Hey... wait a minute

They didOh yeah Anatolian were indoeuropean branches are among The oldest was The home of The famously non Indieuropean Etruscans

Anatolia is a big place and had a lot of linguistic diversity.

South Germany was brutally conquered and the locals skulls were smashed into pieces.

The idea of Etruscans magically surviving this onslaught only to appear 2000 years later in Italy is pure fantasy.

>The idea of Etruscans magically surviving this onslaught only to appear 2000 years later in Italy is pure fantasy.

The "onsluaght" You are aware that langauge isolates survived in 80% of Iberia, Western Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, right?

Etruscans clustered near Iberians genetically, they were non IE locals from northen Italy and later colonzied south Germany (Raeti), just face it

Almost all Iberians are shifted towards East Med compared to Basques so them clustering together with Etruscans would make a lot of sense although I think you made that up.

I agree that they colonized Austria. They sure as hell didn't come from the north though.

Iberians have barely any shift to the Eastern Med, they cluster with other Europeans with huge Anatolian farmer DNA like Basques but have a sizeable amount of WHG DNA and a little steppe admixture so they aren't isolated like Basque or Sardinians who both lack CHG admixture

Nope. Iberians except Basques have some excess MENA(CHG/Levant) which not from the steppe.

If steppe admixture would be the reason why they have elevated similarity to Armenia_EBA and Levant_BA, Brits and such should have more. The affinity is clearly unrelated to the steppe.

Don't pay attention to the southern Italian sample which wasn't calculated properly.

Tuscans cluster with Balkan people like Bulgarians, they had nothing to do with bronze or iron age Anatolians who genetically cluster with Cypriots or Mesopotamians, this is consistent with the fact that the precursor culture of the Etruscans, the villanovians (1000-750 bc) originated from the unrfield culture, an European war like culture with its core along the danube and pockets in the Balkans and Northen Italy

How much in Iberians? Are you sure this is not from ENF populations that came before?

Etruscans separated from Lidians like 10k years ago, wtf are you talking about.

>Tuscans

I meant Etruscans

Lidyans were Indoeuropean speaking Anatolians, Etruscans were non Indoeuropean speakers and genetically they clustered with Balkanians

Balkan people have everything to do with BA and IA Anatolians. They are just mixed with Europeans.

Compare to Sardinia and Basques. Both of which have dominant ENF heritage with Basques having very minor local WHG and moderate steppe admixture.

Etruscans come from the same region as Lydians m8.

>Balkan people have everything to do with BA and IA Anatolians

I suggest you look at the recent PCA with Minoans, Myceneans and BA West Anatolians, the latter cluster between Levantine and Cypriots, nothing to do with South Eastern Europeans

>Etruscans come from the same region as Lydians

Lydians spoke a different language, Etruscans are descendendants of local Italians who mixed with South urnfield people from the Danube banks, this is supported by both genetics and archaeology, while what you report is an ancient fairy tales, so absurd that it was questioned by some ancient writers as well

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519

What's your point? A Serb is a whitewashed CHG-rich post-Early Neolithic Anatolian.

Albanians, not so whitewashed.

Not a study on their autosomal DNA, discarded.

Either way Etruscan and Lydian are completely unrelated languages, as different as Japanese and English

Yeah, and bronze age Anatolians are completely different from Neolithic ones, Etruscans and Tuscans are both way closer to the former genetically

>Not a study on their autosomal DNA, discarded.
autism confirmed
>Either way Etruscan and Lydian are completely unrelated laguage
So what? I didn't say etruscans are lydians.

No they're not completely different only partially.

The CHG J2 men mixed with local women in Western Anatolia, then their mixed offspring went on to mix more Greece/Balkans/Italy, further dilluting the CHG not to nothingness but still a considerable amount.

Yeah except that it happened around 3000-2000 bc, not in 1200-800 bc after the "Trojan war" like some idiots believe

Basques have up to 62% of WHG admixture. Thats not minor.

They don't. More like 15% at best. The main core of their genetic affinities lies with the Neolithic farmers.

Dyonisus of Halicarnassus, 60 bc:

>I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians. Indeed, those probably come nearest to the truth who declare that the nation migrated from nowhere else, but was native to the country, since it is found to be a very ancient nation and to agree with no other either in its language or in its manner of living. And there is no reason why the Greeks should not have called them by this name, both from their living in towers and from the name of one of their rulers. The Romans, however, give them other names: from the country they once inhabited, named Etruria, they call them Etruscans, and from their knowledge of the ceremonies relating to divine worship, in which they excel others, they now call them, rather inaccurately, Tusci, but formerly, with the same accuracy as the Greeks, they called them Thyoscoï. Their own name for themselves, however, is the same as that of one of their leaders, Rasenna.