Etruscan Origins solved?

[tyrannos]

Near Eastern origins of Etruscans
posted by Dienekes on Sunday, February 04, 2007


It seems that the ancient authors who recorded the eastern origin of the Etruscans are vindicated. This is from a preprint in AJHG.

Mitochondrial DNA Variation of Modern Tuscans Supports the Near Eastern Origin of Etruscans

Alessandro Achilli et al.

The origin of the Etruscan people has been a source of major controversy for the past 2,500 years and several hypotheses have been proposed to explain their language and sophisticated culture, including an Aegean / Anatolian origin. To address this issue, we analyzed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of 322 subjects from three well-defined areas of Tuscany and compared their sequence variation with that of 55 Western Eurasian populations. Interpopulation comparisons reveal that the modern population of Murlo – a small town of Etruscan origin – is characterized by an unusually high frequency (17.5%) of Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroups. Each of these haplogroups is represented by different haplotypes, thus dismissing the possibility that the genetic allocation of the Murlo people is due to drift. Other Tuscan populations do not show the same striking feature; however, overall ~5% of mtDNA haplotypes in Tuscany are shared exclusively between Tuscans and Near Easterners and occupy terminal positions in the phylogeny. These findings support a direct and rather recent genetic input from the Near East – a scenario in agreement with the Lydian origin of Etruscans. Such a genetic contribution has been extensively diluted by admixture, but it appears that there are still locations in Tuscany, such as Murlo, where traces of its arrival are readily detectable.



dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/02/near-eastern-origins-of-etruscans.html

[Mike the Jedi]

Fascinating!

[tyrannos]

Linguist for years also knew they belonged the extinct Anatolian Indo-European peoples known as the Lydians.

[Mike the Jedi]

I thought the consensus now is that they belonged to a language isolate with Rhaetic and Lemnian. A so-called Tyrhennian family, which might be distantly related to Indo-European, but if the things I've read are true it could not have been just a branch of Anatolian like Lydian is.

[drooperdoo]

Geneticists need to stop referring to Anatolians as "Near Eastern". Any names for them should be based on genetic affinity, not geography. "Near Eastern" implies Arab, what used to be called "Semite"--which in the case of Anatolians--is inappropriate, since Anatolians cluster with Greeks. For all intents and purposes Anatolia should be leagued with Europe, genetically--regardless of geography. It's long been an Indo-European homeland from the time of the Hittites, Phrygians, and earlier. It's always been closer to South-Eastern Europe than, say, to Arabia. So they should drop the "Near Eastern" tag for Anatolians.
Perhaps they should coin a new term like "Quasi-European" or "pan-Europoid".

[Mike the Jedi]

*sigh* Droop... nevermind.

[drooperdoo]

Mike,
Why are you "sighing"? What did I say that you found so repugnant?

Anatolia has, since ancient times, had far more in common with the Greeks next door than with the Arabs to the south. Heck, did I write "Greeks next door"? No, the Greeks that lived right in Anatolia. As well as the Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians--and all those other Indo-European language speakers.
According to linguistic analysis, Indo-European languages entered Europe via Anatolia.
So linguistically, archaeologically, historically--and yes genetically--Anatolia has been far more allied with South-Eastern Europe than, say, with Yemenis.
So by using the deceptive term "Near Eastern," it implies a sort of homogeneity among "Middle Easterners," which is deceptive.
I'd feel far more comfortable with terms that didn't lump in Armenians with, say, Saudis.
In matters of genetics, accidents of geography shouldn't play into it. I mean, can you imagine Berbers being lumped in with Kenyans rather than other Mediterranean populations, just by dint of the fact that they're in "Africa"?
It's retarded to do that.
Likewise, it's retarded--in my humble opinion--to use terms like "Near Eastern" when you're discussing genetics.
Use it in geography, fine.
But in genetics? --I only ask for more specificity.

[Mike the Jedi]

It's not that I disagree with some of the basic premises you just layed out, especially those dealing with genetics as that is not my field. Or even cup of tea. I just don't care for that tendency you have to casually use language groups as if they correspond to racial identity. Or assume that haplotype is always going to correlate with phenotype (the latter is what I'm interested in here). Or make distinctions between groups that don't really exist. Basically you seem to get easily carried away. Recognize for instance that a typical Indo-European-speaking Armenian or Kurd is going to look more like a Semitic-speaking Assyrian than either will resemble a Greek or western Anatolian of Aegean Mediterranid or even Pontic Mediterranid (which IS somewhat eastern) type. I'd also like to go ahead and say something else: I know of no phenotypic distinction between non-Semitic speaking Sumerians and the Semitic-speaking Akkadians/Assyrians/Babylonians. Both were rather Irano-Afghan. These and many more unsaid observations! You see, there are a lot of things I feel like saying to you, however sometimes I just don't have the words, time, or patience. Or even certainty of knowledge to challenge you, even though I know in my gut that what you say isn't 100% accurate. However, I'll try to be more forthcoming in the future, even at the risk of looking like an ass.

And I am aware of the distinction between northern Near Easterners (Anatolians, Armenians, Syrians, Mesopotamians) and southern Near Easterners (Arabians). Both of these groups are Mediterranoid, however, and do share a set of features that distinguishes them from typical Euro-Meds: a more prominent nasal structure, a longer face, and a tendency to pure dolichocephaly as opposed to mesocephaly (and a prominent occiput). This is what prompted Eickstedt to lump both robust Northern Near Eastern forms (the Irano-Afghan) and gracile Southern Near Eastern forms (the Arabid) into an Orientalid category. Biasutti did the same thing. This is what is meant by "the Near Eastern" look.

However I have seen some object to this category for reasons I have yet to determine (be they genetically or even phenotypically motivated). It should make for an interesting conversation piece in the future, but for now, I shall leave it alone. As you can tell, this is something I'm very interested in.

[tyrannos]

Those outdated arbitrary distinctions cause often more problems then they help. Most of those terms are for extreme varients of the same types anyway. Professor Coon wrote up that area as Atlanto-Mediterranean.

Also one most remember that so-called Cromagnon and the refined version known as the gracile Mediterraneans both spread out from Asia Minor during the Upper Paleolithic and again during the Neolithic supposedly. Its beleived the Indo-European language came from that region or around the Balkans .

[tyrannos]

Drooper,also check this out:



Artemis from Ephesus, not very far south of Phocaea.

[Mike the Jedi]

Wrote up what area as Atlanto-Mediterranean? Note that for Coon, Atlanto-Mediterranean meant tall, rather straight-nosed Mediterranoid. Coon also wrote up Spain and Arabia as Classic Med. But I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to confuse a Spaniard for an Arabian.

Also, there is a difference in type as one goes from west to east in Anatolia.

[tyrannos]

Sure, yet there are so-called overlaps isnt there?! Alot of that relies on soft spot tissue. You can use things like regional variation of course. But Physical Anthropology is limited,genetic's is more important. Besides modern peoples in that area have changed more than Europeans during the past centuries.

[Mike the Jedi]

Indeed, it's a cline. But everything is really.

Also, remember what Hooton said about the primitivity of the straight-nosed type and the relative recency of the hooked nosed type in comparison?

[tyrannos]

Well Dinarism for example is only started to be seen around the Bronze/Iron Age,and is best attributed to micro-evolution.

[Mike the Jedi]

Yeah, same with Alpines, as well, I've read (except I think they began to appear more frequently during the Middle Ages). But I don't mean the dinaricized types (Dinaric, Armenoid) but their Mediterranoid forerunners...

Classic Mediterranean
(Reduced derivatives of the Upper Palaeolithic and Iranian Plateau subraces)
Two subtypes:
Characters:
(a) Skeleton: gracile, skull smooth with small brow-ridges and mastoids
(b) Beard and body hair: sparse
(c) Face narrow, oval; chin pointed
(d) Nose form: in the Upper Palaeolithic derivative, straight with medium thick tip, elevated or horizontal; in the Iran Plateau derivative, very thin, high-bridged, often aquiline nose, always convex, with thin, depressed tip and recurved alae
(e) Stature: usually under 166 cm.
(f) Body build: usually slender

Distribution: the hook-nosed type particularly in Arabia and the Near East among Arabs and Jews; the straight-nosed type there and in the whole Mediterranean basin and sporadically in eastern, central, and northwestern Europe.