PDA

View Full Version : L21 on the Iberian Peninsula



rms2
31-05-10, 06:31
FTDNA's R-L21 Plus Project is in the process of sponsoring the testing of six individuals of Spanish and Portuguese descent for L21. Thus far, one turned out to be L21-, but four of the six have already gone L21+. There is one still awaiting test results, but he is almost certain to be L21+, too, since he is a 35/37 match for one of our L21+ project members.

One of our new L21+ members, Romero, has five Spanish matches, with five different surnames, all within a genetic distance of three or less at 37 markers. Surely they are all L21+, too. One of them, Garcia, has joined the project and is now also awaiting L21 test results.

I know of at least 21 L21+ men of Iberian descent, but only 17 of them have joined the R-L21 Plus Project. I wish all of them would.

If you add Romero's five close matches and the one man, very likely to be L21+, still awaiting results, that makes 27.

So, perhaps L21 is not as rare on the Iberian Peninsula as we once thought?

rms2
05-06-10, 13:37
A few days ago I stumbled on what I believe is a mainly Spanish R-L21 haplotype cluster with the following characteristic marker values:

385a=12

439=11

459a=10

447=24

449=31-32

464a=14

456=15

607=16

438=11

Take a look at the following link in Ysearch, using "Research Tools" (just enter the Captcha codes at the bottom and click on "Show comparative y-dna results").

http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej (http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej)

rms2
16-06-10, 00:54
A few days ago I stumbled on what I believe is a mainly Spanish R-L21 haplotype cluster with the following characteristic marker values:

385a=12

439=11

459a=10

447=24

449=31-32

464a=14

456=15

607=16

438=11

Take a look at the following link in Ysearch, using "Research Tools" (just enter the Captcha codes at the bottom and click on "Show comparative y-dna results").

http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej (http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej)

Interestingly, the only two guys in this cluster with 67-marker haplotypes both have 481=19, which is relatively uncommon. The R1b1b2 modal value there is 22.

buckley612
16-06-10, 18:44
Interesting, if L21 reached Spain with M167 and M153 then by now it should have been discovered at a more constant frequency throughout the country. My guess is that L21 was part of an incursion which took place long after the Celtiberian people established themselves. This could also mean that M167 and M153 both separated from the main S116 clade and travelled westward before the La Tene and Hallstatt cultures began to dominate. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but this is all fascinating and new to me.

rms2
17-06-10, 03:40
Interesting, if L21 reached Spain with M167 and M153 then by now it should have been discovered at a more constant frequency throughout the country. My guess is that L21 was part of an incursion which took place long after the Celtiberian people established themselves. This could also mean that M167 and M153 both separated from the main S116 clade and travelled westward before the La Tene and Hallstatt cultures began to dominate. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but this is all fascinating and new to me.

You could be right, but it might be well to remember that testing for M167 (SRY2627) and M153 has been going on for several more years than has testing for L21, which was only discovered (for all practical purposes) in late 2008.

And the Iberian Peninsula is an under-tested region, as is all of continental Europe.

buckley612
17-06-10, 18:04
Agreed, I think it will take many more years of research before anyone comes up with a reasonable explanation for the peopling of Europe. Until then I will continue to occupy my mind with unstable theories.

rms2
18-06-10, 01:46
Agreed, I think it will take many more years of research before anyone comes up with a reasonable explanation for the peopling of Europe. Until then I will continue to occupy my mind with unstable theories.

I'm afraid those are all we have for now! :good_job:

rms2
19-06-10, 00:53
FTDNA's R-L21 Plus Project is in the process of sponsoring the testing of six individuals of Spanish and Portuguese descent for L21. Thus far, one turned out to be L21-, but four of the six have already gone L21+. There is one still awaiting test results, but he is almost certain to be L21+, too, since he is a 35/37 match for one of our L21+ project members . . .



Make that five out of six who turned out to be L21+. The last of the original six we recruited for L21 testing, De Herrera, went L21+ yesterday evening sometime. :good_job:

rms2
20-06-10, 04:11
I think I may have stumbled upon yet another Iberian R-L21 haplotype cluster.

Check this link out:

http://tinyurl.com/2cjs3e6 (http://tinyurl.com/2cjs3e6)

Enter the Captcha codes at the bottom and click on "Show comparative Y-DNA results".

Costa and Vargas are both confirmed L21+.

I know I have a couple of 25-marker haplotypes in there, so we can't be sure about them.

If this is a cluster, the off-modal values are:

19=15

459b=9

YCAIIb=19

456=15

Too bad they don't all have 67 markers.

Maciamo
22-06-10, 11:49
I personally expect L21 to be rather strong in Spain, like in France, Britain and Ireland. L21 is probably the most Celtic or Atlantic of the main R1b subclades, while U152 is more Italo-Alpine and U106 is West Germanic (English, Dutch, North German).

rms2
23-06-10, 19:30
I personally expect L21 to be rather strong in Spain, like in France, Britain and Ireland. L21 is probably the most Celtic or Atlantic of the main R1b subclades, while U152 is more Italo-Alpine and U106 is West Germanic (English, Dutch, North German).

I agree.

Have you seen this (http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8)?

Maciamo
24-06-10, 10:24
Have you seen this (http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8)?

I don't see how the Bronze Age could have originated in the Atlantic fringe and spread to Central Europe, when all hard archaeological evidence has always confirmed that bronze working originated around the Caucasus and Middle East then spread to the Pontic steppe, then to Eastern Europe, then central Europe, then Western Europe. It's basically the same with the Iron Age, except that it spread more quickly westward.

It's usually a good idea to base one's hypothesis on real material evidence from archaeology. This article is trying to rewrite prehistory based on flimsy linguistic research based on reconstructed languages with no written form.

rms2
24-06-10, 13:42
I don't see how the Bronze Age could have originated in the Atlantic fringe and spread to Central Europe, when all hard archaeological evidence has always confirmed that bronze working originated around the Caucasus and Middle East then spread to the Pontic steppe, then to Eastern Europe, then central Europe, then Western Europe. It's basically the same with the Iron Age, except that it spread more quickly westward.

It's usually a good idea to base one's hypothesis on real material evidence from archaeology. This article is trying to rewrite prehistory based on flimsy linguistic research based on reconstructed languages with no written form.

They aren't saying the Bronze Age or bronze metallurgy began in the Atlantic facade. They are theorizing that Celtic languages may have begun there. And I think they believe they have archaeological evidence; I mean that is what Dr. Barry Cunliffe does, after all, and he is one of the central players in the idea.

There is evidence that people from the Pontic region came, over time, by sea to the western Mediterranean. You can track them by the anthropomorphic stelae they left everywhere they settled and buried their dead. These "Stelae Folk" (David Anthony mentions them in his The Horse, the Wheel and Language) may have been the ones who first brought an early form of Indo-European to Iberia. If that is the case, then it was just a matter of time until, perhaps, one of its branches evolved into Proto-Celtic and began to work its way east from there, probably with the Beaker Folk.

Cambrius (The Red)
24-06-10, 15:22
New research from the University of Wales, Celtic from the South-west project, will be published in August, 2010. The findings are expected to lend further strong support to an Iberian Celtic origin.

Cambrius (The Red)
24-06-10, 15:26
I don't see how the Bronze Age could have originated in the Atlantic fringe and spread to Central Europe, when all hard archaeological evidence has always confirmed that bronze working originated around the Caucasus and Middle East then spread to the Pontic steppe, then to Eastern Europe, then central Europe, then Western Europe. It's basically the same with the Iron Age, except that it spread more quickly westward.

It's usually a good idea to base one's hypothesis on real material evidence from archaeology. This article is trying to rewrite prehistory based on flimsy linguistic research based on reconstructed languages with no written form.

Roughly two years ago a good number of stone tablets with Tartessian script were discovered by archaeologists in southern Portugal and SW Spain. These writings have been deciphered as Celtic (ref: Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History, Koch 2009).

buckley612
24-06-10, 19:08
Perhaps the "mediterranean" theory would explain the distribution of Q-Celtic. I've always thought of the Goidelic and Celtiberian languages as closer to "proto"-Indo European than the P-Celtic branch. What confuses me is how they could have travelled all the way from their homeland without leaving any significant trace outside of the Atlantic fringe.

buckley612
24-06-10, 19:22
Nevermind, I just read about the Stelae folk, though I don't think it is quite enough of a trace to really prove anything. Perhaps this will make sense of the nonsense story about "Goidel Glas" and his offspring. I still think that the P-Celtic languages developed independently and moved westward with the Alpine Celts at around the same time the "Atlantic" Celts(or beaker folk) were establishing themselves.

Wilhelm
24-06-10, 22:48
Perhaps the "mediterranean" theory would explain the distribution of Q-Celtic. I've always thought of the Goidelic and Celtiberian languages as closer to "proto"-Indo European than the P-Celtic branch. What confuses me is how they could have travelled all the way from their homeland without leaving any significant trace outside of the Atlantic fringe.
No, no. The Celtiberian was a fully and complete Celtic language.

buckley612
25-06-10, 00:05
No, no. The Celtiberian was a fully and complete Celtic language.

I know, I didn't say otherwise.

rms2
25-06-10, 13:30
Nevermind, I just read about the Stelae folk, though I don't think it is quite enough of a trace to really prove anything. Perhaps this will make sense of the nonsense story about "Goidel Glas" and his offspring. I still think that the P-Celtic languages developed independently and moved westward with the Alpine Celts at around the same time the "Atlantic" Celts(or beaker folk) were establishing themselves.

Can you explain what you meant when you said you believe that P-Celtic developed independently of Q-Celtic?

Do you mean that Proto-Celtic was neither Q nor P and that Q sprang from it in the Atlantic zone and P sprang from it in the Alpine zone? What was Proto-Celtic if not an earlier form of Q-Celtic?

Personally, I think it is pretty clear that Q-Celtic is the older form and that P-Celtic was a later development from the Q-Celtic original.

buckley612
25-06-10, 22:06
I misused the term "P-Celtic" to refer to the language spoken by the Gauls and Alpine Celts. I think that the P-Celtic spoken in Britain was largely derived from Q-Celtic, but I believe that the Gallic language (neither P or Q) also influenced the P-Celtic there due to a Belgic/Northern Gallic incursion. My main problem with the theory of an East to West expansion is that I don't think it will be able to explain the huge linguistic differences between the Alpine and Atlantic Celts. It was said that the Gauls could understand Latin, that and other things seem to point to a language close to Italo-Celtic being spoken in Gaul and the Alpine area. As far as I know no Italo-Celtic type language could have been entirely derived from a Q-Celtic language. Another problem (this is unclear to me) is the genetic difference between the two, why are M167 and M153 so rare in the British Isles and Central Europe if the Beaker folk are responsible for the spread of the Celtic languages? My only explanation for this is that they are more recent mutations than R-21, which would mean that R-L21 is much older than researchers have concluded.

rms2
26-06-10, 17:11
I misused the term "P-Celtic" to refer to the language spoken by the Gauls and Alpine Celts. I think that the P-Celtic spoken in Britain was largely derived from Q-Celtic, but I believe that the Gallic language (neither P or Q) also influenced the P-Celtic there due to a Belgic/Northern Gallic incursion. My main problem with the theory of an East to West expansion is that I don't think it will be able to explain the huge linguistic differences between the Alpine and Atlantic Celts. It was said that the Gauls could understand Latin, that and other things seem to point to a language close to Italo-Celtic being spoken in Gaul and the Alpine area. As far as I know no Italo-Celtic type language could have been entirely derived from a Q-Celtic language. Another problem (this is unclear to me) is the genetic difference between the two, why are M167 and M153 so rare in the British Isles and Central Europe if the Beaker folk are responsible for the spread of the Celtic languages? My only explanation for this is that they are more recent mutations than R-21, which would mean that R-L21 is much older than researchers have concluded.

First off, there is no evidence that the Beaker Folk had any M167 or M153. The former is found most frequently in the old non-Celtic, Iberian zones, and the latter is mostly a Basque marker. Secondly, Gaulish Celtic was P-Celtic, although there is some evidence (certain words from the Coligny Calendar, for example) that Q-Celtic was spoken among them at one time.

I don't think there were "huge linguistic differences between the Alpine and Atlantic Celts". And I have never heard that the Gauls could understand Latin (without some study). Do you have a source for that?

rms2
26-06-10, 17:13
A few days ago I stumbled on what I believe is a mainly Spanish R-L21 haplotype cluster with the following characteristic marker values:

385a=12

439=11

459a=10

447=24

449=31-32

464a=14

456=15

607=16

438=11

Take a look at the following link in Ysearch, using "Research Tools" (just enter the Captcha codes at the bottom and click on "Show comparative y-dna results").

http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej (http://tinyurl.com/2g7bjej)

Garcia, Ysearch ZQ6P9, went L21+ sometime yesterday evening. He is squarely in this cluster.

