Than let me rephrase:
Seems like the German linguistic scholar Dr. Jürgen Uhlich from the Trinity College Dublin agrees with my crazy ad-hoc Archaeological based understanding; A view the two French linguistic scholars from the EPHE deemed so fit they included it in their book i.e. agree with as well;
Exactly i also said on the previous page that it is classified as P-Keltic closest to Gaulish and if you read the entire chapter you will see the similarities and diffs. to Gaulish;
'could then hâve their common ancestor in
thé language represented by thé early Urnfield culture north of thé Alps'
I am saying: What sets the linguistic common ancestor of the proto-Golasseca apart from the common ancestor of proto-Villanova if they are (and they are) of the same Archaeological basis/migration (Bronze-age Urnfield 12th cen BC); Plus the other links to it that is all i am saying;
I'm not the one here who apprently is denying that Lepontic is a Celtic language. See, the point where you are running into a problem here is that (and that sort of takes me back to Gustav Kossina) you assume that affiliation with an archaeological culture must automatically equate the adherence to a certain ethnic group. And with that premise, you assume that Lepontic must have been an Italic language (because you claim that Urnfield, if I get you right, must have spoken an undifferenciated "Italo-Celtic" language?). The assumption that the sound change *bh-, *dh-, *gh > *f-, *f-, *h- happened already in Proto-Italic is a likely one (Sir William of Ockham would agree with me), considering that this is found in all Italic languages and in Venetic.
Two fronts? sounds fantastic!
And i am sure you can provide a full list for all the Keltic inscriptions found in the Atlantic-Bronze-age in order to illustrate that it was 'already partially (or wholly) Celtic-speaking';
They are stored right next to your examples of Urnfield and Hallstatt culture inscriptions, I'm sure.
The point with all these cultures is that they were illiterate. What we do know is that by the time that the Romans conquered the west of the Iberian peninsula, the entire west of the Iberian peninsula is essentially Celtic (I'm meaning 'Celtic in the wider sense' - including Lusitanian), and we do have Celtic place names as far south and west as the Algarve (Lacobriga) and Andalusia (Nertobriga). And I don't see any practical way how even the Urnfield model could account for that.
Other wise it remains a somewhat abstruse theory (i like to underscore the term theory)
Ah. You mean, like the Theory of Gravity? Or the Theory of Relativity? Or maybe the Theory of Evolution. The word you're looking for here is 'hypothesis', mate.
that an Indo-European language was spoken (or wholly existed) in a non-Indo-European culture-zone;
I will tell you something: back when I first heard about Koch's 'Celtic from the West' concept, I was vehemently opposed to it. If you look up my earlier posts, you will see that. But, you cannot blame me for having learned something in the meantime, and I find that you can divide it conviniently into three parts:
1) The detachment of the Celtic languages from the Hallstatt/La-Tene model.
2) The idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Façade during the Bronze Age.
3) The identification of Tartessian, the language of the Southwest of Iberia, as a (indeed, the oldest known) Celtic language.
Now, I personally think that he is spot-on with #1, I remain to have severe reservations against #2, and I definitely think that he is wrong about #3 (the debate what exactly Tartessian is, if it isn't Celtic, isn't completed however). Now, don't get me wrong, I find it likely (there are very good arguments) that the bearers of the Hallstatt Culture were Celts, but I think that archaeological cultures as ethnolinguistic absolutes is dead-wrong.
If we take the Urnfield Culture, for instance, the only part of the Iberian peninsula that is genuinely penetrated is the northeast, around Catalonia. Its vaguely plausible to argue that the later Celtiberians stem from this (I have my reservations for this), but by the Roman period, the northeast of the Iberian peninsula. To me, that isn't a paradox, because there's no reason why the non-Indo-European-speaking Iberians in Catalonia could have participated in the (apparently "culturally Indo-European") Urnfield culture while speaking a non-Indo-European language. So by what logic does then the Atlantic Bronze Age have to be necessarily non-Indo-European? I might also add a note on the Tartessians. Yes, their language was clearly non-Celtic, but its obvious (see Herodotus, see the personal name "Argantonios" of their king) that they were in contact with Celtic-speaking peoples, to the degree that they picked up Celtic personal names. Also, if you look at the map, you'll see that the more conservative Celtic languages are found towards the outermost west (Irish, Gallaecian and Lusitanian), so based on that, I find the idea that the Atlantic Bronze Age was largely or wholly Celtic-speaking quite suggestive. The problem is, again, if we think in archaeological absolutes, and make the Celtic languages into a purely Atlantic phenomenon, you create twenty more problems for the one you solve. The solution, to me, is a fairly simple one (though it requires seeing archaeological cultures not in absolutes): that the Celtic languages developed on two fronts. Is that such a leap?
where did you get cleansed from?........i doubt anybody anywhere got cleansed, maybe assimilated ..........the raetic, that got assimilated into Roman became Ladins, the others did not.
If I may quote yourself, earlier, on the subject:
the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti ,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S17_Germanien.jpg
but
the name vindelici comes from raetian
The celtic version of history is a later change, maybe to glorify a worthwhile opponent for the Romans
This is wrong in naming towns that the Romans created after defeating the Raeti and their 45 tribes ............what is this logic?
In other words, you were the one who implied the ethnic cleansing part. And you're absolutely right, it makes no sense.
whats this have to do with it?
You were the one who claimed that there was virtually no Celtic presence in the Alps until after the Romans conquered the area. Which, of course, is plain wrong.
tribes considered probably Celtic by scholars are eliminated (Medulli, Ucenni, Caturiges, Brigiani, Sogionti, Ceutrones, Uberi, Nantuates, Sedunes, Veragri),[21 from the alpine list
more illyrian than venetic ........
Based on what? Would you be able to enlighten for us the linguistic features of Illyrian were and why the name "Focunates" in your opinion is Illyrian? You're free to provide a better etymology than I did.
TRUMPILINI, CAMUNNI, STONI, are all Euganei tribes...........which originally where thought to be liguri, but are now known as Raetic ( there are 4 more and others, which I misplaced names) EDIT: Libui, Edrumi, Maletumi, Breuti and Volenes
Venetic language IMO, was really Euganei language, the veneti settled in NE italy absorbed some coastal Euganei tribes and used there language, which is why Venetic, west Raetic, East Raetic and Camunic are all very very similar ..........
Again, what is your evidence?
