A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[Fisherking]

I have heard of the theory but have not read the book of its author.

I understand that it has made a few converts but it is still a fringe theory.

If that theory is based on making the central zone of Hallstat a proto-Germanic one, I would say it is rubbish.

I have no doubt that there were many Celtic dialects. Likely it was more a cultural group than strictly a linguistic one. The culture was an advanced one. More advanced in some regards than those of the Mediterranean cultures they bordered.

I would not say I have a strong nationalistic motive either in asserting that the Hallstat and La Téne cultures were not Germanic or proto-Germanic. The linguistic evidence you have offered (presumably from the books authors) is very flimsy for a number of reasons. So is the location of the Pillars of Heracles. The lands of the Tartessians were split between a Celtic influence and an area without. The languages of Spain is a bad place to try an figure out who was where and when. If we assume that Indo-European languages started in the east and worked west then the Celts had to start in the east. If you wish to assume that the Celts were the first Indo-Europeans you get a whole new set of problems. Due to language distributions it makes more sense that they were the newcomers.

We call the Hallstat culture Celtic and we can trace its spread, at least to a degree. They spread the iron sword through Europe. However, about the same time the iron age also started in Britain, but not Ireland or Spain. In fact we don’t have the iron age in Ireland until about 200 BC, about the same time Celts, at least a later wave, arrived there.

Linguistically there are many rivers in Austria and Germany which still have Celtic names. Other place names we know were Germanized. Relying on the Romans to give us a clear picture of ethnicity of tribes is usually a mistake. We know of many seemingly Celtic tribes in Germany proper and a few German tribes in Celtic areas. We are unsure of the languages of the Belgae. They could have been a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes speaking a mixture of languages.

In Spain we do have some Celts in the far west, mostly mixed with other groups, where the Celts are seemingly more advanced and expanding into new areas. If we assume they were there first we have to also assume they are in decline and other groups, while less advanced culturally are in the ascendancy.

When we look at movements prior to the conquest of Gaul and Spain we find Celtic tribes moving into areas previously dominated by others. Are we to assume that it was the reverse in Spain? Why did it take some 300 to 500 years for iron age technologies to find there way to Ireland?

It is not impossible that Celts moved out of Spain, acquired higher levels of technologies and spread them back to the source, but it is unlikely.

[Arjos]

Also the germanic identity, in the area, really came to be later on, with the roman borders and the greater influx of migrating people from Jutland and later with the Goths.

BTW don't get too much mistaken with belgic tribes and Britain, as it seems to have been a relatively recent migration, possibly related to the Cimbrian War. So Commios, simply was a very close kin, even in the range of one lifetime.
Brythonic was the regional evolution of either the local language, mixing with a celtic tongue, brought by new settlers; or of a much earlier proto-celtic language from the Bronze Age.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Also the germanic identity, in the area, really came to be later on, with the roman borders and the greater influx of migrating people from Jutland and later with the Goths.

BTW don't get too much mistaken with belgic tribes and Britain, as it seems to have been a relatively recent migration, possibly related to the Cimbrian War. So Commios, simply was a very close kin, even in the range of one lifetime.
Brythonic was the regional evolution of either the local language, mixing with a celtic tongue, brought by new settlers; or of a much earlier proto-celtic language from the Bronze Age.

Well, there are many germanic placenames in these areas (Belgic), and there seems to have been an influx of Danubian 'Celts' during the third century BC if I remember correctly. Of course if one assumes that those from the Danube spoke a Celtic language then one will see a Celtic language area. But what is the link between Halstat culture and Celtic languages at the heart of that axiom?

[Arjos]

For once your correlation with the noun Walhaz, which you rightly translated as "foreigners", "enemies". Would be the most peculiar and unnatural way to identify one's own group, for any society.
Not to mention the very same word (walhaz), was used to describe any foreigner, be that celtic or roman for example.
While if you consider it, as the loanword for a germanic speaking group, to identify their neighbours (who at first happened to be only celtic), makes that much more sense.

The root wolkiō, "river dwellers", has been connected to their homeland: the danubian basin.
It was by their own celtic name, Uolkai, coming into contact with greeks and romans, that the names Οὐόλκαι and Volcae, came to be.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

For once your correlation with the noun Walhaz, which you rightly translated as "foreigners", "enemies". Would be the most peculiar and unnatural way to identify one's own group, for any society.
Not to mention the very same word (walhaz), was used to describe any foreigner, be that celtic or roman for example.
While if you consider it, as the loanword for a germanic speaking group, to identify their neighbours (who at first happened to be only celtic), makes that much more sense.

The root wolkiō, "river dwellers", has been connected to their homeland: the danubian basin.
It was by their own celtic name, Uolkai, coming into contact with greeks and romans, that the names Οὐόλκαι and Volcae, came to be.

And here you present me with a prime example of the circular method of obtaining a Celtic root. The alleged basis for the proto-Germanic walh is from a proposed Celtic, pre-German root wolk. There is no attested proto-Celtic root wolk, it is derived by circular reasoning that the Volcae must be Celtic (due to the Halstat attribution) and therefore the name of the Volcae must derive from a Celtic root. But there is a Germanic root wolk, from which the terms folk (English) and volk (German) are derived. Quite what this proposed pre-Germanic Celtic root is supposed to mean seems to have been overlooked. However if, as you say, it means river dweller from what known Celtic term is this meaning derived?

[Arjos]

That's one of the many hypothesis, another is uolko- for wanderer.

Volk, seems blatant to me that it's a later term, since as I said, it started as a description of their neighbouring "foreigners", ie culturally different people, (Keltoi, more specifically the danubian Uolkai). And it was extended to any foreigner, thus the meaning "people".

The point here is that the the distinction between germanic and celtic, took form at a much later period. So it doesn't make sense to introduce a pre-germanic root for those names. And again the one you mentioned, is hardly fitting for a personal tribe/group, as it means something "external".

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

That's one of the many hypothesis, another is uolko- for wanderer.

This doesn't address the point, and so I have to ask the same question, just of a different hypothesised term. What known Celtic term can this root be derived from? It isn't a Proto-Celtic root is a proposed Celtic root without any evidential standing.

Volk, seems blatant to me that it's a later term, since as I said, it started as a description of their neighbouring "foreigners", ie culturally different people, (Keltoi, more specifically the danubian Uolkai). And it was extended to any foreigner, thus the meaning "people".

But wolk/volk doesn't mean foreigner, it means people. It is not used to refer to other people but to nominate belonging. The term walha is alleged to be derived from this hypothetical proto-Celtic volk - but that proposition a)ignores the Germanic root wolk, and b)ignores the compound Germanic root wal-haz. In other words there is no reason to try and derive the term walha from anything outside of proto-Germanic. The idea that the known Germanic root wolk (ie it has cognates in later Germanic languages) must be derived from a hypothetical Celtic root volk(for which there is no known Celtic cognate) is a quite obtuse piece of logic, don't you think?

The point here is that the the distinction between germanic and celtic, took form at a much later period. So it doesn't make sense to introduce a pre-germanic root for those names. And again the one you mentioned, is hardly fitting for a personal tribe/group, as it means something "external".

It means something pre-positional (people of, folk of, nation of) to the tribal name, which makes far more sense than an additional, tiered ethnonym - a form which is unattested anywhere else. And I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction between German and Celtic happened much later - as far as I'm aware proto-Germanic is proposed from around 500BC, and proto-Celtic from around 800BC.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I have heard of the theory but have not read the book of its author.

I understand that it has made a few converts but it is still a fringe theory.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions that are drawn, but the book raised alot of questions which I have tried to summarise briefly. As for it being a fringe theory, well I'm not sure what that means. In terms of the questions it raises it shouldn't be a fringe theory because at the heart of it it questions a pretty big leap of attribution taken with little, if any, evidence to back it up.

If that theory is based on making the central zone of Hallstat a proto-Germanic one, I would say it is rubbish.

Well I tried to make sure I didn't claim that the language of the area was proto-Germanic, rather that the language may have had more affinity with Proto-Germanic that with Proto-Celtic. (interestingly, the Veneti - those of the Adriatic - language seems to have parallels with Germanic languages, according to Julius Pokorny, a proponent of Celtic philology, ironically). I'm interested to know why you think the idea rubbish. Presumably because you believe that the language of this area is Celtic, but that's my point. On what basis has this link been made? Do you know?

I have no doubt that there were many Celtic dialects. Likely it was more a cultural group than strictly a linguistic one. The culture was an advanced one. More advanced in some regards than those of the Mediterranean cultures they bordered.

Yes, that's my point. There is clearly an advanced material culture which seems to be centered around this area, but on what basis was the link between this material culture and the Celtic languages made? This is where the whole problem starts, because the material culture and language have been linked from the period of initial extrapolation, without any real evidence to do so, yet somehow has become a standard axiom. It might seem self-evident, because of its axiomatic nature, but actually the initial link has little going for it.

I would not say I have a strong nationalistic motive either in asserting that the Hallstat and La Téne cultures were not Germanic or proto-Germanic. The linguistic evidence you have offered (presumably from the books authors) is very flimsy for a number of reasons.

I'd be interested in what those reasons are. To me it seems flimsy, in the extreme, to find a Celtic etymology of the Volcae by imagining that the Romans and Greeks were using a term with a proto-Germanic route and/or the allegedly Celtic tribe were refering to themselves by means of a pejorative proto-Germanic term within the context of a hierarchical dithematic tribal affiliation otherwise unattested among Celtic tribes. the other problem with this particular etymology is that Wal itself does not mean foreigner, it means battle. In terms of attributing Gala again from that same proto-germanic route meaning foreigner the problem arises that not only do we have to imagine the Greeks using a proto-Germanic route, but a compound route - Wal-haz. Were the Greeks in such close contact with the Germanics at this time? And why not use the more obvious Greek root Gala/Galact; milk.

So is the location of the Pillars of Heracles. The lands of the Tartessians were split between a Celtic influence and an area without.

But beyond the pillars of Heracles , I'm sure you will agree, is indeed where we find the Tartessos and the Celtici. And Tartessian has been shown to be a Celtic language and that makes it the oldest known written Celtic language. So, I'm not sure what you are driving at here.

The languages of Spain is a bad place to try an figure out who was where and when. If we assume that Indo-European languages started in the east and worked west then the Celts had to start in the east. If you wish to assume that the Celts were the first Indo-Europeans you get a whole new set of problems. Due to language distributions it makes more sense that they were the newcomers.

But, in what form did Indo-European languages come to Europe, and - just like Greek and Phoenician language/culture, a coastal starting point is not an unreasonable proposition.

We call the Hallstat culture Celtic and we can trace its spread, at least to a degree. They spread the iron sword through Europe. However, about the same time the iron age also started in Britain, but not Ireland or Spain. In fact we don’t have the iron age in Ireland until about 200 BC, about the same time Celts, at least a later wave, arrived there.

This is a bit of a muddled picture, requiring one to ignore the 'oriental' influence in Southern Iberia. But what you highlight again is that link without a basis. yes we call that material culture Celtic, but why? What is the evidence linking Celtic languages with that material culture of central Europe?

Linguistically there are many rivers in Austria and Germany which still have Celtic names. Other place names we know were Germanized.

But many of those so-called Celtic names are actually extrapolated from PIE roots rather than definitive Celtic, and many others have equally competent Germanic roots. Its almost as if the assumption has been made that the material culture and language are linked and therefore there must be Celtic roots within the area.

Relying on the Romans to give us a clear picture of ethnicity of tribes is usually a mistake. We know of many seemingly Celtic tribes in Germany proper and a few German tribes in Celtic areas. We are unsure of the languages of the Belgae. They could have been a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes speaking a mixture of languages.

Actually we are unsure of the linguistic attribution of most tribes/polities of this era, and claiming that we know that certain tribes were definitely Celtic is over-egging the case - which seems to be what has been done since the first attribution of 'Celtic' as synonymous with Halstat/La Tene culture. What muddies the waters even more is that, at this early stage what written records we have of the various peoples of Europe are from Latin and/or Greek writers and speakers. Whatever terms we have coming through them attributable to Germanic or Celtic speakers has been transposed in an alphabet that does not necessarily conform to the phonetic reality of the words, and via the ear of one perhaps not attuned to the subtleties of the language. An example is the name Ariovistus. It is clear that Ariovistus does not speak a Celtic language (certainly not Gaulish) as his first language, as Caesar tells us he had learned it through close contact with them. He will have spoken a proto-germanic language yet his name, as transcribed by Caesar seems 'Celtic'. Hari (which means army) and perhaps Vesti ( in the form Vestoz) to live among is a reasonable )ie plausible) proto-Germanic etymology, but Casar would be unlikely to do other than a first approximation when naming him (he's not going to ask him how he spells his name) and so Latinise the name.

In Spain we do have some Celts in the far west, mostly mixed with other groups, where the Celts are seemingly more advanced and expanding into new areas. If we assume they were there first we have to also assume they are in decline and other groups, while less advanced culturally are in the ascendancy.

I don't know what your point is here. What do you mean by "there first"? As opposed to who? The Iberians? The Iberian languages are non Indo-European (so pre-Indo-European). The Celtic language is not supposed to be some millenia old language. The earliest Tartessos inscriptions date to around the 8th century BC, the Celtic language would then spread via the Atlantic zone and up through North-west Spain (predominantly). Bear in mind that what Archaic Latin of this period was preserved in Rome was unintelligible to the Republican Romans.

When we look at movements prior to the conquest of Gaul and Spain we find Celtic tribes moving into areas previously dominated by others. Are we to assume that it was the reverse in Spain? Why did it take some 300 to 500 years for iron age technologies to find there way to Ireland?

This, again, highlights how axiomatic the idea is. You have automatically fallen into the assumed position that the Halstat material culture is synonymous with Celtic languages. And recent evidence suggests that iron working may have begun as early as the 9th century BC in Ireland (http://www.museum.ie/en/collection/iron-age.aspx)

It is not impossible that Celts moved out of Spain, acquired higher levels of technologies and spread them back to the source, but it is unlikely.

This comes back to the axiom at the heart of this. Have a look at the genesis of this idea (that halstat culture is linked with Celtic languages) and you will quickly discover that there is little (if anything, I'm still looking) that leads to the initial link. It is an axiom based upon the imaginings of a pan-European romanticist. I promise you, have a look for yourself. There is nothing in it, which makes me wonder how it could have built itself such a firm grounding within academic circles.