A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[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.