PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker and Early Celtic in the Isles



rms2
01-17-2016, 07:35 PM
I came across the following quote from an article by Alexander Falileyev in the book, The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QQBDCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=SecD4q2yZB&sig=ODRSHUMvJiI22dxssuYT5IMug6M#v=onepage&q&f=false). I thought it would make a good introduction to a thread here in the Celtic subforum on the relationship of the Bell Beaker culture and early Celtic in the Isles.

From Professor Patrice Brun (2006), L'origine des Celtes. Communautés linguistiques et reséaux sociaux. In D. Vitali (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire. 2 La Préhistoire des Celtes, 29-44, Bibracte, Glux-en-Glenne.



Since there is no evidence that the regions of Western Europe where Celtic languages are still spoken today became Celtic after 1600 BC, they must have become so at an earlier date. Before 1600 BC, the only time when the zones which gave rise to the north-Alpine and Atlantic complexes shared similar material and structural characteristics was the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. This was the well known Bell Beaker "package". Linking all the regions where a Celtic language was later to be spoken, this community represents a unique situation. (Quoted in Falileyev, Alexander (2015), Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3).


One thing I have learned from Falileyev's article and from observation over a number of years is that there is little about which linguists agree.

rms2
01-17-2016, 08:46 PM
Here is what I regard as a pretty good diagram from the same article. I interpret it as basically a graphic of Europe with Bell Beaker around the fringes of the Corded Ware territory and giving rise to the Italo-Celtic subfamily of Indo-European.

7341

The inclusion of Remedello is probably an error, since the recent ancient dna results from that culture lacked the steppic autosomal component and the y-dna was solidly I2a. The rest of the graphic is pretty accurate, IMHO.

rms2
02-07-2016, 06:05 PM
From David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 367:



The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.


If Marija Gimbutas was right, and Bell Beaker is an offshoot of Yamnaya, that would explain a lot, including the Yamnaya-like autosomal component and the y-dna R1b in Bell Beaker test results thus far.



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. [From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 390]

Helgenes50
02-07-2016, 06:16 PM
From David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 367:



If Marija Gimbutas was right, and Bell Beaker is an offshoot of Yamnaya, that would explain a lot, including the Yamnaya-like autosomal component and the y-dna R1b in Bell Beaker test results thus far.

Today what we see with the DNA confirms their Theory.
Gimbutas was really ahead of her time

rms2
02-07-2016, 07:14 PM
Here is the table of Bell Beaker y-dna results I am keeping. This is just my own humble opinion and not an attempt to be absolute, dogmatic, or to offend anyone, but I think it likely that all of the Beaker men represented in this table were P312+ of some kind. It's just that for some of them, the coverage wasn't good enough to get a result for P312 or its subclades.

7675 7676

Here is a graphic from the Mathiesen et al paper that shows the Yamnaya-like autosomal component in its Bell Beaker results.

7677

Jean M
02-07-2016, 09:52 PM
Here is the table of Bell Beaker y-dna results I am keeping.

Thanks for the credit on the table. I see that you have added your own useful notes though.

rms2
02-08-2016, 11:09 PM
Thanks for the credit on the table. I see that you have added your own useful notes though.

Well, it's pretty obvious I used your site as my main source. It would have been pretty low down to publicly post that table without citing my source.

Jean M
02-09-2016, 08:21 AM
Well, it's pretty obvious I used your site as my main source. It would have been pretty low down to publicly post that table without citing my source.

I just thought I should mention that some of it is not from my table, as you had not said so. Something like "adapted from" XXX would do fine.

rms2
02-09-2016, 09:23 AM
Well, Jean, it does say "Source", not " quoted verbatim from".

Jean M
02-09-2016, 08:55 PM
Well, Jean, it does say "Source", not " quoted verbatim from".

I don't know. I have to struggle to get you to take credit for your own work. :)

rms2
02-10-2016, 12:10 AM
I don't know. I have to struggle to get you to take credit for your own work. :)

Well, I did stare at your site and type the info into the table. It was hard work, but somebody has to do it. ;)

My notes aren't that voluminous. I think I made a note about the unclear M269 result for that Kromsdorf R1b-M343, one about the osteological evidence of horseback riding in one of the Bell Beaker guys from Germany, and a note about the height of Rathlin1. That's about it, I think.

Lugus
02-10-2016, 05:09 PM
If Marija Gimbutas was right, and Bell Beaker is an offshoot of Yamnaya, that would explain a lot, including the Yamnaya-like autosomal component and the y-dna R1b in Bell Beaker test results thus far.

Here she might have been wrong. If BB was some kind of product package, then anyone could have had it. You don't have to belong to any particular haplogroup to own a smartphone. What puzzles me is what made that package so special. Good marketing? Aggressive sales techniques?

rms2
02-11-2016, 12:54 AM
Here she might have been wrong. If BB was some kind of product package, then anyone could have had it. You don't have to belong to any particular haplogroup to own a smartphone. What puzzles me is what made that package so special. Good marketing? Aggressive sales techniques?

She might have been wrong, but look at the evidence that appears in the earlier posts in this thread.

All the Bell Beaker y-dna results thus far have been R1 at minimum and R1b where the coverage has been sufficient to get a read for R1b. Where the coverage has been a bit better, all the Bell Beaker y-dna results have been P312+ or, at the very least, R1b and U106-.

In addition, Bell Beaker has shown up with a strong Yamnaya-like autosomal component.

Look too at the archaeological evidence that links Bell Beaker to Yamnaya.

Here is some of it from Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



The specific correspondence between the Yamna, Late Vucedol, and Bell Beaker complexes is visible in burial rites which include grave pits under round barrows, the coexistence of cremation and inhumation rites, and the construction of mortuary houses. (FIGURE 10-38) In armaments we see tanged or riveted triangular daggers made of arsenic copper, spear points of arsenic copper and flint, concave-based or tanged triangular arrowheads of flint, and arrow straighteners. In ornaments there are necklaces of canine teeth, copper tubes, or bird bones; boar tusks; and crescent-shaped pendants resembling breast plates. In solar symbolism we find sun or star motifs excised and white encrusted on the inside of braziers, or incised on bone or amber button-shaped beads. Techniques of ceramic decoration include stamping or gouging in zoned metopes, encrustation with white paste of delicate geometric motifs, zigzags, dashes, nets, lozenges, and dots or circles (a Baden-Kostolac-Vucedol tradition). Certain ceramic forms placed in graves, such as braziers and beakers, are from the Kurgan tradition. The Bell Beaker people, wherever they spread, continued the traditional ceramic art connected with their faith. Only the ritual importance of their uniquely beautiful stereotyped beakers could have motivated their production for hundreds of years in lands far from the homeland. The correspondences linking the Bell Beaker and Yamna with the Vucedol - in armament, costume, funeral rites, beliefs in life after death, and in symbolism - are precisely the most significant and revealing. It is very likely that the Bell Beaker complex is an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vucedol culture, i.e., in the course of 300 to 400 years after 3000-2900 B.C. (pp. 390-391)
. . .

Horse bones in a series of sites provide a clue to the mobility of the Bell Beaker people. Analysis of animal bones from the sites at Budapest (Csepel Hollandiut and Csepel-Haros) have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna, constituting more than 60 percent of the total animal bones. This suggests a large-scale domestication of the horse in the Carpathian basin. Bell Beaker migrations were carried out on horseback from central Europe as far as Spain (where horse bones have also been found in Bell Beaker contexts). The horse also played a significant role in religion, as can be seen from the remains of the horse sacrifice where skulls are found in cremation graves . . .

The striking similarity of burial practices ties the Bell Beaker complex to the Kurgan (Late Yamna) tradition . . .

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

4. The warlike and horse-riding Bell Beaker people of the middle and second half of the third millennium B.C., who diffused over western Europe, are likely to have originated from an amalgam of remnants of the Vucedol people with the Yamna colonists (after Wave No. 3) in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Their parent culture is called Vinkovci-Samogyvar. This was the largest and last outmigration, from east-central Europe into western Europe, up to the west Mediterranean and the British Isles, before the onset of a more stable period, and the formation of Bronze Age cultural units. (p. 401)


Here are a couple of artist renderings of Bell Beaker kurgans from The Civilization of the Goddess:

7714 7715

Then there is the evidence that Bell Beaker was responsible for the initial spread of the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European.

If Bell Beaker was simply a "product package", why is its y-dna profile (R1b) apparently so monolithic, and why the shared Yamnaya-like autosomal component?

This is not to say that we will never find non-R1b, non-steppic people in Bell Beaker, but it does appear that the core Bell Beaker population was R1b, like Yamnaya, had a kurgan-type culture, like Yamnaya, and had strong autosomal ties to a Yamnaya-like population, if not to Yamnaya itself.

Personally, I think Gimbutas was right.

Lugus
02-11-2016, 08:02 AM
Bell Beaker migrations were carried out on horseback from central Europe as far as Spain

Do you really believe that?

In Portuguese Estremadura (Zambujal, Leceia, Vila Nova de São Pedro and other sites) where to the best of our present knowledge BB originated, it seems to evolve smoothly from previous Neolithic traditions (copos) and there aren’t any signs of an intruding new population. The opposite is true, as you can see here:

https://www.academia.edu/7572041/Who_built_the_Castro_of_Zambujal_Part_I_-_A_Quick_Overview_of_the_Chalcolithic_in_the_Portu guese_Estremadura

and here:

https://www.academia.edu/5217582/In_search_of_homelands_using_strontium_isotopes_to _identify_biological_markers_of_mobility_in_late_p rehistoric_Portugal

Furthermore, the whole thing exhibits very strong Neolithic Mediterranean features (seafaring, African elephant ivory, shells from the Red Sea, the Moroccan connection). All this seems very far from the Steppe.


All the Bell Beaker y-dna results thus far have been R1 at minimum and R1b where the coverage has been sufficient to get a read for R1b. Where the coverage has been a bit better, all the Bell Beaker y-dna results have been P312+ or, at the very least, R1b and U106-.

True, but all those results were from Germany. What about the Iberian Peninsula? What about Sardinia? What about W. Sicily? What about Morocco? Of course 70% of smartphone users in Britain will be R1b positive but I bet you the picture will be different in Japan. What the aDNA results show is that P312 people in Germany were using the BB package, not that they “brought” it with them from the Steppe. Quite the opposite, BB fades out as you go east. If indeed BB comes from the east you’ll need a lot of acrobatics in order to explain it in Estremadura at the beginning of the 3rd. millennium. Or very fast horses indeed, but then why Estremadura of all places?

I must say that I’m just a curious reader trying to make sense of things and until I did DNA testing I wasn’t even so much interested in prehistory. But I’ve been a life long lover of history and ancient literary languages. My paternal grandfather was born a few kilometers from Vila Nova de São Pedro.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 10:05 AM
In Portuguese Estremadura (Zambujal, Leceia, Vila Nova de São Pedro and other sites) where to the best of our present knowledge BB originated, it seems to evolve smoothly from previous Neolithic traditions ... and there aren’t any signs of an intruding new population.

Neolithic? No. Bell Beaker pottery appears within the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) Vila Nova de São Pedro culture, and there are strong signs of an intruding new population bringing the Copper Age to Portugal. Metallurgy was not invented independently in Iberia. It arrived as a complete technology from elsewhere, together with domesticated horses. At Zambujal we find a Copper Age population working in metal within a fortified settlement built in the 3rd millenium BC that transitions smoothly into making Bell Beaker ware. Extract from Blood of the Celts (2015) :


The earliest dates of copper-working there [Iberia] (c. 3100 BC) are for mining-metallurgical complexes in South-western Iberia, such as Cabezo Juré. It is revealing that this site was colonised by a community already specialised in copper production. These incomers lived within a fortified centre, dining well and importing luxuries, while in a village outside lived the lower-status workers. The well-protected elite controlled access to horses, used probably in the transport of copper ore. At this time Iberia had wild horses. Some of their DNA made its way into modern Iberian breeds.1 Horse bones are found together with Bell Beaker pottery throughout its range, so the idea that domesticated horses spread from Iberia with Bell Beaker has enjoyed a certain popularity, but sites such as Cabezo Juré, which precede Bell Beaker, suggest that the knowledge of horse-taming and copper-working arrived in Iberia together from the European steppe.

The two foci for Copper Age Iberia became the lofty, fortified settlements of Zambujal (Torres Vedras, Portugal) and Los Millares (Almería, Spain). Both were set on promontories commanding approaches by river or sea. Both began as small strongholds, and expanded with the creation of new walls enclosing greater areas. Zambujal had the most easily defended position. It was set on a peninsula carved out by the great River Tagus where it meets the sea. On the same peninsula other fortified sites include Vila Nova de São Pedro (Azambuja) and Leceia (Oeiras). The fort at Leceia was built around 2900-2800 BC. Like Zambujal, pottery of different styles was in use there at different periods, ending with Bell Beaker. At these sites, ease of defence was combined with ease of access by sea. Today Zambujal lies 14 km (almost 9 miles) from the Atlantic coast, but in the Copper Age the nearby river Sizandro was a tidal estuary. Zambujal imported ivory from afar. Alluvial gold from the Tagus could have been traded in exchange, along with copper ware. Copper was imported from the mining-metallurgical complex at Mocissos for the workshops of Zambujal. As in the Remedello culture of northern Italy, copper-arsenic alloys were deliberately used for daggers, saws and other artefacts that required a harder metal than pure copper.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 10:19 AM
.. copos ...

It has been argued that the Copper Age copos were an influence on the creation of Bell Beaker pottery, but this seems unlikely to me. Here's another extract from Blood of the Celts:


The people who made the earliest Bell Beakers were copper-workers and could only be a few generations away from immigrants. At Zambujal there is a clear continuity from the earliest copper-workers to the beginnings of Bell Beaker. A problem lies in a lack of obvious local antecedents. Several authors have argued that local Copper Age copos (cups) with a gently-waisted outline and horizontal grooves as decoration developed into Bell Beaker. This fails to convince. It is more likely that the Bell Beaker style was a synthesis of influences from more distant connections, as Jan Turek has proposed. He puts forward certain curvaceous pots with impressed decoration from Late Neolithic Morocco as a possible inspiration. Yet key ingredients of the Bell Beaker design have precise predecessors on the stelae route from Ukraine to the Carpathian Basin. Inverted bell-shaped pots were made before 4000 BC north of the Black Sea . Cord impressions have a long history in the same region. Bell Beaker ware commonly had its decoration picked out with white paste made of crushed bone. This technique was used earlier in the Carpathian Basin.

So the influences that culminated in this pottery could have travelled over time along the same route that brought copper-working to Iberia. A common pattern of migration is repeated movements along the same route. We can imagine pioneers scouting out metal sources and then returning home to trade or collect family members. If so they would spread the knowledge of opportunities which could attract more migrants. At Leceia in Portugal we see new arrivals expanding the settlement. Nestling just outside the fortifications were two huts with radiocarbon dates centring in the 2700s BC in which the pottery was exclusively Bell Beaker, while within the walls earlier local pottery gradually mixed with Maritime Bell Beaker material, after the new styles were introduced.

Lugus
02-11-2016, 12:11 PM
Neolithic? No. Bell Beaker pottery appears within the Copper Age (Chalcolithic)

You’re right Jean, thanks for the correction. I was trying to say that everything points to an EEF population evolving from the Neolithic and not Yamnaya, as rms2 posted. At the time we’re talking about, most innovations came ultimately from the Levant and the Mediterranean area and BB wouldn’t have been an exception.


but sites such as Cabezo Juré, which precede Bell Beaker, suggest that the knowledge of horse-taming and copper-working arrived in Iberia together from the European steppe.

I must say I read your books and your theory of the stelae route is the most far fetched and least convincing thing I found in them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and such evidence just hasn’t been presented. If you turn out to be right I would be very surprised. But remember what John Bell (the physicist) said about Quantum theory: “Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscure and right. Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong.”

From all the information I've seen so far I’m convinced that BB came from the west and Celtic from the east. I’ll be delighted to find conclusive evidence either way, but for that we need aDNA not just from Germany.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 01:03 PM
You’re right Jane, thanks for the correction. I was trying to say that everything points to an EEF population evolving from the Neolithic and not Yamnaya, as rms2 posted.

I'm Jean, not Jane. :)

In my view Copper Age Iberia was a complex mosaic of cultures.

Farmers

An EEF population covered the whole of Iberia in the Neolithic. It was not totally ejected or massacred by incomers in the Copper Age. There was a good deal of violence between communities, as we see from the burst of fortification, weaponry and marks of violence on human bones. So the descendants of Neolithic farmers may have been somewhat thinned out by incomers, but they were not completely removed. There is a higher level of EEF and Y-DNA G in Iberia today than in northern Europe.

Pastoralists in the north-east

We have evidence of some pastoralists who carried the 13910T mutation for lactase persistence at San Juan Ante Portam Latinam, Spain in 3000 BC. These were probably (in my view) people descended from early dairy farmers further east in Europe, but the exact route by which they arrived in Iberia remains a mystery. There is evidence of violence there. See https://www.academia.edu/1886772/Prehistoric_violence_in_northern_Spain_San_Juan_an te_Portam_Latinam

The descendants of incomers from the Carpathian Basin bringing copper-working

These are the people that I presume carried Y-DNA R1b-P312 in some form. This marker appears to have travelled from the steppe up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin from the European steppe with Yamnaya. There could also be some other haplogroups. But there is no possibility whatever of R1b-P312 developing from early farmers in Iberia. So we need an explanation of its arrival. For violence here see Victor S. Gonçalves, Ana Catarina Sousa and Catarina Costeira, Walls, gates and towers. fortified settlements in the south and centre of Portugal: some notes about violence and walls in the 3rd millenium BCE, CPAG 23, 2013, 35-97.

RCO
02-11-2016, 01:11 PM
40% of the modern Portuguese population is DF27 (YFull - formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp). No significant downstream structure has been found so that ancestral migrant population was formed almost immediately in one or a few big migratory events associated with the expansion of DF27 in concomitant circumstances of a new cultural, economic, metallurgical package with a very fast occupation as revealed in the Castro do Zambujal with a stratified society with heightened competition and militarism (Who built the Castro do Zambujal? Part I - A Quick Overview of the Chalcolithic in the Portuguese Estremadura Edgar Vigário). Another question is the expansion of Western Iberian, Portuguese types of mtDNA H not found in other parts of Western Europe during the Mesolithic. One possible explanation could be a big and fast pioneer wave of R1b advance surfing till Western Iberia and redefining the Bell Beaker as a strong rebound to other parts of Western Europe from Western Iberia then.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 01:18 PM
At the time we’re talking about, most innovations came ultimately from the Levant and the Mediterranean area and BB wouldn’t have been an exception.

The idea of all innovation coming from the eastern Mediterranean (ex orient lux) was promoted by V. Gordon Childe and remained popular for many decades. Even Andrew Sherratt in the 1980s tended to assume that the 'Secondary Products Revolution' that he identified had spread from the Near East. We now know that the picture is far more complex.

Pottery appeared in the Far East and Africa long before it was made in the Near East. Pottery reached Europe first from the steppe. Gold was first worked in the Balkans. Horses were domesticated on the steppe and donkeys in North Africa. Wheeled vehicles were probably first made in the European steppe/forest zone. Light spoke-wheel chariots appeared first on the West Asian steppe. Wine was first produced on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, where grapes grew wild. Dairy farming, as opposed to herding cows primarily for meat (with occasional milking), first appeared around the Sea of Marmara - on both the European and Anatolian coasts. Wool sheep may have been first bred in the Caucasus, where the earliest surviving woollen textile has been discovered.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/widerview.shtml

The ultimate origin of metallurgy was very probably somewhere in the copper belts running through the Taurus Mountains of Anatolia to the Zagros Mountains of Iran. But it spread rapidly. Copper smelting start crops up at around 5,000 BC in at Tal-i Iblis in south-eastern Iran and at Belovode in eastern Serbia. The Serbian end of the distribution seems to be the start of the Balkan Copper Age - the earliest in Europe.

However the Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/metal.shtml

From the Caucasus it was taken up by Yamnaya and spread with them. It is this type of arsenic-copper alloy that is found in the VNSP culture, as I mentioned earlier.

Lugus
02-11-2016, 01:37 PM
I'm Jean, not Jane.

Of course you are :doh: I'm sorry, I already fixed it. I watched too many old Tarzan movies.

Isidro
02-11-2016, 02:01 PM
Since this is a speculating direction we are taking based on some very limited facts known for decades and some newer ones like La Bastida de Totana first fortress in continental Western Europe dated 2,200 BC and contemporary with mirror fortresses in the Mediterranean Levant and coinciding with the fall of Troy, I would say that Iberia was a more complex place than some like to embed as some "cul de sac" of Europe and that innovations came with Yamnaya and other surrealistic theories. Innovation to Iberia apart from it's local enhancements did not come from ambulant and sporadic steppe clans that went to Extremadura took over an already complex and sophisticated societies and then expanded with the "Bell" part of the package to Northern Europe. That is fiction history popular in the 80' that attracts people's attention by it's sensationalism.

I know that some people think that by this view of Yamnaya Kurgan expansion are making the White supremacists Aryan a fable but they are replacing it with another one.

The History of all Europe deserves a lot more respect than the one portrayed here.

To disconnect, ridicule or minimize the movement across the Mediterranean across Italy, all the islands, North Africa to Iberia and the Atlantic to Neolithic and metal age in the Isles and attribute it to a dispersal of R1b clans from Eastern and Central Europe cultural package is putting some slim facts as a coherent explanation.It's maybe fun to read for some but is not serious in my opinion, regardless where and how R1b associated with Bell Beakers and early Celtic in the Isles came to be.After all a seed is a seed, the fruits need a grown tree to reap it's benefits.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 02:15 PM
some newer ones like La Bastida de Totana first fortress in continental Europe dated 2,200 BC and contemporary with mirror fortresses in the Mediterranean Levant and coinciding with the fall of Troy, I would say that Iberia was a more complex place than some like to

Believe me, I'm very interested in La Bastida and the Argar culture, but I omitted the Bronze Age incomers from the list above of Copper Age locals and incomers. I suspect that the Argar culture was developed by the ancestors of the Iberes, who spoke a non-Indo-European language. So it seems highly unlikely that this was the fount of R1b-P312 in Iberia. From place-name evidence, an early form of Indo-European was spoken in this region before the language of the Iberes.

Other Bronze Age incomers into Iberia


The earliest bronze-makers (in Galicia/Northern Portugal) could have come down the Atlantic coast as part of the exchanges of the Atlantic Bronze Age. Could explain some of the L21 in Galicia. We must wait and see. These would be Celtic-speaking.
The Lyges/Ligurians, who I believe were the ancestors of the Lusitanian speakers, arriving in the Late Bronze Age along the coast from NW Italy.

Lugus
02-11-2016, 02:28 PM
Since this is a speculating direction we are taking based on some very limited facts known for decades and some newer ones like La Bastida de Totana first fortress in continental Western Europe dated 2,200 BC and contemporary with mirror fortresses in the Mediterranean Levant and coinciding with the fall of Troy, I would say that Iberia was a more complex place than some like to embed as some "cul de sac" of Europe and that innovations came with Yamnaya and other surrealistic theories. Innovation to Iberia apart from it's local enhancements did not come from ambulant and sporadic steppe clans that went to Extremadura took over an already complex and sophisticated societies and then expanded with the "Bell" part of the package to Northern Europe. That is fiction history popular in the 80' that attracts people's attention by it's sensationalism.

I know that some people think that by this view of Yamnaya Kurgan expansion are making the White supremacists Aryan a fable but they are replacing it with another one.

The History of all Europe deserves a lot more respect than the one portrayed here.

To disconnect, ridicule or minimize the movement across the Mediterranean across Italy, all the islands, North Africa to Iberia and the Atlantic to Neolithic and metal age in the Isles and attribute it to a dispersal of R1b clans from Eastern and Central Europe cultural package is putting some slim facts as a coherent explanation.It's maybe fun to read for some but is not serious in my opinion, regardless where and how R1b associated with Bell Beakers and early Celtic in the Isles came to be.After all a seed is a seed, the fruits need a grown tree to reap it's benefits.

Isidro, I have to say I don't subscribe to this type of thinking and talking. I enjoy good-natured discussion. We have to keep an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Jean M
02-11-2016, 02:30 PM
To disconnect, ridicule or minimize the movement across the Mediterranean across Italy, all the islands, North Africa to Iberia and the Atlantic to Neolithic and metal age in the Isles and attribute it to a dispersal of R1b clans from Eastern and Central Europe cultural package is putting some slim facts as a coherent explanation.

Isidro - Whom do you believe is ridiculing or minimizing what? My Ancestral Journeys covers the whole pre-history and early history of Europe. I don't ridicule or minimize any period or population. I make it clear that there was movement into Europe from neighbouring landmasses. Indeed that is the only way that our species could arrive in Europe in the first place. I make it crystal clear that people moved around at all the periods I cover from Palaeolithic to Viking. Indeed that was the whole rationale for writing the book.

You might personally prefer me to have given more space to a particular group or migration in which you happen to be interested. You are not alone in that! :biggrin1: It is only natural that people should want more detail on the subject of interest to them. But believe me, there is a limit to what can be squeezed into a book covering the whole of Europe over such a chronological range.

bix
02-11-2016, 02:32 PM
"From place-name evidence, an early form of Indo-European was spoken in this region before the language of the Iberes. "

Did you mean the Sorothaptic language?

Jean M
02-11-2016, 02:42 PM
"From place-name evidence, an early form of Indo-European was spoken in this region before the language of the Iberes. "

Did you mean the Sorothaptic language?

I'd not heard of that coinage actually. Just looked it up on Wikipedia and it sounds like it could be Ligurian, which was spoken in that area at one time. I think we have a sort of layer-cake of IE languages in Iberia, starting with Alteuropäisch/Old European i.e. something very close to Proto-Indo-European.

bix
02-11-2016, 02:54 PM
I've heard of that some years back and haven't encountered much literature about it. I think the name derives from the fact it was found at or in tombs.

Also, isn't the jury still out on whether the Liguri were an IE group? I'm curious and hopeful that in the future we'll know more about how language change came about as groups from Eastern Europe became dominant. And I wonder if in the past pre-literate peoples were more linguistically adept... a matter of survival, perhaps.

lgmayka
02-11-2016, 03:04 PM
And I wonder if in the past pre-literate peoples were more linguistically adept... a matter of survival, perhaps.
A long discussion on language ability would be off-topic, but let me just point out that children today are perfectly capable of learning multiple languages as well as multiple dialects, if sufficiently exposed to each one and then reinforced through schooling. We now know that early learning of multiple languages has many additional cognitive benefits (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11151726/Children-should-start-learning-languages-at-age-three.html).

Jean M
02-11-2016, 04:21 PM
Also, isn't the jury still out on whether the Liguri were an IE group?

We don't have a lot of material on their language, but it is seen as IE and related to Italic and Celtic. I presume that it developed direct from the proposed ancestor of both the Italic and Celtic families.

rms2
02-12-2016, 12:51 AM
Do you really believe that?

Yes.

I have been too busy with working and commuting today to answer all of your posts, but I do believe the Bell Beaker people who were responsible for the spread of R1b-P312 and Indo-European speech into western Europe were derived from the combination of Yamnaya and Vucedol just as Gimbutas said. I believe that is what the evidence indicates.




True, but all those results were from Germany. What about the Iberian Peninsula? What about Sardinia? What about W. Sicily? What about Morocco? Of course 70% of smartphone users in Britain will be R1b positive but I bet you the picture will be different in Japan . . .

First, the smartphone analogy. It does not work. Modern society is diverse, cosmopolitan, and linked by networks of rapid communication. A lot has happened since the Copper/Bronze Age. Ancient tribal societies were based on bonds of kinship. Beaker pots and other artifacts are not even remotely analogous to smartphones.

As for Iberia, Sardinia, and Morocco, etc., here is what I think. The very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not have been R1b. I have already said why I think this in numerous other posts, so I hate to bore everybody else to explain it to you. Quickly though, here is why.

1. The earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people were short in stature, dolichocephalic (long skulled), and had gracile skeletons. In other words, they were anthropometrically Mediterranean, which was the default physical type of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers. This is a marked difference from later Bell Beaker people, especially males, who were tall for the period, robust in build, and brachycephalic (round headed).

2. Very early Iberian Bell Beaker burials occurred in collective Neolithic tombs, not in the tumulus-covered single graves of later Bell Beaker, and lacked the warrior's kit of weapons that accompanied later Bell Beaker burials, especially of males.

3. Very early Iberian Bell Beaker artifacts are found in and near fairly substantial permanent settlements. This is in stark contrast to later Bell Beaker, in which settlements are difficult to find, apparently because the people were living a highly mobile, horse-borne, pastoral existence.

For these reasons, I suspect the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not be R1b or steppe-derived. It may represent the arrival in Iberia of copper workers from the Balkans.

At some point this form of Bell Beaker spread east and encountered a steppe-derived people who were an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya. Bell Beaker pots were adopted by them and spread back west with the group's kurgan traits and Indo-European speech. The confusion about their origin is a consequence of their adoption of an Iberian pot and being named for it, but ancient dna is starting to unravel that problem.

It is pretty plain that the Bell Beaker folk who spread Indo-European speech to the West were a steppe-derived people. There is no way their fully developed culture, their R1b, and their steppe autosomal dna originated in Iberia.

Jean could be right with her Stelae People hypothesis. At least it attempts to make sense of both the supposed Iberian origin of Bell Beaker and the pretty obvious fact that there is no way Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia.

Lugus
02-12-2016, 04:03 PM
The very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not have been R1b.

Ok, so in this we agree.


At some point this form of Bell Beaker spread east and encountered a steppe-derived people who were an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya. Bell Beaker pots were adopted by them and spread back west with the group's kurgan traits and Indo-European speech.
I also agree with this.


It is pretty plain that the Bell Beaker folk who spread Indo-European speech to the West were a steppe-derived people. There is no way their fully developed culture, their R1b, and their steppe autosomal dna originated in Iberia.

Agreed.


the pretty obvious fact that there is no way Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia.

Here is where in my opinion your logic falters. First you say that “the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not have been R1b”, then you say that “at some point this form of Bell Beaker spread east”, but then you say that “there is no way Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia”.

I see here some contradiction, but maybe you can clarify what you meant. I would also like to know where in your opinion did Bell Beaker originate and what is the supporting evidence (like Carbon 14 dating).

The idea that someone came all the way from the borders of Asia on horseback carrying bell beakers to the westernmost point of the continent only to start spreading back east just doesn’t sound plausible to me, considering all the stuff I’ve read so far. Jean replaces the horse by the ship, but it still sounds far fetched.

I can add something that might be irrelevant: the original name of Lisbon was Olisipo, which is a non-indo european name and further north there was a place called Colipo, which is also a non-indo european name with parallels in other place names in what is today Andalusia, Spain. Elsewhere in present day Portugal most place names where indo-european (Celtic).

rms2
02-12-2016, 04:37 PM
. . .

Here is where in my opinion your logic falters. First you say that “the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not have been R1b”, then you say that “at some point this form of Bell Beaker spread east”, but then you say that “there is no way Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia”.

I see here some contradiction, but maybe you can clarify what you meant . . .

I understand the confusion, which has to do with the name Bell Beaker.

When I wrote that Bell Beaker did not originate in Iberia, I meant the steppe-derived, mainly R1b-P312 people who buried their dead in pits in single graves under round tumuli, with weapons and horse bones, etc. IMHO, they would have been better named something else, like "Yamnadol" or "Yamnaya 2.0". The fact that the entire culture was named for what may have been an Iberian pot is what is causing the confusion.

The Bell Beaker pot itself may have originated in Iberia, but not the full-fledged Bell Beaker culture. Jean M cites a number of traits of Bell Beaker pottery, however, that appear to have been copied from steppe pottery techniques, like shell tempering. If her Stelae People hypothesis is correct, perhaps not even Beaker pottery originated in Iberia.

The steppe-derived people who ultimately became Bell Beaker were the descendants of Yamnaya colonists and Vucedol people who met and mixed in the Carpathian basin in the early 3rd millennium BC, in my opinion. In this I agree with Marija Gimbutas.

7734 7735

Lugus
02-12-2016, 05:45 PM
I understand the confusion, which has to do with the name Bell Beaker.

When I wrote that Bell Beaker did not originate in Iberia, I meant the steppe-derived, mainly R1b-P312 people who buried their dead in pits in single graves under round tumuli, with weapons and horse bones, etc. IMHO, they would have been better named something else, like "Yamnadol" or "Yamnaya 2.0". The fact that the entire culture was named for what may have been an Iberian pot is what is causing the confusion.

The Bell Beaker pot itself may have originated in Iberia, but not the full-fledged Bell Beaker culture. Jean M cites a number of traits of Bell Beaker pottery, however, that appear to have been copied from steppe pottery techniques, like shell tempering. If her Stelae People hypothesis is correct, perhaps not even Beaker pottery originated in Iberia.

The steppe-derived people who ultimately became Bell Beaker were the descendants of Yamnaya colonists and Vucedol people who met and mixed in the Carpathian basin in the early 3rd millennium BC, in my opinion. In this I agree with Marija Gimbutas.

7734 7735

I think I got it. I have the feeling that if we kept talking we could eventually reach a total agreement. The problem is that this is not a civil dispute and I'm afraid our settlement wouldn't be binding on the facts that will emerge one day, I hope. Wherever those pots, as you say, originated, I wouldn't mind having one in my living room.

alan
02-12-2016, 07:44 PM
Ok, so in this we agree.


I also agree with this.



Agreed.



Here is where in my opinion your logic falters. First you say that “the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker may not have been R1b”, then you say that “at some point this form of Bell Beaker spread east”, but then you say that “there is no way Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia”.

I see here some contradiction, but maybe you can clarify what you meant. I would also like to know where in your opinion did Bell Beaker originate and what is the supporting evidence (like Carbon 14 dating).

The idea that someone came all the way from the borders of Asia on horseback carrying bell beakers to the westernmost point of the continent only to start spreading back east just doesn’t sound plausible to me, considering all the stuff I’ve read so far. Jean replaces the horse by the ship, but it still sounds far fetched.

I can add something that might be irrelevant: the original name of Lisbon was Olisipo, which is a non-indo european name and further north there was a place called Colipo, which is also a non-indo european name with parallels in other place names in what is today Andalusia, Spain. Elsewhere in present day Portugal most place names where indo-european (Celtic).


My current belief is, if the RC dates are reliable, then the beaker pot arose in Iberia among pre-existing local copper using farmer Iberians, has nothing to do with R1b yDNA lines (except possible the odd stray V88), was non-IE and the autosomal DNA of these early beaker using Iberians was typical middle Neolithic farmer in type.

Those Iberians obviously had been subject to some contact and movements since the initial movement of farmers into Iberia or they wouldnt have learned copper working etc. That contact IMO is almost certainly part of small movements of copper workers that spread from the Balkans area though the south Alps (c. 4000BC) and Italy (c. 3500BC) to S France/Iberia (c 3000BC). So YES the late Neolithic Iberians had to have had some contact with areas to the east c. 3000BC BUT this was with a Mediterranian/south Alpine spread of ultimate Balkans origins NOT from the steppes IMO.

These early southern European copper workers of ultimately Balkans origin probably had autosomal and yDNA very similar to the exisiting farmers in Iberia so may not be possible to distinguise from the local farmers. However, it is just possible that there were minor differences - lets say perhaps more Caucasus Hunter Gatherer or a little more J or E. Who knows. However I do not think these pre-beaker Iberians were linked with R1b or with steppe genetics.

So, I think beaker simply emerged in Iberia c. 2800BC. However, we do know that 3100-2900BC (date varies) that copper working arrived so there clearly was a link with points to the east albeit not steppe ones. So, I dont think its impossible that some females from central Europe c. 2800BC or so made it west using contact routes. While the contacts between Iberia and points east after the arrival of copper is rather obscure to me, we can see other parts of the chain of contacts in southern Europe.

My belief based on the evidence so far is that there were essentially two beaker groups ]

1. A non-R1b non IE group who lived solely in Iberia c. 2800-2550BC before a brief expansion into south France and west-central Europe c. 2550BC

2., An R1b IE beaker using group who arose c. 2550BC in central Europe, after a group there met the Iberia group from whom they took some ideas including beaker pottery (a female craft). This second group went on to expand throughout much of Europe c. 2500-2400BC. This group outcompeted the original Iberian beaker group and even eventually (IMO fairly late in the beaker period) made it into Iberia.

rms2
02-14-2016, 12:02 AM
You know, what we're finding out about Bell Beaker really makes a lot of sense, especially if Gimbutas was right, as seems to be the case. When the "experts" were attributing all of PIE to R1a, how western Europe became IE speaking was a real mystery, because there isn't much R1a in western Europe. One had to concoct some pretty tenuous theory of osmosis and cultural diffusion. Now, however, it's pretty clear that Bell Beaker carried the legacy of Yamnaya westward and western Europe came by its Indo-European speech naturally.

Lugus
02-14-2016, 01:30 PM
My belief based on the evidence so far is that there were essentially two beaker groups ]

1. A non-R1b non IE group who lived solely in Iberia c. 2800-2550BC before a brief expansion into south France and west-central Europe c. 2550BC

2., An R1b IE beaker using group who arose c. 2550BC in central Europe, after a group there met the Iberia group from whom they took some ideas including beaker pottery (a female craft). This second group went on to expand throughout much of Europe c. 2500-2400BC. This group outcompeted the original Iberian beaker group and even eventually (IMO fairly late in the beaker period) made it into Iberia.
You summarized it quite well. A more detailed and precise description together with great pictures and maps appears in chap. 6 of Barry Cunliffe’s book, Britain Begins, p. 181-233. According to him, Iberian Bell Beaker (the maritime type) didn’t reach Britain directly, but only through a “hybrid culture” that took shape in the Rhine valley after the maritime type came in contact with “communities who had already adopted the Corded Ware-Single Grave culture”. These communities we think we know who they were (steppe people).

That makes sense to me. Of course, as long as radiocarbon dating of the Iberian Bell Beaker remains unshakable, as you also point out.

I’m a fan of Cunliffe. He was instrumental in shattering the equation La Tène Celtic art=Celts of classical authors. Following that equation, the narrative I learnt in school was that there was never a Celtic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, the pre Roman tribes were not Celts, but autochthonous populations that somehow had contact with Celts and “became celticized”. The several ancient authors who saw Celts in Iberia got mixed up. Well, they didn't.

I confess I lived with that story until not long ago. The results of both my Y DNA and autosomal DNA tests support Cunliffe. But I'm afraid he went overboard with the Celtic from the West theory.

rms2
02-14-2016, 01:35 PM
I think Cunliffe is badly mistaken if he attributes the single grave aspects of Bell Beaker to Corded Ware. There are significant differences, and there is little or no evidence that Bell Beaker adopted its single grave culture from Corded Ware.

Jean M
02-14-2016, 01:39 PM
I can add something that might be irrelevant: the original name of Lisbon was Olisipo, which is a non-indo european name and further north there was a place called Colipo, which is also a non-indo european name with parallels in other place names in what is today Andalusia, Spain. Elsewhere in present day Portugal most place names were indo-european (Celtic).

A Phoenician etymology has been suggested for Olisipo, in which case it is irrelevant to the various layers of Indo-European languages in Iberia. https://goldentrail.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/a-phoenician-settlement/

In the view of place-name experts, there are layers starting with Old European, and including Lusitanian prior to the spread westwards of Celtiberian. See Blanca María Prósper, The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch
populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 97:2 (1999) 151-183. (Available online from academia.edu)

Lugus
02-14-2016, 02:41 PM
A Phoenician etymology has been suggested for Olisipo, in which case it is irrelevant to the various layers of Indo-European languages in Iberia. https://goldentrail.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/a-phoenician-settlement/

In the view of place-name experts, there are layers starting with Old European, and including Lusitanian prior to the spread westwards of Celtiberian. See Blanca María Prósper, The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch
populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 97:2 (1999) 151-183. (Available online from academia.edu]

The Phoenician etymology is in my opinion not to be taken seriously. So the Phoenicians also founded all the numerous settlements in the South of the Peninsula with the element “ipo” in their names? That includes places well inland. I confess I don’t know Phoenician, but I do know Hebrew well (and also a bit of Aramaic). I’ll look into it. But the Phoenicians definitely were there.

Still regarding the Lisboa Peninsula, Carlos Fabião calls it an “articulating platform of inter-regional contacts” (“plataforma articuladora de contactos inter-regionais”). That’s a fancy way of describing an outpost of the Mediterranean seafaring world on the Atlantic coast, facilitating contacts with the natives in the hinterland and further away. It was not just Lisbon, but also Santarém (Scallabis), as far inland as you could navigate the Tagus. And indeed both Lisbon and Santarém were important in the Roman and Islamic periods but not so much in the Suebic and Visigothic. As far as I know, also Scalabis is not an Indo-European name.

You can see the relative rarity of Celtic place names in the Lisbon Peninsula in the table that appears on page 163 in Simms-Williams book, Ancient Celtic Place-names in Europe and Asia Minor. Although in the Barrington Atlas I do see three settlements: Ierabriga, Eburobrittium and Londobris.

Lugus
02-14-2016, 02:56 PM
A Phoenician etymology has been suggested for Olisipo, in which case it is irrelevant to the various layers of Indo-European languages in Iberia. https://goldentrail.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/a-phoenician-settlement/

In the view of place-name experts, there are layers starting with Old European, and including Lusitanian prior to the spread westwards of Celtiberian. See Blanca María Prósper, The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch
populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 97:2 (1999) 151-183. (Available online from academia.edu]

I didn't read that article but I did read another (I can't find it now) where she says that the Lusitanians were not Celtic but an Italic tribe that joined the other groups that went to the Iberian Peninsula. That's an interesting idea that perhaps could explain the relatively high percentage of U152 in the south of Portugal. But the Lusitanians remain to me a conundrum. Place and personal names and almost everything else has a strong Celtic flavour. Were the inscriptions written in pidgin-Lusitanian by some Latin speakers who didn't know Lusitanian well?

Ieuan Tomos
02-14-2016, 02:59 PM
The idea of three Indo-European Palaeohispanic layers—Alteuropäisch, Lusitanian, and Celtic—cannot be confirmed in an unambiguous way by the linguistic evidence and mostly runs against the archaeological evidence. To the extent a specific archaeological framework can be found in the publications of this school of thought, they seem to involve an Italic (vel sim) Lusitanian crossing the Pyrenees early in the LBA (say c. 1200 BC) followed by Celtic coming the same way c. 1000-800 BC and somehow linked with the Catalonian urnfields. On the linguistic side, this requires some justification for not looking at the evidence of the South-western inscriptions at all and embarrassment over the most probable and self-evident etymologies of the group name Cynetes and the personal name Arganthonios, both attested in the Early Iron Age in the south-west of the Peninsula. In many cases, the etymologies of names categorized as Lusitanian have been favoured over obvious Celtic etymologies, which then, if the non-Celtic explanations are accepted as correct, exclude the possibility of them being Celtic and imply distribution maps. The aDNA evidence should soon make the situation clearer as to how variations in Palaeohispanic Indo-European names relate to prehistoric migrations and exchange networks. This is not an argument that Untermann was surely right that Lusitanian is Celtic. But disentangling the pre-Roman Indo-European languages on a name by name basis is not secure: most examples have neither retained IE *p nor lost IE *p. For non-linguists, it often seems like any proposed etymology listed together with a lot of well-established comparanda must be the correct and only explanation. You need, for a start, to look at what everybody has said and note the explanations that recur.

Lugus
02-14-2016, 03:17 PM
The aDNA evidence should soon make the situation clearer as to how variations in Palaeohispanic Indo-European names relate to prehistoric migrations and exchange networks.

Soon? I really hope so, although I fear that many people will be eating their hats.

Jean M
02-14-2016, 03:48 PM
You can see the relative rarity of Celtic place names in the Lisbon Peninsula in the table that appears on page 163 in Simms-Williams book, Ancient Celtic Place-names in Europe and Asia Minor. Although in the Barrington Atlas I do see three settlements: Ierabriga, Eburobrittium and Londobris.

I have no doubt that the region was Lusitanian-speaking prior to the spread of Celtiberian. Here is another extract from Blood of the Celts:


By the Roman period Celtic place-names were scattered far more widely across Iberia. Those ending in -briga ('hillfort', 'high place') have attracted particular attention. Many fall within the region where inscriptions have been found in the Lusitanian language. That does not mean that Lusitanian must therefore be Celtic. Lusitanian and Celtic have distinctly different ways of handling what linguists call the vocalic /r/. Celtic is unique in converting it to 'ri', as in -briga. So it seems that Celtic had crept into what had been Lusitanian territory. Both there and in Galicia, place-names ending in the Celtic -briga or -bris can have a non-Celtic first element, no doubt derived from a pre-existing place-name. These are no less Celtic than cases where the first element is also Celtic, such as Nemetobriga (Trives Viejo in modern-day Galicia). The inclusion of -briga tells us that Celts created the name that was recorded by the Romans.

Jean M
02-14-2016, 04:16 PM
I didn't read that article but I did read another (I can't find it now) where she says that the Lusitanians were not Celtic but an Italic tribe that joined the other groups that went to the Iberian Peninsula. That's an interesting idea that perhaps could explain the relatively high percentage of U152 in the south of Portugal. But the Lusitanians remain to me a conundrum. Place and personal names and almost everything else has a strong Celtic flavour. Were the inscriptions written in pidgin-Lusitanian by some Latin speakers who didn't know Lusitanian well?

Lusitanian does not appear to be Italic exactly, but a related language which is more likely to be descended from a precursor to Italic than having any specifically Celtic features. Proto-Italo-Celtic would do nicely as the originator of both Ligurian and Lusitanian.

A clue to its origins is provided by the ancient Greek references to Ligurians all along the Mediterranean (and part of the Atlantic) coast from what is now Liguria in NW Italy to the furthest reaches of Iberia, from which the Iberian peninsula was known as the Ligurian Peninsula to ancient Greeks before becoming know as the Iberian (after the Iberes). Lusitanian was most likely just a form of Ligurian.

Some have thought that its mixed character could be the result of Latin-speakers writing the inscriptions, but Prosper does not lean that way.

Ieuan Tomos
02-14-2016, 04:17 PM
In the first place, there are not that many historical linguists today. For the past several decades, very few of those focussed in NW Europe and Celtic have been tuned into archaeology. More recently, the same is true about historical linguists and genetics. So I don't expect a lot of hat eating immediately. Not many linguists understand genetics well enough to grasp the implications, and many researchers (not just in this field) are sadly incapable of changing their minds. For Ireland (and the other modern-day "Celtic countries"), the writing is already on the wall for ideas, long in favour amongst Celtic philologists, about the late arrival of Indo-European. It may now depend on new people coming into the field -- sort of like the Neolithic-Bronze Age Transition. The tenacity of old thinking is not altogether a bad thing. The determined unwillingness to let go tests new ideas rigorously and will correct weaknesses in them before they become standard doctrine in text books, &c.

Jean M
02-14-2016, 04:33 PM
The idea of three Indo-European Palaeohispanic layers—Alteuropäisch, Lusitanian, and Celtic—cannot be confirmed in an unambiguous way by the linguistic evidence and mostly runs against the archaeological evidence.

Believe me, it was with reluctance that I abandoned the delightfully straightforward idea that I proposed in the first edition of Ancestral Journeys that the language carried westwards into Iberia in the Copper Age was Proto-Italo-Celtic. But I had come up against some facts that did not fit. You mentioned one of them:


To the extent a specific archaeological framework can be found in the publications of this school of thought, they seem to involve an Italic (vel sim) Lusitanian crossing the Pyrenees early in the LBA (say c. 1200 BC)

The Lusitanians appear to have arrived in the Late Bronze Age. So the language carried in the Copper Age would be Alteuropäisch, and indeed it is not only Prosper who distinguishes between the two languages. This would help to explain another puzzle - why the Greeks were still talking about Ligurians in Iberia round about the 6th century BC. If they had arrived 3000 BC, surely they would have become split into tribes whose common origin had been forgotten.


followed by Celtic coming the same way c. 1000-800 BC and somehow linked with the Catalonian urnfields.

The problem with this has always been the non-Celtic place-names of this region. If we accept that the Urnfielders were not all Celtic-speaking, but instead had split into speakers of Italic, Celtic and the intermediate Ligurian by this time, the Catalonian Urnfield intrusion can be linked to Ligurians whom we know were there when Greeks started to explore the region.


... embarrassment over the most probable and self-evident etymologies of the group name Cynetes and the personal name Arganthonios,

These indeed are evidence of Celtic spoken in the region prior to the spread of the La Tene culture, which had little impact on Iberia anyway. So we need to look earlier for its arrival, which could have come from two directions:


Late Bell Beaker - c. 2200 BC - from Gaul into the NE/Central Iberia as the ancestor of Celtiberian (the most archaic form of Celtic for which we have written evidence).
Late Bronze Age - south down the Atlantic coast from Britain or NW Gaul into Galicia.

Jean M
02-14-2016, 04:38 PM
The tenacity of old thinking is not altogether a bad thing. The determined unwillingness to let go tests new ideas rigorously and will correct weaknesses in them before they become standard doctrine in text books, &c.

Indeed. We like plenty of discussion here. Welcome to the forum!

Lugus
02-14-2016, 04:42 PM
Lusitanian does not appear to be Italic exactly, but a related language which is more likely to be descended from a precursor to Italic than having any specifically Celtic features. Proto-Italo-Celtic would do nicely as the originator of both Ligurian and Lusitanian.

That could be, but I really don't have an opinion on that. That much I haven't studied. I read your book when it came out, but it seems that since then I managed to forget a lot. However, if Lusitanian really went back all the way to Proto-Italo-Celtic, that could fit an early migration to the Iberian Peninsula. If by 2000-1500 BC L21 had already made it all the way to Rathlin island (Cassidy, Martiniano et al. (2016)), then also DF27 might have done the same in Iberia. And in fact there was a study that found signs of gene flow from northern Europe into Spain around 2000 BC:

http://genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037

That seems to be too early for the known archaeological evidence, but on the other hand it could explain some things.

In Cassidy's paper am I hallucinating or do I see the Indo European parts of ancient Iberia clearly marked?

7766

Ieuan Tomos
02-14-2016, 05:18 PM
The Lusitanians appear to have arrived in the Late Bronze Age. So the language carried in the Copper Age would be Alteuropäisch, and indeed it is not only Prosper who distinguishes between the two languages. This would help to explain another puzzle - why the Greeks were still talking about Ligurians in Iberia round about the 6th century BC. If they had arrived 3000 BC, surely they would have become split into tribes whose common origin had been forgotten.



The problem with this has always been the non-Celtic place-names of this region. If we accept that the Urnfielders were not all Celtic-speaking, but instead had split into speakers of Italic, Celtic and the intermediate Ligurian by this time, the Catalonian Urnfield intrusion can be linked to Ligurians whom we know were there when Greeks started to explore the region.



These indeed are evidence of Celtic spoken in the region prior to the spread of the La Tene culture, which had little impact on Iberia anyway. So we need to look earlier for its arrival, which could have come from two directions:


Late Bell Beaker - c. 2200 BC - from Gaul into the NE/Central Iberia as the ancestor of Celtiberian (the most archaic form of Celtic for which we have written evidence).
Late Bronze Age - south down the Atlantic coast from Britain or NW Gaul into Galicia.


There can be a problem if "Lusitanian" and "Ligurian" are used as lables rather than referring to specific lingustic, archaeological, or genetic features. Neither language and neither linguistic corpus is well-defined or limited. In both cases, all the language evidence comes from near Celtic territory (or in it), resembles Celtic, and (in longer texts/sources) shows Celtic elements mixed in. In neither case is it clear that these names referred to what we are using them to refer to (groups, languages, &c.).
The Celtic in The Iberian Peninsula forms a linguistic continuum from Celtiberia to the Atlantic. (Gauish and Celtiberian, on the other hand, do not form a continuum.) That is not what would be expected if the language arrived by two widely separated routes, 1,000 years or more apart. However, the EBA of Galicia and northern Portugal show close links with Armorica, Ireland, and Britain. If the Atlantic LBA goes back to that network, then the chronological gap (with Late Bell Beaker) is much less or disappears and we are nearer a period when we might think of a unified Proto-Celtic or even Proto-Italo-Celtic (for those who believe in that).

Jean M
02-14-2016, 09:11 PM
There can be a problem if "Lusitanian" and "Ligurian" are used as lables rather than referring to specific lingustic, archaeological, or genetic features. Neither language and neither linguistic corpus is well-defined or limited.

Frankly, if this was easy, I wouldn't be writing on it, because the whole thing would have been resolved long ago.


The Celtic in The Iberian Peninsula forms a linguistic continuum from Celtiberia to the Atlantic. (Gauish and Celtiberian, on the other hand, do not form a continuum.)

I argue that the reason that Celtiberian retains the most archaic features of Celtic is that it arrived early in Iberia, when Celtic was just developing around the heads of the Rhine and Danube, and was then cut off from what had been a Bell Beaker network, as Iberia became relatively culturally isolated. Then the Celtiberi spread westwards. Another extract from Blood of the Celts (see the original for references):


The scatter of Celtiberian objects in western and southwest Iberia suggest that the Celtiberi had been expanding westward for several centuries before the Romans arrived. In Roman times there was a mint producing typically Celtiberian coins in Villas Viejas del Tamuja within ancient Lusitania. Pliny deduced from their religious rites, their language and the names of their towns, that the Celtici of the Roman province of Baetica in what is now southern Spain were descended from the Celtiberians and had come from Lusitania. This slightly confusing passage seems to mean that the Celtiberians in his view had expanded first into Lusitania and then from there to Baetica. Strabo claims that the Celts living around the River Guadiana, within the Roman province of Baetica, were kinsmen to those of Gallaecia (Galicia). Certainly there is at least one inscription in Galicia to Reue Ana Baraego, the god of the Guadiana and Albárregas Rivers. There are also Latin inscriptions to individuals from Celtiberia, evidently arrivals in Roman times.

I merely suspect that there could have been some Celtic input from the Atlantic in the Late Bronze Age, prior to the spread of these Celtiberian influences.

Jean M
02-18-2016, 02:37 PM
To return to Bell Beaker in the Isles, here is a BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35558638

Effort to unlock secrets of 3,700-year-old woman 'Ava'


An archaeologist hopes to gain new insights into the life of a young woman who died more than 3,700 years ago. The woman's bones, including a skull and teeth, were discovered at Achavanich in Caithness in 1987. Unusually, she was buried in a pit dug into solid rock and her skull is an abnormal shape which some suggest was done deliberately using bindings. Maya Hoole believes advances in technology could reveal more about the remains known as "Ava".

Since the discovery and archaeological dig almost 30 years ago, plans of the site that were drawn by local authority archaeologists have been lost. Ms Hoole believes Ava's story has become largely forgotten.

The archaeologist has set up a website dedicated to new research on the bones, a decorated beaker buried with the woman and the Middle Bronze Age burial site, which lies close to the A9 between Latheron and Thurso. Tests already done on the remains suggest the woman was aged 18 to 22 when she died. She was buried in an unmarked rock-cut pit rather than underneath a cairn or in a pit dug into soil, which are the most commonly discovered burial sites from the Bronze Age.

What is known about Ava is that she was part of a much wider European group known as the Beaker people.

Short and round skull shapes were common amongst this group, but Ms Hoole said the Achavanich specimen is exaggerated and of an abnormal, uneven shape. The archaeologist said: "There has been much debate amongst the archaeological community for many decades about the shape. Some argue it is a hereditary trait, whilst others think there may have been a practice of head-binding which creates the distinct shape. "Perhaps this site can contribute more to the debate if further research is undertaken."

The website: https://achavanichbeakerburial.wordpress.com/

Bell Beaker Blogger on the topic: http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/ava-of-highlands-bbc.html
He/she thinks it is head-blinding.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/hereditary-or-head-binding-archaeologist-seeks-answers-strange-achavanich-020746
Ancient Origins asks: Hereditary or Head-Binding? Archaeologist Seeks Answers on the Strange Achavanich Beaker Burial


Hoole is currently awaiting the results of the burial archaeologist’s assessment. In the meantime, she has created some illustrations to demonstrate “potential abnormalities” in Ava’s skull. The rest of the bones that were preserved from the burial can be viewed on the Achavanich Beaker Burial Project website.