Where and when appeared Celtic?

[MOESAN]

Just for my "sommer hollidays" of retired man.
As I'm not aware of any new writing concerning ancient Celtic dialects, I open this thread just for bets and guesses, reasonings (even if reasoning hasn't the worth of the smallest piece of text). All that in a good mood (humor is tolerated).
the "kac'herion diaes" (people with difficulties to excrete) are not welcome at all. LOL

[Duarte]

“Where did the Celts come from?

The Celts were a people that developed in Central Europe in the first millennium BC and spread across the continent, reaching the British Isles and Asia Minor. Leading Celtic scholars say they existed between 600 BC. and 600 AD.

When we study them, we need to consider that the designation “Celtic” is generic, as it incorporates different peoples seen in antiquity as one, and this was due to the cultural proximity that existed between them. Currently, language is the criterion used by historians to define who is Celtic and who is not. The Celtic languages ​​belonged to the Gaelic and Brythonic stocks.

In the region of origin of the Celts, there was a great cultural evolution, which, in the long term, allowed the emergence of peoples understood as Celts. The starting point was the Urnfield culture, which, over time, evolved into the emergence of the Hallstatt Culture and, finally, gave rise to the La Tène Culture. The first two are seen as proto-Celts, as they had Celtic characteristics but were not yet fully Celtic. La Tène, yes, is already considered a properly Celtic culture.

Thus, the populations that inhabited Central Europe gave rise to the Celts during the process of cultural evolution. However, there are studies that speculate that Celtic populations settled in Central Europe after migrating from Central Asia during the Neolithic."

"Why are they called Celts?

As we have already seen, the term Celtic is a generic name for different peoples who had a similar culture and spoke languages ​​from the same linguistic stocks. This term was established by the Greeks sometime between 540 BC. and 424 BC. The two officials known to have used this designation were Hecataeus of Miletus and Herodotus.

They referred to the Celts, in their own language (Greek), as Keltoi. This name was used, in the case of Hecataeus of Miletus, for example, to refer to peoples who inhabited the region close to Massilia, a Greek colony installed in the south of France. We can see, then, that the Greek naming started from the principle of “view from the outside”, which means that it represents the image that the Greeks had of different peoples with cultural proximity and who lived outside the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea.

As the Greeks did not know details about these peoples, they were seen only as one, in this case, the Keltoi. This vision was consolidated through the Romans, a people who had a lot of contact with the Celts on the northern borders of their lands. The Romans, in turn, called them celti, celtae or galli."

"Where did the Celts live?

The Celts left traces of their presence in different places in Europe, including northern Spain and Portugal, on the Iberian Peninsula.
We have already seen that the Celts emerged in Central Europe and gained space throughout the European continent. Here we are not talking about a single tribe, but about several tribes that shared this culture and languages ​​with the same origin.

Among the regions where the Celts settled are the Iberian Peninsula (currently Portugal and Spain); Gaul, region of present-day France; the British Isles, where Ireland and the United Kingdom are today; Thrace, in Eastern Europe (now Bulgaria); and Asia Minor, in present-day Turkey. All of them received Celtic populations belonging to different tribes. Among these, we can mention the Ordovics, who inhabited the region of Wales; the Celtiberians, who inhabited the north of Portugal and Spain; the Helvetii, who inhabited the territory of Switzerland; the biturigs, who dwelt in the region of France; and the Galatians, who settled in the region of Turkey.

Historians study the reasons for this great migration of Celts across Europe and believe that it began around the 4th century BC. In this period, the Celts who inhabited the Central Europe of the La Tène Culture began to migrate due to the overpopulation in this region as well as the scarcity of resources. This measure aimed to find better places to survive.

In addition, the wars fought between the Celtic tribes themselves and with the Romans in the following centuries were a factor that probably contributed to these migrations. The Roman presence was even the first stage towards the end of the Celts. Christianization also contributed to this in 600 AD."

"Society and Religion

The Celts were socially organized into tribes they called tuatha. They were formed by the union of families that had the cultural bond as a trait. This bond brought the tribes closer together, but did not guarantee peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, cultural proximity did not mean that they were identical in all respects, as there were differences in language and religion, for example.

As far as Celtic society is concerned, there were five major groups: the druids, the nobles and warriors, the free men, and the slaves. The tribes were ruled by kings, elected from among nobles and warriors, two classes that were part of the Celtic aristocracy. However, the most powerful group in this society were the druids.

Druids assumed different roles in Celtic society. They could act in the role of accumulators of knowledge of the people, mainly because Celtic wisdom was oral and, therefore, its accumulation and transmission was their function; they could still make and enforce local laws and do so even against kings; and they were known to fulfill religious functions, although this last function is still unclear.

Regarding the orality of the Celts, historians consider it as one of the main factors why much of this culture was lost. The Celts only began to report details about themselves in writing from Roman influence. In addition, most of the accounts we have today were written by other peoples, such as Greeks, Romans and Christianized peoples.

There was a patronage relationship between the Celtic social classes, with the poorer groups offering their services to influential and powerful people. This allowed nobles and great warriors to secure influence through large numbers of followers, as well as getting people to work for them. In return, they offered protection and economic support to their customers.

The ferocity of the Celtic warrior was recorded by the Greeks and Romans.
Nobles and warriors were, as mentioned, groups that were part of the social elite of the Celts. The Celtic warriors had their fame transmitted by the Greeks and Romans, peoples who, at different times, fought conflicts against Celtic tribes. These accounts tell of the ferocity of Celtic warriors and highlight their characteristics, such as prowess with horses.

Free men were common men, of little financial condition and who were, above all, linked to agricultural work. Finally, slaves formed the Celtic social base and were usually foreign prisoners of war.

In terms of religion, the Celts were polytheistic and had a wide variety of gods. These peoples had in their religion beliefs in the afterlife and funerary practices that led them to bury different objects with the person who had died.

The Celts believed that nature was sacred and had several practices and beliefs that reinforced this, one of them being performing their religious rituals in nature, outdoors. They believed in the possibility of transmigration from the human body, especially to the bodies of birds and fish.

They had several religious rituals, such as Imbolc, Beltane, Lammas and Samhain. The Celts practiced human and animal sacrifice, and in the case of human sacrifice, there could be practices of necromancy — the making of predictions through how blood gushed out of the human body or the shape of its innards.”

Sorce:https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/hist...m+os+celtas%3F

[torzio]

Celtic where around in central and southern Germany prior to first phase 1000BC halstatt culture

La tene culture is 500 years younger than Halstatt .............I do not know why people link these to the same group as 500 years is a long time to retain the exact culture past or present

[MOESAN]

OK? good start. Thanks for posts. My focus is rather on language.
I think we could go further in the questioning of the diverse theories.

[MOESAN]

Very often the question of the Celtic languages is treated at the same time as other questions like the material culture or religion or genetic links. In the theory of "Celts of the West"(Koch) someones go as far as saying that the material aspects can cluster people speaking different languages and that people speaking the same one can be separated concerning material aspects.
Here I prefer begin with generalities about language and only language.
If we rely on Bernard Sergent in his well documented compilation work 'Les Indo-Européens' the debated notion of Celto-Italic community seems sound enough. It could be the result of a common life even if not too long lasting. It seems confirmed by common archaisms proper to themselves, not shared with others (like in the case of Baltic and Slavic or Indic and Iranic) and not a global situation of archaism (West tribes separated soon enough from the post-PIE group) leading to sharing of words with numerous others by hazard, without structuring of these archaisms.
Sergent thinks this community did not last too long, but enough for the most eastern of this community to underrun the Kw- > P- mutation (I put personally in a common belt of exchanges centered around Hungary or mergins between Hungary and Balkans, rather around today Croatia/Serbia). It is important it would be question of IE archaism and not of common substrata. (At the contrary, I think that Celtic and Italic, quickly enough, discarded themselves in a big part because of these diverse substrata). It is a pity Sergent does not give us any clue about this duration! This question is not without weight because there are still someones who see the diverse IE families of languages as successive waves of tribes come from the Steppes until the IA, what is sensible concerning Sarmatians or Scythians or even Cimmerians, but not for Celts and Italics, in my opinion. A linked question is the link between language shift and material culture shift: they have links between them, but there is not 100% correspondance between them, not everytime. The quality of the cultural change is to be taken in account; some changes are only technical ones, and nobody can prevent some groups to adopt new technics, even if we know that at one earlier stage these new technics were sent by a well defined human group. Even religious shifts cannot be taken as proof of an ethnic one. So we may debate about Urnfields and Hallstatt and phenomenons of this kind, and their debated real demic and linguistic inputs here ans there.

to be pursued.

[BillMC]

You have only given us a history of the Halstatt/Central Europe Celts of the Iron Age. What about the Insular Celts of the British Isles and the coast of western Europe? These people were orignally Q speaking Celts (the Irish and Hebridean Scots still are).

I read somewhere that the Insular Celts evolved from the Bell Beaker settlers of this part of Europe. Mostly represented by R1b-L21, while the Halstatt Celts were mostly R1b-DF27 and evolved from the Urnfield folk. Halstatt Celts brought the Iron age into Britain along with the P Celtic dialect and the R1b-DF27 haplogroup. The few Halstatt Celts who came to Scotland were probably responsible for the many aspects of Pictish culture including their languages. The Irish were the most insular of the Insular Celts. The Irish remained Q speaking and very little if any R1b-DF27 came to Ireland. I often wonder how the Iron Age was introduced into Ireland.

[MOESAN]

You have only given us a history of the Halstatt/Central Europe Celts of the Iron Age. What about the Insular Celts of the British Isles and the coast of western Europe? These people were orignally Q speaking Celts (the Irish and Hebridean Scots still are).

I read somewhere that the Insular Celts evolved from the Bell Beaker settlers of this part of Europe. Mostly represented by R1b-L21, while the Halstatt Celts were mostly R1b-DF27 and evolved from the Urnfield folk. Halstatt Celts brought the Iron age into Britain along with the P Celtic dialect and the R1b-DF27 haplogroup. The few Halstatt Celts who came to Scotland were probably responsible for the many aspects of Pictish culture including their languages. The Irish were the most insular of the Insular Celts. The Irish remained Q speaking and very little if any R1b-DF27 came to Ireland. I often wonder how the Iron Age was introduced into Ireland.

I'm Moesan and it's Duarte who kindly resumed the some vaguely mainstream opinions. My first feeding post is a linguistic one about Celtic and Italic links between them, and a reasonable hypothesis of community before Celts conquered (for a while) western Europe.
I 'll try to keep wuth my route. Concerning Qw- Celtic, we are not even sure if these dialects preceded the P- ones. But it's also a reasonable bet, and as I hardly believe in pure and total hazard, it could be a first wave of Celts not so long ago separated from western Italics, and living somewhere rather in the western territories of the Celts, what prevented them to share the phonetical innovations of Sw- > P from other territories I see in contact with Central or South-Central Europe. It's tempting to think in Y-R1b-L21 for these western Celtic speakers, but it seems to me a bit too early for a well formed Celtic dialect at the 2200 or even 2400's BC.
All these Y-R1b-P312 people are cousins and part of the northern BB, and I don't see a too late introgression of IE dialects in Western Europe, the lone occasion I see is the BB and the relative closeness of all these Ligurian, Lusitanian, Celtic, Italic, North-West IE, IE of Rhaetia (not the Tyrsenic Rhaetian), Venetic dialects appear to me as very close languages tied to the northern BB phenomenon. But western IE is not Celtic, it's an ancestor to it. Celtic could have replaced the first IE dialect in the Isles later, helped by already existing proximity of forms?
Not close.

[MOESAN]

Sorry: not Sw- but Qw- to P- !!!


I shall not stay too long time about the Csabo Barnabas Horvath 's paper ("Redefining Pre-Indo-European Languages Families" 2019) stating that Y-R1b-L51 BB's were Vasconic people from Croatia, Y-J2a Tyrsenian people of Bulgaria (Urnfields launchers) and Y-E-V13 Celts (Hallstatt-La Tène launchers, having acculturated Y-R1b-U152-L20) and Italics between others, these IEans come from Anatolia into S-E Europe (Italics having colonized Italy from the South, being the North Etuscan. It's a concept of everlasting moves East to West of tribes with already rather well formed dialects. If the Vasconic thesis deserves some attention, the last concerning IE'ans is very astonishing to me!
Tibor Fehér ("Celtic and Italic from the West" 2021) is more mainstream in some way: he sees Celtics-Italics come from Northwestern Europe as Y-R1b-P312 heirs (so BB’s more remotely) and travelling southwards across Gaul so taking more « Iberian »like admixture on the way to southern Gaul and Italy. Both thesis don’t evoke other western IE dialects like Ligurian, Lusitanian and so on…
If we rely on the link ‘Y-haplo-politic dominance-language’ we are pushed to think Celts and Celtic were brought by hyper-dominantly Y-R1b-P312 tribes themselves issued from Y-L11 of Central and/or Northern Europe (<L51 ancestors born maybe somewhere in peri-Baltic Europe). Otherwise we would be obliged to think Celtic language has been adopted lately by a huge number of people spite brought there by a very small new come elite, or transmitted by women of an unkown pop, this late hypothesis just for the fun.
Y-EV13 seems to have played a big role between BA and IA and during IA round Carpathian Bassin and Balkans, but its plausible geographic origin and its further zones of density sustain IMO a role among first Urnfields revolution and expansion, rather as a new elite with new skills and who could have imposed or at least transmitted its religious beliefs to other ethnies. Often it’s read that Urnfields were born by Tumuli Cultures of Central Europe. We may say: not all of them at least! Some Tumuli tribes* fled apparently before Urnfields groups of southern Bohemia, by instance through Moravia to Southern Poland and farther, with what was considered as Celtic culture already, if not attested language or true ethny. Urnfields seems rather born around Hungary in Tells societies, not in the very center of Tumuli, in a region where cremation was already dominant since a long time: ‘tells’, concentration of pops, plagues, recalling the CTC problems? Its propagation could have been helped by networks of already acquainted tribes or trade partners.

*: the Bavarian tribes were considered as proto-Celtic by some old scholars -

The erroneus concept of an unified Urnfields culture gave birth among simplistic people to the shortcut: “Urnfields were principally proto-Celtic or Celtic.” -
Urnfields phenomenon is a complicated one with demic input or not, brutal full adoption or progressive partial to complete adoption according to places and time. So no linguistic or allover cultural identity. Acording to places the phenomenon began between 1900 BC (S-E) and 1000 BC (N-W) Nothing links by force Celtic and Urnfields in my mind. Sometimes, only some artefacts or weapons have been adopted by already very stable and old enough local groups, other time burying style almost exclusively, indicating a religious shift maybe linked to practical aspect (density of population, plagues…). Only a well dated Y-haplo allover survey could learn us about demic input, massive or by elite.

[Yetos]

observation 1.

Guys do not underestimate the Q-> P in Greek also.

Mycennean ikkos Greek ippos
the Q->P appears not only in Celtic by what I know

observation 2
Greeks distinguish the Celts and Gauls,
Keltoi where the Celts east of Alps
Galates where the Celts west of Alps,
maybe I am mistaken here, but I do not think so.

[torzio]

observation 1.

Guys do not underestimate the Q-> P in Greek also.

Mycennean ikkos Greek ippos
the Q->P appears not only in Celtic by what I know

observation 2
Greeks distinguish the Celts and Gauls,
Keltoi where the Celts east of Alps
Galates where the Celts west of Alps,
maybe I am mistaken here, but I do not think so.

Same as I was taught

Keltoi had Halstatt culture

and

Galantes had La Tene culture

[MOESAN]

It's Keltoi who was western (Phocea contacts); Galati whatever the dates were the ones who get eastwards around Balkans, so maybe later. That said, scholars didn't too much differences concerning theses tribes which were all Celtic on the linguistic meaning, and even concerning culture (mercenary aspect).
I don't "underestimate" the Qw->P- shift among Greeks and I'm even defender of a link in these evolution among P- Celtic, P-Italic, P-Greek and others similar evolution (look at Romanian BI) opposed to another way of thinking which considers these evolution are completely independant. I suppose the point of origin of this phonetic evolution originated around Central-Southeastern Europe (Hungary to Balkans) among some ethnic group, and gained ground maybe by a wave propagation from there, among ethnies different but members of some trade (+ beliefs) network. It seems to me it was in every linguistic family the mark of the last waves of people, stayed longer in a network centered close enough to Hungary before they lived their own destiny. Were the kernel of first Urnfields concerned, I don't know, but it seems to me this occurred not before LBA/EIA in the concerned families (Celtic, Italic, Greek...).Could we imagine some new elite incorporated among each group? Just a naive question (remember apparently new elite [%] among Hallstatt Celts).

[MOESAN]

Besides, this could question the one-step concept of the Greeks ethnic synthesis.

[torzio]

Besides, this could question the one-step concept of the Greeks ethnic synthesis.

what do you mean ?


The celtic "capital" was Glauberg , near modern Frankfurt Germany

[MOESAN]

what do you mean ?


The celtic "capital" was Glauberg , near modern Frankfurt Germany

Hellenic Greece could have been finally constitued by more than a "wave" of peopling. But it's only a suggestion of mine, based on this phonetic evolution shared by more than a IE family, and I have nothing at hand to confirm it.
Concerning Glauberg, IMO I think we may not consider Celts had ONE capital city in the modern meaning of the word; say Glauberg has been the biggest settlement at some time.

[Yetos]

Hellenic Greece could have been finally constitued by more than a "wave" of peopling. But it's only a suggestion of mine, based on this phonetic evolution shared by more than a IE family, and I have nothing at hand to confirm it.
Concerning Glauberg, IMO I think we may not consider Celts had ONE capital city in the modern meaning of the word; say Glauberg has been the biggest settlement at some time.

I am still tied with glue, with Georgiev's aproach

[MOESAN]

I am still tied with glue, with Georgiev's aproach

Georgiev's approach? I'm not so knowledged. About Greece or Glauberg?

[Yetos]

Georgiev's approach? I'm not so knowledged. About Greece or Glauberg?

about Greece.