A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[Fisherking]

Apparently, up to a point we are in agreement. The point at which we diverge seems to be in the eastward expansion of the peoples we are calling Celts and Germans.

Both of these terms have become embroiled in modern times in nationalistic interpretations.

The Romans seemingly called everything beyond the Rhine and Danube Germanic but never defined it beyond that point.

When we speak of the tribe Treveri the Romans tell us they speak a Gaulish language, practice the Gaulish culture, but claim a Germanic past.

The Belgae are described in much the same way. He noted that the Belgae, being farthest from the developed civilization of Rome and closest to Germania over the Rhine, were the bravest of the three groups, because "merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind".

Belgae are also placed in Britain and Ireland. Further, some scholars hypothesize the language differences in Belgae as being an overlaid with an older I-E language but not German. I am sure you would not find this far out of line, since we find the same with Lusitanian and possibly other languages.
With the possible exception of the Frisii, it has been stated that Germanic speakers were no nearer than the Elbe in Caesar‘s time but perhaps the Ems.

Let us look far into the past.

If we go to the end of the ice age Central Europe from the Alps north to the Danube was still glaciated for some time. If Indo-Europeans were around then wouldn‘t they be moving into new unpopulated areas? How unlikely is it that they may have happened to have been Celts or Pre-Celts? If they were Proto-Germanic what were the geographic boundaries that prevented the cultural spread from the area to the rest of the populations?

From the Paleolithic onward we find cultural expansion from Southwest France/Northeast Spain and often the Targus moving eastwards into Central Europe. For tens of thousands of years we have a cultural affinity with the same zone inhabited by the Celts as outlined with the later Iron age maps of Celtic areas in Central and Western Europe. Not until the Neolithic Revolution do we find cultural spread moving in the other direction.

In the Aurignacian culture we find a spread that could even be the founding of the PIE group. It is also the first culture wholly proven to be associated with modern humans.

The Solutren culture starts in the western Atlantic region, France and Spain. It was succeeded by the Magdalenian culture which roughly incorporated those regions known as Celtic in Roman times.

Tardenoisian culture and its near relations are the last of these united areas but mtDNA haplo group U5b1 gives a tie in to the Megalithic culture of the Neolithic. It mirrors most of the Continental Celtic distribution.

In the Neolithic such broad united cultures are hard to find. There is also evidence of some population shifts which could be migrations. European Megalithic culture shows it could have started in the Mesolithic from sites in the British Isles, France, and Scandinavia. The number of sites in Ireland, particularly the valley of the Boyne would point to it being the center if not the origin of it. It also includes the Germanic homelands of Denmark and southern Sweden.

Bell Beaker culture is the beginning of metallurgy. It is thought to have come from the Targus area of Iberia. It was contemporary with Megalithic culture and with the building of Stonehenge. It is interesting that the earliest metal smith in the British Isles was found there. The Amesbury Archer, linked to the Beaker culture, borne in the Alps of Central Europe, and with a descendant buried nearby of local birth.
Also, Marine Bell Beaker entered Ireland from South England, not directly from Iberia.

From here we move to the Atlantic Bronze Age, in the west. This is the culture to which Professors Koch and Cunliffe attribute Celtic development and Celtic as the Atlantic lingua franca, later spreading into mainland Europe. But the Atlantic Bronze Age was not a single culture. It was five or more cultures linked by trade. Also linked by trade with all these same areas was the Urnfeld culture and its predecessors of Central Europe. Cultures that relied heavily on Irish metals, by the way. They shared many of the same practices, customs, and traits. The main difference was burial practices. Most of the other religious practices seem to be similar. Urnfeld also differed in the use of hill forts and the styles of fortified settlements that would later become known as oppida. Whether these developed from Urnfeld or the Castro culture is not clear but they seem to have begun in Central Europe.
Both culturally and genetically all of these areas were in close contact with one another for as far back as we have evidence of Homo Sapiens. If we assume that Celtic was spoken at this time by one area it is just as likely that it was spoken by the other.

Hallstatt culture, most would agree, was a Celtic culture springing from Central Europe. It extended from the headwaters of the Seine in the west, north to the upper Elbe and upper Oder, and east to perhaps near present day Budapest. Roughly half the area north of the Danube and east of the Rhine. All the same, it was part of the long standing area of cultural and genetic affinity that extended from the Atlantic to Central Europe and on most every map marked as Celtic at the time. This period lasted from circa 800 BCE to 500 BCE, thereafter it grew into the La Téne culture.

The idea that they become German overnight is more than just a stretch. What we know of the early German Tribes moving into the area came hundreds of years afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge...0BC-1AD%29.png

The Celts reached their maximum extent about 275 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Celtic_expansion.PNG

Just around the time the Roman Republic was getting started.

The linguistics cited earlier are in no way proof of German tribes in the area and show more influence by Celts on Germans than the reverse. We only have Germans moving into the region at the time of the Roman Conquest of Gaul and were certainly not on the Danube until long after all Celtic migrations had ended.

This is a gap of about five centuries. How do you think it managed to escape everyone‘s attention for so long?
Surely, archeologically or culturally we should have had some evidence that they were there.

Is there any proof other than the cited linguistics?

[Zarakas]

The link below maybe of interest and add to the debate. In particular, regarding Iberia and British isles.

http://www.minoanatlantis.com/Origin_Sea_Peoples.php

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Apparently, up to a point we are in agreement. The point at which we diverge seems to be in the eastward expansion of the peoples we are calling Celts and Germans.

Both of these terms have become embroiled in modern times in nationalistic interpretations.

The Romans seemingly called everything beyond the Rhine and Danube Germanic but never defined it beyond that point.

When we speak of the tribe Treveri the Romans tell us they speak a Gaulish language, practice the Gaulish culture, but claim a Germanic past.

The term Germania was used as a geographical term by Caesar and later authors, so little can be gleaned as to whether he, or later authors, mean simply from a geographical area when they talk of them being germanic. The same is true of Gaul, and Caesar - in particular - has very good political reasons for describing the areas he invaded as being part of Gaul. Even then he is clear that the area should be broken down into distinct areas. He says very little about the languages being spoken. Where do the Romans describe the Treveri as speaking a Gaulish language? The only time that I have read about their language was in connection with the Galatians and that their languages were similar - importantly, I think, this reference is specific to the Treveri. Archaeological evidence points toward a Danubian cultural expansion within the lands known to us as Belgica or Belgium during the 3rd century BC. The Treveri, describing themselves as 'Germanic', and being an aspect of this Belgae cultural area, are therefore described as being of a language group distinct from Gaulish and similar to that of the Galatians; the Galatians are likely to have come from the Danube area, as are the Treveri. I will make the point again, as you seem to be fixated upon this, that I am not saying that the Danubian culture was German speaking.

The Belgae are described in much the same way. He noted that the Belgae, being farthest from the developed civilization of Rome and closest to Germania over the Rhine, were the bravest of the three groups, because "merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind".

Yes, he describes, essentially, a different cultural group; something that is backed up within the archaeological record.

Belgae are also placed in Britain and Ireland. Further, some scholars hypothesize the language differences in Belgae as being an overlaid with an older I-E language but not German. I am sure you would not find this far out of line, since we find the same with Lusitanian and possibly other languages.
With the possible exception of the Frisii, it has been stated that Germanic speakers were no nearer than the Elbe in Caesar‘s time but perhaps the Ems.

Yes, this is exactly what I have said. That is why I mentioned the proposed extinct 'Belgian' language. The claim is not that these people spoke a German language, or even proto-germanic, nor is it any sort of claim of ethnicity (which I think is a particularly ridiculous notion in terms of the mixed nature of Europe anyway). What the claim here is, is that there are a number of different language groups which have followed different evolutionary paths.

Let us look far into the past.

If we go to the end of the ice age Central Europe from the Alps north to the Danube was still glaciated for some time. If Indo-Europeans were around then wouldn‘t they be moving into new unpopulated areas? How unlikely is it that they may have happened to have been Celts or Pre-Celts? If they were Proto-Germanic what were the geographic boundaries that prevented the cultural spread from the area to the rest of the populations?

Being as early as this expansion is, and given that we take this as being the PIE expansion into Europe then this group would be (even if you want to call these later language groups Celtic) pre-Celtic and pre-Germanic. The only alternative is that a PIE Proto-Germanic sprang into existence on its own. The language groups of central Europe and Northern Europe, and possibly the Italic group as well, were ancestors of this original expansion's languages following different evolutions depending upon variability in terms of contacts and relative isolations ('sprachbund' denouement). This is part of the problem with talking of Celtic being linked with the early central PIE expansion and a later language group.

Bell Beaker culture is the beginning of metallurgy. It is thought to have come from the Targus area of Iberia. It was contemporary with Megalithic culture and with the building of Stonehenge. It is interesting that the earliest metal smith in the British Isles was found there. The Amesbury Archer, linked to the Beaker culture, borne in the Alps of Central Europe, and with a descendant buried nearby of local birth.
Also, Marine Bell Beaker entered Ireland from South England, not directly from Iberia.

Whether the culture entered Ireland via Southern England doesn't really effect the proposition that the Western coast was a distinct zone within Europe. The first known metal-working (as opposed to metal smith) found in the British Isles is in South-Eastern ireland. This occurs prior to metal-working in South-West England; beginning with copper then moving on to bronze, possibly utilising tin found in South-West Britian. What is clear is that there was a cultural zone that existed along the Western Atlantic coast that was in consistent and long term contact, that shared broad similarities in religious systems (if burial is anything to go by).

From here we move to the Atlantic Bronze Age, in the west. This is the culture to which Professors Koch and Cunliffe attribute Celtic development and Celtic as the Atlantic lingua franca, later spreading into mainland Europe. But the Atlantic Bronze Age was not a single culture. It was five or more cultures linked by trade. Also linked by trade with all these same areas was the Urnfeld culture and its predecessors of Central Europe. Cultures that relied heavily on Irish metals, by the way. They shared many of the same practices, customs, and traits. The main difference was burial practices. Most of the other religious practices seem to be similar. Urnfeld also differed in the use of hill forts and the styles of fortified settlements that would later become known as oppida. Whether these developed from Urnfeld or the Castro culture is not clear but they seem to have begun in Central Europe.

What do you mean by other religious practices being similar? Very little can be known about religious practices other than through burials when dealing with religious cultures in archaeology unless we are lucky enough to find literary attestation.

Both culturally and genetically all of these areas were in close contact with one another for as far back as we have evidence of Homo Sapiens. If we assume that Celtic was spoken at this time by one area it is just as likely that it was spoken by the other.

But I don't think that you would argue with the development of general zones where we can find shared religious(burial) practices. In fact it is on this basis, and then more generally material cultural diffusion, that the idea of 'Celtic' Europe is derived. It is a little more nuanced, and language is also more nuanced. Halstatt culture begins in the 8th century BC. By this time different zones have been developing, and contacting, for some three millenia. Are we really supposed to believe that this cultural diffusion - ie the spread of a material culture which shows regional differentiation and little evidence (until perhaps later) of substantial migration would alter the course of the languages spoken across the diffusion area? That Tartessian is Celtic does not mean that it started to be Celtic when we find written records, but rather that by the time written records are found Tartessian is already Celtic. So Celtic in the West precedes Halstatt culture.

Hallstatt culture, most would agree, was a Celtic culture springing from Central Europe. It extended from the headwaters of the Seine in the west, north to the upper Elbe and upper Oder, and east to perhaps near present day Budapest. Roughly half the area north of the Danube and east of the Rhine. All the same, it was part of the long standing area of cultural and genetic affinity that extended from the Atlantic to Central Europe and on most every map marked as Celtic at the time. This period lasted from circa 800 BCE to 500 BCE, thereafter it grew into the La Téne culture.

But it is agreed by most people because that is the story that has been told, without any linguistic basis, for the last couple of centuries. Linguistically it makes little sense. The use of the term Celtic to describe both the basis of PIE languages in Europe (ie associated with Urnfield culture) and a (much)later European group of languages is where the problem lies. That is why we must find different terms to describe these groups. By simply ascribing everything not certainly Italic, or not certainly Germanic, or not certainly Balto-Slavic, or not certainly some other extinct PIE European groups with the broad stroke of 'Celtic', and then compounding that problem by trying to ram that context into a narrower language group spoken on the Western coast of Europe has lead to a mess of linguistic arguments.

It also leads to narratives that simply aren't supported by archaeological evidence, the greatest example being migrations from central Europe into the Iberian peninsula.

I'll give an example from Britain as to how this over-arching 'Celtic' narrative messes up linguistic propositions. There are certain shared grammatical nuances between Welsh and English, and the argument has been made that this is a proof of the Celtic root of English. But that nuance is not found in irish (nor is it found in any older Celtic languages). Taking out the desire for a Celtic uber-language then this actually shows a shared structure within British languages which are not Germanic or Celtic but have survived the Celtic and German influences upon them.

The idea that they become German overnight is more than just a stretch. What we know of the early German Tribes moving into the area came hundreds of years afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge...0BC-1AD%29.png

The Celts reached their maximum extent about 275 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Celtic_expansion.PNG

Just around the time the Roman Republic was getting started.

The linguistics cited earlier are in no way proof of German tribes in the area and show more influence by Celts on Germans than the reverse. We only have Germans moving into the region at the time of the Roman Conquest of Gaul and were certainly not on the Danube until long after all Celtic migrations had ended.

I'll say it again, I'm not talking about Germanic instead of Celtic. In terms of Germanic I'm saying that it has come about from the same language as the notional 'Celtic' (the deep-rooted language associated with urnfield culture). Part of the problem is the ridiculous idea of ethnicity I think, but in terms of , for example, Germanic languages having many Celtic 'loanwords', if these 'loanwords' are actually a deeper European PIE root then Germanic is simply a continuum of that language group. The problem arises when a deeper language group (probably shared between the Western Atlantic zone and the Central European zone) is mistaken as being the same as some notional, much later, uber-language spoken across a great swathe of Europe. There would actually be languages derived from this root following different evolutions in terms of contacts and sprachbund distances, so that groups would evolve with subtle differences. Some of those groups became or were 'absorbed' into (ie are extinct but have left traces within) Germanic, Romance, Balto-Slavic and Celtic languages.

This is a gap of about five centuries. How do you think it managed to escape everyone‘s attention for so long?
Surely, archeologically or culturally we should have had some evidence that they were there.

See above, you seem to be fixated on some Celtic or German dichotomy that simply is nothing to do with the argument.

[Fisherking]

First, I am not sure we can assume a PIE expansion into Europe other than the original population.

The point is that the Atlantic Fringe and the Danube basin were in close cultural contact, seemingly always.

During the Urnfeld and Atlantic Bronze age we find a difference in burials but the religious artifacts and other practices, such as votive offering, hoardings and so on remained near identical. Hallstatt and La Téne cultures had a strong influence in both areas. In Classical Antiquity writers tell us that in this broad area a people they called Celts or Galls lived. They seemed to have a shared language and culture.

We can see differences in genetics, culture, language, and perhaps religion. We can also see similarities in these same areas.

What reason do we have to divide them? Why do we need to assume one group more pure than the other? Does it or should it even matter?

Your statement that you are not nationalistically motivated in dividing the Eastern Complex of Celts from the Western Complex, however, does show that you are aware of the origins of that theory and their nationalistic bent.

Whether you theorize them as Dacian or German makes no difference to the argument.

We have as many reasons to doubt the Celt were in Ireland as we do to doubt those in Bulgaria or Turkey. The only difference being that all the other Celts were wiped out or assimilated except in the far Northwest of Europe.

All areas warrant closer examination. General theories that promote one over the other is not helpful. Let us just see what future discoveries show us.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

First, I am not sure we can assume a PIE expansion into Europe other than the original population.

Do you mean an original early migration linked quite probably with the Neolithic - which is the generally accepted model - or are you proposing that PIE was already in existence within Europe during the Mesolithic?

The point is that the Atlantic Fringe and the Danube basin were in close cultural contact, seemingly always.

It depends upon how one defines 'close'. That there were contacts is not in doubt, but that didn't stop differentiation between groups, and the idea of 'close' contact simply doesn't address the various zones of Europe that developed.

During the Urnfeld and Atlantic Bronze age we find a difference in burials but the religious artifacts and other practices, such as votive offering, hoardings and so on remained near identical. Hallstatt and La Téne cultures had a strong influence in both areas. In Classical Antiquity writers tell us that in this broad area a people they called Celts or Galls lived. They seemed to have a shared language and culture.

Votive offerings tend to begin after burial is replaced by cremation. The idea that practices "remained near identical" is false on the basis that they neither remained (ie were, from quite an early time, differentiated) nor did they become near identical. Halstatt and La Tene cultures (by which we mean material culture) does indeed have a strong influence but is, as I have said, differentiated - and so is almost certainly a passing on of ideas and techniques rather than populations. Especially given that the archaeological record does not support the sort of migration that would be expected with language change - especially in terms of the Iberian peninsula or the British isles. Nor does the most recent genetic evidence.

The ancient writers do NOT use the terms Celt and Gaul interchangeably - that came much later. I have provided examples to you of this. Could you, seeing as you keep repeating the same notion as if it is a given (axiomatic) truth please provide some evidence of this ancient interchangeable attribution, and of the many mentions of the Celtic language spoken by these people?

Perhaps when you begin to look for the evidence of this you will discover that it simply does not exist. This is what I have asked you to do, in case you forgot. Don't take my word for it. The evidence you believe is so firmly behind the 'Celtic Europe' narrative simply isn't what you think it is. I would ask you again to look and see for yourself just how weak the proposition actually is. Also, given that you seem to accept that the Celtic language is associated with Urnfield culture you might like to find any other language that has held together over such a large area, pretty much intact, for going on three millenia.

We can see differences in genetics, culture, language, and perhaps religion. We can also see similarities in these same areas.

Yes, well....that wouldn't be surprising given that PIE as a language probably also shared a cultural/religious heritage. That there are similarities in terms of language, culture and genetics is pretty much a given (if one follows the idea of migration from a PIE origin at some point into Europe). That there are differences is also to be expected given that different populations live in close contact with particular populations and not with the entirety of the population of Europe.

What reason do we have to divide them? Why do we need to assume one group more pure than the other? Does it or should it even matter?

What do you mean what reason do we have to divide them? Because they show differences would seem a pretty good reason. And what on Earth are you talking about with this purity BS? How many times have I referenced that the idea of ethnicity within mixed Europe is ridiculous ? As someone with a surname which comes from a Norman root, a republican Irish grandfather, a Grandmother from an established Scottish Jewish family and another Grandmother whose family were from Yemen..... which ludicrous notion of ethnicity do you think I give a flying fig about? This is about false attribution, about a long held but seriously flawed narrative that needs addressing. Not for some 'ethnic' purpose but because only by abandoning it, and seeing it for what it is can the right questions be asked. It is about looking at the evidence rather than holding onto some story because its comfortable.

Your statement that you are not nationalistically motivated in dividing the Eastern Complex of Celts from the Western Complex, however, does show that you are aware of the origins of that theory and their nationalistic bent.

No, it shows a recognition of the fact that too many times racial/nationalist agendas creep into discussions of the nature of the cultural and linguistic history of Europe (and elsewhere, for that matter) and that is something I am deeply uncomfortable with. I merely wished to highlight that any argument should be clear that this is not involved. Thanks.

Whether you theorize them as Dacian or German makes no difference to the argument.

Errrmm... I'm not sure I understand this in the slightest. Forgive me if I'm wrong but your argument seems now to have simply devolved to "it is Celtic and that's all there is to it". Surely what language was spoken is important, in terms of history; or perhaps no history is important. Isn't truth important, rather than the comfort of a narrative?

We have as many reasons to doubt the Celt were in Ireland as we do to doubt those in Bulgaria or Turkey. The only difference being that all the other Celts were wiped out or assimilated except in the far Northwest of Europe.

The Celts.....See, here I am talking about shared language and you are talking of an ethnicity. Weird.

All areas warrant closer examination. General theories that promote one over the other is not helpful. Let us just see what future discoveries show us.

The whole point of one theory over another is to examine the evidence, and if the evidence is more supportive of one argument then that is generally the one that might be seen to have the greater validity. I thought this was how most discussions or scientifically oriented thinking was judged.

[Fisherking]

Are you really proposing that the people named Celts by the Greeks were a different ethnicity?

Definition: An ethnic group is a group of people whose members are identified through a common trait. This can, but does not have to, include an idea of common heritage, a common culture, a shared language or dialect. The group's ethos or ideology may also stress common ancestry and religion, as opposed to an ethnic minority group which refers to race. The process that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis. Some ethnic groups are marked by little more than a common name.


These people came from a core area. They migrated to Italy from over the Alps. They supposedly also went to Greece from roughly the same start point. They spoke a Celtic or Gallish language. That was where it was named and identified for the first time.

If there was some mistake then it would have been in calling the insular peoples by the same general name. Since those in the east would be the original Celts, what do you propose to call the insular and or Atlantic grouping?

Is this a real argument or just a troll?

Do you know haw small the population shift was in the Neolithic? When it arrived in Ireland it was estimated at a 4% to 6% influx of new peoples. There is no massive movement anywhere.

Do you have a theory where 94 to 96% of a population decide to speak a new language? The Neolithic peoples arriving were farmers and herders, not a warrior elite.

You ask me for evidence of a Celtic language in the east and say when I look at evidence I may see something else.

Well, what evidence of Celtic language do you have that it was spoken in the British Isles 2500 years ago? I am to look at your material, and I have, yet you seem to have missed quite a lot of what I presented.

The archaeological record shows a slow spread of ideas, crops, and domesticated animals with perhaps in places population shifts of up to 10% but more often less than half that. We show a slow shift from hunter-gathering to farming.
This is the basis of the PIE Migration theory. The idea of language spread by Hallstatt and La Téne are no more challenged than the PIE theory.

In regards to Celt and Gaul, They are language differences only between Latin and Greek for a common people. Just like the modern country in Central Europe called Deutschland by its people, Germany by the English, and Alemanya in French. In English we have settled upon Celt for the people and Gaul as most of ancient France.

Am I to take it that since the people who showed up in the Balkans and migrated to Turkey and said to have come from the region of the source of the Danube (France, Switzerland, and South Germany) were not the same as those who stayed behind?

Do you argue that the Gauls didn’t speak a Celtic tongue?

It would be a bit difficult to prove that Gaulish is not a Celtic language.

Cunliffe cites these tribes as raiders from Gaul and Koch tell us that the Celtic language of Galatia was spoken until the 4th and possibly the 6th century AD.

If in isolation, they later mixed with other groups and their language underwent changes it does not mean their origins were other than outlined by the Greeks or Romans.

Most of the argument is circular and contradictory. It needs a clearer more concise explanation.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Are you really proposing that the people named Celts by the Greeks were a different ethnicity?

Definition: An ethnic group is a group of people whose members are identified through a common trait. This can, but does not have to, include an idea of common heritage, a common culture, a shared language or dialect. The group's ethos or ideology may also stress common ancestry and religion, as opposed to an ethnic minority group which refers to race. The process that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis. Some ethnic groups are marked by little more than a common name.


These people came from a core area. They migrated to Italy from over the Alps. They supposedly also went to Greece from roughly the same start point. They spoke a Celtic or Gallish language. That was where it was named and identified for the first time.

If there was some mistake then it would have been in calling the insular peoples by the same general name. Since those in the east would be the original Celts, what do you propose to call the insular and or Atlantic grouping?

Is this a real argument or just a troll?

Truly? You are really going to use this line? As I have asked you to do (and you clearly have not) you should check these ancient sources for yourself. I have provided examples. The Greeks did not refer to the invaders into their lands from the North as Celts, they referred to them as 'Gala'. It is only a later invention that leads to any alleged synonym between the two. I have provided you with two very clear sources which show that the Greeks understood the 'Celts' to be of Iberian origin. Please provide an ancient Greek source describing the invading people of the North as Celts. The tribe of the Celtici are to be found in.... South-West Iberia. Check the sources for yourself. The error was an un-attested agglomeration of two separate, distinct descriptions into one. The Greeks and Romans do not use the terms inter-changeably.

Do you know haw small the population shift was in the Neolithic? When it arrived in Ireland it was estimated at a 4% to 6% influx of new peoples. There is no massive movement anywhere.

I'd be interested to see the source for that, as it seems a very certain figure, one which I would like to know how it has been calculated. I think the general view is that it is very difficult to know what sort of population change took place during this time; so to give a percentage figure is remarkable. Could you cite the source for this please?

Do you have a theory where 94 to 96% of a population decide to speak a new language? The Neolithic peoples arriving were farmers and herders, not a warrior elite.

So you are arguing that PIE was already in existence prior to the Neolithic....? And you think Koch, Cunliffe et al are 'fringe'?

You ask me for evidence of a Celtic language in the east and say when I look at evidence I may see something else.

Well, what evidence of Celtic language do you have that it was spoken in the British Isles 2500 years ago? I am to look at your material, and I have, yet you seem to have missed quite a lot of what I presented.

In case you missed it, I'm not convinced that a Celtic language was spoken in the British Isles 2,500 years ago - certainly not in all of the British Isles, though I am prepared to accept that parts were Celtic in language.

The archaeological record shows a slow spread of ideas, crops, and domesticated animals with perhaps in places population shifts of up to 10% but more often less than half that. We show a slow shift from hunter-gathering to farming.
This is the basis of the PIE Migration theory. The idea of language spread by Hallstatt and La Téne are no more challenged than the PIE theory.

As I say, I'm interested in the source for these migration figures. Language is not spread by material culture, full stop. I would love to see the argument that can have a material edifice pass on the power of language (other than a book, of course).

Am I to take it that since the people who showed up in the Balkans and migrated to Turkey and said to have come from the region of the source of the Danube (France, Switzerland, and South Germany) were not the same as those who stayed behind?

No, and I don't see how you could come to that conclusion, given that I was talking of the similarities of the languages of the Galatians and the Treveri; and that the writer was specific about that link and did not say like the language of Gaul. The question is whether Gaulish was the same as that language.

Do you argue that the Gauls didn’t speak a Celtic tongue?

Which 'Gauls' are you referring to? Do you mean the wide-ranging Northern invaders who the Greeks called Gala, or those living in what the Romans came to call (as a geographical area) Gala? Is there a difference? Almost certainly.

It would be a bit difficult to prove that Gaulish is not a Celtic language.

As it happens its a bit difficult to prove that it is a Celtic language, in fact it was difficult to say very much about it until it was propped up by external sources which were presumed to be the same language. Much of the lexical basis of Gaulish is drawn from Galatian; there is a great deal of circular argumkent that has gone on here.

Most of the argument is circular and contradictory. It needs a clearer more concise explanation.

Quite the opposite. I will say it once again. Check the ancient sources for yourself. They do not refer to the Celts and Gauls as being one and the same. They clearly place the Celts in the Iberian peninsula. Tartessian is the earliest written Celtic language. That simply does not fit with the alleged spread of this group of languages from a central European, Danubian, base. The circular logic is entirely in the realms of the 'Celtic from central Europe' proposition. It was an un-evidenced link from the start and has taken on a life of its own, which lacks any real cogency. In an argument about the origins and spread of a language you have described a peoples, you have extrapolated a language 6000 years old with one 2,500 years old, consistently inter-changed the terms Gaul and Celt and demanded (without checking the sources) that this is how the Greeks and Romans told it. That isn't surprising because that is the extent of the 'argument' - it is a muddled hotch-potch of distracting and incoherent hubris. If you can't even be bothered to check this stuff out for yourself then please refrain from accusing others of potentially trolling.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

In terms of what both Koch and Cunliffe have had to say in the past with regards to the historicity of the Celts; that they are prepared now to overturn years of their own work, albeit cautiously and with a deal of circumspection, says a great deal of how much value they put upon the new ideas and evidence they are uncovering. It is difficult enough to fly in the face of such an entrenched idea, but even more admirable when it is one's own long-term work that is being put into question.

[Fisherking]

The information on the migratory impacts in certain regions comes from the very same sources that were used in Celts from the West and Facing the Ocean.

You can search them out as I have done trying to reconcile what others have said about the book and its theory with what you have said about the book and its theory.

In the last few week I have researched the book and the research behind the book. I know what the ancient sources said and playing scrabble with the names is a touch silly.

I might have even read the book had it not had a price tag of over €150.00. That is a bit more than my monthly reading budget.


Herodotus

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Book 2: On the Ister (Danube)
XXXIII. This is enough of the story told by Etearchus the Ammonian; except he said that the Nasamonians returned, as the men of Cyrene told me, and that the people to whose country they came were all wizards; [2] as to the river that ran past the city, Etearchus guessed it to be the Nile; and reason proves as much. For the Nile flows from Libya, right through the middle of it; and as I guess, reasoning about things unknown from visible signs, it rises proportionally as far away as does the Ister. [3] For the Ister flows from the land of the Celts and the city of Pyrene through the very middle of Europe; now the Celts live beyond the Pillars of Heracles, being neighbors of the Cynesii, who are the westernmost of all the peoples inhabiting Europe. [4] The Ister, then, flows clean across Europe and ends its course in the Euxine sea, at Istria, which is inhabited by Milesian colonists.


33. Of the account given by Etearchos the Ammonian let so much suffice as is here said, except that, as the men of Kyrene told me, he alleged that the Nasamonians returned safe home, and that the people to whom they had come were all wizards. Now this river which ran by the city, Etearchos conjectured to be the Nile, and moreover reason compels us to think so; for the Nile flows from Libya and cuts Libya through in the midst, and as I conjecture, judging of what is not known by that which is evident to the view, it starts at a distance from its mouth equal to that of the Ister: for the river Ister begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that it divides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillars of Heracles and border upon the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset of all those who have their dwelling in Europe); and the Ister ends, having its course through the whole of Europe, by flowing into the Euxine Sea at the place where the Milesians have their settlement of Istria.



33. [1] ὁ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου Ἐτεάρχου λόγος ἐς τοῦτό μοι δεδηλώσθω, πλὴν ὅτι ἀπονοστῆσαί τε ἔφασκε τοὺς Νασαμῶνας, ὡς οἱ Κυρηναῖοι ἔλεγον, καὶ ἐς τοὺς οὗτοι ἀπίκοντο ἀνθρώπους, γόητας εἶναι ἅπαντας. [2] τὸν δὲ δὴ ποταμὸν τοῦτον τὸν παραρρέοντα καὶ Ἐτέαρχος συνεβάλλετο εἶναι Νεῖλον, καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος οὕτω αἱρέει. ῥέει γὰρ ἐκ Λιβύης ὁ Νεῖλος καὶ μέσην τάμνων Λιβύην, καὶ ὡς ἐγὼ συμβάλλομαι τοῖσι ἐμφανέσι τὰ μὴ γινωσκόμενα τεκμαιρόμενος, τῷ Ἴστρῳ ἐκ τῶν ἴσων μέτρων ὁρμᾶται. [3] Ἴστρος τε γὰρ ποταμὸς ἀρξάμενος ἐκ Κελτῶν καὶ Πυρήνης πόλιος ῥέει μέσην σχίζων τὴν Εὐρώπην· οἱ δὲ Κελτοὶ εἰσὶ ἔξω Ἡρακλέων στηλέων, ὁμουρέουσι δὲ Κυνησίοισι, οἳ ἔσχατοι πρὸς δυσμέων οἰκέουσι τῶν ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ κατοικημένων· [4] τελευτᾷ δὲ ὁ Ἴστρος ἐς θάλασσαν ῥέων τὴν τοῦ Εὐξείνου πόντου διὰ πάσης Εὐρώπης, τῇ Ἰστρίην οἱ Μιλησίων οἰκέουσι ἄποικοι.#


city of Pyrene: The Heuneburg is a prehistoric hillfort by the upper Danube. It is located in Hundersingen near Herbertingen, between Ulm and Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is considered one of the most important early Celtic centres in Central Europe. Apart from the fortified citadel, there are extensive remains of settlements and burial areas spanning several centuries.
He got some rite and some wrong. Celts did go from the sources of the Danube to western Spain but the Nile is not in Libya.

It is also a bit mean spirited to criticize a theory you have not read and don’t know the research behind. But I suppose it made for a good “cheap shot”.

The PCP is an older and more fleshed out theory than what the one from the book is. Researching the research led me to it. I have some links to it in previous posts and you might find it interesting, or a least entertaining.

As for Celts from the West, I am done with it. I have spent too much time already.

Also on the genetics, you may wish to read, Languages, Genes, and Cultures. That should about do it.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The information on the migratory impacts in certain regions comes from the very same sources that were used in Celts from the West and Facing the Ocean.

You can search them out as I have done trying to reconcile what others have said about the book and its theory with what you have said about the book and its theory.

In the last few week I have researched the book and the research behind the book. I know what the ancient sources said and playing scrabble with the names is a touch silly.

I might have even read the book had it not had a price tag of over €150.00. That is a bit more than my monthly reading budget.

You clearly don't know what the ancients said, and still you have not offered any example of the interchangeability of the terms Keltoi and Gala from those writers.

What do you mean the very same sources, can you name the sources or not. Neither Cunliffe or Koch make such over-reaching claims as you have here (ie putting any sort of percentage figures in terms of migration from 6000-7000 years in the past)

Herodotus

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Book 2: On the Ister (Danube)
XXXIII. This is enough of the story told by Etearchus the Ammonian; except he said that the Nasamonians returned, as the men of Cyrene told me, and that the people to whose country they came were all wizards; [2] as to the river that ran past the city, Etearchus guessed it to be the Nile; and reason proves as much. For the Nile flows from Libya, right through the middle of it; and as I guess, reasoning about things unknown from visible signs, it rises proportionally as far away as does the Ister. [3] For the Ister flows from the land of the Celts and the city of Pyrene through the very middle of Europe; now the Celts live beyond the Pillars of Heracles, being neighbors of the Cynesii, who are the westernmost of all the peoples inhabiting Europe. [4] The Ister, then, flows clean across Europe and ends its course in the Euxine sea, at Istria, which is inhabited by Milesian colonists.


33. Of the account given by Etearchos the Ammonian let so much suffice as is here said, except that, as the men of Kyrene told me, he alleged that the Nasamonians returned safe home, and that the people to whom they had come were all wizards. Now this river which ran by the city, Etearchos conjectured to be the Nile, and moreover reason compels us to think so; for the Nile flows from Libya and cuts Libya through in the midst, and as I conjecture, judging of what is not known by that which is evident to the view, it starts at a distance from its mouth equal to that of the Ister: for the river Ister begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that it divides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillars of Heracles and border upon the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset of all those who have their dwelling in Europe); and the Ister ends, having its course through the whole of Europe, by flowing into the Euxine Sea at the place where the Milesians have their settlement of Istria.



33. [1] ὁ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου Ἐτεάρχου λόγος ἐς τοῦτό μοι δεδηλώσθω, πλὴν ὅτι ἀπονοστῆσαί τε ἔφασκε τοὺς Νασαμῶνας, ὡς οἱ Κυρηναῖοι ἔλεγον, καὶ ἐς τοὺς οὗτοι ἀπίκοντο ἀνθρώπους, γόητας εἶναι ἅπαντας. [2] τὸν δὲ δὴ ποταμὸν τοῦτον τὸν παραρρέοντα καὶ Ἐτέαρχος συνεβάλλετο εἶναι Νεῖλον, καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος οὕτω αἱρέει. ῥέει γὰρ ἐκ Λιβύης ὁ Νεῖλος καὶ μέσην τάμνων Λιβύην, καὶ ὡς ἐγὼ συμβάλλομαι τοῖσι ἐμφανέσι τὰ μὴ γινωσκόμενα τεκμαιρόμενος, τῷ Ἴστρῳ ἐκ τῶν ἴσων μέτρων ὁρμᾶται. [3] Ἴστρος τε γὰρ ποταμὸς ἀρξάμενος ἐκ Κελτῶν καὶ Πυρήνης πόλιος ῥέει μέσην σχίζων τὴν Εὐρώπην· οἱ δὲ Κελτοὶ εἰσὶ ἔξω Ἡρακλέων στηλέων, ὁμουρέουσι δὲ Κυνησίοισι, οἳ ἔσχατοι πρὸς δυσμέων οἰκέουσι τῶν ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ κατοικημένων· [4] τελευτᾷ δὲ ὁ Ἴστρος ἐς θάλασσαν ῥέων τὴν τοῦ Εὐξείνου πόντου διὰ πάσης Εὐρώπης, τῇ Ἰστρίην οἱ Μιλησίων οἰκέουσι ἄποικοι.#

city of Pyrene: The Heuneburg is a prehistoric hillfort by the upper Danube. It is located in Hundersingen near Herbertingen, between Ulm and Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is considered one of the most important early Celtic centres in Central Europe. Apart from the fortified citadel, there are extensive remains of settlements and burial areas spanning several centuries.
He got some rite and some wrong. Celts did go from the sources of the Danube to western Spain but the Nile is not in Libya.

Ridiculous. The city of Pyrene, firstly, can not be simply equated with Heuneburg (there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that link, but here we have the kind of woolly thinking that has lead to the notion that we seem stuck with, regardless of the evidence), but that is a mere side issue. Yes, Herodotus has his geography wrong with regards to the source of the Danube. How do we know that? Well we know it because he says it flows through the lands of the Keltoi but then, very clearly, tells us that the Keltoi live beyond the Pillars of Heracles. In what way does that suggest that the Heuneburg is to be equated as having anything to do with the Keltoi? It doesn't. It is as simple as that.

(And, btw, Libya does not equate with the modern country of Libya, but is instead a geographical term meaning, essentially, Africa)

It is also a bit mean spirited to criticize a theory you have not read and don’t know the research behind. But I suppose it made for a good “cheap shot”.

It was the story that I have been familiar with for years, and had no reason to doubt until I started to look at the evidence...

The PCP is an older and more fleshed out theory than what the one from the book is. Researching the research led me to it. I have some links to it in previous posts and you might find it interesting, or a least entertaining.

Fleshed out with nothing much, certainly not evidence. You have failed to show sources for information, failed to provide evidence for the claims of what you seem to believe the ancients have told us (and it seems clear you have not bothered to check them) so it comes as no surprise that you finish with....

As for Celts from the West, I am done with it. I have spent too much time already.

I thank you for the discussion, which I started in order to discover if I was missing something; some hard evidence I had overlooked; something substantial that actually accumulated to an evidenced proposition. It transpires that no such argument exists.


By the way, did you mean this http://www.ecares.org/ecare/personal...0.genes....pdf ?

If so, I'm not sure what it's supposed to show me. Much of the conjecture is highly debate-able, as the author notes. What about the spread of the Celtic language am I supposed to glean from that?

[Fisherking]

Sorry, wrong book. It was accidental, that one is only in Italian.

What I actually meant to recommend was: Population Dynamics in Prehistory and Early History:
I am pretty sure that since it is an interdisciplinary team you can find more members than just those two. Look at who did the work on genetics and migratory patterns.
I didn‘t link Pyrene with anything. Archeology did that. I just did a search using the name. Guess what came up?
My guess would be the age of the settlement and that it was on a major trade route.
I am not the one who drew the map of his idea of Europe and Africa either. You welcome to research the source material on that too.

My guess is that now there will be a new book where Koch shows that the 120 Galician names and words know are no longer Celtic. Of course that may be a bit more difficult to prove than just taking his word for it.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Sorry, wrong book. It was accidental, that one is only in Italian.

What I actually meant to recommend was: Population Dynamics in Prehistory and Early History:
I am pretty sure that since it is an interdisciplinary team you can find more members than just those two. Look at who did the work on genetics and migratory patterns.

I shall look it up, always interested in information and ideas. Cheers.

I didn‘t link Pyrene with anything. Archeology did that.

Archaeology does not link Pyrene with Heuneburg. Given the name it may refer to somewhere near what we know as the Pyrennes, or it may be Heuneburg, but archaeology does not make a link between Pyrene and Heuneburg.

I just did a search using the name. Guess what came up?
My guess would be the age of the settlement and that it was on a major trade route.
I am not the one who drew the map of his idea of Europe and Africa either. You welcome to research the source material on that too.

And I'll bet that the links that you found probably claim a far greater surety to the link between Pyrene and Heuneburg than actually exists. The guess that you make would rest upon firm evidence only if one were to believe that the Heuneburg site was at this time the only major settlement on a major trade route between Spain and Miletos. How likely do you think that is.

But,, whether Pyrene is there or some other place is, ultimately, irrelevant in terms of placing the Keltoi, for it is Pyrene that Herodotus links with the Keltoi. He very clearly places them beyond the pillars of Hercules.

My guess is that now there will be a new book where Koch shows that the 120 Galician names and words know are no longer Celtic. Of course that may be a bit more difficult to prove than just taking his word for it.

And this is the weirdest thing about this 'argument'. How has it come to be that one must 'disprove' something that was never evidenced, let alone 'proven' in the first place. It's a bit like demanding that we prove that the Romans aren't related to Aeneus of Troy, or that Caesar isn't related to the Gods. Just because somebody made up a story, on a rather flimsy and misunderstood basis, and that has been extrapolated over time, does not make that story true.

By the way, do you mean Galatian? Galician is a language spoken in Spain. I'm going to assume you mean Galatian. So the question really is; On what basis is the language of the Galatians, linked specifically with the Treveri, in any way evidenced as Celtic. Let's put that question into perspective. The Keltoi are placed beyond the pillars of Hercules; as the mercenaries of the un-warlike Tartessians (ie of Iberian origin); there is no placing of the Keltoi in the Danube basis, at any point by any ancient writer; the earliest written Celtic is to be found in South-West of the Iberian peninsula (precisely where Herodotus tells us we will find them) prior to the expansion of Halstatt material culture. There is, in fact, no reason to link the two languages - other than a PIE base.

[Fisherking]

The link between Pyrene and Heuneburg is speculation. You can see that from my link. I didn‘t over do it, all I did was report it. Please don‘t shoot the messenger. Then again, much of what we are discussing is based on speculation especially when we are told to credit some sources and discredit others without a clear picture as to why.

For the life of me I can not figure out why anyone supposed to be a scholar of such topics would have used the quote from Herodotus to show anything on this topic.

Hecataeus of Miletus was the first to mention the Celts, whom he placed near “Massilia”(Marseille). http://mappery.com/map-of/Hecataeus-World-Map

The quote used is not to show the location of the Celts but to promote his theory of symmetry between the continents. He is not moving them to Iberia. http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/herodotus_map.gif He just places them on the Atlantic Coast.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of those suggesting it.

On the names that the Greeks and Romans used for the Celts, could you provide some deeper insight into where they appear to be of peoples other than them and the document they are drawn from?

I have not run across or found any references to anything along those lines, and as it seems to be an important part of the argument it would be helpful were it clearly shown.

Most of the ancient authors place the Celts at once in the region of the source of the Danube and on the Atlantic Coast. They were renowned as mercenaries and used in Mediterranean wars as early as the 4th century BC. They are written about in their expansion into the Balkans and as mercenaries in the wars of others, to include in the Peloponnesian War, along with Iberians and others. Is it surprising that people, presumably with a sense of geography and direction, might consider raiding or expanding into areas of fabled wealth? We know they traded with them. Should we doubt that they could find them? Should we doubt they were of sufficient warlike disposition to raid or expand in other directions?

This is the part that is most baffling. I can agree that there is sufficient reason to examine a western origin of the Celts but can’t understand the reason to doubt those who move eastward as different from those who stayed closer to home.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The link between Pyrene and Heuneburg is speculation. You can see that from my link. I didn‘t over do it, all I did was report it. Please don‘t shoot the messenger.

But what you said was; "city of Pyrene: The Heuneburg is a prehistoric hillfort by the upper Danube. It is located in Hundersingen near Herbertingen, between Ulm and Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is considered one of the most important early Celtic centres in Central Europe. Apart from the fortified citadel, there are extensive remains of settlements and burial areas spanning several centuries. "

When I questioned the validity of the link you stated that; "I didn‘t link Pyrene with anything. Archeology did that. "

At no point do you make clear that it is simply conjecture, you presented it as a firm argument.

Then again, much of what we are discussing is based on speculation especially when we are told to credit some sources and discredit others without a clear picture as to why.

The odd thing is I have not presented any case where we should discount a historical source. You are the only one who seems to question the sources, and you seem to be quite felicitous in your approach to this. You were, for example, keen to show how Herodotus may have got some wrong but got some of it right when convinced that Pyrene=Heuneburg appeared to confirm a Celtic origin of Heuneburg, but now you argue that;

For the life of me I can not figure out why anyone supposed to be a scholar of such topics would have used the quote from Herodotus to show anything on this topic.

Id say that we should always use the sources within context, and Herodotus is not alone in placing the Keltoi within the same area of the first known written Celtic language...

Hecataeus of Miletus was the first to mention the Celts, whom he placed near “Massilia”(Marseille). http://mappery.com/map-of/Hecataeus-World-Map

What Hecataeus says is that Massilia is within the lands of the Ligurs and near to the Keltoi, you are right. And where does he place those Keltoi? Narbo, he says, is a town of the Keltoi. This does not at all detract from the argument being made (and in fact is in keeping with another ancient source, Caesar, who describes the partitioning of 'Gaul' and that only in Gaul Proper do the people call themselves Keltoi.)

The Atlantic contact zone during the spread of the Bell beaker is highlighted by three major zones; thew Tagus river(SW Iberian peninsula), the Morbihan (Southern armorica) and, via the Garonne axis, the North-West mediterranean - (as well as Southern England, the Paris Basin and in an area to the North-West of the Rhine) As I have said, I don't discount that Gaulish is likely a Celtic language.

The quote used is not to show the location of the Celts but to promote his theory of symmetry between the continents. He is not moving them to Iberia. http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/herodotus_map.gif He just places them on the Atlantic Coast.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of those suggesting it.

He places them beyond the pillars of Hercules, that is, very clearly, in Iberia. I'm not sure how you can argue that stating (from a Greek perspective) beyond the pillars of Hercules could mean somewhere other than Iberia. Perhaps you could explain how you have come to this conclusion.

On the names that the Greeks and Romans used for the Celts, could you provide some deeper insight into where they appear to be of peoples other than them and the document they are drawn from?

Yes, as usual I will provide the sources and you can keep ignoring any suggestion that you might provide the counter-evidence (ie where we find ancient authors describe any Northern invaders/Danubians as Celtic, or a clear pattern whereby we might deduce that the ancient authors used the terms Keltoi and Galla as synonymous)

Not only does Herodotus place the Keltoi where he does, Strabo (3.1.6) gives us; "The sea-coast next the Sacred Promontory forms on one side the commencement of the western coast of Spain as far as the outlet of the river Tagus; and on the other forms the southern coast as far as the outlet of another river, named the Guadiana. Both of these rivers descend from the eastern parts [of Spain]; but the former, which is much larger than the other, pursues a straight course towards the west, while the Guadiana bends its course towards the south. They enclose an extent of country peopled for the most part by Kelts and certain Lusitanians, whom the Romans caused to settle here from the opposite side of the Tagus."

He goes on to tell us (3.2.15) that; "Along with the happy lot of their country, the qualities of both gentleness and civility have come to the Turdetanians; and to the Celtic peoples, too, on account of their being neighbours to the Turdetanians, as Polybius has said, or else on account of their kinship; but less so the Celtic peoples, because for the most part they live in mere villages. The Turdetanians, however, and particularly those that live about the Baetis, have completely changed over to the Roman mode of life, not even remembering their own language any more. And most of them have become Latins,and they have received Romans as colonists, so that they are not far from being all Romans. And the present jointly-settled cities, Pax Augusta in the Celtic country,"

Strabo, again (3.3.5) "Last of all come the Artabrians, who live in the neighbourhood of the cape called Nerium, which is the end of both the western and the northern side of Iberia. But the country round about the cape itself is inhabited by Celtic people, kinsmen of those on the Anas; for these people and the Turdulians made an expedition thither and then had a quarrel, it is said, after they had crossed the Limaeas River; and when, in addition to the quarrel, the Celtic peoples also suffered the loss of their chieftain, they scattered and stayed there"

From Pliny ; "Celticos a Celtiberis ex Lusitania advenisse manifestum est sacris, lingua, oppidorum vocabulis, quae cognominibus in Baetica distinguntur." (Celts from Celtiberi and from Lusitania are evidennced by their rites, language and the names of their towns which are distinguished from the names of Baetica)

The first use of the self-references of Celticos is to be found in Spain.

I have not run across or found any references to anything along those lines, and as it seems to be an important part of the argument it would be helpful were it clearly shown.

This, as I have hinted at above, is a strange request. Is it not, rather, incumbent upon you to show some text that pertains to the Celt/Gaul synonym that you claim is widespread in ancient sources? Should you not easily be able to find an example or two.

Most of the ancient authors place the Celts at once in the region of the source of the Danube and on the Atlantic Coast.

Do they? Could you, then, provide an example - as this is something attributable to most of the ancient authors this should not be too difficult to do.

This is the part that is most baffling. I can agree that there is sufficient reason to examine a western origin of the Celts but can’t understand the reason to doubt those who move eastward as different from those who stayed closer to home.

I think the question, really, should be; on what basis should they be linked? What makes you think that they did move East (at least, as far as the Danube) and that the Danubian culture is not a separate entity? The ancient authors do not, despite your claims to the contrary (and the fact that you cannot find any reference to this effect by any ancient author ought to be getting you to ask the questions yourself) refer to Celts from the Danube. They simply do not. You have simply defined the term 'Gaul' as equivalent - still without providing any reference as to why that link should be made.

[Fisherking]

But what you said was; "city of Pyrene: The Heuneburg is a prehistoric hillfort by the upper Danube. It is located in Hundersingen near Herbertingen, between Ulm and Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is considered one of the most important early Celtic centres in Central Europe. Apart from the fortified citadel, there are extensive remains of settlements and burial areas spanning several centuries. "

When I questioned the validity of the link you stated that; "I didn‘t link Pyrene with anything. Archeology did that. "

At no point do you make clear that it is simply conjecture, you presented it as a firm argument.

Then you should have read to the end where it actually mentions the city of Pyrene.

The odd thing is I have not presented any case where we should discount a historical source. You are the only one who seems to question the sources, and you seem to be quite felicitous in your approach to this. You were, for example, keen to show how Herodotus may have got some wrong but got some of it right when convinced that Pyrene=Heuneburg appeared to confirm a Celtic origin of Heuneburg, but now you argue that;

No not exactly. The book does that by using selected sources while ignoring others that would disagree.

You wish to place Pyrene in the Pyrenees because they sound similar but it was a city the Greeks traded with at the time. The location is speculation to support the theory of Herodotus, that the Danube and Nile are of equal length. Reread the passage carefully.

Id say that we should always use the sources within context,…

Yes, that is what I mean.

the river Ister begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that it divides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillars of Heracles and border upon the Kynesians

World according to Herodotus: http://www.mediterranees.net/geograp.../spruner2.html or: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...-en.svg&page=1

Also the sources of the Danube, Rhone, Rhine and Po are in close proximity to one another. All within about a 60 km radius IIRC. We know who occupied this location. They were Celts. Caesar places them there. Also Livy and those before him have them moving from here into the Po valley. La Téne is in the same area. All you need do is look.

He places them beyond the pillars of Hercules, that is, very clearly, in Iberia.

No it is not very clear as the maps show. Outside the pillars of Hercules is a large area not limited to Iberia. Gaul at once lies within and without of the pillars of Hercules.

It is interesting that you quote Caesar and Strabo in these examples because they are also sources for Celts further east. Perhaps Professor Koch failed to tell you this in the book. You might wish to see what they say.

You have in a number of posts also said that the Greeks and Romans somehow confuse the Celts with others or translations were mishandled. I asked you for examples of this assertion and to clarify.

Then you say:

This, as I have hinted at above, is a strange request. Is it not, rather, incumbent upon you to show some text that pertains to the Celt/Gaul synonym that you claim is widespread in ancient sources? Should you not easily be able to find an example or two.

This is what I mean by circular argument. My research is done and you have shown me no reason to change my conclusions.

You have said the eastern Celtic complex is not Celtic or not Celtic enough but you have offered no clear evidence as to why not. This is the sticking point.

With whom did Alexander make a treaty? Who was the opposing side at the battle of Thermopylae? What people attacked Delphi? Who occupied Galatia?
Pausanias and Junianus Justinus, say the Gauls, what do you say?

The argument about the Volcae is circular. Linguists say it is Celtic and you argue it is German. They attributed the German word to Celtic origins and you say otherwise. To say it is German is too weak to credit, as were the other examples you noted.

I guess we are stuck until Koch writes the next book.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Then you should have read to the end where it actually mentions the city of Pyrene.

I'm not sure I follow you. I made the point that you made the argument Pyrene=Heuneburg as if it were a fait accompli. I didn't ram home the point that this is a regular feature of the pan-European Celtic narrative; assume a link and just go with it. In terms of the actual argument, as I pointed out (and will elucidate again below) it doesn't actually matter whether Pyrene=Heuneburg or not, because the Keltoi are not placed by Herodotus at Pyrene.

No not exactly. The book does that by using selected sources while ignoring others that would disagree.

This is a claim you have made on numerous occassions yet have, when challenged, failed to provide any of these sources which are allegedly being ignored.

You wish to place Pyrene in the Pyrenees because they sound similar but it was a city the Greeks traded with at the time. The location is speculation to support the theory of Herodotus, that the Danube and Nile are of equal length. Reread the passage carefully.

Nope, this is pure obfuscation. As I said before (and I quote myself merely to highlight that this is already extant within the discussion); "but that is a mere side issue. Yes, Herodotus has his geography wrong with regards to the source of the Danube. How do we know that? Well we know it because he says it flows through the lands of the Keltoi but then, very clearly, tells us that the Keltoi live beyond the Pillars of Heracles. In what way does that suggest that the Heuneburg is to be equated as having anything to do with the Keltoi? It doesn't. It is as simple as that. "

In other words the location of Pyrene in the Pyrenese or in Heuneburg is completely irrelevent to the argument. Herodotus does not place the Keltoi in Pyrene.

Yes, that is what I mean. World according to Herodotus: http://www.mediterranees.net/geograp.../spruner2.html or: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...-en.svg&page=1

Also the sources of the Danube, Rhone, Rhine and Po are in close proximity to one another. All within about a 60 km radius IIRC. We know who occupied this location. They were Celts. Caesar places them there. Also Livy and those before him have them moving from here into the Po valley. La Téne is in the same area. All you need do is look.

Caesar is very explicit in placing those who call themselves keltoi in a particular portion of Gaul, he does not place them in the Danube basin. This is just out and out wrong. Also Livy (and those before him) have the Gauls moving from there into the Po valley. Given that you earlier accepted that the synonym Gaul=Celt is important to the argument ("I have not run across or found any references to anything along those lines, and as it seems to be an important part of the argument it would be helpful were it clearly shown" - post #43) it seems odd that you should so quickly forget.

No it is not very clear as the maps show. Outside the pillars of Hercules is a large area not limited to Iberia. Gaul at once lies within and without of the pillars of Hercules.

Firstly, this is...clutching. Beyond the pillars of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar) is a very straight-forward geographical locator. Further, you confirm that it is important to take other sources into account (as I suggested as a reason for believing the source) and then completely ignore the other sources that I provided which support that geographical location. What gives?

It is interesting that you quote Caesar and Strabo in these examples because they are also sources for Celts further east. Perhaps Professor Koch failed to tell you this in the book. You might wish to see what they say.

In the Danube? really? Then, yes, perhaps you could provide me with these revelatory sources. I have already mentioned where Caesar talks of the Celts.

You have in a number of posts also said that the Greeks and Romans somehow confuse the Celts with others or translations were mishandled. I asked you for examples of this assertion and to clarify.

No, I have said that the Romans and Greeks refer to Gauls and Celts as separate and that any synonym is a more recent phenomenon. You seemed to have understood this earlier (and asked for evidence, which I provided and has been utterly ignored by you). You, on the other hand, claim that the terms Gaul and Celt were interchangeable terms used by the ancient writers and yet have consistently 'refused' (failed) to provide any evidence of such.

This is what I mean by circular argument. My research is done and you have shown me no reason to change my conclusions.

Your research is done but you have not deigned to share any of it here, it seems. The circularity is in continuously claiming something without providing any evidence for the claim, demanding in return evidence which, when given, you entirely fail to address.

You have said the eastern Celtic complex is not Celtic or not Celtic enough but you have offered no clear evidence as to why not. This is the sticking point.

Really? Really?

With whom did Alexander make a treaty? Who was the opposing side at the battle of Thermopylae? What people attacked Delphi? Who occupied Galatia?
Pausanias and Junianus Justinus, say the Gauls, what do you say?

Eeermm.. the Gauls. What these sources do not say is (and this is, as you seemed able to recognise earlier, an important part of the argument) the Celts.

The argument about the Volcae is circular. Linguists say it is Celtic and you argue it is German. They attributed the German word to Celtic origins and you say otherwise. To say it is German is too weak to credit, as were the other examples you noted.

No, you really don't get how convoluted and illogical the argument for the Celtic root of volcae is, and especially how that contortion is extended to show a Celtic root for a Germanic term which has a perfectly logical internal root. And this 'uolc' is found...where else in the Celtic languages? The root for Volk is proposed as proto-germanic fulkas without any PIE cognate. This seems to ignore the Roman vulgares. But it is precisely because so much effort is put into showing a Celtic form that is a block on linguistic studies within, particularly, central Europe. Have you forgotten Hal as a root for salt? Have you discovered where this Celtic root is to be found anywhere else except after the much later Welsh sound-shift?

[Fisherking]

Look, you are defending the theories set out in the book, are you not?

You have read the book and either own it or have access to it. I do not.

Some parts of what you have said are contained in the book I take issue with.

While I have provided sources, links, and authors that would contradict, at least in part, the theories, as you have explained them, I need not have. I am not writing a paper or going to publish it as a work of peer review.

You, on the other hand have given a few passages and endeavored to explain some of the linguistics. You gave me one link to Koch’s paper on Tartessian.

You should have access to all the citations and foot notes of the book.

I would like an explanation as to why we should no longer count the tribal confederations of the Boii and Volcae as Celtic or Gaulish. To me there is a link between the two terms. We seem to have per Caesar some tribes calling themselves Celts. We also know the Irish, who are deemed to speak a Celtic language call themselves Gaels, which is close enough to Gaul to suit.

Show something disembogues that these peoples were different enough to be excluded from what we think of as Celts and why they should be excluded from the club.

Now for a pyridine shift you need something more than niggling and nit picking over small linguistic differences. This also means we remove Noric and Galatian from the list of Celtic languages and I think you hinted at Lepontic as well.

As you seemingly doubt Celts at he headwaters of the Danube, dose this also mean that the Halvetii were other than Celtic?

Who is left and why should we think of them as the only Celtic peoples?

As to linguistics, a large part of it is no more than speculation. Educated guesswork but none the less it is speculative and reaches conclusions without definitive proof, in large part.

Hall or Hal in Central Europe is a hyponym related to salt. The region was inhabited by people believed to be Celts. The conclusion was that the Welsh later arrived at an approximation of the same term. All based on ancient unwritten language is speculation. All of the supposed Indo-European is speculative. So, one speculation does not over rule another just because of disagreement.

On the other hand we have other sources with link these people at least in common terms. We exclude the Ligures as Celts based on Strabo, Geography, book 2, chapter 5, section 28, because he says they appear to be a different race but live a Celtic lifestyle. He doesn’t mention language. None the less many authors refer to their tribes at least as Celtic-Ligures. The others we link to Celts or Gauls on the same grounds, because they say they were. Disagreements are speculative.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

While I have provided sources, links, and authors that would contradict, at least in part, the theories, as you have explained them, I need not have. I am not writing a paper or going to publish it as a work of peer review.

That's just it though, you haven't provided any corroboration to any of the most basic foundations of the narrative that you insist is the 'truth'. You have consistently claimed that most ancient authors regularly use the terms Gaul/Gala and Celt/Keltoi interchangeably and yet - despite this allegedly huge expanse of such evidence - you have not provided one example.

You say that you don't have to, but yet have been clear in demanding such from me, which I have regularly provided. Generally when this has been provided you have completely ignored it and gone off on some other tangent. I have taken part in many such discussions, where one side demands evidence, receives and ignores it and then relates that they are under no obligation to provide anything themselves. Of course this is your right, but it rather weakens your position as being an argument rather than simply an entrenched view which you are unwilling to question.

You claim that;"For the life of me I can not figure out why anyone supposed to be a scholar of such topics would have used the quote from Herodotus to show anything on this topic."

and yet you claim to understand the basis for the 'Celts from the East'; the whole basis of the narrative is a misunderstanding of Herodotus' passage as placing the Celts in the Danube basin. The early authors of this narrative picked up on the spread of Halstatt and La Tene material artefacts across Europe and put two and two together and came up with fifty (which is my way of implying an extrapolation of evidence beyond its countenance). They boiled this idea up on the basis of ideas of their own time - a time of Empires - that indigenous populations do not change except through forced acculturation, and so we had the notion of a powerful central Halstatt 'Kingdom' expanding into the rest of Europe. The narrative is based upon these ideas. These ideas are not borne out by archaeological, historical or genetic evidence. Any form of power bases within the region were based upon control of trade, and were short-lived (sometimes only a generation or two); there is no evidence of significant migrations at this time.

What's odd about this narrative is that it is held so firmly without actually making much sense. There is a wide spread of Etruscan, Greek and later Roman goods throughout Europe, yet it is not argued that the people receiving these goods became 'ethnically', culturally or linguistically Etruscan, Greek or Roman.

I would like an explanation as to why we should no longer count the tribal confederations of the Boii and Volcae as Celtic or Gaulish. To me there is a link between the two terms. We seem to have per Caesar some tribes calling themselves Celts. We also know the Irish, who are deemed to speak a Celtic language call themselves Gaels, which is close enough to Gaul to suit.

First of all you ask me a question that makes little sense, and then tell me that you ask this because of some belief that you hold (which you cannot be bothered to evidence). I'm quite happy to consider them Gauls but then, what does that mean? The Gauls who invaded Greece at the beginning of the third century BC were from somewhere around the Danube basin. When Caesar fought the Gallic wars (ie those in the geographical location called, by the Romans, Gaul) the areas from which those earlier Gallic invaders had come were no longer geographically called Gaul; they were now Noricum, Raetia or Germania. Gaul (coming from Gala) simply referred to fair-skinned northern people initially. What these people are not referred to are Celts/Keltoi.

Gael is an English word derived from Goidel, which itself comes most probably from an old Welsh term Guoidel, meaning Irishman - probably from the PIE *weidh-(e)l-o- ; forest people. One should not be fooled by similarity of words to adjudge their root. So the link Gael and Gaul is misplaced.

Show something disembogues that these peoples were different enough to be excluded from what we think of as Celts and why they should be excluded from the club.

Here you underpin the messed up nature of the whole nature of what Celtic means. Is it a language group? (yes it is) Is it an 'ethnicity'? (it is used in this way) or is it a culture (again, it is used in this way). Firstly I am uncomfortable with the idea of 'ethnic' groups, especially the simplistic nature of the concept, and it is generally this notion that is the politicised aspect of historical propositions. Language, culture and genetics can say very little about each other. Sharing a language does not make one 'ethnically' similar. Sharing a material culture does not make one speak the same language as another. One can basically interpose any two of the terms into any position in those sentences and be correct.

So, from a linguistic perspective the idea of it deriving from the Danube basin makes little sense given its appearance in South-Western Iberia.

Now for a pyridine shift you need something more than niggling and nit picking over small linguistic differences. This also means we remove Noric and Galatian from the list of Celtic languages and I think you hinted at Lepontic as well.

As you seemingly doubt Celts at he headwaters of the Danube, dose this also mean that the Halvetii were other than Celtic?

Who is left and why should we think of them as the only Celtic peoples?

Here you go again, spreading the argument from a linguistic one into an 'ethnic' or cultural identity. Unfortunately we know very little about the cultural self-identification of people outside of the Roman and Greek worlds (in Europe). The people who at an early stage refer to themselves as Keltikoi are to be found in the Iberian peninsula (as attested by epigraphic finds) and Caesar tells us that people who call themselves Keltoi are to be found only within Gaul Proper.

The narrative of a united Celtic pan-European peoples (ethnically or culturally self-identifying) is a fairy-tale invented upon a false (and falsifiable) view of historical change, founded upon a fatuous misinterpretation of an ancient geographical error.

As to linguistics, a large part of it is no more than speculation. Educated guesswork but none the less it is speculative and reaches conclusions without definitive proof, in large part.

Hall or Hal in Central Europe is a hyponym related to salt. The region was inhabited by people believed to be Celts. The conclusion was that the Welsh later arrived at an approximation of the same term. All based on ancient unwritten language is speculation. All of the supposed Indo-European is speculative. So, one speculation does not over rule another just because of disagreement.

Well, there is speculation and then there is wild conjecture. Hal, as a hyponym related to salt, is not attested anywhere else within any Celtic language. It is a misplaced cognate with the Welsh Hal, which is a much later insular development. Only within the realms of forcing a Celtic root to a word could the argument be made that the Welsh simply re-discovered this older form some many, many centuries later.

Koch is particularly circumspect within his appraisal of the origins of Celtic (the language), but what he suggests is that Celtic is a much deeper stratum within Europe. You must be aware of the number of languages now extant in Europe - and when one counts the sub-national languages (Catalan, Alsace, Frisian etc.), let alone the dialects, there is a huge distinction number of them. In the Italian peninsula in the first millenium BC there was Latin, Etruscan, Umbrian, Oscan, Venetic, Lepontic, Cisalpine Gaulish, Raetic, Ligurian, Messapic, Faliscan and Greek being spoken. Within such a compact area, with strong contact between the groups, still there were so many disparate languages - which were not mutually intelligible. Yet, we are supposed to believe that there was a united language, lasting over 4 millenia, that was spoken across the European continent - even when we can deduce limited contact between these groups. It simply does not make any sense.

What Koch suggests means that we must re-address the language families and their relationships. If the Celtic language is to be placed early in the development of European languages then it pre-dates Italic and Germanic. It also means that the languages developed, much later, in the Western Atlantic zones and those that developed (separately) in the Danube basin are only distantly related, probably no more related than they are to Italic and Germanic languages.

This actually would address many of the problematic issues of the currently sprawling Celtic branch. It would explain why Celtic seems to be related in many ways to Italic and to Germanic languages (and also the possible relationship between Italic and Germanic). P-Celtic shares that shift with Germanic and Italic, for instance, and perhaps the many Celtic 'loanwords' in Germanic are because Germanic is derived from this much deeper stratum.

On the other hand we have other sources with link these people at least in common terms. We exclude the Ligures as Celts based on Strabo, Geography, book 2, chapter 5, section 28, because he says they appear to be a different race but live a Celtic lifestyle. He doesn’t mention language. None the less many authors refer to their tribes at least as Celtic-Ligures. The others we link to Celts or Gauls on the same grounds, because they say they were. Disagreements are speculative.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head. Strabo does not refer to the languages spoken but rather to the 'race' of the people. I think this is a flawed concept that we should be moving away from, except to try and understand what the ancient writers meant by those terms.

As to your last points... here you use the term "many authors" again, an example (perhaps even a name) would be welcome. As to the linking of Celt and Gaul being because "they say they were", who do you mean?; do you mean authors or the people themselves? Either way, some sort of corroboration of the claim would be welcome.

[Fisherking]

The people who made up the various tribes of concern were called Galli by the Romans and Galatai or Keltoi by the Greeks, would you disagree?

Diodorus Siculus ,The Library of History, I think you will find the terms used somewhat interchangeably.



As to Gael:

I think you cited this example earlier. I am sure somewhere it was used as an example but it only works in print.

There is no word Goidel in old Irish. It is Goídel. Accent marks are highly important. Irish is also full of consonant mutations. Too, a D (d) in the middle of a word is a signal as to the vowels. It makes no d sound.

The official standard name of the language in Irish is Gaeilge /'geɪlɪk/. Before the 1948 spelling reform, this was spelled Gaedhilge. In Middle Irish the name was spelled Gaoidhealg, and it was Goidelc in Old Irish. What changed was the spelling. The word kept pretty much the same sound.
The Welsh word may look similar in spelling but it also carries a diphthong. When they are pronounced by native speakers you would have no idea that the were similarly spelled. The only similarity would be a G-ish sound in the beginning. The PIE word does not seem to be a good fit either.

Nor is Gael an Anglicization. Gael is an Irish word as in Gaeltachtaí, an area of native speakers. It doesn’t mean Irishman so much as it means “people like us” a “non-foreigner“.
When you write about the Goidelic languages that spelling is fine but when you are speaking about them you would say the Gaelic languages. Making it a three syllable word and pronouncing that d would not help your linguistic creditability.

You seem to be confusing the issue with references to ethnicity. This carries a Racial connotation which I in not way mean to imply. We have, at the least, indications they spoke a similar language and practiced a similar culture. I think that your earnest and zealous support for the book and its theories my be leaning you in to reading into my questions and arguments that I am unaware of.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Koch is particularly circumspect within his appraisal of the origins of Celtic (the language), but what he suggests is that Celtic is a much deeper stratum within Europe. You must be aware of the number of languages now extant in Europe - and when one counts the sub-national languages (Catalan, Alsace, Frisian etc.), let alone the dialects, there is a huge distinction number of them. In the Italian peninsula in the first millenium BC there was Latin, Etruscan, Umbrian, Oscan, Venetic, Lepontic, Cisalpine Gaulish, Raetic, Ligurian, Messapic, Faliscan and Greek being spoken. Within such a compact area, with strong contact between the groups, still there were so many disparate languages - which were not mutually intelligible. Yet, we are supposed to believe that there was a united language, lasting over 4 millenia, that was spoken across the European continent - even when we can deduce limited contact between these groups. It simply does not make any sense.

What Koch suggests means that we must re-address the language families and their relationships. If the Celtic language is to be placed early in the development of European languages then it pre-dates Italic and Germanic. It also means that the languages developed, much later, in the Western Atlantic zones and those that developed (separately) in the Danube basin are only distantly related, probably no more related than they are to Italic and Germanic languages.

This actually would address many of the problematic issues of the currently sprawling Celtic branch. It would explain why Celtic seems to be related in many ways to Italic and to Germanic languages (and also the possible relationship between Italic and Germanic). P-Celtic shares that shift with Germanic and Italic, for instance, and perhaps the many Celtic 'loanwords' in Germanic are because Germanic is derived from this much deeper stratum.

This is what I was looking for!
Is this the theory in a nutshell or are there any parts of it missing in the quote?
I would rather see it complete before discussing this part. Is there anything to be added?

As to my last line, I only meant that those we call the Continental Celts, we know of only through authors in antiquity. This is our reason for designating them as a group. Where we have found inscriptions in their own language they seem to verify the Celtic linguistic connection.

Let us just dispense with what are peripheral issues, at this point, and get down to Kotch‘s theory of Celtic and its development.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The people who made up the various tribes of concern were called Galli by the Romans and Galatai or Keltoi by the Greeks, would you disagree?

Diodorus Siculus ,The Library of History, I think you will find the terms used somewhat interchangeably.

Yes I disagree. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you as it is an important aspect of the discussion we have been having. The terms Gaul and Celt are not used interchangeably. You bring up Diodorus Siculus as an example but you must know that what we know of his work is incredibly fragmentary and much of that though later authors whose knowledge of the relevant geography and motivations need to be taken into account.

As to Gael:

I think you cited this example earlier. I am sure somewhere it was used as an example but it only works in print.

There is no word Goidel in old Irish. It is Goídel. Accent marks are highly important. Irish is also full of consonant mutations. Too, a D (d) in the middle of a word is a signal as to the vowels. It makes no d sound.

The official standard name of the language in Irish is Gaeilge /'geɪlɪk/. Before the 1948 spelling reform, this was spelled Gaedhilge. In Middle Irish the name was spelled Gaoidhealg, and it was Goidelc in Old Irish. What changed was the spelling. The word kept pretty much the same sound.
The Welsh word may look similar in spelling but it also carries a diphthong. When they are pronounced by native speakers you would have no idea that the were similarly spelled. The only similarity would be a G-ish sound in the beginning. The PIE word does not seem to be a good fit either.

Nor is Gael an Anglicization. Gael is an Irish word as in Gaeltachtaí, an area of native speakers. It doesn’t mean Irishman so much as it means “people like us” a “non-foreigner“.
When you write about the Goidelic languages that spelling is fine but when you are speaking about them you would say the Gaelic languages. Making it a three syllable word and pronouncing that d would not help your linguistic creditability.

So, what you have described here, firstly, in no way supports an argument that Gael is from the same root as Gaul - which was the initial point of centention; secondly, you seem to ignore some pretty fundamental notions within linguistics. Written formalisms usually lag behind spoken forms. So, it might be correct to say that the d was not pronounced as a consonant prior to the spelling reform at some point it would have been - in other words there is a reason the d is there.

This is part of the problem of unravelling the evolution of languages. If one takes Classical Latin, for example, one might believe that there was a spoken language that spanned a huge area of Europe that seemingly lasted intact for nigh on 1000 years. Look a little closer and one sees signs that the very formalised written standard was a poor reflection of the language(s) spoken in those areas, including within Rome itself. The rapid changes between, for example, Primitive Irish and Old Irish, and that between Old English and Middle English, are likely to correspond with a written (elite) language that does not conform with the actual spoken dialects, and those differences are reflected within writing, possibly by a change of elites, in the later written form.

You seem to be confusing the issue with references to ethnicity. This carries a Racial connotation which I in not way mean to imply. We have, at the least, indications they spoke a similar language and practiced a similar culture. I think that your earnest and zealous support for the book and its theories my be leaning you in to reading into my questions and arguments that I am unaware of.

You, at one point, asked a question about whether it was right to say which people were the purest. You keep referring to 'the Celts', as if they are an 'ethnos' - I am just very wary of such propositions.

This is what I was looking for!
Is this the theory in a nutshell or are there any parts of it missing in the quote?
I would rather see it complete before discussing this part. Is there anything to be added?

As to my last line, I only meant that those we call the Continental Celts, we know of only through authors in antiquity. This is our reason for designating them as a group. Where we have found inscriptions in their own language they seem to verify the Celtic linguistic connection.

The widely held belief (as conjured upon the mistaken identity of the Celts living in the Danube basin (as per mis-reading Herodotus) and built upon with the idea of 'imperial' acculturation) is that Halstatt culture represents the 'Celtic Homeland' and that they, through expansion, have 'celticised' the majority of Europe. Cognate to this narrative is the idea that the Celtic language also begins here and is spread by that same expansion.

Problems: There is no archaeological evidence (nor does genetic evidence give any credence to) the expansion of any alleged Halstatt kingdoms into the rest of Europe; the material culture seems to be, simply that - an acceptance of material forms and techniques. Also the recent discovery of (or, more accurately, recent work on understanding the language as being) Celtic languages in South-Western Iberia pre-dating Halstatt culture.

Simply put, if Celtic cultural spread is what it is taken to be, then any evidence of migration is pretty limited. We do know of migration from this area from historical accounts and from archaeological finds, but they are not evidenced within the British isles or the Iberian peninsula. Equally the language argument seems to ignore this lack of migratory evidence, and also the limited contacts between areas.

As for the Celtic cognation....this is a self-circular argument; ie the areas defined as Celtic by the narrative are, therefore, assumed to be Celtic - thus any inscriptions are axiomatically Celtic. This has lead to, for example, the filling out of the limited Gaulish lexicon by Galatian imports. The Galatian language was assumed (on the basis of the narrative) to be the same as Gaulish.

Here's where Koch's argument becomes circumspect. He is aware of how embedded the narrative is (it is taken as the 'truth' despite it's dodgy origins). That the language(s) developed along the Atlantic seaboard must be seen as a distinct development, subject - prior to the Celtic Tartessian inscriptions - to a large degree of isolation from the central European zone, and that what contact there was for the majority of that language's evolution was limited. This comes down to the age of language groups. Neither proto-Italic or proto-Germanic languages are believed to be 6000 years old, nor should any proto-Celtic language be, for it would essentially then be PIE. So, by suggesting that proto-Celtic is a much deeper stratum he is describing something other than the usual context of proto-Celitc which, with proto-Germanic and proto-Italic, are post PIE language groups with separate paths. This deeper stratum would be pre-Germanic, pre-italic and (if it is to be viewed as a separate language path) proto-Celtic. He is, by definition, describing something other than proto-Celtic (as the term is currently understood).

What this amounts to is that the language groups of Europe are probably more finely grained than has been commonly held.

Let us just dispense with what are peripheral issues, at this point, and get down to Kotch‘s theory of Celtic and its development.

very little of what has been argued is peripheral though, if only because whatever evidence is actually produced (linguistic, archaeological, genetic etc.) is always placed within a context of the Celtic-Halstatt expansionist narrative. personally I think that if you remove that narrative and look at the evidence a number of narratives come to light - in other words, the more evidence that is revealed/discovered and interpreted what does not flow from it is a Halstatt-Celtic expansion.

[Fisherking]

So, is this all the elements or the theory or is anything missing?

The widely held belief (as conjured upon the mistaken identity of the Celts living in the Danube basin (as per mis-reading Herodotus) and built upon with the idea of 'imperial' acculturation) is that Halstatt culture represents the 'Celtic Homeland' and that they, through expansion, have 'celticised' the majority of Europe. Cognate to this narrative is the idea that the Celtic language also begins here and is spread by that same expansion.

Problems: There is no archaeological evidence (nor does genetic evidence give any credence to) the expansion of any alleged Halstatt kingdoms into the rest of Europe; the material culture seems to be, simply that - an acceptance of material forms and techniques. Also the recent discovery of (or, more accurately, recent work on understanding the language as being) Celtic languages in South-Western Iberia pre-dating Halstatt culture.

Simply put, if Celtic cultural spread is what it is taken to be, then any evidence of migration is pretty limited. We do know of migration from this area from historical accounts and from archaeological finds, but they are not evidenced within the British isles or the Iberian peninsula. Equally the language argument seems to ignore this lack of migratory evidence, and also the limited contacts between areas.

As for the Celtic cognation....this is a self-circular argument; ie the areas defined as Celtic by the narrative are, therefore, assumed to be Celtic - thus any inscriptions are axiomatically Celtic. This has lead to, for example, the filling out of the limited Gaulish lexicon by Galatian imports. The Galatian language was assumed (on the basis of the narrative) to be the same as Gaulish.

Here's where Koch's argument becomes circumspect. He is aware of how embedded the narrative is (it is taken as the 'truth' despite it's dodgy origins). That the language(s) developed along the Atlantic seaboard must be seen as a distinct development, subject - prior to the Celtic Tartessian inscriptions - to a large degree of isolation from the central European zone, and that what contact there was for the majority of that language's evolution was limited. This comes down to the age of language groups. Neither proto-Italic or proto-Germanic languages are believed to be 6000 years old, nor should any proto-Celtic language be, for it would essentially then be PIE. So, by suggesting that proto-Celtic is a much deeper stratum he is describing something other than the usual context of proto-Celitc which, with proto-Germanic and proto-Italic, are post PIE language groups with separate paths. This deeper stratum would be pre-Germanic, pre-italic and (if it is to be viewed as a separate language path) proto-Celtic. He is, by definition, describing something other than proto-Celtic (as the term is currently understood).

What this amounts to is that the language groups of Europe are probably more finely grained than has been commonly held.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Let's see, the book is 384 pages, has contributions from archaeologists, linguists, genetic analysts; it is the result of a multi-disciplinary conference. In short, no, there is a great deal more than can be put across in a discussion. Part of the reason that this is coming up now is that it is only pretty recently that any significant work has been carried out on pre-Roman archaeology in the Iberian peninsula. It is, as you have amply demonstrated, a very contentious area but really ought not be - Celitc as equivalent to Halstatt/La tene is known to be problematic (ie the narrative really doesn't match the evidence)

I really would recommend the book (you can get it from Amazon for around £31, or perhaps try and get a copy from a library)

One of the problems (as I see it) is that the term 'Celtic' is used too widely; it is used as the name for a language, to describe a number of material cultures (from urnfield to Halstatt to La Tene) and as an 'ethnos' (in many senses of the word). Perhaps if we called Halstatt something like Halstatt (and so on), and begin to describe possible movements of people in terms of the groups they actually represent (tribal/confederate entities, rather than sprawling terms like 'Celt' or 'German') and look at the languages these groups spoke in a little more detail.

Maybe then we could build narratives, understand language contacts and change in terms of the evidence - and stop framing our histories in terms of modern concepts of national/'racial' identities, and in terms, instead, of pre-national self-identification.

[Fisherking]

We have covered most of the rest of the arguments I believe.

What primarily interests me at the moment is the theory in regard to those peoples and tribes of the Danube can Central Europe as well as their movements to the east.
When you tell me that most or all of the main parts are there we can go through them.

We can cover the other points as necessary.
I don’t object to reading the book but still the prices I see from amazon.uk are in the range of £ 50 and it is not likely I will find a library copy other than LMU, Munich when I can get there.

[Fisherking]

I am just trying to narrow things down a bit. We have talked a lot about some of the interdisciplinary studies but not the main idea of the book or books.

Looking over information on the European Bronze Age, I found this:

UPDATE for ‘Megaliths and After’. March 2012 By Guy Gervis


1) Sir Barry Cunliffe proposes that the origin of Indo European languages lies with the Celts, the spread of the language eastwards being due to the wide spread of Celtic trading ventures. This idea was originally put forward in ‘Facing the Ocean’. It was then published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2009, under the title ‘A Race Apart: Insularity and Connectivity’ It is also covered in ‘The Celts: a very short introduction’

The issue of a Celtic origin for the Indo-European languages (item 1) has become quite a battleground involving a wide spread of disciplines. The original idea developed from the growth of medium to long distance trade, demonstrated by archaeological finds commencing around 9000 BC and in full flow by 5500 BC , indicating strong connectivity for North Western Europe. Genealogical DNA tests have tended to support the archaeological view that there were no significant east-west movements into Europe after about 9000 BC, but historical language studies are also involved, as are Celtic studies.
When thinking about the possibility of this language spread, it is worth remembering that we are not dealing simply with coastal traffic along Atlantic coasts and through to the Baltic, but also movement along a complex network of rivers which was building up around 5500BC, implying an enormous amount of personal contact, vital for language spread.

It is a big claim and I have no doubt it would be the source of a great deal of grant writing.

Instead of saying that those who moved east were not Celts they are saying that essentially they were all Celts until they developed different languages? Or is there province to subdivide the languages arising from a Celtic root?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I am just trying to narrow things down a bit. We have talked a lot about some of the interdisciplinary studies but not the main idea of the book or books.

Looking over information on the European Bronze Age, I found this:


It is a big claim and I have no doubt it would be the source of a great deal of grant writing.

Instead of saying that those who moved east were not Celts they are saying that essentially they were all Celts until they developed different languages? Or is there province to subdivide the languages arising from a Celtic root?

I have to say that I don't recognise that argument. I think this is, at best, an over-simplification, based upon the somewhat...nuanced (I would suggest confusing) use(s) of the term 'Celtic'. I'm actually a little puzzled by the continued use of the term to describe what are very separate developments. I can only put this down to what I have described as circumspection - a desire not to upset, or rock the boat too much within established academic circles.

The linguistic argument boils down to this; that the 'link'* between Celtic from the West and the Eastern 'Celtic' language is a much deeper root than previously thought; essentially that this 'Celtic' is pretty much a pan-European stage of post-PIE. What that amounts to, given that this deeper root is pre-Italic, pre-Germanic, is that the Celtic languages of the West, including the insular Celtic that exists today is a later development (as are Italic and Germanic) and so is not equivalent to that deeper root. Quite simply, it couldn't be. I get the impression that they are building a new narrative by 'baby-steps', treading lightly so as not to offend.

*Halstatt in Austria; also Hallstadt in Bavaria (first recorded in the 8th century AD as Halazestat im Radensgove ), Halstead is the name of a number of towns in England. Holland, believed to have evolved from a Hal root - none of these names are Celtic, they are Germanic (or, perhaps, pre-Germanic) in origin. Why were all these other place-names ignored when defining the etymology of Halstatt? Because it was taken as a given that it must be Celtic. There is no proto-Celtic root for salt=hal. This is not a side issue, I am using this to demonstrate how forced the 'Celtic' etymologies of the East actually are, and how they ignore other, perfectly practicable and feasible alternatives. Those alternatives are hardly (if ever) mentioned.

[Fisherking]

No offence, but you too easily dispense with presumed Celtic place names in Central Europe. There are many pre Roman place names and villages along with river names that also seem to occur in France and Spain. Hall may be problematic but there are many current and former names showing Celtic roots. Of course, viewing a Proto-Celtic mother tongue does much to explain this and should also support the theory rather than take away from it.

From what Cunliffe has written he seems to have less of a problem with a wide language distribution than what you say Koch does. (or it is a misunderstanding of some sort)

It would seem to me that Koch favors a highly diverse language pattern in Central Europe like that in Italy. There is no reason this should be so. If a Celtic language was a trading language in the Atlantic zone it could as easily have been the language in Central Europe as well. These things do not show where the language its self originated and we need not have diverse languages over large areas.


The seemingly huge distribution of Celtic languages in Europe are actually not so exceptional. That is not to say there were no dialects or other languages of a Celtic root. We just cannot say for sure.

If we look at North America at about the time of first contact we see areas of very diverse languages and huge areas of one language family. We even see one language and its dialects spoken over an area roughly ebullient in size to the distribution of all the Celtic languages of Europe.

Given the geography of the regions I see nothing exceptional for a wider distribution of Celtic. It very well could have given rise to other languages around it.

Years ago Celtic and Italic were a hyphenated subgroup of Indo-European. Latin in particular seems close in many ways

Language spread from west to east is not so difficult an idea to overcome. At least not for the Northwest groups. The Southeast group and those spoken in Asia seem a bit more problematic.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

No offence, but you too easily dispense with presumed Celtic place names in Central Europe. There are many pre Roman place names and villages along with river names that also seem to occur in France and Spain. Hall may be problematic but there are many current and former names showing Celtic roots. Of course, viewing a Proto-Celtic mother tongue does much to explain this and should also support the theory rather than take away from it.

No offence taken. I used the example 'Hal' simply because it is already within the discussion. What is remarkable (as I see it) is that the alleged Celtic etymology of 'Hal' is stated as a fact; it is not a proposition but accepted as true. This is what any counter-proposition is up against. The etymology has no real linguistic basis - other than a mistaken identification with a Welsh term which is the result of an insular development that took place a thousand years or so after any alleged Celtic root would have been formed, and given other examples (some of which I have given) has its roots in a pre-Germanic group. That there is a whole list of attested 'Hal' place-names within Germanic Europe has been completely over-looked and somehow the 'Hal' as a Celtic denomination has become a matter of 'fact' That is what is so perplexing about it. And it isn't the only explicitly 'factual' Celtic root that is equally as questionable. What has happened is that Celtic has been presumed and what has followed is a push to make the etymologies Celtic. This, as I see it, is a great block on any rigorous linguistic propositions being developed regarding Central Europe at this time.

From what Cunliffe has written he seems to have less of a problem with a wide language distribution than what you say Koch does. (or it is a misunderstanding of some sort)

As I say, Cunliffe seems to confuse the matter by still referring to the central (Danubian) European zone as 'Celtic', though he tends to take some time to explain that the term is used in a particular way when he uses it - ie, because this is how they are currently known. This is what I mean when I say they are a little circumspect - they seem to be pussy-footing around the issue; not surprisingly as I have seen the hostility that questioning the narrative engenders.

It would seem to me that Koch favors a highly diverse language pattern in Central Europe like that in Italy. There is no reason this should be so. If a Celtic language was a trading language in the Atlantic zone it could as easily have been the language in Central Europe as well. These things do not show where the language its self originated and we need not have diverse languages over large areas.

The term 'trading language' is a bit of a misnomer, A 'trading language' is simply a language that other language speakers will learn in order to facilitate trade with foreigners who speak that language. In fact what happens is traders tend to be multi-lingual, and where speakers from both languages interact is where languages are most prone to change. So, in fact, having 'trading languages' (multi-linguism) would result in a greater diversity of dialects developing, leading to languages sharing aspects of two or more language groups. Koch understands that sedentary communities over contact areas develop diverse languages - as we see in the Italian peninsula (and in the Iberian peninsula, and in Northern Europe) language diversity is the norm.

The seemingly huge distribution of Celtic languages in Europe are actually not so exceptional. That is not to say there were no dialects or other languages of a Celtic root. We just cannot say for sure.

That a large area of Europe likely shared common features in their languages dating back to the Neolithic (Indo-European) intrusions of the 6th and 5th millenium BC is not an exceptional claim. That an area as broad as defined spoke one language is, given other known language groupings, a very exceptional claim.

If we look at North America at about the time of first contact we see areas of very diverse languages and huge areas of one language family. We even see one language and its dialects spoken over an area roughly ebullient in size to the distribution of all the Celtic languages of Europe.

If we look at the Nomadic groups anywhere one will find large areas of shared language. Generally, communities with hunter/gatherer lifestyles remain in regular contact with each other, though they will roam seasonally over large geographical areas. I would be surprised if the native American peoples who shared a language over large areas were not those who lived a less sedentary form of life.

Given the geography of the regions I see nothing exceptional for a wider distribution of Celtic. It very well could have given rise to other languages around it.

Given the geography of the area (mountain/hill ranges, wetlands, agricultural 'plains') and how we see the languages of other sedentary communities develop in other areas of similar topology (ie Italy, Iberia, Northern Europe) I think it is a very exceptional proposition that little or no diversification developed.

Years ago Celtic and Italic were a hyphenated subgroup of Indo-European. Latin in particular seems close in many ways

You make this point as if it is in opposition to the wider proposition. Actually if we look at this older pan-European root then it is a precursor to not only whatever languages were actually spoken in central Europe but would also have an effect upon Italic and Germanic languages. This post PIE, European 'base' is a precursor to Italc and Germanic (as well as Baltic, Slavic and Western Celltic) languages.

Language spread from west to east is not so difficult an idea to overcome. At least not for the Northwest groups. The Southeast group and those spoken in Asia seem a bit more problematic.

Precisely the same problems arise, though, regarding any language spread from the west as pertains to the narrative that underpinned language from the Danube. There is little evidence of migration patterns that would lead to a dominant language 'takeover', and at times the contact zones break down which would lead to isolation between formerly communicating groups - leading to insular developments and diversification through alternative contact areas.

[Fisherking]

We can dispense with some of the items for now but as to the extent of the people and the time of their arrival there are a few points to be made.

Assuming the arrival of PIE in the 6th millennium BC is about 3000 years too late. It either arrives in the 9th millennium or we are confronted by an invisible invasion again. There is just no major population moves from this point in time that we can find. We can leave this as the authors are, as you say, making a cautious approach, but it is a point of consideration.

I do not view Celtic and its daughters as trade languages but rather coming form a culture with a strong interest in trade and trade routes. The natural avenues of expansion are river networks.

Please don’t take this personally but very, very few Native Americans were Nomadic until the arrival of the horse, post contact. Nor were many hunter/gatherers. Except in the far north and in the Great Basin area they were sedentary farmers living in villages and planting a variety of crops. The particular people I had in mind were the Objwe. They lived between the Great Planes along the Great Lakes to the St. Lawrence Valley. They made copper tools and kept records on wood and bark using a pictographic form of writing. Not Iron Age to be sure but they also sat a the hub of a vast trade network. As I hope you see, there are some parallels to be drawn.

The Geographic are is that primarily north of the Alps and following major river networks. Iberia ( Targus Valley) and the cost of France were linked by sea even in Paleolithic times showing it must have been a part of an overall network of contacts or trade. The Po Valley also is accessible in the same way, by rivers and valleys.

I am failing to fallow you on the proposed times and roots for the development of the other PIE languages. Are you saying that what was spoken in Central Europe is something similar to Celtic and from this root developed Italic and German and so on? If so, I think that is overly complicating matters.

Is it your thought then that P-Celtic and Q-Celtic are also offshoots of this language at different times?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Assuming the arrival of PIE in the 6th millennium BC is about 3000 years too late. It either arrives in the 9th millennium or we are confronted by an invisible invasion again. There is just no major population moves from this point in time that we can find. We can leave this as the authors are, as you say, making a cautious approach, but it is a point of consideration.

9000BC is somewhere between 1500 to 4500 years earlier than PIE. I'm not sure where you've got this dating from.

Please don’t take this personally but very, very few Native Americans were Nomadic until the arrival of the horse, post contact. Nor were many hunter/gatherers. Except in the far north and in the Great Basin area they were sedentary farmers living in villages and planting a variety of crops. The particular people I had in mind were the Objwe. They lived between the Great Planes along the Great Lakes to the St. Lawrence Valley. They made copper tools and kept records on wood and bark using a pictographic form of writing. Not Iron Age to be sure but they also sat a the hub of a vast trade network. As I hope you see, there are some parallels to be drawn.

A number of points to make. First, Objwe is argued by some to be a language family rather than a single language. It has a number of dialects which have decreasing levels of mutual intelligibility the further the distance is between them. Secondly, the Objwe are at the hub of trade networks only within the context of the European colonists. Thirdly, we are talking about a low population density when compared to Europe - likely a reason for the difference in the psychology of their relationship with the land compared to that of Europeans.

That is why I said that in similar areas within Europe we see a diversity of languages. There is very little in common between the situations.

The Geographic are is that primarily north of the Alps and following major river networks. Iberia ( Targus Valley) and the cost of France were linked by sea even in Paleolithic times showing it must have been a part of an overall network of contacts or trade. The Po Valley also is accessible in the same way, by rivers and valleys.

But those roots are varied, and at different periods, due to differing power structures vying with each other - subject to all sorts of other pressures; environmental change, population pressures - the level of contacts within those areas is differentiated. The whole of Europe is accessible via trade roots; the whole of Europe did not and does not speak one single language.

I am failing to fallow you on the proposed times and roots for the development of the other PIE languages. Are you saying that what was spoken in Central Europe is something similar to Celtic and from this root developed Italic and German and so on? If so, I think that is overly complicating matters.

What is being proposed is that the 'evidenced' pan-European Celtic links are the result of a deeper pan-European root. I don't actually agree with that, I think that is a cop-out, personally. I think that the majority of those links are forced and that once some real interrogation of the linguistic picture is undertaken - without the presumption of Celtic from a mythical central European origin - that a more coherent picture of language groups and their relationships will be possible. However, that is my perspective, but that is what you asked for.

[Fisherking]

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.

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.

I don’t expect you to defend or attack either theory. I just wanted to clarify why I used that date.

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 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?

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 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 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.