Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 343

Thread: The Harbour of the Old North

  1. #191
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    a combination of the two. But likely with more EHG than WHG. The paper stunned me because in the early bronze age balkans ( and Anatolia) they did not find the "classical" steppe ancestry presence ( EHG+CHG) but only the euro HG one.
    It stunned me not because I did not expect that, but because I had predicted that.


    Attachment 45288
    Ok but back to the "germanic" case what is your trajectory etrusco?

  2. #192
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylsteen View Post
    Absolutely; there are probably several reasons for doing this, I think an important one is the apparent early split between Italic/Celtic and the other dialects, as seems clear from the grammar. Then several years ago it became popular to connect this split to the flux of Yamnaya into the Carpathian basin (Anthony etc. IIRC), and although a linguistic entrance of early Italo-Celtic may still have happened through the Danube route, IMO, the last few years have shown that genetically CWC played the major role, so we are back at the older theory that CWC may have fathered Italic/Celtic too. Still, a relatively early split between Italic/Celtic and other dialects is needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    The scheme posted by Finn about the language evolution is fascinating but misleading.
    All the IE languages with the notable exception of anatolian ones are from Yamnaya to begin with.
    CWC is basically Yamnaya + Globular Amphora and unless someone pushes the case of GAC being the source of IE the language of the CWC comes from Yamnaya too.
    But the CWC horizon is strongly tied with the Indo-Slavonic world so it is very likely that CWC spoke a language already satemized and probably very close to modern baltic languages. This of course could be the result of the strong GAC substrate shared by all the CWC and derived cultures.
    Despite having GAC admixture Bell Beakers language/languages remained more similar to the core Yamnaya ones. And this pretty much matches the Yline difference between the two groups. Because it is lapalissian that Italo/Celtic cannot stem from a satem horizon. So my take is that the relationship of R1bL51 and offsprings with the CW horizon is due to geographical proximity in the point of departure from the steppe ( a western Yamnaya group like Budzhak or perhaps post-Usatovo groups).
    Also it seems that early CWC in the baltic lacks completely R1b so IMHO R1b was intrusive into CW all along its southern border from south east Poland to Boemia, Switzerland and Mittelelbe/Saale.
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Why should we assume that most if not all of the Corded Ware horizon were speaking Satemized languages? Why assume that early Corded Ware populations in the Baltic and Poland for example were "Indo-Slavic" when we have no modern ethnolinguistic group to directly link them to?

    Several Satem languages currently do not seem to be Corded Ware related for example and whatever IE languages Bell Beakers spoke was certainly Corded Ware derived, thus limiting the very Centum Germanic two one of the two Corded Ware sources.


    What is pretty complicating for me is this. When Davidski is right Single Grave> BB is right, who brought in the (pre) Italic and Celtic into the BB phenomenon. The BB went from NW of coruse over sea but also into Central Europe (reflux).

    And it's quit intriguing that Koch scheme is in the Beaker phenomenon close to the old Linguist Gysseling, a variant on the good old Northwestblock:
    Gysseling suspected an intermediate Belgian language between Germanic and Celtic, that might have been affiliated to Italic
    Just parts of a puzzle.....Who can solve it somewhat more?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  CopperAxe (06-25-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-25-2021)

  4. #193
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylsteen View Post
    Absolutely; there are probably several reasons for doing this, I think an important one is the apparent early split between Italic/Celtic and the other dialects, as seems clear from the grammar. Then several years ago it became popular to connect this split to the flux of Yamnaya into the Carpathian basin (Anthony etc. IIRC), and although a linguistic entrance of early Italo-Celtic may still have happened through the Danube route, IMO, the last few years have shown that genetically CWC played the major role, so we are back at the older theory that CWC may have fathered Italic/Celtic too. Still, a relatively early split between Italic/Celtic and other dialects is needed.
    Summary. Kuzmenko Yu. K. Implications of common Germanic-Italic innovations.
    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

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     Token (06-25-2021)

  6. #194
    Registered Users
    Posts
    654
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    What is pretty complicating for me is this. When Davidski is right Single Grave> BB is right, who brought in the (pre) Italic and Celtic into the BB phenomenon. The BB went from NW of coruse over sea but also into Central Europe (reflux).

    And it's quit intriguing that Koch scheme is in the Beaker phenomenon close to the old Linguist Gysseling, a variant on the good old Northwestblock:


    Just parts of a puzzle.....Who can solve it somewhat more?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock
    I'm not necessarily a huge proponent of the Nordwestblock theory (especially not persistence up to the Roman period) but I do support something along those lines: During the late bronze age to early iron age (Central European timeframe) both north and south of the lower Rhine the people spoke languages that weren't exactly Cermanic and Celtic respectively. In the most simplistic schematic:, P312+U106 languages north, P312 languages south. Both sided ultimately absorbed by other U106 and P312 languages (Germanic and Celtic). I also think you had similar cases like that pretty much all over Europe

    You have a bunch of Para-Celtic attestations for example, where IE status is pretty certain plus additional similarities to Celtic are present, but not sufficient evidence that the language was Celtic. Lots of regions were also recently celticized, like with the Rhaetians.

    I think a similar thing happened with Celtic speakers near the lower Rhine, as Celtic topo/hydronyms aren't exactly abundant there, except for the big rivers. But to when those languages would date; Barbed Wire, Elp/Hilversum, Urnfield, Hallstatt etc. is currently impossible to figure out I'd say.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  Dewsloth (06-25-2021),  Finn (06-25-2021),  Ryukendo (06-25-2021)

  8. #195
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    I'm not necessarily a huge proponent of the Nordwestblock theory (especially not persistence up to the Roman period) but I do support something along those lines: During the late bronze age to early iron age (Central European timeframe) both north and south of the lower Rhine the people spoke languages that weren't exactly Cermanic and Celtic respectively. In the most simplistic schematic:, P312+U106 languages north, P312 languages south. Both sided ultimately absorbed by other U106 and P312 languages (Germanic and Celtic). I also think you had similar cases like that pretty much all over Europe

    You have a bunch of Para-Celtic attestations for example, where IE status is pretty certain plus additional similarities to Celtic are present, but not sufficient evidence that the language was Celtic. Lots of regions were also recently celticized, like with the Rhaetians.

    I think a similar thing happened with Celtic speakers near the lower Rhine, as Celtic topo/hydronyms aren't exactly abundant there, except for the big rivers. But to when those languages would date; Barbed Wire, Elp/Hilversum, Urnfield, Hallstatt etc. is currently impossible to figure out I'd say.
    The 'funny' thing is that Euler, Kuzmenko Yu. Kuhn and Gysseling place (pre) Germanic more close to (pre) Italic, Koch underlines the overlap with pre (Celtic) of the trio NW IE.....

    So for what it's worth!

  9. #196
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,082
    Sex

    Netherlands
    If we are to include Italic/Celtic in the CWC sphere, under the assumption of a CWC > SG > BB development, some impressions I have (partly based on e.g. Kortlandt)

    From the reconstruction of both Italic and Celtic, a distinct Italo-Celtic stage must be assumed, with unique morphological characteristics, such as the use of a superlative in *-ismo-, specific forms of the verb, for example the use of *-ā- to form subjunctives, and specific mediopassive forms. IMO, it is likely that this dialect was formed in Southern Germany during the (late) Bell Beaker period (ca. 2200 BC onwards) and has disintegrated into its daughter dialects (pre-forms of Celtic, Italic, perhaps some other lost ones) at latest at 1500 BC. This dialect seems to have remained isolated from developments that happened in the rest of the CWC world for a few centuries.

    Ihe predecessor of Germanic must have remained in linguistic contact with this larger CWC world for a slightly longer time, since it shares some morphological developments with Balto-Slavic, Greek and/or Indo-Iranian that are absent in Italo-Celtic, such as the use of *-isto- as a superlative, the use of an optative in *-oiH- (instead of *-i(e)H- in Italo-Celtic), and the use of perfect presents. Then, Germanic too "split off" from the Greek/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian-area, which shares numerous isoglosses not found in Italic/Celtic nor Germanic. I see Germanic as the direct descendant of the dialect spoken in the area of the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly between Southern Sweden up into Northern Germany. As for its prehistory between 2500 BC and 1500 BC I will unfortunately :p remain neutral.

    Similarities between Germanic and Celtic are mostly lexical and are therefore more likely to be the result of linguistic contact than of a direct ancestral Germanic-Celtic dialect. The same is IMO true for Germanic-Italic contact: lexical items are shared, sometimes verbs are formed in the same way, but might often have been the result of a coincidence (due to using similar productive processes). From my judgment, these are not as fundamental as Italo-Celtic grammatical similarities. The same is also true for Germanic-Balto-Slavic similarities: these are largely lexical, and may suggest absorption of the same type of substrate (think of TRB/GA and "in-between" lost CWC dialects from Poland to the Baltic).

    What does this all mean for the language during the CWC > SG > BB period in and around Germany? Well, this must IMO have been a relatively uniform dialect of IE that has just spread very fast over the Northern European plain, and therefore had not yet had time to really disintegrate.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Pylsteen For This Useful Post:

     anglesqueville (06-25-2021),  Coldmountains (06-26-2021),  Finn (06-26-2021),  JMcB (06-25-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-25-2021),  MitchellSince1893 (06-25-2021),  Ryukendo (06-25-2021)

  11. #197
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylsteen View Post
    If we are to include Italic/Celtic in the CWC sphere, under the assumption of a CWC > SG > BB development, some impressions I have (partly based on e.g. Kortlandt)

    From the reconstruction of both Italic and Celtic, a distinct Italo-Celtic stage must be assumed, with unique morphological characteristics, such as the use of a superlative in *-ismo-, specific forms of the verb, for example the use of *-ā- to form subjunctives, and specific mediopassive forms. IMO, it is likely that this dialect was formed in Southern Germany during the (late) Bell Beaker period (ca. 2200 BC onwards) and has disintegrated into its daughter dialects (pre-forms of Celtic, Italic, perhaps some other lost ones) at latest at 1500 BC. This dialect seems to have remained isolated from developments that happened in the rest of the CWC world for a few centuries.

    Ihe predecessor of Germanic must have remained in linguistic contact with this larger CWC world for a slightly longer time, since it shares some morphological developments with Balto-Slavic, Greek and/or Indo-Iranian that are absent in Italo-Celtic, such as the use of *-isto- as a superlative, the use of an optative in *-oiH- (instead of *-i(e)H- in Italo-Celtic), and the use of perfect presents. Then, Germanic too "split off" from the Greek/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian-area, which shares numerous isoglosses not found in Italic/Celtic nor Germanic. I see Germanic as the direct descendant of the dialect spoken in the area of the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly between Southern Sweden up into Northern Germany. As for its prehistory between 2500 BC and 1500 BC I will unfortunately :p remain neutral.

    Similarities between Germanic and Celtic are mostly lexical and are therefore more likely to be the result of linguistic contact than of a direct ancestral Germanic-Celtic dialect. The same is IMO true for Germanic-Italic contact: lexical items are shared, sometimes verbs are formed in the same way, but might often have been the result of a coincidence (due to using similar productive processes). From my judgment, these are not as fundamental as Italo-Celtic grammatical similarities. The same is also true for Germanic-Balto-Slavic similarities: these are largely lexical, and may suggest absorption of the same type of substrate (think of TRB/GA and "in-between" lost CWC dialects from Poland to the Baltic).

    What does this all mean for the language during the CWC > SG > BB period in and around Germany? Well, this must IMO have been a relatively uniform dialect of IE that has just spread very fast over the Northern European plain, and therefore had not yet had time to really disintegrate.
    Thank you Pylsteen! From linguistic perspective seems like a clear story.

    Obviously as to be expected close knit with the IE migration moves. And obviously in the time of the IE speaking people migrations (CW/BB ) the differences were not that big.

    The only add I dare to make (and is of course still fare from sure) is the one that Harry Fokkens and Jay Butler have suggest is the immigration of Sögel-Wohlde warriors. Was Sögel-Wohlde the last IE-migration in c.q. towards NW Europe?

    This culture was at least according to VandKilde and Bergerbrant quit constituting for the Nordic Bronze Age.

    Anyhow the Russian linguist Kuzmenko gives this 'last IE-expansion' a place in his work:
    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.
    Anyway, something to consider.

    Sögel-Wohlde in red:



    https://iling.spb.ru/pdf/alp/alp_VII_1.pdf
    Last edited by Finn; 06-26-2021 at 08:52 AM.

  12. #198
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    And may be 'naughty' but compare the Kuzmenko map with the IOGG 2013 map R1b U106 with specific attention to the area with a supposed founder effect,




    But could be totally coincident of course....
    Last edited by Finn; 06-26-2021 at 11:01 AM.

  13. #199
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,086
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    And may be 'naughty' but compare the Kuzmenko map with the IOGG 2013 map R1b U106 with specific attention the area with a supposed founder effect,




    But could be totally coincident of course....
    As a side note but among the words shared by celtic and germanic there are two very basal:

    all that in celtic/gaulish is allo ( like in the name Allobrogi)
    bring celtic/gaulish brenka with exactly the same meaning

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to etrusco For This Useful Post:

     Finn (06-26-2021)

  15. #200
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,086
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    As a side note but among the words shared by celtic and germanic there are two very basal:

    all that in celtic/gaulish is allo ( like in the name Allobrogi)
    bring celtic/gaulish brenka with exactly the same meaning
    and that is also very basal

    vidu- (wood) [OI fid, Welsh guid, Cornish guiden, Old English wudu, Old High German witu]

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to etrusco For This Useful Post:

     Finn (06-26-2021)

Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. North sea populations using G25.
    By evon in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 654
    Last Post: 07-10-2021, 04:53 AM
  2. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 07-19-2019, 04:32 PM
  3. North-Norwegians, North-Swedes and Finns
    By hintsu in forum Anatomy and Physiology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-03-2018, 11:54 AM
  4. Is this North Caucasian and North Sea in K36 "real"?
    By Tomenable in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2017, 08:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •