Re: LIGURIAN AND PICTISH

> I understand that the so-called "Pictish" and "Ligurian" languages
> are already classified as Celtic, mind what dialectal form it is,
> but are you suggesting that the pre-Celtic peoples of Britain and
> Ireland (before 600 BCE) didn't speak a pre-IE language?

I don't know why you would pick out a random year like 600 AD - but
personally, I believe that Celtic speech was introduced into Britain
during the late Bronze Age - we don't know what language was spoken
in Britain before this, but it is entirely possible that the pre-
Celtic Britons were already speaking a form of Proto-Indo European.
in the Bronze Age.

> The Pictish
> and Ligurian I was referring to were the pre-IE languages of

Britain

> and NW Italy (probably related to Basque), never mind what they
> should be called. From what I've read (forgive me if I've been
> misinformed), most of the customs of the Picts weren't anything
> original Indo-European or "steppish", or even "Tyrrhenian". I'd
> suggest that the "painted face" and "matrilineal" customs would be

a

> pre-IE hunter-gatherer substrate rather than a Celtic innovation. I
> don't think steppe peoples would do so. But anyway, that's just

what

> I think...

Well, a lot of BS is written about the Picts, so you are excused for
being misinformed - it's hard to find real facts on them. There is no
genuine evidence for matrilineal customs among the Picts, and
certainly many different IE peoples tatooed themselves at some point
(I have heard of Scandinavians and Scythians tatooing, for example,
and the mummies of the Tarim Basin, likely ancestors of the
Tocharians, show evidence of tatooing/face painting). As I have
already stated, the most recent research on the Pictish and Ligurian
languages suggests that both are Celtic dialects, and not non-IE
languages.

- Chris Gwinn