# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  (Offtopic) Ethnic identity of ancient Alpine peoples

## Nobody1

> Sorry, a discussion of the Vindelicians certainly would belong into another thread, but tell me something, which data that you have is better than onomastic data (Celtic names, and I should add, unambigously Celtic, unless you can demonstrate to me that "-duno", "-briga" or "-rix" can be somehow Venetic) and archaeological data (bearers of the La-Tene culture - including coinage with the triskelion motif that can be found elsewhere in Celtic areas)?


Whats the diff. between the Indo-European Illyrians and the Indo-European Kelts? 
If we take the entire Alpine region of what was to become the Roman provinces of Noricum and Raetia than we will find that this region was uniformly Urnfield/Hallstatt/LaTene; So even if an Illyrian people would be amongst that range (area) than this people would not be outrageously alien to its neighbours; Even the Veneti with their distinctive Iron-age culture zone (Este-culture) show common similarities in culture and language; But how Keltic are they (Vindelic tribes) if they are classified (ancient history) as Illyrians and their inscriptions are not Keltic;




> Also, do you have a quote (or ID) for the purportedly Venetic Genauni inscription?


Of course i do;

*Uni. Wien* - Die Sprache: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (2010)
https://univis.univie.ac.at/ws_publi...1195210147528&

http://www.archaeotirol.at/ 





> The reason I avoid the term "Illyrian" is because its not clearly defined, unlike, for instance, the term "Venetic". Regardless of the question of the ethnicity of the Vindelicians, its clear that regardless of wether you think of them as Celtic or Venetic, there is no evidence in the Alps for a language akin to Etruscan (Rhaetian) outside the Bolzano region. And to me, the idea that they retreated there from the Po river plain is an elegant solution.


The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is because for some reason its silly to think that Illyrians actually spoke Illyrian; The Genauni/Breuni are designated Illyrian so are the Veneti but their common language is of course not Illyrian its scientifically "Mysterious";

Raetic inscriptions are found all over Tyrol (North and South), Unterengadin and north as the Schneidjoch and south as Verona;
http://www.trismegistos.org/tm/list.php?p=4155
http://www.dav-kaufering.de/content/RaetischeInschriften.pdf

----------


## Nobody1

> @nobody1
> 
> There was a paper last year which had this break down
> - Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as "para-Celtic“ and "pre-Celtic")
> - Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)
> - Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)
> - Veneti (close to Italic, but with a few other affinities, Raeti and possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)


I see it the same except for Lepontic being Keltic; 
It is clearly P-Italic given that the speakers were P-Italic Umbrians;




> Would you say, that these "illyrians" being called in other forms like, raeti norici, pannonian, venetic, euganei, vindelic etc are a "central european/alpine " mix which eventually got absorbed piecemeal by celts from the north and gallics from the west?


These Illyrians are essentially Indo-Europeans;
Some of them were absorbed by the Kelts others were not and some in that list wouldnt even be Illyrians;

----------


## Taranis

> Whats the diff. between the Indo-European Illyrians and the Indo-European Kelts? 
> If we take the entire Alpine region of what was to become the Roman provinces of Noricum and Raetia than we will find that this region was uniformly Urnfield/Hallstatt/LaTene; So even if an Illyrian people would be amongst that range (area) than this people would not be outrageously alien to its neighbours; Even the Veneti with their distinctive Iron-age culture zone (Este-culture) show common similarities in culture and language; But how Keltic are they (Vindelic tribes) if they are classified (ancient history) as Illyrians and their inscriptions are not Keltic;
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i do;
> 
> *Uni. Wien* - Die Sprache: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (2010)
> https://univis.univie.ac.at/ws_publi...1195210147528&
> ...


Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Veneti there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "_Brigantium_").




> The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is because for some reason its silly to think that Illyrians actually spoke Illyrian; The Genauni/Breuni are designated Illyrian so are the Veneti but their common language is of course not Illyrian its scientifically "Mysterious";


The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is to assume that the area was ethnically and linguistcally homogenous. And Venetic is not "mysterious": it is an Indo-European language that is closer with the Italic languages (notably the rendering of Proto-Indo-European *bh as "f" as in the Italic ones rather than as "b" like in the Celtic languages) than with the Celtic ones.

By the way, I would like to pinpoint you also to the Ptuj inscription, which is evidently (although short) a Celtic testimony:

http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanis...xte/ptuj.2.gif




> I see it the same except for Lepontic being Keltic; 
> It is clearly P-Italic given that the speakers were P-Italic Umbrians;


You're definitely stepping outside the zone of mainstream linguistics then, because the general consensus is that Lepontic is a Celtic language. The Leponti had nothing to do with the Umbrians.

----------


## Nobody1

> Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Vindelici there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "_Brigantium_").


I didnt say it is from Vindelicia; I said its from the Vindelic tribes of the Genauni and Breuni (tribal area);
That signifies that Vindelic tribes spoke a language akin to Venetic; There are also no Keltic inscriptions from the Vennones area;




> By the way, I would like to pinpoint you also to the Ptuj inscription, which is evidently (although short) a Celtic testimony: http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/bilder/quellentexte/ptuj.2.gif


As expected; 
The inscription from Ptuj is Keltic because its from the Norican/Taurisci (a Keltic people) area; 
And thats the great diff. towards the Vindelici area in an Historical and Archaeological context;
No one claimed them to be Keltic and in deed no Keltic inscriptions are found;




> The reason Illyrian is not clearly defined is to assume that the area was ethnically and linguistcally homogenous. And Venetic is not "mysterious": it is an Indo-European language that is closer with the Italic languages (notably the rendering of Proto-Indo-European *bh as "f" as in the Italic ones rather than as "b" like in the Celtic languages) than with the Celtic ones.


I meant Illyrian is "Mysterious" and it truly is if not even the Illyrians spoke it;
Venetic is defined as an isolated Indo-European language with close similarities to Italic and Keltic;

*J. Gvozdanovic* - [Uni. Heidelberg 2012]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr...2833-46%29.pdf




> You're definitely stepping outside the zone of mainstream linguistics then, because the general consensus is that Lepontic is a Celtic language. The Leponti had nothing to do with the Umbrians.


Well, it is an Archaeological fact that the speakers of Lepontic were the carriers of the Golasecca culture and the carriers of the Golasecca culture were Umbrians; Insubres/Isombri - Ἴσομβροι; Part of the initial Indo-European Urnfield expansion; Emerging from proto-Golasecca (Scomazzina/Canegrate) Urnfield complex; Lepontic is classified as P-Keltic with marked diff. to Gaulish - linguistically might as well be P-Italic (archaic) because you couldnt differentiate Lepontic from archaic Umbrian the way it already diffs. between Gaulish; And the Historical and Archaeological aspect settles it;

----------


## Sile

the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti , 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Germanien.jpg

but the name vindelici comes from raetian

 Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The celtic version of history is a later change, maybe to glorify a worthwhile opponent for the Romans

----------


## Sile

> Sorry, while I agree that this is a Venetic inscription, it is not from Vindelicia, but from the Alps between Vindelicia and the Veneti lands, and as you say, it is perhaps not surprising to find Veneti there. I think I would believe you if you were to show me Venetic inscriptions from Kempten, Augsburg, Passau or Bregenz (hint: "_Brigantium_").


This is wrong in naming towns that the Romans created after defeating the Raeti and their 45 tribes ............what is this logic?

----------


## Ike

BTW Vindelic and Vindelici (for plural) is classic South Slavic suffix.
Even today, although rare, there exists surname Vendelić. It may also be related to root Wenden.
There is also place call Vinodol in Croatia, as there is in Slovakia, meaning _wine walley_ (vino+dol).

----------


## nordicwarrior

> BTW Vindelic and Vindelici (for plural) is classic South Slavic suffix.
> Even today, although rare, there exists surname Vendelić. It may also be related to root Wenden.
> There is also place call Vinodol in Croatia, as there is in Slovakia, meaning _wine walley_ (vino+dol).


Wow, the world of linguistics is smaller than I realized.

The Croatian "dol" that you mentioned reminds me of the U.S. dollar. Our currency used to be centered on grains of silver, and an ounce of high grade silver (90% for coin and 92.5 for Sterling) fits comfortably in the palm of most adults. Having zero knowledge of high German, low German, middle German, Croatian, etc. I figured out a few years ago that dollar comes from the German "thaler" meaning thing of the valley. When folks wanted to purchase supplies in old Germany, they would put a healthy chunk of silver into their palm, come out of the hills and into the valley, then hand over some silver for livestock, a bunch of chickens, etc... whatever they needed and could trade silver for.

So there you have the connection to the U.S. dollar and the root word for valley. Gross simplification, but what do you expect from a crude American? :)

----------


## Nobody1

> the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti , 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Germanien.jpg
> 
> but the name vindelici comes from raetian
> 
>  Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> The celtic version of history is a later change, maybe to glorify a worthwhile opponent for the Romans


to this i like to add the opinion of the ancient History:

*Strabo -* IV/VI
_The Vindelici and Norici possess, for the most part, the opposite side of the mountains together with the Breuni and Genauni, who form part of the Illyrians....But the Licattii, the Clautinatii, and the Vennones proved the boldest amongst the Vindelici; and the Rucantii and Cotuantii amongst the Rhæti. Both the Estiones and Brigantii belong to the Vindelici;_ 

and from the ancient lyricist: 

*Horaz -* IV/XIV
_They know thee now, thy strength in war,
Those unsubdued Vindelici.
Thine was the sword that Drusus drew,
When on the Breunian hordes he fell,
And storm'd the fierce Genaunian crew
E'en in their Alpine citadel,
And paid them back their debt twice told
'Twas then the elder Nero came
To conflict, and in ruin roll'd
Stout Raetian kernes of giant frame._

----------


## Ike

> Wow, the world of linguistics is smaller than I realized.
> 
> The Croatian "dol" that you mentioned reminds me of the U.S. dollar. Our currency used to be centered on grains of silver, and an ounce of high grade silver (90% for coin and 92.5 for Sterling) fits comfortably in the palm of most adults. Having zero knowledge of high German, low German, middle German, Croatian, etc. I figured out a few years ago that dollar comes from the German "thaler" meaning thing of the valley. *When folks wanted to purchase supplies in old Germany, they would put a healthy chunk of silver into their palm, come out of the hills and into the valley*, then hand over some silver for livestock, a bunch of chickens, etc... whatever the needed and could trade silver for.
> 
> So there you have the connection to the U.S. dollar and the root word for valley. Gross simplification, but what do you expect from a crude American? :)


No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:

Slavic _dol, dolina_, and German _tal_ for valley. 
Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.

Same (probably IE) root _DL_ and _TL_. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.


We also have:
Netherlands — daalder
Austria — thaler
Sweden -daler
etc...

----------


## Taranis

> No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:
> 
> Slavic _dol, dolina_, and German _tal_ for valley. 
> Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.


Ike, you are correct with regard for the following: that the Slavic word 'dol' is a cognate with the Germanic words (English 'dale', German 'Tal'). The word might be an early Germanic loanword in Proto-Slavic, or a common word of Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic (for which there are other examples, such as the words for 'gold' and 'silver').




> Same (probably IE) root _DL_ and _TL_. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.


They are not "easily interchangable". Usually, a shift from d to t happens only under very specific conditions, for example in Proto-Germanic (Grimm's Law) and the High German Consonant Shift.

I don't see how this would be related with the Vindelici. 




> the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti , 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._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


Sorry, but this makes no sense. Vindelicia was archaeologically part of the La-Tene homeland, there are plenty of Celtic place names, river names etc. in the area. If you claim "Vindelici comes from Raetian"? Which one? "Raetic-Raetic" (the Etruscan-like language from the Bolzano area, as we discussed in the other thread), Venetic, or Celtic? To me the names "_Vindelici_" and "_Lech_" are both obviously Celtic:

- Common Celtic *windo- means 'white', 'fair' (compare Irish "_fionn_", Welsh "_gwyn_"). There is also the '_Vindium montes_' mountains in Spain.
- Common Celtic *likko- means 'rock' or 'slab' (compare Breton "_lec'h_" and Welsh "_llech_"). Further, there is also a cognate in Greek, "_πλακος"_ (Celtic loss of the *p sound from PIE!).

If you can provide a better etymology via Etruscan (for the 'Raetic'-Raetic) or Venetic, please feel free. What I do not get is why you disregard the available linguistic data and prefer saying "it wasn't so". Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia, but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from.

I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.

----------


## Ike

> They are not "easily interchangable". Usually, a shift from d to t happens only under very specific conditions, for example in Proto-Germanic (Grimm's Law) and the High German Consonant Shift.


 Don't know, but I've seen it all the time in numerous examples. Even within the same language:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meter




> I don't see how this would be related with the Vindelici.


Am not saying it is. It is just a plece in western Croatia, with VNDLC in it. Looking this way now, the term could be related to Vandal.

----------


## Nobody1

> Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia


Not Venetic;
An Illyrian/Mysterious presence since both the Vindelici and Veneti were Illyrians/Mysterious;
Sources for all that given in previous posts or in the thread linked in the aother thread;




> but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from


Not Venetic;
An Illyrian/Mysterious language akin to Venetic which is equally Illyrian/Mysterious since both the Vindelici and Veneti were Illyrians/Mysterious;
Sources for all that given in previous posts or in the thread linked in the aother thread;




> I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.


I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley;
The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC; 
This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC;

And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as Umbrians (ITALICS); And what you described as a "_superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres_" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land *Umbrians*' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like _Bayer_ and _Niederbayer_ or _Tiroler_ and _Osttiroler_ - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist like you couldnt figure that out; 

Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex; In which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are found i.e their language; And given that Italic and Keltic are the closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you could not (factually) tell an archaic language from proto-Italic or proto-Keltic; Lepontic is now classified as P-Keltic (_*kw>P_) and considered from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs. to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish and thus could easily be from proto-Italic and thus P-Italic Umbrian; And an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language wouldnt be that odd; 

Here are some good reads for you on the Sabbellic/Italic languages;

*D. Piwowarczyk* - Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/...iwowarczyk.pdf
*UC Berkeley* - 2012
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

*Lepontic* stele inscription 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate, Lombardy - N Italy

----------


## Nobody1

> Nobody1, I will agree that there was a Venetic presence in the Alps between Venetia and Vindelicia but I don't see where you are taking the "Vindelicians spoke Venetic" from.


Not a Venetic presence an not a Venetic language;
An Illyrian presence and an Illyrian language i.e. the Vindelici and Veneti were indeed Illyrians (ancient/classical History) and thus indeed they share a common language (inscriptions); 

And that is exactly what i have been writing in all the previous posts and threads before;

Now i can agree to replace Illyrian with Mysterious as in the Vindelici and Veneti were both Mysterious and their common language was thus also Mysterious;




> I also think you are totally wrong regarding Lepontic. Its clear that Lepontic was a Celtic language, and not an Italic one (again, diagnostics are pretty clear here). You are basing your Lepontic-Umbrian connection on the superficial similarity of the names "Umbrian" and "Insubres". There is a corpus of both Lepontic and Umbrian, you can easily see from it that Lepontic is closer with Gaulish or with Celtiberian than with Umbrian, and that Umbrian is closer with Oscan and Latin than with Lepontic.


Given that Lepontic is an Indo-European language - I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. the Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley; The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC; This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC; Hence no further migrations since at least ~1100 BC;

And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into the Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as the Umbrians (ITALICS); 

And what you described as a "_superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres_" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land Umbrians' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like _Bayer_ and _Niederbayer_ or _Tiroler_ and _Osttiroler_ - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist of your format could not figure that out;

Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex in which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are/were found - i.e their language; Given that Italic and Keltic are closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you couldnt tell (factually) an archaic language from proto-Italic and proto-Keltic; Lepontic is being classified as P-Keltic (_*Kw>P_) and from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish - im just saying it thus could just as well be P-Italic (_*Kw>P_) proto-Italic/archaic-Umbrian; Due to the factual linguistic basis and because an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language is not that odd;

Some good reads on the Sabellic/Italic languages;
*D. Piwowarczyk -* Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/...iwowarczyk.pdf
*UC Berkeley* - 2012
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

*Lepontic* stele inscr. 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate/Lombardy - Po-valley;

----------


## Ike

Spekaing of Illyrians, why is there Sorbiodurum at the upper right corner of Vindelici map?
The _-durum_ element means "doors, gates; palisade; town" or Latin _durum_ from Celtic *dūro- 'fort' ?

source:Vindeliker

----------


## Sile

> Sorry, but this makes no sense. Vindelicia was archaeologically part of the La-Tene homeland, there are plenty of Celtic place names, river names etc. in the area. If you claim "Vindelici comes from Raetian"? Which one? "Raetic-Raetic" (the Etruscan-like language from the Bolzano area, as we discussed in the other thread), Venetic, or Celtic? To me the names "_Vindelici_" and "_Lech_" are both obviously Celtic:
> 
> - Common Celtic *windo- means 'white', 'fair' (compare Irish "_fionn_", Welsh "_gwyn_"). There is also the '_Vindium montes_' mountains in Spain.
> - Common Celtic *likko- means 'rock' or 'slab' (compare Breton "_lec'h_" and Welsh "_llech_"). Further, there is also a cognate in Greek, "_πλακος"_ (Celtic loss of the *p sound from PIE!).
> 
> If you can provide a better etymology via Etruscan (for the 'Raetic'-Raetic) or Venetic, please feel free. What I do not get is why you disregard the available linguistic data and prefer saying "it wasn't so".



you are talking iron-age, I am talking bronze-age............we will never agree

besides you mention town names which is irrelevant, its like saying London was always Roman because they built it and named it.....what point is that?

----------


## Diviacus

At least some present scholars consider Vindelici as mostly Celtic.

----------


## Sile

> At least some present scholars consider Vindelici as mostly Celtic.


Of the 45 plus tribes that the Romans conquered in all the alps, only 4 where vendelici , see link
If they are celtic then celtic presence was minimal against the Romans

http://www.astoft.co.uk/turbie.htm

----------


## Taranis

> Not a Venetic presence an not a Venetic language;
> An Illyrian presence and an Illyrian language i.e. the Vindelici and Veneti were indeed Illyrians (ancient/classical History) and thus indeed they share a common language (inscriptions); 
> 
> And that is exactly what i have been writing in all the previous posts and threads before;
> 
> Now i can agree to replace Illyrian with Mysterious as in the Vindelici and Veneti were both Mysterious and their common language was thus also Mysterious;


Excuse me, but what are you trying to tell us with this repetition of 'mysterious'?  :Indifferent: 




> Given that Lepontic is an Indo-European language - *I am basing it on the Archaeological complex of the Urnfield expansion i.e. the Indo-European migrations into the Po-valley*; The proto-Golasecca (Scamozzina/Canegrate) is a Bronze-age culture zone of the Urnfield culture attested by the 12th cen BC; This cultural-complex (Golasecca) continued its direct continuity (no breaks/changes) until LaTene B1 - early 4th cen BC; Hence no further migrations since at least ~1100 BC;


I'm sorry, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the Lepontic inscriptions and see what they are than ad-hoc define the Urnfield Culture as Indo-European and then in reverse proclaim that the Lepontii must be also Indo-European. Because your approach, no offense, sounds very much to me like out of the playbook of Gustav Kossinna's "Siedlungsarchäologie"... 




> And the grant revelation is that those Indo-Europeans [of the 12th cen BC migration of the Urnfield-complex] that crossed the Alps into the Po-valley and formed the proto-Golasecca zone are the same (Archaeologically/Chronologically) stock of Indo-Europeans that further south formed the proto-Villanova zone - and those who emerged from the proto-Villanova zone are known as the Umbrians (ITALICS); 
> 
> And what you described as a "_superficial similarity of the names Umbrian and Insubres_" is in fact a precise ethnic denomination of an Umbrian-people for indeed Insubres/Isombri-Ἴσομβροι means 'low-land Umbrians' - In ancient Greek the Ombri - Ὄμβροι and the IsOmbri - Ἴσομβροι; Its like _Bayer_ and _Niederbayer_ or _Tiroler_ and _Osttiroler_ - a clear ethnic denomination; Too bad a linguist of your format could not figure that out;
> 
> Thats the Historical and Archaeological bases of the Insubres/Isombri/Ἴσομβροι and the Indo-European Golasecca Urnfield-complex in which 100% of the Lepontic inscriptions are/were found - i.e their language; Given that Italic and Keltic are closest (share the most similarities) within the Indo-European family you couldnt tell (factually) an archaic language from proto-Italic and proto-Keltic; Lepontic is being classified as P-Keltic (_*Kw>P_) and from a form of proto-Keltic hence the marked diffs to P-Keltic Gaulish and Cisalpine Gaulish - im just saying it thus could just as well be P-Italic (_*Kw>P_) proto-Italic/archaic-Umbrian; Due to the factual linguistic basis and because an Umbrian people speaking an Umbrian language is not that odd;


See, this is impossible. As I mentioned before, one of the defining features of the Celtic languages is the loss of the *p sound inherited from Proto-Indo-European, the development of *kw > *p (which, you are correct, also occured in the Osco-Umbrian languages) must have occured after the loss of the original *p. In a similar manner, one of the defining features of the Italic languages (_including Venetic_ here) is that Indo-European *bh-, *dh-, *gh- are rendered as *f-, *f-, *h-. 




> Some good reads on the Sabellic/Italic languages;
> *D. Piwowarczyk -* Jagiellonian Uni. 2011
> http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/documents/...iwowarczyk.pdf
> *UC Berkeley* - 2012
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf


And (I cannot deny that I find this very entertaining), you are actually conflicting yourself with that Piwowarczyk paper, because if I take the Umbrian word '_fakust_' (quoted by Piwowarczyk), it is a cognate with Latin '_facere_'. The Celtic languages, much like the Germanic languages, render PIE *dh- as *d (the English cognate of '_facere_' is '_do_', and the German cognate is '_tun_').

Another example of this would be the comparison of Latin '_frater_', Irish '_brathair_', English '_brother_', German '_Bruder_'.




> *Lepontic* stele inscr. 6th-5th cen BC from Vergiate/Lombardy - Po-valley;


Funny how the first word in there is '_BELGUI_' (cf. Eska, Mercado, 2005). This, like the ethnic name '*B*elgae', can be derived from Proto-Indo-European **bh*elgh- (to swell), also reflected in English as '*b*ellows' and German as '(Blase-)*b*alg'...

----------


## Nobody1

> Excuse me, but what are you trying to tell us with this repetition of 'mysterious'?


not much;




> I'm sorry, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the Lepontic inscriptions and see what they are than ad-hoc define the Urnfield Culture as Indo-European and then in reverse proclaim that the Lepontii must be also Indo-European. Because your approach, no offense, sounds very much to me like out of the playbook of Gustav Kossinna's "Siedlungsarchäologie"...


It is actually just basic Archaeology; 
It does take some reading to understand it i.e. to understand the certain expansions and their affiliations; And in the end no one can truly disregard the Archaeological reality (i.e. the expansions and affiliations);




> See, this is impossible. As I mentioned before, one of the defining features of the Celtic languages is the loss of the *p sound inherited from Proto-Indo-European, the development of *kw > *p (which, you are correct, also occured in the Osco-Umbrian languages) must have occured after the loss of the original *p. In a similar manner, one of the defining features of the Italic languages (including Venetic here) is that Indo-European *bh-, *dh-, *gh- are rendered as *f-, *f-, *h-.


*James Clackson -* Indo-European Linguistics (2007) Cambridge Uni.
_These languages share some characteristic lexical features with the other members of the Celtic group, principally Irish and Welsh, and the loss of the sound ∗p, generally assumed for all the Celtic languages. However, the number of morphological innovations which are shared by all the Celtic languages is extremely small, and if we use the strictest criteria for reconstructing sub-groups, the Celtic languages do not qualify. Even the loss of ∗p seems only to be underway in the Lepontic inscriptions and may have spread across the whole language area from language to language, rather than being a feature of a sub-group parent from which they all descended.
_
I am starting to lose confidence in your linguistic abilities; 
Platitudes from John T. Koch are nice to read though not substantial but a decent effort;
Have another try in factually differentiating Lepontic from proto-Keltic and proto-Italic;




> And (I cannot deny that I find this very entertaining), you are actually conflicting yourself with that Piwowarczyk paper, because if I take the Umbrian word 'fakust' (quoted by Piwowarczyk), it is a cognate with Latin 'facere'. The Celtic languages, much like the Germanic languages, render PIE *dh- as *d (the English cognate of 'facere' is 'do', and the German cognate is 'tun').


Exactly my point;




> Funny how the first word in there is 'BELGUI' (cf. Eska, Mercado, 2005). This, like the ethnic name 'Belgae', can be derived from Proto-Indo-European *bhelgh- (to swell), also reflected in English as 'bellows' and German as '(Blase-)balg'...


The sentence translates as (from David Stifter / Uni. Wien): 
*pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iśos : karite : palam*
_Deu set up the *bruiā for Belkos_ :_ he (likewise) set up the gravestone_

Now you are correct that the Umbrians themselves were designated as being Gauls in ancient/classical History '_veteres Galli_' and the vast similarities between Italic and Keltic stem from the common Indo-European root; As we also find this Indo-European cognate of UMBRI-OMBRI-AMBRI in many other Indo-European tribes whether Germanic or Keltic: sigAMBRI, cIMBRI, AMBROnes, sYMBRI and the OMBROnes on the Vistula;

And so the inscriptions (intentionally chosen) clearly signalise the broader Indo-European realm of Lepontic, Keltic and Italic - which brings us back to the Archaeological reality of the Urnfield complex;

----------


## Taranis

> It is actually just basic Archaeology; 
> It does take some reading to understand it i.e. to understand the certain expansions and their affiliations; And in the end no one can truly disregard the Archaeological reality (i.e. the expansions and affiliations);


My point is that all your archaeological considerations make no sense if you have no idea about the supposed languages that we are talking about. No offense, but if you disregard all available data, you might as well roll a D20 and variably attach labels such as "Celtic", "Italic", "Atlantean" or "Martian" to an archaeological culture...




> *James Clackson -* Indo-European Linguistics (2007) Cambridge Uni.
> _These languages share some characteristic lexical features with the other members of the Celtic group, principally Irish and Welsh, and the loss of the sound ∗p, generally assumed for all the Celtic languages. However, the number of morphological innovations which are shared by all the Celtic languages is extremely small, and if we use the strictest criteria for reconstructing sub-groups, the Celtic languages do not qualify. Even the loss of ∗p seems only to be underway in the Lepontic inscriptions and may have spread across the whole language area from language to language, rather than being a feature of a sub-group parent from which they all descended._


I would say I disagree with Clackson, and you seem to have misunderstood or misquoted me. My wording was 'one' of the defining features, not the only one, as some Celtic languages (Lusitanian) preserve the *p sound. The loss of the original _*p_ sound is attested in Lepontic (even Clackson in your quote admits that, his wording is "under way"), for instance in "_Ufamokozis_". Now Eska, to quote him again, reconstructs the "labial fricative", which is either /f/ or /φ/, which is expectable as an intermediate step. The point is that this by no means in conflict with what I said, this - and other features - place Lepontic firmly within the Celtic languages, unlike Umbrian for which the shift *bh-, *dh- > *f- is attested. Q.e.d.




> I am starting to lose confidence in your linguistic abilities; 
> Platitudes from John T. Koch are nice to read though not substantial but a decent effort;


 :Rolleyes: 




> Have another try in factually differentiating Lepontic from proto-Keltic and proto-Italic;


I did. I maintain - which is the consensual view of the majority of scholars on the topic - that Lepontic _is_ a Celtic language. Umbrian isn't.




> Exactly my point;


How can this be "exactly your point" if it completely deconstructs your point? You even repeat my own arguments later on:




> The sentence translates as (from David Stifter / Uni. Wien): 
> *pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iśos : karite : palam*
> _Deu set up the *bruiā for Belkos_ :_ he (likewise) set up the gravestone_


I might add: the word "iśos" is an attestation of the "Tau Gallicum" in Lepontic...




> Now you are correct that the Umbrians themselves were designated as being Gauls in ancient/classical History '_veteres Galli_'


How can you claim that?




> and the vast similarities between Italic and Keltic stem from the common Indo-European root; As we also find this Indo-European cognate of UMBRI-OMBRI-AMBRI in many other Indo-European tribes whether Germanic or Keltic: sigAMBRI, cIMBRI, AMBROnes, sYMBRI and the OMBROnes on the Vistula;


No offense, but have we already reached the level of magical word dismantlement...?

----------


## Nobody1

> My point is that all your archaeological considerations make no sense if you have no idea about the supposed languages that we are talking about. No offense, but if you disregard all available data, you might as well roll a D20 and variably attach labels such as "Celtic", "Italic", "Atlantean" or "Martian" to an archaeological culture...


In order for an Indo-European language (like Lepontic) to exist - actual Indo-Europeans must have spoken it; Therefor the affiliation of the Speakers of the Lepontic language is directly connected with the Archaeological attested Indo-European migrations; And there was no break since the 12th cen BC Urnfield expansion and the Golasecca-complex (no data will tell you otherwise) hence proto-Keltic at best; No offense - but you are the one who is disregarding the entire field of Archaeology and thus end up with a false attachment; 

Since Lepontic can only (and no other data will tell you otherwise) be from proto-Keltic at best and given the similarities to proto-Italic (P-Italic/Umbrian) it might as well be from proto-Italic - especially regarding its Archaeological affiliations to proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Italics);




> I would say I disagree with Clackson, and you seem to have misunderstood or misquoted me. My wording was 'one' of the defining features, not the only one, as some Celtic languages (Lusitanian) preserve the *p sound. The loss of the original _*p_ sound is attested in Lepontic (even Clackson in your quote admits that, his wording is "under way"), for instance in "_Ufamokozis_". Now Eska, to quote him again, reconstructs the "labial fricative", which is either /f/ or /φ/, which is expectable as an intermediate step. The point is that this by no means in conflict with what I said, this - and other features - place Lepontic firmly within the Celtic languages, unlike Umbrian for which the shift *bh-, *dh- > *f- is attested. Q.e.d.


I am not surprised that you would boldly disagree with a linguistic scholar from Cambridge;
But acc. to his lessser-opinion the loss of the _*p_ sound is not from a common proto-Keltic parent and thus your main argument for Lepontic stemming from proto-Keltic (losing _*p_) is virtually non existent; Of course Lepontic developed it ("under way") independently; 




> I did. I maintain - which is the consensual view of the majority of scholars on the topic - that Lepontic _is_ a Celtic language. Umbrian isn't. How can this be "exactly your point" if it completely deconstructs your point? You even repeat my own arguments later on:


Of course Umbrian is not Keltic - the fact that Umbrian is Italic i.e from proto-Italic and that Italic/Sabellic and Keltic are two distinct branches is in fact - Exactly my Point; You have only (correctly) demonstrated the diffs. between the Italic and the Keltic branches; But you will not be capable to factually differentiate Lepontic from proto-Italic the way it already differentiates to proto-Keltic; 

And that is what i am (and always was) talking about; The specific relation of Lepontic to proto-Italic(P-Umbrian) and not the relation of Keltic and Italic;




> I might add: the word "iśos" is an attestation of the "Tau Gallicum" in Lepontic...


I might add that the word /iśos/ is a pronominal;




> No offense, but have we already reached the level of magical word dismantlement...?


Does it really involve magic to dismantle the cognate AMBRO-UMBRO-OMBRO in all the tribes?
concerning your methods and skills one might well believe it - no offense;

----------


## Sile

> < Laughing like Beavis. Mike Judge would be impressed with my imitation.
> 
> But in all seriousness, can I ask an obtuse question? Is this back and forth concerning whether or not a tribe (or tribes) spoke Celtic? I feel like I'm missing something here. Do these tribes have import for the rest of Europe or maybe the Indo-European branch of languages? Please excuse my ignorance.


without the correct answer, you as an example, would be a mongolian runt instead of what you claim to be

----------


## Nobody1

> I might add that the word /iśos/ is a pronominal;


Speaking of /iśos/ i might add that _iśos_ is only present in Lepontic and either a pronoun or a demonstrative;

*Emmanuel Dupraz* - Sabellian Demonstratives: Forms and Functions (2011)
_In addition, a Lepontic nom. sg. masc._ _iśos is attested; it may be an anaphoric pronoun. This form may have arisen from *is-to-s. It is thought to contain both the nom. sg. masc. *is and the inflected grammeme *to-, the form *is- being now used as an iveriable element....Furthermore, if the Lepontic form_ _iśos, which is morphologically the best Celtic comparandum to CIt *es-to-, is really a demonstrative, then it is a focalising anaphoric grammeme, that is, its use is rather comparable with the use of Latin īdem, than with the uses of Latin iste or CSa *esto-/*esmo-: see Lejeune (1971) 88....After the rise of CLF *isto- and the Latin development of the nom. sg. masc. *isto into iste, the latter could perhaps be regarded as a compound of *is, the nom. sg. masc. of *i-/*eyo—/*ey-/*e-sy-, and an invariable *-te.

_*Schrijver* (1994) concerning it a pronoun connects the Lepontic_ iśos_ to *_istos_ and Latin _Iste_;

----------


## Taranis

> In order for an Indo-European language (like Lepontic) to exist - actual Indo-Europeans must have spoken it; Therefor the affiliation of the Speakers of the Lepontic language is directly connected with the Archaeological attested Indo-European migrations; And there was no break since the 12th cen BC Urnfield expansion and the Golasecca-complex (no data will tell you otherwise) hence proto-Keltic at best; No offense - but you are the one who is disregarding the entire field of Archaeology and thus end up with a false attachment; 
> 
> Since Lepontic can only (and no other data will tell you otherwise) be from proto-Keltic at best and given the similarities to proto-Italic (P-Italic/Umbrian) it might as well be from proto-Italic - especially regarding its Archaeological affiliations to proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Italics);


Well, lets talk about the linguistic reality here. There is a deep penetration of the Celtic languages into the farthest west and south of the Iberian peninsula, which to pick up your ideas, by no means explainable by either Hallstatt/La-Tene model that you enjoy so much, nor by the Urnfield model. There's a similar case with Irish/Gaelic. Now, I disagree with Koch regarding the origin of the Celtic languages (to me, it does not make any sense to make the Celtic languages into a purely Atlantic phenomenon, because again, the reality is very different), but he has a point that its plausible to assume the Atlantic Bronze Age - contemporary to Urnfield - was already partially (or wholly) Celtic-speaking. To me, the most plausible assumption (that reconciles both models) is that the Celtic languages *developed on two fronts*, one in Central Europe, one in the Atlantic region. 

What you are doing is that you proclaim Lepontic must be Italic because you have (ad-hoc) determined that - because of your foregone conclusions - the bearers of the Golasecca culture _must not_ have been spoken a Celtic language. And thats not how things go.

I know that this is off-topic, but how do you explain yourself the presence of Gallaecian and Lusitanian in Iberia?




> I am not surprised that you would boldly disagree with a linguistic scholar from Cambridge;


You don't seem to have a problem with disagreeing with John Koch, so...




> But acc. to his lessser-opinion the loss of the _*p_ sound is not from a common proto-Keltic parent and thus your main argument for Lepontic stemming from proto-Keltic (losing _*p_) is virtually non existent; Of course Lepontic developed it ("under way") independently;


It's not my main argument, and its not "virtually non-existent": if it was a fricative, then by definition the original sound was at that point lost. Lepontic is also Celtic because of ē > ī, ei > ē.




> Of course Umbrian is not Keltic - the fact that Umbrian is Italic i.e from proto-Italic and that Italic/Sabellic and Keltic are two distinct branches is in fact - Exactly my Point; You have only (correctly) demonstrated the diffs. between the Italic and the Keltic branches; But you will not be capable to factually differentiate Lepontic from proto-Italic the way it already differentiates to proto-Keltic; 
> 
> And that is what i am (and always was) talking about; The specific relation of Lepontic to proto-Italic(P-Umbrian) and not the relation of Keltic and Italic;


Actually, I already have differentiated it. Proto-Italic, and I'm growing tired of repeating myself, has a shift of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- to *f-, *f-, *h-, while Lepontic apparently has *bh > *b.

----------


## Taranis

> Of the 45 plus tribes that the Romans conquered in all the alps, only 4 where vendelici , see link
> If they are celtic then celtic presence was minimal against the Romans
> 
> 
> http://www.astoft.co.uk/turbie.htm



Sile, It doesn't make any sense to me to assume that the Romans ethnically cleanesed / exterminated the entire presence of your (Illyrian? Etruscan?) Alpine peoples and then resettled the region with subjects from Gaul...


I'd like to give you something to think about**:


- Julius Caesar (Commentaries on the Gallic War) names the main town of the Veragri (Ver- as in 'Vercingetorix') as 'Octodurus' (today Martigny, Switzerland).
- The names Isarci, Runicates, Licates, Ambisontes (> Ambiani), Cosuanetes, Suanetes, Calucones, Seduni, Brixentes (> Brigantes), Medulli (> Medubrigenses), Caturiges (> Bituriges), Brigiani, Esubiani (> Esuvios), Nemeturi (> Nemetes, Nemetobriga), Nerusi (> Nervii, Nerii) and Velauni (> Cassivelaunus) also strike me as Celtic.

- The name _Focunates_ cannot be Celtic. It might be Italic (or Venetic), if its somehow related with the Latin word 'focus'.


- The one name in that list that strikes me as (perhaps) related with Etruscan (or "Raetic-Raetic", if you will) is "Trumplini". For that compare the word 'triumph', itself probably originally an Etruscan loanword. If that is correct (don't hold me for this, however), the "Trumplini" would be the "victorious ones". I might add their location, the Val Trompia (which is even today named after the tribe), places them in the vicinity to the Po plain again.

----------


## Nobody1

> Well, lets talk about the linguistic reality here. There is a deep penetration of the Celtic languages into the farthest west and south of the Iberian peninsula, which to pick up your ideas, by no means explainable by either Hallstatt/La-Tene model that you enjoy so much, nor by the Urnfield model. There's a similar case with Irish/Gaelic. Now, I disagree with Koch regarding the origin of the Celtic languages (to me, it does not make any sense to make the Celtic languages into a purely Atlantic phenomenon, because again, the reality is very different), but he has a point that its plausible to assume the Atlantic Bronze Age - contemporary to Urnfield - was already partially (or wholly) Celtic-speaking. To me, the most plausible assumption (that reconciles both models) is that the Celtic languages *developed on two fronts*, one in Central Europe, one in the Atlantic region.


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-speakin_g'; Other wise it remains a somewhat abstruse theory (i like to underscore the term theory) that an Indo-European language was spoken (or wholly existed) in a non-Indo-European culture-zone;

I would def. look into the Archaeological data of the Unetice/Tumulus>Urnfield>Hallstatt expansions into the West of Europe and the subsequent influence on/in Iberia (migrations) from 9th cen BC [Curchin 2003] onwards - with Soto I-II, Cogotas II, Carpetani settlements/cultures, and Castro (_Sorian landscape_) and their strong containing influence of *Hallstatt* and contiunued *LaTene* - reflected in the Incineration rites, pottery, weaponry and ornaments - and an Indo-European language with Celtiberian as opposed to Iberian/Aquitani/Tartessian which are non-Indo-European languages; 

Also note the Archaeological phenomenon of the Atlantic-Bronze-age defensive fortifications towards the East of it;




> What you are doing is that you proclaim Lepontic must be Italic because you have (ad-hoc) determined that - because of your foregone conclusions - the bearers of the Golasecca culture _must not_ have been spoken a Celtic language. And thats not how things go.


It is not ad-hoc; 

The key points once again for Lepontic:
Indo-European language / Bronze-age Indo-European culture [Urnfield/proto-Golasecca(Canegrate) 12th cen BC) / 100% of all Lepontic inscr. retrieved/existed in the Golasecca zone / No breaks in Golasecca until LaTene B1 early 4th cen BC;

*Pierre-Yves Lambert* & *Georges-Jean Pinault* - Gaulois et Celtique Continental (2007)
_Against this background, a Celticization of thé Golasecca area, i.e. thé introduction of an entirely new, Celtic, language, immediately before thé first appearance of Celtic linguistic documents seems highly implausible, and thé date suggesting itself for this process is rather at thé next previous cultural break, i.e. ça. 1200. Both this early stage "Proto-Lepontic" intro- duced with thé Canegrate culture and thé corresponding "Proto-Gaulish" could then hâve their common ancestor in thé language represented by thé early Urnfield culture north of thé Alps which was later followed by transalpine Hallstatt and finally LaTène._

I could be wrong but that sure sounds as if those French linguistic scholars from the *EPHE* agree with my crazy ad-hoc Archaeological based understanding; Now the 1200 BC Urnfield expansion is the basis for the Lepontic language which would thus correspond (common root) with proto-Keltic/Gaulish and if that is the case and that is the case - how far is it then to proto-Italic given the common Linguistic links, the Ethnological affiliation of Insubres/Umbrians and the Archaeological affiliation of* Urnfield* proto-Golasecca and *Urnfield* proto-Villanova (of the 12th cen BC);




> It's not my main argument, and its not "virtually non-existent": if it was a fricative, then by definition the original sound was at that point lost. Lepontic is also Celtic because of ē > ī, ei > ē. Actually, I already have differentiated it. Proto-Italic, and I'm growing tired of repeating myself, has a shift of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- to *f-, *f-, *h-, while Lepontic apparently has *bh > *b.


Only if the shift of proto-Indo-European _*bh-/*dh-/*gh-_ to Italic voiceless _*f-_ already occurred in *proto-*Italic;
And that is something that is factually not attestable due to the non-existence of proto-Italic inscriptions but if Lepontic constitutes a form of proto-Italic than that shift from proto-Indo-European did not occurr until unanimously in the Italic/Sabellic languages; And yes app. (Conway 1968) Lepontic seems to have lost the asperiation in _*bh-/*dh-/*gh-_;

----------


## Sile

> Sile, It doesn't make any sense to me to assume that the Romans ethnically cleanesed / exterminated the entire presence of your (Illyrian? Etruscan?) Alpine peoples and then resettled the region with subjects from Gaul...


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.






> - Julius Caesar (Commentaries on the Gallic War) names the main town of the Veragri (Ver- as in 'Vercingetorix') as 'Octodurus' (today Martigny, Switzerland).


whats this have to do with it?




> - The names Isarci, Runicates, Licates, Ambisontes (> Ambiani), Cosuanetes, Suanetes, Calucones, Seduni, Brixentes (> Brigantes), Medulli (> Medubrigenses), Caturiges (> Bituriges), Brigiani, Esubiani (> Esuvios), Nemeturi (> Nemetes, Nemetobriga), Nerusi (> Nervii, Nerii) and Velauni (> Cassivelaunus) also strike me as Celtic.


tribes considered *probably* Celtic by scholars are eliminated (Medulli, Ucenni, Caturiges, Brigiani, Sogionti, Ceutrones, Uberi, Nantuates, Sedunes, Veragri),[21 from the alpine list




> - The name _Focunates_ cannot be Celtic. It might be Italic (or Venetic), if its somehow related with the Latin word 'focus'.


more illyrian than venetic ........




> - The one name in that list that strikes me as (perhaps) related with Etruscan (or "Raetic-Raetic", if you will) is "Trumplini". For that compare the word 'triumph', itself probably originally an Etruscan loanword. If that is correct (don't hold me for this, however), the "Trumplini" would be the "victorious ones". I might add their location, the Val Trompia (which is even today named after the tribe), places them in the vicinity to the Po plain again.


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 ..........

and
And Italian historians list Spina and being founded by the Pelasgi.
- * the Pelasgians dispersed to Crete, the Cyclades, Histaeotis, Boeotia, Phocis, Euboea, the coast along the Hellespont and the islands, especially Lesbos, which had been colonized by Macar son of Crinacus. Most went to Dodona and eventually being driven from there to Italy then called Saturnia. They landed at Spina at the mouth of the Po River.*

- Taurisci of Noricum no longer associated with gallic Taurini (turin area), but classified with illyrian/pannonian group

----------


## Diviacus

> *Pierre-Yves Lambert* & *Georges-Jean Pinault* - Gaulois et Celtique Continental (2007)
> _Against this background, a Celticization of thé Golasecca area, i.e. thé introduction of an entirely new, Celtic, language, immediately before thé first appearance of Celtic linguistic documents seems highly implausible, and thé date suggesting itself for this process is rather at thé next previous cultural break, i.e. ça. 1200. Both this early stage "Proto-Lepontic" intro- duced with thé Canegrate culture and thé corresponding "Proto-Gaulish" could then hâve their common ancestor in thé language represented by thé early Urnfield culture north of thé Alps which was later followed by transalpine Hallstatt and finally LaTène._
> 
> I could be wrong but that sure sounds as if those French linguistic scholars from the *EPHE* agree with my crazy ad-hoc Archaeological based understanding;


 This quote is not from "those French linguistic scholars". It's from Jürgen Uhlich.
And in his article, the author is very clear on the fact that Lepontic clearly belongs to the Celtic branch of Indo-European.

----------


## Nobody1

> This quote is not from "those French linguistic scholars". It's from Jürgen Uhlich.
> And in his article, the author is very clear on the fact that Lepontic clearly belongs to the Celtic branch of Indo-European.


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;

----------


## Taranis

> 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'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/wikipedi..._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?

----------


## Nobody1

> 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


That is not a problem - in fact i found it quite easy to illustrate my point based on factual Archaeology and Linguistics; You can find all the sources and refs. in the previous posts;




> 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.


I dont want to cause too much trouble - but could i bother you and Sir Ockham to compile and reveal those proto-Italic inscriptions? maybe scan them and post them?
And Venetic shares more similarities to Keltic than to Italic - might seem familiar from the link on page one;

Prof. Dr. *J. Gvozdanovic* - Uni Heidelberg (2012)
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr...2833-46%29.pdf




> (because you claim that Urnfield, if I get you right, must have spoken an undifferenciated "Italo-Celtic" language?).


No that is completely false;
The similarities between the Italic branch and Keltic branch within the Indo-European family comes from the common Indo-European root itself (C. Watkins 1966) and not from a common intermediate language unit (aka Italo-Celtic); 

The similarities being: -ī genetive, -r endings, -a subjunctive, the /samo/ suffix, *p-*kw shifts, -b future etc. etc. which are of course also shared with other Indo-European branches such as Anatolian and Tocharian; And the Urnfield-complex was a much broader Indo-European culture complex; not associated with a single branch;




> 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.


I already gave you an answer to your Iberian problem (post#27) and it did not involve the Urnfield-complex; T Koch was deliberately wrong about Tartessian and the rest are just his add-on theories and constructs; 




> 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.


Gravitation is not a theory i.e. Laws of Gravity;

----------


## Sile

> Again, what is your evidence?



 Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This is the ancient Celtic position 750BC, where are the vindelici in regards to the map?

The celtic area in central western Germany fits where the 2013 conference stated was the homeland of R-U152. it also stated that the celts marched into and over the alps..........this makes logical sense in bringing R-U152 to Italy and the alps.

And I state again the vindelici where named as per my link on previous post. I am not denying that being neighbours of the Celts in their north that they did not take Celtic customs and language, but this was later on. 

Who is to know that the La Tene and Halstatt celtic areas where not just fortified outposts as per archeology.........if the area was fully Celtic, then the Romans in 15BC would have fought against zero Raetic but the more prestige Celtic tribes. 

...................

The evidence that Venetic language was not euganei ....is that your question?............then I ask, do you expect that the migrating veneti came from Homer's Anatolia or Havard's Turkmenistan to bring the Venetic language from these areas into North-east Italy and then convert the raetic and camunic people to learn this Venetic language ..because they are very very close.
or
logically in my thinking, the Veneti came to NE-Italy and accepted the Euganei language ( as they where the only people in NE-Italy) and then someone called it Venetic

----------


## Taranis

> I dont want to cause too much trouble - but could i bother you and Sir Ockham to compile and reveal those proto-Italic inscriptions? maybe scan them and post them?


Well, in the same manner that you can provide us with Celtic inscriptions from the Hallstatt Culture (hint: there are none, as the Hallstatt people were iliterate).

The sound shift *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- is attested in Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, etc. - its logical to argue that this feature was present before the languages differentiated. Conversely, its logical to argue that the development *kw > *p happened independently in Celtic, Italic and Greek - or at a point when the language families were already differentiated, as in Celtic the development *kw > *p clearly postdates the loss of Proto-Indo-European *p (this is, again, why Lepontic is a Celtic language), while both the Greek and Italic preserve *p.




> And Venetic shares more similarities to Keltic than to Italic - might seem familiar from the link on page one;
> 
> Prof. Dr. *J. Gvozdanovic* - Uni Heidelberg (2012)
> http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr...2833-46%29.pdf


What can I say other than 'Gvozdanovic is wrong about this'? Venetic is closer with the Italic languages (not only the development *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h-, but also the treatment of syllabic resonants, in which by the way is also one of the points why Lepontic in turn is firmly a Celtic language).




> No that is completely false;
> The similarities between the Italic branch and Keltic branch within the Indo-European family comes from the common Indo-European root itself (C. Watkins 1966) and not from a common intermediate language unit (aka Italo-Celtic);


I'm sorry, but I thought that was your point, because you gave us that impression by consistently arguing that Lepontic wasn't Celtic (which it is)...




> The similarities being: -ī genetive, -r endings, -a subjunctive, the /samo/ suffix, *p-*kw shifts, -b future etc. etc. which are of course also shared with other Indo-European branches such as Anatolian and Tocharian; And the Urnfield-complex was a much broader Indo-European culture complex; not associated with a single branch;


You are wrong (and you're certainly, perhaps even deliberately, misquoting Watkins there), the *p_kw > *kw_kw shift is not attested in either Tocharian (Tocharian A "pänt", Tocharian B "pinkte") or Anatolian.




> I already gave you an answer to your Iberian problem (post#27) and it did not involve the Urnfield-complex;


Actually, you didn't. In fact you dodged the question about Gallaecia, the Lusitanians and the Celtici in the southwest. I admit that the latter is offtopic (kind of).




> T Koch was deliberately wrong about Tartessian and the rest are just his add-on theories and constructs;


I actually don't think that Koch was deliberately wrong, but just wrong about it.




> This is the ancient Celtic position 750BC, where are the vindelici in regards to the map?


In the eastern part of the blue area, towards the border of the Hallstatt D area. The closest archaeological sites that are marked on the map are Heuneburg and Ipf, which are both relatively close to Kempten and Augsburg.




> The evidence that Venetic language was not euganei ....is that your question?............then I ask, do you expect that the migrating veneti came from Homer's Anatolia or Havard's Turkmenistan to bring the Venetic language from these areas into North-east Italy and then convert the raetic and camunic people to learn this Venetic language ..because they are very very close.
> or
> logically in my thinking, the Veneti came to NE-Italy and accepted the Euganei language ( as they where the only people in NE-Italy) and then someone called it Venetic


The paragraph above doesn't make any sense to, sorry. My question was, why do you believe that the ethnic name "Focunates" was Illyrian, and based on what. Likewise, you much earlier (post #5) claimed that the name "Vindelici" was Raetian. I provided you with a possible Celtic etymology of the name, and would like you provide us with a Raetian one:




> the Romans always stated vindelici where part of the raeti , 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Germanien.jpg
> 
> but the name vindelici comes from raetian

----------


## Sile

> In the eastern part of the blue area, towards the border of the Hallstatt D area. The closest archaeological sites that are marked on the map are Heuneburg and Ipf, which are both relatively close to Kempten and Augsburg.
> 
> 
> 
> The paragraph above doesn't make any sense to, sorry. My question was, why do you believe that the ethnic name "Focunates" was Illyrian, and based on what. Likewise, you much earlier (post #5) claimed that the name "Vindelici" was Raetian. I provided you with a possible Celtic etymology of the name, and would like you provide us with a Raetian one:


Aquileja is the only town under celtic influence when imposing the maps on each other and Guntia is the border town.
Augusta town is neither a Vindelici or celtic town, but 100% Roman, built as a crossroad center for expansion northwards........it has little reference to anyone except the Romans


*Augusta is a name given to a number of towns founded or colonized by Augustus. Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), capital of Vindelicia, or Rhaetia (also spelled Raetia) Secunda, on the Licus (Lech), was colonized by Drusus under Augustus, after the conquest of Rhaeti in 14 BCE. Vindelicia was a Roman province south of the Danube, which separated it from Germany. It was bounded on the west by the territory of the Helvetti in Gaul, on the south by Rhaetia, and on the east by the river Oenus (Inn), which separated it from Noricum, thus corresponding to the northeast part of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, the south of Wuertemberg and Bavaria, and the north part of the Tyrol. It was originally part of the province of Rhaetia, and was conquered by Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Later Rhaetia was divided into two provinces: Rhaetia Prima and Rhaetia Secunda. The latter became Vindelicia. It was drained by the tributaries of the Danube, of which the most important were the Licus (Lech), with its tributaries, the Vindo or Vidro (Wertach), the Isarus (Isar) and Oenus (Inn). The greater part of the Vindelicia was a plain, but the south portion was occupied by the northern slopes of the Alpes Rhaeticae. It derived its name from its chief inhabitants, the Vindelici, a warlike people dwelling in the southern part of the country. Their name is said to have been formed form the two rivers, Vinda and Licus.*

----------


## Sile

Focunates came from Wilten ( innsbruck )...Illyrians

*The Inn river valley's advantageous geographical position made it a natural choice for early settlers. During the Bronze Age, Illyrians populated the valley areas that proved safe areas from the threat of flooding. Remnants of Illyrian urns can be found in the districts of Wilten, Hötting and Mühlau, whilst artefacts originating from an Illyrian settlement were unearthed on the hill at Vill. Numerous districts of present-day Innsbruck bear names derived from those of the ancient settlements, such as Aldrans, Lans, Igls and Vill. 

*Bronze-age Hotting culture

----------


## Taranis

> Aquileja is the only town under celtic influence when imposing the maps on each other and Guntia is the border town.
> Augusta town is neither a Vindelici or celtic town, but 100% Roman, built as a crossroad center for expansion northwards........it has little reference to anyone except the Romans


Really now? No offense, but your understanding of geography and mine must be very different... 

To quote myself earlier on the object:




> Sorry, but this makes no sense. Vindelicia was archaeologically part of the La-Tene homeland, there are plenty of Celtic place names, river names etc. in the area. If you claim "Vindelici comes from Raetian"? Which one? "Raetic-Raetic" (the Etruscan-like language from the Bolzano area, as we discussed in the other thread), Venetic, or Celtic? To me the names "_Vindelici_" and "_Lech_" are both obviously Celtic:
> 
> - Common Celtic *windo- means 'white', 'fair' (compare Irish "_fionn_", Welsh "_gwyn_"). There is also the '_Vindium montes_' mountains in Spain.
> - Common Celtic *likko- means 'rock' or 'slab' (compare Breton "_lec'h_" and Welsh "_llech_"). Further, there is also a cognate in Greek, "_πλακος"_ (Celtic loss of the *p sound from PIE!).


I might also hint that the name "_Isar_" has parallels in France (Isère) and in the Czech Republic (Jizera), and the river name is probably Celtic, as is the river name "_Lech_".




> Focunates came from Wilten ( innsbruck )...Illyrians


Actually you did not answer my question at all. You just assign a label to them ('Illyrian'), without a real explanation.

I would also like to point you to something very general: the Romans did care preciously little about ethnography, and I think it is a blunder to assume that provincial boundaries that were drawn onto the map by them were in any way representative of ethnic boundaries. In that regard, the Romans were very much like the European colonial powers in Africa of the 19th century. For exactly these purposes, the Romans lumped together Raetia and Vindelicia, but keeping the provincial capital at Augsburg.

What I find odd is that in the other thread, you yourself actually had the ethnic situation summed up to the point in the other thread (which is why I don't understand your insistence here):




> There was a paper last year which had this break down
> - Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as "para-Celtic“ and "pre-Celtic")
> - Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)
> - Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)
> - Veneti (close to Italic, but with a few other affinities, Raeti and possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)

----------


## Sile

> I might also hint that the name "_Isar_" has parallels in France (Isère) and in the Czech Republic (Jizera), and the river name is probably Celtic, as is the river name "_Lech_".


I don't know what you are trying to prove via river names, it makes no sense............but Sill name is in Innsbruck corresponds to Sil in Veneto ( in venetian ) to Sile in current Italian in Veneto............what does all this mean!, the rivers where one of the same?...........they where named by the same culture of people? and have been modified over time!...




> Actually you did not answer my question at all. You just assign a label to them ('Illyrian'), without a real explanation.
> 
> I would also like to point you to something very general: the Romans did care preciously little about ethnography, and I think it is a blunder to assume that provincial boundaries that were drawn onto the map by them were in any way representative of ethnic boundaries. In that regard, the Romans were very much like the European colonial powers in Africa of the 19th century.


Historians named them so and in post#36 ..........it would seem that the term Vindelici is purely created by Romans after the conquest of Raetic lands in 15BC...........we now need to see if the term Vindelici was lazily appied by modern historians using Roman data from 15BC................I will find more information.
If the case is so, then clearly you cannot claim Vindelici as celtic because they where not around, it was all Raetic....and if it was all raetic, then will you claim they where celts?




> What I find odd is that in the other thread, you yourself actually had the ethnic situation summed up to the point in the other thread (which is why I don't understand your insistence here):


Because if I find something which is relevant to someone, regardless if I agree or disagree I show it

----------


## Sile

if you read the Roman history on the area, the term vindelici was used to give credit to the Tribune Drusus who conquered the lower german alps ( "vindelici" lands ), while the other remained under the name Rhaeti for credit to the Tribune Tiberius for his glory.
Raeti land was split for some sort of reward, be it governance or whatever for the Tribunes involved.

Did it ever exist prior to the Roman occupation?

----------


## Bardhyl

Actually Romans really were doing it like Europeans in Africa as mentioned earlier on this thread. So how much truth there is behind that is doubtful, and Illyrian?? what is Illyrian first?? who were they?? can you just by fingertipping assigning them to different people...For me REAL pure Illyrian is region of Delmatea, Ardiaei, Dardanii, Taulantii, Labeates, Autariates, Daorsi, Plerai >> The rest is just putting them to those cuz they are similar. And yes I have checked Illyrian rulers most of them came from Ardiaie, Taulanti and Dardani Tribes (like 90%). 
The most notable Illyrian kingdoms and dynasties were those of Bardyllis of the Dardani and of Agron of the Ardiaei who created the last and best-known Illyrian kingdom (source wiki Illyria)
Sure some will claim Pannoni (Illyrian with celtic)
Then some can claim Enchelejde (Illyrian with hellenic influence)
Paeoni (Thraco_illyrian and probably hellenic)
Bylliones (Greeko-Illyrian)
Liburni and Histri (Much Venetic with illyrian)

The prospective world was south Balkan in ancient times.

like nowadays everyone is interested in Western Countries.

Rhaeto-Rumantsch is spoken in east switzerland =)

----------


## Sile

deo tutus, quia Raeti Vindelici ipsi sunt Liburni, saevissimi admodum populi, 
contra quos missus est Drusus; hi autem ab Amazonib
us originem ducunt, ut etiam 
Horatius dicit “quibus mos unde deductus per omne t
empus Amazonia securi dextras 
obarmet, quaerere distuli”. Hoc ergo nunc ad augmen
tum pertinet, quod tutus est etiam 
inter saevos populos. 

The amazonian is, stated more than once about the Rhaetic people means they used a double bladed axe with a pike on the top for stabbing...........its a north Caucasian "invention" 

Safe because the Raeti Vindelici themselves are Liburnians, most cruel peoples, 
against whose Drusus was sent. These people, however, take their origin from the 
Amazonians, as also Horace says (...). This, therefore, is the reason, why it is mentioned 
that he was save even amongst wild peoples.

----------


## Nobody1

> Well, in the same manner that you can provide us with Celtic inscriptions from the Hallstatt Culture (hint: there are none, as the Hallstatt people were iliterate).


Why would you need inscriptions from Hallstatt?




> The sound shift *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- is attested in Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, etc. - its logical to argue that this feature was present before the languages differentiated. Conversely, its logical to argue that the development *kw > *p happened independently in Celtic, Italic and Greek - or at a point when the language families were already differentiated, as in Celtic the development *kw > *p clearly postdates the loss of Proto-Indo-European *p (this is, again, why Lepontic is a Celtic language), while both the Greek and Italic preserve *p.


Absolutely correct; 
Keltic _*kw>*p_ developed *after* the loss of Indo-European _*p_ and if we assume _*kw_ to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss _*p_) was only '_underway in the Lepontic inscriptions_';

*Roger Woodard* - The Ancient Languages of Europe (2008) Cambridge Uni.
_It is possible that early Lepontic continued PIE *p as the bilabial fricative [φ] and preserved PIE *kw in forms such as Kua__śoni; the latter might, however, contain gw from PIE gwh._

Now the development of _*kw>*p_ did *not* occur collectively in the Keltic languages; Only in Brythonic and Gaulish - and (for the sake of it) Lepontic; But not in Goidelic or Celtiberian which retained _kw_;



In the Italic branch _*kw>*p_ also _*gw>b_ only developed in the Sabellic languages but not in Latin where _*kw_ remained and _*gw>u_ - (Fortson 2010);




> What can I say other than 'Gvozdanovic is wrong about this'? Venetic is closer with the Italic languages (not only the development *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h-, but also the treatment of syllabic resonants, in which by the way is also one of the points why Lepontic in turn is firmly a Celtic language).


Well, if that is the only thing you can say about Gvozdanovic than you might as well just add Gvozdanovic to the list with Clackson and Uhlich as the scholars you disagree with;

On a side note; the Vindelic tribes of the Breuni/Genauni spoke a language identical to Venetic (Historically Mysterious) and thus the language of the Vindelici would also have the development of the voiceless *f- whatever mysterious branch that would be. 




> I'm sorry, but I thought that was your point, because you gave us that impression by consistently arguing that Lepontic wasn't Celtic (which it is)...


If thats really the case than you truly did get a false impression of my point;




> You are wrong (and you're certainly, perhaps even deliberately, misquoting Watkins there), the *p_kw > *kw_kw shift is not attested in either Tocharian (Tocharian A "pänt", Tocharian B "pinkte") or Anatolian.


Neither am i wrong nor did i misquote Watkins - in fact i was not quoting Watkins at all;
You are misrepresenting what i wrote in (post# 33) because we both know exactly that the shared similarities between the Indo-European branches Tocharian, Anatolian, Keltic and Italic (given in my listing) are the _r-endings_ (with Hittite/Tocharian) and the _ā-subjunctive_ (with Tocharian _as 1st preterit 2nd subjunctive_); And that is what i was referring to;

----------


## Nobody1

> Keltic _*kw>*p_ developed after the loss of Indo-European _*p_ and if we assume _*kw_ to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss _*p_) was only '_underway in the Lepontic inscriptions_'


The Indo-European _*p_ (which Keltic has lost) is further manifested in the Lepontic inscriptions;

_J. Whatmough -_ Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
(3) The word _pala_ meaning "grave-stone" or the like has an I. Eu. _p_, which in Keltic is lost, cf. Old Irish _all_ "rock" for _*palso-_ (cf. Latin _sepelio_, Umb. _pelsa-_?).

Lepontic gravesstones having the preserved Indo-European _*p_ with /pala/ inscription;
Gravestones from Golasecca-IIIA (Tessin area) - _*p_ inscriptions as late as Golasecca-IIIA;


The fact that Lepontic retained the Indo-European _*p_ makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European _*p_; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final _*-m_;

_J. Whatmough -_ Lepontic - Harvard Uni. 
(2) I. Eu. final _-m_ is preserved (e.g. _pruiam, uinom_) whereas in Keltic it became _-n_.

The word-final _*-m_ is constraint and replaced by _-n_ in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic (Latin), Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit) *and* Lepontic; The fact that the word-final _*-m_ was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests Lepontic to stem from proto-Italic; Which is of course further manifested by the Archaeological Indo-European expansions/migrations of the Bronze-age Urnfield (12th cen BC) proto-Golasecca (Insubres/IsOmbri) and proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Ombri); With Lepontic stemming from the Indo-European proto-Golasecca zone (Uhlich 2007); 

And also the much talked about development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh - in Lepontic simply lost their aspiration (Conway 1968) and in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (_f-/-f-_) both initial and internal - but in Latin *bh/*dh are internal retained with (lost aspiration) as b and d (Bakkum 2009) dative-ablative plural _*-bh(i)os_ is Latin -_bus_ Oscan -_fs_ and Venetic -_bos_ (Hill 2012); As for the Latin initial *bh/*dh/*gh becoming f-/h-;

----------


## Taranis

> The Indo-European _*p_ (which Keltic has lost) is further manifested in the Lepontic inscriptions;
> 
> _J. Whatmough -_ Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
> (3) The word _pala_ meaning "grave-stone" or the like has an I. Eu. _p_, which in Keltic is lost, cf. Old Irish _all_ "rock" for _*palso-_ (cf. Latin _sepelio_, Umb. _pelsa-_?).
> 
> Lepontic gravesstones having the preserved Indo-European _*p_ with /pala/ inscription;
> Gravestones from Golasecca-IIIA (Tessin area) - _*p_ inscriptions as late as Golasecca-IIIA;





> The fact that Lepontic retained the Indo-European _*p_ makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European _*p_;


Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui'). Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has '_RIKANAS_' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is '_rēgina_'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.

On top of that I would like to dispute that the word *pala- if the etymology is valid (I would like to reminder you that this is not unambiguous, it might as well be _*bal-_, which in my opinion has multiple viable etymologies in Celtic) or if this isn't a loanword. The word 'pala' is found in Lusitanian, for sure, and Lusitanian also preserves *p, for sure, but I am not convinced that Lepontic preserved _*p_. I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name '_Uerkalai_' (_*ver-_ as 'Vercingetorix', not _*uperkalai_) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to '_Uvamokozis_', which is not attested as *_upamokozis_. (compare that with Celtiberian '_Uxama_').




> But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final _*-m_;
> 
> _J. Whatmough -_ Lepontic - Harvard Uni. 
> (2) I. Eu. final _-m_ is preserved (e.g. _pruiam, uinom_) whereas in Keltic it became _-n_.
> 
> The word-final _*-m_ is constraint and replaced by _-n_ in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic (Latin), Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit) *and* Lepontic; The fact that the word-final _*-m_ was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests Lepontic to stem from proto-Italic; Which is of course further manifested by the Archaeological Indo-European expansions/migrations of the Bronze-age Urnfield (12th cen BC) proto-Golasecca (Insubres/IsOmbri) and proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Ombri); With Lepontic stemming from the Indo-European proto-Golasecca zone (Uhlich 2007);





> And also the much talked about development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh - in Lepontic simply lost their aspiration (Conway 1968)


Well, Conway is right, think about what the loss of aspiration means? *bh, *dh, *gh > *b, *d, *g, which is precisely what happened in the Celtic languages?  :Satisfied: 




> and in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (_f-/-f-_) both initial and internal - but in Latin *bh/*dh are internal retained with (lost aspiration) as b and d (Bakkum 2009) dative-ablative plural _*-bh(i)os_ is Latin -_bus_ Oscan -_fs_ and Venetic -_bos_ (Hill 2012); As for the Latin initial *bh/*dh/*gh becoming f-/h-;


Actually, there is a more logical explanation for than the assumption "it wasn't so in Proto-Italic" (to save your paradigm that Lepontic is supposedly an Italic language?), which has a parallel in the Germanic languages, namely that in Latin the word-internal fricatives were voiced to _*β, *ð, *ɣ_ and subsequently fortitioned to _*b, *d, *g_. The same happened in German from the cumulative effect of Verner's and the High German consonant shift. And also, clearly, Venetic differs from the Celtic languages in the treatment of syllabic resonants (I'll post more about that later).

I'd also like to give you something else to think: one of Gvozdanovic's arguments for the purported affinity of Venetic is this one:

'_Venetic teu.ta ‘people’ lacks parallels in Latin, Slavic and Greek (cf. Beeler 1981: 67), but has a clear Gaulish correlate in teuta, touta ‘tribe, people’ (cf. Delamarre 2003: 295)._'

While the Gaulish parallel - no doubt - is true (there's also Irish '_tuath_', Welsh '_tud_' and Celtiberian '_touto-_'), the statement that this shows that Venetic is closer with Celtic than with Latin is certainly false. There's also a parallel in the Germanic languages (found in German word '_Deutsch_') and the Baltic languages (Lithuanian '_tauta_'). There's also Umbrian '_tōta'_, which presumably also has the meaning as 'tribe'. On top of this, Gvozdanovic is wrong about Latin because it clearly has a cognate as well in the form of '_tōtus_' ('all', 'whole'), and which also today in the modern Romance languages (for example French '_tout_' and Spanish '_todo_'). To me that merely shows that the meaning as 'people' or 'tribe' is an archaism, and that the semantic shift in Latin is an innovation, and Gvozdanovic has correctly demonstrated that Venetic isn't descended from Latin, which we - who might have known - already knew.

----------


## Taranis

> Why would you need inscriptions from Hallstatt?


Why would you need inscriptions from the Atlantic Bronze Age?




> Absolutely correct; 
> Keltic _*kw>*p_ developed *after* the loss of Indo-European _*p_ and if we assume _*kw_ to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss _*p_) was only '_underway in the Lepontic inscriptions_';
> 
> *Roger Woodard* - The Ancient Languages of Europe (2008) Cambridge Uni.
> _It is possible that early Lepontic continued PIE *p as the bilabial fricative [φ] and preserved PIE *kw in forms such as Kua__śoni; the latter might, however, contain gw from PIE gwh._
> 
> Now the development of _*kw>*p_ did *not* occur collectively in the Keltic languages; Only in Brythonic and Gaulish - and (for the sake of it) Lepontic; But not in Goidelic or Celtiberian which retained _kw_;


I think the Karl-Horst-Schmidt model is more or less correct (you should add Lusitanian, which would sit outside of Goidelic in that tree - and Pictish, which would sit with Brythonic). And you are correct that the Celtic development *kw > *p must have occured after the original loss of *p from Proto-Indo-European. However, there is no good reason to assume that it also necessarily happened after *φ > Ø (which, by the way, isn't the only outcome, depending on the position *x, *w, *b are also found throughout the Celtic languages).




> In the Italic branch _*kw>*p_ also _*gw>b_ only developed in the Sabellic languages but not in Latin where _*kw_ remained and _*gw>u_ - (Fortson 2010);


As a side, note, the development *gw > *b happened also in Greek (well, excluding Mycenaean Greek).

----------


## Sile

> Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui'). Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has '_RIKANAS_' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is '_rēgina_'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.
> 
> On top of that I would like to dispute that the word *pala- if the etymology is valid (I would like to reminder you that this is not unambiguous, it might as well be _*bal-_, which in my opinion has multiple viable etymologies in Celtic) or if this isn't a loanword. The word 'pala' is found in Lusitanian, for sure, and Lusitanian also preserves *p, for sure, but I am not convinced that Lepontic preserved _*p_. I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name '_Uerkalai_' (_*ver-_ as 'Vercingetorix', not _*uperkalai_) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to '_Uvamokozis_', which is not attested as *_upamokozis_. (compare that with Celtiberian '_Uxama_').
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Conway is right, think about what the loss of aspiration means? *bh, *dh, *gh > *b, *d, *g, which is precisely what happened in the Celtic languages? 
> ...


so as you state, *venetic is closer to celtic than with latin is false* ...and...*venetic isn't descended from latin*..................but the venetic script is nearly identical to raetic and camunic script..........what is it then?

since they are similar and as per the above comment( not with celtic or latin ), then raetic ( venetic's sister tongue ) is clearly a non celtic tongue either............. and so alpine languages ( especially central and eastern alpine ) are not celtic related.

Where do we stand then with celtic and raetic cultural/linguistic relations .............?

----------


## Nobody1

> Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui').


The inscription of Pelkui ends with Palam (_*p_ / Pala) incl. the word-final _-m_ which are both absent in Keltic;
It is the _Lugano Alphabet_ of the North-Italic-script - which derives/stems from the Etruscan alphabet which in turn is from Cumaean/Euboean Greek alphabet;




> Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has 'RIKANAS' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is 'rēgina'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.


What example would that be?
RIKANAS/ is Cisalpine Gaulish (as are Todi, Vercelli, Briona etc.) but not Lepontic;
However the development of *ē>*ī is attested in Lepontic at CO48 with _uvamokozis:lialeθu:uvltiauiopos:ariuonepos:siteś:tetu_ 


Given the phonological characteristics of Keltic with _*p_ loss and *ē>*ī than Lepontic fits one criteria (scarcely) and the other not; Not to mention of course the word-final *_-m_ which is completely absent in Keltic but shared in Lepontic and Italic giving a stronger basis for proto-Italic;




> I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name 'Uerkalai' (*ver- as 'Vercingetorix', not *uperkalai) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to 'Uvamokozis', which is not attested as *upamokozis. (compare that with Celtiberian 'Uxama').


The 'Uerkalai' inscription (1st left / post#44) also ends with _pala_ (*_p_) and that is most prob. what Clackson is referring to when stating that the loss of *_p_ was 'under way' in the Lepontic inscriptions as given in the personal name _uvamo_<_*upmmo-_ which either constitutes an intermediate stage between *_p_ and the loss or an intervocalic -_w_- which is preserved in Keltic;




> Actually, there is a more logical explanation for than the assumption "it wasn't so in Proto-Italic" (to save your paradigm that Lepontic is supposedly an Italic language?), which has a parallel in the Germanic languages, namely that in Latin the word-internal fricatives were voiced to *β, *ð, *ɣ and subsequently fortitioned to *b, *d, *g. The same happened in German from the cumulative effect of Verner's and the High German consonant shift. And also, clearly, Venetic differs from the Celtic languages in the treatment of syllabic resonants (I'll post more about that later).


Yes that is logical;
But either way Latin would stand out and it would not constitute a uniformal scenario in proto-Italic; The development in Sabellic to voiceless fricatives (_f-/-f-_) is in both at the initial as well as the internal position where as Latin (whatever scenario given) had a diff. development for the internal position (with *dh/*bh) which could not stem form a common proto-Italic development;




> 'Venetic teu.ta ‘people’ lacks parallels in Latin, Slavic and Greek (cf. Beeler 1981: 67), but has a clear Gaulish correlate in teuta, touta ‘tribe, people’ (cf. Delamarre 2003: 295).'
> While the Gaulish parallel - no doubt - is true (there's also Irish 'tuath', Welsh 'tud' and Celtiberian 'touto-'), the statement that this shows that Venetic is closer with Celtic than with Latin is certainly false. There's also a parallel in the Germanic languages (found in German word 'Deutsch') and the Baltic languages (Lithuanian 'tauta'). There's also Umbrian 'tōta', which presumably also has the meaning as 'tribe'. On top of this, Gvozdanovic is wrong about Latin because it clearly has a cognate as well in the form of 'tōtus' ('all', 'whole'), and which also today in the modern Romance languages (for example French 'tout' and Spanish 'todo'). To me that merely shows that the meaning as 'people' or 'tribe' is an archaism, and that the semantic shift in Latin is an innovation, and Gvozdanovic has correctly demonstrated that Venetic isn't descended from Latin, which we - who might have known - already knew.


Of course; The Indo-European substantive *_teuta_ (which became the Germanic adjective *_peudiskaz_) was attested in many Indo-European branches as Illyrian, Venetic, Keltic, Umbrian, Oscan and of course Germanic (Birnbaum 1966); And Szemerenyi stems the Latin _t__ōtus_ from *_teuta_ as well as Iranian _toda_ and Sogdian _twdy_ and _twδ'k_; I have already said what Venetic is or should be considered (Historically) a diff. branch; neither Keltic nor Italic;

----------


## MOESAN

> No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:
> 
> Slavic _dol, dolina_, and German _tal_ for valley. 
> Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.
> 
> Same (probably IE) root _DL_ and _TL_. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.
> 
> 
> We also have:
> ...


I don't know if it is a loanword in slavic (no opinion) but in brittonic celtic (modern) we have* 'dol', 'dolen*': "valley" or "river turn (bending)" -
maybe an ancient IE word with a *Dh- ? (*D- would have given T- in all germanic languages except high german Z- /ts/)

----------


## MOESAN

> Aquileja is the only town under celtic influence when imposing the maps on each other and Guntia is the border town.
> Augusta town is neither a Vindelici or celtic town, but 100% Roman, built as a crossroad center for expansion northwards........it has little reference to anyone except the Romans
> 
> 
> *Augusta is a name given to a number of towns founded or colonized by Augustus. Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), capital of Vindelicia, or Rhaetia (also spelled Raetia) Secunda, on the Licus (Lech), was colonized by Drusus under Augustus, after the conquest of Rhaeti in 14 BCE. Vindelicia was a Roman province south of the Danube, which separated it from Germany. It was bounded on the west by the territory of the Helvetti in Gaul, on the south by Rhaetia, and on the east by the river Oenus (Inn), which separated it from Noricum, thus corresponding to the northeast part of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, the south of Wuertemberg and Bavaria, and the north part of the Tyrol. It was originally part of the province of Rhaetia, and was conquered by Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Later Rhaetia was divided into two provinces: Rhaetia Prima and Rhaetia Secunda. The latter became Vindelicia. It was drained by the tributaries of the Danube, of which the most important were the Licus (Lech), with its tributaries, the Vindo or Vidro (Wertach), the Isarus (Isar) and Oenus (Inn). The greater part of the Vindelicia was a plain, but the south portion was occupied by the northern slopes of the Alpes Rhaeticae. It derived its name from its chief inhabitants, the Vindelici, a warlike people dwelling in the southern part of the country. Their name is said to have been formed form the two rivers, Vinda and Licus.*


Are we not relying too much in details upon maps? And did the roman namings of "provinces" always correspond exactly (meter to meter) to preceding ethnic namings and territories?
Rhaetia province without going to far with the Gaul/Gallia roman provinces (Aremorica depending upon Lyon/Lugdunum, Aquitania reaching Poitou northwards a.s.o...) we can think in the "mess" of the roman naming of the 'great) Illyricum - just a practical point concerning history problems -

----------


## Taranis

> Yes that is logical;
> But either way Latin would stand out and it would not constitute a uniformal scenario in proto-Italic; The development in Sabellic to voiceless fricatives (_f-/-f-_) is in both at the initial as well as the internal position where as Latin (whatever scenario given) had a diff. development for the internal position (with *dh/*bh) which could not stem form a common proto-Italic development;


Actually _it could_, as there is some evidence in Latin that the sound changed (re-voicing and fortition back to plosives) postdates the development of *bh, *dh, *gh to *φ, *θ, *x at the medial positions (meaning the latter can be posed for Proto-Italic), and that the merger of *φ, *θ > *f (an expectable sound change) occured synchronously:


Latin 'līber' (free):
Indo-European *leudh- (German 'Leute', Lithuanian 'liaudis', Russian 'ljudi'/'люди').


Latin 'ruber' (red):
Indo-European *Hreudh- (English 'red', German 'rot', Irish 'rua', Welsh 'rhudd', Greek 'erythros'/'ερυθρος', Russian 'ruda'/'руда').


On the other hand, there is the personal name 'Rufus' which is certainly Sabellic in origin. Both forms do require an ancestral *rouθo-, which then yielded *rūfo- in Sabellic and *rūβo- (hence 'ruber') in early Latin. On the other hand, there is the example of 'medium' ('middle'), where you certainly require an earlier *ð, not *β.
PS: another indicator that the development in Latin went as I have described is that medial *s was voiced to *z and subsequently rhotacized (again, analoguous to the Germanic languages), hence the word for 'sister': *swesor > *soror (earlier *sozor).




> Of course; The Indo-European substantive *_teuta_ (which became the Germanic adjective *_peudiskaz_) was attested in many Indo-European branches as Illyrian, Venetic, Keltic, Umbrian, Oscan and of course Germanic (Birnbaum 1966); And Szemerenyi stems the Latin _t__ōtus_ from *_teuta_ as well as Iranian _toda_ and Sogdian _twdy_ and _twδ'k_; I have already said what Venetic is or should be considered (Historically) a diff. branch; neither Keltic nor Italic;





> so as you state, *venetic is closer to celtic than with latin is false* ...and...*venetic isn't descended from latin*..................but the venetic script is nearly identical to raetic and camunic script..........what is it then?
> 
> since they are similar and as per the above comment( not with celtic or latin ), then raetic ( venetic's sister tongue ) is clearly a non celtic tongue either............. and so alpine languages ( especially central and eastern alpine ) are not celtic related.
> 
> Where do we stand then with celtic and raetic cultural/linguistic relations .............?


To me the position of Venetic is as follows:

- Venetic is a Centum Indo-European language (no point discussing the details).

- Venetic is Italo-Celtic (in the sense that it obeys to the *p_kw > *kw_kw assimilation rule, wether 'Italo-Celtic' is real as a branch or not doesn't matter).

- Venetic shares with the Italic languages the development of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- rule.

- Venetic is more conservative in its vowel development than either the Celtic or the Italic languages, (eg. *eu preserved where Latin and Sabellic have *eu > *ou > ō, and Celtic also has *eu, *ou merged).

I'm personally not opposed to the idea that Liburnian is indeed related with Venetic (as the *gh- > *h- sound change is also attested for it), but Venetic or Liburnian certainly had nothing to do with the other language(s) of Illyria. Because of this, to claim "Illyrian was spoken in the Alps" is wrong and makes no sense. On the other hand, Venetic was spoken.

'Raetic' (that is, the language of the Bolzano area) clearly is not the sister language of Venetic, as it is related with Etruscan instead.

----------


## Sile

> Are we not relying too much in details upon maps? And did the roman namings of "provinces" always correspond exactly (meter to meter) to preceding ethnic namings and territories?
> Rhaetia province without going to far with the Gaul/Gallia roman provinces (Aremorica depending upon Lyon/Lugdunum, Aquitania reaching Poitou northwards a.s.o...) we can think in the "mess" of the roman naming of the 'great) Illyricum - just a practical point concerning history problems -


The more deeper I drill into the term vindelici , the more I see that it was only used by the Romans. All I see is that the raetic people where originally in the vindelici's place. That's what I linked. There are more like this.
That city augusta vindelicium was only built by the romans after they conquered the area. So the "vindelici" never lived there

----------


## Sile

> To me the position of Venetic is as follows:
> 
> - Venetic is a Centum Indo-European language (no point discussing the details).
> 
> - Venetic is Italo-Celtic (in the sense that it obeys to the *p_kw > *kw_kw assimilation rule, wether 'Italo-Celtic' is real as a branch or not doesn't matter).
> 
> - Venetic shares with the Italic languages the development of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- rule.
> 
> - Venetic is more conservative in its vowel development than either the Celtic or the Italic languages, (eg. *eu preserved where Latin and Sabellic have *eu > *ou > ō, and Celtic also has *eu, *ou merged).
> ...


We do not know of any illyrian script, we only know of historians referring to the illyrians in the alps and in other parts.

this link shows raetic script..........if the raetic are only in the alps, then there script is the same as venetic and camunic and would be the same a the historic illyrian tribes mentioned in the alps.
http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/image...i_2004_476.jpg

you will see that etruscan is also similar, since they came from raetic lands as per geneticist studies recently stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21103418305317

----------


## Taranis

> The more deeper I drill into the term vindelici , the more I see that it was only used by the Romans. All I see is that the raetic people where originally in the vindelici's place. That's what I linked. There are more like this.
> That city augusta vindelicium was only built by the romans after they conquered the area. So the "vindelici" never lived there


Look, it doesn't matter if the town of Augusta Vindelicorum was founded by the Romans or not, because all the linguistic data that we do have from that region (place names ending with -dunum, -briga), river names (Lech, Isar), etc. suggest that they were Celtic. I asked you to provide alternate etymologies, which you didn't, instead you just seem to not get the point at all...




> We do not know of any illyrian script, we only know of historians referring to the illyrians in the alps and in other parts.
> 
> this link shows raetic script..........if the raetic are only in the alps, then there script is the same as venetic and camunic and would be the same a the historic illyrian tribes mentioned in the alps.
> http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/image...i_2004_476.jpg
> 
> you will see that etruscan is also similar, since they came from raetic lands as per geneticist studies recently stated.


Look, what you do not understand is that there is a difference between a _script_ and the _language_ written in that script. You are absolutely correct that the Raetic, Lepontic, Venetic, etc. scripts were all similar (all variants of the Etruscan alphabet), there is no point to disagree, but the individual languages were totally different (Raetic tied with Etruscan, Lepontic with Celtic, Venetic with Italic).

To give you analogy where you make the mistake, look at the modern distribution of the Latin alphabet. By your logic, one should propose that Brazil, Canada, Madagascar, Turkey and Vietnam should all _speak Latin_ because they use the _Latin alphabet_...

----------


## Sile

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

with etruscan...............since all the languages of the north are similar then the logical conclusion is what genetists say, the etruscans came down from the alps and settled in etruria . logic then indicates that the raetic people where originally first between them and the etruscans. There was no etruscan invasion of alpine areas.

etruscans where not unified as one in italy, they had 12 tribal confederations based on 12 towns with Orieto the main sacred town where the leaders/priests would gather yearly. It clearly indicates a migrational pattern of existance as we have seen in the past. 

To conclude by linking language and genetics, the original alpine language was raetic ( a semetic language) and all others are variants of this. In regards to vindelici script, the logical version is that the celts, moving south from central germany influenced or where influence by raetic/vendelici script.

geneticists stated recently:
-27 "royal" celtic skeleton tombs found near Frankfurt
-etruscans coming from modern German alpine areas to Italy

----------


## Sile

> Look, it doesn't matter if the town of Augusta Vindelicorum was founded by the Romans or not, because all the linguistic data that we do have from that region (place names ending with -dunum, -briga), river names (Lech, Isar), etc. suggest that they were Celtic. I asked you to provide alternate etymologies, which you didn't, instead you just seem to not get the point at all...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, what you do not understand is that there is a difference between a _script_ and the _language_ written in that script. You are absolutely correct that the Raetic, Lepontic, Venetic, etc. scripts were all similar (all variants of the Etruscan alphabet), there is no point to disagree, but the individual languages were totally different (Raetic tied with Etruscan, Lepontic with Celtic, Venetic with Italic).
> 
> To give you analogy where you make the mistake, look at the modern distribution of the Latin alphabet. By your logic, one should propose that Brazil, Canada, Madagascar, Turkey and Vietnam should all _speak Latin_ because they use the _Latin alphabet_...


your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing. 
ancient script would have had much more than only 2 , but they would be, as an example, alpine, Pyrenees, Balkans, baltic, brittanic to name a few areas of difference of different script,

----------


## Aberdeen

> your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing. 
> ancient script would have had much more than only 2 , but they would be, as an example, alpine, Pyrenees, Balkans, baltic, brittanic to name a few areas of difference of different script,


There have never been more than a few written languages. That's why most Celtic inscriptions are written in Latin or Greek, for example.

----------


## Nobody1

> Actually _it could_, as there is some evidence in Latin that the sound changed (re-voicing and fortition back to plosives) postdates the development of *bh, *dh, *gh to *φ, *θ, *x at the medial positions (meaning the latter can be posed for Proto-Italic), and that the merger of *φ, *θ > *f (an expectable sound change) occured synchronously:
> Latin 'līber' (free):
> Indo-European *leudh- (German 'Leute', Lithuanian 'liaudis', Russian 'ljudi'/'люди').
> Latin 'ruber' (red):
> Indo-European *Hreudh- (English 'red', German 'rot', Irish 'rua', Welsh 'rhudd', Greek 'erythros'/'ερυθρος', Russian 'ruda'/'руда').
> On the other hand, there is the personal name 'Rufus' which is certainly Sabellic in origin. Both forms do require an ancestral *rouθo-, which then yielded *rūfo- in Sabellic and *rūβo- (hence 'ruber') in early Latin. On the other hand, there is the example of 'medium' ('middle'), where you certainly require an earlier *ð, not *β.
> PS: another indicator that the development in Latin went as I have described is that medial *s was voiced to *z and subsequently rhotacized (again, analoguous to the Germanic languages), hence the word for 'sister': *swesor > *soror (earlier *sozor)


Yes, it can be constructed as a common proto-Italic development by two scenarios (Stuart-Smith 2004 or Meisner 1998): First a common intermediate with voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu which are preserved as such in internal and in initial become devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu with merger *φ/*θ/*xu to final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x or the common intermediate voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu is followed by a second common intermediate as devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu which are revoiced as *β/*ð/*y/*yu in internal but preserved in initial with merger *ϕ/*θ/*xu [1st */xu/->*/ϕ/ 2nd */θ/->*/ϕ/] for final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x - i.e. in proto-Italic the initial = not voiced *ϕ/*x and the internal = voiced *β/*ð/*y/*yu; Those are the probabilities but no inscriptions for any confirmation;

What remains is that the development of *bh/*dh/*gh/*guh in the internal position differs and is complex within the Italic branch itself; with Sabellic _-f-_ and Latin b/d and also in the case of Faliscan *gh; In which case Lepontic might simply contain an even more archaic form;

----------


## Nobody1

> Yes, it can be constructed as a common proto-Italic development by two scenarios (Stuart-Smith 2004 or Meisner 1998): First a common intermediate with voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu which are preserved as such in internal and in initial become devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu with merger *φ/*θ/*xu to final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x or the common intermediate voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu is followed by a second common intermediate as devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu which are revoiced as *β/*ð/*y/*yu in internal but preserved in initial with merger *ϕ/*θ/*xu [1st */xu/->*/ϕ/ 2nd */θ/->*/ϕ/] for final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x - i.e. in proto-Italic the initial = not voiced *ϕ/*x and the internal = voiced *β/*ð/*y/*yu; Those are the probabilities but no inscriptions for any confirmation;


It has to be added of course that all these (theoretical) developments had to be taken place in proto-Italic itself for *ϕ/*x initial and *β/*ð/*y/*yu internal to than be/stem from proto-Italic; And that alone is almost impossible; And of-course no inscriptions exist to attest or document any of these developments in the proto-Italic stage; My imagination only goes as far as the Indo-European aspirants *bh/*dh/*gh/*guh developed to voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu in the proto-Italic stage and the rest in proto-Latin and proto-Sabellic separately (i.e. internal diffs.) - with Lepontic simply retaining/remaining at that archaic stage of the voiced (lost aspiration) spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu - which it truly did i.e. is truly the case in Lepontic; 

There are striking similarities between Lepontic and Sabellic as in the cases of _*kw>p_ or _*gw>b_ and more exclusive the retaining of word-final _*-m_ (also _*p_) and even more exclusive _*nd>nn_ and _*ks>s(s)_; All those are shared by Lepontic and Sabellic (Umbrian) which are manifested by the fact (Uhlich 2007) that Lepontic emerged from the 12th cen BC Indo-European Urnfield expansion of the proto-Golasecca zone and was spoken by Insubres/Umbrians; The Indo-European proto-Villanova (Italic/Sabellic) is of course of the same Urnfield migration/expansion (root) as was proto-Golasecca; Manifesting Lepontic clearly on every field as a form proto-Italic (akin to Umbrian) language;

----------


## Sile

> There have never been more than a few written languages. That's why most Celtic inscriptions are written in Latin or Greek, for example.


i was talking about ancient script

----------


## Taranis

> your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing.


Actually, the comparison makes every sense because, as you demonstrate in your post before that, you clearly do not understand what difference between a script and a language is:




> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf
> 
> with etruscan...............*since all the languages of the north are similar* then the logical conclusion is what genetists say, the etruscans came down from the alps and settled in etruria .


As I said, you claim that because the people in the Alps use the same alphabet (a variant of the Etruscan alphabet), they must have spoken the same language. In reality they did not, as Lepontic, (Bolzano-)Raetian and Venetic were obviously different languages. Therefor my comparison with the modern world makes absolutely sense.




> logic then indicates that the raetic people where originally first between them and the etruscans. There was no etruscan invasion of alpine areas.
> 
> etruscans where not unified as one in italy, they had 12 tribal confederations based on 12 towns with Orieto the main sacred town where the leaders/priests would gather yearly. It clearly indicates a migrational pattern of existance as we have seen in the past. 
> 
> To conclude by linking language and genetics, the original alpine language was *raetic ( a semetic language)* and all others are variants of this. In regards to vindelici script, the logical version is that the celts, moving south from central germany influenced or where influence by raetic/vendelici script


Wow. So Raetic became a _Semitic_ language over night while nobody was watching...  :Confused: 

I'm sure you can provide us with examples of how to interprete Raetic inscriptions using Hebrew or Arabic...

----------


## Aberdeen

> i was talking about ancient script


So was I. Here's a site where you can read about the various alphabets that have been used around the world.

www.ancientscripts.com/ws_atoz.html

It may seem as if there are a fair number of alphabets, but that list is for the entire world. And many alphabets are based on other alphabets. For example, the ancient Greeks tried to use a modified version of Linear A to write in Greek (Linear B) but that didn't work very well because of differences between Greek and whatever language was the basis for Linear A. So the Greeks then adapted the Phoenician alphabet in order to create the Greek alphabet. The Etruscans then adapted the Euboean version of the Greek alphabet in order to create an Etruscan alphabet and the Roman adapted the Etruscan alphabet in order to create the Roman alphabet. And many different linguistic groups who lived near the Etruscans and Romans wrote in their own languages using some version of the Etruscan or Roman alphabet. So just because some group wrote something using the Etruscan alphabet doesn't necessarily mean they spoke Etruscan, or even that the language they were writing in was Etruscan. It just means they were using the Etruscan alphabet, or some version thereof.

----------


## Sile

> Actually, the comparison makes every sense because, as you demonstrate in your post before that, you clearly do not understand what difference between a script and a language is:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you claim that because the people in the Alps use the same alphabet (a variant of the Etruscan alphabet), they must have spoken the same language. In reality they did not, as Lepontic, (Bolzano-)Raetian and Venetic were obviously different languages. Therefor my comparison with the modern world makes absolutely sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So Raetic became a _Semitic_ language over night while nobody was watching... 
> ...


*According to Brunner, Rhaetic was a Semitic language spoken in Central Europe and left traces in ca. 200+300 inscriptions 
and in several hundreds of place names in Switzerland and Northern Italy (Brunner and Toth 19
87; Toth and Brunner 2007). In Toth (2008), it was argued that Rhaetic is either Amorit
ic or a very close relative of it. Already in Brunner (1987), the close relationship between Rhae
tic and Akkadian had been shown in hundreds of cognates. In Toth (2006a, b) I have fur
thermore shown that Rhaetic words also survived in Hungarian, which proves that the Sumeri
an ancestors of the Hungarians must have left Mesopotamia before the Rhaetic exodus, i.
e. before the Sea Wars (13./12. c. b.C.)
Therefore, by showing that there are sound+laws which describe in a consistent manner the phonetic change
s between the Sumerian/Akkadian/Rhaetic and the Hungarian consonants (and partly th
e vowels), we have shown that there can be no doubt that a certain percentage of Rhaeti
c words have survived in Hungarian. Our study thus confirms the results obtained in Toth (2
006a and 2006b). These few Akkadian and Raetic etymologies point,*


Take your arguement to the linguistist noted above.

This deflection does not change anything, the raetic ( which I noted previously was said by historians to be liburnian/illyrian ) where conquered by the Romans in 15BC the raetia land was split between rhaetia prima and rhaetia secunda (vindelicia) and then in ~100AD the name vindelici was used instead of Rhaetia Secunda ( for vindelicia). The celtic terms you used was for celts going south from central germany in the early iron-age and having an influence on the "german" raetic people.
The ancient name of lake constance was lacus Veneticus by historian P.Mela, referring to the raetic/illyrian people of the area as also noted by Herodotus and Strabo.

I do agree that the parts of the alps became celtinized in the iron-age, but that a change of customs, language and ideas...the people where not celts ( again noted by ancient historians)

----------


## Sile

> So was I. Here's a site where you can read about the various alphabets that have been used around the world.
> 
> www.ancientscripts.com/ws_atoz.html
> 
> It may seem as if there are a fair number of alphabets, but that list is for the entire world. And many alphabets are based on other alphabets. For example, the ancient Greeks tried to use a modified version of Linear A to write in Greek (Linear B) but that didn't work very well because of differences between Greek and whatever language was the basis for Linear A. So the Greeks then adapted the Phoenician alphabet in order to create the Greek alphabet. The Etruscans then adapted the Euboean version of the Greek alphabet in order to create an Etruscan alphabet and the Roman adapted the Etruscan alphabet in order to create the Roman alphabet. And many different linguistic groups who lived near the Etruscans and Romans wrote in their own languages using some version of the Etruscan or Roman alphabet. So just because some group wrote something using the Etruscan alphabet doesn't necessarily mean they spoke Etruscan, or even that the language they were writing in was Etruscan. It just means they were using the Etruscan alphabet, or some version thereof.


thanks 

a quick browse gives me more than the modern 2 or 3 for europe ............even if I do not include linea A and linea B from crete ( a language 1000 years older than ancient greek)

----------


## Aberdeen

> thanks 
> 
> a quick browse gives me more than the modern 2 or 3 for europe ............even if I do not include linea A and linea B from crete ( a language 1000 years older than ancient greek)


You're very good at missing the point. My point was that people can and do write their own language using alphabets that were originally created for other languages. For example, we're writing in English, using the Classical Roman alphabet. So the fact that a certain group of people used the Etruscan alphabet in their writings doesn't prove that they spoke Etruscan.

----------


## Aberdeen

> *According to Brunner, Rhaetic was a Semitic language spoken in Central Europe and left traces in ca. 200+300 inscriptions 
> and in several hundreds of place names in Switzerland and Northern Italy (Brunner and Toth 19
> 87; Toth and Brunner 2007). In Toth (2008), it was argued that Rhaetic is either Amorit
> ic or a very close relative of it. Already in Brunner (1987), the close relationship between Rhae
> tic and Akkadian had been shown in hundreds of cognates. In Toth (2006a, b) I have fur
> thermore shown that Rhaetic words also survived in Hungarian, which proves that the Sumeri
> an ancestors of the Hungarians must have left Mesopotamia before the Rhaetic exodus, i.
> e. before the Sea Wars (13./12. c. b.C.)
> Therefore, by showing that there are sound+laws which describe in a consistent manner the phonetic change
> ...


I'm not familiar with Brunner, and I'm certainly no linguist. Nevertheless, if Brunner thinks that Rhaetic is a Semetic language related to Hungarian, Akkadian and Sumerian, I have to wonder when the poor soul stopped taking his medication.

----------


## Sile

> You're very good at missing the point. My point was that people can and do write their own language using alphabets that were originally created for other languages. For example, we're writing in English, using the Classical Roman alphabet. So the fact that a certain group of people used the Etruscan alphabet in their writings doesn't prove that they spoke Etruscan.


sorry, but that's my point, the raetic have different variants as per my link many posts ago, camunic, venetic, etruscan etc .......while celtic was different and came later. the etruscan once settled in etruria did not have or we do not know of any celtic relationships with their language

EDIT : are you confusing me with Nobody, because i keep getting drawn into a deeper linguistic conversation which is not what i am aiming for. linguistics is minor in relevance in regards to who people where...........in the roman period, most spoke latin, but they where not Romans

----------


## Aberdeen

> sorry, but that's my point, the raetic have different variants as per my link many posts ago, camunic, venetic, etruscan etc .......while celtic was different and came later. the etruscan once settled in etruria did not have or we do not know of any celtic relationships with their language
> 
> EDIT : are you confusing me with Nobody, because i keep getting drawn into a deeper linguistic conversation which is not what i am aiming for. linguistics is minor in relevance in regards to who people where...........in the roman period, most spoke latin, but they where not Romans


Again, you seem to be missing the point, which is that there's a difference between language and script. The Raetic script was really just a variation on the Etruscan script, in other words the Raetics used the Etruscan alphabet to write their language, but that doesn't automatically mean there's a connection between the Raetic and Etruscan languages. The reason that English is written in the Roman alphabet is not because Latin and English are related but merely because Latin was in use and its alphabet was what was being used for writing throughout western Europe at the time the English language was developing. Similarity in languages does make it easier for one group to adopt the alphabet of another group, but linguistic differences can be got around in many cases, so unless you can show in some other way that the two languages are related, we have to assume that they're not, even if they use the same alphabet. And the reason the Celts wrote in a script based on the Roman rather than the Etruscan style of writing is precisely because the Celts came along later, rather than because of the relationship or lack of relationship between Celtic and Etruscan languages. If there are huge differences between two languages, that could make it difficult to adapt one alphabet for use in writing the other language, but if the Etruscans were able to adapt the Greek alphabet, the Celts would have been able to adapt the Etruscan alphabet, and probably would have if the Etruscan style of writing had still been popular when the Celts arrived, but by that time Roman writing was dominant.

----------


## Sile

> Again, you seem to be missing the point, which is that there's a difference between language and script. The Raetic script was really just a variation on the Etruscan script, in other words the Raetics used the Etruscan alphabet to write their language, but that doesn't automatically mean there's a connection between the Raetic and Etruscan languages. The reason that English is written in the Roman alphabet is not because Latin and English are related but merely because Latin was in use and its alphabet was what was being used for writing throughout western Europe at the time the English language was developing. Similarity in languages does make it easier for one group to adopt the alphabet of another group, but linguistic differences can be got around in many cases, so unless you can show in some other way that the two languages are related, we have to assume that they're not, even if they use the same alphabet. And the reason the Celts wrote in a script based on the Roman rather than the Etruscan style of writing is precisely because the Celts came along later, rather than because of the relationship or lack of relationship between Celtic and Etruscan languages. If there are huge differences between two languages, that could make it difficult to adapt one alphabet for use in writing the other language, but if the Etruscans were able to adapt the Greek alphabet, the Celts would have been able to adapt the Etruscan alphabet, and probably would have if the Etruscan style of writing had still been popular when the Celts arrived, but by that time Roman writing was dominant.


You have it backwards, if geneticists last year stated etruscans came from the northern alps, then etruscans came from the raeti people and not the raeti came from etruscans. that being the case, etruscan script came from raetic script..........your just following the propaganda of Roman historians to glorify Rome......

correct the celts came down from central germany later.

Latin was not enforced on any people, it just that roman authories would only converse in Latin for anything and everything, people had to learn Latin to communicate with the Romans, it was not forced upon them like languages of nations are forced upon its citizens today. This is why Latin did not last as a dominant language and was replaced by the nobility at the peace of westphalia in 1648 by french as the lingua franca 

who are these glorifiers?...name them.
Etruscans traded with greeks and phoenicians and picked up some changes of their script from this. they traded iron to the greeks and phoenicians for vases and other commodities. In fact the iron smeltering sitting on the coast in tuscany was so plentiful that around ~1900 the Italian government had private companies re work all the slag of this area and extract iron from it. The running battle with archeologists at this time was noted as a lot of ancient etruscan goods, burial sites etc where fought over for preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populonia
note the ONLY etruscan coastal town and as stated by historians a clear indication that etruscans did not arrive by sea

Piazza who did a study of etruscan dna in the mid 2000s from 1500 tuscan people with only tuscan surnames and a 400 continuous existence in tuscany was gathered...and IIRC no union with anatolia or euboea was concluded.

language and script...matters little to this debate, logic states ....if the script is the same, then it came from the same place

besides, what's this got to do with raeti and vindelic, venetic and illyrian in the alps?

----------


## Aberdeen

> You have it backwards, if geneticists last year stated etruscans came from the northern alps, then etruscans came from the raeti people and not the raeti came from etruscans. that being the case, etruscan script came from raetic script..........your just following the propaganda of Roman historians to glorify Rome......
> 
> correct the celts came down from central germany later.
> 
> Latin was not enforced on any people, it just that roman authories would only converse in Latin for anything and everything, people had to learn Latin to communicate with the Romans, it was not forced upon them like languages of nations are forced upon its citizens today. This is why Latin did not last as a dominant language and was replaced by the nobility at the peace of westphalia in 1648 by french as the lingua franca 
> 
> who are these glorifiers?...name them.
> Etruscans traded with greeks and phoenicians and picked up some changes of their script from this. they traded iron to the greeks and phoenicians for vases and other commodities. In fact the iron smeltering sitting on the coast in tuscany was so plentiful that around ~1900 the Italian government had private companies re work all the slag of this area and extract iron from it. The running battle with archeologists at this time was noted as a lot of ancient etruscan goods, burial sites etc where fought over for preservation.
> Piazza who did a study of etruscan dna in the mid 2000s from 1500 tuscan people with only tuscan surnames and a 400 continuous existence in tuscany was gathered...and IIRC no union with anatolia or euboea was concluded.
> ...


What my comment has to do with Raetic, Vindelic, Venetic and Illyrian is the fact that you can't tell what language is related to another language simply by looking at what kind of alphabet someone uses. But I've made my point, and if you still don't get it, I don't think I want to bother repeating myself endlessly. And some of your views on which ethnic and linguistic groups are related to one another are, well, to put it politely, rather unique, IMO.

----------


## Sile

> What my comment has to do with Raetic, Vindelic, Venetic and Illyrian is the fact that you can't tell what language is related to another language simply by looking at what kind of alphabet someone uses. But I've made my point, and if you still don't get it, I don't think I want to bother repeating myself endlessly. And some of your views on which ethnic and linguistic groups are related to one another are, well, to put it politely, rather unique, IMO.


fine, I know where you are coming from, you are accepting "modern" versions of history taught to you by teachers who are instructed to teach you what they want you to know to "save" their nation.............. when in a *vast number* of cases its shown that genetics conclusion support a lot of ancient historians who modern historians have said where wrong. Now a lot of modern historians are found wanting and are wrong due to genetic discoveries and national authorities do not like to accept the facts.

----------


## Nobody1

> i was talking about ancient script


The ancient scripts are very useful in determining the zones, influence and affiliation (tribes) of the recorded inscriptions but not the language itself - that is solely determined by the content of that inscription;

*Lejeune 1971* - Alpine and Cisalpine zones of the Etruscan-alphabet variants


Lepontic-script = Lugano-alphabet / Camunic-script = Sondrio-alphabet 
W-Raetic-script = Bozen-alphabet / E-Raetic-script = Magre-alphabet
Venetic-script = Este-alphabet


For example the Todi inscription is Cisalpine-Gaulish but found in Umbria (~100BC) however it is written [1.2/1.4] in the Lepontic-script/Lugano-alphabet; Hence it must have been Gauls from the zone of Lugano (_in which also all other Cisalpine-Gaulish inscr. are found_) i.e. the Saluvii/Salyes (Keltoligyes) and the Vertamocorii (Vocontii); 

Another example would be the Negau-[B] helmet which has a Germanic inscription (3rd-2nd cen BC)_ Harigasti teiwa\\\il_ but written in the E-Raetic-script/Magre-alphabet; That is a clear case separation of a script and a language; Obviously the Germanic presence in the Alps (Iron-age) were influenced and in contact with the tribes of the Magre-zone and thus adopted their script; Which of course brings us to the topic itself and that is how substantial was the Germanic presence in the Alps during the Iron-age; I will post a few points on that later;

----------


## Taranis

> Another example would be the Negau-[B] helmet which has a Germanic inscription (3rd-2nd cen BC)_ Harigasti teiwa\\\il_ but written in the E-Raetic-script/Magre-alphabet; That is a clear case separation of a script and a language; Obviously the Germanic presence in the Alps (Iron-age) were influenced and in contact with the tribes of the Magre-zone and thus adopted their script; Which of course brings us to the topic itself and that is how substantial was the Germanic presence in the Alps during the Iron-age; I will post a few points on that later;


Ah, the Negau helmet. It's certainly interesting because this oldest attestation of Grimm's Law: _*Hari-_ as in Gothic '_harjiz_', German '_Heer_', but not as in Gallic '_Corio-_' or Old Irish '_cuire_'. As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements. My case for that is simple: there is zero evidence for Germanic settlements south of the Danube before the Migration Period (anybody who is of a different opinion, convince me of the opposite!), and the local (Celtic, Latin, etc.) toponyms that there are are affected by the High German consonant shift, but _not_ by Grimm's Law. That does not mean, of course, that there was no Germanic presence at all, the Negau helmet shows the very opposite.

EDIT: one interesting point to make about these north italic scripts: one of them - no doubt - was also the basis for the runic alphabet used by the Germanic peoples.

----------


## Sile

> The ancient scripts are very useful in determining the zones, influence and affiliation (tribes) of the recorded inscriptions but not the language itself - that is solely determined by the content of that inscription;
> 
> *Lejeune 1971* - Alpine and Cisalpine zones of the Etruscan-alphabet variants
> 
> 
> Lepontic-script = Lugano-alphabet / Camunic-script = Sondrio-alphabet 
> W-Raetic-script = Bozen-alphabet / E-Raetic-script = Magre-alphabet
> Venetic-script = Este-alphabet
> 
> ...


thanks...and with this , we can clearly agree there origin as alpine and script slightly varied from the same origin and from the same race/peoples ( bronze-age)

If we where to extend your map and place scripts further south in emilia-romagna and lower we would see?

----------


## Nobody1

> thanks...and with this , we can clearly agree there origin as alpine and script slightly varied from the same origin and from the same race/peoples ( bronze-age)
> If we where to extend your map and place scripts further south in emilia-romagna and lower we would see?


The script/alphabet most def. had a common origin in that it ultimately descended from the Greek Euboean alphabet; Adopted first by the Etruscans in the 7th cen BC and than later by those in the close vicinity or having close contact/trade from the Etruscans earliest in 6th cen BC onwards; The Raeti for example adopted the alphabet/script during the 5th cen BC;

*Cup of Nestor* - Euboean Greek [late 8th cen BC] from Euboean colony Pithekoussai - South Italy;



*Etruscan -* adoption/inscription;


Essentially all variants stem from the same/common ancestral alphabet but adopted in diff. times by diff. cultures/socities with diff. languages;

----------


## Nobody1

> Ah, the Negau helmet. It's certainly interesting because this oldest attestation of Grimm's Law: _*Hari-_ as in Gothic '_harjiz_', German '_Heer_', but not as in Gallic '_Corio-_' or Old Irish '_cuire_'. As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements.


The Negau-[B] helmet itself stems from the 5th cen BC (Nedoma 1995) with the inscription being dated to the 3rd/2nd cen BC (Smith 2009/Cambridge Uni.); The interesting part of Negau-[B] is that it was found along with 25 other helmets and another one of them Negau-[A] had a Keltic (4line) inscription with some Raetic influence (Macleod 2006) _siragu turbi_ and _dubni banuobi_ are Keltic while the title _eisvi_ is supposed to be the Reatic equivalent of the Germanic _teiwa_; The inscription itself manifests a Germanic presence and its meaning and the fact its on a helmet clearly signalise the reason for this Germanic presence in a Keltic zone (Pannonia/Noricum border); The fact however that it was along with a Keltic helmet and that all 26 helmets are of the same type and buried in the same (ritual) site and collectively adopted the same Raetic-script reveals however a common (non-hostile) scenario; I will point some points out in the next post;

Inscription of Negau-[A] / Inscription and Helmet Negau-[B]

----------


## Sile

> The script/alphabet most def. had a common origin in that it ultimately descended from the Greek Euboean alphabet; Adopted first by the Etruscans in the 7th cen BC and than later by those in the close vicinity or having close contact/trade from the Etruscans earliest in 6th cen BC onwards; The Raeti for example adopted the alphabet/script during the 5th cen BC;
> 
> *Cup of Nestor* - Euboean Greek [late 8th cen BC] from Euboean colony Pithekoussai - South Italy;
> 
> 
> 
> *Etruscan -* adoption/inscription;
> 
> 
> Essentially all variants stem from the same/common ancestral alphabet but adopted in diff. times by diff. cultures/socities with diff. languages;


So, you are basically stating that these alpine script are only from 8th century, then what do we assume that the venetics spoke around ~1150BC in the Veneto. A time when archeologist Elisa Perego has confirmed cremations and other archeological items found in the Veneto , made by Venetics. ( or are the euganei goods)
Granted, IMO, Veneti just adopted the Euganei script and I doubt very much they brought the script with them from the *east* and then taught everyone else this script in the alpine areas

----------


## Nobody1

> As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements. My case for that is simple: there is zero evidence for Germanic settlements south of the Danube before the Migration Period (anybody who is of a different opinion, convince me of the opposite!), and the local (Celtic, Latin, etc.) toponyms that there are are affected by the High German consonant shift, but _not_ by Grimm's Law. That does not mean, of course, that there was no Germanic presence at all, the Negau helmet shows the very opposite.


Exactly - thats the point; 
The Germanic presence outside of the traditional boundaries (Iron-age) is def. not justified or recorded by settlements or distinct tribal areas; It is however attested by the Negau-[B] helmet - and most prob. justified by groups of mercenaries/war-bands employed by the Gauls (see also Ariovistus 1st cen BC) during the rich/dominant phase and expansions of LaTene; And such a scenario is not only justified but also manifested (as such) with the Gaesatae; 

The Gaesatae are described by both Polybius (II/XXII), Plutarch (Marc./III) and Orosius (IV/XIII) as mercenaries (war-bands) and *not* a tribe - something that also the name [GAESATAE] itself reflects as it stems from the Keltic [Old Irish _gai/gae_ = Spear] and also Germanic _*gaizaz_ (=Spear) and thus simply means _spearmen_; In battle the Gaesatae fought naked wearing only the golden-torc (an elite symbol) and the fact that these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) even possesed such golden-torcs signalises that they were upmost elite (high merit/ranked) mercenaries; And these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) are specifically referred to as GERMANI on the Fasti Triumphales of Augustus and also Livius (XXI/XXXVIII) records the '_gentes Semigermanae_' of the 3rd cen BC in an Alpine part which corresponds to the Gaesatae of Aneroëstus (Polybius II/XXII) i.e. Pennine Alps/Wallis/source of the Rhone; The Germanic presence outside of the traditional (Iron-age) boundaries are essentially these Gaesatae (Spearmen/Mercenaries) of the '_gentes Semigermanae_';

*Fasti Triumphales* - ad­­ an 531.
M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus an. DXX[XI] Cos. de Galleis Insubribus et Germ[an(eis)] K. Mart. 
Isque spolia opima rettu[lit] duce hostium Virdumaro ad Clastid[ium interfecto]

Gaesatae warrior (with torc) - 
other representations of the Gaesatae are the Temple-reliefs of Civitalba and pos. the Amendola Sarcophagus;

----------


## Taranis

> Exactly - thats the point; 
> The Germanic presence outside of the traditional boundaries (Iron-age) is def. not justified or recorded by settlements or distinct tribal areas; It is however attested by the Negau-[B] helmet - and most prob. justified by groups of mercenaries/war-bands employed by the Gauls (see also Ariovistus 1st cen BC) during the rich/dominant phase and expansions of LaTene; And such a scenario is not only justified but also manifested (as such) with the Gaesatae; 
> 
> The Gaesatae are described by both Polybius (II/XXII), Plutarch (Marc./III) and Orosius (IV/XIII) as mercenaries (war-bands) and *not* a tribe - something that also the name [GAESATAE] itself reflects as it stems from the Keltic [Old Irish _gai/gae_ = Spear] and also Germanic _*gaizaz_ (=Spear) and thus simply means _spearmen_; In battle the Gaesatae fought naked wearing only the golden-torc (an elite symbol) and the fact that these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) even possesed such golden-torcs signalises that they were upmost elite (high merit/ranked) mercenaries; And these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) are specifically referred to as GERMANI on the Fasti Triumphales of Augustus and also Livius (XXI/XXXVIII) records the '_gentes Semigermanae_' of the 3rd cen BC in an Alpine part which corresponds to the Gaesatae of Aneroëstus (Polybius II/XXII) i.e. Pennine Alps/Wallis/source of the Rhone; The Germanic presence outside of the traditional (Iron-age) boundaries are essentially these Gaesatae (Spearmen/Mercenaries) of the '_gentes Semigermanae_';
> 
> *Fasti Triumphales* - ad­­ an 531.
> M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus an. DXX[XI] Cos. de Galleis Insubribus et Germ[an(eis)] K. Mart. 
> Isque spolia opima rettu[lit] duce hostium Virdumaro ad Clastid[ium interfecto]
> 
> ...


Here I actually would agree unanimously, and I have very little to add to your assessment.

1) First is that while I agree with your assessment regarding the Gaesates, I'd like to point out that the supposed etymology (sometimes brought up, not by you, but by others on this board in the past) of the ethnic name "Germani" as 'spear men' (or 'gar men'  :Laughing:  ) is certainly false: the word would have been *gaizaz in Proto-Germanic, and the _*z > *r_ rhotacism occured only in the West Germanic (both Insular and Continental) and North Germanic (Old Norse and its descendants), but _not_ in East Germanic (think of the Vandalic king '_Geiserich_') or in Proto-Germanic. So if the term was borrowed from there, we'd expect '_Gaisamani_' or something similar. As we discussed - I think - in the other thread, the origin from a Celtic source is far more probable (as 'neighbours', or more literally '_Near Ones_' - compare with Irish '_gearr_', meaning 'short', and Welsh '_ger_', meaning 'near').

2) I don't know how big the extend of Germanic mercenaries genuinely was (Ariovistus is a good point though), but the name "_Harigasti_" itself may be a piece of information: in modern German, the name would be literally rendered as "_Heergast_" ('army guest'), which could be a good circumscription for the term 'mercenary'.

----------


## Sile

more on semetic language being etruscan and raetic
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/LemnianLanguage.html

If etruscan script was lemnian and was in central italy for , some say 1000 years, why *did it not* spread to its neighbours?

- If reatic script was lemnian and in the alps *why did it* spread to its neighbours ?....................conclusion, because raetic is older in the area of italy and the alps. 

It clearly had time to establish itself from the 8th century BC............clearly it must have had at least 3 centuries of "purity" of its script before mixing with the encroaching Celts from the north 

One issue is lepontic, was it raetic/lemnian script or did it have some gallic script

----------


## Taranis

> more on semetic language being etruscan and raetic
> http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/LemnianLanguage.html


Sile, you are still continuing to confuse "script" (*writing system*) and "language", even in the very link you gave us there:




> Writing system
> The inscriptions are in an alphabet similar to that used to write the Etruscan language and the older Phrygian inscriptions, all derived from Euboean scripts (Western Greek alphabet, alphabets of Asia Minor). These scripts are ultimately of West Semitic origin and were adapted by various peoples from the 8th century. Characters similar to those used in Lemnos Stele inscription are also found on some pottery fragments on Lemnos.


Nowhere does the article say that Raetian or Etruscan are Semitic languages, what the article says is (correctly) that the Etruscan writing system was based off a variant of the Greek alphabet (Euboean or Western), which in turn is 'of West Semitic origin'. What they mean is "_was originally used to write West Semitic languages_", which means the Phoenician alphabet (which, as we said, was the basis for the Greek alphabet).

I might add that Lemnian is written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, not in the Etruscan one.

Please don't take it personal, but as long as you don't understand what the difference between a _writing system_ and a _language written in that writing system_ is, I think a further dicussion with you is pointless.

----------


## Sile

> Sile, you are still continuing to confuse "script" (*writing system*) and "language", even in the very link you gave us there:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does the article say that Raetian or Etruscan are Semitic languages, what the article says is (correctly) that the Etruscan writing system was based off a variant of the Greek alphabet (Euboean or Western), which in turn is 'of West Semitic origin'. What they mean is "_was originally used to write West Semitic languages_", which means the Phoenician alphabet (which, as we said, was the basis for the Greek alphabet).
> 
> I might add that Lemnian is written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, not in the Etruscan one.
> 
> Please don't take it personal, but as long as you don't understand what the difference between a _writing system_ and a _language written in that writing system_ is, I think a further dicussion with you is pointless.


I am not trying to prove anything of language and script that's your realm, all I am saying is that the script used in the alps ( raetic, venetic, cumunic, liburnian, noric) and italy( etruscan) has it epicentre , IMO in eastern tyrol and not in italy.

The vindelici name as proven was a created names by the Romans to sub-divide the raetic race into smaller fragments or as stated by ancient historians a part of the illyrian people. 
Tribune Drusus in his conquest of the northern raeti people had to build ships on lacus venetus ( lake constance) to sail north and attack the last of the raetic tribes. This is noted by Roman historians. 
I see *in vindelici area no celtic or celtic influence in script of artifacts in these lands in the bronze-age*........clearly it could only be raetic people or as stated above , illyrian

Archeologists stated that the most southern celtic town up to the year 700BC was Heuneburg and that is on the north side of the danube river

----------


## Diviacus

> Archeologists stated that the most southern celtic town up to the year 700BC was Heuneburg and that is on the north side of the danube river


 You cannot say that, as I gave examples in my post n°16 of archaelogists and historians saying the contrary. You can only say that "some" archaelogists say so.

----------


## Nobody1

> Archeologists stated that the most southern celtic town up to the year 700BC was Heuneburg and that is on the north side of the danube river


I have my doubts about that; Example Hallstatt (the site itself) is further south than the Heuneburg;
Also the Heuneburg is in the upper-Danube area but not on the Northern Side of it; 




> The vindelici name as proven was a created names by the Romans to sub-divide the raetic race into smaller fragments or as stated by ancient historians a part of the illyrian people. 
> Tribune Drusus in his conquest of the northern raeti people had to build ships on lacus venetus ( lake constance) to sail north and attack the last of the raetic tribes. This is noted by Roman historians. 
> I see *in vindelici area no celtic or celtic influence in script of artifacts in these lands in the bronze-age*........clearly it could only be raetic people or as stated above , illyrian


The Vindelici recorded by Strabo (IV/VI) are the _Licattii_, _Clautenatii_, _Vennones_, _Estiones_ and _Brigantii_; 
And acc. to Strabo (IV/VI) the chief settlement were Brigantium, Cambodunum and the ''_acropolis_'' Damasia;

I have looked into the sources again and the Vindelici can only be considered as Illyrian *if* the Genauni/Breuni are also Vindelici tribes; And the only classical-historian that makes such a connection is Horaz; All others list them separately i.e. the Vindelici *and* the Genauni/Breuni as in Florus (II/XXII) '_the Breuni, the Ucenni and the Vindelici_'; Now that does not change the fact however that the Genauni/Breuni were recorded Illyrians and it is attested by inscriptions that spoken an identical language as the Veneti - who in turn were likewise recorded as Illyrians (Herodotus I/CXCVI-V/IX); Also Florus (II/XXIII) '_The Illyrians also live at the foot of the Alps and keep watch over the depths of their valleys and the barriers formed there by the windings of precipitous torrents_'; 

I would def. now seperate the Vindelici from the Genauni/Breuni but also point out that the line of Keltic and Illyrian in the Alps was very blurry and sometimes hybrid - example Iapodes; Strabo (IV/VI-VII/V) 'IV/VI _Near to these regions dwell the Iapodes, close to them is [the Mount] Ocra. Formerly the Iapodes were numerous, inhabiting either side of the mountain, and were notorious for their predatory habits....._VII/V_ for it lies beneath that part of the Alps which extends as far as the country of the Iapodes, a tribe which is at the same time both Celtic and Illyrian_'; All (Illyrian or Kelts) of course Indo-Europeans except for the Raeti;

----------


## Sile

> I have my doubts about that; Example Hallstatt (the site itself) is further south than the Heuneburg;
> Also the Heuneburg is in the upper-Danube area but not on the Northern Side of it; 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vindelici recorded by Strabo (IV/VI) are the _Licattii_, _Clautenatii_, _Vennones_, _Estiones_ and _Brigantii_; 
> And acc. to Strabo (IV/VI) the chief settlement were Brigantium, Cambodunum and the ''_acropolis_'' Damasia;
> 
> I have looked into the sources again and the Vindelici can only be considered as Illyrian *if* the Genauni/Breuni are also Vindelici tribes; And the only classical-historian that makes such a connection is Horaz; All others list them separately i.e. the Vindelici *and* the Genauni/Breuni as in Florus (II/XXII) '_the Breuni, the Ucenni and the Vindelici_'; Now that does not change the fact however that the Genauni/Breuni were recorded Illyrians and it is attested by inscriptions that spoken an identical language as the Veneti - who in turn were likewise recorded as Illyrians (Herodotus I/CXCVI-V/IX); Also Florus (II/XXIII) '_The Illyrians also live at the foot of the Alps and keep watch over the depths of their valleys and the barriers formed there by the windings of precipitous torrents_'; 
> ...


Halstatt and heunebrg must be over 500km apart ............what do you mean?
Halstatt is in noricum lands. or near Noricum lands.
I said,North of the Danube river
http://www.academia.edu/3623124/Heun...ld_Archaeology
*The fortified citadel measures about 300 by 150 m. It stood on a strategically positioned mountain spur that rises steeply 40m above the Danube.*
There where no celts south of this city in the bronze-age.

as of 2010 only 2 vindelici tribes have been located
The Estiones settled on the river Iller near Kempten, and the _Brixentes_ (or _Brigantes)_ near Bregenz.

the bronze-age border between celts and raetic was the* The Hercynian Forest was an ancient and dense forest that stretched eastward from the Rhine River across southern Germany and formed the northern boundary of that part of Europe known to writers of antiquity. The ancient sources[1] are equivocal about how far east it extended. All agree that the Black Forest, which extended east from the Rhine valley, formed the western side of the Hercynian.*

----------


## Nobody1

> Halstatt and heunebrg must be over 500km apart ............what do you mean?


Thats exactly what i mean;




> Halstatt is in noricum lands. or near Noricum lands.
> I said,North of the Danube river
> http://www.academia.edu/3623124/Heun...ld_Archaeology
> *The fortified citadel measures about 300 by 150 m. It stood on a strategically positioned mountain spur that rises steeply 40m above the Danube.*
> There where no celts south of this city in the bronze-age.


Technically the Heuneburg is West of the Danube but no-one actually refers to North of the Danube regarding Donaueschingen-Ulm from Ulm (when the Iller joins) onwards there is a North of the Danube; Hallstatt, Heuneburg, Heiligenbuck etc. are all sites of the same culture-zone that emerged after Bronze-age Urnfield i.e. early-Iron-age (Hallstatt *C*/*D*);




> as of 2010 only 2 vindelici tribes have been located
> The Estiones settled on the river Iller near Kempten, and the _Brixentes_ (or _Brigantes)_ near Bregenz.


Yes; also the Licattii are positioned around the Lech and the Vennones south of the Brigantii (Vennoneten/Venosten in the Vinschgau); The Roman administration (prov. Raetia et Vindelicia) is not clearly helpful for Vindelic tribes dwelled both in Raetia (Brigantii/Vennones) and Vindelicia (Licatii/Estiones/Clautenatii);




> the bronze-age border between celts and raetic was the* The Hercynian Forest was an ancient and dense forest that stretched eastward from the Rhine River across southern Germany and formed the northern boundary of that part of Europe known to writers of antiquity. The ancient sources[1] are equivocal about how far east it extended. All agree that the Black Forest, which extended east from the Rhine valley, formed the western side of the Hercynian.*


The Hercynian-forest (_Hirtsenwald_) was the border-zone of the Keltic and Germanic realm which exceedingly became Germanic during the Iron-age; The Hercynian-forest stretched from the Rhine to Bohemia (_Böhmerwald)_ pos. the Harz and Erz still retain its etymology; Caesar (VI/XXV) '_It begins at the frontiers of the Helvetii, Nemetes, and Rauraci, and extends in a right line along the river Danube to the territories of the Daci and the Anartes_' the notable Keltic/Gaulish tribes of the Hercynian-forest were the Volcae and the Boii; In Roman times (1st cen BC) it was already occupied (north of the Danube) by the Germanic Irminonen (Suebi/Quadi/Hermunduri/Marcomanni); _Dekumatsland_ remains another question;

----------


## Sile

> Yes; also the Licattii are positioned around the Lech and the Vennones south of the Brigantii (Vennoneten/Venosten in the Vinschgau); The Roman administration (prov. Raetia et Vindelicia) is not clearly helpful for Vindelic tribes dwelled both in Raetia (Brigantii/Vennones) and Vindelicia (Licatii/Estiones/Clautenatii);
> 
> 
> 
> ;


Roman administration was helpful in that the name vindelici and the split of Raetian lands was entirely a Roman thing. It was to glorify the 2 Roman tribunes in the conquest of the alpine area of Raetia. Romans knew who was in their lands.....they where not dummies.

*Augusta is a name given to a number of towns founded or colonized by Augustus. Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), capital of Vindelicia, or Rhaetia (also spelled Raetia) Secunda, on the Licus (Lech), was colonized by Drusus under Augustus, after the conquest of Rhaeti in 14 BCE. Vindelicia was a Roman province south of the Danube, which separated it from Germany. It was bounded on the west by the territory of the Helvetti in Gaul, on the south by Rhaetia, and on the east by the river Oenus (Inn), which separated it from Noricum, thus corresponding to the northeast part of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, the south of Wuertemberg and Bavaria, and the north part of the Tyrol. It was originally part of the province of Rhaetia, and was conquered by Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Later Rhaetia was divided into two provinces: Rhaetia Prima and Rhaetia Secunda. The latter became Vindelicia. It was drained by the tributaries of the Danube, of which the most important were the Licus (Lech), with its tributaries, the Vindo or Vidro (Wertach), the Isarus (Isar) and Oenus (Inn). The greater part of the Vindelicia was a plain, but the south portion was occupied by the northern slopes of the Alpes Rhaeticae. It derived its name from its chief inhabitants, the Vindelici, a warlike people dwelling in the southern part of the country. Their name is said to have been formed form the two rivers, Vinda and Licus.

*As stated vindelicia was part of Raetia , Raetia was divided and then around 100AD vindelicia was named from Rhaetia Secunda*.* I can only imagine this "vindelicia" was only raetian people that got *HEAVILY* celtinized from the* iron age until the Roman conquest of 15BC*.

----------


## Nobody1

> Roman administration was helpful in that the name vindelici and the split of Raetian lands was entirely a Roman thing. It was to glorify the 2 Roman tribunes in the conquest of the alpine area of Raetia. Romans knew who was in their lands.....they where not dummies.
> 
> *Augusta is a name given to a number of towns founded or colonized by Augustus. Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), capital of Vindelicia, or Rhaetia (also spelled Raetia) Secunda, on the Licus (Lech), was colonized by Drusus under Augustus, after the conquest of Rhaeti in 14 BCE. Vindelicia was a Roman province south of the Danube, which separated it from Germany. It was bounded on the west by the territory of the Helvetti in Gaul, on the south by Rhaetia, and on the east by the river Oenus (Inn), which separated it from Noricum, thus corresponding to the northeast part of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, the south of Wuertemberg and Bavaria, and the north part of the Tyrol. It was originally part of the province of Rhaetia, and was conquered by Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Later Rhaetia was divided into two provinces: Rhaetia Prima and Rhaetia Secunda. The latter became Vindelicia. It was drained by the tributaries of the Danube, of which the most important were the Licus (Lech), with its tributaries, the Vindo or Vidro (Wertach), the Isarus (Isar) and Oenus (Inn). The greater part of the Vindelicia was a plain, but the south portion was occupied by the northern slopes of the Alpes Rhaeticae. It derived its name from its chief inhabitants, the Vindelici, a warlike people dwelling in the southern part of the country. Their name is said to have been formed form the two rivers, Vinda and Licus.
> 
> *As stated vindelicia was part of Raetia , Raetia was divided and then around 100AD vindelicia was named from Rhaetia Secunda*.* I can only imagine this "vindelicia" was only raetian people that got *HEAVILY* celtinized from the* iron age until the Roman conquest of 15BC*.


Roman prov. of Raetia = _Raetia propria_ (south part) and _Vindelicia_ (north part);
And the Vindelic tribes dwelled in both parts not just exclusively in Vindelicia on top there were the Illyrian Genauni/Breuni (Inntal/Tyrol) and than of course the Raeti (dwelling in multiple areas); The Alpine conquest was campaigned first by Varro and Sillius Nerva and than by Drusus and Tiberius; _Prov. Raetia et Vindelicia_ was only established in the reigns of Tiberius-Claudius; Augusta-Vindelicorum was made a _municipium_ during the reign of Hadrian; By 110 AD the Romans levied 8 _cohors Raetiae_ and 4 _cohors Vindelicorum_ - also some _ vexillationes_;

Raetia (brown) - Vindelicia (pink) - Noricum (green) - Pannonia (yellow) - Illyricum (pink)

----------


## Sile

> Roman prov. of Raetia = _Raetia propria_ (south part) and _Vindelicia_ (north part);
> And the Vindelic tribes dwelled in both parts not just exclusively in Vindelicia on top there were the Illyrian Genauni/Breuni (Inntal/Tyrol) and than of course the Raeti (dwelling in multiple areas); The Alpine conquest was campaigned first by Varro and Sillius Nerva and than by Drusus and Tiberius; _Prov. Raetia et Vindelicia_ was only established in the reigns of Tiberius-Claudius; Augusta-Vindelicorum was made a _municipium_ during the reign of Hadrian; By 110 AD the Romans levied 8 _cohors Raetiae_ and 4 _cohors Vindelicorum_ - also some _ vexillationes_;
> 
> Raetia (brown) - Vindelicia (pink) - Noricum (green) - Pannonia (yellow) - Illyricum (pink)


yes Ok.............but when all is said, did the Roman say they where battling the raetics in 15BC or celts?...............I never seen the word celts in any texts.
The Romans clearly knew the celts and who they where for many centuries.

----------


## Nobody1

> yes Ok.............but when all is said, did the Roman say they where battling the raetics in 15BC or celts?...............I never seen the word celts in any texts.
> The Romans clearly knew the celts and who they where for many centuries.


They are all mentioned separately and distinctly from each other as Raeti, Vindelici and Norici;
[Dio Cassius LIV/XX-XXII / Florus II/XXII / Plinius III/XXIV(XX) / Strabo IV/VI / Tacitus Ann. II/XVII / Suetonius Aug. XXI]

The term Keltic is seldomly used specifically - mostly just referred to as Alpine nations/tribes collectively as also on the _Tropaeum Alpium_ (GENTES ALPINAE); There is however one passage from Zosimus (I/LII) in which is mentioned: ''_the Keltic legions of Noricum and Raetia_'' - Palmyrene campaign 3rd cen AD;

----------


## Sile

> They are all mentioned separately and distinctly from each other as Raeti, Vindelici and Norici;
> [Dio Cassius LIV/XX-XXII / Florus II/XXII / Plinius III/XXIV(XX) / Strabo IV/VI / Tacitus Ann. II/XVII / Suetonius Aug. XXI]
> 
> The term Keltic is seldomly used specifically - mostly just referred to as Alpine nations/tribes collectively as also on the _Tropaeum Alpium_ (GENTES ALPINAE); There is however one passage from Zosimus (I/LII) in which is mentioned: ''_the Keltic legions of Noricum and Raetia_'' - Palmyrene campaign 3rd cen AD;


when caesar got involved in the gallic/celtic wars between 71BC -55BC, there was no mention of celts in the raetic alps, actually the first celts where the helvetic celts. The helvetic bordered lake constance on the north-west corner of the lake. So, Romans already knew and dealt with celts in alpine areas 50 plus years earlier than the roman invasion of reatia in 15BC, you would think that the glorified term of beating more celts in battle in Raetia would be used...............but I do not see this term.

----------


## Nobody1

> when caesar got involved in the gallic/celtic wars between 71BC -55BC, there was no mention of celts in the raetic alps, actually the first celts where the helvetic celts. The helvetic bordered lake constance on the north-west corner of the lake. So, Romans already knew and dealt with celts in alpine areas 50 plus years earlier than the roman invasion of reatia in 15BC, you would think that the glorified term of beating more celts in battle in Raetia would be used...............but I do not see this term.


I understand that logic;
But the Vindelici were only described as Vindelici - separated from the Illyrian Breuni/Genauni and the Raeti; Also the Norici are also just described as Norici - and both the Raeti, Vindelici and Norici are not single tribes but multiple tribes; And one tribe of the Norici - the Taurisci were described as Keltic; The Scordisci are also specifically Keltic/Galatae but also noted [Strabo VII/V] mixed with Illyrian and Thracian;

The Helvetii (times of Caesar 1st cen BC) dwelled between the Jura and the Rhine [Caesar B.GAL. I/II] and its depending when exactly they moved to this location; The area North of the Helvetii (_Dekumatsland_) was referred to by [Ptolemy II/X] as the _Desert of the Helvetii_ (_Helvetische Einöde_) meaning that at one point the Helvetii must have dwelled and than left this area North and East of the Rhine (Hercynian-forest); One scenario of Helvetii migrating into the Alpine Alps could have been the Cimbric/Teutonic track of the late 2nd cen BC - reflected by the Tigurini; The track of Cimbri, Teutones, Tigurini and Ambrones that reached the Rhone 105BC are described [Eutropius V/I] as tribes from both Germanic and Gallic;

----------

