The above picture should give a clear picture of how I would wager the Etrusco-Rhaetic languages entered Italy by the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. I can't help but conclude one thing: the Etruscan and Rhaetic languages eminated from the eastern coast of the Po Valley and spread out from there.
Larissa Bonfante rejected this immigration from the north[1], attributing the presence of Rhaetic instead to later Etruscan colonization into the Po Valley in the 6th century based on Livy. Her vague and confusing conclusion is that "the sequence of the prehistoric and protohistoric cultures of Italy appears to be continuous from the Bronze Age throughout the early part of the Iron Age, without any interruptions which might have been caused by invasions or the arrival of a new people." Yet the presence of Mycenaean trade in the Po Valley as early as the 12th century BCE, which was known before she even published her 1986 book[2], strongly makes me want to reject Bonfante's input and go with my instinct. Any Central European influence on the Po Valley, seemingly by land, would naturally be facilitated all the more by Adriatic sea trade so this fact is unsurprising and doesn't say much in itself about cultural continuity of the Villanovan culture separate from its possible cultural exchange with C.Europe. So I'm admittedly confused on this.
From a linguistic perspective, something that I don't feel Bonfante is going by, it makes the most sense that the Po Valley would serve as a linguistic epicenter from which the Rhaetic idiom would spread north while the Etruscan dialect would swoop to the south and west. Note however that I'm speaking strictly about linguistic movements, not cultural, economic or demic movements.
Taking this for granted, it interests me that the first languages to greet Etrusco-Rhaetic would have to be Venetic, North Picene, and Umbrian. I've been working on word etymologies in Etruscan and I'm finding that some origins of certain words are hard to determine. For example, we could take Etruscan ais 'god' to be a very early Italic loanword, perhaps from Umbrian, yet there is also Venetic aisu- 'god' to ponder on. Which one is the correct source? The word lautuni 'freeman' is so obviously un-Etruscan (< PIE *h₁leudʰ-) yet which language did it come from more precisely? Is it Venetic again? The verb fac , also foreign because of f- without neighbouring u to trigger lenition as it does in so many other circumstances, might be Umbrian fak- or it might be from Venetic, as in its sigmatic form fagsto 'he did/made'. And in what way has the mysterious North Picene language, as exemplified by the Novilara Stele, influenced Etruscan and Rhaetic? While I'd dare estimate that North Picene is Indo-European, it has a unique flair that's hard to classify and few words to come by. Then there's Illyrian... more mystery. All of these poorly attested languages huddle the Adriatic, as we can see in the above map, and it piques my interest all the more while hampering my quest for solid Etruscan etymologies and historic linguistic interactions.
NOTES
[1] Bonfante, Etruscan life and afterlife: A handbook of Etruscan studies (1986), p.48 (see link).
[2] Smith, Early Rome and Latium: Economy and society c. 1000 to 500 BC (1996), p.25 (see link); Castleden, Mycenaeans (2005). p.194 (see link); Cadogan, Palaces of Minoan Crete (1991), p.39 (see link); Evans/Evans, The Palace of Minos: A comparative account of the successive stages of the early Cretan civilization as illustrated by the discoveries at Knossos, vol 2, pt 1 (1964) , p.176 (see link); Collis, The European Iron Age (1997), p.34 (see link).
This is interesting, everything I've read seems to assume that the Etruscans started out in Tuscany, which is why it's called Tuscany, and that the northern and eastern settlements were later colonies. But that assumption always bothered me because it smacked of being based on biased historical data.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, the Roman sources mainly focus on Etruscan cities near Rome. And secondly, the Gauls destroyed the northern and eastern settlements before they got a chance to be documented by ancient sources.
Interesting, the Etruscan settlement of Corsica is late enough to be in the historical record. Apparently some Etruscan cities got irritated by a Greek colony on Corsica that had gotten really wealthy, invaded, and expelled the Greeks from the island. I believe this was sometime around 600BCE.
First of all I beg your pardon for my poor english; mine is the one of the simple tourist escort in Tuscuny I am, and I am not italian but french, and french is my mother language. But I know very well Tuscany where I am living from a long time.
ReplyDeleteThere is quite a long time taht I read your blog, and I think you are on the right way.
"Roma" here is said to mean "the bridge" in etruscan, so I believe that your explanation with "flood" and "river" is right. So that in the ancient times, "going to ruma" meant to go to the main river and cross it.
Then, my own opinion is that you are absolutely right saying etruscans came from north-east. Massimo Pallotino's idea of indigenous origin is understundable after the second world war and the unproperly use of romans ans etruscans which has been made of them before for propaganda. And it is also true that nothing in archaeology shows some changes during the expansion of villanovian settlement.
But archaeology also shows that "terramare" pre-indo-european villages had been destroyed by eastern arrrivals all along the Po valley.
So that I think that Mario Alinei's paleolithic continuity theory is right. And old hungarian seems to be really the closer language to etruscan, as well as that people were coming from Black sea along Danube river till Venezian aerea. This archaeological testimoniancy oh those parts of Europe seem to coroborate that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm (even if british specialist have not yet publicated their studies about... may be it will take such a long time as for Dead sea manuscripts... .
As Lemnos island scripture is the only one close to etruscan one in mediterranean sea, I would say that in part, legend told by Herodote is true: some of them came from Asia minore by sea till "ruma" after villanovian settlement has been complete.
I would express myself much better in french for such a difficult subject, if you understand french. Please, excuse me.
Anyway I am not at all a specialist, I am just interested in besause I live in Tuscany. I do not wish this post to be edited on your blog ( but it is up to you).
I woud like to send you a photograph of a lead table discovered near Avignon a few years ago, by people asking me if it was etruscan. For me it is not at all, but probably an unknown iberian or fenicio-iberian scripture, but I would like very much to have your opinion about.
Where can I send this picture to you?
Lorycalque,
ReplyDelete1. Etruscan is not related to Hungarian nor will I entertain this politically-driven nonsense. This is a warning.
2. Roma doesn't mean 'bridge' in Etruscan despite any hearsay you heard because the name/word isn't even attested on any artifact. Please verify your facts.
3. If the text of these alleged Etruscan gold sheets in Bulgaria are never published, it's reasonable to suspect a hyped hoax. There are far too many motivations to create such hoaxes (money, religion, politics, racial ideologies, career, fame, etc.). Without clear details, there's nothing serious at all to discuss.
4. Don't send me photos. (That can be annoying.) Upload photos and provide a link if you wish to solicit online opinions.
5. I'm bilingual so I welcome both English and French comments as long as they're reasonable and the commenter shows a commitment to facts over hearsay.
Hi Glen:
ReplyDeleteA northern entry point of the Tyrrhenians (meaning pre-Etruscans and pre-Rhaetians) at an early date (before 1000 BCE) offers at least two advantages:
1) It gives Etruscan and Rhaetic more time to differentiate and become separate related languages rather than dialects of the same language.
2) It is apparently not in contradiction with the archaeological evidence (possible participation of the Tyrrhenians in the formation of the Proto-Villanovan culture, in the case of the Etruscans, and in the Laugen-Melaun (Luco-Meluno) culture, in the case of the Rhaetians, which were both formed before 1000 B.C.).
This entry point is also not in contradiction with known Minoan (as you mentioned in an earlier blog) and Mycenaean trade routes. (One of the ancient names for the Adriatic was, I read somewhere, "the Etruscan Sea"). I assume that the pre-Etruscans could have used both entry points but, as the western route, which led to metal ore sources, was widely used by the Mycenaeans, the eastern route would have been safer for them.
Other supporting evidence could be provided by genetics, where connections with Anatolia (haplogroup G) have been established, not only for Tuscany, but also for Rhaetia, and a re-reading of the Trojan legends, for example, the legend of Atenor (= Tyrrhenian, ? ), who founded Patavium (Padua), could be revealing. The same applies to the landings on the western route (the Trojan Aeneas, etc.)
Going back to archaeology, as I understand it, groups of various origins and speaking different languages (Etuscan, two branches of Indo-European, Umbrian and Venetic) were all involved in the formation of the proto-Villanovan culture and they subsequently differentiated into more clearly defined cultures, identified with these three languages.
The Rhaetian Tyrrhenians seem instead to have penetrated their new country at an early date and to have developed their new culture independently. They later established strong trading links with the Etruscans of the Po Valley (Mantua, Bologna, Adria, Spina), and I wonder whether the similarity of the languages helped in this. This also probably explains the failure of the Roman writers to distinguish between Etruscans and Rhaetians, describing the latter as "hillbilly" Etruscans.
I assume that the minority Tyrrhenians successfully transmitted their languages through "élite dominance", rather than by force of numbers, even in Etruria, where I assume that a formerly Indo-European-speaking (Umbrian ?) majority adopted the Tyrrhenian language of the élite.
Is this perhaps reflected in the class structure of Etruscan society? (The Rhaetians were apparently a more egalitarian society, as befits "hillbillies").
I would be interested to read your comments on some of the above points.
Francesco: "[...] I read somewhere, 'the Etruscan Sea')."
ReplyDeletePerhaps Livy 5.33.7: The name Adriatic is claimed to be based on an Etruscan colony.
"[...] but, as the western route [...] was widely used by the Mycenaeans, the eastern route would have been safer for them."
Are you saying that the Mycenaeans and the 'Proto-Etrusco-Rhaetic' were enemies? If so, how so?
"[...] for example, the legend of Atenor (= Tyrrhenian, ? ), who founded Patavium (Padua), could be revealing."
Rather Antenor (Ἀντήνωρ). It's assigned a Greek meaning (ie. 'Instead of a man'), although foreign names in Greek have been known to be cleverly 'naturalized' into native terms.
"This also probably explains the failure of the Roman writers to distinguish between Etruscans and Rhaetians, describing the latter as 'hillbilly' Etruscans."
I'd say they were indeed distinguished, but that language was less a distinguishing factor than culture and regional ties. I gather that describing the Rhaeti as 'barbarous Etruscans' (as in Livy 5.33.11) is a reflection of both Roman prejudice towards Celts as well as an indirect report of the Celticization of the Rhaeti.
In Rome, I'd assume that boasting Etruscan heritage would even be a political advantage (ie. implying a deep connection with founding fathers) whereas boasting Rhaetic heritage might have came to be construed by many as 'too Celtic for comfort'.
"I assume that the minority Tyrrhenians successfully transmitted their languages through 'élite dominance'[...]"
Yes, this is what it seems to me so far, as also reflected in the exchange of vocabulary as I continue to study it.
"(The Rhaetians were apparently a more egalitarian society, as befits 'hillbillies')."
I'd avoid equating what Romans would view as 'barbarian' cultures with the presence of egalitarianism. I'd also hesitate to stereotype entire cultures as either egalitarian or patriarchal as if it were black-and-white. Patriarchy or egalitarianism is never 100%. Also do you refer to sexual egalitarianism? Or social egalitarianism?
Etruscans, at least, are in a few respects said to be more egalitarian than Romans and Greeks (eg. Theopompus' report on the freedom of women). Yet despite these moral incongruences, they were still respected by Romans as civilizing founders of Rome and not uncouth bumpkins (in contrast to the attitude against the Rhaeti in Livy's account).
Re: "[...] I read somewhere, 'the Etruscan Sea')."
ReplyDeleteGlen: Perhaps Livy 5.33.7: The name Adriatic is claimed to be based on an Etruscan colony.
Exactly.
Tuscorum ante Romanum imperium late terra marique opes patuere. mari supero inferoque, quibus Italia insulae modo cingitur, quantum potuerint nomina sunt argumento, quod alterum Tuscum communi vocabulo gentis, alterum Hadriaticum ab Hatria, Tuscorum colonia, vocavere Italicae gentes; Graeci eadem Tyrrhenum atque Adriaticum vocant.
The words I quoted and that had stuck in my mind - "Etruscan sea" - come from what I now see to be an insert [possibly deliberate] into the translation of Livy in the Italian version of a book translated from French (Jean-Paul Thuillier, Les Étrusques. Histoire d'un peuple. 2007). I think they are an overstatement to make the point. i.e. that the Etruscans - before the Romans - were dominant in that sea. Here is the Italian version:
Prima dell'affermazione della potenza romana, gli Etruschi avevano esteso di molto il loro dominio per terra e per mare. I nomi stessi dei due mari - quello superiore e quello inferiore -, che circondano l'Italia come un'isola, attestavano la potenza di questo popolo; le genti italiche avevano chiamato il mare adriatico "mare etrusco", dal nome di Adria, colonia degli Etruschi; i Greci parlavano di mar Tirreno e mar Adriatico.
Re the other points, thanks for your answers. I'll come back with my comments on some of the points over the next few day on the basis of my sources.
Yes, I noticed this loose translation when I searched specifically for what I expected to be for mare Tuscum.
ReplyDeleteThough a less-than-accurate translation, "[...] alterum Hadriaticum ab Hatria, Tuscorum colonia [...]" still directly establishes the Adriatic as a formerly Etruscan-dominated sea, as you said. I look forward to your insights.
Re: "[...] but, as the western route [...] was widely used by the Mycenaeans, the eastern route would have been safer for them."
ReplyDeleteGlen: Are you saying that the Mycenaeans and the 'Proto-Etrusco-Rhaetic' were enemies? If so, how so?
I'm making assumptions based on general ideas suggested in particular by Beekes ("The Origin of the Etruscans", 2003) and some other articles and maps that I found on the web from the book of an exhibition entitled "Sea Routes... From Sidon to Huelva, Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th - 6th c. BC, edited by Nicholas Chr. Stampolidis, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens 2003".
I'm assuming a climate of permanent maritime rivalry between seafarers belonging to different communities, like that existing between the English and the French in the 17th and 18th Centuries, when a French ship would be considered almost automatically as hostile by an English ship (with a very fine line between privateering and true piracy).
Similarly, seafarers from western Anatolia (Tyrsenoi, according to Beekes) would presumably have been viewed by Mycenaean seafarers as potential competitors and rivals, and therefore enemies.
Apart from inter-community rivalry, there was also a permanent risk of piracy (see "Ancient Mediterranean Piracy" in Wikipedia), and this probably encouraged seafarers to travel in strong fleet formations, which, given the numbers of people transported by the fleet, would also favour their colonization efforts on arrival.
According to my sources (particularly the maps), although the Mycenaeans did use the Adriatic route for the amber trade, for them it was a secondary route, as they were more interested in the western route that led directly to sources of metal ores. This western route corresponds to the areas of Italy and Sicily later colonized by the classical Greeks, probably inspired by old seafaring traditions transmitted orally in their communities (during the Greek "Dark Ages").
I'm also assuming that, as the Tyrsenoi were actively looking for territories to colonize and settle, due to problems of hunger, war and invasions in their homeland (as described by Beekes), whereas the Mycenaeans were more concerned with their trading activities along the western route, by using the Adriatic route the Tyrsenoi would have increased their chances of avoiding unpleasant encounters with Myceanean traders, although the general piracy risk was probably similar along both routes.
Francesco: "I'm assuming a climate of permanent maritime rivalry between seafarers belonging to different communities, like that existing between the English and the French in the 17th and 18th Centuries, [...]"
ReplyDeleteHow does your perception of Etruscan-Greek rivalry fit with the following:
1. The united coup of Sea Peoples against Egypt in the late 2nd millennium (including the Achaeans, "Tursha" and "Peleset").
2. The Orientalization Period in Italy, and thus fabulous Greco-Etruscan artwork. No rivalry there.
3. The close relationship between Dorics and Etruscans.
4. Shared legends of Troy, hero-worship and many other beliefs and rituals appreciated by Greeks.
5. Greeks wandering the Northern Adriatic.
6. Etruscan nobility of proud Greek heritage like Laris Pulena.
If anything, I perceive a former, non-ethnocentric class rivalry between the traditional Minoan aristocracy and everyone else (Greeks and "Pelasgians" alike). I don't see why this Mediterranean piracy must have been driven by cultural differences or caused by an ethnically homogeneous group.
"[...] seafarers from western Anatolia [...] would presumably have been viewed by Mycenaean seafarers as potential competitors and rivals, and therefore enemies."
But one could equally say that Greeks were also competing with other Greeks and Etruscans with other Etruscans. Even your Wikipedia link confesses, "As piracy expanded, they began to be organized differently from common brigands, consisting of bands of all **different nationalities**, owing loyalty to no one but themselves."
As always I think of added things after I post. ;o)
ReplyDeleteAnyways, another fact mitigating against your analogy between more modern English-French relations and Greek-Etruscan ones is the fact that while England and France have been full-fledged nations for centuries, "Greece" and "Etruria" some 3000 years ago are merely collective terms for their respective individual city-states. Greek city-states rivaled against each other, as did Etruscan ones.
Agreed. I overstated my case, and my Anglo-French analogy is anachronistic.
ReplyDeleteI should have said "a climate of permanent maritime rivalry between seafarers belonging to different communities, regardless of their ethnic origins".
So, perhaps a better explanation is that the Adriatic route was preferable for somebody trying to get away from an unpleasant situation at home because it was, at that time, less used (judging by the relative amounts of Mycenaean archaeological remains) and so there would be less chance of unpleasant encounters with anyone (traders or pirates).
Another reason favouring the Adriatic route, if you have no particular reason for following the western route is that, once you are in the Adriatic, the currents take you north along the Dalmatian Coast. (There is a map showing these currents in the Wiki "Mediterranean Sea" article). I've also seen some impressive pictures of ships of that period, for example on a website called "The Greek Age of Bronze", Ships page. With such ships and favourable currents, it would be easy sailing for our Tyrsenoi up the Adriatic.
Beekes, op. cit. p. 27 paints this picture: "it is most improbable that the departure was a large-scale operation from a great harbour. I rather think that a few ships found a good place to live, far away. They settled there and next year some went home and brought family and friends in a few ships. Next year more people came over, etc. In the course of time a considerable number of people came to the new country".
I also think that some of the bolder Tyrsenoi may later have taken the more frequented western route (the Aeneas route), but possibly after the initial voyages, i.e. the initial northern entry point (the Antenor route), which explains the presence of the Rhaetic language where it is and how it is, that is to say a separate language and not merely an Etruscan dialect.
For the Etruscan language itself, both north-eastern and western entry points would produce the observed result.
"[...] for example, the legend of Atenor (= Tyrrhenian, ? ), who founded Patavium (Padua), could be revealing."
ReplyDeleteRather Antenor. It's assigned a Greek meaning (ie. 'Instead of a man'), although foreign names in Greek have been known to be cleverly 'naturalized' into native terms.
Sorry, my typing error. I have drawn a combined, but not contradictory description of the expedition from the Latin writers Virgil and Livy:
The "Antenor" expedition sails up to the top of the Adriatic, passing the Timavus river [near Trieste], and lands, at a place called Troy [near Padua], where the natives, the Euganeans (Euganei), are defeated and their lands occupied. The city of Patavium is founded and a new nation is formed called Veneti.
It may have some significance that Livy came from Padua, while Virgil came from the ex-Etruscan city of Mantua.
Virgil, Aeneid 1, 242-249
Antenor potuit mediis elapsus Achivis / Illyricos penetrare sinus atque intima tutus / regna Liburnorum et fontem superare Timavi; / unde per ora novem vasto cum murmure montis / it mare proruptum et pelago premit arva sonanti. / Hic tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit / Teucrorum et genti nomen dedit armaque fixit / Troïa, nunc placida compostus pace quiescit.
Livy, History of Rome 1, 1, 1-3
Iam primum omnium satis constat Troia capta in ceteros saevitum esse Troianos, duobus, Aeneae Antenorique, et vetusti iure hospitii et quia pacis reddendaeque Helenae semper auctores fuerant, omne ius belli Achivos abstinuisse; casibus deinde variis Antenorem cum multitudine Enetum, qui seditione ex Paphlagonia pulsi et sedes et ducem rege Pylaemene ad Troiam amisso quaerebant, venisse in intimum maris Hadriatici sinum, Euganeisque qui inter mare Alpesque incolebant pulsis Enetos Troianosque eas tenuisse terras. Et in quem primo egressi sunt locum Troia vocatur pagoque inde Troiano nomen est; gens universa Veneti appellati.
I gather that describing the Rhaeti as 'barbarous Etruscans' (as in Livy 5.33.11) is a reflection of both Roman prejudice towards Celts as well as an indirect report of the Celticization of the Rhaeti.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the "Celticization of the Rhaeti", it is interesting to note that, to the west, they must have been in contact for centuries before the historical Gallic invasions to which Livy refers with speakers of the Celtic Lepontic language (which is distinct from Gallic and reliably identified with the Golasecca archaeological culture).
The Lepontic language is written in the Lugano alphabet, derived from Etruscan like the Rhaetian alphabet, and after years of discussions is now generally considered to be a fully independent continental Celtic language, on a par with Gallic, or Celtiberian, and so distinct from Cisalpine Gallic dialects, also recorded in inscriptions written in the Lugano alphabet.
I still owe you a couple of answers on points you raised concerning my initial comments ("egalitarianism" and "élite dominance"), but I would like to do some more research before submitting my final version.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime and to help me clarify my own ideas, I would like to know if you have any thoughts on Camunic, a language recorded in 170 inscriptions and once spoken in a territory, the Val Camonica, which separates the Rhaetic area from the area where the Celtic Lepontic language was spoken. Some of the inscriptions are reproduced on Aldolfo Zavaroni's website (adolfozavaroni.tripod.com).
For more information on Val Camonica, which is a truly remarkable area for prehistoric rock carvings (more than 300,000), there is a website called "simbolisullaroccia", where I found the 2005 article entitled "LE ISCRIZIONI CAMUNE" Autore: Adolfo Zavaroni" (simbolisullaroccia.it/archivio2005-2009.htm). Zavaroni groups Camunic with Rhaetic and Etuscan and makes some proposals on interpretation, but I am not qualified to judge his opinions. I see that you have discussed his methodology elsewhere, and I was wondering if you have looked at Camunic in relation to Rhaetic, Etruscan and Leminian?
A. Wikipedia's Mediterranean Sea article
ReplyDeleteI checked out the currents map and I have to admit that it's pretty nifty. So it looks like an anti-clockwise route around the Adriatic is most favoured.
B. Mass wave or slow trickle
I also agree there was no sudden mass wave of Etrusco-Rhaetic. This is surely more a result of relatively peaceful trade than a conscious effort to conquer new lands. They also appear to have brought some animals too if we take into account the genetic studies on Tuscan cows. Here again, an Adriatic route is easier than one sailing all the way to the Tyrrhenian Sea. I wonder if genetic studies have been done on Alpine cows too...
C. Virgil and Livy's accounts
These passages are interesting and while we naturally can't take these Greek tales literally, it suggests to me that this is attempting to account for the origin of the (Doric) Greeks in Magna Graecia through the symbolism of Aeneas, and the Etrusco-Rhaetic through the symbolism of Antenor. The link to the Trojan War is no doubt a conflation of historical events to paint a more glorious and dramatic past.
D. Celticization of north Italy
Notice that even the Novilara Stele (of the North Picenes in NE Italy) shows a solar wheel centered above the text, a symbol associated with Celts. Surely we can assert that Celts and their influence were present throughout the entire Po, west to east.
E. The Camunic language
I can't read much from these fragmented inscriptions offhand but the morphology looks related to Rhaetic since many of the words end in either -as or -au which are the Rhaetic type-I and type-II genitives (cf. Etruscan -as and -al). The replacement of word-final -l with -u points to velarization restricted to Alpine Tyrrhenians (ie. they used the same "dark l" as in English call before it became -u).
Now, I hate to complicate things, but it does owe mention that if bilingualism was intense enough, Rhaetic or Camunic could have been swamped with Celtic loanwords, which would then hamper translation attempts. (This is just an idea, of course, and I have no evidence to back this up. It's just a reasonable prediction from all the archaeological evidence in favour of very strong Celtic influence among the Rhaeti and surrounding areas.)
Re B. Mass wave or slow trickle, this site has something to say on shared human genetics of Etruscans and Rhaetians (hauridna.com/haplogroups/haplogroup-g/).
ReplyDeleteRe D. Celticization of north Italy
I agree with everything you say concerning "celtization" of the Alpine regions, particularly if we avoid the equation Celts = Gauls = La Tène culture. The "native" people of the Golasecca culture also spoke a Celtic language, but had their own culture, as did the Iberian Celts.
I found this on the web (www.instoria.it/home/Italia_antiqua_V.htm) (my translation with my comments in square brackets):
"It seems that the population of the Rhaetians occupied the entire [upper] valley of the Adige [Latin: Athesis; German "Etsch"] and the Isarco [Latin: Isarcus, Isarus; German "Eisack"] in pre-historical times. The contacts they had during this period with the Etruscans [and, I add, proto-Etruscans] of the Po plain and the importance deriving from their occupying the main crossing point of the Central Eastern Alps led this population to adopt into their language expressions similar to Etruscan and to adopt a similar alphabet derived from that of their neighbours".
[But hasn't Helmut Rix proved that the language of the Rhaetic inscriptions is a Trysenian language, and not merely a presumably Indo-European language with heavy Tyrsenian borrowings (like English is a Germanic language with heavy Latin-French borrowings)?]
"The similarities led Greek and Latin authors to assume that the ancient occupants were of Etruscan origin and that they had separated from the Po Valley Etruscan confederation to take refuge along the Alpine passes when the plain was occupied by Gallic peoples coming from the other side of the Alps..."
"From a purely archaeological standpoint, the Rhaetians had no kind of connection with the [classical] Etruscans, except through significant trade that made the region rich even in those times, so it is justifiable to consider the Rhaetians as an indigenous population recognizable in the Sanzeno-Fritzens archaeological culture..."
[The Sanzeno-Fritzens archaeological culture was a direct derivation of the earlier Laugen-Melaun (it. Luco-Meluno] culture, just as Villanovan was a direct derivation of Proto-Villanovan].
"It seems to have been proven, however, that, at the time of the historically documented Celtic invasions in the VI-IV century, part of the territory, in particular that of the present province of Trento was occupied directly by the Cenomani Gauls."
Re E. The Camunic language
As people writing on a rock might simply be writing their own name ("Kilroy was here"), is the following relevant to the many words ending in "-u", possibly from "-al":
Jean-Paul Thuillier, in his book "Les Etrusques: Histoire d'un peuple", points out that in the Etruscan inscriptions found in Bologna (Felsina) and Marzabotto, the second name element (the "nomen", referring to the person's gens or clan) had a specific suffix "-alu" (Achalu, Kraikalu, Vetalu), which is different from the suffix "-na" used in Etruria.
[Marzabotto was an important Etruscan city, as it is on the easiest route between Emilia and Etruria. The name "Kainua" has been proposed recently, although the Latin name was apparently "Misa".]
I offer a caveat on combining linguistics with genetics: Since a person of any genome can always adopt a new language, genetic and language movements don't necessarily correlate with each other. HauriDNA's map of the distribution of Haplogroup G2a surely represents a conflation of multiple historical events at once up to the present day. It may suggest Etruscan migration routes, or maybe migrations during the Roman Empire or other events that happened later. How can we possibly tell?
ReplyDeleteConcerning a suffix in -alu, I wonder whether you're not seeing in these names the Italic diminutive ending, *-lo-.
Marzabotto is unlikely to have been called *Kainua when based only on a fragmented inscription with the hapax kainuaθi. Hasty comparisons to Greek καινός 'new' (as if 'New City') scantly help the matter.
I found a link concerning the origin of names in -alu: Spina e il delta padano (1998), p.133. As I've been suspecting, the author suggests Umbrian.
ReplyDeleteI know at least that Vetalu and Kraikalu can be compared directly with Latin vetulus 'old' and Graeculus 'Greek' respectively.
Re genetics. Agreed, but if some Anatolian genetic input dating back to about 1000 BCE (and not to earlier Neolithic movements) can be established for the Rhaetians (as it apparently has been in the case of the Tuscans), it would be useful supporting evidence.
ReplyDeleteRe *Kainua instead of the Latin Misa as the name for Marzabotto, "Villanova" also means "New City", so perhaps *Kainua is just antiquarian wishful thinking.
On "-alu", etc., I'll comment in another message.
In the meantime, here is my comment on another point that was still pending.
Re "The Rhaetians were apparently a more egalitarian society, as befits 'hillbillies'."
You said:
I'd avoid equating what Romans would view as 'barbarian' cultures with the presence of egalitarianism. I'd also hesitate to stereotype entire cultures as either egalitarian or patriarchal as if it were black-and-white. Patriarchy or egalitarianism is never 100%. Also do you refer to sexual egalitarianism? Or social egalitarianism?
Etruscans, at least, are in a few respects said to be more egalitarian than Romans and Greeks (eg. Theopompus' report on the freedom of women). Yet despite these moral incongruences, they were still respected by Romans as civilizing founders of Rome and not uncouth bumpkins (in contrast to the attitude against the Rhaeti in Livy's account).
Agreed on all points. I was thinking of "social" rather than "sexual" egalitarianism, but after re-reading some of my sources, I think I should have said:
The Rhaetians were apparently a less sophisticated society, with less difference of wealth between the "leaders" and the "masses", as befits 'hillbillies'."
I have no idea on how the Rhaetians rated in relation to sexual equality, but I assume they were patriarchal, although possibly not oppressively so. They apparently had a male god called, according to my source, Tina and a female goddess called Retia (Reitia in Venetic), which seems to indicate a fair balance.
Their religious rites involved lighting bonfires in high places, with burnt offerings of animals and pouring of liquids from ceramic vessels that were then broken and left for modern archaeologists to find and speculate on.
They were also known (starting from the Iron Age) for their wine and they probably invented a kind of curved knife called falx vinitoria in Latin (in italian "ròncola").
Re Camunic again.
ReplyDeleteI can't read much from these fragmented inscriptions (http://www.members.tripod.com/adolfozavaroni/camune.htm) offhand but the morphology looks related to Rhaetic since many of the words end in either -as or -au which are the Rhaetic type-I and type-II genitives (cf. Etruscan -as and -al). The replacement of word-final -l with -u points to velarization restricted to Alpine Tyrrhenians (ie. they used the same "dark l" as in English call before it became -u).
The website includes an "index of terms" for Camunic and a similar list is announced, but not yet available for Rhaetic.
This is a pity, as a comparison of the two lists would reveal similarities and differences. If there are more similarities than differences, then this would suggest a close relationship, or at least heavy borrowing.
Assuming that the four languages (or possibly dialects of the same language in the case
Camunic and Rhaetic) are related, do you see any similarities between Camunic and Lemnian?
Francesco: "[...] do you see any similarities between Camunic and Lemnian?"
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I think that Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetic and even Camunic are all particularly close to each other in a special grouping. Just outside this Etrusco-Rhaetic grouping, I'd add Eteo-Cretan and Eteo-Cypriot. I place Minoan in a seperate branch to complete the Aegean language family.
I find that Lemnian is closest to Old Etruscan, not Rhaetic, because it retains word-final -l (eg. murinail on the Lemnos Stele).
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading a book on the history and archaeology of the Etruscans in the Po Valley (Manfredi and Malnati, "Gli Etruschi in Val Padana") and, contrary to my position so far, on the basis of the archaeological evidence presented in the book, I am beginning to think in terms of two entry points for the Tyrsenian languages into Italy:
Adriatic for Rhaetic (and Camunic) (what I have called the "Antenore Route") and Tyrrhenian for Etruscan (the "Aeneas Route").
Following Beekes ("The origin of the Etruscans", 2003), I am assuming that the Tyrsenians arrived in Italy from Anatolia at both points in roughly the same period and that they originally spoke more or less the same language, which subsequently developed separately in the two areas over several centuries. This would explain the similarity, but not identity of Etruscan and Rhaetian (cf. Helmut Rix, but also the classical sources, as you pointed out).
On the basis of the locations of the late Bronze Age sites along the northern side of the Po river (cf. http://www.provincia.rovigo.it/portal/page/portal/PG_PROVINCIA/PROVINCIA_DI_ROVIGO/STRUTTURA_ORGANIZZATIVA/PERSONA/CULTURA/VILLA_BADOER/MUSEO_ARCHEO), my hypothesis is as follows:
The northern group of Tyrsenian immigrants landed in the general area of Padua and mixed with the local Indo-European speakers, participating with them in the formation of the local Protovillanovan culture. However, in the Venetia region itself, the language and culture that finally prevailed was not Tyrsenian, but Indo-European Venetic.
To the north-west of Venetia, instead, through an élite dominance model, the Tyrsenians were able to transmit their language, the future Rhaetic, within the context of the "less sophisticated" Luco-Meluno archaeological culture. (cf. http://www.comune.sanzeno.tn.it/archeologia/reti.html).
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that something similar happened in classical Etruria, where the Indo-Europeans can be more clearly identified as Umbrians, and, apart from the initial Tyrsenian migration that contributed the language, the rest of Etruscan history is as conventionally described: Protovillanovans > Villanovans > classical Etruscans.
Over the centuries, but coming from the south *, the Villanovans from Etruria penetrated into the Po Valley (where their main city was Felsina-Bologna) and, from there, they spread north of the Po, where their main city was Mantua.
* This is clear on maps of the sites in the book mentioned at the beginning, which fan out to the north from the Appenines over the centuries.
In the course of their expansion northwards, the Etruscans, from a very early date, came into regular and mutually advantageous contact with the Venetic speakers (as confirmed by their adoption of the Etruscan alphabet and considerable archaeological evidence) and they even lived with them in mixed communities (at Adria and Spina), although the more "sophisticated" Etruscans were apparently dominant in both places (also frequented by Greeks - cf. the name "Kraikalu" ("the Greek"), already mentioned).
At the same time, the Etruscans must have come into contact with their "lost tribe", the Rhaetians, to whom they also transmitted their alphabet **. In this case, I assume the contacts were facilitated by the similarity of language. (Etruscan-Rhaeatian contacts are amply documented by all studies - historical, archaeological and linguistic - but are explained in different ways by different schools).
** As they did also to the pre-Gallic Celtic-speaking Golasecca culture further west.
My last consideration justifying my change of opinion is linguistic: if both Etruscan and Rheatic had entered and developed from a single northern entry point, should there not be a dialect continuum between the two languages?
In other words, the Etruscan of the northern cities such as Mantua should be more similar to Rhaetic than the Etruscan of a southern city like Tarquinia, but Etruscan is instead basically the same language from north to south, what do you think?
PART 3: A correction and an addition.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I wrote "Antenore" where I should have written "Antenor" (my excuse is that I was looking at a book written in Italian). Sorry.
Addition: Here is an interesting link concerning the collapse of the Terramare archaeological culture, which preceded the Protovillanovan culture in the Po Valley (http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/1615/). Numerous references are made in this study to contacts with the Aegean (in Italian "Egeo").
Formerly, strict correlations were made between cultures and ethnic groups, so the Terramare people were identified variously with Ligurians, Latin-Faliscans or Umbrians by different schools, and their collapse was explained in terms of invasions, mass migrations, etc., whereas it is now explained ALSO in social, ecological and demographic terms (as discussed in relation to other cultures - Mayans, Easter Island, etc. - in Jared Diamond's book "Collapse").
Wow! This is an amazing wealth of info to digest. Your link to Padova Digital University Archive is particularly rich in insights and I'll have to look through this before I can adequately respond.
ReplyDeleteFrancesco, I notice your first link in Part 1 of your comment hasn't gone through correctly. Here it is again for everyone to access: Provincia di Rovigo - Museo Archeologico Nazionale
ReplyDeleteThanks for your appreciation. In the meantime, I am continuing my research and will keep you posted ...
ReplyDeleteI apologize for adding even more material, but I think I should send you these links to complete what we have discussed so far.
ReplyDeleteYou said in an earlier answer:
I also agree there was no sudden mass wave of Etrusco-Rhaetic. This is surely more a result of relatively peaceful trade than a conscious effort to conquer new lands. They also appear to have brought some animals too if we take into account the genetic studies on Tuscan cows. Here again, an Adriatic route is easier than one sailing all the way to the Tyrrhenian Sea. I wonder if genetic studies have been done on Alpine cows too...
Well, apparently the answer is yes, see this link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189563/#bib2), which provides more information on the Tuscan breeds and also on a Rhaetian-area breed with an interesting name: Rendena, concerning which "a certain degree of affinity with Turkish and southern Anatolian breeds was also shown...".
I think the "Bos taurus" argument also strengthens the idea of two entry points, one for the Tyrrhenian and one for the Adriatic, as the four Tuscan breeds and the one Alpine breed are separate. I am also looking at the possible access routes across the Apennines and they are all rather long and tedious, even by car (!), so it would be difficult to imagine large numbers of migrants complete with herds of cows using them: it is much easier to disembark on a beach (after the sea journey, which would be equally difficult on any route).
To complete the documentation on the Etruscans in the Po Valley, here is another link with information on the history of the Etruscans in the Felsina-Bologna area together with an interesting map and a list of few names of cities with Etruscan associations: (http://storia.sangiorgiodipiano.net/dblog/articolo.asp?id=71).
Hi Glen:
ReplyDeleteAny new ideas on this topic and the Etruscan-Rhaetic relationship, since my last post?
Francesco
I have no objections to the idea of "two entry points" as long as we keep details in check. We must make sure to ask ourselves: Entry point of what exactly?
ReplyDeleteIf we're speaking on a linguistic entry-point, I can't see anything to motivate an entry from Tuscany because it would seem to ignore Rhaetic's long presence in the Alps and the Mycenaean presence in the eastern Po Valley since 1100 BCE. There is then in that respect only one sensible initial point-of-entry of this language group from the faraway Arzawa region in Turkey.
However, there are most certainly multiple points of entry in regards to **trade and culture** over a span of centuries. This is the only thing that the "Bos taurus" argument proves.
On an economic front, my understanding is that an initial Po Valley entry had founded an initial trading route into Europe from Greece by the close of the 2nd millennium BCE. Any forces limiting trade in the Adriatic as time went on would have been thwarted by a rational shift towards economies based in the opposite Tyrrhenian Sea near Tuscany through which more economic opportunities presented themselves through the interaction of the Sardi and Carthaginians.
Hi Glen:
ReplyDeleteAs supporting data for discussion of this theme, I think the following data on rivers (with length), mountain passes (with height), and pre-Roman coastal settlements on the Adriatic coast might be relevant.
River Reno 211 km, reaches sea near Spina (associated with Etruscans) :
via Porretta (Collina) pass, 932 m, and Futa pass, 903 m, gives access to Arno valley (Tuscany).
River Savio 120 km, reaches sea at Cervia (associated with Greeks):
via Mandrioli pass, 1173 m, gives access to Arno valley (Tuscany);
via Montecoronaro pass, 865 m, gives access to Tiber valley (Rome).
The Savio-Tiber valleys were used since prehistoric times as the main North-South route.
River Marecchia 70 km, reaches sea at Rimini, near Verucchio (associated first with Villanovans and then with Etruscans):
via Viamaggio pass, 983 m, gives access to Tiber valley (Via Ariminensis: Arezzo - Rimini Roman road)
River Metauro 121 km, reaches sea at Fano, near Ancona (associated with Greeks):
via Bocca Trabaria pass, 1049 m, gives access to Tiber valley (Via Salaria: Rome - Rimini Roman road).
For the Rhaetian language,
River Adige 410 km, reaches sea at Chioggia (associated with Trojans - Aeneas and Antenor - and "Pelasgians"), leads to Rhaetia.
Francesco