Grizzly
Regular Member
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
How do you explain tribal names that have readily identifiable Celtic etymologies in Gallaecia?.
You give too much credit to the "names" or the "onomastics". Normandy is full of Scandinavian onomastics through the toponymy. English surnames are full of French roots. French surnames are fool of Frankish roots...
Also, I find you're making too much of a conjecture here: they're not Celts, so must be pre-Indo-Europeans.
Just because there is no other solution (for Southern Europe). If they are not Celts, they are pre-indo-european, because the Celts are academically recognized to be the first indo-europeans. The contact between Celts and pre-indo-europeans can be followed in Southern France. After this, you can guess a lot of things in the term "pre-indo-european". For me, it means "neolithic" or something like this.
What about the Lusitanians? A lot of Gallaecian tribal names, while non-conformous with Celtic etymologies, are actually readily identifiable as Indo-European and conformous with Lusitanian sound laws.
Regarding my posts-history, you know my answer.
The main beef I have with Oppenheimer, he's a geneticist (not a linguist, and his ideas on the languages of Britain just make every linguist facepalm), he also uses outdated data (for example the idea that R1b originated in the LGM on the Iberian penninsula). Also, by his ideas he seems to be affiliated with British Nationalist ideas, which I find, mildly put, disgusting.
I don't know him very much, and I beware the scientists who use simple (too simple) genetic features to classify peoples. His theory about the continuum Belgium-England is interesting anyway, but not new. Somewhat "immobilist" would I say (it doesn't take in count the fact that in ancient times, peoples were not numerous, and the languages-border could shift more quickly than today).