tuscany....

Where I may have gone wrong is in taking at face value the dating in this paper:


The average number of base substitutions (r; Forster et al. 1996) in HVRI (from position 16 042–16 313) within this T3 branch and the associated standard error (s) calculated in the manner of Saillard et al. (2000) were 0.36 +/- 0.22. This corresponds to a coalescence time of 3970 +/- 2400 years BP using the evolutionary rate estimate of one base substitution per 10, 928 years (Troy et al. 2001). Thus, the arrival in Tuscany of the 16 050 motifs should be subsequent to the Neolithic colonization of the Italian Peninsula.

giuseppe rossi
05-12-2015, 08:12 PM
But....

They have actually tested Etruscan dna (autosomal and mtdna) and they were nothing like Anatolians, so their cattle is irrelevant.

Are Europeans Amerindians because in Europe we eat Potatos from America?

Jean M
05-12-2015, 08:30 PM
They have actually tested Etruscan dna (autosomal and mtdna) and they were nothing like Anatolians.

That is scarcely possible unless the Etruscans were nothing like modern Italians either. The Italian population taken as a whole is similar in some respects to that in modern Anatolia. This is not surprising, given that both regions had an influx from the Near East in the Neolithic and then influxes of IE speakers. So sorting out whether the Etruscans came from Anatolia is one of the trickiest problems in population genetics.

There have been several papers on Etruscan mtDNA that struggled with this issue:

Cristiano Vernesi et al., The Etruscans: A Population-Genetic Study, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:694–704 (2004)


The origins of the Etruscans, a non-Indo-European population of preclassical Italy, are unclear. There is broad agreement that their culture developed locally, but the Etruscans’ evolutionary and migrational relationships are largely unknown. In this study, we determined mitochondrial DNA sequences in multiple clones derived from bone samples of 80 Etruscans who lived between the 7th and the 3rd centuries B.C. ... On the basis of data from the remaining 30 individuals, the Etruscans appeared as genetically variable as modern populations. No significant heterogeneity emerged among archaeological sites or time periods, suggesting that different Etruscan communities shared not only a culture but also a mitochondrial gene pool. Genetic distances and sequence comparisons show closer evolutionary relationships with the eastern Mediterranean shores for the Etruscans than for modern Italian populations. All mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscans appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were found to have an exact match in a modern mitochondrial database, raising new questions about the Etruscans’ fate after their assimilation into the Roman state.

This was criticized by Bandelt (2004). It was too early a study to be really confident that the authors excluded contamination. Then we had:

Silvia Ghirotto et al., Origins and Evolution of the Etruscans’ mtDNA
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519


The Etruscan culture is documented in Etruria, Central Italy, from the 8th to the 1st century BC. For more than 2,000 years there has been disagreement on the Etruscans’ biological origins, whether local or in Anatolia. Genetic affinities with both Tuscan and Anatolian populations have been reported, but so far all attempts have failed to fit the Etruscans’ and modern populations in the same genealogy. We extracted and typed the hypervariable region of mitochondrial DNA of 14 individuals buried in two Etruscan necropoleis, analyzing them along with other Etruscan and Medieval samples, and 4,910 contemporary individuals from the Mediterranean basin. Comparing ancient (30 Etruscans, 27 Medieval individuals) and modern DNA sequences (370 Tuscans), with the results of millions of computer simulations, we show that the Etruscans can be considered ancestral, with a high degree of confidence, to the current inhabitants of Casentino and Volterra, but not to the general contemporary population of the former Etruscan homeland. By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores.

So (as with the study of cattle), this issue rests on dating.

Personally I would go for ancient Y-DNA before and after key archaeological shifts.

giuseppe rossi
05-12-2015, 09:05 PM
There is quite a sharp genetic division between Turks/Kurds and modern Italians.

Etruscans are between Southern Europeans and Balkan people in genome wide analysis and their Mtdna match that of Central European neolitich farmers.

Genetically Etruscans are nothing like Anatolians.

Jean M
05-12-2015, 09:37 PM
Etruscans are between Southern Europeans and Balkan people in genome wide analysis and their Mtdna match that of Central European neolithic farmers.

This is the problem. The Neolithic farmers passed through Anatolia to Europe. The range of mtDNA haplogroups that appeared in Europe with farming came from the Near East. To pick up differences between mtDNA in Anatolia and Europe you really need to get down to deep subclades. But better still - forget mtDNA and go for ancient Y-DNA, where we have a distinct new phase with the spread of Yamnaya-derived cultures. And we need full genomes from ancient Anatolia.

Inigo Montoya
05-13-2015, 06:45 AM
As I said, Lemnian seems more archaic than the Etruscan of Italy.
It is possible for the language of migrants to remain more conservative than that of the homeland. In many ways, American English sounds like a mixing of 17th century Devon and Surrey dialects of English that kept features that have mostly been lost in England. A much more obvious (and extreme) example of the same phenomenon is Icelandic.

giuseppe rossi
05-13-2015, 08:26 AM
This is the problem. The Neolithic farmers passed through Anatolia to Europe. The range of mtDNA haplogroups that appeared in Europe with farming came from the Near East. To pick up differences between mtDNA in Anatolia and Europe you really need to get down to deep subclades. But better still - forget mtDNA and go for ancient Y-DNA, where we have a distinct new phase with the spread of Yamnaya-derived cultures. And we need full genomes from ancient Anatolia.

No you don't need to get down to deep subclades to tell apart European and Anatolian mtdna. Etruscan mtdna is identical to that of Central European neolitich farmers (guess what? They were from Italy) and very close to the mtdna found now in Tuscany. On the other hand the Middle Eastern Anatolian mtdna is completely different and Ghirotto et al estimates the date of separation between Anatolians and Etruscans to be over 5000 years ago.

Autosomally Etruscans were intermediate between modern Italians, Iberians and Balkan Slavs and worlds apart from Anatolians or Finns for example.

Now I don't think you are so silly to believe that ancient Anatolians were like modern Iberians or something.

Generalissimo
05-13-2015, 08:33 AM
Etruscan mtdna is identical to that of Central European neolitich farmers (guess what? They were from Italy) and very close to the mtdna found now in Tuscany.

Firstly, most of the ancestors of Central European Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia.

Secondly, Neolithic Anatolian farmers will turn out very similar to Central European Neolithic LBK farmers.

giuseppe rossi
05-13-2015, 09:50 AM
Firstly, most of the ancestors of Central European Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia.

Secondly, Neolithic Anatolian farmers will turn out very similar to Central European Neolithic LBK farmers.

You nailed it: most of their ancestors. But Anatolian farmers mixed with Mesolitich Hunther Gatherers in Italy and in Greece, so they were not completely Anatolian anymore.

And personally I am not even 100% sure that H&Gs in Italy were the same as Loshbour and La Brana cavemen.

Generalissimo
05-13-2015, 10:10 AM
You nailed it: most of their ancestors. But Anatolian farmers mixed with Mesolitich Hunther Gatherers in Italy and in Greece, so they were not completely Anatolian anymore.

Early Neolithic German farmers like Stuttgart were still overwhelmingly Anatolian.

Where they obtained their Loschbour-like admixture is an open question. Maybe it was western Anatolia? We'll see.


And personally I am not even 100% sure that H&Gs in Italy were the same as Loshbour and La Brana cavemen.

Italian hunter-gatherers had to have been very similar to Spanish and Central European hunter-gatherers, because if they were different then they didn't leave any trace of their existence anywhere.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 11:48 AM
Early Neolithic German farmers like Stuttgart were still overwhelmingly Anatolian.

Where they obtained their Loschbour-like admixture is an open question. Maybe it was western Anatolia?

That might explain one little puzzle - where the Impressed/Cardial Ware stream of Neolithic farmers picked up Y-DNA I2. I await aDNA results from Anatolia.


Italian hunter-gatherers had to have been very similar to Spanish and Central European hunter-gatherers.

We do have a couple of reliable results for late Palaeolithic Italy from Fu 2013:

Paglicci Cave [Accesso sala 2 Rim P] - 13,000 - 9000 BC - mtDNA U2'3'4'7'8'9
Continenza - 14,000 - 8000 years ago - mtDNA U5b2b1

So not exactly designer label specialities unknown in the dowdy rest of Europe.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 12:14 PM
Etruscan mtdna is identical to that of Central European neolitich farmers (guess what? They were from Italy).

No Central European Neolithic farmers were not from Italy. We know that because of

1. The archaeological trail up the Danube to Central Europe. Italy was part of a separate route along the Mediterranean coast from the Levant via Anatolia. See map below.
2. We have DNA from the Danube route. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

4565

TigerMW
05-13-2015, 12:38 PM
Please refrain from color commentary that enters into ridicule. That does not help us stay on topic and focus on logic, evidence and insight.
I'm referring to remarks like "don't be silly". Once, okay, but this is not a good pattern.

ADW_1981
05-13-2015, 01:41 PM
But....

They have actually tested Etruscan dna (autosomal and mtdna) and they were nothing like Anatolians, so their cattle is irrelevant.

Are Europeans Amerindians because in Europe we eat Potatos from America?

Don't be silly.

We don't really have a lot of information on aDNA from Etruscans, just 1 PCA, unless I am missing something critical beyond that PDF. We have some mtDNA, but that alone is not enough to draw firm conclusions on anything. You're also erroneously linking ancient Anatolians to modern Anatolians, another key error, especially coming from a region which has been at the crossroads of civilisation for a very long time. Lots of people passed through it.

I think you had a lot more going for you when you tried to link R-U152 to the Villanovans, but I don't see any compelling evidence these folks were ancestors of the Etruscans.

giuseppe rossi
05-13-2015, 05:02 PM
:biggrin1:

We have autosomal dna and mtdna.

What do you want more?

J Man
05-13-2015, 05:08 PM
:biggrin1:

We have autosomal dna and mtdna.

What do you want more?

Y-DNA obviously lol.

J Man
05-13-2015, 05:11 PM
That might explain one little puzzle - where the Impressed/Cardial Ware stream of Neolithic farmers picked up Y-DNA I2. I await aDNA results from Anatolia.



We do have a couple of reliable results for late Palaeolithic Italy from Fu 2013:

Paglicci Cave [Accesso sala 2 Rim P] - 13,000 - 9000 BC - mtDNA U2'3'4'7'8'9
Continenza - 14,000 - 8000 years ago - mtDNA U5b2b1

So not exactly designer label specialities unknown in the dowdy rest of Europe.

So the Paglicci cave sample has been confirmed as belonging to some sort of mtDNA haplogroup U clade? I ask this because I remember all of the people over the last number of years who said that Palicci belongs to H or HV.

Krefter
05-13-2015, 05:15 PM
So the Paglicci cave sample has been confirmed as belonging to some sort of mtDNA haplogroup U clade? I ask this because I remember all of the people over the last number of years who said that Palicci belongs to H or HV.

This paglicci sample is much younger.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 05:38 PM
R1b U152 makes over than 50% of total y-dna lineages in Eastern Lombardy.

I prefer not to use Eupedia as a source. Don't get me wrong here. Maciamo's maps are enormously useful to novices in the field. I have not been among their public critics. But I prefer to use published sources or the work of experts in the haplogroups in question. So for Ancestral Journeys I used a map by Richard Rocca of the distribution of U152. I was following that map in my commentary. For all I know I may be out of date on eastern Lombardy. But this is scarcely the biggest deal in the universe. The hot spot in that general region was shown on Richard's map.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 05:44 PM
So the Paglicci cave sample has been confirmed as belonging to some sort of mtDNA haplogroup U clade? I ask this because I remember all of the people over the last number of years who said that Palicci belongs to H or HV.

As you will see on http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml , Caramelli 2003 and 2008 tested Paglicci Cave individuals 12, 23 and 25. He claimed H for at least one of them (I can't recall the details now), but these samples were dismissed as contaminated in Fu 2013, of which Caramelli was a co-author. It is Paglicci Cave individual Accesso sala 2 Rim P that is U2'3'4'7'8'9.

J Man
05-13-2015, 05:45 PM
This paglicci sample is much younger.

Mesolithic.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 05:48 PM
Mesolithic.

It is dated 13,000 - 9000 BC, so you take your pick. I put it in the Palaeolithic table.

J Man
05-13-2015, 05:50 PM
It is dated 13,000 - 9000 BC, so you take your pick. I put it in the Palaeolithic table.

Borderline.

giuseppe rossi
05-13-2015, 06:28 PM
I prefer not to use Eupedia as a source. Don't get me wrong here. Maciamo's maps are enormously useful to novices in the field. I have not been among their public critics. But I prefer to use published sources or the work of experts in the haplogroups in question. So for Ancestral Journeys I used a map by Richard Rocca of the distribution of U152. I was following that map in my commentary. For all I know I may be out of date on eastern Lombardy. But this is scarcely the biggest deal in the universe. The hot spot in that general region was shown on Richard's map.

Maciamo's maps are not perfect but the one of U152 is very correct for Italy.

I've also posted the complete list of papers used to make the map.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 07:35 PM
Maciamo's maps ... I've also posted the complete list of papers used to make the map.

Yes I saw that. I don't know when he started the practice of listing sources, but it goes a long way towards responding to the chief criticism of Eupedia DNA resources in years past.

lgmayka
05-13-2015, 11:05 PM
Can any of the migrationists give an example where a people engaged in a very long-distance migration, and left no shreds of evidence or colonies on the way?
Magyar migration to the Carpathian Basin? Turkish migration to Anatolia?

Christina
05-13-2015, 11:25 PM
After one generation an immigrant pop could feel like they have been there for 1,000s of years. Just look at the Americas! In the USA for example, arguable the most diverse and young(in terms of when people's ancestors arrived) nation in the history of man, and we can be very patriotic and nativist. Many Americans have no idea where their family came from and don't care.

We have to understand that the same was true for ancient people. They had no idea where they came from, and a recent immigrant(ex.Neolithic farmer from near east, Bronze age Indo European from East Europe) were seen as just as native as the people who lived there for 1,000s of years.

Thank you for your thoughts, but I must respectfully disagree. In previous posts, I have asked, "does anyone purport that X tribe migrated in ancient times by airplane?" I don't do it to be flippant. I do it to underscore the differences between ancient and modern times, which are of course profound.

Large, metal, oceangoing vessels (and of course air travel) are features of the last two hundred years. That is why millions of people could migrate to the Americas. There has never been anything like it.

And even so, we see European colonies at every stop along the way. Whether the Azores in the mid-Atlantic, or the Caribbean.

In Ancient Times, a group would need:

1. A reason to migrate. Were they weak? Starving? Or powerful? See #2.

2. Have to pass through hostile territory held by other tribes.

If they were friends, they would share resources.

If they were weak, they'd be conquered.

If they were powerful, they'd stay local and take the adjacent hostile territory.

3. Mass transit.

Even by Roman and Greek times, the biggest ships carried relatively TINY numbers of humans. Do you realize the number of ships it would have taken to transport tens of thousands of Anatolians to Italy? It boggles the mind.

So to recap: why would a tribe in Central Anatolia decide to up and leave? If they were starving, how did they make their way through eons of tribes on the way to the coast?

How did they build enough ships to get those numbers to Italy?

Why did they go so far?

Why did they leave no traces on the way?

Why would they do things like sail around the tip of Italy, through the hellacious Sicilian straits (with thousands of small ships!) and then lay siege to 20 different Villanovan hill forts (for months if not years on end)?

Remember, Herodotus says they left because they were starving. These are bodacious tasks for a starving people!

I don't pose these questions to you, but to anyone who has this theory of an extrinsic origin for the Etruscans. Any hypothesis must subject itself to rigorous questioning.

I will take Occam's Razor on this one.

Motzart
05-14-2015, 01:42 AM
I think the idea of any sudden organized migration is ridiculous, human nature would be too primitive in the LNE/EBA. Also there is the problem of motivation.

Krefter
05-14-2015, 01:58 AM
So to recap: why would a tribe in Central Anatolia decide to up and leave?

You're not exhausting every possibility. There's clear East Mediterranean ancestry in Italy, so somehow people from there probably after the Neolithic came in large numbers. There were Greek colonies in Italy, right? The original Estruscan speakers could have come originally with a small trading post or exploration camp that gradually grew into an all-out settlement or they became the elite in native tribes(and their language dominated, like English did in Ireland).

Kind of off subject but IMO there's also clear Roman(Tuscan-like) ancestry throughout the former Roman empire in Europe. All people give as an argument to me is "That's impossible, the Romans were just elites and there's no writings that suggest admixture". It's related to this debate because saying something is impossible(when ancient writings and remains cover a microscopic amount of what actually happened) based on the little evidence we have to look at to learn about ancient times, even though DNA suggests it happened, isn't a good argument.

vettor
05-14-2015, 03:26 AM
We have a 2013 paper which states Etruscans have anatolian markers , but are 4000 years in difference.........an anatolian trip via the balkans is always a possibility. a sea voyage is limited by numbers of ships.

Then we have Roman historians stating..........the etruscans attacked and looted 300 Umbrian towns............where the umbrians that big, was an etruscan attack due to a migrational invasion?

the other old fables are

1 - etruscans came from lybia

2- etruscans came from corsica, pushed out by the sardi of sardinia

giuseppe rossi
05-14-2015, 07:30 AM
Thank you for your thoughts, but I must respectfully disagree. In previous posts, I have asked, "does anyone purport that X tribe migrated in ancient times by airplane?" I don't do it to be flippant. I do it to underscore the differences between ancient and modern times, which are of course profound.

Large, metal, oceangoing vessels (and of course air travel) are features of the last two hundred years. That is why millions of people could migrate to the Americas. There has never been anything like it.

And even so, we see European colonies at every stop along the way. Whether the Azores in the mid-Atlantic, or the Caribbean.

In Ancient Times, a group would need:

1. A reason to migrate. Were they weak? Starving? Or powerful? See #2.

2. Have to pass through hostile territory held by other tribes.

If they were friends, they would share resources.

If they were weak, they'd be conquered.

If they were powerful, they'd stay local and take the adjacent hostile territory.

3. Mass transit.

Even by Roman and Greek times, the biggest ships carried relatively TINY numbers of humans. Do you realize the number of ships it would have taken to transport tens of thousands of Anatolians to Italy? It boggles the mind.

So to recap: why would a tribe in Central Anatolia decide to up and leave? If they were starving, how did they make their way through eons of tribes on the way to the coast?

How did they build enough ships to get those numbers to Italy?

Why did they go so far?

Why did they leave no traces on the way?

Why would they do things like sail around the tip of Italy, through the hellacious Sicilian straits (with thousands of small ships!) and then lay siege to 20 different Villanovan hill forts (for months if not years on end)?

Remember, Herodotus says they left because they were starving. These are bodacious tasks for a starving people!

I don't pose these questions to you, but to anyone who has this theory of an extrinsic origin for the Etruscans. Any hypothesis must subject itself to rigorous questioning.

I will take Occam's Razor on this one.

You won't get an answer.

Anyway the Etruscans evolved from the Villanova culture which came from Germany.

See the Urnfield cultures.

It's 1000 times easier to cross the Alps than to cross the sea and the Balkans.

Now let's wait for another 300 years before they understand that.

Jean M
05-14-2015, 10:27 AM
Ancient history of Italy for dummies.

I don't think you will find many dummies on this forum. They don't seem to thrive here. :biggrin1:

Anyone who has read my book Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings (2013) will be entirely familiar with the sequence from Bell Beaker onwards. They will also know what happened earlier. Farmers entered Europe from the Near East. They brought a whole lot of mtDNA haplogroups with them that had not arrived in Europe before (with the probable exception of a few Mesolithic wanderers from the Levant into coastal Greece). Those haplogroups did not just enter Italy. They are all over Europe today. The genome-wide signature of the Near Eastern farmers (EEF) is all over Europe. It is just strongest in Southern Europe. That I think is partly because the earliest type of farming was more successful there long-term, so incoming IE speakers lived alongside existing farmers for longer, and partly because of later influxes from the eastern Mediterranean.

The problem lies in disentangling the threads here, with so many different influxes from the same direction. Believe me, no-one is saying that Italy is less European than any other European country. Influxes from the Near East are an important part of the prehistory and history of the whole of Europe. It's in our DNA. :)

Jean M
05-14-2015, 12:38 PM
In Ancient Times, a group would need:

1. A reason to migrate. ...

I gave a plausible reason already on this thread for the ancestors of the Etruscans to leave Anatolia - pressure from the expanding IE-speaking Lydians.


2. Have to pass through hostile territory held by other tribes.

Not necessarily. The Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians were sea-goers. In fact they were described as pirates by one source at least, as far as I recall.


3. Mass transit.

Even by Roman and Greek times, the biggest ships carried relatively TINY numbers of humans. Do you realize the number of ships it would have taken to transport tens of thousands of Anatolians to Italy?


What makes you think that tens of thousands were involved? This is the same type of straw man argument that has been made to counter the recorded fact that Britain was overrun by Germani in the Post-Roman period. If you make the assumption that immigrants would have to arrive all together in one massive army, then obviously you can point to logistical problems. If on the other hand you picture the migration of Europeans to the Americas, you will see that it began as just a few boat-loads and it took place over centuries. So two processes were involved in the rising number of people in the Americas of European origin: the early immigrant population expanded and more migrants gradually arrived, drawn to the existing colonies. We can picture a similar situation in miniature for the Etruscans. Trading to start with, then establishing a pirate base or two, then larger colonies developing.


Why did they go so far?

They did not go far at all initially. Lemnos is a short sea trip from what was Lydia.


Why did they leave no traces on the way?

They did. See above.


Why would they do things like sail around the tip of Italy, through the hellacious Sicilian straits...?

I think you answered this one yourself in an earlier post:


The cities and lands of the Etruscan are the most temperate, beautiful, fertile, and strategic cities in all of Italy.

Arbogan
05-14-2015, 12:38 PM
I don't understand why people bring their political conceptions to a board based on science and hard evidence. This is not the place to get riled up over offended political sensibilites. There are a great deal of places elsewhere to discuss political and ethno-nationalist conceptions regarding anthropology and genetic issues. Anthrogenica is not the place for it.

ADW_1981
05-14-2015, 02:59 PM
The recent Sardinian paper has some useful quotes, and we should expect western coast of Italy to have contained similar people:

The presence of various private Sardinian clades with star-like topology and different average branch lengths could be interpreted as reflecting the occurrence of some expansion phases of the Sardinian population. Notably, the clades with the higher average branch length (namely four clades of I2a1-M26 and one of G2a2b-L91) may represent the first population expansion that occurred on the island. In particular, the four I2a1 lineages, whose closer relatives can be found in Iberia (Basque Country), seems to be the descendant of the first Mesolithic settlers [19] that expanded following the acquisition of farming and pastoralism cultures [26]. The G2a2b-L91 lineage, which expands downstream to some non-Sardinian samples (Ötzi, a Tuscan and a Corsican, in this order) could represent the Neolithic newcomers to the island. In fact, the sequence of the naturally mummified sample (Ötzi) who lived in the Eastern Alps during the Copper age about 5,200 ya (years ago), has a coalescent age with the Sardinian G2a2b-L91 samples of about 9,000 ya [7], placing it among the common ancestors coming from the Caucasus and moving westward during the Neolithic [18].

Other clades with shorter average branch length, such as some sub-haplogroups of E (samples 115–130 = 51.3 SNPs and 49–114 = 24.9 SNPs), R (973–982 = 33.6 SNPs and 983–1155 = 39.9 SNPs) and G (161–184 = 46.9 SNPs and 245–274 = 53.0 SNPs), show a Sardinian private variability consistent with further expansion in the Late Neolithic (~5,500 to 6,000 BP), well documented by the Ozieri culture, and in the Bronze Age Nuragic period (~4,800 to 2,900 BP) [33].


From the statement, it looks like the oldest Neolithic settlements are I2a1-M26 and one of G2a2b-L91. The late neolithic settlements / Ozieri were a branches of E / G (50 Sardinian specific SNPs), Nuraghic looks like it was exclusively R1b-M269 (33-40 SNPs), and later Roman period immigration of E (probably E-V13) with 25 local SNPs.

I'm a little surprised that all the R1b samples, all 170+ arrived prior to the Roman period, at least by their conclusions. I might be interpreting this wrong though.

Krefter
05-14-2015, 03:23 PM
The recent Sardinian paper has some useful quotes, and we should expect western coast of Italy to have contained similar people:

The presence of various private Sardinian clades with star-like topology and different average branch lengths could be interpreted as reflecting the occurrence of some expansion phases of the Sardinian population. Notably, the clades with the higher average branch length (namely four clades of I2a1-M26 and one of G2a2b-L91) may represent the first population expansion that occurred on the island. In particular, the four I2a1 lineages, whose closer relatives can be found in Iberia (Basque Country), seems to be the descendant of the first Mesolithic settlers [19] that expanded following the acquisition of farming and pastoralism cultures [26]. The G2a2b-L91 lineage, which expands downstream to some non-Sardinian samples (Ötzi, a Tuscan and a Corsican, in this order) could represent the Neolithic newcomers to the island. In fact, the sequence of the naturally mummified sample (Ötzi) who lived in the Eastern Alps during the Copper age about 5,200 ya (years ago), has a coalescent age with the Sardinian G2a2b-L91 samples of about 9,000 ya [7], placing it among the common ancestors coming from the Caucasus and moving westward during the Neolithic [18].

Other clades with shorter average branch length, such as some sub-haplogroups of E (samples 115–130 = 51.3 SNPs and 49–114 = 24.9 SNPs), R (973–982 = 33.6 SNPs and 983–1155 = 39.9 SNPs) and G (161–184 = 46.9 SNPs and 245–274 = 53.0 SNPs), show a Sardinian private variability consistent with further expansion in the Late Neolithic (~5,500 to 6,000 BP), well documented by the Ozieri culture, and in the Bronze Age Nuragic period (~4,800 to 2,900 BP) [33].


From the statement, it looks like the oldest Neolithic settlements are I2a1-M26 and one of G2a2b-L91. The late neolithic settlements / Ozieri were a branches of E / G (50 Sardinian specific SNPs), Nuraghic looks like it was exclusively R1b-M269 (33-40 SNPs), and later Roman period immigration of E (probably E-V13) with 25 local SNPs.

I'm a little surprised that all the R1b samples, all 170+ arrived prior to the Roman period, at least by their conclusions. I might be interpreting this wrong though.

Related note: I was looking through Norweigan Y DNA at FTDNA and it looks like all the G is G2a2b or G2a2a, like Neolithic G. Some proposed G in Europe today is somehow an IE variety which replaced the old EEF variety, but I doubt it. The G2a2s and rare branches of I2 are obviously the few remaining paternal lineages of EEF. I2a2a and I1 are to but went through new expansion after the Neolithic.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Norway?iframe=yresults

ADW_1981
05-14-2015, 05:27 PM
Related note: I was looking through Norweigan Y DNA at FTDNA and it looks like all the G is G2a2b or G2a2a, like Neolithic G. Some proposed G in Europe today is somehow an IE variety which replaced the old EEF variety, but I doubt it. The G2a2s and rare branches of I2 are obviously the few remaining paternal lineages of EEF. I2a2a and I1 are to but went through new expansion after the Neolithic.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Norway?iframe=yresults

SMALL SIDEBAR:

It seems there's only about small handful of distinct G2 founders in Norway who all share relatively recent common ancestors. The branches are below G-P303 which is the common branch in modern Europe. We see this branch in western Anatolia and western Caucasus. there was 1 sample among the recent La Tene find amongst 2 R1b, the kings of France, the Merovingian burial...etc

If I had to guess they are the result of interactions between Celtic and West Asian people, perhaps with the arrival of metals(?) In any case, there isn't a lot of evidence that the typical Neolithic finds have impacted northern Europe at all. It looks like those societies collapsed and were overrun with newcomers. Higher incidences of hunter gatherer HGs can be explained this way as well since they were absorbed by the newcomers, where as *many* male lineage farmers died out.

Motzart
05-15-2015, 01:53 AM
From the statement, it looks like the oldest Neolithic settlements are I2a1-M26 and one of G2a2b-L91. The late neolithic settlements / Ozieri were a branches of E / G (50 Sardinian specific SNPs), Nuraghic looks like it was exclusively R1b-M269 (33-40 SNPs), and later Roman period immigration of E (probably E-V13) with 25 local SNPs.

I'm a little surprised that all the R1b samples, all 170+ arrived prior to the Roman period, at least by their conclusions. I might be interpreting this wrong though.

You don't think the Bell Beakers brought R1b1a2 to Sardinia?

Mellow
05-15-2015, 03:45 AM
Does anyone have Gedmatch results for these samples?

Christina
05-15-2015, 06:05 AM
I gave a plausible reason already on this thread for the ancestors of the Etruscans to leave Anatolia - pressure from the expanding IE-speaking Lydians.



Not necessarily. The Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians were sea-goers. In fact they were described as pirates by one source at least, as far as I recall.



What makes you think that tens of thousands were involved? This is the same type of straw man argument that has been made to counter the recorded fact that Britain was overrun by Germani in the Post-Roman period. If you make the assumption that immigrants would have to arrive all together in one massive army, then obviously you can point to logistical problems. If on the other hand you picture the migration of Europeans to the Americas, you will see that it began as just a few boat-loads and it took place over centuries. So two processes were involved in the rising number of people in the Americas of European origin: the early immigrant population expanded and more migrants gradually arrived, drawn to the existing colonies. We can picture a similar situation in miniature for the Etruscans. Trading to start with, then establishing a pirate base or two, then larger colonies developing.



They did not go far at all initially. Lemnos is a short sea trip from what was Lydia.



They did. See above.



I think you answered this one yourself in an earlier post:

OK, so let me see if I understand your theory: A group of Indo Europeans invaded Anatolia, causing one tribe to leave. This tribe lived inland, about 100 miles from the coast. This tribe marched west, through the territory of neighboring tribes, who presumably were not thrilled their territory was being trampled.

This tribe, which was too weak in resources and manpower to fight off the invading Indo Europeans, was however big enough to build a large amount of ships to migrate in sufficient numbers to storm well-fortified hill towns in the most fantastically guarded part of Italy? (But couldn't fight off the invading band of Indo Europeans)?

But wait, you say, I didn't get that right. Maybe it was a slow migration, you say. This tribe lingered now in Anatolia, slowly sending colonies of people over decades and perhaps centuries. So the weak stragglers, who left because they couldn't hold off the invaders, held off the invaders for decades? To slowly send colonies, like the British to the new world?

Did I get that right?

Who were these Tyrsenians you describe? I was unaware of scholarly agreement as to who they were or their origins.

And the traces they left that you state as fact? Surely you can't mean the Lemnos Stele. One inscription from 510 BC? Written when the Etruscans were already in Italy, and ruling Rome?

Wouldn't one inscription on a small island on a trade route (as opposed to thousands of square miles of confirmed Etruscan territory) lend the conclusion that Lemnos was the outpost, not the other way around? Wouldn't this be like saying that the British originated on Guernsey, as opposed to the opposite?

Help me understand.

Christina
05-15-2015, 06:14 AM
I don't understand why people bring their political conceptions to a board based on science and hard evidence. This is not the place to get riled up over offended political sensibilites. There are a great deal of places elsewhere to discuss political and ethno-nationalist conceptions regarding anthropology and genetic issues. Anthrogenica is not the place for it.

I'm not sure who this is directed to. But as Jean says, this is a VERY smart board. And it is based on science, and occasionally, logic too. :)

So whether you agree with me or not, I want to see if I understand your statements and whether your statements hold up to logic:

1. What exactly was "political" about this discussion?

2. Is it the "political conception" to say one ethnic group was exotic?

3. Or is it the "political conception" to say that ethnic group was native?

Both strike me like they are hypotheses (or conclusions) based on different viewpoints (and differing interpretations of the data.)

Like I said, I don't pretend to know who this was addressed to, but kindly forebear the pretense that one person's position is based on cold hard facts, and the other is merely an opinion, or a "political conception." We all have viewpoints, and they should be discussed and respected.

vettor
05-15-2015, 07:13 AM
OK, so let me see if I understand your theory: A group of Indo Europeans invaded Anatolia, causing one tribe to leave. This tribe lived inland, about 100 miles from the coast. This tribe marched west, through the territory of neighboring tribes, who presumably were not thrilled their territory was being trampled.

This tribe, which was too weak in resources and manpower to fight off the invading Indo Europeans, was however big enough to build a large amount of ships to migrate in sufficient numbers to storm well-fortified hill towns in the most fantastically guarded part of Italy? (But couldn't fight off the invading band of Indo Europeans)?

But wait, you say, I didn't get that right. Maybe it was a slow migration, you say. This tribe lingered now in Anatolia, slowly sending colonies of people over decades and perhaps centuries. So the weak stragglers, who left because they couldn't hold off the invaders, held off the invaders for decades? To slowly send colonies, like the British to the new world?

Did I get that right?

Who were these Tyrsenians you describe? I was unaware of scholarly agreement as to who they were or their origins.

And the traces they left that you state as fact? Surely you can't mean the Lemnos Stele. One inscription from 510 BC? Written when the Etruscans were already in Italy, and ruling Rome?

Wouldn't one inscription on a small island on a trade route (as opposed to thousands of square miles of confirmed Etruscan territory) lend the conclusion that Lemnos was the outpost, not the other way around? Wouldn't this be like saying that the British originated on Guernsey, as opposed to the opposite?

Help me understand.

that's correct, very silly ideas........basing everything on one silly lemnos stele from 510BC to link etruscans to lemnian........and another on, ONE tablet in Bolzano to link Raeti with etruscans.

Jean M
05-15-2015, 10:42 AM
Help me understand.

Well I'll try my poor best. ;) I'm not sure where you get the idea that ancestors of the Etruscans lived 100 miles inland. What we actually know:

Herodotus picked up an origin story for the Tyrrhenians from the Lydians. It does not make sense linguistically and culturally, as pointed out even in ancient times. So we should not take it at face value. We should analyse it critically, as good historians do. The Etruscans were clearly not descended from the Lydians. The colourful details of the story (starvation, inventing games etc) have all hallmarks of story-telling and can be ignored. The analysis by R.S.P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans (2003) suggests that the origin point was not the Lydia of the time of Herodotus, but south of the Sea of Marmara, with direct access to the coast. Here is his map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times:

4582

His introduction:


Herodotus says that the Etruscans came from Lydia. The question is whether this is correct. My answer is: yes, but the Lydians lived at that time (also) in another area. The question of the origin of the Etruscans is one of the most debated problems of antiquity. Nowadays most scholars are convinced that they came from Asia Minor (Turkey); only in Italy does a large number of scholars deny or doubt this. The eastern origin seems certain to me, for reasons that I will present below. However, an important part of the problem has not been solved: where exactly in Asia Minor did they come from, and was this in Lydian territory, as Herodotus says? Until now we had no arguments pointing especially to Lydia. On the contrary, the indications we have seem not to point to the area called Lydia in antiquity. My solution, then, is that the Lydians lived originally in a different area than in Herodotus’ time (at least partly; this matter cannot now be decided). Therefore our story falls into two parts; 1. the prehistory of the Lydians; 2. what this tells us about the origin of the Etruscans. We shall see that after establishing the older habitat of the Lydians the question of the origin of the Etruscans is solved, without the need of further assumptions...

As may be known, the Greeks called the Etruscans Tyrsenoi, a name they also used for people in the north-west of Asia Minor. This has always been an important argument for the eastern origin of the Etruscans. It has been denied by the opponents that there were Tyrsenoi in Asia Minor, but at present nobody doubts this any longer. The Latin name for the Etruscans derives from this Greek name...

Larth
05-15-2015, 11:52 AM
OK, so let me see if I understand your theory: A group of Indo Europeans invaded Anatolia, causing one tribe to leave. This tribe lived inland, about 100 miles from the coast. This tribe marched west, through the territory of neighboring tribes, who presumably were not thrilled their territory was being trampled.

This tribe, which was too weak in resources and manpower to fight off the invading Indo Europeans, was however big enough to build a large amount of ships to migrate in sufficient numbers to storm well-fortified hill towns in the most fantastically guarded part of Italy? (But couldn't fight off the invading band of Indo Europeans)?

But wait, you say, I didn't get that right. Maybe it was a slow migration, you say. This tribe lingered now in Anatolia, slowly sending colonies of people over decades and perhaps centuries. So the weak stragglers, who left because they couldn't hold off the invaders, held off the invaders for decades? To slowly send colonies, like the British to the new world?

Did I get that right?

Who were these Tyrsenians you describe? I was unaware of scholarly agreement as to who they were or their origins.

And the traces they left that you state as fact? Surely you can't mean the Lemnos Stele. One inscription from 510 BC? Written when the Etruscans were already in Italy, and ruling Rome?

Wouldn't one inscription on a small island on a trade route (as opposed to thousands of square miles of confirmed Etruscan territory) lend the conclusion that Lemnos was the outpost, not the other way around? Wouldn't this be like saying that the British originated on Guernsey, as opposed to the opposite?

Help me understand.

This theory basically is an attempt to show the Herodotus was somewhat right about the Etruscans and to revitalize the oriental origin theory, because it's clear even to those scolars that advocate the oriental origin theory that Etruscans and Lydians aren't really related, surely not in the sense of a direct origin of the Etruscans from the Lydians. Anyway it's a Robert Beekes's theory, a Dutch linguist Professor of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University not really known as an expert of Etruscans neither of Etruscan language. According to this theory Tyrsenians escaped from the Indo European invasion in Anatolia and they settled in central Italy already inhabited by Indo Europeans. Does it make sense? The Beekes's theory is quite popular on the web because it's easily available online, I guess. Unfortunately many of the most important texts of Etruscology are difficult to find online.



Here is his map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times:

4582

His introduction:

A map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times... according to Beekes.

Jean M
05-15-2015, 01:10 PM
A map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times... according to Beekes.

Have you checked his sources? Do you find flaws? That would be the scholarly approach, if you wish to argue with him.

Larth
05-15-2015, 02:07 PM
Have you checked his sources? Do you find flaws? That would be the scholarly approach, if you wish to argue with him.

I have studied Beekes texts at the University: "De Etrusken spreken" (1991), "The position of Etruscan" (1993, Indogermanica et Italica). And more recently I have read "The Origin of the Etruscans" (2003).

I find very interesting his linguistic considerations (Etruscan is clearly a non Indo-European language but it was already guessed by many others) and the fact the Beekes recognizes that Herodotus was wrong about the Lydians. But Beekes is a linguist, a Indo-Europeanist of great value, and all his historical reconstruction is rather questionable, also because it is based on his assumptions, and not always supported by archaeological findings or historical texts. Even Beekes is not able to explain why the Etruscans called themselves Rasenna and not Tyrrhenian.

Jean M
05-15-2015, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately many of the most important texts of Etruscology are difficult to find online.

This seems to be the most recent scholarly volume: Vincenzo Bellelli (ed.), Origini degli Etruschi. Storia archeologia antropologia (2013). https://www.isdistribution.com/PDF/8eb7216e-e816-471f-821e-26af9bacf863.pdf


The volume contains, in particular, the proceedings of a day of seminars organized in 2011 by the chair of Etruscology of the University of Palermo in the learning
center of Agrigento, as well as a series of essays written for the occasion by scholars from various disciplines. The various contributions address the main issue regarding the problem of Etruscan origins: the Etruscan ethnogenesis considered in an archaeological perspective, the literary tradition, the linguistic problem (alleged Aegean- Anatolian connections), and the problem of the 'People of the sea,' the 'Lemnos' case.

I found one essay from this in academia.edu and probably there are others available. I don't really have the time to search at length.

Krefter
05-15-2015, 06:01 PM
Does anyone have Gedmatch results for these samples?

No. Their DNA files aren't accessible.

vettor
05-15-2015, 06:14 PM
Well I'll try my poor best. ;) I'm not sure where you get the idea that ancestors of the Etruscans lived 100 miles inland. What we actually know:

Herodotus picked up an origin story for the Tyrrhenians from the Lydians. It does not make sense linguistically and culturally, as pointed out even in ancient times. So we should not take it at face value. We should analyse it critically, as good historians do. The Etruscans were clearly not descended from the Lydians. The colourful details of the story (starvation, inventing games etc) have all hallmarks of story-telling and can be ignored. The analysis by R.S.P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans (2003) suggests that the origin point was not the Lydia of the time of Herodotus, but south of the Sea of Marmara, with direct access to the coast. Here is his map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times:

4582

His introduction:

The area on the map is the only area in Anatolia ( Bithynia ) inhabited by the thracians

Bithynia is named for the Thracian tribe of the Bithyni, mentioned by Herodotus (VII.75) alongside the Thyni. The "Thraco-Phrygian" migration from the Balkans to Asia Minor would have taken place at some point following the Bronze Age collapse or during the early Iron Age.

Christina
05-15-2015, 08:46 PM
Well I'll try my poor best. ;) I'm not sure where you get the idea that ancestors of the Etruscans lived 100 miles inland. What we actually know:

Herodotus picked up an origin story for the Tyrrhenians from the Lydians. It does not make sense linguistically and culturally, as pointed out even in ancient times. So we should not take it at face value. We should analyse it critically, as good historians do. The Etruscans were clearly not descended from the Lydians. The colourful details of the story (starvation, inventing games etc) have all hallmarks of story-telling and can be ignored. The analysis by R.S.P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans (2003) suggests that the origin point was not the Lydia of the time of Herodotus, but south of the Sea of Marmara, with direct access to the coast. Here is his map of the locations of Tyrsenoi in classical times:

4582

His introduction:

Actually, Herodotus did not pick up that story from the Lydians. I would direct you to the seminal "The Etruscans" by Michael Grant. He has an entire chapter devoted to showing that the Etruscans, when they arose as a power, and started trading eastward, encountered what all "barbarians" did (and still do). The Greeks poked a little fun at them, for being such newcomers to civilization.

Etruscan society thus underwent a massive philhellenic period, where it attempted to draw ties between itself and more ancient cultures. It couldn't pick, say, the Spartans or Athenians as their ancestor stock, because the Spartans and Athenians had such well-documented foundation myths. So they picked the Lydians. They also imported an awful lot of Greek material (Greek vases and such became quite trendy. "See, we're 'civilized' too!")

This was common in Ancient times. The Germans and Celts, when developing ties with the Roman and Greeks, often sought common ground too. They would say they were founded by bands of Greeks, or that Hercules visited them too, or that their gods were really one in the same. It does not make it true.

You do know, I assume, that another ancient historian, much more credible than Herodotus, poked fun at Herodotus for his theory, right? His name was Dionysius of Halicarnassus (and he was from a town quite close to Lydia). He said, "uh-uh."

You also do know, I assume, that the Julio-Claudians themselves fell prey to similar common-ground / ancient-culture-tie inventions, right? You understand that certain poets, at Caesar's behest, invented a story that the Julius family were not originally Latin, but the offspring of a Trojan soldier and the goddess Aphrodite, and that they were then carried to Italy on someone's back?

These legends (to invent common ties and ancient pasts) were common in classical times. They were legends though.

Jean M
05-15-2015, 09:25 PM
Actually, Herodotus did not pick up that story from the Lydians.

He said that he did, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. That is about all we can take from it really.


You do know, I assume, that another ancient historian, much more credible than Herodotus, poked fun at Herodotus for his theory, right? His name was Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Yes of course I do. That is what I was referring to when I said that:


It does not make sense linguistically and culturally, as pointed out even in ancient times.

And I don't know of any modern scholar who takes the origin story in Herodotus at face value. Etruscan is a non-IE language, which is clearly not derived from the IE language Lydian. These points are really very basic and have been hammered over for decades - indeed centuries.

Jean M
05-16-2015, 11:47 AM
I did link to the well-known story from Herodotus earlier, but for those who missed it, here are the two famously contradictory statements:

Herodotus of Halicarnassus* (c. 484–425 BC), 1.94:


And the Lydians themselves say that the games which are now in use among them and among the Hellenes were also their invention. These they say were invented among them at the same time as they colonised Tyrsenia, and this is the account they give of them:--In the reign of Atys the son of Manes their king there came to be a grievous dearth over the whole of Lydia; and the Lydians for a time continued to endure it, but afterwards, as it did not cease, they sought for remedies; and one devised one thing and another of them devised another thing. And then were discovered, they say, the ways of playing with the dice and the knucklebones and the ball, and all the other games excepting draughts (for the discovery of this last is not claimed by the Lydians). These games they invented as a resource against the famine, and thus they used to do:--on one of the days they would play games all the time in order that they might not feel the want of food, and on the next they ceased from their games and had food: and thus they went on for eighteen years. As however the evil did not slacken but pressed upon them ever more and more, therefore their king divided the whole Lydian people into two parts, and he appointed by lot one part to remain and the other to go forth from the land; and the king appointed himself to be over that one of the parts which had the lot to stay in the land, and his son to be over that which was departing; and the name of his son was Tyrsenos. So the one party of them, having obtained the lot to go forth from the land, went down to the sea at Smyrna and built ships for themselves, wherein they placed all the movable goods which they had and sailed away to seek for means of living and a land to dwell in; until after passing by many nations they came at last to the land of the Ombricans, and there they founded cities and dwell up to the present time: and changing their name they were called after the king's son who led them out from home, not Lydians but Tyrsenians, taking the name from him.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus* (c. 60 BC – after 7 BC), 1.30:


I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians. Indeed, those probably come nearest to the truth who declare that the nation migrated from nowhere else, but was native to the country, since it is found to be a very ancient nation and to agree with no other either in its language or in its manner of living. And there is no reason why the Greeks should not have called them by this name, both from their living in towers and from the name of one of their rulers. The Romans, however, give them other names: from the country they once inhabited, named Etruria, they call them Etruscans, and from their knowledge of the ceremonies relating to divine worship, in which they excel others, they now call them, rather inaccurately, Tusci, but formerly, with the same accuracy as the Greeks, they called them Thyoscoï. Their own name for themselves, however, is the same as that of one of their leaders, Rasenna.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/1B*.html#30

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halicarnassus a Greek town in southwest Anatolia, now Bodrum in Turkey. Yes both of these two Greek historians came from this town, but Herodotus lived centuries earlier than Dionysius.

Larth
05-16-2015, 12:19 PM
This seems to be the most recent scholarly volume: Vincenzo Bellelli (ed.), Origini degli Etruschi. Storia archeologia antropologia (2013). https://www.isdistribution.com/PDF/8eb7216e-e816-471f-821e-26af9bacf863.pdf

I found one essay from this in academia.edu and probably there are others available. I don't really have the time to search at length.

Thanks, I have already read some of the chapters available online. Unfortunately there are still some unavailable (the book is too expensive, around 250 euro!).

Larth
05-16-2015, 12:20 PM
I did link to the well-known story from Herodotus earlier, but for those who missed it, here are the two famously contradictory statements:

Which ones?

Jean M
05-16-2015, 12:26 PM
Which ones?

I posted them. Herodotus v Dionysius. Getting back to primary sources is good practice.

Jean M
05-16-2015, 05:28 PM
the book is too much expensive, around 250 euro!

Equally expensive I'm afraid is a volume for English-speakers: Jean MacIntosh Turfa (ed.), The Etruscan World (2013).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Etruscan-World-Routledge-Worlds/dp/0415673089/

However some of it can be read on Amazon and Google. I have just read the superb chapter 3: Dominique Briquel, Etruscan origins and the ancient authors. A brilliant analysis concludes with:


Every people has been the result of a melting pot, formed by the superposition and mixing of diverse elements. Any attempt to explain in terms of origin is simplistic and wrong.

Larth
05-16-2015, 10:43 PM
Equally expensive I'm afraid is a volume for English-speakers: Jean MacIntosh Turfa (ed.), The Etruscan World (2013).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Etruscan-World-Routledge-Worlds/dp/0415673089/

However some of it can be read on Amazon and Google. I have just read the superb chapter 3: Dominique Briquel, Etruscan origins and the ancient authors. A brilliant analysis concludes with:

"Every people has been the result of a melting pot, formed by the superposition and mixing of diverse elements. Any attempt to explain in terms of origin is simplistic and wrong. "

I couldn't agree more with Briquel. Any attempt to explain the Etruscans in terms of origin is simplistic and wrong.

Larth
05-16-2015, 11:06 PM
I posted them. Herodotus v Dionysius. Getting back to primary sources is good practice.

Yes, agree. Anyway we have lost other ancient sources. Claudius's Tyrrenika written in Greek, Verrius Flaccus' Etruscarum Rerum Libri (Res Etruscae) written in Latin, Tuscae historiae written in Etruscan. Just to mention only those for which we know the title.

http://latin.packhum.org/loc/869/1/0#0

Jean M
05-17-2015, 10:47 AM
Anyway we have lost other ancient sources. Claudius's Tyrrenika written in Greek

It is annoying certainly, but do you have any faith that the opus of the Emperor Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD) actually contained anything reliable on events so long before his day? He might have managed a decent history from the period at which the Etruscans became literate, but one thing is clear from the sources remaining to us. The Etruscans had no idea of their prehistory by the time anyone was around to write things down about it. They were happy to take on board whatever drivel was served up by Greek historians if it was useful for trade purposes.

To get anything useful at all from the ancient sources, we need a less simplistic approach. Herodotus, despite accepting uncritically the Lydian story which did not make sense, included one interesting statement - that the Etruscans had settled among the Umbrians. This looks like a recollection surviving in his day that the Umbrians preceded those speaking the Etruscan language. This is supported by place-name evidence. Here is what I said in AJ:


The Umbrians (Umbri) were presumably so named from the river Ombrone (Umbro in Latin) which flows through Tuscany to the Tyrrhenian Sea. Place-names incorporating 'Ambra or 'Umbra' are dotted through Tuscany and into the Po Valley. That would make the Umbrians neighbours to the Ligurians of northwestern Italy. Indeed Plutarch tells a tale that indicates a tribal link. He recounts that these Ligurians, fighting for the Romans against a Germanic confederation who had swept into Italy in 113 BC, found themselves shouting the same war-cry as the enemy: 'Ambrones!' How disconcerting that must have been! The Ligurians explained their cry as an old ethnonym. The northern Ambrones, who were marching with the Teutones and Cimbri, probably derived their coincidently similar ethnonym from the river Emmer, a tributary of the Weser in Lower Saxony. This story has confused readers of Plutarch ever since. Some connection between the Ligurians and the Germanic Ambrones has been imagined, while a far more plausible connection with the Umbrians has been overlooked.

Thus the Etruscans made a breach between local peoples who once saw themselves as one. This created a linguistic barrier, which no doubt encouraged the separation of the Celtic and Italic families of languages.

Larth
05-17-2015, 02:12 PM
It is annoying certainly, but do you have any faith that the opus of the Emperor Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD) actually contained anything reliable on events so long before his day? He might have managed a decent history from the period at which the Etruscans became literate, but one thing is clear from the sources remaining to us. The Etruscans had no idea of their prehistory by the time anyone was around to write things down about it. They were happy to take on board whatever drivel was served up by Greek historians if it was useful for trade purposes.

Yes, but this could be said for every ancient author, also for the Greek historians. True that Herodotus lived before Claudius, but Herodotus lived many centuries after the events as well. And moreover, had Herodotus, unlike Claudio (who had also married an Etruscan woman, Plautia Urgulanilla), never set foot in Etruria? Just asking. Claudius more likely knew the Etruscan language and the Etrusca disclipina, Herodotus probably not.

However, the question of origins is only one aspect, that always makes us forget everything else. We need to have further information on the social, cultural, political and economic life of the Etruscans. Claudius was surely aware of these aspects and knew many direct Etruscan sources.


To get anything useful at all from the ancient sources, we need a less simplistic approach. Herodotus, despite accepting uncritically the Lydian story which did not make sense, included one interesting statement - that the Etruscans had settled among the Umbrians. This looks like a recollection surviving in his day that the Umbrians preceded those speaking the Etruscan language. This is supported by place-name evidence. Here is what I said in AJ:

The derivation of the ethnonym Umbrian from the name of the Ombrone river is old but far from proven. Ombrone in Tuscany is the name of another river (a ravine, to be more precise), in north-east Tuscany, modern province of Pistoia, a complete different area from the Ombrone river in Grosseto province, south-west Tuscany.

Jean, I mean that an Umbrian influence in Tuscany is plausible, there are even some Etruscan surnames that could be related to an Umbrian origin: Umrana, Umruna, Umria. The borders betweeen Etruscans and Umbrians do not coincide with the modern ones but changed several times over the centuries and in many parts of modern Tuscany lived presumably both the Ligurians, the Umbrians and the Etruscans, at different times but sometimes even simultaneously. As in modern western Umbria lived the Etruscans (Perugia, the capital city of modern Umbria was an Etruscan town, known as Perusna).

Anyhow it's not clear if Umbrian is an exonym or an endonym, because we don't know how the Umbrians called themselves. There is no trace in the Umbrian inscriptions of their endonym. From all we know, Umbrian could be an exonym of Etruscan or Greek origin as well. I mean, we can't rule out it.

https://books.google.it/books?id=vUvIWIQMDokC&pg=PA209


Actually, Herodotus did not pick up that story from the Lydians. I would direct you to the seminal "The Etruscans" by Michael Grant. He has an entire chapter devoted to showing that the Etruscans, when they arose as a power, and started trading eastward, encountered what all "barbarians" did (and still do). The Greeks poked a little fun at them, for being such newcomers to civilization.

This point is extremely interesting. The reasons behind the Greek view on the Etruscans. Because too easily we take for granted that it was a neutral and disinterested point of view.

Thanks Jean, thanks Christina, for the interesting discussion. Not easy to find people really trained on the Etruscans. Everyone has an opinion about the origins of the Etruscans, but few go beyond their own opinion.

Jean M
05-17-2015, 03:26 PM
True that Herodotus lived before Claudius, but Herodotus lived many centuries before the events as well. And moreover, had Herodotus, unlike Claudio (who had also married an Etruscan woman, Plautia Urgulanilla), never set foot in Etruria?

I think that you mean that Herodotus lived many centuries after the events. Indeed he did. Three or four centuries is a long time for any oral history to survive. But on this specific point, place-name evidence supports him, as I said. We don't have to swallow the whole story of emigration from Lydia to realise that linguistically the Etruscans look like a post-IE intrusion.

Herodotus travelled widely around the eastern Mediterranean. He joined the Panhellenic colony that was sent to Thurii, in southern Italy in the late 440s. Whether he personally set foot in Etruria, I cannot say. Quite a lot of his information evidently came from inquiries that he made of other Greek travellers. But you must realise that the days of simply trying to discredit an ancient source are long gone. None of them tell us anything about the origin of the Etruscans that we can regard as reliable, other than the shrewd commentary of Dionysius of Halicarnassus on linguistics that we can actually verify today, and Herodotus setting their cities in the context of an Umbrian land, which is supported by place-names.

Jean M
05-17-2015, 03:35 PM
This point is extremely interesting.

Actually Christina's insistence that Herodotus did not take the origin legend from the Lydians seems to be based on an error in Wikipedia, which I have now corrected. It erroneously referred to Herodotus and Pliny the Elder drawing their speculations about the Etruscans from comparison of coins.

Larth
05-17-2015, 03:42 PM
I think that you mean that Herodotus lived many centuries after the events. Indeed he did.

Of course, I meant after the events, not before.


Herodotus travelled widely around the eastern Mediterranean. He joined the Panhellenic colony that was sent to Thurii, in southern Italy in the late 440s. Whether he personally set foot in Etruria, I cannot say. Quite a lot of his information evidently came from inquiries that he made of other Greek travellers. But you must realise that the days of simply trying to discredit an ancient source are long gone. None of them tell us anything about the origin of the Etruscans that we can regard as reliable, other than the shrewd commentary of Dionysius of Halicarnassus on linguistics that we can actually verify today, and Herodotus setting their cities in the context of an Umbrian land, which is supported by place-names.

Yes, but Herodotus didn't know the endonym of the Etruscans, Rasenna, as he didn't know that they spoke a different language from the Lydians. Dionysius knew both these things. Enough to say that Herodotus didn't know very well the Etruscans as a direct knowledge. He probably knew what others said to him. Umbria borders with Etruria, it's clear that Etruscans and Umbrians had many clashes due to the Etruscan expansion.

Jean M
05-17-2015, 04:04 PM
Yes, but Herodotus didn't know the endonym of the Etruscans, Rasenna, as he didn't know that they spoke a different language from the Lydians. Dionysius knew both these things.

I realise that discrediting Herodotus and boosting Dionysius has been the game in play for decades, and it is absolutely valid up to a point i.e. the Etruscans were not descended from the Lydians. This point is conceded by everyone. There is no argument. I have said as much in several posts already.

But we need to move on, because this is a dead end. Neither the Lydians with their story claiming the Etruscan civilization as their own, nor Dionysius trying to make it barbaric (local) by comparison with the completely fake Greek origin that the Romans were claiming, can be counted as disinterested recorders of fact. As I said earlier, the Etruscans had no clue about their prehistory by the time of Dionysius, so they could not have told him anything about it. Indeed he makes it clear that their local origin is his own deduction, having dismissed Pelagasian and Lydian origins.

The Etruscans had been in Italy for centuries for sure by his day. Their civilization was Italian in the sense that it was developed there. It was strongly influenced by Greek civilization. It was built on the ground-work of a culture which (outside the Etruscan heartland) developed into Ligurian and Italic-speaking cultures. So we can see it an Italian mixture.

Larth
05-17-2015, 04:40 PM
As I said earlier, the Etruscans had no clue about their prehistory by the time of Dionysius, so they could not have told him anything about it.

Consider that we have lost all the Etruscan "books" written in Etruscan. According to some Roman writers these books existed indeed. I think that we can't be completely sure that Etruscans had no clue about their prehistory.

Jean M
05-17-2015, 04:53 PM
Consider that we have lost all the Etruscan "books" written in Etruscan. According to some Roman writers these books existed indeed. I think that we can't be completely sure that Etruscans had no clue about their prehistory.

We can, because they embraced ideas from the Greeks of either a Lydian or Pelasgian origin, as Dominique Briquel so shrewdly points out.

Non-historians often place far greater value on statements of origins from ancient sources than historians do. As both Christina and Krefter rightly indicated in posts above, such legends/stories are not to be relied upon, where the true origins have in fact been lost in the mists of time. Prehistory cannot be elucidated by poring over the speculations about it once writing developed. Prehistory is the realm of archaeology, assisted by linguistics and (increasingly), palaeogenetics.

vettor
05-17-2015, 06:25 PM
Yes, but this could be said for every ancient author, also for the Greek historians. True that Herodotus lived before Claudius, but Herodotus lived many centuries after the events as well. And moreover, had Herodotus, unlike Claudio (who had also married an Etruscan woman, Plautia Urgulanilla), never set foot in Etruria? Just asking. Claudius more likely knew the Etruscan language and the Etrusca disclipina, Herodotus probably not.

However, the question of origins is only one aspect, that always makes us forget everything else. We need to have further information on the social, cultural, political and economic life of the Etruscans. Claudius was surely aware of these aspects and knew many direct Etruscan sources.



The derivation of the ethnonym Umbrian from the name of the Ombrone river is old but far from proven. Ombrone in Tuscany is the name of another river (a ravine, to be more precise), in north-east Tuscany, modern province of Pistoia, a complete different area from the Ombrone river in Grosseto province, south-west Tuscany.

Jean, I mean that an Umbrian influence in Tuscany is plausible, there are even some Etruscan surnames that could be related to an Umbrian origin: Umrana, Umruna, Umria. The borders betweeen Etruscans and Umbrians do not coincide with the modern ones but changed several times over the centuries and in many parts of modern Tuscany lived presumably both the Ligurians, the Umbrians and the Etruscans, at different times but sometimes even simultaneously. As in modern western Umbria lived the Etruscans (Perugia, the capital city of modern Umbria was an Etruscan town, known as Perusna).

Anyhow it's not clear if Umbrian is an exonym or an endonym, because we don't know how the Umbrians called themselves. There is no trace in the Umbrian inscriptions of their endonym. From all we know, Umbrian could be an exonym of Etruscan or Greek origin as well. I mean, we can't rule out it.

https://books.google.it/books?id=vUvIWIQMDokC&pg=PA209



This point is extremely interesting. The reasons behind the Greek view on the Etruscans. Because too easily we take for granted that it was a neutral and disinterested point of view.

Thanks Jean, thanks Christina, for the interesting discussion. Not easy to find people really trained on the Etruscans. Everyone has an opinion about the origins of the Etruscans, but few go beyond their own opinion.

While we are told that the etruscans destroyed 300 umbrian towns, we are also told of the umbro-oscan tribal areas which are south-central italy plus southern italy. we see that south-picene is umbrian in origin while north-picene is liburnian in origin.
For the Etruscans to have not migrated to Italy scenario for a language for etruscan , must mean either a branch of umbrian or a branch of ligurian ( unless the tale of a corsican migration is correct ) . It cannot be a branch of Central or Eastern northern Italy ( that is lombardy or veneto areas )
http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Historicum/oscans.php

and old umbrian from etruria
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tVruAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA559&lpg=PA559&dq=umbro-oscan&source=bl&ots=h3JYHs_OKi&sig=KMyuVU9v9TxcP5zNPMD3bYDsFew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xNpYVZm8ENGA8gXn1oCIAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=umbro-oscan&f=false


more than 300 Umbrian towns put to the Etruscan sword
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=7odxBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=umbro-oscan&source=bl&ots=Tlw3AnHYYW&sig=KK5IKWG3aCcJ0M9OHPD2g3BE_LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xNpYVZm8ENGA8gXn1oCIAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=etruscans&f=false

Christina
05-18-2015, 01:44 AM
Great thread, all, and thanks to several for the kind acknowledgements.

I try to contribute my knowledge. DNA knowledge is not my best, but I do know ancient history very well. As I've posted before, I've read all of the ancient Greek and Roman sources (excepting the fragmentary ones). I have also traveled extensively, and can tell you from the landscapes I've seen personally, both the evidence and "feel" you get. Lately I have been reading a great deal about ancient religion.

So two more points. The Tuscan landscape and Etruscan towns are a must-see. They are often built atop a foreboding rock, almost out of a movie. The excavations I have seen show complete continuity between the early Villanovan settlements and those which are certainly Etruscan. I believe this physical fact is also reflected in text and textbooks. This society appears to have held the rocks and cliffs and high points since time immemorial.

Another fact in favor of indigenous origin is the development of Etruscan religion. The great religious theorists, notably Georges Dumezil and others, postulated that Etruscan religion developed side-by-side with Italic religion in situ, and did not reflect an Anatolian development phase. Since religions were always transported with the invader in ancient times, it would be odd for the Etruscans to not have some Anatolian components, other than a borrowed Phrygian bric-a-brac developed in historical times, if they were indeed Anatolian.

I keep coming back to Lex Parsimoniae, or Occam's Razor. All over Europe and the world, the places where relict populations have been able to hold are the highlands. The Highland Scots are more "indigenous" than the lowlanders. The people of the Pyrenees, the Basques and such, are clearly a relict holdout. The rugged, mountainous interior of Sardinia is where the "barbagia" indigenous live. And so on.

The Etruscan fortress towns are these commanding rocks atop incredibly rich plains and sources of resources (remember, almost all concrete in ancient times, to build monuments and such, came from Tuscany near Siena).

The Pyrenees hold the non-Indo-European holdout, Basque. The Caucasus mountains hold other non-IE-hold outs. Let's not forget there were pockets of non-IE and non-Italic in Italy's rugged mountains well into historical times.

So it would strike me to be the simplest explanation that the rugged fortress towns in Etruria would be a place where a small, non-IE minority could survive.

The Etruscans were literate, and they did compose histories, in addition to the excellent ones, also lost, that Jean and others mentioned. I hold out hope that in our lifetimes, both their language will be decoded and their texts discovered. Perhaps we should all contribute a little coin and offer a $1 million dollar prize for the first archaeologist or linguist to either find another trove of lost texts, a la the Dead Sea Scrolls, or who once and for all decodes Etruscan.

Christina
05-18-2015, 01:53 AM
Here's a picture of the border buildings in Volterra, so folks can get a sense what I mean:

http://www.volterratur.it/en/eventi/balze-e-calanchi-a-volterra-suggestioni-lunari-e-sonore/

It'd be mighty hard for a wandering, starving people to take towns like this. However, it would make perfect sense for places like this to be holdouts of pre-Indo-European natives.

Kale
05-18-2015, 01:59 AM
It could have been a scenario like what happened in Rome's decline.

Tribes from the East push West, attacking towns and villages, burning crops and whatnot...forcing the natives to have to do the same to survive. Of course if you are already as West as you can get without drowning, you'll probably take what boats you have.
400AD Huns > Germanics > Rome
800BC ? > Etruscans > Tuscany

Not saying I am a proponent of this idea...it's more of a point to say you don't need to be 100% starving to be displaced.

Christina
05-18-2015, 02:44 AM
Fair point Kale. I am well-aware of those dynamics you mentioned.

A few major differences though: The Huns and Goths left substantial trails along the way. The Goths homeland was Gotland in modern Sweden. They wandered through modern Germany, Austria, and as faraway as the Crimea in modern Ukraine. But in each place, both archaeology and linguistics confirms their presence.

There is no such trail here, nothing closely comparable.

Moreover, a Mediterranean migration would be maritime. And I am unaware of any great migration in ancient times that was almost completely maritime.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 10:59 AM
It'd be mighty hard for a wandering, starving people to take towns like this.

Once again Christina, you are accepting elements of the story you profess to reject. ;) As far as we know the Tyrrhenoi/Tyrsenoi were pirates. That's one way to overcome a shortage of good land: take to seas and steal. Pirates could grow wealthy and become proficient fighters. So let's stop pretending that the poor things must have been drooping from lack of food.

As Kale says, it is not at all inconceivable for fighting incomers to take a hillfort. It has happened innumerable times. More specifically the Celts took Etruscan towns in the Po Valley. The Romans took control of Etruria.

The whole argument that something "can't have happened" because it seems unlikely to the person proposing the argument is an extremely weak one. Examples:

1. "Unsophisticated barbarians can't have taken the well-defended Roman Empire, protected by its professional legions."
2. "Unsophisticated barbarians from the steppe would have no chance against the Chinese Imperial army."

To state the obvious, we know from recorded history that the Germani and Slavs took the Western Roman Empire and that the Manchurians took China.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 11:02 AM
Moreover, a Mediterranean migration would be maritime. And I am unaware of any great migration in ancient times that was almost completely maritime.

Once again you are assuming massive numbers of incomers, which is an unnecessary supposition. The Viking maritime forays had a considerable impact without transporting millions of people. They first raided, then settled.

Once again, you are relying on "it can't have happened, because it seems unlikely to me" type of arguments, beloved by anti-migrationists everywhere. Anti-migrationism has a tremendous emotional appeal to those who love their native land, and feel an affinity with it so strong that they find it almost impossible to believe that any ancestor of theirs could ever have breezed in from anywhere else. It is very understandable emotionally, but science operates from the head. It likes solid facts.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 11:27 AM
postulated that Etruscan religion developed side-by-side with Italic religion in situ.

Undoubtedly. It had plenty of time to do that. It was also influenced by the Greek religion. But that does not mean that its origin was Greek. See next post for clues to the Tyrsenian religion as it developed outside Italy.


The Etruscans were literate, and they did compose histories,

That does not mean that these included reliable material from before literacy. The Romans wrote histories, which reveal that they had not got the foggiest notion about their prehistory. Not that they admitted it. They gave themselves a Greek ancestry, as that was prestigious. One European nation after another followed suit in the Middle Ages, claiming descent from the Greeks, Trojans, Romans etc. All this tells you is that they hadn't got a clue. Their origins were lost in the mists of time. They just wanted civilized ancestors to boast of.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 11:53 AM
Turning to the archaeology, the problem with the idea that the Villanovan culture was the basis of the Etruscan one is that the Villanovan does not just underlie Etruscan hilltop cities. It underlies territory which was IE speaking when it emerged into history.

The problem with the idea that the inscription on Lemnos is the result of Etruscan trading eastwards is that there is no sign of Etruscans on Lemnos. There are no Etruscan artefacts. The Etruscan culture evolved in Italy. We can identify it when it appears in other places. It does not appear on Lemnos. What we have there is an inscription in a language similar to, but more archaic than, Etruscan. See Van Der Meer 2004. He cites L. Beschi 1996 and 1998 for the fact that the Tyrsenian culture on Lemnos is homogeneous from around 800 BC to 500 BC. Beschi supposes that the Tyrsenians migrated from the North Aegean area or North West Anatolia (the Cyzicus area) to Lemnos, because many elements like the Thracian Bendis cult in the Tyrsenian culture point in that direction.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 12:25 PM
For Italian speakers: here is an essay composed by Italian students as a class project. It seems they drew the same conclusion as I'm coming to: http://www.lcavour.gov.it/doc_liceo/documenti/ricerche_studenti/ORIGINE_DEGLI_ETRUSCHI.pdf

I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to 'recent' excavations on the site of the city of Hephaistia on Lemnos by the Italian School of Archaeology at Athens. That excavation was in 1926, according to Wikipedia (which can of course be wrong). Anybody know more about this?

royking
05-18-2015, 01:08 PM
Jean,
I was on Lemnos about 7 years ago collecting DNA samples and there was an active excavation at the site of Hephaistia.

vettor
05-18-2015, 05:50 PM
And the traces they left that you state as fact? Surely you can't mean the Lemnos Stele. One inscription from 510 BC? Written when the Etruscans were already in Italy, and ruling Rome?

Wouldn't one inscription on a small island on a trade route (as opposed to thousands of square miles of confirmed Etruscan territory) lend the conclusion that Lemnos was the outpost, not the other way around? Wouldn't this be like saying that the British originated on Guernsey, as opposed to the opposite?



As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-03-02.html


IMO, any etruscan origin must be associated with the indigenous umbrians of the same area of Italy, that is Central Italy

Jean M
05-18-2015, 06:51 PM
Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions..

No Vettor. As I said above:


The problem with the idea that the inscription on Lemnos is the result of Etruscan trading eastwards is that there is no sign of Etruscans on Lemnos. There are no Etruscan artefacts. The Etruscan culture evolved in Italy. We can identify it when it appears in other places. It does not appear on Lemnos.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 07:13 PM
Jean,
I was on Lemnos about 7 years ago collecting DNA samples and there was an active excavation at the site of Hephaistia.

I now find that there was a monograph published by the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene: http://www.scuoladiatene.it

Laure Ficuciello, Lemnos. Cultura, storia, archeologia, topografia di un'isola del Nord-Egeo. 2013. The Bryn Mawr Classical Review has a summary in German. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-02-43.html

Larth
05-18-2015, 07:40 PM
As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-03-02.html


That quote is from Van der Meer's review. Very interesting.


For Italian speakers: here is an essay composed by Italian students as a class project. It seems they drew the same conclusion as I'm coming to: http://www.lcavour.gov.it/doc_liceo/documenti/ricerche_studenti/ORIGINE_DEGLI_ETRUSCHI.pdf

I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to 'recent' excavations on the site of the city of Hephaistia on Lemnos by the Italian School of Archaeology at Athens. That excavation was in 1926, according to Wikipedia (which can of course be wrong). Anybody know more about this?

As I know, Italian School of Archaeology at Athens is still active in Hephaistia, Lemnos (archaeologist Emanuele Greco, Director of SAIA). In 2007 (or 2006?) they have found a new Lemnian inscription.

http://www.scuoladiatene.it/scavi.html

Emanuele Greco, Nota sull'insediamento tardo elladico di Efestia nell'isola di Lemno, 2011
https://www.academia.edu/9846055/Nota_sullinsediamento_tardo_elladico_di_Efestia_ne llisola_di_Lemno

Greco, E.A. (2010) Indigènes et Grecs à Lemnos à la lumière des fouilles d'Hephaestia. In: Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire : actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses 2 (2006-2008). Bibliothèque d'archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine (3). Centre Camille Julian , Aix-en-Provence , pp. 701-708. ISBN 978 2 87772 420 3

http://opar.unior.it/1374/


'Cesure e continuità: Lemno dai "Tirreni" agli Ateniesi', in Annuario della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene 88, 2010 (2012), pp. 151-170.

https://www.academia.edu/1813462/Cesure_e_continuit%C3%A0_Lemno_dai_Tirreni_agli_At eniesi_in_Annuario_della_Scuola_Archeologica_Itali ana_di_Atene_88_2010_2012_pp._151-170

L'isola di Lemnos attraverso la documentazione epigrafica (2010)

https://www.academia.edu/3627280/Lisola_di_Lemnos_attraverso_la_documentazione_epig rafica

Jean M
05-18-2015, 08:24 PM
That quote is from Van der Meer's review.

Oh I see. My apologies to Vettor. I wonder where Van der Meer got that idea between 2004 and 2013? The Bryn Mawr review of the monograph on Lemnos does not even mention Etruscans.


In 2007 (or 2006?) they have found a new Lemnian inscription.

For English speakers: https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2010/12/01/new-lemnian-inscription/

Larth
05-18-2015, 09:03 PM
For English speakers: https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2010/12/01/new-lemnian-inscription/

Carlo de Simone, Universität Tübingen, La Nuova Iscrizione ‘Tirsenica’ di Lemnos (Efestia, teatro): considerazioni generali (The new Tyrsenian inscription of Lemnos), 2011

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/rasenna/vol3/iss1/1/


Lemnian language - 6th century BCE
Examples of writing

Source: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=54&lang=en#324


- Inscription from Hephaistia
Votive inscription from Hephaistia (area of the theatre). Second half of the 6th century BCE.


http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/assets/img/Lemnio/efestia.jpg


- Graffito on a potsherd from Hephaistia
Inscription scratched on the handle of a close-shaped vase (jug or amphora) from the court of an archaic house of Hephaistia. Second half of the 6th century BCE: varθamesa or uarθamesa (proper name?)


http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/assets/img/Lemnio/uarthamesa.jpg


- Graffito on a potsherd from the Kabirion of Chloi
Inscription scratched under the foot of a karchesion found in the Kabirion at Chloi, not far from Hephaistia (about 520-510 BCE): novaisna, “sacred”.

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/assets/img/Lemnio/novaisna.jpg


- Stele of Kaminia
Long inscription incised on a funerary stele, recording the name of Holaie Fokias. Second half of the 6th century BCE.

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/assets/img/Lemnio/Stele_von_Lemnos_01.jpg

vettor
05-18-2015, 09:16 PM
No Vettor. As I said above:

Yes Jean. The comments in bold are from L. Bouke van der Meer, Leiden University .

I do not support a Lemnian, Etruscan or even a Raeti association between these 3 . Since you do, then thats your opinion.

Jean M
05-18-2015, 10:10 PM
Lemnian language - 6th century BCE
Examples of writing Source: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=54&lang=en#324

That's exactly what we needed, thank you. So there are four Lemnian inscriptions known so far. Wikipedia needs updating. It only transcribes two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnian_language

vettor
05-19-2015, 12:24 AM
Oh I see. My apologies to Vettor. I wonder where Van der Meer got that idea between 2004 and 2013? The Bryn Mawr review of the monograph on Lemnos does not even mention Etruscans.



For English speakers: https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2010/12/01/new-lemnian-inscription/

is the lemnian the same as this raetic inscription from the same site, but younger?

https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2011/01/23/new-raetic-inscription/

Motzart
05-21-2015, 05:51 PM
Given that Etruscans cluster with Bulgarians, and Bulgarians cluster between Spanish and Tuscans (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQd19HNEdENTdtZTg/view), can we say definitively that modern Italians are almost identical to the ancient ones? I think so.

Jean M
05-21-2015, 06:10 PM
is the lemnian the same as this raetic inscription from the same site, but younger?

https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2011/01/23/new-raetic-inscription/

This Raetic inscription "was found in a religious sanctuary discovered at Demlfeld in Ampass near Innsbruck." It is not from the same site as the four Lemnian inscriptions, which were found on Lemnos, a (now) Greek island in the Aegean. But perhaps you mean that you found it on the same blog.

As for the relationship between Lemnian, Raetic and Etruscan, I rely on the conclusions of linguists. Not that there is complete agreement on the matter. There seem to be different views on the details, though general agreement that the three are related. I have already cited Van der Meer, who seems convincing to me, so to make a change here are extracts from The Ancient Languages of Europe ed. Roger D. Woodard (2008), pp. 5-6.



From the eastern Alps, homeland of the tribes called Raeti by the Romans, come a very few inscriptions in a language which has been claimed to bear certain Indo-European characteristics. For example, from an inscription carved on a bronze pot (the Caslir Situla; see Fig. 1.3) comes the Raetic form -talina which has been compared to Latin tollo “I raise”. (see Pulgram 1978:40 with additional references). However, similarities to Etruscan have also been identified and the two are perhaps to be placed in a single language family, along with a language attested on the island of Lemnos in the north of the Aegean Sea. Lemnian is known principally from a single inscribed stele bearing the engraved image of a warrior, dated to the sixth century BC.

Of the Raeti, the Roman historian Livy (History 5.33.11) writes, following upon his discussion of the Etruscans: “Undoubtedly the Alpine tribes also have the same origin, particularly the Raeti, who have been made wild by the very place where they live, preserving nothing of their ancient ways except their language – and not even it without corruptions.”

p. 142


To the same language family as Etruscan there belong only two poorly attested languages: Lemnian in the Northeast of the Aegean (sixth century BC; Agostiniani 1986) and Rhaetic in the Alps (fifth to first centuries BC; Schumacher 1992:246–248; Rix 1998). Lemnian and Rhaetic are so close to Etruscan that Etruscan can be used to understand them. The date of the common source language, Proto-Tyrsenic, can probably be fixed to the last quarter of the second millennium BC.

vettor
05-21-2015, 06:58 PM
This Raetic inscription "was found in a religious sanctuary discovered at Demlfeld in Ampass near Innsbruck." It is not from the same site as the four Lemnian inscriptions, which were found on Lemnos, a (now) Greek island in the Aegean. But perhaps you mean that you found it on the same blog.

As for the relationship between Lemnian, Raetic and Etruscan, I rely on the conclusions of linguists. Not that there is complete agreement on the matter. There seem to be different views on the details, though general agreement that the three are related. I have already cited Van der Meer, who seems convincing to me, so to make a change here are extracts from The Ancient Languages of Europe ed. Roger D. Woodard (2008), pp. 5-6.



p. 142

I find it illogical that, East raetic and west Raetic are very similar with venetic and camunic of which these are IE languages and also similar with etruscan which is non-IE language............raetic cannot sit in both branches


what needs to be asked and answered is:

- Is Toth's 2007 paper on raetic language, which states that it is a west-semetic language from modern syria correct?

- Is the current theory that etruscan pirates planted this sole stelae in Lemnos true , which means it has nothing to do with the lemnian language.

-was this etruscan piracy in Greek waters due to the etruscan nobility burial system....where more status is held if more Greek pottery is placed within the burial chamber

- was the greek and etruscan battles for control of corsican olive ( oil ) produce a reason

Jean M
05-23-2015, 11:48 AM
I find it illogical that, East raetic and west Raetic are very similar with venetic and camunic

I see that relationship given as a possibility for Camunic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camunic_language
but not Venetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language


- Is Toth's 2007 paper on raetic language, which states that it is a west-semetic language from modern syria correct?

Let's say that this seems an eccentric view. I had never heard of this paper, but I find it here: http://mek.oszk.hu/05100/05110/05110.pdf In the Foreword he admits that his and the late Prof. Brunner's idea that Raetic was Semitic met with no support and indeed some strong opposition from linguists. He makes obviously false statements such as :


The Etruscan hypothesis, however, has still today its adherents, like f. ex. Rix (1998) who compares Etruscan with Raetic and Lemnian, thereby presupposing, that all these languages are Indo-European.

Helmut Rix did not say that the Etruscan family is Indo-European. It was Helmut Rix that I quoted earlier. He contributed the chapter on Etruscan to The Ancient Languages of Europe ed. Roger D. Woodard (2008). In that chapter he cited his own work of 1998:


To the same language family as Etruscan there belong only two poorly attested languages: Lemnian in the Northeast of the Aegean (sixth century BC; Agostiniani 1986) and Rhaetic in the Alps (fifth to first centuries BC; Schumacher 1992:246–248; Rix 1998).



- Is the current theory that etruscan pirates planted this sole stelae in Lemnos true , which means it has nothing to do with the lemnian language.

Current theory? Not among linguists. As we saw in post #138 above, four inscriptions in Lemnian have been discovered so far on Lemnos. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=85079&viewfull=1#post85079

The famous stela is in Lemnian, not Etruscan. The two languages are similar, not identical. The fact that the inscriptions include graffiti on pots has been taken as evidence that the Lemnian language was spoken locally on Lemnos, rather than the stela representing a brief intrusion by foreigners to bury a body. These graffiti were found some time ago, I read somewhere. The second inscription is a more recent discovery, which reinforces that view.

R.Rocca
05-23-2015, 01:16 PM
The famous stela is in Lemnian, not Etruscan. The two languages are similar, not identical. The fact that the inscriptions include graffiti on pots has been taken as evidence that the Lemnian language was spoken locally on Lemnos, rather than the stela representing a brief intrusion by foreigners to bury a body. These graffiti were found some time ago, I read somewhere. The second inscription is a more recent discovery, which reinforces that view.

I think that is the key differentiation. If Etruscan traders and/or pirates were responsible, they would have been written in Etruscan, not a closely related language.

vettor
05-23-2015, 06:36 PM
I see that relationship given as a possibility for Camunic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camunic_language
but not Venetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language


Camunic people are a Euganei tribe , which is one of the indigenous tribes of North-East Italy.
The Venetic language is a Euganei language .............there is no chance the veneti brought this venetic language from North Anatolia to northern Italy and replace ALL languages in north east italy with this "venetic script" . So, with this logic, Venetic language was once called Euganei language.
Euganei people are camunic people

You cannot have any other version because it becomes illogical.

The Roman historian Pliny the Elder (23–79 AD), citing the Origines of Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), spoke instead of the Camunni as one of several tribes of the Euganei:

Verso deinde in Italiam pectore Alpium Latini iuris Euganeae gentes, quarum oppida XXXIIII enumerat Cato. ex iis Trumplini, venalis cum agris suis populus, dein Camunni conpluresque similes finitimis adtributi municipis
—Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, III.133-134.

Turning then to the side of the Alps which fronts Italy, we have the Euganean nations enjoying Latin rights, and of whom Cato enumerates thirty-four towns. Among these are the Triumplini, a people who were sold with their territory; and then the Camuni, and several similar tribes, each of them in the jurisdiction of its neighbouring municipal town.




Current theory? Not among linguists. As we saw in post #138 above, four inscriptions in Lemnian have been discovered so far on Lemnos. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=85079&viewfull=1#post85079

The famous stela is in Lemnian, not Etruscan. The two languages are similar, not identical. The fact that the inscriptions include graffiti on pots has been taken as evidence that the Lemnian language was spoken locally on Lemnos, rather than the stela representing a brief intrusion by foreigners to bury a body. These graffiti were found some time ago, I read somewhere. The second inscription is a more recent discovery, which reinforces that view.

It makes no sense that lemnos which is in Greek waters , surrounded on all sides by Greek script ( eobean alphabet ) is a different language from all other Greeks scripts. The Stelae had to have been introduced to Lemnos and is not what Lemnians used.

and yes, current theory, written about in 2013
BMCR 2015.03.02 on the BMCR blog

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2015.03.02
Giovanni Rapelli, Il latino dei primi secoli (IX-VII a.C.) e l'etrusco. ItaliAteneo. Roma: Società Editrice Romana​, 2013. Pp. x, 229. ISBN 9788889291214. €18.00 (pb).

palamede
05-24-2015, 12:29 PM
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnos

"A trace of the Lemnian language is found on a 6th-century inscription on a funerary stele, the Lemnos stele. Lemnos later adopted the Attic dialect of Athens.

Coming down to a better authenticated period, we find that Lemnos was conquered by Otanes, a general of Darius Hystaspis. But soon (510 BC) it was reconquered by Miltiades the Younger, the tyrant of the Thracian Chersonese. Miltiades later returned to Athens and Lemnos was an Athenian possession until the Macedonian empire absorbed it."

There is a very erudite french text dating from 1980
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/crai_0065-0536_1980_num_124_3_13766

Some translated sentences
.....
"It is a double inscription on the face (A) and the right side (B) discovered in 1884 broken and reused in a church of Canina village in east of the island not far from the prehellenic graveyard of Ephestia (VIII-VII c. BC) . Four little epigraphic fragments on vessels found in a neighbouring dwelling in 1928, confirmed that the language of the stele was really spoken by island inhabitants before Lemnos was conquered by the Athenian Miltiade about 500 BC and hellenized. And this language, we name Lemnian cautiously, seems a kind of Etruscan - An Etruscan dialect parent of the Italian Etruscan as Oc dialects compared to Oïl dialects.
I remind what is related by historians Herodote, Hellanicos, Thucydide, Anticlides, about the presence of a half-legendary Pelasgian pop., also named Thyrrenians in northern islands of the Egean Sea.
....
According to Anticlides historian of III c. BP , the Pelasgians had founded the first settlements of Lemnos and Imbros, and Herodote added Pelasgians had dwelt in the second half of VI c. B and had spred thru Hellespont (Dardanelles) in the towns of Plakia and Skylake probably located in Propontide (Marmara Sea) east of Cyzicus , a Greek port."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyzicus
Cyzicus was said to have been founded by Pelasgians from Thessaly, according to tradition at the coming of the Argonauts; later it received many colonies from Miletus, allegedly in 756 BC,

Larth
05-25-2015, 02:25 AM
Current theory? Not among linguists. As we saw in post #138 above, four inscriptions in Lemnian have been discovered so far on Lemnos. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=85079&viewfull=1#post85079.

"Therefore, a recent tradition of studies put together historical information and linguistic evidence in order to hypothesize that a settlement of Tyrrhenian traders/pirates overran the original Pelasgian people on the island of Lemnos; the former left their trace in the language."

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Lingua&id=26&lang=en&PHPSESSID=2a0a7e1b9d978d031dfa742731f1b9e7

According to Carlo De Simone (Linguistics, University of Tubingen), it was an Etruscan pirate settlement.

"La tesi dello scrivente, contrapposta a quella vistosamente invasionistica (migrazione da Oriente ad Occidente), è che la presenza tirrenica a Lemnos (non anteriore a ca. il 700 a. C.) vada spiegata storicamente come un insediamento piratesco (non “colonizzazione” !) propriamente etrusco, e che di conseguenza la lingua etrusca (nonché il tirrenico di Lemnos) non rappresentino la discendenza (o comunque il relitto) di un sostrato linguistico “egeo” o paragreco (“pelasgico”). Va ben realizzato sino in fondo che la trasposizione immediata e meccanica del modello delle apoikiai elleniche, come più o meno consciamente ed esplicitamente viene fatto, non è applicabile al caso della presenza “tirrenica” a Lemnos. Una bella sintesi della attuale problematica archeologico-culturale relativa ad Efestia è dovuta ad E. Greco."

de Simone, Carlo (2011) "La Nuova Iscrizione ‘Tirsenica’ di Lemnos (Efestia, teatro): considerazioni generali," Rasenna: Journal of the Center for Etruscan Studies: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 1.

Carlo de Simone, Universität Tübingen, [email protected]

Available at:
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/rasenna/vol3/iss1/1/


According to Dutch scholar Luuk de Ligt "the similarity between Etruscan and Lemnian can be explained in terms of a migration of people from Italy to the East rather than by any movement of Tyrsênoi from East to West".


In my view, the majority of modern scholarship is absolutely right in placing this people in Italy during the Italian Bronze Age. Yet the view that the Etruscans already lived in Italy at this early date has always run up against one major difficulty. If the Etruscans did not come from western AsiaMinor, how do we explain the curious fact that a language closely related to Etruscan was spoken in the island of Lemnos in archaic times? The answer given by some specialists in the field of Etruscan studies is that the languages of the Etruscans and the Lemnians must represent two isolated remnants of a non-Indo-European language that was once spoken in large parts of Mediterranean Europe. A fatal weakness of this theory is that it fails to explain how two languages can remain so similar after developing independently for at least 2000 years. In my view, the inscription from Praisos suggests a plausible solution to this old problem. If the presence of an Italic dialect in classical Praisos can be explained as reflecting a migration from Italy to the Mycenaean world that took place during the Late Bronze Age, why should not precisely the same explanation hold for the Tyrsênoi of Lemnos? In short, like the similarity between Praisian and Umbrian, that between Etruscan and Lemnian can be explained in terms of a migration of people from Italy to the East rather than by any movement of Tyrsênoi from East to West.

Ligt L. de (2009), An 'Eteocretan' inscription from Praisos and the homeland of the Sea Peoples, Talanta 40-41: 151-172.
('non-refereed' artikel in een tijdschrift)

Available at:
http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf

Jean M
05-25-2015, 10:58 AM
"Therefore, a recent tradition of studies put together historical information and linguistic evidence in order to hypothesize that a settlement of Tyrrhenian traders/pirates overran the original Pelasgian people on the island of Lemnos; the former left their trace in the language."

To expand that useful summary:


Actually, ancient Greek authors were already aware of the relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian: as a matter of fact, starting from Hellanicus from Lesbos (5th century BCE), some sources used the name of Tyrrhenian to define the inhabitants of the Aegean islands of Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros, which other authors proposed to assimilate to the Pelasgians, whose relation with the Etruscans was likewise referred to in further sources.

Therefore, a recent tradition of studies put together historical information and linguistic evidence in order to hypothesize that a settlement of Tyrrhenian traders/pirates overran the original Pelasgian people on the island of Lemnos; the former left their trace in the language.

At first a fairly recent date, within 6th century BCE, was proposed for the supposed arrival of the Tyrrhenian sailors (M. Gras, 1976); but against this hypothesis some scholars noticed that the linguistic features of Lemnian have to be compared with the earliest phases of the Etruscan language (see for instance L. Agostiniani, 1986). Thus, C. de Simone maintained in several contributions that the arrival of Etruscan sailors on the island has to be brought forward to the 7th century BCE, and M. Gras wrote again on the subject with a better in-depth analysis, proposing a chronology as early as the 8th century BCE (M. Gras, 1985).

On the contrary, other scholars support the theory of a common origin from the pre-Greek substratum (H. Rix), occasionally giving credit to some hypotheses of a movement from the Greek area and from Asia Minor. But it is not possible to exclude that further, lost languages have to be taken into consideration, as potential ‘bridges’ between the Etruscan-Raetian group and the north-Aegean area, through the Adriatic and Balkan regions.

In other words - there is no single, consensus "current theory". I am aware that some scholars in previous decades have put forward the idea that Etruscans moved to Lemnos, rather than the other way round. That has already been mentioned and discussed. It does not hold up, linguistically or archaeologically.

Jean M
05-25-2015, 12:02 PM
As that quotation takes us back to the literary sources, let us examine what Hellanicus (5th century BC) had to say. We receive his report via Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The latter seems to rely upon it very heavily, and accepts the basic premiss that Pelasgians settled among the Umbrians in Italy. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/1B*.html


[17.1] Afterwards some of the Pelasgians who inhabited Thessaly, as it is now called, being obliged to leave their country, settled among the Aborigines and jointly with them made war upon the Sicels. It is possible that the Aborigines received them partly in the hope of gaining their assistance, but I believe it was chiefly on account of their kinship; for the Pelasgians, too, were a Greek nation originally from the Peloponnesus.... [He claims that the Aborigines = Romans were of Greek origin, so the Pelasgians would be sort of kin, as having lived in Greece, though in fact all ancient sources treat the Pelasgians as non-Greek speaking.] ....

[22.3] In this manner the Sicel nation left Italy, according to Hellanicus of Lesbos, in the third generation before the Trojan war, and in the twenty-sixth year of the priesthood of Alcyonê at Argos....But according to Philistus of Syracuse the date of the crossing was ... and he adds that these Ligurians had been driven out of their country by the Umbrians and Pelasgians.

[25.1] Not only were the Pelasgians superior to many in warfare, as the result of their training in the midst of dangers while they lived among warlike nations, but they also rose to the highest proficiency in seamanship, by reason of their living with the Tyrrhenians; and Necessity, which is quite sufficient to give daring to those in want of a livelihood, was their leader and director in every dangerous enterprise, so that wherever they went they conquered without difficulty. And the same people were called by the rest of the world both Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians, the former name being from the country out of which they had been driven and the latter in memory of their ancient origin. I mention this so that no one, when he hears poets or historians call the Pelasgians Tyrrhenians also, may wonder how the same people got both these names. Thus, with regard to them, Thucydides has a clear account of the Thracian Actê and of the cities situated in it, which are inhabited by men who speak two languages. Concerning the Pelasgian nation these are his words: "There is also a Chalcidian element among them, but the largest element is Pelasgian, belonging to the Tyrrhenians who once inhabited Lemnos and Athens."

[28.3] Hellanicus of Lesbos says that the Tyrrhenians, who were previously called Pelasgians, received their present name after they had settled in Italy. These are his words in the Phoronis: "Phrastor was the son of Pelasgus, their king, and Menippê, the daughter of Peneus; his son was Amyntor, Amyntor's son was Teutamides, and the latter's son was Nanas. In his reign the Pelasgians were driven out of their country by the Greeks, and after leaving their ships on the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they took Croton, an inland city; and proceeding from there, they colonized the country now called Tyrrhenia." ...

[29.1] But in my opinion all though [those who] take the Tyrrhenians and the Pelasgians to be one and the same nation are mistaken. It is no wonder they were sometimes called by one another's names, since the same thing has happened to certain other nations also, both Greeks and barbarians, — for example, to the Trojans and Phrygians, who lived near each other..

What Dionysius has not understood is that the ancient confusion between the names Pelasgian and Tyrrhenians (which names were interchangeable by the close of the 4th century BC) means that we cannot take literally the claim by Hellanicus that Pelasgians settled in Italy among the Umbrians. Clearly it was the Tyrrhenians. The latter were seen by Greeks as a sort of Pelasgian people because they were not Greek-speakers.

Jean M
05-25-2015, 12:12 PM
If we go back to the earliest sources, there no mention in Homer of Pelasgians on the island of Lemnos. The native population of Lemnos are described as Sinties (Illiad, I.54; Od, 8. 294). This people then disappears from the record for Lemnos. Apollonius of Rhodes (Argonautica IV.1755), written in the 3rd century BC, says that the the Sintians were ejected from Lemnos by Tyrrhenians and fled to the island of Calliste. http://www.theoi.com/Text/ApolloniusRhodius4.html. It is as good an explanation as any other for why the Tyrrhenians were living on Lemnos by his day, and indeed by the time of Sophocles (5th century BC). The earliest mention of the Tyrrhenians is a 6th or 7th century BC Homeric hymn to Dionysus, where they appear as sea-pirates who kidnap him http://www.theoi.com/Text/HomericHymns3.html#7 .

Strabo (Geography V. 2) attempts to make sense of the confusion when describing the country of the Tyrrheni in Italy:


The Tyrrheni, then, are called among the Romans "Etrusci" and "Tusci". The Greeks, however, so the story goes, named them thus after Tyrrhenus, the son of Atys, who sent forth colonists hither from Lydia.... [gives story from Herodotus] .. As for the Pelasgi, almost all agree, in the first place, that some ancient tribe of that name spread throughout the whole of Greece ... Anticleides [4th century BC?] says that they were the first to settle the regions round about Lemnos and Imbros, and indeed that some of these sailed away to Italy with Tyrrhenus the son of Atys.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/5B*.html

vettor
05-25-2015, 06:23 PM
If we go back to the earliest sources, there no mention in Homer of Pelasgians on the island of Lemnos. The native population of Lemnos are described as Sinties (Illiad, I.54; Od, 8. 294). This people then disappears from the record for Lemnos. Apollonius of Rhodes (Argonautica IV.1755), written in the 3rd century BC, says that the the Sintians were ejected from Lemnos by Tyrrhenians and fled to the island of Calliste. http://www.theoi.com/Text/ApolloniusRhodius4.html. It is as good an explanation as any other for why the Tyrrhenians were living on Lemnos by his day, and indeed by the time of Sophocles (5th century BC). The earliest mention of the Tyrrhenians is a 6th or 7th century BC Homeric hymn to Dionysus, where they appear as sea-pirates who kidnap him http://www.theoi.com/Text/HomericHymns3.html#7 .

Strabo (Geography V. 2) attempts to make sense of the confusion when describing the country of the Tyrrheni in Italy:



http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/5B*.html

As per your link

Now as a whole Ombrica is blessed with fertility,
228
though it is a little too mountainous and nourishes its people with spelt rather than with wheat. The Sabine country also, which comes next in order after Ombrica, is mountainous, and it lies alongside Ombrica in the same way that Ombrica lies alongside Tyrrhenia; and further, all parts of the Latin country that are near to these parts and to the Apennine Mountains are rather rugged. These two tribes157 begin, then, at the Tiber and Tyrrhenia, and extend to that stretch of the Apennine Mountains near the Adriatic which slants slightly inland,158 although Ombrica passes on beyond the mountains, as I have said,159 as far as the Adriatic. So much, then, for the Ombrici.

the theory that etruscans entered Italy via the Adriatic across south-picene lands ( umbrian/ombrici) to settle in etruria has already been discussed years ago..............nothing is proven

I have already mentioned that if Etruscan originated in Italy , then they must have come from the indigenous Umbrians of central Italy

but again Etruscan script cannot be linked with Raetic as Raetic is linked with Camunic and Venetic scripts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script#/media/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png
and so you cannot have non-indoeuropean Etruscan with Indo-european camunic, venetic and raetic , can we!

Since this put paid to any fantasy that the Raetic and Etruscans where once in union, the last "fantasy" we need to eliminate is the Etruscan and Lemnian one

Jean M
05-25-2015, 07:10 PM
Etruscan script cannot be linked with Raetic as Raetic is linked with Camunic and Venetic scripts

I had a suspicion that you were confusing script and language. You have done that before. The two are not the same. Script is the method of writing, the system of signs used to put words into written form. I am currently using the Roman or Latin alphabet (in modern form) to write English. This alphabet is the script. It is not the language. I am not writing in Latin. :)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet

The Latin alphabet derives from the Etruscan, which itself is derived from the Greek alphabet, which was derived from the Phoenician alphabet.

This does not mean that the Latin language was derived from Etruscan. (The two are unrelated except for borrowings.) The Etruscan language is non-IE and was not derived from the Greek language. The Greek language is IE and was not derived from the Semitic Phoenician. OK?

vettor
05-25-2015, 07:25 PM
I had a suspicion that you were confusing script and language. You have done that before. The two are not the same. Script is the method of writing, the system of signs used to put words into written form. I am currently using the Roman or Latin alphabet (in modern form) to write English. This alphabet is the script. It is not the language. I am not writing in Latin. :)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet

The Latin alphabet derives from the Etruscan, which itself is derived from the Greek alphabet, which was derived from the Phoenician alphabet.

This does not mean that the Latin language was derived from Etruscan. (The two are unrelated except for borrowings.) The Etruscan language is non-IE and was not derived from the Greek language. The Greek language is IE and was not derived from the Semitic Phoenician. OK?

you still do not see the big picture.....camuni are a Euganei tribe who are first cousins to the Raetic people, so you cannot have an etruscan union with raetic and a raetic with Euganei...........you seem to avoid answering this clear historical fact .

As I said, the only fantasy left is the Lemnian and Etruscan one

Jean M
05-25-2015, 07:44 PM
you still do not see the big picture.....camuni are a Euganei tribe who are first cousins to the Raetic people, so you cannot have an etruscan union with raetic and a raetic with Euganei...........you seem to avoid answering this clear historical fact .

What clear historical fact? We know next to nothing about the Euganei. We don't know what language they spoke, apart from the slight evidence that the Camuni may have spoken a language like Raetic. What is the problem with that?

Raetic is seen as an offshoot of Etruscan that developed when the Etruscans spread north-east from Etruria.

Lemnian is seen as a language related to, but more archaic than Etruscan, spoken on Lemnos.

vettor
05-26-2015, 06:16 AM
What clear historical fact? We know next to nothing about the Euganei. We don't know what language they spoke, apart from the slight evidence that the Camuni may have spoken a language like Raetic. What is the problem with that?


I believe you are fully wrong in all your comments. No ancient historian agrees with you theory


What do you mean you don't know, the camuni as stated by every ancient historian is one of the Euganei tribes, since we have camunic script it then must be Euganei script .
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/euganei_zpsajpjhcvp.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/euganei_zpsajpjhcvp.jpg.html)
As you say if the Camumi ( euganei ) spoke a language like Raetic, then Euganei spoke a language like Raetic and since Euganei are the indigenous owners of Veneto and Friuli and make up 80 to 90% are the populace of the Veneti, then the Veneti must have spoken a language like Raetic.......................are the Veneti who speak like the Raetic and use an indo-european language like the Etruscans when they speak with their non indo-european language!



Raetic is seen as an offshoot of Etruscan that developed when the Etruscans spread north-east from Etruria.

You clearly have not updated your records which show Raetic finds from Val Venosta a few months ago dating 3000BC .............I do not recall the etruscans being in Italy at the time.


Lemnian is seen as a language related to, but more archaic than Etruscan, spoken on Lemnos.
Lemnian, A language not associated with anything in regards to ancient Greek in ancient Greek waters...........we will see

Jean M
05-26-2015, 10:22 AM
since we have camunic script it then must be Euganei script.

No Vettor. We have inscriptions in a language presumed to be Camunic. These inscriptions are written in Etruscan script (i.e. alphabet). That does not mean that the language in the inscriptions is Etruscan. We don't know what the language is. It might possibly be a form of Raetic. That is not certain. Even if it is Raetic, that does not mean that all the Camuni spoke Raetic, or that they had always spoken it, but simply that this was the language that some people in that territory (those who were literate) spoke. As the Etruscans expanded, they no doubt absorbed indigenous peoples (or at least peoples who had lived in NE Italy before their arrival).


the camuni as stated by every ancient historian is one of the Euganei tribes

No. Strabo (Book IV, chapter 6, section 8) described the Camunni as part of the Rhaetian peoples and related to the Lepontii, which just shows how confused observers could get.


Next, in order, come those parts of the mountains that are towards the east, and those that bend round towards the south: the Rhaeti and the Vindelici occupy them, and their territories join those of the Elvetii and the Boii; for their territories overlook the plains of those peoples. Now the Rhaeti reach down as far as that part of Italy which is above Verona and Comum (moreover, the "Rhaetic" wine, which has the repute of not being inferior to the approved wines of the Italic regions, is made in the foot-hills of the Rhaetic Alps), and also extend as far as the districts through which the Rhenus runs; the Lepontii, also, and Camuni, belong to this stock.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4F*.html

I think we can take it that the Camuni by his time were seen as under Raetic control.

Jean M
05-26-2015, 10:29 AM
You clearly have not updated your records which show Raetic finds from Val Venosta a few months ago dating 3000BC

There are no discoveries of inscriptions in Raetic from 3000 BC. No-one in Europe was literate at that date. So I imagine that you are referring to the two newly-discovered statue-stele in Val Venosta, which I reported on another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4343-Two-new-statue-stele-in-Val-Venosta-Italy

They have nothing to do with the issue being debated here. The tribal names known to Roman geographers are those who lived in their day. They did not live in 3000 BC.

vettor
05-26-2015, 06:00 PM
No Vettor. We have inscriptions in a language presumed to be Camunic. These inscriptions are written in Etruscan script (i.e. alphabet). That does not mean that the language in the inscriptions is Etruscan. We don't know what the language is. It might possibly be a form of Raetic. That is not certain. Even if it is Raetic, that does not mean that all the Camuni spoke Raetic, or that they had always spoken it, but simply that this was the language that some people in that territory (those who were literate) spoke. As the Etruscans expanded, they no doubt absorbed indigenous peoples (or at least peoples who had lived in NE Italy before their arrival).

You do realise what you are saying here..............this type of reasoning you bring up can be applied to any other issue for any other topic and basically says .....nothing is for sure, nothing is correct, nothing noted is true or false...........these are straw man arguements.
In future, with this type of theory, do not contest anyone on any issue then.

we can now believe the following of the Etruscans
1 - They came form Lydia Anatolia
2 - they came from Lybia Africa
3 - they came from Corsica
4 - they came from a branch of Umbrians
5 -they came from the northern side of the alps
6 - they are lemnian refugees
7 - they came from modern Albania
8 - they where always living in tuscany

All of the above where once stated or currently stated as origins of Etruscans


No. Strabo (Book IV, chapter 6, section 8) described the Camunni as part of the Rhaetian peoples and related to the Lepontii, which just shows how confused observers could get.


Following pliny, cato or strabo still brings the issue...........if they are related to each other and you say raetic and related to etruscans, then these camuni and lepontic people are also related to non-indo european etruscans, this is the logic you bring to the table


http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4F*.html

I think we can take it that the Camuni by his time were seen as under Raetic control.


As I stated, the camuni ( Euganei ) are "first cousins" to the Raetic ......what are you trying to say, that control changes the ethnicity of a people?

vettor
05-26-2015, 06:03 PM
There are no discoveries of inscriptions in Raetic from 3000 BC. No-one in Europe was literate at that date. So I imagine that you are referring to the two newly-discovered statue-stele in Val Venosta, which I reported on another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4343-Two-new-statue-stele-in-Val-Venosta-Italy

They have nothing to do with the issue being debated here. The tribal names known to Roman geographers are those who lived in their day. They did not live in 3000 BC.

The oldest known people in the area at the time of the these findings of 3000BC are the Raetic, we can only conclude one thing with this, they are raetic as we do not know who was there before hand. It is not I that states this, but I agree with it.

Jean M
05-26-2015, 06:35 PM
what are you trying to say, that control changes the ethnicity of a people?

Did Roman control change the ethnicity of the Celts? No. But what we see is a lot of inscriptions in Latin in the countries that the Romans took over, regardless of the language that had been spoken there before the Roman conquest.

Jean M
05-26-2015, 06:54 PM
The oldest known people in the area at the time of the these findings of 3000BC are the Raetic.

Think about all the changes that have taken place in Europe just in the last two thousand years. For example Romani arrived. So were Romani in Europe in Roman times? No. Were there Romani in Europe in 3000 BC? No. Not everyone who is in area X today descends from people who lived in that same area in 3000 BC. That has been the message of ancient DNA. Assuming genetic continuity is a huge mistake.

The statue-stelae can be traced from the European steppe in the Yamnaya period all the way to Iberia. So we can reasonably conclude that they are linked to the spread of Indo-European languages and have nothing whatever to do with the Etruscans, who did not speak an IE language. They have nothing to do with Raetic, which is related to Etruscan and is not an IE language.

Linguists decide on the relationships between languages based on study of the language itself, not some trawl through Classical sources.

vettor
05-26-2015, 07:07 PM
Did Roman control change the ethnicity of the Celts? No. But what we see is a lot of inscriptions in Latin in the countries that the Romans took over, regardless of the language that had been spoken there before the Roman conquest.

you don't know how Roman military thinking was, if an ethnicity rose against the Romans the Romans pursued the destruction of that ethnicity as a military force wherever they knew they existed, which is why the pursued all the gallic tribes even invading Britain before even setting foot in the alpine lands.
Another reason why etruscans and raetic have no ethnicity in common............the Romans pursued all the destruction of the Etruscans, even going to great lengths to cover up the etruscans history, but did not pursue, the raetic, camunic, venetic etc
- Another, destruction of Carthaginians
- destruction of illyrians after the great revolt of 9 BC

vettor
05-26-2015, 07:16 PM
Think about all the changes that have taken place in Europe just in the last two thousand years. For example Romani arrived. So were Romani in Europe in Roman times? No. Were there Romani in Europe in 3000 BC? No. Not everyone who is in area X today descends from people who lived in that same area in 3000 BC. That has been the message of ancient DNA. Assuming genetic continuity is a huge mistake.


what are you referring to - Gypsy Romani from India?

I agree with the theory of, what is her today was not here yesterday theory, but that's not the point........the point is those findings are in lands which are raetic lands , if you know of a people who where noted as being there before the raetic , let me know.

what we have is ONE lemnian stone in Lemnos who some presume is lemnian language/script.
- we have ONE alphabet in Bolzano that is similar to etruscan and is the only link between raetic and etruscan
- we know the earliest etruscans are noted as 800BC.
- we know the venetics in Italy at 1150BC via archaeology and since they replaced the Euganei and Euganei are related to the Raetic, then the clear theory is Raetics where in the Alps before Etruscans existed in Italy, so who owns this "etruscan alphabet"


Linguists decide on the relationships between languages based on study of the language itself, not some trawl through Classical sources.

Linguists do not agree with each other as you have noted, so I do not understand what this statements means by you.

If we really want to follow the linguists, then they need to present the isoglosses of the language in question.........same as they present the isogloss/division of Italian in the La Spezia-Rimini line of the Italian language and not some theory that an alphabet found in eturia represents the etruscan language

Jean M
05-26-2015, 07:30 PM
, if you know of a people who where noted as being there before the raetic , let me know.

As I have told you before, in prehistory there was no-one writing things down. In 3000 BC there were no inscriptions in any language in Europe. So we have no ethnic names except those that archaeologists create, such as "Bell Beaker" which actually refers to a culture. We can make some deductions about possible relationships via archaeology, but better by far is ancient DNA. We can see that the statue-stelae are related to Bell Beaker and to Remedello II. We can see a trail from the Yamnaya. Ancient DNA from Yamnaya and Corded Ware has now proved what I deduced in Ancestral Journeys - that there was a massive population movement in the Copper Age that spread IE languages and is linked to Y-DNA R1a and R1b. This includes Bell Beaker (from Central Europe). One day no doubt we shall have aDNA from Bell Beaker in Italy.

It would also be helpful to have Y-DNA from Etruscan tombs. I would be somewhat surprised if this was Y-DNA R1b.

Il Papà
05-26-2015, 09:56 PM
As I have told you before, in prehistory there was no-one writing things down. In 3000 BC there were no inscriptions in any language in Europe. So we have no ethnic names except those that archaeologists create, such as "Bell Beaker" which actually refers to a culture. We can make some deductions about possible relationships via archaeology, but better by far is ancient DNA. We can see that the statue-stelae are related to Bell Beaker and to Remedello II. We can see a trail from the Yamnaya. Ancient DNA from Yamnaya and Corded Ware has now proved what I deduced in Ancestral Journeys - that there was a massive population movement in the Copper Age that spread IE languages and is linked to Y-DNA R1a and R1b. This includes Bell Beaker (from Central Europe). One day no doubt we shall have aDNA from Bell Beaker in Italy.

It would also be helpful to have Y-DNA from Etruscan tombs. I would be somewhat surprised if this was Y-DNA R1b.

R1b was already present in Tuscany during this era. So even if the proto-Etruscan were not R1b, I will be surprised if it doesn't appears in at least one ancient remain.

Jean M
05-26-2015, 11:33 PM
R1b was already present in Tuscany during this era. So even if the proto-Etruscan were not R1b, I will be surprised if it doesn't appears in at least one ancient remain.

You mean there could be R1b among Etruscan results? Very true. People do mix.

Il Papà
05-27-2015, 02:38 AM
You mean there could be R1b among Etruscan results? Very true. People do mix.

Yes, but I think analysing etruscan tomb will not clear the debate that much. Finding R1b-L51(and probably U152) among them will not explain to us why etruscan were R1b. Were etruscan R1b from the beginning (and then autochthonous to Italy from at least the bell beaker period) ? Or did they acquire R1b coming to Italy ?

vettor
05-27-2015, 06:09 AM
R1b was already present in Tuscany during this era. So even if the proto-Etruscan were not R1b, I will be surprised if it doesn't appears in at least one ancient remain.

I agree, but IMO, they have also J2 as one of their top haplogroups

Jean M
05-27-2015, 09:57 AM
Yes, but I think analysing etruscan tomb will not clear the debate that much. Finding R1b-L51(and probably U152) among them will not explain to us why etruscan were R1b. Were etruscan R1b from the beginning (and then autochthonous to Italy from at least the bell beaker period) ? Or did they acquire R1b coming to Italy ?

I still think that ancient Y-DNA is our best approach, but not just from Etruscan tombs. We need it from the Neolithic in Italy and periods following, including Remedello, Bell Beaker, Urnfield etc.

It is easy to guess that Italy will prove to be similar to Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin in the pattern of ancient Y-DNA - G2 arriving with farmers in the Neolithic and R1b-L51+ arriving in the Copper Age, but I really want to get the details on exactly which culture R1b-L51+ arrived with. Could be earlier than Bell Beaker.

Diana
05-28-2015, 06:18 PM
Yes indeed trade eastwards along the Mediterranean could and did happen. There is nothing new or surprising about that. And indeed that is an alternative explanation that has been proposed for the Etruscan-type inscription on Lemnos. But if you take the trouble to read the paper I cited by L.B. van der Meer, Etruscan origins: language and archaeology, BABesch, 79 (2004), 51-57, you will see that this does not explain the evidence. As I said, Lemnian seems more archaic than the Etruscan of Italy.

Hi Jean, maybe they could have been previously known as the, "Kaberoi"? descendants of the Zeus of legend and maybe not a coincidence the connection to metallurgy.??"The Cabeiri were possibly originally Phrygian[7] deities and protectors of sailors, who were imported into Greek ritual." Maybe another explanation of where they get the reputation of being sea people from? The Similarities also with Mycenean/Minoan maybe even Spartan feel in Italy with the frescos and such, similar pottery styles to the Minoans..I only bring the Spartans up because of the numerous Oracle centre's of the Etruscans in Italy.. It is also written that a tribe fled Sparta and settled in Feronia, I know, getting off topic here a bit..Just strikes me as similar somehow. There is always some truth to myth or legend. I am terrible with dates though and timing, I know you are more of an expert here... So, these people's "Etruscans" from what I know came in waves to what we call Umbria, where my family comes from. We fought them at first and then later welcomed them in.

Diana
05-28-2015, 06:33 PM
4650
An Etruscan comb, passed down in our family. .

Jean M
05-28-2015, 07:03 PM
The Similarities also with Mycenean/Minoan maybe even Spartan

Hi Diana. Nice to see you here. We can rule some things out. The Myceneans and Spartans spoke Greek, an Indo-European language. Etruscan is not a form of Greek, or indeed any Indo-European language.


maybe they could have been previously known as the, "Kaberoi"?

Interesting. The Kabeiroi were deities/mythical creatures, dwarf-like sons of the god Hephaistos, and worshipped on Lemnos and Samothrace. Myrsilos of Lesbos said that they were regarded as Tyrrhenian gods. Saon and Aeneas are said to have brought the Penates (= Kabeiroi) from Samothrace to Italy.

http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Kabeiroi.html
https://www.academia.edu/7192473/Dionysos_and_his_Cult_in_Etruscan_Texts

Diana
05-28-2015, 07:11 PM
Hi Diana. Nice to see you here. We can rule some things out. The Myceneans and Spartans spoke Greek, an Indo-European language. Etruscan is not a form of Greek, or indeed any Indo-European language.



Interesting. The Kabeiroi were deities/mythical creatures, dwarf-like sons of the god Hephaistos, and worshipped on Lemnos and Samothrace. Myrsilos of Lesbos said that they were regarded as Tyrrhenian gods. Saon and Aeneas are said to have brought the Penates (= Kabeiroi) from Samothrace to Italy.

http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Kabeiroi.html
https://www.academia.edu/7192473/Dionysos_and_his_Cult_in_Etruscan_Texts

I thought you may be heading into that direction Jean! ;-)
I love to bring up the mythical stories that align with unexplained history that shed light on current scientific events lol!

Nice talking to you :-) thanks for the links!

Diana
05-28-2015, 07:15 PM
Hi Diana. Nice to see you here. We can rule some things out. The Myceneans and Spartans spoke Greek, an Indo-European language. Etruscan is not a form of Greek, or indeed any Indo-European language.



Interesting. The Kabeiroi were deities/mythical creatures, dwarf-like sons of the god Hephaistos, and worshipped on Lemnos and Samothrace. Myrsilos of Lesbos said that they were regarded as Tyrrhenian gods. Saon and Aeneas are said to have brought the Penates (= Kabeiroi) from Samothrace to Italy.

http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Kabeiroi.html
https://www.academia.edu/7192473/Dionysos_and_his_Cult_in_Etruscan_Texts

Jean, one more thing...

What is your take on the probable Etruscan Oracle center in Italy? Greek influence? Or is it more deep rooted?

vettor
05-28-2015, 07:20 PM
there are many theories on the Etruscans..........another 2 that come to mind are:

Etruscans origin is in modern Hungary by
Mario Alinei. Etrusco. Una forma arcaica di ungherese. Bologna: Le edizioni del Mulino, 2003 -

and

When the Dorians invaded Greece from their original home of Modern Albania, around 1000BC, one group went north and entered Italy via the ancient lands of south-picene ( umbrian speakers ), they proceed to settled on the opposite coast after many "etrusco-umbrian" battles.

Diana
05-28-2015, 09:37 PM
@Jean, The dwarfs might resemble more the people from Calabria, some are a lot shorter then your average Roman. Always kinda creeped me out! Lol

Christina
05-31-2015, 05:49 PM
Mind you, we should all be very clear that the purported link between the Etruscans and the people of Lemnos is from one inscription. It's called the Lemnos Stele.

Those putting too much weight into the Lemnos Stele should do a Google search for the "Liber Linteus." (For those too lazy, let me save you the time).

The Liber Linteus is the only known book surviving in something close to the Etruscan Language. It was found on...

a mummy in Egypt.

In other words, finding a funeral headstone (a stele) on Lemnos doesn't prove Etruscans lived there, or that a sister language was spoken by the natives. It just proves that someone speaking a similar language chose to he buried there, probably from a small colony of traders. Ditto for the mummy. Notice that no serious theory purports to connect the Etruscans to the Egyptians.

Jean M
05-31-2015, 05:56 PM
Mind you, we should all be very clear that the purported link between the Etruscans and the people of Lemnos is from one inscription.

No - there are four inscriptions, as shown above in a post by Larth: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=85079&viewfull=1#post85079
which he took from the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=54&lang=en#324

This has been discussed already on this thread. The fact that two are graffiti on pots is proof enough that the language was spoken locally.

Diana
05-31-2015, 06:02 PM
Mind you, we should all be very clear that the purported link between the Etruscans and the people of Lemnos is from one inscription. It's called the Lemnos Stele.

Those putting too much weight into the Lemnos Stele should do a Google search for the "Liber Linteus." (For those too lazy, let me save you the time).

The Liber Linteus is the only known book surviving in something close to the Etruscan Language. It was found on...

a mummy in Egypt.

In other words, finding a funeral headstone (a stele) on Lemnos doesn't prove Etruscans lived there, or that a sister language was spoken by the natives. It just proves that someone speaking a similar language chose to he buried there, probably from a small colony of traders. Ditto for the mummy. Notice that no serious theory purports to connect the Etruscans to the Egyptians.

Ptolemiac period.. As in Cleopatra's Era.

Christina
05-31-2015, 06:06 PM
Let's review the evidence for autochthonous Etruscan origins:

1. What the Etruscans said. The Etruscans themselves said they were native to Italy. (Source: Dionysus of Helicarnassus, who did what Herodotus didn't, and what we can't: ask actual living Etruscans).

2. Ancient DNA. A very large mtDNA study comparing 14 ancient samples found that the Etruscans are most closely related to southern Alpine people. This is consistent with an Etruscan/Raetican band of natives, descended from Villanovans.

3. Archaeology. The Etruscan cities show continuity from their Villanovan predecessors. Unlike most other cities in the ancient world, there is no evidence of mass casualties, fire, or sudden material and cultural shifts.

4. Ethnonyms The Etruscans called themselves "Rasna" or "Rasenna." They did not call themselves Lydians. Thinking about our known history of wandering tribes (Goths, Huns, Vandals, Anglos, etc.), most did not rename themselves. Moreover, this name is consistent with other native Italian hydronymic and place names. (Ravenna, Siena, persona, etc.)

5. The Purported Source Population. Per Dionysus of Helicarnassus, ancient Lydian historians, who had access to thousands of years of record, and in a region with terrific written records dating back millennia, denied that there was any connection.

6. If the above is not enough, there is logic. As discussed above, Herodotus's oft-repeated fable of a land-locked starving people, weak, and forced to leave a faraway land, then having the ability to pass through hostile neighboring territory, built enough ships to transport hundreds of thousands (yet not trade them for food), traverse the seas very very far, and then taking by storm 12 of the most heavily fortified cities of the dodecapoli, is, well, it's absurd.

Christina
05-31-2015, 06:12 PM
No - there are four inscriptions, as shown above in a post by Larth: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=85079&viewfull=1#post85079
which he took from the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=54&lang=en#324

This has been discussed already on this thread. The fact that two are graffiti on pots is proof enough that the language was spoken locally.

Yes, and there are Etruscan inscriptions in Campania. Everyone agrees this was from a colony, and not an origin population. Please explain why you fit the Lemnos inscriptions differently.

Moreover, there are Etruscan pottery shards (and yes, graffiti) throughout the Mediterranean. No one claims that this signifies anything more than trading. Please explain why the Lemnos pottery is due an elevated status.

The earliest Greek sources uniformly call the Etruscans "traders and pirates." Other ancient peoples (like the Phoenicians and Carthaginians) had maritime bases all over the Mediterranean (and indeed the Atlantic as far as Britain).

Archaeologists have found Carthaginian materials, including funeral stele in Spain and Cornwall. You don't state that this indicates an origin of the Carthaginians in Britain or Iberia. Why does some pottery on Lemnos indicate that the Etruscans weren't native to Italy?

Diana
05-31-2015, 06:26 PM
Hi Christina, you pose some great questions. There have been different studies and they have all come up with different information.

"An mtDNA study of 2007 confirmed that the Etruscans were not related substantially to the Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer populations of Europe and also that they showed no similarities to populations in the Near East. Another earlier DNA study performed in Italy, however, partly gave credence to the theory of Herodotus, as the results showed that 11 minor mitochondrial DNA lineages extracted from different Etruscan remains occur nowhere else in Europe and are shared only with Near Eastern Anatolian people.[12] Local tradition asserts the Etruscans arrived first at Piombino, earlier Populonia or Populonia Alta (Etruscan: Pupluna, Pufluna or Fufluna, all pronounced Fufluna; Latin: Populonium, Populonia, or Populonii), after crossing from the iron mines at Elba and Corsica, before spreading inland.

The latter hypothesis gives credence to the main hypotheses, which state that the Etruscans are indigenous, probably stemming from the Villanovan culture or from the Near East."

I don't think they were indiginous to my ancestors area. There are historical accounts of them waring with us.

vettor
05-31-2015, 06:53 PM
We cannot discount history due to some scripts on stones.
The ancient Lemnos tribe was called the Minyae, they where replaced by Dorians around 1000BC, actually the Dorians replaced many Aegean island populace, islands like Samothrace, Lemnos, Imbos , Naxos, Tinos , "cyclade islands" Rhodes , Crete etc.

The Minyae where transplanted to Laconia in the southern Pelopenesse

Any "Lemnos" 500BC tablet was already replaced by Doric scripts at least for 400 plus years


Another point.........is there any story in Phoenician and Greek texts of any large Etruscan fleet sailing through the straits of Messina to go to modern Tuscany

Jean M
05-31-2015, 07:05 PM
Let's review the evidence for autochthonous Etruscan origins:

1. What the Etruscans said. The Etruscans themselves said they were native to Italy. (Source: Dionysus of Helicarnassus, who did what Herodotus didn't, and what we can't: ask actual living Etruscans).

Wrong on both counts.

1. I quoted Dionysus of Helicarnassus at length earlier. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4471-Ancient-DNA-confirms-Estruscans-were-Southern-European&p=86097&viewfull=1#post86097

It is crystal clear that he did not ask Etruscans about their history. He drew on Greek written sources, one of the most important of which (lost to us now) was Hellanicus (5th century BC), whose account of Pelasgians settling among the Umbrians he swallows whole and quotes at length. He knew very well that the names Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians were used interchangeably in various sources, but he fails to understand that when Hellanicus talked about Pelasgians settling in Italy, he was actually referring to Tyrrhenians. He ends up perfectly sensibly deducing that the Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians were not the same people, but then makes the error of thinking that the Tyrrhenians in Italy must be a different people from the Pelasgians that he has accepted came from the Aegean to Italy. So he ends up with no story to account for the Tyrrhenians and so assumes that they must have been local. This is his own idea.

2. The Etruscans accepted that they were related to the Lydians and/or the Pelasgians. In other words they just accepted the accounts of Greek historians, presumably because their own did not go back that far. This is covered in the excellent article by Dominique Briquel in The Etruscan World https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Ofa_0Y5Iu8C

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:10 PM
I believe the Etruscan findings on Lemnos are older then ones in Italy.

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:15 PM
Yes and the Tyrrhenian references..the sea people.. pirates what have you hahaaa. This thread is definitely taking up my Sunday with all this lazy reading.

Jean M
05-31-2015, 07:18 PM
I believe the Etruscan findings on Lemnos are older then ones in Italy.

The language of the inscriptions on Lemnos is not Etruscan, but a related, more archaic language. Could that be what you are thinking of?

As far as I have been able to find out, there is no evidence of Etruscans on Lemnos. There was a reference in a review to recent discoveries of Etruscan material there, but I wonder if the review got mangled in editing or something, because I can find nothing online that might fit the bill. Such a discovery would be headline news, I would have thought.

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:21 PM
The language of the inscriptions on Lemnos is not Etruscan, but a related, more archaic language. Could that be what you are thinking of?

Yes Jean.

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:23 PM
So in other words the Etruscan Language may have derived from this more archaic language. Correct?

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:35 PM
The language of the inscriptions on Lemnos is not Etruscan, but a related, more archaic language. Could that be what you are thinking of?

As far as I have been able to find out, there is no evidence of Etruscans on Lemnos. There was a reference in a review to recent discoveries of Etruscan material there, but I wonder if the review got mangled in editing or something, because I can find nothing online that might fit the bill. Such a discovery would be headline news, I would have thought.

Clearly, they weren't known as Etrusci until much later.

Jean M
05-31-2015, 07:37 PM
So in other words the Etruscan Language may have derived from this more archaic language. Correct?

Sort of. The differences between the two suggest that each evolved from a common ancestor, but Lemnian retained more archaic features.

Diana
05-31-2015, 07:38 PM
It's like me, I'm Canadian with Italian Ancestry. Sometimes referred to as a WOP but I can assure you, all my papers are official!

Jean M
05-31-2015, 07:40 PM
Clearly, they weren't known as Etrusci until much later.

Only those Tyrrhenians who settled in Italy were known as Etrusci (to the Romans). By the time of the Etruscan cities, the Etruscans had developed their own culture. It is that distinctively Etruscan culture that is not found on Lemnos.

Christina
05-31-2015, 11:16 PM
Wow. This is like an urban legend that just won't die.

Quoting from a paper that examines all the sources:


Beginning with Herodotus, many ancient historians wrote of the Etruscans. Although Herodotus puts forth the Lydian theory, even he admits to its questionable nature. Herodotus acquired this information from the Lydians themselves—they might have been seeking credit for something with which they were not involved. In fact, had there not been a connection made at that point in time, this theory may never have developed. ... With this, it is highly unlikely that any one single migration could have given rise to the Etruscan people.6 The Greek people, long at odds with both the Lydians and the Etruscans, found ease in comparing the two enemy peoples to one another.
Herodotus maintains that the Etruscans, or Tyrrhenians as he named them, should be thought of as Lydian descendants. The main reason behind that contention, other than the Lydian claim, is the likeness of their name from the Greeks, Tyrrhenian, to the name of a town in Lydia. Tyrrhenian is also purported to have been taken from the name of the leader of their migration, the Lydian king’s son, Tyrrhenus. The conclusion that the Greek name for the Etruscans, “Tyrrhenian,” was Lydian in etymology is not necessarily correct. If it were Lydian, then there would be a connection between the two languages that the peoples spoke. In fact, no dialect of the Lydian language has ever been found to resemble the non Indo‐European language of the Etruscans. Had there been a whole‐sale migration of the Lydian people then surely they would have kept the language of their past. However, when the people of Etruria emerged in the eighth century, they came equipped with a fully developed language.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus was the first to question the Anatolian migration theory of Etruscan paternity in his book Roman Antiquities. There he questioned the validity of the Lydian claim on the basis of the incongruence in language, deities, and administration. The languages that the two peoples spoke were almost as different as could be possible: one Indo‐ European and one not. The Etruscan deities were the precursors to those of the Romans—a group of deities with little similarities to that of the Lydians. Their order of society had only a few congruencies; their laws and justice system bore no resemblance to that of the Anatolians.

Polybius likewise mentions the Etruscans in his Histories when he talks about the Po Valley. He names the Etruscans as the “oldest inhabitants” of that plain.

The Dionysian theory allows for the Etruscan people to form their own timeline with no specific dates attached to it other than that of the transformation from Bronze Age culture to Iron Age culture in the seventh and eighth centuries. Conversely, the Herodotus theory only allows for a migration in the fourteenth century B.C.; the time following the Trojan War, and the time from then to the emergence of the Etruscan culture in the seventh century goes unexplained.



In other words, you rely on Herodotus exclusively. He was one of dozens of ancient historians to include an eponymic foundation myths, (The Italians were led to Italy by an "Italus"), etc.

Herodotus's timeline puts the migration at about 1400 BC. If the theory were to truly be supported by the Lemnos stele, it would have to be dated in the fourteenth century, the time of the supposed Lydian migration. The fact that it was placed in the sixth century actually weakens the validity of your Lydian myth.

Moreover, the period in which the stele was placed was a time of expansion and growth for the Etruscans.

Were they a starving people desperate to migrate en masse, they would not have started their journey with a little side trip to an island not far enough away to be considered the ancient equivalence of a pit stop.

Christina
05-31-2015, 11:23 PM
It is crystal clear that he did not ask Etruscans about their history. He drew on Greek written sources, one of the most important of which (lost to us now) was Hellanicus (5th century BC), whose account of Pelasgians settling among the Umbrians he swallows whole and quotes at length.

How you purport to assert this is a little beyond me.

Dionysus lived in the city of Rome for 22 years, during the Augustan age.

Given that Etruscan culture, priests, historians, and people thrived until the reign of Claudius -- you assume that in 22 years, a curious guy writing on the topic, living in a city that was the borderland of Etruria, writing a history on the topic, didn't ask any Etruscans?

SMH.

Agamemnon
06-01-2015, 12:41 AM
So in other words the Etruscan Language may have derived from this more archaic language. Correct?

The nature of the "grammemes" shared between Lemnian and Etruscan strongly suggests that Lemnian is more archaic, for instance we observe a monophtongisation process for the Etruscan past-tense verbal suffix (-e<*-ai). While Lemnian certainly is more archaic, that doesn't mean Etruscan is derived from Lemnian, on the contrary this could just mean that Etruscan was more innovative (at least from a morphological and phonological standpoint) and that it simply shares a common ancestor with Lemnian.

Jean M
06-01-2015, 06:28 AM
How you purport to assert this is a little beyond me.

That's because you are not an historian. So you are not actually reading what Dionysus wrote and analysing it, unlike us poor historians who have to slog our way through it. ;) You are simply making assumptions. You are not the first to do so of course. You are relying on secondary sources which make a superficial comparison of the various original sources. But if you read what he wrote you will find no evidence whatsoever that he drew on Etruscan sources.


In other words, you rely on Herodotus exclusively.

No. I'm analysing Dionysus of Halicarnasus. Let's try again. Expanding on the extracts I gave above, here's what he says in Book 1:



[17.1] Afterwards some of the Pelasgians who inhabited Thessaly, as it is now called, being obliged to leave their country, settled among the Aborigines and jointly with them made war upon the Sicels. It is possible that the Aborigines received them partly in the hope of gaining their assistance, but I believe it was chiefly on account of their kinship; for the Pelasgians, too, were a Greek nation originally from the Peloponnesus.... [He claims that the Aborigines = Romans were of Greek origin, so the Pelasgians would be sort of kin, as having lived in Greece, though in fact all ancient sources treat the Pelasgians as non-Greek speaking.] ....

[19.1] Those [of the Pelasgians] who had turned inland crossed the mountainous part of Italy and came to the territory of the Umbrians who were neighbours to the Aborigines. (The Umbrians inhabited a great many other part of Italy also and were an exceeding great and ancient people.) At first the Pelasgians made themselves masters of the lands where they first settled and took some of the small towns belonging to the Umbrians. But when a great army came together against them, they were terrified at the number of their enemies and betook themselves to the country of the Aborigines. And these, seeing fit to treat them as enemies, made haste to assemble out of the places nearest at hand, in order to drive them out of the country....

[20.1] When, therefore, the Aborigines advanced with a numerous army, the Pelasgians approached unarmed with olive branches in their hands, and telling them of their own fortunes, begged that they would receive them in a friendly manner to dwell with them, assuring them that they would not be troublesome, since Heaven itself was guiding them into this one particular country according to the oracle, which they explained to them. When the Aborigines heard this, they resolved to obey the oracle and to gain these Greeks as allies against their barbarian enemies, for they were hard pressed by their war with the Sicels....Afterwards, a considerable part of the Pelasgians, as the land was not sufficient to support them all, prevailed on the Aborigines to join them in an expedition against the Umbrians, and marching forth, they suddenly fell upon and captured Croton, a rich and large city of theirs. And using this place as a stronghold and fortress against the Umbrians, since it was sufficiently fortified as a place of defence in time of war and had fertile pastures lying round it, they made themselves masters also of a great many other places and with great zeal assisted the Aborigines in the war they were still engaged in against the Sicels, till they drove them out of their country. And the Pelasgians in common with the Aborigines settled many cities, some of which had been previously inhabited by the Sicels and others which they built themselves; among these are Caere, then called Agylla, and Pisae, Saturnia, Alsium and some others, of which they were in the course of time dispossessed by the Tyrrhenians....

[21.1] But Falerii and Fescennium were even down to my day inhabited by Romans and preserved some small remains of the Pelasgian nation, though they had earlier belonged to the Sicels..... [Fescennia or Fescennium was an ancient city of Etruscan/Faliscan origin, now identified with Narce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narce] ... But the most conspicuous monument which shows that those people who drove out the Sicels once lived at Argos in the temple of Juno at Falerii, built in the same fashion as the one at Argos...

[22.3] In this manner the Sicel nation left Italy, according to Hellanicus of Lesbos, in the third generation before the Trojan war, and in the twenty-sixth year of the priesthood of Alcyonê at Argos....But according to Philistus of Syracuse the date of the crossing was ... and he adds that these Ligurians had been driven out of their country by the Umbrians and Pelasgians.

[25.1] Not only were the Pelasgians superior to many in warfare, as the result of their training in the midst of dangers while they lived among warlike nations, but they also rose to the highest proficiency in seamanship, by reason of their living with the Tyrrhenians; and Necessity, which is quite sufficient to give daring to those in want of a livelihood, was their leader and director in every dangerous enterprise, so that wherever they went they conquered without difficulty. And the same people were called by the rest of the world both Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians, the former name being from the country out of which they had been driven and the latter in memory of their ancient origin. I mention this so that no one, when he hears poets or historians call the Pelasgians Tyrrhenians also, may wonder how the same people got both these names. Thus, with regard to them, Thucydides has a clear account of the Thracian Actê and of the cities situated in it, which are inhabited by men who speak two languages. Concerning the Pelasgian nation these are his words: "There is also a Chalcidian element among them, but the largest element is Pelasgian, belonging to the Tyrrhenians who once inhabited Lemnos and Athens."

[28.3] Hellanicus of Lesbos says that the Tyrrhenians, who were previously called Pelasgians, received their present name after they had settled in Italy. These are his words in the Phoronis: "Phrastor was the son of Pelasgus, their king, and Menippê, the daughter of Peneus; his son was Amyntor, Amyntor's son was Teutamides, and the latter's son was Nanas. In his reign the Pelasgians were driven out of their country by the Greeks, and after leaving their ships on the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they took Croton, an inland city; and proceeding from there, they colonized the country now called Tyrrhenia." ...

[29.1] But in my opinion all though [those who] take the Tyrrhenians and the Pelasgians to be one and the same nation are mistaken. It is no wonder they were sometimes called by one another's names, since the same thing has happened to certain other nations also, both Greeks and barbarians, — for example, to the Trojans and Phrygians, who lived near each other..

So Dionysus of Halicarnasus totally accepted and treated as fact that Pelagasians settled in Italy among the Umbrians. He claimed that he could see their remains. Do modern historians talk about Pelasgians in Italy? No. Do modern archaeologists think that there are Pelasgian remains at Narce? No. Material from Narce went into the National Etruscan Museum. Do modern archaeologists think that Pisa was founded by Pelasgians? No. An Etruscan necropolis has been found there.

Dionysus of Halicarnasus knew that the Tyrrhenians and the Pelasgians had been mixed up, and repeats the supposition that some historians had made to account for the contradictory statements in various sources i.e. that that Pelasgians who settled in Italy had changed their name to Tyrrhenians.

The sensible deduction would be that in fact they had not changed their name. Tyrrhenians were Tyrrhenians inside and outside Italy. But some Greek sources viewed the Tyrrhenians as a type of Pelasgian. We see an example above (cited by Dionysus) of Thucydides doing exactly that.

Diana
06-01-2015, 02:37 PM
I have told this story before. When my DNA results came in for my brother I was shocked they weren't coming up as similar to the Etruscan tombs. Locals of today relate themselves as descendants of them which isn't a complete lie as some of us very well may have mixed with them but even today there is a clear distinction in Italy that Italians of today don't credit Etruscans for much of it's splendor. As a person with Umbrian roots, I can tell you that my own father thought we were Etruscan, I wouldn't doubt that somewhere down the line one of my male ancestors could have had an Etruscan wife but our DNA does not match any Etruscan testing to date. I think our particular subclade is attesting to the fact that we were there prior and we are a distinct group separate from the Etruscans but living side by side at one point in time.

Even the people themselves recognise there is a difference.

Jean M
06-01-2015, 02:57 PM
When my DNA results came in for my brother I was shocked they weren't coming up as similar to the Etruscan tombs.

Diana I would love to have reliable mtDNA results from Etruscan tombs. Where are they? The Ghirotto 2013 paper did not give haplogroups and the testing was too limited to try to work them out: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519 .

I could not list anything from Vernesi 2004, because of the difficulty of assigning haplogroups, and technical criticisms by Bandelt 2005.

Diana
06-01-2015, 03:14 PM
4676
4678

Love this stuff!!! 

Sorry, I uploaded the same image 3 times..

Diana
06-01-2015, 03:37 PM
Diana I would love to have reliable mtDNA results from Etruscan tombs. Where are they? The Ghirotto 2013 paper did not give haplogroups and the testing was too limited to try to work them out: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519 .

I could not list anything from Vernesi 2004, because of the difficulty of assigning haplogroups, and technical criticisms by Bandelt 2005.

Jean, I am referring to the first Y testing ever done on any Etruscan remains. I think they were G2 something.... My maternal K1a2 has nothing to do with this line.


My father owns a home in Porano about 10 mins from Orvieto... One of my cousins is head of the police there.. Not this summer but next, I plan on going back...

From what I have read there were different maternal pools were there not?

Diana
06-01-2015, 03:43 PM
@ Jean, 4679

Diana
06-01-2015, 03:46 PM
Sorry, that's not it. I will find it I just need a few minutes...

Jean M
06-01-2015, 03:59 PM
Jean, I am referring to the first Y testing ever done on any Etruscan remains. I think they were G2 something.

I don't know of any Y-DNA from Etruscan remains. There was a paper read on Y-DNA, but it was just based on modern Tuscans.
Here is an extract from the abstract of: A. Piazza, N. Cerutti et al : Origin of the Etruscans: novel clues from the Y chromosome lineages.


...Here we show the genetic relationships of modern Etrurians, who mostly settled in Tuscany, with other Italian, Near Eastern and Aegean peoples by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA variation in 1,264 unrelated healthy males from: Tuscany-Italy (n=263), North Italy (n=306), South Balkans (n=359), Lemnos island (n=60), Sicily and Sardinia (n=276). The Tuscany samples were collected in Volterra (n=116), Murlo (n=86) and Casentino Valley (n=61). We found traces of recent Near Eastern gene flow still present in Tuscany, especially in the archaeologically important village of Murlo. The samples from Tuscany show eastern haplogroups E3b1-M78, G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67 and K2-M70 with frequencies very similar to those observed in Turkey and surrounding areas, but significantly different from those of neighbouring Italian regions. The microsatellite haplotypes associated to these haplogroups allow inference of ancestor lineages for Etruria and Near East whose time to the most recent common ancestors is relatively recent (about 3,500 years BP) and supports a possible non autochthonous post-Neolithic signal associated with the Etruscans.

European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 15 supp. 1 June 2007, session C.17, pg. 19.

Diana
06-01-2015, 04:47 PM
Before I had my brother tested a few years back now, I recall an article that came out regarding the y testing of an Etruscan tomb... Now all I can find is the testing on current locals. I will keep looking, I am currently battling dandelion and have 4 acres to cover! I was sure they had a sample that was G something. I know you have been at it longer then myself so I could be wrong but I do remember reading the article and going from memory it was a tomb tested and not current living people.

vettor
06-01-2015, 06:37 PM
That's because you are not an historian. So you are not actually reading what Dionysus wrote and analysing it, unlike us poor historians who have to slog our way through it. ;) You are simply making assumptions. You are not the first to do so of course. You are relying on secondary sources which make a superficial comparison of the various original sources. But if you read what he wrote you will find no evidence whatsoever that he drew on Etruscan sources.



No. I'm analysing Dionysus of Halicarnasus. Let's try again. Expanding on the extracts I gave above, here's what he says in Book 1:



So Dionysus of Halicarnasus totally accepted and treated as fact that Pelagasians settled in Italy among the Umbrians. He claimed that he could see their remains. Do modern historians talk about Pelasgians in Italy? No. Do modern archaeologists think that there are Pelasgian remains at Narce? No. Material from Narce went into the National Etruscan Museum. Do modern archaeologists think that Pisa was founded by Pelasgians? No. An Etruscan necropolis has been found there.

Dionysus of Halicarnasus knew that the Tyrrhenians and the Pelasgians had been mixed up, and repeats the supposition that some historians had made to account for the contradictory statements in various sources i.e. that that Pelasgians who settled in Italy had changed their name to Tyrrhenians.

The sensible deduction would be that in fact they had not changed their name. Tyrrhenians were Tyrrhenians inside and outside Italy. But some Greek sources viewed the Tyrrhenians as a type of Pelasgian. We see an example above (cited by Dionysus) of Thucydides doing exactly that.

You do realise that many historians associate Pelasgian with Dorian

Jean M
06-01-2015, 06:40 PM
You do realise that many historians associate Pelasgian with Dorian

Associate is what way Vettor? Doric is a branch of Greek. Pelasgians were non-Greek speakers.

And does it matter? Pelasgians are not really the issue here. They are a red herring.

vettor
06-01-2015, 07:20 PM
Associate is what way Vettor? Doric is a branch of Greek. Pelasgians were non-Greek speakers.

And does it matter? Pelasgians are not really the issue here. They are a red herring.

True it does not matter, but a read of ...a companion to Greek studies.....one translated part states
The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. 1.56.3 For in the days of king Deucalion [Note] it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian. [Note]

The etruscan issue is that the Dorian invasion of Greece and the Aegean islands replaced the indigenous people 400 to 500 years before this Lemnian association with etruscans. You cannot claim etruscan and Lemnian are the same or similar if Lemnian society disappeared and dorian replaced it..............how many different variations do you require?


Maybe Greek historians are aiming for national propaganda issues, but they state,
All Greece was Pelagasian who came/originated via pontic-bulgarian lands, the pelagasian where of 2 cultures , Mycenaean and Minoan, these cultures where replaced by Dorian ( who came from Pelagasian lands in the north ).............a very simple summary by modern Greek historians

Diana
06-01-2015, 07:20 PM
Jean, I must have confused it with the modern study as I can't for the life of me find the article.

Christina
06-02-2015, 12:26 AM
That's because you are not an historian. So you are not actually reading what Dionysus wrote and analysing it, unlike us poor historians who have to slog our way through it. ;) You are simply making assumptions. You are not the first to do so of course. You are relying on secondary sources which make a superficial comparison of the various original sources. But if you read what he wrote you will find no evidence whatsoever that he drew on Etruscan sources.



Whoa. Hi Jean, nice to meet ya! My handle is Christina. I'm not sure if we've had coffee.

What makes you sure I'm not a historian?

