Is there Etruscan Y-DNA result anywhere?

[Bosniensis]

We believe that Etruscan Y-DNA (if extracted somehow from Etruscan Graves) should finally reveal
the truth about Illyrians cause Etruscans lived next to them. I firmly believe that R1b in Northern Italy is
completely foreign and that it came with Frankish - Longobard conquerors.

Has there be any such research, is it even possible to uncover the Paternal Y-DNA of Ancient Etrurians just like
we have recently seen a Y-DNA from Crete (Mycenaean Greece)?

Cheers

[Voskos]

There is mtdna only.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519.g002

[Voskos]

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

[Dr. Bambo]

Yes, they are. You must dig better.

[Hamlet]

We believe that Etruscan Y-DNA (if extracted somehow from Etruscan Graves) should finally reveal
the truth about Illyrians cause Etruscans lived next to them. I firmly believe that R1b in Northern Italy is
completely foreign and that it came with Frankish - Longobard conquerors.

Has there be any such research, is it even possible to uncover the Paternal Y-DNA of Ancient Etrurians just like
we have recently seen a Y-DNA from Crete (Mycenaean Greece)?

Cheers

You are pretty dim to think that about Italian R1b...

Etruscans would have been primarily J2.

[wvwvw]

You are pretty dim to think that about Italian R1b...

Etruscans would have been primarily J2.

There was no such thing as Etruscans. A dozen of tribes inhabited Etruria, some of them were the native Tuscans, the Maonian Tyrsenoi, and the Pelasgians from Thessaliotis who lived above the Tyrsenoi, other tribes as well.

[Jovan Vladimir]

They probably had R1a elite.

[wvwvw]

We believe that Etruscan Y-DNA (if extracted somehow from Etruscan Graves) should finally reveal
the truth about Illyrians cause Etruscans lived next to them. I firmly believe that R1b in Northern Italy is
completely foreign and that it came with Frankish - Longobard conquerors.

Has there be any such research, is it even possible to uncover the Paternal Y-DNA of Ancient Etrurians just like
we have recently seen a Y-DNA from Crete (Mycenaean Greece)?

Cheers

I plot very close to one Etruscan sample, east of Tuscans.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

The Etruscans seem to be pulled somewhat east of modern Tuscans but are latitude wise very similar to southern balkanites and mainland greeks.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQV1VNT2dzSUl0RDQ/edit

One of them appears to cluster with Iberians so them being broadly south-central european seems to be the case.

[Antimatter]

Etruscans were composed of different lineages. R1b, but mostly of neolithic heritage, of farmers who were dominantly G, T, J2 and E1b1b. Same goes for the Romans, although Etruscans would have had more J2 and G and R1b. The Italic main lines could have been well mostly J2a-L70 and E-V13 since they came from the Balkans to Italy. The composition of Etruscan Y-DNA would be IMO:

40% R1b
30% J2
10% G
10% E1b1b
10% others (J1, T, Q, L ...)

In addition in Tuscany R1b is 52.5% so it is impossible that the Romans could have eliminated or dominated the already Etruscan-dominated populace of Tuscany. In contrast, Latium (the homeland of the ancient Latins and a part of it was Etruscan) has only 29% R1b. It is rather interesting that isolated communities in Latium get very high J2/E1b1b results. And a village in Eastern Lazio was shown to have very close genetic ties to the Near East through mtDNA. Latium was already settled during neolithic times by farmers. These guys would have mixed with less Italic-speakers.

R1b could have been very well Etruscan, U152 could have been Gallic due to migrations and enslavement of Gauls after Caesars' wars.

[Longbowman]

Why would they have been R1 primarily? they weren't even Indo-European.

[Bosniensis]

Why would they have been R1 primarily? they weren't even Indo-European.

So much dead, not a single DNA result.

[Ülev]

Eto Russkiye - Et-Ruscans - N1c maybe? Northern Russians :rolleyes:
https://youtu.be/w4bU7q0wfic
https://www.kramola.info/video/zamalchivaemaja-istorija/jetruski-jeto-russkie
https://youtu.be/4qoAa7rnhMw

[lonewolfcypriot]

I think that the Lombards are G2 and J2

[MinervaItalica]

I think that the Lombards are G2 and J2

lol

[lonewolfcypriot]

It could be a possibility because prior to the Indo European invasion. Both G and J were high frequency in Neolithic Southern Euros

[Vasconcelos]

Why would they have been R1 primarily? they weren't even Indo-European.

Because they could have been an elite who settled on top of a mostly Italic population who would have been primarily R1b. Obviously the inital ones wouldn't be R1b, but after they expanded and acculturised the peoples under them, I see no reason why not

[Longbowman]

Because they could have been an elite who settled on top of a mostly Italic population who would have been primarily R1b. Obviously the inital ones wouldn't be R1b, but after they expanded and acculturised the peoples under them, I see no reason why not

The Etruscans are generally thought to have been pre-Indo-European, not post-Indo-European, so, no.

[Tauromachos]

The Etruscans are generally thought to have been pre-Indo-European, not post-Indo-European, so, no.

If there is pre-Indo-European there must be also pre-Semitic

No?

Sem and Japhet were both Sons of Noah

[Longbowman]

If there is pre-Indo-European there must be also pre-Semitic

No?

Sem and Japhet were both Sons of Noah

Of course there is pre-Semitic in at least many areas. For example, the various Berber languages. But I feel you have badly misunderstood what is meant by 'pre-Indo-European' and conflating it with proto-Indo-European.

Neither Shem, Japhet, nor Noah ever existed.

[Percivalle]

Why would they have been R1 primarily? they weren't even Indo-European.

They spoke a pre-Indo-European but it doesn't imply they all belonged to a pre-Indo-European stock.

[Longbowman]

They spoke a pre-Indo-European but it doesn't imply they all belonged to a pre-Indo-European stock.

It does suggest it. It doesn't prove it. Either way there's no reason to believe they'd mostly be IE. That's my point.

[Percivalle]

It does suggest it. It doesn't prove it. Either way there's no reason to believe they'd mostly be IE. That's my point.

Quite complicated, because the early phase of the Etruscan civilization (the Villanovan culture) has many IE motifs, including the type of burial, but the language which began to be attested two centuries later, at least that of the elite, is pre-Indo-European.

[onetwopunch]

Mostly in Turkey.

[Vasconcelos]

The Etruscans are generally thought to have been pre-Indo-European, not post-Indo-European, so, no.

Not quite that simple, I suggest you read Agamemnon's posts here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15978-Evidence-for-Caucasian-origins-of-Etruscans). It actually makes more sense for them to be post-Italic than pre-Italic

[Longbowman]

Not quite that simple, I suggest you read Agamemnon's posts here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15978-Evidence-for-Caucasian-origins-of-Etruscans). It actually makes more sense for them to be post-Italic than pre-Italic

Can't access. Banned. Welcome back btw.

[Babak]

Can't access. Banned. Welcome back btw.

Youre banned from.AG?

[Kelmendasi]

Not quite that simple, I suggest you read Agamemnon's posts here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15978-Evidence-for-Caucasian-origins-of-Etruscans). It actually makes more sense for them to be post-Italic than pre-Italic
A post-IE arrival of Etruscan is likely imo. Historian Jean Manco seemed to have supported the Bronze Age origin of Etruscan and that it arrived after the IEs in Italy.

[Vasconcelos]

Can't access. Banned. Welcome back btw.
Thanks.
I'll quote Agamemnon for you. He's a linguist, although his speciality are AA languages



This is also my opinion on the matter, Tyrsenian clearly looks intrusive in the Italian peninsula. Regarding the hypothetical Aegean language family (which posits a relationship between the different Tyrsenian, Eteocretan, Eteocypriot and Minoan languages), Eteocretan does not seem to be related to the Pre-Greek substratum, this opens up the possibility that there were at least two non-IE language families in the Aegean, this might (or might not) reflect the different waves of CHG-type admixture in the Aegean. We also cannot assume that the language of the Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A were related, though I'd say the odds should be in favour of a relationship between Eteocretan and Linear A (we cannot be certain as long as the script remains undeciphered). Another possibility is that the Aegean family is simply spurious, which would open up other possibilities (which lumpers have already explored). As always, the sheer scarcity of data makes the comparative method inapplicable so while it is tempting to support a connection between the languages of the Aegean and the languages of Bronze Age Anatolia and the Caucasus, such a connection is unlikely to be demonstrated in the near future.


Both IE and Tyrsenian are bound to be intrusive to the Italian peninsula, on the other hand IE almost certainly predates the presence of Tyrsenian languages in the area. The nature of the epigraphic evidence is of course a major obstacle when trying to establish genetic relationships between the languages I mentioned, it goes without saying that we know more about unattested proto-languages (such as PIE) than we do about many of these languages.


Most of the names of the Etruscan cities (including those that were presumably part of the Etrurian dodecapolis) have IE etymologies. Etruscan's core vocabulary also contains many words with reliable IE etymologies, words for kin ("family", "son", etc) natural phenomena ("wind", etc), time ("day", "autumn", etc) and even morphemes (the verb "to die", the 1st Pers. personal pronoun, etc) which are by definition unlikely to be borrowed strongly suggesting that most of the Etruscan speakers previously spoke a form of IE (presumably Italic and related to Umbrian). The IE influence is even more pervasive in Rhaetic which has even led some scholars to classify it as an Indo-European language (generally related to Celtic), this is of course a fringe view but it goes on show that Rhaetic too is bound to be intrusive.

We wouldn't be seeing any of this if the Tyrsenian languages predated the arrival of IE speakers. So it's almost obvious that the IE presence predates the arrival of the Tyrsenian languages in the Italian peninsula instead (in the northern and central parts at the very least).


More to the point, several toponyms in Etruria have IE roots such as -ombr and -ambr, words of Italic origin are also present in the earliest Etruscan inscriptions dated to the 7th century BCE.

I did not claim that the language was necessarily Umbrian nor even Osco-Umbrian, what is clear however is that the IE substrate here looks firmly Italic (it definitely is a centum language) and that it might be more closely related to Osco-Umbrian than to Latino-Faliscan.


The IE influence in Rhaetic isn't limited to Celtic, for example the inscription on the Caslir Situla reads:

CE-1.1: laviseśeli
CE-1.2: velχanu
CE-1.3: lup·nu piθiave
CE-1.4: kusenkustrinaχe
CE-1.5: φelna vinuθalina

https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/images/thumb/3/32/CE-01_photo_11.jpg/607px-CE-01_photo_11.jpg

velχanu is commonly understood as being the Italic theonym Volcanus, φelna is probably the Rhaetic transcription of "Belenus" while vinuθalina could be interpretated as "viniferus", that being said others (Pulgram) have compared the form -θalina to the Latin tollo "I raise".

In other words, the IE influence is best described as Italo-Celtic, though this also depends on whether Venetic is included in Italo-Celtic (since other scholars surmise that Venetic influence is also discernable in Rhaetic).
(...)
several Etruscan words and suffixes are shared with the Pre-Greek substratum, this includes the -mn-, -rn-, -enna- and -umn- suffix groups as well as the words huθ (probably "four" in Etruscan, usually related to Hyttenia surmised to be the equivalent of Tetrapolis though Beekes took issue with this theory), kanna, purθ and puia. Like I said, Italic words are also found in the earliest Etruscan inscriptions. In terms of divergence, the differences between Etruscan and Lemnian are minimal and do suggest a relatively recent split. It's only fair to state that the linguistic evidence strongly favours IE predating the presence of Tyrsenian languages in the Italian peninsula to say the least.

An east-west migration between the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE and the first half of the 1st millennium BCE cannot be rejected at this stage, and this looks like the most likely scenario so far IMO.





A post-IE arrival of Etruscan is likely imo. Historian Jean Manco seemed to have supported the Bronze Age origin of Etruscan and that it arrived after the IEs in Italy.

We're not very used to see an IE language being a substract of a non-IE language, particularly so early in time, but in this case it makes more sense than not.

[Longbowman]

Youre banned from.AG?

Have been for years. Banned for 'antisemitism' for a month. Then banned when I came back, permanently, for complaining about it (I made a thread with the post in question and the banning message. It was absurd. They deleted, I reposted, they deleted, I reposted, they banned). They're humourless there.

[Babak]

Have been for years. Banned for 'antisemitism' for a month. Then banned when I came back, permanently, for complaining about it (I made a thread with the post in question and the banning message. It was absurd. They deleted, I reposted, they deleted, I reposted, they banned). They're humourless there.Wow lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

[Aren]

Why would they have been R1 primarily? they weren't even Indo-European.

But they invaded and settled in an area that was previously IE speaking. I'm pretty sure we will find some R1b-P312 pop up in some mixed Etruscans. But I believe early Etruscans probably came from the East somewhere close to Anatolia or the Aegan and similar, genetically speaking to classical era Greeks, including prob some Steppe admix.

[Antimatter]

A mitochondrial DNA study (2013) also suggests that the Etruscans were probably an indigenous population, showing that Etruscans appear to fall very close to a Neolithic population from Central Europe and to other Tuscan populations, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan civilization developed locally from the Villanovan culture, and that genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back at least 5,000 years during the Neolithic. The ancient Etruscan samples had mitochondrial DNA haplogroups (mtDNA) JT (predominantly J) and U5, with a minority of mtDNA H1b. According to British archeologist Phil Perkins, "there are indications that the evidence of DNA can support the theory that Etruscan people are autochthonous in central Italy".

I think that they would have been close to the Italic population.