Ancient place names in Iberia

[spongetaro]

Bell-Beaker..aborigen in all of Western Europe to west Polonia? Where the predominant y-dna is R1b?

Then why isn't R1b more prevalent in Sardinia and North Africa (Bell beaker culture places)?

 

[Taranis]

Aha, okey....and I am Santa Teresa de Calcuta...

Now I can understand:

Galicia I2a1 1.5%,
suebian and marcomani I 12%
R1b 60-63%
G2a 12%
M-81 7%
and rest is variable, phoenician, goths, vikings, etc.

Bell-Beaker..aborigen in all of Western Europe to west Polonia? Where the predominant y-dna is R1b?

Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Galicia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%

 

[callaeca]

Sure, it is wrong..mmm..it is in Galicia..not all spain...Some authors reduces R1b 58% others over 65%, and E is relative, for example E-M81 - 4.2% vs. 9%, according to authors;. We find balcanic E too, but..i do not know how the 'Road to Santiago' in the Middle Age had influence in this markers, although it is common with the rest of Europe continental.. .

Yes, R1b-L11* is very very rare in Iberia, like s-116 and branches are not rare in northern Europe...

 

[Taranis]

Alright, I may have been a bit reckless when taking into account Deva as part of the Old European Hydronymy; the point remains the same: If the Beaker culture was Indo-European, I would equate it with the "Old European Hydronymy" Hans Krahe described (which as I have said includes the Drava, Duero, Oder, Vistula, etc.), as it makes little sense to me to have the Celtic languages split at so early a date.
Drawing from the discussion here and my own views, I would make a hypothetical timeline on the Celtic languages:
-C. 2300 BC:The Unetice culture of Central Europe in the Early Bronze Age begins.I would propose this to be ascribed to Proto-Italo-Celtic speaking peoples
-C. 1700 BC: The Terramare culture of Northern Italy (c. 1700-1150 BC) begins. This could perhaps represent a Proto-Italic speaking folk that migrated from Central Europe, given its archaeological affinities. This would thus also be the date of the split of Proto-Italo-Celtic
View attachment 5222
-C. 1600 BC: The Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture (1600-1300/1200 BC, in my opinion early Proto-Celtic) emerges (evolving from Unetice), and spreads west and southeast
View attachment 5221
-C. 1600-1300 BC: "Early Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase (*gw > *b?)
-C. 1300 BC: The Atlantic Bronze Age emerges. I would interpret it as an expansion of the Tumulus Culture during the population upheavals of the Late Bronze Age
-C. 1300-1000 BC: "Late Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase
C. 1200 BC: Lusitanian in the west of Iberia splits from Proto-Celtic
C. 1200-1000 BC: Plosive de-aspiration, PIE *p disappears (except before s and t, where it turns into *xs and *xt)
C. 1000 BC: Definitive split of the Celtic languages (*kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic?)

Yes! That is very well summarized. This is generally what I think is the closest to what most probably happened, because it incorporates all interactions (and non-interactions) that we see in the development of Celtic. The only significant addition I have to make is this:

- the development of Celtiberian as a distinct language would have probably begun around the same time as Britanno-Gallic, due to the fact that although it's a Q-Celtic language, Celtiberian possesses a significant number of innovations found nowhere else.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Yes! That is very well summarized. This is generally what I think is the closest to what most probably happened, because it incorporates all interactions (and non-interactions) that we see in the development of Celtic. The only significant addition I have to make is this:

- the development of Celtiberian as a distinct language would have probably begun around the same time as Britanno-Gallic, due to the fact that although it's a Q-Celtic language, Celtiberian possesses a significant number of innovations found nowhere else.

Ah, true, otherwise it would imply that Goidelic and Celtiberian have a more recent relationship,which is not necessarily the case...
Also, a question: Do you know about about an online essay that treats the Ligurian language?

 

[Taranis]

Ah, true, otherwise it would seem that Goidelic and Celtiberian have a more recent relationship,which is not necessarily the case...

Well, everybody knows of the legend about the Mil-Espaine that came to Ireland from Iberia.

Unfortunately, what is a reality is that (archaic) Goidelic is in many aspects closer to Proto-Celtic than to Celtiberian (or more broadly, Hispano-Celtic). From that perspective it's more likely that a very archaic form of Celtic (as seen in the Ogham inscriptions) survived under relatively isolation in Ireland right until the Dark Ages, rather than to assume some migration from Iberia to Ireland.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Well, everybody knows of the legend about the Mil-Espaine that came to Ireland from Iberia.

Unfortunately, what is a reality is that (archaic) Goidelic is in many aspects closer to Proto-Celtic than to Celtiberian (or more broadly, Hispano-Celtic). From that perspective it's more likely that a very archaic form of Celtic (as seen in the Ogham inscriptions) survived under relatively isolation in Ireland right until the Dark Ages, rather than to assume some migration from Iberia to Ireland.

Indeed, the comparative analysis of myths is usually much more fruitful in the realm of religious studies and comparative mythology than that of migrational history.Otherwise, we would be led to believe that the Franks came from... Troy! etrified:

 

[callaeca]

OK...the Aquitanian Tumulus Culture we can now consider as symbol of the Protoceltic culture and, really, it is interesant to know why we find this culture in the SW of France and Pirineos..perhaps, did they come precisely from Bainochaimai (the old name of Boheme)? (It is paradoxical, I never well-considered it before)....and, a very very interesant stude where we see the lineal celtic dialectal formation, made over gaulish references and criterions, in the same moment and in the diferents areas (peripheral or not) at the same time. No thanks, even if you don't believe it, I prefer the outline of the neo-gimbutian Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel.

And, naturaly, the poor Atlantic Culture that trade with Egypt and Unetiçe needs the great stimulus of the Tumulus Culture.

A question, what the old european hydronymy is? indo-european? Who were their successors? indo-europeans? then what is the problem? Yes I know, It is very very abundant in the bell-beaker area, and in others where we can detecd indo-europeans populations..

 

[Asturrulumbo]

OK...the Aquitanian Tumulus Culture we can now consider as symbol of the Protoceltic culture (and really, it is interesant to know why we find this culture in the SO of France..perhaps, did they come precisely from Bainochairmai (the old name of Boheme)?)....and, a very very interesant stude where we see the celtic dialectal formation in the same moment and in the diferents areas (peripheral or not) at the same time. No thanks, even if you don't believe it, I prefer the outline of the neo-gimbutian Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel.

The Tumulus culture, as far as I know, did not penetrate Aquitaine... although it did penetrate Aremorica

 

[Taranis]

Callaeca, please.

Regarding the unfindable 'Bainochaimai', Tacitus in his 'De origine et situ Germanorum', aka 'Germania', writes in chapter 28:

"Igitur inter Hercyniam silvam Rhenumque et Moenum amnes Helvetii, ulteriora Boii, Gallica utraque gens, tenuere. Manet adhuc Boihaemi nomen significatque loci veterem memoriam quamvis mutatis cultoribus."

"Accordingly the country between the Hercynian forest and the rivers Rhine and Moenus, and that which lies beyond, was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii, both tribes of Gaul. The name Boiemum still survives, marking the old tradition of the place, though the population has been changed."

Regarding Old European hydronomy, it is also found in areas that were never under Beaker-Bell influence (for instance Poland, western Balkans).

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Regarding Old European hydronomy, it is also found in areas that were never under Beaker-Bell influence (for instance Poland, western Balkans)

True, although it could be that it included other cultures, such as Baden and Globular Amphorae... However I do admit that it is sketchy at best...

 

[callaeca]

Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme. Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia. I have said you that two days ago.

And yes, this ghostly indo-european 'alteuropäisch' you can find it where you see indo-europeans...It is logical.

 

[Taranis]

Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme? Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia.

Well, you obviously ad-hoc identify "occupied" as "they were not native there" because, apparently, for you no other option is acceptible. As I said before, there is plenty of other Celtic names in Central Europe and name evidence extends as far as the Main river and even Silesia. First you claim that the Boii were Germanic, and now you claim they immigrated from Gaul. Which is it? Also, if the region purportedly was not originally Celtic nor Germanic, then what was it? Where are the non-Celtic place names?

Sorry, but just no. Celtic presence east of the Rhine is well attested: the Celts didn't completely reside on the west bank.
- Vindobonna (Vienna, Austria)
- Brigetio (Szőny, Hungary)
- Cambodunum (Kempten)
- Boiodurum (Passau)
- The 'Hercynian Forest' and the 'Gabretae Forest' (compare Gaulish 'Gabros', Irish 'Gabhar', Welsh 'Gafr', Breton 'Gavr')
- The Vindelici (including sub-tribes like Brigantes, which are also found in Britain and the Licates)
- The Lech (Licca) river, compare Irish 'Leac', Welsh 'Llech', Breton 'Lec'h' (rock, slab)
- Noric town names such as Gabromagus, Gobanodurum, Lauriacum (all mentioned by Ptolemy)
- The Cotini of the western Carpathians, which are explicitly refered to by Tacitus as speaking Gaulish.

Also, to quote myself from earlier:
Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD records approximately 80 town names in Germania Magna, approximately a sixth of which have readily identifiable Celtic etymologies (Eburodunum, Segodunum, Tarodunum, Celamantia, Carrodunum, Lugidunum).

The Celtic incursion into the Balkans also produced other settlements, as far as the mouth of the Danube:
- Durostorum (Silistra, Romania - also mentioned by Ptolemy)
- Aliobrix (Orlivka, Ukraine)
- 'Vindelia' (localization unclear, but mentioned by Ptolemy in Galatia, Anatolia)
If you do not believe me anything of that, read the Geography of Claudius Ptolemaios.

(...)

I was talking about L11 (without U106, S116), which is clearly absent in Iberia. It does not matter that R1b-S116 (without U106) is found in large concentration in Iberia because it's outgroups are virtually absent in Iberia but found in Central Europe, which in itself proves that a connection with Beaker-Bell is invalid.

(...)

EDIT: there is also R1b-Z196 which should be considered, due to which the L11 peak in Iberia looks a lot less clear-cut and obvious than just L11 without U106 or S116.

(...)

This is wrong. The connection between Bavaria and the Boii is only an indirect one. Much of Bavaria (especially Bavaria proper) was originally inhabited by a different Celtic tribe, the Vindelici. In the 1st century BC, the Germanic Markomanni invaded Bohemia and conquered the Boii. In the migrations period what remained of the Markomanni migrated into modern-day Bavaria. In contrast, Strabo (Book 7, chapters 1,2 and in particular 3) explicitly mentions the Boii as being Celtic. In any case, the word 'Boi-' is Celtic in etymology, compare Irish 'Bó', Welsh 'Buwch', Breton 'Buoc'h' and Celtiberian 'Boustom'. The word in turn is derived from the PIE word for 'cow' or 'cattle'. In the Celtic languages PIE *gw was rendered to *b, where as in the Germanic languages it was rendered to *kw, which is why the English word is 'cow'.

With the story of the Boii puportedly invading from Gaul, archaeologically there is no evidence of such a migration, and there is no Boii homeland in Gaul from which that might have happened.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Iberia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%

She was referring to E3b (M-81). Actually Beleza et al. (2005, 2006) recorded an M-81 average of ~ 4% for N. Portugal (same stock as Galicians) in a nationwide sampling of nearly 700 individuals.

 

[Wilhelm]

Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Iberia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%

hmm that's not Iberia that's Galicia.

 

[zanipolo]

Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme. Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia. I have said you that two days ago.

And yes, this ghostly indo-european 'alteuropäisch' you can find it where you see indo-europeans...It is logical.

occupied can mean either

oc·cu·py (

k

y

-p

)tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies 1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.

 

[zanipolo]

Well, you obviously ad-hoc identify "occupied" as "they were not native there" because, apparently, for you no other option is acceptible. As I said before, there is plenty of other Celtic names in Central Europe and name evidence extends as far as the Main river and even Silesia. First you claim that the Boii were Germanic, and now you claim they immigrated from Gaul. Which is it? Also, if the region purportedly was not originally Celtic nor Germanic, then what was it? Where are the non-Celtic place names?



With the story of the Boii puportedly invading from Gaul, archaeologically there is no evidence of such a migration, and there is no Boii homeland in Gaul from which that might have happened.

boii where gaulish, be those from Italy, Bohemia or pannonia
I stated earlier, that the only germanic people was in the north, the south and central of germany was gaulish people.

On the matter at hand has anyone associated Gascony with the Basques as well as the Celts.
The laguedoc chalcolthic period had the whole of these Pyrennes area as Basque/gascon .

Even the languages are similar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gascon_dialect

http://membres.multimania.fr/simorre/oc/gascon.html

With the hapoltypes ( not the majority one ) Celtiberian having R1b1c6 ( M167) , while the basques R1b1c4 (M153), the association stops here.

E1b1b1 was found in several parts of Iberia, with about 10% in Galicia. also 24 individuals from Gascony which are not in the Iberian Peninsula. had the same galician type.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b2/default.aspx

 

[Taranis]

hmm that's not Iberia that's Galicia.

Sorry, Freudian slip. It was supposed to be Galicia.

In any case, E1b (not just in Iberia, but generally in Western Europe) is also a bit of a mystery as of the moment, principally because none of the Neolithic sites turned up E1b.

@ Zanipolo: don't mix up modern Romance dialects with ancient languages. The Aquitanian language was probably the same as Old Basque, whereas Gaulish was a Celtic language.

Yes, R1b-L11* is very very rare in Iberia, like s-116 and branches are not rare in northern Europe...

L11x (without U106, S116) is very rare in Iberia. If R1b entered Western Europe via the Iberian penninsula, we would expect concentrations of L11x in Iberia, since L11 is the older marker. It does not matter that S116 peaks in southern Iberia because it cannot have originated there. There is also the recently-discovered subclade R1b-Z196 to be considered, which is probably another major subclade of S116 alongside of U152 and L21. R1b-Z196 was not included yet in the study of Myres et al., and as a result we have no idea how much of the Iberian R1b-S116 is part of R1b-Z196. What is clear is that R1b-M153 (which is typically Basque) is part of the R1b-Z196 subclade.

I would argue that the dispersal pattern is much more compatible with a Central European dispersion, which is more compatible with a later insertion rather than a dispersion via Beaker-Bell during the Copper Age. Also as Spongetario pointed out, we should be seeing more R1b in Sardinia and North Africa.

In any case, mitochondrial DNA from Beaker-Bell thus far yielded Haplogroups U4 and U5a. Although this is ambiguous, it should be added U5 was also found at the Neolithic site of Treilles.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, many times over now, there are valid reasons to assume that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European (or at least, otherwise non-Indo-European) phenomenon. R. L. Trask pointed out that there are relatively few Celtic loanwords in Basque. If, by the time of Antiquity, the Basques were surrounded for already ~2000 years by Celtic-speaking peoples, we would see a much larger number of terms, and we would see Celtic-derived words for metals and metal-working. Since this isn't the case, the only logical assumption is that Celtic languages arrived only relatively recently in the Atlantic region. Since Hallstatt and La-Tene alone cannot spread explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region (though, as established, they do explain the presence of P-Celtic languages in Aremorica and Britain), the only logical conclusion is an arrival in the Late Bronze Age.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Sorry, Freudian slip. It was supposed to be Galicia.

In any case, E1b (not just in Iberia, but generally in Western Europe) is also a bit of a mystery as of the moment, principally because none of the Neolithic sites turned up E1b.

@ Zanipolo: don't mix up modern Romance dialects with ancient languages. The Aquitanian language was probably the same as Old Basque, whereas Gaulish was a Celtic language.



L11x (without U106, S116) is very rare in Iberia. If R1b entered Western Europe via the Iberian penninsula, we would expect concentrations of L11x in Iberia, since L11 is the older marker. It does not matter that S116 peaks in southern Iberia because it cannot have originated there. There is also the recently-discovered subclade R1b-Z196 to be considered, which is probably another major subclade of S116 alongside of U152 and L21. R1b-Z196 was not included yet in the study of Myres et al., and as a result we have no idea how much of the Iberian R1b-S116 is part of R1b-Z196. What is clear is that R1b-M153 (which is typically Basque) is part of the R1b-Z196 subclade.

I would argue that the dispersal pattern is much more compatible with a Central European dispersion, which is more compatible with a later insertion rather than a dispersion via Beaker-Bell during the Copper Age. Also as Spongetario pointed out, we should be seeing more R1b in Sardinia and North Africa.

In any case, mitochondrial DNA from Beaker-Bell thus far yielded Haplogroups U4 and U5a. Although this is ambiguous, it should be added U5 was also found at the Neolithic site of Treilles.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, many times over now, there are valid reasons to assume that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European (or at least, otherwise non-Indo-European) phenomenon. R. L. Trask pointed out that there are relatively few Celtic loanwords in Basque. If, by the time of Antiquity, the Basques were surrounded for already ~2000 years by Celtic-speaking peoples, we would see a much larger number of terms, and we would see Celtic-derived words for metals and metal-working. Since this isn't the case, the only logical assumption is that Celtic languages arrived only relatively recently in the Atlantic region. Since Hallstatt and La-Tene alone cannot spread explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region (though, as established, they do explain the presence of P-Celtic languages in Aremorica and Britain), the only logical conclusion is an arrival in the Late Bronze Age.

Where can data be found about the distribution of L11*?

 

[callaeca]

It is irrelevant that you are saying. It is not posible a celtisation from East to West or from North to South...I have explained the causes and reasons with arguments that I take out of a lot of authors.

Against, yours personal opinions, without references, with considerable errors and without knowledges about some aspects of the Bronze Age in Western Europa (and central Europe) or about the celto-hispanic language (in this way i could say too about the sioux or comanche origin of the Atlantic facade). In your last interventions the ambiguity and frequent confusions are shameful.

NOTE: no zanipolo no...E1b1b1 in Galicia is over 95-97% or more. They are false all of the studies about this clade in Galicia.