Bell Beaker Folk

[Regulus]

The Beaker folk have come up a few times recently. After seeing input from Maciamo, Taranis, Sparkey, and particularly Brennus, I realized that I had probably taken too much for granted through the years and consequently thought that we should look into the topic more deeply. Plus, I couldn’t locate a source that I needed.

In most publications that were made well over twenty years ago, the trend seems to have been to hold that identity of the Beaker Folk should be tied in with the movements of the earliest proto-Celts (or proto Italo-Celts/Celto Ligurians, depending one’s preference) into Western Europe. The movements were often described as being consistent with either the early Bronze Age or at least starting within the late Chalcolithic, which refers to the use of both copper and stone. The movements were believed by these to have gone from east to West.

Some historians and archaeologists, though, held that the movements should be seen as going from West to East and therefore the Bell Beaker culture should be seen as a cultural phenomenon only. This position may be supported by some of those that believe that Celtic culture began in certain parts of Western Europe. The consequence of this was to disassociate the Beaker Folk from IE peoples and to begin treating the term "Celtic" as purely a linguistic or cultural one.
The second position seems to have gained the ascendancy in later years.

Concerning the Beaker folk, I had been inclined myself to the latter version in recent years but the recent discussions sparked a realization that in doing so I was potentially being in a contradictory position with myself. I have for a long time strongly held that proto-IE peoples speaking the centum isogloss moved into Western Europe in a number of waves. Some of these were a steady dribble, others consisted of larger groups. I decided to look at the topic again. I came across the article that can be located by cutting and pasting the link. It gives a fairly thorough treatment of both the Beaker culture and the corresponding groups of people that we know from history such as Celts, Ligurians, and Italics. Since joining the forum, I have tried to avoid clogging up threads with posts of maps and long citations, but I thought that the ones I am including today will be of help and may stimulate discussion.


http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/bellbeaker.shtml

I could not bring the maps up to a size that I wanted, but they do zoom if they are clicked on.


One or course provides a possible look at the Italo-Celt distribution. An interesting aspect of the map is that it marks where the difference between Italic and Celt is not so clear thereby indicating the Ligurian zone, along with similar cultures.


The Stelae map was one that I had never seen. If the movements indicated on the map are correct, we could see an explanation of how the belief that the Beaker folk moved east came to be. It appears to show a westward movement that later turns north from two places in Iberia. Dating derived from finds such as these could easily have led archaeologists to determine that the movement went west.


Aside from the short treatment of the Basques in the article, which would not be part of the topic (Also I was not sure enough to say that I agreed or disagreed with it), the article itself appears to be very thorough yet short enough to be digestible. A pretty strong case for the older position tying the Beaker Folk identity more tightly with the first proto Celtic/Ligurian/Italics is made, thus making them likely carriers of the IE language into Western Europe

[Maciamo]

The Stelae map was one that I had never seen. If the movements indicated on the map are correct, we could see an explanation of how the belief that the Beaker folk moved east came to be. It appears to show a westward movement that later turns north from two places in Iberia. Dating derived from finds such as these could easily have led archaeologists to determine that the movement went west.

The stelae map is indeed fascinating. It seems to confirms the pathway of the Indo-European migrations from the northern shore of the Black Sea along the Danube then to Western Europe. It's noteworthy that the Kemi-Oba culture had strong links with the Maykop culture. It's also helpful to see that the migration seems to have crossed the Alps to southern France and Iberia, then only moved to North-West Europe.

[Grizzly]

I could not bring the maps up to a size that I wanted, but they do zoom if they are clicked on.

One or course provides a possible look at the Italo-Celt distribution. An interesting aspect of the map is that it marks where the difference between Italic and Celt is not so clear thereby indicating the Ligurian zone, along with similar cultures.

The second map showing a homogenous Celtic area in Iberia is clearly wrong and not academic (your link looks to a blog). And for the link between Celts and Ligurians, it remains an original point of view.

This position may be supported by some of those that believe that Celtic culture began in certain parts of Western Europe.

It is inconsistent according to the most of the sources. Celtic culture has spread from Central Europe. The Renfrew's theory has very few historical or linguistical basis.

to begin treating the term "Celtic" as purely a linguistic or cultural one.
The second position seems to have gained the ascendancy in later years.

Yes,a cultural and linguistic one. Archaeology proves some things, but not the language.

The Stelae map was one that I had never seen. If the movements indicated on the map are correct, we could see an explanation of how the belief that the Beaker folk moved east came to be. It appears to show a westward movement that later turns north from two places in Iberia. Dating derived from finds such as these could easily have led archaeologists to determine that the movement went west.

Why connecting necessarily the Beaker archaeologic culture with the indo-europeans ? It could be one of the neolithic waves in the same way as the Megaliths culture formely. And this could explain the flow from Southern Europe to Northern Europe that you are talking about. In another logic, those cultures could be simply indigenous (suggested by these maps), we will never know :

A pretty strong case for the older position tying the Beaker Folk identity more tightly with the first proto Celtic/Ligurian/Italics is made, thus making them likely carriers of the IE language into Western Europe

I won't never understand why some searchers have so much difficulties to admit that Indo-european peoples might have brought their language from the Eastern plains. We have so much later examples.

[Taranis]

The second map showing a homogenous Celtic area in Iberia is clearly wrong and not academic (your link looks to a blog). And for the link between Celts and Ligurians, it remains an original point of view.

Yes, the situation in Iberia is much more complex than that. In Galicia, there is onomastic evidence for the Lusitanian language being spoken before the Celts arrived, and in southern Portugal and western Andalusia, the "Tartessian" language (if the language in these inscriptions was actually linked with the semi-legendary city of Tartessos) was spoken. Likewise, we do not know if the Celtiberians and the other Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula really spoke the same langauge.

It is inconsistent according to the most of the sources. Celtic culture has spread from Central Europe. The Renfrew's theory has very few historical or linguistical basis.

Well, there is this "Atlanticist school" which sees the origin in of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic facade, but as you say, it has little historical and especially linguistic base. It also goes against the general trend you can see in both archaeology and linguistics that innovations arrived from the east in the west.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Yes, the situation in Iberia is much more complex than that. In Galicia, there is onomastic evidence for the Lusitanian language being spoken before the Celts arrived, and in southern Portugal and western Andalusia, the "Tartessian" language (if the language in these inscriptions was actually linked with the semi-legendary city of Tartessos) was spoken. Likewise, we do not know if the Celtiberians and the other Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula really spoke the same langauge.
Well, there is this "Atlanticist school" which sees the origin in of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic facade, but as you say, it has little historical and especially linguistic base. It also goes against the general trend you can see in both archaeology and linguistics that innovations arrived from the east in the west.

According to the Atlanticist School, Tartessian is the earliest attested Celtic language and Lusitanian has been codified as a dialect of Galeic, the Celtic language spoken in Gallaecia (Galicia and N. Portugal).* The jury may still be out on the "Celtic from the west" theory but evidence is building steadily in its favor. No one has yet refuted Koch's (2008 and 2009) notion that Tartessian is Celtic and dates 500 plus years prior to anything out of Central Europe.

I know we have been through this before but one should not be dismissive of the Atlanticist School thesis. Time will tell.

*See Wodtko in Celtic from the West (2010).

[Taranis]

According to the Atlanticist School, Tartessian is the earliest attested Celtic language and Lusitanian has been codified as a dialect of Galeic, the Celtic language spoken in Gallaecia (Galicia and N. Portugal).* The jury may still be out on the "Celtic from the west" theory but evidence is building steadily in its favor. No one has yet refuted Koch's (2008 and 2009) notion that Tartessian is Celtic and dates 500 plus years prior to anything out of Central Europe.

*See Wodtko in Celtic from the West (2010).

The 2009 paper has been refuted and can be easily refuted on a number of reasons.

- We cannot read the Tartessian script fully/reliably (you might want to check out Rodriguez's works on the script), and even with the parts we can read, Koch's paper is full of mistakes.
- From what we know, the phonemic inventory of the Tartessian is utterly non-consistent with that of a Celtic language, and coming from the Phoenician script, the modifications made in the Tartessian language make no sense if we are talking about a Celtic language: Tartessian doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants, whereas the Celtic languages universally do (so does Phoenician, by the way, meaning these modification would have been totally senseless if Tartessian had been a Celtic language). Tartessian also distinguishes between two different types of rhotics whereas the Celtic languages have only one rhotic letter. This gets very clear if you compare the Tartessian writing system with the Celtiberian writing system.
- Koch blatantly ignores mainstream linguist methodology (most notably, he utterly fails to make sound correspondences), and some of his purported cognates with Celtic words are extremely spurious.
- There is some evidence of Tartessian typonomy, which is also inconsistent with a Celtic origin.

