PDA

View Full Version : Celts 2015



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Jean M
07-17-2015, 12:22 AM
Its interesting that at some pre-proto stage Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic shared a lot of unusual vocab not shared with other IE groups.

Yes that is one of the papers I cite in the forthcoming book. It is strong evidence against Celtic-from-the-West, or so it seems to me.

MT1976
07-17-2015, 08:16 AM
@ Jean

"Charini and Gutones. We can recognise two of these peoples, the Burgundians and Goths, among those Germanic tribes who later took over parts of the former Western Roman Empire.

Then we hear nothing more of the Vandals until they became a nuisance to the Romans. Or so it might appear, if we did not realise that the Vandals were split into at least two sub-groups, the Hasding and Siling. Ptolemy places the Silingae roughly southwest of the Burgundians, who lived inland between the Oder and Vistula. The name of the Siling is preserved in Silesia, a region now largely in southwest Poland, where some Germanic river-names also survive. Most archaeologists today see the Przeworsk culture as the material manifestation of the Vandals. Beginning in the the 2nd century BC, it spread southeastwards between the Vistula and Oder, then in the 2nd century AD crossed the Carpathian Mountains to the upper Tisza River.
This is from my Ancestral Journeys, but a more detailed account can be found in Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe (2009), which I strongly recommend."

No offense Jean, but Id really expect someone who taught history to have a better grasp of ethnology. First of all, your Siling- Silesia link, although possible, is entirely hypothetical. The fact that it is uncritically parroted from book to book doesn;t change
that fact.

Secondly, your acceptance of the above geo-ethnography sounds like you did your learning from Wikipedia. Quite simply, we have no idea who the 'tribes' were which lived in central or northern Poland (the so-called 'Przeworsk culture') were. A careful reading of all references to Vandals, eg, places them close to Pannonia, Dacia, etc, and not Poland or the baltic as imagined by an entire century's worth of deceived scholarship, or problematic 'back-reconstruction' from archaeological cultures like Przeworsk and Wielbark (the latter for the Goths, and uncritical readings of Jordanes - which I must presume you also take prima facie as authentic origo gentis).

"The story of the three brothers Lech, Czech, and Rus is another example of eponymous ancestors indicating that there was a sense of kinship between at least Eastern and Western Slavic speakers in the Middle Ages."

Ironically, this story disproves your entire position, although you unfortunately see it as evidence for it ! Are you aware that this was written in the 14th century, and not 600 AD, or 200 BC ? That is one major difference. in the 14th century, there were states, literacy, etc. Princes, clerics and learned alike at this point did analyse language and did become aware that they are similar. They then invented the story to account for these similarities. Key word invented in the 14th century, not passed on through the eons.

"*"You say Celtic did not come from the west.
I agree with you on that.


As I said, good luck with your book, but I think you first have some profound methodological concepts to become acquainted with. You might disagree with such methodological stand points - an that's fine. Who is anyone to insist how ethnography actually worked. But you must address them adequately and then provide evidence for rejecting it. Ans as i said, i don't think its been anyone's position to deny that much of Europe spoke Celtic or languages similar to, during the Iron Age.

Jean M
07-17-2015, 10:09 AM
No offense Jean, but I'd really expect someone who taught history to have a better grasp of ethnology.

Your post is both offensive and sadly misguided. I'm not in the business of air-brushing politically inconvenient ethnicities out of history in a form of retrospective genocide. This process has been standard issue in a number of cases including Poland for decades after the Post-War period. It was perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Hitler used the excuse of Germani on Polish soil to annex Poland. His attitude to the Slavs was disgraceful. It all left a very bitter taste and no wonder! Nothing could justify the annexation of Poland. Just as nothing could justify his power-mad annexation of other countries and plan to grab Britain, which he saw as another Germanic-speaking country that belonged in a Germanic federation under his tyranny.

The use of history or archaeology to justify war or other illegal acts is repugnant. If changes are desired, they should take place by peaceful democratic means. Rewriting the past is not the answer, partly because it actually reinforces the idea that the existence of modern polities can only be justified if their present citizens can trace their ancestry to the soil of said polities, within their modern boundaries, back as far as history/archaeology can take us, and that no other ethnos has ever lived there. This is utterly impossible. It is absurd. Modern boundaries seldom have any great time depth. The validity of modern nation states has to rest in present international law. It has to be based in the reality of the present.

The other main problem with rewriting the past to suit politics or national pride is that it won't work on a permanent basis. Human curiosity may be stamped on, but it keeps bouncing back. Certainly a denial of anything inconvenient can be clung to for decades if it becomes orthodoxy bolstered by political thought police. That happened in Poland, as has been discussed by modern Polish archaeologists, who have won free of it these days. Human curiosity leads us to keep seeking new types of evidence. Ancient DNA is crucial here. Anti-migrationist denial will crumble in the face of it, if we have scholars free to speak the truth.

Jean M
07-17-2015, 10:22 AM
"The story of the three brothers Lech, Czech, and Rus is another example of eponymous ancestors indicating that there was a sense of kinship between at least Eastern and Western Slavic speakers in the Middle Ages."

.... Are you aware that this was written in the 14th century, and not 600 AD, or 200 BC ?

Of course I am.


Princes, clerics and learned alike at this point did analyse language and did become aware that they are similar. They then invented the story to account for these similarities.


Of course the story was invented. You don't imagine that such stories are literally true, do you? The whole point is that they are invented to explain the relationship that people perceive between tribes or in this case nations, when the knowledge of how exactly they came to be related has been lost in the mists of time.

I don't propose to copy onto this forum entire chapters of Ancestral Journeys, so you will have to read the book for my chapter on the Slavs, with dissection of all the sources, written, archaeological, genetic etc. I don't actually mention this particular story. It is too late for a book that ends with the Vikings, and in any case I generally avoid mythology in AJ.

MT1976
07-17-2015, 10:29 AM
I'm not sure where your rant is coming from ??
I'm not accusing you of political indoctrination, or bias. But I am stating that your reading of the archaeological & literary evidence is literal and verging on rudimentary .
Moreover, I do not deny migrations. So again your engaging in straw -man polemics.

My point is basic: I agree with recent critiques that macro-Ethonyns like Germani or celts are of little benefit. Not wholly useless, they nevertheless add little real insight as to what was really going on, and often rest on a rather broad base of questionable suppositions. This is not some over-reaction to 1930s culture history . Granted some have taken it too far, but the constructivist approach the ethnicity and post-processual archaeology have taken the study of history to a level not previously attainable

alan
07-17-2015, 10:48 AM
I must say I am admiring Jean's patience and perseverance and holding back on the invisibility button

MT1976
07-17-2015, 11:00 AM
Alan
You're right. How dare i point out inconsistencies in your arguments. I never claimed any political bias, nor am I arguing for any bizarre palaeolithic continuities for modern nations. As I said I'm not sure where this is Coming from.

Let's distance it from Celts, for now. Please provide one solid piece of evidence that there were people called "Vandals" which lived in Poland during the roman Iron Age, and that they firthermore spoke Germanic. This is a good litmus test.

Jean M
07-17-2015, 11:18 AM
the constructivist approach the ethnicity and post-processual archaeology have taken the study of history to a level not previously attainable

I imagine that this was what you were taught, back in the days when post-processual archaeology was the latest thing. Several academic disciplines were affected by postmodernist thinking, which was essentially subjective and anti-scientific. We are now in a period of reaction against that subjectivity. The pendulum has swung back to point to science. Prehistorian Kristian Kristiansen sets the movement into the historic context of a recurrent 'cycle of Rationalism and Romanticism' in Western thought.

I have nothing whatever against recognition of the fluidity of ethnicities. I stress this myself at various points in both AJ and Blood of the Celts. It is very much in keeping with recognition of migration and mobility as the norm in prehistory. People moved and mixed. Groups could fission or unite to form larger groups. I have been conducting a battle on this very thread against the concept of stasis in the past. :biggrin1:

Jean M
07-17-2015, 11:33 AM
I never claimed any political bias, nor am I arguing for any bizarre palaeolithic continuities for modern nations. As I said I'm not sure where this is coming from.

So you had no idea of the political/nationalist emotions that lie behind so much of the writing on ethnicities? It is a field in which this is a constant problem. Bias is frequent and obvious. (The attempt to write the Vandals off present-day Polish soil is a classic case of same.) In order to guard against it and maintain objectivity, one really needs to be aware that bias is not only possible but probable, as well as being aware of one's own possible biases and guarding against them. Bias exists in both documentary sources from the past and modern writing attempting to analyse them.

I was not saying that you had accused me of political bias. I was laying out my position on political bias i.e. I don't bow to it.

alan
07-17-2015, 01:53 PM
From what I understand the only politicing involved in the subject of the Vandals is that its a touchy subject with some Poles because of the much later tragic German-Polish history and historic claims over north Poland/Prussia/the Baltic Prus/Slavs etc. Back projecting later historical grievances into the remote past leads to odd things. Its the same for some Irish who due to a terrible later history of Irish-English/British relations will take a long time to let go of the Iberian origin concept because they instinctively dont like the connection with Britain that is blatant in the DNA. Most here though have more sense that to do that and back project distaste of England or the British state into prehistory before they even existed and before the English had even arrived in Britain. However, there is no doubt that some do suffer from this brain fart.

alan
07-17-2015, 02:02 PM
Personally I think in the main political bias was generally removed from western European archaeology by the 60s. Its only really blatant in the west in the period before that, especially pre-WWII. I think WWII made most people aware of the dangers of racial nationalism. Indeed the anti-migrationist thing in post-WWII archaeology undoubtedly was a reaction to that and the horrors of WWII in part. They took this too far but it was understandable. Racial-ethnic nationalism had cost Europe millions of lives only a short time ago and then there are more recent events in the Balkans. Some of former eastern block countries where nationalism was suppressed by Communism have had a belated outbreak of ethnic nationalism and so are out of synch with the west on this somewhat. Civic nationalism is OK IMO but ethnic nationalism leads to dark dark places. I detect for example Ukrainian archaeologists tend to play down the links with south Russia and emphasise the links with Old Europe and the Caucasus. It took me a while to notice this but I think its there even if subconcious.

alan
07-17-2015, 02:05 PM
Alan
You're right. How dare i point out inconsistencies in your arguments. I never claimed any political bias, nor am I arguing for any bizarre palaeolithic continuities for modern nations. As I said I'm not sure where this is Coming from.

Let's distance it from Celts, for now. Please provide one solid piece of evidence that there were people called "Vandals" which lived in Poland during the roman Iron Age, and that they firthermore spoke Germanic. This is a good litmus test.

well I still have you visible so I am not all bad

MT1976
07-17-2015, 02:19 PM
Jean
Of course Im aware of the political connotations from the past. But modern writers "writing off the vandals from Polish" soild - par eg Walter Goffart have nothing to do with that. Rather, he (rightly) points out that no primary source actually tells us, or knows, which tribes lived in Polish soil. I re-iterate, the name Vandals was used, often recycled, to refer to various '2nd tier' tribes near Pannonia. Nothing to do with central Poland, or further north.

Why mention this topic ? Im am neither German, nor Polish. but its an excellent example of a misconception perpetuated from book to book, with no solid basis. Eg your quote P heather . An excellent scholar. No one knows Gothic history like him. But wrong, IMHO, on this point.
Germanic river names someone mentioned earlier ? Which ? Only one: The Viscla actually comes from us from Antiquity. Yes, it could well be Germanic. But could be anything , any northern IE, even non-IE (a/ p Alexander Schenker). Proper names do not lend themselves easily to etymologization, and even if we put aside the riskiness in assessing them - what does that tell us about which language a tribe on its banks spoke ? Its it their native term ? Is it a third-part borrowed term ? Is it a piece of folk-etymology by Graeco-Roman writers ?

MT1976
07-17-2015, 02:26 PM
well I still have you visible so I am not all bad

I don;t think anyone said you were

Jean M
07-17-2015, 03:53 PM
Personally I think in the main political bias was generally removed from western European archaeology by the 60s.

I can't agree. Anti-migrationism really took off in Britain in the 1970s and was going strong right through the 1990s. Celtosceptism started in the 1990s. We still haven't shaken this load off.


I think WWII made most people aware of the dangers of racial nationalism. Indeed the anti-migrationist thing in post-WWII archaeology undoubtedly was a reaction to that and the horrors of WWII in part.

I agree entirely. (And sympathise with the emotions. I was anti-war and anti-colonialist from teenage years.) It is significant that it went hand in hand with elements of denial of warfare in the past. I noticed this when I started work with archaeologists in the mid 1980s. Castles, hillforts and moats were not defensive structures, according to the fashion then current. They were status symbols, etc. Same goes for huge great earthworks across miles of countryside, like Offa's Dyke. That was supposed to just mark a boundary. Blimey! 100s of man-hours to just create a boundary? Actually I think that latter idea goes back to an earlier generation in archaeology. The argument was that it could not have been constantly manned, therefore it could not be defensive. The illogically is striking. If the idea was to stop the Welsh driving off cattle, then a huge great bank and ditch does the job. It does not make cattle-raids totally impossible, but it slows them down to the point where people have a chance to react.

Jean M
07-17-2015, 04:47 PM
but its an excellent example of a misconception perpetuated from book to book, with no solid basis.

The type of argument used to erase politically or emotionally unacceptable ethnicities typically demands an impossible level of proof, such as written evidence from illiterate people, or at least a level of proof far beyond the norm for a particular field. As Alan has pointed out many a time, this is the case in Celtosceptism. (For decades it was the case for migration.)

The ideal in history and archaeology is that one does one's best to assess objectively the evidence available at the time of writing. The evidence will not be perfect. It will not be complete. But we cannot abdicate the responsibility to attempt to make the best sense of it that we can.

Peter Heather has no doubt upset quite a few old-time anti-migrationists. But to accuse him of copying an error is to miss the point entirely. He has evaluated the evidence afresh, as all scholars worthy of the name should do. That process may result in new ideas. It may result in the same conclusion that others have drawn. Either way, it's his conclusion.

Jean M
07-17-2015, 05:18 PM
Germanic river names someone mentioned earlier

Zbigniew Babik, Najstarsza warstwa nazewnicza na ziemiach polskich = The Oldest Onomastic Layer In The Territory of Poland (Cracow 2001), section 3.5.1 enumerates a number of river- and lake-names with Early Germanic etymology. These are river names ending in -bok (Early Germanic _*-baki_ 'brook') or -awa_ (Early Germanic _*-ahwó_ 'river' > Gothic *-ahva_, and lake-names ending in _-ag_, _-adz_ (Early Germanic _*-u/inga). They occur mainly in north-east Poland (Pomorze, Kujawy) and in south-west Poland (Silesia).

See http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.universitas.com.pl/ksiazka/Najstarsza_warstwa_nazewnicza_na_ziemiach_polskich _w_granicach_wczesnosredniowiecznej_Slowianszczyzn y_1494.html&prev=search

Here's the map of same from his book (click to enlarge);
5237

vettor
07-17-2015, 05:41 PM
Alan
You're right. How dare i point out inconsistencies in your arguments. I never claimed any political bias, nor am I arguing for any bizarre palaeolithic continuities for modern nations. As I said I'm not sure where this is Coming from.

Let's distance it from Celts, for now. Please provide one solid piece of evidence that there were people called "Vandals" which lived in Poland during the roman Iron Age, and that they firthermore spoke Germanic. This is a good litmus test.

The vandals where not one tribe but a confederation of about a dozen tribes, this confederation formed the Vindili confederation.

see the big print
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ancGer_zps18f22ee4.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ancGer_zps18f22ee4.jpg.html)

but we have no proof to establish they this confederation moved together always, the longobardi and burgundians clearly went their own way .

vettor
07-17-2015, 06:00 PM
Interesting geltic cross in Montenegro or maybe not.
But the celts did absorb many illyrian tribes prior to Roman entry into the balkans

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/bjelopavlici-tumulus.html

alan
07-18-2015, 12:05 AM
what I wonder about the share Celto-pre-proto-German vocab is if it originated in shared ancestry in the east of Europe rather than further west. Were they close neighbours even before full dispersal west. Also the parallels in Finnish/Uralic are fascinating. They kind of put me in mind of the CW in the Baltic even in what was later Finnish areas. Kind of feels to me that perhaps at some early date the ancestors of the Celts were in eastern Europe just south of the ancestors of the Germans who in turn interfaced with non-IE groups in NE Europe. Interestingly David thinks that CW and Beaker were clones in terms of steppe ancestry and only differed in terms of the type/degree of non-steppe peoples they mixed with.

For Celts and Germans to have very old words in common that seem to have best parallels in Finnish/Uralic is really interesting. They are either extremely old shared vocab from pre-dispersal times in eastern Europe OR the only conclusion is the ancestors of the Celts, Germans and Finns formed a contact chain from NE to east-central Europe. Either way, as you note, the Celts from the west idea doesnt make any sense at all.

What is your latest opinion on where and when IEs and ancestors of the Finns could have interfaced German/Celtic ancestors? To fit into the rest of the model of Celtic by the late beaker period in the west

bobp
07-18-2015, 12:26 AM
I thought this thread was about Celts

AnnieD
07-18-2015, 12:48 AM
I am not certain how reliable the "deep ancestry" STR marker test at DNA Tribes has been determined to be, but I was coded as Finnish - Baltic / Slavic primary and British Isles secondary vs. a very British Isles paper trail and NW Euro - British heavy results on admixture tools such as Gedmatch K7 and K8.

MT1976
07-18-2015, 01:31 AM
Zbigniew Babik, Najstarsza warstwa nazewnicza na ziemiach polskich = The Oldest Onomastic Layer In The Territory of Poland (Cracow 2001), section 3.5.1 enumerates a number of river- and lake-names with Early Germanic etymology. These are river names ending in -bok (Early Germanic _*-baki_ 'brook') or -awa_ (Early Germanic _*-ahwó_ 'river' > Gothic *-ahva_, and lake-names ending in _-ag_, _-adz_ (Early Germanic _*-u/inga). They occur mainly in north-east Poland (Pomorze, Kujawy) and in south-west Poland (Silesia).

See http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.universitas.com.pl/ksiazka/Najstarsza_warstwa_nazewnicza_na_ziemiach_polskich _w_granicach_wczesnosredniowiecznej_Slowianszczyzn y_1494.html&prev=search

Here's the map of same from his book (click to enlarge);
5237

Thanks for the ref .Ill have a look. But as I said, these are attested much later that 200 AD, when the "Vandals' lived. So who knows when these toponyms were created ? Anyhow, I fear we've feared off course, so sorry. As I said good luck with your book.

MT1976
07-18-2015, 01:33 AM
The vandals where not one tribe but a confederation of about a dozen tribes, this confederation formed the Vindili confederation.

see the big print
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ancGer_zps18f22ee4.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ancGer_zps18f22ee4.jpg.html)

but we have no proof to establish they this confederation moved together always, the longobardi and burgundians clearly went their own way .

Yes but this map is inaccurate. Its not based on primary sources. It is based on modern interpretation of what they think the ancient sources, and archaeological materials, should suggest. Ill fully describe what I mean in a year or so.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 10:39 AM
Interesting geltic cross in Montenegro or maybe not. But the celts did absorb many illyrian tribes prior to Roman entry into the balkans

This is the blog for those interested in the Balkan Celts: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/ It is the work of Brendan Mac Gonagle.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 11:08 AM
Thanks for the ref .Ill have a look. But as I said, these are attested much later that 200 AD, when the "Vandals' lived. So who knows when these toponyms were created ?

Of course they are Post-Roman attestations. This is the case for most place-name evidence. The evaluation of their chronology is based on etymology. If, for example, a settlement name in England has a clear Old English etymology, then it dates to the time in which Old English had emerged from the mixture of West Germanic dialects which arrived in England. Hydronyms often belong to an older linguistic layer than settlement names. That can be explained by new arrivals (in my example Anglo-Saxons) having initial contact with speakers of a different language, in this case Celtic, and preserving the name that they are told. Some English hydronyms have Celtic etymologies, for example the several rivers Avon.

We know that the Germanic hydronyms in Poland belong to the oldest layer, because the etymology is from Early Germanic, rather than something more developed. That is why Zbigniew Babik, the Polish expert in place-name evidence, placed them in The Oldest Onomastic Layer In The Territory of Poland. (Which includes Baltic names and pre-Slavic IE names.) He knows what he's doing.


Anyhow, I fear we've feared off course, so sorry.

We certainly have. And I fear that readers are coming to the limit of their tolerance for digression. But by all means start a new thread on whatever topic interests you more than the Celts.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 11:10 AM
I thought this thread was about Celts

I certainly intended it to be. :biggrin1: The problem is that people love to argue. So we veered into Illyrians and Germani. However it does appear that we may have come to the end of this digression. I certainly hope so.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 11:22 AM
What is your latest opinion on where and when IEs and ancestors of the Finns could have interfaced German/Celtic ancestors?

Surmised routes Celtic and related:

5239

Surmised route pre-Germanic, based on contacts with other languages:

5240

This may need revision, now that I have looked at the evidence that the Swedish Battle-Axe Culture arrived from SW Finland. I think we need another route into Scandinavia added.

Click to enlarge.

rms2
07-18-2015, 01:14 PM
Evidently, judging by the new paper on the Hinxton, Oakington, and Linton cemetery results, there was once a mysterious people who inhabited the east of what is now England around AD 1 who are known only as "Iron Age". Apparently that is the language they spoke: "Iron Age".

But the later remains were all clearly "Anglo-Saxon".

Caramba!

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 02:26 PM
Evidently, judging by the new paper on the Hinxton, Oakington, and Linton cemetery results, there was once a mysterious people who inhabited the east of what is now England around AD 1 who are known only as "Iron Age". Apparently that is the language they spoke: "Iron Age".

But the later remains were all clearly "Anglo-Saxon".

Caramba!

I think it's just common knowledge enough, that they didn't feel the need to explain who the Iron Age folks were. I'm sure about anyone that is interested enough to read this, knows about the Celts and Belgae.

rms2
07-18-2015, 02:32 PM
I think it's just common knowledge enough, that they didn't feel the need to explain who the Iron Age folks were. I'm sure about anyone that is interested enough to read this, knows about the Celts and Belgae.

Then why bother with the designation "Anglo-Saxon", if they weren't going to bother with the term Celtic? Isn't that common knowledge, as well, and something anyone interested enough to read the report would know about?

Personally, I think their reticence to use the terms Celtic and Celt speaks volumes and reflects the influence of the ridiculous Celtoskeptics.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 02:38 PM
Then why bother with the designation "Anglo-Saxon", if they weren't going to bother with the term Celtic? Isn't that common knowledge, as well, and something anyone interested enough to read the report would know about?

Personally, I think their reticence to use the terms Celtic or Celt speaks volumes and reflects the influence of the ridiculous Celtoskeptics.

I think the issue is differentiating Celtic from Belgae. There's always arguments as to which tribes are which. That is probably something they wished to avoid. Either way, Belgaes were likely very similar to Celts of Britain. It just depends on who you ask. Some people say there were only 3 Belgae tribes, other say that basically all tribes in the SE 2/3 of modern England were Belgae, at least as far as elites.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 02:50 PM
Evidently, judging by the new paper on the Hinxton, Oakington, and Linton cemetery results, there was once a mysterious people who inhabited the east of what is now England around AD 1 who are known only as "Iron Age". Apparently that is the language they spoke: "Iron Age".

But the later remains were all clearly "Anglo-Saxon".

They had archaeologists on board. Good ones too, I imagine. It was a joint project with Oxford Archaeology, which has a high reputation. But where you have British archaeologists, you get "Iron Age" rather than "Celtic". That has been orthodoxy for so many decades now that there is no hope of seeing a rapid U-turn.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 02:58 PM
I think the issue is differentiating Celtic from Belgae. There's always arguments as to which tribes are which. That is probably something they wished to avoid.

No honestly Chad. I live in Britain. I have worked with British archaeologists. I have their books on my shelves. I know their views through and through. The avoidance of the word "Celtic" at least for Britain is orthodox usage and has been for decades. Some archaeologists privately rolled their eyes over this, but then sighed and conformed. They felt they had to, or face the weight of screaming disapproval from the Celtosceptics and claims that they were non-scholarly. Bear in mind that some of the Celtosceptics have professorial status.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 03:02 PM
No honestly Chad. I live in Britain. I have worked with British archaeologists. I have their books on my shelves. I know their views through and through. The avoidance of the word "Celtic" at least for Britain is orthodox usage and has been for decades. Some archaeologists privately rolled their eyes over this, but then sighed and conformed. They felt they had to, or face the weight of screaming disapproval from the Celtosceptics and claims that they were non-scholarly.

Yes, but is there not an argument over just which of the tribes were Belgic? There is no consensus on just who was "Celtic" or Belgae".

Jean M
07-18-2015, 03:13 PM
Yes, but is there not an argument over just which of the tribes were Belgic?

That is a comparatively minor point, since the Belgae were Celts. Certainly anti-migrationist thinking came into play on the Belgae, as with so much else (sigh). So Barry Cunliffe, expert on the Iron Age tribes of Britain, leant towards the argument that the infiltration by actual live Belgae in person was comparatively slight. It was the usual "elite only" argument, if I recall rightly. On specific tribes, let's say that certain cases are more straightforward than others. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/belgicengland.shtml

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 03:17 PM
Yes, I agree, it is more elite. For instance, it is settlement types, pottery, and coinage. There is again the disagreement as to whether this began closer to 50BCE, or some that say it was 200 year earlier. There are arguments over what the Belgae spoke too. The arguments are never ending. Some continental "Belgae" look more aligned to Germans, and others to Gauls, so there are a lot of difficulties.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 03:29 PM
There are arguments over what the Belgae spoke too.

Yes I know. Some authors desperately want them to be Germanic. There is in fact no evidence that they were. This is a topic that comes up on forums like this periodically. In fact it came up earlier on this very thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3392-Celts-2015&p=88019&viewfull=1#post88019

To repeat:


Caesar famously declared that Gaul was divided into three parts, inhabited by the Belgae, the Aquitani and 'a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls'. Each, he said, had a different language, customs and laws. In fact the name Belgae has a Celtic etymology and their recorded tribal, personal and place-names are Celtic (with very few exceptions), so their linguistic differences from the Gauls cannot have been dramatic. Caesar says that the ancestors of the Belgae had long ago come across the Rhine from Germany, expelling the former inhabitants from northeast Gaul. They had a late La Tčne culture. Thus their ancestry was from what the Romans called Germania, but they were Celts.

To add to the confusion some Germanic tribes had crossed the Rhine by Caesar's time and they fought with the Belgae against Caesar. Four tribes are picked out as Germanic in the military intelligence gained by Caesar (II.4), though one of those appears Belgic.


Naturally I cover this topic in Blood of the Celts, where I give additional evidence that the Continental Belgae were Celtic speaking. We have the word of a saint, no less. :)

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 04:11 PM
Yeah, I take anything from Romans, Gildas, and anyone else, with a salt block.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 04:13 PM
Yes, I agree, it is more elite. For instance, it is settlement types, pottery, and coinage.

Why would the appearance of new settlement types, pottery and coinage reveal without a shadow of doubt that only a new elite had arrived? It doesn't. There is no particular logic at work here. There is only room for argument. In a climate of anti-migrationism, room for argument inevitably led to the favoured presumption being adopted. Frankly I would not care to bet either way. It might vary from place to place.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 04:17 PM
Yeah, I take anything from Romans, Gildas, and anyone else, with a salt block.

