Talk:Ligures

Untitled

"They became Indo-Europeanized within the context of the Italo-Celtic horizon of the 2nd millennium BC." this revision twists the original source (R. Corbella) who write of an earlier indo-europeization but most important for the 2nd millennium he wrote "proto-celtic", celtic and italic languages were spoken from the 1st millennium. the new version apparently claim that a italo-celtic language (a linguistic theory) still existed in Italy in the 2nd millennium and influenced the language of the ligures Cunibertus (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're speaking of a language, then a language either is or is not Indo-European. If you're speaking of an ethnic group, you can say that it "became Indo-Europeanized" if you intend to say that it adopted an Indo-European language at some point in its history. For example, it is conjectured that the Kurds spoke a Hurro-Urartian language before they became Indo-Europeanized by essentially adopting the language of the Iranian Medes. However, such claims are very hard, if not completely impossible, to prove when you are talking about prehistory. How do we know that the Ligures even were the same ethnic group in the 2nd millennium BC, let alone that they traded one language for another? Pasquale (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indoeuropeanization is an acceptable adaptation of the concept expressed by Corbella IMO, who as every italian scholars refers only to language and material culture/life in defining an ethnicity (aka culture - an ethnicity or culture is defined by common language, culture and traditons according the traditional approach estabilished by G.B. Vico) so in the original text "they became indoeuropeans" etc. (race is a no matter in their traditioanl view), so this isn't a problem for me. the only question I posed is about the existence of italic and celtic languages yet in the 2nd millennium, but I suggest we can speak about a generic celto-italic influence for both the 2nd and 1st millennium. Corbella's original synthesis simply enclosed in the process all the 4 indoeuropean successive waves entered in Italy during prehistory and proto-history and their effect on the ligurians Cunibertus (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to return

I went around with one of you some time ago concerning the original nature of Ligurian. I was hoping the contradictions would be resolved by this time, but I see there are still problems. Either Ligurian was Celtic and there cannot be any traces in such places as Corsica and non-Indo-European Spain, or there was an ancient non-Indo-European substrate. We cannot just pass off Jubainville as a 19th century crank. A lot of people accept his toponyms. So make up your minds. Maybe the existing traces of language known or believed to be Ligurian are Celtic. The question certainly ought to be presented as a question and not a foregone conclusion. But, regardless of what that linguistic situation is, there is ample evidence in the toponyms of an ancient, lost substrate language spread over the Mediterranean islands and its shores. It covers the regions inhabited by the ancient Ligurians; hence the name Ligurian. This view is not being fairly presented in any way. I gave you all this time to sort out your definitions. As far as I can see the issue remains. So, I'm coming back. Before I did not have the time to spend on it or the experience to give you much of a contest. Now I do. Time- well, I have a round-robin list of articles. When I get sick of one I go on to the next. So periodically I will be taking on small segments of the article. I hope you know your WP policy because I do and I am going to insist on it. If you are inclined to get a head start, you can start with the formatting of your references. Later.Dave (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

define your time line. and your definition of ligurians too as apparently there isn't consensus even on this matter - as scholar Corbella wrote (2003) ligurians were non-indo-europeans in the 5th millennium BC but by the end of the 4th they started a gradual process of indoeuropeization - for the 1st millennium BC they were indo-european speakers speaking a language at least very close to that of the celtic family or possibly a celtic one. scholar Villar (1991, 1996) writes that in the roman period the ligurians of Liguria region (Genoa) clearly show latin roman, gallic, (celtic) lepontic, one or more ancient european (according Von Krahe's definition aka indifferentiated indo-european), one or more non-indo-european strata Strabo tells us that they were of a different race from the Celts (by which he means Gauls) who inhabited the rest of the Alps, though they resembled them in their mode of life

R1b haplogroup distribution http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h62/MeisterKonrad/post-264409-1237371897s.png

J2 haplogroup distribution http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gallgaedhil/images/J2a.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/ItalyIronAge.png

Cunibertus (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Jembana and Cagwinn, please initiate a discussion about the material disputed here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is linguistically impossible, no matter the origins of Welsh llynges (and most linguists accept that Welsh llong - whence llynges - was borrowed from Latin longa; cf. Kenneth Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, p. 80, 273), for the ethnonym Ligures to be etymologically related to it. In fact, the mid-19th century source added by Jembana isn't even quoted properly! Prichard connects Ligures with Welsh "Llygwyr", not Llyngesawr - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=BtWZU0dAtxoC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false . In any case, it is a totally spurious suggestion (and llygwyr - a variant of lleygwr - does not seem to have meant "sea men", but rather "laymen", a derivative from Latin laicus). Cagwinn (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable argument for avoiding such old material to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to Celtic linguistics, pre-20th century sources (with few exceptions) are practically worthless for the modern scholar. Cagwinn (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Barring any further support for its inclusion it should stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

History

Would anyone else like to edit the history section to include more information about the "long and hard" fighting? I know that the Ligures were often displaced from their homeland to other regions as a type of punishment for standing up against the Romans. This is the reason they were "assimilated". Also, is the term "assimilated" really appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telrad (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "assimilated" is exactly the word for describing what happened to all pre-Roman peoples of the Italian peninsula. It could practically be a dictionary example of the proper use of the word. TheCormac (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't Match the Corsica Entry

The map in this entry shows Corsica as an Etruscan language area, but the entry on Corsica say as early as the Romans the natives were believed to be Ligurian. TheCormac (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ligures/Ligurians and Treilles ancient Y-DNA

I have deleted the link to the Y-DNA Haplogroup G page. Unless someone can point to a link between the historic Ligurian people and ancient Y-DNA results at Treilles (mainly G2a Y-DNA haplogroup), it should remain that way. So far ancient DNA results are pointing to a population replacement in the late Neolithic where Cardium G2a population were replaced/displaced. Raetia and the Tyrol may be an exception to this or the destination for displaced populations because it is only there that Y-DNA Haplogroup G2a reaches significant proportions of the present population.Jembana (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Garfagnana, heartland of the Apuani Ligurians is mostly R1b in Y-Dna, not G2a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.38.77 (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

the time of Agathocles

The History section contains this reference: "Greek leaders ... recruit[ed mercenaries] ... as late as the time of Agathocles." What time is this? Is this "Agathocles" Agathocles of Syracuse? If yes, then say so, and provide a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathocles_of_Syracuse. Or just say "as late as 300 BC". 99.225.220.233 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sicanians"

The article states that "Thucydides also speaks of the Ligures having expelled the Sicanians, an Iberian tribe, from the banks of the river Sicanus, in Iberia."

The Sicani were of Sicily, not Iberia. Can someone explain why this information is presented? The Verified Cactus 100% 02:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Thucydides the Sicani were originally from Iberia, driven out of their homeland by the Ligures, then settled in Sicily. Stupid girl (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Unknown origin of Ligures

I read throughout the article the Ligures were thought to be related to a number of other European peoples: fellow Italics, non-Indo Europeans like Iberians and Etruscans (even connected to North Africans like Berbers, and the Sami people in Scandinavia), Celts, Germanics, Illyrians, possibly mixed with Grecians, or Ligures being a separate ethno-linguistic group. There are myths of the Ligures along with Sicilians, Sardinians and Corsicans are descendants of ancient Egypt under the king Sardon and they were a "Sardonic" people. And Cimmerians who were of Iranian, Georgian, Slavic and Turkic origins in the Caucasus mountains might settled the Italian Alps and northwest Italian coast. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2019

Attention to French propaganda

French historians of the nineteenth century have always sought to link France to Liguria to justify the annexation of Nice and make history an antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio189red (talk • contribs)

Clear the story on Marsiglia

Anachronism and french propaganda. All is only lie and deformation. I ask to erase this part written by French for an English public and foreign to these propaganda. Marseille and France have nothing to do with Liguria. Moreover, at no time does one speak of the history of Liguria. This page is not a showcase of French propaganda. Moreover it is not Marseille which was founded by the Foceans but Alalia in Corsica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio189red (talk • contribs)

FRENCH PROBLEM

French critics modify and try to appropriate the History of Liguries. They erase images, and derive the History of Liguria on France by rewriting history. It's "Shack76" which poses a problem. They have multiple accounts and spread idiots with false information in different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.173.168 (talk) Hi, I do not agree to remove the pictures, the cards. I do not agree also on the fact of spreading a history of the Ligurian under hearing that one would not be an italic people. France has nothing in our history. The origins of Marseille are in no way justified except for some shards of ceramics that can be found elsewhere on the whole of the Mediterranean and proves nothing, or even that this city existed. The Ligurians are indigenous to northern Italy and their expulsions are indisputable. The Ligurians have established a dominion over other territories and it can not be said that it would be close to the Celts or others arrived much later. try to write without bringing your vision of a French cultural rapprochement please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.173.168 (talk)

