The Italo-Celtic expansion

[villandra]

Italo-Celtic is a language family. The ancestors of the Italians and the Celts spoke a common dialect of the Indo-European language family. Thus it is not surprising that the two groups share an SNP. However, there should be archeological evidence of common roots between the two peoples. I can't find any evidence of this, only vague arguments about, as nearly as I can tell, whether Italo-Celtic really existed. Example, an article on the place of the verb in those two dialects.

What is the common cultural root of these two peoples? There must be one. Common language and common SNP.

 

[Regulus]

Yes, or course we are aware that Italo-Celt refers primarily to a language group. There have been many citings here in this forum of genetic evidence pointing to a westward expansion of people who were probably the carriers of this language group. I encourage people to investigate the genetic evidence provided here and in other places. It is not hard to find.

Again, I will note that the societies the resided in these areas were not of the type that would leave evidence of destruction like we would see in more developed cultures. We do not find "tells" of consequence from that time period here compared to say, Israel. Also again, I find it highly unlikely that the first migrants would have had the numbers necessary been able to walk up and start destroying things. Even when further migrations did provide the numbers, why would they do it? To start a famine that would affect them too? There were no urban areas that would pose a security threat to them and changing over to a stock rearing culture does not happen overnight. Thus the change would be gradual by necessity.
The setting up of a requirement that we must be able to dig up signs of physical destruction for something to have happened is, in my opinion, a clear case of applying a false logic. People today are often convicted in court on the basis of testimony, etc. with little or no physical evidence.


One caveat, though. Many of the sources that make arguments to the contrary appear to be the work of revisionists influenced by the same desires that I mentioned in the last paragraph of my first post here.
I find the arguments from recent (maybe twenty) years to go some what in circles in their attempts to paint an entirely different picture.

 

[Grizzly]

My estimation is that Italic split off from Celtic when Celts moved to the Italian peninsula around 1200 BCE. The split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic might date to 2300 BCE.

We must see the proto-"Celtic", "Germanic", "Italic"...languages just as creoles of proto-indoeuropean languages. So, there hasn't been a split from Celts, but different adaptations of the indo-european languages, in function of the substratum (often Neolithic).

 

[Grizzly]

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.

It is not compelling at all. It is in the complete contradiction of the historic and archaeologic founds. We have very few Celtic heritage in Spain (few toponyms, no chariot, no oppida...). In fact, the more you approach Garonne river, the more Celtic culture disappears. Celts were probably scattered groups in Iberia (like some minorities in Balkans), maybe aristocratic groups, but surely not the culture of the peoples who lived there.

The only real knowledge that we can prove with history (roman texts) and archaeology, is that the Celtic language, which was a local indo-european creole, has spread from Southern Germany, probably due to agricultural developpement which made increase demographics and made farmers going further to the plains of Western Europe.

 

[Regulus]

I never thought to use the word Creole to describe the variants of PIE. I like it.

Your point about Celts never being homogenous in the Iberian Peninsula brings up a good angle. I touched on it briefly in one of my replies but you probably said it better than I did. There was an appreciable amount of mixing of peoples there as we see indicated in Latin Texts such as Livy's "The War with Hannibal". His repeated references to “Celtiberians” seem to show that the Romans knew or believed that both groups existed there and that many of the tribes were amalgamations of the two groups. If I had to guess, I would say that there were more ethnic Iberians there than Celts. I would not be surprised at all if those who lived in Ireland prior to the arrival of the Celts were of a similar ethnic group as in Iberia. Linguists today hold that some of the grammar/diction of these first inhabitants in Ireland lives on in Gaelic, which has different order of sentence structure but otherwise is clearly of proto-Indo-European origin.

 

[Regulus]

Maciamo wrote a while back of finding a correlation between ancient locations of valuable metal deposits and today’s existence of Possible Indo-European Y and even suspected mitochondrial DNA in those same areas. We may want to consider that this could have been the case in Iberia as it was a major provider of many metals in ancient times.
I looked up the thread and saw that I forgot that it did note a correlation in Iberia. The post listed below is on this forum.

Metal-mining and stockbreeding explain R1b dominance in Atlantic fringe

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

It is not compelling at all. It is in the complete contradiction of the historic and archaeologic founds. We have very few Celtic heritage in Spain (few toponyms, no chariot, no oppida...). In fact, the more you approach Garonne river, the more Celtic culture disappears. Celts were probably scattered groups in Iberia (like some minorities in Balkans), maybe aristocratic groups, but surely not the culture of the peoples who lived there.

The only real knowledge that we can prove with history (roman texts) and archaeology, is that the Celtic language, which was a local indo-european creole, has spread from Southern Germany, probably due to agricultural developpement which made increase demographics and made farmers going further to the plains of Western Europe.

"Scattered groups"? Have you read the books? Have you researched the evidence? Iberia, particularly the western parts, have some of the highest numbers of Celtic place names in Europe. The remains of Celtic hilltop towns are found throughout Northern Portugal and Galicia, together Gallaecia.

Try also the University of Wisconsin series on Celticity in Iberia and research produced by people like Cunliffe and Renfrew, among others.

Celticity in Iberia is hardly something you can dismiss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/celts

 

[Regulus]

Note that you mentioned the exact places where we all would agree that Celtic concentrations were the strongest on the peninsula. The problem that the authors you mention have with that is they seem to automatically assume that it originated there. They either gloss over or ignore the facts that the same movement that brought these people to Iberia and on to the West/Northwest of the peninsula was happening in several places. It was moving westward and fanning out at the same time. We are also aware that Celtic concentrations in the interior were low and that native Iberians repeatedly reestablished control of these areas after the waves of migrants had passed.

The existence of Iberian Celtic culture, particularly in Galicia, has been well known for ages. Would there have been people/trading traffic from that region on up to Ireland and back? Why wouldn’t there be? They likely had no problem communicating with each other.

The authors that you mentioned appear to be cut from exactly the same vein as those that I alluded to in my first post. We seem to be so desirous to make sure that no one thinks that Europe experienced large-scale westward migrations that very much altered the ethnic/cultural landscape of Europe. Many people in the past have taken that fact and distorted it terribly, resulting in horrors; the thought of which pierce us to the bone.
The reaction to this cannot be to now turn everything around, trying to cobble together a whole new scenario that completely leaves out the facts of what came together to create the Celtic settelements of the West.

That is why we have places like the Y-DNA forum, etc. There were can see the math and dispense with conjecture.

 

[Regulus]

One thing all of us must remember is that it is safe to assume that we have "read the books" and "researched the evidence". We would not be here if we were not the types to have read up on these topics previously. Many of us have done so exhaustively, both sources that confirm and contradict what we now believe happened. Then we come here to get the newest information, discuss the positions that we have taken, maybe see points that we had not considered before, and have fun doing so.
We are not here because the bowling alley closed up.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Note that you mentioned the exact places where we all would agree that Celtic concentrations were the strongest on the peninsula. The problem that the authors you mention have with that is they seem to automatically assume that it originated there. They either gloss over or ignore the facts that the same movement that brought these people to Iberia and on to the West/Northwest of the peninsula was happening in several places. It was moving westward and fanning out at the same time. We are also aware that Celtic concentrations in the interior were low and that native Iberians repeatedly reestablished control of these areas after the waves of migrants had passed.

The existence of Iberian Celtic culture, particularly in Galicia, has been well known for ages. Would there have been people/trading traffic from that region on up to Ireland and back? Why wouldn’t there be? They likely had no problem communicating with each other.

The authors that you mentioned appear to be cut from exactly the same vein as those that I alluded to in my first post. We seem to be so desirous to make sure that no one thinks that Europe experienced large-scale westward migrations that very much altered the ethnic/cultural landscape of Europe. Many people in the past have taken that fact and distorted it terribly, resulting in horrors; the thought of which pierce us to the bone.
The reaction to this cannot be to now turn everything around, trying to cobble together a whole new scenario that completely leaves out the facts of what came together to create the Celtic settelements of the West.

That is why we have places like the Y-DNA forum, etc. There were can see the math and dispense with conjecture.

Actually Celts and Celtiberians occupied ~ 2/3 of the Iberian Peninsula prior to the Roman advance. The far west, Portugal and Galicia, was all Celtic at one time.

 

[Wilhelm]

We have very few Celtic heritage in Spain (few toponyms, no chariot, no oppida...). In fact, the more you approach Garonne river, the more Celtic culture disappears.

Wow what an ignorant you are, no offense. Actually it is the contrary. Iberia has one of the largest Celtic heritage and remains of all Western Europe. And after France, Iberia has the most celtic toponyms. The evidence is overwhelming. This is what historians have to say :

"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions."

Alberto J. Lorrio, Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (2005). "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 167–254. http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html.

Celts were probably scattered groups in Iberia (like some minorities in Balkans), maybe aristocratic groups, but surely not the culture of the peoples who lived there.

They were not scattered. They lived in about 2/3 of Iberia actually, in the center-west, and it's well documented :

 

[Grizzly]

"Scattered groups"? Have you read the books? Have you researched the evidence?

Yes, I have read books, a lot. And all of them show that Celtic is very questionable in Iberia.

Iberia, particularly the western parts, have some of the highest numbers of Celtic place names in Europe.

Two points :
1 - in contrary of what you say, the Celtic place-names are not numerous in Iberia, and even less in Portugal and Northern Spain. The most of the place names are related to the pre-indo-european culture. I wanted to post a source of a French searcher about this region but it is forbidden. Next time, maybe.

Nothing to do with British Isles, Gaul or Southern Germany where the toponymy is almost exclusively celtic (before ulterior waves, of course)

2 - I will take the example of the Germanics : they have founded hundreds, maybe thousands (I did not count) of place names in France, especially Northern half (Normandy, Parisian basin, Picardy, Burgundy...). But those regions have never spoken a Germanic language, excepted some fringes. So, the toponymy is not really a proof of a culture, but rather of a presence of a culture, excepted if this toponymy is strong enough to conclude to be the dominant culture. But it is obviously not the case for Iberia.

The remains of Celtic hilltop towns are found throughout Northern Portugal and Galicia, together Gallaecia.

I suppose that you are talking about the "culture of castros". They are not related to the Celts, but to pre-indo-european culture (due to the size of the sites, the material found...).

Try also the University of Wisconsin series on Celticity in Iberia and research produced by people like Cunliffe and Renfrew, among others.

Renfrew is a very controversial author. Saying that indo-european languages could have spread from Middle-east to western areas is almost not accepted by anyone in the scientific community. If you draw a map of the languages in Europe around the pre-roman times, you will notice that indo-european languages are very spread in the north and the east (Celts, Germanics, Slavics...), but the more you go to the south and the west, the more you find "strange" cultures not related to indo-europeans (Iberians, Aquitanians, Etruscan...). So, it could be strange tha the indo-european could have come from the south and west, where we find the least "indo-europeanized" areas.The renfrew theory can't work.

Celticity in Iberia is hardly something you can dismiss.

I don't dismiss the Celtic presence in Iberia, like the Germanic presence in Iberia in early middle-age. I just say that it is abusive to say that the antic culture of Iberia was celtic, like it would be wrong to say that France was Germanic in early middle-age because of toponymes, runes or archaeologic material. And if we take the archaeology, we have very few things about Celts in Iberia. The english wiki article have made original researches when it says that we have huge Celtic settlements in Iberia. In fact, this article is few sourced (essentially University of Michigan), and this source is not so affirmative that it appears in the article.

In fact, I think that the Celtic conscience was born in Galicia for political reasons. It was a mean to convince people to be attached to the autonomy toward the power of Madrid. But it is another debate...

 

[Grizzly]

Wow what an ignorant you are, no offense. Actually it is the contrary. Iberia has one of the largest Celtic heritage and remains of all Western Europe. After France, Iberia has the most celtic toponyms.

They were not scattered. They lived in about 2/3 of Iberia actually, in the center-west, and it's well documented :

Already answered about the toponyms. And instead of copy-pasting wikipedia articles, I prefer more academic sources, no offense. This map come from a a Portuguese author, Luis Fraga. I don't say that he is not academic, but because we have Celtic toponyms in some areas, so, he has decided that the local people (obviously...) spoke a Celtic language. If we follow his logic, we can consider that French speak a Germanic language, Germanic toponyms being so numerous...When I will have posts enough, I will post sources.

Anyway, I knew that my comments would be felt as provocative for some Spanish and Portuguese people. A lot of them want absolutely to be Celtic, sometimes Germanic. I'm afraid that according to the sources, it is more a politic will than a scientific one.

 

[Wilhelm]

Already answered about the toponyms. And instead of copy-pasting wikipedia articles, I prefer more academic sources, no offense. This map come from a a Portuguese author, Luis Fraga.

What wikipedia article ? Sorry but I didn't post any wikipedia article. It was from the book "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview" here is the link if you want :
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html

I don't say that he is not academic, but because we have Celtic toponyms in some areas, so, he has decided that the local people (obviously...) spoke a Celtic language.

LOL. The celtic languages is not based only on toponyms, it's based directly on Celtic writings using iberian and latin alphabets and also written by classic descriptions.

If we follow his logic, we can consider that French speak a Germanic language, Germanic toponyms being so numerous...When I will have posts enough, I will post sources.

What ?

Anyway, I knew that my comments would be felt as provocative for some Spanish and Portuguese people. A lot of them want absolutely to be Celtic, sometimes Germanic. I'm afraid that according to the sources, it is more a politic will than a scientific one.

Well, what do you expect when you manipulate history ?? It's not that we want to be Celtic, but you said Spain has very few celtic heritage, when it's actually the total opposite. There are people here with vast knowledge about celtic history, so I wouldn't dare trying to manipulate history.

 

[Grizzly]

What wikipedia article ? Sorry but I didn't post any wikipedia article. It was from the book "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview" here is the link if you want

This is the same source in the english wiki, that's why.

LOL. The celtic languages is not based on toponyms, it's based directly on Celtic writings using iberian and latin alphabets.

Surprising. Because the writings that you are talking about have been found in Central Spain, not in Northern Spain. So, how could the author conclude that in Northern Spain, the languages of peoples were Celtic ?

What ? I never said spanairds speak celtic languages. Spanish is latin like French.

You did not understand. You say that antic culture of Spain was Celtic, so they were speaking a Celtic language. And you have given the place names argument to make such an assertion. So, my point is that making a link between the toponyms and culture is abusive (hence the Germanic example in France).

Well, what do you expect when you manipulate history ?? It's not that we want to be Celtic, but you said Spain has very few celtic heritage, when it's actually the total opposite. There are people here with vast knowledge about celtic history, so I wouldn't dare trying to manipulate history.

You seem to lose nerve, it is a proof that for you it is a very personnal subject. I have not post enough to give sources, but I will next time. In any case :
- Celtic archaeological material is very poor in Spain
- Celtic place names are not common, especially in Northern Spain
- saying that the Celtic settlements were the heaviest in Iberia compared to the rest of Europe is simply wrong.

Anyway, I know that you will never convinced. Never mind.

 

[Wilhelm]

This is the same source in the english wiki, that's why.

Sorry but I didn't post any wikipedia article.

Surprising. Because the writings that you are talking about have been found in Central Spain, not in Northern Spain. So, how could the author conclude that in Northern Spain, the languages of peoples were Celtic ?

The Gallaecian was a Q-Celtic language. Yes, there were also inscriptions in Northwest Iberia. First of all Strabo spoke of the Keltikoi living in what is northwest Iberia, menaning Celtic of Gaul. He said there were about 50 Celtic tribes living there. Second, the is archaelogocial testymony of Hallstatt celtic culture in that part of Iberian. Third, they lived in typical Celtic castros (dùn ) which are found all over northern Iberia. The structure based on hillforts, seems to be associated to a fortified occupation of the territory, resemblance to the one of the Central European classic Celtic habitat. Fourth ,the roman writters described them as having a typical barbarian lifestyle similar of that of the Gaulish Celts. So, together with the Latin incsription written in Q-Celtic, with the toponyms, the anthroponyms, plus the isolated words of Celtic langauges preserved in the local Romance langauges, and other words glossed by classic authors, the evidence is overwhelming. And here you have other celtic inscriptions of Northwest iberia :

Through the Galician-Roman inscriptions, is known part of the great pantheon of Galician deities , sharing part not only by other Celtic peoples or celtizados Peninsula, such as Astur-especially the more Western-or Lusitanian, but also by roosters or Britons among others. This will highlight the following:

• Bandua: Gallaecian God War, similar to the Roman god, Mars. Great success among the Galician Braga.
• Berobreus: god of the Otherworld and beyond. The largest shrine dedicated to Berobreo documented until now, stood in the fort of the Torch of Donón, in the Morrazo´s Peninsula front of the Cies Islands.
• Bormanicus: god of hot springs similar to the Gaulish god, Bormanus.
• Nabia: goddess of waters, of fountains and rivers. In Galicia still noradays, as in northern Portugal, numerous rivers that still persists with his name, as the river Navia, ships and even in northern Portugal there is still the Idol Fountain, dedicated to the goddess ship.
• Cossus, warrior god, who attained great popularity among the Southern Gallaeci, was one of the most revered gods in ancient Gallaecia. Several authors pointed out that Cosso Bandua and are the same God under different names.
• Reue, associated with the supreme God hierarchy, justice and also death.
• Lugus, or Lucubo, sun god par excellence, linked to prosperity, trade and craft occupations. His figure is associated with the spear. It is one of gods most common among the Celts and many, many place names derived from it throughout Europe Celtic Galicia (Galicia Lucus Latinized form) to Loudoun (Scotland), and even the naming of people as Gallaecia Louguei .
• Coventina, goddess of abundance and fertility. Strongly associated with the water nymphs, their cult record for most Western Europe, from England to Gallaecia.
• Endovelicus, god of prophecy and healing, showing the faithful in dreams.

You did not understand. You say that antic culture of Spain was Celtic, so they were speaking a Celtic language. And you have given the place names argument to make such an assertion.

No, you are lying and manipulating. I did not made any agument about language. You said Spain has very few Celtic toponyms, that's why I said that Spain has after France the most celtic topnyms. I did not make any reference about language. That's is your invention.

So, my point is that making a link between the toponyms and culture is abusive (hence the Germanic example in France).

I did not make such link. I repeat : You started by saying Spain has very few celtic toponyms, which is absolutely false, that's why I said that Spain has one of the largest celtic toponyms of europe, but I didn't even mention language here.

- Celtic archaeological material is very poor in Spain

Do you have any evidence for such ignorant claims ? Because It's actually the opposite. The archaeological material is huge in Iberia.

- Celtic place names are not common, especially in Northern Spain

Again, it's not true. Celtic place names are very common also in Northern Spain also. See this for example :

- saying that the Celtic settlements were the heaviest in Iberia compared to the rest of Europe is simply wrong.

That's what historians say, not me. Are you a historian ? Have you published books on the subjects ? You seem very ignorant on the subject.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

This is the same source in the english wiki, that's why.



Surprising. Because the writings that you are talking about have been found in Central Spain, not in Northern Spain. So, how could the author conclude that in Northern Spain, the languages of peoples were Celtic ?



You did not understand. You say that antic culture of Spain was Celtic, so they were speaking a Celtic language. And you have given the place names argument to make such an assertion. So, my point is that making a link between the toponyms and culture is abusive (hence the Germanic example in France).



You seem to lose nerve, it is a proof that for you it is a very personnal subject. I have not post enough to give sources, but I will next time. In any case :
- Celtic archaeological material is very poor in Spain
- Celtic place names are not common, especially in Northern Spain
- saying that the Celtic settlements were the heaviest in Iberia compared to the rest of Europe is simply wrong.

Anyway, I know that you will never convinced. Never mind.

I'm sorry, what you are saying is against all accumulated evidence. What is the point of manipulating and denying long proven facts? Enlighten us, please.

Nothing you say is convincing (because it is totally inaccurate), but the great part of recent archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence is. Are we supposed to believe your codswallop or the conclusions of highly respected researchers?

 

[Regulus]

Actually Celts and Celtiberians occupied ~ 2/3 of the Iberian Peninsula prior to the Roman advance. The far west, Portugal and Galicia, was all Celtic at one time.

I do not have a big problem with that number except for the fact that many of the tribes were, as I mentioned, of mixed stock. See my note about Livy using the term Celtiberian.
Celtic presence in Iberia should not be viewed as a static number. It was a result of repeated migratory waves. There were indeed times that the inland portions were fully or mostly controlled by Celts, but control of these parts was always reestablished by Iberians. The gap between heavily-populated Iberian Celtic areas and those of Modern-Day France was a fluctuating one, narrowing with a movement of migrants and expanding as Iberians regained ground.
Yes, we know that there was a notable and authentic Celtic population in Iberia.
Let’s stick with getting their origin straight. Endlessly debating how many were there or not is silly and pointless.

We are still seeing citations from the revisionist period of which I wrote, roughly the last twenty years. This period is marked by a fairly drastic decline in historical integrity, especially when it comes to migrations and settlements. DNA research has done much to put the brakes on this.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I do not have a big problem with that number except for the fact that many of the tribes were, as I mentioned, of mixed stock. See my note about Livy using the term Celtiberian.
Celtic presence in Iberia should not be viewed as a static number. It was a result of repeated migratory waves. There were indeed times that the inland portions were fully or mostly controlled by Celts, but control of these parts was always reestablished by Iberians. The gap between heavily-populated Iberian Celtic areas and those of Modern-Day France was a fluctuating one, narrowing with a movement of migrants and expanding as Iberians regained ground.
Yes, we know that there was a notable and authentic Celtic population in Iberia.
Let’s stick with getting their origin straight. Endlessly debating how many were there or not is silly and pointless.

We are still seeing citations from the revisionist period of which I wrote, roughly the last twenty years. This period is marked by a fairly drastic decline in historical integrity, especially when it comes to migrations and settlements. DNA research has done much to put the brakes on this.

I'm well aware of the DNA Forums discussions on Celtic makers.

Have you seen the latest numbers from the R-L21 (a "Celtic" subclade) ancestry results headed by a Eupedia member (RMS2)? He is running British Isles, French and Iberian samplings simultaneously. Recently, more and more Iberians have provided deep clade DNA results and the R-L21 percentages for Iberia have jumped.

 

[Regulus]

[QUOTE
Have you seen the latest numbers from the R-L21 (a "Celtic" subclade) ancestry results headed by a Eupedia member (RMS2)? He is running British Isles, French and Iberian samplings simultaneously. Recently, more and more Iberians have provided deep clade DNA results and the R-L21 percentages for Iberia have jumped.[/QUOTE]

Ok, now we are talking about good stuff. No I am not familiar with that most recent study that you just mentioned. Please explain the results as you understand them and what conclusions you draw from that.