World Families Forums - English L21

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 01:56:01 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  English L21
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: English L21  (Read 3070 times)
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2011, 06:04:19 PM »

Or to put it i a far more concise way. I dont think the idea that the Celtic language evolved in a compact area and them spread from there by migration is held by hardly any archaeologists today in terms of western Europe.  Its been all but proven that La Tene, Hallstatt and even Urnfield do not explain the earliest known distribution of the Celtic languages. The common denominator must pre-date even Urnfield and the Atlantic Bronze Age because BOTH are needed to explain the distribution of Celtic languages c. 6th century BC.  So the logical step is to ask what is the common denominator between those two cultures? Well that pushes us back into the mid Bronze Age and early Bronze Age when there was a period of strong connection between Ireland, Wessex, Amorica and Unetice central Europe and all of these culture emerged out of beaker.  Beaker is too wide spread to be just Celtic but the phase just after it with that group of interconnected cultures would form a horizon where a chunk of the old beaker groups could have evolved a common dialect through constant trade, contact, intermarriage (with the high status women moving) etc.
In fact Urnfield is a problem there because we have the Urnfield area of Catalonia that is not Celtic, but Iberian in language.
I agree with your idea for some sort of common language for the Bell Beaker area, but IMO it is more probable a non IE language than Celtic, Bell beaker is too ancient for Celtic or even some form of preCeltic to be in existence and already extended to such a wide area.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2011, 07:02:33 PM »

Or to put it i a far more concise way. I dont think the idea that the Celtic language evolved in a compact area and them spread from there by migration is held by hardly any archaeologists today in terms of western Europe.  Its been all but proven that La Tene, Hallstatt and even Urnfield do not explain the earliest known distribution of the Celtic languages. The common denominator must pre-date even Urnfield and the Atlantic Bronze Age because BOTH are needed to explain the distribution of Celtic languages c. 6th century BC.  So the logical step is to ask what is the common denominator between those two cultures? Well that pushes us back into the mid Bronze Age and early Bronze Age when there was a period of strong connection between Ireland, Wessex, Amorica and Unetice central Europe and all of these culture emerged out of beaker.  Beaker is too wide spread to be just Celtic but the phase just after it with that group of interconnected cultures would form a horizon where a chunk of the old beaker groups could have evolved a common dialect through constant trade, contact, intermarriage (with the high status women moving) etc.
In fact Urnfield is a problem there because we have the Urnfield area of Catalonia that is not Celtic, but Iberian in language.
I agree with your idea for some sort of common language for the Bell Beaker area, but IMO it is more probable a non IE language than Celtic, Bell beaker is too ancient for Celtic or even some form of preCeltic to be in existence and already extended to such a wide area.
That is true about urnfield and I believe its also true that in Italy it is focussed on the Etruscan area.  I seem to recall too the possibility that non-IE Raetian in the Alps too could be linked.  The only way round that is to point out that non-IE does not mean pre-IE and it is possibly that non-IE languages around Italy and Spain are actually overlays.

I do agree too that bell beaker is too widespread to represent just Celtic.  It could perhaps represent Celto-Italic or just western centum IE.  I suspect Celtic emerged at some point after beaker but before the Late Bronze Age urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age cultures.  Personally I think the process began c. 2000BC in the period when Unetice-Wessex-Armorican, Hilversum and other Irish and British cultures were closely networking for a few centuries c. 2000BC-1500BC.  I think a Celtic dialect could have emerged among the interacting elite of those areas in that period.  If you think about it they kind of have to if either/both urnfield and the Atlantic Bronze Age were Celtic because they both commence c. 1300BC. 
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 07:05:20 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2011, 06:35:04 AM »

non-IE in Italy could be an overlay, but it is difficult to see that in Spain, in Catalonia the transition from Urnfield to Iberic culture is smooth, and then you have Celtic languages in NE Spain cutting accross the link between Aquitanian and other Iberian languages that clearly belong to a common language group.

As for the chronology of Celtic language, you are right that if Atlantic Bronze or Urnfield are celtic, it must be born in a previous period, but neither Urnfield nor Atlantic Bronze are demonstrated to be Celtic themselves.
Besides, there is the rpoblem with celtoItalic, that makes rather difficult to put the origen of Celtic in a wide region extending as far as the British Isles.
IMO the best explanation is still to have Celtic born in Central Europe, in close contact with Italic, and then spreading with Hallstatt. I maybe biased in this assumption because it fits very well the archaeological record in the Iberian penynsula, and I don´t know that well the archaeological record in France (and my knowledge is far lower for the British isles I must confess)
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2011, 07:10:48 AM »

Besides, there is the rpoblem with celtoItalic, that makes rather difficult to put the origen of Celtic in a wide region extending as far as the British Isles.

The american linguist Andrew Garrett proposes a different phylogeny from that of the usual filial tree like structure, PIE => Proto Italo Celtic => Proto Italic and Proto Celtic => Italic and Celtic. He proposes a southern european Indo European followed by the formation of dialects which in turn develop into the italic languages and the several varieties of celtic language. It still requires Indo European speakers entering europe at some time but by allowing for the possibility of the several celtic languages developing in situ, it alleviates the problems of trying to explain their geographic spread by movements of people.

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf

best
authun
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2011, 03:58:29 PM »

non-IE in Italy could be an overlay, but it is difficult to see that in Spain, in Catalonia the transition from Urnfield to Iberic culture is smooth, and then you have Celtic languages in NE Spain cutting accross the link between Aquitanian and other Iberian languages that clearly belong to a common language group.

As for the chronology of Celtic language, you are right that if Atlantic Bronze or Urnfield are celtic, it must be born in a previous period, but neither Urnfield nor Atlantic Bronze are demonstrated to be Celtic themselves.
Besides, there is the rpoblem with celtoItalic, that makes rather difficult to put the origen of Celtic in a wide region extending as far as the British Isles.
IMO the best explanation is still to have Celtic born in Central Europe, in close contact with Italic, and then spreading with Hallstatt. I maybe biased in this assumption because it fits very well the archaeological record in the Iberian penynsula, and I don´t know that well the archaeological record in France (and my knowledge is far lower for the British isles I must confess)


From what I read about Iberia on the e-keltoi site, I feel Atlantic Iberia may have been in the Italic sphere (as possibly attested by Lusitanian) until it was linked to into the Celtic speaking network to the north c. 1300BC possibly by both the Atlantic Bronze Age.  So, I suppose my feeling is that Atlantic Iberia was Celticised from the north. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2011, 07:06:44 PM »

Doesn't Hallstatt seem a trifle late for the spread of Celtic? Surely it is far older than that?
Logged

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2011, 09:28:00 AM »

Besides, there is the rpoblem with celtoItalic, that makes rather difficult to put the origen of Celtic in a wide region extending as far as the British Isles.

The american linguist Andrew Garrett proposes a different phylogeny from that of the usual filial tree like structure, PIE => Proto Italo Celtic => Proto Italic and Proto Celtic => Italic and Celtic. He proposes a southern european Indo European followed by the formation of dialects which in turn develop into the italic languages and the several varieties of celtic language. It still requires Indo European speakers entering europe at some time but by allowing for the possibility of the several celtic languages developing in situ, it alleviates the problems of trying to explain their geographic spread by movements of people.

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf

best
authun
Very interesting reading. Still, as you say, there is the expansion from a nuclear IE population around the Black Sea. It is kind of contradictory  that, because according to Garrett´s own theory IE should have been the product of some regional differentiation from another PreIE language, and in turn by convergence it should have shared characteristics to neighbouring languages without requiring a shift of population.
Anyway, focusing on Celtic it does alleviate the problem of geographical spread of Celtic languages, but still doesn´t quite fit into the archaeological data for Iberia.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2011, 09:31:04 AM »

Doesn't Hallstatt seem a trifle late for the spread of Celtic? Surely it is far older than that?
For Iberia, Hallstatt C fits quite good the archaeological evidence for changing cultures and movement of populations. It is the traditional explanation for the presence of Celtic languages in Iberia and still the best one as far as I know. Could be different for British Isles though, my knowledge of the archaeology of that area is very poor.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 09:31:20 AM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2011, 10:15:18 AM »



From what I read about Iberia on the e-keltoi site, I feel Atlantic Iberia may have been in the Italic sphere (as possibly attested by Lusitanian) until it was linked to into the Celtic speaking network to the north c. 1300BC possibly by both the Atlantic Bronze Age.  So, I suppose my feeling is that Atlantic Iberia was Celticised from the north.  
What we have in Iberia according to archaeology and fitting Epygraphical and Classical sources is
1) The arrival of a Celtiberians around 700 BC to the region of modern Aragón.
2) Arrival of Celtic groups to the Tartessos area around 600 BC, probably Celtiberian but some could have arrived directly from Gallia.
3) The expansion of Celtiberians to the Western Meseta c. 400 BC, there are also some Gauls that arrived later attested by Classical sources
4) The celtizacion of Lusitanian and the NW coast, in a process that is clearly separated from the Celtiberian expansion. Almagro Gorbea has linked that to the Atlantic Bronze and a Celtic substratum from that age, but most archaeologists think of a late celtizacion of that territory, linked to the La Tene trade network in the Atlantic area, staring around 400-300 BC.
The Celtiberian language is clearly close to Italic, the Celtic of the NW is very sparsely known through Epygraphy. You can´t discoun Lusitanian, that only exists in the dream of some linguists.

Edit: I forgot to mention that there was a third theory about the Celts in the NNW Iberian coast. That was the main theory when I wa at the university some 20 years ago, but now it seems it has lost favour.
According to that there were 2 waves of IE people coming to Spain, 1st wave arrived c1000-900 BC, and replaced Cogotas culture in the Meseta by the Soto culture. The 2nd wave, Celtiberians, arrived c700 BC and pushed west the first arrivals, cornering them in the NNW coast. This theory also held that the Celts of the NNW coast were different from Celtiberians and that Celiztion was late, c400 BC, but at the time there was no data to link them in any way to La Tene
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:29:17 AM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2011, 05:02:19 PM »

Anyway, focusing on Celtic it does alleviate the problem of geographical spread of Celtic languages, but still doesn´t quite fit into the archaeological data for Iberia.

Nor, as Garrett states, is there any proof for his theory. His work was on ancient Greek and Macedonian and he proposes it just a possible model. People still migrate even if his theory is true. An interesting note is that gaulish and insular celtic isarna for iron is possibly derived from Illyrian. It's quite different from latin ferrum.

best
authun
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2011, 04:24:24 PM »

The big question is is the difference between L21 levels in England (especially the south and east) due to later dilution or was there a difference from the earliest days.  I think it could be both.  The strongest evidence for this is that L21 today only really dominates in NW France.  In NE France it is around 10% and probably similar in Belgium.  If that was the case in the past, why should we expect the south-east of Britain to be very high in L21?  We shouldnt.  Either the L21 hotspot in NW France once extended further east OR the SE of Britain never was high in L21.  One of these surely must be true.  Actually if you look at the L21 maps recently produced on Eupedia, Britain does to some extent echo the contouring of the continent with SE England (as one would expect) similar to the continent opposite (NE France, Belgium) in its L21 levels.  All this adds up to a feeling that the idea that England was predominantly L21 throughout in pre-Anglo-Saxon times seems very dubious.  It simply doesnt make sense when you compare SE England with the continent opposite.  
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2011, 09:21:48 PM »

That makes sense, especially when one considers that U152 and U106 are common in the Low Countries and reach their frequency peaks in SE England. U152 does not get anywhere near as frequent in the rest of Britain as it does in SE England, at least according to Busby.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2011, 07:26:48 AM »

I guess the question is: how extensive was settlement of non-L21, R-L11 clades in SE England prior to the Anglo-Saxons, especially U106 and U152?

I get the impression U152 has been in England longer than U106, but one wouldn't know that just from the numbers. I guess my impression is based on the idea that U152 wasn't as big a component of the Anglo-Saxon mix as U106 and therefore probably arrived with the Belgae.

Did a lot of U106 get in early, so that its current frequencies in the eastern half of England are pretty much what they have always been? Or was there merely a small southeastern enclave of U106 that grew exponentially with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons?

I think there must have been a big influx of Anglo-Saxons from the 5th-7th centuries, but what do the rest of you think?
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2011, 04:34:49 PM »

I guess the question is: how extensive was settlement of non-L21, R-L11 clades in SE England prior to the Anglo-Saxons, especially U106 and U152?

I get the impression U152 has been in England longer than U106, but one wouldn't know that just from the numbers. I guess my impression is based on the idea that U152 wasn't as big a component of the Anglo-Saxon mix as U106 and therefore probably arrived with the Belgae.

Did a lot of U106 get in early, so that its current frequencies in the eastern half of England are pretty much what they have always been? Or was there merely a small southeastern enclave of U106 that grew exponentially with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons?

I think there must have been a big influx of Anglo-Saxons from the 5th-7th centuries, but what do the rest of you think?

Put it another way, why should we expect SE England to have been predominantly L21 in pre-Roman times?  Bottom line for me is there is no L21-dominated group on the continent opposite SE England (lets say the Seine to the Rhine).  There is a very high L21 area opposite the Atlantic seaways of the isles - NW France.  Basically, SE England was on the seaways of an area where L21 is not dominant (although present at c. 10% of the population). So, I would like to hear the explanation for this from those who see the pre-AS population of England as predominantly L21.  
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 04:36:06 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2011, 06:43:42 PM »

But how extensive do you think the non-L21 element was in what is now England? Nearly what it is now? It seems to me L21 is still pretty well represented in eastern England, too.

Here's what I think, and I don't have any real hard evidence to support this; it's just what I think. U106, U152, and P312* were present in SE England from fairly early on, but much more restricted and of far lower frequency than today. I think they butted up against a relatively large L21 population that was at that time pagan and warlike enough to hold its own against other populations who were equally primitive. That is why the non-L21s got a toe hold, but only a toe hold.

It wasn't until later, after the Romans had softened up and Christianized the insular Celts, and had already begun settling Germanic auxilia and foederati in SE England, that the non-L21 groups were able to make serious inroads, even to the point of introducing their language and transforming a large part of southern Britannia into Angle-land. It helped also that the Celts were so divided and had no leaders with the breadth and depth of wisdom and vision to perceive the seriousness of the threat and pursue a policy of unity and cooperation. They also had to cope with the incursions of the Irish in the west and those of the Picts in the north.

I am generalizing, of course. Things were more complex. Urien of Rheged, for example, appears to have been farsighted enough to have cooperated with other British princes. He was in the process of carving up Northumbria when he was assassinated at the behest of another British prince, Morcant.

The real influx of non-L21 came with the Anglo-Saxons, though. That is my opinion.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.096 seconds with 19 queries.