PDA

View Full Version : Could R1b have moved from the Black Sea to Portugal to found the Beaker Culture ?



Maciamo
08-12-11, 14:34
Here is more oil on the fiery question of the relation between R1b and Bell-Beaker folks.

While looking at the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies#Posited_origins) about Tarim mummies, I stumbled on this sentence quoted from Mallory & Mair (2000), p. 236 :

"Because craniometry can produce results which make no sense at all (e.g. the close relationship between Neolithic populations in Ukraine and Portugal) and therefore lack any historical meaning, any putative genetic relationship must be consistent with geographical plausibility and have the support of other evidence."

At first sight it is true that such craniometric results don't make any sense... until you realise that R1b originated in southern Ukraine during the late Neolithic to early Bronze age, and that the oldest Bronze age culture in Western Europe is found in Portugal (2600 BCE, and possibly as early as 2900 BCE). Add to that that the Bell-Beaker Culture seems to have spread from Portugal to all Western Europe where R1b is now found in high frequencies, and that the oldest subclades of R1b-S116 are also apparently confined to Western Iberia. There has also been heated discussions on the forum about the possibility of Tartessian language (from Southwest Iberia) being a precursor of Celtic languages.

I have never been an advocate of the theory of the South-western Iberian expansion of R1b to Western Europe, simply because I do not see how R1b would have gotten there in the first place from the Pontic Steppes or the Balkans without passing first by Central Europe and France.

But what if R1b people did move to Southwest Iberia first, be it by crossing all Europe without stopping until they reached that corner of the Atlantic coast, or else by boat from the Black Sea ?

Three years ago, I envisaged the possibility of a major Indo-European invasion from the Maykop Culture in the North Caucasus. These would have been seafaring people, colonising all the shores of the Black Sea at first, founding Troy (the Trojans were Indo-European, speaking Luwian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language), a language related to Hittite, or the early Anatolian branch). Troy itself was founded around 3000 BCE, just before the Corded Ware and Bell-Beaker cultures started. Troy was a maritime and mercantile power, trading mostly around the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea, but possibly all over the Mediterranean too. What if the Trojans founded a colony in Portugal or Southwest Andalusia, and that the new culture started expanding from there ? This would explain the sudden flourishing of maritime trade all over the Atlantic coast, and how a bronze age culture could have originated at all at the opposite end of Europe from where the Bronze Age started. It would also explain the similarities in R1b subclades (L21, M167) between Iberia, Atlantic France, Britain and Ireland.

Naturally, this doesn't prevent another continental migration of R1b-L11 to have taken place from the Balkans to Central Europe (Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tène group), which would have brought R1b-S28 (U152). Yet another migration, perhaps straight from the steppes, would have brought R1b-S21 (U106) to North Germany and Scandinavia.

By 1300 BCE Central and Western Europe was divided between two major cultures: the Atlantic Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Bronze_Age) and the Urnfield Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture).

razyn
08-12-11, 16:40
Here is more oil on the fiery question of the relation between R1b and Bell-Beaker folks.
But what if R1b people did move to Southwest Iberia first, be it by crossing all Europe without stopping until they reached that corner of the Atlantic coast, or else by boat from the Black Sea ?

It was for discussions such as this that I started the Z196 thread a few months ago. This is the part of R1b that appears to have gotten to Iberia earlier, and proliferated there more successfully, than its better documented brother clades U152 and L21, or its cousin U106.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26828-Z196-needs-to-be-in-the-literature-alongside-its-brother-clades-U152-and-L21

There is some discussion, on that and another thread (about Basques), of a possibility that the route from Anatolia might have been waterborne, but not via the Mediterranean. I don't have a strong opinion about that, but note that it has been discussed, and would differ from the Trojan hypothesis. Both of these theories differ from recent suggestions by Anatole Klyosov of a North African coastal route for R1b's rapid westward move to Iberia.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26727-Lack-of-G2a-in-Basque&p=379604&viewfull=1#post379604

spongetaro
08-12-11, 17:51
I read somewhere on DNA forum that anormal frequencies of R1b L11 have been found in southern Portugal. That could be the source of all S116 in western Europe

Taranis
08-12-11, 18:07
First off, theoretically it's possible to consider different scenarios here, namely:

- regardless of genetics, the question wether Beaker-Bell was Indo-European or not.

- regardless of linguistics, the question wether Beaker-Bell was predominantly R1b or not.

In my opinion, regardless of the question wether the Beaker-Bell people were carriers of R1b or not, as I have said before, a strong case can be made that they were not Indo-European, and that is the presence of seemingly native terms for metals and metal-working in Basque, which in my opinion requires a "native" western European metal-working culture, and the only viable candidate for the is Beaker-Bell. My question is: is it conceivable that the Beaker-Bell folks in western Portugal were inded R1b, but not Indo-European?

spongetaro
08-12-11, 18:23
My question is: is it conceivable that the Beaker-Bell folks in western Portugal were inded R1b, but not Indo-European?

I don't know what to think.
I believe that R1b L11 came from the Black sea region to South Western Europe for Tin and grew faster than the local population of western Europe hence the present day dominance of R1b in Europe. But either Those R1b L11 spoke some sorts of Para-proto-Tocharian-Anatolian language or a non IE language such as Etruscan or Kartvelian.

Asturrulumbo
08-12-11, 18:32
Maciamo, you mention that "the oldest Bronze age culture in Western Europe is found in Portugal (2600 BCE, and possibly as early as 2900 BCE)"... Don't you mean Copper Age? The Bronze Age only started in Iberia at around the beginning of the 2nd millenium BC as far as I know.

sparkey
08-12-11, 18:49
I'd like to see this theory more explicitly in terms of subclades. If I'm understanding Maciamo right, it looks like:

R1b-ht35/R1b L11- L51+: Pre-Beaker in the context of Europe
R1b-P312* (some of it): Beaker Culture, straight across Europe to Iberia... R1b-L21 and R1b-Z196 develop out of this
R1b-U152: Developed independently in Eastern Europe and expanded out of Central Europe later
R1b-U106 (and L238?): Developed independently from L11* and expanded out of Northern & Central Europe later

Did I get that right? If so, I have a few questions:

Where did the ancient Eastern European P312 go? Offhand, I don't know of any evidence of ancient P312 in Eastern Europe (same with R1b-U106... and the R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 modals are very close, so we expect them to have arisen in about the same area).

Are we too quick to discount R1b L11- L51+ (membership in Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Turkey... generally Eastern European and some Near Eastern) as evidence of a East-West cline of R1b, with L11 arising as part of it in Europe? At which point, Central Europe (probably post-Beaker) makes more sense to me as a launching point for R1b-L11+ in Europe.

Why would the R1b-L21 pick up and spread IE if R1b-Z196 didn't, and both represent the Beaker R1b's?

Are the centers of diversity of R1b-L21 and R1b-Z196 actually in Iberia? (I have no clue, honestly).

Maciamo
08-12-11, 19:00
In my opinion, regardless of the question wether the Beaker-Bell people were carriers of R1b or not, as I have said before, a strong case can be made that they were not Indo-European, and that is the presence of seemingly native terms for metals and metal-working in Basque, which in my opinion requires a "native" western European metal-working culture, and the only viable candidate for the is Beaker-Bell. My question is: is it conceivable that the Beaker-Bell folks in western Portugal were inded R1b, but not Indo-European?

Why would you think that the Basque are representative of the Bell-Beaker people ? There is no reason to think that the inhabitants of the Bell-Beaker culture were genetically homogeneous all over Western Europe. That surely wasn't the case. They were essentially descended of Mesolithic and Neolithic Europeans. R1b might have made its first appearance in Western Europe during that time, but I surely don't expect that they would have become the dominant lineage before many centuries or millennia.

Maciamo
08-12-11, 19:02
Maciamo, you mention that "the oldest Bronze age culture in Western Europe is found in Portugal (2600 BCE, and possibly as early as 2900 BCE)"... Don't you mean Copper Age? The Bronze Age only started in Iberia at around the beginning of the 2nd millenium BC as far as I know.

Sorry, you are right. The Bell Beaker phenomenon started at the time when bronze technology entered Western Europe for the first time (in Central Europe) and the first bell beakers were found in Portugal, but the Bell Beaker culture was originally Chalcolithic. I think that is enough to kill the Trojan hypothesis then.

Taranis
08-12-11, 19:12
Why would you think that the Basque are representative of the Bell-Beaker people ? There is no reason to think that the inhabitants of the Bell-Beaker culture were genetically homogeneous all over Western Europe. That surely wasn't the case. They were essentially descended of Mesolithic and Neolithic Europeans. R1b might have made its first appearance in Western Europe during that time, but I surely don't expect that they would have become the dominant lineage before many centuries or millennia.

Well, there's the question, we do not really know this about Basque. What we do know is this:

- The Basques today are ~80% R1b.
- Basque is today an isolate language, and no generally accepted link has been established between Basque and any living language, meaning it's relatives must be all extinct.
- Amongst extinct languages, the only proven link is with Aquitanian, which probably was more or less the same as what has been reconstructed as Proto-Basque. The link with Iberian is less clear, and the discussion ranges between the idea that they were part of the same language family, and the idea that they were unrelated but part of a common sprachbund.
- If we substract Indo-European loanwords, we have seemingly 'native' terms in Basque for agriculture, domesticated animals (cattle, etc.), horse and metal-working. We basically get sort of a "mirror setup" to the inventory of PIE. These words must come from somewhere.

Please note that I do not necessarily believe that Basque (or Proto-Basque) was the language of Beaker-Bell (in fact that is rather unlikely), but my opinion is that at least certain Basque words (read: those for metal-working) may be of Beaker-Bell origin, because otherwise one has great difficulties explaining where and how the Basques acquired these terms.

razyn
08-12-11, 21:54
The following thread would be pertinent, in many of its details and posts, to the discussion here:

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/16682-r1b-bell-beaker/

Since this is on an English-language forum, one has to sign in to read it. I know that several of the participants in this discussion are members of DNA-Forums, and apologize to those who aren't. There is a parallel thread on the French-language forum there, that may be read by anybody (who reads French), without the necessity of signing in. The latter discussion has been going on for a year, and it is only the last few weeks of it that would be very relevant to the current Eupedia discussion:

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/13759-celtes-et-culture-campaniforme/page__st__320

spongetaro
08-12-11, 22:09
.
The problem with the theory which implies that European R1b came via Unetice and the Proto Celts is that R1b is not even the dominant haplogroup in the Unetice area.
Take Austria for instance, the Historical land of Halstatt Celts but only 23% of R1b including 20% of R1b U106.
If R1b P312 was really brought by Proto Celts, how could present day Austrian have only 3% of it?
Later invasion? Even in the case of Austrian R1b P312 being reduced by German and slavic invasion, the neolithic lineages (I2a, J2, E1b1, G2) still makes 35% of the modern Austrian population.
My guess is that R1b P312 never made the majority of Austrian.
Even in France, it is strange that Neolithic lineage resisted better in historical Celtic lands like Auvergne and île de France (close to the Marne Moselle complex of La Tène) than in non IE area like Basque country or Catalonia (Former Iberian). I think that R1b P312 and Celts are unrelated. The Celts might have carried it but it was there before they came.
Their genetic contribution was that of the Mycenean and Dorian in Greece, That of the Persians in Iran or that of the Anatolian IE in Turkey: not significant.
In return, area of Bell Beaker culture matches almost perfectly the area of R1b P312.
The two areas were Bell Beaker are first recorded are: 1) The Iberian peninsula 2) Netherlands
I identify them as the first R1b L11 groups that settled in Western Europe. The Dutch group evovled into R1b U106, the Iberian group evolved in to R1b P312.

http://ubprehistoire.free.fr/Articles%20images/Carte-Europe-campaniforme.jpg

http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/R1b-P312.jpg

zanipolo
08-12-11, 22:13
Where is this R1b in the euxine sea (black sea). ?

I do beleive (as historically written )that R1a came to kosovo area with the germanic bastanae in 200BC (60,000), but thats another story. But to link this R1b abd R1a from the black sea, would seem to me that this is the area they split.

Maciamo
08-12-11, 22:21
Well, there's the question, we do not really know this about Basque. What we do know is this:

- The Basques today are ~80% R1b.
- Basque is today an isolate language, and no generally accepted link has been established between Basque and any living language, meaning it's relatives must be all extinct.
- Amongst extinct languages, the only proven link is with Aquitanian, which probably was more or less the same as what has been reconstructed as Proto-Basque. The link with Iberian is less clear, and the discussion ranges between the idea that they were part of the same language family, and the idea that they were unrelated but part of a common sprachbund.
- If we substract Indo-European loanwords, we have seemingly 'native' terms in Basque for agriculture, domesticated animals (cattle, etc.), horse and metal-working. We basically get sort of a "mirror setup" to the inventory of PIE. These words must come from somewhere.

Basque could have imported these terms of many extinct languages, or even coined new terms justly because they became surrounded by Indo-Europeans but never assimilated by masses of IE migrants (just a small ruling elite, which adopted the local language).



Please note that I do not necessarily believe that Basque (or Proto-Basque) was the language of Beaker-Bell (in fact that is rather unlikely), but my opinion is that at least certain Basque words (read: those for metal-working) may be of Beaker-Bell origin, because otherwise one has great difficulties explaining where and how the Basques acquired these terms.

I don't believe that the Bell-Beaker had a language at all. The Bell Beaker was not even a unified culture but more of a phenomenon found among late Megalithic cultures and parts of the western Corded Ware culture. I think it was more a fashion for a new pottery style and some artefacts that spread through trade. There is no evidence of mass migrations. What I had in mind was that R1b-S116 people would have travelled by sea and settled in Portugal, but the diffusion of these R1b around Western Europe would have been very slow and progressive, continuing during the Atlantic Bronze Age (starting 1300 BCE), and even during the early Iron Age.

LeBrok
08-12-11, 22:25
My question is: is it conceivable that the Beaker-Bell folks in western Portugal were inded R1b, but not Indo-European?
Same thought popped to my mind, few days ago, when someone mentioned that Basques language might be related to Berber from North Africa.
What if the first R1b that came to Iberia were not Indo European speakers, and they took the North African route or sea from Asia to Iberia? It might explain why Basques are so reach in R1b and not speaking IE. We should keep in mind that if separation between R1a and R1b happened 18 000 years ago the languages should be way different than they are. If we compare Russian and Basque (both rich in R1) we would need this 18 thousand years for them to diverge so much. My point is that during 18 thousand yeas of separation we should be able to find populations high in R1b and R1a in Europe and Asia that don't speak IE, even if they didn't take someone else's language.

Taranis, are there any metallurgical similarities between Basques, Berber and Hittite (or some other Anatolian or West Asian culture)?


"Because craniometry can produce results which make no sense at all (e.g. the close relationship between Neolithic populations in Ukraine and Portugal) and therefore lack any historical meaning, any putative genetic relationship must be consistent with geographical plausibility and have the support of other evidence."

This is very interesting indeed. I always saw some similarities in cultures of both Galicias, Iberian and Slovakian/West Ukrainian, like folk clothing. On few occasions I confused Portuguese songs with Slovakian. The pronunciation of many sounds is very similar.
This might be important, as I notice that often when people change language because of invasion, they take most vocabulary from invaders but they keep their own pronunciation, accent, melody, and often simplify grammar too. I can't pinpoint who influenced who, but IMHO these two Galician peoples, lived very close together some time ago. The West Iberian R1B might have come from different migration than Basque, IE, possibly celtic/pre-celtic speaking.

I though I throw in few more eccentric hypothesis here. :)

spongetaro
08-12-11, 22:30
This is very interesting indeed. I always saw some similarities in cultures of both Galicias, Iberian and Slovakian/West Ukrainian, like folks clothing. On few occasions I confused Portuguese songs with Slovakian. The pronunciation of many sounds is very similar.



So I'm not the only one who thinks that Portuguese sounds a bit Slavic sometimes :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-O-2X6tvt8&feature=related

Asturrulumbo
08-12-11, 22:45
Something I find against the theory of the Beaker culture being Indo-European is their practice of megalithism. In Scandinavia and the North European Plain, megalithism was thriving during the non-IE Funnelbeaker Culture, but quickly died out with the arrival of the IE Corded Ware complex (it reappeared in the form of "ship burials" in the Iron Age, but that is obviously an unrelated phenomenon to the Neolithic megalithism). On the other hand, megalithism only died out in western Europe around the Late Bronze age, long after the end of the Beaker culture.

edao
08-12-11, 22:47
"This series' overseas visit is to Mallorca in pursuit of the Beaker people, an enigmatic culture thought by some to have been responsible for the introduction of metal work into Britain."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ayAPIZwiufs#t=26 00s

LeBrok
08-12-11, 23:00
Well, there's the question, we do not really know this about Basque. What we do know is this:

- The Basques today are ~80% R1b.
- Basque is today an isolate language, and no generally accepted link has been established between Basque and any living language, meaning it's relatives must be all extinct.
- Amongst extinct languages, the only proven link is with Aquitanian, which probably was more or less the same as what has been reconstructed as Proto-Basque. The link with Iberian is less clear, and the discussion ranges between the idea that they were part of the same language family, and the idea that they were unrelated but part of a common sprachbund.
- If we substract Indo-European loanwords, we have seemingly 'native' terms in Basque for agriculture, domesticated animals (cattle, etc.), horse and metal-working. We basically get sort of a "mirror setup" to the inventory of PIE. These words must come from somewhere.
.

And aslong as I'm making an ars of myself,lol, with this pronunciacion hypothesis, here is some more. I don't know Basque and not much Spanish either, so I can judge these languages by sounds and melody only. When I heard Basque for first time I though they were speaking Spanish. I can easily distinguish Portuguese from Spanish though they are very related, but I have problem doing the same with Basque and Spanish, though they are completely unrelated. Why is that?
I think Celtic in large scale was imposed on non Celtic speaking Iberians, Aquitanians, who took vocabulary and grammar, but retain their native pronunciation. Pronunciation is still similar to original Iberian language therefore to Basque too.

Asturrulumbo
08-12-11, 23:07
And aslong as I'm making an ars of myself,lol, with this pronunciacion hypothesis, here is some more. I don't know Basque and not much Spanish either, so I can judge these languages by sounds and melody only. When I heard Basque for first time I though they were speaking Spanish. I can easily distinguish Portuguese from Spanish though they are very related, but I have problem doing the same with Basque and Spanish, though they are completely unrelated. Why is that?
Widespread bilingualism and cultural homogeneity, in my opinion.

Taranis
08-12-11, 23:33
And aslong as I'm making an ars of myself,lol, with this pronunciacion hypothesis, here is some more. I don't know Basque and not much Spanish either, so I can judge these languages by sounds and melody only. When I heard Basque for first time I though they were speaking Spanish. I can easily distinguish Portuguese from Spanish though they are very related, but I have problem doing the same with Basque and Spanish, though they are completely unrelated. Why is that?
I think Celtic in large scale was imposed on non Celtic speaking Iberians, Aquitanians, who took vocabulary and grammar, but retain their native pronunciation. Pronunciation is still similar to original Iberian language therefore to Basque too.

Well, one problem really is that the situation as it was just before the Romans conquered the Iberian penninsula is pretty unclear, in particular for the west. For instance, we know of the Lusitanians in the west of Iberia, who did not (in my opinion, anyways) speak a Celtic language, and many place names in otherwise "nominally" Celtic areas in the West of Iberia sport names that are compatible with Lusitanian, but not with Celtic. My opinion is that the Celts may indeed have not been the first Indo-European inhabitants of Iberia.

LeBrok
08-12-11, 23:41
Widespread bilingualism and cultural homogeneity, in my opinion.

Definitely some influence, I can't deny. I've never heard an old villager speaking Basque, so I can't say more on this subject.
Talking about similar situation, can you tell me why Scottish are still rolling there r's even when speaking in English.

You might be familiar with Spanish speaking by locals in Mexico in some secluded villages (in certain funny way), where public education and mass-media were introduced relatively recently. This is more what I'm talking about.

Asturrulumbo
09-12-11, 00:22
Well, one problem really is that the situation as it was just before the Romans conquered the Iberian penninsula is pretty unclear, in particular for the west. For instance, we know of the Lusitanians in the west of Iberia, who did not (in my opinion, anyways) speak a Celtic language, and many place names in otherwise "nominally" Celtic areas in the West of Iberia sport names that are compatible with Lusitanian, but not with Celtic. My opinion is that the Celts may indeed have not been the first Indo-European inhabitants of Iberia.
What would you think of the possibility of Tartessian being an IE but non-Celtic language (like Lusitanian)? I say this because in the Late Bronze Age, Southwest Iberia participated fully in the Atlantic metallurgical complex, and not only that, but also these stone slabs have been found, which in my opinion have motifs that are possibly IE:
http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/bronceatlantico/427643_Diapositiva1.PNG
http://www.estelasdecoradas.co.cc/estelas_ext/images/dib_benquerencia_serena.JPG

http://www.estelasdecoradas.co.cc/estelas_ext/images/dib_estela_orellana_0001.jpg
http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/bronceatlantico/Diapositiva5.PNG

Asturrulumbo
09-12-11, 00:31
Definitely some influence, I can't deny. I've never heard an old villager speaking Basque, so I can't say more on this subject.
Talking about similar situation, can you tell me why Scottish are still rolling there r's even when speaking in English.

You might be familiar with Spanish speaking by locals in Mexico in some secluded villages (in certain funny way), where public education and mass-media were introduced relatively recently. This is more what I'm talking about.
In Mexico, there certainly are different accents spoken by the indigenous communities around the country, especially as for many it is their second language. However, in the case of Basque I believe it's different, as Spanish has been around (at least in the urban areas) for a very long time, and even when speaking Spanish Basques don't have a particular accent.

Taranis
09-12-11, 00:44
What would you think of the possibility of Tartessian being an IE but non-Celtic language (like Lusitanian)? I say this because in the Late Bronze Age, Southwest Iberia participated fully in the Atlantic metallurgical complex, and not only that, but also these stone slabs have been found, which in my opinion have motifs that are possibly IE:

Well, first off, these are great images. :cool-v: The problem is that the language is pretty much undeciphered as of now, but it doesn't look Indo-European in the slighest. There was a review of Koch's work earlier this year (by a fellow named Zeidler, from the university of Trier), and he pointed out that the Tartessian writing system was hardly suitable for writing an Indo-European language at all. What's absolutely possible, is that there are Indo-European (Celtic or otherwise) names inside a non-Indo-European matrix, but I don't think the language itself was Indo-European.

Asturrulumbo
09-12-11, 01:03
Well, first off, these are great images. :cool-v: The problem is that the language is pretty much undeciphered as of now, but it doesn't look Indo-European in the slighest. There was a review of Koch's work earlier this year (by a fellow named Zeidler, from the university of Trier), and he pointed out that the Tartessian writing system was hardly suitable for writing an Indo-European language at all. What's absolutely possible, is that there are Indo-European (Celtic or otherwise) names inside a non-Indo-European matrix, but I don't think the language itself was Indo-European.
They certainly are, many more can be found here:
http://www.estelasdecoradas.co.cc/estelas_ext/paginas/catalogo_estelas.htm
T (http://www.estelasdecoradas.co.cc/estelas_ext/paginas/catalogo_estelas.htm)he linguistic aspect certainly is a complicated one. What could be is Tartessian originating later in the Iron Age, and/or the stelae being "Proto-Lusitanian" perhaps?

LeBrok
09-12-11, 02:44
In Mexico, there certainly are different accents spoken by the indigenous communities around the country, especially as for many it is their second language.
Exactly my point, and if you heard them speak their original language you would find many similarities, for example, how they pronounce spanish world with accents and sounds of their original language. There are rarely enough conquerors living mixed with indigenous population to teach their language correctly. Without schools and TV it took decades if not centuries for the language of conquerors to become main language for populations. In mean time being a second language it was always twisted, simplified and used with local accent and pronunciation. After few generations even grandchildren of conquerors will speak same "broke" language thinking it is a proper way, because most population speaks this way.

I'm not saying the language won't evolve by itself, or will not get influence by others. In today's modern world it might happen faster than in secluded villages way back. However, what you're saying is that Basque language got bigger influence from Spanish than Portuguese did, although prtuguese and spanish came from same source about 3 thousand years ago. Secondly, I speak second language too, and it's obvious to me that second language is influenced more by first one, and not vice versa. The biggest influence of first language is not in vocabulary or grammar, but in pronunciation, accent and melody of a sentence. If my kids didn't go to english schools and didn't match english tv, and I was the main source of english, they would be speaking english with polish accent and sound pronunciation.

The best example of my point is how English is spoken in India.

Wilhelm
09-12-11, 05:42
In Mexico, there certainly are different accents spoken by the indigenous communities around the country, especially as for many it is their second language. However, in the case of Basque I believe it's different, as Spanish has been around (at least in the urban areas) for a very long time, and even when speaking Spanish Basques don't have a particular accent.
That's wrong. Basques do have their own accent, when they speak spanish you can immediately tell if he is basque, they have a sort of "thick" accent, very characteristic of basques, any spaniard knows what im talking about.

Knovas
09-12-11, 14:24
Yes, they have their own accent, almost all regions in Spain have peculiarities in regards of this. It is told that the most neutral zone is Valladolid and surrounds, where it is believed to speak the most correct Castilian.

Segia2
09-12-11, 19:11
And aslong as I'm making an ars of myself,lol, with this pronunciacion hypothesis, here is some more. I don't know Basque and not much Spanish either, so I can judge these languages by sounds and melody only. When I heard Basque for first time I though they were speaking Spanish. I can easily distinguish Portuguese from Spanish though they are very related, but I have problem doing the same with Basque and Spanish, though they are completely unrelated. Why is that?
I think Celtic in large scale was imposed on non Celtic speaking Iberians, Aquitanians, who took vocabulary and grammar, but retain their native pronunciation. Pronunciation is still similar to original Iberian language therefore to Basque too.

Spanish suffered a phonetic evolution during the Renaissance era, adopting certain traits attributed by some scholars to basque language (partial lost of "f", no distinction between "b" and "v" (betacism), shift from "j" to "kh", five vowels system...The reasons? Mmm, repopulation, high influx of basque clergy and civil workers (the most literated people and best knowing of spanish language, despite not being in most cases their natural language!!!!)

We have to take into account that castilian was born in a zone next -and in some cases overlapping- to basque speakers. However, the presence of basque speakers in Spain is not a datable fact. By using toponymic resources we can conclude that basque language expanded -from Aquitania and the western Pyrennes- during the late roman empire and middle ages over a territory wich showed a clear previous IE affinity (celtic and non-celtic)

Pff, the puzzle is desperating...

Taranis
09-12-11, 19:44
We have to take into account that castilian was born in a zone next -and in some cases overlapping- to basque speakers. However, the presence of basque speakers in Spain is not a datable fact. By using toponymic resources we can conclude that basque language expanded -from Aquitania and the western Pyrennes- during the late roman empire and middle ages over a territory wich showed a clear previous IE affinity (celtic and non-celtic)

Indeed. In Antiquity, the language are of Basque lay more eastward and northward than today, with only the eastern half of the modern-day Basque country being actually Basque, whereas in the north the influence extended approximately to the Garonne (from where they were bordered by the Gauls), and in the east maybe as far as the central Pyrenees (where they were bordered by the Iberians). The western part of the modern-day Basque country was definitely Indo-European, possibly Celtic (the place names are somewhat ambiguous).


Pff, the puzzle is desperating...

