New Bell Beaker papers

[Jean M]

To be honest I did not expect great things from this book. I thought that the conference seemed a desperate effort on the part of a Dutch specialist to turn the Bell Beaker conversation away from origins, because it is too depressing to keep reading that the Dutch Model has to be ditched. He wanted a focus on regions instead, which would encourage a lot of pontification without much purpose except to break up the big picture. I saw the conference abstracts. Though some individual papers are good, as Alan says, the content has been published elsewhere in the interim. That includes Lemercier in English in Antiquity.

[secherbernard]

The Prescott paper is interesting about Bell Beaker in Norway. He reintroduces the importance of migration in Bell Beaker spread, and the importance of spread of knowledge deduced from practices, social organization, architecture, technology (metallurgy), cosmology/ideology and language (Indo-European).

[Jean M]

@ secherbernard

I agree, but he has already published on this in Becoming European, out earlier this year. So I am left complaining of nothing new in this compilation. Sometimes which books end up getting cited just depends on who can get a set of papers into print fastest. 

[secherbernard]

I agree, but he has already published on this in Becoming European, out earlier this year. So I am left complaining of nothing new in this compilation. Sometimes which books end up getting cited just depends on who can get a set of papers into print fastest.  

I have not read the book Becoming European, but only some papers (Prieto, Vander Linden, Heyd, Ostmo) you have put in your library (thanks for that Jean). I didn't find the Prescott paper: The Beaker Culture and Bronze Age beginnings along the Norwegian coast; So much, so fast. So I didn't read it.

[alan trowel hands.]

To be honest I did not expect great things from this book. I thought that the conference seemed a desperate effort on the part of a Dutch specialist to turn the Bell Beaker conversation away from origins, because it is too depressing to keep reading that the Dutch Model has to be ditched. He wanted a focus on regions instead, which would encourage a lot of pontification without much purpose except to break up the big picture. I saw the conference abstracts. Though some individual papers are good, as Alan says, the content has been published elsewhere in the interim. That includes Lemercier in English in Antiquity.

I think the origins aspect has been ducked but I think that does owe something to the radiocarbon problems and the complex multi-I actually do like the way they have imagined the effect of the beaker culture though.  They have made it a little more vivid.  I thought it was very interesting that several papers considered BB network and its incredibly mobility and emphasis on travel, trade and the exotic as the only viable common denomenator that could have brought a pan (well much of) European language across disperate peoples. Not original but its good to see archaeologists stating this again.  There seems to be a middle ground being taken on migration with the idea of some uber-mobile element everywhere tranforming local cultures.   It doesnt pinpoint the origins but I think its getting close to the nature of the beaker phenomenon and it is acknowledging a human movement element.   

[alan trowel hands.]

I also kind of like the Argonaut idea of a cult of people gaining power by adventure and exotic knowledge and exotic goods.  Maybe a little over romanticised but you would see how a cult like that would capture the imagination of young men.  Sort of a making them like rock stars.  You could look at it as a far more sophisticated and imaginative phenomenon than plodding head bashing with battle axes.  Kind of Copper age Sinbads with the benefit of adventure handily tied in with economic and social gain and some weaponry advantages.  I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.     

[razyn]

I also kind of like the Argonaut idea of a cult of people gaining power by adventure and exotic knowledge and exotic goods.  Maybe a little over romanticised but you would see how a cult like that would capture the imagination of young men.

Not to put too fine a point on it, one really needs to capture the imagination of young women, to have a Y-DNA line explode.  I believe I've mentioned this before.  There's no necessary distinction between being possessed of magical qualities (smelting, navigating, bringing amber beads from some mythically distant place, playing a musical instrument) and getting laid, in Iberia or the Isles.  Having a bronze sword and being a good archer may have helped, too.

[Jarman]

  I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.     

The time from L11 to both P312 and U106 is presumed short. To me the idea a fastly spreading few implies a reason for other cultures to welcome them (or trade for them if they were slaves) and give them wives.  Maybe Papa L11 was a good metal worker - some sort of skill that made him and his descendants welcome as they roamed (or were traded) across Europe.  Archery has been suggested but I wonder if that could readily be passed down within a family's next generation.  Another thought is that maybe they were some sort of priestly family - were any new religions rapdily expanding about the same time?

[Heber]

 I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.    

 Another thought is that maybe they were some sort of priestly family - were any new religions rapdily expanding about the same time?

That is a good idea and one that has never been addressed before. Was it associated with some form of Druidism or secret knowledge practiced by an elite class. For example the equivilant of the Coligney calendar would have revolutionised agriculture.

http://technovate.org/web/coligny.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar

The timing of the Atlantic Megalithic builders and solar alignment of communal monuments could reflect this. According to Busby, the highest frequencies of all defining mutations from M269 to L21 are found in these regions.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763811258/

[stoneman]

Once the first bell beaker was traded into Ireland the people would have copied it.So what is all this talk about the Bell Beaker people?In the future will we be known as the "Mobile Phone" people and the makers of these phones migrated all over the world.

[rms2]

Except that it wasn't just beakers, it was a whole cultural package and a distinct physical type (i.e., identifiable people).

And the Celtic speech got to the Isles somehow.

[stoneman]

The Bell Beakers were around for 2000 years before the Celts showed up.

[alan trowel hands.]

I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

[alan trowel hands.]

The Bell Beakers were around for 2000 years before the Celts showed up.

Well the Celts just didnt simply come into existence because people on the Med. started writing things down and noted their existence from c. 600BC.  That is the problem with traditional Celtic studies.  Reliance on classical sources which simply didnt exist for temperate Europe before 600BC.  That has confused Celtic studies for too long.  Celts are basically first noted where Med. civilisations come into contact with them in Iberia, southern France and when spilling over the Alps and towards the Med.  That is a highly skewed source and tells us nothing other than where Med. people came into contact with them and started writting this down.  This IMO has led to us lookng to much at the contact points and contact periods with Med. civilisation when trying to understand the Celts.  That caused a long hangover from the days when people started with classical sources and imports and tries to interpret Celtic origins based on this.  I think now this is being redressed.  The old idea of Celts originating in north-Alpine areas in the end of the Bronze Age and Iron Age and little arrows on a maps based on light scatterings of Hallstatt and La Tene metalwork has rightly been increasinly dismissed.  Only the beaker culture is widespread enough to correlate with the distribution of Celto-Italic languages.  All the other cultures are essentially limited to some parts of the Celtic world and do not give a convincing common denomenator.  

[Jarman]

I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

Does this Wiki quote about the Vucedol culture fit?: "The community chief was the shaman-smith, possessing the arcane knowledge of avoiding poisonous arsenic gas which is connected to the technology of coppersmithing as well as understanding the year cycle. Still, the whole life of shaman-smith could not pass without biological consequences: slow loss of body movement coordination, and at the same time, stronger sexual potency. "That is why", according to Aleksandar Durman, "all eneolithic, or later gods of metallurgy are identified with fertility, and also why all gods in almost all early cultures - limp" It was a society of deep social changes and stratification that led to the birth of tribal and military aristocracy. Also, Vučedol people had enough time to express their spiritual view of the world."

[Richard Rocca]

I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.

[A.D.]

Have you heard of 'the battle of crickly hill' (I think thats right) not far from stonehenge. I don't know much other than one lot up a hill another at the bottom and loads of flint tipped arrowheads in between. I think it's copper age.

[alan trowel hands.]

Have you heard of 'the battle of crickly hill' (I think thats right) not far from stonehenge. I don't know much other than one lot up a hill another at the bottom and loads of flint tipped arrowheads in between. I think it's copper age.

I am pretty sure Crickley is a Neolithic causewayed enclosure which is famous for huge numbers of pre-beaker (leaf shaped?) arrow heads that are often interpreted as a massed archer attach on the enclosure.  Archery was of course common in the pre-beaker period too in western Europe.  The interesting thing is the fact that archery (well in the isles anyway) appears to practically die out in the middle Bronze Age in favour of more 'heroic' modes of fighting. 

[alan trowel hands.]

I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.

I am not sure.  The main period of beaker expansion was 2600-2400BC followed by local development.  If Mr L11 was around c. 2600BC even a fairly spectacular period of growth would still amount to a very thinly spread few thousand across Europe c. 2400BC.  I actually would guess that they could have become a substantial minority by the late beaker period c. 2200BC or so, a period when in some areas beaker does seem to move from an added element to the dominant culture. 

[IALEM]

Apparently everybody missed the most interesting article on the origin of Bell Beakers. It is the last one on the Moroccan connection, claiming on stilistic grounds that the Maritime BB in the Tagus region can be related to the Late Neolithic of NW Morocco. A very plausible explanation, as a connection between the Zambujal/Los Millares complex and North Africa has been known for a long time.

[Heber]

I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.

I am not sure.  The main period of beaker expansion was 2600-2400BC followed by local development.  If Mr L11 was around c. 2600BC even a fairly spectacular period of growth would still amount to a very thinly spread few thousand across Europe c. 2400BC.  I actually would guess that they could have become a substantial minority by the late beaker period c. 2200BC or so, a period when in some areas beaker does seem to move from an added element to the dominant culture. 

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.

[razyn]

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.

It's refreshing to see somebody looking at something besides pottery and bronze bits; not that the archaeologically surviving things aren't important, they just don't add up to a whole culture.  Anyway, as a quondam folklorist I feel that I should throw in some of the oral-traditional stuff that doesn't get left in the soil for several thousand years, but does hang around for a long time, and matches up in widely disparate societies.  A bardic example of the magical powers of these special dudes may be reflected in the Child Ballad, "The Twa Brothers," among others (although in that case, the charmer was female).  And it's echoing similar beliefs that are found in the Scandinavian ballad "Harpans kraft."  If anyone is interested, here are a couple of links about that.  The first one should go to a page about "Orphean music":

http://tinyurl.com/8hgs2wu

And this one should be the Swedish Wiki article about "Harpans kraft" (the power of the harp), the ballad:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpans_kraft

This may seem far afield from Y-DNA; but really, we spend way more time and energy on pondering hardware and bric-a-brac than any actual culture ever did.  Most of that stuff mentioned by Heber has, at its core, the nature of mentifacts, not artifacts.

[alan trowel hands.]

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.

It's refreshing to see somebody looking at something besides pottery and bronze bits; not that the archaeologically surviving things aren't important, they just don't add up to a whole culture.  Anyway, as a quondam folklorist I feel that I should throw in some of the oral-traditional stuff that doesn't get left in the soil for several thousand years, but does hang around for a long time, and matches up in widely disparate societies.  A bardic example of the magical powers of these special dudes may be reflected in the Child Ballad, "The Twa Brothers," among others (although in that case, the charmer was female).  And it's echoing similar beliefs that are found in the Scandinavian ballad "Harpans kraft."  If anyone is interested, here are a couple of links about that.  The first one should go to a page about "Orphean music":

http://tinyurl.com/8hgs2wu

And this one should be the Swedish Wiki article about "Harpans kraft" (the power of the harp), the ballad:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpans_kraft

This may seem far afield from Y-DNA; but really, we spend way more time and energy on pondering hardware and bric-a-brac than any actual culture ever did.  Most of that stuff mentioned by Heber has, at its core, the nature of mentifacts, not artifacts.

Well I think you need both.  If you dont have some evidence then its imagination.  However I agree the hard evidence in a means to an end, not the end itself.  Noone loves boring pottery sequences etc (unless they are a bit weird).  Ultimately we want an imaginative and vivid picture of how people thought and lived.  I do think we are getting a little closer at what made the peoples of the beaker period extraorinary and the possibility that they really did have a culture of adventure and exploring and seeing the world.  I think this may be etched into the fabric of Celtic (best recorded in Irish) mythology.  I mean the early written mythology rather than folklore though. I have started a thread on this because I think its very interesting and I know there are several people who post who know a lot about this.

[glentane]

I am pretty sure Crickley is a Neolithic causewayed enclosure which is famous for huge numbers of pre-beaker (leaf shaped?) arrow heads that are often interpreted as a massed archer attach on the enclosure.  Archery was of course common in the pre-beaker period too in western Europe.  The interesting thing is the fact that archery (well in the isles anyway) appears to practically die out in the middle Bronze Age in favour of more 'heroic' modes of fighting. 

There's a pretty neat diagram of the Crickley arrowhead findspots about halfway down this article showing how it's not just a random scatter of stray finds,  they seem to indicate some sort of laying down of fire to cover an assault on the main "gates" and keep defenders off the "battlements".

There are others, but at the moment I can only think of Carn Brea and Hambledon Hill (the Dorset one), both dug by Roger Mercer (he'd have been on the watch for that sort of stuff, as his thesis was on "Scythian" triangular bronze arrowheads, got a bit of a thing going on for pointy things. Other excavators might not have noticed them at all, prior to Dixon and Mercer's work, other than as general site litter ... ).

IIRC the biggest roundhouse at Carn Brea was the focus of the unwanted extra pebbledashing. At Hambledon there were actual "civilian" casualties found in the ditch.

Here's young Neil bringing home the bacon the hard way, on site at Crickley :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk-nF5BMKxQ

I reckon climatic deterioration, or just the Isles' foul climate (since forever?) might have had a hand in the demise of archery, once bronze close-combat weapons were more generally available.
Wet bowstring, and blowing a gale, and here's some hard cases charging at you with nasty-looking sharpened crowbars and unbreakable spearpoints? Ooops, no ta! Not when all I've got is a damp bendy stick with a string on it. Can't whip 'em to death :(

[Bren123]

Well the Celts just didnt simply come into existence because people on the Med. started writing things down and noted their existence from c. 600BC.  That is the problem with traditional Celtic studies.  Reliance on classical sources which simply didnt exist for temperate Europe before 600BC.  

True,but the problem with modern Celtic studies is that they project the Celts back into the dim and distant past!