Historical facts

Grizzly said:
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.
Click to expand...

It's a stock of knowledge....terrific dude.
 
Grizzly said:
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of argument, I would be willing to agree with your statement seeing that the same logic is applied to the Germans, Slavs, Iranians, etc.
 
Taranis said:
there's also the historic usage of the term "Celt" by the Greeks and the Romans.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the historical usage by the ancient authors can be very inconstant. And the problem comes too when a minority gives its name to the majority. I have already cited the case of the French, the Swabians, the Burgundians or the Lombardians. The actual Saxon case (in Antic times on the North-sea coast, now near the Czech border) shows how it is impossible to refer to a name of the inhabitants, or to trust the names given by the ancients for describing a culture.

Taranis said:
Secondly, the Ligurians were definitely not a non-Indo-European people (although I must admit that some older literature tries to assert that).
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;
 
Grizzly said:
Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;
Click to expand...


I would have no problem saying that the Ligurians were comprised of a base group that also had an Italo-Celt admixture, but we have to stick with Ligurian being an Indo-European language.

Also, their culture of cutting off and keeping heads of slain adversaries is too much like that of their close neighbors to the North to ignore.
 
Grizzly said:
Yes, but the historical usage by the ancient authors can be very inconstant. And the problem comes too when a minority gives its name to the majority. I have already cited the case of the French, the Swabians, the Burgundians or the Lombardians. The actual Saxon case (in Antic times on the North-sea coast, now near the Czech border) shows how it is impossible to refer to a name of the inhabitants, or to trust the names given by the ancients for describing a culture.
Click to expand...

This is all very true. The main reason I brought it up is because I often hear people talking about "Celticity" and "Celtic identity" (which I consider a fabrication/fantasy), but it should be clearly noted that no matter how inconsistent ancient sources are, none of the ancient sources never refered to the Irish or the Britons as "Celts", neither did the Goidelic- or Brythonic- speaking peoples see themselves as Celts until the 19th century.

Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;
Click to expand...

Actually, like I said, from the little evidence that there is (ie, onomastic evidence like place names), Ligurian actually was an Indo-European language. There were authors in the past which tried to link the Ligurians with the pre-Indo-European population, but since generally the Ligurian place names can be derived via Indo-European etymologies, this is pretty spurious.
 
Taranis said:
There were authors in the past which tried to link the Ligurians with the pre-Indo-European population
Click to expand...

They did it probably due to absence of clear link with indo-european toponymy.

Taranis said:
but since generally the Ligurian place names can be derived via Indo-European etymologies, this is pretty spurious.
Click to expand...

It is surprising. I have not much knowledge about Ligurians, but it seems for France that the pre-indo-european place-names (though not a proof for a dominant culture) are very common in Southern France. According to the current knowledge, they seem to be linked to the Ligurians in Provence and Northern Italy. If they were indo-european, I guess that the link with the Celtic or the Italic languages would have been more or less easily done. But I can mistake.
 
Regulus said:
but we have to stick with Ligurian being an Indo-European language.
Click to expand...

If there is a source to demonstrate it, I don't see any problem. But it will be difficult to admit that archaeologist and linguist searchers could have missed such links between Celts and Ligurians. And once again, we can't really trust ancient authors. For some greeks ones, the hinterland of Marseille was settled by Ligurians, for others, they were Celts...

Regulus said:
Also, their culture of cutting off and keeping heads of slain adversaries is too much like that of their close neighbors to the North to ignore.
Click to expand...

It is not enough to claim a Celtic culture for such groups, since beheading is not especially rattached to them, but to many ones.
 
Grizzly said:
They did it probably due to absence of clear link with indo-european toponymy.
Click to expand...

Depends. If you go by typonomy, Ligurian definitely was an Indo-European language because you can readily make cognates with the Celtic and Italic languages. For instance, the tribal name of "Taurini" could easily be a cognate with Latin "Taurus" and Gaulish "Tarvos" (both meaning Bull).

It is surprising. I have not much knowledge about Ligurians, but it seems for France that the pre-indo-european place-names (though not a proof for a dominant culture) are very common in Southern France. According to the current knowledge, they seem to be linked to the Ligurians in Provence and Northern Italy. If they were indo-european, I guess that the link with the Celtic or the Italic languages would have been more or less easily done. But I can mistake.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is non-Indo-European typonomy in southern France, but we are talking about Southwestern France: that is, the Basque/Aquitanian areas, as well as the Roussillon where you find evidence of the Iberian language. The interesting part is that you have evidence for Aquitanian typonomy even in areas which in historic terms were known to be inhabited by Celtic tribes, which (not quite surpisingly, anyways) suggests that the Celts settled in these areas not very long ago.

However, further to the east (ie, Provence) you have Ligurian typonomy, which as I can show above, was related with the Celtic and Italic languages.
 
Anyone know what this means. It is lost on me:
  1. You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 10 posts or more.
Ah links Monika, thanks - in my overawing ignorance I had thought it supposed I wanted to make reference to some external web site - which I didn't, I simply to tried to encapsulate a quote from an earlier post into my response. I guess in the meantime I can mumble on about nothing until I cross the 10 post boundary.
 
Last edited:
Taranis said:
Yes, there is non-Indo-European typonomy in southern France, but we are talking about Southwestern France
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about Southeastern France, especially in Provence where Celtic toponyms almost disappear. In the litterature, they are reputed to be related with Ligurians. That's why I think that those regions, with Northern Italy was probably not indo-european speaking, or only by small communities like in Balkans.

Taranis said:
The interesting part is that you have evidence for Aquitanian typonomy even in areas which in historic terms were known to be inhabited by Celtic tribes, which (not quite surpisingly, anyways) suggests that the Celts settled in these areas not very long ago.
Click to expand...

Or have settled not numerous enough to impose their language. And that's why I think that the Spanish case is about the same as SW France.
 
Grizzly said:
Or have settled not numerous enough to impose their language. And that's why I think that the Spanish case is about the same as SW France.
Click to expand...
No. In SW France other languages were spoken (aquitanian or proto-basque) In Spain, in the Celtic speaking areas no other language was spoken.
 
oh my God!, this man bear chases Spain.
 
Grizzly said:
It's wrong, and you know it.
Click to expand...
No, I don't know it. No other languages were spoken other than Celtic. If you have any prove for the contrary, show it, otherwise shut up.
 
Grizzly has a job in Spanish leader or Spanish origin, is something that as a French nationalist not withstanding, the Spanish leader also has cut the hopes of promotion and that is the source of their loathing and denial of any comparison or relationship Spain with the rest of Western Europe, is his little revenge on the frustration felt to be a superior work of Spanish origin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 61590 times.

Back
Top