Ancient place names in Iberia

[Taranis]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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):

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:

 

[callaeca]

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:

and

 

[Asturrulumbo]

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]

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:

and

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)]

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:

and

Interesting. Who produced the second map?

 

[zanipolo]

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]

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]

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 web of calla002002.jpg

and

http://model.callaeca.net/the web of calla002001.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)]

The Basque language does put a bit of a monkey wrench into the Bell-Beaker model, as regards origin.