Taranis
Elite member
when did I say the hallstatt culture was illyrian? , you fail to understand that the illyrians where at the time of the great migrations in 1200-1250 BC , when many people moved from anatolia to europe, already established in the alps bordering modern germany. The celtic dominance after this was a celtinization of these illyrian settlements.
I'm honestly beginning to think that you have a very different usage for the term "Illyrian" than I do. By "Illyrians" I mean the people who lived on the approximate area of modern-day Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia, and who spoke a (poorly-attested) Centum-Indo-European language. What is your definition?
There is also no evidence of "great movements" as you call them occuring around 1250-1200 BC occuring from Anatolia to Europe. I mean, you seem to refer to the Sea Peoples invasion, but this was in the eastern Mediterranean region, and it certainly didn't go into Europe. Also, consider that this period of the Sea Peoples is almost a millennium before the earliest mentioning of the Illyrians in written sources.
You must realise that the celtic where pushing eastward firstly , long before they moved westerly. Unless you regard the gallic as part of celtic:shocked:
Actually, the Celtic incursion into the Balkans is thought to have occured around the same time as the incursion into Italy. You have to consider that around 150-200 years later, the Celts under Brennus (the second Brennus, that is) invaded Greece in 297 BC.
Also, "Gauls" and "Celts", in the classical sense are essentially (almost) one and the same. The people whom the Romans called "Galli" and "Celtae" were the same that the Greeks called "Keltoi" and "Galates". The only difference is that the term "Gauls" became used mainly as a geographic term refering to the inhabitants of Gaul, which is why the Romans also had serious problems with identifying other Celtic-speaking peoples living further eastwards as "Gauls".
You seem to think there was nothing prior to the celts in the times before the hallstatt culture, which I find astonishing from you , being a learned person.
No, I'm not saying that there was "nothing", but I would argue it's a tad difficult to make assertations about ethnic affiliation. Generally, as I stated before, Hallstatt was preceeded by the Urnfield Culture, which spread across a large area, including areas that were later inhabited by Iberians (Catalonia), Lepontii (Alps) and Etruscans (central-northern Italy).
How yes and no claims all of europe is slavic but thats him, I never ever beleived the slavs where anywhere near europe at least till the end of the western Roman empire.
In my opinion, some of the tribes mentioned in Eastern Europe (in "European Sarmatia") may have been Slavic/Proto-Slavic, but as I stated evidence is scanty.
I am stating many many scholars who claim the vindelici where illyrian. But I do have doubts especially the genetics, BUT, genetics can be altered or watered down due to mass migrations of peoples and thats what I am referring to.
As I stated before, I don't find the case that they were Illyrian convincing at all. They were archaeologically part of the Hallstatt Culture, which is generally thought to have been Celtic. Also, all linguistic evidence suggests they were Celtic. If it wasn't for that statement by Livy, there would be no reason to not assume that they were Celtic.
Can we measure the genetics of the eastern alps?, is there a link ?
Frankly, I have no idea what you are trying to argue there or are actually looking for.
Name the ancient tribes that united to rule as a confereration and not fight between each other, because the tribal system was strong.
Illyric
celtic
gallic
venetic
Finnic
Nordic
Pictish
Sabellic
Hellenic
Doric
Thracian
etc etc
Iwhat I was referring to was that with the number of people and tribes which was in illyrian lands, they could have dominated a large portion of eastern europe
I still don't follow...