Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106

Thread: The Italo-Celtic expansion

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Post The Italo-Celtic expansion



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The term "Celt" is often associated with the cultures of Hallstatt and La Tène, but what makes you think that the Central European Bronze-Age cultures from 2000 to 1200 BCE (Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield) were not related and also (Proto-)Celtic speaking ? If there is a genealogical, cultural and linguistic continuity, we are talking about the same people. It might be more correct to call them Proto-Celts, but that's really just a fine nuance.
    I associate the term celt with Hallstatt and La Tène. We need a starting point, i don't say that there is no relation between the central european Bronze-Age and the future Hallstatt and La Tène celts, but with that logic we can go deep in the past and the celtic notion lose all it's sense.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The label "Gallo-Italo-Alpine" does not mean that all people who come from Gaul, Italy or the Alps are all R-U152, but the other way round - R-152 come from Gaul, Italy or the Alps. I expressly avoided using ethnic terms such as Celtic, Italic, Rhaetic or Ligurian because each ethnic group is susceptible to be composed to numerous haplogroups. That's why I used only geographic terms to define the geographic region where a particular haplogroup is the more common. The problem is that Italic can either refer to the Italian peninsula or the Italic tribes. I avoided placing the "Italic" at the end (as in "Gallo-Alpo-Italic") so as not to make it sound like the "Italic people" but like "Italy" (a geographic region of Europe).
    Same for R-L21. We can't associate it with a particular ethnicity and say things like "i think that R-L21 is celtic".

  3. #3
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    I associate the term celt with Hallstatt and La Tène. We need a starting point, i don't say that there is no relation between the central european Bronze-Age and the future Hallstatt and La Tène celts, but with that logic we can go deep in the past and the celtic notion lose all it's sense.
    Actually we can't go that far away. The Celts descend from the Indo-Europeans who came from the Black Sea region around 4500 years ago. I prefer to call them Celts once they have settled in Central Europe, but Indo-Europeans before that.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  4. #4
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    Same for R-L21. We can't associate it with a particular ethnicity and say things like "i think that R-L21 is celtic".
    It is Celtic in the sense that the first R-L21 in Central Europe belonged to the early (Proto-)Celtic-speaking branch of the Indo-Europeans who introduced bronze working into Central and Western Europe. Those Proto-Celts who continued westward and crossed the Channel to Britain seem to have belonged primarily R-S116 and its subclade R-L21.

    Few historians would contest that (Proto-)Celtic speakers migrated to Britain from Central Europe around the time that bronze technology appeared in the British Isles.

    I cannot see how these early Celts were not R1b people. That's why we could very well say that R-S116 and its subclades R-L21, R-U152, R-M167 are all associated with the spread Celtic people, languages and their bronze-age culture.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The Celts descend from the Indo-Europeans who came from the Black Sea region around 4500 years ago. I prefer to call them Celts once they have settled in Central Europe, but Indo-Europeans before that.
    Wow, that's what i call simplification !

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    It is Celtic in the sense that the first R-L21 in Central Europe belonged to the early (Proto-)Celtic-speaking branch of the Indo-Europeans who introduced bronze working into Central and Western Europe. Those Proto-Celts who continued westward and crossed the Channel to Britain seem to have belonged primarily R-S116 and its subclade R-L21.
    Few historians would contest that (Proto-)Celtic speakers migrated to Britain from Central Europe around the time that bronze technology appeared in the British Isles.
    I cannot see how these early Celts were not R1b people.
    You cannot call them celts, and you don't know which language they spoke.

  7. #7
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    You cannot call them celts, and you don't know which language they spoke.
    You can guess it through the evolutive comparison of Celtic with other Indo-European languages. It is undeniable that Celtic is an Indo-European language. Its closest cousin is Italic. Both descend from Proto-Italo-Celtic. Their next of kin is Proto-Germanic. By analysing the spread of bronze-age Indo-European cultures from Eastern to Western Europe (see maps), you get a pretty good idea of when the split happened between each branch. My estimation is that Italic split off from Celtic when Celts moved to the Italian peninsula around 1200 BCE. The split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic might date to 2300 BCE. In other words, the Indo-European R1b people associated with the cultures of Unetice, Tumulus and Urnfield must have spoken Proto-Italo-Celtic. It's hard to envisage another possibility based on archeological and DNA evidence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    By analysing the spread of bronze-age Indo-European cultures from Eastern to Western Europe (see maps), you get a pretty good idea of when the split happened between each branch.
    Archeology is one thing, and linguistic another thing.
    We have 0 epigraphic documents from that time in central Europe, all you are doing is speculations.
    If things were so easy, the datation would be already clear and would make consensus among the linguists.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    My estimation is that Italic split off from Celtic when Celts moved to the Italian peninsula around 1200 BCE. In other words, the Indo-European R1b people associated with the cultures of Unetice, Tumulus and Urnfield must have spoken Proto-Italo-Celtic. It's hard to envisage another possibility based on archeological and DNA evidence.
    So according to your estimation the R-L21 peoples who settled in the british iles were Proto-Italo-Celtic speaking people, and not celts.

  10. #10
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    So according to your estimation the R-L21 peoples who settled in the british iles were Proto-Italo-Celtic speaking people, and not celts.
    That doesn't make a lot of difference. If you consider that the actual "Celts" were those associated with the cultures of Hallstatt and La Tène, then the Celtisization of the British Isles happened with the later wave(s) who brought R-U152 to Britain and Ireland. But that's a pointless argument as the earlier R-L21 people also developed their own Celtic language - namely Goidelic and Brythonic Celtic.

    The way I imagine it (mere supposition) is that Goidelic or Q-Celtic languages were more significantly associated with the older R-L21 migration, whereas the Brythonic languages would be hybrids mixing Goidelic and Gaulish influences.

    Gaulish languages, which also includes Galatian from north-west Iberia and Lepontic from northern Italy, are usually associated with the Hallstatt and La Tène expansions, and therefore with R-U152.

    England, Wales and Brittany having both R-L21 and R-U152, it is normal that their native Brythonic languages should be intermediary between Gaulish and Goidelic. That's why some linguists categorise Brythonic in the Insular group with Goidelic, but others inside P-Celtic languages along with Gaulish.

    Italic languages are also associated with U152. It should be considered as a branch of Celtic, along with Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish. In fact Gaulish and Italic languages were mostly intelligible at the time of Julius Caesar. Romans didn't always need interpreters in Gaul. I am sure that communication wouldn't have been so smooth in Ireland or Scotland.

    What I mean is that L21 is as Celtic as U152. L21 is just not Hallstatt.

  11. #11
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    Archeology is one thing, and linguistic another thing.
    We have 0 epigraphic documents from that time in central Europe, all you are doing is speculations.
    If things were so easy, the datation would be already clear and would make consensus among the linguists.
    Unfortunately there are always more sceptical people who will reject anything that is logical if they don't have a material proof (like an ancient text). That's why there is no consensus among linguists. Then not all linguists are knowledgeable about archaeology, and even less population genetics.

    The division of Europe various subclades of R1b give invaluable insight on when migration happened and on what scale. Until recently it was impossible to guess from archeological evidence if cultures spread by trade or by migration, and if by migration on what scale.

    Now it becomes clearer that the Indo-Europeans moved massively into Western Europe (although some people haven't come round the idea yet), and that several waves of Celtic migrations took place from Central Europe to the British Isles, Iberia, Italy and even northern Germany/Scandinavia.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The way I imagine it (mere supposition) is that Goidelic or Q-Celtic languages were more significantly associated with the older R-L21 migration, whereas the Brythonic languages would be hybrids mixing Goidelic and Gaulish influences.

    Gaulish languages, which also includes Galatian from north-west Iberia and Lepontic from northern Italy, are usually associated with the Hallstatt and La Tène expansions, and therefore with R-U152.

    England, Wales and Brittany having both R-L21 and R-U152, it is normal that their native Brythonic languages should be intermediary between Gaulish and Goidelic. That's why some linguists categorise Brythonic in the Insular group with Goidelic, but others inside P-Celtic languages along with Gaulish.

    Italic languages are also associated with U152.
    Do you realize that you are correlating two completely different things which have nothing to do with each other, explaining linguistic evolutions with Y-DNA ?
    Try to do the same with the replacement of indigenous languages by latin. Massive "latin migrations" ?
    Last edited by Smertrius; 11-07-09 at 19:40.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    It should be considered as a branch of Celtic, along with Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish. In fact Gaulish and Italic languages were mostly intelligible at the time of Julius Caesar. Romans didn't always need interpreters in Gaul. I am sure that communication wouldn't have been so smooth in Ireland or Scotland.
    Interpreters are mentioned several times in De Bello Gallico, if some didn't need them it's probably because they became familiar with the other language or learnt it with time.

    I'm french and i can't understand spoken gascon, which is with no doubt closer to french than gaulish was to latin.
    Last edited by Smertrius; 11-07-09 at 19:41.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    What I mean is that L21 is as Celtic as U152. L21 is just not Hallstatt.
    NE French and SW Germans (if you consider that germanisation was not too heavy is this region) are probably the closest populations to what the hallsttat and La Tène peoples, and then the celts, were.
    Then to my understanding when i look at your map, they don't have the same Y-DNA composition, R-L21 and I2b being the major british hgs (and not even reaching 10% in SWG and NEF) while R-S28 is the principal SWG and NEF hg (and not reaching 10% in the British Isles).
    So Y-DNA speaking, the british can't be related to the Hallstatt and LaTène peoples and then can't be called "celts".

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Unfortunately there are always more sceptical people who will reject anything that is logical if they don't have a material proof (like an ancient text). That's why there is no consensus among linguists. Then not all linguists are knowledgeable about archaeology, and even less population genetics.
    Unfortunately there are always too optimistical people who believe that one marker on one chromosome can explain the developpement of cultures and languages.

    There is no consensus among linguists because you can't have one.
    Btw you're right, from what i see historians and linguists couldn't care less about genetic (and even more about Y-DNA). Maybe the developpement of genetic and the full human Dna sequencing will change that in the future, who knows...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Now it becomes clearer that the Indo-Europeans moved massively into Western Europe (although some people haven't come round the idea yet), and that several waves of Celtic migrations took place from Central Europe to the British Isles, Iberia, Italy and even northern Germany/Scandinavia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    They have spread their genes all over Europe and mixed with autochthonous populations. That's why Europeans look different in each part of Europe despite the fairly recent Indo-European migrations.
    That's maybe why the massive IE movements were not so massive after all.

  17. #17
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    Do you realize that you are correlating two completely different things which have nothing to do with each other, explaining linguistic evolutions with Y-DNA ?
    Try to do the same with the replacement of indigenous languages by latin. Massive "latin migrations" ?
    Latin is an Italo-Celtic language. Despite the fact that the Romans had an immense cultural influence over a vast empire for hundreds of years, Latin only survived in parts of the empire that already spoke Celtic or Italic languages originally (although Latin disappeared in some region like southern Germany or Britain during the Germanic invasions). Why do you think that is ? Because the Romans didn't have a centralised compulsory education system like we have nowadays, and people kept speaking their indigenous language alongside Latin. There are records of Celtic dialects being spoken in Gaul as late as the 6th century. After they merged with Latin to form the various dialects of Vulgar Latin that would evolve into Old French, Old Occitan, Old Catalan, Old Castillan, etc.

  18. #18
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    Interpreters are mentioned several times in De Bello Gallico, if some didn't need them it's probably because they became familiar with the other language or learnt it with time.

    I'm french and i can't understand spoken gascon, which is with no doubt closer to french than gaulish was to latin.
    The Gascon dialect of Occitan is not closer to Parisian French than Gaulish was to Latin. How much do you know about Gaulish and Latin ? Have a look at this comparison.

  19. #19
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    NE French and SW Germans (if you consider that germanisation was not too heavy is this region) are probably the closest populations to what the hallsttat and La Tène peoples, and then the celts, were.
    Then to my understanding when i look at your map, they don't have the same Y-DNA composition, R-L21 and I2b being the major british hgs (and not even reaching 10% in SWG and NEF) while R-S28 is the principal SWG and NEF hg (and not reaching 10% in the British Isles).
    So Y-DNA speaking, the british can't be related to the Hallstatt and LaTène peoples and then can't be called "celts".
    Don't forget that other major migration happened after the Celts. 400 years of Romanisation in Britain only had a moderate impact on the genetic make-up, but DNA studies have demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxon and Norse invasions had a major impact on the Y-DNA lineages in Britain (especially East England and Scotland).

    Southern Germany is the crossroads of continental Europe. It was a major Roman settlement (the border with Magna Germania had to be protected by numerous fortified towns). Being just across that border, Germanic tribes settled most heavily in Rhineland than anywhere else except Britain.

    Then, most importantly, the Indo-Europeans had to deal with an advanced agricultural society in Central Europe, with better fortifications, better weapons, and above all, a more advantageous landscape allowing for easy retreat into the mountains. The locals therefore resisted better to the Italo-Celtic invasions, as attested by the higher percentage of haplogroup E, T, G and J around the Alps. There is a clear gap between the flatter regions of southern Germany and northern Italy (high in R1b) and the remoter parts of Switzerland (high in G2a, E1b1b, T and J2b).

    Megalithic societies of Western Europe were less technologically advanced and had less opportunity to escape the warrior-like Indo-Europeans. Their primitive weapons were no match to the Celtic bronze weapons and shields, or to their cavalry. It was a bit like the Spaniards arriving in the Americas.

  20. #20
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    Unfortunately there are always too optimistical people who believe that one marker on one chromosome can explain the developpement of cultures and languages.

    There is no consensus among linguists because you can't have one.
    Btw you're right, from what i see historians and linguists couldn't care less about genetic (and even more about Y-DNA). Maybe the developpement of genetic and the full human Dna sequencing will change that in the future, who knows...
    Couldn't care less, or aren't up-to-date ? Population genetics based on the Y-DNA was almost inexistent 5 years ago. The main subclades of R1b were only discovered in the last 2 years, and their geographic spread is only becoming clearer now. The problem is not that historians and linguists couldn't care less; they just don't know. How many books about history and linguistics have been published about the Indo-Europeans since January 2009, that included the genetic insight acquired until 2008 ? The only one I know and have read is The 10,000 years explosion, which is in agreement with my views.

  21. #21
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,722
    Points
    710,182
    Level
    100
    Points: 710,182, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Smertrius View Post
    That's maybe why the massive IE movements were not so massive after all.
    So how do you explain that R1b makes up nearly over 80% of the lineages in places like Ireland or Gascony, and over 50% of the Western European population ? Not massive enough ?

    We still can't tell which mtDNA lineages are Indo-European because mtDNA haplogroups were very similar between Eastern and Western Europe, and mtDNA phylogeny is infinitely more intricate than Y-DNA. There are already over a thousand mtDNA subclades and it is growing exponentially !

    However it makes sense that the invaders should kill indigenous men, use them as slaves, or marginalise them, while marrying, raping or in any case procreating with native women. Men are not limited like women in the number of children they can have. Having power usually equals having more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies.

    So the Indo-Europeans may have been a relatively small ruling class having lots of children with local women, quickly replacing the indigenous male lineages. Or there could have been a massive exodus, with as many of more Indo-European women contributing to the modern genetic pool of Western Europeans. I think that the former scenario makes more sense for three reasons :

    1) mtDNA does vary considerably across Western Europe (although we still don't know what each subclade correspond to), meaning that the pre-existing diversity survived the Indo-European invasions (as opposed to Y-DNA).

    2) People do look different in various parts of Western Europe despite strong similarities in Y-DNA haplogroups. This could be due to recent natural selection to adapt to different climates (lighter pigmentation in the north), but 4000 years is a too short time.

    3) Invading armies have more men than women, and so must find women in the local population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    Very good argument, Maciamo. The Indo-European movements did not need to be massive (but more than likely were very considerable) to have a genetic effect on local populations. Your comments in paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 make perfect sense.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Latin is an Italo-Celtic language. Despite the fact that the Romans had an immense cultural influence over a vast empire for hundreds of years, Latin only survived in parts of the empire that already spoke Celtic or Italic languages originally (although Latin disappeared in some region like southern Germany or Britain during the Germanic invasions). Why do you think that is ? Because the Romans didn't have a centralised compulsory education system like we have nowadays, and people kept speaking their indigenous language alongside Latin. There are records of Celtic dialects being spoken in Gaul as late as the 6th century. After they merged with Latin to form the various dialects of Vulgar Latin that would evolve into Old French, Old Occitan, Old Catalan, Old Castillan, etc.
    Vulgar latin replaced the indigenous languages in the western part of the empire because romanisation was way stronger there than in the eastern part which was more influenced by the Greek Civilisation.
    Your Italo-Celtic theory doesn't explain the replacement of Iberian, Lusitanian, or Punic languages.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The Gascon dialect of Occitan is not closer to Parisian French than Gaulish was to Latin. How much do you know about Gaulish and Latin ? Have a look at this comparison.
    That's exactly what i thought, how much do you know about celtic ?
    Don't trust so much a comparison made with 9 words and some cases of the 2nd latin declension.

    Here are some quotes about celtic, ligurian, and iberian, from a 2008 work made by a researcher i know in my university :

    [...] Ce modèle global est désormais à peu près universellement abandonné. L’idée qui prédomine aujourd’hui est qu’à l’exception de mouvements relativement tardifs venus rajouter un niveau de complexité, les deux processus désignés des noms de « celtisation » et d’ « ibérisation » sont principalement le résultat d’évolutions internes propres aux sociétés de la protohistoire ancienne, et que les invasions n’ont joué dans cette affaire qu’un rôle au mieux secondaire. Pour autant, ces phénomènes eux-mêmes sont très difficiles à mesurer, à quantifier, et plus encore à inscrire dans des limites géographiques claires, et les notions elles-mêmes sont l’objet d’une remise en cause de plus en plus généralisée dans toutes les disciplines sollicitées.

    [...] Les critères linguistiques sont les seuls qui soient réellement tangibles, mais ils sont loin d’aboutir à une situation parfaitement limpide. On distingue assez aisément l’Ibère, qui constitue un substrat linguistique assez bien individualisé, et a de surcroît le mérite de posséder une écriture spécifique. On peut par ailleurs sans difficulté majeure reconnaître dans un certain nombre de régions, des noms ou des phénomènes phonétiques apparentés aux parlers celtes modernes dont l’appartenance à une aire linguistique celte est établie. Le « Ligure » est pour sa part en grande partie une appellation par défaut, où l’on a tendance à regrouper tout ce qui, entre l’Héraut, la Macra, et les limites occidentales de la plaine padane, ne paraît se réduire ni au Gaulois, ni à l’Etrusque. Pour les Romains des IIe –Ier s. av. J.-C., il s’agissait de l’ensemble des peuplades non gauloises de l’arc alpin et de l’Apennin ligure. Longtemps, on a reconnu dans le Ligure un substrat linguistique primordial pré-celte, voire pré-indo-européen. Aujourd’hui, la position des linguistes, qui ont abandonné l’idée d’une langue pré-indo-européenne et soulignent les parentés nombreuses avec les parlers celtes les plus anciens, est très prudente, mais dresse le double constat de la présence d’anthroponymes propres à une aire attribuée par les Anciens aux Ligures, qui couvre une partie de la Ligurie italienne, le midi de la France et une partie de l’Arc alpin, et de parentés nombreuses avec des parlers celtes connus.

    [...] La situation des parlers Celtes et apparentés de l’Europe ancienne est en fait plus complexe qu’il n’y paraît, pour un assez grand nombre de raisons. D’abord parce que c’est une langue indo-européenne, que le très petit nombre de mots retenus (principalement des éléments constitutifs d’anthroponymes rapportés à des racines connues dans le celtique insulaire), et celui, encore plus réduit, des textes parvenus jusqu’à nous, ne permet pas toujours d’attribuer tel ou tel de ces mots à une racine spécifiquement celte.
    Ensuite parce que la définition de ce qui est spécifiquement celte a été entièrement biaisé par la situation dominante du celtique insulaire dans les études linguistiques. Elles ont conduit à ne reconnaître pour celtes que les racines ou traits phonétiques connus en celtique insulaire, même lorsque les lexiques disponibles paraissent limiter les différences appréciables à quelques détails de prononciation, ou de translittération dans des systèmes d’écriture élaborés pour d’autres langues.

    [...] La tendance à limiter les parlers celtes au celtique insulaire et le celtique continental au « Gaulois » ne facilite évidemment pas la tâche du chercheur. En Europe occidentale trois ensembles linguistiques périphériques , eux aussi connus essentiellement à travers quelques miettes arrachées à des noms propres, sont dans cette situation. C’est tout d’abord le Lusitanien, que certains auteurs, comme J. Untermann, rattachent au celtibère, mais que d’autres considèrent comme une langue à part. C’est ensuite le Ligure, dont Whatmough a reconnu il y a plus d’un demi-siècle la parenté avec un autre parler : le lépontique. C’est enfin le lépontique, qui fut écrit dans la région de Côme à une date ancienne, entre le VIe et le IVe s., et dont la celticité, démontrée, par M. Lejeune, n’est plus contestée aujourd’hui.
    L’image du celtique en général, et du gaulois en particulier, qu’a peu à peu élaborée la linguistique traditionnelle est assez bien résumée dans deux affirmations de M. Lejeune, qui a par ailleurs apporté à la connaissance du celtique continental une contribution inestimable. D’un côté, il reconnaît dans le Celtibère, non une variante du Celte, mais le Celtique dans une région particulière : l’Ibérie, mais considère que le celto-ligure (qui dans l’Antiquité n’a jamais désigné une langue, mais a été utilisé aux dires de Strabone par certains auteurs pour désigner les seuls Salyens) ne peut être qu’un gaulois métissé de ligure ; de l’autre, il considère le lépontique comme une variante ancienne du gaulois de l’époque laténienne, souligne, à l’instar des autres linguistes, les parentés frappantes qu’il entretient avec le « ligure », mais refuse au ligure l’appartenance au celtique, au nom de l’absence de certains phénomènes phonétiques selon lui propres à tout les parlers celtes – c’est-à-dire à tous les parlers celtes insulaires. Or les approches les plus récentes du celtique continental ne nous mettent plus en présence d’une langue celtique compacte, le « gaulois » opposée à une ou à d’autres langues éventuellement celtiques, mais nous forcent à prendre conscience d’une diversité dialectale constitutive du celtique continental, au point que l’idée même de langues périphériques par rapport à un centre gaulois a perdu l’essentiel de sa pertinence et que les limites entre les grands ensembles traditionnellement opposés non seulement n’apparaissent plus avec la même clarté, mais sont remises en cause.

    [...] Tout serait évidemment plus simple si le celtique continental et le « ligure », étaient mieux connus : le nombre des textes parvenus jusqu’à nous est squelettique, et ces textes, souvent sensiblement contemporains de la conquête romaine, voire postérieurs à celle-ci sont, en règle générale très tardifs ; des parlers anciens on sait peu de choses en dehors du lépontique. Le résultat est qu’un nombre considérable de mots est d’une origine disputée : Holder avait retenu comme celtes une masse considérable de noms que Schültze, sans plus de preuves, mais avec la même assurance a considérés comme étrusques…

    [...] En un mot comme cela a été récemment souligné encore par X. Delamarre, tout ce qui, dans l’espace gaulois, n’est pas directement susceptible d’être rattaché à une racine celte insulaire connue tend à être écarté du gaulois, et l’on tend ainsi à renforcer l’authenticité celte insulaire d’une langue probablement beaucoup plus composite, comme l’étaient sans doute la quasi-totalité de celles qui composaient l’aire linguistique celte. On se bornera à rappeler que le nom de Brennus que la tradition prête aux deux chefs historiques des grands raids gaulois ne figure pas au nombre des noms retenus par l’érudition comme gaulois…

    [...] L’usage d’une langue et d’une écriture ibériques spécifiques permet d’inscrire l’aire linguistique correspondante dans un espace circonscrit le long des côtes de la Méditerranée entre la basse Andalousie et l’Hérault, incluant une bonne partie de la Mancha et de la vallée de l’Ebre, cette dernière jusqu’à hauteur de Saragosse environ. Cette extension, vérifiable et quantifiable sur des bases documentaires tangibles, coïncide avec celle qu’établissait Ecateo di Mileto à la fin du VIe s. av. J.-C., mais elle n’exclut pas la présence d’autres groupes linguistiques, indo-européens, à l’intérieur des mêmes territoires, comme cela vient d’être démontré, sans qu’aucun indice ne vienne suggérer que l’organisation des communautés ait à aucun moment reproduit cette diversité linguistique.
    La question de la Lusitanie est plus complexe, et il reste très difficile de trancher entre les deux hypothèses également défendables : celle d’une langue spécifique métissée de pénétrations marginales d’éléments celtes exogènes ou celle d’une langue apparentée au celtibère.

    [...] La question de l’existence d’une aire Ligure et de ses frontières éventuelles avec l’aire dite « gauloise » est infiniment plus complexe. La zone correspondant à la « Ligystique » des auteurs grecs, qui couvre une majeure partie du Languedoc, et de la Provence littorale, se caractérise aux IIe-Iers a. C. par une épigraphie nettement gauloise, et les noms gaulois y sont nombreux, si bien que l’appellation de « Gaulois du midi » a peu à peu pris le pas sur celle de Celto-Ligures pour caractériser un espace et une culture dont les archéologues revendiquent de plus en plus nettement la celticité. De la même façon, l’étude des anthroponymes et des théonymes de la Ligurie du Ponant révèle une imprégnation majoritaire d’éléments au moins celtisants, voire proprement gaulois pour certains d’entre eux. Pourtant dans un large espace côtier, du Languedoc au sud de la Ligurie italienne et sur les franges alpines d’une large plaine padane apparaissent également des noms propres à cet espace ou à des parties de cet espace.
    Last edited by Smertrius; 13-07-09 at 20:15.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    08-07-09
    Posts
    165


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Don't forget that other major migration happened after the Celts. 400 years of Romanisation in Britain only had a moderate impact on the genetic make-up, but DNA studies have demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxon and Norse invasions had a major impact on the Y-DNA lineages in Britain (especially East England and Scotland).
    Southern Germany is the crossroads of continental Europe. It was a major Roman settlement (the border with Magna Germania had to be protected by numerous fortified towns). Being just across that border, Germanic tribes settled most heavily in Rhineland than anywhere else except Britain.
    Then, most importantly, the Indo-Europeans had to deal with an advanced agricultural society in Central Europe, with better fortifications, better weapons, and above all, a more advantageous landscape allowing for easy retreat into the mountains. The locals therefore resisted better to the Italo-Celtic invasions, as attested by the higher percentage of haplogroup E, T, G and J around the Alps. There is a clear gap between the flatter regions of southern Germany and northern Italy (high in R1b) and the remoter parts of Switzerland (high in G2a, E1b1b, T and J2b).
    Megalithic societies of Western Europe were less technologically advanced and had less opportunity to escape the warrior-like Indo-Europeans. Their primitive weapons were no match to the Celtic bronze weapons and shields, or to their cavalry. It was a bit like the Spaniards arriving in the Americas.
    The Anglo-Saxon and Norse migrations didn't have a major impact in most of Ireland and in Wales, did they ?

    The roman settlements were just fixation points, they atracted peoples from the surrounding areas who quickly became the majority. They are not involved in any big population change.

    The societies the IE had to deal with are part of the ethnogenesis of the Celtic populations, and can't be opposed to them. I don't see the point here.
    Last edited by Smertrius; 13-07-09 at 20:12.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Scots, how Celtic are they?
    By Blau in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 30-10-17, 15:50
  2. Celtic and Pre-Germanic
    By Taranis in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 25-04-13, 13:54
  3. Celtic or Norse?
    By DavidCoutts in forum R1b
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21-01-12, 23:44
  4. New map : expansion of agriculture in Europe
    By Maciamo in forum European Culture & History
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 30-09-10, 02:38

Posting Permissions

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