World Families Forums - Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 26, 2014, 12:34:02 PM
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)
| | |-+  Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia  (Read 11177 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #100 on: June 21, 2012, 07:43:58 PM »

@JeanL

Your claim of a non-IE/IE "duality" in P312 is so patently ridiculous that I am frankly amazed that you persist with it and continue to argue the point. I think it reduces your overall credibility and makes you come off as the Basque partisan that others have accused you of being (and I am becoming convinced you are).

I won't argue with you about it because I dislike the type of exchanges you engage in. They seem to be less about actual evidence and more about wearing the opponent down with endless, long-winded posts, punctuated by quote boxes. You win. Who has the endurance or time for this sort of thing?

I think I will try to ignore you from now on.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 07:46:15 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #101 on: June 21, 2012, 08:32:25 PM »

Jean L - what do you think of this paper which seems to be suggesting Basque is some kind of IE related language?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34070533/DIA-02-Comparing-Basque-and-PIE-v2
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #102 on: June 21, 2012, 08:33:51 PM »

@JeanL

Your claim of a non-IE/IE "duality" in P312 is so patently ridiculous that I am frankly amazed that you persist with it and continue to argue the point. I think it reduces your overall credibility and makes you come off as the Basque partisan that others have accused you of being (and I am becoming convinced you are).

Well Richard, I am truly sad that you have chosen to go down that path.

I won't argue with you about it because I dislike the type of exchanges you engage in. They seem to be less about actual evidence and more about wearing the opponent down with endless, long-winded posts, punctuated by quote boxes.

Ok, nice to see that you don’t consider all the effort that I have spent into calculating the variance of P312+ for different databases, or that the scientific studies that I have posted here apparently aren’t evidence.

You win. Who has the endurance or time for this sort of thing?

I think I will try to ignore you from now on.

No need for you to ignore me, I’m out of here, I don’t need to take this BS from you.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 08:34:04 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #103 on: June 22, 2012, 06:36:38 AM »

@JeanL

I probably should not have said I will ignore you, and for that I apologize. I was just a little aggravated by what I regard as sophistry in defense of your use of the term duality. Feel free to continue posting; I never meant for my opinion of your ideas to affect that one way or the other.

You have a lot to say and contribute. Your viewpoint is valuable, whether I agree or not. I don't agree, obviously, but that does not mean you might not be right.
Logged

chris1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #104 on: June 22, 2012, 09:37:03 AM »

FTDNA is almost completely useless for determining high frequency areas. If it were reliable, every haplogroup would have their highest frequencies in the British Isles and Palatine Germany (see maps for G2, J2, etc.).

DF27 is going to be most frequent where P312(xL21,xU152) appears in academic studies, which pretty much narrows it down to all of Iberia and southern France.
Yes, FTDNA projects can sometimes look more like a rough map of the places Americans emigrated from. They don't seem too bad for western European P312 subclades, though. Surely U152 and L21 projects have got some useful European information from FTDNA results over the years? Hopefully new DF27 results will help. Of the small number (25) of early DF27 results within the FTDNA P312 and Subclades Project so far, even with British Isles origin database bias, there are interesting results from Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland as well as 2 from Ireland and 11 from England.

DF27 did well in Iberia, as has L21 in Ireland. L21 has nearly four years FTDNA testing head start over DF27, yet the place that L21 originated still seems to be debated.

If a relatively geographically localized subclade (like L21) still does not know whether or not it originated in the place it is found in greatest frequency, I'm puzzled by confidence that DF27 did originate in the place it has its strongest present day distribution. I have no problem accepting that subclades might originate where they are found in greatest numbers but there doesn't seem to be much agreement about it.

I know it is early days but as Mike points out above, DF27 seems like it might be more widespread across Europe when compared with U152 and L21. Clearly, some DF27 liked life in Iberia/southern France and who can blame them. It's typical English summer weather here at the moment, gales and several inches of rain every day :)
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 10:23:08 AM by chris1 » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #105 on: June 22, 2012, 09:43:40 AM »

@ Alan  - I can see that you will not readily give up the idea that CW is the real origin of BB! However that is not what Harrison and Heyd say. In fact I don't recall ever reading that idea from any recent author. [Correction: I have now found a paper from 2009 that takes that view roughly, but it is by a sociologist, rather than an archaeologist. Seems a bit dated on the archaeology.]

The two cultures have a common origin in Yamnaya. That is where the single grave concept comes from and it moved right up the Danube with what I call the Stelae People, whom we can track across to Iberia. It is right there in Sion before Bell Beaker and continues into Bell Beaker. It is interesting that the communal grave concept reappears among these people after they reached Iberia, but that is much the same I'd say as the occasional reuse of long barrows for BB burials in Britain. Incomers were mixing and adapting.

Since wrist guards do not appear in CW, BB could scarcely pick up the idea from CW. They appear in Cetina as well as BB.

As far as I can see CW had no impact whatsoever on the development of BB. These cultures appear to have had separate networks.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 10:51:28 AM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #106 on: June 22, 2012, 10:19:32 AM »

Jean L - what do you think of this paper which seems to be suggesting Basque is some kind of IE related language?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34070533/DIA-02-Comparing-Basque-and-PIE-v2

Alan you gotta read the  paper, they are not suggesting that Basques is some kind of IE related language, this is what they say at the very beginning:

Quote
So far Basque has most often been compared with Caucasic languages and been claimed to be especially related to these Caucasic languages. For example Bengtson (2003:23) assertively states:“Basque and the languages that are [sic] most closely related to it, namely the (North) Caucasian languages, and Burushaski.” Trask (1997:35) was equally assertive in the opposite direction: “Basque is a genetically isolated language: there is not the slightest shred [sic] of evidence that it is related to any other living language.” On the whole the belief that Basque and PIE have about nothing in common but (late Romance) loanwords is widespread. Bengtson (2005:33) again: “families and isolates of northern Eurasia (and extending into North America), negatively defined as those that did not fit into the developing hypotheses of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) and Nostratic macro-families. These entities are Basque, Caucasian, Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, and Na-Dene.” So before I proceed to show that the comparison between Basque and PIE may not be as hopeless as is usually believed, a few words about the meaning of such a comparison are necessary.

On the whole, I tend to adhere to the hypothesis that all languages are most probably related to each other within a general Proto-Sapiens super-family. For that matter, there is no particular reason why Basque and PIE should not share any single cognate. Such a complete absence would be quite puzzling. It may just be that the cognates are not transparent enough or that the right correspondences have not been discovered. This does not entail that Basque and PIE are especially related, that they form a valid primary genetic node and that they should be grouped within a new family to be created to account for the existence of such cognates. The same reasoning also applies to the comparison between Basque and Caucasic in my opinion. These three families may have cognates in common just because they represent independent and parallel transformations of the proto-language I call Pixa(Proto-Exo-African).
If Basque can be shown to have regular phonetic correspondences with both PIE and Caucasic, then this situation raises several questions:

- Are these correspondences between Basque, PIE and Caucasic coherent enough to show that all are in fact related to one another in a way or another?

- What are the reasons to believe that Basque has a closer relationship to Caucasic than to PIE?

Here are their conclusions:

Quote

Conclusion

In the Swadesh 100-word list 30 items are based on roots shared between Basque and PIE. They are underlined in the following list (unclear cases are omitted):

All, ashes, bark, belly, big,bird,to bite, black, blood, bone, breast, to burn, claw, cloud, cold, to come, to die, dog, to drink, dry, ear, earth, to eat, egg, eye, fat-grease, feather, fire, fish, to fly, foot, full, to give, good, green, hair, hand, head, to hear, heart, horn, to kill, knee, to know, leaf, liver, long, louse, lying, man-male, many, me I, meat-flesh, moon, mountain, mouth, name, neck, new, night, nose, not, one, rain, red,road, root, round, sand, to say, to see, seed, sitting, skin, to sleep, small, smoke, standing, star, stone, sun, to swim, tail, that, this, thou, three, tongue, tooth, tree, two, to walk, warm, water, we us, what, white, who, woman, yellow.

It can be noted that a handful of these 30 items have simultaneous cognates in Caucasic. There are three possible conclusions to be drawn from the present survey:

1-These correspondences are due to chance coincidences.

2. Basque contains a significant input of Indo-European words, that entered the language at a very early period, so that they underwent typically Basque opaque changes.

3. Basque is much closer to PIE than has ever been considered so far.

Option 1 seems hard to believe. Historical linguistics is about those “chance coincidences” that have a genetic relevance. Option 2 is also hard to believe. How come the Indo-European input does not sound Celtic or Italic but is coherent with PIE itself? So my personal choice is the last option. Contrary to a hackneyed cliché, Basque is related to its present-day neighbors.

It can be added that Basque shares morphological features with PIE:

(1) e-grade:  *(H)watˀi  > euri ‘rain’,  o-grade:  *(H)wont a  >  hodai ‘cloud’,  zero-grade  *Hut ˀ > ur   ‘water’;  e-grade  *Hatˀ - > hel ‘to bite’, o-grade *Hotˀ -nt- > hortz ‘tooth’.


(2) nasal infix *-n-: *(H)wont ˀ a  > hodai ‘cloud’, *lanko  >  zanko ‘leg’, *ontsa ‘well, good’.


(3) participle *-nt-: *Hotˀ -nt- > hortz ‘tooth’.


So far Basque has been preferably compared to Caucasic assuming the hypothesis that PIE was notat all part of the game, but this comfortable premise can be shown to be completely unacceptable. My conclusion is that (Glottalic) PIE must be used as the key to analyzing (Pre-)Proto-Basque and Proto-Caucasic, because PIE is the proto-language with the largest and securest reconstruction that we currently have at our disposal and because PIE is clearly related to both of them.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 10:21:16 AM by JeanL » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #107 on: June 22, 2012, 11:18:41 AM »

In fact, what the article sutains is that Basque is much closer to PIE than has ever been considered so far. what can mean anything really.
 The author dismiss the second posibility, that Basque contains a significant input of Indo-European words, that entered the language at a very early period, so that they underwent typically Basque opaque changes., but I am sure Jean Manco would like that and have an explanation for it.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #108 on: June 22, 2012, 11:47:37 AM »

In fact, what the article sutains is that Basque is much closer to PIE than has ever been considered so far. what can mean anything really.
 The author dismiss the second posibility, that Basque contains a significant input of Indo-European words, that entered the language at a very early period, so that they underwent typically Basque opaque changes., but I am sure Jean Manco would like that and have an explanation for it.

