Ancient place names in Iberia

[callaeca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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)]

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]

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:

(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]

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.