# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  origin of people of Scotland and northeast Ireland

## how yes no 2

tribes in UK 

01: *Caledones*
02: Taexali
03: Carvetii
04: Venicones
05: Epidii
06: Damnonii
07: Novantae
08: Selgovae
09: Votadini
10: Brigantes
11: Parisi
12: Cornovii
13: Deceangli
14: Ordovices
15: Corieltauvi
16: Iceni
17: Demetae
18: Catuvellauni
19: Silures
20: Dubunni
21: Dumnonii
22: Durotriges
23: Belgae
24: Atrebates
25: Regni
26: Cantiaci
27: Trinovantes




> Caledonia is the Latin name given by the Romans to the land in today's Scotland north of their province of Britannia, beyond the frontier of their empire. Modern use is as a romantic or poetic name for Scotland as a whole.
> Original usage
> The original use of the name, by Tacitus, Ptolemy, Lucan and Pliny the Elder, referred to the area (or parts of the area) also known as Pictavia or Pictland north of the Antonine Wall in today's Scotland.[1] The name may be related to that of a Pictish tribe, the *Caledonii*, one amongst several in the area, though perhaps the dominant tribe which would explain the binomial Caledonia/Caledonii. Their name can be found in Dùn Chailleann, the Scottish Gaelic word for the town of Dunkeld meaning "fort of the Caledonii", and in that of the mountain Sìdh Chailleann or Schiehallion, the "fairy [hill] of the Caledonians". According to Historia Brittonum the site of the seventh battle of the mythical Arthur was a forest in what is now Scotland, called Coit Celidon in early Welsh. Traces of such mythology have endured until today in Midlothian: near the town centre of Edinburgh stands an old volcanic mountain called Arthur's Seat.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia




> I see the absence of I2a2a-Dinaric in Britain as further evidence that the Slavic migrations carried the eastern form. However, there is a relatively rare form of I2a2a called *I2a2a-Disles* [halfway between Isles and Dinaric] which leans slightly towards I2a2a-Dinaric, and is *found mainly in Scotland*. This is a bit of an enigma. Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe' suggested that I2a2a-Disles came to Britain via Yamnaya bands.


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...3&postcount=65

yes, one of three UK I2a2-DIsles samples from familytreedna (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap ) project falls in Scotland and there is one in northeast Ireland as well. I believe they were spread by same proto-tribe

the name Scotland might be related to Scythians... not just linguistic similarity, but also mythology and genetics of R1a and I2a2 points out to it...




> Some legends of the* Picts*; the Gaels; the Hungarians; Serbs and Croats (among others) also include *mention of Scythian origins*. In the second paragraph of the *1320 Declaration of Arbroath the élite of Scotland claim Scythia as a former homeland of the Scots*.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

to compare Serbs and Croats have very dominant I2a2 haplogroup and significant R1a (higher in Croats)... 
the branch of I2a2 dominant among Serbs and Croats, and significant among other Slavic nations and absent in UK is named I2a2-Dinaric...

I2a2-DIsles branch is called DIsles because it appears in both East Europe and in British Isles, unlike I2a2-Isles that is so far discovered only in UK... I2a2-DIsles in UK seems to be related to Scotland and northeast Ireland...



We know that Scythians are R1a carriers... this is indicated by ancient DNA of Scythian warriors... 

but as a brief proof of that look at the pretty good match of Indo-Scythians with the spread of R1a 


http://sites.google.com/site/thelineagesofasia/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

unlike the rest of UK and Ireland there is R1a in Scotland and northeast Ireland...




I would say that presence of R1a indicates that legend of Scythian origin is likely to be correct...


let's go further into legend of Scythian origin of Scotish people




> The Declaration of Arbroath is a declaration of Scottish independence, made in 1320. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, intended to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and defending Scotland's right to use military action when unjustly attacked.


http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotlan...h_english.html

from the Declaration of Arbroath:




> Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the *Scots*, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed *from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain* among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, *twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today*. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.


http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotlan...h_english.html

let's focus on stay in Iberian peninsula...




> They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and *dwelt for a long course of time in Spain* among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.


http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotlan...h_english.html

if we look at tribes in Iberia...

at 300 BC there is still a tribe Caladuni there (this is tribal name obviously identical to Caledonii in Scotland)



click on link bellow to zoom the map...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eria_300BC.svg

in fact, next to Caladuni is tribe Seurbi, and nearby is also a tribe named Helleni

the whole area is painted as partly Celtic, partly pre-Celtic proto-IndoEuropean




> The Seurbi were an ancient Celtic tribe of Gallaecia, living in the north of modern Portugal, in the province of Minho, between the rivers Cávado and Lima (or even reaching the river Minho).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seurbi



anyway, according to legend Scythians first settled in Iberia (which we proved by tracing tribal name Caladuni there) and than settled in Scotland after beating Brittons and destroying Picts... I would say after defeating Picts proto-Scotish tribe of Caledonians probably settled among Picts, which is why I guess they were later also referred to as Picts... I think that initially Picts were subdued and Scythians were ruling elite, and that later names Pict and Scotish mixed up as boundaries between two merged ethnic groups disappeared......

look at the map representing 3 different ethnic groups in uk and ireland in the mid-5th century AD, between the Roman departure and the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

green - Mainly Goidelic areas.
blue - Mainly Pictish areas.
red - Mainly Brythonic areas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

If you look at distribution of Gaelic languages in Scotland, you can see that Picts were not the carriers of that language, though some of them might have been assimilated into it...thus they were not celtic tribe originally but were partly celticized...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

Picts




> The Picts were a confederation of Celtic tribes living in what was later to become eastern and northern Scotland from before the Roman conquest of Britain until the 10th century, when they merged with the Gaels. They lived to the north of the Forth and Clyde rivers, and *spoke the extinct Pictish language*, thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons to the south. They are *assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii* and other tribes named by Roman historians or found on the world map of Ptolemy.
> ....
> In writings from Ireland, the name Cruthin, *Cruthini*, Cruthni, Cruithni or Cruithini (Modern Irish: Cruithne) was used to *refer to the Picts and to a* group of *people who lived alongside the Ulaid* in eastern Ulster.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts
R1a in Ireland matches position of Cruithin and Darini 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini
later in those areas as tribal name appears Ulaids and even later area is named Ulster


and I2a2DIsles sample in Ireland from familytreedna is from same area...

Darini seems to have been very warlike people...



> The cognate Dari(o) ("agitation, tumult, rage") is a form widely attested in the Gaulish language, especially in personal names.[4] An example from the Welsh language is cynddaredd ("rage"). Thus the Darini may have been considered a people "of great violence", or descendants of a "God of Tumult".


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini

Perhaps, Darini are counterpart of Greek Dorians who gave Spartans and Macedonians, and who, as it seems, have also had dominant R1a and some I2a2

in fact, Caledonii in Scotland and Caladuni in Iberia, while Dorian Greek settlements are Lacedaemon on Peloponnese (Sparta) and Macedon in ancient Macedonia, and all seems to have same origin, same as Ireland Darini and Greek Dorian tribal names are related...it is not just linguistic connection but also connection by common genetic origin - haplogroups R1a and I2a2....

note also that I2a2 in Greece is also strongest in Dorian settled areas of Peloponese and ancient Macedonia... I would expect some or dominant DIsles among the I2a2 found there... btw. look also again at R1a distribution... R1a in area of antic Macedonia is much stronger than among south Slavic nations north of it (FYRM, Bulgaria, Serbia...)

anyway, we can clearly see that mix of R1a and I2a2 is not recent... that it existed among Scythians long time ago...before a tribe from Scythia departed to Spain and from there to Scotland and northeast Ireland...

----------


## Yorkie

Firstly, as a fellow enthusiast, I appreciate the great trouble you have taken to put all this extremely interesting material together. I give you my views below.

This is fascinating material, and the theories certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, be careful with I2a2a-Disles. This is a very, very small group indeed, intermediate between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric, as you correctly state, but slightly closer to Dinaric in terms of gd. So far, no examples of I2a2a-Disles have been found in eastern Europe, just Scotland and a tiny few in northern Ireland.

Be careful too regarding R1a1. I do not have the exact figures but population geneticists regard it as effectively absent in Ireland. If we are talking about the miniscule levels of R1a1 in Northern Ireland, I would argue that the Williamite Protestant Plantations of 1600s, from England and lowland Scotland, are a more likely source.

I note your comments about the Scythians and Picts possible connections. It can't be dismissed but as yet we can't prove it either.

Regarding attempts to link I2a2 [old I1b] with the Picts, and specifically the Irish 'version' of the Picts- the Cruthin, you might well be onto something. However, I think that it is more likely to be L161 I2a2b-Isles rather than I2a2a-Disles that links to the Cruthin. There have been several attempts to link I2a2 with Picts/Cruthin previously:

A] McEvoy and Bradley in 2005 conducted the 'Trinity Study', sponsored by Patrick Guinness. They found higher levels of both old I1b [I2a2] and old I1c [I2b1] in families such as Maguinness and MacArtan, which have legends of Cruthin ancestry. The sponsor, Patrick Guinness even went so far as to claim that they had, 'unmasked the Cruthin Dynasty' as hiding behind I1c [I2b1] and I1b [I2a2] in Ireland.

B] In a later paper [2010] the same authors link I2b1a with the Cruthin, and they suggest a La Tene Celtic origin for the Cruthin.

C] Recently [2010], Tim Owen and Ian Adamson in their Ingenta online blog, 'Genes of the Cruthin' conjecture that L161 I2a2b-Isles might link to the Cruthin. Owen sees the distribution of clades C1 and C2 of L161 I2a2b-Isles as closely following the alleged distribution of Cruthin sites in Ireland. For example, in Ulster and particularly in Rathcroghan, County Roscommon, the alleged seat of a sattelite Cruthin settlement. Owen and Adamson see the Cruthin as pre-Celtic relics of the earliest, post-LGM settlers to Ireland and Britain rather than La Tene era Celts. Owen also suggests that L161 I2a2b-Isles came to Britain/Ireland in different 'waves'. The distribution in England, for example, more likely links to the later Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

In sum, I think you are correct in conjecturing a link between I2a2 and Pictish Cruthin groups. There is evidence above to suggest that you are not alone there. Very respectfully, I think you are wrong regarding levels of R1a1- the levels are too low and there are too many other sources for R1a1 in Scotland and Northern Ireland [Norse, Normans, Williamite Planters etc] for it to fit your Scythian theory. However, we can't rule out a Scythian connection altogether and Ian Adamson in 'The Ancient Kindred' refers to possible Scythian-Pictish connections. It is not impossible that the minute I2a2a-Disles clades link to the Cruthin, as is most likely the sub-clades C1 and C2 of I2a2b-Isles, but to reiterate, despite its closer affinity with I2a2a-Dinaric, I2a2a-Disles has not as yet been located outside of Scotland and Ireland. I2a2b-Isles has been located in Germany, France etc.

Thanks again for a very thought-provoking posting.

----------


## how yes no 2

Thanks for sharing all the information about recent attempts to find genetical links between Picts and Cruthins...





> This is fascinating material, and the theories certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, be careful with I2a2a-Disles. This is a very, very small group indeed, intermediate between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric, as you correctly state, but slightly closer to Dinaric in terms of gd. So far, no examples of I2a2a-Disles have been found in eastern Europe, just Scotland and a tiny few in northern Ireland.


actually, you are right... I was convinced that on I2a2 project of familytree DNA, European sample of I2a2-DIsles was in Poland, but I checked again and it is in Germany...

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap

but, I do also know that according to 
http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Hg-I-s...DNA-order.html

DIsles has
for marker Dys 19 value 17, 
for 385 a|b -> 15/15
391 -> 10
635 -> 24

while Dinarics north/south have
for marker Dys 19 value 16, 
for 385 a|b -> 14/15
391 -> 11
635 -> 23

in data for Serbia (table 3)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...21235/suppinfo

385a\b (besides Dinaric 14\15) also quite commonly takes values:
13/15, 14/14, 14/16, 15/15, 15/16, 13/16

let's zoom in in few of 15/15 (DIsles like) samples

e.g. sample 78 has
Dys 19 value 17 (DIsles value)
for 385 a|b -> 15/15 (DIsles value)
391 -> 11 (Dinarics value)
635 -> 23 (Dinarics value)

sample 95 has
Dys 19 value 16 (Dinarics value)
for 385 a|b -> 15/15 (DIsles value)
391 -> 10 (DIsles value)
635 -> 22 (neither Dinarics(23) nor DIsles(24), nor Isles (21), in fact it is typical for I2a1)

sample 64 has
Dys 19 value 15 (value for I2a* and most of Isles branches, while not Dinarics(16) nor Disles(17) )
for 385 a|b -> 15/15 (DIsles value)
391 -> 11 (Dinarics value)
635 -> 23 (Dinarics value)

...





> Be careful too regarding R1a1. I do not have the exact figures but population geneticists regard it as effectively absent in Ireland. If we are talking about the miniscule levels of R1a1 in Northern Ireland, I would argue that the Williamite Protestant Plantations of 1600s, from England and lowland Scotland, are a more likely source.


R1a is very characteristic for Scythians, so it does seem to fit well with own legend of origin of Scotish people... of course taking into account long time from separation of Scythians and mixture with previous settlers of Iberian peninsula and Scotland, R1a cannot be too large...




> I note your comments about the Scythians and Picts possible connections. It can't be dismissed but as yet we can't prove it either.


if part about arriving from Iberian peninsula is correct (which we can see in identical tribal names Caladuni in Iberian peninsula and Caledonii in Scotland), I would say the rest is likely to be correct as well

btw. I also emphasized possible link between Greek Dorians, and Darins and Picts...

can this be coincidence:




> Mid Northern Scots or Northeast Scots, popularly known as the *Doric*, refers to the dialects of Scots spoken in the northeast of Scotland.
> The term Doric was *used to refer to all dialects of Lowland Scots* but during the twentieth century it became increasingly associated with Mid Northern Scots.[1]
> The *term possibly originated as a jocular reference to the Doric dialect of the Ancient Greek* language. Greek Dorians lived in Sparta amongst other places, a more rural area, and were supposed by the ancient Greeks to have spoken laconically and in a language that was thought harsher in tone and more phonetically conservative than the Attic spoken in Athens. Doric Greek was used for some of the verses spoken by the chorus in Greek tragedy.
> As The *Oxford Companion to English Literature explains:
> "Since the Dorians were regarded as uncivilised by the Athenians, 'Doric' came to mean 'rustic' in English, and was applied particularly to the language of Northumbria and the Lowlands of Scotland* and also to the simplest of the three orders in architecture."[2]
> Use of the term Doric in this context may also arise out of a contrast with the anglicised speech of the Scottish capital, because at one point, Edinburgh was nicknamed 'Athens of the North'. The upper/middle class speech of Edinburgh would thus be 'Attic', making the rural areas' speech 'Doric'.[citation needed] According to another source, 18th century Scots writers like Allan Ramsay justified their use of Scots (instead of English) by comparing it to the use of Ancient Greek Doric by Theocritus.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland)

----------


## RH NEG-I

I got my results back from the Genographic project. Apparently you don't get much in the way of detailed info here. All they can tell me is that I am Haplogroup I M170. Can anyone read anymore detail from my STR chart here? Since I am a newbee I can't post the URL untill I post a couple more comments.. :Sad 2:  I guess Ill try to post it to my profile. I am supposedly of Northern Scottish descent (Inverness).

----------


## Yorkie

> Thanks for sharing all the information about recent attempts to find genetical links between Picts and Cruthins...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, you are right... I was convinced that on I2a2 project of familytree DNA, European sample of I2a2-DIsles was in Poland, but I checked again and it is in Germany...
> 
> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap
> 
> but, I do also know that according to 
> ...


 
Firstly, it is a pleasure to share information with you re I2a2 and the Cruthin. You are obviously putting a lot of thought into these matters. I agree re the possibility of a link between the Greek Dorians/Darins and Picts, but possibility is all it is at this stage.

You mention Iberia. The only I clade, in my view, that was founded in Iberia was M26 I2a1. I2a2b-Isles seems to have been founded in northern Germany. I think that I2a2a-Dinaric was likely founded in the Danube Basin. As for the tiny I2a2a-Disles...your guess is as good as mine..

----------


## Yorkie

> I got my results back from the Genographic project. Apparently you don't get much in the way of detailed info here. All they can tell me is that I am Haplogroup I M170. Can anyone read anymore detail from my STR chart here? Since I am a newbee I can't post the URL untill I post a couple more comments.. I guess Ill try to post it to my profile. I am supposedly of Northern Scottish descent (Inverness).


I'll have a look. Hopefully it is there.

Just looked at your profile- doesn't seem to be there.

----------


## RH NEG-I

> I'll have a look. Hopefully it is there.
> 
> Just looked at your profile- doesn't seem to be there.


Just sent it to you in a private message. Thanks!

----------


## RH NEG-I

I had read somewhere that there is a way to determine if you are a direct descendant of the Great leader of the Macdonald Clan, Somerled, a naval commander who crushed the Vikings in the Hebrides.

----------


## RH NEG-I

http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/DNAmain3.htm Found it!! Looks like Somerled was R1a

----------


## RH NEG-I

Well I am looking less and less Scottish! Can anyone make sense of my chart here??

----------


## RH NEG-I

Sorry cropped my last post by accident. Here is the complete chart.

----------


## Yorkie

> Sorry cropped my last post by accident. Here is the complete chart.


 
Your mini haplotype [rather short at 12 dys values- more would be useful] suggests strongly that you are a member of I1 haplotype. I have a great interest in this haplogroup myself as my Maternal Grandfather was I1. Your STR values suggest that you probably belong in one of Ken Nordtvedt's I1-Anglo-Saxon clades. From the look of it, you could feasibly be in I1-AS 4, I1-AS 9 or I1-AS 13. I1 is a very Germanic clade, and you might be of Anglo Saxon or Danish Viking origin on the Ydna line.

I am going to reply to your private message to me, and I'll give you Ken Nordtvedt's private email. He is a pal of mine and arguably the foremost researcher of I haplogroup. I suggest that you send him your results for his expert analysis. However, I think I am right in assigning you to I1. Your values for 389a,b [12,15] are very strange though. One would normally expect 12, 28 or 12, 29 for I1 at dys 389a,b. Did you test with Oxford Ancestors? Maybe there is a conversion issue here.

All the best  :Good Job: 

Yorkie

----------


## RH NEG-I

These are my results from the Genographic project. It is very funny that I always associated myself with a Norse paradigm even though I was adopted into an Irish family...funny enough after researching my biological family via a private investigator I found that my true Sur name is Mcdonell. I am supposedly related a Scottish Highlander mercenary named "Spanish" John MacDonald from Inverness in Northern Scotland. Interestingly the Mcdonald Clan used a Norse symbol on it's shield, the Raven.

----------


## RH NEG-I

By the way the name "Spanish John" comes from fighting in a Spanish campaigna as a mercenary not ancestry.

----------


## how yes no 2

> I note your comments about the Scythians and Picts possible connections. It can't be dismissed but as yet we can't prove it either.


that's not exactly what I was saying...

according to above mentioned legend of origin of Scotish nobles, Picts were already there when they arrived... since there is in Iberia a tribe matching their legend of origin (Caladuni), I think their settlement was Caledonii tribe, and that their power extended over Picts as well
in 400 Ad we can see separate locations of Picts and Caledonii

this is Picts position in 400 AD
http://www.euratlas.net/history/euro...tity_9739.html

while Calledonii are in same year north and south of west most Picts..
http://www.euratlas.net/history/euro...ity_15160.html

I think that Calledonii did conquer lands of Picts, and for a long time also Picts settlement counted among Calledonii... but those are people of different origin... legend of Scythian origin is related to Caledonii only...
I believe I2a-Disles might be related to Calledonii..

however, I would add that you are probably right concerning R1a
the following detailed map of R1a spread does in fact show that R1a is actually not in the position of Caledonii, but all around it, supporting idea that this R1a is not related to legend of Scythian origin of Scotish people (as Caledonii are the tribe related to the legend, and R1a lacks exactly in their place of settlement)... R1a there might indeed be due to Vikings..

----------


## Yorkie

> that's not exactly what I was saying...
> 
> according to above mentioned legend of origin of Scotish nobles, Picts were already there when they arrived... since there is in Iberia a tribe matching their legend of origin (Caladuni), I think their settlement was Caledonii tribe, and that their power extended over Picts as well
> in 400 Ad we can see separate locations of Picts and Caledonii
> 
> this is Picts position in 400 AD
> http://www.euratlas.net/history/euro...tity_9739.html
> 
> while Calledonii are in same year north and south of west most Picts..
> ...


It is possible that I2a2a-Disles might relate to the Caledonians. After all, this tiny clade's hotspot is in Scotland rather than Ireland.

Glad you agree re a mainly Norse Viking connection for the bulk of R1a1. The distribution of R1a1 in Britain closely mirrors that of Norwegian Viking settlement. The rest will have been brought by Normans, Danes and Anglo-Saxons.

----------


## how yes no 2

btw. not some source worth quoting, but somewhat interesting data:




> 178 words in Welsh and 134 words in Scotch-Gaelic were found to be present in modern South Slavic languages. These words were determined to be borrowings based on recognizable sound shifts and lack of parallels in other European languages with Indo-European roots.


http://orca.byu.edu/Journals/2003%20...um/gashler.pdf

----------


## Yorkie

> btw. not some source worth quoting, but somewhat interesting data:
> 
> 
> http://orca.byu.edu/Journals/2003%20...um/gashler.pdf


That is very interesting indeed. Maybe there is a Scotland-Slavic link via I2a2a-Disles? There is no doubt whatsoever that I2a2a-Disles is closer to I2a2a-Dinaric than it is to L161 I2a2b-Isles, plus 'Disles' is negative for L161 just like the eastern 'Dinaric'. It certainly makes one think. Again, 'Disles' has a distribution very different to 'Isles'. 'Isles' stretches from Germany/Polish border to include France, England, Scotland, Ireland. Whilst to my knowledge, 'Disles' has, as yet, just Scottish and Irish members. Scotland is the real hotspot. If we could find some 'Disles' further east that would be very, very interesting indeed. 

By the way, when I say a 'Scotland-Slavic' link, I must qualify what I mean. I do not consider the eastern I2a2 to be 'Slavic', as it predates the Slavs. What I mean is that I2a2a-Dinaric has been carried by Slavs though it is not _intrinsically 'Slavic'._

----------


## how yes no 2

> By the way, when I say a 'Scotland-Slavic' link, I must qualify what I mean. I do not consider the eastern I2a2 to be 'Slavic', as it predates the Slavs. What I mean is that I2a2a-Dinaric has been carried by Slavs though it is not _intrinsically 'Slavic'._


agreed, those shared words might come from some I2a2 specific vocabulary... as they are absent in Slavic lands that are not dominantly I2a2...

Slavic language likely arose as a mix of languages of R1a speakers and I2a2 speakers... perhaps with stronger influence of R1a as more R1a people participated... however, south Slavs as dominantly I2a2 did still preserve some words that didnot spread among all Slavic speakers...

alternative, perhaps more likely, explanations would be that words come to south Slavs via previous Celtic and Illyrian folk, and that Scotish tribe of Calledoni did start their voyage to Iberia and Scotland from somewhere in Balkans...

----------


## Yorkie

> agreed, those shared words might come from some I2a2 specific vocabulary... as they are absent in Slavic lands that are not dominantly I2a2...
> 
> Slavic language likely arose as a mix of languages of R1a speakers and I2a2 speakers... perhaps with stronger influence of R1a as more R1a people participated... however, south Slavs as dominantly I2a2 did still preserve some words that didnot spread among all Slavic speakers...
> 
> alternative, perhaps more likely, explanations would be that words come to south Slavs via previous Celtic and Illyrian folk, and that Scotish tribe of Calledoni did start their voyage to Iberia and Scotland from somewhere in Balkans...


Interesting. Did you know that Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Project sees 'I1b' [old name for I2a2] as linked to the Celtic migrations?

----------


## how yes no 2

> Interesting. Did you know that Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Project sees 'I1b' [old name for I2a2] as linked to the Celtic migrations?


No, but that makes sense...

because when I look at family tree dna, there are only two samples of I2a* - one matches exactly area of Adriatic Veneti and the other matches exactly the area of Celtic Veneti in Britanny... 
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap

we also have Scordisci as previous Celtic speaking inhabitants of Serbia... but there is close to 50% of haplogroup I (38.5 % of I2a2, 7.8% of I1, and 1.67% of I2b1) and almost no R1b (only 4.5%) in Serbia, and Scordisci do fit very well into pattern of haplogroup I tribal names (Swedes, Suebi, Serbs, Sarbans, Sardinians...) while the area was not depopulated (since it preserved 17.3% of E-V13), so it never was high in R1b and Celtic Scordisci were likely only marginally R1b

also, 300 BC in Celtic or partially Celtic area of Iberia, next to Caladuni we find tribe Seurbi... from Caladuni come Scotish Caledonii as preserved in their legend of origin... btw. ending on -din, -dun, -tin is typical for Celts, it had meaning fortress.. and indeed while Seurbi are next to sea side, thus close to point of entering Iberia, Caladuni were deeper into mainland - they had a role of being fortress protecting other settlements...

in Serbia exist somewhat bizarre saying "speak Serbian so that the whole world understands you" which may indicate that proto-IE was initially spread by I2a, which is idea that makes some sense as various I2a branches we find in different areas of Europe, while R1b and R1a are mostly constrained to west / east Europe respectively...

----------


## Yorkie

> No, but that makes sense...
> 
> because when I look at family tree dna, there are only two samples of I2a* - one matches exactly area of Adriatic Veneti and the other matches exactly the area of Celtic Veneti in Britanny... 
> 
> we also have Scordisci as previous Celtic speaking inhabitants of Serbia... but there is close to 50% of haplogroup I (38.5 % of I2a2, 7.8% of I1, and 1.67% of I2b1) and almost no R1b (only 4.5%) in Serbia, and Scordisci do fit very well into pattern of haplogroup I tribal names (Swedes, Suebi, Serbs, Sarbans, Sardinians...) while the area was not depopulated (since it preserved 17.3% of E-V13), so it never was high in R1b and Celtic Scordisci were likely only marginally R1b
> 
> also, 300 BC in Celtic or partially Celtic area of Iberia, next to Caladuni we find tribe Seurbi... from Caladuni come Scotish Caledonii as preserved in their legend of origin... btw. ending on -din, -dun, -tin is typical for Celts, it had meaning fortress.. and indeed while Seurbi are next to sea side, thus close to point of entering Iberia, Caladuni were deeper into mainland - they had a role of being fortress protecting other settlements...
> 
> in Serbia exist somewhat bizarre saying "speak Serbian so that the whole world understands you" which may indicate that proto-IE was spread by I2a, which is idea that makes some sense as various I2a branches we find in different areas of Europe, while R1b and R1a are mostly constrained to west / east Europe respectively...


I agree that there must be a connection here. That is re I2a2a-Dinaric, though 'Dinaric' seems to have made no impact on Britain in terms of being able to locate haplotypes.

The German-founded, 'western' kind of I2a2- I2a2b-Isles was probably brought to Germany from eastern Europe via LBK bands. Then we have the birth of L161 SNP in Germany, and the 'Isles' I2a2 carried to Britain in various 'waves', including some pre-Celts [Cruthin], Celts and later Anglo-Saxons.

Yes, you make a good point re I2a being found in different areas of Europe- south-east, east, north-west etc.

----------


## KenCalgary

As a member of the Disles clade (McGuire) I am VERY interested in your views and explanations but I'm wondering if we are hoping too much? The Disles clade has, I think, only about 15-20 members - very small - so could it be likely that we are descended from one man who arrived quite late rather than an ancient group?

----------


## Regulus

How Yes No, 

-A very interesting suggestion.

Forgive me if someone else mentioned this part; About the Scythians in this case- Depending on the time period in question, one may need to be cautious in the use of the term "Scots" or "Scotland" when referring to the region or people we know today as Scotland or Scottish.

Prior to the days of the Roman withdrawal from Britain, the term "Scots" applied to people who lived in Ireland and the term itself was an alternative to "Irish". Modern-day Scotland (Then Caledonia) was inhabited by Celts who spoke Brythonic Celtic and by the Picts, who as you wrote were probably a Celtized/mixed group at least partly descended from pre-Celtic people.

At or after the period marking the end of Roman Britain, there were significant invasions/settling of Caledonia by these "Scots" or Irish. Their Gaelic eventually supplanted the Brythonic Celtic of the area and the ruling dynasties there became mixed in a number of cases. After this period, the term, "Scots" becomes applied exclusively to those who lived in modern-day Scotland and those in Ireland are only called Irish. (or Gaels)

The name of Scythians and Scot is still intriguing to me, though. Perhaps the relationship is with a Proto IE root word from which the names themselves are derived. As you mentioned, the Scythians are R1a, but there is very little R1a in Ireland and what little there is there is believed to be from Viking, Anglo-Normans, and English settlers. I would like to see more on this.

----------


## Yorkie

> How Yes No, 
> 
> -A very interesting suggestion.
> 
> Forgive me if someone else mentioned this part; About the Scythians in this case- Depending on the time period in question, one may need to be cautious in the use of the term "Scots" or "Scotland" when referring to the region or people we know today as Scotland or Scottish.
> 
> Prior to the days of the Roman withdrawal from Britain, the term "Scots" applied to people who lived in Ireland and the term itself was an alternative to "Irish". Modern-day Scotland (Then Caledonia) was inhabited by Celts who spoke Brythonic Celtic and by the Picts, who as you wrote were probably a Celtized/mixed group at least partly descended from pre-Celtic people.
> 
> At or after the period marking the end of Roman Britain, there were significant invasions/settling of Caledonia by these "Scots" or Irish. Their Gaelic eventually supplanted the Brythonic Celtic of the area and the ruling dynasties there became mixed in a number of cases. After this period, the term, "Scots" becomes applied exclusively to those who lived in modern-day Scotland and those in Ireland are only called Irish. (or Gaels)
> ...


We can regard R1a1 as effectively absent in Ireland. It is not usually encountered in the dna of the Anglo-Norman families, or in Ulster Protestants. Neither is it usually encountered in areas of known Norse Viking settlement like Limerick and Dublin. Shame really...

----------


## Yorkie

> As a member of the Disles clade (McGuire) I am VERY interested in your views and explanations but I'm wondering if we are hoping too much? The Disles clade has, I think, only about 15-20 members - very small - so could it be likely that we are descended from one man who arrived quite late rather than an ancient group?


You may have to be heroically patient, but I believe it will be worth the wait. Eventually, the databases will enlarge and we will learn more about your 'Disles' clade. It is definately closer in GD to I2a2a-Dinaric than to L161 I2a2b-Isles, and it is absent in eastern Europe. So far, there are no known continental members, and Scotland followed by Ireland seems to be the 'hotspot'. Things change....once I2a2b-Isles was just a few haplotypes. Now it is still tiny, but we know more about its distribution and foundation, and we have a useful, distinguishing SNP. Hang in there... :Good Job:

----------


## Regulus

> We can regard R1a1 as effectively absent in Ireland. It is not usually encountered in the dna of the Anglo-Norman families, or in Ulster Protestants. Neither is it usually encountered in areas of known Norse Viking settlement like Limerick and Dublin. Shame really...


I only felt that the mention of R1a was necessary due to the Scythians being a main part of the topic. For the record, I am perfectly fine with "effectively absent" in place of "very little". :Good Job:  The main point was that those called "Scots" at the time could not be close kin of the Scythians.

----------


## Yorkie

> I only felt that the mention of R1a was necessary due to the Scythians being a main part of the topic. For the record, I am perfectly fine with "effectively absent" in place of "very little". The main point was that those called "Scots" at the time could not be close kin of the Scythians.


Hi Regulus,
There are obviously isolated cases of R1a1 in Ireland. A good pal of mine with an Anglo-Norman pedigree gets a match with a Corbett in the west of Ireland, but such matches are pretty rare.

I have a theory that R1a1 _was_ once more prevalent in Ireland, amongst the Catholic 'Old English', descendants of the Cambro-Norman invaders with names such as Burke, FitzGerald etc. With the 'Flight of the Earls' to places like Spain etc, after the defeat of O'Neil, maybe much of this R1a1 was taken with them? I am not suggesting that the R1a1 level in Ireland has ever been above 1-2%, but I think it must have been higher than the present levels.

The Hiberno-Norse, who settled in Ireland until Brian Boruma and co booted them out, certainly carried substantial levels of R1a1. They moved to places like The Wirral in Cheshire [England], and their descendants in modern-day Wirral have been proved to carry above average levels of R1a1 [see Jobling's 'Wirral and West Lancashire' project].

----------


## Yorkie

> I only felt that the mention of R1a was necessary due to the Scythians being a main part of the topic. For the record, I am perfectly fine with "effectively absent" in place of "very little". The main point was that those called "Scots" at the time could not be close kin of the Scythians.


I agree re Scythians.

----------


## Blau

Sorry to bump a thread after it being inactive for so long but i found this really interesting. 

Whilst reading i remembered a further possible link between the Picts and the Balkans with the etymology of the name "Alba", although there is no proven link.




> The term first appears in classical texts as Ἀλβίων or Ἀλουΐων (in Ptolemy's writings), later as Albion in Latin documents. Historically, the term refers to Britain as a whole and is ultimately based on the *Indo-European root for "white"*.[1] It later *came to be used by Gaelic speakers in the form of Alba* (dative Albainn, genitive Albann, now obsolete) *as the name given to the former kingdom of the Picts* which had by the time of its first usage with this meaning, expanded around the time of king Causantín mac Áeda (Constantine II, 943-952). The region Breadalbane (Bràghad Albainn, the upper part of "Alba") takes its name from it as well.
> As time passed that kingdom incorporated others to the southern territories. *It became re-Latinized in the High Medieval period as "Albania"* (it is unclear whether *it may ultimately share the same etymon as the modern Albania*).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba#Etymology

Perhaps there is a common link here between settlers in Scotland and the Western Balkans. It would certainly fit with the theories of Balkan expansion to Ireland and Scotland that have been in this thread. Interesting.

----------


## Reinaert

Alban stands for "white rocks". 
Albion is simply the land of the white cliffs.

When the first R1b moved into Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland, the first thing they saw was the white cliffs of Dover.
And so they used the name "Albion" for it. 
Or "Albannach" in Scottish




I guess it's the west of Scotland (highlands), Wales and the Republic of Ireland, also the west of England, and also Southern Netherlands, Belgium and part of France, that all share the same origin.

Eastern Scotland (Lowlands) and Eastern England are different, and therefore also the people who got deported into Northern Ireland.

The difference between the Scots still is alive today.
Think of the rivalry between Celtic and the Rangers.

And of course I am a Celtic fan.  :Heart:

----------


## Blau

Also, i'm not sure what the general consensus was in the end after reading through this thread. Was it accepted that the Scythians aren't the ancestors of the Caledonians, and it is perhaps people from the Balkans (due R1a rates not matching), or could it just be that due to intermixing along the way that the R1a just got diluted so much that it basically became so minute it wasn't highly detectable and that other haplogroups such as I2 became the majority? 
Another possible idea could be that whoever the Caledonians were, were just a ruling elite which would explain the low frequencies of I. 
I'm all new to this stuff though, so really i'm just throwing random guesses out here and you guys (the more experienced people) will be able to tell better

----------


## Blau

> Alban stands for "white rocks". 
> Albion is simply the land of the white cliffs.
> 
> When the first R1b moved into Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland, the first thing they saw was the white cliffs of Dover.
> And so they used the name "Albion" for it. 
> Or "Albannach" in Scottish


Why did the Gaels refer specifically to the Picts as that then? I don't understand

----------


## Reinaert

Well, as I said.. The east of the UK has more germanic influence, the west is more celtic.

And Celts liked to paint their body, if there was a war to be fought. 

Picts.. Painted People. The name used by the Romans.

----------


## Blau

> Well, as I said.. The east of the UK has more germanic influence, the west is more celtic.
> 
> And Celts liked to paint their body, if their was a war to be fought. 
> 
> Picts.. Painted People.


This was pre Germanic settlement in Scotland though. I thought maybe it had some relation to them being the "Painted people" too, but the records say that they painted themselves in blue [i believe].

Oh and i'm actually a Rangers fan, born and bred.

----------


## Taranis

> This was pre Germanic settlement in Scotland though. I thought maybe it had some relation to them being the "Painted people" too, but the records say that they painted themselves in blue [i believe].


In my opinion, the Picts were most probably the same as the Britons, or a distinct Celtic people who spoke a language that was closer to Gaulish than to Brythonic. This is very clear from what little Pictish place and tribal names are recorded in ancient sources. In any case, the term "Picts" was an exonym coined by the Romans, refering to the population of Britain living north of the Hadrian's Wall. Regarding the practice of painting oneself blue, this was actually found in all of Britain. Even Caesar mentions this in "Bello Gallico".

----------


## Blau

> In my opinion, the Picts were most probably the same as the Britons, or a distinct Celtic people who spoke a language that was closer to Gaulish than to Brythonic.


This would make sense from what i understand:



> Eastern Scotland, the area that was the least settled by the Gaels, shows the highest frequencies in GB of R1b U152 (Alpine and gallic celts) and has significant rates of R1b U106 (Germanic). It is not easy to know wether those two subclades of R1b predate or not the Germanic invasions (Angles...).


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...eltic-are-they

I just thought that its very unusual how much circumstantial evidence for this there is.

----------


## thecelt

this is my first post on the forum so hello all. at any rate, to chime in on R1a in Scotland and Ireland I also firmly believe it is in Northern Ireland primarily from the plantation period or possibly earlier viking influence, and Scotland through the Vikings. I am confirmed L21+ , but my maternal grandfather was R1a (predicted R1a1a M417) and through genealogical research I have confirmed that he was a Norse Viking that settled in Scotland (Renfrewshire).

----------


## Bodin

I2a2 -Din is Sarmathian as I explained . I2a2-Disles is realy rare and show that it is hier from late times . Could it be that it is from Arthur and his knights( they have lot of Sarmathian elements, armored knights with long spears, round table of leaders, sword in stone/hill , tamga/heraldy on shields ,Uther Pendragon -son of Dragon and Sarmathian Dragonstandart ,legend of once and future king, one handed warior ,...) , Marcus Aurelius beat Sarmathians and settled 5000 auxiliars near Hadrian wall - and that is exacly were you could find I2a2-Disles

----------


## sparkey

> I2a2 -Din is Sarmathian as I explained . I2a2-Disles is realy rare and show that it is hier from late times . Could it be that it is from Arthur and his knights( they have lot of Sarmathian elements, armored knights with long spears, round table of leaders, sword in stone/hill , tamga/heraldy on shields ,Uther Pendragon -son of Dragon and Sarmathian Dragonstandart ,legend of once and future king, one handed warior ,...) , Marcus Aurelius beat Sarmathians and settled 5000 auxiliars near Hadrian wall - and that is exacly were you could find I2a2-Disles


Uhh... quite the... theory there, Bodin...

Well, let's try to take it seriously for a moment. The TMRCA of I2a-Din and I2a-Disles together is about twice the TMRCA of I2a-Din or I2a-Disles separately, dating back about 6000 years, so we really don't expect them to be related together by a common Classical element, it must be pre-Classical. You're right, at least, that Disles has a geographic spread that is fairly northern in Britain, but that's not a good thing to associate with Arthur, because if he existed, he probably would have been fairly southern as Britons go. Most attempts to place his operations have placed them around places like Monmouthshire, Cornwall, and Somerset. And that's supposing that Geoffrey of Monmouth wasn't just making things up, which is probably the case.

----------


## Bodin

Yes but Arthur has died on mounth Baton , and some placing it near Hadrians wall .
I dont know did he invented it , but lots of elements are strangely similar to Osethian Narth sagas .

----------


## callaeca

There are not a tribe called Caladuni in Callaecia (preroman name of Galicia, from the celtic *kalla-ak-yo-s 'the country of the woods', like NE brit. Callevi). There is an 'oppidum' (a town) called Caladunum, near Bracara, and two personal names en Callaecia with the name Caladuna.

Not Scytian people can you find in Callaecia, but Yamnaia or Yamnani, if we count stellaes, statues-menhir or war axes.

----------


## Bodin

You mean peoples from Yamna culture ( North of Black sea )?

----------


## callaeca

I refer that who open this tópic departs from a mistake on having confused the place name Caladunum with the name of a tribe.

The Caledonians, according to the Latins, is distinguished of the rest of the populations of Britannia and differ from the rest of the populations of Britannia: long members and reddish hairs, front to the gaulish aspect of the British and Iberian of the Wales and Cornwall populations. But certainly the legend has something really.

As well it would be partly true that the process of indo-europeicisation (and later celticisation) on the Atlantic Façade can be attributed to people from where 2500 years later would have settled the Scythians, but not by the own Scythes.

We can presuppose it from a genetical point of view(i), anthropological (ii), archaeological (iii) and linguistic (iiii) point of view:

The Arrival to Western Spain of the of the haplogroups y-dna R1b1b2 and G2a (totaling 73% of the total Galician haplogroups). It is not necessary remind you here the high frequency and antiquity of s116 in the Western Iberia, Liguria, Armorican peninsula and British Isles. But it seems to be in the west of Iberia where probably has its origin, as predicted some years ago D. Faux, spreading with the Hispanic bell-beaker phenomenon extending to the Rhone estuary and, following its course, towards the Alps, and by sea to Brittany and the British Isles. While, most of the haplogroup I (12-13 %) have a Germanic origin (suebi and marcomani) in Galicia.

Others haplotypes present in the Galician and Asturian population, is the dominant AH7.1 (HLA-A3/B7/DR15), which is very frequent also in south of Great Britain, and Ireland; the AH44.2, which is typical of the Atlantic regions; AH18.1, which is common in the Mediterranean; and the AH8.1, which is frequently found in Central European regions and Scandinavia. The matching of the dominant haplotype AH7.1 (HLA-A3/B7/DR15) in Galicia and Asturias and its high frequencies, also, in Ireland and the south of Great Britain, seems to indicate a degree of communication and genetic interchange in this area, which corresponds to a Celtic cultural matrix/structure, even though this cultural entity/identity may not necessarily entail a racial entity/identity.
In other hand, in the Galician population the most common phenotype, in contrast with the Basques, is the european GM*3 23 5* haplotype that represents 73% and the most common KM phenotype is KM (-1) (79.6%) and its corresponding KM*3 allele reached at frequency of 89.2%, which is within the range of European values. Galician population belongs to cluster C3 (like Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and half Western Iberia).

‘The Helgason indo-european mtDNA’ (U2 + U3 + U4 + I + W) reached in Galicia 12.3%: cf. Ireland 14.16%, Walles 3.3%, Cornwall 11.6%, Belgium 6.3%, France 5.4%, Denmark 3.1%, Austria 9.4%, Switzerland 8.4%, Italian Alpes7.9%, Germany meridional 12%, Cantabria 10.3%, Central Spain 4.4%, Spain Meridional 6.5%, Catalonia 26.6%, Portugal 7.7%).

(ii) The same situation can be seen with a important dental study, of bell-beaker epoch, by J Desideri. The anthropological detectable changes in the Alps and other European areas, suppose the superposition of populations from proceeding the Iberian Peninsula it would have followed the course of the Rhone, that would have followed the course of the Rhone, introducing the bell-beaker phenomenon.

(iii) At the end of the Copper Age and beginning of the Bronze Age to burst into the half western Iberian the ‘stela anthropomorphes, statues-menhir and Mother Godess populations’, that will distinguish absolutely the Atlantic Facade of the rest of the European west. This type of material culture connects directly with the Kemi Oba Culture (Yamnaya Tribes) and Usatovo, that is projected along the Danube to reaching the N of Italy and penetrating in the SW Iberia, via Sardinia.

Where is the actual origin of the Bell Beakers we can trace until the Iberic Peninsula (confirmed by radiocarbon dating). And above all, why did this expansion follow two directions: along the Atlantic coast and the northern Mediterranean coast. The situation in Portugal in the middle of the third millennium, with the exacerbation of the characteristics of the final Neolithic (extreme density of sites, fortifications and building of monuments, social and individual markers) may constitute the only one answer to these two questions.

The Iberian bell-beaker whole is clearly defined by his morphology, technology and chronology (2900 b.C. in examples from the center of Portugal, Galicia and the Superior Iberian Plateau (and from Liguria and the Rhone Valley), whereas in the Nothern Europe this chronology does not go beyond of 2450 b. C.. The oldest stylistic predominance in Galicia is the 'peiteado' with nit comb or with shell, that spreads to the French Britanny.

Petroglyphs (also called rock engravings) with similar representations in Galicia, Ireland and Valcamonica (the oldest) and battle axes or maces in Galicia. This single tipología can correspond with own archaeological models of the Culture of Kemi Oba and Usatovo. The horse and the carts, like military or prestygian symbols of a certain elite.

It is born prosperous Atlantic commercial trade and interchanges, moving copper from SW Iberia and British Islands, tin from Galicia and British Islands and gold from Galicia. In the Atlantic facade products are seen such and indenticals. The commercial interchanges also arrive at the Mediterranean (as recently it has been demonstrated with the appearance of a Galician engrave where representing an Egyptian crewed ship, dated between 1900-1500 a.C.).


(iii) It is particularly curious that in where all these phenomena are observables we can detect celtic languages. From Netherlands to the Sw of Poland and Bohemia; from South of Iberia to Ireland. Today we think about an initial koiné (Indo-European > palaeoceltic > protoceltic) with different degrees from learning and dialectal differentiation according to the geographic scale, environment, possesion of objects of prestige and imitation of the Elites language.

Today a process of hallstatización in Iberia cannot be maintained (It has never been demonstrated arqueological sources), since the celtic language registered in Tartesos is previous and contemporary to Hallstatt. On the other hand, the ‘urnenfelderkultur’ in the peninsular NE , Levant, Pirineos, and in Gascogne and Aquitania presupposes not the indo-europeization of this zone, but his aquitano-iberization (cf. Almagro, Lorrio). The marker 49f indicates the mutation SRY2627+ (not present in Galicia: 0.6%) and divergence between Basque and Iberian language 3000-3500 years ago, and we can found too in this area the marker 22, irrelevant in Western Iberia and Central Europe. The historical Iberian is a zonal standard language, but different to the popular language: cf. Barcelona: eukin; Girona: altikem, kelboio, kosi, lasbe, osato, baRtoin, boboRba, tibaRSar; Tarragona: letaombi; Azaile (Huesca): antu, abaio, aboki, atikis, irsal, kutui, baiti, balte, bartar,barbor, bateba, belu, bokau, tikambe. It is not Iberian standard it seems Basque.

the maritime Atlantic trade of products was very, very important, and continued being with the arrival of Unetice's trends; Atlantic models continue being imported and being imitated in the Alps and Renania to La Tène, of the same one that there import and imitate models style Unetice in the Atlantic Facade. This situation forces to tended establish one ' lingua franca, like , for example, the Egyptian, the Ionic, the Iberian or the Phoenician; this language will be the western Atlantic Celtic characterized for the original indo-european Q (kw). The Gaul and the Italic languages would derive from the ligúr (palaeoceltic-italic: and where the settlement of the stelas people is equally important). Look that the Ligúr is a language clossed to the Lusitanian (atlantic palaeoceltic).

The standard atlantic language, protoceltic, with its local varieties, it is therefore fragmented. But there is a distintive element to detect its antiquity, beyond the own names of the rivers. The normal presence of the indo-european phoneme p in western Iberia, classically considered not celtic, but with the appearance of words with this phoneme in Lepontic (uperams, coplutum, pala) has stopped being one of the principal linguistic characteristics of the celtic language.

The lack of p is an indo-european anomaly, that could be related to badly learning of this language (the same it is observed in germanic, in front of the Slavic languages, or in armenian where is lack of p by caucasian interferences). It is in half western Iberia, where the language is closest to Indo-European common and also in the ligur-alpine region. The dialectos rest of the celtics dialects are stumped as they move away of both matrices and they even conserve premegalíticos linguistic symptoms that have been related to bereber, as the complexity of his verbal system, the plurality of the plural, the syntactic order, etc. (Schrijver 2003, Kuhn, 2005)

----------


## Taranis

Wow. What a huge post. I must say however, much of this is _very_ speculative. In regard for the Caledonians, in my opinion they were essentially the same as the Britons. The name "Caledoni" itself makes sense as early Brythonic ('caled-' = hard + augmentative '-on').

I would also like to point out that Tartessian was a non-Indo-European language. Likewise, Lusitanian was a non-Celtic language (though a Indo-European one, close to the Celtic languages, but equally close to the Italic languages). Also, you have a large Lusitanian substrate in many areas in Iberia that by the time history records them (3rd century BC) are Celtic.

I'd also like to point out that *Kw to *P innovation was not just done by Gaulish, but also by Brythonic, Osco-Umbrian and by Greek. In contrast, the *Kw of Proto-Indo-European was retained in Goidelic, Celtiberian, Germanic and Latin.

----------


## callaeca

Since Untermann to Koch had ever suspect that the Tartesian writing was an Celtic dialect...Personal names, Tribes, Place Names, Gods that you can learn in these inscriptions are celtic, like LUKUBO NERABO (the god Lug (in celtic dative plural) of the Nerii (the same name as a celtic tribe of Galicia))

More close to the italics is the Celtiberian (Untermann, 2009) and Celtiberian and Lusitanien are intimatly related, because Celtiberian is the evolution of the occidental hispanic languages (Untermann 2009, de Bernardo Stempel, 2004).

Today the lack or not of indoeuropean phoneme p is not distinctive to distinguise waht a celtic language is...because then Lepontic is not a celtic dialect and the gaulish tribe called Pleuri or Pleuxi was not celts....and similar de gaulish godess APADEVA.

The lack of p is AN INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGIC ANOMALY...

----------


## Taranis

> Since Untermann to Koch had ever suspect that the Tartesian writing was an Celtic dialect...Personal names, Tribes, Place Names, Gods that you can learn in these inscriptions are celtic, like LUKUBO NERABO (the god Lug (in celtic dative plural) of the Nerii (the same name as a celtic tribe of Galicia))


Let me say this, Koch _postulated_ that Tartessian _might be_ a Celtic language. However, there is no hard evidence for this.




> More close to the italics is the Celtiberian (Untermann, 2009) and Celtiberian and Lusitanien are intimatly related, because Celtiberian is the evolution of the occidental hispanic languages (Untermann 2009, de Bernardo Stempel, 2004).


Nope. Lusitanian is quite distinct from Celtiberian, actually. It's a non-Celtic language. Most notably, Lusitanian does not make the loss initial *P which is a common innovation of the Celtic languages.




> Today the lack or not of indoeuropean phoneme p is not distinctive to distinguise waht a celtic language is...because then Lepontic is not a celtic dialect and the gaulish tribe called Pleuri or Pleuxi was not celts....


The general consensus is that Lepontic was very much a Celtic language. It is a P-Celtic language just like Brythonic and Gaulish. As I said, the P-Celtic languages (just like some non-Celtic languages) shifted the *Kw sound from Proto-Indo-European to *P.




> The lack of p is AN INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGIC ANOMALY...


No need to write upper case. ;( You might call it a "phonolog anomaly" yes. See what I wrote earlier about Lusitanian. Anyways, it absolutely conceivable how the loss of *P in Proto-Celtic might have happened, because similar steps are attested in other language families (in Indo-European, that is). What is a far great anomaly is the shift from *Kw to *P, which, as mentioned happens also in Osco-Umbrian and Greek.

----------


## callaeca

In a recent publication: Jürgen Untermann: Galicia and Celtiberia. Common and different characteristics, 2009, talking about the comparisons of the western celto-Hispanic dialects with the italic, said:

If we entered comparisons with the italic languages, in fact there are some surprising phenomena, but not in Galicia but in Celtiberia: most surprising they are the completions of singular ablative with long and consonant vowel -d, like in Latin and osco-umbre (cf. celtiberian sekobiriked, aratid, orosid), linked this also with the lusitan (issaicid); the lusitanian does doenti, resemblance to Latin duint; the celtiberian didonti like osco-umbre dident, Latin didet. The verbal form rueti in lusitanian, celtiberian audeti.

The gentive forms are identical between lusitanian (arimo/arimom) and celtiberian (eladuno/eladunom) and have common lexicon like Taurus (lus. taurom/celtib. Tauro), or o(v) ila (lus. oilam/celtib. oilaunu), porko (lus. porcom/celtib. [.]vaporconi). But the celtiberian makes plural dative in - bos, similar to Latin, the lusitanian in -bo like Gaul.

It is parallel evolutions between the celto-Hispanic of tipological kind that the archaic celtic languages have in common with the italic dialectos. About the famous p, there is no lexical distinction between the celto-Hispanic and celtiberian. It is a recent fact (cf. lepontic uvamogozis, copluto) that the celtiberian joint party with related languages of the north, and that separates of all celtic hispania remaining.

----------


## Taranis

> In a recent publication: Jürgen Untermann: Galicia and Celtiberia. Common and different characteristics, 2009, talking about the comparisons of the western celto-Hispanic dialects with the italic, said:
> 
> If we entered comparisons with the italic languages, in fact there are some surprising phenomena, but not in Galicia but in Celtiberia: most surprising they are the completions of singular ablative with long and consonant vowel -d, like in Latin and osco-umbre (cf. celtiberian sekobiriked, aratid, orosid), linked this also with the lusitan (issaicid); the lusitanian does doenti, resemblance to Latin duint; the celtiberian didonti like osco-umbre dident, Latin didet. The verbal form rueti in lusitanian, celtiberian audeti.
> 
> The gentive forms are identical between lusitanian (arimo/arimom) and celtiberian (eladuno/eladunom) and have common lexicon like Taurus (lus. taurom/celtib. Tauro), or o(v) ila (lus. oilam/celtib. oilaunu), porko (lus. porcom/celtib. [.]vaporconi). But the celtiberian makes plural dative in - bos, similar to Latin, the lusitanian in -bo like Gaul.


No. There are some crucial/fundamental difference is sound laws between Lusitanian and Celtiberian, however. Celtiberian, being a Celtic language, loses Proto-Indo-European *p. This is very much attested (for example the prefix _ro-_ as opposed to _pro-_). Lusitanian, very much in contrast, retains *p from Proto-Indo-European. Lusitanian is, by the very definition, not a Celtic language. It is possible to derive Celtiberian from Proto-Celtic, but in contrast, it is not possible to do the same for Lusitanian.




> It is parallel evolutions between the celto-Hispanic of tipological kind that the archaic celtic languages have in common with the italic dialectos. About the famous p, there is no lexical distinction between the celto-Hispanic and celtiberian. It is a recent fact (cf. lepontic uvamogozis, copluto) that the celtiberian joint party with related languages of the north, and that separates of all celtic hispania remaining.


Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say there. I would like to point out that there is a large amount of non-Celtic typonomy in western Iberia, and that you have a large area (especially Gallaecia) with mixed Celtic/non-Celtic typonomy.

My opinion is that Lusitanian was essentially a pre-Celtic language that arrived on the Iberian penninsula before Celtiberians (or other Celtic-speaking peoples) did.

----------


## callaeca

It was not my intention to debate about linguistic affairs, but to expose the necessity of the use of multidisciplinar studies to maintain synchronous coherences in the ethnogenic formation of the Atlantic facade.

Naturally, perhaps SEGONTIA PARAMICA, PALLANTIA, COMPLEGA or COMPLUTUM was not celtiberians towns, and APLONIOCVM (Clunia: OSHA nº 56), PINTOLANC(VM) (Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344), P[I?]GANCOM (Huerta del Rey - Peñalba de Castro, Burgos: CIL II 2803 = ERClu 78 = HEp 2, 1992, 138) or PELENDONES CELTIBERORVM are not celtiberian familiar groups or tribes. 

PENDVSAE (Segobriga, Cuenca), PEICACOMAE (Hinojosa de la Sierra, Soria), MATRIBVS APILARIS (Badarán, La Rioja) or [•]VAPORCONI (Sos del Rey, Zaragoza) are not celtiberian gods and goddess. The celtiberian personal names with original indo-european *p have the same statiscal percentage than lusitanian, where stand out the celtiberian personal name PETRAIOCI, (Lara de los Infantes: Abásolo 1974:67 nº70: cf. lusitanian PETRANIOI, Lamas de Moledo). 

But, we can take the example celtib. PARAMICA (cf. callaecian, PARAMAECO, astur PARAMECO). According with your point of view, and the traditional point of view, would be a pre-celtic word because it is preserving the indo-european *p. This contradicts the superlative suffix form ie. *-(s) ºmmo- > celt. *(s)-amo- that is a celtic grammatical distinctive feature, being an innovation.

Following your criterion, the celtic superlative celt. *-(s)amo- or it is not an exclusive celtic suffix or is pre-celtic, and that we can find as a common element in all of the western dialects (lusitanian inclusive: cf. ANDAMO, MEDAMO, CLOUTAMO), where is an innovation too.

The preservation of *p is an archaism and an archaism never is a grammatical pertinent feature. The superlative have this pertinent range, then ‘páramo’ must be considered, therefore, a celtic word.

But we find something more. The western dialects present, in many cases, archaic forms with the innovatives. With the innovation *-(s)amo- we have de old indo-european superlative *-isto- (cf. CARISTI) or the arcaic word [MARS] BORUS with the new innovations *BHOR-YA- (cf. BOREA), *BHOR-VO- (cf. BORBIDA), BHOR-MA- (cf. BORMANICO). Only these two last ones detect in Celtiberian and Gaul.

This question indicates its antiquity degree and its proximity to the proto-Indo-European. Then, we can think about a language that contains palaeo-celtic features.

I insist that the lack of ie. *p is a linguistic anomaly, not a distinctive characteristic of the celtic language, like others, for example, part of the Gaul numeral and verbal system with not Indo-European characteristics.

Now, it is your question follow the traditional celtic and indo-european studies or the best sellers of Fco. Villar and Co.

----------


## Taranis

> It was not my intention to debate about linguistic affairs, but to expose the necessity of the use of multidisciplinar studies to maintain synchronous coherences in the ethnogenic formation of the Atlantic facade.
> 
> Naturally, perhaps SEGONTIA PARAMICA, PALLANTIA, COMPLEGA or COMPLUTUM was not celtiberians towns, and APLONIOCVM (Clunia: OSHA nº 56), PINTOLANC(VM) (Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344), P[I?]GANCOM (Huerta del Rey - Peñalba de Castro, Burgos: CIL II 2803 = ERClu 78 = HEp 2, 1992, 138) or PELENDONES CELTIBERORVM are not celtiberian familiar groups or tribes. 
> 
> PENDVSAE (Segobriga, Cuenca), PEICACOMAE (Hinojosa de la Sierra, Soria), MATRIBVS APILARIS (Badarán, La Rioja) or [•]VAPORCONI (Sos del Rey, Zaragoza) are not celtiberian gods and goddess. The celtiberian personal names with original indo-european *p have the same statiscal percentage than lusitanian, where stand out the celtiberian personal name PETRAIOCI, (Lara de los Infantes: Abásolo 1974:67 nº70: cf. lusitanian PETRANIOI, Lamas de Moledo). 
> 
> But, we can take the example celtib. PARAMICA (cf. callaecian, PARAMAECO, astur PARAMECO). According with your point of view, and the traditional point of view, would be a pre-celtic word because it is preserving the indo-european *p. This contradicts the superlative suffix form ie. *-(s) ºmmo- > celt. *(s)-amo- that is a celtic grammatical distinctive feature, being an innovation.
> 
> Following your criterion, the celtic superlative celt. *-(s)amo- or it is not an exclusive celtic suffix or is pre-celtic, and that we can find as a common element in all of the western dialects (lusitanian inclusive: cf. ANDAMO, MEDAMO, CLOUTAMO), where is an innovation too.
> ...


As I said before, there obviously is a Pre-Celtic (Lusitanian) substrate in Gallaecia. Which reaffirms what I have been saying all along, namely that the Celtic-speaking peoples were not the first Indo-Europeans to arrive on the Iberian penninsula.
However, the Celtiberian language itself is per definition a Celtic language because of the loss of Initial *p.




> This question indicates its antiquity degree and its proximity to the proto-Indo-European. Then, we can think about a language that contains palaeo-celtic features.


It does not contain any "Paleo-Celtic" features as you call them. They are by definition non-Celtic.




> I insist that the lack of ie. *p is a linguistic anomaly, not a distinctive characteristic of the celtic language, like others, for example, part of the Gaul numeral and verbal system with not Indo-European characteristics.


You keep calling it a "linguistic anomaly", but it is a common sound law found in all Celtic languages, and sound laws as you may know have no exceptions. If they have _apparent_ exceptions, these are governed by their own set of rules. The development towards this as easily conceivable from other sound laws. Specifically via the intermediate steps *p -> *f -> *h.

The shift of *p to *f is cross-linguistically pretty common, for example in the Semitic languages (several times independently there, actually) and perhaps more demonstrative in the Germanic languages:

- Latin "*P*ater" vs. English "*F*ather"
- Latin "*P*es" vs. English "*F*oot" (also German "*F*uß")
- Latin "*P*ellis" vs. German "*F*ell"

The shift from *f to *h is less common, but is attested, for instance in Spanish:

- Latin "*F*errum" vs. Spanish "*H*ierro" (iron)
- Latin "*F*ungus" vs. Spanish "*H*ongo" (mushroom)
- Latin "*f*acere" vs. Spanish "*h*acer" (to do)

The loss of *h is also quite common cross-linguistically.

Therefore, the loss of *p, while unique, is absolutely conceivable with sound laws that are attested elsewhere. If we assume a series of sound shifts occuring in Proto-Celtic (*p -> *f -> *h -> Ø ) it is very much possible to end up with the loss of *p in Proto-Celtic. In fact, the late form of such a shift is possibly attested in the term "Hercynian" forest.

In regard for non-Indo-European characteristics, in your scenario somehow the Celtic languages originated on the Iberian penninsula and spread from there to northwards and eastwards. This would mean that there were non-Indo-European language spoken on the British Isles and in Central-Western Europe at a time at which Iberia would have already been Indo-Europe. However, this is totally non-consistent with the image we see by the time of historic record: non-Indo-European languages survive on the Iberian penninsula (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian), and there are no-non-Indo-European languages in Central Europe. The situation on the British Isles is even more drastic, as we see no non-Celtic languages.

We also see that all linguistic innovations (along with "archaeological innovations" like the spread of iron working) come from east to west, not vice versa. The model that Lusitanian is a Pre-Celtic language fits much better with all other observations than the idea that the Celtic languages developed on the Iberian penninsula and then spread into (non-IE) Northwestern and Central-Western Europe.




> Now, it is your question follow the traditional celtic and indo-european studies or the best sellers of Fco. Villar and Co.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I am sorry to say this, but I find the evidence extraordinarily lacking.

If Lusitanian is closer related with the Celtic languages, then it should have common innovations found in Lusitanian and the Celtic language family not found anywhere else.

----------


## callaeca

Taranis yourself are recognizing what I am saying.

The instability of *p Indo-European and its laws are only applicable to certains European languages and none of the Indo-European dialects known (lepontic, italics dialects, ligur, venetic, ilirian, Thracian, dacian, Greek balto-Slave dialects, hitita, sanscrit, Vedaic, Persian, etc., and Hispano-celtic). It is in the Armenian (that loses *p by interference of the caucasian languages: cf. Zeliakov, 2004) and in the germanic dialects, insular celtic and Gaul where we observed that instability, product, perhaps, of an implantation of low intensity or by imitation, incapable to assimilate suitably the phonologic realitation of the Indo-European phoneme *p or because they have not that phoneme.

The celtiberian partial loss of *p, has been explained brillantly by X. Ballester. It only can be motivated at the contact of the aquitanian and iberian languages, that they lack *p, from which receives the metallurgical swords innovations from the first, and from the second, writing, City-States, coin, among other things.

Is not the traditional explanation of the example of Hercinia how it loss. It is *p > /v/ as much in Lepontic (cf. UVAMOGOZIS), like in Celtiberian and Callaecian, where a great instability in the group *pl is observed until the total loss of *p: *pletisama (IE. *pletos) >/vletisama/: celtib. BLETISAMA > celtib. LETISAMA, today Ledesma (Burgos and other placename in Galicia, prov. Corunna); and the Callaecian evolution *planiobris (IE. *plan-yo-bhrig-s) >/vlaniobris/: call. BLANIOBRI > call. LANIOBRI, today Lañobre (prov. Corunna).`In situ' you can see this disappearance.

The explanation of the step lat. f > h in Castilian language is erroneous, because apparently takes Basque influence and it does not appear in any other romanic language: Galego, Catalan, French, Portuguese, Italian dialects.

On the other hand, if you admit above the celtiberian celticity in samples with *p: PENDVSAE, PEICACOMAE, PETRAIOCI, PELENDONES, PINTOLANC(UM), P[I?]NGANCOM, PARAMICA, etc.; or in celtiberian personal names samples like PROTENIVS, PRILENIA, PELLICVS, LAPOENA, APONIA, COMPEDIA, LAPOENA, LVPVS, LVPORVS, PAENANICVS, PAESICA (3), P[A]ESIN(A)E, PAESU(RO), PAN(N)A, PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, etc., ., I do not understand the reasons why you don’t think with a similar point of view with the celtic languages of western Hispania.

If you think that I believe that Galicia is top ten of the celticity, you are mistaken. Mainly, because the concept `celt' is a general designation applied to different populations to take part in the Atlantic Culture and inside the geographic limits from the Bell Beaker phenomenon, with a common personality, that affects language, customs, religion, architecture and utensils.

----------


## Taranis

> Taranis yourself are recognizing what I am saying.
> 
> The instability of *p Indo-European and its laws are only applicable to certains European languages and none of the Indo-European dialects known (lepontic, italics dialects, ligur, venetic, ilirian, Thracian, dacian, Greek balto-Slave dialects, hitita, sanscrit, Vedaic, Persian, etc., and Hispano-celtic). It is in the Armenian (that loses *p by interference of the caucasian languages: cf. Zeliakov, 2004) and in the germanic dialects, insular celtic and Gaul where we observed that instability, product, perhaps, of an implantation of low intensity or by imitation, incapable to assimilate suitably the phonologic realitation of the Indo-European phoneme *p or because they have not that phoneme.
> 
> The celtiberian partial loss of *p, has been explained brillantly by X. Ballester. It only can be motivated at the contact of the aquitanian and iberian languages, that they lack *p, from which receives the metallurgical swords innovations from the first, and from the second, writing, City-States, coin, among other things.


Sorry, but how can you so readily dismiss what I said? That the shift of *p to *f is actually attested elsewhere? I mentioned Proto-Germanic, and I also mentioned the shift occured in the Semitic languages. For example, compare Akkadian _Kaspu_ (silver) with Hebrew _Kessef_ (money).

You should also consider that this shift certainly didn't occur independently in Insular Celtic and Gaulish (which you seem to assert), but actually already occured in Proto-Celtic. What you propose makes absolutely no sense.




> Is not the traditional explanation of the example of Hercinia how it loss. It is *p > /v/ as much in Lepontic (cf. UVAMOGOZIS), like in Celtiberian and Callaecian, where a great instability in the group *pl is observed until the total loss of *p: *pletisama (IE. *pletos) >/vletisama/: celtib. BLETISAMA > celtib. LETISAMA, today Ledesma (Burgos and other placename in Galicia, prov. Corunna); and the Callaecian evolution *planiobris (IE. *plan-yo-bhrig-s) >/vlaniobris/: call. BLANIOBRI > call. LANIOBRI, today Lañobre (prov. Corunna).`Iin situ' you can see its disappearance.


Another problem I like to point out with your scenario is that there is no evidence for Basque/Iberian being spoken in the British Isles or in Western-Central Europe. Even the evidence for Basque in Gaul does barely extend beyond the Garonne river. There is also, conversely, the issue that there are relatively few Celtic loans into Basque, which would be expected if the languages would have had so much contact as you seem insert (ie, large-scale Basque substrate).

There is also another, far more simple explanation for what you call evidence for 'in-situ' disappeareance: Gallaecia was not a linguistically homogenous area. This is actually more consistent with what we see in Antiquity: we see a bewildering number of small tribes on a fairly small area. We see place names that are often mixed-Celtic, mixed-non-Celtic, inhabited by Lusitanian- and Celtic-speaking peoples alike. This is more plausible than the ludicrous claim that a sound law, which is otherwise fundamentally defining an entire language family, is in free variation.




> The explanation of the step lat. f > h in Castilian language is erroneous, because apparently takes Basque influence and it does not appear in any other romanic language: Galego, Catalan, French, Portuguese, Italian dialects.


It does not matter, and it is not erronerous. It is an evidence that the sound law occured elsewhere. This utterly disproves that it is a unqique "phonological anomaly".

A successive shift *p -> *f -> *h -> Ø very much explains the absence of *p in Proto-Celtic. What is also very critical here is that whatever sound it had in the intermediate stage, it had an effect that it was conditioned differently before *s and *t, specifically yielding *x in Proto-Celtic. Consider the Celtic words for 'seventh':

Gaulish "Se*x*tametos"
Old Irish "Se*ch*tmad"
Modern Irish "Seachtú"

(compare Latin "Se*p*timus")

I must admit that to my knowledge the word 'seventh' is unattested in Celtiberian, however the loss of *p in Celtiberian is well-attested:

- Celtiberian "ro-" ("_ro_biseti", compare Latin "*p*ro").
- Celtiberian "Are-" ("_Are_vaci", compare Gaulish "_Ar_verni", "_Ar_emorica" but Greek "*P*ara-")
- Celtiberian "Uer-" ("_Uer_zizonti", "_Uer_zaizokum", compare Gaulish "_Ver_cingetorix", but Greek "Hy*p*er-")




> On the other hand, if you admit above the celtiberian celticity in samples with *p: PENDVSAE, PEICACOMAE, PETRAIOCI, PELENDONES, PINTOLANC(UM), P[I?]NGANCOM, PARAMICA, etc.; or in celtiberian personal names samples like PROTENIVS, PRILENIA, PELLICVS, LAPOENA, APONIA, COMPEDIA, LAPOENA, LVPVS, LVPORVS, PAENANICVS, PAESICA (3), P[A]ESIN(A)E, PAESU(RO), PAN(N)A, PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, etc., ., I do not understand the reasons why you don’t think with a similar point of view with the celtic languages of western Hispania.


No, it's not. If you say that Lusitanian is a Celtic language, you might as well say that Latin is a Celtic language, because it is just as "Celtic". Unless you find common sound laws that Lusitanian and the Celtic languages have in common, which are NOT shared by other languages, there is no way to uphold that Lusitanian is Celtic. I've said this before, you cannot throw 100+ years of methodology in linguistics over board to "prove" that language X is related with language Y.

Also, have you considered the opposite direction? That these are Lusitanian loans into Celtiberian/Gallaecian?




> If you think that I believe that Galicia is top ten of the celticity, you are mistaken.


Well, you made that impression.




> Mainly, *because the concept `celt' is a general designation applied to different populations to take part in the Atlantic Culture and inside the geographic limits from the Bell Beaker phenomenon, with a common personality, that affects language, customs, religion, architecture and utensils*.


Honestly, that definition is rather non-sensical. In my opinion, the Celtic languages were originally not an Atlantic phenomenon. It gets clear from the commonalities with the Italic languages (common sound laws, common words for metals etc.), as well as the interaction with Proto-Germanic that the origins of the Celtic languages have to be sought in the Alpine region, not in the Atlantic region.

The Beaker-Bell Culture is also way too old and more importantly far too extensive (in particular extending into southern Scandinavia) to explain the spread of the Celtic languages. The claim that Beaker-Bell represents an early branch of Indo-European is much more sensible. It's also clear that religiously, Gallaecia and Lusitania were quite distinct from Ireland, Britain or Gaul, with deities you find there that are worshipped nowhere else and vice versa. From that perspective it makes a lot more sense that the Lusitanians indeed represent an earlier (read: non-Celtic) wave of Indo-Europeans into the Iberian penninsula, and that Gallaecia as we notice it by the time the Romans arrive on the Iberian penninsula was an ethnically mixed area.

There is also the issue that the term "Celt" was used very inconsistently in Antiquity, generally only refering to the people of Gaul and their eastern cousins in the Alps and on the Balkans (where it was used interchangably with "Galatians"). The Celtic-speaking peoples on the Iberian penninsula were only inconsistently refered to as Celts, and the people of the British Isles were never refered to as "Celtic" in Antiquity, despite the fact that they were exclusively Celtic-speaking.

----------


## callaeca

Yes...naturally, it is sure that is the rest of the Indo-European dialects that present the anomaly to have original *p Indo-European, because, without a doubt, most normal in Indo-European is lose this *p.

Certainly that Galicia was not a linguistic homogenous area. It is for that reason that placenames like Brigantium, Lugosonis, Valabriga, Nemetobriga, Asseconia, Avobriga, Coeliobriga, Lemica, Dactonium, Caladunum, Bracara, Avobriga, Touda. Novium, Borbida, Dactonium, Tongobriga, Aviliobris (where brigs > brix > bris, like callaecian personal name Caturis = gaul. Caturix), Londobris, Lubris, Berobreo (Berobrivo), Cinginia, Araduca, Letiobris, Elanobriga, Aetobriga, (B)laniobris, Ocelum, etc. belong to your `preceltic' linguistic stock. Also the first element of the 92 placenames finished in the ‘preceltic’ suffixes' -bre (< *-brig-s) and -bra (< *-briga), or more than fifty finished in the suffix, also `preceltic', -on-ya-/-an-ya-. Preceltics are the Galician medieval placenames like Alisantia, Anderatis, Uxamo, Sorica, Nerica, Segadurum, Brigos, Segovia, Celtigos, Vernovesicum, Avantia, Iconia, Condatus, Nemetos, Bendania, Loentia, etc..

And the names of the rivers? All of them we can catalogue as `preceltics', see Deva, Navia, Minium, Tamara, Avo, Letia, Ulia, Lerici, Anaris, etc. Preceltic too are te Galician names of God like Lugoubo, Nantosuleis (< nanto-sulevis, cf. brit. Sulevia), Cosus (cf. gaul. Cosemi), Useis (cf. gaul. Ussama/Uxama), Bormanico (cf. gaul. Bormano), Navia (cf. brit- Naviô), Toutaticos (cf. gaul. Toutatis), Revus (irish. ré ‘moon’), Tarbo, Mocio, etc..

All of them are extremely and deeply `preceltic', the pluses `preceltic' of the `preceltic' names, unimaginably `preceltic', and without no type of homogeneity.

Certainly, the celtiberian samples with *p are not celtiberian either. It is very well known that the celtiberian had the sudden fit to adore the lusitanian Gods like PENDVSAE, PEICACOMAE, or the Matris Apilaris. The fashion for the lusitanian *p, naturally `preceltic' or `paraceltic' quickly extended by the Celtiberia. The celtiberians decided to be called with lusitanian personal names, even some nonexistent ones in Lusitania. They designated to his clans with lusitanian names and, even, the more important celtiberian tribe, the Pelendones, decided also to be called with a ‘preceltic’ or ‘paraceltic’ name . Famous *pro > ro of robiseti becomes to restitute as we can see in the celtiberian personal name PROTENIUS.

In short….celtic, celtic….only the Gauls…That is right.

----------


## Taranis

Let me say (or repeat) this: if you think Lusitanian was a Celtic language, please go ahead and show me the sound laws that Lusitanian has in common with Gaulish, Irish, Scots Gaelic, Breton and Welsh. Please, disprove me. I'm all ears.

EDIT: Let me provide you with two useful links to elaborate my point of view. These are wikipedia articles, and they sum up my points quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compara..._of_the_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_l...f_sound_change

----------


## callaeca

In fact, it is possible to be affirmed:

1) many words with *p, lexicographical, personal and topic names, perfectly are integrated into the phonologic system of the celtic Hispania that would suppose an act of violence to attribute them to another language, not celtic;

2) there is no the minimum evidence against the hypothesis that the loss of p had taken place into the own history of the celtic languages, that is, it is necessary to count the marginal celtic dialects at which this phonetic change arrived later or never

The first question is the inequality of examples between Celtiberia (with long texts in Iberian writing) and the lusitanian and the hispano-celta area, (with latter and short inscriptions, mainly god names). The second is the generalized habit to compare the lusitanian with the hispano-celta, specially vettón and callaeco.

In fact, two realities can be delimited by the distribution of their god namess. The common gods to all the western area: NAVIA (cf. brit. NAVIO), BANDUA (RN irish BANNUA) and REVUS (irish ré ‘moon’), and the common some kind of sacred stone ritual called CROUGIA (cf. irish cruaich ‘stone’) in Lusitania and Callaecia 

They are specifically callaecians like LVGOVBO (as well as NL. call. Lugosonis, EN astúr LUGGONES, EN call. LOVGEI), NEMETO- (NL call. NEMETOBRIGA (2), EN call. NEMETAVI, NEMEDI) and COSVS. The lusitanians are ENDOVELLICOS, TREBARUNA, ARENTIA/ARENTIO. Only astur-callaeco LVGVS links with the celtiberian.

Except for the celto-hispánico, it is, celtiberian, lusitanian and hispano-celta (vetton, vacceo, callaeco, astur and cantabro), there is not another celtic dialect that preserves the original indo-european *p. On the other hand, neither gaul nor celtiberian we can not see the innovations detected from the celtic dialects in western Iberia, like lenition, sincope or the change*w > f (but. gaul. FRITVS (DLG 100)/VRITVS, FLATVCIAS (Larzac)/VLATOS, and the french word and placename if (< *iwos) ‘yew’, similar lus. IFADEM[-].

- The Lusitanian and Hispano-celta genitive pl. is no very different to the celtib. *o(m): lus. TVROCO(M), vett. EBURANCO(M), call. LEMATICOM, celtib. KO.N.TE.BA.KO.M.

- The dative pl. -bo is modernized with respect to the celtiberian (-bos) coinciding with the gaul-greek: cf. lus. ARABO, call. LUGOUBO, respect to this ‘ist im (nichtkeltibeerischen) Westen die geläufige Form des dat-ablativ plural und erscheint inschriftlich in zahlreichen pluralischen Götternamen’ (Meid 2000:13, 22).

- Remains of ‘conservatio’ of the diphthong ie. *eu.: cf- call. TRI-LEUCA/galo LEUCO, although it tends to normal *ou: cf. call. TOVTATICO-/celtib. TOUTO/galo TEVTATIS/TOVTATIS. The diphthong ie. *ei > e: RN gall.(3), ast. cánt. DEVA < protocelt. *dêva- ‘godess’

- The loss of *p into the initial consonantic group *pl-.: cf. call. LAROVCV (< *plaros); in the inner group ps is simplified to ks > ss > s, like celtiberian: call. VSEIS/celtib. USEIZU.

- The consonantic group *-nd- its preservated in all occidental dialects occidentales in front of Gaulish that simplified to -nn-: cf. ast. BENDOGABRVM, gall.med. BENDANIA/gaul. BENNA. 

- ‘Conservatio’ of the group -mb-: call. CAMBETVM., protocelt. *kambo- + suf. protocelt. *-et- :

- Dative sing. is regular in -ui/-u (with its arcaics datives oi/oe), like gaulis and celtiberian dative. stem -u. Preset a classic celtic monopthongatio, -ei > *ê: COSVE (protocelt, *koks-u-ei), REVVE (< protocelt. *rewu-ei ‘the God Moon’: cf. irish ré (< *rew-yâ-) ‘moon’.

- Lenition of the intervocalic oclusivas , with an anticipation some centuries before than in welsh: call. TOUDA <*touta. The loss of the intervocalic -g-: NP call. CELTIENVS < protocelt. *kelti-genos, NL ast. SESAMON < *segisamô, NP lus. MEDVENVS (protocelt. *meidhu-genos. And sincopes: cf. NL call. SESMACAE < *segisama-ka-, ,

And what you want I say you, perhaps, that like in gaulish and celtiberian ie. *ºm,* ºn > protocelt *am-, *an- (cf. NP call. ANDERCVS < *ºn-derk-os); ie. *ºl, *ºr > protocelt. *al, *ar. But celtic language have principal distinction in the realization *r > protocelt.*ri. This realization is tipical in lusitanian and hispano-celta dialects, dearTaranis.

I bet you to count all of items, in Asturian, Callaecian, Vettonian and Lusitanian area, to come from protocelt *bhºrgh-a- > *briga- or *protocelt. *bhºrgh-s > *-brigs. This items from*r > protocelt.*ri . I assure you Taranis that, although you reunited all of -briga and its derivatives of all celtic Europe, you would not obtain a bigger number those that there we can find in the lusitanian and hispano-celta lands.

How you can see……it is a indo-european dialect, very crystalline, and as a result of its archaisms (included the *p, and the tipical indo-european syntactical order of the lusitanian inscriptions)... ‘it is the oldest celtic dialect known in Europe and the predecessor of the celtiberian language’ (Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel, 2004).

----------


## Taranis

This discussion does not belong into genetics. I made a (obviously related) discussion here.

In any case, you're making a lot of mistakes here. I will now try to address them.

First off, you keep calling it a 'dialect'. The definition of "dialect" would imply a kind of mutual intelligibility, whereas it is very clear that we are talking about different languages. You also keep calling it an 'Indo-European _dialect_', which makes the whole situation seem even more absurd, because by the time when Indo-European languages were close to each other was thousands of years back, even from the perspective of 2000 years ago.

This brings me to the next major issue. You keep calling it the oldest dialect and the _predecessor_ of Celtiberian. This is obviously impossible for two reasons. The first and more obvious issue is time: the Gallaecians and Lusitanians were an illiterate people before the Romans conquered them in the 2nd century BC. By this time, the various other Celtic-speaking peoples are already established in other parts Europe, including in Celtiberia. It's impossible to have been the ancestor because all the other languages already existed. The second is that there are the sound laws. Celtiberian shares sound laws with other Celtic languages which you are not going to find in Gallaecian-Lusitanian. And I am _not only_ talking about the loss of *p.

The loss of *p, as mentioned, comes hand in hand with another sound change, namely *pt, ts > xs, xt. Basically, the loss of *p left a 'shadow' in front of *s and *t in the Celtic languages which produces a *x sound. This is attested in all Celtic languages, and Celtiberian, like other Celtic languages obeys to this law. 

I brought up the example of the word for 'seventh', which can be demonstrated a follows:
- Latin "Se*pt*imus"
- Gaulish "Se*xt*ametos"
- Old Irish "Se*cht*mad"

As I said, unfortunately the word for seventh in Celtiberian is unattested, but other words which obey to the law are:

- Celtiberian 'U*x*ama'. 
- Gaulish 'U*x*ello'.
- Old Irish 'Úa*s*al'
- Breton 'U*h*elez'

If Celtiberian was closer with Gallaecian-Lusitanian, how come that it shares these common laws with Gaulish and Old Irish (and indeed all other Celtic languages)? In contrast, we see the *Sup*ertamarici tribe in Gallaecia.

There is more:

Proto-Celtic, the *gw from Proto-Indo-European gets shifted to *b. This happens fairly early on because *gwh becomes *gw in Proto-Celtic and not *b. Example for this sound shift is the word for 'cow' or 'cattle':

- Celtiberian has the word attested in '*Bou*stom' and '*Bou*itos'.
- Gaulish has it for instance in the tribal name '*Bo*ii'.
- Old Irish '*Bó*'
- Welsh 'Buwch'
- Breton 'Buc'h'

For non-Celtic cognates, take a look at German '*K*uh' and English '*C*ow'. (for the record, *g becomes shifted to *k in Proto-Germanic according to Grimm's Law) and Latvian '*G*ovs'.

So as you can see, we find *common sound laws of Celtiberian and the other Celtic languages* which are absent in Gallaecian-Lusitanian. This leaves us with two scenarios:

A) Proto-Celtic evolved on the Iberian penninsula, neighbouring to Gallaecian-Lusitanian and then spread out across a huge area (but we see no such movement in archaeology?).

B) Proto-Celtic evolved elsewhere, and Gallaecian-Lusitanian indeed represents an earlier wave of Indo-Europeans into the Iberian penninsula, and the Celtiberians arrived later from outside.

Which of the two scenarios is more believable?

Regarding Lugus, he can be hardly called uniquely Iberian. You have Lugus in Gaul and Lugh in Ireland. But the deity is not even exclusively Celtic, because a reflex of Lugus exists also in Germanic, in the shape of *Loki*. Does this mean that the Germanic peoples too, are descended from the Gallaecians?

Regarding town names with '-briga', it is very much a strawman argument, because I might as well return the favour and ask how many town names with '-dunum' there are in Iberia and how many in the rest of Europe?

----------


## callaeca

Well…I have explained a possible model of celtisation using a genetical, archaeological, anthropological and liguistic point of view. Ok…I finish it, but two things:

I see that you do not read anything that I wrote above or you have not understand nothing. I said above:

‘The loss of *p … in the inner group ps is simplified to ks > ss > s, like celtiberian: call. VSEIS (DEAB[VS]) (Atas, Cualedro Our.: AF I2 155 = HEp.7.498);/celtib. U.S.E.Z.U ‘maximus’, VSVETIKVBOS, U.S.A.M.A/VXAMA (MLH V/1 pp. 463ss.) and in cantabrian celtic dialect you can see the same solution: VSEIS (MATRIS) (Laguardia Al. (ILER p. 692 49)). The Gaulish and Ligur have UXAMA.

I can not explain here all of western dialectal caracteristcs. I do not want write a book. The PN BOVIVS, BOVIA, BOVALVS, BOVALA are commons in the western dialects (callaecian, lusitanian, vetton, astur). For example, in the actual Galicia you can count more of 20 placenames called Busto, Bustelo and Busteliño. It is the same word that celtiberian BOUSTOM.

In the Celtiberian formation there is a basic, obvioust and very known archaelogical culture called Las Cogotas (read Almagro, please). This culture born in Western Hispania (vettonian area) under the Atlantic Culture influences. Las Cogotas is the primary basis of the Celtiberian culture, will later be different with the aquitanian contributions of Etxauri and the irruption of the Iberians in the NE Hispania during the urnenfelderkultur.

The concept of ‘lusitano-callaeca’ belongs to very classical linguistic ideas, over the year 1950, by U. Schmoll. I have the sensation you are not updated about hispanic prerroman languages or you have influences of the mediatic propaganda of Salamanca University: Fco. Villar and fans (like B.M. Prósper). Villar is a great indo-europeist, but an awful ethimologist.

Finally, my last words, evidently, are not mine. It belongs to one of the best especialists about the celtic languages, the italian Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel. 

These are their exact words:
“La facies linguística más arcaica del celta peninsular, se encuentra en su extremo occidental […], el celtibero sólo puede explicarse a partir de estas lenguas…”

“La presencia de celtas en la Península Ibérica podría de esta manera ser más antigua que los celtas que se documentan en la Celtiberia[…], y que el celta hispano sea uno dialectos más arcaicos del grupo céltico si no el más arcaico en absoluto”

See:
Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel: ‘Centro y áreas laterales: La formación del celtibérico sobre el fondo del celta peninsular hispano’, Palaeohispánica 2, (2002), pp. 89-132.

----------


## Taranis

> Well…I have explained a possible model of celtisation using a genetical, archaeological, anthropological and liguistic point of view. Ok…I finish it, but two things:
> 
> I see that you do not read anything that I wrote above or you have not understand nothing. I said above:
> 
> ‘The loss of *p … in the inner group ps is simplified to ks > ss > s, like celtiberian: call. VSEIS (DEAB[VS]) (Atas, Cualedro Our.: AF I2 155 = HEp.7.498);/celtib. U.S.E.Z.U ‘maximus’, VSVETIKVBOS, U.S.A.M.A/VXAMA (MLH V/1 pp. 463ss.) and in cantabrian celtic dialect you can see the same solution: VSEIS (MATRIS) (Laguardia Al. (ILER p. 692 49)). The Gaulish and Ligur have UXAMA.


Yes, I have read that and it makes absolutely no sense. You can either have *ps, *pt > *xs, *xt or you can retain *p from PIE. As I said, the loss of *p occurs in Proto-Celtic, ie _before_ Gaulish, Brythonic, Goidelic and Celtiberian began to diverge. It makes absolutely no sense to see a fundamental sound law in free variation in Iberia in the 1st century BC. It is far more logical to assume that Gallaecia was a mixed area where Celtic and non-Celtic languages were spoken side by side. The retaining of PIE *p makes these languages by definition non-Celtic, because it is impossible to derive these languages from Proto-Celtic. If you look at Gallaecian tribal names, this gets very evident.

I really can't get tired of repeating a fundamental issue: you cannot ditch 100+ years of proven linguistic methodology to 'prove' that language X is related to language Y. I've said this before in the context of other of such fringe theories, such as the claim that Etruscan was related with Albanian or with Hungarian. If we ditch the methodology, what point is there maintaining that the Indo-European language family is valid? Let us ditch the concept of IE! I might as well claim that English is in fact a dialect of Quechua!

----------


## callaeca

If you have read it, and the works of Koch & Wodtko (Palaeohispanica, 2010), C. J. Untermann (Verba, 2009) and others in this same way, and you are not agree...then you can follow with yours obsoletes teories...I think that you have Villar/Prosper overdose.

ps > ks > ss > s, is an innovation in all celtic areas of Hispania. That is known.

MMM...how can you explain gaulish god name APADEVA or the gaulish tribes PICTONES, PLEUXII?. Evidently, the p loss was not in protoceltic...

----------


## Taranis

> If you have read it, and the works of Koch & Wodtko (Palaeohispanica, 2010), C. J. Untermann (Verba, 2009) and others in this same way, and you are not agree...then you can follow with yours obsoletes teories...I think that you have Villar/Prosper overdose.


Funny how you consistently ignore the actual arguments of my so-called "obsolete theory" while they still remain valid, and make a permanent call to authority of other people without providing me any different evidence.




> ps > ks > ss > s, is an innovation in all celtic areas of Hispania. That is known.


This is not true. I have provided you examples that yields ps -> xs in Celtiberian, which is as I said an innovation of Proto-Celtic.




> MMM...how can you explain gaulish god name APADEVA or the gaulish tribes PICTONES, PLEUXII?. Evidently, the p loss was not in protoceltic...


In the P-Celtic languages, *kw is rendered as *p. It's claear that Gaulish "Apa-" is derived from Proto-Celtic "Akwa-". If the loss was not Proto-Celtic, how do you explain Celtiberian "_Are_vaci", Irish "Athair", Gaulish "Orcos" or Welsh 'Llan'?

----------


## callaeca

Well, perhaps can we explain it like callaecian tribe Arotreba (< from *aretreba), lusitanian. name god Ateraeco (*pateraiko), callaecian placename Olca (< polka) or callaecian LANOBRIGA (< planobriga)?

For 'pig' callaecian have Mocio and lusitanian Mucoaego (< protocelt. *mukko-), not the latin word that yo can see in some inscriptions: porcom, but how can you resolve the celtiberian word [-]uaporconi?

----------


## Taranis

> Well, perhaps can we explain it like callaecian tribe Arotreba (< from *aretreba), lusitanian. name god Ateraeco (*pateraiko), callaecian placename Olca (< polka) or callaecian LANOBRIGA (< planobriga)?


Yes. This clearly shows that PIE *p is lost. On the flipside we have a massive number of names where the *p from PIE is retained. Since a sound law cannot be in free variation in the same area at the same time (_Para_mica and _Are_vaci), the only logical conclusion is that the area was linguistically non-homogenous. Where is your problem?

----------


## callaeca

no..i did not said that: *p is not lost in Hispania..I said that it is an archaism, and for that you can not exlcude for the celtic languages. It is the same that the galician language. We loss intervocalic n and l (lúa < lat. lunam; ceo < latin caelum) and for that we are not excluded in the romanic languages...And principally I have said that to lost the indo-european *p is a linguistic anomaly, and it is not indo-european.

----------


## Taranis

> no..i did not said that: *p is not lost in Hispania..I said that it is an archaism, an for that you can not exlcude for the celtic languages. It is the same that the galician language. We loss intervocalic n and l (lúa < lat. lunam; ceo < latin caelum) and for that we are not excluded in the romanic languages...


Sorry, you _yourself_ provided examples of how *p is also lost in Celtiberian and Gallaecian words. Of course from the perspective of the Celtic languages, retaining PIE *p is an archaism, but since the Celtic languages are defined by the loss of PIE *p, this makes these forms in Iberia that retain *p technically Pre-Celtic.




> And principally I have said that lost the indo-european *p is a linguistic anomaly.


And I have no idea why you keep saying that and what your point is in keeping repeating it. I have explained how it is possible to lose PIE *p.

And you keep avoiding answering on how it is possible for a retained and lost lost PIE *p to simultaneously exist side by side in the general area.

----------


## callaeca

No..mm...I have said...'perhaps..like callaecian, etc'...No. Moreover...the celto-hispanic languages, it is celtiberian, lusitanian and hispano-celta, are indo-europeans, then is normal the preservation of *p

----------


## Taranis

> No..mm...I have said...'perhaps..like callaecian, etc'...No. Moreover...the celto-hispanic languages, it is celtiberian, lusitanian and hispano-celta, are indo-europeans, then is normal the preservation of *p


Funny how *p is lost in some cases. You provided examples of that. I provided examples. I wonder why you avoid answering the question how they could exist side by side.

----------


## callaeca

No loss the *p is not the same that instability: see these callaecian personal names examples: APANA/ABANA, from root ie. *ap-: this example you can see it too in celtiberian personal names..but, clearly, the celtic languages of Hispania follow the indo-europeans rules. They have not the irregularity that we can see in Gaulish and you must ask for you why Gaulish have not a normal indo-european verbal system too, and why *p is preservated in gaulish tribes like PICTAVI/PICTONES and PLEUXII or the marginal goddess name APADEVA (Gaulish have not the word ie. *akwa, the unique example is very unlikely).

----------


## Taranis

> No loss the *p is not the same that instability: see these callaecian personal names examples: APANA/ABANA, from root ie. *ap-


Sorry. You yourself provide examples, both from Celtiberia proper and Gallecia of *p being lost, such as _Are_vaci and _Aro_trebae. At the same time you provided multiple examples of *p being retained.

I repeat my question: how do you explain that they exist simultaneously at the same place?

----------


## callaeca

I do not see two systems in Western, but in Celtiberian. 

There is one source for this celto-hispanic languages, the stellae populations, that arrived to the SW Iberian Peninsula in the ends of the Eneolithic. I think that is the people who introduce the old river names, that are perfectly intragated in the celtic language. Western Peninsula have a continuity only interrupted in this time, in the ends of the Eneolithic.

Where their presence was more dense and important, like in Western Hispania and Liguria and pre-Alps, the indo-european languages are more close to the proto-indoeuropean type centum. For example, the Lepontic was related with the ligurian language but with Gaulish and Venetic interferences. The Ligurian is a secundary paradigmatic matrix that become from Hispania in the Bell-Beaker times.

----------


## Taranis

'Secondary paradigmic matrix'? You know what? You might as well _reverse shield polarity_ and _modify the phase variance_...

----------


## callaeca

This is a graphic aproximation:

----------

