PDA

View Full Version : Celto-Italic



alan
06-11-2013, 11:44 PM
I found this modern book on the subject when looking at other papers by the author on the web

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fyAbw-O31MoC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Kortland+indo-european&source=bl&ots=8ZzfoOBB6p&sig=TzYMJhcKV4zKrwl9Ws54X6UHSjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ibW3UevgF4bKPbjegMgP&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=Kortland%20indo-european&f=false

TigerMW
06-18-2013, 02:14 PM
I finally found a lexicon for Proto-Celtic.

"Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic" by Matasović edited by Brill in 2009
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2MQAxDmRLhuSHNObEJTQVlaQ1U/edit?usp=sharing

Now, I need to get one for Proto-Italic.

If we could ever find words that are both Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic but beyond PIE maybe they would tell us something about where Italo-Celtic germinated.

TigerMW
06-19-2013, 04:14 PM
Now, I need to get one for Proto-Italic.

If we could ever find words that are both Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic but beyond PIE maybe they would tell us something about where Italo-Celtic germinated.

I found this.

"Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages" by de Vaan, edited by Lubotsky
http://historiantigua.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/EtymologicalDictionaryofLatinandtheOtherItalicLang uages.pdf

alan
06-20-2013, 01:48 PM
I found this.

"Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages" by de Vaan, edited by Lubotsky
http://historiantigua.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/EtymologicalDictionaryofLatinandtheOtherItalicLang uages.pdf

Thanks for posting that. That looks an interest (and long!) read.

Kopfjäger
06-21-2013, 12:50 AM
I just saw this. Very nice! It will take awhile to get through though...

alan
06-21-2013, 05:35 PM
Celtic apparently has few non-IE words non-IE words, far less than have been suggested for Germanic for instance. Non-IE Proto-Celtic words included Raven, Badger, Salmon, berry, strawberry, seaweed, ocean, rushes, heather, swamp, nettle, varous pig/boar words, skin, mouse, herb, wolf, wood, stone, garlic, cloak, stag, elk, ram, bird of prey, rushes, stick etc. Gaelic added Salmon (another term), herring, lobster, crab, winkle and Hare to this list.

The general pattern is borrowing of of words for wild resources.

alan
06-21-2013, 06:12 PM
The proto-Celtic lexicon Mike posted expanded on this list of non-IE words in proto-Celtic:

The following is an alphabetical list of Proto-Celtic forms for which a
substrate origin can be assumed; in each case it is indicated whether the
etymon in question is attested in Continental Celtic, and whether it has likely
cognates in the neighbouring IE dialects (Germanic and Italic).
1. *alten- 'razor'
2. *amaro- 'wailing, crying'
3. *andera 'young woman' (probably attested in Gaulish)
4. *bando- 'peak, top' (attested in Gaulish; possible cognates in
Germanic)
5. *banwo- 'young pig, piglet' (attested in Gaulish)
6. *baski- 'bundle' (probable cognates in Italic)
7. *birro- 'short' (attested in Gaulish)
8. *blVdV- 'wolf, large predator'
9. *bodyo- 'yellow' (attested in Gaulish, probable cognates in Italic)
10. *brano- 'raven' (attested in Gaulish)
11. *bratto-, *brattino- 'mantle, cloak'
12. *brokko- 'badger' (attested in Gaulish)
13. *bunno- 'awl, bittern'
14. *bussu- 'lip' (probably attested in Gaulish)
15. *buta'house, dwelling, hut'
16. *druko- 'bad'
17. *durno- 'fist'
18. *esok- 'salmon' (attested in Gaulish)
442 APPENDIX
19. *gweno- 'smile'
20. *gulbV-, *gulbmo- 'beak' (probably attested in Gaulish)
21. *gurmo- 'dun, dark'
22. *kag-o- 'get, receive' (probable cognates in Italic)
23. *kagyo- 'pen, enclosure' (possible cognates in Germanic)
24. *kalmiyo- 'skilful, skilled'
25. *kani- 'good, nice'
26. *karbanto- 'war chariot' (attested in Gaulish)
27. *kasnina 'garlic, leek' (probably attested in Gaulish)
28. *katrik- 'fortification' (probable cognates in Germanic)
29. *kayto- 'wood' (cognates in Germanic)
30. *klamo- 'sick, suffering from leprosy'
31. *kluka 'stone, rock'
32. *knu 'nut' (probable cognates in Italic and Celtic)
33. *koligno- 'pup, small animal'
34. *koret- 'palisade, stone wall' (possible cognates in Germanic)
35. *korkkyo- 'oats' (probable cognates in Germanic)
36. *kotto- 'old' (probably attested in Gaulish)
37. *kritta 'body, frame, shape'
38. *krok(ke)no- 'skin' (probably attested in Gaulish)
39. *krumbo- 'round, curved' (probable cognates in Germanic)
40. *krundi- 'round, compact'
41. *krutto- 'round object, womb'
42. *kwezdi- 'piece, portion' (attested in Gaulish)
43. *lero- 'diligent'
44. *liro- 'sea, ocean'
45. *lomana 'rope, thong'
46. *lubl/a 'herb, plant' (probable cognates in Germanic)
47. *lukot- 'mouse'
48. *luxtu- 'content, crowd'
49. *makina 'bellow' (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)
50. *maylo- 'bald' (possible cognates in Germanic)
51. *mazdyo- 'stick' (cognates in Italic and Germanic)
52. *mesal-ka 'blackbird' (cognates in Italic and Germanic)
53. *menado- 'awl'
54. *metto- 'decay, blight, shame'
55. *mokku- 'pig'
56. *molto- 'ram, wether' (probably attested in Gaulish)
57. *ninati- 'nettle' (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)
58. *nino- 'ash-tree' (possibly attested in Gaulish)
59. *nusso-, *nowsso- 'first milk, colostrum'
60. *rem(r)o- 'fat, thick'
61. *rendi- 'point, peak'
62. *rowk(k)- / *ruk- 'tunic, mantle' (cognates in Germanic and
Slavic)
APPENDIX 443
63. *runa 'secret' (possible cognates in Germanic)
64. *sebro- 'demon, spectre'
65. *sfrawo- 'crow' (possible cognates in Germanic, Baltic, and
Italic)
66. *sido- 'elk, stag'
67. *skamo- 'light' (possible cognates in Germanic)
68. *skublo- 'bird of prey' (probably attested in Gaulish)
69. *slad-yo- 'hit, slay'
70. *slatta 'stalk, staff (possible cognates in Germanic)
71. *swanto- 'treasure, what is desired'
72. *smero- 'berry'
73. *subi- 'strawberry'
74. *sukko- 'pig'
75. *tago- 'strangle, choke'
76. *torrV- 'belly'
77. *trussko- 'dirty, leprous'
78. *trusto- 'noise, cry'
79. *wesakko-, *wesakko- 'grebe, raven'
80. *wet(t)a 'stream, swamp'
81. *wimona'seaweed'
82. *wriggant- 'vermin' (possibly attested in Gaulish)
83. *wroyko- 'heather' (possible cognates in Balto-Slavic)
84. *yoyni- 'rushes, reed' (probable cognates in Italic and Germanic)
85. *yutV- 'pap, porridge' (possibly attested in Gaulish)
The number of substrate words in Proto-Celtic is actually surprisingly low.
Only 85 out of the total 1490 Proto-Celtic words can be ascribed to a non-IE
substrate, which is under 6%.

TigerMW
06-21-2013, 06:38 PM
The number of substrate words in Proto-Celtic is actually surprisingly low.
Only 85 out of the total 1490 Proto-Celtic words can be ascribed to a non-IE substrate, which is under 6%.

Is this a valid interpretation?

I would think that if the substrate is minimal that means that the new language was pretty much dominated by the people who spoke the superstrate language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum_%28linguistics%29

Genetically, this might imply that the Proto-Celtic speakers primarily consisted of Pre-Celtic (or Italo-Celtic if you ascribe to it) people. I doubt if many will think that is an outstanding find, but I think this puts a mininum age (floor) on when R1b-P312 types learned IE. They must have been speaking it prior to the time of Proto-Celtic. Can we put floors in place on other IE languages.

In the case of Proto-Italic, can we see what proportion of substrate words are?

alan
06-21-2013, 07:16 PM
Mike I dont think I understand your logic on this one. It seems to imply to me that Proto-Celtic groups to some extent remained aloof or a separate case from the local non-IE groups they were settled among, only taking words for mainly natural wild things that were maybe peripheral to their field of interest. I have tended to see the R1b expansion as initially a small elite before they multiplied over many centuries. To maintain that level of non-absorbtion of non-IE when they were a small group initially they must have basically formed a caste on the male lines that expanded but did not let many locals into the caste. That would seem to be the story of yDNA in the Celtic world.

alan
06-21-2013, 07:33 PM
Interestingly, the Celts are known to have been very much into lineages, clans etc but the Germans seem to have been less so. They tended in later times to be more inclusive and to tend to form warbands around a lord without lineage being a factor. This seems a different modus operandi to the later Celts anyway who tended to grow in strength as their own clan did. Even their clients appear to have tended to often be some sort of cousin of lower status. If these contrasting patterns noted in later times were present among those peoples back in proto times then this might go a long way to explaining both the yDNA patterns and the contrast in amount of non-IE vocab in the two languages.

TigerMW
06-21-2013, 07:38 PM
Mike I dont think I understand your logic on this one. It seems to imply to me that Proto-Celtic groups to some extent remained aloof or a separate case from the local non-IE groups they were settled among, only taking words for mainly natural wild things that were maybe peripheral to their field of interest. I have tended to see the R1b expansion as initially a small elite before they multiplied over many centuries. To maintain that level of non-absorbtion of non-IE when they were a small group initially they must have basically formed a caste on the male lines that expanded but did not let many locals into the caste. That would seem to be the story of yDNA in the Celtic world.

I agree with what you are saying although I think that another alternative may be that the Proto-Celts were completely domineering as as well as what you've stated - that they were an aloof/separated group.

I'm just trying to use the linguistic situation to reduce alternative explanations about R1b. Since there there was a lack of integration of (male lineages) peoples in the formation of Proto-Celtic it just moves the clock back on how early R1b (P312 anyway) learned an IE language. It has to be a Pre-Celtic time or earlier.

Another thing to consider as far as fencing in time-lines is that lack of vocabulary distance (think genetic distance) between Proto-Celtic and PIE. That implies the branching linguistically was early, soon after the dispersion of PIE. R1b must have been around for that occurrence, timing-wise and geographically.

The caveat is I'm making a major assumption in assuming PIE was real and the IE languages derived from in a branching fashion and linguists can tell the difference between borrowed and derived words. I think that assumption is true but there is some disagreement on that.

rms2
06-21-2013, 09:24 PM
Interestingly, the Celts are known to have been very much into lineages, clans etc but the Germans seem to have been less so. They tended in later times to be more inclusive and to tend to form warbands around a lord without lineage being a factor. This seems a different modus operandi to the later Celts anyway who tended to grow in strength as their own clan did. Even their clients appear to have tended to often be some sort of cousin of lower status. If these contrasting patterns noted in later times were present among those peoples back in proto times then this might go a long way to explaining both the yDNA patterns and the contrast in amount of non-IE vocab in the two languages.

That might explain a lot. I don't mean to bring everything around to L21, but it's kind of hard to avoid mentioning L21 when speaking of the Celts. Anyway, this factor (i.e., the importance of clan or lineage groups among the Celts) could go a long way toward explaining the unusual degree of dominance of L21 in those places where it is most frequent. Where among other y haplogroups do you see anything like the frequencies L21 (or DF13, really) achieves in the Celtic Fringe countries?

alan
06-21-2013, 09:38 PM
I agree with what you are saying although I think that another alternative may be that the Proto-Celts were completely domineering as as well as what you've stated - that they were an aloof/separated group.

I'm just trying to use the linguistic situation to reduce alternative explanations about R1b. Since there there was a lack of integration of (male lineages) peoples in the formation of Proto-Celtic it just moves the clock back on how early R1b (P312 anyway) learned an IE language. It has to be a Pre-Celtic time or earlier.

Another thing to consider as far as fencing in time-lines is that lack of vocabulary distance (think genetic distance) between Proto-Celtic and PIE. That implies the branching linguistically was early, soon after the dispersion of PIE. R1b must have been around for that occurrence, timing-wise and geographically.

The caveat is I'm making a major assumption in assuming PIE was real and the IE languages derived from in a branching fashion and linguists can tell the difference between borrowed and derived words. I think that assumption is true but there is some disagreement on that.

Ah I get you known. Its just the term pre-Celtic used to usually be used to mean non-IE. Anyway I see what you mean now. One issue is of course so few fixed points. Proto-Celtic has been placed everywhere from Hungary to Iberia. Anyway there had to be a pre-proto-Celtic phase between proto-Celtic and PIE.

The evidence of much of the former Celtic speaking area does suggest the Celts were not overly inclusive in terms of male lineages. The longer the survival of Celtic the less there is anything other than P312. I think it was a top-down squeeze such as can be seen in later Irish history where elite lineages expand and the majority of the them then slowly sink from the son of a chief to an ordinary farmer in a few generations. It was a constant process rather than a sudden event. I suppose that P312 (maybe all L11 and even L51 in the early days) is the main apparent imprint of this feature of Celtic society.

I dont know when this modus operadi commenced and if it was a Celtic peculiarity to be that non-inclusive or not. It seems that some IE groups like Germans and even more so the Greeks were a lot more inclusive of non-R1 peoples. It is also interesting to not that the very high levels of dominance that R1b achieved in the west is almost never matched by R1a in the east. Again, a hint of a slightly different modus operandi. When Anatole made his suggestion of R1b people sweeping all before them he was right in as much as that has tended to be the effect in many areas. However, I dont think this was an even but more something to do with the non-inclusive and expansive nature of the Celtic lineages. That could be have small beginnings and commence slowly but continue inexorably for millenia where it is not disrupted. I have often wondered if the Celtic practice of fosterage of children originated in a system to make sure the culture and language of the children was not affected much by non-Celtic wives.

As for the period between PIE and proto-Celtic, most of the steppe orientated models would put Celtic as an early split after Tocharian which is usually dated to about 3300-3500BC. So I would guess that places PIE at least little before that while the line leading to proto-Celtic must have broken soon after. There could have been some patterning even in the PIE period between one end of the western steppes and another. Celto-Italic would have to have to have existed about 3500BC to sustain the links some of us are proposing between the pre-beaker copper wave that reached Italy around that time, Celto-Italic and R1b.

It is interesting given the possibility that Maykop could in some way be associated with R1b's role in PIE that the Caucasus mountain peoples had a clan type system rather reminicent of the Celts. I wonder if its just possible that this could have given them a different flavour from the IEs descended from peoples deeper into the western steppes?

rms2
06-21-2013, 09:46 PM
The Celtic cult of the head might have also made the Celts less inclined to spare enemies and outsiders than perhaps other IE peoples were. Of course, I'm not certain when the head-taking cult began among the Celts. Did it appear among them very early on, or was it a relatively late development?

alan
06-21-2013, 09:53 PM
That might explain a lot. I don't mean to bring everything around to L21, but it's kind of hard to avoid mentioning L21 when speaking of the Celts. Anyway, this factor (i.e., the importance of clan or lineage groups among the Celts) could go a long way toward explaining the unusual degree of dominance of L21 in those places where it is most frequent. Where among other y haplogroups do you see anything like the frequencies L21 (or DF13, really) achieves in the Celtic Fringe countries?

...and if the Celts did operate a system of separation followed by a slow local expansion of their lineages wherever they settled that means that the longer this operated uninterrupted, the higher P312 would get. That basically works when you look at P312 in Europe. Lets say the expansion of P312 commenced at some point c. 3000-2500BC. In much of the future continental Celtic world and SE England it had 2 or 3000 years before the Romans modified this. In the Celtic fringe of the isles it has had an extra 2000 years to expand.

All I can say is the P312 coincidence with Celtic (and I am not saying it all fell within the Celtic zone) would be truly astonishing if it is an illusion. The fact it is a relatively late spreader and was not later followed up by anything else throughout most of the Celtic world in pre-Roman times seems to make it close to certain.

rms2
06-22-2013, 10:42 AM
Assuming for a moment that Anthony and a number of other scholars over the years are right and there is a direct connection between the Beaker Folk and Italo-Celtic, then I am wondering how archery contributed to the success of the Beaker Folk and of the languages they spoke. We know or are reasonably sure that the Beaker men were bowmen. Were their bows an advantage over other peoples in Europe? Have any Beaker bows been preserved anywhere? Were their bows used in conflict?

The Celts had bows, but I am not aware of any accounts of them making any particularly striking military use of them, such as the use of massed ranks of archers, mounted bowmen, etc. The early Celts are noted more for their use of the chariot than anything else.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 11:20 AM
The early Celts are noted more for their use of the chariot than anything else.

There is a big chronological gap between the Bell Beaker Culture and the arrival of chariots in Central Europe. The earliest evidence of chariots (i.e. light, spoke-wheel vehicles which could be pulled by horses) is around 2000 BC on the Asian steppe. From the Carpathian Basin it seems that the chariot reached Mycenean Greece by about 1600 BC and had spread right across Europe by about 1300 BC. Later iron-working and strong chariot-horses filtered through from the steppe to Central Europe, where the Hallstatt C culture formed around 750 BC. The elite of this culture adopted wagon burials similar to those on the steppe. It is from that point onwards that the Celts became connected to the battle chariot.

alan
06-22-2013, 12:03 PM
Assuming for a moment that Anthony and a number of other scholars over the years are right and there is a direct connection between the Beaker Folk and Italo-Celtic, then I am wondering how archery contributed to the success of the Beaker Folk and of the languages they spoke. We know or are reasonably sure that the Beaker men were bowmen. Were their bows an advantage over other peoples in Europe? Have any Beaker bows been preserved anywhere? Were their bows used in conflict?

The Celts had bows, but I am not aware of any accounts of them making any particularly striking military use of them, such as the use of massed ranks of archers, mounted bowmen, etc. The early Celts are noted more for their use of the chariot than anything else.

Regaring beaker bows, the evidence is that they were not a lot different from those of the Neolithic farmers. Arrowheads were a slighly different style but that wouldnt have made a big difference. I dont think the idea that beaker people arrived by force is likely. The locals are believed to have used them in mass attacks for example 400 arrowheads found in the entrances at Crickley hill causewayed enclosure.

P312 was not very old when we already know R1b (most likely P312) was in beaker. The P312 numbers really cannot have been huge even allowing for a very rapid expansion. The rapid expansion of P312 was matched by a rapid geographical expansion and that would have kept their numbers thin for some time IMO. I think they must have settled in enclaves. Often the ore areas are on land that was pretty marginal and rocky so there need not have been a big issue on allowing them to settle in a number of enclaves. Their intial survival may well have been down to being useful to the locals, diplomacy and marriage to local women and some ability at small scale self defence when their were problems with the locals.

I actually think that although there was an IE single combat ideal, the choice of the bow was likely a pragmatic and wise self defence/deterant option that would suit small groups of people settling in enclaves among much larger local groups. I think initially they came with the blessing of the local elites although central authority was probably weak and their would have been potentially brigands etc and they would need to be on their guard all the same. In some parts of Europe they picked defensive or defendable sites and we know from much later times that a small group of archers in a small defended site are very hard to overcome without a lot of loss of life. I image too a similar system could have defended mines and archers may have defended trade wagons. No other weapon gives small groups a similar deterrant. I am convinced that is why they were very into their archery initially. That is not to say they didnt have an ideal of hand to hand combat. They always also had knives, axes, halberds etc. It is interesting that as time went on the role of archery faded in many areas after the early Bronze Age. I suppose that could mark the sort of period when they had reached the sort of size and confidence where they could exclusively use their hand to hand combat weaponry (the supply of which they probably controlled) and they no longer needed to rely on archery. They had probably also morphed into the new accepted elite by that stage. I suspect that increase in numbers and transformation into the new elite rather than enclaves might be marked in the archaeological record by the end of the beaker period and the localisation of late/post-beaker cultures.

rms2
06-24-2013, 12:15 PM
There is a big chronological gap between the Bell Beaker Culture and the arrival of chariots in Central Europe. The earliest evidence of chariots (i.e. light, spoke-wheel vehicles which could be pulled by horses) is around 2000 BC on the Asian steppe. From the Carpathian Basin it seems that the chariot reached Mycenean Greece by about 1600 BC and had spread right across Europe by about 1300 BC. Later iron-working and strong chariot-horses filtered through from the steppe to Central Europe, where the Hallstatt C culture formed around 750 BC. The elite of this culture adopted wagon burials similar to those on the steppe. It is from that point onwards that the Celts became connected to the battle chariot.

I wasn't really trying to connect the Beaker Folk with chariots. Just the opposite. The Beaker Folk are noted as archers, or at least connected to an apparent archer's burial cult, but evidently that emphasis was lost by the time the Beaker Folk had evolved into full-blown Celts. As an aside, I remarked that the Celts were more famous for their use of chariots than for their use of bows and arrows.

Jean M
06-24-2013, 12:47 PM
I wasn't really trying to connect the Beaker Folk with chariots.

Yes I understood you. I just thought other readers might like a bit of background on the chronology. Some people (not you) have given undue prominence to the chariot in their view of how the Indo-European speakers became so predominant. The chariot clearly did play a big role in the case of the Mitanni, but its invention came much too late to figure in the spread of Bell Beaker.

TigerMW
06-24-2013, 10:49 PM
... Regarding Bell Beakers...
I actually think that although there was an IE single combat ideal, the choice of the bow was likely a pragmatic and wise self defence/deterant option that would suit small groups of people settling in enclaves among much larger local groups. I think initially they came with the blessing of the local elites although central authority was probably weak and their would have been potentially brigands etc and they would need to be on their guard all the same. In some parts of Europe they picked defensive or defendable sites and we know from much later times that a small group of archers in a small defended site are very hard to overcome without a lot of loss of life. I image too a similar system could have defended mines and archers may have defended trade wagons. No other weapon gives small groups a similar deterrant. I am convinced that is why they were very into their archery initially. That is not to say they didnt have an ideal of hand to hand combat. They always also had knives, axes, halberds etc. It is interesting that as time went on the role of archery faded in many areas after the early Bronze Age. I suppose that could mark the sort of period when they had reached the sort of size and confidence where they could exclusively use their hand to hand combat weaponry (the supply of which they probably controlled) and they no longer needed to rely on archery. They had probably also morphed into the new accepted elite by that stage. I suspect that increase in numbers and transformation into the new elite rather than enclaves might be marked in the archaeological record by the end of the beaker period and the localisation of late/post-beaker cultures.

I'll start a up wildly speculative thread on this when I have more time, but I think we might do well to look at these guys as a company or cross between a company and a gang. They probably weren't really nice guys, not that this is anything to find glory in. It's not at all. it was probably just a sign of the times.

I think we could think of them as a vertical multi-industry company. We could think of them as the International Minerals, Tools & Weaponry Supply Company. They were actually as much a clan as a company and they controlled the supply chain and logistics like a good industry captain would. Of course, their new tools and weapons required training support and advice to apply properly. They were probably military advisors for the the indigenous local chiefs.. the ones that allied with them.