Ancient place names in Iberia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where can data be found about the distribution of L11*?

Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here. The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.
 
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.

I could have seen it coming. What I am saying is not irrelevant. I have posted my well-grounded arguments (regarding Basque words for metals) several times over without you even replying to me. I think you have come to the point where it becomes seemingly impossible for you refute my arguments after I have thoroughly debunked yours. I think it's time for you to admit that you may be wrong, instead of ad-hoc insisting what I say is irrelevant.

I think that the arguments I have provided are solid and undeniable criticism of the Stelae People hypothesis, and for all intends and purposes, all the authors you provided might be completely wrong. I must add this, if the picture was completely consistent, I would have no objections to it. However, I have provided a multitude of reasons why it does not work out.

If you have a solution for the 'Basque problem', please show it to me. The same applies for evidence that the lands south of the Danube were thoroughly Germanic before Migration period. The only claim of the latter comes from one Richard Braungart "Südgermanen", published in 1914. Please, show me. I'll be all ears.

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).

What I am saying is not irrelevant. I have provided you with authors. I have provided references. Much of what I said regarding Basque (or the modern Celtic languages) can be found in every dictionary of the respective language. You are also free to google R. L. Trask's work.

In your last interventions the ambiguity and frequent confusions are shameful

Shameful? You will apologize for that accusation.
 
Wow, I hope this doesn't turn into a full fledged war.:shocked:
 
No, I have not read that before. I have heard however about the suggestion of a connection between the Paleo-Sardinians and the Basques and/or Iberians. The interesting part is that there is also genetic backup for this in respect for the distribution of I2a1, which after all reaches the highest distributions in Sardinia and the Basque country, and I2a1 is in my opinion the most likely canidate for the main Y-Haplogroup carried by the Megalithic builders. From that perspective, I personally would not be surprised if it turns out that the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b.

IMHO I2a2 (old I2b), or at least some of its subclades, matches Beaker Culture a bit better than I2a1a. The STR dating and distribution of I2a1a suggest that it spread earlier and more southwestern than Beaker Culture, especially if we assume that Beaker Culture formed with influence from Corded Ware. The point of contact between Beaker Culture and Corded Ware is very close to the center of diversity of I2a2, and the age of a lot of its subclades, especially its Western ones, are only a bit older than Beaker Culture, suggesting that Beaker Culture helped them spread. However, Beaker Culture appears to extend beyond I2a2's reach, suggesting that the Beaker admixture contained something else, maybe some I2a1a and G2a that got picked up, and others (R1b being a big wildcard). Ancient DNA will hopefully resolve these ambiguities... either way, I don't think that predicting Beaker Culture's Y-DNA will help anybody's argument at the moment.
 
Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here. The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.


Here is R1b-M269(xL11), the direct ancestor of R1b L11:
Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg
 
IMHO I2a2 (old I2b), or at least some of its subclades, matches Beaker Culture a bit better than I2a1a. The STR dating and distribution of I2a1a suggest that it spread earlier and more southwestern than Beaker Culture, especially if we assume that Beaker Culture formed with influence from Corded Ware. The point of contact between Beaker Culture and Corded Ware is very close to the center of diversity of I2a2, and the age of a lot of its subclades, especially its Western ones, are only a bit older than Beaker Culture, suggesting that Beaker Culture helped them spread. However, Beaker Culture appears to extend beyond I2a2's reach, suggesting that the Beaker admixture contained something else, maybe some I2a1a and G2a that got picked up, and others (R1b being a big wildcard). Ancient DNA will hopefully resolve these ambiguities... either way, I don't think that predicting Beaker Culture's Y-DNA will help anybody's argument at the moment.

You have a point, though I would argue that the match between I2a2 (old I2b) and Beaker-Bell is relatively poor, especially due to the fact that I2a2 is fairly rare in Iberia. Otherwise, I guess you are right, we can continue to speculate as much about Beaker-Bell's Y-DNA but we won't get ahead until we finally get some samples of it.

Here is R1b-M269(xL11), the direct ancestor of R1b L11:
Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg

Interesting map. There are afew issues that surprise me here:

- First off, they did their homework and finally have some more detailed data on the situation in eastern Europe, and secondly there is this considerable concentration of R1b-M269x in the eastern Balkans.

- The peak in southern Italy but the complete absence in northern Italy.

- There is also that peak in the Near East which surprises me quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Interesting map of M269*, however although it is true that it's the direct ancestor of L11, there are 3 haplogroups that stand "between" them (L23, L150 and L51) ... The peak in the Carpatho-Danubian area leads me to believe that most of the M269* (in that area) came from an Anatolian migration during the Neolithic (c. 6000 BC, the Dudesti culture and its many successors throughout the neolithic: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/middle-neolithic.htm) rather than the Eneolithic steppe invasions of Indo-Europeans (although some of it may have come with them too, especially to western and central Europe).
Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here. The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.
Why no M412*!? 'Tmay be the missing link! Is this a conspiracy by Myres et al? :LOL: (but really, it's a pity they don't show it)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 154603 times.

Back
Top