Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 605

Thread: Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

  1. #101
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,276
    Points
    42,956
    Level
    64
    Points: 42,956, Level: 64
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,294
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
    And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
    My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.

  2. #102
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,943
    Points
    256,920
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,920, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
    And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
    My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.
    I agree with some of what you're saying.

    However, if I had to guess, the substructure in Italy is probably too precisely aligned with the groups in Italy before the Roman Empire for any massive effect from supposed "re-population" after the fall which just happens by chance to fall along the same cline that always existed. Northern slaves were sent to the south too, you know, and there were also Byzantines there.

    That was supposed to be what happened to the North in the case of the Langobards, i.e. "massive" de-population during the Gothic Wars, and then the entrance of the Langobards changing everything. I always doubted that, given that population figures for those periods cannot be verified, but also because even if there was de-population, the Langobards, even according to their own records, numbered only 60,000 people. There would have had to have been no one left for them to make a "massive" impact. I think I may have been right, given that they seem to have carried U-106, and there's precious little of it in Italy, other than in the Northeast, and even there it's a very minority component. Even if you add in I1, this was not a major change in Northern Italy.

    The Gallic tribes are perhaps a different story, especially if they carried some forms of U-152. For one thing, how different would they have been from the Italics in the first place? In the second, they arrived before 400 BC, which is when Ralph and Coop see foreign intrusion ending based on IBS analysis.

    As for the south, I think it may have been like the north. Is it possible there was some intrusion by Byzantines who came as refugees? Yes, indeed it is. Enough to significantly change things? It's possible but not highly probable, I think.

    Take another look at the two maps Jovialis posted.

    Anyway, we'll know soon. I hope they consulted with people who know something of Italian history and pre-history.
    Last edited by Angela; 19-12-18 at 20:02.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #103
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    Samnites, come from sabellics who origins are umbrians .............IIRC sabines are also in this group.
    .
    Messapians, Peucians and Daunian are the same people all originate from the Iapygian tribes
    recent Iapygian paper
    https://indo-european.eu/tag/iapygian/
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  4. #104
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,646
    Points
    73,494
    Level
    84
    Points: 73,494, Level: 84
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,356
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    In that post he relied heavily on the Ralph and Coop paper, as have I, in the sense that it has made me skeptical of the claims of people like Hellenthal, and disreputable figures like the Stormfront and apricity t-rolls that all the additional "Near Eastern" in Southern Italy is a product of the Roman and post-Roman Era. I guess we'll see pretty soon.

    It is rather remarkable how well that old "ethnic" map sort of correlates with the autosomal map posted by these researchers.
    Indeed, the DNA chart from the study, and the map of the ancient tribes are really illuminating. To me it strongly suggests that a massive re-population from those sources on the outskirts had gone underway. The urban areas had experienced massive de-population after the fall of the Roman state. Those t-rolls tend to use the musing of 19th century commentators to justify their reasoning. But the 19th century figures make a critical error, by comparing their time to the past. Immigration, and slavery were much different in the 19th century, than they were in the Roman era. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, and industrial revolution were unprecedented phenomenons that altered the demographics of North and South America. As Khan points out, immigrant populations only had long lasting effects when large public works were possible in the 19th century. The Roman cities were demographic sinks, that were radically altered after the fall of the empire. Roman slaves had a very short lifespan, and immigrants did not have continuous streams to sustain their communities. That's a far cry from the massive importation of slaves by international world powers to exploit the resources of far away lands, that was the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Or the industrial centers that attracted immigrants using steamboats, and planes. The 19th, and 20th century was extremely different from the Roman period.

  5. #105
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
    And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
    My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.
    The Carpathian basin is where I think a unified Germanic-Celtic-Italic ancestors would have existed at some point. The interesting part is whether Italic entered Italy from the north like Celtic did, or whether it came by sea perhaps from the Yugoslav region or surroundings. It sounds trivial, but think the route they'd have taken could have made a big difference in the autosomal make-up of the Italic invaders.

  6. #106
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,943
    Points
    256,920
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,920, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time.

    "Pallottino's presentation of the contemporaneous view of how the Indo-European languages on the left bank of the Tiber and southward and eastward arrived is as follows. Three waves of Indo-European language speakers, speaking closely related languages, arrived in small groups over time across the Adriatic sea and moved inland.[5] The first occurred in the Middle Neolithic starting with the Square-necked Pottery Culture and prevailed for the remaining Neolithic and the Proto- and earlier Apennine. The Latin language evolved ultimately from their speech, in Italy. The second wave is associated with Mycenaean civilization of the Late Bronze Age and brought the ancestors of the Italic language speakers into central and south Italy. They prevailed during the remainder of the Apennine. The third wave came with the Proto-Villanovan Culture and is ultimately responsible for the Venetic language speakers. Pallottino admits that this is a tentative and unproven interpretation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence, but he profers it as being better than the previous view of an invasion of Italic people from the north in the Terramare culture, which was distinct from and parallel to the early Apennine.The Apennine culture was in this theory always practiced mainly by speakers of unknown languages in the Italic branch of Indo-European, from which the historical languages later came. The term "Proto-Italic", in Pallottino's view, is less useful because there was no single proto-language in Italy. Such a language would have existed on the other side of the Adriatic (Illyria) in the Neolithic. The way of life of the population in the Apennine range also is consistent with an etymology of Italia as "land of young cattle" (see under Italy)."

    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture



    It would track with the Roman Empire before the conquest of the north, and the linguistic line, more or less.

    This is where the Rubicon was approximately located. When Caesar crossed it, he had invaded "Rome", or "Italia". Now, granted, everything south of it was richer, more civilized, and thus more worthy of being conquered, but there might have been other considerations.


    The linguistic divide in Italy:

  7. #107
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time.

    Indo-European languages in Italy unlikely all arrived from the same area. And certainly not the proto-villanovans arrived from the Adriatic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The linguistic divide in Italy:


    There is also a linguistic boundary in North Italy, Venetian and other NE languages don't belong to the Gallo Italic family.

  8. #108
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Indo-European languages in Italy unlikely all arrived from the same area. And certainly not the proto-villanovans arrived from the Adriatic.




    There is also a linguistic boundary in North Italy, Venetian and other NE languages don't belong to the Gallo Italic family.
    Are the
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camunni

    part of the Camunic language
    we know Rhaetic is closest to venetic
    Venetic and camunic seem the same age

    .
    Venetian is not part of Cisalpine Gual group
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul

  9. #109
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time.

    "Pallottino's presentation of the contemporaneous view of how the Indo-European languages on the left bank of the Tiber and southward and eastward arrived is as follows. Three waves of Indo-European language speakers, speaking closely related languages, arrived in small groups over time across the Adriatic sea and moved inland.[5] The first occurred in the Middle Neolithic starting with the Square-necked Pottery Culture and prevailed for the remaining Neolithic and the Proto- and earlier Apennine. The Latin language evolved ultimately from their speech, in Italy. The second wave is associated with Mycenaean civilization of the Late Bronze Age and brought the ancestors of the Italic language speakers into central and south Italy. They prevailed during the remainder of the Apennine. The third wave came with the Proto-Villanovan Culture and is ultimately responsible for the Venetic language speakers. Pallottino admits that this is a tentative and unproven interpretation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence, but he profers it as being better than the previous view of an invasion of Italic people from the north in the Terramare culture, which was distinct from and parallel to the early Apennine.The Apennine culture was in this theory always practiced mainly by speakers of unknown languages in the Italic branch of Indo-European, from which the historical languages later came. The term "Proto-Italic", in Pallottino's view, is less useful because there was no single proto-language in Italy. Such a language would have existed on the other side of the Adriatic (Illyria) in the Neolithic. The way of life of the population in the Apennine range also is consistent with an etymology of Italia as "land of young cattle" (see under Italy)."

    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture



    It would track with the Roman Empire before the conquest of the north, and the linguistic line, more or less.

    This is where the Rubicon was approximately located. When Caesar crossed it, he had invaded "Rome", or "Italia". Now, granted, everything south of it was richer, more civilized, and thus more worthy of being conquered, but there might have been other considerations.


    The linguistic divide in Italy:

    I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something

    Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.

  10. #110
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something

    Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.
    You confuse, as many do, the Villanovan culture with the proto-Villanovan. Villanovan is already a phase of the Etruscan civilization. Latial culture descends, as the Villanovan and Atestine culture, from the proto-Villanovan.

  11. #111
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    You confuse, as many do, the Villanovan culture with the proto-Villanovan. Villanovan is already a phase of the Etruscan civilization. Latial culture descends, as the Villanovan and Atestine culture, from the proto-Villanovan.
    I'm aware of the difference, but the main distinction between Villanovan and Latial seems to be location. It's really a single horizion, which is why Pallotino's outline makes sense to me.

    There's always the option that Villanovan was overtaken by Etruscan immigrants which left no trace in the archaeological record of course.

  12. #112
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I'm aware of the difference, but the main distinction between Villanovan and Latial seems to be location. It's really a single horizion, which is why Pallotino's outline makes sense to me.
    It's not just the location. The Villanovan is much more extensive than the Latial culture that has a much smaller territory.


    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    There's always the option that Villanovan was overtaken by Etruscan immigrants which left no trace in the archaeological record of course.
    How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.

  13. #113
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.
    Yeah, thats the question.

  14. #114
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    235
    Points
    2,077
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,077, Level: 12
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 73
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.
    The Bulgar Turks, who left little else than their name (Bulgaria): not their language, burial rites, or architecture. The same with the Varangians (Rus) in Russia.

    The Etruscans, if invaders, did manage to impose their language and religion, for a time, at least. Rome might have originally been a colony, with Etruscan males (Patricians?) taking wives from among the surrounding Latins (Plebeians?). The early Latins likely developed from the broader Villanovan (Urnfield) culture.

  15. #115
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,943
    Points
    256,920
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,920, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I don't think the analogy fits. The arrival of these groups is well attested in the archaeology; we know where they originated; their languages fit into well known language families.

    The only comparison is that these two groups were elite invaders who left no large, lasting influence on the host countries, and this may "perhaps" be the case with the Etruscans as well.

    The Etruscans just sort of seem to be there in the first millennium BC: there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. The later developments might be the result of intensive contact with the east, i.e. the "Orientalizing period", through trade. Other peoples scramble to come up with an "identity" for them, with the two most famous myths about them being that 1) they came from somewhere in Anatolia, 2) they were indigenous to Italy. Had they left more copious writings that we could interpret perhaps they could have provided some insight, but they didn't.

    It's possible it was an elite migration specifically to what is now Tuscany, but if so it's a very strange one. Perhaps it is instead a case of the filtering northward from Southern Italy of more heavily CHG/Iran Neo people from the Aegean bringing metallurgy with them?

    I don't know. We'll have to see what the ancient dna tells us.

  16. #116
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,276
    Points
    42,956
    Level
    64
    Points: 42,956, Level: 64
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,294
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    I think the Etruscans were an elite who became very wealthy trough trade and mining.
    They lived in fortified places in order to defend their wealth.
    Maybe they adopted some local language to differentiate themselves from the common people, who probably were IE in northern Italy by that time.

  17. #117
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    I mean the Etruscan weren't alone - their likely cousins the Rhaetians inhabited the largest part of the eastern Alps. Their territorries were almost contiguous. But really, I have no idea how that came to be.

  18. #118
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    The Bulgar Turks, who left little else than their name (Bulgaria): not their language, burial rites, or architecture. The same with the Varangians (Rus) in Russia.
    The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    The Etruscans, if invaders, did manage to impose their language and religion, for a time, at least. Rome might have originally been a colony, with Etruscan males (Patricians?) taking wives from among the surrounding Latins (Plebeians?). The early Latins likely developed from the broader Villanovan (Urnfield) culture.

    There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.


  19. #119
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.




    There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

    Then why did Villanovan culture speak Etruscan? What language did Proto-Villanovan speak?

  20. #120
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Then why did Villanovan culture speak Etruscan? What language did Proto-Villanovan speak?
    The alphabet in Italy was brought by the Euboean Greeks when they settled in Campania, southern Italy. So in Italy we only have inscriptions starting from 700 BC. Many centuries later the proto-Villanovan.

    We can't know what were all the languages spoken in Italy before the spread of the alphabet, and above all it can not be excluded that many languages ​​(both IE and non IE) spoken in Italy are not documented by the inscriptions.

    The oldest Etruscan inscription is considered one found in Tarquinia, in the north of Lazio (c. 700 BC). There are other inscriptions, not only Etruscans, that are still to be studied.

    Anatolian languages ​​such as the Luvian are already attested before the spread of the Euboean alphabet, and were written in two different writing systems, the Cuneiform Luwian and the Hieroglyphic Luwian, never found in Italy.

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    112
    Points
    1,572
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,572, Level: 11
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 278
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

    (The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

    "For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
    The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"

  22. #122
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

    (The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

    "For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
    The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"
    That's a copy and paste of a Beekes' text who tried to prove that Herodotus was right. Beekes was an Indo-Europeanist with the typical bias of Indo-Europeanists who think that pre-Indo-European languages are intrusive in the Iron Age Italy. In time this too will be completely discredited. In fact Etruscologists, even foreigners, did not accept the Beekes' attempt. It is a long speculation on the Lydians, given that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language and the Etruscans did not, Beekes is forced to speculate on a hypothetical proto-Lydian non-IE population of which we know nothing and not attested archeologically and linguistically.

    More recently, his co-author L. Bouke van der Meer, has accepted that Lemnos' inscriptions may have come with Etruscan colonists.

    L. Bouke van der Meer (2015)

    "As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language. The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages. The idea that the language families mentioned above have a common root (around 40,000 BC) is highly speculative. "

  23. #123
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    The alphabet in Italy was brought by the Euboean Greeks when they settled in Campania, southern Italy. So in Italy we only have inscriptions starting from 700 BC. Many centuries later the proto-Villanovan.

    We can't know what were all the languages spoken in Italy before the spread of the alphabet, and above all it can not be excluded that many languages ​​(both IE and non IE) spoken in Italy are not documented by the inscriptions.

    The oldest Etruscan inscription is considered one found in Tarquinia, in the north of Lazio (c. 700 BC). There are other inscriptions, not only Etruscans, that are still to be studied.

    Anatolian languages ​​such as the Luvian are already attested before the spread of the Euboean alphabet, and were written in two different writing systems, the Cuneiform Luwian and the Hieroglyphic Luwian, never found in Italy.
    Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.

  24. #124
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    20,290
    Level
    43
    Points: 20,290, Level: 43
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.
    Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins.

    It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.

    Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.

    - Vasconic languages
    - Proto-Basque
    - Aquitanian language
    - Iberian language
    - Tartessian language

  25. #125
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins.

    It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.

    Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.

    - Vasconic languages
    - Proto-Basque
    - Aquitanian language
    - Iberian language
    - Tartessian language
    My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.

    But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •