Ancient mtDna from the Piceni of Novilara

The author you used as a reference stated that Romanian IS a Thraco-Illyrian language. Absolute nonsense. Also, no, there is no consensus at all among linguists that Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian come from the Italo-Celtic family. I'd be glad if you could provide at least some other sources that can indicate there is a "consensus" about this hypothesis, especially since the source you provided is loaded with fanciful statements like that of the "Thraco-Illyrian origin of Romania".

But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.

Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).

We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.

In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.
 
I find the distribution of the following root ,*mal ,more than interesting, encompassing the Celtic,Osco-Umbrian,Dacian,Illyrian,Thracian and Greek areas,these terms are ultimately inherited in Albanian,where it designates the mountain, while Romanian has kept another meaning, shore.

Dacia Maluensis was located along the Danube SHORES ,RIDGES and GORGES(only from this area you could have initally marched northwards, quite safely,by helding both banks and crossing the Trajan's Bridge,near the Iron Gates),that ended in the highly-strategical Viminacium, Mosia Superior's capital and a former legionary camp,explaining the semantical evolution for the Romanian word.

Naturally, these regions are not unique, it definitely is the place to mention here Singidunum, located on a ridge, between the Danube and Sava.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=WO...IQ6AEwAnoECBMQAQ#v=onepage&q=malontum&f=false


https://books.google.ro/books?id=MN...QAQ#v=onepage&q=kostolac danube ridge&f=false
 
The author you used as a reference stated that Romanian IS a Thraco-Illyrian language. Absolute nonsense. Also, no, there is no consensus at all among linguists that Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian come from the Italo-Celtic family. I'd be glad if you could provide at least some other sources that can indicate there is a "consensus" about this hypothesis, especially since the source you provided is loaded with fanciful statements like that of the "Thraco-Illyrian origin of Romania".
But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.
Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).
We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.
In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.
I agree the language is mostly irrelevant when looking at geograpghy and history...............so we cannot link anything definite ...........we cannot even link language in the roman times , example.... no link between britons speaking latin in the isles and stating that they had Roman origins
so messapic as illyrian or balto-slavic for Dacian or celtic with Gualish people are all useless in terms of origins
 
Yes, basically this linguistic matter usually has some association, but no necessary connection with the genetic matter. A language spreads, diminishes, changes or is replaced without necessarily causing equivalent processes in the genetic origins of the people, in some cases not even the culture changes entirely, just becomes more or less mixed with the original culture of the incoming language. In my opinion, the traditional stance given by most linguists makes sense, which is that Daco-Thracian had ancestral links closer to Balto-Slavic on one side and Greek on the other side (geographically they were indeed roughly between those two language families), and that Illyrian, if Albanian indeed comes from one of the Illyrian languages, was more closely linked to Balto-Slavic and Greek (also nearby, to the northeast and the southeast of the original Illyrian homeland probably in the northernmost part of the Balkans and Eastern Alps).

It all fits neatly, linguistics, history, genetics (the Illyrian-speaking regions of Antiquity have a genetic profile very unlike that of most Celtic and Italic regions) and geography, but I definitely do not discard that Illyrian and Italo-Celtic may have influenced each other and even eventually become part of one big cluster of similar cultures and economies with closer contacts to each other.

There does not need to be ancestral linguistic links between the 2 IE branches for that to happen (just think of the close cultural links between England, France and West Germany since the Middle Ages), especially because as you say it happened with the Hallstatt, in the Iron Age, it was already way too late, when those languages would already have been very diverged even if they originally had come from the same IE branch.
 
This morning I wanted to acknowledge the depth and issues of what has been collected. That requires a thank you to all parties. I've always tried to appreciate the information that I had only started with a tweet. Frankly, the curiosity rages and the more I read and collect the more I want to share but my current pools aren't deep enough.
Yet I did want to share this article:
[h=1]Traumatic events and life-style in ancient Italian populations.[/h]Brasili P1, Bianchi E, Ventrella AR.
[h=3]Author information[/h][h=3]Abstract[/h]Traumatic lesions are commonly found in archaeological skeletal samples and provide useful information about various behavioral and cultural aspects of the populations. Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between the distribution and types of skeletal traumatic lesions and the different lifestyles of past populations. We examined three necropolises in central Italy. Pozzilli (VI-IV century BC) and Quadrella (I-IV century AD) are from the same geographical area (Molise) but belong to different periods; Novilara (IX-VI century BC) is located in Marche but belongs to the Iron Age like Pozzilli. The lesions observed at Pozzilli seem not to be accidental, whereas the traumas observed at Quadrella can be attributed to occasional, unintentional events. Cranial injuries observed at Novilara strengthen the hypothesis that the population was composed, at least in part, of warriors. Our results suggest the presence of a relationship between skeletal traumatic lesions and lifestyles of populations.
Thanks for sharing and hopefully I'll be able to add more.



 
So....weapons weren't just ceremonials as many archaeologists say
 

This thread has been viewed 26221 times.

Back
Top