Sign in | Log in

Science, Irony and Italian History - a “Southern Question” twist!

Science, Irony and Italian History - a “Southern Question” twist!

Tom Verso (August 9, 2009)
Latin settlements on mainland Riviera and Rome circa 500 B.C. maybe Sicilian Latin.

Abstract: An i-Italy article, reporting scientific technology used in the study of Altinum, brings to mind a scientific linguistics study of ancient Liguria which came to the ironic (visa vis the “Southern Question”) conclusion that northern Italian culture was born of Sicilian immigrants.

Tools

Introduction 


Recently i-Italy.org linked to an ANSA.it article “ANCIENT FOREFATHER TO VENICE MAPPED Aerial photos of Altinum reveal 'spectacular architecture'”.  The ANSA article in turn is a summary of a detailed report, appearing in the prestigious magazine “Science”, on the use of technology to study the architectural remnants of the ancient Veneto city Altinum. 

While the use of technological instruments is relatively new to the study of history, the method and logic of science was highly developed in the linguistic and philological sciences in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  For example, Arnold J. Toynbee’s study of the ancient roots of northern Italian communities (see: “Sicilian Lights on Roman Origins” Study of History v. 8, p. 704-7) is an eloquent demonstration of how linguistic sciences bring us knowledge of extinct societies.  Toynbee’s study, inadvertently, has an ironic implication for the so-called “Southern Question.” 

 

“The Southern Question” is a characterization of a compendium of social issues predicated on the assumption that the people, culture and society of southern Italy is significantly different than that of the north.  Or as they use to say before it became “so not PC”: “Italy ends at the Garigliano.” 

 

Toynbee makes a very strong, and inadvertently ironic, case that two of the major northern social centers Liguria and, indeed Rome itself, were originally Sicilian colonies.  This article outlines his Ligurian thesis. 

 

Toynbee begins the essay with a description of a “linguistic map” of Italy in the first half of the first millennium BC prior to when there is a clear and unequivocal existence of the Roman city-state in the historic record. According to this linguistic map, “there were various language groups present in Italy and Sicily during this period. 

 

Three geographic groups of people spoke the Latin language: 

 

1. “Sicel natives of Sicily 

2. “Ligurians in the North-Western Appennines” (present day Italian Riviera) 

3. “Latins and Falisci in the lower basin of the River Tiber”  (present day Rome) 

 

Common place-names in Riviera and Sicily 

 

On the Italian Riviera, are found four place-names that are identical to four places in Sicily.  Toynbee: “At the eastern end of the Italian Riviera, we find four place-names – not of Roman mintage...identical with the principal place-names in the Elymian country in the north-western corner of Sicily.” 

 

Specifically the common place-names are: 

 

1a ‘Eryx’ a port on the Gulf of Spezia (modern city of Lerici) 



1b ‘Eryx’ a mountain in NW Sicily (modern mountain of San Giuliano – modern town of Erice) 


2a ‘Portus Veneris’ (modern Portovenere), across the Spezia Gulf from Lerici, dedicated to the same goddess know as Aphrodite (note: Venus is Aphrodite with different name) 


2b ‘Temple of Aphrodite’ on the side of the Sicilian Mountain Eryx (again modern San Giuliano/Erice) 

3a ‘Segesta’ a town on Gulf of Genoa (modern Sestri Levante) 



3b ‘Segesta’ city-state in NW Sicily   




4a ‘Entella’ town on Gulf of Genoa (modern river with same name) 




4b ‘Entella’ town in W. Sicily (Mark ‘A’ on map below) 

 





Scientific method essentially consists of finding Facts and Explaining facts. Following the method of science, Toynbee proceeds. 

First, using linguistic techniques, he established two historic facts about pre-Roman times 

 

F1. People in West Sicily and on the Gulf of Genoa spoke the Latin language 

F2. Four identical place-names in W. Sicily and on the Gulf of Genoa 

  

He then proceeds to finding an explanation. How can these facts be explained? 

 

There are three possible explanations (hypotheses): 

 

E1. Coincidence – people in Liguria and Sicily by chance used the same names 

E2. Latin speaking people from the Riviera emigrated to Sicily 

E3. Latin speaking people from Sicily emigrated to the Riviera 

 

 E1 is rejected by Toynbee as a very low probability.  He writes 

 

 “This fourfold correspondence between place-names in Sicily and on the Riviera can hardly be accidental...” 

 

However, E2 and E3 are plausible: 

 

“ We cannot reject the inference that the places known by these four names in Liguria had been called after the four places with identical names in Sicily, or vice versa.” 

 

More linguistic facts are gathered to make a decision. 

 

Fact: “Graecized” Latin 

 

Toynbee: “The natives of Sicily, who did their utmost to resist by force of arms the interloping Greek colonists’ aggressive attempts to eject or subjugate them, were at the same time voluntarily adopting the language, religion, and art of their Greek assailants. The never conquered Elymi...took to speaking Greek.” 

 

Inference:   

 

The fact that the Riviera Latin place-name Eryx has a Grecian characteristic, implies that the people who named the place were Latin speaking people from Sicily whose Latin language had been modified with Greek characteristics. 

 

Toynbee writes: “the probability [implication] that the group of names in [the Riviera] was derived from the group in Sicily is indicated by the fact that in [the Riviera], as in Sicily the mountain-name appears in the Graecized form ‘Eryx’ and not in a Ligurian equivalent... ‘verruca’ (‘peak’), which we should expect to find surviving here if the name had originated in Liguria and had been carried thence to Sicily.” 

 

Therefore: 

 

E2 (Latin speaking people from the Riviera emigrated to Sicily) is rejected 

 

E3 (Latin speaking people from Sicily emigrated to the Riviera) is judged to be more probable based on linguistic evidence 

 

Thus, the historian has made the case that Sicilian immigrants settled on the Italian Riviera (E3) rather than the Ligurians emigrating to Sicily (E2) 

 

Toynbee has made a strong linguistic case that Sicilians emigrated to the Italian mainland as far north as the present day Italian Rivera.  This opens up the possibility that they also emigrated to the Tiber River basin, which is discussed in another of my blog articles  (see linked article "Sicilian Lights..." in the Related Articles box above). 

We see how scientific thinking even without scientific technology such as that used in the Altinum study provides us with knowledge of the past.  

 

Finally, on a subjective note, what a delicious irony: quintessential cultural centers of northern Italian denigrators of Sicily were originally Sicilian colonies! 

 

DISCLAIMER: Posts published in i-Italy are intended to stimulate a debate in the Italian and Italian-American Community and sometimes deal with controversial issues. The Editors are not responsible for, nor necessarily in agreement with the views presented by individual contributors.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - RIPRODUZIONE VIETATA.
This work may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.
Questo lavoro non può essere riprodotto, in tutto o in parte, senza permesso scritto.

Pure piffle

The whole article is a flight of wishful fancy,.Arnold J. Toynbee was a historian described as “ not having had many followers” (Wikipedia). To advance such theories on the basis of the far and partial similitude of 4 geographical names (TWO of which are FALSIFIED in the small maps shown in Verso’s text) is absurd wishful thinking. The language of the Liguri is nowadays thought to have been just an “Indo-European language”, not necessarily Latin. There’s no possible connection between the scientific method used in the research of the Altinum town, carried out at the University of Padova, and the hypotheses advanced by Toynbee, taken up by Verso and promptly, greedily and gullibly sucked up by the Annotico Report of Sep 1-st. Go ask a Genovese or a Veneziano if they feel to be descendents of Sicilians, but make sure first to be fast and nimble on your feet. Whoever talks about “scientific methods” better have an idea about what they are.

Yuri

Toynbee

Yuri,

Wikipedia is referring to Toynbee’s philosophy of history, not his empirical factual research. He had a theory about the origins, evolution and demise of civilization that was not widely embraced.

However, he was acknowledged as an excellent classical scholar. And his essay “Sicilian lights on Roman Origins”, which I have paraphrased, is not part of his philosophy. It is pure linguistic analysis. He presents linguistic facts, posits various possible explanations and by logical deduction arrives at conclusions. If his facts are false, then one should present the evidence. If is logic is fallacious, one should present the fallacy. In the absence of those two tests, the theory stands.

I’m not sure what map you are referring to as falsifying. You weren’t specific. But, the maps are my addition in an effort to facilitate understanding. There were no maps in his essay. It maybe that Google maps are not a perfect fit to the ancient sites Toynbee is referring to.

My reference to the Altinum project was only put the concept of scientific thinking and history into context. We tend to think of science as technology. I wanted to show that linguistic historians like Toynbee were if fact seeking knowledge scientifically, even if they were not using technological equipment.

Thank you for your thoughts and I’m sorry if I offended you. Best Tom Verso

Sep 3. Well, YES, the term

Sep 3. Well, YES, the term "falsify" IS kind of excessive and, in turn, I'm sorry if I used an offensive expression. But, as to those maps, FIRST that tag "New Sicily 500c BC" in the first one (immediately below the title) is clearly an artificial addition (BTW, what's that "c" attached to "500" mean? a typo?). SECOND, The Google Map for "Chiavari" does NOT show the addition "Entella"; the DESCRIPTION of the town mentions only the name "Chiavari" and that the town is located at the mouth of the RIVER Entella. THIRD, those large blue characters "Chiavari Entella" are clearly an artificial modification: in a map, the size of names for towns are notoriously based upon its size, importance and population, and it seems highly unlikely that Chiavari, a municipality of about 25,000, should rate a larger lettering than La Spezia (pop. 95,000 and capital of the omonymous province, 42 miles away). FINALLY, the map obtainable by tapping "Chiavari" in Google's search bar is quite different from the one shown in your blog and shows the town lying between a parkway, the "Autostrada Azzurra", more inland and the parallel Via Aurelia, closer to the coastline (and built by the Romans, be they or not of Sicilian descent). BTW, the Romans are known to have been great constructors of roads (Via Appia, Via Aurelia, Va Flaminia, Via Cassia, Via Latina, ... etc. etc. etc.); the Sicilians are NOT.

As to your Toynbee, I have no intention in my old age (80) to obtain a second degree in linguistic analysis (asw studying goes, right now, I've got enough on my hands with refining my German). If you quote "empirical research", I'll remind that "empirical" comes from "experience" and "experiment" ("originating in or based on observation or experience"; "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment") and that the basic "tenet" is the possibility of constantly reproducing the same result to prove something found out by a first observer. ALT may have been "an excellent classic scholar" (for all I care, he may have been a "first" at Oxford or Cambridge). You yourself say that he had "a "theory" that "was not widely embraced". How can there have been "facts" in his "empirical factual research" when those facts happened 2,500+ years before him??!!! All he had was a "theory", that he proves by surmises, conjectures and inferences that you have (by your own admission) "paraphrased" to fit your fancies. Not good enough, Mr Verso. Yuri

Sep 3. Well, YES, the term

Sep 3. Well, YES, the term "falsify" IS kind of excessive and, in turn, I'm sorry if I used an offensive expression. But, as to those maps, FIRST that tag "New Sicily 500c BC" in the first one (immediately below the title) is clearly an artificial addition (BTW, what's that "c" attached to "500" mean? a typo?). SECOND, The Google Map for "Chiavari" does NOT show the addition "Entella"; the DESCRIPTION of the town mentions only the name "Chiavari" and that the town is located at the mouth of the RIVER Entella. THIRD, those large blue characters "Chiavari Entella" are clearly an artificial modification: in a map, the size of names for towns are notoriously based upon its size, importance and population, and it seems highly unlikely that Chiavari, a municipality of about 25,000, should rate a larger lettering than La Spezia (pop. 95,000 and capital of the omonymous province, 42 miles away). FINALLY, the map obtainable by tapping "Chiavari" in Google's search bar is quite different from the one shown in your blog and shows the town lying between a parkway, the "Autostrada Azzurra", more inland and the parallel Via Aurelia, closer to the coastline (and built by the Romans, be they or not of Sicilian descent). BTW, the Romans are known to have been great constructors of roads (Via Appia, Via Aurelia, Va Flaminia, Via Cassia, Via Latina, ... etc. etc. etc.); the Sicilians are NOT.

As to your Toynbee, I have no intention in my old age (80) to obtain a second degree in linguistic analysis (asw studying goes, right now, I've got enough on my hands with refining my German). If you quote "empirical research", I'll remind that "empirical" comes from "experience" and "experiment" ("originating in or based on observation or experience"; "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment") and that the basic "tenet" is the possibility of constantly reproducing the same result to prove something found out by a first observer. ALT may have been "an excellent classic scholar" (for all I care, he may have been a "first" at Oxford or Cambridge). You yourself say that he had "a "theory" that "was not widely embraced". How can there have been "facts" in his "empirical factual research" when those facts happened 2,500+ years before him??!!! All he had was a "theory", that he proves by surmises, conjectures and inferences that you have (by your own admission) "paraphrased" to fit your fancies. Not good enough, Mr Verso. Yuri

historians craft

Yuri,

The tag “New Sicily” is somewhat “tongue-in-cheek”. It’s a bit of irony and humor directed at Americans of southern Italian descent. The title word ‘irony’ is also in that context. Both are not Toynbee per se. Just my ‘journalistic’ touch. The ‘c’ is abbreviation for ‘Circa’, a term historians use to in the sense of ‘approximately.’ Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I should not have assumed general readers would recognize that. This is why professional writers have editors.

Again, I have used Google maps and the best that I could get was “Chiavari Entella”. Toynbee wrote his essay almost a100 years ago. I would have to find old maps of Italy to get the exact location. I struggled with the Entella location in just the terms you suggest. However, I thought that the Entella reference on the Google map sufficient to make the point that both names occurred in Sicily and on the Gulf of Genoa. And that is the main point. How does one account for the same name in both places?

Your last point goes to the heart of my interest in history. How does one KNOW the past? My favorite writer on that subject is Marc Bloch: “The Historians Craft”. Essentially, historians know the past by the remnant documents from the past. Toynbee, was a master of classical documents. He is often criticized because his writing style is so difficult. I agree. He agrees. He said that he knows ancient Greek so well that he thinks and writes in that language. He wrote poetry in ancient Greek. His knowledge of ancient languages was not limited to Greek. In short, based on his expert knowledge of the ancient languages and the available documents, he like all classical scholars describes the events of the past and posit plausible explanations for those events. Needless to say, knowledge of the past is not perfect in the sense of natural sciences. However, it is not just guessing either. Historians have empirical epistemological and methodological standards that govern their descriptions and explanations.

Empirical means that people with expert knowledge can reproduce the results. Atomic physics is not less empirical because I can’t reproduce the test results. Similarly, Toynbee’s work must meet the test of expert reproduction. So far as I know, no one with expert knowledge has challenged is Sicilian hypothesis.

Knowledge of the past is no longer limited to remnant documents. Scientific technology like that used at Atinum greatly expands our knowledge of the past. But, the scientific logic is the same for technologist as for document historians. “Observation” and “inference”. The only difference is ‘what’ is observed: documents or physical remains. But the logic is the same.

Great dialogue! Thank you Tom Verso

Abbreviations

Mr Verso, I'm quite familiar with the word "circa", that happens to be a Latin > Italian word. The correct abbreviation for it is not just "c", but "ca", detached from the terrm it follows. I can see we are now going into nitpicking, and I think it's time to stop. Very truly,

Yuri

ciao

Yuri, The i-Italy comment notification system has been having some problems lately and I never got a notice of your last note. I just became aware of it.

I just want to say, I’m so sorry that you think our dialogue came down ‘nitpicking’. I found it a very meaningful discussion. Your comments helped me focus on weaknesses in my rendition of Toynbee’s argument. I really have to reconsider using Google maps.

Finally, I hope you did not think my positing the definition of ‘circa’ was condescending. I was just trying to be specific. Although, a polite parenthetical such as ‘you probably know’ would have been appropriate.

Finally, if I may, there are two abbreviations for ‘circa’; ‘ca’ as you note and ‘c’ as I wrote. I have to say when I read your comment I got a ‘pit in my stomach.’ I can’t begin to think how many years I have been using ‘c’, and then to find out that it was wrong – ‘oh my gosh’! However, I have checked an online dictionary and my ‘old-fashion’ Webster and both agree that ‘ca’ and ‘c’ are abbreviations for circa.

Well here’s hope’n that you get this note. I feel like someone putting a note in a bottle and dropping it in the ocean.

Thanks again Best Tom Verso