The false history of Marseille

I ask to erase the sections of Marseille and France that have nothing to do with the history of Liguria. Moreover, it is a collection of ideas trying to bring France into the history of antiquity to unsuspecting readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio189red (talk • contribs)

vandalism Shack76

It would be necessary to block Shack76 and Tursclan who erase and spread lies in different languages ​​on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.238.251.111 (talk)

2022

Problème with Toulousien-ancien

Toulousien-ancien attempts to forcibly pass their view--Julienor94 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No ancient text mentions a Ligurian people next to the Rhone. instead of vandalizing come and discuss it in the "Talk". think about what you say, Strabo would have said : " later writers name them Celtoligures, and attach to their territory all the level country as far as Luerio and the Rhodanus ". Strabo would speak of the authors of the future ? You take for quotation a simple interpretation. Also why remove reference requests ?--Julienor94 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the original quote from Strabo declaring that Ligures inhabited Frances as far as Rhone river and Avignon:

"The ancient Greeks gave to the Salyes the name of Ligyes,2 and to the country which was in the possession of the Marseillese, that of Ligystica.3 The later Greeks named them Kelto- Ligyes,4 and assigned to them the whole of the plains extending as far as Luerion and the Rhone."

Referring to Leurion

Kramer is of opinion that we should adopt the suggestion of Mannert, to read here Avignon.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D3#note5 Toulousien-ancien (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the Celts living in the region between Marseille and Antibes are called the Salyes. I do not dispute. The Greeks called them the Ligyes, or the Celts ligyans, or Kelto-Ligyes in Greek. But what is the relationship with the Ligurians?? Strabo uses the word ligures to name the ligures in the same text. In this same book he writes that the Celts and the Ligurians are of a different "race". The Ligurians are an Italic people from southern Europe. The Celts are a people of Western Europe. The Alps and the Var river separate them.--Julienor94 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You are debating semantics. The Greeks called Ligures also Lygies, read the footnotes. Ligures identity is still disputed since their real name was Ambrones which could indicate a distant relationship with Celts. Anyway you have been noticed to the amministration for disrupting articles and deleting sourced material. Toulousien-ancien (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

the user with accounts User:Toulousien-ancien and User:LambdofGod comes back with a new User:Perrens2 account. He enjoys erasing all the quotes on the Ligurians to put his personal interpretations. His goal is to direct the page on the Celts of Marseille and France.--Julienor94 (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Im not the same person of this other users, actually if anyone see my edits it will be pretty clear that i dont add any mention about the Celts... i just removed what user Julien says in the top of the page because its all original research, and about the mention about the Ligures name in Greek, its completely unnecessary, the Ligures had nothing to do with the Greeks, it was a differente race, a different language and had their own culture, so, say that we need to add their name in its language just because it was mentioned by the greeks is completely irrelevant. Furthermore its already well explained and mentioned in the "Name" section of the article. Mention their name in Greeks seems that it was very related to the greeks, and its 10000% false. Perrens2 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Repetitive modifications to the article by user that has already been blocked and warned before

There is a user here on wikipedia always making changes by his own head and adding false "citations" that do not match what he wrote. He adds his opinion, taken from his own head, at the top of the article and puts "citations" to say he can prove it, but it turns out the "citations" don't say anything about what he wrote, an example of this is what he says about the Alps, and that he added a citation about Pliny the Elder (??). Perrens2 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Perrens2

User:Perrens2 Julienor94 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC) What's in the infobox that bothers you?--Julienor94 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I want the infobox to continue the way it was before, the Ligures were not divided into city-states and they didn't have a specific religion, and their start date doesn't need to be mentioned as "Iron age Italy". Perrens2 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, You don't have to specify all the time that the part of France they inhabited was a geographic part of Italy.Perrens2 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The Ligurians were divided into kingdoms and tribes. The city state of Susa is even an example, it was ruled by kings. The religion of the Ligurians is specific to their culture and mentioned critically in Lucan's Pharsalia :

De Bello Civili (On the Civil War), more commonly referred to as the Pharsalia, is a Roman epic poem written by the poet Lucan, from book 1, card 5 :

Ligurian tribes, now shorn, in ancient days. First of the long-haired nations, on whose necks Once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme; And those who pacify with blood accursed Savage Teutates, Hesus' horrid shrines, And Taranis' altars, cruel as were those Loved by Diana, goddess of the north; All these now rest in peace. And you, ye Bards, Whose martial lays send down to distant times The fame of valorous deeds in battle done, Pour forth in safety more abundant song. While you, ye Druids, when the war was done, To mysteries strange and hateful rites returned: To you alone 'tis given the heavenly gods To know or not to know; secluded groves Your dwelling-place, and forests far remote. If what ye sing be true, the shades of men Seek not the dismal homes of Erebus Or death's pale kingdoms; but the breath of life Still rules these bodies in another age- Life on this hand and that, and death between. Happy the peoples 'neath the Northern Star In this their false belief; for them no fear Of that which frights all others: they with hands And hearts undaunted rush upon the foe. And scorn to spare the life that shall return.[91]
— Lucan (1st century AD).

Regarding the culture it is difficult to predict a beginning but many steles are dated to the period of the Iron Age of Italy. besides, it lacks the many traces of writing arriving more recently.--Julienor94 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, do what you want to do in this article, on the french wikipedia everything is written much more correctly, and here on the english wikipedia we have you completely spoiling the ENTIRE article with this obsession with not wanting to mention France (I have no idea why) at all. If you're French or something like that, take a look at the wikipedia for that language and you'll notice that this English wikipedia article is all messed up full of templates discussing the status of your "citations"...Perrens2 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Just take a look at the number of "desperate" moments when you wanted to show that ligures were only part of current Liguria.

1- In the "Historical era" section of the infobox you wrote "Liguria, Italy" (????). This shows how ignorant and misinformed you are, "historical era" is the period when events took place in history, and you wrote a place name (really?).

In this case why not give the reference of the French page? The French page has no serious reference it is made for you. It has no scientific value. This is why the English pages must try to remain serious. But I'm still waiting for them.--Julienor94 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

2- You add article names that don't even exist on wikipedia like: Cottius II and Ligurian religion. And that there is no citation that proves what you say, neither about the Ligures having a religion of their own nor about the existence of this character that you say exists.

yes that is the goal in order to create these wikippedia pages and to develop this library. I put the quote from Lucan who talks about the religion of the Ligurians, why do you want to delete it? Why do you want to remove the quotes from Strabo or Pliny the Elder that give the geographical references where these people lived? Why so much misinformation?--Julienor94 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the level of users we have here is the same as yours User:Julienor94, the aricle about the Ligures is really in serious trouble.Perrens2 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What level are you talking about? I have read all these books and you haven't. It is a question of putting references and not of affirming things. Your words have no value. I already told you in your old accounts. You are in a kind of absurd ideology. You claim that the south of France was populated by Ligurians... We are going to start over. What are your references??? Where did you see this??? Show your level. I am serious put your references. Try to put other references than that of your old accounts with pseudo French poets who affirmed this or that. We're talking about scientific evidence, not interpretation. Stop insulting and prove what you say--Julienor94 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice

At that time Nice was not in Gaul but in Italy because the division was made according to people and geography. Nice became French in 1870. But the city does not change its location, it remains in the Italian geographical area. This is why one cannot say that there were Ligurians in Gaul.@Cicnus82 Cicnus82 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Italian nationalist

Can someone prevent the deranged Italian nationalist from making his delusional edits please ? 2A01:E0A:423:7040:95AC:ACB:197D:C197 (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they have filled this talkpage with nonsense and done a lot of damage to the article over the past three years - adding reams of unsourced claims and their own interpretations of primary sources to push their point of view. They began editing as Julio189red and then as Julienor94. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry, but that might not stop them making another account and trying again. They recently tried the same at Toutatis (see the discussion). I've just deleted a lot of unsourced/off-topic content from this article and tagged other content as needing sources, but there's a lot more work to be done. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Cicnus82 has now been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of the same editor. See here. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 09:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No relationship between Celts and Ligurians

There is indeed no relationship between the Celts and the Ligurians. The Celtic culture arrives very late, and therefore cannot influence anything in Liguria. There are no traces of Celts in Liguria. 176.149.164.201 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Caligula's final resting place

Yes, there is no evidence at all for Caligula's resting place or the eventual dispersal of his remains. That apparently didn't stop Smallwood 1970: p. 317 assigning his ashes to the Mausoleum of Augustus, without explanation: that snippet of misinformation seems to have found its was way into other publications. We should probably supply a caveat, rather than a blank. PS I've now done so. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)