Taranis, the tartessos which you are talking about is only the decaying remains of a civilization comparable to greek one. Tartessos is a geographic nomenclature, not cultural at all.
You're wrong. To the ancient Greeks, Tartessos was a kingdom or city state (or possibly both). Archaeologists associated the so-called "Orientalizing Culture" (called "orientalizing" due to the visible cultural influence from the Phoenicians) of the early iron age of Andalusia with Tartessos.
As i said, there was at least 3 branches divided from the finish of Atlantis. One of those, remained near to the colapse, another one exploring by navy the west facade of Iberia (all coast of actual Portugal) and settlement that places: Portugal, Galicia, Asturias, British isles...etc. The last of those should be which go to interior, forming the Vetton clan as others clans.
Ziober, I'm giving you a very good advice: this is not a place for dispersing fantasy stories about your "Atlantean" racial vision because that's basically, through the course of this thread, what you're trying to tell us. And my patience as a moderator for such is about to be spent.
What I have to add that I do not understand is this: Spanish history is as amazing and as fascinating as it is in reality. There is no need to spin fancy tales about an ahistorical, mythical 'Atlantean' past.
Taramis, i can see how for you, all cultural transitions was made by kill peoples (saxons killing britons, phoenicians killing Tartessos... oh my God!!!) I can't, i can't, i can't believe that.
Did Alexander the Great conquer the Achaemenid Empire through peace and harmony? Did the Romans conquer the entire Mediterranean through peace and harmony? Did the Umayyad Caliphate conquer Iberia through peace and harmony? Obviously not.
As for Tartessos, this should be obvious:
- Herodotus mentions the city of Tartessos as existing in the 5th century BC.
- By the early 3rd century BC, the
Carthaginians had conquered the south of Iberia.
- When the Romans seized these areas of Spain (at the end of the Second Punic War), there is no more mentioning of a city of Tartessos, however the Turdetani people are mentioned by various authors as descendants of the Tartessians. The only conclusion is that the city/kingdom of Tartessos was destroyed by the Carthaginians in the intermediate period.
As well say Zanipolo, phoenicians found Gadir, because tartessians were pacifics, generous and rich peoples, Very good thing for trading. Humanity is not so worst like you and others like you want to show it.
The Phoenicians (and their heirs, the Carthaginians) were a great civilization with great achievements (especially regarding seafaring and engineering), but they were no pacifists as you wish to portray them as. Gadir was founded as a trade town, yes, but in later history the Carthaginians took a more aggressive and expansionist stance. To pick a particularly gruesome example, Hamilcar Barca, the father of Hannibal Barca, was responsible for the execution of 40,000 mercenaries who had rebelled against Carthage.
Haplogroup I as whole represents a Paleolithic remmant in Europe. So the argument for R1b is also valid for haplogroup I: they didn't retain their pre-indoEuropean language/languages, that simple. Basques did despite the fact they have the highest R1b percent, but modern frequencies tells us very little. Haplogroups (specially Y-DNA) are very easy to replace in a few generations.
I personally wouldn't link any Indo-European language with Haplogroup I for obvious reasons.
Knovas, you're generally right, but, if you consider the TMRCAs and the distributions of certain specific subclades Haplogroup, they very well can be associated with (individual) Indo-European-speaking groups in later history despite the fact that they all represent surviving Paleolithic lineages. Haplogroup I as a whole is Paleolithic, but individual subclades became Indo-European at a later point of history. The most obvious example for this would be Haplogroup I1, which was later expanded by the Germanic migrations. Sparkey also suggested that it was possible to narrow things even further down, for instance that I1-Z58 (in the British context) can be associated with the Anglo-Saxons whereas I1-L22 is associated with the Vikings. What we should not underestimate in this context (and, the same, I presume, applies for the dominance of R1b amongst the Basque population), is that we must not underestimate the role of
founder effects, especially with Y-DNA.
But, you are absolutely correct that this doesn't change the fact that the original Paleolithic bearers of Haplogroup I (or their Neolithic descendants, for that matter) were obviously no speakers of Indo-European languages.