World Families Forums - Ligurians

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 26, 2014, 01:13:40 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)
| | |-+  Ligurians
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Ligurians  (Read 3527 times)
RickA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« on: March 16, 2009, 10:01:08 PM »

I find the Ligurians fascinating and extremely elusive
....cross-posted from a dna-forums thread concerning L21 and U152.....

I think there are other possibilities, too, one of which involves the Ligurians or Ligures. Most will associate them with NW Italy and SE France. But, classical sources suggest they were once much more widespread, perhaps even covering most of Western Europe.

Henri Hubert, in his work on the Celts, presents his views on W. Europe prior to their spread. He has most of western Europe as Ligurian, with an additional Iberian element. For this he cites the classical authors:

(in regard to the Celts) "This is what the Greek writers tell us of their advance. We are given two dates which enable us to judge from the Greek point of view: one by the Hesiodic poems, and the other by the historian Ephoros who lived in the second half of the century before Christ. The former suppose that there is in the north-west of the world a great Ligurian region; the latter imagines a great Celtic region."
"At the time when the Hesiodic poems were written the Ligurians were one of the three great peoples which dwelt at the ends of the world known to the Greeks - Ethiopians, Ligyans, and mare-milking Scythians (per Strabo)." This line in the Catalogues must date from the beginning of the sixth century. A hundred years later the first Greek historian, Hecatus of Miletos, in his Europe talks of a Celtic part of this Liguria....What exactly was the extent of this Ligystic country? There is an old periplus...perhaps written by a Marseilles man and probably at the end of the sixth century, which, after having been refurbished several times, has come down to us through a Latin verse translation from the pen of one Rufus Festus Avienus...According to this account the Ligurians had once extended as far as the North Sea, but had been driven back to the Alps by the Celts.
(from pp 1-2, introduction, Hubert's Dover 2002 edition of "The Rise of the Celts)

There are numerous references to the Ligurians throughout Hubert's work. But, since it is a work on the Celts, the Ligurian references are not organized or coherent, but rather are used to frame the advance of the Celts. But, in reading the entire work it is clear that there is substantial evidence for a very widespread distribution of Ligurians throughout western Europe - In Iberia, Gaul, the British Isles, Alpine Europe, and of course Italy. These peoples seem to have been overwhelmed by the celts at just about the time Greek writers began to write about the world beyond Greece.

I have to wonder if they are the common thread between the Italic and Celtic (and perhaps Germanic) peoples. Obviously, we've previously discussed at length Stevo's assertion that R1 is a strong indicator of the carriers of Indoeuropean languages and culture. I think the evidence for this is substantial (while recognizing of course that any sizable population would undoubtedly be mixed). If Ligurian was in fact an Indoeuropean language (and my cursory review indicates this is likely so), then could much of western R1b be attributed to these peoples. As Guiseppe points out, L21 and U152 may show a similar central trend, but U152 is much more widespread. In fact, it does seem to show a high concentration in N Italy, precisely the one area that the once-widespread Ligurians seem to have persisted - a region of which still bears their name. Might U152, some of P312* and possibly even M167 (I know, everyone thinks it is Iberian, but check out its distribution some time) and U106 be remnants of the Ligurians, or a predecessor population?
Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2009, 12:37:56 AM »

In everything I've read about Ligurians I see no citing of them anywhere north of Southern Gaul.     What makes you think they were in Northern and Northwestern Europe?  The Greek authors didn't have much knowledge of Northern Europe.

The Bell Beakers seem like a culture that was more widespread across Western Europe and at an earlier time than the Celtic advances. 
Logged

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

Posts: 34


« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2009, 07:04:23 AM »

That's what I meant.  They are strictly associated with NW Italy and SE Gaul in the recent sources I can find.  As far as I can tell it is only Hubert who uses ancient sources to argue that essentially all of western Europe was Ligurian (or Iberian) territory prior to the Celts).  I mentioned his references to Hesiod and Strabo, which called the NW of Europe Ligurian territory, and listed them with the Ethiopians and Scythians as one of the three great peoples of the ends of the earth.  For the posting I couldn't find a couple of other references to quote, but Hubert also mentions ancient references to the Ligurians in the British Isles, prior to the invasion of the Celts.  He also mentions an ancient source naming tribes of the Alps - many were Ligurian and many were Celtic, but the distinction was made - they practiced similar customs, but were distinct peoples.  These are a couple of the best examples I recall from Hubert, but they permeate his book.  His topic was the Celts, so the Ligurian references occur only intermittently, and without organization.  They are there only to set the stage for the arrival of the Celts.  I haven't found a proper treatment of them anywhere.  So maybe Hubert is wrong.  But, it does seem the ancient sources he cites indicate a much larger W European Ligurian presence than just in NW Italy and SE Gaul.
Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2009, 08:55:40 AM »

Hello,

I would like to address this interesting question from a different perspective.
First of all, I do not agree with R1 being Indo-European, I can give loads of arguments but this is not the topic here, so just have a look at the non-Germanic branch of R1b1b2, namely the R1b1b2a1b (S116). This is the ancestor of two Basque (M65, M153), the Iberian-Atlantic (M167), the “British-Irish” (L21), and the Alpine-Celtic (U152) groups. S116 appeared around 2500 BC, surely in the “Franco-Cantabrian refuge area” or “Greater Basque-Land” if you like. Its spread is very likely to correspond to the migration of the Bell Beakers, who spread all over Western Europe in late 3rd-early 2nd millennium BC. L21 is calibrated around 2000 BC, the earliest of all subgroups; U152 and the two Basque lines appeared around 1500 BC, while the latest to emerge was Iberian M167 around 850 BC.
No lets have a look at the pre-IE language groups in Western Europe: we have the Basques, the Iberians, the Ligurians and the Picts, as well as Etruscans and Rhaetian who spoke a language related to Lemnian, Cretan and Cypriot. Etruscan and Rhaetian thus can not originate from Western Europe, they are more likely the language of the Neolithic settlers (Hg E-M78). If you look at the remaining four, they correspond very well to the subgroups of S116. M65 and M153 in the Basque-Gascon area spoke Basque/Vascon languages, M167 should have been the Iberian in modern Catalonia who spread also into the Southern part of the British Isles. L21 can be the last pre-Celtic inhabitant of the British Isles, Picts or anyhow you like to call them. U152 is quite a good applicant for Ligurians.
Now, around 1200 BC there were big migrations in Europe (see Bronze Age Collapse) and Indo-European arrived to the Carpathian Basin. In Western Pannonia, the Hallstatt culture started to emerge from 1200 BC, which is a widely accepted ancestor of Celts. I think a few metal-worker Indo-Europeans introduced iron-working or the local U152 inhabitants learnt it from IE people. Thus the Ligurian language mixing with IE neighbours (most likely Illyrians) produced the proto-Celtic language in the Alps region.
In the later Hallstatt and La Tene periods, the comparative advantage of iron weapons helped the Celtic expansion all over Europe. Thus my final point in the topic question is that U-152 is Celtic and L21 is not, L21 are the pre-Celtic but post-Neolithic inhabitants of Britain. The appearance of L21 on the continent can be explained through two different possibilities:
a)   remnants of early L21 population, who stayed in the continent after the majority was pushed north by Celts and Atlanto-Iberians
b)   result of later back-migration from Britain through population mixing in the Age of Migrations
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 #4 on: March 17, 2009, 09:46:44 AM »

... L21 is calibrated around 2000 BC, the earliest of all subgroups; U152 and the two Basque lines appeared around 1500 BC, while the latest to emerge was Iberian M167 around 850 BC.
... Thus my final point in the topic question is that U-152 is Celtic and L21 is not, L21 are the pre-Celtic but post-Neolithic inhabitants of Britain. The appearance of L21 on the continent can be explained through two different possibilities:
a)   remnants of early L21 population, who stayed in the continent after the majority was pushed north by Celts and Atlanto-Iberians
b)   result of later back-migration from Britain through population mixing in the Age of Migrations
You have an interesting perspective. Thank you.

I have plenty of questions, but let me start here.  You have fairly precise dating for the ages you cite, .i.e.  2000 BC for L21, 1500BC for U152, etc.  Where/how do you get your ages?    Most TMRCA calculations I've seen leave a wide enough confidence interval that the most you can say is the P312(S116) arose in Europe no earlier than the Neolith and quite possibly in the early Iron Age, and that L21 and U152 arose very quickly after it.

The second set of questions related to your definitive segregation of L21 and U152 as non-Celtic and Celtic.  If L21 and U152 are sub-clade "brothers" of P312(S116) and they arose at about the same time, I would speculate that their language and culture were not that much different, at least at their start.  We also find both in many of the same places, like the Rhine River Valley.   Where do you think L21 originated? U152 originated? P312 originated?

A third area I'd like to inquire into is the Bell Beakers.  You think they were non IE language speaking.   What information do you have that indicates they weren't?     Also, how do you think the Bell Beakers reached Norway?  Can you cite any archeological evidence?  I've been looking for that but can't find it.  There is a lot of L21 in Norway so if the Bell Beakers didn't get there, how did L21 get there?    On the other hand, I've read there was a Halstatt (Celtic) culture influence in Norway.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2009, 10:18:53 AM »

Dear Mike, I would reply here also on the Norwegian-L21 question.

The MRCA dates are from here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b

I absolutely agree with you that MRCA dating is very uncertain, but many times so is archeological dating. So if they seem to correspond to each other, it is worth thinking about it. Of course we can never be sure about all these things...
So if P312 is really 4500 ys old, 2500 BC goes well for Bell-Beaker expansion.

The most important basis for my arguement is that R1 is not IE. If that is true, J2 is IE. Many archeological arguements were done with a prejudice that Kurgan Hypothesis is valid. For Bell Beaker origin, there are two contesting views: N Portugal/Spain or Central Europe (Hungary probably). Now if Kurgan is not valid, genetic findings point on exactly the N Spain/S France area.

L21 and U152 are really brother clades, as are their brothers M65, M153 and M167 as well. Now, if all these were Celtic it would be quite hard to explain the existence of Iberian, Basque and Pictish languages, which correspond well with these subgroups. And IE languages came from the East definitely (even if I think from Anatolia through Balkans and not from the Steppe). So U-152 was also not Celtic when it appeared (but presumably Liguric). Liguric and Iberian are connected by some linguists. L21 is the oldest of the brother clades, therefore I suppose they were those Beaker migrants to Britain who conquered the Neolithic (E-M78) people there. It is quite interesting that in one Welsh town, 33% of the population turned out to be E-M78... So L21-Beakers conquered Britain and Ireland, but were later pushed north-westwards by incoming Celtized U-152. U-152 presumably get an Illyrian influence as "superstratum". Some basic words are very similar in Albanian and Celtic, for example dru = dru (=tree) (if someone has time it would be quite interesting to do a research on this issue).
As now Celtic U-152 spread through Western Europe, the brothers of U-152 already living there adopted the Celtic language easily, as the "substratum" was quite similar. The culture of all P-312 peoples could have been also quite close, that is why historians can hardly differentiate between Ligurians and Celts, Iberians and Celts (or Celt-Iberians), and some say Picts were a branch of Celts etc.

Now finally on Norwegian L-21
L21 is very common in Ireland and Scotland, which was the primary settlement and raiding area of the Vikings. They could have take back slaves with them or just some intermixing occured - rich L21 men took a Viking raider's daughter and they moved bach to Norway. I dont know L21 prevalence in Sweden and Denmark, if there is much less L21 than in Norway that would mean my point can be correct.

Feel free to challenge my ideas
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)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2009, 12:28:44 PM »

Jafety -

I don't see any real evidence for anything you have to say. It is likely the original Basques were not even predominantly R1b1b2, and the same may be true of the Iberians.

Celtic languages and culture got into the British Isles somehow, and it seems most unlikely they were introduced by "conquering U152s" (which seems to be the point, goal and agenda of all you have written - to glorify your own subclade at others' expense).

Your posts are rather long, which makes answering them point-by-point rather tedious. It also makes reading them - especially since they all thus far seem to say the same thing - a laborious undertaking.

At the big FTDNA conference in Houston Dr. Hammer produced pie charts of the frequency of L21 in various European countries. The pie chart for Norway had L21 at 50%. R1b1b2 is about 30% of Norwegian y dna. If L21+ is half of that, then about 15% of ALL Norwegian men are L21+.

Such a frequency could not have been achieved by the introduction of British thralls as recently as the Viking Period.

I would also suggest you think twice before telling other people their ancestors were lowly slaves, especially since you are merely engaging in baseless speculation.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 12:33:05 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2009, 01:16:40 PM »

This web site is behind.  It lists "R1b-L21 => 4,000 years ago (in the British Isles)"     R-L21 is spread down the Rhine River/Western Germany and also into Norway.   Can anyone identify a large enough historical migration or large archeological migration that originated in the British Isles and expanded into Norway and into Continental Europe?    I don't there is anything that could justify the numbers of R-L21 there.   It must have come out of Continental Europe, not into it.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2009, 01:18:38 PM »

... The most important basis for my arguement is that R1 is not IE. If that is true, J2 is IE. ....
You lost me on this point, which you believe is critical.   If R1 is Indo-European based, why does that mandate that J2 is Indo-European based as well?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2009, 04:45:20 PM »

This web site is behind.  It lists "R1b-L21 => 4,000 years ago (in the British Isles)"     R-L21 is spread down the Rhine River/Western Germany and also into Norway.   Can anyone identify a large enough historical migration or large archeological migration that originated in the British Isles and expanded into Norway and into Continental Europe?    I don't there is anything that could justify the numbers of R-L21 there.   It must have come out of Continental Europe, not into it.

The Eupedia site is untrustworthy and basically a load of you-know-what.
Logged

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2009, 07:50:13 PM »

Jafety R1b U152

I’m certain you will concede that you are not an R-U152 expert in only one weeks time. May I suggest you look at my R-U152 pages. The link is provided below: 

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nolenancestry/page12.html

Thanks,

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

Posts: 82


« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2009, 04:27:49 AM »

... The most important basis for my arguement is that R1 is not IE. If that is true, J2 is IE. ....
You lost me on this point, which you believe is critical.   If R1 is Indo-European based, why does that mandate that J2 is Indo-European based as well?

Read it again please! I said R1 is NOT IE. It would be very long to explain why J2 is IE, and this is an R1b1b2 forum. If you are interested I can send in personal e-mail.

Dear Glenn (if I may) thanks for the page, I will read it.
Let me express again: all this theory of mine was already existing when I got my result. Basically I expected R1a, as I look a bit Asian (some say Korean - I know phentype has nothing to do with Y-DNA, but R1a is quite frequent in Hungary)...
Therefore my theory on U-152 spread with Celts is not of a "myth-building for my ancestors". You could not think I build up the whole theory in 3 days time... I hope its more coherent than that...
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)
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2009, 08:27:31 AM »

At the big FTDNA conference in Houston Dr. Hammer produced pie charts of the frequency of L21 in various European countries. The pie chart for Norway had L21 at 50%. R1b1b2 is about 30% of Norwegian y dna. If L21+ is half of that, then about 15% of ALL Norwegian men are L21+.
Such a frequency could not have been achieved by the introduction of British thralls as recently as the Viking Period.

15% of all Norwegians could not happen only through admixture in historical times. I am sorry that I used the rather non-appropriate "slave" word. What I really meant is that Norwegians settled in an traded with areas where L21 is very frequent. Admixture thus can easily happen through intermarriage or anything.
But that is not 15%. So, my point is:
Facts:
1. Beaker culture mixed with Corded in Northern Germany
2. Corded culture extended northwards to Southern Scandinavia, including Norway
Theory:
If we accept that P312 and its subgroups carried Beaker culture then
1. L21 was the northern branch of P312, reaching the British Isles and Northern Germany (I never said L21 should originate in Britain, the Rhine area is absolutely logical)
2. Then L21 mixed with Cordeds (R1a) there
3. L21 people then migrated northwards together with R1a, conquering the native Hg I1 Mesolithic fisher people there.
4. The result was the Nordic Bronze Age culture (pre-German)
5. In the early Iron Age IE speakers arrived from the south (new wave of Indo-Europeanized R1a or/and R1b-U106) and mixed with the Nordic Bronze Age people resulting in Proto-Germanic language and Pre-Roman Iron Age culture

I also want to point out that Norwegian L21 can not be explained through the L21 = Celts theory.
I also do not have any interest in U-152 being Celt, as I do not live in the British Isles where it can be a question of pride or politics.

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 #13 on: March 18, 2009, 08:56:44 AM »

... The most important basis for my arguement is that R1 is not IE. If that is true, J2 is IE. ....
You lost me on this point, which you believe is critical.   If R1 is Indo-European based, why does that mandate that J2 is Indo-European based as well?
Read it again please! I said R1 is NOT IE. It would be very long to explain why J2 is IE, and this is an R1b1b2 forum. If you are interested I can send in personal e-mail.
.....
Okay, I got it.  You really mean R1 not R1b1b2.

However, please explain why that is the most important point of your argument.  Are you saying that R1 must be IE speaking for its descendants, like R1b1b2 and R1a to have originally been IE speaking?  What does that have to do with J2, unless you are saying J2 originated IE instead?  I'm still lost on your logic.   There are a lot of J2 folks that had long time Semitic speaking backgrounds.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2009, 10:39:32 AM »

When I wrote R1 is not IE of course I meant that no R lineage is IE... So R1a and R1b1b2 also not...

Semitic peoples have J1 and not J2 background.
I have written a (not published) article on the J2 issue, but it is too long to paste here. If you give an e-mail, I can send it to you (or anyone interested).

The "basic importance" of J2 = IE comes from the following:
1. If J2 is proto-IE then R1b and R1a is not.
2. The Kurgan hypothesis is not valid, R1a steppe nomads did not carry the IE language.

Now, R1b came from Anatolia to Europe, before the Neolithic, which was carried by E-M78. J2 came with the Metal Age from Anatolia to the Balkans and Iran. They spread quickly with the introduction of iron, especially those peoples who were on the fringes of the IE area: Thus Celts and Italians originated from Illyrians, Balto-Slavic peoples from Thracians/Cimmerians migrating northwards, and the Indo-Aryan is also valid, but from Northeast Iran and not Central Asia (J2-R1a mix with IE language). This can sound quite new and chaotic, but it is written down logically on 3 pages-lenght.

Result on R1b:
Beaker culture's origin was put in the east to come in line with the Kurgan theory. If we put that aside, an Iberian origin has the same likelyness. Now we arrived at the point where I started to write the story of Bell-Beaker P-312.
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)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2009, 07:24:10 PM »

My own opinion, which I have discussed and debated ad nauseam elsewhere, is that R1b1b2 and its offshoots represent the centum or western branch of Indo-European, while R1a1 represents the satem or eastern branch.

Jafety is making a number of assumptions that are not altogether warranted and one of the most obvious is that R1a spread centum IE languages to Europe as well as satem IE languages.

In addition, we do not know that the Iberian languages were non-IE. Basque is, yes, but it is not one of the Iberian languages. It is also fairly certain that Ligurian was an IE language, and there were probably other IE languages in Iberia that are now long extinct.

Man, I was really hoping we wouldn't have to re-do the same old tiresome arguments here that we have done elsewhere.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2009, 08:10:55 PM »



Man, I was really hoping we wouldn't have to re-do the same old tiresome arguments here that we have done elsewhere.
Deja vu all over again.
Logged
Pendragon1962
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2009, 11:37:33 PM »



Man, I was really hoping we wouldn't have to re-do the same old tiresome arguments here that we have done elsewhere.

Ya'll make me laugh, just write your thoughts and have fun, Mercy !
isn't that what this forum is for ?
Nobody's right in my mind on this stuff.
Me, I believe R-L21+ were the Neolithic people that built the stone circles and mounds, and have been in Great Britain for thousands of years.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21+
Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2009, 03:45:48 AM »

My own opinion, which I have discussed and debated ad nauseam elsewhere, is that R1b1b2 and its offshoots represent the centum or western branch of Indo-European, while R1a1 represents the satem or eastern branch.

Man, I was really hoping we wouldn't have to re-do the same old tiresome arguments here that we have done elsewhere.

Sorry that I was not here that time, probably I would have had some good points in favour of J2...
Can you please give the link of the debate? I would read it through and bring up my ideas only if I can say something new. Thanks.
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)
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2009, 06:15:22 PM »

Search: 

GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENEALOGY-DNA

dna-forums.org

http://dna-forums.org/
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2009, 06:22:30 PM »

"Ya'll make me laugh, just write your thoughts and have fun, Mercy !
isn't that what this forum is for?"

Genetics is not an entertainment industry. It is the discussion of reality and not a laughing matter!
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2009, 11:21:16 AM »



Man, I was really hoping we wouldn't have to re-do the same old tiresome arguments here that we have done elsewhere.

Ya'll make me laugh, just write your thoughts and have fun, Mercy !
isn't that what this forum is for ?
Nobody's right in my mind on this stuff.
Me, I believe R-L21+ were the Neolithic people that built the stone circles and mounds, and have been in Great Britain for thousands of ye
ars.

Well, no they weren't. Those Neolithic folks were of a different physical type than the Beaker folk who began to enter Britain in the 3rd millennium BC, and apparently L21 isn't old enough to date back to the Neolithic Period.

The Neolithic inhabitants of Britain buried their dead in long barrows, had long (dolichocephalic) skulls, were physically smaller than the Beaker folk, and left different artifacts behind them.

The Beaker folk buried their dead on their sides with their knees flexed and in round barrows. They had round (brachycephalic) skulls, were fairly tall, and their skeletons are accompanied by an easily identifiable and characteristic set of artifacts that distinguish them from the Neolithic inhabitants.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2009, 11:26:35 AM »

In everything I've read about Ligurians I see no citing of them anywhere north of Southern Gaul.     What makes you think they were in Northern and Northwestern Europe?  The Greek authors didn't have much knowledge of Northern Europe.

The Bell Beakers seem like a culture that was more widespread across Western Europe and at an earlier time than the Celtic advances. 


There was an ancient writer who reported that the Ligurians were driven out of Britain by the Celts and went to southern France and (if I recall correctly) northern Italy. I'll have to look up the reference when I get home. It's in David Rankin's book, The Celts and the Classical World, but I cannot remember the exact reference.

Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2009, 04:40:47 PM »

In everything I've read about Ligurians I see no citing of them anywhere north of Southern Gaul.     What makes you think they were in Northern and Northwestern Europe?  The Greek authors didn't have much knowledge of Northern Europe.
The Bell Beakers seem like a culture that was more widespread across Western Europe and at an earlier time than the Celtic advances. 
There was an ancient writer who reported that the Ligurians were driven out of Britain by the Celts and went to southern France and (if I recall correctly) northern Italy. I'll have to look up the reference when I get home. It's in David Rankin's book, The Celts and the Classical World, but I cannot remember the exact reference.
From what I see we don't know much about the Ligurians.  We don't know whether there were an IE speak or not.  Their territory may have reached north into Europe or may not have.
Quote from: Wikipedia
It is not known for certain whether they were a pre-Indo-European people akin to Iberians; a separate Indo-European branch with Italic and Celtic affinities; or even a branch of the Celts or Italics. Kinship between the Ligures and Lepontii has also been proposed.
 
Quote from: Wikipedia
according to Hesiod's Catalogues (early 6th century BC) they were one of the three main "barbarian" peoples ruling over the Western border of the known world (the others being Aethiopians and Scythians). Avienus, in a translation of a voyage account probably from Marseille (4th century BC) speaks of the Ligurian hegemony extending up to the North Sea, before they were pushed back by the Celts.
The puzzling thing to me though is these early classical authors who wrote about Ligurians don't see to mention the Celtics.  The Hallstatt Culture was clearly Celtic or Proto-Celtic in 8th thru 6th centuries BC.   How were the Hallstatt peoples overlooked as they were significant?
 
I'm not so sure that the people these early Greek authors called Ligurians were not just remnants of Bell Beaker or descendant cultures, which to me means they were Pre-Celtic if not Proto-Celtic.... IE peoples of some sort.

What if the Ligurians were just early Celtic tribes A1, A2 and A3 that were later rolled through by Celtic tribes B1, B2 and C1?   Maybe the Ligurians were the Celtics that were driven into Iberian to merge with the Iberians.   The Q-Celtic seems to have emanated first and furthest, before P-Celtic Gauls and Brits expanded.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pendragon1962
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2009, 09:48:26 PM »

"Ya'll make me laugh, just write your thoughts and have fun, Mercy !
isn't that what this forum is for?"

Genetics is not an entertainment industry. It is the discussion of reality and not a laughing matter!

Oh !, Well forgive me !!!
I didn't mean Genetics, I was talking about the way you all are talking to each other.
Mercy !!
Sound more like kids than adults !
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21+
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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

Page created in 0.116 seconds with 19 queries.