Quick viewing(Text Mode)

6793 Babesch 79 03 Van Der Meer

6793 Babesch 79 03 Van Der Meer

BABesch 79 (2004)

Etruscan origins Language and

L.. van der Meer

Abstract

The recently regenerated, vexed question of should be related to the fact that the Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian languages have strong resemblances. According to M. Pallottino the languages originally belonged to a Mediterranean, non-Indo-European language dating back to the time of the Eneolithic Rinaldone- culture, which is partially of East-European origin. ‘Orientalists’ suppose that Tyrsenians (Etruscans) emigrated from (North) Minor, or the North Aegean area, to around the turn of the 12th century BC. . de Simone (1996) reasons that Etruscans from southern settled on before or around 700 BC. However, the differences between Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian show that these languages evolved during some time on their own spot. The question is: did they have a common ancestor, and if so, where and when? What are the implications for the question of the origins? Can archaeologists solve the problem? Which sources are most reliable: linguistic, archaeological or philological-historical evidence? The linguistic evidence is strongly in favour of the orientalist theory.

The question of Etruscan origins is extremely dif- around 600 BC.2 As a result the ficult because there is no linguistic evidence earlier may, in principle, have been spoken in Etruria and than from around 700 BC. Etruscan inscriptions in the at least from the beginning of the Etruria date after 700 BC, in the Raetic area around Villanova-period ( Age) from around 900 BC 500 BC (written in the oldest Venetic ), and onward. Since there is no cultural break between on Lemnos to the second half of the 6th century Protovillanova culture (PVN = Final , BC. The question of Etruscan origins originated c. 1100-900 BC),3 and the Villanova culture, the already in antiquity. (1.94) tells that language may have been spoken already from Tyrsenians came from to the country of the 1100 BC onward. Umbrians (after the Fall of Troy, c. 1200 BC). In As there was only a tiny Protovillanovan pres- the same book (1.57) he situates Tyrsenians in ence near Frattesina but a large Villanova culture northern to the south of the Pelasgans of in the Po-area near , it can be assumed the Hellespont area. In a long discourse Dionysius that the Raetic language has developed from Etrus- of Halicarnassus (1.26.29-30) refutes the old opin- can between c. 900 and c. 600 BC or maybe even ions that the Etruscans were Tyrsenians or Pelas- earlier. writes that the Raeti were of Etruscan gans or Lydians. His conclusion can be summarised origin, that they had preserved the sonum linguae, in that the Etruscans were autochthonous. How- nec eum incorruptum (‘the sound of the language but ever, literary sources are not completely reliable not incorrupted’).4 The Raeti were isolated from because they are not contemporaneous and they the Etruscan area since around 600 BC, probably may be biased.1 We know for example that the by the invading Celts. Later on, around 500 BC, origin of the Romans from Troy as described in they used the old-fashioned Venetic alphabet.5 literary sources from the 5th century BC onwards, Since there already is a difference between active is a myth. ending on -ce/-ke and a passive on -e Let us first cast an eye on the question of the in 7th century BC Etruscan inscriptions and not in relationship between Etruscan and Raetic. Raetic where both forms are active, the splitting of the languages must be dated before 700 BC. ETUSCAN AND RAETIC The same holds true for male Raetic gentilicia ending on -nu, and female ones ending on -na, It is now generally accepted that the Villanovans while in Etruria the male endings are on -na(), were proto-Etruscans and spoke Etruscan, for an and the female on -nai. Consequently, somewhere Etruscan inscription with local names occurs on between 900 and 700 BC Etruscan and Raetic must a Villanova amphoriskos at Bologna dating from have split, maintaining however many structural

51 resemblances. Most probably Raetic has to be con- sidered as having originated and split from Etruscan in in the prehistoric phase. I do not agree with . Rix and M. Pallottino that Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian all belong to a Proto- Tyrsenian, pre-non-Indoeuropean language. Next the relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian should be considered.

THE WEST-EAST MIGRATION (DE SIMONE’S THEORY)

Since 1996 De Simone has repeatedly put forward the theory that Etruscans from Southern Etruria ( region) have occupied Lemnos from around 700 BC or maybe even earlier. The Lemnian lan- guage is evident by inscriptions on the famous of Kaminia and some graffiti from Hephaistia and Chloe, all dating from the second half of the 6th century BC, before conquered the island around 500 BC. De Simone’s arguments are based upon the structural resemblances between both languages. The onomastic formula Aker Tavarsio Vanalasial (name, patronymicum [gentilicium?] and matronymicum) and the formula indicating the period of a magistrate in the pertinentive case, as visible in the words Holaiesi Fokiasiale seronaiθ (‘during the time that Holaie the Phokaian was magistrate’ or ‘during the magistrature of Holaie the Phokaian’), would only be explainable from the Etruscan-Italic perspective.6 Both formulas could not have been used on Lemnos without influence of the onomastic system and the pertinentive for- mula in Etruscan. However, both suppositions are wrong. a) In the Etruscan of the 7th and 6th centuries BC the ending -iu of a patronymicum (comparable with Lemnian Tavars-io) does not occur, whereas it occurs only much later. In archaic Etruscan the name would have been Tavarsie- s (cf. Lemnian Holaie-s). b) There is no proof whatsoever that serona (seronai would be a supposed locative) is a substantive and serona-i-θ a double locative. Seronai is more likely to be a in the past tense like sivai, arai and aomai. The comparison with the Etruscan A formula zilci : vel[u]si : hulxniesi (4th century 1 holaie·:s ·: naθσ. siasi : BC) is not convincing because it does not explain 2 maras ·: mav σ the the ending -θ in Lemnian serona-i-θ. 3 ialxvei:s ·: avi:s 4 eviσθ ·: seronaiθ Moreover, De Simone does not pay attention to 5 sivai the differences between Lemnian and Etruscan, 6 aker : tavarsio e.g., the gen. -il in morina-il. 7 vanalaσial ·: seronai ·: morinail

Fig. 1. Stele of Lemnos. Athens, National Museum. B 1 holaiesi ·: okiasiale : seronaiθ : eviσθ ·: toverona[i? 2?]rom : haralio : sivai : eptesio : arai : tis : oke : Fig. 2. Stele of Lemnos, inscription and transcription. 3 sivai : avis : sialxvis : marasm : avis : aomai :

52 On top of that even more objections to De Dionysos, dealing with Tyrsenian pirates, un- Simone’s theory can be made. If the Etruscans fortunately, cannot be dated. It may date from the would have occupied Lemnos around 700 BC, the Hellenistic period. M. Gras suggests that the pres- would have shown the past ence of Villanova-material in continental Greece tense endings on -ce or -ke, which is not the case: (e.g. helmets in Olympia) in the 8th century BC may it has -ai. In 7th century BC Etruscan inscriptions show the presence of Etruscan pirates in the the -ce/-ke ending is abundantly present; there Aegean area but it is unlikely that pirates dedicated are only two or three possible verb endings on -ai, precious objects to Greek gods. Moreover, there are which can be dated between c. 650 and 600 BC.7 no traces of VN- or Etruscan artefacts on Lemnos. Moreover, Lemnian would have shown the female Italian fibulae (not VN-fibulae) of the 8th century genitive on -as (cf. 7th century BC Etruscan Velelias, BC on Lemnos may have arrived there by com- genitive of Velelia) instead of -al (Vanalasial), and mercial traffic. The material culture of Lemnos does the patronymicum tavarsie-s (cf. Holaie-s) instead not show any trace of VN- or Etruscan culture. of tavarsio (Etruscan patronymica or gentilicia on Gras states: ‘aucun tesson retrouvé dans l’île ’est -iu are late). The encliticum -m occurs in Etruscan étrusque’; possible similarities between VN-materal later than in Lemnian. It may be of Lydian origin. and material on Lemnos are vague.10 Nevertheless Moreover, the enclitica -c and -a may be of Gras does not exclude the arrival of Etruscan Anatolian origin too.8 Lemnian has avi:s and avis pirates on Lemnos: ‘ces pirates dont parle Strabo (probably genitive: ‘of the year’) while Etruscan 6.2.2 ’après Ephore, qui fréquentent le Détroit de has avil (nominative) and avils (genitive). This Messina au milieu du VIIIe siècle et gênent l’instal- difference can be explained when these forms lation des Grecs en Sicile sont, pour ainsi dire, les originate from a common proto-language, which mêmes qui vont jusqu’à Athènes et Lemnos.’11 had the root av(i)-. In Etruscan avil probably orig- L. Beschi states that the Tyrsenian culture on inated like words as vacil, acil from the roots vac- Lemnos is homogeneous from around 800 BC until and ac-. With respect to numerals on -al- (si- around 500 BC.12 This would fit perfectly with the alve(i)s: of sixty (sa = six)) I agree with Rix that date of Homer’s life in the 9th century BC as sug- the difference between Lemnian sialveis or gested by Ruijgh.13 Beschi supposes that the sialvis and Etruscan sealls is due to a late devel- Tyrsenians migrated from the North Aegean area opment of double genitive (-ls) in Etruscan itself. or North West (the Cyzicus area) to This is obvious because in late North Etruscan Lemnos, because many elements like the Thracian occurs still the genitive cealu-s. The Lemnian Bendis cult in the Tyrsenian culture point into that form is more old-fashioned than Etruscan and direction. therefore more akin to the Proto-Tyrsenian lan- guage. THE EAST-WEST MIGRATION (THE THEORY OF THE With respect to the origin of the Lemnian alpha- ORIENTALISTS) bet, interpunction, and boustrophedon , which are the arguments of De Simone for a South If the Etruscans came from the North Aegean Etruscan origin, they have been rejected by M. region, it would explain why Lemnian has the Malzahn (1999). The is derived archaic past tense ending on -ai as past tense from the Cumaean/Pithecusan alphabet which is instead of -ce/ke in 7th century BC Etruscan (see of Euboic origin. However, the Lemnian alphabet above; it is absent in Raetic!). It would explain the directly derives from the Euboic one. presence of the encliticum -m which also occurs De Simone states that Etruscans arrived on in Lydian. If mav in Lemnian is a numeral, it can Lemnos around 700 BC because Homer does not be compared to Etruscan muv-al- (fify) and ma mention Pelasgans on the island; he never men- (five). The root would have been mav, like in tions Tyrsenians at all. He does mention Sinties, a Lemnian, and therefore presenting a more archaic barbarous people from Thrace (which are called in form than in Etruscan.14 Further Etruscan words far later sources Pelasgans). However, this arrival similar to non-Indo-European substrate words in of the Tyrsenians or Pelasgans may have already Greek and to words in Anatolian languages15 point been in the 8th century BC, if Homer lived in the 9th to a common ancestor in the Aegean/Anatolian century BC, as C.J. Ruijgh proposes. They would area, cf. huθ (Etruscan: four; Hyttenia is a place- have been groups of pirates who made the Aegean name in Attica which means in Greek Tetrapolis sea unsafe. The earliest documents for Etruscan = Four City), kanna, purθ, turan, puia (cf. Greek piracy, however, date from the second half of the opuioo, with loss of initial o-!)). According to 6th century BC.9 The 8th Homeric Hymn on Steinbauer words like spanti in Etruscan (compa-

53 rable to Hittite ispantuzzi (in both cases a vase- of the Umbrians. Hencken observes that the bicon- name)) must have been introduced before 700 BC, ical urns, which are characteristic of the PVN cul- because ispantuzzi lost its initial -i, like the Etrus- ture, were used before approximately 1200 BC in can word puia (wife) lost the initial -o in compar- the Banat-Oltenia area, which lies in the border ison with the prehellenic verb opuioo (‘I marry’).16 area between Yugoslavia, Hungary and Romania. If the formula maras aomai has the same meaning The had boats with a bird’s head at as Etruscan maru amce (*

54 and Giovenale. The Allumiere region near iron mines by aristocratic gentes. The demo- Tarquinia, which had many minerals at surface graphic explosion may be due to individuals and level, cinnabar, iron sulfids, pyrite, limonite, hema- groups coming from the Aegean area which had tite, silver containing galenite, allanite, copper experience with the winning of iron. The exploita- holding metals, shows a dense pattern of settle- tion of iron mines at Elba, near Vulci and in the ments (at regular distances with sufficient room Allumiere area was fully in existence before c. 750 for hunting and with enough water), much denser BC because iron slacks from Elba has been found than in the Recent Bronze Age period.23 The vil- in an aristocratic tomb in the Greek colony Pithe- lages show traces of collective activities like the cusae, which was founded around 750 BC. The defensive terrace wall in L’Elceto. In Monte Rovello theory of W. Harris that the proto-urban concen- in the Allumiere region a Mycenaean IIIC:2 sherd, trations were a collective response to the Greek datable between approximately 1125 and 1100 BC colonisation in Italy around 750 BC must be reject- was found, which clearly indicates direct or indi- ed since the process of proto-urbanization took rect contacts with the Aegean area.24 The traders place much earlier, around 900 BC.25 The theory were probably interested in local minerals like that newcomers, influential craftsmen, came from alum. Mycenaean (IIIB and IIIC) sherds from the the east around 900 BC, was already put forward same period have been found also in Luni sul by D.H. Trump.26 This group of Tyrsenian/Pelasgic Mignone and San Giovenale. They can be dated immigrants arrived approximately hundred years between about 1400 and 1000 BC. An interesting earlier in Etruria than another group arrived at phenomenon is the so-called thesaurization as is Lemnos. The original homeland of both groups may atttested by the four bronze hoards in the Allu- have been North West Anatolia, because according miere area. O. Toti (1987) supposes that the nucleus to Herodotus Pelasgans lived at Plakiè en Skylakè of newcomers were itinerant miners/workers in near Kyzikos. If they have come from there, the bronze. The presence of amber artefacts makes clear presence of Anatolian words in Etruscan can be that also traders from the north were attracted by explained. the Allumiere resources. Artefacts of glass paste, There seem to have been at least two waves of which were probably imported from Frattesina di immigrants (Tyrsenians/Pelasgans) in Etruria, Fratte Polesina in the Po valley, point also to trade one around 1100 BC who probably settled first at contacts with Northern Italy. The PVN culture Populonia, and one around 900 BC. However, this had a preserving and distributive character. It flow may have been continuous. The newcomers was also present near Frattesina in the Po valley mixed peacefully with the autochthonous Subapen- and near Fermo in Picenum along the Adriatic nine, Indo-European population. The Tyrsenian coast. Hencken (1968) has already proposed that language (Etruscan) replaced the Umbrian lan- there might have been two waves of immigrants guage. Herodotus states that the Umbrians lived around 1100 BC; Tyrsenians arriving in Etruria in Etruria before the arrival of Tyrsenians. This and Pelasgans arriving via the Adriatic coasts as model explains why some toponyms in Etruria is suggested by literary sources. Whether they have the non-Etruscan root ombr- and ambr- and came directly over land from the Balkan or via why words of Italic origin (e.g. θahvna (cf. Egypt cannot be established. Hencken prefers the dap- (cup)) are present in the earliest, 7th century second option, since there were also PVN cultures BC inscriptions. at Lipari, Milazzo and Tarent which might indi- The possibility, as suggested by Hencken, that cate that the immigrants came over sea. It would still around 700 BC new groups immigrants from have been easy for the immigrants to enter Italy Lydia entered Etruria may not be ruled out. This since the indigenous population was not aggres- because of the new phenomenon of the tumuli, sive judged from the absence of weapons in their which first were built in the coast area and later tombs. in the hinterland. They have their counterparts in A second wave of immigrants may have arrived Lydia, although their interior graves differ com- around 900 BC because at that time there was a pletely. In the historical period all new cultural spectacular demographic proto-urban concentra- phenomena spread from the coast to the hinter- tion of population in Vulci, Tarquinia, land. This wave of innovations may also have and which became real in the occurred in the prehistoric period. 7th century BC. The many small PVN settlements The suggestion of Pallottino and recently of in Southern Etruria were abandoned. Usually this Briquel that Etruscan and Lemnian belonged to a movement and concentration are explained by Mediterranean, non-Indo-European language spo- the growing richness thanks to the exploitation of ken in a very large area before approximately

55 2000 BC, before the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Bartoloni, G. 1989, La cultura villanoviana. All’inizio della sto- Italy and Greece, must be rejected.27 If both lan- ria etrusca, Roma. Bartoloni, G. 1991, Populonium Etruscorum, AC 43, 1-37. guages would have been isolated at that date, Beekes, R.S.P. 1993, The Position of Etruscan, in Indoger- they would have had less in common in view of manica et Italica. Festschrift für H. Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, the time gap of approximately 1500 years and the Innsbruck, 46-60. great distance between Etruria and Lemnos. Beekes, R.S.P. 2001, Review of De Simone 1996, Mnemosyne 54, 359-364. Moreover, Briquel’s conclusion that the different Beekes, R.S.P. 2002, The prehistory of the Lydians, the ori- theories on ethnic formation each contain a part gin of the Etruscans, Troy and Aeneas, Biblioteca of the truth is a compromise proposal, which Orientalis 59, cc. 205-242, 441-442. solves nothing.28 Beekes, R.S.P. 2003, The Origins of the Etruscans (KNAW, Archaeologists have not been able to solve the Mededelingen van de Afdeling Letterkunde, N.R., 66, 1), Amsterdam. question of Etruscan origins so far. However, the Beschi, L. 1998, I Tirreni di Lemno alla luce dei recenti dati linguistic evidence is strongly in favour of the ori- di scavo, in Magna Graecia, Etruschi, Fenici (Atti del entalist theory.29 Therefore, Herodotus’ story may Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 1993), have a kernel of truth. Taranto, 23-56. Beschi, L. 1996, ATITAS, PP 51, 132-136. Beschi, L. 1998, Arte e cultura di Lemno arcaica, PP 53, 48- NOTES 76. Beschi, L. 1992-1993, Nuove iscrizioni da Efestia, ASAtene 1 Briquel 1984; 1991; 1993; 2000. 70-71, 259-274. 2 Colonna 1981; Pallottino 1985, 57. Biancofiore, ./O. Toti 1973, Monte Rovello. Testimonianze 3 Bartoloni 1989, 59-83. See N. Negroni Catacchio, in dei Micenei nel Lazio, Roma. Harari/Pearce (eds.) 2000, 241-8. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1985, Produzione e scambio nell’Italia 4 Livy 5.33.5-11. protostorico, in L’Etruria mineraria, 223-264. 5 Rix 1998. Blench, R./M. Spriggs 1997, Archaeology and Language I. 6 De Simone 2000. I skip De Simone’s misreading of the Theoretical and methodological orientations, London/New graffito latita on a loom weight from a sanctuary in York. Chloe (on Lemnos) and his wrong analysis and inter- Briquel, D. 1984, Les Pélasges en Italie, . pretation of Beschi’s correct reading atitas. Briquel, D. 1991, L’origine lydienne des Étrusques. Histoire de 7 Rix 1991, Cr 0.4; AT 0.1. la doctrine dans l’antiquité. Rome. 8 Steinbauer 1999a. Briquel, D. 1993, Les Tyrrhènes. Peuple des tours. Denys 9 Cristofani 1983. d’Halicarnasse et l’autochtonie des Étrusques, Rome. 10 Gras 1985, 615. Briquel, D. 2000, Le origini degli Etruschi: una questione 11 Gras 1985, 700. dibattuta fin dall’antichità, in M. Torelli (ed.), Gli 12 Beschi 1996; 1998. Etruschi (exp. cat. Venezia), Milano, 43-51. 13 Ruijgh 1996. Camporeale, G. (ed.) 1985, L’Etruria mineraria, Milano. 14 Steinbauer 1999a, 203. Colonna, G. 1981, L’anforetta con iscrizione etrusca da 15 In Hittite, Lydian, and Luwian (see Beekes 1993 and Bologna, StEtr 49, 67-93. 1998; Steinbauer 1999a). Cristofani, M. 1983, Gli Etruschi del Mare, Milano. 16 Steinbauer 1999a, 366-389. Della Seta, A. 1937, Arte tirrenica di Lemno, Ephem, 629- 17 Pallottino 1985, 57. 664. 18 Cf. Briquel 2000, 46. Della Seta, A. 1937, Iscrizioni tirreniche di Lemno, in Scritti 19 Schumacher 1966; Hencken 1968. in onore di B. Nogara, Roma, 119-146. 20 Toti 1987, 44; Carratelli, PP 82 (1962) 5-14. De Simone, C. 1970, I morfemi etruschi -ce (-ke) e -e, StEtr 21 Cf. Bartoloni 1989, 82-83. 38, 115-139. 22 Negroni Catacchio 1985. De Simone, C. 1994, I Tirreni a Lemnos: l’alfabeto, StEtr 23 Toti 1987, 21. 60, 145-162. 24 Toti 1987. De Simone, C. 1996, I Tirreni a Lemnos. Evidenza linguistica 25 Harris 1989. e tradizioni storiche, Firenze. 26 Trump 1966, 178. De Simone, C. 1997, I Tirreni a Lemnos. Paralipomeni 27 Pallottino 1989; Briquel 2000, 47. metodologici, nonché teorici, Ostraka 6, 35-50. 28 Briquel 2000, 48. De Simone, C. 1998, Etrusco e “Tirreno” di Lemnos: 29 The problem can be compared to the question of the “Urverwantschaft”?, RivFil 126, 392-411. Celts in Ireland. Perhaps there was a migration; how- De Simone, C. 2000, I Tirreni di Lemnos, in M. Torelli (ed.), ever, archaeology cannot prove it (Barry Raftery, Pagan Gli Etruschi (exp. cat. Venezia), Milano, 501-505. Celtic Ireland, London 1994, 224-228). De Simone, C. 2001, L’iscrizione della stele del guerriero di Kaminia (Lemnos). Revisione epigrafica e tipologia BIBLIOGRAPHY dell’oggetto, SMEA 43, 39-65. Di Gennaro, F. 1971-1994, Protovillanoviano, EAA Sec. Aigner Foresti, L. 1974, Tesi, ipotesi e considerazioni sull’origi- Suppl. IV, 488-496. ne degli Etruschi, Graz. Facchetti, M. 2002, Appunti di morfologia etrusca. Con ASCIE 1989, Atti del Secondo Congresso Internazionale un’appendice sulla questione delle affinità genetiche dell’e- Etrusco. Firenze 1985. I-III. trusco (Biblioteca dell’ «Archivum Romanicum». S. II, 54), Firenze.

56 Gras, M. 1985, Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques (BEFAR 258), Pacciarelli, M. 2000, Dal villaggio alla città. La svolta pro- Roma. tourbana del 1000 a.C. nell’Italia tirrenica, Firenze. Harari, M./M. Pearce (eds.) 2000, Il Protovillanoviano al di Pallottino, M. 1985 (1989), Prospettive attuali del problema qua e al di là dell’Appennino (Atti della giornata di stu- delle origini etrusche, in ASCIE I, 55-62. dio. Pavia, Collegio Ghislieri 17 giugno 1996; Biblioteca Renfrew, C. 1987, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of di Athenaeum 38), Como. Indo-European Origins, London. Harris, W. 1985 (1989), Invisible Cities: The Beginnings of Rix, H. 1985, Das Schrift und die Sprache, in M. Cristofani Etruscan Urbanisation, in ASCIE I, 375-392. (ed.), Die Etrusker, Stuttgart/Zürich, 210-238. Guidi, A. 1985 (1989), Alcune osservazioni sull’origine Rix, H. 1991, Etruskische texte. Editio minor, I-II, Tübingen. della città etrusche, in ASCIE I, 285-292. Rix, H. 1998, Rätisch und Etruskisch, Innsbruck. Hencken, H. 1968, Tarquinia and Etruscan Origins, London. Rix, H., Etruskisch: Der Zugang zu einer unzugänglichen Heurgon, J. 1985 (1989), A propos de l’inscription de Sprache, Sb. Heidelberg, in press. Lemnos, in ASCIE I, 93-102. Ruijgh, C.J. 1998, Waar en wanneer Homerus leefde. Ientile, M.G. 1983, La pirateria tirrenica. Momenti e fortuna, Amsterdam 1996 (also in Lampas 31 (1998) 3-21). Roma. Schumacher, E. 1967, Die Protovillanova-Fundgruppe. Eine Incontri di studi in memoria di , Untersuchung zur frühen Eisenzeit Italiens, Bonn. Pisa/Roma 1999. Steinbauer, D. 1999a, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, St. L’Etrusco arcaico (Atti del Colloquio, Firenze 1974), Firenze Katharinen. 1976. Steinbauer, D. 1999b, Review of De Simone 1996, Kratylos L’Etruria mineraria (Atti XII Conv. St. Etr. e It.), Firenze 44, 201-203. 1985. Toti, O. et alii 1987, La “Civiltà Protovillanoviana” dei Monti Malzahn, M. 1999, Das lemnische Alphabet: eine eigen- della Tolfa. Società ed economia tra XI e IX secolo a. C., ständige Entwicklung, StEtr 63, 259-279. Roma. Mallory, J.P. 1989, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Troja. Traum und Wirklichkeit (Ausstellungskatalog), Archaeology and Myth, London. Stuttgart 2001. Messineo, G. 1997, Gli scavi di Efestia a Lemno. Tradizione Trump, D.H. 1966, Central and Southern Italy, London. nella civiltà tirrenica, StudMic 39, 241-252. Van der Meer, L.B. 1992, The Stele of Lemnos and Etruscan Mustili, D. 1932-3, La necropoli tirrenica di Efestia, Origins, OudhMeded 72, 61-71 (with a bibliography on ASAtene 15-16, 1-278. the Lemnos Stele). Negroni Catacchio, N. 1995, Sorgenti della Nova. L’abitato del Bronzo Finale, Firenze. Negroni Catacchio, N. 1985 (1989), L’abitato del bronzo FACULTY OF ARCHAEOLOGY finale di Sorgenti della Nova (VT): possibilità di con- LEIDEN UNIVERSITY fronti con i modelli abitativi dei centri villanoviani, in POSTBUS 9515 ASCIE I, 271-283. NL 2300 RA LEIDEN Oestenberg, C.E. 1967, Luni sul Mignone e problemi della preistoria d’Italia, Lund. [email protected] Pacciarelli, M. 1996, Nota sulla cronologia assoluta della prima età in Italia, Ocnus 4, 185-9.

57

Top View