Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[alan]

I support a Steppe origin. The Neolithic theory is basically dead because of Copper age Spanish Y DNA. I think it is very possible R1b-L23 and R1a-M417 came to the Steppe from West Asia, because of basal forms of R1 in Iran(see here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5633-Basal-clades-of-hg-R)). But that doesn't really matter because the expansion happened much later in the Steppe.

One of the problems with the really upsteam R1b - indeed anything much before M269 - is lineage death seems to be the norm. So modern distribution of 'basal' clades may be completely misleading chance. I also reckon looking at the P25 we get in Iran as Basal probably is not the right way of looking at it. It is a difference branch of P297 but it is not older per se. It and P297 simply split from each other.

However, there is a possible explanation of how P25xP297 and P297 could have early split into a south and north group (although this doesnt have to be how it happened). Pressure microblades in he early Mesolithic are oldest in Siberia but simultaniously appear in the easternmost fringe of Europe and the north of SW Asia c. 9500BC as the Younger Dryas ended. So this could explain the branching. We know from Mal'ta that R was in south-central Siberia during the early LGM and there is absolutely no archaeogical evidence for a movement from that area until the pressure microblades started spreading west.

On the other hand with such tiny constantly close to extinction populations survival and distribution patterns can be pure chance.

[Krefter]

One of the problems with the really upsteam R1b - indeed anything much before M269 - is lineage death seems to be the norm. So modern distribution of 'basal' clades may be completely misleading chance. I also reckon looking at the P25 we get in Iran as Basal probably is not the right way of looking at it. It is a difference branch of P297 but it is not older per se. It and P297 simply split from each other.

However, there is a possible explanation of how P25xP297 and P297 could have early split into a south and north group (although this doesnt have to be how it happened). Pressure microblades in he early Mesolithic are oldest in Siberia but simultaniously appear in the easternmost fringe of Europe and the north of SW Asia c. 9500BC as the Younger Dryas ended. So this could explain the branching. We know from Mal'ta that R was in south-central Siberia during the early LGM and there is absolutely no archaeogical evidence for a movement from that area until the pressure microblades started spreading west.

On the other hand with such tiny constantly close to extinction populations survival and distribution patterns can be pure chance.

When I say basal I don't mean old, I mean it split early on from what most R is today. I agree that modern diversity doesn't tell us for sure where a lineage originated. The ANE origin of Y DNA R is very tempting theory partly based on archaeology is very interesting.

[alan]

Probably if my hunch of an early non-R1b south-western beaker group followed by a beakerised R1b east-central European group is correct, then the best way of considering what each group brought to the table culturally is to look at the Harrison and Heyd paper and compare the proto-beaker and full beaker packages. These are show in the changes in Sion.

I have thought for a long time that small non-R1b beaker groups from the west could have passed on some of these early cultural traits by contact and indeed mainly through R1b central Europeans marrying beaker women in that contact period. I have been saying for a while that it is striking that a significant number of the proto-beaker traits in the early beaker phase at Sion that went into the beaker package as it developed look female/female crafts/female ornaments - pottery, fancy textiles, gold ornaments, perhaps awls depending on what they were used for. The main one that isnt female linked is archery but I think that is a very weak arguement as archery was already an important weapon in many cultures including Remedello and steppe groups just off the top of my head.

I am not saying all contact was female. I believe whole small beaker using groups penetrated from the west into central Europe c. 2550BC and so their was contact with the males too but I feel marrying females from these south-western beaker groups was a major part of the apparent transfer of some proto-beaker traits to central European R1b men.

The big question for me is what culture c. 2550BC fused P312 men with beaker influences. With CW looking very R1a dominated and R1b in it all being U106 so far where i can be refined to that level, I have gone off the idea of P312 having a CW link and now would prefer the idea that the meeting point of P312 and bell beaker ideas from non-R1b south-west Europeans was probably somewhere around Hungary or adjacent flanks of countries. The two cultures that seem most likely to have steppe links in or close to that area that stand out as still being around when beaker arrived are late Vucedol and late Hungarian Yamnaya (see the paper I posted with recent refining of RC dating). A location in this general zone might also explain why there are echos of CW too as CW groups bordered this zone to the north too.

[rms2]

. . . The two cultures that seem most likely to have steppe links in or close to that area that stand out as still being around when beaker arrived are late Vucedol and late Hungarian Yamnaya (see the paper I posted with recent refining of RC dating). A location in this general zone might also explain why there are echos of CW too as CW groups bordered this zone to the north too.

And, since Anna Szécsényi-Nagy's dissertation, we now have at least one R1b in Vucedol period Hungary, circa 2900 BC. Hopefully, Reich et al will be able to squeeze a goodly portion of his genome out.

[alan]

This new paper on Kurgans in the lower Danube looks interesting

http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/pitgraves-yamnaya-and-kurgans-at-the-lower-danube-disentangling-late-4th-and-early-3rd-millennium-bc-burial-customs-equipment-and-chronology(c1537f85-8aa5-45b8-9e35-a5dfedea5a0b).html

Seems to suggest the possibility of 4 waves

1. The Suvorovo one c. 4300BC
2. A possible wave around 3300BC-3000BC of steppe people using the north-Pontic Nizhne-Mikhailovka and Kvityana burial traditions (side crouched, little ocher, pots from local women)
3. Classical Yamnaya c. 3000BC-2880BC (classical Yamnaya)
4. A later Yamnaya one c. 2880BC-2400BC

[George]

This new paper on Kurgans in the lower Danube looks interesting

http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/pitgraves-yamnaya-and-kurgans-at-the-lower-danube-disentangling-late-4th-and-early-3rd-millennium-bc-burial-customs-equipment-and-chronology(c1537f85-8aa5-45b8-9e35-a5dfedea5a0b).html

Seems to suggest the possibility of 4 waves

1. The Suvorovo one c. 4300BC
2. A possible wave around 3300BC-3000BC of steppe people using the north-Pontic Nizhne-Mikhailovka and Kvityana burial traditions (side crouched, little ocher, pots from local women)
3. Classical Yamnaya c. 3000BC-2880BC (classical Yamnaya)
4. A later Yamnaya one c. 2880BC-2400BC

Based solely on the abstract, I would definitely agree that the 3050-3000 wave was indeed constituted by postStog elements (with a smattering of acculturated postRepinites). It also seems on track as to the Yamna character of the subsequent pushes, constituted mostly of postRepinites (with changed pottery customs and standardized burial positions). It looks as though Usatovo did not participate in this Yamna thrust to the lower Danube. Nor does it look as though the key pushes of CW were in that direction.

[alan]

This new paper on Kurgans in the lower Danube looks interesting

http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/pitgraves-yamnaya-and-kurgans-at-the-lower-danube-disentangling-late-4th-and-early-3rd-millennium-bc-burial-customs-equipment-and-chronology(c1537f85-8aa5-45b8-9e35-a5dfedea5a0b).html

Seems to suggest the possibility of 4 waves

1. The Suvorovo one c. 4300BC
2. A possible wave around 3300BC-3000BC of steppe people using the north-Pontic Nizhne-(lower) Mikhailovka and Kvityana burial traditions (side crouched, little ocher, pots from local women)
3. Classical Yamnaya c. 3000BC-2880BC (classical Yamnaya)
4. A later Yamnaya one c. 2880BC-2400BC

Does make you wonder if you add CW and its various derived cultures which have been linked to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (and perhaps at least partly Germanic) what the various waves represent. The second less well known wave is interesting if it is ever confirmed to be real. In theory that is a branch off around the same time as Tocharian. I dont think it can seriously be linked to Germanic due to Geography. So perhaps that leaves Celto-Italic main contender or of course it may be a dead branch as the area was subsequently overrun.

It does also raise the question about seeing languages like Greek/Armenian, Daco-Thracian etc as later waves post-Yamnaya waves off the steppes. If that was true and we add the various languages apparently linked to CW derived cultures then very little is left to link to the actual Yamnaya waves!!

[alan]

Based solely on the abstract, I would definitely agree that the 3050-3000 wave was indeed constituted by postStog elements (with a smattering of acculturated postRepinites). It also seems on track as to the Yamna character of the subsequent pushes, constituted mostly of postRepinites (with changed pottery customs and standardized burial positions). It looks as though Usatovo did not participate in this Yamna thrust to the lower Danube. Nor does it look as though the key pushes of CW were in that direction.

The steppe cultures the 2nd wave is linked to include a lot of farmer influence both culturally and in terms of crania. So, it would seem a much higher ENF element would be in their mix. Probably vaguely linked to Gimbutas' 2nd wave?

[alan]

The steppe cultures the 2nd wave is linked to include a lot of farmer influence both culturally and in terms of crania. So, it would seem a much higher ENF element would be in their mix. Probably vaguely linked to Gimbutas' 2nd wave?

I also wonder if there is a link between this pre-Yamnaya wave into Old Europe c. 3300BC, if it is real, and the claim of the appearance of vaguely Kurganised looking stuff in Italy and southern France (Maykop influences were claimed) shortly after in a paper that recently came out. However there is no trace of steppe DNA in anyone tested in the period between 3300BC and the beaker era in southern Europe. So, if there was a link, then these were not R1b people. Its complex and a lot more ancient DNA is needed to sort out the myriad of cultures. Most are completely untested.

[Heber]

One of the points which came up at Professor Dan Bradleys lecture at GGI2015 is that his lab is currently working on NA, BA and IA ancient DNA samples from Hungary. No idea of publication date. His lab also has 20 samples from NA, BA and IA Ireland. Results expected in next two years.

[rms2]

One of the points which came up at Professor Dan Bradleys lecture at GGI2015 is that his lab is currently working on NA, BA and IA ancient DNA samples from Hungary. No idea of publication date. His lab also has 20 samples from NA, BA and IA Ireland. Results expected in next two years.

I hope they get the results out sooner than that! Two years is a long time to wait. All that does sound good though.

[Megalophias]

One of the problems with the really upsteam R1b - indeed anything much before M269 - is lineage death seems to be the norm. So modern distribution of 'basal' clades may be completely misleading chance. I also reckon looking at the P25 we get in Iran as Basal probably is not the right way of looking at it. It is a difference branch of P297 but it is not older per se. It and P297 simply split from each other.
There are actually at least 2 R1b splits that are older than the split of P297 from its sister branch. We do not know where the Iranian R1b* falls in the tree though. It could be chance distribution of minor stuff, it could be complex structure, there's no way to tell.

At present our information about the basal branches of R1b is simply inadequate to draw any conclusions. We can only keep our minds open and not become too attached to any of our theories built on the limited data available.

[George]

"In theory that is a branch off around the same time as Tocharian". Roughly speaking. The thing about Tocharians is that they were culturally still strongly "Repinist" (attested to by the available pictures of their pottery), as well as centum-speech people. I keep wondering what prompted their exodus. Was it just a decision to search for an Eldorado, was it some military or ideological conflict? I don't know enough about their later history (such as it is). If the totality of their material imprint remains nearly the same throughout, I would be tempted to see them as "conservatives" rejecting some proposed new deal on the Western steppes :\

[alan]

"In theory that is a branch off around the same time as Tocharian". Roughly speaking. The thing about Tocharians is that they were culturally still strongly "Repinist" (attested to by the available pictures of their pottery), as well as centum-speech people. I keep wondering what prompted their exodus. Was it just a decision to search for an Eldorado, was it some military or ideological conflict? I don't know enough about their later history (such as it is). If the totality of their material imprint remains nearly the same throughout, I would be tempted to see them as "conservatives" rejecting some proposed new deal on the Western steppes :\

Altai is very metal rich and mining at Kargaly seems to have started around the time they headed east. Its the most obvious attraction. However just how they could have know that before setting off is beyond me. Unless they got word of mountains from Siberians moving in the opposite direction. Who knows.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Altai is very metal rich and mining at Kargaly seems to have started around the time they headed east. Its the most obvious attraction. However just how they could have know that before setting off is beyond me. Unless they got word of mountains from Siberians moving in the opposite direction. Who knows.

It would be very interesting to get aDNA "over the ages" from the Tarim basin to establish the continuity and degree of admixture from Bronze Age until the Tocharian period - in 6th cc AD.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Based solely on the abstract, I would definitely agree that the 3050-3000 wave was indeed constituted by postStog elements (with a smattering of acculturated postRepinites). It also seems on track as to the Yamna character of the subsequent pushes, constituted mostly of postRepinites (with changed pottery customs and standardized burial positions). It looks as though Usatovo did not participate in this Yamna thrust to the lower Danube. Nor does it look as though the key pushes of CW were in that direction.


Also from the abstract

"" By including the preceding Suvorovo-Novodanilovka graves (Vth mill. BC) and some Kurgan/steppe burials attributed to Cernavoda I and its relatives (1st half of IVth mill. BC), a 2,000 years lasting continuum of exchange between the northeast, north and west-Pontic regions becomes evident. While we assume the ‘Yamnaya’ being mostly covered by an intense wave of migrant people from the east, in a novel socio-economic-ideological athmosphere, it remains to be seen whether the first Pit-Graves under Kurgans at the Lower Danube from c. 3300 cal BC are also carried by steppe people related to those using the north-Pontic Nizhne-Mikhailovka and Kvityana burial traditions, or by local populations integrating new ‘eastern’ burial customs into their own rituals. Perhaps a combination of both is the most likely scenario.""


aDNA from Suvorovo, Cernavoda, etc will be fascinating

[Heber]

I felt like a kid in a candy store, reading the Abstracts from the recent Jena Conference, Linguistics, Archeology, Genetics, Integrating new evidence for the origin and spread of the Indo European languages.
Where to start, so many to choose from and so many delicious flavours.

Morten Allentoft, Centre for Geogenetics Copenhagen
David. W. Anthony, Hartwick College N.Y.
Oleg Balanovsky, Russian Academy of Sciences
Remco Bouckaert, University of Auckland
Dorcas Brown, Hartwick College N.Y.
Anna Dybo, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow
Jean-Paul Demoule, Université de Paris
Russell Gray, MPI for the Science of Human History
Detlef Gronenborn, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Paul Heggarty, MPI for the Science of Human History
Volker Heyd, University Bristol
Gerhard Jäger, University of Tuebingen
Elke Kaiser, Freie Universität Berlin
Toomas Kivisild, University of Helsinki
John T. Koch, University of Wales
Kristian Kristiansen, Göteborgs Universitet
Guus Kroonen, Kobenhavns Universitet
Martin Joachim Kuemmel, Friedrich Schiller University Jena
Iosif Lazaridis, Harvard University
Mark Vander Linden, University College London
Jim Mallory, Queen's University
Johanna Nichols, University of Berkeley
Nick Patterson, Broad Institute Boston
Adam Powell, MPI for the Science of Human History
David Reich, Harvard Medical School
Mark Thomas, University College London
Stephan Schiffels, MPI for the Science of Human History
Pierre Zalloua, Lebanese American University

The Steppe Hypothesis and the Archaeology of Indo-European Migrations
David W. Anthony and Dorcas Brown, Hartwick College, New York

Ancient DNA allows archaeologists to detect with much greater confidence prehistoric migrations, and to define the degree of population admixture associated with them. Migration and admixture analysis are relevant to detecting the spread of languages and understanding the mechanisms of language spread. A sequence of prehistoric migrations from the Russian-Ukrainian steppes were congruent in direction and sequence with the sequence of splits and geographic locations for the IndoEuropean daughter branches.

Here is one of the many interesting papers from John Koch.
"Indo-European in Atlantic Europe at the proto-historic horizon and before: some recent work and its possible implications John T. Koch, University of Wales, Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, Cardiff
The aim is to introduce briefly a few topics in current research of potential relevance for the workshop’s theme. These include the following: • the Celticity of the South-western (‘Tartessian’) inscriptions and their background in the SW Iberian Late Bronze Age ‘warrior’ stelae, Middle Bronze Age Alentejo stelae, and Copper Age anthropomorphic stelae of the north Pontic region; • the common Palaeohispanic name Arquius ‘bowman’ and the regional survival of archery from the Beaker Copper Age; • the recurring idea smile emoticon emerging consensus?) of Celtic as Indo-European on an Iberian and/or Aquitanian/Palaeo-Basque substrate; • Phoenicians (together with literacy and the historical record) reaching the West by 900 BC, catalysing the break-up of the Atlantic Bronze Age and Proto-Celtic."

http://www.shh.mpg.de/105110/lag_conference

[razyn]

Here is one of the many interesting papers from John Koch.
"Indo-European in Atlantic Europe at the proto-historic horizon and before: some recent work and its possible implications" John T. Koch, University of Wales, Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, Cardiff

I like to associate a face, an accent etc. with these people whose papers we keep debating. And Koch is one of the people interviewed on the current BBC three-part series on the Celts. Part I (via YouTube) was just linked on another thread here by rms2: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5647-Would-you-visit-Celtic-Britain&p=115410&viewfull=1#post115410

After watching it (~58 minutes), one may continue to Part II, but I didn't watch that yet. Part III may not yet have aired.

[Anti]

John T. Koch is a Linguist and a rather bad one at that;
The whole 'Celts of the Atlantic-fringe' was first based by Cunliffe on the LGM-theory (now completely {genetically} debunked) and T. Koch followed up with his Tartessian-hypothesis; However also here its based on pure nonsense for Tartessian isnt even Indo-European (thus - def. not Keltic):

James Clackson - Indo-European Linguistics (2007 / Cambridge Uni.)
http://s2.postimg.org/ftr2yb2y1/999.png

J.P. Mallory - Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997)
http://s4.postimg.org/rdtjei4lp/mfd2.png

What T. Koch is trying to prove, is a Keltic (Indo-European) language existed outside of the manifested Hlalstatt>LaTene complex; Yet again a fail;

[rms2]

While I am skeptical, I would like to see Koch's argument for Tartessian as Celtic. I have only read a little bit of it, and that was a couple of years ago. While I don't think Celtic originated anywhere in Iberia, I don't see any reason why it is impossible that Tartessian was an old Celtic language.

I certainly don't think Hallstatt/La Tene marked the birth of Celtic; they were too late.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

While I am skeptical, I would like to see Koch's argument for Tartessian as Celtic. I have only read a little bit of it, and that was a couple of years ago. While I don't think Celtic originated anywhere in Iberia, I don't see any reason why it is impossible that Tartessian was an old Celtic language.

I certainly don't think Hallstatt/La Tene marked the birth of Celtic; they were too late.

Certainly not La Tene but maybe Halstatt period was the birth of celtic propper , which possibly expanded over earlier western IE lects. When one also considers regional convergences; we should expect to see several waves of language expansion in central -weatern Europe after the earliest IE arrived west of the Carpathians in ? 2500 BC.

Back to La Tene: the high level of exchange and mobility must have ushered significant linguistic innovation and change from early Celtic to that spoken by the Gauls, Boii and Galati, etc

[Dubhthach]

Back to La Tene: the high level of exchange and mobility must have ushered significant linguistic innovation and change from early Celtic to that spoken by the Gauls, Boii and Galati, etc

Well the most obviously shift is that from Kw (Q) -> P. Though given that this is present in Lepontic (the oldest written Celtic language) inscriptions of 6th century Northern Italy (which appear linked to golasecca culture) it's possible that the sound shift actually arises in Urnfield (which was proceeding material culture to both Golasecca and Hallstat).

Leaving that aside it has been proposed several times in that Celtiberian is an earlier outgrouping of wider Celtic family. eg that Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish share innovations not seen in Celtiberian. The obvious outlier been that Goidelic retained ancestral "Kw" (though it was lost in Old Irish with merger with /k/)

[TigerMW]

Certainly not La Tene but maybe Halstatt period was the birth of celtic propper , which possibly expanded over earlier western IE lects. When one also considers regional convergences; we should expect to see several waves of language expansion in central -weatern Europe after the earliest IE arrived west of the Carpathians in ? 2500 BC.

Back to La Tene: the high level of exchange and mobility must have ushered significant linguistic innovation and change from early Celtic to that spoken by the Gauls, Boii and Galati, etc
Tracing ancient language development before it was written may be a bit like chasing a ghost, making the original, original origination or whatever very hard to pinpoint. That does not mean that word associations with items of known geographies or timeframes are not useful, just pinpointing something like Proto-Celtic is a challenge.

I tend to agree with wording Alan has used in the past, that we might just consider a wide swath of Europe has covered with Western IE dialects and language derivatives in the late 3rd millenium and then the 2nd milleninum BC times. Proto-Celtic developed out of that but I'm not sure the base male populations in many of the sub-regions were not already set by the time something that could be distinctively called a Celtic language was spoken.

Can we say the latter Bell Beakers spoke Proto-Celtic, Pre-Celtic, Italo-Celtic or western IE? I don't think we can unless there is some word association with specific items. By this point, though, we already have a Pan-European network so we've lost geographic isolation almost entirely. The cultures had to diversify somewhat, even if it was single Pan-European horizon and network.

[rms2]

Certainly not La Tene but maybe Halstatt period was the birth of celtic propper , which possibly expanded over earlier western IE lects. When one also considers regional convergences; we should expect to see several waves of language expansion in central -weatern Europe after the earliest IE arrived west of the Carpathians in ? 2500 BC.

Back to La Tene: the high level of exchange and mobility must have ushered significant linguistic innovation and change from early Celtic to that spoken by the Gauls, Boii and Galati, etc

Hallstatt was just too late for the birth of Celtic, IMHO. I am not at my home computer, but on it I have Don Ringe's Indo-European tree which, as I recall, gives a date of ~2300 BC for the split of Proto-Celtic off of Italo-Celtic. The tree from this paper (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf), which I am including below, shows that split occurring just before 2500 BC.

6373

[Megalophias]

Hallstatt was just too late for the birth of Celtic, IMHO. I am not at my home computer, but on it I have Don Ringe's Indo-European tree which, as I recall, gives a date of ~2300 BC for the split of Proto-Celtic off of Italo-Celtic. The tree from this paper (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf), which I am including below, shows that split occurring just before 2500 BC.

6373
I am not defending the Hallstatt hypothesis, but the branch *from* Italo-Celtic is not the relevant node. The relevant node is the TMRCA of Celtic, which is 500 BC. (I know that only Insular Celtic is on the tree, and that language spreads are not usually very tree-like, and I have no opinion on the Celtic homeland question.)

[Dubhthach]

I am not defending the Hallstatt hypothesis, but the branch *from* Italo-Celtic is not the relevant node. The relevant node is the TMRCA of Celtic, which is 500 AD. (I know that only Insular Celtic is on the tree, and that language spreads are not usually very tree-like, and I have no opinion on the Celtic homeland question.)

500AD? Surely 500BC, as 500AD makes no sense given it's time period of both Old Irish and Old Welsh.

[Megalophias]

500AD? Surely 500BC, as 500AD makes no sense given it's time period of both Old Irish and Old Welsh.
Yeah, sorry, that was a typo. I will fix it.

[Dubhthach]

Yeah, sorry, that was a typo. I will fix it.

Given we have Lepontic inscriptions from about this time period, I'd suggest that 500BC is too late for Proto-Celtic, Lepontic is clearly a "P-Celtic" language whereas Proto-Celtic retained the "kw" value from Proto-IE.

[Megalophias]

Given we have Lepontic inscriptions from about this time period, I'd suggest that 500BC is too late for Proto-Celtic, Lepontic is clearly a "P-Celtic" language whereas Proto-Celtic retained the "kw" value from Proto-IE.
I certainly wouldn't expect a TMRCA from a linguistic tree to be precise to the century; many linguists would give it little credence at all. :) In any case I don't suppose finding an early Celtic branch just across the Alps from Hallstatt in the mid-1st M in a region occupied by a culture descended from Urnfield and in contact with Hallstatt would be considered a huge problem by the Hallstatt advocates.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Given we have Lepontic inscriptions from about this time period, I'd suggest that 500BC is too late for Proto-Celtic, Lepontic is clearly a "P-Celtic" language whereas Proto-Celtic retained the "kw" value from Proto-IE.

The rate of language change is uneven and could be punctuated by periods of rapid expansion and development overlying periods of relative conservatism. The Hallstatt period could have catalysed the sets of innovations which developed into P-Celtic (a ' dynamic Centre") whilst Q Celtic continued to develop somewhat more slowly in more peripheral areas

So yes this requires Proto Celtic to be pushed back in time to c 1000 BCE, at least.

[Anti]

While I am skeptical, I would like to see Koch's argument for Tartessian as Celtic. I have only read a little bit of it, and that was a couple of years ago. While I don't think Celtic originated anywhere in Iberia, I don't see any reason why it is impossible that Tartessian was an old Celtic language.

I certainly don't think Hallstatt/La Tene marked the birth of Celtic; they were too late.

What is almost a certainty now is that the entire 'Bell-beaker phenomenon' has to be revised;
Concerning the recent data it than has to be put in an east>west Indo-European setting;
This now allows the fundamental question about Keltic and a Bell-beaker legacy outside Hallstatt>LaTene, but also what role the Hallstatt>LaTene expansion played; However, it has to be noted that the entire Cunliffe and Koch assessments were always on the false premise that R1b and Bell-beaker originated in the west, and claiming a non-Indo-European language as Indo-European added to the twisted view;

On the bases of linguistics if we follow Clackson (2007 - based on Garrett 1999/2006) than: 'the number of morphological innovations which are shared by all the Celtic languages is extremely small, and if we use the strictest criteria for reconstructing sub-groups, the Celtic languages do not qualify. Even the loss of ∗p seems only to be underway in the Lepontic inscriptions and may have spread across the whole language area from language to language, rather than being a feature of a sub-group parent from which they all descended'

This means that a uniformed Keltic language (i.e. a proto stage) from which all distinctive Keltic sub-languages than emerged from never existed as such; So we are basically just talking about Indo-European sister languages emerging from either the Urnfield-complex (i.e. its successors Hallstatt>LaTene) or (given the recent data) the earlier Beakers, but separately from each other and not daughter languages of a proto-Keltic mother language; Keeping in mind however that Hallstatt>LaTene ultimately derives from the eastern Beaker branch (via Unetice);

[Gravetto-Danubian]

What is almost a certainty now is that the entire 'Bell-beaker phenomenon' has to be revised;
Concerning the recent data it than has to be put in an east>west Indo-European setting;
This now allows the fundamental question about Keltic and a Bell-beaker legacy outside Hallstatt>LaTene, but also what role the Hallstatt>LaTene expansion played; However, it has to be noted that the entire Cunliffe and Koch assessments were always on the false premise that R1b and Bell-beaker originated in the west, and claiming a non-Indo-European language as Indo-European added to the twisted view;

On the bases of linguistics if we follow Clackson (2007 - based on Garrett 1999/2006) than: 'the number of morphological innovations which are shared by all the Celtic languages is extremely small, and if we use the strictest criteria for reconstructing sub-groups, the Celtic languages do not qualify. Even the loss of ∗p seems only to be underway in the Lepontic inscriptions and may have spread across the whole language area from language to language, rather than being a feature of a sub-group parent from which they all descended'

This means that a uniformed Keltic language (i.e. a proto stage) from which all distinctive Keltic sub-languages than emerged from never existed as such; So we are basically just talking about Indo-European sister languages emerging from either the Urnfield-complex (i.e. its successors Hallstatt>LaTene) or (given the recent data) the earlier Beakers, but separately from each other and not daughter languages of a proto-Keltic mother language; Keeping in mind however that Hallstatt>LaTene ultimately derives from the eastern Beaker branch (via Unetice);

Exactly, that is why I have tended to see Celtic as very young (along with the fact that Waddel's palaeolexical reconstruction sees Celtic as an essentially a late bronze age language). Andrew Garrett argued similarly:
"Analysis of the Continental Celtic languages, especially Lepontic
and Celtiberian, has cast doubt on a number of putative Celtic innovations. Thus Eska (1998) argues that the diagnostic Celtic loss of Indo—European *p may have been ‘in progress’ in the earliest document ed Lepontic. This would mean that the change was not a ‘Proto—Celtic’ innovation
after all, despite eventually affecting all Celtic languages. Current work on Celtiberian suggests a comparable view of some other distinctive innovations of the Celtic branch of Indo—European". Further:
"What is crucial in this model is that at some early date – say, at the beginning of the second millennium BCE – the dialects that were to become Celtic, or Italic, or Greek, shared no properties that distinguished them uniquely from the other dialects....

" What I am saying is this: there is no clear evidence for a historical – that is to say, in the technical linguistic sense of the term, a genetic – Celtic or Italic or Greek subgroup of Indo—European. These do not correspond to nodes on an Indo—European Stammbaum. On the contrary, some
time in the third or second millennium BCE, the Indo—European dialects of western and southern Europe formed a continuum. This contained the ancestors of Celtic, Italic, and Greek, as well as Venetic and the other ‘minor’ languages of the area, and no doubt other dialects that are now lost.
But there is no reason to assume that the ancestors of the later Celtic or Italic languages, or of the Greek dialects, shared any exclusive set of innovations defining them as distinct subgroups of Indo—European. 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"
IF there was not even a "Celtic" node, there can't have been things like "Italo-Celtic", either.

[Anti]

IF there was not even a "Celtic" node, there can't have been things like "Italo-Celtic", either.

Exactly,
That [a proto-Keltic/Italic unit] has been debunked already in 1966 (Watkins);
Lottner and Meillet proposed this common - Italo-Celtic unit - but today it is known (inscriptions/manuscripts) that features such as the ā-subjunctive or r-endings are also shared with Tocharian and Hittite (Jasanoff 1992 / Malzahn 2010); Thus a common/separate development of Indo-European and no common/intermediate units (Clackson/Horrocks 2007); Italic and Keltic do share the most similarities within the Indo-European family, but this is most def. not due to a common Italo-Celtic unit - it is due to the common Indo-European root itself (Watkins 1966);

In my opinion Lepontic (stemming from Urnfield-Golasecca) is not Keltic either but archaic Italic;
In the case of Lepontic there are many shared elements with Italic (Sabellic languages) as in the cases of *kw>p or *gw>b and more exclusive the retaining of word-final *-m (also *p) and even more exclusive *nd>nn and *ks>ss; A diff. is the development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh in Lepontic to Italic; In Lepontic *bh/*dh/*gh simply lost their aspiration but in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-/h-/-h-) both initial and internal however in Latin *bh/*dh are retained in internal pos. but with lost aspiration; The word-final *-m is constraint and replaced by -n in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic [LATIN], Sanskrit and Lepontic; The fact that the word-final *-m was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests the separate development of Indo-European languages within the Bronze-age Urnfield-complex;

[vettor]

Exactly,
That [a proto-Keltic/Italic unit] has been debunked already in 1966 (Watkins);
Lottner and Meillet proposed this common - Italo-Celtic unit - but today it is known (inscriptions/manuscripts) that features such as the ā-subjunctive or r-endings are also shared with Tocharian and Hittite (Jasanoff 1992 / Malzahn 2010); Thus a common/separate development of Indo-European and no common/intermediate units (Clackson/Horrocks 2007); Italic and Keltic do share the most similarities within the Indo-European family, but this is most def. not due to a common Italo-Celtic unit - it is due to the common Indo-European root itself (Watkins 1966);

In my opinion Lepontic (stemming from Urnfield-Golasecca) is not Keltic either but archaic Italic;
In the case of Lepontic there are many shared elements with Italic (Sabellic languages) as in the cases of *kw>p or *gw>b and more exclusive the retaining of word-final *-m (also *p) and even more exclusive *nd>nn and *ks>ss; A diff. is the development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh in Lepontic to Italic; In Lepontic *bh/*dh/*gh simply lost their aspiration but in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-/h-/-h-) both initial and internal however in Latin *bh/*dh are retained in internal pos. but with lost aspiration; The word-final *-m is constraint and replaced by -n in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic [LATIN], Sanskrit and Lepontic; The fact that the word-final *-m was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests the separate development of Indo-European languages within the Bronze-age Urnfield-complex;

Bear in mind that Sabellic are same as the Sabines who are central italian (adriatic side) people of Umbro and Picene descent ...........who most likely had a connection with the indigenous tribes of Milan area. As umbro came from the north of Italy to mix with the oscars of southern Italy

[Anti]

Bear in mind that Sabellic are same as the Sabines who are central italian (adriatic side) people of Umbro and Picene descent ...........who most likely had a connection with the indigenous tribes of Milan area. As umbro came from the north of Italy to mix with the oscars of southern Italy

I agree, a special highlight are the Indo-European Umbrians - who Plinius [III/XIX] records as ''the oldest stock'' in Italy and Dionysius [II/XLIX] based on Xenodotus records that the Sabines stemmed from the Umbrians; In turn Strabo [V/III] derives the Samnites and Picentes from the Sabines; Making the Umbrians the mother-nation of all Italic tribes; Insubres {IsOmbri} translates to low-land Umbrians; All this is ofcourse derived from the Urnfield migration ~1200BC;

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Exactly, that is why I have tended to see Celtic as very young (along with the fact that Waddel's palaeolexical reconstruction sees Celtic as an essentially a late bronze age language).

I wish to clarify, by “young” I mean relative to overall age PIE (~ M4 vs ~ M1). It’s on par with Italic, and still older than Germanic and Slavic.

[rms2]

I am not defending the Hallstatt hypothesis, but the branch *from* Italo-Celtic is not the relevant node. The relevant node is the TMRCA of Celtic, which is 500 BC. (I know that only Insular Celtic is on the tree, and that language spreads are not usually very tree-like, and I have no opinion on the Celtic homeland question.)

Since the issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture, the split of Proto-Celtic off of Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC certainly is the relevant node. If the Beaker Folk who arrived in Britain were already speaking an early form of Celtic, i.e., Proto-Celtic, then Celtic cannot be said to have originated with Hallstatt.

[rms2]

. . . Italic and Keltic do share the most similarities within the Indo-European family, but this is most def. not due to a common Italo-Celtic unit - it is due to the common Indo-European root itself (Watkins 1966) . . .

There are a number of modern linguists, post 1966, who would disagree. I am not a professional linguist myself, but I think there are good reasons for believing that there was indeed an Italo-Celtic subfamily of Indo-European.

Don Ringe has that branch on his Indo-European tree for example.

In terms of y-dna, there seems to be a pretty good fit between P312 and Italo-Celtic-speaking regions and peoples. Before anyone gets too excited that his subclade is in danger of losing its purely Germanic status, let me say that I am speaking in general, big-picture terms. I realize that other y haplogroups were involved and that none of this is ever perfect or pure and unalloyed.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In terms of y-dna, there seems to be a pretty good fit between P312 and Italo-Celtic-speaking regions and peoples.

No doubt, but I think P312 represents an early IE ancestor in central -west Europe, but linguistically, Celtic is a later phenomenon

[Isidro]

Concerning Lepontic ( Golasecca), Celtiberian and Gaulish languages layers in the Mediterranean geography crescent formed by modern Italy, France and Spain I came across this 1992 essay by Javier de Hoz. Some might find it useful. 1,300 century BC middle bronze age seems the catalizer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAGahUKEwjA7eSE19PIAhULt4AKHYTNDtY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F1627497%2F1992 _Lepontic_Celt-Iberian_Gaulish_and_the_archaeological_evidence_%2 5C3%2589tudes_Celtiques_29_223-40&usg=AFQjCNHDlQB-Zzq1Ns6bu7HAhyjZgrEIoA&sig2=8Nq0AF9yOtuKv0koAwB6Qg

[rms2]

No doubt, but I think P312 represents an early IE ancestor in central -west Europe, but linguistically, Celtic is a later phenomenon

I agree about P312, but the age of P312 versus Celtic does not really matter if the correspondence is real.

Italo-Celtic and, subsequently, Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic were probably transmitted by Beaker people.

[alan]

Celtic probably emerged from a west IE/Celto-Italic branch brought by P312 bell beaker people. However, they were the same people and it only took a few shifts to transform them to technically being Celtic speakers. There was no ethnic change.

IMO the shifts probably happened over the period 2000-1500BC. It may have been gradual and probably and step by step and we likely can never know exactly the timing and place. I dont think the shifts spread out of a single place and were brought by invaders but rather probably was like the way 'posh' English has spread among the moneyed classes in the Anglosphere as an international status thing and also because a uniform elite dialect makes sense when the elites seem to have been particularly focused on wide networking and following every exotic trends in metalwork etc.

It probably was a process rather than an event and would have continued if the Romans hadnt brought it to an end in most of the Celtic world. So, vocab could have kept spreading many centuries after Celtic had emerged due to ongoing connectivity among the elites and therefore no single word provides a terminus post quem date for Celtic. So for example a shared word for Iron doesnt mean that Celtic only emerged after Iron was known. All it tells you is that all the Celtic speaking elites were still connected in some way after the knowledge of Iron had spread.

IMO Celtic only started to diverge when the wider Bronze Age networks started to fail and some areas were out of the loop - a process that probably really kicked off at the end of Hallstatt C when the elites on the western peripheries became isolated and out of the loop in terms of Hallstatt D and early Late Tene. Divergence in the form of some parts of Celtic missing some shifts only tells us about a late phase that marks the end of proto-Celtic. Proto-Celtic marks the end not the beginning of Celtic.

[alan]

sorry wrong thread

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Celtic probably emerged from a west IE/Celto-Italic branch brought by P312 bell beaker people. However, they were the same people and it only took a few shifts to transform them to technically being Celtic speakers. There was no ethnic change.

IMO the shifts probably happened over the period 2000-1500BC. It may have been gradual and probably and step by step and we likely can never know exactly the timing and place. I dont think the shifts spread out of a single place and were brought by invaders but rather probably was like the way 'posh' English has spread among the moneyed classes in the Anglosphere as an international status thing and also because a uniform elite dialect makes sense when the elites seem to have been particularly focused on wide networking and following every exotic trends in metalwork etc.

It probably was a process rather than an event and would have continued if the Romans hadnt brought it to an end in most of the Celtic world. So, vocab could have kept spreading many centuries after Celtic had emerged due to ongoing connectivity among the elites and therefore no single word provides a terminus post quem date for Celtic. So for example a shared word for Iron doesnt mean that Celtic only emerged after Iron was known. All it tells you is that all the Celtic speaking elites were still connected in some way after the knowledge of Iron had spread.

IMO Celtic only started to diverge when the wider Bronze Age networks started to fail and some areas were out of the loop - a process that probably really kicked off at the end of Hallstatt C when the elites on the western peripheries became isolated and out of the loop in terms of Hallstatt D and early Late Tene. Divergence in the form of some parts of Celtic missing some shifts only tells us about a late phase that marks the end of proto-Celtic. Proto-Celtic marks the end not the beginning of Celtic.

Yes it was a process. P312 did not bring Italo- Celtic, because Italo-Celtic is a non-entity (according to most linguists)- but granted we're now splitting terminological hairs
. Rather P312 likely spread an early western Indo-European from which italic & Celtic formed insitu through multiple linguistic processes

[rms2]

I don't think "Italo-Celtic is a non-entity". There are a number of eminent linguists who would agree with me, but I have not polled all linguists as you apparently have done, since you assert that most linguists agree with you.

Italo-Celtic is a legitimate branch of Indo-European, and it was probably spread by the Beaker Folk.

(Honestly, I don't know linguistics from Mott's left Hoople, but it seems odd to me how much the spread of Italic and Celtic match that of the Beaker Folk and R1b-P312, so I tend to side with the linguists who say that Italo-Celtic is a real branch of Indo-European.)

[vettor]

I don't think "Italo-Celtic is a non-entity". There are a number of eminent linguists who would agree with me, but I have not polled all linguists as you apparently have done, since you assert that most linguists agree with you.

Italo-Celtic is a legitimate branch of Indo-European, and it was probably spread by the Beaker Folk.

(Honestly, I don't know linguistics from Mott's left Hoople, but it seems odd to me how much the spread of Italic and Celtic match that of the Beaker Folk and R1b-P312, so I tend to side with the linguists who say that Italo-Celtic is a real branch of Indo-European.)

What it should be called is Italo-Gallic and leave the celtic to the linguistic side..............with north italy, swiss, and france being gallic , the migration of umbrians ( gallic ?!) to central italy to merge with italics seems what most people think.

Where does it state that italics where in north italy?.................clearly etruscans where not italics either

[vettor]

Since the issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture, the split of Proto-Celtic off of Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC certainly is the relevant node. If the Beaker Folk who arrived in Britain were already speaking an early form of Celtic, i.e., Proto-Celtic, then Celtic cannot be said to have originated with Hallstatt.

Halstatt is in eastern austria, in noricum, where illyrians lived before any celts entered to eventually "merge" with these illyrians.

Maybe halstatt is really a celtic-illyric culture..........clearly there where no italics in austria then

[Megalophias]

Since the issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture, the split of Proto-Celtic off of Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC certainly is the relevant node. If the Beaker Folk who arrived in Britain were already speaking an early form of Celtic, i.e., Proto-Celtic, then Celtic cannot be said to have originated with Hallstatt.

Proto-Celtic is not an "early form of Celtic", Proto-Celtic is the last common ancestor of the Celtic languages.

The age of the Italo-Celtic node is irrelevant to the age of the Proto-Celtic node, except as an upper bound, in exactly the same way that M269 having probably separated from P297 in the Pleistocene has no bearing on whether or not M269 diversified in the Chalcolithic.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Halstatt is in eastern austria, in noricum, where illyrians lived before any celts entered to eventually "merge" with these illyrians.

Maybe halstatt is really a celtic-illyric culture..........clearly there where no italics in austria then

There's no real basis to this statement, apart from older theories dredged from Culture History and pan-illyrianism. Illyrians proprie dictii were from way down south, near Montenegro, SW Serbia and northern Albania. We actually don't know what language eastern Halstatt spoke, but we do know Cletic became prominent in the 4th century until early Roman Era.

[Anti]

There are a number of modern linguists, post 1966, who would disagree. I am not a professional linguist myself, but I think there are good reasons for believing that there was indeed an Italo-Celtic subfamily of Indo-European.

Don Ringe has that branch on his Indo-European tree for example.

The lexical isoglosses shared between Italic and Keltic of course remain;
Yet the fact that certain developments are also shared with other Indo-Euroepan branches alike, questions a uniformed intermediate unit - in contrast to an independent development from a common root; Given that a 'proto-stage' in both Keltic and Italic are also problematic and very theoretical to construct i am more inclined to follow Clackson/Garrett;
In Italic there is also the Venetic obscurity that adds to the problematic of a proto-stage (in fact virtually debunks it);


In terms of y-dna, there seems to be a pretty good fit between P312 and Italo-Celtic-speaking regions and peoples. Before anyone gets too excited that his subclade is in danger of losing its purely Germanic status, let me say that I am speaking in general, big-picture terms. I realize that other y haplogroups were involved and that none of this is ever perfect or pure and unalloyed.

I agree with that;
P312, in modern times, is cored in the former Keltic and Italic realms, but there is also a decent minority of P312 oustide of it; Based on the data of Rebala et al 2013 and Myres et al 2010; P312 is 11,6% south Sweden (n=139) and 19,0% in Mecklenburg (n=131) i.e. the Germanic/Baltic area - {Bavaria n=218 19,2% / mostly U152}; I would ascribe this to the broader Indo-European migration and not confined to any specific Indo-European branch; However the shift between L11>U106 and L11>P312 is most visible in modern Germanic/Romanic border areas;

Niederstätter et al 2012 - East Tyrol n=270
18.8% U106
15.5% P312 (of which: 12.5% U152/3% P312*)

Larmuseau et al 2012 - Belgium (Flandern/Wallonia)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--V16hdxUvkA/T5HPNvs-8DI/AAAAAAAAEyI/k_vrA5xs3Hc/s640/flemish.jpg

[rms2]

Proto-Celtic is not an "early form of Celtic", Proto-Celtic is the last common ancestor of the Celtic languages.

Proto-Celtic is the original, primitive form of Celtic before it began to divide into daughter languages. Thus it is indeed an early form of Celtic.

Saying that it is not an early form of Celtic is like saying Proto-Indo-European was not Indo-European but merely the last common ancestor of the Indo-European languages.



The age of the Italo-Celtic node is irrelevant to the age of the Proto-Celtic node, except as an upper bound, in exactly the same way that M269 having probably separated from P297 in the Pleistocene has no bearing on whether or not M269 diversified in the Chalcolithic.

No one mentioned the age of the Italo-Celtic node. What was mentioned was the node at which Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic. That is relevant, since the issue was whether or not Celtic originated with the Iron Age Hallstatt culture. It could not have originated with Hallstatt if Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic circa 2500 BC.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

It could not have originated with Hallstatt if Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic circa 2500 BC.

How are we getting that specific date ?

[rms2]

How are we getting that specific date ?

Is circa Latin for "specific"?

That date comes from the IE tree I posted earlier in this thread. Ringe's tree has it at circa 2300 BC.

[George]

Is circa Latin for "specific"?

That date comes from the IE tree I posted earlier in this thread. Ringe's tree has it at circa 2300 BC.

Circa means "around" "about". It's an approximation

[rms2]

Circa means "around" "about". It's an approximation

And sarcasm, what does that mean?

(BTW, I knew what circa means. I was being sarcastic.)

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Is circa Latin for "specific"?

That date comes from the IE tree I posted earlier in this thread. Ringe's tree has it at circa 2300 BC.

Circa ; specific , whatever.:)
I asked how we got late M3 compared to ~ 900 CE (ie what reason/ method). So I see- Ringe's cladogram. But I guess Ringe doesn't allow for scenarios of convergence and hasn't considered in depth the issue of proto -Celtic innovation that the others have. And I presume his tree diagram is largely illustrative for a general picture rather than a definitive thesis on proto-Celtic

Either way, I think any scenario is possible, as language change can be hard to date. but it's good not to hang one's hat on a single source.

[George]

And sarcasm, what does that mean?

(BTW, I knew what circa means. I was being sarcastic.)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I don't follow the totality of this thread. Just saw the brief post while surfing. Will leave you alone in the future.

[rms2]

Circa ; specific , whatever.:)
I asked how we got late M3 compared to ~ 900 CE. I guess Ringe doesn't allow for nuanced scenarios of convergence and hasn't considered in depth the issue of proto -Celtic innovation that the others have. And I presume his tree diagram is largely illustrative for a general picture rather than a definitive thesis on proto-Celtic

Either way, I think any scenario is possible, but it's good not to hang one's hat on a single source, or picture- in this instance

I'm not hanging my hat on a single source or even solely on linguistics. I just happen to think Ringe and a number of others are right about Italo-Celtic as a branch of Indo-European, in part because of the fit of the distribution of the Italo-Celtic languages, R1b-P312, and the Beaker Folk. I'm not enough of a linguist myself to be able to take part in a debate on the linguistic merits of whether Italo-Celtic forms a separate branch of Indo-European or Italic and Celtic are two completely separate branches unto themselves.

The idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt seems to me an outmoded 19th century belief that was part and parcel of the notion that the Celts were Iron Age invaders. That was still current when I was a kid in the 1960s, because I recall reading that in history books as a boy.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

The idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt seems to me an outmoded 19th century belief that was part and parcel of the notion that the Celts were Iron Age invaders. That was still current when I was a kid in the 1960s, because I recall reading that in history books as a boy.

Agree- I think the spread of Celtic was more complex than that. I just see a somewhat younger chronology when contact is factored in. I don't think we can yet call anything (proto-)Celtic, or Slavic or even Greek c. 2300 BC..

Again, just differences in detail..

[R.Rocca]

I'm not hanging my hat on a single source or even solely on linguistics. I just happen to think Ringe and a number of others are right about Italo-Celtic as a branch of Indo-European, in part because of the fit of the distribution of the Italo-Celtic languages, R1b-P312, and the Beaker Folk. I'm not enough of a linguist myself to be able to take part in a debate on the linguistic merits of whether Italo-Celtic forms a separate branch of Indo-European or Italic and Celtic are two completely separate branches unto themselves.

The idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt seems to me an outmoded 19th century belief that was part and parcel of the notion that the Celts were Iron Age invaders. That was still current when I was a kid in the 1960s, because I recall reading that in history books as a boy.

From what I've read, there aren't many common points that favor an Italo-Celtic link, but the ones that do exist are so strong that they are difficult to explain without an Italo-Celtic common origin. What that means to me is that Italo-Celtic was likely very "real", but it was only around at the very inception of say P312 (~2500 BC) and for only a relatively short period of time (~200-400 years). I suspect most fully "Italic" languages were simply an amalgamation of Italo-Celtic with Copper Age languages of the Italic peninsula and of course, later ones. While the use of computational phylogenetics for linguistics has received a lot of well deserved criticism around dating, I like that they take away biases, and almost all of them produce an Italo-Celtic branch FWIW.

[vettor]

There's no real basis to this statement, apart from older theories dredged from Culture History and pan-illyrianism. Illyrians proprie dictii were from way down south, near Montenegro, SW Serbia and northern Albania. We actually don't know what language eastern Halstatt spoke, but we do know Cletic became prominent in the 4th century until early Roman Era.

the studies by the hungarian Geza Alfoldy was resurected in 2014 and the conclusion remains the same for noricum lands is that celtic where permanently settled in northern noricum , illyrians in southern noricum and the veneti in western noricum

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/illyri_zpsl5xdwuxx.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/illyri_zpsl5xdwuxx.jpg.html)

Halstatt sits where in noricum?

[vettor]

The lexical isoglosses shared between Italic and Keltic of course remain;
Yet the fact that certain developments are also shared with other Indo-Euroepan branches alike, questions a uniformed intermediate unit - in contrast to an independent development from a common root; Given that a 'proto-stage' in both Keltic and Italic are also problematic and very theoretical to construct i am more inclined to follow Clackson/Garrett;
In Italic there is also the Venetic obscurity that adds to the problematic of a proto-stage (in fact virtually debunks it);



I agree with that;
P312, in modern times, is cored in the former Keltic and Italic realms, but there is also a decent minority of P312 oustide of it; Based on the data of Rebala et al 2013 and Myres et al 2010; P312 is 11,6% south Sweden (n=139) and 19,0% in Mecklenburg (n=131) i.e. the Germanic/Baltic area - {Bavaria n=218 19,2% / mostly U152}; I would ascribe this to the broader Indo-European migration and not confined to any specific Indo-European branch; However the shift between L11>U106 and L11>P312 is most visible in modern Germanic/Romanic border areas;

Niederstätter et al 2012 - East Tyrol n=270
18.8% U106
15.5% P312 (of which: 12.5% U152/3% P312*)

Larmuseau et al 2012 - Belgium (Flandern/Wallonia)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--V16hdxUvkA/T5HPNvs-8DI/AAAAAAAAEyI/k_vrA5xs3Hc/s640/flemish.jpg

before calling anything italic, one needs to prove if the indigenous ancient northern italian tribes are italic..............we know etruscans are not, we now venetic are not, are the ligurians italic people, I have never seen this mentioned that they definitely are

[Megalophias]

No one mentioned the age of the Italo-Celtic node. What was mentioned was the node at which Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic.
The point at which Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic *is* the Italo-Celtic node, by definition.


That is relevant, since the issue was whether or not Celtic originated with the Iron Age Hallstatt culture. It could not have originated with Hallstatt if Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic circa 2500 BC.
Proto-Celtic is the common ancestor of Celtic languages. Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic and *remained one language* for some unknown amount of time, before it further diverged to become the different Celtic languages. The tree only has Insular Celtic, so the true common ancestor of Celtic could be older than 500 BC, but it must be *after* 2500 BC. If the Celtic languages themselves diverged at the Italo-Celtic node, then the Celtic language family would not even exist, it would be spurious.

[vettor]

The point at which Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic *is* the Italo-Celtic node, by definition.


Proto-Celtic is the common ancestor of Celtic languages. Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic and *remained one language* for some unknown amount of time, before it further diverged to become the different Celtic languages. The tree only has Insular Celtic, so the true common ancestor of Celtic could be older than 500 BC, but it must be *after* 2500 BC. If the Celtic languages themselves diverged at the Italo-Celtic node, then the Celtic language family would not even exist, it would be spurious.

There is no italic in halstatt areas, so there cannot be italo-celtic in halstatt either ......halstatt was early iron-age

[alan]

I agree with those who see Proto-Celtic as the point when Celtic started to break up its unity. It doesnt tell us how long prior to that date that the language already had the features that define Celtic. That could have been many centuries earlier, even a thousand years or so. Looking at archaeology I think technically proto-Celtic probably dates to when we see the shared contacts start to not be shared with all the Celtic spreaking areas - I would say that that appears to have happen around 1000BC when we see some areas cease to share contact with the core after the Hallstatt C period. Actually Hispano-Celtic probably isolated first not long after 1000BC followed by the Irish around 750BC. However we have no idea when the shifts defining Celtic happened. I would say its almost certain that the Celtic shifts had happened by 1400BC as they exist in areas with or without urnfield phases. So I think it pre-dates Urnfield and goes back to an earlier period - at least a century or two before Urnfield. On the other hand I think Celtic wouldnt have emerged until the beaker network started to break down and languages diverged. So I would place the Celtic shifts as taking place in the period 2100-1500BC and this defined a pre-proto-Celtic period. Proto-Celtic marks a theoretical moment in time just before the start of the breaking up of Celtic and is probably post-1000BC.

The best avenue for exploring this period of Celtic before the Proto-Celtic 'moment' is the shared vocab it has with Germanic which seems to be shared in the pre-proto stages rather than borrowed from one to the other. This shared vocab is very interesting and dates not from the Iron Age or even the end of the Bronze Age but some more remote period. The shared vocab is important stuff relating to ritual, social organisation and war in particular. This incidentally makes nonsense of the Koch model. The vocab is not susceptible to refined dating though.

[GoldenHind]

P312, in modern times, is cored in the former Keltic and Italic realms, but there is also a decent minority of P312 oustide of it; Based on the data of Rebala et al 2013 and Myres et al 2010; P312 is 11,6% south Sweden (n=139) and 19,0% in Mecklenburg (n=131) i.e. the Germanic/Baltic area - {Bavaria n=218 19,2% / mostly U152}; I would ascribe this to the broader Indo-European migration and not confined to any specific Indo-European branch;

There is indeed a decent amount of P312 outside the former Celtic and Italic realms. Some years ago I looked at all the data I could find on Scandinavia (Myres, Busby, the Old Norway project). Contrary to popular perception, overall P312 and U106 are roughly equal there, although in some areas (such as northern Denmark, Blekinge-Kristianstad/Sweden) U106 was more common and in others (Coastal Norway, Skaraborg/Sweden) P312 was predominant.

[rms2]

The point at which Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic *is* the Italo-Celtic node, by definition.

I think we are approaching this from different directions, hence the apparent misunderstanding. In terms of Indo-European, the Italo-Celtic node is the point at which Italo-Celtic diverged from Proto-Indo-European. In terms of Italo-Celtic, the Proto-Celtic node is the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic.



Proto-Celtic is the common ancestor of Celtic languages.

Yes, it is, and thus it was the earliest form of Celtic, the original, primitive, common form.



Pre-Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic and *remained one language* for some unknown amount of time, before it further diverged to become the different Celtic languages. The tree only has Insular Celtic, so the true common ancestor of Celtic could be older than 500 BC, but it must be *after* 2500 BC. If the Celtic languages themselves diverged at the Italo-Celtic node, then the Celtic language family would not even exist, it would be spurious.

Proto-Celtic, as I said before, is the hypothetical, original, primitive, common form of Celtic. The point at issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture. If Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic around 2500 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt.

The Celtic languages (plural) diverged from Proto-Celtic, but that does not mean Proto-Celtic itself was somehow not Celtic. It was the only form of Celtic until its daughter languages began to diverge from it. In the same way, Proto-Indo-European was Indo-European, the original form, the only form, until its daughter languages began to diverge from it. Proto-Celtic was not something completely "other"; it was Celtic.

No need to tack on the prefix "pre" and back the boat up into the Italo-Celtic stream. Another "pre" or two, and we would be back into Proto-Indo-European.

[Krefter]

@rms2,

About Neolithic Spaniard ATP2 being R1b1a2. Atanas Kumbarov(I was told by another person via email) analysed ATP2. His calls agreed with Geneticker but he thinks the R1b calls are false positives. Atanas made a list of "conflicting" Y SNPs mostly from R1b. The R1b1 and R1 SNPs ATP2 was positive for are listed as conflicting. ATP2 is negative for IJ, I, J, G, E, E1b1, T , I don't know if they're "conflicting" or not. All that's left for Western Y DNA is R and H. He's positive for F, GIHJK, K and R1b1a2 SNPs Atanas did not list as conflicting but that doesn't mean they're not. The thing to do now is see if R1b indviduals have the same allele in the R1, R1b1, and R1b1a2 SNPs that ATP2 does.

I look forward to seeing the Y SNP calls for the Eneolithic R1b1 guy. He could be R1b1a2 or R1b1a2a1, it isn't a stretch considering Mesolithic R1b1 was R1b1a1. About the pre-Beaker R1b from Hungary. The other guy from his burial had I2a2, the most popular HG of Bronze age Hungarians. I doubt his people gave Bell Beaker R1b because they probably had very little ANE and R1b, like Bronze age Hungarians. But who knows, he may have been very differnt from later Hungarians.

[alan]

I see a paper on Eurogenes suggesting bubonic plague may have mutated and caused a major wipeout of the farmers - perhaps helping steppe expansions. The farmers IMO would have been especially at risk in those crowded nucleated settlements-especially those super-towns of the late Cut-Trip culture.

It is interesting because the really bad arid phase seems to post-date the Yamnaya expansion so perhaps disease was a factor. I have never believed much that military advantage of pastoralists on block wheeled carts was significant, large chaps or not, when encountering huge fortified settlements of many 1000s of people who could easily have exactly the same weapons as steppe people if they wanted.

[alan]

@rms2,

About Neolithic Spaniard ATP2 being R1b1a2. Atanas Kumbarov(I was told by another person via email) analysed ATP2. His calls agreed with Geneticker but he thinks the R1b calls are false positives. Atanas made a list of "conflicting" Y SNPs mostly from R1b. The R1b1 and R1 SNPs ATP2 was positive for are listed as conflicting. ATP2 is negative for IJ, I, J, G, E, E1b1, T , I don't know if they're "conflicting" or not. All that's left for Western Y DNA is R and H. He's positive for F, GIHJK, K and R1b1a2 SNPs Atanas did not list as conflicting but that doesn't mean they're not. The thing to do now is see if R1b indviduals have the same allele in the R1, R1b1, and R1b1a2 SNPs that ATP2 does.

I look forward to seeing the Y SNP calls for the Eneolithic R1b1 guy. He could be R1b1a2 or R1b1a2a1, it isn't a stretch considering Mesolithic R1b1 was R1b1a1. About the pre-Beaker R1b from Hungary. The other guy from his burial had I2a2, the most popular HG of Bronze age Hungarians. I doubt his people gave Bell Beaker R1b because they probably had very little ANE and R1b, like Bronze age Hungarians. But who knows, he may have been very differnt from later Hungarians.

Well there was another H guy on the same site some centuries later so that would seem a strong possibility to me.

[alan]

I think we are approaching this from different directions, hence the apparent misunderstanding. In terms of Indo-European, the Italo-Celtic node is the point at which Italo-Celtic diverged from Proto-Indo-European. In terms of Italo-Celtic, the Proto-Celtic node is the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic.



Yes, it is, and thus it was the earliest form of Celtic, the original, primitive, common form.



Proto-Celtic, as I said before, is the hypothetical, original, primitive, common form of Celtic. The point at issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture. If Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic around 2500 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt.

The Celtic languages (plural) diverged from Proto-Celtic, but that does not mean Proto-Celtic itself was somehow not Celtic. It was the only form of Celtic until its daughter languages began to diverge from it. In the same way, Proto-Indo-European was Indo-European, the original form, the only form, until its daughter languages began to diverge from it. Proto-Celtic was not something completely "other"; it was Celtic.

No need to tack on the prefix "pre" and back the boat up into the Italo-Celtic stream. Another "pre" or two, and we would be back into Proto-Indo-European.

The problem with proto-languages is we have no idea how long they had already attained basically the same language with all the shifts that define it until that point. There could have been a long phase where they were essentially speaking something basically the same as proto-Celtic. Proto-Celtic and any proto language just marks the last point before divergence, it doesnt tell us how long it or something 95% similar existed. We can kind of see in the archaeology the break down of the widest networking around 1000-750BC and that probably is technically the sort of date proto-Celtic dates from. However I think its virtually certain that proto-Celtic essentially existed by 1000BC and almost certainly from 1500BC also for archaeological reasons.

One thing that can be observed about Celtic is its incredibly conservative nature. The earliest Ogham Irish was not at all far from proto-Celtic despite the carving dating from little before 500AD and we can see similar closeness to proto-Celtic among the continental Celts in the last centuries BC. So that tends to suggest very slow linguistic change perhaps across the period 1000BC-early centuries AD. If so, then similar conservatism could mean proto-Celtic long pre-dates 1000BC or at least something extremely close to it. I suspect the very stratified nature, relatively lineage/closed aspect of it and the very large learned/druidical class in Celtic society aided conservatism in language.

[alan]

There is indeed a decent amount of P312 outside the former Celtic and Italic realms. Some years ago I looked at all the data I could find on Scandinavia (Myres, Busby, the Old Norway project). Contrary to popular perception, overall P312 and U106 are roughly equal there, although in some areas (such as northern Denmark, Blekinge-Kristianstad/Sweden) U106 was more common and in others (Coastal Norway, Skaraborg/Sweden) P312 was predominant.

Archaeology probably explains this. The beaker phenomenon is not exclusively limited to Celtic and Italic areas. The main extension beyond this is into what we might think as the pre-proto Germanic one and its basically the area of overlap between beaker and corded ware c. 2500BC and for a few centuries after. It may well be that the beaker language didnt come to predominate in some of that area, especially where beaker is weakly attested compared to CW. I actually think pre-Germanic could be an odd IE language as it emerged in a mix of the beaker and CW languages. I tend to think the shared unique Celto-Germanic words aquired in the pre-proto Stages must owe something to this period of overlap between beaker and CW in the 3 or 4 centuries after 2500BC.

[kinman]

Yes, that's a fascinating paper in the latest issue of the journal Cell. The common ancestor of the bacterium causing plague is estimated to be about 5900 years ago, which would be roughly the time when the first waves of Kurgan people were riding their horses west from the Kazakhstan region (which is the same general area where the plague seems to have appeared the earliest).

If some Kurgan people (proto-Indo-Europeans) had acquired immunity to the disease, they could have been like the Spanish Conquistadors in the Americas, riding in on horses in relatively small numbers and conquering more by spreading diseases (like smallpox among the Aztecs and other populations that had no immunity).
------------Ken
P.S. The earliest forms of the plague were apparently pneumonic or septicemic (rather than bubonic).
-------------------------------------------------------------------


I see a paper on Eurogenes suggesting bubonic plague may have mutated and caused a major wipeout of the farmers - perhaps helping steppe expansions. The farmers IMO would have been especially at risk in those crowded nucleated settlements-especially those super-towns of the late Cut-Trip culture.

It is interesting because the really bad arid phase seems to post-date the Yamnaya expansion so perhaps disease was a factor. I have never believed much that military advantage of pastoralists on block wheeled carts was significant, large chaps or not, when encountering huge fortified settlements of many 1000s of people who could easily have exactly the same weapons as steppe people if they wanted.

[Megalophias]

I think we are approaching this from different directions, hence the apparent misunderstanding. In terms of Indo-European, the Italo-Celtic node is the point at which Italo-Celtic diverged from Proto-Indo-European. In terms of Italo-Celtic, the Proto-Celtic node is the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic.
Yeah, we are definitely getting crossed on terminology. For future reference, standard terminology is that a node in the tree is named for its daughters, so Italo-Celtic node is where Italic and Celtic branch from each other.


No need to tack on the prefix "pre" and back the boat up into the Italo-Celtic stream. Another "pre" or two, and we would be back into Proto-Indo-European.
"Pre-Proto-" is ordinary historical linguistic terminology for a stage of the language prior to the proto-language proper, when it has not yet accumulated all of its defining innovations.


Proto-Celtic, as I said before, is the hypothetical, original, primitive, common form of Celtic. The point at issue was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt, an Iron Age culture. If Proto-Celtic split from Italo-Celtic around 2500 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt.
Celtic, in the sense of Pre-Proto-Celtic, could not have originated with Hallstatt, yes. However, that is irrelevant to the question. When someone says that Hallstatt (or wherever) is the Celtic homeland, they are not making a claim about the origin of the pre-proto-language, but about the location of the proto-language, where the daughter branches spread from.

In the same way, if someone established somehow that Pre-Proto-Indo-European split from Pre-Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan 12 000 years ago on the shores of Lake Baikal, this would in no way prevent the Proto-Indo-European homeland being the Copper Age Pontic-Caspian steppe. It only provides an upper bound.

[Megalophias]

One thing that can be observed about Celtic is its incredibly conservative nature. The earliest Ogham Irish was not at all far from proto-Celtic despite the carving dating from little before 500AD and we can see similar closeness to proto-Celtic among the continental Celts in the last centuries BC.
Another explanation I have seen is archaicism specifically in the written language, in the same way that Romance speakers made inscriptions in Latin and Prakrit-speakers made inscriptions in Sanskrit.

[Heber]

This conference Beaker People, Archaeogenetics and Celtic Origins, next week looks interesting. It is part of the Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages series.

6400

6401

[vettor]

before calling anything italic, one needs to prove if the indigenous ancient northern italian tribes are italic..............we know etruscans are not, we now venetic are not, are the ligurians italic people, I have never seen this mentioned that they definitely are

further to this , the raetics are not Italics either

as for the ancient Ligurians, the ancient greek historian Thucydides states they originate in southern Iberia and where chased out by the Iberi tribes until they reached the rhone river.

I still do not find any Italic tribes in northern italy in bronze or iron age............maybe someone has a link to these italics

[R.Rocca]

further to this , the raetics are not Italics either

as for the ancient Ligurians, the ancient greek historian Thucydides states they originate in southern Iberia and where chased out by the Iberi tribes until they reached the rhone river.

I still do not find any Italic tribes in northern italy in bronze or iron age............maybe someone has a link to these italics

Ligurians spoke an IE language with similarities to Celtic and Italic and Venetics spoke an IE language that was either close to Italic or Italic. Not really sure what the big controversy is.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Ligurians spoke an IE language with similarities to Celtic and Italic and Venetics spoke an IE language that was either close to Italic or Italic. Not really sure what the big controversy is.

and Vettor

The Problem of peripheral, difficult to classify languages like Ligurian and Venetic are easily accommodated by the IE dialect convergence theorem as previously discussed by Anti and myself. It stipulates that there was no Celtic , no Italic or Italo-Celtic nodes. Rather, the only higher -order link was late, western-most nuclear IE itself which had established itself in central -western Europe, as it seems in the latter Beaker period.

What happened subsequently- by way of cultural contact and internal migrations, etc - was moments of distinct linguistic innovation - such as which formed what we think is proto-Celtic and proto-Italic. This convergent processes only partially impacted Venetic and Ligurian, thus they are difficult to pigeon-hole into one or another.

[Romilius]

@rms2,

About Neolithic Spaniard ATP2 being R1b1a2. Atanas Kumbarov(I was told by another person via email) analysed ATP2. His calls agreed with Geneticker but he thinks the R1b calls are false positives. Atanas made a list of "conflicting" Y SNPs mostly from R1b. The R1b1 and R1 SNPs ATP2 was positive for are listed as conflicting. ATP2 is negative for IJ, I, J, G, E, E1b1, T , I don't know if they're "conflicting" or not. All that's left for Western Y DNA is R and H. He's positive for F, GIHJK, K and R1b1a2 SNPs Atanas did not list as conflicting but that doesn't mean they're not. The thing to do now is see if R1b indviduals have the same allele in the R1, R1b1, and R1b1a2 SNPs that ATP2 does.

I look forward to seeing the Y SNP calls for the Eneolithic R1b1 guy. He could be R1b1a2 or R1b1a2a1, it isn't a stretch considering Mesolithic R1b1 was R1b1a1. About the pre-Beaker R1b from Hungary. The other guy from his burial had I2a2, the most popular HG of Bronze age Hungarians. I doubt his people gave Bell Beaker R1b because they probably had very little ANE and R1b, like Bronze age Hungarians. But who knows, he may have been very differnt from later Hungarians.

I'm sure you meant ATP3...

Good idea to see if R1b individuals have the same allele in those SNPs.

We have G2a, I2a, H2 in the area... perhaps ATP3 is another H2 guy, as Alan suggests.

And El Troc 3 was positive for V88 equivalent.

[rms2]

Yeah, we are definitely getting crossed on terminology. For future reference, standard terminology is that a node in the tree is named for its daughters, so Italo-Celtic node is where Italic and Celtic branch from each other . . .

Do you have some sort of reference that actually says that is the standard terminology? Honestly, it makes little sense. If the node is named for its daughter or daughters, the Italo-Celtic node should be the point where Italo-Celtic diverges from Indo-European, since Italo-Celtic is a daughter of Indo-European, and the Proto-Celtic node should be the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic, since Proto-Celtic is a daughter of Italo-Celtic. Otherwise, you have nodes named for the parent, and all of the nodes of the major branches would have the same name: the Indo-European node.

[rms2]

@rms2,

About Neolithic Spaniard ATP2 being R1b1a2. Atanas Kumbarov(I was told by another person via email) analysed ATP2. His calls agreed with Geneticker but he thinks the R1b calls are false positives. Atanas made a list of "conflicting" Y SNPs mostly from R1b. The R1b1 and R1 SNPs ATP2 was positive for are listed as conflicting. ATP2 is negative for IJ, I, J, G, E, E1b1, T , I don't know if they're "conflicting" or not. All that's left for Western Y DNA is R and H. He's positive for F, GIHJK, K and R1b1a2 SNPs Atanas did not list as conflicting but that doesn't mean they're not. The thing to do now is see if R1b indviduals have the same allele in the R1, R1b1, and R1b1a2 SNPs that ATP2 does.

Of course, you meant ATP3. Thanks for the info. I don't doubt Genetiker's computer work; never did. It's just that ATP3 is corrupt and should not be considered knowable, as things stand. If R1b-M269 was in Iberia that early, which I doubt, it will probably turn up in some other ancient remains from there that yield unambiguous results.



I look forward to seeing the Y SNP calls for the Eneolithic R1b1 guy. He could be R1b1a2 or R1b1a2a1, it isn't a stretch considering Mesolithic R1b1 was R1b1a1. About the pre-Beaker R1b from Hungary. The other guy from his burial had I2a2, the most popular HG of Bronze age Hungarians. I doubt his people gave Bell Beaker R1b because they probably had very little ANE and R1b, like Bronze age Hungarians. But who knows, he may have been very differnt from later Hungarians.

Are you talking about the Vucedol period R1b? According to Gimbutas, Vucedol was originally an Old European Neolithic farming culture that was kurganized by people from the steppe. It was those people who were the source of the R1b in Vucedol, and according to Gimbutas, Beaker was an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya. That makes sense to me. If you look at the admixture bar graph from the recent Mathieson et al paper, Beaker looks like what one would expect from a mix of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

6428

[R.Rocca]

and Vettor

The Problem of peripheral, difficult to classify languages like Ligurian and Venetic are easily accommodated by the IE dialect convergence theorem as previously discussed by Anti and myself. It stipulates that there was no Celtic , no Italic or Italo-Celtic nodes. Rather, the only higher -order link was late, western-most nuclear IE itself which had established itself in central -western Europe, as it seems in the latter Beaker period.

What happened subsequently- by way of cultural contact and internal migrations, etc - was moments of distinct linguistic innovation - such as which formed what we think is proto-Celtic and proto-Italic. This convergent processes only partially impacted Venetic and Ligurian, thus they are difficult to pigeon-hole into one or another.

You keep cautioning (rightly so) that horse riding alone is too simple to explain R1b/steppe expansion into Central and Western Europe and now you think this topic can be "easily accommodated"??? Very odd. In reality, some hybrid-IE languages may have been due to dialect convergence and others were likely due to a proper Italo-Celtic node. I could see a scenario where something like Lusitanian in Iberia was the result of an initial Bell Beaker movement into Iberia, with subsequent Italo-Celtic dialects being spread by Beglietkeramik related Bell Beaker movements. Different skulls and isotopes dictate that this later group was due to real people movements and not just cultural contacts. Again, to put it in your term...it was complicated.

[kinman]

Hi Richard,
I agree, but possibly with Bell Beaker and Italo-Celtic language coming into Iberia together. I presently have U152 arising in northeastern Austria about 5000 years ago, and then L2 arising in southern Germany about 4800 years ago. Therefore, some of these Italo-Celtic men could have easily introduced (1) their R1b genes, (2) their Italo-Celtic language, and (3) their Bell Beaker culture into Iberia about 4800 years ago. It all seems to fit very nicely in one package. This might make it a bit less complicated (and more parsimonious).
---------------Ken



You keep cautioning (rightly so) that horse riding alone is too simple to explain R1b/steppe expansion into Central and Western Europe and now you think this topic can be "easily accommodated"??? Very odd. In reality, some hybrid-IE languages may have been due to dialect convergence and others were likely due to a proper Italo-Celtic node. I could see a scenario where something like Lusitanian in Iberia was the result of an initial Bell Beaker movement into Iberia, with subsequent Italo-Celtic dialects being spread by Beglietkeramik related Bell Beaker movements. Different skulls and isotopes dictate that this later group was due to real people movements and not just cultural contacts. Again, to put it in your term...it was complicated.

[vettor]

Ligurians spoke an IE language with similarities to Celtic and Italic and Venetics spoke an IE language that was either close to Italic or Italic. Not really sure what the big controversy is.

these are the only Italic people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Italic_peoples

there is no etruscan, venetic, ligurian, raetic, friulian, emilian or romagnan which are italic................these are either on their own or more in the gallic zone

It is lazy historians who claim a celtic-italic group based solely because there is an italian nation which covers these ancient northern tribes...............we can imagine IF for example northern italy was under france, what would these historian state as a ancient group celtic -??
these historians need revisit where the celtic met the italic ..........if it ever did pre roman times.

[R.Rocca]

these are the only Italic people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Italic_peoples

there is no etruscan, venetic, ligurian, raetic, friulian, emilian or romagnan which are italic................these are either on their own or more in the gallic zone

It is lazy historians who claim a celtic-italic group based solely because there is an italian nation which covers these ancient northern tribes...............we can imagine IF for example northern italy was under france, what would these historian state as a ancient group celtic -??
these historians need revisit where the celtic met the italic ..........if it ever did pre roman times.

Lazy historians?.... so you quote Wikipedia? That is too funny. That some of those Iron Age people spoke a hybridized language with some Italic elements as per linguists (read: not historians) is well documented, so please stop hijacking another thread with this.

[rms2]

Here are a couple of images from Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess that are interesting. Both are artist renditions of Bell Beaker kurgans and both are from Figure 10-38 on page 390.

6430 6431

[R.Rocca]

Here are a couple of images from Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess that are interesting. Both are artist renditions of Bell Beaker kurgans and both are from Figure 10-38 on page 390.

6430 6431

I'll add another one from the Bell Beaker Sesto Fiorentino Italy site. The similarities, especially with those from the Rhine, are hard to ignore. These were not simply people taking up Bell Beaker culture, but Bell Beaker people themselves. It would be foolhardy not think this grave included an L51+ person.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Sestio_Fiorentino_Bell_Beaker_Mound.png

[vettor]

Lazy historians?.... so you quote Wikipedia? That is too funny. That some of those Iron Age people spoke a hybridized language with some Italic elements as per linguists (read: not historians) is well documented, so please stop hijacking another thread with this.

I always quote wiki for ease for others if it makes sense.............I gather info by not using wiki

[vettor]

Of course, you meant ATP3. Thanks for the info. I don't doubt Genetiker's computer work; never did. It's just that ATP3 is corrupt and should not be considered knowable, as things stand. If R1b-M269 was in Iberia that early, which I doubt, it will probably turn up in some other ancient remains from there that yield unambiguous results.



Are you talking about the Vucedol period R1b? According to Gimbutas, Vucedol was originally an Old European Neolithic farming culture that was kurganized by people from the steppe. It was those people who were the source of the R1b in Vucedol, and according to Gimbutas, Beaker was an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya. That makes sense to me. If you look at the admixture bar graph from the recent Mathieson et al paper, Beaker looks like what one would expect from a mix of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

6428

the scenario imo is that from anatolia through to central germany where neolithic EEF farmers and the the kurgans met these farmers later around modern hungaria.

Vucedol is noted by historians in the past 100plus years as proto-illyrian.........are these illyrians old EEF farmers or "kurgans" is the question one needs to answer.

Is vudecol really a part of BB even though it headed towards the adriatic sea?

[rms2]

I'll add another one from the Bell Beaker Sestio Fiorentino Italy site. The similarities, especially with those from the Rhine, are hard to ignore. These were not simply people taking up Bell Beaker culture, but Bell Beaker people themselves. It would be foolhardy not think this grave included an L51+ person.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Sestio_Fiorentino_Bell_Beaker_Mound.png

I agree.

I know I posted this image before, but this admixture bar graph from Mathieson et al is worth considering if we begin to doubt that R1b-L51 (meaning it and its subclades, particularly L11>P312) was introduced to Europe west of the Dniester by Yamnaya. It isn't likely that all that Yamnaya yellow came via women.

6433

[Gravetto-Danubian]

You keep cautioning (rightly so) that horse riding alone is too simple to explain R1b/steppe expansion into Central and Western Europe and now you think this topic can be "easily accommodated"??? Very odd. In reality, some hybrid-IE languages may have been due to dialect convergence and others were likely due to a proper Italo-Celtic node. I could see a scenario where something like Lusitanian in Iberia was the result of an initial Bell Beaker movement into Iberia, with subsequent Italo-Celtic dialects being spread by Beglietkeramik related Bell Beaker movements. Different skulls and isotopes dictate that this later group was due to real people movements and not just cultural contacts. Again, to put it in your term...it was complicated.

Ha ha touché
I'll take my own medicine :)
However, I never rested the final emergence of Celtic and italic solely on convergence; rather I also highlighted the role of internal migrations which we'd predict from the Unetice right through to Tumulus, urnfield, etc.

I'm just impressed, on the one had, by the arguements for the role of convergence without excluding the overall comparative method, and on the other- by the lack of anything shared between Celtic and italic over and above IE; after excluding later
Loans. IMO Trees like Ringe's risk reducing what was actually a bush of dialects to a few major branches (macro-families like Italic and Celtic). In reality these weren't the primary branches of IE; but the result of convergence of non-extinct IE lects. In fact; Clackson and Garrett aren't the only ones who propose convergence; there's also Silvestri; and Ramat


.Common Italic ... is certainly not to be seen as a prehistoric language that can largely be reconstructed, but rather as a set of prehistoric and proto-historic processes of convergence

But granted the difference is mostly terminological ; what youd call the Italian-Celtic node I just call west pIE.

[Megalophias]

Do you have some sort of reference that actually says that is the standard terminology? Honestly, it makes little sense. If the node is named for its daughter or daughters, the Italo-Celtic node should be the point where Italo-Celtic diverges from Indo-European, since Italo-Celtic is a daughter of Indo-European, and the Proto-Celtic node should be the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic, since Proto-Celtic is a daughter of Italo-Celtic. Otherwise, you have nodes named for the parent, and all of the nodes of the major branches would have the same name: the Indo-European node.
I don't have a formal reference, just Google it and look how the term is used.

Calling the node where Italic and Celtic split Italo-Celtic uniquely identifies that node, since there is no other node which has both Italic and Celtic as daughters but not other branches as daughters. The Proto-Celtic node is the point where Celtic languages diverge from each other, and is uniquely identified because it has only Celtic languages as daughters. If you called the point where Italic and Celtic diverged the Proto-Celtic node then it would also be the Proto-Italic node, and then you'd have to call the node where Celtic languages diverge the Irish node and the Welsh node or something.

Terminology aside, the point is that the spot on the tree where Italic and Celtic parent languages diverge at 2500 BC must necessarily be earlier than the point at which different Celtic languages diverge, and that the tree says nothing about where the Celtic languages diverge until we get to the divergence of Irish and Welsh at 500 BC, hence it allows an Iron Age Proto-Celtic.

[rms2]

I don't have a formal reference, just Google it and look how the term is used.

Calling the node where Italic and Celtic split Italo-Celtic uniquely identifies that node, since there is no other node which has both Italic and Celtic as daughters but not other branches as daughters. The Proto-Celtic node is the point where Celtic languages diverge from each other, and is uniquely identified because it has only Celtic languages as daughters. If you called the point where Italic and Celtic diverged the Proto-Celtic node then it would also be the Proto-Italic node, and then you'd have to call the node where Celtic languages diverge the Irish node and the Welsh node or something.

Terminology aside, the point is that the spot on the tree where Italic and Celtic parent languages diverge at 2500 BC must necessarily be earlier than the point at which different Celtic languages diverge, and that the tree says nothing about where the Celtic languages diverge until we get to the divergence of Irish and Welsh at 500 BC, hence it allows an Iron Age Proto-Celtic.

The tree shows Proto Celtic diverging at about 2500 BC, hence Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt. That was the original point. Proto-Celtic probably arose within the Beaker culture.

[Megalophias]

The tree shows Proto Celtic diverging at about 2500 BC, hence Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt. That was the original point. Proto-Celtic probably arose within the Beaker culture.
And no one who says that Celtic originated with Hallstatt is claiming that the *first* ancestral form of Celtic originated at Hallstatt, they mean that the *last* ancestral form of Celtic was present at Hallstatt and spread from there, diverging into the various Celtic languages. That is what a linguistic homeland *is*, the region where the most recent common ancestor of the languages of the family expanded from, not where the distant ancestor of the language family sprang from long before. I don't know how I can possibly state this more clearly.

The homeland of the Romance language family was Latium about 2000 years ago. Latin spread across the Roman Empire and then diverged into French, Spanish, Romanian, etc. Wherever and whenever the earliest form of Latin came from, it doesn't affect the time and place of the Romance homeland. If Virgil was right and the Romans came from Troy in 1200 BC, that could not possibly have any bearing on the homeland of the Romance language family being Latium 2000 years ago. The Romance languages would not have spread with the survivors of the Trojan War. Likewise, if the *earliest form of Celtic* was spoken by a branch of the Bell Beaker people who spread from Bohemia, or wherever you like, as well it may have been, that does not mean that *the Celtic languages*, plural, derived, divergent, were spread by Bell Beaker people.

[rms2]

And no one who says that Celtic originated with Hallstatt is claiming that the *first* ancestral form of Celtic originated at Hallstatt, they mean that the *last* ancestral form of Celtic was present at Hallstatt and spread from there, diverging into the various Celtic languages. That is what a linguistic homeland *is*, the region where the most recent common ancestor of the languages of the family expanded from, not where the distant ancestor of the language family sprang from long before. I don't know how I can possibly state this more clearly.

The homeland of the Romance language family was Latium about 2000 years ago. Latin spread across the Roman Empire and then diverged into French, Spanish, Romanian, etc. Wherever and whenever the earliest form of Latin came from, it doesn't affect the time and place of the Romance homeland. If Virgil was right and the Romans came from Troy in 1200 BC, that could not possibly have any bearing on the homeland of the Romance language family being Latium 2000 years ago. The Romance languages would not have spread with the survivors of the Trojan War. Likewise, if the *earliest form of Celtic* was spoken by a branch of the Bell Beaker people who spread from Bohemia, or wherever you like, as well it may have been, that does not mean that *the Celtic languages*, plural, derived, divergent, were spread by Bell Beaker people.

Then no one who says that Celtic originated with Hallstatt is making much sense, since "originated" means "began with". A linguistic homeland is where a language began. Good grief.

[Megalophias]

Then no one who says that Celtic originated with Hallstatt is making much sense, since "originated" means "began with". A linguistic homeland is where a language began. Good grief.
The origin of the actual languages that are actually attested, not of some hypothetical, unattested early stage where we have decided that the kids are now speaking "Celtic" while their parents were speaking something that isn't quite "Celtic" yet. Anyway, I am glad that we have cleared that up.

[rms2]

The origin of the actual languages that are actually attested, not of some hypothetical, unattested early stage where we have decided that the kids are now speaking "Celtic" while their parents were speaking something that isn't quite "Celtic" yet. Anyway, I am glad that we have cleared that up.

Most of us believe Indo-European began on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not in Europe or in the Indian sub-continent where its daughter languages are actually attested. Anyway, I don't think either of us believes Celtic began with Hallstatt.

[kinman]

Gentleman,
This is the kind of semantic debate I have heard for decades about cladograms of biological taxa. As I see it, Italo-Celtic is probably a paraphyletic group that gave rise to both Italic and Celtic languages. Whether they arose independently from that paraphyletic group, or form a node at the base of that group is semantic bickering that can probably never be proven one way or the other.

It ultimately depends on how broadly or narrowly one defines Italic and Celtic languages, and there's never going to be agreement on that either. Believe me, such a semantic debate can go on forever because we will probably never have enough information to determine which argument is correct (even if we could agree on how broadly to define Italic and especially Celtic).

-----------Ken

[rms2]

Gentleman,
This is the kind of semantic debate I have heard for decades about cladograms of biological taxa. As I see it, Italo-Celtic is probably a paraphyletic group that gave rise to both Italic and Celtic languages. Whether they arose independently from that paraphyletic group, or form a node at the base of that group is semantic bickering that can probably never be proven one way or the other.

It ultimately depends on how broadly or narrowly one defines Italic and Celtic languages, and there's never going to be agreement on that either. Believe me, such a semantic debate can go on forever because we will probably never have enough information to determine which argument is correct (even if we could agree on how broadly to define Italic and especially Celtic).

-----------Ken

I don't think we even really disagree. That is the funny part.

[Megalophias]

I don't think we even really disagree. That is the funny part.
Like I said, I don't actually have an opinion about the Celtic homeland problem, despite arguing with you about it for however many pages. :D

[razyn]

IMO Trees like Ringe's risk reducing what was actually a bush of dialects to a few major branches

...and here was me suddenly hoping this discussion was finally beginning to drift back into some realm of science dealing with reality and its proofs, such as dendrochronology. But, nope, looks as if it's still linguistics all the way down.

[vettor]

...and here was me suddenly hoping this discussion was finally beginning to drift back into some realm of science dealing with reality and its proofs, such as dendrochronology. But, nope, looks as if it's still linguistics all the way down.

its because people want to associate R1b so badly with BB that they bring in celtic and then they joined celtic with Italic because of U152 etc.

maybe someone should do a poll on this thread to see what people believe in , in regards to the heading of the thread, and not try to add other stuff hoping it will enforce their wants.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

{Moderator}

Please, lets not go down this road again.

[razyn]

Oh, for Pete's sake, I was just punning on Tree Rings. And, I suppose, alluding to the joke that ends "It's turtles all the way down," q.v.

I took my first class in Linguistics in 1958; my profs (at Vanderbilt) were trying to decide whether to laugh or cry about that new kid Chomsky (who was older than I, but younger than they). I almost majored in it, but decided that would be a weak career choice. So I managed to make two or three weaker ones, over the decades. Luckily, "genetic genealogist" was not an option in the mid-20th century. Because I have discovered, in my dotage, that there are even fewer paid jobs for them than for folklorists -- or the rather closely related linguistic anthropologists. Now that I'm too old to have to care, I get to work for the DF27 project full time for nothing, and fund my own research. Still, that's more fun than a job with a boss.

The recent L-A-G conference in Jena managed to squeeze Linguists into the same rooms as Archaeologists and Geneticists; haven't heard that any of them actually killed one another. And as Heber has noted, there's a similar event next weekend in Wales. I hope it gets a little more followup news released than the Jena one did. But if we can't compare theories about language families, or haplogroups other than R1b, on a thread this broadly framed -- where can we? I usually check the General forum, the R ones under Y-DNA, and lately the Celts forum (because the well-read and highly readable Jean Manco tends to post there). If there is an L-A-G forum somewhere else in Anthrogenica, I haven't found it, but would like to.

[rms2]

its because people want to associate R1b so badly with BB that they bring in celtic and then they joined celtic with Italic because of U152 etc.

Er . . . uh, in case you haven't noticed, that want has been richly satisfied. Our cup runneth over, as a matter of fact.

It is also true that we aren't the ones who first connected Beaker with the Celts. Reputable scholars have been doing that since at least the early 20th century, and they are still doing so today. Nor did we invent the idea that Italo-Celtic is a real branch of Indo-European. Reputable linguists did that for us, and some of them are still arguing for it.



maybe someone should do a poll on this thread to see what people believe in , in regards to the heading of the thread, and not try to add other stuff hoping it will enforce their wants.

We all have things we hope we'll see, but I think everyone here, including you, is smart enough to go where the evidence leads.

[R.Rocca]

its because people want to associate R1b so badly with BB that they bring in celtic and then they joined celtic with Italic because of U152 etc.

maybe someone should do a poll on this thread to see what people believe in , in regards to the heading of the thread, and not try to add other stuff hoping it will enforce their wants.

100% of Bell Beaker samples have been R1b+, so the scenario of the past years where you (and seemingly only you) really, really, really badly wanted to disassociate R1b with Bell Beaker has been resoundingly disproved. So, who here is trying to reinforce their "wants"?

[lgmayka]

Do you have some sort of reference that actually says that is the standard terminology? Honestly, it makes little sense. If the node is named for its daughter or daughters, the Italo-Celtic node should be the point where Italo-Celtic diverges from Indo-European, since Italo-Celtic is a daughter of Indo-European, and the Proto-Celtic node should be the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged from Italo-Celtic, since Proto-Celtic is a daughter of Italo-Celtic.
I think Megalophias' terminology is correct, and makes perfect sense. If we make an analogy to a Y-DNA haplotree, a node/clade is named by what its children have in common, and dated by its TMRCA. Here's more detail on the analogy:

- The R1b-L151 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L151/) is named by any of the SNPs that its children have in common: L151 or L11 or P310 or P311 etc. Defined by this collection of SNPs, the clade's age is its TMRCA, 4900 ybp. What eventually became the R1b-L151 clade began to diverge much earlier, 5700 ybp, and probably produced many offshoots which did not survive (or survived only as remnants which have not yet been discovered). This early, nascent branch cannot be called R1b-L151 (or R1b-L11 or R1b-P310) because we don't know in which order the SNPs occurred; at most, we could call the early branch pre-L151.

- Proto-Celtic/Common Celtic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language) is the most recent common ancestor of recorded Celtic languages. Its age is its TMRCA, estimated to be "the last quarter of the second millennium BC" or even slightly later. What eventually became Common Celtic began to diverge much earlier, perhaps in the third millennium BC, and probably produced many daughter languages (or at least dialects) which did not survive a later leveling.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Oh, for Pete's sake, I was just punning on Tree Rings.

Sorry, I totally missed that pun. !


I get to work for the DF27 project full time for nothing, and fund my own research. Still, that's more fun than a job with a boss.

I can somewhat relate. Kudos, then !



The recent L-A-G conference in Jena managed to squeeze Linguists into the same rooms as Archaeologists and Geneticists; haven't heard that any of them actually killed one another. And as Heber has noted, there's a similar event next weekend in Wales. I hope it gets a little more followup news released than the Jena one did. But if we can't compare theories about language families, or haplogroups other than R1b, on a thread this broadly framed -- where can we? I usually check the General forum, the R ones under Y-DNA, and lately the Celts forum (because the well-read and highly readable Jean Manco tends to post there). If there is an L-A-G forum somewhere else in Anthrogenica, I haven't found it, but would like to.


not wholly following, but it appeared to me you had an issue with linguistic discussions being included on this thread (?), to which I thought unusual given that languages - in this case IE and Celtic - are more than pertinent when discussing R1b, and Bell Beakers, for obvious reasons. Im not a linguistcs, in fact, Im from the natural sciences and medicine, but I respect linguistics. Questions about rates of language change and language relationships need to be analysed on their own right, as linguistics is a separate but interdependent line of evidence which complements classical archaeology, and genetics.

[DMXX]

But if we can't compare theories about language families, or haplogroups other than R1b, on a thread this broadly framed -- where can we? I usually check the General forum, the R ones under Y-DNA, and lately the Celts forum (because the well-read and highly readable Jean Manco tends to post there). If there is an L-A-G forum somewhere else in Anthrogenica, I haven't found it, but would like to.

Duly noted. Will approach the team for some ideas to support this. Be mindful of the Announcements section for updates!

[vettor]

Er . . . uh, in case you haven't noticed, that want has been richly satisfied. Our cup runneth over, as a matter of fact.

It is also true that we aren't the ones who first connected Beaker with the Celts. Reputable scholars have been doing that since at least the early 20th century, and they are still doing so today. Nor did we invent the idea that Italo-Celtic is a real branch of Indo-European. Reputable linguists did that for us, and some of them are still arguing for it.



We all have things we hope we'll see, but I think everyone here, including you, is smart enough to go where the evidence leads.

I only have an issue of claiming these R1b are Italic in northern italy with their association with the celts in early iron age ............there where no italics there ( northern italy and alps ) in the late bronze or early iron age
So there is no issue with R1b being in northern italy and the alps as I agree.
far better or more realistic is that they ( R1b at that time )where more associated with the gallic

But some seem to have read what many Italian historians say on the subject and follow their claims that the italic people emerged firstly in the black forest area of SW Germany.


in regards to BB - I follow bellsblogger thinking to a degree and say BB belong to mtDna and not YDna

[vettor]

100% of Bell Beaker samples have been R1b+, so the scenario of the past years where you (and seemingly only you) really, really, really badly wanted to disassociate R1b with Bell Beaker has been resoundingly disproved. So, who here is trying to reinforce their "wants"?

see post 1611

[Anti]

@rms2,

About Neolithic Spaniard ATP2 being R1b1a2. Atanas Kumbarov(I was told by another person via email) analysed ATP2. His calls agreed with Geneticker but he thinks the R1b calls are false positives. Atanas made a list of "conflicting" Y SNPs mostly from R1b. The R1b1 and R1 SNPs ATP2 was positive for are listed as conflicting. ATP2 is negative for IJ, I, J, G, E, E1b1, T , I don't know if they're "conflicting" or not. All that's left for Western Y DNA is R and H. He's positive for F, GIHJK, K and R1b1a2 SNPs Atanas did not list as conflicting but that doesn't mean they're not. The thing to do now is see if R1b indviduals have the same allele in the R1, R1b1, and R1b1a2 SNPs that ATP2 does.

I look forward to seeing the Y SNP calls for the Eneolithic R1b1 guy. He could be R1b1a2 or R1b1a2a1, it isn't a stretch considering Mesolithic R1b1 was R1b1a1. About the pre-Beaker R1b from Hungary. The other guy from his burial had I2a2, the most popular HG of Bronze age Hungarians. I doubt his people gave Bell Beaker R1b because they probably had very little ANE and R1b, like Bronze age Hungarians. But who knows, he may have been very differnt from later Hungarians.

As i have mentioned on another post/thread, i personally consider the Transdanubian/west-Carpathian R1b's of the Chalcolithic>Bronze-age to be of an early Indo-European migration; In the specific case contemporary (but independent) with Bell-Beakers; Keeping in mind that within the archaeological context a massive change (possible Indo-Euroepan steppe intrusion) already occurred in the eastern Balkans a good millennium before in the Varna-culture;

John Boardman - The Cambridge Ancient History - Vol.3 (1982)
Karanovo VI, which corresponds with the Romanian Gumelnita group, Karanovo VI has four phases. Phases I-II correspond with Gumelnija A1-A2 (including what is now called A3) according to the Romanian archaeologists. Phases III-IV correspond with Gumelnita B. In north-eastern Bulgaria this culture is known also as the Kodza Dermen group, and the culture of phase III along the Black Sea is classified as the Varna culture. On the coast of the Black Sea the Varna group corresponds to Phase III of the Gumelnija-Kodza Dermen group; it is in fact the richest variant of the Gumelnita group.

David W. Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2010 / Princeton Uni.)
Between about 4200 and 3900 BCE more than six hundred tell settlements of the Gumelnita, Karanovo VI and varna cultures were burned and abandoned in the lower danube valley and eastern Bulgaria. Some of their residents dispersed temporarily into smaller villages like the Gumelnita B1 hamlet of Jilava, southwest of Bucharest, with just five to six houses and a single-level cultural deposit....."We are faced with the complete replacement of a culture" the foremost expert on Eneolithic metallurgy E. N. Chernykh said. It was "a catastrophe of colossal scope...a complete cultural caesura" according to the Bulgarian archaeologist H. Todorova

Concerning ATP3, i would await a proper academic publication first;

[Gravetto-Danubian]

As i have mentioned on another post/thread, i personally consider the Transdanubian/west-Crapathian R1b's of the Chalcolithic>Bronze-age to be of an early Indo-European migration; In the specific case contemporary (but independent) with Bell-Beakers; Keeping in mind that within the archaeological context a massive change (possible Indo-Euroepan steppe intrusion) already occurred in the eastern Balkans a good millennium before in the Varna-culture;


I doubt it very much. The Varna phase was the apogee (? crisis point) of the Old Neolithic Balkan cultures. I bet it';ll look Neolithic, although I have always been curious if some R1b will spring up with some minor ANE admixture due to its coastal Black Sea locale and metropolitan character.

Martin Sikora have been doing shot-gun sequencing of Varna samples . ? Awaiting publication......

The 'replacement' (id call it transformation) phase was later - with the Baden-Cernavoda-Beloraz horizon from 3500 BCE (ie after some 500 year hiatus), - and even here I'd bet it still looks similar to the Copper Age Hungarian (C01), ie mostly 'Neolithic'.

[Anti]

I doubt it very much. The Varna phase was the apogee (? crisis point) of the Old Neolithic Balkan cultures. I bet it';ll look Neolithic, although I have always been curious if some R1b will spring up with some minor ANE admixture due to its coastal Black Sea locale and metropolitan character.

Martin Sikora has completed analysing Varna. Awaiting publication......

The 'replacement' (id call it transformation) phase was later - with the Baden-Cernavoda-Beloraz horizon from 3500 BCE (ie after some 500 year hiatus), - and even here I'd bet it still looks similar to the Copper Age Hungarian (C01), ie mostly 'Neolithic'.

Yes, Varna itself was most prob. non-Indo-European (Neolithic-farmers stock); The archaeological transition phase is also just dated to 4200-3900BC which eclipsed the Gumelnita-KaranovoVI complex; What is very interesting is that the fundamental archaeological transition in the east Balkan (early 4th mil. BC) is not however echoed in a biological transition in the western-part, for as you have mentioned CO1 (late Baden-culture) is still virtually identical (farmer) to its predecessor NE7 of the Lengyal-culture; Yet Vucidol-culture could manifest its first emergence in that western part;

Hopefully the Sikora study will shed some light onto a possible biological transition in the eastern-part that mirrors its archaeological one;

[rms2]

I think Megalophias' terminology is correct, and makes perfect sense . . .

The problem with it is that he said the Italo-Celtic node was the point at which Italic and Celtic (Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic) began to diverge from their Italo-Celtic parent. That does not make any sense. Those nodes would be the Proto-Italic node on the one hand and the Proto-Celtic node on the other.

The Italo-Celtic node is the point at which Italo-Celtic diverged from its parent, Proto-Indo-European.

Otherwise, you have the point at which each daughter language diverged named for the parent, as in naming the point at which Proto-Celtic diverged the "Italo-Celtic node". That means the point at which Proto-Italic diverged is also the "Italo-Celtic node", and the point at which Italo-Celtic diverged from Indo-European is the "Indo-European node"; which of course would be the name for each of the points at which the daughter languages diverged, and that would signify nothing.

According to Ringe's tree, Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent about 2300 BC (about 2500 BC on the other tree I posted in this thread). Proto-Celtic is the common ancestor of all the Celtic daughter languages. It was the original, common form of Celtic, the earliest, most primitive form of Celtic, the only form of Celtic until its daughter languages began to diverge. It was not "non-Celtic", something wholly other. It was Celtic, just as Proto-Indo-European was Indo-European, the Indo-European of its time, and not something wholly other. Therefore, if Proto-Celtic came into existence about 2300 BC, Celtic could not have begun with Hallstatt, which was the original point.

[R.Rocca]

see post 1611

In that post you wrote...


in regards to BB - I follow bellsblogger thinking to a degree and say BB belong to mtDna and not YDna

...and since you accused others of twisting data to fit their desires, I say to you once again... Bell Beaker Y-DNA so far is 100% R1b+. We'll find a stray sample here or there that won't be R1b+, but in the end, you and bellsblogger can keep "thinking" all you want, but the ancient DNA (the only data that matters), has resounding countered your "thinking".

[lgmayka]

The problem with it is that he said the Italo-Celtic node was the point at which Italic and Celtic (Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic) began to diverge from their Italo-Celtic parent.
More precisely, the Italo-Celtic node is its last point of linguistic unity before divergence into daughter branches. Those two daughter branches would eventually become Italic and Celtic.

Those nodes would be the Proto-Italic node on the one hand and the Proto-Celtic node on the other.
The two daughter branches are not nodes but edges (graphically speaking). A node is a point at which edges meet (converge or diverge).

Please review again my analogy to a Y-DNA haplotree. The I-CTS10228 ("Dinaric") clade/node (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/) is the point at which it began to diverge into subclades (and a singleton). The lineage that would eventually become I-CTS10228 began to diverge from its parent 3300 (!) years earlier. That lineage/branch (an edge in graphical terms) happens to be the only survivor, for whatever reason. There were certainly many other offshoots during that 3300-year period which did not survive (or we have not discovered yet). It is technically incorrect to refer to the entire 3300-year period as I-CTS10228, because (for all we know) the CTS10228 SNP might have been the very last of the 24 defining SNPs to occur.


According to Ringe's tree, Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent about 2300 BC (about 2500 BC on the other tree I posted in this thread).
If he calls that 5300-year-old branch "Proto-Celtic" he is using his terms all too loosely. He means it is the branch that would eventually become Proto-Celtic.


It was the original, common form of Celtic, the earliest, most primitive form of Celtic, the only form of Celtic until its daughter languages began to diverge
No. Proto-Celtic is simply the most recent common ancestor of known Celtic languages. It was the sole survivor of a long (perhaps 1300-year) linguistic evolution which certainly must have seen plenty of divergences and extinctions (and possibly even convergences).

[Radboud]

100% of Bell Beaker samples have been R1b+, so the scenario of the past years where you (and seemingly only you) really, really, really badly wanted to disassociate R1b with Bell Beaker has been resoundingly disproved. So, who here is trying to reinforce their "wants"?

Some people come with the counter argument ''but we need more samples to associate R1b with Bell Beakers!'' More samples are always welcome but the fact that Bell Beakers samples up to date were 100% R1b is self explanatory.

[George]

"for all we know the CTS10228 SNP might have been the very last of the 24 defining SNPs to occur" (l.g.mayka") Thank you again for an extremely useful post! That last point clarified a lot of things for me, not only in the I2a1b2 story but all over the place. Including R1b and R1a.

[Anti]

before calling anything italic, one needs to prove if the indigenous ancient northern italian tribes are italic..............we know etruscans are not, we now venetic are not, are the ligurians italic people, I have never seen this mentioned that they definitely are

At the very least the Veneti and Insubres (Lepontic) are most def. kindred Italic;
Insubres simply means 'low-land Umbrians' (explains itself); As for the Veneti, they were actually considered Illyrians by the ancient Historians, as was noted in Herodotus I/CXCVI-V/IX, Florus II/XXIII and Jordanes Rom.CLXXX; The linguistic analysis (2012) by J. Gvozdanovic however reached the conclusion that Venetic was hybrid with a 'significant Celticity' and 'common developments with Italic in the phonology and the lexicon':

J. Gvozdanovic - Uni Heidelberg 2012 (Venetic)
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr2012-7%2833-46%29.pdf

The problem with classifying Venetic begins with what Hamp (1954) in connection to Beeler (1949) illustrated (parallels to Lepontic) and that is the development of Indo-European voiced aspirates *bh/*dh/*gh - Venetic having the exact same development as Latin but not as Sabellic (i.e. in retaining *bh/*dh in internal with lost aspiration -b-/-d-); This already illustrates the fundamental problem of a uniformed proto-Italic stage - such a stage can be (theoretically) reconstructed but factually remains problematic; In addition Venetic and Latin share the same development of initial *gw-w / *gwh-f and *kw-kv; As well as the *p-kw>kw-kw which is also however shared with Keltic languages along with the *-ī genitive; And *p is retained in all Sabellic, Latin, Lepontic and Venetic but lost in all Keltic languages;

The diphthong shift of -eu->-ou- is attested from inscriptions of Este (akin to Italic/Sabellic) however -eu- retained in inscriptions of Lagole thus only a branch of Veneti possessed the shift (indicating an Italic influence); Venetic does not possess a vital Italic phonetic change with *-tlo- retained as -tl- whereas Italic becomes -klo-; Given that Italic did possess an influence on Venetic i like the hybrid/intermediate classification; Also the entire Urnfield-complex in Italy (Golassecca/Este/Villanova) doesnt suggest a fundamnetal diff. between Umbrians, Insubres and Veneti - on the contrary;

[vettor]

At the very least the Veneti and Insubres (Lepontic) are most def. kindred Italic;
Insubres simply means 'low-land Umbrians' (explains itself); As for the Veneti, they were actually considered Illyrians by the ancient Historians, as was noted in Herodotus I/CXCVI-V/IX, Florus II/XXIII and Jordanes Rom.CLXXX; The linguistic analysis (2012) by J. Gvozdanovic however reached the conclusion that Venetic was hybrid with a 'significant Celticity' and 'common developments with Italic in the phonology and the lexicon':

J. Gvozdanovic - Uni Heidelberg 2012 (Venetic)
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr2012-7%2833-46%29.pdf

The problem with classifying Venetic begins with what Hamp (1954) in connection to Beeler (1949) illustrated (parallels to Lepontic) and that is the development of Indo-European voiced aspirates *bh/*dh/*gh - Venetic having the exact same development as Latin but not as Sabellic (i.e. in retaining *bh/*dh in internal with lost aspiration -b-/-d-); This already illustrates the fundamental problem of a uniformed proto-Italic stage - such a stage can be (theoretically) reconstructed but factually remains problematic; In addition Venetic and Latin share the same development of initial *gw-w / *gwh-f and *kw-kv; As well as the *p-kw>kw-kw which is also however shared with Keltic languages along with the *-ī genitive; And *p is retained in all Sabellic, Latin, Lepontic and Venetic but lost in all Keltic languages;

The diphthong shift of -eu->-ou- is attested from inscriptions of Este (akin to Italic/Sabellic) however -eu- retained in inscriptions of Lagole thus only a branch of Veneti possessed the shift (indicating an Italic influence); Venetic does not possess a vital Italic phonetic change with *-tlo- retained as -tl- whereas Italic becomes -klo-; Given that Italic did possess an influence on Venetic i like the hybrid/intermediate classification; Also the entire Urnfield-complex in Italy (Golassecca/Este/Villanova) doesnt suggest a fundamnetal diff. between Umbrians, Insubres and Veneti - on the contrary;

it still was not italic at the time of the celtic creation of Halstatt etc, it was neither Italic at the time of Remedello, nor Este, nor Polada cultures.
Venetic began around the period 1150BC to 750BC, we see italic for the first time in Venetic around 450BC and by 100BC it became latinized. Before 450BC it was not part of Italic

we see this in a description a difference between Venetic and Latin

Venetic: Mego donasto śainatei Reitiiai porai Egeotora Aimoi ke louderobos
Latin (literal): me donavit sanatrici Reitiae bonae Egetora [pro] Aemo liberis-que

BTW, veneti linguistic deciphered this venetic line into the modern veneto and it read

mi ( I ) go ( have ) donasto ( donated )sanete ( pure ) Reitia ( goddess) from Egeotora (name ) Aimoi ( name ) of Louderobos ( father )
so the language in this small line did not differ that much

we need to keep the thread on track and discussed the aspects of cultures within BB timespan

[rms2]

. . .

No.

Well, despite you're having said no, and having put it in bold type, by which I guess it is meant to represent the unassailable final verdict and last word on the matter, we disagree.




Proto-Celtic is simply the most recent common ancestor of known Celtic languages. It was the sole survivor of a long (perhaps 1300-year) linguistic evolution which certainly must have seen plenty of divergences and extinctions (and possibly even convergences).

Proto-Celtic is not merely the most recent reconstructed common ancestor of the known Celtic languages. It is also known as Common Celtic and as such is the hypothetical, original, primitive, earliest form of Celtic. As I said before, it is not something wholly other and somehow non-Celtic, just as Proto-Indo-European is not non-Indo-European.

I won't go back into the sense or non-sense of the names of the various nodes; that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is the matter originally at issue, which was whether or not Celtic originated with Hallstatt. If Ringe's tree is right, and Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent at about 2300 BC, then Celtic could not have begun with Hallstatt.

[Megalophias]

Proto-Celtic is not merely the most recent reconstructed common ancestor of the known Celtic languages.
You are entitled to your opinion that the terminology is dumb, but it is the terminology. Here is a quote from a paper authored by Ringe himself:
"The term “proto-Germanic,” for instance, represents a language that was about to split up into Germanic languages, each spoken by a different speech community; the speech of the ancestors of the proto-Germanic generation, slowly changing all the time, is referred to as pre-proto-Germanic." [Emphasis added.]

[rms2]

You are entitled to your opinion that the terminology is dumb, but it is the terminology. Here is a quote from a paper authored by Ringe himself:
"The term “proto-Germanic,” for instance, represents a language that was about to split up into Germanic languages, each spoken by a different speech community; the speech of the ancestors of the proto-Germanic generation, slowly changing all the time, is referred to as pre-proto-Germanic." [Emphasis added.]

That does not mean that a proto language is supposed to be something totally abstract and a language not actually spoken by real people. So, what Ringe wrote does not contradict what I wrote. Proto-Celtic remains more than merely the most recent reconstructed common ancestor of the known Celtic languages. It represents an actual language spoken by real people, the hypothetical, original, primitive, earliest form of Celtic.

And, once again, the original point was that if Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt. In other words, if the Bell Beaker people brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles in the 3rd millennium BC, then Celtic did not begin with Hallstatt.

[Megalophias]

And, once again, the original point was that if Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt. In other words, if the Bell Beaker people brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles in the 3rd millennium BC, then Celtic did not begin with Hallstatt.
And once again, the point is that you are tilting at windmills, and if someone says Celtic originated with Hallstatt they do not mean and never did mean that Pre-Proto-Celtic must have originated at Hallstatt. Again, you are entitled to your opinion that everyone should be very careful to make this point clear in their wording. But in context it means the homeland of the most recent common ancestral stage of the proto-language.

[Kale]

And, once again, the original point was that if Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic could not have originated with Hallstatt. In other words, if the Bell Beaker people brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles in the 3rd millennium BC, then Celtic did not begin with Hallstatt.

What? Of course it could. Proto-Celtic breaks off from Italo-Celtic 2300BC, slowly evolves into something more recognizable over a thousand years, then Hallstatt happens, and their Celtic is the Celtic that all surviving Celtic stems from.

[rms2]

What? Of course it could. Proto-Celtic breaks off from Italo-Celtic 2300BC, slowly evolves into something more recognizable over a thousand years, then Hallstatt happens, and their Celtic is the Celtic that all surviving Celtic stems from.

No it could not, unless one wants to argue the unlikely scenario that Proto-Celtic remained in place for about 1500 years just so it could expand with Hallstatt.

If the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles with them in the 3rd millennium BC, Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

[rms2]

And once again, the point is that you are tilting at windmills, and if someone says Celtic originated with Hallstatt they do not mean and never did mean that Pre-Proto-Celtic must have originated at Hallstatt. Again, you are entitled to your opinion that everyone should be very careful to make this point clear in their wording. But in context it means the homeland of the most recent common ancestral stage of the proto-language.

And once again, as is so often the case, you and I do not agree.

Now perhaps we can get back to the topic of this thread.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

No it could not, unless one wants to argue the unlikely scenario that Proto-Celtic remained in place for about 1500 years just so it could expand with Hallstatt.

If the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles with them in the 3rd millennium BC, Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

That's a pretty big if, which can only be indirectly proven. Ie aDNA showing arrival of "new" (ie eastern-shifted, R1b- containing) BB types. In any case, to talk of proto-Celtic in 2300 BC is pretty unrealistic.
Cultural and linguistic flows from the continent to Britain did not just cease at 2300 BC, but were ongoing, and the overwhelming tide of opinion sees proto-Celtic proper arriving in Britain much later than 2300 BC. Certainly, given the different nature of Brittonic (P-Celtic) c.f. Goidelic, we know that later linguistic flows did in fact occur.

The resting conclusion is that if eastern-shifted , presumably IE -speaking BB fold arrived in Britain c. 2300 BC, they were a very early form of IE - now likely extinct or it had since morphed into something a wholly new level of IE. Certainly, the linguists at Berkeley do not talk of any Celtic in Britain until c. 700 BC.

Don Ringe's cladogram picture doesn't really change this, as his was a computational cladistics exercise, and not an in-depth discussion of the "Italo-Celtic' question.

[George]

That's a pretty big if, which can only be indirectly proven. Ie aDNA showing arrival of "new" (ie eastern-shifted, R1b- containing) BB types. In any case, to talk of proto-Celtic in 2300 BC is pretty unrealistic.
Cultural and linguistic flows from the continent to Britain did not just cease at 2300 BC, but were ongoing, and the overwhelming tide of opinion sees proto-Celtic proper arriving in Britain much later than 2300 BC. Certainly, given the different nature of Brittonic (P-Celtic) c.f. Goidelic, we know that later linguistic flows did in fact occur.

The resting conclusion is that if eastern-shifted , presumably IE -speaking BB fold arrived in Britain c. 2300 BC, they were a very early form of IE - now likely extinct or it had since morphed into something a wholly new level of IE. Certainly, the linguists at Berkeley do not talk of any Celtic in Britain until c. 700 BC.

Don Ringe's cladogram picture doesn't really change this, as his was a computational cladistics exercise, and not an in-depth discussion of the "Italo-Celtic' question.

In absolute fairness, one should mention that the great Henri Hubert (ancient but still very relevant in many contexts) thought that some form of Celtic had reached the Isles before (and independently of) Halstatt. I once read his "Greatness and Decline of the Celts" and enjoyed it immensely. I don't think he was very specific about the time line of this though (it would have been somewhere between the very early date mentioned in the present discussion and Halstatt). http://www.electricscotland.com/history/celts/

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In absolute fairness, one should mention that the great Henri Hubert (ancient but still very relevant in many contexts) thought that some form of Celtic had reached the Isles before (and independently of) Halstatt. I once read his "Greatness and Decline of the Celts" and enjoyed it immensely. I don't think he was very specific about the time line of this though (it would have been somewhere between the very early date mentioned in the present discussion and Halstatt). http://www.electricscotland.com/history/celts/

I'm not - nor anyone else (I think) - insisting Celtic is 'from Halstatt' or from 700 BC. Clearly proto-Celtic is older than 700 BC if inscriptions almost that old already exist. Rather, a call for reality stipulates that "proto-Celtic" and 2300 BC don't match

[2000]

How different do these languages have to be, BB IE to proto Celtic? Like Hokkien to Cantonese? Italian to Spanish? Scots to English? Surfer to Ebonics? Could it have been a slow transformation via elites and trade networks filtering down to the average Joe cow herder?

[rms2]

That's a pretty big if, which can only be indirectly proven. Ie aDNA showing arrival of "new" (ie eastern-shifted, R1b- containing) BB types. In any case, to talk of proto-Celtic in 2300 BC is pretty unrealistic.
Cultural and linguistic flows from the continent to Britain did not just cease at 2300 BC, but were ongoing, and the overwhelming tide of opinion sees proto-Celtic proper arriving in Britain much later than 2300 BC. Certainly, given the different nature of Brittonic (P-Celtic) c.f. Goidelic, we know that later linguistic flows did in fact occur.

It is a big if, which is of course true of most of the various hypotheses concerning Indo-European and its daughter languages. I don't know about "the overwhelming tide of opinion"; once again your ability to poll scholars is better than mine. I know that a number of scholars over the years have connected the Bell Beaker people with the spread of an early form of Celtic.

Ringe has Proto-Celtic, or, to use the correct terminology insisted upon by Megalophias, pre-Proto-Celtic, diverging from its Italo-Celtic parent at around 2300 BC. That makes sense to me, if in fact the Beaker Folk are behind the original spread of early Celtic to the British Isles.



The resting conclusion is that if eastern-shifted , presumably IE -speaking BB fold arrived in Britain c. 2300 BC, they were a very early form of IE - now likely extinct or it had since morphed into something a wholly new level of IE. Certainly, the linguists at Berkeley do not talk of any Celtic in Britain until c. 700 BC.

Don Ringe's cladogram picture doesn't really change this, as his was a computational cladistics exercise, and not an in-depth discussion of the "Italo-Celtic' question.

I recognize that it is possible the Beaker Folk who went to the British Isles spoke only some unknown form of IE, perhaps a type of Italo-Celtic that no longer exists, and that Celtic only spread later as a lingua franca within the larger IE-speaking northwest European network.

I still think that if Ringe's tree is right, and pre-Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

[2000]

I recognize that it is possible the Beaker Folk who went to the British Isles spoke only some unknown form of IE, perhaps a type of Italo-Celtic that no longer exists, and that Celtic only spread later as a lingua franca within the larger IE-speaking northwest European network.

I still think that if Ringe's tree is right, and pre-Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

Scotland (admittedly much smalle) in a few centuries went from Brythonic dominated to Gaelic dominated to English dominated without the majority of its population replaced. If the languages were close it might be easy

[R.Rocca]

It is a big if, which is of course true of most of the various hypotheses concerning Indo-European and its daughter languages. I don't know about "the overwhelming tide of opinion"; once again your ability to poll scholars is better than mine. I know that a number of scholars over the years have connected the Bell Beaker people with the spread of an early form of Celtic.

Ringe has Proto-Celtic, or, to use the correct terminology insisted upon by Megalophias, pre-Proto-Celtic, diverging from its Italo-Celtic parent at around 2300 BC. That makes sense to me, if in fact the Beaker Folk are behind the original spread of early Celtic to the British Isles.



I recognize that it is possible the Beaker Folk who went to the British Isles spoke only some unknown form of IE, perhaps a type of Italo-Celtic that no longer exists, and that Celtic only spread later as a lingua franca within the larger IE-speaking northwest European network.

I still think that if Ringe's tree is right, and pre-Proto-Celtic diverged from its Italo-Celtic parent circa 2300 BC, then Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

And nothing that has been produced in the past 20 years supports that it did, and ancient Y-DNA will be more circumstantial evidence against it.

[Megalophias]

-----

[Krefter]

Is there prove in preserved writing that everyone in Gaul spoke the same language? Or do we only have a few Gaulish inscriptions from a few regions which don't represent what all Gauls probably spoke? Is there evidence in non-Gaulish written records that all Gauls were able to communicate with each other and or spoke the same language?

Did the Celts in Spain speak a language as unrelated to recorded Gaulish as Gealic and Breton are to Gaulish? Did Celts in Spain and Gaul have a united Celtic identity? If so, isn't it possible differnt Gauls spoke differnt languages but still had a united Gaulish identity?If all true it means the languages Gauls spoke expanded before Hallstatt.

Would any of you agree it is likely Italic, Celtic, and others coexisted in Central-East Europe in the Bronze age. And that proto-Celtic may have developed and changed overtime in a huge region as early as Bell Beaker, and then expanded at least into the British Isles.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Is there prove in preserved writing that everyone in Gaul spoke the same language? Or do we only have a few Gaulish inscriptions from a few regions which don't represent what all Gauls probably spoke? Is there evidence in non-Gaulish written records that all Gauls were able to communicate with each other and or spoke the same language?

Did the Celts in Spain speak a language as unrelated to recorded Gaulish as Gealic and Breton are to Gaulish? Did Celts in Spain and Gaul have a united Celtic identity? If so, isn't it possible differnt Gauls spoke differnt languages but still had a united Gaulish identity?If all true it means the languages Gauls spoke expanded before Hallstatt.

Would any of you agree it is likely Italic, Celtic, and others coexisted in Central-East Europe in the Bronze age. And that proto-Celtic may have developed and changed overtime in a huge region as early as Bell Beaker, and then expanded at least into the British Isles.

"Gaul" is a term imposed by Romans to refer to a large area otherwise disunited, and ruled by a multitude of variable sized chiefdoms, who did share many similarities like language and culture. But the problem with inscriptions is that they overlay much greater heterogeneity of spoken forms because writing was the confines of a handful of scribes.

Celtiberian is certainly felt to be a different dialect of Celtic (q-Celtic). If anything, Gallic appeats closer to Brittonic, at least in certain features; ie being P-Celtic. However, not everyone accepts this categorisation.

I don't think italic and Celtic yet existed in BA (I know others might have different opinion). IMO, in the Bronze Age we had pre-Celtic and pre-Italic. The sets of dialects we now call "Celtic" and "italic" then formed at the end of the BA (c. 1200 BC) when the advent of iron; changing economies; and knock-on effects of the Aegean collapses led to significant social change; and thus linguistic evolution by way of formation of new hierarchies and community networks.

[vettor]

Is there prove in preserved writing that everyone in Gaul spoke the same language? Or do we only have a few Gaulish inscriptions from a few regions which don't represent what all Gauls probably spoke? Is there evidence in non-Gaulish written records that all Gauls were able to communicate with each other and or spoke the same language?

Did the Celts in Spain speak a language as unrelated to recorded Gaulish as Gealic and Breton are to Gaulish? Did Celts in Spain and Gaul have a united Celtic identity? If so, isn't it possible differnt Gauls spoke differnt languages but still had a united Gaulish identity?If all true it means the languages Gauls spoke expanded before Hallstatt.

Would any of you agree it is likely Italic, Celtic, and others coexisted in Central-East Europe in the Bronze age. And that proto-Celtic may have developed and changed overtime in a huge region as early as Bell Beaker, and then expanded at least into the British Isles.

IIRC, Julius Caesar stated there where 4 different languages in Gaul...............maybe JeanM can confirm

The word "Gaulish" (gallicum) as a language term is first explicitly used in the Appendix Vergiliana, in a poem referring to Gaulish letters of the alphabet.[13] Julius Caesar reported in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico of 58 BC that the Celts/Gauls and their language are separated from their Aquitanian and Belgic neighbours by the rivers Garonne and Seine/Marne, respectively.[14] Caesar relates that census accounts written in the Greek alphabet were found among the Helvetii.[15] He also notes that as of 53 BC the Gaulish druids used the Greek alphabet for private and public transactions, with the important exception of druidic doctrines, which could only be memorised and were not allowed to be written down.[16] According to the Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises, nearly three quarters of Gaulish inscriptions (disregarding coins) are in the Greek alphabet.

maybe we should say that these Gallic people spoke Old-Greco-Gallic :)

[Krefter]

"Gaul" is a term imposed by Romans to refer to a large area otherwise disunited, and ruled by a multitude of variable sized chiefdoms, who did share many similarities like language and culture. But the problem with inscriptions is that they overlay much greater heterogeneity of spoken forms because writing was the confines of a handful of scribes.

That's what I expected. It didn't make sense a single language and ethnicity took up all of France and most of Germany.


Celtiberian is certainly felt to be a different dialect of Celtic (q-Celtic). If anything, Gallic appeats closer to Brittonic, at least in certain features; ie being P-Celtic. However, not everyone accepts this categorisation.

We're in desprite need of ancient British DNA. Britain/Ireland are weird because they're so far away from Russia but have a lot of Steppe ancestry. When did Steppe ancestry arrive, who did it arrive with, where does R1b-L21 come from. etc, etc. Tacitus said Britons spoke in a similar style as Gauls, maybe there were closely related languages in Gaul. The weird thing is though R1b-L21 is rare in France and there's a lot more ANE in the British Isles(and Iron age Briton genome) than in French. The Gauls and Britons must have been distinct genetically.



I don't think italic and Celtic yet existed in BA (I know others might have different opinion). IMO, in the Bronze Age we had pre-Celtic and pre-Italic. The sets of dialects we now call "Celtic" and "italic" then formed at the end of the BA (c. 1200 BC) when the advent of iron; changing economies; and knock-on effects of the Aegean collapses led to significant social change; and thus linguistic evolution by way of formation of new hierarchies and community networks.

The oldest Latin inscriptions are from 600-800 BC. 1200 BC is the Late Bronze age but still Bronze age. I was guessing proto-Italic and proto-Celtic existed around 2500-1500 BC in Central-East Europe. By Bronze age I was thinking 1500-1000 BC.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Krefter

Yes the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age (1300-1100) is not unreasonable

I agree aDNA is a useful guide- with due caution. Hypothetically speaking; if there is no eastern-R1b in Britain, Spain or Italy before 2000 BC, then early western PIE would have been confined to its Central European heartland (Germany, Hungary), meaning the cycles of divergence/ convergence would not have yet begun.

Again, the evidence from Mycenaean suggests that even it still looked like 'nuclear IE', only modestly differentiated (ie picked up some Aegean vocab). And that's 1600-1400 BC. ! :)

[Anti]

We're in desprite need of ancient British DNA. Britain/Ireland are weird because they're so far away from Russia but have a lot of Steppe ancestry. When did Steppe ancestry arrive, who did it arrive with, where does R1b-L21 come from. etc, etc. Tacitus said Britons spoke in a similar style as Gauls, maybe there were closely related languages in Gaul. The weird thing is though R1b-L21 is rare in France and there's a lot more ANE in the British Isles(and Iron age Briton genome) than in French. The Gauls and Britons must have been distinct genetically.

A good place to start would be the Round-barrows (single grave tradition) of the 3rd mil. BC > ~1200BC; Especially the contrast to the predecessor Long-barrows, would be a good insight on a pos. population change/infusion; In the same manner as has been shown (current data) that took place in Central Europe during the Chalcolithic with Corded-ware/Bell-Beaker, i.e. LN Corded-ware Esperstedt to pre-existing MN Esperstedt farmer (change) or LN Karsdorf>LN Alberstedt to pre-existing MN Baalberge farmers (infusion);

[rms2]

. . . The weird thing is though R1b-L21 is rare in France and there's a lot more ANE in the British Isles(and Iron age Briton genome) than in French. The Gauls and Britons must have been distinct genetically.
. . .

I would not call L21 rare in France. It's pretty frequent in northern France and fairly well represented even in the south.

[R.Rocca]

Krefter

Yes the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age (1300-1100) is not unreasonable

I agree aDNA is a useful guide- with due caution. Hypothetically speaking; if there is no eastern-R1b in Britain, Spain or Italy before 2000 BC, then early western PIE would have been confined to its Central European heartland (Germany, Hungary), meaning the cycles of divergence/ convergence would not have yet begun.

Again, the evidence from Mycenaean suggests that even it still looked like 'nuclear IE', only modestly differentiated (ie picked up some Aegean vocab). And that's 1600-1400 BC. ! :)

Is there a reason why you keep mentioning this 2000 BC date, when clearly it should be 2500 BC that Bell Beaker moves into places like Britain and when Central Bell Beaker influences expand? Are you subconsciously trying to get it as close to 1600 BC as possible?

[Kale]

No it could not, unless one wants to argue the unlikely scenario that Proto-Celtic remained in place for about 1500 years just so it could expand with Hallstatt.

If the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles with them in the 3rd millennium BC, Celtic did not originate with Hallstatt.

Proto-Celtic could have been in what would become Hallstatt territory, the British Isles, or the Moon...it doesn't matter. If all later surviving Celtic originated in Hallstatt, then Celtic originated in Hallstatt.

[rms2]

Proto-Celtic could have been in what would become Hallstatt territory, the British Isles, or the Moon...it doesn't matter. If all later surviving Celtic originated in Hallstatt, then Celtic originated in Hallstatt.

True, but if it was in all those places, it isn't at all likely that Celtic originated with Hallstatt. And that is the point. Since we cannot know this stuff with certainty, likelihood is all we have.

It is not likely that all surviving Celtic languages originated in Hallstatt.

[R.Rocca]

Proto-Celtic could have been in what would become Hallstatt territory, the British Isles, or the Moon...it doesn't matter. If all later surviving Celtic originated in Hallstatt, then Celtic originated in Hallstatt.

Obviously you are compounding the confusion... Hallstatt is a town in Austria, the Hallstatt Culture is an Iron Age culture of Central Europe, and it should be pretty clear by now that all surviving Celtic languages did not originate with the Hallstatt culture.

[Kale]

Obviously you are compounding the confusion... Hallstatt is a town in Austria, the Hallstatt Culture is an Iron Age culture of Central Europe, and it should be pretty clear by now that all surviving Celtic languages did not originate with the Hallstatt culture.

I was clearing the confusion. And from RMS2's last reply, it seems I was successful. I wasn't promoting any theory, because frankly I don't know enough about any of them. But the massive terminology filibuster the past 5 pages needed to be taken care of.

[rms2]

I was clearing the confusion. And from RMS2's last reply, it seems I was successful. I wasn't promoting any theory, because frankly I don't know enough about any of them. But the massive terminology filibuster the past 5 pages needed to be taken care of.

The confusion was apparently all your own. What I wrote earlier, before you began posting, was pretty clear. I don't know what it is you imagine you've taken care of.

[Wonder_Wall]

My take is that early IE was spread by Bell Beaker to many parts of western Europe. These people would have maintained contact through trade, etc. Then through the Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age cultures we get the spread of proto-Celtic and finally, the historic distribution of Celtic languages and culture.

There is really no way to get to Insular and Iberian Celtic directly *from* Hallstatt. Celtic is really just the last step in a long line of incremental moves that started with Steppe folk heading West, merging with the existing people and cultures, and eventually replacing most of the original languages with either Germanic or Celtic. Germanic in particular has evidence of other languages but so too does Celtic.

This story is largely supported by aDNA with notable particular exceptions (like R1b among the Basque...) which should not prevent us from accepting the larger picture in general terms.

I am very interested in linguistic research concerning the Celtiberian/Cisalpine Celtic split if anybody has news on that front.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Is there a reason why you keep mentioning this 2000 BC date, when clearly it should be 2500 BC that Bell Beaker moves into places like Britain and when Central Bell Beaker influences expand? Are you subconsciously trying to get it as close to 1600 BC as possible?

I thought it's pretty clear from my message you quoted and the general theme of this thread. Given that the earliest Bell Beakers weren't Indo-European, and BB "became IE" in its central European phase c. 2500 BC, BB finds alone are less relevant. What's relevant is the appearance of East central European migrants to Britain . When did this occur? I don't know, but based on what we have seen in Iberia, it could also have been after 2000 BC in Britain.


I agree aDNA is a useful guide- with due caution. Hypothetically speaking; if there is no eastern-R1b in Britain, Spain or Italy before 2000 BC, then early western PIE would have been confined to its Central European heartland (Germany, Hungary), meaning the cycles of divergence/ convergences would not have yet begun

I have no set attachement to 1600 BC for any language. My pint was that the Mycenaean evidence dated from 1600 BC suggests that it was still only a modestly differentiated language from nuclear Indo-European. This means IE unity only really begun to breakdown 3000-2500, rather than from 4500 BC as advocated by Gimbutas or Darden

[R.Rocca]

I thought it's pretty clear from my message you quoted and the general theme of this thread. Given that the earliest Bell Beakers weren't Indo-European, and BB "became IE" in its central European phase c. 2500 BC, BB finds alone are less relevant. What's relevant is the appearance of East central European migrants to Britain . When did this occur? I don't know, but based on what we have seen in Iberia, it could also have been after 2000 BC in Britain.

Sorry, but again, for someone who is real stickler for detail on some things, you sure go out of your way to NOT look into easily available data that goes against your views. A ten second search on the Amesbury Archer, and you see quite quickly that they date him to 2300 BC. I'm sure with a little more effort, you can find older single grave Bell Beakers in Britain.

[kinman]

Whoa,
Wait a minute. Where did you get the idea that Gimbutas advocated a breakdown of IE at 4500 B.C. Are you sure that isn't 4500 years ago (i.e. 2500 B.C.)? In any case, I still think that the earliest Bell Beakers were Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European (depending on one's definition of those terms). As has been repeatedly noted by others, an Iberian origin of Bell Beaker Culture makes no sense. It was almost certainly introduced into Iberia about 4800-4900 years ago by R1b men riding in from the Rhine River region.
---------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought it's pretty clear from my message you quoted and the general theme of this thread. Given that the earliest Bell Beakers weren't Indo-European, and BB "became IE" in its central European phase c. 2500 BC, BB finds alone are less relevant. What's relevant is the appearance of East central European migrants to Britain . When did this occur? I don't know, but based on what we have seen in Iberia, it could also have been after 2000 BC in Britain.

I have no set attachement to 1600 BC for any language. My pint was that the Mycenaean evidence dated from 1600 BC suggests that it was still only a modestly differentiated language from nuclear Indo-European. This means IE unity only really begun to breakdown 3000-2500, rather than from 4500 BC as advocated by Gimbutas or Darden

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Sorry, but again, for someone who is real stickler for detail on some things, you sure go out of your way to NOT look into easily available data that goes against your views. A ten second search on the Amesbury Archer, and you see quite quickly that they date him to 2300 BC. I'm sure with a little more effort, you can find older single grave Bell Beakers in Britain.

Why don't you read posts carefully, Rich ?
Bell Beaker as a culture versus 'eastern', R1b and thus putatively IE genes are different matters. The earliest Beakers (debate on their exact dates accepted) in Iberia were not genetically "IE" - we know that

Now, we cannot tell whether the A.A. was a 'central European, Kurganized' type of BB, or an 'old', Iberian, Copper Age one without aDNA. Can we ?? No

Again, its a simple concept to grasp.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Whoa,
Wait a minute. Where did you get the idea that Gimbutas advocated a breakdown of IE at 4500 B.C. Are you sure that isn't 4500 years ago (i.e. 2500 B.C.)? In any case, I still think that the earliest Bell Beakers were Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European (depending on one's definition of those terms). As has been repeatedly noted by others, an Iberian origin of Bell Beaker Culture makes no sense. It was almost certainly introduced into Iberia about 4800-4900 years ago by R1b men riding in from the Rhine River region.
---------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate on where Beaker pottery originated is irrevelant (although the radiocarbon dates from Iberia are troublesome, its still the leading hypothesis). But what is important is that there were Bell Beakers in Iberia which until at least 2000 BC look -genetically - like a continuation of Neolithic groups without any sign of steppic, R1b mixture.

And "whoa !" , yes, Gimbutas did indeed place her "kurgan Wave I" to c. 4500 - 4000 BC. She dated the second wave to be 3500 BC

With new radiocarbon dates and genetic evidence all point to a younger age

[R.Rocca]

Why don't you read posts carefully, Rich ?
Bell Beaker as a culture versus 'eastern', R1b and thus putatively IE genes are different matters. The earliest Beakers (debate on their exact dates accepted) in Iberia were not genetically "IE" - we know that

Now, we cannot tell whether the A.A. was a 'central European, Kurganized' type of BB, or an 'old', Iberian, Copper Age one without aDNA. Can we ?? No

Again, its a simple concept to grasp.

Again, its simple to grasp, the Amesbury Archer was buried in a style that was like the Central European Bell Beaker and it is older than the 2000 BC date you keep incorrectly repeating, so what are you not grasping? The guy also had a brachycephalic head, was tall, and had isotopes from the Alps, so who's not grasping what here?

And now "we know" that the earliest Bell Beakers in Iberia are not genetically IE? Really, since when?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Again, its simple to grasp, the Amesbury Archer was buried in a style that was like the Central European Bell Beaker and it is older than the 2000 BC date you keep incorrectly repeating, so what are you not grasping? The guy also had a brachycephalic head, was tall, and had isotopes from the Alps, so who's not grasping what here?

And now "we know" that the earliest Bell Beakers in Iberia are not genetically IE? Really, since when?

We have several genomes from Iberia now-including copper age period when BB existed. Now i know that these might not have been from specifically beaker contexts, but the absence of R1b and eastern admixture in anything prior to 2000 BC so far is notable

Now, the AA dude might well be eastern shifted (and the isotopic evidence and artefacts certainly speak in favour) - I never said he wasn't. But we just don't know for sure at this stage

[Wonder_Wall]

As far as I know, there is no aDNA conclusively confirming the early Iberian Beakers as genetically anything.

[kinman]

Whoa again,
When did Gimbutas (or anyone else for that matter) say that the breakdown of IE happened in Kurgan Wave 1 (or even Kurgan Wave 2)? Maybe the split of Tocharian from the rest of Proto-Indo-European, but the breakdown of Proto-IE and IE was a VERY long process that cannot be pinned down to such an early date. To do so just reduces it to a meaningless semantic debate.
--------------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The debate on where Beaker pottery originated is irrevelant (although the radiocarbon dates from Iberia are troublesome, its still the leading hypothesis). But what is important is that there were Bell Beakers in Iberia which until at least 2000 BC look -genetically - like a continuation of Neolithic groups without any sign of steppic, R1b mixture.

And "whoa !" , yes, Gimbutas did indeed place her "kurgan Wave I" to c. 4500 - 4000 BC. She dated the second wave to be 3500 BC

With new radiocarbon dates and genetic evidence all point to a younger age

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Whoa again,
When did Gimbutas (or anyone else for that matter) say that the breakdown of IE happened in Kurgan Wave 1 (or even Kurgan Wave 2)? Maybe the split of Tocharian from the rest of Proto-Indo-European, but the breakdown of Proto-IE and IE was a VERY long process that cannot be pinned down to such an early date. To do so just reduces it to a meaningless semantic debate.
--------------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think Gimbutas grappled with linguistics in too greater detail over and above the paradigmatic family tree approaches of her day.

But I agree with you it'd be artificial to pin point one exact moment, and contact continued even into later periods.
Whatever the case, the breakdown of IE would have been quicker and more evident after IE groups actually expanded beyond the homeland zone. So 2500 BC is a solid figure to begin with ;

[alan]

You are both part right or its more nuanced. There is no doubt bell beaker in central Europe was R1b and carrying steppe genes early in the beaker period of that area. Kromsdorf dated to 2550BC which is as early as beaker gets in central Europe according to many. The strain of beaker that reached the isles had from the inception clear central European aspects as well as some western ones so it is likely that from the inception beaker in the isles was also R1b and carrying steppe genes. Conservative estimates suggest that the isles beaker phenomenon started around 2400BC.

As for Iberia its a little more tricky. It seems (albeit its one site) that pre-beaker copper age Iberia c. 3100-2800BC was not R1b and didnt carry steppe genes. It is also true that some of the tested people on that site do overlap with the earliest beaker dates which commence c. 2800BC. So there are people in Iberia in the earliest beaker PERIOD which do not show R1b/steppe genes. However because they are so early its hard to say if they were actually beaker people.

While I am pretty sure that from its inception c. 2400BC that beaker in the isles did have the R1b/steppe combo I am more doubtful that this is true in Iberia. I dont think there is sufficient ancient DNA evidence in Iberia to be sure but there is a small overlap and I would personally read the archaeological evidence as suggestive that the earliest beaker phase in Iberia 2800-2550BC (and probably also the earliest phase in southern France and NW Italy) is unlikely to have the R1b/steppe gene combo. The key change in Iberia is IMO not the invention of beaker pot but whenever the individualised treatment of bodies in burials (including ones buried in collective tombs) appears.

As I have posted before, this is extremely hard to date due to issues with distubance in such tombs and isotopic distortions in dating on human bones in burials. However, in regions where the transition has been studied closely and with care such as around Madrid, this transformation appears to happen long after beaker pot was in use and is therefore a phenomenon of the developed and later beaker period.

My own feeling at the moment is that after 2600BC non-R1b people using beaker pottery penetrated into southern France and north Italy and made contact with central Europeans (via the Po valley seems the best option to me right now) and a R1b-beaker culture arose there c. 2550BC or thereabouts. From there this new R1b-beaker culture spread like wildfire in what was a clearly massive change of pace.

[alan]

I don't think Gimbutas grappled with linguistics in too greater detail over and above the paradigmatic family tree approaches of her day.

But I agree with you it'd be artificial to pin point one exact moment, and contact continued even into later periods.
Whatever the case, the breakdown of IE would have been quicker and more evident after IE groups actually expanded beyond the homeland zone. So 2500 BC is a solid figure to begin with ;

Absolute dates are tricky but branching order probably is on more solid ground. We know that CW most likely arose c. 2800BC and Middle Dnieper (linked to Slavs or Balto-Slavic node) close to the same date and Fatyanovo offshoot linked with Baltic doesnt seem to much pre-date 2600BC http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54752/WA308_74904_P244_Corded-ware-Fatyanov_I.pdf
We of course then have the whole Abashevo-Sintashta chain linking towards Indo-Iranian.

Anyway that all seems to make sense. As does the concept that Tocharian relates to Afanasievo breaking off around the same time as Yamanaya arose or just before (lets say somewhere around 3300BC) even if the Tarim mummies identity is less clear. The exact date doesnt matter so much as the fact it is 500 years earlier than any of the branches discussed in the above paragraph. In the branching scheme Tocharian is normally the first post-Anatolian branch in surviving IE languages.

So in the branching scheme Celtic or Celto-Italic is usually seen as the first branch off after Tocharian. This branching scheme and the archaeological evidence would tend to place the Celto-Italic or whatever we want to call the node leading to it in the period 3300-2800BC. We can of course narrow this using archaeological evidence because Yamnaya doesnt even go off the steppes westwards until around 3000-2900BC. So that tends to squeeze the branch that led to Celtic or Celto-Italic into a narrow band c. 3000-2800BC. Even if we were to revive the now unlikely looking idea in Mallory's origin book that Celtic was somehow contained in westernmost Corded Ware this would not change the lower 2800BC date.

So, I think the evidence is that the ancestors of Celto-Italic (which does seem a reasonably strong concept despite some criticism) split from the core c. 3000/2900BC-2800BC whatever stage that the language was at between PIE and Celto-Italic. Archaeologically this timeframe when compared to the branching timing is extremely suggestive of this offshoot from the PIE core being linked with Yamnaya moving up the Danube as far as Hungary and nearby around 3000BC or just after. I wont quibble about exactly what they spoke on the continuoum between PIE and Celto-Italic because we will never know the exact timing of that morphing. Yamnaya moved a long distance quickly to Hungary, Serbia and nearby by 2900BC and Yamnaya may have lasted there for 300 years. So it could have had several centuries after c. 3000/2900BC to form the full characteristics of a Celto-Italic branch before Yamnaya itself disappeared.

My current feeling is that Celto-Italic P312 late Yamnaya or perhaps people carrying Yamnaya genes in another intermediary culture around Hungary (regardless people with great mobility and use of the horse) met with non-IE peoples from the west c. 2550BC and formed the P312-Italo-Celtic connection (a severe aridity phase was hitting both eastern and presumably parts of south-western Europe around this time). This newly formed P312 super-mobile group using beaker pot then underwent a huge spread starting c. 2550BC and even reaching the isles by 2400BC. At the time of the spread it seems very likely to me that the language was some form of Italo-Celtic rather than Celtic per se. Celtic or rather pre-proto-Celtic probably emerged in the period when the beaker network broke down into smaller components and then died. I would say the earliest I would place this would be 2200BC but I see Celtic as more of a process than a node. I see Celtic as emerging 2200BC-1500BC through continuous elite interaction in central and NW Europe among Celto-Italic elites.

[Anti]

My take is that early IE was spread by Bell Beaker to many parts of western Europe. These people would have maintained contact through trade, etc. Then through the Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age cultures we get the spread of proto-Celtic and finally, the historic distribution of Celtic languages and culture.

I am more inclined to believe that we are looking at two separate east>west migrations;
For if i look very close at the Haak et al data, i see that the Bell-Beaker samples and Corded-ware samples are virtually contemporary, but what is really fascinating in connection to that - is that all these sample are taken from the very same region i.e. these folks were neighbors;

Yet Bell-Beaker is R1b and Corded-ware is R1a, but this is not the most striking feature; The most striking feature is that (Haak K=admixture), though both are dominantly Yamnaya, the Bell-Beakers also have a significant EEF amount where as the contemporary Corded-ware folks (from the very same region) are lacking such an admixture; These features can only be explained by two different routes; My best guess is that Beaker folks took the 'Black-sea>Danube up route' where as by Corded-ware my best guess is the 'Dnieper up>Vistula down route';


I am very interested in linguistic research concerning the Celtiberian/Cisalpine Celtic split if anybody has news on that front.

There never was a 'Celtiberian/Cisalpine Celtic' unity in order for there to than have been a definite split; If we consider Lepontic to be part of the Keltic family (i dont i think its archaic Italic) than even with that standard Lepontic is closest to Gaulish and arrived in North Italy via Urnfield (Canegrate>Golasseca) ~1200BC:

Pierre-Yves Lambert & Georges-Jean Pinault - Gaulois et Celtique Continental (2007 / EPHE)
Dr. Jürgen Uhlich: Against this background, a Celticization of the Golasecca area, i.e. the introduction of an entirely new, Celtic, language, immediately before the first appearance of Celtic linguistic documents seems highly implausible, and the date suggesting itself for this process is rather at the next previous cultural break, i.e. ca. 1200. Both this early stage "Proto-Lepontic" introduced with the Canegrate culture and the corresponding "Proto-Gaulish" could then have their common ancestor in the language represented by the early Urnfield culture north of the Alps which was later followed by transalpine Hallstatt and finally LaTène

Cisalpine-Gaulish on the other hand is attested by 4 major inscriptions (and a few smaller ones) dating to the time(and post) of the Gaulish LaTene Iron-age invasion; All are however written in the Lugano-alphabet and share common features with Lepontic that are however not shared with Transalpine-Gaulish; Illustrating an immense Lepontic Influence;

D. Stifter (2012) Maynooth Uni. -
http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/kalender/arkiv_2012/celtic_spring/Lepontisch_WS_2010.pdf/

Celtiberian for one shares a significant feature exclusively with Goidelic (Gaelic) *kw>kw where as all other Keltic languages (including Brythonic) are *kw>p;

[alan]

People keep saying CW has less EEF than bell beaker in central Europe. This may be so but it is comparing apples with oranges as bell beaker in central Europe starts 250-300 years later than CW so the beaker people being tested had 10-15 extra generations to mix with farmers than early CW. As to what culture the P312 ancestor of bell beaker lived in before they started using beaker pots c. 2550BC in central Europe is unknown although Yamnaya around Hungary seem plausible or through an intermediary culture like Vucedol.

Notice that Vucedol has been redated in a recent paper (I posted it before within the last month or so but cant remember its name) as ending around the time that bell beaker appeared in central Europe rather than running in parallel. That may mean the relationship of Vucedol and Bell Beaker needs to be looked at again.

[Anti]

People keep saying CW has less EEF than bell beaker in central Europe. This may be so but it is comparing apples with oranges as bell beaker in central Europe starts 250-300 years later than CW so the beaker people being tested had 10-15 extra generations to mix with farmers than early CW. As to what culture the P312 ancestor of bell beaker lived in before they started using beaker pots c. 2550BC in central Europe is unknown although Yamnaya around Hungary seem plausible or through an intermediary culture like Vucedol.

Notice that Vucedol has been redated in a recent paper (I posted it before within the last month or so but cant remember its name) as ending around the time that bell beaker appeared in central Europe rather than running in parallel. That may mean the relationship of Vucedol and Bell Beaker needs to be looked at again.

But that is exactly the point;
The Beakers and Corders in 'Haak et al 2015' are all from the same era (late 3rd mil BC) to than suggest that Beakers intermixed more than Corders (a separate in situ devel.) is thus not conclusive because most of all - they all are from the same region;

Now if the Beakers emerged from the Corders, than yes, the scenario in which the successor is more admixed than the predecessor would be conclusive; Yet the fundamental point is that Beakers did not emerge from the Corders;

So why are the Beakers than higher in EEF admixture than the neighboring/contemporary Corders? My assumption is that Beaker-folks ultimately migrated along the Danube i.e. through a host of Farmer-cultures beg. with Varna (KaranovoVI early 4th mil BC) and ending with Baden before they emerged in Central Europe during the 3rd mil BC; Hence a higher EEF admixture; Where as the Corders took a separate and diff. route which only allowed contact with the fringe of the TRB-complex;

[Isidro]

As for Iberia its a little more tricky. It seems (albeit its one site) that pre-beaker copper age Iberia c. 3100-2800BC was not R1b and didnt carry steppe genes. It is also true that some of the tested people on that site do overlap with the earliest beaker dates which commence c. 2800BC. So there are people in Iberia in the earliest beaker PERIOD which do not show R1b/steppe genes. However because they are so early its hard to say if they were actually beaker people.


Except for la Brana it does seem like the majority of results in Iberia have been from Neolithic sites with quite a diversity of Y Haplogroups, and they all have in common their autosomal EEF signature. I do not know the selection process about what sites should be tested, not only in Spain but everywhere.

Perhaps ANE was already in Iberia with the source where WHG reached today's levels or maybe they are newer populations to the peninsula. Just question of further testing a diversity of sites.

[R.Rocca]

There never was a 'Celtiberian/Cisalpine Celtic' unity in order for there to than have been a definite split; If we consider Lepontic to be part of the Keltic family (i dont i think its archaic Italic) than even with that standard Lepontic is closest to Gaulish and arrived in North Italy via Urnfield (Canegrate>Golasseca) ~1200BC:

Fortunately we don't need anyone's "opinion" on this matter, as the great majority of linguists classify Lepontic as a Celtic language with close affinities to, but separate from Gaulish.

[Anti]

Fortunately we don't need anyone's "opinion" on this matter, as the great majority of linguists classify Lepontic as a Celtic language with close affinities to, but separate from Gaulish.

But unfortunately, not everyone has knowledge of linguistics or the works of linguists;
Otherwise you would know that the majority (in fact all) linguists could classify Lepontic as archaic Italic with closer affinity to Gaulish than Sabellic has to Gaulish; Le Jeune himself made an exception of his rule (Italic/Keltic split for the dev. of *bh/*dh/*gh) in Venetic, everyone can likewise make that exception for the dev. (lost aspiration) in Lepontic;
Especially given the linguistic-fact that the dev. in Latin *bh/*dh internal attests to a non-proto-stage i.e. independent dev. of *bh/*dh/*gh in Italic; Only substantial case is the Tau-gallicum in iśos at [VA-6] - pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iṣ́ọs : kalite : palaṃ but this does not overweigh the exclusive shared similarities towards Sabellic nor the retainement of *p nor the Archaeological context that Golasecca and Villanova stem from the very same Urnfield migration;

As for 'we dont need', i doubt you are royalty;

[jdean]

linguists could classify Lepontic as archaic Italic

Could, but don't ?

[Anti]

Could, but don't ?

No, they dont;
Solely based on a rule that Le Jeune created yet himself made exceptions of;
But Linguists such as Garrett and Clackson are beginning to question common developments from 'proto-stages' posted a quote from Clackson (2007/Cambridge Uni.) on p.154post#1531;
A simple question: if all Keltic languages developed out of a common proto-stage, and Lepontic is Keltic than why did Lepontic retain *p? Already leads the Le Jeune construct ad absurdum;

A. Garrett -
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf

[rms2]

. . .

So why are the Beakers than higher in EEF admixture than the neighboring/contemporary Corders? My assumption is that Beaker-folks ultimately migrated along the Danube i.e. through a host of Farmer-cultures beg. with Varna (KaranovoVI early 4th mil BC) and ending with Baden before they emerged in Central Europe during the 3rd mil BC; Hence a higher EEF admixture; Where as the Corders took a separate and diff. route which only allowed contact with the fringe of the TRB-complex;

I suspect you are right about that. It also seems likely that western Yamnaya was already admixed with Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers to some extent before it started its big push into Europe beyond the Dniester. That's not showing up in Yamnaya results thus far because all of the Yamnaya results to date are from the eastern part of its range.

Gimbutas saw Beaker as the product of Yamnaya and Vucedol. She reckoned that the latter culture was itself a hybrid of Old European Neolithic farmers and an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists.

[R.Rocca]

No, they dont;
Solely based on a rule that Le Jeune created yet himself made exceptions of;
But Linguists such as Garrett and Clackson are beginning to question common developments from 'proto-stages' posted a quote from Clackson (2007/Cambridge Uni.) on p.154post#1531;
A simple question: if all Keltic languages developed out of a common proto-stage, and Lepontic is Keltic than why did Lepontic retain *p? Already leads the Le Jeune construct ad absurdum;

A. Garrett -
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf

Like you said, linguists don't consider Lepontic an Italic language. As far as your "simple question", if languages were ruled out as belonging to a specific family of languages by having 100% commonality, then no language would be related to any other language.

[vettor]

But unfortunately, not everyone has knowledge of linguistics or the works of linguists;
Otherwise you would know that the majority (in fact all) linguists could classify Lepontic as archaic Italic with closer affinity to Gaulish than Sabellic has to Gaulish; Le Jeune himself made an exception of his rule (Italic/Keltic split for the dev. of *bh/*dh/*gh) in Venetic, everyone can likewise make that exception for the dev. (lost aspiration) in Lepontic;
Especially given the linguistic-fact that the dev. in Latin *bh/*dh internal attests to a non-proto-stage i.e. independent dev. of *bh/*dh/*gh in Italic; Only substantial case is the Tau-gallicum in iśos at [VA-6] - pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iṣ́ọs : kalite : palaṃ but this does not overweigh the exclusive shared similarities towards Sabellic nor the retainement of *p nor the Archaeological context that Golasecca and Villanova stem from the very same Urnfield migration;

As for 'we dont need', i doubt you are royalty;

The only reason Lepontic is sometimes classified as Italic is because its too young in terms of languages in Northern italy , it basically just pre-dated the celtic invasion by ONE generation.

Ill. 5.1.: the oldest Lepontic inscription (ca. 575 BC) from Castelletto Ticino (NO·1), containing the name cosioiso(from: F. M. Gambari, G. Colonna, ‘Il bicchiere con iscrizione arcaica da Castelletto Ticino e l’adozione della scrittura nell’Italia nord-occidentale,’ Studi Etruschi 54 (1986), 130)

http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/kalender/arkiv_2012/celtic_spring/Lepontisch_WS_2010.pdf/


The main issue I see is the fact that southern germany was originally all gallic and some point in time it became known as Celtic. The "migration" over the alps into Italy took a long time.

[Anti]

Like you said, linguists don't consider Lepontic an Italic language. As far as your "simple question", if languages were ruled out as belonging to a specific family of languages by having 100% commonality, then no language would be related to any other language.

No, this has little to do with 100% commonality;
The loss of *p is either a common dev. or an independent dev. which thus either rules out Lepontic or nullifies the entire concept of a common development stage within a branch;


The only reason Lepontic is sometimes classified as Italic is because its too young in terms of languages in Northern italy , it basically just pre-dated the celtic invasion by ONE generation.

Ill. 5.1.: the oldest Lepontic inscription (ca. 575 BC) from Castelletto Ticino (NO·1), containing the name cosioiso(from: F. M. Gambari, G. Colonna, ‘Il bicchiere con iscrizione arcaica da Castelletto Ticino e l’adozione della scrittura nell’Italia nord-occidentale,’ Studi Etruschi 54 (1986), 130)

The reason the oldest inscription dates to ca. 575BC is that its speakers had not adopted an Alphabet earlier; Its speakers however crossed the Alps already in ~1200BC with the Urnfield migration (Uhlich #1664 / Stifter p.10) based on archaeology and its direct continuity; The Alphabet was adopted from the Etruscan civ. who in turn adopted it from the Euboean Greeks;

[vettor]

No, this has little to do with 100% commonality;
The loss of *p is either a common dev. or an independent dev. which thus either rules out Lepontic or nullifies the entire concept of a common development stage within a branch;



The reason the oldest inscription dates to ca. 575BC is that its speakers had not adopted an Alphabet earlier; Its speakers however crossed the Alps already in ~1200BC with the Urnfield migration (Uhlich #1664 / Stifter p.10) based on archaeology and its direct continuity; The Alphabet was adopted from the Etruscan civ. who in turn adopted it from the Euboean Greeks;

ok, but the euboean alphabet was also used by the Camunic, Venetic, Liburnic, east-raetic, west-raetic, Magre and even the gallic ( as per caesars notes )........so basically there was only one alphabet used at that time with some slight changes in some letters ...................

[R.Rocca]

No, this has little to do with 100% commonality;
The loss of *p is either a common dev. or an independent dev. which thus either rules out Lepontic or nullifies the entire concept of a common development stage within a branch;

Again, I'll defer to the linguists as this his been well established by them.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Fortunately we don't need anyone's "opinion" on this matter, as the great majority of linguists classify Lepontic as a Celtic language with close affinities to, but separate from Gaulish.

I agree, Rich. From what I've read, Lepontic was close to Gallic, but a little 'more conservative'. It was then replaced by its 'cousin'.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Absolute dates are tricky but branching order probably is on more solid ground. We know that CW most likely arose c. 2800BC and Middle Dnieper (linked to Slavs or Balto-Slavic node) close to the same date and Fatyanovo offshoot linked with Baltic doesnt seem to much pre-date 2600BC http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54752/WA308_74904_P244_Corded-ware-Fatyanov_I.pdf
We of course then have the whole Abashevo-Sintashta chain linking towards Indo-Iranian.

Anyway that all seems to make sense. As does the concept that Tocharian relates to Afanasievo breaking off around the same time as Yamanaya arose or just before (lets say somewhere around 3300BC) even if the Tarim mummies identity is less clear. The exact date doesnt matter so much as the fact it is 500 years earlier than any of the branches discussed in the above paragraph. In the branching scheme Tocharian is normally the first post-Anatolian branch in surviving IE languages.

So in the branching scheme Celtic or Celto-Italic is usually seen as the first branch off after Tocharian. This branching scheme and the archaeological evidence would tend to place the Celto-Italic or whatever we want to call the node leading to it in the period 3300-2800BC. We can of course narrow this using archaeological evidence because Yamnaya doesnt even go off the steppes westwards until around 3000-2900BC. So that tends to squeeze the branch that led to Celtic or Celto-Italic into a narrow band c. 3000-2800BC. Even if we were to revive the now unlikely looking idea in Mallory's origin book that Celtic was somehow contained in westernmost Corded Ware this would not change the lower 2800BC date.

So, I think the evidence is that the ancestors of Celto-Italic (which does seem a reasonably strong concept despite some criticism) split from the core c. 3000/2900BC-2800BC whatever stage that the language was at between PIE and Celto-Italic. Archaeologically this timeframe when compared to the branching timing is extremely suggestive of this offshoot from the PIE core being linked with Yamnaya moving up the Danube as far as Hungary and nearby around 3000BC or just after. I wont quibble about exactly what they spoke on the continuoum between PIE and Celto-Italic because we will never know the exact timing of that morphing. Yamnaya moved a long distance quickly to Hungary, Serbia and nearby by 2900BC and Yamnaya may have lasted there for 300 years. So it could have had several centuries after c. 3000/2900BC to form the full characteristics of a Celto-Italic branch before Yamnaya itself disappeared.

My current feeling is that Celto-Italic P312 late Yamnaya or perhaps people carrying Yamnaya genes in another intermediary culture around Hungary (regardless people with great mobility and use of the horse) met with non-IE peoples from the west c. 2550BC and formed the P312-Italo-Celtic connection (a severe aridity phase was hitting both eastern and presumably parts of south-western Europe around this time). This newly formed P312 super-mobile group using beaker pot then underwent a huge spread starting c. 2550BC and even reaching the isles by 2400BC. At the time of the spread it seems very likely to me that the language was some form of Italo-Celtic rather than Celtic per se. Celtic or rather pre-proto-Celtic probably emerged in the period when the beaker network broke down into smaller components and then died. I would say the earliest I would place this would be 2200BC but I see Celtic as more of a process than a node. I see Celtic as emerging 2200BC-1500BC through continuous elite interaction in central and NW Europe among Celto-Italic elites.


I have a rather divergent opinion to this.

To talk of “Tocharian”, “Balto-Slavic”, and “Italo-Celtic” in 3000 BC, or even 2300 BC doesn't hold. Those were much later linguistic states, and in any case, we can’t simplistically date language splits based on a whole other, independent line of evidence - archaeoloigcal ‘cultures’. In all reason, to call the middle Dnieper culture "Balto-Slavic" is a non-sense.

Lets put aside Tocharian for the now, but in 2500 BC Europe, IE groups were still spreading. Initial colonists/ invaders were small in number but already scattered widely. As we know from the nature of BB and CWC societies, these dispersed groups maintained close links, and thus constituted wide-spread and open but evernescent social structures in an ‘open language network’. This constant contact created wide-spread sharing of bundles of isoglosses which was in a criss-crossing geographic pattern rather than a tree-like fissioning nature. The conclusion is that Copper Age Europe was a fusing & fissioning lattice of language groups which precluded any 'branching' toward dedicated nodes like Celtic or Slavic.

This is exactly what current linguists all conclude - there are few if any shared innovations between NW Indo-European langauges (Germanic, Slavic, Italic, celtic) over and above IE itself. Even the revered Italo-Celtic node was dismissed 7 decades ago (to the complaints of many people) .

Isn't that odd that such close, co-evolving languages don't share any clear genetic features over and above IE itself ?
-> Not really, it simply means that later langauges like proto-Germanic, Gallic, Latin and proto-Slavic at various times expanded over intermediary, cousin and ancestral forms - the "pruning" effect. It is only later - in the developed Bronze Age- when real chiefdoms arose that there was a relative ‘closure’ of language influences, as asserting one's chiefly territory required asserting ones own epichoric dialect, leading to the more traditional scenario of language divergence as posed by the Stammbaum model. The tree diagrams so favoured are thus a mirage which fail to really describe what occurred.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

As for Iberia its a little more tricky. It seems (albeit its one site) that pre-beaker copper age Iberia c. 3100-2800BC was not R1b and didnt carry steppe genes. It is also true that some of the tested people on that site do overlap with the earliest beaker dates which commence c. 2800BC. So there are people in Iberia in the earliest beaker PERIOD which do not show R1b/steppe genes. However because they are so early its hard to say if they were actually beaker people.

While I am pretty sure that from its inception c. 2400BC that beaker in the isles did have the R1b/steppe combo I am more doubtful that this is true in Iberia. I dont think there is sufficient ancient DNA evidence in Iberia to be sure but there is a small overlap and I would personally read the archaeological evidence as suggestive that the earliest beaker phase in Iberia 2800-2550BC (and probably also the earliest phase in southern France and NW Italy) is unlikely to have the R1b/steppe gene combo. The key change in Iberia is IMO not the invention of beaker pot but whenever the individualised treatment of bodies in burials (including ones buried in collective tombs) appears.

Whilst of course we need more samples, we do have some 8 - 10 from Iberia. And - as per Mathieson & Haak (2015): "The Iberian Chalcolithic population lacks steppe ancestry, but Late Neolithic central and northern Europeans have substantial such ancestry (Extended Data Fig. 3E) suggesting that the spread of ANE/steppe ancestry did not occur simultaneously across Europe" . [NB the Iberian Chalcolithic is till 2100 BC]


As I have posted before, this is extremely hard to date due to issues with distubance in such tombs and isotopic distortions in dating on human bones in burials. However, in regions where the transition has been studied closely and with care such as around Madrid, this transformation appears to happen long after beaker pot was in use and is therefore a phenomenon of the developed and later beaker period.

My own feeling at the moment is that after 2600BC non-R1b people using beaker pottery penetrated into southern France and north Italy and made contact with central Europeans (via the Po valley seems the best option to me right now) and a R1b-beaker culture arose there c. 2550BC or thereabouts. From there this new R1b-beaker culture spread like wildfire in what was a clearly massive change of pace.

I agree. In this "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: The Example of ‘Le Petit Chasseur I+III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 82/2, 2007, p. 129-214." Heyd outlines a distinct phase c. 2500 BC when a new, 'eastern faction' of BB took over the named site from a 'western (? non-R1b) faction'. It smashed their stone stelae or former idols, but continued their settlement, ?presumably also took their women, etc.

Further analysis of BB central -eastern genomes sampled thus far also suggest structure. With German BB showing the characteristic EHG/ West Asian signature of the steppe, whilst Czech ones look closer to Hungarian BA (ie more WHG).

[alan]

I am more inclined to believe that we are looking at two separate east>west migrations;
For if i look very close at the Haak et al data, i see that the Bell-Beaker samples and Corded-ware samples are virtually contemporary, but what is really fascinating in connection to that - is that all these sample are taken from the very same region i.e. these folks were neighbors;

Yet Bell-Beaker is R1b and Corded-ware is R1a, but this is not the most striking feature; The most striking feature is that (Haak K=admixture), though both are dominantly Yamnaya, the Bell-Beakers also have a significant EEF amount where as the contemporary Corded-ware folks (from the very same region) are lacking such an admixture; These features can only be explained by two different routes; My best guess is that Beaker folks took the 'Black-sea>Danube up route' where as by Corded-ware my best guess is the 'Dnieper up>Vistula down route';



There never was a 'Celtiberian/Cisalpine Celtic' unity in order for there to than have been a definite split; If we consider Lepontic to be part of the Keltic family (i dont i think its archaic Italic) than even with that standard Lepontic is closest to Gaulish and arrived in North Italy via Urnfield (Canegrate>Golasseca) ~1200BC:

Pierre-Yves Lambert & Georges-Jean Pinault - Gaulois et Celtique Continental (2007 / EPHE)
Dr. Jürgen Uhlich: Against this background, a Celticization of the Golasecca area, i.e. the introduction of an entirely new, Celtic, language, immediately before the first appearance of Celtic linguistic documents seems highly implausible, and the date suggesting itself for this process is rather at the next previous cultural break, i.e. ca. 1200. Both this early stage "Proto-Lepontic" introduced with the Canegrate culture and the corresponding "Proto-Gaulish" could then have their common ancestor in the language represented by the early Urnfield culture north of the Alps which was later followed by transalpine Hallstatt and finally LaTène

Cisalpine-Gaulish on the other hand is attested by 4 major inscriptions (and a few smaller ones) dating to the time(and post) of the Gaulish LaTene Iron-age invasion; All are however written in the Lugano-alphabet and share common features with Lepontic that are however not shared with Transalpine-Gaulish; Illustrating an immense Lepontic Influence;

D. Stifter (2012) Maynooth Uni. -
http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/kalender/arkiv_2012/celtic_spring/Lepontisch_WS_2010.pdf/

Celtiberian for one shares a significant feature exclusively with Goidelic (Gaelic) *kw>kw where as all other Keltic languages (including Brythonic) are *kw>p;

I agree that the key for CW is it passed through an area which where farming may have been especially weak and the populations light around 2800-2600BC. The north of Europe in particular the farmers who arrived in a sort of climatic peak for farming in northern Europe c. 4000-3500BC seem to have struggled through the downturn 3500-2500BC. A study in Ireland showed after an initial period of substantial houses for a few centuries c. 3800-3500BC the houses became more ephemeral suggestive of a more pastoralism dominated living c. 3500-3000BC and by 3000-2500BC settlements sites had become so ephemeral that virtually not a trace can be found of them and even megalithic tombs ceased to be built in that last 500 pre-beaker years. Ritual still went on in that period though shown by henges, timber circles, some early stone circles, grooved ware pottery etc but the farmers appear to have switched to a really very pastoral dominated semi-mobile life with settlements that left almost no traces. This must have been a response to the climatic conditions in a damp period where ripening crops would have been a major problem in northerly climes.

I am sure similar problems existed in northern continental Europe. Basically CW and its derivatives entered many areas with pretty light populations of farmers in Russia, Belarus, the Baltics, Scandinavia, north European plain, east-central Europe where the conditions for farming were probably always somewhat marginal and there were never really dense farming populations of the sort you see in SE Europe.

So, I agree that CW perhaps picked up less farmer genes because of their route. Beaker probably owes more to the Danubian route taken by Yamnaya.

[Heber]

Just in time for Halloween, the second in a five part series on Scotlands DNA.
Lots of references to Bell Beaker and R1b, but not Gimbutas.

http://beta.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/alistair-moffat-the-dna-70-of-scotsmen-carry-1-3932679

"What became known as the beaker package spread very quickly across Western Europe, far too quickly to be understood as a process of gradual adoption. The movement of the ability to make these fine pots and use them at the funerals of important people must have involved the movement of people over long distances. Ancestral DNA evidence adds important support. At a beaker cemetery at Kromsdorf in Germany, ancient DNA was extracted from two male skeletons and it turned out to be R1b, a Y chromosome super-cluster that is now found in very high frequencies in Northern and Western Europe.

In Scotland, our research has detected an overwhelming majority, a staggering 70 per cent of all Scotsmen carrying it. The crucial question is – why? What made the R1b men so successful that they outbred other lineages and became the ancestors of almost three quarters of all Scottish men? Important parts of an answer lay in the cist opened in Inverness in 1975 on a cold November day....

At ScotlandsDNA we have compiled the Great Tree of Mankind, a family tree of all men on Earth showing their descent from a single individual, the man known as Y chromosome Adam. He lived about 215,000 years ago. On a huge layout, we have shown how 573 Y chromosome sub-types descend from Adam. These include many newly discovered sub-types in Scotland and will be much augmented in the next few months. Uniquely, it also shows a hugely important historical turning point, what we believe is the enormous and immediate impact of the coming of the Beaker People.

The branches of the Tree immediately below Adam divide only very slowly over a long period of time. This is because he and his descendants were hunter-gatherers who probably lived in family bands and patrolled their ranges to find a wild harvest of roots, fruits, fungi and animals they could trap or bring down. Populations grew slowly.

But then the Great Tree abruptly changes. About 4,500 years ago, many new branches suddenly appear over a very short period. This is noticeable across the whole Tree but particularly clear under the very Scottish haplogroup, R1b S145, where a staggering 25 new branches are found. Only in Ireland is the percentage of men in this haplogroup higher than in Scotland. What this means is something simple yet very significant – many more children are being born and surviving to adulthood. The men born at this time created new sub-types in the Y chromosome Tree which then created more in a huge lateral expansion."

To view a section of the R1b on the Great Tree – please click on following link :
https://www.scotlandsdna.com/download/the-great-tree-rib-section.pdf

6477

[vettor]

I agree that the key for CW is it passed through an area which where farming may have been especially weak and the populations light around 2800-2600BC. The north of Europe in particular the farmers who arrived in a sort of climatic peak for farming in northern Europe c. 4000-3500BC seem to have struggled through the downturn 3500-2500BC. A study in Ireland showed after an initial period of substantial houses for a few centuries c. 3800-3500BC the houses became more ephemeral suggestive of a more pastoralism dominated living c. 3500-3000BC and by 3000-2500BC settlements sites had become so ephemeral that virtually not a trace can be found of them and even megalithic tombs ceased to be built in that last 500 pre-beaker years. Ritual still went on in that period though shown by henges, timber circles, some early stone circles, grooved ware pottery etc but the farmers appear to have switched to a really very pastoral dominated semi-mobile life with settlements that left almost no traces. This must have been a response to the climatic conditions in a damp period where ripening crops would have been a major problem in northerly climes.

I am sure similar problems existed in northern continental Europe. Basically CW and its derivatives entered many areas with pretty light populations of farmers in Russia, Belarus, the Baltics, Scandinavia, north European plain, east-central Europe where the conditions for farming were probably always somewhat marginal and there were never really dense farming populations of the sort you see in SE Europe.

So, I agree that CW perhaps picked up less farmer genes because of their route. Beaker probably owes more to the Danubian route taken by Yamnaya.

for your dates of these early farmers in northern Europe mean a second wave, I ask, because haak paper states the farmers where from 5200BC- 5800BC...............this makes over 2000 years of difference in these northern farming groups

[TigerMW]

Just in time for Halloween, the second in a five part series on Scotlands DNA.
Lots of references to Bell Beaker and R1b, but not Gimbutas.

http://beta.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/alistair-moffat-the-dna-70-of-scotsmen-carry-1-3932679

"What became known as the beaker package spread very quickly across Western Europe, far too quickly to be understood as a process of gradual adoption. The movement of the ability to make these fine pots and use them at the funerals of important people must have involved the movement of people over long distances. Ancestral DNA evidence adds important support. At a beaker cemetery at Kromsdorf in Germany, ancient DNA was extracted from two male skeletons and it turned out to be R1b, a Y chromosome super-cluster that is now found in very high frequencies in Northern and Western Europe.

In Scotland, our research has detected an overwhelming majority, a staggering 70 per cent of all Scotsmen carrying it. The crucial question is – why? What made the R1b men so successful that they outbred other lineages and became the ancestors of almost three quarters of all Scottish men? Important parts of an answer lay in the cist opened in Inverness in 1975 on a cold November day....

At ScotlandsDNA we have compiled the Great Tree of Mankind, a family tree of all men on Earth showing their descent from a single individual, the man known as Y chromosome Adam. He lived about 215,000 years ago. On a huge layout, we have shown how 573 Y chromosome sub-types descend from Adam. These include many newly discovered sub-types in Scotland and will be much augmented in the next few months. Uniquely, it also shows a hugely important historical turning point, what we believe is the enormous and immediate impact of the coming of the Beaker People.

The branches of the Tree immediately below Adam divide only very slowly over a long period of time. This is because he and his descendants were hunter-gatherers who probably lived in family bands and patrolled their ranges to find a wild harvest of roots, fruits, fungi and animals they could trap or bring down. Populations grew slowly.

But then the Great Tree abruptly changes. About 4,500 years ago, many new branches suddenly appear over a very short period. This is noticeable across the whole Tree but particularly clear under the very Scottish haplogroup, R1b S145, where a staggering 25 new branches are found. Only in Ireland is the percentage of men in this haplogroup higher than in Scotland. What this means is something simple yet very significant – many more children are being born and surviving to adulthood. The men born at this time created new sub-types in the Y chromosome Tree which then created more in a huge lateral expansion."

To view a section of the R1b on the Great Tree – please click on following link :
https://www.scotlandsdna.com/download/the-great-tree-rib-section.pdf

6477
I wish they would start getting a little more specific. The term "R1b" is too broad. I think we are talking about Bell Beakers we might need to be getting way downstream into L51 or P311 but at least down to M269 (R1b1a2). People start get confused and argue off topic because of statements made on very broad haplogroups.

[Heber]

I wish they would start getting a little more specific. The term "R1b" is too broad. I think we are talking about Bell Beakers we might need to be getting way downstream into L51 or P311 but at least down to M269 (R1b1a2). People start get confused and argue off topic because of statements made on very broad haplogroups.

Mike,

He is talking about P312 which in their notation is S145.
They also linked to the S145 section of their Great Tree.

[R.Rocca]

I'll add another one from the Bell Beaker Sesto Fiorentino Italy site. The similarities, especially with those from the Rhine, are hard to ignore. These were not simply people taking up Bell Beaker culture, but Bell Beaker people themselves. It would be foolhardy not think this grave included an L51+ person.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Sesto_Fiorentino_Bell_Beaker_Mound.png

In an update to my prior post, the Sesto Fiorentino Bell Beaker burial mound was radiocarbon dated to 2580-2460 BC and 2420-2400 BC.

[R.Rocca]

Not sure if this has been posted before. Some things are likely not to pan out as per ancient DNA, but overall, a very good high level summary of the Bell Beaker period across all geographies...

Jan Turek - The Bell Beaker Phenomenon, its Echoes and Traditions in Europe and Beyond
https://vimeo.com/78080548

[alan]

I have to say re Vucedol that even at a glance all the material specifics have zero resemblance to beaker culture even though some behavoural aspects like big metallurgical focus are similar. Also the most recent dating suggests Vucedol was dead before beaker arrived.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I have to say re Vucedol that even at a glance all the material specifics have zero resemblance to beaker culture even though some behavoural aspects like big metallurgical focus are similar. Also the most recent dating suggests Vucedol was dead before beaker arrived.

I don't know any more recent papers, but according to Durman and Obelic (1989) "The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type,is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture,.."

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1232/1237

[rms2]

Mike,

He is talking about P312 which in their notation is S145.
They also linked to the S145 section of their Great Tree.

S145 is L21. S116 is P312.

[rms2]

I have to say re Vucedol that even at a glance all the material specifics have zero resemblance to beaker culture even though some behavoural aspects like big metallurgical focus are similar. Also the most recent dating suggests Vucedol was dead before beaker arrived.

According to Gimbutas, Yamnaya fused with Vucedol, producing Vinkovci-Samogyvar (also spelled Somogyvar), which had the same or very similar burial rites, settlement types, and ceramics as Beaker.

This graphic of cross-footed and pedestalled bowls shows at least part of the progression in ceramics.

6492

[rms2]

I don't know any more recent papers, but according to Durman and Obelic (1989) "The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type,is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture,.."

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1232/1237

Here's the complete quote:



The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.


That last clause is significant, I think.

[alan]

Not sure if this has been posted before. Some things are likely not to pan out as per ancient DNA, but overall, a very good high level summary of the Bell Beaker period across all geographies...

Jan Turek - The Bell Beaker Phenomenon, its Echoes and Traditions in Europe and Beyond
https://vimeo.com/78080548

I think they key takehome is that while beaker could move with groups of people, it didnt have to and things as small as contact or marriage could spread elements of beaker culture to what were essentialy different periods. So it agrees with many feeling that there may have been more than one, perhaps several, beaker peoples (plural).

I think its also important to strip back the beaker phenomenon into components. As he noted while the pots or aspects of the beaker pot may well have originated in the south-west, other aspects like the wrist guard probably arose in central Europe and spread west. Archery per se is too general to be seen as an innovation because outside the CW world it is very well attested in the pre-beaker era in many cultures and had probably been the most practical and lethal weapon for 1000s of years in much of Europe. Daggers - well he mentions Remedello as a western example of a pre-beaker dagger orientated culture and of course there were other Alpine cultures with similar daggers at the same period and indeed the prestige copper dagger phenomenon probably arose in the Balkans c. 4000BC and was known in some steppe groups like Usatovo as well as the east Med. One could even argue that the Suvorovo type groups could have brought the concept of daggers because they were known for their long flint daggers from long before 4000BC. Then of course there is Maykop and Yamnaya etc. So there is a vast swathe of time and space from the steppes to the SW Alps c. 4500-2800BC where the dagger was a very important symbol in pre-beaker times. What I would say though is it is unlikely the idea came from the CW zone where axes were king and it doesnt seem to be a feature of pre-beaker Iberia either. I would guess the most proximate area to Iberia where the dagger symbol was important around the time beaker evolved is the western Alps, especially Remedello.

Single burial clearly comes from eastern and central European origins albeit there were some groups where the idea but not the genes spread - Remedello II and similar burials being the obvious ones.

I think he is right that the classic beaker package was a gathering together of ideas from a swath of Europe from central to south-west. Probably we need to consider where the package consolidated rather than where each part came because the consolidated package is clearly of eclectic origins gathered together from a big swathe of Europe. It is the bringing together then spreading of the consolidated package that is the impressive aspect not so much the spread of any single component including bell beaker pot. The group who consolidated the package seems likely to be the one who are behind the peak spreading of the phenomenon c. 2500-2300BC.

It stands to reason that the consolidators of all these diverse aspects that went into the full beaker package was a group who were geographically and perhaps as a result of mobility able to gather western and central European ideas. This is who I think are probably the P312 carrying beaker using group. This group must have spread P312 because archaeology and now ancient DNA indicates no common denominator across what was to become beaker using/modern high P312 Europe in pre-beaker times.

My own feeling is that the bell beaker pot originated in the south-west c. 2800BC in copper age Iberia . I dont think that this group has any clear links to the R1b work or the IE world and in all probability are the same people who brought copper to Iberia c. 3000BC, likely small groups from the central Med/south Alps genetically similar to Remedello and who mixed with local Iberians who were genetically very similar to the copper workers anyway because of the common Cardial Neolithic background.

I would read the archaeology as suggesting that small groups of beaker using non-R1b (well non L51) Iberian prospectors then made a kind of return journey along the south French coast and into the southern Alps c. 2550BC. Contacts through the Alps (either France, Italy or both) with cultural groups to the north carrying P312 led to that group taking some western influences (primarily the pots but perhaps the fetishing of archery, new textiles, goldworking) to which they added lots of non-western stuff stuff like wristguards, much of the companion pottery, new style of dagger and single burial among other things to create what you could call the full beaker package. You could IMO call the a 2nd beaker people.

As to where this 2nd beaker people who put together the full beaker package and spread it were located and in what pre-beaker culture, that is the holy grail IMO. Prestige objects are tricky to use to infer migration because we can see the movement of prestige objects without migration or any other cultural sharing going on throughout the Neolithic where peoples with completely different burial traditions, domestic pots etc could nevertheless share rare prestige objects. The safest single clue IMO, although perhaps not specific enough to nail down exact origin, has to be the beaker burial traditions which involved either single graves or at least treatment of the bodies as individuals not as collective bones of ancestors. That is a clear and massive ideological change across a lot of Europe.

While new burial and social ideas could spread through influence without genetic change (Remedello II - presumably influenced from the NW Balkans and perhaps through the Alps) it often is a good indicator of population change. In the case of single bell beaker burials, given the small sample, I dont think it can be argued that the link between single burial bell beakers in central Europe and P312 is striking - especially when the CW burials in the same area are all R1a.

I think we can vaguely triangulate to work out what zone of Europe this full bell beaker package using single burials must have evolved from. It had to be an area that was not within but perhaps close to CW and other single burial traditions in east-central Europe. It has to be an area not so far east that influence and contact from non-R1b western derived beaker pot users c. 2500BC is not preposterous (the nearest area where these western beaker users settled by then being apparently SE France and perhaps north Italy). I also suspect the companion ware is a bigger clue to the origin and spread of P312 carrying beaker people is greater than often though. SOME aspects of central European companion ware like polypod pots made it to the Holland, the isles (especially Ireland where central European type hollow based arrowheads also vastly outnumber barbed and tanged western types).

I am at present of a mind to place the merging of P312 and beaker somewhere just east of Austria because until you reach that sort of area there is simply no eastern derived looking groups other than Corded Ware which all seems to be R1a in places like Germany. CW pretty well covers the whole zone from Switzerland and the Rhine and north of the Danube all the way to Ukraine. So (unless P312 was in southern CW and had some sort of weird founder effect genetically and phenotypically) it seems to squeeze our options geographically into the area south of CW but east of the non-IE/non-eastern/non-R1b cultures which appear to occupy southern and south Alpine Europe from the Adriatic to Iberia. That kind of by elimination seems to push the likely coming together of beaker and P312 into the area around west to central Hungary, the NW fringe of the Balkans and perhaps the area where Hungary, Slovakia and Czech meet.

[alan]

One of the problems in finding a pre-beaker culture who carried P312 is probably simply that it almost seems certain that it was one atypical sub-group or even clan who for some reason were in a position to absorb multi-directional influences to create the full beaker package and spread it. Perhaps the P312 line in pre-beaker pot times had already for some time been a highly mobile inter-cultural group who were aloof from the mainstream of society and adopting some western beaker traits including beaker didnt change that. Maybe they were already the guys who rode about trading copper across central Europe in pre-beaker times with their very specific role based on mobility and metals. They could have been an outgroup rather like the Cossacks in Russia.

If so the clues to their deeper origins might be in the distribution of copper in pre-beaker central Europe. Now my understanding is that pre-beaker copper in a lot of central Europe came from the Carpathians and that this metal was even the main source used throughout Corded Ware Europe. Someone had to be involved in transporting and moving this from the Carpathians as far as the Rhine. Could the P312 lineage in pre-beaker times already have been serving this role from c. 3000-2500BC? Such a role would put them in a great position to be cultural magpies. They would also be kind of hard to spot before they put together a distinct full beaker passage from their eclectic influences and contacts and their prestige grew. If they were moving about Carpathian metals as far as the western end of the Corded Ware world then this opens the possibility that waystations to allow relay style movement/fresh horses etc could have existed from Hungary to the Rhine in pre-beaker times, particularly 2800-2550BC when the Corded Ware people seem to have been heavily dependent on metals from the Carpathians.

Such groups by the nature of their work, mobility, flimsy living, life on the hoof, taking of wives somewhat eclectically across wide areas, magpie practices of borrowing from each culture across their network could be practically invisible until the full beaker package spread through their network as their first distinctive universal material culture marking them out. However their network could have existed in long before the beaker and its developed package reached their range in central Europe, certainly from 2800BC when Corded Ware provided a market of a copper using culture who seem to have been predominantly dependent on copper imported from elsewhere - normally the Carpathians.

If that was the case then the colliding with non-R1b western beaker using groups of prospectors arriving in the south-west Alps c. 2550BC could have opened up a whole new opportunity not only to borrow western elements from them but also to use and perhaps usurp this other metal network which was coming from the west from Iberia through SE France and NW Italy. Basically two metal networks met and perhaps from the Sion evidence after a short period of friendly relations the P312 group smashed and usurped the one coming from the south-west.

So, in conclusion, if we want to find the pre-beaker P312 guys we maybe need to look to test special graves with associations with trading, horses, metalwork etc in pre-beaker central Europe to find the guys who transported that Carpathian metals through metal using but not metal mining areas - especially Corded Ware groups.

I would still say though that by triangulating several aspects of the fully developed central European bell beaker package we should be able to see where those apparently P312 guys who created it were spread in Europe at the point of time c. 2500BC when they put this together. The answer may be they were already a wide thinly spread network of outgroup specialists spread from Hungary to the Rhine and north Alps in the period 2800-2500BC. If so their network probably spread out c. 2800BC from people with horse riding skills as well as knowledge of the Carpathian sources around Hungary and filled a role supplying the Carpathian copper to the Corded Ware people who around this time suddenly spread far to the west away from their origins - which interestingly were close to the Carpathians. In spreading suddenly and so far west and away from the Carpathian metal source, the Corded Ware people suddenly had a problem/created a role for someone to supply them with copper to work with. Now while archaeology is not particularly indicative of Corded Ware people as being big into horse riding, we do know that around 2800BC and as late as 2500BC there were Yamnaya groups in Hungary.

[rms2]

If, as Durman said, it is sometimes difficult to tell late Vucedol (Mako) from Bell Beaker, then the Carpathian basin is probably the place where what we think of as Beaker first emerged. I don't see any real good reasons not to think Gimbutas was right in her assessment.



The Bell Beaker culture of western Europe which diffused between 2500 and 2100 B.C. between central Europe, the British Isles, and the Iberian Peninsula, could not have arisen in a vacuum. The mobile horse-riding and warrior people who buried their dead in Yamna type kurgans certainly could not have developed out of any west European culture. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 390).


The fact that remains from Vucedol period Hungary have tested R1b is a possible indicator that Gimbutas was right.

[alan]

According to Gimbutas, Yamnaya fused with Vucedol, producing Vinkovci-Samogyvar (also spelled Somogyvar), which had the same or very similar burial rites, settlement types, and ceramics as Beaker.

This graphic of cross-footed and pedestalled bowls shows at least part of the progression in ceramics.

6492

I will have a look at that culture. I just can see very easily that Vudecol itself looks nothing like beaker and I noticed in a recent paper that Vucedol probably ended before beaker appeared in central Europe so it seems they couldnt have been in direct contact. An intermediary is possible though. I still believe beaker pot came from the south-west but I dont think a whole lot else did including P312.

[rms2]

I will have a look at that culture. I just can see very easily that Vudecol itself looks nothing like beaker and I noticed in a recent paper that Vucedol probably ended before beaker appeared in central Europe so it seems they couldnt have been in direct contact. An intermediary is possible though. I still believe beaker pot came from the south-west but I dont think a whole lot else did including P312.

Gimbutas regarded Vucedol itself as having been spawned through the fusion of Old European Neolithic farmers and an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists. Beaker, she said, was the product of the fusion of that kurganized Vucedol with Yamnaya. Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Mako would have been the intermediaries between the Yamnaya/Vucedol fusion and Bell Beaker. Both are regarded as late Vucedol cultures. In terms of genetics, R1b-L51 (maybe already P312+) probably entered the mix via Yamnaya.

I think what we see in that admixture bar graph from Mathieson et al supports the scenario proposed by Gimbutas, i.e., lots of Yamnaya, but more EEF than in CW.

6496

[alan]

Gimbutas regarded Vucedol itself as having been spawned through the fusion of Old European Neolithic farmers and an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists. Beaker, she said, was the product of the fusion of that kurganized Vucedol with Yamnaya. Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Mako would have been the intermediaries between the Yamnaya/Vucedol fusion and Bell Beaker. Both are regarded as late Vucedol cultures. In terms of genetics, R1b-L51 (maybe already P312+) probably entered the mix via Yamnaya.

I think what we see in that admixture bar graph from Mathieson et al supports the scenario proposed by Gimbutas, i.e., lots of Yamnaya, but more EEF than in CW.

6496

I have to say though that Mako from what I have read doesnt sound steppic and seems more of an Old European culture with copper skills and some influences from points east and south. I would be surprised if it had a role in the P312 story although with that just being a male lineage rather than a whole population its hard to rule anything out. Vinkovci-Samogyvar I would have to have a read up about as I dont know enough about it to comment. I think I had a did on the web before and didnt find much but I will try again.

[rms2]

I have to say though that Mako from what I have read doesnt sound steppic and seems more of an Old European culture with copper skills and some influences from points east and south. I would be surprised if it had a role in the P312 story although with that just being a male lineage rather than a whole population its hard to rule anything out. Vinkovci-Samogyvar I would have to have a read up about as I dont know enough about it to comment. I think I had a did on the web before and didnt find much but I will try again.

I don't know what your sources are for that, but if Durman's remark about the difficulty of distinguishing Mako from Bell Beaker is correct, then it seems to me Mako must have been rather kurgan looking indeed. And Gimbutas said that Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Beaker had nearly identical burial rites, settlement types, and ceramics (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 391).



There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Beaker and Vinkovci-Samogyvar] as separate cultures.


If she was right, then perhaps one of the worst things from our perspective to ever happen was the naming of the entire culture after what may have been an Iberian pot style. If archaeologists had simply stuck with Vinkovci-Samogyvar for what we think of as full-blown, pastoralist Beaker, its origins would be clearer. It would be regarded as a steppe-derived culture that adopted an Iberian-style beaker somewhere along the way.

[alan]

Gimbutas regarded Vucedol itself as having been spawned through the fusion of Old European Neolithic farmers and an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists. Beaker, she said, was the product of the fusion of that kurganized Vucedol with Yamnaya. Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Mako would have been the intermediaries between the Yamnaya/Vucedol fusion and Bell Beaker. Both are regarded as late Vucedol cultures. In terms of genetics, R1b-L51 (maybe already P312+) probably entered the mix via Yamnaya.

I think what we see in that admixture bar graph from Mathieson et al supports the scenario proposed by Gimbutas, i.e., lots of Yamnaya, but more EEF than in CW.

6496

Seems that SV culture is similar in date to beaker in central Europe http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/54/AV_54_Veluscek_Cufar.pdf

[alan]

I don't know what your sources are for that, but if Durman's remark about the difficulty of distinguishing Mako from Bell Beaker is correct, then it seems to me Mako must have been rather kurgan looking indeed. And Gimbutas said that Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Beaker had nearly identical burial rites, settlement types, and ceramics (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 391).



If she was right, then perhaps one of the worst things from our perspective to ever happen was the naming of the entire culture after what may have been an Iberian pot style. If archaeologists had simply stuck with Vinkovci-Samogyvar for what we think of as full-blown, pastoralist Beaker, its origins would be clearer. It would be regarded as a steppe-derived culture that adopted an Iberian-style beaker somewhere along the way.

I am pretty sure I read Mako were Neolithic farmer types physically but would need to check that again. Am a bit busy tonight so cannot read/refresh my memory on those cultures. This may be interesting in relation to those cultures - it has English translated bits
http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/54/AV_54_Veluscek_Cufar.pdf

[alan]

Gimbutas regarded Vucedol itself as having been spawned through the fusion of Old European Neolithic farmers and an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists. Beaker, she said, was the product of the fusion of that kurganized Vucedol with Yamnaya. Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Mako would have been the intermediaries between the Yamnaya/Vucedol fusion and Bell Beaker. Both are regarded as late Vucedol cultures. In terms of genetics, R1b-L51 (maybe already P312+) probably entered the mix via Yamnaya.

I think what we see in that admixture bar graph from Mathieson et al supports the scenario proposed by Gimbutas, i.e., lots of Yamnaya, but more EEF than in CW.

6496

I think you are looking at the right area for P312. I just am not sure about which culture - probably because I am not very knowlegable about this area/period combo. I must have a read into it a bit more shortly though.

[R.Rocca]

Here's the complete quote:



That last clause is significant, I think.

I'm not sure exactly why this quote is significant? Mako is hundreds of years older than Bell Beaker.

[rms2]

I'm not sure exactly why this quote is significant? Mako is hundreds of years older than Bell Beaker.

That's the point. If the two are indistinguishable, then Mako is the root and Iberia is less significant and was perhaps just the source of a particular type of early Beaker pot.

[rms2]

I am pretty sure I read Mako were Neolithic farmer types physically but would need to check that again. Am a bit busy tonight so cannot read/refresh my memory on those cultures. This may be interesting in relation to those cultures - it has English translated bits
http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/54/AV_54_Veluscek_Cufar.pdf

We already have one R1b from Hungary dated to the Vucedol period. Reich is supposed to be subjecting that one to NGS testing. If he is L51+, especially if he is L11+ or even P312+, that would be significant.

[Krefter]

The oldest example of Lepontic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepontic_language) is from 575 BC. According to Wikpedia it is related to Gaulish. The Lepontic Celts were a continuation of the Golasecca culture which had been in Italy since 900 BC and arrived from Bronze age Urnfield that was in Italy. This is evidence some Urnfield spoke an ancestor to Gaulish.

Hallstatt and Urnfield might only apply to Gaulish origins. All Gaulish languages were very similar. It makes the most sense to me proto-Gauls lived in Urnfield culture and other Celts expanded out of Central Europe before Urnfield.

[alan]

I think this is a very good overview of the changes seen in most of Europe c. 3000BC onward
http://www.brockwell-bake.org.uk/docs/The_Decline_of_the_Neolithic_and_the_Rise_of_Bronz e_Age_Society-libre.pdf

[alan]

Jeez so much on Mako and the general area/period is not in English - usually the local language or German. I would like to find out more about it because the earlier/classical Vucedol certainly looks nothing like Bell Beaker. Mako must be really very different but its hard to get a lot of good info on it. I need to invest in a modern major overview of the early Bronze Age in that area from the Carpathians to the middle Danube and NW Balkans. I would really like to see a modern overview of Mako re its dates, burial traditions, pottery, metalwork etc.

[R.Rocca]

That's the point. If the two are indistinguishable, then Mako is the root and Iberia is less significant and was perhaps just the source of a particular type of early Beaker pot.

Sorry, I completely botched it and wrote exactly the opposite of what I meant. What I meant to write was...


I'm not sure exactly why this quote is significant? Mako is hundreds of years younger than Bell Beaker.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

According to Gimbutas, Yamnaya fused with Vucedol, producing Vinkovci-Samogyvar (also spelled Somogyvar), which had the same or very similar burial rites, settlement types, and ceramics as Beaker.

This graphic of cross-footed and pedestalled bowls shows at least part of the progression in ceramics.

6492

The exact character of Kostolac-Vucedol is difficult to describe.

There is a chain of fortified settlements on the Danube bend and south toward eastern Croatia and northern Serbia. I think they used to be seen as a kind of limes against 'Yamnaya invaders'.
But:


"There are two areas where larger fortified hilltop settlements emerged in the initial phase, around 3000 BC: in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin, in present-day northeast Hungary and eastern Slovakia, along the ipoly/ipeľ and sajó/slaná rivers, where hilltop settlements with late Baden and kostolac style material have been discovered, surrounded by smaller settlements and cemeteries (most recently patay 1999); and in southern Transdanubia, south of Lake Balaton, and especially in the south-Central part of the basin, along the danube between dunaszekcső in hungary in the north and Belgrade in the south, a series of fortiied hilltop sites are known with Vučedol style material (tasić 1995), clearly controlling the route of the danube from these strategic locations."

(Transition to the Bronze Age: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in the First Half of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin (KULCSÁR & SZEVERÉN))

So perhaps they were the key strategic points form which (?R1b dominant) traders/ metallurgists penetrated Alpine/ central Europe, usurped pre-existing networks, as Alan was saying, ? perhaps following Lemercier's model for southern France: where BB type material first arrives from southwest, is acculturated with native LN groups, then a new, eastern BB groups appears to come and take over)


(Historical model of settling and spread of Bell Beakers Culture in the mediterranean France)

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Jeez so much on Mako and the general area/period is not in English - usually the local language or German. I would like to find out more about it because the earlier/classical Vucedol certainly looks nothing like Bell Beaker. Mako must be really very different but its hard to get a lot of good info on it. I need to invest in a modern major overview of the early Bronze Age in that area from the Carpathians to the middle Danube and NW Balkans. I would really like to see a modern overview of Mako re its dates, burial traditions, pottery, metalwork etc.

Try looking for article Garasanin and Tasic (but they might be a bit dated). I think you'll find google translate works better for Croatian/ Serbian than Hungarian zzzzzsssssssgok

[V-X]

So I have a question but don't really fancy reading all 1700 comments to find the answer. :bounce:

I'm up to speed on the idea of 3 ancestral populations and that R1a/R1b are likely from the Yamnaya culture.

What I don't understand is how if both R1a and R1b were brought westwards in the same population movement, one became dominant in the west and the other in the east. Shouldn't eastern and western Europe have similar levels of R1a and R1b?

[Krefter]

So I have a question but don't really fancy reading all 1700 comments to find the answer. :bounce:

I'm up to speed on the idea of 3 ancestral populations and that R1a/R1b are likely from the Yamnaya culture.

What I don't understand is how if both R1a and R1b were brought westwards in the same population movement, one became dominant in the west and the other in the east. Shouldn't eastern and western Europe have similar levels of R1a and R1b?

Here are the basics.

>R1a and R1b have unknown origins in Eurasia over 10,000 years ago. They probably existed in populations all over Eurasia who also belonged to other Y DNA haplogroups.

>Around 6,000 years ago in Russia one R1a lineage named R1a1a1 and one R1b lineage named R1b1a2a became dominate in two differnt populations. These two lineages replaced 90%+ of other Y DNA that existed in their populations previously. Both populations were identical in their overall genetic makeup.

>Both populations, one dominated by R1a1a1 and one dominated by R1b1a2a, migrated deep into Europe.

>The population dominated by R1b1a2a went to West Europe and the one dominated by R1a1a1 to East Europe.

It is important to understand 99% of R1b and R1a today is R1b1a2a and R1a1a1. There are millions of R1a and R1b lineages that went extinct. R1b and R1a did not expand into Europe with the same people. They expanded with very closely related but differnt people.

[V-X]

one R1a lineage and one R1b lineage became dominate in two differnt populations.

Yes I suspect something like this must be going on. Do we have ancient DNA evidence of these two groups where one is predominantly R1a and vice versa?

[Anti]

So I have a question but don't really fancy reading all 1700 comments to find the answer. :bounce:

I'm up to speed on the idea of 3 ancestral populations and that R1a/R1b are likely from the Yamnaya culture.

What I don't understand is how if both R1a and R1b were brought westwards in the same population movement, one became dominant in the west and the other in the east. Shouldn't eastern and western Europe have similar levels of R1a and R1b?

Unless it were two separate migrations via two separate routes;
Which manifested a Yamnaya population dominant in R1a (minority U106) in Corded-ware horizon and a Yamnaya population dominant in R1b in Beaker horizon; What followed (archaeologically attested) is a much more active and broader inner European migration within the former eastern Beaker horizon with Bronze-age Unetice>Tumulus>Urnfield and than Iron-age proper Hallstatt C/D>LaTene; If we compare modern-day pops. what is striking is that modern Slavic populations are more dominant in R1a-M17 than R1b-L11 yet neighboring modern Germanic populations are more dominant R1b-L11 than R1a-M17 (within L11 more dominant U106 than P312) - this could have to do with the late-Imperial/early-Medieval and Medieval developments i.e. that maybe Urnfield-Lausitz was R1a/R1b but today in that former area it changed due to later developments;

If we compare Beakers and Corders one has to factor in the admixture-analyses also, in that though both are dominant Yamnaya/Steppe, Beakers have a higher additional EEF (farmer) admixture which highlights the separate routes scenario even more;

[rms2]

Sorry, I completely botched it and wrote exactly the opposite of what I meant. What I meant to write was...

Gimbutas has Vinkovci-Samogyvar as the immediate predecessor of Bell Beaker, but she says Mako is just the name for a subgroup of Vucedol in the Körös and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary. From what I have read, Mako is not hundreds of years younger than Beaker, at least not in the Carpathian basin.

Here is the quote from Gimbutas (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 376):



In the early 3rd millennium B.C., the Vucedol culture followed the Baden in the northwestern Balkans and the east Alpine area. This culture is named after the Vucedol hill fort at Vukovar on the Danube, northwestern Yugoslavia, excavated by R.R. Schmidt. In Hungary it is called the "Zok culture" with several subgroups: "Zok" proper in southwestern Hungary, "Mako" in the Körös and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary, and "Nyirseg" in northeastern Hungary. In the eastern Alpine area, it is better known as the "Laibach-Ljubljana culture," after the peat-bog site excavated at Ljubljana in 1878-79 by K. Deschmann.

[R.Rocca]

Unless it were two separate migrations via two separate routes;
Which manifested a Yamnaya population dominant in R1a (minority U106) in Corded-ware horizon and a Yamnaya population dominant in R1b in Beaker horizon; What followed (archaeologically attested) is a much more active and broader inner European migration within the former eastern Beaker horizon with Bronze-age Unetice>Tumulus>Urnfield and than Iron-age proper Hallstatt C/D>LaTene; If we compare modern-day pops. what is striking is that modern Slavic populations are more dominant in R1a-M17 than R1b-L11 yet neighboring modern Germanic populations are more dominant R1b-L11 than R1a-M17 (within L11 more dominant U106 than P312) - this could have to do with the late-Imperial/early-Medieval and Medieval developments i.e. that maybe Urnfield-Lausitz was R1a/R1b but today in that former area it changed due to later developments;

If we compare Beakers and Corders one has to factor in the admixture-analyses also, in that though both are dominant Yamnaya/Steppe, Beakers have a higher additional EEF (farmer) admixture which highlights the separate routes scenario even more;

Post steppe to Corded Ware and Bell Beaker seems to be much more active and broader than any of the latter archaeological cultures you've mentioned. What we have for Unetice so far is entirely I2a and a pretty clear mix of haplogroups during the Urnfield era. It is much more likely that an amalgamation of Bell Beaker R1b and Corded Ware R1a with local populations occurred in the immediately succeeding Early Bronze Age cultures and that, from that point on, no culture was of any single haplogroup.

[rms2]

In this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5003-Blood-of-the-Celts-(2015)&p=118043&viewfull=1#post118043) in another thread, Jean M reports that Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, although he wouldn't give specifics, says that ancient dna testing of remains from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age Ireland reveals "that there was massive population replacement".

Is that indicative that R1b-L21 arrived with the Beaker Folk during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age and that "massive population replacement" ensued? I'm guessing that's it.

[Krefter]

In this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5003-Blood-of-the-Celts-(2015)&p=118043&viewfull=1#post118043) in another thread, Jean M reports that Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, although he wouldn't give specifics, says that ancient dna testing of remains from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age Ireland reveals "that there was massive population replacement".

Is that indicative that R1b-L21 arrived with the Beaker Folk during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age and that "massive population replacement" ensued? I'm guessing that's it.

Exactly what many of us have been saying for a few years. Many said it was impossible. The evidence of repopulation of the Isles might be there in archaeology but did happen. The Slavs basically repopulated East Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Massive replacements are not impossible.

[Anti]

Post steppe to Corded Ware and Bell Beaker seems to be much more active and broader than any of the latter archaeological cultures you've mentioned.

Not sure if that was so unclear, but i was referring to the post-chalcolithic activity i.e. "what followed"; And the activity in the former Beaker horizon was more active and broader than that of the former Corder horizon; But later developments (as mentioned) also played a key role;


What we have for Unetice so far is entirely I2a and a pretty clear mix of haplogroups during the Urnfield era. It is much more likely that an amalgamation of Bell Beaker R1b and Corded Ware R1a with local populations occurred in the immediately succeeding Early Bronze Age cultures and that, from that point on, no culture was of any single haplogroup.

That goes without saying;
Unetice itself was a fusion of eastern Beaker and former Corder groups,
http://s30.postimg.org/rkiavn9bh/COT1.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/rkiavn9bh/)
hence the admixture they display; Aunjetitzers in Altentoft et al were mostly female, not just Unetice but the entire Bronze-age needs simply more Y-DNA data;

I2a is an old European Hg which in time turned ambiguous concerning population structure;
To compare I2a Hunter-gatherers with I2a Neolithic>Chalcolithic farmers (Remedello/modern Sardinia) with Bronze-age Unetice folks; Only data from Urnfield i am aware of is Lichtenstein-cave (Unstrut-group) which was 12x I-M170, 2x R1a and 1x R1b (pos. U106); Urnfield eventually encompassed what was eastern Beaker and central Corders and whatever mingled in those previous horizons; In south Germany (south of the Main) the Tauber-valley is a pure Corder site; Personally interested to see some data from that area;

[razyn]

I thought Urnfield culture cremated the remains for their burials, so we weren't supposed to anticipate getting any nuclear DNA from them to analyze.

Not objecting to your data, just wonder if it's from some other cultural horizon in the same area.

[Anti]

Doubtful;
App. they all just lay dead in that cave;
But based on the pottery and weaponry+other bronzes they were grouped to the Unstrut-group of the Urnfield culture;
Schilz (Göttingen 2006) -
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf

[avalon]

Exactly what many of us have been saying for a few years. Many said it was impossible. The evidence of repopulation of the Isles might be there in archaeology but did happen. The Slavs basically repopulated East Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Massive replacements are not impossible.

I agree that large-scale/massive replacement looks highly likely for the Isles but was it male specific though?

The mtDNA story of Western Europe looks much more complicated and I am not yet convinced that it is the same story as the Y-DNA, mainly because mtDNA H was abundant in Neolithic Western Europe, unlike R1b.

[Romilius]

What I don't understand is how if both R1a and R1b were brought westwards in the same population movement, one became dominant in the west and the other in the east. Shouldn't eastern and western Europe have similar levels of R1a and R1b?

My two cents:

I believe that R1a were the original mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the boreal forest (taiga): it would explain its presence in mesolithic Karelia, the different subclade in modern Scandinavians and its wide spread in Eurasia.
A southern population, perhaps composed by R1b men neolithicized by J2 and G2a men, encountered R1a and Indoeuropeanized them.

[alan]

In this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5003-Blood-of-the-Celts-(2015)&p=118043&viewfull=1#post118043) in another thread, Jean M reports that Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, although he wouldn't give specifics, says that ancient dna testing of remains from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age Ireland reveals "that there was massive population replacement".

Is that indicative that R1b-L21 arrived with the Beaker Folk during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age and that "massive population replacement" ensued? I'm guessing that's it.

When he talks about massive replacement it is very unlikely he could talk with authority about Mesolithic to Neolithic change simply because Ireland has only two (cremated) formal Mesolithic burials and just a few other stray unburned human bones. I would suggest he must be talking about a big change after the Neolithic. I also doubt he is talking about the later Bronze Age or Iron Age because AFAIK there are virtually no unburnt (non-bog) burials in Ireland c. 1500BC-0AD. The Irish record is only really suitable for getting a decent sample from three prehistoric periods where enough unburned burials existed to get a decent ancient DNA sample:

1. The earlier Neolithic c. 3800BC-3400BC?
2. The early Bronze Age c. 2400-1800BC
3. The late Iron Age 0-400AD rolling into the Early Medieval era c. 400-1100AD


There have been studies done decades ago (around 1980 I think) that produced a multivariate scattergraph comparing Early to mid Neolithic, early Bronze Age and late Iron Age/Early Christian period crania. Again they chose these for a reason - they are the periods chose because they were the brief periods where non-burnt bones are available. For what its worth they found a huge change from the long headed Neolithic people (who were identical to British) and the rounder headed early Bronze Age people. They found the late Iron Age/early Medieval sample to be different again -Mesocephalic and perhaps a blending of the previous two groups or perhaps more incomers.

I am sure the isles will be pretty much the same as temperate continental north and central Europe. Mesolithic hunters then big change when first farmers arrived, some mid Neolithic re-emergence of WHG followed by R1b and ANE arriving from 2400BC and further more nuanced short distance intrusions of similar people through the rest of the Bronze and Iron Ages to the Roman period. That has long been what the archaeology has shown or hinted at (though suppressed by anti-migration sentiment for a time) but only ancient DNA has shown that the 2400BC onwards waves are those that brought P312 and genes from the east.

[alan]

Doubtful;
App. they all just lay dead in that cave;
But based on the pottery and weaponry+other bronzes they were grouped to the Unstrut-group of the Urnfield culture;
Schilz (Göttingen 2006) -
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf

They are a rare exception to the rule that Urnfield period is going to be very hard to test unless they really can extract ancient DNA from cremations that is not totally messed up.

[alan]

My two cents:

I believe that R1a were the original mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the boreal forest (taiga): it would explain its presence in mesolithic Karelia, the different subclade in modern Scandinavians and its wide spread in Eurasia.
A southern population, perhaps composed by R1b men neolithicized by J2 and G2a men, encountered R1a and Indoeuropeanized them.

I tend to agree there may have been a distinction back in the Mesolithic of R1a in the forest steppe and part of the forest areas with R1b more dry adapted to open dry steppe - probably chasing horses etc.

[alan]

Post steppe to Corded Ware and Bell Beaker seems to be much more active and broader than any of the latter archaeological cultures you've mentioned. What we have for Unetice so far is entirely I2a and a pretty clear mix of haplogroups during the Urnfield era. It is much more likely that an amalgamation of Bell Beaker R1b and Corded Ware R1a with local populations occurred in the immediately succeeding Early Bronze Age cultures and that, from that point on, no culture was of any single haplogroup.

I agree with that. Post-beaker the beaker lines and CW elements probably blended in the area where they co-existed as well as other Neolithic remnant genes. The developed central European beaker phase c. 2550-2300BC seems to have been an unusual phase where these mobile beaker lineages remained aloof but this surely broke down as beaker culture did.

[alan]

Sorry, I completely botched it and wrote exactly the opposite of what I meant. What I meant to write was...

In central Europe it seems to be very similar in age to beaker. So that creates issues with seeing it as ancestral to even the central European beaker folk. However it doesnt absolutely rule it out if you see central European beaker people as a different people who adopted some western beaker traits through a phase of contact. Vucedol as defined in other papers I have read ends a little before beaker arrives in central Europe in this period. Its mind boggling and much of the stuff online is not in English. First thing I want to do is get it clear in my head what the current chronologies for the various cultures. This has been going through huge flux and older literature cannot be taken at face value.

[rms2]

When he talks about massive replacement it is very unlikely he could talk with authority about Mesolithic to Neolithic change simply because Ireland has only two (cremated) formal Mesolithic burials and just a few other stray unburned human bones. I would suggest he must be talking about a big change after the Neolithic . . .

Especially since Bradley said he is testing samples from the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and made no mention of Mesolithic samples, he would not have any way of gauging a change from a Mesolithic population to a Neolithic population.

That is why I wrote that the massive replacement probably took place in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age with the arrival of the Beaker Folk and R1b-L21.

[rms2]

In central Europe it seems to be very similar in age to beaker. So that creates issues with seeing it as ancestral to even the central European beaker folk. However it doesnt absolutely rule it out if you see central European beaker people as a different people who adopted some western beaker traits through a phase of contact. Vucedol as defined in other papers I have read ends a little before beaker arrives in central Europe in this period. Its mind boggling and much of the stuff online is not in English. First thing I want to do is get it clear in my head what the current chronologies for the various cultures. This has been going through huge flux and older literature cannot be taken at face value.

If it is difficult to distinguish late Vucedol, especially Vinkovci-Samogyvar, as Gimbutas said, and Mako, as Durman said, from Beaker, then it seems likely that Beaker was just a branch of Vucedol/Yamnaya that adopted a pot style that may have originated in Iberia.



There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 391).

[rms2]

In the interest of stirring the pot, I've been wondering if, besides the advantage of horseback riding itself, Beaker men were able to use their bows from horseback. I know they did not have Asiatic-style recurved, composite bows, but Amerindians, as David Mc once pointed out, were able to shoot their bows from horseback to great effect. Maybe that was a Beaker military advantage, too.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In the interest of stirring the pot, I've been wondering if, besides the advantage of horseback riding itself, Beaker men were able to use their bows from horseback. I know they did not have Asiatic-style recurved, composite bows, but Amerindians, as David Mc once pointed out, were able to shoot their bows from horseback to great effect. Maybe that was a Beaker military advantage, too.

One has to admit the possibility :)

Heyd hypothesizes: "Archery allows the
warrior to fight at a distance, even from horseback, and
he can choose to kill from thirty metres, or be concealed
from view. This is antithetical to a code of honour
based on individual combat where rivals face each
other two metres apart. In either case, the choice of
archery as the combat mode of choice for the Beaker
warrior carries a powerful symbolic charge."

(Page 206 "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: The Example of ‘Le Petit Chasseur I+III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland).")

[Krefter]

A good question is why did EEF/WHG survive so well in France and Iberia.

[rms2]

A good question is why did EEF/WHG survive so well in France and Iberia.

Well, the closer one gets to the Mediterranean, the larger the Near Eastern-derived, Neolithic farmer population was. And the farther west one went, the larger the WHG population was (guessing on that one). Iberia has a Mediterranean coast and an Atlantic coast, so it was doubly suited to big EEF and WHG components. France has a Mediterranean coast and is pretty far west.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

A good question is why did EEF/WHG survive so well in France and Iberia.

Quite simply, the Neolithic presence in central- northern Europe, and quite possibly Britain, was later, more volatile, less dense to begin with, harsher climate, lighter soils, etc, etc.

[Anti]

Well, the closer one gets to the Mediterranean, the larger the Near Eastern-derived, Neolithic farmer population was. And the farther west one went, the larger the WHG population was (guessing on that one). Iberia has a Mediterranean coast and an Atlantic coast, so it was doubly suited to big EEF and WHG components. France has a Mediterranean coast and is pretty far west.

Atlantic coast of Iberia is today more Morrocan african than its Medit. counterpart;
Adams et al 2008;

@ Krefter
Chalcolithic and in-fact also Bronze-age Iberia (recent data Günther et al) was still very much farmer like; a peninsula too far???

[avalon]

Quite simply, the Neolithic presence in central- northern Europe, and quite possibly Britain, was later, more volatile, less dense to begin with, harsher climate, lighter soils, etc, etc.

Just looking at the chart from the Haak paper again and there isn't much difference between the English and French levels of early farmer component, the English have a bit less early farmer and a bit more Yamnaya than the French. "French South" has more early farmer but I guess this would be expected.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg

[Anti]

Just looking at the chart from the Haak paper again and there isn't much difference between the English and French levels of early farmer component, the English have a bit less early farmer and a bit more Yamnaya than the French. "French South" has more early farmer but I guess this would be expected.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg

This chart is a farce;
Try Haak's 5way mixture for a clearer insight; {supp. p.125}
and do read the pages before + Lazaridis {supp. p.88/p.146}
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/extref/nature13673-s1.pdf

[rms2]

Atlantic coast of Iberia is today more Morrocan african than its Medit. counterpart;
Adams et al 2008;

It doesn't seem likely that Iberia got its WHG component from Morocco.



@ Krefter
Chalcolithic and in-fact also Bronze-age Iberia (recent data Günther et al) was still very much farmer like; a peninsula too far???

I think you see pretty much the same trend (relatively high EEF) in every European population along the Mediterranean. The Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer population was simply larger there and absorbed the ANE/Indo-European incomers to a greater extent than the thinner population of northern and central Europe did.

[Anti]

It doesn't seem likely that Iberia got its WHG component from Morocco.

I agree


I think you see pretty much the same trend (relatively high EEF) in every European population along the Mediterranean. The Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer population was simply larger there and absorbed the ANE/Indo-European incomers to a greater extent than the thinner population of northern and central Europe did.

Yes, what is is and what isnt isnt;

{Moderator}

Section 3.16 of the terms of service states:

Animated GIFs regardless of form (icons, avatars, personal photos and signatures) are prohibited on Anthrogenica to keep the primary visual presentation of the site exclusively on written/thread content. This restriction does not apply to static images

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Just looking at the chart from the Haak paper again and there isn't much difference between the English and French levels of early farmer component, the English have a bit less early farmer and a bit more Yamnaya than the French. "French South" has more early farmer but I guess this would be expected.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg


Maybe; but Britain seems to have been a difficult place early on. Even the Romans - as we know- complained about it constantly.

The Curious facts are that even after the LGM repopulation; it was again depopulated during the younger dryas (11-10000 BC); to be again repopulated by Hamburgian industry groups

The Neolithic drop was particularly notable in Britain - as Dorian Fuller expressed "Between 3300 and 1500 BC Britons became largely pastoral, reverting only with a major upsurge of agricultural activity in the Middle Bronze Age. "

So if EEF had a greater than expected survival in Britain is has either to do with (1) a smaller scale arrival of eastern BBs and / or (2) later historic movements from France or Rome re-introducing some EEF

[Anti]

Just looking at the chart from the Haak paper again and there isn't much difference between the English and French levels of early farmer component, the English have a bit less early farmer and a bit more Yamnaya than the French. "French South" has more early farmer but I guess this would be expected.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg

This chart is a farce;
Try Haak's 5way mixture for a clearer insight; {supp. p.125}
and do read the pages before + Lazaridis {supp. p.88/p.146}
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/extref/nature13673-s1.pdf

[R.Rocca]

This chart is a farce;
Try Haak's 5way mixture for a clearer insight; {supp. p.125}
and do read the pages before + Lazaridis {supp. p.88/p.146}
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/extref/nature13673-s1.pdf

A farce?...like they made it up?

[alan]

A good question is why did EEF/WHG survive so well in France and Iberia.

The farmers in france and iberia were probably far more populous not living in what was marginal land for neolithic crops such as northern Europe during the wet phase that lasted from we!l before 3000bc until it ended 2500bc. Southern France and Iberia also had advanced copper age societies by 3000bc. In Iberia they were so advanced they had nucleated settlements with advanced defence with bastions for archers etc. Iberia IMO would be very strong. You also see incipient development of elite hierarchical single burials in north Italy and south France prior to any influx of steppe genes. So they were harder nuts to crack c. 3000-2500bc. I tend to look at corded ware and think a huge chunk of it took the path of least resistance where farming was marginal or populations light.

[alan]

One has to admit the possibility :)

Heyd hypothesizes: "Archery allows the
warrior to fight at a distance, even from horseback, and
he can choose to kill from thirty metres, or be concealed
from view. This is antithetical to a code of honour
based on individual combat where rivals face each
other two metres apart. In either case, the choice of
archery as the combat mode of choice for the Beaker
warrior carries a powerful symbolic charge."

(Page 206 "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: The Example of ‘Le Petit Chasseur I+III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland).")

Personally I think the bow was the primary weapon of beaker people because they travelled in small groups and enclaves through alien territory where they were grossly outnumbered. The bow would be a great leveller. Also let's be clear, when bows are available, ignoring them and waving around stone hammer axes is lunatic. If you had some crazy ideal that fighting with axes is heroic and archery cowardly then darwins law will kick in and its not going to end well when you take on bowmen.

[V-X]

So do we have any actual evidence that there were two Yamnaya (or Yamnaya influenced) groups, one predominantly carrying R1a and the other mainly R1b, or is this mainly speculation at this stage?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

So do we have any actual evidence that there were two Yamnaya (or Yamnaya influenced) groups, one predominantly carrying R1a and the other mainly R1b, or is this mainly speculation at this stage?

Not yet. All the Yamnaya samples tested so far are M269* or derived Z2103. But nothing east of the Don has been sampled, nor Majkop or northeast Balkan regions.
There were both R1a and R1b in Khvalynsk, a pre-Yamnaya culture. But at present we don't know which specific subclades they are

[rms2]

R1b-M269, including R1b-L51, R1b-P312, and R1b-U152, has been found in Bell Beaker, and R1a and R1b have been found in Corded Ware. Both of those cultures have a substantial Yamnaya autosomal component, as well. It seems a reasonable inference that the source of the R1a and R1b in Corded Ware and the R1b in Bell Beaker was either Yamnaya itself or a steppe population very much like Yamnaya.

In light of the Vucedol period remains from Hungary that tested R1b, add to that Gimbutas' theory that Bell Beaker represented the fusion of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

[Romilius]

Personally I think the bow was the primary weapon of beaker people because they travelled in small groups and enclaves through alien territory where they were grossly outnumbered. The bow would be a great leveller. Also let's be clear, when bows are available, ignoring them and waving around stone hammer axes is lunatic. If you had some crazy ideal that fighting with axes is heroic and archery cowardly then darwins law will kick in and its not going to end well when you take on bowmen.

There is also the problem of Greek mythology offering antithetic views: Herakles used a bow, and he is the main hero civilizator, but also Paris had a bow, and he is the king of cowards. And, also, there is the evolution of social issues of a weapon: let's think about the spear, the queen of weapons among the germanic knights, but, in medieval times, she lost her place thanks to the sword... perhaps, following the same line of thought, the spear was viewed as a weapon used to hit from a greater distance than the noble sword.