Siret's Smile? Part 2 (Jean Guilaine, 2018)

Here's part 2 on Siret's Smile published in Antiquity.

Guilaine's counter-arguments to Kossinna's Smile are condensed here with a few notes.  Some concepts like 'diffusion' mentioned in part 1 need a little context when considering similarities and differences between Kossinna and Siret.  Here, diffusionism includes migration or outside stimulation and is opposed to acculturation or internal innovation.  Usage varies historically.

By invoking Siret, Guilaine is not arguing for an internally native Iberian origin of Beaker as opposed to steppic ones.  He sees different sources of the Iberian stimulation that were most important to the birth of proto-Beaker which is widely believed to have expanded from Iberia.  Whether or not this involves a genetic component would be irrelevant in this argument, and the cultural and genetic identity of Continental Beakers is probably irrelevant to this discussion as well.

Stele from Lacunae, Tarn, France (snip Fig 1)

Guillaine counters Heyd on three points and they really center around the origin of the Beaker phenomenon from exterior day 1, especially in Iberia:

"In the present paper, partly as a response to that published by Heyd, I wish to comment on three issues among the many raised therein: [1] the anthropomorphic stelae, [2] the Chalcolithic funerary rituals and grave goods of southern Iberia, and [3] the origins of the ‘Maritime’ Bell Beaker tradition."

1.  Guilaine doesn't see anthropomorphic stelae in Western Europe as evidence of steppe influence from the East.  He thinks the various groups of stelae are too diverse to represent a single source borrowing and that they more represent themes and objects of local Neolithic cultures.  Guilaine views some of the groups, such as the Amorican group, as being too old (3500-3000) to be linked with Yamnaya specifically or any known Eastern influx.  He also sees the Western European stelae as a continuous development from the early Neolithic and following a pattern of increasing detail comparable to a similarly-phased evolution in the Pontic Steppe.


2.  Grave rituals and grave goods.  Guilaine doesn't see any special relationship between Pontic and Iberian sandals.  He makes reference to similar foot fetish in Southern Egypt and goes on to point to other exotic objects in Iberian tombs with North African or Eastern roots, rather than Pontic roots.

Sandal comparison by V. Heyd, "Kossinna's Smile"

3.  Guilaine believes the Maritime expression of the Bell Beaker is unrelated to events in Northern or Eastern Europe.  Like many others, he sees a uniquely southern expression in the Maritime beaker decoration that has no precedent in the Continent but does have antecedents in the decoration of pottery from certain Moroccan sites through which Southern Iberians traded heavily.  He also mentions the early dates.


It's important to consider that these archaeologists would probably agree on many points.  They probably agree on the importance of Iberia in spreading the early manifestations of Beaker Culture.  Kossinna's Smile took issue with holy archaeology denying what should have been obvious from the skeletal remains, but it also skewered the overly simplistic approach of ancient DNA.  Siret's Smile takes issue with the relationship between culture and ethnicity by disagreeing on what got the ball rolling in the first place.

Of course Beakerblog has opinions on a lot of this, but this post is already too long!  More stuff ahead.