Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 56 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 1555

Thread: The Celts of Iberia

  1. #1376
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,661
    Points
    15,281
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,281, Level: 37
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 369
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia





    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    I have already answered you. Just stop your propaganda. The castro culture is not recognized as Celtic.

    http://www.oppida.org/index-en.html
    The castro and Oppida are NOT THE SAME.

  2. #1377
    Marquis Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Carlitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-10
    Location
    Occident.
    Posts
    857
    Points
    7,499
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,499, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b1a3 V22+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c

    Ethnic group
    Ethnic group of those who are going to die.
    Country: Spain



    Well, the gypsies of Europe and other parts of the world speak the Roma language is an Indo-European origin, Are Celtic or Germanic?

  3. #1378
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    The castro and Oppida are NOT THE SAME.
    Yes, I agree : the first have a pre-indo-european origin, while the second come from the Celts.

  4. #1379
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Carlitos View Post
    Well, the gypsies of Europe and other parts of the world speak the Roma language is an Indo-European origin, Are Celtic or Germanic?
    As I know, they used to speak an indo-european language closed to the actual northern indian dialects. Nowadays, they speak generally the language of the country where they live.

  5. #1380
    Marquis Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Carlitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-10
    Location
    Occident.
    Posts
    857
    Points
    7,499
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,499, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b1a3 V22+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c

    Ethnic group
    Ethnic group of those who are going to die.
    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    As I know, they used to speak an indo-european language closed to the actual northern indian dialects. Nowadays, they speak generally the language of the country where they live.

    They use the language of the country where many still live and speak their Gypsy language of Indo-European.

  6. #1381
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    I don't see why. Iberian was the dominant language of Iberia and SW France, that's all.
    In "Southwestern France"? The only area where Iberians lived in France was the approximate area of the Roussillion. In the actual southwest (the area sandwiched between the Pyrenees and the Garronne), Aquitanian (also called Old Basque) was spoken. Explain to me why Iberian language inscriptions have been only found in the east of the Iberian penninsula, in an arc stretching from Catalonia to eastern Andalusia?

    Don't make me say that I have never said. Onomastic is interesting to follow culture traces or influences. But it is not suffiscient to be concluding for establishing a map of cultures. If in several centuries, future people follow your onomastic obsessions, they will conclude that the Frankish language was dominant in France, that Scandinavian language was the dominant language in Normandy or Eastern Britain, that Hunnic culture was dominant in Central Europe...
    I disagree. Even in modern France, there is A LOT of Gaulish-derived place names all across France, which are reflections of Gaulish tribal names:

    Amiens - Ambiani
    Arras - Atrebates
    Auvergne - Arverni
    Bayeux - Baiocasses
    Chartres - Carnutes
    Chorges - Caturiges
    Évreux - Eburovices
    Langres - Lingones
    Le Mans - Cenomani
    Limoges - Lemovices
    Lisieux - Lexovii
    Metz - Mediomatrici
    Nantes - Namnetes
    Paris - Parisii
    Poitiers - Pictones
    Puy-en-Velay - Vellavi
    Rennes - Redones
    Reims - Remi
    Saintes - Santones
    Sens - Senones
    Tours - Turones
    Vannes - Veneti

    If you go back to the Roman period, you will see how a lot of Gaulish town names were already latinized. For instance, "Mediolanon" became "Mediolanum".

    Also, how could anybody come up with the idea that Hunnic culture would be dominant? I don't see how that would work out, given how the Huns left close to no linguistic traces. It's clear that you just randomly made that up without giving it much of a thought. This isn't an "onomastic obssesion".

    I have never said the contrary. I just say that if it should be indo-european, it was probably a minority in the region.
    Frankly, I get the impression you declare it to be a minority in the region because you have a pre-fixed opinion. Also, the existence of the Lusitanians alone is evidence that the Celts weren't the first Indo-Europeans in the Atlantic region.

    It's wrong and you know it. I have given you a link about the "basque" toponyms in Northern Portugal and Spain.
    Basques, possibly yes. Iberians, no. Also, there are so plenty of Celtic place names in northern Portugal and Spain. How do you else explain place names like these:

    Brigantium
    Caladunum
    Diobriga
    Mediolanum
    Nemetobriga
    Nertobriga
    Segisamum
    Segobriga
    Vendelia

  7. #1382
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    In "Southwestern France"? The only area where Iberians lived in France was the approximate area of the Roussillion. In the actual southwest (the area sandwiched between the Pyrenees and the Garronne), Aquitanian (also called Old Basque) was spoken.
    You are too much obseded by the onomastics. SW France was settled by pre-indo-european peoples. You can call them as you want : Aquitanian, Basques, Iberians...It changes nothing. Maybe was there different groups among them, but it does not put off that these regions were pre-indo-european culture. According to the sources I have posted about toponymy in Galicia, actual Basques are probably linguistically the heirs of the ancient Aquitanians and the Iberians. Even if I don't deny that there should have been some geographical differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Explain to me why Iberian language inscriptions have been only found in the east of the Iberian penninsula, in an arc stretching from Catalonia to eastern Andalusia?
    Honestly, I don't know, but several remarks :
    - what you say is partially wrong : we have evidences of pre-indo-european languages in Northern Portugal and Spain (see the link I had given you).
    - we have nowadays only inscrptions in regions that you are talking about, but who knows if one day some searchers will not find inscriptions in western Iberia.
    - if the ancient Iberians of western Iberia had not a written culture, it does not mean that they were not Iberians. Do you expect to find Germanic runes in all regions settled by the Germanics ? I think they are not really numerous (if not absent) in some regions (Austria, Hessen, Switzerland...). Celtic peoples northern of the River Garonne had not a written culture (= few or no incriptions). Do you deny that Britain or Gauls were Celtic ?
    - If the Celtic aristocracy dominated only Central and Western Iberia, it could explain that you find Iberians inscriptions only outside of their rule (don't forget that only the superior classes could read and write). I notice that the distribution of the Iberian inscriptions is closed geographically to the economical domination by the Phoenicians. I don't know if there is a link.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Even in modern France, there is A LOT of Gaulish-derived place names all across France, which are reflections of Gaulish tribal names.
    An so what ? My example was about the Germanics. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of Germanic toponyms in France, I didn't count. With your logic, regions as Auvergne, Savoy, Berry, Burgundy...should have been of Germanic language. No sense. Toponymy indicates presence. Unless it is very strongly dominant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Also, how could anybody come up with the idea that Hunnic culture would be dominant? I don't see how that would work out, given how the Huns left close to no linguistic traces...It's clear that you just randomly made that up without giving it much of a thought. This isn't an "onomastic obssesion".
    It was a proof with the absurd. Anyway...

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hungary

    ...with your logic, people could say that Hungary was from Hunnic background or culture do the ethymology.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Frankly, I get the impression you declare it to be a minority in the region because you have a pre-fixed opinion.
    No, because what I say is sourced. If I was putting free assertions, I would agree, but it is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Also, the existence of the Lusitanians alone is evidence that the Celts weren't the first Indo-Europeans in the Atlantic region.
    You make your quick personal conclusion about a historical mystery. Searchers are not so affirmative as you. BTW, would the Lusitanian language be an indo-european language, it wouldn't mean that it was dominant among the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Also, there are so plenty of Celtic place names in northern Portugal and Spain. How do you else explain place names like these
    You turn round with the same arguments (and by there you recall me someone else...). How do you else explain the hundreds of Germanic place-names in Central France, even in Southern France, where no Germanic language has been spoken, excepted a minority ? Idem for the Scandinavian toponyms of Normandy ?
    Last edited by Grizzly; 23-04-11 at 19:06. Reason: typo

  8. #1383
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class

    Join Date
    14-04-10
    Location
    america's last eden
    Posts
    332
    Points
    39
    Level
    1
    Points: 39, Level: 1
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 11
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    PROUDLY AMERINDIAN!
    Country: Chile



    is very unfortunate that not everyone in this forum is as intelligent and cult as grizzly. bravo grizzly.

  9. #1384
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,661
    Points
    15,281
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,281, Level: 37
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 369
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    You are too much obseded by the onomastics. SW France was settled by pre-indo-european peoples. You can call them as you want : Aquitanian, Basques, Iberians...It changes nothing.
    Wrong. Only a small part of SW France was iberian. In most other parts there were Celtic tribes.

    An so what ? My example was about the Germanics. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of Germanic toponyms in France, I didn't count. With your logic, regions as Auvergne, Savoy, Berry, Burgundy...should have been of Germanic language. No sense. Toponymy indicates presence. Unless it is very strongly dominant.
    That's wrong. Several germanic languages have been spoken in France, like Frankish, Gothic, Burgundian, etc

  10. #1385
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    That's wrong. Several germanic languages have been spoken in France, like Frankish, Gothic, Burgundian, etc
    And how long ?

  11. #1386
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    You are too much obseded by the onomastics. SW France was settled by pre-indo-european peoples. You can call them as you want : Aquitanian, Basques, Iberians...It changes nothing. Maybe was there different groups among them, but it does not put off that these regions were pre-indo-european culture. According to the sources I have posted about toponymy in Galicia, actual Basques are probably linguistically the heirs of the ancient Aquitanians and the Iberians. Even if I don't deny that there should have been some geographical differences.
    They are NOT one and the same. Aquitanian probably is the ancestor language of Basque, whereas Iberian is a distinct separate language, known from hundreds of inscriptions. The vast bulk of those are found in the area of Catalonia, but there's also inscriptions from western Andalusia and Murcia. The interesting part is that onomastic evidence for the Iberian language roughly matches the area where Iberian inscriptions have been found.

    I might add - the relationship between Iberian and Basque/Aquitanian is disputed. There may have been borrowings of Basque/Aquitanian into Iberian, or vice versa, but the languages were not necessarily part of the same family.

    I might add that evidence for the Aquitanian language is almost exclusively onomastic, where I could refer to your own declarations on the usefulness of onomastics.

    Honestly, I don't know, but several remarks :
    - what you say is partially wrong : we have evidences of pre-indo-european languages in Northern Portugal and Spain (see the link I had given you).
    - we have nowadays only inscrptions in regions that you are talking about, but who knows if one day some searchers will not find inscriptions in western Iberia.
    - if the ancient Iberians of western Iberia had not a written culture, it does not mean that they were not Iberians. Do you expect to find Germanic runes in all regions settled by the Germanics ? I think they are not really numerous (if not absent) in some regions (Austria, Hessen, Switzerland...). Celtic peoples northern of the River Garonne had not a written culture (= few or no incriptions). Do you deny that Britain or Gauls were Celtic ?
    We not only have inscriptions, we also have the accounts of geographers like Strabo and Ptolemy which add to our onomastic knowledge, because they recorded local town and tribal names. If you look at their entries about Gallaecia and Lusitania, you will clearly recognize distinctly Celtic/Indo-European local names. In fact, by the times of Strabo and Ptolemy, you have Celtic peoples not only in the northwest of Iberia, but also in the southwest. Both Strabo and Ptolemy explicitly talk of Celtic peoples in the post-Tartessian region in the Southwest, south of the Tagus and along the Guadiana.

    What incentive would they have had to give a (in your opinion) "primarily non-Indo-European" area Celtic town names? That makes no sense.

    Go into a library and check out the Geographies of Strabo and Ptolemy (or look for them online). Read the entries on the Iberian penninsula.

    - If the Celtic aristocracy dominated only Central and Western Iberia, it could explain that you find Iberians inscriptions only outside of their rule (don't forget that only the superior classes could read and write). I notice that the distribution of the Iberian inscriptions is closed geographically to the economical domination by the Phoenicians. I don't know if there is a link.
    Interestingly, yes and no (other than it was more than just a "Celtic aristocracy"). Phoenician settlements were generally in the south of the Iberian penninsula, and in the northeast of the Iberian penninsula where the bulk of the Iberian inscriptions have been found, there were no Phoenician settlements (the Greeks settled there - Emporion and Rhodes - but only a centuries after the Phoenicians were already well-established in the south).

    The writing systems of the Iberians are derived from the Tartessian writing system (though the northern variants also show Greek influence, whereas the southern variants are much closer to the Tartessian script), which is in turn derived from the Phoenician alphabet. Basically, writing spread from the Algarve and Western Andalusia to Eastern Andalusia and Murcia, and from there to Catalonia. As a final note, the Celtiberians of the upper Ebro/Douro river areas, adopted the northern Iberian writing system as it was used in Catalonia for writing their own language.

    Why didn't the Lusitanians (or other people of the west/northwest) adopt the Tartessian writing system? Why did writing spread only in counter-clockwise direction on the penninsula? I don't know the answer, but this clearly is a real phenomenon for which there's no easy answer.

    An so what ? My example was about the Germanics. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of Germanic toponyms in France, I didn't count. With your logic, regions as Auvergne, Savoy, Berry, Burgundy...should have been of Germanic language. No sense. Toponymy indicates presence. Unless it is very strongly dominant.
    You may have noticed the word is "Auvergne", and not "Arverni". And it's "Bourgogne" not "Burgundi". Evidently one can realize that these words are rendered into French.

    It was a proof with the absurd. Anyway...

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hungary

    ...with your logic, people could say that Hungary was from Hunnic background or culture do the ethymology.
    How about no?

    No, because what I say is sourced. If I was putting free assertions, I would agree, but it is not the case.
    What I am saying is sourced as well.

    You make your quick personal conclusion about a historical mystery. Searchers are not so affirmative as you. BTW, would the Lusitanian language be an indo-european language, it wouldn't mean that it was dominant among the population.
    It's not a quick personal conclusion, it coincides - again - with onomastic evidence (note that inscriptions and onomastics are two different sets of data). There are a lot of Gallaecian town names which are clearly Indo-European but make sense as Lusitanian-derived because they conform with Lusitanian sound laws.

    Also, the Lusitanians were one of the largest and most powerful tribes of western Iberia, and pitted Rome into a decades-long war against them. The Roman-Lusitanian War is a well established historic fact.

    You turn round with the same arguments (and by there you recall me someone else...). How do you else explain the hundreds of Germanic place-names in Central France, even in Southern France, where no Germanic language has been spoken, excepted a minority ? Idem for the Scandinavian toponyms of Normandy ?
    Obviously, Germanic peoples arrived in France, which is also established historically. Burgundians, Goths, Franks, Normans?

    Look man, I really don't understand you. I mean, I dismiss the hypothesis of the Atlantic School as well, because it makes no sense for the Celtic-speaking peoples to have originated in the Atlantic Façade, but that does not mean they do not have a point: there is plenty of evidence for the presence of Celtic-speaking peoples on the Iberian penninsula, and the "Classicist Hypothesis" (if you want to call it that - ie that Hallstatt/La-Tene are solely responsibel for the spread of the Celtic languages) simply cannot explain the presence of Celtic people on the Iberian penninsula. By that hypothesis, the Celts shouldn't be there. But they are there there's no denying of it, and they weren't just "a small Celtic elite ruling over a largely non-Indo-European population". These Celts must have arrived there considerably earlier - otherwise you cannot explain how the Celtiberian language (which, as I would like to repeat, is the second-best attested Old Celtic language after Gaulish) is so archaic. This is something that is well-established by linguistics (unless you want to tell me that 130 years of linguist methodology are wrong).

    You can't just go ahead and randomly proclaim that it wasn't like that, only because you (for some inexplicably reason) hate the people of the Iberian penninsula.

  12. #1387
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Obviously, Germanic peoples arrived in France, which is also established historically. Burgundians, Goths, Franks, Normans?
    Then? it doesn't mean that they spoke Germanic languages in Normandy or Burgundy.
    For example, "île de France" region (Paris) comes from "liddle Frank" but doesn't mean that Franks were in majority there.

  13. #1388
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    BTW I believe that Celtiberian and S116* people arrived very early in the Iberian peninsula

  14. #1389
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by spongetaro View Post
    Then? it doesn't mean that they spoke Germanic languages in Normandy or Burgundy.
    For example, "île de France" region (Paris) comes from "liddle Frank" but doesn't mean that Franks were in majority there.
    Yes. It is historically established that Vulgar Latin (from which Old French evolved eventually) remained the main language of the western Frankish territories. The best example for this probably would be the Treaty of Verdun (843), which in addition to Latin, includes bilingual inscriptions in French and German.

    Quote Originally Posted by spongetaro View Post
    BTW I believe that Celtiberian and S116* people arrived very early in the Iberian peninsula
    The problem is that we cannot extend things too far into the past, either for a number of linguistic reasons. I know that people have suggested the Chalcolithic Beaker-Bell culture as the arrival of the Celts in the Atlantic region, but the problem is that Beaker-Bell extends as far as Italy and Denmark. You can make a reasonably good case for Beaker-Bell being associated with the arrival of R1b-P310 in Western Europe (as well as the Indo-European languages as a whole), but in regard for the Celtic languages, it's not that easy.

    - The problem is that Common Celtic cannot have been spoken too far in the past, otherwise the similarities with the Italic languages for instance wouldn't be as great as they are.

    - Celtiberian is the most archaic Celtic language, which means it must have split off from the rest of the Celtic languages reasonably early since it was left out of innovations share by the other Celtic languages. (OTOH, Lepontic must also have split off from the other Celtic languages relatively early, but it is already a P-Celtic language).

    - The Lusitanian language was clearly a language related with the Celtic (as well as the Italic languages) languages, but must have split off earlier because all of the Celtic languages share innovations with each other that are absent in Lusitanian. Vice versa, Lusitanian has a few innovations found only there.

    - My interpretation is that the Lusitanians were the first wave of Indo-European people to arrive on the Iberian penninsula, and the Celtiberians arrived later. The problem is the when. Since we know from the attestation of Lepontic that the Q/P split of the Celtic languages was already complete by the 6th century BC, it must have been earlier. This is why I think it's entirely plausible to argue that the Atlantic Bronze Age was in parts Celtic-speaking - specifically the Cogotas Culture of the upper Ebro/Douro areas and the British Isles (a relatively early Celticization of Britain is necessary in my opinion to explain the absence of non-Celtic languages on the one hand, and the existence of Irish on the other hand). Other areas of the Atlantic region, in my opinion, must have been either non-Celtic but Indo-European (Lusitanian) or non-Indo-European (Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian).

  15. #1390
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    My interpretation is that the Lusitanians were the first wave of Indo-European people to arrive on the Iberian penninsula, and the Celtiberians arrived later. The problem is the when. Since we know from the attestation of Lepontic that the Q/P split of the Celtic languages was already complete by the 6th century BC, it must have been earlier. This is why I think it's entirely plausible to argue that the Atlantic Bronze Age was in parts Celtic-speaking - specifically the Cogotas Culture of the upper Ebro/Douro areas and the British Isles (a relatively early Celticization of Britain is necessary in my opinion to explain the absence of non-Celtic languages on the one hand, and the existence of Irish on the other hand). Other areas of the Atlantic region, in my opinion, must have been either non-Celtic but Indo-European (Lusitanian) or non-Indo-European (Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian).
    tmp728_thumb1_thumb.jpg As we see in this map, the southern part of the Bell beaker culture (Iberian Peninsula) is the oldest one (2800 BC) and may correlate with the spread of the earliest form of Centum in western Europe (Lusitanian, ligurian...) and R1b S116*
    s116.jpg
    Then we have from 2400 BC to 2300 BC, the spread of Bell Beaker culture from the Benelux countries to the British islands and the Atlantic facade of France which may represent the spread of Q Celtic languages in Spain (via western France) and in the British islands. It correlates with M529 subclade of R1b S116
    m529all.jpg
    In the same time (from 2500 bc to 2300 bc) we see the spread of Bell beaker in central Europe, in the same area that will later give Unetice culture and maybe P-Celtic languages.

    The Proto-celtic language may have originated in the middle of both, along the Rhine River.

  16. #1391
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    300px-Iberia_Late_Bronze.gifWe can imagine that Cogotas 1 (yellow), Astur cantabrian bronze (light green), Galician bronze (green) and western Bronze (blue) were the most heavily influenced by beaker people and therefore contributed to the indo europeanization of the western and central parts of the Peninsula

  17. #1392
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    L176.2-map-draft4.jpgI also found this very interesting map that shows the spread of L176.2 Subclade of P312, from the Rhine river to the British islands and the Iberian Peninsula

  18. #1393
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    http://www.minoanatlantis.com/Minoan_Spain.php

    Extremely interesting link about the Agean colonization of south East Spain in the ancient bronze age and the arrival of beaker people in Iberia

  19. #1394
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    706
    Points
    29,390
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,390, Level: 52
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 360
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    An Aegean colonization of South East Spain before the arrival of Beaker people could explain the absence Indo European language near the ancient kingdom of Tartessos

  20. #1395
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    They are NOT one and the same. Aquitanian probably is the ancestor language of Basque, whereas Iberian is a distinct separate language, known from hundreds of inscriptions. The vast bulk of those are found in the area of Catalonia, but there's also inscriptions from western Andalusia and Murcia. The interesting part is that onomastic evidence for the Iberian language roughly matches the area where Iberian inscriptions have been found.
    In which way Iberians should be different ? I have given you a source about "basque" toponyms in NW Spain. This source give comparisons with southern Spain too. I don't say that they are the same, but they are probably close.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    We not only have inscriptions, we also have the accounts of geographers like Strabo and Ptolemy which add to our onomastic knowledge, because they recorded local town and tribal names.
    Same thing for the Franks in France : it is defined as the land inhabited by the Franks in the texts for several centuries (later called the "Francs", and later, the French...) . It does not mean that the Germanics were a majority. Same thing with the toponymy (BTW, there is more Germanic toponymy in France than Celtic one in Spain : it does not make France a Germanic country in the linguistic way).

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Interestingly, yes and no (other than it was more than just a "Celtic aristocracy"). Phoenician settlements were generally in the south of the Iberian penninsula, and in the northeast of the Iberian penninsula where the bulk of the Iberian inscriptions have been found...
    It was just a theory. The fact is that Iberians inscriptions are found only in the areas where a written culture existed. So, if there are no Iberian inscriptions in Western Spain, either it is because the region was not a written culture region, either the upper-classes with instruction were mostly Celtic. BTW, the Celts, who were majority in France-UK-Benelux, did not have a written culture there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    You may have noticed the word is "Auvergne", and not "Arverni". And it's "Bourgogne" not "Burgundi". Evidently one can realize that these words are rendered into French.
    You will notice that the Germanics were a minority in those regions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    How about no?
    Because the Hungary has probably never been an area where the Hunnic language was majority. Unless you have sources about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    There are a lot of Gallaecian town names which are clearly Indo-European
    And pre-indo-european too. I proved it you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Obviously, Germanic peoples arrived in France, which is also established historically. Burgundians, Goths, Franks, Normans?
    They were not majority, like the Celts in Spain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    there is plenty of evidence for the presence of Celtic-speaking peoples on the Iberian penninsula
    Like the Franks in France, the Vickings in England or Normandy, the Goths in Ukraine...Anyway, they have never been majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    By that hypothesis, the Celts shouldn't be there. But they are there there's no denying of it, and they weren't just "a small Celtic elite ruling over a largely non-Indo-European population". These Celts must have arrived there considerably earlier - otherwise you cannot explain how the Celtiberian language
    What are you talking about ? The fact is simple : Celtic tribes arrived in Spain, but they were mostly ruling elites, warring elites who have decided to hold this land for some reasons, and their language is attested by the inscriptions. That's all. It does not mean that their language was majority. They hold SW France too, and they were minority, why should they suddenly become majority, while they disappear in SW France. You make only supputations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    only because you (for some inexplicably reason) hate the people of the Iberian penninsula.
    No, I don't.

  21. #1396
    Marquis Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Carlitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-10
    Location
    Occident.
    Posts
    857
    Points
    7,499
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,499, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b1a3 V22+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c

    Ethnic group
    Ethnic group of those who are going to die.
    Country: Spain



    Celtic invasions of the Iberian Peninsula formed the core of being Spanish, was completed and forged the Spanish people can not compare in number with the presence of other peoples in Iberia, the Phoenicians, the Goths, Visigoths, Alans, Arabs etc. Celtic ingredient along the Iberian feel is the essence of Spanish, is what we feel, what we learned in school and what they say the genetic evidence, and will not change for reasons economic, cultural hispanophobic phobic of any French.

  22. #1397
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    In which way Iberians should be different ? I have given you a source about "basque" toponyms in NW Spain. This source give comparisons with southern Spain too. I don't say that they are the same, but they are probably close.
    First off, Iberian and Basque are very different. It's clear that you do not even want to change from your pre-set opinion (because you have, ad-hoc, decided that Basques and Iberians are one and the same)
    They're not close anywhere. Aquitanian, as far as onomastic evidence goes (the Aquitanian language wasn't written down, unlike Iberian) is the ancestor language of modern Basque. However, Iberian was a distinct language that probably wasn't even part of the same language family. There are, however, apparently Basque loans in Iberian (or vice versa). The point however is that Basque has been of no help for deciphering Iberian (the main key towards deciphering Iberian were bilingual inscriptions in Latin and Iberian).

    Same thing for the Franks in France : it is defined as the land inhabited by the Franks in the texts for several centuries (later called the "Francs", and later, the French...) . It does not mean that the Germanics were a majority. Same thing with the toponymy (BTW, there is more Germanic toponymy in France than Celtic one in Spain : it does not make France a Germanic country in the linguistic way).

    It was just a theory. The fact is that Iberians inscriptions are found only in the areas where a written culture existed. So, if there are no Iberian inscriptions in Western Spain, either it is because the region was not a written culture region, either the upper-classes with instruction were mostly Celtic. BTW, the Celts, who were majority in France-UK-Benelux, did not have a written culture there.

    You will notice that the Germanics were a minority in those regions.

    Because the Hungary has probably never been an area where the Hunnic language was majority. Unless you have sources about it.

    And pre-indo-european too. I proved it you.

    They were not majority, like the Celts in Spain.

    Like the Franks in France, the Vickings in England or Normandy, the Goths in Ukraine...Anyway, they have never been majority.
    I'm talking about the situation in Antiquity. If you take a look at the Roman period, a considerably number of town names in ancient Iberia have readily identifiable Celtic or otherwise Indo-European etymologies. This holds true for Celtiberia proper, Gallaecia, Lusitania as well as the post-Tartessian region in the Southwest.

    As I said, go back to the ancient authors like Strabo and Ptolemy, read their entries on the Iberian penninsula. The facts speak for themselves.

    What are you talking about ? The fact is simple : Celtic tribes arrived in Spain, but they were mostly ruling elites, warring elites who have decided to hold this land for some reasons, and their language is attested by the inscriptions. That's all. It does not mean that their language was majority. They hold SW France too, and they were minority, why should they suddenly become majority, while they disappear in SW France. You make only supputations.
    It's not as simple as you like to make it. The Celtiberian language was clearly very different from Gaulish: it has both archaisms lost in Gaulish (and other branches of Celtic, with a partial exception of Lepontic) as well as innovations found only in Celtiberian. It would make absolutely no sense if they were just recent immigrants for the language to suddenly flip back to archaisms and suddenly to acquire innovations out of the blue. Language evolution does NOT work that way. I'm not making suppotations here. This knowledge about the Celtiberian language is well-established.

    No, I don't.
    Well, I can see no other explanation for your glaring intransigence and ignorance of facts.

  23. #1398
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered
    Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-11
    Posts
    199


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    First off, Iberian and Basque are very different.
    You didn't answer. In which extend are they so different ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    However, Iberian was a distinct language that probably wasn't even part of the same language family.
    How do you know ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    The point however is that Basque has been of no help for deciphering Iberian.
    Like Dutch language is no help for deciphering Urdu. Nevertheless, they are considered to belong to the same group : Indo-european. When you talk about the neolithic languages substratum, it is about several thousands of differenciation. No surprise for such a gasp.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    a considerably number of town names in ancient Iberia have readily identifiable Celtic
    I have already answered you (do you miss arguments ?) : toponymy does not prove vernacular language, as well in antic Iberia as Medieval France.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    As I said, go back to the ancient authors like Strabo and Ptolemy, read their entries on the Iberian penninsula. The facts speak for themselves.
    Don't call facts you personnal extrapolation. Ancient authors give only names to some tribes. I have already proved you that a lot of regions wear a name with an etymology of a different language (French, Burgundians, Lombardians, Schwaben...). It is clearly proven that the Celtic culture disappears near southern France, that's all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    The Celtiberian language was clearly very different from Gaulish...It would make absolutely no sense if they were just recent immigrants for the language to suddenly flip back to archaisms and suddenly to acquire innovations out of the blue.
    I have already answered you, and I gave you the example of the permutation of the sound "k" and "sh" in French words from Latin origin. You call archaism what can be only internal evolutions due to the substratum, especially in phonetics. With your logic, I could say that French language present more Germanic archaisms than German language, like the sound "jö" (-ieu) that you can find in some Scandinavian languages. This does not mean that France is a good challenger for the birth of the Germanic languages, it means that this sounds, either was common from France to Scandinavia and has been adopted by the descendances, either comes from an internal evolution, which has lead both languages to integer this sound. I'm sure that some linguists would find many other examples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Well, I can see no other explanation for your glaring intransigence and ignorance of facts.
    Sorry to quote myself :

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Don't call facts you personnal extrapolation

  24. #1399
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    [QUOTE=Grizzly;371758]You didn't answer. In which extend are they so different ?
    [/CODE]

    The iberian are in a seperate linguistic group from the basques who belong to the old medieval group , the occitan. this group more or less went from barcelona to Venice , although the core was in southern france. Gascon language in france is also linked with basque

    The burgundian where a germanic people from east german who migrated with the gothic "migration" period and settled in southern France, over time they migrated northwards towards the netherlands

    celtiiberian language still has its roots in the Galitian language in Spain which is very similar to portugese

  25. #1400
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    [QUOTE=zanipolo;371765]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    You didn't answer. In which extend are they so different ?
    [/CODE]
    I actually stated that before. There is a number of similarities, yes, but they were not necessarily part of the same language family. These words may simply be due to contact between the two languages.

    The iberian are in a seperate linguistic group from the basques who belong to the old medieval group , the occitan. this group more or less went from barcelona to Venice , although the core was in southern france. Gascon language in france is also linked with basque

    The burgundian where a germanic people from east german who migrated with the gothic "migration" period and settled in southern France, over time they migrated northwards towards the netherlands

    celtiiberian language still has its roots in the Galitian language in Spain which is very similar to portugese
    What? None of that makes sense. You're mixing up the languages spoken on the Iberian penninsula in Antiquity (Celtiberian, Iberian) with modern languages/dialects.

Page 56 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Celts and Haplogroup G/J
    By Alan in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 14-03-18, 23:00
  2. Photographic file fenotípico of IBERIA.
    By Carlos in forum Anthropology & Ethnography
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-12-11, 02:01
  3. Ancient place names in Iberia
    By Taranis in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 226
    Last Post: 05-10-11, 02:01
  4. African mtDNA and Y-DNA in Iberia
    By Maciamo in forum DNA Testing & General Genetics
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 27-09-11, 03:56
  5. Do Celts still exist?
    By sparkey in forum European Culture & History
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 15-04-11, 21:45

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •