Who where the Sabines?

MOESAN said:
I agree with you for the most: Ligurians are not at all for I believe, descendants of Lapps -
this concept 'alpins' = 'lapps' is old -
was it completely stupid? maybe not - 'alpin' phenotype seem having cristallized in western Alps a last mesolithic times upon a cro-magnid background and some scholars think Lapps (Saami) have roughly a half of their ancestors that came there from western Europe fater the LGM (based principally upon mt DNA it is true) - the 'asiatic' ('samoyed'???) part of ancestry among Saami came later, it is supposed - phenotypically, the mongolid part was very very scarce among Saami - they were rather a mix of proto-alpins with some east-cro-magnons of remote same origins, phoetallized in bad environment life, I think -
a proto-basque language could have been their one according to some survey about the substrata of Saami language - the finnic language came lately send by a group that became apparently the 'male' dominant group, where Y-N was heavy and some partly mongolid features were present -
Click to expand...

I know this post is not very centered on the subject of this thread, only an aside look :
I correct myself : Y-N is heavy enough among Saami but they have plenty of of Y-I1a too - I think Y-I1 came partly through South partly from South-East (Finland) when Y-N came only through South-East (Finland)
 
The Tropaeum Alpium records all the known Alpine tribes of the Augustan reign;

knae.jpg



Most of those tribes are recorded by Classical Historians with an ethnical/tribal description;
Most notably by Pliny and Strabo;


Most of the Alpine Raetic tribes had adopted the Etruscan alphabet and hundreds of inscriptions are documented;

Raetic Bronze-horse with inscription: Pirikanisnu / Dercolo, Trentino - 450 BC
2lgo.png


Raetic language is connected to the Tyrsenian and East Medit. Lemnian
 
Nobody1 said:
The Tropaeum Alpium records all the known Alpine tribes of the Augustan reign;

knae.jpg



Most of those tribes are recorded by Classical Historians with an ethnical/tribal description;
Most notably by Pliny and Strabo;


Most of the Alpine Raetic tribes had adopted the Etruscan alphabet and hundreds of inscriptions are documented;

Raetic Bronze-horse with inscription: Pirikanisnu / Dercolo, Trentino - 450 BC
2lgo.png


Raetic language is connected to the Tyrsenian and East Medit. Lemnian
Click to expand...

The 45 tribes of the raeti where not all raeti, strabo states the Brevni and Genavnes are Illyrian.
The the camvnni and Trvpilini along with the not listed Stoeni are the Euganei people who occupied all of veneto and friuli, before they where thrown out by the Veneti and carni tribes.
According to Pliny the Elder the Stoni people from Trentino were of the same stock as the Euganei. Cato the Elder, in the lost book of Origines, counted among the major tribes Euganeans the Triumplini of Valtrompia and the Camunni of Val Camonica.[2]
According to Livy they were defeated by the Adriatic Veneti and the Trojans. Their descendants settled west of the Athesis (Adige) river, around the lakes Sebinus, Edrus, and Benacus, where they occupied 34 towns, which were admitted by Augustus to the rights of Latin cities.


IIRC the etruscan is a non indo-european language and raeti is a indo-european language like Venetic, how are they similar?
Where does it raeti say it was actually was an etruscan language?, the raeti language is a semetic language coming from north caucasus area, did the etruscans come to italy via the alps.

http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/Toth_Brunner_Raetic.pdf
 
Sile said:
The 45 tribes of the raeti where not all raeti
Click to expand...

Do you mean the 45 Alpine tribes were not all Raeti?
Thats true and Strabo and Pliny describe them the best and precise;

Sile said:
IIRC the etruscan is a non indo-european language and raeti is a indo-european language like Venetic, how are they similar?
Where does it raeti say it was actually was an etruscan language?, the raeti language is a semetic language coming from north caucasus area, did the etruscans come to italy via the alps.
Click to expand...

Eichner (2012) - Univeristy Vienna [German]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(82)jlr2012-7(9-32).pdf

J. Whatmough - Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Vol. 47
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102545422911

Elżbieta Mańczak-Wohlfeld -
http://books.google.de/books?id=nP4...EwAQ#v=onepage&q=indo-european raetic&f=false

Maybe it was a Semitic language;
either way not Indo-European;


Raetic Archaeology: TIROLER LANDESMUSEUM
http://www.landesmuseum.at/pdf_frei_remote/VeroeffFerd_60_0211-0233.pdf
 
Nobody1 said:
Do you mean the 45 Alpine tribes were not all Raeti?
Thats true and Strabo and Pliny describe them the best and precise;
Click to expand...


I am unsure as the euganei are also described as liguri

the illyrians where there, some call them Nori (pannonian-illyrians), venetics where there, ladins also ( basically raeti that took the latin language and stuck with it over time) , vindelici there as well.

Clearly by the time the romans invaded the raeti where heavily celtinized/gallic

further proof from 2012 paper that by 300BC the venetics where celtinized in language
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf
 
Sile said:
I am unsure as the euganei are also described as liguri

the illyrians where there, some call them Nori (pannonian-illyrians), venetics where there, ladins also ( basically raeti that took the latin language and stuck with it over time) , vindelici there as well.

Clearly by the time the romans invaded the raeti where heavily celtinized/gallic

further proof from 2012 paper that by 300BC the venetics where celtinized in language
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf
Click to expand...

Great link;
But i wouldnt associate the Veneti with the Raeti to begin with;
The Veneti are proper wholly Indo-Europeans whereas the Raeti was a confederation of numerous tribes;
As you pointed out the Euganei were considered Liguri and Camunic is still not classified as a language;

Polybius - Book II
The part of the plain near the Adriatic had never ceased to be in the possession of another very ancient tribe called the Veneti, differing slightly from the Gauls in customs and costume and speaking another language.

from your source: J. Gvozdanovic - [Uni. Heidelberg]
Within Indo-European, Venetic is predominantly grouped with the western languages, but details still remain to be clarified (cf. also Untermann 1980). Venetic was a centum language (cf. Venetic ke < IE *k'e 'and', and IE *kwe > Venetic -­kve 'and').
As a prominent and relatively specific phonological feature, there was an a-reflex of IE laryngeals between consonants with parallels in Italic and Celtic, e.g. Venetic vha.g.sto 'made (an offering)', Latin facit, Oscan fakiiad from zero-grade of *dheh1 with -­k- extension (IE *dhh1-k-­) (cf. Wallace 2008: 126).
In morphology, Venetic probably shared with Latin and Celtic the ŏ-stem genitive singular ending ­-ī (e.g. keutini 'of Keutinos').
---

Not sure whether its Italic or Keltic that Venetic shares greater similarities
-Since Italic and Keltic share a common root themselves
Venetic was Indo-European but neither Italic or Keltic and has also been described
as proto-Slavic [Matej Bor];

Ventic inscription - Vicenza - 6th-4th cen. BC
3lev.png

.o.s..t..s. katus.ia.i.io.s. tona.s.to. a.tra.e..s. te.r.mon.io.s te.i.vo.s.
Osts Katusiaios donasto atraes termonios deivos
 
Nobody1 said:
Great link;
But i wouldnt associate the Veneti with the Raeti to begin with;
The Veneti are proper wholly Indo-Europeans whereas the Raeti was a confederation of numerous tribes;
As you pointed out the Euganei were considered Liguri and Camunic is still not classified as a language;

Polybius - Book II
The part of the plain near the Adriatic had never ceased to be in the possession of another very ancient tribe called the Veneti, differing slightly from the Gauls in customs and costume and speaking another language.
Click to expand...

I was trying to note that the previous link ( raeti language) states raeti and venetic where very similar

From your source: Gozdanovic [Uni. Heidelberg]
Within Indo-European, Venetic is predominantly grouped with the western languages, but details still remain to be clarified (cf. also Untermann 1980). Venetic was a centum language (cf. Venetic ke < IE *k'e 'and', and IE *kwe > Venetic -­kve 'and').
As a prominent and relatively specific phonological feature, there was an a-reflex of IE laryngeals between consonants with parallels in Italic and Celtic, e.g. Venetic vha.g.sto 'made (an offering)', Latin facit, Oscan fakiiad from zero-grade of *dheh1 with -­k- extension (IE *dhh1-k-­) (cf. Wallace 2008: 126).
In morphology, Venetic probably shared with Latin and Celtic the ŏ-stem genitive singular ending ­-ī (e.g. keutini 'of Keutinos').
---

Not sure whether its Italic or Keltic that Venetic shares greater similarities
-Since Italic and Keltic share a common root themselves
Venetic was Indo-European but neither Italic or Keltic and has also been described
as proto-Slavic [Matej Bor];

Ventic inscription - Vicenza - 6th-4th cen. BC
3lev.png

.o.s..t..s. katus.ia.i.io.s. tona.s.to. a.tra.e..s. te.r.mon.io.s te.i.vo.s.
Osts Katusiaios donasto atraes termonios deivos
Click to expand...

What italic was there if the etruscan was not italic and non indo-european, plus of the 360 venetic written finds, 6 are in western Slovenia, 21 in austria as far as innsbruck and the rest only in modern veneto, friuli and south tyrol/trentino areas. Clearly the ancient script was non celtic-italic but became celtic-italic by about 300BC ( note: the veneti went under Rome as an ally ( no wars ) from 189BC ) even though Veneti troops fought alongside Romans against Hannibal.
 
Sile said:
I was trying to note that the previous link ( raeti language) states raeti and venetic where very similar
Click to expand...

How is that even possible?
Raetic is non-Indo-European and Venetic is Indo-European;

Your second study perfectly explains Venetic;
J. Gvozdanovic - [Uni. Heidelberg]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf

As for your first study;
Im not sure how credible [Brunner-Toth] linking Raetic to Semitic even is;
Apparently most of Brunner-Toths adventurous linguistics has been rejected;
Here Brunner-Toth is linking Hungarian and Finno-Ugric to Sumerian
http://www.mathematical-semiotics.com/pdf/Rahetic and FU-U.pdf


Either way Raetic is non-Indo-European (whether Tyrsenian, Semitic or Isolated) so no link with the Indo-European Venetic;

Sile said:
What italic was there if the etruscan was not italic and non indo-european, plus of the 360 venetic written finds, 6 are in western Slovenia, 21 in austria as far as innsbruck and the rest only in modern veneto, friuli and south tyrol/trentino areas. Clearly the ancient script was non celtic-italic but became celtic-italic by about 300BC ( note: the veneti went under Rome as an ally ( no wars ) from 189BC ) even though Veneti troops fought alongside Romans against Hannibal.
Click to expand...

What Etruscans are you refferring to?

Livy recorded the Euganei in the Area before the Veneti pushed them out;
Polybius records the Veneti to be ancient inhabitants of that region;

Venetic is Indo-European but not of the Italic branch / pos. akin to;
Once again the study from J. Gvozdanovic perfectly explains that;

J. Gvozdanovic -
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf
Of these, only the Northern Adriatic Veneti left a set of mainly votive and funerary texts, classified by Lejeune (1974: 21) with some approximation into periods called Archaic (550–475 BC), Ancient (475–300 BC), Recent (300–150 BC), and Veneto-Latin (150–100 BC)./
Discussions about the linguistic classification of Venetic among the western Indo-European languages gear towards two major solutions: either treating Venetic as a relatively archaic Indo-European language with some similarities, but not unequivocally attributable to any other western Indo-European group (cf. especially Krahe 1950 and Polomé 1966), or assuming a close connection with Italic (especially Beeler 1949, or Euler 1993, who considers Venetic to be closely connected with Italic, but with archaic morphological traits)
---.

Yes the Veneti were always allys of Rome;

Polybius - Book II [~390 BC / Allia - Sack of Rome]
Not long afterwards they defeated the Romans and their allies in a pitched battle, and pursuing the fugitives, occupied, three days after the battle, the whole of Rome with the exception of the Capitol, but being diverted by an invasion of their own country by the Veneti, they made on this occasion a treaty with the Romans, and evacuating the city, returned home.
 
Nobody1 said:
How is that even possible?
Raetic is non-Indo-European and Venetic is Indo-European;

Your second study perfectly explains Venetic;
J. Gvozdanovic - [Uni. Heidelberg]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf

As for your first study;
Im not sure how credible [Brunner-Toth] linking Raetic to Semitic even is;
Apparently most of Brunner-Toths adventurous linguistics has been rejected;
Here Brunner-Toth is linking Hungarian and Finno-Ugric to Sumerian
http://www.mathematical-semiotics.com/pdf/Rahetic and FU-U.pdf


Either way Raetic is non-Indo-European (whether Tyrsenian, Semitic or Isolated) so no link with the Indo-European Venetic;



What Etruscans are you refferring to?

Livy recorded the Euganei in the Area before the Veneti pushed them out;
Polybius records the Veneti to be ancient inhabitants of that region;

Venetic is Indo-European but not of the Italic branch / pos. akin to;
Once again the study from J. Gvozdanovic perfectly explains that;

J. Gvozdanovic -
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf
Of these, only the Northern Adriatic Veneti left a set of mainly votive and funerary texts, classified by Lejeune (1974: 21) with some approximation into periods called Archaic (550–475 BC), Ancient (475–300 BC), Recent (300–150 BC), and Veneto-Latin (150–100 BC)./
Discussions about the linguistic classification of Venetic among the western Indo-European languages gear towards two major solutions: either treating Venetic as a relatively archaic Indo-European language with some similarities, but not unequivocally attributable to any other western Indo-European group (cf. especially Krahe 1950 and Polomé 1966), or assuming a close connection with Italic (especially Beeler 1949, or Euler 1993, who considers Venetic to be closely connected with Italic, but with archaic morphological traits)
---.

Yes the Veneti were always allys of Rome;

Polybius - Book II [~390 BC / Allia - Sack of Rome]
Not long afterwards they defeated the Romans and their allies in a pitched battle, and pursuing the fugitives, occupied, three days after the battle, the whole of Rome with the exception of the Capitol, but being diverted by an invasion of their own country by the Veneti, they made on this occasion a treaty with the Romans, and evacuating the city, returned home.
Click to expand...

ok

I thought I read raeti was indo-european since it was next to lepontic and venetic
 
Nobody1 said:
No problem;

Dont know if you have read about this already, but thats also a pretty good study on ancient Venetic

Prof. Wallace - (2008)
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~mimno/papers/venetic.pdf
Click to expand...

your above have been replaced by this 2012 paper
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr2012-7%2833-46%29.pdf






In regards to some words in your paper:

Tola(e)r is still used in venetian today, but it means "too take", it is broken down further to
Tor = Take as in take it if you like or
Tol = I want you to take it

the ego for I is interesting , it is represented in surnames from mainland Veneto ie Martinego etc, while Igo endings are true Venetian like Mocenigo , Barbarigo etc

The Dei is Di in venetian and it means day.
like Lunadi =......... luna=moon,........... di=day....moonday, is Monday
Italian say Giorno, go figure???, Giorno for venetians is between noon and evening
so
Notte = night
Notorada = day light
mattina = Morning
Mexodi = mid day
Giorno = early afternoon
Mexogiorno = mid afternoon
Sera = evening

Mego , is I have and Me ga is also used.
me = me


 
Definitely;

But i wouldnt say that Guozdanovic replaced Wallace;
Both of them are def. good studies on ancient-Venetic;

Guozdanovic -
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf
Wallace -
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~mimno/papers/venetic.pdf


Venetic alphabet(variants) and Inscription distribution;
o1k.png


Not sure from what year the map is;
maybe even more inscriptions have been discovered by now;


Funerary stele / Warrior on Horseback - Padova
hxic.png

-.e.nogene.i.e./neϑiio.i.e.p.pe/ϑtari.s.a.l.ϑa/reniio.i.
-enogenei enetioi eppetaris albarenioi
 
Nobody1 said:
Definitely;

But i wouldnt say that Guozdanovic replaced Wallace;
Both of them are def. good studies on ancient-Venetic;

Guozdanovic -
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr2012-7%2833-46%29.pdf
Wallace -
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~mimno/papers/venetic.pdf


Venetic alphabet(variants) and Inscription distribution;
o1k.png


Not sure from what year the map is;
maybe even more inscriptions have been discovered by now;


Funerary stele / Warrior on Horseback - Padova
hxic.png

-.e.nogene.i.e./neϑiio.i.e.p.pe/ϑtari.s.a.l.ϑa/reniio.i.
-enogenei enetioi eppetaris albarenioi
Click to expand...

Map must be not before 500BC as cennomani and carni are on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 47355 times.

Back
Top