Messapic language

Classification

Messapic was a non-Italic and non-Greek Indo-European language of Balkan origin. Modern archeological and linguistic research and some ancient sources hold that the ancestors of the Iapygians came to Southeastern Italy (present-day Apulia) from the Western Balkans across the Adriatic Sea during the early first millennium BC.

Paleo-Balkanic

Messapic forms part of the Paleo-Balkan languages. Based upon lexical similarities with the Illyrian languages, some scholars contend that Messapic may have developed from a dialect of pre-Illyrian, meaning that it would have diverged substantially from the Illyrian language(s) spoken in the Balkans by the 5th century BC, while others considered it a direct dialect of Iron Age Illyrian. Messapic is today considered an independent language and not a dialect of Illyrian. Although the unclear interpretation of Messapic inscriptions cannot warrant the placement of Messapic in any specific Indo-European subfamily, some scholars place Illyrian and Messapic in the same branch. Eric Hamp has grouped them under "Messapo-Illyrian", which is further grouped with Albanian under "Adriatic Indo-European". Other schemes group the three languages under "General Illyrian" and "Western Paleo-Balkan".

A number of shared features between Messapic and Proto-Albanian may have emerged either as a result of linguistic contacts between Proto-Messapic and Pre-Proto-Albanian within the Balkan peninsula in prehistoric times, or of a closer relation as shown by the quality of the correspondences in the lexical area and shared innovations between Messapic and Albanian. Hyllested & Joseph (2022) identify Messapic as the closest language to Albanian, with which it forms a common branch titled Illyric, and Greco-Phrygian as the IE branch closest to the Albanian-Messapic one, in agreement with recent bibliography. These two branches form an areal grouping – which is often called "Balkan IE" – with Armenian.

Illyrian languages

Although the Illyrian languages – and to some extent Messapic itself – are too scarcely attested to allow for an extensive linguistic comparison, the Messapic language is generally regarded as related to, though distinct from, the Illyrian languages. This theory is supported by a series of similar personal and place names from both sides of the Adriatic Sea. Proposed cognates in Illyrian and Messapic, respectively, include: 'Bardyl(l)is/Barzidihi', 'Teuta/Teutā', 'Dazios/Dazes', 'Laidias/Ladi-', 'Platōr/Plator-', 'Iapydes/Iapyges', 'Apulus/Apuli', 'Dalmata/Dalmathus', 'Peucetioe/Peucetii', 'Ana/Ana', 'Beuzas/Bozat', 'Thana/Thana', 'Dei-paturos/Da-matura'.

Albanian

The linguistic data of Albanian can be used to compensate for the lack of fundamental information on Illyrian, since Proto-Albanian (the ancestor language of Albanian) was likewise an Indo-European language certainly spoken in the Balkans in antiquity, and probably since at least the 7th century BC, as suggested by the presence of archaic loanwords from Ancient Greek.

A number of linguistic cognates with Albanian have been proposed, such as Messapic aran and Albanian arë ("field"), biliā and bijë ("daughter"), or menza- and mëz ("foal"). The toponomy points to a link between the two languages, as some towns in Apulia have no etymological forms outside Albanian linguistic sources. Other linguistic elements such as particles, prepositions, suffixes, lexicon, but also toponyms, anthroponyms and theonyms of the Messapic language find singular affinities with Albanian. Some phonological data can also be compared between the two languages, and it seems likely that Messapic belongs, like Albanian, to a specific subgroup of the Indo-European languages that shows distinct reflections of all the three dorsal consonant rows. In the nominal context, both Messapic and Albanian continue, in the masculine terms in -o-, the Indo-European ending *-osyo (Messapic -aihi, Albanian -i / -u).

Regarding the verbal system, both Messapic and Albanian have formally and semantically preserved the two Indo-European subjunctive and optative moods. If the reconstructions are correct, we can find, in the preterital system of Messapic, reflections of a formation in *-s- (which in other Indo-European languages are featured in the suffix of the sigmatic aorist), as in the 3rd sg. hipades/opades ('he dedicated' < *supo-dʰeh₁-s-t) and in the 3rd pl. stahan ('they placed' < *stah₂-s-n°t). In Albanian, this formation was likewise featured in the category of aorists formed with the suffix -v-. However, except for the dorsal consonant rows, these similarities do not provide elements exclusively relating Messapic and Albanian, and only a few morphological data are comparable.

History

The development of a distinct Iapygian culture in southeastern Italy is widely considered to be the result of a confluence of local Apulian material cultures with Balkanic traditions following the cross-Adriatic migrations of proto-Messapic speakers in the early first millennium BC.

The Iapygians most likely left the eastern coasts of the Adriatic for the Italian Peninsula from the 11th century BC onwards, merging with pre-existing Italic and Mycenean cultures and providing a decisive cultural and linguistic imprint. Throughout the second half of the 8th century, contacts between Messapians and Greeks must have been intense and continuous; they began to intensify after the foundation of Taras by Spartan colonists around the end of the century. Despite its geographical proximity with Magna Graecia, however, Iapygia was generally not encompassed in Greek colonial territories, and with the exception of Taras, the inhabitants were evidently able to avoid other Greek colonies in the region. During the 6th century BC Messapia, and more marginally Peucetia, underwent Hellenizing cultural influences, mainly from the nearby Taras. The use of writing systems was introduced during this period, with the acquisition of the Laconian-Tarantine alphabet and its progressive adaptation to the Messapic language. The oldest known Messapic texts date to the 6th century–early 5th century BCE.

The relationship between Messapians and Tarantines deteriorated over time, resulting in a series of clashes between the two peoples from the beginning of the 5th century BC. After two victories of the Tarentines, the Iapygians inflicted a decisive defeat on them, causing the fall of the aristocratic government and the implementation of a democratic one in Taras. It also froze relations between Greeks and the indigenous people for about half a century. Only in the late-5th and 6th centuries did they re-establish relationships. The second great Hellenizing wave occurred during the 4th century BC, this time also involving Daunia and marking the beginning of Peucetian and Daunian epigraphic records, in a local variant of the Hellenistic alphabet that replaced the older Messapic script.

Along with Messapic, Greek and Oscan were spoken and written during the Romanization period all over Apulia, and bilingualism in Greek and Messapic was probably common in southern Apulia at that time. Based upon the legends of the local currencies promoted by Rome, Messapic appears to have been written in the southern zone, Oscan in the northern area, while the central sector was a trilingual area where Messapic, Greek and Oscan co-existed in inscriptions. Messapic epigraphic records seem to have ended by the 2nd century BC. During the 1st century BCE, the language was replaced by Latin, which is the origin of the modern Italian Sallentine dialects of the region.

Phonology

A characteristic feature of Messapic is the absence of the Indo-European phonological opposition between the vowels /u/ and /o/, the language featuring only an o/u phoneme. Consequently, the superfluous letter /u/ (upsilon) was not taken over following the initial period of adaption of the Western ("red") Greek alphabet. The 'o/u' phoneme existed in opposition to an 'a/o' phoneme formed after the phonological distinction between *o and *a was abandoned. The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) vowel /o/ regularly appears as /a/ in inscriptions (e.g., Venas < *Wenos; menza < *mendyo; tabarā < *to-bhorā). The original PIE phonological opposition between ō and o is still perceptible in Messapic. The diphthong *ou, itself reflecting the merged diphthongs *ou and eu, underwent sound change to develop into ao, then into ō (e.g., *Toutor > Taotor > Θōtor).

The dental affricate or spirant written Θ is frequently used before the sounds ao- or o-, where it is most likely a replacement for the older letter . Another special letter, , occurs almost exclusively in Archaic inscriptions from the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Multiple palatalizations have also taken place, as in Zis < *dyēs, Artorres < *Artōryos, or Bla(t)θes < *Blatyos (where '(t)θ' probably denoted a dental affricate or spirant /ts/ or /tš/). Proto-Indo-European *s is generally reflected in Messapic as h in initial and intervocalic positions, evident in forms such as hipa (< *supo-) and klaohi (< *kleu-s-), while final -s is retained, as in Venas (< *Wenos).

The Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirates *bh and *dh are certainly represented by the simple unaspirated voiced obstruents /b/ and /d/ in Messapic (e.g., berain < *bher-; -des < *dʰeh₁). On the other hand, the outcomes of the Indo-European palatal, velar, and labiovelar stops remain unclear, with slender evidence.

Alphabet

The Messapic alphabet is an adaptation of the Western ("red") Greek alphabets, specifically the Laconian-Tarantinian version. The actual Messapic inscriptions are attested from the 6th century BC onward, while the Peucetian and Daunian epigraphic record (written in a local variant of the Hellenistic alphabet rather than in the older Messapic script) only begins in the 4th century BC.

Messapic

The Greek letter Φ (/pʰ/) was not adopted, because it would have been superfluous for Messapic. While zeta "normally" represented the voiced counterpart to /s/, it may have been an affricate in some cases. The value of Θ is unclear, but is clearly dental; it may be an affricate or a spirant. In any case it appears to have arisen partly as the reflex of the segment *ty.

Apulian

The script used in northern Apulia was rather peculiar, and some consider it to be a distinct writing system named Apulian. A notable difference between the Apulian alphabet and the Laconian-Tarentinian Messapic alphabet was the use of Η (eta) for /ē/ rather than /h/.

Inscriptions

The Messapic language is a 'fragmentary language' (Trümmersprache), preserved only in about 600 inscriptions from the mid-6th up until the late-2nd century BC. Many of them consist of the personal names of the deceased engraved in burial sites (36% of the total), and only a few inscriptions have been definitely deciphered. Some longer texts are also available, including those recently found in the Grotta della Poesia (Roca Vecchia), although they have not been fully exploited by scholars yet. Most of the Messapic inscriptions are accessible in the Monumenta Linguae Messapicae (MLM), published in print in 2002.

Lexicon

Toponymy/Anthroponymy

Inherited

Only Messapic words regarded as 'inherited' from its precursor are hereunder listed, thus excluding loanwords from Greek, Latin or other languages.

Language contact

Italic

Messapic was in continuous contact with the Italic languages of the region. Prior to the Roman annexation, the frontier between Messapic and Oscan extended across Frentania-Irpinia-Lucania-Apulia. In this broad transitional zone, processes of Oscanization and Samnitization took place, producing communities with dual ethnic or linguistic identities. Contemporary sources reflect this situation: Larinum, for instance, has yielded extensive Oscan onomastic material yet is nevertheless described as a "Daunian city", and Horace—born in Venusia, on the boundary between Daunian and Lucanian territories—famously referred to himself as "Lucanian or Apulian".

A limited corpus of Messapic lexical items passed into Latin. These include baltea (from balta, 'swamp'), deda ('nurse'), gandeia ('sword'), horeia ('small fishing boat'), and mannus ('pony, small horse', from manda). Messapic also appears to have served as an intermediary channel for the transmission of several, mostly archaic, Greek words into Latin. For example, paro ('small ship') is derived via Messapic from Greek paroon. The Latin form Ulixes may likewise represent a Messapic variant of Odysseus, parallel to the ethnonym Graeci, which may reflect an Illyrian term for the Greek populations of Epirus. A Messapic intermediary has also been proposed for Latin lancea ('spear') and balaena (ultimately from Greek phallaina). In literary sources, Horace and Ennius—both natives of the region—are the only Roman authors to preserve the non-Italic word laama ('swamp'), which is plausibly of Messapic origin.

Ancient Greek

The Messapic verbal form eipeigrave ('wrote, incised'; variant ipigrave) is a clear loanword from Greek (with the initial stem eipigra-, ipigra- deriving from epigrá-phō, ἐπιγράφω, 'inscribe, engrave'). Its adoption likely reflects the borrowing of the Messapic alphabet from an Archaic Greek script. Other Greek loanwords include argora-pandes ('coin officials', with the first part deriving from ἄργυρος), and names of deities like Athana and possibly Aprodita. The latter may alternatively represent a native Messapic theonym of an Indo-European goddess, corresponding to Proto-Albanian *apro dītā ('come forth brightness of the day/dawn'), preserved in the Albanian phrase afro dita ('come forth the day/dawn'), referring to the planet Venus, and associated with the dawn goddess Prende.

The origin of the Messapic goddess Damatura/Damatira is debated: scholars like Vladimir I. Georgiev (1937), Eqrem Çabej, Shaban Demiraj (1997), Martin L. West (2007) and Simona Marchesini (2021) have argued that she was an Illyrian or Messapic goddess eventually borrowed into Greek as Demeter, while others like Paul Kretschmer (1939), Robert S. P. Beekes (2009) and Carlo De Simone (2017) have argued for the contrary.