Bell Beaker Folk

Wow, now I am intrigued by the Umbrian similarity (All of Osco-Umbrian or just Umbrian?)

I just checked and re-checked, actually, it's both in Oscan and Umbrian. One major difference with the Celtic languages is that as Italic languages, Oscan and Umbrian do not lose the initial "P". Oscan ("Patir" means Father, just like Latin "Pater", but dissimilar from Irish "Athair").

Now I am wondering if this shift/change began early on but only in certain subgroups. In other words, did some settlers wind up adapting to the sounds common to those among whom they settled. (Possibly a widespread and related but pre-IE tongue) There is decent evidence pointing to that happening with the Goidelic branch.

Hard to say, I really don't know. It's clear that this shift apparently happened in Brythonic, Gaulish and Osco-Umbrian, but not in Goidelic, Celtiberian or Latin. Clearly, the Italic and Celtic languages must have been separated at that point already. I think, the reason why Goidelic is Q-Celtic rather than P-Celtic is really because it lay at the periphery. Iron-working arrived in Ireland from Hallstatt/La-Tene, but unlike Britain, it never saw large-scale* settlement from the continent (*if Ptolemy is to be trusted, there actually were Belgic tribes which settled at the southeast coast of Ireland, but it's clear that Ireland never received large-scale settlement there).

The German DNA mix also seems to be too clear to be coincidence.

Archaeologically, the Germanic people seem to have their origin in the Nordic Bronze Age, and they adopted Iron-working from the Hallstatt culture. Now, the Germanic word "Iron" (compare Dutch "Ijzer", German "Eisen", Danish "Jern") is a cognate with the Celtic word for "Iron" (Gaulish "Isarnos", Irish "Iarann", Breton "Houarn"), and I do not think that this is a coincidence either, because the Germanic people adopted iron-working from the Celts (around the late 6th century BC).

What's also interesting is that most cognates of Germanic with Celtic are typically apparently rather old, specifically, they must have been adopted to Common Germanic before major sound shifts occured. Notably, the Germanic languages have a shift from K->H:

"Marcos" = mare (German "Mähre", Swedish "Märr")
"Volcae" = "Walha-" (foreigner, as in "Wallonia" and "Wales", although the Celtic tribal name is actually derived from the word "falcon").

I am strongly inclined to associate the Gauls with Halstatt and La Tene.
That is when the Gauls really seem to burst upon the scene with a fury and enter on a wide expansionist phase. My question here is if anything specific could have been a catalyst for this (besides the arrival of the Iron Age).
It seems that the coming of the Iron Age in that portion of Europe coincided with the destruction of much of the Cimmerians by the Scyths. We know that many of the refugees went south into Anatolia. Could some have simply gone west and merged with Urnfielders? I would not be surprised at all if many of them found a home along that part of the Danube, even adding to the aristocracy.

Eh, consider that Hallstatt is an outgrowth/continuation of the Urnfield culture.
 
Eh, consider that Hallstatt is an outgrowth/continuation of the Urnfield culture.

Yes that is correct also. The Halstatt culture itself does start within and as a part of Urnfield culture. I am looking for a possible catalyst for this event.

Stuff we know:

The arrival of Iron technology, in the span of time, reaches the Urnfield culture at a point which coincides with a maelstrom of events, probably all related to the use of that metal. The destruction of Cimmerian power by the Scyths appears to have been directly related to the use of iron and of fighting on horseback. The technology moved towards the epicenter of what would be the Halstatt culture at almost the same time.

The Cimmerian are known to have moved south and west in droves into Anatolia as a result of their losses. The non-IE kingdom of Van and the Phrygian kingdoms were overrun, the latter permanently so.

OK, now for the point that I was proposing:

The Cimmerian range had extended far to the west and bordered the eastern side of the Urnfielders. It is very unlikely that all Cimmerians would have been able to run the gauntlet of invasive Scyths to go with the bulk of their brethren into Anatolia. Some of course would have remained under Scythian rule. Others presumably flee westward.

The possible refugee Cimmerians, already being in possession if Iron technology, would have been arriving at the same time that this technology was coming into the hands of the Urnfielders from their south and east.

Very shortly after this time, Halstatt culture develops. The Gauls as we and classical writers would recognize (as opposed to other who speak and have Celtic culture) appear on scene.

An interesting note: Archaeologists speak of what they refer to as a "royal" or aristocratic group moving westward and into the heart of the Halstatt zone towards the beginning of the Halstatt culture.

Also for us to take into account are the legends some Celts had of their Cimmerian origins. Until recently I had failed to even consider this one.

My proposal is this:

That it would be of benefit to us if we consider the possibility that the westward recoil of beaten Cimmerians may have had an effect that contributed to the explosion of Halstatt culture among the Urnfield Celts.


The arrival of the use of iron, the massive defeat of the Cimmerians who bordered Urnfield Celts, and the archaeological evidence of the arrival among the Celts of a group of aristocratic or "royal" chieftain-types from the east all fall into the same time period. Those Cimmerians with wealth and enough possessions to have a following would have been able to have had some influence with those among whom they settled.
 
To be honest, I cannot follow you there what you're trying to argue for. I don't see why there should be a connection between the Cimmerians and any Celtic-speaking peoples. I must also add that I don't see a need for arguing for some kind of event that calls for a break between Urnfield and Hallstatt. From the looks of it, Hallstatt is just an outgrowth/continuation of Urnfield that starts incorporating iron-working. Where there actually is a break of sorts is between Halstatt and La-Tene: the core areas of La-Tene lay at the western edge of the Hallstatt Culture. One possible explanation for this - in my opinion - is the shift of the key economic centers to the west, perhaps due to trade with the Greeks (via Massilia) starting off.

What is to be considered though is the question of where Celtic iron-working arrived from: this is a really good one. If we take a look at the Common Celtic word for iron ("Isarnos", which was, as I mentioned earlier, borrowed into Common Germanic), we cannot (readily) find cognates for it in related languages: the Latin word is "Ferrum", the Greek word is "Sideros". If we find a possible cognate for "Isarnos", we may shed light at where it came from.
 
Concerning the Germanic languages, what should be noted, interestingly, is the "hybrid" nature of this language family: on the one hand, Germanic has a number of commonalities with the Baltic and Slavic languages, on the other hand, Germanic has a number of commonalties with Celtic and Italic.

In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.

there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any west-to-east movements out of the Atlantic Façade. Conversely, archaeological movements apparently virtually always go in the opposite direction (ie, east to west).Another aspect is, the Atlantic School asserts that the origins of the Gauls lay adjacent to the Pyrenees, rather than in the source area of the Danube. However, in the Pyrenees region, we find exclusively Aquitanian and Iberian typonomy. Even areas that were clearly inhabited by Gauls in Antiquity show residue of Aquitanian. In contrast to that, there's plenty of Celtic name evidence in the Danube area. In so far, I find the case that the origins of the Gauls lay in Hallstatt/La-Tene pretty convincing.

Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.
 
I dediced to make a map here to visualize something

I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.

About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).
 
In fact, each language is "hybrid". The current classification is only related to vocabulary. If you take phonology or grammatics, you can find mixtures between romance and Germanic languages (especially French), Celtic and Germanic...even between Basque and Romance ones (spanish). Of course, those influences can be modern.

Yes, you are right of course. But I found it particularly drastic and overtly visualized with the example of Germanic.

Exactly. That's why I find very weird to search the original places of the Celts elsewhere than Central Europe.

If you go by onomastic evidence, as late as the 2nd century AD, Celtic name influence extends as far north and east as Silesia. The problem that I have with Hallstatt and La-Tene is that it alone cannot explain the presence of Celtic languages on the Iberian penninsula.

I think that a homogenous brown area should cover all Iberia, with small isolated blue areas (celtic minorities here and there). Or even not blue at all if Celts were a ruling aristocracy like Germanics in Medieval Gauls.

Which homogenous brown area? You mean the Iberians? Also, what speaks against that is that apparently, the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).

About Mediterranean islands, it is difficult to say, but I have heard that some archaisms seeem to exist in Sardinia dialects, so those islands were probably ligurian speaking or something like this (in my mind, it means pre-indo-european language).

Well, it would make sense. What is interesting though is that archaeologically, the Talayotic, Nuraghe and Torre cultures of the Baleares, Sardinia and Corsica were all rather similar, which begs the question if there was an ethnolinguistic similarity amongst those. Regarding the term "Ligurian", I agree that the usage of it in Antiquity is diffuse, because there is sources which label the people of the Iberian penninsula as "Ligurian". What is apparent, however, is that going by purely onomastic evidence, the "Ligurian" tribes in the area on the mainland (ie, modern Liguria and adjacent areas in Provence) seemingly were Indo-Europeans, akin to the Celtic- and the Italic-speaking peoples.
 
the Celtic languages spoken in Iberia were all Q-Celtic (Celtiberian is similar to Goidelic in that respect). What is very possible however is that such a ruling aristocracy concept would explain the situation in Gallaecia (the Lusitanian substrate).

I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).
 
I have discussed about this with others members. The fact that some inscriptions have been found does not prove that it was the vernacular language (I had taken the examples of Scandinavian runes in Normandy or England, but you can think to the latin texts in Medieval Germany or something else...).

Well, the interesting part is that Celtiberian inscriptions have been found only in what could readily be labeled "Celtiberia proper", which lay adjacent to the Iberian-speaking areas of the northeast. This is also not a surprise since the Celtiberian writing system was an adaptation of the Iberian writing system (it's interesting that writing systems spread in counter-clockwise direction along the rim of the Iberian penninsula*). Further to the west, no pre-Roman Celtic inscriptions have been found. Going by onomastic evidence, you get approximately the image that I show on the map. What is very interesting in Gallaecia, as mentioned, is the evidence for a Lusitanian substrate (both toponyms and theonyms). Also, often, you have mixed Celtic- and non-Celtic names. In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.

I agree however that the situation is probably more complex than it seems. In that respect I vastly simplified things in the south (Baetica), since there is a considerable overlap of Iberian and Celtic typonomy.

*Here's also an interesting question: why didn't the Lusitanians adopt the Tartessian writing system?
 
In so far, you have a point that we do not know what languages were spoken in these areas.

Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
There is no point that Celtic culture progressively disappears in SW France, and suddenly beyond Pyrenees reappears.
 
Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.
Celts left a few things in these areas ? How about the most celtic settlements in Western Europe ? And what makes you think they didn't speak Celtic languages in those areas, when only celtic inscriptions have found, and none of any other language ?
 
Not only a point. It is the key : if the majority of the people did not speak here a Celtic language, and if only an elite used Celtic inscriptions, we can't speak about a Celtic culture or a Celtic region. Like Germany was not a "roman" or "latin" country in Medieval times...With these inscriptions, we can only say : Celts have entered in Spain, not "Spain was a Celtic region"...And the facts are that Celts have let few things in these areas.

This still raises the question of how and when the Celts did get on the Iberian penninsula - especially, did they circumvene the Aquitanian-Iberian areas (by sea?), or did they arrive via Catalonia during Urnfield times and dispersed to the west (with Catalonia being taken by the Iberians only later?).

Also, in any case, one key issue is that regardless of this, there were other Indo-Europeans (ie, the Lusitanians) in western Iberia before the Celts arrived. In fact, the shape of how iron-working arrives and disperses on the Iberian penninsula (it arrives from two sources, one by Hallstatt influence from Central Europe and one from Phoenician influence via Gadir) suggests that Iberia was divided into an Indo-European and a non-Indo-European part, in my opinion.

Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).
 
To be honest, I cannot follow you there what you're trying to argue for. I don't see why there should be a connection between the Cimmerians and any Celtic-speaking peoples. I must also add that I don't see a need for arguing for some kind of event that calls for a break between Urnfield and Hallstatt. From the looks of it, Hallstatt is just an outgrowth/continuation of Urnfield that starts incorporating iron-working. Where there actually is a break of sorts is between Halstatt and La-Tene: the core areas of La-Tene lay at the western edge of the Hallstatt Culture. One possible explanation for this - in my opinion - is the shift of the key economic centers to the west, perhaps due to trade with the Greeks (via Massilia) starting off.

.

I really am not making an argument in support of anything nor am I trying to garner any support. I am only presenting the possibility that there may have been an influence in addition to the actual arrival of the Iron Age to the Urnfielders and inviting any possible input from others. Recall that I am not actually looking for a Celtic/Cimmerian connection. I am only writing about something that is now coming to mind.
In this case, when my interest got peaked on this topic, I dug up a historical atlas of mine. I don't have any access to the maps in a digital file, so I can only describe what they show.


By the end of the 9th century BCE, we have a large border of sorts between Cimmerians and Urnfielders. That is exactly when Iron working has spread out of Italy and is already being done by Ligurians and at the Alps.
The Cimmerians are spread from the Caspian westward to be right up against the Urnfielders.
By the eighth century the Scyths have appeared from amongst the Iranians and are using Iron and horses. A massive movement of Cimmerians flee south eventually landing in Anatolia. From a geographic standpoint, there does not appear to be clear path for around half of the defeated to sneak along the Black sea past the westward moving Scyths to join their kinsmen south. To the north are Slavs; south are the Illyrians, Thracians, etc,
Some remain in place, possibly to form the nucleous of the future Dacian state. I have to think now that a number may have moved due west.

Halstatt culture takes off from this point. I need to try to find the exact dating of the archaeological movement of aristocratic warriors who arrive into the Celtic zone from the East. I will need to dig out the one source but it is too late to try tonight. If my memory serves me rightly, it is right around this point
 
Also, in my opinion, we verymuch can speak about a Celtic region. One particularly drastic example in my opinion is the southwest. Even if you assume that the Tartessians spoke a non-Indo-European language (the evidence of which I find compelling), it's clear that after the demise of Tartessos (circa 6th century BC), the southwest became heavily celticized. By the 2nd century AD, there's almost exclusively Celtic typonomy in the Southwest. Where did these Celts come from "so suddenly"? There must have been earlier Celtic presence on the Iberian penninsula, and in my opinion this stems from the central region (the Cogotas Culture).

No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.
 
No, once again, onomastic and toponymy do not prove culture or vernacular language.
It's not just toponyimy or onomastic. It's hundreds of inscriptions, it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages, it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas, it's more complex than just toponymy, which btw is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do :rolleyes:
 
He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

Take care of these gases.
 
It's hundreds of inscriptions

Already answered. See runs outside the Germanic core.

it's words of celtic-origin in modern languages

Already answered. 10-15 % of the French vocabulary is Germanic, while it's a Romance language.

it's the fact that no other languages were found to be spoken in the celtic areas,

Already answered. Wrong. See the Basque toponymy in Galicia, Castilla, Portugal...

toponymy is abundant in the center-west of Iberia. Obviously you are not a historian, they know what they do :rolleyes:

Already answered. See the hundreds or thousands of Germanic toponyms in France. Obviously you are not a historian, just a manipulator.
 
He is not a historian, should work on something as toxic as you do not like too, wanted to move up a place, not having to work with a mask.

Take care of these gases.

Gibberish

_____________________________
 
Already answered. 10-15 % of the French vocabulary is Germanic, while it's a Romance language.
So ? Nobody suggested spanish is a celtic language. Btw germanic languages were spoken in France. (in what is now France).

Already answered. See the hundreds or thousands of Germanic toponyms in France. Obviously you are not a historian, just a manipulator.
I know there are thousands of germanic toponyms in France, because there have been germanic settlements and germanic languages have been spoken in parts of France.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 48217 times.

Back
Top