Ancient place names in Iberia

[callaeca]

I'm inclined to support your notion that RL-21 is a "final" mutation of S-116. Celtic genetics need to be examined as a continuum. Someone who is RL-21 is not necessarily more Celtic than a person who tests S-116.

That is a wise opinion, yes.

 

[Taranis]

Callaeca, let me get that right, you basically say that:

- Proto-Celtic sound laws are invalid and *p was inherited from PIE
- Italo-Celtic sound laws are invalid.
- the similarities between Celtic and Italic languages are completely coincidential, and indeed, irrelevant.
- sound correspondence is an "outdated tool" from the 19th century
- there is no way to distinguist the Celtic languages from other branches of Indo-European, and indeed, in your scenario, from what I get, every IE language is essentially Celtic because you say that Celtic languages are not defined in any way.
- 'stelae people' from southern Ukraine, migrated straight to southern Portugal and established themselves there, and these were the original Celts.
- the loss of PIE *p is an "anomaly" that was caused by the adoption of IE by non-IE peoples, and indeed that PIE *p could exist in free variation in Celtic languages in Hispania.
- the Basque language is not native to Iberia and arrived after the 'Celts', and the question where the Basque language acquired it's non-Indo-European terms for metals and metal-working can be completely ignored.
- the Iberian language is not native to Iberia and arrived after the 'Celts'.
- Central Europe, as opposed to Western Europe, was non-Indo-European until the Bronze Age (or Iron age?)

Do I get that right, yes?

 

[callaeca]

No, i say that Búa, Moralejo, de Bernardo Stempel, Untermann, Wodtko, Ballester, Koch, Kremer, Hoz and even Prósper, when she needs parallels from the western to explain the celtiberian, say in lingüístic.

I say that Cunliffe, Henderson, Lemercier, Renfrew, J. Desideri, Myers et al., Harrison, Richard; Walter de Gruyter; Dr Catriona Gibson, Raimund Karl or Almagro, as well as others, say in their respective researches.

All of them are considered prestigious specialists on their subjects.

 

[Taranis]

No, i say that Búa, Moralejo, de Bernardo Stempel, Untermann, Wodtko, Ballester, Koch, Kremer, Hoz and even Prósper, when she needs parallels from the western to explain the celtiberian, say in lingüístic.

I say that Cunliffe, Henderson, Lemercier, Renfrew, J. Desideri, Myers et al., Harrison, Richard; Walter de Gruyter; Dr Catriona Gibson, Raimund Karl or Almagro, as well as others, say in their respective researches.

All of them are considered prestigious specialists on their subjects.

Let me tell you this: the 'call to authority' by 'prestigious' specialists does not make you instantly win a discussion. I still think that my criticism regarding the identity of the Beaker-Bell Culture and the origin of the Celtic languages remains valid, and that the arguments that I brought up cannot be so readily dismissed, and that the specialists you cited should be confronted with more scepticism. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but you should at least acknowledge that there's many unanswered questions in the hypothesis, and this suggests that the people you cited may be completely wrong about this. Bear in mind, just because one is a specialist on a topic doesn't make one immune to error. Trust me, the world would be a better place if that was the case...

 

[callaeca]

what scepticism, Taranis? Whose? The traditional School of indo-european linguistic or the technological advances that refute their old precepts?

I have not the absolute truth, but I believe, that you error, Taranis, is to consider the gaulish populations as the center and example, a paradigm of celtisation, when, in fact they was newest protogonist chronologically simultaneous to the roman world.

 

[Taranis]

Did you ask for you if you are wrong?

Yes, that is always the first step, and I don't see how my criticism could be so easily dismissed. How about yourself?

If I'm wrong, however, it would be a good idea to completely slash linguistics as we know it.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

So, I've been reading (Rodríguez Ramos 2003 about the theory of Iberian postdating Indo-European and apparently what has been proposed is that Iberian--and Basque--come from the Urnfield Culture. Well, this makes little sense to me. First of all, it fails to take into account all the other areas in which the Urnfield culture it developed, as well as from where it developed. Also, since from the Urnfield culture developed the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures (at least this is the most accepted premise), and these are almost always considered Celtic.

 

[Taranis]

So, I've been reading (Rodríguez Ramos 2003 about the theory of Iberian postdating Indo-European and apparently what has been proposed is that Iberian--and Basque--come from the Urnfield Culture. Well, this makes little sense to me. First of all, it fails to take into account all the other areas in which the Urnfield culture it developed, as well as from where it developed. Also, since from the Urnfield culture developed the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures (at least this is the most accepted premise), and these are almost always considered Celtic.

Well, I've read about this hypothesis too, but it doesn't make much sense to me, either. Specifically it fails to explain how Iberian name evidence extends far beyond Catalonia to the south (specifically all the way to central-western Andalusia), whereas to the north, Iberian name evidence only extends into the Roussillon. You even have better case for Iberians in Central Iberia (territory of the Carpetani and Oretani) than in Gaul. It should be added that Rodríguez Ramos is also vehemently opposed to a relationship between Basque and Iberian, which I think cannot be readily dismissed. While it is true that Basque has been in no way helpful in the decipherment of Iberian, the existence of a common vocabulary (either Basque loanwords into Iberian, or vice versa) is the least that must be assumed.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Well, I've read about this hypothesis too, but it doesn't make much sense to me, either. Specifically it fails to explain how Iberian name evidence extends far beyond Catalonia to the south (specifically all the way to central-western Andalusia), whereas to the north, Iberian name evidence only extends into the Roussillon. You even have better case for Iberians in Central Iberia (territory of the Carpetani and Oretani) than in Gaul. It should be added that Rodríguez Ramos is also vehemently opposed to a relationship between Basque and Iberian, which I think cannot be readily dismissed. While it is true that Basque has been in no way helpful in the decipherment of Iberian, the existence of a common vocabulary (either Basque loanwords into Iberian, or vice versa) is the least that must be assumed.

Exactly. Actually, considering Iberian and Basque genetically unrelated would in my opinion add to the probability that they were in close contact for a very long time... Loanwords in numerals are not easy to find, and makes me think of examples from the Amazon, where the Pirahã language borrowed all its pronouns from the Nhengatu language, and obviously that could only have been through sustained language contact for a considerable time... A sprachbund usually does not form in a few hundreds of years...

 

[callaeca]

Have you read a Almagro, Taranis? Is he wrong too?
Uuuf it is incredible....all are wrong.

It is basic read the texts of Almagro. He is the best expert of iberian urnfied, Las Cogotas and of the formation of the celtiberian populations..Do you know what is the Atxaurri Culture? DEou yo know what is happen in Aquitania in urnfield times and its paralelism with the iberian culture? Why the indo-european language (rivers and some tribes) were replaced for the iberian language in Catalonia?

 

[Taranis]

Exactly. Actually, considering Iberian and Basque genetically unrelated would in my opinion add to the probability that they were in close contact for a very long time... Loanwords in numerals are not easy to find, and makes me think of examples from the Amazon, where the Pirahã language borrowed all its pronouns from the Nhengatu language, and obviously that could only have been through sustained language contact for a considerable time... A sprachbund usually does not form in a few hundreds of years...

This is my opinion as well. Although not all language families are so extremely conservative with numerals as Indo-European, the complete replacement of an entire numeral system seems very unlikely. I absolutely agree that if we are talking about a sprachbund here, it would be a rather ancient one.

Have you read a Almagro, Taranis? Is he wrong too?
Uuuf it is incredible....all are wrong

What by Almagro, specifically? I'm not ad-hoc saying that they are completely wrong about everything (that's not what I said, anyways), but as I said, I think it is impossible to simply dismiss this large catalogue of criticism points to the Beaker-Bell hypothesis.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

Indeed, one can't look at things in such a "black-and-white" manner. They have made some interesting points, but that doesn't mean I agree on everything with them. Besides, one can't judge the weight of a theory by judging the weight of its makers... Colin Renfrew is a brilliant archaeologist, but I don't share by any means his Anatolian hypothesis.

 

[Taranis]

Indeed, one can't look at things in such a "black-and-white" manner. They have made some interesting points, but that doesn't mean I agree on everything with them. Besides, one can't judge the weight of a theory by judging the weight of its makers... Colin Renfrew is a brilliant archaeologist, but I don't share by any means his Anatolian hypothesis.

Exactly. Regarding the Anatolian hypothesis, the problem I have is twofold: the first (essentially mirroring the suggestion that the Celtic languages originated in Iberia) is the relative abundance of non-IE languages in Anatolia and the vicinity in ancient times. The second is that Proto-Indo-European is a language from the age of metal, and it's impossible that it began to split up in Neolithic times before the advent of metalworking while at the same time to have common words for metal-working in all branches of the language family.

Another example I would like to bring up is Koch. I think he is absolutely right about Celtic languages being spoken inside the area of the Atlantic Bronze Age, but the Atlantic Bronze Age as the sole origin of the Celtic languages is a concept that raises more problems than it solves.

 

[callaeca]

Why is it impossible? Is it not classical? when we had to compare all marginal element with the Gauls? When the concepts about what is or not celtic never has been clears and we called the no standard gaulish elements with terms like ligurians, alteuropäisch, pre-celtic, that is to say nothing exactly? .

 

[Taranis]

Why is it impossible? Is it not classical?

You really think that I'm a Classicist?

No. It's just not logical. Let me take a more drastical example for comparison: there is a common word for 'horse' attested in all branches of Indo-European (Ek´wos). How likely is it that Proto-Indo-European predated the domestication of the horse? What applies to horses applies to metal working as well.

 

[callaeca]

Exactly, and not only this, it applies to the chariot prestige too (like you can see in the 'warrior stellae' called estela de Pedra Alta in Galicia and in SW of the Iberian Peninsula). And yes, i think so.

 

[Taranis]

Why is it impossible? Is it not classical? when we had to compare all marginal element with the Gauls? When the concepts about what is or not celtic never has been clears and we called the no standard gaulish elements with terms like ligurians, alteuropäisch, pre-celtic, that is to say nothing exactly? .

Actually, I would argue that you are ad-hoc deciding 'what is or what is not Celtic has never been clear defined' with (from my perspective) no sensible reason (other than that you somehow want to 'prove' that Gauls are 'impure Indo-Europeans'), because it very much is clear-defined. I'm not talking about Gaulish alone. I'm also taking the the Goidelic (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic - but also including Oghamic Irish and Old Irish) and Brythonic (Cornish, Breton, Welsh) languages into account here. The Neogrammarian hypothesis states that sound laws have no exceptions and when they seemingly have exceptions, these are governed by their own set of rules (compare for example Verner's Law). Using the comparative method, it is possible to establish common Celtic sound laws.

To demonstrate this, let me take actually the example of the Goidelic languages alone in their relationship to other languages. Let us play dumb for a moment and completely unaware of the exact relationship between the languages, and let me take a few words:

'anger', 'rage' - Irish and Scottish Gaelic 'Fearg',
'alder' - Irish 'Fhearnóg', Scottish Gaelic 'Feàrna', Old Irish 'Fern'
'man' - Irish and Scottish Gaelic 'Fear', Old Irish 'Fer'
'fair', 'white' - Irish, Scottish Gaelic 'Fionn', Old Irish 'Finn'

Now, we can compare these three terms with words in other Celtic languages, and other Indo-European languages:
- the Gaulish term 'Vergobretos'
- the Gaulish tribal name 'Arverni', the ancient British town name 'Durovernum', the Breton and Welsh words for alder, 'Gwern'
- the Gaulish tribal name 'Viromandui', Welsh Gŵr ('husband'), Latin 'Vir'
- town names 'Vindobonna', 'Vindelia', 'Vindia' etc., tribal name 'Vindelici', Welsh 'Gwyn'

From that, we can establish that there is a sound correspondence of Goidelic *f- to *w- in Gaulish and *gw- in (modern) Brythonic. We can also establish that *w- is very likely to be the original state in the Celtic languages because it's also *w- in a non-Celtic language (Latin). If we had absolutely no knowledge about the exact relationship of Gaulish, Welsh, Breton and Latin to the Goidelic languages, we could still argue that that *w was the original state, and that there was a shift to *gw in Brythonic and *f in Goidelic. Therefore, if we define the Goidelic languages by *w > *f, it would be perfectly logical to refer to Gaulish and Latin as 'Pre-Goidelic' and perhaps to Breton and Welsh as 'Para-Goidelic'. One would, of course, not use just one sound law to define a language family, but bear in mind that this was just a thought experiment to visualize the concept of sound correspondence. Let's now assume, for some strange reason, the Irish had adopted the Welsh word for 'alder' (Gwern), we could (correctly!) determine that the word is of non-Goidelic origin because it does not correspond with Goidelic sound laws. As a result, statements like "Goidelic sound laws absolutely are invalid, because *w-, *f- and *gw- can be in free variation!" or "town names like Vindelia, Vindia and Vindobonna are evidence of deeply ancient Goidelicity!" (to apply some of your arguments on this) are absolutely untenable.

Now, imagine that the same procedure can be applied with Ligurian elements in southeastern Gaul and Para-Celtic elements in western Hispania, respectively. In regard for the latter, it should be pointed out that the loss of *p at initial and intervocalic positions is a development that is very much attested in Celtiberian ('uper-' > 'uer-', 'pro-' > 'ro-') and Gallaecian (Toutatis). The treatment of certain consonant clusters with *p (*-pl-) is debatable, and it's conceivable that *p was preserved in consonant clusters in Proto-Celtic and that the common treatment that we see in Goidelic, Gaulish and Brythonic is a later innovation. On the flip side, the treatment of these consonant clusters suggests that the loss of *p was indeed not an abrupt 'event' but the result of a chain of developments that was successively executed by Proto-Celtic. In any case, the loss of initial and intervocalic *p- (as opposed to in clusters!) is something that is undeniably attested in Celtiberian and Gallaecian, and this suggests that the occurrences of *p- in the Celtic context in Hispania are not Celtic in origin, and that this is evidence for a Pre-Celtic (or Para-Celtic) substrate in western Hispania. If you want to argue that these are Celtic anyways, this requires you to redefine the Celtic languages and you have to demonstrate that these Para-Celtic elements share innovations with the (proper) Celtic languages. This, by the way, something for which I have not seen a single piece of convincing evidence yet. Also, this still requires that the other Celtic languages (Goidelic, Brythonic, Gaulish, Celtiberian) are all closer related with each other due to the fact that they share innovations not found in these name elements Western Hispania.

What I am suggesting instead is that these Para-Celtic elements in Western Hispania represent a wave of Indo-Europeans that was either earlier or simultaneous to the Celtization of the British Isles and Armorica, and that the actual Celtization of northern and western Hispania took place via trade contact inside the Atlantic Bronze Age.

EDIT: I'm going to attach the map again to visualize the problem: if the Stelae People hypothesis was correct in any way, then we would probably expect the Iberian penninsula to be the most Indo-Europeanized area in Western Europe in Antiquity. Instead, we find three non-IE languages in the area (Basque, Iberian, Tartessian), and it is clear that other areas of Europe were far more Indo-Europeanized and also Celticized than Iberia. Indeed, the British Isles were in Antiquity probably the most Celticized region in Europe, due to the complete absence of non-Celtic languages. We also find not-IE terms for metals and metal-working in the Basque language, which suggests the existence of a non-Indo-European spread of metalworking in Western Europe, and in my opinion the Beaker-Bell Culture remains the most plausible candidate for such a spread of non-IE metalworking.

Unrelated of that, there is also another genetic-based objection for the identity of the Beaker-Bell Culture as carriers of R1b: if R1b-P312/S116 entered Europe via the Southwest, how can we explain that the closest related outgroup (R1b-U106/S21) is found in Central and Northern Europe?

We would also expect R1b-L11* to be found in higher concentrations in the Southwest of the Iberian penninsula.

 

[callaeca]

Yes i can understand you:

Well, yes...it is right in these examples, the same concurrence and equivalence you can see it in all celto-hispanic (my specialty is the Callaecian and this is the reason that I abuse with callaecian items: for examples astur. MONS VINDIVS, galician Vendabre < *VINDABRIGS, but call. FINDENETIC[OM]; middle age galician Vernesga < *VERNESICA; call. VIRIATVS), but the divergences begin if we ask about the sg. acusative in the celtic languages, then we see goidelic ie. *ºm > em and in the rest ie. *ºm > am, or if we see the plural dative, then gaul. and western dialects of Hispania = ie. *-bhos > -bo, but in celtiberian and lepontic ie. *-bhos > -bos (like latin -bus) and goidel. -IB-, or the sintactic order, the nominal flexion, etc..

The first reflection to is do is what the celts mean:

For the idea of the south German “Empire of the Celts” to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others. And the well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from the WEST in the 1st millennium BC have been systematically reinterpreted as coming from Germany, across the Austrian Alps.

That is why I am closeness to Simon James (1999): 'The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention' that the term 'celt' was used by the Greeks and Romans as a pejorative label for some of their barbarian neighbours on the European mainland and with John Collis (2003): The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions that “Celt” is now a term that sceptics consider so corrupted in the archaeological and popular literature that it is worthless.

Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump after Roman times. It is also the basis of a strong sense of ethnic identity that millions of members of the so-called Celtic diaspora hold. But there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the "Keltoi," he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia.

It is only the central European homeland theory that is false. The connection between modern Celtic languages and those spoken in southwest Europe during Roman times is clear and valid. Caesar wrote that the Gauls living south of the Seine called themselves Celts. That region, in particular Normandy, has the highest density of ancient Celtic place-names and Celtic inscriptions in Europe. They are common in the rest of southern France (excluding the formerly Basque region of Gascony), Spain, Portugal and the British Isles. Conversely, Celtic place-names are hard to find east of the Rhine in central Europe.

Moreover, according to the orthodox academic view of "iron-age Celtic invasions" from central Europe, Celtic cultural history should start in the British Isles no earlier than 300 BC.

In this way, the anathemic problem of *p is formulated in a celtic stereotype based in extralinguistic criterions that contribute to make of the galo-roman and insular medieval literature the only ones canon.

 

[callaeca]

Unrelated of that, there is also another genetic-based objection for the identity of the Beaker-Bell Culture as carriers of R1b: if R1b-P312/S116 entered Europe via the Southwest, how can we explain that the closest related outgroup (R1b-U106/S21) is found in Central and Northern Europe?

It is impossible that the original bell-beaker center was northern, because the SW european samples are earliest (over 2900 BC in Tagus estuary vs.2200 in Holland).

 

[Taranis]

Yes i can understand you:

I don't think you really understand the problems, especially you don't seem to even want to contemplate on my (valid) criticism regarding the Stelae People, instead, I get a reply like this:

Well, yes...it is right in these examples, the same concurrence and equivalence you can see it in all celto-hispanic (my specialty is the Callaecian and this is the reason that I abuse with callaecian items: for examples astur. MONS VINDIVS, galician Vendabre < *VINDABRIGS, but call. FINDENETIC[OM]; middle age galician Vernesga < *VERNESICA; call. VIRIATVS), but the divergences begin if we ask about the sg. acusative in the celtic languages, then we see goidelic ie. *ºm > em and in the rest ie. *ºm > am, or if we see the plural dative, then gaul. and western dialects of Hispania = ie. *-bhos > -bo, but in celtiberian and lepontic ie. *-bhos > -bos (like latin -bus) and goidel. -IB-, or the sintactic order, the nominal flexion, etc..

Look, I'm not and I never have argued that Goidelic represented the undifferenciated state. There are clearly innovations in Goidelic which distinguish it from the Proto-Celtic state, but the same applies for Gallaecian and Celtiberian.

The first reflection to is do is what the celts mean:

For the idea of the south German “Empire of the Celts” to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others. And the well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from the west in the 1st millennium BC have been systematically reinterpreted as coming from Germany, across the Austrian Alps.

Well, for your information, the Boii came from Bohemia. There is no evidence whatsoever for the Boii being native to Gaul. There's also an archaeological match between the burial rites of the Italian Boii and the Bohemian Boii. Likewise, where did the great incursion onto the Balkans come from? Where did the Galatians come from? Did they come all the way from Gaul? I highly doubt it. It's very clear that this occured out of Central Europe.

That is why I am closeness to Simon James (1999): 'The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention' that the term 'celt' was used by the Greeks and Romans as a pejorative label for some of their barbarian neighbours on the European mainland and with John Collis (2003): The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions that “Celt” is now a term that sceptics consider so corrupted in the archaeological and popular literature that it is worthless.

Sorry, but this is also completely false. The term "Celts" was the endonym of the Gauls.

Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump after Roman times. It is also the basis of a strong sense of ethnic identity that millions of members of the so-called Celtic diaspora hold. But there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the "Keltoi," he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia.

Sorry, but Celtic presence at the source of the Danube is a historic fact. The river name 'Danube' itself is Celtic in etymology. Also, it is a historic fact that iron working in the Celtic-speaking world originated in the Hallstatt Culture context. If Hallstatt was not a Celtic-speaking Culture, what else is it supposed to have been then? Germanic? Etruscan? Illyrian? None of the 'alternatives' really make any sense.

Also, Ptolemy and Strabo explicitly refer to the lands north of the Danube as the 'deserts' (ie 'deserted areas') of the Helveti and Boii.

It is only the central European homeland theory that is false. The connection between modern Celtic languages and those spoken in southwest Europe during Roman times is clear and valid. Caesar wrote that the Gauls living south of the Seine called themselves Celts. That region, in particular Normandy, has the highest density of ancient Celtic place-names and Celtic inscriptions in Europe. They are common in the rest of southern France (excluding the formerly Basque region of Gascony), Spain, Portugal and the British Isles. Conversely, Celtic place-names are hard to find east of the Rhine in central Europe.

It is not false at all. Regarding Celtic place names in Central Europe, that statement of names being 'very hard to find' is completely false and merely an artifact of the Migrations Period. Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD records approximately 80 town names in Germania Magna, approximately a sixth of which have readily identifiable Celtic etymologies (Eburodunum, Segodunum, Tarodunum, Celamantia, Carrodunum, Lugidunum). Mind you, the time frame we are talking about is the 2nd century AD, a time by which Germanic tribes had already migrated as far south as to the Danube. How else do you explain such a large number of Celtic place names but through a long-lasting, underlying Celtic substrate? Likewise, Ptolemy mentions also overtly Celtic town names in southern Bavaria (the land of the Vindelici) Austria (Norici), the Pannonian Basin and on the Balkans. Celtic evidence in Central Europe extends to the Main River, to Bohemia, into Silesia and into the Western Carpathians. If you look only at Ptolemy's data, the evidence for Celtic presence in Central Europe is just as strong as it is in Western Europe.

There's also linguistic evidence coming from the Germanic languages, specifically a large number of Celtic loanwords (including the word for iron!) into Proto-Germanic which cannot be explained otherwise except through a prolonged and intense contact with Celtic-speaking peoples.

Moreover, according to the orthodox academic view of "iron-age Celtic invasions" from central Europe, Celtic cultural history should start in the British Isles no earlier than 300 BC.

Umm, what? How do you explain that iron-working arrives - from Central Europe mind you - in Britain in the 7th century BC. How do you explain that the Brythonic languages share common innovations with Gaulish not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian. At that note, there is a very strong argument that speaks for a Central European origin of the *kw > *p shift in P-Celtic, namely that this is a common innovation that also occurs in the Osco-Umbrian languages and in Greek. What I mentioned a page earlier already, is that we know from Greek that the *kw > *p shift in Greek did occur between circa 1200 and 800 BC. In my opinion, this suggests a common superstrate in all three language families (Celtic, Italic, Greek), and that it is likely that this occured in close proximity.

In this way, the anathemic problem of *p is formulated in a celtic stereotype based in extralinguistic criterions that contribute to make of the galo-roman and insular medieval literature the only ones canon.

These are not extra-linguistic criterions, and it is not a "Celtic stereotype", either. As I said, this applies as well to the Celtiberian corpus. If you would accept how the comparative method words, you would be able to understand why this is absolutely valid.

It is impossible that the original bell-beaker center was northern, because the SW european samples are earliest (over 2900 BC in Tagus estuary vs.2200 in Holland).

Well, this should tell you something then: that the Beaker-Bell Culture did not spread R1b across Western Europe, because it cannot explain the existence and position of R1b-U106. There is also, as mentioned, the lack of R1b-L11* in Southwestern Iberia.

What I perhaps should add: I'm not a 'Classicist' here. I am not, and have never been arguing that the sole origin of the Celtic languages is to be sought in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene. However, Hallstatt and La-Tene are quintessential for explaining the spread of the P-Celtic languages.