This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
+1 More
Ancient Sicily held a significant position in the Mediterranean and served as a meeting point for many cultures. Between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE, indigenous languages besides Greek and Phoenician were spoken on the island. These languages, generally referred to in Italian sources as "Anellenico" (non-Greek), were associated with ancient peoples such as the Elymians and Sicani and Sicels. However, evidence surviving from these languages is extremely scarce, and interpreting them presents challenges in understanding the identities and cultures of these ancient peoples.
For instance, Thucydides’ work on “Sicilian archaeology” describes the ethnic composition of the island in the late 5th century BCE as follows:
These peoples lived on Sicily before the arrival of Phoenician and Greek colonists. However, the existence of these ethnic labels (Elymians, Sicani, Sicels) has not been fully confirmed by the limited number of inscriptions we possess. Moreover, it is incorrect to assume that these labels corresponded precisely with the material culture, language, or other cultural traits of these groups.
Archaeological findings indicate that the boundaries between groups such as the Elymians and Sicani or the Sicani and Sicels were not as clearly defined as previously thought. Therefore, it may be more accurate to view these groups as temporary political and social entities rather than distinct ethnic communities.
In ancient texts, the main evidence for whether these peoples had their own languages includes:
However, it remains unclear whether these words were part of Sicilian Greek or derived from local Italic or other languages. Modern research generally relies on inscriptions, yet classifying the languages found in these inscriptions as Sikelic, Sicani, or Elymian does not provide definitive evidence regarding their origins. This situation creates a kind of circular reasoning.
The evidence we possess for the Sikelic and Elymian languages is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about them. The number of written artifacts is small, and gaps and uncertainties in published material make it difficult to determine exact totals. Elymian findings mostly consist of coin inscriptions and carved texts on vases from the cities of Segesta and Eryx.
Coin minting in Segesta began around 470 BCE and continued until approximately 400 BCE. In Eryx, minting began slightly later, around 460 BCE. Although Segesta coins used Greek letters, non-Greek inscriptions appear from the earliest examples onward (e.g., ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΒ, ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΒΕΜΙ, ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΕ, ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΑ).
After 410 BCE, forms resembling the Greek genitive plural, ΕΓΕΣΤΑΙΟΝ / ΕΓΕΣΤΑΙΩΝ, begin to appear. However, non-Greek inscriptions are sometimes found on the same coins. In Eryx, the situation is reversed: from 460 BCE, the Greek form ΕΡΥΚΙΝΟΝ appears, but from 410 BCE onward, only ΕΡΥΚΑΖΙΒ inscriptions are found. Around 450 BCE, a common coin bearing the inscriptions ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΙΟΝ / ΕΡΥΚΙΝΟΝ was minted for both cities.
Ceramic finds come almost entirely from Grotta Vanella, a site located on the northeast slope of Monte Barbaro, the main hill of ancient Segesta. Most of these finds were discovered between the 1950s and 1980s. A large portion of them were compiled by Luciano Agostiniani in his 1977 collection of Elymian texts (376 documents on 370 objects; approximately half are “signs and symbols” rather than “texts”).
Another twenty or so additional documents have been published in various articles. Four texts come from the Manico di Quarara necropolis near Montelepre, two from Entella, and one from Monte Castellazzo di Poggioreale. A fragment from Monte Iato is sometimes included among these finds, but the text on it is too small to determine its language with certainty. Most Elymian finds are thought to have been votive offerings. However, this assumption is largely based on the premise that Grotta Vanella was not a sanctuary but a refuse area. In contrast, the Montelepre finds, which closely resemble those from Grotta Vanella in form and content, come from graves like most Sikel finds. These vases, all dating to the late 6th or early 5th century BCE, were mostly imported from Attica.
Sikel finds, traditionally classified as such, are far more diverse in type and geographic distribution. Following Ulrich Schmoll’s 1958 compilation attempt, Agostiniani published in 1992 a selection of 27 texts including Elymian material. However, current debates frequently reference various texts that have not yet been fully published. For example, a mistaken belief exists regarding ceramic inscriptions thought to originate from Terravecchia di Cuti. This situation illustrates how difficult it is to assign short, fragmentary texts found under uncertain conditions to a specific language. Sikel finds are grouped into three distinct geographic regions: the Etna region, the Hyblaean region, and the Gela hinterland/central Sicily, and they generally date to the 6th and early 5th centuries BCE. The activities of the Sikel leader Douketios in the mid-5th century BCE are considered the period when Sikel identity was most prominent. Unlike Elymian inscriptions, Sikel inscriptions include not only monumental texts on stone and tile but also more common texts carved on vases.
Due to the scarcity of evidence, it is difficult to provide detailed descriptions of the grammar and writing systems of the Sikelic and Elymian languages. Consequently, debates have focused primarily on:
Generally, consistency can be observed among finds from eastern and central Sicily. However, these finds also show some differences in both grammar and writing systems. Linguists generally agree that these languages share similarities with the Sabellic languages spoken in central and southern Italy. These similarities appear in vocabulary, noun structures, and grammatical constructions. Yet, the question of whether Sikelic and Elymian represent a single language or distinct languages remains unresolved. Evidence for the Elymian language is even less certain.
One reason is the scarcity of long texts. Particularly, the lengthy texts found at Mendolito provide the most reliable evidence for classifying these languages. These texts contain features common to Italic languages, such as words like touto- and akara-, and double-name personal names like rukes hazsuie[s]. However, the structure of personal names is also ambiguous. Both single-name and double-name forms appear in Greek and indigenous texts. While double-name forms are rare in Elymian, single-name forms are more common. This complicates efforts to determine which language family or ethnic group these names belong to.
A striking example of this complexity is the use of the “possessive dative.” A frequent construction in Elymian texts ends in “-ai” and sometimes includes the verb “emi.” This structure resembles Greek possessive expressions such as “I am the vase of...” The use of the verb “emi” raises the question of whether the Elymian language borrowed this construction from Greek or developed it independently. However, strong evidence exists that the possessive dative was used in Elymian, even if the verb “emi” was borrowed from Greek. This is also evident in coin inscriptions from Segesta, where the form ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΒ is paired with the Greek genitive plural ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΙΟΝ. Here, the ending “-B” is thought to represent a sound like /f/, indicating a dative plural.
Although the use of the possessive dative (and the borrowing of the Greek verb “emi,” even the coin minting tradition) is generally accepted for Elymian, it is also known to occur in both Greek and Sikel texts on the island. Some texts from Gela clearly show this non-standard dative usage. For example, the text Ν]ενδαι εμι Καριμαιοι contains a Sikel personal name in the dative case within a Greek text. Similar examples are found on vessels from Castiglione and Terravecchia di Grammichele (redorai emi, ne(n)dai and qupei pinigoi emi). This demonstrates the complexity of cultural interaction in Sicily. Inferences about Elymian suggest it was an Italic language (due to the structure and endings of the dative). However, the widespread occurrence of this feature across the island suggests that Elymian was not confined to the limited area traditionally assumed. As Agostiniani and Cordano note, “We have no evidence that the Italic features apparent in Elymian are absent from the indigenous languages of eastern Sicily, where Italic features are at least somewhat evident.”
An important issue in linguistic analysis concerns the alphabets used to write non-Greek languages. The Greek alphabets used in Sicily were influenced by various local Greek scripts of the period. The prevailing view holds that the Greek alphabets used for non-Greek languages closely reflect those of neighboring Greek cities. For example, the Elymian language was influenced by the alphabet of Selinunte, while the alphabets used for Sikelic reflect influences from different Greek cities such as Gela, Camarina, Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Catania.
In these debates, two features stand out particularly: the different forms of the letter “beta” and the letter known as “alfa siculum.” Studying these features allows for more detailed linguistic and cultural interpretation of the evidence. In Elymian texts, the “inverted nu” symbol is frequently used instead of the standard Greek beta (/b/). This demonstrates the influence of the Selinunte alphabet on Elymian writing. However, the presence of both the inverted nu and the standard beta in Elymian texts complicates the issue. The fact that the same personal name is written with the inverted nu in both Selinunte and Segesta suggests consistent usage. The abecedary sequence AИГA from Montelepre further supports this. This raises the question of whether the standard beta represents /b/ or a different sound. Michel Lejeune proposed that this symbol represented a vowel, but sequences like -]τοκυβε[- contradict this view. Luciano Agostiniani argued that Elymian likely contained a labial fricative sound close to /f/, not found in the standard Greek alphabet. According to this interpretation, the standard beta in other Sicilian alphabets may have been used to represent this sound. This interpretation facilitates reading the forms ΣΕΓΕΣΤΑΖΙΒ and EPYKAZIB on coins as dative plurals and supports the idea that the language had Indo-European and likely Italic origins.
It is also noteworthy that the standard Greek beta (B) appears more frequently in Sikel texts than would be expected for an Indo-European (and likely Italic) language. The common explanation is that in Sikel texts, the letter B was used to represent both /b/ and /f/ sounds. This differs from the Elymian situation, where Elymian writing developed distinct symbols for these two sounds, using the non-standard Selinunte symbol (similar to 𝝱) for /b/. Like the use of dative endings mentioned above, this supports the idea that Elymian was a closely related Italic language to Sikelic.
However, while Elymian texts contain aspirated consonants such as phi and khi, no instances of phi, khi, or theta have yet been found in Sikel inscriptions, indicating a clear distinction between the two languages. This raises the question of whether we are dealing with dialects of the same language or entirely different languages.
Significant variations exist in the Greek alphabets used in the Sikel region, both locally (e.g., between Mendolito and Centuripe) and regionally. Researchers have identified at least three distinct Sikel writing regions based on these differences:
All these regions show influence from Greek settlements. However, one feature common to most of these texts, and which undermines the distinctions between these regions, is the symbol known as “alfa siculum.” Although this symbol does not appear in all texts identified as Sikel (e.g., it is clearly absent on the Centuripe askos), it is widely used and is thought to have been deliberately chosen as a cultural marker in texts from Montagna di Marzo, particularly in tomb 31. This supports Agostiniani’s interpretation that the letter expressed “internal cohesion within the Sicula community and opposition to the Greek element.”
Furthermore, the near absence of this symbol in texts known to be Greek strengthens this interpretation. However, since the symbol does not appear in all texts identified as Sikel, it cannot be considered a defining feature of a “Sikel alphabet” on its own.
No Discussion Added Yet
Start discussion for "Ancient Sicilian Languages" article
Linguistic Evidence
Coin Inscriptions
Ceramic Inscriptions
Linguistic Features and Debates