PDA

View Full Version : Ancient mtDna from the Piceni of Novilara



Angela
02-02-18, 02:47
See:Serventi et al
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/03014460.2017.1414876?scroll=top&needAccess=true

So disappointing that it's behind a pay wall. It's 54.00 to rent it for 24 hours. Anyone have institutional access? Even just getting the list of the mtDna would be helpful.

Is this Alvarez the one who was supposedly doing a paper on ancient Italian dna? Gosh, I hope not, if this is what it's going to be like. I wonder if the yDna couldn't be retrieved in their lab? I know it's harder, but if they can't do it, why don't they send it to someplace like the Reich Lab?

In terms of autosomal, they don't mean something stupid like AIMS, do they?

"Background: Archaeological data provide evidence that Italy, during the Iron Age, witnessed the appearance of the first communities with well defined cultural identities. To date, only a few studies report genetic data about these populations and, in particular, the Piceni have never been analysed.Aims: To provide new data about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variability of an Iron Age Italic population, to understand the contribution of the Piceni in shaping the modern Italian gene pool and to ascertain the kinship between some individuals buried in the same grave within the Novilara necropolis.
Subjects and methods: In a first set of 10 individuals from Novilara, we performed deep sequencing of the HVS-I region of the mtDNA, combined with the genotyping of 22 SNPs in the coding region and the analysis of several autosomal markers.


Results: The results show a low nucleotide diversity for the inhabitants of Novilara and highlight a genetic affinity of this ancient population with the current inhabitants of central Italy. No family relationship was observed between the individuals analysed here.

Conclusions: This study provides a preliminary characterisation of the mtDNA variability of the Piceni of Novilara, as well as a kinship assessment of two peculiar burials.
Well, about all I glean from that is that there is a genetic "affinity" with the current populations of Central Italy.

For those not familiar with ancient Italy, this is the area of the Marche and northern Abruzzo.

They don't even give a date for the remains.

"First settled at the beginning of the Iron Age (1200 bc – 400 ad),[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-2) Picenum later became one of the eleven districts of Italy. The three interior towns of the region possessed an urban layout and appeared to be economically successful, so it is unknown what caused this city[which? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] to decline in later years.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-3)In 268 BC the consuls Appius Claudius Russus and Publius Sempronius Sophus conducted a pincer operation against Picenum. The Picentes, who were then Roman allies, had rebelled.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-4) Part of the population was deported and those who were not were given Roman citizenship without the right to vote. Thus, Picenum was annexed, except for the city of Ausculum, which was considered an allied city. To keep her under control, the colony of Firmum was established nearby in 264 BC."

"Excavations performed in the late 19th century in Picenum give some insight into the region during the Iron Age. Excavated tombs in Novilara of the Molaroni and Servici cemeteries show that the Piceni laid bodies in the ground wrapped in garments they had worn in life.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-5)Warriors would be buried in the ground with a helmet, weapons and vessels for food and drinks. Buried beads, bone, fibulae and amber seem to demonstrate that there was an active trade in the ninth and perhaps tenth centuries on the Adriatic coast, especially in the fields of amber and beads of glass paste. In women’s graves there is a large abundance of ornaments made of bronze and iron.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-6)
Origins of these items may also show that the Piceni may have looked to the south and east for development.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-7)
The warrior tombs seem to show that the Piceni were a war-like people. Every man’s grave contained more or less a complete outfit of a warrior, with the most frequent weapon being a spear. Piceni swords appear to be imported from the Balkans.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-8)"

"According to Polybius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybius) (Histories 2:21), during the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(consul_232_BC)) (232 bc), "the Romans divided among their citizens the territory in Gaul known as Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senones) when they conquered them".

https://www.google.it/maps/@43.8574195,12.3711873,9zhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum

"There is linguistic evidence that the Picentini comprised two different ethnicities: a group known to scholars as the "South Picenes" (or South Picenians) were an Italic tribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_tribe),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picentes#cite_note-baldi-1) while the "North Picenes" (or North Picenians) appear to have had closer links to non-Italic peoples."

"From Ancona southward a language of the Umbrian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbri) group was spoken, today called South Picene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Picene). It is attested mainly in inscriptions. Umbrian was an Italic language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_language).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picentes#cite_note-2) "

"North of Ancona around Pesaro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesaro) a non-Italic language, written in a version of the Old Italic script (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script), is attested by four inscriptions (three of which are very brief); this has been termed, for convenience, North Picene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Picene). Both the meaning of the inscriptions and the relationship of North Picene to other languages remains unknown. There is phonological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology) evidence that it was linked more closely to the Indo-European language family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language_family) (than to, for example, Etruscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan)).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picentes#cite_note-baldi-1) Some authors have referred to North Picene as simply "Picene" – under a hypothesis that it represents the original language across Picenum, although there is as yet evidence for this."

