The Italo-Celtic expansion

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I agree. The DNA statistics on Eupedia are likely the most accurate and well organized you will find on the web.

 

[Smertrius]

Why can't i edit older posts? I wanted to delete the quotes i posted the 13th...

 

[carpathia]

You are talking about results from commercial companies like Family Tree DNA or Genebase. The frequency tables on this website uses mostly scientific studies sampling directly local people. They are not based on the self-reported ancestry of Americans.



Several studies have been used for each country. All have more than 100 samples, many over 500 samples, and big countries have over 1000 samples each. Believe it or not, this is statistically significant.

Once again.. I will need to disagree.. there are euro orgs like YHRD.org that are relevant, and there are MANY pub lished papers that.. Cumutively.. have meaningful data.
the problem is, THESE are NOT the data sets that contain up-to-date SNP results, and probably will not ever be the source of current SNP data..

YHRD for example relies on linking haplotypes from very small, limited marker sets, which seemed relevant 5 years ago, when that was the extent of data available, but today is of almost no relevance in a 12 marker Y-dna set.. thats the reality.

The SNP data (P-312, for example) is today almost entirely from self-funded family/individual studies, that slant heavily toward americans who seek a origin, which is commonly in the British Isles, and western (afluent) europeans with the interest, access, and disposable income..
to suggest this show a p-312 bias toward the british isles is true not in the scentific sense, but is quite accurate in the projected samlpe origin most often encountered in these hobbyist/self-funders who are choosing to undertake these new SNP tests..

So, in conclusion, if you keep trying to interpret R y-dna Ht's based on allele frequency in regions.. go ahead, but its not informative in 75% of Euro 'R', and the recent SNP results ARE drawn from the either useless (american hobbyists) pool, or the money-pool (germans, english) thus undermining any conclusions that can be drawn from the results.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Afrocentrics are delusional. They uncritically accept just about anything that even remotely suggests Black contribution. In other words, they believe their own BS...

This is interesting ... in reverse.

I was living in Rhodesia during the last gasp of Ian Smith´s government. Still then it was believed (well, maintained) that the Zimbabwe ruins were the remnants of European architecture. "The blacks couldn´t possibly have built cities!" :useless:

 

[carpathia]

This is interesting ... in reverse.

I was living in Rhodesia during the last gasp of Ian Smith´s government. Still then it was believed (well, maintained) that the Zimbabwe ruins were the remnants of European architecture. "The blacks couldn´t possibly have built cities!" :useless:

considering that the excavations of the great zimbabwe site reveal arab coinage dating to the cities active period,
and chinese glassware in the debris layer from the active period of the city,
and considering that the locale would not have been able to independently support the estimated work force/resident population of well over 18,000 on its own without outside resupply of provisions.. i.e., a supply chain/route, it is more than a little rash to delcare the great zimbabwe ruins uniquely african.

There is virtually no doubt that the actual workforce engaged in the construction was african, but that is a different matter from asserting that it was designed or directed by the local population, (bantu) which had no other record of such works throughout the vast regions of africa also occupied by bantu populations...

The building works seem you refer to are restricted to GOLD MINING regions around the great zimbabwe, that would have been very valuable for exploitation by non-barter states, whereas to the africans of that area although the gold itself was of little/no interest the trade goods from those who supplied them the arab / chinese goods found in situ would have been a good reason to assemble mines and defensive works.

The only thing worse than, without critical examination, declaring that 'X' population could never have constructed this,
is deliberately omitting evidence that they did not independently do so of their own spontaneous volition.

the slave forts of coastal gambia were also built by african labor, but that does not mean they are african-derived works.

The lack of a vast historical record detailing the location of a prized gold mine is not really surprising, as the patron state would not have been eager to publicize a productive gold source, however that secrecy is today a popular excuse for trying to turn the great zimbabwe into some unique african-bantu 'BRIGADOON' built without any foreign guidance.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

considering that the excavations of the great zimbabwe site reveal arab coinage dating to the cities active period,
and chinese glassware in the debris layer from the active period of the city,
and considering that the locale would not have been able to independently support the estimated work force/resident population of well over 18,000 on its own without outside resupply of provisions.. i.e., a supply chain/route, it is more than a little rash to delcare the great zimbabwe ruins uniquely african.