I wouldn't advise total dismissal of documentary sources, just discriminating and objective use. We have to bear in mind a lot of factors, both in the sources themselves (see http://www.buildinghistory.org/primary/) and in ourselves. For example, I would love to believe that none of my ancestors ever lifted an axe with fell intent towards his fellow man. I know this. So I have to guard against rejection of sources that tell us of slaughter.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 04:19 PM
I just favor more of an elite model. The chances of full-scale invasion and replacement are highly improbable. I think those things, settlements, etc., show that those in charge favor using methods that they are familiar with. Leaders, artisans, etc. That whole migration replacement garbage should've been thrown out long ago. I think this "logic" is much more in-line with what we see over and over again in aDNA.

alan
07-18-2015, 04:25 PM
Yeah other than a few actual Germanic speaking tribes in their midsts the Belgae were clearly Celtic. There really is not a shred of evidence for the alternative view.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 04:52 PM
Yeah other than a few actual Germanic speaking tribes in their midsts the Belgae were clearly Celtic. There really is not a shred of evidence for the alternative view.

That's not entirely true. Elements of Germanic culture east of the Rhine were present in Belgic culture. Since we are talking about ancient sources, Caesar said that the Belgae boasted of a "Germanic" origin. Supposedly, a mixing happening in the second century BCE, according to some. Which again, I take with a grain of salt. I think they are likely mixed with Germans. The Belgae are a group that has several elements open to interpretation.

alan
07-18-2015, 04:55 PM
There seems to be a thing about claiming tribes with Celtic names and Celtic named kings as Germanic based simply on Geography and citing the 'oh they only sound Celtic because a Gaul translated them into Gaulish before telling the Romans' get out clause. The problem with that sort of approach is you can claim anything. I also doubt it because the classical sources actually do seem to be able to distinguise between Celtic and Germanic tribal names and also between P and Q Celtic.

alan
07-18-2015, 04:57 PM
That's not entirely true. Elements of Germanic culture east of the Rhine were present in Belgic culture. Since we are talking about ancient sources, Caesar said that the Belgae boasted of a "Germanic" origin. Supposedly, a mixing happening in the second century BCE, according to some. Which again, I take with a grain of salt. I think they are likely mixed with Germans. The Belgae are a group that has several elements open to interpretation.

Germanic appears to have just meant across the Rhine rather than ethno-linguistic-cultural.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 04:59 PM
Germanic appears to have just meant across the Rhine rather than ethno-linguistic-cultural.

By that measure should we qualify Celtic as only "west of the Rhine"? Things are much more complex than that.

MitchellSince1893
07-18-2015, 05:12 PM
So you had no idea of the political/nationalist emotions that lie behind so much of the writing on ethnicities? It is a field in which this is a constant problem. Bias is frequent and obvious. (The attempt to write the Vandals off present-day Polish soil is a classic case of same.) In order to guard against it and maintain objectivity, one really needs to be aware that bias is not only possible but probable, as well as being aware of one's own possible biases and guarding against them. Bias exists in both documentary sources from the past and modern writing attempting to analyse them.

I was not saying that you had accused me of political bias. I was laying out my position on political bias i.e. I don't bow to it.

We all have some sort of bias, some of us recognize our bias, some of are blind to them. When I first started out I found that I was biased to trying to tie y-dna haplogroups to historic peoples, rather than prehistoric groups...lesser known (to laymen).

For example it's tempting for the novice to tie U152 in Britain to Romans or Celts/Belgae because most folks are familiar with this history, but few novices/laymen have ever heard of the Bell Beaker culture.

As time has past I find I have a new bias...tying y-dna haplogroups/clades to prehistoric groups, and discounting the idea that a branch could be a relatively recent arrival. For example, in another discussion, a member put forth a theory that R-Z142 and specific subclades were primarily a recent (Norman invasion) arrival. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4936-Haplogroup-R-Z142-and-the-quot-Kinman-Hypothesis-quot

I disagreed, based on my "prehistoric" bias, but have yet to come up with a reason, why his hypothesis couldn't be the case.

The reality is probably a combination of both prehistoric and historic groups brought it to Britain

Jean M
07-18-2015, 05:13 PM
I just favor more of an elite model. The chances of full-scale invasion and replacement are highly improbable.

The pattern may well have resembled the later Anglo-Saxon settlement:


Initial raiding.
Anglo-Saxon mercenaries were invited by British leaders in the Post-Roman period. We don't know whether Belgic mercenaries were employed in Britain, but we do know that there was trade and other travel back and forth between Gaul and Britain. There is the possibility of intermarriage between leading families across the water, which might lead to some Belgic families settling among Britons peacefully.
The A-S mercenaries rebelled and fought for land. Then they invited people back home to join them. Initial settlement by Anglo-Saxons and the earlier Belgae might be precarious and coastal, but bolstered by more arrivals once a toe-hold had been established.
The next stage for the Anglo Saxons was expansion outwards from early settlements. Population pressure among the A-S initially led to displacing or absorbing as slaves the existing populace.
The next stage was more one of establishing political dominance over areas that were not heavily settled by Anglo-Saxons. The Belgae appear to have reached this stage by the time of Caesar's visit. The kings of the Catuvellauni were ruthlessly expansionist.

alan
07-18-2015, 05:36 PM
We all have some sort of bias, some of us recognize our bias, some of are blind to them. When I first started out I found that I was biased to trying to tie y-dna haplogroups to historic peoples, rather than prehistoric groups...lesser known (to laymen).

For example it's tempting for the novice to tie U152 in Britain to Romans or Celts/Belgae because most folks are familiar with this history, but few novices/laymen have ever heard of the Bell Beaker culture.

As time has past I find I have a new bias...tying y-dna haplogroups/clades to prehistoric groups, and discounting the idea that a branch could be a relatively recent arrival. For example, in another discussion, a member put forth a theory that R-Z142 and specific subclades were primarily a recent (Norman invasion) arrival. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4936-Haplogroup-R-Z142-and-the-quot-Kinman-Hypothesis-quot

I disagreed, based on my "prehistoric" bias, but have yet to come up with a reason, why his hypothesis couldn't be the case.

The reality is probably a combination of both prehistoric and historic groups brought it to Britain

Am sure some L21 clades that formed between 500 and 1066 are of Norman (or accompanying Breton) origin. I think geography tends to make history repeat itself in terms of zones of genes flow though so it is confusing. A clear case of this is many L21 clades that are younger than the beaker period and sometimes far younger are found in both Britain and Ireland and I dont mean associated with historical period British settlement in Ireland. Clearly a number of movements happened between Britain and Ireland c. 2500BC-500AD in both directions.

Jean M
07-18-2015, 05:48 PM
Caesar said that the Belgae boasted of a "Germanic" origin.

I imaging you are thinking of the statement from Tacitus [Germania, 28]: "The Treveri and Nervii go out of their way [sometimes translated as "boast"] to claim Germanic descent, as though so glorious an origin would clear them of any resemblance to the lacklustre Gauls. The actual bank of the Rhine is held by people of undoubted Germanic origin - the Vangiones, the Triboci and the Nemetes." This is in the context of Tacitus discussing the fact that Gauls once lived east of the Rhine. He gives as examples the Helveti (whom Caesar fought) and the Boii "the name Boihaemum [Bohemia] still remains and indicates its ancient history, even after its change of inhabitants.'

Jean M
07-18-2015, 05:51 PM
By that measure should we qualify Celtic as only "west of the Rhine"? Things are much more complex than that.

I agree entirely. The Rhine made a convenient boundary for Caesar, but there were Gauls living to the east of it in his day, while some Germani had already managed to cross it to settle on the west bank. The fact remains that we have trouble with Roman sources that do not make clear the distinction between Germani (the people) and the territory which the Romans designated Germania.

This old translation of Caesar, Commentaries on the Gallic War, 2.4:


the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_2 was quoted to me earlier on this thread. I have a modern translation, which renders the same passage as :


most of the Belgae were descended from tribes which long ago came across the Rhine from Germany and settled in that part of Gaul on account of its fertility, expelling the former inhabitants.

vettor
07-18-2015, 06:07 PM
Surmised routes Celtic and related:

5239

Surmised route pre-Germanic, based on contacts with other languages:

5240

This may need revision, now that I have looked at the evidence that the Swedish Battle-Axe Culture arrived from SW Finland. I think we need another route into Scandinavia added.

Click to enlarge.

I suggest you read this

http://www.academia.edu/9796216/Celtic_and_Adriatic_The_Iberian_Peninsular_genesis _of_Celtic_and_its_presumed_Adriatic_Italoid_origi n_-_version_24.03.2015

Also on your top map, the first placement of Italo-celtic you have is far too easterly , this is incorrect ..............I presume this map is only in reference to DNA and not linguistics

Jean M
07-18-2015, 07:09 PM
Also on the top map, the first placement of Italo-celtic you have is far too easterly , this is incorrect

Vettor - The author to whom you linked is one of the amateurs who like to speculate about linguistics. He is not the sole guardian of truth. ;) He buys into the idea of Celtic from the West. I don't, for the compelling reason that Proto-Celtic developed in contact with an early precursor to Germanic. That presents no problems if we site Proto-Celtic north of the Alps, but does not fit an Iberian homeland.

I am as well aware of the sources he uses as he is. The fact that Lusitanian is more like Italic than Celtic is included in my theory, expressed in the rough sketch map. I wouldn't worry about it right now. People can read my book when it comes out, and argue over it all to their heart's content.

Dubhthach
07-18-2015, 07:36 PM
I see Koch has posted the following on Academia.edu (just got notify), seems to be slide deck from talk he gave in Glasgow:

https://www.academia.edu/14176791/Phoenicians_in_the_West_and_the_Break-up_of_the_Atlantic_Bronze_Age_and_Proto-Celtic

genetiker
07-18-2015, 08:09 PM
He buys into the idea of Celtic from the West.

Yes, the Celtic languages came from Western Europe. All of the centum Indo-European languages came from Western Europe.


I don't, for the compelling reason that Proto-Celtic developed in contact with an early precursor to Germanic. That presents no problems if we site Proto-Celtic north of the Alps, but does not fit an Iberian homeland.

The close relationship between the Germanic and Italo-Celtic languages is due to the fact that the speakers of both of those IE subfamilies were descended from R1b-L151 men. R1b-L151 and its ancestor R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe. L151 was spread by the Megalithic culture. The L151 that spread into Scandinavia gave rise to U106 and the Germanic languages, and the L151 in Iberia gave rise to P312 and the Italo-Celtic languages, which were spread by the Bell Beaker culture. I explained all of this is this post from February:

The Kurgan hypothesis is dead (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-kurgan-hypothesis-is-dead/)

I correctly solved the puzzle of Indo-European origins over a year ago, and I was the first person in history to do so. The Gravettians were the proto-Indo-Europeans.


People can read my book when it comes out, and argue over it all to their heart's content.

Your book is already disproved by the genetic evidence.

bobp
07-18-2015, 08:25 PM
I certainly intended it to be. :biggrin1: The problem is that people love to argue. So we veered into Illyrians and Germani. However it does appear that we may have come to the end of this digression. I certainly hope so.

thanks, Jean - I actually enjoyed the discussion!! - just thought it was time to go on it's own thread.

rms2
07-18-2015, 08:33 PM
Yes, the Celtic languages came from Western Europe. All of the centum Indo-European languages came from Western Europe.



The close relationship between the Germanic and Italo-Celtic languages is due to the fact that the speakers of both of those IE subfamilies were descended from R1b-L151 men. R1b-L151 and its ancestor R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe. L151 was spread by the Megalithic culture. The L151 that spread into Scandinavia gave rise to U106 and the Germanic languages, and the L151 in Iberia gave rise to P312 and the Italo-Celtic languages, which were spread by the Bell Beaker culture. I explained all of this is this post from February:

The Kurgan hypothesis is dead (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-kurgan-hypothesis-is-dead/)

I correctly solved the puzzle of Indo-European origins over a year ago, and I was the first person in history to do so. The Gravettians were the proto-Indo-Europeans.



Your book is already disproved by the genetic evidence.

Surely you jest. R1b-L51 and centum Indo-European languages originated in Western Europe?

razyn
07-18-2015, 08:37 PM
People can read my book when it comes out, and argue over it all to their heart's content.


Your book is already disproved by the genetic evidence.

Dang, and I pre-ordered Jean's book (because I so enjoyed the last one). Now I learn that it was disproved, in press -- by an actual blog.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 08:55 PM
Surely you jest.

No, I'm being quite serious.


R1b-L51 and centum Indo-European languages originated in Western Europe?

Correct.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 08:57 PM
Dang, and I pre-ordered Jean's book (because I so enjoyed the last one). Now I learn that it was disproved, in press -- by an actual blog.

Not by a blog. By the evidence.

vettor
07-18-2015, 09:51 PM
Vettor - The author to whom you linked is one of the amateurs who like to speculate about linguistics. He is not the sole guardian of truth. ;) He buys into the idea of Celtic from the West. I don't, for the compelling reason that Proto-Celtic developed in contact with an early precursor to Germanic. That presents no problems if we site Proto-Celtic north of the Alps, but does not fit an Iberian homeland.

I am as well aware of the sources he uses as he is. The fact that Lusitanian is more like Italic than Celtic is included in my theory, expressed in the rough sketch map. I wouldn't worry about it right now. People can read my book when it comes out, and argue over it all to their heart's content.

All historians have a degree in speculation.

Your map seems all DNA, where did you get the idea that italo-celtic is from pannonia?..........remedello and the I2a from recent ancient finds?

The ancient greek historians stated there was no Italics in the north or north-central Italy

Jean M
07-18-2015, 09:54 PM
I correctly solved the puzzle of Indo-European origins over a year ago, and I was the first person in history to do so. The Gravettians were the proto-Indo-Europeans.

I'm afraid that you are not even first with this exceptionally irrational theory. Mario Alinei has been trying to convince people of it for years. People have been dreaming up the wildest theories about the origin of Indo-European for such a long time that if you want to be original, you'd probably have to opt for the Sahara or Antarctica. :biggrin1:

David Mc
07-18-2015, 10:17 PM
I'm afraid that you are not even first with this exceptionally irrational theory. Mario Alinei has been trying to convince people of it for years. People have been dreaming up the wildest theories about the origin of Indo-European for such a long time that if you want to be original, you'd probably have to opt for the Sahara or Antarctica. :biggrin1:

I believe the Sahara has already been taken (and assuredly not by me)... Antarctica is all that's left.

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 10:19 PM
Yes, the Celtic languages came from Western Europe. All of the centum Indo-European languages came from Western Europe.

Yeah, that's right... Tocharian came from Western Europe, who would've thought!

Jean M
07-18-2015, 10:19 PM
where did you get the idea that italo-celtic is from pannonia?

Try not to take the map too literally. I'm not saying that Italo-Celtic suddenly sprang up in Pannonia (which by the way did not exist at the time).


Black line: Picture the slow migration up the Danube c. 3000 BC which we see in the archaeology. It starts off from the Proto-IE-speaking steppe linguistic continuum. Gradually as people moved out of the steppe, they would develop their own dialect, as they were no longer in such close touch with the steppe. Linguists use the label "Old European" IE. That Old European seems to have been the earliest layer of IE in western Europe. So if you follow the black line, picture that as the earliest IE speakers - too early to be divided into any daughter IE family. These people seem to have left hydronyms etc in places along the route of the black line.
Red line: This is a later phase. We can deduce that over time some people who originally spoke Old European developed Proto-Italo-Celtic somewhere in the vicinity of northern Italy, but also with access to the heads of the Danube and Rhine. That is deduced because they need to have lived somewhere not too far from where Celtic and Italic developed. The reality could be more complex than a group in the Carpathian Basin, but I have put them there and in the Po Valley, to make it easy to see how they could split into two families. The red line takes Italo-Celtic along the coast, becoming Ligurian and Lusitanian. That move all the way to Iberia seems on archaeological evidence to have happened in the Bronze Age.
Yellow line: The development and spread of Celtic, partly in the Copper Age (late Bell Beaker) and partly in the Bronze Age (into Galicia).

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 10:22 PM
I correctly solved the puzzle of Indo-European origins over a year ago, and I was the first person in history to do so. The Gravettians were the proto-Indo-Europeans

Now that's a fascinating way of saying you know nothing whatsoever about PIE.

rms2
07-18-2015, 10:34 PM
That's why I mentally hung an out-to-lunch sign on his blog months ago when I saw that post.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 10:37 PM
All historians have a degree in speculation.

Your map seems all DNA, where did you get the idea that italo-celtic is from pannonia?..........remedello and the I2a from recent ancient finds?

The ancient greek historians stated there was no Italics in the north or north-central Italy

Vettor, I sent you a private message. Did you see it?

I need someone to help me get my blog back.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 10:52 PM
I'm afraid that you are not even first with this exceptionally irrational theory.

No, it was always all of the other theories that were irrational. They never had any evidence to support them.


Mario Alinei has been trying to convince people of it for years.

Alinei was certainly right about one thing: that Indo-European languages have been spoken in Europe since the Paleolithic. But as far as I'm aware, he never identified the Gravettians as the Indo-Europeans. And his theory doesn't take into account any of the genetic evidence accumulated in the past several years, so all of the details of his theory are completely wrong. He has all of the IE subfamilies existing in the Mesolthic, which is wrong. He has Slavic originating in the Balkans, which is wrong. He identifies the Etruscans as Uralic proto-Hungarians, which is just bizarre. And he has Italic in Italy since the Mesolithic, which is wrong. The Italic languages were brought to Italy by the Bell Beaker people in the Copper/Bronze age.

I was the first person in history to clearly perceive that all of the genetic evidence was pointing to the Gravettians as the proto-Indo-Europeans, and I was the first person in history to correctly fill in all of the details.

And I've been called a "kook" and much worse for understanding reality far earlier than anyone else.

rms2
07-18-2015, 11:00 PM
. . .



Alinei was certainly right about one thing: that Indo-European languages have been spoken in Europe since the Paleolithic . . .

And I've been called a "kook" and much worse for understanding reality far earlier than anyone else.

Small wonder.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 11:24 PM
Now that's a fascinating way of saying you know nothing whatsoever about PIE.

Great argument.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 11:25 PM
Small wonder.

Great argument.

rms2
07-18-2015, 11:28 PM
Great argument.

Your claims don't merit any argument. They refute themselves.

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 11:33 PM
Great argument.

There's no need to argue here, as your claims are inherently self-defeating. If you knew the next thing about PIE (an extremely well reconstructed proto-language, arguably the best out there) you certainly wouldn't be making such claims.

genetiker
07-18-2015, 11:59 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought. No argument.

Just assertions that my theory is wrong, without ever saying why it's wrong.

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 12:21 AM
Just assertions that my theory is wrong, without ever saying why it's wrong.

It's quite simple really: Your theory is wrong because PIE has words relating to metallurgy, ox traction, textile, agriculture and even wheeled vehicles in some of its earliest stages... So unless you're about to suggest that the Gravettians smelted copper, kept sheep for their wool, used yokes, ploughs and moved about in wheeled carts one might as well conclude that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
This fancy theory of yours requires us to ignore all the linguistic evidence at hand, and I'm not even addressing the discrepancies involved with linguistic divergence over such an insane time frame (even the craziest estimates for PAA don't go that far back in time, that's for a start).

genetiker
07-19-2015, 12:57 AM
It's quite simple really: Your theory is wrong because PIE has words relating to metallurgy, ox traction, textile, agriculture and even wheeled vehicles in some of its earliest stages... So unless you're about to suggest that the Gravettians smelted copper, kept sheep for their wool, used yokes, ploughs and moved about in wheeled carts one might as well conclude that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
This fancy theory of yours requires us to ignore all the linguistic evidence at hand, and I'm not even addressing the discrepancies involved with linguistic divergence over such an insane time frame (even the craziest estimates for PAA don't go that far back in time, that's for a start).

I already addressed all of the erroneous arguments based on the hypothetical reconstructed PIE vocabulary in my comments on this post (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/amerindians-have-both-mongoloid-and-caucasoid-physical-features/) from early last year.

The reconstructed PIE vocabulary just reflects one of the later stages in the evolution of IE languages, as they existed in the late Neolithic.

The vast majority of the hypothetical reconstructed PIE vocabulary refers to things that would have been familiar to the Gravettians. Once Paleolithic Europeans had words for things, there wouldn't have been any need to abandon those words and all of the sudden switch to completely new words for them, and of course they didn't.

Only a small fraction of the reconstructed PIE vocabulary refers to things of Neolithic origin. Words pertaining to new technological developments were coined in the Neolithic and added to the already existing PIE vocabulary, just as words pertaining to new technologies are added to the existing vocabularies of languages today.

Linguistics has always been a rather inexact science, and it is trumped by a hard, exact science like molecular biology. And the molecular biology of ancient European samples has unquestionably demolished the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses of Indo-European origins. Only my theory remains standing.

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 01:15 AM
I already addressed all of the erroneous arguments based on the hypothetical reconstructed PIE vocabulary in my comments on this post (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/amerindians-have-both-mongoloid-and-caucasoid-physical-features/) from early last year.

The reconstructed PIE vocabulary just reflects one of the later stages in the evolution of IE languages, as they existed in the late Neolithic.

The vast majority of the hypothetical reconstructed PIE vocabulary refers to things that would have been familiar to the Gravettians. Once Paleolithic Europeans had words for things, there wouldn't have been any need to abandon those words and all of the sudden switch to completely new words for them, and of course they didn't.

Only a small fraction of the reconstructed PIE vocabulary refers to things of Neolithic origin. Words pertaining to new technological developments were coined in the Neolithic and added to the already existing PIE vocabulary, just as words pertaining to new technologies are added to the existing vocabularies of languages today.

Linguistics has always been a rather inexact science, and it is trumped by a hard, exact science like molecular biology. And the molecular biology of ancient European samples has unquestionably demolished the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses of Indo-European origins. Only my theory remains standing.

I'm not exactly surprised to see you spout this line, this is a popular assertion nowadays and I've already explained several times why this approach is self-defeating. If you want to know why this twisted approach doesn't work I invite you to read the posts I've written on this topic here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90791#post90791), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90804&viewfull=1#post90804), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90822&viewfull=1#post90822) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4723-Dissection-of-the-Y-SNP-S116-in-Atlantic-Europe-and-Iberia-Valverde-et-al-2015&p=90561#post90561).

As far as your conflictual relationship with simple facts goes, it seems to me that your approach fails to take the most basic principles of diachronic linguistic analysis into account - you don't even seem to know what a proto-language is or how divergence works - but again none of this is really surprising considering the sentence I highlighted.

vettor
07-19-2015, 04:36 AM
Try not to take the map too literally. I'm not saying that Italo-Celtic suddenly sprang up in Pannonia (which by the way did not exist at the time).


Black line: Picture the slow migration up the Danube c. 3000 BC which we see in the archaeology. It starts off from the Proto-IE-speaking steppe linguistic continuum. Gradually as people moved out of the steppe, they would develop their own dialect, as they were no longer in such close touch with the steppe. Linguists use the label "Old European" IE. That Old European seems to have been the earliest layer of IE in western Europe. So if you follow the black line, picture that as the earliest IE speakers - too early to be divided into any daughter IE family. These people seem to have left hydronyms etc in places along the route of the black line.
Red line: This is a later phase. We can deduce that over time some people who originally spoke Old European developed Proto-Italo-Celtic somewhere in the vicinity of northern Italy, but also with access to the heads of the Danube and Rhine. That is deduced because they need to have lived somewhere not too far from where Celtic and Italic developed. The reality could be more complex than a group in the Carpathian Basin, but I have put them there and in the Po Valley, to make it easy to see how they could split into two families. The red line takes Italo-Celtic along the coast, becoming Ligurian and Lusitanian. That move all the way to Iberia seems on archaeological evidence to have happened in the Bronze Age.
Yellow line: The development and spread of Celtic, partly in the Copper Age (late Bell Beaker) and partly in the Bronze Age (into Galicia).


So the earlier danubian trekkers around 5200BC into south Germany, central Germany , Austria and Italy could never be Celts?
The natural "highway" was the Danube river into Germany and the Sava river into Italy

MT1976
07-19-2015, 06:06 AM
Genetiker

Wheel etc vocabulary aside, the palaeolithic continuity theory is a load of pseudo scholarly hogwash that has received more attention that it deserves. A 7yr kid with "special needs" could have come up with it. It assumes very very very slow rate of language change and is wholly divorced from sociolinguistic reality.
The only references to PCT should be made in the context of academia gone wrong ("academia" here used very very loosely)

MT1976
07-19-2015, 06:10 AM
Try not to take the map too literally. I'm not saying that Italo-Celtic suddenly sprang up in Pannonia (which by the way did not exist at the time).


Black line: Picture the slow migration up the Danube c. 3000 BC which we see in the archaeology. It starts off from the Proto-IE-speaking steppe linguistic continuum. Gradually as people moved out of the steppe, they would develop their own dialect, as they were no longer in such close touch with the steppe. Linguists use the label "Old European" IE. That Old European seems to have been the earliest layer of IE in western Europe. So if you follow the black line, picture that as the earliest IE speakers - too early to be divided into any daughter IE family. These people seem to have left hydronyms etc in places along the route of the black line.
Red line: This is a later phase. We can deduce that over time some people who originally spoke Old European developed Proto-Italo-Celtic somewhere in the vicinity of northern Italy, but also with access to the heads of the Danube and Rhine. That is deduced because they need to have lived somewhere not too far from where Celtic and Italic developed. The reality could be more complex than a group in the Carpathian Basin, but I have put them there and in the Po Valley, to make it easy to see how they could split into two families. The red line takes Italo-Celtic along the coast, becoming Ligurian and Lusitanian. That move all the way to Iberia seems on archaeological evidence to have happened in the Bronze Age.
Yellow line: The development and spread of Celtic, partly in the Copper Age (late Bell Beaker) and partly in the Bronze Age (into Galicia).



Bell beaker is too early for celtic or italo-celtic. In fact, the latter is a non entity, although still gets carelessly flung around. Celtic was a late Bronze Age language. The zenith of its expansion was in the pre-aroman Iron Age. The old La Tene theory was right. The spread of R1b and BB has little directly to do with "Celtic".
It's formation wa largely a process of convergence of similar pre-Celtic idioms across Europe, c.1000- 500BC. Eg see andrew Garret's papers. Of course, there were also migrations, internal colonisations, etc

Jean M
07-19-2015, 09:33 AM
Bell beaker is too early for celtic or italo-celtic. In fact, the latter is a non entity, although still gets carelessly flung around.

Once again, you are supremely confident that a particular school of thought is absolute and immutable truth. :biggrin1: I do my own thinking. It would be a display of intelligence, not to mention courtesy, in you to assume that I have actually considered these points and come to a different conclusion than the authors you favour. ;)

The dating of languages is a tricky business. A later date than mine for Celtic has certainly been postulated by some, though that date varies and there is no consensus, with Mallory arguing for Iron Age. I disagree both with him and the Late Bronze Age date, for reasons I've recently discussed on this forum. If you search around, you might find it. I haven't time right now. The concept of Italo-Celtic has gone in and out of fashion over the years. A whole generation was influenced by one particular blast against it, but Don Ringe does not bow to what had become orthodoxy, and I can't say I'm inclined to do so on the evidence.



It's formation was largely a process of convergence of similar pre-Celtic idioms across Europe, c.1000- 500BC. Eg see andrew Garret's papers.

The relationship between the Celtic languages is certainly complex, far more so than I can show on the sketch map. I lean more towards Patrick Sims-Williams than Garrett on the topic, but the latter is an interesting author and probably right about Greek. Sims-Williams tree below:

5243

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:00 AM
Once again, you are supremely confident that a particular school of thought is absolute and immutable truth. :biggrin1: I do my own thinking. It would be a display of intelligence, not to mention courtesy, in you to assume that I have actually considered these points and come to a different conclusion than the authors you favour. ;)

The dating of languages is a tricky business. A later date than mine for Celtic has certainly been postulated by some, though that date varies and there is no consensus, with Mallory arguing for Iron Age. I disagree both with him and the Late Bronze Age date, for reasons I've recently discussed on this forum. If you search around, you might find it. I haven't time right now. The concept of Italo-Celtic has gone in and out of fashion over the years. A whole generation was influenced by one particular blast against it, but Don Ringe does not bow to what had become orthodoxy, and I can't say I'm inclined to do so on the evidence.



The relationship between the Celtic languages is certainly complex, far more so than I can show on the sketch map. I lean more towards Patrick Sims-Williams than Garrett on the topic, but the latter is an interesting author and probably right about Greek. Sims-Williams tree below:

5243

Jean, I would not expect you to take anyone's word as gospel. I certainly don;t claim to have a crystal ball to the past, but I am very much in favour for more recent dates, knowing what we do know - there were massive langauge changes and sweeps in proto-historic Europe. To advocate a copper age origin for Celtic is to accept a very slow rate of linguistic change - something not realistic in pre-literal, pre-state societies. It perhaps also has a sub-conscious dimension, begging to bequeath a more ancient and thus ? venerable history to one's own tongue.

However, there are deeper problems to the BB origin - and that's the elephant in the room of R1b. If we make the neat equation of BB = R1b = "Italo-Celtic", then we have to explain away this:

R1b M343

: M335 (Anatolia, Turkic language)
: V88 ( middle East, Africa; afro-asiatic languages)
: P297
: : M73 (central Asia; Turkic languages (mostly))
: : M269
: : : PF7558 (middle east, sth Europe, various, incl Semitic languages)
: : : L23
: : : : Z2103 (near East, southeastern Europe - various, incl Cuacasian languages)
: : : : L51 (central-west Europe; pred. IE, but heavy conc in Basques)

So we have a problem. If PIE arrived with R1b, and specifically L51 for ""Italo-Celtic" ", how did the war-like, extremely patriarchal tribes in most other branches change their languages to non-IE from PIE, or pre-PIE ?

rms2
07-19-2015, 11:35 AM
. . .

However, there are deeper problems to the BB origin - and that's the elephant in the room of R1b. If, as it seems the favoured practice is here - we insist on making nice, neat equations of BB = R1b = "Italo-Celtic", then we have to explain away this:

R1b M343

: M335 (Anatolia, Turkic language)
: V88 ( middle East, Africa; afro-asiatic languages)
: P297
: : M73 (central Asia; Turkic languages (mostly))
: : M269
: : : PF7558 (middle east, sth Europe, various, incl Semitic languages)
: : : L23
: : : : Z2103 (near East, southeastern Europe - various, incl Cuacasian languages)
: : : : L51 (central-west Europe; pred. IE, but heavy conc in Basques)

CSo we have a problem. If PIE arrived with R1b, and specifically L51 for ""Italo-Celtic" ", how did the war-like, extremely patriarchal tribes in most other branches change their languages to non-IE from PIE, or pre-PIE ?

On the one hand you accuse those who disagree with you of "making nice, neat equations", but then on the other you do the same thing in spades in order to cast doubt on the connection between R1b and PIE. In other words, if various R1b groups were ever living in places and among peoples that experienced an historical shift from an Indo-European language to a non-Indo-European language, then their R1b ancestors must not have ever spoken an Indo-European language. We know, for example, that there were a number of Indo-European languages spoken in Anatolia before the advent of Turkic and that the Turks expanded in central Asia absorbing various peoples, some of whom spoke Indo-European languages.

We've been round and round over the years about the Basques, a small minority of non-Indo-European speakers comprising an island in a sea of Indo-Europeans, that sea itself largely R1b-L51. It isn't likely the surrounding sea of Indo-European speakers was once Vasconic and somehow mysteriously came to speak Indo-European. It is much more likely the Vasconic island has acquired a y-dna resemblance to the neighboring Indo-European sea via admixture. I-M26 is found among the Basques at a respectable frequency. It reaches its peak among Sardinians, and some scholars claim to see a connection between Paleo-Sardinian (Nuragic) and Euskara, the language of the Basques. It seems likely to me the original y-dna profile of the Basques was predominantly I-M26 and only became R1b-L51 after centuries of admixture with the surrounding IE-speaking population.

And no one is claiming that absolutely all of R1b-M343 was Indo-European speaking from the birth of Grandfather M343 on down through all of his descendants. Indo-European wasn't around in the beginning. An important bifurcation occurred when the P297- branch of R1b1 became involved in the Neolithic Revolution in the Near East, eventually spreading to Africa and apparently, as Els Trocs shows us, other points west. Back in far eastern Europe or western Asia, P297 arose and spawned M73 and M269. It was that branch of R1b that would become involved in the genesis of Indo-European languages and steppe pastoralism, ultimately spreading into Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine.

Thus far, the ancient y-dna is showing us that, while there may be no "nice, neat equations", R1b certainly seems to have prevailed among the Beaker Folk. After all, it is the only y haplogroup found among them thus far. And a number of very reputable scholars over the years, including, most recently, David Anthony, have seen in the Beaker Folk the original speakers of Italo-Celtic.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:45 AM
Alan:

"On the one hand you accuse those who disagree with you of "making nice, neat equations", but then on the other you do the same thing in spades in order to cast doubt on the connection between R1b and PIE. In other words, if various R1b groups were ever living in places and among peoples that experienced an historical shift from an Indo-European language to a non-Indo-European language, then their R1b ancestors must not have ever spoken an Indo-European language."

No, that's not what I said. I never stated that 'bearers of R1b' groups spoke non-IE. What I am saying is that why must we assume that they must have, and all those they currently don't, language shifted. Why do we need a (west-)Eurocentric stance that, as represented by predominantly but not entirely IE -speaking L51 retains the original langauge state, whilst most others changed ?

* "R1b certainly seems to have prevailed among the Beaker Folk"

I don;t doubt that .

* " And a number of very reputable scholars over the years, including, most recently, David Anthony, have seen in the Beaker Folk the original speakers of Italo-Celtic."

Yes. He simply assumes Italo-Celtic actually existed, and furthermore links it with specific areas of the Carpathian region (? was it the baden culture) from where they spread. Seems like David Anthony has a crystal ball other scholars don't.

rms2
07-19-2015, 11:57 AM
. . . What I am saying is that why must we assume that they must have, and all those they currently don't, language shifted. Why do we need a (west-)Eurocentric stance that, as represented by predominantly but not entirely IE -speaking L51 retains the original langauge state, whilst most others changed ?

. . .

Because of the evidence, genetic, linguistic, archaeological and anthropological.

R1b-M269 is missing from Europe before the late Neolithic. It turns up beginning in the late Neolithic and into the Bronze Age among peoples believed to have spread Indo-European into Europe west of Russia and Ukraine.

Not only does R1b-M269 prevail in much of Europe today, but so do Indo-European languages, and both of those things represent changes from an earlier, non-R1b, non-Indo-European-speaking state. The two certainly took place somehow, and they appear to have occurred together.

Dubhthach
07-19-2015, 12:06 PM
Leaving aside evidnece of R1b-P312 in Beaker remains the recent study which looked at Yamnaya remains show that the Beakers had admixture of the "component" linked to Yamnaya remains (as found in Kurgan burials in Russia). This points to gene-flow at least on autosomal between two populations. Thence the argument been put forward for Steppe origin of Proto-IE.

greystones22
07-19-2015, 01:19 PM
I am looking forward to the exhibition, and rather more tentatively to the resulting celtic media and marketing storm.
Who could forget this:
5244

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 02:55 PM
I sincerely fail to see what's so controversial about the Italo-Celtic node, I could come up with a dozen branches which would be invalid if we went off the same stringent standards and skepticism. Calling Italo-Celtic a "non-entity" doesn't strike me as a particularly justified observation to say the least.
As far as proto-Celtic goes, I think it dates back to the LBA (its initial spread probably has something to do with Urnfield) and that the BB horizon is far too ancient to account for the trivial amount of divergence we observe between the earliest Celtic dialects we know of.

genetiker
07-19-2015, 03:37 PM
Wheel etc vocabulary aside, the palaeolithic continuity theory is a load of pseudo scholarly hogwash that has received more attention that it deserves. A 7yr kid with "special needs" could have come up with it.
The only references to PCT should be made in the context of academia gone wrong ("academia" here used very very loosely)

More comments devoid of argument.


It assumes very very very slow rate of language change

Which is exactly what prevailed during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. As I explained in this comment (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/amerindians-have-both-mongoloid-and-caucasoid-physical-features/comment-page-1/#comment-315) from early last year, it was always the assumption by linguists that the rate of language change has always been as high as it has been recently that was wrong. Just as the evolution of technology was much slower in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic than it has been since, so too was the evolution of languages.

The enormous diversification of the IE languages in the late Neolithic parallels the enormous diversification of the Y hg R1 tree at that same time. Both phenomena were driven by R1 people transitioning from a hunting and gathering lifestyle to an agricultural lifestyle in the late Neolithic, and the explosion in the R1 population that occurred as a result.

genetiker
07-19-2015, 04:02 PM
Indo-European wasn't around in the beginning.

It was around during the Gravettian.


Back in far eastern Europe or western Asia, P297 arose and spawned M73 and M269. It was that branch of R1b that would become involved in the genesis of Indo-European languages and steppe pastoralism, ultimately spreading into Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine.

Totally wrong. P297 originated in Western Europe, in the descendants of the western Gravettians. Some of it spread east during the Břlling-Allerřd interstadial, and that gave rise to M73. The P297 that stayed in the west gave rise to M269.

R1 and the IE languages have been all over Europe since the Gravettian.


And a number of very reputable scholars over the years, including, most recently, David Anthony, have seen in the Beaker Folk the original speakers of Italo-Celtic.

David Anthony's work, a rehash of Gimbutas's Kurgan hypothesis, is now totally discredited garbage.

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 04:02 PM
^^ As far as I'm concerned, this is further proof that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

lgmayka
07-19-2015, 04:28 PM
Which is exactly what prevailed during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. As I explained in this comment (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/amerindians-have-both-mongoloid-and-caucasoid-physical-features/comment-page-1/#comment-315) from early last year, it was always the assumption by linguists that the rate of language change has always been as high as it has been recently that was wrong. Just as the evolution of technology was much slower in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic than it has been since, so too was the evolution of languages.
In roughly 15,000 years, Native American languages proliferated and diverged (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_schemes_for_indigenous_languages_of _the_Americas)far beyond any solid tree-like classification. This is merely one example of how rapidly spoken language evolved prior to the impeding tendency of long-distance travel (via horseback and carts), which practically required the maintenance of a more stable lingua franca.

Jean M
07-19-2015, 04:33 PM
So the earlier danubian trekkers around 5200BC into south Germany, central Germany , Austria and Italy could never be Celts?

They could not be speaking any Indo-European language at the time. Even the archaic type of Proto-Indo-European is dated to c. 4000 BC.

The Danube was a highway into Europe for many waves of incomers, starting in the Palaeolithic. Neolithic farmers used the same waterway. There is non-IE agricultural vocabulary in Germanic, which I'm guessing was absorbed from the language of the Funnel Beaker culture. That's why that culture appears on my Pre-Germanic map.

genetiker
07-19-2015, 04:53 PM
In roughly 15,000 years, Native American languages proliferated and diverged (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_schemes_for_indigenous_languages_of _the_Americas)far beyond any solid tree-like classification. This is merely one example of how rapidly spoken language evolved prior to the impeding tendency of long-distance travel (via horseback and carts), which practically required the maintenance of a more stable lingua franca.

The dynamics that led to the diversification of the Amerindian languages obviously don't apply to all of the language families all over the world. Different dynamics existed in different regions.

The Amerindian languages diversified as much as they did because the Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids from Asia split into a large number of little bands that spread all over the vast North and South American continents. There was a great deal of ecological diversity in those continents, and each band inhabiting all of the very different ecological niches developed very different languages in isolation from the others.

The dynamics in Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe were much different. Europe is much smaller than the combined size of the North and South American continents. For most of the Upper Paleolithic, there was ecological uniformity throughout Europe: it was all steppe, with steppe-tundra in the north and forest steppe in the south. And even in other times, there has always been geographical and ecological uniformity across northern Europe, with the Great European Plain stretching from northern France to the Urals. With that geological and ecological uniformity, the hunter-gatherers of Europe were never in isolation from one another the way that the Amerindian hunter-gatherer bands were. The highly mobile hunter-gatherers of the plains and steppes of Europe always maintained some degree of contact with each other, across the whole continent, and that necessitated a common language. That language, for the descendants of the R1 Gravettians, was proto-Indo-European.

rms2
07-19-2015, 05:00 PM
It was around during the Gravettian.



Totally wrong. P297 originated in Western Europe, in the descendants of the western Gravettians. Some of it spread east during the Břlling-Allerřd interstadial, and that gave rise to M73. The P297 that stayed in the west gave rise to M269.

R1 and the IE languages have been all over Europe since the Gravettian.



David Anthony's work, a rehash of Gimbutas's Kurgan hypothesis, is now totally discredited garbage.

What you are arguing is totally off-the-wall and completely ignores the ancient y-dna evidence and the linguistic evidence. It is baffling in terms of how remote it is from reality.

Helgenes50
07-19-2015, 05:01 PM
They could not be speaking any Indo-European language at the time. Even the archaic type of Proto-Indo-European is dated to c. 4000 BC.

The Danube was a highway into Europe for many waves of incomers, starting in the Palaeolithic. Neolithic farmers used the same waterway. There is non-IE agricultural vocabulary in Germanic, which I'm guessing was absorbed from the language of the Funnel Beaker culture. That's why that culture appears on my Pre-Germanic map.

Is it the same case in Celtic and Italic ?
Or is it a common point between in all the IE languages, this lack of agricultural vocabulary

Jean M
07-19-2015, 05:03 PM
In roughly 15,000 years, Native American languages proliferated and diverged far beyond any solid tree-like classification. This is merely one example of how rapidly spoken language evolved prior to the impeding tendency of long-distance travel (via horseback and carts), which practically required the maintenance of a more stable lingua franca.

Johanna Nichols 1990. “Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World,” Language 66.475-521 is a key paper on that topic.

Don Ringe addressed the topic The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe in a helpful post on Language Log in 2009. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=980

Jean M
07-19-2015, 05:09 PM
Is it the same case in Celtic and Italic ?
Or is it a common point between in all the IE languages, this lack of agricultural vocabulary

Some agricultural vocabulary can be reconstructed for PIE. However various IE daughter branches picked up additional such vocabulary, not all necessarily from the same source. Guus Kroonen sees correspondences between such substrate in Germanic and words in Greek, Latin, Old Irish and other languages. https://www.academia.edu/7041551/Non-Indo-European_root_nouns_in_Germanic_Evidence_in_suppor t_of_the_Agricultural_Substrate_Hypothesis

genetiker
07-19-2015, 05:43 PM
What you are arguing is totally off-the-wall and completely ignores the ancient y-dna evidence and the linguistic evidence. It is baffling in terms of how remote it is from reality.

Just more empty assertions.

It ignores the ancient Y-DNA evidence? How?

It ignores the linguistic evidence? How?

It's remote from reality? How?

Enquiring minds want to know.

genetiker
07-19-2015, 05:56 PM
They could not be speaking any Indo-European language at the time. Even the archaic type of Proto-Indo-European is dated to c. 4000 BC.

It's amazing how much linguists profess to know about the European languages of 4000 BC, considering that there was no writing in most of Europe until thousands of years later.

Tell us, what language did R1 people speak at 5000 BC?

Jean M
07-19-2015, 06:18 PM
Tell us, what language did R1 people speak at 5000 BC?

That is a question that few linguists would care to pronounce upon, for two reasons:


R1 men in 5000 BC might not all have spoken the same language. One R1b lineage (V88) seems to have entered the Near East and spread with the Neolithic. This may represent just one man in the first instance, who married into a village where people spoke a language foreign to him, but which he learned. So his children would not speak the language he learned from his parents. Y-DNA does not dictate language.
Even if we narrow the question down to R1 men whose descendants spoke PIE, we have no name other than Pre-PIE for their language. Where a group of languages clearly fall into a family, then a parent for the group can be reconstructed and its vocabulary may provide clues to its date, as with PIE. But attempting to fit PIE itself into an earlier family of languages is problematic. There have been attempts at it, but they are contentious. I would not rely on them.

rms2
07-19-2015, 06:23 PM
Just more empty assertions.

It ignores the ancient Y-DNA evidence? How?

It ignores the linguistic evidence? How?

It's remote from reality? How?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Your claims are empty assertions. They are remote from reality because they run so clearly counter to it.

They run counter to the ancient y-dna evidence because no R1b-M269, or for that matter, R1b-P297, has been found in Europe outside of Russia and Ukraine that predates the Late Neolithic. Had R1b been present in Western Europe since the Paleolithic Period, one would think at least one R1b-P297 would have shown up by now from earlier than the Late Neolithic. Instead, it is conspicuous by its absence, not appearing until the Late Neolithic and into the Early Bronze Age, coincidentally, the same time that Indo-European languages spread into Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine. When R1b-P297 derived humans finally do appear, they do so among peoples connected to the spread of Indo-European, i.e., members of the Yamnaya cultural horizon, Beaker Folk, and the Vučedol culture.

How your claims are far removed from the linguistic evidence has already been explained to you more than once. Paleolithic Continuity is regarded as a fringe theory, and with good reason.

vettor
07-19-2015, 07:09 PM
The relationship between the Celtic languages is certainly complex, far more so than I can show on the sketch map. I lean more towards Patrick Sims-Williams than Garrett on the topic, but the latter is an interesting author and probably right about Greek. Sims-Williams tree below:

5243

you left out the important Gallo-italico, brought into the areas of Northern Italy around 400BC by the Gaulish-Celts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Italic_languages
The history of the language goes back to pre-Roman days, when the region had been part of the Etruscan territory. Around 400 BC, the region was invaded by the Gauls (Celts), a tribe from western Europe, which crossed the Alps and settled in the Etruscan territory of what is now northern Italy. Over the centuries, the Gauls and Romans often clashed before the Romans finally defeated the Gauls in that region in 194 BC. After that, the languages of the tribes mixed with the Latin and eventually evolved alongside Italian, making the languages related to, but not descended from, one another.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/indo-european/1999-March/000477.html

vettor
07-19-2015, 07:22 PM
To conclude, with all this chit-chat on this thread about Celts, we have ONLY established that the ownership of the term Celt is on the continent of Europe and not in the British Isles.

Jean M
07-19-2015, 07:32 PM
you left out the important Gallo-italico, brought into the areas of Northern Italy around 400BC by the Gaulish-Celts

This group of languages was not brought by the Gaulish Celts. The group is part of the Romance language family, as correctly shown by the Wikipedia page to which you linked. See the box on the right of the page. What may be confusing you is Ligurian. This refers to the modern language spoken in Liguria, not ancient Ligurian, of which we have very little.

Celtic loanwords in the group are a separate issue. The existence of Celtic borrowings into Romance, in particular place-names, can be no surprise. Latin overlaid Celtic in a large part of the Roman empire. We know that the Romans retained many Celtic place-names, for they recorded them.

Jean M
07-19-2015, 07:39 PM
we have ONLY established that the ownership of the term Celt is on the continent of Europe and not in the British Isles.

Ownership? Sounds like you feel that people are trying to take something away from you! :biggrin1: Nobody owns the term.

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 07:56 PM
The dynamics that led to the diversification of the Amerindian languages obviously don't apply to all of the language families all over the world. Different dynamics existed in different regions.

The Amerindian languages diversified as much as they did because the Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids from Asia split into a large number of little bands that spread all over the vast North and South American continents. There was a great deal of ecological diversity in those continents, and each band inhabiting all of the very different ecological niches developed very different languages in isolation from the others.

The dynamics in Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe were much different. Europe is much smaller than the combined size of the North and South American continents. For most of the Upper Paleolithic, there was ecological uniformity throughout Europe: it was all steppe, with steppe-tundra in the north and forest steppe in the south. And even in other times, there has always been geographical and ecological uniformity across northern Europe, with the Great European Plain stretching from northern France to the Urals. With that geological and ecological uniformity, the hunter-gatherers of Europe were never in isolation from one another the way that the Amerindian hunter-gatherer bands were. The highly mobile hunter-gatherers of the plains and steppes of Europe always maintained some degree of contact with each other, across the whole continent, and that necessitated a common language. That language, for the descendants of the R1 Gravettians, was proto-Indo-European.

Everything you've said here is based on pure conjecture, and it has nothing to do with diachronic linguistics. But that's above the point really, even if we were to endorse your idiosyncratic approach you'd still be wrong. For instance, let's narrow this down to Mesoamerica - unfortunately for you, this is what I know best after Afroasiatic - which is approximately 4 times smaller than Europe... And roughly 50 times more diverse than Europe from a linguistic standpoint.
Now even though much of this linguistic diversity arose in a Neolithic context (in other words most people there led a sedentary lifestyle which meant less mobility and thus more radical divergence) there is a parallel with the spread of IE. The spread of Uto-Aztecan (Nahuan in particular) from the northern deserts southwards was undertaken by nomadic foragers who adopted agriculture on their way south before finally settling and assimilating into the local culture. The Uto-Aztecan communities spread far and wide, all the way down to El Salvador. Now the time depth associated with the break up of proto-Uto-Aztecan is on par with PIE and proto-Semitic, these languages were spoken at roughly the same time and despite the fact that the arrival of the Nahuan speakers prompted some sort of convergence to take place (the so-called "Mesoamerican language area") these folks weren't as succesful as the IEs and the "Semites" on the other side of the Atlantic were in disseminating their language.
Naturally, the relevant question is "why?", to which I'd answer "why not?", and this for the simple reason that the PUA-speaking community was a foraging one which led a Mesolithic lifestyle (not too dissimilar from the Gravettians you so eagerly tie to PIE speech) and that its spread was subsequently slowed down (and its diversification enhanced) by the adoption of agriculture by its southernmost speakers.
Considering the above, the fact that Uto-Aztecan speakers managed to reach modern-day Idaho and El Salvador is quite a feat, save their nomadic lifestyle they had none of the advantages the PIEs and the "Semites" enjoyed (namely, semi-nomadic pastoralism, horses, wheeled vehicles and so on)... And yet here you are telling us that 22 kya old hunter-gatherers were PIE-speaking, all this despite the amount of divergence we observe (which is further corroborated by the spread of Uto-Aztecan by foragers around the same time).

Do you understand why you're not making any sense now?

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 08:06 PM
It's amazing how much linguists profess to know about the European languages of 4000 BC, considering that there was no writing in most of Europe until thousands of years later.

What I find amazing is how eager you are to claim that 22 kya old hunter-gatherers spoke PIE, especially considering the fact that writing hadn't even been invented back then! Again, despite all the evidence at hand.

genetiker
07-19-2015, 08:58 PM
They run counter to the ancient y-dna evidence because no R1b-M269, or for that matter, R1b-P297, has been found in Europe outside of Russia and Ukraine that predates the Late Neolithic.

And no R1b-M269 has been found inside Russia or Ukraine predating the late Neolithic either. Because R1b-M269 originated in Western Europe, and that's where it's always been concentrated.


Had R1b been present in Western Europe since the Paleolithic Period, one would think at least one R1b-P297 would have shown up by now from earlier than the Late Neolithic. Instead, it is conspicuous by its absence, not appearing until the Late Neolithic and into the Early Bronze Age

You seem to be forgetting that there are only two Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic Western Europe. One of those, the Loschbour sample, was actually on the border between Western and Central Europe, at the western edge of the Y hg I range 8,000 years ago. The other, the La Brańa 1 sample, is the sole Y-DNA sample from the interior of Mesolithic Western Europe. We have no other samples from Mesolithic Iberia. We have no Mesolithic samples from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, or the British Isles. To conclude that R1b was absent in Mesolithic Western Europe based on the two samples that we have now would be utterly foolish, especially in light of all of the other glaring evidence that contradicts such a conclusion, as I pointed out in this post (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/).

Of course the early Neolithic samples from Western Europe weren't R1b-P297. The early Neolithic farmers everywhere in Europe belonged to G2, I, F, E1b1b, and R1b-V88, not R1b-P297. The R1b-P297 hunter-gatherers became farmers in the late Neolithic, and it is then that you start to see P297 in farmers.


the same time that Indo-European languages spread into Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine. When R1b-P297 derived humans finally do appear, they do so among peoples connected to the spread of Indo-European, i.e., members of the Yamnaya cultural horizon, Beaker Folk, and the Vučedol culture.

This Kurgan hypothesis fantasy has now been utterly refuted by the genetic evidence. The R1b-L51 people of Western Europe obviously weren't derived from the Pit Grave people, because none of the Pit Grave people were R1b-L51. They were overwhelmingly, if not entirely R1b-Z2103.


How your claims are far removed from the linguistic evidence has already been explained to you more than once. Paleolithic Continuity is regarded as a fringe theory, and with good reason.

No, nothing has been "explained" to me. I've seen nothing but the same old erroneous arguments that I already refuted over a year ago.

And labeling a theory "fringe", no matter how many times you do it, does absolutely nothing to disprove any of the aspects of that theory. It's nothing but childish name-calling, which is hardly surprising coming from you.

Wonder_Wall
07-19-2015, 09:34 PM
Genetiker, I am very open to your theory even though I see the Steppe as having more support at this point. Still, there is a lot we don't know and it's probably prudent for everybody to remain open minded.

I did go to your blog by the way. I enjoyed some of the content, but you have posts labeled things like "Dienekes is dumber than I thought" and "Greg Cochran is an ignoramus" etc. This seems out of place to me.

Whatever you theories, I'm sure you would find a more open audience if you communicated less aggressively and refrained from openly abusive language. This has been a really nice thread with lots of nice twists and turns - but it was civil. I think we should keep it that way.

my 2c.

rms2
07-19-2015, 09:38 PM
And no R1b-M269 has been found inside Russia or Ukraine predating the late Neolithic either. Because R1b-M269 originated in Western Europe, and that's where it's always been concentrated . . .

The fact that you keep repeating that R1b-M269 originated in Western Europe does not make it so. Where is it then? Plenty of ancient European y-dna has been uncovered, but none from earlier than the Late Neolithic has been R1b-M269 or even R1b-P297. Not much of a concentration of R1b-M269 in Western Europe in those early ancient y-dna results.

I am not going to continue to engage you in discussion, because I think it is pointless. You think Indo-European and R1b were present in Western Europe during the Paleolithic Period. If you have managed to reach that conclusion, there is little point in trying to reason with you.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 09:41 PM
And no R1b-M269 has been found inside Russia or Ukraine predating the late Neolithic either. Because R1b-M269 originated in Western Europe, and that's where it's always been concentrated.



You seem to be forgetting that there are only two Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic Western Europe. One of those, the Loschbour sample, was actually on the border between Western and Central Europe, at the western edge of the Y hg I range 8,000 years ago. The other, the La Brańa 1 sample, is the sole Y-DNA sample from the interior of Mesolithic Western Europe. We have no other samples from Mesolithic Iberia. We have no Mesolithic samples from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, or the British Isles. To conclude that R1b was absent in Mesolithic Western Europe based on the two samples that we have now would be utterly foolish, especially in light of all of the other glaring evidence that contradicts such a conclusion, as I pointed out in this post (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/).

Of course the early Neolithic samples from Western Europe weren't R1b-P297. The early Neolithic farmers everywhere in Europe belonged to G2, I, F, E1b1b, and R1b-V88, not R1b-P297. The R1b-P297 hunter-gatherers became farmers in the late Neolithic, and it is then that you start to see P297 in farmers.



This Kurgan hypothesis fantasy has now been utterly refuted by the genetic evidence. The R1b-L51 people of Western Europe obviously weren't derived from the Pit Grave people, because none of the Pit Grave people were R1b-L51. They were overwhelmingly, if not entirely R1b-Z2103.



No, nothing has been "explained" to me. I've seen nothing but the same old erroneous arguments that I already refuted over a year ago.

And labeling a theory "fringe", no matter how many times you do it, does absolutely nothing to disprove any of the aspects of that theory. It's nothing but childish name-calling, which is hardly surprising coming from you.


Maintaining to the last that PCT is utter rubbish, and a desperate attempt for a scholar (M Alinei) who has little clues into sociolinguistic realities to get attention, your theory about R1b will be proven or disproven shortly - with the due publication of a large collection of palaeolithic and mesolithic samples by Krause et al

rms2
07-19-2015, 09:48 PM
Well, we have a number of Neolithic y-dna results from Western Europe, including Iberia. Had R1b-P297, the hands-down most frequent y haplogroup in Western Europe now, been present during the Mesolithic Period, and if in fact it originated in Western Europe, one would think that it would be showing up there in Neolithic remains. Where it does show up in Europe outside of Russia and Ukraine, it is missing in action until the Late Neolithic in areas that are producing earlier results for other y haplogroups, like G2a and I2a. Then suddenly it pops up in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age contexts in the same areas it was missing from earlier and where we would expect it if the Kurgan Hypothesis is true (which it is, despite Flat Earth Society-like claims that it has been disproven).

MT1976
07-19-2015, 09:49 PM
I sincerely fail to see what's so controversial about the Italo-Celtic node, I could come up with a dozen branches which would be invalid if we went off the same stringent standards and skepticism. Calling Italo-Celtic a "non-entity" doesn't strike me as a particularly justified observation to say the least.
As far as proto-Celtic goes, I think it dates back to the LBA (its initial spread probably has something to do with Urnfield) and that the BB horizon is far too ancient to account for the trivial amount of divergence we observe between the earliest Celtic dialects we know of.

I agree with the timing .
I'm not an Expert in linguistics, thus fall back to current scholarly concensus. and that appears to be that there is not italo-celtic node, nor Greco-Iranian eg. The only currently accepted nodes within IE are Balto-Slavic and indo-Aryan.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 09:55 PM
Because of the evidence, genetic, linguistic, archaeological and anthropological.

R1b-M269 is missing from Europe before the late Neolithic. It turns up beginning in the late Neolithic and into the Bronze Age among peoples believed to have spread Indo-European into Europe west of Russia and Ukraine.

Not only does R1b-M269 prevail in much of Europe today, but so do Indo-European languages, and both of those things represent changes from an earlier, non-R1b, non-Indo-European-speaking state. The two certainly took place somehow, and they appear to have occurred together.

Non sequitur. What "anthropological evidence " is there that BB spoke celtic? Did a study of the shape of their oral orifice conclude that no other language could have been spoken by these guys by sheer physical limitations? nonsense

Yes R1b arrived in late neolithic- as it seems currently. But what's that got to do with celtic directly? Nothing IMO . And how could the steppe people (R1b) spread IE when most of it's subbranches are non-IE?
Special pleadingpar excellence . As long as it works for the celtic west, the remaining inconsistencies can be swept under the rug :)

No. Newer models of langaige expansion are required. And no one has delivered, least of all David Anthony's production process

rms2
07-19-2015, 10:14 PM
Non sequitur. What "anthropological evidence " is there that BB spoke celtic? Did a study of the shape of their oral orifice conclude that no other language could have been spoken by these guys by sheer physical limitations? nonsense

I did not say there is anthropological evidence for language, but there is anthropological evidence that Beaker Folk differed physically from their predecessors and so were an intrusive presence. They appear to be an intrusive population in Britain and Ireland, for example, and are the likeliest candidates for the introduction of early Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

Let me say at once that I do not care whether or not you think Italo-Celtic is a valid branch of Indo-European.



Yes R1b arrived in late neolithic- as it seems currently. But what's that got to do with celtic directly? Nothing IMO . Sorry of that affects the world. And how could the steppe people (R1b) spread IE when most of it's branches are non-IE?
Special pleading Bon not . As long as it works for the celtic west, the remaining inconsistencies can be swept under the rug :)

I am trying to make sense of what you wrote above, but it isn't easy. R1b arrived in Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine at the same time the Kurgan Hypothesis says Indo-European began arriving. It has been found in remains from the Yamnaya cultural horizon, which is thought to be responsible in large part for the spread of Indo-European to Europe outside of Russia and Ukraine. It has also been found in remains of the Beaker people, whom a number of scholars have connected to the spread of Italo-Celtic, and in a body belonging to the Vučedol culture, which has been connected to the evolution of Beaker.

These things are pieces of evidence in the steadily mounting case for the association of R1b with the spread of Indo-European and with the spread of the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European.

No special pleading is involved, no sweeping things under any rugs.



No. Newer models of langaige expansion are required. And no one has delivered, least of all David Anthony's production process

Well here I have to say, says you. I find Anthony's arguments compelling and yours, well, not.

alan
07-19-2015, 10:40 PM
To me people make too much of a fuss about the distinction between early west IEs and Celts. We may be only talking about regoional sound shifts from an original western branch of IE. However, the basic linguistic, social, ritual traditions of the Celts may have been set down before the shifts happened. I see that initial block of western IEs or Italo-Celts or whatever stage they were at in western Europe c. 2500BC as more important than the sound shifts.

As to where and when the sound shifts that technically formed Celtic, I dont think this was down to further migration waves other than constant trickle effect of contact, alliance marriages etc within the trading networks. The problem in nailing this down is a large chunk of west and central Europeans took place in a fury of networking, which we can see in parallel changes in metalwork in particular, that in some form or other can be seen from the beaker period to the Iron Age. I believe the latest Celtic could possibly have formed is probably not much after 1000BC. I would tend to doubt it was formed much before 2000BC. However, I just dont really see much in the proto-Celtic vocab that helps narrow it down hugely. I think it was not a moment but a process and most of the spreading of the language shift was achieved by networking and only minor geneflow associated with these networking relations. I think the movement of elite women along the network in a lattice of alliances shouldnt be underestimated. If it was constant then it certainly could have had an impact on linguistic innovations of the elite children.

I think this lattice of furious elite networking which is so clear in the parallel development of bronze age metalwork over wide area of western and central Europe also would confound normal models for language divergence by distance and time. Another factor may be the forerunners of the Iron Age Druid class who were supertribal. They could promote linguistic conservatism. An example of this at work can be seen in the earlier pagan Irish Ogham stones which date to c. 400AD but look like they are virtually indistinguisable frrom something written in 400BC.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:04 PM
I did not say there is anthropological evidence for language, but there is anthropological evidence that Beaker Folk differed physically from their predecessors and so were an intrusive presence. They appear to be an intrusive population in Britain and Ireland, for example, and are the likeliest candidates for the introduction of early Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

Let me say at once that I do not care whether or not you think Italo-Celtic is a valid branch of Indo-European.

Well, allow me to bring you forward a decade and a half in historical linguistic research. "In short, according to the view I am advocating, the formation of a Celtic
subgroup of Indo—European, the formation of an Italic subgroup, and even the
formation of ‘Greek’ itself may have been secondary Sprachbund phenomena:
local responses to areal and cultural connections that could very well have arisen in
Greece, on the Italian peninsula, and in western and central Europe. These would
represent linguistic areas, not merely the final landing sites of three discrete Indo—
European subgroups after some millennial peregrination from the steppes. If this
view is right, it makes no sense to ask what route the speakers of ‘Proto—Greek’,
‘Proto—Italic’, or ‘Proto—Celtic’ followed from the Indo—European homeland" - Andrew Garrett.

This is echoed for Italic (Silvestri, 1998; Cornell 1995)

So if there was no proto-Italic, or proto-Celtic, how could there be an Italo -Celtic ?
Of course, people like to construct a warm, fuzzy , romantic tale of 'the coming of the Celts' so they can tell pub stories...




I am trying to make sense of what you wrote above, but it isn't easy. R1b arrived in Europe beyond Russia and Ukraine at the same time the Kurgan Hypothesis says Indo-European began arriving. It has been found in remains from the Yamnaya cultural horizon, which is thought to be responsible in large part for the spread of Indo-European to Europe outside of Russia and Ukraine. It has also been found in remains of the Beaker people, whom a number of scholars have connected to the spread of Italo-Celtic, and in a body belonging to the Vučedol culture, which has been connected to the evolution of Beaker.

These things are pieces of evidence in the steadily mounting case for the association of R1b with the spread of Indo-European and with the spread of the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European.

No special pleading is involved, no sweeping things under any rugs.

Ok Ill make it simpler for you.
* yes R1b has been found in Yamnaya - but noone denied that , did they ?
* "but there is anthropological evidence that Beaker Folk differed physically from their predecessors and so were an intrusive presence" Well, yes. i didn't deny that, although I find P.A a bit dubious.
* ' thought to be responsible in large part for the spread of Indo-European to". Thought. But its colalteral branches Z2103 and M73 (next up) are found in largely non-IE groups ? How's that ? Is it , perhaps, not all R1b, or perhaps even any of them spoke PIE to begin with ? Could it be that language expansion isn't associated exclusively and solely with single Y haplogroups ?



says you[/I]. I find Anthony's arguments compelling and yours, well, not.

Thats good to know. I guess it requires a certain level of knowledge in the first place to see the inconsistencies and logical fallacies of a construct. But I appreciate your opinion nevertheless .

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 11:08 PM
I agree with the timing .
I'm not an Expert in linguistics, thus fall back to current scholarly concensus. and that appears to be that there is not italo-celtic node, nor Greco-Iranian eg. The only currently accepted nodes within IE are Balto-Slavic and indo-Aryan.

Well, these nodes might not have achieved the status of consensus just yet, but they certainly do seem to be gaining acceptance at a rapid pace which isn't exactly surprising since they seem valid from a diachronic linguistic perspective - at least from where I'm standing - which in turn is why I think calling Italo-celtic a "non-entity" (or even "controversial") isn't justified at this point.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:18 PM
To me people make too much of a fuss about the distinction between early west IEs and Celts. We may be only talking about regoional sound shifts from an original western branch of IE. However, the basic linguistic, social, ritual traditions of the Celts may have been set down before the shifts happened. I see that initial block of western IEs or Italo-Celts or whatever stage they were at in western Europe c. 2500BC as more important than the sound shifts.

As to where and when the sound shifts that technically formed Celtic, I dont think this was down to further migration waves other than constant trickle effect of contact, alliance marriages etc within the trading networks. The problem in nailing this down is a large chunk of west and central Europeans took place in a fury of networking, which we can see in parallel changes in metalwork in particular, that in some form or other can be seen from the beaker period to the Iron Age. I believe the latest Celtic could possibly have formed is probably not much after 1000BC. I would tend to doubt it was formed much before 2000BC. However, I just dont really see much in the proto-Celtic vocab that helps narrow it down hugely. I think it was not a moment but a process and most of the spreading of the language shift was achieved by networking and only minor geneflow associated with these networking relations. I think the movement of elite women along the network in a lattice of alliances shouldnt be underestimated. If it was constant then it certainly could have had an impact on linguistic innovations of the elite children.

I think this lattice of furious elite networking which is so clear in the parallel development of bronze age metalwork over wide area of western and central Europe also would confound normal models for language divergence by distance and time. Another factor may be the forerunners of the Iron Age Druid class who were supertribal. They could promote linguistic conservatism. An example of this at work can be seen in the earlier pagan Irish Ogham stones which date to c. 400AD but look like they are virtually indistinguisable frrom something written in 400BC.

Yes good points. You might be correct, and I like that you recognise a role for further contact s and developments, although I'd privilege later developments with even more potential.

rms2
07-19-2015, 11:24 PM
Well, allow me to bring you forward a decade and a half in historical linguistic research . . .

Hmmm . . . thanks, oh wise one. How about this? It's pretty recent.

5247


. . .
So if there was no proto-Italic, or proto-Celtic, how could there be an Italo -Celtic ?
Of course, people like to construct a warm, fuzzy , romantic tale of 'the coming of the Celts' so they can tell pub stories...

Again, says you. I am not a linguist, but then again neither are you. I tend to think the idea of Italo-Celtic makes sense.

I don't usually talk about Beaker Folk and who spread what branch of Indo-European when I go to the pub, and I don't get warm, fuzzy feelings about the Celts, coming or going.

I know that sort of thing is part of your effort to appear clever and suitably snarky, and perhaps if it were couched in a little more adroit (and coherent) style of writing, it might work.






. . . Thats good to know. I guess it requires a certain level of knowledge in the first place to see the inconsistencies and logical fallacies of a construct.

Written with a remarkable but unsurprising level of self importance.

Again, I find Anthony far more compelling.

alan
07-19-2015, 11:25 PM
Looking at Koch's work he seems to think that the earliest oghams of c. 400AD are almost identical to proto-Celtic. However, old the latter is, noone would place its date after 700BC. What that demonstates is that Celtic society in Ireland had at least elements who had could use almost perfect proto-Celtic a minimum of 1100 years after it had been introduced to Ireland.

So, if 1100ys can be spanned with very very little change then I think we can say that Celtic society had something in its structures which massively slowed down linguistic divergence. I believe that must partly be down to the mobile and super-tribal Druidical and other learned/sacred classes. I think the proof of this is in the archaeology of Ireland. Ireland at the end of the Bronze Age suddenly went through a period of isolation for perhaps 400ys or more from the material culture fashion network.

In that period it seems very unlikely that the secular networking of the Bronze Age was a force for linguistic parity with the outside world in Ireland. In fact the lack of the P shift that probably happened in Gaul and Britain in the 500sBC is strong evidence of this.

Anyway, despite this, Ireland appears to have inscriptions in 400AD that read like the proto-Celtic that simply had to have reached Ireland before 700BC and in all probability by 1000BC. So what the primitive Irish on the Ogham stones seems to show is very little change between 1000BC and 400AD. Whether this amazing conservatism was just certain classes or not doesnt detract from how striking so little change over that period is.

So, I would put it to everyone that normal linguistic rules of divergence do not seem to apply to Celtic - there was a major force of conservatism built into Celtic society. If it could be frozen for 1100 years (probably a in of several centuries more) in Ireland then there is no reason to believe this linguistic conservatism was not a feature earlier.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:29 PM
(duplicate)

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:31 PM
Well, these nodes might not have achieved the status of consensus just yet, but they certainly do seem to be gaining acceptance at a rapid pace which isn't exactly surprising since they seem valid from a diachronic linguistic perspective - at least from where I'm standing - which in turn is why I think calling Italo-celtic a "non-entity" (or even "controversial") isn't justified at this point.

My view was that concensus is swinging opposite, actually. Especially as the solely family-tree model is rightly realized to be a failure. Also see my quote of Garrett on last page.
Don't get me wrong- I don't deny the closeness of italic and celtic, but there was no higher order branch of just those two. I think there was simply a "northwest IE" melling around the Danube-Carpathian region which spawned pre-proto-Italic, celtic , Illyrian and germanic. Any further similarities between eg celtic and italic and celtic and GermaniC were due to secondary contacts. These actual languages then formed considerably later. And early IE in Europe was probably extensive but not intensive ..:)

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:40 PM
Yes, Don Ringe is a great scholar.

Sorry if I come off 'self-important'. Perhaps in the haste and excitement of academic debate..
And I wasn;t referring to you specifcially. Its human nature to want to reduced the past to understandable, linear processes. All I want to impress is that this was probably not the reality..

rms2
07-19-2015, 11:43 PM
Well, apparently we are not going to agree any time soon on what the reality actually was.

Agamemnon
07-19-2015, 11:54 PM
My view was that concensus is swinging opposite, actually. Especially as the solely family-tree model is rightly realized to be a failure. Also see my quote of Garrett on last page.
Don't get me wrong- I don't deny the closeness of italic and celtic, but there was no higher order branch of just those two. I think there was simply a "northwest IE" melling around the Danube-Carpathian region which spawned pre-proto-Italic, celtic , Illyrian and germanic. These actual languages then formed considerably later. And early IE in Europe was probably extensive but not intensive ..:)

Jay Jasanoff and Peter Schrivjer have produced very sound morphological arguments (mostly based on the verbal system) in favour of the Italo-Celtic node's validity.
As Jean M correctly stated, Don Ringe - I urge you to read his book "From PIE to Proto-Germanic" - also endorses the validity of the Italo-Celtic node, we should also add Ann Taylor and Frederik Kortlandt to the list (though I disagree with the latter on many issues, especially those relating to PIE's relationship to NW Caucasian, he joins Bomhard - for whom I have the utmost respect despite his support for the Nostratic theory - on this particular issue).
Considering the above, I'd say this node's validity is rapidly gaining acceptance, and the odds are still looking very good.

I wouldn't say that the "family-tree model" is a "failure", just that it's the least worst model out there. No tree is perfect (just like no map is perfect), and that's mainly due to the fact that such models are supposed to dumb down a complex reality.

newtoboard
07-20-2015, 12:55 AM
From what I understand the only politicing involved in the subject of the Vandals is that its a touchy subject with some Poles because of the much later tragic German-Polish history and historic claims over north Poland/Prussia/the Baltic Prus/Slavs etc. Back projecting later historical grievances into the remote past leads to odd things. Its the same for some Irish who due to a terrible later history of Irish-English/British relations will take a long time to let go of the Iberian origin concept because they instinctively dont like the connection with Britain that is blatant in the DNA. Most here though have more sense that to do that and back project distaste of England or the British state into prehistory before they even existed and before the English had even arrived in Britain. However, there is no doubt that some do suffer from this brain fart.

Not sure I get the historic claim part. Those Germanic speakers in Northern Poland almost certainly replaced some sort of Balto-Slavic R1a related dialect unless someone thinks Polish CW was R1b dominant (and somehow disrupted R1a continuity between Germany to the Urals) and German CW was R1a dominant.

Hydoronyms don't mean much imo. There could have easily been other IE groups in Poland prior to the Goths. We see a similar case for all the Iranic hydronyms in the steppe.

lgmayka
07-20-2015, 01:30 AM
I think this lattice of furious elite networking which is so clear in the parallel development of bronze age metalwork over wide area of western and central Europe also would confound normal models for language divergence by distance and time. Another factor may be the forerunners of the Iron Age Druid class who were supertribal. They could promote linguistic conservatism.
Even beyond conservatism--a supertribal elite could establish and preserve a lingua franca that would eventually supplant local dialects (or a dialectal continuum).

MT1976
07-20-2015, 07:54 AM
Even beyond conservatism--a supertribal elite could establish and preserve a lingua franca that would eventually supplant local dialects (or a dialectal continuum).

Yes. Its reassuring in that at least some appreciate the likelihood of significant language flux between the Copper Age and pre-Roman Iron Age, even if we accept some pre-pre-pre-Celtic was spoken somewhere (perhaps a nascent proto-northwest IE in the Danubian zone). I mean just look at the period 500 BC to 500 AD - there was a massive Celtic expansion - at least acc. to my view- then Germanic, Roman, then Slavic, not to mentioned dozens of other minor languages like Irano-Scytho-Sarmatian, Turkic in east; as well as Finnic and proto-Sami in the northeast. Even in the Hellenistic Age and pre-Roman Iron age there were significant numbers of non-IE languages - Raetic, pre-proto-Basque and other Iberian languages, Eturscan, Eteocretan et al in Greece. I'd argue that the Copper - early Bronze periods were even more linguistically diverse compared to the more "globalised' Iron Age. So to insist that the entire BB network was already 'pan-Celtic', and remained so for almost 3000 years is unrealistic from a socio-linguistic perspective, IMO.

Dubhthach
07-20-2015, 08:41 AM
Looking at Koch's work he seems to think that the earliest oghams of c. 400AD are almost identical to proto-Celtic. However, old the latter is, noone would place its date after 700BC. What that demonstates is that Celtic society in Ireland had at least elements who had could use almost perfect proto-Celtic a minimum of 1100 years after it had been introduced to Ireland.

So, if 1100ys can be spanned with very very little change then I think we can say that Celtic society had something in its structures which massively slowed down linguistic divergence. I believe that must partly be down to the mobile and super-tribal Druidical and other learned/sacred classes. I think the proof of this is in the archaeology of Ireland. Ireland at the end of the Bronze Age suddenly went through a period of isolation for perhaps 400ys or more from the material culture fashion network.

In that period it seems very unlikely that the secular networking of the Bronze Age was a force for linguistic parity with the outside world in Ireland. In fact the lack of the P shift that probably happened in Gaul and Britain in the 500sBC is strong evidence of this.

Anyway, despite this, Ireland appears to have inscriptions in 400AD that read like the proto-Celtic that simply had to have reached Ireland before 700BC and in all probability by 1000BC. So what the primitive Irish on the Ogham stones seems to show is very little change between 1000BC and 400AD. Whether this amazing conservatism was just certain classes or not doesnt detract from how striking so little change over that period is.

So, I would put it to everyone that normal linguistic rules of divergence do not seem to apply to Celtic - there was a major force of conservatism built into Celtic society. If it could be frozen for 1100 years (probably a in of several centuries more) in Ireland then there is no reason to believe this linguistic conservatism was not a feature earlier.

A word on Ogham and Archaic Irish, yes the language as used on Ogham stones is probably the closest known written language to Gaulish and shows perservations of alot of features. What's worth noting however is that by 400AD it probably was a "learned" or "Sacral language" and not reflection of "Caint na nDaoine" (the speech of the people). What's evident is that shift to "Old Irish" is abrupt and shows massive changes.

It has been theorized thus that "Old Irish" as written probably thus represented the higher registrars of the language in the post-christianisation period. Been represented of the newly expanding noble elite (the like which spanned dynastical groups such as the Uí Néill and the Eoghanachta -- I always find it interesting the expansion point of many of these super-subclades in Irealand is around time of christianisation).

Archaic Irish (of Ogham stones) thus probably hadn't represented the spoken language for anything from 200-500 years. What's interesting of course is a similar situation would repeat itself a thousand years later. Where the Bardic elite kept using "Early Modern Irish" (as standardised in 1200) even though the spoken language had diverge significantly by 1600 (imagine Shakespeare writing in style of Chaucer!)

Anyways if I recall the article in Nature from years ago they calcuated a seperation date for Modern Irish and Modern Welsh at about 1000BC, of course I'm not sure how good their methodology was.

Personally I don't see Celtic as having differenated from western Proto-IE dialects during the Beaker period, I think it's too early. I do however think that both Atlantic Bronze Age and Urnfield areas cover regions where various dialects that had undergone the /p/ deletion (one of major sound changes diagnostic of Proto-Celtic), however I do think these material cultures also included dialects of Western IE that hadn't necessary undergone same sound change. (there was probably a dialect chain from west to east, Proto-Celtic sound-changes could have occurred in middle of the chain!)

alan
07-20-2015, 09:11 AM
Even beyond conservatism--a supertribal elite could establish and preserve a lingua franca that would eventually supplant local dialects (or a dialectal continuum).

Yeah and I think that is a much easier job for the elite to influence if not too different west IE dialects are already present. I think probably as the Bronze Age progresses the influence of the elites increases steadily. Personally I dont think we will ever know when the final shifts that technically formed a dialect like Celtic took place. I just think we can infer that the most likely period was c. 2000-1000BC.

I believe from looking at where the innovations in metalwork originated in that period and where they were largely emulated that the most influential group in Europe - and therefore possibly the main dialect lingua franca driver - was the Unetice-Tumulous-Urnfield group. The isles-NW France area seems to have been an important secondary centre where central European ideas were given an Atlantic spin. My reading of the archaeology is that this central Europe-isles-NW France (with lesser related groups in between) triangle was the zone in which Celtic first spread. This pattern of contacts seems to have commenced at the end of the beaker period when there area clear contacts between Unetice, Wessex and Armorican early Bronze Age cultures as well as less well known ones in between in the same zone in northern France, Belgium and the isles as a whole. Once established this triangle of strong contacts with central Europe as the main influencer seems to continue from 2000-700BC. I believe what will always make Celtic shifts impossible to date closer is the fact that this networking probably meant dialects shifted in tandem over the whole area. I would say though that it probably can be inferred that the dialectal shifts to Celtic must have occurred by 1000BC.

Another way of looking at Proto-Celtic is it is simply a snapshot of a continuum and that that snapshot is of the last point in time where the network of elite contacts was fully functioning before it broke down. So proto-Celtic in a way represents the beginning of the end rather than the beginning of Celtic. Archaeologically speaking the most obvious watershed in network collapse is the end of the Bronze Age c. 750BC where the coming of ubiquitously available iron undermined the raison d'etre of the network. That doesnt mean Celtic originated that late. I think that is the problem with Proto-forms that are reconstructed. They probably represent the last point before break up rather than the origin date of a branch. Prior to the break up there was probably a constant process of dialect innovation within the network and it is kind of wrong headed to try and put a date on when Celtic emerged. Different shifts that we see in Proto-Celtic could have occurred at different times across the whole period c. 2000-750BC. I suppose in linguistic terms that would be the pre-proto-Celtic phase of Celtic akin to the pre-proto-Germanic phase of Germanic which is talked about a lot more than the Celtic equivalent phase for some reason. Regardless I see them as the same people in both the proto and pre-proto phases.

alan
07-20-2015, 09:27 AM
A word on Ogham and Archaic Irish, yes the language as used on Ogham stones is probably the closest known written language to Gaulish and shows perservations of alot of features. What's worth noting however is that by 400AD it probably was a "learned" or "Sacral language" and not reflection of "Caint na nDaoine" (the speech of the people). What's evident is that shift to "Old Irish" is abrupt and shows massive changes.

It has been theorized thus that "Old Irish" as written probably thus represented the higher registrars of the language in the post-christianisation period. Been represented of the newly expanding noble elite (the like which spanned dynastical groups such as the Uí Néill and the Eoghanachta -- I always find it interesting the expansion point of many of these super-subclades in Irealand is around time of christianisation).

Archaic Irish (of Ogham stones) thus probably hadn't represented the spoken language for anything from 200-500 years. What's interesting of course is a similar situation would repeat itself a thousand years later. Where the Bardic elite kept using "Early Modern Irish" (as standardised in 1200) even though the spoken language had diverge significantly by 1600 (imagine Shakespeare writing in style of Chaucer!)

Anyways if I recall the article in Nature from years ago they calcuated a seperation date for Modern Irish and Modern Welsh at about 1000BC, of course I'm not sure how good their methodology was.

