Did Latin merge with Celtic languages to form Romance languages ?

[zanipolo]

OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

I recently read similar from modern historians saying basically than iberians where from murcia to western montpellier, next to them was the ligurians from montpellier to the eastern alps, then next to them was the luburni.
The Ligurian Elisices tribe where neighbours of the iberian Sordones tribe in Languedoc

The iberians mixed with the ligurians in corsica.
This is mid bronze age.

Some historians even say that the iberians, ligurians and luburnians are all from the same tribe.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kMODKN1odwC&pg=PA251&dq=iberians+and+ligurians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cln0ToqnKvDxmAWbp9moAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q= ligurians&f=false



and another book

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...Wbp9moAg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=iberians and ligurians&f=false
see page 268

 

[MOESAN]

The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

in my mind the Iberians was coming from South, as you say
a lot of questions (I have not the answers)
-even these names like Iliberris: are they sure Ibérian names ?- could they not be linked to Aquitanians?
-was the Iberians rulers in South France/Rossillô a numerous population or only an elite?
-I haven't had a response for the burying: did they keep on with the Urnfields use or did they change it?

concerning languages I'm not convinced by the extreme theories: paleolitic celtic or too recent celtic in Britain and Ireland - and the theory saying ancient goidelic and ancient brythonic was very similar and that brythonic was very apart from gaulish have to be proved - at the contrariy some ancients said that this two last languages was very close one togther (could we rely on the linguisitc competences of these ancients? - but I red somewhere Cesar said there was no need of interprete between Britons and Gauls)
concerning Picts and old Britons, it seams that the northern Britons had the same habits than the Picts (colouring their body in blue and other ) - the most "culturally advanced" Britons would have been the last arrived ones: Belgae? closer to Gauls in they way of life...

 

[Taranis]

in my mind the Iberians was coming from South, as you say
a lot of questions (I have not the answers)
-even these names like Iliberris: are they sure Ibérian names ?- could they not be linked to Aquitanians?
-was the Iberians rulers in South France/Rossillô a numerous population or only an elite?
-I haven't had a response for the burying: did they keep on with the Urnfields use or did they change it?

Well, the relationship between Basque and Iberian is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a shared Basque/Iberian vocabulary. Wether these are Basque loanwords into Iberia, or the other way round, or Basque and Iberian are part of the same language family is not (yet) known.


As for the Roussillon, it would seem that the Gauls expanded into a formerly Iberian area.


From what I know, the Iberians did practice Urnfield-styled cremation.

concerning languages I'm not convinced by the extreme theories: paleolitic celtic or too recent celtic in Britain and Ireland - and the theory saying ancient goidelic and ancient brythonic was very similar and that brythonic was very apart from gaulish have to be proved - at the contrariy some ancients said that this two last languages was very close one togther (could we rely on the linguisitc competences of these ancients? - but I red somewhere Cesar said there was no need of interprete between Britons and Gauls)

Well, the Celtic languages are clearly not Paleolithic. Since the core vocubulary of Proto-Indo-European is only from the copper age, it's hardly possible for the Celtic languages to be any older than that.

There are two rivaling concepts about the relationship of the Celtic languages to each other: Insular Celtic vs. P-Celtic.


The Insular Celtic hypothesis points out that there's many features such as verb-subject-object word order and inflected prepositions which are found nowhere in other Indo-European languages, and were absent in the Contintal Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more like other ancient IE languages such as Greek or Sanskrit.


The P-Celtic hypothesis states that Brythonic and Gaulish are closer to each other, in particular due to the common innovation of *kw > *p (compare Latin "quattuor" and Old Irish "cethair" with Gaulish "petuarios" and Welsh "pedwar"), but also other common sound laws not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian.


What both hypotheses concede is that Celtiberian is the first branch of Celtic to diverge: there are innovations found in Celtiberian not found in the other Celtic languages.


The problem is that the Insular Celtic hypothesis requires that Brythonic was later on influenced by Gaulish, whereas the P-Celtic hypothesis requires that the "Insular Celtic" features are a later common innovation of Goidelic and Brythonic.


My opinion is probably that the P-Celtic hypothesis is more correct, and that the "insular Celtic" features probably only arose during the Dark Ages due to a common sprachbund. Possible evidence for this is the archaic Irish language that is recorded in the Ogham inscriptions, which often exhibit identical declension forms to Gaulish.

concerning Picts and old Britons, it seams that the northern Britons had the same habits than the Picts (colouring their body in blue and other ) - the most "culturally advanced" Britons would have been the last arrived ones: Belgae? closer to Gauls in they way of life...

Well, I agree that the concept of the "Picts" is probably a result of the Hadrian's Wall and that there was not much a difference between the "Picts" and the Britons otherwise.

 

[MOESAN]

Well, the relationship between Basque and Iberian is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a shared Basque/Iberian vocabulary. Wether these are Basque loanwords into Iberia, or the other way round, or Basque and Iberian are part of the same language family is not (yet) known.


As for the Roussillon, it would seem that the Gauls expanded into a formerly Iberian area.


From what I know, the Iberians did practice Urnfield-styled cremation.





Well, the Celtic languages are clearly not Paleolithic. Since the core vocubulary of Proto-Indo-European is only from the copper age, it's hardly possible for the Celtic languages to be any older than that.

There are two rivaling concepts about the relationship of the Celtic languages to each other: Insular Celtic vs. P-Celtic.


The Insular Celtic hypothesis points out that there's many features such as verb-subject-object word order and inflected prepositions which are found nowhere in other Indo-European languages, and were absent in the Contintal Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more like other ancient IE languages such as Greek or Sanskrit.


The P-Celtic hypothesis states that Brythonic and Gaulish are closer to each other, in particular due to the common innovation of *kw > *p (compare Latin "quattuor" and Old Irish "cethair" with Gaulish "petuarios" and Welsh "pedwar"), but also other common sound laws not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian.


What both hypotheses concede is that Celtiberian is the first branch of Celtic to diverge: there are innovations found in Celtiberian not found in the other Celtic languages.


The problem is that the Insular Celtic hypothesis requires that Brythonic was later on influenced by Gaulish, whereas the P-Celtic hypothesis requires that the "Insular Celtic" features are a later common innovation of Goidelic and Brythonic.


My opinion is probably that the P-Celtic hypothesis is more correct, and that the "insular Celtic" features probably only arose during the Dark Ages due to a common sprachbund. Possible evidence for this is the archaic Irish language that is recorded in the Ogham inscriptions, which often exhibit identical declension forms to Gaulish.





Well, I agree that the concept of the "Picts" is probably a result of the Hadrian's Wall and that there was not much a difference between the "Picts" and the Britons otherwise.

usefull post - thanks for the answer about 'urnfields' way of burying amongst Iberians (at what time?) -

not to reply you but to show some (no)correspondances between gaulish and latin, I put here a short list of words (sometimes the cases endings was not clear for gaulish words and I dropped them and I put some synonymes to show that I was not looking for artificial differences or trying to magnify them - it's a very late reply to the beginning of this topic -
have good feasts

GAULISH	LATIN
cattos	feles	cat
ibos?- eburos	taxus	yew
camba	curvus	curve
talo	frons, frontis	forehead, front
tâxo	meles	badger
caliavos	lepillus, silex	little stone
briga	altitudo, munimentum	hill, height,
brog	regio-nis, pagus	country, region
magos	campus, planities	plain, open fields
lanon	terra, planities	plain, open fields
math	sus, suis, porcus	pig
nanto	vallis, vallicula	valley, dale
novios	novus, recens	new
seno	vetus, senilis	old
(s)asiam	secale	rye
mâros	magnus, procerus	big, large
medio	medium, medius	half, middle
epos, marca-	equus, caballus	horse
are	prae, ante	ahead
ver	super	on
vindo	albus, candidus	white
rix	rex, regis	king
isarno	ferrum	iron
carruca	aratrum	plough
verno	alnus	elder tree ?
mori	mare	sea
upsello/uxello	summus, superior	high, superior
nerto/naritu	vires	strenght
-samo	-issim	superlatif
sonno	sol, solis	sun
vidu	arbor, lignum	wood, timber
bud	victoria, praeda	victory, win,
tutto	gens, gentis	people, folk
gabros	capra	goat
labar-	loquor-	speak-
ambi	circum, circa	around
isca, dobro-	aqua	water
bona	terminus, fines,	boundary stone
cladios	ensis, gladius	sword
ritom	vadum (portus)	ford
genos?- gnatos	natus	born
pennos	caput, capitis	head
garr-*	crus, cruris	leg
cavan-	noctua, bubo, bubonis	chat-huant
bron-	pectus, sinus	bossom
braca-	bracae	breeches
druto	spissus, densus	dense (thick,fat...)
nemeton	templum, fanum, aedes	temple
tarvos	taurus	bull
allo	alius, alter	other
sedlon	sedes, sella	seat
bardos	poeta, bardus	bard, poet
gaesa	lancea	lance
ratis	filix, filicis	fern
doula	folium	leaf
betulla	betulla	birch
beccos	rostrum, culmen	beak, tip, peak
leuga	leuca
carpentom	plaustrum	cart
cambi-	mutat-, permutat-	(ex)change-
cocos, rud	ruber, rutilus, cocus ?	red
treicle	pes,pedis	foot
aballo	malum	apple
doro	janua, ostium, porta	dor
trebo	tribus	folk, tribe
berula	cardamina, nasturcium	watercress
brucos	myrica	heather
blato	frumenta, triticum, farina	wheat, meal
bedo-	fossa (sepulcrum?)	dith, grave
artos	ursus	bear
abonna	flumen, amniculus	river
ander	vacca	cow
catu	pugna, proelium	fight
vobera	plaustria	marsh
benno	acume, vertex	tip, peak
cumba	vallicula	small dry valley
biber	fiber, castor	beaver
bag	fagus, faginum	beek
ambactos	obses, obsidis	servant, hostage
anuana	nomen	name
allos	secundus, alter	second, other
matu	bonus	good
ater-	pater	father
bnanom<<ban-	femina, mulier	woman
curmi	cervisia	beer, ale
cert-	recte, justus	right
cintux	primus	first
da	da-	give !
dios	dies	day
duxtir + gnata	filla + nata	daughter + born
eti	item, quoque	also, too
exo	praeter, excepta	excepted
mapo-, gnate	filius, natu	son
in	in	in
isoc	sic, ita	like, as
carata*	amata	loved (fem.)
bratu*	judictum, sententia	judgment
lubi	ama-	love !
lugos	corvus	raven, crow
matir	mater	mother
nane	fames	hunger
nepi/nepon	quidam, aliquis	somebody
nu	nunc	now
ponc	quando	when
regu-	offerre, praebere, da-	offer, give
rigan-	regina	queen
toncnaman	jus jurandum	oath, pledge
vo	sub	under
vero		superior

 

[Estel]

The Basques are another good example of the difficulty of imposing a completely different language on a population. Although all the surrounding Celtic speakers quickly adopted Latin, the Basques, whose language is not part of the Indo-European family, retained their language up to the present day.

The theory might work with the Basques, but not with Iberians -as it's been mentioned before-, despite being a more homogeneous group, a relatively more solid culture and occupying a larger area. Even when taking into consideration that the Basque Pyrenean corner is a more inaccessible place, it is a bit surprising.

The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

In my opinion, I concur with the theory of Iberians being a late (7th/6th BC) political expansion of the eastern brothers/cousins of Basco-Aquitanians, spreading from the low eastern Pyrenean area southwards, instead of the other way round, as it has ofteen been thought before.

 

[Maciamo]

The theory might work with the Basques, but not with Iberians -as it's been mentioned before-, despite being a more homogeneous group, a relatively more solid culture and occupying a larger area. Even when taking into consideration that the Basque Pyrenean corner is a more inaccessible place, it is a bit surprising.

In my opinion, I concur with the theory of Iberians being a late (7th/6th BC) political expansion of the eastern brothers/cousins of Basco-Aquitanians, spreading from the low eastern Pyrenean area southwards, instead of the other way round, as it has ofteen been thought before.

I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast. If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if), the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic, and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant).

Going back to the Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century.

I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history and in this post, the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

 

[spongetaro]

I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast. If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if), the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic, and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant). Going back to the Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century. I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history and in this post, the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

This scenario doesn't explain why places such as Greece, Iran and Anatolia became places where IE languages were spoken. The R1b or R1a invaders must have been a minority too there (including their wifes).

And SRY2627 might be an evidence that Iberians and Aquitanians were indeed related. Note that 3 R1b have been also found among medieval Guanches (1000 AD) which might signify that R1b is not necessary linked with proto Celts. Actually the answer for the supposed link between R1b and Proto Italo-Celtic speakers is in the distribution and variance of Z196. If the highest Z196 variance appears to be in Western Europe (like other P312 subclades) it would be problematic to associate it with Proto Italo Celtic speakers.

 

[Maciamo]

This scenario doesn't explain why places such as Greece, Iran and Anatolia became places where IE languages were spoken. The R1b or R1a invaders must have been a minority too there (including their wifes).

Perhaps because

1) Greece, Anatolia and Iran, were closer to the IE homeland and sustained a constant flux of IE invasions that prevented the language family to die (although it eventually did in Anatolia)

and

2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.

Conversely, the more literate a society becomes (in terms of literacy rate and percentage of culture associated to written texts) the harder it gets for foreign conquerors/colonists to replace their language. This is basically why :

- the Greeks failed to establish their language beyond the administration in the Middle East in the centuries of Hellenisation that followed Alexander's conquest.
- the Romans managed to impose Latin on mostly illiterate societies like the Celts and Dacians, but failed in literate societies like Greece, Anatolia, the Middle East and North Africa.
- mostly illiterate Germanic tribes adopted Latin after conquering the Western Roman Empire, rather than the other way round.
- European languages survived colonisation in the Americas, even in advanced but functionally illiterate societies like the Aztecs and Incas, and Africa, but not really in literate Asian societies (e.g. French is hardly spoken anymore in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, a mere 60 years after the end of the French colonial rule), except those that used the colonial language as a lingua franca between various ethnic groups (India, Malaysia and Singapore).

 

[spongetaro]

Perhaps because 1) Greece, Anatolia and Iran, were closer to the IE homeland and sustained a constant flux of IE invasions that prevented the language family to die (although it eventually did in Anatolia), and 2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference. From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.

You should include that fact in your R1b history. This is also a reason for the spread of Latin in the western Empire.

 

[Diviacus]

... probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.
...
- the Romans managed to impose Latin on mostly illiterate societies like the Celts and Dacians, but failed in literate societies like Greece, Anatolia, the Middle East and North Africa.

This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.

 

[spongetaro]

Perhaps because

2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

Conversely, the more literate a society becomes (in terms of literacy rate and percentage of culture associated to written texts) the harder it gets for foreign conquerors/colonists to replace their language. This is basically why :

You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?

mostly illiterate Germanic tribes adopted Latin after conquering the Western Roman Empire, rather than the other way round

Then why mostly iliterate Indo Iranic tribes didn't adopt Elamite language after conquering present day Iran?

 

[Maciamo]

You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?

We obviously don't know all the details of how things happened, but my guess is that at the time of the IE invasions, literacy was very piecemeal in Greece, Anatolia and Iran.

In the case of Greece, the Mycenaeans imported the Minoan script (Linear B) from Crete, which wasn't really used on the mainland before. Therefore they effectively conquered an illiterate society and immediately imposed their language on the local population by adopting a new writing system.

The (rather brief) success of Hittite, which was written in cuneiform, was surely due to its very close proximity to the IE homeland.

Iranian tribes might have been literate before they conquered what is now called Iran. I am not sure exactly when the Avestan script first appeared, but Vedic Sanskrit as a language dates from around 2000 BCE, and the oldest written texts from at least 1500 BCE (although there might very well be older texts which were lost). I admit not knowing the exact chronology of languages spoken in Iran since the early Bronze Age, or when Iranian languages became dominant in the region. But I know that there were many Iranic invasions from Central Asia (Gutians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Cyrtians, Parthians), which all contributed to the survival of Iranian languages (Persian, Pashto, Balochi, Kurdish, Lurish) in the region today.

As for Elamite, it seems that it was still widely used in the Achaemenid Persian period (550–330 BCE), which proves that written languages die harder than non-written ones, even after 2000 years of rule by speakers of a completely different language. AFAIK, Elamite was never spoken in all of what is now Iran, but only in the Southwest.

 

[zanipolo]

This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.

Regardless of which form of literacy the tribes had pre IE introduction, they did the function of communication. So, they where to this degree equal to the IE languages.
If IE languages dominated it was due to either because it was a superior form of literacy or that the IE languages was a trading language and easier to learn.

Latin only dominated in europe in a language sense due to commerce/trade, the Romans never insisted that the other languages could not be spoken. other trade langauges would have been celtic, venetic, gallic, balto-slavic etc etc


basque language is equal to any language, today or yesterday

 

[Franco]

This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.

Considering that the Basque language was spoken in a territory much bigger than it is nowadays, and now that territory is fully Romance speaking I would not say it has resisted that well. Even in the Basque country main cities like Bilbao have been predominantly Romance since the Middle Ages. In my opinion Basque has survived for the same reason the North of Spain in general was less romanised than other parts and later on never arabised: relative geographical isolation, lack of interest of foreign powers in controlling that territory tightly due to lack of resources, which left more freedom for indigenous culture to persist, etc. Interestly enough the Romans considered that among all the Roman provinces Aquitanians spoke Latin better than the rest, even the Romans themselves. Aquitanian is considered nowadays to be a form of ancient Basque, but only a tiny part of Aquitaine is Basque speaking nowadays in France, the one closer to the Pyrenees and thus more isolated. It happens exactly the same with the Celtic languages. They only persisted in the westermost parts of Europe and less accesible. Their geographical situation acted as shelter from the expansion of Latin and Germanic languages.

 

[LeBrok]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

 

[Yetos]

well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,

on the other hand we find so many onogurs in Europe,
why only few millions speak that language?

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

 

[zanipolo]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

well dante, wrote in many of his books, that the regional languages in Italy established themselves around, 500AD, he said it grew from the community in there own area with their own original language mixed with latin to be a Vulgar Latin.
He then gathered information to create the Italian Language around the 13th century. ( 700 years after the regional ones )
He said he only did this, because while the nobles, still spoke Latin, the merchants and artisans spoke their own regional language - basically, Italian was created for the merchant class

In regards literacy, peasants are peasants the same over usually illiterate, but soldiers, merchants and artisans needed to know how to read and write from the ancient times, how else would you conduct business, trade, keep ledgers and stocks etc etc

 

[LeBrok]

well dante, wrote in many of his books, that the regional languages in Italy established themselves around, 500AD, he said it grew from the community in there own area with their own original language mixed with latin to be a Vulgar Latin.
He then gathered information to create the Italian Language around the 13th century

It is pretty much how I imagined the process of lingua franca. Vulgar latin, later Italian connecting all regions and classes. Villages are very stubborn and conservative when it comes to languages. Even with all the effort of intelligentsia, merchants and cities, I'm pretty sure many villages retained their languages till recent times, till national education and cultural integration of mas-media finished them off.

Understanding how Italian finally became dominant language in Italy, we should extrapolate this onto whole romance part of europe. It should be obvious that vulgar latin didn't do much for villages (90% of population), but was embraced in cultural and economical centers. As I said before, villagers didn't write books, thus we don't have a clue what language was spoken by most of population, even though we know very well what language elite spoke.
Languages never cared for political borders. We had few language centers in Iberia, few in France, few in Italy, with their strong influence on pronunciation and vocabulary. At the end the strongest centers spread their webs farther into the country, then at the end the strongest politically centers influenced their language over the rest of country by public education.
Now we have the last stage of language unification by cultural means like: movies, tv and music. Now the national language can get to villages, the last bastion of ancient languages and dialects.

In regards literacy, peasants are peasants the same over usually illiterate, but soldiers, merchants and artisans needed to know how to read and write from the ancient times, how else would you conduct business, trade, keep ledgers and stocks etc etc

Yes, the written words have origin in book keeping, when first cities started to grow on our planet.
I wouldn't have much hope in ordinary soldier knowing how to read till 19th century though. He just need to follow an order of a commander.

 

[LeBrok]

well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,

on the other hand we find so many onogurs in Europe,
why only few millions speak that language?

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

Yes, if it comes to Athenian/city citizens it is possible that your figures can be right. It doesn't change the fact that most greeks lived in villages and didn't have a need for reading and writing. What would they read, biblos?
Same could be similar to big none citizen class in Greece, women included. At the end we can say that 80-90% of population didn't read and write. It still could be 10 fold better in comparison to others with only 1% and less of literate populous.

 

[Maciamo]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?

When I say literate, I don't mean it in the modern sense that 99% to 100% of the population should be able to read and write. I mean that use of writing is widespread enough at least among the elite and administration in the whole country. Only a small percentage of the population of Ancient Greece and Rome could read, yet these were undeniably literate societies because they had written laws, written administrative documents, they developed a written literature, philosophy, etc.

In other words, literate means that the society had the knowledge and usage of writing, even if most people were illiterate.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

That doesn't explain how Greece shifted to an Indo-European language, when haplogroup frequencies shows that less than 10% of the ancient population was of Indo-European origin (if you exclude later arrivals of R1a and R1b through the Celts, Anatolians, Romans, Slavs, etc.).

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

That's a good point, but in the case of the Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age, I believe that they always took over as rulers (and therefore mixed through female lineages only) because of the very nature of Indo-European and Bronze Age culture, which was very hierarchical and patriarchal.

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

It may indeed have happened with Indo-European languages, which is one way of explaining their fast spread. But Y-DNA shows that in most cases most male were replaced by Indo-European ones too. So the language shift also involved a (partial) population shift.