World Families Forums - R-P312 and subclades in Iberia and Italy - Italo-Celt connection?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 21, 2014, 05:00:27 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)
| | |-+  R-P312 and subclades in Iberia and Italy - Italo-Celt connection?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-P312 and subclades in Iberia and Italy - Italo-Celt connection?  (Read 2611 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: April 09, 2009, 09:03:55 AM »

I need to go back and pull out the references, but I've read that the Celtiberian language had many Italic features.  I've also read that the Bell Beaker cultural artifacts and people themselves (skeletons) were different that Bell Beakers  in Northwestern Europe.  Some of the Iberian artifacts have similarities to what is found in Italy.   

Could it be that at least some of the Celtic cultures of Iberia descend closely from the pre-Italo-Celtic Bell Beaker folks? 

Granted the overall mix must be different, but do we find some subclades and/or clusters that are similar between Iberia and Italy?
Logged

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

Posts: 267


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2009, 12:10:53 PM »

This was the state of the subject in 2005, but new findings are changing views every year. Anyway Bell Beaker is too old to be linked to Celtic or even ProtoCeltic.
Celtiberian Language
In the case of the Celtiberian language, it was only in 1973 - when the first bronze plaque found in the Celtiberian city of Contrebia Belaisca, in Botorrita (Zaragoza), was published - that the international community acknowledged the Celtic nature of these epigraphs.
The traditional classification of the Celtic languages is based on the evolution of the hypothetical Indo-European phoneme *kw, which has remained in Gaelic as the Celtic Kw western group and evolved in Gaulish and Breton into P, thus giving rise to the so-called eastern group. However, this classification is no longer valid due to the advent of a more recent and profound understanding of the two most ancient Celtic languages - Celtiberian (which would be included in the former category), and Lepontic (included in the latter). One of the several archaic characteristics shared by both languages is the syntactic order, which is similar to Lepontic, i.e. (S)ubject, (O)bject, (V)erb (Schmidt 1993)
The first written form of the Celtiberian language originated during the first quarter of the second century BCE
Lepontic constitutes the oldest written example of a Celtic language (dated to the sixth century BCE and linked to the Golasecca culture). Hence, its divergence from other languages such as Celtiberian (which displays even more archaic features), or Gaulish (with clear signs of linguistic transformations), must have taken place before this (De Hoz 1992). The ascription of the Golasecca culture to the Urnfield Culture and its presence in the above-mentioned territory north of the Alps as of 1200 BCE leads us to identify this date as the point of divergence between Lepontic and the remaining Celtic languages
The Indo-European specialist Patrizia de Bernardo (2002) identifies the Urnfield Culture as the origin of Celtic languages in the Iberian Peninsula, regarding the arrival of a single nucleus of Celtic-speaking people as sufficient to account for all dialectic variants. In order to account for the absence of Celtic languages in the northeast of the Peninsula during the historical period, the suggests that all Celtic languages in the area were eradicated by the exposure to non-Indo-European stimuli (namely Iberian cultural elements).
On the other hand Jürgen Untermann (1995) coincides with the archaeological evidence put forward by Mª. Luisa Ruiz-Gálvez (1998). It suggests that the Celticisation process of the Iberian Peninsula resulted from the influence of people who arrived via the Atlantic Ocean in an area located between French Brittany and the mouth of the River Garona, finally settling along the Galician and Cantabrian coast.
However, in later work Jürgen Untermann (1999) points out the existence of Celtiberian phonetic and morphological features that bring the language closer to Italic, such as the ablative ending in -o-, which is characteristic of standard Indo-European but nonexistent in the Celtic languages. This leads him to suggest that "as indicated by the new evidence and discoveries, we must decide whether Celtiberian ought to be excluded from the Celtic-language type and linked, for instance, with Italic tongues, or whether the notion of proto-Celtic as thought in comparative linguistics is in need of a fundamental revision"
Francisco Villar (200) defends an unusual understanding of the Indo-Europeanisation process in the Iberian Peninsula and emphasises that "the characteristics that appear to link Celtiberian with Italic but are not present in other Celtic languages have two causes: the influence exercised by an Indo-European Italic-type substratum that preceded Celtiberian, and the language that affected and coexisted with Celtiberian until the Roman period" 
Finally, K. McCone (2001) identifies links between Celtiberian and Italic in the declension forms, but considers that none of the already known phenomena are capable of demonstrating that Celtiberian diverged from common Celtic at a particularly early stage. Still, the author offers a hypothetical genealogical tree in which Celtiberian is portrayed as the first language to diverge from common Celtic.

Logged

Y-DNA L21+


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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2009, 02:53:57 PM »

It is not accurate to characterize Celtiberian, as understood from inscriptions like that from Botorrita, as one of the most ancient Celtic languages or that it is possible to argue that its characteristics are therefore older than other ancient Q-Celtic languages.

I also do not believe there is any evidence that Lepontic qualifies as "one of the two most ancient Celtic languages."

Some scholars are unwilling to extend Celtic beyond the written or inscribed evidence, but it is certainly likely that the Beaker Folk who went to Britain beginning in the late 3rd millenium BC spoke an early Celtic or Proto-Celtic language.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 02:54:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2009, 03:15:57 PM »

Here is a quote from another forum.  The "parent body" here is a reference to a Bell Beaker folk group.
Quote from: Jean M
I have concluded that an early splinter group left the Proto-Italic-Celtic parent body in the Carpathian Basin, to probably move down through Croatia and across into Italy (though more than one route is possible). In Central Italy the language developed into Italic languages. In Liguria and Lusitania we seem to have (though evidence is slight) the parent Celtic-Italic language, which became more Celtic in Celtiberian, which was probably influenced by Gaulish. There is no doubt whatsoever that the people of La Tene were Celts. And not much doubt that Bell Beaker spread down the Danube to the Rhine. So we cannot fit the whole Bell Beaker phenomenon into a single west-to-east spread. Certain things just don't fit that model.

Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2009, 12:56:55 PM »

I have arrived, to save Mike from quoting me.

I feel that this is one of those cases where the archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence neatly matches up. In the  Indo-European section of my every-changing online article The Peopling of Europe, I follow David Anthony pretty closely, as he traces the movements from north of the Black Sea that sent the various PIE dialects on their way.

Then in the next section I concentrate on the Beaker people. New radio-carbon dates have made it clear that the Beaker phenomenon began mainly in Iberia.  (That revives an idea from early in the last century). Here's the crucial bits:

Quote
In Portugal Zambujal became an important Beaker centre.... One type of Bell Beaker, known as Maritime, appears from an early date and seems to have spread by sea from a Bell Beaker colony beside the Tagus. Zambujal .... was the hub of a complex web of contacts along the Atlantic and northern Mediterranean coasts, and sometimes far inland. The Beaker people seem to have arrived swiftly in Iberia. Some of their earliest sites are found in Portugal. Or to be more exact, they appear to be the same people who had brought copper-working c. 3,300, or to have followed on from them in a peaceful integration. It has been argued that the characteristic inverted bell shape of Bell Beakers developed from earlier Vila Nova de São Pedro wares ..... So Balkan copper-workers may have arrived in Iberia with a mixed company of migrants, to be gradually reinforced by others from the Danube basin, seeking pastures new. An early splinter group from the Proto-Celtic-Italic parent would help to explain why the Celtic languages of Iberia had such an archaic structure, retaining Italic elements, particularly Lusitanian, spoken between the Douro and Tagus rivers. A similarly mixed Indo-European language was spoken by the Ligures in what is now Northern-Western Italy and South-Eastern France. There is tantalisingly little evidence for Ligurian, but it appears primarily Celtic and Italic.


Quote
Meanwhile we can picture the mother group of Proto-Italic-Celtic-speakers gradually moving further up the Danube from the Carpathian Basin and developing into Proto-Celtic speakers, while those Beaker folk who had settled in the centre of the Italian peninsula developed Proto-Italic. The early breakaway of Iberian Celtic and Proto-Italic would explain why the subclade of R1b1b2a1a2 defined by mutation M167 is strongest around the Pyrenees, while comparatively few Iberians or Italians have so far tested positive for the L21 mutation common in the rest of the former Celtic world. These mutations presumably arose after that early settlement. As Arch Yeomans pointed out in online discussion, Bronze-Age trade between Iberia and tin-rich Cornwall could also explain why the M167 mutation appears less rare in Cornwall and Devon (3-4%) than in other parts of Britain.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2009, 01:12:04 PM »

Glenn, Maliclavelli, do you put Proto-Italo-Celts into Italy? That is interesting idea. I dismissed it before because of the Etruscan problem (namely, how could the Celts pass through Etruscans to the north or the Italics to the south while Etruscans stayed there). But if we put Proto-Italo-Celtic (PIC) around 1200 BC into Padania (Po valley) then it is possible that Etruscans cut PIC into two different branches, Northern Celtic and Southern Italic, as Marco Alinei thinks Etruscans (or Villanovan culture) came from the Carpathian Basin around 1200-1000 BC.
Thus the breakup of PIC would be a result of Etruscan migration.

What do you think?

Though this question wasn't directed to me, I am plucking it from another thread to respond here.

The latest thinking is that the Etruscans arrived in Italy around 1,200 BC, centuries after the Proto-Italic speaking people. Genetics point to an origin in the Near East, which is taken as confirmation of Herodotus, who said that the Etruscans were from Lydia (in Anatolia).  A linguist has traced them to a particular area of Anatolia, which was not the same as the later Lydia. (It is a complex argument.)

The Etruscans would indeed have cut off the Ligurians in north-west Italy from the Latins in Central Italy.   
Logged
RickA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2009, 02:39:31 PM »

Jean, My thinking has been much in line with yours.  I think Anthony makes a very good case for the introduction of IE into Europe via a Yamnaya expansion from the Pontic steppe around the west of the Black Sea and up the Danube via localized colonization.  He shows archaeologically that these were Yamnaya intrusions.  The timing of these events is not long before the earliest beakers in Iberia (he puts them bet. 3100-2600BC).  So, if this was a movement of (largely) M269 IE folk, hopping from a Danubian colonization event to a western European one, what is the archaeological evidence?  Red Ochre, similar burial practices, goods, weapons, etc?  The Yamnaya continuity from the steppe to the Hungarian Plain seems pretty clear.  Can we make the jump to the Iberian (or other) beakers?  Or is there another explanation? Cheers, Rick
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 04:44:42 PM by RickA » Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2009, 04:22:39 PM »

This is the big question. The beakers appear in the archaeology (and seem to belong to a new, intrusive culture) in the Copper-Bronze Ages. Then in the Iron Age the Celts (and other IE-speaking peoples) appear in history in much the same places as the beakers. In many places there is an archaeological succession from Bronze to Iron Age cultures with no indication of discontinuity e.g. Beaker to Urnfield to Hallstatt to La Tène. So the finger points at the Beaker people as at least one of the carriers of PIE westwards from the Black Sea area. That of course depends on accepting the Mallory/Anthony identification of the time and place of PIE.

The Yamnaya-Beaker link has never been so obvious that it leapt out at scholars. One important connection is metal-working. Burial practice was similar but not identical. (In both cases the graves of smiths can be identified, as they were buried with their tools.) The Beaker package includes bows and arrows.

One odd connection between the Yamnaya, South-Eastern France and northern-western Italy (Ligurian area) is a type of carved stone anthropomorphic funeral stela.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 05:28:11 PM by Jean M » Logged
RickA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2009, 05:33:44 PM »

One odd connection between the Yamnaya, South-Eastern France and northern-western Italy (Ligurian area) is a type of carved stone anthropomorphic funeral stela.
Good catch.  I see now that Anthony briefly mentioned these stelae in ch 13. 
Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2009, 05:43:16 PM »

The key paper (which I have only just got hold of) is Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd, The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland), Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Volume 82, Number 2 (2007), pp. 127-214.

It will take some digesting.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 05:49:34 PM by Jean M » Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2009, 09:52:10 PM »

Jean M said: “Though this question wasn't directed to me, I am plucking it from another thread to respond here.”

Thanks for responding to that question. I do not get into the culture and language discussions hardly at all. One culture morphing into another culture and one language morphing into another language due to some outside stimuli is not something I wake up yearning to solve. Some of you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, but mostly I simply read the discussions and attempt to digest the information. The Kurgan stelae funeral stones did interest me, though.

Thanks,
Logged
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2009, 06:25:51 AM »

Is it not possible that the mixed Italic and Celtic features of Celtiberian stems from that Celtiberian (M167?) was a different branch of Italo-Celtic thus three different languages arose from Proto-Italo-Celtic: Proto-Celtic, proto-Italic and Celtiberian?

Linguists do not support an early Celtic language expansion, as they use to put Proto-Celtic no earlier than 1200 BC. However, Celtiberian can probably be earlier if it does not come from Proto-celtic. M167 in the British Isles can be probably a result of Beaker migration (in those terms pre-Celtic).
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b4 (S28/U-152) L2 test pending
Earliest known paternal ancestor: Matthias Fejer, b. 1819, Jaszarokszallas, Jasz county, Central Hungary
MtDNA: U4 (Western Siberian Ugric)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2009, 09:21:08 AM »

...  Linguists do not support an early Celtic language expansion, as they use to put Proto-Celtic no earlier than 1200 BC. However, Celtiberian can probably be earlier if it does not come from Proto-celtic. M167 in the British Isles can be probably a result of Beaker migration (in those terms pre-Celtic).
   
Granted, in a narrow definition of the label "Celtic", La Tene or Halstatt are the original.   However, I think the answer is we don't know how early the original (proto) Celtic was spoken.    What linguists say no earlier than 1200 BC?  Since not much was written and saved back then, it can't be proved, but I think some linguists would say Proto-Celtic may have occurred prior.
A good place to start for Proto-Celtic is immediately after the Italo-Celt split, if for no other reason other than definition.
When did the Italic branch split from the Celtic branch?   My guess is that it was a phase of the Bell Beaker folks.   David Anthony, I think, says it was back in Hungary.

If the Bronze Age maintained a lot of continuity up to and through the La Tene Culture (see quote below,) then Proto-Celtic would have been at least at the beginning of the Bronze Age.  Where does that takes us back to? ... yes, the Bell Beaker folks.
Quote from: Wikipedia summary of Simon James
The Bronze Age Beaker period is noteworthy, since archeological finds seem to indicate a strong continuity with native Bronze Age traditions in Ireland as much as Britain. No evidence of other large scale immigrations took place and many scholars deny Celtic speech originated solely from La Tene culture, whose migrations started at about 400 BC. Instead, those scholars propose Celtic languages evolved gradually and simultaneously over a large area by way of a common heritage and close social, political and religious links...
The Italics and the Celtics must have been separated to a large degree during the Bronze Age.
Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2009, 09:43:06 AM »

Is it not possible that the mixed Italic and Celtic features of Celtiberian stems from that Celtiberian (M167?) was a different branch of Italo-Celtic thus three different languages arose from Proto-Italo-Celtic: Proto-Celtic, proto-Italic and Celtiberian?

That is what I am saying. Lusitanian, Ligurian and Celtiberian appear to have arisen direct from Proto-Italic-Celtic, before it diverged into Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic.

Quote
Linguists do not support an early Celtic language expansion, as they use to put Proto-Celtic no earlier than 1200 BC. However, Celtiberian can probably be earlier if it does not come from Proto-celtic.
Exactly. Anthony gives a date of c. 2,500 BC for the breakaway of Proto-Italic-Celtic - then c. 2,000 BC for Italic and Celtic arising from it. But we have to recognise that these dates are not exact. They are rough estimates.  I am not sure where the date of 1,200 BC comes from. Linguists do not all speak with one voice, that's for sure!  Perhaps it refers to specific Celtic languages?   

Quote
M167 in the British Isles can be probably a result of Beaker migration (in those terms pre-Celtic).
Possibly. There is not much M167 in Britain. The main migration seems to have come from the Rhine across the Channel, carrying L21.

Trade from Iberia to Cornwall would be most likely in the Bronze Age, because that was when tin was needed. I don't think we can be more precise than that.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 09:55:25 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2009, 03:25:11 AM »

I mentioned 1200 BC only as the start of Hallstatt A. I ment that I havent seen any linguistic estimate before that, most are for Proto-Celtic around 1000-800 BC. That supports the idea that Hallstatt was the first Celtic-speaking culture - meaning what we today understand as Celtic. This theory does not say that Proto-Italo-Celt or Proto-Italo-Celt-Celtiberian or anything could not be earlier.

I think it is unwise to put Proto-Celtic too early, unfortunately it is more and more common to pre-date languages (compare the dates of Gimbutas/Bronze Age theory with Renfrew/neoltihic; not to mention the Paleolithic Continuity theory).

I think we can draw a parallel between the Celtic vs. Beakers and the Latin vs. Italic question. Italic languages were spoken nearly all over Italy but when Rome emerged and started to dominate all Italy, its language (or dialect) took over the place of the other Italic languages. Therefore at the end of the Roman empire there were no other Italic languages than Latin.
I think more or less the same goes for Celtic vs. Beaker folks as well, the difference is that we do not know the "sister languages" like we know Oscan or Umbrian in case of Latin.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b4 (S28/U-152) L2 test pending
Earliest known paternal ancestor: Matthias Fejer, b. 1819, Jaszarokszallas, Jasz county, Central Hungary
MtDNA: U4 (Western Siberian Ugric)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2009, 06:54:35 AM »

I mentioned 1200 BC only as the start of Hallstatt A. I meant that I haven't seen any linguistic estimate before that, most are for Proto-Celtic around 1000-800 BC.

I think that you will find something like that range given by linguists as the latest possible date for Proto-Celtic. David Anthony has a table (table 3.1 in The Horse the Wheel and Language) giving the latest possible dates for various Indo-European Proto-languages, calculated from the evidence of the appearance of various languages from them and the estimated time taken to develop specific languages from the Proto-language. For Proto-Celtic the latest dates are 1,350-850 BC. For Proto-Italic the dates are 1,600-1,100 BC. Then archaeological evidence is used to calculate the earliest possible dates for the various languages, from items in their vocabulary e.g. wheel.

Quote
I think it is unwise to put Proto-Celtic too early, unfortunately it is more and more common to pre-date languages (compare the dates of Gimbutas/Bronze Age theory with Renfrew/neolithic; not to mention the Paleolithic Continuity theory).

I couldn't agree more. Refrew's Neolithic IE theory  and PCT both ignore the linguistic evidence, and are not supported by linguists (other that the linguist who actually came up with PCT.) In response to critics, Refrew and Cavalli-Sforza modified their theories to suggest a first spread of IE from Anatolia and second from the Black Sea area, but this still makes no sense. The whole idea of IE spreading in the Neolithic has to go.

However David Anthony is following the linguists, who have no quarrel with him.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2009, 08:18:49 AM »

I have now digested the key article by Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd that I mentioned earlier. I hope all will forgive my repeating here the rave review I just posted elsewhere. It is a seminal paper. 

They propose a Yamnaya "package" of components, including social stratification, a special status for craftsmen, the round barrow as a personalised monument, often combined with anthropomorphic stelae, "Caucasian metallurgy", the tanged dagger, the shaft-hole axe, Lockenringe, domesticated horses, wagons, pastoralism and widespread use of cord decoration on pottery, which influenced a number of adjacent and more distant cultures. They include late Baden, Mako, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, Remedello and Bell Beaker.

One major theme in their paper in the analysis of the stelae at Sion. Their interpretation is brilliant. They have worked out something of Beaker politics. Stelae there were created by a first group of pre-Beaker and Beaker people with links to the south (down the Rhone) and the Western Beaker group. These were smashed c. 2,500 by another Beaker group coming from the east, from the Middle Danube and Carpathian Basin, with links to the Eastern Beaker group, who were evidently laying claim to the place.

As I suspected, anthropomorphic stelae do make a helpful link between Yamnaya and the route I suspected was taken by a splinter group from the Proto-Italic-Celtic parent body (before and after they developed the Beaker "package"). They are found in the Yamnaya heartland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, in the Po valley in northern Italy, in the western Alpine valleys accessible from the Rhone and in Portugal.
Logged
RickA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2009, 08:22:22 PM »

I have now digested the key article by Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd that I mentioned earlier. I hope all will forgive my repeating here the rave review I just posted elsewhere. It is a seminal paper. 

They propose a Yamnaya "package" of components, including social stratification, a special status for craftsmen, the round barrow as a personalised monument, often combined with anthropomorphic stelae, "Caucasian metallurgy", the tanged dagger, the shaft-hole axe, Lockenringe, domesticated horses, wagons, pastoralism and widespread use of cord decoration on pottery, which influenced a number of adjacent and more distant cultures. They include late Baden, Mako, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, Remedello and Bell Beaker.

One major theme in their paper in the analysis of the stelae at Sion. Their interpretation is brilliant. They have worked out something of Beaker politics. Stelae there were created by a first group of pre-Beaker and Beaker people with links to the south (down the Rhone) and the Western Beaker group. These were smashed c. 2,500 by another Beaker group coming from the east, from the Middle Danube and Carpathian Basin, with links to the Eastern Beaker group, who were evidently laying claim to the place.

As I suspected, anthropomorphic stelae do make a helpful link between Yamnaya and the route I suspected was taken by a splinter group from the Proto-Italic-Celtic parent body (before and after they developed the Beaker "package"). They are found in the Yamnaya heartland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, in the Po valley in northern Italy, in the western Alpine valleys accessible from the Rhone and in Portugal.

Yay!  That would appear to be the missing link.  I suppose we should wait to see how well this theory is accepted, but it sure does follow perfectly from what we'd predict.  Thank you for summarizing the article, Jean.
Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 09:21:12 PM »

Jean

I have to say that I am not sure why Stelae people in Iberia need to be put into the model.  Sion can be interpreted without needing to add that element as far west as Iberia.  I may be missing something but archaeologists have spent a lot of time pondering those advanced pre-beaker Copper Age south and west Iberian cultures and they have always concluded in the end that it is not from some eastern source travelling along the Med.  I have not heard anyone say anything clearcut in print that alters that.  I wouldnt include Harrison and Heyds map of peripheral influence of Yamnaya in the bracet of anything clearcut.  I understand that stelae have until recent years not really had the analysis they deserve but the Iberian pre-beaker copper age cultures have been chewed over for decades.  Why then has anyone who has put anything in print about these cultures in recent times always ruled out an eastern source?  Have an archaeoogists actually written that they have changed their minds on this subject?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:24:03 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2012, 09:56:48 AM »

I noticed that you left out some of the R1b people out like U106 and subclades and other haplogroups as well. It is as if the Celts only belong to P312.The Celts didnt know anything about dna.



I need to go back and pull out the references, but I've read that the Celtiberian language had many Italic features.  I've also read that the Bell Beaker cultural artifacts and people themselves (skeletons) were different that Bell Beakers  in Northwestern Europe.  Some of the Iberian artifacts have similarities to what is found in Italy.   

Could it be that at least some of the Celtic cultures of Iberia descend closely from the pre-Italo-Celtic Bell Beaker folks? 

Granted the overall mix must be different, but do we find some subclades and/or clusters that are similar between Iberia and Italy?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2012, 10:41:56 AM »

Jean

... the Iberian pre-beaker copper age cultures have been chewed over for decades.  Why then has anyone who has put anything in print about these cultures in recent times always ruled out an eastern source?  Have an archaeologists actually written that they have changed their minds on this subject?

No and yes. The idea of a cultural source in the Near East is no more popular at present than it has been for some time. I don't go for that either. At one time the mere existence of walled settlements, plus exotic imports like ivory, was seen as evidence of a direct link to Mesopotamia or thereabouts. In fact neither Zambujal nor Los Millares is truly urban. These are defended farming settlements with little sign of specialisation. Craft is at the domestic scale on the whole. The one industry is metallurgy. The ivory can be sourced to North Africa.  

On the other hand, the idea of an independent genesis for copper-working in Iberia has been thrown out by Ben Roberts and others. See his papers in the mini-library under Archaeology > Copper-Bronze Age > Metallurgy.

It arrived from somewhere, and there are a number of clues to where, including the sudden appearance of anthropomorphic stelae.  
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:44:26 AM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2012, 10:58:39 AM »

I noticed that you left out some of the R1b people out like U106 and subclades and other haplogroups as well. It is as if the Celts only belong to P312.The Celts didnt know anything about dna.

I need to go back and pull out the references, but I've read that the Celtiberian language had many Italic features.  I've also read that the Bell Beaker cultural artifacts and people themselves (skeletons) were different that Bell Beakers  in Northwestern Europe.  Some of the Iberian artifacts have similarities to what is found in Italy.  

Could it be that at least some of the Celtic cultures of Iberia descend closely from the pre-Italo-Celtic Bell Beaker folks?  

Granted the overall mix must be different, but do we find some subclades and/or clusters that are similar between Iberia and Italy?

Why do you say "It is as if the Celts only belong to P312?" It seems like a disjointed comment based on what you quoted.

In your quote from me, which is from 2009 (3 years ago,) I don't see any reference to particular R1b haplogroups. The topic itself has P312 in the title. Just because a thread is specific to a particular topic and haplogroup, does not in any way imply that there are no other haplogroups possibly aligned with that topic.

If you want to start a separate topic on U106 in Iberia or Italy or with Celtic connections, please do so.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 11:05:13 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: [1] 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 0.13 seconds with 19 queries.