Personally I don't see Celtic as having differenated from western Proto-IE dialects during the Beaker period, I think it's too early. I do however think that both Atlantic Bronze Age and Urnfield areas cover regions where various dialects that had undergone the /p/ deletion (one of major sound changes diagnostic of Proto-Celtic), however I do think these material cultures also included dialects of Western IE that hadn't necessary undergone same sound change. (there was probably a dialect chain from west to east, Proto-Celtic sound-changes could have occurred in middle of the chain!)

I pretty much agree. Proto-Celtic seems like an artificial reconstruction and I think its basically a snapshot of immediately before the breakup of the Bronze Age network in the Hallstatt C phase. However this doesnt give us any idea how long that the dialects had essentially been in that proto-Celtic form or something very close. Then there is the whole pre-proto-Celtic phase where it may have diverged in the Celtic direction somewhat but still have lacked some of the features of proto-Celtic. I think the problem is proto- forms are just pre-breakup snapshots and they tell us nothing about the processes, phasing and timing and duration of what went before. I suspect, based on archaeological considerations, that something very close to proto-Celtic existed by 1000BC but there could have been a long pre-proto-Celtic phase in the genesis of Celtic too. Archaeologically I think the basic network seen in metalwork innovation connecting central Europe-isles-northern France was under way by 2000BC and never really ceased until 750BC so to me a large chunk of that is probably the archaeological representative of the pre-proto-Celtic phase of Celtic, much as the pre-proto-Germanic phase probably occupies a broadly similar period.

Jean M
07-20-2015, 09:52 AM
Yes. Its reassuring in that at least some appreciate the likelihood of significant language flux between the Copper Age and pre-Roman Iron Age..

Of course there was. Language is always changing. We are not speaking PIE today. Yet linguists recognise that PIE was ancestral to families of languages spoken today over a large spread of territory. This does not imply that PIE itself (in completely unchanged form) must have spread across that whole range of territory before it split into daughter languages. It is possible to deduce that changes in PIE that we might see as dialects began as groups of PIE speakers moved far enough from the homeland to be no longer in constant communication with the linguistic continuum. Eventually they would turn into daughter languages, but the process is not necessarily simple and local. Many regions of Europe seem to be a linguistic layer-cake, with different IE waves supplanting each other, rather than a neat sequence of the arrival of IE followed by local development into a daughter language. (This is without even considering non-IE substrate, and contacts between IE daughter languages as people moved around.)


to insist that the entire BB network was already 'pan-Celtic'

I do not argue that case in Blood of the Celts. The distribution of Bell Beaker is a good fit to the regions in which we later encounter Celtic, Italic and Celto-Italic (if I may so term Lusitanian and Ligurian). I go for Late Bell Beaker as the point at which we might distinguish a form of Celtic in part of that range. The deduction is based mainly on Celtiberian, but you will have to await the book for details.

Jean M
07-20-2015, 09:57 AM
I see Koch has posted the following on Academia.edu (just got notify), seems to be slide deck from talk he gave in Glasgow:

https://www.academia.edu/14176791/Phoenicians_in_the_West_and_the_Break-up_of_the_Atlantic_Bronze_Age_and_Proto-Celtic

Makes a lot of sense to me. I wonder if he is starting to shift from Celtic-from-the-West to the alternative view which he always recognised as possible i. e. that Iberia retained the most archaic form of Celtic (Celtiberian) because of its greater isolation from the rest of the Celtic-speaking world after the Bronze Age.

rms2
07-20-2015, 11:01 AM
. . . So to insist that the entire BB network was already 'pan-Celtic', and remained so for almost 3000 years is unrealistic from a socio-linguistic perspective, IMO.

I wonder who has insisted on that. Never have seen such a claim.

Dubhthach
07-20-2015, 11:11 AM
I pretty much agree. Proto-Celtic seems like an artificial reconstruction and I think its basically a snapshot of immediately before the breakup of the Bronze Age network in the Hallstatt C phase. However this doesnt give us any idea how long that the dialects had essentially been in that proto-Celtic form or something very close. Then there is the whole pre-proto-Celtic phase where it may have diverged in the Celtic direction somewhat but still have lacked some of the features of proto-Celtic. I think the problem is proto- forms are just pre-breakup snapshots and they tell us nothing about the processes, phasing and timing and duration of what went before. I suspect, based on archaeological considerations, that something very close to proto-Celtic existed by 1000BC but there could have been a long pre-proto-Celtic phase in the genesis of Celtic too. Archaeologically I think the basic network seen in metalwork innovation connecting central Europe-isles-northern France was under way by 2000BC and never really ceased until 750BC so to me a large chunk of that is probably the archaeological representative of the pre-proto-Celtic phase of Celtic, much as the pre-proto-Germanic phase probably occupies a broadly similar period.

Indeed well presentation I linked to earlier from Koch (given this year in Glasgow) seems to point to period around 1000BC as breakup point for "Proto-Celtic" with dialects that gave rise to CeltoIberian diverging away from rest. This been linked to shared features seen in Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish but not in CeltoIberian (which has it's own set of innovations)

Dubhthach
07-20-2015, 11:14 AM
Given that proto-IE /kw/ was persevered in Goidelic (until lost in Old Irish ;) -- merged with /k/) and in some of southern dialects of Gaulish, it's interesting to note that Ireland undergoes a archaelogical darkage in 500 years after 800BC. So this could point to where Goidelic diverged from common "Goidelic-Brythonic-Gaulish" stage and wasn't influenced by stuff like /kw/ -> /p/ shift. This would tie in with near total lack of Hallstat material in Ireland an fact that La Tene influenced material has more northern focus and only in period after 300BC (whereas the heaviest concentration of Ogham stones is in area most lacking in La Tene material 500+ years later)

Jean M
07-20-2015, 11:22 AM
Those Germanic speakers in Northern Poland almost certainly replaced some sort of Balto-Slavic ... dialect ... There could have easily been other IE groups in Poland prior to the Goths. We see a similar case for all the Iranic hydronyms in the steppe.

Proto-Germanic is dated c. 500 BC, so I think we can safely say that there were IE speakers in what is now Poland prior to Germanic. The Germanic hydronyms are just part of the pre-Polish layer, which includes unspecified IE (which we could label Old European), Baltic and Early Slavic.

In the long prospect, you could see Germanic-speakers as "just passing through" parts of the territory - there for a few centuries.

You are coming in late on this discussion and the thread has returned now to its title subject of the Celts. But Poland is a good example of the linguistic layer-cake that I mentioned in a post above. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3392-Celts-2015&p=96719&viewfull=1#post96719

Dubhthach
07-20-2015, 11:33 AM
I should note what's interesting in Ireland is that one of the oldest Iron weapons actually dates from period between 811BC and 673 BC. This is the Lackan spearhead found in the River Inny (Westmeath), it was dated by radio-carbon of fragments of ash in the spear socket. The date actually threw people as the style of spear is similar to those found in Ireland right into early Christian period ("“wouldn’t be out of place in the early medieval period” as the dude from National Museum said)

http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Iron-Spear-Head.jpg

MT1976
07-20-2015, 01:34 PM
Of course there was. Language is always changing. We are not speaking PIE today. Yet linguists recognise that PIE was ancestral to families of languages spoken today over a large spread of territory. This does not imply that PIE itself (in completely unchanged form) must have spread across that whole range of territory before it split into daughter languages. It is possible to deduce that changes in PIE that we might see as dialects began as groups of PIE speakers moved far enough from the homeland to be no longer in constant communication with the linguistic continuum. Eventually they would turn into daughter languages, but the process is not necessarily simple and local. Many regions of Europe seem to be a linguistic layer-cake, with different IE waves supplanting each other, rather than a neat sequence of the arrival of IE followed by local development into a daughter language. (This is without even considering non-IE substrate, and contacts between IE daughter languages as people moved around.)



I do not argue that case in Blood of the Celts. The distribution of Bell Beaker is a good fit to the regions in which we later encounter Celtic, Italic and Celto-Italic (if I may so term Lusitanian and Ligurian). I go for Late Bell Beaker as the point at which we might distinguish a form of Celtic in part of that range. The deduction is based mainly on Celtiberian, but you will have to await the book for details.


Jean, I agree with everything you've said. It is not my intention to convince you that Celtic really began to spread only in the LBA / Iron Age, for I'm not even certain that's true - for timing language is difficult. Its just that what Waddell, Mallory have written, and recent perspectives taking into account the role of convergence (but still maintaining the comparative, cladogenic framework), the sheer similarities of Celtic, and the sociocultural developments of the Iron Age (true chiefdoms, agricultural 'renaissance', population growth, proto-urbanism, and centralized production) are all very convincing to me.

Whatever the case, the networks of the BB had long changed. Whatever the pre-conditions for the Italic & Celtic peoples we encounter in sources, they were those of the Iron Age. Of course, some pre-cursor language(s) existed long before that. But for some reason, I can't get beyond the idea that IE only really made it to central-western Europe c. 2000 - 1500 BC.

alan
07-20-2015, 01:41 PM
Interesting stuff in that Koch link. Koch back when I first notice him contributing in papers in the late80s/early 90s had the more sensible idea of the general Atlantic trade network as linguistically important without the current emphasis on actually putting the origin in Iberia.

One thing that strikes me about that paper is the chronology seems to have shifted - perhaps based on more work - somewhat. Previously I had read in 'The Atlantic Iron Age' that the Atlantic network extended to Iberia around 1000-900BC rather than ending around then. However, my previous reading did suggest that the Atlantic Iberia linkage with the rest of the Atlantic Bronze networks to the north was a late and relatively brief thing last 200 years at most. A chronology seeing an end to Iberia in the Atlantic network c. 950BC or so does put it out of step with the Zenith of pre-Hallstatt Bronze Age to the north - which is the Dowris phase in Ireland. The interpretation seems to be in line with this interesting and very detailed paper on the Atlantic Bronze Age

http://www.academia.edu/1262855/Iberia_the_Atlantic_Bronze_Age_and_the_Mediterrane an

What I am curious of now is if they put the end of the Iberian participation in contacts with the northern Atlantic at that sort of date, when then do they put the start of its participation? That would be nice to know because obviously this would tell us when Celtic did arrive in Iberia in the Atlantic model. I am guessing that would push it back to maybe 1100BC plus or minus 50 years. If this is essentially drawing on the excellent paper I linked to above then it seems to be focussed around the 1100-900BC period.

Ignoring the actual concept of an origin for Celtic in Iberia, I still find that stuff very interesting. If their analysis is correct then Celtic was pretty well fully formed before this break off of Iberia before 950BC. That is no surprise to me and many but it is useful to see this supported. OK they missed a few post-900BC innovations but we are clearly talking Celtic. It also undermines the idea of Celt-Iberian culture as the main driver of Celtic via a slow penetration from the east Mesetta into Atlantic Iberian - something that is in line with my thoughts on this. Whatever one's preferred model if Celtic in the west of Iberia was linked to the increase in participation with the north-west of Europe c. 1100-950BC then that could arguably be the oldest good evidence for Celtic (minus a couple of minor changes in other Celtic languages) before 1000BC. On the other hand if Celtic in Atlantic Iberia is linked to sudden linking with the north Atlantic c. 1100BC then obviously 1100BC is as far back as Atlantic Iberian evidence can take us in terms of inferring the presence of early Celtic as the area was out of the loop prior to that.

Another inference of Celtic or Celtic shifts being linked to this Atlantic Bronze connection with the north-west is it obviously places Celtic in the isles and NW France by some point in that 1100-950BC framework. My strong suspicion is the movement of tandem dialect shifts to the isles was a long process of connections with northern France and central Europe that really intensified c. 1200BC where a lot of cultural the feasting, fighting, watery ritual deposition traits which really start giving echos of later Celtic society come very clear - even if there was hints of them earlier. Most of the warrior/feasting metalwork stemmed from links, but not apparently any migration above the usually marriages etc, with early Urnfield culture. So, I tend to be fairly comfortable with the idea that Celtic shifts were around by 1200BC in both central and north-west Europe through the process of inference. Earlier than that I just dont know - it could have been some pre-proto-Celtic phase.

Jean M
07-20-2015, 02:13 PM
Interesting stuff in that Koch link.

I've been picking up some of the papers he cites for the Mini-Library. Just been reading the Parker Pearson. So apposite to see him laying out the evidence for anti-war feeling influencing archaeological perspectives among Baby Boomers, which we were just talking about here the other day.

Jean M
07-20-2015, 02:27 PM
Jean, I agree with everything you've said. It is not my intention to convince you that Celtic really began to spread only in the LBA / Iron Age, for I'm not even certain that's true

There we are. We can't be certain of anything very much. But when you have been around here a bit longer, I think you will find that we welcome debate. It can be very helpful in clarifying ideas and evidence. Alan and Dubhthach are on a roll at the moment. I'm enjoying it. :)

alan
07-20-2015, 02:33 PM
I should note what's interesting in Ireland is that one of the oldest Iron weapons actually dates from period between 811BC and 673 BC. This is the Lackan spearhead found in the River Inny (Westmeath), it was dated by radio-carbon of fragments of ash in the spear socket. The date actually threw people as the style of spear is similar to those found in Ireland right into early Christian period ("“wouldn’t be out of place in the early medieval period” as the dude from National Museum said)

http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Iron-Spear-Head.jpg

its incredibly well preserved - would look good on my sideboard. iron appears to have killed the network Ireland was involved in with the last contacts being Hallstatt C. Ireland has a reasonable amount of Hallstatt C derived bits and pieces - mainly local copies of swords. Its then falls of the networking map until no earlier than 350BC. Hallstatt C is quite a long phase conventionally date to c. 800-650BC. I dont know exactly where in that the Irish Hallstatt C material falls. Certainly there is no Hallstatt D or early La Tene.

The evidence for pre-La Tene or non-La Tene area ironworking seems to be growing. There seems to be a lot of new iron age sites in Ireland that have iron slag and apart from glass beads (and structural/wooden remains) in some of them that is about it because there was no pottery. The problem is so little in the way of actual pre-La Tene iron finds to match this frequent evidence of iron working so we have very little idea of what styles they used. There are some final Bronze Age types in iron that look like they belong about 800BC and from memory one or two Hallstatt C looking bits. It would seem odd if they were still using styles from 800 or even 700BC in 300BC or later. One thing though that the iron slag probably does do is explain why bronzes seem to disappear from Hallstatt C to at least 350BC in Ireland. They may have massively switched to Iron - which of course usually doesnt preserve very well - that beautiful spearhead being an exception. Irish of course does have a word for iron which AFAIK is not a borrowing and I would guess this may have been one of the last words to arrive into Irish before the collapse at the end of the late Bronze Age.

Agamemnon
07-20-2015, 06:22 PM
I've said this before: It seems quite likely to me that the dissemination of Celtic from the LBA onwards took the form of an extensive language levelling process which saw the gradual assimilation of para-Celtic/para-Italic/para-Italo-Celtic dialects - which were eliminated through relexification and the gradual replacement of grammatical structures - and drove to the creation of a lingua franca of sorts. The sole languages which were left relatively untouched by this massive language levelling process were the (presumably para-Celtic) Ligurian and (presumably para-Italic) Lusitanian languages. Otherwise the striking lack of divergence between early Celtic dialects as well as their internal coherence cannot be properly explained.

vettor
07-20-2015, 07:21 PM
Ownership? Sounds like you feel that people are trying to take something away from you! :biggrin1: Nobody owns the term.

your map is a nonsense map if you are trying to have it used for both genetic and linguistic travels.
you do realise people ( samples ) where already farming in central europe ( Germany ) 7000 plus years ago, way before any celtic entry ( unless these farmers became "the celts" ) .

Was their any celtic in Rossen culture!?

Jean M
07-20-2015, 07:50 PM
your map is a nonsense map if you are trying to have it used for both genetic and linguistic travels. you do realise people ( samples ) where already farming in central europe ( Germany ) 7000 plus years ago, way before any celtic entry ...

Naturally I am aware of material that is both on my website and in my book, Ancestral Journeys. :biggrin1:

The sketch map in question is not illustrating genetics. It is not illustrating the settlement of Europe in the Neolithic, or the spread of dairy farming, including Rossen. If you would like maps of those migrations you will find them in Ancestral Journeys. The topic here is the Celts, who come later in time. Their language is Copper Age.

The sketchmap in question was requested by my editor at T&H as a visual aid to help readers with the complications of the linguistic layers I was describing in Iberia. It was put up here in answer to a query about the contact points between the developing Celtic and Germanic.

What exactly do you not understand?

Jean M
07-20-2015, 09:39 PM
Since some of the people reading this thread seem to be coming in at post 1, where I say I'm working on a book, I should perhaps explain that the book was finished a while ago. It will be published on 7 September in the UK. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Celts-The-Ancestral-Story/dp/0500051836

That was timed to coincide with the opening of the Celts exhibition at the British Museum. There will be a piece by me in Minerva magazine at the same time. Also the BBC will show a TV series on the Celts in the autumn.

MT1976
07-20-2015, 10:58 PM
I've said this before: It seems quite likely to me that the dissemination of Celtic from the LBA onwards took the form of an extensive language levelling process which saw the gradual assimilation of para-Celtic/para-Italic/para-Italo-Celtic dialects - which were eliminated through relexification and the gradual replacement of grammatical structures - and drove to the creation of a lingua franca of sorts. The sole languages which were left relatively untouched by this massive language levelling process were the (presumably para-Celtic) Ligurian and (presumably para-Italic) Lusitanian languages. Otherwise the striking lack of divergence between early Celtic dialects as well as their internal coherence cannot be properly explained.

I'd very much agree with that.

nuadha
07-20-2015, 11:01 PM
* ' thought to be responsible in large part for the spread of Indo-European to". Thought. But its colalteral branches Z2103 and M73 (next up) are found in largely non-IE groups ? How's that ? Is it , perhaps, not all R1b, or perhaps even any of them spoke PIE to begin with ? Could it be that language expansion isn't associated exclusively and solely with single Y haplogroups ?

Im having some trouble understanding what you are saying but if you are saying that L51 does not descend from yamnaya because we mostly find z2103 (which definitively does not lead to L51) then I would ask your to think on what you are actually saying.

There is probably a very good chance that not a single one of the yamnaya samples that came back r1b has a true living descendant today! However, we still say that the z2103 in bashkirs probably came from the yamnaya. The reason we say this is because the z2103 found in the bashkirs is necessarily very closely related to the z2103 found in those particular yamnaya samples. Because bashkir z2103 is so closely related to the yamnaya that have been sampled, we expect to find the actual paternal ancestors of the bashkirs in people who were very closely related to those particular yamnaya samples, i.e. OTHER YAMNAYA.

A similar argument can be made for L51 europeans who are clearly not the direct descendants of the yamnaya samples that came back z2103. Since L51 is so closely related to the z2103 found in the yamanaya samples, I, personally, expect to find L51 in people who were very closely related the yamnaya individuals who came out z2103. I believe those "closely related" people are the western yamnaya.

Given that z2103 and L23(xZ2103) have been found in yamnaya samples, where do you expect contemporary L51 lineages to have been located? Remember that the MRCA of z2103 and L51 was not long before the yamnaya, which means they only had so much time to separate. They could have taken off running away from each other but that is not something we should expect in a short amount of time and in a vacuum of migration indicators. However, once the yamnaya did spring up, we have solid evidence of yamnaya migration that could serve to separate L51 lineages far from z2103 lineages.

MT1976
07-20-2015, 11:50 PM
Im having some trouble understanding what you are saying but if you are saying that L51 does not descend from yamnaya because we mostly find z2103 (which definitively does not lead to L51) then I would ask your to think on what you are actually saying.

There is probably a very good chance that not a single one of the yamnaya samples that came back r1b has a true living descendant today! However, we still say that the z2103 in bashkirs probably came from the yamnaya. The reason we say this is because the z2103 found in the bashkirs is necessarily very closely related to the z2103 found in those particular yamnaya samples. Because bashkir z2103 is so closely related to the yamnaya that have been sampled, we expect to find the actual paternal ancestors of the bashkirs in people who were very closely related to those particular yamnaya samples, i.e. OTHER YAMNAYA.

A similar argument can be made for L51 europeans who are clearly not the direct descendants of the yamnaya samples that came back z2103. Since L51 is so closely related to the z2103 found in the yamanaya samples, I, personally, expect to find L51 in people who were very closely related the yamnaya individuals who came out z2103. I believe those "closely related" people are the western yamnaya.

Given that z2103 and L23(xZ2103) have been found in yamnaya samples, where do you expect contemporary L51 lineages to have been located? Remember that the MRCA of z2103 and L51 was not long before the yamnaya, which means they only had so much time to separate. They could have taken off running away from each other but that is not something we should expect in a short amount of time and in a vacuum of migration indicators. However, once the yamnaya did spring up, we have solid evidence of yamnaya migration that could serve to separate L51 lineages far from z2103 lineages.

Nuadha, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not questioning the phylogeny of R1b, or its eastern origin (although the to me it looks west asian rather than steppic- but that's a whole other story...)

What I am doubting is the a priori acceptance that R1b-M269 and derived lineages are "indo-european". It's an arguement based on circularity, and in fact, goes against a large bulk of evidence. Yet, it seems to be accepted as fact by bloggers and scholars alike.

nuadha
07-21-2015, 12:05 AM
Nuadha, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not questioning the phylogeny of R1b, or its eastern origin (although the to me it looks west asian rather than steppic- but that's a whole other story...)

What I am doubting is the uncritical acceptance that R1b-M269 and derived lineages are "indo-european". It's an arguement based on circularity, and in fact, goes against a large bulk of evidence. Yet, it seems to be accepted as fact by bloggers and "scholars" alike.

I think I see what you are saying. In that sense I agree. M269 was before IE even existed and for it to be entirely reclusive to the early IE world is doubtful during that time period is doubtful.

I think people equate m269 in the context of west europe because m269 looks like it was exactly the IE migrations that brought it there. The migrations to west europe in the late neolithic brought IE, r1b, and EHG. Hard to think they aren't all tied together.

As for where L51 came from... its way to hard to swallow a west asain origin especially given what we have above. But you are right, thats another discussion. Where do you think L23 emerged?

alan
07-21-2015, 12:34 AM
hypothetically even if Z2103 was THE PIE male line c. 3300BC, L51 shared a common ancestor with Z2103 only a millenium or so earlier so L51 would be speaking an a fairly close cousin language to PIE- certainly not utterly unrelated language in the middle east. Put it this way many claim Anatolian is from a steppe split off nearly 1000 years before Yamnaya so that is the sort of divergence of language in that sort of timescale - not the difference between PIE and totally unrelated SW Asian languages

MT1976
07-21-2015, 12:35 AM
I think I see what you are saying. In that sense I agree. M269 was before IE even existed and for it to be entirely reclusive to the early IE world is doubtful during that time period is doubtful.

I think people equate m269 in the context of west europe because m269 looks like it was exactly the IE migrations that brought it there. The migrations to west europe in the late neolithic brought IE, r1b, and EHG. Hard to think they aren't all tied together.

As for where L51 came from... its way to hard to swallow a west asain origin especially given what we have above. But you are right, thats another discussion. Where do you think L23 emerged?

�� now you get me
I certainly think L23 is steppic(or an offshoot), but I'm not sure about M269, and certainly doubt that M297 is.
Yes, as for the linguistic correlates, it's off topic, although not wholly so- in light of my comments that I believe BB had nothing to do with celtic. Perhaps some Lingua Franca was used amongst the BB elite, and kin, but was it even IE ? Are we are post-hoc attributing IE with european R1b ?
(And in certainly aware of the apparent "correlation" between genetics, linguistic a and archaeology; and consensus which exists )
But I certainly look forward to future discourse.

MT1976
07-21-2015, 12:46 AM
hypothetically even if Z2103 was THE PIE male line c. 3300BC, L51 shared a common ancestor with Z2103 only a millenium or so earlier so L51 would be speaking an a fairly close cousin language to PIE- certainly not utterly unrelated language in the middle east. Put it this way many claim Anatolian is from a steppe split off nearly 1000 years before Yamnaya so that is the sort of divergence of language in that sort of timescale - not the difference between PIE and totally unrelated SW Asian languages

Im not saying Z2103 was the PiE line, at the exclusion of L51. Rather, I'm doubting the very equation of M269= PiE in toto.
Alan, have you heard of a lineage called PF 7558 and its distribution ? I also draw attention to the character of pre-Neolitihic steppe society, and it's sociolinguistic implications...

newtoboard
07-21-2015, 12:56 AM
hypothetically even if Z2103 was THE PIE male line c. 3300BC, L51 shared a common ancestor with Z2103 only a millenium or so earlier so L51 would be speaking an a fairly close cousin language to PIE- certainly not utterly unrelated language in the middle east. Put it this way many claim Anatolian is from a steppe split off nearly 1000 years before Yamnaya so that is the sort of divergence of language in that sort of timescale - not the difference between PIE and totally unrelated SW Asian languages

But Yamnaya doesn't represent PIE speakers but likely just one branch of IE.

alan
07-21-2015, 08:22 AM
But Yamnaya doesn't represent PIE speakers but likely just one branch of IE.

I agree. I was just making an abstract point about L23 that if we are correlating yDNA and languages and Z2103 is clearly a major Yamnaya PIE clade then even if L51 was not also PIE (which I dont believe) it would at least have a closely related language given the shared L23 ancestor a millenia or so before. I was only using Anatolian as an example of what Anthony's model IDs as the language of a steppe group who split off into Old Europe c. 1000 years before Yamnaya arose and which entered Old Europe 1300 years before Yamnaya followed it there to indicate the sort of language divergence that that sort of depth of split indicates. In reality it of course doesnt work that way and the evidence seems pretty clear that PIE wasnt an entirely Z2103 thing of course and L51 and R1a was involved.

alan
07-21-2015, 08:47 AM
�� now you get me
I certainly think L23 is steppic(or an offshoot), but I'm not sure about M269, and certainly doubt that M297 is.
Yes, as for the linguistic correlates, it's off topic, although not wholly so- in light of my comments that I believe BB had nothing to do with celtic. Perhaps some Lingua Franca was used amongst the BB elite, and kin, but was it even IE ? Are we are post-hoc attributing IE with european R1b ?
(And in certainly aware of the apparent "correlation" between genetics, linguistic a and archaeology; and consensus which exists )
But I certainly look forward to future discourse.

the possibility remains that M269 or L23 could have come from the north Caucasus element that was important in the genesis of Yamnaya and can also be seen as an influence on Repin in the genesis of Yamnaya. Yamnaya is genetically some sort of steppe-Caucasus hybrid. However this just seems very unlikely because we have R1b in the Samara hunters.

It probably would be more fruitful to consider the origin of R1b Samara hunters and what their connection were with the rest of the steppe. One thing I dont think has really been discussed properly is the fact Yamnaya came from Repin which originated on the Don not Samara. So, there is evidence of R1b both in Samara before the Yamnaya expansion and of course on the Don in the genesis zone of Yamnaya. That suggests to me that R1b in general had a considerable spread on the steppes before 4000BC for it to be in both the Don and Samara.

Samara is too far east for even Sredny Stog to explain how R1b could be in both Samara hunters and on the Don c. 4000BC when Repin started forming and of course we are talking different clades . So whatever put R1b in an upstream form among Samara hunters and L23 in Repin-Yamanaya probably by 4000BC is suggestive that we need to look well back in time to explain R1b in general on the steppes. There is a possibility that right at the origin of Sredny Stog it has been suggested that burial practices indicate an origin at the east end of the Euro steppes. So perhaps that is the common thread but given the upstream form of the Samara hunter it could be a much earlier spread any time back as far as the Mesolithic. Clearly the gap between the Samara hunter and the Yamnaya samples after 3300BC seriously hampers our understanding of R1b's steppe history.

Jean M
07-21-2015, 10:05 AM
Would it be at all possible to return this thread to the Celts?

alan
07-21-2015, 10:49 AM
I was going to say, one thing that sets Celtic apart from many IE languages is their incredible extent as reconstructed from various sources. Almost all other IE languages outside the steppes were far more confined at the opening of history and what makes the Celtic language spread even more amazing is that they were not an empire or united polity. In many areas Celtic seems to be present where there is no good evidence for major post-beaker migration. So, the sort of demographic folk movement expansions we see later in Germanic and Slavic dont fit. Neither does an empire model such as spread Latin. Its a very different case where a significant chunk of Celtic's spread seems to be more an evolution in parallel or convergence through networking of a pre-proto-Celtic, proto-Celtic-Italic or even west IE base. Its a different fish from the spread of Latin, Germanic and Slavic.

vettor
07-21-2015, 09:28 PM
Naturally I am aware of material that is both on my website and in my book, Ancestral Journeys. :biggrin1:

The sketch map in question is not illustrating genetics. It is not illustrating the settlement of Europe in the Neolithic, or the spread of dairy farming, including Rossen. If you would like maps of those migrations you will find them in Ancestral Journeys. The topic here is the Celts, who come later in time. Their language is Copper Age.

The sketchmap in question was requested by my editor at T&H as a visual aid to help readers with the complications of the linguistic layers I was describing in Iberia. It was put up here in answer to a query about the contact points between the developing Celtic and Germanic.

What exactly do you not understand?

I understand this..........that you placed the wording of celto-italic in pannonia when you know that it is untrue, even your link to balkan celts site ( ie, eastern celts ) show no signs of celts in eastern europe before 300BC...............
The mostly likely area of the first celtic happened in modern Germany

it would be better if you removed that false terminology and rename it something else and not lead people astray. ( note: I have people asking me if its true that celts went into italy via hungary/slovenia before iron-age as per your map , how do I answer this ?)

Jean M
07-21-2015, 09:53 PM
you placed the wording of celto-italic in pannonia when you know that it is untrue, even your link to balkan celts site ( ie, eastern celts ) show no signs of celts in eastern europe before 300BC............... The mostly likely area of the first celtic happened in modern Germany

Aha! You think Italo-Celtic is a form of Celtic? I suspect that misunderstanding does crop up among non-linguists. I therefore explained clearly in the forthcoming book:


The Celtic and Italic language families have similarities that suggest a common ancestor more recent than the parent of all Indo-European languages.... So some linguists argue for a common ancestor for the two families, which they call Proto-Italo-Celtic. Non linguists have sometimes misunderstood this to mean 'a type of Celtic'. So it needs to be clearly stated that it is not. It is the proposed ancestor of both language families. The alternative explanation for their shared features is that Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic developed in such close proximity that they influenced each other.

Where I have "Celtic" on the map (north of the Alps) is where I presume Celtic developed out of the parent language. I do not have Celts entering Italy on the map. I have Italo-Celtic, the deduced ancestor of Italic (as well as Celtic).

vettor
07-22-2015, 12:52 AM
Aha! You think Italo-Celtic is a form of Celtic? I suspect that misunderstanding does crop up among non-linguists. I therefore explained clearly in the forthcoming book:



Where I have "Celtic" on the map (north of the Alps) is where I presume Celtic developed out of the parent language. I do not have Celts entering Italy on the map. I have Italo-Celtic, the deduced ancestor of Italic (as well as Celtic).

The misunderstanding is that it is presented to people for them to see and then what!, decide.

The celto-italic entry via the Julian mountains/alps is what I am talking about, we all know that they are proto-Illyric towns, they are in in slovenia, friuli etc , towns like Opitergium , Tergeste and others. Even though these towns are more modern in the BC times, the syntax was never celtic.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6dgC37IqYW0C&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=illyrian+Tergeste&source=bl&ots=E6ZfjiSmMI&sig=nhGLPGn0p3YNuicBBPyxuGv7neA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIqJT97sHtxgIVQamUCh3GWQIi#v=on epage&q=illyrian%20Tergeste&f=false

maybe you should read
L'ultimo Cesare: scritti, riforme, progetti, congiure : atti del convegno ...
edited by Gianpaolo Urso ...............It's in English text

MT1976
07-22-2015, 06:03 AM
I was going to say, one thing that sets Celtic apart from many IE languages is their incredible extent as reconstructed from various sources. Almost all other IE languages outside the steppes were far more confined at the opening of history and what makes the Celtic language spread even more amazing is that they were not an empire or united polity. In many areas Celtic seems to be present where there is no good evidence for major post-beaker migration. So, the sort of demographic folk movement expansions we see later in Germanic and Slavic dont fit. Neither does an empire model such as spread Latin. Its a very different case where a significant chunk of Celtic's spread seems to be more an evolution in parallel or convergence through networking of a pre-proto-Celtic, proto-Celtic-Italic or even west IE base. Its a different fish from the spread of Latin, Germanic and Slavic.

I too think this is one of the best questions ! I have my theories, and Ive intimated it has to do with Iron Age events, but not any one single factor. Centralization, the "oppida" culture and much more. But one crucial factor was the 'globalization' seen in Europe, and the creation of a 'barbarian hinterland' beyond the Mediterranean-ized south. COuld an 'us' vs 'them' factor be operant ? Sure migrations (undoubtedly tautologic in literary sources) played a part, but also we must consider the acceptance of a 'la Tene cultural template" (c/- D Dzino) - a warrior ethnos - selectively incorporated into the repertoire of local chiefs. Celtic swords and names adapted as status symbols, without going so far as actually "becoming Celtic" in toto

Dubhthach
07-22-2015, 07:09 AM
Well lets look at Ireland, the highest concentration of Ogham stones (eg. inscriptions in Archaic Irish -- closest written language to Gaulish of inscriptions) are found in areas with least amount of La Tene influence in period after 300BC. IF anything these areas (Munster -- specifically the South West) maintained a seperated legal tradition right up until the Viking era, which appears to have focus around trade/argicultural economy with position of "priest-King" (a tradition reflected in the "King-Bishop's" in Cashel).

In comparison the area which shows the most La Tene influence in period after 300BC (Leath Cuinn -- the half of Conn) shows considerably different form of lordship (one based around "swordland" of warrior elite -- Féni ) with legal tradition that reflects this (Senchas Mór).

What appears to be case is we have continuity in Munster, whereas in Leath Cuinn there's obviously input from Northern Britain.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/ogham-map.png

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/irelandlpria.jpg

Of course it reminds me about the story of what dialects of Irish were spoken in the Garden of Eden ;)

Eve spoke Ulster Irish because it was the sweetest
Adam spoke Connacht Irish because it was most correct
God spoke Munster Irish cause it had the most authority
And the Devil spoke Leinster Irish (the joke here is that when story was written down, Leinster was mostly English speaking ;) )

Jean M
07-22-2015, 09:18 AM
The misunderstanding is that it is presented to people for them to see and then what!, decide..

Vettor - I agree with you entirely that it was a huge mistake in me to actually put sketch maps online here prior to the book's publication, because out of context they may be misunderstood. However, since I cannot go back in time and erase the sketch map, let us struggle on until it becomes clearer. If there are other people puzzled by it, then your posts are helping them to understand as well.

Firstly Proto-Italo-Celtic WAS NOT CELTIC. It is much more like Italic. The changes that distinguish Celtic had not happened at that time.


3100-2800 BC: Massive Yamnaya movement up the Danube. This was in effect an extension of the Yamnaya culture area, which lasted a long time. I presume that they were speaking Alteuropäisch/Old European IE (which some people prefer to call Northwestern IE). The ancestor to Proto-Illyrian may have branched off Old European at this time, as groups moved out of the Danube valley into the western Balkans. That is what I suggest in AJ, though later movements up the Danube could also have contributed to its formation. Scholars are very undecided about Illyrian.
2200-1700 BC: Late Bell Beaker. This is the period and culture in which I suggest that early Celtic, Italic and Ligurian were in the process of development from Proto-Italo-Celtic, or you could call it Proto-Celto-Italic if you are more comfortable with that. Or you could call it something-a-bit-nearer-to-Italic-than Old-European.
600–460 BC: Final Hallstatt (Hallstatt D). We have inscriptions in Lepontic (one branch of Celtic) in what is now northern Italy. The people who spoke it are presumed to have arrived through Alpine passes from the Celtic homeland north of the Alps.
150 AD: the Greco-Roman geographer Ptolemy wrote his Geography, which is the basis for the maps of tribes with which you are familiar. These tribes were the end result of masses of movement over centuries. They were not living in the exact same place as their ancestors of 3000 BC. It does not make sense to assume that if you see a tribe on the map of 150 AD, that this tribe had been there forever. The past is full of change.

*Proto-Illyrian is the deduced ancestor of a group of languages spoken at one time in the Balkans. It was the language spoken just before it split into separate Illyrian languages. Proto-Illyrian (the ancestor) was not spoken in the Roman period. So there were no such things as Proto-Illyric towns in the Roman period. There were Illyrian towns.

alan
07-22-2015, 09:21 AM
I was going to say, one thing that sets Celtic apart from many IE languages is their incredible extent as reconstructed from various sources. Almost all other IE languages outside the steppes were far more confined at the opening of history and what makes the Celtic language spread even more amazing is that they were not an empire or united polity. In many areas Celtic seems to be present where there is no good evidence for major post-beaker migration. So, the sort of demographic folk movement expansions we see later in Germanic and Slavic dont fit. Neither does an empire model such as spread Latin. Its a very different case where a significant chunk of Celtic's spread seems to be more an evolution in parallel or convergence through networking of a pre-proto-Celtic, proto-Celtic-Italic or even west IE base. Its a different fish from the spread of Latin, Germanic and Slavic.

One very overlooked part of the way large areas seem to have evolve to Celtic in tandem is elite alliance marriage and fosterage - the traditional ways patriarchal and patrilocal Gaelic society appears to have established friendly alliances with other tribes. The impact of mothers coming from other tribes and elite fosterage (where the elites of different tribes kind of swapped children until they reached adulthood) cannot be overestimated in spreading subtle lingusitic changes, ideas and fashions. A good historic example of the influence is when Malcolm Canmore king of Scots married the saxon princess Margaret. She is said to have started the ball rolling on new ideas coming in and been behind the changes of the Scottish church to reflect more standard continental forms.

vettor
07-22-2015, 09:42 AM
Vettor - I agree with you entirely that it was a huge mistake in me to actually put sketch maps online here prior to the book's publication, because out of context they may be misunderstood.

However, since I cannot go back in time and erase the sketch map from your mind, let us struggle on until it becomes clearer to you. Firstly please try to understand that Proto-Italo-Celtic WAS NOT CELTIC. It is much more like Italic. The differences that distinguish Celtic had not happened at that time.


3100-2800 BC: Massive Yamnaya movement up the Danube. This was in effect an extension of the Yamnaya culture area, which lasted a long time. I presume that they were speaking Alteuropäisch/Old European IE (which some people prefer to call Northwestern IE). The ancestor to Proto-Illyrian may have branched off Old European at this time, as groups moved out of the Danube valley into the western Balkans. That is what I suggest in AJ, though later movements up the Danube could also have contributed to its formation.
2200-1700 BC: Late Bell Beaker. This is the period and culture in which I suggest that early Celtic, Italic and Ligurian were in the process of development from Proto-Italo-Celtic, or you could call it Proto-Celto-Italic if you are more comfortable with that. Or you could call it something-a-bit-nearer-to-Italic-than Old-European.
600–460 BC: Final Hallstatt (Hallstatt D). We have inscriptions in Lepontic (one branch of Celtic) in what is now northern Italy. The people who spoke it are presumed to have arrived through Alpine passes from the Celtic homeland north of the Alps.
150 AD: the Greco-Roman geographer Ptolemy wrote his Geography, which is the basis for the maps of tribes with which you are familiar. These tribes were the end result of masses of movement over centuries. They were not living in the exact same place as their ancestors of 3000 BC.


I agree with most of what you state with the following queries

1 - was proto-celtic already created on the northern side of the alps and the migration of these through the passes of the alps to lepontic lands create the celto-italic language?

2 - celtic with the language or not!
The raeti and their non-celtic elements became celtic by tongue by Augustus time as written by Livy

The veneti had been so Celticized that Polybius wrote that the Veneti of the 2nd century BC were identical to the Celts except for language.

Celticization in Pannonia began as early as the 4th century BC.[2]La Tene type finds are characteristic in Pre-Roman Pannonia[3] and are considered a marker to variations in the degree of Celticization.Among the Illyrian tribes some were Celticized to varying degrees(some completely) like the Pannoni[4][5] and the Dalmatae.[6][7

And lastly , the southern Balkans and the celts there............. Celts had the goods to say they where celts but not the language to be designated as such.

To conclude, people draw a very fine line in trying to distinguish what a real CELT was in BC times

alan
07-22-2015, 09:44 AM
Vettor - I agree with you entirely that it was a huge mistake in me to actually put sketch maps online here prior to the book's publication, because out of context they may be misunderstood.

However, since I cannot go back in time and erase the sketch map from your mind, let us struggle on until it becomes clearer to you. Firstly please try to understand that Proto-Italo-Celtic WAS NOT CELTIC. It is much more like Italic. The differences that distinguish Celtic had not happened at that time. The time scale here is deep in the past.


3100-2800 BC: Massive Yamnaya movement up the Danube. This was in effect an extension of the Yamnaya culture area, which lasted a long time. I presume that they were speaking Alteuropäisch/Old European IE (which some people prefer to call Northwestern IE). The ancestor to Proto-Illyrian may have branched off Old European at this time, as groups moved out of the Danube valley into the western Balkans. That is what I suggest in AJ, though later movements up the Danube could also have contributed to its formation.
2200-1700 BC: Late Bell Beaker. This is the period and culture in which I suggest that early Celtic, Italic and Ligurian were in the process of development from Proto-Italo-Celtic, or you could call it Proto-Celto-Italic if you are more comfortable with that. Or you could call it something-a-bit-nearer-to-Italic-than Old-European.
1200-750 BC: Bronze Age Hallstatt (Hallstatt A & B ). This is the period and culture in which most scholars feel comfortable in presuming that Celtic was spoken.
600–460 BC: Final Hallstatt (Hallstatt D). We have inscriptions in Lepontic (one branch of Celtic) in what is now northern Italy. The people who spoke it are presumed to have arrived through Alpine passes from the Celtic homeland north of the Alps.


I think anyone expecting exact dates etc is misunderstanding the nature of languages. While elites across north-west and central Europe were constantly interacting as we can see in metalwork fashions, there was probably a constant process of subtle changes going on. The whole Bronze Age shows that pattern. I imagine the shifts which came to form Celtic slowly arose and spread and stacked up towards the proto-Celtic across the whole Bronze Age. However, the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age evidence to me suggests the process of reaching the reconstructed proto-Celtic was essentially complete at some point prior to 950BC bar some very trivial shifts and I am pretty sure therefore that something virtually identical to proto-Celtic had formed by 1200BC.

What seems not to be spoken a lot about is the pre-proto Celtic phases - that period between proto-celtic and perhaps Italo-Celtic. I think that was probably a long period. I reckon this because Italic seems to essentially be a southern European branch even including Liguruan, Lusitanian etc while Celtic clearly was present in central and Alpine Europe at a pretty early date reasoning back from Golasecca, Lepontic etc. It gets tricky to find the common Italo-Celtic ancestor after the beaker ear IMO.

Jean M
07-22-2015, 10:38 AM
1 - was proto-celtic already created on the northern side of the alps and the migration of these through the passes of the alps to lepontic lands create the celto-italic language?

Yes and no. I presume that Proto-Celtic arose on the north side of the Alps. Lepontic was a Celtic language, not Celto-Italic. Celto-Italic was long gone by this time. Celto-Italic was just a stage in development in between Old European and the Italic and Celtic families, plus Ligurian, Lusitanian. (Some linguists don't even recognise a Celto-Italic stage! But I don't want to confuse matters even more.)


2 - celtic with the language or not!

My definition of a Celt is someone who spoke a Celtic language. That excludes people speaking related languages not classified as Celtic. Yes it gets very complicated when groups of Celts merge with the speakers of other languages.

MT1976
07-22-2015, 10:40 AM
Well lets look at Ireland, the highest concentration of Ogham stones (eg. inscriptions in Archaic Irish -- closest written language to Gaulish of inscriptions) are found in areas with least amount of La Tene influence in period after 300BC. IF anything these areas (Munster -- specifically the South West) maintained a seperated legal tradition right up until the Viking era, which appears to have focus around trade/argicultural economy with position of "priest-King" (a tradition reflected in the "King-Bishop's" in Cashel).

In comparison the area which shows the most La Tene influence in period after 300BC (Leath Cuinn -- the half of Conn) shows considerably different form of lordship (one based around "swordland" of warrior elite -- Féni ) with legal tradition that reflects this (Senchas Mór).

What appears to be case is we have continuity in Munster, whereas in Leath Cuinn there's obviously input from Northern Britain.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/ogham-map.png

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/irelandlpria.jpg

Of course it reminds me about the story of what dialects of Irish were spoken in the Garden of Eden ;)

Eve spoke Ulster Irish because it was the sweetest
Adam spoke Connacht Irish because it was most correct
God spoke Munster Irish cause it had the most authority
And the Devil spoke Leinster Irish (the joke here is that when story was written down, Leinster was mostly English speaking ;) )

Hi Dubhthach

Sorry, who/ what were you replying to ?

MT1976
07-22-2015, 10:43 AM
One very overlooked part of the way large areas seem to have evolve to Celtic in tandem is elite alliance marriage and fosterage - the traditional ways patriarchal and patrilocal Gaelic society appears to have established friendly alliances with other tribes. The impact of mothers coming from other tribes and elite fosterage (where the elites of different tribes kind of swapped children until they reached adulthood) cannot be overestimated in spreading subtle lingusitic changes, ideas and fashions. A good historic example of the influence is when Malcolm Canmore king of Scots married the saxon princess Margaret. She is said to have started the ball rolling on new ideas coming in and been behind the changes of the Scottish church to reflect more standard continental forms.

Yep. In fact, isn't that how Pictish was replaced by Gaels--Scottish in a broader sense ? No mass extinction of Picts

MT1976
07-22-2015, 10:47 AM
Aha! You think Italo-Celtic is a form of Celtic? I suspect that misunderstanding does crop up among non-linguists. I therefore explained clearly in the forthcoming book:



Where I have "Celtic" on the map (north of the Alps) is where I presume Celtic developed out of the parent language. I do not have Celts entering Italy on the map. I have Italo-Celtic, the deduced ancestor of Italic (as well as Celtic).

Another possible arguement against Italo-Celtic idea is that some (?most) of the pre-proto-Italic langauges arrived in Italy trans-Adriatically. Certainly, this has been suggested in The beginnings of Rome, and something Ihad also presonally long entertained, esp if one considers that the bulk of Italic (thus IE) languages are splayed in eastern Italy, with Etruscan a solid northwest block, and Raetian in the north (perhaps originally more extensive prior to advent of Celtic, and Venetic - which some consider as 'para-Celtic').

Jean M
07-22-2015, 11:28 AM
Yep. In fact, isn't that how Pictish was replaced by Gaels--Scottish in a broader sense ? No mass extinction of Picts

It is wildly unlikely that there was a mass extinction of Picts, and it looks very much as though certain key marriages played a large part in the change of language of the Pictish court and the amalgamation of Pictavia and Dál Riata into the Kingdom of Alba.

Jean M
07-22-2015, 11:46 AM
Another possible argument against Italo-Celtic idea is that some (?most) of the pre-proto-Italic languages arrived in Italy trans-Adriatically.

Linguistic arguments can only be settled by linguists from linguistic evidence. :)

MT1976
07-22-2015, 12:51 PM
Linguistic arguments can only be settled by linguists from linguistic evidence. :)

Of course. But even us common folk can dare to offer insights.

Jean M
07-22-2015, 01:42 PM
Of course. But even us common folk can dare to offer insights.

Multi-disciplinary approaches are most healthy where they are founded on mutual respect and understanding of what each discipline can offer. Each discipline has its own technique and should attempt to resolve a question using that technique. If scholars of another discipline come to the same conclusion independently, that adds to our confidence in the conclusion. In some cases one discipline must give way to another, for example history gives way to archaeology when we enter prehistory. But place-name evidence offers another vista into a time before writing. I don't believe in throwing away good evidence, or trying to argue it away.

alan
07-22-2015, 02:20 PM
It is wildly unlikely that there was a mass extinction of Picts, and it looks very much as though certain key marriages played a large part in the change of language of the Pictish court and the amalgamation of Pictavia and Dál Riata into the Kingdom of Alba.

I also doubt mass migration but there must have been at least a modest one - the main Gaelic replacement system seems to be based on a sept taking over leadership and then the usual downward squeeze from its super-breeders at the top. How far that could go in the period c. 850 to say 1100 when some key power roles were passed to Anglo-Normans and other non-Gaels in north-east Scotland is unknown. A reasonable chunk of the elite even in the east remained Gaelic long after the Norman settlements - for example the Gilchrists in Fife.

alan
07-22-2015, 02:31 PM
It is wildly unlikely that there was a mass extinction of Picts, and it looks very much as though certain key marriages played a large part in the change of language of the Pictish court and the amalgamation of Pictavia and Dál Riata into the Kingdom of Alba.

The Gaels seem to have had a knack of somehow expanding from small beginnings on rough lands to the west and somehow overcoming long established more advanced groups on better lands in the east. This is of course the story of the Ui Neill in the period c. 400AD for many centuries. A lot of this spreading of power does seem to be the sept expansion and fission over many many centuries. Problem is if it wasnt for historical records noone would know it ever happened. Its archaeologically invisible. Another slightly different example of this unexpected expansion from a western marginal tribe is the DalgCais who went from very little to High Kings in a century or two. However by that time they had somewhat more sophisticated mechanism and did not have to re-populate areas with their own clans to gain power. I think this second example is probably a closer parallel to the fall of the Picts.

Jean M
07-22-2015, 05:38 PM
I also doubt mass migration but there must have been at least a modest one

I was arguing against mass extinction in fact. But I do feel that the migration into Scotland was probably more drawn out and complex than a huge great army running up the beaches at one particular point in time. The story of Dál Riata alone involves several different kindreds.

MT1976
07-22-2015, 11:12 PM
Multi-disciplinary approaches are most healthy where they are founded on mutual respect and understanding of what each discipline can offer. Each discipline has its own technique and should attempt to resolve a question using that technique. If scholars of another discipline come to the same conclusion independently, that adds to our confidence in the conclusion. In some cases one discipline must give way to another, for example history gives way to archaeology when we enter prehistory. But place-name evidence offers another vista into a time before writing. I don't believe in throwing away good evidence, or trying to argue it away.

Yes of course. I don;t think anyone would want to sideline any single piece of evidence - everything is useful. We just have to be realistic with what it claims to reconstruct. IMO, for too long it has been viewed as an unadulterated mirror to the past. I question this. I don't think toponyms are as conservative as linguists make them out to be, nor are the a straightfrward ethno-lkinguistic reflection , either.

For point 1, lets look at the Old European' water names of northwest PIE. How do we really know when they date from ? 3000 BC or more like 1500 BC ?? It's not secret which I'd favour. Nor is it admitted that even in antiquity, only a handful or rivers are actually named. Linguists disagree amongst themselves as to which morpho-syntactic features should be deemed "most ancient".

Secondly, lets look at reading toponyms for ethnic ascription. Are they a simple reflection of ethnicity of the autoochthonous groups which lived there ? My answer is most certainly not. EG. The -walhas place names in southern Germany, Austria. Long thought to represent ares of survival of Roman populations, this is demonstrably false. We know actually many of those settlements were first founded after any supposed Roman occupation, or at least after significant hiatus. And their naming as such didn;t have anythign to do with how "Roman" the population was, but rather that such settlements were created by nobles as land-gifts, with the term walhas- now referring to nobility, rather than any direct link with actual Romans.

Placenames are far more complex than given credit for by most. whole lot of socio and psycho lingusitic factors impact this drastically.

Jean M
07-23-2015, 10:22 AM
I don't think anyone would want to sideline any single piece of evidence - everything is useful. We just have to be realistic with what it claims to reconstruct. IMO, for too long it has been viewed as an unadulterated mirror to the past. I question this.

In any discipline, you will find scholars presenting new evidence and proposing new viewpoints. You will find disagreement and debate. This is the lifeblood of scholarship. It is how we move forward. It happens all the time in history, archaeology, linguistics, genetics and climatology (all used in my current work). It happens even in what are regarded as the hard sciences. We do not stand still. The pursuit of knowledge is a process. Knowledge is not finite. Scholars are engaged in pushing back its boundaries.

Some archaeologists like to think that archaeology presents "hard evidence" as opposed the mere words that linguists, historians and etymologists deal in. Material remains seem to them more solid. However top minds in the field are under no such illusion. Barry Cunliffe was fond of telling his students that there is no such thing as a fact in archaeology. There are interpretations of the data. Those interpretations may change as we gain more data, or new perspectives on it.

A change of perspective within a discipline is therefore absolutely normal. The idea that such change disqualifies a discipline from utility is the type of naive anti-science that thrived in the intellectual mush of Post-Modernism.

MT1976
07-23-2015, 10:38 AM
In any discipline, you will find scholars presenting new evidence and proposing new viewpoints. You will find disagreement and debate. This is the lifeblood of scholarship. It is how we move forward. It happens all the time in history, archaeology, linguistics, genetics and climatology (all used in my current work). It happens even in what are regarded as the hard sciences. We do not stand still. The pursuit of knowledge is a process. Knowledge is not finite. Scholars are engaged in pushing back its boundaries.

Some archaeologists like to think that archaeology presents "hard evidence" as opposed the mere words that linguists, historians and etymologists deal in. Material remains seem to them more solid. However top minds in the field are under no such illusion. Barry Cunliffe was fond of telling his students that there is no such thing as a fact in archaeology. There are interpretations of the data. Those interpretations may change as we gain more data, or new perspectives on it.

A change of perspective within a discipline is therefore absolutely normal. The idea that such change disqualifies a discipline from utility is the type of naive anti-science that thrived in the intellectual mush of Post-Modernism.

One cannot but agree with such wise words.

vettor
07-23-2015, 07:38 PM
Yep. In fact, isn't that how Pictish was replaced by Gaels--Scottish in a broader sense ? No mass extinction of Picts

While Gaelic has Celtic elements, I do not recall pictish to have any Celtic elements.

But according to Scottish historians, the merger of Gaelic west Scotland with Pictish east Scotland created the people know as Scots in circa 980AD

Jean M
07-23-2015, 07:45 PM
While Gaelic has Celtic elements, I do not recall pictish to have any Celtic elements.

Gaelic is a Celtic language. Pictish was a P-Celtic language. There once was (back in the 1950s) a dotty idea that because some place-names in the former Pictish area seem more ancient than Pictish, that some of the Picts were actually speaking (in historical times) a pre-IE language. The insanity of this was pointed out in the 1970s. The dotty idea has gone away. In fact it has gone away so completely that I don't even bother to mention it in Blood of the Celts. You can read about the Picts here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml

pablobertran
07-23-2015, 09:59 PM
Awesome book!
Congrats

will be translated into spanish ?

Jean M
07-24-2015, 08:49 AM
Awesome book! ... will be translated into spanish ?

I don't know yet. It will only happen if a Spanish publisher is interested in bringing out a translation.

MT1976
07-24-2015, 12:09 PM
Gaelic is a Celtic language. Pictish was a P-Celtic language. There once was (back in the 1950s) a dotty idea that because some place-names in the former Pictish area seem more ancient than Pictish, that some of the Picts were actually speaking (in historical times) a pre-IE language. The insanity of this was pointed out in the 1970s. The dotty idea has gone away. In fact it has gone away so completely that I don't even bother to mention it in Blood of the Celts. You can read about the Picts here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml

So now concensus overwhelmingly favours that Pictish was indeed IE, - and Celtic ?

Jean M
07-24-2015, 01:42 PM
So now concensus overwhelmingly favours that Pictish was indeed IE, - and Celtic ?

That is indeed the consensus and has been since Katherine Forsyth, Language in Pictland (1997). (I misremembered the date.) As she points out (in more tactful language), there is a long history of wild and wacky ideas about the Picts. In my previous post, I picked out Kenneth Jackson's contribution in 1955.

glentane
07-24-2015, 07:57 PM
Jackson's speculative leap was prompted by professional bafflement at the difficulty reading the few identifiably Early Christian period inscriptions retrieved from the area historically linked to Picts. Ogam is notorious for being easily mis-transcribed when damaged by age, and possibly less-than-consummate literacy by the carvers in the first place. So Jackson simply chucked out a tentative explanation in his contribution to that 1955 Iron Age symposium (that I've forgotten the name of), more in despair than conviction I suspect. "Mostly gibberish" was his conclusion, with a few recognisable celtic aspects, names and so on that he could recognise, as that was his trade.
It fitted at the time because nobody really cared all that much. He was a linguist, not an archaeologist (although his department was only a few doors down the west side of George Square from the Archaeology Dept. at the time, so I doubt much escaped his notice on that front).
It's those who took it and ran with it that I have trouble understanding.
Other Edinburgh professors have gone valiantly much, much further into the weeds, attempting to thrash meaning from such opaque material. Anybody remember Anthony Jackson's book on codifying symbol-stones?

Some of the Northern Isles scratchings do, it must be admitted, seem to have the tiniest traces of some germanic input, possibly Old Norse. Not a surprise, to do with kinship or personal names with no easy gaelic (N.B. I meant that) equivalent. They're very late, Class II with Christian motifs.

Forsyth seems to have staked this particular non-IE nightmare pretty conclusively through the heart, so we can all breathe easy. Although she is very much a gaeligore in my opinion, and very logically defaults to that position to paper over the cracks.

Problem is, not that the Picts were savages, but that they were rather more at ease in their (elite) literacy than many of their observing neighbours, and habitually wrote in Church Latin and constantly-morphing (due to the political situation) Cymric/Pictish/Gaelic in insular latinate script as a matter of course, on parchment (even papyrus has been detected, used by coin-forgers as slips in moulds, and presumably not imported solely for that purpose), and reserved ogam for banging and scratching memorials/names into very hard rocks, bone and probably wood, a purpose to which like runes it was admirably suited as a technique, and possibly by a different class of writer, non-clerical. Differential survival of the record has horribly skewed our archaeological perception of their language.

Jean M
07-24-2015, 08:07 PM
Jackson's speculative leap was prompted by professional bafflement at the difficulty reading the few identifiably Early Christian period inscriptions retrieved from the area historically linked to Picts. Ogam is notorious for being easily mis-transcribed when damaged by age, and possibly less-than-consummate literacy by the carvers in the first place.

A big problem is the lack of spaces between words. Yes I'd forgotten the supposed "non-Celtic" personal names i.e. ones we can't make sense of.

MT1976
07-25-2015, 02:58 AM
I have several times here critiqued the dominant paradigm of tribes as more or less static entities, with a long-duree development since Copper Age, and conditioned by an identity supposedly linked implicitly with their perceived language status.

I bring attention to a great paper. "Detribalizing the later prehistoric past: concepts of tribes in Iron Age and Roman studies" by T Moore (available on Academia)

There is plenty of great analysis, eg " Such evidence can be better seen as marking communities which were situated within webs of relationships (Moore, 2007), articulated through exchange and land tenure, with segmentary or heterarchical social structures (Hill, 2006) and identity expressed at more local scales than ‘ethnicity’. "

Its great to see that at least some in the academic world have highlighted the problems with the still dominant paradigm in the study proto-historic Europe. Im sure as the rest of the academic world catches on, we will be on the way to more realistic reconstructions of ethnicity and language, etc.

Jean M
07-25-2015, 01:49 PM
I bring attention to a great paper. "Detribalizing the later prehistoric past: concepts of tribes in Iron Age and Roman studies" by T Moore (available on Academia)

That's a handy little paper for me to cite in my online Celtic tribes material. Moore throws a bit of grit into the engine that has churned out an endless stream of variations on the theme of continuity. However it has nothing to do with the relationship between language and ethnicity.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 05:34 PM
As I expected, there is a book coming out on 8 October as a tie-in to the television series: Alice Roberts, The Celts, with a foreword by Neil Oliver. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1784293326/


We know a lot about the Roman Empire. The Romans left monuments to their glories and written histories charting the exploits of their heroes. But there was another ancient people in Europe - feared warriors with chariots, iron swords, exquisite jewellery, swirling tattoos and strange rituals and beliefs. For hundreds of years Europe was theirs, not Rome's. They were our ancestors, and yet the scale of their achievements has largely been forgotten. They were the Celts.

Unlike the Romans they did not write their history, so the stories of many heroic Celtic men and women have been lost. And yet we can discover their deeds... you just have to know where to look.

From Denmark to Italy; Portugal to Turkey Alice Roberts takes us on a journey across Europe, revealing the remarkable story of the Celts: their real origins, how they lived and thrived, and their enduring modern legacy.

Using ground-breaking linguistic research, in addition to the latest archaeology and genetics, Alice Roberts will explore how this remarkable and advanced culture grew from the fringes of the continent and humiliated the might of Rome.

The Celts accompanies a substantial BBC series presented by Alice Roberts and Neil Oliver, and showing in October 2015.

rossa
08-27-2015, 05:53 PM
I hope they are up to date with the genetics or it will be Oppenheimer all over again.

alan
08-27-2015, 06:21 PM
I hope this isnt a ministry of propaganda 'no such thing as Celts in Britain' effort

Jean M
08-27-2015, 06:23 PM
And here are details of the BBC 2 TV series:

Celts

Neil Oliver and Alice Roberts team up in a three-part series to discover the world of the Celts. Travelling across Europe, from Ireland to Turkey, Denmark to Portugal, they seek out brand new archaeological discoveries, some of our greatest ancient treasures, and the very latest scientific studies. With dramatic reconstruction of three pivotal battles in the history of the Celts, Alice and Neil will reveal an incredible lost empire that stood up to the might of the Rome for hundreds of years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/bbc-two-commissions

I think we can probably ignore "empire" as a BBC PR person getting over-excited.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 06:31 PM
I hope this isn't a ministry of propaganda 'no such thing as Celts in Britain' effort

Doubt it very much. The clue lies in "They were our ancestors".

Krefter
08-27-2015, 06:52 PM
humiliated the might of Rome.

????? That looks like Celtic chauvinism. You can look on Wikpedia and see Rome conquered all Celtic speakers except ones they didn't want to in Ireland and Northern Britain.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 07:35 PM
.. Rome conquered all Celtic speakers except ones they didn't want to in Ireland and Northern Britain.

That is well known to anyone even casually acquainted with the history of the Roman empire. However the Celts were a tough nut to crack. I say that myself. I wouldn't talk in quite the terms that Alice Roberts or her editor selected, but I can see the possibilities for playing up the trouble that the Celts gave Rome.

Neil Oliver is keen on military history and battlefield archaeology. If he picks the three battles carefully, they need not all be defeats for the Celts.

rms2
08-27-2015, 07:38 PM
Well, and the Celts really did humiliate the might of Rome. Had they elected to do so, they could have stamped it completely out. Later they had cause to rue their decision not to, but they could have done so, and that's the point. They had utter victory in their hands.

Jean M
08-30-2015, 03:33 PM
Free Pictish booklets! :)

http://www.groamhouse.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=41172

Groam House Museum, Rosemarkie in Easter Ross, have made available as free pdf downloads seven out-of-print titles from their Annual Academic Lecture series.

Isabel Henderson, The Art and Function of Rosemarkie's Pictish Monuments (1989)
Aidan MacDonald, Curadan, Boniface and the Early Church of Rosemarkie
Leslie Alcock, The Neighbours of the Picts: Angles, Britons and Scots at War and at Home (1993)
Anna Ritchie, Perceptions of the Picts (1994)
Barbara E. Crawford, Earl & Mormaer: Norse-Pictish relationships in Northern Scotland (1995)
W. F. H. Nicolaisen, The Picts and their Place-Names (1996)
John Hunter, A Persona for the Northern Picts (1997)

GoldenHind
08-30-2015, 05:10 PM
Celts on Denmark? That is news to me, unless they are simply equating Beakers to Celts.

Jean M
08-30-2015, 05:40 PM
Celts on Denmark? That is news to me, unless they are simply equating Beakers to Celts.

One important Celtic object was found in Denmark. It was probably made in south-east Europe. http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-early-iron-age/the-gundestrup-cauldron/


The Gundestrup Cauldron’s motifs draw the observer into an alien universe far from that of the people who deposited it in the bog in north Jutland. Elephants, lions and several unknown gods, represented in a foreign style, indicate that the cauldron originally came from a distant area to the south or southeast. Exactly where it was made is still open to question. Perhaps it was a gift to a great chieftain or could it have been war booty?

Peccavi
08-30-2015, 06:07 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio

Cimbri and Teutoni were thought to be Celtic Tribes originating in Denmark - gave the Romans a good hammering at Arausio and Noreia

Jean M
08-30-2015, 06:27 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio

Cimbri and Teutoni were thought to be Celtic Tribes originating in Denmark - gave the Romans a good hammering at Arausio and Noreia

I thought someone would bring them up. I treat them as Germanic in AJ, but there are arguments that they were Celtic e.g. that the name Teutones is Celtic.

Peccavi
08-30-2015, 07:41 PM
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianTeutones.htm

Pleased I did not disappoint you.

Names of some of the leaders were also possibly Celtic, as is possibly the name Cimbri, also some customs - but I agree with you and would not bet either way, German or Celt without more evidence.

GoldenHind
08-31-2015, 12:50 AM
One important Celtic object was found in Denmark. It was probably made in south-east Europe. http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-early-iron-age/the-gundestrup-cauldron/

Perhaps Alice Roberts was just keen on a trip to Copenhagen, and the Gundestrup cauldron provided a handy excuse. In any case it is really rather misleading, as I think it is generally accepted that it wasn't made there

GoldenHind
08-31-2015, 12:54 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio

Cimbri and Teutoni were thought to be Celtic Tribes originating in Denmark - gave the Romans a good hammering at Arausio and Noreia

Deja vu all over again. This was a favorite argument of someone who wrote volumes on the subject, and this resulted in endless arguments on the old DNA forum. The Gundestrup cauldron was a center piece of his argument.

razyn
08-31-2015, 01:11 AM
W. F. H. Nicolasein, The Picts and their Place-Names (1996)


Don't know if this typo is from you or from Groam House, but his name is Nicolaisen. Since he's a folklorist, whose career was mostly in the US, I actually knew him (back in the day, when both of us worked). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._F._H._Nicolaisen

Jean M
08-31-2015, 10:24 AM
Don't know if this typo is from you or from Groam House, but his name is Nicolaisen. Since he's a folklorist, whose career was mostly in the US, I actually knew him (back in the day, when both of us worked). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._F._H._Nicolaisen

Thanks! It's my error. Fixed in post above and where I perpetuated it elsewhere.

moesan
09-02-2015, 12:28 PM
about the cauldron:
some thoughts, without any sound conclusion; picked on the net
Gundestrup Cauldron WWW/UNC. EDU/CELTIC

Gundestrup Cauldron



Peat bog, Gundestrup (Denmark)
First century B.C.E.
Silver partially gilded
Diameter 69cm., Height 42cm.
Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet


The Gundestrup Cauldron is a religious vessel found in Himmerland, Denmark, 1891. It was deposited in a dry section of a peat bog, dismantled with its five long rectangular plates, seven short ones and one round plate. Each plate is made of 97.0% pure silver and filled with various motifs of animals, plants and pagan deities. Sophius Müller(1892) reconstructed these plates into the present form of the cauldron: five rectangular plates are placed in the inside of the cauldron leaving 2cm of space between each, and the seven (originally eight) plates form the outside of the cauldron. The round plate is assumed as the base of the cauldron. The reconstructed cauldron with its spherical base and cylindrical side is 69cm. in diameter and 42cm. high; both the inner and outer plates are almost of the same height ( about 21cm) forming the cylindrical side of the cauldron.

As the largest surviving piece of Europian Iron Age silver work, the Gundestrup Cauldron has been given a special interest by many scholars. Especially, its high quality workmanship and iconographic variety have generated an incessant inquiry into the origin of the cauldron. Though the date of the cauldron is generally attributed to the 2nd or 1st century BCE (La Tčne III), there still remains much room for controversy concerning the place of its manufacture. The main problem comes from the fact that its style and workmanship is Thracian rather than Celtic despite its decorative motifs manifestly Celtic. So far, scholastic opinions have been largely divided into two groups: those who argue for the Gaulish origin and those who argue for the Thracian origin. The former locate the manufacture of the cauldron in the Celtic west while the latter opt for the Lower Danube in southeastern Europe.

The proponents of the Gaulish origin put emphasis on the Celtic motifs depicted on the cauldron such as a horned deity, torques and musical instruments called carnyx. Most representative of all, Klindt-Jensen (1959) sees a horned deity as Cernnunos, the Celtic god and argues that it points toward northern Gaul as the area of its origin. However, even among those scholars who opt for the Gaulish origin, iconographic interpretations largely vary with one another. Instead of reading the horned figure as Cernunnos, Olmsted (1979) suggests that it is related with the Gaulish Mercury and its Irish counter part Cu-Chulainn. Actually Olmsted reads the whole iconography of Gundestrup Cauldron as an illustration of a prototype Tain Bó Cuailnge, the Irish tale. Though his interpretation is no more secure than those of the others, Olmsted makes a notable case for the coherent narrative of the cauldron.

Those who argue for the Gaulish origin usually locate the cauldron in the final stage of late La tčne period, because by this time, such non Celtic elements as fantastic animals began to appear in the diverse representations on the Celtic coinage. They also draw analogy with other bronze cauldrons of Late La Tčne period from central and western Europe. The Rynkeby Cauldron which also comes from a Danish bog is the closest example to the Gundestrup Cauldron: they are almost of the same size; both have decorative plaques forming the interior of the upper cylindrical wall; they share some motifs such as a human bust on the outer plates. Since the Rynkeby Cauldron is assumed to be made around 1st century BC, in northern or central Europe, Olmsted argues that the Gundestrup Cauldron, like the Rynkeby Cauldron, has a La Tčne III origin.

On the other hand, proponents of the eastern view base their arguments on the cauldron’s silver smithing techniques and its portrayal of fantastic animals which are commonly observed in Thracian metal work. Powell(1971) claims the Thracian heritage by demonstrating a strong stylistic analogy between the Gundestrup Cauldron and Thracian phalerae. The techniques of decorating bodies of animals with hatching lines and punched dots are common in both. Most recently, Bergquist and Taylor further developed his argument. By locating the cauldron in late 2nd century BC, they claimed that silver-smithing techniques used for the cauldron such as high repoussé, pattern punches and tracers, partial gilding, and insetting of glass are as yet unknown from the Celtic West. Bergquist and Taylor divide the Thracian style into two periods: earlier style by the fourth century BC when, after Persian invasion, distinctive and original animal style art had emerged in Thracia, and later style at the turn of the 2nd and 1st century when the hoards of silver vessels reappeared after two hundred years of absence. They consider that the two styles are basically homogeneous except that in the later style, human figures are emphasized and usually rendered in high repoussé and they conclude that the Gundestrup Cauldron shows the traits of both styles.

If the Cauldron was made elsewhere than Denmark, then how did it make its way north to Jutland ? To explain its discovery in Denmark, several options are brought up. Klindt Jensen assumes that the cauldron was a Celtic object imported into Denmark. Olmsted suggests that it was a war booty because the Romans employed Germanic cavalry in Gaul. Bergquist and Taylor propose that it was made in southeast Europe by a Thracian silver smith, possibly commissioned by Celts (Scordisci)and transported by Cimbri who invaded the Middle lower Danube in 120 BC and looted the Scordisci. They make conjecture that since the cauldron takes the 4th century BC Thracian style and lacks the Roman tradition, it was made between fourth and first century BC.

Jean M
09-06-2015, 03:35 PM
Behind the scenes with Celtic objects: Julia Farley, British Museum, and Fraser Hunter, National Museums Scotland, curators of the major exhibition on Celtic art and identity organised in partnership between the British Museum and National Museums Scotland, gloat over some of their treasures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL0LQM0SAx600L0XO_g5x47KcST5qY5HUi&t=255&v=Hp9psiaoRK8

The BM curator explain how to get a torc around your neck. Must say I wondered! :)

Jean M
09-28-2015, 10:11 AM
The exhibition opened while I was away on holiday. Here's the Guardian review by Jonathan Jones:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/22/celts-art-identity-review-unintentional-resurrection-jonathan-jones


Celts – Art and Identity review: an unintentional resurrection: British Museum exhibition seems intended to bury the Celts but ends up reviving them in all their misty splendour

Celts – Art and Identity is a great exhibition that achieves the opposite of what it intends. In wall texts and a richly detailed catalogue it sets out a sceptical approach to the ancient peoples of north-western Europe. Celts, we’re told, never called themselves Celts and modern constructions of a genetic and eternal Celtic identity – promoted by Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists – are as insubstantial as mist on a loch. Yet I have never seen such a stupendous display of Celtic art. There is a total disconnect between seeing the abstract swirls and golden curling torcs, tangled crosses and spiralling shield bosses that fill this exhibition so wondrously and reading the captions that insist on the absence of a single Celtic identity. In the end I just ignored the texts and succumbed to the art. The Celts may never have existed, but their art is amazing.

Some of the greatest abstract art ever made was created in iron age Europe. The peoples the Greeks and Romans encountered were intricate workers of circles within circles, horned helmets, hidden faces, magic boxes. I can’t see nearly as much regional variation as the curators claim. Instead I see an exotic refinement of curves and symmetries that triumphs over time and space. Celtic art is an aesthetic of unique, enduring power, deeply rooted in the prehistoric past and still potent today. Why does a bronze shield boss (the shield’s bulging centrepiece) that was chucked into the river Thames in about 300-200 BC look so strangely modern in its flowing plant-like stems? Partly, as the final section of this exhibition lucidly expounds, because the Celtic revival in the 19th century appropriated these abstract forms for modern art....

And here is the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/art-design/2015/09/there-s-no-such-thing-celt-s-why-we-had-invent-them


There’s no such thing as a Celt – that’s why we had to invent them

Celts: Art and Identity shows how Celtic identity was made, not born

f I say or write the phrase “Celtic art”, you know exactly what I mean. The word “Celt”, or “Celtic”, instantly conjures an image as recognisable as “Greek” or “Roman”. The twining tendrils found in the Book of Kells, the fabulously elaborate vellum Gospel made in County Meath in the 8th or 9th century; a patterned stone cross; the trinkets on sale at an Edinburgh gift shop, interlaced designs woven into tea towels, printed on to mugs, worked into affordable jewellery. And the St Patrick’s Day Parade in New York, a festival of Celtic identity, when even the city’s bagels are dyed green.

Yet the new exhibition at the British Museum – presented in association with National Museums Scotland – sets out to demonstrate that “Celt” is the Schrödinger’s cat of identities. It exists, because we can see it before our eyes; and yet, it does not exist, because in all likelihood the people we now call Celts never defined themselves that way. Those step-dancers and baton-twirlers who stride through the streets of New York and London every 17 March are attaching themselves to an identity retrospectively adopted in the past couple of hundred years.

Jean M
09-28-2015, 10:18 AM
One day forum at the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth 31 October 2015: Beaker People, Archaeogenetics and Celtic Origins

PROGRAMME


9.30 Welcome


Archaeogenetics session

9.40 Wolfgang Haak (South Australia): New work on ancient DNA and possible linguistic implications

10.30 Martin B. Richards (Huddersfield): Archaeogenetics and ‘Celtic origins’


11.10 Coffee


11.35 Maria Pala (Huddersfield): Phylogeography and the near eastern settlement of Europe

12.15 Genetics discussion led by Stephen Oppenheimer (Oxford)


12.35 Buffet lunch


Archaeology session

13.35 Kristian Kristiansen (Gothenburg): Genetics, migrations and language spread

14.25 Peter Bray (Oxford): Biographies or prosopographies: narratives of metal movement and use in 3rd Millennium BC Atlantic Europe

15.00 Kerri Cleary & Catriona Gibson (CAWCS): Beaker to Early Bronze Age burial in Atlantic Europe: questions of shared ideologies?


15.35 Coffee


Linguistics session

16.00 Peter Kitson: Movements of great waters and the genesis of Indo-European

16.40 John T. Koch & Fernando Fernández Palacios (CAWCS): Some third-millennium questions: PIE > PC — where? when? how?

17.15 Closing discussion led by Barry Cunliffe (Oxford)

---

For further details or information on how to book, please email [email protected]

J1 DYS388=13
09-28-2015, 10:58 AM
Are you going?

Jean M
09-28-2015, 11:12 AM
Are you going?

To the One Day Forum? Yes. Just posting off my cheque. I wish it was in Cardiff rather than Aberystwyth. The latter means a longer journey for me. But I think I should go for the talks by Wolfgang Haak and Martin B. Richards. You may recall the post on this forum revealing that the latter was testing some (Bronze Age?) remains from Dorset in his new aDNA lab. Could we possibly be getting the results?

rms2
09-28-2015, 11:54 AM
. . .

12.15 Genetics discussion led by Stephen Oppenheimer (Oxford) . . .



Scary. It would be interesting to be there to see if his views have changed in the last few years.

rncambron
09-28-2015, 07:48 PM
What do people think of the British Museum exhibition of Celtic Art?
Their exhibition narrative seems quite narrow and they seem to be in denial that the art shows a 'European' wide awareness that existed and persisted long before/after the Romans..

Kwheaton
09-28-2015, 09:48 PM
To the One Day Forum? Yes. Just posting off my cheque. I wish it was in Cardiff rather than Aberystwyth. The latter means a longer journey for me. But I think I should go for the talks by Wolfgang Haak and Martin B. Richards. You may recall the post on this forum revealing that the latter was testing some (Bronze Age?) remains from Dorset in his new aDNA lab. Could we possibly be getting the results?

Jean,
My son was a lecturer at Aberystwyth (hyrdology) and lived in Machynellyth area---wish he was there now!---I'd go in a heartbeat.
Kelly

Jean M
09-29-2015, 08:00 AM
What do people think of the British Museum exhibition of Celtic Art?
Their exhibition narrative seems quite narrow and they seem to be in denial that the art shows a 'European' wide awareness that existed and persisted long before/after the Romans..

It is probably best to ignore the text and enjoy the art, like Jonathan Jones of the Guardian (see post #467 above).

Jean M
09-29-2015, 06:31 PM
To the One Day Forum? Yes. Just posting off my cheque. I wish it was in Cardiff rather than Aberystwyth. The latter means a longer journey for me. But I think I should go for the talks by Wolfgang Haak and Martin B. Richards. You may recall the post on this forum revealing that the latter was testing some (Bronze Age?) remains from Dorset in his new aDNA lab. Could we possibly be getting the results?

Found the post: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3957-An-end-to-Victorian-idea-of-island-Celts-as-pre-Celtic-people-who-learned-Celtic&p=74258&viewfull=1#post74258

It wasn't Bronze Age.


I just heard confirmation this week that Prof Martin Richards intends to test some remains from my Dark Ages cemetery in Dorset - as a pilot to test his new ancient DNA lab at Huddersfield Uni.

He has funding to start a new research programme in October that will include looking at the peopling of Europe. He sent me an advert he is just releasing to recruit the first 5 PhD students. He asked me to pass it on to anyone who may be interested. I would post it on this site but I am sure it would breach some rules of the forum. I can let anyone interested have the details.
Anyway, I am hoping for some approx. 7th-9th century AD (just about to send samples for radio-carbon dating) aDNA results. I am also hoping to get some Roman and Iron Age samples in the programme. The Iron Age samples would be very interesting as they are quite rare (for the Isles in the Iron Age) crouched burials.

Krefter
09-29-2015, 08:28 PM
One day forum at the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth 31 October 2015: Beaker People, Archaeogenetics and Celtic Origins

PROGRAMME


9.30 Welcome


Archaeogenetics session

9.40 Wolfgang Haak (South Australia): New work on ancient DNA and possible linguistic implications


Any ideas on what new ancient DNA it's referring to?

Jean M
09-29-2015, 08:58 PM
Any ideas on what new ancient DNA it's referring to?

I'm assuming that this will not be new i.e. unpublished results, but a presentation to bring people up to date with the published work of the Reich Lab, working with Wolfgang Haak. Sir Barry Cunliffe was present at the lecture at Oxford by David Reich earlier this year. That broke the news that the Indo-European steppe homeland was favoured by aDNA results so far, which were then published as Haak et al 2015.

avalon
10-04-2015, 09:51 AM
For UK viewers this program is due to air on Monday evening on the BBC. If I can I will try and put it on you tube at some point for our American cousins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h7x5f

Net Down G5L
10-06-2015, 06:50 PM
To the One Day Forum? Yes. Just posting off my cheque. I wish it was in Cardiff rather than Aberystwyth. The latter means a longer journey for me. But I think I should go for the talks by Wolfgang Haak and Martin B. Richards. You may recall the post on this forum revealing that the latter was testing some (Bronze Age?) remains from Dorset in his new aDNA lab. Could we possibly be getting the results?

Do not hold your breath. The samples from Dorset are Dark Ages and the Huddersfield aDNA lab is only just up. I have access to some Late Iron Age and Late Bronze Age samples that Martin is interested in building into a programme..... but he has not confirmed that yet. I will be going to the day to catch up with Martin so I hope to see you there.

vettor
10-06-2015, 07:39 PM
For UK viewers this program is due to air on Monday evening on the BBC. If I can I will try and put it on you tube at some point for our American cousins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h7x5f

This Neil Oliver program is the next chapter/series of his first 3 part program on British DNA called........Faces of Britain

Jean M
10-06-2015, 09:25 PM
This Neil Oliver program is the next chapter/series of his first 3 part program on British DNA called........Faces of Britain

No. It is a completely new series. It features Neil Oliver and Alice Roberts as presenters. Both like to keep up to date with new research. Both are interested in DNA. Here is the description of the book by Alice Roberts to accompany the series:


Alice Roberts goes in search of the Celts and their treasures in a narrative history to accompanying a new BBC series.

We know a lot about the Roman Empire. The Romans left monuments to their glories and written histories charting the exploits of their heroes. But there was another ancient people in Europe - feared warriors with chariots, iron swords, exquisite jewellery, swirling tattoos and strange rituals and beliefs. For hundreds of years Europe was theirs, not Rome's. They were our ancestors, and yet the scale of their achievements has largely been forgotten. They were the Celts.

Unlike the Romans they did not write their history, so the stories of many heroic Celtic men and women have been lost. And yet we can discover their deeds. . . you just have to know where to look.

From Denmark to Italy; Portugal to Turkey Alice Roberts takes us on a journey across Europe, revealing the remarkable story of the Celts: their real origins, how they lived and thrived, and their enduring modern legacy.

Using ground-breaking linguistic research, in addition to the latest archaeology and genetics, Alice Roberts will explore how this remarkable and advanced culture grew from the fringes of the continent and humiliated the might of Rome.

The book came out today and is selling well, so probably someone here will review it shortly. I'm off to Dublin and so won't see it for a while.

Jean M
10-06-2015, 09:31 PM
By the way there is also a book to accompany the Celts exhibition:

Julia Farley and Fraser Hunter, Celts: Art and Identity: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celts-Art-Identity-Julia-Farley/dp/0714128368/


The real and imagined legacy of the ancient Celts has shaped modern identities across the British Isles and retains a powerful hold over the popular imagination. Furthermore, Celtic art is one of Europe’s great artistic traditions, with the skills of Celtic craftspeople standing alongside the best of the ancient and medieval worlds. But who were the Celts? Recent research and new archaeological discoveries are continuing to transform our understanding of the idea of the Celts – a subject involving much controversy and academic debate since the late 1990s. Drawing on the latest scholarship, the authors explore how the Celts have been defined differently from ancient times to the modern day, by people with different perspectives and agendas. They look, too, at what is meant by Celtic art, from its origins c.500 BC in western Europe, through its transformations and revivals in the Roman, Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods, to its rediscovery in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Over 250 remarkable objects have been selected from the collections of the British Museum, the National Museums of Scotland and other key European museums to richly illustrate the narrative and highlight the artistic accomplishments of craftspeople through the centuries. Here are iconic, intricately decorated masterpieces as well as less well-known fixtures and fittings; items of warfare and adornment; the ceremonial and the utilitarian.

Saetro
10-14-2015, 11:49 PM
No. It is a completely new series. It features Neil Oliver and Alice Roberts as presenters.

Do these guys have studio contracts or something? It would be really good to have someone else on. I know someone else writes the text, but somehow Alice Roberts' recent programs that I have seen have been associated with excessive repetition, cliff-hangers half way through to entice people to come back after ads in countries that have them, dumbing down, questionable analogy and ignoring relevant research that diverts from some simplistic line.
Neil Oliver did quite a good job in his previous program on Celts, but is there no one else?
(Michael Portillo probably knows nothing but at least wears colourful jackets :) )

Jean M
10-31-2015, 07:02 PM
My brain is still reeling from the conference Beaker People, Archaeogenetics and Celtic Origins.

The speakers included some giants in their fields. However I have to break the bad news immediately. No new ancient DNA results were announced. I suppose it was over-optimistic to hope for any.

However it was confirmed that samples from Britain are waiting in the lab of Prof. Richards. And Wolfgang Haak promised papers next year with the results of Bell Beaker samples from Iberia. He was tight-lipped on results, providing no clue whatever what they will be. Consequently John Koch forbore to press the Celtic-from-the-West argument as conclusive, but ran through its main points much as he has done in other recent lectures. (The slides for one are online and I think were the same as used today.)

Kristian Kristiansen is a superb archaeologist theorist. It was a privilege to hear him speak in person.

A couple of other people from this community were there. They may chime in.

Jean M
11-01-2015, 10:12 PM
First speaker: Wolfgang Haak


Did his PhD on the routes of the Neolithic. Outlines the long-standing debate over the European Neolithic. Was it spread by ideas or people? He started about 10 years ago to study mtDNA in the Mittelelbe-Saale region of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. This region has fertile loess soil and so was well settled, and there is well-preserved skeletal material.
He ran through the results as presented in the Brandt et al. 2013 paper. Note the Late Neolithic partial upsurge of mtDNA U in Funnel Beaker. CW brings a new set of lineages. Modern Europeans are similar to those of this region in the Bronze Age in terms of percentages of various haplogroups.
Y-DNA R1b is post-Mesolithic. Apart from small amount in Neolithic, most spread in Copper/Bronze Age.
Showed that results from uniparental markers from aDNA go hand in hand with those from autosomal aDNA, by covering the Lazarides 2014 paper, to which he contributed. Pointed out that there is no WHG in present-day Near/Middle Easterners. Promised a new paper coming out very shortly re hybridisation.
Covered the use of ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE methods on genome-wide data. Found that K16 split world-wide generated least errors. Noted that hunter-gatherers (whether WHG, SHG or EHG) were all blue in this system, despite separation on the PCA plot. The Palaeolithic samples fall outside the European spread towards Asia, being closer to the Out-of-Africa event and so more similar to all modern people outside Africa. The EEF samples are all similar regardless of geography. Late Neolithic admixture with late hunter-gatherers caused a bounce-back of the latter's DNA signature.
Yamnaya genetic signature = EHG + North Caucasus.
Corded Ware close to Yamnaya. Bell Beaker in Central Europe also have the Yamnaya component, but also EEF.
The CW/BB upheaval was strong enough to carry a new language.
Western BB is being worked on. There should be a couple of papers out next year.
The ancient DNA reveals large-scale migration in both the Neolithic and Copper Age. Both are possibilities for language change. He covered the Allentoft 2015, and Mathieson 2015 papers. Lactose Persistence strongly selected for, but not in the Neolithic, as previously thought. The first instance of it found so far was in a BB sample.
In questions, poor Stephen Oppenheimer [who has been proved completely and utterly wrong by aDNA] enquired desperately about the possibility of ascertainment bias. Are we short of hunter-gatherer samples, they being thinner on the ground? Got told that regardless of the issue of whether we have a fully representative sample of hunter-gatherer uniparental markers, the genome-wide signature from them is clearly different from that of the early farmers.

Jean M
11-01-2015, 10:18 PM
2nd speaker: Martin Richards

Archaeogenetics needs to look at the speakers of Celtic languages, then it can potentially investigate their dispersal history. Can that be traced to CW or Cardial cultures?
For the last 15 years, geneticists have had the idea of a Mesolithic Atlantic façade appearing in modern DNA. That turned out to be completely wrong, or at least highly questionable.
Mentions Novembre et al 2008: Genes mirror geography (genetic separation of British Isles from Iberia).
PoBI study using FINE STRUCTURE found genetic clusters in modern populations. Most of England homogeneous. Seen as Anglo-Saxon by authors, but this may be misleading. The study suggested Mesolithic origins, based on old ideas which go back to Cavalli-Sforza. The ancestry of such clusters is not well understood. Potential source populations in Europe were tested, but this does not provide dating for migrations.
Turned to ancient DNA. Covered some of same papers as W. H. above. Three components to European population. Cluster 3 = Yamnaya, but there are huge differences between CW and BB in uni-parental markers:
CW: Y-DNA R1a + lower mtDNA H.
BB: Y-DNA R1b + higher mtDNA H.
Ancient DNA is needed to obtain the true time depth of a genetic signature and direction of flow. Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, European mtDNA frequencies were similar to modern.
Y-DNA R1b is not Mesolithic. Linked to Bronze Age component. The major star-burst showing massive expansion can be dated to 4,000-5,000 years ago.
Post-Neolithic dip in effective male population size. Patriarchy took over.
Phylogeography: limit to what one can do with modern DNA. It is only useful at the inter-continental scale [echoing Manco 2013, etc]. With ancient DNA one can look at the fine scale. Perhaps one can extend the technique from uni-parental markers to autosomal blocks.
Genetic dating is possible with the molecular clock – cites Soares 2009, 2010. But aDNA is obviously better. If one can see new haplogroups appearing, it is obviously significant.
Founder analysis. 40% of Ashkenazi Jews belong to three mtDNA haplogroup K clusters, which can be dated to 2000 years ago. [Behar 2006 gives K1a1b1a, K1a9, and K2a2a, though I don't know what the present equivalents might be.] Deep ancestry of K1alb1 confirmed with aDNA in Wolfgang Haak's paper – found in Spain. [Haak 2015, Neolithic site La Mina, Mina 3: K1a1b1].
H in the most common and enigmatic mtDNA lineage in Europe. Found also in the Near East. Argues [contra Manco 2013, AJ 2015] that H1 and H3 are Atlantic Late Glacial and Post-Glacial. H in the Near East is clustered within European lineages, so could have evolved in Europe. Late Neolithic flow from South-West?
BB affinities with Iberia. Those from Central Europe have possible affinities with modern Iberian populations. H1 and H3 are virtually absent from modern Near Easterners, and H is very rare in Anatolian Neolithic samples (2 out of 26 samples). [Mathieson October 2015 has 26 Anatolian Neolithic samples, of which one is H5 and another H or H5-C16192T. But two samples of Özbal 2010 were H3. Richards is on a sticky wicket with this line of argument. The frequency of a haplogroup in limited samples from a couple of sites does not matter. What matters is whether it is there at all. H is present in the Anatolian Neolithic. The rise in its frequency in Bronze Age Europe might well be the result of natural selection for better survival after infection.] H1 and H3 are frequent in Sardinia and the Basque Country.
Early Neolithic lineages rare in present-day populations e.g. H26 found in Trans-Danubian [Hungary LBKT BAB 4; once again a tricky argument].
H has barely been sampled in Mesolithic Europe. So was Iberia the source of H1 and H3? H3 is found in German BB samples. H6a1a in CW clusters with modern samples for Russia etc. [This indicates where CW origin people went, not where they came from.] U5a could have an Eastern European origin.

J1 DYS388=13
11-02-2015, 07:11 AM
I'm sure Jean will not mind if I chime in feebly to expand on this:

CW: Y-DNA R1a + lower mtDNA H.
BB: Y-DNA R1b + higher mtDNA H.

Martin Richards said that ---
Corded Ware is characterized by R1a1a and lower mtDNA H.
Bell Beaker is characterized by R1b1a2 and higher mtDNA H, particularly H1 and H3.

I'm getting more out of Jean's summaries than I did out of the conference.

J1 DYS388=13
11-02-2015, 10:08 AM
During this pause in Jean's summaries ---

I think this fifth conference about Celts was the swan song for this useful program, not just because the funding of it runs out this year, but because of what Prof. Cunliffe said in his brief summary of the day: "genetics is overtaking archaeology" on this subject. He said he wished we could jump forward in time ten years to see what the geneticists will have found. We all know the feeling.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 10:39 AM
I'm sure Jean will not mind if I chime in feebly to expand on this.

Thanks. There were a couple of typos too in my notes above on the talk by Martin Richards, which I can't fix here, but have corrected for the version to be stored.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 12:08 PM
3rd speaker: Maria Pala (Huddersfield): A female perspective on European history. How useful is mtDNA

The introduction revealed that she is from Sardinia.
[My note: when she moved to Huddersfield to join Martin Richards, both were in the genetic continuity camp that was already being abandoned by other geneticists. Both she and Richards have taken on board the recent aDNA papers, while trying to find loopholes to exploit.]

She opened by summarising, like previous speakers, the three autosomal components of the modern European gene pool, as discovered by Lazarides 2014:

Cluster 1: Nearly 100% in Saami.
Cluster 2: Early European Farmers: cline from south to north.
Cluster 3: Pertaining to Yamnaya.


Turning to mtDNA, she argues for H1 and H3 in the European Mesolithic, with an emphasis on the end of the Ice Age, like Martin Richards above.

She aims to re-evaluate N1a1a, which has been seen as a feature of the European Neolithic [by Haak 2005 and subsequent papers. Haak 2005 pointed out its higher level in the Neolithic than modern populations. It was 25% of the 24 samples that he had. Extrapolating to the whole LBK, the true percentage was estimated to lie between 8% and 42%, contrasting with an N1a frequency of 0.2% (5 in 2300) in modern mtDNA samples in the LBK area between the Paris Basin and Hungary.]

N1a represents 13% of the Neolithic population, lower than originally thought, but still higher than today. There was a decrease in the Late Neolithic and early Metal Age to close to the modern level.
She presented a phylogenetic tree from modern samples of the complete mitochondrial genome. From this she dates N1a1a as 25 thousand years old. So it is ancient, rare and widespread across Eurasia. N1a1a1 is widely distributed. [Behar 2012 estimates N1a1a at 13,893 years old, and N1a1a1 as only 5,736 years old.] She went on to characterise various clusters within the tree. One cluster is early Neolithic and matches a modern day sample in Italy. N1a1a1a1 is young, about 6,000 years old [Behar 2012 estimates its parent N1a1a1a as only 3,662 years old], is found in India and possibly expanded with Y-DNA R1a.
Her data supports a Near Eastern origin of most N1a1a found in the LBK. More ancient DNA samples are needed.
Almost all ancient samples of N1a1a have relatives in modern populations.


In the early Neolithic LBK, mtDNA T2 is higher than in modern populations. T2 is found in Yamnaya. Cites Allentoft 2015; Haak 2015. [T2c1a2 found in Yamnaya sample Lopatino I, Sok River, Samara [I0429/SVP 38] 3339-2917 BC]
She summarises her paper Pala et al including Antonio Torroni, and Martin B. Richards, Mitochondrial DNA signals of Late Glacial recolonization of Europe from Near Eastern refugia, The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 90 (May 2012), pp. 915–924 [which covered mtDNA J and T]. Her hypothesis was that some subclades originated in southern Europe. She presented some “Mesolithic” samples of T2 in Europe, as characterised by economy, though fitting into the Neolithic period. [Dodgy argument, as hunter-gatherers by this time could take wives from the farming community. In subsequent discussion Haak said that these samples were not seen by his team as Mesolithic.] She showed the decline in the proportion of T2 over the centuries. [This reflects the rise of the proportion of H.]

Net Down G5L
11-02-2015, 12:27 PM
First speaker: Wolfgang Haak


Showed that results from uniparental markers from aDNA go hand in hand with those from autosomal aDNA, by covering the Lazarides 2014 paper, to which he contributed. Pointed out that there is no WHG in present-day Near/Middle Easterners. Promised a new paper coming out very shortly re hybridisation.

Western BB is being worked on. There should be a couple of papers out next year.



I had a chat with Wolfgang during a break. He confirmed that two labs are working on Beaker/western Beaker samples and that two (or one joint labs) paper should be out within a year. :)
I asked him about Teal and he will be revealing 'who they are' in a paper due out soon. Best wait for his paper and not have me feeding you potentially duff information from our chat.
I asked if western Beaker samples had teal but only got a variety of facial expressions in return - plus a comment 'my lips are sealed'. Guess I will spend the next year hypothesising what the facial expressions may have meant until the paper(s) are out!

One wider aDNA opportunities. Wolfgang did indicate that the aDNA labs do have spare capacity and that if there were specific samples that the Citizen scientist community wanted analyzing, then crowd funded studies could be a possibility.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 12:28 PM
Genetics discussion

There was scarcely any discussion that I noted.

Pala claimed that mtDNA U5b3 was introduced into Sardinia with the trade in obsidian [dated to ~7,000–9,000 years ago in Maria Pala et al, Mitochondrial Haplogroup U5b3: A Distant Echo of the Epipaleolithic in Italy and the Legacy of the Early Sardinians, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 84 (12 June 2009), pp.1-8. This is wildly unlikely. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic, although there are signs of Mesolithic occasional visitors. Obsidian was gleaned from several volcanic island sources in the Mediterranean for use on the mainland.]

Both Wolfgang Haak and Sir Barry Cunliffe pointed to problems with isotope studies, such as several regions with similar geological signatures, but Raimund Karl briskly disagreed that there is any major glitch.

Net Down G5L
11-02-2015, 12:43 PM
3rd speaker: Maria Pala (Huddersfield): A female perspective on European history. How useful is mtDNA

[/I]]

One key point for me from Maria's talk was that "orange" may not be entirely LBK age migration. She suggested that some N1a1a lines could be pre-Neolithic in Europe and that the some of the Neolithic European (LBK type) Orange component could be pre farming migration.
I asked Martin Richards about this and he confirmed that there is a possibility of a pre-farming migration from the Near East into the eastern Meditteranean. However, more samples from the right time period/place are needed.

I think this is an indication of the complexities that may lie ahead. At the moment we are looking at the big picture in quite a course way. When aDNA becomes routine and we have many thousands of results we are likely to be able to have a much more detailed picture of people and movements that demonstrate links between sub-regional archaeology horizons.

Heber
11-02-2015, 01:13 PM
Jean. Thanks for your great notes. Nothing much to disagree with here.

First speaker: Wolfgang Haak

• Western BB is being worked on. There should be a couple of papers out next year.
• The ancient DNA reveals large-scale migration in both the Neolithic and Copper Age. Both are possibilities for language change. He covered the Allentoft 2015, and Mathieson 2015 papers. Lactose Persistence strongly selected for, but not in the Neolithic, as previously thought. The first instance of it found so far was in a BB sample.

2nd speaker: Martin Richards

• Archaeogenetics needs to look at the speakers of Celtic languages, then it can potentially investigate their dispersal history. Can that be traced to CW or Cardial cultures?
• Mentions Novembre et al 2008: Genes mirror geography (genetic separation of British Isles from Iberia).
• Turned to ancient DNA. Covered some of same papers as W. H. above. Three components to European population. Cluster 3 = Yamnaya, but there are huge differences between CW and BB in uni-parental markers:
• CW: Y-DNA R1a + lower mtDNA H.
• BB: Y-DNA R1b + higher mtDNA H.
• Ancient DNA is needed to obtain the true time depth of a genetic signature and direction of flow. Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, European mtDNA frequencies were similar to modern.
• Y-DNA R1b is not Mesolithic. Linked to Bronze Age component. The major star-burst showing massive expansion can be dated to 4,000-5,000 years ago.
• Post-Neolithic dip in effective male population size. Patriarchy took over.
• Genetic dating is possible with the molecular clock – cites Soares 2009, 2010. But aDNA is obviously better. If one can see new haplogroups appearing, it is obviously significant.
• H in the most common and enigmatic mtDNA lineage in Europe. Late Neolithic flow from South-West?
• BB affinities with Iberia. Those from Central Europe have possible affinities with modern Iberian populations. H1 and H3 are frequent in Sardinia and the Basque Country.
• H has barely been sampled in Mesolithic Europe. So was Iberia the source of H1 and H3? H3 is found in German BB samples.

This appears to support the findings of Brandt and Haak in
Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity

Guido Brandt,1,*† Wolfgang Haak,2,*† Christina J. Adler,3 Christina Roth,1 Anna Szécsényi-Nagy,1 Sarah Karimnia,1Sabine Möller-Rieker,1 Harald Meller,4 Robert Ganslmeier,4 Susanne Friederich,4 Veit Dresely,4 Nicole Nicklisch,1Joseph K. Pickrell,5 Frank Sirocko,6 David Reich,5 Alan Cooper,2,‡ Kurt W. Alt,1,‡ and The Genographic Consortium7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/#SD1

6507

6508

6509

6510

Of course this is only mtDNA. We need more samples from Bronze Age Bell Beaker and Celtic cultures in Western Europe. This time next year we should be in better shape.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 01:42 PM
One key point for me from Maria's talk was that "orange" may not be entirely LBK age migration. She suggested that some N1a1a lines could be pre-Neolithic in Europe and that the some of the Neolithic European (LBK type) Orange component could be pre farming migration.
I asked Martin Richards about this and he confirmed that there is a possibility of a pre-farming migration from the Near East into the eastern Meditteranean. However, more samples from the right time period/place are needed.

I spoke to Mala Pala privately. She seemed unaware at that point that the rare, coastal Mesolithic sites in Greece appear Natufian in type i.e. people could have spread along the coast from the Levant into Greece as the climate improved. See Ancestral Journeys, rev. edn (2015), bottom p. 60 to top 61. I also told her about the talk by Christina Papageorgopoulou of the BEAN Project, which suggests that there was no U at all in the Mesolithic Greek sites tested: http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/talk-by-christina-papageorgopoulou-on.html

I am still awaiting a publication on this, and so have not added the Papageorgopoulou results into my online tables, but it does indeed seem possible that a small amount of Near Eastern DNA arrived in Greece pre-farming, some of which could have been absorbed by later waves of farmers. I would urge caution. In the main hunter-gatherer sites in Greece seem to vanish before the farmers arrive. But it would only take a couple of women to marry into the farmers for their descendants to spread all over the place.

rms2
11-02-2015, 07:36 PM
I spoke to Mala Pala privately . . .

Is she really that bad? ;)

Jean M
11-02-2015, 07:45 PM
Is she really that bad? ;)

Oh dear. Too late for me to fix. That error was not in the version for storage though.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 07:56 PM
Archaeology session
Kristian Kristiansen (Gothenburg): Genetics, migrations and language spread

He noted that his usage in the talk was Bronze Age = after 3000 BC [reflecting the Scandinavia chronology leaping straight from Neolithic to Bronze Age without a Copper Age in between.]

He feels that we are in the midst of the 3rd scientific revolution (ancient DNA, strontium etc isotopes) that lifts the interpretive burden from archaeologists when it comes to mobility. We need to re-calibrate our interpretations in the light of the emerging results: how does the material record behave in migrations?

Neolithic collapse
The decline of the Neolithic is visible in the collapse of the proto-urban mega sites in SE Europe. Radiocarbon dates collected into huge databases show the Neolithic collapse in Northern and Western Europe which we have hitherto been unable to account for [See Ancestral Journeys, pp. 18 and 104]. In a meeting earlier this year the idea was thrown up that plague might be a cause. This turned out to be right. Existing ancient human DNA samples were tested for Yersinia pestis, which was found from the Altai to Central Europe. [Rassmussen et al., Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago, Cell, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp. 571–582 (22 October 2015).] This is a game-changer. Now we have an explanation.

Yamnaya

He sees their origins in the late 4th millennium in the North Caucasus, and their assets as domesticated horses, wagons and metal-working. [Contrast with Anthony 2007, who simply sees Maikop influences on a steppe culture with origins in Samara.] Maikop was the first complex society in the North Caucasus. Maikop royal kurgans had objects from Mesopotamia. More and more evidence is appearing of mining in the Maikop culture. There are borrowings from Mesopotamia.
He presented a slide of the Yamnaya package from Harrison and Heyd 2007.
The Yamnaya were tall, indicating that they were healthy. Their diet included meat and milk products.



Yamnaya cultural/genetic descendants

He cited the Allentoft 2015 paper to show the Yamnaya colonisation represented by Afanasievo. The people of the latter were genetically identical to Yamnaya. Pointed out the fit to the IE Tocharian language attested later in Central Asia.
The Single Grave culture had a massive impact on Jutland. Its people burned off the forest to create grassland for pasture. Subsequently the heath was burned off regularly to maintain grassland. The forest disappeared in two or three generations.
Corded Ware people were invaders who married locals. He cited Eulau as an example. The women there were from a distance, as shown by strontium isotopes [Haak et al. 2008]. In Corded Ware cemeteries tested for isotopes, non-locals are predominantly women with a different diet in childhood (possibly sub-Neolithic). The Corded Ware diet was heavy on meat and milk. Grain was probably used mainly for beer. Most males were local after the first generation.
In the Bronze Age (see definition above) there was a population increase, resulting in continuous territorial coverage. High survival rates of children. Yamnaya element is half of the genetic ancestry of northern Europeans today.



Languages
The languages of the Neolithic died with them. Non-Indo-European words for grain, etc taken over by IE languages. [This substrate is the most convincing evidence that the Indo-European linguistic layer overlaid the now lost Neolithic languages of Europe. See Kroonen 2012. And see Ancestral Journeys 2nd edn (2015), p. 39 for additional evidence.]

Bronze Age inter-connections

Shared cosmologies and burial rituals are in evidence in Bronze Age Europe: barrows over a (timber?) grave, ox sacrifice, ox hides etc.
Expansion of chariots east and west of their origin point.
Woollen garments: showed very similar images – one from Denmark and one from the Tarim Basin.
Social transformations from large, centralised, agrarian communities towards decentralised, expansionist, pastoral communities.


Bell Beaker

BB migrations followed upon the collapse of mega-sites in Iberia. (He used an image of a model of Los Millares earlier on, comparing it to the proto-urban mega sites in SE Europe.) Could plague be responsible? BB people move out and use some Yamnaya social institutions.
Price 2004 used isotopes to show the high mobility of BB people in Central Europe. Also cited Desideri's study of inherited characteristics in teeth as evidence of a west to east movement. Olivier Lemercier studies of BB in Southern France.
Thinks the La Tčne model of Celtic expansion is dead.


More Bronze Age inter-connections

Rock art of wagons/chariots in Sweden and Spain.
Global economy. [Not quite global. Think he meant the world as known to Europeans then.] Mentioned the remarkable Cliff's End site published in Celtic from the West 2 as evidence for continuing inter-connections.
By contrast Neolithic economies remained local once established. They were unstable after carrying capacities had been reached. Plague pathogens carried by Yamnaya people would be more damaging to these Neolithic people. The Bronze Age arrivals were typically organised into family households and were more adaptive and competitive than previous Neolithic collective communities.
They had regular commodity trade.
Modernity begins in the Bronze Age.


Question time
Raimund Karl said that since no-one else dared to ask a question, it fell to him as leader of the archaeology session. Prof. Kristiansen's talk had the Indo-Europeans in the East, and Bell Beaker from the West. How would he link the two? Prof. Kristiansen said that would be another lecture. [General laughter in the hall.] He did go on to say that some people [Me, Jeunesse, Koch] had suggested that the link was anthropomorphic stelae, but these were just small things. One needs something bigger. [In fact I linked the stelae to the movement of metallurgy, but he probably hasn't read my stuff.]

V-X
11-02-2015, 11:10 PM
Are lunulae considered good evidence that beaker = celt? The similarities between lunulae and torcs are very clear and it's interesting that so many are found in Ireland.

Do we know much about their origins and their meaning/use beyond their decorative aspects. It would be interesting if similar items were found in earlier cultures.

Jean M
11-02-2015, 11:46 PM
Are lunulae considered good evidence that beaker = celt? The similarities between lunulae and torcs are very clear and it's interesting that so many are found in Ireland.

Do we know much about their origins and their meaning/use beyond their decorative aspects. It would be interesting if similar items were found in earlier cultures.

Since they are not found in graves, lunulae are considered to be something akin to a priestly pectoral that would be passed on to the next incumbent of a role, perhaps religious. In this they are distinct from torcs which were personal and people were buried wearing them. It has been argued that lunulae developed in Iberia from boar's tusk pendants. The latter are found earlier in Yamnaya. Since Bell Beaker is earlier in Iberia than Ireland, we can assume that the use of both gold lunulae and gold discs, found in both places, moved from Iberia to Ireland. They are generally thought to be symbols of the sun and moon, but Mary Cahill of the National Museum of Ireland argued in a recent issue of Archaeology Ireland that lunulae represent a sky-boat carrying the sun. https://www.academia.edu/11627053/Here_comes_the_sun...._solar_symbolism_in_Early_Br onze_Age_Ireland