# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Ancient Italic People

## GrecoItalicIllyrian

Can someone give me a brief description of every Italic tribe , in terms of who they they were Ethnically, Culturally, Linguistically etc

No need to use Haplogroups.

By Italic I mean all tribes inhabiting what is now Italy.

----------


## Twilight

Well you got the Cisalpine Celts, Romans, Cathraginians, Greeks called the Griko people, Estruicans etc

----------


## adamo

In wat concerns western sicily's Elymians, it would appear that they where Trojans, fleeing from a Troy sacked predominantly by the Achaean variety of Greeks; these Trojans where led by their hero Acestes, they would have founded Segesta.

----------


## adamo

Sicily: 1. Elymians where Trojans 2. Sicani where the first people of Sicily; their genetic profile would have been typically Western European 3. The Siculi/Sicules where Greek colonizers that arrived en-masse in eastern Sicily ( they would have belonged to multiple tribes.) there where two main types of Greeks on Sicily; the Dorians and the Ionians. The Ionians controlled most of the northeastern coastline and eastern Sicilian coastline. They also controlled the tip of Calabria (The Reggio Calabria area). In Basilicata, they controlled the Siris/Heraclea area and a small little stretch of coast. The Ionians also colonized the Elea/Pixous coast region of southern Campania and the Cumae/Ischia/Capua/Napoli region of northern campania. The Ionians, thought to be the Javans of the bible, are in all probabilities, of anatolian descent. Biblically speaking, if they ARE Javan, then they're in the same racial line/category as Iran's Madai (Medes). Athens was originally founded by Ionians, most of the cities on the island of Euboea, such as Eretria and it's ancient rival Chalcis, where founded by Ionian Greeks. (Note that as a city name, Chalcis can also be traced to Syria, as can be the Oenotrians , and Eretria sounds oddly familiar to Etruria). The other Greeks on Sicily are Dorians, they covered the entire southern coastline of Sicily and a strip of land on the tip of apulia where the Iapygians would have earlier (before heavy Greek colonization) installed themselves. The Achaeans, held no territory on Sicily, but they had colonized the entire eastern coast of Calabria, they also founded Paestum in Campania and held small territory in Basilicata. Then I believe Ancona was founded by Syracusan Greeks, who where Doric, and then there's a whole slew of "other" tribes that are not pried to be of continental European origin; we KNOW the Etruscans came from Anatolia, the Oenotrians probably trace their origins here as well, Elymians where Trojans, Phoenicians colonized western Sicily as well, Iapygians came from Crete, The ancient "Oscans" are an odd bunch to figure out; where they a spill-off of Umbrian type tribes, as their linguistic family was Osco-Umbrian? Or was their mix with Greeks as well; a Latin-Hellenic culture? The Umbrians where probably from Denmark (Ambrones) or Germanic and the Sabines I believe descend from them as do in term the Samnites and Oscans. Or, are the Samnites the ancient Sannoi of Georgia in the Middle East? Are the Sabines similar to Enotrians in origin, or like the Celtic Umbrians. Everything north of Etruscan territory other than the Enetoi maybe is always of probably continental European origin, 95% of the time even Celtic.

----------


## adamo

So basically we know everything above Tuscany/Umbria is Celtic, but I remain unsure on the Sabines, Samnites, Oscans (Oscans are the Ausones) Aurunci, Piceni, I would like to know more about the origins of the tribes I just mentioned...The Opici (Oscans) was also a theme of western Turkey in the Classical Greek era I believe; I haven't seen evidence confirming these people's aren't of Greek/Anatolian origin.

----------


## adamo

And in what concerns the Greeks, I personally believe that the Ionians where an Anatolian branch, the Achaeans where linked to Aegyptus and the Dorians, who where not to be confused with the "Barbaroi" as they themselves where "Hellenic", where probably of continental European origin, having arrived from the north.

----------


## adamo

Ionians and Achaeans (Aeolians included) where "Barbaroi" with different origins; the Dorians where a Hellenic group. Their different mythical origins, when analysed, do coincide well with the genetic history of Greece. The Ionians slowly moved in over thousands of years, as seen in maps, from Anatolia across the Aegean islands and into Greece (Just as the similar Rhodanim move from southwestern Anatolia towards Rhodes and the Kittim moved from Anatolia to settle the island of Cyprus.) The Achaeans arrived from Egypt, as their eponym states (think along the lines of E3b Greeks) and the Dorians arrived via a location in more Northern Europe than where Greece is positioned.

----------


## adamo

In fact, according to the Yosippon, a medieval Rabbinic compilation, the Kittim (Cyprus) migrated to Campania in Italy and there built a city called "Posomanga". Descendants of Tubal on the other hand, migrated to Tuscany and brought about the "Sabino" people. Tubal, is a son of Japeth that lived in Caucasian Iberia, basically modern-day Georgia (Colchis/Iberia).....these Georgian people may even be behind the explanation of Iberia's non-indo-European speaking Iberian people's (Tartessians/Turdetanians), the Samnites may have derived from the Sabines as well). These Kittim that arrived in Italy via Cyprus where anciently associated with Hatti and/or Hittite continental Anatolian people's.)

----------


## adamo

It is clearly indicated in the bible that the Ionians (Javans) where brothers of all the sons of Japheth; Ashkenaz, Riphath, Gomer, Togarmah (father of Georgians/Armenians) Madai (Medes), Tubal (Georgians and father's of settlers of Tuscany to a limited genetic impact, I'm speaking historically), Meschech (father of Caucasus people's linked to Armenia) etc.

----------


## adamo

So the Sabines and Samnites, may not be similar to the Suebians and such European tribes; the Samnites may in fact be the Sannoi of Georgia and the Oscans may have been latins with a Hellenic substratum; or they may even have Anatolian origins as the Lucanians and Brutii and Enotrians and Morgetes probably did.

----------


## Nobody1

There are 2 opinions on the Siculi/Σικελοί

_Philistos of Syracuse_ regarded the Siculi/Σικελοί as Ligurians
_Antiochus of Syracuse_ regarded the Siculi/Σικελοί as Greeks (_descendents of Oenotrians_)
_
Thucydides_ however records that the Siculi/Σικελοί arrived in Sicily _three centuries before_ the arrival of the Greeks and the establishment of the first colony - _Naxos 759 BC_; 
And_ Dionysius_ and _Festus_ record how the Siculi/Σικελοί were expelled from the central Apennine region by the Umbrians;

----------


## adamo

There you go; another semi-mysterious tribe....The eastern half of Sicily though WAS heavily colonized by Greeks , with ancient Sicilian sites such as Tyndaris, Taormina, Giardini-Naxos and Heraclea Minoa for example; very ancient sites of Greek colonization on Sicily but these sites would date from the middle (intermediate) portion of greek history (the colonies on the coasts of Asia Minor came first).

----------


## adamo

The Chalcidians (who were Ionians) and other Euboeans and peleoponesians heavily colonized parts of Sicily as well as the Dorians. There is also Anatolian genes and Phoenician blood mixed at lower levels in there, not to mention typically European DNA and other possible pelasgic tribes I forgot to mention

----------


## adamo

Nice little picture showing how Ionians and similar Pelasgian people's spread from Turkey and across the Aegean towards Greece and the Mediterranean world beyond.

----------


## adamo

So certainly Ionian,Achaean,Dorian Greeks arrived to Italy along with Cretans (Iapygians), a Cypriot group arrived in Northern Campania and Tubal from Georgia in the Caucasus arrived in Tuscany; presumably the Etruscans. The Chonii and Oenotrians where probably of Greek and before that middle eastern influence. The Lucanians and their Calabrian Brutii and Morgetes offshoots where probably of Anatolian origin and same goes for the Oscans. The Samnites and Sabines where mythical tribes from the Georgia/Armenia region (Sannoi,Tubal). The Phoenicians settled western Sicily as well; this is all the Pelasgian element of Italy (I forgot to mention Enetoi, paphlagonian Turks)

----------


## autochthon

One tool to get a sense of the diversity in Italy is to look at the languages spoken there during the iron age. Even if language does not always map to ethnic identity, it's still a useful tool. To name a few (I am taking this mostly from Mallory):


Ligurian (Ligures, IE, possibly Celtic)
Lepontic (IE, Celtic)
Etruscan (Tyrsenian, non-IE)
Raetic (also thought to be Tyrsenian and related to Etruscan)
Umbrian (Umbri, related to Oscan)
Oscan (Sabines, Aurunci, Sidicini, Ausones)
Massapic (Iapyges, Dauni, Peucetii; possibly related to Illyrian)
N. Picene (undeciphered)
S. Picene (probably IE)
Venetic (IE, centum language, classification debatable)
Latin (closely related to Faliscan)
Faliscan (Falisci, closely related to Latin)


What this suggests is two things:


1. The presence of a neolithic Tyrsenian substrate; of course how extensive or homogeneous this was remains unknown. There could have been multiple non-IE peoples on the peninsula long before the arrival of the first Indo-Europeans. It would be interesting to know what hg(s) correspond to the Tyrsenians.


2. What looks like multiple waves of Indo-European diffusion, similar to what happened in Greece, and quite a lot of diversity even within the IE languages on the peninsula.


And of course this leaves out Sicily and all the later influences (Greek, Punic, Arab, Norman, Lombard, etc.)

----------


## Sile

> One tool to get a sense of the diversity in Italy is to look at the languages spoken there during the iron age. Even if language does not always map to ethnic identity, it's still a useful tool. To name a few (I am taking this mostly from Mallory):
> 
> 
> Ligurian (Ligures, IE, possibly Celtic)
> Lepontic (IE, Celtic)
> Etruscan (Tyrsenian, non-IE)
> Raetic (also thought to be Tyrsenian and related to Etruscan)
> Umbrian (Umbri, related to Oscan)
> Oscan (Sabines, Aurunci, Sidicini, Ausones)
> ...


On your list
Ligurian, spoke ancient tongue, then gaulish, then maybe celtic
lepontic, ok
Etruscan, Ok...depends if they began from southern Germany
Raetic , maybe...they could have been the father tongue of etruscans. etruscan after moving south mixed with italic languages
Umbrian , ok
Oscan, ok
Messapic , no one knows illyrian, so ? ....could even be epirote
N. Picene, luburinian
S.picene , umbrian mixed with doric greek from syracuse
Venetic, became celtic around 500BC according to uni of Heidelberg paper 2012
Latin, ok
Faliscan, ok

----------


## adamo

Faliscan,Latin,Umbrian,Ligurian,Lepontic , Venetic speaking people's where probably italics; celts. Etruscan's and Raetic speakers where proto-Georgians/Armenians, Messapic speakers where Cretans; the Sabellic tongues where said to be related to the Oscan one and they where all somehow related to Umbrian, so take from that what you will, I don't know if the linguistic scenario also speaks for the genetic one. Piceni dialects as Sile stated may have been Umbrian with some Greek affect mixed in as well.

----------


## MOESAN

My knowledge is very short about Greece and Italy -
I red somewhere (B.Sergent?) the Elymes lands in Sicily had a lot of ligurian or close-ligurian placenames (substratum) with a taste of placenames of balkanic origin, something close to illyrian - - 
the Ligurians could have been the first inhabitants (identified ones) - but the personal names would have been the more often of italic origin, with someones of anatolian origin, the language seemed between latine-falisc and osco-umbrian...
I admit it is a bit complicated!
by the way, ligurian is clearly not celtic, and shows a position between celtic and italic, more on an archaïc side -
so the Elymes could have took a part of Sicily on the cost of previous Ligurians - close to the Philistos hypothesis saying Sicules = Ligurians or family???

----------


## adamo

False, the Elymians where literally Dardanians of the Troad region, Trojan citizens fleeing the sack of Troy by Greeks such as the Achaeans. Their hero was Acestes, he founded Segesta,Entella,Eryx probably. So basically it goes as follows: Acestes and his group of several thousand colonizers left Troy and arrived in western Sicily. Afterwards, Aeneas the Trojan would arrive as wel with more people, for them, the Elymians would build he aforementioned cities; a Trojan region of extreme western Sicily.

----------


## adamo

The Siculi are thought to have been the Shekelesh of the sea people's, Mycenean era greekspushed out by the Dorian invasions. The Ligurians where a proto-Celtic people's spread across southeastern France and parts of Switzerland and north-Italy.

----------


## adamo

What I have realized upon further analysis is that Oenotrus (father of Enotrians) Peucetius, Daunus and Messapus where all sons of Lycaon of Arcadia from the Peloponnese in Greece. Now, the Iapygian group of Apulia (Peuceti,Daunian,Messapi) where once said to have come from Crete, as IAPYX The eponymous hero of the Iapygian's was from Crete and was venerated there. But being sons ofLycaon this links them to mainland Greece, Peloponnese region. Either way, which ever they came from, we know that Lycaon is a region of southern Turkey (Lycaonia in turkey, Lucania Italy, Lykaia Ancient Greek festival of the wolf) and that Lycaon was son of Pelasgus. So now, ultimately, we know that the Oeonotrians and Iapygians were of the Pelasgian race. Now, who were the pelasgians? To me, personally, they where the Sea people's of the late Bronze Age. Now,where did the sea people's originally come from? Where did they settle? It would seem the Pelasgians would eventually inhabit parts of mainland Greece, Crete, Aegean islands and coastal Asia Minor. Where does the Pelasgian race start off? Probably somewhere near Karphatos or Rhode islands near the southern coast's of Asia Minor; they came from an area holding with in it Crete,Rhodes Aegean island region or the southern coasts of westernmost turkey by the Aegean Sea. This is from were they would originally explode from. One branch of sea people's would move from Karpathos island towards Crete and another from the same starting point but off towards Cyprus. From Rhodes a branch would found nearby Caria and Lycia, two sea people states in Asia Minor, the Lydians where of this race. Lycaonia and the city of Sagalassos where founded by these people. They moved eastwards, hugging the southern coast of Asia Minor until reaching the Cilicia region near Syria were they defeated the Qude people and sacked Karchemish. They sacked Allalah,Aleppo and Ugarit, destroying the Amurru people Of Syria. They kept heading south into the levant and onto the Sinai peninsula where they fought the Egyptians; one of their branches was the Peleset (Palestinians). Another was Sicily's Shekel and another Sardinia's Sherden. Then there were the Libu and Meshwesh; non-related Libyan tribes that moved towards Egypt's capital regions, the Hapiru moved from Jordan into Jerusalem, another non-related Semitic group. The Arameans expanded from the northern Arabian deserts towards Lebanon, Syria and Iraq where they sacked Babylonian cities. The Elamites occupied southwestern Iran and the Assyrians of the time where centred on northern Iraq. The Medes where in northwestern Iran, and the Hurrians occupied the Armenian plateau. The Kaska people lived in north-central turkey and the Phrygians where slightly to the west of them. From here, the Phrygians would launch campaigns eastwards towards Armenia. Those Sea people's that moved from Asia Minor towards the Aegean Sea where Lydians and Dardanians/Teukrians basically Trojans. By the time they reached the Aegean Sea they where known as Danaans,Achaeans and PELASGIANS. The Tyrsenoi (Etruscans) were a derivate of this race. I personally believe the Pelasgian race originated on Kaphtor (crete) as it seems this is from where the original Leleges (inhabitants of west turkey) seem to have came from (from back-migration travel of isolated middle eastern people's on Crete back towards turkey after having initially arrived from there either way. It would seem a group of Lydians mixed in with Dardanians/Teukrians would have left western turkey for the Aegean Sea. In their transition through the Greek Aegean, these exact same Anatolian men would be knows as DANAANS (Dauni? Denyen,sea people's, Israeli tribe of Dan?) others as ACHAEANS (their first colonies where on CYPRUS) and as PELASGIANS. From the Peloponnese , one group of them would arrive in eastern Sicily (siculi) then from there one group would move towards Tuscany and another to Sardinia. To me, the Sea people's/pelasgians where Mycenean era Greeks fleeing their homeland after the Dorian invasions and expanding/changing the Mediterranean world.

----------


## adamo

The Sea people's sudden presence in the Mediterranean basin brought about the end of the Arzawa, Hatti, Qude, Alashiya and Amurru people's of the levant and Turkey. They had probably been expulsed from the Aegean region but had arrived from the east of that region anyways once ago. The sea people's were born of the Orient but left it for Aegean Europe, they would return later though, acting as hostile, to fight/subdue much of the Levantine region of the Middle East, who were they? PELASGIANS,DANAANS,ACHAEANS........Tyrsenoi/Etruscans Oenotrians Peucetians Iapygians

The Minoan/Mycenean era Greeks.

----------


## Diviacus

> False, the Elymians where literally Dardanians of the Troad region, Trojan citizens fleeing the sack of Troy by Greeks such as the Achaeans. Their hero was Acestes, he founded Segesta,Entella,Eryx probably. So basically it goes as follows: Acestes and his group of several thousand colonizers left Troy and arrived in western Sicily. Afterwards, Aeneas the Trojan would arrive as wel with more people, for them, the Elymians would build he aforementioned cities; a Trojan region of extreme western Sicily.


 Do you really believe it, or do you think it's a myth ?

----------


## adamo

Eastern Sicily was colonized by Sicels, Mycenean-era sea people's (greeks), the center had a more typically west-European genetic distribution and the westernmost regions were first colonized by ancient Phoenicians and then subsequently invaded by anatolians

----------


## adamo

It would seem that somehow bull worshipping cultures that originated in Mesopotamia spread towards western Anatolia and first entered Europe by landing at Crete. From here some groups would reach Iberia. It's like J2a migrated from Chatal Hoyuk towards Crete and from there to parts of Italy.

----------


## adamo

There is a direct link to this, considering the main paternal component on Crete is J with 37% of which 25% is J2a M-410, most of the other rare clades developed later on Crete, but such a high clade presence of J2a is indicative of a first migration wave of people's from Anatolia directly to Crete. In fact, to most people's surprise, E-V13 a main Greek marker, albeit any and all E3b in it's totality is very rare on Crete, even R1b is more frequent, indicative of a later minor migration of people's to Crete.

----------


## Angela

> Do you really believe it, or do you think it's a myth ?


Of course it's a myth. Some myths have a kernel of truth, of course, unlike the one that Caesar put about that he was descended from Venus.

Whether this one does I have no idea. How could it ever be proved? I suppose an attempt could be made to try to date the founding of Rome and see if it even corresponds to the archaeological level that might be attributed to the "Trojan War", but even that wouldn't be proof.

Great story, though, certainly miles above most stories put about by "new" people to get a little reflected glory.

----------


## Diviacus

> Of course it's a myth. Some myths have a kernel of truth, of course, unlike the one that Caesar put about that he was descended from Venus.
> Whether this one does I have no idea. How could it ever be proved? I suppose an attempt could be made to try to date the founding of Rome and see if it even corresponds to the archaeological level that might be attributed to the "Trojan War", but even that wouldn't be proof.
> Great story, though, certainly miles above most stories put about by "new" people to get a little reflected glory.


 Yes, we won't have ever a proof, but so many studies have been made on that with an unanimous opinion that it's only a myth, so we have to consider it only as a myth.

----------


## Angela

> One tool to get a sense of the diversity in Italy is to look at the languages spoken there during the iron age. Even if language does not always map to ethnic identity, it's still a useful tool. To name a few (I am taking this mostly from Mallory):
> 
> 
> Ligurian (Ligures, IE, possibly Celtic)
> Lepontic (IE, Celtic)
> Etruscan (Tyrsenian, non-IE)
> Raetic (also thought to be Tyrsenian and related to Etruscan)
> Umbrian (Umbri, related to Oscan)
> Oscan (Sabines, Aurunci, Sidicini, Ausones)
> ...


As to number 1: There is quite a bit of evidence that the Neolithic that arrived in the south, from the area of Albania, for example, was different from that in the north, with the northern Italian Neolithic still retaining some interest in supplementing their diet with hunting, which the Neolithics in southern Italy by and large were not doing. That might indicate slightly different streams of the Neolithic, although of course, the south might have been over-hunted as well.

I would agree with number 2.

As for number 3,the Greek impact is clear. However, in my opinion, any Phoenician or Carthaginian impact would have been minor. The Phoenicians were traders who set up emporia; I'm not aware of any proof that they set up any colonies in Italy that would have included substantial numbers of colonists, unlike the Greeks for instance. There is a study of southern France that proves that point and might apply to Italy for comparison purposes. 

The Normans were a very small group of men, mercenaries really. As members of an elite, (a mixed Scandinavian/Gallic group) they might indeed have left traces in the y dna, but autosomally, their contribution would basically have vanished, in my opinion. Btw, the area in France where the "Vikings" settled, while it does have some U-152, is higher, I think, in L-21, which hasn't shown up in northwestern Sicily to my recollection. That isn't altogether surprising, as the "Normans" were formed by a combination of Scandinavian men and French women. Some local men, Bretons, for example, certainly formed the contingent that went to England, but perhaps there weren't that many of them among the group that went to Sicily. I'll check my books. 

The "Lombards" who were, to be precise, northern Italians from Lombardia, Piemonte, Liguria and other northern Italian areas, do represent a "folk" movement of peoples, a movement which has had the greatest impact, in my opinion, on the Sicilian genome in more recent times. Whole towns in the interior were established for them, towns which had been depopulated of Muslim Sicilians. 

The "Arabs" didn't invade Sicily. They were Berbers, initially mainly from nearby Tunisia, although as in any invasions of this type you had adventurers from other areas of the Muslim world. Their presence can be traced most easily via the E-M81 clade, I believe, and perhaps the North African clade of J1 as a minority component, and it is surprising small considering all that has been written and said about the "Moorish" influence on Sicily. One could also, of course, add in some of the other clades of "E", although not E-V13, and even with some of the other "E" clades, you would have to get down to the sub-clade level and date the subclades to get a handle on whether they fit the time period, or are just as likely to have come with the Neolithic or the Bronze Age. Another thing that has to be taken into consideration is that the Normans and later Frederick II, did their own version of ethnic cleansing in Sicily. As with other such claims, I doubt it was as complete as they claimed, but that it happened is irrefutable.

There is a wonderful book about this whole period called A History of Muslim Sicily, by Leonard C. Chiarelli. In it, there is a poem by an exiled Muslim Sicilian: 

"My hands are empty, but my eyes are filled with your memories, Sicily".

I highly recommend the book.

Ed. The "Moorish" invaders of Sicily were *mostly* so far as can be determined, North African Berbers, although there were definitely Arabs amongst them; in fact, some of the power struggles on the island can be traced to differences between these two groups.

----------


## adamo

The Enotrians were led by Oentorus son of Lycaon son of Pelasgus; the Enotrians,Peucetians,Daunians,Messapians were PELaSGIANS, the Achaean Greeks that colonized Calabria were PELaSGIANS the Ionians and Aeolians were PElASGIANS the Etruscans were PELASGIaNS

----------


## adamo

The Ancestor's of some of today's east Sicilians, Sardinians and Tuscans (in ancient times anyways) were of the same race as the Palestinians; all pelasgians sea people's.

----------


## Angela

> The Ancestor's of some of today's east Sicilians, Sardinians and Tuscans (in ancient times anyways) were of the same race as the Palestinians; all pelasgians sea people's.



Just generally, the ancestors of today's east Sicilians Sardinians and Tuscans can be found all over Europe and the Near East and the same can be said for any group in Europe, although the relative percentages by area may be different. In terms of the Sea People in particular, was there a study that showed the exact origin of the Sea Peoples? Is there some test somewhere of the dna of the Sea Peoples of which I'm unaware? 

Also, what "race" precisely are the Palestinians? The Palestinian ethnogenesis is a very recent one from everything I've read. There is documented movement of tribes from the south during the Islamic era, which may have brought with them, or augmented through the Arabic slave trade, the SSA component in them, a component that is much smaller in the Christian Levantines who mixed less with the Islamic newcomers, and which probably also changed the proportion of J1 and J2 in the area and within the religious groups. 
See: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1003316


To take only the people of Sardinia as an example, they bear the closest resemblance, among European populations, to Oetzi and Gok 4, who are Neolithic Europeans. They are a mixture of Mediterranean and a small minority of S.W. Asian which may have been present since the Neolithic, (as is clear in every dodecad analysis of them) and some "North European" which came, I believe, with perhaps some admixture with more northerly Mesolithic hunter gatherers, as well as perhaps with later migrants from the Italian peninsula. It's true that they have, in Globe 13, for example, some West Asian, but it is extremely minor. The S.W.Asian level is about the same as Oetzi's.

See: Globe 13 Autosomal Spreadsheet, from which I took the following numbers.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=2

Sardinians:
Med 71
W.Asian 4
S.W.Asian 8.7
Paleo African .1
N.Euro 16.1
All other clusters O

Palestinians:
Med 25.6
W.Asian 29.2
S.W.Asian 36.4
S.Asian .6
Paleo African .1
W.African 2.7
E.African 4.5
N.Europe .7

I don't see any identity between these people. Which clusters precisely are you associating with the Sea Peoples? Which modern group bears the most resemblance to them in your opinion?

And, as I have been meaning to ask, why all this talk about Pelasgians? Do you just mean the Neolithic inhabitants of the Aegean before the advent of the Indo-Europeans, or "Greek" speakers who ever they were autosomally? Is it very helpful to use these old classifications that were used by ancient authors long before modern archaeology and history had developed and even longer before the advent of genetic testing? As you can see, Neolithic Europeans are very different from modern Palestinians if Oetzi and the Sardinians are any indication. The Sea Peoples, according to some historians, may have been Indo-European speakers who would not, indeed, have been similar autosomally to the Neolithic inhabitants of Greece and Asia Minor who preceeded them, much less to modern Palestinians, but it's anyone's guess right now, as far as I'm concerned. 

I think you can see my point without even getting into the Tuscans. I just don't see how we can know any of these things.

----------


## adamo

All that was Pelasgian was a race inhabiting the eastern Aegean sea island regions and parts of western Anatolia...I believe they emanated from Crete, which was also the first European region they would colonize from their original middle eastern homelands; these people migrated from Western Anatolia into the Aegean Sea towards Crete once....they would probably re-colonize the coast of Asia Minor as Pelasgians and Greeks later on, ultimately they were of west Asian origin although; the Sea people's they were called during Egyptian times and on their inscriptions, probably Mycenean/Minoan era Greeks primarily from the southern Greek peninsular sphere (Crete, the Peloponnese) pushed out by fierce Dorian tribes arriving from the north (continental Greece) who re-migrated towards their ancient west Asian lands and were responsible for the sack of The Amurru, Arzawa,Hittite empire,Qude and Cypriot people's; all in the span of 50 short years, people's from western Anatolia all south of Syria down across the levant onto the Sinai peninsula. They even attacked the Egyptians. These exact Greeks, known as Achaeans,Danaans and pelasgians that sacked Troy, were of the same middle eastern substratum as the Trojans, yet they had left the Middle East long before to settle Crete and pars of Greece, and had allied themselves with other Pelasgian/Hellenic people's AGAINST Troy. They sacked the Hittite empire and the Arzawa people, settling colonies of Caria,Lycia,Lycaonia,Lydia (or was that were they originally came from?), they arrived there via Rhodes and Crete probably; these sea people's it seems we're expelled by human invasions from Crete , so from there they attacked Egypt, invaded Cyprus, colonized western Turkey by destroying other civilizations (The pelasgians didn't anhilate the Kaska or the Phrygians though. From colonies such as Lycaonia, they moved towards Cilicia, sacking more Semitic civilizations there and continuing south along the Levantine coast down until the Sinai. The Pelasgians that settled the region of PALESTINe (Peleset) where of this race as compared to the majority who are Caananites in the region (Phoenicians, certain Lebanese,Israeli and Jordanian/ Syrian people's predominantly.) The Lydians were pelasgians as we're the Trojans. The Greek city of Thebes was also said to be linked to pelasgians; It was founded by Cadmus, a Phoenician from the Lebanese city of Tyre. Some men from this region of greece migrated into Troy and mixed with Dardanians and Teukrians. The latter, it seems, would leave Troy and the Dardanelles region of Turkey and they would migrate towards the Aegean world; somewhere in between the western coasts of Turkey and eastern continental Greece. Here, in the places they would settle (Lemnos,Samothrace,Crete,Thessaly etc.) they would be known as Danaans,Achaeans and pelasgians. They would at one point or another, emerge from all that Aegean world, probably from Crete or the Southern Peloponnese region of Greece and migrate towards Calabria,Apulia,Sicily,Tuscany, parts of Campania,Molise,Abruzzo,Marche; all across Italy their genetic signatures can be picked up in the forms of E3b and J2 predominantly. J2 is found at 35% in central Marche and Central Calabria; two very different regions of Italy. Southern Apulia has about20-25% J2 and frequencies rise in the north near Foggia/Lucera and the Gargano peninsula. The Salerno region of southern Campania has 25-30% and the Benevento/Caserta region has 20% as does Lazio. Sicily has 28% J2. E3b frequencies also peak in the south and north-west. Most of it is E-V13, a Greek colonization signal. Parts of Apulia and Calabria have 20-25% E3b, and eastern Basilicata has a national peak of 36%.

----------


## adamo

1. The genetic situation of Tuscany has changed tremendously in the past several thousand years, as the predominant J2,G or T lineages of the Etruscans were predominantly replaced by waves of incoming Gallic/Celtic migrants, most of them coming from adjacent Switzerland and France, especially in a high U152+ region like Tuscany. Today, only 15-20% of Tuscan men are J2 because many waves of R1b have co e in to replace them as is seen in the Gallic acquisition of Gallia Cisalpina/Transpadana regions if Italywere they migrated en masse, overtaking the local Etruscan populations (some of them, the rhaetics, had even infiltrated extreme northern Italy) 
2. Sardinians have NO north-European component, the 40% or so of Sardinian men that are I belong to a subclade of I2a; they have an ancient links to the coast of the western Balkans. 
3. The Palestinians are not a race, they're an ethnic group composed of various different haplogroups of which J and E take up a considerable portion of their males. About 40% of Palestinian males are J1, which is most frequent on the southern Arabian peninsula, 15-20% are J2 and another 20-25% belong to E3b. They have thus obviously acquired a large portion from Bedouin Arabs of the nearby regions as J1 surely didn't come from the Aegean. They have about 15-20% J2 and slightly higher E3b frequencies, but it seems, archaeologically, that the first Palestinians to establish the self in the Palestine region used Mycenean Greek style pottery, thus leading specialists to believe that these sea people's called "Peleshet" came from the Aegean Sea region of turkey/Greece. There are no DNA "tests" on sea people's that I know of; there just seems to be clues, large environmental phenomenon a that took place from Crete across Turkey and the Levant that indicated a cultural shift had taken place, a dark as had begun; the first presence of the sea people's marked th end of many civilizations; all of these victims which seem to have been in western Asia across Anatolia and the levant all the way to Egypt.

----------


## Sile

> 1. The genetic situation of Tuscany has changed tremendously in the past several thousand years, as the predominant J2,G or T lineages of the Etruscans were predominantly replaced by waves of incoming Gallic/Celtic migrants, most of them coming from adjacent Switzerland and France, especially in a high U152+ region like Tuscany. Today, only 15-20% of Tuscan men are J2 because many waves of R1b have co e in to replace them as is seen in the Gallic acquisition of Gallia Cisalpina/Transpadana regions if Italywere they migrated en masse, overtaking the local Etruscan populations (some of them, the rhaetics, had even infiltrated extreme northern Italy) 
> 2. Sardinians have NO north-European component, the 40% or so of Sardinian men that are I belong to a subclade of I2a; they have an ancient links to the coast of the western Balkans. 
> 3. The Palestinians are not a race, they're an ethnic group composed of various different haplogroups of which J and E take up a considerable portion of their males. About 40% of Palestinian males are J1, which is most frequent on the southern Arabian peninsula, 15-20% are J2 and another 20-25% belong to E3b. They have thus obviously acquired a large portion from Bedouin Arabs of the nearby regions as J1 surely didn't come from the Aegean. They have about 15-20% J2 and slightly higher E3b frequencies, but it seems, archaeologically, that the first Palestinians to establish the self in the Palestine region used Mycenean Greek style pottery, thus leading specialists to believe that these sea people's called "Peleshet" came from the Aegean Sea region of turkey/Greece. There are no DNA "tests" on sea people's that I know of; there just seems to be clues, large environmental phenomenon a that took place from Crete across Turkey and the Levant that indicated a cultural shift had taken place, a dark as had begun; the first presence of the sea people's marked th end of many civilizations; all of these victims which seem to have been in western Asia across Anatolia and the levant all the way to Egypt.


If the Etruscans are as per Giotto study in 2013, are from Southern Germany and a "rhaetian" people, then the old Malden theory is correct. That is the etruscans came down from the alps into Italy and enhanced their language with the Italic tribes, while the ones that stayed behind kept their "barbarous" language.

*Malden plausibly suggests the opposite – it was the Etruscans who were descendants of the Rhaetians, not vice versa. He provides no evidence, only conjecture and logic. He argues:
**The natural movement of the population expelled by the Gauls would have been to fall back upon the main body of their nation in their oldest seats south of the Apennines (which, with the swamps between them and the Po, actually formed an available line of defense), not to insulate themselves in the northern mountains. But if Raetia was the mother-country, whence the Etruscans descended into the plains of Italy, it may be easily believed, that a part of the nation staid [sic] behind, and to them the dwellers about the Po may have returned when they sought shelter from the terrible Gauls [citation omitted]. It may be esteemed a confirmation of this hypothesis of the origin of the Etruscans, that they believed the north to be the seat of their gods [citation omitted]. (Malden, 85.)**Elsewhere in the same book, Malden draws on Niebuhr to disentangle the Tyrsenians (and the Tyrrhennians) from the Etruscans:**If then we are to believe that the name Tyrseni in Italy belonged originally and properly to the Pelasgian population, the question still remains, how the Greek writers invariably called the Etruscans Tyrseni and Etruria Tyrsenia. The true solution of the problem is, that the country retained its early appellation, and the Etruscans who conquered it succeeded to the name of its former inhabitants. (Malden, 78.)*

----------


## adamo

Everything contradicts this; the language/customs of thenetruscans, the way the Etruscans saw/represented themselves; all leads us to believe they were Pelasgian in origin.

----------


## adamo

Their ancient language is closest to modern day Armenian and may have been a proto form of it.

----------


## adamo

Remember what legends say, Tubal disembarked near Tuscany; Tubal traces to Iberian Caucasus people's of early Georgia....?

----------


## adamo

It may seem useless to try to base information on population movements via the analysis of Ancient Greek or roman mythology, but what historians of the time wrote actually made a lot of sense because mythology was based on the history/origins of the people worshipping the religion in question. If the bible, for example, associates Javan son of Japheth with Ion, eponymous father of the Ionian people then I will believe that because it's myth and legend but it's based on fact; it's the recounting of the stories of civilizations. Now, it would seem, the son's of Ion, according to the biblxe and many other historical sources of the time, were Elishah (settlers of Cyprus) Tarshish (south-western turkey), Kttim (other Cypriot group), and Dodanim/Rodanim island of Rhodes; that's were Ionian Greeks settled at first.

----------


## Nobody1

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

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

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

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

*Hyria* = the modern-day Oria

*Strabo* - Book VI/CDXXV
_They say that these Cretans were the party who sailed with Minos to Sicily, and that after his death, which took place at Camici, in the palace of Cocalus, they took ship and set sail from Sicily, but in their voyage they were cast by tempest on this coast, some of whom, afterwards coasting the Adriatic on foot, reached Macedonia, and were called Bottiaei. They further add, that all the people who reach as far as Daunia were called Iapygians, from Iapyx, who was born to Daedalus by a Cretan woman, and became a chief leader of the Cretans._

----------


## adamo

The IAPYGIANS were Cretans...Their heroes were Daunus, Peucetis and Messapus (fathers of the Iapygian race) they were brother to Oenotrus, father of the Oenotrians that settled Hesperia from Paestum to the toe of Calabria....sons of Lycaon who's father was Pelasgus, hero of the Pelasgian race. PELASGIANS were ultimately a mix of Lydian and Dardanians/Trojan/Teukrian elements. Coming from western Turkey, they migrated towards the Aegean islands and greece were they would be known as Danaans (Dauni?), Achaeans and pelasgians. The Achaeans would later arrive in and colonize Calabria. The Achaeans I believe, we're sons of the Ionians, who were racially classified biblically as brothers of Medes and Togarmah/Meschech Tubal etc.

----------


## adamo

Also the Ausoni people arrived first by sea to the Lipari islands before arriving in southern mainland italy, they where sons of Greek Odysseus and Circe of ancient Iberia (Georgia region.)

----------


## adamo

And the Aurunci are derivatives/cousins, at least related to the Ausonians. When the Greeks first arrived to colonize southern Italy en masse, they found 4 populations in southern mainland italy, all of this same categoric grouping: The Iapygians (Peuceti,Messapi,Dauni also known as Salentini maybe even "Calabri" I believe as the southern tip of Apulia was anciently known as "Calabria". There where the Enotri, the Chonii (allegedly another Enotrian people that arrived at the same time) the Ausoni and the Aurunci. Now, the Ausoni, coming from the sea towards Lipari islands first, and according to other evidence, where pelasgians, as where their similar Aurunci "offshoots". The Enotrians where obviously pelasgians as well, as we're the Chonii. It seems there was no Gallic invasion of the south or Celtic invasion, until the arrival of the Latins in central Italy. The pre-Greek substratum of southern Italians, seems to have been historically a Pelasgian one, having arrived from the seas to the east of Italy. Unless somehow I am wrong and the Samnites/Sabines or Oscans REALLY were Celtic people's, then southern Italy may have been dominantly Pelasgian, it would be nice to debate the Oscans/Samnites/Sabines origins; were they etruscanoid Pelasgian elements, or continental Celtic tribes; they were one or the other that's quite evident.

----------


## Nobody1

*Aulus Gellius* - Book I/X
_the Horatii, talked clearly and intelligibly with their fellows, using the language of their own day, not that of the Aurunci, the Sicani, or the Pelasgi, who are said to have been the earliest inhabitants of Italy._ 

*Sicani* were Iberians and *Pelasgi* were from the East Aegaen; 

So who are the Aurunci; If they are not from the *Pelasgi* because they spoke a diff. language than there are only two other options:
Either Indo-European Italics or Ligurians; 
And both seems very probable;

----------


## MOESAN

> Faliscan,Latin,Umbrian,Ligurian,Lepontic , Venetic speaking people's where probably italics; celts. Etruscan's and Raetic speakers where proto-Georgians/Armenians, Messapic speakers where Cretans; the Sabellic tongues where said to be related to the Oscan one and they where all somehow related to Umbrian, so take from that what you will, I don't know if the linguistic scenario also speaks for the genetic one. Piceni dialects as Sile stated may have been Umbrian with some Greek affect mixed in as well.


_where did you pick up lepontic and ligurian were italic, and celtic akin to etruscan and raetic, and proto-armenian akin to georgian???
what we know about ligurian would put it between itlaic and celtic, an archaic form maybe, of western old I-Ean, lepontic was celtic, there were TWO rhaetic languages, apparently, one I-Ean the other close to etruscan at first sight, armenian is and were I-E; trying to link etruscan to proto-georgian is not completely stupid but it could have been an other family of pre-I-Ean anatolian-caucasic language, waiting to know more..._

----------


## adamo

The Lepontic were certainly celts as the Orumbovii, Salassi, Taurini and other nearby people's where. The d fif cults is when we speak of the Ligurians; Apuani, Aares and such people classified as "Ligurians". I personally believe that the Ligurians where slightly different celts but were celts none the less. If the nearby Gallic tribes such as Vertamocorii and such were in any way related to the Ligurians then they too were celts. Look at the distribution of the Franco-Provençal language across the world, fort example. It's spoken in extreme northwestern Italy, southeastern France and Switzerland. Someone is responsible of the culture linked to that language. Who else could they have been? If they were notGreek substratum or an Etruscan type substratum, then they were eithera mix of one of those with celts, or they were solely celts.

----------


## adamo

Their culture is denoted as "Ligurian" because of the area it inhabits and because it is different from the other common Gallic cultures around it. But the ancient Ligures called themselves "Ambrones", which to me links them to more Northern Europe and those "other" Germanic migrations I spoke of. A Gallic relation/affinity has also been suggested by multiple specialists in the field, it seems that the Ligurian language has particularly strong Celtic affinities.

----------


## adamo

The sub-divisions of their tribes were the Apuani, Friniates, cavalries, bagienni, langenses, the Vocontii etc. to me these names sound Celtic, maybe even Gallic. The Vocontii, for example, a Ligurian tribe, were settled in the Provence region of southeastern France and have always been linked to it. Provence was known as Provença. The Ligurians to me are linked to the spread of the Franco-Provençal Gallic language; this means Ligurians probably inhabited northwestern Italy, southeastern and south central France and all across Switzerland anciently, any monuments or archeological finds attributed to this culture is of a Celtic one.

----------


## adamo

It is this type of migration that most clearly denotes a migration of Gallic people and of R-S28 haplogroup from the latter regions towards Italy. Probably from parts of France or Switzerland (50% R-S28 for the latter) towards Cuneo, Brescia and the Tuscany region (40-50% R-S28).

----------


## adamo

The "Vocontii" Ligurians, were a Gallic people centred in modern day Luc-en-diois and vaison la romaine in France. The Taurini were a gallo-Ligurian people in the center of Piemont. The Salyes (Salluvi) were centered on the Durance plain of France. The Oxybii have a similar origin in France but are under the Ligurian banner as well. The Taurini, Statielli, Salassi and Marici on the other hand, were Ligures as well, but they inhabited the northwestern reaches of Italy. The Laevi inhabited Italy as well. The same cannot be said for the Deciates though as the inhabited the region near Antibes near the Var river area of France. The Ligurian culture spans out perfectly with the spread of Franco-Provençal, need anymore. Need anymore evidence that they where Gauls? They're at least celts.

----------


## adamo

I mean, considering they inhabited northwestern Italy near the French border, who else could the Ligurians have been if they were not some sort of Greek substratum that magically explains the E3b high in he area. I really doubt it as their language and customs are distantly similar to Celtic and because of all the aforementioned evidence and due to their geographical position in Italy, I give to them a Gallic origin, and if not, I would at least say they are celts, that may have arrived in southeastern France from the Halstatt culture or la tene culture or more probably as they were called Ambrones, they have a north Germanic origin, which may be that "factor" that makes them Ligurian instead of Gallic Celtic as most surrounding tribes are....there's a small possibility they may be celtiberians tribe as well but I truest doubt this and would either ascribe them a Gallic , but more probably Germanic origin.

----------


## adamo

One ancient Ligurian tribe, the Genuenses would found and give their name to Genoa in LIGURIA northwestern Italy. Another Ligurian tribe, the Helysici, lived in extreme southwestern France in the city of Narbonne.

----------


## adamo

The Laevi and Marici Ligurians were celts responsible for the foundation of Pavia. Ligurian tribes settled over much of what is today's southeastern France, Switzerland and northwestern Italy....i think they were Gauls with possibly a Greek substratum or something I don't know, needless to say, the geographical spread of the Ligurians makes them good candidates for celts, but Greeks settled Marseille so their spread across only Liguria,Piemont, Aosta and near Provence and one exception further west but it's a coastal settlement...they could also somehow be Greeks because the southeast coast f France was settled minority by Greeks and all that area is a minor Neolithic high especiallyE3b goes to 25% near genoa and possibly near Marseilles....but knowing that these people are called "Ambrones"... They're not Greek at all they sound certainly Celtic though! And their language was easily classified as indo-European with definite Celtic influence...

----------


## Nobody1

The _Ligurians_ were clearly *pre*-Indo-European peoples becoming a Hybrid people of the constant inter-mixing with the Indo-European _Umbrians_; This is of course Historically and Anthropologically documented;


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


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

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


The _Caturiges_ (Insubrian refugees) and the _Vagienni_ (Ligurians) clearly demonstrate what has happened;

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

And we all know that the Insubres [IsOMBRI] are nothing else than low-land Umbrians; And judging by the Urnfield Golasecca culture a very primitive and archaic people - which is exactly why Lepontic (their language) could very well also be P-Italic Umbrian (archaic);

----------


## Nobody1

The _Ligurians_ of the Rhone-valley were no bit diff. then the _Ligurians_ of the Po-valley and western Alps;
And why should they have been; 


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


The _Oxybii_ and _Deciates_ were also recorded as the '_Transalpine Ligurians_' by *Livius*;

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

*Strabo* - Book IV/VI
_The ancient Greeks gave to the Salyes the name of Ligyes, and to the country which was in the possession of the Marseillese, that of Ligystica. The later Greeks named them Kelto-Ligyes, and assigned to them the whole of the plains extending as far as Luerion and the Rhone. ......On the opposite side of the mountains, sloping towards Italy, dwell the Taurini, a Ligurian nation, together with certain other Ligurians._

----------


## Diviacus

Hopefully, we have recent studies since 1830 and 1867 !!
And if you read (in French) : Goudineau (1998), Guillaumet and Rapin ((2000), V.Kruta (2000), Garcia (2002 and 2004), J.Chausserie-Laprée (2005), P.Thollard (2009) or F.Régnier(2013), you will learn that the question of the Ligurians has made considerable progress.
Present historians don't see so much difference between Celts and Ligurians, and the Ligurian language is not so obviously considered as a pre-Indo-European one.

----------


## Nobody1

> Hopefully, we have recent studies since 1830 and 1867 !!
> And if you read (in French) : Goudineau (1998), Guillaumet and Rapin ((2000), V.Kruta (2000), Garcia (2002 and 2004), J.Chausserie-Laprée (2005), P.Thollard (2009) or F.Régnier(2013), you will learn that the question of the Ligurians has made considerable progress.


What question are you talking about?

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




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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


*PS:* the Book from 1830 actually only quotes (word by word) ancient classical authors; So its practically timeless - i.e. un-outdateable;

----------


## adamo

To me the Umbrians/Ligurians "Ombrones" "Ambrones" were a pre-Gallic Halstatt culture remainder from the Danube region or maybe Germanic and went to Italy.

----------


## Diviacus

> What question are you talking about?
> But _considerable progress_ sounds very exciting;
> Just translate and post some quotes from those books - and highlight the _considerable progress_;
> And could you add a list to all the new Ligurian inscriptions that were found; I thank you in advanced;


As you know, very little has been found. Instead of "progress", I should have said "change".
In the 19th century, there was a consensus on the fact the Ligurians spoke a pre - Indo-European language.
My reaction to your post was on "Ligurian were clearly pre-Indo-European peples". No it's not clear.
But, even if it's not clear, the nowadays trend is to consider more probable there were Indo-Europeans.

From *A. Manonni (2006)* :

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

From *V.Kruta (2000)* :

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





> *PS:* the Book from 1830 actually only quotes (word by word) ancient classical authors; So its practically timeless - i.e. un-outdateable;


 Yes, but as you know, the interpretation of these ancient texts has changed a lot for the last 150 years.

----------


## Nobody1

Exactly, we all know that there is not much to be argued concerning Linguistics of the _Ligurians_ because of the scanty survivals of it;
That is why i never addressed the field of Linguistics in the first place in my _posts #55_ & _#56_; 
I have addressed the Anthropology (1867) and the Historical documentation at which (post #56) i took a short cut and simply quoted Prof. H. Malden and his compilation (a very good book) instead of posting the direct quotes from Plinius, Strabo, Scylax and Avienus concerning the Oxybii, Deciates and Salyes; It was just a shortcut;

Whether the Book is from 1830 is secondary its a great compilation (a representation *not* an interpretation) of Historical (ancient) accounts - from Prof. H. Malden.


But lets look at Linguistics; 
*Lepontic* is an Indo-European language but contains however (like all other Indo-European languages) pre(non)-Indo-European elements;
Kruta (and of course i read the book) mentions Ligurian inscriptions from the 6th cen BC and Dr. David Stifter considers these inscriptions to be containing Keltic elements;
And that is exactly the scenario i tried to explain in_post #55_; By illustrating the inter-mixing of Umbrians and pos. also Kelts with the Ligurians (Hybrid Ligurians/-Keltoligyes) with Historical (ancient) documentation and Anthropological studies (there are many more; just ask);


Ligurian inscription - 6th cen BC - *Lunigiana stela* (Pontremoli)
 - *uṿezaṛụap̣us* / Etruscan alphabet - North Italic Script

----------


## Nobody1

Another Italic (Indo-European) _peoples_ were the *Picentes*(PICENI) who stemmed from the *Sabines* 

*Strabo* - Book V/IV
_The Picentini proceeded originally from the land of the Sabini. A woodpecker led the way for their chieftains, and from this bird they have taken their name, it being called in their language Picus, and is regarded as sacred to Mars._ 

- and the *Sabines* in turn stemmed from the (archaic) *Umbrians*;

*Dionysius* - Book II/XLIX
_But Xenodotus of Troezene, an historian, relates that the Umbrians, a native race, first dwelt in the Reatine territory, as it is called, and that, being driven from there by the Pelasgians, they came into the country which they now inhabit, and changing their name with their place of habitation, from Umbrians were called Sabines. 
_
All just another side-story that illustrates that the *Umbrians* are the mother nation of all Italic tribes and the core nation of the Indo-Europeans that migrated to Italic peninsula during the Bronze-age (_Terremare culture ~1400 BC_)

The language of the *Picentes*(PICENI) is termed_ South Picene_ and is an Indo-European language closest to Umbrian;

*South Picene* stelae inscriptions (+alphabet) - Penna Sant'Andrea (5th cen BC)


Of the *Picentes* necropolis from Campovalano and San Severino (7th-5th cen BC)



*Strabo* in Book V/IV describes how _Picenum_ (land of the Picentes) was from the _Aesis_ to _Castrum_ (Giulia Nova) and remarks that Ancona (on the coast) was a Greek colony - _'Ancona is of Grecian origin, having been founded by the Syracusans who fled from the tyranny of Dionysius'_

----------


## Sile

> Another Italic (Indo-European) _peoples_ were the *Picentes*(PICENI) who stemmed from the *Sabines* 
> 
> *Strabo* - Book V/IV
> _The Picentini proceeded originally from the land of the Sabini. A woodpecker led the way for their chieftains, and from this bird they have taken their name, it being called in their language Picus, and is regarded as sacred to Mars._ 
> 
> - and the *Sabines* in turn stemmed from the (archaic) *Umbrians*;
> 
> *Dionysius* - Book II/XLIX
> _But Xenodotus of Troezene, an historian, relates that the Umbrians, a native race, first dwelt in the Reatine territory, as it is called, and that, being driven from there by the Pelasgians, they came into the country which they now inhabit, and changing their name with their place of habitation, from Umbrians were called Sabines. 
> ...


IIRC this only applies to south picene people, the north picene where liburnians linguistically

----------


## adamo

The Sabines, picentes, and their Samnites offshoots and any tribe linked to Sabines stem from tubal of Georgia. Read my posts in hg J2 section I put just now.

----------


## adamo

I believe the Marsi, hernici and such tribes where of Sabine origin as well. Whereas the Ausones and aequi were akin to the latins.

----------


## adamo

It seems that the Umbrians were in the same line as the Volsci and Aequi people. The Opici/Osci and their Ausones derivatives were actually classed with the latins. Then Ionians with Chalcidians, Dorians on their own and Achaeans with Aeolians. The last category (Achaeans and Aeolians) has within in two sub-categories; Athenian and Syracusan. The Phoenicians though were classed with Carthaginians as derivatives.

----------


## adamo

The last remaining group is Sabellic with Samnites included.

----------


## Nobody1

Sabellic is the over-term of the Oscan and Umbrian tongues; Italic is split into Latin/Faliscan and Sabellic [Osco/Umbrian];

acc. to *D. Piwowarczyk* - Jagiellonian Uni. (2011)
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/...iwowarczyk.pdf
*Umbrian*: Umbrian/Aequian/Marsian/Volscian / _South Picene and Pre-Samnite being closest to Umbrian_
*Oscan*: Oscan/Paelignian/Marrucinian/Vestinian/Hernican

*Aristotle* - POLITICS - Book VII
_a certain Italus, king of OEnotria, from whom the OEnotrians were called Italians, and who gave the name of Italy to the promontory of Europe lying within the Scylletic and Lametic Gulfs.....this Italus converted the OEnotrians from shepherds into husbandmen, and besides other laws which he gave them, was the founder of their common meals; even in our day some who are derived from him retain this institution and certain other laws of his. On the side of Italy towards Tyrrhenia dwelt the Opici, who are now, as of old, called Ausones; and on the side towards Iapygia and the Ionian Gulf, in the district called Siritis, the Chones, who are likewise of OEnotrian race._ 

If the Opici (oscans) were originally OEnotrians (_i.e. Pelasgians of OEnotrus as rec. by Dionysius and Pausanias_) than it is very obvious that at one point the Indo-European Umbrians that migrated further south inter-mixed with the Oenotrians and thus the Opici (oscans) adopted the Indo-European tongue - which is close/similar to Umbrian but with elements that sets it apart; 
Which is best recorded in the comparison of Pre-Samnite to Oscan;

The Oscan tongues were all Spoken in territories of the former OEnotrians (South Italy) and the Samnites were Oscan-speakers;

----------


## Nobody1

> The last remaining group is Sabellic with Samnites included.


Sabellic is the over-term of the Oscan and Umbrian tongues; 
Italic is split into Latin/Faliscan and Sabellic (Osco-Umbrian); 

acc. to *D. Piwowarczyk* - Jagiellonian Uni. (2011)
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/...iwowarczyk.pdf
*Umbrian*: Umbrian/Aequian/Marsian/Volscian 
*Oscan*: Oscan/Paelignian/Marrucinian/Vestinian/Hernican
_South-Picene_ and _Pre-Samnite_ are closer to Umbrian - E. Dupraz 2012 / K. Nishimura 2008

*Aristotle* - POLITICS - Book VII
_a certain Italus, king of OEnotria, from whom the OEnotrians were called Italians, and who gave the name of Italy to the promontory of Europe lying within the Scylletic and Lametic Gulfs.....this Italus converted the OEnotrians from shepherds into husbandmen, and besides other laws which he gave them, was the founder of their common meals; even in our day some who are derived from him retain this institution and certain other laws of his. On the side of Italy towards Tyrrhenia dwelt the Opici, who are now, as of old, called Ausones; and on the side towards Iapygia and the Ionian Gulf, in the district called Siritis, the Chones, who are likewise of OEnotrian race._ 

If the Opici (oscans) were originally OEnotrians (_i.e. Pelasgians of OEnotrus as rec. by Dionysius and Pausanias_) than it is very obvious that at one point the Indo-European Umbrians that expanded/migrated further south inter-mixed with the OEnotrians (Opici/Ausones-Chones etc.) and thus the Opici (oscans) adopted the Indo-European tongue - which is close/similar to Umbrian but with elements that sets it apart; Which is best recorded in the comparison of Pre-Samnite and Oscan;

The Oscan tongues were all ppoken in the territories of the former OEnotrians (South Italy) and the Samnites were an Oscan-speakers;

*Oscan* Inscription from the - Cippus Abellanus

----------


## adamo

I heard that Oscans and Ausones were kin to latins: Sabines and Samnites were not of the same origin, they share the same linguistic family though.

----------


## joechill01

Any Italian p312 haplogroups? I would imagine them to be somewhere in Northern Italy

----------


## Nobody1

> I heard that Oscans and Ausones were kin to latins: Sabines and Samnites were not of the same origin, they share the same linguistic family though.


I think its exactly the other way around;
Oscans/Ausones were _Pelasgian_ OEnotrians while Latins and Sabines are of the _Indo-European_ Umbrians;
But the OEnotrians (Oscans/Ausones) must have been subjugated by the Umbrians since all of Samnium, Campania, Lucania and Bruttium than spoke an Indo-European tongue (_Sabellic-Oscan branch_) that diverged from archaic Umbrian (_ref. to Pre-Samnite_); 
Samnites and Lucani were Hybrid Umbro-Pelasgian(oenotrian) tribes;

----------


## Nobody1

> Any Italian p312 haplogroups? I would imagine them to be somewhere in Northern Italy


*U152* - but its not Italian its Indo-European from the Steppes dragged to the Italic peninsula by the Indo-European Umbrians(ITALICS) of the Bronze-age; In this broader archaic Indo-European context U152 was the most dominant element amongst the  Indo-European Italics, a very substantial element amongst the  Indo-European Kelts and a minor element amongst other Indo-European branches; and its in the most frequent amongst the _modern-day_ areas of the former Keltic and Italic realms; 

_Myres et al 2011 -
_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/
_''whereas the U152 branch is most frequent (20–44%) in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland, with additional instances exceeding 15% in some regions of England and Germany''

_In the Po-valley R1b-*U152* is over 30% and in some certain areas over 50%

_Boattini et al 2013_
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0065441
North Italy (Area I): *32.2*% R1b-U152 - [161 samples] 
- Brescia: *51.2*% - [31 samples]

----------


## Nobody1

> IIRC this only applies to south picene people, the north picene where liburnians linguistically


Yes its all South Picene;
I have looked into it again and im not even sure why the other language is called North Picene;
The territory _Ariminum - Aesis_ has nothing to do with Picenum (_Aesis-Giulia Nova_) and that area was also never settled by the Picentes; The area of North Picene corresponds to the _Ager Gallicus_ of the Senones and Strabo V/IV also lists cities of the Ombrici in that district; Yet the language (which is not classified / _neither Indo-European nor Tyrsenian/Pelasgian_) does not naturally fit either the Indo-European Gauls/Senones nor the Indo-European Ombrici/Umbrians - so def. a non-Indo-European language/people but not Tyrsenian/Pelasgian; Pos. Ligurian / I will post some stuff on why i think its Ligurian and not Liburnian;

----------


## Sile

> *U152* - but its not Italian its Indo-European from the Steppes dragged to the Italic peninsula by the Indo-European Umbrians(ITALICS) of the Bronze-age; In this broader archaic Indo-European context U152 was the most dominant element amongst the  Indo-European Italics, a very substantial element amongst the  Indo-European Kelts and a minor element amongst other Indo-European branches; and its in the most frequent amongst the _modern-day_ areas of the former Keltic and Italic realms; 
> 
> _Myres et al 2011 -
> _http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/
> _''whereas the U152 branch is most frequent (20–44%) in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland, with additional instances exceeding 15% in some regions of England and Germany''
> 
> _In the Po-valley R1b-*U152* is over 30% and in some certain areas over 50%
> 
> _Boattini et al 2013_
> ...


according to last week's conference, M.hammer shows U152 originating in central germany (pre german), and then moving south into the alps.
U106 originating in old east germany

----------


## Diviacus

> Yes its all South Picene;
> I have looked into it again and im not even sure why the other language is called North Picene;
> The territory _Ariminum - Aesis_ has nothing to do with Picenum (_Aesis-Giulia Nova_) and that area was also never settled by the Picentes; The area of North Picene corresponds to the _Ager Gallicus_ of the Senones and Strabo V/IV also lists cities of the Ombrici in that district; Yet the language (which is not classified / _neither Indo-European nor Tyrsenian/Pelasgian_) does not naturally fit either the Indo-European Gauls/Senones nor the Indo-European Ombrici/Umbrians - so def. a non-Indo-European language/people but not Tyrsenian/Pelasgian; Pos. Ligurian / I will post some stuff on why i think its Ligurian and not Liburnian;


 If the Picentes never settled north of Aesis, how were called the inhabitants of the territory Ariminum-Aesis (before the Senones), who were speaking the (probably) non IE language which can be seen on the Novilara stele?

----------


## adamo

I telieve that before the senones arrived in the Marche region there were a people called the picentes inhabiting the region.

----------


## Nobody1

> If the Picentes never settled north of Aesis, how were called the inhabitants of the territory Ariminum-Aesis (before the Senones), who were speaking the (probably) non IE language which can be seen on the Novilara stele?


That all depends on the precise Geography;
But in the broadest sense of Picenum - *Livius* (V/XXXV) records that the _Senones_ occupied the lands from the Utis (Montone) to the Aesis; and *Polybius* (II/XXI) includes the _Ager Gallicus_ as part of Picenum;

*Silius Italicus* (VIII/440-445) records that Picenum was once inhabited by _Pelasgians_ and that Aesis was one of their leader;
*Plinius* (III/XVIII-XIX) records that the earliest inhabitants were _Siculi_ and _Liburnians_ but the _Librunians_ are placed further south at Truentum and Praetutia;

Other peoples mentioned in this district before the Gauls are the Umbrians by Strabo (V/IV) and Plinius (III/XIX);

I think its a question of Siculi/Pelasgian and Liburnian tending more towards Siculi/Pelasgian than Liburnian;
The Siculi and Pelasgians could go hand in hand acc. to Thucydides (VI/XVIII) and would explain it being def. not Indo-European;
Liburnians were described as Illyrians and should than be Indo-European (but it isnt) and the Liburnians are placed to far south from the Aesis at Truentum;

----------


## Joey D

Plenty of evidence pointing to the Siculi (Sicels) being indo-european.

----------

