Question for the Keltoi experts.

[Lusitani]

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

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

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

Thanks.

[burn_again]

I don't know if the italian Veneti were related to the gaulic Veneti. Some people think they were, but it is probably just a coincidence with both tribes having the same name, leading to wild speculations.

It is sometimes difficult to tell if a tribe was celtic or just celticised in language and culture. It depends how you define "celtic", tribes with the same language and culture aren't always genetically related and related tribes don't need to have the same culture and language. It is even debated if ancient Britain was populated by Celts (meaning Hallstatt and La Tene culture) or by people heavily influenced by Celts and thus speaking celtic languages.

Wikipedia (which is not an academic source of course!) lists three ancient peoples called "Veneti", stating that they are not related to each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti

[Moros]

While there was a connection between the Boii of central Europe and those in Italy I don't believe the veneti were Celtic. They talked a different language (aptly named venetic) which is an Italic Indo European language. And thus it seems wierd to me if thy have real connections (genetically speaking). Though they might have been culturally influenced by celts, they are a different ethnicity. Just as the Ligurians or the Rhaetians aren't celtic, though they definately were influenced. Those two didn't even speak Indo-European languages. (Or at least both aren't established as Indo-European)

So is there a connection? Possibly but they weren't celtic. Though not being an expert on this, I haven't heard of evidence to suggest that hey had better connections with the Celtic veneti than with other celts.

[Elmetiacos]

There's the Gaulish Veneti, sometimes spelled as Venetii, who were Celts and the Polish Veneti who were also probably Celts. However, the ones mentioned here are the ones from Northern Italy - Veneto, in fact - who were not Celts. They probably spoke an Indo-European language which was neither Celtic not Italic IIRC.

[Moros]

There's the Gaulish Veneti, sometimes spelled as Venetii, who were Celts and the Polish Veneti who were also probably Celts. However, the ones mentioned here are the ones from Northern Italy - Veneto, in fact - who were not Celts. They probably spoke an Indo-European language which was neither Celtic not Italic IIRC.

Like I said they talked venetic.

[blitzkrieg80]

There's the Gaulish Veneti, sometimes spelled as Venetii, who were Celts and the Polish Veneti who were also probably Celts.

This is quite speculative. Based on what evidence? Being of the Centum family of Indo-European?

Moros and Burn_again hit closer to the truth.

[burn_again]

I don't know if the italian Veneti were related to the gaulic Veneti. Some people think they were, but it is probably just a coincidence with both tribes having the same name, leading to wild speculations.

I just remembered where I read about a possible connection between the italian and gaulic Veneti. It was in the book "The Druids" by controversial self-proclaimed Celts expert Jean Markale.
He theorizes that these two tribes are remnants of a sea-faring atlantean civilisation. He also connects them (through what I'd call folk etymology) to the irish Fiana and walisian Gwynedd. He proceeds to speculate that the downfall of Atlantis might have caused the "celtic fear of the sea". At least he does not make the Celts descendants of Atlantis... He doesn't mention the polish Veneti, maybe they weren't sea-faring enough to fit into the theory... I don't think I have to explain why this theory is complete nonsense.
The only evidence Markale has for a connection are a quote by Polybios, who says that the italian Veneti have customs similar to the Celts but do speak a different language, and a quote by Strabo, who thinks that the Italian Veneti are a colony of the gaulic Veneti. Markale does however not quote the next sentence where Strabo says that he has no evidence for this connection.
I just wrote all this because this thread made me remember when I read "The Druids" when I was quite young. It seemed really scientific to me with its quotes and footnotes and a few years later I was kind of dissapointed when I realized it was mostly crap from a scientific point of view. This still makes me smile...

[Lusitani]

Thanks for the info. To be honest...wiki didnt even cross my mind considering I am used to check this forum for relevant info on these matters.
I guess that it always made sense that the Po Valley Veneti were celtic due to the fact that the area was inhabited by celts. Thats why this "discovery" was so odd...for me anyway.

[cmacq]

This is quite speculative. Based on what evidence? Being of the Centum family of Indo-European?

Moros and Burn_again hit closer to the truth.

I must support blitz here. I don't even think there is any evidence that the Polish Veneti were Celtic in language or custom. Actually, the archaeology indicates they were without doubt not Celt. I have a feeling that they (Italian, Gallic, and Polish Veneti) were similar to the Liguri; largely a non-IE general population, however in contrast each with a very thine IE aristocracy.




CmacQ

[Moros]

largely a non-IE general population, however in contrast each with a very thine IE aristocracy.

Well I think the Celtic/Gallic veneti were pretty much all celtic, I assume. The Italic Veneti talked IE, and by our timeframe I think they all pretty much shared culture in lower and higher society. This might be diffeent when you go to earlier times, closer to the IE migrations. But I think by now the cultures that existed, were pretty much homogenous within. However by 272 BC I imagine the IE and non-IE had become new cultures through etnogenisis. At a lot of places this resulted in the use of IE languages. (Latin, venetic, celtic,...) at others the culture kept speaking older languages (Reatic, Ligurian, bartixian . Of course it is also possible that some IE or non IE, didn't really change culture/language and kept theirs, but were slowly influenced by what was happening round them, I imagine.

Not sure about the polish veneti, as I don't know about them. And at certain places in germany, I expect a different aristocracy would be possible. But I just don't know.

[QuintusSertorius]

While there was a connection between the Boii of central Europe and those in Italy I don't believe the veneti were Celtic. They talked a different language (aptly named venetic) which is an Italic Indo European language. And thus it seems wierd to me if thy have real connections (genetically speaking).

Genetically speaking, there's probably little difference, since ethnicity has nothing to do with genes at all. Culture and language as distinctions, yes, genes, no.

Humans are one of the most narrowly varied species around (cheetahs are moreso), not only that non-Africans are all descended from the same relatively small group who left the continent at a particular time.

[The Persian Cataphract]

This is quite speculative. Based on what evidence? Being of the Centum family of Indo-European?

Moros and Burn_again hit closer to the truth.

Additionally if I recall the classics correctly, the Venedae were apparently under Sarmatian suzerainty. I would much rather guess that the Venedae were more related to the later Germanic "migration"-tribes such as the Gepids and the Vandals.

[Moros]

Genetically speaking, there's probably little difference, since ethnicity has nothing to do with genes at all. Culture and language as distinctions, yes, genes, no.

Humans are one of the most narrowly varied species around (cheetahs are moreso), not only that non-Africans are all descended from the same relatively small group who left the continent at a particular time.

I meant genetically in the meaning of having recent ancestors of the same culture. Notice the recent. I didn't mean that the had much different DNA or something.

[cmacq]

Additionally if I recall the classics correctly, the Venedae were apparently under Sarmatian suzerainty. I would much rather guess that the Venedae were more related to the later Germanic "migration"-tribes such as the Gepids and the Vandals.

Good point, however, this quickly becomes yet another very great can of worms. The literary and archaeological aspects of this subject are very complex, yet in short, the historic Vandal and Veneti were discrete. Nonetheless over time, the (later) former subsumed some of the attributes, as well as some of the territory of the (earlier) latter. I hope that makes some sense. Sorry I’ve no time now, to be more detailed.


CmacQ

[Elmetiacos]

This is quite speculative. Based on what evidence? Being of the Centum family of Indo-European?

Moros and Burn_again hit closer to the truth.

Sorry... this should in fact say that they probably weren't Celts.

[Power2the1]

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

[Moros]

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

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

So it was portugal Ambiorix fled too. Great to have another mistery solved!

[Elmetiacos]

Also, because they have the same name doesn't necessarily imply they were the same people. Eburo- means a yew tree and appears again in the Roman name for York (Eburacum) so there could be no more of a link than between Georgia and Georgia...

[Moros]

I thought Eburonum was derived from something like fort in celtic

[Elmetiacos]

Nope. Roman names in -dunum indicate the Celtic word for 'fort' whence Irish dun and Welsh dinas.

[Moros]

Nope. Roman names in -dunum indicate the Celtic word for 'fort' whence Irish dun and Welsh dinas.

Ah must have been mistaken.

[Power2the1]

So it was portugal Ambiorix fled too. Great to have another mistery solved!

Well not really...I mean he might have went to Portugal and since he was one of two Eburones chieftains (the other was Cativolcus) he probably had the money stashed to do such a long journey, but the Eburones tribe in Portugal was thought to have arrived sometime during or after the 400's B.C. I believe it was Caesar who mentioned that Ambiorix and a small group of Eburones warriors fled over to the tribes across the Rhine after the Romans reportedly killed all the men, women, elderly, and children of the Eburones in response to Ambiorix's killing off thousands of Roman soldiers at Aduatuca in 54 B.C. in ambush. Estimates place the Roman dead at Aduatuca between 7-9,000.



Some interesting stuff is mentioned in the book The Celts A History by Daithi O' HOgain on these Iberian/Portugese areas and the seeming connection with tribes in Northen Gaul, Belgica, and those around the Rhine River:
-Theres an area called Sussesstania within the tribal region of the Iberian Edetani. This is, ironically, the exact name of the Sussessiones tribe in Belgica.
-A sub-tribe of the Oretani ('highlanders'), who were thought to be Iberian-Phoenician mixtures, were know to Pliny as the Germani.
-A reported city of the Celtiberians was know as Belgida.
-A Celtic chieftain killed in eastern Spain in 213 B.C. was known as Moenicaptus. Moenicaptus is a Latinized form of 'slave of the Main', or, slave of a god/goddess of the River Main in Germany. Generations after the original Belgic/Germanic settlers arrived in Spain the cult of the original homeland deity had not been forgotten.

Wonderful information that helps one 'see' the scope of some of these great northern European tribal migrations over the centuries across thousands of miles. What further impressive is these tribes had to bring their whole families, fight anyone that got in there way on someones home turf, sink down roots in a foreign land, and keep their culture alive long enough amidst a (probably hostile) foreign environment with (probably hostile) natives everywhere. Awesome achievements for the Celtic/Belgic/Germanic tribes back then. Similar far flung migrations sweeping down from northern Europe would last well into the A.D.'s as we all know.

[Moros]

Well not really...I mean he might have went to Portugal and since he was one of two Eburones chieftains (the other was Cativolcus) he probably had the money stashed to do such a long journey, but the Eburones tribe in Portugal was thought to have arrived sometime during or after the 400's B.C.

Yeah well I was joking mate. Didn't you see the smilies? Nice read anyhow. Though as Belgian I had to translate enough parts about Ambiorix from de bello gallico and had to learn nough about it in history class.

[Power2the1]

Ah ok!

[cmacq]

Sorry, not to draw too fine a point, however...

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

As with the Lepontii and Euganei, neither the Raetians nor Ligurians were Italic people. As well it doesn't appear they were Celt and I don't even think they were IEs, although there may have been an IE aspect, of some kind. If one wants to go the IE route with them that brings us round to the Centum, and I may have to go there at some point, but not yet.

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

Again, most likely not Celt. I can provide one link between the Polish (Baltic) and Italian (Adriatic) Veneti. Amber...

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

If... and that’s a big if; the Veneti people were IE, and if the three major groups were related, then they most likely were an aspect of the LBA Urnfield expression? As with the proto-Celts, -Italics, -Illyrian, -western Balts, and others; this period witnessed the geographical jockeying that got each into their historic settings. However, the Celt ethnogenesis and following expansion occurred later in the EIA (euro). Also the archaeology of all thee Veneti groups do not fit well with the establish perimeters provided for continental Celtic culture.



CmacQ

[Moros]

Sorry, not to draw too fine a point, however...



As with the Lepontii and Euganei, neither the Raetians nor Ligurians were Italic people. As well it doesn't appear they were Celt and I don't even think they were IEs, although there may have been an IE aspect, of some kind. If one wants to go the IE route with them that brings us round to the Centum, and I may have to go there at some point, but not yet.

You are correct the Raetians and Ligurians talked non IE languages and weren't Italians. They however were subject to Celtic influence quite a bit however. That's all I and power2the1 siad. We never claimed them to be celtic.

Again, most likely not Celt. I can provide one link between the Polish (Baltic) and Italian (Adriatic) Veneti. Amber...

Yes. But that's all. And the author the OP read claimed a connection between the 'Italian' and the Gallic tribes.

If... and that’s a big if; the Veneti people were IE, and if the three major groups were related, then they most likely were an aspect of the LBA Urnfield expression? As with the proto-Celts, -Italics, -Illyrian, -western Balts, and others; this period witnessed the geographical jockeying that got each into their historic settings. However, the Celt ethnogenesis and following expansion occurred later in the EIA (euro). Also the archaeology of all thee Veneti groups do not fit well with the establish perimeters provided for continental Celtic culture.

I'm pretty sure the Veneti are considered IE by the scientific world. However they probably aren't closr related to the Celts than other IE's were.

[Power2the1]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification cmaq.

I did assume the Rhaetians and that bunch were Italic types (or close to them), but you say they are not Italic nor IE? Interesting. Mysterious bunch

[Moros]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification cmaq.

I did assume the Rhaetians and that bunch were Italic types (or close to them), but you say they are not Italic nor IE? Interesting. Mysterious bunch

Yup cmaq is right on that aspect. The Ligurains and Rhaetians have a language that isn't associated with IE. Veneti are however, not Italici mind you.

[Sarcasm]

Some interesting stuff is mentioned in the book The Celts A History by Daithi O' HOgain on these Iberian/Portugese areas and the seeming connection with tribes in Northen Gaul, Belgica, and those around the Rhine River:
-Theres an area called Sussesstania within the tribal region of the Iberian Edetani. This is, ironically, the exact name of the Sussessiones tribe in Belgica.
-A sub-tribe of the Oretani ('highlanders'), who were thought to be Iberian-Phoenician mixtures, were know to Pliny as the Germani.
-A reported city of the Celtiberians was know as Belgida.
-A Celtic chieftain killed in eastern Spain in 213 B.C. was known as Moenicaptus. Moenicaptus is a Latinized form of 'slave of the Main', or, slave of a god/goddess of the River Main in Germany. Generations after the original Belgic/Germanic settlers arrived in Spain the cult of the original homeland deity had not been forgotten.

Wonderful information that helps one 'see' the scope of some of these great northern European tribal migrations over the centuries across thousands of miles. What further impressive is these tribes had to bring their whole families, fight anyone that got in there way on someones home turf, sink down roots in a foreign land, and keep their culture alive long enough amidst a (probably hostile) foreign environment with (probably hostile) natives everywhere. Awesome achievements for the Celtic/Belgic/Germanic tribes back then. Similar far flung migrations sweeping down from northern Europe would last well into the A.D.'s as we all know.

A few clarifications:

- The proper name of the tribe I assume you speak of, is Suessetani and they were no where near the Edetani or part of the same tribal grouping. They were most probably not Celts at all, in fact they wrote in Levantine Iberian and were more akin to the Ilergetes in that sense. You can however argue just how celticized they had become though. The Edetani material culture could be grouped roughly with the Sedetani, the Olcades, Contestani, and Ilercavones (These last ones being sort of the middle ground between the two culture blocks who were often at odds, either directly or through proxys).

- On the Oretani, I can see where the confusion may into play here. There were two Olcades, one which fits into the Gallo-Belgian theory, the Oretani Germani, and the others known as Olcades proper, nearer the coast and south of the Sierra Morena. I think it's Ptolemy or Pliny who makes the distinction; I'd have to check though, forgive me. Anyway, while the culture of the first is of a definite Celtiberian flavour, the former are more closely related to the Eastern Iberian culture - and consequently of an Orientalizing tendency, though there weren't nearly enough Phoenicians to make them a "mixture" even if their culture had an enormous impact on them. Curiously enough I've recently written a large piece of text on this in the internal forum.

- On Belgida, I don't know the location of it. Maybe you can enlighten me? I'm always willing to learn Maybe the modern town near Valencia? The remnants there are of Iberian and Roman origin though, so maybe you mean some other town further inland?

- BTW, Moenicaptus was a Gaul, or at the very least recruited by Hasdrubal north of the Pyrenees as I recall. If you mean the guy killed at Baecula, that is.

[cmacq]

Sorry, I see there have been additions, which I need to read. I may have to edit this?

I'm pretty sure the Veneti are considered IE by the scientific world. However they probably aren't closr related to the Celts than other IE's were.

Scientific world? If one implies archaeology, historiography, and linguistics, I fear very thin on science and much more subjective than objective. Nonetheless, I believe upon occasion I’ve been accused of being part of this so-called scientific world.

Right, only to clarify, I understood what both Moros and Power2the1 wrote, adding that if they (the Veneti) were indeed IE, one may (or must?) entertain the possibility that all three Veneti groups were related, and if so this association would most likely have been forged in the LBA (Late Bronze Age), as this was a period of significant demographic movement (and in theory represent one aspect of the motivation for significant differentiation of the Centum [which I am not proposing]). Indeed, influence by the Celts, yet given the above proposal, it’s important to note that the (Celt) ethnogenesis occurred much later in the EIA (Early [European or Pre-Roman] Iron Age) and (Celt) expansion later still, I believe in the late 5th or early 4th centuries BC. Thus, Celt expansion, assimilation, and influence may possibly further promote the perception that the Polish, Gallic, and Italian Veneti were discrete.

On the other hand, if these Veneti were not IE, there is no need to explore such a proposal.

Hope this clarifies my intent, and may I add this has been thankfully rather tame, for as I said, this subject could quickly turn into a huge can of worms, when proponents for the main actors decide to weight in.

CmacQ