> Why people likes this "pre-IE" ? Wouldn't it be better "non-IE" ? or evenI agree. There is a problem in English in that "Pre-IE" is ambiguous:
> "post-IE" ? In other terms, we don't have evidence that the non-IE language
> of ancient Mediterranean (and we have real evidence only of two, Etruscan -
> if it is really non-IE as it seems - and Basque, in the West)
> The theory that Raetic was together with Etruscan aSo in your opinion the Villanovans were speakers of Umbrian?
> remnant of the Villanovian people is due to a nationalist point of view
> defended mainly by the archeologists.
> The Pelasgians are associated to the BronzeThey would need to have been fairly well established by 700 BC.
> age, the Tyrrhenians to the period of the "catastrophes" at the end of it
> and after. Their arrival (for the Dionysian autochthonists,
> 'manifestation') in Tuscany is dated few centuries after 1000 b.C.
> A newI have often wondered about the particular architectural inclination
> theory defended by Massimo Pittau would see the Lydians/Tyrrhenians leaving
> around XII sec. b.C., staying in Sardinia for a while (2-3 centuries),
> building the Nuraghes, being known as Tyrrhenians 'the people of the
> towers' and then colonizing Tuscany subtracting it to the poor Umbrians. In
> the classical sources, the oldest distinguish the two peoples, the most
> recent say they were the same. I can provide a better reference to these
> sources later.
> I am ready to change the term 'Pelasgians' into 'Tyrrhenians' if it will beBut it wasn't, and when Etruscan borrowed from other languages it was
> proved that Etruscan was an Anatolian IE language, in which *g>k, *d>t and
> *b>p (and many other things).
> Soon I will write about 'Ligurians' or, better, 'Liguro-Sicanians', anotherCan you recommend any works on Ligurian?
> fancy result of the application of my (actually Georgiev-Zamboni-Duridanov)
> toponymy method.
> But, again, who cares about the little Picenes ?Oh, I care about them, but I have just no idea who they were. The