Walloon, a Germanised Romance language ?

I really had no idea about how intricated the question was before the start of the thread. Your argumentation has its points, taking into account the tumultuous history of the region and its Dutch, French and Spanish occupations that might have helped into cristallizing the dialects. I am however convinced the "hinge" period of the formation of these dialects would be the late Middle Ages and therefore bear a strong Latin influence. The difference between Picard Borain and Namurois is just too harsh to be purely dialectal or due to the "famous" Namur accent.
Consider also that in the case of Aachen, a seemingly Roman name (Aquis Granum) took a Germanic life of its own (Aachen, Dutch "Aken" is a Latin root with Germanic ending "The Waters"). Even stranger, the Romance forms it took in Italian (Aquisgrana) and Spanish (Aquisgrán), and its phonetic molding into Slavic Polish "Akwizgran". Stunning when you know how long that city has been around. Where linguistics can be a very handy tool, it can also lead us into more confusion.
I have to confess I know nothing about Lorraine dialects, but Alsacian have I learned through Kansass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCKyIKWjNsw&feature=relmfu)...
 
I really had no idea about how intricated the question was before the start of the thread. Your argumentation has its points, taking into account the tumultuous history of the region and its Dutch, French and Spanish occupations that might have helped into cristallizing the dialects. I am however convinced the "hinge" period of the formation of these dialects would be the late Middle Ages and therefore bear a strong Latin influence. The difference between Picard Borain and Namurois is just too harsh to be purely dialectal or due to the "famous" Namur accent.
Consider also that in the case of Aachen, a seemingly Roman name (Aquis Granum) took a Germanic life of its own (Aachen, Dutch "Aken" is a Latin root with Germanic ending "The Waters"). Even stranger, the Romance forms it took in Italian (Aquisgrana) and Spanish (Aquisgrán), and its phonetic molding into Slavic Polish "Akwizgran". Stunning when you know how long that city has been around. Where linguistics can be a very handy tool, it can also lead us into more confusion.
I have to confess I know nothing about Lorraine dialects, but Alsacian have I learned through Kansass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCKyIKWjNsw&feature=relmfu)...

There no opposition in my writings to your thoughts: basically walloon is a romance language (= latin origin)
- there is a lot of reasons to think that here popular latin language (the latin of the armies) took early over an other language (celtic or germanic or "N-W european", there is debate even if I bet for a celtic one) - as in other latin origin languages the differenciation could have begun since the IV-V° century, and after that historic events have surely brought some noticeable differences between pcard and wallon dialects - no surprise -
&: by the way, I was speaking about romance lorrain dialect when thinking to posible links with walloon, not the germanic south-western franconic "thiois" of North Moselle and North Elsass, akin to Luxemburgish and somewhat slightly distinct from the alemanic alsacian dialects
 
Here is another example of why Walloon might be considered a Germanised Romance language. The Walloon word for castle is tchestê, which is almost the same as the English 'chester' (as in Manchester, Winchester Chichester, etc.). Chester is the Anglo-Saxon pronunciation of the Latin word castrum, which gave castello in Italian, castillo in Spanish, château in French, and of course 'castle' in English. The fact that the Walloon word is closer to the Anglo-Saxon than to the French or other Romance languages is, I think, a clear sign that Walloon was originally the language of the Franks who adopted Latin after settling in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica.

German loanwords and germanicization are two different things : English has borrowed between 30% and 50% of its lexicon to French during the Middle Ages, but is still considered as a Germanic language.

What makes a language Germanic, Romance, or else, is not its vocabulary but primarily its phonetic features. This is the basis of linguistic typology: you could have 99% french words, if Grimm's and Verner's Laws are respected, then it is Germanic.

I am not a specialist of Walloon, but if I take the word "tchestê" which you mentioned in your post, it is 100% Romance:

1- it originates from Latin (actually not from "castrum" but from "castellum" meaning "citadelle").

2- its pronunciation "tsh" is typically French : what you have there is the affrication of the latin [k] before [a] after palatalisation. This process is French, and occurs nowhere else. During the XIth and XIIth centuries, when most English borrowings from French occurred, the grapheme "ch" (from Lat. "c") was pronounced "tsh" in Old French. Only during the XIIIth century, the pronunciation was reduced to "sh". Therefore, the English words with an initial "ch" pronounced "tsh" are are mostly French loanwords with a rigorously accurate Old French pronunciation ("chance", "choice", "chamber", "chair" etc.). On the contrary, the phonetics of "castle" is Germanic, albeit being a Latin word.
 
German loanwords and germanicization are two different things : English has borrowed between 30% and 50% of its lexicon to French during the Middle Ages, but is still considered as a Germanic language.

What makes a language Germanic, Romance, or else, is not its vocabulary but primarily its phonetic features. This is the basis of linguistic typology: you could have 99% french words, if Grimm's and Verner's Laws are respected, then it is Germanic.

I am not a specialist of Walloon, but if I take the word "tchestê" which you mentioned in your post, it is 100% Romance:

1- it originates from Latin (actually not from "castrum" but from "castellum" meaning "citadelle").

2- its pronunciation "tsh" is typically French : what you have there is the affrication of the latin [k] before [a] after palatalisation. This process is French, and occurs nowhere else. During the XIth and XIIth centuries, when most English borrowings from French occurred, the grapheme "ch" (from Lat. "c") was pronounced "tsh" in Old French. Only during the XIIIth century, the pronunciation was reduced to "sh". Therefore, the English words with an initial "ch" pronounced "tsh" are are mostly French loanwords with a rigorously accurate Old French pronunciation ("chance", "choice", "chamber", "chair" etc.). On the contrary, the phonetics of "castle" is Germanic, albeit being a Latin word.

OK (even if it is very improbable that a language can loan 99%of its words from one another language...)
to support your demonstration, I 'll add that picard and northern dialects of french normand are more germanic influenced (Saxons, Francs and Vikings influences) for phonetics than walloon, because in these dialects, C remained /k/ before A, not turning into TCH (walloon) or SH (other dialects of Oil french) -
 
You're right.

As a matter of fact, "castle" (with [k] and not "sh") is a borrowing from Normand, it illustrates quite well your point.
 
OK (even if it is very improbable that a language can loan 99%of its words from one another language...)
to support your demonstration, I 'll add that picard and northern dialects of french normand are more germanic influenced (Saxons, Francs and Vikings influences) for phonetics than walloon, because in these dialects, C remained /k/ before A, not turning into TCH (walloon) or SH (other dialects of Oil french) -

are you totally sure that it is because of germanic influence, that c remained k? also i heard that unlike in french the h's are still pronounced in walloon.is this also because of germanic influence? if you or anybody else knows, id be very curious to know. if possible, could you also write the answer to my mail folmer6adhotmail.com
 
are you totally sure that it is because of germanic influence, that c remained k? also i heard that unlike in french the h's are still pronounced in walloon.is this also because of germanic influence? if you or anybody else knows, id be very curious to know. if possible, could you also write the answer to my mail folmer6adhotmail.com

The 'h' are not pronounced in Walloon.
 
and the H- of germanic origin remained pronounced in Breton romances dialects ("gallo"), influence of breton where 'H-' is known??? sure enough - I think also that some northern dialects of France have H- (germanic origin) too, I' ll see for a dialect survey I have about NE Manche normand -
in French, the H- or germanic origin is no more aspired but a voice-stop exist excluding habitual liaisons:
les hommes [lèz om] obsolete latin H >< les haches [lè 'ash]
il est allé [il è-t-alé] >< il est halé [il è 'alé]

ofr K(a) remained K not SH nor CH, I'm sure
 
Walloon is classified as an oïl dialect of Gallo-Romance languages, based on the way the word for "yes" is pronounced. The Walloon for "yes" is "ayi". It may sound vaguely similar to "oïl" (pronounce "oi" as in "oil" without the "l"), but it is in fact closer to the Scottish "aye". Both are probably syllable reversal of the Germanic "ja" or "yeah".

The Walloon for "no" is "neni". It is again much closer to the German "nein" than the French "non" or southern Romance "no". Likewise the negative equivalent of the French "pas" (as in je ne sais pas) is "nin". It is probably a nassalised version of the Dutch "niet" German "nicht", derived from the local Frankish dialect. In any case it is completely different from "pas".

So despite the big chunk of Romance vocabulary, many basic words in Walloon appear to be of Germanic, Celtic or unknown origin (possibly pre-Celtic).

It surprises how little studied the language is. After all, it covers an area with more traditional speakers than Welsh or Scottish Gaelic.

Sorry Maciamo but wouldn't think there is much unlikeness in numbers between Welsh and Walloon speakers, so what do you fully mean by the hereinabove?

Don't know how you missed it, but it has been shown that French imperialism isn't that openminded when it comes to other languages - that, if anything, would be why Walloon is so little studied.
 
The 'h' are not pronounced in Walloon.

Maciamo, nenni was said in french too, as an intensive form for non, as nouna in romance "gallo" of Brittany -
the I-E forms for 'ne'/'no' (negation) are all of them so close on together that it is perilous to build too precise theories - look at the affective forms (by repetition of syllabe) for "aunt", "uncle", "father" or "mother" that have even forms outside I-E
no offense
 
Sorry Maciamo but wouldn't think there is much unlikeness in numbers between Welsh and Walloon speakers, so what do you fully mean by the hereinabove?

Don't know how you missed it, but it has been shown that French imperialism isn't that openminded when it comes to other languages - that, if anything, would be why Walloon is so little studied.

What does French Imperialism or France have anything to do with Wallonia. Wallonia has never been part of France, except for a brief period under Napoleon, like the rest of continental Europe (even Switzerland).
 
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.
 
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

I have read on a lot of English-speaking sites that the names Wallonia and Wallons are derived from the German Walhaz, just like Wales and Wallachia. However that would be jumping to conclusions based on tenuous evidence. The truth is that the term Wallonia does not appear anywhere until the 16th century, and it not used to refer to all French-speaking Belgium, but to the hilly region in the modern provinces of Namur, Liège and Luxembourg (3 out of 5 modern Walloon provinces) and derived from the French word vallon meaning valley.

In fact it is not historically possible that Wallonia came to mean 'land of non-Germanics' since the region was heavily Germanised since the Franks were allowed to settle in Germania inferior by Emperor Julian in the early 4th century. The Salian Franks, who became the Merovingians, had their capital in Tournai, in Wallonia. The later Carolingian dynasty emerged from the region of Liège (namely Herstal and Jupille), also in Wallonia. The region was a patchwork of Frankish and Latin speakers for many century, from the Late Roman period until the Late Middle Ages. But it is actually the Frankish elite that spoke Latin, because of its prestige status, not the peasants who were mainly Frankish speakers. The Franks were the first Germanic tribe to settle in Roman land, and the only one to do so peacefully as foederati, hence their early adoption of Latin (I am not going to say as a lingua franca as that would be ironic). As Wallonia became the seat of the two ruling dynasties that conquered Gaul (Merovingian) and the rest of Germania + half of Italy (Carolingians), Latin spread quickly among the Frankish elite in Wallonia, and this is how a predominantly Germanic-speaking region in the 4th and 5th century turned into a bilingual Latin-Frankish society. As time passed, Latin, then Old French, then modern French kept spreading as they were always associated with the ruling elite and therefore status symbols. This is how Wallonia eventually became French speaking. This has nothing to do with a presumed enclave of Gallo-Romans that resisted the Germanic invasions like in Wales. On the contrary, Wallonia was the political centre of the West Germanic world for many centuries. There are three reasons why Latin became predominant in Wallonia after the Franks settled there:

1) Frankish foederati essentially became part of Roman society and had to speak Latin. Many Franks became influential generals and some became senators in Rome. The Franks readily embraced Roman language and culture from an early time, and they were eventually the ones who defeated the enemies of Rome who had invaded and plundered the empire (Huns, Burgundians, Wisigoths, Lombards). This is why the Franks saw themselves as protectors and heirs of the Roman Empire and that Charlemagne re-founded the (Holy) Roman Empire.

2) Latin was the language of the Catholic Church, which was adopted as the official state religion by Clovis and defended by later Frankish monarchs. Indeed both the Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of France later claimed that they obtained they derived the right to rule directly from the will of God (Divine Right).

3) Latin was the language of the elite and nobility, and the Frankish courts were originally in Tournai and Liège, which helped diffuse the use of Latin even more in those regions in the Early Middle Ages.


Genetically, I have compared the autosomal data of several Flemings and Walloons and there are often more differences between individuals of a same region than between regions. In other words, it's not possible to clearly distinguish the two groups based on admixtures. Some Flemings will even appear more southern than some Walloons.

You are also wrong to say that Wallonia had less R1b-U106 than Flanders. This is what people like you, who see only the modern language divide, expect to see. But it is not what the data shows. You should check my Genetic history of the Benelux & France. There is far more differences between the Netherlands and Flanders than between Flanders and Wallonia. In terms of undeniably Germanic haplogroups, I1 is at 13% in Flanders and 11% in Wallonia (like South Germany). All the rest is almost identical except that Flemings have more J2 and Wallons more I2a2a (most of which Germanic).

You can see the distribution of R1b-U106 in the Benelux here.

Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg


It's true that data from Wallonia is still scarce, but at present the highest percentages in Belgium are found in the provinces of Luxembourg (40%) and Hainaut (31%), both in Wallonia. The lowest is in the province of Namur and Liège, also in Wallonia, but Namur has a remarkably high percentage of I1 and I2a2a (including confirmed Germanic I2a2a-L801). It's hard to believe that Liège would be much less Germanic as it is the only province where German is an official language, that used to be part of Germany (Prince-bishopric of Liège until 1792), and it was the seat of the Carolingian dynasty. In terms of phenotypes, you are more likely to find Nordic looking blonds in the province of Liège (and Limburg, which is in Flanders but used to be part of the Prince-bishopric of Liège) than anywhere else in Belgium.
 
Maciamo,

I wait for very more data from Wallonia, I have the impression we are talking without basis in its case - Flanders have more reliable samples I think -
I agree that physically Liege(Leek?) region is one of the most 'nordic-like' region in Belgium, but we cannot say Liege = Wallonia (and Walloon is not te only romance language in Belgium, there is the Hainaut) -
my humble opinion is that Franks had settlements in Walloonia, with very different densities according to places - as a whole, French speaking regions of Belgium show something less 'nordic' than Flanders (but even Flanders are not completely homogenous from place to place, spite small differences) - I doubt romance languages have been reintroduced lately in the most of Walloonia but I have no proof, the only way to have the key is to study the eovlution in time of the ancient toponymy I think... that said true walloon has developped or kept peculiarities of itself (absence of epenthetic 'E' before groups of initial consonnants by example): maybe the germanic element in the pop can explain it? So my impression is that Wallonia shows some germanic influence in language, as do parts of Northern and Northeastern romance speaking France, even if not always exactly the same traits. I would be very glad to know more about toponymy it's true.
 
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

Wait and see (more infos) - Old Belgia of the so called Belgae was maybe inhabited by more than an IE group (I posted about that in germanic story threads in Eupedia) and maybe they was a patchwork of Celts, Germanics and ex-meta-Italics (glup!) surely the first ones - I forgot to speak of this first possible Germanics in my post to Maciamo about Walloonia) - with the data I have at hand to date I doubt UY-R1b-U106 would have been typically celtic - and the Rhine doesn't seem to me the road for the U106 climbing northwards - rather the opposite (southwards) - but I'm sure of nothing and I wait more detailed data
 
When I was stationed in Belgium back in the late 1980s, I lived in Cuesmes which is on the southern outskirts of Mons. My land-lady's mother spoke Chi'ti primarily. I had no idea then what Ch'ti was at the time, but I am thankful to have met my first and probably the last first-language speaker of Ch'ti.
 
I personally don't regard R1b-U106 to be a Germanic haplogroup.It is now concentrated in the Nord-West Block region, especially Frisia.It also has links with Halstatt culture or Unetice culture (which originated in Bohemia - not a Germanic ethnic / cultural / genetic group at that time, although absorbed Germanic influences later on).The Germanics came from the Völkerwander expansion from the North East.The goths which have links with Sweden but are mostly associated with Western Poland.Gothic is attested to be the first Germanic language to have any sizable texts.Gothic is an Eastern Germanic Language (a language zone that is equivalent to todays Poland).The modern Germanic languages origins can be mostly attributed to a developement outside Germany altogether - Poland & the Nordic countries.
Old Frisian was an entirely different language to modern Frisian.The people who lived in Frisia & probably most of Lower Saxony were invaded by various peoples.Firstly by a Norse / Norwegian people - who gave them their name from Yngvi Freyr ancestor of the ingaevones.The Frisians are predominantly R1b-U106, this is not an original Norwegian haplogroup, it was absorbed by their genetic make-up from this North Atlantic contact zone.The Frisian people did not originate from Norway, but an elite conquered them.They were then Conquered by Saxons or aligned with them to resist Frankish advances.The Franks at that time were probably very much of similar genetic origin to Frisians, anyway.Saxons haplogroup is said to be I-M253 (I1) but probably was quite mixed as the Saxons were a confederation of different tribes of different ethnic / genetic backgrounds.I-M253 is high in Denmark & especially, Sweden.The I-M253 in Frisia is from this association.The Frisian language absorbed Norse & then Saxon influences.Nobody really nows what the origin language of these Rb1-U106 was.The Germanic expansion is attested to be from around 2nd century BC.Rb1-U106 people were there long before they assimilated with with a developing Germanic speaking people.
The Franks (wouldn't have been known by that name then) who were very probably Rb1-U106 predominantly are known to be associated with the Batavi who entered the Rhine area around 50 BC.These pre-Frankish people association with this Chatti / Irminonic tribe (Elbe Germanic - a language developed by mixing different influences from different tribes that came into contact) Germanised their language.This would be in an apparently different way to the Frisians who had no contact with the Batavi or other Irminonic tribes.
The early Belgic tribes are associated with Rb1-U152 associated with the Helvetti / La Tene culture.This would have brought another genetic / cultural group into the area.They brought the Italo-Romance gaulish language with them.The Helvetti are said to have tribal links to the Teutones & Cimbri.It has been said that these tribes were not originally Germanic as well.The Franks eventually conquered many of these Belgic tribes who advanced up the Rhine over a few centuries.The Belgae tribes possibly merged with many advancing Irminonic (or pre-Irminonic tribes) thus no longer being a purely Italo-Roman speaking people before they came into contact with the Franks.The Franks divided into dukedomes by dividing the territory they gained between the various sons of these dukes.They eventually formed a Holy Roman Empire in similarity to the old Roman Empire but absorbing the Germanic peoples also by assimilating with the Belgic Gallic / Italo-Roman people who had continued a Roman style of governorship even after the retreat of the Romans to Rome etc.
The Pre-Wallonians seem to been a tribe / tribes who resisted the Franks or Dutch (Flemish) & maintained a more pure Gaulish / Belgic / Italo-Romance heritage.They were the people who started the Industrial Revolution on the continent.They probably absorbed the most of their Germanic / Flemish / Dutch genetics in the 17th century employing farmers from these areas in industrial jobs because they were short of labour as Industrialisation quickly advanced, especially in the areas closest to Flanders.
 
@Paul Archer
What is the 'Italo-Romance gaulish' you speak of here??? First time I hear something like this! Do you have some idea about Gaulish tongue?
Germanics (for I think) did not form in Central/North Scandinavia, not more in Poland (or not only in Poland) - the most logical and parcimonious way to see it, considering timing, archeology and so on, is a centrum around Denmark including extreme Northern Europe and Southern Scandinavia -
Frisians of the Netherlands are among the most 'nordiclike' if not "pure" (it implies more than the too common "blond high statured" guys!) pop along with some regions of Scandinavia (not all of them) and it's surely not a nothern demic influence they had but rather a northern demic dominance - it's true nothing tell us there is a direct link between R-U106 and 'nordic' likeness,- but if R-U106 stayed a long time somewhere South the Baltic it could make sense - the first Scandinavians and also the first Frisians were rather an unlevel mix of WHG (+ some EHG) descendants and of EEF farmers, whatever the local drifts, before some new types can have arrived pushed by late BBs of Germany - dolichomorph 'nordic' types, not easily detected by long-duration accumulated auDNA, but easily distinctive between pops at a smaller time scale, came from East at first, not from North Europa as believed by somones.
that said, yes I think Franks of the invasions were already a mix between northern well formed Germanics and diverse tribes of Belgium; the so called 'kymric' (ridiculous term) or Coon 'Iron Age Celtic type' (a mean in fact, but interesting in itself) was strong among them, confirming the absorbtion of Celtic elements - it is not to say their apparently dominant Y-U106 had been taken from these Celts or others.
The fact some Scandinavians came southwards into the Continent does not mean they found strangers in their immediate South; it's surely more a question of climate change than of a planned invasion -
I prefer to wait more valuable and weightable facts to forge a steady opinion. As a whole the relative weakness of Northeastern France concerning U106 even compared to Y-I1, spite the fact its origin seems well linked to Germanics influence, does not plaid for a strong presence among Belgae of any sort before the Geat Invasions.
No problem with any opinion, I make my (to date) point, you make yours, life is nice.
 
Paul Archer, R1b-U106 is the best candidate as a Proto-Germanic paternal lineage considering that the Centum branch of Proto-Indo-European language speakers are associated with R1b-L51. If you classify U106 as Celtic alongside the P312 branch (L21, U152, DF27), then there is no other good Proto-Germanic lineage. I1 is pre-Indo-European. R1a is divided in several branches (L664, Z284, M458) among Germanic people. Besides ancient DNA confirmed that R1b-U106 was present in Scandinavia by the Nordic Bronze Age, long before Hallstatt.
 
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

Halstatt is associated with Celtic/gallic-illyrian-venetic peoples ......not in equal proportions

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...jAI#v=onepage&q=hallstatt and venetic&f=false
 
Back
Top