The Celts of Iberia

[Cambrius (The Red)]

To be honest, this is to be taken with a grain of salt. Herodotus was, in many respects, geographically challenged. We do not know how much knowledge the Greeks in his time (5th century BC) - and how much he actually had of the Atlantic Façade and of Westenr Europe. There is no mentioning for instance of the Iberians by Herodotus, who clearly were in contact with the Greeks.



This is correct. On th other hand, Strabo also describes the Turdetani (who are probably the descends of the Tartessians, as Iberians).



This notion is purely based on the idea that Tartessian is a Celtic language, which can be refuted with certainty (since the examples that Koch brought up do not conform to Celtic sound laws). However, while I wouldn't rule out that Celtic languages were spoken in Iberia by the 9th century BC (in fact, this is kind of inevitable since you cannot otherwise explain the thorough presence of (Q-)Celtic-speaking peoples in Iberia.



I disagree. First off, the Celtic invasion of the Balkans cannot be written away. It resulted in the attempted invasion of Greece (notably, the battle of the Thermopylae in 279 BC). A part of the Celtic tribes (offshots of the Boii and Volcae) moved on further into Anatolia and established the kingdom of Galatia, which lasted until it was subjugated by the Romans. The Galatians clearly came from Central Europe.

Furthermore, there are, although scarce and short, clearly Celtic inscriptions from Austria, Bavaria and Slovenia, written in variants of both the Greek and Etruscan alphabets.

There is also linguistic evidence in the Germanic languages, namely clearly Celtic borrowings which MUST have entered into Proto-Germanic because they correspond to common Germanic sound laws. Proto-Germanic makes the mutation from initial K -> H (compare Latin "centum" with English "hundred").

One example is the word for "steed", which is found in Gaulish as "Marcos" (Breton "Marc'h", Welsh "March"), which is found in English "Mare" and German "Mähre".

There is also the term *Walha- to be considered, which means "foreigner", used in opposition to the term *Theudiskaz ("one's own tribe" - used today for instance in the word "Deutschland"). It is found today in place names like "Wales", "Wallonia" and "Wallachia", and is probably derived from the Celtic tribal name "Volcae".

Perhaps even more drastic is the word for "iron":

Gaulish - "Isarnos"
Irish - "Iarann"
Breton - "Houarn"
Welsh - "Haern"

English - "Iron"
Dutch - "Ijzer"
German - "Eisen"
Gothic - "Isarn"
Swedish - "Järn"

Archaeologically, iron-working arrives in northern Germany / Scandinavia from the Hallstatt Culture. The similarity of Gaulish "Isarnos" and Gothic "Isarn" very striking - you have a clear correlation that iron working must have arrived with the Germanic peoples from Celtic-speaking peoples. Since we know archaeologically speaking when iron-working arrived in northern Germany, we can roughly date this time of Celtic-Germanic contact to approximately 600 BC.

Finally, there is also onomastic evidence. Ptolemy in his "Geographia" offers readily identifiable Celtic place names not only in Noricum and Vindelicia, in fact Celtic town names extend as far as the Main and even as far north and east as Silesia. It's quite astounding that in Ptolemy's time (2nd century AD), a time in which the areas north of the Danube must clearly have been Germanicized, you still find plenty of Celtic town names.

One issue I wanted to add regard for Herodotus, he claims that the Celts (Keltoi) lived near the source of the Istros (Danube). Now, again, Herodotus seems to have been really challenged here because he apparently thought that the Danube was flowing from the Pyrenees through half of Europe. Some people (Koch) think that this is evidence that the Greeks placed the Celts in the Pyrenees, and not into Central Europe. The problem with this is that in the Pyrenees, there is practically no onomastic evidence of Celtic languages - only Basque/Aquitanian and Iberian. Even with the Gaulish tribes in the vicinity of the Pyrenees (for instance, the Volcae Tectosages), there is evidence of an Aquitanian substrate. This shows that the Gauls were relatively recent immigrants in this area. In contrast, there verymuch is Celtic presence in the actual source area of the Danube.

This is, in my opinion, also the key weakness of the hypothesis of the Atlantic School: if the Celtic languages do have their origin in the Atlantic Facade? What does this make of Hallstatt and La-Tene? We cannot simply ignore all the evidence above. Just like Hallstatt/La-Tene (or even Urnfield) cannot explain the presence of Celtic languages in Iberia, the Atlantic Bronze Age alone cannot explain the thorough presence of Celtic-speaking people in Central Europe.

We cannot expect that ancient Greek historians had all their facts correct, given the very limited knowledge of the world at the time but, they were the experts of their day. Therefore, we have to take at least some of what they wrote as accurate; things such as Celtic societal structure, culture, language, religious practices, life style, etc. Herodotus no doubt was geographically challenged, however, he wrote with specificity about where the Celts resided (SW Iberia). He even named the neighboring people, the Cynetes. Given the information that is currently available, it seems that Celtic tribes were settled in the south-west of Iberia by 500 BC and perhaps as far back as the 9th century BC.

From what I can discern, we may be dealing with two distinct regions of Celticity, one in Central Europe and another in Iberia. The commercial circulation theory could be one explanation.

 

[Regulus]

We cannot expect that ancient Greek historians had all their facts correct, given the very limited knowledge of the world at the time but, they were the experts of their day. Therefore, we have to take at least some of what they wrote as accurate; things such as Celtic societal structure, culture, language, religious practices, life style, etc. Herodotus no doubt was geographically challenged, however, he wrote with specificity about where the Celts resided (SW Iberia). He even named the neighboring people, the Cynetes. Given the information that is currently available, it seems that Celtic tribes were settled in the south-west of Iberia by 500 BC and perhaps as far back as the 9th century BC.

From what I can discern, we may be dealing with two distinct regions of Celticity, one in Central Europe and another in Iberia. The commercial circulation theory could be one explanation.

Good point that there are many cases where Herodotus was specific.
The cases in which he mentions certain locations and tribes/groups should be considered valuable sources of information.

He often would cite something yet still indicate that he did not believe it (or rely on the best sources he had about very faraway things) himself, but in the cases of groups of which there was reasonable knowledge at the time, he tended to be on the mark.

 

[Taranis]

We cannot expect that ancient Greek historians had all their facts correct, given the very limited knowledge of the world at the time but, they were the experts of their day. Therefore, we have to take at least some of what they wrote as accurate; things such as Celtic societal structure, culture, language, religious practices, life style, etc. Herodotus no doubt was geographically challenged, however, he wrote with specificity about where the Celts resided (SW Iberia). He even named the neighboring people, the Cynetes. Given the information that is currently available, it seems that Celtic tribes were settled in the south-west of Iberia by 500 BC and perhaps as far back as the 9th century BC.

If you consider that by 6th century BC, the Phoenicians had tight control over the access to the region, Greek knowledge of the hinterlands of Iberia must have been pretty vague (a lot speaks in favour of that - indeed, we don't hear of the Gallaecians and Lusitanians until the Roman conquest of the penninsula).

Regarding the Cynetes, their localization can be actually made by other sources (I believe, Strabo) who place them on "Sacred Promontory", which roughly refers to the Algarve region. The Cynetes were in my opinion a Tartessian-speaking people, because in exactly this area, in fact most of the Tartessian inscriptions were found.

Regarding the Celts, one possible explanation in my opinion, which may be the actual source of Herodotus' confusion was the confusion between the Duero and Danube rivers. The source areas of both rivers were inhabited by Celtic-speaking people. Herodotus, unaware in which direction the rivers were flowing, extrapolated things and argued that the river must be be flowing through all of Europe.

From what I can discern, we may be dealing with two distinct regions of Celticity, one in Central Europe and another in Iberia. The commercial circulation theory could be one explanation.

Basically yes, that's what it looks like. Btw, what do you mean by commercial circulation?

But it also, in my opinion, raises some serious questions in regard for the British Isles. One peculiar aspect that I couldn't ignore is that unlike on the Iberian penninsula where non-Indo-European languages actually survived, the British Isles were apparently completely Celticized by the time they enter into historic record.

 

[Regulus]

I would not disagree with that point. There could have been some confusion or terms.

I do think, though, that the Phoenecians would be restricted to the areas close to the coast. They don't seem to have much control of inland areas until Carthage becomes independent of Tyre and begins to create her own country/empire.

 

[Taranis]

I would not disagree with that point. There could have been some confusion or terms.

I do think, though, that the Phoenecians would be restricted to the areas close to the coast. They don't seem to have much control of inland areas until Carthage becomes independent of Tyre and begins to create her own country/empire.

Well, I'm primarily refering to the access to the far (that is Atlantic) side of the Iberian penninsula. While it is true that the Phoenicians were mostly restricted to areas close to the coast, the key issue is that they had - from the Mediterranean perspective - practical hegemony over the access to the Atlantic due to their settlements along the southern coast of Andalusia. Greek colonies in Iberia were all located along the Mediterranean coast (Catalonia and Valencian country). The chronology is also to be considered here, because Massilia is traditionally considered to have been founded in about 600 BC (150 years before Herodotus' time), and the Greek colonies along the Iberian coast must obviously have been founded later.

 

[Regulus]

Agreed.

I was really looking to conclude that the presence of the Phoenicians in that area would not preclude sizeable groups of others such as Celts or other Iberians in close proximity. It would have been in their best interest to avoid stepping on them too much as doing so would disupt the flow of mined metals from the interior and create a security problem. They were traders if nothing else and they were probably the 16th and 17th century Dutch of their time.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Agreed.

I was really looking to conclude that the presence of the Phoenicians in that area would not preclude sizeable groups of others such as Celts or other Iberians in close proximity. It would have been in their best interest to avoid stepping on them too much as doing so would disupt the flow of mined metals from the interior and create a security problem. They were traders if nothing else and they were probably the 16th and 17th century Dutch of their time.

The Phoenicians established trading colonies in parts of Iberia's southern coast. However, all indications suggest that the total number of Phoenicians was rather small and, essentially, they were only interested in pursuing commercial relationships with local populations; groups that were much larger and stronger. In SW Iberia, the Phoenicians would have traded primarily with the Tartesians, Celtici and Iberians.

I agree that the Phoenicians were mainly traders who probably had no great interest in blocking access to Iberia's Atlantic coasts, for the reasons you outlined.

 

[Carlitos]

In a situation like that, I think, characterized the meeting and "coexistence" between locals and Phoenicians in the SO of the Peninsula, the "economic" activities, "social"and "policies" are woven into a single framework of social relations that is enabling the flow of contacts and exchanges in the colonial area. The presence of sanctuaries, central, such as Gadir or peripherals, such as C?stulo and Alcacer do Sal, gifts, pacts, alliances and marriages were all elements that made ​​possible the structuring of relations between each other in a colonial character marking.

Intermarriage, which have been considered as vehicles of acculturation (Whittaker, 1974: 74; Almagro Gorbea 1983: 446), would be another means employed in the articulation of social ties between the settlers and natives, and a need inherent in many processes of colonization in moving mostly men. Getting women serve to establish relations of partnership and secure family relationships between the Phoenicians and indigenous peoples, through a gift exchange system, similar to that allowed the exchange of manufactured goods and raw materials (L?pez Castro, 1995: 46 .)


Yet we can say that mixed marriages and gifts were actually two aspects of the process whose aim was to create the conditions for a "coexistence" as reflected, for example, in the presence of Phoenician burial spaces in the context of indigenous burial , as in the grave 1 of the necropolis of Las Cumbres, near Cadiz (Ruiz Mata, 1991: 94, 1989a: 213), implying that the colonists had been admitted within the social structure of indigenous group. The procedures may well have been the adoption and / or marriage.

 

[Taranis]

Agreed.

I was really looking to conclude that the presence of the Phoenicians in that area would not preclude sizeable groups of others such as Celts or other Iberians in close proximity. It would have been in their best interest to avoid stepping on them too much as doing so would disupt the flow of mined metals from the interior and create a security problem. They were traders if nothing else and they were probably the 16th and 17th century Dutch of their time.

The Phoenicians established trading colonies in parts of Iberia's southern coast. However, all indications suggest that the total number of Phoenicians was rather small and, essentially, they were only interested in pursuing commercial relationships with local populations; groups that were much larger and stronger. In SW Iberia, the Phoenicians would have traded primarily with the Tartesians, Celtici and Iberians.

I agree that the Phoenicians were mainly traders who probably had no great interest in blocking access to Iberia's Atlantic coasts, for the reasons you outlined.

No, I think you've been misunderstanding me there a little: I'm not saying that the Phoenicians denied the peoples of the Iberian penninsula access to the coast, but they denied the Greeks access to the far side of the Iberian penninsula, which is why Greek knowledge of these regions was rather sketchy. It is probably - if not likely - that the Greeks by Herodotus' time were aware of the Celtiberians, since they are the closest from the parts of the Iberian coast that were actually directly accessible by the Greeks.

Again, what very strongly speaks in favour of that is the fact that the Gallaecians and Lusitanians remain completely unmentioned until the Romans arrive there in the wake of the Punic Wars. Having said that, the Phoenicians themselves probably didn't venture much beyond the Algarve themselves.

 

[Carlitos]

Phoenician colonialism would have nothing to do with the Roman style, but rather would be in partnership, though uneven with the natives and Tartessos expanded its territory, unevenly, so that the expansion was provided by Tartessos, was perhaps even where she needed to go.

 

[Grizzly]

edit
_____________________________________________

 

[Grizzly]

You have posted nothing that is even remotely acceptable or reliable...You are rolling a boulder up a mountain... Come on guy, try and refute the evidence. Try it. Go on little Grizz. You will be embarrassed again and again.

Go to the thread "Italo-celtic expansion" and stop spewing garbage.

The Celts were a LARGE majority in Iberia. Read the material on this thread and others, and stop spewing garbage.

No. First, by the sources that I had posted. Second because it is completely non-sense that Celtic disappears in Southern France, and suddenly "re-shows-up" in Iberia.

 

[Grizzly]

Interesting link

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html

Nice example of E-Keltoi bullshit and propaganda. Their affirmations are founded on nothing, excepted maybe some scattered inscriptions which does not prove anything.

 

[Grizzly]

I've shown plenty of sources from different studies saying that Celts were a majority in the center-west of Iberia. Read the previous pages where I posted those sources.

Excepted E-Keltoi and one of their puppets Cunliffe, I did not see any consensus about this, it is exactly the opposite.

That's what all professionals do to make the conlcusions, not only in Iberia but anywhere.

Non-sense. Scandinavian toponymy is very dense in Normandy, while this region has never spoke any Scandinavian dialect (excepted a thin minority).


Anyways, you also forget all the ancient authors that wrote about Iberia. So, we have pleny of ancient sources talking about the celts of Iberia, the hundreds of celtic inscriptions, the archaelogy, the toponyms, the words of celtic origin in the local dialects,etc but you think it's all a fantasy ? What world are you living in ?

Read the study that I posted, it's from the Real Academy of History and the Casa Velázquez, where they make an approximate calculation of the population of celtiberians, around 400.000 people, (40% of the entire Peninsula), but that's only the celtiberians, without counting all the other celtic tribes. So yes, a majority.

Yeah, Celts were minority and rare in SW France, and suddenly hundreds of thousands of Celts appear out of nowhere in Iberia.

 

[Grizzly]

Perhaps he has a conceptual issue with respect to differentiating majority from minority. Certain maladies can cause this type of confusion.

Perhaps you have a conceptual issue with respect to differentiating majority from minority. Certain maladies can cause this type of confusion.

 

[Grizzly]

@Grizzly:

Mr. Twilight Zone, here is a challenge for you: Send all your odd-ball notions on Spanish and Portuguese Celticity to some of the top Celtic studies programs in the world for comment. I dare you. Here are three of the best to begin...

@Cambria Red :

Mr. Twilight Zone, here is a challenge for you: Send all your odd-ball notions on Spanish and Portuguese Celticity to some of the top Celtic studies programs in the world for comment. I dare you. Here are three of the best to begin:

1) Hector Iglesias (University of Bordeaux III)
2) Beatriz Santana (University of Madrid)
3) Independant archaeologists : Angus Konstam, Paul Graves and so on...Time to get real little guy.

You can try also bibliothecas, books and other supports and other universities, especially Portuguese and Spanish ones.

BTW, I notice that you strangely choose American ones instead of Spanish ones. The question is now : why ?

 

[Grizzly]

@Grizzly

Here is the advisory board listing for the e-Keltoi journal that you think is so "controversial". Some of the top experts in the world from the best programs.

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/v6frontmatter.html

E-Keltoi is not a reliable source. BTW, even this source is not so affirmative as you would like :

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.pdf

Some quotes :

- p.16 : "Analysis of the literary sources reveals an enormously complex Celtiberia whose geographic scope and ethnic composition are difficult to define and substantially changed during the process of the Roman conquest and subsequent Romanization."

- p.29 : "Even though literary sources do not talk specifically about each of the ingredients contained within the mélange, we could hazard a guess that the Celtic components would include their language" .

- p.55 : "The issue can be summed up as follows: The Castro Culture has its origins in the Late Bronze Age, and there is evidence for continuity and an indigenous evolution throughout the Early Iron Age."

- p.61 : "This situation stigmatizes the issue of Celticization as a legitimate subject of academic research, making matters worse by leaving it wide open to manipulation in the hands of pseudo-researchers and Celtophiles with more enthusiasm than intelligence or scholarly training."

Clear ? Even for your support, there is a real controversy. Full stop.

 

[Grizzly]

Because certain types refuse to accept reality.

I agree. We are fed up, now, Wilhelm.

 

[sparkey]

One thing I don't understand about your criticisms, Grizzly, is how you mean to explain away the Celtiberian language as being Q-Celtic. If the Celts in Iberia were a minority from Gaul, wouldn't we expect P-Celtic to be spoken among them? Why the large difference? Your examples about Scandinavian language in Normandy also seems a bad refutation in light of this. Usually, a ruling class will use the same language as where they came from, but to establish a distinct language takes a long time of being the dominant culture in an area.

 

[Grizzly]

We cannot expect that ancient Greek historians had all their facts correct, given the very limited knowledge of the world at the time but, they were the experts of their day.

The ancient Greeks used the word "Celtiberians" about Spain. But :
- they have never said that they spoke any Celtic language. They have just described the political situation, like later, scholars will call a certain region of NW France a land where the Norman live. If we would not have texts to prove that the Romance language was majority in Normandy, some people would say today that Normandy was a Scandinavian region. Politically, yes, some cultural varnish in toponymy and dialect, yes, but the language was still French and not scandinavian.
- for some archaeologists (see D.Garcia in University of Marseille), the world Celtiberian or Celtoligurian refer to Ligurian and Iberian peoples living in a land hold by the Celts.