In a well known quote, the nineteenth century historian and classicist Theodore Mommsen said that the origins of the Etruscans was "neither capable of being known nor worth the knowing". He had no idea of the results made possible by molecular genetic studies, naturally, as nobody did at that time, but it appears that now that it is capable of being known, it turns out to be worth the knowing. Who'd have thought?
[Updated to add links]
The Etruscans lived somewhat to the north of the Latins on the Italian peninsula, and also on Corsica. Their language is not identifiably related to any of the local dialects, and they were supplanted and ultimately their culture made extinct, by the Roman expansion.
It turns out, according to Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin, that genetics places them squarely in the Anatolian region, or what is modern day Turkey, northern Syria and Northern Iraq. Modern populations that are identifiably derived from the Etruscans, in Tuscany (the name of which comes from the old Latin name for Etruscans), show closest relationships with modern populations in Anatolia.
In my latest Genesis post, I mention the "sea peoples". It's entirely possible that the Etrsucans were part of the massive migrations in the period from 1500BCE to around 800BCE in the Mediterranean basin and surrounds. Some of the biblical peoples mentioned in Genesis may have been the forerunners of settlers on Sardinia, and the Etruscans are related also to native populations on Lemnos and Sardinia.
Suspiciously, nearly all these movements happen at around the time that iron is being worked, largely for weapons; perhaps all these movements are due to displacement of bronze age peoples by iron age peoples. It is also the period in which many of our modern religious traditions began.
In yet another vindication of Herodotus by modern science, he reported that the Etruscans were in fact Lydians, a particular kingdom in Anatolia. The "Father of Lies" is in fact quite the solid historian.
More Etrurian posts: Effect Measure, and Gene Expression
Later: Razib has an even more interesting post on Herodotus' "Lydian hypothesis".
Stumble It!
Comments
This is lovely, although not entirely unexpected. I believe there was some cultural evidence of the Lemnian connection.
Given the unclear relationship between early Rome and the Etruscans (Rome was evidently under Etruscan rule at one point), a completely unprincipled speculation would lead one to wonder whether an early iron age Etruscan migration from Anatolia contributed to the myth of Aeneas.
Posted by: chris y | June 17, 2007 9:54 AM
It is my view that a great many myths of that era are in fact based on actual events, and magnified later. In this case a number of people have suggested that the Etruscans and the Trojans are related. I'm unsure if the Trojans actually formed a single ethnic group, but it may be that Aenas, or his historical forebear, did settle in Etruria, and the Latins took over this story later to validate their claims.
Posted by: John Wilkins | June 17, 2007 6:27 PM
Quite interesting points. You might also be interested in this examination of the history of the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. It counters some commonly held beliefs.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817
"Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
Stephen Oppenheimer"
Posted by: bernarda | June 19, 2007 5:00 AM
Great to get a confirmation from molecular biology. People who studied the Etruscans and their civilizations have been suspecting a close link to Anatolic populations for a long time. Thanks for the post.
Posted by: steppen wolf | June 19, 2007 11:05 AM