ETRUSCANS FROM ANATOLIA

[MOESAN]

Here I open a thread after I've read a book by Bernard SERGENT, "The dawn of the Etruscans" ("L'aube des Etrusques").
The basis would be the link between Italy Etruscans and Egean Tyrsens. It's based essentially on archeology and linguistic, the genomic aspect is very lightly examined. Nevertheless there are some good points in the book for a foreign and eastmedierranean origin of Etruscans in Italy.
I'm not sure I 'll can follow the thread every day but we can put what we "know" about the genomic aspect side by side with the other kinds of arguments?

 

[HereToLearn]

DNA says otherwise. Case closed.

 

[MOESAN]

DNA says otherwise. Case closed.

We have too little DNA of Etruscans (diverse places, diverses times) to be so affirmative even if I have some doubts and was rather in favour of a contiental origin. I 'll tell more later. And the link Villanova = Etruscan is to be examined again.

 

[norbert]

The history of the Etruscans cannot be studied without regard to archeogenetic results. From what is understood so far, the Etruscans cannot be viewed as a people of Eastern Mediterranean origin in the sense of migrations that occured during the Greek and Roman periods. If there's a link to Anatolia and the Aegean Tyrrhenians, it goes far back to the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers and their descendants, the Early European Farmers. This is not an argument for a foreign origin of the Etruscans. They were speaking a Paleo-European language.

I'd be a little wary in respect to Bernard Sergent's theories. He also claims that proto-Dravidian emerged in Africa.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Here I open a thread after I've read a book by Bernard SERGENT, "The dawn of the Etruscans" ("L'aube des Etrusques").
The basis would be the link between Italy Etruscans and Egean Tyrsens. It's based essentially on archeology and linguistic, the genomic aspect is very lightly examined. Nevertheless there are some good points in the book for a foreign and eastmedierranean origin of Etruscans in Italy.
I'm not sure I 'll can follow the thread every day but we can put what we "know" about the genomic aspect side by side with the other kinds of arguments?

I read the book and saw the comments of some archaeologists who laughed at Sergent's book. The arguments used by Sergent are old and may arouse the interest of those who have not followed the entire debate that has taken place over the last 50 years. On the other hand, Sergent only cites old essays and studies that suit him. Moesan, you yourself are someone who knows little about the Etruscan world, just as you have admitted to being fascinated by the concept of mystery associated with the Etruscans. So it is obvious that you find Sergent interesting. However, the concept of mystery surrounding the origins of the Etruscans has long been considered false by specialists.

Bernard Sergent is not considered an expert on the Etruscan world, he is not considered one of the leading scholars of the Etruscan world, and, since he is now elderly and very confused, he is rehashing the old thesis that is still believed, even in fringe research, outside of specialist studies. The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

There is not a single true specialist in Etruscan civilization who takes Sergent's opinion seriously. At best, his work may enjoy prestige in pseudoscience, among Nordicists and Orientalists. Bernard Sergent is only ridiculing himself and proving that he is no longer a reliable scholar.

 

[Pax Augusta]

We have too little DNA of Etruscans (diverse places, diverses times) to be so affirmative even if I have some doubts and was rather in favour of a contiental origin. I 'll tell more later. And the link Villanova = Etruscan is to be examined again.

The idea that the connection between Villanovan culture and Etruscan civilization still needs to be examined is considered a concept put forward by amateur and pseudoscientific scholars.

Sergent's book does not bring any new arguments or evidence in favor of the Eastern Mediterranean origin, it simply revives old arguments that have been discussed for decades by specialists. Therefore, Sergent's book does not advance the debate on the origins of the Etruscans in the slightest, but at most it will have an impact in amateur and pseudoscientific circles, because it is in these circles that it will lead people to believe that the question is still open.

 

[Pax Augusta]

The history of the Etruscans cannot be studied without regard to archeogenetic results. From what is understood so far, the Etruscans cannot be viewed as a people of Eastern Mediterranean origin in the sense of migrations that occured during the Greek and Roman periods. If there's a link to Anatolia and the Aegean Tyrrhenians, it goes far back to the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers and their descendants, the Early European Farmers. This is not an argument for a foreign origin of the Etruscans. They were speaking a Paleo-European language.

I'd be a little wary in respect to Bernard Sergent's theories. He also claims that proto-Dravidian emerged in Africa.

Yes, I agree that genetic data must be taken into consideration (even though Sergent dishonestly ignores all the studies on ancient Etruscan DNA). That said, it must be emphasized that, to this day, there is no archaeological or linguistic evidence that the Etruscans originated from the eastern Mediterranean. From an archaeological perspective, there is absolutely nothing. From a linguistic perspective, the few inscriptions found on Lemnos must be compared with the much more numerous ones discovered in the Alps, which define the Raetic language. The mere existence of Raetic seriously challenges the eastern hypothesis.

If Sergent claims that there is archaeological or linguistic evidence for an eastern origin, he is bluffing. This should not come as a surprise, given that many supporters of the eastern theory have often based their conclusions on similar deceptions, starting with the genetic studies on modern DNA from 20 years ago, which were all fabrications.

To date, there are no archaeological, linguistic, or genetic proofs of the Etruscans' arrival from the east. However, there is the will among some scholars to maintain the narrative of eastern origin, for motives that have nothing to do with the love of truth.

 

[MOESAN]

à) A question: whose of us have read this book (apparently issued only in 2025)?

 

[Pax Augusta]

à) A question: whose of us have read this book (apparently issued only in 2025)?

I've read the book: it came out in April and has been circulating in Italy ever since, much to the bemused skepticism of archaeologists here. It's a clear case of selective sourcing in 2025, piecing together outdated theories that have long lost scholarly support. One might offer the partial mitigation that Sergent seems out of touch with recent developments, but it's still concerning for an academic to tackle this topic without incorporating the latest studies.

In the end, he joins the ranks of those who've helped perpetuate a more imaginative take on Etruscan history. The fact that it may have received positive reviews in France speaks volumes about the power of the publishing system and its dynamics. A general audience isn't interested in the truth but far more in fantasies.

 

[MOESAN]

à) A question: whose of us have read this book (apparently issued only in 2025)?

I read the book and saw the comments of some archaeologists who laughed at Sergent's book. The arguments used by Sergent are old and may arouse the interest of those who have not followed the entire debate that has taken place over the last 50 years. On the other hand, Sergent only cites old essays and studies that suit him. Moesan, you yourself are someone who knows little about the Etruscan world, just as you have admitted to being fascinated by the concept of mystery associated with the Etruscans. So it is obvious that you find Sergent interesting. However, the concept of mystery surrounding the origins of the Etruscans has long been considered false by specialists.

Bernard Sergent is not considered an expert on the Etruscan world, he is not considered one of the leading scholars of the Etruscan world, and, since he is now elderly and very confused, he is rehashing the old thesis that is still believed, even in fringe research, outside of specialist studies. The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

There is not a single true specialist in Etruscan civilization who takes Sergent's opinion seriously. At best, his work may enjoy prestige in pseudoscience, among Nordicists and Orientalists. Bernard Sergent is only ridiculing himself and proving that he is no longer a reliable scholar.

you say: The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

I admit this genomic aspect is very weak in his book. But I feel unsatisfied by the current studies too which I find too scarce yet.
What kind of methodology do you see in the very tiny look at genomics in his book?

 

[Pax Augusta]

I admit this genomic aspect is very weak in his book. But I feel unsatisfied by the current studies too which I find too scarce yet.
What kind of methodology do you see in the very tiny look at genomics in his book?

Sergent's methodology on genomics? There is no methodology; he only considers the oldest studies on modern DNA, which were hoaxes, and those on mitochondrial DNA, without understanding them at all, selecting from these studies only what suits him. Unfortunately for Sergent, the most recent studies on Etruscan DNA have proven the exact opposite of what Sergent wants to argue.

Dozens and dozens of examples could be cited. Italian archaeologists have been excavating in Lemnos for 100 years, not just yesterday, and went there convinced they would find evidence of the Etruscans' Eastern origins. But they did not find any, as they have repeatedly stated in recent years. If Sergent were a true expert on Etruscan civilization, he would know very well that none has been found. But Sergent comes across as very arrogant, as is often the case with academics who are not true specialists and interfere without consulting the specialists. The problem is not only that the genomic aspect is treated superficially, but that Sergent starts from a preconceived bias.

You say you are not satisfied with current studies on the Etruscans. Are you really familiar with all of them?

 

[MOESAN]

à) A question: whose of us have read this book (apparently issued only in 2025)?

I read the book and saw the comments of some archaeologists who laughed at Sergent's book. The arguments used by Sergent are old and may arouse the interest of those who have not followed the entire debate that has taken place over the last 50 years. On the other hand, Sergent only cites old essays and studies that suit him. Moesan, you yourself are someone who knows little about the Etruscan world, just as you have admitted to being fascinated by the concept of mystery associated with the Etruscans. So it is obvious that you find Sergent interesting. However, the concept of mystery surrounding the origins of the Etruscans has long been considered false by specialists.

Bernard Sergent is not considered an expert on the Etruscan world, he is not considered one of the leading scholars of the Etruscan world, and, since he is now elderly and very confused, he is rehashing the old thesis that is still believed, even in fringe research, outside of specialist studies. The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

There is not a single true specialist in Etruscan civilization who takes Sergent's opinion seriously. At best, his work may enjoy prestige in pseudoscience, among Nordicists and Orientalists. Bernard Sergent is only ridiculing himself and proving that he is no longer a reliable scholar.

you say: The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

I admit this genomic aspect is very weak in his book. But I feel unsatisfied by the current studies too which I find too scarce yet.
What kind of methodology do you see in the very tiny look at genomics in his book?

Sergent's methodology on genomics? There is no methodology; he only considers the oldest studies on modern DNA, which were hoaxes, and those on mitochondrial DNA, without understanding them at all, selecting from these studies only what suits him. Unfortunately for Sergent, the most recent studies on Etruscan DNA have proven the exact opposite of what Sergent wants to argue.

Dozens and dozens of examples could be cited. Italian archaeologists have been excavating in Lemnos for 100 years, not just yesterday, and went there convinced they would find evidence of the Etruscans' Eastern origins. But they did not find any, as they have repeatedly stated in recent years. If Sergent were a true expert on Etruscan civilization, he would know very well that none has been found. But Sergent comes across as very arrogant, as is often the case with academics who are not true specialists and interfere without consulting the specialists. The problem is not only that the genomic aspect is treated superficially, but that Sergent starts from a preconceived bias.

You say you are not satisfied with current studies on the Etruscans. Are you really familiar with all of them?

agree absolutely concerning his short genomic disgression. It's why humorously I asked you what methodology he could show. I'have seen few important genomic studies (at the number level) here on Eupedia and so, no, I am not familiar with all.Oor I missed someones. If you can lead me to other studies I 'll be glad in the case I may access to them.

 

[MOESAN]

à) A question: whose of us have read this book (apparently issued only in 2025)?

I read the book and saw the comments of some archaeologists who laughed at Sergent's book. The arguments used by Sergent are old and may arouse the interest of those who have not followed the entire debate that has taken place over the last 50 years. On the other hand, Sergent only cites old essays and studies that suit him. Moesan, you yourself are someone who knows little about the Etruscan world, just as you have admitted to being fascinated by the concept of mystery associated with the Etruscans. So it is obvious that you find Sergent interesting. However, the concept of mystery surrounding the origins of the Etruscans has long been considered false by specialists.

Bernard Sergent is not considered an expert on the Etruscan world, he is not considered one of the leading scholars of the Etruscan world, and, since he is now elderly and very confused, he is rehashing the old thesis that is still believed, even in fringe research, outside of specialist studies. The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

There is not a single true specialist in Etruscan civilization who takes Sergent's opinion seriously. At best, his work may enjoy prestige in pseudoscience, among Nordicists and Orientalists. Bernard Sergent is only ridiculing himself and proving that he is no longer a reliable scholar.

you say: The genomic aspect is examined very lightly because Sergent simply uses old studies as sources, ignores archaeogenetics, and uses the methodology typical of pseudo-scholars.

I admit this genomic aspect is very weak in his book. But I feel unsatisfied by the current studies too which I find too scarce yet.
What kind of methodology do you see in the very tiny look at genomics in his book?

Sergent's methodology on genomics? There is no methodology; he only considers the oldest studies on modern DNA, which were hoaxes, and those on mitochondrial DNA, without understanding them at all, selecting from these studies only what suits him. Unfortunately for Sergent, the most recent studies on Etruscan DNA have proven the exact opposite of what Sergent wants to argue.

Dozens and dozens of examples could be cited. Italian archaeologists have been excavating in Lemnos for 100 years, not just yesterday, and went there convinced they would find evidence of the Etruscans' Eastern origins. But they did not find any, as they have repeatedly stated in recent years. If Sergent were a true expert on Etruscan civilization, he would know very well that none has been found. But Sergent comes across as very arrogant, as is often the case with academics who are not true specialists and interfere without consulting the specialists. The problem is not only that the genomic aspect is treated superficially, but that Sergent starts from a preconceived bias.

You say you are not satisfied with current studies on the Etruscans. Are you really familiar with all of them?

agree absolutely concerning his short genomic disgression. It's why humorously I asked you what methodology he could show. I'have seen few important genomic studies (at the number level) here on Eupedia and so, no, I am not familiar with all.Oor I missed someones. If you can lead me to other studies I 'll be glad in the case I may access to them.

 

[norbert]

Yes, I agree that genetic data must be taken into consideration (even though Sergent dishonestly ignores all the studies on ancient Etruscan DNA). That said, it must be emphasized that, to this day, there is no archaeological or linguistic evidence that the Etruscans originated from the eastern Mediterranean. From an archaeological perspective, there is absolutely nothing. From a linguistic perspective, the few inscriptions found on Lemnos must be compared with the much more numerous ones discovered in the Alps, which define the Raetic language. The mere existence of Raetic seriously challenges the eastern hypothesis.

If Sergent claims that there is archaeological or linguistic evidence for an eastern origin, he is bluffing. This should not come as a surprise, given that many supporters of the eastern theory have often based their conclusions on similar deceptions, starting with the genetic studies on modern DNA from 20 years ago, which were all fabrications.

To date, there are no archaeological, linguistic, or genetic proofs of the Etruscans' arrival from the east. However, there is the will among some scholars to maintain the narrative of eastern origin, for motives that have nothing to do with the love of truth.

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

 

[Southpaw]

I thought this was a settled matter already. The fact we also have some better survival of Y-DNA G2a in the Alps, increases the likelihood of Rhaetians being strong in G2a and Proto-Etruscans being heavily G2a before mixing with R1b Italics to give rise to historical Etruscans.

Archaeologically we also see strong Urnfield influence on material culture, on top of the native Italian culture. If the Etruscans came from somewhere else during Late Bronze Age then i bet my money they entered from the north, maybe Eastern Alps where they had influence or were part themselves of Middle Danubian Urnfield Complex.

 

[MOESAN]

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

I know I 'll irritate someones but I'll resume some B.Sergent points (even if I found them sometime rather weak) -
in inclined symbols, my personal guesses -
It’s true that some cultural arguments are not decisive - the direction of tranferts can be reversed in a lot of them– I ‘ve personally some defiance concerning religious / rites similarities, except maybe for buryings – someones are so universal -

& : The age of a work doesn’t disqualifies it, if the very matter treated in it has not received new undebated debunkings -

Proto-Villanovan : considered by a lot of people as the preceding stage of Villanovan – All the way a cremating culture with tight ties with Urnfields people of Central Europe – the apparition of cremation was brutal enough in Venetia and Emila (heavy demic introgression?) when it was more gradual in Pô Valley, especially north the river among first Terramare people – as a guess I’m tempted to think Terramare had been kind of Ligurian people before acculturation from East/Northeast. I’m tempted too to think the proto-Villanovans were first Italic speakers, Qw- or P- ones, or both –

What B.Sergent said is that Proto-Villanovan they settled allover Italy, even if they were denser in Central North – allover Italy where for the most, from North to South, Indo-European languages were spoken -
Sergent pretends the change in the buryings, in the occupation of the ground, in the style of buildings, of urbanism, has been swift at Villanovan II. Even more clearly about new style of tombs, without intermediary. ???
B. Sergent insists also on the maritime skills of Etruscans and their first coastal settlements having preceded more inland settlements.
Linguistic : some links with Anatolia and Caucasus – not only nouns but declinations paralleles to the Anatolian languages often Luwitic (it isn’t my ground of knowledge here), in morphology, in nouns, verbes, adjectives too, but not often concerning trade stuffs, here with links to Hittite, Luwian, Lycian – some alignments are not evident but as a whole, it’s rather acceptable –
He insist too on the fact they were looked at as very strange people by Italy neighbours of their time
on another side, the alignments with the Caucasian languages are very less convincing, I find – That said, these linguistic links (some of remote origin, other by contacts > borrowings) with western Anatolia of a not too precise time, even accepted (Etruscan is not a so well understood tongue), are not the 100 % warrant of a maritime route for Etruscans ancestors – -

Just for the fun -

 

[MOESAN]

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

I know I 'll irritate someones but I'll resume some B.Sergent points (even if I found them sometime rather weak) -
in inclined symbols, my personal guesses -
It’s true that some cultural arguments are not decisive - the direction of tranferts can be reversed in a lot of them– I ‘ve personally some defiance concerning religious / rites similarities, except maybe for buryings – someones are so universal -

& : The age of a work doesn’t disqualifies it, if the very matter treated in it has not received new undebated debunkings -

Proto-Villanovan : considered by a lot of people as the preceding stage of Villanovan – All the way a cremating culture with tight ties with Urnfields people of Central Europe – the apparition of cremation was brutal enough in Venetia and Emila (heavy demic introgression?) when it was more gradual in Pô Valley, especially north the river among first Terramare people – as a guess I’m tempted to think Terramare had been kind of Ligurian people before acculturation from East/Northeast. I’m tempted too to think the proto-Villanovans were first Italic speakers, Qw- or P- ones, or both –

What B.Sergent said is that Proto-Villanovan they settled allover Italy, even if they were denser in Central North – allover Italy where for the most, from North to South, Indo-European languages were spoken -
Sergent pretends the change in the buryings, in the occupation of the ground, in the style of buildings, of urbanism, has been swift at Villanovan II. Even more clearly about new style of tombs, without intermediary. ???
B. Sergent insists also on the maritime skills of Etruscans and their first coastal settlements having preceded more inland settlements.
Linguistic : some links with Anatolia and Caucasus – not only nouns but declinations paralleles to the Anatolian languages often Luwitic (it isn’t my ground of knowledge here), in morphology, in nouns, verbes, adjectives too, but not often concerning trade stuffs, here with links to Hittite, Luwian, Lycian – some alignments are not evident but as a whole, it’s rather acceptable –
He insist too on the fact they were looked at as very strange people by Italy neighbours of their time
on another side, the alignments with the Caucasian languages are very less convincing, I find – That said, these linguistic links (some of remote origin, other by contacts > borrowings) with western Anatolia of a not too precise time, even accepted (Etruscan is not a so well understood tongue), are not the 100 % warrant of a maritime route for Etruscans ancestors – -

Just for the fun -

 

[MOESAN]

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

I know I 'll irritate someones but I'll resume some B.Sergent points (even if I found them sometime rather weak) -
in inclined symbols, my personal guesses -
It’s true that some cultural arguments are not decisive - the direction of tranferts can be reversed in a lot of them– I ‘ve personally some defiance concerning religious / rites similarities, except maybe for buryings – someones are so universal -

& : The age of a work doesn’t disqualifies it, if the very matter treated in it has not received new undebated debunkings -

Proto-Villanovan : considered by a lot of people as the preceding stage of Villanovan – All the way a cremating culture with tight ties with Urnfields people of Central Europe – the apparition of cremation was brutal enough in Venetia and Emila (heavy demic introgression?) when it was more gradual in Pô Valley, especially north the river among first Terramare people – as a guess I’m tempted to think Terramare had been kind of Ligurian people before acculturation from East/Northeast. I’m tempted too to think the proto-Villanovans were first Italic speakers, Qw- or P- ones, or both –

What B.Sergent said is that Proto-Villanovan they settled allover Italy, even if they were denser in Central North – allover Italy where for the most, from North to South, Indo-European languages were spoken -
Sergent pretends the change in the buryings, in the occupation of the ground, in the style of buildings, of urbanism, has been swift at Villanovan II. Even more clearly about new style of tombs, without intermediary. ???
B. Sergent insists also on the maritime skills of Etruscans and their first coastal settlements having preceded more inland settlements.
Linguistic : some links with Anatolia and Caucasus – not only nouns but declinations paralleles to the Anatolian languages often Luwitic (it isn’t my ground of knowledge here), in morphology, in nouns, verbes, adjectives too, but not often concerning trade stuffs, here with links to Hittite, Luwian, Lycian – some alignments are not evident but as a whole, it’s rather acceptable –
He insist too on the fact they were looked at as very strange people by Italy neighbours of their time
on another side, the alignments with the Caucasian languages are very less convincing, I find – That said, these linguistic links (some of remote origin, other by contacts > borrowings) with western Anatolia of a not too precise time, even accepted (Etruscan is not a so well understood tongue), are not the 100 % warrant of a maritime route for Etruscans ancestors – -

Just for the fun -

 

[MOESAN]

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

I know I 'll irritate someones but I'll resume some B.Sergent points (even if I found them sometime rather weak) -
in inclined symbols, my personal guesses -
It’s true that some cultural arguments are not decisive - the direction of tranferts can be reversed in a lot of them– I ‘ve personally some defiance concerning religious / rites similarities, except maybe for buryings – someones are so universal -

& : The age of a work doesn’t disqualifies it, if the very matter treated in it has not received new undebated debunkings -

Proto-Villanovan : considered by a lot of people as the preceding stage of Villanovan – All the way a cremating culture with tight ties with Urnfields people of Central Europe – the apparition of cremation was brutal enough in Venetia and Emila (heavy demic introgression?) when it was more gradual in Pô Valley, especially north the river among first Terramare people – as a guess I’m tempted to think Terramare had been kind of Ligurian people before acculturation from East/Northeast. I’m tempted too to think the proto-Villanovans were first Italic speakers, Qw- or P- ones, or both –

What B.Sergent said is that Proto-Villanovan they settled allover Italy, even if they were denser in Central North – allover Italy where for the most, from North to South, Indo-European languages were spoken -
Sergent pretends the change in the buryings, in the occupation of the ground, in the style of buildings, of urbanism, has been swift at Villanovan II. Even more clearly about new style of tombs, without intermediary. ???
B. Sergent insists also on the maritime skills of Etruscans and their first coastal settlements having preceded more inland settlements.
Linguistic : some links with Anatolia and Caucasus – not only nouns but declinations paralleles to the Anatolian languages often Luwitic (it isn’t my ground of knowledge here), in morphology, in nouns, verbes, adjectives too, but not often concerning trade stuffs, here with links to Hittite, Luwian, Lycian – some alignments are not evident but as a whole, it’s rather acceptable –
He insist too on the fact they were looked at as very strange people by Italy neighbours of their time
on another side, the alignments with the Caucasian languages are very less convincing, I find – That said, these linguistic links (some of remote origin, other by contacts > borrowings) with western Anatolia of a not too precise time, even accepted (Etruscan is not a so well understood tongue), are not the 100 % warrant of a maritime route for Etruscans ancestors – -

Just for the fun -

 

[MOESAN]

Makes you wonder how much research in archeogenetics has been fabricated or tainted. After I saw the new depiction of Ötzi (courtesy of Johannes Krause and pals), it became clear to me that these aren't scientists but people with college degrees who can be hired for any agenda. We now have "experts" talking about black Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.

I wish to reemphasise the distinction between a neolithic Anatolian origin and what is understood as Eastern Mediterranean in a much later, recorded history. We obviously agree that the Etruscans were not "late" migrants who arrived around 1000 BCE. Both the Etruscans and Rhaetians settled too far in the north to be newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean. Geographically, the argument can be certainly made that they were closer to the Rhaetians linguistically than to the Lemnians but all three languages are considered to be part of the hypothetical Tyrsenian language family. In any case, they are Paleo-European languages and have been present in Europe for much longer than 1000 BCE.

I know I 'll irritate someones but I'll resume some B.Sergent points (even if I found them sometime rather weak) -
in inclined symbols, my personal guesses -
It’s true that some cultural arguments are not decisive - the direction of tranferts can be reversed in a lot of them– I ‘ve personally some defiance concerning religious / rites similarities, except maybe for buryings – someones are so universal -

& : The age of a work doesn’t disqualifies it, if the very matter treated in it has not received new undebated debunkings -

Proto-Villanovan : considered by a lot of people as the preceding stage of Villanovan – All the way a cremating culture with tight ties with Urnfields people of Central Europe – the apparition of cremation was brutal enough in Venetia and Emila (heavy demic introgression?) when it was more gradual in Pô Valley, especially north the river among first Terramare people – as a guess I’m tempted to think Terramare had been kind of Ligurian people before acculturation from East/Northeast. I’m tempted too to think the proto-Villanovans were first Italic speakers, Qw- or P- ones, or both –

What B.Sergent said is that Proto-Villanovan they settled allover Italy, even if they were denser in Central North – allover Italy where for the most, from North to South, Indo-European languages were spoken -
Sergent pretends the change in the buryings, in the occupation of the ground, in the style of buildings, of urbanism, has been swift at Villanovan II. Even more clearly about new style of tombs, without intermediary. ???
B. Sergent insists also on the maritime skills of Etruscans and their first coastal settlements having preceded more inland settlements.
Linguistic : some links with Anatolia and Caucasus – not only nouns but declinations paralleles to the Anatolian languages often Luwitic (it isn’t my ground of knowledge here), in morphology, in nouns, verbes, adjectives too, but not often concerning trade stuffs, here with links to Hittite, Luwian, Lycian – some alignments are not evident but as a whole, it’s rather acceptable –
He insist too on the fact they were looked at as very strange people by Italy neighbours of their time
on another side, the alignments with the Caucasian languages are very less convincing, I find – That said, these linguistic links (some of remote origin, other by contacts > borrowings) with western Anatolia of a not too precise time, even accepted (Etruscan is not a so well understood tongue), are not the 100 % warrant of a maritime route for Etruscans ancestors – -

Just for the fun -
aqestion for Pax Augusta and evryone interested here:
Could you indicate me how many genomic survey have been publied on Etruscans todate?