L21 on the Iberian Peninsula

[Maciamo]

They aren't saying the Bronze Age or bronze metallurgy began in the Atlantic facade. They are theorizing that Celtic languages may have begun there. And I think they believe they have archaeological evidence; I mean that is what Dr. Barry Cunliffe does, after all, and he is one of the central players in the idea.

I seriously doubt that Celtic languages would have begun in the Atlantic façade. All the leading theories on the origin of Indo-European languages place Proto-IE near the Black Sea, and Proto-Italo-Celtic in Central Europe. Italic languages being restricted to Italy, it is hard to deny that they developed in the Italian peninsula. As the archaeology shows that Bronze technology and Celtic arts moved from Central Europe (Halstatt area) towards the Atlantic fringe, I don't see why Celtic languages would not have developed in Central Europe too.

The Atlantic façade is too remote from the point of origin of Proto-Italo-Celtic, too Western for an easy diffusion of the language as far as the Danube valley and Anatolia. Furthermore the area from Portugal to Scotland is too vast as a point of origin. If it originated in, say, southern Portugal, how could it have spread so quickly all the way to Scotland and Austria ? Central Europe is the ideal starting point because the area where Celtic languages were spoken at their greatest extend seem to radiate from the Alps and follow the path of dispersion of Bronze metallurgy all the way to Iberia and the British Isles.

The only thing I could agree on is that Q-Celtic languages developed from archaic Celtic in the Atlantic façade (or Q-Celtic survived in the West as the archaic form, while P-Celtic was a evolution from Q-Celtic that happened after the Bronze Age dispersal, perhaps during the early Iron Age).

[rms2]

Those are all good points you bring up, Maciamo. I just want to see what Koch, Cunliffe and the rest come up with. If Ligurian represents undifferentiated Italo-Celtic, as the French linguist Jullian thought, it is possible that Italo-Celtic (Ligurian) was planted in southern France and NW Italy and spread from there. If that is the case, then it could have become Celtic in the Atlantic zone and Italic in Italy.

There is also the possibility that archaic Indo-European spread to the western Mediterranean by sea (as was mentioned before in connection with the Stelae People), and that Celtic developed there and spread east. That could also explain the presence of Ligurian in southern Gaul and NW Italy and how it could have been the catalyst for both Italic in Italy and Celtic in the Atlantic facade.

[rms2]

Regarding the earlier posts about whether Gaulish was a P-Celtic language, here are a few more references.

Cunliffe discusses it in his book, The Ancient Celts, in the section on Celtic languages, beginning on page 21. There is a nice little chart on page 23 showing both Gallic and Brythonic on the same branch, which is labeled "Gallo Brithonic". The Q-Celtic languages are represented on the same chart by three separate, older branches labeled "Hispano Celtic", "Lepontic", and "Goidelic".

On page 25, Cunliffe says:

. . . [T]he overriding view being that beneath a variety of dialects Gaulish is broadly Brythonic, though some doubt has been placed on the classificatory value of the term.

He also mentions that Gaulish is known from inscriptions and from place and proper names.

The French linguist and archaeologist Henri Hubert discusses the Celtic languages in his book, The History of the Celtic People (originally in two volumes). He likewise groups Gaulish with Brythonic as P-Celtic.

Here is a brief excerpt from page 131:

. . . two groups of peoples, whose languages became different as has been explained above - that is, the Goidelic, or Irish, group, and the Brythonic group, which includes the Gauls.

The Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division is also discussed in various places in The Celtic Realms, by Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick. Here is a brief excerpt, from page 18:

The oldest branch of these languages, referred to by modern scholars as Goidelic (or Q-Celtic), survives today in the Highlands and the Western Islands (Hebrides) of Scotland, and in Ireland and the Isle of Man; the later branch, commonly called Brythonic, to which Gaulish originally belonged, survives in Wales and Brittany.

In the next paragraph, Dillon and Chadwick specifically identify Gaulish as P-Celtic.

Those are just a few references of the many that could be produced to show that the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Gaulish was a P-Celtic language.

[buckley612]

I'm not in a position intellectually to agree or disagree with any professional research, but I am always skeptical when such a decisive conclusion is reached. If I remember correctly, the "Ice Age Refugee" theory for the origin of R1b also received an overwhelming consensus among researchers. For a year or so, it was the only theory with an extensive amount of available information. My own experiences also tend to point me away from any theory which allows little room for alteration. Before I took a deep-clade test, I believed myself to belong to R-U152 given that my available DYS values were a perfect match with many tested R-U152 members. I did extensive research and was disappointed to find that the only "real" work done on the subject was botched to say the least (courtesy of Dr. Faux). Still, his research seems to be widely accepted in the field of genetic study. All of this goes to say that I have trouble accepting broad statements like "Gaulish was entirely P-Celtic". I have always thought that Gaul was something of a melting pot of very different Celtic tribes and cultures, in turn it only makes sense to me that the language(s)/branches of Celtic spoken in Gaul must have been diverse as well.

[rms2]

There is a great deal of difference between the "Iberian Ice Age Refuge" theory for R1b1b2, for which there never was any good evidence, and the notion that Gaulish was a P-Celtic langauge. There is plenty of evidence for the latter in inscriptions and place and personal names. It's not like linguists have to guess or speculate. It's there for them to see.

[rms2]

There is a new Portuguese R-L21 this morning: Dos Reis, Ysearch GHU77. He is in the Portugal category on the y-DNA Results page of the R-L21 Plus Project. Dos Reis' most distant y-dna ancestor came from the island of Madeira.

His closest match (33/37) is Marino-Ramirez, Ysearch NR3T9, whose ancestors came from Spain and settled in Colombia. It seems a fair bet that Marino-Ramirez is also L21+.

[rms2]

There is another new Spanish R-L21 this morning: Calvo, Ysearch GYFHF.

He belongs to that Iberian L21+ cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

Calvo's most distant y-dna ancestor came from Cumbres Mayores in northern Andalucia, Spain.

I have added him to the R-L21 European Continent Map (Placemark 133).

[rms2]

There is another new Spanish R-L21 this morning: Calvo, Ysearch GYFHF.

He belongs to that Iberian L21+ cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

Calvo's most distant y-dna ancestor came from Cumbres Mayores in northern Andalucia, Spain.

I have added him to the R-L21 European Continent Map (Placemark 133).

Near Mr. Calvo's ancestral home of Cumbres Mayores is the old Celtic hillfort of Nortobriga.

Also yesterday evening yet another man of Spanish ancestry went L21+: Davila, Ysearch 3SZYY.

[Taranis]

The only thing I could agree on is that Q-Celtic languages developed from archaic Celtic in the Atlantic façade (or Q-Celtic survived in the West as the archaic form, while P-Celtic was a evolution from Q-Celtic that happened after the Bronze Age dispersal, perhaps during the early Iron Age).

Question: is there any evidence for a genetic link (specific subclade?) between Ireland and Iberia (which would kind of suggest some migration event)?

[callaeca]

In opposition to Maciano I adduce:

1) The character of the celtic languages of western Iberia is previous to the formation of Celtiberian. The Celtiberian language is a consequence of the evolution of the western celtic language in Center Iberia (Of Bernardo Stempel, 2004).

2) The conservation of the sound P in initial and intermediate position in the occidental Hispanic Celtic language, opposite to other Celtic dialects (as dialectal anomaly of the Indo-European language), obeys that there was no initial contact with not Indo-European populations who were lacking this sound. The Iberian language lacks the sound P, then it is logical that the Celtiberian language does not contain this phoneme. This fact can spread to other Celtic dialects, where the anomaly of the loss of /p/ is a consequence of the previous substrate. The occidental Hispanic-Celtic is practically Indo-European. This linguistic observation belongs similar to the Armenian language that loss the sound /p/ to contact with caucasic languages (Celiakov, 2007).

3) It is known that the diffusion of the Celtic language could originate with the commercial diffusion of the bell-beakers phenomenon from the center of Portugal (where we can register an archaic Indo-European peninsular dialect, language that presents features genetically near the celtic language, but also features that we find in italic). It is very probable that this initial protoceltic language had to be a "lingua franca", with ancient examples as the egyptian, ionic or latin.

4) The commercial Atlantic decadence opposite to the commercial summit of Center Europe, with the cultural adoption of Unetice models, gives place to a more predominant position for the classic populations called Celts, beside opening direct commercial relations with Greece and Anatolia. Both populations, Atlantic and Center European, can be recognized now like different culturally: handcrafted products, architecture, language, etc.

Atlantic culture is a mixture between models of social change derived from theory of "World Economic Systems" and of the settlement Archaeology: a.-proper evolution of diverse local communities close to relations to long distance, and b.-to come together in creation of a relative "koiné" and a "related diversity". Without this model there would no be Atlantic continuity of phenomena as form of predominant production.

5) The word "celtic" must be understood as atlantic native. The inscriptions of Tartessos in a celtic language, related specially to the dialect of the peninsular NW, are dated on the centuries VIII-V b. C., being, therefore, impossible that it was interfering for populations of Hallstatt not for "urnenfelders" (of that we do not have vestiges)

[Taranis]

Callaeca, I would like to re-post here what I did post in another thread regarding the Celtic hypothesis for Tartessian:

I am not a linguist (but I talked with one ), but as far I understand it, there's a number of problems associated with Koch's work. The main issue is that his primary set of data are personal names.

This goes deeper, because personal name etymologies often will tell you more about the individual making them than the name itself, since they almost never come with glosses, so, finding an etymology becomes a game where you essentially seaching for words in your language that sound alike. Given a sufficiently large dictionary and a willingness to play fast and freely between sounds, it's very easy to do this. In some case you have purported "Celtic" origins for words for which it is not even sure if they even have demonstrated Indo-European derivations.

Secondly, even if the names indeed have Celtic etymologies doesn't mean that Tartessian actually was a Celtic language. We know that there were Celts in Iberia, but we cannot automatically assume that everybody with a Celtic-sounding name really spoke Celtic. This is why most linguists stick away from personal name etymologies.

Thirdly, and as far as I understand it, this is something of a "cardinal sin" in terms of linguistics, is that Koch makes no effort to demonstrate how the sounds of Tartessian are supposed to correspond to sounds in Celtiberian. This is pretty futile, because you run under the assumption that any sound can correspond to any other sound, which is not how languages work. And, as far as I understand, this is something that linguists haven't been practicing since the days of Jacob Grimm.

The bottom line is, it is possible that Koch is right, but he hasn't actually proven anything other than the words he has taken out of context from two languages that sometimes sound somewhat alike.

So yes, I guess we will have to wait for more papers on the issue.

Regardless of that, I personally have a serious problem with the idea of Celtic suddenly "popping up" in Iberia some time in the Bronze Age (or earlier?). I would think, even if Celtic languages spread quickly, the origins of the Celtic language must be sought somewhere in affinity to the Corded Ware culture (as the Indo-European languages probably came into Europe with them).

Also, a Iberian origin for the Celtic languages totally screws up with the phylogeny of the Indo-European languages.

[rms2]

Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site says about Koch's work with Tartessian:

Professor John T. Koch’s recent research on the Tartessian language of the Early Iron Age in southern Portugal and south-western Spain has now suggested similar preliminary conclusions. In its abundance, diversity, archaism, antiquity, and geographic and cultural remoteness from Hallstatt and La Tène, the Hispano-Celtic linguistic evidence sits more comfortably with a theory of Atlantic Bronze Age Celtic origins than with the established central-European model.

"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper.

The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).

[Taranis]

Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site says about Koch's work with Tartessian:

"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper.

I was explicitly refering to exactly that 2009 paper. I did read the paper, linked to it and asked said linguist for his opinion, and I subsequently found his criticism of the paper to be a valid point (as posted above), especially in terms of poor methodology by Koch.

Besides, even if Koch is right about the 'archaisms', just because archaic variants of Celtic were spoken in Iberia and/or the Atlantic fringe doesn't automatically mean they originated there. It just means that they were spared of the later linguistic innovations which occured in the Alpine region.

The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).

Wrong. Corded ware was definitely not just connected with Proto-Germanic (Proto-Germanic originated only at the periphery of Corded Ware), but at least also with the common ancestor for the Baltic and Slavic languages. In addition we have the Italic languages (which is commonly thought to be closely tied with Celtic, by the way), as well as Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. In my opinion, it's far more conceivable that the language spoken by the Corded Warers was the ancestor of all European branches of Indo-European, including Celtic. It's therfore far more logical to assume that Celtic originated in Central Europe (especially if you assume a Proto-Italo-Celtic stage), in proximity to the former Corded Ware area, rather than suddenly 'popping up' in the Atlantic region.

The idea about the stelae people reaching the Atlantic region by sea is interesting, but I personally find it too far-fetched at this point. Of course, I should add, the concept of Celtic originating in the Atlantic region is a paradigm change, and in all of science, people are naturally awkward with paradigm changes. However, until I see genuinely convincing evidence, I for one am going to stick with the traditional concept.

[rms2]

. . .


Wrong. Corded ware was definitely not just connected with Proto-Germanic (Proto-Germanic originated only at the periphery of Corded Ware), but at least also with the common ancestor for the Baltic and Slavic languages. In addition we have the Italic languages (which is commonly thought to be closely tied with Celtic, by the way), as well as Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. In my opinion, it's far more conceivable that the language spoken by the Corded Warers was the ancestor of all European branches of Indo-European, including Celtic. It's therfore far more logical to assume that Celtic originated in Central Europe (especially if you assume a Proto-Italo-Celtic stage), in proximity to the former Corded Ware area, rather than suddenly 'popping up' in the Atlantic region . . .

I did not say that Corded Ware was connected only to Proto-Germanic. I said it is usually connected to Proto-Germanic. I am aware of the connection to early Baltic and Slavic, as well, but, since we were discussing a western IE subgroup (Celtic), I limited myself to a western manifestation of Corded Ware and provided a reference (Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language).

As I said in my last post, Anthony derives Italo-Celtic from contacts between the Beaker Folk and the Yamnaya culture. I don't know of any connection between Corded Ware and early Celtic or of anyone who attempts to make such a connection (aside from you).

I also have a different take on Koch's 2009 paper than you do. It seems to me it contains plenty of translations of apparently Celtic Tartessian inscriptions that are not personal names.

I guess time will tell if Koch is right. I don't know if Celtic actually originated on the Iberian peninsula, but I definitely believe it is much older than both Hallstatt and La Tene.

Personally, I suspect the Celtic question will come down to a final decision on where the Beaker Folk originated. Arguments seem to sway back and forth. Currently, the thought is that the oldest Beaker sites are in the Iberian peninsula, and the radiocarbon dating supports that, or seems to, at least for now.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I did not say that Corded Ware was connected only to Proto-Germanic. I said it is usually connected to Proto-Germanic. I am aware of the connection to early Baltic and Slavic, as well, but, since we were discussing a western IE subgroup (Celtic), I limited myself to a western manifestation of Corded Ware and provided a reference (Anthony's The Horse the Wheel and Language).

As I said in my last post, Anthony derives Italo-Celtic from contacts between the Beaker Folk and the Yamnaya culture. I don't know of any connection between Corded Ware and early Celtic or of anyone who attempts to make such a connection (aside from you).

I also have a different take on Koch's 2009 paper than you do. It seems to me it contains plenty of translations of apparently Celtic Tartessian inscriptions that are not personal names.

I guess time will tell if Koch is right. I don't know if Celtic actually originated on the Iberian peninsula, but I definitely believe it is much older than both Hallstatt and La Tene.

Personally, I suspect the Celtic question will come down to a final decision on where the Beaker Folk originated. Arguments seem to sway back and forth. Currently, the thought is that the oldest Beaker sites are in the Iberian peninsula, and the radiocarbon dating supports that, or seems to, at least for now.

The oldest Beaker sites, according to everything I've researched, have been confirmed as existing in Southern Portugal.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Taranis,

You are criticizing Koch's work on Tartessian without any actual evidence that he is in fact doing what you say he is doing. You talked with a linguist? Who?

Koch is perhaps the foremost Celticist in the world. Do you really think he is calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names?

Here is what this site says about Koch's work with Tartessian:



"Abundance, diversity, archaism" all merely from some personal names?

Some of Koch's work is based on proper names, but there is much else, as well, as can be seen from this 2009 paper.

The Corded Ware culture is usually connected with Proto-Germanic, not Celtic. David Anthony, in his The Horse the Wheel and Language, speculates that Italo-Celtic may have arisen from contact between Beaker Folk and elements of the Yamnaya culture on the Hungarian Plain (p. 367).

In Koch's 2009 paper that I linked above, he mentions "the iconography of the ‘warrior stelae’ " shared by Iberia, Armorica (Bretagne), and Britain (p. 1). As I mentioned before, it is possible that Indo-European was spread by sea by the "Stelae People" from the Pontic Caspian region. Anthony mentions their anthropomorphic stelae in his The Horse the Wheel and Language and their spread to western Europe by sea (pp. 336-339).

Indeed, Koch's research has gone well beyond personal names.

[rms2]

Two more men of Spanish ancestry have gone L21+ since I last reported: Calzada and Fernandez. Calzada's ancestor came from Bilbao in Spain, which is in the Basque country; however, Calzada is not a Basque surname and is known in neighboring Cantabria. Fernandez can't get his paper trail out of Mexico, but he belongs to a strongly Spanish-Portuguese cluster with 19=15, 459=9-9, and YCAII=19-19.

We have another member of that cluster, this one from Portugal, awaiting L21 test results. Thus far everyone in that cluster is L21+, and all of them have ancestry in either Spain or Portugal.

[Taranis]

Indeed, Koch's research has gone well beyond personal names.

Simply put, for Koch to prove his theories, all he has to do is demonstrate regular sound correspondences between the two languages. He has not bothered to do this. This is simply not how historical linguistics functions, not since the Neogrammarian revolution. There's a reason why; if you simply compare two words from two different languages, and allow yourself free reign as far as sound correspondences and the semantics of the words go, you can easily find false cognates in any two languages. It is also undeniable that, in the 2009 paper, the bulk of his data appears to be drawn from personal names. If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

[rms2]

. . . If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

I read that paper and that is not what Koch is doing. He does analyze quite a few personal names, and they are Celtic, but he analyzes some phrases, as well, and comes up with intelligible translations of them, if they are regarded as Celtic.

Apparently his work continues, and that 2009 paper is not the last word.

If Koch thinks Tartessian was a Celtic language, then it probably was. It doesn't necessarily follow that Celtic originated in the Iberian Peninsula. It simply means that Celtic is older there than we thought and cannot be attributed to Hallstatt influences.

[Taranis]

I read that paper and that is not what Koch is doing. He does analyze quite a few personal names, and they are Celtic, but he analyzes some phrases, as well, and comes up with intelligible translations of them, if they are regarded as Celtic.

Apparently his work continues, and that 2009 paper is not the last word.

If Koch thinks Tartessian was a Celtic language, then it probably was.

Well, my point is, if Koch does come up with demonstrable evidence for sound changes/correspondences, the case for Tartessian as a Celtic language is solid. But, from my perspective, it is too early to tell. The problem is, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" (as you called him), Koch's record is a tad patchy for my taste.

It doesn't necessarily follow that Celtic originated in the Iberian Peninsula. It simply means that Celtic is older there than we thought and cannot be attributed to Hallstatt influences.

That, I can agree on. But, unless the Stelae people theory is correct and the Celts really arrived by a very wild migration route (possibly by sea) in Western Europe, the Celtic languages must have somehow originated in the vicinity of the former Corded Ware area.

[Wilhelm]

It can also mean that a group of earlier Celts splitted and went to Iberia earlier while the others Celts stayed and developed see the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Well, my point is, if Koch does come up with demonstrable evidence for sound changes/correspondences, the case for Tartessian as a Celtic language is solid. But, from my perspective, it is too early to tell. The problem is, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" (as you called him), Koch's record is a tad patchy for my taste.



That, I can agree on. But, unless the Stelae people theory is correct and the Celts really arrived by a very wild migration route (possibly by sea) in Western Europe, the Celtic languages must have somehow originated in the vicinity of the former Corded Ware area.

The majority view seems to be that Celticity emerged with Bell Becker. The earliest Bell Beaker sites have been located in Portugal.

How is Koch's record patchy?

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Simply put, for Koch to prove his theories, all he has to do is demonstrate regular sound correspondences between the two languages. He has not bothered to do this. This is simply not how historical linguistics functions, not since the Neogrammarian revolution. There's a reason why; if you simply compare two words from two different languages, and allow yourself free reign as far as sound correspondences and the semantics of the words go, you can easily find false cognates in any two languages. It is also undeniable that, in the 2009 paper, the bulk of his data appears to be drawn from personal names. If he is not "calling Tartessian Celtic merely because of a few personal names" then why is he doing so? Is it a big secret?

Have you read Koch's latest book? - Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History. He deals with phrases as well as place and personal names, verbs, proverbs, nouns, prepositions...

In addition, "Celtic from the West" is about to be released. This is the first research segment of the ongoing University of Wales Celtic from the West project. It contains papers from 12 other scientists, besides Koch.

[Taranis]

The majority view seems to be that Celticity emerged with Bell Becker. The earliest Bell Beaker sites have been located in Portugal.

I was under the impression that there were sites of similar age (2900 BC) in southern France and northern Italy. In regard for the identity of the Bell-Beaker culture, if they really already spoke an Indo-European language, I'm personally of the opinion that at that stage labeling it "Proto-Celto-Italic" might bemore appropriate. I would also not rule out the possibility that what we regard as "Celtic languages" is actually a paraphyletic construct. Also, the term "Celticity" is extremely problematic in my opinion. In an allusion to a classic question, who is a Celt?

How is Koch's record patchy?

Well, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" he does have a patchy record. As mentioned, why does he omit sound correspondences in his paper?

Have you read Koch's latest book? - Tartessian: Celtic in the South-west at the Dawn of History. He deals with phrases as well as place and personal names, verbs, proverbs, nouns, prepositions...

I seriously hesitate to mention this, since it would seem rather malicious of me to do that, but that book on Tartessian was self-published (published under the imprint "Celtic Studies Publications", which was established by John Koch himself). No serious scholar ever self-publishes his own works, he or she subjects them to peer review, which has not happened in this case. Coincidence?

In addition, "Celtic from the West" is about to be released. This is the first research segment of the ongoing University of Wales Celtic from the West project. It contains papers from 12 other scientists, besides Koch.

Well, all I can say at this point is, we shall see. I still maintain that the spread from the west creates more problems than it apparently solves, unless I see different evidence.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I was under the impression that there were sites of similar age (2900 BC) in southern France and northern Italy. In regard for the identity of the Bell-Beaker culture, if they really already spoke an Indo-European language, I'm personally of the opinion that at that stage labeling it "Proto-Celto-Italic" might bemore appropriate. I would also not rule out the possibility that what we regard as "Celtic languages" is actually a paraphyletic construct. Also, the term "Celticity" is extremely problematic in my opinion. In an allusion to a classic question, who is a Celt?
Well, for the "foremost Celticist in the world" he does have a patchy record. As mentioned, why does he omit sound correspondences in his paper?
I seriously hesitate to mention this, since it would seem rather malicious of me to do that, but that book on Tartessian was self-published (published under the imprint "Celtic Studies Publications", which was established by John Koch himself). No serious scholar ever self-publishes his own works, he or she subjects them to peer review, which has not happened in this case. Coincidence?
Well, all I can say at this point is, we shall see. I still maintain that the spread from the west creates more problems than it apparently solves, unless I see different evidence.

1) What do you mean by "omit sound correspondences in his paper"?


2) I don't see a problem in the Tartessian book being self published. The work has been in the public audience for about a year and I haven't run across any compelling peer criticisms concerning the findings and ideas presented.


3) Can you explain how the old Central European Celtic origination theory is more palatable than what Koch and the Atlantic School has posited thus far?


The Tartessian (Celtic) script on the stone tablets that Koch and others have deciphered predates anything known in Central Europe by over 500 years. Much of what we have thus far seen from the University of Wales project (Celtic from the West) suggests that Tartessian is indeed a Celtic language. Therefore, if the Tartessian language continues to be confirmed as Celtic by the philology and linguistic communities (likely a slow process), how can the Central European origin theory be defended? Of course, there will always be those in opposition to Tartessian as Celtic because of academic investment in competing theories or various odd axes to grind. Old paradigms die hard, don't they? Even the faulty ones.