North Caucasus origin for P312 and U106?

[secherbernard]

What do you think about a north Caucasus origin for P312 and U106 ?

1) The current distribution of haplogroup R1b (see http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b ) suggests an origin in the northern Caucasus. One can also imagine that R1b1b2 has crossed the Caucasus, then went along the south coast of the Black Sea, and entered into the Balkans. Hence P312 has extended its route to Italy and Iberia, U106 went to the northern Europe. Arriving in Portugal P312 then spread throughout Western Europe during the Bell Beaker culture.
2) Greek historian Appian of Alexandria tells us that the Iberians of Asia living in the North Caucasus could be the ancestors of the Iberians of the Iberian Peninsula. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberia

Can you imagine a raid of thousands of men speaking an Indo-European language, leaving the area south of the Pontic steppe and the North Caucasus, and going to Iberia in 3rd millennium BC? Arriving in Portugal, there was a partition of the language in Celtiberi (IE language) and Neolithics speaking a no IE language (perhaps the ancestor of Basque). Then P312 spread throughout Europe during the Bell Beaker culture to form the proto-Celtic culture.

An archeologist, Kristian Kristiansen wrote recently in a French magazine:

"A partir du milieu du IIIè millénaire, la rencontre entre les cultures des tombes individuelles/culture de la céramique cordée au nord, et les cultures Campaniformes au sud, entraina l'apparition des langues proto-celtiques qui s'étendirent de la péninsule ibérique aux Iles Britanniques et devinrent ainsi les principales langues de la côte atlantique. Elles ne diffusèrent en Europe centrale qu'au début de l'âge du fer."

that I can translate like:

"From the middle of the third millennium, the encounter between the cultures of individual graves/Corded Ware culture in the north and the Bell Beaker culture in the south, caused the emergence of proto-Celtic languages which spread from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and became the major languages of the Atlantic coast. They spread in Central Europe only at the beginning of the Iron Age."

[Jean M]

Interesting to see which way Kristian Kristiansen is thinking. He is a partner in the big European Union study Forging Identities, which is looking at intercultural interaction in Bronze Age Europe.

   

[OConnor]

I can picture Phoenicians in Spain.

Ooops i forgot..they were all  Group J.

[rms2]

. . .
"From the middle of the third millennium, the encounter between the cultures of individual graves/Corded Ware culture in the north and the Bell Beaker culture in the south, caused the emergence of proto-Celtic languages which spread from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and became the major languages of the Atlantic coast. They spread in Central Europe only at the beginning of the Iron Age."

It seems the idea, which I think may have been first suggested by Koch, that Celtic arose as a lingua franca in Iberia and spread eastward from there is gaining some traction.

Cunliffe endorsed it in his book, Europe Between the Oceans.

Now Kristiansen apparently agrees.

I'm not sure who is right, but this idea has Celtic moving in exactly the opposite direction from that of the old idea of the spread of Celtic or Italo-Celtic from East-Central Europe.

[Mikewww]

. . .
"From the middle of the third millennium, the encounter between the cultures of individual graves/Corded Ware culture in the north and the Bell Beaker culture in the south, caused the emergence of proto-Celtic languages which spread from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and became the major languages of the Atlantic coast. They spread in Central Europe only at the beginning of the Iron Age."

It seems the idea, which I think may have been first suggested by Koch, that Celtic arose as a lingua franca in Iberia and spread eastward from there is gaining some traction.
Cunliffe endorsed it in his book, Europe Between the Oceans.
Now Kristiansen apparently agrees.
I'm not sure who is right, but this idea has Celtic moving in exactly the opposite direction from that of the old idea of the spread of Celtic or Italo-Celtic from East-Central Europe.

What are the predecessor or predecessor(s) for the Celtic language?   Does this represent Italo-Celtic mixing with some kind of pre-Germanic IE language at the edge of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures?

Do the authors of Corded Ware/Bell Beaker mixing idea mesh in the language branching theories where Celtic comes from an Italo-Celtic type base?

[Jean M]

It seems the idea, which I think may have been first suggested by Koch, that Celtic arose as a lingua franca in Iberia and spread eastward from there is gaining some traction.

Cunliffe endorsed it in his book, Europe Between the Oceans.

Now Kristiansen apparently agrees.

I'm not sure who is right, but this idea has Celtic moving in exactly the opposite direction from that of the old idea of the spread of Celtic or Italo-Celtic from East-Central Europe.

There are three separate issues here.

1) The "lingua franca"

Barry Cunliffe was forced into the dotty idea of Celtic becoming a "lingua franca", not in Iberia, but down the Atlantic seaboard, by the anti-migrationist dogma that wouldn't admit that real, live people actually moved into the British Isles, carrying a Celtic language (or several of them). So we were supposed to believe that the entire  population of two large islands completely abandoned their native tongue  and learned that of Iberia in order to speak to a few passing traders.

Thank goodness genetics has made it possible to drop that idea down a deep well. Looks like the volume edited by Cunliffe and Koch, due out this year, will argue that genuine, real, living Celts came from Iberia to the British Isles in the Bronze Age. 

2) Out of Iberia

That still leaves said academics stuck with out-of-date genetics, which they thought backed this Iberian-British connection. They will catch up eventually.

3) Central Europe

The old idea was that the Celts spread in the Iron Age from the Hallstatt and La Tene centres. In fact they did. However it now looks as though that was just the last of a series of movements, rather than The Whole Story.     

[Jean M]

What are the predecessor or predecessor(s) for the Celtic language?   

There are two theories:

1) Proto-Celtic is a first generation child of Proto-Indo-European.

3) Proto-Celtic is a child of Proto-Italo-Celtic, which is a child of Proto-Indo-European. I prefer this one.

Does this represent Italo-Celtic mixing with some kind of pre-Germanic IE language at the edge of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures?

Do the authors of Corded Ware/Bell Beaker mixing idea mesh in the language branching theories where Celtic comes from an Italo-Celtic type base? 

It's not too clear what Kristian Kristiansen has in mind.  Proto-Germanic is thought to have developed in the Nordic Bronze Age, not in the Corded Ware Culture, so I don't think he is factoring in proto-Germanic. Looks like he is trying to reconcile the apparent contradictions of the evidence. Quite a few of us have been trying to do that. :)

[rms2]

Have you read this book yet, Jean?

John Koch's Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History

I haven't read it, but do you think Koch was influenced by old genetics or by his knowledge of linguistics?

[Jean M]

I haven't read it either, but it looks as though it fits right into the view that has been incorporated into The Peopling of Europe for some months.   See Beaker Folk to Celts and Italics (extract):

So copper-workers may have arrived in Iberia with a small company of migrants, to be gradually reinforced by others seeking pastures new. An early splinter group from the Proto-Celtic-Italic parent would help to explain why the Celtic of Iberia had such an archaic structure, retaining Italic elements.* A similarly mixed language was spoken by the Ligures in what is now Northern-Western Italy and South-Eastern France. There is tantalisingly little evidence for Ligurian, but it appears primarily Celtic and Italic.**

Is it a coincidence that the earliest copper-mine has been found in the territory of the Ligures?*** Or do we see here a clan-run industrial network stretching across the Mediterranean? It seems possible that a group of Proto-Italic-Celtic-speakers left the Danube corridor to travel through the Vučedol Culture (Croatia) which would give them a relatively easy route to the Adriatic, and from there to Northern Italy, along the river Po to Liguria and on to Iberia by sea. The spread of the Maritime Beaker shows that sea travel was within their grasp.

*F. B. Mozota, Celtiberians:Problems and debates, section 4.3: Celtiberian: A non-Celtic Indo-European language? in E-Keltoi, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, vol. 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula (2007).

**K. Kuriaki, A Grammar of Modern Indo-European (2006-8), pp. 57, 60-61.

***R. Maggi and M. Pearce, Mid fourth-millennium copper mining in Liguria, north-west Italy: the earliest known copper mines in Western Europe, Antiquity vol. 79 (2005), no. 303, pp.66-77.

[Added]
I was waiting for the volume edited by Koch and Cunliffe, but I think it would be a good idea to take a look an Koch's book, if I can get hold of it. Thanks.

[Jean M]

The volume edited by Profs. Cunliffe and Koch is due out in June from Oxbow Books:
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/88298

This book is an exploration of the new idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age, approached from various perspectives pro and con, archaeology, genetics, and philology. This Celtic Atlantic Bronze Age theory represents a major departure from the long-established, but increasingly problematical scenario in which the story of the Ancient Celtic languages and that of peoples called Keltoí Celts are closely bound up with the archaeology of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures of Iron Age west-central Europe. The Celtic from the West proposal was first presented in Barry Cunliffe's Facing the Ocean (2001) and has subsequently found resonance amongst geneticists. It provoked controversy on the part of some linguists, though is significantly in accord with John Koch's findings in Tartessian (2009). The present collection is intended to pursue the question further in order to determine whether this earlier and more westerly starting point might now be developed as a more robust foundation for Celtic studies. As well as having this specific aim, a more general purpose of Celtic from the West is to bring to an English-language readership some of the rapidly unfolding and too often neglected evidence of the pre-Roman peoples and languages of the western Iberian Peninsula.

[Mikewww]

...  The Celtic from the West proposal was first presented in Barry Cunliffe's Facing the Ocean (2001) and has subsequently found resonance amongst geneticists....

Which geneticists are you speaking of that support a "from the west/Atlantic" approach?

[rms2]

...  The Celtic from the West proposal was first presented in Barry Cunliffe's Facing the Ocean (2001) and has subsequently found resonance amongst geneticists....

Which geneticists are you speaking of that support a "from the west/Atlantic" approach?

I'm only guessing, but I would suspect that Oppenheimer, Sykes, and possibly Jim Wilson of Ethnoancestry would be included in their number.

[Jean M]

Which geneticists are you speaking of that support a "from the west/Atlantic" approach?

It's not me speaking. That's the book description lifted from the publisher.  I should have put it in quotes.

[Added] I have done now.

[Jean M]

Have you read this book yet, Jean?

John Koch's Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History

Authun has tracked down an article by Koch on the same theme, which is fortunately online. John T. Koch, A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language, Acta Palaeohispanica X, Palaeohispanica 9 (2009), pp. 339-351. Here's the crucial bit:

It should be explained at the outset that an Atlantic hypothesis of Celtic origins does not require a rejection or minimizing of the Indo-European character of Celtic, nor a relocation of the Indo-European homeland to the west. However, once we recognize evidence for Celtic in the western Peninsula as early as the Orientalizing Period of the Early Iron Age (VIIIth-VIth centuries BC), then we confront the likelihood that the Atlantic Late Bronze Age had already been a largely or wholly Celtic-speaking phenomenon and that the subsequent penetration of the region by Urnfield, Hallstatt, and La Tène influences would not be relevant or only relevant as a matter of inter-Celtic dialectology.

[IALEM]

I am really surprised. Koch has not discovered anything, according to the article linked he is relying on an old theory (it is about 15 years old at least, i remember because at the time I was working myself on Latin inscriptions of the region). That theory was developed by José Antonio Correa,  a cathedratic of Classical Philiology of the university of Seville. He found several anthoponims in Tartessian inscriptions that were possibly Celtic. He toyed with the idea of Taressian itself being a celtic language, but lately he accepted they were Celtic names noted in another, non Indoeuropean language.

[Jean M]

Well Koch doesn't agree with that latter idea, as you see. And I have to agree with him that it scarcely explains why the king himself had a Celtic name, or the Celtic tribal name. Though it does seems that there are relatively few Celtic place-names in the area.

Koch acknowledges his debts, but adds more:

Turning now to the south-western inscriptions, José Antonio Correa and Jürgen Untermann, in their pioneering publications, have already recognized that these contain some elements that appear Celtic, mostly proper names. A list follows in which a few identifications of my own are added.

[rms2]

Well, I guess I'm going to have to order Koch's new book. I spent a bundle on his An Atlas for Celtic Studies; guess I might as well buy this one, too.

[IALEM]

Well Koch doesn't agree with that latter idea, as you see. And I have to agree with him that it scarcely explains why the king himself had a Celtic name, or the Celtic tribal name. Though it does seems that there are relatively few Celtic place-names in the area.

Koch acknowledges his debts, but adds more:

There are several issues here
1) Koch adds some anthoponims, no new readings, on this he is dependant on Correa and Untermann. The problem is that they were only able to reas some short inscriptions, the longer Tartessian inscriptions remain undeciphered since then, and it is already about 15 years. If Tartessian was a Celtic language, inscriptions could have been read, see for instance how every year new Celtiberian inscriptions are found and deciphered.
2) We know there were Celtic populations in SW Iberia, that is nothing new, when I studied in the University a long way ago it was already known, not only Ancient sources indicate their presence (together with Germanic tribes) but also archaeological findings support that, with Hallstattic influence together with the more popular from the Atlantic Bronze.
The traditional explanation, put forward by Blázquez, is that some Celtic mercenaries were hired by the Tartessians, and eventually they took control of the government, that would explain the Hallstattic influences in the aristocratic graves.
To sum up, there are Celtic anthoponims in the inscriptions, that put Celtic peoples in the VII century BC in SW Iberai, that is still within the context of the traditional explanation of Celtic migration into Iberia in the Hallstatt period.
IMO only when some long inscriptions are deciphered we can be certain of knowing which kind of language was Tartessian

[Jean M]

@ IALEM  I see that you are fighting the new perspective every step of the way. :)

As you know, I think the old idea of Celts spreading in the Iron Age is a dead duck, with or without Tartessian. I'm not remotely persuaded by it.

PS I know of no ancient author who places Germanic tribes in Iberia prior to the fall of the Western Empire. 

[IALEM]

@ IALEM  I see that you are fighting the new perspective every step of the way. :)

As you know, I think the old idea of Celts spreading in the Iron Age is a dead duck, with or without Tartessian. I'm not remotely persuaded by it.

PS I know of no ancient author who places Germanic tribes in Iberia prior to the fall of the Western Empire. 

I know you think that, but you know I am not convinced either. BTW that "Old perspective", at least in Spain, is the "New perspective" that has replaced the "Old perspective", that of the 90s. I was very thrilled by that perspective when it was proposed in the 90s, but it is a dead end so far.

PS: Pliny the Elder "Oretani qui et Germani cognominantur" (N.uh. 3,25), the main town of this tribe was Oretum Germanorum (modern Granátula de Calatrava)

[Jean M]

PS: Pliny the Elder "Oretani qui et Germani cognominantur" (N.uh. 3,25), the main town of this tribe was Oretum Germanorum (modern Granátula de Calatrava)

Thanks. Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_%28Oretania%29

[alan trowel hands.]

@ IALEM  I see that you are fighting the new perspective every step of the way. :)

As you know, I think the old idea of Celts spreading in the Iron Age is a dead duck, with or without Tartessian. I'm not remotely persuaded by it.

PS I know of no ancient author who places Germanic tribes in Iberia prior to the fall of the Western Empire. 

I know you think that, but you know I am not convinced either. BTW that "Old perspective", at least in Spain, is the "New perspective" that has replaced the "Old perspective", that of the 90s. I was very thrilled by that perspective when it was proposed in the 90s, but it is a dead end so far.

PS: Pliny the Elder "Oretani qui et Germani cognominantur" (N.uh. 3,25), the main town of this tribe was Oretum Germanorum (modern Granátula de Calatrava)

I have to agree that some of the most recent Iberian assessments of the Celticisation of Iberia do seem to have reverted back to the idea of Hallstatt influences being crucial. 

[alan trowel hands.]

Its really frustrating that Cunliffe and Koch's new book will influence for the next decade when L21 has essentially already made an Iberia-Isles Celtic link/ethnogenisis all but impossible as they are likely to argue it.  In particular they are likely to link the early metal centres in western Iberia and Ireland two areas that could not be more different in terms of R1b1b2 clades.  At the very least they would need to rewrite the story to allow for S116 to spread into France, the L21 SNP then happening/expanding in France and a move to the isles from northern France.  However, I am not sure I think this is plausible either.  Its mighty difficult to see L21 spreading east to the SW Germany area. 

You know, this Atlantic Celts fad began because the evidence for the traditional La Tene, Hallstatt etc spread seemed too flimsy in most areas, especially Iberia and the British Isles.  However, I think the archaeological evidence for Iberia-isles links is far more flimsy. So why favour the Atlantic idea?

I cant help but feel that this will be looked back on as a dead end theory in a decade or so.  To be honest, when you close your eyes and try to picture it, the idea that half of western Europe's population is down to a few copper/bronze smithing/trading families seems a bit ridiculous.  I could just about believe the idea of trade networks requiring a lingua franca but to also link these to R1b1b2 just seems very hard to believe. 

[Jean M]

Alan - The idea that Bell Beaker was spread by "a few copper/bronze smithing/trading families" was dreamed up by Richard Harrison in the heat of the anti-migrationist movement. Before "the new archaeology" no-one doubted that BB represented mass migration by Beaker Folk. There was ample evidence of same, but it was all argued away by those for whom "continuity" was a buzz word.

The tide turned a few years ago. Volker Heyd refused to deny the evidence right in  front of his eyes. It stood out a mile that in the area he was excavating, BB represented an intrusion by new people. Suddenly you get people with different skeletons, different lifestyle and burial customs settling on different sites from the previous lot. No this can't be explained by the descendants of the previous lot  adopting new fashions.

The absurd refusal to recognise migration in the record has had its day. The rise of population genetics will seal its demise. But some archaeologists rebelled against the dogma before genetics forced them to kiss it goodbye. There is a paradigm change going on in archaeology. The proof of that is not just Prof. Cunliffe setting sail up the Atlantic seaboard. It lies in the proliferation of academic projects investigating aspects of migration. There is ferment going on behind the scenes.

You don't get the EU funding vast projects without a whole bunch of academics being pretty sure that there is something new to find. http://www.forging-identities.com/

  

[Jean M]

Which geneticists are you speaking of that support a "from the west/Atlantic" approach?

Here's the list of contributors to the volume:  

(Archaeology) Barry Cunliffe; Raimund Karl; Amilcar Guerra;

(Genetics) Brian McEvoy & Daniel Bradley*; Stephen Oppenheimer; Ellen Rrvik**;

(Language & Literature) Graham Isaac; David Parsons; John T. Koch; Philip Freeman; Dagmar S. Wodtko.
----------------------------------------

* Previous publications:
Brian McEvoy, Daniel G. Bradley, Y-chromosomes and the extent of patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames, Human Genetics (2006)

Brian McEvoy, Katharine Simms, Daniel G. Bradley, Genetic Investigation of the Patrilineal Kinship Structure of Early Medieval Ireland, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008)

** I presume this is Ellen Christine Røyrvik,  a research fellow at the University of Oxford, working on a project which aims to create a genetic map of the British islands and surrounding countries. http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.6566897 . Must be http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

[Added]. Yes she's working with Sir Walter Bodmer:
http://www.imm.ox.ac.uk/wimm-research/molecular-oncology/walter-bodmer