L21 on the Iberian Peninsula

I only care about the truth. If the Celtic cradle is in Iberia, fine. If not, that's Ok as well.

This discussion is about the origins of Celticity, Tartessian as Celtic and L21 in Iberia. Let's stick to the subject matter and do not post irrelevant material or childish nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.

Well, as I stated in earlier posts, I have the opinion that putting the origin of the Celtic languages to the Atlantic Façade creates more problems than it solves:

- the fact that the Celtic languages could not suddenly pop up in Iberia out of the blue (unless you take the stelae hypothesis, which is, let's face it... far-fetched). In my opinion, the most plausible origin for the Celtic languages is (presumably R1b-bearing peoples) in the contact zone with the formerly Corded Ware area.
- relationship of the Celtic languages with other IE languages (in particularly Italic languages).
- If the Atlantic Bronze Age is associated with the Celtic languages, what does this make out of the Urnfield Culture?
- Also, if you disregard Tartessian as a potential Celtic language, Lepontic is the oldest attested Celtic language.

For the reasons above, I'm personally in favour of a Central European (ie, Alpine) origin for the Celtic languages. However, the Atlantic Façade hypothesis has a point in so far as that Hallstatt/La-Tene alone cannot explain the spread of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.
 
Well, as I stated in earlier posts, I have the opinion that putting the origin of the Celtic languages to the Atlantic Façade creates more problems than it solves:
- the fact that the Celtic languages could not suddenly pop up in Iberia out of the blue (unless you take the stelae hypothesis, which is, let's face it... far-fetched). In my opinion, the most plausible origin for the Celtic languages is (presumably R1b-bearing peoples) in the contact zone with the formerly Corded Ware area.
- relationship of the Celtic languages with other IE languages (in particularly Italic languages).
- If the Atlantic Bronze Age is associated with the Celtic languages, what does this make out of the Urnfield Culture?
- Also, if you disregard Tartessian as a potential Celtic language, Lepontic is the oldest attested Celtic language.
For the reasons above, I'm personally in favour of a Central European (ie, Alpine) origin for the Celtic languages. However, the Atlantic Façade hypothesis has a point in so far as that Hallstatt/La-Tene alone cannot explain the spread of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region.

Some linguists do not consider Lepontic to be a Celtic language.
 
Some linguists do not consider Lepontic to be a Celtic language.

I know, and that is kind of inevitable given the small corpus of the language. But really, the case for Lepontic as a Celtic language is far better than the case for Tartessian. Also, nobody doubts that Lepontic is an Indo-European language, and one closely related with (Common) Celtic. Plus, well even Koch in his 2009 paper considers Lepontic to be a Celtic language, and compares some Tartessian words with Lepontic words.

By the way, do you really have nothing else to say about my arguments?
 
Last edited:
I know, and that is kind of inevitable given the small corpus of the language. But really, the case for Lepontic as a Celtic language is far better than the case for Tartessian. Also, nobody doubts that Lepontic is an Indo-European language, and one closely related with (Common) Celtic. Plus, well even Koch in his 2009 paper considers Lepontic to be a Celtic language, and compares some Tartessian words with Lepontic words.

By the way, do you really have nothing else to say about my arguments?

In time I will have more to say...
 
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.
 
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.

Many scholars suggest that Celticity developed with Bell Beaker culture. Through carbon dating, the earliest confirmed Bell Beaker sites have been identified as existing in Southern Portugal (Algarve and S. Alentejo).
 
First I want to say that trying to establish a direct relationship between cultural phenomena (archaeology) and ethonlinguistic groups (linguistics) results very simplistic: different groups can participate from the same cultural innovations.

The problem with Urnfield culture in Iberia consists in its influential area: from its arrival to the historical development of the iberian complex there's a cultural continuity. In other words, if we act avoiding my first paragraph this culture should be linked to non IE groups. In adition, I'd like to comment that there's no trace of iberian language outside its influencial area (except SE Spain, but this could be explained as a natural expansion from the Ebro valley towards the whole mediterranean coast).

