A step closer to solving the mysteries around the etruscans

Ive read in the newspaper a few days ago how the dna of etruscan tombs matches with dna foudn in some turkish villages near izmir. It has already been discovered that etruscan cattle was also more medival.

What does this mean?

Well that they are obviously related to the people from those villages. However we need to find out a few things first. Currently all articles say that what herodotes said is correct and that they came from the lydians. I personally dont believe that. Why? Because anatolia has mostly turkish people living in there so unless the lydians were turkish it is unprobable that the etruscans were of lydian decent. It thus could be very well be the case that the Etruscans originally came from central asia. There is some more evidence for this. The language is apparantly similair to Maygar and old turkish. Infact some scolar said he can read some etruscan because of its similarity with old turkish.

A futher result if this is proven to be correct is that it makes it possibile that more ancient people's were turks or altaic originally. As they have moved into europe even more times then why not so in other cases. It also has been said that the sumerians even were a turkic people because of the language.

I personally find this very interesting and hope to find out more about the history of the villages were this dna was collected. Are they clear decendants fromthe original anatolians? Are they real turks? Allot old turkish villages are genetically quite pure because of few people moving in and out of these villages ever since they were founded after the conquest of anatolia by the Turks in the 11th century. The turkish village for example where my dad came from has fairly unique ties with the bulgars. The bulgars were originally northwestern turks.

www.nytimes.com...

you need to remember that people aren't static
the populations who live in countries around the workd today in most cases are not the original inhabitants

also the conclusions of this study are slightly flawed
just because there is a match between the Etruscans and the Anatolian dna does not mean that one came from the other
its just as likely that both came from somewhere else

when someone starts claiming Herodotus as proof you need to ask why is that proof needed

As Marduk said

There have been lots of invading and populations moving around Asia Minor in the past and most recently...


In 1923 2 million people from Turkey and Greece were exchanged, and as the dreaded Wikipedia says:

The Treaty of Lausanne affected the populations in the following way: Almost all Greeks and Turkish speaking Christian populations from middle Anatolia (Asia Minor) but mainly Greeks from the Ionia region (e.g. Smyrna, Aivali), the Pontus region (e.g. Trebizond, Samsunta), Prusa (Bursa), the Bithynia region (e.g., Nicomedia / Izmit, Chalcedon / Kadıköy) and other regions of Asia Minor, as well as from the European Eastern Thrace region, numbering up to 1.5 million people, were expelled or formally denaturalized. Expelled from Greece were about 500,000 people, predominantly Turks, as well as other Muslims; from Crete, those speaking a Greek dialect intermingled with some Turkish loanwords, Muslim Roma, Pomaks, Cham Albanians, and Megleno-Romanians.

Thats why i said that the history of the turkish villages should be studied. If they were villages with few new dna getting in over hundreds of years then it does build to a etruscan being turks. Only after that has been made clear we can say if they lydians or turks or any other kind of people.

"turks" in this case meant muslim and turkish speaking, they could and were probably once of Greek/Asia minor origin.

The myth/legend of the Romans being from Troy is probably tied in with this. It would have been very possible that people from Asia minor moved to Italy or more likely the inmigration that populated Asia Minor (multiple waves) also went as far as Tuscany.

you clearly dont know allot about the history of most turkish villages
the fact is that anatolia was quite empty when the turks conquered it.
this resulted in the foundation of allot of new villages.
at least some of them have been isolated for hundreds of years.
the village were my dad originated from had its first proper road leading to it constructed about 50 years ago.
if the villages relevant are similair then it could very well be that etruscans were turks.

you clearly dont know allot about the history of most turkish villages
the fact is that anatolia was quite empty when the turks conquered it.
this resulted in the foundation of allot of new villages.
at least some of them have been isolated for hundreds of years.
the village were my dad originated from had its first proper road leading to it constructed about 50 years ago.
if the villages relevant are similair then it could very well be that etruscans were turks.

your timeline is way off
the Etruscans existed around 800BCE
the Ottoman period (Turks) 1453 - 1923 CE
so youre about 2200 years off in your estimation
heres a brief timeline of Anatolian civilisation
HITTITES
2,000 - 700 BCE

Early Hittite Period
2,000 - 1,750 BCE

Old Hittite Kingdom
1,660 - 1,450 BCE

Hittite Imperial Period
1,450 - 1,190 BCE

Late Hittite City States
1,190 - 700 BCE

URARTIAN KINGDOM
860 - 580 BCE

PHRYGIAN KINGDOM
750 - 600 BCE

LYDIAN KINGDOM
680 - 546 BCE

PERSIAN PERIOD
546 - 334 BCE

HELLENISTIC PERIOD
323 - 30 BCE

ROMAN PERIOD
30 BCE - 395 CE

BYZANTINE PERIOD
395 - 1453 CE

OTTOMAN PERIOD
1453 - 1923 CE

MODERN TURKEY
1923 - Present


Now Herodotus claimed that proto Lydians arrived in Italy around 1300bce which is around 600 years before their civilisation flourished in Anatolia.

Anatolia occupies a pretty vital trade route between Europe and Asia which is centred around the Caucasus which officially are the mid point of the Eurasian continent. So the migration of peoples into and out of that area is pretty normal and only to be expected

I clearly do know about villages in that part of Turkey once called Ionia. LOL

The Turks interbred with the locals like most invaders. As Marduk noted the people we now call the Turks were late comers.

If the Etruscans came from asia minor the Ionians and those that were before them may have been related. The Turks occupied the area and incorporated/mixed the bloodlines into their own.

Ah, are you a supporter of Harun Yahya?



[edit on 26-6-2007 by Hanslune]

you are not getting what i mean.
i dont say that they are directly related like that.
i ment that before the etruscans settled in tuscany they could have split of a old turkish or altaic clan. those who stayed came into anatolia later.
however to proof or disprove this research should be done about the history of these villages. can anyone help me find the names of these villages?

the real way to disprove this is for you to accept that Turks didn't exist in 800bce, and were the direct result of the Ottoman empire which spread the precuser Turkish language which the Turks and today the country Turkey are named after (Ottoman Turks also gave their name to the bird we eat at christmas because it was them who first used it as a trading commodity in western countries)
unless you're factoring time travel into your theory it just doesnt stand up to any scrutiny sorry

Sorry but your knowledge about the turks is very poor marduk. The first empire that most likely was turkish was the xiongnu which existed from the 3th century bc till the 4th ad. They were most likely a conferderation of older turkish states.

The first turks proven to have been in anatolaia were those under the rule of the sjeldjuks. They came in anatolia after the victory and manzikert.

Anyway the history of the turks pre gókturks 552-744 is still quite unclear. It has been widely said that hunns are turks although that isnt definte. The finns and hungarians also have a clear languistic link with the turkic languages.