gorseddphungus
|
Re: Comparative archaeology
Mar 12, 2006, 09:20
|
|
Basque is the only non IE language in Europe (with Hungarian and Finn, although these two are related to each other and belong to a well known family, unlike Basque which is likely a Paleolithic language of unknown origins)
|
gorseddphungus
|
Re: Comparative archaeology
Mar 12, 2006, 09:29
|
The report you are referring to is the genetic studies done which showed how the Irish and the Welsh had common genetic links with the Basques. If we accept this study (that I think was based on the mother's side of genetics, and that is why some dispute the results), it would mean that those regions got a fairly minimum amount of IE migrants therefore retaining at least a mesolithic stock.
However, most of southern england, cumbria, etc also have genetic similarities with those people. the 'Celticness' of many in southern England was found to be the same as the Scots for instance. Again, many disputed the way the studies were made, following only the mother's line of the equation.
Then again, all Europeans HAD a 'basque' (ie Paleolithic) origin, it's just that the mountain pastoralists in the western Pyrenees and quite possibly all throughout mountainous Northern Spain kept their populations apart from other Indoeuropean migrations longer than anyone else.
Needless to say, the Indoeuropeans also had a Paleolithic origin, just that they stayed in Eastern Europe until the Bronze Ages before they moved across westwards, reaching almost everywhere.
To complicate things further, the isolated Galicians in the world's Lands End received the largest input of IE/Keltic elements, still visible today. And even the people round the Basques, are more IEized and far less Iberian (these also being pre-IE populations) than the rest.
hope it wasn't too jumbled up and confusing
|
gorseddphungus
|
Rock art
Mar 12, 2006, 09:38
|
|
I disagree with this claim. I know what you are referring to and I have seen the rock art you speak about (and I agree that there are 'some' similarities everywhere) but I also think you haven't seen galician rock art itself. Many also suggest a random origin for rock art in Galicia but the fact that it was unique in Iberia and EXACTLY the same as British rock art (NOT Irish) make it a strong contender for some sort of cultural trade links.
|
gorseddphungus
|
Cup and rings
Mar 12, 2006, 09:49
|
Coincidences in rock art does not necessarily imply genetic links. Think that later on in history the 'supposed' Celtic languages (this time with capital C) that some claim were spoken in many parts of Iberia by the Iberians or in Ireland by the Irish were spoken by genetically non-IE populations (ie indigeneous non-Celtic ones), it would mean that, like the hindu, they were still speaking a foreign language later into history. It may have been a sort of lingua franca while the lesser native languages went on in the dark (at home, like nowadays), who knows.
I also dont believe that the same rock art means the same populations, but it suggests a strong idea of cultural contacts during the late neolithic and early bronze, a time when possible atlantic trade started on a continental scale. It is for me very distinctive that all of the rock art in Iberia was completely different at the time (although, like all RA, it retained similarites of course). especially important if you consider that Iberia is half Mediterranean (the well known side to the British researcher) and half Atlantic (the unknown side), rather isolated from the rest of Spain.
Not only that, in all of Galicia, cup and rings only concentrate in a VERY precise patch of land along the fiords in the west, and not in eastern galicia, which is more mountainous and isolated.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Rock art
Mar 12, 2006, 10:10
|
"I disagree with this claim. I know what you are referring to and I have seen the rock art you speak about (and I agree that there are 'some' similarities everywhere) but I also think you haven't seen galician rock art itself. Many also suggest a random origin for rock art in Galicia but the fact that it was unique in Iberia and EXACTLY the same as British rock art (NOT Irish) make it a strong contender for some sort of cultural trade links."
How do you know that the RA I was referring to was the same the those you dismiss . I havn't ,sadly , seen the Galician RA in the" flesh "only pics . Regardless I find it interesting that there are examples that are EXACTLY the sme as British RA . Despite similarities between RA in British regions there are no examples of an exact copy of motifs . The closest I know are two examples from Edinburgh and Baku in Azerbhaijan. It is the very ubiquity of very similar motifs world wide that destroys the diffusion /invasion argument that is often heard in RA studies .That is not to say that there were no exchange or invasions , just that it is not the full explanation .
|
PeterH
|
Re: Comparative archaeology
Mar 12, 2006, 10:58
|
|
Thanks for that. I need to ponder it for a bit.
|
PeterH
|
Re: Cup and rings
Mar 12, 2006, 11:04
|
|
Yes and although I know nothing of rock art, I certainly take the point about cultural similarities not implying common genetic origins. My neighbour is black yet we both speak the same language, eat Indian curry, drink American coke, drive Japanese cars and support the same football team.
|
PeterH
|
Re: Comparative archaeology
Mar 12, 2006, 11:06
|
|
Fascinating! Tell us more, please.
|
Mr Hamhead
|
Re: Comparative archaeology
Mar 12, 2006, 11:29
|
I was told a while back that the nearest other european language to Basque was Maltese..
Also that the "celtic" link back to central Europe can be traced in place names in northern Italy begining with Tre, as in Treviso.
Mr H
|
Mr Hamhead
|
Re: National Geographic and Celts
Mar 12, 2006, 11:34
|
No offence taken..
I was just drawing the article to peoples attention...I have not even read much more than the first paragraph..
I was more interested in the Galician Stones as a work of art more than anything else.
Mr H
|
