Para-"Ligurian" Phenomenon

[alexfritz]

judging by the pics in this paper the Ligurians had a burial ritual similar to the Villanovans and offshoots like Golasecca (Lepontic speakers) ie the typical EIA culture in Italy and this paper certifies mobility in spreading said culture; the inscriptions that were found within the frm Ligurian territory are said to be very akin to Lepontic (cf Stifter) and a known Ligurian hydronym (bodincus) does derive from PIE; in this regard it will be interesting to see how the Lepontic samples from the upcoming Celtudalps project compare with late-antiquity Bardonecchia (frm Ligurian territory) and/or the Italics/Etruscans

Why do you consider Bardonecchia to be Ligurian? Its in the Taurino-Salassi space, which in the IA is provisionally supposed to belong to  the Pont Valperga facies, iirc a mix of western Golasecca spread and RSFO influences from the west.

From what I read the Val Susa is never considered Ligurian from an archaeological point of view, regardless of what classical sources say. It does not mean that Bardonecchia people were not part of the general NW italy genetic stock, but calling them "Ligurian" is a bit of stretch, unless you use the label Ligurian to define the NW Italy "profile" laid down in the Beaker times, but I think it is wrong to do so. We dont know what they (beakers) spoke  so I would rather reserve the term Ligurian for Liguria/south Piemonte/west Emilia in the IA to be safe until we get more samples

i guess thats the difficulty to dissect it all
but Bardonecchia should be in the frm Alpes Cottiae prov. which in the Wikipedia article is mentioned in conjunction with a king Donnus and the Ligurians; the Salassi as far as i can tell were more restricted in the Aosta valley further north (Augusta Praetoria); Strabon in book 4 gives an account of the area in which in the Maritime alps the term Keltoligurians (Κελτολίγυας) is applied to the Salyes (Oxybii etc.) but for the Cottian alps (incl Taurini) only Ligurians (Λιγυστικόν) is used; a similar account is also with Plinius in book 3 though he calls the Caturiges 'Insubrium exsules' (insubrians) which inturn links up with Lepontic speakers

the Celtudalps samples will def shed some light into the Lepontic speaking area but also in comparison with late-antiquity Bardonecchia which could have remained isolated

[Strabo]

judging by the pics in this paper the Ligurians had a burial ritual similar to the Villanovans and offshoots like Golasecca (Lepontic speakers) ie the typical EIA culture in Italy and this paper certifies mobility in spreading said culture; the inscriptions that were found within the frm Ligurian territory are said to be very akin to Lepontic (cf Stifter) and a known Ligurian hydronym (bodincus) does derive from PIE; in this regard it will be interesting to see how the Lepontic samples from the upcoming Celtudalps project compare with late-antiquity Bardonecchia (frm Ligurian territory) and/or the Italics/Etruscans

Why do you consider Bardonecchia to be Ligurian? Its in the Taurino-Salassi space, which in the IA is provisionally supposed to belong to  the Pont Valperga facies, iirc a mix of western Golasecca spread and RSFO influences from the west.

From what I read the Val Susa is never considered Ligurian from an archaeological point of view, regardless of what classical sources say. It does not mean that Bardonecchia people were not part of the general NW italy genetic stock, but calling them "Ligurian" is a bit of stretch, unless you use the label Ligurian to define the NW Italy "profile" laid down in the Beaker times, but I think it is wrong to do so. We dont know what they (beakers) spoke  so I would rather reserve the term Ligurian for Liguria/south Piemonte/west Emilia in the IA to be safe until we get more samples

i guess thats the difficulty to dissect it all
but Bardonecchia should be in the frm Alpes Cottiae prov. which in the Wikipedia article is mentioned in conjunction with a king Donnus and the Ligurians; the Salassi as far as i can tell were more restricted in the Aosta valley further north (Augusta Praetoria); Strabon in book 4 gives an account of the area in which in the Maritime alps the term Keltoligurians (Κελτολίγυας) is applied to the Salyes (Oxybii etc.) but for the Cottian alps (incl Taurini) only Ligurians (Λιγυστικόν) is used; a similar account is also with Plinius in book 3 though he calls the Caturiges 'Insubrium exsules' (insubrians) which inturn links up with Lepontic speakers

the Celtudalps samples will def shed some light into the Lepontic speaking area but also in comparison with late-antiquity Bardonecchia which could have remained isolated

