PDA

View Full Version : I-E celts italics germanics in old times



MOESAN
26-04-13, 20:28
a try
A try to synthetize some data about I-E in Western Europe


based upon B. SERGENT work, I summarize some facts (or considered as facts):
languages: Iberia: seemingly Asturian and Lusitanian could be I-E cousins to so called 'ält-europeisch' (or more precisely 'north-west' I-E) considered too as the first variant spoken in present days Belgium-the Netherlands before germanization – lusitanian shows some phonetic evolutions close enough to italic ones (aspired sonorizants >> fricatives) –the 'N-W-I-Ean' would have been the ancestor of the Belgae tribes vulgar language, neither celtic nor germanic but under celtic elite rules (I hesitate here: maybe true Belgae came very lately in NW Europe and send with them an already evolved celtic language?) – the dominant thesis about it is it should be an old stage of a kind of macro-italic or proto-italic, been very close geographically to speakers of proto-germanic and proto-slavic (for the traces we have are scarce, I think it is rather an old stage of an old community where we could put proto-celtic, proto-ligurian, proto-lusitanian...)
- all of these languages of Iberia show partially closeness to celtic (without loss of *P-) and too to italic and ligurian, what could make sense, considering the similarities and differences which would be the normal result of a separate evolution upon a basically same language spred on a huge scale, but spanning a relatively short time – surely «iberian» (geographically) populations indo-europeanized – caution here, because the remnants of this languages are scarce -
the ligurian or close dialects seems having been spoken in E-Iberia, S-France, a large territory in Italy and too in Corsica, Sardigna and Sicilia (Sicanes or Sicules?) -
the rhaetic (the non-etruscan part) seems close to venetic and to the famous 'ält-europeisch' – venetic itself (and the North-Illyricum dialects) seems a border-line cousin of italic languages, linking N-E Italy to Hungary Pannonia), along or south the Danaw river; some «archaicity» could explain the common traits with celtic, too -


when we look at all that, it seems that:
a western block of I-Ean languages was compound of close dialects at a first stage, where the ancestors of italic(s) kept for a time a strong and east-central position, living their proto-celtic, proto-ligurian and other west-centum «protos» more westward – on the northern boundaries the proto-italic block seems having had a longer contact to (already centum?) 'proto-germanic' and to (future?) 'satem-slavic' (itself very close to 'macro-baltic' languages or to a fraction of it -
I think celtic (more akin to the {-1600/-1150} tumuli culture of Bavaria) developped lately enough its more typical features (and *P- lost) around the W-Alps even if it kept a long time contacts with all the S-W descendants of 'ält-europeisch', which could explain its closer affinities with Iberia first I-E dialects and with ligurian – it was in contact with proto-italic and italic I see centered between Bohemia and West Carpathian Bassin and as the more sensible descendants of bearers of {-2100/-1500} modified Unjetice culture (and southermost Baden culture?)... I should say, Unjetice was a melting pots of demes, of cultures: the scholars see a strong imput of the {-2500/-1700} N-Bell-Beakers and a slight one of {-2900/-2050} Corded people (but for phenotypes bigger imput of Corded's) – concerning sepultures they see in it (Unjetice) the arrival of tumuli and also tree stock tombs (common after in North Europe! Interesting for Thuringen and Cy) and some urn-inhumations which were found later in El Argar (E-Andalusia), and which denote maybe an anatolian origin (I-E or not???) - its possible that it was not a final melting pot but rather a meeting place – it is possible (yet!!!) that already slightly differenciated celtic//italic// (and maybe //proto-germanic-// and //proto-balto-slavic//) borders were around if not inside present day Czechia at a time, before these groups individualized themselves more and more
&: the pure races thories are died long time ago but the new (or ex-new) theories of culture transmissions without population movements and the ones of immediate populations crossings cannot dure longer too: the skeletons prove the intrusion of newcomers at different stages of history (the question is: how representative were they of the total population: elite or not?) and the settlements prove that the «conquerors» at first stage very often do not expell the previous inhabitants and that, according to their economy they took sometime the worst grounds without mix (Central Europe, and too the Corded people in the Netherlands leaving first settlements to megalithers+danubian peasants) – I see also the proof of foreign arrivals in the differences of religion reflected by the sepultures rites: even if a population can change its religion, it requires at first stage the contact with foreigners (before Internet) – and/but the frequent return to older habits on this ground seems proving that old traditions of «invaded» or rather subjugued folks recovered the strong side after some time (as some genetic traits, apparently lost but only apparently, because the sepultures we find are often the elite's ones and it distords our calculations)-
... Even the future 'Urnfields' influenced Lusace culture seem to someones a cultures contact place where Celts or N-Italics (Ombrians?) lived in neighbouring future Slavs and maybe Proto-Germanics (the Thuringen region, attached to Harz and southern Nieder-Sachsen, could be involved in the germanic future cristallization even if not the most important demic element)? What is sure is that according to Czech scholars, a tumuli culture from SW Bohemia crossed Moravia to go into Silesia and that Lusacian culture was a mixt too (Urnfield/Tumuli) in Poland out of Silesia. Ombrians? Or Veneti?
The few Y-R1b-U152 of Western Poland and some cultural traits of Lusace could rather indicate Ombrians than Veneti or Celts... at these times, apart from some precise artefacts, the common culture of peoples were close enough among I-Eans descendants (the Ombrians, according to some books, wore trousers as the continental Celts, by instance – the classical authors confused very often barbarian tribes of different origins) -
For someones the Ombrians are responsible for the slight separation between the mass of latin-sabellic languages and the venetian ones.; it would prove (Osco-)Ombrians (and then Villanova bearers) were coming down from North-East, and in touch with some Celts (the *Qw- become >> *P- ones): see Lusace; the {-1700/-1200?}Terramare bearers (as thought H.HUBERT and A.MARTINET) would have been the first Latins or akin tribes and not the Ligurians – I think rather now these folks were a mix of accultured Ligurians/Pré-Ligurians with «true» Latins ancestors influenced lately by other Italics of Urnfields culture – thix melting pot became after the fully evolved Latins and close cousins more on the western side of Italy – the structure of latin villages recalled the ones of Unjetice culture -
... and his 'Karpodacians' (HUBERT) influencing Proto-Germanics were maybe the Unjetice culture continuers stayed on place, with some new accretions, evolving towards a future venetic culture ?(he wrote some other ones believed they were Illyrians, at his time when everyone was seeing Illyrians everypart in Europe! Lusacian pottery was found around his «illyrian rivers names» but (he wrote) there was no lusacian pottery in Illyria proper - maybe only old forms of venetic, confused later with illyrian names ??? – the venetic connexion is not without sense: a N-E venetic or wend population in contact with Ombrians in Lusace-SW Poland???
About the -1000 Hallstatt developped, with celtic speaking tribes practizing cremation as the Villanovians (Ombrians + ??? *P- Celts?) but returning after that to inhumation (Celts under cultural domination of Urnfield-Ombrians in Bohemia, with some Veneti imput ?) - I'm tempted to think that the *P-Celts came at that time from the eastern part of their «homeland» before La Tène culture
(I cannot say how La Tène Celts Y-R1b-U152 percentages were strongly reinforced after their contacts with Italics at these times or hardly modified)-

zanipolo
26-04-13, 20:52
a try
A try to synthetize some data about I-E in Western Europe


based upon B. SERGENT work, I summarize some facts (or considered as facts):
languages: Iberia: seemingly Asturian and Lusitanian could be I-E cousins to so called 'ält-europeisch' (or more precisely 'north-west' I-E) considered too as the first variant spoken in present days Belgium-the Netherlands before germanization – lusitanian shows some phonetic evolutions close enough to italic ones (aspired sonorizants >> fricatives) –the 'N-W-I-Ean' would have been the ancestor of the Belgae tribes vulgar language, neither celtic nor germanic but under celtic elite rules (I hesitate here: maybe true Belgae came very lately in NW Europe and send with them an already evolved celtic language?) – the dominant thesis about it is it should be an old stage of a kind of macro-italic or proto-italic, been very close geographically to speakers of proto-germanic and proto-slavic (for the traces we have are scarce, I think it is rather an old stage of an old community where we could put proto-celtic, proto-ligurian, proto-lusitanian...)
- all of these languages of Iberia show partially closeness to celtic (without loss of *P-) and too to italic and ligurian, what could make sense, considering the similarities and differences which would be the normal result of a separate evolution upon a basically same language spred on a huge scale, but spanning a relatively short time – surely «iberian» (geographically) populations indo-europeanized – caution here, because the remnants of this languages are scarce -
the ligurian or close dialects seems having been spoken in E-Iberia, S-France, a large territory in Italy and too in Corsica, Sardigna and Sicilia (Sicanes or Sicules?) -
the rhaetic (the non-etruscan part) seems close to venetic and to the famous 'ält-europeisch' – venetic itself (and the North-Illyricum dialects) seems a border-line cousin of italic languages, linking N-E Italy to Hungary Pannonia), along or south the Danaw river; some «archaicity» could explain the common traits with celtic, too -


when we look at all that, it seems that:
a western block of I-Ean languages was compound of close dialects at a first stage, where the ancestors of italic(s) kept for a time a strong and east-central position, living their proto-celtic, proto-ligurian and other west-centum «protos» more westward – on the northern boundaries the proto-italic block seems having had a longer contact to (already centum?) 'proto-germanic' and to (future?) 'satem-slavic' (itself very close to 'macro-baltic' languages or to a fraction of it -
I think celtic (more akin to the {-1600/-1150} tumuli culture of Bavaria) developped lately enough its more typical features (and *P- lost) around the W-Alps even if it kept a long time contacts with all the S-W descendants of 'ält-europeisch', which could explain its closer affinities with Iberia first I-E dialects and with ligurian – it was in contact with proto-italic and italic I see centered between Bohemia and West Carpathian Bassin and as the more sensible descendants of bearers of {-2100/-1500} modified Unjetice culture (and southermost Baden culture?)... I should say, Unjetice was a melting pots of demes, of cultures: the scholars see a strong imput of the {-2500/-1700} N-Bell-Beakers and a slight one of {-2900/-2050} Corded people (but for phenotypes bigger imput of Corded's) – concerning sepultures they see in it (Unjetice) the arrival of tumuli and also tree stock tombs (common after in North Europe! Interesting for Thuringen and Cy) and some urn-inhumations which were found later in El Argar (E-Andalusia), and which denote maybe an anatolian origin (I-E or not???) - its possible that it was not a final melting pot but rather a meeting place – it is possible (yet!!!) that already slightly differenciated celtic//italic// (and maybe //proto-germanic-// and //proto-balto-slavic//) borders were around if not inside present day Czechia at a time, before these groups individualized themselves more and more
&: the pure races thories are died long time ago but the new (or ex-new) theories of culture transmissions without population movements and the ones of immediate populations crossings cannot dure longer too: the skeletons prove the intrusion of newcomers at different stages of history (the question is: how representative were they of the total population: elite or not?) and the settlements prove that the «conquerors» at first stage very often do not expell the previous inhabitants and that, according to their economy they took sometime the worst grounds without mix (Central Europe, and too the Corded people in the Netherlands leaving first settlements to megalithers+danubian peasants) – I see also the proof of foreign arrivals in the differences of religion reflected by the sepultures rites: even if a population can change its religion, it requires at first stage the contact with foreigners (before Internet) – and/but the frequent return to older habits on this ground seems proving that old traditions of «invaded» or rather subjugued folks recovered the strong side after some time (as some genetic traits, apparently lost but only apparently, because the sepultures we find are often the elite's ones and it distords our calculations)-
... Even the future 'Urnfields' influenced Lusace culture seem to someones a cultures contact place where Celts or N-Italics (Ombrians?) lived in neighbouring future Slavs and maybe Proto-Germanics (the Thuringen region, attached to Harz and southern Nieder-Sachsen, could be involved in the germanic future cristallization even if not the most important demic element)? What is sure is that according to Czech scholars, a tumuli culture from SW Bohemia crossed Moravia to go into Silesia and that Lusacian culture was a mixt too (Urnfield/Tumuli) in Poland out of Silesia. Ombrians? Or Veneti?
The few Y-R1b-U152 of Western Poland and some cultural traits of Lusace could rather indicate Ombrians than Veneti or Celts... at these times, apart from some precise artefacts, the common culture of peoples were close enough among I-Eans descendants (the Ombrians, according to some books, wore trousers as the continental Celts, by instance – the classical authors confused very often barbarian tribes of different origins) -
For someones the Ombrians are responsible for the slight separation between the mass of latin-sabellic languages and the venetian ones.; it would prove (Osco-)Ombrians (and then Villanova bearers) were coming down from North-East, and in touch with some Celts (the *Qw- become >> *P- ones): see Lusace; the {-1700/-1200?}Terramare bearers (as thought H.HUBERT and A.MARTINET) would have been the first Latins or akin tribes and not the Ligurians – I think rather now these folks were a mix of accultured Ligurians/Pré-Ligurians with «true» Latins ancestors influenced lately by other Italics of Urnfields culture – thix melting pot became after the fully evolved Latins and close cousins more on the western side of Italy – the structure of latin villages recalled the ones of Unjetice culture -
... and his 'Karpodacians' (HUBERT) influencing Proto-Germanics were maybe the Unjetice culture continuers stayed on place, with some new accretions, evolving towards a future venetic culture ?(he wrote some other ones believed they were Illyrians, at his time when everyone was seeing Illyrians everypart in Europe! Lusacian pottery was found around his «illyrian rivers names» but (he wrote) there was no lusacian pottery in Illyria proper - maybe only old forms of venetic, confused later with illyrian names ??? – the venetic connexion is not without sense: a N-E venetic or wend population in contact with Ombrians in Lusace-SW Poland???
About the -1000 Hallstatt developped, with celtic speaking tribes practizing cremation as the Villanovians (Ombrians + ??? *P- Celts?) but returning after that to inhumation (Celts under cultural domination of Urnfield-Ombrians in Bohemia, with some Veneti imput ?) - I'm tempted to think that the *P-Celts came at that time from the eastern part of their «homeland» before La Tène culture
(I cannot say how La Tène Celts Y-R1b-U152 percentages were strongly reinforced after their contacts with Italics at these times or hardly modified)-