What is even more puzzling here is a fact that was first observed by the late vascologist Larry Trask, who pointed out the general rarity of Celtic loanwords into Basque (he lists approximately a dozen words, some of which are even disputed). Given how the Basques were, with exception of the east, seemingly surrounded by Indo-Europeans, and possibly in contact with them for many centuries, it seems remarkably unliekly that there are so very few Celtic loanwords. This also stands quite in contrast to the fact that the amount of loanwords Basque has borrowed from Latin and from the Romance languages is substantial.

Wilhelm
09-12-11, 20:03
Well, there's the question, we do not really know this about Basque. What we do know is this:

- The Basques today are ~80% R1b.

There is ~90% of R1b in Basques. The 80% is in Catalans and the Pyrenees.

LeBrok
09-12-11, 21:16
Spanish suffered a phonetic evolution during the Renaissance era, adopting certain traits attributed by some scholars to basque language (partial lost of "f", no distinction between "b" and "v" (betacism), shift from "j" to "kh", five vowels system...The reasons? Mmm, repopulation, high influx of basque clergy and civil workers (the most literated people and best knowing of spanish language, despite not being in most cases their natural language!!!!)


Pff, the puzzle is desperating...

Yes it is, but if it wasn't we wouldn't have all this fun here, hehe.

I don't think few clergy and civil workers can make a difference how language sounds. It might be the case that records of spoken language in spain are misleading. What I mean is that most records, from the past, of spoken language are from big cities where. This is the language of educated elite, which in spain case, was influenced a lot by germanic speaking tribes invading in middle ages. Mind that way back 90% people lived in villages. But the records how spanish was pronounced there are not existant.
Previous differences in f, v,b, j, might be of germanic way to speak spanish.
Consider a scenario that after renaissance there was faster city growth mostly caused by influx of villagers. If this is a fast process you will see quick shift how the spanish sounds, getting more similarities with village version, which was probably closer to Basque pronunciation.

You can compare it to Latin (educated elite) versus Vulgar Latin for the villagers and the rest. The question is how come the elite and priests couldn't teach plebs the proper Latin? In this case one thing is obvious that few, even educated people, cannot change the way a language is pronounced by many. And we are talking about the ongoing process for few hundred years. That's why I don't see how few Basque intellectualists could change spanish language. It is more of a case of official spanish version in cities were influenced more by latin and germanic. Possibly arab invasion helped "cleaning" elite speaking version of spanish?

Here is a nice explanation about loss of sounds. What happens if english is imposed on Italians or French speakers? The sound H is dropped immediately, especially at the beginning of a word.
The sound shifts, the sound laws need big events to happen. People don't drop sounds or change them just because. Usually the big event is when two different languages are imposed on population, after invasion or migration for example. Make native Italians, Chinese, Indians, etc speak english and you will immediately see their local sound laws in action.

Mikewww
09-12-11, 21:44
... Mallory & Mair (2000), p. 236 :
"Because craniometry can produce results which make no sense at all (e.g. the close relationship between Neolithic populations in Ukraine and Portugal) and therefore lack any historical meaning, any putative genetic relationship must be consistent with geographical plausibility and have the support of other evidence.".
Good catch.


.....But what if R1b people did move to Southwest Iberia first, be it by crossing all Europe without stopping until they reached that corner of the Atlantic coast, or else by boat from the Black Sea ?
.....
Naturally, this doesn't prevent another continental migration of R1b-L11 to have taken place from the Balkans to Central Europe (Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tène group), which would have brought R1b-S28 (U152). Yet another migration, perhaps straight from the steppes, would have brought R1b-S21 (U106) to North Germany and Scandinavia.

This is quite a quandry.

Busby et al presented a key piece of their evidence as portraying L11's STR diversity has geographically indiscernible across Europe. My interpretation of this is the expansion(s) was rapid. The craniometric similarities between the Ukraine and Portugal support this possibility.

R1b-L11 appears relatively youthful in Europe and still hasn't be found in European Neolithic aDNA.

The difficult is in trying to align R1b-L11's phylogenetic trail, which is M269>L23 L23>L51 L51>L11 L11>P312 L11>U106 P312>U152 and P312>L21. L11 and its downstream large subclades seems to have expanded in very rapid succession, but we know for sure that that there was only one father-son transmission where the L11 mutation occurred from an L51+ L11- father. This means this happened at only single location in all of Eurasia or wherever. The same can be said for L11>P312 and L11>U106, etc. yet the geographic distributions are vastly different between U106, U152 and L21. Z196 and P312* are scattered across a wide area.


By 1300 BCE Central and Western Europe was divided between two major cultures: the Atlantic Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Bronze_Age) and the Urnfield Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture).
I've asked a N.Ireland archeoligist (who is L21/S145) about the Atlantic Bronze Age as I've never heard it described as a "culture". He suggested it is best to think of it as trade zone rather than a single culture. The best I draw out of the conversation is that the Atlantic coastal regions might be thought of as a "frontier." Given that, I'm not sure if the differentiation between the coastal regions and Urnfield are as a clear as a map might portray.

Just thinking out loud, but the Bell Beaker folks were a maritime bunch and that most would say are enigmatic. Another enigmatic bunch was whom the Egyptians called the Sea Peoples. Aren't some of those people thought to be from Lycia, the SW coast of modern Turkey?

I still can't figure out how the L11>U106 occurred to get that many men into NE Europe... must be the "river" version. If so, then L51>L11 did not happen in Western or Central Europe. They seemed to have a spread long way pretty quick.. maybe they were better at water transport than we can imagine.

Asturrulumbo
09-12-11, 23:33
That's wrong. Basques do have their own accent, when they speak spanish you can immediately tell if he is basque, they have a sort of "thick" accent, very characteristic of basques, any spaniard knows what im talking about.
Really? I have a Basque friend and one from Barcelona, and i hear them exactly the same... Then again, maybe you develop a more expert ear for the different accents on the place one lives.

razyn
10-12-11, 00:25
They seemed to have a spread long way pretty quick.. maybe they were better at water transport than we can imagine.

Has anybody played with the notion of Bronze Age (or Chalcolithic) ice transport? I haven't tried comparing climatology with the putative era of the fast R1b expansion. But if a northern route was involved (Volga, Vistula, portage over Jutland, etc.), the river routes may have been ice highways. Seems to me I've seen something about moving Stonehenge components on a frozen Avon? Maybe not. Anyway, the long river and lake systems of Sweden were used for heavy haulage in fairly recent times. Sleds when it was ice, boats when it thawed. Boats on sleds (for ice, or muddy portages), sometimes.

Taranis
10-12-11, 03:25
I've asked a N.Ireland archeoligist (who is L21/S145) about the Atlantic Bronze Age as I've never heard it described as a "culture". He suggested it is best to think of it as trade zone rather than a single culture. The best I draw out of the conversation is that the Atlantic coastal regions might be thought of as a "frontier." Given that, I'm not sure if the differentiation between the coastal regions and Urnfield are as a clear as a map might portray.

This is a very good point! I think this also makes an important point about the problems of ethnic ascription of the cultures in the region.


Just thinking out loud, but the Bell Beaker folks were a maritime bunch and that most would say are enigmatic. Another enigmatic bunch was whom the Egyptians called the Sea Peoples. Aren't some of those people thought to be from Lycia, the SW coast of modern Turkey?

There's approximately 1300 years between Beaker-Bell and the appearance of the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean. Of course it's tempting to speculative if there was a connection, but it's pretty unlikely for obvious reasons. Unless you take Sardinia into consideration and assume that the Sherdana, one of the Sea People ethnicities, indeed came from Sardinia. But, that's too much speculation for my taste.

zanipolo
10-12-11, 03:58
I really do not understand why people deny the 100 Bell Beaker graves found in soutern france between the Rhone river and the alps

Knovas
10-12-11, 15:57
Really? I have a Basque friend and one from Barcelona, and i hear them exactly the same... Then again, maybe you develop a more expert ear for the different accents on the place one lives.
I can assure you that, specially Andalusians, Catalans, Basques, Asturians and Galicians are no way difficult to distinguish for us. However, people from the Castillas can easily cause confusion, since they are much neutral. And of course, there are other's in the middle who deviate, as for example: Murcians towards Andalusians, Cantabrians towards Asturians and Basques (depending on the zone), etc., etc. There are many factors to consider, but the first cases are very clear.

Christiaan
10-12-11, 17:46
Indeed it could be one of several routes of R1b into Western Europe. One swept from the Black sea across the Mediterranean->Atlanticcoast->Northsea->, The other split into two branches when they arrived Karpatian mountain ridge one north, the other west along the Danube.

An interesting thing I noticed is that the Chalcolithicum/copper age in Europe started much earlier than everyone thought this far. In Serbia they have dated a copper axe to ~ 5,500 BC. This makes it contemporary with early/middle neolithic cultures in the north. If this is true,at least even earlier late neolithic cultures like TRB and others are about to be totally reviewed because of these new insights. In the early copper age producing a surplus of copper was probably not that easy. So copper maintained a very scarce good for along time and therefore preventing it to become more common throughout Europe.

I can't post url's yet, so add the http 3w's yourself.

welt.de/kultur/history/article11194556/Vor-7500-Jahren-endete-die-Steinzeit-in-Serbien.html

conservativetimes.org/?p=6875

presstv.ir/detail/151553.html

One implication could be that the late neolithic cultures with their megalithic monuments, were probably already influenced by copper age cultures. So when the bell-beakers folks spread into Europe they used well established exchange-routes/networks. The older overlapping distribution of megalithic monuments are proof for that.

Mikewww
11-12-11, 04:46
Something I find against the theory of the Beaker culture being Indo-European is their practice of megalithism. In Scandinavia and the North European Plain, megalithism was thriving during the non-IE Funnelbeaker Culture, but quickly died out with the arrival of the IE Corded Ware complex (it reappeared in the form of "ship burials" in the Iron Age, but that is obviously an unrelated phenomenon to the Neolithic megalithism). On the other hand, megalithism only died out in western Europe around the Late Bronze age, long after the end of the Beaker culture.
I'm not completely following your logic. When the Bell Beakers came into areas, all pre-existing cultures were not destroyed. They appeared to have been elite incomers, part of a wide ranging trade network.

Are you familiar with the Amesbury Archer? He's a Bell Beaker found right next to Stone Henge. In fact, he's called the "King of Stone Henge" but Stone Henge was built long, long before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer

Stone Henge wasn't built by the Archer's ancestors. He's probably from the continent.

Research using oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen) isotope analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_analysis) in his tooth enamel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_enamel) suggests that the man may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe).
He's an interloper. If he was a smart trader and leader he wouldn't exterminate all of the prior traditions.

Mikewww
11-12-11, 05:31
Just thinking out loud, but the Bell Beaker folks were a maritime bunch and that most would say are enigmatic. Another enigmatic bunch was whom the Egyptians called the Sea Peoples. Aren't some of those people thought to be from Lycia, the SW coast of modern Turkey?

There's approximately 1300 years between Beaker-Bell and the appearance of the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean. Of course it's tempting to speculative if there was a connection, but it's pretty unlikely for obvious reasons. Unless you take Sardinia into consideration and assume that the Sherdana, one of the Sea People ethnicities, indeed came from Sardinia. But, that's too much speculation for my taste.
Taranis, I don't understand your point. Please read the below articles.


Bell Beakers have now been radiocarbon dated to 2900 to 1800/1700 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture


The earliest ethnic group later considered among the Sea Peoples is believed to be attested in Egyptian hieroglyphics on the Byblos obelisk found in the Obelisk Temple at Byblos in modern day Lebanon. The inscription mentions kwkwn son of rwqq-( or kukun son of luqq), transliterated as Kukunnis, son of Lukka, "the Lycian". The date is given variously as 2000 or 1700 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples


Lycia was a region in Anatolia in what are now the provinces of Antalya and Muğla on the southern coast of Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycia

The people that Egypt called "Sea Peoples" were around in Bronze Age times, like the Bell Beakers, who were also maritime oriented. I'm not trying to say that the Bell Beakers were descendants of the Sea Peoples, just that they may have had a common source.

The reference to Lycia may be key. If you follow the R1b ht35 project conversations you'll see that some of the oldest forms of R1b may be in the northern Near East and parts of Anatolia.

My point is speculative. I agree. That doesn't mean it is not valid or not true.

Asturrulumbo
11-12-11, 05:44
I'm not completely following your logic. When the Bell Beakers came into areas, all pre-existing cultures were not destroyed. They appeared to have been elite incomers, part of a wide ranging trade network.

Are you familiar with the Amesbury Archer? He's a Bell Beaker found right next to Stone Henge. In fact, he's called the "King of Stone Henge" but Stone Henge was built long, long before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer

Stone Henge wasn't built by the Archer's ancestors. He's probably from the continent.

He's an interloper. If he was a smart trader and leader he wouldn't exterminate all of the prior traditions.
What I mean is that, although I agree that there was a population movement, I don't think the movement was cultural or linguistic, or that the Beaker folk were ethnolinguistically homogeneous. I think that for example, while the Central European beakers were probably Indo-European (R1b), the Beaker groups of Iberia were probably non-IE.

Mikewww
11-12-11, 06:47
Where did the ancient Eastern European P312 go? Offhand, I don't know of any evidence of ancient P312 in Eastern Europe (same with R1b-U106... and the R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 modals are very close, so we expect them to have arisen in about the same area).

We don't have much ancient evidence of R1b in Europe, period. I think 1000BC at the Lichenstein Cave is as a early as we have.

As far as P312 goes, Busby's study published this year has 9% frequency for Hungary and anywhere from 2% to 20% in different parts of Poland. Please keep in mind when you look at a P312 frequency map, there is usually is a scale much larger than shown typically side by side for other haplogroups. The high frequency of up to 75% in Ireland changes the scale of the graphics so relatively low frequencies seemingly disappear. In Busby's data, P312 is the same or greater in Poland than U106, and is greater in Hungary.


... At which point, Central Europe (probably post-Beaker) makes more sense to me as a launching point for R1b-L11+ in Europe.

I think it is possible that P312 and U106 arose in Central Europe. I don't know. However, STR diversity is much higher for R-L23* in SW Asia than in Europe so at some point the starting point for L11's phylogenetic trail was east.


Why would the R1b-L21 pick up and spread IE if R1b-Z196 didn't, and both represent the Beaker R1b's?
I don't think anyone is saying R-P312 was relegated to just Beaker movements. Who is saying Z196 didn't spread IE? We don't know what the first Z196 guys spoke, but it could easily have been IE.


Are the centers of diversity of R1b-L21 and R1b-Z196 actually in Iberia? (I have no clue, honestly).
Definitely not for L21. It has a light showing in Iberia and L21's highest diversity is in Northern France. Z196 has high frequency in Iberia, particularly since downstream SRY2627 is there, but Z196 is quite scattered going all the way up in to Scandinavia as L165 and North-South cluster and also east into Poland. I think our DNA project data is too limited to comment too much on Z196 diversity, but I wouldn't say it is highest in Iberia.

If we are talking about P312 origin, U152 may be the most important subclade. It easily has the highest diversity and is therefore probably oldest. It has high frequency in N. Italy, but highest diversity on the other side of the Alps in SE France. You will find U152 quite a ways east, Poland, Hungary and even Anatolia and among the Bashkirs.

Maciamo
21-01-12, 11:38
Taranis pointed me to this paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943892?dopt=Abstract), which raises new questions about the appearance of Indo-European culture, in this case the domestication of horses. All evidence so far was that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian steppes, somewhere between Ukraine and Kazakhstan, roughly 6000 years ago (so during the late Neolithic in that region). This paper (which I notice is already over 2 years old) basically says that modern horses of Iberian origin are directly descended from Neolithic and Bronze Age Iberian horses. If it was only Bronze Age horses that wouldn't be a problem, and indeed would be expected, since the Indo-Europeans are presumably the ones who introduced domesticated horses to Iberia in the Bronze Age. What doesn't fit is that the ancient DNA extracted from the horses from Neolithic Iberia apparently belonged to the same lineage as the Bronze Age ones. I see a few possible explanations :

1) An early migration of steppe people migrated across Europe soon after the domestication of horses, equipped only with Neolithic technologies. That would explain why Iberia has an usually high incidence of the "early" R1b-S116* subclade and developed unique R1b subclades like M153 and M167, which apparently didn't spread from Central Europe like the others but from Iberia. This explanation would also resolved the issues that I stated in the OP of this thread. It is the explanation that makes the most sense since the Bronze Age seems to have arrived fairly late in Iberia compared to the rest of Western Europe.

2) The steppe people only brought a few horses with them to Iberia and domesticated the local wild horses. This could have happened in parallel with the first hypothesis. One doesn't exclude the other. Wild horses lived all over Europe in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic, even though they were most common in the steppes. Unfortunately they didn't test the DNA of Palaeolithic Iberian horses, which is the only way to confirm or reject this hypothesis.

3) The ancient horse remains were misdated and were actually from the Western European Bronze Age period (even if not bronze artefacts was found on those very sites).

4) Horse domestication happened independently in Neolithic Iberia. Alternatively, horse domestication could have happened only once, in Iberia, and spread from there to the rest of the world. This is the most unlikely hypothesis at the moment.

razyn
21-01-12, 23:18
I alluded to this last summer on the "Lack of G2a in Basque" thread, but didn't cite the source. Didier Vernade suggested that the original R1b entry into Iberia might have been by seafaring men (from farther east) who knew how to domesticate horses; and they proceeded to domesticate the local ones (notably what are now called Pottock ponies). This model might apply to your theory whether or not it happens to coincide with the R1b haplogroup. Here is one thread on which Didier posted it, last July 20th:

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/13759-celtes-et-culture-campaniforme/page__view__findpost__p__266688

Such a theory, if correct, could account for a cultural introduction of well advanced horse technology from much farther east without necessarily involving horse DNA from the steppes, the Danube, etc.

MOESAN
22-01-12, 00:54
And aslong as I'm making an ars of myself,lol, with this pronunciacion hypothesis, here is some more. I don't know Basque and not much Spanish either, so I can judge these languages by sounds and melody only. When I heard Basque for first time I though they were speaking Spanish. I can easily distinguish Portuguese from Spanish though they are very related, but I have problem doing the same with Basque and Spanish, though they are completely unrelated. Why is that?
I think Celtic in large scale was imposed on non Celtic speaking Iberians, Aquitanians, who took vocabulary and grammar, but retain their native pronunciation. Pronunciation is still similar to original Iberian language therefore to Basque too.

1- The castillan spoken now in Spain as a whole is not representative of the previous latin dialects of the peninsula - castillan was spred vy the 'reconquista' on the Muslims of Spain, and the first nucleus around of this language was around Burgos in a region close to the present Basque country - the evolution F- >> H- is an Aquitanian one (see Gascon of Aquitaine) - so some common phonetic traits are not so surprising for basque and castillan Spanish -
2- the partial similarity shared by portugues and slavic languages can be found too in mountainous north occitan dialects of France (Auvergnat, North Languedocian) - even modern french (litterary and other dialects) have some similarities with slavic languages: it's based on the hissings and palatizings - and the catalan language have some similarities also (no so far) to portugues
3- I agree that celtic was imposed on non-celtic speaking populations -and they retained their local habits of pronunciation, as proved by the numerous diverse phonetic evolutions in the neo-latine languages that impose themselves in the lands where celtic had been spoken before -

Taranis
22-01-12, 01:05
I alluded to this last summer on the "Lack of G2a in Basque" thread, but didn't cite the source. Didier Vernade suggested that the original R1b entry into Iberia might have been by seafaring men (from farther east) who knew how to domesticate horses; and they proceeded to domesticate the local ones (notably what are now called Pottock ponies). This model might apply to your theory whether or not it happens to coincide with the R1b haplogroup. Here is one thread on which Didier posted it, last July 20th:

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/13759-celtes-et-culture-campaniforme/page__view__findpost__p__266688

Such a theory, if correct, could account for a cultural introduction of well advanced horse technology from much farther east without necessarily involving horse DNA from the steppes, the Danube, etc.

An interesting fact is that the Basque language has a native word for horse ("zaldi"), and this would be compatible with Neolithic (or Chalcolithic) domesticated horses in Iberia. I must say, however, don't see why the Beaker-Bell Culture should have been speakers of Celtic languages. In my opinion it's too ancient and too widespread (notably spreading into North Africa, southeastern Iberia, Sardinia and southern Scandinavia) to be genuinely considered Celtic.

MOESAN
22-01-12, 01:38
I take it as it is
firstable my thoughts for now, waiting more help from hazard:
B.B was traders but NOT ONLY traders: they seam have pushed sometimes ancient populations further in the inlands in Brittain, so they was not so pacific: neither a sort of rambling traders nor "exterminators" - suerley it was depending on their rapports of numbers
B.B. at the firsts time (Chalcolithic), coming from south Iberia or Eastern Europe, has a very well defined phenotype and every attempt to minimize that or even to make joke about metrics is of no worth: and this type was 'dinaric' , unknown before that in Western Europe - and for me the cradle of 'dinaric' is in S-E Europe, not in W-Europe (where metals were introduced through) - this type never took the majority in the Isles nor in France nor in Iberia, and with time he lost weight, on the contrary -
-I know the Y DNA can explode in density without correspond to a big flow of other genes in a population -but Y-R1b is the 'boss' in W-Europe and has not the 'dinaric' types - we can consider that this dinarics take on their account the transmission of a supposed S-W Iberia B.B. culture in areas of C and N-C Europe -
- But the dinarics had nothing to do in Western Europe and nevertheless they was the elite of people that occuped in a very short time coasts, rivers, moutains passes more as a part of a people that have its own decisions and agendas (prospection more than trade) and NOT a "dealers" population taking advantage of a S-W Iberian cultural eclosion - the center of his population was previously (I believe) betwen) in Bohem and Carpathes -
- THE PROBLEME OF HORSES is interesting: it appear that BB had horses (if I don't mistake) favouring quick movements -
Had the neolithic population of Spain horses?
-after that, what I think was an elite has accultured other people and lost it's previous genetic traits (except Y-DNA? but I believe their Y-DNA was Y-I2a2 (majority) and NOT Y-R1b...

the developpment of calcholithic in Spain seam have been an intrusion from the East (other phenotypes again: estern mediterraneans): Hellades ??? but the very beginning of it seam linked to dinarics types (they could have come as easy by Eastern Mediterranee as bu the Rhone valley : for instance from present Albania or Epire, come down from Donau bassin through Balkans?) - I have no response for now concerning the Y-DNA of the Eastern Mediterranean (various) phenotypes
hypothesis (one more): a neolithic well evolved population in South Iberia (producing the first beakers) with an accretion of metal workers (and so metal prospectors)from East who do this culture grow big and fast: these moving prospectors should have boosted the productions of the previous neolithic cultureand have helped to the propagation? thhat to explain the anteriority of the S-W potteries -

MOESAN
23-01-12, 14:43
Really? I have a Basque friend and one from Barcelona, and i hear them exactly the same... Then again, maybe you develop a more expert ear for the different accents on the place one lives.

local accents had some value in the traditionnal Europe but we hear today young people from big towns linked by all sorts of media's and without any marked accent (or speaking with less numerous diverse accents) - so it's possible that aged people of different regions of Spain had very distinguishable accents previously even we don't hear them to often today... an acute accent could have been the mark of basque prononunciation some years ago yet, but I'm not a specialist on Spain local accents

MOESAN
23-01-12, 17:06
Yes it is, but if it wasn't we wouldn't have all this fun here, hehe.

I don't think few clergy and civil workers can make a difference how language sounds. It might be the case that records of spoken language in spain are misleading. What I mean is that most records, from the past, of spoken language are from big cities where. This is the language of educated elite, which in spain case, was influenced a lot by germanic speaking tribes invading in middle ages. Mind that way back 90% people lived in villages. But the records how spanish was pronounced there are not existant.
Previous differences in f, v,b, j, might be of germanic way to speak spanish.
/.../
Here is a nice explanation about loss of sounds. What happens if english is imposed on Italians or French speakers? The sound H is dropped immediately, especially at the beginning of a word.
The sound shifts, the sound laws need big events to happen. People don't drop sounds or change them just because. Usually the big event is when two different languages are imposed on population, after invasion or migration for example. Make native Italians, Chinese, Indians, etc speak english and you will immediately see their local sound laws in action.

I agree as a whole, but :

germanic languages or people seam have had very light influence on spanish, castillan or other -
castillan :
V >> B /b/,/β/ evolution found in France too (basque, gascon, languedoc → south auvergant + south limousin → Rhone valley eastward AND north corsican !
Ancient C /k/>>/tch/>>/sh/, J /y/>>/dj/,/zh/ gave /χ/ jota in castillan, close to germanic 'ch' – the Spanisuh court had the french or catalan pronounciation /sh/zh/ about the XV/XVI centuries as believe, turning into only /sh/ after, but in the North Central of Spain I think the evolution → /χ/ was begun already – in Western France we find a similar one : CH /sh/ >> /h/ the palatal taking a more back position, between the germanic ichlaut '' and a more low velar /χ/ - it took place in south Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge and Guyenne (Prigord)-North Gascogne (Bordeaux surroundings) in a previous Wascon and territory & after the Aquitanian province -

F- > H- is an evolution we find in France in gascon dialect – it was pronounced /h/ or /χ/ yet not long ago in N-E leones dialect (Cantabria) and N-W aragones -

S pronounced in various ways going closer to SH without influence of the phonetical environment – it 's /sh/ in basque -
when people learn a new language they very often simplify it (for there are some strange sounds for them) – they do stronger yet for grammar – articulation habits are very strong and can operate centuries after if the population don't change too much – there are based on collective habits for the most but maybe in some way to genetic heritage (contradicting the pure structuralists ?) - so in pronounciation things aren't always turning simpler : strange sounds can be dropped out but substrate evolution can work at last on the kept ones (even already transformed) according to the local habits -
here we can differenciate 'accent' and 'dialect' – accent plays on phonating execution of sounds when it don't change the PHONOLOGIC value or when this pronounciation don't create too much lexical confusion – it's the case with the various spanish 'S' and 'V'/'B'-
but when by instance we consider F >> H/- the learners take the new pronounciation as they learn it and will no more pronounce back F because this result: /h/ or /-/ is too far from /f/ in their mind – 'F' phonologically is very different from nothing or even /h/ - (etymology isn' t the favourite sport among folks) -
to go back to the topic, it's almost sure that a common factor played on basque language and castillan latin language (and S-W France romance languages), and the North Castile people passed NOT ALL ITS HABITS but gave some acquired deformations to the people of Central and South Spain when they swept the Muslims out (Reconquista) – Castillan dialects and others romance dialects of Iberia seam showing complicated crossed influences I find very uneasy to untangle – but Portugues differenciates very well from the region surroundings Vasconia and get closer to catalan and “normal” occitan spite of the distance -

Maciamo
23-01-12, 17:29
An interesting fact is that the Basque language has a native word for horse ("zaldi"), and this would be compatible with Neolithic (or Chalcolithic) domesticated horses in Iberia.

Not necessarily. There were wild horses in Iberia (and indeed all over Europe) during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Thus there is no reason to believe that the pre-Neolithic ancestors of the Basques didn't have a name for the animal (that they almost certainly hunted and ate, like deer).

Maciamo
23-01-12, 17:29
An interesting fact is that the Basque language has a native word for horse ("zaldi"), and this would be compatible with Neolithic (or Chalcolithic) domesticated horses in Iberia.

Not necessarily. There were wild horses in Iberia (and indeed all over Europe) during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Thus there is no reason to believe that the pre-Neolithic ancestors of the Basques didn't have a name for the animal (that they almost certainly hunted and ate, like deer).

Segia2
24-01-12, 01:33
"F" was also absent in old celtic languages. Even some of them showed a tendence towards "betacism". It's undeniable that linguistic strata play a role on pronunciation, but basque language isn't excluded form this "rule".

F-H shift is also found in dialects of Calabria, Brescia and Romania.

In galician, asturian, leonese, navarro-aragonese (nota bene), catalan, valencian, and Extremadura dialects "f" isn't lost. Castilian is today the most spoken language in Spain, but the linguistic situation in the Middle Ages was different. It's not clear to atribute that shift in castilian exclusively to a basque substratum, but giving a basque substratum to the whole peninsula based on this is simply nosense.

Segia2
24-01-12, 02:05
Not necessarily. There were wild horses in Iberia (and indeed all over Europe) during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Thus there is no reason to believe that the pre-Neolithic ancestors of the Basques didn't have a name for the animal (that they almost certainly hunted and ate, like deer).

And what about some basque-patronimical terms related to horse-riding and charriot technology?

Maciamo
24-01-12, 09:54
And what about some basque-patronimical terms related to horse-riding and charriot technology?

Well, are they pre-Indo-European ? Could you provide some examples.

Kardu
24-01-12, 18:27
Not necessarily. There were wild horses in Iberia (and indeed all over Europe) during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Thus there is no reason to believe that the pre-Neolithic ancestors of the Basques didn't have a name for the animal (that they almost certainly hunted and ate, like deer).

Good point. Just like the ancestors of Georgians who lived in immediate vicinity of proto-indoeuropean speakers be it Pontic steppes or Anatolia, but we still have our Kartvelian word for a horse - ცხენ-ი/tskhen-i. Indoeuropean root is attested only in a kids' rhyme, and as an encouraging shout of rider to his/her horse in a form of - Achu.

MOESAN
24-01-12, 20:59
"F" was also absent in old celtic languages. Even some of them showed a tendence towards "betacism". It's undeniable that linguistic strata play a role on pronunciation, but basque language isn't excluded form this "rule".

F-H shift is also found in dialects of Calabria, Brescia and Romania.

In galician, asturian, leonese, navarro-aragonese (nota bene), catalan, valencian, and Extremadura dialects "f" isn't lost. Castilian is today the most spoken language in Spain, but the linguistic situation in the Middle Ages was different. It's not clear to atribute that shift in castilian exclusively to a basque substratum, but giving a basque substratum to the whole peninsula based on this is simply nosense.

Thanks for the treatment of F in italian dialects - i learn something here -
what is interesting is that the F>> H is not common in all Iberia but that was clear enough: what is interesting is that castillan begun the dominant dialect by the way of the 'Reconquista' in the center of Iberia, and after in the South, carried by North central Spanish men from the Basque country surroundings - I believe F- remainded inchanged in South, West and East during the muslim domination

MOESAN
24-01-12, 23:27
"F" was also absent in old celtic languages. Even some of them showed a tendence towards "betacism". It's undeniable that linguistic strata play a role on pronunciation, but basque language isn't excluded form this "rule". F-H shift is also found in dialects of Calabria, Brescia and Romania. In galician, asturian, leonese, navarro-aragonese (nota bene), catalan, valencian, and Extremadura dialects "f" isn't lost. Castilian is today the most spoken language in Spain, but the linguistic situation in the Middle Ages was different. It's not clear to atribute that shift in castilian exclusively to a basque substratum, but giving a basque substratum to the whole peninsula based on this is simply nosense. I come back, be carefull (but don't fear!) 1- for absence of F- in previous celtic, it seams to me that it don't prove anything about local tendancies because F- was almost or totally absent of first I-E (Taranis could tell us?) - in occident it seams being an italic evolution on I-E *BH-, *DH(W)- et *GwH- or late germanic evolution on I-E *P- my first post was not an attempt to affirm than all the Iberia peninisula languages and dialects have the same sbstrate: it was the contrary if you read the part concerning french and latin iberian dialects - again, but look at French Gascons and South Poitevins: partly old Aquitania... good evening

Kardu
24-01-12, 23:44
Not exactly to the topic but we've just got results of a new member of our project and he has a rare R1b haplotype. He is a descendant of an old noble family (at least XIV century). According historiographical tradition they are a cadet branch of the first royal house of Georgia (4th century BC).
R1b project wasn't able to assign him a cluster so far, but haplotype comparison funny enough groups him with French and German. Surname: Javakhishvili. 5440

Knovas
25-01-12, 00:30
Interesting Kardu. I'm not much versed in those haplogroup clusters, but knowing that R1b subclades are very widespread along West Eurasia, I think all possibilities are open xd

Kardu
25-01-12, 00:50
It's just funny that he groups with Germans instead of Armenians or Turks :) TMRCA with Germans 6000-7000 years. WIth Armenians 10 000...

Taranis
25-01-12, 02:31
And what about some basque-patronimical terms related to horse-riding and charriot technology?

The Basque word for chariot is "guda-gurdi", which is a compount word of guda- (from "gudu", "combat") and "gurdi" (cart, wagon). In any case, the Basques certainly didn't have chariots until the iron age.


I come back, be carefull (but don't fear!) 1- for absence of F- in previous celtic, it seams to me that it don't prove anything about local tendancies because F- was almost or totally absent of first I-E (Taranis could tell us?) - in occident it seams being an italic evolution on I-E *BH-, *DH(W)- et *GwH- or late germanic evolution on I-E *P- my first post was not an attempt to affirm than all the Iberia peninisula languages and dialects have the same sbstrate: it was the contrary if you read the part concerning french and latin iberian dialects - again, but look at French Gascons and South Poitevins: partly old Aquitania... good evening

The sound /f/ is completely absent in all of the "old" Celtic languages. It is only developed in Old Irish (from the Proto-Celtic sound *w). It should be noted that although Welsh orthography has the letter "f", the actual sound is a /v/, and not a /f/.

Mosean is otherwise completely correct regarding the development of *f in Italic (though it should be added that the Sabellic languages also had developed *f at medial positions, whereas Latin only developed it for initial *bh, *dh and *gwh) and in Germanic (from *p).

sparkey
25-01-12, 02:54
It should be noted that although Welsh orthography has the letter "f", the actual sound is a /v/, and not a /f/.

Welsh is a bad example, I would think, because it has another letter "ff," which has the /f/ sound. For example, "hoffi," "to like," is pronounced with the /f/ sound. (Of course, your point stands, regardless.)

Taranis
25-01-12, 03:18
Welsh is a bad example, I would think, because it has another letter "ff," which has the /f/ sound. For example, "hoffi," "to like," is pronounced with the /f/ sound.

Yes, but I think that this /f/ sound only exists in loanwords, for example Welsh "ffin" (boundary) from Latin "finis", or "ffael" (fault, failure).


(Of course, your point stands, regardless.)

Indeed. Also, the /v/ in Welsh corresponds with (depending on position) intervocalic /b/ or /m/ in Proto-Celtic.

zanipolo
25-01-12, 08:39
other f examples in ancients

English meaning: brother
German meaning: `Angehöriger der Großfamilie, Bruder, Blutsverwandter'
Material: Ai. bhrā́tar-, av. apers. brātar- `Bruder'; osset. ärvád `Bruder, Verwandter'; arm. eɫbair, Gen. eɫbaur ds.; (*bhrātēr, *bhrātrós); neuphryg. βρατερε `frātrī'; mys.-phryg. braterais = φράτραις?,

gr. φρήτηρ (ion.) ἀδελφός Hes., att. φρά̄τηρ, φρά̄τωρ `Mitglied einer φρατρία (Sippe, Brüderschaft)';
ven. vhraterei `frātrī';

lat. frāter `Bruder', osk. fratrúm, umbr. fratrum, fratrom `frātrum' usw. umher späteslat. frātruēɫis s. WH. I 542);

Where Venetic would have VH ( modern venet still uses fratei), while another is vhos for river ( modern its fos )

latin would have been BH , but on celtic...i am unsure

Segia2
27-01-12, 14:34
The Basque word for chariot is "guda-gurdi", which is a compount word of guda- (from "gudu", "combat") and "gurdi" (cart, wagon). In any case, the Basques certainly didn't have chariots until the iron age.

We don't even know where basque-speakers were during good part of the iron age, not to mention bronce age. Their presence in Spain is first attested by a few roman era scarce anthroponyms.

Mitxelena's studies on basque language support a dialectal unity in the Early Middle Ages, something really strange for a language wich has supposedly been spoken in Spain/France for several millenia. Neolithic basques? Maybe... but probably not in south-western Europe.

With some words about horses and charriots occurs the same that with metal-working terms. If there are "patronimical" words in both cases, we should at least valorate the possibility that have been "generated" by analogue processes.

In northern Spain, bronce metallurgy and charriots are first attested in second half of II millenium.

Taranis
27-01-12, 15:01
We don't even know where basque-speakers were during good part of the iron age, not to mention bronce age. Their presence in Spain is first attested by a few roman era scarce anthroponyms.

In my opinion this argument does not hold up, since you might as well argue the same about the Celtic-speaking peoples of Iberia: we do not have any evidence for Celtic languages in Iberia before the Roman era*, because nothing was written down. Yet we normally assume they were already there.

*it should be elaborated that the bulk of the Celtiberian written material, even in the Iberian script, comes from the Roman period (2nd century BC), too.


Mitxelena's studies on basque language support a dialectal unity in the Early Middle Ages, something really strange for a language wich has supposedly been spoken in Spain/France for several millenia. Neolithic basques? Maybe... but probably not in south-western Europe.

I agree that the Basque language area in Antiquity was more northern and eastern than it's present-day position, and that only the eastern part of the present-day Basque country was actually Basque in Antiquity. But, the premise that the Basques are not native to there, and only immigrated to the location we know in Antiquity opens a cans of worms of problems: are we to say that the Celts somehow are native where the Basques are not? For the Celtic languages, we find related languages (read: other Indo-European languages) as far east as the Indian subcontinent (Indic languages, attested first with Sanskrit) and the Tarim Basin (Tocharian). For Basque, we have no definite relationship with any other language, other than Aquitanian, which closely resembles what has been reconstructed for Proto-Basque. We do not know how long it takes for two languages no longer being recognizable as being related, but given how we have for example the Afro-Asiatic and Uralic language families (both which are clearly Neolithic in age), this certainly reinforces the idea that Basque is an ancient language.

It should also be added that it is sensible to assume that the Basques had no contact with speakers of Indo-European languages until the bronze age, or possibly even the iron age (note that Basque has a native word for iron, but it's just as possible that the word originally just meant generalized "metal", and not explicitly "iron"), due to the fact that there is only a tiny number of Celtic loanwords into Basque.


With some words about horses and charriots occurs the same that with metal-working terms. If there are "patronimical" words in both cases, we should at least valorate the possibility that have been "generated" by analogue processes.

In northern Spain, bronce metallurgy and charriots are first attested in second half of II millenium.

What is unclear is the connection of Basque with the Iberian language, which after all was spoken across a wide arc from the Roussillon to eastern Andalusia. What is agreed upon is that there appears to be a common pool of shared vocabulary, either through language contact (Basque loanwords into Iberian, or vice versa), or because the two languages belong to the same family. The former appears to be more likely, due to the fact that Basque has been of little help in the decipherment of Iberian. In any case, the Iberians were (seemingly) autochtonous on the Iberian peninsula.

I have to ask however, what exactly do you mean by "patronymic" words?

Segia2
27-01-12, 16:49
Obviously basque isn't helfpul to translate iberian: we lack "rosetta stones" in iberian language (latin-iberian, only a few brief and uncompleted scriptions) and there is an important chronological difference between writen basque and iberian. Imagine Europe is a semitic-speaking continent and there's only one non-semitic language left: dutch, a very "contaminated" one . However, archaelogists have discovered a language near the zone where some dutch speakers live. It is called "middle french", and it's a very fragmentary language. Those archaelogists have also discovered a few names in the dutch-speaking area who resemble current dutch. There are certain paralelism between both dutch names and middle french ones. Do you think middle french could be translated using current dutch? I don't think so. Coincidences between both languages are matter of mutual loanwords.

I know we can't establish a clear relationship between basque-aquitanian and iberian through our scarce data. Some aquitanian and iberian names:






AQUITANO
ÍBERO








ILLURBERRIXO
iltur-ber'i


HARBELEX
ar's-beles'


BAESERTE
baiser


BELEXCON-IS
beles'-kon


ENNEBOX
en(a)-bos'


LAURCO
laur'-kon


TARBELLI (tribe)
tar'-beles'


TALSCON-
talsku


ERGE DEO
-erker


DANN-ADINN-
tan?-atin


































Strabo, who wasn't a linguist, wrote that aquitanians differed much from gauls in look and language, being similar to iberians (in both issues) To me, there are signs that show aquitanian and iberian resemblances aren't product of plain word-loaning.

Taranis
27-01-12, 23:19
Obviously basque isn't helfpul to translate iberian: we lack "rosetta stones" in iberian language (latin-iberian, only a few brief and uncompleted scriptions) and there is an important chronological difference between writen basque and iberian. Imagine Europe is a semitic-speaking continent and there's only one non-semitic language left: dutch, a very "contaminated" one . However, archaelogists have discovered a language near the zone where some dutch speakers live. It is called "middle french", and it's a very fragmentary language. Those archaelogists have also discovered a few names in the dutch-speaking area who resemble current dutch. There are certain paralelism between both dutch names and middle french ones. Do you think middle french could be translated using current dutch? I don't think so. Coincidences between both languages are matter of mutual loanwords.

I know we can't establish a clear relationship between basque-aquitanian and iberian through our scarce data. Some aquitanian and iberian names:

Strabo, who wasn't a linguist, wrote that aquitanians differed much from gauls in look and language, being similar to iberians (in both issues) To me, there are signs that show aquitanian and iberian resemblances aren't product of plain word-loaning.

Let me say this, you have a valid point, especially regarding the absence of a "rosetta stone", but I would be cautious regarding the last statement. Please note that I'm not ruling out the possibility of a common ancestry of Basque and Iberian, it's not that easy. If Aquitanian and Iberian were as similar as the examples given above, and Basque and Iberian sounds to correspond to each other, then Basque (or reconstructed Proto-Basque) should be indeed useful for the decipherment of Iberian, moreso than your hypothetical example of Dutch and Middle French. Since this however isn't the case, the relationship must be more complicated than that.

By the way, where did you get these examples from?

MOESAN
27-01-12, 23:56
Yes, but I think that this /f/ sound only exists in loanwords, for example Welsh "ffin" (boundary) from Latin "finis", or "ffael" (fault, failure).



Indeed. Also, the /v/ in Welsh corresponds with (depending on position) intervocalic /b/ or /m/ in Proto-Celtic.


ff/f/ exists in Welsh as in other brythonic languages, even in truly celtic words (I guess) BUT AS YOU SAY not in the initial position in word - this -F sound occurs in old implosive -PP or -RP if I dn't mistake (it's not my first 'dada'): "hard spiration" (the same for -CH << -KK or - RK, -TH << -TT or -RT (and more?) - this final -F is dropped down very often in colloquial welsh -
I'm very sad Welsh people choosed F for /v/ and FF for /f/ - look at the old writing (VIII?XIX?) and DD for DH (symetric to TH)
before: korf - now >> corff + trev >> tref (it was easier for a breton or a cornish speaker)

Segia2
28-01-12, 00:15
Let me say this, you have a valid point, especially regarding the absence of a "rosetta stone", but I would be cautious regarding the last statement. Please note that I'm not ruling out the possibility of a common ancestry of Basque and Iberian, it's not that easy. If Aquitanian and Iberian were as similar as the examples given above, and Basque and Iberian sounds to correspond to each other, then Basque (or reconstructed Proto-Basque) should be indeed useful for the decipherment of Iberian, moreso than your hypothetical example of Dutch and Middle French. Since this however isn't the case, the relationship must be more complicated than that.

By the way, where did you get these examples from?

http://webs.ono.com/documenta/ib8b_sp.htm

Reconstructed basque is very problematic because we don't have known languages to compare, is a very internal process. That's why I put the dutch example. We do know "lots" of IE languages, but what if we didn't know them? We'd be as skeptical on it as in the basque/iberian case.

I have to leave now, I'll continue later.

Taranis
28-01-12, 15:10
http://webs.ono.com/documenta/ib8b_sp.htm

Well, from what I can tell, it more or less says what I've been trying to say all along, doesn't it?


But the problem is: what happens with those Aquitanian words clearly interpretable by the Basque language? There is no Iberian equivalence for CISON, ANDERE or NESCA. Only the Iberian base s'an(i) may be related with SENI and SEMBE (this probably from *'sen-be'). Also worth noting is Gorrochategui's remark that whereas those Aquitanian words that resemble Basque adjectives (such as ILLUN 'ilun' "dark" and BERRI 'berri' "new") do are attested in adjective position (that is, as second member of compound), the presumed Iberian "equivalents" iltun and ber'(i)don't observe that rule!!. So, although the data on Aquitanian language resemble that on Iberian, probably they are not closely related. Aquitanian is Old Basque, but Aquitanian is not Iberian; they are two different languages.


Reconstructed basque is very problematic because we don't have known languages to compare, is a very internal process.

I disagree on your statement that the reconstruction of ancient Basque is "very problematic". While it is true that this was done through internal reconstruction (because the comparative method fails here, since, as you said, we have nothing to compare Basque against), it doesn't mean that this method is flawed. On the contrary: if you look at the Latin and Romance loanwords into Basque, it is clear that these are changed according to Basque sound laws. From there we can go and see how native words should be changed according to the same sound laws. The crucial part, however, is that it is actually possible to verify the accuracy of these sound laws with Aquitanian names, and it turns out that the reconstructed Proto-Basque forms are most of the times virtually identical to what little is attested of Aquitanian.

The only aspect which is really problematic of the above method is when this "Proto-Basque" was spoken. Since we are using Romance and Latin loanwords, this can only give us the stage of the Basque language around 2000-2100 years ago.


That's why I put the dutch example. We do know "lots" of IE languages, but what if we didn't know them? We'd be as skeptical on it as in the basque/iberian case.

As for your hypothetical example if we had fewer Indo-European languages to compare against, well there is a good counter-example that it is actually still possible. If you look at the Uralic languages, a language family that is much smaller, much more disconnected than Indo-European (and also possibly older!), it is still possible to reconstruct common Proto-Uralic.