Iapyges/Ἰάπυγες [Messapi / Dauni / Peuceti] of the South East (Apulia) are from a separate Indo-European branch much like the Indo-European Veneti/ἐνετοί of the North East;
- in contrast to the Indo-European Umbrians (ITALICS) of the Po Valley and Apennines;

Iapyges language (termed Messapic) known from ~300 inscriptions is Indo-European and considered to be from or closely related to Illyrian;

Greek Mythology however links the Iapyges/Ἰάπυγες to the Cretans - descendants from Iapyx

Herodotus - Book VII/CLXX
All their vessels were broken in pieces; and so, as they saw no means of returning to Crete, they founded the town of Hyria, where they took up their abode, changing their name from Cretans to Messapian Iapygians, and at the same time becoming inhabitants of the mainland instead of islanders. From Hyria they afterwards founded those other towns which the Tarentines at a much later period endeavoured to take, but could not, being defeated signally. Indeed so dreadful a slaughter of Greeks never happened at any other time, so far as my knowledge extends: nor was it only the Tarentines who suffered; but the men of Rhegium too, who had been forced to go to the aid of the Tarentines by Micythus the son of Choerus, lost here three thousand of their citizens; while the number of the Tarentines who fell was beyond all count.

Hyria = the modern-day Oria

Strabo - Book VI/CDXXV
They say that these Cretans were the party who sailed with Minos to Sicily, and that after his death, which took place at Camici, in the palace of Cocalus, they took ship and set sail from Sicily, but in their voyage they were cast by tempest on this coast, some of whom, afterwards coasting the Adriatic on foot, reached Macedonia, and were called Bottiaei. They further add, that all the people who reach as far as Daunia were called Iapygians, from Iapyx, who was born to Daedalus by a Cretan woman, and became a chief leader of the Cretans.
 
The IAPYGIANS were Cretans...Their heroes were Daunus, Peucetis and Messapus (fathers of the Iapygian race) they were brother to Oenotrus, father of the Oenotrians that settled Hesperia from Paestum to the toe of Calabria....sons of Lycaon who's father was Pelasgus, hero of the Pelasgian race. PELASGIANS were ultimately a mix of Lydian and Dardanians/Trojan/Teukrian elements. Coming from western Turkey, they migrated towards the Aegean islands and greece were they would be known as Danaans (Dauni?), Achaeans and pelasgians. The Achaeans would later arrive in and colonize Calabria. The Achaeans I believe, we're sons of the Ionians, who were racially classified biblically as brothers of Medes and Togarmah/Meschech Tubal etc.
 
Also the Ausoni people arrived first by sea to the Lipari islands before arriving in southern mainland italy, they where sons of Greek Odysseus and Circe of ancient Iberia (Georgia region.)
 
And the Aurunci are derivatives/cousins, at least related to the Ausonians. When the Greeks first arrived to colonize southern Italy en masse, they found 4 populations in southern mainland italy, all of this same categoric grouping: The Iapygians (Peuceti,Messapi,Dauni also known as Salentini maybe even "Calabri" I believe as the southern tip of Apulia was anciently known as "Calabria". There where the Enotri, the Chonii (allegedly another Enotrian people that arrived at the same time) the Ausoni and the Aurunci. Now, the Ausoni, coming from the sea towards Lipari islands first, and according to other evidence, where pelasgians, as where their similar Aurunci "offshoots". The Enotrians where obviously pelasgians as well, as we're the Chonii. It seems there was no Gallic invasion of the south or Celtic invasion, until the arrival of the Latins in central Italy. The pre-Greek substratum of southern Italians, seems to have been historically a Pelasgian one, having arrived from the seas to the east of Italy. Unless somehow I am wrong and the Samnites/Sabines or Oscans REALLY were Celtic people's, then southern Italy may have been dominantly Pelasgian, it would be nice to debate the Oscans/Samnites/Sabines origins; were they etruscanoid Pelasgian elements, or continental Celtic tribes; they were one or the other that's quite evident.
 
Aulus Gellius - Book I/X
the Horatii, talked clearly and intelligibly with their fellows, using the language of their own day, not that of the Aurunci, the Sicani, or the Pelasgi, who are said to have been the earliest inhabitants of Italy.

Sicani were Iberians and Pelasgi were from the East Aegaen;

So who are the Aurunci; If they are not from the Pelasgi because they spoke a diff. language than there are only two other options:
Either Indo-European Italics or Ligurians;
And both seems very probable;
 
Faliscan,Latin,Umbrian,Ligurian,Lepontic , Venetic speaking people's where probably italics; celts. Etruscan's and Raetic speakers where proto-Georgians/Armenians, Messapic speakers where Cretans; the Sabellic tongues where said to be related to the Oscan one and they where all somehow related to Umbrian, so take from that what you will, I don't know if the linguistic scenario also speaks for the genetic one. Piceni dialects as Sile stated may have been Umbrian with some Greek affect mixed in as well.

where did you pick up lepontic and ligurian were italic, and celtic akin to etruscan and raetic, and proto-armenian akin to georgian???
what we know about ligurian would put it between itlaic and celtic, an archaic form maybe, of western old I-Ean, lepontic was celtic, there were TWO rhaetic languages, apparently, one I-Ean the other close to etruscan at first sight, armenian is and were I-E; trying to link etruscan to proto-georgian is not completely stupid but it could have been an other family of pre-I-Ean anatolian-caucasic language, waiting to know more...
 
The Lepontic were certainly celts as the Orumbovii, Salassi, Taurini and other nearby people's where. The d fif cults is when we speak of the Ligurians; Apuani, Aares and such people classified as "Ligurians". I personally believe that the Ligurians where slightly different celts but were celts none the less. If the nearby Gallic tribes such as Vertamocorii and such were in any way related to the Ligurians then they too were celts. Look at the distribution of the Franco-Provençal language across the world, fort example. It's spoken in extreme northwestern Italy, southeastern France and Switzerland. Someone is responsible of the culture linked to that language. Who else could they have been? If they were notGreek substratum or an Etruscan type substratum, then they were eithera mix of one of those with celts, or they were solely celts.
 
Their culture is denoted as "Ligurian" because of the area it inhabits and because it is different from the other common Gallic cultures around it. But the ancient Ligures called themselves "Ambrones", which to me links them to more Northern Europe and those "other" Germanic migrations I spoke of. A Gallic relation/affinity has also been suggested by multiple specialists in the field, it seems that the Ligurian language has particularly strong Celtic affinities.
 
The sub-divisions of their tribes were the Apuani, Friniates, cavalries, bagienni, langenses, the Vocontii etc. to me these names sound Celtic, maybe even Gallic. The Vocontii, for example, a Ligurian tribe, were settled in the Provence region of southeastern France and have always been linked to it. Provence was known as Provença. The Ligurians to me are linked to the spread of the Franco-Provençal Gallic language; this means Ligurians probably inhabited northwestern Italy, southeastern and south central France and all across Switzerland anciently, any monuments or archeological finds attributed to this culture is of a Celtic one.
 
It is this type of migration that most clearly denotes a migration of Gallic people and of R-S28 haplogroup from the latter regions towards Italy. Probably from parts of France or Switzerland (50% R-S28 for the latter) towards Cuneo, Brescia and the Tuscany region (40-50% R-S28).
 
The "Vocontii" Ligurians, were a Gallic people centred in modern day Luc-en-diois and vaison la romaine in France. The Taurini were a gallo-Ligurian people in the center of Piemont. The Salyes (Salluvi) were centered on the Durance plain of France. The Oxybii have a similar origin in France but are under the Ligurian banner as well. The Taurini, Statielli, Salassi and Marici on the other hand, were Ligures as well, but they inhabited the northwestern reaches of Italy. The Laevi inhabited Italy as well. The same cannot be said for the Deciates though as the inhabited the region near Antibes near the Var river area of France. The Ligurian culture spans out perfectly with the spread of Franco-Provençal, need anymore. Need anymore evidence that they where Gauls? They're at least celts.
 
I mean, considering they inhabited northwestern Italy near the French border, who else could the Ligurians have been if they were not some sort of Greek substratum that magically explains the E3b high in he area. I really doubt it as their language and customs are distantly similar to Celtic and because of all the aforementioned evidence and due to their geographical position in Italy, I give to them a Gallic origin, and if not, I would at least say they are celts, that may have arrived in southeastern France from the Halstatt culture or la tene culture or more probably as they were called Ambrones, they have a north Germanic origin, which may be that "factor" that makes them Ligurian instead of Gallic Celtic as most surrounding tribes are....there's a small possibility they may be celtiberians tribe as well but I truest doubt this and would either ascribe them a Gallic , but more probably Germanic origin.
 
One ancient Ligurian tribe, the Genuenses would found and give their name to Genoa in LIGURIA northwestern Italy. Another Ligurian tribe, the Helysici, lived in extreme southwestern France in the city of Narbonne.
 
The Laevi and Marici Ligurians were celts responsible for the foundation of Pavia. Ligurian tribes settled over much of what is today's southeastern France, Switzerland and northwestern Italy....i think they were Gauls with possibly a Greek substratum or something I don't know, needless to say, the geographical spread of the Ligurians makes them good candidates for celts, but Greeks settled Marseille so their spread across only Liguria,Piemont, Aosta and near Provence and one exception further west but it's a coastal settlement...they could also somehow be Greeks because the southeast coast f France was settled minority by Greeks and all that area is a minor Neolithic high especiallyE3b goes to 25% near genoa and possibly near Marseilles....but knowing that these people are called "Ambrones"... They're not Greek at all they sound certainly Celtic though! And their language was easily classified as indo-European with definite Celtic influence...
 
The Ligurians were clearly pre-Indo-European peoples becoming a Hybrid people of the constant inter-mixing with the Indo-European Umbrians; This is of course Historically and Anthropologically documented;


Anthropological Society of London - Anthropological review: Vol.V (1867)
when I look upon the delineations of the crania, the photographs and the figures given by M. Nicolucci himself, it appears to me that the difference between Ligurians and Umbrians, is about equal to the differences between Allemands and Germans.


The Ligurians themselves considered themselves to be of Ambronen (Umbrian) origins;

Plutarch - Life of Caius Marius Ch.XIX/IV
The Ligurians who were the first of the Italic people to go down to battle with them, hearing their shouts, and understanding what they said, responded by calling out their old national name, which was the same, for the Ligurians also call themselves Ambrones when they refer to their origin.


The Caturiges (Insubrian refugees) and the Vagienni (Ligurians) clearly demonstrate what has happened;

Plinius - Naturalis Historia Book III/VII & XXI
The more celebrated of the Ligurian tribes beyond the Alps are the Salluvii, the Deciates, and the Oxubii ; on this side of the Alps, the Veneni, and the Vagienni, who are derived from the Caturiges.......The Caturiges have also perished, an exiled race of the Insubres

And we all know that the Insubres [IsOMBRI] are nothing else than low-land Umbrians; And judging by the Urnfield Golasecca culture a very primitive and archaic people - which is exactly why Lepontic (their language) could very well also be P-Italic Umbrian (archaic);
 
The Ligurians of the Rhone-valley were no bit diff. then the Ligurians of the Po-valley and western Alps;
And why should they have been;


Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
Pliny held the Sallyi, Deceates, and Oxybii, tribes upon the coast, to be Ligurians. Strabo is more cautious; and informs us that later writers called the Salyes, who extended along the coast a little further than Massalia (Marseilles), Celto-Ligyes (that is, Gallo-Ligurians), from the intermixture of the Gaulish population; but that the earlier Greeks called them Ligyes, and the country which the Massaliots occupied, Ligystic or Ligurian........This agrees with the account of Scylax, who makes the Rhone the limit of the pure Ligurians. Avienus fixes the same limit and the same must have been supposed by Aeschylus. Herodotus also speaks of the Ligyes who dwell above Massalia and here we may observe that from this Grecian colony the Greeks might derive a correct knowledge of the neighbouring people.


The Oxybii and Deciates were also recorded as the 'Transalpine Ligurians' by Livius;

Livius - Book XLVII
The consul, Quintus Opimius, defeats the Transalpine Ligurians, who had plundered Antipolis and Nicaea, two towns belonging to the Massilians.

Strabo - Book IV/VI
The ancient Greeks gave to the Salyes the name of Ligyes, and to the country which was in the possession of the Marseillese, that of Ligystica. The later Greeks named them Kelto-Ligyes, and assigned to them the whole of the plains extending as far as Luerion and the Rhone. ......On the opposite side of the mountains, sloping towards Italy, dwell the Taurini, a Ligurian nation, together with certain other Ligurians.
 
Hopefully, we have recent studies since 1830 and 1867 !!
And if you read (in French) : Goudineau (1998), Guillaumet and Rapin ((2000), V.Kruta (2000), Garcia (2002 and 2004), J.Chausserie-Laprée (2005), P.Thollard (2009) or F.Régnier(2013), you will learn that the question of the Ligurians has made considerable progress.
Present historians don't see so much difference between Celts and Ligurians, and the Ligurian language is not so obviously considered as a pre-Indo-European one.
 
Hopefully, we have recent studies since 1830 and 1867 !!
And if you read (in French) : Goudineau (1998), Guillaumet and Rapin ((2000), V.Kruta (2000), Garcia (2002 and 2004), J.Chausserie-Laprée (2005), P.Thollard (2009) or F.Régnier(2013), you will learn that the question of the Ligurians has made considerable progress.

What question are you talking about?

But considerable progress sounds very exciting;
Just translate and post some quotes from those books - and highlight the considerable progress;
And could you add a list to all the new Ligurian inscriptions that were found; I thank you in advanced;

Present historians don't see so much difference between Celts and Ligurians

Not sure if you noticed it but the Anthropological study from 1867 states that the Ligurians and Umbrians were greatly identical;
Not sure if you noticed it but the Ligurians considered themselves to be from the Ambrones (Umbrians);
Not sure if you noticed it in all the 'progress' you are making but it is Anthropologically, Archaeologically, Historically (Caturiges) and Linguistically (Lepontic) attested that the Umbrians (mostly the Isombri/Insubres) greatly inter-mixed with the pre-Indo-European Ligurians;

In fact the Ligurians even adopted many elements of the Urnfield culture and Greek and Roman historians considered them equally Barbaric;

Lucan - Pharsalia Book I/CDXCVll
Ligurian tribes, now shorn, in ancient days First of the long-haired nations, on whose necks Once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme

Dionysius - BookI/XIII
let them be slow also in believing the Aborigines to be Ligurians, Umbrians, or any other barbarians, and let them suspend their judgment till they have heard what remains to be told and then determine which opinion out of all is the most probable.


The Keltic connection can only come via the Umbrians; Which isnt even surprising or dramatic;
The Umbrians (ITALICS) and Kelts are both Indo-Europeans and share a common close root within the Indo-European family (Linguistically/Archaeologically) and even Historically the Umbrians were documented as being of the same stock as the Kelts;

Cambrian Institute - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
Caius Sempronius (De Divis. Ital.) - 'The portion of the Apennines from the sources of the Tiber to the Nar, the Umbri inhabit, the oldest stock of the Old Gael, (Veteres Galli), as Augustus writes'
[Apenninum colunt Ligures, portionem vero Apennini inhabitant Umbri, prima veterum Gallorum proies, ut Augustus scribit]

James C. Prichard - Ethnography of Europe: Vol.III (1841)
Solinus informs us that Bocchus, a writer who has been several times cited by Pliny, reported the Umbri to have been descended from the ancient Gauls; and a similar account of their origin has been adopted, either from the same or from different testimony, by Servius, Isidore, and other writers of a late period.
[Bocchus (affranchi lettre de Sylla) absolvit Gallorum veterum propaginem Umbros esse]
[Umbri, Italiae gens est, sed Gallorum veterum propago]

Guy Bradley - Ancient Umbria (2000) [Oxford Uni. Press]
There is an interesting tradition that the name of the Umbrians came from their survival of a mythical flood: see Pliny, NH 3. 112. This tradition could go back at least to Marcus Antonius (Gnipho) in early 1st cent. BC. See Servius, Aen. 12. 753: sane Umbros Gallorum veterum propaginem esse Marcus Antonius refert: hos eosdem, quod tempore aquosae cladis imbribus superfuerunt Ombrous ἡ Ὀμβρική / Ὀμβρικός cognominatos. "Indeed Marcus Antonius reports that the Umbrians are an offspring of the ancient Gauls; and that this same people, because they survived the rains in a time of watery disaster, were called the Ombroi' "


PS: the Book from 1830 actually only quotes (word by word) ancient classical authors; So its practically timeless - i.e. un-outdateable;
 
To me the Umbrians/Ligurians "Ombrones" "Ambrones" were a pre-Gallic Halstatt culture remainder from the Danube region or maybe Germanic and went to Italy.
 
What question are you talking about?
But considerable progress sounds very exciting;
Just translate and post some quotes from those books - and highlight the considerable progress;
And could you add a list to all the new Ligurian inscriptions that were found; I thank you in advanced;
As you know, very little has been found. Instead of "progress", I should have said "change".
In the 19th century, there was a consensus on the fact the Ligurians spoke a pre - Indo-European language.
My reaction to your post was on "Ligurian were clearly pre-Indo-European peples". No it's not clear.
But, even if it's not clear, the nowadays trend is to consider more probable there were Indo-Europeans.

From A. Manonni (2006) :

"As we have not been able to define a geographic and material identity for the people the ancients called "Ligurians", it's impossible for us to define for them a linguistic indentity which would not be Celtic".
https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=...=qhc3cMUfn0qn1wLm35X10g&bvm=bv.54934254,d.d2k

From V.Kruta (2000) :

"The Ligurian language, badly known, has two different aspects : the first one, basically attested by onomastics, seems to be pre-indo-european, the second one, basically attested by inscriptions from the VIth century BC, is presently considered by some specialists as belonging to Celtic languages"


PS: the Book from 1830 actually only quotes (word by word) ancient classical authors; So its practically timeless - i.e. un-outdateable;
Yes, but as you know, the interpretation of these ancient texts has changed a lot for the last 150 years.
 

This thread has been viewed 57233 times.

Back
Top