interesting read

couple of questions
1 -this link from 2007 says rhaetic was a non-indo semitic language , is this wrong?
http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/Toth_Brunner_Raetic.pdf

2 - since the amber trade florished from the baltic to the adriatic around 2000BC would not this bring a multitude of languages, a mixture. My theory is that the traders, rulers in the bronze-age knew more languages than todays people ( in general), especially, since the vocabulary of language was not that great in number.

3 - what of the ancient ligures language, did they have no influence in celtic or provenzal type of languages

MOESAN
27-04-13, 12:29
&: I'm just an "amateur"
1) I began to read you link, thanks for it; but I need time to understand well all its implications - BUT a question , before going further in my lecture: is this study concluding there was only ONE rhaetic language, because I precised I was speaking about the supposed primitive I-E language of Rhaetia, not about the second (for now I know NO third one) that scholars link to etruscan -
2) I don't believe in a "multitude" of languages, but I believe (because i don't know) that surely roving traders knew more than a language, to avoid finish their lives in a too short time - concerning rulers, I think that at these times they were mire skilful in fight than in polyglotty -
3) ligures languages: I made my opinion upon some readings that seem conclude (upon a few doucuments) they spoke a centum I-E languages close enough to italic and celtic, closer to celtic concerning phonetic; at this stage of history, the I-E "brother" languages were very closer on to another than today: divergeance was not so strong - I believe they all were developping upon a yet archaic enough form of I-E - difficult to say what very influence they could have had upon today occitan or gallo-italic languages but we could imagine they have someones (I don't think so for global celtic evolution but who knows..?)

zanipolo
27-04-13, 20:45
&: I'm just an "amateur"
1) I began to read you link, thanks for it; but I need time to understand well all its implications - BUT a question , before going further in my lecture: is this study concluding there was only ONE rhaetic language, because I precised I was speaking about the supposed primitive I-E language of Rhaetia, not about the second (for now I know NO third one) that scholars link to etruscan -
2) I don't believe in a "multitude" of languages, but I believe (because i don't know) that surely roving traders knew more than a language, to avoid finish their lives in a too short time - concerning rulers, I think that at these times they were mire skilful in fight than in polyglotty -
3) ligures languages: I made my opinion upon some readings that seem conclude (upon a few doucuments) they spoke a centum I-E languages close enough to italic and celtic, closer to celtic concerning phonetic; at this stage of history, the I-E "brother" languages were very closer on to another than today: divergeance was not so strong - I believe they all were developping upon a yet archaic enough form of I-E - difficult to say what very influence they could have had upon today occitan or gallo-italic languages but we could imagine they have someones (I don't think so for global celtic evolution but who knows..?)

liked your article and it was sound, I just had some issues which needed to be looked at.
on your
1 - The rhaetic language was in the alps way before etruscan arrived in Italy, so logically they are not from the same branch...but one had more influence over the other , but only on the border, no etruscan in rhaetic lands was found in the alps only in rhaetic lombardy/veneto

2 - There is a saying in languages , it goes something like this , maternal languages are spoken in majority by peasants and artisans (merchants) , paternal languages are spoken by artisans and nobility. Each region has maternal and paternal languages. artisans being the middleclass had to move and sell their trade. Its logical they knew how to communicate over many land/regions

3 - ligures IMO are same as the Iberians ( original iberians which is modern catalans) in the ancient language tree. we can see this in the method that even the romans divided the provinces. most based on culture, language and ethnicity. check southern france, the alps area , gaul and the belgae etc

MOESAN
05-05-13, 16:35
liked your article and it was sound, I just had some issues which needed to be looked at.
on your
1 - The rhaetic language was in the alps way before etruscan arrived in Italy, so logically they are not from the same branch...but one had more influence over the other , but only on the border, no etruscan in rhaetic lands was found in the alps only in rhaetic lombardy/veneto

2 - There is a saying in languages , it goes something like this , maternal languages are spoken in majority by peasants and artisans (merchants) , paternal languages are spoken by artisans and nobility. Each region has maternal and paternal languages. artisans being the middleclass had to move and sell their trade. Its logical they knew how to communicate over many land/regions

3 - ligures IMO are same as the Iberians ( original iberians which is modern catalans) in the ancient language tree. we can see this in the method that even the romans divided the provinces. most based on culture, language and ethnicity. check southern france, the alps area , gaul and the belgae etc

I don't think Ligurian (language) as anything to do with iberian (language) - Sicanes (Sicily) were considered (without too much scientific control) by Anciens as Iberians, but we have to be carefull concerning namings of cultures and territories at these times - maybe Sicanes had already something in common with Ligurians? a mess made by ignorance??? iverian language is very bad known and what we know is it was definitely not an I-E language, and it could have some ties with proto-sardinian and other old pre-I-E languages of Mediterranea.

and I don't think modern Catalans have considerable ties to Iberians: the Iberians, as I think, had their core in E-Andalusia-Murcia-S-Levante- and were from an non-I-E anatolian stock (not proved but sensible) - Catalunia was occupied by more than a cultural and ethnic group, but I bet it was more on the Ligurian side tha on the Iberian side: some new historians said the iberian presence in S-France was more a cultural impact than an ethnic one, but who knows today? -
I don't tell anything concerning "maternal" or "paternal" acquired languages because the ground is very uncertain here: we know languages which imposed themselves BY the elites or TO the elites, according to number, resulting demography (after first contacts), commercial or military power , centralization or no centralization - my short knowledge about present days dialects tell me women ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE GUARDIANS of old ethnic languages: only when they were (are) kept away from the citizen life - otherwise they are the first one to adopt the new (and "first class") languages... as a rule, the "elites" when vainquished are the first to adopt the conquerant language, males as females, and the basic folks keeps on longer time with their proper one - so in patriarcal times, maybe females occuped in the house kept on longer with the old language because social promotion was more the males affair - but closer to us??? females were occupied in the trade too so ??? it 's very confusing - BUT I THINK YOU MEAN: "paternal" = conqueror's one - "maternal" = conquired one? right?

concerning Roma, NO! the administrative partitions under the Empire did not correspond well to ancient ethnic ones, so it is confusing here too