[Spellyans] The development and spread of Celtic

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Mon Dec 2 10:10:21 GMT 2013


Koch puts his case in "Celtic from the West'.  This is apparently in 2 volumes and, as they're about £40 apiece, I have yet to examine them.  I understand that he and Cunliffe are currently working to pin the evidence down more firmly.  I don't think that Cunliffe is presenting his case as a "fait accompli", but as a working hypothesis requiring more examination.  Certainly, and given the archaeological evidence that is now available, the scenario makes a whole lot more sense than the tired, and surely discredited, "Early Iron Age trans-Alpine origin" theory first postulated over 300 years ago.

Craig



On 2013 Kev 2, at 09:40, Dai Hawkins wrote:

> Celtic Tartessian is Koch's baby, not Cunliffe's.
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: butlerdunnit at ntlworld.com
> Sent: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 22:37:50 -0000
> To: spellyans at kernowek.net
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] The development and spread of Celtic
> 
> Also, as I understand it ( and I may very well have misunderstood it, so please let me know if that's the case!) this hypothesis states that in effect a whole new language system evolves out of the need to develop a particular register, in this case a common commercial register.
> You do have to wonder if the whole weight of a new , quite distinctive linguistic system, with all its peculiarities and distinctives of syntax, let alone morphology and lexical features can rest on such a slender base.
> Are there any 'proven examples' of such a thing?
> When the need for a common academic languahe arose in Europe they simply turned to Latin but surely it remained distinctively Latin, the lingua franca even if it gradually became 'Silver Latin'.
> The concept of population movement to account for language seems more compelling instinctively to me. However it'd be fascinating to see what the expert philologists have to say on the matter!
>  
> Ewan. 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Prohaska
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] The development and spread of Celtic
> 
> Also, there needn't necessarily be a massive change in population when a culture and language shift occurs. Whatever language the R1b-gene bearers spoke when they populated what is today Britain and Ireland, we cannot know what language they spoke, and it is unlikely to have been Celtic for reasons of time depth. The Atlantic-Celtic hypothiesis has merit, but I'm still very skeptical as to Cunliffe's theory of a Celtic Tartessian on the Iberian peninsula….
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Dec 1, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Dai Hawkins wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Here's what I think, Craig: A clip of a talk by Sir Barrington Cunliffe has been going the
>> rounds on the internet.THis gives no indication that his ideas are hypothetical, and that
>> most leading scholars in this field, linguists, rather than archæologists, while willingly
>> admitting that the traditional view needs considerable qualification, are unconvinced that
>> the Cunliffe-Koch hypothesis can bear the weight of available evidence.
>> 
>> "What we are now seeing is that IN FACT the story was PROBABLY the reverse of that; that
>> the Celts or Celtic languages VERY PROBABLY began in the Atlantic zone."
>> It is clear that there are features of modern Celtic languages which can have arisen only
>> in the Atlantic zone; no scholar would dispute that. The $64,000 questions are where and
>> when Celtic originally arose as a separate, identifiably Celtic, language; at the present
>> state of play the burden of proof lies on the Atlantic enthusiasts.
>> 
>> "IN FACT our ... Celtic speakers are not immigrants from Europe in the 1st millennium BC;
>> they are local people, indigenous populations, who have been speaking the same language as
>> their ancestors deep back in time."
>> The dating of protoCeltic is crucial in this discussion. If Celtic developed late, as
>> compared with e.g. Germanic, as some people maintain, then the Atlantic hypothesis looks
>> more attractive. However, the evidence for a late genesis of Celtic ignores the fact [sic]
>> that languages differ very considerably in their degrees of progressivism or conservatism.
>> While by no means as conservative as e.g. Greek, the Celtic languages have been remarkably
>> conservative, leading to the the widespread myth ("myth" in the sense of "untruth") that
>> "Welsh is the oldest living language in Europe". There's a lot of teasing out of scarce
>> material yet to be done on this issue.
>> 
>> I may one day be forced to eat my words on this issue, but, like many people who are far
>> more informed on the matter than I am, I remain at the moment highly sceptical of the
>> Celtic Atlantic hypothesis, as presented to us by Cunliffe-Koch, and unhappy about the
>> fait-accompli way in which it is consistently presented by the duo.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: janicelobb at gmail.com
>> Sent: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:13:11 +0000
>> To: spellyans at kernowek.net
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Fwd: The development and spread of Celtic
>> 
>> I've absolutely no idea whether it is true or not, but it all sounds highly plausible. It tells a good story.
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org>
>>> Subject: The development and spread of Celtic
>>> Date: 2013 Mys Du 30 12:40:54 GMT+00:00
>>> To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>, Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>, Ray Chubb <ray at spyrys.org>
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is a précis of the hypothesis developed by Prof. Sir Barry Cunliffe and Dr John Koch, which (at long last) turns the old idea on its head.
>>> 
>>> By running linguistic and archaeological research together, this hypothesis makes a great deal more sense than the "Early Iron Age central-European origins" first postulated in the 17th century, and which has lingered without being seriously questioned for far too long.  The old theory concentrated upon the supposed movement of peoples, rather than the spread of trade and techniques requiring a common language to deal with its complexities.
>>> 
>>> Koch and Cunliffe are currently attempting to pin down dating even more firmly than they have (if that is possible).  However, if this hypothesis is reasonably correct, then Cornwall's Neolithic megalith-builders spoke an early form of Q-Celtic and, therefore, no surviving structures can be called "pre-Celtic".
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to hear what you think.
>>> 
>>> Craig
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>> 
>> 
>> Free Online Photosharing - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 
> Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
> Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20131202/9307352d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list