tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post7780977545532091877..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: SW Iberian plaques from the ChalcolithicMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31524055504927671042015-06-29T06:21:19.085+02:002015-06-29T06:21:19.085+02:00It's not something we can directly associate w...It's not something we can directly associate with the proto-historical Conii: many centuries later. There were many changes between this Chalcolithic period and the Iron Age, particularly the Indoeuropean expansion (Celts, Lusitani), who ravaged the Western coastal area (i.e. most of Portugal) destroying the Atlantic Bronze Age and drawing a dramatic division between the Copper and Bronze Ages and the pre--Roman Iron Age. <br /><br />It's possible that the Conii are descendants of some of the rather diverse peoples who created some of that stuff, as they probably were "Tartessian" rather than Indoeuropean. <br /><br />Anyhow Portugal did not exist until the late Middle Ages and it was born as the last independent fragment of Galicia, much farther in the North than this area: it is a neo-Roman state that retains no direct connection with those ancient cultures, even if the people may indeed be descendants of them, at least partly. Also findings and cultures typically overlap the modern border, as did the Lusitani themselves. Population genetics also don't respect the modern Portuguese border being nearly the same in all the Western third of the peninsula. <br /><br />Please don't go hystrionically hyper-nationalist on matters you obviously lack a concise understanding. I am much more enthusiastic and emphatic about the key role of Chalcolithic Portugal in European paleohistory than all the Portuguese prehistorians together. <br /><br />Furthermore: I'll tell you something that you may suck upon in your nationalist wet dreams: Zambujal (Torres Vedras) and its culture (known as Vila Nova de Sao Pedro, on another site) was the ancient Atlantis of Plato. I still have to meet a Portuguese who knows and defends that as <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/2014/05/i-just-found-my-very-old-first.html" rel="nofollow">I've done for years</a>. <br /><br />As for Portuguese researchers, AFAIK they have a role. Zilhao or Valera for example are big names (none of them goes overboard pregnant of nationalism as you do). But in general I'd say that the situation of research in Spain and Portugal is comparable: both are hampered by their Christian-Roman priorities (so pre-Roman stuff is typically ignored or gets at best a very minor interest), the bureaucratization of academy, the Celtism (Indoeuropeanism) of their mainstream paleo-historiography (something that also plagues other countries like France, Britain, etc.), the dramatic under-funding and low level of international accessibility (use of English, presence in the Internet), etc. <br /><br />But what strikes me the most is that for a country that hosted the oldest civilizations of the Atlantic (and together with SE Spain) the oldest ones of Western Europe, civilizations that were central in the formation of Western Europe, there is almost zero interest in Portugal about them. And your comment is just another example of it: you obviously have *some* interest but your knowledge is poor. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24760789993880934762015-06-28T13:55:33.217+02:002015-06-28T13:55:33.217+02:00It's not "south-west iberian" plaque...It's not "south-west iberian" plaques .It's CONII plaques, Conii Language , Conii Culture , Conii !<br />They are our Portuguese Ancestors along side with Lusitanians and Gallicians , and they Lived in the South of present Alentejo and Algarve ,Portugal .<br />Conii were not Tartessian.They were CONII !<br />I would like very much to know why , Portuguese Investigators , that have profoundly Studied Our Roots , are never Mentioned , asked any advise or help , from either , "spanish" or anglo-saxons pseudo-historians ??!!<br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/cemallagos/carlos-alberto-castelo/a-escrita-koniiRogério Macielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06586296169813900249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7205563207187640292014-02-28T23:54:49.846+01:002014-02-28T23:54:49.846+01:00Yes I wonder if there's a psychological barrie...Yes I wonder if there's a psychological barrier due to people's thinking being centered on the middle-east. A civilization on the Atlantic fringe doesn't "fit." I'd hope UK researchers might join in as my current guess is Britain's neolithic history is connected to this via Brittany.Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86230454135741932062014-02-28T23:50:58.203+01:002014-02-28T23:50:58.203+01:00A coincidence maybe but a possible link with an At...A coincidence maybe but a possible link with an Athena-like deity is interesting.Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35186879726429485372014-02-28T19:59:54.252+01:002014-02-28T19:59:54.252+01:00Some of them do, IMO. And now that I think of it a...Some of them do, IMO. And now that I think of it again, the triangular elements could well be taken as feathers, at least in some cases. On the other hand none of the icons has the typical "horns" of many owl species, while barn owls, which do not have "horns" do not have the feather design either. So if the owl iconography is actually present it should be inspired in some type of owl which does have the chest feather design but probably not "horns". <br /><br />My tentative list of species would be quite short, after considering this and their distribution:<br />→ Athene noctua (little owl)<br />→ Strix aulco (tawny owl)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48617228746667072162014-02-28T11:06:06.789+01:002014-02-28T11:06:06.789+01:00I agree, most of the plaques from Fig. 1 & 3 ...I agree, most of the plaques from Fig. 1 & 3 look like stylized owls to me.<br /><br />Sorry, I don't have more to say. ;)eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-32620205579046062352014-02-27T21:42:11.280+01:002014-02-27T21:42:11.280+01:00True. It's like the Neolithic levels of Samara...True. It's like the Neolithic levels of Samara: they should be top in the agenda of all archaeological and prehistoric research institutions but nope. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70381591855610034152014-02-27T14:08:24.849+01:002014-02-27T14:08:24.849+01:00Shame that the Zambujal culture isn't being re...Shame that the Zambujal culture isn't being researched as it's likely to be an important piece of the puzzle for the whole Atlantic coast imo.Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-62552579111852017322014-02-25T21:53:31.432+01:002014-02-25T21:53:31.432+01:00Based on table 1 (Available radiocarbon dates dire...Based on table 1 (Available radiocarbon dates directly associated with plaques) but it seems I focused on column named "date BC", while there is another column just to its right titled "calibrated dates BC (1 sigma)" with the oldest date being (rounded) 3500-3400 BC (just 2655 in the previous column). <br /><br />I can only imagine that "date BC" is something like date BP minus 1950 (the standard "present" of BP dates) but it is a confusing notation. Normally when you give dates BC, they are already calibrated. <br /><br />I will have to correct that. Thanks for mentioning. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-29377559165047243022014-02-25T21:08:20.143+01:002014-02-25T21:08:20.143+01:00Maju,
I don't understand why you write this: ...Maju,<br /><br />I don't understand why you write this: "The dates of the "plaque idols", as they are often known in the literature, range from c. 2650 to c. 2100 BCE" while the paper writes this: "engraved stone plaques from megalithic funerary monuments dating ca. 3,500–2,750 B.C".Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315331235019626444noreply@blogger.com