You can see the haplotype in the Spain category on the Y-DNA Results page of the R-L21 Plus Project, too.

buckley612
26-06-10, 23:04
I don't think there were "huge linguistic differences between the Alpine and Atlantic Celts". And I have never heard that the Gauls could understand Latin (without some study). Do you have a source for that?

It was some from research I had done several years ago, back when the Italo-Celtic theory actually had some ground among linguists. I checked the college research engines I used to spend my time on, but the article was nowhere to be found. I still think that there is not enough linguistic evidence to prove what branch of Celtic the Gauls and other "extinct" Celts spoke, what is your source for a P-Celtic explanation?

rms2
27-06-10, 03:08
It was some from research I had done several years ago, back when the Italo-Celtic theory actually had some ground among linguists. I checked the college research engines I used to spend my time on, but the article was nowhere to be found. I still think that there is not enough linguistic evidence to prove what branch of Celtic the Gauls and other "extinct" Celts spoke, what is your source for a P-Celtic explanation?

Not just one source, many. Nearly every text I have ever read on the subject mentions that most of the continental Celts, with the exception of those in Iberia, spoke P-Celtic languages.

One example, that I just pulled from my shelf, is T.G.E. Powell's The Celts. Here is a brief excerpt, from p. 56:


. . . Q-Celtic, which retained certain more archaic features than did the P-Celtic branch, to which Gaulish and British belonged . . .

As I said, that is just one example among many. I have also seen innumerable maps illustrating many such books, which use shading to distinguish between the Q-Celtic of Iberia and Ireland and the P-Celtic of the rest of the Celtic world.

I'll give you some more examples when I get the chance.

Maciamo
27-06-10, 09:09
They aren't saying the Bronze Age or bronze metallurgy began in the Atlantic facade. They are theorizing that Celtic languages may have begun there. And I think they believe they have archaeological evidence; I mean that is what Dr. Barry Cunliffe does, after all, and he is one of the central players in the idea.

I seriously doubt that Celtic languages would have begun in the Atlantic façade. All the leading theories on the origin of Indo-European languages place Proto-IE near the Black Sea, and Proto-Italo-Celtic in Central Europe. Italic languages being restricted to Italy, it is hard to deny that they developed in the Italian peninsula. As the archaeology shows that Bronze technology and Celtic arts moved from Central Europe (Halstatt area) towards the Atlantic fringe, I don't see why Celtic languages would not have developed in Central Europe too.

The Atlantic façade is too remote from the point of origin of Proto-Italo-Celtic, too Western for an easy diffusion of the language as far as the Danube valley and Anatolia. Furthermore the area from Portugal to Scotland is too vast as a point of origin. If it originated in, say, southern Portugal, how could it have spread so quickly all the way to Scotland and Austria ? Central Europe is the ideal starting point because the area where Celtic languages were spoken at their greatest extend seem to radiate from the Alps and follow the path of dispersion of Bronze metallurgy all the way to Iberia and the British Isles.

The only thing I could agree on is that Q-Celtic languages developed from archaic Celtic in the Atlantic façade (or Q-Celtic survived in the West as the archaic form, while P-Celtic was a evolution from Q-Celtic that happened after the Bronze Age dispersal, perhaps during the early Iron Age).

rms2
27-06-10, 14:11
Those are all good points you bring up, Maciamo. I just want to see what Koch, Cunliffe and the rest come up with. If Ligurian represents undifferentiated Italo-Celtic, as the French linguist Jullian thought, it is possible that Italo-Celtic (Ligurian) was planted in southern France and NW Italy and spread from there. If that is the case, then it could have become Celtic in the Atlantic zone and Italic in Italy.

There is also the possibility that archaic Indo-European spread to the western Mediterranean by sea (as was mentioned before in connection with the Stelae People), and that Celtic developed there and spread east. That could also explain the presence of Ligurian in southern Gaul and NW Italy and how it could have been the catalyst for both Italic in Italy and Celtic in the Atlantic facade.

rms2
27-06-10, 14:36
Regarding the earlier posts about whether Gaulish was a P-Celtic language, here are a few more references.

Cunliffe discusses it in his book, The Ancient Celts, in the section on Celtic languages, beginning on page 21. There is a nice little chart on page 23 showing both Gallic and Brythonic on the same branch, which is labeled "Gallo Brithonic". The Q-Celtic languages are represented on the same chart by three separate, older branches labeled "Hispano Celtic", "Lepontic", and "Goidelic".

On page 25, Cunliffe says:



. . . [T]he overriding view being that beneath a variety of dialects Gaulish is broadly Brythonic, though some doubt has been placed on the classificatory value of the term.

He also mentions that Gaulish is known from inscriptions and from place and proper names.

The French linguist and archaeologist Henri Hubert discusses the Celtic languages in his book, The History of the Celtic People (originally in two volumes). He likewise groups Gaulish with Brythonic as P-Celtic.

Here is a brief excerpt from page 131:


. . . two groups of peoples, whose languages became different as has been explained above - that is, the Goidelic, or Irish, group, and the Brythonic group, which includes the Gauls.

The Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division is also discussed in various places in The Celtic Realms, by Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick. Here is a brief excerpt, from page 18:


The oldest branch of these languages, referred to by modern scholars as Goidelic (or Q-Celtic), survives today in the Highlands and the Western Islands (Hebrides) of Scotland, and in Ireland and the Isle of Man; the later branch, commonly called Brythonic, to which Gaulish originally belonged, survives in Wales and Brittany.

In the next paragraph, Dillon and Chadwick specifically identify Gaulish as P-Celtic.

Those are just a few references of the many that could be produced to show that the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Gaulish was a P-Celtic language.

buckley612
28-06-10, 23:06
I'm not in a position intellectually to agree or disagree with any professional research, but I am always skeptical when such a decisive conclusion is reached. If I remember correctly, the "Ice Age Refugee" theory for the origin of R1b also received an overwhelming consensus among researchers. For a year or so, it was the only theory with an extensive amount of available information. My own experiences also tend to point me away from any theory which allows little room for alteration. Before I took a deep-clade test, I believed myself to belong to R-U152 given that my available DYS values were a perfect match with many tested R-U152 members. I did extensive research and was disappointed to find that the only "real" work done on the subject was botched to say the least (courtesy of Dr. Faux). Still, his research seems to be widely accepted in the field of genetic study. All of this goes to say that I have trouble accepting broad statements like "Gaulish was entirely P-Celtic". I have always thought that Gaul was something of a melting pot of very different Celtic tribes and cultures, in turn it only makes sense to me that the language(s)/branches of Celtic spoken in Gaul must have been diverse as well.

rms2
29-06-10, 05:04
There is a great deal of difference between the "Iberian Ice Age Refuge" theory for R1b1b2, for which there never was any good evidence, and the notion that Gaulish was a P-Celtic langauge. There is plenty of evidence for the latter in inscriptions and place and personal names. It's not like linguists have to guess or speculate. It's there for them to see.

rms2
29-06-10, 13:45
There is a new Portuguese R-L21 this morning: Dos Reis, Ysearch GHU77. He is in the Portugal category on the y-DNA Results page of the R-L21 Plus Project. Dos Reis' most distant y-dna ancestor came from the island of Madeira.

His closest match (33/37) is Marino-Ramirez, Ysearch NR3T9, whose ancestors came from Spain and settled in Colombia. It seems a fair bet that Marino-Ramirez is also L21+.

rms2
08-07-10, 15:24
There is another new Spanish R-L21 this morning: Calvo, Ysearch GYFHF.

He belongs to that Iberian L21+ cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

Calvo's most distant y-dna ancestor came from Cumbres Mayores (http://www.andalucia.com/province/huelva/cumbres-mayores/home.htm) in northern Andalucia, Spain.

I have added him to the R-L21 European Continent Map (Placemark 133).

rms2
09-07-10, 23:24
There is another new Spanish R-L21 this morning: Calvo, Ysearch GYFHF.

He belongs to that Iberian L21+ cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

Calvo's most distant y-dna ancestor came from Cumbres Mayores (http://www.andalucia.com/province/huelva/cumbres-mayores/home.htm) in northern Andalucia, Spain.

I have added him to the R-L21 European Continent Map (Placemark 133).

Near Mr. Calvo's ancestral home of Cumbres Mayores is the old Celtic hillfort of Nortobriga.

Also yesterday evening yet another man of Spanish ancestry went L21+: Davila, Ysearch 3SZYY.

Taranis
13-07-10, 12:53
The only thing I could agree on is that Q-Celtic languages developed from archaic Celtic in the Atlantic façade (or Q-Celtic survived in the West as the archaic form, while P-Celtic was a evolution from Q-Celtic that happened after the Bronze Age dispersal, perhaps during the early Iron Age).

Question: is there any evidence for a genetic link (specific subclade?) between Ireland and Iberia (which would kind of suggest some migration event)?

callaeca
22-07-10, 01:32
In opposition to Maciano I adduce:

1) The character of the celtic languages of western Iberia is previous to the formation of Celtiberian. The Celtiberian language is a consequence of the evolution of the western celtic language in Center Iberia (Of Bernardo Stempel, 2004).

2) The conservation of the sound P in initial and intermediate position in the occidental Hispanic Celtic language, opposite to other Celtic dialects (as dialectal anomaly of the Indo-European language), obeys that there was no initial contact with not Indo-European populations who were lacking this sound. The Iberian language lacks the sound P, then it is logical that the Celtiberian language does not contain this phoneme. This fact can spread to other Celtic dialects, where the anomaly of the loss of /p/ is a consequence of the previous substrate. The occidental Hispanic-Celtic is practically Indo-European. This linguistic observation belongs similar to the Armenian language that loss the sound /p/ to contact with caucasic languages (Celiakov, 2007).

3) It is known that the diffusion of the Celtic language could originate with the commercial diffusion of the bell-beakers phenomenon from the center of Portugal (where we can register an archaic Indo-European peninsular dialect, language that presents features genetically near the celtic language, but also features that we find in italic). It is very probable that this initial protoceltic language had to be a "lingua franca", with ancient examples as the egyptian, ionic or latin.

4) The commercial Atlantic decadence opposite to the commercial summit of Center Europe, with the cultural adoption of Unetice models, gives place to a more predominant position for the classic populations called Celts, beside opening direct commercial relations with Greece and Anatolia. Both populations, Atlantic and Center European, can be recognized now like different culturally: handcrafted products, architecture, language, etc.

Atlantic culture is a mixture between models of social change derived from theory of "World Economic Systems" and of the settlement Archaeology: a.-proper evolution of diverse local communities close to relations to long distance, and b.-to come together in creation of a relative "koiné" and a "related diversity". Without this model there would no be Atlantic continuity of phenomena as form of predominant production.

5) The word "celtic" must be understood as atlantic native. The inscriptions of Tartessos in a celtic language, related specially to the dialect of the peninsular NW, are dated on the centuries VIII-V b. C., being, therefore, impossible that it was interfering for populations of Hallstatt not for "urnenfelders" (of that we do not have vestiges)

Taranis
22-07-10, 23:59
Callaeca, I would like to re-post here what I did post in another thread regarding the Celtic hypothesis for Tartessian:

I am not a linguist (but I talked with one ), but as far I understand it, there's a number of problems associated with Koch's work. The main issue is that his primary set of data are personal names.

This goes deeper, because personal name etymologies often will tell you more about the individual making them than the name itself, since they almost never come with glosses, so, finding an etymology becomes a game where you essentially seaching for words in your language that sound alike. Given a sufficiently large dictionary and a willingness to play fast and freely between sounds, it's very easy to do this. In some case you have purported "Celtic" origins for words for which it is not even sure if they even have demonstrated Indo-European derivations.

Secondly, even if the names indeed have Celtic etymologies doesn't mean that Tartessian actually was a Celtic language. We know that there were Celts in Iberia, but we cannot automatically assume that everybody with a Celtic-sounding name really spoke Celtic. This is why most linguists stick away from personal name etymologies.

Thirdly, and as far as I understand it, this is something of a "cardinal sin" in terms of linguistics, is that Koch makes no effort to demonstrate how the sounds of Tartessian are supposed to correspond to sounds in Celtiberian. This is pretty futile, because you run under the assumption that any sound can correspond to any other sound, which is not how languages work. And, as far as I understand, this is something that linguists haven't been practicing since the days of Jacob Grimm.

The bottom line is, it is possible that Koch is right, but he hasn't actually proven anything other than the words he has taken out of context from two languages that sometimes sound somewhat alike.

So yes, I guess we will have to wait for more papers on the issue.

Regardless of that, I personally have a serious problem with the idea of Celtic suddenly "popping up" in Iberia some time in the Bronze Age (or earlier?). I would think, even if Celtic languages spread quickly, the origins of the Celtic language must be sought somewhere in affinity to the Corded Ware culture (as the Indo-European languages probably came into Europe with them).

Also, a Iberian origin for the Celtic languages totally screws up with the phylogeny of the Indo-European languages.

rms2
23-07-10, 02:47
Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site (http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8) says about Koch's work with Tartessian:



Professor John T. Koch’s (http://www.wales.ac.uk/en/CentreforAdvancedWelshCelticStudies/StaffPages/JohnKoch.aspx) recent research on the Tartessian language of the Early Iron Age in southern Portugal and south-western Spain has now suggested similar preliminary conclusions. In its abundance, diversity, archaism, antiquity, and geographic and cultural remoteness from Hallstatt and La Tène, the Hispano-Celtic linguistic evidence sits more comfortably with a theory of Atlantic Bronze Age Celtic origins than with the established central-European model.

"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf).

The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).

Taranis
23-07-10, 12:54
Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site (http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8) says about Koch's work with Tartessian:

"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf).

I was explicitly refering to exactly that 2009 paper. I did read the paper, linked to it and asked said linguist for his opinion, and I subsequently found his criticism of the paper to be a valid point (as posted above), especially in terms of poor methodology by Koch.

Besides, even if Koch is right about the 'archaisms', just because archaic variants of Celtic were spoken in Iberia and/or the Atlantic fringe doesn't automatically mean they originated there. It just means that they were spared of the later linguistic innovations which occured in the Alpine region.


The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).


Wrong. Corded ware was definitely not just connected with Proto-Germanic (Proto-Germanic originated only at the periphery of Corded Ware), but at least also with the common ancestor for the Baltic and Slavic languages. In addition we have the Italic languages (which is commonly thought to be closely tied with Celtic, by the way), as well as Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. In my opinion, it's far more conceivable that the language spoken by the Corded Warers was the ancestor of all European branches of Indo-European, including Celtic. It's therfore far more logical to assume that Celtic originated in Central Europe (especially if you assume a Proto-Italo-Celtic stage), in proximity to the former Corded Ware area, rather than suddenly 'popping up' in the Atlantic region.

The idea about the stelae people reaching the Atlantic region by sea is interesting, but I personally find it too far-fetched at this point. Of course, I should add, the concept of Celtic originating in the Atlantic region is a paradigm change, and in all of science, people are naturally awkward with paradigm changes. However, until I see genuinely convincing evidence, I for one am going to stick with the traditional concept.

rms2
23-07-10, 14:14
. . .


Wrong. Corded ware was definitely not just connected with Proto-Germanic (Proto-Germanic originated only at the periphery of Corded Ware), but at least also with the common ancestor for the Baltic and Slavic languages. In addition we have the Italic languages (which is commonly thought to be closely tied with Celtic, by the way), as well as Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. In my opinion, it's far more conceivable that the language spoken by the Corded Warers was the ancestor of all European branches of Indo-European, including Celtic. It's therfore far more logical to assume that Celtic originated in Central Europe (especially if you assume a Proto-Italo-Celtic stage), in proximity to the former Corded Ware area, rather than suddenly 'popping up' in the Atlantic region . . .



I did not say that Corded Ware was connected only to Proto-Germanic. I said it is usually connected to Proto-Germanic. I am aware of the connection to early Baltic and Slavic, as well, but, since we were discussing a western IE subgroup (Celtic), I limited myself to a western manifestation of Corded Ware and provided a reference (Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language).

As I said in my last post, Anthony derives Italo-Celtic from contacts between the Beaker Folk and the Yamnaya culture. I don't know of any connection between Corded Ware and early Celtic or of anyone who attempts to make such a connection (aside from you).

I also have a different take on Koch's 2009 paper than you do. It seems to me it contains plenty of translations of apparently Celtic Tartessian inscriptions that are not personal names.

I guess time will tell if Koch is right. I don't know if Celtic actually originated on the Iberian peninsula, but I definitely believe it is much older than both Hallstatt and La Tene.

Personally, I suspect the Celtic question will come down to a final decision on where the Beaker Folk originated. Arguments seem to sway back and forth. Currently, the thought is that the oldest Beaker sites are in the Iberian peninsula, and the radiocarbon dating supports that, or seems to, at least for now.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-07-10, 17:26
I did not say that Corded Ware was connected only to Proto-Germanic. I said it is usually connected to Proto-Germanic. I am aware of the connection to early Baltic and Slavic, as well, but, since we were discussing a western IE subgroup (Celtic), I limited myself to a western manifestation of Corded Ware and provided a reference (Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language).

As I said in my last post, Anthony derives Italo-Celtic from contacts between the Beaker Folk and the Yamnaya culture. I don't know of any connection between Corded Ware and early Celtic or of anyone who attempts to make such a connection (aside from you).

I also have a different take on Koch's 2009 paper than you do. It seems to me it contains plenty of translations of apparently Celtic Tartessian inscriptions that are not personal names.

I guess time will tell if Koch is right. I don't know if Celtic actually originated on the Iberian peninsula, but I definitely believe it is much older than both Hallstatt and La Tene.

Personally, I suspect the Celtic question will come down to a final decision on where the Beaker Folk originated. Arguments seem to sway back and forth. Currently, the thought is that the oldest Beaker sites are in the Iberian peninsula, and the radiocarbon dating supports that, or seems to, at least for now.

The oldest Beaker sites, according to everything I've researched, have been confirmed as existing in Southern Portugal.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-07-10, 17:45
Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site (http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8) says about Koch's work with Tartessian:



"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf).

The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).


Indeed, Koch's research has gone well beyond personal names.

rms2
29-07-10, 04:02
Two more men of Spanish ancestry have gone L21+ since I last reported: Calzada and Fernandez. Calzada's ancestor came from Bilbao in Spain, which is in the Basque country; however, Calzada is not a Basque surname and is known in neighboring Cantabria. Fernandez can't get his paper trail out of Mexico, but he belongs to a strongly Spanish-Portuguese cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

We have another member of that cluster, this one from Portugal, awaiting L21 test results. Thus far everyone in that cluster is L21+, and all of them have ancestry in either Spain or Portugal.

Taranis
30-07-10, 00:28
Indeed, Koch's research has gone well beyond personal names.

Simply put, for Koch to prove his theories, all he has to do is demonstrate regular sound correspondences between the two languages. He has not bothered to do this. This is simply not how historical linguistics functions, not since the Neogrammarian revolution. There's a reason why; if you simply compare two words from two different languages, and allow yourself free reign as far as sound correspondences and the semantics of the words go, you can easily find false cognates in any two languages. It is also undeniable that, in the 2009 paper, the bulk of his data appears to be drawn from personal names. If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

rms2
30-07-10, 14:53
. . . If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

I read that paper and that is not what Koch is doing. He does analyze quite a few personal names, and they are Celtic, but he analyzes some phrases, as well, and comes up with intelligible translations of them, if they are regarded as Celtic.

Apparently his work continues, and that 2009 paper is not the last word.

If Koch thinks Tartessian was a Celtic language, then it probably was. It doesn't necessarily follow that Celtic originated in the Iberian Peninsula. It simply means that Celtic is older there than we thought and cannot be attributed to Hallstatt influences.

Taranis
30-07-10, 15:09
I read that paper and that is not what Koch is doing. He does analyze quite a few personal names, and they are Celtic, but he analyzes some phrases, as well, and comes up with intelligible translations of them, if they are regarded as Celtic.

Apparently his work continues, and that 2009 paper is not the last word.

If Koch thinks Tartessian was a Celtic language, then it probably was.

Well, my point is, if Koch does come up with demonstrable evidence for sound changes/correspondences, the case for Tartessian as a Celtic language is solid. But, from my perspective, it is too early to tell. The problem is, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" (as you called him), Koch's record is a tad patchy for my taste.


It doesn't necessarily follow that Celtic originated in the Iberian Peninsula. It simply means that Celtic is older there than we thought and cannot be attributed to Hallstatt influences.

That, I can agree on. But, unless the Stelae people theory is correct and the Celts really arrived by a very wild migration route (possibly by sea) in Western Europe, the Celtic languages must have somehow originated in the vicinity of the former Corded Ware area.

Wilhelm
30-07-10, 17:14
It can also mean that a group of earlier Celts splitted and went to Iberia earlier while the others Celts stayed and developed see the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures

Cambrius (The Red)
31-07-10, 00:17
Well, my point is, if Koch does come up with demonstrable evidence for sound changes/correspondences, the case for Tartessian as a Celtic language is solid. But, from my perspective, it is too early to tell. The problem is, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" (as you called him), Koch's record is a tad patchy for my taste.



That, I can agree on. But, unless the Stelae people theory is correct and the Celts really arrived by a very wild migration route (possibly by sea) in Western Europe, the Celtic languages must have somehow originated in the vicinity of the former Corded Ware area.

The majority view seems to be that Celticity emerged with Bell Becker. The earliest Bell Beaker sites have been located in Portugal.

How is Koch's record patchy?

Cambrius (The Red)
31-07-10, 00:36
Simply put, for Koch to prove his theories, all he has to do is demonstrate regular sound correspondences between the two languages. He has not bothered to do this. This is simply not how historical linguistics functions, not since the Neogrammarian revolution. There's a reason why; if you simply compare two words from two different languages, and allow yourself free reign as far as sound correspondences and the semantics of the words go, you can easily find false cognates in any two languages. It is also undeniable that, in the 2009 paper, the bulk of his data appears to be drawn from personal names. If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

Have you read Koch's latest book? - Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History. He deals with phrases as well as place and personal names, verbs, proverbs, nouns, prepositions...

In addition, "Celtic from the West" is about to be released. This is the first research segment of the ongoing University of Wales Celtic from the West project. It contains papers from 12 other scientists, besides Koch.

Taranis
31-07-10, 11:51
The majority view seems to be that Celticity emerged with Bell Becker. The earliest Bell Beaker sites have been located in Portugal.

I was under the impression that there were sites of similar age (2900 BC) in southern France and northern Italy. In regard for the identity of the Bell-Beaker culture, if they really already spoke an Indo-European language, I'm personally of the opinion that at that stage labeling it "Proto-Celto-Italic" might bemore appropriate. I would also not rule out the possibility that what we regard as "Celtic languages" is actually a paraphyletic construct. Also, the term "Celticity" is extremely problematic in my opinion. In an allusion to a classic question, who is a Celt? :laughing:


How is Koch's record patchy?

Well, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" he does have a patchy record. As mentioned, why does he omit sound correspondences in his paper?


Have you read Koch's latest book? - Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History. He deals with phrases as well as place and personal names, verbs, proverbs, nouns, prepositions...

I seriously hesitate to mention this, since it would seem rather malicious of me to do that, but that book on Tartessian was self-published (published under the imprint "Celtic Studies Publications", which was established by John Koch himself). No serious scholar ever self-publishes his own works, he or she subjects them to peer review, which has not happened in this case. Coincidence?


In addition, "Celtic from the West" is about to be released. This is the first research segment of the ongoing University of Wales Celtic from the West project. It contains papers from 12 other scientists, besides Koch.

Well, all I can say at this point is, we shall see. I still maintain that the spread from the west creates more problems than it apparently solves, unless I see different evidence.

Cambrius (The Red)
31-07-10, 12:58
I was under the impression that there were sites of similar age (2900 BC) in southern France and northern Italy. In regard for the identity of the Bell-Beaker culture, if they really already spoke an Indo-European language, I'm personally of the opinion that at that stage labeling it "Proto-Celto-Italic" might bemore appropriate. I would also not rule out the possibility that what we regard as "Celtic languages" is actually a paraphyletic construct. Also, the term "Celticity" is extremely problematic in my opinion. In an allusion to a classic question, who is a Celt? :laughing:
Well, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" he does have a patchy record. As mentioned, why does he omit sound correspondences in his paper?
I seriously hesitate to mention this, since it would seem rather malicious of me to do that, but that book on Tartessian was self-published (published under the imprint "Celtic Studies Publications", which was established by John Koch himself). No serious scholar ever self-publishes his own works, he or she subjects them to peer review, which has not happened in this case. Coincidence?
Well, all I can say at this point is, we shall see. I still maintain that the spread from the west creates more problems than it apparently solves, unless I see different evidence.


1) What do you mean by "omit sound correspondences in his paper"?


2) I don't see a problem in the Tartessian book being self published. The work has been in the public audience for about a year and I haven't run across any compelling peer criticisms concerning the findings and ideas presented.


3) Can you explain how the old Central European Celtic origination theory is more palatable than what Koch and the Atlantic School has posited thus far?


The Tartessian (Celtic) script on the stone tablets that Koch and others have deciphered predates anything known in Central Europe by over 500 years. Much of what we have thus far seen from the University of Wales project (Celtic from the West) suggests that Tartessian is indeed a Celtic language. Therefore, if the Tartessian language continues to be confirmed as Celtic by the philology and linguistic communities (likely a slow process), how can the Central European origin theory be defended? Of course, there will always be those in opposition to Tartessian as Celtic because of academic investment in competing theories or various odd axes to grind. Old paradigms die hard, don't they? Even the faulty ones.

