Para-"Ligurian" Phenomenon

[alanarchae]

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.

my own view (though based on little data and mostly on archaeological hints) is that the Etruscans overlaid an existing IE pop in Tuscany after migrating about 1000-900BC from elsewhere in northern Italy (probably the Po and/or lower Adige area. My feeling is that their genetic impact was minor in Etruria (elite dominance) and that the Etruscans tested so far were likely IE speakers - some kind of Italics and/or Ligurians. But admittedly I can’t really point to evidence other than iron age etruscans being like genetic clones of iron age Latins. The shift to defenced pro urban sites in Tuscany about 1000BC (late proto-villanovan) might be the sites where elite dominance took place. Several of them grew into major Etruscan cities over the following centuries. My own suspicion is that they came from the Lower Po area, maybe from Fratessina and ultimately were descended from Terramare. But I think the migration was small and targeted at setting up few central places. 

SThe problem is that they need to get a sample for each italian region for each part of the bronze age (beaker era, early, middle and late bronze age) with a good handful of resolved yDNA for each. That’s the only way this will all be resolved. Admittedly cremation isn’t helping do that.

[alanarchae]

this is a useful critique (not the only one) of the theory of a common undifferentiated ‘old European’ strata. Basically the devil is in the detail of every name and must be treated individually using historical records. Plus where a sequence of languages have rolled over the same area the effect of that on modern forms (or even forms recorded in the medieval era) can be big.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...e_specific

I’ve certainly noticed in Britain that today many linguists tend to look at so called Old European names and find that they are actually probably Celtic.

I’m no expert on linguistics but my impression is that Old European as undifferentiated IE is not a safe concept at all and that they may well just be from well/historically attested languages that have been put through the blender of multiple subsequent language changes or recorded in writings of another language. I don’t take the concept seriously and would not factor it into my considerations.

I certainly don’t believe that they are a common early IE uniform strata dating back oboit 4000 years. For one, archaeology and ancient DNA indicate there is likely the bulk of a millennium between IE arriving in Poland c.3000BC and IE arriving in west Med coasts c. 2200BC. That is far too slow a movement to leave an undifferentiated linguistic imprint into. 800 years of gradual movement of simple clan based societies. So for me the most logical conclusion is Old European as a uniform substrate of over 4000 years ago is very very likely an illusion.

[Strabo]

this is a useful critique (not the only one) of the theory of a common undifferentiated ‘old European’ strata.  Basically the devil is in the detail of every name and must be treated individually using historical records. Plus where a sequence of languages have rolled over the same area the effect of that on modern forms (or even forms recorded in the medieval era) can be big.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...e_specific

I’ve certainly noticed in Britain that today many linguists tend to look at so called Old European names and find that they are actually probably Celtic.

I’m no expert on linguistics but my impression is that Old European as undifferentiated IE is not a safe concept at all and that they may well just be from well/historically  attested languages that have been put through the blender of multiple subsequent language changes or recorded in writings of another language.  I don’t take the concept seriously and would not factor it into my considerations.

I certainly don’t believe that they are a common early IE uniform strata dating back oboit 4000 years. For one, archaeology and ancient DNA indicate there is likely the bulk of a millennium between IE arriving in Poland c.3000BC and IE arriving in west Med coasts c. 2200BC. That is far too slow a movement to leave an undifferentiated linguistic imprint into. 800 years of gradual movement of simple clan based societies. So for me the most logical conclusion is Old European as a uniform substrate of over 4000 years ago is very very likely an illusion.

Yeah I was also getting the increasing feeling that that that theory was being abandoned. I am not an expert so i stay neutral. But maybe italy/spain similarities (if they actaully exist) has something to do a particular group of beakers, say in the south of france/lower rhone, that spread east and west along the italian and spanish coasts. Their layer of names later being overlayed by iberian, etrsucan, latin etc.

The argument that some names are pre latin, and therefore have to be pre etuscan as no documented IE invasion of most etrsucan lands pre romans is tempting though

[Manofthehour]

Long messy post
According to this article, Sicel/Siculi appears as a cognate language to Latin, with some limited affinities to Umbro-Sabellic if I understand correctly.
https://www.academia.edu/31268197/The_Ce...e_of_Latin

There seems to be confusion among ancient (and modern) scholars as to the relation of the Siculi to other populations. Were they Bronze Age (Para-)Ligurians or a separate Italic population? Both are posited among other possibilities.
What is their relationship with Old Latins? If the Siculians were Para-Ligurians, would that then make Latin a Para-Ligurian language/ethnicity? Were the "Aborigines" who drove out the Siculi (and mixed with the remainder) also Para-Ligurians of a different branch/tribe?
Old Latium seems multi-ethnic in origin overall which makes much of this hard to pin down for sure.
 
The Iberian-like traces in Iron Age Latins/Central Italy, along with certain Y-dna, suggests some kind of movement from the North and/or West. Bell Beakers heavily mixing with Western Alpine and/or Provence/Languedoc populations could easily explain that. There's a place in Switzerland that's near the sources of the Rhine, Rhone, and Ticino Rivers, the latter two flowing into South France and NW Italy respectively and there were multiple other tributaries into the Po from the Western Alps. I imagine the spread of Z56, especially Z56>Z43 markers of R1b-U152 being correlated.

Map of Italian Bell Beaker finds. Many of these may be foreign items acquired through trade, while some may reflect Bell Beaker descended population migration. You see a concentration of them in the major Polada Culture area around lake Garda. Pre-Proto-Etruscans in the area may have acquired much through trade, but I also think some Z36 and L2 clades could have entered that area during the BB period and throughout the Polada, explaining their major contribution to Modern Lombardy's Y-dna and that of the Ancient Etruscan samples. This area was also receiving Balkan influences at some point, and maybe already around the BB period. Imagine much of these particular BBs came from the Central and Eastern Alps, considering the flow of certain tributaries to the Po (Adige, etc...)


In contrast, I imagine Z56 and Z193 subclades hovering around the Western regions circa the Aosta Valley before spreading, and also near the Ticino river you see a smallish cluster of BB finds, being (perhaps) Proto-Ligurian along with those spreading across the Coasts of Southern France/Italian Riviera via the Rhone, which like the Ticino also begins in the same area of Southern Switzerland.


It would make sense for the Romans to not want to identify much with any Ligurian-like heritage, and so downplaying, ignoring, or sometimes covering up any potential connections and instead identifying with more Aegean elements who were nonetheless probably present to some extent in the LBA but not enough to make a substantial linguistic impact among other things. The Orientalizing period brought cultural Aegeanization and the Imperial period brought substantial genetic Aegeanization to much of Italy, incentivizing identification with Aegean sources/genealogies and what have you, some of which were valid or at least plausible nonetheless.  

This is also interesting, albeit perhaps with some dated notions. Toponyms, tribal/place names etc... connecting Old Latium with Ligurians. 
https://www.academia.edu/31784090/A_note...nt_records


Map showing many Celto-Ligurian tribes in the Western Alpine regions. Compare with a few place/tribal names in Old Latium.

---

Medulli/Medullium? (pointed out by scholars)
Labici - Libici (less sure)
Nemeturi - Numitor/Gens Numitorious? (probably a stretch)
Sicani (Ligure-Iberian?) and Sisolenses are obvious enough, assuming them as Para-Ligurians. 

Gallitae, Galati/Galatians - Collatia, Lati/Latini/Latians? Big stretch but plausible?
Ladatini? (Obscure tribe west of present day Pavia, big stretch) 
Gabii - Gabali/Gabli? (Southeast Gaul tribe, stretch)

Some Iberian and potentially Belgic connections show up as well with the Suessetani tribe. Notice similar if not identical words show up in the lists above of Old Latium. Corbio, Setia, and also Suesse-Pometia (old Latin city not mentioned)

I suppose much of all this could chalked up to use of common IE or Italo-Celtic words to rename things, but still interesting to me. 
There may be more potential connections among Iberian or Ligurian tribes, place names etc... 

...

There is also mentioned a "Venetulani" possibly linked to Venetic peoples?
I suppose another possibility to all this is Proto-Venetics being an earlier arrival from East Alpine/Middle Danube regions (Separate from Umbro-Sabellics arriving later from another population) Is it plausible that, assuming the affinities between Venetic and Latin-Faliscan are phylogenetic, they may have brought the Latin-Faliscan language and became the dominant force in Old Latium enough to leave their language? Were the original Latin speakers in Latium Venetic related, and were these the Proto-Villanovans who initiated the Latial Culture? Religious centers were known to be socially vital in the region, and perhaps those bringing Urnfield rites became dominant linguistically? R-Z56-bearing/Iberian/Ligurian-like Latini being a substrate population and originally speaking a separate language before adopting Latin?

[alanarchae]

I think two things form the core of my view on the Ligures

1. The statement that they were similar in lifestyle to Gauls but nevertheless were a different people who looked physically different from the Gauls.
2. The clear implication that they were undergoing Celticisation around the time they were being observed by classical authors (confirmed by archaeology).
3. The classical authors also were observing Celticisation at its advanced stage among the northern Rhaetic tribes.

I think there is a clear pattern that both the Ligures and the more northern of the Raeti were well on the way to having their identities blurred in the late iron age. The Raeti are more fortunate in that the more southerly section of them in north Italian alps clearly held onto their language longer so we know they spoke a non IE language that probably had a common ancestor with Etruscan in the late bronze age. With the Ligurians it may be that simply next to nothing was recorded prior to Celticisation and if there had been pockets that stlll spoke the old pre Celtic Ligurian language into the era of clashes with Rome they sadly were unrecorded.

Another question is had the Ligures been in their historical territory for a long time before they are noted in history. It’s an unusual territory that is both very coastal but also hemmed in by mountainous lands. Personally I can’t see them having been driven to the coast from the surrounding mountains. It’s not as if the surrounding mountains are highly attractive lands for farming. So I do not believe they were driven to those lands from the north or east. So if their historical location was a result of then being pushed and confined there then i’d look to the south at possibly impact from Etruscan expansion or to the west for the impact of Iberian expansion. Or perhaps both. However when in such as scenario they would previously have still had been somewhere in the confined of the south French coast to the west coast of central Italy. So they imo must have a long term prehistory as a tribe on the coast of the west Med between southern France and west coast of the northern half of Italy. IF you view the Etruscans as intrusive to Tuscany around 1000BC (perhaps from an origin on the lower Po) as I suspect then they must have been another people in Tuscany before them and Liguria would be a natural area to withdraw into/be a rump of a formerly bigger territory.

It’s interesting that there is a rivers called Ombrone well into Tuscany near Grossetto when you consider the story of the Ligurians chanting the name when in battle with Ambroni from northern Europe who sounded like they were chanting the same thing. Though there is a other Ombroni ‘Ombrone Pistoiese’ which is a tributary into the Arno from the north which likely was in ancient Liguria though in north Tuscany todays. It could have been that river they were chanting about.

[Manofthehour]

I suppose not all Ligures were farmers but some herders?. I vaguely remember attestations of them being skilled mountain climbers/navigators.
I'd imagine there being related people in the mountains.

The way people both ancient and modern use the "Ligurian" label is less than consistent, if that isn't obvious enough. There seems to be a conception that all of Northwest Italy, excluding what may have been the most inhospitable mountainous terrain was once home to "Ligurian" and/or "Celto-Ligurian" tribes, and this must have been into the Iron Age.

Again we reach a semantic issue I suppose. What I conceive of is a much broader category than definite historical attestations of what's described as Ligure, though some ancient and later historians on occasion refer to extremely broad categories using this term.
In this current context I conceive of it as the result of Beaker peoples from Upper Rhine areas migrating and mixing with those South and West of them. Western Alps, Rhone Alps/Valley and Southern French/West Italian coasts, etc... this being a Para-Ligurian block so to speak.

By the Late Bronze Age, accessible areas like the Upper Rhone, NW Italian foothills and NW Po Valley could have been Celticized first, Leading to Lepontic and Full-fledged Gallic tribes in Rhone Valley areas North of the Coast. (Celticization didn't have to be genetic, or much so, in this case I'd think, other than maybe a Urnfield/Hallstatt elite) while the coastal areas as well as some of the more mountainous areas may have avoided Celtization until later. The coastal areas probably had a larger Neolithic population and so the Steppe component within these particular tribes/people was probably significantly lower and remained so for most of history at least.
Classical sources also attest Ligurians as being able to hold their own in combat against Celts despite their shorter stature. More reason to avoid attempts to conquer Ligurian settlements.
Most Celts, at least of the Alpine regions and the South were not big seafarers and I don't suppose why they'd be particularly prone to seek conquest of coastal areas, though I'm sure it happened here and there. Etruscan and Iberian expansions do make sense in shrinking their areas of settlement by the LBA/EIA.

I may have missed/misunderstood some things in what you said I suppose. Though I don't think anything we've said greatly contradicts each other.

[alanarchae]

I think two things form the core of my view on the Ligures

1. The statement that they were similar in lifestyle to Gauls but nevertheless were a different people who looked physically different from the Gauls.
2. The clear implication that they were undergoing Celticisation around the time they were being observed by classical authors (confirmed by archaeology).
3. The classical authors also were observing Celticisation at its advanced stage among the northern Rhaetic tribes.

I think there is a clear pattern that both the Ligures and the more northern of the Raeti were well on the way to having their identities blurred in the late iron age. The Raeti are more fortunate in that the more southerly section of them in north Italian alps clearly held onto their language longer so we know they spoke a non IE language that probably had a common ancestor with Etruscan in the late bronze age. With the Ligurians it may be that simply next to nothing was recorded prior to Celticisation and if there had been pockets that stlll spoke the old pre Celtic Ligurian language into the era of clashes with Rome they sadly were unrecorded.

Another question is had the Ligures been in their historical territory for a long time before they are noted in history. It’s an unusual territory that is both very coastal but also hemmed in by mountainous lands. Personally I can’t see them having been driven to the coast from the surrounding mountains. It’s not as if the surrounding mountains are highly attractive lands for farming. So I do not believe they were driven to those lands from the north or east. So if their historical location was a result of then being pushed and confined there then i’d look to the south at possibly impact from Etruscan expansion or to the west for the impact of Iberian expansion. Or perhaps both. However when in such as scenario they would previously have still had been somewhere in the confined of the south French coast to the west coast of central Italy. So they imo must have a long term prehistory as a tribe on the coast of the west Med between southern France and west coast of the northern half of Italy. IF you view the Etruscans as intrusive to Tuscany around 1000BC (perhaps from an origin on the lower Po) as I suspect then they must have been another people in Tuscany before them and Liguria would be a natural area to withdraw into/be a rump of a formerly bigger territory.

It’s interesting that there is a rivers called Ombrone well into Tuscany near Grossetto  when you consider the story of the Ligurians chanting the name when in battle with Ambroni from northern Europe who sounded like they were chanting the same thing. Though there is a other Ombroni ‘Ombrone Pistoiese’ which is a tributary into the Arno from the north which likely was in ancient Liguria though in north Tuscany todays. It could have been that river they were chanting about.

my own suspicion in the Veneti arrived through the Alps by the Adige route c. 900BC and in doing so they blocked part of the route Fratessina used in its control of the Tyrol copper supply. From what I understand the Adige and Po had until the late bronze age met and flowed to the sea in a more northerly position than later but the Po estuary drifted south leaving the Adige with an independent more northerly outlet to the sea than the Po. I don’t fully understand the detail or the timing but it must have had an impact on the history of the area and the trade route from the Tyrol alps to the Adriatic too. My theory of the Adige route would imply entry from the Inn River in Austria which leads to the Danube at the interface point of Austria, south-east Germany and Czech republic. I don’t think the Veneti could have come from much to the west if that place as you would then be getting into areas that the intrusion of Lepontic likely can’t from and must have been Celtic. And of course they also can’t be from core Raetic areas like west Austria. So i’d place their origin no further west than the German-Austria/Czech interface point. But if also ne incomfortable pushing an Italic related language further east too. So I think i’d favour an origin in SE Germany or mid to east Austria (neither of which involve crossing the Danube). It’s one of the only zones an outlier Italic dialect north of the Alps around 900BC could squeeze into imo. 

My own dating (by chance) also coincides with the start of Este culture. I arrived at the c.900BC date totally independently of that fact. Which makes me confident that the Este culture about 900BC does represent the arrival of the Veneti. 

There are two further angles I need to read into: 

1. What is the exact route of the Tyrol copper trade once it is north of the Alps? I ask that because I do wonder if the Veneti once lay on part of its route north (somewhete between the Alps and the Danube crossing) and followed that trade route back to source during their migration. 

2. What was going on around 900BC in that area that might have triggered the migration through the Alps?

[alanarchae]

this piece on the Veneti indirectly raises big alarm bells about the dangers of using rare adult inhumations in cremating cultures to gain ancient DNA. We really could be inferring stuff from atypical people https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/2503

[alanarchae]

I think two things form the core of my view on the Ligures

1. The statement that they were similar in lifestyle to Gauls but nevertheless were a different people who looked physically different from the Gauls.
2. The clear implication that they were undergoing Celticisation around the time they were being observed by classical authors (confirmed by archaeology).
3. The classical authors also were observing Celticisation at its advanced stage among the northern Rhaetic tribes.

I think there is a clear pattern that both the Ligures and the more northern of the Raeti were well on the way to having their identities blurred in the late iron age. The Raeti are more fortunate in that the more southerly section of them in north Italian alps clearly held onto their language longer so we know they spoke a non IE language that probably had a common ancestor with Etruscan in the late bronze age. With the Ligurians it may be that simply next to nothing was recorded prior to Celticisation and if there had been pockets that stlll spoke the old pre Celtic Ligurian language into the era of clashes with Rome they sadly were unrecorded.

Another question is had the Ligures been in their historical territory for a long time before they are noted in history. It’s an unusual territory that is both very coastal but also hemmed in by mountainous lands. Personally I can’t see them having been driven to the coast from the surrounding mountains. It’s not as if the surrounding mountains are highly attractive lands for farming. So I do not believe they were driven to those lands from the north or east. So if their historical location was a result of then being pushed and confined there then i’d look to the south at possibly impact from Etruscan expansion or to the west for the impact of Iberian expansion. Or perhaps both. However when in such as scenario they would previously have still had been somewhere in the confined of the south French coast to the west coast of central Italy. So they imo must have a long term prehistory as a tribe on the coast of the west Med between southern France and west coast of the northern half of Italy. IF you view the Etruscans as intrusive to Tuscany around 1000BC (perhaps from an origin on the lower Po) as I suspect then they must have been another people in Tuscany before them and Liguria would be a natural area to withdraw into/be a rump of a formerly bigger territory.

It’s interesting that there is a rivers called Ombrone well into Tuscany near Grossetto  when you consider the story of the Ligurians chanting the name when in battle with Ambroni from northern Europe who sounded like they were chanting the same thing. Though there is a other Ombroni ‘Ombrone Pistoiese’ which is a tributary into the Arno from the north which likely was in ancient Liguria though in north Tuscany todays. It could have been that river they were chanting about.

my own suspicion in the Veneti arrived through the Alps by the Adige route c. 900BC and in doing so they blocked part of the route Fratessina used in its control of the Tyrol copper supply. From what I understand the Adige and Po had until the late bronze age met and flowed to the sea in a more northerly position than later but the Po estuary drifted south leaving the Adige with an independent more northerly outlet to the sea than the Po. I don’t fully understand the detail or the timing but it must have had an impact on the history of the area and the trade route from the Tyrol alps to the Adriatic too. My theory of the Adige route would imply entry from the Inn River in Austria which leads to the Danube at the interface point of Austria, south-east Germany and Czech republic. I don’t think the Veneti could have come from much to the west if that place as you would then be getting into areas that the intrusion of Lepontic likely can’t from and must have been Celtic. And of course they also can’t be from core Raetic areas like west Austria. So i’d place their origin no further west than the German-Austria/Czech interface point. But if also ne incomfortable pushing an Italic related language further east too. So I think i’d favour an origin in SE Germany or mid to east Austria (neither of which involve crossing the Danube). It’s one of the only zones an outlier Italic dialect north of the Alps around 900BC could squeeze into imo. 

My own dating (by chance) also coincides with the start of Este culture. I arrived at the c.900BC date totally independently of that fact. Which makes me confident that the Este culture about 900BC does represent the arrival of the Veneti. 

There are two further angles I need to read into: 

1. What is the exact route of the Tyrol copper trade once it is north of the Alps? I ask that because I do wonder if the Veneti once lay on part of its route north (somewhete between the Alps and the Danube crossing) and followed that trade route back to source during their migration. 

2. What was going on around 900BC in that area that might have triggered the migration through the Alps?

Another interesting thing is this map of the various amber routes included on that crossed the Danube at Passau (close to where Austria, SE Germany and Czech Republic meet) then proceeded along the The Austria/Germany border following the Inn and over the Alpine passes i’ve already described as likely route for the Veneti to invade Italy. It adds to my belief that was the route the Veneti took that i’d worked out last night from geography ad it’s identical. So i’m inclined to think the Veneti followed a route they already familiar with from the flow of copper and amber. They might even have once been middlemen living around the Passau crossing on the south bank of the Danube where the Inn meets it. Certainly that looks like a crucial trade route and upper Danube crossing point. And crucially the routes further west look dubious as it take is too close to the likely origin/route of Lepontic. Those further east look too easterly 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Ro..._Roads.gif

Also strikes me that this route once across the Danube passed through the Czech Republic then ultimately past Berlin to the Baltic anc  would be a great match for the mysterious passing of a few bronze age era italic loans into pre German. 

So a pre Italy homeland for the Veneti in the 10th century BC on the border between central Austria and Germany including where the Inn and Danube meet around Passau? In the Lower Inn where the natural route from the Danube through Austria to Adige and into Veneto begins. On the likely Amber route into north-east Italy. Also the tyrol copper route to Frattesina.   I think it fits on multiple counts. Uncannily. And I don’t think a route further west is possible as that looks like an early Celtic north/south highway. 

Now I need to try and find out a bit more of the archaeology of that area of Austria near the Inn-Danube confluence in the 10th century BC to try to understand why the Veneti moved. Or was it due to taking advantage of their knowlege of some problems at the other end of the route around Fratessina? Was the shift of the Po south and the Adige getting its own slightly more northerly outlet to the Adriatic seen as an opportunity. My guess is there is an implication that the Veneti prior to moving had scouted knowledge as travelling middlemen (horses using a trans/Alpine bridal route?) of the Inn-Adige route prior to migration and saw an opportunity around 900BC. Push, pull or both?

[alanarchae]

sorry I took the thread off topic from Ligures to Veneti. I’ll stop now. If a mod wants to shift my last few posts into an ‘origins of the Italian Veneti’ thread then please do.

[Manofthehour]

sorry I took the thread off topic from Ligures to Veneti. I’ll stop now. If a mod wants to shift my last few posts into an ‘origins of the Italian Veneti’ thread then please do.

Imo the topic is adjacent closely enough, though this sort of topic is very interesting and it could indeed deserve its own thread. Maybe you'd like to do that? I won't prod you though.

[alanarchae]

I suppose not all Ligures were farmers but some herders?. I vaguely remember attestations of them being skilled mountain climbers/navigators.
I'd imagine there being related people in the mountains.

The way people both ancient and modern use the "Ligurian" label is less than consistent, if that isn't obvious enough. There seems to be a conception that all of Northwest Italy, excluding what may have been the most inhospitable mountainous terrain was once home to "Ligurian" and/or "Celto-Ligurian" tribes, and this must have been into the Iron Age.

Again we reach a semantic issue I suppose. What I conceive of is a much broader category than definite historical attestations of what's described as Ligure, though some ancient and later historians on occasion refer to extremely broad categories using this term.
  In this current context I conceive of it as the result of Beaker peoples from Upper Rhine areas migrating and mixing with those South and West of them. Western Alps, Rhone Alps/Valley and Southern French/West Italian coasts, etc... this being a Para-Ligurian block so to speak.

By the Late Bronze Age, accessible areas like the Upper Rhone, NW Italian foothills and  NW Po Valley could have been Celticized first, Leading to Lepontic and Full-fledged Gallic tribes in Rhone Valley areas North of the Coast. (Celticization didn't have to be genetic, or much so, in this case I'd think, other than maybe a Urnfield/Hallstatt elite) while the coastal areas as well as some of the more mountainous areas may have avoided Celtization until later. The coastal areas probably had a larger Neolithic population and so the Steppe component within these particular tribes/people was probably significantly lower and remained so for most of history at least.
Classical sources also attest Ligurians as being able to hold their own in combat against Celts despite their shorter stature. More reason to avoid attempts to conquer Ligurian settlements. 
Most Celts, at least of the Alpine regions and the South were not big seafarers and I don't suppose why they'd be particularly prone to seek conquest of coastal areas, though I'm sure it happened here and there. Etruscan and Iberian expansions do make sense in shrinking their areas of settlement by the LBA/EIA.

I may have missed/misunderstood some things in what you said I suppose. Though I don't think anything we've said greatly contradicts each other.

what were you known as on Anthrogenica?

[Manofthehour]

what were you known as on Anthrogenica?

Same name as now

[Strabo]

then proceeded along the The Austria/Germany border following the Inn and over the Alpine passes i’ve already described as likely route for the Veneti to invade Italy. It adds to my belief that was the route the Veneti took that i’d worked out last night from geography 

https://www.academia.edu/15972469/La_Cul...emi_aperti

[alanarchae]

then proceeded along the The Austria/Germany border following the Inn and over the Alpine passes i’ve already described as likely route for the Veneti to invade Italy. It adds to my belief that was the route the Veneti took that i’d worked out last night from geography 

https://www.academia.edu/15972469/La_Cul...emi_aperti

I tried to read it but struggled. I will have to put it through a translater. What is the basic gist of what it’s saying? I think it’s saying that there was a northwards expansion of the culture many link to the Raeti. I can’t understand what it’s trying to say about the genesis of the Veneti or the Inn River group. It looks v interesting