Historical facts

[Regulus]

This isn't contradictionary at all. Languages and archaeological cultures can spread without a population replacement (or more broadly, spread of genetic markers). Likewise, consider that the Basques, which do not speak an Indo-European language at all are mostly R1b. On the other hand, it seems likely that the bearers of the Hallstatt / La-Tene Cultures were R1b-U152, but conversely said marker probably wasn't exlusive to them.

Perhaps I was not clear in my point. I had intended to stress that there has been much evidence presented on this forum in numerous threads/posts that appear to show that there was an appreciable migration of the very same people who spoke and carried that language. So it is indeed quite contradictory with those threads/posts mentioned.

As I myself have also mentioned in earlier posts, I am not, nor to my knowledge is anyone else aware of, any language ever being taken in by another people without a sizeable migration of outsiders who bring that language. The very least that is needed is a group that move into and assume some type of influential position among the native people, such as what happened to the Basques. There also have been a number of posts/threads about that topic here.


I would submit that the evidence presented in favor of an Italo-Celtic pre-language type existing in Europe prior to the migrations of people bringing that language is not only very weak, but also leaves out numerous other peoples that lived in those areas long before and had their own languages. The Ligurians themselves apear to be somewhere between the Italics and the Celts (referring to the Italo-celtic split) and are seen by many as sort of a midway point in language and culture. They were not a pre-existing people or language-speaker of a para-celtic but moved into that area in the same way as the Italo-Celts did. All these groups met peoples who lived there first, but original groups themselves did not speak these languages until actual speakers of the new languages moved in.

 

[Taranis]

I would submit that the evidence presented in favor of an Italo-Celtic pre-language type existing in Europe prior to the migrations of people bringing that language is not only very weak, but also leaves out numerous other peoples that lived in those areas long before and had their own languages. The Ligurians themselves apear to be somewhere between the Italics and the Celts (referring to the Italo-celtic split) and are seen by many as sort of a midway point in language and culture. They were not a pre-existing people or language-speaker of a para-celtic but moved into that area in the same way as the Italo-Celts did. All these groups met peoples who lived there first, but original groups themselves did not speak these languages until actual speakers of the new languages moved in.

Sorry, but the Ligurians very clearly were a 'pre-existing' people (before Celtization, that is), however you have to consider the timing. The Celts invaded northern Italy only in the 6th or 5th century BC (culminating in the sacking of Rome by the Senones under Brennus). I also must add that I myself am unhappy with the term "Para-Celtic" since it is confusing.

 

[Regulus]

Sorry, but the Ligurians very clearly were a 'pre-existing' people (before Celtization, that is), however you have to consider the timing. The Celts invaded northern Italy only in the 6th or 5th century BC (culminating in the sacking of Rome by the Senones under Brennus). I also must add that I myself am unhappy with the term "Para-Celtic" since it is confusing.

No sorry, that is not the case.
They may certainly have existed in some sense, but not in the manner about which we are speaking. The Ligurians may indeed have had a pre IE component, but they did not have the characteristics or language with which we are familiar until they received an appreciable IE admixture. Their battle practices mentioned by the Greeks and Romans, for example, reflect a very close image to that of the Celts. Their assimilation into the world of the Romans went even easier for them than it did for the Celts.

I did a more long-winded post than I wanted to about the same general subject about a month and a half back. Maybe it would be better for you to go to that one and take it from there. It needed a restart anyway. If you have time, look up the thread “The Italo-Celtic expansion”. I wrote out my too-long post about halfway through. Read it and come back with your position.

 

[Taranis]

No sorry, that is not the case.
They may certainly have existed in some sense, but not in the manner about which we are speaking. The Ligurians may indeed have had a pre IE component, but they did not have the characteristics or language with which we are familiar until they received an appreciable IE admixture. Their battle practices mentioned by the Greeks and Romans, for example, reflect a very close image to that of the Celts. Their assimilation into the world of the Romans went even easier for them than it did for the Celts.

I did a more long-winded post than I wanted to about the same general subject about a month and a half back. Maybe it would be better for you to go to that one and take it from there. It needed a restart anyway. If you have time, look up the thread “The Italo-Celtic expansion”. I wrote out my too long post about halfway through. Read it and come back with your position.

Sorry, but at no point in any of my posts did I claim that the Ligurians had a pre-Indo-European component. However, it is clear that the Ligurians didn't speak a Celtic language, but they nonetheless spoke a language closely related with the Celtic family (and the Italic family). Neither was Lusitanian a Celtic language, though it too was closely related with the Celtic languages.

 

[Regulus]

It looks like we are not that far off then. Our impasse only appears to be whether or not some type of somewhat Celtic-style language existed prior to any migrations.
Of benefit would be mentioning that, in the years prior to speaking of the movements of the Italo-Celtic group, the more common way to explain it was to have the Italics already split off and on the own and speak of the other movements as "Celto-Ligurian" in order to denote the movement of the peoples who would speak that range of tongues and be referred to by those names.
In the earlier post that I mentioned, I made my arguments against the existence of the languages that you mentioned. I submitted that those theories are a product of a sort of revisionism that that happened for the last twenty years or so.

 

[Regulus]

Taranis,

I think that my post is on page 2 of "The Italo-Celtic Expansion". Go see it and have your way with me. LOL

 

[Taranis]

It looks like we are not that far off then. Our impasse only appears to be whether or not some type of somewhat Celtic-style language existed prior to any migrations.
Of benefit would be mentioning that, in the years prior to speaking of the movements of the Italo-Celtic group, the more common way to explain it was to have the Italics already split off and on the own and speak of the other movements as "Celto-Ligurian" in order to denote the movement of the peoples who would speak that range of tongues and be referred to by those names.
In the earlier post that I mentioned, I made my arguments against the existence of the languages that you mentioned. I submitted that those theories are a product of a sort of revisionism that that happened for the last twenty years or so.

Sorry, but evidence that these languages existed is verymuch there. There's inscriptions of Lusitanian, and although Ligurian doesn't have any written inscriptions, there's plenty of onomastic evidence. Likewise, there's plenty of Lusitanian onomastic evidence (both in Lusitania proper, as well as in Gallaecia), showing a clear pre-Celtic evidence. For example, one unifying feature of the Celtic languages is the loss of initial P, whereas Lusitanian (similar to the Italic languages) retained the initial P.

 

[Regulus]

Sorry, but evidence that these languages existed is verymuch there. There's inscriptions of Lusitanian, and although Ligurian doesn't have any written inscriptions, there's plenty of onomastic evidence. Likewise, there's plenty of Lusitanian onomastic evidence (both in Lusitania proper, as well as in Gallaecia), showing a clear pre-Celtic evidence. For example, one unifying feature of the Celtic languages is the loss of initial P, whereas Lusitanian (similar to the Italic languages) retained the initial P.[/QUOTE}

Sorry, we are speaking the same language here but this should be on the other thread. You are correct in mentioning P-celtic, but there is no evidence that this was pre-existing. The language came in a number of waves, some smaller, some bigger. This happened over a number of generations, possibly contributing to the confusion of the dating of the languages. Changes happened to it for reasons such as native speaker having a hard time with certain sounds or having a different grammatical order of sentence structure.

 

[Taranis]

Sorry, we are speaking the same language here but this should be on the other thread. You are correct in mentiong P-celtic, but there is no evidence that this was pre-existing. The language came in a number of waves, some smaller, some bigger. This happened over a number of generations, possibly contributing to the confusion of the dating of the languages. Changes happened to it for reasons such as native speaker having a hard time with certain sounds or having a different grammatical order of sentence structure.

Lusitanian was not a P-Celtic language. As I mentioned, the Celtic languages are defined by the loss of the initial P. For example, the Gaulish word for plain is "lanos", compare it with Latin "planum". Likewise, the Gaulish word for pig was "orcos", compare with Latin "porcum". In contrast, Lusitanian was more archaic as it didn't lose this initial P (the Lusitanian word for pig was "porcom"). Now, regarding P-Celtic languages, this is a very different beast. Proto-Celtic language lacked the morpheme "P" entirely (which is attested in primitive Irish, which was still reasonably close to Proto-Celtic), however the P-Celtic branch of the Celtic languages secondarily developed a P by turning Q into P. For instance, the Proto-Celtic word for horse was "eqos" (compare Latin "Equus"), which was rendered into "epos" in Gaulish (the cognate in modern Welsh is "ebol"). In contrast to that, the Q-Celtic languages (eg, Celtiberian and Goidelic) retained the archaic Q, which is why the modern Irish word for horse is "eoch".

Sorry, just a small lecture in linguistics here.

 

[Regulus]

Lusitanian was not a P-Celtic language. As I mentioned, the Celtic languages are defined by the loss of the initial P. For example, the Gaulish word for plain is "lanos", compare it with Latin "planum". Likewise, the Gaulish word for pig was "orcos", compare with Latin "porcum". In contrast, Lusitanian was more archaic as it didn't lose this initial P (the Lusitanian word for pig was "porcom"). Now, regarding P-Celtic languages, this is a very different beast. Proto-Celtic language lacked the morpheme "P" entirely (which is attested in primitive Irish, which was still reasonably close to Proto-Celtic), however the P-Celtic branch of the Celtic languages secondarily developed a P by turning Q into P. For instance, the Proto-Celtic word for horse was "eqos" (compare Latin "Equus"), which was rendered into "epos" in Gaulish (the cognate in modern Welsh is "ebol"). In contrast to that, the Q-Celtic languages (eg, Celtiberian and Goidelic) retained the archaic Q, which is why the modern Irish word for horse is "eoch".

Sorry, just a small lecture in linguistics here.

Yes, also a good mention of "Q" celtic. Nice details but you are not the only one who is aware of "P" and "Q". This still does not prove what you are trying to say. You are trying to state that these predate any movements of the Italo-Celtic speakers, Celto-Ligurian speakers, or whatever else you wish to call them. You have yet to prove anything other than things with which I would agree. The things you want to prove are questioned by dating.

 

[Taranis]

Yes, also a good mention of "Q" celtic. Nice details but you are not the only one who is aware of "P" and "Q". This still does not prove what you are trying to say. You are trying to state that these predate any movements of the Italo-Celtic speakers, Celto-Ligurian speakers, or whatever else you wish to call them. You have yet to prove anything other than things with which I would agree. The things you want to prove are questioned by dating.

Frankly, I'm confused by what you're trying to accuse me of. I now say for second (or possibly third?) time that I'm NOT arguing that the Lusitanian or Ligurian languages are pre-Italo-Celtic languages.

What I'm trying to say is that the expansion of the Celtic languages occured inside an Italo-Celtic-speaking context, and that the existence of Ligurian and Lusitanian is evidence for this.

 

[Regulus]

Like I said, then, we are speaking the same language. I hope that you don't see me as being accusatory. I didn't want that to be the case.
I think the only difference is that I link the pre, proto, para tongues more closely to the various movements and therefore would not use the cultural diffusion explanation.

I am very sorry if I came across too hard. I won't do that again.

 

[Regulus]

I think that I realized what happened - you define Celtic more narrowly, probably associating them with Halstatt and La Tene.

I go with a broader and I believe earlier opinion by using Celtic or proto- celtic also for P and Q and using specific cultural terms like those above when needed.

My post that I mentioned clears up the approach that I use.
I think that is what caused us to disagree - we did not see what each other meant by the use of a word.


sorry again.

 

[Taranis]

I'm not sure if a "broader" definition of "Celtic" really holds up (from the linguistic perspective, that is), at least, not without one being forced to include the Italic languages, too. Regarding Hallstatt and La-Tene, I'm not going to narrow myself down here (for instance, I've speculated that the Urnfield Culture already took place within a mostly Celtic-speaking context, though this raises the question about Catalonia, which by the 3rd century BC was firmly Iberian-speaking), but it's clear that both linguistic and cultural innovations always arrived from the east in the west, and that it is broadly possible to correlate that.

 

[Regulus]

I'm not sure if a "broader" definition of "Celtic" really holds up (from the linguistic perspective, that is), at least, not without one being forced to include the Italic languages, too. Regarding Hallstatt and La-Tene, I'm not going to narrow myself down here (for instance, I've speculated that the Urnfield Culture already took place within a mostly Celtic-speaking context, though this raises the question about Catalonia, which by the 3rd century BC was firmly Iberian-speaking), but it's clear that both linguistic and cultural innovations always arrived from the east in the west, and that it is broadly possible to correlate that.

At least now we know what each other is saying.
I had addressed some of my personal opinions on the use of the word Celtic in the post that I mentioned. To keep it as brief as possible here-
many today equate Celtic with Gaulish. I find that much too narrow. Keltoi first appears to be used by the Greeks, the Romans seems mostly to stick with Gauls, partly because they were from the region named after them.
Germanic refers to Low, High, and Nordic Germanics. I just think that a similar method would be most appropriate for Celts. If you have a minute, please consider taking a look at the post because I really don't feel like typing more of it. The possible meeting/merging of the Bell Beakers and the Urnfielders resulted in numerous movements at different times. At some points, the Iberians had most of Iberia. At others, proto-Celts or Celts held sway. I try to avoid leaving groups like the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish, Bretons, Galician, etc. as being sort of, as I wrote in the other post, a "Proto celtic - not otherwise specified.

 

[Taranis]

At least now we know what each other is saying.
I had addressed some of my personal opinions on the use of the word Celtic in the post that I mentioned. To keep it as brief as possible here-
many today equate Celtic with Gaulish. I find that much too narrow. Keltoi first appears to be used by the Greeks, the Romans seems mostly to stick with Gauls, partly because they were from the region named after them.
Germanic refers to Low, High, and Nordic Germanics. I just think that a similar method would be most appropriate for Celts. If you have a minute, please consider taking a look at the post because I really don't feel like typing more of it. The possible meeting/merging of the Bell Beakers and the Urnfielders resulted in numerous movements at different times. At some points, the Iberians had most of Iberia. At others, proto-Celts or Celts held sway. I try to avoid leaving groups like the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish, Bretons, Galician, etc. as being sort of, as I wrote in the other post, a "Proto celtic - not otherwise specified.

Frankly, you must ask yourself a question there: who is (or who was) a Celt? From the historic context, it indeed makes sense that the 'Celts' in narrowest sense of the word were only the people whom the Greeks called "Keltoi" and the Romans called "Galli" - basically, the Gauls and their eastern relatives. It's a bit ambiguous about the Celtiberians (and there indeed seems to be a discussion in Antiquity about their identity), but it's clear that the ancient sources never considered the British or the Irish to be Celts.

This brings us to the second approach, namely the linguistic approach. The only thing that the Gauls, Britons and Irish have in common is the Celtic language family. The modern Celtic languages and their speakers, you must consider that until the 19th century, none of them considered themselves to be 'Celts', nor did they think of themselves to have a common identity. The only commonalities you have there is that Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic are part of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages, whereas Breton, Cornish and Welsh are part of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages.

Otherwise, a nitpick: the Bell-Beaker cultures and the Urnfield cultures never "met", since they were separated by many centuries...

 

[Regulus]

Frankly, you must ask yourself a question there: who is (or who was) a Celt? From the historic context, it indeed makes sense that the 'Celts' in narrowest sense of the word were only the people whom the Greeks called "Keltoi" and the Romans called "Galli" - basically, the Gauls and their eastern relatives. It's a bit ambiguous about the Celtiberians (and there indeed seems to be a discussion in Antiquity about their identity), but it's clear that the ancient sources never considered the British or the Irish to be Celts.

This brings us to the second approach, namely the linguistic approach. The only thing that the Gauls, Britons and Irish have in common is the Celtic language family. The modern Celtic languages and their speakers, you must consider that until the 19th century, none of them considered themselves to be 'Celts', nor did they think of themselves to have a common identity. The only commonalities you have there is that Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic are part of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages, whereas Breton, Cornish and Welsh are part of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages.

Otherwise, a nitpick: the Bell-Beaker cultures and the Urnfield cultures never "met", since they were separated by many centuries...

That was exactly the point that I made with the post that I mentioned. From a historical or a linguistic perspective, it does not make much sense at all to narrow the term Celtic to the Gauls. Indeed there was no "celtic identity", just as there was none for the Germans or the Slavs until fairly recently, so we can't take the fact that the Irish were not holding up some type of celtic banner and say that this must mean that they were not Celts. Even today one would have to use caution in speaking of a pan- Iranian identity, language, or culture with Iranian-based language speakers who are not from modern day Iran. They don't take kindly to it.

The restricting of the term Celtic to those who inhabited Gaul just does not work, unless we come up with a new category for the others.

I also outlined the Brythonic and Goidelic branches in the same post, so again you are welcome to read and dispute it. By all means, read it and rip it apart. It is on page 3.

Also, I would stick with my position with the Bell-beaker and the Urnfielders; they did meet and merge, probably not in much of a friendly way. Some have the Bell-beakers moving east, some have them moving west, but either way the Urnfielders and they did wind up merging.
The Bell beakers are identified by some as sort of the vanguard of the Celto-Ligurians or Italo-Celts. They are on the map by the 19th century BCE and are as far as Ireland by the 17th century. Urnfielders are fully in much of the same continental areas by a thousand years later. Dispersals of it to the rest of Western Europe begin later, with Halstatt influence not hitting Britain by the 4th century. All of these groups went by tribal names and loyalties - they could barely bring themselves to unite against threats such as that of Rome. To hold that the lack of a type of "ethnic' unity means that they were not in the same general group does not hold water.

 

[hangman]

- Ancient Europe

Wine

The Greeks and Romans put water in their wine. The Celts didn't, which was seen as a barbaric practice by the Gallo-Romans.

Human sacrifices

The Celts practised human sacrifice to the gods, typically near water (lake, river, spring). They also decapitated the defeated after a battle, took the heads back home as trophies, and exposed the headless bodies hanging on wooden frames.

Sometimes, they replaced humans by huge amphoras of wine, and simulated the decapitation by cutting off the top of the amphora with a sword. The spilling wine would represent the blood.

Celtic culture vs genes

A common Celtic culture originating from the south-west of Germany spread to half of Europe, to the British Isles, around France, Switzerland and southern Germany, in northern Spain, and as far as Anatolia via the Danube region. They spoke a similar language, shared a same religion and beliefs, had traditions, the same arts and techniques.

However, DNA tests have not been able to find any common genes between the various areas once settled by the Celts, which leads to think that the cultures spread across a variety of ethnic groups.

The Romans did not refer to the Britons as Celts, probably because they looked different to them. For instance, continental Celts buried their war leaders with their chariots, a tradition virtually unknown in Celtic Britain.

Celtic technology

Before the Roman Conquest, the Celts were as developed as the Greeks and Romans. They invented the chainmail, and had swords and shield at least as strong as the Romans. The decoration of the weapons, chariots and artifacts was superior to those of many Mediterranean cultures.

The Celts traded actively with the Mediterranean world, exchanging notably their iron tools and weapons for wine and pottery.

Their defeat against the Romans was mainly due to the fact that they were disunited against the Roman ennemy, and victims of internal tribal struggles. Well before Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the Celts had plundered Rome (390 BCE), and sacked Delphi (279 BCE).

This is a great topic. I didn't know about the Human sacrifices and genes of the celts...it is amazing. Congratulations dude.

 

[Grizzly]

The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

 

[Taranis]

The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

I mostly agree with that, although with two caveats:
- First off, while I generally agree with you regarding the usage of "Celt" as a linguistic notion, there's also the historic usage of the term "Celt" by the Greeks and the Romans.
- Secondly, the Ligurians were definitely not a non-Indo-European people (although I must admit that some older literature tries to assert that).