Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
By quoting "northern" and "southern" and following them with question marks I was trying to undercut the notion of them as designating origination, rather than simply where they ended up, in Italy.
Who the Etruscans or the Latins were and where they originated is a mystery. All we know with any security is that the Etruscans didn't speak an Indo-European language and the Latins did. It is quite possible that the noble "Etruscan" group were more Aegean/Anatolian (or "southern") in origination, while the peasant "Latin" group were more European/Steppe (or "northern"). Or maybe not.
That both the Etruscans and Latins, archaeologically, appear to have emerged from the preceding Villanovan/Urnfield culture presents us with a language conundrum - both can't be right. It is possible that the Etruscans were later intruders who became heavily admixed with the underlying ("urnfield") culture, imposing their language more than their genes. Or were the Latins the intruders, adopting the underlying ("urnfield") culture, but keeping their language? Or both were intruders? Who knows?
That's about where I wind up.