Where did the Etruscans come from? Did they really come

>>1541945
They came from my butthole.

>>1541982
Great contribution lad

native european like the basques

They're my favorite historical mystery people. The fact that their language group is so isolated is very spooky.

>>1541999
This makes sense. Thanks reverse Satan trips.

>>1541999
Trips = truth. Move along guys. This is a thread.

>>1542004
Wats their language group?

>>1541999
Basques are descended from Anatolian farmers

File: 1464042809001.jpg (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

Villanovian culture associated with Etruscans is apparently an offshot of IE Urnfield culture, how is that possible?

>>1542020
Pots aren't people

>>1541999
How do you know?

>>1542016
They have no known connection to any Language
Their language was not indo-European

>>1542043
What about Lemnian?

>>1542020
Could you explain what you said in laymen's terms
What you said sounds interesting but I done understand what you are saying
Sorry I'm a history noob

>>1542043
>no known connection to any Language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages

>>1542054
>>1542050
Idk guys I'm just repeating what I read in a book

>>1542054
It's an extremely small group though.

>>1541945
Genetically they seem to be native in the sense that they came from the Aegean during the neolithic like Sardinians and Basques, I don't think it's likely they cake from iron or bronze Age Anatolia because back then Anatolians spoke IE languages while Etruscans spoke a Pre IE language like the Basques and Proto Sardinians/Corse.

>>1541999

Why would native Europeans live in the MIDDLE of Indo-European tribes? Indo-Europeans had to genocide the natives to get to the central Italy since it is known Italic is closer to Celtic than to the Balkanoid languages.

>>1542020
That's true, the culture fromw hich originated was the proto villanovian culture, which is usually associated with the urnfield culture, which is Central European, so one would expect it to be an Indo European culture.

Interestingly enough the urnfield culture is often associated with the sea peoples because of the solar boat symbol which is similar tot he ships used by the sea people with ornitomorphic protomes and because of the fibula which was found first in these culture and later in the Eastern med when the sea peoples invaded, the name Tursha/Teresh can be seen among the invading sea people tribes and many have connected them to the Etruscans.

>>1543029
>ndo-Europeans had to genocide the natives to get to the central Italy

Lol what?

Do you really believe that?

Italians are genetically close to neolithic populations, they were never genocided, the only ones who might have been killed a lot might be the original inhabitants of Britain.

>>1543037

No they aren't they have 50% haplogroup R1b which has been linked to Indo-European migrations from the steppe by ancient DNA. Obviously there wasn't a Nazi style systematic eradication program but they certainly wiped out the languages they encountered.

>>1543044
>o they aren't they have 50% haplogroup R1b which has been linked to Indo-European migrations from the steppe by ancient DNA

Sorry but haplogroup means jackshit, Sardinians have 25% R1b too but they are genetically nearly identical to neolithic populations, Basques have 80% r1b and have almost no steppe admixture at all, autosomal DNA is what counts, and autosomal DNA tells us that South Europeans are much closer to the neolithic Europeans than to Yamnaya (Original indo Europeans).

>>1543053

Basques are descended from a small inbred population and thus irrelevant.
Look, I'm not saying they genocided the Neolithics since they did assimilate the ones they didn't kill.
It's unreasonable to claim they somehow peacefully walked through Etrusca on their way to Rome. They had to linguistically wipe out the locals there only to be later dominated by some foreign elite which implanted the Etruscan language there.

>>1543064

Also the depth of the linguistic link between Lemnian and Etruscan can not be as old as the Neolithic settlement of Europe which happened in 7000 BC. There was a recent migration either from Anatolia or pre-IE Greece.

>>1543064
>Basques are descended from a small inbred population and thus irrelevant.

How are they irrelevant?

They have 80% R1b and that was your whole argument against Italians being closer to neolithic population than to proto Indo Europeans.

>They had to linguistically wipe out the locals there only to be later dominated by some foreign elite which implanted the Etruscan language there.

That clearly didn't happen though since Etruscan is not an Indoeuropean language, so I honestly don't get what your point is supposed to be.

>>1543073

The ancestor of the 80% of R1b Basques lived something like 4500 years ago based on the current understanding(which is not likely to change a whole lot). They might descend from a single village of people.
Is it so hard to understand that Etruscan was an Aegean language which dominated over less advanced IE's in Italy?

>>1543071
I hope you realize that the Lemnian language is dated to a few centuries later than the first Etruscan language and can be easily explained as Etruscans settling that island to set up an emporium to trade with the Greeks, I would also like to remind you that Etruscan pirates and sailors apre documented in the Aegean so it's not surprising to find some Etrusxan writings on an island there

>>1543088
>They might descend from a single village of people.
Is it so hard to understand that Etruscan was an Aegean language which dominated over less advanced IE's in Italy?

What?

Also Iberians in general who have high r1b are still much closer to neolithic populations than to Yamnaya.

>Is it so hard to understand that Etruscan was an Aegean language which dominated over less advanced IE's in Italy?

Yeah it's hard if you know the history of Anatolia and you know that in Western Anatolian Luwian (Indo European) languages were spoke since the early bronze age according to archaeology.

And if you know that Lydians, from whom Etruscans are supposed to originate according to your theory, spoke an Indo European language and little in their culture has to do with the Etruscans.

>>1543102

Anatolia is a large place and there are other possibilities like the islands of Greece.
Ancient Greeks considered Etruscans to be Pelasgian migrants from Greece.

File: cuirasses-marmesse.jpg (69KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x560px

>>1543088
>Is it so hard to understand that Etruscan was an Aegean language which dominated over less advanced IE's in Italy?

Less advanced IE?

I hope you realize that the urnfield culture was extremely advanced in the art of war, it was Aegean people who adopted urnfield weapons such as the Naue II sword, not the contrary, and it was Aegean people who got invaded from the west, not the contrary, I find it VERY hard to believe that anyone would've been able to sail to central Italy and subdue the urnfield people there, who had the latest military technology before anyone else, armor included (sea urnfield armor, pic related).

Also, in order to prove a large scale migration of this mysterious Aegean population (which population again? Because as I've told you everyone spoke IE since the middle bronze age in Anatolia, and the Minoans had been long subjugated by the Mycenean Greeks), you would have to bring material proves for that, which are not existent, as there is not a single Aegean settlement according to archaeology in late bronze age Etruria, there's nothing to suggest such a large scale colonization of Central Italy.

>>1543110
>Ancient Greeks considered Etruscans to be Pelasgian migrants from Greece.

Not really, according to their myth they came from Lydia, not Greece, at least know your own theory before defending it.

>>1543115
>>1543117

Greeks had stories about both an Anatolian and a Pelasgian Greek origin for Etruscans, both could actually be right since a culture can extend over a small sea.

>>1543127
>both could actually be right since a culture can extend over a small sea.

Could be right?

There is nothing that suggests an outside colonization, for an outside colonization you would have to find new settlements with tons of Agean pottery, but you don't have that, you have the inhabitant of Etruria using the same rough pottery until Greeks, yes, GREEKS, not some lost mythical population who arrived in the bronze age, came to Etruria as merchants and Etruscans adopted their method of making painted pottery.

That's it.

If the Etruscans came between the late bronze age and early iron age their pottery would've changed way before, that's not the case, archaeology confirms my theory, a slow, gradual change of the natives, not a sudden discontinuity.

>>1543134

It's still the best theory there is and not that far fetched if you don't have an agenda.

File: Admixture_Proportions.jpg (474KB, 946x1225px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 946x1225px

>>1543053
>almost no steppe admixture at all
Basques have almost 30% steppe admixture

File: basque.png (33KB, 626x457px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 626x457px

>>1543143
It really isn't, and it shows since you haven't brought up any decent argument to back it.

>>1543144
As you can see from pic related the Caucasus hunter gatherer brought by Indo Europeans is almost absent in Basques.

Link to the study:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917.full.pdf

Don't know if it's trustworthy, but ancient historians reported that the Etruscans occupied a large territory previously held by Umbrians (an IE group). Wouldn't this mean that they came in Italy AFTER the Umbrians?

>>1543189
Ancient historians are reliable only if they're talking about contemporary times, trust me, they're a mess when they try to talk about past events, even if they go back only by a century or so, also what happened is that Etruscans expanded from a part of Italy (Tuscany/Northen Lazio) to Umbria and Northen Italy.