Where do you have tenure?

Clearly you have not read the other posts in this thread where I've casually mentioned a few times that I've read every ancient Roman source.

Again, we ping back and forth with little regard for logic. Whether his writing says it or not, you have not answered the question: do you seriously believe that a writer with a sense of curiosity, writing on the origin of the Etruscans, living in Rome, at the border of Etruria, for 22 years, never asked an Etruscan?

Diana
06-02-2015, 04:48 AM
Whoa. Hi Jean, nice to meet ya! My handle is Christina. I'm not sure if we've had coffee.

What makes you sure I'm not a historian?

Where do you have tenure?

Clearly you have not read the other posts in this thread where I've casually mentioned a few times that I've read every ancient Roman source.

Again, we ping back and forth with little regard for logic. Whether his writing says it or not, you have not answered the question: do you seriously believe that a writer with a sense of curiosity, writing on the origin of the Etruscans, living in Rome, at the border of Etruria, for 22 years, never asked an Etruscan?
Hello Christina, my handle and real name is Diana, nice to meet you. I really enjoy your tenasity and stating your knowledge on this subject. I agree that if one lived in or near an area they would have a greater insight on matters but I know first hand about pre conceived notions as my own father thought we were Etruscan. I make mistakes too, we are human after all. Sometimes after being somewhere for so long we tend to lose our identity or take on beliefs of a different nature. Look at Christianity and so many other people's whom have adopted something as their own or even folk lore or stories passed down that change over time.

In all honesty this discussion is starting to feel like an attack on Jean. I have read her posts back to you and it wasn't until this last one that she slang the word historian and no doubt due to your approach. There is a lot to be learned by the many great minds here. You included.

Diana
06-02-2015, 05:17 AM
Anyhow, I know a lot about Jean and have read her work and she keeps a great point of reference on ancient DNA which would save me a lot of time at times when referencing ancient DNA! Thank you Jean! Are you a historian? What is your background, you are obviously interested in Italian history. Are you Italian? What testing have you done so far? What part of the world are you in now? I am in a city called Calgary from Canada but have had the pleasure of living in 4 different provinces over the years! Where do you hail from my dear?

Jean M
06-02-2015, 09:22 AM
Clearly you have not read the other posts in this thread where I've casually mentioned a few times that I've read every ancient Roman source.

I do recall your saying so once Christina, but instead of citing them, you cited a secondary source. You have relied on secondary sources for your conclusions. It is secondary sources that have made play with the proximity of Dionysus to Etruria and assumed that this meant that he had Etruscan sources, regardless of the fact that his own writing shows that he was using Greek sources and that he thought that Etruscan remains were Pelasgian. Good historians don't rely on secondary sources. That was my point.


do you seriously believe that a writer with a sense of curiosity, writing on the origin of the Etruscans, living in Rome, at the border of Etruria, for 22 years, never asked an Etruscan?

For all I know, he chatted daily to Etruscans. He certainly was familiar enough with the Etruscan language to state that it was not the same as Pelasgian. But no amount of questioning Etruscans would reveal their prehistory to him if they hadn't got a clue about it. The best educated Etruscans of his acquaintance would doubtless be familiar with Greek sources. We have evidence that some were. There is no evidence whatsoever that in Roman times they had any independent knowledge of their own origins, distinct from the 5th-century Greek sources. Hence the fact that this confusion between Pelasgian and Tyrrhenian (a Greek confusion) carried right on into the work of Dionysus.

It is a good rule generally that the closer an author is in place and time to what he or she is describing, the more faith we can place in their witness. So a quick, superficial who-were-these-people comparison of Herodotus and Dionysus gives points to the former on chronology and the latter on proximity. But when we look into what they actually said, we find that Herodotus got his story from the Lydians and we don't believe it, because of the language problem, while Dionysus preserves a story from a contemporary of Herodotus (i.e. equal points on chronology) that is a lot more plausible than that from Herodotus if we sort out the naming confusion.


Whoa. Hi Jean, nice to meet ya! My handle is Christina. I'm not sure if we've had coffee.

As I recall you posted on the old DNA forums Christina. I'm glad to see some of the names from there appear here.

Jean M
06-02-2015, 10:14 AM
Thank you Jean! Are you a historian? What is your background, you are obviously interested in Italian history. Are you Italian? What testing have you done so far? What part of the world are you in now?

My surname leads some people to think me Italian, but it is my married name. I am British. I was a practising building historian in the UK for many years and also taught the subject in university. That explains my first website, which was created initially as an aid for my students : http://www.buildinghistory.org/ . My publication list is on there, and will reveal that I took an interest in the development of settlements as well (villages and towns).

But I had always been interested in wider European prehistory and early history. When I was stuck at home during a period of convalescence I was able to really concentrate on it. That was when I wrote the first draft of Peopling of Europe and put it online in March 2008, so that I could invite critique from people on the old DNA Forums, as well as from archaeologists that I contacted privately. Members of the forum were enormously helpful. As I gradually revised and expanded the thing, some people urged me to make it a book. I was pretty disconcerted! I thought of it as a sideline, as I had never published before on anything earlier than Saxon. But a publisher was interested. So that is how Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings came out in 2013. A revised version is due out this autumn together with a new book on the Celts. So I suppose I must admit to a change of career at this late stage in my life. I haven't had a lot of time for building history over the last few years. :)

vettor
06-02-2015, 07:34 PM
My surname leads some people to think me Italian, but it is my married name. I am British. I was a practising building historian in the UK for many years and also taught the subject in university. That explains my first website, which was created initially as an aid for my students : http://www.buildinghistory.org/ . My publication list is on there, and will reveal that I took an interest in the development of settlements as well (villages and towns).

But I had always been interested in wider European prehistory and early history. When I was stuck at home during a period of convalescence I was able to really concentrate on it. That was when I wrote the first draft of Peopling of Europe and put it online in March 2008, so that I could invite critique from people on the old DNA Forums, as well as from archaeologists that I contacted privately. Members of the forum were enormously helpful. As I gradually revised and expanded the thing, some people urged me to make it a book. I was pretty disconcerted! I thought of it as a sideline, as I had never published before on anything earlier than Saxon. But a publisher was interested. So that is how Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings came out in 2013. A revised version is due out this autumn together with a new book on the Celts. So I suppose I must admit to a change of career at this late stage in my life. I haven't had a lot of time for building history over the last few years. :)

is it manco or was it changed?

Current Manco ( households) in Italy by region

La distribuzione geografica del cognome MANCO in Italia
Ci sono circa 1210 famiglie MANCO in Italia.
with 876 of these being in puglia and campania regions and of these 435 came from Lecce in Puglia


Note: the numbers represent households ( head of the house ), so it represents a minimum number

Manco means "Missing" in English

Diana
06-02-2015, 08:04 PM
My surname leads some people to think me Italian, but it is my married name. I am British. I was a practising building historian in the UK for many years and also taught the subject in university. That explains my first website, which was created initially as an aid for my students : http://www.buildinghistory.org/ . My publication list is on there, and will reveal that I took an interest in the development of settlements as well (villages and towns).

But I had always been interested in wider European prehistory and early history. When I was stuck at home during a period of convalescence I was able to really concentrate on it. That was when I wrote the first draft of Peopling of Europe and put it online in March 2008, so that I could invite critique from people on the old DNA Forums, as well as from archaeologists that I contacted privately. Members of the forum were enormously helpful. As I gradually revised and expanded the thing, some people urged me to make it a book. I was pretty disconcerted! I thought of it as a sideline, as I had never published before on anything earlier than Saxon. But a publisher was interested. So that is how Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings came out in 2013. A revised version is due out this autumn together with a new book on the Celts. So I suppose I must admit to a change of career at this late stage in my life. I haven't had a lot of time for building history over the last few years. :)

Hi Jean, I remember from DNA forums. That is some great info. I know you put yourself out there.

I was hoping Christina could fill us in a bit ..

Jean M
06-02-2015, 10:07 PM
is it manco or was it changed?

It is indeed, but it is not actually Italian in my former husband's case. The surname is also found elsewhere - Spain, Portugal and South America - (with the same meaning, from Latin mancus), though I gather that in Italy it can also mean 'left-handed'.

Christina
06-03-2015, 02:59 AM
Jean, if I don't say it enough: I LOVE your websites. Frankly, I think your compendium of Ancient DNA is the best out there, bar none. I reference it all the time.

It doesn't mean I am going to agree with you on every logical conclusion. Clearly on this point, you are Herodotus, and I am Dionysius.

(As an aside, Yes, Herodotus wrote before Dionysus, but it is often with the passage of time that the politics of "history" are sorted out. For example, Joan of Arc was portrayed as witch by her contemporaries. It took 200 years for a more balanced picture to emerge... I think Dionysius is more reliable not only because he had less reason to politicize things (the Greeks were fighting skirmishes and outright wars with both the Etruscans and the Lydians during Herodotus's time), but I also think Dionysius is more reliable because he actually went to...Etruria...and lived there for 22 years...and researched things...and spoke to Etruscans...and read their materials...and had access to older Roman sources, that are now lost.)

Anyway, no knock on anyone. You just stated with 100% certainty that I was not a historian, and I wondered how you knew that based on a first name. (This is the first board I have joined by the way).

vettor
06-03-2015, 06:16 AM
It is indeed, but it is not actually Italian in my former husband's case. The surname is also found elsewhere - Spain, Portugal and South America - (with the same meaning, from Latin mancus), though I gather that in Italy it can also mean 'left-handed'.

You most likely mean SANCO as left-handed which is in ligurian/Piemontese, ZANCA is in Venetian and SINISTRA is in Italian.

I looked up Italian dictionary and did not find Mancino, but looked up net and saw mancino as left -handed ................oh well , another word in Italian which makes no sense

Jean M
06-03-2015, 12:08 PM
Clearly on this point, you are Herodotus, and I am Dionysius.

No Christina. Both Herodotus and Dionysius were wrong in my view, but both (carefully read), retain clues to what really happened. Let us start again. There are two 5th-century Greek stories about the origins of the Etruscans:

Herodotus says they came from Lydia.
Hellanicus says they came from the Aegean and were Pelasgians.

In both cases, they are said to have settled among the Umbrians, but Hellanicus reveals far more familiarity with the Italian end of the story, and is more plausible in fixing upon the origin, because we know (from other sources) that the Greeks muddled up Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians.

All too frequently modern historians on the Etruscans simply tell us that Dionysius knew of both sources and rejected them both, concluding that the Etruscans were local. That is untrue. Dionysius totally accepted the story from Hellanicus that the Pelasgians came to Italy. He identified as Pelasgian remains that we now know to be Etruscan. He noted the Greek influence. He knew that Etruscans lived in these places later, but did not make the logical connection that the Pelasgians of Hellanicus = Tyrrhenians i.e. that there was no change of name, or replacement of Pelasgians by Tyrrhenians (which was the idea he came up with.) The poor man was as confused as a lot of later historians have been. ;)

This discussion has actually been very useful to me. Looking deeper into the sources has changed my mind during the course of this thread to a later date for the arrival of the Tyrrhenians in Italy, and a north Aegean origin.

R.Rocca
06-03-2015, 12:51 PM
This discussion has actually been very useful to me. Looking deeper into the sources has changed my mind during the course of this thread to a later date for the arrival of the Tyrrhenians in Italy, and a north Aegean origin.

For all of the snickering that goes on during some of these discussions, IMO delving more into a topic and reaffirming or changing ones' opinion is the real value and is at the heart of what it means to be a true academic. Thank you Jean.

Kenntak
06-03-2015, 02:26 PM
Any chance of finding Emperor Claudius' lost history of the Etruscans? That would be an interesting read to say the least.

Talking to people is certainly useful, but it does have its limitations. For example, my Grandmother doesn't know how her last name is really spelled, does not know the town in Italy here her mother came from, and has celebrated her birthday one month after the actual date. This morning, I could not remember whether a particular event occurred in the 1990's or 80's. I think the more important consideration is what sources of research were available to Dionysus. I am sure they were much more extensive than we have now; but interpreting and synthesizing them could be a whole different thing.

vettor
06-03-2015, 07:04 PM
No Christina. Both Herodotus and Dionysius were wrong in my view, but both (carefully read), retain clues to what really happened. Let us start again. There are two 5th-century Greek stories about the origins of the Etruscans:

Herodotus says they came from Lydia.
Hellanicus says they came from the Aegean and were Pelasgians.

In both cases, they are said to have settled among the Umbrians, but Hellanicus reveals far more familiarity with the Italian end of the story, and is more plausible in fixing upon the origin, because we know (from other sources) that the Greeks muddled up Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians.

All too frequently modern historians on the Etruscans simply tell us that Dionysius knew of both sources and rejected them both, concluding that the Etruscans were local. That is untrue. Dionysius totally accepted the story from Hellanicus that the Pelasgians came to Italy. He identified as Pelasgian remains that we now know to be Etruscan. He noted the Greek influence. He knew that Etruscans lived in these places later, but did not make the logical connection that the Pelasgians of Hellanicus = Tyrrhenians i.e. that there was no change of name, or replacement of Pelasgians by Tyrrhenians (which was the idea he came up with.) The poor man was as confused as a lot of later historians have been. ;)

This discussion has actually been very useful to me. Looking deeper into the sources has changed my mind during the course of this thread to a later date for the arrival of the Tyrrhenians in Italy, and a north Aegean origin.

we can only say , that etruscan theories to this day are from many directions
http://paleoglot.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/etruscan-entry-into-italy.html

http://www.peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/etruscans.htm

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lWOyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=etruscan+migration&source=bl&ots=Hyepj7ZFFi&sig=plA_bOHNpgmIhg6PZ-vdWvvv-Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NU9vVczUN6LbmAWI6IDABg&ved=0CHIQ6AEwFA#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20migration&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=j5IdvBVcTZUC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=etruscan+migration&source=bl&ots=K28eV1cnoU&sig=-hULj-6ZyzHt-LisaJx-oQ9IY2c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v09vVdmfOabymQWswYG4BQ&ved=0CGwQ6AEwEg#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20migration&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=SJe3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=etruscan+migration&source=bl&ots=DLWFsNuH6E&sig=yHDzDy1_Onoy6RwmutQoKXt-QY0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HFBvVbH_BIKimQX654LQDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20migration&f=false

In the end, one cannot exclude the dorians as the time line fits very well with doric invasions and etruscan entry into italy give or take 100 years.
Dorians on the coast would not just migrate south!

Jean M
06-05-2015, 12:10 AM
Thank you Jean.

Thank you, but I should say here that my analysis is not novel. Fred C. Woudhuizen published to much the same effect in 2003 (except for his controversial claim that Etruscan was a variety of Luwian, which seems unlikely to convince linguists). http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TAL-34-35-2002-2003-art-4-pag-55-70.pdf

I've only just found his paper, but I have to admit that I've had his PhD on the Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples (which includes the material from his paper of 2003) since 2013 and never found time to read it!

Christina
06-05-2015, 07:28 PM
No Christina. Both Herodotus and Dionysius were wrong in my view, but both (carefully read), retain clues to what really happened. Let us start again. There are two 5th-century Greek stories about the origins of the Etruscans:

Herodotus says they came from Lydia.
Hellanicus says they came from the Aegean and were Pelasgians.

In both cases, they are said to have settled among the Umbrians, but Hellanicus reveals far more familiarity with the Italian end of the story, and is more plausible in fixing upon the origin, because we know (from other sources) that the Greeks muddled up Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians.

All too frequently modern historians on the Etruscans simply tell us that Dionysius knew of both sources and rejected them both, concluding that the Etruscans were local. That is untrue. Dionysius totally accepted the story from Hellanicus that the Pelasgians came to Italy. He identified as Pelasgian remains that we now know to be Etruscan. He noted the Greek influence. He knew that Etruscans lived in these places later, but did not make the logical connection that the Pelasgians of Hellanicus = Tyrrhenians i.e. that there was no change of name, or replacement of Pelasgians by Tyrrhenians (which was the idea he came up with.) The poor man was as confused as a lot of later historians have been. ;)

This discussion has actually been very useful to me. Looking deeper into the sources has changed my mind during the course of this thread to a later date for the arrival of the Tyrrhenians in Italy, and a north Aegean origin.

And, no, Jean, you can't state with authority what "Hellanicus" wrote because there is not now, and has never been, an agreed-upon meaning of "Pelasgian."

In some Greek sources, it means, only, "the aboriginal people of Greece." That of course is not accurate, because they had no way of knowing who were aboriginal (Cro Magnon?). What they mean is the people who were already in Greece when the Ionians and other Greeks invaded.

In other sources, Pelasgian means, "anyone who is not Greek." In still others, it is used broadly to mean "native" or "aboriginal." There are even several texts where the writer means it to signify "non-Indo European speaking!"

And yet in still other sources, they mix the term quite a bit -- within the same text!

This isn't anything unique or uncommon.

-Ancient Jewish sources have no uniform definition of "Chittim." That is why in different places in the bible, scholars translate it into, "Philistine," "Greek," or even "Roman," i.e., in the Book of Daniel. Like Pelasgian, it had a vague and amorphous meaning (broadly: non-Jews, from the Mediterranean).

-Ancient Roman and Greek sources even use "Italian" and "Latin" with varying definitions, within the same book. As any historian knows, "Latin" meant both the ethnic group dwelling near Rome, and allied people of various regions given "civitas sine suffragio" (something akin to citizenship without the voting franchise). Many historians use "Latin" for different meanings in the same text with no clarification whatsoever.

-There are similar concepts, entire treatises in fact, on the meaning of the word, "Italians" in Polybius.

This is common in all ancient sources. And nowhere is it more clear with the term, "Pelasgian."

So if you take the certainty of your position, and you view it through this prism, adding this information, you come to the conclusion that one of the sources that you cite (again) cannot be taken for the broad principle that you cite it for.

If the Etruscans were "Pelasgian" and all that means is "a native people of a land who were not Greek," tell me again how this doesn't confirm what I have been posting?

The things I have posted in this post are rather noncontroversial statements, accepted by 99.9% of the mainstream of historians. But don't take my word. Please confirm what I have written above, even with something like Wikipedia.

vettor
06-05-2015, 07:43 PM
Pelasgian is currently claimed by the modern ...Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians and greek-Anatolians as their own race in ancient times.

vettor
06-05-2015, 07:46 PM
And, no, Jean, you can't state with authority what "Hellanicus" wrote because there is not now, and has never been, an agreed-upon meaning of "Pelasgian."

In some Greek sources, it means, only, "the aboriginal people of Greece." That of course is not accurate, because they had no way of knowing who were aboriginal (Cro Magnon?). What they mean is the people who were already in Greece when the Ionians and other Greeks invaded.

In other sources, Pelasgian means, "anyone who is not Greek." In still others, it is used broadly to mean "native" or "aboriginal." There are even several texts where the writer means it to signify "non-Indo European speaking!"

And yet in still other sources, they mix the term quite a bit -- within the same text!

This isn't anything unique or uncommon.

-Ancient Jewish sources have no uniform definition of "Chittim." That is why in different places in the bible, scholars translate it into, "Philistine," "Greek," or even "Roman," i.e., in the Book of Daniel. Like Pelasgian, it had a vague and amorphous meaning (broadly: non-Jews, from the Mediterranean).

-Ancient Roman and Greek sources even use "Italian" and "Latin" with varying definitions, within the same book. As any historian knows, "Latin" meant both the ethnic group dwelling near Rome, and allied people of various regions given "civitas sine suffragio" (something akin to citizenship without the voting franchise). Many historians use "Latin" for different meanings in the same text with no clarification whatsoever.

-There are similar concepts, entire treatises in fact, on the meaning of the word, "Italians" in Polybius.

This is common in all ancient sources. And nowhere is it more clear with the term, "Pelasgian."

So if you take the certainty of your position, and you view it through this prism, adding this information, you come to the conclusion that one of the sources that you cite (again) cannot be taken for the broad principle that you cite it for.

If the Etruscans were "Pelasgian" and all that means is "a native people of a land who were not Greek," tell me again how this doesn't confirm what I have been posting?

The things I have posted in this post are rather noncontroversial statements, accepted by 99.9% of the mainstream of historians. But don't take my word. Please confirm what I have written above, even with something like Wikipedia.

The term Italian is a Greek word which represented southern Italy only...........not Sicily, not the etruscans and not the barbarians north of the etruscans as the greeks stated.

Jean M
06-05-2015, 08:38 PM
In some Greek sources, it means, only, "the aboriginal people of Greece." That of course is not accurate, because they had no way of knowing who were aboriginal (Cro Magnon?). What they mean is the people who were already in Greece when the Ionians and other Greeks invaded.

In other sources, Pelasgian means, "anyone who is not Greek."


More interestingly, Homer reveals that Pelasgians were a specific people living in the north Aegean at the time of composition. The idea that they had lived all over Greece prior to the Greeks seems to be a later meaning, akin to "prehistoric". I recommend J. L. Myres (1907), A History of the Pelasgian Theory, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 27: 170–225. He gathered together and analysed every reference to Pelasgians.


In still others, it is used broadly to mean "native" or "aboriginal."

Nice try, but not native to Italy. ;) Once again you are not reading the original source. Hellanicus gives us a lengthy story of these "Pelasgians" arriving in Italy, settling among the Umbrians and creating cities. So they arrived long after the Indo-Europeans and in exactly that era in which urban living with an "oriental" flavour appeared in what is now Tuscany.


there is not now, and has never been, an agreed-upon meaning of "Pelasgian."

That is exactly what I have been trying to get across. The Greeks could sometimes be referring to a specific people as "Pelasgians" and sometimes used the word as a catch-all term that included Tyrrhenians. Dionysius chooses to assume that Hellanicus was referring to the specific people who lived in the north Aegean near the Tyrrhenians. (He talks about the two peoples living near each other.) Then he chooses to claim that it was these specific people who came to Italy, despite that fact that all the evidence is that whoever arrived were always known subsequently as Tyrrhenians.

Jean M
06-05-2015, 08:53 PM
Here is an extract from Fred C. Woudhuizen on the topic:


it is interesting to determine what exactly is Dionysios’ drive to disconnect the Tyrrhenians, as the Etruscans are called by the Greeks, from the Pelasgians. In earlier sources, like, for instance, Thucydides (5th century BC), these two population groups are persistently identified (Peloponnesian War IV, 109). The answer to this question is given by Dionysios himself in the introduction to his work: he wants to prove that the founding fathers of Rome were actually Greeks (Roman Antiquities I, 5, 1; cf. I, 17, 1; I, 60, 3). Now, the Pelasgians, who played a role in the earliest history of Rome, according to literary tradition originate from Greece. For Dionysios, this is reason to assume that they are in fact a Greek ethnos. In reality, however, the Pelasgians are a pre-Greek population group, already present in Greece before the Greeks came into being. As they are so different from the Greeks, Dionysios cannot use the Tyrrhenians to the same effect: to declare them Greeks would be preposterous. The unprecedented and rather forced distinction between Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians leads to absurd consequences, like, for instance, the assumption that the language of the inhabitants of Cortona, whom Dionysios considers to be Pelasgians, was distinct from that of the Tyrrhenians (Roman Antiquities I, 29, 3). Dozens of inscriptions disprove this: the language of the inhabitants of Cortona was straightforwardly Etruscan (Rix 1991, 301-4; Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000; cf. Briquel 1984, 133). Another question which arises from Dionysios’ distinction between Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians is where the latter were living at the time that the Pelasgians are said to have occupied their country (Roman Antiquities I, 20, 5). Finally, the way in which Dionysios disposes of the Pelasgians in order to make room for the Tyrrhenians is extremely suspect: he simply, so to say, lets them evaporate into thin air (Roman Antiquities I, 24, 4; 26, 1)! In short, the story on which the adherents of the autochthonous thesis base themselves suffers from many flaws.

Jean M
06-06-2015, 10:50 AM
A number of interesting points are made by Dominique Briquel, Etruscan origins and the ancient authors, chapter 3 in Jean MacIntosh Turfa (ed.), Etruscan World (2014), pp. 36-55.


