Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Tudela : Navarre (Spain)

Despite being originally part of the territory of the Vascones, the merindad of Tudela was only relatively and lately incorporated into the Kingdom of Navarre after the Reconquista : consequently, placenames don't show remnants of Basque toponymy and the culture of this area watered by the Ebro river is deeply Romance even though surnames now and then show Basque roots like in neighbouring Rioja (the Basque linguistic heritage of which is somehow more obvious).






The territory of the Vascones



  • Sample :

Full scale



  • Brief anthropological analysis :

- Type 1 : Intermediate complexion (from blonde to dark hair, grey/black eyes, rather pale skin on average, ...), leptomorphic, long face (particularly on males), long and convex nose rather parallel to the face, close-set eyes, pointy chin, large jaw
~ Dinaricized Atlanto-Mediterranean




These individuals seem to show obvious Basque-related features (a convex nose, a triangular face, high cheekbones, grey/green eyes, ...). They don't differ much from their eastern neighbours in Cinco Villas but absolutely differ from Aragonese people in Tarazona.

Some more brachycephalic individuals, essentially masculine (women being less leptoprosopic in the first place except in some areas where women can be as long-faced as males), announce Alpinoid types (larger face, distant eyes, ...). They were already identified in Cinco Villas as well.




- Type 2 : Intermediate complexion (rather dark hair, light eyes, ...), brachymorphic, reduced and "puffy" features, square-box head, little and puffy nose, strong jaw, rather distanced and somehow chinky eyes
~ Alpinoid




Interestingly enough, the "Ribera de Navarra" allows us to identify clear Alpinoid types even though some individuals - more particularly women - actually show features which are common up to the Basque-speaking lands of Navarre (a strong angular jaw for instance). Nevertheless, on first analysis, it is fair to theorize that these types are rather specific to the Ebro valley. Stay tuned.


  • Morphotypes finaux / Final morphotypes :

36 comments:

  1. Here's a rather freaky blog about Navarre: http://nabarlur.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Typologically they do not look nearly as "Basque" as those from Cinco Villas. They are as "south of the line" as those of Tarazona or almost, I'd say.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Octavià: Interesting Krutwigianist site. :)

    However, I almost like it better the related blog: http://historiadenavarra-nafarroa.blogspot.com/. In particular this map suggests that the Vasates would be nothing but the Basatiek, "the wild ones".

    I've always been keen of trying to read ancient tribal names in Basque (though not always possible I guess) and I'd suggest that those beginning with Tar- should be Adar- (horn), hence Tarbelas would be Adar Belak (black horns), etc. (I may be wrong of course). I know that the town of Tarbes is related but it's not your usual Roman name Tarbensis (or whatever) nor equivalent Basque Tarbestar/-ko (or something like that), hence I'd say that the town is named after the tribe and not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All of them are absolutely WASP/Nordid/swedish!
    I'm amazed!!! I've realized that the Iberian peninsula is the universal core of the whole Universal White Caucasian Race only right now!
    So, let's bow down to the dominant race...
    And above all: BAZKID ALL OVER THE WORLD!

    :-)))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous, I suggest a quiet lie-down in a darkened room.

    Disbelieving

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've always been keen of trying to read ancient tribal names in Basque (though not always possible I guess) and I'd suggest that those beginning with Tar- should be Adar- (horn), hence Tarbelas would be Adar Belak (black horns), etc. (I may be wrong of course).
    You're wrong, of course. :-) This taŕ- is actually the Iberian counterpart of Proto-Basque haŕ- 'man, male', that is, Iberian Taŕbeleś = Proto-Basque Haŕbeles (notice that ŕ corresponds to modern Basque rr).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tarbes was not situated in Tarbellian territories and its initial name was "Turba" as attested by the famous quotation by Strabo "Civitas Turba ubi Castrum Bigorra" i.e. "the city of Tarbes where can be found the "castrum" of Bigorra (modern Saint-Lizier)". As far as I know, the Basques name the town "Aturbe". IMO one cannot escape the fact that Tarbes is situated on the Adour river still named Aturri in Basque.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But they are Aquitani, i.e. Basques, not Iberians, so why would they be using Iberian words?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous "Disbelieving", I guess you're suggesting a very-very nordid SIESTA, am I right?

    :-DDDDDD

    ReplyDelete
  10. But they are Aquitani, i.e. Basques, not Iberians, so why would they be using Iberian words?
    As I said elsewhere, from the evidence of Aquitanian inscriptions it looks like Iberian and Proto-Basque were part of a dialectal continuum.

    Gorrotxategi's study (Estudios sobre la onomástica indígena de Aquitania, 1984) shows forms with h- (Proto-Basque's) are predominant in the Pyrenees, while those with t- (Iberian) were found to the north.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your reasoning is strange : indeed, Gorrotxategi shows that in the plain (more precisely in Auscitanian lands), t- is present where h- can be found in Pyrenean epigraphy (Tarros/Harros). Then what ? One has to deduce that the plain knew initial t-. That's all. Why should it be Iberian ? It is quite clear that the Aquitanian linguistic domain was already fragmented and there's no denial that the Auscitanians were Aquitanian, actually the most powerful ones.

    BTW modern Souletine knows initial t- in frequent words such as arte(=oak) : tarte in Souletine.

    It is vastly probable that initial forms began in t- (like in Iberian, a distant cousin) and that through an intermediate form th- (aspired counsonant, a feature that only Souletine retains but which was present in Aquitanian epigraphy) it got to become h-.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your reasoning is strange : indeed, Gorrotxategi shows that in the plain (more precisely in Auscitanian lands), t- is present where h- can be found in Pyrenean epigraphy (Tarros/Harros). Then what ? One has to deduce that the plain knew initial t-. That's all. Why should it be Iberian?
    Because some of the forms with t- can also be found in Iberian inscriptions: TALSCO- ~ talsku, TAUTINN- ~ tautin.

    It is vastly probable that initial forms began in t- (like in Iberian, a distant cousin) and that through an intermediate form th- (aspired counsonant, a feature that only Souletine retains but which was present in Aquitanian epigraphy) it got to become h-.
    Thsi is precisely the process described by the French linguist André Martinet in 1955, and which I call Martinet's Law.

    My point is Proto-Basque had already undergone this process at the time of the inscriptions, while Iberian didn't.

    BTW modern Souletine knows initial t- in frequent words such as arte(=oak) : tarte in Souletine.
    IMHO words like these can't come from Proto-Basque but a late variety of Iberian which survived in isolated pockets until the High Middle Ages.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't get your logic. Epigraphy allows us to detect that in some Aquitanian areas, many words had retained initial t-. Why should it make the language spoken in those lands "Iberian" ? What is "Iberian" about Souletine Basque ? If anything, since the Basque language is still alive while Iberian is dead, one should claim that one can find words in Iberian which are akin to ancient Basque as spoken in ancient "Auscitania".

    By your logic, you define the Basque language by the sole t>h mutation !

    BTW the debate must be linked with what we know of the peopling of this area : the inhabitants of Auch (modern-day Gascons) were ethnically (proto-)Basque and consequently they could not speak anything else but a now extinct Basque dialect.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't get your logic. Epigraphy allows us to detect that in some Aquitanian areas, many words had retained initial t-. Why should it make the language spoken in those lands "Iberian"?
    As I said in my last post, because it's identical to Iberian.

    What is "Iberian" about Souletine Basque ? If anything, since the Basque language is still alive while Iberian is dead, one should claim that one can find words in Iberian which are akin to ancient Basque as spoken in ancient "Auscitania".

    By your logic, you define the Basque language by the sole t>h mutation !

    I think you're confusing Proto-Basque, the ancestor of modern Basque dialects, with Basque itself. Proto-Basque's sound system was roughly reconstructed by Koldo Mitxelena more than 40 years ago.

    While most forms found in Aquitanian inscriptions corresponds to Proto-Basque (e.g. the ones with h-), a lesser number are Iberian (e.g. the ones with t-), so this fact can't be simply ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BTW the debate must be linked with what we know of the peopling of this area : the inhabitants of Auch (modern-day Gascons) were ethnically (proto-)Basque and consequently they could not speak anything else but a now extinct Basque dialect.
    IMHO "Vasconic" would be a better designation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why do you choose to label these forms as "Iberian" ? Unless you can prove they're direct Iberian influences, the least that can be said is that they are "Non-Pyrenean Aquitanian" forms, which is what Gorrotxategi states, and which happen to match Iberian. Actually, Gorrotxategi rather suggests a Celtic influence for those Auscitanian variants.

    BTW I don't believe in Proto-Basque : I believe Basque dialects already existed back in Antiquity as proved by the very distinctive features of Souletine which remind us of ancient Aquitanian.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why do you choose to label these forms as "Iberian" ?
    As I said, because they match the ones founds in the Iberian inscriptions.

    Unless you can prove they're direct Iberian influences, the least that can be said is that they are "Non-Pyrenean Aquitanian" forms, which is what Gorrotxategi states, and which happen to match Iberian.
    If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck, then it's a duck.

    Actually, Gorrotxategi rather suggests a Celtic influence for those Auscitanian variants.
    I don't know where he says so, but I'm sure he's mistaken.

    BTW I don't believe in Proto-Basque : I believe Basque dialects already existed back in Antiquity as proved by the very distinctive features of Souletine which remind us of ancient Aquitanian.
    Some features of Souletin could be due to the influence of the neighbouring Gascon, specially the Bearnese variant. As regarding historical Basque dialects, there's a consensus among Vascologists that they originated in the Middle Ages. I'd recommend you Koldo Zuazo's recent book El Euskera y sus dialectos for references.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As far as I can understand Octavià has "found" (???) by glottochronology that Basque is a dialect of Iberian only diverged c. 500 BCE. He also believes that Vasco-Iberian (or whatever) is a dialect the, not demonstrated, super-family North Caucasian, from which it split c. 6 or 7 Ka ago (Neolithic diffusion processes).

    Obviously the first and crucial part is wrong, as Basque and Iberian should have diverged 3000 BCE at the latest (assuming a (1) Neolithic time frame) or 7000 BCE or even earlier (assuming a (2) Paleolithic time frame). So, assuming that Octavià's basics are correct and that he's just using the wrong time-mutation correspondence, I make a simple apportion and I conclude that:

    For (1) NC-Vasconic divergence would be of roughly 18 Ka BP (Solutrean or Magdalenian related).

    For (2) NC-Vasconic divergence would be of at least 32 Ka BP, Gravettian times.

    However (1) is virtually impossible because it implies a NC-Vasconic divergence earlier than the assumed Neolithic time frame, so (2) should be the correct one.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As far as I can understand Octavià has "found" (???) by glottochronology that Basque is a dialect of Iberian only diverged c. 500 BCE.
    Not exactly. My own estimate (which has nothing to do with "glottochronology"), based on the Aquitanian continuum, would be between 1,000 and 500 BC.

    He also believes that Vasco-Iberian (or whatever) is a dialect the, not demonstrated, super-family North Caucasian, from which it split c. 6 or 7 Ka ago (Neolithic diffusion processes).
    A little correction: the macro-family called "North Caucasian" by Starostin is actually "Vasco-Caucasian" and it includes languages such as Burushaski.

    Obviously the first and crucial part is wrong, as Basque and Iberian should have diverged 3000 BCE at the latest (assuming a (1) Neolithic time frame) or 7000 BCE or even earlier (assuming a (2) Paleolithic time frame).
    I strongly disagree. Basque and Iberian distance is very short when compared to other VC languages such as Etruscan or Hurro-Urartian.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If it has nothing to do with glottochronology and is not at all supported by archaeology, then where the heck do you get your hunch from? Does the god of languages speak to you in dreams or something?

    "Basque and Iberian distance is very short when compared to other VC languages such as Etruscan or Hurro-Urartian".

    Assuming that Etruscan is Vasco-Caucasian and that Vasco-Caucasian is correct, etc.

    Did you read the latest stuff on Hurrian being allegedly close to IE? This would fit better with my speculations of a West Eurasian superfamily including the various Caucasian families, as well as IE, Basque and possibly Dravidian as well (and Burushaski?) than with yours that require of massive extra-phylogenetic loans from families that are apparently very distant in space-time (like Vasconic and PIE).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Much noise for nothing IMO. There are about a dozen of Aquitanian first names which show an initial t (the remainder being clearly Latin or Celtic). Some examples :

    - Talsconis (found in Eauze, ancient Elusa) : one cannot escape that in the Pyrenees, epigraphy shows that people were named Halsconis. Both are variants of the same first names.
    - Talseiae (found in Gimont in Gers).
    - Tarlebissi (found in Auch)
    - Tarros (found in Eauze) : more precisely that's Caius Iulius Tarros, son of Talsco.
    - Teixsossix (found in Marignac in non-Pyrenean Comminges)
    - Torsteginno (found in Auch)

    So what ? The autochtonous character of these first names cannot be doubted ("xs", "nn", Tarros was not adapted to Latin declension !). Most of them show strong affinities with Pyrenean first names.

    What is Iberian about these names then ? It is true that "talsco" has been identified in some Iberian words. On a personal note, I have never doubted that Iberian and Basque were related and it's logical to find common roots (the most famous one being iri/ili for town). But what is precisely Iberian about these names ? They just prove that the local Aquitanian dialect of the people living in the plain had maintained initial t-, like Iberian. It mutated into h- in the Pyrenees through a plausible th- step as shown by intermediate forms such as -thar for -tar in Aquitanian epigraphy.

    That's pretty much all. The rest is pure speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What is Iberian about these names then?
    I think you're confusing the concepts of "ethnically Iberian" and "linguistically Iberian". My point is about language alone.

    But what is precisely Iberian about these names ? They just prove that the local Aquitanian dialect of the people living in the plain had maintained initial t-, like Iberian. It mutated into h- in the Pyrenees through a plausible th- step as shown by intermediate forms such as -thar for -tar in Aquitanian epigraphy.
    As I said earlier, this is just one of the several sound shifts which affected voiceless (fortis) plosives in Proto-Basque and which I collectively name Martinet's Law.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If it has nothing to do with glottochronology and is not at all supported by archaeology,
    I'm affraid archaeology is irrelevant to this issue.

    Did you read the latest stuff on Hurrian being allegedly close to IE?
    Didn't you notice one of the authors is precisely our "friend" Arnaud Fournet? This is just one of his pet crackpot theories.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why should such words - more precisely such features - be labelled as "linguistically Iberian" ? The very fact that they are found in ancient Aquitanian is a proof that "Iberian" doesn't suit the reality of this phenomenon. I'm not denying the rather interesting links between Basque and Iberian (I'm no expert when it comes to guess an era when both languages diverged, I only know that such theories must be linked with what we know of human movements, in that respect it's obvious that Iberian territories had a distinct superstrate, maybe not that much in Catalonia), just that I don't get the necessity to label as "Iberian" common features.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why should such words - more precisely such features - be labelled as "linguistically Iberian" ?
    May I ask you why do you keep repeating this question? I think I've made it clear enough in my earlier posts than this is what the lingusitic evidence tell us.

    The very fact that they are found in ancient Aquitanian is a proof that "Iberian" doesn't suit the reality of this phenomenon.
    You're wrong. Don't forget "Aquitanian" isn't a language but an epigraphic corpus. These inscriptions show a dialectal continuum where some varieties are closer to Iberian and others to Proto-Basque.

    Linking the label "Iberian" to particular ethnic people is rather dangerous, specially so due to the very nature of Iberians as a warfare elite, much in the same way than Celts.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I keep repeating the very same question as you fail to properly adress it : how come you define Iberian as that language keeping an initial t- ? That's what you do in a way.

    BTW about Iberians, I believe genetic tests are now being clear : autochtonous people inhabiting former Iberian lands don't show great signs of Basque influence except maybe in Pyrenean Catalonia (but samples would be needed). Linguistically speaking, Iberian might have remained close to what would be known as "Basque" but it's quite clear many things happened in the Neolithic, more particularly around Valencia.

    Still you may be right that one has to make a distinction between ethnic peopling and languages : what is your vision of that Basco-Iberian continuum ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I keep repeating the very same question as you fail to properly adress it : how come you define Iberian as that language keeping an initial t- ? That's what you do in a way.
    Iberian words show voiceless plosives like t, k were their (Proto-)Basque counterparts have h or nothing. IMHO this is due to Martinet's Law hapenning in Proto-Basque before the time of Aquitanian inscriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We know nothing of (Proto-)Basque ... except Aquitanian inscriptions which show that linguistic solutions were not defined with much hesitation between the plain and the mountains in the treatment of those voiceless plosives t and k. In that respect, labelling as "Iberian" this treatment is quite abusive.

    BTW Souletine Basque still shows such treatment ! Don't tell me it's an influence of neighbouring Gascon, such phenomenon cannot be put in relation with Romance phonetics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. We know nothing of (Proto-)Basque
    Wrong. Proto-Basque can be reconstructed from modern Basque dialects.

    In that respect, labelling as "Iberian" this treatment is quite abusive.
    Sorry, but I disagree.

    BTW Souletine Basque still shows such treatment!
    As I told you before, these words don't derive from Proto-Basque but a late Iberian dialect which survived in some Pyrenean areas until the High Middle Ages.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think there's a fundamental relativistic difference of viewpoints: Octavià sees things from an Iberian (Catalan) point of view, while Heraus and I see them from a Basque (Aquitanian) one.

    I'd say that if there was more linguistic diversity in Vasconia than in Iberia, then we should conclude that Iberian is derived from (proto-)Basque and not vice versa. However the evidence is scant and I'm all the time impressed for how Iberian is assumed to be a single language when it's probably several related ones in fact.

    "They just prove that the local Aquitanian dialect of the people living in the plain had maintained initial t-, like Iberian. It mutated into h- in the Pyrenees through a plausible th- step as shown by intermediate forms such as -thar for -tar in Aquitanian epigraphy".

    Why one sound should be ancestral and the other derived? The very idea of languages deriving in a simplistic phylogenetic way is probably not applicable for such an old substrate. Here we should surely think more like in the case of Australian languages, whose correlations are horizontal and criss-crossed not necessarily vertical.

    In this case it would seem the we have at least two phonetic zones in the Vasconic linguistic area: one with T and another with H. It is possible I guess that there were others like loss of sound or D... and the transitional TH already mentioned.

    Then we also have the K/G<>H transition which may obscure things even more but again may well be zonal rather than purely evolutive.

    "Didn't you notice one of the authors is precisely our "friend" Arnaud Fournet? This is just one of his pet crackpot theories".

    I just noticed. His theories are ok for me (arguable, interesting, not just to take them at face value), even if his emotional maturity is rather low.

    "Don't forget "Aquitanian" isn't a language but an epigraphic corpus".

    Largely that can also be said of Iberian. Iberian has never been demonstrated AFAIK to be a single language. And I doubt it will ever happen considering the limited evidence and the ideological bias impregnating such research so often.

    Based on the (obviously true) Veleia inscriptions, Basque and Iberian cannot be related by such a short time lapse as Octavià claims. This is nothing new nor requires the Veleia evidence to demonstrate it because there is no archaeological frame by which Iberian and Basque could be related after either Neolithic arrival or the latest Epimagdalenian flows into the Iberian peninsula (geometric microlithism, a different name for a Sauveterrean-Tardenoisian facies, and in the Catalan specific case not even a facies but the original thing transposed in space: a clear migration).

    "... the very nature of Iberians as a warfare elite"...

    Bullshit! Iberian ethnic identity is born probably with El Argar (and related cultures of the Iberian Levant): it is as such a civilized ethnic identity much more similar to that of Ancient Greeks, to which they are also related by mutual (but mostly Greece > Iberia) cultural influences in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Were they bellicose? Sure, Greeks were as well. Did they have a military elite? Very possibly because every other people in that period did. Were them like Celts? Not at all. Celts were much more barbaric and mobile.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Heraus:

    "... autochtonous people inhabiting former Iberian lands don't show great signs of Basque influence except maybe in Pyrenean Catalonia"...

    I'd say that there is a rather strong affinity with (some?) Catalans specially. Octavià's face itself is pretty much Vascoid, I'd daresay, rather than Iberoid. He reminds me of an old acquaintance from Gipuzkoa (a 'pure blooded' Basque, I believe) in fact.

    Further South the affinity is maybe diluted but there is some. But the impression in the genetic aspect is one of Pyrenean (more Gascon than specifically Basque) ancestry pouring southwards on an older Iberian-specific substrate. Other areas of Iberia are yet to be researched properly and look quite unrelated to the Aquitanian genetic pool, other than in the generic West European sense.

    So I'd say that former Iberians are more related to Gascons (and Basques) than you think but in a Gascon to Iberian direction rather than the opposite. This affinity is surely most marked in the Catalan Pyrenees as you say well.

    -----------------------------------

    @Octavià: "a late Iberian dialect which survived in some Pyrenean areas"

    Undemonstrated, speculative and archaeologically inconsistent. There is no evidence of cultural flow from the Mediterranean westwards after the Cardium Pottery Neolithic impression. It's practically impossible that there was any "Iberian" influence in the time frame you argue.

    Nor surely earlier either: the main influences in the Basque-Aquitanian area are from Portugal and the connections with the East were most important (after Portugal and the Atlantic areas) in the Chalcolithic with Languedoc (Treilles group) and then maybe Catalonia. But both Languedoc and Catalonia were then Celticized under the Urnfield culture for some 800 years, only becoming Iberian (again or is it anew?) c. 550 BCE when the Greeks found Emporion (and lose their influence in Corsica-Sardinia to the Etruscan-Phoenician alliance).

