World Families Forums - beaker people

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 20, 2014, 10:45:13 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  beaker people
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Print
Author Topic: beaker people  (Read 13441 times)
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #150 on: June 04, 2010, 11:42:23 AM »

Quote from: IALEM
That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

Can you elaborate on the Hallstatt C hypothesis?   It is about 800-600BC, right?  Are you saying it brought IE speakers to Atlantic fringes of Europe?  R-L21* to the Atlantic fringes?   You must be saying this expansion was carrying the more archaic Celtic, Q, right?
Well, first I am not talking about mass migration, I don´t think Hallstatt C brought L21 or P312 to the Atlantic coasts, IMO it is too late for that, and even more important, Hallstatt C-D is an elite culture.
Hallstatt C brought the work of iron to Western Europe, ruining in the process the Atlantic Bronza circuit. Their influences are visible in all Western Europe except those areas of the Iberian coast and Aquitania that in historical times we find non IE speaking populations. In Italy their limit is also the non IE Etrusci. The match is very good.
IALEM,

I think you were saying IE languages expanded with Hallstatt C with the implication that Hallstat led IE expansion where it did not exist and that this was the major driver behind IE expansion.

Please elaborate on how you think IE rolled out across Europe.  What phases and when?
I do think it led IE expansion in regions where it did not exist in Western Europe, but  not across the whole of Europe. IMO it is reasonable to think that Yamnaya culture was already IE and that the cultures in contact with it were slowly Indeuropeized. I say slowly because at least part of Urnfields from modern Switzerland (the origin of the NE Spain Urnfileds) still were not IE by the 12th century BC.
Then, after a long stage in Central Europe, there is an expansion period under Hallstatt C that brought an IE language, some sort of ProtoCeltic or archaic Celtic to Western Europe, but avoiding some regions, like Aquitania and the Iberic tribes on the Mediterranean coast.
An alternative would be an earlier expansion of the Tumuli culture, defended by some Spanish archaeologists. There is evidence for Tumuli culture entering the upper Ebro valley c. 1300 BC, and extending through the area historically settled by the Celtiberi. A second wave of Hallstatt C centuries later would push this Tumuli people to the west, to the trerritroy later settled by the Lusitani.
The Tumuli culture and Hallstatt C have in common a similar elite culture of WarLords heading bands of warriors, with a pastoral economy and a dislocation of any central authority.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #151 on: June 04, 2010, 11:47:59 AM »

Quote from: IALEM
That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

Can you elaborate on the Hallstatt C hypothesis?   It is about 800-600BC, right?  Are you saying it brought IE speakers to Atlantic fringes of Europe?  R-L21* to the Atlantic fringes?   You must be saying this expansion was carrying the more archaic Celtic, Q, right?
Well, first I am not talking about mass migration, I don´t think Hallstatt C brought L21 or P312 to the Atlantic coasts, IMO it is too late for that, and even more important, Hallstatt C-D is an elite culture.
Hallstatt C brought the work of iron to Western Europe, ruining in the process the Atlantic Bronza circuit. Their influences are visible in all Western Europe except those areas of the Iberian coast and Aquitania that in historical times we find non IE speaking populations. In Italy their limit is also the non IE Etrusci. The match is very good.
IALEM,

I think you were saying IE languages expanded with Hallstatt C with the implication that Hallstat led IE expansion where it did not exist and that this was the major driver behind IE expansion.

Please elaborate on how you think IE rolled out across Europe.  What phases and when?
... Then, after a long stage in Central Europe, there is an expansion period under Hallstatt C that brought an IE language, some sort of ProtoCeltic or archaic Celtic to Western Europe, but avoiding some regions, like Aquitania and the Iberic tribes on the Mediterranean coast....
Okay. What are you saying brought IE languages to the British Isles?  It appears you are saying Hallstatt C brought IE to Western Europe.. .so did it continue on to British Isles?  or was it something later than Hallstat C that brought IE to the British Isles? with the implication that only non-IE languages were spoken in the British Isles prior.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #152 on: June 04, 2010, 01:42:38 PM »

IMO it was Hallstatt C what brought it to the British Isles, yes, but it is unlikely we ever know for sure.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #153 on: June 04, 2010, 11:57:32 PM »

Just my opinion, but I think Hallstatt C is just too late to be responsible for bringing Celtic to Western Europe, including the British Isles.

I also don't think such thorough-going language change can be accomplished by elites bearing a cultural and/or trade package. I think there had to have been a significant movement of people or what became a significant movement. I just don't see that for Hallstatt C.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #154 on: June 05, 2010, 10:50:37 PM »

Just my opinion, but I think Hallstatt C is just too late to be responsible for bringing Celtic to Western Europe, including the British Isles.

I also don't think such thorough-going language change can be accomplished by elites bearing a cultural and/or trade package. I think there had to have been a significant movement of people or what became a significant movement. I just don't see that for Hallstatt C.
Agreed.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #155 on: June 07, 2010, 02:05:15 PM »

I remember some studies of the older forms that suggested that Ireland's form of Celtic was actually even more archaic than Celtiberian.  I think the logic was that both shared the lack of a P-Q shift but Celtiberian had the it-ent (e.g. Silver=Argit in Irish and Argent in Gaulish) shift which is known in Gaulish but Irish doesn't. ...  I am not sure who wrote this.  It sounds like it is based on Koch.  

I can't find this, apart from your own reference to it on Rootsweb in 2008. Various entries in John Thomas Koch (ed.), Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006) refer to Celtiberian as by far the most archaic form of Celtic known to us.

Page 365 refers to Celtiberian word silabur for "silver" as opposed to the Gaulish arganto, Old Irish airget, Pictish Argentocoxos [a leader's name], but that Celtiberian also has arkatobedom/arganto- for "one who digs for silver."

Reconstructed PIE has two words for silver: hergntom and silvbvr. Please excuse the lack of accents, which my keyboard won't easily insert.

Given  that Koch and Cunliffe are about to bring out a volume arguing for Celtic spreading from Iberia, it seems unlikely that he has ever made an argument for Gaelic as an earlier form of Celtic than the Iberian  Celtic languages.        
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 03:21:30 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #156 on: June 07, 2010, 07:48:09 PM »

Jean   Unfortunately I still cannot recall the source but it's pretty likely to have been some Irish linguistics journal or possibly the journal emania. Presumably the linguist rejected the lusitanian type inscriptions as genuinely representing very early Celtic or celto- italic. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #157 on: June 08, 2010, 02:02:17 PM »

Presumably the linguist rejected the lusitanian type inscriptions as genuinely representing very early Celtic or celto- italic.  

As you recalled the source, it talked about Celtiberian. I was quoting the entry on Celtiberian in Koch (ed.), Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006). This is separate from the question of the Tartessian a.k.a. Southwestern or South Lusitanian language.  As far as I'm aware, there is no controversy over the archaic nature of Celtiberian, notably in its syntax - the subject - object - verb word order.

Possibly the article you recall was pointing out that Gaelic is archaic in different ways from Celtiberian, and therefore cannot be derived from it. That would make perfect sense. 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM by Jean M » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.106 seconds with 18 queries.