I just meant that from the pov of the archaeology 'facies' in NW italy the areas of Susa, Aosta and Turin are not considered part of the proper Ligurian area. So any affinity between all these regions is I guess most likely a general NW Italy common heritage from before the IA shared by both? sides of the Western Alps which maybe is what some ancient writers were referring to by the label "Ligurian" as a macro definition of the all peoples of the region while at the same time applying the same label to  the more territoriality restricted and more archaeologically discernible Liguria proper, maybe in a similar fashion to the labelling of Illryia proper (more restricted to Albania/Montenegro etc) and then the greater Illyria concerning almost the entire western balkans, which according up to date genetic findings seem to show, the illyrians from greater Illyria seem to be genetically the same or extremely related (IIRC on the same cline) to the Illyrians from Illyria proper further south, probably stemming from their common proto Illyric/Cetina culture (amongst others) background. 

We know from archaeology that NW Italy shared a rather homogeneous facies in the MBA (Viverone, Alba-Scamozzina), perhaps even going back to late EBA (Monate-Mercurago facies), and that NW exerted strong influence on (or inclusion of) SE France until LBA. IIRC the NW italy influence could also extend north to Valaise too. So maybe the IA "divisions" of NW italy into 3 blocks is rather arbitrary from a genetic POV and more reflects 'foreign' influences from 3 neighbouring zones, Switzerland-Rhine, Rhone and the Etruscan civilisation on top of  a solid NW italy substrat

Would be interesting to know if Ligurian language is more like Lepontic or more more like italic

[Manofthehour]

Another possible "Liguro-Latin" "Aborgine" related people descended from Polada settlers.



Running hypothesis: This latter paragraph describes an Eastern Urnfield warrior-aristocracy (of the same general stock which established themselves within the Terramare Culture) taking over the region. Though the seeming affinities with the Latin-Faliscan language re Venetic might suggest that at least some of the native language persisted in the region and among the Veneti, who otherwise may have spoken a different IE (perhaps Umbro-Sabellic?) language.

[alanarchae]

Another possible "Liguro-Latin" "Aborgine" related people descended from Polada settlers.



Running hypothesis: This latter paragraph describes an Eastern Urnfield warrior-aristocracy (of the same general stock which established themselves within the Terramare Culture) taking over the region. Though the seeming affinities with the Latin-Faliscan language re Venetic might suggest that at least some of the native language persisted in the region and among the Veneti, who otherwise may have spoken a different IE (perhaps Umbro-Sabellic?) language.

that description kind of reminds me of the Fratessina elite who controlled the copper flowing from the Tyrol Adige area and traded with the Greeks. I think it was mostly in the 1100-800BC era. I must admit I kind of fancied that as explaining the Rhaetic-Etruscan language family. I’ve long thought that Etruscans and the villanovan could relate to the rulers of Fratessina and associated groups relocation to Tuscany about 900BC and the rhaetic speakers being the people left behind along the old copper route into the Alps. Perhaps with the Veneti taking over the territory around Frattesina once the migration to Tuscany took place. My own belief is that Fratessina might have been built by elements from the collapse of terramare. My own hunch is. terramare, fratessina, villanovan etruscan tuscany and the Rhaetics all were stages/sections/remnants of the same non IE people. I believe there is a thread of archaeological and loguistic logic in my theory but I could be totally wrong though! And i’ve very little ancient dna evidence to support it. Though i’ve started to think that Etruscan in Tuscan might be an elite dominance thing and the population below the elite were IEs of Italic or Ligurian origin.

[alanarchae]

Another possible "Liguro-Latin" "Aborgine" related people descended from Polada settlers.



Running hypothesis: This latter paragraph describes an Eastern Urnfield warrior-aristocracy (of the same general stock which established themselves within the Terramare Culture) taking over the region. Though the seeming affinities with the Latin-Faliscan language re Venetic might suggest that at least some of the native language persisted in the region and among the Veneti, who otherwise may have spoken a different IE (perhaps Umbro-Sabellic?) language.

that description kind of reminds me of the Fratessina elite who controlled the copper flowing from the Tyrol Adige area and traded with the Greeks. I think it was mostly in the 1100-800BC era. I must admit I kind of fancied that as explaining the Rhaetic-Etruscan language family. I’ve long thought that Etruscans and the villanovan could relate to the rulers of Fratessina and associated groups relocation to Tuscany about 900BC and the rhaetic speakers being the people left behind along the old copper route into the Alps. Perhaps with the Veneti taking over the territory around Frattesina once the migration to Tuscany took place. My own belief is that Fratessina might have been built by elements from the collapse of terramare. My own hunch is. terramare, fratessina, villanovan etruscan tuscany and the Rhaetics all were stages/sections/remnants of the same non IE people. I believe there is a thread of archaeological and loguistic logic in my theory but I could be totally wrong though! And i’ve very little ancient dna evidence to support it. Though i’ve started to think that Etruscan in Tuscan might be an elite dominance thing and the population below the elite were IEs of Italic or Ligurian origin.

[alanarchae]

The mystery of the ethnogenesis of the several IE and non IE peoples of Italy recorded at the opening of history is one of the most fascinating topics in european prehistory. One of my favourite subjects despite me having zero connection to Italy - unless a Roman soldier had a thing with my 80 times great granny on the Antonine wall ;9)

[Pylsteen]

You're not the only one pondering about this topic... I was reminded by academia I read this interesting paper about the collapse of Terramare which I think we may have discussed in the light of Dionysios' writings and Frattessina some time ago at AG.

In any case... Italic itself, a very remarkable linguistic branch. After the split from Italo-Celtic it developed the typical fricatives (*f/*β, *θ/*ð, *χ/*ɣ, *χw/*ɣw), of which some merged into *f. McCone and Schrijver suggest fricatives may have already been present in Italo-Celtic itself, also being reflected in the Celtic lenited sounds and perhaps in Lusitanian. On the way to Italic more characteristics developed, such as a subjunctive in *-ā- (Jasanoff), adverbs in *-ēd, an imperfect tense in *-βā- and specific vocabulary+semantics such as manus 'hand', terra 'earth'. A period of several centuries is needed for these shared innovations.

Sabellian (inclusing Oscan, Umbrian and South Picene) differs from Latino-Faliscan by its total merger of fricatives into *f/*β, the (quite common cross-linguistically) change of *kw and *gw into *p and *b, and different vocabulary (e.g. Oscan triibum vs. Latin domus 'house', Oscan sullus vs. Latin omnis 'all'). Latino-Faliscan remained more conservative phonologically. Most remarkable is that both Sabellian and Latino-Faliscan merged the perfect and aorist tenses, but with different outcomes (e.g. Lattin feci vs. Oscan fefacid 'made', Latin tetuli vs. Umbrian (en-)telust 'raised') (see Clackson and Horrocks). These different outcomes suggest some distance or lack of contact between the branches to me for some time. During the first millennium BC contact was intensified; rural immigration into Latium and Rome brought several Sabellian forms (bos 'bovine', rufus 'red') into Latin, typical religous terminology and onomastic practices were shared (also with Etruscan).

Regarding Venetic, it is clear that it is Italo-Celtic; it preserved *p and developed fricatives (as in Italic), on the other hand, its use of a preterite tense in *-s- and several mediopassive forms in *-r- are more reminiscent of Celtic. It may have been a dialect in between Italic and Celtic, that remained closer geographically to Italic later on.

[Strabo]

These different outcomes suggest some distance or lack of contact between the branches to me for some time. During the first millennium BC contact was intensified; rural immigration into Latium and Rome brought several Sabellian forms (bos 'bovine', rufus 'red') into Latin, typical religous terminology and onomastic practices were shared (also with Etruscan).

 
Instead of a "1 north of the alps, 1 south of the alps" theory, wouldn't it be equally plausible that Latin and Sabellic were separated in Italy by another or more italic branches in between them? Say like Siculian or whatever? And that both proto Latin and proto Sabellic may have had initially a low number of speakers and confined to relatively small geographic areas? I guess it depends whether one believes in an early or a late dating (1200 bc???) for the disintegration of proto italic, and just how soon those "1st millenium BC contacts between Latin and Sabellic" start.

So far I cant find any evidence for a major migration into Italy (perhaps apart from Friuli/Puglia) in the BR/RF. There is also a theory that late Appenine and/or Sub Appenine  culture may have penetreated into the adriatic Romagna/Veneto regions, perhaps involving the movement of human groups that may have brought venetic from the south. 

Equally plausible is a theory that Romagna/adriatic region may  have been its own "thing" with regards to similar material culture in that part of italy developing from Epi Bell Beaker times along with north truscany and Adriatic italy. The Polada/Terramare would be on top of a "local" substrat coming from Epi Beaker times, perhaps also mixing with Grotta Nuova/Appenine in MBA as well. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Italy a distinction is made between Terramaricola south of the Po (supposedly an expansion from the north of the Po) and the palafitticola north of the Po.

[Manofthehour]

More from Dionysis Halicarnassus 

https://topostext.org/work/139#1.10.3


Very similar to the Ver Sacrum rite practiced practiced by Umbro-Sabellics, so it seems like it wasn't just the latter who did this in Italy.

We're talking about largely male migrations and founder effects. They didn't bring their women with them but instead took local wives of the lands they migrated to/invaded, and often imposed their language and traditions to some extent. Rinse and repeat with subsequent generations and further diluted steppe (and WHG) dna. It only makes sense that in spite of IE Y-dna predominating in many parts of Italy the steppe component would be rather diluted over time compared to their forebears from across the Alps. 
Some probably assimilated into Rhaetic and Etruscan speaking peoples/cultures and explains the IE haplogroups found among ancient samples of Etruscans. Others managed to keep their language and identity intact as it was imposed on the population.

[alanarchae]

More from Dionysis Halicarnassus 

https://topostext.org/work/139#1.10.3


Very similar to the Ver Sacrum rite practiced practiced by Umbro-Sabellics, so it seems like it wasn't just the latter who did this in Italy.

We're talking about largely male migrations and founder effects. They didn't bring their women with them but instead took local wives of the lands they migrated to/invaded, and often imposed their language and traditions to some extent. Rinse and repeat with subsequent generations and further diluted steppe (and WHG) dna. It only makes sense that in spite of IE Y-dna predominating in many parts of Italy the steppe component would be rather diluted over time compared to their forebears from across the Alps. 
Some probably assimilated into Rhaetic and Etruscan speaking peoples/cultures and explains the IE haplogroups found among ancient samples of Etruscans. Others managed to keep their language and identity intact as it was imposed on the population.

I personally (but with low levels of confidence!) suspect Etruscan was an elite overlay on an older Italic population that took place around 950BC at the end of the proto-villanovan and was caused by a migration to Tuscany by a chunk of the elite from around Fratessina. I suspect they could cause language shift because they set up proto urban centres in Tuscany in the final decades of the protovillanovan, many of which became v important in the villanovan. I have read that the tuscan late protovillanovan does appear to have string links to the Frattesina area and the hypothetical migration  does roughly coincide with the decline of the trade of copper from the Tyrol:Adidge area that Frattesina had controlled and a shift to Tuscan copper. 

My theory does make some archaeological sense although admittedly it’s subtle and mostly guesswork. As for the reasons for the fall and migration west of my hypothetical proto Etruscan Fratessina group, the cause seems to me most likely to be something that disrupted the copper route to Tyrol etc. The route looks likely to have been Adidge- Garda- south to the Po -along Po to Fratessina. Likely the arrival or expansion of another group. It’s hard to see that group being anyone other than the Veneti. I read they are earliest known around Garda and the area a bit inland from Venice so i’m guessing they took control of the Garda area and cut off/controlled a key bit of the copper route to the Po and Fratessina in the 900sBC. They would also then have control of the alternative  Adidge route to the Adriatic and that meant Fratessina lost its importance and the proto Etruscans migrated to Tuscany - another metal rich area. I read somewhere that the lower part of the Adidge once flowed to the Adriatic further north and that it’s channel later changed to hit the Adriatic closer to the Po. I’d need to find that again.

[alanarchae]

I know ancient yDNA from terramare has been linked to Veneti but the sample is far too tiny to draw conclusions. Many populations were probably created by a mix of natives and incomers so a couple of ancient dna results is totally inadequate. Until the sample is radically increased in size for groups it’s just guessing. It only feels like the sample is anywhere near reasonable size for the Etruscans and Latins at present

[Manofthehour]

I personally (but with low levels of confidence!) suspect Etruscan was an elite overlay on an older Italic population that took place around 950BC at the end of the proto-villanovan and was caused by a migration to Tuscany by a chunk of the elite from around Fratessina. I suspect they could cause language shift because they set up proto urban centres in Tuscany in the final decades of the protovillanovan, many of which became v important in the villanovan. I have read that the tuscan late protovillanovan does appear to have string links to the Frattesina area and the hypothetical migration  does roughly coincide with the decline of the trade of copper from the Tyrol:Adidge area that Frattesina had controlled and a shift to Tuscan copper. 

My theory does make some archaeological sense although admittedly it’s subtle and mostly guesswork. As for the reasons for the fall and migration west of my hypothetical proto Etruscan Fratessina group, the cause seems to me most likely to be something that disrupted the copper route to Tyrol etc. The route looks likely to have been Adidge- Garda- south to the Po -along Po to Fratessina. Likely the arrival or expansion of another group. It’s hard to see that group being anyone other than the Veneti. I read they are earliest known around Garda and the area a bit inland from Venice so i’m guessing they took control of the Garda area and cut off/controlled a key bit of the copper route to the Po and Fratessina in the 900sBC. They would also then have control of the alternative  Adidge route to the Adriatic and that meant Fratessina lost its importance and the proto Etruscans migrated to Tuscany - another metal rich area. I read somewhere that the lower part of the Adidge once flowed to the Adriatic further north and that it’s channel later changed to hit the Adriatic closer to the Po. I’d need to find that again.

That actually makes some sense. It reminds me of Tarquinius Priscus, a Greco-Etruscan, taking power in Rome in the 7th century BC (In his case being elected king by popular sovereignty, if the legends are true) and transforming Rome from a rather primitive Italic settlement into a full fledged urban center with stone structures and plumbing. 
It seems strange that he'd randomly get the idea to go to Rome of all places (then probably not much more than a fledgling settlement among settlements) and lobby for influence. It seems like it could have been something of a common precedent, being denied a political career in one's home city. 

This may reflect something of a pattern which already happened throughout Tuscany. Trader-Artisan-Politicians gaining influence. Conquest may have also occurred in some cases. I'm unsure.

[Strabo]

I personally (but with low levels of confidence!) suspect Etruscan was an elite overlay on an older Italic population that took place around 950BC at the end of the proto-villanovan and was caused by a migration to Tuscany by a chunk of the elite from around Fratessina. I suspect they could cause language shift because they set up proto urban centres in Tuscany in the final decades of the protovillanovan, many of which became v important in the villanovan. I have read that the tuscan late protovillanovan does appear to have string links to the Frattesina area and the hypothetical migration  does roughly coincide with the decline of the trade of copper from the Tyrol:Adidge area that Frattesina had controlled and a shift to Tuscan copper. 

My theory does make some archaeological sense although admittedly it’s subtle and mostly guesswork. As for the reasons for the fall and migration west of my hypothetical proto Etruscan Fratessina group, the cause seems to me most likely to be something that disrupted the copper route to Tyrol etc. The route looks likely to have been Adidge- Garda- south to the Po -along Po to Fratessina. Likely the arrival or expansion of another group. It’s hard to see that group being anyone other than the Veneti. I read they are earliest known around Garda and the area a bit inland from Venice so i’m guessing they took control of the Garda area and cut off/controlled a key bit of the copper route to the Po and Fratessina in the 900sBC. They would also then have control of the alternative  Adidge route to the Adriatic and that meant Fratessina lost its importance and the proto Etruscans migrated to Tuscany - another metal rich area. I read somewhere that the lower part of the Adidge once flowed to the Adriatic further north and that it’s channel later changed to hit the Adriatic closer to the Po. I’d need to find that again.

This is not a fringe theory and probably should enjoy much more confidence. What other alternative is there given the genetic results?

The impression that I am getting from reading italian papers is that this is the leading theory as to the origin of the etrurian etruscans, migration from Frattesina "area" overlayed over an older IE speaking peoples in Etruria. I dont know if toponymy is relevant but on 1 of Quiles pages about etruscans a book or paper he quotes says the earlier toponomy layer in etruria is IE, but not Latin...so if true that kind of breaks the ligurian-latin continuum theory unless said layer was ligurian like.

As for the veneti, unlike say IA Ligurians or Golaseccians, which can be generally traced back to a continuous evolution since LBA, if not earlier, its hard to get a "start date" for veneti. IIRC most far back papers go is 8th centrury bc (so essentially EIA). IIRC I think its about the start of Este, Padua centers etc. IIRC there were other intermediate centres after fratessina, but its hard to discern if any new population arrived from Danube to form the veneti, and/or if they were the descendants of earlier Appenine/Sub Appenine populations moving north, and/or if the veneti were always local, and the  palafitticola/Terramare incorporated IE locals during their cultural expansions but "left them be". Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a "gap" between Fratessina and the paleoveneti culture like say something like between 1000 bc and 800 or 750 bc (Not sure of exact dates). 

Some interesting connections amongst others I have been picking up on is the contacts between Polada and Gata Wieselberg in EBA (and IIRC Singern as well). Makes one wonder what languages were spoken in eastern alps/pannonia in EBA. Dont know if correct but I usually assume that Encrusted pottery would not speak IE. Maybe that mysterious East Alpine EBA group was also non IE? Just thought if you want to link Terramare with estruscan/tyrsenic (and therefore Polada?), maybe we should not only be searching in Tyrol for (pre?) proto Tyrsenics ?

[Pylsteen]

Throwback to an analysis by David (eurogenes) in 2019

note the Adriatic admixture in the one "Proto-Villanovan" sample, something that the Italic IA samples apparently do not need.

[Strabo]

Let’s review data on Italy:
Maybe its complete crap, but FWIW...

From the book: https://www.casadellibro.com/ebook-lengu...24/2302688

by Francisco Villar (2007)

I. Serial tponyms and hydronyms of Italy:

1. ub-: Caecubus, Egubium, Litubium, Marrubium, Olobia, Rutuba, Tardoba, Tardubius, Verubius, etc.
   
2. uc-: Aluca, Arucia, Arugus, Ausucum, Ausugum, Motuca, Uccia.
   
3. ur-: Orinos, Stura, Stura, Astura, Tibur, Caburrum, Calorem.
   
4. urc-: Coturga, Orgus, Urcia, Urcinia, Urgo.
   
5. bai-: Baebiani.
   
6. tuc-: Tucianus (pagus).
   
7. murc-: Murcia, Murgantia, Murgantia.
   
8. *war: Varduli, Barduli.
   

II. Non-serial toponyms and hydronyms of Italy: 

Aesis, Aisis, Ana, Ania, Anios, Arsia, Astura, Ausa, Ausonia, Ausculum, Bardinisca vallis, Barduli, Basentius, Basta, Boron, Cabienses (Cabia), Caburrum, Cales, Cales, Casta Ballenis, Ceresium, Cerili, Corsica, Cortona, Curicum, Ispelum, Ispila, Isporos, Istonium, Istria, lacus, Latis, Latium, Laurentum, Laurentes, Luca, Lucania, Lucera, Maleventum, mare, Marrucini, Minio, Minius, Oscela, Osci, Ossa, Ostia, Paestum, Pisaurum, Pisaurus, Sabini, Sagis, Savo, Sila, Silarus, Silis, Soletum, etc.

Not few of the he coincident place names between the southern Iberian and Italic material are rigorous cognates. We understand by such the names that not only coincide in the root or in the serial element, but in the whole root set plus suffixes, or – if it is a compound – in the two sets of roots plus suffixes. In addition to the ones that we are going to present below, there are others that we did not mention because the Iberian correlate was not found within the southern group, but in other geographical areas, as is the case, for example, with the Italian Mantua and the Spanish Mantua (Carpetania).

As can be seen, the parallels between the southern Iberian toponymic area and the Italic one are so wide and strict that the mere calculation of probabilities makes any attempt to attribute them to the mere chance of random homophony irrational. And the improbability of chance increases as coincidences are added in new places in Europe. What will not prevent, for sure, that some would resort to it as an explanation, in particular those who are reluctant to abandon the conception of the prehistory of the European continent that underlies their usual approaches, which suffer an irreparable strike when they are confronted with these data.

The second aspect, the compatibility of this material with Indo-European etymology, offers another significant correlation: the “southern” series that are also found in the Ibero-Pyrenean region and in Italy (and the rest of western Europe) are compatible with Indo-European etymologies; (…)

Etruria

(…) in the whole of Italy there is a considerable collection of toponyms and hydronyms of “Southern Iberian” type, whose joint inventory we have contributed to above. From them we find in Etruria Ause, Veturris / Bituriza, Castola, Hasta, Cortona, Luca, Minio, Osa / Ossa, Pissai, Pistoria. The Hispanic and Italian correlates of those names are:

However, the inventory of ancient names and hydronyms of Etruria compatible without discussion with well-known Indo-European etymologies is much wider: Albina, Alma, Alsium, Arnine, Arnos, Arnus, Aventia, Marta, Pallia, Umbro, Vetulonium, Volsinii. Furthermore, the majority of Etrurian hydronyms have non-Latin Indo-European etymology: Albina, Alma, Arnine, Arnos, Arnus, Auser, Aventia, Marta, Minio, Osa, Ossa, Pallia, Umbro. And very few of the others (Clusinus, Cremera, Lingeus, Trasumenus, Vesidia) could claim an Etruscan etymology, if only one could do so.

In summary, the territory occupied by Etruscans presents a hydro-toponymic situation very similar to that of the rest of Italy and Western Europe: it exhibits a very deep toponymic stratum of Indo-European character to which most hydronyms attested in antiquity belong. As we know the history of Etruria from the end of the 1st millennium BC, and we know that no other Indo-European peoples mediated between the Etruscans and the Romanization of the territory, we must conclude that this ancient toponymy was there before the Etruscans arrived or emerged in that place. And, when the Etruscans settled there, they did not have the opportunity to put names of their language to the rivers in general, because they had already received them from a previous people and the Etruscans limited themselves to learning them, adapting them to their language, and transmitting them in turn to the Romans. When the latter Romanized Etruria, they limited themselves to incorporating those names and adapting them to Latin.