That the Etruscan autochthonous thesis for which Dionysios is our only witness was born in an Hellenic milieu and does not reflect the vision that the Etruscans themselves had of their own origins. Briquel connects it to Syracusian propaganda of the time of Dionysius I (431-367 BC) in defence of his attacks on the Etruscans, which had been condemned by Greeks.
The autochthonous thesis was intended to present the Etruscans unfavourably, by reducing them to mere barbarians. Dionysios therefore favoured it in order to present the Romans alone as Greek, and so reconcile the Greeks to Roman control (the intention that he outlined in his introduction.)
The account by Herodotus was from the Lydians and falls into the pattern in which the bonds of trade and friendship could be presented as ancient kinship. So it could have been created to reflect good relations between Lydia and the Tyrrhenian world.
The account by Hellanicus was shaped by the Etruscans themselves. It created a link between themselves and the Greek world which suited their trade with the Greeks. Alone among barbarians, two Etruscan cities, Spina on the Adriatic and Caere on the Tyrrhenian Sea, were afforded the great privilege of building a treasury in the Pan-Hellenic shrine at Delphi.
It can be no coincidence that at the time that Hellanicus developed the tradition of Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans (5th century BC) and probably already at the end of the previous century when Hecataeus of Miletus reported this doctrine, these two Etruscan cities were centres of trade with the Greek world.
A detail from Hellanicus provides a clue to where he got the story. The Pelasgians are said to have disembarked at the Spinetic mouth of the Po. So the people of Spina were the probable source for the story, wanting to give a precedence to Spina which does not fit the archaeological facts. The Po Valley was developed by Etruscans from Tuscany in the late 6th century.
Spina was inhabited by Greeks as well as Etruscans, so we see how the story came to Hellanicus.
Other elements of the story of Hellanicus reveal a true Etruscan tradition of Cortona as the metropolis from which other Etruscan cities were founded.

vettor
06-06-2015, 07:18 PM
A number of interesting points are made by Dominique Briquel, Etruscan origins and the ancient authors, chapter 3 in Jean MacIntosh Turfa (ed.), Etruscan World (2014), pp. 36-55.


That the Etruscan autochthonous thesis for which Dionysios is our only witness was born in an Hellenic milieu and does not reflect the vision that the Etruscans themselves had of their own origins. Briquel connects it to Syracusian propaganda of the time of Dionysius I (431-367 BC) in defence of his attacks on the Etruscans, which had been condemned by Greeks.
The autochthonous thesis was intended to present the Etruscans unfavourably, by reducing them to mere barbarians. Dionysios therefore favoured it in order to present the Romans alone as Greek, and so reconcile the Greeks to Roman control (the intention that he outlined in his introduction.)
The account by Herodotus was from the Lydians and falls into the pattern in which the bonds of trade and friendship could be presented as ancient kinship. So it could have been created to reflect good relations between Lydia and the Tyrrhenian world.
The account by Hellanicus was shaped by the Etruscans themselves. It created a link between themselves and the Greek world which suited their trade with the Greeks. Alone among barbarians, two Etruscan cities, Spina on the Adriatic and Caere on the Tyrrhenian Sea, were afforded the great privilege of building a treasury in the Pan-Hellenic shrine at Delphi.
It can be no coincidence that at the time that Hellanicus developed the tradition of Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans (5th century BC) and probably already at the end of the previous century when Hecataeus of Miletus reported this doctrine, these two Etruscan cities were centres of trade with the Greek world.
A detail from Hellanicus provides a clue to where he got the story. The Pelasgians are said to have disembarked at the Spinetic mouth of the Po. So the people of Spina were the probable source for the story, wanting to give a precedence to Spina which does not fit the archaeological facts. The Po Valley was developed by Etruscans from Tuscany in the late 6th century.
Spina was inhabited by Greeks as well as Etruscans, so we see how the story came to Hellanicus.
Other elements of the story of Hellanicus reveal a true Etruscan tradition of Cortona as the metropolis from which other Etruscan cities were founded.


Yes Spina was Etruscan as well as Adria, but how long was it Etruscan.?

Spina suffered destruction by Cleonymus of Sparta, who first attacked the Veneti , was beaten and the remnants seized Spina and comacchio ( salt capital of the adriatic sea ).

But IIRC, wasn't this area taken by Boii and Senones gallic tribes around 500BC

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/eng.html

http://www.emiliaromagnaturismo.com/en/archaeology/etruschi-e-celti-in-emilia-romagna-1

Christina
06-07-2015, 05:07 AM
More interestingly, Homer reveals that Pelasgians were a specific people living in the north Aegean at the time of composition. The idea that they had lived all over Greece prior to the Greeks seems to be a later meaning, akin to "prehistoric". I recommend J. L. Myres (1907), A History of the Pelasgian Theory, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 27: 170–225. He gathered together and analysed every reference to Pelasgians.



Nice try, but not native to Italy. ;) Once again you are not reading the original source. Hellanicus gives us a lengthy story of these "Pelasgians" arriving in Italy, settling among the Umbrians and creating cities. So they arrived long after the Indo-Europeans and in exactly that era in which urban living with an "oriental" flavour appeared in what is now Tuscany.



That is exactly what I have been trying to get across. The Greeks could sometimes be referring to a specific people as "Pelasgians" and sometimes used the word as a catch-all term that included Tyrrhenians. Dionysius chooses to assume that Hellanicus was referring to the specific people who lived in the north Aegean near the Tyrrhenians. (He talks about the two peoples living near each other.) Then he chooses to claim that it was these specific people who came to Italy, despite that fact that all the evidence is that whoever arrived were always known subsequently as Tyrrhenians.

Once again, I try to find myself understanding your logic, and what you deem evidentiary, and what you disregard.

1. Please read any treatise on the Pelasgians. Call any history department at any university. Yes, it really was a synonym for "native" in some places. There was no uniform usage.

2. There is not a single historian, ancient or modern, who gives Hellanicus any credibility. Please read even a Wikipedia article.

3. Again, in absence of agreed-upon conclusions, we have to resort to logic as our guide.

Hellanicus stated:

1. The demigod Hercules wandered into Thessaly and had lots of kids.

2. His descendants became the first inhabitants of Thessaly, Greece.

3. Some later sailed to Cortona in Italy and settled it.

Please explain why you believe #3 is powerful evidence on Etruscan origins and why #2 confirms the Lydian/Anatolian hypothesis.

Similarly, if you do NOT believe Hellanicus incorporated a lot of myth and pseudo-science (which I believe), then please explain to everyone what you make of #1.

EVERY CITY IN ITALY had these creation myths. NO ONE TAKES THEM AS VALID.

For example, Alba Longa, in Lazio:

1. The goddess Venus mated with some Trojan refugees, including the ancestors of the Julius (Caesar) family.

2. They walked to Lazio, even one carrying his dad on his back.

3. These were the ancestors of the Albans, especially Caesar.

If you give credence to the myth above from Hellanicus regarding one city (Cortona) and one region (Etruria), please then explain why you don't give credibility to the other mythical origin stories throughout the classical world.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 12:20 PM
1. Please read any treatise on the Pelasgians. Yes, it really was a synonym for "native" in some places.

Yes Christina. I know. But that is in Greek sources about Greece. Hellanicus was not using the term to mean 'native to Italy'. He uses it to describe people arriving in Italy from the Aegaen. We cannot take the word out of its context if we want to understand what Hellanicus meant by it.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 12:51 PM
There is not a single historian, ancient or modern, who gives Hellanicus any credibility.


What rubbish! Your adored Dionysius of Halicarnassus accepted his story completely (except for the nomenclature issue). I quoted above two modern historians. They do not agree on all points. I don't agree with them on all points. But none of us is inclined to simply toss Hellanicus in the rubbish bin. We want to see what he meant and where he got his ideas from and the degree to which he is making sense.


Similarly, if you do NOT believe Hellanicus incorporated a lot of myth and pseudo-science .. then please explain to everyone what you make of #1.

Of course he included myth. Good grief! The Greeks knew no better than any other European nation how they arrived in Greece, or how the people that they found there had arrived in Greece. Written sources did not extend back into the Neolithic or the Mesolithic, and anyone imagining that oral history can be passed down accurately for thousands of years is a romantic. The Greeks, like other peoples, invented stories to fill the gap in their knowledge. No sensible person takes that stuff literally. See my page on origin stories: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/originstories.shtml

However Greek sources are valuable because some are far earlier than any others for Europe. Homer actually takes us back to the Late Bronze Age, and the 5th and 6th century BC sources are early enough to retain some clues, however garbled, to events about a century earlier. This does not mean that we should swallow them whole, gods and all. Good historians analyse sources.

Let me take an example I used to use with my students. The first local histories in Britain tended to be written by men of leisure in the 18th century. They would often make mistakes about periods earlier than their own, but they are often very good sources for their own period, as they wrote down what they actually witnessed in their own day. In other words, we regard them as secondary sources for earlier history, but primary sources for their own period. See my page on evaluating sources: http://www.buildinghistory.org/primary/

Jean M
06-07-2015, 01:52 PM
EVERY CITY IN ITALY had these creation myths. NO ONE TAKES THEM AS VALID.

I'm glad that you understand the degree of rubbish in so many origin stories. Why do you make an exception of the claim that Etruscans were native to Italy? Why is that not pseudo-history?


If you give credence to the myth above from Hellanicus regarding one city (Cortona) and one region (Etruria), please then explain why you don't give credibility to the other mythical origin stories throughout the classical world.

It was not I who thought genuine the story of Cortona as the mother-city from which other Etruscan cities were founded. I was quoting Dominique Briquel, Etruscan origins and the ancient authors, chapter 3 in Jean MacIntosh Turfa (ed.), Etruscan World (2014), pp. 36-55. I recommend that you read his chapter in order to understand his thinking on this. I wouldn't care to say whether he is right or not, but his approach is far more sophisticated than simply rejecting all sources as mythical or pseudo-history.

If you do that, then logically you should reject Dionysius of Halicarnassus's autochthonous thesis for the Etruscans as well. He gives no proof of it. He couldn't possibly have any proof of it, for that would place their origins in prehistory, unrecorded and unknown.

Christina
06-07-2015, 10:51 PM
Yes Christina. I know. But that is in Greek sources about Greece. Hellanicus was not using the term to mean 'native to Italy'. He uses it to describe people arriving in Italy from the Aegaen. We cannot take the word out of its context if we want to understand what Hellanicus meant by it.

All that survives from Hellanicus are a couple of fragments. The text you rely on comes from a small fragment. So I do not understand. Context? Please explain the context.

Christina
06-07-2015, 10:56 PM
What rubbish! Your adored Dionysius of Halicarnassus accepted his story completely (except for the nomenclature issue). I quoted above two modern historians. They do not agree on all points. I don't agree with them on all points. But none of us is inclined to simply toss Hellanicus in the rubbish bin. We want to see what he meant and where he got his ideas from and the degree to which he is making sense.



Nice! I got a double "rubbish" in one paragraph!

I think you've made my point. When an ancient historian (or historians) incorporates lots of myth, they go from being a historian really to a mythographer. My classical history mentors always made the analogy between people in the year 4000 A.D. finding two newspapers. One is the New York Times, and the other is the National Enquirer. They have to discern which is more factual. This is our task too.

When an ancient historian incorporates too much myth, you disregard them a little (or a lot).

Your sources fly in the face of:

1. What the Etruscans said. The Etruscans themselves said they were native to Italy. (Source: Dionysus of Helicarnassus, who did what Herodotus didn't, and what we can't: ask actual living Etruscans).

2. Ancient DNA. A very large mtDNA study comparing 14 ancient samples found that the Etruscans are most closely related to southern Alpine people. This is consistent with an Etruscan/Raetican band of natives, descended from Villanovans.

3. Archaeology. The Etruscan cities show continuity from their Villanovan predecessors. Unlike most other cities in the ancient world, there is no evidence of mass casualties, fire, or sudden material and cultural shifts.

4. Ethnonyms The Etruscans called themselves "Rasna" or "Rasenna." They did not call themselves Lydians. Thinking about our known history of wandering tribes (Goths, Huns, Vandals, Anglos, etc.), most did not rename themselves. Moreover, this name is consistent with other native Italian hydronymic and place names. (Ravenna, Siena, persona, etc.)

5. The Purported Source Population. Per Dionysus of Helicarnassus, ancient Lydian historians, who had access to thousands of years of record, and in a region with terrific written records dating back millennia, denied that there was any connection.

6. If the above is not enough, there is logic. As discussed above, Herodotus's oft-repeated fable of a land-locked starving people, weak, and forced to leave a faraway land, then having the ability to pass through hostile neighboring territory, built enough ships to transport hundreds of thousands (yet not trade them for food), traverse the seas very very far, and then taking by storm 12 of the most heavily fortified cities of the dodecapoli, is, well, it's absurd.

So, I discount them.

Christina
06-07-2015, 11:01 PM
I'm glad that you understand the degree of rubbish in so many origin stories. Why do you make an exception of the claim that Etruscans were native to Italy? Why is that not pseudo-history?





Because of the oral historical, linguistics, archaeological, and logical evidence listed above.

Moreover, as you as a historian should know, we *always* make judgment calls about the veracity of ancient historians. For the Early Imperial Period, Tacitus fills his history with quotes from political speeches, material he recorded himself, and annalistic facts. He is therefore considered quite reliable by most. The typical writing of Suetonius will start with a myth about an eagle having a two-headed baby and it meaning that an emperor was going to have relations with two goats. (Exaggerating, but those who have read him know what I mean). We therefore discount Suetonius. We trust him less than Tacitus.

Dionysius starts his history by saying that he was brought to Rome during the reign of Augustus, that he lived there 22 years, and that his history is based on the writings of (and then lists TWENTY sources lost to us). He goes in great detail to explain what he bases his stuff on.

He is more reliable than a fragment of Hellanicus, who the ancients themselves poked fun at.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 11:06 PM
All that survives from Hellanicus are a couple of fragments. .. So I do not understand. Context? Please explain the context.

The text I am discussing is preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnasus and otherwise lost, as has been made clear in several posts above. The sections where he actually cites his source as Hellanicus by name are included in the Fragmenta historicorum graecorum ed Müller (1841), vol. 1 pp. 45 and 52 and later collections of fragments of the works of Hellanicus preserved by other authors.

[1.22]

The Sicels, being warred upon by both the Pelasgians and the Aborigines, found themselves incapable of making resistance any longer, and so, taking with them their wives and children and such of their possessions as were any other gold or silver, they abandoned all their country to these foes.... In this manner the Sicel nation left Italy, according to Hellanicus of Lesbos, in the third generation before the Trojan war, and in the twenty-sixth year of the priesthood of Alcyonê at Argos. But he says that two Italian expeditions passed over into Sicily, the first consisting of the Elymians, who had been driven out of their country by the Oenotrians, and the second, five years later, of the Ausonians, who fled from the Iapygians. As king of the latter group he names Sicelus, from whom both the people and the island got their name.

[28.1]

Hellanicus of Lesbos says that the Tyrrhenians, who were previously called Pelasgians, received their present name after they had settled in Italy. These are his words in the Phoronis: "Phrastor was the son of Pelasgus, their king, and Menippê, the daughter of Peneus; his son was Amyntor, Amyntor's son was Teutamides, and the latter's son was Nanas. In his reign the Pelasgians were driven out of their country by the Greeks, and after leaving their ships on the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they took Croton, an inland city; and proceeding from there, they colonized the country now called Tyrrhenia."

These are set in lengthy story of Pelasgians settling in Italy, which Dionysius accepts as fact.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 11:18 PM
Because of the oral historical, linguistics, archaeological, and logical evidence listed above.

In other words you believe the autochthonous thesis for the Etruscans because you prefer it, and believe there is other evidence for it. In fact there is not.

There is no oral history involved. Oral history is not preserved for thousands of years. There is no way that Etruscans of the time of Dionysus could have known and relayed to him that they descended from Neolithic people of Italy.

The linguistic evidence is of Etruscan as a post-IE intrusion into an IE speaking area.

The archaeological evidence is of an "orientalising" influence along with the creation of cities. This is the period recognised at Etruscan. The idea of continuity from Villanovan [I] seems unconvincing.

Logic is singularly lacking in what looks more like an impassioned political campaign, complete with dirty tactics: attempts to discredit sources/authors that don't suit the vision and boost the credit of those that do, regardless of objective fact.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 11:39 PM
Moreover, as you as a historian should know, we *always* make judgement calls about the veracity of ancient historians.

Of course we do, but as I explained, the process is rather more sophisticated than you seem to think. The veracity of Dionysus of Halicarnassus is deeply dubious, as has been pointed out by Dominique Briquel and Fred C. Woudhuizen. He had an agenda, which was to reconcile Greeks to rule from Rome by giving the Romans a Greek heritage. He was illogical in his dealing with the Pelasgian/Tyrrhenian nomenclature mix-up. Actually I'm coming to believe that I've given the man too much credit for understanding the linguistic difference between the two. I need to read it again.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 11:54 PM
The sources of Dionysius of Halicarnassus

[1.6]


The first historian, so far as I am aware, to touch upon the early period of the Romans was Hieronymus of Cardia, in his work on the Epigoni. After him Timaeus of Sicily related the beginnings of their history in his general history and treated in a separate work the wars with Pyrrhus of Epirus. Besides these, Antigonus, Polybius, Silenus and innumerable other authors devoted themselves to the same themes, though in different ways, each of them recording some few things compiled without accurate investigation on his own part but from reports which chance had brought to his ears. Like to these in all respects are the histories of those Romans, also, who related in Greek the early achievements of the city; the oldest of these writers are Quintus Fabius and Lucius Cincius, who both flourished during the Punic wars.

[1.7]


Having thus given the reason for my choice of subject, I wish now to say something concerning the sources I used while preparing for my task. ... Some information I received orally from men of the greatest learning, with whom I associated; and the rest I gathered from histories written by the approved Roman authors — Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the aelii, Gellii and Calpurnii, and many others of note; with these works, which are like the Greek annalistic accounts, as a basis, I set about the writing of my history.

He mentions others, such as Hellanicus, when he quotes them in the later text.

Jean M
06-08-2015, 12:09 AM
Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the origins of the Romans:

[9.1]


This city, mistress of the whole earth and sea, which the Romans now inhabit, is said to have had as its earliest occupants the barbarian Sicels, a native race. As to the condition of the place before their time, whether it was occupied by others or uninhabited, none can certainly say. But some time later the Aborigines gained possession of it, having taken it from the occupants after a long war...

[10.1]


There are some who affirm that the Aborigines, from whom the Romans are originally descended, were natives of Italy, a stock which came into being spontaneously..

[11.1]

But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the "origins" of the Italian cities, Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say that they were Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and that they migrated many generations before the Trojan war. But they do not go on to indicate either the Greek tribe to which they belonged or the city from which they removed, or the date or the leader of the colony, or as the result of what turns of fortune they left their mother country; and although they are following a Greek legend, they have cited no Greek historian as their authority. It is uncertain, therefore, what the truth of the matter is. But if what they say is true, the Aborigines can be a colony of no other people but of those who are now called Arcadians; for these were the first of all the Greeks to cross the Ionian Gulf, under the leadership of Oenotrus, the son of Lycaon, and to settle in Italy. This Oenotrus was the fifth from Aezeius and Phoroneus, who were the first kings in the Peloponnesus. For Niobê was the daughter of Phoroneus, and Pelasgus was the son of Niobê and Zeus, it is said;

Golly! We have myth. As well as acceptance of the least likely option in regard to Roman origins. He totally fails to note that Greek is not the same as Latin, though he actually spoke both languages. As Briquel has pointed out, he is hopelessly biased and lacks all credibility on the major thesis of his work i.e. the effort to present the Romans as Greeks.

R.Rocca
06-08-2015, 01:00 AM
In other words you believe the autochthonous thesis for the Etruscans because you prefer it, and believe there is other evidence for it. In fact there is not.

There is no oral history involved. Oral history is not preserved for thousands of years. There is no way that Etruscans of the time of Dionysus could have known and relayed to him that they descended from Neolithic people of Italy.

The linguistic evidence is of Etruscan as a post-IE intrusion into an IE speaking area.

The archaeological evidence is of an "orientalising" influence along with the creation of cities. This is the period recognised at Etruscan. The idea of continuity from Villanovan seems unconvincing.

Italian historians universally believe that Etruscans were responsible for the Villanovan Culture. What they don't agree on is the link (or lack there of) between Proto-Villanovan and Villanovan.

Jean M
06-08-2015, 01:12 AM
Italian historians universally believe that Etruscans were responsible for the Villanovan Culture. What they don't agree on is the link (or lack there of) between Proto-Villanovan and Villanovan.

Thanks for the correction. Yes I'm talking about the supposed continuity from Villanovan I (c. 1100 BC to c. 900 BC) to Villanovan II (c. 900 BC to c. 700 BC) being unconvincing.

Christina
06-08-2015, 03:40 PM
In other words you believe the autochthonous thesis for the Etruscans because you prefer it, and believe there is other evidence for it. In fact there is not.

There is no oral history involved. Oral history is not preserved for thousands of years. There is no way that Etruscans of the time of Dionysus could have known and relayed to him that they descended from Neolithic people of Italy.

The linguistic evidence is of Etruscan as a post-IE intrusion into an IE speaking area.

The archaeological evidence is of an "orientalising" influence along with the creation of cities. This is the period recognised at Etruscan. The idea of continuity from Villanovan [I] seems unconvincing.

Logic is singularly lacking in what looks more like an impassioned political campaign, complete with dirty tactics: attempts to discredit sources/authors that don't suit the vision and boost the credit of those that do, regardless of objective fact.

Dionysius lived in the area for 22 years. He laid out with great details the sources he accessed. Many were quite ancient, local sources. Yes, I am sure some was "oral history." I weigh the totality of his sources as valuable and instructive.

Moreover, he extensively cites an early historian of Lydian extraction, Xanthus of Lydia, who had access to even older records. Xanthus said that he found *no trace* of the "Out of Lydia" argument. Remember Xanthus wrote in the 5th Century BC. And this was in a part of the world, Anatolia, where written records go back quite a long way.

He then thoughtfully goes through the linguistic and cultural arguments against. Obviously during an era where Etruscans and Lydians still lived, as separate "ethnic" groups, where the languages were still spoken, and the gods still worshiped -- he had access to things that are lost to us. He concludes that there are no similarities whatsoever to support the myth. It is thoughtful reading.

Christina
06-08-2015, 03:43 PM
And it does boost Dionysius' credibility by the fact that archaeological and linguistic evidence has given credibility to his tales about the Sicels, no? That they were an IE-speaking, Italic people, who originated on the mainland, but invaded Sicily after the Sicanians? Unless I am mistaken, this is accepted. (And if you don't accept that, let's save everyone a huge digression, please). My point is that if that was accurate, and I believe it is, then it substantially boosts his credibility.

Christina
06-08-2015, 04:03 PM
I find so many clues in the sources that can explain a lot of the disconnect. Dionysius states in Book I, 29, of Roman Antiquities,

"There was a time when all those who inhabited Italy, including diverse tribes as the Latins, Umbrians, Ausonians [Southern Italians] and Etruscans were called 'Tyrrhenians' by the Greeks, the remoteness of Italy making the exact distinctions obscure to the Greeks who lived at a distance

Does this shade your passion at all? Is it possible that *some* of the Greek sources were referring to all Italics as Tyrrhenians? Some Italiotes migrated from eastern lands during the early part of historical times. Thus, a statement that some migration from eastern lands composed the Tyrrhenians (read, Italians), is technically true. I would venture that this could explain a lot of the confusion, both ancient and modern.

Here's another factoid that I think is instructive:

In the same section, when critiquing Herodotus and Hellanicus' writing, Dionysius notes their use of the term "Croton/Kroton" when discussing Cortona. The German historian Niebuhr goes a step further and believes he meant the term that appears in Herodotus: Creston.

Thus, we have three cities: Crotone (founded by Greeks and Anatolians, in modern Calabria); Cortona (an Etruscan city), and Creston (a tiny city in Greece).

As someone intimately familiar with the ancient sources, I can tell you this type of thing happens all the time. And it is not limited to one source. You have people unfamiliar with geography, writing without the benefit of Google Earth, describing lands thousands of miles away, which they never visited, and confusing names that are more similar.

Remember that Hellanicus does not focus on the Etruscans as a whole but focuses more on the founding of one city, Cortona.

In other words, if Hellanicus and Herodotus were getting confused with references to Crotone, which we all acknowledge was founded in 710 BC by easterners, and somehow Cortona got transposed, this explains a lot...

Just a thought.