A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[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?