Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: Bell Beaker Folk

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France





    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Concerning the Germanic languages, what should be noted, interestingly, is the "hybrid" nature of this language family: on the one hand, Germanic has a number of commonalities with the Baltic and Slavic languages, on the other hand, Germanic has a number of commonalties with Celtic and Italic.
    In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any west-to-east movements out of the Atlantic Façade. Conversely, archaeological movements apparently virtually always go in the opposite direction (ie, east to west).Another aspect is, the Atlantic School asserts that the origins of the Gauls lay adjacent to the Pyrenees, rather than in the source area of the Danube. However, in the Pyrenees region, we find exclusively Aquitanian and Iberian typonomy. Even areas that were clearly inhabited by Gauls in Antiquity show residue of Aquitanian. In contrast to that, there's plenty of Celtic name evidence in the Danube area. In so far, I find the case that the origins of the Gauls lay in Hallstatt/La-Tene pretty convincing.
    Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I dediced to make a map here to visualize something
    I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.

    About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).

  3. #28
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,225
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,225, Level: 37
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.
    Yes, you are right of course. But I found it particularly drastic and overtly visualized with the example of Germanic.

    Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.
    If you go by onomastic evidence, as late as the 2nd century AD, Celtic name influence extends as far north and east as Silesia. The problem that I have with Hallstatt and La-Tene is that it alone cannot explain the presence of Celtic languages on the Iberian penninsula.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.
    Which homogenous brown area? You mean the Iberians? Also, what speaks against that is that apparently, the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).

    About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).
    Well, it would make sense. What is interesting though is that archaeologically, the Talayotic, Nuraghe and Torre cultures of the Baleares, Sardinia and Corsica were all rather similar, which begs the question if there was an ethnolinguistic similarity amongst those. Regarding the term "Ligurian", I agree that the usage of it in Antiquity is diffuse, because there is sources which label the people of the Iberian penninsula as "Ligurian". What is apparent, however, is that going by purely onomastic evidence, the "Ligurian" tribes in the area on the mainland (ie, modern Liguria and adjacent areas in Provence) seemingly were Indo-Europeans, akin to the Celtic- and the Italic-speaking peoples.

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).
    I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).

  5. #30
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,225
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,225, Level: 37
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).
    Well, the interesting part is that Celtiberian inscriptions have been found only in what could readily be labeled "Celtiberia proper", which lay adjacent to the Iberian-speaking areas of the northeast. This is also not a surprise since the Celtiberian writing system was an adaptation of the Iberian writing system (it's interesting that writing systems spread in counter-clockwise direction along the rim of the Iberian penninsula*). Further to the west, no pre-Roman Celtic inscriptions have been found. Going by onomastic evidence, you get approximately the image that I show on the map. What is very interesting in Gallaecia, as mentioned, is the evidence for a Lusitanian substrate (both toponyms and theonyms). Also, often, you have mixed Celtic- and non-Celtic names. In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.

    I agree however that the situation is probably more complex than it seems. In that respect I vastly simplified things in the south (Baetica), since there is a considerable overlap of Iberian and Celtic typonomy.

    *Here's also an interesting question: why didn't the Lusitanians adopt the Tartessian writing system?

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.
    Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
    There is no point that Celtic culture progressively disappears in SW France, and suddenly beyond Pyrenees reappears.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,635
    Points
    9,507
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,507, Level: 29
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 19.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
    Celts left a few things in these areas ? How about the most celtic settlements in Western Europe ? And what makes you think they didn't speak Celtic languages in those areas, when only celtic inscriptions have found, and none of any other language ?

  8. #33
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,225
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,225, Level: 37
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
    This still raises the question of how and when the Celts did get on the Iberian penninsula - especially, did they circumvene the Aquitanian-Iberian areas (by sea?), or did they arrive via Catalonia during Urnfield times and dispersed to the west (with Catalonia being taken by the Iberians only later?).

    Also, in any case, one key issue is that regardless of this, there were other Indo-Europeans (ie, the Lusitanians) in western Iberia before the Celts arrived. In fact, the shape of how iron-working arrives and disperses on the Iberian penninsula (it arrives from two sources, one by Hallstatt influence from Central Europe and one from Phoenician influence via Gadir) suggests that Iberia was divided into an Indo-European and a non-Indo-European part, in my opinion.

    Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Regulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-10
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    48
    Posts
    430


    Ethnic group
    Irish and Italian
    Country: USA - New Jersey



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    To be honest, I cannot follow you there what you're trying to argue for. I don't see why there should be a connection between the Cimmerians and any Celtic-speaking peoples. I must also add that I don't see a need for arguing for some kind of event that calls for a break between Urnfield and Hallstatt. From the looks of it, Hallstatt is just an outgrowth/continuation of Urnfield that starts incorporating iron-working. Where there actually is a break of sorts is between Halstatt and La-Tene: the core areas of La-Tene lay at the western edge of the Hallstatt Culture. One possible explanation for this - in my opinion - is the shift of the key economic centers to the west, perhaps due to trade with the Greeks (via Massilia) starting off.

    .
    I really am not making an argument in support of anything nor am I trying to garner any support. I am only presenting the possibility that there may have been an influence in addition to the actual arrival of the Iron Age to the Urnfielders and inviting any possible input from others. Recall that I am not actually looking for a Celtic/Cimmerian connection. I am only writing about something that is now coming to mind.
    In this case, when my interest got peaked on this topic, I dug up a historical atlas of mine. I don't have any access to the maps in a digital file, so I can only describe what they show.


    By the end of the 9th century BCE, we have a large border of sorts between Cimmerians and Urnfielders. That is exactly when Iron working has spread out of Italy and is already being done by Ligurians and at the Alps.
    The Cimmerians are spread from the Caspian westward to be right up against the Urnfielders.
    By the eighth century the Scyths have appeared from amongst the Iranians and are using Iron and horses. A massive movement of Cimmerians flee south eventually landing in Anatolia. From a geographic standpoint, there does not appear to be clear path for around half of the defeated to sneak along the Black sea past the westward moving Scyths to join their kinsmen south. To the north are Slavs; south are the Illyrians, Thracians, etc,
    Some remain in place, possibly to form the nucleous of the future Dacian state. I have to think now that a number may have moved due west.

    Halstatt culture takes off from this point. I need to try to find the exact dating of the archaeological movement of aristocratic warriors who arrive into the Celtic zone from the East. I will need to dig out the one source but it is too late to try tonight. If my memory serves me rightly, it is right around this point

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post

    Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).
    No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,635
    Points
    9,507
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,507, Level: 29
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 19.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.
    It's not just toponyimy or onomastic. It's hundreds of inscriptions, it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages, it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas, it's more complex than just toponymy, which btw is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do

  12. #37
    Marquis Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Carlitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-09-10
    Location
    Occident.
    Posts
    863
    Points
    7,499
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,499, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b1a3 V22+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c

    Ethnic group
    Ethnic group of those who are going to die.
    Country: Spain



    He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

    Take care of these gases.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    It's hundreds of inscriptions
    Already answered. See runs outside the Germanic core.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages
    Already answered. 10-15 % of the French vocabulary is Germanic, while it's a Romance language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas,
    Already answered. Wrong. See the Basque toponymy in Galicia, Castilla, Portugal...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    toponymy is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do
    Already answered. See the hundreds or thousands of Germanic toponyms in France. Obviously you are not a historian, just a manipulator.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Carlitos View Post
    He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

    Take care of these gases.
    Gibberish

    _____________________________

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,635
    Points
    9,507
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,507, Level: 29
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 19.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Already answered. 10-15 % of the French vocabulary is Germanic, while it's a Romance language.
    So ? Nobody suggested spanish is a celtic language. Btw germanic languages were spoken in France. (in what is now France).

    Already answered. See the hundreds or thousands of Germanic toponyms in France. Obviously you are not a historian, just a manipulator.
    I know there are thousands of germanic toponyms in France, because there have been germanic settlements and germanic languages have been spoken in parts of France.
    Last edited by Wilhelm; 12-03-11 at 20:04.

  16. #41
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,225
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,225, Level: 37
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.
    Yes, but it's an indication in absence of better evidence. Otherwise you can suggest that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, or that Breton was spoken in ancient Aremorica - both which are utterly loony to claim.

    There is enough text evidence (Celtiberian and Lusitanian inscriptions) which back up the onomastic issue. According to Occam's razor, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the bulk of ancient Iberia was Celtic-speaking or at least otherwise Indo-European (ie, Lusitanian).

