World Families Forums - have the new SNPs under L21 already disproved the Milesian model?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 25, 2014, 05:37:56 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  have the new SNPs under L21 already disproved the Milesian model?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: have the new SNPs under L21 already disproved the Milesian model?  (Read 4189 times)
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2012, 02:42:48 PM »

Alan,
I created a strawman which attempts to explain the Atlantic route. Morbihan would appear to be a central hub in the four ages Atlantic, Megalithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron.
Of course I could also create a similar Rivers route which would include U106 and U152.
As always I am wary of the age estimates but it is the best I have to go with at the moment.

http://m.box.com/view_shared/d0nr7768zv18ht6tk28i

Edit Ancestors or M222
https://www.box.net/shared/pf653l1r181ry7r61ix4
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 08:32:09 AM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2012, 03:15:00 PM »

So, I suppose I believe in Celts from the north-west.  However, that does not mean I dont think IE initially spread in the beaker period, perhaps with Iberia important.  However, I think Celtic emerged through some linguistic shifts among interacting elites somewhat to the north of Iberia during a period when there was stronger elite contact between France, the isles, and the Unetice culture to the east and Iberia was more linked into the likely proto-Italic network.

So how do you explain tribes like:
Boii , Cotini, Eravisci,Latobrigi, Lugii, Osi, Scordisci, Tulingi, Varciani, Vindelici,
 Volcae.
If Celtic originated in the West how did those tribes listed above become Celtic?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 03:23:47 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2012, 07:05:09 PM »

So, I suppose I believe in Celts from the north-west.  However, that does not mean I dont think IE initially spread in the beaker period, perhaps with Iberia important.  However, I think Celtic emerged through some linguistic shifts among interacting elites somewhat to the north of Iberia during a period when there was stronger elite contact between France, the isles, and the Unetice culture to the east and Iberia was more linked into the likely proto-Italic network.

So how do you explain tribes like:
Boii , Cotini, Eravisci,Latobrigi, Lugii, Osi, Scordisci, Tulingi, Varciani, Vindelici,
 Volcae.
If Celtic originated in the West how did those tribes listed above become Celtic?

Well the same problem exist in explaining the bulk of the Celts in much of France, Iberia and the isles using the old school Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model.   If you look at the most up to date studies of Celtic placenames there is a large block in France, Iberia and the isles.  The spread to the east is much more poorly attested and forms a thin tail heading east (and into Italy).  Hubert etc interpreted the tail as the origin.  However, it is just as easy to explain this as a late (Iron Age) thrust east from Gaul which is both historically and archaeologically attested.  I think making the thin central European tail the origin point as Hubert did was a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2012, 11:34:36 AM »

So, I suppose I believe in Celts from the north-west.  However, that does not mean I dont think IE initially spread in the beaker period, perhaps with Iberia important.  However, I think Celtic emerged through some linguistic shifts among interacting elites somewhat to the north of Iberia during a period when there was stronger elite contact between France, the isles, and the Unetice culture to the east and Iberia was more linked into the likely proto-Italic network.

So how do you explain tribes like:
Boii , Cotini, Eravisci,Latobrigi, Lugii, Osi, Scordisci, Tulingi, Varciani, Vindelici,
 Volcae.
If Celtic originated in the West how did those tribes listed above become Celtic?

Well the same problem exist in explaining the bulk of the Celts in much of France, Iberia and the isles using the old school Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model.   If you look at the most up to date studies of Celtic placenames there is a large block in France, Iberia and the isles.  The spread to the east is much more poorly attested and forms a thin tail heading east (and into Italy).  Hubert etc interpreted the tail as the origin.  However, it is just as easy to explain this as a late (Iron Age) thrust east from Gaul which is both historically and archaeologically attested.  I think making the thin central European tail the origin point as Hubert did was a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The Celtic placenames is that during Roman times or present day?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 11:35:03 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2012, 03:26:28 PM »

As far as they are known from classical sources, they would have been taken into consideration.

Koch is the leading Celticist in the world today, and Barry Cunliffe is one of the world's leading archaeologists. The two of them apparently believe Celtic first developed as a lingua franca in the West, somewhere along the Atlantic façade.

I know that is an argument from authority, but since they are authorities, and I am not, it is the best I have. I think it carries a lot of weight and makes more sense than the old Iron Age "conquering Celts" scenario.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2012, 08:14:16 PM »

So, I suppose I believe in Celts from the north-west.  However, that does not mean I dont think IE initially spread in the beaker period, perhaps with Iberia important.  However, I think Celtic emerged through some linguistic shifts among interacting elites somewhat to the north of Iberia during a period when there was stronger elite contact between France, the isles, and the Unetice culture to the east and Iberia was more linked into the likely proto-Italic network.

So how do you explain tribes like:
Boii , Cotini, Eravisci,Latobrigi, Lugii, Osi, Scordisci, Tulingi, Varciani, Vindelici,
 Volcae.
If Celtic originated in the West how did those tribes listed above become Celtic?

Well the same problem exist in explaining the bulk of the Celts in much of France, Iberia and the isles using the old school Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model.   If you look at the most up to date studies of Celtic placenames there is a large block in France, Iberia and the isles.  The spread to the east is much more poorly attested and forms a thin tail heading east (and into Italy).  Hubert etc interpreted the tail as the origin.  However, it is just as easy to explain this as a late (Iron Age) thrust east from Gaul which is both historically and archaeologically attested.  I think making the thin central European tail the origin point as Hubert did was a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The Celtic placenames is that during Roman times or present day?

The recent new book was on Roman/classical sources and essentially confirmed the feeling that Celtic placenames recorded in Classical sources are extremely rare east of the Rhine and mainly down to a thin tail moving east from south Germany through central Europe.  Its not perfect but its the best early sources we have and anything else giving Celts strength to the east of Gaul (other than a thin tail along the Danube etc) is speculation and IMO harks back to the influence of Hubert.  It is interesting that the name Celt almost certainly came from the many Iberian Celtic tribes with that name and that the part of Gaul called Gallia Celtica is the very part where central European influences were weakest. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2012, 08:36:05 PM »

This is the recent study of continental European Celtic placenames in classical sources

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Placenames-Publications-Philological-Society/dp/1405145706
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2012, 08:33:05 AM »

This is the recent study of continental European Celtic placenames in classical sources

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Placenames-Publications-Philological-Society/dp/1405145706

I found this map not sure how old it is



THe highest density seems to be in central Gaul with other parts of high density being eastern England.In the Iberian Peninsula it seems to be quite sparse.The picure is from Peopling of Europe website.


Not sure if the following link has been posted,here's an intersting article on an early celtic settlement in Germany.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111011074624.htm

« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 08:46:02 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2012, 01:35:38 AM »

This is the recent study of continental European Celtic placenames in classical sources

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Placenames-Publications-Philological-Society/dp/1405145706

I found this map not sure how old it is



THe highest density seems to be in central Gaul with other parts of high density being eastern England.In the Iberian Peninsula it seems to be quite sparse.The picure is from Peopling of Europe website.


Not sure if the following link has been posted,here's an intersting article on an early celtic settlement in Germany.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111011074624.htm
Here is the YDNA diversity for France using 67 markers from Mike's spreadsheet.

0.2806      5   EW Aquitaine & Pyrenees               
0.315237002   14   EW Fra North & Central               
0.3105      12   EW Fra North Atlantic               
0.328358209   5   EW Fra Northeast               
0.0299      7   EW Fra z unk               
0.310127105   43   All Fra               
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2012, 10:17:16 AM »

Under the Celtic from the West theory, would Proto-Celtic have arisen on the Atlantic facade?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2012, 05:43:49 PM »

Some old French maps, first map has six different maps starting at 481 to 714AD and the 2nd is from around 1000AD.

http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/vidal-lablache_atlas-general-histoire-et-geographie_1912_ancient-gaul-merovian-merovingienne_2953_4252_600.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/france_1035.jpg

These maps are listed on: http://www.edmaps.com/html/france.html

Good reason to book mark this site.

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2012, 12:05:50 AM »

Roman time frame Map - Roman Empire at its Height

http://www.french-at-a-touch.com/French_History/roman_empire_at_height_map.htm


www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602354/Transalpine-Gaul

Transalpine Gaul, Latin Gallia Transalpina,  in Roman antiquity, the land bounded by the Alps, the Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, the Atlantic, and the Rhine. It embraced what is now France and Belgium, along with parts of Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
 
The Romans first ventured into Transalpine Gaul in 121 bce to subdue the Celtic tribes along the Mediterranean coast. All of Transalpine Gaul was annexed by Julius Caesar after the Gallic Wars (58–50 bce). Augustus later divided Transalpine Gaul into four provinces. Narbonensis, situated along the Mediterranean, became a senatorial province with stronger cultural and political ties to Italy than the rest of Gaul. The remaining territory was called Gallia Comata; Augustus divided it into three imperial provinces—Belgica, Lugdunensis, and Aquitania.

Wouldnt the Roman annexation of the Gaulish culture that had an already developed economic base out of the Celtic cultures over the first millennia BC, assist in freezing the established system? So when was and what was going on causing the most frequent Celtic Place names, was it based on the rivers movements?

http://about-france.com/photos/maps/france-rivers-map.jpg

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2012, 04:36:40 PM »

Roman time frame Map - Roman Empire at its Height

http://www.french-at-a-touch.com/French_History/roman_empire_at_height_map.htm


www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602354/Transalpine-Gaul

Transalpine Gaul, Latin Gallia Transalpina,  in Roman antiquity, the land bounded by the Alps, the Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, the Atlantic, and the Rhine. It embraced what is now France and Belgium, along with parts of Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
 
The Romans first ventured into Transalpine Gaul in 121 bce to subdue the Celtic tribes along the Mediterranean coast. All of Transalpine Gaul was annexed by Julius Caesar after the Gallic Wars (58–50 bce). Augustus later divided Transalpine Gaul into four provinces. Narbonensis, situated along the Mediterranean, became a senatorial province with stronger cultural and political ties to Italy than the rest of Gaul. The remaining territory was called Gallia Comata; Augustus divided it into three imperial provinces—Belgica, Lugdunensis, and Aquitania.

Wouldnt the Roman annexation of the Gaulish culture that had an already developed economic base out of the Celtic cultures over the first millennia BC, assist in freezing the established system? So when was and what was going on causing the most frequent Celtic Place names, was it based on the rivers movements?

http://about-france.com/photos/maps/france-rivers-map.jpg



Mark,

Very nice maps. Thanks for posting. It shows clearly how the rivers were the highways on ancient Europe, facilitating the migration from coastal settlements to the Alpine heartlands of Halstatt and Le Tene and vice versa.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2012, 05:06:49 PM »

Under the Celtic from the West theory, would Proto-Celtic have arisen on the Atlantic facade?

I got to be honest.  Although I am more bought into the idea that Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene should not be seen as THE main source of the spread of Celtic languages, I dont really buy into the idea that Celtic spread with the beakers from Iberia or indeed with the Atlantic Bronze Age.  It suffers from the same problem as the central European theory as it leaves a lot of the Celtic speaking areas unexplained.  The only way I think that the full spread of Celtic speaking can be explained is if both the Atlantic Bronze area and the Urnfield etc areas were Celtic speaking.  For that to be the case I think an earlier common denomenator is needed.  I think beakers cover more than just Celtic so I think the common denominator must lie in the period between the beaker phase and the Atlantic/Urnfield late Bronze Age Phase.  What lies in between is the full Early Bronze Age period in the immediate post-beaker period when beaker-descended cultures in the isles (including Wessex), NW France (Armorican Dagger culture) and also in west-central Europe (Unetice) were in close contact, not to mention the less spectacular areas in between these rich nodes.  Geographically that would cover the later areas of both part of the Atlantic and west-central European (Urnfield) areas.  These groups are all considered to be a beaker descended subset of the old beaker area and I would think that their common language of contract might have been when Celtic started to emerge as a distinct dialect, distinct from the Italic related groups from Italy, through southern France and into Iberia.  That would be my 3rd way model.  Setting it earlier in the beaker period doesnt work because the beaker network covered a wider area than later Celtic speaking and setting it later in either the Atlantic or Urnfield blocks alone also doesnt work as both fail to explain part of the Celtic language distributions.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2012, 05:08:13 PM »

Under the Celtic from the West theory, would Proto-Celtic have arisen on the Atlantic facade?

I got to be honest.  Although I am more bought into the idea that Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene should not be seen as THE main source of the spread of Celtic languages, I dont really buy into the idea that Celtic spread with the beakers from Iberia or indeed with the Atlantic Bronze Age.  It suffers from the same problem as the central European theory as it leaves a lot of the Celtic speaking areas unexplained.  The only way I think that the full spread of Celtic speaking can be explained is if both the Atlantic Bronze area and the Urnfield etc areas were Celtic speaking.  For that to be the case I think an earlier common denomenator is needed.  I think beakers cover more than just Celtic so I think the common denominator must lie in the period between the beaker phase and the Atlantic/Urnfield late Bronze Age Phase.  What lies in between is the full Early Bronze Age period in the immediate post-beaker period when beaker-descended cultures in the isles (including Wessex), NW France (Armorican Dagger culture) and also in west-central Europe (Unetice) were in close contact, not to mention the less spectacular areas in between these rich nodes.  Geographically that would cover the later areas of both part of the Atlantic and west-central European (Urnfield) areas.  These groups are all considered to be a beaker descended subset of the old beaker area and I would think that their common language of contract might have been when Celtic started to emerge as a distinct dialect, distinct from the Italic related groups from Italy, through southern France and into Iberia.  That would be my 3rd way model.  Setting it earlier in the beaker period doesnt work because the beaker network covered a wider area than later Celtic speaking and setting it later in either the Atlantic or Urnfield blocks alone also doesnt work as both fail to explain part of the Celtic language distributions.
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2012, 05:20:03 PM »

I would think personally that the spread of "Proto-IE" or "Western Dialects" of it through Europe might be linked to Beaker cultures.

The linguists generally postulate that Celtic and Italic families are more closely related then either are to Germanic. Thence the whole idea of a "Proto-Italic-Celtic" language that subsequently broke into Celtic and Italic families.

Given the coverage of P312+ (and subclades) in areas that were either Celtic or Italic speaking it's an interesting idea to try and link the two. Tbh though we really need ancient-DNA samples until then it's all just academic
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2012, 05:46:01 PM »

I would think personally that the spread of "Proto-IE" or "Western Dialects" of it through Europe might be linked to Beaker cultures.

The linguists generally postulate that Celtic and Italic families are more closely related then either are to Germanic. Thence the whole idea of a "Proto-Italic-Celtic" language that subsequently broke into Celtic and Italic families.

Given the coverage of P312+ (and subclades) in areas that were either Celtic or Italic speaking it's an interesting idea to try and link the two. Tbh though we really need ancient-DNA samples until then it's all just academic

One thing I notice is that the vast majority of the beaker spread covered areas associated with either Celtic or Italic in early times, with the exception of the relatively weak and mixed beaker influences in the north Germanic world.  The vast majority of the beaker distribution could have been part of a Celto-Italic phase with the development into separate dialects coming in the immediate post-beaker era when the block split into less extensive contact networks.  I think the archaeological indicators of contact networks in the period immediately after the beaker phase does  potentially show a split into a Celtic zone and an Italic zone (the latter from Italy to Atlantic Iberia). 
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2012, 11:08:37 PM »

[quote
Mark,

Very nice maps. Thanks for posting. It shows clearly how the rivers were the highways on ancient Europe, facilitating the migration from coastal settlements to the Alpine heartlands of Halstatt and Le Tene and vice versa.
[/quote]

Strong indication of why the placenames were so numerous in this area shown in the placename map.

Wikipedia states that

'Cenabum was a Gallic stronghold, one of the principal towns of the Carnutes tribe where the ""Druids"" held their ""annual assembly"". It was conquered and destroyed by Julius Caesar in 52 BC, then rebuilt under the Roman Empire. The emperor Aurelian rebuilt the city, renaming it Aurelianum, or Aureliana Civitas, "city of Aurelian" (cité d'Aurélien), which evolved into Orléans.[2] (Druid 'strong hold' may explain the large amount of placenames shown on the previous chart).

[2]For an exact etymology, see Cenabum, Aurelianis, Orléans de Jacques Debal (Coll. Galliae civitates, Lyon, PUL, 1996)

Cenabum or Genabum was the name of an oppidum of the Carnutes tribe, situated on the site of what is now Orléans. It was a prosperous commercial city on the Loire River at the time of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.

Orléans is located in the northern bend of the Loire, which crosses from east to west.

History
 
This port was the commercial outlet for the grain produced in the Beauce. The city had strong fortifications, and also controlled a bridge over the Loire, of considerable economic and strategic importance. Strabo, in his Geography[1], calls the city (Κήναβον) the 'emporium of the Carnutes (τὸ τῶν Καρνούντον ἑμπόριον )[2]. Kénabon/Cenabum is probably a transcription of a Gallic word with the same sense.
 
For Caesar, it was imperative to secure control of this strategic location. He easily succeeded in establishing a protectorate over the Carnutes whilst assuring himself of the collaboration of Tasgetios, who he re-established on his ancestors' throne in return for services rendered. However, this situation came to an end after two years, when in 54 BC Tasgetios (considered a traitor) was assassinated and (in the dead of winter) Caesar ordered the occupation of Cenabum by Roman legions.[3].
 
It was Cenabum which gave the signal for the Gallic revolt of which Vercingetorix quickly became the head and which was the motivation for Caesar's seventh Gallic campaign. In 53 BC, Roman merchants who had established themselves at Cenabum, the overseer Gaius Fufius Cita who Caesar had installed there to control commerce and to ensure his legions' grain supply, and some Roman troops garrisoning the town were all massacred or thrown into the Loire by the Carnutes who had penetrated the city.[4].
 
Rushing back from Italy at phenomenal speed and reaching Sens, Caesar reached Cenabum by forced marches and did not even need to besiege it. On his approach, its population attempted to flee via a wooden bridge linking the two banks of the Loire and, as it collapsed, the Romans scaled the ramparts, massacring all the inhabitant and pillaging and burning down the town.[5].
 
In the 3rd century AD, the emperor Aurelian rebuilt the ruined town (273-274), reconstructed its defences, detached the new town from the territory of the Carnutes (which it had until then depended upon), and named it Aurelianum or Aureliani after himself, which later metamorphosed into the word Orléans[6].
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2012, 08:55:21 AM »

Under the Celtic from the West theory, would Proto-Celtic have arisen on the Atlantic facade?
.... The only way I think that the full spread of Celtic speaking can be explained is if both the Atlantic Bronze area and the Urnfield etc areas were Celtic speaking.  For that to be the case I think an earlier common denomenator is needed.  I think beakers cover more than just Celtic so I think the common denominator must lie in the period between the beaker phase and the Atlantic/Urnfield late Bronze Age Phase.  What lies in between is the full Early Bronze Age period in the immediate post-beaker period when beaker-descended cultures in the isles (including Wessex), NW France (Armorican Dagger culture) and also in west-central Europe (Unetice) were in close contact, not to mention the less spectacular areas in between these rich nodes.  Geographically that would cover the later areas of both part of the Atlantic and west-central European (Urnfield) areas.  These groups are all considered to be a beaker descended subset of the old beaker area and I would think that their common language of contract might have been when Celtic started to emerge as a distinct dialect, distinct from the Italic related groups from Italy, through southern France and into Iberia.  That would be my 3rd way model.  Setting it earlier in the beaker period doesnt work because the beaker network covered a wider area than later Celtic speaking and setting it later in either the Atlantic or Urnfield blocks alone also doesnt work as both fail to explain part of the Celtic language distributions.
I think your "3rd way" makes a lot of sense. It sure seems to cover the Italo-Celtic spread.

Quote from: alan trowel hands
Setting it earlier in the beaker period doesnt work because the beaker network covered a wider area than later Celtic speaking and setting it later in either the Atlantic or Urnfield blocks alone also doesnt work as both fail to explain part of the Celtic language distributions.
I don't think the complete Beaker spread is a real problem for your "3rd way." Remember, we are thinking they may just be speaking a dialect of PIE with not that much differentiation yet. They also may not have completed their domination in every region, mixing in and adapting to local cultures where their inroads were weaker.

Is there a chance that another PIE dialect, that of pre-Germanic speakers, arose out of the early Beaker spread?  Maybe we make too much of Germanic vs Celtic differentiation. Its really just a matter of timing in the development PIE descendant languages.  The truth is the old haplogroups like U106, P312, L21, U152 are clearly older than Germanic languages and are probably older than Celtic or Italic languages.  Some web sites use to call the U106 people "River Celts". Perhaps they were "River Beakers" while the "Atlantic Beakers", "Rhenish Beakers", and "Franco-Cantabrian Beakers"  developed slightly differently.... just trying to spur a little more thought.

Quote from: Wikipedia
It (Unetice) was preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 09:13:31 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2012, 06:45:42 AM »


@Mark

If Morbihan was a major hub on the Atlantic Facade for the Atlantic Celts, then Cenabum was their spiritual home along with Anglesea and Tara. The Loire was the highway connecting Morbihan to Le tene and Halstatt.
Caesar understood the unifying power of the Druids which is why the Romans spent a lot of energy in destroying them first at Cenabum and later at Anglesea.

Cunliffe gives a good account of both events  in Druids a Very Short Introduction and Iron Age Communities or Britain.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zSKCwjQEB1UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cunliffe+druids&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XDd0T6P3GbTP4QSAsvTkDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cunliffe%20druids&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3lkEgdtOvGEC&pg=PA573&lpg=PA573&dq=celts+druids+anglesey+cunliffe&source=bl&ots=GafLefNjP1&sig=HH3XWWwsv1vzSNLimUF_fFqI-a8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Czt0T4HdIezb4QTett33DQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edit:

The Roman attack on Angelsey and the British Druids

The Roman writer Tacitus provides us with the only Roman account of the Druids in Britain:

Tacitus Annals XIV

 xxix
"... He [Suetonius Paulinus] prepared accordingly to attack the island of Mona, which had a considerable population of its own, while serving as a haven for refugees; and, in view of the shallow and variable channel, constructed a flotilla of boats with flat bottoms. By this method the infantry crossed; the cavalry, who followed, did so by fording or, in deeper water, by swimming at the side of their horses.

xxx
"On the beach stood the adverse array, a serried mass of arms and men, with women flitting between the ranks. In the style of Furies, in robes of deathly black and with dishevelled hair, they brandished their torches; while a circle of Druids, lifting their hands to heaven and showering imprecations, struck the troops with such an awe at the extraordinary spectacle that, as though their limbs were paralysed, they exposed their bodies to wounds without an attempt at movement. Then, reassured by their general, and inciting each other never to flinch before a band of females and fanatics, they charged behind the standards, cut down all who met them, and enveloped the enemy in his own flames.

The next step was to install a garrison among the conquered population, and to demolish the groves consecrated to their savage cults: for they considered it a pious duty to slake the altars with captive blood and to consult their deities by means of human entrails. While he was thus occupied, the sudden revolt of the province was announced to Suetonius."
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 12:12:25 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2012, 02:11:20 PM »

Now that bring up a question. Since Proto-Celtic split into P-Celtic and Q-Celtic dialects.

Ancient P-Celtic languages include Gaulish (continental) and Brythonic (British Isles). Brythonic is the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
 
Ancient Q-Celtic languages include Celtiberian (continental) and Goidelic (British Isles). Goidelic is the ancestor of the Gaelic languages Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx

These French Druids 2000 ybp spoke what language?



@Mark

If Morbihan was a major hub on the Atlantic Facade for the Atlantic Celts, then Cenabum was their spiritual home along with Anglesea and Tara. The Loire was the highway connecting Morbihan to Le tene and Halstatt.
Caesar understood the unifying power of the Druids which is why the Romans spent a lot of energy in destroying them first at Cenabum and later at Anglesea.

Cunliffe gives a good account of both events  in Druids a Very Short Introduction and Iron Age Communities or Britain.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zSKCwjQEB1UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cunliffe+druids&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XDd0T6P3GbTP4QSAsvTkDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cunliffe%20druids&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3lkEgdtOvGEC&pg=PA573&lpg=PA573&dq=celts+druids+anglesey+cunliffe&source=bl&ots=GafLefNjP1&sig=HH3XWWwsv1vzSNLimUF_fFqI-a8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Czt0T4HdIezb4QTett33DQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edit:

The Roman attack on Angelsey and the British Druids

The Roman writer Tacitus provides us with the only Roman account of the Druids in Britain:

Tacitus Annals XIV

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #46 on: March 31, 2012, 05:51:42 PM »

Who or what was that comment pointing too? As I feel the previous posts were YDNA related to the the subject matter.
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2012, 05:57:59 PM »

Who or what was that comment pointing too? As I feel the previous posts were YDNA related to the the subject matter.

Someone posted asking why someone else had posted y-dna information. That was my answer to him.

Apparently he has since deleted the original post, so I will now go back and delete my response to him.

It doesn't make sense without the context of his post. Since it is now gone, mine might as well be gone, too.

Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2012, 06:01:03 PM »

Ah.... I understand now..... Thanks.

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.153 seconds with 19 queries.