So when Northern Italians accuse Southern Italians of being "Arabs", the correct reply is "Lydian scum"? Ah, life's rich tapestry.

Actually it was the cattle that brought the humans to Italy ;human bias or what. :)

For an example of an archeologically undocumented migration, what about the movement of Britons to what is now Brittany during the early Middle Ages?To the best of my knowledge, our only real evidence for this very real migration is literary/linguistic in nature (i.e., written records and the Breton language). Actual physical evidence for such a migration, however, remains quiet scanty.

But what archaeological evidence is there to link the Etruscans with the Anatolians? Also are there linguistic links between the Etruscans and the Anatolians? If the genetic evidence is correct then shouldn't there be other physical evidence to back it up?

So when Northern Italians accuse Southern Italians of being "Arabs", the correct reply is "Lydian scum"? Ah, life's rich tapestry.

The Etruscans would probably be the ancestors of only a small number of Northern Italians since Haplogroup R1B is much more common in Northern Italy than it is in Turkey.

Also are there linguistic links between the Etruscans and the Anatolians?

the lemnos stele is the best link. we know that around 1000 BCE western anatolia was linguistically polyglot, and some of the extant tongues were non-indo-european. unfortunately, getting a sense of bronze age europe & anatolia re: linguistic diversity from written records would be like comprehending nigeria's tongues via only gov. records. in other words, one might assume that only a few languages were in existance.

But what archaeological evidence is there to link the Etruscans with the Anatolians? Also are there linguistic links between the Etruscans and the Anatolians? If the genetic evidence is correct then shouldn't there be other physical evidence to back it up?

if the genetic evidence is correct then we should re-assess our perception of population movements and how they affect culture in the target region. the genetic evidence is, to me, very compelling. i believe that the gene phylogenies not only imply a relationship between anatolians and tuscans, but a daughter relationship of the latter to the former.

Since when is it "bad journalism" to get more than one side of a story? If there are experts who don't believe that the Etruscans are of Turkish ancestry then it only makes sense that their views shoud be represented.

How do the researchers know that any of the descendants of the Etruscans survived into modern times?