When was Proto-Celtic spoken (offtopic from Beaker-Bell R1b)

[zanipolo]

Well!
What is the definition of celtic and gallic differences, and the links tying illyrian and lusitanian?
Could you provide us some list of words establishing these facts?
thanks beforehand

illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards

 

[MOESAN]

illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards

it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

 

[zanipolo]

it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euganei

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=euganei tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

 

[MOESAN]

Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euganei

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=euganei tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

 

[Yetos]

I think the terminology is Celts as the family of smaller tribes,

I mean Gauls are Celts, but all Celts are not Gauls,

Greeks even today name France as Γαλλια Gallia due to the South-Central parts of France, and not after Francais,

Its like Germans and Deutsch Dutch Scands Goths etc,
all the above are Germanic but not Deutsch,

 

[zanipolo]

to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

Italians historians say these are ancient ligurians lands of th ebronze age

invasions of Italy in late bronze age

The Julian alps = the eastern alps and that was the border of the euganei which are a branch of the ligurians who in turn are gallic


so the question still stands , is gallic = celtic, if so then north italy is Celtic.
If so, why then if gallic = celtic is proto-celtic starting point not any where except for southern Germany?

 

[MOESAN]

to Yetos:
I was speaking about the endonyme Celt(s) not the general linguistic meaning 'celtic' - for me until today I never heard speaking of a clear distinction separating Galli from Celti -
to Zanipolo: thanks for your map but it is not too informative - for me (my readings) at middle Bronze Age, there was a difference between N-E Italy (Balkanic influenced peoples, culturally and phenotypically, maybe false informations?) and the remnant of N-Italy ; but Bronze Age dured a long time, so if Eugenai was celtic, yes, Celts was occupying the whole N-Italy at some time -
and Yes all the tribes you mention was celtic according to old scholars - it there are news on the field, please, give me some links -
the question of proto-celtic cradle cannot be answered by the gallic-celtic equation (or non equation, according to you) - the tumuli culture of S-Germany seam to archeologs the very possible point of melting and cristallization giving birth to first determined celtic culture and language among a more vaste Western -I-E group of cultures with close "brother" or "uncle" languages but it is only the previous more evident solution - I have no pretention to confirm or infirm it at this stage of my knowledge...some could suggest that Y-R1b-L21 and Atlantic groups could have been older Qw- celtic and Y-R1b-U152 dominant Alps groups P- celtic: just an hypothesis made by someones here and that I find interesting (in this case successors of Ligurians {and Ligurians themselves} could have been more U152 than L21) - the new theories about Tartessos are an alternative but they have to be more effectively proved, for I think -

 

[MOESAN]

just about gaelic-brittonic
Semantic concepts compared :
man (human) – man (male) – woman – father – mother – son – daughter – brother – sister – child – animal – beast – donkey – stag/hart – hind:doe – horse/stallion – mare – foal – bull – cow – ox – calf – pig – sheep – ram – ewe – gaot(she) – he-gaot – cock – hen – duck – cat – mouse – rat – dog – bear – wolf – fox – hare – rabbit – bird – egg – snake – fish - body - leather – head – back – neck - arm – hand – fist – finger - leg – thigh - foot – belly – bossom/breast – breast/chest - heart - eye – ear – nose – mouth - tooth – beard - meat/flesh – skin - blood – head hair/body hair – bone – lever – day – night – year - world - earth - sky/heaven – sun - moon – wind – rain – snow - grass – tree – wood/firest – wood-timber - flower – water – fire – sea – lake - mountain – stone – rock – river – coast – island – metal – iron – steel – copper – gold – silver – colour – black – white – yellow – blue – red – green – good – hot/warm – cold – sweet/soft – hard – nice/beautiful – great/big – thick – small – high – low – wide/broad – long – heavy – young – old – new – true – full – dry - blind – deaf – house – door – apple – meal/flour – milk - salt – wool – shit – name – to be – to see – to look at - to ear – to listen to - to eat – to drink – to sleep – to swim – to drown – to kill – to give – to take – to fly – to say – to believe – to come – to go – to run - to think – to bake – to jump/to hop -


some replacements mask old common origins and increase arbitrary the number of pseudo-differences in lexic:
hare bret- gad, wlsh- ysgyfarnog : but bret- skouarneg : with big ears ! -
some semantical evolutions too (changing sex, generation, race...):
gael- damh = ox >< bret- dañvad, wlsh- dafad = sheep -
bret- maout = ram = gael- molt >< + wlsh mollt = wether (fr- mouton)
some loans too :
fish : lat- pisc- >> bret- pesk, wlsh- pysg-, but gaul- isca – gael- iasc -
some surely older losts :
lat- pater- = father = gael- athair >< bret-/wlsh- tad (rom- tat-) but gaul- ater + atta fostering « father » : maternal uncle???-
gael- caoradh = sheep >< bret- dañvad, wlhs- dafad but : gaul- caerac = ewe


