PDA

View Full Version : P312 and the Ancient Celts



rms2
07-28-2014, 02:13 PM
I believe there is a pretty obvious connection between R1b-P312 of various clades and the ancient Celts. That is not to say that all the males who ever spoke a Celtic language or who participated in the Celtic cultural milieu were P312+ or that all men who were P312+ were Celts. Obviously, there were exceptions, there was overlap at the borders, and there were Celtic men who belonged to y haplogroups other than P312. Just the same, it seems self evident to me that the Celts were predominantly P312+.

Here are a few maps that make that point pretty plain.

2139

2140

2141

2142

Please note that differences in frequency shading of the various maps above.

It seems to me that no single subclade of P312 can account for the entirety of the Celts, but the distribution of P312 as a whole has a pretty remarkable correspondence to that of the ancient Celts.

R.Rocca
07-28-2014, 03:49 PM
I believe there is a pretty obvious connection between R1b-P312 of various clades and the ancient Celts. That is not to say that all the males who ever spoke a Celtic language or who participated in the Celtic cultural milieu were P312+ or that all men who were P312+ were Celts. Obviously, there were exceptions, there was overlap at the borders, and there were Celtic men who belonged to y haplogroups other than P312. Just the same, it seems self evident to me that the Celts were predominantly P312+.

Here are a few maps that make that point pretty plain.

2139

2140

2141

2142

Please note that differences in frequency shading of the various maps above.

It seems to me that no single subclade of P312 can account for the entirety of the Celts, but the distribution of P312 as a whole has a pretty remarkable correspondence to that of the ancient Celts.

I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I'll throw caution to the wind and go one step further...the correlation between L21, either continental or Isles, and Celtic is an almost certainty. With other subclades of P312, it may be that only certain branches (e.g. U152+L2+Z49+ and U152+L2+Z367+) were overwhelmingly "Gaulish" by the time the Romans started writing about them. After that, it gets kind of hazy (e.g. DF19 = Belgae?, Belgae = hybrid Celto-Germanic?).

Dubhthach
07-28-2014, 04:20 PM
I'd go more for "Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic" if such a thing exists. I think at that level you probably looking at various dialects of western "Proto-Indo-European" that would eventually give rise to a number of IE families such as Italic and Celtic.

People have argued about a proposed "Italo-Celtic" stage, I think the jury still out on that, but you could argue for linguistic boundary been formed due to geographic spilt. With certain features arising in geographically dispered dialects and then spreading to neighbouring ones.

Eventually you would have had a dialect chain going from say "Early Proto-Celtic" to "Early Proto-Italic" with intermediate forms in between, for example some have said Ligurian could be such a form (I don't know myself so I'm not gonna give an opinion)

-Paul

razyn
07-28-2014, 04:57 PM
I think it's easier to associate Y-DNA with certain elements of archaeological-horizon type evidence than with language. Children typically learn language more from their mothers than fathers, and some of what you see reflected (a few thousand years after the fact) on Maciamo's maps of haplogroup distribution probably sprang from largely male groups on the move. It's kind of interesting that pictures of these phenomena look kind of alike, but there are probably other phenomena that would share that, w/o touching off anybody's Celtic warrior gene or whatever.

dp
07-28-2014, 05:09 PM
Razyn,
if you're dealing with basic words, like body parts, words dealing with "home and hearth", like family I'll agree that they will be passed down with little change for hundred of years and thousands of miles.

David Powell
dp :-)

GoldenHind
07-28-2014, 05:25 PM
I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I'll throw caution to the wind and go one step further...the correlation between L21, either continental or Isles, and Celtic is an almost certainty. With other subclades of P312, it may be that only certain branches (e.g. U152+L2+Z49+ and U152+L2+Z367+) were overwhelmingly "Gaulish" by the time the Romans started writing about them. After that, it gets kind of hazy (e.g. DF19 = Belgae?, Belgae = hybrid Celto-Germanic?).

It would be interesting to look at a map of DF19 distribution to compare it to the maps above. There are probably enough DF19 identified now that we should have a pretty good idea of its distribution. Unfortunately I don't think one exists. The FTDNA SNP map for DF19 is divided into several different subclades, and they would have to be combined into a single map.

EDIT: After poking around a bit, I found a combined DF19 map on the semargl website. Though it is in a different format than the other maps above, I think it gives a pretty good idea on the distribution of the subclade. Perhaps someone can post it here.

Dubhthach
07-28-2014, 07:34 PM
It would be interesting to look at a map of DF19 distribution to compare it to the maps above. There are probably enough DF19 identified now that we should have a pretty good idea of its distribution. Unfortunately I don't think one exists. The FTDNA SNP map for DF19 is divided into several different subclades, and they would have to be combined into a single map.

EDIT: After poking around a bit, I found a combined DF19 map on the semargl website. Though it is in a different format than the other maps above, I think it gives a pretty good idea on the distribution of the subclade. Perhaps someone can post it here.

Here you go:
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/df19-semargl.png

Piechart of distrubition,
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/df19-pie-semargl.png

48.7% with UK origin in that sample. It would be very interesting to see Busby's P312 (xL21, xU152) retested for DF19, L238, DF99 and DF27, if I recall there was also a chunk of L11* in England what's the odds that a good chunk of this is DF100.

rms2
07-29-2014, 03:09 PM
I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I'll throw caution to the wind and go one step further...the correlation between L21, either continental or Isles, and Celtic is an almost certainty. With other subclades of P312, it may be that only certain branches (e.g. U152+L2+Z49+ and U152+L2+Z367+) were overwhelmingly "Gaulish" by the time the Romans started writing about them. After that, it gets kind of hazy (e.g. DF19 = Belgae?, Belgae = hybrid Celto-Germanic?).

I agree with that. That is what I meant by exceptions. DF19 is a good one to bring up, and DF99 might be another, although I think the jury is still out on both of them. L238 probably never was Celtic, although it could descend from P312 Beaker immigrants to Scandinavia who at one time did speak an early form of Celtic or some kind of undifferentiated Italo-Celtic.

Italo-Celtic might be a better description for the origin of U152, since it certainly has a strong apparently Italic correlation. No doubt many predominantly U152 tribes in Central Europe became Germanic-speaking fairly early, too.

It is also important to remember that Germany and much of Central Europe were inhabited by Celtic tribes at one time, before the advance of the Germans and Slavs later on.

rossa
07-31-2014, 07:43 PM
In JP Mallory's book about Ireland he reckoned that the VSO structure ofceltic languages may be down to an Afro-Asiatic substrate; could this indicate the celtic wave/invasion wasn't very large?

rms2
08-01-2014, 12:27 PM
In JP Mallory's book about Ireland he reckoned that the VSO structure ofceltic languages may be down to an Afro-Asiatic substrate; could this indicate the celtic wave/invasion wasn't very large?

It was probably male vectored. I think the Beaker Folk were responsible originally. From what I have seen, Beaker males traveled widely and took their women where they found them. Elite status probably led to the eventual spread and domination of their y-dna in the Isles.

Mark D
08-01-2014, 03:02 PM
There are some excellent Celtic Studies Publications available on some of the subject matter touched on above. A good source is the Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies at the University of Wales: http://www.wales.ac.uk/en/CentreforAdvancedWelshCelticStudies/IntroductiontotheCentre.aspx.

I'd also recommend some of the books by Barry Cunliffe at Oxford, and John T. Koch, associated with the Centre, "Celtic from the West" and by Koch, "Tartessian, Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History".

Someday soon the genetics will match the archeology and linguistics.

rms2
08-01-2014, 05:09 PM
. . .

Someday soon the genetics will match the archeology and linguistics.

I wonder if the reverse isn't what is needed.

I have Koch's An Atlas for Celtic Studies (http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Celtic-Studies-Archaeology-Publications/dp/184217309X#).

Great book. I wonder now if I could sell mine for enough to pay for a Big Y test. I see there are two used ones on Amazon for just over $3,000! :faint:

dp
08-01-2014, 06:12 PM
Geneticist Peter Forster (& Alfred Toth) applied genetic analysis techniques to both Insular and Continental Celtic languages in a paper "Toward a phlyogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic and Indo-European" in 2003. In studying his work on Native-American mitochondrial DNA I was used to his use of FLUXUS engineering's NETWORK package to generate median-joining charts. His team analyzed both modern and preserved remnants of archaic European languages to determine how lexeme's --basic unit of meaning-- in the various languages changed, ie. mutated. Using a calibration of 1 lexeme mutation in 1350 years, they calculated the divergence of Old Irish, Welsh and Gaulish; Old Irish - 5 lexemes (6750 ybp), Welsh - 3 lexemes (4050 ybp), Gaulish - 3.6 lexemes (4860 ybp). Based on this language analysis they wrote, "The date of 3200 BC +/- 1500 years would represent an oldest feasible estimated for the arrival of Celts in the British Isles."
To put this some perspective, the root common to Latin, Greek and English was calculated to be 4 lexemes (or 5400 years) away from that of Old Irish, Welsh and Gaulish. They wrote, "a date for Indo-European fragmentation in Europe at 8100 BC +/- 1900 years."
If I used it properly, Mark Jost's STR coalescence calculator generated that the L21 & DF13 haplogroups arose about 3550 +/- 1060 ybp, or approximately the same time that Gaulish and Welsh diverged.
Comments:
I didn't know that the Irish and Welsh languages could be thousands of years apart from their root.
The genetic divergence between Irish and Welsh peoples could be far more ancient than that emergence of the L21 haplogroup.
R-P312?
dp :-)

Jean M
08-01-2014, 07:39 PM
Geneticist Peter Forster (& Alfred Toth) applied genetic analysis techniques to both Insular and Continental Celtic languages in a paper "Toward a phlyogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic and Indo-European" in 2003.

Forster and Toth's paper, and a number of others of the same ilk, have been severely criticised by linguists. If you dig around on this forum, you could probably find rebuttals of them somewhere. If not, you could read Eska and Ringe on Forster and Toth: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001495.html


The article starts by listing "a number of recent attempts by nonlinguists to reconstruct linguistic evolutionary trees," including Rexová et al. 2003, Gray & Atkinson 2003, and Forster & Toth 2003, and asserting that "[s]cientific linguists have not been impressed for a variety of reasons". Eska and Ringe write that

Though no two of the publications in question exhibit exactly the same weaknesses, all can be impugned on one or more of the following grounds: the linguistic data employed have not been adequately analyzed, or—in some cases—even competently analyzed; the model of language change employed has not been shown to fit the known facts of language change; attempts to fix the dates of prehistoric languages have ignored the fatal shortcomings of glottochronology discovered by Bergsland and Vogt (1962...); the researchers assume that vocabulary replacement is governed by a LEXICAL CLOCK (similar to the controversial MOLECULAR CLOCK posited by some biological cladists); and/or the data set used is too small to yield statistically reliable conclusions.

A thoroughgoing critique of all recently published work in this vein would be unwieldy and would require far more space than a discussion note permits. Instead, we focus on the article that best exemplifies the shortcomings listed above, namely the work of Forster and Toth.

dp
08-01-2014, 07:48 PM
Forster and Toth's paper, and a number of others of the same ilk, have been severely criticised by linguists. If you dig around on this forum, you could probably find rebuttals of them somewhere. If not, you could read Eska and Ringe on Forster and Toth: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001495.html
Thanks,
it was an old paper so I was curious what was the current thinking.
dp :-)

Jean M
08-01-2014, 08:09 PM
I was curious what was the current thinking.

The tree below is based on the work of Don Ringe and colleagues. http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/

Click to enlarge. Dates on right. Arrow points are positioned at the time at which we have the first attestation of the named language. Forks estimate separation points etc.

2189

vettor
08-01-2014, 08:43 PM
The tree below is based on the work of Don Ringe and colleagues. http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/

Click to enlarge. Dates on right. Arrow points are positioned at the time at which we have the first attestation of the named language. Forks estimate separation points etc.

2189

your link shows latin as older than umbrian and oscar...........didn't the greeks in Italy already note the umbrian and oscan languages before the Roman Latin emerged?

Jean M
08-01-2014, 08:50 PM
your link shows latin as older than umbrian and oscar...........didn't the greeks in Italy already note the umbrian and oscan languages before the Roman Latin emerged?

I have no idea, but when I say "the first attestation of the named language" I mean writing in the language itself, not other people mentioning it (or the people speaking it).

rms2
08-03-2014, 01:58 PM
Since this thread has fizzled a bit, I think I will try to reinvigorate it by introducing a bit of novelty and perhaps controversy.

Maciamo Hay of Eupedia connects red hair in Europe to the Celts and to y haplogroup R1b: The Genetic Causes, Ethnic Origins and History of Red Hair (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml).

I'm not endorsing his viewpoint, but I do think it is interesting. What do you think?

Here is the red hair carrier map I got from BritainsDNA as part of my Redhead Test results.

2202

Gray Fox
08-05-2014, 08:24 AM
Since this thread has fizzled a bit, I think I will try to reinvigorate it by introducing a bit of novelty and perhaps controversy.

Maciamo Hay of Eupedia connects red hair in Europe to the Celts and to y haplogroup R1b: The Genetic Causes, Ethnic Origins and History of Red Hair (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml).

I'm not endorsing his viewpoint, but I do think it is interesting. What do you think?

Here is the red hair carrier map I got from BritainsDNA as part of my Redhead Test results.

2202

Interesting. Though I'm like you, I'm not entirely convinced. And I don't think that's his intent anyway. I do respect his responsible approach in saying that this isn't the written gospel. I do more or less agree with one part of his hypothesis though..

"The earliest migration of R1b to Western Europe must have happened with the diffusion of the Bronze Age to France, Belgium, Britain and Ireland around 2100 BCE - a migration best associated with the R1b-L21 subclade. A second migration took place around 1800 BCE to Southwest France and Iberia, and is associated with R1b-Z196. These two branches are usually considered as Celtic, but was probably more distinct than the later continental Celtic were from Italic languages, due to its earlier split. The Northwest Celtic branch could have been ancestral to Goidelic languages (Gaelic), and the south-western one to Celtiberian."

I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. L21 and DF27 were definitely travel partners and as I've famously said before, are like two sides of the same coin.

alan
08-22-2014, 10:50 PM
Am just posting this here as the thread on Picts which meandered into origins of the Celts was closed when I was composing it:


Vettor - you are wrongly attributing motives to Jean. Yes there are a few nationalistic people who desperately want to move the Celts back to the early farmers in places like Ireland but not even they would say the Celts originated there. The concept that some form of western IE or proto-Celto-Italic spread with the beaker phase is not one only held by nationalistic people though. Its been favoured since it was realised that Celtic could simply not have started to spread as late as the La Tene period or even the Hallstatt C/D periods.

Personally I believe the beakers involved some sort of west IE not yet split into distinct languages like Celtic. I believe that Celtic some time later formed through elite interaction among a subset of the latter located in a position centred on northern France rather than major migration. I think if you subtract the places where Celtic may have been a later intruder or not the earliest language or zones of multiple languages (places like Lusitanian Atlantic Iberia, Ligurian southern France, areas with a lack of Celtic placenames east of the Rhine, borderline Celtic-Germanic areas around the Rhine, areas with mixed populations in central Europe etc, non-IE speaking areas) then that only leaves France from the Alps and Garrone northward as an essentially purely Celtic speaking area. Now, noone can say if that had always been the case but that is the picture in the earliest records. The notion that the Celtic spread into France from Germany is simply a notion of Hubert's based on very poor hydrogeny/river name evidence and misinterpretation of a few classical sources. Placename and classical reference evidence for Celts west of the Rhine is poor and confined to a narrow band in south Germany. The long narrow tail of Celts from the Rhine to SE Europe appears to me to correspond with a late movement from France in the La Tene era that is recorded in classical sources rather than to ancient origin.

George Chandler
08-22-2014, 11:00 PM
Am just posting this here as the thread on Picts which meandered into origins of the Celts was closed when I was composing it:


Vettor - you are wrongly attributing motives to Jean. Yes there are a few nationalistic people who desperately want to move the Celts back to the early farmers in places like Ireland but not even they would say the Celts originated there. The concept that some form of western IE or proto-Celto-Italic spread with the beaker phase is not one only held by nationalistic people though. Its been favoured since it was realised that Celtic could simply not have started to spread as late as the La Tene period or even the Hallstatt C/D periods.

Personally I believe the beakers involved some sort of west IE not yet split into distinct languages like Celtic. I believe that Celtic some time later formed through elite interaction among a subset of the latter located in a position centred on northern France rather than major migration. I think if you subtract the places where Celtic may have been a later intruder or not the earliest language or zones of multiple languages (places like Lusitanian Atlantic Iberia, Ligurian southern France, areas with a lack of Celtic placenames east of the Rhine, borderline Celtic-Germanic areas around the Rhine, areas with mixed populations in central Europe etc, non-IE speaking areas) then that only leaves France from the Alps and Garrone northward as an essentially purely Celtic speaking area. Now, noone can say if that had always been the case but that is the picture in the earliest records. The notion that the Celtic spread into France from Germany is simply a notion of Hubert's based on very poor hydrogeny/river name evidence and misinterpretation of a few classical sources. Placename and classical reference evidence for Celts west of the Rhine is poor and confined to a narrow band in south Germany. The long narrow tail of Celts from the Rhine to SE Europe appears to me to correspond with a late movement from France in the La Tene era that is recorded in classical sources rather than to ancient origin.

There is a big difference between the early arrival of Beaker People (who later joined with the Celts) and suggesting that Celts having originated in the Isles.

George

alan
08-22-2014, 11:00 PM
Any genetic correlation with y DNA and Celtic or Celto-Italic requires all three of the main branches of P312 - otherwise it fails. P312 is the only possible common genetic thread between all the speakers of Celto-Italic. Perhaps it was also involved in Germanic - after all Germanic is an odd mix perhaps of western and eastern IE components. P312 could even relate to a general spread of west IE languages as again it is the only possible YDNA common thread among all the west IE languages.


Interesting. Though I'm like you, I'm not entirely convinced. And I don't think that's his intent anyway. I do respect his responsible approach in saying that this isn't the written gospel. I do more or less agree with one part of his hypothesis though..

"The earliest migration of R1b to Western Europe must have happened with the diffusion of the Bronze Age to France, Belgium, Britain and Ireland around 2100 BCE - a migration best associated with the R1b-L21 subclade. A second migration took place around 1800 BCE to Southwest France and Iberia, and is associated with R1b-Z196. These two branches are usually considered as Celtic, but was probably more distinct than the later continental Celtic were from Italic languages, due to its earlier split. The Northwest Celtic branch could have been ancestral to Goidelic languages (Gaelic), and the south-western one to Celtiberian."

I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. L21 and DF27 were definitely travel partners and as I've famously said before, are like two sides of the same coin.

Agamemnon
08-22-2014, 11:22 PM
It seems to me that the spread of Celtic is about as problematic as the spread of Berber.
By this I mean that any reconstruction of the actual Proto-Celtic language will point towards the early Iron Age at best... Hardly the time frame we're looking for if we are to ascribe the spread of Celtic to the Bell Beaker horizon.

We have the exact same problem with Berber: Proto-Berber contains Neo-Punic and Latin loanwords which suggest a date of ~100-200 CE prior to diversification.
Yet given the remote nature of Proto-Berber's Afroasiatic roots, we're pretty sure that it split from its parent Afroasiatic branch (Boreafrasian) a long time ago (Semitic being its closest relative, it must've split at least 6500 years BP).
In fact, this situation is even more puzzling if we consider the fact that most Berber "languages" retain a high degree of mutual intelligibility (in a sense, they're dialects of a single Berber language).

I could say pretty much the same thing for Celtic (although not as extreme in terms of dating and mutual intelligibility), it is an important branch of IE just like Berber is an important branch of AA and also diversified quite late.

In both cases, I strongly suspect a language levelling process took place... In fact, I'd go as far as to claim that what we've been suspecting with Berber (the existence of para-Berber languages prior to the language levelling process) can already be observed with Italo-Celtic:
Since Italo-Celtic looks like the best fit for the BB horizon, it is rather tempting to picture the emergence of para-Italo-Celtic or Para-Celtic languages throughout Western Europe which would eventually ease the language levelling process' spread later on (I think Koch & Cunliffe might be onto something with their model associating the spread of Celtic with Urnfield induced elements within the Atlantic Bronze Age).
This model certainly provides an interesting explanation for the occurrence of Ligurian & Lusitanian, which could possibly be para-Italo-Celtic leftovers reflecting an earlier linguistic landscape.

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:30 PM
Am just posting this here as the thread on Picts which meandered into origins of the Celts was closed when I was composing it:


Vettor - you are wrongly attributing motives to Jean. Yes there are a few nationalistic people who desperately want to move the Celts back to the early farmers in places like Ireland but not even they would say the Celts originated there. The concept that some form of western IE or proto-Celto-Italic spread with the beaker phase is not one only held by nationalistic people though. Its been favoured since it was realised that Celtic could simply not have started to spread as late as the La Tene period or even the Hallstatt C/D periods.

Personally I believe the beakers involved some sort of west IE not yet split into distinct languages like Celtic. I believe that Celtic some time later formed through elite interaction among a subset of the latter located in a position centred on northern France rather than major migration. I think if you subtract the places where Celtic may have been a later intruder or not the earliest language or zones of multiple languages (places like Lusitanian Atlantic Iberia, Ligurian southern France, areas with a lack of Celtic placenames east of the Rhine, borderline Celtic-Germanic areas around the Rhine, areas with mixed populations in central Europe etc, non-IE speaking areas) then that only leaves France from the Alps and Garrone northward as an essentially purely Celtic speaking area. Now, noone can say if that had always been the case but that is the picture in the earliest records. The notion that the Celtic spread into France from Germany is simply a notion of Hubert's based on very poor hydrogeny/river name evidence and misinterpretation of a few classical sources. Placename and classical reference evidence for Celts west of the Rhine is poor and confined to a narrow band in south Germany. The long narrow tail of Celts from the Rhine to SE Europe appears to me to correspond with a late movement from France in the La Tene era that is recorded in classical sources rather than to ancient origin.


I did not say this - I said caesar noted that his forefathers stated that the historical movements of the celts was they invaded the gauls across the rhine river from germany, that's the reason he called them germani . while caesar was living, all gaul was celt .

point form

Celts originate in central germany
- Celts push west into gallic lands across the rhine rivers ( lowlands area)
- celts continue pushing westward in norther france as far as the cotarin peninsula ( i have no ides if they went into brittany at that time)
- gauls in northern france seeing the celtic push , flee southward, tribes like cenomani, semnoese, limones etc
- cenomanni settle firstly in south france next to the volcae
-most of the fleeing gallic tribes invade north italy, cenomanni settling in and around verona, semnones and others along the adriatic sea
- Belgae celts from northern france push through modern gascony and into northern spain ~300BC
- french Basque ( original basques ) a decimated and only the pyrennes ones survive, Spanish basques are noted as Pas_Vasco ( means vasconic community , Vasconic is in SW france)


La tene
Influenced by the Halstatt culture ( which is not entirely celtic, its mixed with illyrian )
-celts push across the danube from central germany and merge with the vindelici people ( i see no celtic movement across the alps by celts from halstatt ( east to west), the road is blocked by venetic and raetic tribes ) archeological evidence in Innsbruck to the head of the SILL river states venetic and raetic finds from late bronze and iron age )

now answer me, if celts where in france as early as some state, then why did they only enter northern spain around 300BC
if celts where in france as early as some state, then why did they only cross into Ireland very late in time

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:38 PM
It seems to me that the spread of Celtic is about as problematic as the spread of Berber.
By this I mean that any reconstruction of the actual Proto-Celtic language will point towards the early Iron Age at best... Hardly the time frame we're looking for if we are to ascribe the spread of Celtic to the Bell Beaker horizon.

We have the exact same problem with Berber: Proto-Berber contains Neo-Punic and Latin loanwords which suggest a date of ~100-200 CE prior to diversification.
Yet given the remote nature of Proto-Berber's Afroasiatic roots, we're pretty sure that it split from its parent Afroasiatic branch (Boreafrasian) a long time ago (Semitic being its closest relative, it must've split at least 6500 years BP).
In fact, this situation is even more puzzling if we consider the fact that most Berber "languages" retain a high degree of mutual intelligibility (in a sense, they're dialects of a single Berber language).

I could say pretty much the same thing for Celtic (although not as extreme in terms of dating and mutual intelligibility), it is an important branch of IE just like Berber is an important branch of AA and also diversified quite late.

In both cases, I strongly suspect a language levelling process took place... In fact, I'd go as far as to claim that what we've been suspecting with Berber (the existence of para-Berber languages prior to the language levelling process) can already be observed with Italo-Celtic:
Since Italo-Celtic looks like the best fit for the BB horizon, it is rather tempting to picture the emergence of para-Italo-Celtic or Para-Celtic languages throughout Western Europe which would eventually ease the language levelling process' spread later on (I think Koch & Cunliffe might be onto something with their model associating the spread of Celtic with Urnfield induced elements within the Atlantic Bronze Age).
This model certainly provides an interesting explanation for the occurrence of Ligurian & Lusitanian, which could possibly be para-Italo-Celtic leftovers reflecting an earlier linguistic landscape.

if you really want to include some linguistic association, then why in france is the linguistic I'Oil language only origins in the north of france and the L'Oc language origin only in the south...........is it due to celtic germanic association or the later germanic franks
linguistic association is a dangerous tool to predict migration

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:43 PM
my theory..... on this italic-celtic R group is that the celts brought R-U152 into Italy.
Unsure if there was another R marker in Italy prior to this, only gioiello can answer this question

Agamemnon
08-22-2014, 11:50 PM
if you really want to include some linguistic association, then why in france is the linguistic I'Oil language only origins in the north of france and the L'Oc language origin only in the south...........is it due to celtic germanic association or the later germanic franks
linguistic association is a dangerous tool to predict migration

I agree, one should not expect the spread of a given language to automatically correlate with a migration... Even if we're dealing with early time frames.

Occitan derives from the Gallo-Romance branch, just like Oïl languages. Unlike the latter, it went through very limited & isolated episodes of Frankish influence.
Another interesting trait is the paucity of Gaulish terms in Occitan, though not absent it seems to me that the non-Italic substrate in Occitan isn't Celtic as far as I can tell... In fact, I think this might be a diluted remnant of the para-Italo-Celtic or para-Celtic languages I referred to earlier on.

I live in an area where Provençal is still spoken by elders, and there are numerous attempts to revive the language right now so I'm pretty familiar with this topic (heck, we even have our own homegrown independentists here).

vettor
08-23-2014, 12:17 AM
I agree, one should not expect the spread of a given language to automatically correlate with a migration... Even if we're dealing with early time frames.

Occitan derives from the Gallo-Romance branch, just like Oïl languages. Unlike the latter, it went through very limited & isolated episodes of Frankish influence.
Another interesting trait is the paucity of Gaulish terms in Occitan, though not absent it seems to me that the non-Italic substrate in Occitan isn't Celtic as far as I can tell... In fact, I think this might be a diluted remnant of the para-Italo-Celtic or para-Celtic languages I referred to earlier on.

I live in an area where Provençal is still spoken by elders, and there are numerous attempts to revive the language right now so I'm pretty familiar with this topic (heck, we even have our own homegrown independentists here).

fantastic area Provencal...a bit too hot sometimes , but wonderful
I agree ,

my cousin in Toulouse writes to me in occitan ( he only knows french and occitan ) and I reply in venetian ( as I do not know french )........we understand each other about 70%

IMO, I can only associate the language to some type of ancient ligures/iberian/gallic pre-celtic ............unless it belongs to the later catalonian/giron/gascon branch

alan
08-23-2014, 01:22 AM
One big factor seen in Celtic society, social structure and yDNA is that it is a top down society where all the demographic growth is always at the top with the bottom withering away. Its also important to note that, despite fragmented tribal politics, the Celts are closely associated with a super-tribal mobile learned and sacred class who were protected across boundaries and assembled at times from across wide areas. This has meant that there has been powerful forces that slow down drift and encouraged continuing convergence without any significant migration needed. There is therefore no need to explain shared vocab indicative of contact c. 700BC with a diffusion of Celtic speakers as late as that. All you need to do is look at the way much of western Europe innovated in parallel in terms of metalwork throughout much of the period 2500BC- 0 to see that there was an interlocking network of connections across most of what was the Celtic world throughout.


It seems to me that the spread of Celtic is about as problematic as the spread of Berber.
By this I mean that any reconstruction of the actual Proto-Celtic language will point towards the early Iron Age at best... Hardly the time frame we're looking for if we are to ascribe the spread of Celtic to the Bell Beaker horizon.

We have the exact same problem with Berber: Proto-Berber contains Neo-Punic and Latin loanwords which suggest a date of ~100-200 CE prior to diversification.
Yet given the remote nature of Proto-Berber's Afroasiatic roots, we're pretty sure that it split from its parent Afroasiatic branch (Boreafrasian) a long time ago (Semitic being its closest relative, it must've split at least 6500 years BP).
In fact, this situation is even more puzzling if we consider the fact that most Berber "languages" retain a high degree of mutual intelligibility (in a sense, they're dialects of a single Berber language).

I could say pretty much the same thing for Celtic (although not as extreme in terms of dating and mutual intelligibility), it is an important branch of IE just like Berber is an important branch of AA and also diversified quite late.

In both cases, I strongly suspect a language levelling process took place... In fact, I'd go as far as to claim that what we've been suspecting with Berber (the existence of para-Berber languages prior to the language levelling process) can already be observed with Italo-Celtic:
Since Italo-Celtic looks like the best fit for the BB horizon, it is rather tempting to picture the emergence of para-Italo-Celtic or Para-Celtic languages throughout Western Europe which would eventually ease the language levelling process' spread later on (I think Koch & Cunliffe might be onto something with their model associating the spread of Celtic with Urnfield induced elements within the Atlantic Bronze Age).
This model certainly provides an interesting explanation for the occurrence of Ligurian & Lusitanian, which could possibly be para-Italo-Celtic leftovers reflecting an earlier linguistic landscape.

alan
08-23-2014, 01:30 AM
I dont really understand what you are saying. It seems circular. If one does not accept the Hubertian idea that Celts came into France from the east only with Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene cultures then the idea that they arrived late in the isles does not follow. There is only one culture in the archaeological record that is extensive enough to explain all Celtic and Celto-Italic speakers and that is the beakers. That is not to say that further subsets within this didnt evolve.


I did not say this - I said caesar noted that his forefathers stated that the historical movements of the celts was they invaded the gauls across the rhine river from germany, that's the reason he called them germani . while caesar was living, all gaul was celt .

point form

Celts originate in central germany
- Celts push west into gallic lands across the rhine rivers ( lowlands area)
- celts continue pushing westward in norther france as far as the cotarin peninsula ( i have no ides if they went into brittany at that time)
- gauls in northern france seeing the celtic push , flee southward, tribes like cenomani, semnoese, limones etc
- cenomanni settle firstly in south france next to the volcae
-most of the fleeing gallic tribes invade north italy, cenomanni settling in and around verona, semnones and others along the adriatic sea
- Belgae celts from northern france push through modern gascony and into northern spain ~300BC
- french Basque ( original basques ) a decimated and only the pyrennes ones survive, Spanish basques are noted as Pas_Vasco ( means vasconic community , Vasconic is in SW france)


La tene
Influenced by the Halstatt culture ( which is not entirely celtic, its mixed with illyrian )
-celts push across the danube from central germany and merge with the vindelici people ( i see no celtic movement across the alps by celts from halstatt ( east to west), the road is blocked by venetic and raetic tribes ) archeological evidence in Innsbruck to the head of the SILL river states venetic and raetic finds from late bronze and iron age )

now answer me, if celts where in france as early as some state, then why did they only enter northern spain around 300BC
if celts where in france as early as some state, then why did they only cross into Ireland very late in time

Agamemnon
08-23-2014, 12:20 PM
One big factor seen in Celtic society, social structure and yDNA is that it is a top down society where all the demographic growth is always at the top with the bottom withering away. Its also important to note that, despite fragmented tribal politics, the Celts are closely associated with a super-tribal mobile learned and sacred class who were protected across boundaries and assembled at times from across wide areas. This has meant that there has been powerful forces that slow down drift and encouraged continuing convergence without any significant migration needed. There is therefore no need to explain shared vocab indicative of contact c. 700BC with a diffusion of Celtic speakers as late as that. All you need to do is look at the way much of western Europe innovated in parallel in terms of metalwork throughout much of the period 2500BC- 0 to see that there was an interlocking network of connections across most of what was the Celtic world throughout.

Which is precisely what is needed for a language levelling process to come about.
This is why migration isn't required per se in order to provide a model for the diffusion of Celtic.

alan
08-23-2014, 12:46 PM
I believe a baseline shared language needs to be established i.e. something like Celto-Italic or west IE. I dont believe that a shift from non-IE to IE can take place without at least an elite migration. However after that the constant interaction across huge zones among elites and the top down expansion typical of such societies internally can mean that vast areas can share further linguistic innovations in common without migration or practically none. However, IMO there has to have been a baseline IE brought in by an elite. Its also important to note that international and very wide scale interaction and trade only really hugely takes off in the beaker era with its need for geographically limited materials like copper, gold and later tin. So, a model of very widespread elite interaction creating zones of shared linguistic innovation (dialect formation) only works well from the beaker period onwards. Before that there was some wide trade of stone axes etc but nothing on the scale that followed. IMO there is only one possible archaeological signal of a shared baseline language being set down in western Europe and that is beaker.


Which is precisely what is needed for a language levelling process to come about.
This is why migration isn't required per se in order to provide a model for the diffusion of Celtic.

Agamemnon
08-23-2014, 01:01 PM
I believe a baseline shared language needs to be established i.e. something like Celto-Italic or west IE. I dont believe that a shift from non-IE to IE can take place without at least an elite migration. However after that the constant interaction across huge zones among elites and the top down expansion typical of such societies internally can mean that vast areas can share further linguistic innovations in common without migration or practically none. However, IMO there has to have been a baseline IE brought in by an elite. Its also important to note that international and very wide scale interaction and trade only really hugely takes off in the beaker era with its need for geographically limited materials like copper, gold and later tin. So, a model of very widespread elite interaction creating zones of shared linguistic innovation (dialect formation) only works well from the beaker period onwards. Before that there was some wide trade of stone axes etc but nothing on the scale that followed. IMO there is only one possible archaeological signal of a shared baseline language being set down in western Europe and that is beaker.

I agree and I suspect that the BB horizon is the best candidate for the diffusion of Italo-Celtic. As I said earlier, I think that the BB gave rise to a wide range of para-Italo-Celtic (if not Para-Celtic) languages all over Western Europe which considerably eased the language levelling process which led to the spread of Celtic.
According to this model, Lusitanian & Ligurian can be explained as leftovers reflecting the earlier linguistic landscape (para-Italo-Celtic or para-Celtic languages, in simple English: The remnants of early Italo-Celtic branches which vanished under the pressure of the Celtic language levelling process and only managed to survive in substratal form).

I also think that the classification of Germanic is crucial to our understanding of the spread & diversification of R1b-L11's subclades.

rms2
08-23-2014, 01:15 PM
IMHO, Jean Manco really stumbled on something significant when she noticed the presence of anthropomorphic stelae in a trail from the Pontic-Caspian region across Europe to Iberia. The earliest are connected with Yamnaya burials in what is now Ukraine. Now apparently there are similar stelae connected with Afanasievo and Okunevo burials in the Altai, where, evidently, Alexei Kovalev has recovered R1b from some of the remains.

This seems connected to a copper working and trade network that somehow ties into the evolution of the Beaker Folk and of Italo-Celtic but probably began with the spread of undifferentiated centum Indo-European.

R.Rocca
08-23-2014, 01:17 PM
The problem with the P312-Celtic association is and has always been that we are trying to associate what is likely 5,000 year old SNP with the Roman account for Celtic areas 3,000 years after P312's inception. If I had to guess, the first P312 men simply spoke an early Centum IE language with Italo-Celtic only really taking hold during the Reflux phase several hundred years later.

alan
08-23-2014, 01:37 PM
I think the beaker model is pretty strong for Celto-Italic. The only question I have is its relationship with Germanic. I suspect Celto-Italic or perhaps it should be called west IE was an element in Germanic. However Germanic may be a complex mix of west and east IE and non-IE. The beaker distribution would support the idea that beaker/west IE was a component even in Germanic but with the difference that it didnt get all its own way in the Germanic world.

I suppose the archaeological evidence for both a west and east IE component in Germanic is the overlap zone between beaker and corded ware. That zone includes Germany and Scandinavia and adjacent areas. Its pretty well a perfect archaeological expression of a 'mixed zone' where beaker overlaid corded ware or co-existed - the actual outcome of that overlap may have varied greatly by locality.

The genetic expression of this cultural/linguistic overlap may well be the way P312 clades are fairly strong not only later Celtic but also in Germanic Europe albeit to a reduced degree. The same is also of course true for L11 collectively. The slow reduction of P312 as one heads into the core of the north Germanic world broadly reflects the way beaker influence slowly reduced or became more mixed with other cultures in the same area. So, the yDNA and archaeological evidence c. 3000-2000BC is actually a very good match. I would extend that to suggest that this area of overlap of east and west is likely also reflected in the confusing and hybrid nature of Germanic. Basically I think archaeology and genetics is pretty clear that there was clearly a west-connected input into what was later the north Germanic world in the copper age and in terms of languages this could represent the western connected IE linguistic component in the hybrid mix that is Germanic.

rms2
08-23-2014, 02:00 PM
The problem with the P312-Celtic association is and has always been that we are trying to associate what is likely 5,000 year old SNP with the Roman account for Celtic areas 3,000 years after P312's inception. If I had to guess, the first P312 men simply spoke an early Centum IE language with Italo-Celtic only really taking hold during the Reflux phase several hundred years later.

I agree, but I don't see that as much of a problem. When Celtic appeared, around 2300 BC or so, it appeared in a mostly P312+ milieu. There would have been other y haplogroups involved, too, no doubt, but P312 predominated. I don't think the idea is that the P312 population always was Celtic speaking.

alan
08-23-2014, 02:42 PM
I agree that it is possible that bell beaker could have simply spoken an undifferentiated western centum IE dialect and that further differentiation was due to a mix of divergence and convergence that took place throughout the following 1000 years or more. I suspect the process was a lot more complicated than the picture we see of a Celtic, Italic and Germanic blocks in western Europe c. 200BC. Languages like Lustitanian and Ligurian could just be two of many other similar lost Celto-Italic or west IE languages. The Nordwestblock concept of a sort of third strand or transitional zone between Celtic and Germanic also would make sense to me as there were transitional zones between the Nordic, Atlantic and central European bronze age networks in and around the Low Countries.

I suspect this process of dialect evolution was a very fluid complex process with all sorts of geographical, trading and other aspects meaning that strengths and directions of linkages varied. However, that said, if you travel around Europe and go into museums it is always hard not to be struck by the way much of north-west, Atlanic and west-central Europe shared trends and fashions throughout the Bronze Age, albeit sometimes with a local spin. I think that is the material expression of a complex lattice of interacting elites who collectively made a huge if somewhat fluctuating network of contacts over vast areas. This must have been crucial to the evolution of dialects and may have promoted strong maintenance/convergence of dialects that offset the norm of divergence with time and distance.

I think it is possible to see the fluctuation of convergence and divergence of interaction and languages indirectly expressed in archaeological remains doing similar. For example, there was a very long period c. 2500-1000BC after the initial beaker spread when Iberia, southern France etc were pretty disconnected from northern France, Britain, Belgium, central Europe etc. I see that as a very likely scenario period as to when Lusitanian and Ligurian drifted from the proto-Celtic or soon-to -be proto-Celtic world. Presumably the same is true with Italic. There was probably a wide zone of varying proto-Celto-Italic or western centum IE languages but ultimately one led to Celtic.

Now, as to where the zone where Celtic finally emerged from Celto-Italic, I suspect personally that it was centred on France - excluding the Ligurian south and SW. I believe Celtic emerged over a wide area c. 2000BC onwards during a period when Unetice, Wessex and Armorica were just the most prominent of a group of cultures who were closely interacting in immediate post-beaker times. This IMO split into two Celtic sub-zones - one central European one and another centred on northern France and the isles (this later extended south to Atlantic Iberia - not the other way around as many misinformed people think). This was not as some might think initially a Q-P split as both divisions were almost certainly Q celtic for a long period. The P Celtic innovation probably evolved in west central or Alpine Europe c. 600BC. However it is a minor division - totally insignificant compared to the deep structural differences shared by isles Celtic (whether p or q) on one hand and continental Celtic on the other.


The problem with the P312-Celtic association is and has always been that we are trying to associate what is likely 5,000 year old SNP with the Roman account for Celtic areas 3,000 years after P312's inception. If I had to guess, the first P312 men simply spoke an early Centum IE language with Italo-Celtic only really taking hold during the Reflux phase several hundred years later.

alan
08-23-2014, 02:48 PM
I have an open mind on this and I certainly am not convinced Celtic as a language arrived fully formed in the beaker era. However, I do believe we are talking about the same people both before and after the final sound shifts that define Celtic or Italic. So, it could be said there was never a Celtic or Italic general pan-European migration but that the migration really took place when Celto-Italic or west IE was being spoken - the shifts that define Celtic etc coming later by elite emulation.

You mention a reflux some centuries after beaker. I was wondering what you had in mind? There are of course people who dont think beaker and IE even met up until some sort of reflux in the beaker period. Again I have an open mind on that as the connections between early beaker in SW Europe and the PIE world of eastern Europe are pretty subtle (and that is a kind way of putting it).


The problem with the P312-Celtic association is and has always been that we are trying to associate what is likely 5,000 year old SNP with the Roman account for Celtic areas 3,000 years after P312's inception. If I had to guess, the first P312 men simply spoke an early Centum IE language with Italo-Celtic only really taking hold during the Reflux phase several hundred years later.

rms2
08-23-2014, 03:01 PM
My own impression, and I could be wrong, obviously, is that the real reflux involved the famous beaker pots themselves. The people travelled in a two-pronged movement from Yamnaya along the Mediterranean and from Yamnaya up the Danube and back and forth along those basic routes (which included a route across the Balkans to the Adriatic and one up the Rhone). They would eventually travel down the Rhine, as well.

The beakers themselves evolved in Iberia from prototypes and techniques developed in the Yamnaya zone. They traveled east along the already-established routes described above and then back.

dp
08-23-2014, 03:18 PM
IRT Germany. I agree that Germany has been a point of melding (and admixture) of different peoples. Y-DNA U106 is from Germany eastwards. P312 is from Germany westwards. A similar pattern is in the mtDNA. K to the east, H to the west. Seems to me both DNA types indicate that Germany was a mixing bowl for groups in early times. History often repeats, irregardless of language spoken by the inhabitants.
-dp

I think the beaker model is pretty strong for Celto-Italic. The only question I have is its relationship with Germanic. I suspect Celto-Italic or perhaps it should be called west IE was an element in Germanic. However Germanic may be a complex mix of west and east IE and non-IE. The beaker distribution would support the idea that beaker/west IE was a component even in Germanic but with the difference that it didnt get all its own way in the Germanic world.

I suppose the archaeological evidence for both a west and east IE component in Germanic is the overlap zone between beaker and corded ware. That zone includes Germany and Scandinavia and adjacent areas. Its pretty well a perfect archaeological expression of a 'mixed zone' where beaker overlaid corded ware or co-existed - the actual outcome of that overlap may have varied greatly by locality.

The genetic expression of this cultural/linguistic overlap may well be the way P312 clades are fairly strong not only later Celtic but also in Germanic Europe albeit to a reduced degree. The same is also of course true for L11 collectively. The slow reduction of P312 as one heads into the core of the north Germanic world broadly reflects the way beaker influence slowly reduced or became more mixed with other cultures in the same area. So, the yDNA and archaeological evidence c. 3000-2000BC is actually a very good match. I would extend that to suggest that this area of overlap of east and west is likely also reflected in the confusing and hybrid nature of Germanic. Basically I think archaeology and genetics is pretty clear that there was clearly a west-connected input into what was later the north Germanic world in the copper age and in terms of languages this could represent the western connected IE linguistic component in the hybrid mix that is Germanic.

alan
08-23-2014, 03:31 PM
Another fascinating aspect of Celtic and Germanic is the strange vocab shared between only those two languages - much of it relating to religion, warfare etc.

http://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic

Explaining this is of course a minefield. However, I would observe this. While beaker came to overlap corded ware throughout the later Germanic speaking world, corded ware barely intrudes into the later Celtic speaking world - only overlapping in and around south Germany. That would to me suggest that the commonality of Celtic and Germanic is more likely to come from beaker while the differences most likely come from presence/absence of corded ware.

alan
08-23-2014, 04:17 PM
The main problem with a two pronged Yamanaya idea is simply that if you look at early beaker burials and settlements in Iberia they are utterly unlike Yamnaya. Also, there is pretty well no doubt that the pre-beaker copper age groups, including the ones using the Stelae, pre-date the earliest dates of Yamanaya to the west of the Black Sea/Ukraine c. 2900BC. The copper mines and some of the metalwork of the Remedello/Rinaldone type cultures whose daggers are on these stelae appear to date back to c. 3500BC or even a century or two earlier. Not to mention the ice man was carrying an axe of this culture c. 3300BC. Monte Loretto mine in north Italy dates to before 3500BC. So, in the broadest sense the concept of western European pre-beaker copper working-mines-stelae links with Yamnaya is problematic chronologically. What I do think is if the word Yamnaya is removed and some sort of steppe-Balkans pre-Yamnaya link is proposed them it makes more sense. After all the Balkans had experienced steppe intrusions from c. 4200BC while Yamnaya didnt intrude into the Balkans for a further 1300 years.

We also have the issue of pre-beaker ancient DNA of c. 3500-2500BC of Europe from Italy, southern France and Iberia is all G or E to date.

To me it still remains obscure as to how an eastern derived but post-Neolithic y lineage like western R1b forms became linked to pottery that originated in SW Europe albeit possible with more eastern predecessors. It is already proven by ancient DNA that this did indeed happen before 2500BC but exactly how and where I dont think anyone could possible say with confidence as yet.

There is also the issue of the crania. Although admittedly problematic as evidence I dont think it can be ignored. Beaker type skulls seem unknown anywhere in Europe or SW Asia before 3500BC and even then the first appearances I am aware of are in pre-beaker Italy and the Balkans. Interesting though that that recent article linking a steppe culture with western Europe and I think R1b noted beaker type skulls far to the east. However, Iberian beaker skulls were generally not of the classic beaker types and were more like the Neolithic ones in the same area.


My own impression, and I could be wrong, obviously, is that the real reflux involved the famous beaker pots themselves. The people travelled in a two-pronged movement from Yamnaya along the Mediterranean and from Yamnaya up the Danube and back and forth along those basic routes (which included a route across the Balkans to the Adriatic and one up the Rhone). They would eventually travel down the Rhine, as well.

The beakers themselves evolved in Iberia from prototypes and techniques developed in the Yamnaya zone. They traveled east along the already-established routes described above and then back.

rms2
08-24-2014, 12:13 PM
Actually, I had geography in mind more than culture when I used the term Yamnaya, but I should have written Pontic-Caspian steppe instead. Your points are well taken.

rms2
08-24-2014, 12:21 PM
What do you all make of the apparent G2a result from a Hallstatt burial, circa 700 BC, reported by Rich Rocca here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=49169&viewfull=1#post49169)?

Webb
08-24-2014, 12:38 PM
What do you all make of the apparent G2a result from a Hallstatt burial, circa 700 BC, reported by Rich Rocca here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=49169&viewfull=1#post49169)?

I think it illustrates the absorption of older genetically pockets of people being absorbed by more recent cultural influences. Much like the L21 in England who at some point became Anglicised. Germany seems to be unique in the pockets of very old and rare haplogroups. I believe there is a size able pocket of T in Bavaria, and one of the Schlegel lineages is a F, which is extremely rare. That is why I have always had a hard time digesting that I2, or whatever it is called now, as essentially of German origin in Britain, when there are pockets of it in the Pyrenees.

Webb
08-24-2014, 12:46 PM
Actually, I had geography in mind more than culture when I used the term Yamnaya, but I should have written Pontic-Caspian steppe instead. Your points are well taken.

Hahaha, I am waiting for Razyn to post that pots are not people. Sorry, I referenced the wrong quote. I meant to reference the G2a found in Hallstatt.

Jean M
08-24-2014, 01:35 PM
The problem with the P312-Celtic association is and has always been that we are trying to associate what is likely 5,000 year old SNP with the Roman account for Celtic areas 3,000 years after P312's inception. If I had to guess, the first P312 men simply spoke an early Centum IE language with Italo-Celtic only really taking hold during the Reflux phase several hundred years later.

That's almost what I'm going for these days. The story now seems even more convoluted than I had it in AJ. I've taken on board some complicating factors. Nothing to do with U106 though! :) I'm surprised that you are not considering DF27 in connection with the reflux.

R.Rocca
08-24-2014, 01:35 PM
My own impression, and I could be wrong, obviously, is that the real reflux involved the famous beaker pots themselves. The people travelled in a two-pronged movement from Yamnaya along the Mediterranean and from Yamnaya up the Danube and back and forth along those basic routes (which included a route across the Balkans to the Adriatic and one up the Rhone). They would eventually travel down the Rhine, as well.

The beakers themselves evolved in Iberia from prototypes and techniques developed in the Yamnaya zone. They traveled east along the already-established routes described above and then back.

My reference was actually to Sangmeister's "Ruckstrom" (reflux), where he put a secondary expansion from the Rhine. It was secondary in sequence only, as this period really completed what we call the Bell Beaker package, with the addition of single grave burials, four-hole wrist guards, etc. This would be the group that created the great upheaval at Sion, and judging by one of the skeletons there, was likely carried out by incoming brachycephalic immigrants.

If we go by phylogeny alone, the mouth of the Rhine offers the perfect amount of diversity of Western and Central European L11+ subclades to explain this reflux quite well. It has a nice breakdown of both P312 and U106 and a presence of DF100/CTS4528 (previously L11*).

razyn
08-24-2014, 01:44 PM
Sorry, I wasn't following this thread. Artifacts are not mentifacts. Crockery is not culture. There has been considerable argument over whether language is culture, for that matter... in case the word "Celts" in the thread topic is still perceived, by some, as having to do essentially with language.

One is reminded of the Smothers Brothers version of "Streets of Laredo," in which an abortive verse begins, "I see by your outfit that you have an outfit." [The verse of which that is a parody began, "I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy," I heard him exclaim as I boldly walked by...]

R.Rocca
08-24-2014, 01:52 PM
That's almost what I'm going for these days. The story now seems even more convoluted than I had it in AJ. I've taken on board some complicating factors. Nothing to do with U106 though! :) I'm surprised that you are not considering DF27 in connection with the reflux.

I meant for DF27 to be inferred...P312 and its subclades.

Jean M
08-24-2014, 02:11 PM
There has been considerable argument over whether language is culture, for that matter... in case the word "Celts" in the thread topic is still perceived, by some, as having to do essentially with language.

I suppose four definitions of 'Celts' have been in circulation in recent decades.


Those persons described as Keltoi, Celts and related terms by ancient Greeks and Romans. The problem is that said authors did not necessarily accurately identify all those persons who considered themselves Celts, but they do seem to have so identified enough for us to link said ethnicity to at least one culture (see 2) and two languages (see 3).
Those persons in ancient times who had a La Tene culture, as defined by archaeologists. This is underpinned by 1, since this culture can be related to movements of persons identified as Celts by said ancient Greeks and Romans. The problem is that this culture does not cover the whole area in which Celts lived, as identified by 1.
Those persons who speak or spoke a language of the Celtic group, as identified by linguists. This is underpinned by 1, as both Gauls and Celtiberi are identified as Celts and we have evidence of their languages. Consequently languages of the same group as Gaulish and Celtiberian are identified as Celtic, including the Gaelic and Brittonic branches.
Those persons who, while they may not speak a Celtic language themselves, can prove or deduce that they had ancestors who did. This is the usage in common parlance for modern members of the Celtic fringe of Britain, which seems to so infuriate certain English archaeologists that they insisted on definition 1 above, rather than 3.

Jean M
08-24-2014, 02:13 PM
I meant for DF27 to be inferred...P312 and its subclades.

I'm thinking more of the north/south subclades of DF27 fitting a movement out of Iberia taking BB to the head of the Rhine.

R.Rocca
08-24-2014, 02:21 PM
I'm thinking more of the north/south subclades of DF27 fitting a movement out of Iberia taking BB to the head of the Rhine.

Yes, I am thinking something along those lines as well, but the modal of DF27 definitely warrants keeping its inception point within close proximity of its P312 cousins, both in time and geography. Perhaps razyn can fill us in on any new observations on the matter.

alan
08-24-2014, 04:20 PM
I must admit that I still find some sort of reflux or secondary linking of P312 to bell beaker tempting for the same reasons. Craniology and certainly my own feelings on the archaeology of Iberia do not give me any confidence that there is any strong evidence for movements from eastern Europe to Iberia in the pre-beaker period. Perhaps a small movement related to copper working could be envisaged, linked to a general movement of copper along the Alps and to Italy southern France and Iberia c. 3800-3000BC. However the more I read about this the more this pre-beaker western European copper working spread seems most likely to have originated in the Balkans long before Yamnaya - reaching Atlantic Iberia before Yamnaya had even left the steppes.

I do however think the beaker pot is based on central or eastern European models. However as pots tended to be made by females this may have little to do with yDNA. I am tempted on geographical and chronological probability to see the initial genesis of beakers as coming from the westernmost elements of corded ware passing the idea into copper using groups in Iberia and southern France via females. I do not expect that the first generation female migrants are likely to be found so we wont find a duplicate of the original model in form or technique but I would still feel that AOO/AOC beakers (which are more distributed around to the east in Iberia) may be the most direct descendant of these migrants. I suspect the migrant female(s) were high status marriages intended by westernmost corded ware and perhaps other groups in the west Med. to provide some sort of link to the metal rich metal working groups in Iberia. I reckon this happened about 2800BC or a little after. Anyway I have major doubts that the pre-beaker people of Iberia were R1b and suspect they may have been G people like Otzi and the Languedoc copper workers. Its not often commented on but DF27 in Iberia does not well correspond in terms of its concentration with the early beaker groups in Portugal. As I posted before the crania of Iberian early beaker people are not like those of many other beaker and immediate post-beaker groups and look kind of indigenous. The classic beaker type skulls first appear in Italy in pre-beaker copper age groups and also Balkans groups in a similar time frame.

So, my feeling is that beaker pot is not entirely, and was not initially, associated with P312 and that the association between beaker and P312 may have only come about in the Alps or west-central Europe. All we know for sure from ancient DNA is both R1a and b first appear in the record around 2600BC in Germany associated with corded ware and beaker respectively.

There is another reason why I suspect that beaker and R1b linked up with beaker somewhere a little more central in Europe is the many shared (not borrowed), sometimes unique, linguistic features in Celtic, Italic and Germanic, including shared possible pre-IE substrate words. Its pretty hard to believe that they had radically different stories. There are many possible explanations for this but I certainly dont believe that Germanic came from an Usatovo-Corded Ware thing as per Anthony while Celto-Italic went all the way from Ukraine to Iberia and back to central Europe in 200 years. That just is very hard to believe and just feels improbable. The main reason why I wouldnt rule it or any theory out is simply because a lineage travelling might be very low visibility but low/no visibility is a blank cheque for theories.

Anyway combining R1b phylogeny, ideas of dating of L23 derived clades and ancient DNA, R1b looks like it spread commencing from eastern Europe or SW Asia at some point c. 5000-3000BC and pretty well looks to have taken an east to west trajectory. I think trying to tie it too literally with beaker pottery from its inception doesnt work because they have opposite trajectories. It is much more likely that beaker pot and R1b met somewhere more central in Europe after both had been heading heading in opposite directions for a century or two.

If I am wrong and R1b really did go from Ukraine to Iberia and back as far as Hungary all between 2800-2600BC then I would be happy to be wrong and think that such an epic tale deserves Hollywood to step in to commemorate it :0)




My reference was actually to Sangmeister's "Ruckstrom" (reflux), where he put a secondary expansion from the Rhine. It was secondary in sequence only, as this period really completed what we call the Bell Beaker package, with the addition of single grave burials, four-hole wrist guards, etc. This would be the group that created the great upheaval at Sion, and judging by one of the skeletons there, was likely carried out by incoming brachycephalic immigrants.

If we go by phylogeny alone, the mouth of the Rhine offers the perfect amount of diversity of Western and Central European L11+ subclades to explain this reflux quite well. It has a nice breakdown of both P312 and U106 and a presence of DF100/CTS4528 (previously L11*).

alan
08-24-2014, 04:21 PM
Sorry but Potts can be people
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=potts

Webb
08-24-2014, 04:31 PM
Sorry but Potts can be people
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=potts

Haha, well played.

vettor
08-24-2014, 06:51 PM
Any genetic correlation with y DNA and Celtic or Celto-Italic requires all three of the main branches of P312 - otherwise it fails. P312 is the only possible common genetic thread between all the speakers of Celto-Italic. Perhaps it was also involved in Germanic - after all Germanic is an odd mix perhaps of western and eastern IE components. P312 could even relate to a general spread of west IE languages as again it is the only possible YDNA common thread among all the west IE languages.

If you need to incorporate germanic in the celto-italic group for ireland, then its a fail because the germanic people did not cross south of the Danube river until after the fall of the Roman empire ~400AD.

The only germanics before that period, where mercenaries in the Roman armies.........a number which cannot suffice for genetic purposes

vettor
08-24-2014, 07:03 PM
I think the beaker model is pretty strong for Celto-Italic. The only question I have is its relationship with Germanic. I suspect Celto-Italic or perhaps it should be called west IE was an element in Germanic. However Germanic may be a complex mix of west and east IE and non-IE. The beaker distribution would support the idea that beaker/west IE was a component even in Germanic but with the difference that it didnt get all its own way in the Germanic world.

I suppose the archaeological evidence for both a west and east IE component in Germanic is the overlap zone between beaker and corded ware. That zone includes Germany and Scandinavia and adjacent areas. Its pretty well a perfect archaeological expression of a 'mixed zone' where beaker overlaid corded ware or co-existed - the actual outcome of that overlap may have varied greatly by locality.

The genetic expression of this cultural/linguistic overlap may well be the way P312 clades are fairly strong not only later Celtic but also in Germanic Europe albeit to a reduced degree. The same is also of course true for L11 collectively. The slow reduction of P312 as one heads into the core of the north Germanic world broadly reflects the way beaker influence slowly reduced or became more mixed with other cultures in the same area. So, the yDNA and archaeological evidence c. 3000-2000BC is actually a very good match. I would extend that to suggest that this area of overlap of east and west is likely also reflected in the confusing and hybrid nature of Germanic. Basically I think archaeology and genetics is pretty clear that there was clearly a west-connected input into what was later the north Germanic world in the copper age and in terms of languages this could represent the western connected IE linguistic component in the hybrid mix that is Germanic.

The only scenario open for the BB to be Celto-italic and not solely celtic is based on the 2013 paper which claims the etruscans are originating (prior to entering Italy) as south german/alpine areas.
The paper also claims this group in south Germany originated in anatolia 4000 years earlier

vettor
08-24-2014, 07:06 PM
Now, as to where the zone where Celtic finally emerged from Celto-Italic, I suspect personally that it was centred on France - excluding the Ligurian south and SW. I believe Celtic emerged over a wide area c. 2000BC onwards during a period when Unetice, Wessex and Armorica were just the most prominent of a group of cultures who were closely interacting in immediate post-beaker times. This IMO split into two Celtic sub-zones - one central European one and another centred on northern France and the isles (this later extended south to Atlantic Iberia - not the other way around as many misinformed people think). This was not as some might think initially a Q-P split as both divisions were almost certainly Q celtic for a long period. The P Celtic innovation probably evolved in west central or Alpine Europe c. 600BC. However it is a minor division - totally insignificant compared to the deep structural differences shared by isles Celtic (whether p or q) on one hand and continental Celtic on the other.

as information
Ligures border was the rhone river, on the other side was the iberians ( modern catalonians). history states these people warred each other frequently


also, italian historians claim........the ligures lands where from the Rhone river to western slovenia to south germany and middle switzerland, the people in these areas where subgroups of ligures, as an example
Ligures-Raetic, ligures-eugenai, ligures-helvetic, ligures-imbrones etc etc

vettor
08-24-2014, 07:18 PM
I think it illustrates the absorption of older genetically pockets of people being absorbed by more recent cultural influences. Much like the L21 in England who at some point became Anglicised. Germany seems to be unique in the pockets of very old and rare haplogroups. I believe there is a size able pocket of T in Bavaria, and one of the Schlegel lineages is a F, which is extremely rare. That is why I have always had a hard time digesting that I2, or whatever it is called now, as essentially of German origin in Britain, when there are pockets of it in the Pyrenees.

Being a T person, there are 4 pockets of T in the vicinity, bavaria, tyrol, alsace and mountains of central france ................natgeno2 claims 24% in bavaria...very doubtful.

alan
08-25-2014, 04:21 PM
The bottom line with all languages of the past is all we really have is historical sources, inscriptions and placename evidence. None of that much exists before 600BC for the Celts. Doesnt mean they didnt exist or that their genesis should be placed around that date though. Its simply the period when the first dim light of history begins to shine on the area beyond the Med. So, we will never now beyond shaky inference of what happened before that.

So, if we go back to these early sources, what we do have of importance are the early classical references to Celtic placenames and peoples are outlined recently in a major study http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Celtic-Placenames-Europe-Minor/dp/1405145706 and also histories suggesting the direction of migration of Gaulish tribes towards Italy and SE Europe.

Certainly the placename evidence from Classical sources confirms that when looked at using modern linguistic standards, the main 'block' of Celtic speakers was France, parts of Iberia, Switzerland, Rhineland and Belgium. East of that is a long narrow and tail striking east very much along the path that history notes that the Gauls migrated east into in the last few centuries BC.

I would interpret this evidence as essentially showing that there was a Celtic core centred on Gaul, Iberia and the isles and that Celtic may have existed in this area for many centuries, even millenia, before history. The area to the east of it is a thin tail and it is suspicious that this to a large degree corresponds with the fairly late Gaulish overspill movements recorded in classical sources.

In short the Hubert-type idea of Celts coming from central Europe and settling in the west has no linguistic support at all and after all its the language which makes the Celts Celtic not a particular mode of burial or sword type.

One old idea that I kind of have some sympathy for is the idea that 'Ligurian' and Lusitanian type Italic-like languages were widespread throughout western Europe before being mainly eclipsed by Celtic. You can tell that Celtic spread through Europe north of the Alps by the way there was a large fringe of late surviving non-Celtic languages in Portugal/Atlantic Iberia, south Iberia, southern France, Italy, parts of the Alps etc. The pattern makes it almost certain that the language shifts that by definition created Celtic occurred somewhere not far from the northern half of France IMO. I dont believe for a moment that Celtic arose in Iberia given that Lusitanian and related dialects survived there. When looked at in detail the Atlantic Bronze Age in more of an into rather than out of Iberia thing. So, I sit neither in the Koch extreme west Celtic origin model or the old south Germany type model. I would suggest when there is no real evidence to the contrary we should lean in favour of the idea that Gaul was always the centre of Celtic speaking - more specifically Gallia Celtica.

rms2
08-25-2014, 09:08 PM
I think a key piece of the Celtic story involves the British Isles. How did they become Celtic speaking if not via the Beaker Folk in the mid to late 3rd millennium BC? A later introduction and language replacement seem unlikely. They would have to predate 600 BC, at least, because it appears the Isles were already speaking Celtic by that time.

The Q/P divide in the Isles also fits the Beaker Folk theory nicely. The idea is that the Beaker Folk, as the first Celts into the Isles, introduced the archaic, Q-Celtic form, and that it prevailed throughout the Isles until the P-Celtic innovation spread from the Continent via trade contacts and some P-Celtic-speaking settlers. Q-Celtic survived in Ireland in its Gaelic descendant, which of course was modified over time and in part through its contact with P-Celtic. Gaelic, of course, was spread to Britain by the Irish.

I see something similar in the PIE story itself: the spread of the older centum IE to the West (mainly by men who were R1b), followed by the satem innovation (spread mainly by men who were R1a), which had its biggest impact in the East. There are differences, of course, but the pattern is similar.

rms2
08-25-2014, 09:18 PM
. . .

In short the Hubert-type idea of Celts coming from central Europe and settling in the west has no linguistic support at all and after all its the language which makes the Celts Celtic not a particular mode of burial or sword type.

. . .

I think you may be doing good old Hubert a disservice. He linked the spread of Celtic or Italo-Celtic to the Beaker Folk. Hubert was ahead of his time in that.

I believe many of his contemporaries explained the genesis of the Celts via Urnfield and subsequently Hallstatt and La Tene, but not Hubert.



But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there (Hubert, The History of the Celtic People, p. 169).
. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.
They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.
The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.
. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country (Ibid, pp. 171-173).

Agamemnon
08-25-2014, 09:49 PM
One old idea that I kind of have some sympathy for is the idea that 'Ligurian' and Lusitanian type Italic-like languages were widespread throughout western Europe before being mainly eclipsed by Celtic. You can tell that Celtic spread through Europe north of the Alps by the way there was a large fringe of late surviving non-Celtic languages in Portugal/Atlantic Iberia, south Iberia, southern France, Italy, parts of the Alps etc. The pattern makes it almost certain that the language shifts that by definition created Celtic occurred somewhere not far from the northern half of France IMO. I dont believe for a moment that Celtic arose in Iberia given that Lusitanian and related dialects survived there. When looked at in detail the Atlantic Bronze Age in more of an into rather than out of Iberia thing. So, I sit neither in the Koch extreme west Celtic origin model or the old south Germany type model. I would suggest when there is no real evidence to the contrary we should lean in favour of the idea that Gaul was always the centre of Celtic speaking - more specifically Gallia Celtica.

I must say that from a historical linguistic standpoint, that's the only model which really makes sense.

alan
08-25-2014, 11:06 PM
You could well be right - its a while since I read Hubert. I have a copy and I love the book despite some ideas moving on since his time. I thought that Hubert put a lot of weight on tribes in Gaul he thought were linked to river names in Germany. That is the bit that isnt supported today - few of those names are likely even Celtic. However, it is possible I am confusing him for another early writer on the Celts. I agree that his beaker idea was ahead of its time and was intermittently revived by Chadwick and Dillon and I think also again by Harbison.

I have to say my late Professor on prehistoric Britain and Ireland never accepted the idea that beakers were just a fashion. He always believed they were the most convincing evidence of newcomers in isles prehistory between the first farmers and the Romans with the arrival of new burial types, metals, new continental pottery types and different skulls and stature. I think he thought if the beaker phenomenon was not evidence of an invasion then nothing was between the farmers and Romans. I always agreed with this position. What I would never have thought was that so much of our yDNA would be from them. I dont think the beaker movement was large and its real impact was that in each area they settled there was then incessant growth of male lines over thousands of years rather than a sudden conquest type situation.


I think you may be doing good old Hubert a disservice. He linked the spread of Celtic or Italo-Celtic to the Beaker Folk. Hubert was ahead of his time in that.

I believe many of his contemporaries explained the genesis of the Celts via Urnfield and subsequently Hallstatt and La Tene, but not Hubert.

alan
08-25-2014, 11:13 PM
I have always had the impression that default early Celto-Italic (and therefore most west IE) was originally essentially closer to Italic. Celtic seems to me to be a mutated version that came about in north-west Europe when some sort of substrate effect messed it up. I am no linguist so that may be all just inside my head ;0). Certainly the concept of greater 'Ligurian' across west and central Europe was once popular a generation or two ago. I think there may be something in that but the evidence is pretty slight.


I must say that from a historical linguistic standpoint, that's the only model which really makes sense.

Agamemnon
08-25-2014, 11:31 PM
I have always had the impression that default early Celto-Italic (and therefore most west IE) was originally essentially closer to Italic. Celtic seems to me to be a mutated version that came about in north-west Europe when some sort of substrate effect messed it up. I am no linguist so that may be all just inside my head ;0). Certainly the concept of greater 'Ligurian' across west and central Europe was once popular a generation or two ago. I think there may be something in that but the evidence is pretty slight.

Actually that's more or less true, Italic didn't go through the insane amount of innovations & reflexes which occurred between Proto-Celtic & IE's westernmost dialects.
I think it has to do with the fact that a language is more likely to retain conservative features the farther it winds up from its point of origin/urheimat... This isn't black & white of course (nothing is in this field) but such a tendency does exist (and can be observed over a wide range of different language groups).
That is to say that the higher amount of innovations & retentions which led to Proto-Celtic could be due to the fact that its linguistic ancestors stayed put in more or less the same area and that mobility was reduced for long periods of time.

Much has been said and a lot of ink was spilled when addressing the "Goidelic substrate" for instance, but while many assume that this substrate had to be pre-IE I'm far more cautious and think that yet another Italo-Celtic substrate is even more likely.

All in all, there's a little bit of everything everywhere... And the reconstruction of Proto-Celtic is slowed down by the fact that our knowledge of Continental Celtic is rather scarce (so our knowledge of Insular Celtic has more weight in current reconstructions, and this can easily be seen in the way Proto-Celtic verbal morphology is reconstructed).

Mind you, the current trend in IE linguistics these last few decades has been pretty consistent: We're coming to odds with the fact that some theories which were popular at the beginning of the 20th century were discarded on a now-unconvincing and dubious basis, especially given the extent of our understanding of the discoveries which were made over the span of several centuries (indeed, the IE problem is an old one).
I mean, you cannot claim that PIE wasn't spoken around the forest-steppe circa 3500 BCE without making an absolute fool out of yourself nowadays, so we've definitely made some progress here.
Internal classification however, remains a hotly-debated subject of contention... But even then, we've made huge progress in this area as well (especially as far as Greek's place in the IE family is of concern).

alan
08-26-2014, 12:13 AM
I would like to read a bit more about all of that but I am assuming much of it is in specialist journals.


Actually that's more or less true, Italic didn't go through the insane amount of innovations & reflexes which occurred between Proto-Celtic & IE's westernmost dialects.
I think it has to do with the fact that a language is more likely to retain conservative features the farther it winds up from its point of origin/urheimat... This isn't black & white of course (nothing is in this field) but such a tendency does exist (and can be observed over a wide range of different language groups).
That is to say that the higher amount of innovations & retentions which led to Proto-Celtic could be due to the fact that its linguistic ancestors stayed put in more or less the same area and that mobility was reduced for long periods of time.

Much has been said and a lot of ink was spilled when addressing the "Goidelic substrate" for instance, but while many assume that this substrate had to be pre-IE I'm far more cautious and think that yet another Italo-Celtic substrate is even more likely.

All in all, there's a little bit of everything everywhere... And the reconstruction of Proto-Celtic is slowed down by the fact that our knowledge of Continental Celtic is rather scarce (so our knowledge of Insular Celtic has more weight in current reconstructions, and this can easily be seen in the way Proto-Celtic verbal morphology is reconstructed).

Mind you, the current trend in IE linguistics these last few decades has been pretty consistent: We're coming to odds with the fact that some theories which were popular at the beginning of the 20th century were discarded on a now-unconvincing and dubious basis, especially given the extent of our understanding of the discoveries which were made over the span of several centuries (indeed, the IE problem is an old one).
I mean, you cannot claim that PIE wasn't spoken around the forest-steppe circa 3500 BCE without making an absolute fool out of yourself nowadays, so we've definitely made some progress here.
Internal classification however, remains a hotly-debated subject of contention... But even then, we've made huge progress in this area as well (especially as far as Greek's place in the IE family is of concern).

Agamemnon
08-26-2014, 01:01 AM
I would like to read a bit more about all of that but I am assuming much of it is in specialist journals.

Indeed, much of it is to be found in specialised journals... Mallory did try to dumb it down, and he succeeded in doing so.
Most of it would be particularly boring to a non-specialist though, unless you enjoy roaming through dozens of papers addressing epenthetic reflexes in Proto-Celtic of course :P

From personal experience, I can tell you that Celtic has an awful lot of innovations (and retentions) in common with Italic and that divergence as opposed to convergence is the observed pattern. Which is why I think there indeed was a Proto-Italo-Celtic language as opposed to an areal model where the existence of an "Italo-Celtic sprachbund" is implied (I could go into details but it would quickly become boring, that I can assure you).

Jean M
08-26-2014, 12:25 PM
It does look to me (as a non-linguist) as though the existence of Proto-Italo-Celtic was dismissed on no very strong grounds. I continue to support it. However I have come to realise that we have a layer of Old European place-names to account for, both in the British Isles and in Iberia. Plus it looks on archaeological evidence as though the speakers of Lusitanian did not arrive in their historic position position until the Late Bronze Age. I think we are looking at the spread of Ligurian, not Celtic, in the south-western part of Urnfield. Tallies with the current distribution of U152. So this is how it looks to me at present:


c. 3000 BC Western IE (centum) spread up Danube to Carpathian Basin and crossed to Italy and Iberia with Stelae People.
c. 2900 BC Some of said people around the Tagus started making BB.
c. 3000-2800 BC The trek up the Danube continued and Proto-Italo-Celtic developed from Western IE.
c. 2400 BC Some of the people around the Tagus moved with BB to Carpathian Basin (around Csepel island). By this time Proto-Celtic had started to develop in the northern Carpathian Basin. It was absorbed by the newcomers.
c. 2400 BC Some other people from the Tagus took their version of Western IE along the Atlantic coast into the British Isles.
c. 2300 BC BB moved down the Rhine into Britain, taking early Celtic, and went from there to Ireland.
c. 2200 BC BB people from Carpathian Basin moved to NE Iberia by way of Sion, Rhone area and brought with them the early Celtic, which developed into Celtiberian.
c. 1000 BC Ligurian arrived in the east coast of Iberia with Urnfield and spread along the coast to Portuguese Estremadura, where it was known as Lusitanian in later years.
c. 1000 BC Celtic arrived in NW Iberia from Britain/Ireland/NW France. (This area does not seem affected by the later spread of the Celtiberi, so we need to explain the Celtic there some other way.)

alan
08-26-2014, 04:58 PM
Very interesting thoughts. Funny enough I was wondering exactly the same thing yesterday about Ligurian and Urnfield or at least something more Italic than Celtic associated with Urnfield. I am not sure either way.

I have wondered about how Old European rivernames and early Celto-Italic work. Are they one and the same thing? Or was there a phase of IE in the west before Celto-Italic even emerged. I am fairly convinced by the Old European placenames, having been fascinated by them since I read Nicholaesen's book on Scottish placenames.

I am not clear about what you mean by archaeological evidence for the arrival of the Lusitanians fairly late. Can you expand on that? My own take is that Lusitanian was early but that during the Atlantic Bronze Age c. 1000BC Celtic spread south from Atlantic France to Atlantic Iberia. That certainly is what the metalwork seems to suggest. I took this to be the overlaying of Lusitanian with Celtic taking place c. 1000BC. However, I think Iberia may have had a two-pronged intrusion around the same time with the one I have just described and another Urnfield intrusion into the east.

I have put a few comments and questions below in bold in my quote of your post

It does look to me (as a non-linguist) as though the existence of Proto-Italo-Celtic was dismissed on no very strong grounds. I continue to support it. However I have come to realise that we have a layer of Old European place-names to account for, both in the British Isles and in Iberia. Plus it looks on archaeological evidence as though the speakers of Lusitanian did not arrive in their historic position position until the Late Bronze Age. I think we are looking at the spread of Ligurian, not Celtic, in the south-western part of Urnfield. Tallies with the current distribution of U152. So this is how it looks to me at present:


c. 3000 BC Western IE (centum) spread up Danube to Carpathian Basin and crossed to Italy and Iberia with Stelae People. I personally look to the period c. 3600BC as the most likely earliest period of an offshoot of IE west into the future Celto-Italic areas although not with much confidence.

c. 2900 BC Some of said people around the Tagus started making BB. For me thats the pots but not the people
c. 3000-2800 BC The trek up the Danube continued and Proto-Italo-Celtic developed from Western IE.
c. 2400 BC Some of the people around the Tagus moved with BB to Carpathian Basin (around Csepel island). By this time Proto-Celtic had started to develop in the northern Carpathian Basin. It was absorbed by the newcomers.
c. 2400 BC Some other people from the Tagus took their version of Western IE along the Atlantic coast into the British Isles.
c. 2300 BC BB moved down the Rhine into Britain, taking early Celtic, and went from there to Ireland.
c. 2200 BC BB people from Carpathian Basin moved to NE Iberia by way of Sion, Rhone area and brought with them the early Celtic, which developed into Celtiberian. That is an interesting thought - I take it that that is the Ciempozuelos type?
c. 1000 BC Ligurian arrived in the east coast of Iberia with Urnfield and spread along the coast to Portuguese Estremadura, where it was known as Lusitanian in later years. Seems possible as an alternative to it being there from beaker times
c. 1000 BC Celtic arrived in NW Iberia from Britain/Ireland/NW France. (This area does not seem affected by the later spread of the Celtiberi, so we need to explain the Celtic there some other way.) That would seem in line with what I have read in the book The Atlantic Iron Age which makes clear the Atlantic Bronze Age is more a case of Iberia joining in a network which northern France, the isles etc had been part of for far longer - pretty well since the beaker period. I dont understand why the Atlantic Bronze Age is misrepresented as being Iberia-centred. Essentially the Atlantic Bronze Age was like a conduit for central European metalwork to be slightly reinterpreted and spread into Atlantic areas but without surrendering older Atlantic traditions like round houses, deposition in water etc. I see it as a kind of watery re-imagining of Urnfield ideas

Jean M
08-26-2014, 06:16 PM
I have wondered about how Old European rivernames and early Celto-Italic work. Are they one and the same thing? Or was there a phase of IE in the west before Celto-Italic even emerged.

The latter would seem to be the case. At least linguists are treating OE and Lusitanian as different. That was one of the bits of evidence that did not fit my model in AJ.


I am not clear about what you mean by archaeological evidence for the arrival of the Lusitanians fairly late.

The paper I cite is in Portuguese. Jorge De Alarcão, Novas perspectivas sobre os Lusitanos (e outros mundos), Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 4, número 2 (2001). There is a partial translation in the library. Language > Place and tribal names. Should have read it before AJ, but didn't. Another bit of evidence against my AJ model.


c. 2200 BC BB people from Carpathian Basin moved to NE Iberia by way of Sion, Rhone area and brought with them the early Celtic, which developed into Celtiberian. That is an interesting thought - I take it that that is the Ciempozuelos type?

That is not new. That is in the existing model in AJ.

Jean M
08-26-2014, 06:37 PM
That would seem in line with what I have read in the book The Atlantic Iron Age which makes clear the Atlantic Bronze Age is more a case of Iberia joining in a network which northern France, the isles etc had been part of for far longer - pretty well since the beaker period. I dont understand why the Atlantic Bronze Age is misrepresented as being Iberia-centred. Essentially the Atlantic Bronze Age was like a conduit for central European metalwork to be slightly reinterpreted and spread into Atlantic areas but without surrendering older Atlantic traditions like round houses, deposition in water etc. I see it as a kind of watery re-imagining of Urnfield ideas.

Lovely turn of phrase. You mean Jon Henderson, The Atlantic Iron Age: Settlement and Identity in the First Millennium BC (2011)? Worth getting?

vettor
08-26-2014, 06:40 PM
The bottom line with all languages of the past is all we really have is historical sources, inscriptions and placename evidence. None of that much exists before 600BC for the Celts. Doesnt mean they didnt exist or that their genesis should be placed around that date though. Its simply the period when the first dim light of history begins to shine on the area beyond the Med. So, we will never now beyond shaky inference of what happened before that.

So, if we go back to these early sources, what we do have of importance are the early classical references to Celtic placenames and peoples are outlined recently in a major study http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Celtic-Placenames-Europe-Minor/dp/1405145706 and also histories suggesting the direction of migration of Gaulish tribes towards Italy and SE Europe.

Certainly the placename evidence from Classical sources confirms that when looked at using modern linguistic standards, the main 'block' of Celtic speakers was France, parts of Iberia, Switzerland, Rhineland and Belgium. East of that is a long narrow and tail striking east very much along the path that history notes that the Gauls migrated east into in the last few centuries BC.

I would interpret this evidence as essentially showing that there was a Celtic core centred on Gaul, Iberia and the isles and that Celtic may have existed in this area for many centuries, even millenia, before history. The area to the east of it is a thin tail and it is suspicious that this to a large degree corresponds with the fairly late Gaulish overspill movements recorded in classical sources.

In short the Hubert-type idea of Celts coming from central Europe and settling in the west has no linguistic support at all and after all its the language which makes the Celts Celtic not a particular mode of burial or sword type.

One old idea that I kind of have some sympathy for is the idea that 'Ligurian' and Lusitanian type Italic-like languages were widespread throughout western Europe before being mainly eclipsed by Celtic. You can tell that Celtic spread through Europe north of the Alps by the way there was a large fringe of late surviving non-Celtic languages in Portugal/Atlantic Iberia, south Iberia, southern France, Italy, parts of the Alps etc. The pattern makes it almost certain that the language shifts that by definition created Celtic occurred somewhere not far from the northern half of France IMO. I dont believe for a moment that Celtic arose in Iberia given that Lusitanian and related dialects survived there. When looked at in detail the Atlantic Bronze Age in more of an into rather than out of Iberia thing. So, I sit neither in the Koch extreme west Celtic origin model or the old south Germany type model. I would suggest when there is no real evidence to the contrary we should lean in favour of the idea that Gaul was always the centre of Celtic speaking - more specifically Gallia Celtica.

here is a link to an interesting paper with maps of origins of celts and migration of celts, but the paper focuses more on iberian celts

http://www.academia.edu/1432724/Celtic_Origins_Iberian_Connections

By Celts I mean people who spoke a Celtic dialect, not people who buried their dead in urn fields or had leaf-shaped sword or any particular kind of pottery

Jean M
08-26-2014, 07:05 PM
here is a link to an interesting paper with maps of origins of celts and migration of celts, but the paper focuses more on iberian celts

http://www.academia.edu/1432724/Celtic_Origins_Iberian_Connections


A poor student dissertation. What's good in it is old. What's new is bad. This student has uncritically swallowed the idea of IE spread from Neolithic Anatolia, and Celtic from the West, and his knowledge of DNA seems to stop at the ‘Atlantic modal haplotype’ (Torroni et al. 2001).

vettor
08-26-2014, 07:06 PM
You could well be right - its a while since I read Hubert. I have a copy and I love the book despite some ideas moving on since his time. I thought that Hubert put a lot of weight on tribes in Gaul he thought were linked to river names in Germany. That is the bit that isnt supported today - few of those names are likely even Celtic. However, it is possible I am confusing him for another early writer on the Celts. I agree that his beaker idea was ahead of its time and was intermittently revived by Chadwick and Dillon and I think also again by Harbison.

I have to say my late Professor on prehistoric Britain and Ireland never accepted the idea that beakers were just a fashion. He always believed they were the most convincing evidence of newcomers in isles prehistory between the first farmers and the Romans with the arrival of new burial types, metals, new continental pottery types and different skulls and stature. I think he thought if the beaker phenomenon was not evidence of an invasion then nothing was between the farmers and Romans. I always agreed with this position. What I would never have thought was that so much of our yDNA would be from them. I dont think the beaker movement was large and its real impact was that in each area they settled there was then incessant growth of male lines over thousands of years rather than a sudden conquest type situation.

A few days ago you ridiculed me for mentioning Hubert book and now you are accepting it to a degree!.........are you targeting me?

vettor
08-26-2014, 07:16 PM
A poor student dissertation. What's good in it is old. What's new is bad. This student has uncritically swallowed the idea of IE spread from Neolithic Anatolia, and Celtic from the West, and his knowledge of DNA seems to stop at the ‘Atlantic modal haplotype’ (Torroni et al. 2001).

But torroni 'old' model is based on migration from not many haplogroups which seems bizarre . studies now show that people moved in many different haplogroups , this is especially true for farmers and less so WHG.....
you know my theory on "dynastic" markers.......a system, basically brought by the R group

in regards to the article, the interesting point for me is the fact that you cannot escape.......
There is no doubt that they expanded from Eastern Central Gaul as recorded by Polybius and Livy. Livy describes a migration originating in Central Eastern Gaul in the period 616 – 579 BC at the time of Tarquinius Priscus ............the only central eastern gaul group as stated by the romans was the belgae ( i already showed you the roman map of belgae land)

R.Rocca
08-26-2014, 07:46 PM
It does look to me (as a non-linguist) as though the existence of Proto-Italo-Celtic was dismissed on no very strong grounds. I continue to support it. However I have come to realise that we have a layer of Old European place-names to account for, both in the British Isles and in Iberia. Plus it looks on archaeological evidence as though the speakers of Lusitanian did not arrive in their historic position position until the Late Bronze Age. I think we are looking at the spread of Ligurian, not Celtic, in the south-western part of Urnfield. Tallies with the current distribution of U152. So this is how it looks to me at present:


c. 3000 BC Western IE (centum) spread up Danube to Carpathian Basin and crossed to Italy and Iberia with Stelae People.
c. 2900 BC Some of said people around the Tagus started making BB.
c. 3000-2800 BC The trek up the Danube continued and Proto-Italo-Celtic developed from Western IE.
c. 2400 BC Some of the people around the Tagus moved with BB to Carpathian Basin (around Csepel island). By this time Proto-Celtic had started to develop in the northern Carpathian Basin. It was absorbed by the newcomers.
c. 2400 BC Some other people from the Tagus took their version of Western IE along the Atlantic coast into the British Isles.
c. 2300 BC BB moved down the Rhine into Britain, taking early Celtic, and went from there to Ireland.
c. 2200 BC BB people from Carpathian Basin moved to NE Iberia by way of Sion, Rhone area and brought with them the early Celtic, which developed into Celtiberian.
c. 1000 BC Ligurian arrived in the east coast of Iberia with Urnfield and spread along the coast to Portuguese Estremadura, where it was known as Lusitanian in later years.
c. 1000 BC Celtic arrived in NW Iberia from Britain/Ireland/NW France. (This area does not seem affected by the later spread of the Celtiberi, so we need to explain the Celtic there some other way.)


A couple of difficulties to get around if we are to imagine a link between Lusitanians and the Urnfield Culture:

1. The Urnfield Culture only had a limited distribution in Spain - the north east. On the flip side, Lusitanians did practice cremation.
2. The area of NE Spain was the domain of the Iberians, which we know spoke a non-IE language. This of course need not be an issue if a post-Urnfield non-IE speaking people overlaid or displaced the Urnfelders. Kind of reminds one of the supposed displacement of Umbrians by Etruscans in Italy, and it would probably have to have happened at around the same time period.

Jean M
08-26-2014, 08:17 PM
..the only central eastern gaul group as stated by the romans was the belgae

No. The Belgae lived in NE Gaul. There are plenty of maps around to show that. Just Google.

Livy mentions a movement into Italy in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. People have mainly thought he got the date wrong, but I think he actually had some knowledge of Celts moving across the Alps before the main push in the 4th century BC. He seems to be separating out two phases of migration. After all there were Celts in N Italy, leaving inscriptions in Lepontic from the 6th century BC.

None of the tribes entering Italy were Belgae.

Jean M
08-26-2014, 08:24 PM
1. The Urnfield Culture only had a limited distribution in Spain - the north east.

Yes I know. That's why the Jorge De Alarcão 2001 paper was such a surprise to me.


On the flip side, Lusitanians did practice cremation.

Did they now. Maybe I should mention that.



2. The area of NE Spain was the domain of the Iberians, which we know spoke a non-IE language. This of course need not be an issue if a post-Urnfield non-IE speaking people overlaid or displaced the Urnfelders.

That seems to be what happened. We have Iberia first known to the Greeks as the Ligurian peninsula, then the Iberian one. In both cases this reflected only their knowledge of the people on the Mediterranean coast of same. Polybius says as much for the latter name.

R.Rocca
08-26-2014, 08:44 PM
Did they now. Maybe I should mention that.


This is not very useful other than to say the Lusitanians practiced cremation, but still a good summary of cremation in pre-Roman Iberia overall...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261323552_Anlisis_antropolgico_de_las_necrpolis_de _cremacin

Webb
08-26-2014, 09:06 PM
Yes, I am thinking something along those lines as well, but the modal of DF27 definitely warrants keeping its inception point within close proximity of its P312 cousins, both in time and geography. Perhaps razyn can fill us in on any new observations on the matter.

I can not, nor will not speak for Razyn, on this subject. However, for the most part he and I are in a loose agreement about what we observe with the DF27 clades and where they are found. I am only an amateur, so I really could care less about Iberian reflux theories or anything else along those lines. I am sticking with what the snp's are showing. The closer to the tip of the branch you get with the North/South cluster, the more you find it moving from ecompasing most of Western Europe, to encompasing just people with Spanish origins. So the two youngest snp's, M153 and Z214 are essentially Iberian. For sure for M153. There is one person who is of French heritage in Z214, but the rest are Spanish. As you move closer to the trunk, you start to find people from all over. Richard Rocca stated once that there is around a 30% bias for people testing with ancestry to the British Ancestry. I would not argue this statement if comparing British testers with say Germans, or Scandinavians, or maybe French. However, in the last couple of years there has been a noticeable uptick in people testing with Spanish roots. So I think there is some bias, however, if you include some bias then it is still quite clear that these few snp's are thoroughly Iberian, yet they are the youngest snp's. DF81 is completely Iberian and there are enough people who have tested positive, that someone in the Yahoo group compared modal for DF27 against modal for DF81. He came up with an age of 400 A.D. for DF81, which is about the same age as what most people get when they do the same with M153. So again, I am not for or against a reflux theory, however, if you focus just on genetics, the evidence is showing movement towards Iberia, not away from it.

alan
08-26-2014, 09:20 PM
I thought it was an interesting read. The Iron Age bit is pretty poor because the data is just so sketchy for the Atlantic fringe in that period. The most interesting bit was the chapter on the Bronze Age so the book has a bit of a poor title. Its really that chapter its worth reading for. Unfortunately the google books online sample doesnt include the chapter on this. The current price on Amazon is criminal though. I am pretty certain I didnt pay more than 20 pounds for it.


Lovely turn of phrase. You mean Jon Henderson, The Atlantic Iron Age: Settlement and Identity in the First Millennium BC (2011)? Worth getting?

Jean M
08-26-2014, 10:18 PM
The most interesting bit was the chapter on the Bronze Age so the book has a bit of a poor title. Its really that chapter its worth reading for. Unfortunately the google books online sample doesn't include the chapter on this.

Don't worry. I just read that chapter on Amazon. Thanks for the recommendation. I was already citing Kristiansen 1998 and Cunliffe 2008 on this point, but Henderson gives references and detail.

alan
08-26-2014, 11:23 PM
I certainly dont think this is implausible. I still on purely genetic grounds think Iberia was a terminus rather than a font for P312 clades. It is initially troubling that beaker pot chronology seems to come from SW Europe but I dont believe we need to believe in an absolutely literal linkage between beaker and P312. Pottery after all was probably a female craft so it in itself is a poor indicator of y lineage movement. We do tend to think of P312 as an elite male lineage rather than a population movement but if that was the case then where does the spread of a female craft like pottery fit in. I am not sure I entirely understand how P312 and beaker fit together although they do appear to in some way and there is even hard ancient DNA evidence at Kromsdorf.


I can not, nor will not speak for Razyn, on this subject. However, for the most part he and I are in a loose agreement about what we observe with the DF27 clades and where they are found. I am only an amateur, so I really could care less about Iberian reflux theories or anything else along those lines. I am sticking with what the snp's are showing. The closer to the tip of the branch you get with the North/South cluster, the more you find it moving from ecompasing most of Western Europe, to encompasing just people with Spanish origins. So the two youngest snp's, M153 and Z214 are essentially Iberian. For sure for M153. There is one person who is of French heritage in Z214, but the rest are Spanish. As you move closer to the trunk, you start to find people from all over. Richard Rocca stated once that there is around a 30% bias for people testing with ancestry to the British Ancestry. I would not argue this statement if comparing British testers with say Germans, or Scandinavians, or maybe French. However, in the last couple of years there has been a noticeable uptick in people testing with Spanish roots. So I think there is some bias, however, if you include some bias then it is still quite clear that these few snp's are thoroughly Iberian, yet they are the youngest snp's. DF81 is completely Iberian and there are enough people who have tested positive, that someone in the Yahoo group compared modal for DF27 against modal for DF81. He came up with an age of 400 A.D. for DF81, which is about the same age as what most people get when they do the same with M153. So again, I am not for or against a reflux theory, however, if you focus just on genetics, the evidence is showing movement towards Iberia, not away from it.

vettor
08-27-2014, 05:55 AM
No. The Belgae lived in NE Gaul. There are plenty of maps around to show that. Just Google.

Livy mentions a movement into Italy in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. People have mainly thought he got the date wrong, but I think he actually had some knowledge of Celts moving across the Alps before the main push in the 4th century BC. He seems to be separating out two phases of migration. After all there were Celts in N Italy, leaving inscriptions in Lepontic from the 6th century BC.

None of the tribes entering Italy were Belgae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepontic_language

look at map of belgae in this post

So, you think lepontic is a celtic language.

what was spoken before lepontic became celtic in 550BC?



I see that similar alphabets of these
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png
are these all celtic?
Archeology has found these languages before the celts got anywhere near the alps.

wasn't raetic and venetic in the alps pre-1200BC ?

Isn't the camunic language part of the camuni tribe which is euganei indigenous people of veneto and friuli ?


facts are you do not find these languages (Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic) in the origins and indigenous lands of celtic lands in central Germany...........the logical scenario is these languages of venetic, Raetic, lepontic, Camunic are all bronze age languages of the alpine people from the bronze-age.

The celts came and borrowed these languages , same as the veneti who came from Anatolia to north-east italy and borrowed the indigenous language of the Euganei. They did not bring their anatolian language.
One of the euganei tribe, the camuni who did not get absorbed into venetic society migrated to sondrio area ( near switzerland) and create the camunic language from euganei language.
All these languages are basically the same ........they are non-celtic language

The celts are like the vikings who became Normans, they (vikings) did not force their viking tongue on the people of Normandy but accepted the Norman language, as their own.


we even have a recent raetic/venetic language find in Innsbruck
https://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2011/01/23/new-raetic-inscription/


clearly , society is trying to wipe out the original indigenous populations and replace them with this "super" celtic language...............which is not celtic at all.

stop trying to continuously replace indigenous people and their history with celtic ..................starting to have a slavic mentality to history ( anyone who spoke slavic was a slav)


finally ..........Roman historians note on the conquest of the 45 raeti tribes in 15BC of which euganei, ( TRUMPILINI, CAMUNNI, VENNONETES...the stoeni missed out as they where absorbed in venetic society with one other ) .

TO THE EMPEROR AUGUSTUS CAESAR, SON OF THE DIVINE (JULIUS CAESAR)
SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, EMPEROR FOR THE XIVTH TIME, TRIBUNE FOR THE XVIITH TIME
THE SENATE AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE

BECAUSE, UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND AUSPICES, ALL THE ALPINE TRIBES WHICH SPREAD FROM THE SUPERIOR SEA (ADRIATIC) TO THE INFERIOR SEA (MEDITERRANEAN) HAVE BEEN MADE SUBJECT TO THE EMPIRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE
ALPINE TRIBES CONQUERED: TRUMPILINI, CAMUNNI, VENNONETES, VENOSTES, ISARCI, BREUNI, GENAUNES, FOCUNATES
FOUR TRIBES VINDELICI, COSUANETES, RUCINATES, LICATES, CATENATES, AMBISONTES, RUGUSCI, SUANETES, CALUCONES
BRIXENTES, LIPONTES, VIBERI, NANTUATES, SEDUNI, VERAGRI, SALASSI, ACITAVONES, MEDULLI, UCENNI, CATURIGES, BRIGIANI
SOGIONTII, BRODIONTI, NEMALONI, EDENATES, ESUBIANI, VEAMINI, GALLITAE, TRIULLATI, ECTINI
VERGUNNI, EGUITURI, NEMETURI, ORATELLI, NERUSI, VELAUNI, SUETRI


none above are celtic tribes

Jean M
08-27-2014, 09:04 AM
So, you think lepontic is a celtic language. what was spoken before lepontic became celtic in 550BC?

Vettor - Linguists are certain that Lepontic is Celtic. It is nothing to do with me. Lepontic did not "become" Celtic. "Lepontic" is the name that linguists chose to use for the language in inscriptions found in North Italian lake region from the 6th century, knowing that a people called Lepontii lived within the area in Roman times. In the first century AD Pliny the Elder wrote that one group of the Lepontii lived around the source of the Rhône. A century later Ptolemy mentions the Leponti living in the Alps and their town of Oscela. This town (now Domodossola) has given its name to the valley (Val d’Ossola) in which the Toce river runs. The upper reaches of the river Ticino run through the Valle Leventina, which preserves the name of the Lepontii. When the Raeti were conquered by Rome, the Leponti fell within their domain, but that does not mean that they actually spoke Raeti or were a Raetian tribe.

It seems that the Lepontii sprang from the Golasecca culture, which was the link between the Hallstatt Culture and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture begins in the 8th century BC, but develops from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield which arrived in the 13th century BC. Given its wide cultural connections north of the Alps, and its seemingly abrupt arrival, this brand of Urnfield has been generally favoured by scholars as the vector of the first Celtic south of the Alps. Personally I would go for Late Bell Beaker.

Here you have it in Italian, with references to Italian scholars: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_di_Golasecca
Here is a local Italian archaeological group on the topic: http://www.gsac.it/cultura_golasecca/frame_culturagolasecca.htm

In March 2014, the Museo Archeologico di Sesto Calende announced the publication of the first volume in an intended series on the Celtic culture of Golasecca. http://www.cultura.regione.lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c=News&cid=1213657241227&childpagename=DG_Cultura/Detail&pagename=DG_CAIWrapper

GTC
08-27-2014, 09:12 AM
A reminder to all members to keep the language of posts civil. This thread is being monitored.

Jean M
08-27-2014, 09:14 AM
The celts came and borrowed these languages

Looks like you are once again confusing language with script. The Lepontic inscriptions use an Etruscan script i.e. alphabet. The Celts of the Golasecca culture were in contact with Etruscans and borrowed their alphabet to write in their own language. Similar variants of the Etruscan script were borrowed to write in other languages of northern Italy.

vettor
08-27-2014, 10:25 AM
Vettor - Linguists are certain that Lepontic is Celtic. It is nothing to do with me. Lepontic did not "become" Celtic. "Lepontic" is the name that linguists chose to use for the language in inscriptions found in North Italian lake region from the 6th century, knowing that a people called Lepontii lived within the area in Roman times. In the first century AD Pliny the Elder wrote that one group of the Lepontii lived around the source of the Rhône. A century later Ptolemy mentions the Leponti living in the Alps and their town of Oscela. This town (now Domodossola) has given its name to the valley (Val d’Ossola) in which the Toce river runs. The upper reaches of the river Ticino run through the Valle Leventina, which preserves the name of the Lepontii. When the Raeti were conquered by Rome, the Leponti fell within their domain, but that does not mean that they actually spoke Raeti or were a Raetian tribe.

It seems that the Lepontii sprang from the Golasecca culture, which was the link between the Hallstatt Culture and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture begins in the 8th century BC, but develops from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield which arrived in the 13th century BC. Given its wide cultural connections north of the Alps, and its seemingly abrupt arrival, this brand of Urnfield has been generally favoured by scholars as the vector of the first Celtic south of the Alps. Personally I would go for Late Bell Beaker.

Here you have it in Italian, with references to Italian scholars: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_di_Golasecca
Here is a local Italian archaeological group on the topic: http://www.gsac.it/cultura_golasecca/frame_culturagolasecca.htm

In March 2014, the Museo Archeologico di Sesto Calende announced the publication of the first volume in an intended series on the Celtic culture of Golasecca. http://www.cultura.regione.lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c=News&cid=1213657241227&childpagename=DG_Cultura/Detail&pagename=DG_CAIWrapper

linguistics have made a mistake because Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p which makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;


as you see from the 45 raetic tribes, Lepontes is part of these. Their alphabet and script are same as east raetic, camunic, venetic and west raetic.

maybe this working copy has some merit
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf


I would still like to see celtic script in central germany where the origins of celts are known to have formed.

it amazes me that if the celts where in the alps as early as 500BC and Rome was fighting that gauls in france later on, why did the Romans wait until 15BC to conquer these supposed to be celts in the alps. You would assume that with Rome's superior warlike strategy , they would have said....why go all the way west when these similar celts are next to us in the alps and they could invade us from behind

http://www.gsac.it/cultura_golasecca/frame_culturagolasecca.htm
your link .............under celti e liguri states what I said the other day...the celts avoided the alps and traveled from east to west ( most likely via the danube as far as they could


if you like to believe what Italian histories state, then all north italy, and alpine area are liguri
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/500bc_zps480b270d.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/500bc_zps480b270d.jpg.html)
you even see the semnoni of central france, the boii and cenomani of NW france

plus the uninhabited light blue are which was swamp/marsh lands of lakes...........only livable by using houses on stilts

Jean M
08-27-2014, 10:36 AM
as you see from the 45 raetic tribes, Lepontes is part of these. Their alphabet and script are same as east raetic, camunic, venetic and west raetic.

Yes the alphabet of them all is borrowed from the Etruscan alphabet. That does not mean that all these languages were Etruscan, as I am sure you would agree. Raetic appears to have a connection to Etruscan. Venetic does not. The alphabet is irrelevant. It just happened to be the first form of writing that these peoples encountered, so they adapted it to write their own languages. There were no scripts in Central Germany at this time. There was no writing. Nor do we know that Celtic developed there.

Celtic developed in prehistory. That means that it developed at a time when the people who spoke it were not literate. They did not write things down. That is why there has been so much debate and disagreement over exactly where it developed.

vettor
08-27-2014, 10:37 AM
It seems that the Lepontii sprang from the Golasecca culture, which was the link between the Hallstatt Culture and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture begins in the 8th century BC, but develops from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield which arrived in the 13th century BC. Given its wide cultural connections north of the Alps, and its seemingly abrupt arrival, this brand of Urnfield has been generally favoured by scholars as the vector of the first Celtic south of the Alps. Personally I would go for Late Bell Beaker.



maybe.......but only if the 2013 paper that states etruscans sprang from the german alps and marched across the alps to settle in lombardy, tuscany ( etruria) and romagna. These 12 etruscan cities where never in Italy prior to ~800BC.
Etruscans a branch of the raetic family

But again etruscans are not celts

Dubhthach
08-27-2014, 10:51 AM
I was under the impression that Golasecca developed from Urnfield, just like Hallstat to north also developed out of Urnfield material culture.

Lepontic doesn't retain Proto-Indo-European *p. Instead it shows the "innovation" of shifting qw -> p (eg. it's a P-Celtic language)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&lpg=PA1142&ots=p0RDacCwXH&dq=lepontic%20*p&pg=PA1142#v=onepage&q&f=false

Alphabet doesn't matter one Iota, Irish uses a form of the "Roman alphabet" but you wouldn't confuse Irish (let alone Old Irish) for Latin!

Jean M
08-27-2014, 10:52 AM
it amazes me that if the celts where in the alps as early as 500BC and Rome was fighting that gauls in france later on, why did the Romans wait until 15BC to conquer these supposed to be celts in the alps. You would assume that with Rome's superior warlike strategy , they would have said....why go all the way west when these similar celts are next to us in the alps and they could invade us from behind

At the time of the Golasecca culture, the Romans were not the dominant force in Italy. Northern Italy was dominated by the Etruscans and Southern Italy by the Greeks. Before the Romans could think about more distant peoples, they first had to break free of Etruscan control, weld together the Latins and the other Italic speakers, and wrest southern Italy from the Greeks. The Carthaginians were next on the agenda. The Celts of Cisalpine Gaul (the ones who arrived in the 4th century) had attacked Rome in the course of their takeover of the Po valley from the Etruscans, and Rome didn't forget that. The Cisalpine Gauls were the first Gauls that the Romans subjugated. The Cenomani were defeated in 197 BC and the Insubres and Boii in 194 BC. Those Celtic speakers who had been there earlier lived further north and presumably were not seen as a priority, (if Rome was aware of them as Celts at all).

Jean M
08-27-2014, 10:57 AM
maybe.......but only if the 2013 paper that states etruscans sprang from the german alps and marched across the alps to settle in lombardy, tuscany ( etruria) and romagna.

I know of no such paper, though it is amazing what nonsense people can come up with. It is irrelevant. The Golasecca culture was Celtic. Not Etruscan. It was in trade contact with those Etruscans who lived in the Po Valley at that time.

Now I really have to get back to work.

vettor
08-27-2014, 11:02 AM
At the time of the Golasecca culture, the Romans were not the dominant force in Italy. Northern Italy was dominant by the Etruscans and Southern Italy by the Greeks. Before the Romans could think about more distant peoples, they first had to break free of Etruscan control, weld together the Latins and the other Italic speakers, and wrest southern Italy from the Greeks. The Carthaginians were next on the agenda. The Celts of Cisalpine Gaul (the ones who arrived in the 4th century) had attacked Rome in the course of their takeover of the Po valley from the Etruscans, and Rome didn't forget that. The Cisalpine Gauls were the first Gauls that the Romans subjugated. The Cenomani were defeated in 197 BC and the Insubres and Boii in 194 BC. Those Celtic speakers who had been there earlier lived further north and presumably were not seen as a priority, (if Rome was aware of them as Celts at all).

I was talking about after Rome put down the Carthaginians of Hannibal and his allies the Macedonians and before the roman invasion of the alpine tribes in 15BC.

There where no celts in the alps. ..............It would be even a long stretch to find celts in the area of Zurich, then again the swabians and alemani came from there later on.

Celts where northern france, stayed there, some jumped over to the british isles, some went via vasconic lands of the SW of france and settled in north Spain.........

vettor
08-27-2014, 11:05 AM
I know of no such paper, though it is amazing what nonsense people can come up with. It is irrelevant. The Golasecca culture was Celtic. Not Etruscan. It was in trade contact with those Etruscans who lived in the Po Valley at that time.

Now I really have to get back to work.

trade contact was between etruscans, raeti and venetics in a town still standing today called Cologna Veneta.
When the etruscans where pushed out of lombardy, the cenomani took their place in this trade network

Agamemnon
08-27-2014, 12:30 PM
I was under the impression that Golasecca developed from Urnfield, just like Hallstat to north also developed out of Urnfield material culture.

That's also what I was about to say... And IMHO the clear link between Golasecca and Lepontic strengthens the odds for an association of Urnfield & Proto-Italo-Celtic.

R.Rocca
08-27-2014, 12:41 PM
So, you think lepontic is a celtic language.


Why wouldn't we think Lepontic was a Celtic language when linguists inside and outside of Italy think so? You say the linguists got it wrong, but with all due respect, I think I'll take the word of linguists over yours.



wasn't raetic and venetic in the alps pre-1200BC ?


Unless someone has a time machine or someone just unearthed the earliest form of writing in NE Italy, none us us know what was spoken in those areas, we can just make educated guesses.



The celts came and borrowed these languages , same as the veneti who came from Anatolia to north-east italy and borrowed the indigenous language of the Euganei. They did not bring their anatolian language.
One of the euganei tribe, the camuni who did not get absorbed into venetic society migrated to sondrio area ( near switzerland) and create the camunic language from euganei language.


The Veneti were the Iron Age people that were an accumulation of people that came from many different origins over the course of thousands of years. It is comical that you can flat out deny that the Golaseccans spoke a Celtic language and yet you have no problems saying that the Veneti came from Anatolia. Just saying.



facts are you do not find these languages (Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic) in the origins and indigenous lands of celtic lands in central Germany...........the logical scenario is these languages of venetic, Raetic, lepontic, Camunic are all bronze age languages of the alpine people from the bronze-age.

All these languages are basically the same ........they are non-celtic language


Just because some of those languages are non-Celtic, does not mean that they are related to one another...big difference. Also, nobody said Venetic, Raetic and Camunic were Celtic.



stop trying to continuously replace indigenous people and their history with celtic ..................starting to have a slavic mentality to history ( anyone who spoke slavic was a slav)


Because Jean is saying that Lepontic, which again, is universally accepted by linguists as a P-Celtic language and a close cousin to Gaulish, was spoken in an area that makes up only 1/20 the size of Italy does not mean she is trying to do anything, so please stop your rhetoric. Also, if you don't call people that spoke Slavic "Slavs", then what on earth do you call them...Martians?

Jean M
08-27-2014, 01:19 PM
if you don't call people that spoke Slavic "Slavs", then what on earth do you call them...Martians?

I didn't want to hijack this thread by being drawn into this digression, but I have a vague idea that this refers to some discussion on another forum in which a user was deeply distressed by the use of language as a definition of past ethnicity, because he thought that meant that modern-day Slavic speakers whose ancestors were Baltic speakers would be classified as Slavs rather than Balts. I assured him that was not the case. It was the ancestral language that counted. In fact, using the past language definition allows us to identify some populations as Balts, regardless of modern nation.

We all know for sure that many people today (in the US particularly) are not speaking the language of their ancestors of just a few generations ago. It should be clear enough that the language definition applies to the past, not the present. I wouldn't care to put a specific date on it, as situations differ, but let's say pre-Roman for those peoples who were within the Roman empire.

rms2
08-27-2014, 04:31 PM
I didn't want to hijack this thread by being drawn into this digression, but I have a vague idea that this refers to some discussion on another forum in which a user was deeply distressed by the use of language as a definition of past ethnicity, because he thought that meant that modern-day Slavic speakers whose ancestors were Baltic speakers would be classified as Slavs rather than Balts. I assured him that was not the case. It was the ancestral language that counted. In fact, using the past language definition allows us to identify some populations as Balts, regardless of modern nation.

We all know for sure that many people today (in the US particularly) are not speaking the language of their ancestors of just a few generations ago. It should be clear enough that the language definition applies to the past, not the present. I wouldn't care to put a specific date on it, as situations differ, but let's say pre-Roman for those peoples who were within the Roman empire.

I think that is a particularly relevant - and, if I may so, poignant - digression given the intense scrutiny, criticism and even mockery of the term Celt or Celticity in recent years.

The problem seems to be that ethnic groups, which at least to some degree are rooted in biology as well as language, are moving targets: they change. An ethnic group is one of those odd things in life that can only be glimpsed from the corner of the eye. When one attempts to look at it directly to measure or define it, it flits away to the periphery where it began. I don't know if that metaphor makes sense to anyone else.

We all kind of know what we mean when we use the term Celt, but it defies the sort of precise definition that can encompass every case, and it involves more than just language.

vettor
08-27-2014, 06:16 PM
Why wouldn't we think Lepontic was a Celtic language when linguists inside and outside of Italy think so? You say the linguists got it wrong, but with all due respect, I think I'll take the word of linguists over yours.


because of

Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p which makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;

as part of many changes. The old association of Lepontic with celtic is being replaced.


Unless someone has a time machine or someone just unearthed the earliest form of writing in NE Italy, none us us know what was spoken in those areas, we can just make educated guesses.

archeology of elise Perego, the discoveries start ~1200BC ( IIRC oxford univ.)


The Veneti were the Iron Age people that were an accumulation of people that came from many different origins over the course of thousands of years. It is comical that you can flat out deny that the Golaseccans spoke a Celtic language and yet you have no problems saying that the Veneti came from Anatolia. Just saying.



as above , the veneti arrived ~1200BC ..................I do not agree that they came from Anatolia , that is what Homer states, .......the point I made is that the veneti did not bring a lnaguage with them because we do not find it in Italy, all we have is that the veneti absorbed the indigenous Euganei people and the logic from here is that the Veneti accepted the Euganei language, which is why it is similar with its neighbours.


Just because some of those languages are non-Celtic, does not mean that they are related to one another...big difference. Also, nobody said Venetic, Raetic and Camunic were Celtic.

correct, but Lepontic is part of this group..........clearly logic, then tells us it is not celtic either




Because Jean is saying that Lepontic, which again, is universally accepted by linguists as a P-Celtic language and a close cousin to Gaulish, was spoken in an area that makes up only 1/20 the size of Italy does not mean she is trying to do anything, so please stop your rhetoric. Also, if you don't call people that spoke Slavic "Slavs", then what on earth do you call them...Martians?

You do not classify people by what language they speak, not now nor in the past. Do we say anyone who speaks English in the world today is English!

vettor
08-27-2014, 06:22 PM
I didn't want to hijack this thread by being drawn into this digression, but I have a vague idea that this refers to some discussion on another forum in which a user was deeply distressed by the use of language as a definition of past ethnicity, because he thought that meant that modern-day Slavic speakers whose ancestors were Baltic speakers would be classified as Slavs rather than Balts. I assured him that was not the case. It was the ancestral language that counted. In fact, using the past language definition allows us to identify some populations as Balts, regardless of modern nation.

We all know for sure that many people today (in the US particularly) are not speaking the language of their ancestors of just a few generations ago. It should be clear enough that the language definition applies to the past, not the present. I wouldn't care to put a specific date on it, as situations differ, but let's say pre-Roman for those peoples who were within the Roman empire.

agree, but using language in the past to define a people is detrimental to historians, because ancient writers define people by tribes, we on the other hand are lazy and try to summarize history in blocks.

Dubhthach
08-27-2014, 06:42 PM
because of

Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p which makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;



No it doesn't retain Indo-European *p, like Gaulish and Brythonic it shows the shift of Q->P. Here are some of the isoglosses that make it a Celtic language:

1. PIE *-ō(C)# > -ū(C)#: nom. sg. -u, dat. sg. -ui
2. PIE *g > b: * g i(h3) o- > piuo- ( biu o-/) ‘living’
3. PIE *p > (φ >) 0: *up mo- > uvamo- ‘highest’
4. PIE *ē > ī: *sēd- > sit- ( sīd-/) ‘to sit’
5. PIE *st > ts: *g
h
ostis > -kozis ‘guest’, *istos > iśos
6. lexicon: * indo- ‘white’ in alkouinos (cp. Gaul. Alcouindo)
7. PIE *i > *e: *-onibh
os > -onepos (but not general in Celtic!)

From same document as above:

---
4.3.1. Lepontic ≠ Transalpine Gaulish (after LEJEUNE 1971)
1. *nd > nn: * indos > -uinos (vs. Gaul. uindo-, ambi-, cingo-) (only graphic?)
2. *NT > N
T: * g i(h3) o-nt- > piuot, piuotialui (vs. Gaul. canto-, tanco-) (only graphic? (cp.
piuonta!))
3. * > en (?): *sēd s > siteś?, *d g
h
eh2 > -teguaios (vs. Gaul. > an: ande-, brigant-)
4. *χs > s(s): sasamos, esopnio (vs. Gaul. Sax(s)amus, Ex(s)obno-) (only graphic?)
5. *ad-s- (?): aśkoneti, aśmina (vs. Gaul. Adgonna, Adgonetius, Adminio) (unlikely: ś probably
represents /d/)
6. word formation: patronymics in -al(o/a)- (vs. Gaul. patronymics in -ikno/a-)
4.3.2. Lepontic compared to Cisalpine Gaulish
a. common features (≠ Transalpine Gaulish) (after UHLICH 1999 and 2007):
1. *nd > nn: *ande- > -ane-, *and(e)-are- > an-are-, ?*and-o-kom- > ano-ko- (but see above!)
2. *NT > N
T: *kom-bog(i) os > -ko-pokios, Quintus → kuitos, *arganto- > arkato-, *longam >
lokan (but see above!)
3. *χs > s(s): *egs- > *eχs- > es- in es-anekoti, es-opnos (but see above!)
b. differences between Cisalpine Gaulish and Lepontic:
1. *-m# > -n#: teuoχtonion, lokan vs. Lep. pruiam, palam, uinom natom (but also Cis-Gaul. atom)
2. word formation: ending of 3. sg./pl. preterite in -u, cp. karnitu(s) (Gaul. karnitou), vs. Lep.
karite, kalite
3. patronymics in -ikno/a- vs. Lep. -alo-, -ala-, -al (but also mixed in Late (?) Lepontic)
---

http://eprints.nuim.ie/3741/1/DS_Old_Celtic_Languages.pdf

Jean M
08-27-2014, 06:44 PM
agree, but using language in the past to define a people is detrimental to historians, because ancient writers define people by tribes, we on the other hand are lazy and try to summarize history in blocks.

Tribes are no more constant than language. Indeed considerably less so. Novices and amateurs often think that all they have to do in order to find the history of a people is to search Google (or in less recent times, book catalogues and indices) for the name that they recognise. They have no idea that tribes and peoples could change names, split or coalesce, with parts of them turning up elsewhere in an alliance of a different name. They are completely stumped if the name familiar to them disappears from the record. Some even imagine in their profound ignorance that the tribe that they encounter in place X in the 2nd century AD had always been there and always called by the same name since the Palaeolithic. They have not the smallest idea how historical research is actually carried out by those trained to do it and no understanding of how we find out anything in prehistory.

vettor
08-27-2014, 06:55 PM
No it doesn't retain Indo-European *p, like Gaulish and Brythonic it shows the shift of Q->P. Here are some of the isoglosses that make it a Celtic language:

1. PIE *-ō(C)# > -ū(C)#: nom. sg. -u, dat. sg. -ui
2. PIE *g > b: * g i(h3) o- > piuo- ( biu o-/) ‘living’
3. PIE *p > (φ >) 0: *up mo- > uvamo- ‘highest’
4. PIE *ē > ī: *sēd- > sit- ( sīd-/) ‘to sit’
5. PIE *st > ts: *g
h
ostis > -kozis ‘guest’, *istos > iśos
6. lexicon: * indo- ‘white’ in alkouinos (cp. Gaul. Alcouindo)
7. PIE *i > *e: *-onibh
os > -onepos (but not general in Celtic!)

From same document as above:

---
4.3.1. Lepontic ≠ Transalpine Gaulish (after LEJEUNE 1971)
1. *nd > nn: * indos > -uinos (vs. Gaul. uindo-, ambi-, cingo-) (only graphic?)
2. *NT > N
T: * g i(h3) o-nt- > piuot, piuotialui (vs. Gaul. canto-, tanco-) (only graphic? (cp.
piuonta!))
3. * > en (?): *sēd s > siteś?, *d g
h
eh2 > -teguaios (vs. Gaul. > an: ande-, brigant-)
4. *χs > s(s): sasamos, esopnio (vs. Gaul. Sax(s)amus, Ex(s)obno-) (only graphic?)
5. *ad-s- (?): aśkoneti, aśmina (vs. Gaul. Adgonna, Adgonetius, Adminio) (unlikely: ś probably
represents /d/)
6. word formation: patronymics in -al(o/a)- (vs. Gaul. patronymics in -ikno/a-)
4.3.2. Lepontic compared to Cisalpine Gaulish
a. common features (≠ Transalpine Gaulish) (after UHLICH 1999 and 2007):
1. *nd > nn: *ande- > -ane-, *and(e)-are- > an-are-, ?*and-o-kom- > ano-ko- (but see above!)
2. *NT > N
T: *kom-bog(i) os > -ko-pokios, Quintus → kuitos, *arganto- > arkato-, *longam >
lokan (but see above!)
3. *χs > s(s): *egs- > *eχs- > es- in es-anekoti, es-opnos (but see above!)
b. differences between Cisalpine Gaulish and Lepontic:
1. *-m# > -n#: teuoχtonion, lokan vs. Lep. pruiam, palam, uinom natom (but also Cis-Gaul. atom)
2. word formation: ending of 3. sg./pl. preterite in -u, cp. karnitu(s) (Gaul. karnitou), vs. Lep.
karite, kalite
3. patronymics in -ikno/a- vs. Lep. -alo-, -ala-, -al (but also mixed in Late (?) Lepontic)
---

http://eprints.nuim.ie/3741/1/DS_Old_Celtic_Languages.pdf

thanks

maybe you can explain the difference on why many modern liguistics seperate gallish language and celtic languages ..........I see the difference in written examples,

Jean M
08-27-2014, 07:03 PM
why many modern liguistics seperate gallish language and celtic languages

They don't. Gaulish is a Celtic language. No linguist has ever said otherwise. Why persist in claims so easily disproved?

vettor
08-27-2014, 07:27 PM
http://originhunters.blogspot.com.au/

another article on the P312 ............celto-iberian

alan
08-27-2014, 07:54 PM
I do think its crazy that Celtic is given such a hard time compared to say 'Slavic'. Slavs are also largely grouped together because of language. So, whats the problem with Celtic. Celtic is essentially given a hard time as a term by English writers who have a problem and a terrible patronising attitude of ridicule. As far as I am concerned they simply have a problem and odd lack of understanding of any identity that doesnt conform to a generic British identity.

I would also point out as well that there is a lot more than just language that groups the Celts together. The peculiarly Celtic social and religious institutions like Druids, Bards, Vates, Legal men etc and many of the gods and rituals are all present in Irish early Medieval texts as are things like obsession with clan/lineage, clientship. Despite the classical references, the Celts were strikingly not a society who put all their resources on warbands and warriors and instead carried a large learned, legal and religious class. Much of what is said of the Gauls reappears in Irish Medieval texts- not just generically but specifically. The Celts seem to have shared there own distinctive ritual and social structure that made them somewhat distinctive and the traits towards clannishness, obsession with lineages, big emphasis on a learned class, obsession with ritual/ religion/superstition and the lack of stability in terms of polities (perpetual low level war) seems to be a distinctive trait through all of the history of the Celtic peoples from Gaul in 200BC to the 18th century AD. Interestingly, these similarities among the Celts were shared whether they were weakly or strongly influenced by Hallstatt or La Tene cultures and again whether or not their locality had a simple rural dispersed pastoralist type society or a more complex one with coinage, proto-urban sites etc. It seems there was a core of shared basic social structure and ritual traits that define the Celts and these go back to pre-Iron Age times into the Bronze Age.

R.Rocca
08-27-2014, 08:08 PM
because of

Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p which makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;

as part of many changes. The old association of Lepontic with celtic is being replaced.



Again, I'll go with the linguists on this and let them decide what language constructs make them Celtic, Italic, etc. If the association between Leptontic and Celtic is being seriously challenged, and other linguists are accepting of that challenge, please provide a source with a link.



archeology of elise Perego, the discoveries start ~1200BC ( IIRC oxford univ.)


It would be nice if for a change you provided a reference with a link. In this case, please show us a study that shows the first Alpine written language dated to ~1200BC.



as above , the veneti arrived ~1200BC ..................I do not agree that they came from Anatolia , that is what Homer states, .......the point I made is that the veneti did not bring a lnaguage with them because we do not find it in Italy, all we have is that the veneti absorbed the indigenous Euganei people and the logic from here is that the Veneti accepted the Euganei language, which is why it is similar with its neighbours.


You posted: "same as the veneti who came from Anatolia"....so which is it, do you think they did or didn't? Either way, it is irrelevant. The Veneti were a people of the Iron Age, a snapshot in time if you will. Genetics may prove or disprove some theories on how they came to be, and without a doubt some classic historians will be proven right and some wrong.



correct, but Lepontic is part of this group..........clearly logic, then tells us it is not celtic either


Again, you are the one saying they are a part of that group, not linguists.



You do not classify people by what language they speak, not now nor in the past. Do we say anyone who speaks English in the world today is English!


So since Polybius wrote that the Veneti of the 2nd century BC were identical to the Celts in every way except for language, do you consider them Celts????

alan
08-27-2014, 08:42 PM
I also would add that at one time there was a odd idea that the Celts on the continent in early sources and those on the isles in post-Roman times were somehow very different with the latter being seen as Celticised pre-Celtic Neolithic descendants. However, P312 derived clades are the dominant yDNA among all the current and past Celtic areas and we are fairly sure now that these clades did not appear until the cusp of the Bronze Age. So, those Victorian writers were wrong. All the former Celtic speaking areas share the dominance of a relatively late coming yDNA clade - P312 and that represents the only possible yDNA common denominator among the Celts.

We also know that in autosomal studies all NW Europeans cluster together while Med. people cluster together. The western part of the northern cluster is former Celtic speaking areas, many of which have not experience any huge genetic input since prehistoric times. So, genetics tends to show that the island Celts are genetically very similar to continental NW Europeans. The autosomal clustering of Europe tends to confirm the classical view of a divide between north and south in Europe and refutes the Victorian ideas that the Celts were somehow different, pre-Celtic or 'Iberian' as they liked to call it.

Agamemnon
08-27-2014, 09:37 PM
I also would add that at one time there was a odd idea that the Celts on the continent in early sources and those on the isles in post-Roman times were somehow very different with the latter being seen as Celticised pre-Celtic Neolithic descendants. However, P312 derived clades are the dominant yDNA among all the current and past Celtic areas and we are fairly sure now that these clades did not appear until the cusp of the Bronze Age. So, those Victorian writers were wrong. All the former Celtic speaking areas share the dominance of a relatively late coming yDNA clade - P312 and that represents the only possible yDNA common denominator among the Celts.

We also know that in autosomal studies all NW Europeans cluster together while Med. people cluster together. The western part of the northern cluster is former Celtic speaking areas, many of which have not experience any huge genetic input since prehistoric times. So, genetics tends to show that the island Celts are genetically very similar to continental NW Europeans. The autosomal clustering of Europe tends to confirm the classical view of a divide between north and south in Europe and refutes the Victorian ideas that the Celts were somehow different, pre-Celtic or 'Iberian' as they liked to call it.

From an autosomal standpoint, I sincerely doubt that the Anglo-Saxon invaders were all that different from the local Celts they came to dominate... In fact, as much as I'd like to see the POBI project's results I'm pretty sure we're in for a round of hair-splitting (if you get the gist). And that'll probably still be the case when actual genomide-wide data on these populations will become available.

Otherwise, I agree that this Victorian tendency to create an artificial debate over the use of the term "Celt" is an obnoxious one and I'm growing more and more tired of it.
The fact that R1b-L21 is so dominant throughout the Isles (including England) does a big disfavour to this self-defeating controversy.

alan
08-27-2014, 10:47 PM
Well its reaching a peak now with Scotland just about to vote on independence in a few weeks and one poll recently putting it as close as 48% for and 52% against - could go either way. I have read a lot of horrible arrogant misunderstandings of this from posters on the web from south of the border who see it as hatred of the English i.e. its all about them. In reality its got nothing to do with the English. Its more of an attempt to make Scotland an escape capsule from a UK that is going in a direction they dont want. Scottish people simply dont like the way the UK has changed in recent times with the destruction of Scottish industry, being ruled by Old Etonians/Baronets etc like it was Feudal times, the increasingly London-centric/city of London dominated nature of the UK, the fact the nukes are on the Clyde sitting right beside Glasgow the most densely populated part of Scotland (can you imagine them on the Thames beside London) or the way England voted heavily for an anti-Europe party in the Euro elections - a party who want to take the UK out of the European Union. They got very few votes in Scotland which is as Euro-friendly as England is Euro-skeptic (all that French hating is an English not British thing). Basically the Scots and English on the whole have drifted hugely apart politically and are like chalk and cheese - as you can see during any general election. Broadly speaking Scots often would like Scotland to be run more like the Scandinavian nations than the UK but they know that is not popular in England. Even if independence vote fails they will soon be campaigning for devo-max or maximum devolution of power which will make Scotland like a semi-detached federal state.


From an autosomal standpoint, I sincerely doubt that the Anglo-Saxon invaders were all that different from the local Celts they came to dominate... In fact, as much as I'd like to see the POBI project's results I'm pretty sure we're in for a round of hair-splitting (if you get the gist). And that'll probably still be the case when actual genomide-wide data on these populations will become available.

Otherwise, I agree that this Victorian tendency to create an artificial debate over the use of the term "Celt" is an obnoxious one and I'm growing more and more tired of it.
The fact that R1b-L21 is so dominant throughout the Isles (including England) does a big disfavour to this self-defeating controversy.

Agamemnon
08-27-2014, 11:00 PM
Well its reaching a peak now with Scotland just about to vote on independence in a few weeks and one poll recently putting it as close as 48% for and 52% against - could go either way. I have read a lot of horrible arrogant misunderstandings of this from posters on the web from south of the border who see it as hatred of the English i.e. its all about them. In reality its got nothing to do with the English. Its more of an attempt to make Scotland an escape capsule from a UK that is going in a direction they dont want. Scottish people simply dont like the way the UK has changed in recent times with the destruction of Scottish industry, being ruled by Old Etonians/Baronets etc like it was Feudal times, the increasingly London-centric/city of London dominated nature of the UK, the fact the nukes are on the Clyde sitting right beside Glasgow the most densely populated part of Scotland (can you imagine them on the Thames beside London) or the way England voted heavily for an anti-Europe party in the Euro elections - a party who want to take the UK out of the European Union. They got very few votes in Scotland which is as Euro-friendly as England is Euro-skeptic (all that French hating is an English not British thing). Basically the Scots and English on the whole have drifted hugely apart politically and are like chalk and cheese - as you can see during any general election. Broadly speaking Scots often would like Scotland to be run more like the Scandinavian nations than the UK but they know that is not popular in England. Even if independence vote fails they will soon be campaigning for devo-max or maximum devolution of power which will make Scotland like a semi-detached federal state.

I really agree with the bolded part, though I seriously doubt Scotland's independence is going to change anything.
I'm kind of neutral on this issue, I'd be sympathetic if things were a bit different (all the Galloway-ish rhetoric doesn't exactly attract me)... Especially given the fact that my family in the Berwickshire-Borders area keeps telling me they're "Scottish! Celtic! Not English!", besides the fact that they're probably the only folks who still treat me like a son and keep contact with me and my family.

As far as I'm concerned (I do have British citizenship), I feel London already is a separate "country" (not sure it even deserves such a label)... The country'd be better off if all of its surroundings were flooded so as to turn London into an artificial island.
That'd be a good step forward if you ask me.

But I can see where you're getting at... My family has always defined itself as "British", and I intend to keep it that way regardless of how divided the island is.

alan
08-27-2014, 11:03 PM
It wouldnt be so bad if it was just the Victorians but Celto-skepticism is rife today albeit dressed up in a more academic way. I cannot think of any other subdivision of the IE world whose very existence is questioned and lampooned. Its a unique sort of negative treatment. Its a shame in a way because I am sure the English are half or more Celtic genetically- in the sense of genetically derived from the Celtic speaking population that the Romans found there. Yet they tend to see Celt as meaning Scots, Welsh and Irish. Mind you they dont like being told they are Germans either lol.


From an autosomal standpoint, I sincerely doubt that the Anglo-Saxon invaders were all that different from the local Celts they came to dominate... In fact, as much as I'd like to see the POBI project's results I'm pretty sure we're in for a round of hair-splitting (if you get the gist). And that'll probably still be the case when actual genomide-wide data on these populations will become available.

Otherwise, I agree that this Victorian tendency to create an artificial debate over the use of the term "Celt" is an obnoxious one and I'm growing more and more tired of it.
The fact that R1b-L21 is so dominant throughout the Isles (including England) does a big disfavour to this self-defeating controversy.

Webb
08-27-2014, 11:16 PM
Of the thirty some Webb lineages in the Webb Surname DNA Project, roughly 65% are P312 with L21 being the largest of the P312. That is a fairly strong number for an Old English surname. I would love to see if this trend is the norm among English occupational surnames. It could support Alan's stance that the only significant genetic change associated with a new cultural/linguistic change would be with the elite. Which immediately makes me wonder if you take this as a common denominator, is it possible that insular Celtic does not coincide with early L21 in the isles but maybe with a later wave of arrivals.

Agamemnon
08-27-2014, 11:22 PM
It wouldnt be so bad if it was just the Victorians but Celto-skepticism is rife today albeit dressed up in a more academic way. I cannot think of any other subdivision of the IE world whose very existence is questioned and lampooned. Its a unique sort of negative treatment. Its a shame in a way because I am sure the English are half or more Celtic genetically- in the sense of genetically derived from the Celtic speaking population that the Romans found there. Yet they tend to see Celt as meaning Scots, Welsh and Irish. Mind you they dont like being told they are Germans either lol.

It does indeed seem extremely common in British scholarly circles, as you said there's nothing quite like it and french linguists usually insist on this point (Georges Dumézil did for instance) but it also has something to do with English-French rivalry (yes, such a thing does exist amongst historical linguists).

You're right about the English being at least half-Celtic, my mother is actually even more Celtic than that (she's pretty close to Scottish people on PCA plots and her WHG/ANE/EEF proportions are the same as Scots) and that's only because she has ancestry from the four corners of the Isles.
And yes, they absolutely hate being called Germans... Lucky my grandad was R-U152 (always been fascinated with this haplogroup) and not R-U106, I remember having endless fights with my mother as a teenager when I used to point out the fact that she has "Germanic" ancestry.
Paradoxically, it's the Scottish side of my family which might've carried R-U106 (name's "Swan", I have a relative in my RF with the exact same family name and he's positive for U106), so much for their Celtic pride lol.

alan
08-27-2014, 11:23 PM
George Galloway is ardently anti-independence. He has actually been touring around with the NO campaign. Its seems weird given his other views but he is very anti-independence. He hangs onto the dogma of international socialism as a world class conflict thing . Mind you although he is highly entertaining and sometimes says the right things I cant help but feel he is an opportunist charlatan and who knows what his real motives are.

I personally think it will be close but NO will win. However, I think its almost certain that, after a NO vote next month, in 2016 the Scottish nationalists will get a landslide absolute majority again this time standing on a Devo-Max (federal semi-independence)ticket. Granting those sort of powers is purely in Westminster's gift to grant or refuse but if they refuse after a landslide mandate then it could get very ugly. The SNP already have an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament of c. 50% and I believe if they were the only party standing on a Devo-Max ticket they could actually win an incredible 70% making Scotland like a one party state. So, I think the die is cast for either independence or more likely the federal semi-independence of Devo-Max. I dont think there is any doubt about that. It unstoppable now.

As for England, I believe they also deserve to not be ruled by a London/SE-centric parliament and perhaps powerful regional assemblies for the northern half and south-west would give them a buffer against the London elite.


I really agree with the bolded part, though I seriously doubt Scotland's independence is going to change anything.
I'm kind of neutral on this issue, I'd be sympathetic if things were a bit different (all the Galloway-ish rhetoric doesn't exactly attract me)... Especially given the fact that my family in the Berwickshire-Borders area keeps telling me they're "Scottish! Celtic! Not English!", besides the fact that they're probably the only folks who still treat me like a son and keep contact with me and my family.

As far as I'm concerned (I do have British citizenship), I feel London already is a separate "country" (not sure it even deserves such a label)... The country'd be better off if all of its surroundings were flooded so as to turn London into an artificial island.
That'd be a good step forward if you ask me.

But I can see where you're getting at... My family has always defined itself as "British", and I intend to keep it that way regardless of how divided the island is.

Agamemnon
08-27-2014, 11:36 PM
George Galloway is ardently anti-independence. He has actually been touring around with the NO campaign. Its seems weird given his other views but he is very anti-independence. He hangs onto the dogma of international socialism as a world class conflict thing . Mind you although he is highly entertaining and sometimes says the right things I cant help but feel he is an opportunist charlatan and who knows what his real motives are.

I personally think it will be close but NO will win. However, I think its almost certain that, after a NO vote next month, in 2016 the Scottish nationalists will get a landslide absolute majority again this time standing on a Devo-Max (federal semi-independence)ticket. Granting those sort of powers is purely in Westminster's gift to grant or refuse but if they refuse after a landslide mandate then it could get very ugly. The SNP already have an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament of c. 50% and I believe if they were the only party standing on a Devo-Max ticket they could actually win an incredible 70% making Scotland like a one party state. So, I think the die is cast for either independence or more likely the federal semi-independence of Devo-Max. I dont think there is any doubt about that. It unstoppable now.

As for England, I believe they also deserve to not be ruled by a London/SE-centric parliament and perhaps powerful regional assemblies for the northern half and south-west would give them a buffer against the London elite.

I'm not in the least surprised by Galloway vouching for the NO campaign... And I agree, he really is an entertaining and gifted speaker.
His real motives? Well, I think Hitchens pretty much hit the nail when he said he's "a fifth column run from the Middle East in British politics", he's embarked on a quest for a new totalitarian utopia since the fall of the USSR.
Other than that, he's pretty dull... I often think of him as the British equivalent of our local "Social-Nationalists" posing as "dissidents", "humourists" and "philosophers" (such as Alain Soral) here in France.

I once told my mother that Sean Connery supported Scotland's independence and she seemed shocked, she clearly thought less of the man lol.
As I said, I'm neutral... If it can prevent Scotland from turning into a rural version of London then I'm all for it, though I seriously doubt it will.

And I agree, England doesn't deserve to be run from this insane asylum London has become.

alan
08-27-2014, 11:37 PM
Anyway that is enough about the Scottish independence referendum - I wont derail the thread further lol

vettor
08-28-2014, 06:48 AM
You posted: "same as the veneti who came from Anatolia"....so which is it, do you think they did or didn't? Either way, it is irrelevant. The Veneti were a people of the Iron Age, a snapshot in time if you will. Genetics may prove or disprove some theories on how they came to be, and without a doubt some classic historians will be proven right and some wrong.



So since Polybius wrote that the Veneti of the 2nd century BC were identical to the Celts in every way except for language, do you consider them Celts????

reread what I posted and do not use half my sentence but use all of it.

veneti have been in italy from the late bronze-age.......this iron-age is only the propoganda that is fed to people.

http://www.academia.edu/497066/Textile_in_Venetic_cremation_tombs_c._1050_BC_-_AD_25_a_reappraisal_of_the_evidence

1050BC, as I stated...........use your genetic studies with archeology or else you can be wasting your time.

remember, the last "italians" to enter Italy was the etruscans.

The only true Italians are the tribes under the umbrian and oscanian confederation

Dubhthach
08-28-2014, 09:20 AM
It wouldnt be so bad if it was just the Victorians but Celto-skepticism is rife today albeit dressed up in a more academic way. I cannot think of any other subdivision of the IE world whose very existence is questioned and lampooned. Its a unique sort of negative treatment. Its a shame in a way because I am sure the English are half or more Celtic genetically- in the sense of genetically derived from the Celtic speaking population that the Romans found there. Yet they tend to see Celt as meaning Scots, Welsh and Irish. Mind you they dont like being told they are Germans either lol.

Well I think alot of it in the sphere of Academia grows out of the 1960's and the end of empire (decolonisation). Now no doubt there were certain "imperalists" before hand using the notion of migration etc. (Celts, then Anglos-Saxons) into Britain as a justification for imperalism (some sorta social-darwinism view), the problem I think is the academics ended up "Throwing the baby out with the water". To such an extent that all of us here in Ireland and Britain are supposedly a bunch of Mesolithic's hunter-gathers who basically picked up agriculture/metallurgy (and then Indo-European languages) via the "Social-networks" of the day ;) (trade etc.)

The whole fixation with the basques in the first part of the century and how they were dominated by R1b-M269 and how likewise R1b-M269 was dominant in the isles played into such notions. Thankfully now we are actually seeing ancient-DNa results (La Brana, examples from Scandinavia) which are providing a baseline to compare modern populations with.

Dubhthach
08-28-2014, 09:25 AM
I would also say that some of the "Celto-scepticism" in Ireland in particular is driven by anti-Irish language attitudes. So for example you hear arguments such as:

"We've been here 10,000 years, the "Gaelic" language only came with Celts, it's no more our native language then english" -- in these debates they often refuse to call the language "Irish" instead using "Gaelic" often as a term to emphase that the language doesn't have something to do with "Modern Irish people" (whatever that means).

The less direct version of that is: "The Celts never invaded Ireland, we just started speaking a Celtic langauge due to trade/contact" or "Irish people don't match the genetics of Alpine people" -- ironically we see good chunk of P312 in Switzerland, though obvioulsy L21 is quite small. Let alone the fact that form an autosomnal point of view there isn't a huge gap between Irish people and other Europeans (if we had been isolated for couple thousand years -- since stone age anyways -- ye'd expect significant divergence)

-Paul

vettor
08-28-2014, 09:37 AM
I'm not in the least surprised by Galloway vouching for the NO campaign... And I agree, he really is an entertaining and gifted speaker.
His real motives? Well, I think Hitchens pretty much hit the nail when he said he's "a fifth column run from the Middle East in British politics", he's embarked on a quest for a new totalitarian utopia since the fall of the USSR.
Other than that, he's pretty dull... I often think of him as the British equivalent of our local "Social-Nationalists" posing as "dissidents", "humourists" and "philosophers" (such as Alain Soral) here in France.

I once told my mother that Sean Connery supported Scotland's independence and she seemed shocked, she clearly thought less of the man lol.
As I said, I'm neutral... If it can prevent Scotland from turning into a rural version of London then I'm all for it, though I seriously doubt it will.

And I agree, England doesn't deserve to be run from this insane asylum London has become.

if a populace vote to be independent from the nation they are currently in , then why shouldn't they if they had a clear majority?

We don't want to see the bloodbath of a 'yugoslavia" again , do we?

rms2
08-28-2014, 11:57 AM
. . . Its a shame in a way because I am sure the English are half or more Celtic genetically- in the sense of genetically derived from the Celtic speaking population that the Romans found there . . .

I was thinking about how the English language so thoroughly triumphed in what is now England, and about all that "wipe-out" and Anglo-Saxon "Apartheid" stuff that was current back in about 2006 or 2007, I think. In skimming back through David Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language, I happened across a brief passage in which he talks about what it takes for a language spoken by an elite to take off and be adopted by the general population. Anthony mentions the fact that the Normans and the Galatians, for examples, were not able to impose their respective languages upon the locals they dominated. I don't have the book with me, so I cannot supply an exact quote right now, but Anthony says that an elite language will spread when the elites are open to accepting clients and allies on a more or less equal basis and to allowing them to advance in the society. In other words, a society that offers advantages and equal footing to newcomers will see its language expand, as well.

That is what happened in what is now England, I think. I'm not saying the Anglo-Saxons were real sweethearts. Certainly they were not. But my impression is that they were willing to accept British warriors into their warbands. I believe that because the Germanic warband, the gefolge or posse comitatus, on the Continent was pretty fluid and open. We know, for example, that Germans served in Hunnic warbands under Attila. There is also the possibility that Cerdic of Wessex (519-534) was himself a Briton, although there is some controversy on that score. If he was, that would indicate that Anglo-Saxon society was pretty open pretty early.

Genetics makes it plain that the Anglo-Saxons did not wipe out the Britons, so how else can one explain how English came to replace Brythonic so thoroughly in what is now England unless many of the Britons saw a big advantage in adopting it and just went over to it pretty much lock, stock and barrel?

R.Rocca
08-28-2014, 12:17 PM
reread what I posted and do not use half my sentence but use all of it.
veneti have been in italy from the late bronze-age.......this iron-age is only the propoganda that is fed to people.


Nonsense. The Veneti are a mix of people over a period of thousands of years. Some of their ancestors may have come during the Bronze Age and some much earlier. If you think the Iron Age is propaganda, then you are failing to use archaeology.



http://www.academia.edu/497066/Textile_in_Venetic_cremation_tombs_c._1050_BC_-_AD_25_a_reappraisal_of_the_evidence

1050BC, as I stated...........use your genetic studies with archaeology or else you can be wasting your time.


First you confused script with language and now you confuse text with textiles. Textiles are what makes clothing and has nothing to do with writing. Is seems like in this case you have wasted your own time and now mine.



remember, the last "italians" to enter Italy was the etruscans.

The only true Italians are the tribes under the umbrian and oscanian confederation

So now the Etruscans were "Italians" but the Latini, the Falisci and Siculi were not? Sorry, but I think there is a major a language issue here.

Dubhthach
08-28-2014, 12:19 PM
I was thinking about how the English language so thoroughly triumphed in what is now England, and about all that "wipe-out" and Anglo-Saxon "Apartheid" stuff that was current back in about 2006 or 2007, I think. In skimming back through David Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language, I happened across a brief passage in which he talks about what it takes for a language spoken by an elite to take off and be adopted by the general population. Anthony mentions the fact that the Normans and the Galatians, for examples, were not able to impose their respective languages upon the locals they dominated. I don't have the book with me, so I cannot supply an exact quote right now, but Anthony says that an elite language will spread when the elites are open to accepting clients and allies on a more or less equal basis and to allowing them to advance in the society. In other words, a society that offers advantages and equal footing to newcomers will see its language expand, as well.

That is what happened in what is now England, I think. I'm not saying the Anglo-Saxons were real sweethearts. Certainly they were not. But my impression is that they were willing to accept British warriors into their warbands. I believe that because the Germanic warband, the gefolge or posse comitatus, on the Continent was pretty fluid and open. We know, for example, that Germans served in Hunnic warbands under Attila. There is also the possibility that Cerdic of Wessex (519-534) was himself a Briton, although there is some controversy on that score. If he was, that would indicate that Anglo-Saxon society was pretty open pretty early.

Genetics makes it plain that the Anglo-Saxons did not wipe out the Britons, so how else can one explain how English came to replace Brythonic so thoroughly in what is now England unless the Britons saw a big advantage in adopting it and just went over to it pretty much lock, stock and barrel?

Well angliscation in Ireland from 1600 onwards is a good example of a "trickle-down" from the ruling elite becoming a flood. In the early period (1169-1603) you if anything see newcomers been Gaelicized, this is more than likely due to the survival of a native ruling elite (in large parts of the country) which result in intermarriage (most the "Cambro-Norman" barons/lords of the 1220's had Irish mothers for example!)

There persisted "domains" in which Irish language skills were essential (large parts of the Church, Bardic class) plus given the nature of Irish lordship some of the features were quite attractive to the new "Cambro-Norman's". So for example by early 14th century you seen men such as Gerald FitzGerald 3rd Earl of Desmond ("Gearóid Iarla" literally Earl Gerald in Irish) composing poetry in both Norman-French and in the Irish language!

Mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh ("Speak not ill of womenkind")


Mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh!
bheith dá n-éagnach ní dáil chruinn,
a bhfuaradar do ghuth riamh
dom aithne ní hiad do thuill.

Binn a mbriathra gasta a nglór
aicme rerab mór mo bháidh;
a gcáineadh is mairg nár loc;
mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh.

Ní dhéanaid fionghal ná feall,
ná ní ar a mbeith grainc ná gráin;
ní sháraighid cill ná clog;
mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh.

Ní tháinig riamh acht ó mhnaoi
easbag ní rí dearbhtha an dáil,
ná príomhfháidh ar nách biadh locht;
mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh.

Agá gcroidhe bhíos a ngeall;
ionmhain leó duine seang slán,
fada go ngeabhdaois a chol;
mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh.

Duine aesaidh leathan liath
ní hé a mian dul' na dháil;
annsa leó an buinneán óg bocht;
mairg adeir olc ris na mnáibh!

--Translation----
Speak not ill of womenkind
'Tis no wisdom if you do,
You that fault with women find
I would not be praised of you.

Sweetly speaking, witty clear
Tribe most lovely to my mind,
Blame of women I hate to hear
Speak not ill of womenkind.

Bloody treason, murderous act
Not by women were designed.
Bells o'erthrown nor churches sacked
Speak not ill of womenkind.

Bishop, King upon his throne,
Primate skilled to loose and bind
Sprung of women every one
Speak not ill of womenkind.

For a brave young fellow
Hearts of women oft have pinned,
Who would dare their love to wrong?
Speak not ill of womenkind.

Paunchy greybeards never more
Hope to please a woman's mind,
Poor young Chieftains they adore
Speak not ill of womenkind.


In this case as can be seen the Cambro-Normans became "More Irish than the Irish themselves", what's important to remember is they were basically semi-automonous lords living in a non-centralised Lordship.

The authorities in Dublin castle thus were often afraid that the English language would actually die out in Ireland, the important changes of course occur after Henry VIII declaration of the "Kingdom of Ireland" (Lordship of Ireland before this) and the process of Tudor conquest that followed. Result was the beginning of a centralised state during the early modern period which placed increase emphasis on the central and the removal of automy. In Ireland this resulted in the destruction of the native Irish landed elite (who had provide patronage to the "Gaelic" literary elite -- bards, judges, harpists etc.), so much so that by 1700 90-95% of lang in Ireland was owned by 5% of population, who happened to be "New English" (post 1530, protestant).

Simple result was that Irish as language lost any prestige, so by 1760's 2/3rd of population were Irish speaking, but as a new middle class/merchant class arose you saw them adapting the language of power (english) so much so that you can read accounts of people from the "eve of the famine" decrying the Irish language as the language of the "vulgar masses".

I imagine in some ways something similiar happened with Gaulish, after all the Roman Empire was quite a centralised entity which emphasised Latin, over time Gaulish generally fell down the pecking order, until the last accounts we have of it basically paint the picture of a "peaseant language" in the 4th century (St. Jerome mentions the Treveri spoke language akin to the Galatians).

rossa
08-28-2014, 02:33 PM
I would also say that some of the "Celto-scepticism" in Ireland in particular is driven by anti-Irish language attitudes. So for example you hear arguments such as:

"We've been here 10,000 years, the "Gaelic" language only came with Celts, it's no more our native language then english" -- in these debates they often refuse to call the language "Irish" instead using "Gaelic" often as a term to emphase that the language doesn't have something to do with "Modern Irish people" (whatever that means).

The less direct version of that is: "The Celts never invaded Ireland, we just started speaking a Celtic langauge due to trade/contact" or "Irish people don't match the genetics of Alpine people" -- ironically we see good chunk of P312 in Switzerland, though obvioulsy L21 is quite small. Let alone the fact that form an autosomnal point of view there isn't a huge gap between Irish people and other Europeans (if we had been isolated for couple thousand years -- since stone age anyways -- ye'd expect significant divergence)

-Paul

I think celto-skepticism in Ireland stems from the want of many Irish people to se themselves as unique or special, kind of ties into the underdog that many see the Irish as.
The last people Irish people want to be seen as related to are the British.

lgmayka
08-28-2014, 03:24 PM
Anthony says that an elite language will spread when the elites are open to accepting clients and allies on a more or less equal basis and to allowing them to advance in the society. In other words, a society that offers advantages and equal footing to newcomers will see its language expand, as well.
Anthony is referring to societies without a method of writing.

An elite who have a method of writing, but who keep the non-elite illiterate, will indeed eventually impose their language on everyone--without being "nice" about it in any way. This continues to happen today: The many dialects of modern languages are swiftly dying off, because writers use the standard language rather than the dialect.

Agamemnon
08-28-2014, 04:06 PM
I don't have the book with me, so I cannot supply an exact quote right now, but Anthony says that an elite language will spread when the elites are open to accepting clients and allies on a more or less equal basis and to allowing them to advance in the society. In other words, a society that offers advantages and equal footing to newcomers will see its language expand, as well.

Here's the actual quote ;)

"Indo-European languages probably spread in a similar way among the tribal societies of
prehistoric Europe. Out-migrating Indo-European chiefs probably carried with them an ideology of
political clientage like that of the Acholi chiefs, becoming patrons of their new clients among the
local population; and they introduced a new ritual system in which they, in imitation of the gods,
provided the animals for public sacrifices and feasts, and were in turn rewarded with the recitation of
praise poetry—all solidly reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European culture, and all effective public
recruiting activities. Later Proto-Indo-European migrations also introduced a new, mobile kind of
pastoral economy made possible by the combination of ox-drawn wagons and horseback riding.
Expansion beyond a few islands of authority might have waited until the new chiefdoms successfully
responded to external stresses, climatic or political. Then the original chiefly core became the
foundation for the development of a new regional ethnic identity. Renfrew has called this mode of
language shift elite dominance but elite recruitment is probably a better term. The Normans
conquered England and the Celtic Galatians conquered central Anatolia, but both failed to establish
their languages among the local populations they dominated. Immigrant elite languages are adopted
only where an elite status system is not only dominant but is also open to recruitment and alliance. For
people to change to a new language, the shift must provide a key to integration within the new system,
and those who join the system must see an opportunity to rise within it.29
A good example of how an open social system can encourage recruitment and language shift, cited
long ago by Mallory, was described by Frederik Barth in eastern Afghanistan. Among the Pathans
(today usually called Pashtun) on the Kandahar plateau, status depended on agricultural surpluses that
came from circumscribed river-bottom fields. Pathan landowners competed for power in local
councils (jirga) where no man admitted to being subservient and all appeals were phrased as
requests among equals. The Baluch, a neighboring ethnic group, lived in the arid mountains and were,
of necessity, pastoral herders. Although poor, the Baluch had an openly hierarchical political system,
unlike the Pathan. The Pathan had more weapons than the Baluch, more people, more wealth, and
generally more power and status. Yet, at the Baluch-Pathan frontier, many dispossessed Pathans
crossed over to a new life as clients of Baluchi chiefs.Because Pathan status was tied to land
ownership, Pathans who had lost their land in feuds were doomed to menial and peripheral lives. But
Baluchi status was linked to herds, which could grow rapidly if the herder was lucky; and to political
alliances, not to land. All Baluchi chiefs were the clients of more powerful chiefs, up to the office of
sardar, the highest Baluchi authority, who himself owed allegiance to the khan of Kalat. Among the
Baluch there was no shame in being the client of a powerful chief, and the possibilities for rapid
economic and political improvement were great. So, in a situation of chronic low-level warfare at the
Pathan-Baluch frontier, former agricultural refugees tended to flow toward the pastoral Baluch, and
the Baluchi language thus gained new speakers. Chronic tribal warfare might generally favor pastoral
over sedentary economies as herds can be defended by moving them, whereas agricultural fields are
an immobile target."



Genetics makes it plain that the Anglo-Saxons did not wipe out the Britons, so how else can one explain how English came to replace Brythonic so thoroughly in what is now England unless many of the Britons saw a big advantage in adopting it and just went over to it pretty much lock, stock and barrel?

I also think a form of oblique patron-client relationship led to the spread of English and the eventual replacement of Brythonic in what would become England.
In Norfolk & Suffolk for instance, almost all of the toponyms are reliably Germanic yet the hydronyms are Celtic.

I think this process is pretty similar to arabization, since the latter was enhanced by a form of patronage the arabs established in the lands they conquered (also worthy of notice is the fact that the diffusion of arabic was eased by the fact that the "clients" or "mawali" spoke related Semitic and AA languages).

Agamemnon
08-28-2014, 04:40 PM
The last people Irish people want to be seen as related to are the British.

Which is why the "Milesian myth" still enjoys an ounce of popularity.

Dubhthach
08-28-2014, 05:20 PM
Which is why the "Milesian myth" still enjoys an ounce of popularity.

Personally I have no problem with been related to either the Welsh or the Cornish ;)

Agamemnon
08-28-2014, 05:33 PM
Personally I have no problem with been related to either the Welsh or the Cornish ;)

Neither do I (I actually do have Cornish ancestry), though I seriously doubt the Gaels came from Iberia :p

vettor
08-28-2014, 06:07 PM
Nonsense. The Veneti are a mix of people over a period of thousands of years. Some of their ancestors may have come during the Bronze Age and some much earlier. If you think the Iron Age is propaganda, then you are failing to use archaeology.



First you confused script with language and now you confuse text with textiles. Textiles are what makes clothing and has nothing to do with writing. Is seems like in this case you have wasted your own time and now mine.



So now the Etruscans were "Italians" but the Latini, the Falisci and Siculi were not? Sorry, but I think there is a major a language issue here.

did you read the link?..it states
This study explores the role of textiles in Venetic funerary rituals between the Final Bronze Age and earlyRoman period (
c.
1050 BC - AD 25).

venetic funeral practices using textiles as part of cremation............what part states these are not venetic people?

I think you are confused.

and, I will clear this term Italian for you.

Under Italian law/constitution , there have never been any Italians before March 1861. This is the Italian law.

In ancient times, the only "italians" under Greek historians are the confederation of tribes that belong to Umbrians and Oscans.

In medieval and renaissance times the term Italian refereed to people from the geographical lands of the Italian peninsula. The term in those times is like the term Balkan or British or Scandinavian. The term Italian as a geographical term for people was still used by all the reigning powers of Europe at the congress of Vienna between 1815-1820 .

Dubhthach
08-28-2014, 06:11 PM
Neither do I (I actually do have Cornish ancestry), though I seriously doubt the Gaels came from Iberia :p

Well that was a poor atempt at humour, given that in context of Old Irish someone who was "British" was specifically a Brythonic speaker. The saxon's were thus never regarded as British.

As for Iberia sure but what's even funnier is that "Gael" is derived from a loan word from Old Welsh.

Gael -> Goídel (Old Irish) -> Guoidel (Old Welsh) -- well technically it comes from the "Primitive welsh" form that would eventually give Guoidel in Old Welsh.

This probably reflects the influence of the early missionary church which would have been heavily "British" (aka Brythonic) speaking in character.

alan
08-28-2014, 07:42 PM
I do agree with the comment that the Milesian myth's popularity despite all the evidence against it is a reflection of an common desire to link the remote past with allies of more recent Irish history of the 17th century during the period of religious wars of Europe rather than with the traditional enemy. Well unfortunately for people with feel the need for that, the genetics shows the Irish and British are far closer to each other than anyone else and the Irish fall in the northern European cluster while the Spanish fall in the southern. Its a shame some people have to bring modern history into their views on ancient. Mind you, I would say that its actually probably common for a country's traditional enemies to also be their closest genetic relation simply because countries with traditions of friction with each other tend to be nearest neigbours.


I think celto-skepticism in Ireland stems from the want of many Irish people to se themselves as unique or special, kind of ties into the underdog that many see the Irish as.
The last people Irish people want to be seen as related to are the British.

alan
08-28-2014, 08:10 PM
I think there are a complex of factors involved. The Britons themselves may have been an odd mix of Celtic, Latin and hybrid speakers in lowland Britain and there may have been a mixture of loyalty and being glad to see the back of the Romans.

alan
08-29-2014, 09:27 AM
I do think Rich is right that the fact that Germanic society was more inclusive in terms of things like the warband rather than lineage obsessed is quite possibly a big factor how the Anglo-Saxons were able to win over the Britons to their language. I think that somewhere in the idea of land for loyalty and military service regardless of lineage that we see in Germanic society is the root of Feudalism of the high Medieval period. The lineage based nature of Celtic society was its Achilles heel. How peculiar this sort of system was to the Celts I am not sure. I have said it before - the incredible dominance of L21 among the isles Celts does indicate that their society was not inclusive to other male lineage or certainly that access to resources was hogged.

rms2
08-30-2014, 02:52 PM
I do think Rich is right that the fact that Germanic society was more inclusive in terms of things like the warband rather than lineage obsessed is quite possibly a big factor how the Anglo-Saxons were able to win over the Britons to their language. I think that somewhere in the idea of land for loyalty and military service regardless of lineage that we see in Germanic society is the root of Feudalism of the high Medieval period. The lineage based nature of Celtic society was its Achilles heel. How peculiar this sort of system was to the Celts I am not sure. I have said it before - the incredible dominance of L21 among the isles Celts does indicate that their society was not inclusive to other male lineage or certainly that access to resources was hogged.

I think that is right.

Over the years I have read authors who were obvious Anglophiles or Teutonophiles and asserted that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out most of the Britons and drove the rest into Wales and Scotland or across the sea to Armorica. Then there were other authors, like Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, who asserted that the Anglo-Saxons were never more than a conquering elite and that the population of what is now England remained largely British.

The truth is something in between those two extremes, in my view. A large Celtic population remained, but there was also a flood of Germans who settled in what is now England.

What has always puzzled me is how apparently little the English language was influenced by Brythonic. There must have been some real incentives for adopting the Anglo-Saxon speech, and I don't think it was all fear of punishment. The A-S conquest took several centuries, yet the English language managed to thoroughly oust Brythonic in England. The Britons must have been able to move into A-S society pretty easily, it seems to me.

Webb
08-30-2014, 03:14 PM
I think that is right.

Over the years I have read authors who were obvious Anglophiles or Teutonophiles and asserted that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out most of the Britons and drove the rest into Wales and Scotland or across the sea to Armorica. Then there were other authors, like Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, who asserted that the Anglo-Saxons were never more than a conquering elite and that the population of what is now England remained largely British.

The truth is something in between those two extremes, in my view. A large Celtic population remained, but there was also a flood of Germans who settled in what is now England.

What has always puzzled me is how apparently little the English language was influenced by Brythonic. There must have been some real incentives for adopting the Anglo-Saxon speech, and I don't think it was all fear of punishment. The A-S conquest took several centuries, yet the English language managed to thoroughly oust Brythonic in England. The Britons must have been able to move into A-S society pretty easily, it seems to me.

I think it would lay heavily on the proportion of the ruling elite/warriors to trades people and farmers/herders. Prior to Roman invasion I would think it pretty well balanced. After the Roman conquest, it might have been unbalanced, meaning that their might have been a much smaller elite/warriors due to dependance on roman soldiers. These trades peoples might have done very well. It does not make sense to me, that if a war and arrives with the intent on conquering, why would you kill the people that would provide you food and items that you would need. Plundering is a different story, your intent would not be to stay, so killing everyone would not impact your mission. Conquering and settling would mean maybe trading with the locals.

rms2
08-31-2014, 10:59 AM
The Britons had plenty of elite and warriors by the time the Anglo-Saxons became a problem. In the last century or so of Roman rule in Britain, the Romans had come to rely on British client chiefs to police the borders against the Picts in the North and the Irish in the West. Large numbers of Britons served in the Roman Army. The Cornovii of the Shropshire/Welsh border region were even allowed the rare privilege of being posted as Roman auxiliaries in their own tribal area. That was unusual, because tribal auxiliaries were generally sent to serve away from their homelands.

Remember too that for a long time the Britons were staving off the Anglo-Saxon threat and even beating them. One could argue that the Britons might have triumphed over the Anglo-Saxons had not Riothamus taken so many British troops to the Continent in the late 5th century to help the Romans against the Visigoths. Riothamus was only able to go adventuring on the Continent because he was so successful in quelling the Anglo-Saxons at home in Britain.

Another factor, of course, was the inability of the Celts to get together and stay together for long. Their own internecine squabbles were their ruin. Celt fought Celt, and some even fought in alliance with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons. Witness the assassination of Urien of Rheged as the consequence of a British plot as he was leading a very successful campaign against the Anglo-Saxons.

rms2
02-14-2015, 01:26 PM
This may be an appropriate time for an update to this thread, given some pretty important developments since I started it.

It might actually be an understatement to call the new Haak et al paper, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433), earth-shaking, monumental, and paradigm shifting. The main focus of discussion surrounding it has been the fact that R1b was seven-for-seven among the ancient Yamnaya y-dna results from the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia and that an even older skeleton from near Samara, a ~7700-year-old hunter-gatherer, was also R1b (R1b1 to be precise).

Overshadowed by all that, but perhaps just as important and earth-shaking, is the fact that a Bell Beaker man from the site at Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2296-2206 BC, tested P312+. Haak et al tested him for the full panoply of SNPs listed on ISOGG's tree as of 22 April 2013, but they were unable to get reads for many of them, including, sadly, U152, DF27, and L21.



Another group of six graves was discovered at Quedlinburg reference site VII and attributed
to the Bell beaker culture based on form and orientation of the burials 32. We included a >50
year old male individual buried in an extreme flexed position.

QLB28/I0806 (feature 19617, 2296-2206 calBCE, MAMS 22820)


(p. 65 of 172).

I0806 (Bell_Beaker_LN)
The individual was assigned to haplogroup R1b1a2a1a2 based on mutation P312:22157311C
→A.
Two Bell Beaker individuals from Kromsdorf, Germany were previously determined 2 to belong to
haplogroup R1b. (p. 73 of 172)

Remember that the two Bell Beaker bodies from the site near Kromsdorf, Germany, tested R1b (one M269+ and one M343+) and, significantly, U106-. I am not sure whether they tested them for P312 and just were unable to get reads on it or if they just did not test them for P312. Anyway, given this Quedlinburg P312+ result, it seems likely the two from Kromsdorf were P312+, as well.

Thus the only ancient y-dna results so far for Bell Beaker are all three R1b and U106-, and one of them is P312+. Since a number of scholars over the years have associated Bell Beaker with the spread of Italo-Celtic, it seems reasonable now to consider this latest result as one more piece in that puzzle and further evidence of the connection between P312, Beaker, and Italo-Celtic.

In addition to all that, witness the recent results from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, England, where two bodies from around AD 1 turned out to be P312>L21 (and one of them was DF21>DF25, as well).

JRW
02-18-2015, 01:31 AM
Thus the only ancient y-dna results so far for Bell Beaker are all three R1b and U106-, and one of them is P312+.

The other interesting aspect of the Haak paper's findings and the Kromsdorf ancient DNA results is that none of the 14 male remains that had successful DNA tests were U106 -- regardless of cultural period. There were R1a, I2a, G2a T1a, I2c and R1bxU106. IMO, this is surprising since the area where these remains were found is in the Elbe river basin (Saxony-Anhalt), much further east and/or north than the Palatinate or Danube river basin.

So, although the absence of U106 in the 14 ancient DNA samples does not prove it was not in the area, the findings do suggest that U106 arrived to the Elbe river basin later than the Beaker period. This begs the question as to when U106 became so dominant in this region.

The results also would be consistent with North Sea Germanic having a Celtic substrate, which Koch and others have suggested. And, that the Cimbri possibly were Celtic after all.

corner
02-18-2015, 12:10 PM
Overshadowed by all that, but perhaps just as important and earth-shaking, is the fact that a Bell Beaker man from the site at Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2296-2206 BC, tested P312+. Haak et al tested him for the full panoply of SNPs listed on ISOGG's tree as of 22 April 2013, but they were unable to get reads for many of them, including, sadly, U152, DF27, and L21.

On another thread Dubhthach mentioned he thought they used a 'SNP chip (or equivalent)' test on the Yamnaya remains. Did they use a similar chip on the P312+ IO806 Quedlinburg Bell Beaker man? The chip tests have issues with DF27. I know from experience, being DF27+ and Z196-, that the chip-based tests do not read DF27 itself. They do catch all the other large early P312 subclades and also one of the early subclades downstream of DF27, Z195/Z196.

I don't know how likely it is that the IO806 Quedlinburg Bell Beaker man would be P312>DF27* (Z195-/Z196-), it's just that we would not know one way or the other if the results were from a chip-based test using ISOGG's 2013 SNPs - it would take a NGS test with high coverage of the genome, or a separate single test for DF27 to confirm. Otherwise, IO806 (if negative for Z195/Z196) would return a 'no read' for DF27 on a chip-based test (like Geno 2.0) even if he was positive for it.

rms2
02-18-2015, 04:11 PM
Well, they did not get reads for the Quedlinburg Bell Beaker man on U152 or L21 either, so all we know is P312. Here's what it says about what they did regarding y-dna SNPs:




The 390k capture reagent targeted all SNPs present in the Y-DNA SNP index of the International
Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) version 8.22 as of April 22, 2013 (http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html).
At each SNP, we represent the individual using the majority allele (breaking ties randomly) for all non-duplicated reads overlapping the SNP,
requiring MAPQ≥30, base quality ≥30, and trimming 2 bases at the ends of reads . . .
We performed Y-haplogroup determination by examining the state of SNPs present in ISOGG version 9.129 (accessed Dec 08, 2014); we used this later version
— even though it includes many more SNPs than were present in version 8.22 used during the design of the 390k capture reagent — in order to obtain up-to-date Y-haplogroup nomenclature.
We determined Y chromosome haplogroups by identifying the most derived Y chromosome SNP in each individual.


There may be some info about chip technology in the paper, but I haven't seen it yet.

rms2
02-18-2015, 04:20 PM
The other interesting aspect of the Haak paper's findings and the Kromsdorf ancient DNA results is that none of the 14 male remains that had successful DNA tests were U106 -- regardless of cultural period. There were R1a, I2a, G2a T1a, I2c and R1bxU106. IMO, this is surprising since the area where these remains were found is in the Elbe river basin (Saxony-Anhalt), much further east and/or north than the Palatinate or Danube river basin.

So, although the absence of U106 in the 14 ancient DNA samples does not prove it was not in the area, the findings do suggest that U106 arrived to the Elbe river basin later than the Beaker period. This begs the question as to when U106 became so dominant in this region.

The results also would be consistent with North Sea Germanic having a Celtic substrate, which Koch and others have suggested. And, that the Cimbri possibly were Celtic after all.

I have said this before, but I suspect U106 did not arrive in the area of the Lower Rhine until about 700 BC, with the coming of Germanic speakers.

The leaders of the Cimbri had Celtic names, as I recall, so they may have been Celtic, at least in part.

IMHO most of the Celts moved west of the Rhine as the Germans grew in population, power and influence.

rms2
04-13-2015, 12:24 AM
BTW, I noticed in a closed thread today a reference to connecting y haplogroups that probably arose in the Copper or Bronze Ages with Iron Age languages, and I could not help but wonder what "Iron Age languages" those were. Is there any reputable linguist who actually believes Celtic, for example, began as late as the Iron Age?

VinceT
04-13-2015, 01:03 AM
:)

"Reputable linguists" must not edit Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#Classification


Proto-Celtic divided into various branches:



Lepontic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepontic_language), the oldest attested Celtic language (from the 6th century BC).[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#cite_note-Schumacher-35)
Celtiberian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language), anciently spoken in the Iberian peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula),[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#cite_note-36) in parts of modern Aragón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arag%C3%B3n), Old Castile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Castile), and New Castile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Castile_%28Spain%29) in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain). The relationship of Celtiberian with Gallaecian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaecian_language), in the northwest of the peninsula, is uncertain.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#cite_note-37)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#cite_note-38)
Gaulish languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language), including Galatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatian_language) and possibly Noric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_language). These languages were once spoken in a wide arc from Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) to Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey). They are now all extinct.
Brittonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittonic_languages), including the living languages Breton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_language), Cornish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_language), and Welsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language), and the extinct languages Cumbric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbric_language) and Pictish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictish_language) though Pictish may be a sister language rather than a daughter of Common Brittonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Brittonic).[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#cite_note-39) Before the arrival of Scotti on the Isle of Man in the 9th century, there may have been a Brittonic language in the Isle of Man.
Goidelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages), including the living languages Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language), Manx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_language), and Scottish Gaelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic_language).

R.Rocca
04-13-2015, 01:22 AM
:)

"Reputable linguists" must not edit Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#Classification

Lepontic is the oldest attested (confimed) Celtic language because it is the oldest written example, but that does not mean anyone believes it is "the" oldest Celtic language.

rms2
04-13-2015, 01:24 AM
:)

"Reputable linguists" must not edit Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#Classification

Wikipedia?

Maybe that article is talking about documentary evidence, but Celtic was spoken long before it was written down. On page 57 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, there appears an IE branching diagram according to Ringe-Warnow-Taylor (2002) that shows the branch leading to Celtic splitting off from late PIE around 3,000 BC. That may be the rough date for the split of Italo-Celtic. I recall seeing another of Ringe's diagrams that showed Celtic in existence by about 2300 BC. Anthony is among a number of scholars who attribute Italo-Celtic and early Celtic to the Beaker Folk, who were hardly an Iron Age people.

On page 123 of her book, Ancestral Journeys, Jean Manco shows another of Ringe's trees (2005) showing Italo-Celtic in existence about midway through the 3rd millennium BC.

I don't know of any scholar who actually believes Celtic began to be as late as the Iron Age.

rms2
04-13-2015, 01:40 AM
Here's the WMC (Weighted Maximum Compatibility) tree from Warnow's paper, Phylogeny Reconstruction Methods in Linguistics (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf). It shows the split between Italic and Celtic occurring before 2500 BC (approximately - it's the branch with OS and UM at one end and OI and WE at the other).

4324

VinceT
04-13-2015, 01:43 AM
Just to be clear, "believing" in something does not make it factual. Wishful thinking or algorithmic modeling (by computer or otherwise) is no substitution for tangible evidence. Where exactly early Celtic or Germanic languages were spoken prior to the Iron age is anyone's guess, and that is exactly what has been done.

rms2
04-13-2015, 01:47 AM
Are you just defending what you wrote on that other thread, or do you actually believe Celtic did not come into existence until the Iron Age?

By "tangible evidence", do you mean that in linguistics the only evidence that counts is written evidence? In other words, Proto-Indo-European never actually existed?

Megalophias
04-13-2015, 01:57 AM
Here's the WMC (Weighted Maximum Compatibility) tree from Warnow's paper, Phylogeny Reconstruction Methods in Linguistics (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf). It shows the split between Italic and Celtic occurring before 2500 BC (approximately - it's the branch with OS and UM at one end and OI and WE at the other).

The split between Welsh and Old Irish is placed at ~500 BC in the same tree. That would make the origin of Celtic - or Insular Celtic, if you prefer - Iron Age. (The dialect that would eventually give rise to Celtic of course would have existed earlier, in the same way that a haplogroup splits from its parent clade prior to its own TMRCA).

rms2
04-13-2015, 02:00 AM
The split between Welsh and Old Irish is placed at ~500 BC in the same tree. That would make the origin of Celtic - or Insular Celtic, if you prefer - Iron Age.

No, it wouldn't. It would make the split between Welsh and Old Irish occur ~500 BC. Celtic could have existed in the Isles in various dialects for millennia before that split.

VinceT
04-13-2015, 02:04 AM
Sheesh... I'm not contesting that Celtic didn't exist prior to the iron age; I'm contesting popular claims for *where* it existed, exactly. Who's to say that proto-celtic languages weren't spoken in regions that are now primarily Germanic-speaking nations, prior to 500-1200 BC?

Megalophias
04-13-2015, 02:07 AM
No, it wouldn't. It would make the split between Welsh and Old Irish occur ~500 BC. Celtic could have existed in the Isles in various dialects for millennia before that split.
And how are hypothetical dialects that we do not have records of evidence of anything?

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 10:58 AM
I think it's pretty clear that the branch which led to Italo-Celtic was one of the first to split from the main continuum of Late IE dialects. The Hallstatt culture provides only an imperfect marker for the earliest distribution of Celtic speakers, and the same counts for the La Tène culture... In other words, not a single Iron Age culture can explain the initial dispersal of Celtic speakers (even though these archeological "cultures" admittedly were Celtic-speaking for the most part, and can presumably be tied to the expansion of Celtic tribal confederations). However, considering the fact that we can reconstruct Common Celtic words ("iron", "cauldron", "shield", etc) which relate to a Late Bronze Age vocabulary as well as the sheer similarity between the Celtic languages with the earliest inscriptional evidence (Lepontic, Gaulish, Primitive Irish, etc), it's unlikely that Common Celtic (the very last phase of unity in Celtic speech) predated the Late Bronze Age: This is the most commonly held view as far as Celtic goes, the Iron Age doesn't fit with the Late Bronze Age time-span implied by the linguistic evidence. Urnfield is the most convincing candidate here, as it happens to be at the right place at the right time, and its links to the Golasecca culture merely highlight this.
So while the initial break up and spread of Celtic screams "Late Bronze Age", I'd surmise that Celtic arose mainly through a language-levelling process which saw a shift from para-Celtic or para-Italo-Celtic dialects to Celtic proper (Ligurian and Lusitanian being the only remnants to have made it through this process) which obviously would've eased the spread of Celtic as a lingua franca of sorts (the structure of Celtic society is conducive to language-levelling, take druidism for instance). In many ways, the spread of Celtic is a cautionary tale in that a fairly uniform language family might have spread over a large set of closely related dialects which diverged earlier on (in this case, BB is a top-priority culprit).

rms2
04-13-2015, 11:07 AM
Sheesh... I'm not contesting that Celtic didn't exist prior to the iron age; I'm contesting popular claims for *where* it existed, exactly. Who's to say that proto-celtic languages weren't spoken in regions that are now primarily Germanic-speaking nations, prior to 500-1200 BC?

It is well known that Celtic was spoken in what are now Germany, Austria, Switzerland, England, and much of the Low Countries prior to the Migration Period. I don't think anyone anywhere is saying it wasn't.

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 11:13 AM
Celtic loanwords in Proto-Germanic include *rîk- "king", *îsarna/îsarno "iron", *ambahtaz "servant", *brunjôn- "mailshirt", *lêkijaz "physician", *gîslaz "hostage", *Rînaz "Rhine" and *walhaz "foreigner"; "king", "physician" and "foreigner" were borrowed before Grimm's law took root so this puts Proto-Germanic squarely in an Iron Age time-span.

rms2
04-13-2015, 11:14 AM
And how are hypothetical dialects that we do not have records of evidence of anything?

You said the split between Old Irish and Welsh marks the beginning of Insular Celtic, and I'm sorry but that is just not the case. One would need to know when Insular Celtic split from Continental Celtic, not when Welsh and Old Irish split. Even then, Celtic would have been spoken in the Isles for awhile before diverging enough from its continental relative to count as a different language. It's also possible that Insular Celtic never really existed as a language separate from Continental Celtic, if there was enough coming and going and interaction between the Isles and the Continent, that is, at least until the P innovation took place.

I'm not sure anyone has tried to date the split between Insular Celtic and Continental Celtic. It looks like Insular Celtic would have been the more archaic form of Celtic, with changes going on in the continental homeland behind it, including the shift from the more archaic Q to P which affected Brythonic (from which Welsh was derived) but not Irish Gaelic.

rms2
04-13-2015, 11:20 AM
Celtic loanwords in Proto-Germanic include *rîk- "king", *îsarna/îsarno "iron", *ambahtaz "servant", *brunjôn- "mailshirt", *lêkijaz "physician", *gîslaz "hostage", *Rînaz "Rhine" and *walhaz "foreigner"; "king", "physician" and "foreigner" were borrowed before Grimm's law took root so this puts Proto-Germanic squarely in an Iron Age time-span.

Well, it puts Germanic borrowing from Celtic in an Iron Age time span anyway.

What sort of borrowing did Germanic do from Balto-Slavic?

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 11:30 AM
What sort of borrowing did Germanic do from Balto-Slavic?

I'm not aware of any Balto-Slavic loans in Proto-Germanic, most of the traits Proto-Germanic and Balto-Slavic do share are phonetic (Proto-Germanic bimoric vowels correspond to Balto-Slavic vowels with acute intonation while Proto-Germanic trimoric vowels correspond to Balto-Slavic vowels with circumflex intonation, the syllabic sonorants in Proto-Germanic developed more or less the same way as in Balto-Slavic, etc) which prompts some linguists to claim that Germanic and Balto-Slavic were part of the same dialect chain.

rms2
04-13-2015, 11:37 AM
Here's another thing. The claim made on that other thread was that y haplogroups or subclades that arose in the Copper or Bronze Ages cannot be associated with Iron Age peoples and languages. I think they can, if their distributions match reasonably well. It is not necessary that the first ever baby born with the I-M253 SNP come out squalling auf Deutsch for there to be a pretty obvious connection between I-M253 and Germanic speakers. I don't think anyone is claiming that all I-M253 men throughout time spoke Germanic languages always and everywhere. All that is necessary is for the great bulk of the I-M253 population to have become Germanic speaking early enough in time for there to be an historical connection.

The first R1b-P312 man ever born, for example, undoubtedly did not speak full-blown Celtic. He may have spoken some Indo-European dialect that eventually led to Celtic, but it was not yet Celtic. That in no way negates the pretty obvious general connection of P312 and most of its subclades to historical speakers of Celtic.

Reith
04-13-2015, 12:13 PM
I have said this before, but I suspect U106 did not arrive in the area of the Lower Rhine until about 700 BC, with the coming of Germanic speakers.

The leaders of the Cimbri had Celtic names, as I recall, so they may have been Celtic, at least in part.

IMHO most of the Celts moved west of the Rhine as the Germans grew in population, power and influence.

I like your point about the Cimbri. I cannot wait until the future sheds some light on these multiple tribes that have been labeled as a mix of both Celtic and Germanic, such as the Belgae, Cimbri, Teutons, etc. We know Bell Beaker made it to Jutland, interestingly that the Gundestrop cauldron was found with Celtic deities in Denmark.

I also wonder how many Celtic people stayed in Germany and just transitioned to Proto-Germanic. We know that I1 was indigenous and they eventually became Germanic speakers, it wasn't like R1a and R1b wiped out I1 for it survived in the North quite well being 33% or so of Scandinavian countries. If I1 people learned an Indo-European language that eventually became Proto-Germanic, not too far Celtic on the IE tree, I wonder if some Celtic survivors in this area just eventually became "Germans", yet there DNA stayed clearly Celtic.

Just found a cousin from my Mom's side and he is L21. The Wilke family was from Northern Germany,close to Denmark. Now looks like both my Paternal and Maternal's Y line are from Northern Germany and yet are both L21

rms2
04-13-2015, 12:16 PM
I like your point about the Cimbri. I cannot wait until the future sheds some light on these multiple tribes that have been labeled as a mix of both Celtic and Germanic, such as the Belgae, Cimbri, Teutons, etc. We know Bell Beaker made it to Jutland, interestingly that the Gundestrop cauldron was found with Celtic deities in Denmark.

I also wonder how many Celtic people stayed in Germany and just transitioned to Proto-Germanic. We know that I1 was indigenous and they eventually became Germanic speakers, it wasn't like R1a and R1b wiped out I1 for it survived in the North quite well being 33% or so of Scandinavian countries. If I1 people learned an Indo-European language that eventually became Proto-Germanic, not too far Celtic on the IE tree, I wonder if some Celtic survivors in this area just eventually became "Germans", yet there DNA stayed clearly Celtic.

Just found a cousin from my Mom's side and he is L21. The Wilke family was from Northern Germany,close to Denmark. Now looks like both my Paternal and Maternal's Y line are from Northern Germany and yet are both L21

I think it is self-evident that there were Germanized Celts in every land that was once Celtic speaking but became Germanic speaking.

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 12:38 PM
I think it is self-evident that there were Germanized Celts in every land that was once Celtic speaking but became Germanic speaking.

Indeed, how else are we going to explain L21 and U152 in Germany - notably around the Rhine - otherwise?

lgmayka
04-13-2015, 01:38 PM
In many ways, the spread of Celtic is a cautionary tale in that a fairly uniform language family might have spread over a large set of closely related dialects which diverged earlier on (in this case, BB is a top-priority culprit).
This linguistic pattern repeats itself throughout history. It often confuses people, who naively assume that everyone speaking a unified language (a lingua franca chosen from among earlier dialects) must genetically descend entirely from the one small subpopulation that first spoke that chosen dialect--as if every Pole genetically descends from the 17th-century Varsovian nobility.

alan
04-13-2015, 03:09 PM
The split between Welsh and Old Irish is placed at ~500 BC in the same tree. That would make the origin of Celtic - or Insular Celtic, if you prefer - Iron Age. (The dialect that would eventually give rise to Celtic of course would have existed earlier, in the same way that a haplogroup splits from its parent clade prior to its own TMRCA).

Archaeology would support divergence of British and Irish Celtic commencing around 650BC, probably slowly, as the contact between the islands dropped to very low levels. The last evidence of Ireland being in the loop is the Hallstatt C period which Ireland and Britain show some modest influences from. At some point by the end of his phase Ireland became disengaged for perhaps 300 years or more from British and continental influence but Britain did remain to some degree in contact with the continent. Its very obvious that both the division between British and Irish and probably the P-Q shift falls into that period c. 650BC-350BC give or take 50 years when Ireland became disengaged from the rest of the world and entered a real dark age. So, whatever shifts happened in the Hallstatt D and earlier parts of the La Tene period would not have effected Ireland.

The linguistic divergence of Irish and British is just that of course and tells us nothing about pan-isles Celtic or how long it existed before Irish and British Celtic started to diverge. Again if you use archaeology as a proxy there was fury of interaction between Britain and Ireland throughout the whole period 2500-700BC or so and I would expect little divergence to have taken place in that era. More likely constant maintenance of lingua Franca or convergence IMO.

My view is vast swathes of Europe evolved dialect in parallel and remained converged artificially due to the vast network of interlinked elites trading and probably sending their daughters to each other in alliance marriages. Normal rules of divergence dont apply in a situation like that.

The clues as to the location or zone in which Celtic arose is probably to be found in the part of the later Celtic world that was most heavily connected by this interaction. That makes me believe it was a broad zone rather than a single location and that that zone included west-central Europe, northern France and the isles.

To be fairly pessimistic about precision, this block of interaction connected all the later Celtic speaking zone from at least the later beaker period to the end of Hallstatt C and the various shifts involved in Celtic could have happened all through the period say 2400-700BC. All I will say is that parts of the later Celtic speaking world started to break away as that network broke down soon after 700BC so I dont think the Celtic-defining shifts could have happened after that and of course the beaker period put the lower peg on it.

My guess is that by the time we see the Unetice-Wessex-Armorica triangle of contacts forming at the end of the beaker period, we probably are seeing the network in which Celtic began. However, variations on this network persisted right through to Hallstatt C so it could have been a long process. My feeling, contra Koch etc, is that Iberia was not invoved in this proto-Celtic network until c. 1000BC when a pincer movement of new contacts from both NW France/the isles on the one hand and the Urnfield world brought Iberia into the network for a few centuries before it broke away again before La Tene. Italy I have an open mind on and there are different options. I tend to think Urnfield myself.

Megalophias
04-13-2015, 03:50 PM
You said the split between Old Irish and Welsh marks the beginning of Insular Celtic, and I'm sorry but that is just not the case. One would need to know when Insular Celtic split from Continental Celtic, not when Welsh and Old Irish split.
This is just terminology, the same as with haplogroups; you can call the origin the split from parent clade or the TMRCA of clade itself, though of course languages do not split in a discrete manner like haplogroups. The time of divergence of a branch from the parent clade is the time of expansion of the parent clade, not of the daughter clade. If you want to call the first differentiation of Pre-Proto-Celtic from Italo-Celtic the origin of Celtic, no problem. I am calling the spread of Proto-Celtic and its differentiation into different branches the origin of Celtic. If you are looking for a haplogroup marking the spread of Celtic, then you would look for one that coincides with the split of different Celtic branches. (Of course it probably wouldn't be just one specific clade.)

If Welsh and Irish split c. 500 BC (and I am not claiming that this is accurate), then they were a single language at the time. There is in principle no need for the ancestor of Insular Celtic to have been spoken in the Isles, it could be fresh off the boat. It could have been spoken in one small area of Britain while everyone else spoke Vasco-Semitic ;). Or maybe there were para-Celtic dialects everywhere. Whatever the case, these were all replaced by (or converged to) the Celtic lect that was ancestral to Welsh and Irish, and that was the expansion of Insular Celtic. According to the tree that you posted, this occurred in the Iron Age. If there was a haplogroup associated with this spread, then it should have expanded around then.

The relative relationships of all the Celtic languages have not been sorted out, some think Insular Celtic is a clade, some consider Gaulish to be related to Brythonic and Celtiberian to be an outgroup, and then there is the old P vs Q Celtic view. In any case the clade of Welsh + Irish contains all known Celtic languages from the British Isles and all living Celtic languages, if I am not mistaken.

Radboud
04-13-2015, 04:12 PM
It is well known that Celtic was spoken in what are now Germany, Austria, Switzerland, England, and much of the Low Countries prior to the Migration Period. I don't think anyone anywhere is saying it wasn't.

There is no evidence that Celtic was spoken in Northern Netherlands tough.

rms2
04-14-2015, 06:05 PM
. . .

If Welsh and Irish split c. 500 BC (and I am not claiming that this is accurate), then they were a single language at the time . . .

True, but what is not true is the implication that that split marks the inception of Insular Celtic as something unique to the Isles and different from Continental Celtic or that it marks the approximate arrival of Celtic languages in the Isles.

There is a lot about Celtic and its evolution that is not known. For one thing, Wales and Ireland are near neighbors and might have been part of the same insular dialect zone. The speech of that zone may have differed from that spoken in other insular dialect zones elsewhere in the Isles that we just don't know about.

It is likely that Q-Celtic was spoken in the Isles for quite some time before the P-Celtic innovation arrived from the Continent and transformed what became Welsh, separating it from what became Old Irish.

vettor
04-14-2015, 06:09 PM
True, but what is not true is the implication that that split marks the inception of Insular Celtic as something unique to the Isles and different from Continental Celtic or that it marks the approximate arrival of Celtic languages in the Isles.

There is a lot about Celtic and its evolution that is not known. For one thing, Wales and Ireland are near neighbors and might have been part of the same insular dialect zone. The speech of that zone may have differed from that spoken in other insular dialect zones elsewhere in the Isles that we just don't know about.

It is likely that Q-Celtic was spoken in the Isles for quite some time before the P-Celtic innovation arrived from the Continent and transformed what became Welsh, separating it from what became Old Irish.

some more information

http://cruthinfirbolggael.blogspot.com.au/p/linguistics-minding-your-ps-and-qs.html

Megalophias
04-14-2015, 06:16 PM
True, but what is not true is the implication that that split marks the inception of Insular Celtic as something unique to the Isles and different from Continental Celtic or that it marks the approximate arrival of Celtic languages in the Isles.

There is a lot about Celtic and its evolution that is not known. For one thing, Wales and Ireland are near neighbors and might have been part of the same insular dialect zone. The speech of that zone may have differed from that spoken in other insular dialect zones elsewhere in the Isles that we just don't know about.

It is likely that Q-Celtic was spoken in the Isles for quite some time before the P-Celtic innovation arrived from the Continent and transformed what became Welsh, separating it from what became Old Irish.

Sure, but that is all hypothetical. The point is not that this must mark the arrival of Insular Celtic, but that as far as we know linguistically it *could* have arrived then. You were asking if any reputable linguists still argued for an Iron Age origin of Celtic, and apparently Ringe et al are cool with that idea, at least for a major subset of Celtic. I have no objection to arguments that Celtic arrived earlier based on archaeology and genetics.

rms2
04-14-2015, 06:33 PM
Sure, but that is all hypothetical. The point is not that this must mark the arrival of Insular Celtic, but that as far as we know linguistically it *could* have arrived then. You were asking if any reputable linguists still argued for an Iron Age origin of Celtic, and apparently Ringe et al are cool with that idea, at least for a major subset of Celtic. I have no objection to arguments that Celtic arrived earlier based on archaeology and genetics.

No, that is not correct at all. They are apparently cool with the idea that Welsh and Old Irish split about 500 BC, which is not the same as arguing for an Iron Age origin for Celtic or for a subset of Celtic other than Welsh and Old Irish. The split between Welsh and Old Irish says nothing about when Celtic began to be spoken or when Insular Celtic, if it differed enough from Continental Celtic to be characterized as a different language, began to be spoken. If it says anything about Celtic as a whole, it merely says that Celtic could not have begun any later than about that time.

Ringe et al would be strange indeed if they produced a tree that shows the split between Italic and Celtic occurring just before 2500 BC if they were "cool" with the idea of an Iron Age origin for Celtic. Notice also that the date for the split between Italic and Celtic is not to be regarded as the date of the inception of Italo-Celtic. The inception of Italo-Celtic is back up the tree at about 3250 BC.

Megalophias
04-14-2015, 06:52 PM
Ringe et al would be strange indeed if they produced a tree that shows the split between Italic and Celtic occurring just before 2500 BC if they were "cool" with the idea of an Iron Age origin for Celtic. Notice also that the date for the split between Italic and Celtic is not to be regarded as the date of the inception of Italo-Celtic. The inception of Italo-Celtic is back up the tree at about 3250 BC.

Let's not drag this off topic with another multi-page argument about nothing, okay? As I already said, I mean origin in the sense of TMRCA, not of split from parent clade. Nobody is putting the break-up of Western Proto-Indo-European in the Iron Age.

rms2
04-14-2015, 06:57 PM
Let's not drag this off topic with another multi-page argument about nothing, okay? As I already said, I mean origin in the sense of TMRCA, not of split from parent clade. Nobody is putting the break-up of Western Proto-Indo-European in the Iron Age.

Well, you did use the word origin, and your initial volley came in response to my posting of Warnow's tree to show that at least he and Ringe believe Celtic originated well before the Iron Age.

I did wonder about the point of it all, since it is pretty clear the current thinking is not at all supportive of an Iron Age origin for Celtic.

Megalophias
04-14-2015, 07:14 PM
Well, you did use the word origin, and your initial volley came in response to my posting of Warnow's tree to show that at least he and Ringe believe Celtic originated well before the Iron Age.

I did wonder about the point of it all, since it is pretty clear the current thinking is not at all supportive of an Iron Age origin for Celtic.

OK, when did anyone ever think that Celtic originated in the Iron Age, in the sense of splitting from the parent clade? That would mean that late Proto-Indo-European - or at least Italo-Celtic - broke up in the Iron Age. I thought that by Iron Age origin of Celtic you were referring to the old idea that Proto-Celtic was originally spoken in the central Hallstatt-La Tene area and spread with those cultures, afterwards diverging into the different Celtic languages. How on earth was I supposed to know that you were talking about some kind of crazy ultra-late Proto-Indo-European theory?

rms2
04-14-2015, 07:21 PM
OK, when did anyone ever think that Celtic originated in the Iron Age, in the sense of splitting from the parent clade? That would mean that late Proto-Indo-European - or at least Italo-Celtic - broke up in the Iron Age. I thought that by Iron Age origin of Celtic you were referring to the old idea that Proto-Celtic was originally spoken in the central Hallstatt-La Tene area and spread with those cultures, afterwards diverging into the different Celtic languages. How on earth was I supposed to know that you were talking about some kind of crazy ultra-late Proto-Indo-European theory?

I guess you would have had to read the post that began the most recent series in this thread. Someone over on a thread that got closed complained about y-haplogroups and subclades that arose during the Copper or Bronze Ages being connected with "Iron Age languages". I couldn't post on that closed thread, so I came here (since this thread is about the apparent connection between the ancient Celts and P312) and asked what Iron Age languages were meant, since, pretty obviously, Celtic dates from well before the Iron Age. That's how the whole mess got started.

(That other thread - and I have forgotten just where it is - featured some guy complaining that he got an L21+ result and that he thinks R1b-L21 is "lame" and "for losers", etc. It was an amusing and pathetic read. I was sorry I missed the chance to post in it.)

Megalophias
04-14-2015, 07:29 PM
I don't think that's unreasonable, though. If Celtic (or Germanic or whatever) expanded in the Iron Age, and this was connected with the expansion of a people or an elite, then this is when you'd expect the haplogroup marking it to expand as well. If (for the sake of argument) Celtic was spoken by a modest population in one region up until conditions allowed a major expansion, then there would be no connection between Celtic and a haplogroup expanding in an earlier period.

If we suppose Celtic to have arisen by a process of convergence in the Bronze Age, followed by divergence after interaction for whatever reason diminished, then we should look for a genetic signature of inter-regional interaction during the Bronze Age. A star-like haplogroup expansion during the Copper Age, assuming it was in fact Indo-European, could be ancestral to non-Celtic languages, spread without triggering language shift (Basques), possibly carry along non-Indo-European languages, and so forth. In itself it doesn't link to Celtic specifically.

rms2
04-15-2015, 11:31 AM
I don't think there is any reason to think that because a y haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language that it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language coincide. I cited the example of I-M253, which is apparently much older than Germanic but can be correctly associated with speakers of that language family. Of course, I am speaking in general here and not claiming that it is ever possible to say that every single member of a haplogroup was a German or a Celt or a Slav, etc. Obviously, exceptions exist.

I think the premise with which I began this thread, i.e., that there is a pretty obvious connection between y-haplogroup R1b-P312 and the ancient Celts, is true.

rms2
05-09-2015, 02:18 PM
I wish I had had this map to place in the post that began this thread. It's from the paper, The Background of the Celtic Languages: Theories from Archaeology and Linguistics, by Catriona Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko (2013), page 8.

4541

Agamemnon
05-09-2015, 03:03 PM
I don't think there is any reason to think that because a y haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language that it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language coincide. I cited the example of I-M253, which is apparently much older than Germanic but can be correctly associated with speakers of that language family. Of course, I am speaking in general here and not claiming that it is ever possible to say that every single member of a haplogroup was a German or a Celt or a Slav, etc. Obviously, exceptions exist.

I think the premise with which I began this thread, i.e., that there is a pretty obvious connection between y-haplogroup R1b-P312 and the ancient Celts, is true.

I agree, unless we're trying to pinpoint specific subclades in order to seek parallels with language classification (which is hotly debated anyway) one should be careful not to rely entirely on the age or TMRCA of a given branch. I think this is one of the big lessons ahead once we'll get more data from ancient samples which fit in a given linguistic context. I could be wrong of course.

rms2
05-10-2015, 11:58 AM
Here's another relevant map from The Background of the Celtic Languages: Theories from Archaeology and Linguistics, by Catriona Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko (2013), this one from page 4.

4555

Thus far, it seems to me, there is only one subclade of P312 found predominantly outside the historical homelands of the Celts, and especially of the Beaker Folk, and that is L238, which is Scandinavian. Since there were Beaker settlements in Denmark and SW Norway, it is possible that L238 was brought to Scandinavia by the Beaker Folk, or at least the line of P312 leading to L238 was.

MJost
05-10-2015, 06:59 PM
Here's another relevant map from The Background of the Celtic Languages: Theories from Archaeology and Linguistics, by Catriona Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko (2013), this one from page 4.

4555

Thus far, it seems to me, there is only one subclade of P312 found predominantly outside the historical homelands of the Celts, and especially of the Beaker Folk, and that is L238, which is Scandinavian. Since there were Beaker settlements in Denmark and SW Norway, it is possible that L238 was brought to Scandinavia by the Beaker Folk, or at least the line of P312 leading to L238 was.

Quedlinburg BB is west of the Elbe river and appears to be north of the line that Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko drew but in the BB zone. So the Unetice culture start 2300bc and I0806 P312+~ at Quedlinburg may not have been Proto-Celtic or even PIE? I don't know much on this subject so I am just asking

MJost

rms2
05-10-2015, 07:19 PM
Quedlinburg BB is west of the Elbe river and appears to be north of the line that Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko drew but in the BB zone. So the Unetice culture start 2300bc and I0806 P312+~ at Quedlinburg may not have been Proto-Celtic or even PIE? I don't know much on this subject so I am just asking

MJost

I believe that last map was based on Celtic place names, including river names, and/or inscriptions, and not meant to be absolutely exclusive. I also believe Quedlinburg is in the area inside the dashed or dotted line, which is regarded as likely Celtic speaking but which cannot be confirmed through place names or inscriptions. Such maps should be regarded as approximations anyway and not as minutely precise.

However, it is likely the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic and that only some of them (probably most) came to speak Celtic. Others probably spoke Ligurian or some Italo-Celtic dialects we don't know about. Celtic probably spread as a lingua franca through what was an Italo-Celtic linguistic zone. In Italy, there were Italic-speaking tribes that never did adopt Celtic speech.

MJost
05-10-2015, 07:58 PM
I believe that last map was based on Celtic place names, including river names, and/or inscriptions, and not meant to be absolutely exclusive. I also believe Quedlinburg is in the area inside the dashed or dotted line, which is regarded as likely Celtic speaking but which cannot be confirmed through place names or inscriptions. Such maps should be regarded as approximations anyway and not as minutely precise.

However, it is likely the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic and that only some of them (probably most) came to speak Celtic. Others probably spoke Ligurian or some Italo-Celtic dialects we don't know about. Celtic probably spread as a lingua franca through what was an Italo-Celtic linguistic zone. In Italy, there were Italic-speaking tribes that never did adopt Celtic speech.

L238 would be an interesting branch from this area or south at Kromsdorf going north, within the BB graph you posted on another thread.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2929-P312-and-the-Ancient-Celts&p=83521&viewfull=1#post83521

MJost

Gray Fox
05-10-2015, 09:07 PM
I guess you would have had to read the post that began the most recent series in this thread. Someone over on a thread that got closed complained about y-haplogroups and subclades that arose during the Copper or Bronze Ages being connected with "Iron Age languages". I couldn't post on that closed thread, so I came here (since this thread is about the apparent connection between the ancient Celts and P312) and asked what Iron Age languages were meant, since, pretty obviously, Celtic dates from well before the Iron Age. That's how the whole mess got started.

(That other thread - and I have forgotten just where it is - featured some guy complaining that he got an L21+ result and that he thinks R1b-L21 is "lame" and "for losers", etc. It was an amusing and pathetic read. I was sorry I missed the chance to post in it.)

you should see his youtube channel :crazy:

rms2
05-11-2015, 03:56 PM
L238 would be an interesting branch from this area or south at Kromsdorf going north, within the BB graph you posted on another thread.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2929-P312-and-the-Ancient-Celts&p=83521&viewfull=1#post83521

MJost

Yeah, it's the only one I've seen the bulk of whose membership comes from outside the old Italo-Celtic homelands. How it or the P312 line leading to it got to Scandinavia would be nice to know. Could be from the Beaker settlements in Denmark and SW Norway or perhaps a P312 line in Corded Ware. Who knows?

Webb
05-11-2015, 05:13 PM
I guess you would have had to read the post that began the most recent series in this thread. Someone over on a thread that got closed complained about y-haplogroups and subclades that arose during the Copper or Bronze Ages being connected with "Iron Age languages". I couldn't post on that closed thread, so I came here (since this thread is about the apparent connection between the ancient Celts and P312) and asked what Iron Age languages were meant, since, pretty obviously, Celtic dates from well before the Iron Age. That's how the whole mess got started.

(That other thread - and I have forgotten just where it is - featured some guy complaining that he got an L21+ result and that he thinks R1b-L21 is "lame" and "for losers", etc. It was an amusing and pathetic read. I was sorry I missed the chance to post in it.)

I responded once too him and told him that I thought he was not serious and asked everyone else to not respond to his posts!!!!! All the L21 guys were mysteriously absent during his string of the crazies. I am not even L21 and I was insulted!!!!!

rms2
05-11-2015, 06:48 PM
I responded once too him and told him that I thought he was not serious and asked everyone else to not respond to his posts!!!!! All the L21 guys were mysteriously absent during his string of the crazies. I am not even L21 and I was insulted!!!!!

Unfortunately I did not see the thread until after it was closed. It looked to me like he had a bad case of Germanic/Viking wannabeism, and an L21+ result did not suit his dream life.

Dubhthach
05-11-2015, 06:53 PM
I responded once too him and told him that I thought he was not serious and asked everyone else to not respond to his posts!!!!! All the L21 guys were mysteriously absent during his string of the crazies. I am not even L21 and I was insulted!!!!!

jaysuz ye don't pay attention and ye miss out on the juicy stuff, anyone have a link (send via PM), I'm curious.

Anyways P312+ for ever! or as we'd say in Irish "P312+ abú!"

Dubhthach
05-11-2015, 07:11 PM
Personally I think P312 is too early to attach a specific branch of Proto-IE to it. What I would say is that it appears connected to groups that were speakers of Western Proto-IE dialects, out of some of these groups/dialects probably arose both Italic and Celtic. In such a case if P312+ beakers were speaking a form of Proto-IE it's quite feasible that they could easy move into other areas inhabitated by Proto-IE speakers where there were high levels of U106 (I'm thinking lineage that gave rise to L238), as they would all have been speaking various related dialects an admixture between two would be quite easy.

In my own opinion the splitting of Proto-Celtic from Proto-IE is probably in period leading up to the beginning of both Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze age material cultures (say in period 1600-1300BC)

Krefter
05-11-2015, 08:53 PM
I believe that last map was based on Celtic place names, including river names, and/or inscriptions, and not meant to be absolutely exclusive. I also believe Quedlinburg is in the area inside the dashed or dotted line, which is regarded as likely Celtic speaking but which cannot be confirmed through place names or inscriptions. Such maps should be regarded as approximations anyway and not as minutely precise.

However, it is likely the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic and that only some of them (probably most) came to speak Celtic. Others probably spoke Ligurian or some Italo-Celtic dialects we don't know about. Celtic probably spread as a lingua franca through what was an Italo-Celtic linguistic zone. In Italy, there were Italic-speaking tribes that never did adopt Celtic speech.

When I randomly googled pre-Roman Italy it was interesting to see all the various IE languages that existed there(Etruscan was only non-IE?). I think all were either Italic or considered to be related to Italo-Celtic. A variety of loosely related IE languages makes more sense for an old-spread than everyone in a huge region speaking the in the same sub-family.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/modlang/carasi/courses/00.SPRING15.TEACHING/0003.ITAM.SPRING.15/ITAM.COURSE.MATERIALS/ITAM.LECTURES/TOPICAL.LECTURES/IMAGES/01.pre-roman-italy1.jpg

rms2
05-12-2015, 11:50 AM
Personally I think P312 is too early to attach a specific branch of Proto-IE to it . . .

It depends on what one is talking about. If one is talking about the very first P312+ man and what language his parents taught him, that is one story, and that seems to be what you are talking about. If, on the other hand, one is talking generally about the bulk of a y haplogroup and the way its distribution came to correspond to that of a language branch, that is another story. And that is what I was talking about.

Here is something I wrote in a prior post, but I think it is appropriate to repeat it: I don't think there is any reason to think that because a y haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language that it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language coincide.

It is true that the distribution of P312 as a whole corresponds pretty well to that of the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European and especially to the Celtic branch of Italo-Celtic.

That is not to say that every single last P312+ man who ever lived spoke a Celtic or Italo-Celtic language or that there weren't plenty of non-P312s who spoke one of the Italo-Celtic languages. Obviously, exceptions existed, and there was blurring at the borders between ethnolinguistic groups.

L238, which seems to be a fairly minor subclade, is the only P312+ subclade I know of whose members are found predominantly outside the old Italo-Celtic homelands. None of us knows how L238 became predominantly Scandinavian, but it's possible that it or the P312+ line leading to it came to Scandinavia with the Beaker Folk, in which case its history would not be as exceptional as it currently seems, that is, if the connection between Beaker and Italo-Celtic is correct.

rms2
05-12-2015, 12:02 PM
When I randomly googled pre-Roman Italy it was interesting to see all the various IE languages that existed there(Etruscan was only non-IE?). I think all were either Italic or considered to be related to Italo-Celtic. A variety of loosely related IE languages makes more sense for an old-spread than everyone in a huge region speaking the in the same sub-family.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/modlang/carasi/courses/00.SPRING15.TEACHING/0003.ITAM.SPRING.15/ITAM.COURSE.MATERIALS/ITAM.LECTURES/TOPICAL.LECTURES/IMAGES/01.pre-roman-italy1.jpg

It is likely that early on the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic and that Celtic spread as a lingua franca throughout the largely Italo-Celtic-speaking zone.

The reason I said the distribution of P312 corresponds pretty well to that of the ancient Celts is because that is true. It would be more true to say that it corresponds to that of the Italo-Celts, but the Italic part seems to be dominated almost exclusively by U152, whereas the old Celtic beat encompasses nearly all of the P312 subgroups.

Agamemnon
05-12-2015, 03:20 PM
When I randomly googled pre-Roman Italy it was interesting to see all the various IE languages that existed there(Etruscan was only non-IE?). I think all were either Italic or considered to be related to Italo-Celtic. A variety of loosely related IE languages makes more sense for an old-spread than everyone in a huge region speaking the in the same sub-family.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/modlang/carasi/courses/00.SPRING15.TEACHING/0003.ITAM.SPRING.15/ITAM.COURSE.MATERIALS/ITAM.LECTURES/TOPICAL.LECTURES/IMAGES/01.pre-roman-italy1.jpg

North Picene might've been non-IE, but little is actually known about this language.

redeyednewt
08-18-2018, 06:52 PM
I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I'll throw caution to the wind and go one step further...the correlation between L21, either continental or Isles, and Celtic is an almost certainty. With other subclades of P312, it may be that only certain branches (e.g. U152+L2+Z49+ and U152+L2+Z367+) were overwhelmingly "Gaulish" by the time the Romans started writing about them. After that, it gets kind of hazy (e.g. DF19 = Belgae?, Belgae = hybrid Celto-Germanic?).

Is it true that R-P312 is Proto-Italiac/Celto-Germanic? I read this on Family Tree DNA as a thread/discussion there.

msmarjoribanks
08-20-2018, 01:57 AM
Seems likely true, but it could be older than that -- estimated date of formation I've seen is 5300-4300 years ago, but the more recent end of that seems impossible. That's why exactly where it formed is hard to pinpoint, but there are subclades of R-P312 found in ancient DNA in central Europe, which is why it could have been east of that.

Is there a specific subclade you are interested in?

rms2
11-24-2018, 01:16 AM
Is it true that R-P312 is Proto-Italiac/Celto-Germanic? I read this on Family Tree DNA as a thread/discussion there.

A number of scholars over the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic to the Kurgan Bell Beaker people. Since thus far they have been overwhelmingly R1b-P312 (including subclades), Italo-Celtic has been associated with P312. "Celto-Germanic", as far as I know, is not a valid linguistic category.

27248

jdean
11-24-2018, 01:27 AM
A number of scholars over the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic to the Kurgan Bell Beaker people. Since thus far they have been overwhelmingly R1b-P312 (including subclades), Italo-Celtic has been associated with P312. "Celto-Germanic", as far as I know, is not a valid linguistic category.

27248

Didn't even happen in the Isles, almost zero Celtic words in English and very few place names with Celtic etymology; rivers on the other hand I think may be a different story ?

Dubhthach
11-25-2018, 01:37 PM
Didn't even happen in the Isles, almost zero Celtic words in English and very few place names with Celtic etymology; rivers on the other hand I think may be a different story ?

I'm assuming you mean words that were borrowed from in-situ Celtic languages into Old English, and not the case of borrowings from Celtic languages (such as Irish) into English. As we know there are a fair number of Irish loanwords in modern English, from a British political point of view perhaps the most prominent is the word 'Tory' ;)

jdean
11-25-2018, 02:03 PM
I'm assuming you mean words that were borrowed from in-situ Celtic languages into Old English, and not the case of borrowings from Celtic languages (such as Irish) into English. As we know there are a fair number of Irish loanwords in modern English, from a British political point of view perhaps the most prominent is the word 'Tory' ;)

Really !! now that is amusing : )))))))))))

There are probably many English words with Celtic etymologies that I'm unaware of but I'm sure there's nowhere near enough to even think of classifying English as a Celto Germanic language ?

ADW_1981
11-25-2018, 03:04 PM
Is it possible that Proto-Germanic was also in central Europe (think somewhere like eastern Germany or Austria) and moved north where it was attested, and then south again? If you think about it, this must have been the route it took since the earlier people in the north were not IE speakers.

Dubhthach
11-27-2018, 05:21 PM
Really !! now that is amusing : )))))))))))

There are probably many English words with Celtic etymologies that I'm unaware of but I'm sure there's nowhere near enough to even think of classifying English as a Celto Germanic language ?

Well just remember every time ye drinking 'Whiskey' ye basically using a word that is angliscation of the word for water in Irish ;) (uisce -> whiskey), well that and terms like 'galore' (go leoir), smithereens etc. ;) but yeah it's case of loan words as oppose to influence on grammar/morphology.

jdean
11-27-2018, 05:29 PM
Well just remember every time ye drinking 'Whiskey' ye basically using a word that is angliscation of the word for water in Irish ;) (uisce -> whiskey), well that and terms like 'galore' (go leoir), smithereens etc. ;) but yeah it's case of loan words as oppose to influence on grammar/morphology.

Having lived most of my life within striking distance of the river Usk that's something I have little trouble remembering : )

Of course the Axe and Exe are also connected in this way.

Dubhthach
11-27-2018, 10:52 PM
Really !! now that is amusing : )))))))))))



Particulary when you actually look at the word Toraí (Toradhe in Early Modern Irish) means and how it's quite funny that it became a badge of honour for the Conservatives! Particulary given their known history of antagonism towards Ireland.



The word "Tory" derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí; modern Scottish Gaelic Tòraidh: outlaw, robber or brigand, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men".[5][6] The term was initially applied in Ireland to the isolated bands of guerrillas resisting Oliver Cromwell's nine-month 1649–1650 campaign in Ireland, who were allied with Royalists through treaty with the Parliament of Confederate Ireland, signed at Kilkenny in January 1649;[7] and later to dispossessed Catholics in Ulster following the Restoration.[8] It was also used to refer to a Rapparee and later applied to Confederates or Cavaliers in arms.[9] The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as "Whig".

Towards the end of Charles II's reign (1660–1685) there was some debate about whether or not his brother, James, Duke of York, should be allowed to succeed to the throne. "Whigs", originally a reference to Scottish cattle-drovers (stereotypically radical anti-Catholic Covenanters), was the abusive term directed at those who wanted to exclude James on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic. Those who were not prepared to exclude James were labelled "Abhorrers" and later "Tories". Titus Oates applied the term "Tory", which then signified an Irish robber, to those who would not believe in his Popish Plot and the name gradually became extended to all who were supposed to have sympathy with the Catholic Duke of York.[10]

jdean
11-28-2018, 01:35 AM
Particulary when you actually look at the word Toraí (Toradhe in Early Modern Irish) means and how it's quite funny that it became a badge of honour for the Conservatives! Particulary given their known history of antagonism towards Ireland.


outlaw, robber or brigand

Sounds about right : ))))))

redeyednewt
12-22-2018, 05:39 PM
A number of scholars over the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic to the Kurgan Bell Beaker people. Since thus far they have been overwhelmingly R1b-P312 (including subclades), Italo-Celtic has been associated with P312. "Celto-Germanic", as far as I know, is not a valid linguistic category.

27248

OK thanks I was not sure?

rms2
12-23-2018, 12:42 PM
The following is from Professor Patrice Brun, (2006), L'origine des Celtes. Communautés linguistiques et reséaux sociaux. In D. Vitali (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire. 2 La Préhistoire des Celtes, 29-44, Bibracte, Glux-en-Glenne (Quoted in Falileyev, Alexander, 2015, Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3).



Since there is no evidence that the regions of Western Europe where Celtic languages are still spoken today became Celtic after 1600 BC, they must have become so at an earlier date. Before 1600 BC, the only time when the zones which gave rise to the north-Alpine and Atlantic complexes shared similar material and structural characteristics was the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. This was the well known Bell Beaker "package". Linking all the regions where a Celtic language was later to be spoken, this community represents a unique situation.

Finn
12-23-2018, 09:41 PM
Is it possible that Proto-Germanic was also in central Europe (think somewhere like eastern Germany or Austria) and moved north where it was attested, and then south again? If you think about it, this must have been the route it took since the earlier people in the north were not IE speakers.

IMO (proto) Germanic is developed in the area of the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age) (South Scandinavia, North (east) Germany) as a result of NorthWest Indo European that encountered Northern Scandinavian languages Saami/Finnic like. In the Iron Age Jastorf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture) culture it developed further. The heir of Jastorf are the Anglo-Saxon that brought it to the England/ Northern Netherlands etc.

Camulogène Rix
12-23-2018, 09:55 PM
The following is from Professor Patrice Brun, (2006), L'origine des Celtes. Communautés linguistiques et reséaux sociaux. In D. Vitali (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire. 2 La Préhistoire des Celtes, 29-44, Bibracte, Glux-en-Glenne (Quoted in Falileyev, Alexander, 2015, Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3).

During the 2015 Institut National de l'Archéologie Préventive symposium, Professor Patrick Brun established a clear link between the Bell Beakers culture and the celtization of Western Europe. Below the full lecture in French
<http://www.inrap.fr/la-formation-de-l-entite-celtique-migration-ou-acculturation-9693>

rms2
12-23-2018, 11:06 PM
During the 2015 Institut National de l'Archéologie Préventive symposium, Professor Patrick Brun established a clear link between the Bell Beakers culture and the celtization of Western Europe. Below the full lecture in French
<http://www.inrap.fr/la-formation-de-l-entite-celtique-migration-ou-acculturation-9693>

That makes sense to me. Too bad I don't parle français.

My daughter is taking French in school and is really into it - mastery will make her trilingual (she speaks English and Russian fluently already) - but I don't think even she is up to university-level French lectures yet.

Trelvern
12-23-2018, 11:18 PM
error

Trelvern
12-23-2018, 11:20 PM
During the 2015 Institut National de l'Archéologie Préventive symposium, Professor Patrick Brun established a clear link between the Bell Beakers culture and the celtization of Western Europe. Below the full lecture in French
<http://www.inrap.fr/la-formation-de-l-entite-celtique-migration-ou-acculturation-9693>

thanks
very interesting
insightful

Ravai
12-25-2018, 09:40 PM
I'm not really going out on a limb here, but I'll throw caution to the wind and go one step further...the correlation between L21, either continental or Isles, and Celtic is an almost certainty. With other subclades of P312, it may be that only certain branches (e.g. U152+L2+Z49+ and U152+L2+Z367+) were overwhelmingly "Gaulish" by the time the Romans started writing about them. After that, it gets kind of hazy (e.g. DF19 = Belgae?, Belgae = hybrid Celto-Germanic?).

Good evening, four years later since the beginning of this thread new subclades have emerged below L2. Are there any more that can be defined as Gaul or Celtic subclades? Thanks!

Regards

jdean
12-26-2018, 12:32 AM
That makes sense to me. Too bad I don't parle français.

My daughter is taking French in school and is really into it - mastery will make her trilingual (she speaks English and Russian fluently already) - but I don't think even she is up to university-level French lectures yet.

Off to see my in laws Friday, I'll see if they don't mind listening to it but they've a lot on their plate at the mo.

CillKenny
12-26-2018, 07:16 PM
It is also translated here

https://www.inrap.fr/en/creation-celtic-entity-migration-or-acculturation-12781

Problem is I can't get either version to run for me without stopping every few seconds.

rms2
12-26-2018, 07:48 PM
It is also translated here

https://www.inrap.fr/en/creation-celtic-entity-migration-or-acculturation-12781

Problem is I can't get either version to run for me without stopping every few seconds.

If I understood him rightly, he traces the spread of the earliest Celts to the Bell Beaker people, which is basically what he wrote in what I quoted from him above in post #212.

alan
12-27-2018, 12:14 PM
I think they key to Celtic is that after the P312 migration brought some Italo-Celtic or west IE language if provided a shared base on which intense ongoing contact could bring shifts across v wide areas without further invasions on a large scale. From what we know of archaeology, trade like interaction was intense 2000-700BC and from what we know of a celtic society there was probably a lot of high level alliance marriages and fosterage providing the glue in those networks. Human dowries of mercenaries are also known. The Druid and high level craftsmen classes also were mobile and protected. It was likely that a lot of constant low level movement had an effect of keeping elite dialects morphing in parallel over wide areas.

alan
12-27-2018, 12:29 PM
The impact of elite marriage and the elite practice of sending your children away to be brought up in the court of another allied kingdom to provide not only alliances and social glue but to fasilitate spread of trends and linguistic convergence/prevent divergence cannot be overestimated. I think The various shifts that define Celtic spread within such networks 2200-800BC and origin points will never be known. At best we can guess that the richest looking Bronze Age cultures may have exerted more prestige but the location of the richest areas shifted over time. So the different shifts that came to define Celtic could each have arisen in different areas before spreading through the network.

rms2
12-27-2018, 01:36 PM
If you follow what Brun had to say, his main point is that there is no archaeological evidence for a Celtic expansion after 1600 BC into all the places Celtic came to be spoken, like Britain, Ireland, and Iberia. It had to spread before 1600 BC, and the obvious vehicle for that spread was the Bell Beaker culture.

Finn
12-27-2018, 02:02 PM
The impact of elite marriage and the elite practice of sending your children away to be brought up in the court of another allied kingdom to provide not only alliances and social glue but to fasilitate spread of trends and linguistic convergence/prevent divergence cannot be overestimated. I think The various shifts that define Celtic spread within such networks 2200-800BC and origin points will never be known. At best we can guess that the richest looking Bronze Age cultures may have exerted more prestige but the location of the richest areas shifted over time. So the different shifts that came to define Celtic could each have arisen in different areas before spreading through the network.

Yes the 'second' shift after the Bell Beaker P312 could be the spread of the Tumulus culture for the Northwestblock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock) it's called Sögel-Wohlde. This brought some 'Italo-Celtic or west IE language' up to North Northwest Europe.

This culture was expansive, warrior cult, only very distinctive warrior tumulus graves etc. The Sögel Wohlde culture was 1800-1500 BC prevalent in North Dutch, NW Germany up to middle Jutland. But seems also be connected to such like cultures in Belgium, Northern France, West Germany (Hessen). And also influenced the Isles (Wessex)?