Did the Bell Beaker Culture evolve into the Celts?

[Argyll]

I'm not proposing they just came out of nowhere, I'm proposing that a part of the genetics may have come from further east. Look at the map and find R1b. Celts have legends saying how they set off from Troy, R1b could have crossed the Caucasus Mountains from the Ukrainian Steppe and continued through Anatolia to Europe, just passed it.

As for the Megalithic culture, the Bell Beaker partially formed from it. Stonehenge was still being built during the Bell Beaker period.

The Bell Beaker then evolved into a few regionally distinct cultures, some of these would become the Hallstatt and La Tene which have been identified with Celts.
Whilst cultural elements spread from these areas, much of the original Bell Beaker (and ultimately, Megalithic) culture was retained and formed the Celtic peoples.
Celtic languages could have been spoken before the Hallstatt or La Tene cultures, right back in the Bronze Age with the Bell Beaker culture.

I wan't saying anything negative to you, Albion I was saying that towards those who act as if the Celts were already what we see them as.

[Albion]

The archaeologist Colin Renfrew has long argued that the Indo-European languages of Europe were introduced by the first Neolithic settlers, and evolved in situ into their various branches, including Celtic. Thus is very much at odds with the so-called "Kurgan hypothesis", which sees the original Neolithic settlers, including the megalith builders, as not speaking an Indo-European language, the latter being introduced much later by invaders from the east. My own view is that Renfrew is correct, even though his opinion is in a minority amongst academics.

In this scenario, the non-Indo-European pockets, such as Basque and Etruscan, represent survivals of the Mesolithic languages of Western Europe, rather than the Neolithic ones.

I highlighted that in my post about genetic., I've stated that the Celtic languages could have been introduced with influences and migrants from the east who brought R1b and the cultural changes which turned the Megalithic to the Bell Beaker.

I wan't saying anything negative to you, Albion

Yeah, I just clarified things a bit.

I was saying that towards those who act as if the Celts were already what we see them as.

Yes, the Celts were very different from their ancestors since they had a long time to develop. It is clear though that many elements of it are very ancient.

Germanic culture is the same. Although very new to most of Europe, in its homeland (Denmark and surrounding area) it has existed for a very long time indeed, possibly going back to the Corded Ware Culture which occupied Northern Europe at the same time as the Beaker Culture occupied the west of it. It may ultimately go back further, I think the Ertebolle Culture which existed at a similar time to the building of the Megaliths may be its origin, but I haven't looked into it much yet.

It is clear that something did happen in the old Megalithic Culture though and across all of Europe. Agriculture (mostly arable at the time, introduced with the Megaliths) was failing. Ireland was doing worse than Britain.
We see that the old stone age cultures gradually found out about metal and a few other things such as the use of horses and wheeled vehicles. Warfare appeared more widespread, new forms of agriculture and many changes happened.
It is quite clear that something major was happening at this time, cultures across Europe were changing and the Megalithic gradually gave way to the Bell Beaker culture as Stonehenge was built. One of the greatest and one of the last stone circles.
Under early agriculture the stature of people greatly decreased because it was a poor grain-based diet. Stature and health of people improved in the Bell Beaker, perhaps as a result of the introduction of dairy farming, lactose tolerance and pastoralism (which provided more protein without one having to slaughter the livestock to get it from meat).

Both Germanic and Celtic cultures are related to some extent, but the original proto-Germanics were probably closer related to Slavs and Balts, with Celts related more to Italics IMO.
That is vastly different today though where Germanics and Celts have mixed so much that the distinctions have blurred.

Although I haven't discussed it much here, these large cultures such as the Bell Beaker and Celtic did have regional variants.
In the modern Germanics we have three main "geo-cultural" groups - Scandinavians, Continental West Germanics (Germans, Dutch, etc) and "Anglo-Saxons". All show differences, but also similarities and the latter (Anglo-Saxons) is far more removed from the others due a number of factors, including the Celto-Germanic origins of its population.
Anyway, with the Bell Beaker, Megalithic and Corded Ware it was no different - regional differences have and always will exist. Sometimes these lead to new cultures in their own right.

I'am no expert on this period in history though, it is a hard period to study but I try my hardest.

[Wulfhere]

A theory explaining why the Germanic languages appear to contain a large number of non-IE words is the Germanic substrate hypothesis, which proposes that a non-IE population existed in the area before IE speakers arrived, with whom they merged. This may cast doubt on Renfrew's ideas but the Germanic substrate hypothesis has itself fallen from favour in recent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...ate_hypothesis

[Osweo]

This cracked me up in one of the articles quoted;

The incomers boosted what had been a dwindling population of farmers, and created a thriving society*

I can't believe they didn't say 'vibrant', too! Good old immigrants, eh!

I read Soviet books quite a lot, and chuckle at the odd gratuitous Marx or Engels quote that the author slips in to keep the censors happy, and our own modern writing has EXACTLY the same feel to it!

Ahem...
As I see it, Celtic speech in Britain, Gaul, Iberia, the Upper Danube and Padania, as attested in onomastica and toponymy, is SOO identical, that we need to posit a diffusion of language in a period quite recent to that of the first Classical writers. I see the Bell Beaker phenomenon as predating this, and perhaps the peculiar nature of Lusitanian in western Iberia is an indication that we should be looking for an older cousin of Celto-Italic. Interesting that Celtic might not have been THE first IE language spoken on this island, eh?

I see Celtic as accompanying a new idea that expanded and was rapidly taken up following a social crisis in the West. I think the Beaker thing is a bit early though.

[Albion]

A theory explaining why the Germanic languages appear to contain a large number of non-IE words is the Germanic substrate hypothesis, which proposes that a non-IE population existed in the area before IE speakers arrived, with whom they merged. This may cast doubt on Renfrew's ideas but the Germanic substrate hypothesis has itself fallen from favour in recent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...ate_hypothesis

I've thought about this a few times, it can be one of a few theories:

1. That Basque could have been part of a now forgotten language family spoken over much of Europe. Some point to it as having left words in insular Celtic languages and maybe Germanic.
2. The Finnic theory. I very much doubt this, Finnic haplogroups aren;t common outside of NE Europe, they're beyond rare.
3. Afro-Asiatic - this proposes that the substratums / superstratums in European languages could be from former Afro-Asiatic languages presumed to have been spoken in Europe. Proponents argue that haplogroup I split of from IJ in the Middle East and that the Megalithic technology could have been carried around the coast of Europe by people originally from the Middle East (this is apparently why there is small amounts of J and E3B1 around Europe).

I'm not sure what I believe at the moment. Out of all of them I'd like to believe in the Basque theory, but I've read a few things against it. I'd better stay neutral for now.

But whatever the superstratum in Germanic and substratum in Celtic, it is pretty obvious that it likely originates with the earlier cultures.
The fact that Celtic languages display a few cognates with Basque lends nicely to my theory about the Bell Beaker and how it became IE speaking from an original non-IE speaking predecessor (Megalithic).

This guy has put a lot into his Finnic theory but I need convincing. It's a nice theory, but I don't see much evidence yet, especially since Finnics have forever been beyond rare outside of NE Europe and Siberia.

I can't believe they didn't say 'vibrant', too! Good old immigrants, eh!

up

Ahem...
As I see it, Celtic speech in Britain, Gaul, Iberia, the Upper Danube and Padania, as attested in onomastica and toponymy, is SOO identical, that we need to posit a diffusion of language in a period quite recent to that of the first Classical writers. I see the Bell Beaker phenomenon as predating this, and perhaps the peculiar nature of Lusitanian in western Iberia is an indication that we should be looking for an older cousin of Celto-Italic.

Yes, this would point to an older language but it is not to say that we aren't looking for some archaic form of Celtic.

Interesting that Celtic might not have been THE first IE language spoken on this island, eh?

I believe a Celtic language was the first and before that a non-IE language. I covered it a bit here, but it's largely hypothetical of course.

I see Celtic as accompanying a new idea that expanded and was rapidly taken up following a social crisis in the West.

Probably. Climatic problems led to all sorts of stuff going on in early Scandinavia, I'll look into it.
There's a good website about climatic history in Britain here, and it goes into details back to 4000BC on this page. The Cymbrian flood at the bottom is fascinating.

Anyway, I'll look into it tomorrow.

I think the Beaker thing is a bit early though.

Perhaps, but there's a lot of continuity from Bell Beaker to Celtic. Bell Beaker gave us the cultures which would develop into Celtic and maybe I'm pushing it back a bit far, but I do see correlations.

[awyr dywyll]

[LIST=1]
[*]Where did I mention Aryans or imply anything about them. IE origins in the Pontic Steppe is a mainstream theory and the Mesolithic continuity theory is looking ever less credible by the day as the evidence builds. It appears that many of the old works dismissed in modern times as "migrationist rubbish" may have actually been right.

Anatolian hypothesis looks mor realistic. First IE speaking people arrived to Europe among the Neolithic settlers

[awyr dywyll]

I highlighted that in my post about genetic., I've stated that the Celtic languages could have been introduced with influences and migrants from the east who brought R1b and the cultural changes which turned the Megalithic to the Bell Beaker.

Actually Bell Beaker Culture originated in Iberia and Western Mediterranean.The earliest archaeological traces of this culture found there. So this culture expanded to the east from west. And more likely that these people spoke Italo-Celtic language or even already separated Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic. Moreover, there's no evidence that Bell Beakers were alien incomers in south-west of Europe. They came from the local Neolithic cultures and possibly were the product of mixing of the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations