Why didn't Phoenicians colonize Mainland Italy?

Anatolian is a branch of the Indoeuropean family, Etruscans were not even Indoeuropean.

If anything the "Etruscans are Anatolian meme" is a meme spouted by uneducated retards who can't be bothered to open a book or sensationalistic buffoons clutching at grasp trying to prove desperately that they came from some microscopic island west of Anatolia because they can't accept that it was just another Greek bullshit, even an ancient Greek historian, Dinogi of Alicarnassos, commented on how it was bullshit, and that didn't even happen for most other Greek accounts, it must have really been a big old bullshit to be dismissed even by an ancient Greek himself

Not enough resources/men to build colonizing forts on the mainland which would only invite attacks from barbarians. As many other anons said, they were traders, not military expansionists. They settled posts where there either weren't many people, or the people were much more primitive. Islands are a good base, since they're close enough to the mainland, but easier to defend from raids (unless zerg rushed).

>people were much more primitive

both Iberians and Sardinians were basically civilized, especially the latter

Anatolia is a geographic region which is known to have been inhabited a large number of different linguistic groups. There's nothing especially Anatolian about the Anatolian branch of Indo-European languages. It's like saying English is the language of Ireland and Gaelic is alien to it.

No texts in a langauge similar to Etruscan were ever found on the Anatolian mainland.

The only langauge similar to Etruscan found is that of the Lemnos stelae and a few other sherds, but Lemnos in a small island and those texts date back to a century or two after the first documented Etruscan writings

It doesn't matter. Only Italian nationalists dismiss the idea of Aegaean->Italian migration.

Not really, most Etruscologists agree that there is no evidence that the Etruscans come from elsewhere, because actually studying the subject clarifies that there is zero evidence for any kind of migration taking place in Etruria in the early iron age, the only migration that occured was the urnfield people moving south from central Europe around the late bronze age, but obviously doing ad hominem to support sensationalistic bullshit is easier than actually reading up about the argument

Any Etruscologist knows that the Estruscans are originally from Australia. When they set sail for North America, the were blown off course and landed in Italy. This is basic Etruscology, read a book for once.

I'm sure this "joke" sounded funny in your head before you wrote it down

There was no point? Who would they trade with in the northern part of italy?

Celts?

There is no evidence of Celtic migration to Ireland yet it isn't disputed. We have stick to the facts and right now they say Aegean Sea.
In the future this could change but I doubt it.

>There is no evidence of Celtic migration to Ireland yet it isn't disputed

There is though, the material culture changes

>We have stick to the facts and right now they say Aegean Sea.

Justify this claim, there is absolutely no
evidence for such a thing.

>Joke
Try truth

>There is though, the material culture changes

Not at any specific point but very gradually. Culture always changes anyway and sometimes it has nothing to do with language.

The Estruscans were heavily involved in trade, they were a major distributor of metals throughout the Mediterranean and into Continental europe. They were also a rather powerful navy entity. They planned to colonize islands in the Atlantic until the Carthaginians convinced them not to.

Overall it didn't make sense for Phoenicians to settle cities here, northern Italy was already inhabited by civilized and trade friendly people. Their people just settled in those cities instead and set up shop.

Yeah, it of course has to do with language since the language is usually brought by people.

There are clear Hallstat influences on the culture of the British isles, Etruscan burial costums seem local and the Aegean influence (which is present only from the 7th century onward) can be easily explained with the interaction between Etruscans and the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia

Now tell me your "facts", I'm still waiting, what is the proof that Etruscans were Anatolian?

>Overall it didn't make sense for Phoenicians to settle cities here, northern Italy was already inhabited by civilized and trade friendly people.

Like the rest of the places colonized by Phoenicians such as Cyprus, Sicily or Sardinia

The Phoenicians already had colonies in Sicily which is in the middle of the Mediterranean meaning that it was a perfect location. Then you also have the Greeks who have settled southern Italy, which is the good spot of Italy during antiquity because of all the trade routes. It would've been too costly and unnecessary for the Punics to have colonized mainland Italy.

These are all very well positioned islands compared to a heavily populated peninsula, it's hard to compare.

>Cyprus
Not that heavily populated relatively. A well place island, and very rich in copper. That's where it's name comes from. They also were being pushed hard by the Assyrians away from settling further into the Levant.

>Sicily
Their original settlements were strategic locations like Motya. The set up trade stations on each side of Sicily to make trade easier. It was until later they took advantage of the breadbasket of the island and built cities.

>Sardinia
I don't think they ever heavily populated the area, they used the native population for mining to my knowledge. But it was a good strategic location for Carthage's location port wise and provided metals for trade.

cuz Greeks already did

Lemnian language proves and backs up the Ancient Greeks in that Etruscans are Pelasgians from Lemnos. They knew what they were talking about.

>they used the native population for mining to my knowledge

Not really, the native Sardinians had full control of the resources and ports until Carthage took over around the 6th century bc, before then Phoenicians couldn't possibly attempt any military expedition and were mostly integrated peacefully

But the Phoenicians did make a profit acquiring silver from the Sards since the island was rich in silver deposits

>Lemnian language proves

Lemnian texts are all more recent than Etruscan ones, so it's not a proof

>They knew what they were talking about.

Greeks authors such as the Herodotus (who was the first one to put forward this idea) said Etruscans were Lydians, but that can't possibly true considering Lydians were Indoeuropeans.

Thanks for the correction. I haven't looked to deep into Phoenician interaction in Sardinia. I focused more on Sicily and Iberia.

Read A.Stiglitz or Bernardini if you're Italian

Start with this:
ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/view/2485/2216

The more recent, the better, considering lately they've been making more and more discoveries concerning interactions between Sardinians and other Mediterraneans

I'll check them out. I don't know Italian, sadly. Only have Spanish, which luckily there's a lot of sources for that.

>Yeah, it of course has to do with language since the language is usually brought by people.
Not that guy and I know this is what Archeology teaches but there is a major logical flaw here when they are equating material change with ethnic or linguistic migration. I mean people just could just pick up on trends that they think is cool.

Of course a change in material does not necessarily mean the language changes as well.

But with no change in material culture there is no evidence for a migration of course.

uhu.es/publicaciones/ojs/index.php/onoba/article/view/2604/2428

An interesting publication about the relation between Iberia and Sardinia in Pre Phoenician times and in the later early Phoenician era

>But with no change in material culture there is no evidence for a migration of course.
When there are no other (written) sources, yeah I agree. I just keep asking myself what the point is of talking about migration when all you can observe are different needles and shit. I mean clearly something goes on in those instances but I don't get why old school archeologists insist that it was migration.

Awesome looks like I have some reading tonight

Italy was full of populous martial tribes and Greeks.

...

So according to the racist who drew this Sicily and Sardinia aren't Italy?

Is this bait or are you just retarded

Considering the eras being dealt with, especially if large-scale migration was happening (as it clearly was), then basing an entire argument on the presence or absence of some clay tablets or gravestone inscriptions is pretty weak.

Likely the Lemnos finds and any Etruscan similarities (it's my understanding that it's no smoking gun, simply a close resemblance) are both evidence of a language spread or fragmented over an area. Lemnos is not necessarily the place they sprouted from the earth. Brazilians and Mozambicans speak Portuguese, but their genetics aren't all Portuguese.

Etruscan DNA, from what we can tell, is largely 'indigenous' European, that is people present before middle-eastern farmers. Yet clearly they had farming and possibly an I-E language.

>Considering the eras being dealt with, especially if large-scale migration was happening (as it clearly was) then basing an entire argument on the presence or absence of some clay tablets or gravestone

Since it's relevant to the topic, there is plenty of evidence for Phoenician migration in Iberia, Sardinia and Cyprus, which took place around the same time the Etruscan culture emerged (well slightly earlier, but it's basically the same period)

It's not just in the graves, but in the pottery, in how the settlements are made, in the new type of objects and motifs and so in

You can't miss such a thing

Same thing with Greek colonization in South Italy and Anatolia

>Yet clearly they had farming and possibly an I-E language.

Are you trolling?

Etruscan is notoriously a language isolate, it's got absolutely nothing to do with IE languages.

"Italia" is the name of the peninsula, from which the country derives its name (leaving out Sicily and Sardinia)

>Etruscan DNA, from what we can tell, is largely 'indigenous' European, that is people present before middle-eastern farmers.

Missed this piece.

All Europeans are mixed with Anatolian farmers, especially Souther ones, since 7000 bc, there is no reason to believe Etruscans weren't and it would make no sense if they were Anatolian to have no Anatolian farmer DNA, don't know where you got that from

>Are you trolling?
I was politely throwing a bone to the user arguing about its possible Anatolian origins. I don't really buy it myself. They had some influx of middle-eastern farmers, but were mostly indigenous Europeans. Ötzi probably would've seen them as such, despite a different language and obviously more 'advanced' society.

>They had some influx of middle-eastern farmers, but were mostly indigenous Europeans

Not really, don't know where you got that from, farmers replaced indigenous hunter gatherers everywhere except maybe the Baltic regions

>it would make no sense if they were Anatolian to have no Anatolian farmer DNA,
Yea, no kidding... which is why I'm not claiming that.

The lifestyle was replaced, absolutely. But do you think the indigenous earlier people just magically disappeared? Of course, they interbred to various extents. Many thinned out from conflict, disease, out-competition, etc.

They were not in 400 bc.

All genetic studies on neolithic Europeans revealed they were farmers, in the late Neolithic they had mixed with WHG and so they were like 80% farmer and 20% WHG