PDA

View Full Version : Ancient place names in Iberia



Taranis
17-09-11, 01:29
Since the discussion recently came up, I would like to elaborate the situation on the Iberian penninsula in Antiquity a bit, especially on the aspect of linguistic heterogenity. Note that the analysis below excludes the Basque-Aquitanian and Iberian areas in the east and southeast of Iberia, and only includes town names thus far. The rest (north, northwest and west) I did divide into seven areas, and I cathegorized the names into Celtic- or Celtic-compatible, Latin/Roman, and Other/Unknown (as well as 'known' other such as Iberian and Phoenician as the need arose):

North (20 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 14 (70%)
Latin/Roman: 3 (15%)
Other/Unknown: 4 (20%)

Celtiberia Proper (34 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic : 17 (50%)
Latin/Roman: 6 (17.6%)
Iberian: 1 (2.9%)
Other/Unknown: 10 (29.4%)

Southwest (15 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 5? (33.3%)
Roman/Latin: 3 (20%)
Phoenician: 3 (20%)
Other/Unknown: 4 (26.7%)

Central Duero (20 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 6 (30%)
Latin/Roman: 4 (20%)
Other/Unknown: 10 (50%)

Lusitania Proper (40 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 11 (27.5%)
Latin/Roman: 10 (25%)
Other/Unknown: 19 (47.5%)

Gallaecia (50 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 12 (24%)
Latin/Roman: 19 (38%)
Other/Unknown: 19 (38%)

Inland Southeast (30 towns)
Celtic or compatible with Celtic: 4 (12.9%)
Latin/Roman: 7 (20.6%)
Iberian: 2 (5.8%)
Other/Unknown: 17 (56.6%)

The cathegories above can be further split into the following cathegories:

1) Celtic Names
Celtic town names are abundant on the ancient Iberian penninsula. The most common name element, by far, is the suffix '-briga' ('mountain', 'height', but perhaps more accurately translated as "castle", as it's a cognate with Germanic '-burgh'). However, as we will see this suffix is not restricted to Celtic town names. Celtic or Celtic-influenced town names are most common in the north, with Celtiberia proper as the second-most frequent area, and they decrease in their frequency from there.

Celtic names include:

- Brigantium (identical town names existed in France, Switzerland and Austria)
- Cambitum
- Celiobriga
- Cetobrix or Cetobriga
- Ebura ('eburo-' = 'yew')
- Morica ('moro-' = 'sea', compare 'Aremorica)
- Nemetobriga ('holy/sacred castle')
- Numantia
- Segisamum
- Segovia
- Segobriga ('victorious castle')
- Turiasso
- Uxama Argaela (Ups- -> Ux- 'highest', Par- > Ar- 'before/upon')
- Uxama Barca
- Vindelia ('windo-' = 'white)
- Visontium

There is also a few town names that make sense as Celtic if they were transmitted erroneously:
- Ambisna ('Ambi-' = 'around', second element unclear)
- Deobrigula and Diobriga from "Divobriga" ('divine castle')
- Mediolum form 'Mediolanum'

2) Roman Names
The Roman empire established a considerable number of towns on the Iberian penninsula. In much of the penninsula, Roman town (including those with mixed Roman/non-Roman) names make up between a sixth and a fifth of the town names.

Examples include:
- Aemiliana
- Aqua Calidae ('hot springs')
- Aqua Flavia
- Augusta Emerita
- Bravum
- Concordia
- Confluenta
- Laminium
- Lucus Augusti ('grove of Augustus')
- Mantua
- Pax Julia
- Porta Augusta
- Rusticana
- Valeria

3) Mixed Roman-Other Names
A typical phenomenon, not only on the Iberian penninsula but elsewhere inside the Roman Empire were mixed Roman/non-Roman names.

Examples of this include:
- Augustobriga (second element Celtic)
- Segisama Julia (the first element is Celtic)
- Juliobriga (second element Celtic)
- Flavia Lambris (second element unclear)
- Forum Gigurrum (second element is a Gallaecian tribal name)
- Ocellum Duri ('eye of the Duero')

4) Mixed Celtic/Non-Celtic Names
These names are also quite freqent throught the Iberian penninsula. These names often include the first name element as non-Celtic and the second as Celtic '-briga'. The largest concentration of these names is found in the southwest of the Iberian penninsula, where these names make up the bulk of the Celtic-compatible names.

Examples include:
- Arabriga
- Arcobriga
- Caladunum
- Glandomirum
- Laccobriga or Lancobriga
- Merobriga
- Mirobriga
- Sarabris (possibly)
- Talabriga
- Tongobriga or Tuntobriga
- Volobriga

5) Unclear/Non-Celtic names subject to Celtiberian sound laws
A unique feature about the Celtiberian language, which makes it distinct from all other Celtic languages, is the merger of /s/ and /d/ in certain positions in words into a ð-like sound, usually transliterated as "z" from the Celtiberian inscriptions and variably rendered as 's' or 'd' in Latin inscriptions, and this of course affects Celtiberian town names as well, even those with (apparently) originally non-Celtic names. Naturally, these town names are found only in the proximity of Celtiberia Proper.

Examples include:
- Bilbilis/Bilbiliz
- Bursada/Burzao
- Condabora/Consabura

6) Gallaecian-Lusitanian Names
These can be found almost exclusively in the northwest of the Iberian penninsula (where they make up a bulk of the local names), although a few can be found in the inland southeast (Carpetania and Oretania). Their main feature is the disobedience to Celtic sound laws, most importantly they retain the *p from Proto-Indo-European, which is in contrast to the loss of the *p in Proto-Celtic.

- Caepiana
- Capara
- Capasa
- Complutum
- Complutica
- Ispinum
- Lupparia
- Paelontium
- Pallantia
- Petavonium
- Pinetus
- Pintia
- Segontia Paramica (compare with Celtic Ar-, Are-)

7) Iberian Names
The (eponymous) Iberians, a non-Indo-European people, were most densely present in the east of Iberia (modern-day Catalonia, Valenican Country and eastern Andalusia), however a few Iberian names can be found further west in the inland. Evidence for Iberian names includes the prefix 'il(i)-' (which may be a cognate with Basque 'hiri', 'town'), as well as the gentilix suffix '-sken' found in Iberian mint.

Examples include:
- Ilarcuris
- Illurbida
- Uresca

8) Phoenician Names
Most Phoenician settlements were in Andalusia, but there were also a few in the southwest, such as Balsa (compare Ba'al) and Ossonoba.

9) Other Non-Celtic and Non-Roman Names
There is a considerable number of other place names that will be addressed as follows which do not fit in anywhere else, but occur throughout the penninsula. Amongst the list below, the recurring stem 'Sal-' is of mention. It might be Celtic etymology ('salt', 'brine'), but note that cognates of this word can be found in most other branches of Indo-European and hence the stem 'Sal-' is by no means an indicator for Celtic languages.

- Ammea
- Biatia
- Burdua
- Burum
- Chritina
- Eldana
- Egelesta
- Laccuris
- Lama
- Lavarae
- Libora
- Libiosa
- Libunca
- Manliana
- Mentesa
- Metercosa
- Rigusa
- Salacia
- Salari
- Salica
- Salionca
- Tacubis
- Tunde
- Varada

So, the underlining conclusion is that the Iberian penninsula was not only a diverse but also heterogenous place. The different types of names that I cathegorized here occured side-by-side in the same general area.

callaeca
18-09-11, 23:39
bz............................

Taranis
19-09-11, 00:07
Sorry, but this list is erroneous:
First. The Callaecian is not the same that lusitanian. The callaecian is intagreted into the celtic languages called hispano-celta
1.- Pinetum and Petavonium are latin place-names
2.- Complutum belong to Celtiberia as Complega. not lusitanian nor callaecian
3. - Pallantia belong to Celtiberia
4. Ispinum is not indo-european
6. Arabriga, is celtic: from root ie *aro-
7. Nemetobriga belong to Callaecia, there are two place-names with this name
8. Brigantium, Cambetun and Caeliobriga are Callaecian place-names
9. Ebura, one place-name is in NW Callaecia and the other in Lustiania.
10. Arcobriga is an celto-hispanic word (same place-names in Celtiberian, vettonia, lusitania): means 'montain'
11. Caladunum is a celtic compoust or 1) Cala (strong)-dunum (fortress) or 2) Caletonum (with tipical western lenition)
12. Glandomirun is celtic. In Hispania de consonatic group nd > nd, not in nn like Gaulish: cf. Bendogabrum. Glando- is the same word that irish glan. Mirum from ie *mei-ro-
13. Mirobriga, Merobriga..celtic ie. *mei-ro-,
14. I don't know a placename Sarabris. If it is correct..it is callaecian or asturian (protocelt. bhºrghs > brix > bris). The first word from root ie. *ser-/*sor-/sºr-: celtic in Hispania (not alteuropäisch)
15. Talabriga is celtic like gaulish Talabriga. Tongobriga, celtic gaulish tongo-, irish tong 'to swear'
16. VALABRIGA (VOLOBRIGA is bad transcription), celtic..irish fal, gaulish vala-
17. PAELONTIUM latin, no -ontio in Hispania, but -antia, -entia
18. Paternania, latin from paternus
19. Segontia Paramica is a celtiberian town, not lusitanian nor callaecian
20. Sisapo is no an indo-european word, then not lusitanian
21. Turuptiana is a latin 'mansio'.
22. Caepiana is latin.
23. Capara...-ara is an celtic sufix in Hispania and Gaul.
24. AMMea is celtic, from *ambia-
25. Burum is celtic, from *bhor-
26. Lama is celtic from *(p)la-ma, like latin palm, irish lam 'palm'

the rest is a strange mixing with indoeuropeans and not indoeuropeans place-names

Thank you for your and corrections. However, some of them are in turn incorrect as well:

2) Complutum, even if actually rendered as Complega cannot be Celtic due to retaining *p.

3) Same with Pallantia. Cognate with Germanic Fel.

7,8,9) are nonetheless all Celtic etymologies.

11) 'Cala-' cannot be hard. If the word was Celtic in etymology, it was 'Caleto-' (compare Caledonii, Caleti, etc.). Third possibility is that it's actually 'Celadunum' (compare 'Celamantia').

12) I never doubted that 'Glando-' was Celtic in etymology, but I doubt that the second part ('Miro-') is.

19) Segontia Paramica is not Celtic due to retaining of *p. If the town name was Celtic, it would be 'Aremica' (compare 'Arevaci').

23) Capara cannot be Celtic due to retaining of *p.

callaeca
19-09-11, 00:12
bz................................

Taranis
19-09-11, 00:16
Do you doubt that the Celtiberian is a Celtic language too???????

No, obviously Celtiberian is a Celtic language, because PIE *p > Ø and PIE *gw > *b.

However, Celtiberian has a few innovations not found in other Celtic languages such as:

- Proto-Celtic *nm > *lm
- Proto-Celtic *s, *d > *ð at non-frontal, intervocalic positions (similar behaviour for clusters involving ds, ss).

By the way, there was no Gaulish tribe named 'Pleuxii'. I hate to say it, but you made that one up.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 00:31
Based on this, do you think the Cantabrii were Celtic or Non-Indo-European? I personally would say Celtic...

Taranis
19-09-11, 00:35
Based on this, do you think the Cantabrii were Celtic or Non-Indo-European? I personally would say Celtic...

I think they were mostly Celtic, at least judging from place names. Wasn't it you who brought up the point in the other thread about the rough terrain in Iberia promoting linguistic heterogenity?

EDIT: In the table I made at the start of the thread, Cantabrian towns are included with 'north'.

callaeca
19-09-11, 00:44
bz.....................................

callaeca
19-09-11, 00:48
bz....................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 00:54
I think they were mostly Celtic, at least judging from place names. Wasn't it you who brought up the point in the other thread about the rough terrain in Iberia promoting linguistic heterogenity?

EDIT: In the table I made at the start of the thread, Cantabrian towns are included with 'north'.

Indeed I was, and of course there was obviously much contact with their Basque neighbours, but there is a degree of controversy about their ethnicity nonetheless

Taranis
19-09-11, 00:59
Really was not there a Gaulish tribe Pleuxii?
Yes Taranis, the pleumoxi or pleuxii, belongs to the Nervii, as Centrones, Grudii, Levaci, and Geiduni.

Yes. I found a "Pleumoxii" tribe, mentioned in Caesar's 'Bello Gallico'. However, this is Gallia Belgica, which was an area which, although mostly Celtic, also had a few Germanic tribes in them by 1st century BC. It's more likely to assume that the tribal name is Germanic in etymology (compare Parmaecampi, Paemani). Since Germanic retains PIE *p (and later shifts it to *f, as well as shifting PIE *b to *p) it's far more plausible to assume that the tribal name is Germanic in etymology, rather than the (silly) assumption that a sound law was in free variation.

callaeca
19-09-11, 01:02
bz.....................................

callaeca
19-09-11, 01:06
bz.....................................

Taranis
19-09-11, 01:07
Indeed I was, and of course there was obviously much contact with their Basque neighbours, but there is a degree of controversy about their ethnicity nonetheless


Asturrulumbo the basques was not there in the roman times. The basques perhaps had they settlements in the north of Navarra and Aragón, in the Pirineos.

Yes and no. If you look at the ancient place names, there was a shift of the Basque-speaking area during the Dark Ages, with areas of Biscay, Arava being probably Celtic, but at the same time the Basque/Aquitanian-speaking area did extend much farther north in Antiquity.


A germanic tribe client of the Nervii? it is unusual.

Hardly. Germanic tribes crossed the Rhine during that time, such as the Tungri or the Suebi. This was actually one of the factors that led to the Gallic War.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 01:07
Asturrulumbo the basques was not there in the roman times. The basques perhaps had they settlements in the north of Navarra and Aragón, in the Pirineos.
I meant the Celts that area in general, not the Cantabrii

callaeca
19-09-11, 01:12
bz........................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 01:13
Yes and no. If you look at the ancient place names, there was a shift of the Basque-speaking area during the Dark Ages, with areas of Biscay, Arava being probably Celtic, but at the same time the Basque/Aquitanian-speaking area did extend much farther north in Antiquity.

Also, it may probable that Celts mostly occupied the coastal areas and the Vascones the mountains and valleys (perhaps in the context of the Atlantic Bronze Age).

callaeca
19-09-11, 01:21
bz.......................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 01:41
What I really don't know is wether the same applied on the other side of the Pyrenees...

callaeca
19-09-11, 01:47
bz...........................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 02:01
I don't understand...
Whether there were Celts on the Aquitanian coast

callaeca
19-09-11, 02:25
bz..............................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 02:31
I fear that aquitanians were not Celtic, but they were strongly influenced by the Gauls

Oh yes, that I know, I meant linguistically... By what you say it seems not to be the case

Taranis
19-09-11, 02:47
I fear that aquitanians were not Celtic, but they were strongly influenced by the Gauls

The Aquitanian language was, from what little is known, essentially the same as what has been reconstructed as 'Proto-Basque' or perhaps more appropriately Old Basque.

If that is confusing you: Basque may be an isolate language, but it too changed over time.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 03:34
The fact that Basque was in prehistory centred more around the western and central Pyrenees (today Navarra and Aragon) than what is today the Basque Country may explain the huge amounts of R1b (yes, this is the Linguistics forum, but to hell, humanity is holistic!) in the Basque Country, given that Basque is non-Indo-European and R1b is associated with the Indo-European migrations. Aragon (I give this example and not Navarre or Aquitaine because it's available in Eupedia), on the other hand, with its high amount of I2, may better explain the origin of Basque?

Taranis
19-09-11, 03:43
The fact that Basque was in prehistory centred more around the western and central Pyrenees (today Navarra and Aragon) than what is today the Basque Country may explain the huge amounts of R1b (yes, this is the Linguistics forum, but to hell, humanity is holistic!) in the Basque Country, given that Basque is non-Indo-European and R1b is associated with the Indo-European migrations. Aragon (I give this example and not Navarre or Aquitaine because it's available in Eupedia), on the other hand, with its high amount of I2, may better explain the origin of Basque?

Indeed. If I have to think of all the threads in genetics that already resulted in discussions about languages... :grin: Maciamo has suggested a number of scenarios how R1b could have ended up as Basque. But yes, in my opinion I2a1 is the best candidate for the original "Basque" (or more broadly, 'native' Western European) Y-Haplogroup. I mean, we know from Treilles that it was present in the Neolithic already, and Haplogroup G, *the* main Neolithic Haplogroup, obviously originated in either Anatolia or the Caucasus. This is a strong argument that it's indeed native (ie, Mesolithic or older).

In any case, regarding the Basque language, one unanswered question is the relationship between Basque-Aquitanian and the Iberian languages. There is definitely evidence for Basque loans into Iberian, or possibly vice versa, but it's not 100% known if they were really related. What speaks in favour of Basque and Iberian actually being related are what appear to be Iberian numerals which seem to be close to Basque-Aquitanian numerals. Numeral systems are very unlikely to get borrowed in their completeness (for comparison, the Indo-European languages are extremely conservative in their numerals), so this is a strong argument. What speaks against it is that thus far, Basque has been of no real help in the decipherment of Iberian.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 03:58
Indeed. If I have to think of all the threads in genetics that already resulted in discussions about languages... :grin: Maciamo has suggested a number of scenarios how R1b could have ended up as Basque. But yes, in my opinion I2a1 is the best candidate for the original "Basque" (or more broadly, 'native' Western European) Y-Haplogroup. I mean, we know from Treilles that it was present in the Neolithic already, and Haplogroup G, *the* main Neolithic Haplogroup, obviously originated in either Anatolia or the Caucasus. This is a strong argument that it's indeed native (ie, Mesolithic or older).

In any case, regarding the Basque language, one unanswered question is the relationship between Basque-Aquitanian and the Iberian languages. There is definitely evidence for Basque loans into Iberian, or possibly vice versa, but it's not 100% known if they were really related. What speaks in favour of Basque and Iberian actually being related are what appear to be Iberian numerals which seem to be close to Basque-Aquitanian numerals. Numeral systems are very unlikely to get borrowed in their completeness (for comparison, the Indo-European languages are extremely conservative in their numerals), so this is a strong argument. What speaks against it is that thus far, Basque has been of no real help in the decipherment of Iberian.

And even if they were loanwords and the morphological similarities were due to a Sprachbund (which to me seems unlikely), then the languages must have been in contact for a very long time... At least since the Neolithic, perhaps. And in Valencia (the centre of the Iberian culture), there is little evidence for such migrations that would bring with them a language, except the large amount of E1b1b, and if we take into account Maciamo's recent theory, then the perhaps two languages have been in contact since the Palaeolithic! (although still, E1b1b is not that high in Valencia compared to other parts of Iberia)

Taranis
19-09-11, 04:08
And even if they were loanwords and the morphological similarities were due to a Sprachbund (which to me seems unlikely), then the languages must have been in contact for a very long time... At least since the Neolithic, perhaps. And in Valencia (the centre of the Iberian culture), there is little evidence for such migrations that would bring with them a language, except the large amount of E1b1b, and if we take into account Maciamo's recent theory, then the perhaps two languages have been in contact since the Palaeolithic! (although still, E1b1b is not that high in Valencia compared to other parts of Iberia)

I agree that if there is a relationship, it must be old, which explains the differences and the difficulties.

One interesting, and very critical point, which in my opinion is kind of a huge blow for the Beaker-Bell hypothesis regarding the spread of the (western) branches of IE is the fact that Basque has for the greater degree it's own metal words that are clearly not borrowed from IE. Take a look:

gold = urre (sound superficially like related with the Latin/Celtic word for gold, but it's actually non-comformous with sound laws)
silver = zilar (same with the Germanic/Baltic/Slavic word, but no conformity with sound laws exists, either)
iron = burdina (this actually is the most paradox of them all because by the iron age, the Basques were nearly surrounded by Celts).

How is this possible?

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 04:18
I agree that if there is a relationship, it must be old, which explains the differences and the difficulties.

One interesting, and very critical point, which in my opinion is kind of a huge blow for the Beaker-Bell hypothesis regarding the spread of the (western) branches of IE is the fact that Basque has for the greater degree it's own metal words that are clearly not borrowed from IE. Take a look:

gold = urre (sound superficially like related with the Latin/Celtic word for gold, but it's actually non-comformous with sound laws)
silver = zilar (same with the Germanic/Baltic/Slavic word, but no conformity with sound laws exists, either)
iron = burdina (this actually is the most paradox of them all because by the iron age, the Basques were nearly surrounded by Celts).

How is this possible?

It's not. Also, the oldest Bell-Beaker sites are from Iberia. However, I wouldn't rule out that given the inmensity of the Bell Beaker horizon, it may be (especially in its latter phases, when megalithism begins to die out) associated in some places, namely Central Europe and Germany, with Indo-Europeans nonetheless. This I say because there really is no great cultural discontinuity between, for example, the Beaker and Unetice cultures.

Taranis
19-09-11, 04:31
It's not. Also, the oldest Bell-Beaker sites are from Iberia. However, I wouldn't rule out that given the inmensity of the Bell Beaker horizon, it may be (especially in its latter phases, when megalithism begins to die out) associated in some places, namely Central Europe and Germany, with Indo-Europeans nonetheless. This I say because there really is no great cultural discontinuity between, for example, the Beaker and Unetice cultures.

This is true, and you especially have a valid point in respect for the Unetice Culture. The point with Unetice, of course, is that it is located at the eastern fringe of the Beaker-Bell area, and also in an area which has an overlap with the former Corded Ware Culture area.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 04:48
This is true, and you especially have a valid point in respect for the Unetice Culture. The point with Unetice, of course, is that it is located at the eastern fringe of the Beaker-Bell area, and also in an area which has an overlap with the former Corded Ware Culture area.

Not to mention that the Beaker culture there was quite ephemeral, it got there around 2500 BC and by 2300 Unetice had largely replaced it. However, I don't think the Corded Ware culture is responsible for Unetice (by which I mean (pre-)proto-Italo-Celtic). I think it comes from the east... Maybe the Cotofeni Culture (3300-2500 BC) is a good candidate (I put a map of it)?

Taranis
19-09-11, 04:55
Not to mention that the Beaker culture there was quite ephemeral, it got there around 2500 BC and by 2300 Unetice had largely replaced it. However, I don't think the Corded Ware culture is responsible for Unetice (by which I mean (pre-)proto-Italo-Celtic). I think it comes from the east... Maybe the Cotofeni Culture (3300-2500 BC) is a good candidate (I put a map of it)?

From the perspective of the relationship with the Italic languages this works. What I really wonder on is what happened then? How did things spread into the Atlantic region? What did really happen in Western Europe at the same time as the Bronze Age Collapse occured in the eastern Mediterranean?

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 05:09
From the perspective of the relationship with the Italic languages this works. What I really wonder on is what happened then? How did things spread into the Atlantic region? What did really happen in Western Europe at the same time as the Bronze Age Collapse occured in the eastern Mediterranean?
Well, first of all, I believe that sometime around 1550 BC, during the early Tumulus Culture, the Italic branch of Italo-Celtic broke off to found the Terramare Culture of the Po valley. Then, sometime around 1300 BC or a bit earlier, the Q-Celtic branch of Celtic broke off to found the Atlantic Bronze Age--This was probably aided by the population upheavals that were happening in the Atlantic zone at that time, possibly linked with the Bronze Age Collapse and the Sea Peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean. Or it may have happened simultaneously, I don't have the answer to that.

callaeca
19-09-11, 17:50
bz.............................................

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 22:43
Well...I think that basques are not europeans natives.
It is very strange that we can not see some western and north hispanic typical genetic caracteristcs in the basque population, like E- M81. This marker is the neolithical colonization in the pre-megalithic times, introducing the domestic goats and grains (wheat), like the deposit of O Rieiro (Coruña, Galicia), 7000 bP old.

The Galician population most common phenotype, in contrast with the Basques, is the european GM*3 23 5* haplotype that represents 73% and the most common KM phenotype is KM (-1) (79.6%) and its corresponding KM*3 allele reached at frequency of 89.2%, which is within the range of European values. Galician population belongs to cluster C3 (like Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and half Western Iberia). The basques to the cluster C and have not correspondences in Europe.

Not presence of G2a in basques (0,2%-0,5%) nor Helgason indo-european mt-DNA (0,3%). Also we can found in basques the marker 22, with irrelevant percentages in Western Iberia and Central Europe. The mutation in the marker 47a have 3500 years old and coincides with de arguments of Klyosov (2010):

"It is very unlikely that their ancestors had encountered Neanderthals in Europe or had been associated with the Aurignacian culture (34,000-23,000 ybp), nor did they make sophisticated cave paintings in South of France, Spain, and Portugal. Arguably, the Basque ancient and unique language was brought to Iberia around 3600 ybp by the M269 bearers from their place of preceding location(s) and/or their origin, presumably in Asia".

It coincides too with the archaeological entry of the urnenfelders in the NE Peninsula, that means the end of the indo-europeisation in this area.

I don't agree. If it were so, then Basque would be spoken in all of Western Europe, as not only is M269 predominant in Euskadi. Also, if Basques had come to Iberia as early as 3600 BP, why is Basque a language isolate? And why has it not left a mark in place names anywhere?

Taranis
19-09-11, 23:42
I don't agree. If it were so, then Basque would be spoken in all of Western Europe, as not only is M269 predominant in Euskadi. Also, if Basques had come to Iberia as early as 3600 BP, why is Basque a language isolate? And why has it not left a mark in place names anywhere?

First off, I agree that Basque is likely to have been longer than Urnfield times. There's also the fact that Iberian, which after all may have been related with Basque, did in fact extend towards the south (all the way into central-western Andalusia).

However, regardless of this, it is a very interesting theoretical question: how long does it take for two languages to be no longer recognizable as being related with each other? It's very hard to say, but we have a few good examples for that:

Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken some time in the early Chalcolithic, and even though the oldest IE languages only date from the Bronze Age (Hittite, Mycenean Greek, etc.) it's still possible today to link the various branches of IE to a common ancestral language. So we are talking about some 5000-6000 years here.

The Afro-Asiatic language family is even older (the oldest attested languages are Old Egyptian and Akkadian) and Proto-Afro-Asiatic was probably spoken at the start of the Neolithic. So we may be talking about more like 9000 years here.

The Uralic languages are also certainly Neolithic in age, though their vocabulary is compatible with the Mesolithic. This may be a bit of a confusion because the 'Neolithic' Comb Ceramic Culture (the likely speakers of Proto-Uralic) were not farmers, but pottery-making hunter-gatherers.

So, for a language which is (apparently) non-related with other languages, we can speculate if the time frame must be even greater. There is of course the additional problem that we have isolated languages. In two of the above described cases (Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic) we have a large corpus of languages, including a few rather old ones. Another problem that it's impossible to reconstruct what ancient Basque (say, in the Neolithic) would have looked liked. Even with internal reconstruction, we can only imagine what Basque looked like approximately 2000-2300 years ago. If you take many modern IE languages (the Celtic languages are a prime example, actually) you get only a poor idea of what the ancient languages really were like, and reconstruction as a result would be erroneous.

Asturrulumbo
19-09-11, 23:53
First off, I agree that Basque is likely to have been longer than Urnfield times. There's also the fact that Iberian, which after all may have been related with Basque, did in fact extend towards the south (all the way into central-western Andalusia).

However, regardless of this, it is a very interesting theoretical question: how long does it take for two languages to be no longer recognizable as being related with each other? It's very hard to say, but we have a few good examples for that:

Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken some time in the early Chalcolithic, and even though the oldest IE languages only date from the Bronze Age (Hittite, Mycenean Greek, etc.) it's still possible today to link the various branches of IE to a common ancestral language. So we are talking about some 5000-6000 years here.

The Afro-Asiatic language family is even older (the oldest attested languages are Old Egyptian and Akkadian) and Proto-Afro-Asiatic was probably spoken at the start of the Neolithic. So we may be talking about more like 9000 years here.

The Uralic languages are also certainly Neolithic in age, though their vocabulary is compatible with the Mesolithic. This may be a bit of a confusion because the 'Neolithic' Comb Ceramic Culture (the likely speakers of Proto-Uralic) were not farmers, but pottery-making hunter-gatherers.

So, for a language which is (apparently) non-related with other languages, we can speculate if the time frame must be even greater. There is of course the additional problem that we have isolated languages. In two of the above described cases (Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic) we have a large corpus of languages, including a few rather old ones. Another problem that it's impossible to reconstruct what ancient Basque (say, in the Neolithic) would have looked liked. Even with internal reconstruction, we can only imagine what Basque looked like approximately 2000-2300 years ago. If you take many modern IE languages (the Celtic languages are a prime example, actually) you get only a poor idea of what the ancient languages really were like, and reconstruction as a result would be erroneous.

Of course. And in the case of Uralic, there's also Altaic, which of course is controversial. But, for example, the Na Dene languages of the Americas have been genetically linked (not with glottochronology or other dubious means, but with mainstream comparative linguistics, archaeology and folklore) with the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia.

callaeca
19-09-11, 23:57
bz .....................

Asturrulumbo
20-09-11, 00:12
Avus (Mela III, 10; Ptol. II, 6, 1), ie. and celt. *aw-, *awo-, *awe- 'to move': cf. NR gaul. AVA.

This one could come from Proto-Celtic *abon (water,see Welsh "afon" and Old Irish "ab")

Taranis
20-09-11, 00:36
Of course. And in the case of Uralic, there's also Altaic, which of course is controversial. But, for example, the Na Dene languages of the Americas have been genetically linked (not with glottochronology or other dubious means, but with mainstream comparative linguistics, archaeology and folklore) with the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia.

You bring up a good point with Na-Dene-Yeniseian. But you have also to consider the long time of research and the effort that was needed to verify this connection. But again, with the Na-Dene languages you have a fairly large number of modern languages which greatly helps the reconstruction via the comparative method.

In any case, Basque as we see it today is effectively a language of the iron age, and it's basically impossible to tell if the many later terms (agricultural terms, word for 'horse', words for metals) are foreign terms or common terms of whatever language family Basque belonged to. But in any case I think the case is very compelling that the Basque language was at it's location since at least the Neolithic, and also that I2a1 is probably the 'original' Y-Haplogroup of the Basques.

What is interesting is that for a comparison, the Finnic languages adopted a lot of terms from Proto-Indo-European (or IE close to it), including metal words. Most peculiar, the Finnic word for 'iron' is a cognate with the Balto-Slavic word for 'ore', which is in turn a cognate with the word for 'red' in most other branches of Indo-European.

Asturrulumbo
20-09-11, 01:38
In any case, Basque as we see it today is effectively a language of the iron age, and it's basically impossible to tell if the many later terms (agricultural terms, word for 'horse', words for metals) are foreign terms or common terms of whatever language family Basque belonged to. But in any case I think the case is very compelling that the Basque language was at it's location since at least the Neolithic, and also that I2a1 is probably the 'original' Y-Haplogroup of the Basques.

What is interesting is that for a comparison, the Finnic languages adopted a lot of terms from Proto-Indo-European (or IE close to it), including metal words. Most peculiar, the Finnic word for 'iron' is a cognate with the Balto-Slavic word for 'ore', which is in turn a cognate with the word for 'red' in most other branches of Indo-European.
Well, metallurgy did arrive to the Finns with Indo-Europeans...
I remember reading once that the Basque words for knife and axe may come from the same root as the word stone, though.

Taranis
20-09-11, 01:54
Well, metallurgy did arrive to the Finns with Indo-Europeans...
I remember reading once that the Basque words for knife and axe may come from the same root as the word stone, though.

'Aizkora' and 'Labana' from 'Harria'? That would seem unlikely. What I do know however is that the river name 'Garonne' is probably derived from Basque. Specifically, the Proto-Basque word for 'rock' is usually reconstructed as 'Karr-' (note that a sound shift of initial *k > *h occured there in Basque). So, from that perspective the Garonne would be the 'stony river'.

My point with the Finns really was, Basque may have expirienced the same from other pre-IE languages, but it's impossible to verify this nowadays anymore, of course.

zanipolo
20-09-11, 09:30
some languages which where in southern Spain ( ancient)

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/iberian.htm#sws

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/phoenician.htm

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/punic.htm

http://www.pelendonia.net/lengua/lengua.htm

callaeca
21-09-11, 18:52
bz ......................

Taranis
21-09-11, 19:14
Well Taranis. This is the list of callaecian topomastic names between I-VI a.C.
I don't see preceltics names in Callaecia, but celtic: 85-90% or more. The words with *p (Acripia, Lapatia) are perfectly integrated in this celtic system.

Your list is decisively larger and more inclusive than the list I had (I should add, as I initially stated, my list only included town names), I give you that. I also give you that you found etymologies for some places which I overlooked, and I was going to revise/expand my own list in regard for this, anyways. Other than that, I must really disagree. There are many of the names in your list which are compatible with Celtic but not necessarily Celtic. In a number of cases, which I found rather bizarre, there is also no consistentency in sound laws there. For example you have *-t- > *-d- in 'Tuda' (from Proto-Celtic *Teuta), but Nemetobriga and Letiobriga. Why should Gallaecian as a Q-Celtic language share a sound law with Welsh/Brythonic in some words and then again not in others? It should not make sense. As for words with *p being 'perfectly integrated': only in your dreams. We've ben there before: you cannot have *p and *p > Ø in free variation. At least to the general opinion in mainstream is impossible for sound laws to be in free variation. Sound laws have no exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change#Principles_of_sound_change)

EDIT: Something else I just noticed upon re-checking the dat, your set of data is definitely scewed because it includes towns outside of Gallaecia (for example Toletum in the inland, Arcobriga in the southwest). From that perspective, I am having my doubts if your list is valid.

Edit, anyways, this is the list below which I had (for Gallaecia):

Aqua Calida
Aqua Flavia
Aquae Quacernori
Araducca
Argenteola
Asturica Augusta
Bedunia
Bracaraugusta
Brigantium
Burum
Caladunum
Caronium
Cambetum
Celiobriga
Claudiomerum
Complutica
Dactonium
Flavia Lambris
Forum Bibilori
Forum Gigurrum
Forum Nabasori
Forum Limicori
Glandomirum
Gigia
Interamnium
Intercatia
Iria Flavia
Labernis
Lanciati
Libunca
Lucus Augusti
Lucus Asturum
Maliaca
Merua
Nardinium
Nemetobriga
Novium
Olina
Paelontium
Petavonium
Pinetus
Pintia
Tuda
Talamina
Tuntobriga
Turriga
Turuptiana
Vica
Volobriga

callaeca
21-09-11, 23:03
bz...............................

Taranis
21-09-11, 23:13
I'm not going to reply to you anymore because without a doubt you are a lost cause, especially due to your intransigence to understand the concept of sound laws and to believe that they could be in free variation. I am also fed with your permanent insults. But there is this that I want to point out:


4.- You belong to traditional and dogmatic trend born in the ends of the XIX century, whose principles are dead.

This. These principles better be not dead, or comparative linguistics will go to hell in a handbasket. If you believe we ditch the concept of sound laws, well, maybe we should ditch the concept of Indo-European languages altogether. The next thing is that you can claim the Quechua is a Semitic language, that Etruscan is an early dialect of Albanian or that, who knew English is a dialect of Chinese?! :laughing:


Remember this words:

"Ich fürchte, eines Tages werden die Keltisten lernen müssen, mit dem p zu leben" (Untermann, 1987:74)

Or, maybe Untermann has to learn he was wrong. Well, the really funny and amusing thing is that to this day you have not shown me any single evidence for common sound laws between the Celtic languages and Gallaecian/Lusitanian.

Asturrulumbo
21-09-11, 23:15
And what about deity names?

Taranis
21-09-11, 23:17
And what about deity names?

What about them?

Asturrulumbo
21-09-11, 23:22
How many are there attested? What can they tell us about their language and their religion? For example, there is a place in Asturias called Táranu.

Taranis
21-09-11, 23:31
How many are there attested? What can they tell us about their language and their religion? For example, there is a place in Asturias called Táranu.


How many are there attested? What can they tell us about their language and their religion? For example, there is a place in Asturias called Táranu.

As I mentioned before, there's a number of deities which are found in Western Hispania which are not found elsewhere in the Celtic-speaking world (such as Bandua, Nabia, Revo). On the other hand, others that are really widespread (Lugus, Bormanius) are found there too. As for Taranis (as you bring up the name), it is attested from Celtiberia proper.

Asturrulumbo
21-09-11, 23:42
As I mentioned before, there's a number of deities which are found in Western Hispania which are not found elsewhere in the Celtic-speaking world (such as Bandua, Nabia, Revo). On the other hand, others that are really widespread (Lugus, Bormanius) are found there too. As for Taranis (as you bring up the name), it is attested from Celtiberia proper.
And what etymologies would these deities not found elsewhere in the Celtic world have? Celtic? Non-Celtic IE? Non-IE?

callaeca
22-09-11, 00:21
bz...........................................

Taranis
22-09-11, 00:31
Really, you need go to an oculist.

No, it just makes no sense whatsoever to assume that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic if all branches of Celtic (including Celtiberian) lose the *p found in PIE. Even if you say that Lusitanian is a Celtic language (because, to pick up Untermann's statement, you assume somehow that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic for some reason), it does not change anything about the fact that Celtiberian, Gaulish etc. are all closer related with each other than with Lusitanian because of the common innovation of *p > Ø.

callaeca
22-09-11, 00:34
bz......................................

Taranis
22-09-11, 00:42
My God, PIGANCOM is Celtberian and COPLUTUM Lepontic in Remedello. OK?. For you law...are not celtic languages..
PALOTREBA is Lusitanian and PALA is Lepóntic...Where is the diference?

Sorry, I mentioned before, which you seek to consistently ignore, that Arevaci and Uxama are Celtiberian, no? Regarding Lepontic, you should be aware of the fact that it is a P-Celtic language, and that *p in Lepontic would correspond to *kw in Proto-Celtic?

callaeca
22-09-11, 00:51
bz...........................

Taranis
22-09-11, 01:03
What? Pala from *Kwala? I think better an aboriginal KOALA?

Sorry, no...it is the same word...

No. Cognate exists in Welsh, 'Pal' ('spade'). The Proto-Celtic form would be reconstructed as 'Kwal-'


Well callaecian COMPLEUTICA, astur COMPLUTICA, celtiberian COMPLUTUM, lepontic KOPLUTUM...how can you explain it?

If what you claim is true, please, then explain to why is it not "Parevaci" and "Upsama"?


PRATISAGUS...in Britania

That's probably a misspelling of Bratisagus (From 'Bratu-' = 'judgment').

Asturrulumbo
22-09-11, 01:05
No, it just makes no sense whatsoever to assume that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic if all branches of Celtic (including Celtiberian) lose the *p found in PIE. Even if you say that Lusitanian is a Celtic language (because, to pick up Untermann's statement, you assume somehow that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic for some reason), it does not change anything about the fact that Celtiberian, Gaulish etc. are all closer related with each other than with Lusitanian because of the common innovation of *p > Ø.
Considering the northern/western languages of Iberia to be non-Celtic (or at least non-"core Celtic"), when would you consider that these languages arrived? Would, for example, the Astures, Cantabri, Vaccaei and Turmudigi belong linguistically to the Celtiberian or Gallaecian/Lusitanian groups, in your opinion? In mine, they would probably belong to the former...

callaeca
22-09-11, 01:08
bz.......................................

Taranis
22-09-11, 01:15
UUfff...How many times must i repeat the same: UXAMA, USSAMA, U.S.A.M.A is the same word that you see in callaecian USEIS (identical celtiberian U.S.E.I.Z.U).

Because it's not the same. If it was "Ussama" in Celtiberian, it would have been rendered as "Ussama" or "Usama" in Roman sources. But for a strange reason, it's "Uxama", which somehow suggests that in Celtiberian, just like other Celtic languages, *ps, *pt > *xs, *xt.

And again, why is it not Parevaci?


Really, have you read the lepontic inscriptions? PALA means 'stone tumulus'

Could you cite a source for that? I'm not inventing etymologies. Check out a Welsh dictionary. Or check out this (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/EnglishProtoCelticWordlist.pdf).

LeBrok
22-09-11, 05:48
Too much info Taranis. Looks like you overloaded callaeca's brain. :) ...incoherent weird sounds only mixed with psychedelic laughter of denial.

zanipolo
22-09-11, 13:20
No. Cognate exists in Welsh, 'Pal' ('spade'). The Proto-Celtic form would be reconstructed as 'Kwal-'



Interesting...in Old and New Venetian language a spade means Pala. ..............hmmm mind boggles

callaeca
22-09-11, 17:05
A great applause for Mr. Taranis, LeBrok, for his limited and poor knowledge of celtology. To make affirmations without references, for his ignorance about the phonetic development in the celto-Hispanic dialects. For his wonderful and spectacular list, mixing celtiberians, callaecians, lusitanians and vettonians towns, mixing nonIndo-European roots with Indo-European.

A great applause, LeBrok, for his great knowledge of lepontic, in which he does not know the meaning of the word, PALA, a funerary monument, (a grave stone), that you can see recorded over 15 times and a special applause when he considers VXAMA, USSAMA and U.S.A.M.A as different realisations, when they are the same: today Osma, not Oxma; and in which he is incapable to distinguish the phonetic evolution, admitted by all the authors: ps > ks > ss > s, and whose last evolutionary step is observed in Cantabrian and callaecian VSEIS (< *upseis).

A strong applause when he uses obsolete terms, like lusitano-callaecian language (U. Schmoll, 1956), but only tellding half the truth, (if it is true that he has read U. Schmoll which, by the way, considers protoceltic these western hispanic languages), or he makes mistakes with the term 'lusitanian-callaecian area', where we can distinguish five dialects: lusitanian, vettonian, vaccean, astur and callaecian.

A great applause for the lack of culture, LeBrok, yes. An applause too, for saying what he said without knowing exactly the significance, this is the way LeBrok.

For you LeBrok, for your faithful servility whose practices antiscience, this Spanish proverb:

‘En el país de los ciegos, el tuerto es el rey’

Taranis
23-09-11, 22:14
Callaeca, I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I would hereby like to endorse you to mind your language in future.

In the meantime I would like you to take a few looks at some files:
on the Celtiberian language (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_17/jordan_6_17.pdf)
on the language(s) of the Gallaecians (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_16/lujan_6_16.pdf)
on the Lusitanian language (http://emerita.revistas.csic.es/index.php/emerita/article/download/185/186)
on Celtic sound laws in general (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf)

Asturrulumbo
23-09-11, 23:30
Callaeca, I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I would hereby like to endorse you to mind your language in future.

In the meantime I would like you to take a few looks at some files:
on the Celtiberian language (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_17/jordan_6_17.pdf)
on the language(s) of the Gallaecians (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_16/lujan_6_16.pdf)
on the Lusitanian language (http://emerita.revistas.csic.es/index.php/emerita/article/download/185/186)
on Celtic sound laws in general (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf)

So Revo could be *Dyeus! And Gallaecian could be somewhere between Lusitanian and the other Celtic languages... I begin to wonder, could one speak of an "Atlantic Dialect Continuum" at this time?

Taranis
24-09-11, 16:00
So Revo could be *Dyeus! And Gallaecian could be somewhere between Lusitanian and the other Celtic languages... I begin to wonder, could one speak of an "Atlantic Dialect Continuum" at this time?

That's the question: is it a dialect continuum or a linguistically heterogenous area? Take three examples:

'Pintia' (from *Penkwe) retains *p before *kw, and must be assumed as non-Celtic (indeed non-Italo-Celtic, compare Latin 'Quintus'), unless you assume that at least parts of Gallaecia were P-Celtic (*kw > *p). However, P-Celtic can be ruled out by the fact that there are no Gallaecian words attested with *p where *p would correspond to PIE *kw. Hence, Non-Celtic is more likely.

'Quaquerni' (*p > *kw before *kw) is compatible with Celtic, but by no means necessarily Celtic.

'Arotrebae' is undoubtably Celtic (*p > Ø)

So, the only sensible explanation I see here is that we are talking about a non-homogenous area.

callaeca
25-09-11, 15:44
1-- Why you say that PINTIA is a Callaecian word, if it has examples in Celtiberia, in Vettonia or in Cantabria?

Are you sure that querquernii become of ie. *perkwo-? Then how can you explain celtiberian PERKUNETA?.

Why do you believe that AROTREBAE comes from *pare- preposition? It must be 'the place of the Ari'. There is a place name called Aros in this area, and it is known that some plural acusatives are old tribal representations: cf. Lemos < LEMAVOS, Tribes > TRIBUROS, Cobres < COBIRES, Céltigos (4) < CELTICOS.

2-- About the preservative ie. *p how can you explain it in the lepontic system: cf. lep. kaputus/call. capori?

3-- It results that the two oldest celtic dialects, lepontic and celto-hispanic have *p (looks that my teacher Stifter thinks about it: 'celtiberian: paramus??

Taranis
25-09-11, 15:54
1-- Why you say that PINTIA is a Callaecian word, if it has examples in Celtiberia, in Vettonia or in Cantabria?

Well, the term occurs in Gallaecia. It's not exclusively Gallaecian, as you said.


Are you sure that querquernii become of ie. *perkwo-? Then how can you explain celtiberian PERKUNETA?.

Can you cite a source for this 'Perkuneta'? Do you mean 'Bercunetacam' (http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/keltibbs.htm) occuring in the Botorrita inscription I?

In any case, the sound law *p > *kw before *kw is well attested in Irish and Latin.

Old Irish 'Cóic', Modern Irish 'Cúig' Scots Gaelic 'Còig'.
Latin 'Quinque', French 'Cinq', Spanish 'Cinco'.

As I mentioned, this is a sound law that clearly predates Proto-Celtic.


Why do you believe that AROTREBAE comes from *pare- preposition? It must be 'the place of the Ari'. There is a place name called Aros in this area, and it is known that some plural acusatives are old tribal representations: cf. Lemos < LEMAVOS, Tribes > TRIBUROS, Cobres < COBIRES, Céltigos (4) < CELTICOS.

...to quote the second link I provided:


2. A(r)rotrebae (Str. III 3.5, Pliny NH IV 111, 114). They are also frequently called Artabri (Str. III 2.9 etc., Mela III 13, Agathem. IV 16, Ptol. II 6.2, 21). If the correct form is Arotrebae, as Pliny NH IV 114 explicitly argues, we would have here a compound of are- (with loss of the initial IE *p) plus a form of the stem *treb- 'live in, inhabit'.

In other words, I'm not the only one who thinks that.


2-- About the preservative ie. *p how can you explain it in the lepontic system?

Note that the letter P is not used to express this but Etruscan V (ie, 'Uvamokozis'). It's possible that this indeed represented *φ (it clearly didn't represent *p!), which is what we would expect with early Proto-Celtic, if the development *p > *φ > *h > Ø is assumed to be correct.

In any case, the loss of *p is clearly attested also in Celtic names from the Iberian peninsula (Arevaci, Aregelae, Arotrebae, Ocativiolca, etc. - you also yourself provided the example of an instance of Toutatis from Gallaecia). I mentioned that there are cases where *p isn't lost through complete disappearance, but otherwise. The example I gave for that is *ps, *pt > *xs, *xt, but the fourth link I provided gives other examples, but these always appear in the context of other consonants. Initial *p- is consistently lost. The conclusion from that is any occurences of initial *p- in the Hispano-Celtic context must be of a different origin.

callaeca
25-09-11, 17:35
1. Then, *pent-/*pint- is celto-hispanic, isn't?
2. About PERKUNETA see Fco. Adrados, 'Propuestas para la interpretación de Botorrita I', Emerita 63, 1995, p. 5 ss., or P. de Bernardo Stempel, “La ley del 1er Bronce de Botorrita:Uso agropecuario de un encinar sagrado”, nº 10 en: F. Burillo Mozota (ed.), VI Simposio sobre Celtíberos.
3. The prep. ie*pare- > gaul. are-, celtib. are-, but no a celtic **aro-. Arotrebae can not belong to this system because all western hispanic languages preseve *p. There is an exceptional example in callaecian ABOBRIGA/AVOBRIGA/AOBRIGA , but we can explain it best if we think an etimology from celt. *awo-/*awe-, where it loss /w/.
4. OLCA does not come from ie, *polka. Spanish (huelga) and galician (olga) are a midlle age galicism (olgue), because de consonantic group -lc- can not derive in -lg- in our current languages. It comes from ie. *wlka- 'wolf' like gaul. OLCADES.
5. I ask you the same question that i made in classes: lepontic words like PIRIKIO, PIAMI, PAZROS, KEPUTUS, KEPI, PELESI and a lot of them, how can you explain it?, or call. EN CAPORI (but personal name CABVRI)/lepontic KAPUTUS; call. PELCIVS/lepontic PELKUI, celto-hispanic APANUS/lepontic APIOS, is it not the same?

About REVE < *dyeus it is rule out.

Taranis
25-09-11, 17:58
1. Then, *pent-/*pint- is celto-hispanic, isn't?

I don't see how.


2. About PERKUNETA see Fco. Adrados, 'Propuestas para la interpretación de Botorrita I', Emerita 63, 1995, p. 5 ss., or P. de Bernardo Stempel, “La ley del 1er Bronce de Botorrita:Uso agropecuario de un encinar sagrado”, nº 10 en: F. Burillo Mozota (ed.), VI Simposio sobre Celtíberos.

The Celtiberian script doesn't distinguish between /b/ or /p/.


3. The prep. ie*pare- > gaul. are-, celtib. are-, but no a celtic **aro-. Arotrebae can not belong to this system because all western hispanic languages preseve *p. There is an exceptional example in callaecian ABOBRIGA/AVOBRIGA/AOBRIGA , but we can explain it best if we think an etimology from celt. *awo-/*awe-, where it loss /w/.

I think you're making a fallacy now because you somehow ad-hoc assume that *p must not have been lost despite contrary evidence, which I provided, and you yourself even admitted.


4. OLCA not comes from ie, *polka. It is a midlle age galicism in spanish (huelga) and galician (olga) languages, because de consonantic group -lc- can not derive in -lg- in our current languages. It comes from wºlka 'wolf' like gaul. OLCADES.

'Octaviolca' is mentioned by Ptolemy, 2nd century AD.


5. I ask you the same question that i made in classes: lepontic words like PIRIKIO, PIAMI, PAZROS, KEPUTUS, KEPI, PELESI and a lot of them or call. EN CAPORI (but personal name CABVRI)/lepontic KAPUTUS; call. PELCIVS/lepontic PELKUI, celto-hispanic APANUS/lepontic APIOS, is it not the same?

You have to consider that the Etruscan alphabet used by the Lepontii didn't distinguish between /b/ or /p/: for example "Pelcius"/"Pelkui" is actually "Belgius"/"Belgui". This one of the reasons why a "P" doesn't automatically mean *p inherited from PIE. You have to look at what the sound really corresponds to. This is why sound correspondence is important.

callaeca
25-09-11, 23:44
1-- well, if we can find *pent- derivates in all indo-europeans dialects of Hispania...then, what are we talking about?

2-- if you are in disagreement with celtiberian transcription of Adrados, Jordan, Prosper, Untermann, Ballester, Wodtko, etc, then you can write a new theory;

3-- equally for lepontic transcriptions, you must write a letter to these investigator to say that they are mistaken:
- Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004;
- Patrizia Solinas, "Il Celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60 (1994 [1995]), 311-408;
- Maria Grazia Tibiletti Bruno, "Il Mondo Culturale di Comum", Memorie dell'Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 30/3 (1969), 167-315;
- Angela Deodato, Elena Poletti Ecclesia, "???", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999.
- Filippo Maria Gambari, "Le Iscrizioni Vascolari della Necropoli", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999, 387-395.
- etc, etc.

For example, in Patrick Sims-Williams, 2000: Pelcui.

4-- Well, it is not a fallacy. Really, there is not evidence that *p (except with the group pl- and -ps-) is loss in all of the western and northern dialects, and this phenomenon is observable too in a great number of celtiberian ítems. About this, I can believe that the call. name of god VERORE contains the prep. ie. *super-, or the call. personal name VEROBLIUS, but i do not think it is plausible.

**aro- can not come from ie. *pare- and there is not an alternative *paro-

5-- About OLCA: C. Búa 'Thesaurus Palaeocallaecus', Verba 58, Dieter Kremer ed., 2007. pp. 23-24, where he proposes the etimology alternative ie. *h2olkeh2- 'fortification'.

And remember: Stifter: celtiberian p - paramus?

Where the ie. *p persist, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica

Taranis
26-09-11, 00:32
1-- well, if we can find *pent- derivates in all indo-europeans dialects of Hispania...then, what are we talking about?

If 'Pintia' indeed is a cognate with PIE *Penkwe, there are two ways for this to yield *p: either one assumes that in any of the IE languages on the Iberian penninsula, then either they diverged before the Italo-Celtic sound law (*p > *kw before *kw) emerged, or you have a language where *kw becomes *p (as in Gaulish or Brythonic). The latter is prettymuch impossible for Celtiberian and Gallaecian because *kw is clearly attested (Celtiberian '-kue', compare Latin '-que' and Gallaecian 'Quaquerni'). Regardless of that, you still seem to be assuming somehow that these are just dialectic variations of the same language, which I really don't see (Lusitanian, might be...). It's utterly impossible, and the only viable solution I see is that you have to assume a linguistically non-homogenous area.


2-- if you are in disagreement with celtiberian transcription of Adrados, Jordan, Prosper, Untermann, Ballester, Wodtko, etc, then you can write a new theory;

I'm not in any disagreement. All transliterations I have seen so far of the Botorrita inscriptions (including this (http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/keltibbs.htm)) transliterate it as /b/. Likewise here (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_5_celtiberianC.pdf). Even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botorrita_plaque) does.


3-- equally for lepontic trancriptions, you must write a letter to these investigator to say that they are mistaken:
- Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004;
- Patrizia Solinas, "Il Celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60 (1994 [1995]), 311-408;
- Maria Grazia Tibiletti Bruno, "Il Mondo Culturale di Comum", Memorie dell'Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 30/3 (1969), 167-315;
- Angela Deodato, Elena Poletti Ecclesia, "???", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999.
- Filippo Maria Gambari, "Le Iscrizioni Vascolari della Necropoli", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999, 387-395.
- etc, etc.

For example, in Patrick Sims-Williams, 2000: Pelcui.

Frankly, I don't need to do this. It should be evident from Lepontic orthography. Unless you can show me cases of 'P' in Lepontic corresponding to *p in PIE (as opposed to *kw, *b or *bh, which I would expect), I see now reason to assume whatsoever to assume that Lepontic did indeed inherit *p from PIE.


4-- Well, it is not a fallacy. Really, there is not evidence that *p (except with the group pl- and -ps-) is loss in all of the western and northern dialects, and this phenomenon is observable too in a great number of celtiberian ítems. About this, I can believe that the call. name god VERORE contains the prep. ie. *super-, or the call. personal name VEROBLIUS, but i do not think it is plausible.

Ver- (or transliterated as 'Uer-') exists throughout Celtiberian inscriptions, it occurs three times in Botorrita I, and five times in Botorrita III. The Proto-Celtic form is reconstructed as Uφer (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/EnglishProtoCelticWordlist.pdf)-, and the form in Celtiberian is identical to Gaulish (compare Vercingetorix!).


5-- About OLCA: C. Búa 'Thesaurus Palaeocallaecus', Verba 58, Dieter Kremer ed., 2007. pp. 23-24, where he proposes the etimology alternative ie. *h2olkeh2- 'fortification'.

Well, it's possible. It doesn't change anything about the other instances of *p > Ø, however.

callaeca
26-09-11, 02:31
Well, how can you explain the celtiberian clan PINTOLANC(OM)(Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344) and the celtiberians personal names like PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS (3).

Well, how can you explain the celtiberians transcriptions PANTR[ (K.3.12) or APILIKO (K.8.1), and please, this are, for example, two real transcriptions not like your speculations and generalizations (Stifter, wikipedia), or are you talking about examples like BISTIROS (K.0.11: cf. PISTIRUS), where *p is represented by b?

And yes, VEROBLIS, might be VER-OBILIS, it is, *super-obh-il-is, but *super is not plausible in the western and northern areas of Hispania.

And in the same way, the lepontic examples are reals. I know you don't need nothing, but EXPLAIN THE lepontic word COPLUDO (from the inscription of Remedello) and its links with the celto-hispanic celtib. KonPouTo (or COMPLUTUM), call. COMPLEUTICA, ast. COMPLUTICA, PLEASE.

Where the ie. *p persists, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica

Taranis
26-09-11, 13:56
Well, how can you explain the celtiberian clan PINTOLANC(OM)(Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344) and the celtiberians personal names like PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS (3).

Are you trying to argue that Celtiberian is not an Italo-Celtic language? Or that Celtiberian is P-Celtic?

As I elaborated earlier on the word for 'five', the shift from *p to *kw before *kw is Italo-Celtic:

Old Irish 'Cóic', Modern Irish 'Cúig' Scots Gaelic 'Còig'.
Latin 'Quinque', French 'Cinq', Spanish 'Cinco'.

In P-Celtic languages (Gaulish, Brythonic), *kw that is inherited from Proto-Celtic is shifted to *p:
Gaulish 'Pinpetos', Welsh 'Pump', Breton 'Pemp'

The Celtiberian word for 'five' or 'fifth' is unattested. What is attested is the word for 'tenth', which is 'Decametam' (compare Gaulish 'Decametos'). Since Celtiberian was a Q-Celtic language, it stands to reason that the Celtiberian word would have been something akin to 'kwinkwetam'.

The conclusion is that the form Pent-/Pint- is most probably non-Celtic. It remains the question if these forms are viable as Lusitanian, but I'm not sure of that, either.


Well, how can you explain the celtiberians transcriptions PANTR[ (K.3.12) or APILIKO (K.8.1), and please, this are, for example, two real transcriptions not like your speculations and generalizations (Stifter, wikipedia), or are you talking about examples like BISTIROS (K.0.11: cf. PISTIRUS), where *p is represented by b?

These are not 'speculations and generalizations, compare 'Boustomue' or 'Ambitincounei' (Botorrita I). Unless you're trying to argue that in Celtiberian, *gw > *p, *b > *p?


And yes, VEROBLIS, might be VER-OBILIS, it is, *super-obh-il-is, but *super is not plausible in the western and northern areas of Hispania.

Why is it not plausible? As I mentioned *uφer- > *uer- is attested in Celtiberian.


And in the same way, the lepontic examples are reals. I know you don't need nothing, but EXPLAIN THE lepontic word COPLUDO (from the inscription of Remedello) and its links with the celto-hispanic celtib. KonPouTo (or COMPLUTUM), call. COMPLEUTICA, ast. COMPLUTICA, PLEASE.

It is attested in Gaulish, Irish and Brythonic that *φ > *b before *r or *l at medial positions, though not at initial positions. About Celtiberian and Lepontic, it's hard to say. It's conceivable that *p was preserved before *l at initial positions.

The question that you have to ask yourself is this: does that mean that because *p might be preserved before *l in Celtiberian and Lepontic that *p must have been preserved anywhere else (against all contrary evidence, since we established earlier that *p- > *φ- > Ø, *-p- > *-φ- > Ø also applies in Celtiberian), such as initial or intervocalic positions? Does that automatically mean that we should ditch the concept of sound laws and the concept of sound correspondence? I would say no.

The alternative, which I find also conceivable that it was preserved as *φl- yielded *bl- in Lepontic and Celtiberian (compare 'Bletisama'). Mind you, there are other incidents in Celtiberian where Proto-Celtic *b seemingly yielded *p (Pelendones?).


Where the ie. *p persists, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica

It's not a 'substratic anomaly' at all. I know that you firmly believe that, and you claimed it over again, but it's clear from the evidence that it's NOT an 'anomaly' but it's a sound change that was regularly conditioned (the loss of *p at initial and intervocalic conditions is attested in Celtiberian and Lepontic as well, which I demonstrated you with multiple examples). Besides, what kind of explanation is it that are you offering there? The Gallaecians were the 'pure', real Indo-Europeans and that the Gauls, Irish, Britons were somehow 'impure' non-Indo-Europeans who couldn't properly speak the language? That is, no offense, a very fishy explanation with a very dubious agenda.

Likewise, do you think that the shift of *p > *f in Germanic is also a 'substratic anomaly'? Do you think Grimm's Law is a substratic anomaly?

The loss of *p is also not only in the context of Continental Celtic but attested in all branches of the Celtic languages. You might even say that it's better attested in Irish, Welsh etc. because these are living languages.

From that perspective, I maintain that it is more plausible to assume that we are talking about a linguistically non-homogenous area. Especially since we have Lusitanian attested, which is (and not only in my opinion!) a clearly non-Celtic language (though I would argue the term 'Para-Celtic' is justified based on the similarities).

Cambrius (The Red)
26-09-11, 15:18
This is a complex subject that I am just now beginning to grasp. My opinion is that, in Iberia, Celtic language influences emerged sometime in the Bronze Age and spread along the Atlantic Facade through social and commercial exchange. I suspect that the first IE language in the Iberian Peninsula may not have been Lusitanian - considered by most scholars at the moment as Para-Celtic. Celticity may well have surfaced in two different regions, Iberia to Orkney and Central Europe.

Kardu
26-09-11, 16:43
There is a curious coincidence in names of current Basque village Aia and capital of old Colchis (Georgia) Aia :)

callaeca
26-09-11, 18:56
That is correct partly Burgundis. Why is the reason for which it is not possible to be considered the lusitanian an initial nucleus of peninsular expansion of the Indo-European language, in the same way that the ligurian seems to be it in the alpine zone and adjacent areas?

The similarities between both languages are evident. Some characteristics of lepontic (cf. *p and lexicon), that have been considered like 'para-celtic' (cf. Lejeune, 1971; Pisani, 1964,) is similar with the lusitanian or divergent with the Gaul (Lejeune 1971, Kruta 1991, Stifter 2008).

However, the lusitanian could be considered (cf. Pena, 2004 and ss. ; Encarnaçâo, 2010) as a diglossical language , an hybrid language, celto-latin, in view of the fact that the later character of the inscriptions, all between centuries II-III a.C.: see inscrip. Aronches: CANTI POMPI AILAECO. It is purely Latin 'splendid canticles to Ailaeco', the use of lat. “scripserunt” or “porcom” (when it exists in adjacent areas the ítems callaec. MOCIO(N) and callaec. MUCOEAICO (m) < *celtic. *mokko-/*mukko- 'pig').

In fact, the bell-beaker diffusion is in direction, from the center Portugal towards Europe by two routes, the Atlantic facade and the settlements in the Rhone estuary (where we can find the ligurian), and later occupying all the extension that we can denominate 'Kektiké'. In the same way the language carry by these elite groups follow this route: cf. 'stellae' in all western Hispania, in SE French, the Alps and Armorica.

Taranis all the celtiberians items have been taken of their original context: K.3.12, K.8.1, etc. . First you must verify it and in the same sense the lepontic items. I have given you a small biography that you do not consider necessary nor to verify, because it is enough for you the self-sufficiency and the generalizations that you can find in Internet.


The item *pent- has extended by all the Indo-European Hispania:
- celtib.:PINTOLANC(OM),PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS, PENTILICI.
- cantabri: PENTIO, PENTO, PENTIOCOS, PENTOVIECO, PENTOVIO, PINTOVIO.
- lusitania: PENTUS, PINTAMUS, PINTAUIUS.
- vetton.: PENTAUIUS.
- astur.: PENTUS, PINTAIUS, PENTILUS.
- callaec.: PENTAMUS, PENTUS, PINTAMUS.

Evidently, it is a language close to the Indo-European common (eq. celtib PERKUNETAM).

About the lepontic examples like celtiberians (and callaecians too), not only demonstrates items that preseve the original *p, but the graphic change P to B: cf. cantabri PEDACCIANUS, vaccean PEDA, PEDERUS, PEDILICUS, celtiberian PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, PEDACCIANVS, PEDOLVS in front of celtiberian BEDACICI (call. CAPORI/CABVRI/CABARCI). Equally in Southern Gaul we can see *p in oldest items: cf. PIXTILUS, PIXTUGENOS, PICTAVI (or PICTONES): cf. callac. PICTOLANCEA, PITILUS, celtib. PISTIRVS, PISTIROS, PITANA (other gaul. examples: PICOS, PINCIOS, PLATIODANOS, PLAUMORATI = galician lávego < *(p)lavaecus, PLOXENUM, POLOS from ie. *pel-, PLEUMOXII/PLEUXII from ie. *pleu- ).

Taranis
26-09-11, 19:13
That is correct partly Burgundis. Why is the reason for which it is not possible to be considered the lusitanian an initial nucleus of peninsular expansion of the Indo-European language, in the same way that the ligurian seems to be it in the alpine zone and adjacent areas?

The similarities between both languages are evident. Some characteristics of lepontic (cf. *p and lexicon), that have been considered like 'para-celtic' (cf. Lejeune, 1971; Pisani, 1964,) is similar with the lusitanian or divergent with the Gaul (Lejeune 1971, Kruta 1991, Stifter 2008).

However, the lusitanian could be considered (cf. Pena, 2004 and ss. ; Encarnaçâo, 2010) as a diglossical language , an hybrid language, celto-latin, in view of the fact that the later character of the inscriptions, all between centuries II-III a.C.: see inscrip. Aronches: CANTI POMPI AILAECO. It is purely Latin 'splendid canticles to Ailaeco', the use of lat. “scripserunt” or “porcom” (when it exists in adjacent areas the ítems callaec. MOCIO(N) and callaec. MUCOEAICO (m) < *celtic. *mokko-/*mukko- 'pig').

In fact, the bell-beaker diffusion is in direction, from the center Portugal towards Europe by two routes, the Atlantic facade and the settlements in the Rhone estuary (where we can find the ligurian), and later occupying all the extension that we can denominate 'Kektiké'. In the same way the language carry by these elite groups follow this route: cf. 'stellae' in all western Hispania, in SE French, the Alps and Armorica.

Taranis all the celtiberians items have been taken of their original context: K.3.12, K.8.1, etc. . First you must verify it and in the same sense the lepontic items. I have given you a small biography that you do not consider necessary nor to verify, because it is enough for you the self-sufficiency and the generalizations that you can find in Internet.


The item *pent- has extended by all the Indo-European Hispania:
- celtib.:PINTOLANC(OM),PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS, PENTILICI.
- cantabri: PENTIO, PENTO, PENTIOCOS, PENTOVIECO, PENTOVIO, PINTOVIO.
- lusitania: PENTUS, PINTAMUS, PINTAUIUS.
- vetton.: PENTAUIUS.
- astur.: PENTUS, PINTAIUS, PENTILUS.
- callaec.: PENTAMUS, PENTUS, PINTAMUS.

Evidently, it is a language close to the Indo-European common (eq. celtib PERKUNETAM).

About the lepontic examples like celtiberians (and callaecians too), not only demonstrates items that preseve the original *p, but the graphic change P to B: cf. cantabri PEDACCIANUS, vaccean PEDA, PEDERUS, PEDILICUS, celtiberian PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, PEDACCIANVS, PEDOLVS in front of celtiberian BEDACICI (call. CAPORI/CABVRI/CABARCI). Equally in Southern Gaul we can see *p in oldest items: cf. PIXTILUS, PIXTUGENOS, PICTAVI (or PICTONES): cf. callac. PICTOLANCEA, PITILUS, celtib. PISTIRVS, PISTIROS, PITANA.

I will not go much into detail, but let me sum this up what: you are claiming essentially that the 'Celtic' languages we find on the Iberian penninsula are not Celtic, not Italo-Celtic essentially close to Proto-Indo-European. By your definition Gaulish, Goidelic, Brythonic and Latin are apparently closer related with each other than Celtiberian, which by your definition shouldn't be a Celtic language at all. I'm sorry but that is completely impossible.

Especially, I have provided you with plenty of evidence that Celtic sound laws very much do apply for the Celtiberian language (*p > Ø, *gw > *b, etc).

I'd also like to point out that just because Lusitanian used the word 'Porcom' doesn't mean it was a Latin word (Porcus). The cognate also exists in the Celtic languages, for example Gaulish 'Orcos', Old Irish *Orc' (piglet). Besides, this is an argument which I already brought earlier.

callaeca
26-09-11, 20:31
No, Taranis, I did not say that. I have say that is in western Hispania where you can find the oldest peninsular celtic languages, where derive celtiberian, and in the french pre-Alps (Rhone basin) and Alps were you can find the gaulish ancestor, and perhaps of the latin-falisco. About the irish language origin it is not from Spain primarily, but related with the celto-hispanic (the ogamic items are closer to hispano-celta than celtiberian). This is in agreement with the archaeology, anthropology and genetic studies.

When you mention some celtiberian inscription (with iberian alphabet) you must do the reference with K and its number (like the tartessian with the letter J), not with a summarized table of laws that derives fundamentally of what we know about the gaulish. These laws cannot be applied as an absolute law because there are greatest divergences between the celtic dialects.

Taranis
26-09-11, 20:44
No, Taranis, I did not say that. I have say that is in western Hispania where you can find the oldest peninsular celtic languages, where derive celtiberian, and in the french pre-Alps (Rhone basin) and Alps were you can find the gaulish ancestor, and perhaps of the latin-falisco.

Well, you have been implying this due to the adherence of sound laws. If you argue that *p does not become *kw before *kw in western 'Hispano-Celtic' languages, which as I stated is a sound law that the Celtic family and the Italic family have in common, this per definition means that the Italic and Celtic languages are closer to each other than to these Western 'Celtic' languages, which in turn means the latter can, by the very definition, be not Celtic.

You also get into a very huge general problem from the linguitic perspectic if you want to define what exactly a Celtic language is and what not, if you say that neither *p > Ø nor *p > *kw before *kw are defining for a Celtic language.


About the irish language origin it is not from Spain primarily, but related with the celto-hispanic. This is in agreement with the archaeology, anthropology and genetic studies.

This is also impossible. Irish (at least archaic Irish) was closest to Proto-Celtic, in terms of conservativeness and lack of innovations.


When you mention some celtiberian inscriptions you must do the reference with K and its number (like the tartessian with the letter J), not with a summarized table of laws that derives fundamentally of what we know about the gaulish.

I mentioned the Botorrita inscriptions, which after all represent the main corpus of Celtiberian. All sound laws I have stated apply to the Botorrita inscriptions.


These laws cannot be applied as an absolute law because there are greatest divergences between the celtic dialects.

It's also kind of funny that you come around to say in the end that you admit we are not talking about a homogenous linguistic area. I still maintain that sound laws cannot be in free variation.

PS: Why do you bring up Tartessian here?

Asturrulumbo
26-09-11, 22:08
This is a complex subject that I am just now beginning to grasp. My opinion is that, in Iberia, Celtic language influences emerged sometime in the Bronze Age and spread along the Atlantic Facade through social and commercial exchange. I suspect that the first IE language in the Iberian Peninsula may not have been Lusitanian - considered by most scholars at the moment as Para-Celtic. Celticity may well have surfaced in two different regions, Iberia to Orkney and Central Europe.
That too is what I believe. A split of the... "Celtoid" (to include Lusitanian) languages towards the Late Bronze Age, dividing into 2 main gruoups, one along the Atlantic fringe and the other around Gaul and Central Europe. Brittonic languages may belong to the latter group (or at least have a superstrate belonging to it) as a result of the Hallstatt/La Tene expansions.

Taranis
26-09-11, 22:30
That too is what I believe. A split of the... "Celtoid" (to include Lusitanian) languages towards the Late Bronze Age, dividing into 2 main gruoups, one along the Atlantic fringe and the other around Gaul and Central Europe. Brittonic languages may belong to the latter group (or at least have a superstrate belonging to it) as a result of the Hallstatt/La Tene expansions.

Yes, this is essentially (more or less) what I too think is the case. What Burgundis brought up is the question if Lusitanian is really the whole story or if there is more, and if we may be looking to other "Celtoid" as you called them languages in ancient Gallaecia. I think we are looking more or less at this:

- Lusitanian diverges before Proto-Celtic features developed, which is why I think that it's likely that they were amongst the first IE inhabitants on the Iberian penninsula.

- I would argue for Goidelic as the most conservative branch of the Celtic languages (at least, up to Archaic Irish) that must have arrived sufficiently early in Ireland and remained relatively isolated (which is backed by archaeology as for instance, Ireland saw only peripherial La-Tene influence).

- Celtiberian as the first branch of Celtic to diverge and to develop innovations on it's own found nowhere else. The question, of course is where did the Celtiberians come from and when did they arrive. If the Celtiberians were native since the early Bronze Age, the question is why and how they could commonly develop Proto-Celtic sound features if for example Lusitanian could not do that. From that perspective, I wondered if the Celtiberians might have arrived at a later point than Lusitanian (from the British Isles?).

- Development of a 'Britanno-Gallic' branch in Central Europe with Hallstatt and La-Tene. As you said, it's also absolutely possible that this was basically a superstrate in Britain due to Hallstatt/La-Tene influence.

- Development of the typically 'Insular Celtic' features in the modern Celtic languages as result of Christianization and the existence of a sprachbund during the Dark Ages.

Cambrius (The Red)
26-09-11, 22:40
Yes, this is essentially (more or less) what I too think is the case. What Burgundis brought up is the question if Lusitanian is really the whole story or if there is more, and if we may be looking to other "Celtoid" as you called them languages in ancient Gallaecia. I think we are looking more or less at this:

- Lusitanian diverges before Proto-Celtic features developed, which is why I think that it's likely that they were amongst the first IE inhabitants on the Iberian penninsula.

- I would argue for Goidelic as the most conservative branch of the Celtic languages (at least, up to Archaic Irish) that must have arrived sufficiently early in Ireland and remained relatively isolated (which is backed by archaeology as for instance, Ireland saw only peripherial La-Tene influence).

- Celtiberian as the first branch of Celtic to diverge and to develop innovations on it's own found nowhere else. The question, of course is where did the Celtiberians come from and when did they arrive. If the Celtiberians were native since the early Bronze Age, the question is why and how they could commonly develop Proto-Celtic sound features if for example Lusitanian could not do that. From that perspective, I wondered if the Celtiberians might have arrived at a later point than Lusitanian (from the British Isles?).

- Development of a 'Britanno-Gallic' branch in Central Europe with Hallstatt and La-Tene. As you said, it's also absolutely possible that this was basically a superstrate in Britain due to Hallstatt/La-Tene influence.

- Development of the typically 'Insular Celtic' features in the modern Celtic languages as result of Christianization and the existence of a sprachbund during the Dark Ages.

Very insightful comments. A thought: could a form of Archaic Irish have developed in western Iberia prior to the arrival of the Lusitanians?

Asturrulumbo
26-09-11, 23:12
Yes, this is essentially (more or less) what I too think is the case. What Burgundis brought up is the question if Lusitanian is really the whole story or if there is more, and if we may be looking to other "Celtoid" as you called them languages in ancient Gallaecia. I think we are looking more or less at this:

- Lusitanian diverges before Proto-Celtic features developed, which is why I think that it's likely that they were amongst the first IE inhabitants on the Iberian penninsula.

I believe this too, however I do not think they were the only IE inhabitants of Iberia... Actually, I think all the "Celtoid" speakers of Iberia arrived around the same time; the lack of Common Celtic sound changes in Lusitanian may be ascribed to a later isolation (which led to Lusitanian not participating in them), perhaps?


I would argue for Goidelic as the most conservative branch of the Celtic languages (at least, up to Archaic Irish) that must have arrived sufficiently early in Ireland and remained relatively isolated (which is backed by archaeology as for instance, Ireland saw only peripherial La-Tene influence).
Indeed this is the case (both in Hallstatt and La Tene), and the same applies for Iberia (I attached a map of the Hallstatt culture at its peak)
5198


Celtiberian as the first branch of Celtic to diverge and to develop innovations on it's own found nowhere else. The question, of course is where did the Celtiberians come from and when did they arrive. If the Celtiberians were native since the early Bronze Age, the question is why and how they could commonly develop Proto-Celtic sound features if for example Lusitanian could not do that. From that perspective, I wondered if the Celtiberians might have arrived at a later point than Lusitanian (from the British Isles?).
I have thought that too, but the main setback against this I think would be genetic evidence: one would expect to see a lot more L21 in Iberia if things were so. However, I do believe that both the (R1b) immigrants to the British Isles and those to Iberia came probably at the same time and from around the same place.

Development of the typically 'Insular Celtic' features in the modern Celtic languages as result of Christianization and the existence of a sprachbund during the Dark Ages.
It may be this, or it may be that the "Insular Celtic" features are substratal "relics" of a much stronger relationship, possibly genetic, among the Insular Celtic languages.

Taranis
26-09-11, 23:42
Very insightful comments. A thought: could a form of Archaic Irish have developed in western Iberia prior to the arrival of the Lusitanians?

Honestly, I'm not quite sure why and how. Are you alluding to the Míl Espáine? :smile:


I believe this too, however I do not think they were the only IE inhabitants of Iberia... Actually, I think all the "Celtoid" speakers of Iberia arrived around the same time; the lack of Common Celtic sound changes in Lusitanian may be ascribed to a later isolation (which led to Lusitanian not participating in them), perhaps?

Well, there is that possibility. In that case one has to assume some kind of sprachbund that was crossing the Biscay.


Indeed this is the case (both in Hallstatt and La Tene), and the same applies for Iberia (I attached a map of the Hallstatt culture at its peak)
5198

The big difference here is actually that Goidelic remained more conservative than Celtiberian (at least until the switch from Archaic to Old Irish).


I have thought that too, but the main setback against this I think would be genetic evidence: one would expect to see a lot more L21 in Iberia if things were so. However, I do believe that both the (R1b) immigrants to the British Isles and those to Iberia came probably at the same time and around the same place.

Yes, I noticed this before. There is surprisingly little L21 in Iberia, and I agree that it's likely that L21 and the Iberian R1b clades arrived around the same time. From that, I actually have come up with a very different idea which I consider somewhat speculative at this point, but which may be an alternative that may explain more what we are seeing. During the Dark Ages, we have the migration of Brythonic people to Aremorica and (to a much smaller scale) Galicia due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion in Britain:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Britonia6hcentury.png

My idea is, what if something similar to this happened ~1200 years earlier? That we have a migration of Q-Celtic people from the British Isles and from Aremorica into the Iberian penninsula as a result of the (P-Celtic) Hallstatt expansion into Britain? I think that this scenario does also explain the bronze-iron age transition on the Iberian penninsula, especially the sudden increase of settlements amongst the Castro Culture. In that scenario, the "Celtoid" languages of Iberia arrived simultaneously to the Proto-Celts on the British Isles, and Celtic languages arrived only later in Iberia.

I'm not convinced myself that the scenario is viable, but it would explain why L21 is so rare on the Iberian penninsula.


It may be this, or it may be that the "Insular Celtic" features are substratal "relics" of a much stronger relationship, possibly genetic, among the Insular Celtic languages.

Well, there is that possibility. The idea that the Insular Celtic feature are actually the result of some non-IE substrate is actually a fairly old one. An Afro-Asiatic language has been often suggested, due to features such as VSO order and inflected preposition. The reason I think this is the more unlikely variant is that Archaic Irish (the language used in the Ogham inscriptions) is essentially 'Continental Celtic' and often shows identical declension forms as Gaulish. For that reason I'm more in favour of a later sprachbund as the source of the Insular Celtic features.

callaeca
26-09-11, 23:48
1.- Have you make some comparative between Ogamic and hispano-celta? We can do it here if you want, perhaps, you are going to be surprised...Yes it is archaic, but younger tha hispano-celta (de Bernardo Stempel, 2004).
2.- The modern studies referent to indo-european languages of Hispania, suggest the terminology celto-hispanic, where you can do this división:
2.1. celtiberian
2.2. hispano-celta, includes the next dialects: cantabrian, asturian, callaecian, vaccean, vettonian and lusitanian*.
*lusitanian = place-names, personal names, god names, river names, but not the typical lusitanian texts (except the aforementioned items). I am agree with Encarnaçâo, Pena or Milcar Guerra about the posibility of a diglosical language in a primitive pre-romanic phase of evolution. The inscriptions are later (II-III a.C) and in the context of 6 centuries of the romanisation.

I have not said that celto-hispanic is not kw language, I have said that celto-hipsnic have +pento- from ie *penkto- and *perko- from ie. *perkwo-, but celto-hispanic *ekwo- from ie. *ekwo-. It is regular and indo-european, it is not submit to a nonindo-european substrat. Perhaps, the celtoid was the gaulish thas loss the indo-european *p, or can you see it in tocharian, luwian, lycian, hittite, attic, ionic, doric, greek koiné, sanskrit, iranian, latino-faliscan, sabellic, venetian, latvian, prussian, lithuanian, slavic, ilirian, noric, lepontic, celto-hispanic, etc. ...?

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 00:08
Yes, I noticed this before. There is surprisingly little L21 in Iberia, and I agree that it's likely that L21 and the Iberian R1b clades arrived around the same time. From that, I actually have come up with a very different idea which I consider somewhat speculative at this point, but which may be an alternative that may explain more what we are seeing. During the Dark Ages, we have the migration of Brythonic people to Aremorica and (to a much smaller scale) Galicia due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion in Britain:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Britonia6hcentury.png

My idea is, what if something similar to this happened ~1200 years earlier? That we have a migration of Q-Celtic people from the British Isles and from Aremorica into the Iberian penninsula as a result of the (P-Celtic) Hallstatt expansion into Britain? I think that this scenario does also explain the bronze-iron age transition on the Iberian penninsula, especially the sudden increase of settlements amongst the Castro Culture. In that scenario, the "Celtoid" languages of Iberia arrived simultaneously to the Proto-Celts on the British Isles, and Celtic languages arrived only later in Iberia.

I'm not convinced myself that the scenario is viable, but it would explain why L21 is so rare on the Iberian penninsula.
Hmm... That theory would need to be much more thoroughly elaborated. Are you suggesting most of the L21 and the rest of R1b came to Iberia with that (hypothetical) migration? If not, when? And do we see as much R1b-P312* in Britain (as we do in Iberia) to suggest it came from there? Also, did the Pre-Hallstatt people of Britain have L21 in your theory, or was that also brought by the Hallstatt expansion?

Well, there is that possibility. The idea that the Insular Celtic feature are actually the result of some non-IE substrate is actually a fairly old one. An Afro-Asiatic language has been often suggested, due to features such as VSO order and inflected preposition. The reason I think this is the more unlikely variant is that Archaic Irish (the language used in the Ogham inscriptions) is essentially 'Continental Celtic' and often shows identical declension forms as Gaulish. For that reason I'm more in favour of a later sprachbund as the source of the Insular Celtic features.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that... And I agree that the theory of an Afro-Asiatic substrate for IC languages is quite unlikely (especially since the proposal is to link these Afro-Asiatic peoples with megalithism, and I think genetics have very much ruled that out.)

Taranis
27-09-11, 00:29
1.- Have you make some comparative between Ogamic and hispano-celta? We can do it here if you want, perhaps, you are going to be surprised...Yes it is archaic, but younger tha hispano-celta (de Bernardo Stempel, 2004).

I'm not going to be surprised. Yes, Oghamic Irish is younger than Hispanian Celtic, yes, but more conservative. In fact, in regard for a number of Proto-Celtic sound laws, even Old Irish is more conservative in respect to them than Celtiberian despite being younger:

Proto-Celtic *nm retained in Goidelic, but shifted to *lm (and further to *lb) in Celtiberian:
- Old Irish 'Ainm' ('name'), 'Menma' ('mind')
- Celtiberian 'Albana' (Botorrita III), 'Melmu' (Botorrita I)
(for non-Celtic cognates, compare English 'Name' and Latin 'Nomen', or Greek 'Μνήμη'.

Proto-Celtic *mn retained in Goidelic, but shifted to *un in Celtiberian (as well as, interestingly, Gaulish and Brythonic):
- Old Irish 'damnain' ('to bind'), 'follamnugad' ('ruling') (compare 'Catuvellaunos')
- Celtiberian 'taunei' (to bind, Botorrita I)

(for non-Celtic cognate, compare Latin 'damnare'.)

As you can see, even Old Irish was the more conservative language (closer to Proto-Indo-European) than Celtiberian, despite the fact that Celtiberian is attested from earlier.


2.- The modern studies referent to indo-european languages of Hispania, suggest the terminology celto-hispanic, where you can do this división:
2.1. celtiberian


2.2. hispano-celta, includes the next dialects: cantabrian, asturian, callaecian, vaccean, vettonian and lusitanian*.
*lusitanian = place-names, personal names, god names, river names, but not the typical lusitanian texts (except the aforementioned items). I am agree with Encarnaçâo, Pena or Milcar Guerra about the posibility of a diglosical language in a primitive pre-romanic phase of evolution. The inscriptions are later (II-III a.C) and in the context of 6 centuries of the romanisation.

In my opinion, despite it's late occurence Lusitanian is impossible to be a "diglossic" or pre-Romance language because it has sound laws found neither in Latin nor in the Celtic languages (for example PIE *bh > *f at intervocalic positions).


I have not said that celto-hispanic is not kw language, I have said that celto-hipsnic have +pento- from ie *penkto- and *perko- from ie. *perkwo-, but celto-hispanic *ekwo- from ie. *ekwo-. It is regular and indo-european, it is not submit to a nonindo-european substrat. Perhaps, the celtoid was the gaulish thas loss the indo-european *p, or can you see it in tocharian, luwian, lycian, hittite, attic, ionic, doric, greek koiné, sanskrit, iranian, latino-faliscan, sabellic, venetian, latvian, prussian, lithuanian, slavic, ilirian, noric, lepontic, celto-hispanic, etc. ...?

I am not talking about the loss of *p in Celtic here. I am talking about the common sound law of the Italic and Celtic languages that change *p inherited from PIE to *kw if another *kw is in the same word. The best example, which I have mentioned several times now, is this:

*penkwe > *kwenkwe (Latin 'Quinque', Old Irish 'Coic')
(compare with English 'five', Greek 'pente')

Naturally, this is a development that predates both the emergence of the Celtic and the Italic languages (therefore the description 'Italo-Celtic' is pretty accurate).

If you say that some languages in the western Iberian penninsula retained the *p as it is found *penkwe, they by definition would be non-Italo-Celtic.

Taranis
27-09-11, 00:45
Hmm... That theory would need to be much more thoroughly elaborated. Are you suggesting most of the L21 and the rest of R1b came to Iberia with that (hypothetical) migration? If not, when? And do we see as much R1b-P312* in Britain (as we do in Iberia) to suggest it came from there? Also, did the Pre-Hallstatt people of Britain have L21 in your theory, or was that also brought by the Hallstatt expansion?

As I said, I'm not sure the scenario is that viable (but I said that from the start, remember? :laughing: ) But, in this scenario, L21 would have been the dominant Haplogroup of the Bronze Age population in Britain (as well as Aremorica), and would have been carried to Iberia during that (hypothetical) migration. There is of course the possibility that this is even older (say, the Wessex Culture was already Proto-Celtic-speaking), and we did see such a spread of Proto-Celtic to the south during the Atlantic Bronze Age. In that scenario I think the pattern in respect for L21 would be sort of similar. The problem I kind of have with that is that is that the Wessex Culture seems a bit too early to be a good candidate for Proto-Celtic. However, I admit I may be mistaken on that one.

My point really is that if Celtic languages were spoken in the Atlantic region during the Bronze Age (which I find not only plausible but absolutely convincing), then the British Isles (rather than Iberia) would have been the source point. The strongest case for this in my opinion the linguistic diversity of the ancient Iberian penninsula versus the completely absence of non-Celtic languages on the British Isles. I also would argue that the pattern of L21 (and the dominance of L21 on the Bitish Isles) that we see matches this phenomenon.


Good point, I hadn't thought of that... And I agree that the theory of an Afro-Asiatic substrate for IC languages is quite unlikely (especially since the proposal is to link these Afro-Asiatic peoples with megalithism, and I think genetics have very much ruled that out.)

Indeed, genetics has prettymuch ruled out any links there.

callaeca
27-09-11, 02:45
If you say that some languages in the western Iberian penninsula retained the *p as it is found *penkwe, they by definition would be non-Italo-Celtic.

Then with your methodology Celtiberian is not a celtic language, (and, please, you do not circumscribe the item*pente- only in the western ...it is present in all of celto-hispanic dialects: see above).


Proto-Celtic *nm retained in Goidelic, but shifted to *lm[...]Proto-Celtic *mn retained in Goidelic, but shifted to *un in Celtiberian

Yes, it was a good idea of Stifter. But again, you circumscribe the items to celtiberian language and forgetting other celto-hispanic dialects like two lusitanian personal names MELMANIVS or the galician place name Melmanzo. It is an innovation, where the archaic celto-hispanic form was MEMUNOS (K.1.3) (< *menm-ôn-), equally in gaul. MENMANDVTIS, MENMANHIAE and reduced to MEMANTUSA, MEMANDVS.

About the innovation *-mno- > *-uno- it affects to all celto-hispanic: cf. callaec. ARIOVNIS < *aryo-mno-.

This continental examples explain the marginal position of Ireland.

About the lusitanian texts, it is very unlikely that a non celtic language can survive isolated, not only at a previous celtisation, but the high degree of romanisation and its introduction in that area, from III b.C to III a.C.

There is not bh > f evolution in hispano-celta (see above), becuause this italic system afect to all aspirates and not over one especially. The regular development is *bh > b how you can see in singular dative -bo or in the widely used western personal name boudio/boudia < *bhoudh-. It is more visible from *w > f: cf. callaec. FIDUENEARUM from *widu, like in gaul. examples FRITUS-VRITUS, FLATVCIAS/VLATVS.
But it is possible an substratic efect as in old irish bréife, cuifre, fafall, Crufait, Faffand (Gearoid Mac Eoin:2007)

Cambrius (The Red)
27-09-11, 03:05
It's not clear what the level of RL-21 really is in Iberia, as relatively few Spaniards and Portuguese have tested for it. It is found more in the north-west (Galicia, N. Portugal, Asturias). BTW, I'm RL-21* and have no direct Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc. in my line, as far as I know.

One of the Eupedia members is an ancestry project leader for RL-21 in the British Isles, France and Iberia.

callaeca
27-09-11, 03:17
I am RL-21*

Taranis
27-09-11, 03:21
Then with your methodology Celtiberian is not a celtic language, (and, please, you do not circumscribe the item*pente- only in the western ...it is present in all of celto-hispanic dialects: see above).

Then the word is by definition not only non-Celtic in origin but not Italo-Celtic either, since as mentioned this is a common innovation of the Celtic languages and the Italic languages. At the same time, we do have the tribal name Quaquerni attested, which conforms to this Italo-Celtic sound law.

The problem is, you have to assume that the law *p > *kw before *kw applies in Proto-Celtic, otherwise you wouldn't be able to explain Gaulish 'Pinpetos', Welsh 'Pump', Breton 'Pemp', because instead of *kwenkw- the Proto-Celtic form would be something like *φenkw- which would be reduced further to *Øenkw- . So, we would see something like 'Oic', 'Inpetos', 'Ump' and 'Emp' in Old Irish, Gaulish, Welsh and Breton respectively.

You also get into a really big problem defining what exactly a Celtic language is and how you distinguish it from Proto-Indo-European if you say that none of the commonly held sound laws purportedly really applied. Because by your current definition I'm pretty sure that Latin or even Greek classify as Celtic language.


Yes, it was a good idea of Stifter. But again, you circumscribe the items to celtiberian language and forgetting other celto-hispanic dialects like two lusitanian personal names MELMANIVS or the galician place name Melmanzo. It is an innovation, where the archaic celto-hispanic form was MEMUNOS (K.1.3) (< *menm-ôn-), equally in gaul. MENMANDVTIS, MENMANHIAE and reduced to MEMANTUSA, MEMANDVS.

About the innovation *-mno- > *-uno- it affects to all celto-hispanic: cf. callaec. ARIOVNIS < *aryo-mno-.

This continental examples explain the marginal position of Ireland.

I don't see where you claim you are disagreeing with me? My statement that archaic Irish was more conservative than Celtic languages on the Iberian peninsula is true. If it is found in other parts of the Iberian penninsula, this circumstantiates my own statements even more.


About the lusitanian texts, it is very unlikely that a non celtic language can survive isolated, not only at a previous celtisation, but the high degree of romanisation and its introduction in that area, from III b.C to III a.C.

See, this is where I think you are making a false conjecture. You're decided that the western area of Hispania was homogenously Celtic (where I have demonstrated evidence above it might be not!), which it seems impossible for you that a non-Celtic language might survive so long. If however the area was actually not homogenously Celtic (which can be inferred from the evidence gathered) then I don't see how a language like Lusitanian could not survive that long.


It's not clear what the level of RL-21 really is in Iberia, as relatively few Spaniards and Portuguese have tested for it. It is found more in the north-west (Galicia, N. Portugal, Asturias). BTW, I'm RL-21 and have no direct Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc. in my line, as far as I know.

One of the Eupedia members is an ancestry project leader for RL-21 in the British Isles, France and Iberia.

I'm not denying that R1b-L21 is fairly common in the northern/northwestern parts of the Iberian peninsula, but it's clear that it is rarer than in much of France and it's obviously rarer than on the British Isles. As for Irish/Scottish/Welsh ancestry, I didn't claim that in my post. I merely picked the situation during the Dark Ages where Brythonic people migrated to Galicia as an analogy for what might have happened over a millennium earlier at the start of the iron age.

My point only is that this scenario of an ancient, original presence of Proto-Celtic peoples in Iberia does not really make that much sense, both from the genetic and linguistic perspective. This is where my idea that the Celtic languages spread from the British Isles (as well as western France) to Iberia during either the Bronze Age or early Iron Age comes from. The later would be like the analogue I described above - but probably the former is far more likely. I think this scenario does explain the patterns that we see much better than the other way round.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 03:39
As I said, I'm not sure the scenario is that viable (but I said that from the start, remember? :laughing: ) But, in this scenario, L21 would have been the dominant Haplogroup of the Bronze Age population in Britain (as well as Aremorica), and would have been carried to Iberia during that (hypothetical) migration. There is of course the possibility that this is even older (say, the Wessex Culture was already Proto-Celtic-speaking), and we did see such a spread of Proto-Celtic to the south during the Atlantic Bronze Age. In that scenario I think the pattern in respect for L21 would be sort of similar. The problem I kind of have with that is that is that the Wessex Culture seems a bit too early to be a good candidate for Proto-Celtic. However, I admit I may be mistaken on that one.

My point really is that if Celtic languages were spoken in the Atlantic region during the Bronze Age (which I find not only plausible but absolutely convincing), then the British Isles (rather than Iberia) would have been the source point. The strongest case for this in my opinion the linguistic diversity of the ancient Iberian penninsula versus the completely absence of non-Celtic languages on the British Isles. I also would argue that the pattern of L21 (and the dominance of L21 on the Bitish Isles) that we see matches this phenomenon.


But then if these people were L21-dominant by the time of the hypotethical migration, I don't see how it could be explained that most of the Iberian R1b is P312*.
Also, about the Wessex Culture as "Celtoid" or Celtic, I highly doubt so. It was a direct continuation of the Beaker culture, and had extensive megalithic practises. Also, consider that there does seem to have been a quite large population upheaval in Britain in the transition from the Middle (Wessex Culture) BA to the Late (Atlantic Bronze Age) BA.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 03:47
My point only is that this scenario of an ancient, original presence of Proto-Celtic peoples in Iberia does not really make that much sense, both from the genetic and linguistic perspective. This is where my idea that the Celtic languages spread from the British Isles (as well as western France) to Iberia during either the Bronze Age or early Iron Age comes from. The later would be like the analogue I described above - but probably the former is far more likely. I think this scenario does explain the patterns that we see much better than the other way round.

I too am rather skeptic about Koch's "Celtic from the West" hypothesis. But, I insist, it seems to me that the Bronze Age (hypothetical) population replacements en Iberia and Britain were parallel, not from one place from another (although in any case, a population movement from Britain to Iberia would seem much more likely to me). I do agree, however, that Western France could be a prime candidate for the origin of these population upheavals.

Taranis
27-09-11, 03:50
But then if these people were L21-dominant by the time of the hypotethical migration, I don't see how it could be explained that most of the Iberian R1b is P312*.

Well, my idea here was that the substantial occurance of non-L21/non-U152 R1b-P312 in Iberia comes from the earlier IE wave(s?) into Iberia.


Also, about the Wessex Culture as "Celtoid" or Celtic, I highly doubt so. It was a direct continuation of the Beaker culture, and had extensive megalithic practises. Also, consider that there does seem to have been a quite large population upheaval in Britain in the transition from the Middle (Wessex Culture) BA to the Late (Atlantic Bronze Age) BA.

Well, this is a problem I have as well. From the archaeological perspectie, it's not sure what to make of Beaker-Bell, because it makes much more sense as an indigenous, natively Western European phenomenon rather than something foreign introduced. In particular due to Megalithic practices. I agree with you that the great upheavals (that occur more or less simultaneously to the Bronze Age collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean) are a much better candidate for the arrival of Proto-Celtic on the British Isles than earlier. I've seen people be favourable of an earlier date however. In particular, the Eupedia project leader rms2 is in favour of an earlier date. I also think, one conclusion that can be made here is that we may face a paradox here.


I too am rather skeptic about Koch's "Celtic from the West" hypothesis. But, I insist, it seems to me that the Bronze Age (hypothetical) population replacements en Iberia and Britain were parallel, not from one place from another (although in any case, a population movement from Britain to Iberia would seem much more likely to me). I do agree, however, that Western France could be a prime candidate for the origin of these population upheavals.

Well, the issue where Koch has a point is that Celtic languages were spoken in the Atlantic region during the Bronze Age. This is a big divergence from the 'Classicist' hypothesis if you will which sought the complete origin of the Celtic languages in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene. This is prettymuch impossible, and Koch is absolutely right about that one, but he's taking it too far into the opposite direction. If we say the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age, we have no real possibility to explain the presence of Celtic languages in Central Europe (especially due to the absence of a west-to-east migration movement), and neither can we explain the abundance of non-Celtic languages in Iberia. Thus, it just occured to me that the idea that the British Isles were Celticized earlier than northern Iberia (and that a migration took place from the British Isles / western France) is a possibility that nobody had considered so far, and that this would produce exactly the patterns we see.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 04:12
Well, my idea here was that the substantial occurance of non-L21/non-U152 R1b-P312 in Iberia comes from the earlier IE wave(s?) into Iberia.
From an archaeological standpoint, we face the same problem in Iberia (in the early and middle Bronze Ages) with the various cultures as we do in Britain: there seems to be a continuation with the Beaker culture, which seems to have originated in Iberia around 2900 BC and then spread east (the complete opposite of the east-to-west movement we would expect to see if it were an IE expansion.).

Well, the issue where Koch has a point is that Celtic languages were spoken in the Atlantic region during the Bronze Age. This is a big divergence from the 'Classicist' hypothesis if you will which sought the complete origin of the Celtic languages in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene. This is prettymuch impossible, and Koch is absolutely right about that one, but he's taking it too far into the opposite direction. If we say the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age, we have no real possibility to explain the presence of Celtic languages in Central Europe (especially due to the absence of a west-to-east migration movement), and neither can we explain the abundance of non-Celtic languages in Iberia. Thus, it just occured to me that the idea that the British Isles were Celticized earlier than northern Iberia (and that a migration took place from the British Isles / western France) is a possibility that nobody had considered so far, and that this would produce exactly the patterns we see.
Basically what I believe too. I would point, for example, to the area between the Loire and the Garonne: it coincides genetically and geographically (although I must admit, I don't know if archaeologically.)

Taranis
27-09-11, 17:42
From an archaeological standpoint, we face the same problem in Iberia (in the early and middle Bronze Ages) with the various cultures as we do in Britain: there seems to be a continuation with the Beaker culture, which seems to have originated in Iberia around 2900 BC and then spread east (the complete opposite of the east-to-west movement we would expect to see if it were an IE expansion.).

I agree that this is a problem, one of quite a number of problems with the identification of Beaker-Bell as an Indo-European (or even Celtic) culture. Another problem is the vast extend of Beaker-Bell into areas that are later non-Celtic (notably Jutland and northern Germany) and even North Africa. From that perspective, there are strong arguments that make the Beaker-Bell Culture an unlikely candidate for being an Indo-European-speaking culture. On the other hand, I find the case that Beaker-Bell was the initial carrier of R1b much more compelling.

Another problem with Beaker-Bell is that the Celtic languages in my opinion cannot be older than the Bronze Age (due to shared Italo-Celtic vocabulary), and the Beaker-Bell Culture (or 'phenomenon' if you will) started out in the Copper Age. This is admittedly a weak argument by itself, but I think that the multitude of Italo-Celtic forms (especially due to their presence in Goidelic) cannot be dismissed as a phenomenon stemming solely from language contact and must more likely be expected to derive from a close ancestry of the two languages.


Basically what I believe too. I would point, for example, to the area between the Loire and the Garonne: it coincides genetically and geographically (although I must admit, I don't know if archaeologically.)

I agree on that one.

The interesting part is though that approximately south of the Garonne we have a non-Indo-European (Basque-Aquitanian) area in Antiquity.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 18:51
I agree that this is a problem, one of quite a number of problems with the identification of Beaker-Bell as an Indo-European (or even Celtic) culture. Another problem is the vast extend of Beaker-Bell into areas that are later non-Celtic (notably Jutland and northern Germany) and even North Africa. From that perspective, there are strong arguments that make the Beaker-Bell Culture an unlikely candidate for being an Indo-European-speaking culture. On the other hand, I find the case that Beaker-Bell was the initial carrier of R1b much more compelling.

In that you may be right, however, I do see some problems with this interpretation. First of all, how and when would R1b have reached the Beaker lands? I myself am very skeptic about the palaeolithic R1b theory. We also have tested a fair amount of Neolithic y-DNA in Europe (though is is true that none belonging to the Beaker culture), and none has been R1b-positive. Also, there is a considerable amount of I2 in many parts that belonged to the Beaker Culture (including North Africa, and although the same applies to R1b, almost all of it in North Africa is R-V88). Besides that, the east-west STR cline of R1b in Europe does not apply well with the west-east Beaker expansion.

The interesting part is though that approximately south of the Garonne we have a non-Indo-European (Basque-Aquitanian) area in Antiquity.
That is why, in my opinion, an expansion from Gaul any more to the south would not be feasible. Also, I recently thought that L21 could have originated around 3500 years ago between the upper Seine and middle Garonne and then spread west to Aremorica, from which it could have migrated to Britan and (to a lesser extent) Iberia.

Taranis
27-09-11, 19:25
In that you may be right, however, I do see some problems with this interpretation. First of all, how and when would R1b have reached the Beaker lands? I myself am very skeptic about the palaeolithic R1b theory. We also have tested a fair amount of Neolithic y-DNA in Europe (though is is true that none belonging to the Beaker culture), and none has been R1b-positive. Also, there is a considerable amount of I2 in many parts that belonged to the Beaker Culture (including North Africa, and although the same applies to R1b, almost all of it in North Africa is R-V88). Besides that, the east-west STR cline of R1b in Europe does not apply well with the west-east Beaker expansion.

First off, let me say that I absolutely agree that Paleolithic R1b is out of the question, and in fact has been out of the question since Y-DNA from Neolithic sites (especially Treilles!) is known. As for how R1b could have reached Western Europe, I must admit that have no firm idea either, but I would argue that this is a general problem because from what I have seen so far, this applies to virtually every scenario. There is certainly the possibility that it arrived by sea (which matches the general idea that Beaker-Bell was a maritime/water-based culture), but at this point I'm also not ruling out the possibility of a very late arrival of R1b during the Bronze Age.


That is why, in my opinion, an expansion from Gaul any more to the south would not be feasible. Also, I recently thought that L21 could have originated around 3500 years ago between the upper Seine and middle Garonne and then spread west to Aremorica, from which it could have migrated to Britan and (to a lesser extent) Iberia.

I agree that a migration by land (espcially due to the presence of the Basques, and further eastward, the Iberians) is unlikely. From that perspective I agree that it is more likely that L21 spread via a maritime route.

callaeca
27-09-11, 19:46
The archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis of a ‘Celtization’ of Atlantic regions during the Iron Age and there is a dearth of material evidence for such a migratory movement from the North Alpine zone to places like the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles. More recently, Brun (2006) argued that Celtic first developed as a supra-regional language of Bell Beaker groups. This identification of “the Beaker folk” with Celtic speakers is not new; although rejected by Pokorny (1936, 336), it was endorsed e.g. by Dillon and Chadwick (1967, 214). Vander Linden (2001-2) suggests a connection between the spread of Bell Beakers and early IE languages, and de Hoz (2009, 22) associates them with the so called Old European hydronymy.

In historical times Celtic languages are spoken in the neighbourhood of non-IE Iberian in Spain, Aquitanian in Gaul, Raetic and Etruscan in northern Italy. For the British Isles, especially for Ireland, it is more often assumed that Celtic was preceded only by non-IE but not by other IE languages, (cf. e.g. Mac Eoin 2007, 123). It can explain the loss of the indo-european *p in this area, except where the indo-european language was imposed severely or preceded for a previous indo-european. Those are the harsh facts about the origin of the protoceltic language, that a lot of people do not want to assume.

Naturaly, if the preservated *p was located in the central Europe, then we'll assume it as a perfect celtic language concatenated with the indo-european. But how it is in the marginal area of western Spain it is necessary look for cunning arguments to hide what is an anomale comportment ('einem bilabialen frikativen */φ/', when we find *p in the central european areas).

From an anthropological viewpoint, the earlier bell-beakers groups of Spain domain show more variability. This element can probably be explained by mobility or minor population exchanges during these periods. This does not appear to be the case in Swiss territory and for the later southern assemblages where the apparent uniformity would suggest an accentuation in population exchanges. So, we have seen that the Swiss sites do not mix with the eastern domain, but fit well with the southern domain. The axis of external influences is clearly southern, whether this occurred during the Final Neolithic or the Bell Beaker in western Switzerland (Jocelyne Desideri, 2010).

'The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resultted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europa' (Jocelyne Desideri, 2007, 2010).

The archaeological data have often shown southern influences in the western Swiss Bell Beaker, in particular with respect to funerary practices and domestic structures. The choice of burying the deceased in collective graves is incontestably attached to the cultural sphere of the western domain, the eastern domain practising almost exclusively individual burials'.

Decorated pottery, and especially the maritime beaker that specifically typifies the Bell Beaker culture, and the "Begleitkeramik" appear to form two inverse currents, the first with a southwest to northeast direction and the second originating in the east and spreading to the west and southwest. The exploitation of copper ores for some objects used in the Alps and found at Petit-Chasseur at Sion also shows relationships with the south. Equally of the stellae and menhires that look spanish models.

There are not waves from central Europe in western Hispania. The archaelogical continuity is absolute, except in the ends of the calcolithic when the stellae populations change the conditions of the megalithic culture. The density of stellae in the western is simply impressive, with hunderds of examples in the western...and here, in this moment begin the process that reaches with the formation of celtic languages in the bell-beaker area, where L-21 is a simple last mutation of s-116, and not the ancestor of the celts.

Taranis
27-09-11, 20:28
The archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis of a ‘Celtization’ of Atlantic regions during the Iron Age and there is a dearth of material evidence for such a migratory movement from the North Alpine zone to places like the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles. More recently, Brun (2006) argued that Celtic first developed as a supra-regional language of Bell Beaker groups. This identification of “the Beaker folk” with Celtic speakers is not new; although rejected by Pokorny (1936, 336), it was endorsed e.g. by Dillon and Chadwick (1967, 214). Vander Linden (2001-2) suggests a connection between the spread of Bell Beakers and early IE languages, and de Hoz (2009, 22) associates them with the so called Old European hydronymy.

I would like to point out that the identification of Beaker-Bell as a Proto-Celtic Culture is absolutely impossible due to it's ancientness and vast geographic extend. There is also the criticism that this hypothesis somehow assumes an evolution of the Celtic languages out of thin air, woefully ignoring their commonalities and their interrelationship with the Italic and Germanic languages.


In historical times Celtic languages are spoken in the neighbourhood of non-IE Iberian in Spain, Aquitanian in Gaul, Raetic and Etruscan in northern Italy. For the British Isles, especially for Ireland, it is more often assumed that Celtic was preceded only by non-IE but not by other IE languages, (cf. e.g. Mac Eoin 2007, 123). It can explain the loss of the indo-european *p in this area, except where the indo-european language was imposed severely or preceded for a previous indo-european. Those are the harsh facts about the origin of the protoceltic language, that a lot of people do not want to assume.

Naturaly, if the preservated *p was located in the central Europe, then we'll assume it as a perfect celtic language concatenated with the indo-european. But how it is in the marginal area of western Spain it is necessary look for cunning arguments ('einem bilabialen frikativen */φ/') to hide what is an anomale comportment.

Why do you refuse the possibility of a sucessive shift *p > *φ > *h > Ø, if stages of that shift are actually attested (Lepontic)? I maintain that the loss of *p is by no means more of an 'anomaly' than Grimm's Law is in the Germanic languages.

There is also the issue that by far the largest number of non-Indo-European languages in Antiquity are found on the Iberian penninsula (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian), in close proximity to the origin area of the Beaker-Bell Culture. In your scenario we would expect that the Iberian penninsula as a whole was the most thoroughly Indo-Europeanized area. And well, I find it quite funny that the most Celticized area in Antiquity were the British Isles, and not Iberia.

Also, I would like to point out that both Raetic and Etruscan were non-native languages that probably didn't arrive there until the late bronze age. The linguistic and genetic evidence that the Etruscans were non-native is quite compelling.


From an anthropological viewpoint, the earlier bell-beakers groups of Spain domain show more variability. This element can probably be explained by mobility or minor population exchanges during these periods. This does not appear to be the case in Swiss territory and for the later southern assemblages where the apparent uniformity would suggest an accentuation in population exchanges. So, we have seen that the Swiss sites do not mix with the eastern domain, but fit well with the southern domain. The axis of external influences is clearly southern, whether this occurred during the Final Neolithic or the Bell Beaker in western Switzerland (Jocelyne Desideri, 2010).

The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resultted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europa

The archaeological data have often shown southern influences in the western Swiss Bell Beaker, in particular with respect to funerary practices and domestic structures. The choice of burying the deceased in collective graves is incontestably attached to the cultural sphere of the western domain, the eastern domain practising almost exclusively individual burials'.

Decorated pottery, and especially the maritime beaker that specifically typifies the Bell Beaker culture, and the "Begleitkeramik" appear to form two inverse currents, the first with a southwest to northeast direction and the second originating in the east and spreading to the west and southwest. The exploitation of copper ores for some objects used in the Alps and found at Petit-Chasseur at Sion also shows relationships with the south. Equally of the stellae and menhires that look spanish models.

As I said, the idea that Beaker-Bell may have been an indigenous western European culture is quite compelling.

EDIT: There is also a very interesting linguistic argument for this, in my opinion: the Basque language possesses it's own (non-IE) terms for metals and metal-working, which should be impossible if metal-working in Western Europe was solely spread by Indo-Europeans.


There are not waves from central Europe in western Hispania. The archaelogical continuity is absolute, except in the ends of the calcolithic when the stellae populations change the conditions of the megalithic culture. The density of stellae in the western is simply impressive, with hunderds of examples in the western...and here, in this moment begin the process that reaches with the formation of celtic languages in the bell-beaker area, where L-21 is a simple last mutation of s-116, and not the ancestor of the celts.

Actually, I didn't claim that there were waves from Central Europe into western Hispania (though actually, there is the influence of Hallstatt visible at the start of the iron age), but your claim of an 'absolute continuity' is untenable, in particular Iberia too is subject to the upheavals that occur more or less simultaneously to the Bronze Age collapse.

Regarding R1b, I suppose that only the time will tell. I would like to point out that the possibility still exists that Beaker-Bell sites fail to turn up any evidence of R1b. In that case, we have to consider a Bronze Age origin of R1b, as well as a Central European dispersion.

EDIT: One very interesting detail to add is that Western Iberia has relatively low concentrations of R1b (compared against the rest of Iberia and the Atlantic region as a whole), and conversely, some of the highest concentrations of Y-Haplogroups G2a, J1, E1b and T are also found in the west of Iberia.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-09-11, 20:46
The archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis of a ‘Celtization’ of Atlantic regions during the Iron Age and there is a dearth of material evidence for such a migratory movement from the North Alpine zone to places like the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles. More recently, Brun (2006) argued that Celtic first developed as a supra-regional language of Bell Beaker groups. This identification of “the Beaker folk” with Celtic speakers is not new; although rejected by Pokorny (1936, 336), it was endorsed e.g. by Dillon and Chadwick (1967, 214). Vander Linden (2001-2) suggests a connection between the spread of Bell Beakers and early IE languages, and de Hoz (2009, 22) associates them with the so called Old European hydronymy.

In historical times Celtic languages are spoken in the neighbourhood of non-IE Iberian in Spain, Aquitanian in Gaul, Raetic and Etruscan in northern Italy. For the British Isles, especially for Ireland, it is more often assumed that Celtic was preceded only by non-IE but not by other IE languages, (cf. e.g. Mac Eoin 2007, 123). It can explain the loss of the indo-european *p in this area, except where the indo-european language was imposed severely or preceded for a previous indo-european. Those are the harsh facts about the origin of the protoceltic language, that a lot of people do not want to assume.

Naturaly, if the preservated *p was located in the central Europe, then we'll assume it as a perfect celtic language concatenated with the indo-european. But how it is in the marginal area of western Spain it is necessary look for cunning arguments to hide what is an anomale comportment ('einem bilabialen frikativen */φ/', when we find *p in the central european areas).

From an anthropological viewpoint, the earlier bell-beakers groups of Spain domain show more variability. This element can probably be explained by mobility or minor population exchanges during these periods. This does not appear to be the case in Swiss territory and for the later southern assemblages where the apparent uniformity would suggest an accentuation in population exchanges. So, we have seen that the Swiss sites do not mix with the eastern domain, but fit well with the southern domain. The axis of external influences is clearly southern, whether this occurred during the Final Neolithic or the Bell Beaker in western Switzerland (Jocelyne Desideri, 2010).

'The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resultted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europa' (Jocelyne Desideri, 2007, 2010).

The archaeological data have often shown southern influences in the western Swiss Bell Beaker, in particular with respect to funerary practices and domestic structures. The choice of burying the deceased in collective graves is incontestably attached to the cultural sphere of the western domain, the eastern domain practising almost exclusively individual burials'.

Decorated pottery, and especially the maritime beaker that specifically typifies the Bell Beaker culture, and the "Begleitkeramik" appear to form two inverse currents, the first with a southwest to northeast direction and the second originating in the east and spreading to the west and southwest. The exploitation of copper ores for some objects used in the Alps and found at Petit-Chasseur at Sion also shows relationships with the south. Equally of the stellae and menhires that look spanish models.

There are not waves from central Europe in western Hispania. The archaelogical continuity is absolute, except in the ends of the calcolithic when the stellae populations change the conditions of the megalithic culture. The density of stellae in the western is simply impressive, with hunderds of examples in the western...and here, in this moment begin the process that reaches with the formation of celtic languages in the bell-beaker area, where L-21 is a simple last mutation of s-116, and not the ancestor of the celts.

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.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 23:03
Regarding R1b, I suppose that only the time will tell. I would like to point out that the possibility still exists that Beaker-Bell sites fail to turn up any evidence of R1b. In that case, we have to consider a Bronze Age origin of R1b, as well as a Central European dispersion.

EDIT: One very interesting detail to add is that Western Iberia has relatively low concentrations of R1b (compared against the rest of Iberia and the Atlantic region as a whole), and conversely, some of the highest concentrations of Y-Haplogroups G2a, J1, E1b and T are also found in the west of Iberia.

Hmm... I wonder, would it be too much to ask for an aDNA test in a Beaker site any time soon? :embarassed:
Edit: And anyway, if the Beakers did have R1b, where would it have come from?
Edit: And in the vein of a hypothetical Beaker migration eastwards from Iberia, could it be that what brought some of the E1b1b to Central and the rest of Western Europe?

Taranis
27-09-11, 23:10
Hmm... I wonder, would it be too much to ask for an aDNA test in a Beaker site any time soon? :embarassed:
Edit: And anyway, if the Beakers did have R1b, where would it have come from?

Well, we've been waiting in vain for well over a year to see results of the Funnelbeaker Culture, and nothing came out of that yet. And all of a sudden, we did get Neolithic results from Treilles in southern France. :grin:

As for the origin of R1b, it's really difficult to say. Part of the answer might be the question where exactly R1b was before it entered Western Europe. Unfortunately, there is no answer on that either.

I think we need not only Beaker-Bell samples, it would also greatly help to get Neolithic samples from the Balkans and from Anatolia. Of course, the origins of E1b1b are still a mystery, and it would be interesting to see Neolithic / Chalcolithic samples from Iberia for that reason.

Asturrulumbo
27-09-11, 23:23
I think we need not only Beaker-Bell samples, it would also greatly help to get Neolithic samples from the Balkans and from Anatolia. Of course, the origins of E1b1b are still a mystery, and it would be interesting to see Neolithic / Chalcolithic samples from Iberia for that reason.

Oh yes, the genetic affiliation of "Old Europe" is quite sketchy, and probably quite heterogeneous, as it was a melting pot of cultural practises from Anatolia, Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

callaeca
27-09-11, 23:38
When examples of preserved *p are found with some frequency within Celtic-speaking territory, they are accordingly referred to IE but pre-Celtic substrata, which have been labeled e.g. Ligurian, Illyrian or Old European. But the postulated IE substratum languages in western Europe tend to remain shadowy, exactly because the recognizable linguistic stratum is Celtic.

All models must obviously assume that Celtic developed in an area, where an IE language was already spoken, at least the IE language which was its direct ancestor. Whether a specific intermediate sub-branch, such as Italo-Celtic, can be reconstructed, is debated, cf. de Vaan 2008, 5, Isaac 2007, 94.

Highlighting heterogeneity rather than homogeneity has been effective in deconstructing the notion of a single Bell Beaker ‘culture’ (e.g. see Besse 2004; Czebreszuk (ed.) 2004; Vander Linden 2006). While this has encouraged the main focus of Bell Beaker studies to revolve around individual regional developments, it has also unwittingly resulted in wider connections between different Bell Beaker using areas being played-down, ignored or broken completely. The spread of the Beaker ‘package’ across Europe emphasises fluvial and maritime routes of interaction and exchange, and its distribution shows pockets of adoption along coastal zones and main river arteries.

At present, most of the earliest radiocarbon dates for Bell Beakers come from Portugal, in particular the Tagus estuary, and it is also here that the densest concentration of International (notably Maritime) style Bell Beakers are known (Cardoso and Soares 1990-1992; Martínez et al. 1996, 105-110; Müller and van Willigen 2001). Furthermore, some of the earliest dates for copper mining and smelting in western Europe have come from Iberia. Copper extraction has been identified at the mines of El Aramo and El Milagro, both in northern Spain (Blas 1998). Evidence for on-site metallurgy has also been recovered from many of the Chalcolithic hillforts along the Atlantic coast of Portugal, almost always in contexts associated with Beakers and dating from c. 2600BC onwards (Cardoso 2001; Müller and Cardoso 2008; Soares and Araújo 1994). Recent excavations at the fortified settlement of Cabezo Juré, in the mining district of Huelva, south-west Spain, have revealed evidence of potentially one of the earliest and most complex copper metallurgical sites in western Europe, dating from c. 2900BC (Nocete 2006).

Since it is unlikely that metallurgy was invented independently in the British Isles (e.g. see Ottaway and Roberts 2008; Roberts 2008), it is feasible that the dissemination of copper and bronze technology came from western Iberia, either directly or indirectly via France (Alday Ruíz 1999). The earliest attested copper mining from the British Isles comes from Ross Island in south-west Ireland, dating from c. 2400 BC (O’Brien 1995; 2001).

In this context, Te adoption of such estatus markers between the Elites would have involved the use of a family of languages that allowed to the interunderstanding to long distance, with establishments of hillforts in the main fluvial courses and coastal steps (Gulf of Cadiz, Estuary of the Tajo, Galicia, Armórica, Estuary of the Rhone…). According to the regions, at where the restricted products arrived, the local languages would have been influenced by the 'international' language of the social elites, organized in networks of interchange and alliances, this is the cause of the viability to appearance of the celtic language varieties, when the distincts restrictive products are pronounced by a ordinary population.

Only the presence of s-116 can explain this diffusion as D. Faux had predicted.

Taranis
27-09-11, 23:47
Callaeca, as I elaborated in my post, and as Asturrulumbo also pointed out, the Beaker-Bell Culture is too ancient and has too much continuity with the earlier Megalithic traditions to be genuinely considered as something new.

In addition I pointed out that the Basque language possesses it's own (non-IE) terms for metalworking and metals, which pinpoints to the possibility that there was indeed a non-Indo-European source of metal working in Western Europe, for which the Beaker-Bell Culture is a good candidate.

Likewise, how do you explain the abundance of non-IE languages on the Iberian penninsula if you assume that the Proto-"Celtic" expansion occured from there?

callaeca
28-09-11, 00:04
continuity with the earlier Megalithic traditions? Where? Not in Western Iberia...i think
I only know the later languages(urnfield perhaps?) called Iberian . The aquitanian is located to the north of Pirineos. And what is Tartessian exactly?

Taranis
28-09-11, 00:07
continuity with the earlier Megalithic traditions? Where? Not in Western Iberia...i think

Well, the most notable example would be the British Isles, where one of the main construction phases at Stone Henge occured. And yes, I am pretty sure that this continuity includes Western Iberia, too.

As I would like to reiterate, one issue here, which in my opinion speaks indeed for the non-IE nature of Beaker-Bell, is the existence of indigenous terms for metals and metalworking in the Basque languages, which is something that we wouldn't expect if the population of Beaker-Bell was Indo-European.


Oh yes, the genetic affiliation of "Old Europe" is quite sketchy, and probably quite heterogeneous, as it was a melting pot of cultural practises from Anatolia, Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

I also agree on that. I remember reading quite a few papers on the question of homogenity vs. heterogenity of 'Old Europe' (which, I must say, in itself is a fairly sketchy term!), and there is certainly the possibility, even the likelihood that pre-IE Europe was a lot more diverse.

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 00:29
When examples of preserved *p are found with some frequency within Celtic-speaking territory, they are accordingly referred to IE but pre-Celtic substrata, which have been labeled e.g. Ligurian, Illyrian or Old European. But the postulated IE substratum languages in western Europe tend to remain shadowy, exactly because the recognizable linguistic stratum is Celtic.

All models must obviously assume that Celtic developed in an area, where an IE language was already spoken, at least the IE language which was its direct ancestor. Whether a specific intermediate sub-branch, such as Italo-Celtic, can be reconstructed, is debated, cf. de Vaan 2008, 5, Isaac 2007, 94.

Highlighting heterogeneity rather than homogeneity has been effective in deconstructing the notion of a single Bell Beaker ‘culture’ (e.g. see Besse 2004; Czebreszuk (ed.) 2004; Vander Linden 2006). While this has encouraged the main focus of Bell Beaker studies to revolve around individual regional developments, it has also unwittingly resulted in wider connections between different Bell Beaker using areas being played-down, ignored or broken completely. The spread of the Beaker ‘package’ across Europe emphasises fluvial and maritime routes of interaction and exchange, and its distribution shows pockets of adoption along coastal zones and main river arteries.

At present, most of the earliest radiocarbon dates for Bell Beakers come from Portugal, in particular the Tagus estuary, and it is also here that the densest concentration of International (notably Maritime) style Bell Beakers are known (Cardoso and Soares 1990-1992; Martínez et al. 1996, 105-110; Müller and van Willigen 2001). Furthermore, some of the earliest dates for copper mining and smelting in western Europe have come from Iberia. Copper extraction has been identified at the mines of El Aramo and El Milagro, both in northern Spain (Blas 1998). Evidence for on-site metallurgy has also been recovered from many of the Chalcolithic hillforts along the Atlantic coast of Portugal, almost always in contexts associated with Beakers and dating from c. 2600BC onwards (Cardoso 2001; Müller and Cardoso 2008; Soares and Araújo 1994). Recent excavations at the fortified settlement of Cabezo Juré, in the mining district of Huelva, south-west Spain, have revealed evidence of potentially one of the earliest and most complex copper metallurgical sites in western Europe, dating from c. 2900BC (Nocete 2006).

Since it is unlikely that metallurgy was invented independently in the British Isles (e.g. see Ottaway and Roberts 2008; Roberts 2008), it is feasible that the dissemination of copper and bronze technology came from western Iberia, either directly or indirectly via France (Alday Ruíz 1999). The earliest attested copper mining from the British Isles comes from Ross Island in south-west Ireland, dating from c. 2400 BC (O’Brien 1995; 2001).

In this context, The adoption of such estatus markers between the Elites would have involved the use of a family of languages that allowed to the interunderstanding to long distance, with establishments of hillforts in the main fluvial courses and coastal steps (Gulf of Cadiz, Estuary of the Tajo, Galicia, Armórica, Estuary of the Rhone…). According to the regions, at where the restricted products arrived, the local languages would have been influenced by the 'international' language of the scial elites, organized in networks of interchange and alliances, that cause the viability to appearance of the celtic language varieties.
But I don't see how it could be a Celtic language, it is simply too ancient. Just because it involved population movements and appeared in areas associated with Celts, doesn't mean it's Celtic. The language spoken by the elite could be Indo-European, but I highly doubt so. Though it is true they were probably of a patriarchal and a warlike society, this doesn't imply necessarily that they were IE, and megalithism, with its solar connotations, can be seen as a component of a patriarchal and warlike society.
Furthermore, look at this map (Vander Linder 2006):
5211
As you say, it shows that the Beaker Culture was centred around coastal areas and river basins, but it hardly coincides with an Indo-European expansion.
I would go even further, and say it sometimes coincides with the Haplogroup E1b1b in Western and Central Europe:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E1b1b.jpg

callaeca
28-09-11, 00:37
Sorry but not. That is a similar situation for all western:

Dolmen of A Romea (Lalin, Po):
- beginning: radiocarbon dating: 3962-3712 cal BC: funerary pottery
- closure of the monument:3366--3033 cal BC, funerary pottery.
- REFORM and ABANDONAMENT:3018-2679 cal BC. NO funerary pottery:
- RE-UTILIZATION: 2613-1915 cal BC, bell-beaker pottery, 33 copper arrow tips, axes.

What do think you what happen between 2679 and 1915?

No, It does not coincide Asturrulumbo. It is an actual map of E1b distribution that is not exact for Galicia (cf. 0% y the North, 3% in the West, 5-6% in the center and East, and 12% in the south of Galicia).

See:

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002002.jpg

and

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002001.jpg

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 01:00
Sorry but not. That is a similar situation for all western:

Dolmen of A Romea (Lalin, Po):
- beginning: radiocarbon dating: 3962-3712 cal BC: funerary pottery
- closure of the monument:3366--3033 cal BC, funerary pottery.
- REFORM and ABANDONAMENT:3018-2679 cal BC. NO funerary pottery:
- RE-UTILIZATION: 2613-1915 cal BC, bell-beaker pottery, 33 copper arrow tips, axes.

What do think you what happen between 2679 and 1915?

No, It does not coincide Asturrulumbo.

The Beaker Culture had, at least in some cases, megalithic practises. There's no denying that. Note that I did not state that megalithism began with the Beakers, or even that it accentuated, but merely that they practised megalithism within the context of a "solar" and warlike society.

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 01:15
Sorry but not. That is a similar situation for all western:

Dolmen of A Romea (Lalin, Po):
- beginning: radiocarbon dating: 3962-3712 cal BC: funerary pottery
- closure of the monument:3366--3033 cal BC, funerary pottery.
- REFORM and ABANDONAMENT:3018-2679 cal BC. NO funerary pottery:
- RE-UTILIZATION: 2613-1915 cal BC, bell-beaker pottery, 33 copper arrow tips, axes.

What do think you what happen between 2679 and 1915?

No, It does not coincide Asturrulumbo. It is an actual map of E1b distribution that is not exact for Galicia (cf. 0% y the North, 3% in the West, 5-6% in the center and East, and 12% in the south of Galicia).

See:

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002002.jpg

and

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002001.jpg

Hmm... The only way I could see that working is within Krahe's model of "Old European Hydronimy", and S116 originating with the Usatovo culture. The Remedello, Rinaldone and (possibly) Gaudo cultures of Italy could be seen as "Old European", as well as the Beaker folk. The Beaker S116* could have evolved to M65 and Z196, and possibly also L238. But yes, I think I see in that a possible solution. For L21 and U152 however (as well as Celtic and Italic languages), I still maintain in any case that they originated in the Cotofeni, Unetice, Tumulus and Urnfield cultures.

Cambrius (The Red)
28-09-11, 02:36
Sorry but not. That is a similar situation for all western:

Dolmen of A Romea (Lalin, Po):
- beginning: radiocarbon dating: 3962-3712 cal BC: funerary pottery
- closure of the monument:3366--3033 cal BC, funerary pottery.
- REFORM and ABANDONAMENT:3018-2679 cal BC. NO funerary pottery:
- RE-UTILIZATION: 2613-1915 cal BC, bell-beaker pottery, 33 copper arrow tips, axes.

What do think you what happen between 2679 and 1915?

No, It does not coincide Asturrulumbo. It is an actual map of E1b distribution that is not exact for Galicia (cf. 0% y the North, 3% in the West, 5-6% in the center and East, and 12% in the south of Galicia).

See:

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002002.jpg

and

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002001.jpg

Interesting. Who produced the second map?

zanipolo
28-09-11, 02:51
Hmm... The only way I could see that working is within Krahe's model of "Old European Hydronimy", and S116 originating with the Usatovo culture. The Remedello, Rinaldone and (possibly) Gaudo cultures of Italy could be seen as "Old European", as well as the Beaker folk. The Beaker S116* could have evolved to M65 and Z196, and possibly also L238. But yes, I think I see in that a possible solution. For L21 and U152 however (as well as Celtic and Italic languages), I still maintain in any case that they originated in the Cotofeni, Unetice, Tumulus and Urnfield cultures.

you left out Polada culture of northern italy, but maybe that was too old

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 03:53
you left out Polada culture of northern italy, but maybe that was too old
All the contrary; that culture in my opinion was already Italic (1380-1270 BC, much younger than the Remedello (c. 3300-2500 BC) and Rinaldone (c. 3500-2500 BC) cultures)

Taranis
28-09-11, 10:33
Sorry but not. That is a similar situation for all western:

Dolmen of A Romea (Lalin, Po):
- beginning: radiocarbon dating: 3962-3712 cal BC: funerary pottery
- closure of the monument:3366--3033 cal BC, funerary pottery.
- REFORM and ABANDONAMENT:3018-2679 cal BC. NO funerary pottery:
- RE-UTILIZATION: 2613-1915 cal BC, bell-beaker pottery, 33 copper arrow tips, axes.

What do think you what happen between 2679 and 1915?

No, It does not coincide Asturrulumbo. It is an actual map of E1b distribution that is not exact for Galicia (cf. 0% y the North, 3% in the West, 5-6% in the center and East, and 12% in the south of Galicia).

See:

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002002.jpg

and

http://model.callaeca.net/the%20web%20of%20calla002001.jpg

Honestly, it does not make that much sense. The biggest stretch, in my opinion, on that map is the spread from Sardinia to western Iberia. How is that even possible, and why are the Baleares, North Africa and southeastern Iberia omitted? Also, as I said there is the issue that you have non-Indo-European languages surviving in some of the areas that are the oldest (or more generally older) Beaker-Bell sites. I think this is too much of a stretch and it's more plausible to assume that this is a phenomenon that evolved indigenously in Iberia.

I'd also like to repeat that you sould take a look at the Basque words for metalworking:

smith - arotz
blacksmith - oligazon
forge - sutegi
lead - beruna
iron - burdina
hammer - gabi

All these are non-Indo-European in origin, and in my opinion this suggests the existence of a non-Indo-European metalworking culture in Western Europe. And in my opinion, Beaker-Bell is the only viable canidate for this. In contrast, if the Basques had borrowed metalworking from Indo-Europeans (such as the Finnic people have, for instance the Finnic word for 'iron' is a cognate with the Balto-Slavic word for 'ore'), we would also expect Indo-European loans (from PIE or Proto-Celtic) into Basque there for metal terms. As a matter of fact, has a few words for metals/metalworking borrowed from IE, but these are from Latin or Romance (for example, Latin 'incudem' (anvil) > Basque 'ingude' and Spanish 'estaño' (tin) > Basque 'eztainu'), and not from Celtic or from PIE, and the rest of the metal vocabulary is fundamentally non-Indo-European, which should be impossible if Beaker-Bell was an Indo-European culture.

Cambrius (The Red)
28-09-11, 14:43
The Basque language does put a bit of a monkey wrench into the Bell-Beaker model, as regards origin.

callaeca
28-09-11, 16:41
why are the Baleares, North Africa and southeastern Iberia omitted? Also, as I said there is the issue that you have non-Indo-European languages surviving in some of the areas that are the oldest (or more generally older) Beaker-Bell sites. I think this is too much of a stretch and it's more plausible to assume that this is a phenomenon that evolved indigenously in Iberia.

Because we can not find stellae, statue-menhir or certain typology of rock engravings (f.e. that related Galicia-Ireland-Valcamunica) in these areas.

Taranis you can not go against all.

The basque language is recently in Hispania, you must to ask better about aquitanian language in France.

Harrison, Richard; Heyd, Volker Praehistorische Zeitschrift , Volume 82 (2) de Gruyter – Nov 26, 2007

The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: Sozialwandel; Ideologien; Individualismus; Jamnaja-package; anthropomorphe Stelen:

'Unsere Analyse der Funeralbauten, der anthropomorphen Stelen und der materiellen Hinterlassenschaften (die als drei unterschiedliche Quellengruppen anzusehen sind) führen uns das Ringen zwischen Tradition und Innovation vor Augen sowie die sukzessiven Adaptionen einer lokalen spätneolithischen Bevölkerung an die verschiedenen Zweige der Glockenbecher-Ideologie und dann der Frühbronzezeit'.

'The comparison extends to include the immigration of the Yamnaya populations from the northern Pontic steppes into east and southeast Europe, and ends with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon on the west of the Iberian Peninsula. This is all set into the wider transformation horizon between 2900 and 2700 BC.'. PZ, 82. Band, S. 129­214 © Walter de Gruyter 2007 DOI 10.1515/PZ.2007.010

The first scale considers the European dimension stretching from the Southeast of Europe to the Atlantic facade. The second focuses on the specific sequence of events and materials from Sion ­ Le Petit-Chasseur (related with Iberia). The interplay between these two scales will allow us to explore the dynamics of an ideological evolution, which transforms prehistoric Europe successively in the third millennium BC, leading to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) stabilisations after 2200 BC. We propose a new interpretation that differs from the models of successive cultural change originally proposed by the excavators. For us, Sion is an example of an international process at the local scale. Our analysis begins from a pan-European perspective of European culture which insists upon the continental scale of European Prehistory and which gives priority to the social process rather than to the description of regional particularities.

Taranis, NEED YOU MORE?

Taranis
28-09-11, 16:52
Because we can not find stellae, statue-menhir or certain typology of rock engravings (f.e. that related Galicia-Ireland-Valcamunica).

Well, maybe you should consider the possibility that the stelae in Iberia are a native phenomenon.


Taranis you can not go against all. The basque language is recently in Hispania.

Umm, sorry what? If that was the case, Basque we should find links between the Basque language and other languages. However apart from Iberian (which is disputed, or rather, the genetic relationship between Basque and Iberian is disputed) there is no language thought to be related with Basque. These are strong arguments that the Basques have been living in the area since at least the Neolithic. The idea that the Basque language is non-native is definitely a minority view. Besides, where would it have come from after the Copper Age? :startled:

callaeca
28-09-11, 17:06
Native phenomenon? Do you want contradict Walter de Gruyter and Richard Harrison opinion?
Please, let's be serious.

Mmmmm...Taranis, have you some complex or some xenophobic feeling with the portugueses and spaniards?

Taranis
28-09-11, 17:14
Native phenomenon?
Please, let's be serious.

Well, I am serious, and I do not think that my arguments can be so readily dismissed. I gave evidence that the Basque language has apparently native (or, at least decisively non-Indo-European, due to the fact that Basque is an isolate language it is in fact untestable if they are native to the Basque language or not) terms for metals and metalworking. The generally accepted majority view is that Basque is a native, pre-Indo-European language to Western Europe. Therefore, the only way that the Basque language could have acquired non-IE terms for metal-working is to assume the existence of a non-Indo-European culture in Western Europe that spread metalworking. The Beaker-Bell Culture is the only viable candidate for this.

callaeca
28-09-11, 17:18
And do you see some basque language in the West of Hispania?

The hydronyms are indo-europeans, do you have some example with a basque hydronime in the west?
Perhaps, do you want say that Yamnani are basques?
Tell me, have you some complex with the portugueses and spaniards?

callaeca
28-09-11, 17:50
For L21 and U152 however (as well as Celtic and Italic languages), I still maintain in any case that they originated in the Cotofeni, Unetice, Tumulus and Urnfield cultures.

There is a problem for this affirmation, in the marginal areas (Ireland and Western Hispania) the Atlantic Culture finish in the III b.C.. There is not urnfield and Hallstatt culture in the western atlantic areas, only Atlantic. The urnfield in SE France and NE and E Peninsula (Catalunya, Levante) supposes the end of the indo-european world in those area, and the beggining of the iberisation.

Sorry, but I have this text only in spanish, I hope that you can understand it:

HENDERSON, JON C.: THE ATLANTIC IRON AGE. SETTLEMENT AND IDENTITY IN THE FIRST MILLENIUM B. C. ROUTLEDGE, LONDRES, 2007.

Para dichas limitaciones (conservadurismo y estatismo del Área Atlántica o la dificultad de apreciar la relación entre la diversidad local y la unidad fundamental de una tradición/es atlántica)se plantea un concepto de interacción más dinámico, que permita apreciar el papel y evolución propias de las diversas comunidades locales, no pudiendo hablarse así, tanto de una tradición atlántica uniforme como de una “diversidad emparentada” en la que desarrollos locales junto a relaciones a larga distancia confluyen en la creación de una relativa koiné. Estos dos aspectos se conjugan a través de una síntesis entre los modelos de cambio social derivados de la teoría de World Economic Systems y de la arqueología del asentamiento.

Ello permite observar el papel en la continuidad atlántica de fenómenos como la forma de producción predominante, una economía mixta con tendencia al pastoreo, favoreciendo por tanto una mayor estabilidad social y cultural, por contraste con lo que sucede en otras regiones. Desde el punto de vista de los patrones de asentamiento el Hierro atlántico lejos de constituir un retroceso mantiene la tendencia del Bronce Final a una mayor sedentarización, apreciable en la aparición de sistemas de campos de cultivo cerrados (fields systems) y asentamientos permanentes, frecuentemente en piedra, que se les asocian.

Las similitudes y diferencias de la cultura material o el tipo de asentamiento pueden actuar a la hora de crear y negociar afinidades o alteridades entre comunidades regionales y áreas culturales, así el contraste que se establece entre la serie de elementos comunes al complejo atlántico (casas circulares, depósitos acuáticos, ausencia de enterramientos, etc.) y los propios de la tradición de los Campos de Urnas. Atención especial merece la cultura material, observando que si bien los objetos que circulan por el atlántico tienen un origen inicial centroeuropeo, parecen haber sido adaptados para crear una nueva tipología, propia y común dentro del área, e intencionalmente distinta de su modelo original. Se muestra así la consciente alteridad de dos áreas culturales (Atlántica vs. Campos de Urnas) unidas por una relación de mutualidad comercial (el cobre alpino y el estaño atlántico) pero que se reconocen al mismo tiempo entre si como distintas expresándolo a través de su cultura material.

la continuidad de tipologías de aspecto simbólico e ideológico de los bienes muebles que circulan en las redes atlánticas como los calderos de remaches pudo verse favorecida por el papel ritual que desempeñaban dichos objetos dentro de su circulo cultural. Lo cual podría explicar lo tardío del uso del hierro o fenómenos peculiares como el de que las pocas espadas hallstáticas del ámbito nórdico y atlántico sean normalmente versiones en bronce de tipos férreos alpinos.

Se distinguen dos zonas subregionales: la formada por Irlanda y Escocia (e igualmente Galicia), y por el eje Armórica-SE de Inglaterra. La primera desarrolla una arquitectura propia a partir de las casas circulares del Bronce, dando lugar a edificios domésticos sin parangón como las monumentales roundhouses escocesas, mientras que la otra inmersa en la nueva red comercial que se desarrollara a partir del 600 a.C., absorbe y sintetiza elementos del mundo centroeuropeo y lateniense.

In the same way Henderson think in the celtisation from a 'lingua franca' spoken Atlantic Facade:

Una alternativa más procesual y acumulativa que tiene a su favor, con respecto a sus competidoras, una mayor coherencia entre datos lingüísticos y arqueológicos, pero que contrasta con las generalmente aceptadas visiones de la celtización hispana, que tienden a atribuirla a un proceso celtiberizador, primando la vía continental –pirenáica- sobre la atlántica, hipótesis que ha sido criticada recientemente para la propia Celtiberia (De Bernardo, 2006; Manyanós, 1999). Ello ha llevado a nuestros protohistoriadores, con excepciones , a considerar al NO peninsular como un área al margen de una celticidad definida bajo el paradigma de lo celtibérico, planteándose como alternativa una serie de rasgos y peculiaridades diferenciales de lo castreño, como su carácter periférico o la continuidad autóctona con respecto al Bronce Final Atlántico. Precisamente los mismos elementos (continuidad con el Bronce Final y evolución autónoma) que sirven a otros arqueólogos europeos para definir, precisamente, y explicar con ello de manera bastante convincente y coherente las “celticidades” de otras comunidades atlánticas durante el Hierro.

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 18:44
There is a problem for this affirmation, in the marginal areas (Ireland and Western Hispania) the Atlantic Culture finish in the III b.C.. There is not urnfield and Hallstatt culture in the western atlantic areas, only Atlantic. The urnfield in SE France and NE and E Peninsula (Catalunya, Levante) supposes the end of the indo-european world in those area, and the beggining of the iberisation.

Sorry, but I have this text only in spanish, I hope that you can understand it:

HENDERSON, JON C.: THE ATLANTIC IRON AGE. SETTLEMENT AND IDENTITY IN THE FIRST MILLENIUM B. C. ROUTLEDGE, LONDRES, 2007.

Para dichas limitaciones (conservadurismo y estatismo del Área Atlántica o la dificultad de apreciar la relación entre la diversidad local y la unidad fundamental de una tradición/es atlántica)se plantea un concepto de interacción más dinámico, que permita apreciar el papel y evolución propias de las diversas comunidades locales, no pudiendo hablarse así, tanto de una tradición atlántica uniforme como de una “diversidad emparentada” en la que desarrollos locales junto a relaciones a larga distancia confluyen en la creación de una relativa koiné. Estos dos aspectos se conjugan a través de una síntesis entre los modelos de cambio social derivados de la teoría de World Economic Systems y de la arqueología del asentamiento.

Ello permite observar el papel en la continuidad atlántica de fenómenos como la forma de producción predominante, una economía mixta con tendencia al pastoreo, favoreciendo por tanto una mayor estabilidad social y cultural, por contraste con lo que sucede en otras regiones. Desde el punto de vista de los patrones de asentamiento el Hierro atlántico lejos de constituir un retroceso mantiene la tendencia del Bronce Final a una mayor sedentarización, apreciable en la aparición de sistemas de campos de cultivo cerrados (fields systems) y asentamientos permanentes, frecuentemente en piedra, que se les asocian.

Las similitudes y diferencias de la cultura material o el tipo de asentamiento pueden actuar a la hora de crear y negociar afinidades o alteridades entre comunidades regionales y áreas culturales, así el contraste que se establece entre la serie de elementos comunes al complejo atlántico (casas circulares, depósitos acuáticos, ausencia de enterramientos, etc.) y los propios de la tradición de los Campos de Urnas. Atención especial merece la cultura material, observando que si bien los objetos que circulan por el atlántico tienen un origen inicial centroeuropeo, parecen haber sido adaptados para crear una nueva tipología, propia y común dentro del área, e intencionalmente distinta de su modelo original. Se muestra así la consciente alteridad de dos áreas culturales (Atlántica vs. Campos de Urnas) unidas por una relación de mutualidad comercial (el cobre alpino y el estaño atlántico) pero que se reconocen al mismo tiempo entre si como distintas expresándolo a través de su cultura material.

la continuidad de tipologías de aspecto simbólico e ideológico de los bienes muebles que circulan en las redes atlánticas como los calderos de remaches pudo verse favorecida por el papel ritual que desempeñaban dichos objetos dentro de su circulo cultural. Lo cual podría explicar lo tardío del uso del hierro o fenómenos peculiares como el de que las pocas espadas hallstáticas del ámbito nórdico y atlántico sean normalmente versiones en bronce de tipos férreos alpinos.

Se distinguen dos zonas subregionales: la formada por Irlanda y Escocia (e igualmente Galicia), y por el eje Armórica-SE de Inglaterra. La primera desarrolla una arquitectura propia a partir de las casas circulares del Bronce, dando lugar a edificios domésticos sin parangón como las monumentales roundhouses escocesas, mientras que la otra inmersa en la nueva red comercial que se desarrollara a partir del 600 a.C., absorbe y sintetiza elementos del mundo centroeuropeo y lateniense.

In the same way Henderson think in the celtisation from a 'lingua franca' spoken Atlantic Facade:

Una alternativa más procesual y acumulativa que tiene a su favor, con respecto a sus competidoras, una mayor coherencia entre datos lingüísticos y arqueológicos, pero que contrasta con las generalmente aceptadas visiones de la celtización hispana, que tienden a atribuirla a un proceso celtiberizador, primando la vía continental –pirenáica- sobre la atlántica, hipótesis que ha sido criticada recientemente para la propia Celtiberia (De Bernardo, 2006; Manyanós, 1999). Ello ha llevado a nuestros protohistoriadores, con excepciones , a considerar al NO peninsular como un área al margen de una celticidad definida bajo el paradigma de lo celtibérico, planteándose como alternativa una serie de rasgos y peculiaridades diferenciales de lo castreño, como su carácter periférico o la continuidad autóctona con respecto al Bronce Final Atlántico. Precisamente los mismos elementos (continuidad con el Bronce Final y evolución autónoma) que sirven a otros arqueólogos europeos para definir, precisamente, y explicar con ello de manera bastante convincente y coherente las “celticidades” de otras comunidades atlánticas durante el Hierro.
These papers constate what I have been posing here: the Atlantic Bronze Age as a separate entity from the Urnfield culture, an Iron Age continuity in Iberia, Scotland and Ireland with the Bronze Age (as opposed to the "LaTenization" of Armorica and Southern Britain starting around 600 BC), and that the Atlantic Bronze Age is responsibe for the "Celtization" of Iberia (as opposed to the Pyrenaic Urnfield expansion theory).
However, there was a very clear cultural break in all the Atlantic zone at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the Beggining of the Late Bronze Age (the Atlantic Bronze Age). This, I believe, is when Celtic (and "Para-Celtic") languages would have arrived to Britain, Ireland, and Northern Iberia. Thus, the Beaker Culture should be ascribed (if it was Indo-European, of course, which is by no means certain) if anything to the "Old European Hydronimy". I find no way that Celtic languages could have gotten to Iberia as early as the Chalcolithic, as it is simply to old a date to ascribe to Proto-Celtic, and would imply a very early split of the Celtic languages. In my opinion, they split at around 1300 BC, 1400 at most.

Taranis
28-09-11, 19:01
And do you see some basque language in the West of Hispania?

The hydronyms are indo-europeans, do you have some example with a basque hydronime in the west?
Perhaps, do you want say that Yamnani are basques?

What I'm suggesting there may be no connection between the Beaker-Bell Culture and the Yamna Culture, and that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European phenomenon that spread metalworking. This scenario at least would explain Basque terms for metal-working.

Regarding language evidence in the west, there is no evidence for the Basque language itself, but there is Iberian name evidence which extends all the way to central-western Andalusia. If you don't believe me, take a look at how many place names there were in Antiquity in Baetica with the prefix 'Ili-' or 'Illi-' (which in turn may be a cognate with the Basque word 'hiri' (town, city)).

(I will bracket out Tartessian here, because I think the jury is still out on that one)


Tell me, have you some complex with the portugueses and spaniards?

Umm, what? I thought we were talking about the Copper Age here. Where did the Portuguese and Spaniards come from?!


These papers constate what I have been posing here: the Atlantic Bronze Age as a separate entity from the Urnfield culture, an Iron Age continuity in Iberia, Scotland and Ireland with the Bronze Age (as opposed to the "LaTenization" of Armorica and Southern Britain starting around 600 BC), and that the Atlantic Bronze Age is responsibe for the "Celtization" of Iberia (as opposed to the Pyrenaic Urnfield expansion theory).
However, there was a very clear cultural break in all the Atlantic zone at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the Beggining of the Late Bronze Age (the Atlantic Bronze Age). This, I believe, is when Celtic (and "Para-Celtic") languages would have arrived to Britain, Ireland, and Northern Iberia. Thus, the Beaker Culture should be ascribed (if it was Indo-European, of course, which is by no means certain) if anything to the "Old European Hydronimy". I find no way that Celtic languages could have gotten to Iberia as early as the Chalcolithic, as it is simply to old a date to ascribe to Proto-Celtic, and would imply a very early split of the Celtic languages. In my opinion, they split at around 1300 BC, 1400 at most.

Yes, that is more or less what I also believe was the case. In regard for the split of the Celtic languages, it is partially possible to very broadly date this indirectly: after all the *kw > *p shift did not only occur in the Celtic languages (Britanno-Gallic), but also in the Italic languages (Osco-Umbrian) and Greek. With the latter, we know that Mycenean Greek during the Bronze Age was what could be called "Q-Greek" (the term is never used but it would be appropriate to use it here for an analogy) whereas Classical Greek already had performed the *kw > *p shift. This very broadly narrows down the shift in Greek to a time frame between disappearance of Linear-B (12th century BC) and the adoption of the Greek alphabet by the Greeks (8th century BC). From that perspective, it seems to me as a very likely conclusion that the sound shift occured simultaneously in Britanno-Gallic, Osco-Umbrian and Greek. If this is the case, then the sound shift would also have occured some time between the 12th and 8th century BC, and from that perspective it seems likely that the late Proto-Celtic (before diversification) was spoken around the same time of the great upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Asturrulumbo
28-09-11, 23:01
Yes, that is more or less what I also believe was the case. In regard for the split of the Celtic languages, it is partially possible to very broadly date this indirectly: after all the *kw > *p shift did not only occur in the Celtic languages (Britanno-Gallic), but also in the Italic languages (Osco-Umbrian) and Greek. With the latter, we know that Mycenean Greek during the Bronze Age was what could be called "Q-Greek" (the term is never used but it would be appropriate to use it here for an analogy) whereas Classical Greek already had performed the *kw > *p shift. This very broadly narrows down the shift in Greek to a time frame between disappearance of Linear-B (12th century BC) and the adoption of the Greek alphabet by the Greeks (8th century BC). From that perspective, it seems to me as a very likely conclusion that the sound shift occured simultaneously in Britanno-Gallic, Osco-Umbrian and Greek. If this is the case, then the sound shift would also have occured some time between the 12th and 8th century BC, and from that perspective it seems likely that the late Proto-Celtic (before diversification) was spoken around the same time of the great upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Or a bit before, as (taking from the assumption that Osco-Umbrian and Greek took the *kw>*p shift from a Celtic source) the Celtic languages split before the *kw>*p sound change in Gallo-Brittonic.
I must say, this "stelae people" speculation could provide a solution to the high amounts of P312 (except L21 and U152) in many places, namely Iberia. However, I would not pronounce myself for or against it until we have more evidence (especially a P312 frequencies map).

callaeca
28-09-11, 23:43
You are considering the process from point of view of the Hallstatt and La Tené optical, when both spaces of culture were consecuence of the oldest process generated in the Atlantic Façade. The indo-europeisation (and later celtisation), of this area clearly are represented by the ‘stellae’ populations (yamnani) and its diffusion with the bell-beaker package. There is not other way.

To make the comparison from the Gaul world (or celtiberian, in the peninsular case), as a celtic reality, is false, because they are realities that derive from a previous and nonimmediate process. This ethnogenetic process could not never have been developed in a so tiny time interval.

The celticity is not what the Gauls or Celtiberians are. The celticity is a long historical process, whose more recent protagonists known were the Gaul populations (who adopt Eastern cultural elements: Unetiçe) and celtiberians (whose name implies mestization: celt + iberian), in front of to the true and real celticity that comes from the Atlantic Culture, that Gauls and Celtiberians shares.

It is the reason useless, futile and absurd to look for what ‘protoceltic’ or ’palaeoceltic’ is over recent cultural facts or in historical events. For that reason, you will never find a point in common to be able to explain the divergences, but the consequent speculation, intransigence and dogmatism.

In NW of the Iberian Peninsula the ‘anthropomorphes stellae’ continued being used and reused at Roman time like prestige symbol. Therefore, at least for this little country of Europe, it is possible to be affirmed that they are inheriting of the Yamnani populations who introduced them in the Iberian Peninsula. That is enough me to recognize the real celticity (nonspeculative) of these people, because there was not other indo-europeans moviments there.


What I'm suggesting there may be no connection between the Beaker-Bell Culture and the Yamna Culture, and that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European phenomenon that spread metalworking. This scenario at least would explain Basque terms for metal-working.

It is incredible to reject what today all the branches of old history and anthropology are demonstrating. Lol. You seem the midlle age Vatican Inquisition acussing Galileus Galilei as heretic.

'The comparison extends to include the immigration of the Yamnaya populations from the northern Pontic steppes into east and southeast Europe, and ends with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon on the west of the Iberian Peninsula. This is all set into the wider transformation horizon between 2900 and 2700 BC.' (Walter de Gruyter 2007 DOI 10.1515/PZ.2007.010).

'The emergence of the Bell Beaker Culture in the western sphere resulted from the displacament of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe' (Jocelyne Desideri: Europe during the Third Millenium BC and Bell Beaker Culture Phenomenon: People History through Dental Non-Metric Traits Study, UNIGE, 2008.

'Les statues-stèles sont les premières sculptures à caractère monumental d’Europe, avec une ample distribution du Caucase à la Péninsule Ibérique, de la Bretagne et des Iles de la Manche au Sud de la France, à l’Italie et aux îles de la Méditerranée. L’unité chronologique et certains traits stylistiques communs parlent en faveur d’un phénomène unitaire à l’intérieur duquel se précisent des particularités culturelles et régionales indéniables.

Contrairement à l’hypothèse en vigueur jusqu’à récemment d’une diffusion des statues-stèles de l’Est vers l’Ouest et de leur connexion avec l’univers idéologique indo-européen, le rapport avec le mégalithisme atlantique néolithique des stèles, semble désormais attesté'. (Stefania CASINI * et Raffaele C. DE MARINIS; DES PIERRES ET DES DIEUX L’ART RUPESTRE DE LA VALTELINE ET DU VALCAMONICA, LE GLOBE - TOME 149 – 2009, pp. 61-92.)



And you talking about the basques...and L-21. Lol.

Taranis
29-09-11, 00:34
Or a bit before, as (taking from the assumption that Osco-Umbrian and Greek took the *kw>*p shift from a Celtic source) the Celtic languages split before the *kw>*p sound change in Gallo-Brittonic.

Well, there is the question: why and how could this sound shift occur simultaneously? It is quite tempting to assume that it was a common source, but what exactly it was is difficult. It's clear that the language families (Celtic, Italic and Greek) were already separated at that time, but the *kw > *p shift must somehow be a common superstrate in all three language families. It could be a Celtic source, but, well, it could be something entirely else.


I must say, this "stelae people" speculation could provide a solution to the high amounts of P312 (except L21 and U152) in many places, namely Iberia. However, I would not pronounce myself for or against it until we have more evidence (especially a P312 frequencies map).

Well, as I said before, several times actually... the jury is still out there, and can only be solved once we find samples of Beaker-Bell Y-DNA. It could be that they were R1b-P312, but you brought up the possibility of E1b. If the Beaker-Bell people were really E1b, this would actually solve a lot of problems.

Taranis
29-09-11, 00:45
Mmmmm...Taranis, have you some complex or some xenophobic feeling with the portugueses and spaniards?


Tell me, have you some complex with the portugueses and spaniards?


It is incredible to reject what today all the branches of old history and anthropology are demonstrating. Lol. You seem the midlle age Vatican Inquisition acussing Galileus Galilei as heretic.

I sincerely hope that you do not talk to other board members like this, because if that should be the case, I would see no other choice but to give you an infraction. I asked you politely to mind your language last time, which I will hereby do again. Since I'm the vis-a-vis in this discussion, I would rather prefer not to make use of my moderator powers. Therefore, consider yourself warned.


And you talking about the basques...and L-21. Lol.

Honestly, it would be better if you would reply to my arguments (because I think that they are valid and have a point that cannot be easily dismissed) instead of just laughing at them.

Asturrulumbo
29-09-11, 00:49
ou are considering the process from point of view of the Hallstatt and La Tené optical, when both spaces of culture were consecuence of the oldest process generated in the Atlantic Façade. The indo-europeisation (and later celtisation), of this area clearly are represented by the ‘stellae’ populations (yamnani) and its diffusion with the bell-beaker package. There is not other way.

Hallstatt and La Tené generated from a process originating ultimately in the Atlantic Facade? I'm sorry, but it's widely accepted that Hallstatt and La Tene originated from the Bronze Age traditions of Central Europe (Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield), and ultimately from the Pontic Steppe expansions from the Danube basin. Also, I have made clear that I support the "Q-Celtic" languages originating in the Atlantic Facade, in the Late Bronze Age and as a result of the expansion of Central European cultures.


To make the comparison from the Gaul world (or celtiberian, in the peninsular case), as a celtic reality, is false, because they are realities that derive from a previous and nonimmediate process. This ethnogenetic process could not never have been developed in a so tiny time interval.
Again, I never stated that the Celtization of Iberia stemmed from the "Gaulish" (Hallstatt-La Tene) expansion.


The celticity is not what the Gauls or Celtiberians are. The celticity is a long historical process, whose more recent protagonists known were the Gaul populations (who adopt Eastern cultural elements: Unetiçe) and celtiberians (whose name implies mestization: celt + iberian), in front of to the true and real celticity that comes from the Atlantic Culture, that Gauls and Celtiberians shares.
What do you define as "Celtic"? A linguistic entity? A material culture? A kind of music? I really don't understand what you mean by "celticity"... Now then, Gauls and the other Celtic groups of Central Europe aren't Bell Beaker folk coming from the Atlantic that adopt "eastern cultural elements". For one, Beaker influence in Central Europe is relatively ephemeral.


In NW of the Iberian Peninsula the ‘anthropomorphes stellae’ continued being used and reused at Roman time like prestige symbol. Therefore, at least for this little country of Europe, it is possible to be affirmed that they are inheriting of the Yamnani populations who introduced them in the Iberian Peninsula. That is enough me to recognize the real celticity (nonspeculative) of these people, because there was not other indo-europeans moviments there.
You simply cannot take one aspect of a material culture, take it out of its cultural context, and have it stand for the whole of a culture. It may be simply a cultural remnant. And I really don't know what you mean by saying stellae confirm the "real celticity" (the term borders on...) of a people. And again you are wrong by stating there were no other population movements in the region, when there were definitely population movements in the transition to the Late Bronze Age.

callaeca
29-09-11, 01:55
Les complexes culturels nord-alpin et atlantique,qui nous intéressent plus particulièrement en France, se manifestent dans leurs spécificités respectives sur toutes les cartes de répartition des types de produits. Ces deux grandes zones d’homogénéité stylistique se sont toutefois confondues dans l’affichage des mêmes symboles statutaires à l’intérieur de la vaste sphère culturelle de la céramique campaniforme, au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère. Celle-ci a occupé pendant quelques siècles tout l’espace où se sont développés ensuite les deux complexes culturels, avant d’être confondus, au iii e siècle avant notre ère, dans la zone considérée comme celtique

Si l’adoption des mêmes marqueurs de statut a très probablement entraîné l’usage d’une famille de langues permettant l’intercompréhension sur de grandes distances, il convient de noter que les pièces du « set campaniforme » classique sont associées à des types d’objets dont la répartition est plus restreinte. La population ordinaire exprimait sans doute des appartenances, des identités communautaires distinctes – ce qui suggère la persistance de langues différentes. Selon les régions, ces langues locales auraient été plus ou moins pénétrées par la langue « internationale » des élites sociales, organisées en réseaux d’échanges et d’alliances, produisant alors des langues celtiques variées. Ailleurs, la celtisation n’aurait été que superficielle et éphémère. Ainsi pourrait s’expliquer le fait que les habitants de régions touchées par le complexe campaniforme ne soient pas devenus ou restés celtophones. On peut supposer que ces régions ont assez vite retrouvé des formes de réseaux aux dimensions plus restreintes et conformes à leurs conditions environnementales. De la sorte, la langue internationale des élites du complexe campaniforme n’aurait pas eu le temps d’affecter les langues locales. Dans les autres zones de diffusion du complexe campaniforme, au contraire, les échanges auraient été suffisamment fréquents et durables pour qu’un vocabulaire et une grammaire celtiques se généralisent. Mais, là encore, la persistance de réseaux subalternes, bien adaptés aux conditions de transports induites par des environnements spécifiques, ont vraisemblablement engendré des différences dialectales intraceltiques, en particulier entre les régions côtières de l’Atlantique d’une part, et les régions circumalpines de l’autre.

À moins de penser que la culture matérielle puisse se trouver complètement déconnectée de la culture orale – conception étonnamment nihiliste de la part d’archéologues –, l’idée d’un développement du vaste réseau de communautés parlant des langues celtiques au IIIe millénaire avant notre ère, de la Hongrie à l’Irlande et de l’Écosse à l’Andalousie, revêt une bonne probabilité, en tout cas compatible avec l’ensemble des données archéologiques disponibles.

Les régions atlantiques disposaient, bien sûr, d’atouts considérables pour une production de biens métalliques aux qualités très supérieures à celles du cuivre pur, et même à celles du cuivre allié volontairement à l’arsenic. En Galice, sur le pourtour du Massif central, en Armorique ou en Cornouaille britannique – régions où des langues celtiques sont probablement parlées dès cette époque –, des gisements de cuivre et d’étain se trouvent à proximité les uns des autres, situation beaucoup plus rare dans le reste du continent. La zone nord-alpine a également été le lieu de manifestations d’opulence et de pouvoir liées aux trafics de produits métalliques, comme en témoigne de célèbres dépôts funéraires, mais surtout de nombreux et riches dépôts non funéraires. Sa partie orientale apparaît nettement comme un lieu privilégié de relais entre les Carpates et la mer du Nord d’une part, le couloir Saône-Rhône d’autre part. Quelle que soit la signification sociale de ces dépôts de lingots métalliques, ils peuvent être considérés comme les indices d’une forte capacité d’accumulation et de dépense de richesses.

Ainsi se sont affirmés au Bronze moyen (1600-1350 avant notre ère environ) deux sous-ensembles probablement déjà celtiques. L’un, appuyé sur la face nord de l’arc alpin, s’étendait jusqu’aux Monts métallifères, vers le nord, et de la Bohème au centre de la France, d’est en ouest.

L’autre sous-ensemble était baigné par les eaux de l’océan Atlantique, de l’Écosse au sud du Portugal. Il a ensuite entretenu sa spécificité par les échanges maritimes de biens issus de la métallurgie du bronze. Sa situation marginale et la concurrence de la métallurgie du fer semblent avoir provoqué son déclin relatif à partir du premier âge du Fer. Ce changement s’est vraisemblablement accompagné d’une diminution des relations d’échanges et d’alliances internes. Il s’est apparemment produit, dès lors, une certaine désagrégation de cet ensemble identitaire, accompagnée de probables dérives linguistiques. Cette position – marginale comparée aux zones d’échanges les plus actives, situées sur la façade méditerranéenne et autour des Alpes – explique peut-être aussi une dynamique sociale moins accusée et moins rapide dans cette zone atlantique que dans la zone nord-alpine, même si les langues parlées dans chacune appartenaient à la même famille.

De la fin du vi e à la fin du ve siècle avant notre ère émergent des unités politiques autonomes apparemment plus vastes et hiérarchisées que jamais auparavant, à une certaine distance de la Méditerranée. Il s’agit, à l’évidence, d’une conséquence de l’installation de comptoirs grecs. À la fin du iii e siècle avant notre ère, en même temps que les réseaux d’échanges dynamiques se réactivent. C’est notamment le cas des Celtes continentaux, qui ont adopté presque partout, en toute indépendance sociale et politique, une organisation urbaine et étatique, selon des modalités différentes mais en partie réglées par la fréquence de leurs relations économiques avec Rome.

Patrice Brun, 2007, Université de Paris I, UMR 7041 Archéologie et Sciences de l’Antiquité, CNRS

Asturrulumbo
29-09-11, 02:34
Les complexes culturels nord-alpin et atlantique,qui nous intéressent plus particulièrement en France, se manifestent dans leurs spécificités respectives sur toutes les cartes de répartition des types de produits. Ces deux grandes zones d’homogénéité stylistique se sont toutefois confondues dans l’affichage des mêmes symboles statutaires à l’intérieur de la vaste sphère culturelle de la céramique campaniforme, au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère. Celle-ci a occupé pendant quelques siècles tout l’espace où se sont développés ensuite les deux complexes culturels, avant d’être confondus, au iii e siècle avant notre ère, dans la zone considérée comme celtique

Si l’adoption des mêmes marqueurs de statut a très probablement entraîné l’usage d’une famille de langues permettant l’intercompréhension sur de grandes distances, il convient de noter que les pièces du « set campaniforme » classique sont associées à des types d’objets dont la répartition est plus restreinte. La population ordinaire exprimait sans doute des appartenances, des identités communautaires distinctes – ce qui suggère la persistance de langues différentes. Selon les régions, ces langues locales auraient été plus ou moins pénétrées par la langue « internationale » des élites sociales, organisées en réseaux d’échanges et d’alliances, produisant alors des langues celtiques variées. Ailleurs, la celtisation n’aurait été que superficielle et éphémère. Ainsi pourrait s’expliquer le fait que les habitants de régions touchées par le complexe campaniforme ne soient pas devenus ou restés celtophones. On peut supposer que ces régions ont assez vite retrouvé des formes de réseaux aux dimensions plus restreintes et conformes à leurs conditions environnementales. De la sorte, la langue internationale des élites du complexe campaniforme n’aurait pas eu le temps d’affecter les langues locales. Dans les autres zones de diffusion du complexe campaniforme, au contraire, les échanges auraient été suffisamment fréquents et durables pour qu’un vocabulaire et une grammaire celtiques se généralisent. Mais, là encore, la persistance de réseaux subalternes, bien adaptés aux conditions de transports induites par des environnements spécifiques, ont vraisemblablement engendré des différences dialectales intraceltiques, en particulier entre les régions côtières de l’Atlantique d’une part, et les régions circumalpines de l’autre.

À moins de penser que la culture matérielle puisse se trouver complètement déconnectée de la culture orale – conception étonnamment nihiliste de la part d’archéologues –, l’idée d’un développement du vaste réseau de communautés parlant des langues celtiques au IIIe millénaire avant notre ère, de la Hongrie à l’Irlande et de l’Écosse à l’Andalousie, revêt une bonne probabilité, en tout cas compatible avec l’ensemble des données archéologiques disponibles.

Les régions atlantiques disposaient, bien sûr, d’atouts considérables pour une production de biens métalliques aux qualités très supérieures à celles du cuivre pur, et même à celles du cuivre allié volontairement à l’arsenic. En Galice, sur le pourtour du Massif central, en Armorique ou en Cornouaille britannique – régions où des langues celtiques sont probablement parlées dès cette époque –, des gisements de cuivre et d’étain se trouvent à proximité les uns des autres, situation beaucoup plus rare dans le reste du continent. La zone nord-alpine a également été le lieu de manifestations d’opulence et de pouvoir liées aux trafics de produits métalliques, comme en témoigne de célèbres dépôts funéraires, mais surtout de nombreux et riches dépôts non funéraires. Sa partie orientale apparaît nettement comme un lieu privilégié de relais entre les Carpates et la mer du Nord d’une part, le couloir Saône-Rhône d’autre part. Quelle que soit la signification sociale de ces dépôts de lingots métalliques, ils peuvent être considérés comme les indices d’une forte capacité d’accumulation et de dépense de richesses.

Ainsi se sont affirmés au Bronze moyen (1600-1350 avant notre ère environ) deux sous-ensembles probablement déjà celtiques. L’un, appuyé sur la face nord de l’arc alpin, s’étendait jusqu’aux Monts métallifères, vers le nord, et de la Bohème au centre de la France, d’est en ouest.

L’autre sous-ensemble était baigné par les eaux de l’océan Atlantique, de l’Écosse au sud du Portugal. Il a ensuite entretenu sa spécificité par les échanges maritimes de biens issus de la métallurgie du bronze. Sa situation marginale et la concurrence de la métallurgie du fer semblent avoir provoqué son déclin relatif à partir du premier âge du Fer. Ce changement s’est vraisemblablement accompagné d’une diminution des relations d’échanges et d’alliances internes. Il s’est apparemment produit, dès lors, une certaine désagrégation de cet ensemble identitaire, accompagnée de probables dérives linguistiques. Cette position – marginale comparée aux zones d’échanges les plus actives, situées sur la façade méditerranéenne et autour des Alpes – explique peut-être aussi une dynamique sociale moins accusée et moins rapide dans cette zone atlantique que dans la zone nord-alpine, même si les langues parlées dans chacune appartenaient à la même famille.

De la fin du vi e à la fin du ve siècle avant notre ère émergent des unités politiques autonomes apparemment plus vastes et hiérarchisées que jamais auparavant, à une certaine distance de la Méditerranée. Il s’agit, à l’évidence, d’une conséquence de l’installation de comptoirs grecs. À la fin du iii e siècle avant notre ère, en même temps que les réseaux d’échanges dynamiques se réactivent. C’est notamment le cas des Celtes continentaux, qui ont adopté presque partout, en toute indépendance sociale et politique, une organisation urbaine et étatique, selon des modalités différentes mais en partie réglées par la fréquence de leurs relations économiques avec Rome.

Patrice Brun, 2007, Université de Paris I, UMR 7041 Archéologie et Sciences de l’Antiquité, CNRS

Again, I believe this view is very flawed. First of all, calling a Chalcolithic 3rd millenium culture a "vaste réseau de communautés parlant des langues celtiques" is simply methodologically wrong. Secondly, the Bell Beaker culture spread far and wide (even to North Africa), including places where there is no trace of Celtic languages, where there are pre-IE languages (such as Basque), and in some (Beaker culture) places there were Celtic languages only appeared much later. In Sicilly, for example, there is no trace of a celtic language. And most of all, having "celtic languages" appear in such distant places at such early times is, from the linguistic point of view, simply not viable. As I have said, Celtic could only have split at around 1300 BC (and some say that later).

I would also point out that when the Beaker culture is considered Proto-Celtic (or proto-italo-celtic) it is usually done within the context of it emerging from the Corded Ware Culture (which is now widely disputed). For example in the EIEC:

The Beaker "culture" has often been associated with the Indo-Europeans since there are good reasons to derive it from the area of the earlier Corded Ware culture (the Netherlands/Rhineland region is probably the most widely accepted), which is frequently regarded as early Indo-European.

...the Corded Ware culture is still commonly seen as ancestral to those IE peoples whose immediate origins are sought across northern, central and parts of eastern Europe, i.e., the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs

zanipolo
29-09-11, 09:09
Again, I never stated that the Celtization of Iberia stemmed from the "Gaulish" (Hallstatt-La Tene) expansion.


What do you define as "Celtic"? A linguistic entity? A material culture? A kind of music? I really don't understand what you mean by "celticity"... Now then, Gauls and the other Celtic groups of Central Europe aren't Bell Beaker folk coming from the Atlantic that adopt "eastern cultural elements". For one, Beaker influence in Central Europe is relatively ephemeral.




So, do you define the celtic in the british isles as the gallic ( Gaulish) version, while the Iberian peninsula would be more of the Germanic version

I beleive in the ancient times celtic was purely linguistic , while in modern times it would be cultural as well. I do not know when it adopted a cultural sense, but the middle ages seems appropriate

Taranis
29-09-11, 12:10
So, do you define the celtic in the british isles as the gallic ( Gaulish) version, while the Iberian peninsula would be more of the Germanic version

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I elaborated the relationship of the various branches of the Celtic languages in this post (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26794-Ancient-place-names-in-Iberia&p=382374&viewfull=1#post382374). The Germanic languages are rather unrelated with this, except for the fact that the Germanic languages too are Centum languages and that there are Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic.


I beleive in the ancient times celtic was purely linguistic , while in modern times it would be cultural as well. I do not know when it adopted a cultural sense, but the middle ages seems appropriate

The ancient term ("Celtae", "Keltoi") as it was used by Greek/Roman authors in Antiquity rather inconsistently. On the Iberian penninsula, only the Celtici and the Celtiberians are consistently refered to as Celtic, and in contrast the Britons and the Irish are never refered to as 'Celtic'. Additionally, the Greek authors also used the terms "Keltoi" and "Galatae" interchangably. Because of this, the most sensible definition of 'Celtic' by is really via the Celtic languages. Variably you may get a third, 'modern' if you will definition of the term, in the way of the six Celtic nations, but it should be clear that this is a modern concept, and also that this concept derives from the linguistic definition.

Cambrius (The Red)
29-09-11, 15:20
Celticity needs to be treated wholistically as a cultural category. Essentially, certain ethnic groups identify as "Celtic" in varying degrees because they are native to regions that have a long and enduring history of Celticity. Importantly, Celticity functions as a key component of their socio-cultural fabric. Such peoples have a "Celtic consciousness" that forms part of the community epistemological cache, the habitus. Language is the most significant component in all this, but there are many other major considerations as well: religion, art, etc.

Taranis
29-09-11, 15:33
I would like to reiterate that there are multiple problems with the Beaker-Bell hypothesis, which can not be readily dismissed. I have taken one of the maps which shows the language situation ~2000-2300 years ago against the purported stelae people spread. As you can see we have a surival of non-Indo-European languages (Basque, Iberian, Tartessian) in an area that was amongst the oldest to see Beaker-Bell influence. Conversely, the areas that see the latest Beaker-Bell influence (British Isles, northern Germany) are firmly Indo-European.

There is also, as mentioned before, the issue of Basque terms for metalworking that are of non-Indo-European origin, which should be impossible if the Beaker-Bell Culture was Indo-European.

Likewise, I would like to reiterate that Beaker-Bell is way too early to be conceivable as Proto-Celtic in any way, since this by no means explains the interrelationship between Celtic and other branches of Indo-European. I've said it before: the Celtic languages do not come out of thin air.

Additionally, the Celtic languages need to be somehow define against the backdrop of both PIE and against the other branches of IE. If one argues that the commonly established Celtic sound laws are invalid, and even the sound laws the Celtic languages share with other languages, it is something that is not only unscientific, but basically it also becomes impossible to define what exactly constitutes the Celtic language family.

I would like to suggest that the most likely origin for Proto-Celtic (or Proto-Italo-Celtic) would be at the southwestern periphery of the former Corded Ware area:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Corded_Ware_culture.png

(the language stage, of course, in Corded Ware times would have been very close to PIE)

Another issue is that although Beaker-Bell were contemporaries over long stretches of time, the Corded Ware Culture was earlier. Especially in the areas where there is a successive overlap of Corded Ware and Beaker-Bell, the Corded Ware Culture was approximately 500 to 1000 years earlier.

callaeca
29-09-11, 17:38
1.- It is and old theory, yes. It is incompatible with the current archaeological researches. About Brun, he only distinguishes two celtic epicenters: Alps and Bohemia to the center of France and the Atlantic coasts, from Scotland to SW of Iberian Peninsula.

2.- Sorry, but that you are explaining, only is applicable in the world of the Gauls and not to the marginal celtic areas. The Gauls have a recently relativity, in the roman times and they are greek and roman influences. Then they are not the best option to explain what the protoceltic or palaeoceltic concept is. Then it is false that Unetiçe, urnfield or other central european cultural elements (corded Ware and others nineteenth-century ideas) can to define the celtic concept (only in the world of the Gauls)

3.- The Unetiçe and Urnfield influences do not affect in the marginal areas where can we register celtic languages. In fact, it knows for a fact that during this period the commercial exchanges moving in the two-way: Atlantic vs.Unetiçe.

4.- The Urnfield register in SE of France and in the East of the Iberian Peninsula suposse the end in this area of the indo-europeisation and the beginning of the iberisation. In Aquitania supposes the adoption of Unetiçe elements, that mixes with the previous atlantic models (Etxauri swords) come to the Superior plateau. It is in the East where we can detected in the historical Iberian zonal standard language, a popular language close to the basque: cf. Barcelona: eukin; Girona: altikem, kelboio, kosi, lasbe, osato, baRtoin, boboRba, tibaRSar; Tarragona: letaombi; Azaile (Huesca): antu, abaio, aboki, atikis, irsal, kutui, baiti, balte, bartar,barbor, bateba, belu, bokau, tikambe. It is not Iberian standard it seems Basque, and then it is new, recently (no pre-historic, and it is necessary to investigate certains hidronyms from Germany, Austria and NE of France that seems Basques (cf. Peter Paul Schweitzer: Uralte Namen an der Lahn Aus Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Mittelalter, Hadamar 2004).
The iberisation supposes too the separation of the indo-european continuum languages between the Iberian Peninsula and beyond of the North of Pirineos mountains.

5. The western of the Iberian Peninsula reflects an uninterrupted cultural continuity from early Bronze Age. In its central area emerges the known atlantic culture called 'Cogotas I', that spreads in direction East. The contact of this culture with the iberian is the moment that we know as 'celtiberian'.

6.- Then it is not valid a centro european process of celtisation in the marginal areas (the case of Ireland is different but in the same way).This is the reason that a lot of researchers think about a celtisation from the west.

7.- About the caracter basque of the bell-beakers, can you point ONLY ONE Galician hidronym that have a basque structure? ONLY ONE, PLEASE. I can do it about hidronyms of Germany, not only one...in tens.

8.- I ever did reference over the authors or books that I use. You never. It is for this that I think that is a personal opinion no contrasted. I can say too that the celtic culture to come from the chinese farmers of NW of China...

P.D. Taranis, your map does nos reflect the anthropological relations that Jocelyne Desideri has studied, nor the disfusion of S-116, nor one of the simbols of the Yamnani tribes: the 'stellae'. The Corded Wre does not affect in Italy, Alps and Austria, it is non sense links the Corded Ware with the celts. It can explain the indo-europeisations of the gemanic populations but not celtic.

callaeca
29-09-11, 17:58
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
29-09-11, 18:39
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? :confused2:

callaeca
29-09-11, 21:48
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
29-09-11, 22:13
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... :laughing:

callaeca
29-09-11, 22:45
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
29-09-11, 22:47
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
29-09-11, 23:00
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
29-09-11, 23:14
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
29-09-11, 23:22
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
29-09-11, 23:44
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
29-09-11, 23:46
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
29-09-11, 23:57
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
30-09-11, 00:08
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
30-09-11, 00:12
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
30-09-11, 00:21
Why is it impossible? Is it not classical?

You really think that I'm a Classicist? :laughing:

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
30-09-11, 00:46
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
30-09-11, 13:06
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?

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

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

callaeca
30-09-11, 18:08
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
30-09-11, 18:36
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
30-09-11, 18:37
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.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-09-11, 18:52
From what I've researched, the frequency of Celtic place names in the west (France, Spain, Portugal and the British Isles) seems considerably higher that what has been recorded in Central Europe (see Sims-Williams, 2006). Perhaps some of the Central European Celtic names became Romanized or were reconfigured through use of vernacular languages over time.

Taranis
30-09-11, 19:01
From what I've researched, the frequency of Celtic place names in the west (France, Spain, Portugal and the British Isles) seems considerably higher that what has been recorded in Central Europe (see Sims-Williams, 2006). Perhaps some of the Central European Celtic names became Romanized or reconfigured through use of vernacular languages over time.

Yes, it's true that today you don't find much evidence for Celtic place names in Central Europe (except maybe the Rhineland, such as Neumagen, Remagen, Düren, etc.). I think the problem is a very different one: the Migrations Period creates a huge source of discontinuity in Central Europe. As I mentioned, Ptolemy mentions about 80 towns in Germania Magna, very few of which are thought to still exist today or can be unambiguously identified. The consequence is this: most of these settlements (were they originally Celtic or Germanic doesn't really matter) were subsequently destroyed. You have also to consider that large areas that were Germanic 1800 years ago became Slavicized in the wake of the Migration Period (broadly everything east of the Elbe and Saale rivers). On top of that, you even have the arrival of the (non-Indo-European!) Magyars in the Pannonian basin. So, the effect of typonomic discontinuity is enormous in some places. It should be noted that you have a very similar effect in terms of name discontinuity (though decisively smaller) on much of the Iberian peninsula due to the Moorish period. For instance, you today call the river in Andalusia today 'Guadalquivir' (from Arabic 'Wadi-al-Kebir') instead of "Baetis". The effect is far less pronounced in northern Iberia (due to the relatively negligible Moorish impact), but it's also visible there. But, if you compare place names recorded by Ptolemy versus modern place names, a similar effect of discontinuity is also visible. At that note, there's also a fair bit of typonomic discontinuity on the British Isles. Although many of the towns from the Roman period still exist today, thanks to the Anglo-Saxon invasions there's surprisingly little naming continuity in England. For example, 'Camulodunum' became 'Colchester'.

callaeca
30-09-11, 21:31
The lack of L-11*, it is L-11 (x U-106, S-112),i think? Well, 1.- Myers assumes two prominent related for L11, S116 and U106 components that generally distribute West and East of the Rhine river basin respectively, and the Celts have resided ever in the bank west. 2.- the distibution and frequent of all S116 and branches, from Iberia to the Alps and western Poland, to the British Isles and Ireland coincides exactly with the anthropologic stude of Desideri for central Europe and with the expansion bell-beaker that you can see in the map 1.

About this, it would be necessary first to assure etimologies like Bayern/Baiern, called in the antiquity Baibaros, Baiobaros, Bagibare germanized in Baioaria, Baiwaria, Bavaria, Baiuwaren or the old Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai assumed in the german language like Boiohaima.

Taranis
30-09-11, 22:01
The lack of L-11*, it is L-11 (x U-106, S-112) ? Well, 1.- Myers assumes two prominent related for L11, S116 and U106 components that generally distribute West and East of the Rhine river basin respectively. and the Celts have resided ever in the bank west.;

Sorry, but just no. Celtic presence east of the Rhine is well attested: the Celts didn't completely reside on the west bank.
- Vindobonna (Vienna, Austria)
- Brigetio (Szőny, Hungary)
- Cambodunum (Kempten)
- Boiodurum (Passau)
- The 'Hercynian Forest' and the 'Gabretae Forest' (compare Gaulish 'Gabros', Irish 'Gabhar', Welsh 'Gafr', Breton 'Gavr')
- The Vindelici (including sub-tribes like Brigantes, which are also found in Britain and the Licates)
- The Lech (Licca) river, compare Irish 'Leac', Welsh 'Llech', Breton 'Lec'h' (rock, slab)
- Noric town names such as Gabromagus, Gobanodurum, Lauriacum (all mentioned by Ptolemy)
- The Cotini of the western Carpathians, which are explicitly refered to by Tacitus as speaking Gaulish.

Also, to quote myself from earlier:
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).

The Celtic incursion into the Balkans also produced other settlements, as far as the mouth of the Danube:
- Durostorum (Silistra, Romania - also mentioned by Ptolemy)
- Aliobrix (Orlivka, Ukraine)
- 'Vindelia' (localization unclear, but mentioned by Ptolemy in Galatia, Anatolia)
If you do not believe me anything of that, read the Geography of Claudius Ptolemaios.


2.- He says that 'specifically, S116* (xU152, M529) occurrence is maximal in Iberia, whereas the U152 branch is most frequent (20–44%) in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland. Last, the M529 clade is highest (25–50%) in England and Ireland'. It coincides exactly with the anthropologic stude of Desideri for central Europe, with the expansion bell-beaker that you can see in the map 1, and with L-11* that is L-11 (x U-106, S-116) and not to the other way we see it.

I was talking about L11 (without U106, S116), which is clearly absent in Iberia. It does not matter that R1b-S116 (without U106) is found in large concentration in Iberia because it's outgroups are virtually absent in Iberia but found in Central Europe, which in itself proves that a connection with Beaker-Bell is invalid.

EDIT: there is also R1b-Z196 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26828-Z196-needs-to-be-in-the-literature-alongside-its-brother-clades-U152-and-L21) which should be considered, due to which the L11 peak in Iberia looks a lot less clear-cut and obvious than just L11 without U106 or S116.


About this, it would be necessary first to assure etimologies like Bayern/Baiern, called in the antiquity Baibaros, Baiobaros, Bagibare germanized in Baioaria, Baiwaria, Bavaria, Baiuwaren or the old Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai assumed in the german language like Boiohaima, i think.

This is wrong. The connection between Bavaria and the Boii is only an indirect one. Much of Bavaria (especially Bavaria proper) was originally inhabited by a different Celtic tribe, the Vindelici. In the 1st century BC, the Germanic Markomanni invaded Bohemia and conquered the Boii. In the migrations period what remained of the Markomanni migrated into modern-day Bavaria. In contrast, Strabo (Book 7, chapters 1,2 and in particular 3) explicitly mentions the Boii as being Celtic. In any case, the word 'Boi-' is Celtic in etymology, compare Irish 'Bó', Welsh 'Buwch', Breton 'Buoc'h' and Celtiberian 'Boustom'. The word in turn is derived from the PIE word for 'cow' or 'cattle'. In the Celtic languages PIE *gw was rendered to *b, where as in the Germanic languages it was rendered to *kw, which is why the English word is 'cow'.

zanipolo
30-09-11, 22:28
Also, Ptolemy and Strabo explicitly refer to the lands north of the Danube as the 'deserts' (ie 'deserted areas') of the Helveti and Boii.




Careful when mentioning these 2 as reference to lands, Strabo did his geography from Rome and Ptolemy did it from Alexandria. So when they say beyond this "tribe" or Mountains , they mean a different direction from each other.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-09-11, 22:33
Careful when mentioning these 2 as reference to lands, Strabo did his geography from Rome and Ptolemy did it from Alexandria. So when they say beyond this "tribe" or Mountains , they mean a different direction from each other.

A fair point. The Ancients were many times inaccurate in their descriptions and explanations.

Taranis
30-09-11, 22:36
Careful when mentioning these 2 as reference to lands, Strabo did his geography from Rome and Ptolemy did it from Alexandria. So when they say beyond this "tribe" or Mountains , they mean a different direction from each other.

Well, yes, but the general relative locations of the tribes are still unambiguous. It's especially unambiguous since Ptolemy deployed a coordinate system. Anyways, the terms "Helvetian Desert" and "Gabreta Forest" are used by Ptolemy in Book 2, chapter 10. The "Gabreta Forest" and "Boii desert" are mentioned by Strabo in Book 7, chapter 1

callaeca
01-10-11, 00:55
well I see the distribution of all P-312/S-116 and frequencies. it is clear..

About the etimology of Boii (gr.Βόϊοι) is unclear. Lambert (LG 44) connects it instead with gaul. -bogios ("theme verb. bo(n)g- 'frapper'"). Schmidt (KGPN 153) and de Bernardo Stempel (2000:90) with the verbal root ie. *bhei-/*bhoi- 'schlagen, kämpfen' (*bhoy-o-s): cf. phohiio-s-, a Venetic personal name; Boioi, an Illyrian tribe; Boiōtoi, a Greek tribal name. Birkhan (1999:99) *gʷou- "cow" as a basis (*gʷowjeh³-). Anreiter (2000:117-18) does not present etimology to explain BOIODURUM in lower Bavaria ('city of the Boii' (?)).

Taranis
01-10-11, 01:19
well I see the distribution of all P-312/S-116 and frequencies. it is clear..

As I said, when you look at the presence of the subclade R1b-Z196 in Iberia, it gets clear that the peak in Iberia is not that clear as it would appear at first. I mean, if you take over all R1b in Western Europe, you get peaks in the Basque country and an arc extending northwards along the Atlantic façade towards Wales and Ireland. You can note however that this peak completely disappears if you take U152, L21 and U106 separately. The situation in Iberia becomes also less obvious when you take R1b-Z196 into the picture, which after all, is quite frequent amongst the Basques.


About the etimology of Boii (gr.Βόϊοι) is unclear. Lambert (LG 44) connects it instead with gaul. -bogios ("theme verb. bo(n)g- 'frapper'"). Schmidt (KGPN 153) and de Bernardo Stempel (2000:90) with the verbal root ie. *bhei-/*bhoi- 'schlagen, kämpfen' (*bhoy-o-s): cf. phohiio-s-, a Venetic personal name; Boioi, an Illyrian tribe; Boiōtoi, a Greek tribal name. Birkhan (1999:99) *gʷou- "cow" as a basis (*gʷowjeh³-). Anreiter (2000:117-18) does not present etimology to explain BOIODURUM in lower Bavaria ('city of the Boii' (?)).

Well, my point is that a Celtic etymology for the tribal name is viable. Also, as mentioned there is plenty of evidence for Celtic typonomy in ancient Bohemia (town names like Eburodunum, Celamantia, Meliodunum and Eburum, which are all mentioned by Ptolemy in his geography, as well as geographic features like the Gabretae forest). Also, as mentioned the Italian and Pannonian Boii were undoubtably Celtic, and from that perspective I find the idea that the Bohemian Boii were something else - for no apparent reason other than the ad-hoc assumption that they must not have been Celtic - doubtful.

Regarding "Boiodurum", the second name element is unambiguously Celtic (compare Divodurum, Durocorterum, Durotinctum).

callaeca
01-10-11, 12:46
It does not explain the earlier celtisation of the Iberian Peninsula, without the presence archaeological of external population movements (the last discontinuity detectable in the western Iberian was, how I have said, in the ends of the Calcolithic), with a great linguistic barrier to the south of France (complex aquitan-iberian), that in Urnfield times, whether you like it or not, spreads from Occitania to Andalusia.

It does not explain the inscription J.1 LUKOBO NERABO, written over VIII-VII dC (similar to the callaecian god name LVGOVBO, LUCVBO, cantabrian LVCVBO and the callaecian tribal name NERII), synchronously when appears the Hallstatt in Central Europe.

It does not explain how the Culture of 'Cogotas I' (1700-1000 b.C.) and Cogotas II from this initial settlement in Vettonia get the Plateau Superior, that it distinguishes oneself to the contact with the Iberian and Aquitanian urnfield culture (celtiberians). The term Celtiberi appears in accounts by Diodorus Siculus, Appian and Martial who recognized intermarriage between Celts and Iberians:

'Why do you call me brother, which I descend from Celts and from Iberians and I am a citizen of the Tagus?' (Martial).

What means for you Pyrinees in Herodotos?

About the ethnical Boii, it does not explain the oldest names Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai to design Bohemia or if they are the sames that we look in Italy and its migration to Dacia (60-40 dC). Remeber that Boioi was an Illyrian tribe too like Boiōtoi a Greek tribal name. There was other Boii in Aquitania.

Taranis
01-10-11, 13:53
It does not explain the earlier celtisation of the Iberian Peninsula, without the presence archaeological of external population movements (the last discontinuity detectable in the western Iberian was, how I have said, in the ends of the Calcolithic), with a great linguistic barrier to the south of France (complex aquitan-iberian), that in Urnfield times, whether you like it or not, spreads from Occitania to Andalusia.

Actually, the assumption that the Iberian penninsula was Celticized earlier does not make any sense, especially, as I pointed many times over, you have the survival of non-Indo-European languages in this region. Also, the claim that Urnfield expanded into Andalusia is completely false. Urnfield influence only expanded into Catalonia, and as a result it is utterly impossible to explain Iberian influence in Andalusia with Urnfield. The Iberians, Basques and Tartessians were all part of the Atlantic Bronze Age, which pretty much shows that this was a linguistically non-homogenous area.


It does not explain the inscription J.1 LUKOBO NERABO, written over VIII-VII dC (similar to the callaecian god name LVGOVBO, LUCVBO, cantabrian LVCVBO and the callaecian tribal name NERII), synchronously when appears the Hallstatt in Central Europe.

Are you refering to Tartessian inscriptions? Well, I have to tell you that these, with high probability do represent a completely unrelated, as of yet undeciphered (and most probably non-Indo-European) language. Also, 'Lukobo Nerabo' is not what is written there, instead 'LoOKoOBoONIIRABoO' (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf) Koch's (2009) idea that Tartessian was a Celtic language was innovative, but it is completely false and it makes assumptions about the script which are totally untenable. By the way, I'm not the only one who thinks that (http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html):


The inscriptions are written in a variant of the Palaeo-Hispanic scripts (p. 203–208), which are semisyllabic. Alphabetic signs for vowels (a, e, i, o, u), resonants (m, n, r, ŕ, l) and sibilants (s, ś) are distinguished from syllabic signs for stops plus vowel (Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu etc.). Stops are only divided according to their place of articulation (P: labial, T: dental, K: tectal), not to sonority (voiced, voiceless). No word dividers are used. A typical feature of Tartessian is the use of extra vowel signs usually accompanying syllabic signs with the same vowel, e.g. Po+o. Thus the Tartessian script resembles an intermediary between semisyllabic and alphabetic writing. Some cases of disagreement occur, though, e.g. Ko.o.ŕ.Pe.o (J.53.1)—interestingly always Ce +V—and rarely no extra vowel is written after a stop, e.g. Tu.n.?i.i.te.s.Pa.a.n (J.53.1).

It should be clarified from the outset that a system like this—hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language as it is—leaves ample room for interpretation.


A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch's linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/). An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible. And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As you can see, it is far more plausible to assume that Tartessian was a non-Indo-European language. This, of course, has far-reaching consequences, especially also for the Stelae People hypothesis, because we would not expect a non-Indo-European people in the core area of the Beaker-Bell Culture if said Beaker-Bell Culture was Indo-European.


It does not explain how the Culture of 'Cogotas I' (1700-1000 b.C.) and Cogotas II from this initial settlement in Vettonia get the Plateau Superior, that it distinguishes oneself to the contact with the Iberian and Aquitanian urnfield culture (celtiberians). The term Celtiberi appears in accounts by Diodorus Siculus, Appian and Martial who recognized intermarriage between Celts and Iberians:

As I said, this is completely incorrect. You have a massive discontinuity with the great upheavals of the 13th century BC, and this is the most likely insertion point for Celtic languages onto the Iberian peninsula.


About the ethnical Boii, it does not explain the oldest names Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai to design Bohemia or if they are the sames that we look in Italy and its migration to Dacia (60-40 dC). Remeber that Boioi was an Illyrian tribe too like Boiōtoi a Greek tribal name. There was other Boii in Aquitania.

As I said before, Celtic place names are attested in Bohemia (mentioned multiple times by me now) and even as far north as Silesia (Lugidunum, Carrodunum). Also, by the time that classical Antiquity became fully aware of Central Europe, Celtic presence in Central Europe was already in decline. Strabo explicitly mentions that the Boiian lands were ravaged by the Cimbri in the 2nd century BC, and that they were subsequently conquered by the Marcomanni in the 1st century BC. But to say that there was no Celtic presence what so ever is blatantly wrong, and it creates unsolvable problems. As I mentioned, there are multiple borrowings of Celtic words into Germanic which almost always predate Grimm's Law, in particular the Celtic tribal name 'Volcae' was the root word for the Germanic word for foreigner, 'walha-' (compare 'Wales', 'Wallonia', 'Wallachia') and the Gaulish word 'Marcos' (steed) was also borrowed (compare English 'Mare', German 'Mähre', Swedish 'Märr'). What is far more educative is however the Germanic word for 'iron', which was also borrowed from the Celtic word for 'iron' into Proto-Germanic:

Gaulish "Isarnos"
Old Irish "Íarn"
Modern Irish "Iarann"
Scottish Gaelic "Iarann"
Welsh "Haern"
Breton "Houarn"

Anglo-Saxon "Isen"
English "Iron"
Frisian "Izer"
Dutch "Ijzer"
German "Eisen"
Danish "Jern"
Icelandic "Járn"
Norwegian "Jern"
Swedish "Järn"
Gothic "Eisarn"

From the archaeological perspective, iron-working arrives with the (Proto-Germanic) Jastorf Culture in the 6th century BC from the Hallstatt area. From that perspective, I don't see how the Hallstatt Culture was not Celtic. This is one of the reasons why I think that a two-core model for the Celtic languages during the Bronze Age (Q-Celtic in the northern Atlantic Façade, P-Celtic in Central Europe) is necessary for explaining the patterns that we see.

callaeca
01-10-11, 15:09
I do not see what Zeidler want proppose (i think nothing), and what he says is very contradictory, because he acepts syllabic signs for stops plus vowel Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu as P labial + vowel, then the lecture correct is n.i.i.r.a.Po.o, a feminine word linked with the callaecian tribe Nerii, and?: cf. ARABO COROBELICOBO TALVSICOBO where you see this same alternance feminine/masculine.

I don't see a criticism, for example, in the anthroponimic system.Then what is LOºKOºBOº ?...well..it is LUCUBO or LUGUBO. Have you other proposse about it?

And Zeidler (he follows the Fco. Villar way) says:'Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach'.

There are not, I insist, discontinuity from the end of Calcolithic to the roman times. Examples please...where do you see discontinuity?

Is it incorrect the Cogotas I and II culture?..no, no, Taranis. Can you explain it, please?

Can you explain too the names Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai?

Taranis
01-10-11, 15:40
I do not see what Zeidler want proppose (i think nothing), and what he says is very contradictory, because he acepts syllabic signs for stops plus vowel Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu as P labial + vowel, then the lecture correct is n.i.i.r.a.Po.o, a feminine word linked with the callaecian tribe Nerii, and?: cf. ARABO COROBELICOBO TALVSICOBO where you see this same alternance feminine/masculine.

I don't see a criticism, for example, in the anthroponimic system.Then what is LOºKOºBOº ?...well..it is LUCUBO or LUGUBO. Have you other proposse about it?

Well, it's exactly what he meant with 'ad-hoc sound changes'. The Gallaecian version is "Lugobo", but the Tartessian word is 'Lokobo'. This would imply a shift from *u > *o in Tartessian. Likewise "Niirabo" would imply a shift from *e > *ii in Tartessian. Yet, as Zeidler correctly points out, in Koch's interpretation this not only yields *ii (which would be expected if this was a regular sound change) but instead variably also *e or *i. There is no regularity in these purported sound changes, and hence the (far more plausible) explanation is that "LOºKOºBOº" is just a random Tartessian word of unknown meaning. Also, Koch himself says that the Tartessian script is the oldest of the native writing systems of the Iberian penninsula, and as Zeidler points out, it is hardly suitable for an Indo-European language at all. For all purposes, the most logical thing to assume is that Tartessian was non-Indo-European.


And Zeidler (he follows the Fco. Villar way) says:'Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach'.

Well, for reasons I stated above, in my opinion the Celtic hypothesis of Tartessian can be firmly carried to the grave. With it, the purported 'ancient Celticity' of Iberia (ie, dating far back into the Chalcolithic) can be firmly ruled out as well, suggesting instead that the Celtic languages arrived only inside the Bronze Age context.

Also, consider what Zeidler says further down in the article:


Written sources do show a Celtic element in the Iberian Peninsula as early as the sixth or fifth century BC, but this is late enough to allow for an Atlantic as well as a Central European origin of Proto-Celtic. The results from historical linguistics are so far not decisive.

Cambrius (The Red)
01-10-11, 17:09
Well, it's exactly what he meant with 'ad-hoc sound changes'. The Gallaecian version is "Lugobo", but the Tartessian word is 'Lokobo'. This would imply a shift from *u > *o in Tartessian. Likewise "Niirabo" would imply a shift from *e > *ii in Tartessian. Yet, as Zeidler correctly points out, in Koch's interpretation this not only yields *ii (which would be expected if this was a regular sound change) but instead variably also *e or *i. There is no regularity in these purported sound changes, and hence the (far more plausible) explanation is that "LOºKOºBOº" is just a random Tartessian word of unknown meaning. Also, Koch himself says that the Tartessian script is the oldest of the native writing systems of the Iberian penninsula, and as Zeidler points out, it is hardly suitable for an Indo-European language at all. For all purposes, the most logical thing to assume is that Tartessian was non-Indo-European.



Well, for reasons I stated above, in my opinion the Celtic hypothesis of Tartessian can be firmly carried to the grave. With it, the purported 'ancient Celticity' of Iberia (ie, dating far back into the Chalcolithic) can be firmly ruled out as well, suggesting instead that the Celtic languages arrived only inside the Bronze Age context.

Also, consider what Zeidler says further down in the article:

The more I examine Celtic issues the more I believe that Celticity advanced on two fronts contemporaneously: the Atlantic Facade (Western Iberia to the British Isles) and Central Europe (Alpine regions). It may be fair to say that there are actually two Celtic cradles.

zanipolo
01-10-11, 22:56
The more I examine Celtic issues the more I believe that Celticity advanced on two fronts contemporaneously: the Atlantic Facade (Western Iberia to the British Isles) and Central Europe (Alpine regions). It may be fair to say that there are actually two Celtic cradles.

i find it difficult to understand how there was 2 celtic cradles that spoke the same language. logically , one would say there is 1 cradle which spread to areas.

There is a group of scholars that do say that the cradle of celtic was on the atlantic and spread eastward, but this is still only "speculation".

Previously mentioned, the welsh word for spade was PAL , while I know the Venetian word is PALA. so what do we make of this , pure coinsidence or is there an association of celtic words ranging from the british isles to the alps. Is there an Iberic celtic word for spade or ..............

Cambrius (The Red)
02-10-11, 00:35
i find it difficult to understand how there was 2 celtic cradles that spoke the same language. logically , one would say there is 1 cradle which spread to areas.

There is a group of scholars that do say that the cradle of celtic was on the atlantic and spread eastward, but this is still only "speculation".

Previously mentioned, the welsh word for spade was PAL , while I know the Venetian word is PALA. so what do we make of this , pure coinsidence or is there an association of celtic words ranging from the british isles to the alps. Is there an Iberic celtic word for spade or ..............

Two cradles where a variety of Celtic languages spread in two separate regions - just a theory.

In Spanish the word for spade is espatula. In Portuguese it's pa. Some Celtic words in Portuguese that come to mind are: britar (to break rocks) - check Citania de Briteiros in N. Portugal - and broa (a type of rustic bread). Most modern languages have only a few Celtic influences, usually in countries / regions that once had a large population of Celtic speakers.

Taranis
02-10-11, 01:05
Two cradles where a variety of Celtic languages spread in two separate regions - just a theory.

Well, the basic idea is that P-Celtic languages developed in Central Europe and subsequently spread into Aremorica and Britain in the iron age, whereas Q-Celtic languages (which simultaneously to the P-Celtic languages) survived and developed independently in Ireland and Iberia. The main issue is, Gaulish and Brythonic have more in common than just the *kw > *p shift. There's a number of other common 'Britanno-Gallic' sound laws which are absent in both the Goidelic languages and in Celtiberian. What should be added are two other details: from what little is known about the Celtic languages in the east (Noric and Galatian) they were both also P-Celtic.

There is also another strong argument, in my opinion, that this *kw > *p shift is a development that occured in the East (rather than suggesting it happened in Atlantic Gaul and Britain and then spread to the east) is the fact that this also occured in some of the Italic languages (Osco-Umbrian) and in Greek. This suggests that there was a common language contact (superstrate?) between the three language families (some time between the 12th and 8th century BC) that triggered this common sound shift. Therefore, an Alpine / Central European origin for the *kw > *p shift in the Celtic languages seems far more probable.


In Spanish the word for spade is espatula. In Portuguese it's pa. Some Celtic words in Portuguese that come to mind are: britar (to break rocks) - check Citania de Briteiros in N. Portugal - and broa (a type of rustic bread). Most modern languages have only a few Celtic influences, usually in countries / regions that once had a large population of Celtic speakers.

The Breton and Welsh word for 'spade' is 'pal'. In Welsh, the word has the additional meaning of 'puffin'. In Scottish Gaelic the cognate is 'calag'. The Proto-Celtic word is, as a result, reconstructed as *kwalo- (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/EnglishProtoCelticWordlist.pdf).

How this relates with the Romance languages, I'm not sure off the top of my head.

Asturrulumbo
02-10-11, 01:31
I still think the "Celtic cradle" was around Central Europe, although earlier than previously thought: It was previously associated with the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, but it now seems to me that it was somewhat earlier, the early phase of Proto-Celtic may have been around 1500 BC, while its definitive split (such as perhaps *kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic) may have happened until around even 1000 BC (by which time it probably extended from Moravia to Iberia to the British Isles)...

In Spanish the word for spade is espatula. In Portuguese it's pa. Some Celtic words in Portuguese that come to mind are: britar (to break rocks) - check Citania de Briteiros in N. Portugal - and broa (a type of rustic bread). Most modern languages have only a few Celtic influences, usually in countries / regions that once had a large population of Celtic speakers.
It's not "estpátula", but pala (which comes from Latin pala, the same is probably true for the Portuguese term). Espátula means... spatula (possibly an Italian loanword?)

zanipolo
02-10-11, 01:47
I still think the "Celtic cradle" was around Central Europe, although earlier than previously thought: It was previously associated with the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, but it now seems to me that it was somewhat earlier, the early phase of Proto-Celtic may have been around 1500 BC, while its definitive split (such as perhaps *kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic) may have happened until around even 1000 BC (by which time it probably extended from Moravia to Iberia to the British Isles)...

It's not "estpátula", but pala (which comes from Latin pala, the same is probably true for the Portuguese term). Espátula means... spatula (possibly an Italian loanword?)

As time goes by , I feel that a lot of western europe was gallic ( gaulish ) people, from vienna, through northern Italy and southern and central germany, switzerland and all france ( early bronze age) . they traded with the britsh isles and exchanged loan words due to commerce forming a gallo-brittonic "dialect". The Iberian celtic section would have come later.

spatola is the Venetian word.
There appears to be no Italian word for spatula.....I looked up 2 dictionaries .......strange ........maybe I need new dictionaries.

Carlos
02-10-11, 01:58
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pala

Etimología: del latín pala (http://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/pala#Lat.C3.ADn), con el mismo significado, y esta síncopa de pagela (http://es.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pagela&action=edit&redlink=1), de pangere (http://es.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pangere&action=edit&redlink=1), "fijar (http://es.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fijar&action=edit&redlink=1)", del protoindoeuropeo *peh₂g- (http://es.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=*peh%E2%82%82g-&action=edit&redlink=1). Compárese el francés pelle (http://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/pelle#Franc.C3.A9s) o el portugués pá (http://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C3%A1#Portugu.C3.A9s)


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esp%C3%A1tula

I do not know if these palas and espátulas to which they refer. I'm a mess.

Asturrulumbo
02-10-11, 02:21
As time goes by , I fell that a lot of western europe was gallic ( gaulish ) people, from vienna, through northern Italy and southern and central germany, switzerland and all france ( early bronze age) . they traded with the britsh isles and exchanged loan words due to commerce forming a gallo-brittonic "dialect". The Iberian celtic section would have come later.
Actually, in my opinion, celtic in Britain and Iberia arrived around at the same time, with the Late Bronze age upheavals (c. 1300 BC), when the Atlantic Bronze Age emerged. Here is a map of what I believe could be the Celtic Urheimat in the middle Bronze Age, the Tumulus Cultures (c. 1600-1300/1200 BC):
5219
Note that the "Late Wessex and Atlantic Middle Bronze Age Groups" shown in the map are not what is now usually known as the Atlantic Bronze Age, which is now used only for Atlantic Europe in the Late Bronze age

Cambrius (The Red)
02-10-11, 03:25
I still think the "Celtic cradle" was around Central Europe, although earlier than previously thought: It was previously associated with the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, but it now seems to me that it was somewhat earlier, the early phase of Proto-Celtic may have been around 1500 BC, while its definitive split (such as perhaps *kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic) may have happened until around even 1000 BC (by which time it probably extended from Moravia to Iberia to the British Isles)...

It's not "estpátula", but pala (which comes from Latin pala, the same is probably true for the Portuguese term). Espátula means... spatula (possibly an Italian loanword?)

Yes, you are correct, it's pala - bad Spanish / English dictionary.

callaeca
02-10-11, 17:12
Actually, in my opinion, celtic in Britain and Iberia arrived around at the same time, with the Late Bronze age upheavals (c. 1300 BC), when the Atlantic Bronze Age emerged. Here is a map of what I believe could be the Celtic Urheimat in the middle Bronze Age, the Tumulus Cultures (c. 1600-1300/1200 BC):

Note that the "Late Wessex and Atlantic Middle Bronze Age Groups" shown in the map are not what is now usually known as the Atlantic Bronze Age, which is now used only for Atlantic Europe in the Late Bronze age

Wessex is a Atlantic culture, curiously predominant in central and southern Britain, is linked to the armorican culture (prototyp with the Middle Rhine group Beaker culture and related with the NW Spain beakers) and had wide ranging trade links with continental Europe, the Baltic, Bohemia, other atlantic zones and the Mediterranean (in some galician petroglyphs we can see swords and daggers with this procedence) and was the intrusive Beaker group that appear in Ireland.

We can see the evidence of standardization the reiterative samples in all of the registers in the Atlántic Culture influence area, from hydronyms to place names. For example, the commonly name DEVA as a river name, that aproach us to some typical idiosyncratic of the Bronze Age. Rituals related with the rivers (sword deposits, saunas, profusion of deities related with the water in the historical times), that connected directly and ideologically with the concept of the warrior indo-european world.

It is not exists discontinuity not only in Western Iberian Peninsula, the same context is applicable to other Atlantic areas (British Islands, Armórica). The evidence is all material culture is definable EXCLUSIVELY inside the atlantic sphere or an hydronym sometimes indentical, even in its suffixing (-ia-, -io, -ara, -is-ya, -us-ya, -ona, -on-ya/yo, -ana, -an-ya/yo, etc.).

The oldest celtic word *okel(l)o- (< ie. *ok-el(l)-o-,synonym of *briga, *brigs, *dunum, *arcos and considerated as Ligurian in other times) is other example of this standardization language, that we can see from Utrecht to Britannia, Alps, Liguria, Celtiberiaand in all of the Wester Iberian Peninsula or in spiritual designations like the god Lug or the callaecian SULEIS (< *sulevis) with gaul.-brit. SULEVIA. Moreover, they are so fossilized that there is no way to deduce it as newest or coming with a secondary way.

Looking your map, we can see the real influences of the Corded Ware, Globular Amphorae and Comb cultures between the Odra basin and eastern Dnieper basin, in the pre-lusacian cultures of Trzciniec and Komarow and in the Estonian baltic area. It is visible for the trans-carpathian Bronze center of production of Thuringia and the ambar trade between the baltic/greek-anatolian routes and not in the mitic celtic homeland of Central Europe.

The incidence of this cultural influences spread to NortEasth, how we can see in this maps:
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_mueller/abb_5a.jpg
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_mueller/abb_5b.jpg

Interpolation der 14C-Daten für die Schnurkeramik des Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebietes mit Hilfe des IDW. Die geringe Höhe des mittleren Alters im westlichen Nordharzvorland und der Altmark ist sicherlich auf die geringe Datenmenge zurückzuführen, während der Unterschied zwischen einigen thüringischen Gebieten und denen am unteren Saalelauf offensichtlich ist. (Interpolation of 14C-data of the Corded Ware in the Central Elbe-Saale-region with the help of the IDW. The low average of the ages in the western Nordharzvorland and the Altmark probably results from the small sample size, while obviously the disparity in age between Thuringia and the lower Saale displays real age differences.)

http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_mueller/abb_6a.jpg
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_mueller/abb_6b.jpg

Interpolation der jüngsten 14C-Daten für die eingezeichneten Regionen im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Die gegenüber anderen Kleinregionen längere Dauer der Schnurkeramik im Thüringischen wird deutlich.(Interpolation of the youngest 14C-data of the areas which are marked in the Central Elbe-Saale-region. The longer duration of Corded Ware in Thuringia is visible.)

Taranis
02-10-11, 17:51
Looking your map, we can see the real influences of the Corded Ware, Globular Amphorae and Comb cultures between the Odra basin and eastern Dnieper basin, in the pre-lusacian cultures of Trzciniec and Komarow and in the Estonian baltic area. It is visible for the trans-carpathian Bronze center of production of Thuringia and the ambar trade between the baltic/greek-anatolian routes and not in the mitic celtic homeland of Central Europe.

I mean you no offense, but that argument is utterly untenable, if not outright ridiculous. In the case you didn't notice, the Corded Ware Culture is Chalcolithic in Age, whereas the situation on the map that Asturrulumbo posted describes the mid-Bronze Age, which is over a millennium after the Corded Ware period. The Corded Ware Culture is so early that you cannot think of any other language stage than close to Proto-Indo-European. The Tumulus Culture, as Asturrulumbo correctly pointed out, also predates the Atlantic Bronze Age. Also, in the case you didn't notice, there is no evidence what so ever in Antiquity for Greek, Anatolian or Baltic names in Central Europe. There is also no evidence for Germanic names south of the Danube before the Migrations Period. The only logical conclusion is that the region (southern Central Europe - ie southern Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, Austria) was for all purposes Celtic, and it is utterly unconceivable how the Celtic languages could have moved in from a hypothetical western origin if there is a complete lack of such a movement in archaeology (other than the Beaker-Bell Culture, which, however, is far too early and is more likely to be connected with the earlier indigenous Megalithic traditions, rather than a phenomenon of Indo-European newcomers).

From that perspective, I agree with Asturrulumbo that the Tumulus Culture is the best candidate for the origin of the Proto-Celtic language, since it predates the great upheavals of the 13th/12th century that usher the begin of the (late) Atlantic Bronze Age.

callaeca
02-10-11, 19:04
The Tumulus Culture can not explain the presence of the celtic languages in Spain and in tthe Atlantic Facade, because It was the descendant of the Unetice culture and the heartland is the area previously occupied by the Unetice where we can see this element. Then it have a trans-carpathian and bohemian origen.

You do not must confuse the influences with poblational dispersion. The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture and Ireland, for example.The distribution of the Unetice-groups (and descendants cultures) in Germany consists of several isolated areas. But the finds indicate that they are interconnected, with a gradual change from the west, with influences of the older part of the French Rhône-culture to the east, where the finds are very similar to the Austrian Unterwölbling-group.

I the other hand, Tumulus Culture of Armorica is in the way of the bell-beaker tradition, same the about the tumular origin have not a central european origin (for example the residential development architecture with circular or eliptic forms vs the predominant rectangular in Unetice-Urnfield area). Certainly that the tumulus culture take isolates areas or France, but in Greece, Serbia and in Croatia too. Then it is not celtic.

Other thing is to say that the tumulus culture coincides with the emergence of the militar aristocracy in the atlantic facade as in central Europe, but it was for differents ways.

The stude of Müller talk about the previuos 'influences', that spreads direction NE.

Asturrulumbo
02-10-11, 19:53
We can see the evidence of standardization the reiterative samples in all of the registers in the Atlántic Culture influence area, from hydronyms to place names. For example, the commonly name DEVA as a river name, that aproach us to some typical idiosyncratic of the Bronze Age. Rituals related with the rivers (sword deposits, saunas, profusion of deities related with the water in the historical times), that connected directly and ideologically with the concept of the warrior indo-european world.

It is not exists discontinuity not only in Western Iberian Peninsula, the same context is applicable to other Atlantic areas (British Islands, Armórica). The evidence is all material culture is definable EXCLUSIVELY inside the atlantic sphere or an hydronym sometimes indentical, even in its suffixing (-ia-, -io, -ara, -is-ya, -us-ya, -ona, -on-ya/yo, -ana, -an-ya/yo, etc.).

The hydronym Deva comes from an IE deity name (*Dyēus Ph2tēr )that doesn't appear in Celtic. If anything, it makes a point for the existence of a Pre-Celtic IE language in Iberia. I would put it within the context of Krahe's "Old European Hydronimy":

In a number of significant publications beginning in 1954 and running up to 1969, Krahe proposed that river names which covered the area from the Atlantic Ocean to the Baltic Sea were created prior to 1500 BCE, and predated the formation of the Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Illyrian, Venetic and Italic branches of Indo-European. Arguing that hydronyms provide evidence of the oldest layers of the lexicon of a language system, Krahe assessed the system of river names from this region and concluded that on the basis of similarities that they shared with each other that they constituted a group descended from a common system which Krahe called ‘‘Old European’’. For Krahe the Old European construct constituted an intermediate layer somewhere between PIE and the emergence of the Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Illyrian, Venetic, Italic cluster of western languages.
Perhaps the Beaker culture (as well as other Chalcolithic horizons in Europe) could be equated with this hypothetical hydronymy, among which are rivers such as the Duero, the Drava , the Oder and the Vistula.

Taranis
02-10-11, 20:01
The Tumulus Culture can not explain the presence of the celtic languages in Spain and in tthe Atlantic Facade, because It was the descendant of the Unetice culture and the heartland is the area previously occupied by the Unetice where we can see this element. Then it have a trans-carpathian and bohemian origen.

You do not must confuse the influences with poblational dispersion. The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture and Ireland, for example.The distribution of the Unetice-groups (and descendants cultures) in Germany consists of several isolated areas. But the finds indicate that they are interconnected, with a gradual change from the west, with influences of the older part of the French Rhône-culture to the east, where the finds are very similar to the Austrian Unterwölbling-group.

I the other hand, Tumulus Culture of Armorica is in the way of the bell-beaker tradition, same the about the tumular origin have not a central european origin (for example the residential development architecture with circular or eliptic forms vs the predominant rectangular in Unetice-Urnfield area). Certainly that the tumulus culture take isolates areas or France, but in Greece, Serbia and in Croatia too. Then it is not celtic.

Other thing is to say that the tumulus culture coincides with the emergence of the militar aristocracy in the atlantic facade as in central Europe, but it was for differents ways.

The stude of Müller talk about the previuos 'influences', that spreads direction NE.

I think you do have a false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages. I am under the impression that you somehow still make the assumption that the Celtic languages somehow come out of thin air and never interacted with any other branches of IE whatsoever. This is a completely false view, due to the abundance of common Italo-Celtic forms (notably, shared words for gold, silver and tin, as well the o-stem genitive -ī, which is attested in Gaulish, Ogham Irish, Latin and Umbrian). An origin in the east, in close proximity to Proto-Italic, but also contact with the Proto-Greek speakers (mind you, an early form of Greek is actually attested contemporary to the Tumulus Culture, thanks to the Linear B inscriptions) is something that must be considered very likely. These are all features that you would not expect if - as you seem to assume - the Celtic languages somehow developed in total isolation in the West.

Also, as mentioned, there is the strong discontinuity in the Atlantic region from the transition between middle and late Bronze Age, notably the end of the Wessex Culture in Britain, but also the end of the (still Chalcolithic!) VNSP Culture in Portugal, being replaced by the Late Bronze Age. This occurs simultaneously to the great upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it remains the most likely arrival point for the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.

EDIT: I would also like to reiterate what I have said several times in this thread: the survival of non-Indo-European languages (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian) in the Atlantic region makes absolutely no sense if we assume that the Atlantic region was Indo-Europeanized as early as the 29-25th century BC, especially starting out in Iberia. And it makes even less sense in such a context that the Basques have non-IE terms for metals and metal-working. Even if we give the situation the benefit of doubt and assume that the Basques (as well as Iberians and Tartessian) managed to survive despite being already surrounded by Indo-Europeans for some 2000 years (by the time of classical Antiquity), we would expect them to have adopted Indo-European terms for metals and metal-working. There is also the issue that there are surprisingly few Celtic loans into Basques, which would be also expected if there was such a prolonged time of contact. Likewise, the assumption that Basque is a latecomer which arrived after the Celtic languages (a position which is rejected by the majority of linguists) does not really solve the problem, since Basque is after all an isolate language (with the only potentially related language being Iberian) and there is no possibility to explain where it came from out of such a sudden. Likewise, the assumption that Central Europe was non-Indo-European while the Atlantic Façade was already Proto-Celtic in the Copper Age is equally unsupported in any way, due to the fact that the (Proto-Indo-European) Corded Ware Culture expanded into Central Europe before the Beaker-Bell Culture did. Due to this, and it's general nature as an isolate language, it's far more likely that the Basque language is indeed native to Western Europe since at least Neolithic times, and that the ancient Basques were part of a non-Indo-European Copper Age that existed in Western Europe.

callaeca
03-10-11, 00:29
The hydronym Deva comes from an IE deity name (*Dyēus Ph2tēr )that doesn't appear in Celtic.[...] it makes a point for the existence of a Pre-Celtic IE language in Iberia. I would put it within the context of Krahe's "Old European Hydronimy".

What do you say? When? Where can I read this newest opinion? Are you saying that protocelt. *deiwa- > celt. *dêva/*dîva 'goddess' from ie. *deih2- ‘shine’ (cf. IEW:183-87; LIV:108; CPNE:82; EGOW:51; GPC:1101; LEIA D-64; PECA:41; GPN:191-92; KGP:190-91;ACPN:70-71; DLG:142-43; PNPG, Celtic Elements, s.v. dēuo-, dīuo-), are not celtic? Are you saying that gaulish names (rivers, towns, gods and personal names) like DEVA/DIVA, DEVONA/DIVONA, DEVONISSA, DEVACARO, DEVIATIS, DEVIGNATA, DEVILIVS, DEVILIA, DEVIO, DEVOGARIOS, DEVOGDONIOI, DEVOXDONIO, DEVOGNATA, DEIVICIACOS/DEVICIACOS/DIVICIACOS, DEVOIALON, DEVOCARVS, DEVONOS, DEVORIX, DEVORTOMV are not celtic?

What are you saying?

And the Wessex Culture is linked with the armorican bell-beaker culture, and is intrusive in Ireland.

false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages?

Looks, if I admite that is the Tumulus Culture where the celtic populations descendant, where is its heartland? In Hungary?, Boheme?, Poland?, Thuringia?, Pomeranian? isolated areas of Rhineland and East of France?, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia? Where? In the homeland of the Tumulus Culture, Hungary and South Poland, perhaps?

Or we must think in the particular, personal and expansive aquitanian Tumulus Culture? Is it Celtic too?

If I have to admite it, how can I explain the gradual change from the west, with influences of the older part of the French Rhône-culture to the east, where the finds are very similar to the Austrian Unterwölbling-group? How?

It is a great error think that Wessex does not belong to the Beaker culture...You must to do a lot of research about this. Momentarily, you can consult in Wikipedia how Wessex is conected with armorican, the Netherlands beakers and Middle Rhine group of Beaker culture. But you need more information about this.

Is not other way Taranis, central Europe is not the celtic homeland. It is part of the celtic homeland.

Taranis
03-10-11, 00:35
false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages?

*snip*

Well, I'm under the impression you really did not read my post. Otherwise, you would not ask something like that. Therefore, I will repost it:


I think you do have a false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages. I am under the impression that you somehow still make the assumption that the Celtic languages somehow come out of thin air and never interacted with any other branches of IE whatsoever. This is a completely false view, due to the abundance of common Italo-Celtic forms (notably, shared words for gold, silver and tin, as well the o-stem genitive -ī, which is attested in Gaulish, Ogham Irish, Latin and Umbrian). An origin in the east, in close proximity to Proto-Italic, but also contact with the Proto-Greek speakers (mind you, an early form of Greek is actually attested contemporary to the Tumulus Culture, thanks to the Linear B inscriptions) is something that must be considered very likely. These are all features that you would not expect if - as you seem to assume - the Celtic languages somehow developed in total isolation in the West.

Also, as mentioned, there is the strong discontinuity in the Atlantic region from the transition between middle and late Bronze Age, notably the end of the Wessex Culture in Britain, but also the end of the (still Chalcolithic!) VNSP Culture in Portugal, being replaced by the Late Bronze Age. This occurs simultaneously to the great upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it remains the most likely arrival point for the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.

EDIT: I would also like to reiterate what I have said several times in this thread: the survival of non-Indo-European languages (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian) in the Atlantic region makes absolutely no sense if we assume that the Atlantic region was Indo-Europeanized as early as the 29-25th century BC, especially starting out in Iberia. And it makes even less sense in such a context that the Basques have non-IE terms for metals and metal-working. Even if we give the situation the benefit of doubt and assume that the Basques (as well as Iberians and Tartessian) managed to survive despite being already surrounded by Indo-Europeans for some 2000 years (by the time of classical Antiquity), we would expect them to have adopted Indo-European terms for metals and metal-working. There is also the issue that there are surprisingly few Celtic loans into Basques, which would be also expected if there was such a prolonged time of contact. Likewise, the assumption that Basque is a latecomer which arrived after the Celtic languages (a position which is rejected by the majority of linguists) does not really solve the problem, since Basque is after all an isolate language (with the only potentially related language being Iberian) and there is no possibility to explain where it came from out of such a sudden. Likewise, the assumption that Central Europe was non-Indo-European while the Atlantic Façade was already Proto-Celtic in the Copper Age is equally unsupported in any way, due to the fact that the (Proto-Indo-European) Corded Ware Culture expanded into Central Europe before the Beaker-Bell Culture did. Due to this, and it's general nature as an isolate language, it's far more likely that the Basque language is indeed native to Western Europe since at least Neolithic times, and that the ancient Basques were part of a non-Indo-European Copper Age that existed in Western Europe.

In a nutshell, you are still thinking too early.

EDIT: Regarding Basque, I would strongly recommend taking a look into the works of the late Robert Lawrence Trask. He did work on an etymological dictionary of the Basque language, and he noted the very small number of Celtic loans.

callaeca
03-10-11, 00:58
I understand: I think you do have a false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages. (your words)

I think that you do not kow nothing about the Bell Beaker, Tumulus Culture or Wessex Culturs, as to say that DEVA is a pre-celtic or alteuropäisch word...terrible!!! You hear Wessex vs. tumuli and you think that is the post-Unetiçe Tumulus Culture. You must to get more information about the of the Bronze Age ending in Iberia, because you do not know what the archaeological reality in South France, Pirineos, NE and East of Spain, northern of the Plateau Superior is?

For example, can you explain what the 'Itxauri Culture' is? The 'Cortes de Navarra' Culture? What happen in Aquitania in the urnfield times?

Can do you explain why the archaeologist want said with 'failed indo-europeisation' when they to refer to the NE Iberian urnenfield?

I am waiting about the germanic translation of Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai.

I repeat..central Europe is part of the celtic homeland, but not the heartland..in this way, you must look to Atlantic Facade and western Europe.

spongetaro
03-10-11, 01:03
And it makes even less sense in such a context that the Basques have non-IE terms for metals and metal-working. Even if we give the situation the benefit of doubt and assume that the Basques (as well as Iberians and Tartessian) managed to survive despite being already surrounded by Indo-Europeans for some 2000 years (by the time of classical Antiquity), we would expect them to have adopted Indo-European terms for metals and metal-working.

Regarding this, have you read Jean Manco's article "Basque from Cucuteni"?


The fact that one Basque word for silver was derived from the word for gold suggests that Proto-Basque arose in a region where gold was discovered first. That points to the eastern Balkans, and cultures such as the Cucuteni culture adjacent to the European steppe, where Proto-Indo-European was developing around that time. The Ozieri Culture which sprang up in Sardinia c. 4000 BC has much in common with that of Cucuteni. You will recall that a recent book finds linguistic connections between Paleo-Sardinian by linguists, paleo-Basque and paleo-Iberian

Taranis
03-10-11, 01:17
I understand: I think you do have a false assumption about the origin of the Celtic languages. (your words)

I think that you do not kow nothing about the Bell Beaker, Tumulus Culture or Wessex Culturs, as to say that DEVA is a pre-celtic or alteuropäisch word...terrible!!!

I did not state that. I think Asturrulumbo may instead have meant the name element 'Dur-', which Krahe indeed identified as Alteuropäisch, and which is also attested from northwestern Iberia (notably the Duero river).


You hear Wessex vs. tumuli and you think that is the post-lusacian Tumulus Culture. And you must to get more information about the of the Bronze Age ending in Iberia, because you do not know what the archaeological reality in South France, Pirineos, NE and East of Spain, northern of the Plateau Superior is?

Well, as I said, it does not matter. While it is correct that the Wessex Culture bears continuity with earlier Beaker-Bell traditions, it predates the great upheavals and it predates the Late Atlantic Bronze Age. I've provided more than one example of that discontinuity.


For example, can you explain what the 'Itxauri Culture' is? and I am waiting about the translation of Bainochaîmai, Bonochaîmai.

I've provided dozens of other examples of Celtic name evidence in Central Europe. What does it tell me that you seek out the one word that is Germanicized ("Boii home") and ignore the other words that have readily identifiable Celtic etymologies? Such as "Gabretae Forest", "Eburodunum", "Lugidunum", "Segodunum" or "Celamantia" (look a few pages back, my actual list was far longer). We also established that a Celtic etymology of the word 'Boii' is viable even if the exact meaning is disputed (though it should be reiterated that there word 'Bó' = cattle exists even in Irish), and I also mentioned that the Marcomanni conquered the area in the 1st century BC. The term "Bainochaîmai" appears in Ptolemy's geography in the 2nd century AD, a time by which the area was Germanic. However, the assumption that Central Europe wasn't really Celtic to begin with is a fallacy, which I elaborated earlier. The first is that there is a complete absence of Germanic place names south of the Danube before the Migrations Period, the second is the considerable number of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic and the third is the presence of Celtic place names as far north as the Main river and even Silesia.

callaeca
03-10-11, 01:27
The hydronym Deva comes from an IE deity name (*Dyēus Ph2tēr )that doesn't appear in Celtic.[...] it makes a point for the existence of a Pre-Celtic IE language in Iberia. I would put it within the context of Krahe's "Old European Hydronimy".

Wessex...discontinuity? Do you know the petrogliphs of Oia, Santiago and Mogor in Galicia? what kind of swords do you see there? Wessex....Is it discontinuity? and the gold metal work techniques that you see in Wessex where do believe you it comes? Galicia...is it discontinuity? and the spears that you see in the Huelva Bay where come?...Armorica and Brittania..

Taranis
03-10-11, 01:32
Regarding this, have you read Jean Manco's article "Basque from Cucuteni"?

No, I have not read that before. I have heard however about the suggestion of a connection between the Paleo-Sardinians and the Basques and/or Iberians. The interesting part is that there is also genetic backup for this in respect for the distribution of I2a1, which after all reaches the highest distributions in Sardinia and the Basque country, and I2a1 is in my opinion the most likely canidate for the main Y-Haplogroup carried by the Megalithic builders. From that perspective, I personally would not be surprised if it turns out that the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b.

callaeca
03-10-11, 01:45
the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b.

What do you say?

spongetaro
03-10-11, 01:48
I personally would not be surprised if it turns out that the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b.

That would explain the absence of R1b in North Africa; a place where Bell beaker people have been

Taranis
03-10-11, 01:51
What do you say?

I said "I personally would not be surprised if it turns out that the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b." If the Beaker-Bell phenomenon was a local, aboriginal tradition, it would be expected that they did not carry any samples of R1b.

The oldest samples of R1b thus far in Europe was found in skeletons attributed to the Urnfield Culture, dated to circa 1000 BC, and we know it decisively to be absent in the Neolithic. From that perspective the question of wether R1b arrived in Western Europe during the Copper Age (read: Beaker Bell) or later (Bronze Age) is still unanswered.

Thus far, there is no sample of Beaker-Bell YDNA yet, and the findings of Beaker-Bell mitochondrial DNA have been ambiguous, due to the fact that it's very difficult thus far to correlate YDNA and mDNA due to the very different nature of Y-chromosomes and mitochondria. So, we do not know until samples of Beaker-Bell YDNA are published.

callaeca
03-10-11, 01:55
Aha, okey....and I am Santa Teresa de Calcuta...

Now I can understand:

Galicia I2a1 1.5%,
suebian and marcomani I 12%
R1b 60-63%
G2a 12%
M-81 7%
and rest is variable, phoenician, goths, vikings, etc.

Bell-Beaker..aborigen in all of Western Europe to west Polonia? Where the predominant y-dna is R1b?

spongetaro
03-10-11, 02:03
Aha, okey....and I am Santa Teresa de Calcuta...

Now I can understand:

Galicia I2a1 1.5%,
suebian and marcomani I 12%
R1b 60-63%
G2a 12%
M-81 7%
and rest is varieted, phoenician, goths, vikings, etc.


Only 7% of haplogroup E?

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 02:10
Alright, I may have been a bit reckless when taking into account Deva as part of the Old European Hydronymy; the point remains the same: If the Beaker culture was Indo-European, I would equate it with the "Old European Hydronymy" Hans Krahe described (which as I have said includes the Drava, Duero, Oder, Vistula, etc.), as it makes little sense to me to have the Celtic languages split at so early a date.
Drawing from the discussion here and my own views, I would make a hypothetical timeline on the Celtic languages:
-C. 2300 BC:The Unetice culture of Central Europe in the Early Bronze Age begins.I would propose this to be ascribed to Proto-Italo-Celtic speaking peoples
-C. 1700 BC: The Terramare culture of Northern Italy (c. 1700-1150 BC) begins. This could perhaps represent a Proto-Italic speaking folk that migrated from Central Europe, given its archaeological affinities. This would thus also be the date of the split of Proto-Italo-Celtic
5222
-C. 1600 BC: The Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture (1600-1300/1200 BC, in my opinion early Proto-Celtic) emerges (evolving from Unetice), and spreads west and southeast
5221
-C. 1600-1300 BC: "Early Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase (*gw > *b?)
-C. 1300 BC: The Atlantic Bronze Age emerges. I would interpret it as an expansion of the Tumulus Culture during the population upheavals of the Late Bronze Age
-C. 1300-1000 BC: "Late Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase
C. 1200 BC: Lusitanian in the west of Iberia splits from Proto-Celtic
C. 1200-1000 BC: Plosive de-aspiration, PIE *p disappears (except before s and t, where it turns into *xs and *xt)
C. 1000 BC: Definitive split of the Celtic languages (*kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic?, similar splits in Goidelic and Celtiberian)

spongetaro
03-10-11, 02:23
Bell-Beaker..aborigen in all of Western Europe to west Polonia? Where the predominant y-dna is R1b?


Then why isn't R1b more prevalent in Sardinia and North Africa (Bell beaker culture places)?

Taranis
03-10-11, 02:24
Aha, okey....and I am Santa Teresa de Calcuta...

Now I can understand:

Galicia I2a1 1.5%,
suebian and marcomani I 12%
R1b 60-63%
G2a 12%
M-81 7%
and rest is variable, phoenician, goths, vikings, etc.

Bell-Beaker..aborigen in all of Western Europe to west Polonia? Where the predominant y-dna is R1b?

Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Galicia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%

callaeca
03-10-11, 03:03
Sure, it is wrong..mmm..it is in Galicia..not all spain...Some authors reduces R1b 58% others over 65%, and E is relative, for example E-M81 - 4.2% vs. 9%, according to authors;. We find balcanic E too, but..i do not know how the 'Road to Santiago' in the Middle Age had influence in this markers, although it is common with the rest of Europe continental.. .

Yes, R1b-L11* is very very rare in Iberia, like s-116 and branches are not rare in northern Europe...

Taranis
03-10-11, 03:17
Alright, I may have been a bit reckless when taking into account Deva as part of the Old European Hydronymy; the point remains the same: If the Beaker culture was Indo-European, I would equate it with the "Old European Hydronymy" Hans Krahe described (which as I have said includes the Drava, Duero, Oder, Vistula, etc.), as it makes little sense to me to have the Celtic languages split at so early a date.
Drawing from the discussion here and my own views, I would make a hypothetical timeline on the Celtic languages:
-C. 2300 BC:The Unetice culture of Central Europe in the Early Bronze Age begins.I would propose this to be ascribed to Proto-Italo-Celtic speaking peoples
-C. 1700 BC: The Terramare culture of Northern Italy (c. 1700-1150 BC) begins. This could perhaps represent a Proto-Italic speaking folk that migrated from Central Europe, given its archaeological affinities. This would thus also be the date of the split of Proto-Italo-Celtic
5222
-C. 1600 BC: The Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture (1600-1300/1200 BC, in my opinion early Proto-Celtic) emerges (evolving from Unetice), and spreads west and southeast
5221
-C. 1600-1300 BC: "Early Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase (*gw > *b?)
-C. 1300 BC: The Atlantic Bronze Age emerges. I would interpret it as an expansion of the Tumulus Culture during the population upheavals of the Late Bronze Age
-C. 1300-1000 BC: "Late Proto-Celtic" linguistic phase
C. 1200 BC: Lusitanian in the west of Iberia splits from Proto-Celtic
C. 1200-1000 BC: Plosive de-aspiration, PIE *p disappears (except before s and t, where it turns into *xs and *xt)
C. 1000 BC: Definitive split of the Celtic languages (*kw > *p in Gallo-Brittonic?)

Yes! That is very well summarized. This is generally what I think is the closest to what most probably happened, because it incorporates all interactions (and non-interactions) that we see in the development of Celtic. The only significant addition I have to make is this:

- the development of Celtiberian as a distinct language would have probably begun around the same time as Britanno-Gallic, due to the fact that although it's a Q-Celtic language, Celtiberian possesses a significant number of innovations found nowhere else.

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 03:19
Yes! That is very well summarized. This is generally what I think is the closest to what most probably happened, because it incorporates all interactions (and non-interactions) that we see in the development of Celtic. The only significant addition I have to make is this:

- the development of Celtiberian as a distinct language would have probably begun around the same time as Britanno-Gallic, due to the fact that although it's a Q-Celtic language, Celtiberian possesses a significant number of innovations found nowhere else.

Ah, true, otherwise it would imply that Goidelic and Celtiberian have a more recent relationship,which is not necessarily the case...
Also, a question: Do you know about about an online essay that treats the Ligurian language?

Taranis
03-10-11, 03:29
Ah, true, otherwise it would seem that Goidelic and Celtiberian have a more recent relationship,which is not necessarily the case...

Well, everybody knows of the legend about the Mil-Espaine that came to Ireland from Iberia. ;)

Unfortunately, what is a reality is that (archaic) Goidelic is in many aspects closer to Proto-Celtic than to Celtiberian (or more broadly, Hispano-Celtic). From that perspective it's more likely that a very archaic form of Celtic (as seen in the Ogham inscriptions) survived under relatively isolation in Ireland right until the Dark Ages, rather than to assume some migration from Iberia to Ireland.

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 03:37
Well, everybody knows of the legend about the Mil-Espaine that came to Ireland from Iberia. ;)

Unfortunately, what is a reality is that (archaic) Goidelic is in many aspects closer to Proto-Celtic than to Celtiberian (or more broadly, Hispano-Celtic). From that perspective it's more likely that a very archaic form of Celtic (as seen in the Ogham inscriptions) survived under relatively isolation in Ireland right until the Dark Ages, rather than to assume some migration from Iberia to Ireland.
Indeed, the comparative analysis of myths is usually much more fruitful in the realm of religious studies and comparative mythology than that of migrational history.Otherwise, we would be led to believe that the Franks came from... Troy! :petrified:

callaeca
03-10-11, 03:55
OK...the Aquitanian Tumulus Culture we can now consider as symbol of the Protoceltic culture and, really, it is interesant to know why we find this culture in the SW of France and Pirineos..perhaps, did they come precisely from Bainochaimai (the old name of Boheme)? (It is paradoxical, I never well-considered it before)....and, a very very interesant stude where we see the lineal celtic dialectal formation, made over gaulish references and criterions, in the same moment and in the diferents areas (peripheral or not) at the same time. No thanks, even if you don't believe it, I prefer the outline of the neo-gimbutian Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel.

And, naturaly, the poor Atlantic Culture that trade with Egypt and Unetiçe needs the great stimulus of the Tumulus Culture.

A question, what the old european hydronymy is? indo-european? Who were their successors? indo-europeans? then what is the problem? Yes I know, It is very very abundant in the bell-beaker area, and in others where we can detecd indo-europeans populations..

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 04:25
OK...the Aquitanian Tumulus Culture we can now consider as symbol of the Protoceltic culture (and really, it is interesant to know why we find this culture in the SO of France..perhaps, did they come precisely from Bainochairmai (the old name of Boheme)?)....and, a very very interesant stude where we see the celtic dialectal formation in the same moment and in the diferents areas (peripheral or not) at the same time. No thanks, even if you don't believe it, I prefer the outline of the neo-gimbutian Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel.
The Tumulus culture, as far as I know, did not penetrate Aquitaine... although it did penetrate Aremorica

Taranis
03-10-11, 04:31
Callaeca, please.

Regarding the unfindable 'Bainochaimai', Tacitus in his 'De origine et situ Germanorum', aka 'Germania', writes in chapter 28:

"Igitur inter Hercyniam silvam Rhenumque et Moenum amnes Helvetii, ulteriora Boii, Gallica utraque gens, tenuere. Manet adhuc Boihaemi nomen significatque loci veterem memoriam quamvis mutatis cultoribus."

"Accordingly the country between the Hercynian forest and the rivers Rhine and Moenus, and that which lies beyond, was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii, both tribes of Gaul. The name Boiemum still survives, marking the old tradition of the place, though the population has been changed."

Regarding Old European hydronomy, it is also found in areas that were never under Beaker-Bell influence (for instance Poland, western Balkans).

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 04:37
Regarding Old European hydronomy, it is also found in areas that were never under Beaker-Bell influence (for instance Poland, western Balkans)
True, although it could be that it included other cultures, such as Baden and Globular Amphorae... However I do admit that it is sketchy at best...

callaeca
03-10-11, 04:43
Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme. Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia. I have said you that two days ago.

And yes, this ghostly indo-european 'alteuropäisch' you can find it where you see indo-europeans...It is logical.

Taranis
03-10-11, 04:48
Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme? Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia.

Well, you obviously ad-hoc identify "occupied" as "they were not native there" because, apparently, for you no other option is acceptible. As I said before, there is plenty of other Celtic names in Central Europe and name evidence extends as far as the Main river and even Silesia. First you claim that the Boii were Germanic, and now you claim they immigrated from Gaul. Which is it? Also, if the region purportedly was not originally Celtic nor Germanic, then what was it? Where are the non-Celtic place names?


Sorry, but just no. Celtic presence east of the Rhine is well attested: the Celts didn't completely reside on the west bank.
- Vindobonna (Vienna, Austria)
- Brigetio (Szőny, Hungary)
- Cambodunum (Kempten)
- Boiodurum (Passau)
- The 'Hercynian Forest' and the 'Gabretae Forest' (compare Gaulish 'Gabros', Irish 'Gabhar', Welsh 'Gafr', Breton 'Gavr')
- The Vindelici (including sub-tribes like Brigantes, which are also found in Britain and the Licates)
- The Lech (Licca) river, compare Irish 'Leac', Welsh 'Llech', Breton 'Lec'h' (rock, slab)
- Noric town names such as Gabromagus, Gobanodurum, Lauriacum (all mentioned by Ptolemy)
- The Cotini of the western Carpathians, which are explicitly refered to by Tacitus as speaking Gaulish.

Also, to quote myself from earlier:
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).

The Celtic incursion into the Balkans also produced other settlements, as far as the mouth of the Danube:
- Durostorum (Silistra, Romania - also mentioned by Ptolemy)
- Aliobrix (Orlivka, Ukraine)
- 'Vindelia' (localization unclear, but mentioned by Ptolemy in Galatia, Anatolia)
If you do not believe me anything of that, read the Geography of Claudius Ptolemaios.

(...)

I was talking about L11 (without U106, S116), which is clearly absent in Iberia. It does not matter that R1b-S116 (without U106) is found in large concentration in Iberia because it's outgroups are virtually absent in Iberia but found in Central Europe, which in itself proves that a connection with Beaker-Bell is invalid.

(...)

EDIT: there is also R1b-Z196 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26828-Z196-needs-to-be-in-the-literature-alongside-its-brother-clades-U152-and-L21) which should be considered, due to which the L11 peak in Iberia looks a lot less clear-cut and obvious than just L11 without U106 or S116.

(...)

This is wrong. The connection between Bavaria and the Boii is only an indirect one. Much of Bavaria (especially Bavaria proper) was originally inhabited by a different Celtic tribe, the Vindelici. In the 1st century BC, the Germanic Markomanni invaded Bohemia and conquered the Boii. In the migrations period what remained of the Markomanni migrated into modern-day Bavaria. In contrast, Strabo (Book 7, chapters 1,2 and in particular 3) explicitly mentions the Boii as being Celtic. In any case, the word 'Boi-' is Celtic in etymology, compare Irish 'Bó', Welsh 'Buwch', Breton 'Buoc'h' and Celtiberian 'Boustom'. The word in turn is derived from the PIE word for 'cow' or 'cattle'. In the Celtic languages PIE *gw was rendered to *b, where as in the Germanic languages it was rendered to *kw, which is why the English word is 'cow'.

With the story of the Boii puportedly invading from Gaul, archaeologically there is no evidence of such a migration, and there is no Boii homeland in Gaul from which that might have happened.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-10-11, 05:12
Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Iberia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%

She was referring to E3b (M-81). Actually Beleza et al. (2005, 2006) recorded an M-81 average of ~ 4% for N. Portugal (same stock as Galicians) in a nationwide sampling of nearly 700 individuals.

Wilhelm
03-10-11, 05:26
Well, the problem with the association of Beaker-Bell with R1b is the following:

- R1b-P312 is found in Italy and on the Balkans, which are all areas that are well beyond Beaker-Bell range.
- R1b-P312's outgroup U106 is found in central and northern Europe
- R1b-L11* is very rare in Iberia. If R1b spread from Iberia, we would find R1b-L11* here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the numbers you gave are very wrong (especially I1... 12%?!). Maciamo gives the following data for Iberia:

3% I1
2.5% I2a
1.5% I2b
63% R1b
G2 3%
J2 3.5%
J1 1%
E1b 22%
T 0.5%
hmm that's not Iberia that's Galicia.

zanipolo
03-10-11, 08:58
Then the Boii are not natives of Boheme. Tacitus says: 'was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii', and 'Gallica utraque gens'. Boheme is not Galia. I have said you that two days ago.

And yes, this ghostly indo-european 'alteuropäisch' you can find it where you see indo-europeans...It is logical.

occupied can mean either

oc·cu·py (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifkhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif)tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies 1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.

zanipolo
03-10-11, 09:13
Well, you obviously ad-hoc identify "occupied" as "they were not native there" because, apparently, for you no other option is acceptible. As I said before, there is plenty of other Celtic names in Central Europe and name evidence extends as far as the Main river and even Silesia. First you claim that the Boii were Germanic, and now you claim they immigrated from Gaul. Which is it? Also, if the region purportedly was not originally Celtic nor Germanic, then what was it? Where are the non-Celtic place names?



With the story of the Boii puportedly invading from Gaul, archaeologically there is no evidence of such a migration, and there is no Boii homeland in Gaul from which that might have happened.


boii where gaulish, be those from Italy, Bohemia or pannonia
I stated earlier, that the only germanic people was in the north, the south and central of germany was gaulish people.

On the matter at hand has anyone associated Gascony with the Basques as well as the Celts.
The laguedoc chalcolthic period had the whole of these Pyrennes area as Basque/gascon .

Even the languages are similar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gascon_dialect

http://membres.multimania.fr/simorre/oc/gascon.html

With the hapoltypes ( not the majority one ) Celtiberian having R1b1c6 ( M167) , while the basques R1b1c4 (M153), the association stops here.

E1b1b1 was found in several parts of Iberia, with about 10% in Galicia. also 24 individuals from Gascony which are not in the Iberian Peninsula. had the same galician type.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b2/default.aspx

Taranis
03-10-11, 12:19
hmm that's not Iberia that's Galicia.

Sorry, Freudian slip. It was supposed to be Galicia.

In any case, E1b (not just in Iberia, but generally in Western Europe) is also a bit of a mystery as of the moment, principally because none of the Neolithic sites turned up E1b.

@ Zanipolo: don't mix up modern Romance dialects with ancient languages. The Aquitanian language was probably the same as Old Basque, whereas Gaulish was a Celtic language.


Yes, R1b-L11* is very very rare in Iberia, like s-116 and branches are not rare in northern Europe...

L11x (without U106, S116) is very rare in Iberia. If R1b entered Western Europe via the Iberian penninsula, we would expect concentrations of L11x in Iberia, since L11 is the older marker. It does not matter that S116 peaks in southern Iberia because it cannot have originated there. There is also the recently-discovered subclade R1b-Z196 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26828-Z196-needs-to-be-in-the-literature-alongside-its-brother-clades-U152-and-L21) to be considered, which is probably another major subclade of S116 alongside of U152 and L21. R1b-Z196 was not included yet in the study of Myres et al., and as a result we have no idea how much of the Iberian R1b-S116 is part of R1b-Z196. What is clear is that R1b-M153 (which is typically Basque) is part of the R1b-Z196 subclade.

I would argue that the dispersal pattern is much more compatible with a Central European dispersion, which is more compatible with a later insertion rather than a dispersion via Beaker-Bell during the Copper Age. Also as Spongetario pointed out, we should be seeing more R1b in Sardinia and North Africa.

In any case, mitochondrial DNA from Beaker-Bell (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011898#pone-0011898-t002) thus far yielded Haplogroups U4 and U5a. Although this is ambiguous, it should be added U5 was also found at the Neolithic site of Treilles.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, many times over now, there are valid reasons to assume that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European (or at least, otherwise non-Indo-European) phenomenon. R. L. Trask pointed out that there are relatively few Celtic loanwords in Basque. If, by the time of Antiquity, the Basques were surrounded for already ~2000 years by Celtic-speaking peoples, we would see a much larger number of terms, and we would see Celtic-derived words for metals and metal-working. Since this isn't the case, the only logical assumption is that Celtic languages arrived only relatively recently in the Atlantic region. Since Hallstatt and La-Tene alone cannot spread explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region (though, as established, they do explain the presence of P-Celtic languages in Aremorica and Britain), the only logical conclusion is an arrival in the Late Bronze Age.

Asturrulumbo
03-10-11, 18:24
Sorry, Freudian slip. It was supposed to be Galicia.

In any case, E1b (not just in Iberia, but generally in Western Europe) is also a bit of a mystery as of the moment, principally because none of the Neolithic sites turned up E1b.

@ Zanipolo: don't mix up modern Romance dialects with ancient languages. The Aquitanian language was probably the same as Old Basque, whereas Gaulish was a Celtic language.



L11x (without U106, S116) is very rare in Iberia. If R1b entered Western Europe via the Iberian penninsula, we would expect concentrations of L11x in Iberia, since L11 is the older marker. It does not matter that S116 peaks in southern Iberia because it cannot have originated there. There is also the recently-discovered subclade R1b-Z196 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26828-Z196-needs-to-be-in-the-literature-alongside-its-brother-clades-U152-and-L21) to be considered, which is probably another major subclade of S116 alongside of U152 and L21. R1b-Z196 was not included yet in the study of Myres et al., and as a result we have no idea how much of the Iberian R1b-S116 is part of R1b-Z196. What is clear is that R1b-M153 (which is typically Basque) is part of the R1b-Z196 subclade.

I would argue that the dispersal pattern is much more compatible with a Central European dispersion, which is more compatible with a later insertion rather than a dispersion via Beaker-Bell during the Copper Age. Also as Spongetario pointed out, we should be seeing more R1b in Sardinia and North Africa.

In any case, mitochondrial DNA from Beaker-Bell (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011898#pone-0011898-t002) thus far yielded Haplogroups U4 and U5a. Although this is ambiguous, it should be added U5 was also found at the Neolithic site of Treilles.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, many times over now, there are valid reasons to assume that Beaker-Bell was an indigenous Western European (or at least, otherwise non-Indo-European) phenomenon. R. L. Trask pointed out that there are relatively few Celtic loanwords in Basque. If, by the time of Antiquity, the Basques were surrounded for already ~2000 years by Celtic-speaking peoples, we would see a much larger number of terms, and we would see Celtic-derived words for metals and metal-working. Since this isn't the case, the only logical assumption is that Celtic languages arrived only relatively recently in the Atlantic region. Since Hallstatt and La-Tene alone cannot spread explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region (though, as established, they do explain the presence of P-Celtic languages in Aremorica and Britain), the only logical conclusion is an arrival in the Late Bronze Age.
Where can data be found about the distribution of L11*?

callaeca
03-10-11, 18:36
It is irrelevant that you are saying. It is not posible a celtisation from East to West or from North to South...I have explained the causes and reasons with arguments that I take out of a lot of authors.

Against, yours personal opinions, without references, with considerable errors and without knowledges about some aspects of the Bronze Age in Western Europa (and central Europe) or about the celto-hispanic language (in this way i could say too about the sioux or comanche origin of the Atlantic facade). In your last interventions the ambiguity and frequent confusions are shameful.

NOTE: no zanipolo no...E1b1b1 in Galicia is over 95-97% or more. They are false all of the studies about this clade in Galicia.

Taranis
03-10-11, 18:49
Where can data be found about the distribution of L11*?

Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html). The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.

Taranis
03-10-11, 19:10
It is irrelevant that you are saying. It is not posible a celtisation from East to West or from North to South...I have explained the causes and reasons with arguments that I take out of a lot of authors.

I could have seen it coming. What I am saying is not irrelevant. I have posted my well-grounded arguments (regarding Basque words for metals) several times over without you even replying to me. I think you have come to the point where it becomes seemingly impossible for you refute my arguments after I have thoroughly debunked yours. I think it's time for you to admit that you may be wrong, instead of ad-hoc insisting what I say is irrelevant.

I think that the arguments I have provided are solid and undeniable criticism of the Stelae People hypothesis, and for all intends and purposes, all the authors you provided might be completely wrong. I must add this, if the picture was completely consistent, I would have no objections to it. However, I have provided a multitude of reasons why it does not work out.

If you have a solution for the 'Basque problem', please show it to me. The same applies for evidence that the lands south of the Danube were thoroughly Germanic before Migration period. The only claim of the latter comes from one Richard Braungart "Südgermanen", published in 1914. Please, show me. I'll be all ears.


Against, yours personal opinions, without references, with considerable errors and without knowledges about some aspects of the Bronze Age in Western Europa (and central Europe) or about the celto-hispanic language (in this way i could say too about the sioux or comanche origin of the Atlantic facade).

What I am saying is not irrelevant. I have provided you with authors. I have provided references. Much of what I said regarding Basque (or the modern Celtic languages) can be found in every dictionary of the respective language. You are also free to google R. L. Trask's work.


In your last interventions the ambiguity and frequent confusions are shameful

Shameful? You will apologize for that accusation.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-10-11, 19:28
Wow, I hope this doesn't turn into a full fledged war.:shocked:

sparkey
03-10-11, 20:08
No, I have not read that before. I have heard however about the suggestion of a connection between the Paleo-Sardinians and the Basques and/or Iberians. The interesting part is that there is also genetic backup for this in respect for the distribution of I2a1, which after all reaches the highest distributions in Sardinia and the Basque country, and I2a1 is in my opinion the most likely canidate for the main Y-Haplogroup carried by the Megalithic builders. From that perspective, I personally would not be surprised if it turns out that the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly I2a1 rather than R1b.

IMHO I2a2 (old I2b), or at least some of its subclades, matches Beaker Culture a bit better than I2a1a. The STR dating and distribution of I2a1a suggest that it spread earlier and more southwestern than Beaker Culture, especially if we assume that Beaker Culture formed with influence from Corded Ware. The point of contact between Beaker Culture and Corded Ware is very close to the center of diversity of I2a2, and the age of a lot of its subclades, especially its Western ones, are only a bit older than Beaker Culture, suggesting that Beaker Culture helped them spread. However, Beaker Culture appears to extend beyond I2a2's reach, suggesting that the Beaker admixture contained something else, maybe some I2a1a and G2a that got picked up, and others (R1b being a big wildcard). Ancient DNA will hopefully resolve these ambiguities... either way, I don't think that predicting Beaker Culture's Y-DNA will help anybody's argument at the moment.

spongetaro
05-10-11, 00:26
Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html). The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.


Here is R1b-M269(xL11), the direct ancestor of R1b L11:
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg

Taranis
05-10-11, 01:43
IMHO I2a2 (old I2b), or at least some of its subclades, matches Beaker Culture a bit better than I2a1a. The STR dating and distribution of I2a1a suggest that it spread earlier and more southwestern than Beaker Culture, especially if we assume that Beaker Culture formed with influence from Corded Ware. The point of contact between Beaker Culture and Corded Ware is very close to the center of diversity of I2a2, and the age of a lot of its subclades, especially its Western ones, are only a bit older than Beaker Culture, suggesting that Beaker Culture helped them spread. However, Beaker Culture appears to extend beyond I2a2's reach, suggesting that the Beaker admixture contained something else, maybe some I2a1a and G2a that got picked up, and others (R1b being a big wildcard). Ancient DNA will hopefully resolve these ambiguities... either way, I don't think that predicting Beaker Culture's Y-DNA will help anybody's argument at the moment.

You have a point, though I would argue that the match between I2a2 (old I2b) and Beaker-Bell is relatively poor, especially due to the fact that I2a2 is fairly rare in Iberia. Otherwise, I guess you are right, we can continue to speculate as much about Beaker-Bell's Y-DNA but we won't get ahead until we finally get some samples of it.


Here is R1b-M269(xL11), the direct ancestor of R1b L11:
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg

Interesting map. There are afew issues that surprise me here:

- First off, they did their homework and finally have some more detailed data on the situation in eastern Europe, and secondly there is this considerable concentration of R1b-M269x in the eastern Balkans.

- The peak in southern Italy but the complete absence in northern Italy.

- There is also that peak in the Near East which surprises me quite a bit.

Asturrulumbo
05-10-11, 02:01
Interesting map of M269*, however although it is true that it's the direct ancestor of L11, there are 3 haplogroups that stand "between" them (L23, L150 and L51) ... The peak in the Carpatho-Danubian area leads me to believe that most of the M269* (in that area) came from an Anatolian migration during the Neolithic (c. 6000 BC, the Dudesti culture and its many successors throughout the neolithic: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/middle-neolithic.htm) rather than the Eneolithic steppe invasions of Indo-Europeans (although some of it may have come with them too, especially to western and central Europe).

Myres et al. mapped L11x (without U152 and L21) here (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html). The problem is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this predates the discovery of the marker Z196. This means a sizable fraction of this (possibly even the majority of Iberian L11!) is probably Z196.
Why no M412*!? 'Tmay be the missing link! Is this a conspiracy by Myres et al? :laughing: (but really, it's a pity they don't show it)