|
Post by gwydion on May 27, 2005 13:37:02 GMT -5
Hmm, very interesting thread !! I'm partially Ligurian (25%) from my father side. I've done some researches in the past to discover the origin of this strange and ancient people. The real story is still partially unknown and complicated : You must distinguish between "ancient Proto-ligurians" (mesolithic less or more) and "ancient neo-Ligurians" (neolithic). The proto-ligurians, were pre-HindoEuropean, they spoke a different language and their culture derived from the ancient cultures of the Mediterranean basin (NOT - HindoEuropeans cultuures). Afterly, the HindoEuropean invaded the area and many tribes with an HindoEuropean language, stabilized themselves in the ligurian zone . These HyndoEuropeans, were divided in several tribes and some researcher sustain that their probable ancient origin were Celtic, especially the "Bagienni" (like the Insubrii and Senones of the near Lombardia). Anyway these tribes, perhaps Celtic fusioned in a pacific way with the Mediterranean Proto-Ligurians, and they became the so called, Neo-Ligurians.......................Some thousands after that, the Celts (the Gauls to be more exact) invaded North-Italy(less or more 500-400 b.c.) from Central-Eastern Europe. Europe; they reached North-West Italy (at the time, completely dominated by Ligurians ( Hyndo-Europeans Neo-Ligurians this time) and fusioned themselves in a massive way with them. The two cultures mixed each other under the celtic rule. The entire North-West of Italy , so became CELTIC-Ligurian and was named Gallia Cisalpina by the Romans. The territory was conquested by the Romans, but preserved his original blood less or more with few variations.
Phenotypically or subracially, we can say that the ancient mediterranean Proto-Ligurians were totally from the Mediterranean family : especially Atlanto-Med and west med, plus some North-Med and Gracile-Classic Med.
Insted the Celtic invaders (Hindo-European neo-Ligurians before probably, and after the Gauls) were of Central-European extraction, so U.P.-Borreby and Brunn, Alpines, more Keltic nordic and Dinaric).
The fusion of this two Components (Celtic-central-european and Ligurian -Med, makes the substantial majority of North-West Italy.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on May 27, 2005 16:49:33 GMT -5
Piedmontese and Milanese people in Italy often fancy and joke about being Kelts ( even Umberto Eco) A few take it seriously (like some ideologists of the Lega secessionist party). Interestingly some dialects in the remote mountain parts of Veneto are reffered by locals as Keltic derived.
The truth is that Northern Italy has been, Historically, Linguisticaly and Ethnically more divided than the South, which instead has regularly displayed Geopolitical unity.
Rome did not only crush its foes, but also encouraged subdued peoples to prosper. In Rome's division of Italy into regions, for example the area called Etruria roughly corresponded to the area covered by the old Etruscan coalitions, while instead the one belonging to the more immediately dangerous 'Samnites' was split and divided, and so it is still today.
The ancient Italics, were named as a distinct ethnical and linguistical group in distinction from Etruscan and Greek cultures. They emerged during the Iron Age and established their territories across the Appenines. Rome emerged as the result of the confluence of these three cultures,
The Italics comprised two linguistical groups the Osco-Umbrian-Samnite and the Latin-Faliscan. Their language was of Indeuropean origin and akin to Keltic (compare Latin-Faliscan 'Rex', King with the Keltic 'Rix'
The descendents Ligurians named and inherited a strip of mountain and wooded land facing the Mediterranean, and it is well likely that their language or at least elements of it, survived well into Imperial times.
|
|
|
Post by Milesian on May 30, 2005 7:56:18 GMT -5
Interesting about Proto-Ligurians and Neo-Ligurians.
Certainly, during the Battle of Aqua Sextae in which the Romans had enlisted Ligurian auxillaries, they heard the Ambrones call out their tribal name in Celtic fashion and across the heat of battle they too followed suit. A Roman writer (Tacitus, I think) mentions that this is because the Ligurians were known as being of Ambrone origin themselves.
The Celts certainly entered Italy, and cities such as Milan were originally Celtic settlements. The Celts sacked Rome and had to be bribed to leave. When the Romans complained at the unfair measurments being used to count the gold bribe, the Celtic leader - Brennus (likely a Latinised form of "Bran") throw his sword on the scales and uttered the now famous cry, "Vae Victus!" (Woe to the Conquered).
As it was Rome recovered within 50 years, and within 100 years had exacted revenge for it, initially capturing Gaul Cisalpina and eventually Gaul Transalpina and beyond.
So yes, there might well be some faint Celtic ghosts of the past lingering still for those who know where to look
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 30, 2005 9:07:16 GMT -5
I have read conflicting things about the Ligurians. One, as Mike said, they spoke a non IE language and two, the spoke a language inbetween Gaulic and Latin.
|
|
|
Post by gwydion on May 30, 2005 10:51:56 GMT -5
Interesting about Proto-Ligurians and Neo-Ligurians. Certainly, during the Battle of Aqua Sextae in which the Romans had enlisted Ligurian auxillaries, they heard the Ambrones call out their tribal name in Celtic fashion and across the heat of battle they too followed suit. A Roman writer (Tacitus, I think) mentions that this is because the Ligurians were known as being of Ambrone origin themselves. So yes, there might well be some faint Celtic ghosts of the past lingering still for those who know where to look Very good, Milesian You cite rightly the Ambrones. Many others ancient latin writers noted the same, and attributed a celtic origin to the Ambrones. Recently, indeed some researchers, have studied deeply the so called "Ambro-Ligurian" culture, like another celtic pop. (inside the variegated Celtic world). About the last researches, it seems we can considerate Ambro-Ligurian adventus, like an ancient and preliminary Celtic wave of invasion, before the great Gaulish wave of the 500 B.C. To be exact we can say that the Mediterranean Proto-Ligurians after their defeat, were confined toward the sea. Indeed, it's interesting to note that anthopologic studies on the area, show a persistent Mediterranean strain on the Ligurian coast, whom decreases gradually toward theinside of the region; in few words, more we're far from the sea, lower become the Mediterranean subracial type. Southern Alps, are a sort of limit in this sense , by the moment they're a formidable natural obstacle. In Piedmont is gradually more dominant the Central-european Celtic strain. I must remember that "Liguria" of that age, was much greater than actual Liguria in Italy ; ideed the Ligurian territory included, the entire North-West of Italy.
|
|
|
Post by gwydion on May 30, 2005 10:56:00 GMT -5
I have read conflicting things about the Ligurians. One, as Mike said, they spoke a non IE language and two, the spoke a language inbetween Gaulic and Latin. Both the things are right, Hardbottle. Proto-Ligurians, were pre-Hyndoeuropean, descendants of the ancient Mediterranean world. Neo-Ligurian (Ambrones, for example)were Hyndoeuropeans and Celtic in their origin.
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on May 30, 2005 17:43:03 GMT -5
the ligures and veneti where not celtic but indigenous to northern italy. btw, Milesian the celts where in italy we know, they even sacked delphi but so what? this is the known "celtic" tribes of northern italy Libicii Insubres Cenomani Boii Lingones Senones Since II° millennium B.C. the whole Western Po area (then Piedmont) is inhabited by Ligurians. They are Pre-Indo-European people who settled in this place after several migrations from the Iberian Peninsula. The term “Ligurian” is not related to the modern Liguria. It has to be considered in a wider meaning. Some names of places, which end by the suffix “asco-a” (i.e. Beinasco, Revigliasco, Grugliasco, Airasca, etc.), are the remaining of the Ligurians and their language. According to some historians, the city name “Asti” comes form the ancient Ligurian “ast”, which meant “hill”. The ancient name of the river Po “Bodincus” is also tipically Ligurian. The migrations of the Celts (Indo-European people as well) date back to VII-VI century B.C. They join the Ligurians in a sort of symbiosis. They melt their customs, religions and languages with no struggles. Ancient historians call these new people “Celtic-Ligurians”. There are several words which come from the Celtic, which are still present in the modern Piedmontese language: Drugia (manure), which comes from the Celtic “Dru” (fertile); Balma (cavern), from the Celtic “Beal” (watercourse); Bealera, from the Celtic “Beal” (hill); Brich (cold wind) from “Bis” (bitting); www.saporidilanga.com/cultura/lingua/indexen.htm
|
|
|
Post by gwydion on May 30, 2005 18:02:38 GMT -5
the ligures and veneti where not celtic but indigenous to northern italy. btw, Milesian the celts where in italy we know, they even sacked delphi but so what? this is the known "celtic" tribes of northern italy Libicii Insubres Cenomani Boii Lingones Senones Since II° millennium B.C. the whole Western Po area (then Piedmont) is inhabited by Ligurians. They are Pre-Indo-European people who settled in this place after several migrations from the Iberian Peninsula. The term “Ligurian” is not related to the modern Liguria. It has to be considered in a wider meaning. Some names of places, which end by the suffix “asco-a” (i.e. Beinasco, Revigliasco, Grugliasco, Airasca, etc.), are the remaining of the Ligurians and their language. According to some historians, the city name “Asti” comes form the ancient Ligurian “ast”, which meant “hill”. The ancient name of the river Po “Bodincus” is also tipically Ligurian. The migrations of the Celts (Indo-European people as well) date back to VII-VI century B.C. They join the Ligurians in a sort of symbiosis. They melt their customs, religions and languages with no struggles. Ancient historians call these new people “Celtic-Ligurians”. There are several words which come from the Celtic, which are still present in the modern Piedmontese language: Drugia (manure), which comes from the Celtic “Dru” (fertile); Balma (cavern), from the Celtic “Beal” (watercourse); Bealera, from the Celtic “Beal” (hill); Brich (cold wind) from “Bis” (bitting); www.saporidilanga.com/cultura/lingua/indexen.htmYour data are right, but only until a certain point : like i've said in the posts before, yes the first Ligurians were Pre-Indoeuropean of course, but an invasion (before the Gaulic invasion you cite) By Ambrones created a new autoctonous Ligurian culture, called by researchers Ambro-Ligurian culture. Ambrones were Celts in origin probably. Therefore, Milesian is right. In reality, many "indigenous" people were Celts ; if not directly, at least in origin. Insubrii, Senones, Ambrones, and, Bagienni (near Cuneo) surely were celtic in their ancient origin. Of course, there was a process of mixing between those new conquerors and the even more ancient inhabitants of north Italy.
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on May 30, 2005 18:21:31 GMT -5
Your data are right, but only until a certain point : like i've said in the posts before, yes the first Ligurians were Pre-Indoeuropean of course, but an invasion (before the Gaulic invasion you cite) By Ambrones created a new autoctonous Ligurian culture, called by researchers Ambro-Ligurian culture. Ambrones were Celts in origin probably. Therefore, Milesian is right. In reality, many "indigenous" people were Celts ; if not directly, at least in origin. Insubrii, Senones, Ambrones, and, Bagienni (near Cuneo) surely were celtic in their ancient origin. Of course, there was a process of mixing between those new conquerors and the even more ancient inhabitants of north Italy. who are the "researchers" can you point one out for me? btw,"if not directly, at least in origin." the only way you can even say this is by relatness to language and archaeological evidence otherwise its just storying telling.
|
|
|
Post by gwydion on May 30, 2005 19:09:43 GMT -5
who are the "researchers" can you point one out for me? btw,"if not directly, at least in origin." the only way you can even say this is by relatness to language and archaeological evidence otherwise its just storying telling. Indeed exists archeological and language relatness. Anyway, is notorious that North Italy derives from a mixture of Celtic and autoctonous. The best word would be GAUL-Italic or Celtic + some other. The same is on a sub-racial genetic level : on the basis of hundreds of skull discovered in the area, the note anthropologist Renato Biasutti showed a substantial upper-paleolithical(borreby) Celtic influx from Central-europe mixed in various proportions with the autoctonous Med race. To be more precise, the modern Ligurians has a more marked Med strain, while in Piedmont is more marked the Celtic central-european strain
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on May 30, 2005 19:30:47 GMT -5
Indeed exists archeological and language relatness. Anyway, is notorious that North Italy derives from a mixture of Celtic and autoctonous. The best word would be GAUL-Italic or Celtic + some other. The same is on a sub-racial genetic level : on the basis of hundreds of skull discovered in the area, the note anthropologist Renato Biasutti showed a substantial upper-paleolithical(borreby) Celtic influx from Central-europe mixed in various proportions with the autoctonous Med race. To be more precise, the modern Ligurians has a more marked Med strain, while in Piedmont is more marked the Celtic central-european strain Well when Milesian mentions Tacitus its way late in the time period of the ligures.by then they where already known as celto ligurian. we are talking about the ligures not the celto ligures. btw i know this is getting off track but it relates to the ligures. the sicilian tribe called Sicani are also sometimes said to have descent from the liguares and or from the iberians.what do you think of the connection?(i think ill start a thread about them)
|
|
Outis
New Member
Memento Audere Semper
Posts: 48
|
Post by Outis on Aug 9, 2005 16:06:22 GMT -5
Concerning ancient Ligures (Liguri), my friend prof. Renato Del Ponte wrote what today may be considered the most complete and updated book on the argument. Renato Del Ponte I liguri. Dalle origini alla conquista romana ECIG 1999, pagg. 320, € 20,14If you need any specific information I can check it directly from the above mentioned book. Let me know. A big exhibition about the Liguri took place in Genova last year. Too bad that I missed it... Saluti.
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Aug 10, 2005 4:34:41 GMT -5
The linguistic position of Ancient Ligurian has not been definitively placed. Most linguists seem to regard it as Indo-European, some arguing that it was intermediate between the Celtic and Italic languages. Some place names in Liguria appear non-Indo European, though that can be said of Greece and many other areas of Europe as well. The roots of the Ligurian Genoa and Celtic Geneva seem to be identical.
|
|
Outis
New Member
Memento Audere Semper
Posts: 48
|
Post by Outis on Aug 10, 2005 8:31:36 GMT -5
|
|
Vlad
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by Vlad on Aug 29, 2005 16:34:31 GMT -5
Look if you want to get into a drawn out bebate on who's or whats Italic and whats not,it should be noted that Sicily,and Italy(north or South) are genetically identical to the Greeks. Most if not all Italians where no doubt Greeks at one point. I disagree, partially. Sicily and southern Italy are similar to greeks, this is true, but about northern Italy, this is false : Northern italians are very similar to central europeans (switzerland, Austria) of celtic or grmanic origin.
|
|