Talk:List of ancient peoples of Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Split[edit]

I split this off from the Ancient peoples of Italy article. Both articles need a lot of work.Dave (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

End material[edit]

I just copied the end material, mainly various kinds of categories, to this article. The Bibliography is not over yet. I'm not sure we will need the whole thing. If you go through the notes and see that an item is missing, that is where it is.Dave (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed intro[edit]

"Informations about the people living in the Italian peninsula before the Roman civilization are mostly incomplete, or subject to continued revisions.

Indo-European populations had arrived to Italy from Central and Eastern Europe in different migration waves (Veneti, Umbro-Sabellians, Latins, etc.), merging or absorbing the pre-existing cultures, or establishing a pacific coexistence with them.

These migrations began presumably around the mid-Bronze Age (mid 2nd century BC) and lasted until the 4th century BC, with the arrival of the Gauls in the Padan Plain. Among the populations of pre-Roman Italy, the most notable were the Etruscans who, starting from the 8th century BC, created a refined civilization which largely influenced Rome and the Latin world. The origins of this non-Indo-European people, which originated from the Tyrrhenian coast of central Italy and later expanded to Emilia and Campania, are uncertain.

Other peoples living in northern Italy include the Ligurians, originally a non-Indoeuropean[citation needed] people which later partially merged with the Celts and which lived in what are now Liguria, southern Piedmont and the southern French coast; and the Veneti of north-eastern Italy. In the peninsula, alongside the Etruscans, lived numerous tribes, most of the of Indo-European origin: the Umbri in Umbria, Latins, Sabellians, Falisci, Volsci and Equi in the Latium; Piceni in the Marche and northern Abruzzo; Samnites in southern Abruzzo, Molise and Campania; Daunians, Messapii and Peucetii (forming the Apulian or Iapygian confederation) in Apulia; Lucani and Bruttii in the southern tips of the peninsual; Sicels, Elymians and Siculi in Sicily. Sardinia, since the 2nd millennium BC, was still inhabited by the Nuragic people. Among them, apart the Latins from whom originated the Roman civilization, the most successful were perhaps the Samnites, who were able to create a large federation across the central Apennines and effectively contrasted the Roman expansions until the Samnite Wars.

Some of these population, living in southern Italy and the island, from the 8th to the 3rd century lived alongside new colonie founded by the Phoenicians and the Greek, later absorbed into the Roman state.

The Ancient peoples of Italy, then, can be showed here divided into[1]:"

I removed this. I am sorry to have to say, it has no merit. It was either not written in English or it was written in English by someone not fluent in written English. In spoken English, of course, you can get away with just about any utterance, resorting to hand gestures if necessary. This has to be educated English, would you not agree? However, that is not the main problem, which is its sweeping generalizations unaccompanied by any references. It also adopts Kossinna's Law, which is that the ethnic cultures can be identified with the archaeological ones. In addition to those editorial opinions we get ethical and moral ones, such as the "pacific coexistence." Exactly what do you mean by that, editor? If there was peaceful coexistence, quite a number of unrelated languages would still be spoken in peaceful Italy today. I don't see such events as crucifying thousands of slaves along the road from Rome to Capua or stringing Il Duce up by the heels in a village as being too pacific, do you? If pacifism prevailed, what are all these engravings of warriors and battle scenes? No, empires are not built through pacific coexistence, my dear editor. I dare say Italy has been one of the bloodiest peninsulas on the Earth, but that is my opinion only. I don't have a reference for mine and you don't have one for yours. And next to last but not least, you are giving us ideological English with a bad accent. Finally, this intro repeats everything that follows and throws in trivial corn to boot, such as information being subject to continual revisions. Just what information, pray tell, is not? Is there any anywhere? I really can't do anything with this badly written and completety inaccurate intro so I am removing it. We don't need much of an intro anyway, as this is a list.Dave (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Very little is known[edit]

The editor seems to have very little else to say. This over-worked expression has to go. It is overworked.Dave (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Magical Nuragics[edit]

There are no Nuragics. The term was given by archaeologists to a Bronze Age civilization on Sardinia and elsewhere. We can't just jump them to the 2nd century BC. The Bronze Age people might be unrelated to any subsequent people there. That is the sort of connection you would have to prove in a professional article. Here it is original research. I'm altering the capton of the pic.Dave (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read the Nuragic article quickly. I think that one needs a lot of work also. I'm going to add it to my list. I don't know if they were still building the nuragi in the 2nd century BC. I do know that over that length of time neither the language nor the ethnicity can be the same. Besides the Bronze Age nuragi were not confined to Sardinia. Let's not make assuptions in this article. The map is not one of Nuragic structures. We can't assume the people on the map have anything at all to do with Nuragi. Castles are something similar. The castle has been around for quite a long time. That does not warrant a presumption of some ethnicity and language speakers, "castle-builder." The issue should be addressed in the Nuragic article.Dave (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ NOTE: This classification is largely based on linguistical methods, but also ethnic, cultural and political ones and not all of them have to correspond at the same time.