"Between Ancona and Rimini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimini) to the north the population was multi-ethnic. In the Roman Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic) it was Gallia Togata, but the Gauls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls) were known to have combined or supplanted earlier populations. The ager Gallicus, as it was called, was considered both Gaul and Picenum. Under the Roman Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) the coast south of Rimini was united or reunited with the country south of Ancona as Picenum. By then the only language spoken was Latin."
So, Ancona was the dividing line. Novilara is north of Ancona, in the provincia of Pesaro.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-05447e6125b32e6cfe27df1a3d9dba9b



The best-known North Picene inscription is on the stele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele) from Novilara (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novilara&action=edit&redlink=1) (now in the Museo Preistorico Pigorini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigorini_National_Museum_of_Prehistory_and_Ethnogr aphy), Rome), dated to approximately the 6th century BCE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Picene_language

davef
02-02-18, 03:15
No need to pay the 54.00 just to rent it...
1. Pay the required amt
2. Screen cap and copy paste each page to your favorite word processor
3. Keep it forever

:belial::belial:

Falco
02-02-18, 04:34
PDF available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321672156_Iron_Age_Italic_population_genetics_the_ Piceni_from_Novilara_8th-7th_century_BC

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesca_Brisighelli/publication/321672156/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Figure-2-Two-dimensional-MDS-plots-of-pairwise-Fst-values-from-HVS-I-showing.ppm

Ygorcs
02-02-18, 05:07
That would be very (much more, I mean) interesting if we had full results about the Picene people. North Picene has long fascinated me because it looks and at least seemingly sounds so akin to an Indo-European language***, but still nobody could ever even deduce the meaning of the few but still sufficient texts in North Picene. It's also so clearly different from Etruscan and other Tyrrhenian languages and in fact any other non-IE ancient language of Europe. It should be very interesting to know the main genetic admixtures of this people in comparison with others in the Italian peninsula.

*** By this I mean especially that it has so many Indo-European-like endings in the words, like -em, -on, -us, -is, -ut, and also quite similar patterns of syllable formation:

mimniś erút gaareśtadeśrotnem úvlin partenúśpolem iśairon tetśút tratneši krúviśtenag trút ipiem rotnešlútúiś θalú iśperion vúlteś rotem teú aiten tašúrśoter merpon kalatneniś vilatoś paten arnúiś baleśtenag andś etšút iakút treten teletaú
nem polem tišú śotriś eúś

Angela
02-02-18, 06:17
^^When they're not dealing with frozen remains it seems to be much more difficult to get ancient dna, even mtDna. They had a lot of samples, of which 30 seemed promising, and in the end could only get mtDna from 10 of them. Lots of H.

Sorry, I can't get the image to post. Maybe someone else can do it.

https://postimg.org/image/6j2l0mcyz/

This is from my own files:
9709

According to the authors there seems to be continuity with modern mtDna from that Marche region, and they claim that the results also fit in with the cline in Italy.

I'm not sure how much faith to put in that, because the resolution isn't very good.

If that's correct, however, whatever the events which followed, whether Romans, Celts, Germans, etc., they wouldn't seem to have brought many, if any, women with them.

The remains date to 8th to 7th century BC.

Here is their MDS plot.
9708

Angela
02-02-18, 13:49
The North Picene language, which I would assume was spoken at some point in Novilara is interesting.

"Both the meaning of the inscriptions and the relationship of North Picene to other languages remains unknown. There is phonological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology) evidence that it was linked more closely to the Indo-European language family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language_family) (than to, for example, Etruscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan)).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picentes#cite_note-baldi-1) Some authors have referred to North Picene as simply "Picene" – under a hypothesis that it represents the original language across Picenum, although there is as yet evidence for this."

Anyone know anything more about it?

Maciamo
02-02-18, 13:56
Exciting that they are testing ancient Italian DNA. Disappointing results though. It doesn't help much to know they belonged to mt-haplogroups H, H1, J1 and K. These lineages are found all over Europe. MtDNA isn't very useful without deep clades.

Tomenable
02-02-18, 14:10
It is a shame that they are still publishing studies without auDNA and Y-DNA.

It's 2018!

Angela
02-02-18, 15:59
Exciting that they are testing ancient Italian DNA. Disappointing results though. It doesn't help much to know they belonged to mt-haplogroups H, H1, J1 and K. These lineages are found all over Europe. MtDNA isn't very useful without deep clades.

As I mentioned above, they only managed to get 10 results from all those samples. I don't know if it was because of degradation or because the lab they used just doesn't have enough capability.

I wish they would partner with the Reich or Max Planck labs and see if more information can be extracted.

Jovialis
02-02-18, 16:42
Sorry, I can't get the image to post. Maybe someone else can do it.


https://i.imgur.com/EQoDaBt.png

Hauteville
02-02-18, 18:42
Another useless study without Y and autosomal.

Cato
04-02-18, 23:30
"First settled at the beginning of the Iron Age (1200 bc – 400 ad),[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum#cite_note-2) Picenum later became one of the eleven districts of Italy.



First settled in the Iron Age ??? This is so wrong

Angela
04-02-18, 23:54
First settled in the Iron Age ??? This is so wrong

Do you have any sources for your disagreement?

I'd love to see them. If it's wrong, perhaps the Wiki article should be amended.

Sile
05-02-18, 02:46
A part of the problem in deciphering North Picene (NP) is that it does not seem to have entered the historical record. Roman scholars depicted the Picenes in general as speaking an Italic language (presumably South Picean). Nevertheless, there is archaeological evidence for a separate linguistic sphere – known to us as North Picean – centred on the modern provinces of Pesaro e Urbino (Marche) and Rimini (Emilia-Romagna).