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Yes, but it's an indication in absence of better evidence.
    Indication of presence. Nothing else, otherwhise extrapolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Otherwise you can suggest that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, or that Breton was spoken in ancient Aremorica - both which are utterly loony to claim.
    I'm not sure to understand. We know today that medieval England spoke English, because we have actual evidences. If tomorrow, a total destruction destroys all the post-medieval English texts and medias, and if only medieval texts survives, peoples with your logic will believe that England was a French country speaking (or latin), because almost all the inscriptions of Middle-age in England was French, and English ones were a minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the bulk of ancient Iberia was Celtic-speaking or at least otherwise Indo-European (ie, Lusitanian).
    No, because inscriptions or onomastic proves presence, not dominant culture or language.

  18. #43
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    i have a question for the forumers; visiting the various sites i've found many people linking the italiac tribes with the celts, based on languages similarities. Do you think italic tribes had the same origins as the celt, or do you think language similarities are due to the fact that italic people lived near the celts (pannonia)?
    a theory in favour of the first option is the fact that italic people were probably an elite among the inhabitants of italy who were mainly composed by neolitic tribes. the elite imposed its indoeuropean language among neolitics who spoke non indo-european languages. today italian population based on this theory discends mainly from ancient neolithic, the italic were an elite; this explains also genetic clustering of italians, who are far from historic people of heavily celtic stok (germans, french, british etc..)

  19. #44
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    from wikipedia

    ORIGINS OF ITALIC TRIBES AND LATINS

    The Latins belonged to a group of Indo-European tribes, conventionally known as the Italic tribes, that populated central and southern Italy during the Italian Iron Age (from ca. 900 BC onwards). The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula some time during the Italian Bronze Age (ca. 1800-900 BC).[5] The most likely route for the Italic migration was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[6][7] However, a more precise dating of these migrations, or even whether they occurred during the Bronze Age at all, is not possible from the available archaeological and linguistic evidence.
    The archaeological evidence shows a remarkable uniformity of culture in the peninsula during the period 1800-1200 BC - the so-called "Apennine culture". Pottery with much the same incised geometric designs is found throughout Italy, and the design of weapons and tools was also homogenous. During this period, it appears that Italy was a heavily wooded land with a sparse population, concentrated in the mountainous centre of the peninsula. Most people were pastoralists practicing transhumance and inhabiting, at most, small villages. Inhumation was the universal method of burial. In the latter period of the Bronze Age (1200-900 BC), this pattern was disrupted by the appearance of cremation burials and the appearance of distinct regional variations in culture.[8] Some historians have ascribed these changes to the arrival of the Italic peoples. But the distribution of the novel cremation culture (the "Villanovan culture") avoids the central region dominated by the Italic tribes.[9] As Cornell points out: "Nothing in the archaeological record of the Italian Bronze and Iron ages proves, or even suggests, that any major invasions took place between ca. 1800 and ca. 800 BC".[10] At the same time, however, archaeology does not prove that invasions did not take place. It is now firmly established that burial customs are not ethnically-based.[11]
    The geographical distribution of the ancient languages of the peninsula can plausibly be explained by the immigration of successive waves of peoples with different languages. On this model, it appears likely that the "West Italic" group (including the Latins), migrated into the peninsula in a first wave, followed later, and largely displaced, by the eastern (Osco-Umbrian) group. This is deduced from the marginal locations of the surviving West Italic niches. However, the timing remains elusive, as does the sequence of the Italic IE languages with the non-IE languages of the peninsula, notably Etruscan. The majority view of scholars is that Etruscan represents a pre-IE survival. However, it could equally be an intrusion introduced by later migrants. In any case, language change can be explained by scenarios other than mass migration.[12]
    There is no archaeological evidence at present that Old Latium hosted permanent settlements during the Bronze Age. Very small amounts of Apennine-culture pottery sherds have been found in Latium, most likely belonging to transient pastoralists engaged in transhumance.[13] It thus appears that the Latins occupied Latium Vetus from ca. 1000 BC. Initially, the Latin immigrants into Latium were probably concentrated in the low hills that extend from the central Apennine range into the coastal plain (much of which would have been marshy and malarial). For example, the Alban Hills, a plateau containing a number of extinct volcanoes and two substantial lakes - lacus Nemorensis (Lake Nemi) and lacus Tusculensis (Lake Albano). These hills provided a defensible, well-watered base.[14] Also the hills of the site of Rome, certainly the Palatine and possibly the Capitoline and the Quirinal, hosted permanent settlements at a very early stage.[15]
    The Latins appear to have become culturally differentiated from the other Italic tribes in the period ca. 1000-700 BC.[16] This may be deduced by the emergence in this period of so-called Latial culture, or Latium variant of the Villanovan culture of central Italy and the Po valley. The most distinctive feature of this Latium culture were funerary urns in the shape of miniature tuguria ("huts"). These hut-urns appear in only some burials during Phase I of the Latium culture (ca. 1000-900 BC), but become standard in Phase II cremation burials (ca. 900-770 BC).[17] They represent the typical single-roomed hovels of contemporary peasants. These were made from simple, readily available materials: wattle-and-daub walls and straw roofs supported by wooden posts. The huts remained the main form of Latin housing until ca. 650 BC.[18] The most famous exemplar was the casa Romuli ("Hut of Romulus") on the southern slope of the Palatine Hill, supposedly built by the legendary Founder of Rome with his own hands and which reportedly survived until the time of emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC - AD 14).

  20. #45
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,951
    Points
    21,331
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,331, Level: 44
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 319
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c PF3881+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by julia90 View Post
    i have a question for the forumers; visiting the various sites i've found many people linking the italiac tribes with the celts, based on languages similarities. Do you think italic tribes had the same origins as the celt, or do you think language similarities are due to the fact that italic people lived near the celts (pannonia)?
    a theory in favour of the first option is the fact that italic people were probably an elite among the inhabitants of italy who were mainly composed by neolitic tribes. the elite imposed its indoeuropean language among neolitics who spoke non indo-european languages. today italian population based on this theory discends mainly from ancient neolithic, the italic were an elite; this explains also genetic clustering of italians, who are far from historic people of heavily celtic stok (germans, french, british etc..)
    You're going to get a lot of responses to this one considering the interests of most participants here.

    I'm not as well-versed in Italian genetics as I could be, but I understand that most R1b present in Italy is S116+, same as the Celts. That makes them fairly close cousins to the Celts, as S116 is about 5000 years old, and the Italic/Celtic split probably happened sometime later than that. Most here are fond of the idea that patrilineally R1b peoples spread Italo-Celtic culture, so that's something to pay close attention to.

    Now, the Neolithic ended in Europe nearly 5000 years ago, so the Italic/Celtic split was more likely in the early Bronze Age than the Neolithic IMHO.

    As for whether or not it was an "elite" who spread it, R1b is at levels of about 48% in central Italy, so, it probably was an "elite" to some degree, but would more likely have been the product of a migration that brought more well-to-do (and quite possibly more battle-ready) peoples to the area, who then had the native populations merge into their culture.

  21. #46
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    well, i think they were an elite, otherwise how can you explain the fact that todays italians are different from french germans or british?
    if they were a mass migration today italians should be the same population as the french

  22. #47
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    other info online:

    2100 BC Celtic tribes in Europe

    Among the first Indo-Europeans which penetrated in Central Europe, Celtic and Italic migrants are quite certain to be. It is known that the task to connect exact archaeological cultures with exact tribes at that time is not yet completed, but still according to the most widespread version, Celts were represented by the "cord pottery" culture. In the late 3rd millennium they began to migrate west from the Low Danube (where they lived together with Italics and Illyrians). Soon Celts appeared in France and in South Germany.

    The date mentioned above can be regarded as a possible time of separation of Celtic language from Celto-Italo-Veneto-Illyrian language community.


    2000 BC Italic tribes come to Italy

    At that time Northern Europe was not yet known by Indo-Europeans. They were just beginning to appear ion the Balkan peninsula and in East Europe. But still, scientists argue where these first Italics came from - the Alps or the Balkans. The immigrants represented the Latino-Faliscan subgroup of Italic languages; they settled mainly in Central and maybe Northern Italy (from where they were pulled later by Etruscans). The culture which was discovered here by archaeologists is called Terramar. In this period Italy looked like a mixture of different peoples and cultures dissimilar to each other. All they were non-Indo-Europeans, but linguistic materials are too scarce to state something more exact. It is known that those peoples could be relative to later Picenes who lived in Italy in historical times, to Ligurians who inhabited the north of the peninsula, to Sicelians who then were found in Sicily.

    The second branch of Italic tribes was not in a hurry and will come to its future homeland a thousand years later.



    1200 BC Illyrians arrive at South Italy

    Inscriptions discovered in south-eastern Italy, written in one of Italic alphabets, were identified as using the language similar to Illyrian. After Illyrians occupied the regions of Dalmatia and reached the Adriatic shores, they crossed the narrow sea space and found themselves in Italy.

    This migration is believed to take place together with similar moves of Italic tribes from the Balkans to Italy - we mean the second Italic wave, including Osco-Umbrian peoples. Illyrians also settled on the Apennine peninsula, and lived there until they were completely assimilated by Roman settlers.

    This Illyrian branch was called Messapic by ancient authors. Nowadays we can state that the Messapic language was rather different from Illyrian: first of all in lexical composition, where it shows many "italisisms". Messapic inscriptions are all of the same type - burial sacred messages, that is why the grammar basis and the known vocabulary of the language remain poor. It the 1st and the 2nd centuries AD Messapic tribes in Italy mixed with Italics, and the language disappeared.


    1100 BC New wave of Italics comes to Italy

    This meant the last effect of the Movement of Peoples which began two centuries before on the northern Balkans. After Illyrian tribes (Messapic) found the short sea way from Dalmatia to Italy, Italics which still lived next to Illyrians also began penetrating to Italy, where their closer relatives already lived - first Italics, Latins and Faliscans, came to Italy from the north-east even about 2000 BC.

    Now was the turn of this new wave, which presented Oscan and Umbrian peoples in Italy. They occupied mainly the eastern and southern regions of the peninsula, the fact which proves they did not go from the north. Osco-Umbrians migrants assimilated or mixed with aboriginal Italic tribes, partly acquiring their language features, their religion and often even their names. Picens, for example, worshipped the wood-pecker (picus in Latin), an autochthonic deity, and acquired their name from it, maybe because the real name of the tribe was too hard fro Indo-Europeans to pronounce (the same happened with Picts in Scotland). Umbrians is also a pre-Italic name. Many linguistic features in Umbrian, Picene, Volscian are strange enough to be identified as the substratum.

    Some linguists think Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian subgroups are separate and do not belong to one Italic group. In this case the contacts between them must have been very intimate, to elaborate the vocabulary and the grammar so much alike.

  23. #48
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,951
    Points
    21,331
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,331, Level: 44
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 319
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c PF3881+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by julia90 View Post
    well, i think they were an elite, otherwise how can you explain the fact that todays italians are different from french germans or british?
    if they were a mass migration today italians should be the same population as the french
    There appear to be a couple reasons Italians (at least southern ones) diverge from French, Germans, etc: For one, their patrilines kept more Neolithic-origin haplogroups, like J2 (non-Sardinians anyway... Sardinians are more Paleolithic). For two, IE markers are, in general, less common on matrilines, and I don't think that Italy is an exception. That would also mean more time to diverge from other populations autosomally.

    But even with that said, going from 0% R1b to 49% R1b (current value for all of Italy) must have involved some migration in the process, no?

  24. #49
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    but still it doesn't explain why also noth italians aren't the same as french (and northern italy was inhabitateds by celts too insubres, boi, carni, cenomani etc..)...

  25. #50
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Location
    Florence-Prato
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    19,944
    Level
    43
    Points: 19,944, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 806
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    wikipedia on ITALO-CELTIC LANGUAGE FAMILY

    The traditional interpretation of the data is that these two subgroups of the Indo European language family are generally more closely related to each other than to the other Indo European languages. This can be taken to imply that they are descended from a common ancestor, a phylogenetic Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partly reconstructed by the comparative method. This hypothesis fell out of favour after being reexamined by Calvert Watkins in 1966.[1] However some scholars, such as Frederik Kortlandt, continued to be interested in the theory.[2] In 2002 a paper by Ringe, Warnow, & Taylor, employing computational methods as a supplement to the traditional linguistic subgrouping methodology, argued in favour of an Italo-Celtic subgroup,[3] and in 2007 Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of a Proto-Italo-Celtic.[4]
    The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal proximity of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.
    If however, some of the forms really are archaisms, elements of Proto-Indo-European which have been lost in all other branches, neither model of post-PIE relationship need be postulated. Italic and especially Celtic also share some archaic features with the Hittite language (Anatolian languages) and the Tocharian languages.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Beaker Bell Phenomenon
    By Taranis in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 24-02-14, 22:49
  2. Some thoughts on Indo-Europeans the Beaker Culture
    By Asturrulumbo in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-04-13, 07:00
  3. Gaulish folk metal band
    By spongetaro in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-02-13, 10:51
  4. Mitochondrial DNA from Danish Beaker-Bell sites
    By Taranis in forum mtDNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21-02-11, 21:33
  5. Why is it that when Oriental folk say ASIAN
    By aliG in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 27-06-06, 23:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •