Found something some may find of interest.
http://www.paris.culture.fr/en/index.html
Printable View
Found something some may find of interest.
http://www.paris.culture.fr/en/index.html
oh yes, that's well nown to me.:book:
Romans apparently renemed the place lutetia-wonder how parisii lived on in this situation.
I was wondering if that Ribemont-sur-Ancre site many have something to do with the Parisii, before they were reduced to a muddy island sur la Seine? Or could the Parisii actually be a Belgae affiliate that was cut off from the main body?
I believe much older than the Belgae. Current theory states that the Parisii (“Effective ones” - otherwise known as the Quariti), were originally a subtribe of the Senones (either “old inhabitants” or “worshippers of the ancient one” / Senos). These ‘Celts’ were apparently labiovelar kw speakers who had been forced from their original central position in Gaul by the influx of the Moselle and Marne ‘Celts’ eg Aedui, Lingones, etc in the 5th C BC. The Parissi themselves were pushed north along the Seine to the position which they later maintained, their centre at Lutecia, now Paris.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
So, if the Parisi were Q-Celtic speakers, how come their name starts with a P?
How could it possibly be known that they spoke Q-Celtic? Our knowledge of Gallic as a whole is based on a few scattered inscriptions, I very much doubt the Parisii left enough evidence of their particular dialect to support a claim like that.
That's a long lasting fight between French and Belgians historians. The French claim the Parisii are "Gauls", the Belgians think they are indeed a Belgian tribe, like the Remi, that was cut of from the main body.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
With all thing considered how would the Yorkshire Parisii play into these. To me this suggests at some point they must have occupied a larger territory in Gaul; one that provided an outlet to the sea.
I'm sorry, Elmetiacos, perhaps I didn't understand something in A.III's post that you were responding to, but why are you treating the Parisii as Q-Celtic? Wouldn't most scholars say they are P-Celtic/Continental?
edit: Would I be right in assuming that the Quariti reference would be a Q-Celtic name? What's the source for using that name, and could it be that those references are from a Q-Celtic source that's translating names into its own dialect?
I believe the assumption is that at some point all/most Celt used on the Continental was a type of Q that over time shifted to or was replaced by P. Maybe initially on the continue P was more concentrated to the east of Q. This is a complex issue, but may be tied to where the Belgae came from? If this was inspired, at least in the north, by the Belgae also remains unclear. Given the nature of the langauge group, it had to have happened (that is the change itself), yet it's very unclear when and why this occurred. I do like a greatly reduced Quariti with a strong connection to the Chalons-sur-Marne area. However, this pulls them even further from the sea, unless they occupied a very large area.
By the way, heres another...
http://www.kelten.co.at/index_en.php?sub=inhalte_en
I'm saying that they weren't Q-Celtic speakers. The majority of scholars dismiss suggestions of Q-Celts in Gaul; even the name Sequani is explained by splitting it into seku-ani. "Parisi" has an actual P in the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
So, there never were Continental Qs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Ooh, interestingstuffs.
*Waits for the debate to continue*
At one time everyone spoke Proto-Celtic which was Q-Celtic, but by 272BC there were no Q Celtic speakers on the Continent; that seems to be general view. Proto-Celtic Kw had become P in Gaulish and Lepontic (if you count Lepontic) and K in Celtiberian.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
don't you think that's a little simplified? that sounds as if you think Q-Celtic is unchanging and original... the Q is hardly a qualifier for such. it is a phoneme... not a language, thus Q-Celtic is not Proto-Celtic... IE before Proto-Celtic is not Proto-Celtic.
if you want to be correct you should probably refer to the correct linguistic terms like Q-Celtic's obstruents/voiced stops or whatever is pertinent remained the same, yada yada...
Where did I say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I checked and indeed you didn't write that. However, returning to the Parisii...
As far as I know, in northern Gaul there is no textual evidence, when the shift from Q to P occurred, is there? We just know that by the mid 1st century BC it had happened, yes?
The earliest inscriptions are the "Lepontic" ones from the 7th to the 4th Centuries BCE and they already show the Kw > P shift has taken place.
Indeed, yet of the earliest true Lepontic text that demonstrates the shift, when is it dated to, and how was it dated, as Italy had become home of the P Italics among others? Of course these Italics had come to be in Italy, from somewhere north and east, possibly at the beginning of the late bronze age, no?
I'm not much of an archaeologist, as I've said before. If you speak a little German, I refer your to http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanis...epontisch).pdf
which has references to how this was dated... or at least I think it does. It's been a while since I actually studied any German: 'datierung basierend auf angaben bei SOLINAS 1995' it says.
My German is horrendous at best.
Introduction to Continental Keltic
Basis of dating as indicated by SOLINAS, Patrizia
1995
‘Il celtico in Italia,’ Studi Etruschi 60, 311-408.
Vorgallische periode
Pre-gallic/gaulish period
AKA Golasecca II – III A
GOLASECCA II A 600-550 BC, GOLASECCA II B 550-500 BC, and GOLASECCA III A 590-350 BC.
The problem is these Celt most likely didn't originate in Gaul, rather they came from somewhere further east. There also is some question if they were more Italic-like than Celt-ich. This is because the earliest elements of the Golasecca Culture appear in the Late Bronze Age and this was when the Italics entered Italy from the northeast. Of course this all pre-dates the Gaulish invasion of 388 BC. So the question might be, 'When is Lepontic Gaulish?' For the most part, that may only be after 388 BC, which if the later had not yet shifted to P, it certainly began the shift thereafter. Still, it may remain unclear how, or if this would have impacted the language of northern Gaul.
There's still debate about whether Lepontic is Gaulish or a separate Celtic language. A small number of people don't think it was Celtic at all.
I would be interested in hearing both your opinions on Lusitanian and Calleacian.
Sorry,
my understand of that subject is very limited. Maybe Elmetiacos or someone else can help?
What inscriptions there are in Lusitanian persuade me that the language is definitely Indo-European but not Celtic. All the other Celtic languages have lost the initial Indo-European P which Lusitanian hasn't - porcom means pig in Lusitanian for instance, whereas the Irish cognate is orc "one of a litter (of piglets)". I don't go for the pro-Celtic explanation that this represents a retained Proto-Celtic Φ. There are Ps in other places too, which don't look to be in the right places to be Φs, which would mean if Lusitanian were Celtic it would have to be P-Celtic, unlike Celtiberian, which seems strange for what's otherwise supposed to be such a phonologically conservative language.
<bumping so this doesn't get lost as I intend to put a post here>
huh... otherwise, excellent posts by allQuote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos