File: 1441453954804.jpg (57.42 KB, 632x330, 316:165, affresco-etruschi-toscana-….jpg)
fe1aeb No.27649
Let's talk about them for a change.
Who were they? Where did they come from? What about their language? They seem so mysterious and different compared to other peoples of ancient Italia.
b3d3ad No.27660
Migrant turks most likely.
3fd603 No.27661
151fb6 No.27663
>>27660
Coming from anatolia != turks, especially since the turks arrived in anatolia in 1200s AD.
b23fcb No.27666
>>27660
More like the other way around, and they were part of the sea peoples who invaded the near east 1200 BC.
Some tribes were identified by the egyptians to have come from Italy and its islands.
Anyway, they are different from other italians because most other italians are actually greeks and semites who colonized the peninsula.
151fb6 No.27667
>>27666
>most other italians are actually greeks and semites who colonized the peninsula.
No they weren't, they were Italics, only southern Italy was colonized by the greeks
>semites
What do you mean? the phoenicians? Dude that was sicily only.
a7fefe No.27668
>>27649
They were essentially Roman predecessors, so i can only imagine they spoke latin but as to their origin theyre probably similar to how the greeks and most ancient people were of some sort of indo grecian origin
67b1d9 No.27673
>>27649
Is it true that they fell because of thier own immense faggotry? I remember hearing that somewhere, I think it was the common opinion of the greeks that etruscans were faggots that spend all thier time feasting and crafting art but I'm really unsure.
151fb6 No.27674
>>27668
>They were essentially Roman predecessors
No, they had no connections with the Romans, who were part of the Latin population, one of the Italic populations who arrived in 1000 BC from the north. Etruscans didn't speak latin and instead spoke another language, which was lost in time.
Although the Etruscans influenced the Roman culture, calling them "latins" is wrong.
52e10f No.27676
>>27660
Kek.
>>27666
Jewish Satan begone,
>>27668
Man if you don't know shit about Etruscans just look them up on Wikipedia or something before posting. They spoke Etruscan (mind-boggling, I know), completely unrelated to Latin, and weren't of Indo-European origin (much less "indo grecian")
>>27673
They fell because Rome conquered them, not because they were faggot.
About their faggotry: >>23574
c213fa No.27678
>>27674
Etruscan language is relatively well preserved, and there's also multiple loans taken into Latin from Etruscan and eventually got into English, like market, arena, person.
Raetian appears to be related to Etruscan, but that language was actually completely lost in time.
52e10f No.27692
>>27678
>completely
We have inscriptions, and even a bit of grammar.
Better than Harappan.
b23fcb No.27699
>>27667
Sicily is still Italy.
>>27660
>>27663
>>27666
Coming from Anatolia in this case would mean being part of the sea peoples event, raiding the middle east and moving to Italy.
Its what I think happened now that I read what little we know about them.
Also apparently one of the only mentions of them as a separate people lists them next to the Carthaginians as either allies or similar people.
52e10f No.27713
>>27699
>Sicily is still Italy.
But not most of Italy. Most Italic peoples were exactly that, Italic (like Romans, Falisci, Umbri, Osci, Veneti etc.).
About Etruscan language: the longest text we have is a religious calendar written on a linen strip, the Liber Linteus. Luckily for us it was used in ancient times to wrap a mummy, being preserved in remarkable conditions – though of course most of it is yet to be deciphered.
96029b No.27724
>>27692
Better than the Voynich manuscript, at any rate.
But at any rate - seeing how the Etruscan language is markedly different from that of its Italic and Celtic neighbors, would it be to much to assume that the Etruscans were autochthonous people that (or whose ancestors) had lived in the areas since before the Indo-European migrations?
766cc7 No.27729
I find it interesting that they fought in large scale naval battles against the Greeks in Sardinia and the Southern Italian coast. For some reason I can't see them as a naval power
6b0bdb No.27732
>>27724
That is a very possible theory, I believe the Etruscans are a pre-Indo European Peoples, or at least their language family is. That being said, Indo Europeans did make their way into the Italian peninsula.
52e10f No.27733
>>27724
>would it be to much to assume that the Etruscans were autochthonous people that (or whose ancestors) had lived in the areas since before the Indo-European migrations?
i think that's by far the most sensible explanation. They didn't come en masse from the Aegean coasts, that's for sure, and the migration of a small elite is possible but not proven or necessary. The transition from Villanovan culture to classical Etruria is smooth.
>>27729
>For some reason I can't see them as a naval power
I have the same impression, but indeed if they are the Teresh of Egyptian inscriptions, they had been known as seafaring warrior since the Bronze Age. And let's not forget the Lemnos stele, in the middle of the Aegean but unmistakeably Etruscan.
151fb6 No.27735
>>27699
No, sicily is sicily, and to ulteriorly fuck your theory up the phoenicians only had one colony made by them, which was Lilybaeum.
000000 No.27753
Torfag here, the Etruscans are a fascinating subject for me, I've searched far and wide for materials on the subject.
>Where did they come from?
There are few theories that have the most clout. I think the autochthonous theory is the weakest, there is no real basis for it archeologically. The Eastern migration theory is prob the closest to the truth but anything beyond that is more conjecture. There is a theory that the Etruscans are related to the Urartians and Hurrians but the basis for that is pretty thin because we don't know much about those languages in the first place (primarily phonology). The counterpoint to the latter theory is that they are Indo-Europeans from north of Troy (or they were Trojans themselves, hint hint Aeneid) who migrated because of the Bronze Age collapse, settled briefly in Lesbos and later northern Italy where they were separated from the Raetii by the Celts.
>What about their language?
Their language is what most interests me the most. Etruscan grammar is completely different from Indo-European as it was agglutinative. Also the stops were voiceless and were differentiated by aspiration, so the Greek loanwords in Etruscan look a bit weird but also Latin borrowed them too (such as the word 'triumph' which originally comes from thríambos). There are also loanwords from other Italic languages (primarily Umbrian because of geography). Another interesting etymology that is theorized to come from Etruscan is Roma itself, coming from Ruma in Etruscan that was supposedly a tribe. That also brings me to their history with the Latins, very complex. As some /his/torians know, the last king of Rome was Etruscan and during the Kingdom and the Republic the two nations regularly fought each other. There were also a number of Etruscan families settle in Rome itself.
000000 No.27755
>>27753
I also forgot, there's this expensive as fuck Routledge book on the Etruscans that came out last year, I might buy it and scan for you guys.
dc7314 No.27832
>>27753
>I think the autochthonous theory is the weakest, there is no real basis for it archeologically
No, the opposite is true. The migration theory is based on linguistic difference that led the ancients to believe they were foreign settlers: hence Herodotus' bullshit about Lydia. A theory mostly discredited until the discovery of the Lemnos stele (that if anything proves a colonization the other way around), when the whole Etruscan migration circlejerk began.
As I said here >>27733 , archeological evidence tells us that the Villanovan culture smoothly evolved into Etruscan civilization, with a strong Eastern influence that developed in time (that is, not suddenly and not with a phantom exodus from Anatolia).
A migration of a people by sea for no legitimate reason in the Bronze Age is pure fantasy, a glorified legend.
000000 No.27855
>>27832
>A migration of a people by sea for no legitimate reason in the Bronze Age is pure fantasy, a glorified legend.
What is the Bronze Collapse/Fall of the Hittites/migration of the Phrygians?
>archeological evidence tells us that the Villanovan culture smoothly evolved into Etruscan civilization
The Villanovan culture also "smoothly evolved" into the myriad of Italic tribes
>Lemnos stele (that if anything proves a colonization the other way around),
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
dc7314 No.27866
>>27855
>What is the Bronze Collapse/Fall of the Hittites/migration of the Phrygians?
I didn't know they moved by sea.
>The Villanovan culture also "smoothly evolved" into the myriad of Italic tribes
But it didn't. In fact, the territory in which it's attested corresponds to historical Etruria. See pic related.
>Do you have a single fact to back that up?
The stele itself: "Lemnian" is so similar to Etruscan that it's unlikely it was the result of seven centuries of development from a common parent language. Probably it was left there by settlers coming from Italy.
What's your evidence that a migration of a people or of a small group happened?
000000 No.27867
>>27866
You do have some strong points. The evidence for the eastern migration is very thin, especially the linguistic theories. I guess the only thing the that would convince me of the autochtonous hypothesis is if the Etruscans themselves wrote it down but sadly that will probably never happen and scholars will just have to keep guessing.
dc7314 No.27868
File: 1441619571534.png (21.58 KB, 432x525, 144:175, Italy-Villanovan-Culture-9….png)
>>27866
>no pic related
Here.
dc7314 No.27869
>>27867
>the only thing the that would convince me of the autochtonous hypothesis is if the Etruscans themselves wrote it down
But you know how this things go, with ancient people claiming an origin or the other because of prestige (I'm looking at you, Romans. And you, Gaels.)
And I agree, archeology can only do so much, pre/protohistory is what it is.
000000 No.28250
898e40 No.28252
>>27733
>They didn't come en masse from the Aegean coasts, that's for sure
But aren't they related to Pelsagians? I see the connection made many times.
>>27753
>There is a theory that the Etruscans are related to the Urartians and Hurrians but the basis for that is pretty thin because we don't know much about those languages in the first place (primarily phonology).
Weren't Urrartians just Armenians? All these urururu ira arara sounds make me think of early Indo-Europeans (aristoi, aryo etc.).
What if…
gaiz
what if…
/keanu face
what if
Sumerians (hey, why not, long noses), Pelsagians Etruscans, _. __, and ___ were all closely related group that got chopped up by later migrations?
2584be No.28257
>>28248
Swear to Christ, /his/ is to OC what /sp/ is to gets.
c5476a No.28263
>>28252
>But aren't they related to Pelsagians?
It's a connection that probably goes back to Anticlides (a Hellenistic historian), who wrote of some Pelasgians (not that we know who they're supposed to be; maybe the original inhabitants of Greece, who were the very ancestors of Etruscans according to Hellanicus) that after settling on the islands of Lemnos (where as we've seen there actually are traces of Etruscan colonization) and Imbros joined Tyrrhenos and invaded Italy.
>>28248
kek
>>28257
Master race.
d57cc1 No.28735
>>27649
i heard they were proto european instead of indo european, is this true? especially looking at >>27666 (nice trips, satan) and another thread that said sardinians were sea people as well about whom i know they weren't IE either.
c5476a No.28742
>>28735
>is this true
I'd really like to know, but no one does. To be honest, many "truths" from a time this distant are just likely suppositions.
Anyway, they could have been, sure. They weren't Indo-Europeans, and since they're probably autochthonous, that would make them Proto-Europeans, right?
2f7350 No.29181
Aren't the old etruscan stomping grounds the places with the highest rates of neanderthal dna?
a927f0 No.29209
>>29181
Could be wrong but I believe that's in the Caucus
bcd733 No.29390
>>28742
Weren't Vikings also Proto-Europeans?
d57cc1 No.29392
bcd733 No.29393
>>29392
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml
>Haplogroup I is the oldest major haplogroup in Europe and in all probability the only one that originated there
c213fa No.29394
>>29390
>>29392
Norse have distinct genetics from continental Germanics and are quite close to Sami, actually, which points to pre-Indo-European and pre-Uralic Scandinavian genetic component.
d57cc1 No.29398
>>29393
>>29394
well that is an interesting chart, but i find it strange that it is found in germanic countries, does this mean that germanic peoples are proto europeans? if you look at iceland, the only kind of population found there are decendants of norsemen and possibly a few irish monks, both of which are indo europeans. does this mean that proto europeans dissolved into aryans?
bcd733 No.29399
>>29398
>well that is an interesting chart, but i find it strange that it is found in germanic countries, does this mean that germanic peoples are proto europeans?
No, as you see the germanics have 30% or less, this means that these traces were not left by the germanics themselves, but rather by the populations that either migrated or raided the places, such as the Longbards, this can be emphasized also by the fact that it's found with higher concentrations on coasts only.
>if you look at iceland, the only kind of population found there are decendants of norsemen and possibly a few irish monks, both of which are indo europeans. does this mean that proto europeans dissolved into aryans?
The grey part in iceland indicates more the fact that it's mostly uninhabited than "populated by other peoples".
Also a populace doesn't just go from I1 to R1b just in less than a thousand years.
d57cc1 No.29401
>>29399
so that doesn't make vikings proto europeans
bcd733 No.29404
>>29401
But they came much earlier than the indo-europeans of mainland europe (10 000 BC compared to 1000 BC)
d57cc1 No.29405
>>29404
now i'm confused, vikings didn't arrive as early as that, so you mean proto europeans but that was a well known fact
55ae48 No.29407
>>29401
>so that doesn't make vikings proto europeans
While the Indo-european languages (theoretically) originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and thus not near Scandinavia, there was no "Volkerwanderung" accompanying its spread.
The main theory for the spread of Indo-European languages is that small, aristocratic groups migrated from the PIE homeland and positioned as chiefs and patrons of the autoctonous populations, effectively spreading their language (and cultural patterns) to them. Every time there's a discussion about the Indo-Europeans, people seem to forget that IE is a lingüistic category, not an ethnic one.
Source: David Anthony - The Horse, The Wheel, The Language
bcd733 No.29408
>>29404
>>29405
Well, I fucked those numbers, it's actually ~4200BC for I1 and in the bronze age for R1a-b.
>R1a arrives first to scandinavia, pretty similar in some aspects but doesn't change much, 10% max
>R1b arrives, introduces proto-germanic languages which mix with the proto-nordic to form the modern nordic languages, 15% max
Of course the product of those gene pools then gave us the vikings, who then settled in the Denmark peninsula, but they probably were still mostly I1 and not the R1b of the Mainland Europeans.
000000 No.29430
d56492 No.29488
>>29390
They spoke a Germanic language, that makes them Indo-European; it's also evident from their pantheon and beliefs.
Don't listen to assburgers with their haplotypes.
2a87c6 No.29506
>>27660
>Turks
>Probably didn't exist even in modern day Turkestan at this point
m8 the Turks didn't migrate until the 7th century. They were an Altaic people originating in the Altai plains.
bcd733 No.29509
>>29488
>They spoke a Germanic language, that makes them Indo-European
So south america is white because they speak spanish, which is a spanish language :^)
bcd733 No.29510
c213fa No.29541
>>29488
>it's also evident from their pantheon and beliefs.
But there's pretty much no connection between pantheons of different Indo-European speaking peoples. The only god that can be traced back into Proto-Indo-European is Dyeus-phter; and he appears to be a monotheistic sky-god similar to Tengri.
94b537 No.29542
>>29541
>he only god that can be traced back into Proto-Indo-European is Dyeus-phter; and he appears to be a monotheistic sky-god similar to Tengri.
Pretty much all "sky" deities in Indo-European culture derived from Dyeus, like Zeus or Jupiter
8ab496 No.29565
>>29541
There's more than that, like the similarities between Zeus and Thor, fate goddesses, the connection between blindness and wisdom, the role of poets and poetry…
Also why do you say PIE-speaking people were monotheistic? Their pantheon had a head, sure, but that's it. And among other shared deities we have the Divine Twins, the Striker etc.
>>29509
>white
That's a color, I don't know what you're talking about.
000000 No.29580
>>29565
I think he meant European
c213fa No.29602
>>29565
I guess it's up to interpretation, what you count as "gods" and what you count as "heroes" (especially in case of Divine Twins). Note that Heracles started as a hero, but was later fully deified.
Also, similarities are usually between mythologies of different Indo-European groups in the same general area; and you don't see reflexes on the other side of Indo-European linguistic continuum. You have similarities between groups inside Europe, but almost never between an European group and and an Indo-Iranian group, apart from Dyeus-phter's presence and some pretty basic cultural and spiritual concepts that don't have much to do with the pantheon itself. Exception would be Apam-napat and Neptune, but Neptune and Celtic Nechtan could as well be unrelated, coming from same pre-Indo-European source as Etruscan Nethuns.
Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that pantheons are a remnant of an earlier pre-Indo-European mythology already present in the area, which just incorporated several heroic stories and the chief god from Indo-Europeans.
0956db No.29713
000000 No.29720
bb3b19 No.29728
>>27755
>I might buy it and scan for you guys.
Please do man, this would go down in the annals of /his/.
f45b25 No.33269
>>27649
Haha this is an interesting thread. Seems like their language is still not deciphered?
Romans claimed to come from Trojans (tributary city for Hittites?)… Yet such origin could rather be applied to them.
They were a lot heavier Greekboos than Romans, they used helmets similar to those of hoplites and even chimaera was their symbol. Might have infected Romans with this.
Don't know much about them, only that last rulers of Roman Kingdom were of Etruscan origin, or even they were their vassals.
f45b25 No.33270
I wonder how more nations were there in Europe like Finnics, Ugrics, Basques and Etruscans.
Basques I remember reading had brotherly nation with similar language sometimes in the mediaeval, but their language have perished.
25ae53 No.34178
c213fa No.34182
>>33270
>Basques I remember reading had brotherly nation with similar language sometimes in the mediaeval
You're thinking of Aquitani.
In Spain, besides various tribes from which modern day Basques derive (Vascones, Iacetani), you had Iberians in the East and Turdetani/Tartessians in the South.
Rhaetians in central Alps spoke a language related to Etruscan.
Nuragic peoples of Sardinia spoke a pre-Indo-European language too.
9004e3 No.34372
>>33269
They also didn't just disappear over night. Etruscan was still spoken in the Imperial period, it probably disappeared with the collapse of the Roman Empire itself.
c213fa No.34375
>>27663
>implying Sumerians weren't ancient Türks
dingir
1af3e2 No.34534