Still more excellent updates to this excellent thread.
But... am I the only one who feels that this thread deserves its own wiki?
From what I understand (anybody feel free to correct, of course!):
Tinians = Etruscans (Tinia being the Etruscan Zeus)
Ausones = Aurunci = inhabitants of Campania
Oinotroi = inhabitants of Lucania
Messapi = inhabitants of Apulia (OTL believed to be of Illyrian origin according to Wikipedia, which makes their Kretan ancestry here even funnier
Sikanoi = in some part of Sicily ?
Sikels = in another part of Sicily
Savieni = Sabins
Saunitai = Samnites
Rhomaoi = who are these guys, anyway ?
Iperika = ?
Juropa = ? (well, the exact identity of this one is probably a spoiler).
Hesperia = the Occident in general ?
Ouolkai = Volsci (what are these doing near Massalia ?)
Ligyes = Ligures
Rasna = Etruscans again, probably
Larth Tulumnes = Lars Tolumnius from OTL
Sikanoi = in some part of Sicily ?
Sikels = in another part of Sicily
As for the fact that there is a lot of different ethnonyms different from regular English use, and not only that but multiple overlapping ones, I do appreciate that this might be getting a bit confusing. In general, they stay consistent with period and author and culture- Classical Greeks are always likely to refer to Tyrsenoi or Tyrrhenoi, many later authors to the Tinians, Etruscans to the Rasna. I am not entirely sure how to store this information/display it, particularly because a lot of this is very much in medias res, and thus intended to be figured out rather than spelled out.
(btw, google does not know about these Iapog guys, who are they?)
Beautiful stuff. The old-fashioned nationalist bullshit writing is amusing, one hopes such attitudes moderate a bit by the time this world starts cracking atoms.
'Iapog' is that future culture's terms for the Iapgyes.
I've been reading a lot of old fashioned academic works recently- the terrifying thing you have to consider is that I'm in no way exaggerating the style of what 'good' historical academic writing was supposed to look like through the late 19th-early 20th century. In many ways stuff like Herodotus is a more comfortable read than the work of academic historians in, say, 1902, or 1952.
Aside from obvious, in your face racism, it also tends to have utterly unapologietic 'ancient history only consists of ancient Mesopotamia and maybe Egypt, then the ancient Greeks, then the Romans, and nobody else matters', and that particular hangover is one that history took a long time to get past.
Both Archaeology and Anthropology were already in a somewhat more counter cultural position to a lot of the standard consensuses of the era, and more of the basic elements of modern methodology for both subjects was in place. Even though the archaeologists did tend to be just as bad when it came to writing about 'big history' type perspectives, reading archaeological work from that far back does still have recognisable elements of the basic process modern experts would be going through, and they are often nowhere near as obnoxiously of-the-era as you might imagine. It tends to be especially better from experts in countries not really part of the big Imperial club.
By contrast, Classics and History were not only hugely influential and popular, they were also very much integrated into the imperial establishment, and fundamental notions about what academic history should look like did not really start to seismically shift until the 60s, though you'd find lone voices of dissent before that point, and increasingly more of them from the 50s onwards. Aside from obvious, in your face racism, it also tends to have utterly unapologietic 'ancient history only consists of ancient Mesopotamia and maybe Egypt, then the ancient Greeks, then the Romans, and nobody else matters', and that particular hangover is one that history took a long time to get past.