The lecturer claims that the origin homelands of the Etruscan still remains unveiled and controversing. The lecturer finds the reading passage’s claim quite doubtful, which argues that the Etruscans migrated from Turkey.
First, The lecturer points out that the DNA evidence analyzed in 2004 is not very convincing. The analysis was done using the remains found in Etruscan gravesites, which must have been badly damaged after a long period of time. In addition, there is a possibility that the bones might have been contaminated on the way to the analysis. This rebuts the reading passage’s claim that DNA evidence shows the Etruscans have Turkish roots.
On top of that, the lecturer contends that the language similarity between Etruscan and Turkish has no relation with the Etruscan’s origin. Since both Etruscan and Turkish are languages based on alphabet system, they cannot help but having similarity of some extent. In addition, linguistic similarity between two languages does not indicate that the origin of the people using the languages is same. Rather, it has no relation. Moreover, though Etruscan is very different from the Indo-European languages which were used nearby, Etruscan might be the only member in its language family which has survived till now. This counters the reading passage’s claim that the language used by the Etruscans indicates their Turkish origin.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that funerary practices cannot be a hint for finding the Etruscan roots. Cremation is not a unique characteristic of the Etruscan. It had already been done and descended even before the Etruscan was around the area. Thus, the Etruscan was just a successor of the tradition. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that the Etruscan and the Turks shared the same funerary practices.