(Offtopic) Ethnic identity of ancient Alpine peoples

Nobody1

Regular Member
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
261
Points
0
Sorry, a discussion of the Vindelicians certainly would belong into another thread, but tell me something, which data that you have is better than onomastic data (Celtic names, and I should add, unambigously Celtic, unless you can demonstrate to me that "-duno", "-briga" or "-rix" can be somehow Venetic) and archaeological data (bearers of the La-Tene culture - including coinage with the triskelion motif that can be found elsewhere in Celtic areas)?

Whats the diff. between the Indo-European Illyrians and the Indo-European Kelts?
If we take the entire Alpine region of what was to become the Roman provinces of Noricum and Raetia than we will find that this region was uniformly Urnfield/Hallstatt/LaTene; So even if an Illyrian people would be amongst that range (area) than this people would not be outrageously alien to its neighbours; Even the Veneti with their distinctive Iron-age culture zone (Este-culture) show common similarities in culture and language; But how Keltic are they (Vindelic tribes) if they are classified (ancient history) as Illyrians and their inscriptions are not Keltic;

Also, do you have a quote (or ID) for the purportedly Venetic Genauni inscription?

Of course i do;

Uni. Wien - Die Sprache: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (2010)
https://univis.univie.ac.at/ws_publ...A2CFE26A586A190FACB930D7739?id=1195210147528&

http://www.archaeotirol.at/
Foto%2025.jpg


The reason I avoid the term "Illyrian" is because its not clearly defined, unlike, for instance, the term "Venetic". Regardless of the question of the ethnicity of the Vindelicians, its clear that regardless of wether you think of them as Celtic or Venetic, there is no evidence in the Alps for a language akin to Etruscan (Rhaetian) outside the Bolzano region. And to me, the idea that they retreated there from the Po river plain is an elegant solution.

The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is because for some reason its silly to think that Illyrians actually spoke Illyrian; The Genauni/Breuni are designated Illyrian so are the Veneti but their common language is of course not Illyrian its scientifically "Mysterious";

Raetic inscriptions are found all over Tyrol (North and South), Unterengadin and north as the Schneidjoch and south as Verona;
http://www.trismegistos.org/tm/list.php?p=4155
http://www.dav-kaufering.de/content/RaetischeInschriften.pdf
 
@nobody1

There was a paper last year which had this break down
- Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as "para-Celtic“ and "pre-Celtic")
- Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)
- Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)
- Veneti (close to Italic, but with a few other affinities, Raeti and possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)

I see it the same except for Lepontic being Keltic;
It is clearly P-Italic given that the speakers were P-Italic Umbrians;

Would you say, that these "illyrians" being called in other forms like, raeti norici, pannonian, venetic, euganei, vindelic etc are a "central european/alpine " mix which eventually got absorbed piecemeal by celts from the north and gallics from the west?

These Illyrians are essentially Indo-Europeans;
Some of them were absorbed by the Kelts others were not and some in that list wouldnt even be Illyrians;
 
Whats the diff. between the Indo-European Illyrians and the Indo-European Kelts?
If we take the entire Alpine region of what was to become the Roman provinces of Noricum and Raetia than we will find that this region was uniformly Urnfield/Hallstatt/LaTene; So even if an Illyrian people would be amongst that range (area) than this people would not be outrageously alien to its neighbours; Even the Veneti with their distinctive Iron-age culture zone (Este-culture) show common similarities in culture and language; But how Keltic are they (Vindelic tribes) if they are classified (ancient history) as Illyrians and their inscriptions are not Keltic;



Of course i do;

Uni. Wien - Die Sprache: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (2010)
https://univis.univie.ac.at/ws_publ...A2CFE26A586A190FACB930D7739?id=1195210147528&

http://www.archaeotirol.at/

Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Veneti there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "Brigantium").

The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is because for some reason its silly to think that Illyrians actually spoke Illyrian; The Genauni/Breuni are designated Illyrian so are the Veneti but their common language is of course not Illyrian its scientifically "Mysterious";

The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is to assume that the area was ethnically and linguistcally homogenous. And Venetic is not "mysterious": it is an Indo-European language that is closer with the Italic languages (notably the rendering of Proto-Indo-European *bh as "f" as in the Italic ones rather than as "b" like in the Celtic languages) than with the Celtic ones.

By the way, I would like to pinpoint you also to the Ptuj inscription, which is evidently (although short) a Celtic testimony:

http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/bilder/quellentexte/ptuj.2.gif

I see it the same except for Lepontic being Keltic;
It is clearly P-Italic given that the speakers were P-Italic Umbrians;

You're definitely stepping outside the zone of mainstream linguistics then, because the general consensus is that Lepontic is a Celtic language. The Leponti had nothing to do with the Umbrians.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Vindelici there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "Brigantium").

I didnt say it is from Vindelicia; I said its from the Vindelic tribes of the Genauni and Breuni (tribal area);
That signifies that Vindelic tribes spoke a language akin to Venetic; There are also no Keltic inscriptions from the Vennones area;

By the way, I would like to pinpoint you also to the Ptuj inscription, which is evidently (although short) a Celtic testimony: http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/bilder/quellentexte/ptuj.2.gif

As expected;
The inscription from Ptuj is Keltic because its from the Norican/Taurisci (a Keltic people) area;
And thats the great diff. towards the Vindelici area in an Historical and Archaeological context;
No one claimed them to be Keltic and in deed no Keltic inscriptions are found;

The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is to assume that the area was ethnically and linguistcally homogenous. And Venetic is not "mysterious": it is an Indo-European language that is closer with the Italic languages (notably the rendering of Proto-Indo-European *bh as "f" as in the Italic ones rather than as "b" like in the Celtic languages) than with the Celtic ones.

I meant Illyrian is "Mysterious" and it truly is if not even the Illyrians spoke it;
Venetic is defined as an isolated Indo-European language with close similarities to Italic and Keltic;

J. Gvozdanovic - [Uni. Heidelberg 2012]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf

You're definitely stepping outside the zone of mainstream linguistics then, because the general consensus is that Lepontic is a Celtic language. The Leponti had nothing to do with the Umbrians.

Well, it is an Archaeological fact that the speakers of Lepontic were the carriers of the Golasecca culture and the carriers of the Golasecca culture were Umbrians; Insubres/Isombri - Ἴσομβροι; Part of the initial Indo-European Urnfield expansion; Emerging from proto-Golasecca (Scomazzina/Canegrate) Urnfield complex; Lepontic is classified as P-Keltic with marked diff. to Gaulish - linguistically might as well be P-Italic (archaic) because you couldnt differentiate Lepontic from archaic Umbrian the way it already diffs. between Gaulish; And the Historical and Archaeological aspect settles it;
 
Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Veneti there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "Brigantium").
This is wrong in naming towns that the Romans created after defeating the Raeti and their 45 tribes ............what is this logic?
 
BTW Vindelic and Vindelici (for plural) is classic South Slavic suffix.
Even today, although rare, there exists surname Vendelić. It may also be related to root Wenden.
There is also place call Vinodol in Croatia, as there is in Slovakia, meaning wine walley (vino+dol).
 
BTW Vindelic and Vindelici (for plural) is classic South Slavic suffix.
Even today, although rare, there exists surname Vendelić. It may also be related to root Wenden.
There is also place call Vinodol in Croatia, as there is in Slovakia, meaning wine walley (vino+dol).

Wow, the world of linguistics is smaller than I realized.

The Croatian "dol" that you mentioned reminds me of the U.S. dollar. Our currency used to be centered on grains of silver, and an ounce of high grade silver (90% for coin and 92.5 for Sterling) fits comfortably in the palm of most adults. Having zero knowledge of high German, low German, middle German, Croatian, etc. I figured out a few years ago that dollar comes from the German "thaler" meaning thing of the valley. When folks wanted to purchase supplies in old Germany, they would put a healthy chunk of silver into their palm, come out of the hills and into the valley, then hand over some silver for livestock, a bunch of chickens, etc... whatever they needed and could trade silver for.

So there you have the connection to the U.S. dollar and the root word for valley. Gross simplification, but what do you expect from a crude American? :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ike
the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti ,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S17_Germanien.jpg

but the name vindelici comes from raetian

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The celtic version of history is a later change, maybe to glorify a worthwhile opponent for the Romans

to this i like to add the opinion of the ancient History:

Strabo - IV/VI
The Vindelici and Norici possess, for the most part, the opposite side of the mountains together with the Breuni and Genauni, who form part of the Illyrians....But the Licattii, the Clautinatii, and the Vennones proved the boldest amongst the Vindelici; and the Rucantii and Cotuantii amongst the Rhæti. Both the Estiones and Brigantii belong to the Vindelici;

and from the ancient lyricist:

Horaz - IV/XIV
They know thee now, thy strength in war,
Those unsubdued Vindelici.
Thine was the sword that Drusus drew,
When on the Breunian hordes he fell,
And storm'd the fierce Genaunian crew
E'en in their Alpine citadel,
And paid them back their debt twice told
'Twas then the elder Nero came
To conflict, and in ruin roll'd
Stout Raetian kernes of giant frame.
 
Wow, the world of linguistics is smaller than I realized.

The Croatian "dol" that you mentioned reminds me of the U.S. dollar. Our currency used to be centered on grains of silver, and an ounce of high grade silver (90% for coin and 92.5 for Sterling) fits comfortably in the palm of most adults. Having zero knowledge of high German, low German, middle German, Croatian, etc. I figured out a few years ago that dollar comes from the German "thaler" meaning thing of the valley. When folks wanted to purchase supplies in old Germany, they would put a healthy chunk of silver into their palm, come out of the hills and into the valley, then hand over some silver for livestock, a bunch of chickens, etc... whatever the needed and could trade silver for.

So there you have the connection to the U.S. dollar and the root word for valley. Gross simplification, but what do you expect from a crude American? :)

No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:

Slavic dol, dolina, and German tal for valley.
Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.

Same (probably IE) root DL and TL. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.


We also have:
Netherlands — daalder
Austria — thaler
Sweden -daler
etc...
 
No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:

Slavic dol, dolina, and German tal for valley.
Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.

Ike, you are correct with regard for the following: that the Slavic word 'dol' is a cognate with the Germanic words (English 'dale', German 'Tal'). The word might be an early Germanic loanword in Proto-Slavic, or a common word of Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic (for which there are other examples, such as the words for 'gold' and 'silver').

Same (probably IE) root DL and TL. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.

They are not "easily interchangable". Usually, a shift from d to t happens only under very specific conditions, for example in Proto-Germanic (Grimm's Law) and the High German Consonant Shift.

I don't see how this would be related with the Vindelici.

the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti ,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S17_Germanien.jpg

but the name vindelici comes from raetian

The celtic version of history is a later change, maybe to glorify a worthwhile opponent for the Romans

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Vindelicia was archaeologically part of the La-Tene homeland, there are plenty of Celtic place names, river names etc. in the area. If you claim "Vindelici comes from Raetian"? Which one? "Raetic-Raetic" (the Etruscan-like language from the Bolzano area, as we discussed in the other thread), Venetic, or Celtic? To me the names "Vindelici" and "Lech" are both obviously Celtic:

- Common Celtic *windo- means 'white', 'fair' (compare Irish "fionn", Welsh "gwyn"). There is also the 'Vindium montes' mountains in Spain.
- Common Celtic *likko- means 'rock' or 'slab' (compare Breton "lec'h" and Welsh "llech"). Further, there is also a cognate in Greek, "πλακος" (Celtic loss of the *p sound from PIE!).

If you can provide a better etymology via Etruscan (for the 'Raetic'-Raetic) or Venetic, please feel free. What I do not get is why you disregard the available linguistic data and prefer saying "it wasn't so". Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia, but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from.

I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.
 
They are not "easily interchangable". Usually, a shift from d to t happens only under very specific conditions, for example in Proto-Germanic (Grimm's Law) and the High German Consonant Shift.
Don't know, but I've seen it all the time in numerous examples. Even within the same language:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meter

I don't see how this would be related with the Vindelici.
Am not saying it is. It is just a plece in western Croatia, with VNDLC in it. Looking this way now, the term could be related to Vandal.
 
Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia

Not Venetic;
An Illyrian/Mysterious presence since both the Vindelici and Veneti were Illyrians/Mysterious;
Sources for all that given in previous posts or in the thread linked in the aother thread;

but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from

Not Venetic;
An Illyrian/Mysterious language akin to Venetic which is equally Illyrian/Mysterious since both the Vindelici and Veneti were Illyrians/Mysterious;
Sources for all that given in previous posts or in the thread linked in the aother thread;

I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.

I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley;
The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC;
This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC;

And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as Umbrians (ITALICS); And what you described as a "superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land Umbrians' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like Bayer and Niederbayer or Tiroler and Osttiroler - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist like you couldnt figure that out;

Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex; In which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are found i.e their language; And given that Italic and Keltic are the closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you could not (factually) tell an archaic language from proto-Italic or proto-Keltic; Lepontic is now classified as P-Keltic (*kw>P) and considered from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs. to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish and thus could easily be from proto-Italic and thus P-Italic Umbrian; And an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language wouldnt be that odd;

Here are some good reads for you on the Sabbellic/Italic languages;

D. Piwowarczyk - Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/41616/8969068/12806-Piwowarczyk.pdf
UC Berkeley - 2012
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

Lepontic stele inscription 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate, Lombardy - N Italy
zm4g.png
 
Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from.

Not a Venetic presence an not a Venetic language;
An Illyrian presence and an Illyrian language i.e. the Vindelici and Veneti were indeed Illyrians (ancient/classical History) and thus indeed they share a common language (inscriptions);

And that is exactly what i have been writing in all the previous posts and threads before;

Now i can agree to replace Illyrian with Mysterious as in the Vindelici and Veneti were both Mysterious and their common language was thus also Mysterious;

I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.

Given that Lepontic is an Indo-European language - I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. the Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley; The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC; This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC; Hence no further migrations since at least ~1100 BC;

And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into the Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as the Umbrians (ITALICS);

And what you described as a "superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land Umbrians' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like Bayer and Niederbayer or Tiroler and Osttiroler - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist of your format could not figure that out;

Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex in which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are/were found - i.e their language; Given that Italic and Keltic are closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you couldnt tell (factually) an archaic language from proto-Italic and proto-Keltic; Lepontic is being classified as P-Keltic (*Kw>P) and from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish - im just saying it thus could just as well be P-Italic (*Kw>P) proto-Italic/archaic-Umbrian; Due to the factual linguistic basis and because an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language is not that odd;

Some good reads on the Sabellic/Italic languages;
D. Piwowarczyk - Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/41616/8969068/12806-Piwowarczyk.pdf
UC Berkeley - 2012
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

Lepontic stele inscr. 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate/Lombardy - Po-valley;
zm4g.png
 
Spekaing of Illyrians, why is there Sorbiodurum at the upper right corner of Vindelici map?
The -durum element means "doors, gates; palisade; town" or Latin durum from Celtic *dūro- 'fort' ?

source:Vindeliker

kelten-vindelicia.jpg
 
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Vindelicia was archaeologically part of the La-Tene homeland, there are plenty of Celtic place names, river names etc. in the area. If you claim "Vindelici comes from Raetian"? Which one? "Raetic-Raetic" (the Etruscan-like language from the Bolzano area, as we discussed in the other thread), Venetic, or Celtic? To me the names "Vindelici" and "Lech" are both obviously Celtic:

- Common Celtic *windo- means 'white', 'fair' (compare Irish "fionn", Welsh "gwyn"). There is also the 'Vindium montes' mountains in Spain.
- Common Celtic *likko- means 'rock' or 'slab' (compare Breton "lec'h" and Welsh "llech"). Further, there is also a cognate in Greek, "πλακος" (Celtic loss of the *p sound from PIE!).

If you can provide a better etymology via Etruscan (for the 'Raetic'-Raetic) or Venetic, please feel free. What I do not get is why you disregard the available linguistic data and prefer saying "it wasn't so".


you are talking iron-age, I am talking bronze-age............we will never agree

besides you mention town names which is irrelevant, its like saying London was always Roman because they built it and named it.....what point is that?
 
Not a Venetic presence an not a Venetic language;
An Illyrian presence and an Illyrian language i.e. the Vindelici and Veneti were indeed Illyrians (ancient/classical History) and thus indeed they share a common language (inscriptions);

And that is exactly what i have been writing in all the previous posts and threads before;

Now i can agree to replace Illyrian with Mysterious as in the Vindelici and Veneti were both Mysterious and their common language was thus also Mysterious;

Excuse me, but what are you trying to tell us with this repetition of 'mysterious'? :indifferent:

Given that Lepontic is an Indo-European language - I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. the Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley; The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC; This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC; Hence no further migrations since at least ~1100 BC;

I'm sorry, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the Lepontic inscriptions and see what they are than ad-hoc define the Urnfield Culture as Indo-European and then in reverse proclaim that the Lepontii must be also Indo-European. Because your approach, no offense, sounds very much to me like out of the playbook of Gustav Kossinna's "Siedlungsarchäologie"...

And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into the Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as the Umbrians (ITALICS);

And what you described as a "superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land Umbrians' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like Bayer and Niederbayer or Tiroler and Osttiroler - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist of your format could not figure that out;

Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex in which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are/were found - i.e their language; Given that Italic and Keltic are closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you couldnt tell (factually) an archaic language from proto-Italic and proto-Keltic; Lepontic is being classified as P-Keltic (*Kw>P) and from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish - im just saying it thus could just as well be P-Italic (*Kw>P) proto-Italic/archaic-Umbrian; Due to the factual linguistic basis and because an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language is not that odd;

See, this is impossible. As I mentioned before, one of the defining features of the Celtic languages is the loss of the *p sound inherited from Proto-Indo-European, the development of *kw > *p (which, you are correct, also occured in the Osco-Umbrian languages) must have occured after the loss of the original *p. In a similar manner, one of the defining features of the Italic languages (including Venetic here) is that Indo-European *bh-, *dh-, *gh- are rendered as *f-, *f-, *h-.

Some good reads on the Sabellic/Italic languages;
D. Piwowarczyk - Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/41616/8969068/12806-Piwowarczyk.pdf
UC Berkeley - 2012
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

And (I cannot deny that I find this very entertaining), you are actually conflicting yourself with that Piwowarczyk paper, because if I take the Umbrian word 'fakust' (quoted by Piwowarczyk), it is a cognate with Latin 'facere'. The Celtic languages, much like the Germanic languages, render PIE *dh- as *d (the English cognate of 'facere' is 'do', and the German cognate is 'tun').

Another example of this would be the comparison of Latin 'frater', Irish 'brathair', English 'brother', German 'Bruder'.

Lepontic stele inscr. 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate/Lombardy - Po-valley;
zm4g.png

Funny how the first word in there is 'BELGUI' (cf. Eska, Mercado, 2005). This, like the ethnic name 'Belgae', can be derived from Proto-Indo-European *bhelgh- (to swell), also reflected in English as 'bellows' and German as '(Blase-)balg'...
 
Excuse me, but what are you trying to tell us with this repetition of 'mysterious'?

not much;

I'm sorry, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the Lepontic inscriptions and see what they are than ad-hoc define the Urnfield Culture as Indo-European and then in reverse proclaim that the Lepontii must be also Indo-European. Because your approach, no offense, sounds very much to me like out of the playbook of Gustav Kossinna's "Siedlungsarchäologie"...

It is actually just basic Archaeology;
It does take some reading to understand it i.e. to understand the certain expansions and their affiliations; And in the end no one can truly disregard the Archaeological reality (i.e. the expansions and affiliations);

See, this is impossible. As I mentioned before, one of the defining features of the Celtic languages is the loss of the *p sound inherited from Proto-Indo-European, the development of *kw > *p (which, you are correct, also occured in the Osco-Umbrian languages) must have occured after the loss of the original *p. In a similar manner, one of the defining features of the Italic languages (including Venetic here) is that Indo-European *bh-, *dh-, *gh- are rendered as *f-, *f-, *h-.

James Clackson - Indo-European Linguistics (2007) Cambridge Uni.
These languages share some characteristic lexical features with the other members of the Celtic group, principally Irish and Welsh, and the loss of the sound ∗p, generally assumed for all the Celtic languages. However, the number of morphological innovations which are shared by all the Celtic languages is extremely small, and if we use the strictest criteria for reconstructing sub-groups, the Celtic languages do not qualify. Even the loss of ∗p seems only to be underway in the Lepontic inscriptions and may have spread across the whole language area from language to language, rather than being a feature of a sub-group parent from which they all descended.

I am starting to lose confidence in your linguistic abilities;
Platitudes from John T. Koch are nice to read though not substantial but a decent effort;
Have another try in factually differentiating Lepontic from proto-Keltic and proto-Italic;

And (I cannot deny that I find this very entertaining), you are actually conflicting yourself with that Piwowarczyk paper, because if I take the Umbrian word 'fakust' (quoted by Piwowarczyk), it is a cognate with Latin 'facere'. The Celtic languages, much like the Germanic languages, render PIE *dh- as *d (the English cognate of 'facere' is 'do', and the German cognate is 'tun').

Exactly my point;

Funny how the first word in there is 'BELGUI' (cf. Eska, Mercado, 2005). This, like the ethnic name 'Belgae', can be derived from Proto-Indo-European *bhelgh- (to swell), also reflected in English as 'bellows' and German as '(Blase-)balg'...

The sentence translates as (from David Stifter / Uni. Wien):
pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iśos : karite : palam
Deu set up the *bruiā for Belkos : he (likewise) set up the gravestone

Now you are correct that the Umbrians themselves were designated as being Gauls in ancient/classical History 'veteres Galli' and the vast similarities between Italic and Keltic stem from the common Indo-European root; As we also find this Indo-European cognate of UMBRI-OMBRI-AMBRI in many other Indo-European tribes whether Germanic or Keltic: sigAMBRI, cIMBRI, AMBROnes, sYMBRI and the OMBROnes on the Vistula;

And so the inscriptions (intentionally chosen) clearly signalise the broader Indo-European realm of Lepontic, Keltic and Italic - which brings us back to the Archaeological reality of the Urnfield complex;
 

This thread has been viewed 63570 times.

Back
Top