mtDNA of ancient Etruscans

 mtDNA of Ancient Etruscans

This study on the Ancient Etruscans is a very exciting application of what will most likely take place increasingly in the future: large-scale genetic analysis of ancient DNA samples. See also similar studies on the Guanches and on Ancient Mongolians.

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:000, 2004

The Etruscans: A Population-Genetic Study

Cristiano Vernesi et al.

The origins of the Etruscans, a non-Indo-European population of preclassical Italy, are unclear. There is broad agreement that their culture developed locally, but the Etruscans' evolutionary and migrational relationships are largely unknown. In this study, we determined mitochondrial DNA sequences in multiple clones derived from bone samples of 80 Etruscans who lived between the 7th and the 3rd centuries B.C. In the first phase of the study, we eliminated all specimens for which any of nine tests for validation of ancient DNA data raised the suspicion that either degradation or contamination by modern DNA might have occurred. On the basis of data from the remaining 30 individuals, the Etruscans appeared as genetically variable as modern populations. No significant heterogeneity emerged among archaeological sites or time periods, suggesting that different Etruscan communities shared not only a culture but also a mitochondrial gene pool. Genetic distances and sequence comparisons show closer evolutionary relationships with the eastern Mediterranean shores for the Etruscans than for modern Italian populations. All mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscans appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were found to have an exact match in a modern mitochondrial database, raising new questions about the Etruscans' fate after their assimilation into the Roman state.

...

To better compare the Etruscan gene pool with those of contemporary Italy, we treated these populations as hybrids among four potential parental populations, from the four corners of the area considered in this study (table 2). The likely contributions of each parental population, or admixture coefficients, are similar for the three modern Italian populations, but Etruscans differ in two aspects: they show closer relationships both to North Africans and to Turks than any contemporary population. In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations. These admixture estimates are not to be taken at their face value, for numerous assumptions underlie their estimation. Here they only serve to show that, with respect to modern Italian gene pools, the Etruscan one contains an excess of haplotypes suggesting evolutionary ties with the populations of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores.

...

Social structure may have affected these results. All skeletons we typed were found in tombs containing artifacts that could be attributed with confidence to the Etruscan culture. Those tombs typically belong the social elites (Barker and Rasmussen 1998), and so the individuals we studied may represent a specific social group, the upper classes.


Link

Link2


________________
Comments
------------------

Regarding this "Turkish" admixture - do they mean Mongolian (ie the current inhabitants of Asia Minor) or is this another annoying reference to the extinct indigenous peoples of Anatolia as "Turkish"?

(Look at Ionians post for details on "Turkish" genes in Anatolia.)

Edited by Iskender Bey ALBO

well, etruscans where said to come from Asia Minor, i.e. modern time Turkey.

I's likely that the proximity between ancient Etruscans and modern Turkey is via he original inhabitants of Asia Minor with which the "Proper" Turks who invaded it got mixed.

 

OK, now we are changing history again. (happens to often lately if you ask me)

Since when is the myth of Romus and Rmulus Etruscan????

"There are also many similarities in terms of vocabulary between Latin and oldest Turkish written texts in Asia. "

How about some examples

I got my thoughts when ive saw the similarities between the Orkhun script and the Etruscian one, but like the DNA's say they where ancient Turks...

Originally posted by Kuu-ukko ?? Since when has a connection between Etruscan and Turkic even been considered? Etruscan is a member of the Pelasgian language family, to which ancient Pelasgian (in Greece) Rhaetic in the Alps, and an alleged substratum language in proto-Germanic belong to aswell. The proto-Turkic language originates from central Asia, whereas the Pelasgian comes from southern Mediterranean, probably the Adriatic sea. The Orkhon runes date between 700 and 800 AD, whereas the Etruscans date from 7th century BC, in some cases was still spoken to the 5th century by Etruscan priests (used by the Visigoth Alaric). So basically the Turks would descend from Etruscans, not visa versa .

Theyre speaking of DNA-results, not of from where they come fool... How can you father be sure if youre his son or not??

Firstly the this mtDNA test proves nothing since we have NO knowledge (at least from this article) of the Y-chromosomes. We know that mtDNA passes on from the mother but what about who the father was??

As for the source you provide (baracuda) after doing the search you advised, I fell on this site:
http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/tex/lang.html
Now they also use L.Bonfante among others as a source but come to quite different conclusions:

"Etruscan cannot be interpreted through any kind of 'etymological' method which claims connections, for example, with Albanian and Basque, Hebrew, Turkish, etc.
Such connections are based on accidental, superficial resemblances with other languages or language families, not on any real relationship. As a language, Etruscan is in fact isolated. For this reason, the most fruitful method has been the cultural-archaeological approach, in which an inscription is considered in its historical context and in close relation to the monument or object on which it appears."
--------
Another thing we must consider is the fact that Turkish has adopted many words and claims them as its own. (see Sun God theory)
So as in the link you provide the number "six" is actually a loan word from Persian so why not the Etruscans being connected to the Persians.
A good question would be if all the other "connected" words are also loans or exactly how many of them are.

It is also interesting to note that your second link http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Etruscan-language beside mentioning this alleged Pelasgic-Turkish connection (please this is killing me) informs us that:

"Due to its isolation, no significant certain translations from Etruscan into modern languages have been produced yet"

So how on earth can you support some connection when you havent translated the language yet???

Another problem in this joke of a theory is the gap between Etruscan script and any form of Turkish in the Anatolian area.
We are talking about at least a 1000yrs gap.
How exactly do you fill this???

Don't start this Afanasyevo culture again, I believed that we reached an agreement in a previous topic, when I showed you that this theory is still strongly rejected, so let's give it some time untill it's widely accepted,(if it ever will be) then use it again.

Finally even if this Afanasyevo theory was correct, how do you support that Turks are "older" than Etruscans when we don't know anything about their origins?

Your link doesn't work.

Oh, yeah I've seen this presented in another forum by some other desperate Turk in search of his origins.

Just one problem I happened to notice back then.

The "historian"?(NO)
researcher? (bad example of one)
Even though continuously quotes Herodotus, attempts to connect tribes/people that are recognized as ancestors of Germans, Serbs, Dacians...... to the Turks.

Let's just mention one or two.

The Agathirsi

Agathirsi allegedly means (forest people)???  thanks to a stupendous analysis by the author of this site

If he had done some real research, he would have, no, SHOULD have known that Stephanus Byzantinus and Suidas in his Lexicon, present a quote of the poet Peisander (7th BC) who tells us that the etymology of the name is:

"APO TAN THYRSON TOY DIONYSOU"= "from the wand of Dionysos"
(TAN=THN in Doric, for those that know the language "H TAN, H EPI TAS")

But NOOOOO this dude knows the language much better than those that spoke it at least 2700yrs ago.

Herodotus , regards the Agathirsi as NOT a part of the Scythian people, but as closely related to the Scythians.
He places them about the upper course of the river Marts (Marosch), in the SE. part of Dacia, modern Transylvania.
So they were actually separated by the E. Carpathian mountains from Scythia. (long way to go)
Anyway, in short most historians consider them the same people as the Getae or Dacians.

The Boudini

According to Herodotus (book 4.108,109) they were a large population of blue eyed and covered with red hair people.
The location he gives is quite general and I've found different interpretations, but most conclude that they lived around the Volga, ate lice ( phtheirotrageousi), had Hellinic temples and celebrated Dionysos among other Hellinic dieties.
They are considered to be the original Gothic ancestors of the Germans.

The Gelones

Now this is ridiculous.
The site you present even though allegedly quotes Herodotus, completely distorts his text by supporting some Turkish origin theory of the Gelones.
Herodotus clearly states that the Gelones were originally Hellines that left the Hellinic settlements on the Euxine and lived among the Boudini, which is why we find that the Boudini adopted Hellinic customs. Should you read the text, you find that it is at least crystal clear that the Gelonoi that were of Hellinic origin.

As for the linguistic fiasco he presents of Turkish words adopted by the ancient Hellines, nah, won't waste my time on it.

16yr old fanatic????
OK, so once again we find the age argument presented in lack of any serious argument.
I have cleared this before, you might as well read the post or ask a couple of your buddies about my age, work, address, phone number the whole works.
(not that its relevent but anyway)

Why don't you read Herodotus and judge this BS theory objectively for what it is. PURE BS

This wanna-be professor INTENTIONALLY DISTORTS TEXTS.
Is it really so hard for you to understand?
Take off the blindfold and read the text. It's actually quite simple.

Since you obviously won't I'll provide the text for you.

108 "The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair. There is a city in their territory, called Gelonus, which is surrounded with a lofty wall, thirty furlongs each way, built entirely of wood. All the houses in the place and all the temples are of the same material. Here are temples built in honour of the Grecian gods, and adorned after the Greek fashion with images, altars, and shrines, all in wood. There is even a festival, held every third year in honour of Bacchus, at which the natives fall into the Bacchic fury. For the fact is that the Geloni were anciently Greeks, who, being driven out of the factories along the coast, fled to the Budini and took up their abode with them. They still speak a language half Greek, half Scythian."

http://herodot.georgehinge.com/hdt4.html#par108
From one of many sites available.

Give that to your dear professor and say hello from a 7yr old.



Edited by Phallanx

Phallanx, simple question.. what do you understand by the term "turk"? and answer the same question what do you understand by the term "greek"?.. there should be a major difference between the two answers..

You see there is no claim being made on that we are pure blood, nor is there any claim other than it sounds so strange, that there are many places in the world that talk a variant of a turkic language, considering that many researchers consider 'turks' being a minority population originating from central asia irrelivent of study...

Edited by baracuda