The Italo-Celtic expansion

[Maciamo]

That's maybe why the massive IE movements were not so massive after all.

So how do you explain that R1b makes up nearly over 80% of the lineages in places like Ireland or Gascony, and over 50% of the Western European population ? Not massive enough ?

We still can't tell which mtDNA lineages are Indo-European because mtDNA haplogroups were very similar between Eastern and Western Europe, and mtDNA phylogeny is infinitely more intricate than Y-DNA. There are already over a thousand mtDNA subclades and it is growing exponentially !

However it makes sense that the invaders should kill indigenous men, use them as slaves, or marginalise them, while marrying, raping or in any case procreating with native women. Men are not limited like women in the number of children they can have. Having power usually equals having more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies.

So the Indo-Europeans may have been a relatively small ruling class having lots of children with local women, quickly replacing the indigenous male lineages. Or there could have been a massive exodus, with as many of more Indo-European women contributing to the modern genetic pool of Western Europeans. I think that the former scenario makes more sense for three reasons :

1) mtDNA does vary considerably across Western Europe (although we still don't know what each subclade correspond to), meaning that the pre-existing diversity survived the Indo-European invasions (as opposed to Y-DNA).

2) People do look different in various parts of Western Europe despite strong similarities in Y-DNA haplogroups. This could be due to recent natural selection to adapt to different climates (lighter pigmentation in the north), but 4000 years is a too short time.

3) Invading armies have more men than women, and so must find women in the local population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Very good argument, Maciamo. The Indo-European movements did not need to be massive (but more than likely were very considerable) to have a genetic effect on local populations. Your comments in paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 make perfect sense.

 

[Smertrius]

Latin is an Italo-Celtic language. Despite the fact that the Romans had an immense cultural influence over a vast empire for hundreds of years, Latin only survived in parts of the empire that already spoke Celtic or Italic languages originally (although Latin disappeared in some region like southern Germany or Britain during the Germanic invasions). Why do you think that is ? Because the Romans didn't have a centralised compulsory education system like we have nowadays, and people kept speaking their indigenous language alongside Latin. There are records of Celtic dialects being spoken in Gaul as late as the 6th century. After they merged with Latin to form the various dialects of Vulgar Latin that would evolve into Old French, Old Occitan, Old Catalan, Old Castillan, etc.

Vulgar latin replaced the indigenous languages in the western part of the empire because romanisation was way stronger there than in the eastern part which was more influenced by the Greek Civilisation.
Your Italo-Celtic theory doesn't explain the replacement of Iberian, Lusitanian, or Punic languages.

 

[Smertrius]

The Gascon dialect of Occitan is not closer to Parisian French than Gaulish was to Latin. How much do you know about Gaulish and Latin ? Have a look at this comparison.

That's exactly what i thought, how much do you know about celtic ?
Don't trust so much a comparison made with 9 words and some cases of the 2nd latin declension.

Here are some quotes about celtic, ligurian, and iberian, from a 2008 work made by a researcher i know in my university :

[...] Ce modèle global est désormais à peu près universellement abandonné. L’idée qui prédomine aujourd’hui est qu’à l’exception de mouvements relativement tardifs venus rajouter un niveau de complexité, les deux processus désignés des noms de « celtisation » et d’ « ibérisation » sont principalement le résultat d’évolutions internes propres aux sociétés de la protohistoire ancienne, et que les invasions n’ont joué dans cette affaire qu’un rôle au mieux secondaire. Pour autant, ces phénomènes eux-mêmes sont très difficiles à mesurer, à quantifier, et plus encore à inscrire dans des limites géographiques claires, et les notions elles-mêmes sont l’objet d’une remise en cause de plus en plus généralisée dans toutes les disciplines sollicitées.

[...] Les critères linguistiques sont les seuls qui soient réellement tangibles, mais ils sont loin d’aboutir à une situation parfaitement limpide. On distingue assez aisément l’Ibère, qui constitue un substrat linguistique assez bien individualisé, et a de surcroît le mérite de posséder une écriture spécifique. On peut par ailleurs sans difficulté majeure reconnaître dans un certain nombre de régions, des noms ou des phénomènes phonétiques apparentés aux parlers celtes modernes dont l’appartenance à une aire linguistique celte est établie. Le « Ligure » est pour sa part en grande partie une appellation par défaut, où l’on a tendance à regrouper tout ce qui, entre l’Héraut, la Macra, et les limites occidentales de la plaine padane, ne paraît se réduire ni au Gaulois, ni à l’Etrusque. Pour les Romains des IIe –Ier s. av. J.-C., il s’agissait de l’ensemble des peuplades non gauloises de l’arc alpin et de l’Apennin ligure. Longtemps, on a reconnu dans le Ligure un substrat linguistique primordial pré-celte, voire pré-indo-européen. Aujourd’hui, la position des linguistes, qui ont abandonné l’idée d’une langue pré-indo-européenne et soulignent les parentés nombreuses avec les parlers celtes les plus anciens, est très prudente, mais dresse le double constat de la présence d’anthroponymes propres à une aire attribuée par les Anciens aux Ligures, qui couvre une partie de la Ligurie italienne, le midi de la France et une partie de l’Arc alpin, et de parentés nombreuses avec des parlers celtes connus.

[...] La situation des parlers Celtes et apparentés de l’Europe ancienne est en fait plus complexe qu’il n’y paraît, pour un assez grand nombre de raisons. D’abord parce que c’est une langue indo-européenne, que le très petit nombre de mots retenus (principalement des éléments constitutifs d’anthroponymes rapportés à des racines connues dans le celtique insulaire), et celui, encore plus réduit, des textes parvenus jusqu’à nous, ne permet pas toujours d’attribuer tel ou tel de ces mots à une racine spécifiquement celte.
Ensuite parce que la définition de ce qui est spécifiquement celte a été entièrement biaisé par la situation dominante du celtique insulaire dans les études linguistiques. Elles ont conduit à ne reconnaître pour celtes que les racines ou traits phonétiques connus en celtique insulaire, même lorsque les lexiques disponibles paraissent limiter les différences appréciables à quelques détails de prononciation, ou de translittération dans des systèmes d’écriture élaborés pour d’autres langues.

[...] La tendance à limiter les parlers celtes au celtique insulaire et le celtique continental au « Gaulois » ne facilite évidemment pas la tâche du chercheur. En Europe occidentale trois ensembles linguistiques périphériques , eux aussi connus essentiellement à travers quelques miettes arrachées à des noms propres, sont dans cette situation. C’est tout d’abord le Lusitanien, que certains auteurs, comme J. Untermann, rattachent au celtibère, mais que d’autres considèrent comme une langue à part. C’est ensuite le Ligure, dont Whatmough a reconnu il y a plus d’un demi-siècle la parenté avec un autre parler : le lépontique. C’est enfin le lépontique, qui fut écrit dans la région de Côme à une date ancienne, entre le VIe et le IVe s., et dont la celticité, démontrée, par M. Lejeune, n’est plus contestée aujourd’hui.
L’image du celtique en général, et du gaulois en particulier, qu’a peu à peu élaborée la linguistique traditionnelle est assez bien résumée dans deux affirmations de M. Lejeune, qui a par ailleurs apporté à la connaissance du celtique continental une contribution inestimable. D’un côté, il reconnaît dans le Celtibère, non une variante du Celte, mais le Celtique dans une région particulière : l’Ibérie, mais considère que le celto-ligure (qui dans l’Antiquité n’a jamais désigné une langue, mais a été utilisé aux dires de Strabone par certains auteurs pour désigner les seuls Salyens) ne peut être qu’un gaulois métissé de ligure ; de l’autre, il considère le lépontique comme une variante ancienne du gaulois de l’époque laténienne, souligne, à l’instar des autres linguistes, les parentés frappantes qu’il entretient avec le « ligure », mais refuse au ligure l’appartenance au celtique, au nom de l’absence de certains phénomènes phonétiques selon lui propres à tout les parlers celtes – c’est-à-dire à tous les parlers celtes insulaires. Or les approches les plus récentes du celtique continental ne nous mettent plus en présence d’une langue celtique compacte, le « gaulois » opposée à une ou à d’autres langues éventuellement celtiques, mais nous forcent à prendre conscience d’une diversité dialectale constitutive du celtique continental, au point que l’idée même de langues périphériques par rapport à un centre gaulois a perdu l’essentiel de sa pertinence et que les limites entre les grands ensembles traditionnellement opposés non seulement n’apparaissent plus avec la même clarté, mais sont remises en cause.

[...] Tout serait évidemment plus simple si le celtique continental et le « ligure », étaient mieux connus : le nombre des textes parvenus jusqu’à nous est squelettique, et ces textes, souvent sensiblement contemporains de la conquête romaine, voire postérieurs à celle-ci sont, en règle générale très tardifs ; des parlers anciens on sait peu de choses en dehors du lépontique. Le résultat est qu’un nombre considérable de mots est d’une origine disputée : Holder avait retenu comme celtes une masse considérable de noms que Schültze, sans plus de preuves, mais avec la même assurance a considérés comme étrusques…

[...] En un mot comme cela a été récemment souligné encore par X. Delamarre, tout ce qui, dans l’espace gaulois, n’est pas directement susceptible d’être rattaché à une racine celte insulaire connue tend à être écarté du gaulois, et l’on tend ainsi à renforcer l’authenticité celte insulaire d’une langue probablement beaucoup plus composite, comme l’étaient sans doute la quasi-totalité de celles qui composaient l’aire linguistique celte. On se bornera à rappeler que le nom de Brennus que la tradition prête aux deux chefs historiques des grands raids gaulois ne figure pas au nombre des noms retenus par l’érudition comme gaulois…

[...] L’usage d’une langue et d’une écriture ibériques spécifiques permet d’inscrire l’aire linguistique correspondante dans un espace circonscrit le long des côtes de la Méditerranée entre la basse Andalousie et l’Hérault, incluant une bonne partie de la Mancha et de la vallée de l’Ebre, cette dernière jusqu’à hauteur de Saragosse environ. Cette extension, vérifiable et quantifiable sur des bases documentaires tangibles, coïncide avec celle qu’établissait Ecateo di Mileto à la fin du VIe s. av. J.-C., mais elle n’exclut pas la présence d’autres groupes linguistiques, indo-européens, à l’intérieur des mêmes territoires, comme cela vient d’être démontré, sans qu’aucun indice ne vienne suggérer que l’organisation des communautés ait à aucun moment reproduit cette diversité linguistique.
La question de la Lusitanie est plus complexe, et il reste très difficile de trancher entre les deux hypothèses également défendables : celle d’une langue spécifique métissée de pénétrations marginales d’éléments celtes exogènes ou celle d’une langue apparentée au celtibère.

[...] La question de l’existence d’une aire Ligure et de ses frontières éventuelles avec l’aire dite « gauloise » est infiniment plus complexe. La zone correspondant à la « Ligystique » des auteurs grecs, qui couvre une majeure partie du Languedoc, et de la Provence littorale, se caractérise aux IIe-Iers a. C. par une épigraphie nettement gauloise, et les noms gaulois y sont nombreux, si bien que l’appellation de « Gaulois du midi » a peu à peu pris le pas sur celle de Celto-Ligures pour caractériser un espace et une culture dont les archéologues revendiquent de plus en plus nettement la celticité. De la même façon, l’étude des anthroponymes et des théonymes de la Ligurie du Ponant révèle une imprégnation majoritaire d’éléments au moins celtisants, voire proprement gaulois pour certains d’entre eux. Pourtant dans un large espace côtier, du Languedoc au sud de la Ligurie italienne et sur les franges alpines d’une large plaine padane apparaissent également des noms propres à cet espace ou à des parties de cet espace.

 

[Smertrius]

Don't forget that other major migration happened after the Celts. 400 years of Romanisation in Britain only had a moderate impact on the genetic make-up, but DNA studies have demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxon and Norse invasions had a major impact on the Y-DNA lineages in Britain (especially East England and Scotland).
Southern Germany is the crossroads of continental Europe. It was a major Roman settlement (the border with Magna Germania had to be protected by numerous fortified towns). Being just across that border, Germanic tribes settled most heavily in Rhineland than anywhere else except Britain.
Then, most importantly, the Indo-Europeans had to deal with an advanced agricultural society in Central Europe, with better fortifications, better weapons, and above all, a more advantageous landscape allowing for easy retreat into the mountains. The locals therefore resisted better to the Italo-Celtic invasions, as attested by the higher percentage of haplogroup E, T, G and J around the Alps. There is a clear gap between the flatter regions of southern Germany and northern Italy (high in R1b) and the remoter parts of Switzerland (high in G2a, E1b1b, T and J2b).
Megalithic societies of Western Europe were less technologically advanced and had less opportunity to escape the warrior-like Indo-Europeans. Their primitive weapons were no match to the Celtic bronze weapons and shields, or to their cavalry. It was a bit like the Spaniards arriving in the Americas.

The Anglo-Saxon and Norse migrations didn't have a major impact in most of Ireland and in Wales, did they ?

The roman settlements were just fixation points, they atracted peoples from the surrounding areas who quickly became the majority. They are not involved in any big population change.

The societies the IE had to deal with are part of the ethnogenesis of the Celtic populations, and can't be opposed to them. I don't see the point here.

 

[Smertrius]

Couldn't care less, or aren't up-to-date ? Population genetics based on the Y-DNA was almost inexistent 5 years ago. The main subclades of R1b were only discovered in the last 2 years, and their geographic spread is only becoming clearer now. The problem is not that historians and linguists couldn't care less; they just don't know. How many books about history and linguistics have been published about the Indo-Europeans since January 2009, that included the genetic insight acquired until 2008 ? The only one I know and have read is The 10,000 years explosion, which is in agreement with my views.

The answer is: couldn't care less.

As you said the Y-DNA discoveries are very recent, and are suceptible to many change very easily, so how could a serious reseacher base his work on that kind of stuff ?

 

[Smertrius]

So how do you explain that R1b makes up nearly over 80% of the lineages in places like Ireland or Gascony, and over 50% of the Western European population ? Not massive enough ?

We still can't tell which mtDNA lineages are Indo-European because mtDNA haplogroups were very similar between Eastern and Western Europe, and mtDNA phylogeny is infinitely more intricate than Y-DNA. There are already over a thousand mtDNA subclades and it is growing exponentially !

However it makes sense that the invaders should kill indigenous men, use them as slaves, or marginalise them, while marrying, raping or in any case procreating with native women. Men are not limited like women in the number of children they can have. Having power usually equals having more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies.

So the Indo-Europeans may have been a relatively small ruling class having lots of children with local women, quickly replacing the indigenous male lineages. Or there could have been a massive exodus, with as many of more Indo-European women contributing to the modern genetic pool of Western Europeans. I think that the former scenario makes more sense for three reasons :

1) mtDNA does vary considerably across Western Europe (although we still don't know what each subclade correspond to), meaning that the pre-existing diversity survived the Indo-European invasions (as opposed to Y-DNA).

2) People do look different in various parts of Western Europe despite strong similarities in Y-DNA haplogroups. This could be due to recent natural selection to adapt to different climates (lighter pigmentation in the north), but 4000 years is a too short time.

3) Invading armies have more men than women, and so must find women in the local population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

So how do you explain that R1b is the major hg in the north of Cameroon ?
How do you explain that the most peripherical regions of Europe, the Iberian peninsula and particularly the Basques, have the biggest R1b % in Europe ?
Do you think that the Basques are the most IE people in Europe ?
Do the people in Cameroon have some secret and massive IE connexion ?
And how do you explain that they don't speak an IE language ? That invalid all your theory about the "logic" relation between genetic and linguistic.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

So how do you explain that R1b is the major hg in the north of Cameroon ?
How do you explain that the most peripherical regions of Europe, the Iberian peninsula and particularly the Basques, have the biggest R1b % in Europe ?
Do you think that the Basques are the most IE people in Europe ?
Do the people in Cameroon have some secret and massive IE connexion ?
And how do you explain that they don't speak an IE language ? That invalid all your theory about the "logic" relation between genetic and linguistic.

I'm hardly treading on entirely firm ground here as I am not trained as a geneticist, physical or biological anthropologist. My B.A. and M.A. degrees are in social and economic anthropology, respectively. However, from what I understand, the R1b found in the Cameroon and neighboring areas is different from the "type(s)" recorded in Europe. It is listed as R1b (R-P25* (R1b1*)). Ostensibly, it is considered the result of a back migration from Asia. Does this subclade exist at all in Europe?

 

[Maciamo]

So how do you explain that R1b is the major hg in the north of Cameroon ?
How do you explain that the most peripherical regions of Europe, the Iberian peninsula and particularly the Basques, have the biggest R1b % in Europe ?
Do you think that the Basques are the most IE people in Europe ?
Do the people in Cameroon have some secret and massive IE connexion ?
And how do you explain that they don't speak an IE language ? That invalid all your theory about the "logic" relation between genetic and linguistic.

The variety of R1b found in Cameroon is the much older R1b1*, which split from the Near Eastern version 15,000 years ago, well before the establishment of Indo-European languages. The vast majority of European R1b's belong to subclades of R1b1b2a1. This is explained in details here.

The average R1b percentage in Cameroon is 5%. Only some northern tribes have a higher percentage (some reported up to 90%), possibly due a founder effect.

 

[Maciamo]

The Anglo-Saxon and Norse migrations didn't have a major impact in most of Ireland and in Wales, did they ?

The Anglo-Saxon didn't invade Wales and Ireland directly, but the English did conquer Wales under Norman rule, and Ireland later. The Norse did settle in Ireland, although it is poorly recorded.

Ireland is by far the best studied country for Y-DNA. Thousands of lineages have been tested. The overall picture shows that 25% of the Y-DNA is of Norse or Anglo-Saxon origin (haplogroups I1, I2b, R1a and R1b-S21).

The roman settlements were just fixation points, they atracted peoples from the surrounding areas who quickly became the majority. They are not involved in any big population change.

That's what I meant when I said "400 years of Romanisation in Britain only had a moderate impact on the genetic make-up".

 

[Maciamo]

Here are some quotes about celtic, ligurian, and iberian, from a 2008 work made by a researcher i know in my university :
[/I]

These are just vague linguistic comparisons (without concrete examples). The thing about dead ancient languages is that we don't have many written testimonies, as your researcher also confirms, so it is easy to extrapolate and hypothesise. That's mainly why "experts" can't agree easily.

The problem with many linguists is that they want to categorise a language in one linguistic family, and often do not allow for the possibility of hybrid languages.

It is absurd for instance to say that English is a Germanic language, as many linguists insist based on the basic grammatical structure only. It is both Romance and Germanic. In fact, English has more words of French and Latin origin (about 70%) than of Germanic origin.

Lusitanian and Ligurian are hybrid languages. So was Latin originally, a tri-hybrid of the Indo-European Italic branch with the indigenous Italian language of the Terramare culture, and Etruscan.

It is only natural that wherever populations mix and merge, languages should also mix and merge. Creoles first develop, then become establish as languages. It took centuries for Old English to evolve into Middle English, and centuries more for it to become modern. In fact, it keeps evolving all the time. We don't speak or write like 100 years ago anymore. The more recent is the hybridisation and the faster a language will evolve.

Upper High German is a Germanic tongue influenced by the (Latinised) Celtic culture of southern Germany. The Germanic tribes invaded and settled in the region around the 3rd-5th century, but it took some time before the two populations merged, intermarried and became undistinguishable. By the 9th century onwards, the language had mutated. Vowels and consonants shifted (e.g. : p => f ; g => k ; t => ts).

The same happened with vowels in English from the 15th century onwards, just after Middle English and Norman French had finished merging.

This is just to illustrate that languages do merge, and this does not only affect vocabulary and grammar, but also pronunciation. Ignoring clues from genetics about ancient migrations about which little or nothing is written is ridiculous. Just as you can't do ancient linguistics without knowing about history, you can't know about ancient population movements without genetics. I admit that genetics is new and we still have a lot of refining to do, but what we already know can lead us to the right direction in case of hesitation.

 

[Smertrius]

These are just vague linguistic comparisons (without concrete examples).

His purpose was not to make linguistic comparisons (btw he’s not a linguist but an historian) but to summarize in the short chapter dedicated to linguistic what the actual positions of the linguists are, and to draw a linguistic make up of Western Europe before the roman conquest.
These quotes show how difficult it is to define celtic and to delimit a celtic area which emcompass many celticised zones in France, North Italy, Iberia, or the British Isles.

 

[Smertrius]

I'm not rejecting genetics, i just think that using studies based on 200 or 300 people to say things like: "Italic languages are also associated with U152. It should be considered as a branch of Celtic, along with Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish." or "Iberia has a Celtic substratum, it is exceedingly clear. Case closed." is really amateurish.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The variety of R1b found in Cameroon is the much older R1b1*, which split from the Near Eastern version 15,000 years ago, well before the establishment of Indo-European languages. The vast majority of European R1b's belong to subclades of R1b1b2a1. This is explained in details here.
The average R1b percentage in Cameroon is 5%. Only some northern tribes have a higher percentage (some reported up to 90%), possibly due a founder effect.

Thank you for the clarification, Maciamo.

 

[Barros Serrano]

Yes. It would seem that this earlier R1b, the one found in Cameroons, evolved in the Mideast, BEFORE the Indoeuropean ancestors had moved northward when the glaciation decreased. So it is quite ancient.

Don't tell this information to an Afrocentric... they get hysterical about this...

 

[Barros Serrano]

Indoeuropeans AND indigènes...

As for this argument here... you know I can't find either of you wrong. The new info about the high % of Indoeuropean (R) genes in Western Europe is surprising, but does indicate a spread of PEOPLE, not just culture/language. On the other hand, one still cannot ignore the essentially indigenous nature of Western Europe culture even after they had come to speak Celtic.

A complex intertwining of what each of you is supporting is what occurred in reality. These things are NEVER simple... that's what makes anthropology so interesting! If I'd wanted it simple, I'd have studied nuclear physics... ha ha.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Yes. It would seem that this earlier R1b, the one found in Cameroons, evolved in the Mideast, BEFORE the Indoeuropean ancestors had moved northward when the glaciation decreased. So it is quite ancient.
Don't tell this information to an Afrocentric... they get hysterical about this...

Afrocentrics are delusional. They uncritically accept just about anything that even remotely suggests Black contribution. In other words, they believe their own BS...

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

As for this argument here... you know I can't find either of you wrong. The new info about the high % of Indoeuropean (R) genes in Western Europe is surprising, but does indicate a spread of PEOPLE, not just culture/language. On the other hand, one still cannot ignore the essentially indigenous nature of Western Europe culture even after they had come to speak Celtic.
A complex intertwining of what each of you is supporting is what occurred in reality. These things are NEVER simple... that's what makes anthropology so interesting! If I'd wanted it simple, I'd have studied nuclear physics... ha ha.

Indeed!...

 

[carpathia]

The division of Europe various subclades of R1b give invaluable insight on when migration happened and on what scale.....

No, they dont... these regional divisions rely on a large majority of test results from AMERICANS most of whom never set foot in europe and large part of whom dont actually know where they came from..

those selling regional claims on surveys that they commisioned of 50 people in a locale know they have a statistically worthless sample, but it makes great marketing to sell SNP tests and get repeat customers.. again, mostly americans looking for a family history that the SNP cannot provide.

most of europe is part of the same proto-celt population that when it was localized , and bottlenecked in locales NOT subjected to war, occupation, cultural exchange, movements.. etc.. have SOME localized SNP (ireland-M222) but those conditions are a result of the founder effect in ireland ALONG with the fact that until modern times there was little population exchange INTO most regions of the country compared to the rest of europe.. that is not a situation manifested elsewhere... and if it did, test results from Ulster-scots american descendents are are mostly what you have, and they are of ZERO value for depicting the ancient genetic demographic of europe..

 

[Maciamo]

No, they dont... these regional divisions rely on a large majority of test results from AMERICANS most of whom never set foot in europe and large part of whom dont actually know where they came from..

You are talking about results from commercial companies like Family Tree DNA or Genebase. The frequency tables on this website uses mostly scientific studies sampling directly local people. They are not based on the self-reported ancestry of Americans.

those selling regional claims on surveys that they commisioned of 50 people in a locale know they have a statistically worthless sample, but it makes great marketing to sell SNP tests and get repeat customers.. again, mostly americans looking for a family history that the SNP cannot provide.

Several studies have been used for each country. All have more than 100 samples, many over 500 samples, and big countries have over 1000 samples each. Believe it or not, this is statistically significant.