It is wholly unnecessary to assume the existence of a new stock for the population of ancient Sicily. The south Italians seem to have extended themselves to the island, and when we first find them there, we also find fresh evidence of their Greek character, as has already been shown in the geographical names of the Sikanian area.
At the same time they must have fallen into two or more well-marked varieties; varieties which are easily accounted for. There were the earliest occupants of the island, and there were recent immigrants from Italy, differing from each other as the present Danes of Iceland do from the native Icelanders. For in this way I interpret the difference between the _Sik_-eli and the _Sik_-ani, not doubting that both come from the same root; although the authority of Thucydides is against this view.
Thucydides’s account is as follows. In the western part of the island were the _Sikani_, from the river Sikanus, driven thence by the Iberians. Then came the Sikeli, driven from Italy by the Opiki. Thirdly, there were the Elymi of Eryx and Egesta, who were originally Trojans, but who escaped to Sicily, and settled themselves on the Sikanian frontier, having built the cities of Eryx and Egesta. A few Phocians (also from Troy) joined them, having first gone over to Libya. The Phœnicians held certain settlements on the southern coast; Motye, Soloeis, and Panormus. Lastly, came the Sikeliôts, or Greeks of Sicily, whose colonies were as follows--
_a._ Naxos from Khalcis in Eubœa; Leontini and Katana from Naxos.--Ionic.
_b._ Syracuse from Corinth; Acræ, Casmenæ, and Camarina, from Syracuse.
_c._ Megara from Megara; Trotilus and Selinus from Megara.--Doric.
_d._ Gela from Rhodes and Crete; Akragas from Gela.--Doric.
_e._ Zankle from the Campanian Cuma, itself Chalcidic in origin.--Ionic.
A reference to his own text justifies our disbelief in the essential difference between the Sikani and the Sikeli, implied by Thucydides. That such was the case was the opinion of only the historian; whilst, on his own showing, it was not the opinion of the Sicanians themselves. After the Cyclopes and Læstrygones the “Sikani are the first inhabitants. As they say themselves, they are even earlier, being _autokhthones_; but, in real truth, they are Iberians from the river Sikanus, driven out by the Ligyes; and from them the island as well was named Sikania, being first called Thrinakria.”[8] The Iberic doctrine is evidently an inference from the name of the river; an inference which the incompatible opinion of the Sikanians themselves opposes, and, in my mind, outweighs. But the objections do not end here. The evidence of Diodorus is as follows; _i.e._, that Philistus supported the Thucydidean view, but that Timæus proved him wrong, and clearly showed that they were Autokhthones. Hence, the testimony that we set against that of Thucydides is the testimony of an equally competent local antiquary, though an inferior general historian: for less influence than this cannot well be attributed to the name of Timæus.