PDA

View Full Version : Origin of the Italics



alan
11-09-2015, 04:31 PM
I was reading this https://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic again and its very clear that Celtic and Germanic were closely neighbouring way back before the shifts that define them happened. This is vocab mostly only shared by those two IE branches. Italic does not generally share them. So it dates to a period when Celto-Italic peoples had geographically split so that the branch heading towards Celtic but not Italic was geographically close to the pre-proto-Germans. This shared Celto-Germanic vocab seems to be high status stuff relating to war, power and ritual/religion. Dating the vocab is tricky but it is noticeable that the shared vocab includes riding horses and wagons.

What are the implications for Italic?

My general feeling now is the early beaker phase coming from the west was non-R1b and non-IE and only combined with these after 2550BC. We also have limited but pretty clear evidence, if representative, that Remedello lacked steppe genes or R1b associations so it cannot be the origin of the apparent P312-Italic link. My overall feeling for the arrival of the Italics into Italy is now that its no earlier than late beaker and may even be post-beaker.

However, for some reason Italic does not share the Celto-German vocab which dates back deep to a time before most of the shifts that define those language - the pre-proto period. That suggests it was not in contact with the branch leading to Celtic by the time this vocab was being shared or if it was just was not interested.

Erik
11-09-2015, 06:09 PM
I hear that proto-Celtic and Latin show a lot of similarities.

kinman
11-09-2015, 10:13 PM
That is true, and Italic languages also show some similarities to Lusitanian. See the discussion we are having in the thread "R1b-L51 - Results discussion".
--------------------Ken


I hear that proto-Celtic and Latin show a lot of similarities.

alan
11-10-2015, 10:16 PM
The way I would read it is that the Celto-Italic branch divided fairly early - a lot of the Celto-Germanic vocab is pretty fundamental stuff - leaving the branch leading to Celtic more in contact with pre-proto-Germanic than with pre-proto-Italics.

However this gets stranger when you look at the archaeological evidence. There are many connections between Italy and the area north of the Alps 2200-1000BC. So if the Celtic shifts happened immediately north of the Alps then why would Italic have not shared innovations with it? It almost is suggestive that the area just north of the Alps was not Celtic way back in the pre-proto-phase deep in the Bronze Age.

Another thing is normally Germanic and its pre-proto versions of the Bronze Age are placed no further south than north Germany, extending into Denmark and northwards. So if pre-proto-Celtic was in contact with pre-proto Germanic but not in contact with pre-proto-Italic then this tends to suggest to me that fairly early in the Bronze Age the pre-proto ancestors of the Celts lived quite far north neighbouring the pre-proto-Germans and separated from the ancestors of the Italics. Certainly either geography, chronology, some intervening group or some combo of all three seem to have separated off the pre-proto Italics from the Celts during the pre-proto period when Celtic and Germanic shared so much crucial vocab.

its just a pity the Celto-Germanic vocab shared at their pre-proto stages is not possible to closely date. One thing is clear from that vocab is that there are some specifics of the military-ritual elite end of society that the ancestors of the Celts and Germanics shared from a common source that they shared with no other branches of IE, not even the Italic part of the Celto-Italic branch. Its something important to consider - why did the pre-proto ancestors of the Germans and Celts, despite not being originally on the same branch, have this shared vocab apparently focused on an apparently shared elite end social structure of military and ritual power that was generally not shared with any other branch. Almost as if they had no other neighbours.

If this vocab is not an ancestral Celto-Italic thing (which given its absence in Italic seems clear) but is found in Celtic and Germanic the simplest deduction might be that it came from the pre-proto-Germanics into pre-proto-Celts. This seems to be supported by some strange cases of the same vocab having echos in Finnish. Alternatively the pre-proto Celts and pre-proto-Germans shared social innovations. Either way there was a period when the pre-proto-Celts gained identical vocab and social-military-ritual institutions as the the pre-proto-Germans that were not shared with the Italics.

Archaeologically the earliest rational window seems to be when a Celto-Italic beaker culture partly overlap with pre-proto-Germanic corded ware or battle axe peoples in the area between the Rhine and Elbe and beyond. However, it should be noted that the beaker people didnt always overlap with Corded Ware people in central Europe. There were areas of central Europe where there is no CW substrate under beaker in places like Hungary and surrounding areas.

So, perhaps the ancestors of the Italics were located in the part of central Europe bell beaker distribution that did not overlap with CW while the Celts ancestors lived in the area where beaker overlaid CW and where the ancestors of the Celts and Germans lived close to each other.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-10-2015, 10:42 PM
Very interesting, and to me this difficulty in categorising clear branching between western IE is not a problem but a solution- which imho is staring us in the face. Germanic, italic and Celtic, as well as other not-quite classifiable languages like Ligurian , Venetic and Lusitanian (are they Celtic, Italic or "para-Celtic" ?) can be described by the fact they have a common ancestor (putatively the early P312); compounded by Germanic having additional direct ancestry from the steppe (U106, R1a). These did not just split at 2500 or 2000 BC but had ongoing contact and mutual developments in a peer-polity manner . Even italic was in contact as late as urnfield period.

The classic family tree diagrams do not capture this; but I humbly believe my little concoction does.
Id be happy for feedback. This is still a rough version; and I'll do one soon incorporating Germanic ; and I'll make it "3D".


6614

alan
11-11-2015, 01:19 AM
I think the tree aspect does have validity but its complicated hugely by the fact that original kinship on the tree such as Celtic and Italic had according to most experts was then followed by a period where they split and Celtic had more intense relationships with Germanic than Italic. All branches would have a similar combination of the initial tree branch position complicated by later geographical sideways contact. I still believe the basic tree scheme is correct though. even if it is limited to telling on the start of any branches story.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 05:09 AM
I think the tree aspect does have validity but its complicated hugely by the fact that original kinship on the tree such as Celtic and Italic had according to most experts was then followed by a period where they split and Celtic had more intense relationships with Germanic than Italic. All branches would have a similar combination of the initial tree branch position complicated by later geographical sideways contact. I still believe the basic tree scheme is correct though. even if it is limited to telling on the start of any branches story.

Yes the comparative method which feeds the tree model is definitely correct; it's just that most trees miss all the detail on the middle, thus fall short of establishing the real relationship between language groups like italic and Celtic.

Jean M
11-11-2015, 11:51 AM
... look at the archaeological evidence. There are many connections between Italy and the area north of the Alps 2200-1000BC. So if the Celtic shifts happened immediately north of the Alps then why would Italic have not shared innovations with it?

The Alps are a mighty barrier, such as would encourage separate language development. But in my view the arrival of the Etruscans also played a key role. They created a linguistic barrier between what is now Northern Italy, in which languages such as Ligurian and Venetic developed (presumably from the common ancestor of Celtic and Italic), from central and southern Italy in which Italic developed.

Passes through the Alps allowed the development of (the Celtic language) Lepontic in the southern foothills of the Alps. We find written records of it from c. 600 BC, the range of which fits the Golasecca culture, which was a trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture began in the 8th century BC, developing from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield that arrived in the 13th century BC, which is therefore often presumed to be the vector of the first Celtic language south of the Alps.

Yet if we go further back in time we reach the Bell Beaker sites of Sion on the upper Rhône and Aosta in the southern Alps. They received a sudden influx of new, eastern Bell Beaker material c. 2425 BC (see p. 97). So here we have an earlier wave which could have brought Celtic to the southern Alps. If so, the continued use of trans-Alpine trade routes would keep those Celts of the southern Alps in touch linguistically with the developing core of Proto-Celtic north of the Alps as it gradually turned into Gaulish. Yet Lepontic seems best classified as a separate language from Gaulish.

6618

Jean M
11-11-2015, 12:02 PM
I hear that proto-Celtic and Latin show a lot of similarities.

Peter Schrijver gives a list of the common features of Celtic and Italic in https://www.academia.edu/13749183/Pruners_and_trainers_of_the_Celtic_family_tree_the _rise_and_development_of_Celtic_in_the_light_of_la nguage_contact

Jean M
11-11-2015, 01:04 PM
Here is a map from Wikipedia of the languages of Iron-Age Italy (click to enlarge):

6619

The languages in shades of grey are Italic.

alan
11-11-2015, 03:56 PM
Here is a map from Wikipedia of the languages of Iron-Age Italy (click to enlarge):

6619

The languages in shades of grey are Italic.

Do we know for sure what language Etruscan supplanted. Was it definitely Italic. I just wonder because northern Italy kept a lot of contacts with central Europe.

alan
11-11-2015, 04:49 PM
The Alps are a mighty barrier, such as would encourage separate language development. But in my view the arrival of the Etruscans also played a key role. They created a linguistic barrier between what is now Northern Italy, in which languages such as Ligurian and Venetic developed (presumably from the common ancestor of Celtic and Italic), from central and southern Italy in which Italic developed.

Passes through the Alps allowed the development of (the Celtic language) Lepontic in the southern foothills of the Alps. We find written records of it from c. 600 BC, the range of which fits the Golasecca culture, which was a trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture began in the 8th century BC, developing from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield that arrived in the 13th century BC, which is therefore often presumed to be the vector of the first Celtic language south of the Alps.

Yet if we go further back in time we reach the Bell Beaker sites of Sion on the upper Rhône and Aosta in the southern Alps. They received a sudden influx of new, eastern Bell Beaker material c. 2425 BC (see p. 97). So here we have an earlier wave which could have brought Celtic to the southern Alps. If so, the continued use of trans-Alpine trade routes would keep those Celts of the southern Alps in touch linguistically with the developing core of Proto-Celtic north of the Alps as it gradually turned into Gaulish. Yet Lepontic seems best classified as a separate language from Gaulish.

6618

I was also reading about considerable connections between north Italy and Unetice in the post-beaker Early Bronze Age and of course all the later Bronze Age links too. So there seems to have been a lot of phases of connection through the Alps. However, it is interesting (if indeed this was the case) that this strong central European influence in north Italy did not lead to them sharing the very early Celto-German vocab.

Perhaps the contacts just were not large or sustained enough though, kind of like the way Urnfield did have a significant influence in northern Europe but they did not end up duplicating dialects with central Europeans.

Obviously its a mighty challenge to work out who was where when due to the fact that not one language branch can for sure to be said to be in any given place at any given time until late in the Bronze Age. Lack of a fixed anchor to hold everything else to makes it tricky.

The persistence of Celto-Italic but non-Celtic groups in NW Italy, southern France, Portugal etc of course is a shapshot and we cannot know for sure their locations earlier. However its very much a west Med/south Atlantic focused distribution which does give it some sort of pattern. If these peoples were in even part of that distribution from very early times it does at least indicate that the strongest contacts which produced the Celtic shifts were not pressing on them at the crucial period. They are unlikely to have been neighbours with the group that experienced the Celtic shifts at the time. So it does seem to me that the Celtic shifts must have occurred in an area where these were not in contact.

We also have a peculiarly fundamental core vocab of power-war-horse-wagon-ritual type vocab shared by the Celts and the Germans that isnt shared with Italics and this sharing was back in a pre-proto phase so that they go back to identical forms. The apparent fact that Celtic and Germanic but not Italic shared unique and important elite sounding vocab that goes back to a stage where many of the shifts that define the proto-forms had happened shows that Celtic and Italic had geographically separated long before the proto stages. It also shows the ancestors of the Celtic branch were intimately in contact with the ancestors of the Germans at an early stage before most of the proto-from shifts had happened.

This in turn makes it hard to reconcile this apparent isolation of the Celtic speakers ancestors from those of the Italic with the pretty strong phases of contact between northern Italy and the area north of the Alps in several phases across the Bronze Age from later beaker to Urnfield. Either the Celtic ancestors were a north-peripheral subset of the central Europeans (living close to the pre-Germanics) with a kind of more Italic or Celto-Italic group also occupying the area just north of the Alps OR perhaps pre-Etruscan north Italy had a lot more Lepontic type dialects and Lepontic was just a remnant of a once wider group.

I am not sure which is most probable. It would be interesting though if some of the Urnfield groups just north of the Alps and spilling into the west Med. were Celto-Italic. I could see some sense in that given the Ligurians. If that was all true then that would make the Celts likely to have emerged somewhat further north in a hyper-peripheral part of the Italo-Celtic world perhaps on the north-west periphery of Central Europe where the central European, NW Atlantic systems and Nordic Bronze Age and related groups all came close to each other through the Bronze Age (which sounds sort of llike the just west of the Belgium/NE France, Rhineland sort of zone.

Between all of that IMO it eliminates some areas from being within of close to the place pre-proto and proto Celtic shifts happened. So I think the whole west Med, SW Alps fringe and Portugal were remote from this. It does support one element of the traditional model - the various steppes towards Celtic probably took place in west-central Europe. Where the traditional model is almost certainly wrong is chronology. I think that it is close to impossible that Proto-Celtic had not emerged by 1300BC and could have been emerging from the late beaker period.

alan
11-11-2015, 05:10 PM
Or alternatively Celtic could have been what emerged where Celto-Italic beaker people overlapped with pre-Germanic CW plus non-IE substrate. This could make sense of the duplicated unique war-ritual-power vocab shared at the pre-proto stage between the ancestors of Celts and Germans.

Italic, Ligurian, Lusitanian seem to coincide with areas where beaker did not land on a CW substrate.

Agamemnon
11-11-2015, 05:33 PM
Do we know for sure what language Etruscan supplanted. Was it definitely Italic. I just wonder because northern Italy kept a lot of contacts with central Europe.

Etruscan probably imposed itself over a largely Umbrian-speaking population, in fact I doubt Etruscan managed to entirely replace the earlier Italic languages spoken in Etruria.

Jean M
11-11-2015, 05:55 PM
Or alternatively Celtic could have been what emerged where Celto-Italic beaker people overlapped with pre-Germanic CW plus non-IE substrate..

I knew that your determination to give Corded Ware top billing in the origin of the Insular Celts lay behind your starting this thread. :biggrin1: But you did give it the title Origin of the Italics. So readers who are actually interested in the origin of the Italics could well be lured in. There are plenty of other threads on the Celts, after all. Could we think seriously about the Italics on this one?

The substrate is a pre-IE agricultural language, from which words were borrowed into several IE languages including Germanic, Celtic, Latin and Greek. Guus Kroonen (2012) suggests that the most plausible explanation for a word for "goat" arriving in both Germanic and Italic is that this word "filtered through the old continuum of agricultural and cattle breeding cultures that had expanded into Europe from the East in the millennia preceding the arrival of the Indo-Europeans."

I postulate that pre-Proto-Germanic picked up such agricultural terminology on its trek through former Funnel Beaker territory, but I also postulate that Funnel Beaker was derived from Balkan farmers. So it would be perfectly possible for the same words to be picked up by pre-Proto-Greek in the Balkans and by pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic in its drive up the Danube, following in the footsteps of the Balkan farmer rush north.

Inigo Montoya
11-11-2015, 06:22 PM
Etruscan probably imposed itself over a largely Umbrian-speaking population, in fact I doubt Etruscan managed to entirely replace the earlier Italic languages spoken in Etruria.
I find it odd that so little identifiable Italic influence can be detected in Etruscan, then. If, on the other hand, the pre-Tyrsenian Etrurian language went extinct unattested, this would explain why it is so difficult to identify as a substratum.
Have there been papers on the toponymy of Tuscany that could help resolve this?

alan
11-11-2015, 06:42 PM
I have been think recently too that the Urnfield culture is a horrible mismatch for Celtic. If you look at the distribution vast areas speaking Celtic at the dawn of history (the isles, the bulk of Gallia Celtica, all of north and west Iberia) fall outside its distribution. In addition, the languages first recorded in much of this area of distribution are often not Celtic or are simply not known or may be a result of late Celtic expansion. I especially am curious of the way Urnfield spilled down into what became the Ligurian sort of area.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

It is usually presumed this Urnfield in southern France and east Iberia spilled down the Rhone from north of the Alps. However this was Ligurian territory at the dawn of history, albeit the Celts were pushing them out. If Ligurian is linked to a spread of Urnfield south from north of the Alps then that seems to imply non-Celtic Celto-Italic type dialects still existed north of the Alps at least in some areas.

My suspicion remains that, back in Urnfield times and earlier, Celtic was north-west peripheral dialect rather than in the core or sitting at the northern entrances to the Alps. It is possible that Celtic was very much a peripheral dialect of an Italo-Celtic world sitting at the interface between Urnfield and the Atlantic systems and close to the south-west end of the Nordic area too.

I have been thinking a bit laterally about this and although its much later and too late to explain Celtic, the links we see in the first La Tene triple cores Marne-Mosselle-Czech could be a late representative of a much older network chain which Celtic developed in, possibly originating in the way Unetice and subsequent cultures of central Europe linked to the isles and NW France via the intervening areas of north-central France and west-central Germany. That would put Celtic more on a Paris to Prague sort of latitude originally and it also puts it just south of the Nordic zone where contact with pre-Germans would be easy. It also would mean Celto-Italics of a non-Celtic type may have present on both the southern and northern Alpine area. This could explain why despite many ongoing influences from north of the Alps, Italy did not gain the Celtic shifts i.e. there were non-Celts (albeit Celto-Italic) sitting between the Italics and the Celts. It would also explain why the area where urnfield spilled down the Rhone to the Med was Ligurian speaking, not Celtic. I wouldnt raise the tiny Lepontii population as a stumbling block as that reminds me of the Basque-P312 arguement.

You might then ask if Celtic was a north-west peripheral dialect at the meeting point between the Atlantic, central European and Nordic systems as late as the urnfield period then how did the dialect spread wider? Well we have some good material proxies as to how a Celtic dialect could have spread into other areas of central Europe to the south and east - not least the La Tene period. In that period it was clearly the material cultures of what had been a sort of north-west and north-peripheral part of the former territory of earlier cultures like Urnfield-proper and Hallstatt areas that developed a new material culture that became influential. The diffusion of La Tene art is probably the material expression of the prestige that others saw in the elites of that region and it wouldnt be surprising if this led to a spread of a once-peripheral dialect by elite interaction as well as movement.

Dont get me wrong, I am not falling back to the old La Tene model for the spread of Celtic. I just think Celtic is more likely to have been oldest on the northern and north-western periphery of the core of central Europe. Therefore Celtic could be very old in these area as the shared vocab with pre-Germanic in the pre-proto Celtic phase suggests. I also think the Celtic shifts probably spread early to northern France and the isles, possibly long before they were known near the Alps.

Agamemnon
11-11-2015, 06:49 PM
I find it odd that so little identifiable Italic influence can be detected in Etruscan, then. If, on the other hand, the pre-Tyrsenian Etrurian language went extinct unattested, this would explain why it is so difficult to identify as a substratum.
Have there been papers on the toponymy of Tuscany that could help resolve this?

It's not that odd quite frankly, there's little identifiable non-Latin influence in Spanish, Portuguese and French for example. In the same way, there was little identifiable Berber influence in Punic, despite the fact that most Punic speakers weren't ethnically Phoenician. Herodotus noted that the Tyrsenians settled in the lands of the Umbrians.

alan
11-11-2015, 06:57 PM
I knew that your determination to give Corded Ware top billing in the origin of the Insular Celts lay behind your starting this thread. :biggrin1: But you did give it the title Origin of the Italics. So readers who are actually interested in the origin of the Italics could well be lured in. There are plenty of other threads on the Celts, after all. Could we think seriously about the Italics on this one?

The substrate is a pre-IE agricultural language, from which words were borrowed into several IE languages including Germanic, Celtic, Latin and Greek. Guus Kroonen (2012) suggests that the most plausible explanation for a word for "goat" arriving in both Germanic and Italic is that this word "filtered through the old continuum of agricultural and cattle breeding cultures that had expanded into Europe from the East in the millennia preceding the arrival of the Indo-Europeans."

I postulate that pre-Proto-Germanic picked up such agricultural terminology on its trek through former Funnel Beaker territory, but I also postulate that Funnel Beaker was derived from Balkan farmers. So it would be perfectly possible for the same words to be picked up by pre-Proto-Greek in the Balkans and by pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic in its drive up the Danube, following in the footsteps of the Balkan farmer rush north.

I am just being lateral. Like in paper genealogy when you cant find the ancestor you look for the records of a sibling. The shared Celto-Germanic vocab from the pre-proto stages that is absent in Italic despite many links between north Italy/the Ligurian zone and the north Alpine area must be telling us something about the non-Celtic part of the Italo-Celtics and seems to be telling me something curious about the north Alpine zone - that it could have been Celto-Italic but not Celtic (not even in its pre-proto form) for much of the Bronze Age. I am just suggesting that Celtic from its pre-proto to proto forms may have developed rather more north and north-west within west-central Europe than is thought. I am just suggesting that there is possibly evidence that Celtic was a relatively late arrival even in the north Alpine zone and that its older ranger may have been more on a latitude of Paris to Bohemia but extended into NW France and the isles. Just trying to think out of the box a bit.

As for Corded Ware. I have no fatal attraction to lumbering stone axe head thumpers at all. Beaker people are far cooler. Its just seemed striking to me that Italic languages seem to be where beaker but not CW was known while Celtic languages might seem more likely to have arisen where the two overlapped and then we have that core apparently high status shared vocab that pre-Germans and pre-proto Celts shared despite not being from the same IE branch. I started off thinking the Germanics are some sort of CW group influenced by Italo-Celtic beaker people but then I realised that the flipside is that central European beaker people could be seen as Italo-Celts who mixed with CW pre-Germans. While I am normally a bit biased towards all things Celtic, I have to admit that the lack of this shared Celto-German vocab among Italics and apparently the appearance of some of the vocab among non-IE north-east Europeans like Finns does suggest that the vocab went from the CW to the beakers and not the other way round. It could of course be simply unique one-off innovation though.

kinman
11-11-2015, 07:03 PM
Interesting tree, but I assume Lst. on the left is Lusitanian. I would think Lusitanian would share more recent ancestry with Italic languages (than is shown is this tree).
-----------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Very interesting, and to me this difficulty in categorising clear branching between western IE is not a problem but a solution- which imho is staring us in the face. Germanic, italic and Celtic, as well as other not-quite classifiable languages like Ligurian , Venetic and Lusitanian (are they Celtic, Italic or "para-Celtic" ?) can be described by the fact they have a common ancestor (putatively the early P312); compounded by Germanic having additional direct ancestry from the steppe (U106, R1a). These did not just split at 2500 or 2000 BC but had ongoing contact and mutual developments in a peer-polity manner . Even italic was in contact as late as urnfield period.

The classic family tree diagrams do not capture this; but I humbly believe my little concoction does.
Id be happy for feedback. This is still a rough version; and I'll do one soon incorporating Germanic ; and I'll make it "3D".


6614

alan
11-11-2015, 07:16 PM
Have just ordered Jean's new book. Went for hard copy. I get a lot of stuff on Kindle but I like to keep archaeology related books in hard copy.

R.Rocca
11-11-2015, 08:46 PM
There are two distinct spheres of Bell Beaker influence within the Italian peninsula - one related to Southern France and Iberia and the other related to Central Europe. A very interesting observation was made by Claudio Pofferi a couple of years ago in his book I Popoli dell'Antica Italia: Rinaldoniani, Umbri, Pelasgi, Villanoviani ed Etrusci regarding the material distribution of these two spheres. In it, he says that the distribution of the former coincides with the areas which historical tradition records as having been inhabited by the Ligurians and the latter, lands inhabited by the Umbrians. Needless to say, it is quite interesting that coastal NW Italy samples from the FTDNA projects show a nice spike in DF27, seemingly at the expense of U152. While U152 is also common in the prior Ligurian lands, it seems that most of it is U152(xL2). Unlike the rest of Italy, U152+L2+ is most common in NE Italy which is directionally where the Central European Bell Beaker influences would have penetrated from. U152+L2+ is also more frequent as a percentage of overall U152 in Northern Europe. So, it could be that DF27 and U152(xL2) were part of Western European Bell Beaker and L2 was part of Central European Bell Beaker. Unfortunately we don’t know if the German U152+ Bell Beaker skeleton was L2+ or not. The post-Bell Beaker Polada Culture seems to have strong ties to both the NE Swiss Arbon Culture as well as the Danubian Wieselburg-Gata Culture (also confirmed R-M269+), so the links to Central Europe remain quite strong into the Middle Bronze Age.

MitchellSince1893
11-11-2015, 09:05 PM
Great stuff Richard! Thanks for posting this.

Jean M
11-11-2015, 09:21 PM
There are two distinct spheres of Bell Beaker influence within the Italian peninsula ...

I'm taking notes Richard. Hope you don't mind. If you want to publish before me on this, just give me a shout. Doubt if there will be another update to AJ for quite a while now anyway.

R.Rocca
11-11-2015, 09:35 PM
There are two distinct spheres of Bell Beaker influence within the Italian peninsula - one related to Southern France and Iberia and the other related to Central Europe. A very interesting observation was made by Claudio Pofferi a couple of years ago in his book I Popoli dell'Antica Italia: Rinaldoniani, Umbri, Pelasgi, Villanoviani ed Etrusci regarding the material distribution of these two spheres. In it, he says that the distribution of the former coincides with the areas which historical tradition records as having been inhabited by the Ligurians and the latter, lands inhabited by the Umbrians. Needless to say, it is quite interesting that coastal NW Italy samples from the FTDNA projects show a nice spike in DF27, seemingly at the expense of U152. While U152 is also common in the prior Ligurian lands, it seems that most of it is U152(xL2). Unlike the rest of Italy, U152+L2+ is most common in NE Italy which is directionally where the Central European Bell Beaker influences would have penetrated from. U152+L2+ is also more frequent as a percentage of overall U152 in Northern Europe. So, it could be that DF27 and U152(xL2) were part of Western European Bell Beaker and L2 was part of Central European Bell Beaker. Unfortunately we don’t know if the German U152+ Bell Beaker skeleton was L2+ or not. The post-Bell Beaker Polada Culture seems to have strong ties to both the NE Swiss Arbon Culture as well as the Danubian Wieselburg-Gata Culture (also confirmed R-M269+), so the links to Central Europe remain quite strong into the Middle Bronze Age.

And just to make matters more interesting, the Umbrians spoke P-Italic instead of Q-Italic ;)

Jean M
11-11-2015, 09:51 PM
And just to make matters more interesting, the Umbrians spoke P-Italic instead of Q-Italic ;)

I know. One author suggested Etruscan influence as the explanation for P-Italic on the south and P-Celtic on the north.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 10:17 PM
The Alps are a mighty barrier, such as would encourage separate language development. But in my view the arrival of the Etruscans also played a key role. They created a linguistic barrier between what is now Northern Italy, in which languages such as Ligurian and Venetic developed (presumably from the common ancestor of Celtic and Italic), from central and southern Italy in which Italic developed.

Passes through the Alps allowed the development of (the Celtic language) Lepontic in the southern foothills of the Alps. We find written records of it from c. 600 BC, the range of which fits the Golasecca culture, which was a trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. The Golasecca culture began in the 8th century BC, developing from the local Bronze Age culture. This can be traced back to a variety of Urnfield that arrived in the 13th century BC, which is therefore often presumed to be the vector of the first Celtic language south of the Alps.

Yet if we go further back in time we reach the Bell Beaker sites of Sion on the upper Rhône and Aosta in the southern Alps. They received a sudden influx of new, eastern Bell Beaker material c. 2425 BC (see p. 97). So here we have an earlier wave which could have brought Celtic to the southern Alps. If so, the continued use of trans-Alpine trade routes would keep those Celts of the southern Alps in touch linguistically with the developing core of Proto-Celtic north of the Alps as it gradually turned into Gaulish. Yet Lepontic seems best classified as a separate language from Gaulish.

6618

I also like that diagram, But I;'d have continuing contact also between Italic and Celtic, as well as the peripheral groups like Ligurian well into the Bronze Age.

Although, I'd be cautious about describing BB groups as 'early Celtic'. This enters tenuous territory, IMO, even though there can be no doubt that some of these groups later evolved into Celtic. .

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 10:19 PM
Etruscan probably imposed itself over a largely Umbrian-speaking population, in fact I doubt Etruscan managed to entirely replace the earlier Italic languages spoken in Etruria.

Do we have any firm basis for that ?
I like the idea that IE wasn;t the only language expanding and moving around after Neolithic, but how do we know the relative chronology of languages in Italy - ie which came first . We don't IMO.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 10:25 PM
I have been think recently too that the Urnfield culture is a horrible mismatch for Celtic. If you look at the distribution vast areas speaking Celtic at the dawn of history (the isles, the bulk of Gallia Celtica, all of north and west Iberia) fall outside its distribution. In addition, the languages first recorded in much of this area of distribution are often not Celtic or are simply not known or may be a result of late Celtic expansion. I especially am curious of the way Urnfield spilled down into what became the Ligurian sort of area.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

It is usually presumed this Urnfield in southern France and east Iberia spilled down the Rhone from north of the Alps. However this was Ligurian territory at the dawn of history, albeit the Celts were pushing them out. If Ligurian is linked to a spread of Urnfield south from north of the Alps then that seems to imply non-Celtic Celto-Italic type dialects still existed north of the Alps at least in some areas.

My suspicion remains that, back in Urnfield times and earlier, Celtic was north-west peripheral dialect rather than in the core or sitting at the northern entrances to the Alps. It is possible that Celtic was very much a peripheral dialect of an Italo-Celtic world sitting at the interface between Urnfield and the Atlantic systems and close to the south-west end of the Nordic area too.

I have been thinking a bit laterally about this and although its much later and too late to explain Celtic, the links we see in the first La Tene triple cores Marne-Mosselle-Czech could be a late representative of a much older network chain which Celtic developed in, possibly originating in the way Unetice and subsequent cultures of central Europe linked to the isles and NW France via the intervening areas of north-central France and west-central Germany. That would put Celtic more on a Paris to Prague sort of latitude originally and it also puts it just south of the Nordic zone where contact with pre-Germans would be easy. It also would mean Celto-Italics of a non-Celtic type may have present on both the southern and northern Alpine area. This could explain why despite many ongoing influences from north of the Alps, Italy did not gain the Celtic shifts i.e. there were non-Celts (albeit Celto-Italic) sitting between the Italics and the Celts. It would also explain why the area where urnfield spilled down the Rhone to the Med was Ligurian speaking, not Celtic. I wouldnt raise the tiny Lepontii population as a stumbling block as that reminds me of the Basque-P312 arguement.