Either way, it takes some explaining.  Very few people see proto-IE as being anywhere other than in the east.   Does this imply Basque was somehow in a vanguard of movement west after PIE had happened?  There is a hazy phase of ill defined spread of IE tendancies in the pre-beaker phase.  I wonder if some group on the extreme periphery of the PIE world in the east spread west.  I wonder if the Basque langauage could have been a little less separated in time, origin and direction of spread from the IEs as is normally suggested. It would make a lot of sense to me if Baque if less 'exotic' than often portrayed. 
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #109 on: June 22, 2012, 11:53:29 AM »

Either way, it takes some explaining.  Very few people see proto-IE as being anywhere other than in the east.   Does this imply Basque was somehow in a vanguard of movement west after PIE had happened?  There is a hazy phase of ill defined spread of IE tendancies in the pre-beaker phase.  I wonder if some group on the extreme periphery of the PIE world in the east spread west.  I wonder if the Basque langauage could have been a little less separated in time, origin and direction of spread from the IEs as is normally suggested. It would make a lot of sense to me if Baque if less 'exotic' than often portrayed. 

Alan, I get the impression from what the authors said here:

Quote
On the whole, I tend to adhere to the hypothesis that all languages are most probably related to each other within a general Proto-Sapiens super-family. For that matter, there is no particular reason why Basque and PIE should not share any single cognate. Such a complete absence would be quite puzzling. It may just be that the cognates are not transparent enough or that the right correspondences have not been discovered. This does not entail that Basque and PIE are especially related, that they form a valid primary genetic node and that they should be grouped within a new family to be created to account for the existence of such cognates. The same reasoning also applies to the comparison between Basque and Caucasic in my opinion. These three families may have cognates in common just because they represent independent and parallel transformations of the proto-language I call Pixa(Proto-Exo-African).

That the time frame he is implying here for the Pixa language is way into the upper Paleolithic time, so in that case, then yes, ultimately be it at Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic or Bronze Age the ancestors of the Basque came from the East, just as any other European. Heck even Neanderthals came from outside, so even our Neanderthal portion came from outside of Europe.


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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #110 on: June 22, 2012, 12:00:56 PM »

@ Alan  - I can see that you will not readily give up the idea that CW is the real origin of BB! However that is not what Harrison and Heyd say. In fact I don't recall ever reading that idea from any recent author. [Correction: I have now found a paper from 2009 that takes that view roughly, but it is by a sociologist, rather than an archaeologist. Seems a bit dated on the archaeology.]

The two cultures have a common origin in Yamnaya. That is where the single grave concept comes from and it moved right up the Danube with what I call the Stelae People, whom we can track across to Iberia. It is right there in Sion before Bell Beaker and continues into Bell Beaker. It is interesting that the communal grave concept reappears among these people after they reached Iberia, but that is much the same I'd say as the occasional reuse of long barrows for BB burials in Britain. Incomers were mixing and adapting.

Since wrist guards do not appear in CW, BB could scarcely pick up the idea from CW. They appear in Cetina as well as BB.

As far as I can see CW had no impact whatsoever on the development of BB. These cultures appear to have had separate networks.

jean, I am in no way suggesting beaker and corded ware are the same or that beaker is descended from corded ware. I see beaker full package as a completely new identity that was created in west-central Europe from a mix of influences and created a very distinct identity.  However it is and has been clear since beaker was redated that the oldest beaker cullture (call it pre-full package or whatever) and the earliest beaker group were collective burial traditions and lacked a number of things that is thought of as the classic beaker package and classic beaker burials.  Although the specifics are distinct it is true that the time and general area where the full beaker package c. 2600BC or so was  period when the neighours in west central Europe included the huge single burial/corded ware groups and they were very early located in pockets within the corded ware block.  Its very hard to beleve there was no spread of ideas between them.  However, it is also true that beaker culture even in the developed phase of classic single burials did seek to put a unique spin on it that seems to mean they did not want to lose their distinct identity and certainly did not want to be mistaken for mere Corded Ware folks lol!  I have no fixed model but I think the basic broad picture and interpretations are pulling in the same direction of a transformation ot early beakers through contact with central Europe c. 2600BC or so.  I wouldnt hang my hat on any model as yet but its damned interersting.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 12:01:27 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #111 on: June 22, 2012, 12:09:19 PM »

Jean L - what do you think of this paper which seems to be suggesting Basque is some kind of IE related language?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34070533/DIA-02-Comparing-Basque-and-PIE-v2

Alan you gotta read the  paper, they are not suggesting that Basques is some kind of IE related language, this is what they say at the very beginning:

Quote
So far Basque has most often been compared with Caucasic languages and been claimed to be especially related to these Caucasic languages. For example Bengtson (2003:23) assertively states:“Basque and the languages that are [sic] most closely related to it, namely the (North) Caucasian languages, and Burushaski.” Trask (1997:35) was equally assertive in the opposite direction: “Basque is a genetically isolated language: there is not the slightest shred [sic] of evidence that it is related to any other living language.” On the whole the belief that Basque and PIE have about nothing in common but (late Romance) loanwords is widespread. Bengtson (2005:33) again: “families and isolates of northern Eurasia (and extending into North America), negatively defined as those that did not fit into the developing hypotheses of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) and Nostratic macro-families. These entities are Basque, Caucasian, Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, and Na-Dene.” So before I proceed to show that the comparison between Basque and PIE may not be as hopeless as is usually believed, a few words about the meaning of such a comparison are necessary.

On the whole, I tend to adhere to the hypothesis that all languages are most probably related to each other within a general Proto-Sapiens super-family. For that matter, there is no particular reason why Basque and PIE should not share any single cognate. Such a complete absence would be quite puzzling. It may just be that the cognates are not transparent enough or that the right correspondences have not been discovered. This does not entail that Basque and PIE are especially related, that they form a valid primary genetic node and that they should be grouped within a new family to be created to account for the existence of such cognates. The same reasoning also applies to the comparison between Basque and Caucasic in my opinion. These three families may have cognates in common just because they represent independent and parallel transformations of the proto-language I call Pixa(Proto-Exo-African).
If Basque can be shown to have regular phonetic correspondences with both PIE and Caucasic, then this situation raises several questions:

- Are these correspondences between Basque, PIE and Caucasic coherent enough to show that all are in fact related to one another in a way or another?

- What are the reasons to believe that Basque has a closer relationship to Caucasic than to PIE?

Here are their conclusions:

Quote

Conclusion

In the Swadesh 100-word list 30 items are based on roots shared between Basque and PIE. They are underlined in the following list (unclear cases are omitted):

All, ashes, bark, belly, big,bird,to bite, black, blood, bone, breast, to burn, claw, cloud, cold, to come, to die, dog, to drink, dry, ear, earth, to eat, egg, eye, fat-grease, feather, fire, fish, to fly, foot, full, to give, good, green, hair, hand, head, to hear, heart, horn, to kill, knee, to know, leaf, liver, long, louse, lying, man-male, many, me I, meat-flesh, moon, mountain, mouth, name, neck, new, night, nose, not, one, rain, red,road, root, round, sand, to say, to see, seed, sitting, skin, to sleep, small, smoke, standing, star, stone, sun, to swim, tail, that, this, thou, three, tongue, tooth, tree, two, to walk, warm, water, we us, what, white, who, woman, yellow.

It can be noted that a handful of these 30 items have simultaneous cognates in Caucasic. There are three possible conclusions to be drawn from the present survey:

1-These correspondences are due to chance coincidences.

2. Basque contains a significant input of Indo-European words, that entered the language at a very early period, so that they underwent typically Basque opaque changes.

3. Basque is much closer to PIE than has ever been considered so far.

Option 1 seems hard to believe. Historical linguistics is about those “chance coincidences” that have a genetic relevance. Option 2 is also hard to believe. How come the Indo-European input does not sound Celtic or Italic but is coherent with PIE itself? So my personal choice is the last option. Contrary to a hackneyed cliché, Basque is related to its present-day neighbors.

It can be added that Basque shares morphological features with PIE:

(1) e-grade:  *(H)watˀi  > euri ‘rain’,  o-grade:  *(H)wont a  >  hodai ‘cloud’,  zero-grade  *Hut ˀ > ur   ‘water’;  e-grade  *Hatˀ - > hel ‘to bite’, o-grade *Hotˀ -nt- > hortz ‘tooth’.


(2) nasal infix *-n-: *(H)wont ˀ a  > hodai ‘cloud’, *lanko  >  zanko ‘leg’, *ontsa ‘well, good’.


(3) participle *-nt-: *Hotˀ -nt- > hortz ‘tooth’.


So far Basque has been preferably compared to Caucasic assuming the hypothesis that PIE was notat all part of the game, but this comfortable premise can be shown to be completely unacceptable. My conclusion is that (Glottalic) PIE must be used as the key to analyzing (Pre-)Proto-Basque and Proto-Caucasic, because PIE is the proto-language with the largest and securest reconstruction that we currently have at our disposal and because PIE is clearly related to both of them.



Yes I put it over simply but I was too tired to express it properly!  However, it does show some rather closer relationship from a common root or from very early contact that needs explanation give the commonly held idea of Basque being long separated from the IE homelands since the Palaeolithic.  The age of PIE does have a bearing on this.  If it was early contact with PIE then that really does require some head scratching.  If it is a common root further back, is it far back enough to tally with the assummed existence of Basque, PIE and Caucasian in separate refugia at the opposite ends of Europe?  It certainly demands further explanation. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #112 on: June 22, 2012, 12:24:21 PM »

Either way, it takes some explaining.  Very few people see proto-IE as being anywhere other than in the east.   Does this imply Basque was somehow in a vanguard of movement west after PIE had happened?  There is a hazy phase of ill defined spread of IE tendancies in the pre-beaker phase.  I wonder if some group on the extreme periphery of the PIE world in the east spread west.  I wonder if the Basque langauage could have been a little less separated in time, origin and direction of spread from the IEs as is normally suggested. It would make a lot of sense to me if Baque if less 'exotic' than often portrayed. 

Alan, I get the impression from what the authors said here:

Quote
On the whole, I tend to adhere to the hypothesis that all languages are most probably related to each other within a general Proto-Sapiens super-family. For that matter, there is no particular reason why Basque and PIE should not share any single cognate. Such a complete absence would be quite puzzling. It may just be that the cognates are not transparent enough or that the right correspondences have not been discovered. This does not entail that Basque and PIE are especially related, that they form a valid primary genetic node and that they should be grouped within a new family to be created to account for the existence of such cognates. The same reasoning also applies to the comparison between Basque and Caucasic in my opinion. These three families may have cognates in common just because they represent independent and parallel transformations of the proto-language I call Pixa(Proto-Exo-African).

That the time frame he is implying here for the Pixa language is way into the upper Paleolithic time, so in that case, then yes, ultimately be it at Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic or Bronze Age the ancestors of the Basque came from the East, just as any other European. Heck even Neanderthals came from outside, so even our Neanderthal portion came from outside of Europe.




It is a pity the authors didnt directly quote on whether they thought the Basque links were closer to IE than othe groups or not.  Anyway, here is another thought or question - is the age of likely geographical separation of R1a and R1b (say 12,000 years ago??) compatable with the date of a common linguistic node between IE, Basque and Caucasian?  I dont know so its a genuine question.  I ask that because if the common linguiistic node is much older than 12,000 years then it is another nail in the coffin of the old east and west R1a and R1b model which has come back from the dead recently thanks to the efforts of Jean L in particular.     
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #113 on: June 22, 2012, 12:31:05 PM »

Either way, it takes some explaining.  Very few people see proto-IE as being anywhere other than in the east.   Does this imply Basque was somehow in a vanguard of movement west after PIE had happened?  There is a hazy phase of ill defined spread of IE tendancies in the pre-beaker phase.  I wonder if some group on the extreme periphery of the PIE world in the east spread west.  I wonder if the Basque langauage could have been a little less separated in time, origin and direction of spread from the IEs as is normally suggested. It would make a lot of sense to me if Baque if less 'exotic' than often portrayed.  

:

Quote
On the whole, I tend to adhere to the hypothesis that all languages are most probably related to each other within a general Proto-Sapiens super-family. For that matter, there is no particular reason why Basque and PIE should not share any single cognate. Such a complete absence would be quite puzzling. It may just be that the cognates are not transparent enough or that the right correspondences have not been discovered. This does not entail that Basque and PIE are especially related, that they form a valid primary genetic node and that they should be grouped within a new family to be created to account for the existence of such cognates. The same reasoning also applies to the comparison between Basque and Caucasic in my opinion. These three families may have cognates in common just because they represent independent and parallel transformations of the proto-language I call Pixa(Proto-Exo-African).

That the time frame he is implying here for the Pixa language is way into the upper Paleolithic time, so in that case, then yes, ultimately be it at Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic or Bronze Age the ancestors of the Basque came from the East, just as any other European. Heck even Neanderthals came from outside, so even our Neanderthal portion came from outside of Europe.




Jean I understand Remedello is one of those pre-beaker cultures that is seen to have Yamnanya elements  within it.  The Ice Man is thought by some to be from that culture or similar.  He turned out to be haplogroup G and more ancient Med. in autosomals.  What did you make of that or is it just a case of a sample of 1 is not much use for any culture. 
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 12:32:38 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #114 on: June 22, 2012, 01:49:35 PM »

… It is interesting that the communal grave concept reappears among these people after they reached Iberia, but that is much the same I'd say as the occasional reuse of long barrows for BB burials in Britain. Incomers were mixing and adapting…

I think that is an oversimplification; there are some things that quite don’t add up here. First off, according to this article which talks about Bell Beaker presence in the Pyrenees:

El Vaso campaniforme de la cultura pirenaica

Quote from: Bosch-Gimpera.et.al

En la cultura pirenaica (12), en todos sus grupos, aparece el vaso campaniforme, no siempre con los mismo tipos de forma y decoración. Mientras en Cataluña, como en el SE. de France, hay una gran variedad de ellos, en el país vasco, lo mismo que en el grupo SO. De Francia, los vasos campaniformes conocidos pertenecen a un solo tipo, de perfil tendiendo a cilíindrico con el borde poco saliente y una estrangulación poco pronunciada en el cuerpo, así como la decoración cosiste solo en zonas limitadas por dos líneas paralelas resultado de la impression de una cuerdecita y, en zonas alternadas impresiones diagonals de puntos obtenidas con la técnica llamada de la ruedecilla, probablemente del borde dentado de una concha (nuestro tipo III).

En un intento de clasificación de la cerámica del vaso campaniforme (13), considerábamos el tipo descrito como el tercero de la seria que comenzaría con los vasos del estilo “clásico” de Carmona y Ciempozuelos, el más antiguo de la estratigrafía en la cueva del Somaén (prov. De Soria) (tipo I), para seguir con los vasos con los motivos de decoración tendiendo a cierta incorrección e impresos menos profundamente como en la segunda capa de la estratigrafía del Somaén (tipo II), terminando de la serie en la Península con nuestro tipo III (el de los sepulcros pirenaicos vascos: Balenkaleku y Gorostiaráan), mientras que en otros países de Europe (Inglaterra, Holadan y Bajo Rhin) sigue la evolución con tipos posteriors (tipo IV). Nuestro tipo III que es el primero que llega a las Islas Británicas (llamado allí “beaker B” ) es indudablemente tardío en el eneolítico y sus derivados (el “beaker A” que corresponde a nuestro tipo IV no conocido en España) persisten hasta entrada la edad del Bronce (14). Creíamos que esta evolución debió realizarse en un largo espacio de tiempo, desde una etapa muy antigua  en el tercer mileanario a de J.C., aunque el tipo III se desarollase en la transición del III al II y que sus derivados hubiesen podido persistir hasta muy entrado el II.

Para los tipos I y II teníamos la estratigrafía del Somaén que daba para ellos una cronologíia relative (15). Ninguna estratigrafía, por el contrario, apoya la posterioridad del tipo III; pero ésta la deducíamos de los conjustos de los mobiliarios de los sepulcros en que se encuentra y además por razones tipológicas. La decoración del tipo III nos parecía una simplificación del sistema a la que se llegaba progesivamente a través del II y, obtenida tal simplificación en el momento final del eneolítico precisaba su cronología la adopción del método de la impression de las cuerdecillas para delimiter las zonas. El hecho de que en el extremo de la extension del vaso campaniforme en el Occidente de Europa (Islas Británicas) no existan los tipos I y II y de que allí se prolongue hasta la plena Edad del Bronce la evolución de los tipos que no aparecen en la Península Ibérica, nos parecía que apoyaba nuestra cronologíia. Por otra parte, en una estratigrafía de Cataluña (el “Forat” o “Esquerda” del Pany de Torrelles de Foix, prov de Barcelona) (16) un vaso campaniforme parecía ser de una forma evolucionada del tipo II, representando un tipo IIb, de transición al tipo III, con el perfil de vaso con resabios de la forma acampana del estilo I clásico, pero con la decoracion muy simplificada consistente en simples líneas horizontals incises y en una de las zonas series alternadas de puntos también incisos a punzón, apareciendo este vaso campaniforme en la parte superior de la estratigrafia, sobre la capa que no contenía más que cerámica cardial, a veces con la forma y la disposición de los ornamentos en zonas muy parecidas a las del vaso campaniforme “clásico”.

Google translation of it(With my aid, because a direct translation makes no sense whatsoever):
Quote from: Bosch-Gimpera
In the Pyrenean culture (12), in all groups, there appears to be a Bell Beaker presence, not always with the same types of form and decoration. While in Catalonia, as in the Southeastern France, there are a wide variety of Bell Beaker types, in the Basque country, as in the SW France the Bell Beaker thus far found all belong to the same type; this type is known for having a cylindrical profile with an edge protrusion and strangulation very mildly pronounced in the body , while the decoration  consist of areas bounded by two parallel lines resulting from the imprint of a cord and, in the alternating areas dotted diagonals impressions obtained with a technique called “la ruedecilla”, probably from the serrated edge of a shell (also known known as our type III).

In an attempt to classify the Beaker pottery (13), we considered the type described as the III of the series, beginning with the Beakers of the "classic" style of Carmona and Ciempozuelos, the oldest of the stratigraphy in the cave of Somaen (province of Soria) (also known as our type I), continuing with the Beakers with decoration tending to some impropriety and having a more shallow impression found in the second layer of stratigraphy  at Somaen ( also known as our type II), finishing the series in Peninsula  is our type III (which is found in the Megalithic graves of the Basque Pyrenees: Balenkaleku and Gorostiaráan) meanwhile other countries of Europe (England, The Netherlands and Lower Rhine) there appears to be an evolution  of posteriors types (also known as our type IV). Our type III is the first to reach the British Isles (known there as "beaker B"); it reached the Islands without a doubt late in the eNeolithic and its derivatives (the "beaker A" corresponding to our type IV, and not found thus far in Spain) persist well into the Bronze Age (14). We believed that this evolution must have taken place in a wide time frame, from a very ancient stage in the third millenium BC, even if type III developed during the transition from I to II and its derivatives could have persisted well into the II.

As example of types I and II we had Somaen stratigraphy that produced a relative chronology (15). No stratigraphy, however, supports that type III was  any younger than I or II, but the relative age of type III with respect to types I and II we deduced from the variety of furnishings found in graves  and also from typological reasons. The decoration of type III looked to us as a simplification of the Beaker which should have appears if one were to following the evolution of type II, and such a simplification in terms of the chronology marked a time during the late eNeolithic was the earliest needed to adopt the method of impression of the areas using “cuerdecillas” to differentiate areas in the Beaker. The fact that at the borders of the extension of Bell Beaker culture in Western Europe (British Isles) there are no types I and II and that the Bell Beaker evolution continued in the area well into the Bronze Age, and that the evolution of type III (Typo IV) does not appear in Iberian Peninsula,  lead us to realized that our presumed chronology was supported by the data. Moreover, in the stratigraphy of the Beaker sites in Catalonia (the "Forat" or "Esquerda" of Pany of Torrelles de Foix, province of Barcelona) (16) a Bell Beaker  seemed to be an evolved from a type II, representing a type IIb, with transitioning characteristics placing it intermediate to type III, showing a the profile of the Beaker with remnants of style assigned to type I , but with much simplified decoration consisting simply of horizontal lines and with an alternating series of dots made with a knife, this Beaker appeared at the top of the stratigraphy, in a layer that only contained Cardial pottery, which sometimes had a shape and arrangement of the ornaments very similar to those  of the "classic" Bell Beakers.

So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 02:02:25 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 22, 2012, 02:48:41 PM »

Thanks for communicating these papers.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2012, 02:53:01 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?
Logged

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

Posts: 292


« Reply #117 on: June 22, 2012, 03:12:38 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?

Perhaps. This brings me back to the bronze age weapons from Ireland that were found in Huelva, Spain. The information can be found in Sir Barry Cunliffe's 'Facing the Ocean'.

Arch
Logged
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #118 on: June 22, 2012, 04:48:35 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?

Thanks for mentioning this. I know Iberia is a stronghold for P312* and presumably DF27* as well, but since I've been into this hobby I've always heard that the Isles were also a place of high P312* frequency. Seems like this isn't being brought up as much? A quick look from the P312 project and one will see a high a ammount of British Isles and new world Isles surnames that show up P312*. Biased or not there is alot of P312 in the Isles and even when considering other clades such as DF19 and L238, I'd still say the majority is DF27 of some sort. I think the argument that Isles testing is biased and this is why we see as much P312 from there as we do, kind of falls flat when you compare it to the bias that Iberia has received from academic studies. If anything they've received the same ammount of attention, one is just more formal than the other.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #119 on: June 22, 2012, 05:13:37 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?

Perhaps. This brings me back to the bronze age weapons from Ireland that were found in Huelva, Spain. The information can be found in Sir Barry Cunliffe's 'Facing the Ocean'.

Arch

Mike- I thought that a large portion of P312* in Ireland had non-native names although I am not saying that is always the case.  

Arch, that Atlantic Bronze Age phase is a lot later than the beaker period, nearly 1000 years later than the arrival of beaker in Ireland.  In fact I have always had the impression that more isles material went towards Iberia than the other way round.  In that period I undestand that the two big variations on Irish metalwork traditions (the Dowris period) were focussed on Ulster and Munster.

As for Connaught, in general western Ireland had a lot of Wedge Tombs which are associated with beaker.  However, if anything the tombs have parallels in NW France and the beaker types in Ireland are not Iberian.  The actual beaker seems to be a lot more northern (British, Rhine, NW France) and the less distinctive beakers have been suggested by Humphrey Case (think it was in an article in Journal of Irish Archaeology) to resemble Atlantic French ones most.  I dont think the case for strong direct beaker links between Ireland and Iberia are strong in the beaker period.  There is a lack of classic beaker burials in Ireland, almost a total lack.  The beaker burials in Ireland are of two main types.  There are Wedge Tombs which are megalthic monuments but they are totally different in form and orientation from the Neolithic ones.  I dont think its clear if they were originally really collective or not.  The interiors tend to be messed up and reused so its hard to say.  Both cremation and inhumation are known. Beakers, barbed and tanged arrows, copper artefacts etc are common finds.  Not all actually have beaker but they all seem to beaker date.  The other type are single cremation deposits in pits with token sherds of beaker.  I suppose that that is a kind of single burial.  Ireland shares this lack of classic beaker flexed inhumatons with a whole beaker etc in a ring barrow with a similar lack in much of western Britain. I think on balance the various traits of Irish beaker converge most with Atlantic France in terms of continental anticedants.  This is in line with L21 distribution of course.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 05:15:37 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #120 on: June 22, 2012, 05:17:06 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?

Thanks for mentioning this. I know Iberia is a stronghold for P312* and presumably DF27* as well, but since I've been into this hobby I've always heard that the Isles were also a place of high P312* frequency. Seems like this isn't being brought up as much? A quick look from the P312 project and one will see a high a ammount of British Isles and new world Isles surnames that show up P312*. Biased or not there is alot of P312 in the Isles and even when considering other clades such as DF19 and L238, I'd still say the majority is DF27 of some sort. I think the argument that Isles testing is biased and this is why we see as much P312 from there as we do, kind of falls flat when you compare it to the bias that Iberia has received from academic studies. If anything they've received the same ammount of attention, one is just more formal than the other.

I recall me and Rich S talking about this and looking at the distribution maps and in Britain anyway P312* seemed to have a distribution more like U106 than L21.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #121 on: June 22, 2012, 05:29:31 PM »

Another interesting thing about bell beakers in Ireland is their use was both burial and domestic but after about 200 years or so they kept on usingg the beakers as domestic ware (for another 200 years or so) but developed (apparently of their own accord) food vessels for use in burials.  Weirdly, it is only at this point that the classic beaker single crouched inhumatons in cists (with arrows, bracers, daggers) within ring barrows or ditches took off.  Even then a lot of them still cremated.  However, it looks like classic central or NW European beaker traditions were accepted earlier in the sphere of the living but took a while to usurp in death traditions. 
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #122 on: June 22, 2012, 05:53:03 PM »

... So in other words, the UK shares with Germany, and Northern France the individual Burial phenomenon, however the lack of Types I and II of Bell Beakers outside of Iberia, points to a later expansion of those types into Europe, especially the UK. So, why would these folks go  from adopting communal graves when they entered Iberia, back to single graves later on when they entered the UK. This is something that quite doesn’t add up, the Bell Beaker period marked a very sharp cultural and physical change in NW Europe, and Central Europe, yet in the Pyrenees we see no change in funerary practices, just the arrival of the Beakers, and the v-Shape arrow tips. Also the physical type didn’t change in the upper Basque region, the lower Ebro region did experience the arrival of a gracile Mediterranean type, which appears admixed with the local Pyrenean type. Also only in places where dolmens were found in Iberia is that communal graves were retained.
I mentioned earlier I've been slicing up L11 in different formats, inspired by the need to better understand P312* and DF27.  It's been brought up before but P312* (and presumably DF27), besides being quite frequent in Iberia are quite frequent in Connacht, the western and less populated part of Ireland.  Do Connacht's Bronze Age artifacts line up with Iberia's?

Perhaps. This brings me back to the bronze age weapons from Ireland that were found in Huelva, Spain. The information can be found in Sir Barry Cunliffe's 'Facing the Ocean'.

Arch

Here are the relevant sections from "Celtic from the West"

Fig 1.3 Greek knowledge of the Celts in the age of Hecataeus and Herodotus. Largely confined to the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Greeks and Romans are not a reliable source for commentary on the Isles as much of their knowledge was second hand.
Fig 1.4 A cognitive geography of the Atlantic Zone as it might have been viewed by an Atlantic mariner, showing major rivers and inlets of Iberia and France.
Fig 1.5 Enclave colonisation. Europe in the period c 5500 - 4100 showing the two principal routes by which the Neolithic way of life spread through Europe from the southern Balkans, the overland spread via the Danube and North European Plain and the Mediterranean route by sea ultimately to the Atlantic coast of Iberia.
Fig 1.6 The distribution of megalithic tombs shows them to be essentially an Atlantic phenomenon. The earliest tombs  - passage graves dating c 4,500 - 3,500 BC - have a maritime distribution, suggesting that the beliefs and the technologies behind the construction was along the Atlantic seaways.
Fig 1.7 The distribution of jadeite axes from their source in the Western Alps across Europe. The distribution vividly displays the exchange networks then in operation.
Fig 1.8 The distribution of Maritime Bell Beaker in Atlantic Europe during the 3rd Millennium, the crucial nodes in this network were the Tagus estuary and the Morbihan, while major hinterland routes followed the navigable rivers. The map indicates the initial movements were maritime. Trade routes with Ireland and Southern Britain for copper and tin.
Fig 1.9 The extent of the Bell Beaker complex 2700-2200 BC. Major corridors of communication by sea and river. Mediterranean, Atlantic, Danube, Rhine,
Fig 1.10 The interaction of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Complexes c2500 BC. North European Plain.

I have tried to illustrate it on this board:

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-migrations/
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



IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #123 on: June 23, 2012, 05:14:47 AM »

JeanL why do you quote that article? it is very old (1960s) and the chronology of BB ceramic has been heavily modified since then
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #124 on: June 23, 2012, 08:52:07 AM »

Mike can you post the surnames that you see linked to Connacht. I should also point out that as compared to the area of the state (26 counties of Republic) that the population of Connacht is now about half of what it proportianlly used to be.

Looking at census from 1821 to 1926 you can see that Connacht population made up between 18.6% (1926) and 21.7% (1841) of population of the state (I don't have figures for Northern Ireland to give a whole island %)

In comparison in 2011 census the population of Connacht only makes up 11.8% of the population of the state!

To put in persepective from it's peak population of 1,418,859 in 1841 the population of Connacht had fallen to just 390,902 in 1971(fall of 72%!). In comparison the population difference of the state between 1841 and 1971 was a fall of 45.6% (population of state grew by 0.2% from 1926 - 1971 -- so bulk of loss before independence)

Even today the population of Connacht (542,547) is less then what it was in 1926 (552,907) and only 38% of what it was in 1841. Though it has seen an increase of 38% in population since 1971. In comparison the state at a whole is back to 70% of it's 1841 population (higher then 1861 census!) and grew by 54% in the period 1971-2011.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 08:52:46 AM by Dubhthach » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 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 0.151 seconds with 19 queries.