This is only a rough proxi :
The work is not a scholar's one : we can discute some choices of categorization :
short : first column : differences of words for the meaning in cause
second colum : remaining differences when derived words are dropped out
third column : remaining differences when same word roots are found for close enough meanings or when dialectal same words still exist for the same meaning
So the third column illustrate an older stage of language and the remaining differences in it can show a more archaïc stage in one of the languages compared 2 to 2 or more ancient or new loan words – among the chosen concepts there are very very few modern loans (I kept away some doubtfull words exposed to loan as religious terms or too satellized words in these languages) -
I'm surprised to see so apparently isolated words in gaelic for eye, meat, blood, neck, bone, tooth, and moon,sun,world, wind,rain, steel and the majority of the 22 included verbs -
It repeat it is not a scolar's work ! Just trying to find the place of gaelic ; if one can give some links to old irish studies ?

languages pairs	modern distance	mod-dist correct	more ancient
		← derived word	distance
rouman/italian	57	48	38
spanish/italian	37	30	25
portuguese/italian	39	31	25
french/italian	27	18	7
rouman/spanish	64	57	49
rouman/portuguese	65	57	49
rouman/french	57	47	32
spanish/portuguese	14	14	8	-6
spanish/french	45	32	18	-27
portuguese/french	48	39	24	-24
breton/welsh	18	18	7
breton/gaelics	94	86	72
welsh/gaelics	87	80	69

 

[Tabaccus Maximus]

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/oldest-bog-body-130820.htm

The above article heralds the discovery of "Cashel Man" in Ireland who was a ritually sacrificed Irish bog body
radiocarbon dating to 2000 B.C.
He is well preserved, although I've been unable to find any detailed pictures which are probably not yet available.

Over the last year, I'm come to believe that not only were Beaker folk Indo-European, but were probably "Proto-Italo speaking, Indo-Europeans" and I've kicked the dying animals of various continuity theories in other posts so none of that here.

The reason this discovery is important is because "Cashel Man" is undeniably well placed within the Beaker period of Ireland. Regardless of his appearance, the nature of his death is similar to other, later ritualized bog sacrifices in the Iron Age of Northern Europe. That means that AT A MINIMUM, aspects of Beaker Culture continued through later ages.

If for some odd and strange reason we find out later that he was a 'lucoderm' and had 'light-colored' hair, we could infer that other Beaker folk for that time period might have had similar appearances. That should be fairly obvious since modern Northwestern Europeans are probably mostly descended from Beaker Folk and are usually fairly fair.

The Beaker folk had habits, social patterns and burials similar to peoples associated with Indo-Europeans, but their identity is still mysterious. Some comparitive linguists have proposed a Western origin of the Proto-Italo-Celtic language group, which some estimate to have been spoken around 2900 B.C. which interestingly corresponds to the Beaker ingression of Spain, so I won't recapitulate here. Multiple sources suggest immigration from Spain by the way.

Beaker sacrificial ritual relates to language because it proves at least one aspect of cultural continuity from the Beaker age. If bog rituals survived, then maybe language too?

 

[Fire Haired]

I am sick of these theorizes people are throwing out the origin of Celtic languages is pretty simple. Y DNa has been the biggest help in figuring in out. Something to remember is Celts aren't alone their language groups with Italic languages so Italo Celtic. Not everyone agrees but all Y DNa and some archaeology the similar burial of Nordic bronze age and Hallstatt Celts i think is also evidence they group eve farther back to Germanic Italo Celtic languages their Y DNa marker R1b1a2a1 L51. Germanic Italo Celts .

There is no doubt the Bell Beaker 4,600ybp R1b samples in central Germany show the Germanic italo Celts had arrived. Almost all r1b in west europe except around the Mediterranean is under R1b1a2a L51 and R1b1a2a1 L11. Which like i said shows huge connections with germanic branch r1b S21 and Italo Celtic branch R1b S116. So wouldn't it make sense that the Bell Beaker R1b was under either R1b1a2a1 L51 or R1b1a2a1a L11 and is connected with Germanic Italo Celts. I know Bell Beaker originally was not INdo European and it came from Iberia. But it was conquered by migrating Germanic Italo Celts. All of a sudden 4,500-3,5000ybp u see new Kurgen Indo European cultures with plaid clothing pop up in central Europe and Denmark and south Scandinavia. Showing themselves being ancestral to later Celtic and Germanic tribes. Unetice culture had torcs which before that was seen as only Celtic they also had plaid clothing. also i saw Nordic bronze age culture buried their dead in extremely similar ways to Hallstatt Celts. They buried them with a comb by the head, Broochs, and sword/dagger at the chest, on a pillow, with bracelts, and neck rings.

It is hard to explain but all future evidence will point to Germanic and Italo celtic languages being connected and their signature Y DNa haplogroup being R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11. I think the arrival of bronze age bell beaker people in the Uk 4,300ybp is the arrival of R1b L21 and proto Insular Celtic languages, Y DNa has given such a good picture of how people spread. We now no there is no way Celtic languages spread to the UK with Hallstatt Or urnfield culture just 2,500-3,000ybp. and it was not a weak influence that spread a language it was major invasion which is why R1b L21 is around 80-90% in modern Irish. also it is estimated to be about 4,000 years old.

I know boring historians who want everything to be a depressing mystery will reject the genetic stuff even though it is unbelievable obvious. U people should look at British ancestry almost only from Celtic and Germanic invaders . Tab Max how do u know that the 4,000 year old bog body in Ireland had light hair when u say that u must mean from blonde to light brown. what evidence do u have other beaker folk looked like him. If anything a sign of the Germanic Italo Celts arrival would be red hair because of the connection with red hair and R1b1a2a1a L11 both are highest in Ireland and the UK. Sure modern Northwest Europeans ancestors without a doubt were apart of Bell Beaker culture but those traits probably come from hunter gathers who lived there before farming spread and what about Bell Beaker in Spain.

There is deifntley not a western Origin of Italo celtic languages my best guess would be Unetice culture in central Europe. also look at where Urnfield, Hallstat, and La Tene are centered CENTRAL EUROPE. Hallstat and Urnfield migrated to Iberia which is when Celts arrived in Iberia but besides that They are orignally from central Europe.

The Human sacrifice everyone does that just in northern europe they are perserved in bogs. i am sure the pre bronze age celtic people in ireland did human sacrifice too.

 

[nako]

Does anyone speak Proto-Celtic today?

 

[LeBrok]

Nope, just few communities surviving speaking modern Celtic.

 

[Taranis]

Nope, just few communities surviving speaking modern Celtic.

Welsh is actually widely spoken in Wales, and Breton used to be widely spoken in Brittany until the 20th century.

But yeah, as the name implies "Proto-Celtic", just like Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Semitic or Proto-Algonquian is a reconstructed proto language. By the time that the Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Galatian etc.) started to become recorded, you already had a family of related languages. The expansion of the Roman Empire and the subsequent spread of Christianity caused the Celtic languages on the continent to become extinct, while those on the British Isles evolved into the languages that we have today. Brittany, of course, is located on the continent, but as the name implies, the Bretons speak a Brythonic language, and they moved there from Britain during the Migration Period.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Do not want to upset people,but a strange resemblance I have seen between gothic language and Celtic language:
father in gothic was Atta and in Celtic Athair.

Just saying.

 

[Ziober]

that's the million dollar question!

 

[MOESAN]

Do not want to upset people,but a strange resemblance I have seen between gothic language and Celtic language:
father in gothic was Atta and in Celtic Athair.

Just saying.

In french we say "Une hironelle (bird) ne fait pas le printemps". it's maybe an other meaning for 'father' (opposition between genetical father and "cultural" responsible father? (sorry I lack precise english words here to express more precisely my meaning).
But here, athair is from a kind *pater (celtic lost of I-Ean P-). Atta would correspond to slavic(s) otats, otat' - I'm not sure but hittit had something close to hattah

 

[MOESAN]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Brittoniclanguages has been introduced as dominant language in Brittany byBrittons from Britain between the 6° and 7° centuries. OK. But moreand more scholars think that Brittons found in West Brittany apopulation still speaking a celtic (gaulish) language, at least outof the « urban » centers well romanized. The cause of theceltic language conservation until middle of the 20° Cy would resultof a better resistance to latin by a population poorly accultured.Even in the N-E of Gallo-Roman Brittany the most of the basicpopulation kept lately enough celtic personal names when in othersterritories the mode was the roman names.What seems supporting thisis that the ancient toponymy show a strong colonization of N-EBrittany, denser than in South or South-West when the languageperdured very longer in South-West. Even in Loire-Atlantique, adepartement put in the artificial region of « Pays-de-Loire »,a breton dialect was still spoken among salt workers and fishers inthe westernmost parts until beginning of the 20° Cy, even if turninginto a relic language. By the way, this region N-W of Nantes (Naoned<< Namnet-) saw Breton soldiers garnisons under Rome rulearound the 4° Cy, before the big tribulations of the 6°/7°/8°cneturies.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]InNorth Brittany breton was dead around Saint-Malo and Saint-Brieucabout the Late Middle-Age.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Thereis no way to be astonished concerning the gaulish (declining)conservation in some places. It seems in remote and for the mostmountainous regions, celtic languages were spoken until late enough,in Auvergne (4° Cy), in Czechia, maybe Switzerland (someones hadadvanced the 8° Cy I think for Bohemia, but I don't know if it'sreliable. In french and occitans dialects the celtic words conserved,in a very little number, are denser in occitan than in oil dialects,these last ones more strongly influenced by germanic language(s). Itseems in West oil there has been conserved a few more words too butit would deserve deeper studies.Always the question of centers ofcolonization in more easily reached places.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Tocome back to this very thread, it's unseasy to date precisely theapparition of proto-celtic in Europe. I suppose the Iron Age(Hallstatt) could have been the period of the Q^w- >>P- evolution, un der the influence of newcomers from Eastern Europe ;the apparition of ¼ of new types among the supposed celtic elite ofTumuli culture could spport this. Some old scholars spoke of'Illyrians',perhaps they were not so wrong ? I cannot exclude(as do some scientists) a common origin of the Qw- >> P-phenomenon in Europe (celtic, italic, hellenic): dates seemconverging (Iron?), places seem converging (Hungary or North Balkansat first?). - It could be possiblefirst Qw italic speakers were in North Italy (Terramare?) before thecoming of P speakers (around early Villanova?) soIron ??? Taranis couldcorrect me for this detail : Q^w/Pshift ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]IfP- mutation is linked to Iron Celts (and others if I'm not wrong) sowe have to conceive earlier Celts in Q^w-in the same places before them and around them. I didnot founddatationsfor the P- lost in celtic.Wiki says the first datesfor proto-celtic would be Urnfields times. Uneasy to confirm. Hubertand others thought the Tumuli culture of Southern Germany could havebeen the cradle of future Celts ; what doesn't affirm the celticlanguage was fully differenciated then. But the Tumuli cultureconsidered as an Unetice heritage what is greatly exagerated Ithink : they hadUnetice strong cultural influences but as others same time culturesthey presented local variants. All the way it doesn't infer theyspoke the same language with Unetice true descendants (it's even notproved all Unetice people were speaking only ONE language. But Tumuliculture of Germany is in lands which saw strong BBs imput (evendemically even if less than culturally) and it seems to me and to alot of people celtic developments took place around ancient BBsstrongholds. This doesn't say Celts are globally BBs genuinedescendants. Between the BBs of Portugal around the 3000/2900 BC andthe Tumuli there is a big gap of time. The BBs in Germany seem later,around the 2500 BC. Tumuli spanned about 1600/1200 BC. And celticelite physically, spite some little component, doesn't tie with firstBBs, nor it ties with Corded and even with the new « barbarian »elite of Iron found in the richer bavariantombs. But it seems analready mixed population of autochtones pre-I-Ean and a dominantI-Ean element occupiedWestern Europe (dominance less strong along Atlantic) and took on aBBs heritage. Were they the first heirs of the BBs ? : notevident. Megalithers ofAtlantic sure enough had already taken their « part » Ithink.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Idon't think at this stage of my absence of knowledge that the firstmegalithers were I-Ean speakers. Evenin Germany, the BBs found non-I-Ean people. Butthe mix they surely formed later during finalAtlantic Bronze Age wasmaybe the result of contactswith first western I-Ean speakers, Isee as being in some way the « fathers » of the subsequent speakers of lusitanian, ligurian and others languages ofWest. I'm not sure the first well defined celtic languages werebrought in West by later newcomers. I rather see celtic languages asan evolution 'in situ' of one of the first I-Eans languagesintroduced in West so verylater tha in East, evolutionconditioned by the quality of some specific local substratum.Laterinfluences could have inflecteddialects, but I don't think celtic introduction would be too late.And Urnfieldsis a complicated phenomenon seemingly with roots in Hungary but withdiverse ways of expansion according to regions, demic here, culturalonly there ; religious phenomenon bringed by first moves, thenacculturation, then new moves of acculturated people ??? Tocome back to proto-Celts, if Grigoryev is right, the first marks ofthem could correspond to some Seyma-Turbino artefacts found in Franceand Britain around 1600/1500 BC (started in Steppes in 1700 BC forhim after contacts between settled I-Eans tribes and theSeyam-Turbino culture bearers, what is not an identity of(proto-?)proto-Celts with Seyma-Turbino ! The timing could makesense more or less ...theY-R1b occidental subclades datings could help, if sure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pityall these peopledidn't write so soon!!! Butthen we would not have the pleasure of guesses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]