Page 49 of 157 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1563

Thread: 50% replacement in GB Patterson et al in review

  1. #481
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,664
    Sex
    Location
    Tierra de Ayllon
    Y-DNA (P)
    U152>L2>Z49>Z142>
    mtDNA (M)
    H1bt
    Y-DNA (M)
    I2a2a1b2a1b1>Y4925
    mtDNA (P)
    H37

    England Scotland Wales Germany Palatinate Ireland Leinster Sweden Finns
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    These were written languages, directly connected people, constantly communicating and still Latin using societies and they still diverged too much.
    The Atlantic groups were completely different and cut off. We can't even know they spoke IE, though its of course very likely.
    Ok how about an unwritten language example of 2 relatively isolated people? Maquesas Polynesian and Hawaiian Polynesian. They split ~1000 years ago but apparently can still understand each other to a certain degree.
    The first was a migration into the Society Islands between about 1025 and 1120 AD (four centuries later than had previously been thought); the second, between 70 and 265 years later, was a dispersal of migrants into to all the remaining Marquesas islands between about 1190 and 1290 AD.[5] This relatively rapid colonisation is believed to account for the "remarkable uniformity of East Polynesia culture, biology and language."[5]

    A different study, published in 2014, suggested that the date of first settlement in the Marquesas was somewhat earlier: between around 900 and 1000 AD
    So somewhere between 900 AD and 1120 AD.

    Settled by Polynesians some time between 1000 and 1200 CE, Hawaii was home to numerous independent chiefdoms
    So again about 1000 years separation between the 2.

    Mutual intelligibility
    Jack H. Ward (1962) conducted a study using basic words and short utterances to determine the level of comprehension between different Polynesian languages. The mutual intelligibility of Hawaiian was found to be 41.2% with Marquesan,
    Anecdotal observation
    -My mom and whole maternal family is fluent in Tahitian.

    My fiancé is fluent in Hawaiian.

    I’ve had them speak to each other in those respective languages and they cannot understand one another. They are too different.

    BUT, when my fiancé met a family from the Marquesas, who spoke Marquesan, they could understand one another’s languages and even noticed they had the exact same words mean the same thing. He also said he's experienced something similar with the Maori language (New Zealand).
    https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent...y-intelligible

    Just example of an unwritten language split approx 1000 years old, where folks can understand each other.
    Last edited by MitchellSince1893; 10-22-2021 at 05:41 PM.
    Y DNA line continued: Z142>Z12222>FGC12378>FGC12401>FGC12384
    35% English, 15% Scottish, 14% Welsh, 14% German, 11% Ulster Scot, 5% Ireland, 3% Scandinavian, 2% French/Dutch, 1% India
    Hidden Content

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MitchellSince1893 For This Useful Post:

     David Mc (10-23-2021),  ffoucart (10-23-2021),  JonikW (10-22-2021),  Webb (10-25-2021)

  3. #482
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,182
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Nationality
    Welsh
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-DF49
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2e

    European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    Back on this thread, I realize that the Italo-Celtic question (because it is indeed a question, entirely linguistic, and nothing else) has simply been removed. I take the liberty of advising the few who are interested in linguistic matters (if there are any) to return to Watkins' fundamental article "italo-celtic revisited". It is dated, of course, but I don't believe it has really been overtaken, and certainly not by Kortlandt's theories (let alone Schrijver's). I couldn't find an electronic copy of it, so here's just its conclusion:

    Attachment 47157
    But isn't this view out of favour with a large proportion, if not the majority, of historical linguists today ?

  4. #483
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,316
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1bU106/ DF96

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    As I’ve said before, AOC is considered by the Dutch as a SGC. Either way, BBC was present in all those areas and R-P312 seems like it was the only Y-DNA types there through the entire Bronze Age.
    IMO you miss the point.....

    Like I have stated. There was most probably a stream from the Dutch/ Rhenish Bell Beakers to South Germany/ North Alps. Also beneath the Rhine. No doubt.

    But this is most probably not 1:1 "the rebound" in the form of Tumulus-Urnfield and La Tene. There are other mixtures at stake. An indicator is is for example along the Dutch BB the EEF was 25%, MBA/ Tumulus Lech nearly 60%.

    And most probably E-V13 and most probably the Z156 lines beneath R1b U106 (especially DF96/98) were not "rebound BB" but new in the mix!

    For sure BB had their impact but it's no genetic monoculture since then R. Rocca.

    With an add from Riverman:


    And we have to look at which regions had that much Neolithic ancestry to begin with. By doing so, we come in any case much closer to Pannonia and the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, where such Neolithic strains survived longer and even where defeated being mainly replaced paternally, not maternally to the same degree. The massive BB replacement in the North, with so little local maternal contribution, is fairly exceptional over such wide streches of land.
    PS:
    Add so did the language imo congruent with the archeological cultures!

  5. #484
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,316
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1bU106/ DF96

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    As I’ve said before, AOC is considered by the Dutch as a SGC. Either way, BBC was present in all those areas and R-P312 seems like it was the only Y-DNA types there through the entire Bronze Age.
    Part II:
    I suppose a change of dialect c.q language around 1600 BC in the NW that correspondences with the Tumulus influx. And may be again with the Urnfield culture about 1200 BC. The Tumulus and Urnfield warrior elite came -seen from NW perspective- from fare….Hessen and the middle Rhine, and beyond that the South Germany and Northern Alps regions. There must have been language differences with the BB.
    Last edited by Finn; 10-22-2021 at 06:12 PM.

  6. #485
    Registered Users
    Posts
    8,205
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Full blown proto Greek ie fairly convincingly argued to have existed by 2200BC. The same linguists place the final phase of late proto IE as ending and splitting into pre proto Greek etc c.2500BC. Another recent study suggested a short century or so of Italo-Celtic c.2500BC then splitting into pre proto Italic and pre proto Celtic. I think everything suggests that as soon as beaker P312 entered Italy it was starting to fork into pre proto italic and the Celtic branch likely was entering a pre proto phase.

    IMO Italo-Celtic formed on the Lower Rhine c. 2800-2500BC, entering the area as late PIE with CW at the start of that range and leaving that area as Italo-Celts c.2500BC. They split due to one branch entering Italy c2400BC. Everything perfectly fits. No other chronology fits the archaeological, linguistic and ancient DNA evidence remotely as well.

    So not only do I think the Italo-Celtic phase had already been reached by (and surely a century or two before) the beaker expansion but the break into insipient pre proto branches of Italic and Celtic commenced early in the beaker phase c. 2400BC - likely driven my one group entering Italy and another staying fairly north close to the pre-Germanics. In between the pre proto Celts in fairly northerly latitudes and the italics in Italy were probably groups of Italo-Celtics in west Central Europe and the Med. west of Italy - future Ligurians and Lusitanians. As for the British isles, they stayed pretty much in contact with the north of France and Low Countriee through the Bronze Age and I think they’d have very much been in the pre proto Celtic zone and under strong influence of groups likely linguistically steering slowly to the proto Celtic form in the early to mid Bronze Age.

    Anyone who hasn’t read this yet should https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Do...rmanic2020.pdf

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     David Mc (10-23-2021),  Finn (10-23-2021)

  8. #486
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,412
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Full blown proto Greek ie fairly convincingly argued to have existed by 2200BC. The same linguists place the final phase of late proto IE as ending and splitting into pre proto Greek etc c.2500BC. Another recent study suggested a short century or so of Italo-Celtic c.2500BC then splitting into pre proto Italic and pre proto Celtic. I think everything suggests that as soon as beaker P312 entered Italy it was starting to fork into pre proto italic and the Celtic branch likely was entering a pre proto phase.

    IMO Italo-Celtic formed on the Lower Rhine c. 2800-2500BC, entering the area as late PIE with CW at the start of that range and leaving that area as Italo-Celts c.2500BC. They split due to one branch entering Italy c2400BC. Everything perfectly fits. No other chronology fits the archaeological, linguistic and ancient DNA evidence remotely as well.

    So not only do I think the Italo-Celtic phase had already been reached by (and surely a century or two before) the beaker expansion but the break into insipient pre proto branches of Italic and Celtic commenced early in the beaker phase c. 2400BC - likely driven my one group entering Italy and another staying fairly north close to the pre-Germanics. In between the pre proto Celts in fairly northerly latitudes and the italics in Italy were probably groups of Italo-Celtics in west Central Europe and the Med. west of Italy - future Ligurians and Lusitanians. As for the British isles, they stayed pretty much in contact with the north of France and Low Countriee through the Bronze Age and I think they’d have very much been in the pre proto Celtic zone and under strong influence of groups likely linguistically steering slowly to the proto Celtic form in the early to mid Bronze Age.

    Anyone who hasn’t read this yet should https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Do...rmanic2020.pdf
    I do not know but since we have R1b in Bohemia and later on in 2750/2800 BC R1b samples in the swiss corded ware the upper rhine seems more likely to be the place of origin of italo celtic. R1b U 152 ha not been found in British beaker so far. So i guess it was absent from the lower rhine too. northern france, benelux and north western germany spoke north western block languages.
    but anyway.... BBC could have emerged between Alsace - Swiss corded ware groups just as likely as the lower rhine
    Last edited by etrusco; 10-22-2021 at 09:01 PM.

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

     Finn (10-23-2021)

  10. #487
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,412
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Ah not to mention also the arguments also for the Moravian origin of BBC.

  11. #488
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,512
    Sex

    To make a case for early Germanics, they definitely should test this remains from a battle in the North:
    https://www.pnas.org/content/115/23/...oYnS1Ev1IdDuFw

    I came across it on Eupedia and its true for all ethnogenetic and patrilinear origin problems: We need correct references for the autosomal and patrilinear variation of the respective people to work with. Like Tollense didn't change a lot fundamentally, but to just see what kind of variation and migrations were possible, at that time, is remarkable in itself.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (10-23-2021),  Finn (10-23-2021),  JMcB (10-22-2021),  JonikW (10-22-2021)

  13. #489
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,316
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1bU106/ DF96

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    I do not know but since we have R1b in Bohemia and later on in 2750/2800 BC R1b samples in the swiss corded ware the upper rhine seems more likely to be the place of origin of italo celtic. R1b U 152 ha not been found in British beaker so far. So i guess it was absent from the lower rhine too. northern france, benelux and north western germany spoke north western block languages.
    but anyway.... BBC could have emerged between Alsace - Swiss corded ware groups just as likely as the lower rhine
    The question is did they speak the language of the NW block before or after the Tumulus/ Urnfield phase?

    It was a warrior-elite migration (first swords! 1600 BC>), so the bulk of the NW spoke still the (post) BB language. But such an elite must have had an effect on the language and we can expect a 'trickle down' effect of it during BA.
    Last edited by Finn; 10-23-2021 at 03:01 AM.

  14. #490
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    3,087
    Sex
    Location
    Florida, USA.
    Ethnicity
    English, Scottish & Irish
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-FT80854
    mtDNA (M)
    H1e2
    mtDNA (P)
    K1

    England Scotland Ireland Germany Bayern Italy Two Sicilies France
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Full blown proto Greek ie fairly convincingly argued to have existed by 2200BC. The same linguists place the final phase of late proto IE as ending and splitting into pre proto Greek etc c.2500BC. Another recent study suggested a short century or so of Italo-Celtic c.2500BC then splitting into pre proto Italic and pre proto Celtic. I think everything suggests that as soon as beaker P312 entered Italy it was starting to fork into pre proto italic and the Celtic branch likely was entering a pre proto phase.

    IMO Italo-Celtic formed on the Lower Rhine c. 2800-2500BC, entering the area as late PIE with CW at the start of that range and leaving that area as Italo-Celts c.2500BC. They split due to one branch entering Italy c2400BC. Everything perfectly fits. No other chronology fits the archaeological, linguistic and ancient DNA evidence remotely as well.

    So not only do I think the Italo-Celtic phase had already been reached by (and surely a century or two before) the beaker expansion but the break into insipient pre proto branches of Italic and Celtic commenced early in the beaker phase c. 2400BC - likely driven my one group entering Italy and another staying fairly north close to the pre-Germanics. In between the pre proto Celts in fairly northerly latitudes and the italics in Italy were probably groups of Italo-Celtics in west Central Europe and the Med. west of Italy - future Ligurians and Lusitanians. As for the British isles, they stayed pretty much in contact with the north of France and Low Countriee through the Bronze Age and I think they’d have very much been in the pre proto Celtic zone and under strong influence of groups likely linguistically steering slowly to the proto Celtic form in the early to mid Bronze Age.

    Anyone who hasn’t read this yet should https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Do...rmanic2020.pdf

    For what it’s worth, I enjoyed that book and would also recommend it.


    Coincidentally, some of the discussions here, have reminded me of what Koch had to say concerning Watkins et al and the dating of Italo-Celtic:


    That there are ICG (Italo-Celtic-Germanic) words is unsurprising, as a close relationship between Celtic and Italic is widely recognized. Going back to August Schleicher (1861/1862), many linguists have argued for Italo-Celtic as a primary subgrouping (i.e. a node on the family tree) of Indo- European. On the other hand, Watkins (1966) argued strongly against an Italo-Celtic proto-language, countered by Cowgill (1970). More recently Mallory and Adams (2006, 78) accept Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic as Post-Proto-Indo-European unified languages, but favour treating Italo-Celtic as a contact phenomenon. Similarly, Clackson and Horrocks conclude: ‘Latin shares more features with Celtic than any other IE language branch outside Italy. The links to Celtic do not, however, seem sufficiently close to allow us to reconstruct an “Italo-Celtic” proto-language...’ (2007, 32–4).

    We may be coming close to the proverbial ‘distinction without a difference’ in attempting to decide whether the evidence for Italo-Celtic is better explained as Post-Proto-Indo-European unity or intense contact between mutually intelligible dialects before the sound laws of Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic had operated. For most purposes, recognizing that Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic were close sisters at a very early stage will suffice.

    […]

    Below it is argued that the combined evidence lines up better with the Ringe et al. tree model, which features an Italo-Celtic node. For the present study, the key point is that the Italo-Celtic commonality—whether we regard it as a unified proto-language or an episode of close contact predating the operation of the diagnostically Italic and Celtic sound laws—sits at a level earlier than [the] main body of the Celto- Germanic phenomenon.

    It is remarkable that there are far fewer ICG words (44) than CG (173) (Figure 11). This distribution could be claimed as a falsification of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis. Alternatively, the distribution could be explained if the bulk of the Celto-Germanicisms date from a period of contact after the Italo-Celtic commonality had ended and new vocabulary was being generated within the independent Celtic branch. This scenario might be especially apt if it occurred in a period of rapid cultural innovation, such as the rise of social complexity from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. At about this time, we might also expect that Italo-Celtic speakers situated around the Mediterranean were becoming more culturally different from those in Inner Europe and facing the Atlantic. If sustainable, that conclusion could potentially help in narrowing the chronological horizon at which the contact took place. — (Pages 30-32)




    ————————————————-




    Dating Italo-Celtic

    As mentioned above, by 500 BC four separate Italic languages are found in writing: Old Latin, South Picene, Oscan, and Venetic. By this time, these were different enough that mutual intelligibility was probably minimal. Therefore, estimating approximately, it is unlikely that a unified Proto-Italic could still have existed after ~1000 BC. By the same reasoning, Proto-Italo-Celtic—if we believe in such a thing—had probably broken up by ~1500 BC.

    We can approach the same question from another angle. If we think of the cultural interconnections associated with the Beaker phenomenon as providing a probable context for the variety Post- Tocharian Indo-European that became Italic and Celtic emerging over wide parts of Western Europe (see §22), then the cultural fragmentation and regionalization at the transition from the Beaker Period to the Early Bronze Age ~2000/1800 BC might plausibly coincide with the breakup of Italo-Celtic.

    A third approach is the phylogenetic method as calibrated by Chang et al. (2015), which shows Italic and Celtic separating ~1800 BC. In other words, we come up with nearly the same date, centring on ~1800 BC, looking at the problem three different ways:

    1 back from the earliest attested Italic and Celtic languages;
    2 forward from the theoretical correspondence of Yamnaya culture (~3300–2400 BC) = Post-Anatolian Indo-European; and
    3 ‘ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis’.

    It is not theoretically necessary that all ICG words entered Germanic before Italic and Celtic separated. Celtic would have retained many words it had inherited from the Italo-Celtic phase and therefore could have passed these words to Germanic after separating from Italic. Because so much Ancient Italic has survived in Latin, many of the CG words not found in Italic are probably newer than the Italo-Celtic commonality; they are not attested in Italic because they never existed in Italic. — (Page 48)
    Last edited by JMcB; 10-23-2021 at 03:44 AM.
    Paper Trail: 42.25% English, 31.25% Scottish, 12.5% Irish, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French. Or: 86% British Isles, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French.
    LDNA(c): 86.3% British Isles (48.6% English, 37.7% Scottish & Irish), 7.8% NW Germanic, 5.9% Europe South (Aegean 3.4%, Tuscany 1.3%, Sardinia 1.1%)
    BigY 700: I1-Z140 >F2642 >Y1966 >Y3649 >A13241 >Y3647 >A13248 (circa 540 AD) >FT81015 (circa 1120 AD) >A13243 (circa 1620 AD) >FT80854 (circa 1700 AD).

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     anglesqueville (10-23-2021),  Finn (10-23-2021),  jdean (10-23-2021),  Jessie (10-23-2021),  JonikW (10-23-2021),  Riverman (10-23-2021),  Webb (10-25-2021)

Page 49 of 157 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 254
    Last Post: 06-08-2020, 02:22 PM
  2. Early replacement of West Eurasian male Y chromosomes from the east
    By VladimirTaraskin in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 01-01-2020, 05:44 PM
  3. Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain
    By rozenfeld in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 10-04-2019, 04:51 PM
  4. Ancient Admixture in Human History (Patterson et al 2012)
    By Jean M in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-07-2012, 10:45 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
  •