Remember Ötzi the Iceman? He was that mummified man found back in 1991, ice-encased in the Alps somewhere around the border of Austria and Italy, having died some 5300 years ago at the age of approximately 45. Above is a reconstruction of his face.
I didn't know this until now but it turns out that not only can scientists figure out what supper he ate last, but they can even be reasonably certain of his eye colour thanks to genome analysis! They were brown, by the way. DNA analysis also reveals he had Lyme disease, was at risk of atherosclerosis, and of Ibero-Sardinian descent. Very fascinating stuff!
Sadly, genetics won't tell us what language he spoke but we can make some educated guesses nonetheless. Given the region, he might have spoken some Celtic or Italic dialect. On the other hand, could he have spoken Paleo-Sardinian or some other non-Indo-European language instead? We can never be sure; that's a possible option too. In case anyone is wondering though, given the millennium he died in, one thing is sure: he didn't speak an Etrusco-Rhaetic language since that population hadn't yet settled in Italy.
More information is found in this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41782798/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/iceman-looks-tired-hes-years-old/
Celtic or Italic in Europe 5300 years ago?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that PIE is commonly thought to've originated from Ukraine 4000BC, I'd hardly expect that in 3300BC we'd already be able to speak of such distinguished dialects as Celtic or Italic (if anything, Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic), but any presence of an Indo-European language in the Alps that early seems a bit difficult to believe.
It'd be awesome if we could find out though. But science can only do so much :-(
Stuff like this does stimulate the imagination.
You're being a bit too pedantic and literal. I've simply left it vaguely at "some Celtic or Italic dialect", that is, "some PIE language having a Celtic or Italic essence." So your view and mine are effectively equivalent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you make the mistake of assuming a priori that a common Proto-Italo-Celtic must have existed rather than a western spectrum of co-evolving Indo-European dialects (the more realistic and accepted scenario). The Proto-Italo-Celtic hypothesis fails to account for the shared innovations of Celtic, Germanic, Venetic and Italic together. Interesting isoglosses cut across all of these dialects, indicating co-evolution by way of local waves of innovation rather than by some tidy family tree.
Phoenix: "[...] but any presence of an Indo-European language in the Alps that early seems a bit difficult to believe."
The fact is that no one knows for certain and neither do you. To answer this question, we should first ask ourselves: How far did the PIE-speaking community extend at 4000 BCE? If we envision a small area in the Ukraine, it seems unlikely, just as you say. However it's not realistic to think of pastoralists inhabiting localized areas since they're semi-nomadic by definition.
If however we conceptualize the language area as a large region that had quickly expanded between 4500 and 4000 BCE, it may not be so odd. Further, do we know whether previous IE or para-IE dialects had arrived to the Alps first before the arrival of Proto-Italic proper? All of these questions are tough to answer but these unknowns are important factors to help us decide whether one's doubts of an IE language in the Alps at this time are based on reasonable facts or idle impressions.
"You're being a bit too pedantic and literal. I've simply left it vaguely at "some Celtic or Italic dialect", that is, "some PIE language having a Celtic or Italic essence." So your view and mine are effectively equivalent."
ReplyDeleteNot my intention.
Last I heard, in Leiden people still seem quite convinced of the Proto-Italo-Celtic hypothesis. Betraying my a priori assumption that it exists.
My knowledge of, especially, Italic and Celtic is terrible though. It's two of the branches of Indo-European that I did not get to explore very much.
Not that I shouldn't get into that now, do you have any reference about the refutal of Italo-Celtic?
--
You're right that the presence of an IE language in the Alps has too many unknowns to either speak for or against its presence.
Before the mention arises, I'd like to quickly and quietly summon and dismiss Vennemann's "Vasconic" and "Atlantic Semitic" theories. Especially the latter.
ReplyDeleteOne thing about the former, though: since Vasconic influence extended into France with Aquitanian, could it have reached what's now northern Italy? Is there any archaeological evidence linking the current Basque area with northern Italy? Or what about inclunce from the Iberian or Tartessian regions(unless that fringe group is correct in identifying the latter as Celtic)? Or, indeed, pre-North Picene (if the surviving North Picene relics can be differentiated by any archaeological means from the surrounding Italic and Tyrrhenian cultures)
Of course, similarity in culture does not necessarily mean similarity in language.
No worries, Phoenix. Pedantics can sometimes be beneficial to a discussion anyway, as I believe it is in this case.
ReplyDeletePhoenix: "Last I heard, in Leiden people still seem quite convinced of the Proto-Italo-Celtic hypothesis."
This may be so but as I explained, the basic facts mitigate against it and the theory is now generally understood to be antiquated as Wave Theory has taken root (see Mallory/Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, 2006. p.78). I see no reason to go backwards and insist on a shrinking minority view.
Phoenix: "Not that I shouldn't get into that now, do you have any reference about the refutal of Italo-Celtic?"
Dear goddess, it's everywhere, man! Even Wikipedia: Italo-Celtic expresses doubts and mentions how Calvert Watkins squashed it back in the 60s with Italo-Celtic revisited. At any rate surely one cannot dismiss the wave model of language change in favour of abstract, non-real-world cladistics but that's what the Proto-Italo-Celtic camp ignores.
At any rate, we can agree on the *possibility* of an IE or para-IE language in the region at the time and that's perhaps as precise as we can be for now. Material evidence from archaeology sadly can't give us a clear indication of language displacement despite popular, misguided attempts that fundamentally confuse demic movement for linguistic movement.
Seadog: "One thing about the former, though: since Vasconic influence extended into France with Aquitanian, could it have reached what's now northern Italy?"
ReplyDeleteHonestly I don't see why not but I haven't heard of anything that can resolve the issue conclusively. Personally I think it reasonable to suspect that Vasconic extended across a wider region before the advent of the Indo-European languages.
"Is there any archaeological evidence linking the current Basque area with northern Italy?
As you concluded, "similarity in culture does not necessarily mean similarity in language." Archaeology will only show commonalities in material culture but not necessarily language. So if it were that France and Italy had shared common cultural features at the time, what do we expect it could possibly tell us about something intangible like language? I argue: nothing.
Consider the Rhaetic-speaking population which appeared in the 1st millennium BCE who had freely adopted Celtic traits. Archaeology would tell us little if it weren't for inscriptions showing a distinct language from Celtic.
I think that we need to keep focused on the more relevant facts and the only thing that can really tell us about where language was positioned is language itself. Loanwords are telling in this respect but there's scant of substance proposed on prehistoric interactions of Proto-Italic-speaking peoples with non-IE languages. Vennemann may be as good as we have! And if anyone's dissatisfied with that answer, I encourage them to propose something better.
Finally, I do wonder whether the Basque and Paleo-Sardinian languages might have a connection. It's hard to know what to make of Ötzi's unique genetics (ie. his special K1ö subclade). His genetics are connected most closely with those in Iberia, Sardinia and Sicily which makes me wonder whether this hints at a former distribution of Vasconic languages prior to the dominance of IE languages. But, again, we're treading into frustating unknowns. Ideas to spur research can't hurt though.