There is virtually no doubt that the actual workforce engaged in the construction was african, but that is a different matter from asserting that it was designed or directed by the local population, (bantu) which had no other record of such works throughout the vast regions of africa also occupied by bantu populations...

The building works seem you refer to are restricted to GOLD MINING regions around the great zimbabwe, that would have been very valuable for exploitation by non-barter states, whereas to the africans of that area although the gold itself was of little/no interest the trade goods from those who supplied them the arab / chinese goods found in situ would have been a good reason to assemble mines and defensive works.

The only thing worse than, without critical examination, declaring that 'X' population could never have constructed this,
is deliberately omitting evidence that they did not independently do so of their own spontaneous volition.

the slave forts of coastal gambia were also built by african labor, but that does not mean they are african-derived works.

The lack of a vast historical record detailing the location of a prized gold mine is not really surprising, as the patron state would not have been eager to publicize a productive gold source, however that secrecy is today a popular excuse for trying to turn the great zimbabwe into some unique african-bantu 'BRIGADOON' built without any foreign guidance.

Well. If we are going to make philosophical guessing (which is what we´re doing) then it would be equally logical to say that the prescence of Africans is as least as revealing as the prescence of "arab coinage
and chinese glassware". Zimbabwe´s natural resources and the prescence of foreign goods merely indicates that trading was taking place.

Considering that Africa is after all Africa it must be a fact that Africans live across the whole of the continent, south of the Sahara (in any case). I think it is logical and true that various African tribes were trading amongst one another and that those of south central Africa had contact (either directly or by proxy) with the coastal African tribes. Yes?

So isn´t it as possible that the coinage and glass were traded along the way stage by stage? After all, you are not suggesting that the prescense of Zimbabwe gold in the Arab pensinsula indictes that African explorers from that region had travelled so far. Very curious.

 

[carpathia]

Well. If we are going to make philosophical guessing (which is what we´re doing) then it would be equally logical to say that the prescence of Africans is as least as revealing as the prescence of "arab coinage
and chinese glassware". Zimbabwe´s natural resources and the prescence of foreign goods merely indicates that trading was taking place.

Considering that Africa is after all Africa it must be a fact that Africans live across the whole of the continent, south of the Sahara (in any case). I think it is logical and true that various African tribes were trading amongst one another and that those of south central Africa had contact (either directly or by proxy) with the coastal African tribes. Yes?

So isn´t it as possible that the coinage and glass were traded along the way stage by stage? After all, you are not suggesting that the prescense of Zimbabwe gold in the Arab pensinsula indictes that African explorers from that region had travelled so far. Very curious.

Sub-saharan Africa is almost entirely, pre-contact, a barter economy, so I do not think the coins are indicative of medium of trade as such, they are likely indicative of the presence at the FORTIFIED site, of representatives from the (arab,asian ) state(s) who lived at the site and lost/dropped the coinage.

The bantu at the LATER time of the boers and english were not stockpiling gold reserves or striking coinage, as they did not use it for the exchange medium.

This means that the gold resource extracted most probably was not valued beyond personal adornment by the local populous,
but was retrieved in exchage for other goods, to parties for whom it was of value..
Similar to the oil, diamonds, minerals, that the africans still today produce under guidance, but themsleves had no internal cumbustion engine to utilise the oil, no industrial machinery to create cutting tools from the diamonds..etc...

If you wish to agonizingly seek to assert that the foreign goods excavated were trasported overland to the (difficult) site by the africans who recieved them in trade elsewhere,
then you need to show the roads constructed to the site for such purpose, you need to show the evidence from other of the thousands of Bantu populations across the african continent who built similar fortifications autonomously...etc..

NONE of these prerequisites exist. The truth is what it is.. trying to twist it one way or the other in service of a specific agenda in defiance of known information is as dishonest as the assertion that a caucasian Prester John created the site.. their is no basis in fact for your assertions or the adherents of the prester john theorum.

Zimbabwean gold in arabia would be indicative of arab exports as they had a known trade/shipping network and the Bantu did not...
if you have information of a Bantu ship-building and high-seas trading network that would be ground breaking information, and you should not keep the world in such suspence and darkness.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Zimbabwean gold in arabia would be indicative of arab exports as they had a known trade/shipping network and the Bantu did not...
if you have information of a Bantu ship-building and high-seas trading network that would be ground breaking information, and you should not keep the world in such suspence and darkness.

You have missed my point entirely. I´m certain that I can supply you with "information" of an African trade line stretching from Zimbabwe to the coast - which IS my point.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

We need to be a bit clearer, Carpathia.


Cambria Red expressed his view about what he calls “Delusional Afrocentrics”. I want to say that the “delusion” goes both ways.


I have the impression that you are willing to disprove the possibility of Africans having built/designed/orchestrated/whatever early Zimbabwe dwellings. In order to support this disproof, you are taking facts and using them to formulate “theories”. The more facts you can turn into self-supporting theories the better you able to gain momentum in which to turn facts, to theories, to likelihood or even “truth”.


I am not challenging your theories in order to convince you of anything other than that your theories are just not good enough. Neither am I trying to prove that Africans have built anything but I am offering alternative theories to those same facts so that you will not make excessive judgements and come to false convictions.


If you use on-site findings of Arab coins and Chinese glassware as proof of non-African presence, then “Chariots of the Gods” followers might just as well say that if there are no sufficient, comprehensible, trail-findings of those objects outside of Zimbabwe it offers “proof” that those objects fell from the heavens.


I know very well that you’ve prepared much more than simple coins and glassware in organizing your encompassing hypothesis, and I appreciate that, but if each individual theory can be contested (by logic) it will keep us true to making correct judgement (in the final analysis) not only about Africans but the whole of history/humanity.

 

[carpathia]

We need to be a bit clearer, Carpathia.


Cambria Red expressed his view about what he calls “Delusional Afrocentrics”. I want to say that the “delusion” goes both ways.


I have the impression that you are willing to disprove the possibility of Africans having built/designed/orchestrated/whatever early Zimbabwe dwellings. In order to support this disproof, you are taking facts and using them to formulate “theories”. The more facts you can turn into self-supporting theories the better you able to gain momentum in which to turn facts, to theories, to likelihood or even “truth”.


I am not challenging your theories in order to convince you of anything other than that your theories are just not good enough. Neither am I trying to prove that Africans have built anything but I am offering alternative theories to those same facts so that you will not make excessive judgements and come to false convictions.


If you use on-site findings of Arab coins and Chinese glassware as proof of non-African presence, then “Chariots of the Gods” followers might just as well say that if there are no sufficient, comprehensible, trail-findings of those objects outside of Zimbabwe it offers “proof” that those objects fell from the heavens.


I know very well that you’ve prepared much more than simple coins and glassware in organizing your encompassing hypothesis, and I appreciate that, but if each individual theory can be contested (by logic) it will keep us true to making correct judgement (in the final analysis) not only about Africans but the whole of history/humanity.

to be perfectly clear, you apparently have lived in Rhodesia while I have never visited, nor am I trained as a formal archaeologist.

That said,
I suspect a bit of the modern history of disputed origin concerning this site and its surroundings may influence you to a certain extent to over-identify with one unlikely conclusion in response to Ian Smith's own unlikely/disproven conclusion(s)..

This site has been so stripped and pilfered that much of the material that could be of use in drawing conclusions was long ago defaced or carried off by both africans and europeans.. only the buried/hidden trinkets of materiel remain.

So,.. conclusion can still be drawn, based on fact not whimsey, and this is not to compare with Von Daniken etc.. and nonsensical science fiction. Human nature is human nature, and we all can recognize it.

There are no adornment (remaining..) in great zimbabwe that one would compare to a 'CITY' built to a residential/local cultural purpose as one would find in the Yucatan, Egyptian, Peruvian native-culturally built cities..

So, the conclusion can be drawn that these structures either were utterly and completely stripped of such adornments, carvings, murals, artwork, etc.. to include its buried layers that have since been excavated,
OR it was built strictly for a purpose of gold recovery and had no intrinsic local cutural purpose as would be found in a native 'city' anywhwere else in the world during this time.

The excavated materiel was not valued by the local populous beyond personal adornment, nor was it used in barter by the local population ONLY 100-150 years after the site was abandoned/played out of ore..
this is as strong of a conclusion as one can hope to ascertain, that the site was not one of locally INSPIRED creation, as the populous did not utilize the substance for the purpose of a item of stored value only 150 years after the sites closure and the onset of portugese exploration of the area.

The local populous is a herding population that could never sustain the population of site in a fixed location, without the large scale agricuture it lacked.

The arab / muslim, like the iberians they subjected later did, were combing the perimiters of the continent at this time looking for... GOLD.. AND SILVER..

the arab / muslim world has a large fleet and vast trading network,

the s.s. africans have no maritime trading capacity,

THE MOST reasonable postion for on its face, prior to modern investigation, to question whether the site was a spontaneous local creation is that as you know, Bantu populations proliferate across s.s. africa, and have no history in (non-ore bearing) regions outside of zimbabwe of creating such structures of their own volition.

additionally, the site is a long difficult land journey to the coast especially in its period of operation, and those who developed the site would not be able to easily or regularly traverse that distance. So,.. if you are a arab trade representative, far from the coast and surrounded by other tribal groups that are threatening, the first response of that time in the Islamic or european world was to create fortifications with what you had on hand. This was not the tradition of the local african population who had difficulty even breaching a simple boer kraal under cover of darkness.

Lastly, the 'mystery' of the site is in its absence of record in written history.. however when one considers whether you would be likely to tell your neighbors today that your fortune is kept hidden in your home under the mattress, it is not hard to see why the mine was not known / advertised, in the islamic world.

The trade goods/supplies at the site 'prove' nothing from the perspective of absolutes, but in conjunction of the other findings and known factors of that era, and subsequent eras of contact, we can with a 100% confidence interval state-

that the site was a contact point for non-africans, almost certainly with a interest in the ore exploitation,

the site would have been constructed by native labor and mined by native labor,

the local population had no concept of monetization for the rare metals even after the period of inital ore production had played out.

dry stacked stone was the avail. materiel on site for the fortification process, so dry stacked stone was used..
(it is possible that Bantu in other regions spontaneously/natively constructed similar fortifications from wood or degrading materials and these have long been lost to time.. but this is absolute speculation and unproven)

All in all, the ultimate conclusion is that their was certain non-african participation in the great zimbabwe site to SOME extent,
and this extent will likely never be agreed upon by those who want to make it either a pre-contact african cutural site, or those who want to de-africanize the site totally.

My own OPINION..
the key to the site may have been lost in a destoyed library/city during the muslim conquest of Arabia, under the conclusion that the document was 'un-islamic' for having pretty pictures on it,
or record of it may have been burned during the sacking of a court in the course of moorish expulsion from Iberia..etc..

Either way, once again in MY OPINION.. I do not believe its a site developed and fortified at the whim of the local Bantu, based on the known FACTS, but I do believe it was constructed by their labor.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

..... the ultimate conclusion ....... will likely never be agreed upon by those who want to make it either a pre-contact african cutural site, or those who want to de-africanize the site totally....

This is the proper "Bottom line".

 

[philips]

NE French and SW Germans (if you consider that germanisation was not too heavy is this region) are probably the closest populations to what the hallsttat and La Tène peoples, and then the celts, were.
Then to my understanding when i look at your map, they don't have the same Y-DNA composition, R-L21 and I2b being the major british hgs (and not even reaching 10% in SWG and NEF) while R-S28 is the principal SWG and NEF hg (and not reaching 10% in the British Isles).
So Y-DNA speaking, the british can't be related to the Hallstatt and LaTène peoples and then can't be called "celts".

I am tying to put it somehow together since my knowledge of subclades within haplogroups is fractional. The most probable, if we take Hallstatt-LaTiene road, is the start of Celto-Italic in the Alps and around, this includes both R-21 and S-28 present or still undifferentiated when Celto-Italic had been formed. Celtic and Italic are limited to Western Europe and this is where the mega branch must have been formed. The future Italics migrated south, the majority of R-21 crossed the channel and finally a branch of Celtic – S28 broke off and followed ages later. The split into P and Q may well be the result of that very split reflected in Y-DNA.

 

[philips]

Vulgar latin replaced the indigenous languages in the western part of the empire because romanisation was way stronger there than in the eastern part which was more influenced by the Greek Civilisation.
Your Italo-Celtic theory doesn't explain the replacement of Iberian, Lusitanian, or Punic languages.

Vulgar Latin is a tricky bit cause no one really knows how it was formed and when. The same thing by extension can be said about Romanization. At the time of widespread Romanization Italo-Celtic split was evident and passé. But Maciamo is kind of right. Except Vasconic, in one particular region, and scraps of Celtic, no other traces are found under the Romance layer. Despite far gone separate evolving of Latin and Celtic, they still greatly resembled each other and the local Gallic dialects were soaked up.

 

[Maciamo]

I am tying to put it somehow together since my knowledge of subclades within haplogroups is fractional. The most probable, if we take Hallstatt-LaTiene road, is the start of Celto-Italic in the Alps and around, this includes both R-21 and S-28 present or still undifferentiated when Celto-Italic had been formed. Celtic and Italic are limited to Western Europe and this is where the mega branch must have been formed. The future Italics migrated south, the majority of R-21 crossed the channel and finally a branch of Celtic – S28 broke off and followed ages later. The split into P and Q may well be the result of that very split reflected in Y-DNA.

There isn't such a thing as R-21. It's either R-L21, which is common in the British Isles, northern France and Germany, or R-S21, which is more common in the Benelux, northern Germany and eastern England. R-L21 is usually considered Celtic like R-S28, while R-S21 is younger and probably arrived through a different/later route from the East and is usually associated with the migration of Germanic tribes.

 

[philips]

Sorry for misspelling. I had in mind R-L21 and R-S28, both Celts, both from central Europe from Alps. What I was driving at is the association of p-celtic with R-L21 and q-Celtic with R-S28. The first arrived first to Britain and the second R-S28 came later speaking what would become Irish. But if so, R-S28 should have been numerous in Ireland and this is not the case, so… I am puzzled.

 

[Maciamo]

Sorry for misspelling. I had in mind R-L21 and R-S28, both Celts, both from central Europe from Alps. What I was driving at is the association of p-celtic with R-L21 and q-Celtic with R-S28. The first arrived first to Britain and the second R-S28 came later speaking what would become Irish. But if so, R-S28 should have been numerous in Ireland and this is not the case, so… I am puzzled.

That's a likely possibility (ignoring the few R-L21 in Germany and Scandinavia diluted in the wider R1b mass), but it's still too early to know for sure.

 

[Neander]

I don't know why we should link the R1b with indo-european languages, while the center of R1b is basque people?

I think the original language of R1b invaders was basque, and celtic language is native in Europe. Then invaders took native wives, but invaders continued to fight, so they were not at home to learn the basque language their childrens, and these childrens learned the language of mother (mother tongue), celtic language.

 

[Regulus]

Much of what comprises this particular thread is what actually drew me to seek a forum where matters such as these could be debated.

I don’t always succeed at this, but again I will endeavor to walk the fine line between too much and too little in trying to frame the argument.

It appears that there are several claims:

1. That Celtic languages came to Western Spain/Portugal, Britain, Ireland, Scotland, etc. by means other than migrations. (I.e. Cultural diffusion)

2. That Celtic languages are indigenous to Western Europe and consequently were there before any large-scale westward migrations. An alternative suggested is that the Basques were the migrants in this case.

3. That the term Celts as a people/ethnic group can only be associated with Halstatt/La Tene (H/LT) culture (Gaul previously being the most common word for this)

In the last twenty years, I began to find that a large amount of writers have argued that very much of what traditionally had been recognized with little of no debate as Celtic/Proto-Celtic settled lands were not really settled by these people at all or just barely so with no genetic impact. There are various versions, but all look to claim that these areas experienced no real migrations from East to West in those times.

In addition to this, the word Celt was redefined and began to be applied solely to those who lived in or were part of the Halstatt/la Tene culture.

On the first point, we are fortunate that very recent genetic results are playing a big role and so far appear to be mostly confirming what had long been taught/held until the last twenty years or so – that there were a number of successive waves of bronze-age warriors who moved into Western Europe in large numbers (maybe mostly men, again deferring to more genetic results). These people brought with them the cattle-rearing culture, new styles of warfare religion, heroic myths and society, possibly lactose-tolerance, and a number of other changes such as language.

In opposition to this are the claims from the last maybe 20 years that the lack of physical signs of war-type destruction negate the possibility of any large-scale migration and that the existence of Brythonic, Galician, and Gaelic Celtic is the result of cultural diffusion. In response to this, I would have to say that the societies that existed in Western Europe at the dawn of the migrations were not of the type that would leave any appreciable physical evidence of destruction for archaeologists to excavate later. Neither is it necessary that these societies were destroyed at all – the socioeconomic change over to stockbreeding, etc, would have happened more slowly than would have the arrival of those who were to bring that change. In other words, we can’t expect in any way what is to be found in more developed societies like those of the Middle East, Modern-day Turkey, etc., like layers of burnt-down buildings.

The replacement of indigenous languages, however, is even more of a push if one is trying to state that appreciable migrations did not occur. Please cite an example if I am wrong here, but I cannot find one example of a language “moving” almost lock, stock, and barrel across such distances and peoples as is claimed without a significant migrations of people. Saxon England held on to much of its language after the French-speaking dynasties had many years of their rule, the Normans themselves adopted French after settling in Normandy, and it clearly took a determined and widespread effort in the modern era to get the Welsh, Irish, and Scottish to take on English as their main language. To summarize the last sentence, an entire region of peoples simply does not look out across the frontier and start bringing in a language from a foreign people, nor would it progress on its own in waves without its native speakers bringing it.

The second claim, as I mentioned, appears to be the boldest one of all. Here we have a language that is still extant enough to be studied thoroughly. It has been dissected and analyzed by linguists, who have little problems seeing how it fits into the bigger picture of proto Italo-Celtic (possibly with Germanic too in this group). From there the fit into proto Indo-European is just as clear. Those who stick by this claim are forced to explain how a language with apparent origins such as this somehow evolved apart from the rest of the PIE languages. I find no place with which to begin when it comes to this topic. The knowledge of what Gaelic, Galician, and Brythonic are should be enough if one is even barely trying to be reasonable.
The Basques, the group that has maintained their language until this day while literally being surrounded by PIE-speakers, speak of their ancient existence, apparently in the same general area, with great pride. Their old phrase that “When God needed the bones to make the first man, he went to a Basque cemetery” speaks not of being irreverent but of their understanding and appreciation of how far they go back. From this forum I have learned that many of the Y-DNA in Basques males appears to have come from the migrations mentioned here.
It is certainly very possible if not probable that male migrants to this area did become absorbed by the culture and language, leaving behind their DNA. The same thing appears to have occurred with the Tocharians in the East albeit on a much longer time frame.



The conflicting claims about whom should be referred to as a Celt appear to have a “putting the cart before the horse” origin. The Halstatt Celts, as were the La Tene Celts that followed, would be accurately described as cultural phenomena. The Halstatts were, along with Italy and Greece, the cradle of the Iron Age in Western Europe. This was the period where what is indisputably Celtic to all developed. It is here that they can properly be referred to as “Gauls” to help distinguish them from other Celts. The later La Tene phase saw the greatest growth in power and prestige during this time, their weaponry, armor, and artwork reached its greatest sophistication. They may very well been the recipients of dynastic migrations and movements from Eastern Europe, (maybe even refugee Cimmerians earlier on, or some German admixture) but they otherwise were the same people. The La Tene age saw the development Gaulic armies into what we recognize today, with the aristocrats having fine mail armor, helmets with winged creatures, etc. The confusion results in assuming that the extent in area of their cultural achievements is the same as all those related to them. Halstatt culture reached farther on some parts of the map than did La Tene, yet both were Celts. When one assumes that only those from these two cultures can be called Celts, he sort of paints himself into a corner. We have the same Italo-Celts ranging into Europe in successive migrations. Due to their early widespread expansion, as opposed to the Germans and the Slavs, (both of which spread widely later) we of course will note that the closeness of kin is probably less than that of the two latter groups. This does not mean that the far-western Celts are not related to those in Central Europe or that they are appreciable different from them. It just means that the “family” is more extended, such as that of the various Italic tribes after moving in to Italy. If we restrict the word Celt to those to whom the achievements of Halstatt and later less widespread La Tene people, we are left with no explanation on what to call those of the same base group who moved into Western Europe and its fringes during the Bronze Age. According to this principle, we could not call them Celts. We would be even less able to call them Italics or Germans. We are left with a somewhat unidentified group (Maybe “Proto IE – not otherwise specified” or “P-/Q- Celtic”) of people who descended from those of the Bronze-Age migrations but did not attain high enough of a cultural level to warrant the term Celt.
A grasping for a label could possibly result in using Ligurian, which some see as the midway point between Italic and Celtic, but that would be a big push since Ligurians appear to be restricted to Southern Europe.

The most reasonable conclusion that I would suggest in this case is to use the term Gauls to specify those of the H/LT cultures and Goidelic (Gaelic), Brythonic, Celtiberian, or similar variations to specify Celts not belonging to the Gauls. A good point to remember is that societies on the outer fringes tend to be the most conservative and slowest to change. We can’t simply look at the extent of physical evidence of a culture and draw our own line there.



My personal theory on why we have seen most of these changes in outlook in the last twenty years is that there was still a backlash from the gross abuses of the 19th century racial theorists. The people of that time kept equating “Nordic” with “Aryan”, causing all kinds of problems, misunderstandings, and ultimately, horrors. One result was a sort of intellectual movement to try to find new explanations for how the settling of Europe occurred. This would have been in order to eliminate the picture of the old Bronze-Age migrations, which were the start of the Indo-European movements into Europe. If the IE movements could be considered to be much smaller and less far-reaching, then we would be less likely to fall victim to racial purists and start measuring people’s heads again. The result of this was a radical swing to the other direction, where little or no migrations occurred and the IE movements were either marginalized or dismissed outright. The most radical of them all was where some hold that the IE movements started in Northern India, leaving the Aryans behind. These people apparently at that time decided not to move southwards into central and Southern India to look for greener pastures, but somehow got the idea, “Hey, let’s go across the mountains (Hindu Kush - Khyber Pass) and bring everything with us!” Peoples will often cross mountains to get to better climates, but in order to get to a harsher place?

Ultimately, I am extraordinarily happy that genetic testing can tell us so much today. It is sort of like doing math now. Either the numbers fit, or they don’t. If the math shows a movement and branching off of people(s) and that this can be even roughly dated, then one would be hard-pressed to argue that it did not happen. I came to this forum for information about this, and will remain here for the purpose of learning and sharing when I can.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

You may want to read J. Koch, Tartessian (2009) and Cunliffe and Koch, Celtic form the West (2010). They and others have recently provided some very compelling evidence that Celticity developed first in SW Iberia and spread north and east through extensive commerce and socio-cultural circulation.

 

[Regulus]

I did not mention any particular writer as I intended to describe positions such as theirs to be a more recent trend. Again, I would submit that anyone trying to prove that Celtic people, language, or culture came from Iberia without that Iberian base itself coming first from PIE migrants (or lat least a merged Bell-Beaker/Urnfield culture) has as an uphill battle on his hands. This would stand in opposition to the tremendous amount of evidence that points to large and repeated waves of Bronze-Age migrants. (DNA too appears to confirm this)
Also, attempting to explain that the culture, etc. originated there (Iberia) also proves little as even the Irish know of migrants from that region. It is not a push to say that those migrants are still clearly Indo-Europeans or have a signifigant amount of those people.
Recall that I did not say that the Bronze-Age migrants came to Ireland only by way of moving directly across Britain. Iberia can very well be the source for a number of them also.

The West coast of the Iberian Peninsula received many of the oldest waves of Proto Celts. They dominated much of the peninsula until native Iberians regained control of most of the interior. This was followed by yet another wave of Celts. By the seventh century BCE, Halstatt Celts have arrived.

I welcome further discussion here.