MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 1,382
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
@Vitruvius
You wrote:
"Just look at how drastically Etruscan and Latin languages were differentiated despite the two regions sharing the same material culture and geography in the final bronze age. These two places also have identical autosomal patterns, just like Northern Italians and Illyrians. Languages can be learned in less than a generation and history has shown phenomenal overturns in ancestral tongues. I see no reason to assume prehistory was any different. Genetic overturn is much more difficult to achieve by comparison."
I saw this debate on Eurogenes too.
No, languages shifts doesn't and didn't occur in a generation at a collective level for I know. Collectiivities are not individuals. Whoever the winner, when one of the competing tongues dies, it requires often 300 or 400 centuries. What can occur is a bilinguism among the elites or one of the elites (on both direction: look at Roman in Gaul > < Frankish in Gaul, Saxon in Britain, English in Ireland, Scotland, Wales... We have still bilinguism in some well developped countries.
And even if slow, everytime some conditions are required for the winner language to impose itself: centralism and well organized administration based also on military domination, or neat overnumber, also superior civilisation (technical and civilisational superiority. As a whole, the number could not be the most effective element.
Like the most of us I'm puzzled by the Italic-Etruscan question! So I 'm trying to find an explanation. Not easy.
I suspect that Italicspeaking and Etruscanspeaking pop's have been in longlasting contacts at the Urnfields times, perhaps already before,at first maybe by only exogamy and trade. Beginning of the autosomal levelling.
a long term bilinguism could have existed on both sides and even intrication of pop's, whatever the prefered language of the basis pop. Later, moves of sets of pop's and choice for a prefered koine?
Another hypotesis: the easternmost Italics "tribes", more and sooner in contact than other ones with (proto-)Etruscans in Central Europe (I think a well developped Tell culture by origin, these Etuscans?), after some generations (not one or two) shifted language and adopted an Etruscan language after a bilinguism period. When the Urnfield/early IA put these peoples in move, some Italics spoke still an Italic dialect when others, spite a roughly stayed common constition, spoke Etruscan. Result of a diffusion of culture with transfusion of language, but not as large as the material osmosis???
Only a try to project things on a screen, because I have no new fact to send.
I 'm maybe not uptodate for Y-haplos. Have somebody more data about Republican Italics and Etruscan male markers?
You wrote:
"Just look at how drastically Etruscan and Latin languages were differentiated despite the two regions sharing the same material culture and geography in the final bronze age. These two places also have identical autosomal patterns, just like Northern Italians and Illyrians. Languages can be learned in less than a generation and history has shown phenomenal overturns in ancestral tongues. I see no reason to assume prehistory was any different. Genetic overturn is much more difficult to achieve by comparison."
I saw this debate on Eurogenes too.
No, languages shifts doesn't and didn't occur in a generation at a collective level for I know. Collectiivities are not individuals. Whoever the winner, when one of the competing tongues dies, it requires often 300 or 400 centuries. What can occur is a bilinguism among the elites or one of the elites (on both direction: look at Roman in Gaul > < Frankish in Gaul, Saxon in Britain, English in Ireland, Scotland, Wales... We have still bilinguism in some well developped countries.
And even if slow, everytime some conditions are required for the winner language to impose itself: centralism and well organized administration based also on military domination, or neat overnumber, also superior civilisation (technical and civilisational superiority. As a whole, the number could not be the most effective element.
Like the most of us I'm puzzled by the Italic-Etruscan question! So I 'm trying to find an explanation. Not easy.
I suspect that Italicspeaking and Etruscanspeaking pop's have been in longlasting contacts at the Urnfields times, perhaps already before,at first maybe by only exogamy and trade. Beginning of the autosomal levelling.
a long term bilinguism could have existed on both sides and even intrication of pop's, whatever the prefered language of the basis pop. Later, moves of sets of pop's and choice for a prefered koine?
Another hypotesis: the easternmost Italics "tribes", more and sooner in contact than other ones with (proto-)Etruscans in Central Europe (I think a well developped Tell culture by origin, these Etuscans?), after some generations (not one or two) shifted language and adopted an Etruscan language after a bilinguism period. When the Urnfield/early IA put these peoples in move, some Italics spoke still an Italic dialect when others, spite a roughly stayed common constition, spoke Etruscan. Result of a diffusion of culture with transfusion of language, but not as large as the material osmosis???
Only a try to project things on a screen, because I have no new fact to send.
I 'm maybe not uptodate for Y-haplos. Have somebody more data about Republican Italics and Etruscan male markers?