PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker Folk



Regulus
18-02-11, 21:28
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 (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
18-02-11, 23:48
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
19-02-11, 00:30
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 :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Megalithic_Culture.PNGhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Megalith_culture_in_Europe.png



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
19-02-11, 01:57
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 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/I_tarteso.jpg) 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)
19-02-11, 03:34
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 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/I_tarteso.jpg) 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
19-02-11, 03:49
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)
19-02-11, 04:47
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)
19-02-11, 05:01
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?

Taranis
19-02-11, 14:29
First off, you might take a look at Rodriguez's website (http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/ib6_en.htm), since he has an entry on the Tartessian script.

Secondly, you might want to check out this paper: "Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet" (http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/revistaportuguesadearqueologia/11.2/5_6_7_8/06_p.107-138.pdf) by Miguel Valerio, Revista de Portuguesa Arqueologia. volume 11. (from 2008)

As you can see, Rodriguez and Valerio have rather conflicting interpretations of the Tartessian script, but I am in favour of Valerio's interpretation since it is conformous with what little we know of Tartessian typonomy. Furthermore, it should be noted that although Koch's interpretation of Tartessian is similar to that of Rodriguez (Koch actually cites' Rodriguez's 2002 work on the issue), he does make a few blunt mistakes which cannot be readily explained unless you consider that it is make-belief and that Koch wants Tartessian to be a Celtic language.

In any case, the condition that we can reliably read the Tartessian script is a sine-qua-non when it comes to deciphering the Tartessian language, and this clearly isn't the case. Also, in any case Tartessian clearly wasn't a Celtic language, since it doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants (this is something that everybody agrees on). Finally, there's also the (unusually long) stelae from Mesas do Castelinho (the paper on which was actually published in the same issue of Acta Paleohispanica), and the content of said stelae is much more consistent with Valerio's interpretation of the Tartessian script than it is with Rodriguez's or Koch's.

In particular, Valerio reads the well-attested Tartessian word which Rodriguez and Koch transliterate as "BARE" or "BaARE" (which could indeed be seen as a cognate of Indo-European *bher = carry) as "MARE", by which any possibility of a cognate with *bher goes out of the window. Regardless of the question about this particular letter, there's the question of wether the plosive stop consonants in Tartessian were voiced ("B") or voiceless ("P"), ergo in accordance with Rodriguez/Koch's interpretations this would be "PARE"/"PaARE". So, as evidently proven, we by no means can read the Tartessian language reliably, and depending on what model you prefer, you get utterly different implications for the Tartessian language.

Regarding Lusitanian and Gallaecian, you might want to check out The Language(s) of the Callaeci (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_16/lujan_6_16.pdf), which readily shows how Gallaecia has a mixed Celtic/Lusitanian (and possibly additional non-Celtic) linguistic elements.

Also, Lusitanian clearly wasn't a Celtic language because it retains the initial P, and the loss of P (possibly via the intermediate stage of P -> H, as possibly attested by the word "Hercynia") is one of the key features of the Celtic language family. For instance, the Lusitanian word for "pig" was "Porcom". If you compare this to Gaulish "Orcos" and Latin "Porcus". Also, the attested form "Porcom" (Nominative singular) is non-consistent with Proto-Celtic declension systems (which is well attested in Gaulish and somewhat attested in Primitive Irish), which would suggest that declension in Lusitanian was decisively dissimilar from the Celtic languages. Of course, without a question Lusitanian was similar and related to both the Celtic and Italic language families, but it was technically speaking part of neither.

Regulus
19-02-11, 18:16
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
20-02-11, 01:26
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
20-02-11, 01:58
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
20-02-11, 02:00
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.

Taranis
20-02-11, 17:14
One interesting aspect that I noticed is the correlations that exist in terms of what happened after the :

- It would seem plausible that the split between the Celtic/Para-Celtic* and Italic languages seems to coincide perfectly by the position of the Etruscan language. Although we do not know how the Etruscan language is related, it seems that the arrival of the Etruscans in Italy seems to coincide with the Bronze Age collapse**, and that this arrival produced the split between Celtic/Para-Celtic and Italic languages.

- Furthermore, the spread of linguistic innovations seems to coincide with the spread of archaeological cultures. It should be noted that the oldest attested undoubtably Celtic language, Lepontic (6th century BC), is already a P-Celtic language. Archaeologically, the Lepontii have been associated with the Golasecca Culture, which evolves from the 9th century onward out of the southern periphery of the Urnfield Culture. If we consider this, it follows that the Q/P-split of the Celtic languages already occured with the emergence of Urnfield. What is interesting to be noted here is that Urnfield influence enters the Iberian penninsula via Catalonia, and area which is later known to be to Iberian-speaking. The Iberians are later also known to have practiced the urn-making tradition. This begs the question about the ethnolinguistic affiliation of the region in Urnfield times, but it is clear that Celtiberian was a Q-Celtic language, and hence left out of the linguistic innovation.

- From this interpretation it follows that Hallstatt/La-Tene cultures were associated with the spread of the Gauls (or more broadly "Gallic", that is, I'm including the poorly attested languages from the east like Noric and Galatian here, which were very similar to Gaulish from what little is known).

- Britain receives influnce from Hallstatt and La-Tene (which is very well-documented later on by presence of Belgic tribes in what today is England), which also corresponds with the fact that the Brythonic languages are P-Celtic, akin to Gaulish.

- What's also not surprising if this scenario is correct is that the most archaic languages (in particular Para-Celtic, ie Lusitanian and Ligurian, but also the relatively archaic Celtic languages like Celtiberian and Goidelic) are all found at the peripheries, since they were left out from these innovations.

I know that this is just a hypothesis, and there is relatively little to back this up, but I think that this scenario describes reasonably well what may have actually happened. I also like this idea because it makes away with the necessity of an original Celtic "homeland".

*By "Para-Celtic", I mean Ligurian and Lusitanian.

**I recently read a paper about the Anatolian origin of Tuscan cattle, which coincides roughly with the 12th/13th century BC, and I'll add a link to that once I find it again.

Regulus
20-02-11, 19:14
One interesting aspect that I noticed is the correlations that exist in terms of what happened after the :

- It would seem plausible that the split between the Celtic/Para-Celtic* and Italic languages seems to coincide perfectly by the position of the Etruscan language. Although we do not know how the Etruscan language is related, it seems that the arrival of the Etruscans in Italy seems to coincide with the Bronze Age collapse**, and that this arrival produced the split between Celtic/Para-Celtic and Italic languages.

- Furthermore, the spread of linguistic innovations seems to coincide with the spread of archaeological cultures. It should be noted that the oldest attested undoubtably Celtic language, Lepontic (6th century BC), is already a P-Celtic language. Archaeologically, the Lepontii have been associated with the Golasecca Culture, which evolves from the 9th century onward out of the southern periphery of the Urnfield Culture. If we consider this, it follows that the Q/P-split of the Celtic languages already occured with the emergence of Urnfield. What is interesting to be noted here is that Urnfield influence enters the Iberian penninsula via Catalonia, and area which is later known to be to Iberian-speaking. The Iberians are later also known to have practiced the urn-making tradition. This begs the question about the ethnolinguistic affiliation of the region in Urnfield times, but it is clear that Celtiberian was a Q-Celtic language, and hence left out of the linguistic innovation.

- From this interpretation it follows that Hallstatt/La-Tene cultures were associated with the spread of the Gauls (or more broadly "Gallic", that is, I'm including the poorly attested languages from the east like Noric and Galatian here, which were very similar to Gaulish from what little is known).

- Britain receives influnce from Hallstatt and La-Tene (which is very well-documented later on by presence of Belgic tribes in what today is England), which also corresponds with the fact that the Brythonic languages are P-Celtic, akin to Gaulish.

- What's also not surprising if this scenario is correct is that the most archaic languages (in particular Para-Celtic, ie Lusitanian and Ligurian, but also the relatively archaic Celtic languages like Celtiberian and Goidelic) are all found at the peripheries, since they were left out from these innovations.

I know that this is just a hypothesis, and there is relatively little to back this up, but I think that this scenario describes reasonably well what may have actually happened. I also like this idea because it makes away with the necessity of an original Celtic "homeland".

*By "Para-Celtic", I mean Ligurian and Lusitanian.

**I recently read a paper about the Anatolian origin of Tuscan cattle, which coincides roughly with the 12th/13th century BC, and I'll add a link to that once I find it again.



That was very well said and makes quite a bit of sense. When you have a few minutes, could you expound upon the paragraph that mentions the arrival of the Etruscans and the 'bronze age collapse'?

Again we see an example of a trend towards conservatism manifested in a lack of change in the edges or perimeters of a linguistic group.

Many hold that the Centum/Satem difference was the result of the same general rule.

I have heard both Goidelic and Brythonic spoken in recitations of essays.
Goidelic seems to have more of a flow that reminds me of a Romance language. I would allow that the reason for this is that the style may be closer to that which existed before the Celtic-Italic split. I personally like the sound of spoken Brythonic more. The words seem to have more of a "beat" or a rhythm to them.

Taranis
20-02-11, 22:42
That was very well said and makes quite a bit of sense. When you have a few minutes, could you expound upon the paragraph that mentions the arrival of the Etruscans and the 'bronze age collapse'?

Etruscan is a non-Indo-European language (and the only other language thought by most people to be related is the Raetic language), and the general question is wether it is native (pre-Indo-European) or introduced. While it should be taken with a grain of salt, the Romans believed the Etruscans to have originated in Anatolia, and attempted to link them with the Trojans. Regardless of that, it should be noted, interestingly, that the Etruscan alphabet shows a number of similarities with the Anatolian alphabets, in particular the existence of an 8-shaped letter. While the development of the Etruscan and Anatolian alphabets obviously postdates the arrival of the Etruscans in Italy, it clearly shows how the Etruscans had links to Anatolia. Otherwise, I found the paper (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1614/1175.full) I was refering to in the previous post, which links the Tuscan cattle to Anatolia.

Regarding the Bronze Age collapse, near the end of the Bronze Age, there was a massive disruption in the eastern Mediterranean, which led to the collapse of the civilizations in said region (Hittites, Myceneans, Ugarit, etc.). By extrapolation, we can interfer that these may have been disruptions on a much wider scale, so it's perfectly plausible that the Etruscan civilization began in the wake of the Bronze Age collapse.


Again we see an example of a trend towards conservatism manifested in a lack of change in the edges or perimeters of a linguistic group.

Many hold that the Centum/Satem difference was the result of the same general rule.

Well, don't hold me to that, because I haven't dealt with the issue yet in detail, but generally, yeah. It's interesting in this aspect that Tocharian, located at the opposite end of the Indo-European expansion.


I have heard both Goidelic and Brythonic spoken in recitations of essays.
Goidelic seems to have more of a flow that reminds me of a Romance language. I would allow that the reason for this is that the style may be closer to that which existed before the Celtic-Italic split. I personally like the sound of spoken Brythonic more. The words seem to have more of a "beat" or a rhythm to them.

One thing you have to consider with any of the modern Celtic languages is that all of them had an additional 2000 years of development with them.

Grizzly
25-02-11, 23:29
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
26-02-11, 00:33
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! :smile: 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.

Taranis
01-03-11, 21:32
I dediced to make a map here to visualize something, namely an anachronistic map (glossing several centuries, actually, but generally showing the pre-Roman situation) of the occurences of languages. Note that in most areas, this is primarily onomastic evidence.

- Note that light green represents Q-Celtic languages, whereas blue represents P-Celtic languages.

- With Venetic, Liburnian and Illyrian, I was admittedly a tad lazy. Some people say that these languages were related, other say that they weren't.

- What is interesting here, which is very interesting indeed, is that with exception of Basque/Aquitanian, Iberian, Etruscan, Raetic (and possibly Tartessian which I'll treat as an unclassified language for the sake of an argument), virtually all languages on this map are Centum Indo-European languages.

- One peculiar aspect that came into my mind when working out this map is: what about Corsica and Sardinia? What languages was spoken in these areas before they were annexed by the Roman Empire?

Regulus
02-03-11, 02:21
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.

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.


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.

Wow, now I am intrigued by the Umbrian similarity (All of Osco-Umbrian or just Umbrian?)

Now I am wondering if this shift/change began early on but only in certain subgroups. In other words, did some settlers wind up adapting to the sounds common to those among whom they settled. (Possibly a widespread and related but pre-IE tongue) There is decent evidence pointing to that happening with the Goidelic branch.

The German DNA mix also seems to be too clear to be coincidence.

I am strongly inclined to associate the Gauls with Halstatt and La Tene.
That is when the Gauls really seem to burst upon the scene with a fury and enter on a wide expansionist phase. My question here is if anything specific could have been a catalyst for this (besides the arrival of the Iron Age).
It seems that the coming of the Iron Age in that portion of Europe coincided with the destruction of much of the Cimmerians by the Scyths. We know that many of the refugees went south into Anatolia. Could some have simply gone west and merged with Urnfielders? I would not be surprised at all if many of them found a home along that part of the Danube, even adding to the aristocracy.

Taranis
02-03-11, 13:00
Wow, now I am intrigued by the Umbrian similarity (All of Osco-Umbrian or just Umbrian?)

I just checked and re-checked, actually, it's both in Oscan and Umbrian. One major difference with the Celtic languages is that as Italic languages, Oscan and Umbrian do not lose the initial "P". Oscan ("Patir" means Father, just like Latin "Pater", but dissimilar from Irish "Athair").


Now I am wondering if this shift/change began early on but only in certain subgroups. In other words, did some settlers wind up adapting to the sounds common to those among whom they settled. (Possibly a widespread and related but pre-IE tongue) There is decent evidence pointing to that happening with the Goidelic branch.

Hard to say, I really don't know. It's clear that this shift apparently happened in Brythonic, Gaulish and Osco-Umbrian, but not in Goidelic, Celtiberian or Latin. Clearly, the Italic and Celtic languages must have been separated at that point already. I think, the reason why Goidelic is Q-Celtic rather than P-Celtic is really because it lay at the periphery. Iron-working arrived in Ireland from Hallstatt/La-Tene, but unlike Britain, it never saw large-scale* settlement from the continent (*if Ptolemy is to be trusted, there actually were Belgic tribes which settled at the southeast coast of Ireland, but it's clear that Ireland never received large-scale settlement there).


The German DNA mix also seems to be too clear to be coincidence.

Archaeologically, the Germanic people seem to have their origin in the Nordic Bronze Age, and they adopted Iron-working from the Hallstatt culture. Now, the Germanic word "Iron" (compare Dutch "Ijzer", German "Eisen", Danish "Jern") is a cognate with the Celtic word for "Iron" (Gaulish "Isarnos", Irish "Iarann", Breton "Houarn"), and I do not think that this is a coincidence either, because the Germanic people adopted iron-working from the Celts (around the late 6th century BC).

What's also interesting is that most cognates of Germanic with Celtic are typically apparently rather old, specifically, they must have been adopted to Common Germanic before major sound shifts occured. Notably, the Germanic languages have a shift from K->H:

"Marcos" = mare (German "Mähre", Swedish "Märr")
"Volcae" = "Walha-" (foreigner, as in "Wallonia" and "Wales", although the Celtic tribal name is actually derived from the word "falcon").


I am strongly inclined to associate the Gauls with Halstatt and La Tene.
That is when the Gauls really seem to burst upon the scene with a fury and enter on a wide expansionist phase. My question here is if anything specific could have been a catalyst for this (besides the arrival of the Iron Age).
It seems that the coming of the Iron Age in that portion of Europe coincided with the destruction of much of the Cimmerians by the Scyths. We know that many of the refugees went south into Anatolia. Could some have simply gone west and merged with Urnfielders? I would not be surprised at all if many of them found a home along that part of the Danube, even adding to the aristocracy.

Eh, consider that Hallstatt is an outgrowth/continuation of the Urnfield culture.

Regulus
02-03-11, 15:54
Eh, consider that Hallstatt is an outgrowth/continuation of the Urnfield culture.

Yes that is correct also. The Halstatt culture itself does start within and as a part of Urnfield culture. I am looking for a possible catalyst for this event.

Stuff we know:

The arrival of Iron technology, in the span of time, reaches the Urnfield culture at a point which coincides with a maelstrom of events, probably all related to the use of that metal. The destruction of Cimmerian power by the Scyths appears to have been directly related to the use of iron and of fighting on horseback. The technology moved towards the epicenter of what would be the Halstatt culture at almost the same time.

The Cimmerian are known to have moved south and west in droves into Anatolia as a result of their losses. The non-IE kingdom of Van and the Phrygian kingdoms were overrun, the latter permanently so.

OK, now for the point that I was proposing:

The Cimmerian range had extended far to the west and bordered the eastern side of the Urnfielders. It is very unlikely that all Cimmerians would have been able to run the gauntlet of invasive Scyths to go with the bulk of their brethren into Anatolia. Some of course would have remained under Scythian rule. Others presumably flee westward.

The possible refugee Cimmerians, already being in possession if Iron technology, would have been arriving at the same time that this technology was coming into the hands of the Urnfielders from their south and east.

Very shortly after this time, Halstatt culture develops. The Gauls as we and classical writers would recognize (as opposed to other who speak and have Celtic culture) appear on scene.

An interesting note: Archaeologists speak of what they refer to as a "royal" or aristocratic group moving westward and into the heart of the Halstatt zone towards the beginning of the Halstatt culture.

Also for us to take into account are the legends some Celts had of their Cimmerian origins. Until recently I had failed to even consider this one.

My proposal is this:

That it would be of benefit to us if we consider the possibility that the westward recoil of beaten Cimmerians may have had an effect that contributed to the explosion of Halstatt culture among the Urnfield Celts.


The arrival of the use of iron, the massive defeat of the Cimmerians who bordered Urnfield Celts, and the archaeological evidence of the arrival among the Celts of a group of aristocratic or "royal" chieftain-types from the east all fall into the same time period. Those Cimmerians with wealth and enough possessions to have a following would have been able to have had some influence with those among whom they settled.

Taranis
02-03-11, 22:35
To be honest, I cannot follow you there what you're trying to argue for. I don't see why there should be a connection between the Cimmerians and any Celtic-speaking peoples. I must also add that I don't see a need for arguing for some kind of event that calls for a break between Urnfield and Hallstatt. From the looks of it, Hallstatt is just an outgrowth/continuation of Urnfield that starts incorporating iron-working. Where there actually is a break of sorts is between Halstatt and La-Tene: the core areas of La-Tene lay at the western edge of the Hallstatt Culture. One possible explanation for this - in my opinion - is the shift of the key economic centers to the west, perhaps due to trade with the Greeks (via Massilia) starting off.

What is to be considered though is the question of where Celtic iron-working arrived from: this is a really good one. If we take a look at the Common Celtic word for iron ("Isarnos", which was, as I mentioned earlier, borrowed into Common Germanic), we cannot (readily) find cognates for it in related languages: the Latin word is "Ferrum", the Greek word is "Sideros". If we find a possible cognate for "Isarnos", we may shed light at where it came from.

Grizzly
02-03-11, 23:14
I'd love to see your sources on Basque typonomy in Portugal, Galicia and the Asturias! :smile: Otherwise, I definitely agree there.

(in French). I had posted it in another thread. I had another source in Spanish, but it is not longer online.

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

Taranis
02-03-11, 23:19
(in French). I had posted it in another thread. I had another source in Spanish, but it is not longer online.

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

Many thanks. And do not worry: I have rudimentary French skills. :good_job:

Grizzly
02-03-11, 23:20
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.

In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.


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.

Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.

Grizzly
02-03-11, 23:25
I dediced to make a map here to visualize something

I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.

About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).

Taranis
02-03-11, 23:52
In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.

Yes, you are right of course. But I found it particularly drastic and overtly visualized with the example of Germanic.


Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.

If you go by onomastic evidence, as late as the 2nd century AD, Celtic name influence extends as far north and east as Silesia. The problem that I have with Hallstatt and La-Tene is that it alone cannot explain the presence of Celtic languages on the Iberian penninsula.


I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.

Which homogenous brown area? You mean the Iberians? Also, what speaks against that is that apparently, the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).


About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).

Well, it would make sense. What is interesting though is that archaeologically, the Talayotic, Nuraghe and Torre cultures of the Baleares, Sardinia and Corsica were all rather similar, which begs the question if there was an ethnolinguistic similarity amongst those. Regarding the term "Ligurian", I agree that the usage of it in Antiquity is diffuse, because there is sources which label the people of the Iberian penninsula as "Ligurian". What is apparent, however, is that going by purely onomastic evidence, the "Ligurian" tribes in the area on the mainland (ie, modern Liguria and adjacent areas in Provence) seemingly were Indo-Europeans, akin to the Celtic- and the Italic-speaking peoples.

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:03
the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).

I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).

Taranis
03-03-11, 00:13
I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).

Well, the interesting part is that Celtiberian inscriptions have been found only in what could readily be labeled "Celtiberia proper", which lay adjacent to the Iberian-speaking areas of the northeast. This is also not a surprise since the Celtiberian writing system was an adaptation of the Iberian writing system (it's interesting that writing systems spread in counter-clockwise direction along the rim of the Iberian penninsula*). Further to the west, no pre-Roman Celtic inscriptions have been found. Going by onomastic evidence, you get approximately the image that I show on the map. What is very interesting in Gallaecia, as mentioned, is the evidence for a Lusitanian substrate (both toponyms and theonyms). Also, often, you have mixed Celtic- and non-Celtic names. In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.

I agree however that the situation is probably more complex than it seems. In that respect I vastly simplified things in the south (Baetica), since there is a considerable overlap of Iberian and Celtic typonomy.

*Here's also an interesting question: why didn't the Lusitanians adopt the Tartessian writing system?

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:24
In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.

Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
There is no point that Celtic culture progressively disappears in SW France, and suddenly beyond Pyrenees reappears.

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:27
Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
Celts left a few things in these areas ? How about the most celtic settlements in Western Europe ? And what makes you think they didn't speak Celtic languages in those areas, when only celtic inscriptions have found, and none of any other language ?

Taranis
03-03-11, 00:33
Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.

This still raises the question of how and when the Celts did get on the Iberian penninsula - especially, did they circumvene the Aquitanian-Iberian areas (by sea?), or did they arrive via Catalonia during Urnfield times and dispersed to the west (with Catalonia being taken by the Iberians only later?).

Also, in any case, one key issue is that regardless of this, there were other Indo-Europeans (ie, the Lusitanians) in western Iberia before the Celts arrived. In fact, the shape of how iron-working arrives and disperses on the Iberian penninsula (it arrives from two sources, one by Hallstatt influence from Central Europe and one from Phoenician influence via Gadir) suggests that Iberia was divided into an Indo-European and a non-Indo-European part, in my opinion.

Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).

Regulus
03-03-11, 04:56
To be honest, I cannot follow you there what you're trying to argue for. I don't see why there should be a connection between the Cimmerians and any Celtic-speaking peoples. I must also add that I don't see a need for arguing for some kind of event that calls for a break between Urnfield and Hallstatt. From the looks of it, Hallstatt is just an outgrowth/continuation of Urnfield that starts incorporating iron-working. Where there actually is a break of sorts is between Halstatt and La-Tene: the core areas of La-Tene lay at the western edge of the Hallstatt Culture. One possible explanation for this - in my opinion - is the shift of the key economic centers to the west, perhaps due to trade with the Greeks (via Massilia) starting off.

.

I really am not making an argument in support of anything nor am I trying to garner any support. I am only presenting the possibility that there may have been an influence in addition to the actual arrival of the Iron Age to the Urnfielders and inviting any possible input from others. Recall that I am not actually looking for a Celtic/Cimmerian connection. I am only writing about something that is now coming to mind.
In this case, when my interest got peaked on this topic, I dug up a historical atlas of mine. I don't have any access to the maps in a digital file, so I can only describe what they show.


By the end of the 9th century BCE, we have a large border of sorts between Cimmerians and Urnfielders. That is exactly when Iron working has spread out of Italy and is already being done by Ligurians and at the Alps.
The Cimmerians are spread from the Caspian westward to be right up against the Urnfielders.
By the eighth century the Scyths have appeared from amongst the Iranians and are using Iron and horses. A massive movement of Cimmerians flee south eventually landing in Anatolia. From a geographic standpoint, there does not appear to be clear path for around half of the defeated to sneak along the Black sea past the westward moving Scyths to join their kinsmen south. To the north are Slavs; south are the Illyrians, Thracians, etc,
Some remain in place, possibly to form the nucleous of the future Dacian state. I have to think now that a number may have moved due west.

Halstatt culture takes off from this point. I need to try to find the exact dating of the archaeological movement of aristocratic warriors who arrive into the Celtic zone from the East. I will need to dig out the one source but it is too late to try tonight. If my memory serves me rightly, it is right around this point

Grizzly
11-03-11, 23:58
Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).

No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.

Wilhelm
12-03-11, 03:57
No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.
It's not just toponyimy or onomastic. It's hundreds of inscriptions, it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages, it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas, it's more complex than just toponymy, which btw is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do :rolleyes2:

Carlitos
12-03-11, 04:20
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
12-03-11, 17:17
It's hundreds of inscriptions

Already answered. See runs outside the Germanic core.


it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages

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


it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas,

Already answered. Wrong. See the Basque toponymy in Galicia, Castilla, Portugal...


toponymy is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do :rolleyes2:

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

Grizzly
12-03-11, 17:18
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
12-03-11, 17:44
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.

Taranis
12-03-11, 19:56
No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.

Yes, but it's an indication in absence of better evidence. Otherwise you can suggest that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, or that Breton was spoken in ancient Aremorica - both which are utterly loony to claim.

There is enough text evidence (Celtiberian and Lusitanian inscriptions) which back up the onomastic issue. According to Occam's razor, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the bulk of ancient Iberia was Celtic-speaking or at least otherwise Indo-European (ie, Lusitanian).

Grizzly
26-03-11, 00:29
Yes, but it's an indication in absence of better evidence.

Indication of presence. Nothing else, otherwhise extrapolation.


Otherwise you can suggest that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, or that Breton was spoken in ancient Aremorica - both which are utterly loony to claim.

I'm not sure to understand. We know today that medieval England spoke English, because we have actual evidences. If tomorrow, a total destruction destroys all the post-medieval English texts and medias, and if only medieval texts survives, peoples with your logic will believe that England was a French country speaking (or latin), because almost all the inscriptions of Middle-age in England was French, and English ones were a minority.


it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the bulk of ancient Iberia was Celtic-speaking or at least otherwise Indo-European (ie, Lusitanian).

No, because inscriptions or onomastic proves presence, not dominant culture or language.

julia90
29-03-11, 00:56
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..)

julia90
29-03-11, 01:05
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).

sparkey
29-03-11, 01:12
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. :laughing:

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
29-03-11, 01:14
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

julia90
29-03-11, 01:17
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.

sparkey
29-03-11, 01:22
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
29-03-11, 01:27
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..)...

julia90
29-03-11, 01:32
wikipedia on ITALO-CELTIC LANGUAGE FAMILY

The traditional interpretation of the data is that these two subgroups of the Indo European language family are generally more closely related to each other than to the other Indo European languages. This can be taken to imply that they are descended from a common ancestor, a phylogenetic Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partly reconstructed by the comparative method. This hypothesis fell out of favour after being reexamined by Calvert Watkins in 1966.[1] However some scholars, such as Frederik Kortlandt, continued to be interested in the theory.[2] In 2002 a paper by Ringe, Warnow, & Taylor, employing computational methods as a supplement to the traditional linguistic subgrouping methodology, argued in favour of an Italo-Celtic subgroup,[3] and in 2007 Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of a Proto-Italo-Celtic.[4]
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal proximity of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.
If however, some of the forms really are archaisms, elements of Proto-Indo-European which have been lost in all other branches, neither model of post-PIE relationship need be postulated. Italic and especially Celtic also share some archaic features with the Hittite language (Anatolian languages) and the Tocharian languages.

sparkey
29-03-11, 01:41
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 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=369217&postcount=1154). 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%).

julia90
29-03-11, 01:44
still they aren't the same population

sparkey
29-03-11, 01:47
still they aren't the same population

They are close enough to postulate significant shared history, that's my point.

Grizzly
02-04-11, 00:20
The problem is that when we speak about Italo-celtic expansion, a lot of people guess horses with Italic and Celtic knights spreading in Italy or anywhere else.
Indo-europeans were warriors invaders, no doubt, like Huns, Magyars or Mongols were so. But after these invasions, some areas has adopted their vocabulary, other not.
The italic language is the result of the "creole" of this indo-european language in Central Italy, the Celtic one the same result, but in the high-Danube regions sub-structure, the Germanic the result for the Scandinavian substructure etc...There are similarities between the first and the second, but also the second and the third. I don't know in which extend Italic should be closer to the Celts than the Germanics.
The regions who have not adopted their language for many reasons will appear to us as the Etrusques, the Iberians (maybe current Basques), the Ligurians...in fact, a lot of Southern peoples, because Indo-europeans came from the Eastern plains. That's why the Atlantic school is hardly believable.