Taranis
31-07-10, 14:39
1) What do you mean by "omit sound correspondences in his paper"?

Alright, in layman terms, sound correspondences are one of the most fundamental principles of comparative linguistics. By it, the very existence of the Indo-European language family was established, and it's been part of the modus operandi of linguistics ever since. It would appear strange to me that Koch discards this when he is trying to prove something big like Tartessian being a Celtic language), as this takes away a lot of credibility for him. If Koch really did not make any sound correspondences at all (instead of just omitting them, for whatever reason), then his work on Tartessian is, from the perspective of linguistics, literally worthless.

Also, what I mentioned earlier, there is the focus on personal names, which is also very unusual and problematic for linguists to do.


2) I don't see a problem in the Tartessian book being self published. The work has been in the public audience for about a year and I haven't run across any compelling peer criticisms concerning the findings and ideas presented.

It is not a problem per se, however, with the problem I described above, one really has to get suspicious about the sincerity of Koch! It comes about as if Koch tries to hide something (ie, that his work is faulty).


3) Can you explain how the old Central European Celtic origination theory is more palatable than what Koch and the Atlantic School has posited thus far?

The Tartessian (Celtic) script on the stone tablets that Koch and others have deciphered predates anything known in Central Europe by over 500 years. Much of what we have thus far seen from the University of Wales project (Celtic from the West) suggests that Tartessian is indeed a Celtic language. Therefore, if the Tartessian language continues to be confirmed as Celtic by the philology and linguistic communities (likely a slow process), how can the Central European origin theory be defended?

Ah, that is very simple: you are simply making a too big conjecture there. You say that because this makes the Celtic languages attested for longer elsewhere, it cannot have originated in Central Europe. Conversely, I would argue exactly the opposite is the case. If we establish that Tartessian is actually a Celtic language, and an archaic one at the same time, attested in an early time slice, then we firmly establish that the innovations that the other Celtic language share must have occured and spread from elsewhere, and that Tartessian was left out of these innovations. If we look at the pattern at which innovations exist in the Celtic language, we precisely get the spread of Hallstatt/La-Tene influence. This means the "old" theory is essentially correct (with respect for the pattern by which linguistic innovations spread), but incomplete, as it doesn't tackle the origin of the Celtic languages as a whole.


Of course, there will always be those in opposition to Tartessian as Celtic because of academic investment in competing theories or various odd axes to grind. Old paradigms die hard, don't they? Even the faulty ones.

I do not have a problem with the identification of Tartessian as a Celtic language per se (if it is proven without doubt, that is), and I do not have a problem with paradigm changes, but I do have a problem replacing a 'false' (actually, not so much false as incomplete) paradigm with an overtly false one that creates more problems than it solves. Specifically, we should see a pattern of spread from west to east, which we do not see, neither in linguistics nor in archaeology. We also must take the other language families that were influenced/related by/with Celtic (principally Italic and Germanic) into account, and we cannot claim that the Celtic languages emerged out of thin air.

Cambrius (The Red)
31-07-10, 17:06
Alright, in layman terms, sound correspondences are one of the most fundamental principles of comparative linguistics. By it, the very existence of the Indo-European language family was established, and it's been part of the modus operandi of linguistics ever since. It would appear strange to me that Koch discards this when he is trying to prove something big like Tartessian being a Celtic language), as this takes away a lot of credibility for him. If Koch really did not make any sound correspondences at all (instead of just omitting them, for whatever reason), then his work on Tartessian is, from the perspective of linguistics, literally worthless.
Also, what I mentioned earlier, there is the focus on personal names, which is also very unusual and problematic for linguists to do.
It is not a problem per se, however, with the problem I described above, one really has to get suspicious about the sincerity of Koch! It comes about as if Koch tries to hide something (ie, that his work is faulty).
Ah, that is very simple: you are simply making a too big conjecture there. You say that because this makes the Celtic languages attested for longer elsewhere, it cannot have originated in Central Europe. Conversely, I would argue exactly the opposite is the case. If we establish that Tartessian is actually a Celtic language, and an archaic one at the same time, attested in an early time slice, then we firmly establish that the innovations that the other Celtic language share must have occured and spread from elsewhere, and that Tartessian was left out of these innovations. If we look at the pattern at which innovations exist in the Celtic language, we precisely get the spread of Hallstatt/La-Tene influence. This means the "old" theory is essentially correct (with respect for the pattern by which linguistic innovations spread), but incomplete, as it doesn't tackle the origin of the Celtic languages as a whole.
I do not have a problem with the identification of Tartessian as a Celtic language per se (if it is proven without doubt, that is), and I do not have a problem with paradigm changes, but I do have a problem replacing a 'false' (actually, not so much false as incomplete) paradigm with an overtly false one that creates more problems than it solves. Specifically, we should see a pattern of spread from west to east, which we do not see, neither in linguistics nor in archaeology. We also must take the other language families that were influenced/related by/with Celtic (principally Italic and Germanic) into account, and we cannot claim that the Celtic languages emerged out of thin air.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Koch, in his "Tartessian" book, deals with much more than just personal names. There is significant space devoted to phrases, verbs, preverbs, nouns, pronouns, prepositions, syntax and word order. I'm certain that the "Celtic from the West" publication, due out next month, will provide quite a bit of additional linguistic material.

rms2
31-07-10, 17:35
Taranis,

How is Koch's record "patchy"? You never really answered that, except to talk about "sound correspondences", after admitting that you, unlike Koch, are no linguist. What sort of "sound correspondences" would you like? A comparison to Urdu? Koch is not trying to demonstrate that Tartessian is merely Indo-European, but that it's Celtic. Celtic already has the "sound correspondences" that show it is part of the Indo-European language family.

Koch and others are working from inscriptions when it comes to reconstructing Tartessian, a language from a region we know from historical documents was inhabited by Celts at least as early as the 6th century BC. Personal names are part of that work but they are not all there is. Koch and his compatriots have translated some of the Tartessian inscriptions, and they make sense as a form of early Celtic.

The only "sound correspondences" that are needed are those that make Tartessian make sense when seen as a form of Celtic.

Taranis
02-08-10, 09:56
Taranis,

How is Koch's record "patchy"? You never really answered that, except to talk about "sound correspondences", after admitting that you, unlike Koch, are no linguist. What sort of "sound correspondences" would you like? A comparison to Urdu? Koch is not trying to demonstrate that Tartessian is merely Indo-European, but that it's Celtic. Celtic already has the "sound correspondences" that show it is part of the Indo-European language family.

Koch and others are working from inscriptions when it comes to reconstructing Tartessian, a language from a region we know from historical documents was inhabited by Celts at least as early as the 6th century BC. Personal names are part of that work but they are not all there is. Koch and his compatriots have translated some of the Tartessian inscriptions, and they make sense as a form of early Celtic.

The only "sound correspondences" that are needed are those that make Tartessian make sense when seen as a form of Celtic.

Well then, let me elaborate. The fact that I'm no linguist doesn't diminish the authority of my arguments as long as they are valid (I consulted a linguist, remember?). However, I admit that I genuinely need to further elaborate things, and I need to provide you with some background here. The hypothesis of the Neogrammarians states that sound changes are regular, systemic, and purely phonetically conditioned (there are correlaries to address the effects of things like analogy). Already in 1880, the Neogrammarian linguist Hermann Paul stated on the issue:


"Wenn wir daher von konsequenter Wirkung der Lautgesetze reden, so kann das nur heissen, dass bei dem Lautwandel innerhalb desselben Dialektes alle einzelnen Fälle, in denen die gleichen lautlichen Bedingungen vorliegen, gleichmässig behandelt werden. Entweder muss also, wo früher einmal der gleiche Laut bestand, auch auf den späteren Entwickelungsstufen immer der gleiche Laut bleiben, oder, wo eine Spaltung in verschiedene Laute eingetreten ist, da muss eine bestimmte Ursache und zwar eine Ursache rein lautlicher Natur wie Einwirkung umgebender Laute, Akzent, Silbenstellung u. dgl. anzugeben sein, warum in dem einen Falle dieser, in dem andern jener Laut entstanden ist."

approximate translation (please excuse that it's somewhat awkward translated :innocent: ):


"If we hence talk about a consistent effect of the sound laws, so can this only mean that in the sound changes within the same dialect all single cases, in which the same sound conditions exist, have to be treated equally. Hence, either has to, where earlier the same sound existed, also stay the same sound in later stages of development, or, when a split into different sounds occurs, there a certain cause (and a cause of purely phonetic nature, such as the exposure of surrounding sounds, accent, hyphenation and similar) must be specified why in place of it a different sound was developed."

So, this essentially means that Koch is apparently operating at a pre-1880 stage of linguistics. To give some examples, first Tartessian Teeaiona equals a reconstructed Celtic name *Deiwonā but later Teasiioonii corresponds to Tascouanos. Well, which one is it? Initial T = D or Initial T = T? What about the vowels? Does #Ce (initial Consonant + the vowel e) = #Ce or does #Ce = #Ca?

Likewise, Tartessian leoine corresponds to a reconstructed Celtic name *Līwonāi. Then, all of a sudden, meleśae corresponds to Gaulish Meliđđus. Well, which is it? #Ce = #Cī or does #Ce = #Ce? What about #Ci = #Cī? Sure, why not? Tartessian -ris = Celtic -rīχs but then on the same page Tartessian -riś suddenly equals the same thing. Well, which is it? They're written with different characters, presumably they represent different sounds. Does Tartessian s or ś correspond to Celtic s, or does it perhaps correspond to đđ as in Meliđđus?

Later, Tartessian niiraboo is equivalent to Welsh ner, so I guess we can add #Cii = #Ce to the confusion. There is absolutely no effort made to address these correspondences systematically and explain how the differences are conditioned. He just takes a bunch of Tartessian words of unknown meaning, compares them to vaguely similar words cherry-picked from a dozen different Celtic languages spanning thousands of years (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Old Irish, Welsh, etc.), and hopes nobody will notice. The only guiding principle seems to be superficial similarities.

I hope that clarifies it. :satisfied:

Cambrius (The Red)
02-08-10, 15:10
Well then, let me elaborate. The fact that I'm no linguist doesn't diminish the authority of my arguments as long as they are valid (I consulted a linguist, remember?). However, I admit that I genuinely need to further elaborate things, and I need to provide you with some background here. The hypothesis of the Neogrammarians states that sound changes are regular, systemic, and purely phonetically conditioned (there are correlaries to address the effects of things like analogy). Already in 1880, the Neogrammarian linguist Hermann Paul stated on the issue:



approximate translation (please excuse that it's somewhat awkward translated :innocent: ):



So, this essentially means that Koch is apparently operating at a pre-1880 stage of linguistics. To give some examples, first Tartessian Teeaiona equals a reconstructed Celtic name *Deiwonā but later Teasiioonii corresponds to Tascouanos. Well, which one is it? Initial T = D or Initial T = T? What about the vowels? Does #Ce (initial Consonant + the vowel e) = #Ce or does #Ce = #Ca?

Likewise, Tartessian leoine corresponds to a reconstructed Celtic name *Līwonāi. Then, all of a sudden, meleśae corresponds to Gaulish Meliđđus. Well, which is it? #Ce = #Cī or does #Ce = #Ce? What about #Ci = #Cī? Sure, why not? Tartessian -ris = Celtic -rīχs but then on the same page Tartessian -riś suddenly equals the same thing. Well, which is it? They're written with different characters, presumably they represent different sounds. Does Tartessian s or ś correspond to Celtic s, or does it perhaps correspond to đđ as in Meliđđus?

Later, Tartessian niiraboo is equivalent to Welsh ner, so I guess we can add #Cii = #Ce to the confusion. There is absolutely no effort made to address these correspondences systematically and explain how the differences are conditioned. He just takes a bunch of Tartessian words of unknown meaning, compares them to vaguely similar words cherry-picked from a dozen different Celtic languages spanning thousands of years (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Old Irish, Welsh, etc.), and hopes nobody will notice. The only guiding principle seems to be superficial similarities.

I hope that clarifies it. :satisfied:

So, where are all the published or media communicated peer criticisms addressing these "deficiencies"? Can one not come up similar observations when comparing fully accepted Celtic languages such as Welsh, Celtiberian, Gaelic, etc.?

Taranis
02-08-10, 15:32
So, where are all the published or media communicated peer criticisms addressing these "deficiencies"?

Well, if I were to criticize an article the peer-reviewed way, I would publish my criticism in the same journal as the original article. Now, the Koch article was published in Acta Palaeohispanica issue #9, and the issue #10 hasn't been released yet. That may be it, but don't hold me to it.


Can one not come up similar observations when comparing fully accepted Celtic languages such as Welsh, Celtiberian, Gaelic, etc.?

What specifically?

Cambrius (The Red)
02-08-10, 15:57
Well, if I were to criticize an article the peer-reviewed way, I would publish my criticism in the same journal as the original article. Now, the Koch article was published in Acta Palaeohispanica issue #9, and the issue #10 hasn't been released yet. That may be it, but don't hold me to it.
What specifically?


You keep referring to Koch's 2009 paper, however, since then, "Tartessian" has been published and "Celtic from the West" is just weeks away from release (copies have been provided to a number of academic institutions already). We should focus and give greater weight to the most recent findings / constructs.

Taranis
02-08-10, 16:07
You keep referring to Koch's 2009 paper, however, since then, "Tartessian" has been published and "Celtic from the West" is just weeks away from release (copies have been provided to a number of academic institutions already). We should focus and give greater weight to the most recent findings / constructs.

Why? Frankly, these more recent findings do not diminish the validity of the criticism about Koch's hypothesis in any ways. Well, "Celtic from the West" hasn't been released yet, obviouly. :embarassed:

Cambrius (The Red)
02-08-10, 16:45
Why? Frankly, these more recent findings do not diminish the validity of the criticism about Koch's hypothesis in any ways. Well, "Celtic from the West" hasn't been released yet, obviouly. :embarassed:

Obviously "Celtic from the West" hasn't been released but a number of academics have already reviewed the work.

Let's not get cute... It's tacky, to say the least.

Taranis
02-08-10, 18:35
Obviously "Celtic from the West" hasn't been released but a number of academics have already reviewed the work.

Let's not get cute... It's tacky, to say the least.

Sorry, but the existence of very stylish emoticons is tempting.

But to answer your earlier question, with the assessment I decribed above, it's hard to see how anybody could come up with a different conclusion other than that Koch's work is intrinsically flawed.

Cambrius (The Red)
02-08-10, 19:13
Sorry, but the existence of very stylish emoticons is tempting.
But to answer your earlier question, with the assessment I decribed above, it's hard to see how anybody could come up with a different conclusion other than that Koch's work is intrinsically flawed.

Time will tell...

Taranis
02-08-10, 21:13
Time will tell...

Frankly, I wouldn't have too high hopes for "Celtic from the West". Koch worked together with Stephen Oppenheimer on that one, for instance, the same guy who wrote "Origins of the British".

Cambrius (The Red)
02-08-10, 22:13
Frankly, I wouldn't have too high hopes for "Celtic from the West". Koch worked together with Stephen Oppenheimer on that one, for instance, the same guy who wrote "Origins of the British".

There are 11 other contributors to the work, besides Koch and Oppenheimer. I fully expect the case for Tartessian as Celtic to continue strengthening as the University of Wales project moves forward. Not all of us here are cynical types...

Taranis
06-08-10, 21:59
There are 11 other contributors to the work, besides Koch and Oppenheimer. I fully expect the case for Tartessian as Celtic to continue strengthening as the University of Wales project moves forward. Not all of us here are cynical types...

Well, I just hope somebody in that group addresses the sound correspondence problem, because I see this as a severe problem. I have been thinking a bit further, by the way, one problem (which may be the cause of the difficulty of sound correspondence) may be that the Tartessian script cannot be read reliably yet.

There is also something else I am curious about: what do Koch et al. make out of the Urnfield culture, if they say that the Celtic languages have their origin in the Atlantic Bronze Age?

Also, I cannot help but notice a disturbing notion of 'nationalist historiography', especially with somebody like Stephen Oppenheimer. :disappointed:

rms2
08-08-10, 13:50
Well then, let me elaborate. The fact that I'm no linguist doesn't diminish the authority of my arguments as long as they are valid (I consulted a linguist, remember?). However, I admit that I genuinely need to further elaborate things, and I need to provide you with some background here. The hypothesis of the Neogrammarians states that sound changes are regular, systemic, and purely phonetically conditioned (there are correlaries to address the effects of things like analogy). Already in 1880, the Neogrammarian linguist Hermann Paul stated on the issue:



approximate translation (please excuse that it's somewhat awkward translated :innocent: ):



So, this essentially means that Koch is apparently operating at a pre-1880 stage of linguistics. To give some examples, first Tartessian Teeaiona equals a reconstructed Celtic name *Deiwonā but later Teasiioonii corresponds to Tascouanos. Well, which one is it? Initial T = D or Initial T = T? What about the vowels? Does #Ce (initial Consonant + the vowel e) = #Ce or does #Ce = #Ca?

Likewise, Tartessian leoine corresponds to a reconstructed Celtic name *Līwonāi. Then, all of a sudden, meleśae corresponds to Gaulish Meliđđus. Well, which is it? #Ce = #Cī or does #Ce = #Ce? What about #Ci = #Cī? Sure, why not? Tartessian -ris = Celtic -rīχs but then on the same page Tartessian -riś suddenly equals the same thing. Well, which is it? They're written with different characters, presumably they represent different sounds. Does Tartessian s or ś correspond to Celtic s, or does it perhaps correspond to đđ as in Meliđđus?

Later, Tartessian niiraboo is equivalent to Welsh ner, so I guess we can add #Cii = #Ce to the confusion. There is absolutely no effort made to address these correspondences systematically and explain how the differences are conditioned. He just takes a bunch of Tartessian words of unknown meaning, compares them to vaguely similar words cherry-picked from a dozen different Celtic languages spanning thousands of years (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Old Irish, Welsh, etc.), and hopes nobody will notice. The only guiding principle seems to be superficial similarities.

I hope that clarifies it. :satisfied:

I understand your argument, but I still think you are making criticisms you are not qualified to make. Or are you simply copying and pasting the arguments of your unnamed linguist friend?

In your first example there are differences that well could modify the initial consonant sound, and that is true in your other examples, as well.

I would prefer to hear what Koch has to say than to give your criticism much credit. My impression is that you don't want Koch to be right and that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Taranis
08-08-10, 14:19
I understand your argument, but I still think you are making criticisms you are not qualified to make. Or are you simply copying and pasting the arguments of your unnamed linguist friend?

In your first example there are differences that well could modify the initial consonant sound, and that is true in your other examples, as well.

Well, you are probably right that I by myself am not exactly qualified to make valid criticism, however this by no means diminishes the validity of my arguments, since the linguist that I consulted is more than qualified to criticize Koch. I didn't quite copy-paste it, however, I have discussed the paper intensely with him and he gave me clearance to use his arguments.
Also, if Koch had made any effort to identify the sound correspondences (and the environments in which they occur), as is the standard operation procedure in the field, then we wouldn't need to "wait and see" what he has to say, but he hasn't, which has been the problem all along.


I would prefer to hear what Koch has to say than to give your criticism much credit.

As I said, the person I consulted deserves the credit, and I stated that from the start, and he deserves credit for that criticism. Also, how about valid criticism from other linguists? I didn't make this up. I can offer you other examples. There is this interesting article (http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm) by Mark Rosenfelder. If you scroll towars near the bottom, there is a list of cognates of Quechua and Semitic, which is assembled in about the same way as Koch's list of Tartessian and Celtic.

You should also check out how in here (http://www.zompist.com/proto.html), he shows in a somewhat less statistically driven approach, a similarly impressive list of English and Chinese cognates. Who knew, English is a dialect of Chinese? :grin:


My impression is that you don't want Koch to be right and that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Frankly, I'm under the impression that exactly the same could be said about you, because it seems to me you want Koch to be right. For example, you continue to ignore the fact that Koch self-publishes his book. It's something that by itself wouldn't be all that much of a problem, but in context of all the other problems we have seen, it is one, and it's a pretty damning one.

Cambrius (The Red)
08-08-10, 20:36
I examined the Quechua and Semitic tables and found only a small handful of words than can be codified as homologous or similar. Koch and others have presented a wide range of fundamental structural equivalencies and matches between Tartessian and confirmed Celtic languages. Huge, huge difference.

Taranis
08-08-10, 22:00
I examined the Quechua and Semitic tables and found only a small handful of words than can be codified as homologous or similar. Koch and others have presented a wide range of fundamental structural equivalencies and matches between Tartessian and confirmed Celtic languages. Huge, huge difference.

Frankly, I don't think that the difference is all that huge. I wonder with how much of a "wide range of structural equivalencies and matches" Koch et al. can come up with without making any sound correspondences or explaining how the differences are conditioned. Also, Koch took, seemingly randomly, terms from like a dozen different Celtic languages (as well as for example Lusitanian, of which it is not even known if it was a Celtic language at all due to it's extremely small corpus) in order to make his comparison. And as I mentioned, it's highly suspicious that Koch departs from the SOP of linguistics in order to "prove" that Tartessian is a Celtic language. And cooperation with dubious folks such as Stephen Oppenheimer ("Origins of the British"). Does that make you not suspicious?

Also, well, this is something I would like to rather hear by Koch himself actually (though I would like to hear your opinion on it as well), is what he makes out of the Urnfield culture if the Atlantic Bronze Age is the origin of the Celtic languages?

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 04:27
Frankly, I don't think that the difference is all that huge. I wonder with how much of a "wide range of structural equivalencies and matches" Koch et al. can come up with without making any sound correspondences or explaining how the differences are conditioned. Also, Koch took, seemingly randomly, terms from like a dozen different Celtic languages (as well as for example Lusitanian, of which it is not even known if it was a Celtic language at all due to it's extremely small corpus) in order to make his comparison. And as I mentioned, it's highly suspicious that Koch departs from the SOP of linguistics in order to "prove" that Tartessian is a Celtic language. And cooperation with dubious folks such as Stephen Oppenheimer ("Origins of the British"). Does that make you not suspicious?
Also, well, this is something I would like to rather hear by Koch himself actually (though I would like to hear your opinion on it as well), is what he makes out of the Urnfield culture if the Atlantic Bronze Age is the origin of the Celtic languages?


The University of Wales project involves more than just Koch and Oppenheimer. What are you suggesting, that an academic conspiracy of sorts is taking place? Some form of philological and linguistic alchemy? Sophisticated fabrications engendered between agenda driven scientists to show the world that Celticity developed from the Atlantic Facade? Why don't you just write to Koch and voice your concerns, since you seem to be terribly skeptical about anything he says or writes as regards Tartessian being Celtic. Do you think that one of the world's most respected experts on Celtic languages would risk his reputation by practicing manipulative science?:rolleyes2:

LeBrok
09-08-10, 08:22
I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?

Taranis
09-08-10, 11:29
The University of Wales project involves more than just Koch and Oppenheimer. What are you suggesting, that an academic conspiracy of sorts is taking place?

Not at all. Universities provide homes to all kinds of ideas, that's what academic freedom is all about, anyways. The problem is that not all ideas are equal, or even right. There is quite a number of researchers involved in that project at the Universities of Wales, and there is no guarantee that all of them necessarily and automatically agree with Koch on the Tartessian language, which is what you seem to imply there.


Some form of philological and linguistic alchemy?

You know what? That is actually not a bad way to describe what's actually going on here. It has a methodology, to be sure, just like alchemy did, but it lacks the scientific method, which distinguishes alchemy from chemistry. Alchemists (just like Koch!) start out with premises that they wish to prove, and they then cherry-pick the data so it fits their premise.


Sophisticated fabrications engendered between agenda driven scientists to show the world that Celticity developed from the Atlantic Facade?

No, they are not sophisticated. They are quite similar actually to Mark Rosenfelder's fabrications, only that his were intentional larks.


Why don't you just write to Koch and voice your concerns, since you seem to be terribly skeptical about anything he says or writes as regards Tartessian being Celtic.

Frankly, you and rms2 have repeatedly challenged me there, called my authority (or by extension, my mentor's authority) on the subject into question (on multiple times, mind you), and I provided you with a plethora of response. Also, my mentor invested a fair amount of time in order to elaborate his point of view to me. The burden of proof is on you now, and perhaps you should contact him.


Do you think that one of the world's most respected experts on Celtic languages would risk his reputation by practicing manipulative science?:rolleyes2:

Actually, that happens all the time. Not too long ago, a number of linguists ganged up on George Mendenhall, who is one of the foremost experts on Semitic languages (Professor Emeritus at Michigan), who has been pushing some very dubious claims about Hebrew and Arabic that seem to be politically and not linguistically motivated.
Now, to call Koch "one of the world's most respected experts" is a bit of a stretch (he has only held that chair at the university of Wales for three years), but he is already risking his reputation by self-publishing his book on the subject. No legitimate linguist worth his salt would ever do such a thing.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 13:12
I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?

LeBrock:

Stop with the amateurish psychological crap already! Don't you have anything better to do than spew out childish provocations? Find yourself another past-time Freud II, as the one you are currently pursuing is quite pathetic.

The person who started this thread is NOT Iberian. The great majority of people who comprise the University of Wales research team are NOT Iberian. Most scientists supportive of the Koch-Cunliffe hypothesis are NOT Iberian.

This has to do ONLY with the truth. I'm just going by the facts presented so far and the indications are that Tartessian is a Celtic language. Nothing has been fully confirmed yet but the evidence is mounting.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 13:27
Not at all. Universities provide homes to all kinds of ideas, that's what academic freedom is all about, anyways. The problem is that not all ideas are equal, or even right. There is quite a number of researchers involved in that project at the Universities of Wales, and there is no guarantee that all of them necessarily and automatically agree with Koch on the Tartessian language, which is what you seem to imply there.



You know what? That is actually not a bad way to describe what's actually going on here. It has a methodology, to be sure, just like alchemy did, but it lacks the scientific method, which distinguishes alchemy from chemistry. Alchemists (just like Koch!) start out with premises that they wish to prove, and they then cherry-pick the data so it fits their premise.



No, they are not sophisticated. They are quite similar actually to Mark Rosenfelder's fabrications, only that his were intentional larks.



Frankly, you and rms2 have repeatedly challenged me there, called my authority (or by extension, my mentor's authority) on the subject into question (on multiple times, mind you), and I provided you with a plethora of response. Also, my mentor invested a fair amount of time in order to elaborate his point of view to me. The burden of proof is on you now, and perhaps you should contact him.



Actually, that happens all the time. Not too long ago, a number of linguists ganged up on George Mendenhall, who is one of the foremost experts on Semitic languages (Professor Emeritus at Michigan), who has been pushing some very dubious claims about Hebrew and Arabic that seem to be politically and not linguistically motivated.
Now, to call Koch "one of the world's most respected experts" is a bit of a stretch (he has only held that chair at the university of Wales for three years), but he is already risking his reputation by self-publishing his book on the subject. No legitimate linguist worth his salt would ever do such a thing.


Let the research process play out...

YOU are the one here who has major issues with Koch, therefore, logically YOU are the one who should be seeking clarifications directly from him and those researchers who support his hypothesis. Better yet, ask your professional linguist friend to contact Koch and report back...

Anyway, this discussion has become a rather boring tug-of-war.

Taranis
09-08-10, 13:31
LeBrock:
Stop with the amateurish psychological crap already! Don't you have anything better to do than spew out childish provocations? Find yourself another past-time Freud II, as the one you are currently pursuing is quite pathetic.
The person who started this thread is NOT Iberian. The great majority of the University of Wales research team is NOT Iberian. Most people supportive of the Koch-Cunliffe hypothesis are NOT Iberian.

LeBrok has a point though. However, I also have to agree with you that I disagree about the idea that the hypothesis is supposed to please Iberians, at least not outright. In my opinion (I should note that this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my mentor), it is however a hypothesis that pleases the British:
The idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Façade should be immensely popular in the British Isles (and to a lesser degree the Atlantic region as a whole), especially the genetics clientele who identify themselves as "Celtic" on the mere grounds of having Y-Haplogroup R1b. The "Celtic from the West" project also has an appeal to Celtic nationalism, so it would seem that public support is guaranted. And, with a self-published, quite possibly sensationalist book (bear in mind how Oppenheimer did exactly the same a few years back), you can potentially even make money out of the idea.
Another issue is, the mainstream hypothesis on the origins of the Celtic languages is immensely inconvinent to the British national psyche, as it implies that the Celts were actually invaders (originally from Central Europe, mind you) who conquered the Isles. "Origins of the British" is exactly along these lines of thought, only that Oppenheimer went even farther in it, as he claimed that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period.

Also, please listen to yourself there. You're the one who's apparently going emotional on the topic.


This has to do ONLY with the truth. I'm just going by the facts presented so far and the indications are that Tartessian is a Celtic language. Nothing has been fully confirmed yet, but the evidence is mounting.

Well, in my opinion the evidence is far from mounting, it's spurious at best, and I have presented plethora of evidence that exactly that is the case.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 13:36
LeBrok has a point though. However, I also have to agree with you that I disagree about the idea that the hypothesis is supposed to please Iberians, at least not outright. In my opinion (I should note that this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my mentor), it is however a hypothesis that pleases the British:
The idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Façade should be immensely popular in the British Isles (and to a lesser degree the Atlantic region as a whole), especially the genetics clientele who identify themselves as "Celtic" on the mere grounds of having Y-Haplogroup R1b. The "Celtic from the West" project also has an appeal to Celtic nationalism, so it would seem that public support is guaranted. And, with a self-published, quite possibly sensationalist book (bear in mind how Oppenheimer did exactly the same a few years back), you can potentially even make money out of the idea.
Another issue is, the mainstream hypothesis on the origins of the Celtic languages is immensely inconvinent to the British national psyche, as it implies that the Celts were actually invaders (originally from Central Europe, mind you) who conquered the Isles. "Origins of the British" is exactly along these lines of thought, only that Oppenheimer went even farther in it, as he claimed that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period.

Also, please listen to yourself there. You're the one who's apparently going emotional on the topic.


Well, in my opinion the evidence is far from mounting, it's spurious at best, and I have presented plethora of evidence that exactly that is the case.

Think whatever you like. The jury is still out...

Also, please, don't play amateur psychologist. I'm sure there other forums for that sort of thing...

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 15:10
Taranis:

I see you have added your "opinions" to the Wkipedia discussion on Tartessian. You said you do not have a linguistic background?

Criticize Koch as much as you want, it's your right. Just remember, the "Celtic from the West" research effort is far from complete. Come back to us in the next 2-3 years...

Wilhelm
09-08-10, 17:24
I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?
I don't know why are you angry to consider Iberia the Celtic origin. We have never said it is the ultimate truth, it is only a hypothesis. Why does it matter for us if the Celts originated in Iberia or central Europe it doesn't change about who we are. We are just having a discussion about it, that's what this forum is about isn't it ?

Taranis
09-08-10, 18:04
Taranis:

I see you have added your "opinions" to the Wkipedia discussion on Tartessian. You said you do not have a linguistic background?

Well, I was free to post this, and besides, it was only in the discussion section of the article. Also, everybody is free to validate the issue of sound correspondence for himself. The Tartessian paper is free for download for everybody, and the examples I gave are far from exhaustive, you could go on with about every word mentioned in the Koch paper.


Criticize Koch as much as you want, it's your right. Just remember, the "Celtic from the West" research effort is far from complete. Come back to us in the next 2-3 years...

Yes, sure, the research effort isn't complete, but you know what I said about sound correspondences. If Koch comes around in 2 or 3 years and proves that Tartessian is a Celtic language based on sound correspondence and explains how the differences are conditioned, hooray for it. However, I don't think that will happen...

LeBrok
09-08-10, 18:19
I don't know why are you angry to consider Iberia the Celtic origin. We have never said it is the ultimate truth, it is only a hypothesis. Why does it matter for us if the Celts originated in Iberia or central Europe it doesn't change about who we are. We are just having a discussion about it, that's what this forum is about isn't it ?

I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.

Wilhelm
09-08-10, 18:30
I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.
Well me too, personally I don't care. It doesn't change who we are. But we are having a discussion about it, please add something valuable or shut up.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 18:39
I only care about the truth. If the Celtic cradle is in Iberia, fine. If not, that's Ok as well.

This discussion is about the origins of Celticity, Tartessian as Celtic and L21 in Iberia. Let's stick to the subject matter and do not post irrelevant material or childish nonsense.

Taranis
09-08-10, 18:44
I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.

Well, as I stated in earlier posts, I have the opinion that putting the origin of the Celtic languages to the Atlantic Façade creates more problems than it solves:

- the fact that the Celtic languages could not suddenly pop up in Iberia out of the blue (unless you take the stelae hypothesis, which is, let's face it... far-fetched). In my opinion, the most plausible origin for the Celtic languages is (presumably R1b-bearing peoples) in the contact zone with the formerly Corded Ware area.
- relationship of the Celtic languages with other IE languages (in particularly Italic languages).
- If the Atlantic Bronze Age is associated with the Celtic languages, what does this make out of the Urnfield Culture?
- Also, if you disregard Tartessian as a potential Celtic language, Lepontic is the oldest attested Celtic language.

For the reasons above, I'm personally in favour of a Central European (ie, Alpine) origin for the Celtic languages. However, the Atlantic Façade hypothesis has a point in so far as that Hallstatt/La-Tene alone cannot explain the spread of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-10, 19:00
Well, as I stated in earlier posts, I have the opinion that putting the origin of the Celtic languages to the Atlantic Façade creates more problems than it solves:
- the fact that the Celtic languages could not suddenly pop up in Iberia out of the blue (unless you take the stelae hypothesis, which is, let's face it... far-fetched). In my opinion, the most plausible origin for the Celtic languages is (presumably R1b-bearing peoples) in the contact zone with the formerly Corded Ware area.
- relationship of the Celtic languages with other IE languages (in particularly Italic languages).
- If the Atlantic Bronze Age is associated with the Celtic languages, what does this make out of the Urnfield Culture?
- Also, if you disregard Tartessian as a potential Celtic language, Lepontic is the oldest attested Celtic language.
For the reasons above, I'm personally in favour of a Central European (ie, Alpine) origin for the Celtic languages. However, the Atlantic Façade hypothesis has a point in so far as that Hallstatt/La-Tene alone cannot explain the spread of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.

Some linguists do not consider Lepontic to be a Celtic language.

Taranis
09-08-10, 19:06
Some linguists do not consider Lepontic to be a Celtic language.

I know, and that is kind of inevitable given the small corpus of the language. But really, the case for Lepontic as a Celtic language is far better than the case for Tartessian. Also, nobody doubts that Lepontic is an Indo-European language, and one closely related with (Common) Celtic. Plus, well even Koch in his 2009 paper considers Lepontic to be a Celtic language, and compares some Tartessian words with Lepontic words.

By the way, do you really have nothing else to say about my arguments?

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 00:29
I know, and that is kind of inevitable given the small corpus of the language. But really, the case for Lepontic as a Celtic language is far better than the case for Tartessian. Also, nobody doubts that Lepontic is an Indo-European language, and one closely related with (Common) Celtic. Plus, well even Koch in his 2009 paper considers Lepontic to be a Celtic language, and compares some Tartessian words with Lepontic words.

By the way, do you really have nothing else to say about my arguments?

In time I will have more to say...

Taranis
10-08-10, 01:08
In time I will have more to say...

That is all? Well, frankly, I am underwhelmed...

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 02:17
That is all? Well, frankly, I am underwhelmed...


I am underwhelmed by many things as well...

Segia
10-08-10, 02:49
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 14:59
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.

Many scholars suggest that Celticity developed with Bell Beaker culture. Through carbon dating, the earliest confirmed Bell Beaker sites have been identified as existing in Southern Portugal (Algarve and S. Alentejo).

Taranis
10-08-10, 17:14
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that Celtic languages (specifically Gaulish and Lepontic) emerge out of the former Urnfield area.


Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Well, I see your point there. I have a problem however with the Celtic languages spreading from Iberia towards the east, because there is no such pattern visible.


Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

Well, I cannot rule out Tartessian is quite possibly an Indo-European language, but definitely not based on the Koch paper. First off, Koch has the ad hoc hypothesis that Tartessian is a Celtic language (he doesn't try to prove that it's Indo-Eurpean, but that it's outright Celtic), and I thoroughly mentioned the bewildering problems in his methodology in my previous posts.


With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.

Well, the idea that the Bell-Beaker culture spoke an Indo-European language (or rather, introduced the Indo-European languages in Western Europe) is a firm possibility, however bears a number of consequences which I will elaborate below:


Many scholars suggest that Celticity developed with Bell Beaker culture. Through carbon dating, the earliest confirmed Bell Beaker sites have been identified as existing in Southern Portugal (Algarve and S. Alentejo).

What do you exactly mean with "Celticity"? It is a quite nebulous term. If you mean self-identification as "Celts", that is a modern fabrication, anyways. I would are talking about the Celtic languages, I must say that I find it quite presumptuous to say that the Celtic languages started in Southern Portugal in 2900 BC. That's a bit like saying that the French or Spanish language started in Rome in the 8th century BC. In my opinion, given the vast scope of the Bell-Beaker culture it is far more plausible to assume that if the Bell-Beaker people already spoke an early Indo-European language, far more than just the Celtic languages alone are descended from their language. In my opinion, not only the Celtic languages (including "dubiously" Celtic languages such as Lusitanian and Lepontic), as well as the Italic languages, and a number of poorly attested languages such as Ligurian and Venetic. If you consider that Beaker influence extended all the way to Denmark, it's also conceivable that the Proto-Germanic language was influenced by a hypothetical Beaker language (which would explain some similarities of the Celtic and Germanic languages). Also, I must add though that the site in southern Portugal is not necessarily the oldest. The Beaker sites in southern France and northern Italy are almost exactly the same age.

Hmm... well and I have also considered the possibility that there never was one common "Proto-Celtic" language to begin with. At least, not exclusively Proto-Celtic.

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 18:09
I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that Celtic languages (specifically Gaulish and Lepontic) emerge out of the former Urnfield area.
Well, I see your point there. I have a problem however with the Celtic languages spreading from Iberia towards the east, because there is no such pattern visible.
Well, I cannot rule out Tartessian is quite possibly an Indo-European language, but definitely not based on the Koch paper. First off, Koch has the ad hoc hypothesis that Tartessian is a Celtic language (he doesn't try to prove that it's Indo-Eurpean, but that it's outright Celtic), and I thoroughly mentioned the bewildering problems in his methodology in my previous posts.
Well, the idea that the Bell-Beaker culture spoke an Indo-European language (or rather, introduced the Indo-European languages in Western Europe) is a firm possibility, however bears a number of consequences which I will elaborate below:
What do you exactly mean with "Celticity"? It is a quite nebulous term. If you mean self-identification as "Celts", that is a modern fabrication, anyways. I would are talking about the Celtic languages, I must say that I find it quite presumptuous to say that the Celtic languages started in Southern Portugal in 2900 BC. That's a bit like saying that the French or Spanish language started in Rome in the 8th century BC. In my opinion, given the vast scope of the Bell-Beaker culture it is far more plausible to assume that if the Bell-Beaker people already spoke an early Indo-European language, far more than just the Celtic languages alone are descended from their language. In my opinion, not only the Celtic languages (including "dubiously" Celtic languages such as Lusitanian and Lepontic), as well as the Italic languages, and a number of poorly attested languages such as Ligurian and Venetic. If you consider that Beaker influence extended all the way to Denmark, it's also conceivable that the Proto-Germanic language was influenced by a hypothetical Beaker language (which would explain some similarities of the Celtic and Germanic languages). Also, I must add though that the site in southern Portugal is not necessarily the oldest. The Beaker sites in southern France and northern Italy are almost exactly the same age.
Hmm... well and I have also considered the possibility that there never was one common "Proto-Celtic" language to begin with. At least, not exclusively Proto-Celtic.

I use the word "Celticity" to refer to the essentials of Celtic culture. Self-identification with ANY ethnicity usually entails a strong cultural affinity towards a specific / unique population group or sub-group. One normally identifies as "Celtic" if the ancestral lines are traceable to ancient Celtic lands with long enduring Celticity (essential Celtic cultural components). Examples would be certain regions in the Atlantic Facade, but would exclude quite a number of other areas that were, for a relatively short period, Celtic.

I didn't say that Celtic languages began in Portugal, but they may have. The jury is out (and could be for some time), as I have communicated previously. From everything I've read, the oldest Bell-Beaker finds have been attributed to Southern Portugal. If you wish to argue against that, be my guest. You may also want to go to the DNA-Forums site and look through the comments posted by some very well informed people on the subject. You will find such in the "Atlantic Celts Research" thread.

I realize that paradigm shifts are sometime excruciatingly difficult to accept, especially by those with a dubious academic or (sometimes) political ax to grind. The funny thing is that the truth usually wins out in the end.

Taranis
10-08-10, 18:31
I use the word "Celticity" to refer to the essentials of Celtic culture. Self-identification with ANY ethnicity usually entails a strong cultural affinity towards a specific / unique population group or sub-group. One normally identifies as "Celtic" if the ancestral lines are traceable to ancient Celtic lands with long enduring Celticity (essential Celtic cultural components). Examples would be certain regions in the Atlantic Facade, but would exclude quite a number of other areas that were, for a relatively short period, Celtic.

I didn't say that Celtic languages began in Portugal, but they may have. The jury is out (and could be for some time), as I have communicated previously. From everything I've read, the oldest Bell-Beaker finds have been attributed to Southern Portugal. If you wish to argue against that, be my guest. You may also want to go to the DNA-Forums site and look through the comments posted by some very well informed people on the subject. You will find such in the "Atlantic Celts Research" thread.

I must say that you are hunting a phantom then, because the "Celticity" you are mentioning is for greater part a fabrication of modern times, which has no useful place in the academic world, in my opinion.

It is also appears to me that you have no interest discussion the relationships of the Celtic languages, which is an important issue to consider if you want to talk about the possibility of Tartessian as a Celtic language.


I realize that paradigm shifts are sometime excruciatingly difficult to accept, especially by those with a dubious academic or (sometimes) political ax to grind. The funny thing is that the truth usually wins out in the end.

Well, the former could be said about Koch, the latter could be said about Oppenheimer. And they both have it coming.

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 19:35
Call it Celtic ethno-cultural identification (based on a combination of legitimate cultural, historical and geographic factors), if the term "Celticity" is uncomfortable for you.

So, are you continuing to suggest that Koch and Oppenheimer are academic alchemists? Come now...

Actually, even though there are some issues with Oppenheimer's work, recent sublclade research involving ancestry projects is revealing more and more genetic closeness throughout the Atlantic Facade - which he originally suggested - from central to northern Iberia and north to Scotland. The gentleman who began this thread actually may be able to provide you with some details as regards the latest test results.

I'll pick up the Tartessian debate again in good time. Sorry if I continue to underwhelm you... :rolleyes2:

Wilhelm
10-08-10, 19:50
I think the least we can do before denying the theory is to read the entire paper of Koch's work.

Taranis
10-08-10, 20:01
Call it Celtic ethno-cultural identification (based on a combination of legitimate cultural, historical and geographic factors) if the term "Celticity" is uncomfortable for you.

Still, the "Celts" you think about probably never existed in the shape you think they were. Consider that the word "Celt" is an exonym, derived from Greek "Keltoi". For the Romans "Keltoi" was interchangable with "Galli". The rest is a question of archaeology and linguistics. The ethno-cultural identification that you talk about, especially the self-identification amongst Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. is a fabrication of modern times.

In so far, it makes more sense asking for the origin of the Celtic languages than for the origin of "Celticity".


So, are you continuing to suggest that Koch and Oppenheimer are academic alchemists? Come now...

That assessment has not changed. And you have been unwilling to bring up counter-arguments.


Actually, even though there are some issues with Oppenheimer's work, recent sublclade research involving ancestry projects is revealing more and more genetic closeness throughout the Atlantic Facade - which he originally suggested - from central to northern Iberia and north to Scotland. The gentleman who began this thread actually may be able to provide you with some details as regards the latest test results.

Some issues? Hello? The guy basically said that the Indo-European languages began to split up in the Paleolithic, that the entire population of Western Europe is of "Basque" stock, and (which in my opinion is the best, and most loony part) that English was spoken in Britain before the arrival of the Romans, and then he claimed that the English language was probably closer to Norse than the West Germanic languages. At that point I began to wonder if he had ever even touched a history book or if he even dealt with linguistics? And that guy is working with Koch... good lord... :startled:


I'll pick up the Tartessian debate again in good time. Sorry if I continue to underwhelm you... :rolleyes2:

Well, you continue to basically ignore all my arguments and cherry-pick only what you want to hear. In a way, you are not unlike Koch.

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 21:35
Still, the "Celts" you think about probably never existed in the shape you think they were. Consider that the word "Celt" is an exonym, derived from Greek "Keltoi". For the Romans "Keltoi" was interchangable with "Galli". The rest is a question of archaeology and linguistics. The ethno-cultural identification that you talk about, especially the self-identification amongst Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. is a fabrication of modern times.

In so far, it makes more sense asking for the origin of the Celtic languages than for the origin of "Celticity".



That assessment has not changed. And you have been unwilling to bring up counter-arguments.



Some issues? Hello? The guy basically said that the Indo-European languages began to split up in the Paleolithic, that the entire population of Western Europe is of "Basque" stock, and (which in my opinion is the best, and most loony part) that English was spoken in Britain before the arrival of the Romans, and then he claimed that the English language was probably closer to Norse than the West Germanic languages. At that point I began to wonder if he had ever even touched a history book or if he even dealt with linguistics? And that guy is working with Koch... good lord... :startled:



Well, you continue to basically ignore all my arguments and cherry-pick only what you want to hear. In a way, you are not unlike Koch.

Man, you really love to concentrate on the negatives.

GASP, I"m "not unlike Koch"!... :innocent:

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 21:38
I think the least we can do before denying the theory is to read the entire paper of Koch's work.

Especially the latest book edited by Koch and Cunliffe: Celtic from the West.

Taranis
10-08-10, 21:49
Especially the latest book edited by Koch and Cunliffe: Celtic from the West.

You actually kind of make me curious about that book. Not that I have high expectations...

Cambrius (The Red)
10-08-10, 23:57
You actually kind of make me curious about that book. Not that I have high expectations...


Ah, but I have some significant expectations concerning the entire Celtic from the West effort. There is plenty more to come.

Taranis
11-08-10, 00:09
Ah, but I have some significant expectations concerning the entire Celtic from the West effort. There is plenty more to come.

Yeah, I understand that. You have one fixed view on the whole issue, which you are not going to change, anyways. I only hope that other people are more open to valid criticism than you are. I'm actually waiting now for a paper to be released which is going to tear apart Koch's 2009 paper for it's sloppy methodology (especially lack of sound correspondences)... (*hint* *hint*)

LeBrok
11-08-10, 03:26
Good job Taranis, you single-handedly shut up the Iberian ministry of propaganda, lol. Their obvious agenda is gashing from every post, but they often end them with statement: "All we care is the truth".
Because it's so obvious for all, even them, and they spend all day long posting here, all year round, and probably on ever site touching Iberian or "Celticity" issues, I always picture them sitting inside a historic building of Ministry of Propaganda typing hard to make their living, lol. Actually it's the same building that hosted the office of Spanish Inquisition some time ago, after all, all they wanted was the Truth too.
I feel sorry for them now, because after this whooping they might get fired. And you know how hard is for a job in their corner of the world.

PS. I'm afraid they don't have other option now, but to send for the Lynx.

Cambrius (The Red)
11-08-10, 04:11
Good job Taranis, you single-handedly shut up the Iberian ministry of propaganda, lol. Their obvious agenda is gashing from every post, but they often end them with statement: "All we care is the truth".
Because it's so obvious for all, even them, and they spend all day long posting here, all year round, and probably on ever site touching Iberian or "Celticity" issues, I always picture them sitting inside a historic building of Ministry of Propaganda typing hard to make their living, lol. Actually it's the same building that hosted the office of Spanish Inquisition some time ago, after all, all they wanted was the Truth too.
I feel sorry for them now, because after this whooping they might get fired. And you know how hard is for a job in their corner of the world.
PS. I'm afraid they don't have other option now, but to send for the Lynx.

Who asked you for you two cents? You don't have to feel sorry for any of us, child. And, no one has shut anyone up, OK. As I have said repeatedly, the jury is still out and much more research needs to be done. Also, Tartessian being or not being a Celtic language does not change who Iberians are.

All you ever contribute here is pure codswallop. You are out of your league and out of order. Get a life and grow the h**l up! One really has to wonder if you are not suffering from some serious mental disorder.

Cambrius (The Red)
11-08-10, 04:19
Yeah, I understand that. You have one fixed view on the whole issue, which you are not going to change, anyways. I only hope that other people are more open to valid criticism than you are. I'm actually waiting now for a paper to be released which is going to tear apart Koch's 2009 paper for it's sloppy methodology (especially lack of sound correspondences)... (*hint* *hint*)

I hardly have a fixed view. However, I find there are many gaps in the notion that Celtic culture / languages originated ONLY in Central Europe.

LeBrok
11-08-10, 05:46
Who asked you for you two cents? You don't have to feel sorry for any of us, child. And, no one has shut anyone up, OK. As I have said repeatedly, the jury is still out and much more research needs to be done. Also, Tartessian being or not being a Celtic language does not change who Iberians are.

All you ever contribute here is pure codswallop. You are out of your league and out of order. Get a life and grow the h**l up! One really has to wonder if you are not suffering from some serious mental disorder.

I've never heard foul language like this from you Cambria! Lynx got fired? He was the one calling people names, sort of from good cop bad cop routine, you had going here. Did Ministry axe him? Man, your were the good cop, are you trying to confuse me?
Am I the one to get a life, or a mental case? Dude, it was 4 am in Portugal when you wrote your message! Your first message was at 3pm, was this after work or ...breakfast?
Just put me on ignore list before getting a heart attack at 4 am dude, at 4 am!

Cambrius (The Red)
11-08-10, 13:51
I've never heard foul language like this from you Cambria! Lynx got fired? He was the one calling people names, sort of from good cop bad cop routine, you had going here. Did Ministry axe him? Man, your were the good cop, are you trying to confuse me?
Am I the one to get a life, or a mental case? Dude, it was 4 am in Portugal when you wrote your message! Your first message was at 3pm, was this after work or ...breakfast?
Just put me on ignore list before getting a heart attack at 4 am dude, at 4 am!

What foul language? Don't like hearing the TRUTH about yourself?

I'm in Cambridge MA until the fall, for your information. Last I checked MA is five hours behind Portugal. You assume much too much. But, then again, you always do. Get yourself some help.

Wilhelm
11-08-10, 20:53
Good job Taranis, you single-handedly shut up the Iberian ministry of propaganda, lol. Their obvious agenda is gashing from every post, but they often end them with statement: "All we care is the truth".
Because it's so obvious for all, even them, and they spend all day long posting here, all year round, and probably on ever site touching Iberian or "Celticity" issues, I always picture them sitting inside a historic building of Ministry of Propaganda typing hard to make their living, lol. Actually it's the same building that hosted the office of Spanish Inquisition some time ago, after all, all they wanted was the Truth too.
I feel sorry for them now, because after this whooping they might get fired. And you know how hard is for a job in their corner of the world.

PS. I'm afraid they don't have other option now, but to send for the Lynx.
hmmm..Calm down please, actually I believe in the Central European theory for the Celtic origin. Don't worry, don't overreact like that. But we were discussing about the Kochs's theory which is only a hypothesis. Again, stick to the subject please. If there is something about spaniards that bugs you we can discuss it in another thread. Thanks

rms2
15-08-10, 00:55
Well, I started this thread, which is really intended to be about L21 on the Iberian Peninsula. I'm not sure what I believe about Celtic origins, but what I think Koch's work does is show that Celtic was in Iberia very early indeed and was therefore not derived from either Hallstatt or La Tene. Celtic could have still come from Central Europe to Iberia by way of France, but it came earlier than some think.

Personally, I think the earliest Celtic speakers may have been the Beaker Folk, and the current thinking is that they originated in Iberia. However, the thinking on the origin of the Beaker Folk shifts every decade or so, it seems, so Iberia may not be the last word on that subject.

So, can we move on from second-hand amateur linguistics back to the actual topic of this thread?

I hope so. Personally, I find Koch's work and reputation pretty compelling, but let's get back to the topic.

rms2
15-08-10, 00:59
I'm not sure how well I have kept up with updating this thread, but, anyway, a day or so ago yet another Spaniard got an L21+ result: Mariño.

He can't get his paper trail out of Colombia, but he is a 33/37 haplotype neighbor to an L21+ Portuguese Madeiran, Dos Reis.

Cambrius (The Red)
15-08-10, 01:17
Well, I started this thread, which is really intended to be about L21 on the Iberian Peninsula. I'm not sure what I believe about Celtic origins, but what I think Koch's work does is show that Celtic was in Iberia very early indeed and was therefore not derived from either Hallstatt or La Tene. Celtic could have still come from Central Europe to Iberia by way of France, but it came earlier than some think.

Personally, I think the earliest Celtic speakers may have been the Beaker Folk, and the current thinking is that they originated in Iberia. However, the thinking on the origin of the Beaker Folk shifts every decade or so, it seems, so Iberia may not be the last word on that subject.

So, can we move on from second-hand amateur linguistics back to the actual topic of this thread?

I hope so. Personally, I find Koch's work and reputation pretty compelling, but let's get back to the topic.

Good post... Back to topic.

Taranis
15-08-10, 01:29
Well, I started this thread, which is really intended to be about L21 on the Iberian Peninsula. I'm not sure what I believe about Celtic origins, but what I think Koch's work does is show that Celtic was in Iberia very early indeed and was therefore not derived from either Hallstatt or La Tene. Celtic could have still come from Central Europe to Iberia by way of France, but it came earlier than some think.

Personally, I think the earliest Celtic speakers may have been the Beaker Folk, and the current thinking is that they originated in Iberia. However, the thinking on the origin of the Beaker Folk shifts every decade or so, it seems, so Iberia may not be the last word on that subject.

So, can we move on from second-hand amateur linguistics back to the actual topic of this thread?

I hope so. Personally, I find Koch's work and reputation pretty compelling, but let's get back to the topic.

No offense, but my mentor is not an amateur linguist, and that his criticism regarding the Koch paper stands valid, no matter what. I agree though that this went a bit heavily offtopic, and that it's currently impossible to reach consensus here, for now. I will take the liberty of posting links to future papers criticizing Koch's, however.

rms2
15-08-10, 20:49
No offense, but my mentor is not an amateur linguist, and that his criticism regarding the Koch paper stands valid, no matter what. I agree though that this went a bit heavily offtopic, and that it's currently impossible to reach consensus here, for now. I will take the liberty of posting links to future papers criticizing Koch's, however.

Well, we don't know who your "mentor" is, but we do know who Koch is. I wouldn't say his criticism of Koch is "valid, no matter what". I think there are some holes in it, but, like you, I'm not really qualified to evaluate the arguments of your friend (if he is not an amateur) or Koch.

So, please don't take this thread off topic to post such anonymous, second-hand stuff anymore.

Save us the links, too, please. Start a new thread for that, if you feel you must.

Regardless of your friend's criticism, it's pretty apparent Tartessian was an early Celtic language.

Cambrius (The Red)
15-08-10, 22:39
I'm quite interested to read the papers in "Celtic from the West", due out by the end of the month. It is not only that Tartessian appears to be Celtic, there is also a significant corpus of archaeological and genetic evidence in need of serious consideration.

Taranis
17-08-10, 01:04
Well, we don't know who your "mentor" is, but we do know who Koch is. I wouldn't say his criticism of Koch is "valid, no matter what". I think there are some holes in it, but, like you, I'm not really qualified to evaluate the arguments of your friend (if he is not an amateur) or Koch.

So, please don't take this thread off topic to post such anonymous, second-hand stuff anymore.

Save us the links, too, please. Start a new thread for that, if you feel you must.

There is no reason to be rude. But, I shall take your request to my heart, and I shall post future news on the issue in a different thread in the linguistics section, and leave this thread hence forth for genetics-only issues regarding R1b-L21, ok? Happy now? :satisfied:


Regardless of your friend's criticism, it's pretty apparent Tartessian was an early Celtic language.

Frankly, trust me on this one, if you see further future evidence, it will no longer be so "pretty apparent" anymore. But, more of this at a different time in a different thread.

Cambrius (The Red)
17-08-10, 04:15
There is no reason to be rude. But, I shall take your request to my heart, and I shall post future news on the issue in a different thread in the linguistics section, and leave this thread hence forth for genetics-only issues regarding R1b-L21, ok? Happy now? :satisfied:



Frankly, trust me on this one, if you see further future evidence, it will no longer be so "pretty apparent" anymore. But, more of this at a different time in a different thread.

Obviously, much more research has to be completed on Tartessian. However, even with the present gaps in the analytical process, enough evidence has been presented suggesting that Tartessian is perhaps the earliest Celtic language. One just needs to wait and see what proofs are produced in the coming years.

Now, back to topic...

rms2
24-08-10, 20:47
A few days ago another Portuguese, Ventura, got his L21+ result. He hasn't told me yet where exactly in Portugal his y-dna ancestor came from.

^ lynx ^
04-09-10, 01:44
Good job Taranis, you single-handedly shut up the Iberian ministry of propaganda, lol. Their obvious agenda is gashing from every post, but they often end them with statement: "All we care is the truth".
Because it's so obvious for all, even them, and they spend all day long posting here, all year round, and probably on ever site touching Iberian or "Celticity" issues, I always picture them sitting inside a historic building of Ministry of Propaganda typing hard to make their living, lol. Actually it's the same building that hosted the office of Spanish Inquisition some time ago, after all, all they wanted was the Truth too.
I feel sorry for them now, because after this whooping they might get fired. And you know how hard is for a job in their corner of the world.

PS. I'm afraid they don't have other option now, but to send for the Lynx.


I've never heard foul language like this from you Cambria! Lynx got fired? He was the one calling people names, sort of from good cop bad cop routine, you had going here. Did Ministry axe him? Man, your were the good cop, are you trying to confuse me?
Am I the one to get a life, or a mental case? Dude, it was 4 am in Portugal when you wrote your message! Your first message was at 3pm, was this after work or ...breakfast?
Just put me on ignore list before getting a heart attack at 4 am dude, at 4 am!


Wow, you're surely a douchebag.

I've been on vacation but it's not your business anyways.

Why are you so obsessed with me again?? I've returned from my vacations and i find the forum full of garbage about me posted by you.

Darling what's your problem?? Do you have any mental illness???

I haven't said a single word in this thread until you came here and wrote my nick (twice), btw. And this is not the first time that it happens. I don't understand why you had to bring me into this discussion. What's wrong with you??

PS: Your obsession towards everything related with Spain showed in this forum is suspiciously remembering me to those of the resentful third-worlders from Latin America. And we know how used are in that corner of the world to migrate to Northern America and to hide their true identity in Internet.

Greetings.

Wilhelm
05-09-10, 01:14
Good job Taranis, you single-handedly shut up the Iberian ministry of propaganda, lol. Their obvious agenda is gashing from every post, but they often end them with statement: "All we care is the truth".
Because it's so obvious for all, even them, and they spend all day long posting here, all year round, and probably on ever site touching Iberian or "Celticity" issues, I always picture them sitting inside a historic building of Ministry of Propaganda typing hard to make their living, lol. Actually it's the same building that hosted the office of Spanish Inquisition some time ago, after all, all they wanted was the Truth too.
I feel sorry for them now, because after this whooping they might get fired. And you know how hard is for a job in their corner of the world.

PS. I'm afraid they don't have other option now, but to send for the Lynx.
Stop with your racism against spaniards, if you can't accept the Celtic roots of Iberia that's your own problem seek for professional help

Taranis
15-09-10, 16:19
Stop with your racism against spaniards, if you can't accept the Celtic roots of Iberia that's your own problem seek for professional help

Frankly, the problem isn't with the Celtic roots of modern Iberians, it's with the Iberian roots of the Celts... :good_job:

Wilhelm
14-03-12, 18:05
R-L21 reaches 20% in parts of northern Spain, as seen in the recent study of Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091.abstract), you have here the regions pertaining to Spain, and the percentage of R-L21 :

Southwestern Gipuzkoa, n = 13/57 = 22.81%
Roncal Valley, Navarra: n = 11/53 = 20.8 %
Alaba, n = 11/51 = 21.57%
Guipuzkoa, n = 9/47 = 19.15%
Central/Western Navarra, n = 9/60 = 15.0%
Bizkaia, Basque Country, n = 7/57 = 12.28%
La Rioja, n = 6/54 = 11.11 %
Western Bizkaia , n = 3/19 = 10.53%
Northwestern Navarra, n = 5/51 = 9.80%
Northern Aragón : n = 1/27 = 3.7%

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NxERymyEwD8/T1-EomYMZ_I/AAAAAAAAEmI/FpQMcnmLs0Y/s1600/yhaplogroup_basque.jpg

Total : n = 75/476 = 15.76%

Taranis
14-03-12, 18:14
R-L21 reaches 20% in parts of northern Spain, as seen in the recent study of Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091.abstract), which focuses on Basques and surrounding regions, you have here the regions pertaining to Spain :

Southwestern Gipuzkoa, n = 13/57 = 22.81%
Roncal Valley, Navarra: n = 11/53 = 20.8 %
Alaba, n = 11/51 = 21.57%
Guipuzkoa, n = 9/47 = 19.15%
Central/Western Navarra, n = 9/60 = 15.0%
Bizkaia, Basque Country, n = 7/57 = 12.28%
La Rioja, n = 6/54 = 11.11 %
Western Bizkaia , n = 3/19 = 10.53%Northwestern Navarra, n = 5/51 = 9.80%
Northern Aragón : n = 1/27 = 3.7%


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NxERymyEwD8/T1-EomYMZ_I/AAAAAAAAEmI/FpQMcnmLs0Y/s1600/yhaplogroup_basque.jpg

This is truly a great find, Wilhelm, but I'd be somewhat cautious with the representativity in terms of percentages. If you take a look at the individual sample sizes per specific region, some are as low as 18, which is not exactly representative. On the flip side, those with the greater sample size (50-60) show the same general trend everywhere (ie, 15-20%), so I suggest that this data is more representative (at least in most regions) than the sample size initially suggests.

Knovas
14-03-12, 18:19
Dienekes' blogged about this too, but not focussing in R-L21: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/pre-roman-genetic-structure-has.html

Dubhthach
17-03-12, 12:22
it will be interesting to see what "sub-clades" of L21 show up in Spain. I know for example that Z253 was found in two Latin American samples from 1000genome project (1 from Colombia, other Mexican-American). Given that Z253 has been found over a very widespread (it's above L226, "Irish Type IV" carry it etc) with results from from Ireland, Britain and France.

The original finding of it in the 1k samples led to people thinking it might have been a specific Iberian L21 "clade", of course when it was found to be upstream of L226 (Irish Type III) this blew that out of the water.