The Arcenese/ Larcinese/Tiberini Family of Gessopalena

  For more than two decades, this page has been the culmination of sustained, interdisciplinary research into the origins of the Arcenese / Larcinese / Tiberini families of Gessopalena. What follows is not speculation nor popular family lore, but the product of meticulous archival work in state and church repositories across Italy, careful linguistic and toponymic analysis, centuries-old land records, landscape anthropology, and the application of modern genetic science.

Rather than tracing a name to a distant birthplace, this research—rooted in historical context—reveals that Larcinese did not arrive in Gessopalena; it developed there. The family name emerged only after the family had already established long-lasting control over significant terrain tied to ecclesiastical authority. Early hypotheses that placed its origin in Lanciano, Archi, Tuscany (Larciano and the Larcianese hypothesis), Bergamo (Arcene), Rome (the Arcione lineage), or even Spain were rigorously explored and systematically tested against primary evidence. Despite attracting scholarly interest and generating promising lines of inquiry, none continued to withstand the combined weight of historical records and Y-DNA results.

At its core, the story of Larcinese is not that of a migrant family importing its identity, but of a local lineage embedded in the very fabric of Gessopalena’s institutional, ecclesiastical, and territorial history. It is a name born of place, authority, inheritance, and continuity — a name that reflects the complex interplay of land, church, and community in Abruzzo from the medieval period to the present.

This page presents the full narrative of that journey, the hypotheses tested and discarded, and the evidence that supports a conclusion grounded in rigorous historical method and scientific verification.

IMAGE:   This photograph captures the enduring relationship between ecclesiastical space, named infrastructure, and hereditary residence in Gessopalena. The Ruga dell’Arcinese was not an incidental alley but a defined route linking the institutional core of the village with the valley below. Its name, preserved in situ, reflects a function tied to authority and land rather than later family migration or external origin theories. Provided by Luciano Troilo, and Gino Melchiorre. 

The surname Larcinese (also historically appearing as Arcinese, Arcenese, Larcionese, and related variants) has long invited speculation about its origin. This page presents the authoritative conclusion of more than two decades of research into the name’s history, drawing on: 

• Primary archival documents
   
• Regional land records
   
• Ecclesiastical history and feudal tenure
   
• Linguistic evaluation
   
• On-site landscape analysis
   
• Y-DNA testing
   

While many theories are compelling on the surface, this page documents what withstands evidence — and what does not.

Early research began with the assumption common to surname studies: that Larcinese originated from a place name outside Gessopalena and arrived through migration. This guided investigation into:

• Nearby place names
   
• Merchant routes
   
• Artistic surnames
   
• Ecclesiastical transfers
   
• Trans-Apennine migration paths
   

However, the following patterns emerged:

1. The extraordinary continuity of land ownership by a single family cluster near Gessopalena.
    
2. Early presence of parallel surnames (e.g., Larcinese and Tiberini) sharing a common male ancestor.
    
3. Repeated association with former ecclesiastical terrain, not marginal agricultural settlement.
    
4. The surname appears after land control was already established.
    

These insights led to a shift in approach: the key question became:

What institutional or territorial identity produced the surname Larcinese within Gessopalena?
 

(Examples: Lanciano, Archi, Larciano, Tuscany, Lombardy)

These explored whether the surname came via migration from another town. Extensive archival research was conducted in numerous state and ecclesiastical archives across Italy, examining:

• Merchant activity
   
• Notarial records
   
• Demonym continuity
   
• Settlement patterns
   

Multiple Y-DNA tests were also undertaken to find genetic continuity with external families.

Result: No documentary, genetic, or micro-historical evidence supports an external migration origin.

This considered whether the Larcinese family derived from the Arcione (Arcionibus / Arsionibus) family of Rome, an aristocratic ecclesiastical lineage.

While the Roman Arcione family is historically real and documented, Y-DNA evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Larcinese line does not descend from the Roman Arcione male line.

Result: The theory is historically interesting but genealogically disproven.

These include interpretations such as:

• “Arcione” meaning saddlebow
   
• Topographic descriptors
   
• Occupational terms
   

Result: These fail to account for:

• The scale of landholding
   
• The institutional context
   
• The genealogical structure
   

No occupational or topographical explanation aligns with the evidence.

Several additional ideas have surfaced over the years, often through local tradition or suggestion. These include:

• Lanciano — plausible demonym but no historical or genealogical link.
   
• Archi — nearby town with administrative contact but no origin connection.
   
• Spanish origin — contradicted by archival and genetic data.
   
• Larcino as a personal name — no evidence in primary records.
   
• Riccione / Osimo — place-name similarity without documentary continuity.
   
• Occupational or pre-Latin suggestions — lack evidence and contradict land record continuity.
   

The consistent failure of these theories further strengthens the conclusion that the surname did not result from external arrival.

The cumulative evidence supports the following:

1. The Larcinese surname originated within Gessopalena, not through migration.
    
2. It emerged after the family had already established longstanding land control.
    
3. The name reflects institutional association and authority tied to the town’s ecclesiastical and fortified landscape (e.g., arx / arcis contexts), not terrain description or occupational labels.
    
4. Y-DNA confirms that Larcinese and Tiberini descend from a shared male ancestor, indicating multiple surnames arising from a local lineage.
    
5. External theories, although thoroughly examined, are not supported by primary sources, genetics, or historical continuity.
    

In summary:

The Arcenese / Larcinese / Tiberini identity is indigenous to Gessopalena, institutionally rooted, and historically continuous.
 

This conclusion is supported by hundreds of primary documents, archival images, maps, land surveys, ecclesiastical records, and genetic reports collected over more than twenty years. Research access is available on request for serious scholarly inquiry.

The conclusions presented here remain open to reevaluation should new primary evidence emerge. Until such time, they represent the most comprehensive and methodologically sound understanding of the Larcinese / Arcinese origin.

 This page replaces earlier exploratory versions of the Larcinese / Arcinese narrative. Previous theories are summarized to demonstrate the rigor of the research process and the reasons for their exclusion.