Based on the limited remaining evidence, some modern scholars suggest, tentatively, that NP may belong to a branch of the Indo-European (IE) languages other than Italic. This could be:

a lost sibling of both Italic and Celtic within the Italo-Celtic branch, as may also be the case with, e.g. Ligurian in north-west Italy and/or Venetic in the north-east;

part of the little-known Illyrian branch of IE – as also appears to be the case with the Messapic languages (pale green on the map above), which were spoken by the Iapygei tribes of south-east Italy;

a hybrid of Illyrian, Italo-Celtic and/or a non-IE language – as may be the case with Liburnian (spoken on the opposing coast of the Adriatic, in what is now north-west Croatia), or;

.
The linguist Phillip Baldi cites three NP words with possible IE cognates.

mimniś – similar to Italic words for “remember”, such as Latin memini. (And, we might add, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European [PIE] precursor *memnos.)
polem – similar to Greek pólin (πόλιν), meaning “city” (accusative singular). (The Greek root being derived ultimately from the reconstructed PIE root *tPolh- “fortification”.)
iśairon – similar to:
Greek ieros (ἱερός) which Baldi defines as “mighty” (but is more usually, “superhuman”, “sacred” “divine” etc) as well as
a closer cognate (not considered by Baldi) i.e. the Sanskrit root iṣira (इषिर): “fresh, flourishing, vigorous, active, quick” etc, and
the probable reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root of the Greek and Sanskrit words above: *ish₁ro-: “holy”, “awe-inspiring” etc.


Baldi and others have also pointed to many North Picene words that have endings characteristic of Indo-European languages, such as -em, -eś and -uś.

For what it's worth, there is circumstantial evidence linking Liburnian-speaking people (from what is now Dalmatia, in Croatia) to the area in which NP was spoken. The Liburnians were famous seafarers (including pirates) and boatbuilders, who lived nearby, just over a short stretch of the Adriatic Sea. After the time of the Novilara Stele, the NP area was invaded and settled by Gauls, Romans and other peoples – leading presumably to the language death of NP. Much later, in the early Middle Ages, the tiny and “Italy-locked” independent republic of San Marino was founded, inland from Rimini. The Marinese came to speak the same Romagnol dialect of Italian as their neighbours, but the eponymous founder of their republic, Saint Marino, is said to have been a Liburnian.

Ygorcs
05-02-18, 05:17
On a first glance and rapid analysis North Picene looks more like some sort of agglutinative language with very small roots than the kind of complex fusional language, with several declensions and different forms, that IE languages were. However, it is striking that the endings "look" so much like IE ones, and also the syllable formation and consonant clusters look very IE, but maybe we're just seeing a heavily Indo-Europeanized Neolithic language of Europe, adopting some of the main phonotactics of IE-speaking people. Separating the diverse syllables that look like roots from the final and mostly very repetitive endings, I think we can deduce that they had grammatical relevance in structuring the sentences, because if you arrange some of the words to form distinct sentences and place them side by side you immediately notice that most sentences have some kind of -is/-us/-es, -em/-ten, -ut, -on and in some cases, rarer (maybe adverbs?), -esh/-eshi. If I'm allowed to speculate a bit, I'd say that the -s endings represent subjects, the -m stand for objects, the -ut and -on represent verb conjugations. They look IE at a first glance, but if they're really declensions and verb conjugations then they don't fit any specific IE form that would at least make these sentences partially intelligible.

Mimn-iś er-út.
Gaareśtad-eś rotn-em úvl-in.
Parten-úś pol-em iśair-on.
Tet ś-út tratn-eši.
Krúv-iś-ten-ag tr-út ipi-em rotn-eš.
Lútú-iś θalú iśperi-on vúl.
T-eś rot-em teú ai-ten taš-úr.
śoter merp-on kalatne.
n-iś vilat-oś pa-ten arn.
Ú-iś bal-eś-ten-ag
And-ś et š-út iak-út ter-ten teletaú
n-em pol-em t-išú śotr-iś e-úś

Cato
05-02-18, 12:14
Do you have any sources for your disagreement?

I'd love to see them. If it's wrong, perhaps the Wiki article should be amended.

Basically every book about Central Italian (Picenum = Marche) prehistory

This for example:

http://www.iipp.it/il-neolitico-delle-marche/
http://www.iipp.it/leneolitico-delle-marche/

Less scientific but still useful

http://www.provincia.mc.it/curiosita-cms/viaggio-nella-storia-insediamenti-preistorici-nelle-marche/

PS. i thought the mistake was in the paper

Angela
05-02-18, 16:55
Basically every book about Central Italian (Picenum = Marche) prehistory

This for example:

http://www.iipp.it/il-neolitico-delle-marche/
http://www.iipp.it/leneolitico-delle-marche/

Less scientific but still useful

http://www.provincia.mc.it/curiosita-cms/viaggio-nella-storia-insediamenti-preistorici-nelle-marche/

PS. i thought the mistake was in the paper

No, it's from Wiki. I provided the link.

They're not talking about the area in general. They're talking about the specific settlement.

Cato
05-02-18, 17:22
The paper is about Novilara but the wiki page is about Picenum in general.

I dont have specific data about Novilara but i know that the province of Pesaro is frequented by humans since the UP

Angela
05-02-18, 17:34
Why it should be I have no idea, but the first paper was blocked by my computer for malicious malware.

The second paper is very informative, however, both about the Neolithic and the Metal Ages.

Either the Wiki authors don't know this information, or they're talking specifically about the settlements of the Piceni of history. I think this would be a great opportunity for you to provide the data and citations and make that very short and incomplete wiki article better.

Sile
05-02-18, 18:32
http://www.academia.edu/31815386/Novilara_an_instance_of_ancient_mixed_language
.
The inscription of the Novilara stele is the most obscure text of the Italic group of inscription from the Picenum. It is also the only one having a certain length of the so called North Picene group. Moreover its exceptionally good state of preservation makes of it a unique document.
.
and
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/03014460.2017.1414876/suppl_file/iahb_a_1414876_sm3288.pdf

Sile
05-02-18, 18:43
Why it should be I have no idea, but the first paper was blocked by my computer for malicious malware.

The second paper is very informative, however, both about the Neolithic and the Metal Ages.

Either the Wiki authors don't know this information, or they're talking specifically about the settlements of the Piceni of history. I think this would be a great opportunity for you to provide the data and citations and make that very short and incomplete wiki article better.

For me, in the past week, many of your links are unreadable ..........have you changed anything?

Cato
05-02-18, 18:50
Just for curiosity

Average height of the men buried in Novilara was 165,4 cm, that of the women 154,2 cm.

All the skulls studied were dolicocephals except one

Angela
05-02-18, 18:52
No one else has said anything, so I have no idea. There was one post which for some reason came out unintelligible, but I edited it.

Please post a link to the ones you mean, so I can look at them.

Pax Augusta
05-02-18, 19:05
Just for curiosity

Average height of the men buried in Novilara was 165,4 cm, that of the women 154,2 cm.

All the skulls studied were dolicocephals except one

Could you provide a source?

Cato
05-02-18, 20:04
Could you provide a source?Giuseppe Sergi, i sepolcreti di Novilara. I know that it's very old but there are pictures of the skulls and the average height is typical for that period (Iron Age Germans or Scandinavians werent much taller).

Sergi was quoted by Coon (i think)


To the Illyrian group may have belonged the people who buried in the cemetery of Novilara, on the central Adriatic coast, 55 about the eight century B.C., contemporaneously with the Villanova people. The site belonged to a tribe called the Piceni, who in the seventh and sixth centuries developed a high culture and later declined, becoming subjects of Rome.

The doubt as to their ethnic origin may be partly dispelled by a knowledge of their physical remains. A series of eighteen male and thirteen female skulls is homogeneously dolichocephalic, with the low mean male cranial index of 71.2; the skulls are high-vaulted, narrow-faced, and leptorrhine. The series is very similar to those of Hallstatt Illyrians farther north, and the stature, 165.5 cm. for males, is tall enough to support this. Whether or not they spoke Illyrian, they were of Illyrian racial type, and the Illyrian invasion of northeastern Italy was undoubtedly a real on in the racial sense.


Not that skull shape and height are very informative but even mtDNA, alone, is not that useful

Ygorcs
05-02-18, 21:49
http://www.academia.edu/31815386/Novilara_an_instance_of_ancient_mixed_language

This was a very interesting read. I wasn't really convinced on some of the proposed etymologies and the way they conveniently assumed some weirder words must be personal names, but it's still one of the better hypothesis for the meaning and identification of the North Picene language that I've read (and I've searched quite a lot about this without much success).

If I may speculate as the mere amateur that I am, I'd say that based on this "mixed Italic-Germanic-Greek-Illyrian language" hypothesis the impressions about North Picene sound quite similar to what is also said about Venetic and Liburnian, also spoken right in the Adriatic coastal regions. That could not be just a coincidence. About Venetic it is also said that it is unusual in that much of it looks Italic with hints of Celtic but also a clearly significant Germanic influence... or maybe, should I say, we're not dealing with a mixed language at all, but just a lost "central" or "intermediary" branch that shared many isoglosses with both Italo-Celtic and Germanic, also sharing some close contacts with Illyrian.

That sounds to more likely than an Italic language under heavy influence of Scandinavian Germans in the Iron Age Adriatic region. I find it at least plausible that Venetic, North Picene and other languages (maybe also Liburnian) spoken in the same broad aria were the remnants of a little known IE family roughly between Germanic, Italic and Illyrian (maybe once spoken amidst the urheimaten of those languages, in Central Europe or maybe Pannonia?), which by the time they were recorded had been more or less changed by the centuries-long influence of other more dominant languages like Illyrian, Italic and Greek. That would explain why they can't fit in any particular branch and even look so divergent in many words.

Sile
06-02-18, 06:34
This was a very interesting read. I wasn't really convinced on some of the proposed etymologies and the way they conveniently assumed some weirder words must be personal names, but it's still one of the better hypothesis for the meaning and identification of the North Picene language that I've read (and I've searched quite a lot about this without much success).
If I may speculate as the mere amateur that I am, I'd say that based on this "mixed Italic-Germanic-Greek-Illyrian language" hypothesis the impressions about North Picene sound quite similar to what is also said about Venetic and Liburnian, also spoken right in the Adriatic coastal regions. That could not be just a coincidence. About Venetic it is also said that it is unusual in that much of it looks Italic with hints of Celtic but also a clearly significant Germanic influence... or maybe, should I say, we're not dealing with a mixed language at all, but just a lost "central" or "intermediary" branch that shared many isoglosses with both Italo-Celtic and Germanic, also sharing some close contacts with Illyrian.
That sounds to more likely than an Italic language under heavy influence of Scandinavian Germans in the Iron Age Adriatic region. I find it at least plausible that Venetic, North Picene and other languages (maybe also Liburnian) spoken in the same broad aria were the remnants of a little known IE family roughly between Germanic, Italic and Illyrian (maybe once spoken amidst the urheimaten of those languages, in Central Europe or maybe Pannonia?), which by the time they were recorded had been more or less changed by the centuries-long influence of other more dominant languages like Illyrian, Italic and Greek. That would explain why they can't fit in any particular branch and even look so divergent in many words.
thanks
my guess would be ancient istrian ( histri ) which is northern illyrian, the celts started merging with the eastern alpine illyrians before Halstatt and then began slowing moving south.
......so north picene as some state was liburnian, but I think that the west istria istrians mixed with the east istria liburnians to settle in north Picene prior to being either celtinizied or veneticized ( remember most of friuli was histri , towns like udine, oderzo and cormons to name 3)
.
BTW, out of Italo-celtic linguistic group came Illyrian , Thracian and Dacian all from a central Europe area ..........that's the latest theory

Cato
06-02-18, 13:38
They seems a seafaring people indeed (like Liburnians)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/f/fd/Arte_Picena_-_stele_di_Novilara_-_Pesaro.jpg

Sile
07-02-18, 18:41
They seems a seafaring people indeed (like Liburnians)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/f/fd/Arte_Picena_-_stele_di_Novilara_-_Pesaro.jpg

yes.....looks like migrational ship or for warfare and not fishing boats

Angela
07-02-18, 18:56
yes.....looks like migrational ship or for warfare and not fishing boats

What about it makes it a migration ship?

Sile
07-02-18, 20:07
What about it makes it a migration ship?

A "how we got here " ship.........clearly it looks far more than a fishing ship

Angela
07-02-18, 21:01
You still haven't told us what about that particular rendering tells you it's a "migration" ship.

Other than the thoughtful awning, what's so different from the Minoan trading ship?
https://peripluscd.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/minoan-ships-in-thera2.jpg

Sile
08-02-18, 18:21
You still haven't told us what about that particular rendering tells you it's a "migration" ship.

Other than the thoughtful awning, what's so different from the Minoan trading ship?
https://peripluscd.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/minoan-ships-in-thera2.jpg

Cato post shows the picene Novilara ships...........the 2 on the bottom are fighting each other which is the warfare I mentioned and the top is dropping off people and what looks like cloth
These ships are typical Liburnian ships

Cato
08-02-18, 18:29
According to wikipedia

A stone tablet (Stele di Novilara) found near ancient Pisaurum (Pesaro) shows a liburnian in the scene of a naval battle. Dated to the 5th or 6th century BC, the image possibly depicts an imaginary battle between Liburnian and Picene fleets. The liburnian was presented as light type of the ship with one row of oars, one mast, one sail and prow twisted outwards. Under the prow there was a rostrum made for striking the enemy ships under the sea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburna

Angela
08-02-18, 19:07
Cato post shows the picene Novilara ships...........the 2 on the bottom are fighting each other which is the warfare I mentioned and the top is dropping off people and what looks like cloth
These ships are typical Liburnian ships

That was my point, Sile. They look either like fighting ships or trade ships.

I suppose given that they had valuable cargo, sometimes they were both, i.e. the Minoans often fought off pirates. Piracy appears to have been a perpetual scourge in the Mediterranean.

Sile
08-02-18, 19:08
That was my point, Sile. They look either like fighting ships or trade ships.

I suppose given that they had valuable cargo, sometimes they were both, i.e. the Minoans often fought off pirates. Piracy appears to have been a perpetual scourge in the Mediterranean.

ok...I misunderstood

Ygorcs
08-02-18, 19:13
thanks
my guess would be ancient istrian ( histri ) which is northern illyrian, the celts started merging with the eastern alpine illyrians before Halstatt and then began slowing moving south.
......so north picene as some state was liburnian, but I think that the west istria istrians mixed with the east istria liburnians to settle in north Picene prior to being either celtinizied or veneticized ( remember most of friuli was histri , towns like udine, oderzo and cormons to name 3)
.
BTW, out of Italo-celtic linguistic group came Illyrian , Thracian and Dacian all from a central Europe area ..........that's the latest theory

I find that theory really unlikely, considering that virtually all linguists who have analyzed the few remains of Dacian and Thracian point out to clear connections (lexical and phonological) with Balto-Slavic and even with Greek and Germanic much more than Italo-Celtic. If Albanian is a remnant of either Illyrian or Daco-Thracian, then this would be another factor opposing a Pre-Italo-Celtic origin for one of those branches, because, if you take the many loanwords out, the native vocabulary of Albanian is a lot closer to Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic, in this decreasing order, and shares much less with Italo-Celtic. In my opinion, it's more likely that Daco-Thracian was a branch neighboring Balto-Slavic and Illyrian a sort of mid-term between Italo-Celtic and Daco-Thracian.

Sile
08-02-18, 19:24
I find that theory really unlikely, considering that virtually all linguists who have analyzed the few remains of Dacian and Thracian point out to clear connections (lexical and phonological) with Balto-Slavic and even with Greek and Germanic much more than Italo-Celtic. If Albanian is a remnant of either Illyrian or Daco-Thracian, then this would be another factor opposing a Pre-Italo-Celtic origin for one of those branches, because, if you take the many loanwords out, the native vocabulary of Albanian is a lot closer to Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic, in this decreasing order, and shares much less with Italo-Celtic. In my opinion, it's more likely that Daco-Thracian was a branch neighboring Balto-Slavic and Illyrian a sort of mid-term between Italo-Celtic and Daco-Thracian.
from a recent linguistic study from Undrea 2017
Romanian language is of Thraco-Dacian origin which, over a period of 2000 years was influenced by Latin, Slavic, or other languages. In this context, I have to mention that Thraco-Illyrian dialects were closely related to the Italic languages (dialects), since most Italic tribes migrated from either the Balkan Peninsula, the Middle Danube Valley (today’s Hungary or Pannonia as it was called in ancient times), or from Upper Danube Valley (today’s southern Germany). In other words, many of so-called ‘Latin’ words are not, in fact, of Latin origin, but they belong to a common Thraco-Illyro-Italic heritage.

Linguists consider that Thraco-Dacian was a satem language, but in fact, it was closely related to the Celtic and Italic languages. The Thraco-Dacian language shares some phonological features with Osco-Umbrian and Continental Celtic. The phonogical features of Romanian words of Thraco-Dacian origin show clear centum evolution. In other words, Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian were centum languages as I will show later. Looking at linguistic and historical data, we may assume that, towards the end of second millenium BC, all these languages emerged as separate dialects. At the beginning of the Iron Age, the Thraco-Dacians, Illyrians, and Celts occupied most of Europe, from Meotic Lake (today’s Azov Sea) to the Pyrenees Mountains. In other words, originally, the Celts emerged as an individual group west of the Thraco-Illyrians.
The French historian Arbois de Jubainville (1889-1894), citing the Roman writer Eusebius Pamphilius, shows that Osco-Umbrians migrated from the Upper Danube River into the Italian Penninsula, around 1200-1300 BC. We may assume that at that time the Thraco-Dacian, Illyrian, Italic, and Celtic tribes were speaking similar dialects, judging by some historical and linguistic data. About the same time, the Dorians (a Thraco-Illyrian tribe) migrated into Greece. They became Greek speakers, but kept some phonological features of their original language. The Dorian dialect and other Western and Northern Greek dialects have labialized the Proto-Indo-European labiovelars (as did Thraco-Illyrian, Osco-Umbrian, and Continental Celtic), unlike the Ionian dialect which did not. Thus, PIE *kwetwor ‘four’ > Dorian Greek péttares, Lesbian péttures, as well as Homeric Greek písures, are forms influenced by Thraco-Illyrian, but Ionian Greek téttares.

The Relationship between the Thraco-Illyrian, Italic, and Celtic Language.
Indo-Europeanists divide the Celtic and Italic languages into two major groups: the Q-dialects and P-dialects. The Q-Celtic dialects were those which were separated earlier from the main group such as Proto-Irish and Proto-Celtiberian, according to the treatment of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars in these languages. The P-dialects turned the labiovelars into bilabials, while Q-dialects turned the labiovelars into simple velars. Instead, east of the Pyrenees, the Celtic dialects have turned the Proto-Indo-European labiovelars into labials, like in Osco-Umbrian.

As I mentioned above, Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) treated the labiovelars differently, according to the phonological environment. Thus, those followed by front vowels (a, o, u) lost their velar feature, turning into a labial (p or b), while those followed by e or i turned first into simple velars, which later, perhaps in Late Thraco-Dacian (preserved as such in Romanian), turned into affricates or sibilants (see infra). This second phonological aspects brings Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian closer to the Balto-Slavic group. Regarding the treatment of labiovelars in the Italic languages, the situation is identical to the Celtic group, namely, Latin and Faliscan, which migrated earlier into the Italian Peninsula, kept the labiovelars, unlike Oscan and Umbrian, which have the same treatment of labiovelars as Continental Celtic. The relationship between Latin on one hand, and Osco-Umbrian on the other hand, was discussed by a number of linguists such as G. Devoto, R. S. Conway, M. S. Beeler, and others. Thus, Devoto states: “The separation of Latin from Osco-Umbrian is not an Italic fact, but an Indo-European dialectical one, since the Indo-Europeans came to Italy in two different waves” (cf. Tagliavini, Le Origine…, 2, p. 67), while Beeler comes closer to the historical and linguistic facts: “I don’t think that any of the innovations found in Latin and Osco-Umbrian is strong enough to be a irrefutable argument for an “Italic phase” conceived as a distinct linguistic community, separated in time and space since Indo-European. I would suggest Proto-Latin and Proto-Osco-Umbrian may have occupied neighboring areas in a still undivided Western Indo-European community” (Language, 28, p. 443).

they are talking about pre Latin Romania/Dacia

Ygorcs
09-02-18, 01:27
Looks very suspiciously pseudo-scientific to me.
Romanian a Daco-Thracian language, not coming directly from Latin, even though the regular sound rules of Romanian almost all lead to a huge vocabulary that is identical (not similar, identical) to Vulgar Latin forms?
Should we then really assume the very convenient and also totally improbable hypothesis that Latin simply preserved the exact same lexical forms of a previous "Proto-Italo-Celtic-Thraco-Illyrian" certainly spoken more than 1,500 years earlier?
And Dacian being grouped together with Illyrian as one and the same language family, instead of being grouped only with its closely related sibling Thracian?
And the statement that Illyrian was actually very close to Italic even though linguists consider that there was strong satemization in Illyrian?
And if Dacian and Thracian and Illyrian are all part of one common branch that is actually very closely related to Italic, then where did Albanian come from if not from Illyrians, from Dacians or from Thracians of the past (these 3 are all the most plausible alternative hypothesis for its origin)? After all, we know that Albanian's lexical origins are closer to Balto-Slavic, Greek and Germanic than to Italic and Celtic.

Well, we can say that this is a hypothesis by one linguist whose name also looks suspiciously Romanian and probably may have nationalist aims to portray his people's language as "indigenous" to the area, but still we can't say that this is a "most recent theory". It's not well supported by a large number of linguists, and in his text itself he makes it clear that he is contradicting and challenging what many or most linguists consider true. A "theory" is, well, a theory, not just a fringe hypothesis.

Sile
09-02-18, 02:17
Looks very suspiciously pseudo-scientific to me.
Romanian a Daco-Thracian language, not coming directly from Latin, even though the regular sound rules of Romanian almost all lead to a huge vocabulary that is identical (not similar, identical) to Vulgar Latin forms?
Should we then really assume the very convenient and also totally improbable hypothesis that Latin simply preserved the exact same lexical forms of a previous "Proto-Italo-Celtic-Thraco-Illyrian" certainly spoken more than 1,500 years earlier?
And Dacian being grouped together with Illyrian as one and the same language family, instead of being grouped only with its closely related sibling Thracian?
And the statement that Illyrian was actually very close to Italic even though linguists consider that there was strong satemization in Illyrian?
And if Dacian and Thracian and Illyrian are all part of one common branch that is actually very closely related to Italic, then where did Albanian come from if not from Illyrians, from Dacians or from Thracians of the past (these 3 are all the most plausible alternative hypothesis for its origin)? After all, we know that Albanian's lexical origins are closer to Balto-Slavic, Greek and Germanic than to Italic and Celtic.
Well, we can say that this is a hypothesis by one linguist whose name also looks suspiciously Romanian and probably may have nationalist aims to portray his people's language as "indigenous" to the area, but still we can't say that this is a "most recent theory". It's not well supported by a large number of linguists, and in his text itself he makes it clear that he is contradicting and challenging what many or most linguists consider true. A "theory" is, well, a theory, not just a fringe hypothesis.
I do not understand your first sentence............but, clearly the Romanians/Dacians learnt Latin after the Romans arrived, they did not know Latin before then. So the consensus in summary is the out of Celtic-Italia branch came thracian, Dacian and Illyrian ..............pannonia area was known as a mix of Illyrian, Dacian and Celtic languages.
The Albanian thingy with Illyrian must be late ..........you do know that Romans first recorded the existence of Albanians not before 150AD by ptolemy the roman historian ..........
Illyrian had to be close to Italic and celtic, they where first noted in Eastern Austria circa 1600BC and then around 1000BC the celts from central germany started mixing with them so by the time of Halstatt culture which was a mix of celtic and Illyrian people the language would have been similar.
The Histri ( west istrian ) also where illyrians because strabo says they ruled over modern Oderzo , Udine , Cormons and other North-East Italian places
.
in regards to satem and centrum......how valid is the difference in regards to people....we see many ethnic tribes living side by side in many parts of Europe and they are noted either satem or centrum......yet the trade with each other heavily.
..
.
I made a map for myself based on Strabo and Levy roman texts on Illyrian tribes ..........It ranges from 700BC to 1600BC ..............I update it every time I gather more info
https://s20.postimg.org/3pcoqouf1/illy_nori.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
where it simply says illyrian is because I have not worked out exactly the tribe name

Ygorcs
09-02-18, 11:38
The author you used as a reference stated that Romanian IS a Thraco-Illyrian language. Absolute nonsense. Also, no, there is no consensus at all among linguists that Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian come from the Italo-Celtic family. I'd be glad if you could provide at least some other sources that can indicate there is a "consensus" about this hypothesis, especially since the source you provided is loaded with fanciful statements like that of the "Thraco-Illyrian origin of Romania".

But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.

Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).

We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.

In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.

Litovoi
09-02-18, 14:38
I find the distribution of the following root ,*mal ,more than interesting, encompassing the Celtic,Osco-Umbrian,Dacian,Illyrian,Thracian and Greek areas,these terms are ultimately inherited in Albanian,where it designates the mountain, while Romanian has kept another meaning, shore.

Dacia Maluensis was located along the Danube SHORES ,RIDGES and GORGES(only from this area you could have initally marched northwards, quite safely,by helding both banks and crossing the Trajan's Bridge,near the Iron Gates),that ended in the highly-strategical Viminacium, Mosia Superior's capital and a former legionary camp,explaining the semantical evolution for the Romanian word.

Naturally, these regions are not unique, it definitely is the place to mention here Singidunum, located on a ridge, between the Danube and Sava.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=WO7SyVrSNboC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=malontum&source=bl&ots=SAeD-VUnDR&sig=aw4JjGIHzx5DA320OSYgnMeEr-U&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifqejC55jZAhVBElAKHUQOAPIQ6AEwAnoECBMQA Q#v=onepage&q=malontum&f=false


https://books.google.ro/books?id=MNSyT_PuYVMC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=kostolac+danube+ridge&source=bl&ots=uMuda0Ji4T&sig=Zn0KAwcT-lAnQmRhSfArupUqvGY&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmnKLo8pjZAhUPblAKHQ8HB3QQ6AEwAHoECA4QA Q#v=onepage&q=kostolac%20danube%20ridge&f=false

Litovoi
09-02-18, 15:39
https://www.britannica.com/place/Benevento-Italy
EDIT:

Malata Bononia,Banostor:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6060/
EDIT:
Malta,Locus Malontina,Austria,with a very interesting geography:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta,_Austria

http://www.austria-trips.com/Malta/Malta-Hotels.htm

Sile
10-02-18, 01:10
The author you used as a reference stated that Romanian IS a Thraco-Illyrian language. Absolute nonsense. Also, no, there is no consensus at all among linguists that Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian come from the Italo-Celtic family. I'd be glad if you could provide at least some other sources that can indicate there is a "consensus" about this hypothesis, especially since the source you provided is loaded with fanciful statements like that of the "Thraco-Illyrian origin of Romania".
But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.
Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).
We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.
In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.
I agree the language is mostly irrelevant when looking at geograpghy and history...............so we cannot link anything definite ...........we cannot even link language in the roman times , example.... no link between britons speaking latin in the isles and stating that they had Roman origins
so messapic as illyrian or balto-slavic for Dacian or celtic with Gualish people are all useless in terms of origins

Ygorcs
10-02-18, 01:29
Yes, basically this linguistic matter usually has some association, but no necessary connection with the genetic matter. A language spreads, diminishes, changes or is replaced without necessarily causing equivalent processes in the genetic origins of the people, in some cases not even the culture changes entirely, just becomes more or less mixed with the original culture of the incoming language. In my opinion, the traditional stance given by most linguists makes sense, which is that Daco-Thracian had ancestral links closer to Balto-Slavic on one side and Greek on the other side (geographically they were indeed roughly between those two language families), and that Illyrian, if Albanian indeed comes from one of the Illyrian languages, was more closely linked to Balto-Slavic and Greek (also nearby, to the northeast and the southeast of the original Illyrian homeland probably in the northernmost part of the Balkans and Eastern Alps).

It all fits neatly, linguistics, history, genetics (the Illyrian-speaking regions of Antiquity have a genetic profile very unlike that of most Celtic and Italic regions) and geography, but I definitely do not discard that Illyrian and Italo-Celtic may have influenced each other and even eventually become part of one big cluster of similar cultures and economies with closer contacts to each other.

There does not need to be ancestral linguistic links between the 2 IE branches for that to happen (just think of the close cultural links between England, France and West Germany since the Middle Ages), especially because as you say it happened with the Hallstatt, in the Iron Age, it was already way too late, when those languages would already have been very diverged even if they originally had come from the same IE branch.

FIREYWOTAN
15-02-18, 12:26
This morning I wanted to acknowledge the depth and issues of what has been collected. That requires a thank you to all parties. I've always tried to appreciate the information that I had only started with a tweet. Frankly, the curiosity rages and the more I read and collect the more I want to share but my current pools aren't deep enough.
Yet I did want to share this article:
Traumatic events and life-style in ancient Italian populations.Brasili P (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Brasili%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=15636074)1, Bianchi E (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bianchi%20E%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=15636074), Ventrella AR (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ventrella%20AR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=15636074).
Author information (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636074#)AbstractTraumatic lesions are commonly found in archaeological skeletal samples and provide useful information about various behavioral and cultural aspects of the populations. Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between the distribution and types of skeletal traumatic lesions and the different lifestyles of past populations. We examined three necropolises in central Italy. Pozzilli (VI-IV century BC) and Quadrella (I-IV century AD) are from the same geographical area (Molise) but belong to different periods; Novilara (IX-VI century BC) is located in Marche but belongs to the Iron Age like Pozzilli. The lesions observed at Pozzilli seem not to be accidental, whereas the traumas observed at Quadrella can be attributed to occasional, unintentional events. Cranial injuries observed at Novilara strengthen the hypothesis that the population was composed, at least in part, of warriors. Our results suggest the presence of a relationship between skeletal traumatic lesions and lifestyles of populations.
Thanks for sharing and hopefully I'll be able to add more.

Cato
24-02-18, 15:29
So....weapons weren't just ceremonials as many archaeologists say