Ancient genomics support deep divergence between Eastern and Western Mediterranean Indo-European languages

[torzio]

33.8 Italy_North_CL23_Langobards_
23.0 Illyrian_Smiljan_EIA
16.2 Brac_Zlarin_Island_scaled
13.6 Liburnian_Aenona_G25_I26726_scaled
13.4 Croatia_Sipar_SG

 

[Jovialis]

I made this PCA in smartpca with all of the Etruscan samples we currently have in AADR v62.0

As well as Germany_Bellbeaker.AG, and all of the various ChL Italian samples.

If genetics follow geography, I thing think groups like the Samite will cluster over modern Tuscans and/or Central Italians.

Look at Grosseto relative to Tarquinia which is further south/east. Though I am not sure of the timing off the top of my head.

Also, for the labeling of "Levant" in the outlier samples, is that definitive, or was that choice based on the researchers' hypothesis?

 

[Pax Augusta]

If genetics follow geography, I thing think groups like the Samite will cluster over modern Tuscans and/or Central Italians.

All we know is that Harvard/Max Planck geneticist Alyssa Mittnick said in 2021 that the Samnites from Campania plotted with the Etruscans and Latins, obviously based on those available in 2021. But the study never came out. I wonder why. From 2021 to the present, they should have analyzed many more samples from Campania.

Look at Grosseto relative to Tarquinia which is further south/east. Though I am not sure of the timing off the top of my head.

I don't think I understand. Do you mean that the geographical location of Tarquinia is southeast of that of Grosseto?

Also, for the labeling of "Levant" in the outlier samples, is that definitive, or was that choice based on the researchers' hypothesis?

The two Tarquinia samples labeled as Levantines are definitely Levantine in my opinion. In fact, they are the only two who actually look fully Levantine. They are dated as recently as 150-50 B.C., when Tarquinia is chronologically in the Romanization phase.

 

[Jovialis]

All we know is that Harvard/Max Planck geneticist Alyssa Mittnick said in 2021 that the Samnites from Campania plotted with the Etruscans and Latins, obviously based on those available in 2021. But the study never came out. I wonder why. From 2021 to the present, they should have analyzed many more samples from Campania.



I don't think I understand. Do you mean that the geographical location of Tarquinia is southeast of that of Grosseto?



The two Tarquinia samples labeled as Levantines are definitely Levantine in my opinion. In fact, they are the only two who actually look fully Levantine. They are dated as recently as 150-50 B.C., when Tarquinia is chronologically in the Romanization phase.

Yes, Tarquinia I mean south/east of Grosseto, which is also representative of the samples on the PCA.

However, I also noticed now the Tarquinia IA samples overlap with the Siena samples, which is similar to BA Italics (overlapping with modern Iberians)

However, the so-called Etruscan_Grosseto_Levant_o plots pretty close to R1. The other two are indeed Levantine.

Maybe he could be modeled with a Levantine source, but I from working with qpAdm, it would be interesting to investigate different sources, particularly more local.

 

[Vitruvius]

Where are the French Gauls' samples from, in modern France? Could it be that those closer to Italy were comparatively closer to ancient Northern Italians such as Lepontics, ancient Ligures etc? I find the notion that French Gauls were genetically different from Gauls/Celts from other geographies quite natural: I suppose a French Gaul was genetically different from Celt-Iberians too (or German Celts, or British Celts etc).

Southern Gauls tended to be close to bronze age Spaniards, not Italians. Most of what is missing is northern, central and western Gaul, not the southern and eastern portion. There's no Gallic individual on this map that comes anywhere close to the IA Picene/Illyrian/Modern N. Italy cluster.

 

[Pax Augusta]

[/QUOTE]

Southern Gauls tended to be close to bronze age Spaniards, not Italians. Most of what is missing is northern, central and western Gaul, not the southern and eastern portion. There's no Gallic individual on this map that comes anywhere close to the IA Picene/Illyrian/Modern N. Italy cluster.

If northern, central and western Gauls are missing, basically all Gauls are missing.

Looking at the results, it is not even so true that all IA PIcene plots with modern northern Italy.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Yes, Tarquinia I mean south/east of Grosseto, which is also representative of the samples on the PCA.

However, I also noticed now the Tarquinia IA samples overlap with the Siena samples, which is similar to BA Italics (overlapping with modern Iberians)

To my recollection neither the Grosseto ones nor the Siena ones are really from the cities, but from various locations in the two provinces that are quite large. The Tarquinia IA samples are at least three different studies, one from Posth 2021, the other from Moots 2023, and the third from Bagnasco 2024. Siena's are from at least two different studies. Which of the three from Tarquinia is closest to those from Siena? All three?

Do you know if the samples from Bagnasco 2024 are available?

In general however differences there may be and not strictly follow geography. They could be due to the randomness with which certain bone remains survived rather than others, the fact that some communities had perhaps been more isolated, or many other reasons.

However, the so-called Etruscan_Grosseto_Levant_o plots pretty close to R1. The other two are indeed Levantine.

Maybe he could be modeled with a Levantine source, but I from working with qpAdm, it would be interesting to investigate different sources, particularly more local.

Isn't R1 the Protovillanovian? When I have time I will check which Eastern Mediterranean source it prefers.

 

[HereToLearn]

Southern Gauls tended to be close to bronze age Spaniards, not Italians. Most of what is missing is northern, central and western Gaul, not the southern and eastern portion. There's no Gallic individual on this map that comes anywhere close to the IA Picene/Illyrian/Modern N. Italy cluster.


View attachment 17401

I haven’t seen IA Northern Italians and IA southeastern French (the ancient Ligures lived there too) samples unless I’m missing something.

Much as I respect your point of view, to me it's common sense that IA Gauls mixed with the Ligures in SE France, just like Northern Italics (Ligures, Lepontics, Orobians etc) mixed with Gauls in Northern Italy over the several centuries that the Gauls stayed there before being expelled by Augustus. In this scenario it's hard to imagine a significant genetic difference. I may well be wrong but let's just wait for proper Northern Italian results from the IA...

 

[Pax Augusta]

I am basing the term "Italic" off shared ancestry and ethnic qualifiers rather than strictly language, yes. I'm not going to disqualify populations such as the Raetics from their very clear Italian ancestry simply because they spoke a non IE language - nor do I do the same with the better known proper Etruscans of Central Italy. That being said I disagree strongly with many of the attempts to celticize hardly attested languages from northern Italian societies which were barely literate prior to Roman conquest. In my opinion many of the shared linguistic aspects between languages such as Lepontic and Celtic do not necessitate a Gallic ethnic origin and these assumptions are based off very scant evidence by those pushing an agenda. Autosomal testing will prove to be the final conclusion in the debate concerning the ethnographical question as we know now that the Gauls of France clearly had a quite separate profile from the modern Northern Italian/IA Picene cluster. Proving that a language was strictly Gallic, Italic, Tyrrhenian or something else is going to be quite difficult unless very large and new corpora are discovered.

Honestly, I do not think there is an agenda on the part of archaeologists or linguists in considering as Celtic or proto-Celtic some manifestations present in the early Iron Age in northern Italy. I am clearly referring to something that occurred long before the Gallic invasions of the 4th century BC. While it is true that the Gauls are Celts, to me the Gauls are not fully equivalent to the Alpine Celts.

The more recent Gallic invasions of the 4th century B.C. have led to misleading readings, no doubt about it, there is no evidence that they were so numerous as to completely replace the ethnic groups already present in northern Italy and make all of northern Italy Gallic, and these misleading readings have been exploited in the past by separatist politicians, but anyone who lives in Italy knows that this belongs to the past and that these separatists, who are now in the government, have for at least the past two decades looked more like the French Front National than a separatist movement. Celtomania existed for real, and it did not only affect northern Italy. For example, there are amateur scholars who claim that the ancient Umbrians were Celts.

Having said that, I see no problem with considering Lepontic as Celtic, just as I see no problem with recognizing important Hallstatt and La Tene influences, even with human contributions, in some northern Italian manifestations. If some Celts were found in Etruscan tombs, let alone in northern Italy.

As far as northern Italics tracing their origin to iron age illyria I have to agree with your statement. As I said prior if there is any common relation it would almost certainly be bronze age or at least the vast majority of it would have to be so we are speaking in terms of proto illyrians. I think both you and I agree that by the historic era the two populations would've had to have diverged so far from one another that they ceased to recognize each other as having any sort of close relation. You do seem to acknowledge bronze age urnfield migrations from the Carpathian basin and northern Balkans, however, which is effectively the same point I'm making. I think you feel that your claims diverge more strongly form mine than what I'm seeing. Make of that what you will. Anyways, I agree that we should wait for more results from Northern Italy and preferably areas more northerly than Felsina.

I disagree when people try to trace all Iron Age northern Italy back to the Illyrians. It is called "Panillirism," I have no idea how it is called in English. That there were influences, as we have said many times before, from the northern Balkans in the Final Bronze Age is undeniable. However, the Balkans were also a gateway, not just a genetic reservoir.

I haven’t seen IA Northern Italians and IA southeastern French (the ancient Ligures lived there too) samples unless I’m missing something.

Much as I respect your point of view, to me it's common sense that IA Gauls mixed with the Ligures in SE France, just like Northern Italics (Ligures, Lepontics, Orobians etc) mixed with Gauls in Northern Italy over the several centuries that the Gauls stayed there before being expelled by Augustus. In this scenario it's hard to imagine a significant genetic difference. I may well be wrong but let's just wait for proper Northern Italian results from the IA...

The Ligurians left few archaeological traces, unfortunately, and practiced incineration. In this article from 2004 (so now 20 years ago), Savoy and Provence are mentioned as territories where a Ligurian presence in France is attested.

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/popoli-e-culture-dell-italia-preromana-i-liguri_(The-World-of-Archaeology)/

A few years ago, an Italian archaeologist specializing in the Iron Age of northern Italy, Gambari who died during the Covid-19 pandemic, devoted a chapter to the Ligurians and their relationship with the Celtic-Gallic world. If I find the link again, I will post it.

 

[Jovialis]

To my recollection neither the Grosseto ones nor the Siena ones are really from the cities, but from various locations in the two provinces that are quite large. The Tarquinia IA samples are at least three different studies, one from Posth 2021, the other from Moots 2023, and the third from Bagnasco 2024. Siena's are from at least two different studies. Which of the three from Tarquinia is closest to those from Siena? All three?

Do you know if the samples from Bagnasco 2024 are available?

In general however differences there may be and not strictly follow geography. They could be due to the randomness with which certain bone remains survived rather than others, the fact that some communities had perhaps been more isolated, or many other reasons.




Isn't R1 the Protovillanovian? When I have time I will check which Eastern Mediterranean source it prefers.

The AADR placed it (Falsely) in the Italian_IA_Repbulic.SG grouping. I am really concerned about stuff like that actually, and how much is impacts future studies. Our labeling of aDNA Dodecad K12 be seems to be more accurate than what Harvard has produced for the IND file.

Another issue I've brought up a few times to some researchers is that they place SGR001 a MA Apulian as an IA one.

Another example:

They labeled samples that are clearly Late Antiquity Romans, even very south of south Italian ones as "Langobards":

https://twitter.com/x/status/1866564476582965472

 

[Jovialis]

Maybe because I'm of Italian ancestry, I actually care more about accuracy than some researchers, instead of it serving as potential bias, when it comes to researching Italian aDNA. I think the same is true for interpretation of the data. I'm not beholden to some woke narrative just so I can keep my job, and I feel compelled to represent the truth. Or that I'm some racist against Italians that wishes to portray them in a negative light.

 

[Pax Augusta]

The AADR placed it (Falsely) in the Italian_IA_Repbulic.SG grouping. I am really concerned about stuff like that actually, and how much is impacts future studies. Our labeling of aDNA Dodecad K12 be seems to be more accurate than what Harvard has produced for the IND file.

Another issue I've brought up a few times to some researchers is that they place SGR001 a MA Apulian as an IA one.

Another example:

They labeled samples that are clearly Late Antiquity Romans, even very south of south Italian ones as "Langobards":

https://twitter.com/x/status/1866564476582965472

Unfortunately, I am not surprised. I have seen mistakes and lack of accuracy in so many genetic studies.

For example, when they use Hirisplex to calculate eye and hair colors, inside the Etruscan samples you also find Punic ones. Sometimes they are obvious careless errors, other times you really don't know what to think. I just to carelessness as the cause of so many mistakes and I believe little in it now.

The very label Italian_IA_Republic is false. Iron Age samples from Antony 2019 were originally labeled this way. That is, the 6 Latins, 4 Etruscans, and 1 Protovillanovan. But none of these actually came from a Republican-era necropolis in Rome.

 

[torzio]

you will find , that the picene damples match with the 2021 daunian samples as well as other "dalmatian:" samples

 

[Vitruvius]

If northern, central and western Gauls are missing, basically all Gauls are missing.

No - these are all proper Gauls. The entire study is based on Gaul and of course it doesn't cover every single area of Gaul. It's more pertinent to the discussion that we have access to eastern and southern Gallic dna to determine what their averages are in comparison to what IA Italic averages will end up being in Northern Italy. I can't help if they're not the specific Gauls you were looking for but to say they're not real Gauls is an outright lie. I do not accept your claim here.

Looking at the results, it is not even so true that all IA PIcene plots with modern northern Italy.

The IA Picenes plot and average over modern northern Italy as per the official study. This is not debatable. If you want to cherrypick the handful of samples that plot halfway between Mallorca and Po valley then be my guest but I don't see this as significant. The Picene sampling is rather extremely homogenous with Northern Italy.

 

[Vitruvius]

Honestly, I do not think there is an agenda on the part of archaeologists or linguists in considering as Celtic or proto-Celtic some manifestations present in the early Iron Age in northern Italy. I am clearly referring to something that occurred long before the Gallic invasions of the 4th century BC. While it is true that the Gauls are Celts, to me the Gauls are not fully equivalent to the Alpine Celts.

I have to disagree. There is clearly a very strong push to ethnographically lump northern Italians with the more northerly gauls/germanics typically by those of german or celtic ancestry. It's part of a broader push of Nordicist theory which has plagued this field since Gobineu's writings. I'm not going to say celtic influence on the langauges of northern Italy is definitively 0, and truthfully I care much less about the linguistic aspect than I do about the ethnological aspect, but the common trope with those who advance the idea that Italy is not a real nation and simply a patchwork collection of various non Italian ethnic groups is a bit too telling.

The Romans and Greek historians who lived in Rome did not consider Northern Italian populations "Alpine Celts". They considered them part of the Etruscan race by ancestry and they were clear in them being the original (autocthonous) inhabitants of Po Valley and I agree with this claim, although I do not think the ancient conception of the "Etruscan race" will be defined exclusively by the autosomal norms seen in central Italy. I do defer to the understanding of those who lived during this timeframe over that of the linguistic guesswork from authors such as Le Jeune based off fragmentary readings of those who came ~2000 years later. I can't speak on how celtic influenced the languages were or were not, but ethnographically I am rather confident that they were of Italian stock and not gallic origin just as Livy and Polybius had claimed. The true and real "Cisalpine Gauls" of this era are instead represented by the 4th century invaders who were later expelled by the Romans at the end of the 3rd century BC. As per Polybius' writings very few of these Gauls remained after the expulsion meaning impact to the modern Italic genepool will be close to zero.

The more recent Gallic invasions of the 4th century B.C. have led to misleading readings, no doubt about it, there is no evidence that they were so numerous as to completely replace the ethnic groups already present in northern Italy and make all of northern Italy Gallic, and these misleading readings have been exploited in the past by separatist politicians, but anyone who lives in Italy knows that this belongs to the past and that these separatists, who are now in the government, have for at least the past two decades looked more like the French Front National than a separatist movement. Celtomania existed for real, and it did not only affect northern Italy. For example, there are amateur scholars who claim that the ancient Umbrians were Celts.

I agree with you here. It is very silly to associate northern Italian ethnography (ancient or modern) with the 4th century gallic invaders. They did not ever hold numeric significance or long lasting permanence.

I disagree when people try to trace all Iron Age northern Italy back to the Illyrians. It is called "Panillirism," I have no idea how it is called in English. That there were influences, as we have said many times before, from the northern Balkans in the Final Bronze Age is undeniable. However, the Balkans were also a gateway, not just a genetic reservoir.

Well I don't have a "Panillirist" agenda to be clear. I simply think it's likely that two ethnic groups emerged out of one or multiple closely related bronze age populations which the autosomal evidence does point to. That doesn't make Italics and Illyrians identical by the historic age. Culturally they were clearly diverged, although it's linguistically difficult to say since both northern Italy and Illyria have produced so few examples of writing prior to being conquered by the Romans.

The Ligurians left few archaeological traces, unfortunately, and practiced incineration. In this article from 2004 (so now 20 years ago), Savoy and Provence are mentioned as territories where a Ligurian presence in France is attested.

The ancients referred to these types of populations in France as Celto-Liguri, which were seperated from Liguri proper who dwelled instead in Italian Liguria. The Celto-Liguri are an example of one of the more rare true fusions between Italic and gallic ethnic groups.

A few years ago, an Italian archaeologist specializing in the Iron Age of northern Italy, Gambari who died during the Covid-19 pandemic, devoted a chapter to the Ligurians and their relationship with the Celtic-Gallic world. If I find the link again, I will post it.

Sure. I'd be happy to read it.

 

[Pax Augusta]

The IA Picenes plot and average over modern northern Italy as per the official study. This is not debatable. If you want to cherrypick the handful of samples that plot halfway between Mallorca and Po valley then be my guest but I don't see this as significant. The Picene sampling is rather extremely homogenous with Northern Italy.

View attachment 17403

As I said, my main interest is ancient history. I am Italian, born and raised in Italy, and I am not so obsessed with comparing Iron Age people to modern Italians; my identity does not depend on who lived 3,000 years ago in Italy. I don't like agendas, of any kind, I don't like those who describe Italy as a kind of Brazil, but neither do those of nationalists and fascists. Many people are interested in ancient history because of identity issues, and to me that is wrong.

I am not cherrypicking anything, those are the results of all Picenes individuals avalaible on the G25. I am the first to have said over time that the G25 is not an accurate tool. On the other hand, the Raveane 2019, from wich north Italian sampels in that PCA come from, is not a completaly accurate sampling of northern Italy either, because the alpine areas of northern Italy are clearly oversampled (there are even northern Italians who probably belong to Slavic or Germanic language minorities, you can see this clearly in the PCA). Then, of course, you are free to go on saying that northern Italians are descended from the Illyrians because you hate the Celts and separatists of northern Italy. But I live in Italy and I don't need a forum to get an idea of my country.

 

[Pax Augusta]

I have to disagree. There is clearly a very strong push to ethnographically lump northern Italians with the more northerly gauls/germanics typically by those of german or celtic ancestry. It's part of a broader push of Nordicist theory which has plagued this field since Gobineu's writings. I'm not going to say celtic influence on the langauges of northern Italy is definitively 0, and truthfully I care much less about the linguistic aspect than I do about the ethnological aspect, but the common trope with those who advance the idea that Italy is not a real nation and simply a patchwork collection of various non Italian ethnic groups is a bit too telling.

It is obvious from what you write that you did not grow up in Italy. Do you even speak advanced Italian? Do you read Italian newspapers? Is your knowledge about Italy based only on bloggers like Racial Reality? It is true that the roots of those theories are those of Nordicism's, but these of whom you speak, who push to ethnographically lump northern Italians with the more northerly gauls/germanics, are a small minority, overrepresented in the forums, and by the way they do not seem to me now even very active even in the forums, but that in real life in Italy you can hardly meet them.

In any case, the fact that Celtomania or Pan-Germanism are part of a broader push of Nordicist theory does not mean that then prejudices against Celts and Germanic peoples are then justified. Let alone against modern countries such as France, Switzerland, Austria and Germany.

Just as I detest Nordicism, I also detest its opponents, the Mediterraneanists and Orientalists. To me they are all sides of the same coin.

The Romans and Greek historians who lived in Rome did not consider Northern Italian populations "Alpine Celts". They considered them part of the Etruscan race by ancestry and they were clear in them being the original (autocthonous) inhabitants of Po Valley and I agree with this claim, although I do not think the ancient conception of the "Etruscan race" will be defined exclusively by the autosomal norms seen in central Italy. I do defer to the understanding of those who lived during this timeframe over that of the linguistic guesswork from authors such as Le Jeune based off fragmentary readings of those who came ~2000 years later. I can't speak on how celtic influenced the languages were or were not, but ethnographically I am rather confident that they were of Italian stock and not gallic origin just as Livy and Polybius had claimed. The true and real "Cisalpine Gauls" of this era are instead represented by the 4th century invaders who were later expelled by the Romans at the end of the 3rd century BC. As per Polybius' writings very few of these Gauls remained after the expulsion meaning impact to the modern Italic genepool will be close to zero.

The Romans and Greek historians should not be read as if they were holders of absolute truth.

 

[Vitruvius]

As I said, my main interest is ancient history. I am Italian, born and raised in Italy, and I am not so obsessed with comparing Iron Age people to modern Italians; my identity does not depend on who lived 3,000 years ago in Italy. I don't like agendas, of any kind, I don't like those who describe Italy as a kind of Brazil, but neither do those of nationalists and fascists. Many people are interested in ancient history because of identity issues, and to me that is wrong.

I am not cherrypicking anything, those are the results of all Picenes individuals avalaible on the G25. I am the first to have said over time that the G25 is not an accurate tool. On the other hand, the Raveane 2019, from wich north Italian sampels in that PCA come from, is not a completaly accurate sampling of northern Italy either, because the alpine areas of northern Italy are clearly oversampled (there are even northern Italians who probably belong to Slavic or Germanic language minorities, you can see this clearly in the PCA). Then, of course, you are free to go on saying that northern Italians are descended from the Illyrians because you hate the Celts and separatists of northern Italy. But I live in Italy and I don't need a forum to get an idea of my country.

I've never stated that any Italians are descended from Illyrians, nor do I "hate Celts". What I said is that Italics and Illyrians likely shared a set of ancestors from a common population in the bronze age and that the northern Italians of the Iron age were not Celts. You cannot even repeat my claim without falsifying or misconstruing it and yet you claim to have no agenda. I'm finding this aspect particularly dishonest. As I've said countless times you are free to keep to your ideas about Italy's ethnography whether you agree with me or not. You're even free to make up lies about my beliefs and background like you presently choose to if you really care so much about me.

It is obvious from what you write that you did not grow up in Italy. Do you even speak advanced Italian? Do you read Italian newspapers? Is your knowledge about Italy based only on bloggers like Racial Reality?

I prefer to read archaeological studies in Italian rather than newspapers, yet even those such as Cavazzuti's work are deemed offensive to your senses. It's beginning to look like your only qualifier of "lacking an agenda" are those who perfectly agree with your opinions. The current Italian researchers who are doing this kind of work by mapping the DNA of the Piceni and the material culture of Terramare seem to not be good enough for you when they're discussed so perhaps they too hate Celts and think we all come from Illyrians or whatever fantasy you've constructed.

In any case, the fact that Celtomania or Pan-Germanism are part of a broader push of Nordicist theory does not mean that then prejudices against Celts and Germanic peoples are then justified. Let alone against modern countries such as France, Switzerland, Austria and Germany.

I agree entirely that the rejection of Nordicism does not in fact justify anti-Germanic or anti-Celtic attitudes.

It is interesting you are willing to assume so much about my life and my viewpoints. Some of the closest people to myself are of German and Celtic origin. I have a great deal of respect for these individuals and their respective ethnic backgrounds, ancient or otherwise. My dislike relates to those who think Italy's history along with the accomplishments of ethnic Italians are somehow owed to significant genetic input from Germans, Gauls, Syrians, or North Africans. This not only genetically did not occur, but more fundamentally is a form of ethnic slander. The only foreign ethnic group in the historic age that has had a quantifiably notable impact on Italy is that of the Greeks and yet still I've been more than happy to acknowledge the genetic links between Italy and the Greek world. I guess according to some this makes me some sort of "fanatic". It's really quite a sad state of affairs that acknowledging the probable IA continuity within the autosomal structure of modern northern Italy is seen as a form of extremism or having an agenda. I am not going to apologize for making this claim. If the data later proves me wrong then so be it, but the trajectory of current evidence between the norms of Illyria and the Picenes is not looking like it as things stand.

The Romans and Greek historians should not be read as if they were holders of absolute truth.

They were far closer to the truth of this question than any modern era linguist drawing ethnological guesses from small fragments of writing. They lived in a time and space in which this information was directly accessible and easily obtainable. Livy was quite literally born in Padua and very likely of Venetic descent. He grew up in Northern Italy and was derided for his localized Paduan grasp of Latin which was expressed in his writings. Polybius, while not Italian, was a hostage in Rome and travelled to northern Italy to write his history using first hand accounts of what he saw and found.

There is zero reason whatsoever that we should not draw from both of these individuals as a primary source over that of the linguistic guesswork - especially coming from someone who claims that their main interest is in ancient history. It does not get more direct than this.

 

[torzio]

the term is gallo-liguri and celto-veneti

there is no celto-liguri unless fabricated

the languages of late bronze age adriatic area was a sabellic based language.....an old italic language...i include everything
in the northern end of the western balkans, istria, and modern croatia as also using this sabellic language

 

[torzio]

are people confusing terms ?

when i say noric ...it is not nordic

noric is for the lands of austria and slovenia....it is shorten from the land of Noricum