You might then ask if Celtic was a north-west peripheral dialect at the meeting point between the Atlantic, central European and Nordic systems as late as the urnfield period then how did the dialect spread wider? Well we have some good material proxies as to how a Celtic dialect could have spread into other areas of central Europe to the south and east - not least the La Tene period. In that period it was clearly the material cultures of what had been a sort of north-west and north-peripheral part of the former territory of earlier cultures like Urnfield-proper and Hallstatt areas that developed a new material culture that became influential. The diffusion of La Tene art is probably the material expression of the prestige that others saw in the elites of that region and it wouldnt be surprising if this led to a spread of a once-peripheral dialect by elite interaction as well as movement.

Dont get me wrong, I am not falling back to the old La Tene model for the spread of Celtic. I just think Celtic is more likely to have been oldest on the northern and north-western periphery of the core of central Europe. Therefore Celtic could be very old in these area as the shared vocab with pre-Germanic in the pre-proto Celtic phase suggests. I also think the Celtic shifts probably spread early to northern France and the isles, possibly long before they were known near the Alps.

Tying in what others have been suggesting for Etruscan:
The archaeological outlook of iron Age Italy is that Eturscan appears to broadly coincide with the cremating regions, whilst regions where IE languages are later attested continued to use inhumations in tumuli. The corollary is that the Urnfield influence in Italy affected a proto-Etruscan region.

Delving deeper, the Etruscan speaking regions of Italy were at the stage of incipient urbanism. On the other hand, the Italic-IE communities still had a more dispersed settlement pattern. it is as if Italic/ IE formed a periphery around this Etruscan proto-Urban core.

Finally, there is clear evidence for trans-Adriatic influences upon Italy. This begins with the proto-Cetina phase, which might have been only cultural. by the LBA, there are clear evidences of actual migration from the east Adriatic to Italy. These might account for the outlying status of Messapic, but Im sure it influenced all Italic languages. In fact, as noted in "The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars" - the notable distribution of early Italic lies on the eastern aspects of the Peninsula.

Agamemnon
11-11-2015, 10:26 PM
Do we have any firm basis for that ?
I like the idea that IE wasn;t the only language expanding and moving around after Neolithic, but how do we know the relative chronology of languages in Italy - ie which came first . We don't IMO.

The firm basis is that Tyrsenian looks like an intrusive language family in the Italian peninsula, it might even be linked to Minoan/Eteocretan as well as NE Caucasian and possibly spread out from the Aegean.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 10:32 PM
Interesting tree, but I assume Lst. on the left is Lusitanian. I would think Lusitanian would share more recent ancestry with Italic languages (than is shown is this tree).
-----------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes it's Lusitanian. From the scraps of evidence we have for Lusitanian, my understanding is that Lusitanian cannot be seem easily as Celtic, thus drawing comparisons with Italic. Given that (at least the way I see it) "Italic" not a single language state, but a process of interaction and convergence of already related idioms within Italy from the Bronze Age onwards, Lusitanian cannot be Italic. It just shares some ancestral innovations. I'd see Lusitanian as the first to "split" - that it so say - it shared least in the transcontinental dispersion of isoglossic innovations.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-11-2015, 10:46 PM
The firm basis is that Tyrsenian looks like an intrusive language family in the Italian peninsula, it might even be linked to Minoan/Eteocretan as well as NE Caucasian and possibly spread out from the Aegean.

yes, that's possible - and in fact I'd agree.
But how do we establish relative chronology ? Ie that it post-dates IE ? It could very well pre-date IE, in Italy.

vettor
11-12-2015, 05:35 AM
Here is a map from Wikipedia of the languages of Iron-Age Italy (click to enlarge):

6619

The languages in shades of grey are Italic.

Messapic, North Picene, Venetic, Lepontic, Raetic, NorthIllyrian , Liburnian all use the Eobean alphabet - basically all very similar ( you can throw Camunic and Magae into the mix as well )..................Etruscans used it as well even though their 10000 words can still not be truly deciphered..........what did the Ligurian use ?

Jean M
11-12-2015, 01:27 PM
I'd be cautious about describing BB groups as 'early Celtic'.

You'd have to read Blood of the Celts to understand the chronological arguments. It is far too complex to cover in a post here, but in brief I postulate that early BB was associated with Alteuropäisch and that Late BB (2200-1700 BC) was associated with Early Celtic, Italic and Ligurian. Obviously this is a deduction from the eventual outcome, rather than something we can prove by written testimony. To state the obvious, BB is prehistoric.

R.Rocca
11-12-2015, 01:45 PM
I know. One author suggested Etruscan influence as the explanation for P-Italic on the south and P-Celtic on the north.

Yes, I remember, but it makes little sense to me. My reasoning is that both the Romans and the Faliscans lived under Estruscan domination for hundreds of years and kept their Q-Italic speech. Besides, I find it hard to believe that Etruscan trading contacts would have changed speech patterns all the way up to Scotland.

Jean M
11-12-2015, 02:04 PM
From the scraps of evidence we have for Lusitanian, my understanding is that Lusitanian cannot be seen easily as Celtic, thus drawing comparisons with Italic.

That is indeed the view of Blanca María Prósper, The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 97:2 (1999) 151-183.


The Lusitanian language is one of the least known Indo-European languages. This is partly due to the scarcity of indigenous documents. The most important of them is the inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas (Portugal), which is interesting not only because it contributes most to the dialectal classification of Lusitanian among the Indo-European languages, but also because it contains Alteuropäisch material. This paper aims to clarify some hitherto obscure facts about the lexicon and morphology of the inscription, and to confirm that Lusitanian is not an offshoot of the Celtic family....

Conclusion
Summarizing, close inspection of the inscription doesn't encourage us to consider Lusitanian Celtic language; on the contrary, it is not amenable to inclusion in any IE family, but it bears some phonetic and lexical resemblances to Italic ... and also some lexical correspondences to Baltic, Germanic and Greek which are absent from Celtic .... Typically Lusitanian features are sometimes difficult to extricate from those belonging to a substrate language probably belonging to the Alteuropäisch stock...

Jean M
11-12-2015, 02:08 PM
I find it hard to believe that Etruscan trading contacts would have changed speech patterns all the way up to Scotland.

I agree entirely, but the idea is that P-Celtic moved into Britain with the La Tène culture, which did indeed spread as far as Scotland. I'm talking migration here.

I'm not sure what to think about the origins of the kw to p sound change. Like you, I'm slightly uneasy about the Etruscan influence theory.

Jean M
11-12-2015, 02:21 PM
Interesting paper under discussion here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5812-Genetic-Structure-in-Italy

alan
11-13-2015, 05:28 PM
That is indeed the view of Blanca María Prósper, The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 97:2 (1999) 151-183.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I certainly think the 'para-Celtic' idea is nonsense. The idea of a sort of old European/ non-Celtic Celto-Italic/Italic-like dialect being widespread throughout western Europe before the Celtic dialect evolved and expanded has been around for an incredibly long time. I have seen in in what would be considered antiquarian books now - often given labels like Ligurian or Illyrian (however inaccurate that is). Although its dabbling in the dark a bit I tend to agree with this general concept.

I see Celtic as a novel development somewhere on the north periphery of this wide European group in contact with the pre-Germanics further north. When I look at the archaeological influences and who was providing the prestige metalwork models that others were copying it seems to me that if this is proxy for dialect prestige then Unetice is the most likely source of the spread of the shifts that spread to Celtic. The same zone in post-Unetice times carried on providing the models for metalwork that were copied in northern France, Belgium, southern Holland and the isles. So, I tend to think the prestige of Celtic spread through there although it is possible Celtic first evolved in a stepping stone group linking Unetice to the north-west. Probably impossible to know

alan
11-13-2015, 05:33 PM
Interesting paper under discussion here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5812-Genetic-Structure-in-Italy

I havent got your new book and cant recall you view on this, but what do you think of the Urnfield spill down the Rhone to southern France and NE Iberia? What are your linguistic views on this group?

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 10:04 PM
I don't think tracing a single language to any "archaeological culture" is easy, or correct. In fact it's clealry the case that even during the pre-Roman Iron Age IE was not the only language family around, and there were many non-IE in Iberia and Italy. Given the multilingual environment, the language spoken was not simply a matter of lineal inheritance, but active choice and manipulation in the creation of local identities.

Here are some good papers about the identity, archaeology and lauguage in pre-Roman Italy - which go beyond calls of Halstatt or BB; but looked at specific local contexts.

BETWEEN ETRUSCAN, GREEKS AND CELTS: CHANGEMENT IN
THE GOOD GRAVES OF THE LIGURIAN IRON AGE NECROPOLIS. By D Delfino

"State Formation and Ethnicities from the 8th to 5th Century BC in the Tiberine
Valley (Central Italy)" by Gabriele Cifani

THE ORIGINS OF THE CITY. FROM SOCIAL THEORY TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DESCRIPTION, By Juan A. Barcelo

ANDREA CARDARELLI
: THE COLLAPSE OF THE TERRAMARE CULTURE AND GROWTH OF NEW
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS DURING THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN ITALY


DE-CONSTRUCTING ETHNIC IDENTITIES:
BECOMING ROMAN IN WESTERN CISALPINE GAUL? RALPH HÄUSSLER

R.Rocca
11-13-2015, 10:25 PM
To follow up on my prior post, Boattini has P312(xM65,M153,SRY2627,U152,L21) and U152 both at 21.6% in their Savona/Genova samples.

Jean M
11-14-2015, 12:00 AM
I havent got your new book and cant recall you view on this, but what do you think of the Urnfield spill down the Rhone to southern France and NE Iberia? What are your linguistic views on this group?

We are wandering again from the Italics. ;) But specially for you - this is the region in which we later find Ligurian.

Jean M
11-14-2015, 12:07 AM
To follow up on my prior post, Boattini has P312(xM65,M153,SRY2627,U152,L21) and U152 both at 21.6% in their Savona/Genova samples.

This is Boattini et al. (2013)? : http://r1b.org/?page_id=242

R.Rocca
11-14-2015, 01:03 AM
This is Boattini et al. (2013)? : http://r1b.org/?page_id=242

Yes, that's the one Jean.

alan
11-14-2015, 02:25 AM
We are wandering again from the Italics. ;) But specially for you - this is the region in which we later find Ligurian.

Cool- that is what I was thinking. Just curious as it seems to indicate central Europe could spill a language like Ligurian into the west Med. as late as Urnfield period, suggesting there were Celto-Italic branch people who were neither Celts or Italics lying between the Italics in Italy and the Celts somewhere further north (presumably). That intervening Ligurian type group or groups north of the Alps before the move south into the west Med. may help explain why the ancestors of the Celts and Italics seem to have been not in contact with each other at the time pre-proto-Celtic was in contact with pre-proto-German.

I may look like I am wandering off thread discipline but I am just trying to come at the subject from a tangent.

R.Rocca
11-14-2015, 02:38 PM
I don't think tracing a single language to any "archaeological culture" is easy, or correct. In fact it's clealry the case that even during the pre-Roman Iron Age IE was not the only language family around, and there were many non-IE in Iberia and Italy. Given the multilingual environment, the language spoken was not simply a matter of lineal inheritance, but active choice and manipulation in the creation of local identities.

The big change in Italy occurred around 1200 BC. The Terramare Culture collapsed catastrophically. Only two areas of later Iron Age groups seem to come out of it with a pretty clean mapping to historical people... the Etruscans and the Veneti. The events of this period may actually have driven Italic speech further down the western Italian peninsula and as far as Eastern Sicily.

alan
11-14-2015, 03:46 PM
The big change in Italy occurred around 1200 BC. The Terramare Culture collapsed catastrophically. Only two areas of later Iron Age groups seem to come out of it with a pretty clean mapping to historical people... the Etruscans and the Veneti. The events of this period may actually have driven Italic speech further down the western Italian peninsula and as far as Eastern Sicily.

What is your current belief about the arrival of Italic in Italy?

vettor
11-14-2015, 05:29 PM
The big change in Italy occurred around 1200 BC. The Terramare Culture collapsed catastrophically. Only two areas of later Iron Age groups seem to come out of it with a pretty clean mapping to historical people... the Etruscans and the Veneti. The events of this period may actually have driven Italic speech further down the western Italian peninsula and as far as Eastern Sicily.

ok, but the R1b in veneti is different to etruscan or ligurian ............IIRC, the Venetic are mainly R-L2 while etruscan gets their R1b form Ligurians

vettor
11-14-2015, 05:33 PM
What is your current belief about the arrival of Italic in Italy?

There seems to be 2 schools of thought for Italics
1- its origins in south italy.....moving north with the Romans

2- origin from western alps and moving south into italy

IMO I favour number 1

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 10:11 PM
The big change in Italy occurred around 1200 BC. The Terramare Culture collapsed catastrophically. Only two areas of later Iron Age groups seem to come out of it with a pretty clean mapping to historical people... the Etruscans and the Veneti. The events of this period may actually have driven Italic speech further down the western Italian peninsula and as far as Eastern Sicily.

It is certainly plausible that the final proto-historic picture was conditioned by the events following the Terramare collapse, and exodus south. That article I listed by Cardarelli discusses it in detail.

Im just curious about the persistence of Etruscan. Like I mentioned earlier, it appears Etruscans emerge out of the urn-cremating and more proto-Urban regions of Italy, whilst IE dispersed around a more dispersed periphery, which showed increased trans-Adriatic contacts in the Final Bronze/ early Iron period.

But the breakup of Terramare and shifting of its survivors south might have been the final shift toward proto -Italic proprie dictii, leaving the related "para" languages like Venetic and Ligurian behind (and this chronology -1200BC- coincides with my rough prelim reticulated tree).

alan
11-14-2015, 11:40 PM
One thing I dont believe is the idea that the initial Iberian-originated south-west European beakers around the west Med. and islands were IEs or P312 at all. Indeed it has been pointed out in the past that the distribution of beaker in Italy and the islands around it and to the south of France looks almost the opposite of a correlation with earliest known IE languages in and around Italy. I now suspect that that initial beaker spread east from Iberia along the west Med coasts and south Alps basically consisted of small copper prospecting groups of similar stock to the west Med. groups they settled among - basically Neolithic farmers genetically speaking. In some ways it looks like a return journey of the likely path taken by copper workers into Iberia c. 3000BC. There still IMO is not a shred of uncontested evidence that the earliest beaker pot users in Iberia had arrived from somewhere else or had any central European traits so I still feel they are non-R1b, non-IE, essentially Med. farmers with copper skills the same as the people who were in Iberia. I now suspect the beaker pot was originally some sort of copperworking guild symbol created in Iberia (whether or no drawing influence from a model elsewhere) c. 2800BC by the local copper age people there.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 12:10 AM
One thing I dont believe is the idea that the initial Iberian-originated south-west European beakers around the west Med. and islands were IEs or P312 at all. Indeed it has been pointed out in the past that the distribution of beaker in Italy and the islands around it and to the south of France looks almost the opposite of a correlation with earliest known IE languages in and around Italy. I now suspect that that initial beaker spread east from Iberia along the west Med coasts and south Alps basically consisted of small copper prospecting groups of similar stock to the west Med. groups they settled among - basically Neolithic farmers genetically speaking. In some ways it looks like a return journey of the likely path taken by copper workers into Iberia c. 3000BC. There still IMO is not a shred of uncontested evidence that the earliest beaker pot users in Iberia had arrived from somewhere else or had any central European traits so I still feel they are non-R1b, non-IE, essentially Med. farmers with copper skills the same as the people who were in Iberia. I now suspect the beaker pot was originally some sort of copperworking guild symbol created in Iberia (whether or no drawing influence from a model elsewhere) c. 2800BC by the local copper age people there.


Your idea is certainly in line with what Lemercier writes about southern France Historical model of settling and spread of (Bell Beakers Culture in the mediterranean France) and Heyd in southern Germany /west Alpine region : first a coming of Iberians, mixing with locals, then a takeover by new factions from east Central Europe (Simplistically put)

alan
11-15-2015, 02:50 AM
Your idea is certainly in line with what Lemercier writes about southern France Historical model of settling and spread of (Bell Beakers Culture in the mediterranean France) and Heyd in southern Germany /west Alpine region : first a coming of Iberians, mixing with locals, then a takeover by new factions from east Central Europe (Simplistically put)

Certainly seems likely. The DNA evidence combined with archaeological seems to point to a non-R1b movement of beaker using copper workers from Iberia carrying only limited aspects of the future beaker package which probably passed some cultural traits into a central European group carrying P312 who then formed the full beaker package there and expanded through Europe-eventually including moving into SW Europe (only late in the beaker period IMO).

I think the people that adopted beaker pots from SW Europeans in central Europe were probably the guys who up to that point distributed Carpathian metals through the CW complex. Someone had to have done that because most CW copper is Carpathian. So, it seems to me an expanding copper trading group coming from the south-west bumped into an existing group who had been doing the same job in central Europe for 300 years with Carpathian metals. I guess from the result of this in anciEnt DNA we can see that the central Europeans who ended up using beaker pot were local P312 folks on the male lines and intermarriage with the south-western derived woman led to the adoption of the pots. Given the existence of not dissimilar pottery in central Europe, adoption of beaker pots from the south-west would not have been a big deal and it is normally thought to be a female craft.

I suspect relations may have initially been friendly or this would not have happened. Perhaps the central Europeans horse riding skills and greater ability in terms of mobile living allowed some deal to be struck. However I doubt friendly relations lasted very long given the evidence at Sion which indicates a counterflow of beakerised central Europeans. When I say beakersised I am not sure that much more than the pots themselves were absorbed by these central Europeans.

So in summary I see an early beaker people who were non-R1b coming from the west. Before around 2550BC it appears all beaker pot users were of this type and I fully expect when pre-2550BC beaker burials in Spain, southern France and the south-western Alps are tested they will come out very much like the Remedello people. There must have been a brief phase after 2550BC when beaker groups of western origin made contact with central Europe. However, note that beaker burial at Kromsdorf is dates to 2550BC and is already a M269xU106 (probably P312 IMO). So if the pottery was initial brought from the south-west by non-R1b males, it quicklly transferred to R1b central Europeans. I strongly suspect there was very very little male gene flow from SW Europe into central Europe. Who knows., perhaps there was some unpleasant trading like southern European women for central European horses or something going on. Or perhaps it was all alliance marriages and only south-western women penetrated in any numbers into central Europe.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-15-2015, 03:46 AM
Certainly seems likely. The DNA evidence combined with archaeological seems to point to a non-R1b movement of beaker using copper workers from Iberia carrying only limited aspects of the future beaker package which probably passed some cultural traits into a central European group carrying P312 who then formed the full beaker package there and expanded through Europe-eventually including moving into SW Europe (only late in the beaker period IMO).

I think the people that adopted beaker pots from SW Europeans in central Europe were probably the guys who up to that point distributed Carpathian metals through the CW complex. Someone had to have done that because most CW copper is Carpathian. So, it seems to me an expanding copper trading group coming from the south-west bumped into an existing group who had been doing the same job in central Europe for 300 years with Carpathian metals. I guess from the result of this in anciEnt DNA we can see that the central Europeans who ended up using beaker pot were local P312 folks on the male lines and intermarriage with the south-western derived woman led to the adoption of the pots. Given the existence of not dissimilar pottery in central Europe, adoption of beaker pots from the south-west would not have been a big deal and it is normally thought to be a female craft.

I suspect relations may have initially been friendly or this would not have happened. Perhaps the central Europeans horse riding skills and greater ability in terms of mobile living allowed some deal to be struck. However I doubt friendly relations lasted very long given the evidence at Sion which indicates a counterflow of beakerised central Europeans. When I say beakersised I am not sure that much more than the pots themselves were absorbed by these central Europeans.

So in summary I see an early beaker people who were non-R1b coming from the west. Before around 2550BC it appears all beaker pot users were of this type and I fully expect when pre-2550BC beaker burials in Spain, southern France and the south-western Alps are tested they will come out very much like the Remedello people. There must have been a brief phase after 2550BC when beaker groups of western origin made contact with central Europe. However, note that beaker burial at Kromsdorf is dates to 2550BC and is already a M269xU106 (probably P312 IMO). So if the pottery was initial brought from the south-west by non-R1b males, it quicklly transferred to R1b central Europeans. I strongly suspect there was very very little male gene flow from SW Europe into central Europe. Who knows., perhaps there was some unpleasant trading like southern European women for central European horses or something going on. Or perhaps it was all alliance marriages and only south-western women penetrated in any numbers into central Europe.

Yes I think the questions which remain are

1) when exactly did the R1b groups penetrate Italy, Iberia and Britain .
2) exactly how rapid was the growth to dominance of R1b-L51 in the west.

R.Rocca
11-15-2015, 04:06 AM
One thing I dont believe is the idea that the initial Iberian-originated south-west European beakers around the west Med. and islands were IEs or P312 at all. Indeed it has been pointed out in the past that the distribution of beaker in Italy and the islands around it and to the south of France looks almost the opposite of a correlation with earliest known IE languages in and around Italy. I now suspect that that initial beaker spread east from Iberia along the west Med coasts and south Alps basically consisted of small copper prospecting groups of similar stock to the west Med. groups they settled among - basically Neolithic farmers genetically speaking. In some ways it looks like a return journey of the likely path taken by copper workers into Iberia c. 3000BC. There still IMO is not a shred of uncontested evidence that the earliest beaker pot users in Iberia had arrived from somewhere else or had any central European traits so I still feel they are non-R1b, non-IE, essentially Med. farmers with copper skills the same as the people who were in Iberia. I now suspect the beaker pot was originally some sort of copperworking guild symbol created in Iberia (whether or no drawing influence from a model elsewhere) c. 2800BC by the local copper age people there.

The distribution of P312 in both Iberia and Italy are exactly in line with Bell Beaker. What languages where spoken a thousand years after Bell Beaker areas in Iberia and Italy could have changed drastically.

Jean M
11-15-2015, 11:28 AM
I now suspect that that initial beaker spread east from Iberia along the west Med coasts and south Alps basically consisted of small copper prospecting groups of similar stock to the west Med. groups they settled among - basically Neolithic farmers genetically speaking. In some ways it looks like a return journey of the likely path taken by copper workers into Iberia c. 3000BC. There still IMO is not a shred of uncontested evidence that the earliest beaker pot users in Iberia had arrived from somewhere else or had any central European traits so I still feel they are non-R1b, non-IE, essentially Med. farmers with copper skills the same as the people who were in Iberia. I now suspect the beaker pot was originally some sort of copperworking guild symbol created in Iberia (whether or no drawing influence from a model elsewhere) c. 2800BC by the local copper age people there.

You seem to be admitting that copper working arrived in Iberia c. 3000 BC i.e. that it was not native to Iberia, and that the earliest BB makers were from this foreign stock. So why do you feel that they were essentially the same genetically as the local farmers of Cardial origin? Is this because the incomers inter-married with locals? Or is it that you feel that the copper-prospectors who left an archaeological trail from the Carpathian Basin right across to Iberia were from a stock that had intermarried with the remnants of Balkan farmers while moving up the Danube? Or were they from a Cucuteni stock rather than steppe in the first place?

All of these possibilities would make them more EEF than eastern BB, but only the last would affect the Y-DNA drastically, I would guess. Though who knows?

alan
11-15-2015, 03:13 PM
You seem to be admitting that copper working arrived in Iberia c. 3000 BC i.e. that it was not native to Iberia, and that the earliest BB makers were from this foreign stock. So why do you feel that they were essentially the same genetically as the local farmers of Cardial origin? Is this because the incomers inter-married with locals? Or is it that you feel that the copper-prospectors who left an archaeological trail from the Carpathian Basin right across to Iberia were from a stock that had intermarried with the remnants of Balkan farmers while moving up the Danube? Or were they from a Cucuteni stock rather than steppe in the first place?

All of these possibilities would make them more EEF than eastern BB, but only the last would affect the Y-DNA drastically, I would guess. Though who knows?

I have never believed in the independent invention of copper working theories - certainly not in terms of Europe and SW Asia. I suppose I imagine copper working arrived in small groups from south France or somewhere else in the west Med. around 3000BC or just before although admittedly the external origin of those moving into Iberia is not obvious other than the copper working. It seems much more clear than north Italy and south France were well linked in the pre-beaker centuries as there is several contacts including pottery and metal types. For some reason I cannot fathom as yet the links between the earliest copper workers in Iberia and their counterparts elsewhere in the west and central Med. is not so clear as the links between north Italy and southern France. That leaves things open somewhat. However I presume by default almost that they are linked. I suppose an more farflung origin further east in the Med. is not impossible given later history of such leaps to Iberia but noone seems to be arguing that any more for the early copper age of Iberia (there were once all sorts of theories about east Med. origins). Certainly I believe copper working was brought by migrants from the east, almost certainly along the Med. somehow.

The reason I suppose they are essentially farmers (in a genetic sense) with copper working skills is ancient DNA so far. It just seems that all the pre-beaker copper age results from Italy to Iberia look like farmer stock with no steppe or R input. So, I suppose I believe that copper working started to spread west from the Balkans around the time of the fall of old Europe, first into the Alps and Italy then in a later move several centuries later from there to S France and Iberia. It seems pretty clear in the case of S France that it probably came from Italy. Like I said, my default for copper arriving in Iberia would be from S France but I cannot say I can see any clinching evidence of this. Who knows, perhaps things will come full circle and some sort of eastern Med. waterborn origin from Iberian copper working will be revived as a theory. After all people are arguing something similar for the La Bastida and the origins of the Argaric c. 2200BC so it doesnt seem impossible.

So, I have no doubt copper came to Iberia c. 3000BC with some new people. I just dont think at present I would link it to P312. My issue then with seeing bell beaker as linked to P312 is that I dont see much in the earliest beaker culture that couldnt have evolved locally in Iberia. Certainly there is no universally agreed aspects that simply have to be external. So I suppose I am saying is I think the earliest Iberian beaker users were possibly some sort of copper working 'guild' who emerged among the early copper age Iberians i.e they are the same people but one had a niche in that society.

However, I will always say that this view could change if dating of certain aspects of beaker culture in Iberia which I would feel must be external in origin - primarily the individual treatment of the body in burial whether single or inserted in a megalithic tomb - is ever shown reliably to date to the earliest beaker period in Iberia. At the moment there doesnt seem to be an reliable dates from bone in this kind of burial where the isotope effects have been tested and adjusted for. IMO that is a key project that needs to be done. It wont be easy because repeated burial in the same grave messes up previous burials.

alan
11-15-2015, 03:30 PM
You seem to be admitting that copper working arrived in Iberia c. 3000 BC i.e. that it was not native to Iberia, and that the earliest BB makers were from this foreign stock. So why do you feel that they were essentially the same genetically as the local farmers of Cardial origin? Is this because the incomers inter-married with locals? Or is it that you feel that the copper-prospectors who left an archaeological trail from the Carpathian Basin right across to Iberia were from a stock that had intermarried with the remnants of Balkan farmers while moving up the Danube? Or were they from a Cucuteni stock rather than steppe in the first place?

All of these possibilities would make them more EEF than eastern BB, but only the last would affect the Y-DNA drastically, I would guess. Though who knows?

There was an interesting if inconclusive paper recently about a spread of aspects from the east across the Alps and west Med that tried to stitch various aspects together including single burials, daggers etc. It came to the slightly weird conclusion that it was of Caucasus origin but if you switch Balkans origin for that then it may make more sense. Its not entirely convincing but its worth considering. However the cultures across that spread that have been tested to date from Italy to Iberia seem to be non-R1b and free of steppe genes.

It is not without interest though and if true would add a poorly known chapter to the archaeology of southern Europe. A mix of what that paper suggests and the ancient DNA results so far almost give the feel of a spread of copper working farmers who had absorbed some ideas from the steppes but not their genes. Remedello being the most obvious and well known.

That notion does make me think though that if people from parts of the Balkans to Iberia could emulate a more hierarchical, martial and individualised social structure from eastern influences without actually falling prey to them in the process, that would kind of remove a lot of the advantage that real steppe groups would have if they wanted to conquer them - sort of inoculation to conquest by emulation. I think something along these lines may be at play in terms of the mysterious pause of the Corded Ware people at the Switzerland c. 2750BC. Certainly in southern France, Italy and Iberia they would have encountered formidable cultures who they would not be able to brush aside.

alan
11-15-2015, 03:55 PM
The distribution of P312 in both Iberia and Italy are exactly in line with Bell Beaker. What languages where spoken a thousand years after Bell Beaker areas in Iberia and Italy could have changed drastically.

The language comment was just an aside - I realise its a weak arguement given 2000 years passed before history really began and much would have changed. My main issue is I cannot see any undisputed external elements in early bell beaker culture that couldnt have evolved locally from the copper age people who had arrived in Iberia 200 years earlier. If the latter are the same people as those who first make beaker in Iberia then ancient DNA appears to indicate that the pre-beaker copper age people of the west/central Med and south Alps were non-R1b and non-steppe. It therefore would follow that if beaker arose first among early copper age Iberians who then spread east along the Med and to the south Alps, then these early beaker migrants east also would not be R1b or steppe related. That is my logic. I dont know if I am right though.

If I am right then there were essentially two beaker peoples. An early group who lived solely in Iberia c. 2800-2550BC and a later group in central Europe carrying P312 who accepted some beaker traits c. 2550BC from contact with south-westerners and created a new beaker culture before expanding massively. This of course is not out of steppe with the Sion analysis although of course that doesnt discuss DNA.

This of course doesnt detract from the overwhelming likelihood that the earliest copper age people in Iberia, who I suspect are the ggg grandparents of the first beaker users, were surely of external origin. However do I see these early copper age Iberians as coming from central Europe or carrying P312? No. I just cannot see that at all. It seems much more likely to me it came along the Med. The central European (especially the CW culture) copper needs c. 2800-2550BC seem to have overwhelmingly come from the Carpathians which seems a very unlikely place to suddenly leap to Iberia although I suppose anything is possible.

The origin of early beaker pot style has so many theories that it is just not useful at the moment as a way to infer anything. What I would say is that as it seems to be as old as 2800BC, any pottery with echos of beaker were way to the east at the time. Jean has mentioned in the past some technical similarities to late TRB if I recall correctly. I suppose the timing could correlate with refugees from the TRB area who were at that time starting to be overrun by CW people. However. with so many theories about the origin of beaker pot I wouldnt hang my hat on any of them.

Jean M
11-15-2015, 04:06 PM
I have never believed in the independent invention of copper working theories - certainly not in terms of Europe and SW Asia. I suppose I imagine copper working arrived in small groups from south France or somewhere else in the west Med. around 3000BC or just before although admittedly the external origin of those moving into Iberia is not obvious other than the copper working.

Actually it is. It was obvious to me just from the siting of Los Millares and Zambujal. Coastal forts - just what a group of copper workers in potentially hostile territory would need for protection, together with freedom to connect with the outside world. However we now have a significant addition to the evidence - domesticated horses. When you get around to reading Blood of the Celts, you will find that. This is not proof of the Y-DNA haplogroup of the people in control of the horses of course. ;)

alan
11-15-2015, 04:07 PM
Yes I think the questions which remain are

1) when exactly did the R1b groups penetrate Italy, Iberia and Britain .
2) exactly how rapid was the growth to dominance of R1b-L51 in the west.

I think R1b penetrated the isles with the earliest beaker. The earliest beaker was fairly late in the isles - probably 2400BC, by which time it contained many aspects which link to the Rhine and even the east beaker group (polypod vessels, hollow based arrows, predominant pot types). There is also the fact that the early beaker people in Britain including Amesbury Archer etc conformed to the central European beaker crania type rather than that of Iberia or southern France.

IMO a probably non-R1b early south-western derived beaker crept up the Atlantic coast of France as far as Brittany and an eastern derived beaker group came also appeared. They would have bumped into each other in northern France before 2400BC but it appears (as elsewhere) that where they met the P312 lines won out. However, some south-western beaker cultural traits may have been passed on into this group. It would be interesting if a much smaller minority yDNA partner to P312 of south-western origin was ever shown in beaker.

alan
11-15-2015, 04:13 PM
Actually it is. It was obvious to me just from the siting of Los Millares and Zambujal. Coastal forts - just what a group of copper workers in potentially hostile territory would need for protection, together with freedom to connect with the outside world. However we now have a significant addition to the evidence - domesticated horses. When you get around to reading Blood of the Celts, you will find that. This is not proof of the Y-DNA haplogroup of the people in control of the horses of course. ;)

We can go on arguing about that if you like until next year, when the papers on Bell Beaker in Iberia are due to come out. You are a blessing to those on the forum currently bored by the lack of new aDNA results. But how about arguing on one of the many threads where you have already been arguing over it for the last couple of years? Or starting another one titled Bell Beaker in Iberia? This thread was intended to argue with me about something else entirely.

I just thought I had to talk about early beaker in the west Med. as a first step in talking about Italics. I am just saying I am skeptical that the earliest beaker is linked to Italics or any IE group before looking at the later options that rejection of that would entail.

Regarding horses - yes I think that is a key to this all. Some skepticism about beaker and horses had emerged over the last decade or so but this is turning now with evidence of a beaker person with osteological evidence of a horseback life as well as the new info on horses themselves.

I should have your book delivered in the next few days

kinman
11-15-2015, 04:57 PM
Hi Jean,
If I am right that P312 arose in or near Moldova by 3400 B.C., wouldn't that make P312 the prime candidate for having brought both copper-working and domesticated horses to Iberia about 3100 B.C.? That's at least 3 centuries. It wouldn't have taken a large force to establish one coastal fort in Iberia, and then more coastal forts (and expanding inland) after that.
------------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually it is. It was obvious to me just from the siting of Los Millares and Zambujal. Coastal forts - just what a group of copper workers in potentially hostile territory would need for protection, together with freedom to connect with the outside world. However we now have a significant addition to the evidence - domesticated horses. When you get around to reading Blood of the Celts, you will find that. This is not proof of the Y-DNA haplogroup of the people in control of the horses of course. ;)

Jean M
11-15-2015, 05:08 PM
Hi Jean,
If I am right that P312 arose in or near Moldova by 3400 B.C., wouldn't that make P312 the prime candidate for having brought both copper-working and domesticated horses to Iberia about 3100 B.C.?

Yes indeed Ken. And that is the case I make in Blood of the Celts. I'm guessing that DF27 arose from P312 in Iberia or on the way to it, while other subclades arose from P312 in the Carpathian Basin. And then some DF27 flowed back into the Carpathian Basin with Bell Beaker, joining the rest of P312. But this prediction business is fraught with peril!

6634

rms2
11-15-2015, 07:26 PM
I have already expressed my doubts about R1b and the very earliest Iberian Beaker a number of times, but this seems a good time to say why yet again.

1. From what I have read, the very earliest Iberian Beaker burials occurred in collective Neolithic tombs, minus the warrior kit and the round tumulus.

2, Again, from what I have read, the earliest Iberian Beaker bodies were of the Mediterranean type commonly associated with Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers: small in stature, long headed (dolichocephalic), narrow faced, and slight in build (gracile).

Classic Beaker:

1. Buried its important dead in single graves in pits under round tumuli, with a warrior kit of weapons, very much in Yamnaya fashion.

2. Especially the males, were tall for the period, of robust build, and many of them were brachycephalic (round headed).

I realize I could be wrong. As Jean M points out in her excellent books, anthropomorphic stelae and horse domestication in Iberia seem to point to the steppe, and copper metallurgy points at least as far as the Balkans.

It's just that the things I pointed out above seem to indicate that Near Eastern-derived folks were involved in Iberia initially, perhaps CT refugees.

It seems to me that Beaker picked up its distinctive burial tradition (single grave in a pit under a round tumulus) in the Carpathian basin from Yamnaya via late Vucedol/Zok-Mako, and it is likely it picked up its R1b from the same source. So, I tend to think as Alan does. Classic Beaker is really late Vucedol with some Iberian pots, and Vucedol was, as Gimbutas believed, an amalgam of an already semi-kurganized culture (earlier Vucedol) and Yamnaya.

So, I want to go on record yet again as expressing my doubts that the very earliest Iberian Beaker was R1b of any kind, including DF27. I think the R1b was picked up in the east, in the Carpathian basin.

kinman
11-15-2015, 07:38 PM
Yes, predictions can be a bit risky. Although some P312 could have gone ahead to Iberia by 3100 B.C., I think that the P312 who had stayed back in the area of northeastern Austria (westernmost Carpathian Basin) gave rise to all of its subclades (including DF 27) in that area about 3100-3000 B.C. That would be simpler than DF27 having to backtrack all the way back from Iberia.
-------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes indeed Ken. And that is the case I make in Blood of the Celts. I'm guessing that DF27 arose from P312 in Iberia or on the way to it, while other subclades arose from P312 in the Carpathian Basin. And then some DF27 flowed back into the Carpathian Basin with Bell Beaker, joining the rest of P312. But this prediction business is fraught with peril!

6634

Jean M
11-15-2015, 07:48 PM
I think that the P312 who had stayed back in the area of northeastern Austria (westernmost Carpathian Basin) gave rise to all of its subclades (including DF 27) in that area about 3100-3000 B.C. That would be simpler than DF27 having to backtrack all the way back from Iberia.

Could be Ken.

kinman
11-15-2015, 07:53 PM
I wonder if those earliest known Iberian Beaker burials could have been C-T or other "slaves" of the P312 (using the word slaves in a broad sense, i.e. serfs, indentured servants, and the like). If these lower class workers were buried in separate cemeteries from the R1b, they would likely bury their dead according to their own customs (and no warrior kit). There may be round tumulus graves (with warrior kits) just as early which simply haven't been discovered yet (would they have been buried more deeply?).
-------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have already expressed my doubts about R1b and the very earliest Iberian Beaker a number of times, but this seems a good time to say why yet again.

1. From what I have read, the very earliest Iberian Beaker burials occurred in collective Neolithic tombs, minus the warrior kit and the round tumulus.

2, Again, from what I have read, the earliest Iberian Beaker bodies were of the Mediterranean type commonly associated with Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers: small in stature, long headed (dolichocephalic), narrow faced, and slight in build (gracile).

Classic Beaker:

1. Buried its important dead in single graves in pits under round tumuli, with a warrior kit of weapons, very much in Yamnaya fashion.

2. Especially the males, were tall for the period, of robust build, and many of them were brachycephalic (round headed).

I realize I could be wrong. As Jean M points out in her excellent books, anthropomorphic stelae and horse domestication in Iberia seem to point to the steppe, and copper metallurgy points at least as far as the Balkans.

It's just that the things I pointed out above seem to indicate that Near Eastern-derived folks were involved in Iberia initially, perhaps CT refugees.

It seems to me that Beaker picked up its distinctive burial tradition (single grave in a pit under a round tumulus) in the Carpathian basin from Yamnaya via late Vucedol/Zok-Mako, and it is likely it picked up its R1b from the same source. So, I tend to think as Alan does. Classic Beaker is really late Vucedol with some Iberian pots, and Vucedol was, as Gimbutas believed, an amalgam of an already semi-kurganized culture (earlier Vucedol) and Yamnaya.

So, I want to go on record yet again as expressing my doubts that the very earliest Iberian was R1b of any kind, including DF27. I think the R1b was picked up the east, in the Carpathian basin.

rms2
11-15-2015, 08:03 PM
I wonder if those earliest known Iberian Beaker burials could have been C-T or other "slaves" of the P312 (using the word slaves in a broad sense, i.e. serfs, indentured servants, and the like). If these lower class workers were buried in separate cemeteries from the R1b, they would likely bury their dead according to their own customs (and no warrior kit). There may be round tumulus graves (with warrior kits) just as early which simply haven't been discovered yet (would they have been buried more deeply?).
-------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never heard that any of the earliest Iberian Beaker burials was a single grave in a pit under a round tumulus Yamnaya style like the later ones. If they were, it would be a lot easier to tell where Beaker came from.

Apparently the earliest burials with Beaker pots were in collective Neolithic tombs and involved Mediterranean type skeletons. That's what makes me think we are talking two different kinds of people: early Iberian non-R1b Beaker, and later, classic Beaker, which was R1b and really late Vucedol with Iberian pots (as well as Begleitkeramik from the Carpathian basin).

6635

Megalophias
11-15-2015, 08:27 PM
There are occasional horse bones in the Neolithic in western and central Europe - probably wild - and increasing numbers (and size) of horses in the Late Neolithic, prior to the spread of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, at some sites. When the horse was introduced to North America it spread very rapidly far ahead of the spread of any particular people. Numerous distinct ethnolinguistic groups obtained them and struggled for dominance. Early adapter advantage was short-lived, but people who had access to large numbers of horses for whatever reason did have a considerable advantage.

So I would be very leery of connecting the *introduction* of domestic horses in a given place to the appearance of new people in any considerable numbers - which is not to say that the new people (who certainly existed) didn't have a lot of horses.

alan
11-16-2015, 07:44 AM
Yes the horse aspect does look important. It has been suggested for a very long time then skepticism crept in and now new evidence is again backing the importance of the the horse to the beaker phenomenon or at least part of it. My hunch is that the horse was added into the mix around 2500BC and coincides with the sudden massive extension of the beaker using peoples around the period 2500-2400BC after a long period with a much more limited distribution. Rivers are useful for boat transport but tend to be useful in one direction - with flow - and the return journey against current wouldnt have been so much fun. Anyone who knows anything about the mortality rate - its astonishing - of traditional fishermen in open boats in northern Europe will realise how dangerous marine transport must have been in the beaker period and how it would have been used sparingly with open sea avoided at all costs wherever possible.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-16-2015, 08:01 AM
Yes the horse aspect does look important. It has been suggested for a very long time then skepticism crept in and now new evidence is again backing the importance of the the horse to the beaker phenomenon or at least part of it. My hunch is that the horse was added into the mix around 2500BC and coincides with the sudden massive extension of the beaker using peoples around the period 2500-2400BC after a long period with a much more limited distribution. Rivers are useful for boat transport but tend to be useful in one direction - with flow - and the return journey against current wouldnt have been so much fun. Anyone who knows anything about the mortality rate - its astonishing - of traditional fishermen in open boats in northern Europe will realise how dangerous marine transport must have been in the beaker period and how it would have been used sparingly with open sea avoided at all costs wherever possible.

I very much look forward to more evidence like that of the BB beaker man with evidence of stress patterns from probable riding. Although difficult, a larger series of such samples and horse bone studies will really clarify how prevalent horses were between 3000 - 2000 BC Europe, their role/ use.

But I think Megalophias hit it on the head that, as with other innovations like wheels and metals, I doubt anyone had a monopoly over horses for too long a time.

Arch
11-23-2015, 08:34 AM
And just to make matters more interesting, the Umbrians spoke P-Italic instead of Q-Italic ;)

Good observations...

Arch
11-23-2015, 08:37 AM
I hear that proto-Celtic and Latin show a lot of similarities.

Be careful of what you hear....

Arch
11-23-2015, 08:49 AM
There are occasional horse bones in the Neolithic in western and central Europe - probably wild - and increasing numbers (and size) of horses in the Late Neolithic, prior to the spread of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, at some sites. When the horse was introduced to North America it spread very rapidly far ahead of the spread of any particular people. Numerous distinct ethnolinguistic groups obtained them and struggled for dominance. Early adapter advantage was short-lived, but people who had access to large numbers of horses for whatever reason did have a considerable advantage.

So I would be very leery of connecting the *introduction* of domestic horses in a given place to the appearance of new people in any considerable numbers - which is not to say that the new people (who certainly existed) didn't have a lot of horses.

Yes, they had horse meat and horse milk which is an absolute advantage. I wish people would literally get off their "high horse" and stop making the bell beakers some ancient elite cavalry force. Horses domesticated for warfare are expensive regardless of how primitive the society or culture may seem to us. Horses for transport are ridiculous when oxen work much better. I would say it's a safe bet that oxen are more common in everyday beaker life rather than the horse was. The small number of elites get the horses and chariots, but somehow we always attribute those finds and superimpose them over a whole culture as if only the horse made a significant cultural impact. We also must think about the pigs too and for the many great feasts they've provided our ancestors. Pork, beef, and horse meat means more protein, more strength, more ability to kill your enemies by mere physical force alone. Let's see a lamb and veg eater go against a beef, horse, and pork eater in hand-to-hand combat. I would venture to guess the one who eats the most protein will win the fight but will have a short lived life to compensate for the diet.

anglesqueville
11-23-2015, 12:32 PM
Be careful of what you hear....

Useful advice in general, but what do you mean with it in the context of the italo-celtic (sub-)family?

R.Rocca
11-23-2015, 01:28 PM
...I wish people would literally get off their "high horse" and stop making the bell beakers some ancient elite cavalry force...

The only ones that are painting them as an ancient elite cavalry force are the ones telling others not to.

Jean M
11-23-2015, 03:53 PM
I wish people would literally get off their "high horse" and stop making the bell beakers some ancient elite cavalry force.

?? Seems to be in your mind Arch, rather than mine. I referred to domesticated horses in #61 above. This is the context, extracted from different pages of Blood of the Celts:


... what archaeologist Andrew Sherratt called the 'Secondary Products Revolution'. Instead of just killing animals for meat, farmers began to keep them for renewable secondary products, such as milk, cheese and wool, and for transport and traction. Horses and donkeys could be ridden or carry a pack ...

Horses ran wild on the wide grasslands of the Eurasian steppes. They were tamed at around the same time that the wagon was invented, but not to run in harness. The first carts were heavy and slow-moving. Horses were fleet of foot and ideal for riding. Riders could control much larger herds of animals, and venture further with them....

Another rich Copper Age culture appeared in Iberia. The earliest dates of copper-working there (c. 3100 BC) are for mining-metallurgical complexes in South-western Iberia, such as Cabezo Juré. It is revealing that this site was colonised by a community already specialised in copper production. These incomers lived within a fortified centre, dining well and importing luxuries, while in a village outside lived the lower-status workers. The well-protected elite controlled access to horses, used probably in the transport of copper ore. At this time Iberia had wild horses. Some of their DNA made its way into modern Iberian breeds. Horse bones are found together with Bell Beaker pottery throughout its range, so the idea that domesticated horses spread from Iberia with Bell Beaker has enjoyed a certain popularity, but sites such as Cabezo Juré, which precede Bell Beaker, suggest that the knowledge of horse-taming and copper-working arrived in Iberia together from the European steppe.

No hint of cavalry. That appears thousands of years later.

I should add that the fact that DNA from wild horses in Iberia entered modern Iberian breeds, but not breeds elsewhere, is further evidence that horse domestication spread from the steppe, and arrived in Iberia fully-fledged. People could add to their domesticated stock from the wild in Iberia. But the home of horse-breeding lay elsewhere. Csepel BB people seem to have been horse-breeders.

Now back to the Italics. I hope.

Finn
08-02-2021, 02:59 PM
There are two distinct spheres of Bell Beaker influence within the Italian peninsula - one related to Southern France and Iberia and the other related to Central Europe. A very interesting observation was made by Claudio Pofferi a couple of years ago in his book I Popoli dell'Antica Italia: Rinaldoniani, Umbri, Pelasgi, Villanoviani ed Etrusci regarding the material distribution of these two spheres. In it, he says that the distribution of the former coincides with the areas which historical tradition records as having been inhabited by the Ligurians and the latter, lands inhabited by the Umbrians. Needless to say, it is quite interesting that coastal NW Italy samples from the FTDNA projects show a nice spike in DF27, seemingly at the expense of U152. While U152 is also common in the prior Ligurian lands, it seems that most of it is U152(xL2). Unlike the rest of Italy, U152+L2+ is most common in NE Italy which is directionally where the Central European Bell Beaker influences would have penetrated from. U152+L2+ is also more frequent as a percentage of overall U152 in Northern Europe. So, it could be that DF27 and U152(xL2) were part of Western European Bell Beaker and L2 was part of Central European Bell Beaker. Unfortunately we don’t know if the German U152+ Bell Beaker skeleton was L2+ or not. The post-Bell Beaker Polada Culture seems to have strong ties to both the NE Swiss Arbon Culture as well as the Danubian Wieselburg-Gata Culture (also confirmed R-M269+), so the links to Central Europe remain quite strong into the Middle Bronze Age.


Or alternatively Celtic could have been what emerged where Celto-Italic beaker people overlapped with pre-Germanic CW plus non-IE substrate. This could make sense of the duplicated unique war-ritual-power vocab shared at the pre-proto stage between the ancestors of Celts and Germans.

Italic, Ligurian, Lusitanian seem to coincide with areas where beaker did not land on a CW substrate.


Not bad guys, six years later..... ;)
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24367-Celtic-and-Italic-from-the-West-%96-the-Genetic-Evidence&p=789090#post789090

alan
08-02-2021, 07:39 PM
Not bad guys, six years later..... ;)
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24367-Celtic-and-Italic-from-the-West-%96-the-Genetic-Evidence&p=789090#post789090

What prompted you to say that?

Finn
08-02-2021, 07:42 PM
What prompted you to say that?

Pure, spontaneous attention!

alan
08-02-2021, 07:45 PM
Pure, spontaneous attention!

While I have your attention, can I ask where Rich Stevens is? I visit a lot less than I once did but he seems to have totally disappeared. Hope he is OK

alan
08-02-2021, 07:45 PM
Pure, spontaneous attention!

Do you think new advances has proven us right?

alan
08-02-2021, 07:57 PM
While I have your attention, can I ask where Rich Stevens is? I visit a lot less than I once did but he seems to have totally disappeared. Hope he is OK

Ah I just noticed he is banned.

Finn
08-03-2021, 08:12 AM
Ah I just noticed he is banned.

Yes but he is alive and kicking, I saw some comment ons eurogenes blog.

Finn
08-03-2021, 08:23 AM
Do you think new advances has proven us right?


Yes I guess so.

At least for the 'post Beaker/EBA' connection between the Middle Danube (Gata Wieselburg culture) the Po Valley and remarkable the North Sea. That's in both cases an elite migration.

The prove in the case of the North Sea c.q. the Sögel-Wohlde culture. Is this the two most distinctive burials of Sögel-Wohlde/ Elp have a connection with the Middle Danube culture or Gata Wieselburg.

Prominent Sögel-Wohlde people
What makes it plausible that this also happened towards the North Sea area? For that I first go to 'two prominent people' from the Sögel-Wohlde area: the 'princess of Fallingbostel' (Fallingbostel is located in the Lüneburg Heath) and the 'chieftain of Drouwen'.

In a concise publication about Sögel-Wohlde by Ernst Probst (2011) we encounter the 'princess of Fallingbostel' in full regalia:
https://i.postimg.cc/jqv2fJjK/Schermafbeelding-2021-07-16-om-16-59-08.png (https://postimg.cc/8sJTQcWn)

This costume can be directly related to the costume of the Gata-Wieselburg culture (Probst: 'in niederösterreichisch-westungarischer Tracht').


Golden spiral rings
The 'chieftain of Drouwen' is buried in the most important grave of the Sögel-Wohlde culture. This considerableness is underlined by the presence of two gold:
https://i.postimg.cc/brFqBkGt/Schermafbeelding-2021-07-16-om-17-00-16.png (https://postimg.cc/7J0vCCnH)
spiral rings. And yes….'In Northern Italy, two small gold wire spiral rings were found in an EBA fossa grave cemetery near Verona, at Gazzo Veronese'.

The resemblance is striking (see spiral ring at the top):
https://i.postimg.cc/x8q2M8sT/Schermafbeelding-2021-07-16-om-17-01-08.png (https://postimages.org/)
https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/2066

IE-Network?
Before there was most probably flux and reflux. Bell Beakers that went from the North Sea to the Middle Danube. But before that Single Grave culture, originated also in central-east Europe may be have set up the network. Looks no coincidence to me that the area around the North Sea specific from North Dutch to Jutland was a hotspot of Single Grave, Bell Beakers and Sögel-Wohlde/Elp culture (EBA)....precise on the same spot.

So a nice resemblance with your posting six years ago!

Finn
08-03-2021, 11:14 AM
And the link with Italic?


The Russian linguist Kuzmenko has ‘updated’ the influence of Italic, it ‘s an interesting study, and the conclusions/summary (in English) are crystal clear:

Summary. Kuzmenko Yu. K. Implications of common Germanic-Italic innovations (2011):

A great number of Germano-Italic innovations in vocabulary, word formation, phonology and morphology (in particular, exclusive innovations) indicate close language contacts that took place in the period of the formation of Proto Germanic and Proto-Italic languages ​​(2000–1000 BC). In this article, both traditionally established, and new common Italic-Germanic innovations are analysed. The common Italic-Celtic and Italic-Germanic exclusive innovations show that Proto-Italic must be placed between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic. The precise geographical spreading of Proto-Italic can be reconstructed according to Kuhn's hypothesis about the so-called “tribes of the north-western block”, which were spread across a territory between the Celtic and Germanic peoples in the north-western part of modern Germany (between the rivers Ems and Elbe). The greater number of Germanic-Oscan-Umbian innovations compared with the Latino-Faliscan innovations shows that the ancestors of the Oskans and Umbrians had a longer period of contact with the ancestors of the Germanic people. If one compares these facts with the two archaeologically established waves of Italic invasion in Italy, one can propose that the first wave consisted of Latino-Faliscan (1300 BC) and the second wave, of Oscan Umbrian people (900 BC).
Archaeological findings do not contradict the assumption about the formation of Italic innovations on the territory of modern northwestern Germany and about the existence of Italo-Germanic and Italo-Celtic contact zones on the northern and southern borders of the proposed Proto-Italic homeland. They indicate the existence of archaeological cultures which differ both from the cultures which were traditionally connected with the ancestors of the Germanic peoples and from the Celtic cultures. The archaeological correspondence to the region where Proto-Italic was being formed shows that this could be the culture of Sögel-Wohlde (1800–1000 BC) and other preceding archaeological cultures of the area.”
https://iling.spb.ru/pdf/alp/alp_VII_1.pdf

Incidentally, Kuzmenko is not alone with the alleged Germanic-Italian kinship.

Wolfram Euler, in Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009):

'If one does not assume that for all Italian-Germanic matches there are Celtic equivalents, then the finding suggests that the speakers of these both Proto-languages ​​before their separation were in the neighborhood, slightly south and north of the Ore Mountains, settled (p. 25).


The linguist KH Schmidt already stated in 1984 that Italic and Germanic uniquely share the word for 'copper, bronze' (Latin aes ~ Gothic aiz, Old Norse eir, Old High German ēr), while Germanic and Celtic uniquely share the word for iron: *īsarno- 'iron'. This would parallel the connections in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Kuzmenko uses an image in his paper that forms a nice bridge towards genetics. Kuzmenko (2011), showing the Sögel-Wohlde culture in red:
https://i.postimg.cc/76tvHDxv/Schermafbeelding-2021-07-16-om-17-02-31.png (https://postimg.cc/wyN42CyF)free image hosting (https://postimages.org/nl/)

Link with EBA middle Danube
“specific linguistic features that characterize the Italians- branch, were created earlier than the speakers of the languages ​​of this branch
settled in Italy ”(Tronsky 2001: 28), and that the Italic language penetrated the Apennine Peninsula from the north, from the middle
the Danube (Hecken 1955: 26; Martinet 1996-1997: 307). Moreover the first wave of Italians already familiar with bronze appeared here in
the beginning of the second millennium BC e. and brought the culture to Terramare, and the second around the end of the second millennium at the beginning of the Iron Age brought the culture of Villanov (Kovalev 1986: 41–42; Heuss 1998: 1–
2).

Battle gear
sacena <* sakesna ‘ritual knife’, germ. * saxsa ‘knife’;
lat. sparus, drisl. spjör, drvn. sper ‘spear’;
lat. arcus ‘bow’, goth. arhwazna,
drisl. ör, drangl. earh ‘arrow’

Particularly interesting are the German-Italic correlations denoting weapons: "knife", "bow / arrow", "spear",which may date back to the Stone Age. In many cases roots from the German-Italic lexical parallels are in other Indo-European languages, but only Germanic and Italian show a similar semantic development of these roots.
Not to forget that Saxon is an umbrella name for tribes of NW Germany in the Dark Ages!

Ambrons
Moreover, it is possible that in the northernmost regions, the wanderings of the Sögel-Wolde culture in Schleswig, Holstein and
Lower Saxony was spoken also in Germanic, and in the southwest the area of ​​dissemination of the culture of the "Northern Circle" in particular in
the cultural distribution area of ​​Stade (between the Weser and Elbe), which belongs to the culture of the "northern circle" (Рrobst
1996: 196) could speak Italian as well. Exactly these contact areas and could be centers of German-Italic contacts.
The German-Italian contact zone covered not only the most northwest Germany, but also the North Frisian Islands, where the name Amrum Islands, possibly retaining the tribal name ambrons, may indicate a connection with umber. The question of ethnic the identity of the Ambrons, former western neighbors Cimbri and Teutons in the North Frisian Islands and the Northwest Jutland is unclear. They are considered both Germans, Celts, and Germanic lower Celts. However, it is possible that its tribal the name ambrona has been retained since the time when the northwest central Europe was occupied by the Italians (tribes of the northwestern Kuhn block). We also find the name Ambrones among the Ligurs. Plutarch reports that at the Battle of Aqua Sextia (102 BC), in which the Ambrons were allies of the Teutons, and the Ligurs were allies Rome, the Ligurians echoed the battle cry of the Ambrons Ambrones, form, which could go back to the form * Ombr-

*teuta
A number of common innovations are found between German and Osco-Umbrian group of Italic languages, cf., for example, absent-
in Latin Osco-Umbrian forms toutō- ‘people’, treb- ‘to inhabit’, uend- ‘to turn’ (Tronsky 2001: 33)
Imo this is quite inportant because words like Teutonic, Deutsch, Dutch are derived from, it's how the 'germanics' described themselves.

Although the Northwest Block theory is nowadays considered outdated, this does not mean that Kuhn and Gysseling completely missed the point in the 1960s. In fact Kuzmenko's paper is Nordwestblock 2.0.

Kuhn has in, Völker zwischen Kelten und Germanen (1962), an interesting perspective:


Among the names and vocabulary that have left our area as pre-residents, however, so much is Indo-European that the language at least a large part of the pre-Geman settlers, but probably everything, belonged to this large family of languages ​​and thus both Germanic and Celtic must have been closely related, particularly closely, it seems, the Italian branch (pag 127)


Guus Kroonen mentions some *p words.

https://i.postimg.cc/G3QGsTzG/Schermafbeelding-2021-07-18-om-20-42-51.png (https://postimg.cc/231Vs6sS)

*K/C in personal names that were not part of the consonant shift to h/g
These lower-german personal names have an equivalent in Latin; Albuc, Asic,Udic, in Latin Albicus, Asicius Udicasius.

Place name with *st like beneath the alps Alista, Ateste, Segesta are quite common in the Sögel-Wohlde/ NW block area (map 16 Kuhn 1962):
https://i.postimg.cc/gjc5VRLy/IMG-0580.jpg (https://postimg.cc/346n7kBW)

Finn
08-03-2021, 07:42 PM
Koch 2020:


From ~2800 BC gene flow from Yamnaya at the founding of CWC in Northern Europe points to mass migration of Post-Tocharian Indo-European speakers. This created the setting for a dialect chain ancestral to Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian.

From ~2500 BC the entry of Beaker people with steppe ancestry into CWC Central Europe caused the dialect ancestral to Germanic to come closely into contact with the dialect(s) ancestral to Italic and Celtic. Contact between Pre-Germanic and the dialects ancestral to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian diminished.

After ~1800–1500 BC the proposed time frame for the separation of Pre-Celtic from Proto-Italic (§21) predates the formation of most of the words comprising the 173-word CG subset. These words lack Italic cognates by definition, indicating that contact of Proto-Italic with Pre-Celtic and Pre-Germanic had fallen off.80
The split of Proto-Italo-Celtic into Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic is provisionally identified with the breakup of the Beaker culture into diverse post-Beaker Early Bronze Age cultures ~2000/1800 BC. The latter date of the above range (~1500 BC) allows
time for the separate Pre-Celtic to develop new vocabulary, absent from Italic, during a period of rising social complexity
and technological advance. On the social side, the rise of the professional warrior and warrior ideal are notable (Vandkilde 2014; Kristiansen 2018). Especially important technological advances spreading widely and catalysing social change at this time are what I have called the ‘three strands’ of the Bronze Age: standardized high-tin bronze, the horse and chariot package, and advanced seafaring (Koch 2013a).

The modification in line with Kuzmenko (2011), Schmidt (1984), Kuhn (1961) would be that the 'breakup of the Beaker culture into diverse post-Beaker Early Bronze Age cultures ~2000/1800 BC' was not a break up but a period of intens contact even an elite (warrior) migration from the middle Danube to the Po Valley (Terramare/ Polada) and the North Sea Coast (Sögel-Wohlde). This has left it linguistic traces in both area's as well.

Ajeje Brazorf
08-03-2021, 09:11 PM
This is what they looked like on Eurogenes K13, the most popular GEDmatch calculator.



pop
North_Atlantic
Baltic
West_Med
West_Asian
East_Med
Red_Sea
South_Asian
East_Asian
Siberian
Amerindian
Oceanian
Northeast_African
Sub-Saharan


Italic
36,47571
11,00571
30,89857
1,745714
17,67857
1,28
0,042857
0,05
0,231429
0,398571
0,085714
0,077143
0,024286

mokordo
08-03-2021, 10:13 PM
This is what they looked like on Eurogenes K13, the most popular GEDmatch calculator.

]

Well:


Italic,36.47571,11.00571,30.89857,1.745714,17.6785 7,1.28,0.042857,0.05,0.231429,0.398571,0.085714,0. 077143,0.024286

Using Vahaduo "original spreadsheet":

Target: Italic
Distance: 1.7930% / 1.79301760
74.6 Spanish_Valencia
16.7 Sardinian
4.4 Italian_Jewish
4.3 Belorussian

Target: Italic
Distance: 1.9991% / 1.99907274 | ADC: 0.25x RC
67.1 Spanish_Valencia
15.7 Sardinian
14.3 North_Italian
2.9 Ukrainian


Distance to: Italic
6.02011289 Spanish_Valencia
6.16795746 Spanish_Andalucia
7.18826509 Spanish_Extremadura
7.42228663 Spanish_Murcia
7.75427790 Portuguese
7.92970132 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
8.63541032 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon
8.71070182 Spanish_Cataluna
8.72099514 Spanish_Galicia
9.12087353 North_Italian
9.46716717 Spanish_Cantabria
9.81498966 Spanish_Aragon
10.94267227 Southwest_French
15.66319991 Tuscan
16.64851349 French
22.94021295 French_Basque
23.12157674 West_Sicilian
23.36852101 West_German
23.39500673 South_Dutch
24.60467054 Greek_Thessaly
24.62330735 Italian_Abruzzo
24.72930496 Romanian
25.40633530 Serbian
25.80901101 Bulgarian
27.25353790 Austrian

Ajeje Brazorf
08-04-2021, 05:38 AM
Using Vahaduo "original spreadsheet":

Using fst distances:


0.000 Italic
0.033 Italian_Lombardy
0.033 Swiss_Italian2
0.034 Swiss_Italian1
0.037 Spanish_Aragon
0.039 Italian_Piedmont
0.039 North_Italian
0.042 Italian_Trentino
0.045 Italian_Veneto
0.047 Italian_Liguria
0.047 Southwest_French
0.048 Spanish_Valencia
0.050 Italian_Emilia
0.051 Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.053 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
0.053 French_Southwest
0.054 Spanish_Cataluna
0.055 French_Provence
0.057 Italian_Friuli_VG
0.057 French_South
0.060 French_Corsica
0.062 Italian_Tuscan
0.064 French_Basque
0.066 Spanish_Cantabria
0.067 Spanish_Andalucia
0.067 Spanish
0.069 French_updated
0.069 Italian_Romagna
0.069 Albanian_Gheg
0.071 Tuscan
0.072 French_original
0.072 Italian
0.072 Albanian
0.075 Torbesh_average
0.076 Macedonian_North
0.077 Italian_Lazio
0.077 French_Central
0.077 Macedonian
0.078 Albanian_Tosk
0.079 Italian_Umbria
0.079 Swiss_French
0.079 Macedonian_South
0.080 Italian_Marche
0.082 Greek_Western-Thrace
0.084 Greek_Thessaly_updated
0.084 Bosniak_Sandzak
0.085 Vlach(Aromanian)_average
0.086 Serb_Southern_Montenegro
0.086 Greek_Northeast
0.087 Swiss_German2
0.087 Greek_West_Macedonia
0.088 Swiss_German1
0.088 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.088 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon
0.088 Greek_West
0.088 Greek_Eastern-Macedonia
0.089 Montenegrin
0.090 Spanish_Extremadura
0.090 Spanish_Galicia
0.091 Greek
0.093 Pomak_Bulgaria
0.093 Bulgarian
0.093 Spanish_Murcia
0.094 Bulgaria_Southcentral
0.094 Greek_Eastern-Thrace
0.094 Serb_Herzegovina
0.094 Bulgaria_Southeastern
0.095 French_Alsace
0.095 Greek_Thessaly_original
0.096 Bulgaria_average
0.097 Romanian
0.097 Greek_Peloponnese
0.098 Bulgaria_Southwestern
0.098 Bulgaria_Northeastern
0.098 Serb_Serbia_South
0.099 French_Northeast
0.099 Bulgaria_Northwestern
0.099 Serbian
0.099 Bulgaria_Northcentral
0.100 German_South
0.101 Serb_Serbia_Central
0.101 Romania_Oltenia
0.103 Serb_Croatia
0.103 Greek_Athens
0.103 Moldova_South_Gagauzia
0.103 Greek_Central
0.104 Serb_Serbia_West
0.104 Serb_Serbia_Vojvodina
0.104 Serb
0.106 Romania_Banat
0.106 Romania_Crisana
0.106 Italian_Abruzzo_original
0.106 Greek_Northern-Thrace
0.107 Romania_Wallachia
0.108 South_Dutch
0.108 Romania_Transylvania
0.108 Italian_Abruzzo_updated
0.109 Romania_Muntenia
0.109 Portuguese
0.109 Italian_Molise
0.110 Belgian
0.111 Romania_Dobruja
0.111 Romania_average
0.112 Romania_Maramures
0.112 Pomak_Greece
0.113 Croat_South
0.113 Croat_West
0.113 Romania_Moldavia_South
0.113 Serb_Bosnia
0.113 Italian_Apulia
0.114 Central_Greek
0.114 Moldova_South
0.115 Austrian
0.115 Italian_Sardinia
0.115 West_German
0.116 Pennsylvania_Dutch
0.116 Greek_Macedonia_Thrace
0.116 Flemish
0.116 Greek_Istanbul
0.116 Greek_Ionia
0.118 Bosniak
0.120 German_West
0.121 French_Northwest
0.121 Sardinian
0.121 Italian_Basilicata
0.121 Greek_Andros_Island
0.122 Southwest_English
0.122 Dutch_South
0.122 Croat
0.124 Greek_Cyclades
0.127 German
0.127 Italian_Campania
0.129 Slovenian
0.129 English_Southeast
0.130 English_Southwest
0.130 English_Midlands
0.130 East_German
0.130 Southeast_English
0.131 Croat_East
0.131 English
0.132 Cornish
0.132 Croat_North
0.132 Bosniak_Bosnia
0.134 Welsh
0.135 Romania_Moldavia_North
0.135 Greek_North_Aegean
0.135 Moldova_average
0.135 English_North
0.136 Turk_Makedonya
0.137 South_Italian
0.138 West_Sicilian
0.139 Scottish_East
0.139 Irish_Leinster
0.140 Scottish_Northeast
0.140 Hungarian_Transdanubia+Budapest
0.140 Moldova_Centre
0.140 Scottish_North_Highlands
0.140 Greek_Crete
0.140 Scottish
0.140 Croatian
0.141 Scottish_Southwest
0.141 Hungarian_updated
0.142 Hungarian_original
0.142 Dutch
0.142 Italian_Sicily
0.143 German_East
0.143 North_German
0.143 Moldova_North
0.144 North_Dutch
0.144 Hungarian_Alföld
0.145 German_Northwest
0.145 Irish_original
0.145 West_Scottish
0.145 Dutch_Central
0.145 Irish_updated
0.146 Irish_Munster
0.146 East_Sicilian
0.147 Irish_Ulster
0.147 Italian_Calabria
0.148 Scottish_Gaidhealtachd
0.149 Irish_Connacht
0.150 Greek_Chios
0.151 Danish
0.151 Hungarian_North
0.154 Czech
0.154 Orcadian
0.154 Greek_Dodecanese
0.155 Dutch_North
0.156 Slovak
0.156 Hungarian_Transylvania+Székely
0.158 Moldova_Jewish
0.159 Ukrainian_Carpathian
0.160 Icelandic
0.160 Denmark
0.161 Moldavian
0.162 Afrikaner
0.164 Sweden_Götaland
0.165 Ukrainian_Galicia
0.166 Norwegian
0.166 Ashkenazi
0.166 Norway_South_Central
0.168 Swedish_updated
0.169 Sorb_Lusatia
0.170 Greek_Symi_Island
0.171 South_Polish
0.173 Sweden_Svealand_West
0.174 Moldova_Ukrainian
0.175 Csángó-Ceangău
0.176 Greater_Poland
0.179 Swedish_original
0.179 Silesian
0.180 Malta
0.181 Lower_Silesia
0.184 Polish_Kielce
0.184 Polish
0.185 Italian_Jewish
0.189 Polish_Masuria
0.190 Mazovia
0.190 Ukrainian_Lviv
0.191 Greek_Cappadocian
0.192 Sephardic_Jewish
0.193 Podlaskie
0.195 Ukrainian_updated
0.196 Ukrainian_original
0.197 Russian_Smolensk
0.197 Sweden_Svealand_East
0.199 Kujawy
0.200 Turk_Crete
0.201 Moroccan_Jew
0.201 Belorussian
0.203 Ukrainian_Belgorod
0.206 Cyprian
0.206 Greek_Cypriot
0.209 Estonian_Polish
0.211 Belarusian_Minsk
0.216 Russian_Southwest
0.216 Southwest_Russian
0.216 Turk_Deliorman
0.220 Greek_Trabzon
0.228 Lithuanian
0.231 Greek_Caucasus
0.231 Algerian_Jewish
0.236 North_Swedish_original
0.236 Turk_East_Black_Sea
0.238 Laz
0.238 Armenian_West
0.240 Armenian_updated
0.243 Georgian
0.243 Armenian_East
0.243 Nusayri
0.245 Latvian
0.246 Turk_Trakya
0.246 Armenian_original
0.250 Turk_Meskhetian
0.251 Georgian_Jewish
0.252 Assyrian_West
0.252 Lebanese_Druze
0.253 Turk_Cypriot
0.254 Georgian_imereti
0.255 Assyrian_North
0.256 Assyrian
0.258 Lebanese_Christian
0.258 Assyrian_South
0.259 Adygei
0.261 North_Swedish_updated
0.261 Mountain_Jew_Chechnya
0.264 Abhkasian
0.267 Southwest_Finnish
0.268 Turk_East
0.271 Lezgin
0.272 Tunisian_Jewish
0.272 Iraqi_Jew
0.274 Estonian
0.274 Samaritan
0.275 Kurdish_Jewish
0.275 Lebanese_Muslim
0.276 Zaza
0.276 Kurd_Kurmanji_Turkey
0.277 Ingush
0.281 Chechen
0.281 Mandean
0.283 Russian_average
0.283 Tabassaran
0.284 Turk_South_East
0.284 Avar
0.285 Iranian_Jewish
0.286 Dargin
0.290 Lak
0.290 Turkish
0.298 Kurd_Sorani
0.298 Kurdish
0.300 Kurd_Iran
0.302 North_Ossetian
0.303 Turk_Turkey_average
0.304 Kumyk
0.305 Libyan_Jewish
0.309 Turkmen_Iraq
0.310 Ossetian
0.315 Kabardin
0.316 Talysh
0.322 Russian_Kostroma
0.327 Syrian
0.327 Lor_Iran
0.329 Azerbaijani_Turkey
0.329 Mordovian
0.330 Turk_Central_East
0.331 Turk_Central_West
0.331 Iraqi_Baghdad
0.333 Azeri
0.336 Finnish
0.337 Azerbaijani_Iran
0.338 Iranian
0.340 Balkar
0.342 Kargopol_Russian
0.342 Russian_Kargopol
0.343 Erzya
0.350 Turk_Anatolia
0.358 Turk_Central_Black_Sea
0.360 Palestinian
0.370 Russian_Northern_Dvina
0.376 East_Finnish
0.376 Iran_Centraleast
0.387 Turk_South
0.398 Turk_North_West
0.400 Yaghnobi_Tajikistan
0.414 Gypsy_Wallachia
0.427 Jordanian
0.427 Yemenite_Jewish
0.431 Saudi
0.446 Balkan_Gypsy
0.464 Bedouin
0.468 Parsi_India
0.529 Balochi
0.542 Pamiri_Tajikistan
0.549 La_Brana-1
0.551 Makrani
0.556 Brahui
0.559 Afghan_Pashtun
0.583 Iran_Bandari
0.584 Tajik_Mountain
0.594 Tatar
0.595 Tajik_Lowland
0.608 Kalash
0.626 Tadjik
0.626 Tajik_Tajikistan
0.628 Turkmen
0.658 Algerian_updated
0.665 Egyptian
0.670 Pathan
0.672 Punjabi_Jat
0.694 Nogay
0.716 Tunisian
0.722 Sindhi
0.734 Chuvash
0.737 Algerian_original
0.738 Moroccan
0.748 Afghan_Tadjik
0.753 Crimean_Tatar
0.785 Mozabite_Berber
0.835 Burusho
0.843 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
0.850 Brahmin_UP
0.863 Gujarati
0.874 Mari
0.897 Kshatriya
1.002 Dharkar
1.009 Kanjar
1.030 Afghan_Turkmen
1.039 Velamas
1.049 Uttar_Pradesh
1.052 Bashkir
1.054 Kol
1.071 Kurumba
1.085 Bangladeshi
1.092 Dusadh
1.104 North_Kannadi
1.114 Piramalai
1.140 Uzbeki
1.153 Chamar
1.166 Afghan_Hazara
1.166 Aghan_Hazara
1.170 Sakilli
1.180 Chenchu
1.279 MA-1
1.289 Uygur
1.312 Hazara
1.398 Karakalpak
1.469 Ethiopian_Tigray
1.547 Ethiopian_Amhara
1.554 Kazakh
1.576 Austroasiatic_Ho
1.587 Shors
1.657 Kirgiz
1.672 Hakas
1.710 Selkup
1.777 Ket
1.842 Ethiopian_Oromo
1.846 Altaian
1.868 Somali
1.923 Ethiopian_Wolayta
1.992 Mongolian
2.056 Tuvinian
2.089 Tibeto-Burman_Burmese
2.141 Buryat
2.152 Dolgan
2.157 Malay
2.171 Cambodian
2.231 Yakut
2.238 West_Greenlander
2.267 Tu
2.305 Evenki
2.319 Evens
2.324 Xibo
2.330 Vietnamese
2.342 Lahu
2.358 Dai
2.368 Naxi
2.378 Ethiopian_Ari_cultivator
2.378 Yizu
2.390 Hezhen
2.394 Koryak
2.407 Miaozu
2.407 Oroqen
2.409 She
2.414 Tujia
2.418 Japanese
2.441 Chukchi
2.542 Maasai
2.553 East_Greenlander
2.588 Sandawe
2.771 Hadza
2.853 Ethiopian_Gumuz
2.890 North_Amerindian
2.906 Mayan
2.956 Ethiopian_Anuak
2.980 Sudanese
3.021 Pima
3.048 San
3.101 Bantu_N.E.
3.129 Luhya
3.130 Mbuti_Pygmy
3.189 Mandenka
3.203 Biaka_Pygmy
3.220 Bantu_S.E.
3.224 Karitiana
3.231 Bantu_S.W.
3.274 Yoruban
3.428 NAN_Melanesian
4.143 Papuan

Finn
08-04-2021, 06:59 AM
Using fst distances:


0.000 Italic
0.033 Italian_Lombardy
0.033 Swiss_Italian2
0.034 Swiss_Italian1
0.037 Spanish_Aragon
0.039 Italian_Piedmont
0.039 North_Italian
0.042 Italian_Trentino
0.045 Italian_Veneto
0.047 Italian_Liguria
0.047 Southwest_French
0.048 Spanish_Valencia
0.050 Italian_Emilia
0.051 Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.053 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
0.053 French_Southwest
0.054 Spanish_Cataluna
0.055 French_Provence
0.057 Italian_Friuli_VG
0.057 French_South
0.060 French_Corsica
0.062 Italian_Tuscan
0.064 French_Basque
0.066 Spanish_Cantabria
0.067 Spanish_Andalucia
0.067 Spanish
0.069 French_updated
0.069 Italian_Romagna
0.069 Albanian_Gheg
0.071 Tuscan
0.072 French_original
0.072 Italian
0.072 Albanian
0.075 Torbesh_average
0.076 Macedonian_North
0.077 Italian_Lazio
0.077 French_Central
0.077 Macedonian
0.078 Albanian_Tosk
0.079 Italian_Umbria
0.079 Swiss_French
0.079 Macedonian_South
0.080 Italian_Marche
0.082 Greek_Western-Thrace
0.084 Greek_Thessaly_updated
0.084 Bosniak_Sandzak
0.085 Vlach(Aromanian)_average
0.086 Serb_Southern_Montenegro
0.086 Greek_Northeast
0.087 Swiss_German2
0.087 Greek_West_Macedonia
0.088 Swiss_German1
0.088 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.088 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon
0.088 Greek_West
0.088 Greek_Eastern-Macedonia
0.089 Montenegrin
0.090 Spanish_Extremadura
0.090 Spanish_Galicia
0.091 Greek
0.093 Pomak_Bulgaria
0.093 Bulgarian
0.093 Spanish_Murcia
0.094 Bulgaria_Southcentral
0.094 Greek_Eastern-Thrace
0.094 Serb_Herzegovina
0.094 Bulgaria_Southeastern
0.095 French_Alsace
0.095 Greek_Thessaly_original
0.096 Bulgaria_average
0.097 Romanian
0.097 Greek_Peloponnese
0.098 Bulgaria_Southwestern
0.098 Bulgaria_Northeastern
0.098 Serb_Serbia_South
0.099 French_Northeast
0.099 Bulgaria_Northwestern
0.099 Serbian
0.099 Bulgaria_Northcentral
0.100 German_South
0.101 Serb_Serbia_Central
0.101 Romania_Oltenia
0.103 Serb_Croatia
0.103 Greek_Athens
0.103 Moldova_South_Gagauzia
0.103 Greek_Central
0.104 Serb_Serbia_West
0.104 Serb_Serbia_Vojvodina
0.104 Serb
0.106 Romania_Banat
0.106 Romania_Crisana
0.106 Italian_Abruzzo_original
0.106 Greek_Northern-Thrace
0.107 Romania_Wallachia
0.108 South_Dutch
0.108 Romania_Transylvania
0.108 Italian_Abruzzo_updated
0.109 Romania_Muntenia
0.109 Portuguese
0.109 Italian_Molise
0.110 Belgian
0.111 Romania_Dobruja
0.111 Romania_average
0.112 Romania_Maramures
0.112 Pomak_Greece
0.113 Croat_South
0.113 Croat_West
0.113 Romania_Moldavia_South
0.113 Serb_Bosnia
0.113 Italian_Apulia
0.114 Central_Greek
0.114 Moldova_South
0.115 Austrian
0.115 Italian_Sardinia
0.115 West_German
0.116 Pennsylvania_Dutch
0.116 Greek_Macedonia_Thrace
0.116 Flemish
0.116 Greek_Istanbul
0.116 Greek_Ionia
0.118 Bosniak
0.120 German_West
0.121 French_Northwest
0.121 Sardinian
0.121 Italian_Basilicata
0.121 Greek_Andros_Island
0.122 Southwest_English
0.122 Dutch_South
0.122 Croat
0.124 Greek_Cyclades
0.127 German
0.127 Italian_Campania
0.129 Slovenian
0.129 English_Southeast
0.130 English_Southwest
0.130 English_Midlands
0.130 East_German
0.130 Southeast_English
0.131 Croat_East
0.131 English
0.132 Cornish
0.132 Croat_North
0.132 Bosniak_Bosnia
0.134 Welsh
0.135 Romania_Moldavia_North
0.135 Greek_North_Aegean
0.135 Moldova_average
0.135 English_North
0.136 Turk_Makedonya
0.137 South_Italian
0.138 West_Sicilian
0.139 Scottish_East
0.139 Irish_Leinster
0.140 Scottish_Northeast
0.140 Hungarian_Transdanubia+Budapest
0.140 Moldova_Centre
0.140 Scottish_North_Highlands
0.140 Greek_Crete
0.140 Scottish
0.140 Croatian
0.141 Scottish_Southwest
0.141 Hungarian_updated
0.142 Hungarian_original
0.142 Dutch
0.142 Italian_Sicily
0.143 German_East
0.143 North_German
0.143 Moldova_North
0.144 North_Dutch
0.144 Hungarian_Alföld
0.145 German_Northwest
0.145 Irish_original
0.145 West_Scottish
0.145 Dutch_Central
0.145 Irish_updated
0.146 Irish_Munster
0.146 East_Sicilian
0.147 Irish_Ulster
0.147 Italian_Calabria
0.148 Scottish_Gaidhealtachd
0.149 Irish_Connacht
0.150 Greek_Chios
0.151 Danish
0.151 Hungarian_North
0.154 Czech
0.154 Orcadian
0.154 Greek_Dodecanese
0.155 Dutch_North
0.156 Slovak
0.156 Hungarian_Transylvania+Székely
0.158 Moldova_Jewish
0.159 Ukrainian_Carpathian
0.160 Icelandic
0.160 Denmark
0.161 Moldavian
0.162 Afrikaner
0.164 Sweden_Götaland
0.165 Ukrainian_Galicia
0.166 Norwegian
0.166 Ashkenazi
0.166 Norway_South_Central
0.168 Swedish_updated
0.169 Sorb_Lusatia
0.170 Greek_Symi_Island
0.171 South_Polish
0.173 Sweden_Svealand_West
0.174 Moldova_Ukrainian
0.175 Csángó-Ceangău
0.176 Greater_Poland
0.179 Swedish_original
0.179 Silesian
0.180 Malta
0.181 Lower_Silesia
0.184 Polish_Kielce
0.184 Polish
0.185 Italian_Jewish
0.189 Polish_Masuria
0.190 Mazovia
0.190 Ukrainian_Lviv
0.191 Greek_Cappadocian
0.192 Sephardic_Jewish
0.193 Podlaskie
0.195 Ukrainian_updated
0.196 Ukrainian_original
0.197 Russian_Smolensk
0.197 Sweden_Svealand_East
0.199 Kujawy
0.200 Turk_Crete
0.201 Moroccan_Jew
0.201 Belorussian
0.203 Ukrainian_Belgorod
0.206 Cyprian
0.206 Greek_Cypriot
0.209 Estonian_Polish
0.211 Belarusian_Minsk
0.216 Russian_Southwest
0.216 Southwest_Russian
0.216 Turk_Deliorman
0.220 Greek_Trabzon
0.228 Lithuanian
0.231 Greek_Caucasus
0.231 Algerian_Jewish
0.236 North_Swedish_original
0.236 Turk_East_Black_Sea
0.238 Laz
0.238 Armenian_West
0.240 Armenian_updated
0.243 Georgian
0.243 Armenian_East
0.243 Nusayri
0.245 Latvian
0.246 Turk_Trakya
0.246 Armenian_original
0.250 Turk_Meskhetian
0.251 Georgian_Jewish
0.252 Assyrian_West
0.252 Lebanese_Druze
0.253 Turk_Cypriot
0.254 Georgian_imereti
0.255 Assyrian_North
0.256 Assyrian
0.258 Lebanese_Christian
0.258 Assyrian_South
0.259 Adygei
0.261 North_Swedish_updated
0.261 Mountain_Jew_Chechnya
0.264 Abhkasian
0.267 Southwest_Finnish
0.268 Turk_East
0.271 Lezgin
0.272 Tunisian_Jewish
0.272 Iraqi_Jew
0.274 Estonian
0.274 Samaritan
0.275 Kurdish_Jewish
0.275 Lebanese_Muslim
0.276 Zaza
0.276 Kurd_Kurmanji_Turkey
0.277 Ingush
0.281 Chechen
0.281 Mandean
0.283 Russian_average
0.283 Tabassaran
0.284 Turk_South_East
0.284 Avar
0.285 Iranian_Jewish
0.286 Dargin
0.290 Lak
0.290 Turkish
0.298 Kurd_Sorani
0.298 Kurdish
0.300 Kurd_Iran
0.302 North_Ossetian
0.303 Turk_Turkey_average
0.304 Kumyk
0.305 Libyan_Jewish
0.309 Turkmen_Iraq
0.310 Ossetian
0.315 Kabardin
0.316 Talysh
0.322 Russian_Kostroma
0.327 Syrian
0.327 Lor_Iran
0.329 Azerbaijani_Turkey
0.329 Mordovian
0.330 Turk_Central_East
0.331 Turk_Central_West
0.331 Iraqi_Baghdad
0.333 Azeri
0.336 Finnish
0.337 Azerbaijani_Iran
0.338 Iranian
0.340 Balkar
0.342 Kargopol_Russian
0.342 Russian_Kargopol
0.343 Erzya
0.350 Turk_Anatolia
0.358 Turk_Central_Black_Sea
0.360 Palestinian
0.370 Russian_Northern_Dvina
0.376 East_Finnish
0.376 Iran_Centraleast
0.387 Turk_South
0.398 Turk_North_West
0.400 Yaghnobi_Tajikistan
0.414 Gypsy_Wallachia
0.427 Jordanian
0.427 Yemenite_Jewish
0.431 Saudi
0.446 Balkan_Gypsy
0.464 Bedouin
0.468 Parsi_India
0.529 Balochi
0.542 Pamiri_Tajikistan
0.549 La_Brana-1
0.551 Makrani
0.556 Brahui
0.559 Afghan_Pashtun
0.583 Iran_Bandari
0.584 Tajik_Mountain
0.594 Tatar
0.595 Tajik_Lowland
0.608 Kalash
0.626 Tadjik
0.626 Tajik_Tajikistan
0.628 Turkmen
0.658 Algerian_updated
0.665 Egyptian
0.670 Pathan
0.672 Punjabi_Jat
0.694 Nogay
0.716 Tunisian
0.722 Sindhi
0.734 Chuvash
0.737 Algerian_original
0.738 Moroccan
0.748 Afghan_Tadjik
0.753 Crimean_Tatar
0.785 Mozabite_Berber
0.835 Burusho
0.843 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
0.850 Brahmin_UP
0.863 Gujarati
0.874 Mari
0.897 Kshatriya
1.002 Dharkar
1.009 Kanjar
1.030 Afghan_Turkmen
1.039 Velamas
1.049 Uttar_Pradesh
1.052 Bashkir
1.054 Kol
1.071 Kurumba
1.085 Bangladeshi
1.092 Dusadh
1.104 North_Kannadi
1.114 Piramalai
1.140 Uzbeki
1.153 Chamar
1.166 Afghan_Hazara
1.166 Aghan_Hazara
1.170 Sakilli
1.180 Chenchu
1.279 MA-1
1.289 Uygur
1.312 Hazara
1.398 Karakalpak
1.469 Ethiopian_Tigray
1.547 Ethiopian_Amhara
1.554 Kazakh
1.576 Austroasiatic_Ho
1.587 Shors
1.657 Kirgiz
1.672 Hakas
1.710 Selkup
1.777 Ket
1.842 Ethiopian_Oromo
1.846 Altaian
1.868 Somali
1.923 Ethiopian_Wolayta
1.992 Mongolian
2.056 Tuvinian
2.089 Tibeto-Burman_Burmese
2.141 Buryat
2.152 Dolgan
2.157 Malay
2.171 Cambodian
2.231 Yakut
2.238 West_Greenlander
2.267 Tu
2.305 Evenki
2.319 Evens
2.324 Xibo
2.330 Vietnamese
2.342 Lahu
2.358 Dai
2.368 Naxi
2.378 Ethiopian_Ari_cultivator
2.378 Yizu
2.390 Hezhen
2.394 Koryak
2.407 Miaozu
2.407 Oroqen
2.409 She
2.414 Tujia
2.418 Japanese
2.441 Chukchi
2.542 Maasai
2.553 East_Greenlander
2.588 Sandawe
2.771 Hadza
2.853 Ethiopian_Gumuz
2.890 North_Amerindian
2.906 Mayan
2.956 Ethiopian_Anuak
2.980 Sudanese
3.021 Pima
3.048 San
3.101 Bantu_N.E.
3.129 Luhya
3.130 Mbuti_Pygmy
3.189 Mandenka
3.203 Biaka_Pygmy
3.220 Bantu_S.E.
3.224 Karitiana
3.231 Bantu_S.W.
3.274 Yoruban
3.428 NAN_Melanesian
4.143 Papuan

What kind of of 'Italic' samples are being used? What is their context?

Ajeje Brazorf
08-04-2021, 07:19 AM
What kind of of 'Italic' samples are being used? That is their context?

Those 7 2019 Republican samples from Latium and Tuscany, except for the 2 outliers and RMPR1 from Marche.

Finn
08-04-2021, 07:22 AM
I guess this is an illustration of the EBA Middle Danube influx to the Po Valley:

https://i.postimg.cc/xC4h1QSQ/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-04-om-09-19-22.png (https://postimg.cc/wyD0wSv4)

mokordo
08-04-2021, 08:32 AM
Using fst distances:

[spoiler][code]ler]

Did you obtained these F st using directly the SNPs (or other genetic polymorphisms) of the original samples or using coordinates of K13?

Ajeje Brazorf
08-04-2021, 09:09 AM
Did you obtained these F st using directly the SNPs (or other genetic polymorphisms) of the original samples or using coordinates of K13?

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?346141-K13-modeling-with-TA-members-Vol-2&p=7233669#post7233669

mokordo
08-04-2021, 09:26 AM
[u.....rl]

Komintasavalta!!!:beerchug:

Which is your distance to that Italic ?

Ajeje Brazorf
08-04-2021, 11:43 AM
Komintasavalta!!!:beerchug:

Which is your distance to that Italic ?

Tu magis romano quam me.


0.057 gixajo_mom(Spaniard)
0.060 gixajo_father_cousin(Spaniard)
0.071 gixajo(Spaniard)
0.100 gixajo_father_uncle(Spaniard)
0.109 gixajo_dad(Spaniard)
0.129 Ajeje_Brazorf_2(Italian)
0.135 Ajeje_Brazorf_1(Italian)