World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 30, 2014, 04:46:27 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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 34953 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #500 on: October 01, 2012, 02:11:58 PM »

Patrick Sims-Williams has a completely different point of view!

On which one?
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #501 on: October 01, 2012, 02:16:10 PM »

Patrick Sims-Williams has a completely different point of view!

On which one?

The Tartesian language!
Logged

LDJ
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #502 on: October 01, 2012, 02:45:20 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I sometimes wonder if it isn't possible to make reasonable inferences from reasonable data without having to rely on absolute proof, at the very least it would allow us to talk about something whilst we wait for aDNA to turn up !!

Edit: Out of curiosity how would you apply aDNA to establish the language spoken ?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 02:59:37 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #503 on: October 01, 2012, 03:03:15 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #504 on: October 01, 2012, 03:03:47 PM »

[Edit: Out of curiosity how would you apply aDNA to establish the language spoken ?

I wouldn't
Logged

LDJ
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #505 on: October 01, 2012, 03:20:21 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!

That is called pseudo science...duh!
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:09:58 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #506 on: October 01, 2012, 03:22:10 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!

That is called puedo science...duh!

If you are not using speculation and are basing your posts on fact, then you must have one hell of a story that you are not sharing with us. Let's here it.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #507 on: October 01, 2012, 03:33:03 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!

That is called puedo science...duh!

If you are not using speculation and are basing your posts on fact, then you must have one hell of a story that you are not sharing with us. Let's here it.

Excuse me it is you that are making unsubstantiated claims,e'g  there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it so come on why does L21 not allow for it?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 01:42:04 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #508 on: October 01, 2012, 04:07:58 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!

That is called puedo science...duh!

If you are not using speculation and are basing your posts on fact, then you must have one hell of a story that you are not sharing with us. Let's here it.

excuse me it ids you that are amking unsubstantiated claims,e'g  there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it so come on why does L21 not allow for it?

The fact that you ave 151 posts under your belt and don't already know that 99.9% of the posts here are speculative and are in fact pseudo-science leads me to believe that you are being a little bit of a troll, but I'll play along...

I am SPECULATING based on all I've seen that all 1st millenium and later cultures (Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene) had too little of a genetic impact on Ireland to be the Celtic language catalyst. If you want an entire list of reasons why, you can pull up Cunliff's latest and greatest.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #509 on: October 01, 2012, 06:19:36 PM »

Quote from: Richard Rocca
Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.
Now you have made an ad hoc guess that all L21 is connected to the spread of Celtic language. Why? There are many possibilities, for example Celtic language may have spread with some other subgroup of R1b, or with only a certain branch of L21. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the whole L21 to the spread of Celtic language.

The method goes so that we must first look at the linguistic evidence, and then try to find a match for them: a genetic lineage which happens to be in the right place at the right time and spreads to the right direction.

Quote from: Jean M
My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.
Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?
Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #510 on: October 01, 2012, 06:59:08 PM »

Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?

Jaska - It is a long story, as it tends to be when people are deducing the origin and movements of languages in prehistory. It boils down to the rough correlation of Bell Beaker and the distribution of Celtic and Italic languages. The idea that Celtic spread from Gaul in the Iron Age was once taken for granted. Indeed there were Celtic movements in this period. But they are insufficient to explain the full spread of Celtic in Ireland and Iberia.   
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #511 on: October 01, 2012, 07:27:52 PM »

Quote from: Richard Rocca
Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.
Now you have made an ad hoc guess that all L21 is connected to the spread of Celtic language. Why? There are many possibilities, for example Celtic language may have spread with some other subgroup of R1b, or with only a certain branch of L21. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the whole L21 to the spread of Celtic language.

The method goes so that we must first look at the linguistic evidence, and then try to find a match for them: a genetic lineage which happens to be in the right place at the right time and spreads to the right direction.

Quote from: Jean M
My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.
Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?


I did not make the assumption that L21 was the sole clade responsible for the spread of Celtic, so I don't know where you are getting that from.

By they way, what you are calling "ad hoc", I consider "deductive reasoning". Big difference.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #512 on: October 01, 2012, 07:33:45 PM »

I understand the diversity argument. But I wonder about the affect of the population movements on diversity - would the addition of migrating U106 to an existing eastern U106 have impacted the diversity there enough to give a false impression of origin?

We all wonder stuff like that. My thinking is that an area of high diversity could send a false positive signal. High diversity could have resulted from pooling up of a single haplogroup from several sources where it looks more diverse, therefore older in the destination pool than at some of those sources.

However, the real area of origin, or at least the general vicinity should have higher diversity yet as long as it has been sufficiently sampled. There can arguments about that, though.

On the other hand, an area of lower diversity is just that. The indication is such an area is not the origin. I don't think it would be a false negative. Such is the case for U106 and Scandinavia, at least according to Myres and my long haplotype calculations on project data, which I will renew with a deeper look at the Polish, German Language, Scandinavian/Swedish/Norwegian projects. The data should be building up from my last look a that.

BTW, I posted Stoneman's quote in the STR Wars thread so we could talk about the world of STRs over there.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 07:35:29 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #513 on: October 01, 2012, 10:43:46 PM »


Quote from: Richard Rocca
I did not make the assumption that L21 was the sole clade responsible for the spread of Celtic, so I don't know where you are getting that from.
From your sentence: "there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it."

I interpret this so that you consider the Irish L21 too diverse to be explained by its arrival only at the 1st millennium BC. And this you seem to use as a counter-argument against that late spread of Celtic. My point was that all L21 (meaning: in Ireland, because that was the topic) need not to be connected to the Celtic expansion.

Quote from: Richard Rocca
By they way, what you are calling "ad hoc", I consider "deductive reasoning". Big difference.
I call "ad hoc" a situation when one solution is arbitrarily picked from many equally possible options. :)


Quote from: Jean M
Jaska - It is a long story, as it tends to be when people are deducing the origin and movements of languages in prehistory. It boils down to the rough correlation of Bell Beaker and the distribution of Celtic and Italic languages. The idea that Celtic spread from Gaul in the Iron Age was once taken for granted. Indeed there were Celtic movements in this period. But they are insufficient to explain the full spread of Celtic in Ireland and Iberia. 
Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth. Or vice versa. :) Maybe there will appear more evidence for one or another option in the future.
Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #514 on: October 02, 2012, 05:07:24 AM »

Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth.

That is because I have not explained the reasoning in full. The movements from Gaul in the Iron Age (spreading p-Celtic) did not reach the whole of Iberia and Ireland. Neither did the earlier Urnfield. So that leaves us with Bell Beaker as the only credible option for spreading Celtic and Italic, with the distribution of which it coincides. Bear in mind that Proto-Italo-Celtic is very close to PIE. It is early. So early in fact that it is hard to tell the difference between PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic. A number of place-name studies in Iberia just end up talking about an Indo-European layer. Only by the time of Late Bell Beaker do we reach something we can call Celtic. So it is all very complex.

For an introduction, see Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview, E-Keltoi.

You might  also be interested in John T Koch, A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language. He and Barry Cunliffe want to argue that Celtic spread from a homeland in Iberia. But he admits that the alternative explanation for the archaic forms of Celtic in Iberia is that it was on the periphery of Celtic development, which makes more sense to me.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 12:03:42 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #515 on: October 02, 2012, 06:21:36 AM »

Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth.

That is because I have not explained the reasoning in full. The movements from Gaul in the Iron Age (spreading p-Celtic) did not reach the whole of Iberia and Ireland. Neither did the earlier Urnfield. So that leaves us with Bell Beaker as the only credible option for spreading Celtic and Italic, with the distribution of which it coincides. Bear in mind that Proto-Italo-Celtic is very close to PIE. It is early. So early in fact that it is hard to tell the difference between PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic. A number of place-name studies in Iberia just end up talking about an Indo-European layer. Only by the time of Late Bell Beaker do we reach something we can call Celtic. So it is all very complex.

For an introduction, see Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview, E-Keltoi.

You might  also be interested in  John T Koch, A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language. He and Barry Cunliffe want to argue that Celtic spread from a homeland in Iberia. But he admits that the alternative explanation for the archaic forms of Celtic in Iberia is that it was on the periphery of Celtic development, which makes more sense to me.

Cunliffe's latest and greatest, Britain Begins, gives a very clear picture for the spread of Celtic along the Atlantic Facade supporting a Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia (Patterson et al) and Celtic from the West (Cunliffe, Koch).
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC (M269)

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837994/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 06:49:09 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



stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #516 on: October 02, 2012, 06:43:29 AM »

Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2148


« Reply #517 on: October 02, 2012, 07:01:49 AM »

Cunliffe's latest and greatest, Britain Begins, gives a very clear picture for the spread of Celtic along the Atlantic Facade supporting a Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia (Patterson et al) and Celtic from the West (Cunliffe, Koch).
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC (M269)

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837994/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.
"PIE > 6000 BC (M269)
If they were the Italian agriculturalists, this is my theory of the "Italian Refugium".
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #518 on: October 02, 2012, 07:12:49 AM »

This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC

That needs a bit of revision Heber I think. Starting from your bottom line:

PIE is dated 4000 BC. It cannot be earlier because it contains a whole lot of words for things that were unknown to the early farmers. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not spin wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things.

Proto-Celtic comes after Proto-Italo-Celtic, not before. L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it. It most probably relates to dairy farming reaching the Balkans. Some IE speakers do carry L23 - tellingly, they fit into the "Balkan group" of languages, of which Greek and Armenian are the survivors.

L51 shows no sign of being at the head of an expansion. We would expect a lot of subclades if that were the case. Instead we have a single lineage. L11 is the father of the explosion. It has been dated to around 3500 BC by Tim J. That fits with the departure of a whole lot of people up the Danube and by other routes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is not exclusive to pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. The ancestors of Illyrian and Germanic speakers were also departing at this time, as far as we can make out.

It seems likely that P312 was in the vanguard of the movement up the Danube carrying Proto-Italo-Celtic. From there two streams broke away. One early stream went into Italy and Iberia, taking an early Italo-Celtic. This at some point acquired DF27.

The stream that carried on up the Danube to its head at some point acquired L21. That was carried down the Rhine into Britain. The language that had developed north of the Alps was Proto-Celtic - still Q-Celtic at that time. A group of its speakers moved into NE Iberia and developed Celtiberian which is Q-Celtic. There was no Q-Celtic on the Atlantic-facade of Iberia at this time. It was Italo-Celtic - Lusitanian or Ligurian or whatever you want to call it.

P-Celtic developed in Gaul/North Italy before the Iron Age movements which spread it into Britain and parts of Iberia and Anatolia, etc. U152 is likely to be one marker for it.  

  
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 07:14:59 AM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #519 on: October 02, 2012, 07:18:03 AM »

Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.

There are many clades in Ireland including R1b, I, J, R1a, etc. as there were many migrations inbound to and outbound from Ireland including, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Megalithic, Copper, Bronze, Iron Age, Atlantic, Celts, River Celts, Central European Celts, Vikings, Normans, Anglo Saxons, Hugeunot, Palatine etc.
My particular area of interest is M269 - DF21. My purpose is to show these migrations.
According to Busby the highest frequencies of M269, L51, L11, P312, L21 and M222 in Europe are found in Ireland. These are the defining mutations I focus on.
You can se a broader view of other migrations here:

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/
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



Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #520 on: October 02, 2012, 09:12:35 AM »

This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC

That needs a bit of revision Heber I think. Starting from your bottom line:

PIE is dated 4000 BC. It cannot be earlier because it contains a whole lot of words for things that were unknown to the early farmers. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not spin wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things.

Proto-Celtic comes after Proto-Italo-Celtic, not before. L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it. It most probably relates to dairy farming reaching the Balkans. Some IE speakers do carry L23 - tellingly, they fit into the "Balkan group" of languages, of which Greek and Armenian are the survivors.

L51 shows no sign of being at the head of an expansion. We would expect a lot of subclades if that were the case. Instead we have a single lineage. L11 is the father of the explosion. It has been dated to around 3500 BC by Tim J. That fits with the departure of a whole lot of people up the Danube and by other routes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is not exclusive to pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. The ancestors of Illyrian and Germanic speakers were also departing at this time, as far as we can make out.

It seems likely that P312 was in the vanguard of the movement up the Danube carrying Proto-Italo-Celtic. From there two streams broke away. One early stream went into Italy and Iberia, taking an early Italo-Celtic. This at some point acquired DF27.

The stream that carried on up the Danube to its head at some point acquired L21. That was carried down the Rhine into Britain. The language that had developed north of the Alps was Proto-Celtic - still Q-Celtic at that time. A group of its speakers moved into NE Iberia and developed Celtiberian which is Q-Celtic. There was no Q-Celtic on the Atlantic-facade of Iberia at this time. It was Italo-Celtic - Lusitanian or Ligurian or whatever you want to call it.

P-Celtic developed in Gaul/North Italy before the Iron Age movements which spread it into Britain and parts of Iberia and Anatolia, etc. U152 is likely to be one marker for it.  

  

If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al, then this fits fine with Cunliffes model.

"There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago."

The recent Tyler Smith paper would appear to support this extreme R1b Neolithic expansion from Anatolia.

L21 appears to be an Atlantic Clade. This supports Cunliffes model. I dont see it in the Danube and descending the Rhine.

Likewise P312 appears to be an Iberia and Atlantic Facade clade as does DF27, not Danube related.

L51 as per Rich Roccas map appears to be Rhone, Po, North Italy, and is also closer to the model proposed by Cunliffe. (Meditteranean Littoral)

L23 appears to be a Balkens clade (Myres, Busby), I have not seen any maps which says otherwise.

The Cunliffe map clearly show that Celtic developed on the Atlantic facade 3000 BC and spread inland at a later date 2000 BC.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 09:27:35 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



stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #521 on: October 02, 2012, 09:25:25 AM »

All of those haplogroups are more than 9000 years old. Why would they move anywhere in single groups?We are looking at the modern distribution maps of them as well, not one of 5000 years ago.




Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.

There are many clades in Ireland including R1b, I, J, R1a, etc. as there were many migrations inbound to and outbound from Ireland including, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Megalithic, Copper, Bronze, Iron Age, Atlantic, Celts, River Celts, Central European Celts, Vikings, Normans, Anglo Saxons, Hugeunot, Palatine etc.
My particular area of interest is M269 - DF21. My purpose is to show these migrations.
According to Busby the highest frequencies of M269, L51, L11, P312, L21 and M222 in Europe are found in Ireland. These are the defining mutations I focus on.
You can se a broader view of other migrations here:

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #522 on: October 02, 2012, 09:29:23 AM »

L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it.

Although, this is somewhat from a technical perspective, I disagree that L23xL51 subclades are not relevant to the trail of L51 (and L11 within it.) They are brothers and it is not really new news that there is no L23*. The paragroup asterisk ("*") indicator has always been and will always be just a temporary holding status for SNP "to be discovered" subclades of any kind. The subclades were always there.  What's relevant is the diversity and location of the L23xL51. If there are three or two or one old SNPs so far discovered, that's not of great consequence. There will eventually be a whole set of layers SNPs within the branching of what we use to call R-L23*. As Ken Nordtvedt would tell you, kind of like pots are NOT people, SNPs are NOT subclades. The subclades are always there, how deep versus recent their branching is, is the question.

Where L11's first, second and third cousins are found and most diverse is still important. Where locations of the 2nd and 3rd cousins might tell us where L11's g or gg-grandfather is from. At least it tells us a direction to look.

Now back to the larger point you were making, I'm not saying L23xL51 subclades were or were not key to PIE's expansion. It think their locations have to be considered with L51* and L11* and P312 and U106. There are a lot of L23xL51 Armenians, who have been IE speaking. Doesn't mean they were of a branch of L23xL51 that was PIE speaking though. I guess we should consider the branching back linguistically of the proto and pre-Amenian languages.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Linguists classify Armenian as an independent branch of the Indo-European language family. Armenian shares a number of major innovations with Greek, and some linguists group these two languages together with Phrygian and the Indo-Iranian family into a higher-level subgroup of Indo-European which is defined by such shared innovations as the augment. More recently, others have proposed a Balkan grouping including Greek, Armenian, Phrygian and Albania.

It is interesting that pre-Armenian languages diverged from Proto-Celtic and Germanic earlier than they branched from each other. It's an old lineage in terms of its relationship with Western IE. Some apparently consider this lineage a pre-PIE branch.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Anatolian branch is generally considered the earliest to split from the Proto-Indo-European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite or "Middle PIE"; typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is assumed. Under the Kurgan hypothesis, there are two possibilities for how the early Anatolian speakers could have reached Anatolia: from the north via the Caucasus, and from the west, via the Balkans...
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 11:17:32 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #523 on: October 02, 2012, 10:28:31 AM »

Thank you for the links, Jean!

Quote from: Heber
7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.
Those datings for the spread of the Indo-European language are far too early...
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

Quote from: Heber
If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al, then this fits fine with Cunliffes model.
It cannot be accepted, because the method is most unreliable; read the link above.

Also, the P-form from IE *kw seems to have developed independently in different branches of Celtic; it also happened in part of Italic and Greek (not in Mycenean). So there is no need for one P-Celtic expansion.
Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2148


« Reply #524 on: October 02, 2012, 11:50:01 AM »

“L51 as per Rich Roccas map appears to be Rhone, Po, North Italy, and is also closer to the model proposed by Cunliffe. (Mediterranean Littoral)” (Heber)

What would have Richard Rocca discovered? The first map of R-L51 was made by Argiedude many years ago also with my data, and R-L51 found above all in Italy is from always one of the points of my theory. I have posted some letters where I have demonstrated that in the Rhaetian Region (Alto Adige) probably R-L51 has the highest percentage all over the world, practically the double of the highest French percentage.

“V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51” (J Manco).

What would have VV discovered? What does he know of R-L23? He is hg. I and the other Italian Vizzaccaros are R-M73. I am R-L23*/L277-/L584- and I am waiting for my Z2105 test. I have written in many posts that I am waiting for the first R-L23/Z2105- in Tuscany or in Italy. We shall see. What we were waiting for by L150 now is from Z2105.

Of course you are free to think whatever you want, but:

R1b1* ancestor of R-M269 isn’t the Eastern one with YCAII= 21-23 or 23-23 but the Western European one with YCAII=18-22 or 18-23

The R-L23 of Middle East is above all L277+ or L584+, and cannot be the ancestor of R-L51. Also the Balkan R-L23 (see the Arberesh Ciulla) isn’t the ancestor of R-L51…

The most ancient and diffused R-M269 are the Italian ones, and I am waiting that someone tests the Tuscan R-M269 I have spoken many times about and which name is now withhold: he is the intermediate haplotype between R1b1* and R-M269, and he comes from Tuscany, from where comes also the highest percentage of R-U152* (57,14%).

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:47:37 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 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 0.116 seconds with 18 queries.