- How one could come up with the that Lusitanian was a *dialect* of Gaelic eludes me because Lusitanian in many aspects is closer to the Italic languages than to Gaelic. It's also doubtful that the language spoken in Gallaecia was "Gaelic" at all. I was Q-Celtic sure, but beyond that, we don't know much about it. Furthermore, we only have onomastic evidence of the Gallaecian language, and it clearly shows that the region had a mixed Celtic/Lusitanian makeup.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The 2009 paper has been refuted and can be easily refuted on a number of reasons.

- We cannot read the Tartessian script fully/reliably (you might want to check out Rodriguez's works on the script), and even with the parts we can read, Koch's paper is full of mistakes.
- From what we know, the phonemic inventory of the Tartessian is utterly non-consistent with that of a Celtic language, and coming from the Phoenician script, the modifications made in the Tartessian language make no sense if we are talking about a Celtic language: Tartessian doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants, whereas the Celtic languages universally do (so does Phoenician, by the way, meaning these modification would have been totally senseless if Tartessian had been a Celtic language). Tartessian also distinguishes between two different types of rhotics whereas the Celtic languages have only one rhotic letter. This gets very clear if you compare the Tartessian writing system with the Celtiberian writing system.
- Koch blatantly ignores mainstream linguist methodology (most notably, he utterly fails to make sound correspondences), and some of his purported cognates with Celtic words are extremely spurious.
- There is some evidence of Tartessian typonomy, which is also inconsistent with a Celtic origin.

- How one could come up with the that Lusitanian was a *dialect* of Gaelic eludes me because Lusitanian in many aspects is closer to the Italic languages than to Gaelic. It's also doubtful that the language spoken in Gallaecia was "Gaelic" at all. I was Q-Celtic sure, but beyond that, we don't know much about it. Furthermore, we only have onomastic evidence of the Gallaecian language, and it clearly shows that the region had a mixed Celtic/Lusitanian makeup.

Can you provide me with the Rodriguez source material?

The Gallaecian language was GALLAIC (Q-Celtic), not Gaelic. I spelled it incorrectly as "Galeic". I understand it is currently being resurrected by Vincent Pintado. Wodtko is one of the world's foremost experts on Lusitanian and he has concluded that Lusitanian is a dialect of Gallaic.

BTW, do you still claim to have no formal background in historical linguistics?

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The 2009 paper has been refuted and can be easily refuted on a number of reasons.

- We cannot read the Tartessian script fully/reliably (you might want to check out Rodriguez's works on the script), and even with the parts we can read, Koch's paper is full of mistakes.
- From what we know, the phonemic inventory of the Tartessian is utterly non-consistent with that of a Celtic language, and coming from the Phoenician script, the modifications made in the Tartessian language make no sense if we are talking about a Celtic language: Tartessian doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants, whereas the Celtic languages universally do (so does Phoenician, by the way, meaning these modification would have been totally senseless if Tartessian had been a Celtic language). Tartessian also distinguishes between two different types of rhotics whereas the Celtic languages have only one rhotic letter. This gets very clear if you compare the Tartessian writing system with the Celtiberian writing system.
- Koch blatantly ignores mainstream linguist methodology (most notably, he utterly fails to make sound correspondences), and some of his purported cognates with Celtic words are extremely spurious.
- There is some evidence of Tartessian typonomy, which is also inconsistent with a Celtic origin.

- How one could come up with the that Lusitanian was a *dialect* of Gaelic eludes me because Lusitanian in many aspects is closer to the Italic languages than to Gaelic. It's also doubtful that the language spoken in Gallaecia was "Gaelic" at all. I was Q-Celtic sure, but beyond that, we don't know much about it. Furthermore, we only have onomastic evidence of the Gallaecian language, and it clearly shows that the region had a mixed Celtic/Lusitanian makeup.

Are you referring to Rodriguez (2002) or sometime much more recent?

[Regulus]

The second map showing a homogenous Celtic area in Iberia is clearly wrong and not academic (your link looks to a blog). And for the link between Celts and Ligurians, it remains an original point of view.

It is inconsistent according to the most of the sources. Celtic culture has spread from Central Europe. The Renfrew's theory has very few historical or linguistical basis.

Yes,a cultural and linguistic one. Archaeology proves some things, but not the language.

Why connecting necessarily the Beaker archaeologic culture with the indo-europeans ? It could be one of the neolithic waves in the same way as the Megaliths culture formely. And this could explain the flow from Southern Europe to Northern Europe that you are talking about. In another logic, those cultures could be simply indigenous (suggested by these maps), we will never know :


I won't never understand why some searchers have so much difficulties to admit that Indo-european peoples might have brought their language from the Eastern plains. We have so much later examples.

I may not have stressed my personal position much as my intent had been to bring the Beaker Folk into a specific discussion. I hope that we are not done with this topic.

I hold strongly that the IE languages came from the East with those who brought it with them. I am inclined to specifically go with the position that there was B1b1b2 and R1a interaction north of the black sea prior to the East to west movement.

I think that it would be a good idea to look afresh at the possibility that the Bell Beakers mark may indeed be the first of those who began this IE movement. It had been the norm until 20 or maybe 30 years ago to take this position.

Please, keep the input coming- it is easier for me to add some input right now and get more from members than it is to research the entire subject exhaustively at this time.

[Taranis]

I may not have stressed my personal position much as my intent had been to bring the Beaker Folk into a specific discussion. I hope that we are not done with this topic.

I hold strongly that the IE languages came from the East with those who brought it with them. I am inclined to specifically go with the position that there was B1b1b2 and R1a interaction north of the black sea prior to the East to west movement.

I think that it would be a good idea to look afresh at the possibility that the Bell Beakers mark may indeed be the first of those who began this IE movement. It had been the norm until 20 or maybe 30 years ago to take this position.

Please, keep the input coming- it is easier for me to add some input right now and get more from members than it is to research the entire subject exhaustively at this time.

I must say that I find the idea that the Beaker-Bell Culture correlates with the introduction of R1b-M269 reasonably plausible, but I'm personally torn in regard for the question wether the Beaker-Bell Culture was responsible for the spread of the Italo-Celtic languages. What certainly speaks in favour of the languages hypothesis is the apparently most archaic languages (Ligurian and Lusitanian) are found in areas that seem to coincide with the oldest Beaker-Bell sites. On the other hand - and therein lies the problem with this - we also have a presence of non-IE languages (Basque/Aquitanian, Iberian) in the area, and R1b has one of the highest concentrations amongst the Basque people. It's tempting to ask if the Beaker-Bell people could have spoken a language related with Basque?

What speaks against the hypothesis that the Beaker people spoke a language related with Basque or Iberian is that Basque typonomy can roughly found in the area where Basuqe is spoken today, as well as in adjacent areas (extending towards the north and east approximately as far as the Garonne). Likewise, Iberian typonomy in Antiquity only extends in the north to the Rouissillion and the central Pyrenees, and in the south to eastern Andalusia.

Another interesting aspect is that Beaker-Bell extends into Scandinavia, and this obviously raises the question of how the Germanic languages (in addition to Italo-Celtic) are exactly affiliated with this. In any case, I agree that they must have somehow arrived from the east. As I mentioned before in other threads, the southwestern branches of Indo-European languages (Anatolian, Greek, Italo-Celtic) seem to have been carried by predominantly R1b-carrying peoples.

[Regulus]

I must say that I find the idea that the Beaker-Bell Culture correlates with the introduction of R1b-M269 reasonably plausible, but I'm personally torn in regard for the question wether the Beaker-Bell Culture was responsible for the spread of the Italo-Celtic languages. What certainly speaks in favour of the languages hypothesis is the apparently most archaic languages (Ligurian and Lusitanian) are found in areas that seem to coincide with the oldest Beaker-Bell sites. On the other hand - and therein lies the problem with this - we also have a presence of non-IE languages (Basque/Aquitanian, Iberian) in the area, and R1b has one of the highest concentrations amongst the Basque people. It's tempting to ask if the Beaker-Bell people could have spoken a language related with Basque?
peoples.

There are a couple of interesting articles on this forum that offer possible explanations for the existence of B1b1b2 among the Basques in such high numbers.
I can't recall the names of the articles, but I am fairly sure that they were written by Maciamo. To sum it up as shortly as possible, the articles take the position that the male line was largely replaced by the newcomers but that the language of the new people did not take hold there as it did in most places.

[Taranis]

There are a couple of interesting articles on this forum that offer possible explanations for the existence of B1b1b2 among the Basques in such high numbers.
I can't recall the names of the articles, but I am fairly sure that they were written by Maciamo. To sum it up as shortly as possible, the articles take the position that the male line was largely replaced by the newcomers but that the language of the new people did not take hold there as it did in most places.

Yeah, I read about this, and I agree this is certainly a viable explanation.

[Grizzly]

Another interesting aspect is that Beaker-Bell extends into Scandinavia, and this obviously raises the question of how the Germanic languages (in addition to Italo-Celtic) are exactly affiliated with this.

This point summarizes a lot of things. I am not aware about archaeological details about Bell Beaker culture, and I have not definitive opinion about it. I just know that there would be an incredible inconstitency to put the original place of indo-european languages in SW Europe or in the Atlantic regions, while in Antic times, the more you go to the north and the east in Europe, the more you found IE languages without any controversy. Inversely, almost all the unknown languages which are non-connected with IE ones are in Southern Europe, and their area is particullary large in SW Europe (see Aquitanians-Iberians, Etruscans, antic Heneti, Ligurians...). So, the only conclusion should be that the wave has followed a East-West direction.
For the "atlanticist school" it could eventually be a challenger theory for the Celtic expansion, but not at all for the IE one.

What speaks against the hypothesis that the Beaker people spoke a language related with Basque or Iberian is that Basque typonomy can roughly found in the area where Basuqe is spoken today

In fact, you can find a dense basque toponymy or related in Northern Portugal, Galicia or Asturias. And don't forget the time scale : when we talk about Neolithic times, it is about several thousands of years. In such a period, languages can shift strongly (just compare actual Hindi and Dutch, same group, divergence on maximum 2500 years), above all with the few communications which existed. So, if this culture should be related with neolithic waves, the links will be difficult to prove. Pre-indo-european languages are not limited to the Basque concept.

The involvement of Etruscans in the "Italo-celtic" split is interesting. Maybe a substructural influence.

[Taranis]

This point summarizes a lot of things. I am not aware about archaeological details about Bell Beaker culture, and I have not definitive opinion about it. I just know that there would be an incredible inconstitency to put the original place of indo-european languages in SW Europe or in the Atlantic regions, while in Antic times, the more you go to the north and the east in Europe, the more you found IE languages without any controversy. Inversely, almost all the unknown languages which are non-connected with IE ones are in Southern Europe, and their area is particullary large in SW Europe (see Aquitanians-Iberians, Etruscans, antic Heneti, Ligurians...). So, the only conclusion should be that the wave has followed a East-West direction.
For the "atlanticist school" it could eventually be a challenger theory for the Celtic expansion, but not at all for the IE one.

Well, I'm personally not entirely convinced that Beaker-Bell was indeed responsible for the spread of the westernmost branches of Indo-European, but I find that the idea has some merits to it. In particular to the question where we find non-IE languages, and where not.

Concerning the Germanic languages, what should be noted, interestingly, is the "hybrid" nature of this language family: on the one hand, Germanic has a number of commonalities with the Baltic and Slavic languages, on the other hand, Germanic has a number of commonalties with Celtic and Italic, and lastly, there's apparently a vocabulary of non-IE derived words which are not found anywhere else. What is interesting to note is that if you take a look at the Y-DNA, in the heavily Germanic areas you have an approximately 1/3 1/3 1/3 ratio of R1a, R1b and I1, and I don't think that this is really a coincidence.

Regarding the Atlanticist school, the main problems that I have is that it makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of how the Celtic languages are related with other IE languages (in particular the Italic and Germanic languages), and in addition there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any west-to-east movements out of the Atlantic Façade. Conversely, archaeological movements apparently virtually always go in the opposite direction (ie, east to west).

Another aspect is, the Atlantic School asserts that the origins of the Gauls lay adjacent to the Pyrenees, rather than in the source area of the Danube. However, in the Pyrenees region, we find exclusively Aquitanian and Iberian typonomy. Even areas that were clearly inhabited by Gauls in Antiquity show residue of Aquitanian. In contrast to that, there's plenty of Celtic name evidence in the Danube area. In so far, I find the case that the origins of the Gauls lay in Hallstatt/La-Tene pretty convincing.

In fact, you can find a dense basque toponymy or related in Northern Portugal, Galicia or Asturias. And don't forget the time scale : when we talk about Neolithic times, it is about several thousands of years. In such a period, languages can shift strongly (just compare actual Hindi and Dutch, same group, divergence on maximum 2500 years), above all with the few communications which existed. So, if this culture should be related with neolithic waves, the links will be difficult to prove. Pre-indo-european languages are not limited to the Basque concept.

I'd love to see your sources on Basque typonomy in Portugal, Galicia and the Asturias! Otherwise, I definitely agree there.

The involvement of Etruscans in the "Italo-celtic" split is interesting. Maybe a substructural influence.

One peculiar aspect is that the eponymous shift from Q -> P that occured in the P-Celtic languages also occured in an Italic language, namely Umbrian. The Etruscan language included the phoneme "P", so this raises the question if Etruscan linguistic influence triggered this Q -> P shift. On the balance, this may be a pure coincidence: the Umbrians were not actually adjacent to the Etruscans. Furthermore, a similar shift also occured in the Greek language (the Greek word for horse is "Hippos", compare with Latin "Equus", Gaulish "Epos", Welsh "Ebol", Irish "Each" and Celtiberian "Ekuos"). However, this is certainly something worth contemplating nonetheless.

[Carlitos]

He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

Take care of these gases.

[Grizzly]

He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

Take care of these gases.

Gibberish

_____________________________

[Wilhelm]

Already answered. 10-15 % of the French vocabulary is Germanic, while it's a Romance language.

So ? Nobody suggested spanish is a celtic language. Btw germanic languages were spoken in France. (in what is now France).

Already answered. See the hundreds or thousands of Germanic toponyms in France. Obviously you are not a historian, just a manipulator.

I know there are thousands of germanic toponyms in France, because there have been germanic settlements and germanic languages have been spoken in parts of France.

[julia90]

i have a question for the forumers; visiting the various sites i've found many people linking the italiac tribes with the celts, based on languages similarities. Do you think italic tribes had the same origins as the celt, or do you think language similarities are due to the fact that italic people lived near the celts (pannonia)?
a theory in favour of the first option is the fact that italic people were probably an elite among the inhabitants of italy who were mainly composed by neolitic tribes. the elite imposed its indoeuropean language among neolitics who spoke non indo-european languages. today italian population based on this theory discends mainly from ancient neolithic, the italic were an elite; this explains also genetic clustering of italians, who are far from historic people of heavily celtic stok (germans, french, british etc..)

[sparkey]

i have a question for the forumers; visiting the various sites i've found many people linking the italiac tribes with the celts, based on languages similarities. Do you think italic tribes had the same origins as the celt, or do you think language similarities are due to the fact that italic people lived near the celts (pannonia)?
a theory in favour of the first option is the fact that italic people were probably an elite among the inhabitants of italy who were mainly composed by neolitic tribes. the elite imposed its indoeuropean language among neolitics who spoke non indo-european languages. today italian population based on this theory discends mainly from ancient neolithic, the italic were an elite; this explains also genetic clustering of italians, who are far from historic people of heavily celtic stok (germans, french, british etc..)

You're going to get a lot of responses to this one considering the interests of most participants here.

I'm not as well-versed in Italian genetics as I could be, but I understand that most R1b present in Italy is S116+, same as the Celts. That makes them fairly close cousins to the Celts, as S116 is about 5000 years old, and the Italic/Celtic split probably happened sometime later than that. Most here are fond of the idea that patrilineally R1b peoples spread Italo-Celtic culture, so that's something to pay close attention to.

Now, the Neolithic ended in Europe nearly 5000 years ago, so the Italic/Celtic split was more likely in the early Bronze Age than the Neolithic IMHO.

As for whether or not it was an "elite" who spread it, R1b is at levels of about 48% in central Italy, so, it probably was an "elite" to some degree, but would more likely have been the product of a migration that brought more well-to-do (and quite possibly more battle-ready) peoples to the area, who then had the native populations merge into their culture.

[julia90]

from wikipedia

ORIGINS OF ITALIC TRIBES AND LATINS

The Latins belonged to a group of Indo-European tribes, conventionally known as the Italic tribes, that populated central and southern Italy during the Italian Iron Age (from ca. 900 BC onwards). The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula some time during the Italian Bronze Age (ca. 1800-900 BC).[5] The most likely route for the Italic migration was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[6][7] However, a more precise dating of these migrations, or even whether they occurred during the Bronze Age at all, is not possible from the available archaeological and linguistic evidence.
The archaeological evidence shows a remarkable uniformity of culture in the peninsula during the period 1800-1200 BC - the so-called "Apennine culture". Pottery with much the same incised geometric designs is found throughout Italy, and the design of weapons and tools was also homogenous. During this period, it appears that Italy was a heavily wooded land with a sparse population, concentrated in the mountainous centre of the peninsula. Most people were pastoralists practicing transhumance and inhabiting, at most, small villages. Inhumation was the universal method of burial. In the latter period of the Bronze Age (1200-900 BC), this pattern was disrupted by the appearance of cremation burials and the appearance of distinct regional variations in culture.[8] Some historians have ascribed these changes to the arrival of the Italic peoples. But the distribution of the novel cremation culture (the "Villanovan culture") avoids the central region dominated by the Italic tribes.[9] As Cornell points out: "Nothing in the archaeological record of the Italian Bronze and Iron ages proves, or even suggests, that any major invasions took place between ca. 1800 and ca. 800 BC".[10] At the same time, however, archaeology does not prove that invasions did not take place. It is now firmly established that burial customs are not ethnically-based.[11]
The geographical distribution of the ancient languages of the peninsula can plausibly be explained by the immigration of successive waves of peoples with different languages. On this model, it appears likely that the "West Italic" group (including the Latins), migrated into the peninsula in a first wave, followed later, and largely displaced, by the eastern (Osco-Umbrian) group. This is deduced from the marginal locations of the surviving West Italic niches. However, the timing remains elusive, as does the sequence of the Italic IE languages with the non-IE languages of the peninsula, notably Etruscan. The majority view of scholars is that Etruscan represents a pre-IE survival. However, it could equally be an intrusion introduced by later migrants. In any case, language change can be explained by scenarios other than mass migration.[12]
There is no archaeological evidence at present that Old Latium hosted permanent settlements during the Bronze Age. Very small amounts of Apennine-culture pottery sherds have been found in Latium, most likely belonging to transient pastoralists engaged in transhumance.[13] It thus appears that the Latins occupied Latium Vetus from ca. 1000 BC. Initially, the Latin immigrants into Latium were probably concentrated in the low hills that extend from the central Apennine range into the coastal plain (much of which would have been marshy and malarial). For example, the Alban Hills, a plateau containing a number of extinct volcanoes and two substantial lakes - lacus Nemorensis (Lake Nemi) and lacus Tusculensis (Lake Albano). These hills provided a defensible, well-watered base.[14] Also the hills of the site of Rome, certainly the Palatine and possibly the Capitoline and the Quirinal, hosted permanent settlements at a very early stage.[15]
The Latins appear to have become culturally differentiated from the other Italic tribes in the period ca. 1000-700 BC.[16] This may be deduced by the emergence in this period of so-called Latial culture, or Latium variant of the Villanovan culture of central Italy and the Po valley. The most distinctive feature of this Latium culture were funerary urns in the shape of miniature tuguria ("huts"). These hut-urns appear in only some burials during Phase I of the Latium culture (ca. 1000-900 BC), but become standard in Phase II cremation burials (ca. 900-770 BC).[17] They represent the typical single-roomed hovels of contemporary peasants. These were made from simple, readily available materials: wattle-and-daub walls and straw roofs supported by wooden posts. The huts remained the main form of Latin housing until ca. 650 BC.[18] The most famous exemplar was the casa Romuli ("Hut of Romulus") on the southern slope of the Palatine Hill, supposedly built by the legendary Founder of Rome with his own hands and which reportedly survived until the time of emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC - AD 14).

[julia90]

well, i think they were an elite, otherwise how can you explain the fact that todays italians are different from french germans or british?
if they were a mass migration today italians should be the same population as the french

[sparkey]

well, i think they were an elite, otherwise how can you explain the fact that todays italians are different from french germans or british?
if they were a mass migration today italians should be the same population as the french

There appear to be a couple reasons Italians (at least southern ones) diverge from French, Germans, etc: For one, their patrilines kept more Neolithic-origin haplogroups, like J2 (non-Sardinians anyway... Sardinians are more Paleolithic). For two, IE markers are, in general, less common on matrilines, and I don't think that Italy is an exception. That would also mean more time to diverge from other populations autosomally.

But even with that said, going from 0% R1b to 49% R1b (current value for all of Italy) must have involved some migration in the process, no?

[julia90]

other info online:

2100 BC Celtic tribes in Europe

Among the first Indo-Europeans which penetrated in Central Europe, Celtic and Italic migrants are quite certain to be. It is known that the task to connect exact archaeological cultures with exact tribes at that time is not yet completed, but still according to the most widespread version, Celts were represented by the "cord pottery" culture. In the late 3rd millennium they began to migrate west from the Low Danube (where they lived together with Italics and Illyrians). Soon Celts appeared in France and in South Germany.

The date mentioned above can be regarded as a possible time of separation of Celtic language from Celto-Italo-Veneto-Illyrian language community.


2000 BC Italic tribes come to Italy

At that time Northern Europe was not yet known by Indo-Europeans. They were just beginning to appear ion the Balkan peninsula and in East Europe. But still, scientists argue where these first Italics came from - the Alps or the Balkans. The immigrants represented the Latino-Faliscan subgroup of Italic languages; they settled mainly in Central and maybe Northern Italy (from where they were pulled later by Etruscans). The culture which was discovered here by archaeologists is called Terramar. In this period Italy looked like a mixture of different peoples and cultures dissimilar to each other. All they were non-Indo-Europeans, but linguistic materials are too scarce to state something more exact. It is known that those peoples could be relative to later Picenes who lived in Italy in historical times, to Ligurians who inhabited the north of the peninsula, to Sicelians who then were found in Sicily.

The second branch of Italic tribes was not in a hurry and will come to its future homeland a thousand years later.



1200 BC Illyrians arrive at South Italy

Inscriptions discovered in south-eastern Italy, written in one of Italic alphabets, were identified as using the language similar to Illyrian. After Illyrians occupied the regions of Dalmatia and reached the Adriatic shores, they crossed the narrow sea space and found themselves in Italy.

This migration is believed to take place together with similar moves of Italic tribes from the Balkans to Italy - we mean the second Italic wave, including Osco-Umbrian peoples. Illyrians also settled on the Apennine peninsula, and lived there until they were completely assimilated by Roman settlers.

This Illyrian branch was called Messapic by ancient authors. Nowadays we can state that the Messapic language was rather different from Illyrian: first of all in lexical composition, where it shows many "italisisms". Messapic inscriptions are all of the same type - burial sacred messages, that is why the grammar basis and the known vocabulary of the language remain poor. It the 1st and the 2nd centuries AD Messapic tribes in Italy mixed with Italics, and the language disappeared.


1100 BC New wave of Italics comes to Italy

This meant the last effect of the Movement of Peoples which began two centuries before on the northern Balkans. After Illyrian tribes (Messapic) found the short sea way from Dalmatia to Italy, Italics which still lived next to Illyrians also began penetrating to Italy, where their closer relatives already lived - first Italics, Latins and Faliscans, came to Italy from the north-east even about 2000 BC.

Now was the turn of this new wave, which presented Oscan and Umbrian peoples in Italy. They occupied mainly the eastern and southern regions of the peninsula, the fact which proves they did not go from the north. Osco-Umbrians migrants assimilated or mixed with aboriginal Italic tribes, partly acquiring their language features, their religion and often even their names. Picens, for example, worshipped the wood-pecker (picus in Latin), an autochthonic deity, and acquired their name from it, maybe because the real name of the tribe was too hard fro Indo-Europeans to pronounce (the same happened with Picts in Scotland). Umbrians is also a pre-Italic name. Many linguistic features in Umbrian, Picene, Volscian are strange enough to be identified as the substratum.

Some linguists think Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian subgroups are separate and do not belong to one Italic group. In this case the contacts between them must have been very intimate, to elaborate the vocabulary and the grammar so much alike.

[julia90]

but still it doesn't explain why also noth italians aren't the same as french (and northern italy was inhabitateds by celts too insubres, boi, carni, cenomani etc..)...

[sparkey]

but still it doesn't explain why also noth italians aren't the same as french (and northern italy was inhabitateds by celts too insubres, boi, carni, cenomani etc..)...

No, North Italians are quite close to the French genetically, see the first chart spongetaro posted here. Also see Maciamo's tables, where we see that North Italians are 55% R1b vs. 11.5% J2, close to French from Auvernge (52.5% vs. 8%) but not that close to South Italians (29% vs. 23.5%).