A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[Fisherking]

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

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



As to Gael:

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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

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

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

As to Gael:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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

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

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

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

[Fisherking]

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

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

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

[Fisherking]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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