Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:42:46 -0800, Michael J Smith
> <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...> wrote:
> There is no linguistic evidence for that. The name "Celtiberian" was
> used in antiquity for a group of tribes in North-Central Spain
> (Castille-Aragon-Navarre area), but there is no evidence that they
> were of mixed descent. The name can be interpreted simply as "Celts
> from Iberia". The inscriptions certainly don't show any evidence for
> such a thing: the Celtic inscriptions are all in Q-Celtic and there's
> no admixture of Iberian words (except perhaps personal names). We can
> only distinguish between Celtic inscriptions in Iberian script (such
> as Botorrita) and Celtic inscriptions in Latin script
If Linguistic Evidence means just inscriptions that is a correct point
of view.
Otherwise you should take a look if you can begin something with these
names. I want to mention the dates I have here are not verified, I just
compiled them : when I have time I will verify them too. Until they are
verified, they have to be took very circumspectly. And if they are true,
you have to make you up your mind
Arbois de Jubainville (Les premiers habitants, I pag. 382) mention that
the Ligurians should have been on the whole teritorium of Galia and
Iberia. "Apres les Iberes, avant les Celtes, ils ( les Ligures) ont
dominé dans le pays, qu'on a plus tard appele Gaule".
Erasthotenes call the whole Iberian and Galia in the III BC "Liguria"
(Lygustike, Strabo Lib. II 1.40). The Mediteranean Sea is called by
Greeks "Lygustikon pelagos" and by romans. "Liguisticum mare".
The actualy river "loire" in France should have been called in ancient
times "Liger".
Appolodorus means that the Iberian from west of Europe should be the
same folk as the Iberians from the neighbourhood of Asiatic Caucasus (
Apollodori fragm. 123&161. Should be found at Plinius lib III 3.3)?
Tacitus in its "Anales" means the Iberians should be at origin
Thessalien ( Tacit Annal. lib. VI 34 .
Isidorus of Sevilla (Orig lib IX 2.26-29) should say the Iberians should
have been of the same stock with the first inhabitants of Italy.
In a compilation I have, there are given the following tribes in Iberia
in the time as Romans came:
Albocenses, Ambiirodaci, Ablaidaci, Arevaci, Argeli, Aurienses, Berones,
Bibali, Bursaones, Calnici, Comanesciqi, Cosetani, Dagences, Deciani,
Ergravicenses, Gruii, Ilergetes ( Ilergetae, Ilaraugatae), Indigetes,
Laeetani, Longeidoci, Lunarii, Pelendones, Ossigi, Orienses (Aurienses),
Turdetani, Turduli, Tarraconenses, Vaccaei, Vascones, Virvesci and
Vloqi.
Among them the most important should have been the Turdetanes in the
today region of Sevilla and Granada. A branch of these Turdetanii should
be found at Plinius in Portugal as Tuduli ( Plinius lib. Iv 35. 1)
Strabo mention about these Turdetanis they should have their own written
laws which are old of more as 6000 years.
The next important folk should have been the Pelendones. They have been
established at the river Durius ( Duero) and almost 20 years they fought
together with their neighbour Arevacii against Romans. Their city was
Numatia which was destroyed by Romans in 133 BC. Interesting these
Pelendones. They are to find in Dacia too, and the city Pelendona is
considered to have been "celtic" by Parvan .
C.I.L: vol. II nr 4306 say about a guy of the Spanish tribe of
Ambirodacians.
" C. Titius magister larum Uxamensis Ambirodacus.
There is much more to say about. Similar data are to find in Galia . In
my opinion there is no bad dreaming but a big family as the Germanic
one, as the Slavic one. The Romanismus is not very wrong. Its beginning
is just wrong placed in time. The connection between so-called "latin
folks" is to be found deeper in the history, deeper as the begin of
Roman Empire. I am not sure if this will mean something for you Miguel.
In CIL vol II p. 387 are these names :_
Arraedo, Atto, Crastuno, Docilico, Eburaneo, Magulio, Ranta, Urcico and
as tribes are there : Calnici, Coronici, Corovesci, Comenesciqi.
It is of course the merit of the Roman Empire that almost the same names
are to find in Romania today.
"Câlnic, Cornesti, Corbesci, Comanesti, Mãgura, Erghevita ( considered
slavic) versus Ergavicenses in Spain).
If these entries are not wrong here, what are they for evidences
then?Aren't they linguistic evidences?