    Essentially we have totally distinct Basque-Aquitanian and Iberian regions for millennia (since Neolithic arrival) and specially separated by the Celtic wedge between c. 1250 and 550 BCE. You should adapt your linguistic speculation to these rather factual archaeological frames.

    "Proto-Basque can be reconstructed from modern Basque dialects".

    Sure: Batua. :p

    Seriously subcontemporary Basque dialects only retain a fraction of the linguistic diversity that ancient Basque (Aquitanian) had. You should not disdain the evidence that Aquitanian, Riojan and Veleian inscriptions provide in order to reconstruct the never unified dialect continuum that we might call "proto-Basque".

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think there's a fundamental relativistic difference of viewpoints: Octavià sees things from an Iberian (Catalan) point of view, while Heraus and I see them from a Basque (Aquitanian) one.
    This is absurd.

    I'd say that if there was more linguistic diversity in Vasconia than in Iberia, then we should conclude that Iberian is derived from (proto-)Basque and not vice versa.
    Using your own words, this is bullshit.

    However the evidence is scant and I'm all the time impressed for how Iberian is assumed to be a single language when it's probably several related ones in fact.
    By no means. Iberian inscriptions show a rather remarkable linguistic uniformity with little diatopic (dialectal) variations. This is consistent with Iberian being a vehicular language spoken by some elite rather than vernacular in most of its territory.

    In this case it would seem the we have at least two phonetic zones in the Vasconic linguistic area: one with T and another with H.
    An isogloss reflecting Martinet's Law.

    It is possible I guess that there were others like loss of sound or D... and the transitional TH already mentioned.
    I'm affraid none of them were actually recorded.

    Then we also have the K/G<>H transition which may obscure things even more but again may well be zonal rather than purely evolutive.
    This is also part of Martinet's Law. :-)

    Bullshit! Iberian ethnic identity is born probably with El Argar (and related cultures of the Iberian Levant): it is as such a civilized ethnic identity much more similar to that of Ancient Greeks, to which they are also related by mutual (but mostly Greece > Iberia) cultural influences in the Bronze and Iron Ages.
    Possible, but it remains a speculative hypothesis. Anyway, this is irrelevant for linguistic matters.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Octavià: "a late Iberian dialect which survived in some Pyrenean areas"

    Undemonstrated, speculative and archaeologically inconsistent. There is no evidence of cultural flow from the Mediterranean westwards after the Cardium Pottery Neolithic impression. It's practically impossible that there was any "Iberian" influence in the time frame you argue.

    Linguistic theories are built on lingustic data. Other kind of data such as archaeological ones might support or not them, but there's no way they can invalidate them.

    Confusing linguistic and ethnic entities when studying prehistory is extremely dangerous. Also political preconceived ideas (of any sign) are very poisonous.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's no durable ethnic identity without a linguistic identity. You should know that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Your argument is fallacious. Iberian is an attested language, while PIE is a reconstructed one. They're two very different cases".

    But you are applying that not to Iberian but to what we could call proto-Vasco-Iberian or proto-Vasconic. So the comparison with PIE is fully justified: it's like deciding what is PIE based only on Hittite epigraphy - that's what you are doing.

    "Both paleo-linguistics and archaeology are tools which make us able to get insight into the past".

    Maybe but archaeology provides facts pretty much while, as someone put it elsewhere, linguistics is all "smoke and mirrors".

    ReplyDelete
  36. But you are applying that not to Iberian but to what we could call proto-Vasco-Iberian or proto-Vasconic. So the comparison with PIE is fully justified: it's like deciding what is PIE based only on Hittite epigraphy - that's what you are doing.
    Well, the Aquitanian continuum is much closer to proto-Vasconic than Hittite is to PIE.

    "Both paleo-linguistics and archaeology are tools which make us able to get insight into the past".

    Maybe but archaeology provides facts pretty much while, as someone put it elsewhere, linguistics is all "smoke and mirrors".

    I think your opinion is biased and reflects your lack of training in historical linguistics.

    ReplyDelete

I've chosen to let people comment freely on my posts. Nevertheless, you'll lose your time taunting me and calling me a fascist (which I'm really not) : I pray you to read my introduction which will reassure that my intentions genuinely aim at achieving amateurish knowledge. I understand that you may not share my passion for the history of the peopling of the World, just don't let me know as clear conscience gained by bashing a humble documentary work is useless.