Bell Beaker Folk

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).
 
Yes, but it's an indication in absence of better evidence.

Indication of presence. Nothing else, otherwhise extrapolation.

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.

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.
 
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..)
 
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).
 
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. :LOL:

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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..)...
 
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.
 
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..)...

No, North Italians are quite close to the French genetically, see the first chart spongetaro posted here. Also see Maciamo's tables, where we see that North Italians are 55% R1b vs. 11.5% J2, close to French from Auvernge (52.5% vs. 8%) but not that close to South Italians (29% vs. 23.5%).
 
still they aren't the same population
 
still they aren't the same population

They are close enough to postulate significant shared history, that's my point.
 
The problem is that when we speak about Italo-celtic expansion, a lot of people guess horses with Italic and Celtic knights spreading in Italy or anywhere else.
Indo-europeans were warriors invaders, no doubt, like Huns, Magyars or Mongols were so. But after these invasions, some areas has adopted their vocabulary, other not.
The italic language is the result of the "creole" of this indo-european language in Central Italy, the Celtic one the same result, but in the high-Danube regions sub-structure, the Germanic the result for the Scandinavian substructure etc...There are similarities between the first and the second, but also the second and the third. I don't know in which extend Italic should be closer to the Celts than the Germanics.
The regions who have not adopted their language for many reasons will appear to us as the Etrusques, the Iberians (maybe current Basques), the Ligurians...in fact, a lot of Southern peoples, because Indo-europeans came from the Eastern plains. That's why the Atlantic school is hardly believable.
 

This thread has been viewed 48207 times.

Back
Top