I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that Celtic languages (specifically Gaulish and Lepontic) emerge out of the former Urnfield area.

Then the historic linguistic picture (I won't put toponymic issues that could make the question more complex or detailed) of Iberia is this:

-Ibero-aquitanian complex in the middle and low Ebro valley, the mediterranean coast and possibly in northern Aragon and Navarre, with penetrations in the basque country.
-Tartessian in SW Iberia.
-IE in the rest of the peninsula.

Well, the last studies on prerroman toponyms (Francisco Villar) mantain that IE names are widespread along the whole peninsula, while iberian and others are more or less circumscribed in their historical zones.

Well, I see your point there. I have a problem however with the Celtic languages spreading from Iberia towards the east, because there is no such pattern visible.

Tartessian isn't iberian for sure and we don't already know exactly what was, but it would fit better in the IE spectrum. We don't have written records in central Europe to solve or give more light to the problem, but we know of nearby non IE groups such as etruscan and rhaetian and others whose linguistic adscription is dubious.

Well, I cannot rule out Tartessian is quite possibly an Indo-European language, but definitely not based on the Koch paper. First off, Koch has the ad hoc hypothesis that Tartessian is a Celtic language (he doesn't try to prove that it's Indo-Eurpean, but that it's outright Celtic), and I thoroughly mentioned the bewildering problems in his methodology in my previous posts.

With these data I'd bet for a pre-urnfield kultur indoeuropeanation of the Iberian Peninsula and, therefore, for the rest of western Europe. Bell beakers, perhaps? I don't know.

Well, the idea that the Bell-Beaker culture spoke an Indo-European language (or rather, introduced the Indo-European languages in Western Europe) is a firm possibility, however bears a number of consequences which I will elaborate below:

Many scholars suggest that Celticity developed with Bell Beaker culture. Through carbon dating, the earliest confirmed Bell Beaker sites have been identified as existing in Southern Portugal (Algarve and S. Alentejo).

What do you exactly mean with "Celticity"? It is a quite nebulous term. If you mean self-identification as "Celts", that is a modern fabrication, anyways. I would are talking about the Celtic languages, I must say that I find it quite presumptuous to say that the Celtic languages started in Southern Portugal in 2900 BC. That's a bit like saying that the French or Spanish language started in Rome in the 8th century BC. In my opinion, given the vast scope of the Bell-Beaker culture it is far more plausible to assume that if the Bell-Beaker people already spoke an early Indo-European language, far more than just the Celtic languages alone are descended from their language. In my opinion, not only the Celtic languages (including "dubiously" Celtic languages such as Lusitanian and Lepontic), as well as the Italic languages, and a number of poorly attested languages such as Ligurian and Venetic. If you consider that Beaker influence extended all the way to Denmark, it's also conceivable that the Proto-Germanic language was influenced by a hypothetical Beaker language (which would explain some similarities of the Celtic and Germanic languages). Also, I must add though that the site in southern Portugal is not necessarily the oldest. The Beaker sites in southern France and northern Italy are almost exactly the same age.

Hmm... well and I have also considered the possibility that there never was one common "Proto-Celtic" language to begin with. At least, not exclusively Proto-Celtic.
 
I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that Celtic languages (specifically Gaulish and Lepontic) emerge out of the former Urnfield area.
Well, I see your point there. I have a problem however with the Celtic languages spreading from Iberia towards the east, because there is no such pattern visible.
Well, I cannot rule out Tartessian is quite possibly an Indo-European language, but definitely not based on the Koch paper. First off, Koch has the ad hoc hypothesis that Tartessian is a Celtic language (he doesn't try to prove that it's Indo-Eurpean, but that it's outright Celtic), and I thoroughly mentioned the bewildering problems in his methodology in my previous posts.
Well, the idea that the Bell-Beaker culture spoke an Indo-European language (or rather, introduced the Indo-European languages in Western Europe) is a firm possibility, however bears a number of consequences which I will elaborate below:
What do you exactly mean with "Celticity"? It is a quite nebulous term. If you mean self-identification as "Celts", that is a modern fabrication, anyways. I would are talking about the Celtic languages, I must say that I find it quite presumptuous to say that the Celtic languages started in Southern Portugal in 2900 BC. That's a bit like saying that the French or Spanish language started in Rome in the 8th century BC. In my opinion, given the vast scope of the Bell-Beaker culture it is far more plausible to assume that if the Bell-Beaker people already spoke an early Indo-European language, far more than just the Celtic languages alone are descended from their language. In my opinion, not only the Celtic languages (including "dubiously" Celtic languages such as Lusitanian and Lepontic), as well as the Italic languages, and a number of poorly attested languages such as Ligurian and Venetic. If you consider that Beaker influence extended all the way to Denmark, it's also conceivable that the Proto-Germanic language was influenced by a hypothetical Beaker language (which would explain some similarities of the Celtic and Germanic languages). Also, I must add though that the site in southern Portugal is not necessarily the oldest. The Beaker sites in southern France and northern Italy are almost exactly the same age.
Hmm... well and I have also considered the possibility that there never was one common "Proto-Celtic" language to begin with. At least, not exclusively Proto-Celtic.

I use the word "Celticity" to refer to the essentials of Celtic culture. Self-identification with ANY ethnicity usually entails a strong cultural affinity towards a specific / unique population group or sub-group. One normally identifies as "Celtic" if the ancestral lines are traceable to ancient Celtic lands with long enduring Celticity (essential Celtic cultural components). Examples would be certain regions in the Atlantic Facade, but would exclude quite a number of other areas that were, for a relatively short period, Celtic.

I didn't say that Celtic languages began in Portugal, but they may have. The jury is out (and could be for some time), as I have communicated previously. From everything I've read, the oldest Bell-Beaker finds have been attributed to Southern Portugal. If you wish to argue against that, be my guest. You may also want to go to the DNA-Forums site and look through the comments posted by some very well informed people on the subject. You will find such in the "Atlantic Celts Research" thread.

I realize that paradigm shifts are sometime excruciatingly difficult to accept, especially by those with a dubious academic or (sometimes) political ax to grind. The funny thing is that the truth usually wins out in the end.
 
I use the word "Celticity" to refer to the essentials of Celtic culture. Self-identification with ANY ethnicity usually entails a strong cultural affinity towards a specific / unique population group or sub-group. One normally identifies as "Celtic" if the ancestral lines are traceable to ancient Celtic lands with long enduring Celticity (essential Celtic cultural components). Examples would be certain regions in the Atlantic Facade, but would exclude quite a number of other areas that were, for a relatively short period, Celtic.

I didn't say that Celtic languages began in Portugal, but they may have. The jury is out (and could be for some time), as I have communicated previously. From everything I've read, the oldest Bell-Beaker finds have been attributed to Southern Portugal. If you wish to argue against that, be my guest. You may also want to go to the DNA-Forums site and look through the comments posted by some very well informed people on the subject. You will find such in the "Atlantic Celts Research" thread.

I must say that you are hunting a phantom then, because the "Celticity" you are mentioning is for greater part a fabrication of modern times, which has no useful place in the academic world, in my opinion.

It is also appears to me that you have no interest discussion the relationships of the Celtic languages, which is an important issue to consider if you want to talk about the possibility of Tartessian as a Celtic language.

I realize that paradigm shifts are sometime excruciatingly difficult to accept, especially by those with a dubious academic or (sometimes) political ax to grind. The funny thing is that the truth usually wins out in the end.

Well, the former could be said about Koch, the latter could be said about Oppenheimer. And they both have it coming.
 
Call it Celtic ethno-cultural identification (based on a combination of legitimate cultural, historical and geographic factors), if the term "Celticity" is uncomfortable for you.

So, are you continuing to suggest that Koch and Oppenheimer are academic alchemists? Come now...

Actually, even though there are some issues with Oppenheimer's work, recent sublclade research involving ancestry projects is revealing more and more genetic closeness throughout the Atlantic Facade - which he originally suggested - from central to northern Iberia and north to Scotland. The gentleman who began this thread actually may be able to provide you with some details as regards the latest test results.

I'll pick up the Tartessian debate again in good time. Sorry if I continue to underwhelm you... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I think the least we can do before denying the theory is to read the entire paper of Koch's work.
 
Call it Celtic ethno-cultural identification (based on a combination of legitimate cultural, historical and geographic factors) if the term "Celticity" is uncomfortable for you.

Still, the "Celts" you think about probably never existed in the shape you think they were. Consider that the word "Celt" is an exonym, derived from Greek "Keltoi". For the Romans "Keltoi" was interchangable with "Galli". The rest is a question of archaeology and linguistics. The ethno-cultural identification that you talk about, especially the self-identification amongst Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. is a fabrication of modern times.

In so far, it makes more sense asking for the origin of the Celtic languages than for the origin of "Celticity".

So, are you continuing to suggest that Koch and Oppenheimer are academic alchemists? Come now...

That assessment has not changed. And you have been unwilling to bring up counter-arguments.

Actually, even though there are some issues with Oppenheimer's work, recent sublclade research involving ancestry projects is revealing more and more genetic closeness throughout the Atlantic Facade - which he originally suggested - from central to northern Iberia and north to Scotland. The gentleman who began this thread actually may be able to provide you with some details as regards the latest test results.

Some issues? Hello? The guy basically said that the Indo-European languages began to split up in the Paleolithic, that the entire population of Western Europe is of "Basque" stock, and (which in my opinion is the best, and most loony part) that English was spoken in Britain before the arrival of the Romans, and then he claimed that the English language was probably closer to Norse than the West Germanic languages. At that point I began to wonder if he had ever even touched a history book or if he even dealt with linguistics? And that guy is working with Koch... good lord... :startled:

I'll pick up the Tartessian debate again in good time. Sorry if I continue to underwhelm you... :rolleyes:

Well, you continue to basically ignore all my arguments and cherry-pick only what you want to hear. In a way, you are not unlike Koch.
 
Still, the "Celts" you think about probably never existed in the shape you think they were. Consider that the word "Celt" is an exonym, derived from Greek "Keltoi". For the Romans "Keltoi" was interchangable with "Galli". The rest is a question of archaeology and linguistics. The ethno-cultural identification that you talk about, especially the self-identification amongst Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. is a fabrication of modern times.

In so far, it makes more sense asking for the origin of the Celtic languages than for the origin of "Celticity".



That assessment has not changed. And you have been unwilling to bring up counter-arguments.



Some issues? Hello? The guy basically said that the Indo-European languages began to split up in the Paleolithic, that the entire population of Western Europe is of "Basque" stock, and (which in my opinion is the best, and most loony part) that English was spoken in Britain before the arrival of the Romans, and then he claimed that the English language was probably closer to Norse than the West Germanic languages. At that point I began to wonder if he had ever even touched a history book or if he even dealt with linguistics? And that guy is working with Koch... good lord... :startled:



Well, you continue to basically ignore all my arguments and cherry-pick only what you want to hear. In a way, you are not unlike Koch.

Man, you really love to concentrate on the negatives.

GASP, I"m "not unlike Koch"!... :innocent:
 
Last edited:
I think the least we can do before denying the theory is to read the entire paper of Koch's work.

Especially the latest book edited by Koch and Cunliffe: Celtic from the West.
 
You actually kind of make me curious about that book. Not that I have high expectations...


Ah, but I have some significant expectations concerning the entire Celtic from the West effort. There is plenty more to come.
 
Ah, but I have some significant expectations concerning the entire Celtic from the West effort. There is plenty more to come.

Yeah, I understand that. You have one fixed view on the whole issue, which you are not going to change, anyways. I only hope that other people are more open to valid criticism than you are. I'm actually waiting now for a paper to be released which is going to tear apart Koch's 2009 paper for it's sloppy methodology (especially lack of sound correspondences)... (*hint* *hint*)
 

This thread has been viewed 89515 times.

Back
Top