PDA

View Full Version : Celts 2015



Pages : [1] 2 3

Jean M
11-01-2014, 06:18 PM
As it is an open secret that I'm working on a book on the Celts, I thought people might like a bit of background.

The British Museum is to open a big exhibition on the Celts in September 2015. Publishers and broadcasters with their ears to the ground have been getting in gear for this. I hear on the grapevine that there will be a television series on the Celts next year, probably with related book. I imagine that the museum will have a book in the works to go with the exhibition, but am not sure.

Alex Woolf, A Short History of the Celts (I.B. Tauris Short Histories) is due out on 30 March 2015. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Celts-Tauris-Histories/dp/1848857942/

So it should be a bumper year for those interested in the Celts.

David Mc
11-02-2014, 02:22 AM
This is a rather interesting line in the blurb for Woolf's book:


He traces the Celts' development from their beginnings to their seventh-century nadir, when they ceased to be a single community.

It's probably unfair to jump on things before the actual publication, but what on earth does that mean? When were the Celts ever "a single community?"

Wonder_Wall
11-02-2014, 02:47 AM
Well, one can certainly study the "Celts" as a cultural/archaeological horizon that has multiple distinct communities without losing sight of the linguistic and mythological features that make them understandable as a whole. And one is not hard pressed to find examples that survive into later times even if they are largely peripheral and/or reconstructed as aura.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 03:19 AM
It's probably unfair to jump on things before the actual publication, but what on earth does that mean? When were the Celts ever "a single community?"

I know. Very odd. But then the whole blurb reads like it was written by a publicist, rather than the author. Presumably the reference is to the Anglo-Saxon push westwards and northwards within Britain which divided what had been one long stretch of Brittonic-speaking territory (with Gaelic to the north of it) into separate enclaves: Highland Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

Dubhthach
11-02-2014, 08:37 AM
It would sound like he's talking specifically about Brythonic speaking area, if anything in the 7th century Ireland was coalescing into a single identity/ethnos (but with obviously separate lordships/kingdoms with notional idea of high-kingship) due to influence of christianity.

Adrian Stevenson
11-02-2014, 08:41 AM
Sounds like a good time to publish Jean!

Even though I don't have any known Celtic background, I will certainly go and see the exhibition.

Cheers, Ade.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 10:41 AM
It would sound like he's talking specifically about Brythonic speaking area, if anything in the 7th century Ireland was coalescing into a single identity/ethnos (but with obviously separate lordships/kingdoms with notional idea of high-kingship) due to influence of christianity.

I imagine Woolf used a phrase like 'linguistic community'. Post-Roman Britannia seems to have broken up fairly soon into kingdoms based on the former civitates. Certainly before the A-S push west and north. Blurb-writers will seize on the most colourful bits of text and strip them of all scholarly qualifications.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 10:46 AM
Sounds like a good time to publish Jean!

That's exactly what my publisher thought. He commissioned a book from me that I hadn't thought of writing! I have enjoyed it though. My interest in the Celts is of long standing.

rms2
11-02-2014, 12:08 PM
I just hope folks like John Collis and Simon James are not involved. If they are, all we'll hear about is how the Celts really never existed, and, if they did, the Celts in the Isles weren't really Celts, blah, blah, blah.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 12:43 PM
I just hope folks like John Collis and Simon James are not involved. If they are, all we'll hear about is how the Celts really never existed, and, if they did, the Celts in the Isles weren't really Celts, blah, blah, blah.

I can't see the British Museum not including its own Celtic treasures from Britain. "The Snettisham Great Torc, Basse-Yutz Flagons and Battersea Shield are stunning examples of Early Celtic art." http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/cultures/europe/iron_age.aspx

rms2
11-02-2014, 12:48 PM
Maybe I am being too sensitive and on the lookout for Celto-scepticism, but did you catch the following bit from that article?



Iron Age people are sometimes referred to as Celts . . .


Sometimes "referred to" as Celts?

Peter Berresford Ellis, in one of his books (I have it around here somewhere), remarked that a current running joke about Celto-sceptics among some Celticists is to greet each other with the question, "Do you speak Iron Age?"

alan
11-02-2014, 01:26 PM
I must admit I never thought there would be a pan-western European male lineage of the sort of strength P312 is that looks to be associated with the arrival of western IEs, especially a proto-Celto-Italic. I dont think its really feasible to imagine P312 as anything else linguistically. It arrives at exactly the sort of timeframe that most academics for decades have said the IE languages spread. Its the last major wave in the west of Europe. Its very hard to believe another non-IE language spread across Europe with beaker and then somehow IE spread later leaving almost no trace. Why on earth would that happen - just wouldnt make any sense.

All we need now is to find or confirm the area and culture where immediately pre-beaker ancestors of P312 was located. There are several very well thought out theories but ancient DNA is needed to crack this one. I have tried to reason through the various possibilities - and there are 3 or 4 really decent options IMO-but I dont think its possible to be sure without ancient DNA. My feeling based on what little ancient DNA we have is going against the idea that R1b spread west of the Alps in pre-beaker times but even that leaves about three options as to how R1b and beaker combined and created 'beakerised' groups

1. R1b was already in the Alps with the Remedello groups
2. R1b had made it to the area around the W.Alps/upper Rhine etc with Corded Ware
3. R1b was in Yamnaya and Csepel in Hungary represents the point where beaker and Yamnaya met and cause beakerised populations

There are issues with all of them but when you are dealing with a lineage rather than a major population movement, epic amounts of wriggle room exists and it may not be very archaeologically visible.

Other options of course remains such as a pre-beaker spread along the Alps and west Med. associated with the spread of copper working c. 3600-3000BC. Its definitely possible too although it has a few ancient DNA strikes against it.

I dont have any preference as to which is right All are very fascinating in their own way.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 01:45 PM
Sometimes "referred to" as Celts?

Yes I saw it, but the writer is making a fair point. The European Iron Age was not entirely populated by Celts. There were other groups. This I think is the crux of the matter for the coming exhibition. The I Celti exhibition in the Palazzo Grassi in Venice in 1991 never pretended that the Celts united Europe, or were the only people in Europe in the Iron Age. But it was open in its desire to foster a united Europe by presenting a Pan-European culture. That was bound to set up the hackles of the millions of people in Europe who do not see themselves as descended from Celts, and/or are not keen on federalism in Europe. It kicked off an angry Celtoscepticism. (Though there were other factors at work, for sure.)

evon
11-02-2014, 02:47 PM
As it is an open secret that I'm working on a book on the Celts, I thought people might like a bit of background.

The British Museum is to open a big exhibition on the Celts in September 2015. Publishers and broadcasters with their ears to the ground have been getting in gear for this. I hear on the grapevine that there will be a television series on the Celts next year, probably with related book. I imagine that the museum will have a book in the works to go with the exhibition, but am not sure.

Alex Woolf, A Short History of the Celts (I.B. Tauris Short Histories) is due out on 30 March 2015. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Celts-Tauris-Histories/dp/1848857942/

So it should be a bumper year for those interested in the Celts.

Will you be looking into "Celtic" activity in Norway also in your book?

Jean M
11-02-2014, 03:04 PM
Will you be looking into "Celtic" activity in Norway also in your book?

Norway only gets a mention as one of the places that Bell Beaker pottery has been found. I don't discuss what BB people were doing there. It is an interesting topic, but not one I had space for.

Piquerobi
11-02-2014, 10:43 PM
This book, though rather old, is still fairly modern in its content and still a classic on the subject ("the Celts", by T. G. E. Powell). I'd recommend it to anyone.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Celts-Ancient-Peoples-Places/dp/0500272751
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51V08DQVRSL._SY300_.jpg

rms2
11-02-2014, 10:45 PM
This book, though rather old, is still fairly modern in its content and still a classic on the subject ("the Celts", by T. G. E. Powell). I'd recommend it to anyone.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Celts-Ancient-Peoples-Places/dp/0500272751
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51V08DQVRSL._SY300_.jpg

I have that one, among others. It is still a good read.

rms2
11-02-2014, 10:55 PM
Yes I saw it, but the writer is making a fair point . . .

Given the context (i.e., the mention of Germans and Iberians), perhaps, but then the article goes on to say, "Some Iron Age people made highly decorated metal objects, which we call Early Celtic or La Tène art."

Really? "Iron Age people" made those, and "we call" them Celtic or La Tène?

That stinks. It really does.

No, not everyone in the Iron Age was a Celt, but there were Celts around in lots of places, and lots of them. The author should just call them Celts and drop the "Iron Age people" drivel (or pussyfooting). Would he have done the same thing with Slavs or Germans? I can see it now: "Saints Cyril and Methodius created the Cyrillic alphabet for a bunch of medieval people we - silly us - sometimes refer to as Slavs".

Such language does not bode well for their exhibition on the Celts. Hope I am wrong.

Jean M
11-03-2014, 06:00 PM
Hope I am wrong.

I hope you are too. I am encouraged by https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/complete_projects/technologies_of_enchantment/the_celtic_art_database.aspx

Hando
11-03-2014, 06:41 PM
I must admit I never thought there would be a pan-western European male lineage of the sort of strength P312 is that looks to be associated with the arrival of western IEs, especially a proto-Celto-Italic. I dont think its really feasible to imagine P312 as anything else linguistically. It arrives at exactly the sort of timeframe that most academics for decades have said the IE languages spread. Its the last major wave in the west of Europe. Its very hard to believe another non-IE language spread across Europe with beaker and then somehow IE spread later leaving almost no trace. Why on earth would that happen - just wouldnt make any sense.

All we need now is to find or confirm the area and culture where immediately pre-beaker ancestors of P312 was located. There are several very well thought out theories but ancient DNA is needed to crack this one. I have tried to reason through the various possibilities - and there are 3 or 4 really decent options IMO-but I dont think its possible to be sure without ancient DNA. My feeling based on what little ancient DNA we have is going against the idea that R1b spread west of the Alps in pre-beaker times but even that leaves about three options as to how R1b and beaker combined and created 'beakerised' groups

1. R1b was already in the Alps with the Remedello groups
2. R1b had made it to the area around the W.Alps/upper Rhine etc with Corded Ware
3. R1b was in Yamnaya and Csepel in Hungary represents the point where beaker and Yamnaya met and cause beakerised populations

There are issues with all of them but when you are dealing with a lineage rather than a major population movement, epic amounts of wriggle room exists and it may not be very archaeologically visible.

Other options of course remains such as a pre-beaker spread along the Alps and west Med. associated with the spread of copper working c. 3600-3000BC. Its definitely possible too although it has a few ancient DNA strikes against it.

I dont have any preference as to which is right All are very fascinating in their own way.
According to your 3 theories
1)What is the significance of R1b already being in the Alps with the Remedello groups? Is it that R1b Remedello mixed with Beaker in the Alps and then spread to Iberian?
2)What is the significance of R1b being around the W.Alps/upper Rhine etc with Corded Ware? Are you suggesting that R1b carrying Corded Ware people migrated to W. Alps/upper Rhine and then mixed with Beaker peoples here from which they then migrated to Iberia?

Jean M
04-07-2015, 09:21 PM
More details of the exhibition:


Celts (title to be confirmed) – in The Sainsbury Exhibitions Gallery from September 24 to January 31, 2016.

This will be the first major exhibition of Celtic art in Britain in 40 years. It will draw on the latest research on the Celts in Britain, Ireland and Western Europe and explore the long history of Celtic art and what the object tells us about the people who made and used them.

‘Celts’ and ‘Celtic Art’ are terms which are widely used in many different contexts. They do not all relate to the same thing – and in particular, they do not relate to any single people or culture. This exhibition will explore how making and using Celtic art has shaped identities from the Iron Age through to the Medieval period, and how these powerful objects and styles have continued to play a role in creating modern Celtic identities in Britain.

The first Celtic art in Britain is part of a clear western and central European tradition, but it is also distinctly British. Later, the art helped define new complex and shifting Celtic identities in Britain that were neither Roman nor Anglo Saxon/English.

The rediscovery of the ancient artistic tradition in the 18th and 19th centuries played a key role in creating new images of the Celts. These new descriptions by artists and politicians helped define what it meant to be Irish, Scottish and British. This artistic tradition and the objects it produced have always been intimately linked with questions around the Celtic peoples who made these objects.

http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Events-Review/british-museum-exhibitions-for-2015

Jean M
04-07-2015, 09:23 PM
Alex Woolf, A Short History of the Celts (I.B. Tauris Short Histories) is due out on 30 March 2015.

My mistake. That came out in 2012.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-08-2015, 04:38 PM
We hear quite a lot about the Anglo Saxons pushing the Celts West and North, but what happened to the earlier British peoples when the celts arrived? Did the Celts do what the AS did later I wonder? I would guess the pattern might be quite similar.John

Jean M
04-08-2015, 04:57 PM
We hear quite a lot about the Anglo Saxons pushing the Celts West and North, but what happened to the earlier British peoples when the celts arrived? Did the Celts do what the AS did later I wonder? I would guess the pattern might be quite similar.

John - You have asked a question that is trickier than you might think. There is a big debate going on about when the Celts arrived in the British Isles. The old idea of an Iron Age arrival fits the pattern you have in mind. La Tene sweeps in from the south. But now that the spotlight is on a Copper Age arrival with Bell Beaker, the picture looks very different. The incomers were initially prospecting for copper and other metals, so they went for the hills (including Welsh copper deposits), not just the fertile lowlands. They would have been scattered among existing farmers.

Rather than take over this thread with more details of a very big topic, may I point you to some of the threads on Bell Beaker:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4255-Genetic-Drift-Sharing-Bell-Beaker-amp-WHG
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1753-R-L21-Bell-Beaker

Wonder_Wall
04-08-2015, 07:27 PM
My money would be on a BB origin for much early R1b via migration and then integration with EEF/WHG on a very broad scale over a 1kyr time period. This is a major population event in Europe and not limited to the Isles. On a much vaster scale than the AS migrations and perhaps more importantly, includes the expansion and installation of IE languages almost everywhere. Trace languages left are Vasconic, Etruscan, perhaps Nordwestblock and more but most are sadly lost to time.

The Celtic phase then seems to be built on top of the post Beaker/IE world with tribal elite dominance schemes of various sorts. While I don't doubt there will eventually be found subtle DNA traces of this expansion (aDNA or otherwise) it seems more of a cultural event rather than wholesale migration resulting in radical shifts in population composition.

At present there seems to be a lack of aDNA from Iberia allowing us to see exactly who the early BB folks were. Many arguments about Beakers to be found here and elsewhere for good reason - we don't have all the facts yet on balance, there seems evidence of new physical types in early BB. My best guess is a hybrid of Eastern IE males with extant EEF/WHG female lines. Sort of a melding of the IE worldview with the tail end of the Altantic Megalithic world. This is kind of fascinating and beautiful to ponder.

And I could be totally wrong, just some thoughts...

Jean M
04-08-2015, 08:03 PM
See what you've started, John? :biggrin1: I'll never get this thread back for events, publications and TV about the Celts in 2015. No matter. I've totally failed to find out more about the TV series.


Trace languages left are Vasconic, Etruscan, perhaps Nordwestblock.

'Nordwestblock' is a hypothetical (most probably non-existent) Indo-European language. Etruscan appears to be a language from the eastern Mediterranean which intruded into an Indo-European speaking Italy. So of your three only Basque could be a European Neolithic language, though I'm more more convinced that Palaeo-Sardinian and the substrate in Germanic and Greek were Neolithic languages. Basque has suggestions of the Copper Age about it.

avalon
04-08-2015, 08:16 PM
My money would be on a BB origin for much early R1b via migration and then integration with EEF/WHG on a very broad scale over a 1kyr time period. This is a major population event in Europe and not limited to the Isles. On a much vaster scale than the AS migrations and perhaps more importantly, includes the expansion and installation of IE languages almost everywhere. Trace languages left are Vasconic, Etruscan, perhaps Nordwestblock and more but most are sadly lost to time.

The Celtic phase then seems to be built on top of the post Beaker/IE world with tribal elite dominance schemes of various sorts. While I don't doubt there will eventually be found subtle DNA traces of this expansion (aDNA or otherwise) it seems more of a cultural event rather than wholesale migration resulting in radical shifts in population composition.

At present there seems to be a lack of aDNA from Iberia allowing us to see exactly who the early BB folks were. Many arguments about Beakers to be found here and elsewhere for good reason - we don't have all the facts yet on balance, there seems evidence of new physical types in early BB. My best guess is a hybrid of Eastern IE males with extant EEF/WHG female lines. Sort of a melding of the IE worldview with the tail end of the Altantic Megalithic world. This is kind of fascinating and beautiful to ponder.

And I could be totally wrong, just some thoughts...

The big questions for me from a British perspective are: How long did it take for R1b to become dominant in Britain? What was the interaction between Beakers and the Neolithic people? And what happened to the female and male farmer lineages? Did they survive for 500 years, 1000 years, have any survived to the modern day?

Sorry for hijacking your thread Jean. ;)

Jean M
04-08-2015, 08:30 PM
Sorry for hijacking your thread Jean. ;)

It's not my thread. It's the people's thread! :biggrin1: Let the fun break out, I say.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-08-2015, 08:33 PM
Sorry Jean. It seemed like a relevant question at the time. :) John

vettor
04-08-2015, 08:40 PM
See what you've started, John? :biggrin1: I'll never get this thread back for events, publications and TV about the Celts in 2015. No matter. I've totally failed to find out more about the TV series.



'Nordwestblock' is a hypothetical (most probably non-existent) Indo-European language. Etruscan appears to be a language from the eastern Mediterranean which intruded into an Indo-European speaking Italy. So of your three only Basque could be a European Neolithic language, though I'm more more convinced that Palaeo-Sardinian and the substrate in Germanic and Greek were Neolithic languages. Basque has suggestions of the Copper Age about it.

Nordwestblock with it's Venetic connection ?!?.........., must surely mean its Euganei-Rhaetic connection as Euganei are the indigenous people of the Veneto and Friuli ( North-East Italy) from the middle and late bronze-ages , who where numerous in number ( 34 towns as stated by historian Cato ) and origins are unknown. Once thought to be associated with Ligures, this has recently been dismissed by Italian historians.
The Venetic Language is basically the ancient original Euganei language as their age and similarity with West-Raetic, East-Raetic and Camunic languages is confirmed.
The Veneti migration must have been like the Norman migration in Normandy, where the migrators accepted the indigenous language of the people already there.

I agree with Jean, that the nordwestblock seems fictitious

Jean M
04-08-2015, 09:07 PM
Sorry Jean. It seemed like a relevant question at the time. :) John

Don't worry. You have livened up a dull announcement type thread. ;)

Wonder_Wall
04-08-2015, 09:40 PM
LOL!

I'm out of my depth, sorry if all I've done is muddy the linguistic waters. Nordwestblock is known only by it's interference/superstrate pattern and we don't even know if it existed really. But presumably folks were using something before IE came along insisting on deus pater worship, horse riding, and the erection of stellae (hee hee.)

What about predictions of Y-dna in early Iberian Beakers?

Any takers?

vettor
04-08-2015, 09:46 PM
LOL!

I'm out of my depth, sorry if all I've done is muddy the linguistic waters. Nordwestblock is known only by it's interference/superstrate pattern and we don't even know if it existed really. But presumably folks were using something before IE came along insisting on deus pater worship, horse riding, and the erection of stellae (hee hee.)

What about predictions of Y-dna in early Iberian Beakers?

Any takers?

What do you mean by Iberian ?............the geographical peninsula which is Spain and Portugal now............or..........the indigenous Iberian people of north-East Spain area ( and some south french lands), who never saw the Atlantic sea ( or should say, never bordered on the coast of the Atlantic sea)

glentane
04-08-2015, 10:28 PM
But now that the spotlight is on a Copper Age arrival with Bell Beaker, the picture looks very different. The incomers were initially prospecting for copper and other metals, so they went for the hills (including Welsh copper deposits), not just the fertile lowlands. They would have been scattered among existing farmers.

There are awkward hints of a fairly early beaker (all-over-ornamented, then northern and middle rhine/dutch in the main) series of insertions all along the east coast of Britain (the big island) as far as the Moray Firth. The "strategy" seems to have been to set up shop on major peninsulae by the major estuaries/fjords, on fairly rubbish heath land fit only for sheep (a bit like the seaward end of the Rhine, funnily enough). Well off the best late neolithic farmer soils but as adjacent to the arable centres as they could wangle. East Yorkshire north from the Spurn, Fife from the Ness/Guardbridge (St Andrews and Tentsmuir), and in Buchan, north of the Garioch, and from there, maybe following on top of Grooved Ware and then Food Vessel networks, until they got through to the New Eldorado (or Rio Tinto? (joke .. relax)) of Ireland and North Wales, in particular via the Great Glen down to the Kilmartin area (Upper Largie's later single graves are a famous 'smoking gun'). It continued sporadically right into Unetice and later. The northern Scottish stuff had been worked out by the late Ian Shepherd in pre-DNA days, if I remember right. The idea was the "Dutch" entrepreneurs were seeking a way of circumventing the assumed "Wessex" (Stonehenge and all that) stranglehold on the metal trade between Ireland and the Continent.
Too much to dig up at this time of night, but challenges gratefully accepted.

Jean M
04-08-2015, 10:37 PM
..indigenous Iberian people of north-East Spain area ( and some south french lands), who never saw the Atlantic sea ( or should say, never bordered on the coast of the Atlantic sea)

I don't think the Iberes were indigenous to anywhere in Spain or France. They seem to have arrived in what is now south-eastern Spain after Indo-European speakers, as demonstrated by place-names, and by the fact that early Greek mariners called what we know as the Iberian peninsula 'the Ligurian peninsula'.

But in any case why the nit-picking? It should be absolutely obvious that if someone says 'Iberian Beaker' in a discussion of Bell Beaker, it means Bell Beaker in what we know as Iberia. Who would imagine that this is some completely off-topic question about pottery made by Iberes?

Jean M
04-08-2015, 10:55 PM
... (Upper Largie's later single graves are a famous 'smoking gun'). It continued sporadically right into Unetice and later. The northern Scottish stuff had been worked out by the late Ian Shepherd in pre-DNA days, if I remember right. The idea was the "Dutch" entrepreneurs were seeking a way of circumventing the assumed "Wessex" (Stonehenge and all that) stranglehold on the metal trade between Ireland and the Continent. Too much to dig up at this time of night, but challenges gratefully accepted.

Superb stuff. By way of footnotes I can offer: Alison Sheridan 2008. Upper Largie and Dutch-Scottish connections during the Beaker period, in Between Foraging and Farming: an Extended Broad Spectrum of Papers Presented to Leendert Louwe Kooijmans, (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 40), H. Fokkens, B. J. et al. (eds.), 247–260. Leiden: University of Leiden.

The only challenge I would offer is the one you are clearly expecting about Wessex. :) Not likely to be 100% Atlantic origin at all.

glentane
04-08-2015, 11:12 PM
The only challenge I would offer is the one you are clearly expecting about Wessex. :) Not likely to be 100% Atlantic origin at all. Wow, not at all, that came out of left field! I was expecting a load of "Well show us the Unetice then, brainiac?". Wessex? Dunno, far away and strange. Ask Parker-Pearson or Richards. As far as I can understand, the local, "indigenous" Landlord stratum (initially Grooved Ware) had contrived to fold the metal-working interests, as a shiny status-and-wealth department, into their own sphere without too much political upheaval. Beakers and so on only gradually gained prominence.

[Confession time: Grooved Ware drives me mad. No obvious antecedents, and works the wrong way on (West to East, then North to South) to fit with the essential trends of British prehistory. Used to be Ireland (maybe) before radiocarbon, Northern Ireland to be exact, then it was (still is) the Northern Isles. Is it ultimately Danish? Is it some mutant sea-changed stuff from the Gironde? Or a weird spontaneous outgrowth of insular Bowl pottery? Baltic Impressed Wares? I give up.]

vettor
04-08-2015, 11:37 PM
I don't think the Iberes were indigenous to anywhere in Spain or France. They seem to have arrived in what is now south-eastern Spain after Indo-European speakers, as demonstrated by place-names, and by the fact that early Greek mariners called what we know as the Iberian peninsula 'the Ligurian peninsula'.

But in any case why the nit-picking? It should be absolutely obvious that if someone says 'Iberian Beaker' in a discussion of Bell Beaker, it means Bell Beaker in what we know as Iberia. Who would imagine that this is some completely off-topic question about pottery made by Iberes?

i had to look up knit-picking as I thought it meant white-anting .............anyhow, not my intent

anyway, I asked because I never heard of iberian-beakers, only celt-iberian beakers, or basques beakers etc etc.........not to say these are correct either

Do you have info on this "ligurian peninsula" as the only thing I have found is the continuous wars between the iberes and ligures ( basically along the rhone river border)

Jean M
04-09-2015, 01:12 AM
anyway, I asked because I never heard of iberian-beakers, only celt-iberian beakers, or basques beakers etc etc.........not to say these are correct either

No they are not. Once again we have a mix-up here between prehistory and history. The Celtiberians and Basques surface as peoples in Roman texts, hundreds of years after Bell Beaker pottery was made in Iberia. We call the people who made Bell Beaker pottery 'the Bell Beaker people'. We may surmise that these BB people were the ancestors of the Celts (and Ligurians and Italics), but that does not mean that we can talk about 'Celtiberian Beaker'. There is no such thing.


nit-picking.........anyhow, not my intent

My apologies for thinking that you were trifling with us.

Jean M
04-09-2015, 01:26 AM
Do you have info on this "ligurian peninsula"

The Greek geographer Eratosthenes (c. 276-195 BC) called the Iberian peninsula the Ligurian, as reported by Strabo, 2.1.40.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-09-2015, 08:25 AM
Well if there is to be a TV series and wider coverage of the Celts, I'm looking forward to it. Looking forward to hearing more about your book too. Jean. John

Agamemnon
04-09-2015, 01:25 PM
'Nordwestblock' is a hypothetical (most probably non-existent) Indo-European language. Etruscan appears to be a language from the eastern Mediterranean which intruded into an Indo-European speaking Italy. So of your three only Basque could be a European Neolithic language, though I'm more more convinced that Palaeo-Sardinian and the substrate in Germanic and Greek were Neolithic languages. Basque has suggestions of the Copper Age about it.

^^ I tend to agree with the above. As you said, I also think the "Nordwestblock" is more akin to an imaginary entity than anything else.

David Mc
04-10-2015, 04:46 AM
Wow, not at all, that came out of left field! I was expecting a load of "Well show us the Unetice then, brainiac?". Wessex? Dunno, far away and strange. Ask Parker-Pearson or Richards. As far as I can understand, the local, "indigenous" Landlord stratum (initially Grooved Ware) had contrived to fold the metal-working interests, as a shiny status-and-wealth department, into their own sphere without too much political upheaval. Beakers and so on only gradually gained prominence.

[Confession time: Grooved Ware drives me mad. No obvious antecedents, and works the wrong way on (West to East, then North to South) to fit with the essential trends of British prehistory. Used to be Ireland (maybe) before radiocarbon, Northern Ireland to be exact, then it was (still is) the Northern Isles. Is it ultimately Danish? Is it some mutant sea-changed stuff from the Gironde? Or a weird spontaneous outgrowth of insular Bowl pottery? Baltic Impressed Wares? I give up.]

Alright, Glentane, I for one am going to bite-- not so much because I am disputing an Unetice presence as because I am curious. I had always assumed that any Unetice artifacts in the British Isles were simply an indicator of trade, but the same thing has been said (mistakenly) about the presence of Bell Beaker and La Tene artifacts, so I am open. How do you see Unetice making its way into the Isles?

glentane
04-10-2015, 11:07 AM
Oops sorry poor phrasing on my part, I did mean bronze objects not actual Central Europeans, which seem to have ended up in the northern end of the island without leaving a trail in the south. In the same areas the the people who began leaving early (from C23rd BC and possibly as early as C25th BC) and convincingly Dutch beakers. People seem to have been beetling back and forward across the North Sea fairly busily right throughout this period, well into the bronze age.
It's not possible, probably never will be in this case, to distinguish between "migrant groups" and "relatively large numbers of (male) individuals, possibly up to something". One would also be forced to go against the cast-iron mindset of prehistorians, which changed almost in lockstep from being all "invasions" half a century ago to complete "immobilism", where a stolid "native" peasantry is periodically swept by vague enthusiasms, "influences", and fashions, or just gets bored, and jettisons wholesale the few scraps of its material culture that archaeologists salvage. Only pack-pedlars, itinerant tinkers and the odd magician are permissible foreigners under this scheme, it would appear. Any indications to the contrary can be deprecated and explained away.

The only beaker-age boat I know of is the inferred tiny "coracle" from Barns Farm, Dalgety (Fife), and it's not unlikely that the Newmill (Perthshire) central feature, and the larger pits of beaker age at Upper Largie held something similar. Wouldn't like to cross more than a swimming pool in those, although if they could be scaled up to "curragh" size it might be possible to cross from Hook of Holland to Yarmouth without too much drama, and then coast north via estuaries and headlands.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_112/112_048_141.pdf (Barns Farm)
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_110/110_032_043.pdf (Newmill)
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/9481013/2010_PPS_76_Cook_.pdf (Upper Largie) p175, Figure 7

(are we off-topic enough yet?)

Jean M
05-22-2015, 02:32 PM
I hear on the grapevine that there will be a television series on the Celts.

It is being produced by the BBC and should be showing in September to coincide with the BM exhibition.

rms2
06-04-2015, 11:28 AM
It is being produced by the BBC and should be showing in September to coincide with the BM exhibition.

I hope it's better than this mess (http://www.amazon.com/The-Celts-n/dp/B003G0E33G/ref=pd_sim_74_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QT401SAJAP250MFMAVY). I bought that set not too long ago, and it is just awful, although the cinematography is nice. It is full of the "Basque-fishermen-who-learned-to-speak-Celtic", "longue duree", "Atlantic facade" stuff. Gack!

I hope this new series is more up to date than that.

Krefter
06-04-2015, 11:47 AM
It is being produced by the BBC and should be showing in September to coincide with the BM exhibition.

That'll be interesting to see. What do you think of this guy (https://youtu.be/eLV63ip7pdI)(Neil Oliver)? He does a lot of documentaries about British history.

Do, you think the BBC documentary and BM will say anything about Ancient DNA research? Or if they do talk about genetics, not mention Ancient DNA?

Krefter
06-04-2015, 12:20 PM
Anyone here have an opinion on the Iberians, Aquitaineans, Lusitanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanians), and Turdetani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani) of Pre-Roman Iberia? Like if the non-IEs of Iberia had related languages and were remnants of Neolithic times and if any were non-Celtic IEs.

It's interesting to see the ethnic/linguistic makeup before the Roman empire, and trying to understand the basics of their history, like where their language came and when it arrived and expanded.

rms2
06-04-2015, 12:21 PM
That'll be interesting to see. What do you think of this guy (https://youtu.be/eLV63ip7pdI)(Neil Oliver)? He does a lot of documentaries about British history.

Do, you think the BBC documentary and BM will say anything about Ancient DNA research? Or if they do talk about genetics, not mention Ancient DNA?

Looks like a nice documentary, but I noticed in watching a few minutes of it that he says the Celts were the descendants of the hunter-gatherers who first settled in Britain after the last Ice Age. I know only too well that was the consensus a few years ago, but it still sets my teeth on edge every time I hear it.

jeanL
06-04-2015, 02:10 PM
Anyone here have an opinion on the Iberians, Aquitaineans, Lusitanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanians), and Turdetani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani) of Pre-Roman Iberia? Like if the non-IEs of Iberia had related languages and were remnants of Neolithic times and if any were non-Celtic IEs.

It's interesting to see the ethnic/linguistic makeup before the Roman empire, and trying to understand the basics of their history, like where their language came and when it arrived and expanded.

Aquitanian spoke a closely related language to Basque, they are likely the ancestors of the French Basques and are closely related to the Spanish Basques who descend from Vascones, Vardulis and Caristii.

ADW_1981
06-04-2015, 02:25 PM
Looks like a nice documentary, but I noticed in watching a few minutes of it that he says the Celts were the descendants of the hunter-gatherers who first settled in Britain after the last Ice Age. I know only too well that was the consensus a few years ago, but it still sets my teeth on edge every time I hear it.

I have no doubt many U5 lineages who many of us West Europeans have *somewhere* in our family tree probably do. Of course, they aren't thinking this deeply on the issue. It's R1b-P312 = stone age West European all over again. If P312+ is found pre-Beaker, that will be the only time this should be considered at all.

rms2
06-04-2015, 03:46 PM
Of course, back when the Ice Age hunter-gatherers thing was the consensus opinion, it didn't stop at mtDNA or even at U5, but from what I understand, not even all the U5 in Western Europe is aboriginal there.

If pre-Beaker P312 is going to be found anywhere in Western Europe, it won't predate Beaker by much, at least according to the latest SNP counting. It dates P312 to about 2700 BC, which plants its origin during the early Beaker period.

It doesn't seem likely any P312 that old will be found in Western Europe.

ADW_1981
06-04-2015, 04:15 PM
Of course that is what the latest scientific methods state, and are consistent with the aDNA finds thus far. I'm just bracing for the highly unusual - more aDNA required. The arrival of the L51+ male, and his exact whereabouts before the massive expansion are yet to be determined.

Jean M
06-04-2015, 05:17 PM
What do you think of ... Neil Oliver?


Looks like a nice documentary, but I noticed in watching a few minutes of it that he says the Celts were the descendants of the hunter-gatherers who first settled in Britain after the last Ice Age. I know only too well that was the consensus a few years ago, but it still sets my teeth on edge every time I hear it.


Neil Oliver is an excellent presenter, in my view. The Face of Britain series (2007) may grate on those of us who were sick of the anti-migrationist orthodoxy of the time, but I was happy to see that his more recent series A History of Ancient Britain (2012-2013) had taken on board the paradigm change going on in British archaeology. I liked the way he handled it - not making a song and dance about the change of perspective, but just telling the story of Britain's past with migration in it.

He was slated to be one of the presenters of this new series, when I heard about it last year, but nothing has yet been formally announced, so I did not mention his name.


Do you think the BBC documentary and BM will say anything about Ancient DNA research? Or if they do talk about genetics, not mention Ancient DNA?

I have absolutely no inside information on the content of either the series or the exhibition. My publisher has had the green light from me to co-ordinate fully with both, but these are completely independent projects, run by people who will make up their own minds on what to include.

The BM exhibition is described as "on Celtic Art" by its project director Rosie Weetch: https://britishmuseum.academia.edu/RosieWeetch .

Krefter
06-04-2015, 10:18 PM
Of course, back when the Ice Age hunter-gatherers thing was the consensus opinion, it didn't stop at mtDNA or even at U5, but from what I understand, not even all the U5 in Western Europe is aboriginal there.

If pre-Beaker P312 is going to be found anywhere in Western Europe, it won't predate Beaker by much, at least according to the latest SNP counting. It dates P312 to about 2700 BC, which plants its origin during the early Beaker period.

It doesn't seem likely any P312 that old will be found in Western Europe.

There's several forms of I2a1-P37.2 and I2a2a-M223 which are mostly or exclusively known to the British isles and some may be Neolithic(before that Mesolithic) British. In terms of U5 there's no way to know what is from Britian and what arrived with later immigration. Unless somone find a bunch of really old U5 subclades exclusive to the British isles.

Forums have gone over this like a million times, but I doubt most British archaeologist know: It's very obvious in autosomal DNA before Anglo-Saxon invasions(and afterwards) British descended mostly(or entirely) from Bronze age(and maybe also Iron age) immigrants from Central Europe. Irish and Iron age Hinxton are almost undistinguished from Unetice. British archaeologist will have to at some point realize that sometime between 0AD and 2,500BC Britain and Ireland were repopulated.

Motzart
06-05-2015, 12:17 AM
There's several forms of I2a1-P37.2 and I2a2a-M223 which are mostly or exclusively known to the British isles and some may be Neolithic(before that Mesolithic) British. In terms of U5 there's no way to know what is from Britian and what arrived with later immigration. Unless somone find a bunch of really old U5 subclades exclusive to the British isles.

Forums have gone over this like a million times, but I doubt most British archaeologist know: It's very obvious in autosomal DNA before Anglo-Saxon invasions(and afterwards) British descended mostly(or entirely) from Bronze age(and maybe also Iron age) immigrants from Central Europe. Irish and Iron age Hinxton are almost undistinguished from Unetice. British archaeologist will have to at some point realize that sometime between 0AD and 2,500BC Britain and Ireland were repopulated.

I don't really agree with the idea that British Celts are descended from the Unetice. The evidence points to continuity from Beaker L21 to Celt L21 in Britain.

Krefter
06-05-2015, 04:37 AM
I don't really agree with the idea that British Celts are descended from the Unetice. The evidence points to continuity from Beaker L21 to Celt L21 in Britain.

I don't mean specifically the Unetice culture, but just people from that area and time period. British archaeologist need to be informed of this ASAP.

The Amesbury Archer will probably get Y DNA and or autosomal DNA analysed. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3685-Amesbury-Archer-DNA-Test-Results-in-the-Near-Future) I'm guessing, the British and Irish media will be very excited when his results come in. There might even be short films made by BBC and others about him as a result. It'll give narrative to British and Irish origins. The Amesbury Archer was one of their first forefathers to arrive in Britain.

There's Bronze age(1300-1100BC) mtDNA from Scotland on Jean Manco's site and one is T1a, which was typical of Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Andronovo, etc., but very rare in Neolithic Europe.

Jean M
06-05-2015, 10:25 AM
British archaeologist need to be informed of this ASAP.

Krefter - In this game, one has to cultivate patience. As I said above, British archaeology is in paradigm change. That tends to be a slow process, gradually filtering out from the few who first promulgate new ideas. Usually with paradigm change there will be many who initially resist the new ideas. There will be people who have spent their whole careers working in the old paradigm. New ideas which invalidate their whole body of work are not likely to be easily embraced.

In this case, the whole idea of migration in prehistory became taboo. So it is not just the idea of people arriving in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period that was unthinkable. It was the idea of real farmers landing in these islands in the Neolithic and Angles and Saxons arriving in force in the Post-Roman period as well. So there is a whole lot of mind-changing to achieve. We need a lot more ancient DNA from Britain and Ireland from as many periods as possible before everyone will be convinced. Furthermore these results need to be properly published. The Hinxton results are included in Blood of the Celts, but I went out on a limb to do that, as they are as yet unpublished. We are in exciting times. :)

Jessie
06-05-2015, 10:54 AM
Krefter - In this game, one has to cultivate patience. As I said above, British archaeology is in paradigm change. That tends to be a slow process, gradually filtering out from the few who first promulgate new ideas. Usually with paradigm change there will be many who initially resist the new ideas. There will be people who have spent their whole careers working in the old paradigm. New ideas which invalidate their whole body of work are not likely to be easily embraced.

In this case, the whole idea of migration in prehistory became taboo. So it is not just the idea of people arriving in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period that was unthinkable. It was the idea of real farmers landing in these islands in the Neolithic and Angles and Saxons arriving in force in the Post-Roman period as well. So there is a whole lot of mind-changing to achieve. We need a lot more ancient DNA from Britain and Ireland from as many periods as possible before everyone will be convinced. Furthermore these results need to be properly published. The Hinxton results are included in Blood of the Celts, but I went out on a limb to do that, as they are as yet unpublished. We are in exciting times. :)

It is amazing how fast things have changed. The R1b from the Steppes is the most significant to me. Since reading this forum I've changed my mind on the Celts as well. I was one of the many who believed that there was no movement of Celts and that it was more a cultural and language phenomenon. I do now think that the Celts can be traced looking at ydna. I'm really looking forward to your book Jean.

rms2
06-05-2015, 11:31 AM
I just finished watching all three parts of The Face of Britain that are available on YouTube. I enjoyed it very much, even though it is dated and keeps repeating the old "original hunter-gatherers from ten thousand years ago" meme.

Of course, The Face of Britain and POBI suffer from the very obvious and significant limitations inherent in trying to deduce prehistoric, ancient, and medieval population movements from the study of the genomes of modern people. It really is a great thing that the study of ancient dna is finally coming into its own.

J1 DYS388=13
06-05-2015, 03:03 PM
If this information has already been posted, please delete.

Celts (title to be confirmed) – in The Sainsbury Exhibitions Gallery of the British Museum, from September 24 to January 31, 2016.
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Events-Review/british-museum-exhibitions-for-2015

This will be the first major exhibition of Celtic art in Britain in 40 years. It will draw on the latest research on the Celts in Britain, Ireland and Western Europe and explore the long history of Celtic art and what the object tells us about the people who made and used them.

‘Celts’ and ‘Celtic Art’ are terms which are widely used in many different contexts. They do not all relate to the same thing – and in particular, they do not relate to any single people or culture. This exhibition will explore how making and using Celtic art has shaped identities from the Iron Age through to the Medieval period, and how these powerful objects and styles have continued to play a role in creating modern Celtic identities in Britain.

The first Celtic art in Britain is part of a clear western and central European tradition, but it is also distinctly British. Later, the art helped define new complex and shifting Celtic identities in Britain that were neither Roman nor Anglo Saxon/English.

The rediscovery of the ancient artistic tradition in the 18th and 19th centuries played a key role in creating new images of the Celts. These new descriptions by artists and politicians helped define what it meant to be Irish, Scottish and British. This artistic tradition and the objects it produced have always been intimately linked with questions around the Celtic peoples who made these objects.

angscoire
06-05-2015, 06:06 PM
I think Oliver did mention , in one documentary, that the Amesbury Archer came from the Alps bringing the knowledge of Bronze-making with him , but also that he was part of only a 'handful of people' arriving in the Isles with this technology; and certainly not part of any large scale migration . He was just repeating the old anti-migrationist mantra as far as I can recall , but did speak to Peter Forster about his own DNA. Regardless , I would take Oliver over Max Hastings anyday - he interviewed Oppenheimer for his own British History documentary , with predictably jaw droppingly awful results.

Wonder_Wall
06-05-2015, 07:54 PM
Good post... Like many on this board I am fascinated by the Beakers, their ultimate origins, dispersals, and of course what language they spoke. It seems at present the best model is Steppe->Portugal->Rhine->Isles->Unetice->Tumulus->Urnfield->Celtic.

The later part of this chain seems the least controversial (though nothing BB is ever free of controversy!) while the earlier part is full of rife speculation... I am really looking forward to new information on early BB/Iberian aDNA to help clear things up.

The guy over at Beaker Blogger seems to support a North African ultimate origin for BB, while others support a sea route from the Eastern Med, and of course the overland "Pontic to Portugal" route. Honestly, I have no problem imagining Steppe people on horses making their way West and not stopping until they hit the Atlantic. Anybody who has gone backpacking, or even on a solid road trip knows that the urge to simply explore new places is among the deepest human compulsions.

People with thoughts or opinions about early BB please chime in - this debate is as fascinating to me as it is apparently unresolved... The next 5 years should be revealing.

Q: why can't I find anything about the Amesbury Archer DNA - has it not been tested? That would seem like a fairly high priority but of course it all depends upon the condition of the biological materials.

alan
06-05-2015, 10:28 PM
Another more tangential way of looking at this is asking why corded ware stopped at the Rhine or near it anyway. Its not obvious to me why they would halt there and never cross that line, stray finds aside. Much of non-Med. zone France has generally been described as backwards in terms of the copper age and sort of stuck in the Neolithic. Again this would appear on the surface to make it easier for corded ware people to occupy non-Med. France. However this doesnt seem to have happened. Its almost as though there was some invisible enemy or barrier in France stopping corded ware from entering. Maybe there was - at least an archaeologically invisible one. I say that because outside the Med. zone of France there seems to be no strong copper using groups in the way in pre-beaker times. In France outside the Med. zone the beaker dates are not much earlier than in the isles and yet corded ware was appears to have been at the borders of France from 2700BC. So if there was some invisible force in non-Med. France blocking corded ware it was in place c. 2700-2500BC and could have been there earlier of course.

The only other limiting factor on Corded Ware expansion into France I can think of is that they were getting ever further away from the dominant Carpathian copper source that CW people seemed to have relied on. The north Italian mines also seem to have tailed off by 2600BC. There is a general feeling among archaeologists that the pre-beaker copper groups in southern France were inward looking and didnt wish to share or trade out their metals beyond there own people. That includes the G people at Trielles. So they essentially blocked that avenue for obtaining copper for any outsiders. It does seem that despite its distance Iberia was probably the next metal producing area left to the west to contact for corded ware people.

Still a big geographical back. However, that raises the question of whether there are less well known links plugging bits of the gap. One could have been the Spanish AOO pottery which is RC dated earlier than anywhere else in Europe but not earlier than CW with which it shares some features. AOO is interesting too because it is not Portuguese concentrated and as far as I can make out its more common in eastern Spain - both the north and east coasts. It does overlap with Maritime though thinly. I wonder if that is part of the missing link. It doesnt close the France gap or the invisible barrier to CW I was talking about.

Wonder_Wall
06-06-2015, 01:11 AM
I have noticed that AOO/AOC can look very similar to CW - at least to my novice eyeballs. While it is hard to judge size and other fine details online, they would seem to share some kind of common ancestor. It also seems clear in some discussions anyway that the Iberian BBs are a "distinct physical type" though depending on the age of the article this can be downplayed rather than emphasized as it brings up the specter of migration...

What are people's thoughts on Los Millares with respect to BB?

Jean M
06-06-2015, 11:06 AM
I have noticed that AOO/AOC can look very similar to CW - at least to my novice eyeballs. While it is hard to judge size and other fine details online, they would seem to share some kind of common ancestor.

Yes indeed. There was a long tradition on the European steppe of pottery with an everted lip and decorated by winding a cord around the pot while the clay was wet. It goes right back to when the first pottery in Europe arrived in the Samara region near the Urals. The tradition came from around Lake Baikal in Siberia, just like Y-DNA R. That is why David Reich and co took human DNA samples from the Samara region. And lo and behold! They found R1b.

Jean M
06-06-2015, 11:08 AM
What are people's thoughts on Los Millares with respect to BB?

Bell Beaker arrived late at Los Millares - in its final phase of development (2,450- 2,250 BC).

avalon
06-06-2015, 08:43 PM
There's several forms of I2a1-P37.2 and I2a2a-M223 which are mostly or exclusively known to the British isles and some may be Neolithic(before that Mesolithic) British. In terms of U5 there's no way to know what is from Britian and what arrived with later immigration. Unless somone find a bunch of really old U5 subclades exclusive to the British isles.

Forums have gone over this like a million times, but I doubt most British archaeologist know: It's very obvious in autosomal DNA before Anglo-Saxon invasions(and afterwards) British descended mostly(or entirely) from Bronze age(and maybe also Iron age) immigrants from Central Europe. Irish and Iron age Hinxton are almost undistinguished from Unetice. British archaeologist will have to at some point realize that sometime between 0AD and 2,500BC Britain and Ireland were repopulated.


I very much doubt that the Celts totally repopulated the Isles during the Bronze Age. So far we only have the Hinxton samples from Eastern England and they may not be representative of other parts of the Isles. Jean mentioned that they hadn't even been published yet?!

The Haak paper suggested that there was 75% population replacement in Central Europe by Indo-Europeans. Until we have more ancient DNA from the Isles let's assume it is a similar figure in Britain - that still leaves 25% continuity which to my mind is significant.

It does look like there was large scale re-population by the male lineage R1b in Britain during the Bronze Age but we have no idea how long it took to become dominant in the Isles. I was also struck by a recent paper which talked about the expansion of lineages being a male specific phenomenon with the possibility of social selection. In contrast to the mtDNA data.

So, I think it is plausible that the y-DNA story is different to mtDNA which is more complicated and more difficult to track via migrations. Given that mtDNA H is abundant in Neolithic samples and is predominant in Western Europe then maybe in Britain there is more continuity through the female lineages.

Jean M
06-06-2015, 10:48 PM
So far we only have the Hinxton samples from Eastern England and they may not be representative of other parts of the Isles. Jean mentioned that they hadn't even been published yet?!

A paper on them was read at a conference and other paper is due to be read at another conference shortly. So we have abstracts. Also the raw data files were released online, so people with the software to do so can make comparisons with other ancient individuals or with modern populations. Some in this community have done so and posted results. One blogger decoded the Y-DNA of the two males. But this all counts as unpublished in the academic world. I stuck my neck out to report the Y-DNA.

In any case the point of these samples was to see if differences could be detected between Celt and Anglo-Saxon. I was very keen for that sort of study to be done, but it does not give us the whole story of the prehistory of the British Isles. We need Neolithic and Copper Age samples. Not that I expect the picture to be vastly different from the rest of Europe in general terms, but we need solid data.

Dubhthach
06-07-2015, 08:51 AM
In any case the point of these samples was to see if differences could be detected between Celt and Anglo-Saxon. I was very keen for that sort of study to be done, but it does not give us the whole story of the prehistory of the British Isles. We need Neolithic and Copper Age samples. Not that I expect the picture to be vastly different from the rest of Europe in general terms, but we need solid data.

Well to use an Irish proverb:

Tús maith leath na hOibre
(A good start is half the work)

One of other abstracts I see mentioned online (Eurogenes?) talks about recovering genomes from 10 skulls found in York (Gladiators?) and how 9 appeared to be "British" whereas the 10 appeares to be of Mediterranean origin. So potentially we are looking at close on 20 samples from pre-Roman/Roman period been available over the next year.

avalon
06-07-2015, 10:36 AM
A paper on them was read at a conference and other paper is due to be read at another conference shortly. So we have abstracts. Also the raw data files were released online, so people with the software to do so can make comparisons with other ancient individuals or with modern populations. Some in this community have done so and posted results. One blogger decoded the Y-DNA of the two males. But this all counts as unpublished in the academic world. I stuck my neck out to report the Y-DNA.

In any case the point of these samples was to see if differences could be detected between Celt and Anglo-Saxon. I was very keen for that sort of study to be done, but it does not give us the whole story of the prehistory of the British Isles. We need Neolithic and Copper Age samples. Not that I expect the picture to be vastly different from the rest of Europe in general terms, but we need solid data.

Thanks, clear response.

I am just not buying this suggestion that Britain was totally repopulated during the Bronze Age. 75% population replacement for Central Europe (per Haak) is mass migration but it is not total replacement as Krefter hinted at.

In contrast to Y-DNA, the current mtDNA evidence appears ambiguous and I am not persuaded at all that the prehistoric female story in Britain is the same as the expansion of R1b.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 10:57 AM
I am just not buying this suggestion that Britain was totally repopulated during the Bronze Age. 75% population replacement for Central Europe (per Haak) is mass migration but it is not total replacement

I wouldn't care to make any prediction on percentages, which I'm not much interested in anyway. I know that exact percentages sound so much more scientific than a rough idea, but I distrust them for that very reason. I think they convey a false impression that we can be as accurate as that. (Though I admit I have used the 75% estimate for Corded Ware, as it can be converted into an average or three out of four grandparents, which I think helps the reader to visualise a pattern of mixture with one element dominant.)

I'm interested in the process. Was the replacement of Neolithic Y-DNA haplogroups rapid or gradual over a long period? We still don't know.

As for mtDNA - I would hedge my bets on that. The 75% estimate for Corded Ware was not made on Y-DNA, but on the full genome. The marriage pattern in Bell Beaker that appears from isotopes suggests that they were patrilocal, and that wives could come from some distance to settle with the husband's family. That would fit marriage partners drawn from other parts of the Bell Beaker network rather better than a pattern of taking local wives from a pre-Beaker population, but I imagine that both happened.

Krefter
06-07-2015, 11:09 AM
I wouldn't care to make any prediction on percentages, which I'm not much interested in anyway. I know that exact percentages sound so much more scientific than a rough idea, but I distrust them for that very reason. I think they convey a false impression that we can be as accurate as that.

I agree. I trust they can detect trends and not so much exact percentages of ancestry. Although they're probably pretty accurate with ancestry percentages.

Isidro
06-07-2015, 05:34 PM
Bell Beaker arrived late at Los Millares - in its final phase of development (2,450- 2,250 BC).

There is a more recent view that suggests continuity from los Millares phase I prior to 2,500 BC. The 2,250 is the last legs prior to Bronze Age layer for the region well represented by El Argar territory.

alan
06-07-2015, 06:25 PM
Found this paper from last year interesting. One of several which sees Beaker rather than corded ware as the forerunner of the following Early Bronze Age cultures

http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000010

alan
06-07-2015, 07:03 PM
Jean - what would be the very latest paper discussing the very earliest BB dates from Iberia? With the earliest dates for CW being thrown out and dendro dates in Switzerland only from 2720BC etc it makes the issue of the earliest bell beaker date, its particulars etc even more important.

There is an old, and intermittently revived idea that there was an initial wave of single burial rite that went west a little ahead of the spread of the corded ware package - the Kalbsrieth group. It does strike me that without RC dating- especially if re-using old collective tombs and subsequently disturbed - a spread of single burial users without distinctive material culture than could survive to today in the graves. What if a small vanguard of single burial users did pass through west central Europe to the west ahead of corded ware? The best evidence for that is of course early dates in Iberia for beaker burials - I presume the beaker culture is a hybrid development of local and intrusive elements in Iberia. However as I noted above the hard to explain invisible barrier on France's eastern boundaries could be evidence that corded ware proper was preceded by a vanguard who brought a version of the single burial type traditions as well as new pottery ideas but blocked the shortly following corded ware proper wave. Obviously the use of negative evidence is never ideal but I think its an interesting angle to chew over - were there eastern derived lineages (who led to beaker culture) already in both France and Iberia when corded ware hit the 'invisible boundary' at the border of France. It interesting to chew over because if this wasnt the case the period c. 2700-2500BC is mighty odd in that the beaker and corded ware groups both just ignored non-Med France.

Jean M
06-07-2015, 09:07 PM
Jean - what would be the very latest paper discussing the very earliest BB dates from Iberia?

I expect what you are looking for is João Luís Cardoso, Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon North of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 71, N.º 1, (2014), pp. 56-75,

avalon
06-08-2015, 07:00 PM
I'm interested in the process. Was the replacement of Neolithic Y-DNA haplogroups rapid or gradual over a long period? We still don't know.


I agree, the expansion of R1b and the Celts and the interaction between the Celts and the Neolithic Britons is a key question for me. Was there some sort of male driven social selection that benefited R1b at the expense of Neolithic men, such as better weaponry and technology or were the Celts just taller and better looking. :)

Whatever the reason I can imagine a scenario whereby R1b men take indigenous wives and hence more mtDNA continuity than with y-DNA.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your book. You going to take on the Anglo-Saxons next!

Jean M
06-08-2015, 08:05 PM
You going to take on the Anglo-Saxons next!

I really don't know. :)

Peccavi
06-08-2015, 09:23 PM
A paper on them was read at a conference and other paper is due to be read at another conference shortly. So we have abstracts. Also the raw data files were released online, so people with the software to do so can make comparisons with other ancient individuals or with modern populations. Some in this community have done so and posted results. One blogger decoded the Y-DNA of the two males. But this all counts as unpublished in the academic world. I stuck my neck out to report the Y-DNA.

In any case the point of these samples was to see if differences could be detected between Celt and Anglo-Saxon. I was very keen for that sort of study to be done, but it does not give us the whole story of the prehistory of the British Isles. We need Neolithic and Copper Age samples. Not that I expect the picture to be vastly different from the rest of Europe in general terms, but we need solid data.

Forgive me for asking a question especially as I have only a faint understanding of DNA testing.

Are you referring to the two Hinxton "Iron Age" specimens when you are talking of the Celts? Are these likely to be Belgae? In which case, are you be able to comment in your book up the anomaly in Caesar's writings ie "Belgae sprung from the Germans with a different culture and language to the Gauls", whilst every inscription and coin that we possess points to the Belgae being La Tene and in Britain most likely p-celtic speakers?

I suppose it is too much to hope that the genetic make-up might reveal whether there are any differences between the Briganties and Belgae.

Jean M
06-08-2015, 09:37 PM
Are you referring to the two Hinxton "Iron Age" specimens when you are talking of the Celts? Are these likely to be Belgae?

Yes and yes.


are you able to comment in your book up the anomaly in Caesar's writings ie "Belgae sprung from the Germans with a different culture and language to the Gauls", whilst every inscription and coin that we possess points to the Belgae being La Tene and in Britain most likely p-celtic speakers?

Yes. Caesar did not in fact say that the Belgae were sprung from the Germans.

Caesar famously declared that Gaul was divided into three parts, inhabited by the Belgae, the Aquitani and 'a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls'. Each, he said, had a different language, customs and laws. In fact the name Belgae has a Celtic etymology and their recorded tribal, personal and place-names are Celtic (with very few exceptions), so their linguistic differences from the Gauls cannot have been dramatic. Caesar says that the ancestors of the Belgae had long ago come across the Rhine from Germany, expelling the former inhabitants from northeast Gaul. They had a late La Tène culture. Thus their ancestry was from what the Romans called Germania, but they were Celts.

To add to the confusion some Germanic tribes had crossed the Rhine by Caesar's time and they fought with the Belgae against Caesar. Four tribes are picked out as Germanic in the military intelligence gained by Caesar (II.4), though one of those appears Belgic.

avalon
06-09-2015, 07:56 AM
It's very obvious in autosomal DNA before Anglo-Saxon invasions(and afterwards) British descended mostly(or entirely) from Bronze age(and maybe also Iron age) immigrants from Central Europe. Irish and Iron age Hinxton are almost undistinguished from Unetice. British archaeologist will have to at some point realize that sometime between 0AD and 2,500BC Britain and Ireland were repopulated.

Krefter,

If the British are largely descended from Central European immigrants then how does this square with the results from the recent people of British Isles project which showed strong genetic affinity between all parts of Britain and Northern and NW France.

I know it is only modern DNA blah blah blah, but there must be some explanation for this British/French affinity. Do you think it is because the Northern and NW French are also largely descended from Central European Bronze Age immigrants, so what we are seeing is shared ancestry, derived from further east?

Krefter
06-09-2015, 08:43 AM
Krefter,

If the British are largely descended from Central European immigrants then how does this square with the results from the recent people of British Isles project which showed strong genetic affinity between all parts of Britain and Northern and NW France.

I know it is only modern DNA blah blah blah, but there must be some explanation for this British/French affinity. Do you think it is because the Northern and NW French are also largely descended from Central European Bronze Age immigrants, so what we are seeing is shared ancestry, derived from further east?

I should have said mainland Europe, France included. Yes, French have a lot of this type of ancestry, but not as much as British. This type of blood went from East to West, it's as simple as that. So, it was in Germany before France, and probably arrived in France from Germany. Maybe the Celts arrived in Britain from France, maybe they mixed alot with each other. There could be genaological connections between France and Britain. Also, many Celtic British migrated to NW France in the Middle Ages.

alan
06-09-2015, 01:04 PM
Cheers its online too. The terms 2nd quarter of the 3rd millennium seems to be the standard term given. It of course a bit vague but given the nature of RC dating its understandable. It does seem beyond dispute that Iberia has the earliest RC dates. I am kind of looking for a handy ballpark. Looking at those dates I tend to think 2700BC seems a safe ballpark. Maybe even 2750BC but the dates older than that sometimes bandied about liked 2900BC seem to be based on the outer confidence intervals of single dates which is frankly a bit daft. Its important of course to get as close a date for the appearance of beaker to put into its European context. Would you agree that a date for earliest beaker around 2700-2750BC? All the usual caveats of course.

alan
06-09-2015, 01:21 PM
if we can say that a ballpark for the earliest dates for beaker we can give with confidence don't long predate 2700BC then it at least puts the beaker phenomenon's appearance in Iberia close to the date CW reached its western extent and aligns them as parallel phenomenon in the same period. The puzzler of course is that - apparently - non-Med. France sat between the corded ware and bell beaker phenomenon for 200 years. Even Med. France seems to have been free of both CW and beaker c. 2700-2600BC.

It makes me think that the archaeology of France c. 2750BC-2600BC may contain some answers but they may be as obscure as single graves inserted into collective megaliths that have never been subject to radiocarbon dating. The numbers may not be great and hard to spot. If these pre-date the creation of beaker per-se in Iberia then the tool of using pottery to date or attribute to a culture may not be possible or even valid if they are an immediate pre-beaker culture with no name. Single burials with little or no finds have often only been dated long after excavation in a round of funded RC based research.

ADW_1981
06-09-2015, 01:26 PM
That recent project actually showed a large part of ancestry coming from Western Germany, in addition to NW France/Belgium.

alan
06-09-2015, 01:50 PM
I was reading about Swedish Battle Axe burials and noticed something interesting. the bodies were buried in a single flat grave without mound, flexed, orientated north-south facing east with men on their right and women on their left both facing east. That has a lot of echoes of beaker rather than classic corded ware albeit with the gender orientations reversed. This apparently is also common in northern Poland. While I am of course not remotely arguing for any direct connection, it does appear to show that some parallels in beliefs existed between these Swedish battle axe groups and beaker single burial but contrasts with the classic corded ware orientations. If this isn't just a fluke it suggest some deeper shared ancestral beliefs or significance of these orientations be it IE or some sort of pre-IE substrate belief absorbed

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dbC6BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=battle+axe+graves+without+corded+ware&source=bl&ots=3oesHXniBM&sig=NRTms6_AYuBsBocKKsHGVIX1nmY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gel2VcjDCsbjUdjBgCg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=battle%20axe%20graves%20without%20corded%20ware&f=false

avalon
06-09-2015, 01:52 PM
That recent project actually showed a large part of ancestry coming from Western Germany, in addition to NW France/Belgium.

True but the French components were more substantial than the German ones.
In wales biggest component was nw France followed by western Germany.

Jessie
06-09-2015, 02:58 PM
True but the French components were more substantial than the German ones.
In wales biggest component was nw France followed by western Germany.

I think north west France would be quite similar to western Germany. I would think it would be a very similar population. It sort of makes sense that if a lot of the British Isles is of Beaker origin that the people would have came from west Germany and through NW France.

Helgenes50
06-09-2015, 03:12 PM
I think north west France would be quite similar to western Germany. I would think it would be a very similar population. It sort of makes sense that if a lot of the British Isles is of Beaker origin that the people would have came from west Germany and through NW France.

From we can see in the different results, North East or North France is more similar to Western Germany than NW France.
The Normans are closer to the germans than the Bretons, but the reason is maybe the Danubian ( LBK)Ancestry which is higher, without speaking of the different Germanic contributions

alan
06-09-2015, 03:19 PM
yep having chewed over the dates I think 2700-2750 CAL BC would be the earliest date and something around then appears the best ball park figure to quote for the earliest beaker. As for corded ware it seems a similar date at its western extent seems plausible and it is increasingly looking like it is not hugely older than the earliest bell beaker even in its earlier eastern area. I don't know what a good ballpark for the earliest CW is - perhaps 2800BC??

Jessie
06-09-2015, 03:30 PM
From we can see in the different results, North East or North France is more similar to Western Germany than NW France.
The Normans are closer to the germans than the Bretons, but the reason is maybe the Danubian ( LBK)Ancestry which is higher, without speaking of the different Germanic contributions

I just noticed on 23andMe the high British&Irish that northern French get especially people from Normandy and the Dutch are the other people that get very high British&Irish in the AC. I've seen Dutch with higher British&Irish than French&German. All those populations appear quite similar and appear to cluster together. I'm sure there are fine scale differences though.

Helgenes50
06-09-2015, 03:47 PM
I just noticed on 23andMe the high British&Irish that northern French get especially people from Normandy and the Dutch are the other people that get very high British&Irish in the AC. I've seen Dutch with higher British&Irish than French&German. All those populations appear quite similar and appear to cluster together. I'm sure there are fine scale differences though.

Yes indeed, You are right, the British/Irish is very high in NW France, in the case of my first couin and mine more than 40 %

alan
06-09-2015, 04:53 PM
this looks interesting http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9455753

Radboud
06-09-2015, 06:15 PM
Yes and yes.



Yes. Caesar did not in fact say that the Belgae were sprung from the Germans.

Caesar famously declared that Gaul was divided into three parts, inhabited by the Belgae, the Aquitani and 'a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls'. Each, he said, had a different language, customs and laws. In fact the name Belgae has a Celtic etymology and their recorded tribal, personal and place-names are Celtic (with very few exceptions), so their linguistic differences from the Gauls cannot have been dramatic. Caesar says that the ancestors of the Belgae had long ago come across the Rhine from Germany, expelling the former inhabitants from northeast Gaul. They had a late La Tène culture. Thus their ancestry was from what the Romans called Germania, but they were Celts.

To add to the confusion some Germanic tribes had crossed the Rhine by Caesar's time and they fought with the Belgae against Caesar. Four tribes are picked out as Germanic in the military intelligence gained by Caesar (II.4), though one of those appears Belgic.

What is your opinion about tribes like Tencteri and Usipetes? Some people consider them as rather Celtic or mixed Germanic/Celtic.

Jean M
06-09-2015, 08:42 PM
the dates older than that sometimes bandied about liked 2900BC seem to be based on the outer confidence intervals of single dates

That's right. This really needs to be set in the context of the way RC dating works. Muller and van Willigen 2001 concluded that:


En effet, a cause d'une oscillation de grande amplitude de la courbe de calibration entre 2900-2800 BC cal. beaucoup de datations vont debuter, apres calibration, vers 2900-2850 BC sans qu'il soit possible de dire de fagon definitive si une telle datation correspond bien a une realite chronologique. Le Phenomene Campaniforme debute donc entre 2900 et 2700 BC cal. La fin du Campaniforme peut etre par contre datee avec plus de precision vers 2100 BC cal. si l'on excepte naturellement les datations de l'Epicampaniforme.


Translation:


Indeed, because of a large amplitude oscillation of the calibration curve between 2900-2800 cal BC. many dates will come out, after calibration, towards 2900-2850 BC without being able to say in a definitive way if such dating corresponds to a chronological reality. The Beaker Phenomenon began between 2900 and 2700 cal BC. The end of Campaniforme can be dated more accurately around 2100 cal BC, with the exception of the dating of Epicampaniforme.

So Muller and van Willigen were cautious, because they took into account the calibration curve. They concluded that Bell Beaker began between 2900 and 2700 BC, which does not mean "began on the dot of 2900 BC"! :)

The starting date I went for in Ancestral Journeys (2013) was 2700 BC, out of an excess of caution perhaps, but I hope readers will understand that an exact date is impossible. In Blood of the Celts, I changed to c. 2800 BC, as the central point between 2900 and 2700 BC, but this time sticking in the circa to make sure that readers know that this is not exact. As I didn't change the date in AJ revised edn., I'm afraid that I will be contradicting myself when these two books come out in the autumn! I do hope it is not a hanging offence.

Jean M
06-09-2015, 09:05 PM
What is your opinion about tribes like Tencteri and Usipetes? Some people consider them as rather Celtic or mixed Germanic/Celtic.

Neither name is obviously Celtic. Both tribes are described as Germanic by Caesar, Commentaries on the Gallic War, IV, 1 http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/gallic_e4.html
Both are placed east of the Rhine by Tacitus, Germania, 33.

But then we have to explain the Celtic place-name Noviomagos (present-day Nijmegen). One theory is that this common Romano-Celtic place-name spread into regions where the most of the populace was not Celtic speaking.

Jean M
06-23-2015, 09:42 PM
I've just noticed that the title of the forthcoming exhibition at the British Museum will be Celts: art and identity (opening in Room 30 on 24 September 2015).

alan
06-24-2015, 01:10 AM
That's right. This really needs to be set in the context of the way RC dating works. Muller and van Willigen 2001 concluded that:



Translation:



So Muller and van Willigen were cautious, because they took into account the calibration curve. They concluded that Bell Beaker began between 2900 and 2700 BC, which does not mean "began on the dot of 2900 BC"! :)

The starting date I went for in Ancestral Journeys (2013) was 2700 BC, out of an excess of caution perhaps, but I hope readers will understand that an exact date is impossible. In Blood of the Celts, I changed to c. 2800 BC, as the central point between 2900 and 2700 BC, but this time sticking in the circa to make sure that readers know that this is not exact. As I didn't change the date in AJ revised edn., I'm afraid that I will be contradicting myself when these two books come out in the autumn! I do hope it is not a hanging offence.

However the much more recent paper I read they used the term 2nd quarter of the 3rd millenium BC which did seem to be a fair conclusion based on the dates it presented - especially if you allow for at least a short period between the birth and death for bone material. It seemed they were pushing for 2750BC as the earliest safe date to claim and that did seem to fit the dates they talked about.

Krampus
06-24-2015, 06:37 AM
Caesar says that the ancestors of the Belgae had long ago come across the Rhine from Germany, expelling the former inhabitants from northeast Gaul.

"Expelling", or worse. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuaire_de_Ribemont-sur-Ancre#Le_site_gaulois

http://www.franceculture.fr/emission-le-salon-noir-qui-furent-donc-les-sacrifies-du-grand-sanctuaire-celtique-de-ribemont-sur-an


http://static.franceculture.fr/sites/default/files/imagecache/ressource_full/2011/05/23/4257765/RSA-reconstitution-charnier.jpg

alan
06-24-2015, 07:07 AM
However the much more recent paper I read they used the term 2nd quarter of the 3rd millenium BC which did seem to be a fair conclusion based on the dates it presented - especially if you allow for at least a short period between the birth and death for bone material. It seemed they were pushing for 2750BC as the earliest safe date to claim and that did seem to fit the dates they talked about.

I suppose RC being what it is its very hard to be sure of an exactly quotable ballpark earliest date. Its a shame because exactly where it falls across 2900-2700BC does make a difference to the options. For example Corded Ware in the Switzerland study is placed at 2720BC for the earliest date if I remember correctly.

What I would love to be more sure of is not so much the earliest date for beaker in Iberia but the earliest RC date for individual or individualised beaker burial. That to me is more important than the pottery. It is possible that within Iberia the emergence of beaker pottery and the burial change are not exactly the same date. For example central European pottery influences (if that is the origin of beaker - I think it seems a reasonable bet) could precede a male intrusion if it came about by an initial exchange of wives during an early contact period and was only slightly later followed up by the male intrusion into Iberia. From what I understand of AOO beaker in Iberia, its early but not from classic beaker single burials but then again I cannot say I am sure about this.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 09:13 AM
"Expelling", or worse. .

Thank you for pointing that amazing site out. Something like 1,000 warriors died.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 10:18 AM
Its a shame because exactly where it falls across 2900-2700BC does make a difference to the options. For example Corded Ware in the Switzerland study is placed at 2720BC for the earliest date

I know that your heart belongs to Corded Ware, Alan. We have been having this argument since 2009. :) I remember you once saying that you used to see Bell Beaker as just a funny kind of Corded Ware. Naturally there are many similarities between the two cultures, which includes cord decoration on pottery, since both descend from Yamnaya. This origin was obvious culturally, and now supported from genome-wide aDNA.

But there are significant cultural differences. If there were not, the two cultures would simply have the same name. :) For example, BB is related to settlements and a mixed economy, while CW was a more pastoralist culture. Wrist-guards are associated with BB (and the Cetina culture - a link from the Danube to the Adriatic). BB pottery has the decoration picked out by rubbing in a paste made of bone, a technique earlier found in the Danube valley. Late BB includes pottery types borrowed from cultures of the Carpathian Basin. There is absolutely nothing in BB that derives it from CW rather than Yamnaya.

There are also significant differences genetically. CW is strong in R1a and coincides with the later distribution of the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages. BB is strong in R1b-P312 and covers the territory where Celtic, Italic and Ligurian languages later appear. All this is as I and others predicted years ago from modern distributions alone.

rms2
06-24-2015, 11:14 AM
I've just noticed that the title of the forthcoming exhibition at the British Museum will be Celts: art and identity (opening in Room 30 on 24 September 2015).

The "identity" part does not bode well.

alan
06-24-2015, 05:19 PM
Actually was talking nonsense there. This is the paper which set out the new Repin to Yamnaya scheme

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16087/pdf

Presumably if Yamnaya is just a developed phase of Repin then Repin also was an M269 dominated culture.

alan
06-24-2015, 05:25 PM
Actually was talking nonsense there. This is the paper which set out the new Repin to Yamnaya scheme

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16087/pdf

Presumably if Yamnaya is just a developed phase of Repin then Repin also was an M269 dominated culture.

What the paper doesnt really discuss is the origin of Repin. The latter emerged c. 4000BC but What is it rooted in? Sredny Stog?

Anthony has this to say about Repin - noting similarity of the pottery with the Sredny Stog group under Maykop influence around the Don. Clearly clarifying the chronology is in a state of serious flux in terms of steppe cultures and adjacent so nothing is written in stone.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=repin+culture&source=bl&ots=2Z50oTOIPD&sig=PP1GreKdDgbh7zhRyXiSb0ksIec&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I-qKVayoF4m5-AHd-oGwBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=repin%20culture&f=false

alan
06-24-2015, 06:32 PM
I know that your heart belongs to Corded Ware, Alan. We have been having this argument since 2009. :) I remember you once saying that you used to see Bell Beaker as just a funny kind of Corded Ware. Naturally there many similarities between the two cultures, which includes cord decoration on pottery, since both descend from Yamnaya. This origin was obvious culturally, and now supported from genome-wide aDNA.

But there are significant cultural differences. If there were not, the two cultures would simply have the same name. :) For example, BB is related to settlements and a mixed economy, while CW was a more pastoralist culture. Wrist-guards are associated with BB (and the Cetina culture - a link from the Danube to the Adriatic). BB pottery has the decoration picked out by rubbing in a paste made of bone, a technique earlier found in the Danube valley. Late BB includes pottery types borrowed from cultures of the Carpathian Basin. There is absolutely nothing in BB that derives it from CW rather than Yamnaya.

There are also significant differences genetically. CW is strong in R1a and coincides with the later distribution of the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages. BB is strong in R1b-P312 and covers the territory where Celtic, Italic and Ligurian languages later appear. All this is as I and others predicted years ago from modern distributions alone.

Well yes of course noone is arguing against the Celto-Italic/beaker P312 link for many years but it is the missing links that keep this interesting. Roughly between L23 in the east and P312 in the west with L11 and L51 as the missing link part of the story that is unresolved. That missing link zone in term of dates, phylogenic geography and archaeology.

The main point of interest left is the missing link between beaker and the east. We now know the L23 origin and the P312 destination but there are links missing and that is obvious from the debate about this all through these threads. Geographically eastern and central European cultures of known genetic affinity dont get us to the west in a self evident form in terms of the detail. If it did then there would be no debate. Its like a story where we know the origin and the end but some bugger has nicked a missing chapter with the detail of the bit in between. Yamnaya gets us to Hungary, CW gets us to Switzerland but BB is earliest in Iberia. The ancient DNA evidence if clear of a Yamnaya or closely related origin and diffusion. However, different archaeologists have noted comparisons with aspects of both in terms of beaker - even Spanish archaeologists recently have talked about the individualised burials as being very similar to CW burials. I am not saying they were CW. Perhaps they were a Yamnaya group who made it to the Danube in Hungary then later passed through CW territory further up the Danube thus bringing about a mix of traits. They were a big Magpie like in borrowing ideas - part of their charm I would say.

However, I dont buy the idea that the original copper working element in Iberia or other parts of the centre and west Med and south Alpine zone was R1b or steppe related and there are a lot of strikes against a Med. early copper spread route in ancient DNA now. What I think on all the latest evidence is that early beaker culture - certainly the new burial traditions and almost certainly the pot and other traits- represents is a rapid local expression of new central European groups entering and mixing with locals. So IMO early beaker 'is it' and there is not real ancestral precursor to beaker in Iberia in terms of named archaeological cultures as there was no real gap between intrusion and beaker culture in Iberia. So for me the earliest dates for beaker in Iberia - say 2750BC or whatever one's favoured sound bite date is -is very close to the date of the new elements rolling into Iberia.

A magpie culture like beaker is likely a combination of cultural traits that lay between Ukraine and Iberia c. 3000 to 2750BC. That IMO is probably why there are libraries worth of debate on it and its been very hard to have a consensus on this. As to why they were a magpie culture that would seem to relate to initially being a small lineage (if they were a larger wave of settlers like CW we would see it) and a tendency to marry out. Pottery still remains the most common archaeological find by a huge margin and it is a predominantly female craft. The result of male lineages that marry out will mean their pottery traits will end up eclectic and constantly adjusting and adding traits.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 07:18 PM
...it is the missing links that keep this interesting. Roughly between L23 in the east and P312 in the west with L11 and L51 as the missing link part of the story that is unresolved.

Since that is the single lineage section, it presumably will be found earlier than the Yamnaya expansions (which we would expect to generate the star-clusters of subclades under L11). So we would expect to find L51 and and L11 sitting quietly somewhere on/near the steppe, minding their own business until swept into the Yamna Horizon. Current Michal M. estimated dates for both are before the start of the mobile Yamnaya. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=69786&viewfull=1#post69786

That would explain why P312 seems to flow up the Danube, while U106 seems to have gone north from Ustavo up the Dniester. But let's by all means await further excitement from ancient DNA. At the moment it is flowing thick and fast. Exciting times! :)

alan
06-24-2015, 08:04 PM
Since that is the single lineage section, it presumably will be found earlier than the Yamnaya expansions (which we would expect to generate the star-clusters of subclades under L11). So we would expect to find L51 and and L11 sitting quietly somewhere on/near the steppe, minding their own business until swept into the Yamna Horizon. Current Michal M. estimated dates for both are before the start of the mobile Yamnaya. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=69786&viewfull=1#post69786

That would explain why P312 seems to flow up the Danube, while U106 seems to have gone north on the east side of the Carpathians. But let's by all means await further excitement from ancient DNA. At the moment it is flowing thick and fast. Exciting times! :)

It would seem that Z2103 was into a major expansion phase driven by Yamnaya in the ancient DNA results but that it began in Repin. Both Z2103 and Repin dating to around 4000BC would be a good match. I totally agree that the structure of L51 and indeed the ancient DNA results so far (albeit they dont cover the whole Euro steppe) tend to suggest L51 didnt benefit from Repin-Yamnaya expansion in the way Z2103 clearly did and its really doing not a lot until the post-L11 period expansion - apparently after 3000BC.

Another intriguing aspect if U106 was in CW even is small numbers it seems to imply L11 was close to the south of the CW formation zone and yet the several waves south-west into the Balkans from the the area between the Dnieper and Danube delta dont seem to have included any evidence of an L51 expansion in them - well unless they have been totally wiped clean. And yet its hard not to see L11 ancestor of P312 not having used the Danube. So the only solution I can see is that some L11 (perhaps with residual L11xL51 lineages) got out of the steppe ahead (perhaps fractionally so) of the Z2103 flow into the Lower Danube. So L11 would have had to have split into two shortly after it came into existence c. 3000BC. The element that got into CW must have trickled into the middle Dnieper or nearby just north of the big Yamnaya zone while the L11 element that headed west must have been on the Lower Danube by 3000BC and moving rapidly upstream ahead of the pack - which would of course handily fit the IE branching scheme. What is interesting I think is that Yamnaya in Hungary and CW could have been close to bumping back into each other at the Danube and could have in theory have been in competition to use Upper Danube to head west.

MJost
06-24-2015, 09:40 PM
With the latest paper, Rise555's dating and location appears to have migrated south along the Volga River along the east side. The rivers from the Western Urals tributaries into the Volga. The steppe region began to witness the emergence of societies committed to stock-breeding while the forest-steppe northwest of the Black Sea remained the home of increasingly prosperous and productive mixed farmers. An economic-cultural frontier formed between them. It remained the most clearly defined and contrastive cultural frontier in prehistoric Europe for about twenty-three hundred years, 5600-3300 b.c

Is this area where L23>>L51>>L11 operated and became interested in Bronze and then moved westward out of the Stepps and into western Europe?

Just following ancient DNA:

Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River, a ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’ I0124-Basal L278* was date 5640-5555 calBCE centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region Lebyazhinka, Samarskaya oblast', Russia

moving southwards 752km during the time period, in which they experienced the the 5.9k (3.9k bc) climate event causing intense aridification triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, may have forced movements of people and conflict. The grave site found further south was

Rise555* 2857 - 24097BC | M260-(/CTS623) Volgograd, Volgograd Oblast, Russia

Was this the L51 xL11 who migrated further south when the climate became better? And L51>L11 moved westward accross the northern edge of the Black sea into it's western edge and up the Danube?

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lopatino,+Samarskaya+oblast',+Russia,+443535/Volgograd,+Volgograd+Oblast,+Russia/@51.7750876,46.8648866,7z/data=!4m8!4m7!1m2!1m1!1s0x4168a824c46917c3:0x3454f 11ef41db44f!1m2!1m1!1s0x41053375b85b7667:0x880d179 cce57da41!3e2

*Smal updates on 06-12-2015,

RISE555_Stalingrad Quarry_EBA_Russia | M269 block } PF6399/S10+ > CTS7340/Z2107+ > Z2106+ Y:8025025(G/A)-

RISE547_Temrta IV_Yamnaya_Russia | L23 block } L478/PF6403+ > Z2103 block } CTS9416+ > Z2106+ Y:9992926(T/C)-

RISE548_Temrta IV_Yamnaya_Russia | M269 block } PF6494+ > L23/PF6534/S141+ > Z8128/Y4371+ Z2105+ CTS9416+ CTS1843/Z2109- CTS9219- Y:22971205(G/C)- Y:7033880(C/T)- PH4503-

RISE550_Peshany V_Yamnaya_Russia | M269 block } PF6399/S10+ PF6494+ > Z8129/Y12537+ CTS8966-

MJost

Jean M
06-24-2015, 10:16 PM
With the latest paper, Rise555's dating and location ... Just following ancient DNA:

Sok River [SVP44]: Update by Smal: R1b1a and in process of formation R1b1a1 (M73): http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

RISE555 is R1b1a2a2 (CTS7340/Z2107) i.e. not R1b1a2a1 (L51). OK - they are brother lineages, but as you realise, brothers can wander.

By the way, Steppe people moved up the Danube in the Copper Age. Bronze is a later development. According to David Anthony, that movement began somewhere on the middle steppe, east of Usatovo. I'm happy to wait and see.

Jean M
07-10-2015, 05:35 PM
Today's Guardian newspaper carries an article on the forthcoming exhibition(s): From monsters to manga: golden age of art by the Celtic race that never was http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jul/10/from-monsters-to-manga-golden-age-of-art-by-the-celtic-race-that-never-was


A new exhibition coming to London and Edinburgh explores a people united only by their otherness – and weirdness

An exhibition of the glorious works of art created by the Celts is being created jointly by the British Museum and National Museums Scotland – the first on the subject in more than 40 years.

Although millions of people across the world proudly identify as Celtic, sporting swirling jewellery and tattoos as badges of honour, the British Museum’s director, Neil MacGregor, said the term “Celt” was used by the ancient Greeks to refer to anyone in Europe north of the Mediterranean. “The word Celt was used to describe what people were not – not Roman, not Viking, not Mediterranean, not metropolitan or imperial,” MacGregor said. “The name Celt is a badge of otherness.” MacGregor, whose Scottish ancestors include Gaelic and English speakers, said he identified as “partly Celtic”.

Fraser Hunter, curator for the exhibition in Scotland, is about to return to excavate a site where a metal detector found a 2,000-year-old collar and brooch only last year. He said that although some believe the word Celt may come from a northern European language, since it has no Greek or Roman root, there is no evidence that the people who made the beautiful intricate gold collars, bronze helmets and shields ever called themselves Celts. The term was used again in the middle ages, but only became common in the romantic 19th-century revival of interest in the art and culture – which endures to this day.

The exhibition will include Japanese manga trading cards with Celtic designs, and a Marvel comic with a cover featuring a rampaging Celtic warrior – Cuchulainn the Irish Wolfhound...

Julia Farley, the London curator, said the museums hoped to explode the view that the Celts were a distinct race who kept moving west from eastern Europe until they ended up stranded to this day in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The two museums are also sending out a small touring exhibition, featuring two glorious iron age mirrors, one found at Holcombe in Devon in a settlement which lay below a Roman villa, and one found at Balmaclellan in Galloway, Scotland.

If they had no common language or shared bloodlines, what united the people for 2,500 years was art, spectacular pieces showing humans and animals tangled together like spaghetti – and an element of what Farley called “ weirdness”, including helmets for both men and horses which transformed them into horned monsters.

The origin of many of the pieces is as complex as the arguments about ethnicity: one superb silver cauldron coming to the exhibition shows people with collars, helmets and weapons like those in the collections of the two museums – but was found in Denmark, traditionally regarded as north of the Celtic world, and may have been made in Eastern Europe. The exhibition will include loans from many countries including a magnificent processional cross from the National Museum of Ireland, and one of the most spectacular pieces of gold work ever found, 64 strands woven together into the 1kg weight of the Snettisham torc, a neck ornament of twisted metal found by a ploughman in 1950.

However many of the finds and the research take the exhibition right up to date: the four Blair Drummond gold torcs were found by a metal detectorist on his very first outing in 2009. They demonstrate the connectedness of the Celtic world, Hunter said: two are Scottish-Irish in style, one French and one much more Mediterranean. The site was excavated by the Scottish museum’s archaeologists, who found they were no accidental loss or booty: they had been buried wrapped in cloth in a wooden shrine sunk into a bog, a valuable offering to appease presumably remarkably avaricious gods.

Celts, British Museum, London, 24 September 2015-31 January 2016;
National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, 10 March-25 September 2016

rms2
07-10-2015, 05:58 PM
Exasperating. Sounds like a load of horse manure. Those sorts of people just cannot get over themselves.

Jean M
07-11-2015, 08:09 PM
And the BBC covers the news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33463151


A new show at the British Museum will aim to challenge preconceptions about the culture of the Celts. The exhibition, Celts: art and identity, is described as the first of its kind in Britain for 40 years. "The purpose of this exhibition is to ask what 'Celtic' means and 'who are the Celts?'," said British Museum director Neil MacGregor.

British Museum curator Dr Julia Farley ... "We want to challenge some preconceptions," she said. "We are expecting a lot of people will come with the idea that Celts were a people who marauded across Europe and got somehow stuck in in Scotland and Ireland and remained there until the present day."

The exhibition will explain that the name Celts does not refer to a single people, in the way that Vikings does, and was first recorded around 500 BC when the ancient Greeks used it to refer to "outsiders" in Europe north of the Alps.

The name Celts fell out of use for around 1,000 years after the Roman period, but it was rediscovered during the Renaissance. It has been appropriated over the past 300 years to refer to the cultures and traditions of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man.

alan
07-11-2015, 08:56 PM
So if a tribe or sub-region speaking Germanic or Slavic is not recorded as having called themselves Germanics or Slavs they are not Germanic or Slavs - or does this rule only apply to Celts?????? That really is an absurd load of crap- mind my Gaulish.

alan
07-11-2015, 09:01 PM
Well they will have egg on their faces when they finally bother to learn about the DNA and P312 in particular. They probably will quibble that that might be from a Celto-Italic stage but anyone with any sense looking at the data we now have can see that P312 is the main marker in the peoples who came to become the Celts.

vettor
07-11-2015, 09:09 PM
So if a tribe or sub-region speaking Germanic or Slavic is not recorded as having called themselves Germanics or Slavs they are not Germanic or Slavs - or does this rule only apply to Celts?????? That really is an absurd load of crap- mind my Gaulish.

It seems, the BBC applies the term celts to whoever calls themselves celts and also to people the ancient historians called celts even though these people never referred themselves as Celts.

Are gauls, celts, ?................are celts, gauls ?...............is it a linguistic term or is it "celtic style of goods" that designates a celt ?..................it will baffle people for another 1000 years

rms2
07-11-2015, 09:30 PM
So if a tribe or sub-region speaking Germanic or Slavic is not recorded as having called themselves Germanics or Slavs they are not Germanic or Slavs - or does this rule only apply to Celts?????? That really is an absurd load of crap- mind my Gaulish.

This is what I suspected when Jean first mentioned this exhibition. I had a premonition it would go this way. These clowns are way behind the times, but stupidism runs rampant everywhere.

alan
07-11-2015, 09:33 PM
It seems, the BBC applies the term celts to whoever calls themselves celts and also to people the ancient historians called celts even though these people never referred themselves as Celts.

Are gauls, celts, ?................are celts, gauls ?...............is it a linguistic term or is it "celtic style of goods" that designates a celt ?..................it will baffle people for another 1000 years

Its got to be defined by language and also social structure too. Most Celtic speakers seem to have had the same sort of social structures - lineage obsession, clientship, feasting with the ritual of the hero's portion, a large sacred class of Druids/Bards/Vates etc, shared gods, watery rituals etc. There are a lot of words for social institutions that are specifically Celtic and shared among all Celtic speakers. These are very specific and not some vague similarity.

This is different for example from the Germanic society we see at the start of history which is based around warbands led by war leaders with followers where clans or lines of descent are not the basis of membership. The basis of society is not deep clans. They lack the evidence for the sort of large learned/sacred class of druids, bards, lawyers, poets etc that the Celts put a lot of value on. The upper part of Germanic society looks like it developed as a result of specific opportunities for warfare, expansion and reward of followers etc that sprang up first in the last century or two BC and grew in the first few centuries AD and has a structure based on that period of opportunity and movement. It doesnt make sense in a long settled stable society where borders have been stable for a long time and expansion isnt possible. When the Germanics invaded the continental parts of the empire they often took on a lot of the Roman culture as their own made less sense when settling down and it was more sophisticated. In Britain they could retain much of the old Germanic society because they had a moving frontier with opportunities for expansion from 400-800AD.

All Celtic speakers seem have shared a particular flavour of society that sets it apart and makes them a distinctive group from Germanics for example. Its not just language all the Celts share. Fashions in pots, weapons etc are much less important as the Celts were so widespread and existed for so long that the material cultures varied.

alan
07-11-2015, 09:52 PM
I dont think they realise how insulting it is to say your ethnicity doesnt exist or is a myth. This Celto-skeptic nonsense has been going on for some time now. Do we know if any Anglo-Saxons in England other than scholars and monks with a classical education like Bede ever called themselves Germans or Germanic. I dont think so. As almost all writers were monks in the period in northern Europe its close to impossible to ever know what the native tradition without Latin learning was. It seems to me that the Celts are suffering for being far earlier and are being treated as a myth simply because they existed in Britain Bronze Age long before writers could record it and had pver 2000 years to localise before the Romans arrived.

Jean M
07-11-2015, 10:12 PM
Do we know if any Anglo-Saxons in England other than scholars and monks with a classical education like Bede ever called themselves Germans or Germanic. I don't think so.

I've made the comparison with Germanic in an article coming out in September to coincide with my book and the exhibition. I feel that it gets the point across very well.

Wonder_Wall
07-11-2015, 10:32 PM
"The name Celts [....] has been appropriated over the past 300 years to refer to the cultures and traditions of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man."

Appropriated? By people who have been speaking the language and maintaining the culture since at least 500 BC (and likely far longer if we consider the related pre-Celtic cultures?)

This is a weird article. Dare I say it might be offensive to the people of those countries.

vettor
07-12-2015, 12:09 AM
I dont think they realise how insulting it is to say your ethnicity doesnt exist or is a myth. This Celto-skeptic nonsense has been going on for some time now. Do we know if any Anglo-Saxons in England other than scholars and monks with a classical education like Bede ever called themselves Germans or Germanic. I dont think so. As almost all writers were monks in the period in northern Europe its close to impossible to ever know what the native tradition without Latin learning was. It seems to me that the Celts are suffering for being far earlier and are being treated as a myth simply because they existed in Britain Bronze Age long before writers could record it and had pver 2000 years to localise before the Romans arrived.

equally offensive is for historians to name one populace with a certain title , ( for ease ) while their true identity disappears in time.

If I was in ancient Gaul, I would be offended to be called celt when I know my tribal name was Volcae ( as an example ).

These names give by ancient Greeks and Romans where not always complimentary , some where bordering on being barbaric in use.

Agamemnon
07-12-2015, 01:22 AM
I dont think they realise how insulting it is to say your ethnicity doesnt exist or is a myth. This Celto-skeptic nonsense has been going on for some time now. Do we know if any Anglo-Saxons in England other than scholars and monks with a classical education like Bede ever called themselves Germans or Germanic. I dont think so. As almost all writers were monks in the period in northern Europe its close to impossible to ever know what the native tradition without Latin learning was. It seems to me that the Celts are suffering for being far earlier and are being treated as a myth simply because they existed in Britain Bronze Age long before writers could record it and had pver 2000 years to localise before the Romans arrived.

This dogmatic approach reminds me of two things:

1) All the coverage theories designed to deny the Jewish people's very existence - such as the Khazar theory (or, by extension, Elhaik and Costa et al.'s papers) - enjoy in the media.
2) The increasingly popular phobia of genetics here in France, it's one of the main topics among the French members on Anthrogenica. As you know genetic testing is technically illegal here and bringing up population genetics is enough to get labeled a "racist" here. The last example to date is a British study in Normandy which narrowly avoided being shut down by a famous leftwing organisation which managed to make the researchers look like SS Ahnenerbe members!

evon
07-12-2015, 01:57 AM
Just spent a week in Iceland, allot of "Celtic" phenotypes there, Scottish came to mind..

Krefter
07-12-2015, 02:45 AM
equally offensive is for historians to name one populace with a certain title , ( for ease ) while their true identity disappears in time.

If I was in ancient Gaul, I would be offended to be called celt when I know my tribal name was Volcae ( as an example ).

These names give by ancient Greeks and Romans where not always complimentary , some where bordering on being barbaric in use.

A Gaul would only know himself as whatever his Tribe was not Celtic, because he wasn't a modern historian. The first languages recorded in the British isles are related to the languages the "Celts" in mainland Europe spoke. That language family was called Celtic. You could call it bbhopas, it doesn't change the fact their languages belong to the same language family. pre-Anglo Saxon British/Irish were in that sense Celtic or if people want bbhopas.

For several hundred years, because of historians and linguistics, traditionally Gealic and Breton-speakers in the British isles have identified as "Celtic", and associated themselves with the mainland Celts. They have every right to because of linguistics. Maybe it isn't accurate to associate with mainland Celts, but there probably was a distant cultural relation. Saying they're not Celtic is like saying their ethnic group doesn't exist.

Motzart
07-12-2015, 05:37 AM
The "Celts" of the British Isles arrived there with the Bell Beaker migration, there is absolutely no disputing that. Whatever Celtic is or was came after. I don't see why people should be so proud to use a term for themselves coined by Romans to describe a people living in Northern Italy. I find it annoying and (as a person with almost complete British ancestry) frankly a little humiliating.

Krefter
07-12-2015, 06:42 AM
The "Celts" of the British Isles arrived there with the Bell Beaker migration, there is absolutely no disputing that. Whatever Celtic is or was came after. I don't see why people should be so proud to use a term for themselves coined by Romans to describe a people living in Northern Italy. I find it annoying and (as a person with almost complete British ancestry) frankly a little humiliating.

The Iron age expansion of Celts idea might die out. I think people suggested an Iron age spread, because that was the earliest time frame written records mention Celts. It doesn't take a genius to understand the Hallstatt culture were not the first Celts, they were the Celts Romans knew. The Hallstatt culture may have just been a style that spread in the Celtic World, or the culture of one particularly sub-group of Celts.

There's just no way in heck Celts arrived in Britian and Ireland in 300 BC or whatever like some think. There are written records about Celtic Britons that are older than that by a Greek explorer.

Celts is just the word people chose to use several hundred years ago, you can't change that. But I don't think it makes much sense for Celts in the Isles to associate with Continental Celts. It's kind of like Serbians 2,000 years from now associating with the USSR.

Motzart
07-12-2015, 09:02 AM
The Iron age expansion of Celts idea might die out. I think people suggested an Iron age spread, because that was the earliest time frame written records mention Celts. It doesn't take a genius to understand the Hallstatt culture were not the first Celts, they were the Celts Romans knew. The Hallstatt culture may have just been a style that spread in the Celtic World, or the culture of one particularly sub-group of Celts.

There's just no way in heck Celts arrived in Britian and Ireland in 300 BC or whatever like some think. There are written records about Celtic Britons that are older than that by a Greek explorer.

Celts is just the word people chose to use several hundred years ago, you can't change that. But I don't think it makes much sense for Celts in the Isles to associate with Continental Celts. It's kind of like Serbians 2,000 years from now associating with the USSR.

Another thing that irritates me is when people use symbols from the Megalithic sites in the British Isles as Celtic Imagery, for example this http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/newgrange/artgallery/newgrange-art-9.jpg which I see everywhere tied to "Celtic" identity. These were created by a people wiped out by the Beakers, and have little to no connection to the modern inhabitants of the British Isles. Its the equivalent of the descendants of Nazi Germany adopting the Star of David.

alan
07-12-2015, 09:04 AM
I've made the comparison with Germanic in an article coming out in September to coincide with my book and the exhibition. I feel that it gets the point across very well.

Good to hear it. All other tribes and areas are apparently judged by their linguistic and social/ritual characteristics as belong to a particular IE subgroup so the skepticism about the use of the word Celt is inconsistent. I actually think there is a very strong coherence among the Celtic speaking groups beyond language and extends to social structure traits, the sacred/learned classes which seem to be a pan-celtic feature, the lineage base to status, clientship, ritual, specific gods that are widespread. A heck of a lot of even pretty obscure vocab about concepts, customs, military organisation etc is present in both Gaulish and isles Celtic as the proto-Celtic dictionary shows. IMO they are coherent group despite differences in material culture and levels of socio-economic development. There are so many very specific things that seem pan-Celtic.

alan
07-12-2015, 09:31 AM
Another thing that irritates me is when people use symbols from the Megalithic sites in the British Isles as Celtic Imagery, for example this http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/newgrange/artgallery/newgrange-art-9.jpg which I see everywhere tied to "Celtic" identity. These were created by a people wiped out by the Beakers, and have little to no connection to the modern inhabitants of the British Isles. Its the equivalent of the descendants of Nazi Germany adopting the Star of David.

I know what you mean that megalithic stuff isnt Celtic and its very silly to sell it as such. However, people do identify with these monuments are they are far more visible than 99pc of the post-Neolithic ones (monuments like Newgrange, Knowth etc were also re-used in the beaker period, the early bronze age, iron age and even the Early Christian period for burial and settlement) and I think its wrong to say the locals have no genetic or cultural link. The early Irish incorporated Newgrange into its early mythology as relating to the Dagda 'the good god' (sort of sky father) god. As for genetic connection, maybe not much of their yDNA but the Neolithic farmers seem to have left a reasonable chunk of their autosomal and mtDNA and they in turn seem to have absorbed a lot of hunter DNA - high WHG is pan west European and varies independently with ANE. I see them all as part of my genetic ancestry. There is also no doubt in my mind that some non-steppe aspects borrowed from earlier peoples were taken on board when they entered farming Europe, quit mobile pastoralism. I even think there are aspects of Celto-Italic religion such as lots of mother goddesses that could come from pre-IE roots.

alan
07-12-2015, 09:42 AM
The Iron age expansion of Celts idea might die out. I think people suggested an Iron age spread, because that was the earliest time frame written records mention Celts. It doesn't take a genius to understand the Hallstatt culture were not the first Celts, they were the Celts Romans knew. The Hallstatt culture may have just been a style that spread in the Celtic World, or the culture of one particularly sub-group of Celts.

There's just no way in heck Celts arrived in Britian and Ireland in 300 BC or whatever like some think. There are written records about Celtic Britons that are older than that by a Greek explorer.

Celts is just the word people chose to use several hundred years ago, you can't change that. But I don't think it makes much sense for Celts in the Isles to associate with Continental Celts. It's kind of like Serbians 2,000 years from now associating with the USSR.

Another thing to consider is that only those Celts who were in contact with non-Celtic speakers would even need a name to distinguise Celtic speakers from non-Celts. If all your neighbours you are in contact with speak Celtic and you never meet any non-Celts then you wont need a word that makes this ethnic-linguistic distinction. It was perhaps the Celts at the southern and eastern fringes of the Celtic world who first needed words to distinguise themselves from other ethno-linguistic groups and they also happened to be the people who first were in contact with the literate civilisations of southern Europe. A Celt in the isles or NW or even central France may never have had to have a word for Celtic speakers because they never met anyone who wasnt a Celtic speaker. As others have said, except at interfaces between Celtic and non-Celtic peoples, they probably just had a tribal and/or geographical concept of self and assumed everyone was a Celtic speaker and so didnt need a name for Celtic speakers in general.

alan
07-12-2015, 09:57 AM
The Iron age expansion of Celts idea might die out. I think people suggested an Iron age spread, because that was the earliest time frame written records mention Celts. It doesn't take a genius to understand the Hallstatt culture were not the first Celts, they were the Celts Romans knew. The Hallstatt culture may have just been a style that spread in the Celtic World, or the culture of one particularly sub-group of Celts.

There's just no way in heck Celts arrived in Britian and Ireland in 300 BC or whatever like some think. There are written records about Celtic Britons that are older than that by a Greek explorer.

Celts is just the word people chose to use several hundred years ago, you can't change that. But I don't think it makes much sense for Celts in the Isles to associate with Continental Celts. It's kind of like Serbians 2,000 years from now associating with the USSR.

I think the improbability of Celtic being originally and primarily spread by La Tene or Halstatt C/D has been recognised by isles archaeologists since the 70s if not earlier. Indeed it fed into the anti-migrationist school of thought. However a few Irish and British archaeologists did see the possibility of the beaker-Celtic link many decades ago. The first Celtic names were noted probably in an account going back to 550BC which pre-dates the La Tene cultures there and falls into the Hallstatt D period where continental material is very very rare. The preceding Hallstatt C period really only shows changes in terms of sword influence and a few other things and is not different from the constant keeping up with metal fashions we see in previous periods. Indeed much of the bronze age in the isles looks like insular traditions but keeping up with the continental Jones in terms of metalwork suggestive of constant low lever elite contact rather than migration. The beaker period stands out as it saw profound changes that look more than could be achieved through trade contacts and some degree of migration always seems likely. I know some archaeologists rejected the beaker migration theory but the ones I knew didnt. The beaker period in the isles has always looked like the biggest watershed horizon between the Neolithic farmers and the Romans. I always thought the anti-migrationists were wrong on this one. What I didnt expect was the scale and profound impact it had on genetics - especially yDNA.

avalon
07-12-2015, 10:44 AM
Another thing that irritates me is when people use symbols from the Megalithic sites in the British Isles as Celtic Imagery, for example this http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/newgrange/artgallery/newgrange-art-9.jpg which I see everywhere tied to "Celtic" identity. These were created by a people wiped out by the Beakers, and have little to no connection to the modern inhabitants of the British Isles. Its the equivalent of the descendants of Nazi Germany adopting the Star of David.

We're going to need ancient dna from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the Isles before we can say there was any wipe out. Certainly, it looks like there was large scale replacement of the Y-DNA but we don't know the process or the time scale by which this happened- the impact on autosomal dna might vary.

And the data for mtDNA looks very ambiguous to me so there may have been more continuity of the female lineages.

moesan
07-12-2015, 02:39 PM
The "Celts" of the British Isles arrived there with the Bell Beaker migration, there is absolutely no disputing that. Whatever Celtic is or was came after. I don't see why people should be so proud to use a term for themselves coined by Romans to describe a people living in Northern Italy. I find it annoying and (as a person with almost complete British ancestry) frankly a little humiliating.

I find you have a curious way of thinking!
what would be humiliating for a British man in having some familial ancient links with a population of Northern Italy (or elsewhere?) ???
and as said by other forumers here, a term was to be found to name members of a linguistic family: why not Celt? If "Briton" had been chozen why Northern Italian people would say it is "humilating" for them to be associated with british ancient people???
by the way, 'Celti' in latin language and Romans minds was not a contempting word for they did not know its signification; a naming to represent an ethnic and geographic concept, no more, I think.
I think 'Helvetic' is a far worst word to name Swiss people by example, the same for 'Iberic'... all that is splitting hairs, leading to nowhere
no offense

Jean M
07-12-2015, 03:00 PM
I don't see why people should be so proud to use a term for themselves coined by Romans to describe a people living in Northern Italy.

What term are you talking about? The name Keltoi was used by ancient Greeks to describe people that they encountered on their trading ventures across the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast of Europe. From surviving texts from the 6th and 5th centuries BC, we can see that Keltoi were noted in the vicinity of the Greek colony at what is now Marseilles, and around the head of the Danube, and also in Iberia. This is centuries before the Romans started to fight Gauls who had settled in northern Italy. In fact the Romans preferred the name Galli (Gauls), which was then translated into Greek as Galetoi, and used to describe the Gauls who entered Anatolia in the Iron Age.

The name is not desperately important. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." "Celt" just happens to be the best known via archaeology and linguistics. It was applied to the language family, when modern scholars came to recognise the relationship between Gaulish, Brittonic, Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Breton etc. So it is easily understood and recognised.

This does not mean that you need to identify yourself as a Celt, simply because you have British ancestry. Modern British people are a genetic mixture of various peoples, predominantly Celt, Anglo-Saxon and Viking, with smaller inputs from many sources. A person could be British and Romani, or British and Jewish, or Scottish of Italian origin (see Paolo Nutini) or English-Welsh from Pembroke. People can identify themselves how they choose, as seems best to them.

vettor
07-12-2015, 05:58 PM
Another thing to consider is that only those Celts who were in contact with non-Celtic speakers would even need a name to distinguise Celtic speakers from non-Celts. If all your neighbours you are in contact with speak Celtic and you never meet any non-Celts then you wont need a word that makes this ethnic-linguistic distinction. It was perhaps the Celts at the southern and eastern fringes of the Celtic world who first needed words to distinguise themselves from other ethno-linguistic groups and they also happened to be the people who first were in contact with the literate civilisations of southern Europe. A Celt in the isles or NW or even central France may never have had to have a word for Celtic speakers because they never met anyone who wasnt a Celtic speaker. As others have said, except at interfaces between Celtic and non-Celtic peoples, they probably just had a tribal and/or geographical concept of self and assumed everyone was a Celtic speaker and so didnt need a name for Celtic speakers in general.

That's a silly argument, lets advance the scenario to latin as a linguistic theme like celtic. Latin was spoken in the Roman world and also in the non-Roman world, the nordic people ( as an example ) spoke latin for trade and communicating with the Roman world.
But, not all the people spoke Latin, be it in the Roman empire or not in it, because the Roman system was..........if you want to talk to a Roman, learn Latin. .........this system applied in the celtic world as well. The native tongue was always there, celtic , like Latin did not replace the local language, because if it did, then in the Roman world we would all still be speaking Latin.
Celtic at best was a communicating language, a "lingua franca" in certain areas of Europe, same as Latin , same as slavic , same as English is today.

One needs to ask ..........what is literate and illiterate in the ancient world!............clearly communicating in a language in the ancient time without the ability to read and write on what was verbally spoken must clearly still classify that person as being literate ( in ancient times )

rms2
07-12-2015, 06:02 PM
I think you missed the point Alan was making by about a country mile.

vettor
07-12-2015, 06:06 PM
I find you have a curious way of thinking!
what would be humiliating for a British man in having some familial ancient links with a population of Northern Italy (or elsewhere?) ???
and as said by other forumers here, a term was to be found to name members of a linguistic family: why not Celt? If "Briton" had been chozen why Northern Italian people would say it is "humilating" for them to be associated with british ancient people???
by the way, 'Celti' in latin language and Romans minds was not a contempting word for they did not know its signification; a naming to represent an ethnic and geographic concept, no more, I think.
I think 'Helvetic' is a far worst word to name Swiss people by example, the same for 'Iberic'... all that is splitting hairs, leading to nowhere
no offense

The swiss refer to themselves as helvetic, its part of their culture
The Swiss Confederation continues to use the name in its Latin form when it is inappropriate or inconvenient to use any or all of its four official languages. Thus, the name appears on postage stamps, coins and other uses; the full name, Confœderatio Helvetica
It might look ugly to you, but the people who own it, uses it with pride.

vettor
07-12-2015, 06:23 PM
The word Kelt is derived from the Greek Kælti (Keltoi;Gr. Κελτοί, ΚΕΛΤΟΙ). It is found as early in the sixth century BCE writings of Ækataios (Hecataeus; Gr. Ἑκαταῖος) of Militos (Miletus; Gr. Μίλητος) to describe peoples living in the area now known as southern France. [1] The etymology of the word is uncertain.

"Possible roots are kel 'exalt' or kel 'strike', as in Latin percello. Another suggestion is kwel 'turn', Latin incola 'settler'." [2]

did the Grreks use the word Galatoi for Galli, that is, the race north of the keltoi of southern France ?.............Gala means milk in ancient greek....maybe due to Gauls who where more fair "milky" in skin colour than the "southern french" keltoi

Jean M
07-12-2015, 06:39 PM
did the Greeks use the word Galatoi for Galli, that is, the race north of the keltoi of southern France ?

The Gauls were not a race north of the Celts. The Gauls were Celts. As Caesar remarked, the people that the Romans called Gauls, called themselves Celts. The name "Gaul" is of Celtic origin. It was not a name bestowed by Greeks.

I know it is very confusing when a people could have several different names at different times, or in different languages, but that is just the reality of life. It still happens now. The country that the British call Germany is Alemania in Spanish, Almagne in French and Deutschland in German.

The Greek term Galatoi is later than Keltoi. It dates from the time that Greek states in Anatolia came in contact with Gauls (Galli to Latin-speakers) who entered Anatolia as mercenaries c. 280 BC

lgmayka
07-12-2015, 09:16 PM
The native tongue was always there, celtic , like Latin did not replace the local language, because if it did, then in the Roman world we would all still be speaking Latin.
Celtic at best was a communicating language, a "lingua franca" in certain areas of Europe, same as Latin , same as slavic , same as English is today.
A language that was initially just a lingua franca among elites may often eventually be adopted by the common people, especially if the latter were not yet literate at the time of imposition. By and large, the countries that descend from the Western Roman Empire do speak Romance languages (i.e., languages descended from Latin); and countries where Common Slavic was once the lingua franca do generally speak Slavic languages today. In each case, exceptions are typically due to subsequent interventions (e.g., Anglo-Saxons into England, Magyars into the Carpathian Basin).

Motzart
07-12-2015, 09:33 PM
I know what you mean that megalithic stuff isnt Celtic and its very silly to sell it as such. However, people do identify with these monuments are they are far more visible than 99pc of the post-Neolithic ones (monuments like Newgrange, Knowth etc were also re-used in the beaker period, the early bronze age, iron age and even the Early Christian period for burial and settlement) and I think its wrong to say the locals have no genetic or cultural link. The early Irish incorporated Newgrange into its early mythology as relating to the Dagda 'the good god' (sort of sky father) god. As for genetic connection, maybe not much of their yDNA but the Neolithic farmers seem to have left a reasonable chunk of their autosomal and mtDNA and they in turn seem to have absorbed a lot of hunter DNA - high WHG is pan west European and varies independently with ANE. I see them all as part of my genetic ancestry. There is also no doubt in my mind that some non-steppe aspects borrowed from earlier peoples were taken on board when they entered farming Europe, quit mobile pastoralism. I even think there are aspects of Celto-Italic religion such as lots of mother goddesses that could come from pre-IE roots.

German Beakers carried the EEF component so there is no mixing required between the first Beakers to set foot in the British Isles and the Neolithic farmers there, the fact that the Irish are one of the closest related populations to Beakers goes to show that there likely was not further mixing. Basques would be an example of a Beaker/EEF hybrid. The beakers likely showed up, killed off the farmers, destroyed their buildings (arrival of the beakers coincides with the destruction of many Neolithic tombs in Ireland), and that was the end of it. The idea that there was some sort of matriarchal mother goddess culture in Neolithic Europe is just some feminist imagination coming from Gimbustas, there is no basis for it.

Motzart
07-12-2015, 09:37 PM
What term are you talking about? The name Keltoi was used by ancient Greeks to describe people that they encountered on their trading ventures across the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast of Europe. From surviving texts from the 6th and 5th centuries BC, we can see that Keltoi were noted in the vicinity of the Greek colony at what is now Marseilles, and around the head of the Danube, and also in Iberia. This is centuries before the Romans started to fight Gauls who had settled in northern Italy. In fact the Romans preferred the name Galli (Gauls), which was then translated into Greek as Galetoi, and used to describe the Gauls who entered Anatolia in the Iron Age.

The name is not desperately important. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." "Celt" just happens to be the best known via archaeology and linguistics. It was applied to the language family, when modern scholars came to recognise the relationship between Gaulish, Brittonic, Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Breton etc. So it is easily understood and recognised.

This does not mean that you need to identify yourself as a Celt, simply because you have British ancestry. Modern British people are a genetic mixture of various peoples, predominantly Celt, Anglo-Saxon and Viking, with smaller inputs from many sources. A person could be British and Romani, or British and Jewish, or Scottish of Italian origin (see Paolo Nutini) or English-Welsh from Pembroke. People can identify themselves how they choose, as seems best to them.

Do the Germans call themselves Germans or Deustch? Do Native Americans call themselves Indians? The Beakers of the British isles must have had a name to refer to themselves and it almost certainly was not Celt(Or Gaul). The Beakers of the British isles were a distinct group having lived in Ireland for 2000 Years before the Greeks or Romans ever wrote of the people living in the Alps.

Jean M
07-12-2015, 09:54 PM
The Beakers of the British isles must have had a name to refer to themselves and it almost certainly was not Celt (Or Gaul).

Since the Bell Beaker people were not literate, we have no idea what they called themselves. We call them the Bell Beaker people. It is handy to have a name for a culture. It can be used in discussion and publications. We can be pretty sure that the people concerned did not call themselves "Bell Beaker folk"! That does not matter two hoots. We need a label for them, to facilitate communication about them.

By the time that Greeks and Romans actually wrote down accounts of the British Isles which have survived, their people were using tribal names, just as all other Celts did. The next layer above that was a collective geographical name (e.g. meaning Irish). The people of the British Isles had no need of a collective name meaning 'us the speakers of Celtic languages', because they scarcely ever met anyone who did not speak a Celtic language. Calling yourself a Celt would be roughly equivalent to some modern person explaining to everyone he meets that he is a human. Yes - that's me - Homo sapiens. That's my tribe! We are allied to the Homo sapiens, but our enemies are the Homo sapiens. All clear?

In the same way, the Germani had no collective name for their tribes until they started to encounter Romans. The Romans named them Germani, which just happened to be the name of the first tribe encountered. Only later did the Germani themselves adopt the name as a collective one, and it is doubtful that it was ever adopted consistently. We use it consistently to refer to those who spoke Germanic languages, regardless of their own self-identification.

We use the name "Celtic" as a collective name for Celtic speakers, because it is useful to have a name for them. People in the past did not necessarily have the same perception of identity as we do today.

Motzart
07-12-2015, 10:18 PM
Since the Bell Beaker people were not literate, we have no idea what they called themselves. We call them the Bell Beaker people. It is handy to have a name for a culture. It can be used in discussion and publications. We can be pretty sure that the people concerned did not call themselves "Bell Beaker folk"! That does not matter two hoots. We need a label for them, to facilitate communication about them.

By the time that Greeks and Romans actually wrote down accounts of the British Isles which have survived, their people were using tribal names, just as all other Celts did. The next layer above that was a collective geographical name (e.g. meaning Irish). The people of the British Isles had no need of a collective name meaning 'us the speakers of Celtic languages', because they scarcely ever met anyone who did not speak a Celtic language. Calling yourself a Celt would be roughly equivalent to some modern person explaining to everyone he meets that he is a human. Yes - that's me - Homo sapiens. That's my tribe! We are allied to the Homo sapiens, but our enemies are the Homo sapiens. All clear?

In the same way, the Germani had no collective name for their tribes until they started to encounter Romans. The Romans named them Germani, which just happened to be the name of the first tribe encountered. Only later did the Germani themselves adopt the name as a collective one, and it is doubtful that it was ever adopted consistently. We use it consistently to refer to those who spoke Germanic languages, regardless of their own self-identification.

We use the name "Celtic" as a collective name for Celtic speakers, because it is useful to have a name for them. People in the past did not necessarily have the same perception of identity as we do today.

You conveniently dodged my first two questions

rms2
07-13-2015, 12:45 AM
Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that no single subclade can account for the entirety of the Celts, neither L21, U152 nor DF27. Each of those, however, is found over a significant part of the old homelands of the Celts. If one takes a step back and looks at P312 as a whole, he will see that its distribution corresponds remarkably well to that of the ancient Celts. It is evident that the Celts were predominantly P312. As they spread and multiplied throughout central and western Europe, different related tribal patrilines under P312 prevailed in different areas, DF27 here, L21 there, and U152 in yet another region. That is of course an oversimplification, but it is generally true.

As for the ancient Greeks and Romans never referring to the inhabitants of the British Isles and Ireland as Celts, that is not entirely true, unless one insists rigidly that because no Greek or Roman author literally wrote, "The British and Irish are Celts", word for word, they did not regard the British and Irish as Celts.



The women [of the Celts] are as large as the men and as brave. They are mostly very fair-headed when they are born. The tribes of the north are extremely ferocious. The Irish and the British are cannibals. They used to be known as Cimmerioi; now they are called Cimbroi. They captured Rome and plundered Delphi and ended by dominating a great part of Europe and Asia. They mixed easily with the Greeks and this section of them became known as the Gallograeci or Hellenogalatai." (Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78.)

It is pretty obvious that Cassius Dio and Strabo, in quoting a general discussion and description of the Celts by Poseidonius, included the British and Irish and certainly regarded them as Celts.

Parthenius of Apamea (1st century BC) is our source for the Greek myth that the Celts were the descendants of Keltos. Keltos was supposed to be the son of Heracles by Keltine, the daughter of King Bretannos. Interesting choice of name for that king, if classical authors regarded the inhabitants of the British Isles as something other than Celtic.

Kopfjäger
07-13-2015, 01:32 AM
One thing of which I am really curious is when L21 gets to Great Britain and Ireland. It must have been there pretty early: since we have U152 in Southern Germany in the Beaker era, I am sure L21 was already established on the Atlantic coasts by then. The question is, what were our proto-British ancestors speaking at that point? Is this period too early to be regarded as identifiably Celtic? Was the spread of Celtic culture to Britain and Ireland via areal diffusion, or was it an actual migration of people that established Celtic languages there?

[EDIT] By the way, I agree with Rich that the various subclades of P312 are associated with Italo-Celtic.

Agamemnon
07-13-2015, 01:43 AM
I suspect L21 initially arrived in the Isles with the Rhenish Bell Beakers, who probably spoke an early para-Celtic (or para-Italo-Celtic) dialect back then.

Motzart
07-13-2015, 03:21 AM
Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that no single subclade can account for the entirety of the Celts, neither L21, U152 nor DF27. Each of those, however, is found over a significant part of the old homelands of the Celts. If one takes a step back and looks at P312 as a whole, he will see that its distribution corresponds remarkably well to that of the ancient Celts. It is evident that the Celts were predominantly P312. As they spread and multiplied throughout central and western Europe, different related tribal patrilines under P312 prevailed in different areas, DF27 here, L21 there, and U152 in yet another region. That is of course an oversimplification, but it is generally true.

As for the ancient Greeks and Romans never referring to the inhabitants of the British Isles and Ireland as Celts, that is not entirely true, unless one insists rigidly that because no Greek or Roman author literally wrote, "The British and Irish are Celts", word for word, they did not regard the British and Irish as Celts.



It is pretty obvious that Cassius Dio and Strabo, in quoting a general discussion and description of the Celts by Poseidonius, included the British and Irish and certainly regarded them as Celts.

Parthenius of Apamea (1st century BC) is our source for the Greek myth that the Celts were the descendants of Keltos. Keltos was supposed to be the son of Heracles by Keltine, the daughter of King Bretannos. Interesting choice of name for that king, if classical authors regarded the inhabitants of the British Isles as something other than Celtic.

The first recorded use of the name of Celts – as Κελτοί – to refer to an ethnic group was by Hecataeus of Miletus, the Greek geographer, in 517 BC,[12] when writing about a people living near Massilia (modern Marseille).[13] According to the testimony of Julius Caesar and Strabo, the Latin name Celtus (pl. Celti or Celtae) and the Greek Κέλτης (pl. Κέλται) or Κελτός (pl. Κελτοί) were borrowed from a native Celtic tribal name.[14][15] Pliny the Elder cited its use in Lusitania as a tribal surname,[16] which epigraphic findings have confirmed.[17][18]

Latin Gallus (pl. Galli) might also stem from a Celtic ethnic or tribal name originally, perhaps one borrowed into Latin during the Celtic expansions into Italy during the early 5th century BC. Its root may be the Common Celtic *galno, meaning “power, strength”, hence Old Irish gal “boldness, ferocity” and Welsh gallu “to be able, power”. The tribal names of Gallaeci and the Greek Γαλάται (Galatai, Latinized Galatae; see the region Galatia in Anatolia) most probably go with the same origin.[19] The suffix -atai might be an Ancient Greek inflection.[20] Classical writers did not apply the terms Κελτοί or "Celtae" to the inhabitants of Britain or Ireland,[1][2][3] which has led to some scholars preferring not to use the term for the Iron Age inhabitants of those islands.

vettor
07-13-2015, 07:08 AM
A language that was initially just a lingua franca among elites may often eventually be adopted by the common people, especially if the latter were not yet literate at the time of imposition. By and large, the countries that descend from the Western Roman Empire do speak Romance languages (i.e., languages descended from Latin); and countries where Common Slavic was once the lingua franca do generally speak Slavic languages today. In each case, exceptions are typically due to subsequent interventions (e.g., Anglo-Saxons into England, Magyars into the Carpathian Basin).

That is not correct

In Italy, the regional languages sprung up from latin after the fall of the Roman empire, after many centuries, the norm was , ..........the nobles spoke to each other in Latin when crossing into other regions, while the populace spoke their regional language, ie, Tuscan, Venetian, genoese, Sicilian etc, after many centuries a person called Dante created/fabricated the Italian language ( for use in the merchant/artisan class )..........500 years later in 1860 only 3% of the 22 million Italians knew of or spoke Italian...............so the elite/nobles taught nothing linguistically in their respective regions , the language is taught in a region by the mothers to the children, which is why it is referred to as mother tongue.

The celtic language is a paternal language ( "travelling language") in most areas of Europe and that is why it disappeared in those areas, it remains viable in use where it remained maternal ...........where is it maternal now?

Jean M
07-13-2015, 09:48 AM
Classical writers did not apply the terms Κελτοί or "Celtae" to the inhabitants of Britain or Ireland, which has led to some scholars preferring not to use the term for the Iron Age inhabitants of those islands.

Yes we know that. No historian or archaeologist in the UK could fail to know it. This is called Celtosceptism. It began in the 1990s as a backlash against the Celtic concept becoming a force in politics - both towards devolution within the British Isles and federalism within Europe. One of the triggers was the I Celti exhibition held in the Palazzo Grassi in Venice in 1991. It was created by French and Italian learned societies, not a political body. Yet it was consciously designed to support the EEC (now the EU) with a vision of a pan-European culture in the deep past. In 1994 an American archaeologist working in France (Michael Dietler) spilled out all his anxieties about the political power of the word Celt and urged his fellow archaeologists to rise up in a body and fight it by denial.

The English archaeologist John Collis was right beside him and has been preaching the message ever since. He began with the simplistic notion that if the people of the British Isles were not called Celts by the Romans, then they could not have been Celts. This betrayed uncritical use of documentary sources and unfamiliarity with the fluidity of ethnonyms. He later went on to deny that Celts had ever existed anywhere as a distinct people, that the name Keltoi was just used by the Greeks for any foreigner (to them) north of the Mediterranean. Once again, that required a naive interpretation of the sources. But Celtosceptism was warmly embraced by British archaeologists. It fitted with the prevailing anti-migrationism. It became orthodoxy. The word "Celt" became taboo. All this explains the attitude of the British Museum.

Jean M
07-13-2015, 10:03 AM
The first recorded use of the name of Celts – as Κελτοί – to refer to an ethnic group was by Hecataeus of Miletus, the Greek geographer, in 517 BC,[12] when writing about a people living near Massilia (modern Marseille).[13] According to the testimony of Julius Caesar and Strabo, the Latin name Celtus (pl. Celti or Celtae) and the Greek Κέλτης (pl. Κέλται) or Κελτός (pl. Κελτοί) were borrowed from a native Celtic tribal name.[14][15] Pliny the Elder cited its use in Lusitania as a tribal surname,[16] which epigraphic findings have confirmed.[17][18]

Wikipedia is not infallible, not that this article is desperately bad. The first point is correct. The name Keltoi first occurs in Hecataeus of Miletus. But neither Caesar nor Strabo state that the Greek name was borrowed from a Celtic tribal name. They were writing long after the Greeks first coined the term Keltoi, and they had no idea of its origins. Caesar simply said that the Gauls called themselves Celts, which suggests merely that he understood that the two names were both applicable, and that the Gauls had adopted the collective name applied to them by the Greeks.

MT1976
07-13-2015, 12:30 PM
Sorry to say, but id tend to agree with Collis, etc. Linguistic affinities and superficial, and some not so superficial material culture affinities aside, no people in Britain were called, or called themselves "Celts" - until very recently. Common tongue (and most probably not mutually intelligible between a Scordiscan in modern Serbia and a Briton to the far west) doesn;t ensure common identity anyore than using some part fo a range of common pan-Iron Age material culture. There was no unified celtic nation, nor even some kind of ineffible, pan-Celtic supra-tribal identity.

I think the main reason behind the "celtoskipticism' is not political agenda, but a realization that the old ideas of "Celticism' were grounded in the problematic dogma of primordialsim, culture-history, Herderian notions of language-identity, and of course, nationalism. Whatever the (multiple) identities were operant in Iron Age Europe, I donlt think "celticism; was one of them. BUT this is not to say some forms of supra-regional identity , long distance contacts, did not exist.

rms2
07-13-2015, 01:17 PM
. . . Classical writers did not apply the terms Κελτοί or "Celtae" to the inhabitants of Britain or Ireland,[1][2][3] which has led to some scholars preferring not to use the term for the Iron Age inhabitants of those islands.

Did you not read the quote I supplied in the post of mine you quoted before making the remark above?

Here it is again.


The women [of the Celts] are as large as the men and as brave. They are mostly very fair-headed when they are born. The tribes of the north are extremely ferocious. The Irish and the British are cannibals. They used to be known as Cimmerioi; now they are called Cimbroi. They captured Rome and plundered Delphi and ended by dominating a great part of Europe and Asia. They mixed easily with the Greeks and this section of them became known as the Gallograeci or Hellenogalatai." (Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78.)

It is pretty obvious that Cassius Dio and Strabo included the British and Irish among the Celts, and they were both quoting Poseidonius.

No, no classical writer came out and word-for-word wrote, "The British and Irish are Celts"; but that does not mean that the more knowledgeable of them did not regard them as Celts (as can be seen from the quote above).

The inhabitants of the British Isles and Ireland spoke Celtic languages, had Celtic names, gave Celtic names to topography, and evidently shared the preponderance of y haplogroup P312 that appears to have been dominant throughout the old Celtic world. It is ridiculous to insist on some sort of literal, dictionary-like definition from a classical author before one will admit that they were in fact Celts.

MT1976
07-13-2015, 01:29 PM
Did you not read the quote I supplied in the post of mine you quoted before making the remark above?

Here it is again.



It is pretty obvious that Cassius Dio and Strabo included the British and Irish among the Celts, and they were both quoting Poseidonius.

No, no classical writer came out and word-for-word wrote, "The British and Irish are Celts"; but that does not mean that the more knowledgeable of them did not regard them as Celts (as can be seen from the quote above).

The inhabitants of the British Isles and Ireland spoke Celtic languages, had Celtic names, gave Celtic names to topography, and evidently shared the preponderance of y haplogroup P312 that appears to have been dominant throughout the old Celtic world. It is ridiculous to insist on some sort of literal, dictionary-like definition from a classical author before one will admit that they were in fact Celts.

But I think you're missing the basic tenets of how identity in the Iron Age actually operated. And one cannot take the uninformed ponderences of ancient sources prima facie. They're intention was to entertain audiences, and tell them stereotypic tales one would expect. They're not accurate ethnographic treatises, for in any case, most of them had never stepped foot in Britain

lgmayka
07-13-2015, 01:32 PM
In Italy, the regional languages sprung up from latin after the fall of the Roman empire
So you are vigorously agreeing with me that in general, the descendants of the Western Roman Empire speak Romance languages. Or perhaps you don't realize that Tuscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscan_dialect), Venetian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_language), Genoese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_dialect), and Sicilian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_language)are all Romance languages/dialects (i.e., derived from Latin)?

Jean M
07-13-2015, 01:34 PM
no people in Britain were called, or called themselves "Celts" - until very recently.

As I keep trying to explain, that does not matter. We use the word Celtic to refer to speakers of the Celtic family of languages. We cannot even start to discuss what said people had in common or didn't have in common unless we have a framework for discussion. That needs a label. Celtic is the label.


There was no unified celtic nation.

Of course there was not. And the exhibition in the Palazzo Grassi in Venice in 1991 did not make any claim that there was. The Celts were tribal. The I Celti exhibition (and book) presented that tribal reality. There were common threads of culture that allow us to use the label Celtic as opposed to Germanic or Slavic or what have you. But just as there was no political union of Germanic speakers from Norway to the Crimean Goths, so there was no political union of the Celts.

The mistake that the I Celti exhibition made was in openly hoping to foster the political union of modern Europe. The exhibition came as the Berlin Wall fell, and the vision of a united Europe seemed a promise of peace. But they should have realised that millions of people in Europe do not identify themselves as Celts. Though the exhibition did not claim that all our ancestors were Celts, it seems to have been viewed that way by some indignant parties. Successful federalism in Europe requires understanding that European countries don't all have the same history.

rms2
07-13-2015, 02:07 PM
But I think you're missing the basic tenets of how identity in the Iron Age actually operated. And one cannot take the uninformed ponderences of ancient sources prima facie. They're intention was to entertain audiences, and tell them stereotypic tales one would expect. They're not accurate ethnographic treatises, for in any case, most of them had never stepped foot in Britain

How "identity in the Iron Age actually operated" is not something any of us can really know and, besides, is irrelevant. What is at issue is how we moderns classify ancient peoples. Celts were people who spoke Celtic languages and possessed a certain package of common cultural traits.

It does not really matter what they called themselves, as long as they used a Celtic language to do it.

The Celtoskeptics claim that no classical authors referred to the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as Celts, and I have shown that that is not entirely true.

In terms of genetics, which is the raison d'être for this forum, it is evident that y haplogroup R1b-P312 prevailed over the entire region inhabited by the ancient Celts. That is evidence of a remarkable uniformity in the original Celtic patriline, and, IMHO, given recent developments in ancient dna testing, demonstrates a solid connection to the early Indo-Europeans.

Jean M
07-13-2015, 02:18 PM
In terms of genetics, which is the raison d'être for this forum, it is evident that y haplogroup R1b-P312 prevailed over the entire region inhabited by the ancient Celts. That is evidence of a remarkable uniformity in the original Celtic patriline, and, IMHO, given recent developments in ancient dna testing, demonstrates a solid connection to the early Indo-Europeans.

It is hard to see how the extreme Celtoscepticism of Collis and his followers can survive the ancient DNA evidence. The whole aim of this revisionist school was to deny a genetic connection between speakers of Celtic languages. Trying to do that with arguments over what exactly Herodotus meant is pretty pointless when we have P312 in Bell Beaker and its direct descendant L21 in Iron Age Britain.

But we will have to wait for lots more aDNA I expect, before the penny really drops.

moesan
07-13-2015, 05:38 PM
The swiss refer to themselves as helvetic, its part of their culture
The Swiss Confederation continues to use the name in its Latin form when it is inappropriate or inconvenient to use any or all of its four official languages. Thus, the name appears on postage stamps, coins and other uses; the full name, Confœderatio Helvetica
It might look ugly to you, but the people who own it, uses it with pride.

It's OK if people of Switzerland are proud using 'Helvets' or other forms of the same for themselves: it's their right - I was just speaking about relative accuracy or inaccuracy of some names concerning past. Not a big problem for me. But modern Swiss culturally had 3 great languages of different origin, one 'celtic' (I hesitate to employ this term...) one 'germanic' and one 'italic' - just a point. What is important is being sure we are speaking of the same things at the same time.

Jean M
07-13-2015, 06:22 PM
But modern Swiss culturally had 3 great languages of different origin, one 'celtic' (I hesitate to employ this term...) one 'germanic' and one 'italic' .

German, French, Italian and Romansh are spoken in modern Switzerland i.e. one Germanic and three Romance languages. It is a long time since any Celtic language was spoken there. As far as I know Celtic did not survive the period in which the Alps lay within the Roman empire, let alone the incursions of Alemanni etc in the Migration Period. The term Confoederatio Helvetica is a piece of 19th-century historicism. But why not?

vettor
07-13-2015, 06:46 PM
So you are vigorously agreeing with me that in general, the descendants of the Western Roman Empire speak Romance languages. Or perhaps you don't realize that Tuscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscan_dialect), Venetian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_language), Genoese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_dialect), and Sicilian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_language)are all Romance languages/dialects (i.e., derived from Latin)?

of course they speak Romance ............north-italy, france and Spain speak western-romance and central and south Italy and Romania speak Eastern-Romance, it's in the isoglosses of the romance languages, a division.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spezia%E2%80%93Rimini_Line

there are 2 forms of Romance languages

vettor
07-13-2015, 06:56 PM
German, French, Italian and Romansh are spoken in modern Switzerland i.e. one Germanic and three Romance languages. It is a long time since any Celtic language was spoken there. As far as I know Celtic did not survive the period in which the Alps lay within the Roman empire, let alone the incursions of Alemanni etc in the Migration Period. The term Confoederatio Helvetica is a piece of 19th-century historicism. But why not?

Isn't it odd that ancient Romansch, Ladin ( not Latin ) survived today from Roman times, yet we see no celtic language in the alps...........was celtic really a linguistic term in the alps or purely a descriptive term for people that the Romans did not actually know.;) ................a term for ease of description.

vettor
07-13-2015, 07:06 PM
What we have knowledge is that Celtic is clearly zero in Germanic, because la tene and halstatt in the eastern and western alps where more than a 1000 years before germanic ever got to the alps.

We can then say, no celtic in the british isles represents anything Germanic, we are then left with gallic as the source of celtic.

since all languages have isoglosses within them , does the British-isles celtic language have isoglosses?

Jean M
07-13-2015, 08:07 PM
was celtic really a linguistic term in the alps or purely a descriptive term for people that the Romans did not actually know..

Celtic is our modern linguistic term for the languages of the family which include Lepontic and Cisalpine Gaulish, both of which left records (inscriptions) in the southern Alps. So in modern terms Gaulish is a part of Celtic.

The Romans fought various tribes in Cisalpine Gaul. Polybius, a Greek historian was well informed on the progress of the Roman push northwards, which was within living memory in his day. You can read his account online, book II, sections 18-35: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html As you will see, he uses the terms Celts and Gauls for the same people.

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:53 AM
Celtic is our modern linguistic term for the languages of the family which include Lepontic and Cisalpine Gaulish, both of which left records (inscriptions) in the southern Alps. So in modern terms Gaulish is a part of Celtic.

The Romans fought various tribes in Cisalpine Gaul. Polybius, a Greek historian was well informed on the progress of the Roman push northwards, which was within living memory in his day. You can read his account online, book II, sections 18-35: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html As you will see, he uses the terms Celts and Gauls for the same people.


thanks

but how far did this "celtic" reach, .....................Renaissance Bergamasque dialect (sometimes also called Orobic, from the Orobii Celts[2]) is the western variant of the Eastern Lombard group.
The Orobii were, more correctly, a Celtic-Ligurian people whose origins can be related to the Culture of Golasecca dating back from the 9th century BC.
Where ligurian considered as celts by the Romans?

Eastern part of eastern lombardy language was always venetic in use and never had any celtic, even up to the end of the Venetian nation in 1797 .

The ancient Venetics always battled the gallic/celts even stopping the burning of Rome by gallic people through an invasion of modern Western lombardy which was gallic held at the time.

Only if you match the "creators/originators" of ancient Milan, the insubres can we see what was celtic or not via any isoglosses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergamasque_dialect#/media/File:Bergamasque.gif


When all is said , we still have zero celtic dialogue in the alps, while the other ancient dialogues from the alps exist to this day in some form.

MT1976
07-14-2015, 10:01 AM
Jean and RMS2

Yes I see both your points. We cannot deny that large groups of people, from Britain to the Balkans spoke a set of related dialects, and had commonalities in culture. It would be throwing the baby with the bathwater to abandon 'Celtic' as a heuristic, over-arching term. But I didn;t think that was anyone's aim, was it ?

rms2
07-14-2015, 10:10 AM
Jean and RMS2

Yes I see both your points. We cannot deny that large groups of people, from Britain to the Balkans spoke a set of related dialects, and had commonalities in culture. It would be throwing the baby with the bathwater to abandon 'Celtic' as a heuristic, over-arching term. But I didn;t think that was anyone's aim, was it ?

I'm not sure what the aim of the Celtoskeptics was/is. Peter Berresford Ellis is of the opinion that it is political, i.e., an effort to suppress the growing sense of national pride in the Celtic fringe countries and put an ideological damper on the movements for independence there. It might merely have been an overreaction to Celtomania. Whatever the reason, it seems an effort to rubbish the notion that there ever was any Celtic people. I have always found it pretty facile and stupid, honestly.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 10:18 AM
Bergamasque dialect (sometimes also called Orobic, from the Orobii Celts[2]) is the western variant of the Eastern Lombard group.

Vettor - I have no idea why Wikipedia included a confusing reference to the Orobii in its page on Bergamasque. I have removed it. Bergamasque is not Celtic. It has nothing to do with Celtic.

This map shows where Celtic languages were once spoken (pale grey) and the very few places where they are still spoken today (black).

5218

As you will see, Italy and Switzerland are not unique in having no surviving Celtic languages. No Celtic language survives anywhere in the former Roman Empire on the Continent of Europe, except Brittany, where Britons settled after the fall of the Western Empire. Latin was spread so effectively within the Roman Empire that Romance languages (descendants of Vulgar Latin) are still widely spoken in its former territories today.

Celtic languages survived in the British Isles, where Ireland and northern Britain were never within the Roman Empire. Even so they are barely surviving and are endangered today. The predominant language is English, the language created by post-Roman Germanic arrivals in Britain.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 10:39 AM
Peter Berresford Ellis is of the opinion that it is political, i.e., an effort to suppress the growing sense of national pride in the Celtic fringe countries and put an ideological damper on the movements for independence there.

The article by Michael Dietler* was openly political, but as you will see his target was not just the pressure for devolution, but also the movement towards federalism in Europe. He started with a quotation from Caesar: "A united Gaul forming a single nation animated by the same spirit can defy the universe." He goes on:


These words are taken from Julius Caesar's account of his war of conquest against the Celtic peoples of western Europe in the first century B.C. He attributed them to his enemy Vercingetorix, leader of the last great defense of Gaul against the Roman legions. More important in the context of the present discussion, they are inscribed at the base of a monumental bronze statue of Vercingetorix that surmounts the hilltop fortress of Alesia in Burgundy, the site of the final stand against the Romans. The statue was commissioned in 1865 by the French Emperor Napoleon III, who also lavishly financed archaeological excavations at the site. Over a century later, in 1985, standing in the middle of the nearby ancient hilltop fortress of Bibracte (Mont Beuvray), where Vercingetorix had attempted to rally a united opposition against the Romans, French president Francois Mitterrand launched an appeal for national unity. Stating that Bibracte was the place where the "first act of our history took place" (Mitterrand 1985:54), he officially declared it a "national site." A monument was also erected to commemorate his visit, and archaeological excavations were begun with financing on an unprecedented scale.

It is my contention that such appeals to an ancient Celtic past have played and continue to play a number of important and often paradoxical roles in the ideological naturalization of modem political communities at several contradictory levels, including: (1) pan-European unity in the context of the evolving European Community, (2) nationalism within member states of that community, and (3) regional resistance to nationalist hegemony.

* "Our Ancestors the Gauls": Archaeology, Ethnic Nationalism, and the Manipulation of Celtic Identity in Modern Europe, American Anthropologist, New Series, 96, (3), 584–605.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 11:07 AM
I'm not sure what the aim of the Celtoskeptics was/is. ... It might merely have been an overreaction to Celtomania.

I do think that comes into it, but I suspect that many archaeologists accepted Celtoscepticism as a seemingly respectable scholarly caution, within the anti-migrationist paradigm. From what he has written, Barry Cunliffe evidently became uneasy with Celtoscepticism, as he realised the distress it caused to some of those identifying themselves as Celts, but also as he began to reject hard-line anti-migrationism as baseless dogma.

Dubhthach
07-14-2015, 11:23 AM
From my experience dealing with some of the Anti-Irish language folks here in Ireland there definetly seems to be tie in with "anti-migrationism" school of thought. An extreme simplification goes along this:

"Why spend money on a dead language, which was only a blow in anyways, our ancestors didn't speak it when they built Newgrange, it's no more a native language than english is" (now that's me paraphrasing and combining several arguments I've heard over the years)

As you can see it associated the current population of Ireland as been continuation of those who built Newgrange in Neolithic (which no doubt Neolithic farmers contribute a large chunk to modern Irish genepool but not the totality of it). The mention of English often goes with paradigm of "oh they underwent language shift due to trade/influence etc." (cultural diffusion without significant population change) -- of course this does forget that there was significant population movement (not huge but still significant) into Ireland which help cement English position as prestige language form 17th century onwards, thus enabling language shift.

I've even heard the following "Irish were never Celts, because they don't match central Europeans genetically" (please somebody kill me!)

rms2
07-14-2015, 01:03 PM
. . .

I've even heard the following "Irish were never Celts, because they don't match central Europeans genetically" (please somebody kill me!)

Yes, and that is the one that really ignores the genetic evidence or at the very least misinterprets it.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 01:33 PM
The swiss refer to themselves as helvetic, its part of their culture

I have found a brief chronology of the history of Switzerland from an official Swiss source: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/geschichte/uebersicht.html . It makes it clear that the sensible and well-educated Swiss are not under the impression that they all descend from the Celtic Helveti.

The use of the Latin Confœderatio Helvetica is a 19th-century historicism. In that era, people often thought that Latin was more impressive than modern languages. It creates an impression of age and scholarship and venerable institutions. But more importantly perhaps, the use of an archaic term creates a personification of the country that does not favour any of its official languages. It therefore unites, rather than being divisive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetia. It is not a claim to being a Celtic country.

Switzerland cares for some important Celtic sites, and is well aware of the tourist potential of that. They use the term "Celtic" constantly. They named their chief archaeological museum after the famous site at La Tène: http://latenium.ch/en/the-latenium-concept/


The name of the museum itself comes from “La Tène” the eponym site of the second Iron Age (La Tène period) (starting around 450 BC and ending 50 BC). The La Tène period is characterized by an expansion of the Celtic culture throughout Europe, ranging from Ireland to Turkey. However, the museum also presents artifacts and cultures from other periods such as the gallo-roman civilization, the lake-dwellers of both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, or the hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic. In total, 3000 fascinating objects displayed on a surface of 2200 m2, are live witnesses of the everyday life of our ancestors....

In the year 2001, the Laténium has initiated a partnership of archaeological museums aiming at a common vision of the Celtic civilization. This European network gathers modern institutions which are heavily involved in scientific research, and which gives clear evidence of the value of this era’s main site ‘La Tène’.

Bibracte [France]
At Bibracte, the museum for Celtic civilization, and the associated European Center of Research publicly display their discoveries, which were found during international excavation campaigns, and which had been organized on the site of the “Oppidum des Eduens”. In addition, at this site Vercingetorix was proclaimed leader of the Gaul coalition, and Julius Cesar finished writing his work entitled “La Guerre des Gaules” at this site.

Manching [Germany]
Connected to the “Archäologische Staatssammlung von München”, the “Kelten-Römer-Museum” at Manching presents more than a century of discoveries at the Oppidum of Manching. The latter is one of the biggest Celtic agglomerations of the continent – and for sure, scientifically the best documented one.

Ullastret [Spain]
Connected to the archeological museum of Catalonia in Barcelona, the museum of Puig Sant-Andreu shows the main findings of Ullastret, the largest Celtic site of Iberia. It also illustrates the connections and contacts of the ‘Indiketes’ population with the rest of the Celtic world, especially under the influence of the people of Greece and Puny.

Lattara [France]
In the modern agglomeration of Montpellier, the museum of ‘Lattara’ show this old Gaul harbor, which has been excavated in an exemplary manner in the frame of ambitious scientific partnerships. It shows very nicely the different long-term interactions between the local Celtic populations with the ones from Etruskia, Greece, Iberia, and Rome.

alan
07-14-2015, 06:01 PM
German Beakers carried the EEF component so there is no mixing required between the first Beakers to set foot in the British Isles and the Neolithic farmers there, the fact that the Irish are one of the closest related populations to Beakers goes to show that there likely was not further mixing. Basques would be an example of a Beaker/EEF hybrid. The beakers likely showed up, killed off the farmers, destroyed their buildings (arrival of the beakers coincides with the destruction of many Neolithic tombs in Ireland), and that was the end of it. The idea that there was some sort of matriarchal mother goddess culture in Neolithic Europe is just some feminist imagination coming from Gimbustas, there is no basis for it.


Personally I think the present attempt to calculate steppe input in western and north-west Europe based on ratios of ENF, WHG and ANE compared to copper age samples is unsafe. ANE could come from pre-farming northern Mesolithic hunters (as has already been shown) or from copper age steppe groups. WHG could come from local substrates of hunters or hunters incorporated into the farmer genepool just before the final thrusts of farming or could be brought by steppe groups in the copper age who asbsorbed genes from farmers. ENF existed all over Europe in the Neolithic so when found in the west it could be local or brought in by eastern groups who absorbed it in central Europe when heading west. By pure coincidence geographical two areas could end up with similar ENF, WHG, ANE ratios without really having any close connection with each other.

Another reason why I dont believe in the west of Europe that the farmers were quickly replaced is that there is no obvious reason how that could have been achieved. The L21-DF13 derived clades that spread through the isles barely existed in c. 2500-2400BC when the beaker people arrived in the isles. So its highly improbable that a hostile move to the isles around that time involving a lineage that had had enough generations to create the nos that would have made a hostile takeover of a huge area even remotely viable. You are looking at a 1500 year old farming population of farmers who had pretty well the same main weapons as the beaker people being taken on by the small numbers DF13 could have mustered by 2500-2400BC - not too many it would seem if estimates of the age of DF13 are correct. It is far more likely that beaker people brought skills and connections - primarily to metals - that made them highly desirable additions that local populations actually sought/wanted and that the beaker families then became of extremely high prestige once they had settled.

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:04 PM
I have found a brief chronology of the history of Switzerland from an official Swiss source: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/geschichte/uebersicht.html . It makes it clear that the sensible and well-educated Swiss are not under the impression that they all descend from the Celtic Helveti.


so you agree with the link that the helvetians arrived in or where in switzerland before the celts arrived ( as per link )...............I stated this long ago, I also stated la tene is a celtic and helvetic merger , while halstatt is a celtic and illyrian one..............I recall many who claim a purity of celtic for these sites.

I stated also long ago,...........if the alps was gallic/celt in peoples , the Romans would have destroyed the 45 tribes their long before the year 15BC and clearly never after the wars on "celtic" Gaul and the invasion Britain.
There is a gap of over 2 generations.

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:10 PM
Vettor - I have no idea why Wikipedia included a confusing reference to the Orobii in its page on Bergamasque. I have removed it. Bergamasque is not Celtic. It has nothing to do with Celtic.

This map shows where Celtic languages were once spoken (pale grey) and the very few places where they are still spoken today (black).

5218

As you will see, Italy and Switzerland are not unique in having no surviving Celtic languages. No Celtic language survives anywhere in the former Roman Empire on the Continent of Europe, except Brittany, where Britons settled after the fall of the Western Empire. Latin was spread so effectively within the Roman Empire that Romance languages (descendants of Vulgar Latin) are still widely spoken in its former territories today.

Celtic languages survived in the British Isles, where Ireland and northern Britain were never within the Roman Empire. Even so they are barely surviving and are endangered today. The predominant language is English, the language created by post-Roman Germanic arrivals in Britain.

wow, you have the ability to alter wiki ( i wish I had that ) information............I only use wiki as a summary, I always recheck there sources at the bottom of each post and then seek alternative net sites for information in regards to the topic.

The Orobii and the insubres I quoted agrees with other alternative sources.

proto-Celts coming from the area of modern day Switzerland, eastern France and south-western Germany entered into Northern Italy beginning the Canegrate culture a merging with the indigenous people, who originally where the Pre-Indo-European, Ligurians
The origins of the Orobii, a population localized by classical writers in these areas and which founded the town of Como, have been linked to the Canegrate culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canegrate_culture

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aaVBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=orobii&source=bl&ots=0GJc7qVvGD&sig=-6ryQ_YpTOdKmC1XuRplbExIvzs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCGoVChMIqbDT4J_bxgIVo9mmCh3s1w9y#v=on epage&q=orobii&f=false

Jean M
07-14-2015, 06:26 PM
The Orobii and the insubres I quoted agrees with other alternative sources.

I simply removed the Orobii from the Bergamasque page, where the reference seems to have confused you into thinking that these people had something to do with the Bergamasque dialect. They don't have anything to do with the Bergamasque dialect. If you were confused, then other readers could be confused.

The Orobii can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orobii. I have no intention of deleting them.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 06:31 PM
so you agree with the link that the helvetians arrived in or where in switzerland before the celts arrived

No - the Helvetians were a Celtic tribe, as is made clear in the chronology helpfully supplied by the Swiss government:


Between 200 and 100 BCE
Helvetians settle in the region that is now Switzerland.

58 BCE
Helvetians defeated at Bibracte; beginning of Roman rule.

1st century BCE
The regions settled by Celts, including the Helvetians, in what is now Switzerland are gradually incorporated into the provinces of the Roman Empire.

Everyone knows this. You will find this in any published history of Switzerland, or history of the Celts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii and see post below.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 06:44 PM
A Historical Encyclopedia of Celtic Culture ed John T. Koch (2006):



The Helvetii were a Celtic-speaking tribe (probably more accurately to be regarded as a tribal confederation) who inhabited the western Alpine region around Lake Constance and Lake Geneva. Caesar (De Bello Gallico 1.1) notes that they excelled over the rest of the Gauls in valour due to the constant military threat from their German neighbours (see Cimbri and Teutones; warfare). Their original home may have been located to the north, in what is now Germany. In 58 BC, because of population pressures, they attempted to migrate into Gaul (and, according to Caesar, to conquer the whole of Gaul) at the instigation of the wealthy Helvetian nobleman Orgetorix. Caesar countered the Helvetii to protect Roman interests and alliances. He defeated them in battle near Toulon (De Bello Gallico 1.24–9) and the survivors were sent home, but the precedent for direct Roman involvement in Gaulish affairs soon led to the Roman subjugation of the whole of Gaul. Caesar notes that the Helvetii kept records using the Greek alphabet, a claim supported by numerous finds of Gaulish texts using the Greek alphabet of Massalia throughout southern France (see scripts). Within the Roman Empire, the Helvetii formed a civitas with its caput (chief town) at Aventicum, modern Avenches, Switzerland. During the rule of Augustus, the Helvetii belonged to the province of Gallia Belgica (see Belgae), but later became part of Germania Inferior. The Germanic Alamanni overran their territory and sacked Aventicum in ad 259/60.

The Celticity of the Helvetii is demonstrated by their proper names. For example, Helvetii itself is probably based on the root seen in Welsh elw ‘gain, profit’ and the Old Irish prefix il- ‘many, multiple’; thus, the ethnic name probably asserted the numerousness of the people. Orgetorix is a Celtic compound and means ‘leader of killers’ (D. Ellis Evans, Gaulish Personal Names 108–9). In the case of Geneva, Genua (var. Genaua) was the name applied by Caesar to a pre-Roman oppidum there; it is a pre-Roman Celtic name, corresponding to Breton and Old Welsh genou, Modern Welsh genau ‘mouth (of a river)’ (Lambert, La langue gauloise 37; cf. river names), which suits the place. In modern times, Helvetia has been used as a Latin name for Switzerland.

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:45 PM
No - the Helvetians were a Celtic tribe, as is made clear in the chronology helpfully supplied by the Swiss government:



For heaven's sake, Vettor. Everyone knows this. You will find this in any published history of Switzerland, or history of the Celts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii

does it state helvetians arrived there between 2nd century and the 1st century, does it then say Celts arrived there in the first century...............there is a gap of a century
As you state...presented by the swiss government

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:51 PM
A Historical Encyclopedia of Celtic Culture ed John T. Koch (2006):

Celticity demonstrated by their proper names...............this is your proof! ............place names!

You do know the Romans also used celtic terminology in their naming of places,even where no celts existed. a classic example is Augusta Vindelicorum, a place/town/fort built by the Romans in 15BC after the conquest of the Raetian people , where no city ever existed before, but built for necessity to control the vital cross roads for the area

alan
07-14-2015, 06:51 PM
LOL I still think it is bizarre that the norm of applying a shorthand name for a an undisputed linguistic-cultural IE subdivision, primarily based on language but also including other aspects, is a problem when it comes to the Celts but not for other groups. Its crystal clear the Celts are as coherent a linguistic-cultural group as the Slavs for example. The idea that every tribe has to be on record as having been referred to as Celtic, Germanic, Slavic etc by a Med. writer (who were often horribly confused and based on 3rd hand accounts) before they can be called such is crazy and for some reason is only being applied to Celtic speakers.

Also the idea that they had to have a consistent word for Celtic speakers is absurd. Only the Celtic tribes in contract with non-Celtic tribes even needed a word for 'tribes of the same languages as us' and 'other tribes who speak different languages'. If you are a Celtic tribe who there is absolutely no non-Celtic tribes anywhere near you then you are not going to have linguistic ingroup-outgroup terms. Your world view will probably be 'my tribe' 'neighbouring tribe' and 'mankind'. You wont have any concept that there is such a thing as non-Celtic peoples therefore you wont see the closer relationship with other Celtic tribes that you dont share with ones from another linguistic branch.

Lets go to the Germans - did they ever have a word for themselves collectively that hasnt come to them due to an outsider attaching labels? Deutch just means 'folk'. Remember that Scotti, Gael and Picti are terms that were given by Romano-British neighbours and that Latin Christianity brought the names to these areas. The Irish never had a collective ethno-terms that applied to all tribes and all social strata - the term Gael, Scotti being brought by Romano-Britons. They recognised they shared an island. However, it is clear that despite having no native non-geographical umbrella terms for themselves, the Irish c. 500-1100AD were archaeologically, culturally and linguistically very unified. The other classic outsider naming method is when a name of just one tribe is applied to a whole geographical zone comprising many tribes - Caledonia, Hibernia

Jean M
07-14-2015, 06:53 PM
does it state helvetians arrived there between 2nd century and the 1st century, does it then say Celts arrived there in the first century

No Vettor. It means that in the 1st century BCE, the regions that had been previously settled by Celts, including the Helveti, within what is now Switzerland were gradually incorporated into the provinces of the Roman Empire. It does not mean that a new people called Celts, who were different from the Helveti, arrived in the first century. I can see now how you managed to become confused. But the date there refers to the incorporation into the Roman Empire.

The Swiss Government is nowhere claiming that the Helveti were not Celts. Let us go to a more detailed page on the same official site: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/geschichte/epochen/von-den-anfaengen-zu-den-roemern.html


From the early 3rd century BC, the territory of present-day Switzerland was gradually absorbed into the Roman Empire. However, Switzerland was not a single political unit but was divided between five different Roman provinces. The Romans tightened their grip on the territory by establishing colonies. The indigenous population, which included the Celtic Helvetians and the Raetians, became increasingly Romanised. The fall of the Western Roman Empire led to the collapse of the Roman administration in the 5th and 6th century AD.

Jean M
07-14-2015, 06:55 PM
Celticity demonstrated by their proper names...............this is your proof! ............place names!

And personal names and the name of the tribe itself. You really are wasting your time with this nonsense Vettor. I wouldn't mind except that you are wasting mine too.

vettor
07-14-2015, 06:58 PM
No Vettor. It means that in the 1st century BCE, the regions that had been previously settled by Celts, including the Helveti, within what is now Switzerland were gradually incorporated into the provinces of the Roman Empire. It does not mean that a new people called Celts, who were different from the Helveti arrived in the first century. I can see now how you managed to become confused. But the date there refers to the incorporation into the Roman Empire.

what was the date of the incorporation into the Roman empire?

because the alpine people where not conquered until much later than what you suggest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Alpium

alan
07-14-2015, 06:58 PM
another thing is that once the geographical notion of Gaul and its subdivisions Celtica etc came into being during the Roman contact and conquest, it is likely that the terms moved from being a linguistic-cultural meaning to a geographical one over time. By the time the Romans conquered Britain, the term Gaul was becoming a geographical/administrative term and it would be irrational to apply it to Britain.

alan
07-14-2015, 07:03 PM
And personal names. You really are wasting your time with this nonsense Vettor. I wouldn't mind except that you are wasting mine too.

The whole thread is an annoying waste of time. Anyone who has issues applying the short hand term Celt to the linguistic-cultural grouping of peoples really needs to ask themselves why they dont apply the same logic to Slavs, Germanic speakers etc. It so silly that its not worth debating.

vettor
07-14-2015, 07:05 PM
And personal names. You really are wasting your time with this nonsense Vettor. I wouldn't mind except that you are wasting mine too.

I am sorry to say, but you seem to have your timings of events out of "whack", a diluting of events because it does not conform to the "propaganda" taught after the meetings called the congress of Vienna.

I am tired of this fabrication of ancient peoples to satisfy some modern nations......................To conclude, you have your idea ( which i respect ) and I have mine

alan
07-14-2015, 07:34 PM
Noone is arguing an old style racial idea of the Celts. Its just that Celt is the shorthand term for the Celtic speaking tribes and of course the institutions and social structure that can be reconstructed from proto-Celtic and historic writings. I dont really see how anyone can have an issue with that. Its the norm for labeling linguistic-cultural groupings. It is also the norm to name them after early umbrella terms given by external observers whether or not the terms really applied to an entire linguistic group, just some tribes or a confederation of tribes and whether or not we really know all the tribes used such a term.

Wonder_Wall
07-14-2015, 09:24 PM
Right.

Celtic is just one point on an IE continuum in the West of Europe. It's a linguistic/cultural term which makes sense to use because that's when this continuum intersects with history. If it were 500 years earlier we might be calling it Urnfield.

I bet you could take a Briton ca. 1,000 BC and set them down with a proto-Boii from Austria and they would share much in common linguistically, clothing, and spirituality. That they might possibly share Y-DNA ancestry is supportive, but NOT necessary to define a useful name for the similarities shared.

The same could be said of proto-Goths and Slavics at different geographic ends of their respective ranges. So there simply is no controversy here.

What is notable is that nobody runs around telling the direct descendents of the Germanic or Slavic IE branches that their use of (and identification with) linguistic ethnonyms like "Slavic" or "Germanic" terms is being appropriated somehow. That is a little strange to me.

Motzart
07-14-2015, 10:59 PM
It's like if I had a friend named Jeff, and I wrote a paper describing Jeff. Hundreds of years later somebody reads this paper I wrote and then meets a guy similar to Jeff, so he starts calling him Jeff (but his name is actually Ted). Somebody doesn't care though because somebody is rather self absorbed and narcissistic. Hundreds more years later everyone knows this guy's name wasn't Jeff but we just keep on calling him that because changing is hard and we are lazy and another somebody already wrote a book on the guy called and called it "The Jeff". The truth is that The Jeff was quite average and unexceptional as far as people go, but we're going to invent a fantasy where was a legendary warrior and the most badass man who ever lived because we might be related to Jeff and we have sensitive egos.

Agamemnon
07-14-2015, 11:43 PM
The whole thread is an annoying waste of time. Anyone who has issues applying the short hand term Celt to the linguistic-cultural grouping of peoples really needs to ask themselves why they dont apply the same logic to Slavs, Germanic speakers etc. It so silly that its not worth debating.

The naming issue is particularly unwarranted in this case, I know because I support the use of geographical labels for the branches of Afroasiatic and this is mainly due to the fact Biblical labels are used for some of them ("Semitic", "Cushitic", etc) and this can lead to serious confusion from the part of laymen who sometimes try to bridge the gap between Biblical genealogy and Biblical labels used for these language families. In this case, replacing these labels with geographical ones is totally warranted as it would make things clearer... All the fuss about the use of the term "Celtic" is simply bewildering in comparison, there's no valid reason to replace this term since it doesn't lead to confusion and is actually anchored in a historical context.

R.Rocca
07-14-2015, 11:59 PM
The naming issue is particularly unwarranted in this case, I know because I support the use of geographical labels for the branches of Afroasiatic and this is mainly due to the fact Biblical labels are used for some of them ("Semitic", "Cushitic", etc) and this can lead to serious confusion from the part of laymen who sometimes try to bridge the gap between Biblical genealogy and Biblical labels used for these language families. In this case, replacing these labels with geographical ones is totally warranted as it would make things clearer... All the fuss about the use of the term "Celtic" is simply bewildering in comparison, there's no valid reason to replace this term since it doesn't lead to confusion and is actually anchored in a historical context.

I think "bewildering" is rather a light word for it. To not collectively call the people that 2000 years ago spoke languages of the Celtic branch of Indo-Europeans as "Celts", so that they may be put into conversational context, is an absurdity. There is really no other way to put it.

David Mc
07-15-2015, 12:00 AM
Re: Motzart's post: There is no comparison. Almost every name we use for prehistoric peoples is anachronistic to a degree. "Celtic" has come to signify people who share linguistic and cultural roots (and apparently a great deal of genetic ancestry) in common. If not "Celtic," then what-- and when you give an answer, please explain (a) why it's it's a better fit, (b) why it isn't anachronistic, (c) how it clearly delineates the "Celtic peoples" from other Atlantic peoples who did not share the same degree of linguistic, cultural, and genetic confluence?

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, blanket designations are used almost universally when referring to larger cultural groups in history and prehistory. The only one that seems to get peoples' knickers in a knot is the Celtic one.

Agamemnon
07-15-2015, 12:15 AM
I think "bewildering" is rather a light word for it. To not collectively call the people that 2000 years ago spoke languages of the Celtic branch of Indo-Europeans as "Celts", so that they may be put into conversational context, is an absurdity. There is really no other way to put it.

Indeed, it's a tremendous display of counterintuitive logic to say the least... The closest thing to an acquired stupidity syndrome!

rms2
07-15-2015, 01:38 AM
It's like if I had a friend named Jeff, and I wrote a paper describing Jeff. Hundreds of years later somebody reads this paper I wrote and then meets a guy similar to Jeff, so he starts calling him Jeff (but his name is actually Ted). Somebody doesn't care though because somebody is rather self absorbed and narcissistic. Hundreds more years later everyone knows this guy's name wasn't Jeff but we just keep on calling him that because changing is hard and we are lazy and another somebody already wrote a book on the guy called and called it "The Jeff". The truth is that The Jeff was quite average and unexceptional as far as people go, but we're going to invent a fantasy where was a legendary warrior and the most badass man who ever lived because we might be related to Jeff and we have sensitive egos.

You do realize that analogies are actually supposed to be analogous, do you not?

Webb
07-15-2015, 02:19 AM
I would like to point out that while we are embattled in this discussion about whether we can call Celts, Celts, the U106 group is taking advantage of our bickering, and are quietly acquiring our lands and property.

MT1976
07-15-2015, 03:01 AM
Let me give an analogy from the East; Illyria. This is what the current state of scholarship is - as far as my informed by nevertheless 'lay' understanding goes.

Traditional scholarship argued that Illyrians 'arrived' during the Bronze age (with Kurgans) , or perhaps later with Urnfield /' Lauzits" culture, what have you. These northern Aryanoid peoples assimilated the pre-IE groups of the Balkans and merged to form the proto-illyrians, from which the tribes later named by texts formed by the Iron Age.

This idea has been abandoned. Not doubting that there were *some* movements from the north, it is now recognized that it is anachronistic to call people of the Bronze or even Iron Age "Illyrians'. Perhaps rightly so, because, the peoples from Adriatic to the Carpathians certainly weren;t aware of any shared ethnos -even if they spoke some similar languages ,and had aspects of shared material culture.

Rather, the formation of distinct "Illyrian tribes" began later, in the pre-Roman Iron Age, as part of the 'globalization' of Europe (expansion of the 'La Tene model', on the one hand, and Hellenistic south, on the other). The need to define 'us' versus 'them', increased competition, and a shift from a more fluid heterachical society to one more solidly heirarchical and inheritable, created the 'tribes' first mentioned by Greek annals. This only accelerated with the advent of Roman expansion, the Dacian wars, etc.

It was the Greek, and especially Roman , colonial etic categorization which created "illyricum", somethign which certainly did not exist before. In fact, and ironically, some two centuries after the final conquest of these lands by Romans, a sense of unified Illyrianness did arise, as soldiers and emperors rose from this region, and began to recognize their geographic origins as patria Dalmatiatorum, etc.

vettor
07-15-2015, 07:12 AM
Let me give an analogy from the East; Illyria. This is what the current state of scholarship is - as far as my informed by nevertheless 'lay' understanding goes.

Traditional scholarship argued that Illyrians 'arrived' during the Bronze age (with Kurgans) , or perhaps later with Urnfield /' Lauzits" culture, what have you. These northern Aryanoid peoples assimilated the pre-IE groups of the Balkans and merged to form the proto-illyrians, from which the tribes later named by texts formed by the Iron Age.

This idea has been abandoned. Not doubting that there were *some* movements from the north, it is now recognized that it is anachronistic to call people of the Bronze or even Iron Age "Illyrians'. Perhaps rightly so, because, the peoples from Adriatic to the Carpathians certainly weren;t aware of any shared ethnos -even if they spoke some similar languages ,and had aspects of shared material culture.

Rather, the formation of distinct "Illyrian tribes" began later, in the pre-Roman Iron Age, as part of the 'globalization' of Europe (expansion of the 'La Tene model', on the one hand, and Hellenistic south, on the other). The need to define 'us' versus 'them', increased competition, and a shift from a more fluid heterachical society to one more solidly heirarchical and inheritable, created the 'tribes' first mentioned by Greek annals. This only accelerated with the advent of Roman expansion, the Dacian wars, etc.

It was the Greek, and especially Roman , colonial etic categorization which created "illyricum", somethign which certainly did not exist before. In fact, and ironically, some two centuries after the final conquest of these lands by Romans, a sense of unified Illyrianness did arise, as soldiers and emperors rose from this region, and began to recognize their geographic origins as patria Dalmatiatorum, etc.


I agree with all the old historians that the vudecol culture was proto-illyrian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vu%C4%8Dedol_culture

did these "proto-illyrians" bring some of the y markers to the west , unsure..... but clearly noricum in modern Austria was illyrian and they seemed to form a union with the celts to create Halstatt.
As is noric steel is also illyrian.
These later illyirans Daesitiates or Daezitiates were an Illyrian tribe that lived in what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina during the time of the Roman Republic. Along with the Maezaei, the Daesitiates belonged to the Pannonians.[88]
seem to be the best fit.

Jean M
07-15-2015, 08:35 AM
Iwe're going to invent a fantasy where was a legendary warrior and the most badass man who ever lived because we might be related to Jeff and we have sensitive egos.

Now, now. No need for jealousy. There are lots of exciting heroes available from Germanic legend and saga and even actual history. ;)

alan
07-15-2015, 09:00 AM
What is so funny about this is that insular Celtic in its earliest attested forms is almost identical to Gaulish. British is practically identical to Gaulish and even in say the 4th century AD Irish Ogham stones are essentially like a Q form of Gaulish and not at all far from proto-Celtic. Its not like there is the slightest controversy or that they are just distant cousins.

If anything the surprising thing is lack of divergence - this is probably due to the furious elite networking throughout the Bronze Age. In normal Celtic style this surely also saw a lot of women moving as wives to seal alliances. Another peculiarly Celtic practice was elite fosterage of noble children to the noble house of another tribe you were in alliance with until they reached adulthood. These couldnt fail to have some effect in homogenising the dialects and ideas in the elites. There are other practices like warriors from somewhere else coming as part of a dowry. Others include the holding of noble hostages as guarantees - which wasnt quite like imprisonment we imagine hostages today. Another homogenising aspect of Celtic culture was the big learned class of Druids, Bards, lawyers, poets etc who were said to be as powerful as kings. The power of a class like this who unlike everyone else had safe passage to cross tribal borders and hold national assemblies in otherwise politically fragmented areas cannot be overestimated.

Jean M
07-15-2015, 09:24 AM
Let me give an analogy from the East; Illyria... It was the Greek, and especially Roman , colonial etic categorization which created "illyricum", somethign which certainly did not exist before. In fact, and ironically, some two centuries after the final conquest of these lands by Romans, a sense of unified Illyrianness did arise, as soldiers and emperors rose from this region, and began to recognize their geographic origins as patria Dalmatiatorum, etc.

The assumption here is that a people cannot be recognised as an ethnos unless they owned a specific, politically united, centrally organised territory. This is peering at the past through the prism of the present. We live in a world of nation states, in which ethnos has come largely to be equated with nation.

This was emphatically not the case in the few centuries BC for which we have written accounts from the Greeks. The Illyrians were regarded by their contemporaries as an ethnos long prior to becoming a Roman province. In Greek accounts of the Celtic and Macedonian incursions into Illyrian territory, various tribes are described as Illyrian.

At this time there were no nation states in Europe, although Phillip II of Macedon was busy imposing his will on most of Greece. Prior to that Greece was a patchwork of city states. It was not politically united. Yet we use the term "Greeks" or perhaps "Hellenes" about Athenians and Spartans and Corinthians etc. That usage made sense to the Greeks themselves and it makes sense to us. They had a language and culture in common. They recognised this.

In the same way, the term "Germani" was used by the Romans for the multitude of politically disunited tribes in what the Romans termed "Greater Germania", which included Scandinavia. Only a small part of Germanic-speaking territory ever came within the Roman empire. Roman geographers also recognised the multitudes of disunited tribes of Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Ligurians, Iberians (Iberes), Aquitanians and Scythians. They were not under the illusion that these people could not be recognised as ethnic groups unless they had a nation state.

The world of scholarship is full of revisionist tripe which strikes its perpetrators as pregnant with insight. We don't have to agree.

[added] I'm saying this as one at home in the world of scholarship, who admires scholarship and certainly does not think that all scholars are churning out worthless stuff. ;)

alan
07-15-2015, 09:36 AM
I think one of the problem the British movers and shakers is that the Celtic cultures are liked if they are providing a bit of colour and they also tend to be treated as a bit comic. It is not liked when it is more than that and seems to be seen as threatening. One of the funniest aspects is that being British patriotic is fine and even encouraged but when its some sort of Celtic version it becomes nationalism, racism etc. Its kind of absurd and hypocritical. This cartoon sums it up well IMO

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8kFX-vA2VUE/UBelYLC2DpI/AAAAAAAAAVI/408fNJLOsdo/s1600/bloody+nationalists.jpg

Jean M
07-15-2015, 10:10 AM
It is not liked when it is more than that and seems to be seen as threatening.

Lashing out in fear is tragically counter-productive. The best way to remove an enemy is to make him/her your friend.

Jean M
07-15-2015, 11:06 AM
The assumption here is that a people cannot be recognised as an ethnos unless they owned a specific, politically united, centrally organised territory. This is peering at the past through the prism of the present. We live in a world of nation states, in which ethnos has come largely to be equated with nation.

This was emphatically not the case in the few centuries BC for which we have written accounts from the Greeks.

And to come closer to our own times, we had in the British Isles in the early medieval period a patchwork of kingdoms. This did not prevent Bede from writing the Ecclesiastical History of the English in the 7th century. He chose to use the term Angle to form the name English. He was himself an Angle, but he was describing all the Germanic peoples who entered Britain, as he makes clear. The Britons tended to use the term Saxon for the same purpose. The name does not really matter. The ethnos was recognised regardless of the political disunity of the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Bede's day. In the same way the Anglo-Saxons called the Britons "Welsh" regardless of kingdom and whether they lived in present-day Wales or not, and the Irish recognised a collective name for themselves versus the incoming Norse.

In short, ethnos is not the same as polity.

GTC
07-15-2015, 11:31 AM
ethnos is not the same as polity.

Nicely put. Should be a motto.

MT1976
07-15-2015, 01:43 PM
The assumption here is that a people cannot be recognised as an ethnos unless they owned a specific, politically united, centrally organised territory. This is peering at the past through the prism of the present. We live in a world of nation states, in which ethnos has come largely to be equated with nation.

This was emphatically not the case in the few centuries BC for which we have written accounts from the Greeks. The Illyrians were regarded by their contemporaries as an ethnos long prior to becoming a Roman province. In Greek accounts of the Celtic and Macedonian incursions into Illyrian territory, various tribes are described as Illyrian.

At this time there were no nation states in Europe, although Phillip II of Macedon was busy imposing his will on most of Greece. Prior to that Greece was a patchwork of city states. It was not politically united. Yet we use the term "Greeks" or perhaps "Hellenes" about Athenians and Spartans and Corinthians etc. That usage made sense to the Greeks themselves and it makes sense to us. They had a language and culture in common. They recognised this.

In the same way, the term "Germani" was used by the Romans for the multitude of politically disunited tribes in what the Romans termed "Greater Germania", which included Scandinavia. Only a small part of Germanic-speaking territory ever came within the Roman empire. Roman geographers also recognised the multitudes of disunited tribes of Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Ligurians, Iberians (Iberes), Aquitanians and Scythians. They were not under the illusion that these people could not be recognised as ethnic groups unless they had a nation state.

The world of scholarship is full of revisionist tripe which strikes its perpetrators as pregnant with insight. We don't have to agree.

[added] I'm saying this as one at home in the world of scholarship, who admires scholarship and certainly does not think that all scholars are churning out worthless stuff. ;)


Jean, I disagree with several points.

* "The assumption here is that a people cannot be recognised as an ethnos unless they owned a specific, politically united, centrally organised territory."

I never claimed that, nor did (AFAICT) do those who have proposed new readings in Identity in the Iron Age hinterland beyond Mediterranean Europe.

*"This was emphatically not the case in the few centuries BC for which we have written accounts from the Greeks. The Illyrians were regarded by their contemporaries as an ethnos long prior to becoming a Roman province. In Greek accounts of the Celtic and Macedonian incursions into Illyrian territory, various tribes are described as Illyrian"

Well, sort of, but not really. The Illyrians of the Greeks are different to "Illyrians" in Roman times. This is an important distinction, and requires one to understand that ethnies were not static, organic collectives. The Illyrians neighbours of the Greeks were just that - their near neighbours in northern Epirus, Albania, etc. Other tribes beyond had their own names - Dasserati, eg , and these disappear by Roman times. Relatively few tribes are known in the hellenistic era, but many more, and new ones from immediately pre-Roman & Roman times. Some appear only in 2nd century AD (Eg Albanoi). There was no pan-Illyria in Hellenistic times, but there came to be one in Roman period.

* "Yet we use the term "Greeks" or perhaps "Hellenes" about Athenians and Spartans and Corinthians etc. That usage made sense to the Greeks themselves and it makes sense to us. They had a language and culture in common. They "

Yes they did. But we can;t just willy nilly extend this to "Celtic Europe", or "Illyrians". The Greeks obviously had shared sanctuaries, literacy, shared religions and myths to create this identity, despite their political discohesion. Nobody states one needs political unity to create shared identity. Thats a strawman arguement at best, and utterly misunderstands the post-structuralist approach to identity, at worst.

* "In the same way, the term "Germani" was used by the Romans for the multitude of politically disunited tribes in what the Romans termed "Greater Germania", which included Scandinavia. Only a small part of Germanic-speaking territory ever came within the Roman empire. Roman geographers also recognised the multitudes of disunited tribes of Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Ligurians, Iberians (Iberes), Aquitanians and Scythians. They were not under the illusion that these people could not be recognised as ethnic groups unless they had a nation state."

As per above, and incorrect, again. There was no unified "Germani" ethnos. Germani was a term first **made up** by Caesar. It was a term to denote the tribes east of the Rhine, and made little actual linguistic or phylogenetic analysis of 'tribes'. It was an easy way of rationalising why ROman advances essentially halted at the Rhine; "Celts" (West of RHine) are barbarians, but can be placated to Roman ways. "Germani (east) are even more primitive, and are not even worth conquering. In reality, in the earliest Roman times, tribes in southern Germany were still Celtic speaking, but called "Germani". Moreover, the ROmans never called people in Scandinavia "Germani". They *never* called the Germanic speaking Goths- "Germani". This simple fact is lost on many many people.

*" We don't have to agree."

Of course not. But to disagree, one has to actually understand first.

alan
07-15-2015, 02:17 PM
Jean, I disagree with several points.

* "The assumption here is that a people cannot be recognised as an ethnos unless they owned a specific, politically united, centrally organised territory."

I never claimed that, nor did (AFAICT) do those who have proposed new readings in Identity in the Iron Age hinterland beyond Mediterranean Europe.

*"This was emphatically not the case in the few centuries BC for which we have written accounts from the Greeks. The Illyrians were regarded by their contemporaries as an ethnos long prior to becoming a Roman province. In Greek accounts of the Celtic and Macedonian incursions into Illyrian territory, various tribes are described as Illyrian"

Well, sort of, but not really. The Illyrians of the Greeks are different to "Illyrians" in Roman times. This is an important distinction, and requires one to understand that ethnies were not static, organic collectives. The Illyrians neighbours of the Greeks were just that - their near neighbours in northern Epirus, Albania, etc. Other tribes beyond had their own names - Dasserati, eg , and these disappear by Roman times. Relatively few tribes are known in the hellenistic era, but many more, and new ones from immediately pre-Roman & Roman times. Some appear only in 2nd century AD (Eg Albanoi). There was no pan-Illyria in Hellenistic times, but there came to be one in Roman period.

* "Yet we use the term "Greeks" or perhaps "Hellenes" about Athenians and Spartans and Corinthians etc. That usage made sense to the Greeks themselves and it makes sense to us. They had a language and culture in common. They "

Yes they did. But we can;t just willy nilly extend this to "Celtic Europe", or "Illyrians". The Greeks obviously had shared sanctuaries, literacy, shared religions and myths to create this identity, despite their political discohesion. Nobody states one needs political unity to create shared identity. Thats a strawman arguement at best, and utterly misunderstands the post-structuralist approach to identity, at worst.

* "In the same way, the term "Germani" was used by the Romans for the multitude of politically disunited tribes in what the Romans termed "Greater Germania", which included Scandinavia. Only a small part of Germanic-speaking territory ever came within the Roman empire. Roman geographers also recognised the multitudes of disunited tribes of Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Ligurians, Iberians (Iberes), Aquitanians and Scythians. They were not under the illusion that these people could not be recognised as ethnic groups unless they had a nation state."

As per above, and incorrect, again. There was no unified "Germani" ethnos. Germani was a term first **made up** by Caesar. It was a term to denote the tribes east of the Rhine, and made little actual linguistic or phylogenetic analysis of 'tribes'. It was an easy way of rationalising why ROman advances essentially halted at the Rhine; "Celts" (West of RHine) are barbarians, but can be placated to Roman ways. "Germani (east) are even more primitive, and are not even worth conquering. In reality, in the earliest Roman times, tribes in southern Germany were still Celtic speaking, but called "Germani".

*" We don't have to agree."

Of course not. But to disagree, one has to actually understand first.

you said Greeks obviously had shared sanctuaries, literacy, shared religions and myths to create this identity, despite their political discohesion.

this is obviously also largely true of the Celts. The Druids had national assemblies and also are recorded as travelling to Britain from Gaul to study. The Celts clearly shared gods, myths etc too. As well as local gods there are several gods like Lugh who appear time and again over the continental and insular Celtic world. Despite the continental Celtic mythology not being recorded in any detail, it is possible to see that insular Celtic mythology and human origin and afterlife myths probably was shared on the continent once you strip away the Greco-Roman additions. There were pan-Celtic rituals like placing sacrifices and objects in watery places that we find in Europe and the isles. The Celts are tied together by more than some wooley generalised IE similarity. Its far closer than that.

Jean M
07-15-2015, 02:34 PM
The Illyrians of the Greeks are different to "Illyrians" in Roman times. This is an important distinction, and requires one to understand that ethnies were not static, organic collectives.

Of course they were not static. Neither should we see archaeological cultures in that way. To quote Philip L. Kohl:


The cultures that ethnographers study are not pure, pristine entities developing in a vacuum. Rather, they are almost always hybrids, fissioning or coalescing, assimilating or modifying the customs of the neighbouring peoples with whom they constantly interact. Cultures are not primordial entities or essences once crystallised in time and then remaining forever the same; they are never made, but always in the making.



Germani was a term first **made up** by Caesar.

Actually no. Tacitus enquired the origin of the word and was told (Germania II) http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php


The name Germany, on the other hand, they say is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.


There was no unified "Germani" ethnos.

You are confusing name and entity. What you mean is that there was no collective ethnic name initially devised as such by the Germani. That does not mean that the Germani did not recognise commonalties among their tribes, or that archaeologists don't recognise a common culture as Germanic. They do.

The Germani did not need a collective name back in the days before they started expanding. Let me explain. The names people use as self-identification come in layers from most exclusive (me) to most inclusive (Homo sapiens, perhaps). They change according to context. For example a person today could think of himself as a Geordie, English, British and European, according to the context. The "us" name is validated by the knowledge of the existence of "other" - people who do not belong in the "us" group.

So for example the self-descriptor "American" requires a knowledge of the existence of other continents. The self-descriptor "Native American" is a modern coinage and did not exist before European colonization of the Americas.

The self-descriptor "Germanic" (or equivalent) requires not only a knowledge of people who don't speak your language, but sufficient contact with them to require some word like "foreigners" and the companion "us" name at a higher level than tribal name.

alan
07-15-2015, 02:36 PM
What is the latest thinking of yDNA and Italics? How much of the hefty chunk of U152 in Italy is thought to be Italic and how much is Celtic intrusions or other late prehistoric movements from central Europe? I was kind of amazed at how little P312 there is in some parts of southern Italy.

alan
07-15-2015, 02:52 PM
Of course were not static. Neither should we see archaeological cultures in that way. To quote Philip L. Kohl:



Or to quote myself in the forthcoming book:



Actually no. Tacitus enquired the origin of the word and was told (Germania II) http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php



What you mean is that there was no collective ethnic name initially devised as such by the Germani. That is because they did not need one back in the days before they started expanding. Let me explain. The names people use as self-identification come in layers from most exclusive (me) to most inclusive (Homo sapiens, perhaps). They change according to context. For example a person today could think of himself as a Geordie, English, British and European, according to the context. The "us" name is validated by the knowledge of the existence of "other" - people who do not belong in the "us" group.

So for example the self-descriptor "American" requires a knowledge of the existence of other continents. The self-descriptor "Germanic" (or equivalent) requires not only a knowledge of people who don't speak your language, but sufficient contact with them to require some word like "foreigners" and the companion "us" name at a higher level than tribal name.

Totally agree and names for 'others' and names others give to you probably arose at the fringes of each group where they interfaced with other languages. Tribes of the same language who were far removed from interface areas wouldnt have had a word for others of a different language because they never met anyone of that sort.

My guess is that knowledge of and words for areas and peoples far beyond a particular tribes contact zone might first have spread wider via the Druidical networks given their national assemblies etc. An example of this may be that in Gaelic the word gall (from Gaul) was a generic word for non-isles derived person 'continental foreigner' regardless of origin (it later got used for Vikings and Normans). It seems clear that the Gaelic world had essentially no concept of the continent beyond Gaul. Gaul was as far as even their widest world view extended. All other words for foreign countries appear to have come to Gaelic through Latin or otherwise in later times. Indeed it may be even Gall came via British or Latin - I am not sure about that one. However the point is groups far removed from interface with other linguistic/culture groups dont need words for them.

Jean M
07-15-2015, 02:58 PM
Totally agree and names for 'others' and names others give to you probably arose at the fringes of each group where they interfaced with other languages. Tribes of the same language who were far removed from interface areas wouldnt have had a word for others of a different language because they never met anyone of that sort.

Precisely. Actually you posted too quickly for me. You caught me in mid-revision. I decided not to quote myself. :)


in Gaelic the word gall (from Gaul) was a generic word for non-isles derived person 'continental foreigner'

I had wondered about that.

alan
07-15-2015, 03:04 PM
Precisely. Actually you posted too quickly for me. You caught me in mid-revision. I decided not to quote myself. :)



I had wondered about that.

Its meaning changed but original meaning is clear in the word and implies Gaul is all they knew about 'abroad'. I am not aware of any native Gaelic non-Latin or British derived terms for the rest of Europe in the pre-Viking era. If anyone knows feel free to step in. I am not sure what the situation in Welsh is. Dubhthach may know.

alan
07-15-2015, 03:12 PM
I am also unaware of an archaeological material in pre-Roman Iron Age Ireland that wouldnt be traced to Britain or Gaul in terms of origins or influences. One thing that is often not mentioned by people who have a thing about Ireland-Iberia links is that there is virtually nothing in the archaeological record in terms of material culture in Iron Age Ireland that makes such a link. You would need to go back to 800BC or so to find shared material culture and even then it is also shared with NW France and Britain so that is no guarantee of contact or even knowledge of each other. The Irish word for Iberia was based on the Latin Hispania term.

Dubhthach
07-15-2015, 03:12 PM
Gall is a fun word when ye know a little bit about it's use over the years, yes in modern irish people use it as a generic word for "Foreigner" in reality it's meaning has changed over the ages:



Gall m (genitive singular Gaill, plural Gaill)

(historical) Gaul (person from Gaul)
(historical) Northman, Dane (member of the Germanic tribe inhabiting the Danish islands and parts of southern Sweden)
(historical) Norman (member of the mixed Scandinavian and Frankish peoples who, in the 11th century, were a major military power in Western Europe and who conquered the English in 1066), Anglo-Norman (descendant of the Normans who settled in England after the Norman Conquest), Englishman


So really from at least 14th century onwards "Gall" generally just meant "english person" or "english speaker" thence the coming up of terms such as Galltacht to cover the "english speaking area" as oppose to Gaeltacht etc.

alan
07-15-2015, 03:18 PM
Gall is a fun word when ye know a little bit about it's use over the years, yes in modern irish people use it as a generic word for "Foreigner" in reality it's meaning has changed over the ages:



So really from at least 14th century onwards "Gall" generally just meant "english person" or "english speaker" thence the coming up of terms such as Galltacht to cover the "english speaking area" as oppose to Gaeltacht etc.

Is gall in Irish of goidelic origin, a British loanword or did it come through latin? I think somewhere along the line I may have heard it was from Brythonic or Romano-British or Latin but I may have dreamed that LOL.

Dubhthach
07-15-2015, 03:27 PM
Is gall in Irish of goidelic origin, a British loanword or did it come through latin? I think somewhere along the line I may have heard it was from Brythonic or Romano-British or Latin but I may have dreamed that LOL.

It's a good question, eDIL doesn't seem to say. My feeling is it's probably connected to Latin Gallia. It's interesting the entry in eDIL tends to include references to texts which are talking about the classical world:

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/results-new.php?orth=1%20Gall&&dictionary_choice=edil_2012

for example:
Gaill .i. Frainc. Gaill dano ainm do ... ṡaerc[h]landaib Franc .i. tribus Gallie,
(Tochm. Em.). marggad mór na nGall ngrécach

Now I don't know Old Irish (which is about as close to my school Irish as Late Classical Latin is to Italian!), but the first entry is talking specifically about name of people living in France (Franc) eg. "Tribus Gallie" (Gaulish tribes)

Second one seems to be talking about "The largest market of Greeks of Gall" (eg. Marseilles? )

What you seeing is use of term to mean France specifically in texts that either reference classical world (remember the Aenid and the Fall of Troy were translated into Old Irish) or involve some connection between saga characters and France (but mentioing for example Greeks).

This makes me think word is a borrowing from Latin, but that's an educated guess on my part. I should note that many of Latin borrowings came via Brythonic speakers (ealry church).

One borrowing that surprises most people is that the word Clann actually derives from Latin planta.

Planta -> Plant (welsh) -> Cland (Old Irish) -> Clann (modern Irish) -> Clan (english)

A very early borrowing as it underwent P -> C shift due to Irish at time lacking a p phoneme.

alan
07-15-2015, 03:35 PM
It's a good question, eDIL doesn't seem to say. My feeling is it's probably connected to Latin Gallia. It's interesting the entry in eDIL tends to include references to texts which are talking about the classical world:

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/results-new.php?orth=1%20Gall&&dictionary_choice=edil_2012

for example:
Gaill .i. Frainc. Gaill dano ainm do ... ṡaerc[h]landaib Franc .i. tribus Gallie,
(Tochm. Em.). marggad mór na nGall ngrécach

Now I don't know Old Irish (which is about as close to my school Irish as Late Classical Latin is to Italian!), but the first entry is talking specifically about name of people living in France (Franc) eg. "Tribus Gallie" (Gaulish tribes)

Second one seems to be talking about "The largest market of Greeks of Gall" (eg. Marseilles? )

What you seeing is use of term to mean France specifically in texts that either reference classical world (remember the Aenid and the Fall of Troy were translated into Old Irish) or involve some connection between saga characters and France (but mentioing for example Greeks).

This makes me think word is a borrowing from Latin, but that's an educated guess on my part. I should note that many of Latin borrowings came via Brythonic speakers (ealry church).

One borrowing that surprises most people is that the word Clann actually derives from Latin planta.

Planta -> Plant (welsh) -> Cland (Old Irish) -> Clann (modern Irish) -> Clan (english)

A very early borrowing as it underwent P -> C shift due to Irish at time lacking a p phoneme.

I think I read Cenel is also a borrowing from Brythonic. There is certainly a very similar word in Welsh.

Dubhthach
07-15-2015, 04:22 PM
No as far as I know Cenél (modern Irish: Cinéal) is a derivation from Proto-Celtic *kenetlom (family) so if there is similiar word in Welsh it's case of shared ancestry from Proto-Celtic stage.

https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=old-irish-l;X3yu2Q;200508201142560700

Just came across this which might be interesting to read:
https://www.academia.edu/245234/From_head_of_kin_to_king_of_a_country._The_evoluti on_of_early_feudal_society_in_Wales_In_R._Karl_and _J._Leskovar_eds._Interpretierte_Eisenzeiten_2._Fa llstudien_Methoden_Theorie._Studien_zur_Kulturgesc hichte_von_Ober%C3%B6sterreich_Folge_19_Linz_Ober% C3%B6sterreichisches_Landesmuseum_2007_153-84

moesan
07-15-2015, 05:43 PM
German, French, Italian and Romansh are spoken in modern Switzerland i.e. one Germanic and three Romance languages. It is a long time since any Celtic language was spoken there. As far as I know Celtic did not survive the period in which the Alps lay within the Roman empire, let alone the incursions of Alemanni etc in the Migration Period. The term Confoederatio Helvetica is a piece of 19th-century historicism. But why not?

Oh, I'm ashamed! I was thinking in ancient Celts when I wrote - Yes, evidently, you' re right: germanic (and high alemannic dialect) and three romance ones ('celtic' was a labsus for french - at first rather a franco-provençal dialect - and I forgot to mention roumanche -
thanks for having "washed" my terrible mistake! - it doesn't distroy my remark about releavance of the 'helvet-' naming.

moesan
07-15-2015, 05:51 PM
Gall is a fun word when ye know a little bit about it's use over the years, yes in modern irish people use it as a generic word for "Foreigner" in reality it's meaning has changed over the ages:



So really from at least 14th century onwards "Gall" generally just meant "english person" or "english speaker" thence the coming up of terms such as Galltacht to cover the "english speaking area" as oppose to Gaeltacht etc.


in modern breton 'gall' is for "french", in fact rather for "french speaking person" than for "French state inhabitant" - it applied for western french speaking people of eastern Brittany - speaking a group of dialects similar enough to ancient great Angevin dilaect (Plantagnet and Co)
someones say it had the meaning of "foreigner" in past: we know these changes of meanings between the notion of "stranger", "foreigner" and a precise ethnic affiliation is common in european languages (Vlak, Welsch ...)

vettor
07-15-2015, 06:44 PM
Oh, I'm ashamed! I was thinking in ancient Celts when I wrote - Yes, evidently, you' re right: germanic (and high alemannic dialect) and three romance ones ('celtic' was a labsus for french - at first rather a franco-provençal dialect - and I forgot to mention roumanche -
thanks for having "washed" my terrible mistake! - it doesn't distroy my remark about releavance of the 'helvet-' naming.

You can still buy Franco-Provencal dictionaries in France same as can buy Savoyard dictionaries , they both fall under L'oc ( occitan ) . Are you wanting to bring in that occitan is more romance than L'oil of northern France which has germanic frankish elements or are you trying to associate that the difference came via ancient celtic/gaul lands?

vettor
07-15-2015, 06:58 PM
Can we be sure on what the term Keltoi by the Greeks really meant?. the term came out of the Greek colony of Marseilles ( france). How accurate is this single colony terminology really on the makeup of celts , .....................same as they have no accurate account of what the Illyrians where. Greeks had no border with Illyrians, there where the 14 tribes of the Epirotes on the coast, next to them the Macedonians, then Paeonians, then the bessi-thracians. The only Greek association with illyrians came via the Corinthians kicking out the liburnians from Corfu and also a trading colony of ancona ( central Italy adriatic sea side )

Jean M
07-15-2015, 07:33 PM
Can we be sure on what the term Keltoi by the Greeks really meant? the term came out of the Greek colony of Marseilles ( france).

I think you are referring to the earliest surviving reference to Celts, which just happens to be that of Hecataeus of Miletus, who c. 500 BC referred to Massalia (Marseilles) as near Celtica. Other Greek authors make it clear that the colony of Massalia was founded in the territory of the Ligures, so Celtica was not in the immediate vicinity, but nearby (to the north of the coastal strip). This reference indicates that the term Celtica was already in use and too well-known to require explanation by this time. It also completely destroys the idea that the Greeks just used the term Keltoi to mean any foreigner north of the Mediterranean, since they knew the difference between Ligures and Celts. (That difference occurs again in the Ora Maritima, a much later source, but based on Greek works of the 6th and 5th centuries BC which do not survive.) The Greeks were also aware of the Iberes as a separate ethnos.

There is a lot of later literature both Greek and Roman which pins down the Celts/Gauls geographically, but the crucial reference for the identification of the La Tene culture as Celtic was that of Herodotus c. 450 BC, who mentioned Keltoi at the head of the Danube, since he was writing at the time of that culture. Also vital were references by several Classical authors to the Gauls ejecting the Etruscans from the Po Valley c. 400 BC. When La Tene type material was found in former Etruscan towns in the Po Valley, it was pretty clear there was a solid match (for once) between literary and archaeological sources.

Wonder_Wall
07-15-2015, 10:55 PM
Of course the big story here is not Germanic, Italics, Hellenics, etc. but the astonishing success of IE language and culture in Europe generally. What is shared seems to me much greater than what is different and there is no untangling the Steppe migrations from modern Europe.

That is truly a story for the ages and we've got a ringside seat as the final chapters are confirmed by science in almost real-time.

I mean, what could be cooler?

MT1976
07-15-2015, 11:53 PM
Of course they were not static. Neither should we see archaeological cultures in that way. To quote Philip L. Kohl:






Actually no. Tacitus enquired the origin of the word and was told (Germania II) http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php





You are confusing name and entity. What you mean is that there was no collective ethnic name initially devised as such by the Germani. That does not mean that the Germani did not recognise commonalties among their tribes, or that archaeologists don't recognise a common culture as Germanic. They do.

The Germani did not need a collective name back in the days before they started expanding. Let me explain. The names people use as self-identification come in layers from most exclusive (me) to most inclusive (Homo sapiens, perhaps). They change according to context. For example a person today could think of himself as a Geordie, English, British and European, according to the context. The "us" name is validated by the knowledge of the existence of "other" - people who do not belong in the "us" group.

So for example the self-descriptor "American" requires a knowledge of the existence of other continents. The self-descriptor "Native American" is a modern coinage and did not exist before European colonization of the Americas.

The self-descriptor "Germanic" (or equivalent) requires not only a knowledge of people who don't speak your language, but sufficient contact with them to require some word like "foreigners" and the companion "us" name at a higher level than tribal name.

Jean, sorry but this is unsubstantiated speculation. How do you *know* the Germani were aware of such "commonalities"? How would a germanic speaking person from the Dniester feel his affinity with one from Netherlands? Did they join ftdna projects together ? Or did they study their languahe affinities on line and conclude- "hey! We're very similar!"

In attempt to resurrect the outdated ideas to identities, we are missing what levels of identity were operant in reality- that of the family, extended kin groups, village, and the supra-village warrior collectives of big-men & Chiefs etc. There was no pan-Germanic identity any more than there was a pan-Celtic one.

If at all some "Germanic" identity did arise, then again, this was within a context of roman army- where Franki recognised their common origins and patria. But again, this was a localised phenomenon, and not some pan-European germanic one.

And this has little to do with "Germanic" archaeological cultures. The latter are based on crude analyses of supposed pottery similarities etc. These exist in the minds of old school archaeologists, and certainly do not reflect an emblematic display of their consumers as a sign of the "Germanicness". These regionally varied, decorated pottery surely communicated something, but this was surely not that they were "Elbe-Germani".

I think scholarship has a long way here, and in comparison, the study of "Celts" and "Slavs" is more advanced.

razyn
07-16-2015, 03:48 AM
That is truly a story for the ages and we've got a ringside seat as the final chapters are confirmed by science in almost real-time.

I mean, what could be cooler?

I'm continually astonished by how seldom this is remarked upon. Hardly a week passes that I don't get a rush of feeling like the lookout on Columbus' lead ship, who got to holler "land!" Maybe because of a published aDNA finding; or maybe because the latest BigY result I've seen has revealed a new subclade, found in an unexpected place. The first time I recall having had this feeling, a guy was saying "One small step for a man." Another time, I was at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum to watch the first Voyager images come in from Uranus. And right now I'm waiting for the 1 AM replay of tonight's NOVA program on the Pluto mission -- had to be at a rehearsal when it first aired, at a decent hour.

Discoveries only happen once, people. Big ones, or little ones. And nothing is cooler.

palamede
07-16-2015, 07:49 AM
"Germanos" is probably a celtic name for the populations east of Rhin river. Probably originally the transrhenan celtic tribes, maybe due to the origin of numerous celtic tribes (the germ, the germen). Romans (mostly Julius Caesar) extended the term to every transrhenan tribes to mix-up willingly.

MT1976
07-16-2015, 09:21 AM
@ Alan

""The Druids had national assemblies and also are recorded as travelling to Britain from Gaul to study. The Celts clearly shared gods, myths etc too. As well as local gods there are several gods like Lugh who appear time and again over the continental and insular Celtic world. Despite the continental Celtic mythology not being recorded in any detail, it is possible to see that insular Celtic mythology and human origin and afterlife myths probably was shared on the continent once you strip away the Greco-Roman additions. There were pan-Celtic rituals like placing sacrifices and objects in watery places that we find in Europe and the isles. The Celts are tied together by more than some wooley generalised IE similarity. Its far closer than that.""

Yes, true. But this is specific contexts and and specific regions of Britain and Gaul, like I said above. What kind of identity did this represent ? YEs, some kind of religious, trans-regional identity, but a pan-European Iron Age "celtic" one ?
Such a contention needs to be empirically proven, not implicitly assumed.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 10:31 AM
How do you *know* the Germani were aware of such "commonalities"?

If you read a little more of Tacitus, Germania, that will become clear.


The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal... In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past they celebrate an earth-born god Tuisco, and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones. Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that these are nine old names.


This is similar to the myths of various other peoples, who created eponymous founders of a people or tribe from the name of the tribe. So for example in Greek myth, there was a king Hellen, son of Deucalion (the Greek version of Noah) who was the eponymous ancestor of all Hellenes. His sons were the eponymous ancestors of the Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans. So their mythology made clear their belief that all Greek-speakers were related.

alan
07-16-2015, 10:55 AM
The original Celtic origin myth can sort of be cobbled together. They thought they were descended from Dis Pater who is probably the same as the Dagda 'the good god' who was also known as Eochaid Olathar ' great horse lord, father of all'. There is a lot that seems to link him to the whole horse, sun concept in Irish mythology.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 11:04 AM
pan-European Iron Age "celtic" one. Such a contention needs to be empirically proven, not implicitly assumed.

Indeed. One strong clue is religious terminology. I quote the Celtic Encyclopedia again:


Nemeton is a term for natural space dedicated to pre-Christian Celtic religious activity. Non-structural spatial frames for ritual, nemeta utilized various natural sites, but were implicitly sacralized stands of trees, e.g. Irish fidnemed ‘sacred wood’, or clearings within groves such as the one near Massalia (Marseille) which Lucan’s Pharsalia describes. An inscription from Vaison, France, commemorates a nemeton established
to honour Belisama:
CEGOMAROC | OUILLONEOC | TOOUTIOUC |
NAMUCATIC | EIROUBHLH|CAMI|COCIN |
NEMHTON
Segom\ros Uilloneos, tribesman of Nîmes, granted
this Nemeton to [the goddess] Belesama.

In Galatia [now in Turkey], Drunemeton ‘sacred place of oaks’ was the site for annual assemblies of the twelve tetrarchs and their 300-person council ... Wherever Celts lived, -nemet- provided a component of tribal names (Nemetes), gods’ names (Nemed, Nemetona, Mars Rigonemetis, and Arnemetia), and place-names (Aquae Arnemetiae, Medionemeton, Nemetodurum, Nemetobriga, Nemetacum, and Vernemeton [cf. the early Old Welsh man’s name Guornemet]). The Celtic masculine name *Nemetios (‘man of privileged rank’ or ‘man belonging to a sacred place’) occurs in an Etruscan graffito, mi Nemeties´, of the 5th century BC ... A cartulary from the abbey of Quimperlé (Kemperle), Brittany (Breizh), dated 1031, mentions woods called Nemet, and an 18th century Belgian document refers to sacred woods called Nimid near Lobbes. In a Gaulish dedicatory inscription in Greek script from Villelaure, NEMETOC nemetos is a masculine singular noun referring to something ‘sacred’ offered to a god .... In Old Irish, nemed is an important sociolegal term meaning ‘privileged person, dignitary, professional, sacred place, land owned by a privileged person, sanctuary, privilege’ ... In Early Welsh, the cognate word nyfed occurs in the heroic elegies of the Gododdin in the phrase molut niuet, to be understood as ‘the [poetic] praise of dignity, rightful privilege, privileged places, persons’.

Nemetobriga is the former name for Trives Viejo in modern-day Galicia, Spain. So here we have a cultural link right across the span of Celtic-speakers from Iberia to Anatolia.

MT1976
07-16-2015, 11:10 AM
If you read a little more of Tacitus, Germania, that will become clear.



This is similar to the myths of various other peoples, who created eponymous founders of a people or tribe from the name of the tribe. So for example in Greek myth, there was a king Hellen, son of Deucalion (the Greek version of Noah) who was the eponymous ancestor of all Hellenes. His sons were the eponymous ancestors of the Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans. So their mythology made clear their belief that all Greek-speakers were related.

I really don;t think that you can take Tacitus' excursus as an objective, accurate ethnography. Its based on heresay, 2nd hand reports, recycled topos and cliches. Sure, grains of truth (perhaps more than mere grains) are held there but it is folly to argue this extended to much of Europe. Even if the tale about Mannus' sons is true - which it probably is true - we need to ask which Germani was this taken from ? Likely those the Romans first encountered in Caesar's campaigns, just east of the Rhine. Not those "Germani" in Poland, or Scandinavia, or the Black Sea region.

Anyhow, we could argue ad nauseum on this. I really would have thought that source-contextual criticism was something of a history 101. I can accept that the recent anti-migrationist, and anti-ethnicity movement in history had swung too far at some point, but a critical analysis of ethnicity is here to say, and I say too right ! It has made significant impact in SEE - See the essays by Danijel Dzino on "Celts' in Illyricum, and the recent PhD deconstruction of the so-called "Celtic" Galatians of Anatolia (The so-called Galatae, Celts, and Gauls in the Early Hellenistic Balkans and the Attack on Delphi in 280–279 BC". I thin kthis echoes some work in the west, too.

And as i said earlier, I don;t think anyone denies that large areas of Europe spoke celtic and shared similar cultural templates. But this is far from translating into any common identity. Even toponyms and anthroponyms are fraught with danger. Look at many ealry Slavic chiefs names which could be at home in Germanic. Look at the apparently transparently Greek etymology of ancient Macedonian names (odd sound laws aside) - yet the languages were not understandable, and the macedonians and Greeks certainly had different identities.

Jean, I wish you luck in your book. I look forward to having a gander !

Jean M
07-16-2015, 12:00 PM
I really don't think that you can take Tacitus' excursus as an objective, accurate ethnography. Its based on heresay ... I really would have thought that source-contextual criticism was something of a history 101.

Good grief. You are talking to someone who taught the evaluation of documentary sources. Tacitus is indeed the only source for this particular tradition, but that is scarcely surprising, since the Germani were illiterate at the time and he was the only Roman author who made a lengthy enquiry into this people (or at least whose work survives). There is nothing inherently unlikely about this particular part of his description, though I certainly wouldn't accept all of his ideas. As I say, this particular myth is absolutely typical of the type of origin story we find in other Indo-European groups. Indeed links to other IE myths have been suggested.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 12:13 PM
which Germani was this taken from ? Likely those the Romans first encountered in Caesar's campaigns, just east of the Rhine. Not those "Germani" in Poland, or Scandinavia, or the Black Sea region.

The tribes mentioned include the Vandals, who seem to have spoken a form of East Germanic, like the Goths. Pliny the Elder described the Vandili as a grouping of Germanic people, which included the Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini and Gutones. We can recognise two of these peoples, the Burgundians and Goths, among those Germanic tribes who later took over parts of the former Western Roman Empire.

Then we hear nothing more of the Vandals until they became a nuisance to the Romans. Or so it might appear, if we did not realise that the Vandals were split into at least two sub-groups, the Hasding and Siling. Ptolemy places the Silingae roughly southwest of the Burgundians, who lived inland between the Oder and Vistula. The name of the Siling is preserved in Silesia, a region now largely in southwest Poland, where some Germanic river-names also survive. Most archaeologists today see the Przeworsk culture as the material manifestation of the Vandals. Beginning in the the 2nd century BC, it spread southeastwards between the Vistula and Oder, then in the 2nd century AD crossed the Carpathian Mountains to the upper Tisza River.

This is from my Ancestral Journeys, but a more detailed account can be found in Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe (2009), which I strongly recommend.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 12:29 PM
I can accept that the recent anti-migrationist, and anti-ethnicity movement in history had swung too far at some point, but a critical analysis of ethnicity...

When we are dealing with European peoples on the cusp of history, it makes sense to use a multi-disciplinary approach. Classical sources are bound by their nature to be patchy or even non-existent for certain peoples. I aim to blend archaeology, history, linguistics, place-names, genetics, climatology and any other type of evidence that promises to shed any light on the subject.

lgmayka
07-16-2015, 01:50 PM
yet the languages were not understandable, and the macedonians and Greeks certainly had different identities.
The issue is not whether ethnic groups have their own identities, but whether they also perceive some degree of commonality (more specific than humanity itself). Language kinship often plays a major role in fostering this perception of commonality, even if the languages are no longer mutually understandable.

Dubhthach
07-16-2015, 03:23 PM
The original Celtic origin myth can sort of be cobbled together. They thought they were descended from Dis Pater who is probably the same as the Dagda 'the good god' who was also known as Eochaid Olathar ' great horse lord, father of all'. There is a lot that seems to link him to the whole horse, sun concept in Irish mythology.

"Dis Pater" in Irish context is probably the god Donn, who's written in as a son of Míl (though he dies before arriving in Ireland), "Teach Donn" (house of Donn) been supposedly an island of the coast where ye go when ye die.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 04:31 PM
The issue is not whether ethnic groups have their own identities, but whether they also perceive some degree of commonality (more specific than humanity itself). Language kinship often plays a major role in fostering this perception of commonality, even if the languages are no longer mutually understandable.

The story of the three brothers Lech, Czech, and Rus is another example of eponymous ancestors indicating that there was a sense of kinship between at least Eastern and Western Slavic speakers in the Middle Ages.

vettor
07-16-2015, 05:58 PM
I really don;t think that you can take Tacitus' excursus as an objective, accurate ethnography. Its based on heresay, 2nd hand reports, recycled topos and cliches. Sure, grains of truth (perhaps more than mere grains) are held there but it is folly to argue this extended to much of Europe. Even if the tale about Mannus' sons is true - which it probably is true - we need to ask which Germani was this taken from ? Likely those the Romans first encountered in Caesar's campaigns, just east of the Rhine. Not those "Germani" in Poland, or Scandinavia, or the Black Sea region.

Anyhow, we could argue ad nauseum on this. I really would have thought that source-contextual criticism was something of a history 101. I can accept that the recent anti-migrationist, and anti-ethnicity movement in history had swung too far at some point, but a critical analysis of ethnicity is here to say, and I say too right ! It has made significant impact in SEE - See the essays by Danijel Dzino on "Celts' in Illyricum, and the recent PhD deconstruction of the so-called "Celtic" Galatians of Anatolia (The so-called Galatae, Celts, and Gauls in the Early Hellenistic Balkans and the Attack on Delphi in 280–279 BC". I thin kthis echoes some work in the west, too.

And as i said earlier, I don;t think anyone denies that large areas of Europe spoke celtic and shared similar cultural templates. But this is far from translating into any common identity. Even toponyms and anthroponyms are fraught with danger. Look at many ealry Slavic chiefs names which could be at home in Germanic. Look at the apparently transparently Greek etymology of ancient Macedonian names (odd sound laws aside) - yet the languages were not understandable, and the macedonians and Greeks certainly had different identities.

Jean, I wish you luck in your book. I look forward to having a gander !

on Galatians
Polyhius uses the word raXdzfu only when his source of information are Roman writers. When referring to the west, he uses the names Celts and Galates without difference of meaning, and, according to him, there are only Galates, no Celts, along the Danube. I, 6, 4:

vettor
07-16-2015, 06:00 PM
I think you are referring to the earliest surviving reference to Celts, which just happens to be that of Hecataeus of Miletus, who c. 500 BC referred to Massalia (Marseilles) as near Celtica. Other Greek authors make it clear that the colony of Massalia was founded in the territory of the Ligures, so Celtica was not in the immediate vicinity, but nearby (to the north of the coastal strip). This reference indicates that the term Celtica was already in use and too well-known to require explanation by this time. It also completely destroys the idea that the Greeks just used the term Keltoi to mean any foreigner north of the Mediterranean, since they knew the difference between Ligures and Celts. (That difference occurs again in the Ora Maritima, a much later source, but based on Greek works of the 6th and 5th centuries BC which do not survive.) The Greeks were also aware of the Iberes as a separate ethnos.

There is a lot of later literature both Greek and Roman which pins down the Celts/Gauls geographically, but the crucial reference for the identification of the La Tene culture as Celtic was that of Herodotus c. 450 BC, who mentioned Keltoi at the head of the Danube, since he was writing at the time of that culture. Also vital were references by several Classical authors to the Gauls ejecting the Etruscans from the Po Valley c. 400 BC. When La Tene type material was found in former Etruscan towns in the Po Valley, it was pretty clear there was a solid match (for once) between literary and archaeological sources.

we know by ancients that the border of iberians and ligures was the Rhone river and that massalia was a greek colony, am I to believe that the Greeks called the people in the surrounding areas Keltoi and this referred to the Ligures?

vettor
07-16-2015, 06:07 PM
The tribes mentioned include the Vandals, who seem to have spoken a form of East Germanic, like the Goths. Pliny the Elder described the Vandili as a grouping of Germanic people, which included the Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini and Gutones. We can recognise two of these peoples, the Burgundians and Goths, among those Germanic tribes who later took over parts of the former Western Roman Empire.

Then we hear nothing more of the Vandals until they became a nuisance to the Romans. Or so it might appear, if we did not realise that the Vandals were split into at least two sub-groups, the Hasding and Siling. Ptolemy places the Silingae roughly southwest of the Burgundians, who lived inland between the Oder and Vistula. The name of the Siling is preserved in Silesia, a region now largely in southwest Poland, where some Germanic river-names also survive. Most archaeologists today see the Przeworsk culture as the material manifestation of the Vandals. Beginning in the the 2nd century BC, it spread southeastwards between the Vistula and Oder, then in the 2nd century AD crossed the Carpathian Mountains to the upper Tisza River.

This is from my Ancestral Journeys, but a more detailed account can be found in Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe (2009), which I strongly recommend.

I agree with your "Vandili confederation of tribes" and maybe the Lugii tribe where also part of them, but if they are termed Germani and the Bastarnae are termed germani, then what is Germani in the times of tacitus?
How big an area was this Germani

alan
07-16-2015, 06:30 PM
@ Alan

""The Druids had national assemblies and also are recorded as travelling to Britain from Gaul to study. The Celts clearly shared gods, myths etc too. As well as local gods there are several gods like Lugh who appear time and again over the continental and insular Celtic world. Despite the continental Celtic mythology not being recorded in any detail, it is possible to see that insular Celtic mythology and human origin and afterlife myths probably was shared on the continent once you strip away the Greco-Roman additions. There were pan-Celtic rituals like placing sacrifices and objects in watery places that we find in Europe and the isles. The Celts are tied together by more than some wooley generalised IE similarity. Its far closer than that.""

Yes, true. But this is specific contexts and and specific regions of Britain and Gaul, like I said above. What kind of identity did this represent ? YEs, some kind of religious, trans-regional identity, but a pan-European Iron Age "celtic" one ?
Such a contention needs to be empirically proven, not implicitly assumed.

We are not really debating perception of an identity by individuals just a convenient label. However if you want to look at it that way then most individuals wouldnt ever travel past their own small subtribe or tribe area and would have little concept of anything beyond the next tribe. Most Celtic tribes were so positioned that they would have no concept of non-Celtic speaking people until the Romans and Germanics intruded. Only those on the borders would have a 'people of my language/culture' vs 'people of a different language/culture' concept at all. Most simply would have no concept or need of the concept. In areas far away from interfaces with other languages/cultures such concepts probably didnt exist. Remember, the Celtic speakers appear to have formed a huge block across much of western and west central Europe with the exception of north Germany, Scandinavia and the Med.

Only a minority of interface tribes would have contact with non-Celtic peoples so had no need to define 'us Celts' vs 'those non-Celts'. This is especially true when we roll back further into the Iron Age before Roman power, when Germanics were bottled up in and adjacent to Scandinavia etc. The Celtic tribes within the early Iron Age (but prior to the migrations into the Balkans, Italy etc) to have more frequent contacts with non-Celts were probably in the far west in Iberia bordering several other peoples, those bordering Ligurians in France and those in the Hallstatt D period in the western Alps who were trading through alpine passes with Etruscans etc. It seems to me that these are the sort of group that would have needed a concept and word for 'Celtic speakers like us' vs 'those other people with a different language'. The contact chains leading deeper into the Celtic world from those interface regions involved other Celtic speaking middlemen and quickly in the chain there would be no knowledge of or need for a word for the non-Celts at the interface zone.

This raises an important point which I may need help to answer. Correct me if I am wrong about this but I believe Proto-Germanic has a word for non-German speakers (applied to Celts, Latin speakers and others) - something like Wealas - that comes from an ancient bounding Celtic tribe the Volcae. Clearly a small subset of Germanics in contact with this tribe spread the term throughout the rest - presumably at a time when the Germanics were still compact enough for this to happen. Proto-Germanic is dated by many to c. 500BC or so. They also seem to have no word for themselves except the deutch word which simple means 'people' and is cognate with the Celtic word that led to Irish Tuath which meant tribe.

Now going back to Celtic, am I right in saying there is no definite proto-Celtic era word for either themselves or other for any other linguistic-cultural group. AFAIK there is no proto-Celtic catch-all word meaning either 'Celt' or 'non Celt'. So it seems to me that contact with people seen as 'other than Celts' post-dates the proto-Celtic period.

Webb
07-16-2015, 06:40 PM
We are not really debating perception of an identity by individuals just a convenient label. However if you want to look at it that way then most individuals wouldnt ever travel past their own small subtribe or tribe area and would have little concept of anything beyond the next tribe. Most Celtic tribes were so positioned that they would have no concept of non-Celtic speaking people until the Romans and Germanics intruded. Only those on the borders would have a 'people of my language/culture' vs 'people of a different language/culture' concept at all. Most simply would have no concept or need of the concept. In areas far away from interfaces with other languages/cultures such concepts probably didnt exist. Remember, the Celtic speakers appear to have formed a huge block across much of western and west central Europe with the exception of north Germany, Scandinavia and the Med.

Only a minority of interface tribes would have contact with non-Celtic peoples so had no need to define 'us Celts' vs 'those non-Celts'. This is especially true when we roll back further into the Iron Age before Roman power, when Germanics were bottled up in and adjacent to Scandinavia etc. The Celtic tribes within the early Iron Age (but prior to the migrations into the Balkans, Italy etc) to have more frequent contacts with non-Celts were probably in the far west in Iberia bordering several other peoples, those bordering Ligurians in France and those in the Hallstatt D period in the western Alps who were trading through alpine passes with Etruscans etc. It seems to me that these are the sort of group that would have needed a concept and word for 'Celtic speakers like us' vs 'those other people with a different language'. The contact chains leading deeper into the Celtic world from those interface regions involved other Celtic speaking middlemen and quickly in the chain there would be no knowledge of or need for a word for the non-Celts at the interface zone.

This raises an important point which I may need help to answer. Correct me if I am wrong about this but I believe Proto-Germanic has a word for non-German speakers (applied to Celts, Latin speakers and others) - something like Wealas - that comes from an ancient bounding Celtic tribe the Volcae. Clearly a small subset of Germanics in contact with this tribe spread the term throughout the rest - presumably at a time when the Germanics were still compact enough for this to happen. Proto-Germanic is dated by many to c. 500BC or so. They also seem to have no word for themselves except the deutch word which simple means 'people' and is cognate with the Celtic word that led to Irish Tuath which meant tribe.

Now going back to Celtic, am I right in saying there is no definite proto-Celtic era word for either themselves or other for any other linguistic-cultural group. AFAIK there is no proto-Celtic catch-all word meaning either 'Celt' or 'non Celt'. So it seems to me that contact with people seen as 'other than Celts' post-dates the proto-Celtic period.

You are somewhat correct.

"Walhaz (ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨᛉ) is a reconstructed Proto-Germanic word, meaning "foreigner", "stranger", "Roman", "Romance-speaker", or "Celtic-speaker". The term was used by the ancient Germanic peoples to describe inhabitants of the former Roman Empire, who were largely romanised and spoke Latin or Celtic languages. The adjectival form is attested in Old Norse valskr, meaning "French", Old High German walhisk, meaning "Romance", Modern German welsch, used in Switzerland and South Tyrol for Romance-speakers, Dutch Waals "Walloon", Old English welisċ, wælisċ, wilisċ, meaning "Romano-British", and Modern English Welsh. The form of these words imply that they are descended from a Proto-Germanic form *walhiska-."

From Wiki

vettor
07-16-2015, 06:52 PM
We are not really debating perception of an identity by individuals just a convenient label. However if you want to look at it that way then most individuals wouldnt ever travel past their own small subtribe or tribe area and would have little concept of anything beyond the next tribe. Most Celtic tribes were so positioned that they would have no concept of non-Celtic speaking people until the Romans and Germanics intruded. Only those on the borders would have a 'people of my language/culture' vs 'people of a different language/culture' concept at all. Most simply would have no concept or need of the concept. In areas far away from interfaces with other languages/cultures such concepts probably didnt exist. Remember, the Celtic speakers appear to have formed a huge block across much of western and west central Europe with the exception of north Germany, Scandinavia and the Med.

Only a minority of interface tribes would have contact with non-Celtic peoples so had no need to define 'us Celts' vs 'those non-Celts'. This is especially true when we roll back further into the Iron Age before Roman power, when Germanics were bottled up in and adjacent to Scandinavia etc. The Celtic tribes within the early Iron Age (but prior to the migrations into the Balkans, Italy etc) to have more frequent contacts with non-Celts were probably in the far west in Iberia bordering several other peoples, those bordering Ligurians in France and those in the Hallstatt D period in the western Alps who were trading through alpine passes with Etruscans etc. It seems to me that these are the sort of group that would have needed a concept and word for 'Celtic speakers like us' vs 'those other people with a different language'. The contact chains leading deeper into the Celtic world from those interface regions involved other Celtic speaking middlemen and quickly in the chain there would be no knowledge of or need for a word for the non-Celts at the interface zone.

This raises an important point which I may need help to answer. Correct me if I am wrong about this but I believe Proto-Germanic has a word for non-German speakers (applied to Celts, Latin speakers and others) - something like Wealas - that comes from an ancient bounding Celtic tribe the Volcae. Clearly a small subset of Germanics in contact with this tribe spread the term throughout the rest - presumably at a time when the Germanics were still compact enough for this to happen. Proto-Germanic is dated by many to c. 500BC or so. They also seem to have no word for themselves except the deutch word which simple means 'people' and is cognate with the Celtic word that led to Irish Tuath which meant tribe.

Now going back to Celtic, am I right in saying there is no definite proto-Celtic era word for either themselves or other for any other linguistic-cultural group. AFAIK there is no proto-Celtic catch-all word meaning either 'Celt' or 'non Celt'. So it seems to me that contact with people seen as 'other than Celts' post-dates the proto-Celtic period.

If we take the origins of celts as per recent burial finds , ie, the Royal Celtic burials near Frankfurt in central Germany, then the Roman term for Germani must only come from the area of the Belgae because southern and central germany was not accessible to the Romans.
This raises a question if the Belgae where germani or celtic

I believe some people note some tribes as celtic because they had no better name to give them

Jean M
07-16-2015, 06:57 PM
we know by ancients that the border of iberians and ligures was the Rhone river and that massalia was a greek colony, am I to believe that the Greeks called the people in the surrounding areas Keltoi and this referred to the Ligures?

No. I'm saying that the Greeks knew that Massalia was a Greek colony in the territory of the Ligures, who were not the same as Keltoi.

Fragments preserved from the work of Hecataeus of Miletus, who wrote c. 500 BC: "Narbon: trading centre and city of the Celts.... Massalia: a city of Ligurians near Celtica, a colony of Phocaeans, according to Hecataeus in his Europa."

By the time of the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax, which describes the sea coast c. 338-337 BC, the Iberes were the first people encountered moving eastward from the Pillars of Herakles [Strait of Gibraltar]. They had the mouth of the River Iber [Ebro] in their territory. Then came the Greek colony of Emporion [Empúries, Catalonia]. Then the Ligyes [Ligurians] and Iberes were mixed up to the Rhone. Then after the Rhone the Ligyes lived as far Antion [Antibes]. "In this territory there is a Hellenic city, Massalia." Then came the Etruscans.

Plato [4th century BC] "the customs of the Scythians and Persians, and also the Carthaginians, Celts, Iberians and Thracians, who are all very warlike people".

So the Greeks had a concept of Celts as a distinct ethnos, different from a number of other people living north of the Mediterranean.

Jean M
07-16-2015, 07:17 PM
If we take the origins of celts as per recent burial finds , ie, the Royal Celtic burials near Frankfurt in central Germany, then the Roman term for Germani must only come from the area of the Belgae because southern and central germany was not accessible to the Romans. This raises a question if the Belgae where germani or celtic

The source of your confusion here seems to be a view of the past as static. Once we visualise people moving from one place to another, this sort of thing is no longer a mystery. There were Celts once upon a time in what is now Germany. They were pushed westwards by the expanding Germani. They ended up in north eastern Gaul. They were called Belgae.

The Romans did not conquer Free Germania. But they knew quite a lot about it. Some Germani served as auxiliaries in the Roman army. There was also cross-border trade. Tacitus described Germania in detail c. 98 A.D., with its various tribes, laws, customs etc. Previously Pliny the Elder had complied a list of Germanic tribes, but said little else about Germania. The Greco-Roman geographer Ptolemy located the positions of the various tribes of Germania c. 150 AD.

alan
07-16-2015, 11:54 PM
Its interesting that at some pre-proto stage Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic shared a lot of unusual vocab not shared with other IE groups. I understand this strata is unlikely to be borrowed from each other and is not comparable with the obvious borrowings from Celtic in proto-German that apparently took place in the Iron Age. So, it is some sort of shared identical vocab - mainly for war, organisation, sacred stuff and nature if I recall correctly. I am sure this is of great significance in understanding these languages but its meaning, place and time is unclear. http://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic