Cetina culture language

Galloman said:
If there is a consensus, it is that Liburnian is non-IE. The islands of Dalmatia (prior to Illyrian expansion) would have been pretty good refuge for the seafaring coastal inhabitants when the major IE wave swept over Europe in the BA so I consider it plausible. I do not consider it plausible that non-IE survived in Tuscany when there isn't any especially good reason why that might be. I think the Tyrrhenians and Ligurians derive from an Adriatic group like the Liburnians that effectively formed a wedge between an Italo-Venetic continuum *after* the Italo-Venetic migration into the peninsula.
Click to expand...


Liburnian looks like old-italic pre-roman times in its syntax
 
As in, there aren't even any writings of Liburnian. Everything that can be gathered is onomastic-based.
 
Galloman said:
Most of the more modern research suggests it isn't Indo-European but influenced.
Click to expand...

Link to modern research claiming that Liburnian isn't Indo European
 
Galloman said:
If there is a consensus, it is that Liburnian is non-IE. The islands of Dalmatia (prior to Illyrian expansion) would have been pretty good refuge for the seafaring coastal inhabitants when the major IE wave swept over Europe in the BA so I consider it plausible. I do not consider it plausible that non-IE survived in Tuscany when there isn't any especially good reason why that might be. I think the Tyrrhenians and Ligurians derive from an Adriatic group like the Liburnians that effectively formed a wedge between an Italo-Venetic continuum *after* the Italo-Venetic migration into the peninsula.
Click to expand...

I dont know where you picked your sources but here you have what says Wikipedia about that:
The Liburnian language is an extinct language which was spoken by the ancient Liburnians, who occupied Liburnia in classical times. Classification of the Liburnian language is not clearly established; it is reckoned as an Indo-European language with a significant proportion of the Pre-Indo-European elements from the wider area of the ancient Mediterranean. Some considered close connection to Venetic language of Adriatic Veneti,[58] particularly on the basis of personal names and formation of nomenclature.[59]
+
No writings in Liburnian are known. The only presumed Liburnian linguistic remains are Liburnian toponyms and some family and personal names in Liburnia presumed to be native to the area, in Latinized form from the 1st century AD. Smaller differences found in the archaeological material of narrower regions in Liburnia are in a certain measure reflected also in these scarce linguistic remains. This has caused much speculation about the language but no certainty.

Features shared by Liburnian and other languages have been noted in Liburnian language remains, names and toponyms, dating from between the Iron Age and the beginning of Common Era. These are insufficient for a precise linguistic classification, other than a general indication that they have an Indo-European basis, but also may incorporate significant elements from Pre-Indo-European languages. This also appears to be the case in their social relations, and such phenomena are likely related to their separate cultural development, physical isolation and mixed ethnic origins.[1][2][3]
Following studies of the onomastics of the Roman province of Dalmatia, Géza Alföldy has suggested that the Liburni and Histri belonged to the Venetic language area.[4][5] In particular, some Liburnian anthroponyms show strong Venetic affinities, a few similar names and common roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (< PIE *ghos-ti- 'stranger, guest, host'). Liburnian and Venetic names sometimes also share suffixes in common, such as -icus and -ocus.
Jürgen Untermann, who has focused on Liburnian and Venetic onomastics, considers that only the Liburnians at the north-eastern Istrian coast were strongly Venetic. Untermann has suggested three groups of Liburnian names: one structurally similar to those of the Veneti and Histri; another linked to the Dalmatae, Iapodes and other Illyrians on the mainland to the south of the Liburnians, and a third group of names that were common throughout Liburnian territory, and lacked any relation to those of their neighbors.[6][7]
Other proper names, such as those of local deities and toponyms also showed differing regional distributions. According to R. Katičić, Liburnian toponyms, in both structure and form, also demonstrate diverse influences, including Pre-Indo-European, Indo-European and other, purely local features. Katičić has also stated that toponyms were distributed separately along ethnic and linguistic lines.[8]


We may just say that in North they were surely close enough to Venetic speakers and that we lack strong evidence to qualifiy them further on. I see some I-E group dominating precedent non I-E people. The anthroponyms of someones could be trade partners of neighbouring ethnies more akin to southern Illyrianlike people. A transitional region, these western Balkans at those times.
 
MOESAN said:
I dont know where you picked your sources but here you have what says Wikipedia about that:
The Liburnian language is an extinct language which was spoken by the ancient Liburnians, who occupied Liburnia in classical times. Classification of the Liburnian language is not clearly established; it is reckoned as an Indo-European language with a significant proportion of the Pre-Indo-European elements from the wider area of the ancient Mediterranean. Some considered close connection to Venetic language of Adriatic Veneti,[58] particularly on the basis of personal names and formation of nomenclature.[59]
+
No writings in Liburnian are known. The only presumed Liburnian linguistic remains are Liburnian toponyms and some family and personal names in Liburnia presumed to be native to the area, in Latinized form from the 1st century AD. Smaller differences found in the archaeological material of narrower regions in Liburnia are in a certain measure reflected also in these scarce linguistic remains. This has caused much speculation about the language but no certainty.

Features shared by Liburnian and other languages have been noted in Liburnian language remains, names and toponyms, dating from between the Iron Age and the beginning of Common Era. These are insufficient for a precise linguistic classification, other than a general indication that they have an Indo-European basis, but also may incorporate significant elements from Pre-Indo-European languages. This also appears to be the case in their social relations, and such phenomena are likely related to their separate cultural development, physical isolation and mixed ethnic origins.[1][2][3]
Following studies of the onomastics of the Roman province of Dalmatia, Géza Alföldy has suggested that the Liburni and Histri belonged to the Venetic language area.[4][5] In particular, some Liburnian anthroponyms show strong Venetic affinities, a few similar names and common roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (< PIE *ghos-ti- 'stranger, guest, host'). Liburnian and Venetic names sometimes also share suffixes in common, such as -icus and -ocus.
Jürgen Untermann, who has focused on Liburnian and Venetic onomastics, considers that only the Liburnians at the north-eastern Istrian coast were strongly Venetic. Untermann has suggested three groups of Liburnian names: one structurally similar to those of the Veneti and Histri; another linked to the Dalmatae, Iapodes and other Illyrians on the mainland to the south of the Liburnians, and a third group of names that were common throughout Liburnian territory, and lacked any relation to those of their neighbors.[6][7]
Other proper names, such as those of local deities and toponyms also showed differing regional distributions. According to R. Katičić, Liburnian toponyms, in both structure and form, also demonstrate diverse influences, including Pre-Indo-European, Indo-European and other, purely local features. Katičić has also stated that toponyms were distributed separately along ethnic and linguistic lines.[8]


We may just say that in North they were surely close enough to Venetic speakers and that we lack strong evidence to qualifiy them further on. I see some I-E group dominating precedent non I-E people. The anthroponyms of someones could be trade partners of neighbouring ethnies more akin to southern Illyrianlike people. A transitional region, these western Balkans at those times.
Click to expand...
\
agree

but with Liburnians colonising Picene lands ( marche ) from circa 1000BC to 440BC.....they must have spoken an old Italic language that their neighbouring umbri would have understood or known

The territory of Martinscuro and Tronto was inhabited since Neolithic times, it was a town of the Liburni, a pre-Roman Italic population under the name of Trunetum, later called Castrum Truentum under the Romans,

Remains of a Bronze Age (10th-9th centuries BC) settlement were found in the communal territory, on a hill overlooking the Tronto river. At the river's mouth existed Truentum, remembered by Roman writer Pliny the Elder as part of the Roman region of Picenum, and attributed to the Liburni tribe.
 
torzio said:
It amazes me that they find one tablet (IIRC ) of etruscan in Rhaetic lands and they assume they are the same people.
it is the same as finding the etruscan tablet in lesbos.........it does not mean they are the same people.
Lesbos was a trading stopover place for etruscans and so was rhaetic lands............we even have the trading hub ( town ) called Cologna Veneta where etruscans, Venetic and Rhaetic traded their goods
Click to expand...

It's true that what we have in Rhaetia is very few and little. Some toponyms, some anthroponyms. But I did'nt read that the small traces found were litteral Etruscan but rather something evoking Etruscan. Not clear, ATW. And to compilcate things, there were some traces of an I-E dialect, maybe descendant of the so called Alt-Europäeisch and showing a lot of ties with Italic, with Venetic and with Celtic.
 
MOESAN said:
It's true that what we have in Rhaetia is very few and little. Some toponyms, some anthroponyms. But I did'nt read that the small traces found were litteral Etruscan but rather something evoking Etruscan. Not clear, ATW. And to compilcate things, there were some traces of an I-E dialect, maybe descendant of the so called Alt-Europäeisch and showing a lot of ties with Italic, with Venetic and with Celtic.
Click to expand...


check the map in link to see the only place the etruscan tablet was found ...between the Rhaetic and Venetic ones

https://tir.univie.ac.at/wiki/Script

they all seemed to have shared some form of a "trade language"
 
Galloman said:
If there is a consensus, it is that Liburnian is non-IE. The islands of Dalmatia (prior to Illyrian expansion) would have been pretty good refuge for the seafaring coastal inhabitants when the major IE wave swept over Europe in the BA so I consider it plausible. I do not consider it plausible that non-IE survived in Tuscany when there isn't any especially good reason why that might be. I think the Tyrrhenians and Ligurians derive from an Adriatic group like the Liburnians that effectively formed a wedge between an Italo-Venetic continuum *after* the Italo-Venetic migration into the peninsula.
Click to expand...

You have a very surpriding way to interpret the data, havn't you? The only doubts we could have is: are the speakers of what linguists identified as Liburnian (because found in the region History gives to Liburnians) the genuine or original language of the people named Liburnian. Maybe there were other challenging languages. But we needed to give a name to this very language.
So what we identify as Liburnian language (or dialect if you want) is a I-E language with certainty. The doubts are about its affiliation to known I-E families.
The today well kown families of I-E languages have overwhelmed quantities of cousin languages of the same old stratum (Alt-Europäeisch) which I think it has been sent by BB's. The intermediary weak ones have been swept out to give place to well evolved new families (Celtic, Italic BI). Our Liburnian would be one of them like Lusitanian, Ligurian, Venetic, Northwest Block...
 
torzio said:
check the map in link to see the only place the etruscan tablet was found ...between the Rhaetic and Venetic ones
https://tir.univie.ac.at/wiki/Script
they all seemed to have shared some form of a "trade language"
Click to expand...

Thanks Torzio. Interesting, despite it focused more on the alphabets used by these people than on the languages.
I want not engage myself in a no end exchange but on the provided map they distinguish Rhaetia places from Etruria places of founds, and they are separated by other Ethnies territories (Venetic & Celtic) so...? They don't seem considering Rhaetia as a simple linguistic extension of Etruria...
BTW in Rhaetia they don't specify if one or more languages was found with the concerned alphabet.
I have nothing to add by lack of more clues.
 
torzio said:
\
agree
but with Liburnians colonising Picene lands ( marche ) from circa 1000BC to 440BC.....they must have spoken an old Italic language that their neighbouring umbri would have understood or known
The territory of Martinscuro and Tronto was inhabited since Neolithic times, it was a town of the Liburni, a pre-Roman Italic population under the name of Trunetum, later called Castrum Truentum under the Romans,
Remains of a Bronze Age (10th-9th centuries BC) settlement were found in the communal territory, on a hill overlooking the Tronto river. At the river's mouth existed Truentum, remembered by Roman writer Pliny the Elder as part of the Roman region of Picenum, and attributed to the Liburni tribe.
Click to expand...

Concerning Picenian Languages, they were at least two.
South considered as an Italic one, North without too much reliable conclusions (some forged texts tocomplcate things!). So for North Picenian, a lack of sufficient texts to be sure of something.
That said, Italics dialects were already well broken off at these times, and the dialects linked to them only at the Meta-Italic stage were surely harder to understand.
 
MOESAN said:
Thanks Torzio. Interesting, despite it focused more on the alphabets used by these people than on the languages.
I want not engage myself in a no end exchange but on the provided map they distinguish Rhaetia places from Etruria places of founds, and they are separated by other Ethnies territories (Venetic & Celtic) so...? They don't seem considering Rhaetia as a simple linguistic extension of Etruria...
BTW in Rhaetia they don't specify if one or more languages was found with the concerned alphabet.
I have nothing to add by lack of more clues.
Click to expand...

you need to read all the left side also of the link i presented
 
MOESAN said:
Concerning Picenian Languages, they were at least two.
South considered as an Italic one, North without too much reliable conclusions (some forged texts tocomplcate things!). So for North Picenian, a lack of sufficient texts to be sure of something.
That said, Italics dialects were already well broken off at these times, and the dialects linked to them only at the Meta-Italic stage were surely harder to understand.
Click to expand...

picene was all one language , a mix of old -italic and liburnian...then the Sabellic of the umbri language moved into south-picene and replaced the existing language over time
 
torzio said:
picene was all one language , a mix of old -italic and liburnian...then the Sabellic of the umbri language moved into south-picene and replaced the existing language over time
Click to expand...

I 'm not aware of that, only one at first?
On another aspect, at least one of the languages rovering around Liburnia was an archaic-Italic language, so no need of a mix of Old-Italic+Liburnian, not by force, just a close enough archaic dialect of same stage.
 
MOESAN said:
I 'm not aware of that, only one at first?
On another aspect, at least one of the languages rovering around Liburnia was an archaic-Italic language, so no need of a mix of Old-Italic+Liburnian, not by force, just a close enough archaic dialect of same stage.
Click to expand...


agree ...............I think we already discussed this last year
 
As we know the Illyrian language and identity question is still confuse.
Apparently, the name would come from the Greek naming Illurioi, given Greeks to three tribes, Taulantinas, Enkhelai, Piraei, settled at the Northwest fringes of Greece, so not far from the Dardanoi. If we refer to the very name, Illyrians were a southern Illyricum group, without too much ties with the diverse people of northern Illyricum of the Romans times.
B. Sergent thinks their language was close enough to Messapian and to modern Albanian, with far links with Moesian/Dacian and Thracian, and surely Dardanoi, for what we know bout all these poorly attested languages.
Were Cetina people direct ascendants of these southern Illurioi, it's still a question.
The diverse downstream lineages of Y-J2b-L283, their geographic distribution and their dates of separation deserve attention.
 
MOESAN said:
As we know the Illyrian language and identity question is still confuse.
Apparently, the name would come from the Greek naming Illurioi, given Greeks to three tribes, Taulantinas, Enkhelai, Piraei, settled at the Northwest fringes of Greece, so not far from the Dardanoi. If we refer to the very name, Illyrians were a southern Illyricum group, without too much ties with the diverse people of northern Illyricum of the Romans times.
B. Sergent thinks their language was close enough to Messapian and to modern Albanian, with far links with Moesian/Dacian and Thracian, and surely Dardanoi, for what we know bout all these poorly attested languages.
Were Cetina people direct ascendants of these southern Illurioi, it's still a question.
The diverse downstream lineages of Y-J2b-L283, their geographic distribution and their dates of separation deserve attention.
Click to expand...


I can not find the 3 names you presented ?

or are they

Taulanti = a celtic tribe from the eastern alps

Enkhelai = are these the Eel people of Ohrid who where in Montenegro up to 550BC ?

Piraei = I can not find it anywhere

Below is the latest ancient J2b-L283 from the 3 jan. 2023

the bulk of the ancients are in Dalmatia

 
these 3 names do not appear on the internet except for this site ..........are they fabricated?

Taulantinas, Enkhelai, Piraei,
 
torzio said:
these 3 names do not appear on the internet except for this site ..........are they fabricated?

Taulantinas, Enkhelai, Piraei,
Click to expand...
I found them in Bernard Sergent about Indo-Europeans in the part which concerns languages. I 've no time justnow bit I 'll try to find more. He spoke of a Greek interpretation, but who did it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6537 times.

Back
Top