Quote Originally Posted by Lusitani View Post
I have recently a very interesting book called " Exploring the world of The Celts" by Simon James (Thames & Hudson). I am still in the process of reading it but it seems to be a very interesting book as it focus on most of the aspects related to celts.
However on page 35 there is this phrase:

"...Nevertheless they seem to have integrated closely with the non-Celtic Veneti, specially around Padua...."

I got confused here. Weren't the Veneti celts? Aren´t they the same as the people living in the western coast of Gaul...in Armorica???

Thanks.

Like others have mentioned, chances are the Veneti in Brittany/Armorica and the Veneti in Northern Italy were two separate groups with separate origins. Best I can tell from what I've read, the Italian bunch were of Italic origin and would have been similar to the Raetians and Ligurians, all of which would later pick up varying degrees of Celtic culture and use it themselves.

However, if something/someone brought forth evidence showing a link between both Veneti groups, would I be suprised? Not at all. Celtic tribes definitely got around thats for sure. For example, the tribal name of the Eburones is found in southern Portugal as well as in northern Belgica, and its quite possible that branches of the Belgic Nervii traveled all the way to northern Iberia where they are known as the Nerviones. Were talking what, 1000 miles/1,400km or thereabouts? Same example applies to other Celtic tribes, especially the Boii and the Volcae, who are found all over Celtic realms to an even greater extent.

To imagine a link between the Veneti of Northern Italy and the Veneti of Armorica isn't all that fantastic when you consider the chances of names having a common root or sharing a tribal origin, though I believe in this instance the similarities in the name 'Veneti' are simply coincidence and is shared by both Celtic and Italic peoples