Cetina culture language

Galloman

Galloman

Regular Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Anybody have an idea of whether this group was IE or not? I'd imagine not seeing as they appear to be ancestral to the Liburnians but I'm not exactly sure either.
 
Galloman said:
Anybody have an idea of whether this group was IE or not? I'd imagine not seeing as they appear to be ancestral to the Liburnians but I'm not exactly sure either.
Click to expand...


yes , its an IE language as others have pointed out......looks like old-Italic in syntax ( pre-roman )

out of the shaded cetina culture as per map below

 
I dont know how you can possibly substantiate that from a map of the extent of the culture. They seem a good candidate for whoever the Ancient Greeks called Pelasgians if anything.
 
Galloman said:
I dont know how you can possibly substantiate that from a map of the extent of the culture. They seem a good candidate for whoever the Ancient Greeks called Pelasgians if anything.
Click to expand...

the only Pelasgians I know are the etruscans........liburnians seem more central european in origin ............although some say they are asiatic

The inference is that Hellanicus believed the Pelasgians of Thessaly (and indirectly of the Peloponnese) to have been the ancestors of the Etruscans.[39] ...I have no idea of that name, looks fabricated fantasy to me
 
I don't see what authorizes us to think Pelasgians were Etruscans ancestors. The origin of Etruscans could be everyhere among one of the Neolithic pop's descendants, in Central-South-Eastern Europe. Pelasgians is an uncertain term used by Greeks to qualify uncertain supposed preceding pop.
Liburnians spoke seemingly Italic language, close enough to southern Venetic. The question is: are the Cetina culture people exactly the same as Liburnians? They could have been Illyrians pushed later southwards by Liburnians, It needs more archeologic knowledge of mine, but there is a big chronological gap between Cetina and Liburnians.
The supposed Etruscan origin of Liburnians posited by some Ancients, is without any proof, but it isn't impossible that a Etruscan(like) substratum would have existed there until early BA. I think that a long enough Etruscan/Italic contact (BA to IA) could have perdured, where some contacts pop's very close one to another had finally opted for Italic or Etruscan dialects spite being become genetically close enough ne to another.
 
MOESAN said:
I don't see what authorizes us to think Pelasgians were Etruscans ancestors. The origin of Etruscans could be everyhere among one of the Neolithic pop's descendants, in Central-South-Eastern Europe. Pelasgians is an uncertain term used by Greeks to qualify uncertain supposed preceding pop.
Liburnians spoke seemingly Italic language, close enough to southern Venetic. The question is: are the Cetina culture people exactly the same as Liburnians? They could have been Illyrians pushed later southwards by Liburnians, It needs more archeologic knowledge of mine, but there is a big chronological gap between Cetina and Liburnians.
The supposed Etruscan origin of Liburnians posited by some Ancients, is without any proof, but it isn't impossible that a Etruscan(like) substratum would have existed there until early BA. I think that a long enough Etruscan/Italic contact (BA to IA) could have perdured, where some contacts pop's very close one to another had finally opted for Italic or Etruscan dialects spite being become genetically close enough ne to another.
Click to expand...


Cetina core area is only the (Proto ) liburnian and dalmatian lands



the other shaded area is Cetina "finds/trade areas " fits the liburnian trading empire .............though they did trade with carthage from 740BC -800BC

more proof , that language does not count
 
MOESAN said:
I don't see what authorizes us to think Pelasgians were Etruscans ancestors. The origin of Etruscans could be everyhere among one of the Neolithic pop's descendants, in Central-South-Eastern Europe. Pelasgians is an uncertain term used by Greeks to qualify uncertain supposed preceding pop.
Liburnians spoke seemingly Italic language, close enough to southern Venetic. The question is: are the Cetina culture people exactly the same as Liburnians? They could have been Illyrians pushed later southwards by Liburnians, It needs more archeologic knowledge of mine, but there is a big chronological gap between Cetina and Liburnians.
The supposed Etruscan origin of Liburnians posited by some Ancients, is without any proof, but it isn't impossible that a Etruscan(like) substratum would have existed there until early BA. I think that a long enough Etruscan/Italic contact (BA to IA) could have perdured, where some contacts pop's very close one to another had finally opted for Italic or Etruscan dialects spite being become genetically close enough ne to another.
Click to expand...
your etruscan scenario with liburnians only fits if the etruscans came via asia-minor............to the adriatic sea ....up the coast to land near Adria in northern italy ...............I have seen that paper before ...a few years ago ...................do not believe it ................to me the etruscan have always where they are and if they came from anywhere , it was from the west and not the east
 
torzio said:
your etruscan scenario with liburnians only fits if the etruscans came via asia-minor............to the adriatic sea ....up the coast to land near Adria in northern italy ...............I have seen that paper before ...a few years ago ...................do not believe it ................to me the etruscan have always where they are and if they came from anywhere , it was from the west and not the east
Click to expand...

Deep in time, I don't know where pre-proto-Etruscan language came from, why not Anatolia since our first neolithic farmers came from there? But here we are in guesses. To be serious, I just said Etruscan or proto-Etruscan language formed itself somewhere among some of the Late Neolithic (tells) pop's of Central-South-East Europe, a vaste territory indeed. Maybe somewhere in Hungary, North Balkans...?
I don't confuse Liburnians with Etruscans at all; I supposed a possible contact between some tribes of the big Italic cohort and Etruscans during LBA/EIA around Austria/Croatia favoured by the Urnfields phenomenon. It's a possibility but we may also imagine these ancient Tells or maybe Pile dwelling (presentin Hungary too) ancestors of Etruscans were already settled in some of the Western Alps valleys, so the link Rhaetians/Etruscans?
I don't think Etruscans came from far East, but let's keep in mind the northern Balkans and ancient northern and Roman Italy people have often shown a close auDNA (some threads here), already concerned by 'steppe' DNA at IA, joined to a rather Neolithic DNA conserved until BA, and without much of the extra-CHG or extra-Iran auDNA come from Anatolia into southeastern Europe since BA and during IA that we see in Greece and other close places, I think.
I just give my point about the misuse of the 'Pelasgian' term and a very unprobable link between late so called Pelasgians and Etruscans. I spoke also of my DOUBTS about a direct link between Cetina BA/IA culture and the very Illyrians, without being sure of anything.
 
Maybe I wasn't clear. As some Ancients had spoken of Etruscan origin for Liburnians, and as Liburnians were surely Italic speaking, I developped my thoughts about the possible links between Italics and Etruscans, not in origin but for contacts. To say Etruscans were maybe not so far geographically speaking (so not at all in East or South-East Europe!). I never thought Etruscans came by sea to Liburnia from Asia or elsewhere in East!
 
MOESAN said:
Maybe I wasn't clear. As some Ancients had spoken of Etruscan origin for Liburnians, and as Liburnians were surely Italic speaking, I developped my thoughts about the possible links between Italics and Etruscans, not in origin but for contacts. To say Etruscans were maybe not so far geographically speaking (so not at all in East or South-East Europe!). I never thought Etruscans came by sea to Liburnia from Asia or elsewhere in East!
Click to expand...

really !...never seen this

I had the 12 etruscan tribes came to italy via corscia.....and mostly likely from sardinain or further west, before this.

Liburnians spoke a pre-italic language.......but most north-adriatic people did as well.......different variants

The only link I see is when Liburnians colonised Picene lands and etruscans where their neighbors , early on ...................Liburnians stayed in these lands until at least 440BC
 
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
 
Liburnian does not seem to be related to Venetic. I think the coincidence between the Liburnes, Livorno (from Latin Liburnus), and the settlement of Liburnum in Liguria is striking
 
Galloman said:
Liburnian does not seem to be related to Venetic. I think the coincidence between the Liburnes, Livorno (from Latin Liburnus), and the settlement of Liburnum in Liguria is striking
Click to expand...

It seems a lot of linguists think Venetic and Liburnians could be local evolutions on a proto-Italic stage of language,with more proximity to (proto-)Celtic or said otherwise, less distancing from it. It seems it was the case too with the non-Etruscanlike dialects of Rhaetia and the North-West block dialects of Belgia too. I read this in B. SERGENT in a book about Indo-Europeans.
Wikipedia is not far:
The hypothetical language or languages spoken by the Iron Age Nordwestblock population are a matter of speculation, as there are no written records of such languages as is the case with the Germanic language, but can be inferred based on analysis of substrate features in the primarily West Germanic languages that later came to be spoken in the region (for example, areal loanwords of unknown origin, and the presence of certain geminate consonants that cannot be explained by inheritance from Proto-Indo-European), or by analysis of place-names (toponymy and hydronymy).[4][5] Broadly, this substrate area is sometimes called the North-West European substratum.[6] Kuhn speculated on linguistic affinity of this substratum to the Venetic language, while other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Indo-European languages of the centum type (Illyrian, "Old European"). Gysseling suspected an intermediate Belgian language between Germanic and Celtic, that might have been affiliated to Italic.
Concerning the supposed links between Liburnians and Illyrians, it depends completely on what we suppose is the genuine Illyrian: the north Illyricum dialects (Centumlike) or the south Illyricum ones, closer to Albanians (recent) and Messapian, and supposed Dardanian, themselves not too far from Thracian (ancient) for some traits?
 
@Torzio
I based myself on some auDNA affinities between some ancient Italics and people considered as Etruscans. It's true that B. SERGENT thinks Etruscans came into West by sea roads, from East (Troade), following in Europe the same routes taken by Minoans then by Mycenians traders. Etruscans had skills for navigation and have been part of the Sea People actions in Eastern Mediterranea (Tyrsenians) against Egypt. It could effectively be in contradiction with a Central European origin. But of whom Etruscans is B. SERGENT speaking? The supposed Proto-Villanova descendants or the orientalizing period ones? Proto-Villanova was seemingly terrestrial. That an inlands people became a sailors people, it occurred more than a time, mayboften by acculturation provided by preceding vainquished shores people. We know of the Greek and eastern influence on Etruscans too, but late enough... At the times of Sea People, even B.SERGENT thinks they were already settled in Italy.
I avow I'm a bit puzzled. They had some skills concerning architecture and hydraulic warming, but these skills then existed as well in continental Europe as in Near-East? I think...
for auDNA it seems Etruscans were very close to ancient Italics (before the Empire), so for these periods rather western than eastern concerning the southern elements, but with already a steppic element. Their global relative closeness to the Iberians of the time is not the proof of a true western geographic origin. Confirmed by their principal Y-haplo’s R1b-U152 and J2b-L283.
 
MOESAN said:
It seems a lot of linguists think Venetic and Liburnians could be local evolutions on a proto-Italic stage of language,with more proximity to (proto-)Celtic or said otherwise, less distancing from it. It seems it was the case too with the non-Etruscanlike dialects of Rhaetia and the North-West block dialects of Belgia too. I read this in B. SERGENT in a book about Indo-Europeans.
Wikipedia is not far:
The hypothetical language or languages spoken by the Iron Age Nordwestblock population are a matter of speculation, as there are no written records of such languages as is the case with the Germanic language, but can be inferred based on analysis of substrate features in the primarily West Germanic languages that later came to be spoken in the region (for example, areal loanwords of unknown origin, and the presence of certain geminate consonants that cannot be explained by inheritance from Proto-Indo-European), or by analysis of place-names (toponymy and hydronymy).[4][5] Broadly, this substrate area is sometimes called the North-West European substratum.[6] Kuhn speculated on linguistic affinity of this substratum to the Venetic language, while other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Indo-European languages of the centum type (Illyrian, "Old European"). Gysseling suspected an intermediate Belgian language between Germanic and Celtic, that might have been affiliated to Italic.
Concerning the supposed links between Liburnians and Illyrians, it depends completely on what we suppose is the genuine Illyrian: the north Illyricum dialects (Centumlike) or the south Illyricum ones, closer to Albanians (recent) and Messapian, and supposed Dardanian, themselves not too far from Thracian (ancient) for some traits?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think the story of Jason and the Argonauts depicts a MBA trade route in its own mythological route. Pottery from the Cetina culture would make its way to Greece, and their metals were not sourced locally, so in all likelihood the pottery ended up there at least in part through trade for metals (the trade was for something after all). And people probably followed, seeing as major changes were taking place at this time in terms of advancements in and prominence of metallurgy, certain agricultural techniques like ox-ploughs etc.

Draw a line from Istria, across the Corinth Gulf to Megaris and Attica, and thence across the Aegean and Black Seas via Hellespont to Colchis (Abkhazia and other NW Caucasian territories seems to fit better than Kartvelian territory). In my opinion, this route was the major entry point of J2b into Europe and changes around this time are noticeable from the Early Helladic Period.
 
You'll notice that the Adriatic-Greece connection is attested, that a NW Caucasian connection to the Kaskians and Hattians is likely (further note Ikiztepe), and that there is also a connection of Greece to Western Anatolia. You could string stuff like this on endlessly, but it's only really in two stages (Adriatic, Anatolian). J2b seems to have been very successful in Europe, my money is on it being seafarers from metal-specialist Caucasians. If you want to go old-school, it would also account for the Dinarid phenotype very nicely.
 
The seafaring nature of these unidentified peoples also accounts for their distribution: Pontic Anatolia with the Kaskians, where via the Halys River you get the Hattians; the Sakarya and Gediz rivers creating a pocket in NW Anatolia for later Trojans and their periphery (it was almost matter-of-fact that the Lydians were preceded by another people, perhaps accounting for the unusual elements in Lydian compared to the other Anatolian languages); and then parts of Greece and the Adriatic
 
MOESAN said:
It seems a lot of linguists think Venetic and Liburnians could be local evolutions on a proto-Italic stage of language,with more proximity to (proto-)Celtic or said otherwise, less distancing from it. It seems it was the case too with the non-Etruscanlike dialects of Rhaetia and the North-West block dialects of Belgia too. I read this in B. SERGENT in a book about Indo-Europeans.
Wikipedia is not far:
The hypothetical language or languages spoken by the Iron Age Nordwestblock population are a matter of speculation, as there are no written records of such languages as is the case with the Germanic language, but can be inferred based on analysis of substrate features in the primarily West Germanic languages that later came to be spoken in the region (for example, areal loanwords of unknown origin, and the presence of certain geminate consonants that cannot be explained by inheritance from Proto-Indo-European), or by analysis of place-names (toponymy and hydronymy).[4][5] Broadly, this substrate area is sometimes called the North-West European substratum.[6] Kuhn speculated on linguistic affinity of this substratum to the Venetic language, while other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Indo-European languages of the centum type (Illyrian, "Old European"). Gysseling suspected an intermediate Belgian language between Germanic and Celtic, that might have been affiliated to Italic.
Concerning the supposed links between Liburnians and Illyrians, it depends completely on what we suppose is the genuine Illyrian: the north Illyricum dialects (Centumlike) or the south Illyricum ones, closer to Albanians (recent) and Messapian, and supposed Dardanian, themselves not too far from Thracian (ancient) for some traits?
Click to expand...

As i said many times...I do not believe in a ethnic name of Illyrian for one tribe...its a geographical name for many different tribes.

Illyrian in the west balkans is the same as Iberia for spain and portugal .........geographical name

there is no southern "illyrian" tribes......they all came from the north and migrated to modern montenegro and north Albania over time...............even the "Illyrians" in serbia are part of the scordisci celtic tribe.......a celtic tribe that decided to attack delphi greece....taking with them one pannonian and one illyrian tribe....the attack failed and the dregs of these people settled in serbia

liburnians where in picene italy ( marche region )as well as there homeland from circa 1000BC to 440BC

liburnians owned corfu , from 1050BC to 735BC

initially dalmatians where vassals of the Liburnians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6517 times.

Back
Top