A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The 9000 BC date is where we have genetic evidence for new people coming in. After that there is just no significant change to allow for population movements. It was modern genetic science that gave rise to the “Paleolithic Continuity Theory”. Thus far it has been largely ignored as a sensational claim but it does create large holes in the prevailing theories that do need to be addressed. This theory also developed from an interdisciplinary study.

The PCT may have developed from a multi-disciplinary study but it has to be said that it was a very narrow one, and is based upon some questionable 'logic'. There is a difference between claiming that populations are inherently conservative, but it is something else to suggest that there is virtually no genetic intrusion. That intrusion doesn't have to be huge. It is also based on a false impression of continuity, because there are significant changes in the move from hunter/gatherer lifestylesm to the first farming communities which can be seen in differences in burial styles.

While language is independent of genetics if we are left to accept the current prevailing theories then we have to believe that a tiny group of Rambo like conquers came in and displaced all previous languages because they so dominated and amazed everyone with their prowess, others just naturally wanted to be like them. Subsequent studies have only tended to reinforce the view that there was no great migration. I am not going to abandon one idea for the other but ignoring it, to me, seems foolish.

But a fundamental change, such as that to farming, doesn't have to involve 'rambo' like conquerers. In fact all that it requires is that the new forms of communities are more attractive than the old ways. This is another piece of faulty logic, that one must conquer in order to shift language.

As to Native Americans you are taking the 19th century view of population levels. I think you will find that current pre-contact population estimates range from 50 to as high as 100 million. Larger than those of Europe at the time.

There is a reason that the native American population had, psychologically, a very different attitude toward land use. That there was nowhere near the levels of pressure upon land usage as there was in Europe is certain - and it was this difference in outlook that allowed the Western powers to steal land from the native Americans.

There were also large pre-contact trade networks which you discount out of hand. We have found that Great Lakes native copper just about every where. As to the Objwe language, it is subject to change as any language. It has been some 500 years since contact for changes to take place. The language and its dialects have not been under study for most of that time. 300 years was enough for Anglo-Saxon and Saxon German to become unintelligible. On the other hand it took about 800 years for Irish and Scottish Gaelic to diverge into different languages. From what I have read that change may have only taken a generation to take place. Do we need to speculate on how it may have changed pre-contact to the present?

I don't know enough about pre-conquest North America to make much comment, except to say that our (modern) ideas of trade networks are not the same sort of thing as either early North American or early European 'trade' networks. But it does seem to me that the dynamics between all three vary considerably. And that is the real point to make here. That it makes little sense to establish the dynamics of a geographical area of Europe based upon the possibilities of what was going on in North America. Nor do we need to, as the rest of Europe gives us a pretty good indication of how things were.

As for language change - the vastly reduced number of speakers means that language change is far less likely, except as a result of intrusion from the European colonists - which doesn't seem to be the case. Where there are a small number of speakers and the language survives there is actually greater conservatism within the language. And, let's say that these changes have developed within a short time period, within such a small population - that blows the PCT model out of the water as that relies upon language conservatism of a very high order.

We can not say for sure what may have gone before but we do have widely excepted testimonial evidence of a single language group occupying a wide area in Europe. Until we have reason to doubt the distribution on more than a couple of possibly contradictory lines of text it is best just to leave it be.

I disagree. We have a presumed widespread language group which has been endorsed by false etymologies, contorted in order to fit the presumed language classification. And, again, you say we shouldn't throw it out until we have good reason to doubt it, without taking into account that there was never really any reason to believe it. The narrative is based upon the flimsiest, most whimsical pretence that it should have no bearing whatever, imo, within any meaningful discussion on the subject.

I would imagine that given the poor reception that the PCT got, and that their data points in a similar direction, that they will hedge much of what they are willing to say.

I think it goes a little deeper than just that. there is a whole industry that has built upon around this narrative. People's reputations and livelihoods are intrinsically linked with it - let alone the idealogical/nationalist identities that people have bought into because of it.

I too think it all merits more coherent examination. We should also go into it with preconceived notions and the baggage of 19th century thought. But that won’t happen, for a while anyway. We will always be reliant on Greek and Roman texts. But reinterpreting them with out complete contextual regard is not satisfactory. Translations are seldom as straight forward as we would like to think and most of these should be undertaken by experts in that field alone and then reviewed.

It really is time to assess what we know vs. what we think we know. Not just about the Celts but about so much more.

Now, on this, I am in complete agreement with you.

[Fisherking]

Well, it has been four years. If I remember this all correctly the idea doesn’t seem to have gained much traction.

Professor Barry Cunliffe seems to think that the language was spread or originated in the west of Europe but there is no evidence of migrations of people after the spread of agriculture, which brought only a small population with it.

The idea that the people carrying the cultures south and east were not Celts or Gauls counter to the cultural and linguistic evidence left behind.

If the Celtic Languages were a trade lingua franca then the spread required no migrations prior to the Roman period. Language and cultural spread would be due to the developed trade networks. The Central European river systems were tied to the Atlantic trade networks.

We have Basques as closest genetically to the British Isles population but the Basques lay outside the trade network. However, if we take the theory that Celtic was the trade language it only mans the population was not displaced, the genetics could be different, but the language and culture could be the same.

The same could be said for the Germans. The Baltic trading network. Here there is some overlap.

We have archeological evidence of a wide trade network extending from Spain to the Shetland Islands and east into southern Germany or beyond. There is evidence that Celtic languages, or Celtic influenced languages were spoken as a uniting feature with other features as well.

Maybe this is a remnant of the old bronze network as it extended across Europe. We see the same shift to hill forts there as we see in the isles. This shows some connectedness. It does not mean that all the people in the network are genetically identical or subject to the same influences or pressures.

The pattern of development always seems to occur on the fringes of the heartland. Hallstatt can be seen as that fringe and La Tene developed outside that new center. It is a typical pattern.

Trying to say that Hallstatt is not Celtic is like splitting hairs over whether the Bretons or Cornish are as Celtic as the Scotts or Irish. It should be more like a cultural exchange where a part of the network had ideas that spread through interchange to the rest. Rather more like Watt building the steam engine. He didn’t have to conquer England for it to spread.


I have seen no major news on this in the meantime. Any idea on where it may have gone?