Proto-Italic: Origins

[aherne]

Truth is not a poll. People with an agenda can claim everything and there will always be clueless fools believing them. Also, when something is too accepted, it pays in terms of popularity to have a dissenting view. This way, Spanish language spread to Mexico not through a "Spanish conquest" (that's a Nazi myth) but through trade and cultural diffusion. Etruscans, too, are descendants of Villanovan culture and latter's obvious ethno-cultural origin in Central Europe was acquired through trade and cultural diffusion, too Truth is: liars will always lie, fools will always be fools same way as reality, regardless of how others bastardize it, remains unchanged.

While the main points of proto-Italics' entry into peninsula stand in no doubt, backed up by a tandem of linguistic, cultural as well as racial evidence. Historians have pretty much clarified it from mid 19th century and even Israel's "free and unbiased encyclopedia", where history is told as by a hassid, admits it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient...aly#Bronze_age

[Vesuvian Sky]

Truth is not a poll. People with an agenda can claim everything and there will always be clueless fools believing them. Also, when something is too accepted, it pays in terms of popularity to have a dissenting view. This way, Spanish language spread to Mexico not through a "Spanish conquest" (that's a Nazi myth) but through trade and cultural diffusion. Etruscans, too, are descendants of Villanovan culture and latter's obvious ethno-cultural origin in Central Europe was acquired through trade and cultural diffusion, too Truth is: liars will always lie, fools will always be fools same way as reality, regardless of how others bastardize it, remains unchanged.

While the main points of proto-Italics' entry into peninsula stand in no doubt, backed up by a tandem of linguistic, cultural as well as racial evidence. Historians have pretty much clarified it from mid 19th century and even Israel's "free and unbiased encyclopedia", where history is told as by a hassid, admits it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient...aly#Bronze_age

So complete, absolute truth now is wikipedia?

Guess what, absolute truth is not Wikipedia. Only deluted fools or people with agenda would choose not to realize that.

I also had no idea that one "Hassid", as you say wrote all those articles on wikipedia nor whould I have thought one would care about Proto-Italic.
Regardless, that's pretty impresive I must say.

I actually thought it was the other way around though in terms of truth if that be the author. I think you should make up your mind.

For the record, linguisitc analysis alone didn't illuminate that Proto-Italic diffused along w/ Celtic during the Bell-Beaker, Urnfield, or Terramare culture. Its no better or worse per se then any other theory. Also this is prehistory not actual recorded history which can be debatble as well due to the source.

Ultimately, it sounds like butt hurt.

So which theory did you vote for anyway?

[rashka]

I am thinking either the Gimbutas or Pigorini theory...

[Vesuvian Sky]

I am thinking either the Gimbutas or Pigorini theory...

Cool. Just to expand on things a little:

Gimbutas' theory means Indo-Europeanization of Italy begins about c. 3400 BC. It would help explain why a broad continuum of IE languages in Italy exists during the Iron age that don't quite fit well as Italic like Venetic. Italic though would theoretically develop from this initial Kurgan chief invasion. Here are the stone stelae of warrior chiefs found in N. Italy and how they compare to the one found N. of the Black Sea:

N. of the Black Sea c. 3500 BC


N. Italy c. 3400 BC to 3000 BC





Pigorini's theory is a very late Bronze age invasion (c. 1500 BC). It has credence as well though since the archaeological evidence of the Terramare era society shows a people who knew metallurgy and had horses, plus its a North to South invasion which is how most feel IE-ization of Italy occurred unless one subscribes to wave of agricultural advance theory.