The Celts of Iberia

[spongetaro]

The Atlantic Celtic school has mounted a strong challenge to the traditional notion of Central Europe being the Celtic Cradle. The research continues at a brisk pace... BTW, I don't have a set opinion on the topic myself.

I agree with the idea that Central Europe is the Celtic craddle but I haven't enough knowledges to refute the Atlantic Celtic school.
Can you please post some map that prove the Atlantic Celtic school theory

 

[spongetaro]

The center of Europe (craddle of celtic civilization) has received many different influences due to it's central position (slavic and germanic influences mainly), represented by the germanic subcle U106, and the eastern R1a, while the most western countries (France, Iberia, Wales) have received less from other influences.

What makes you believe that Central European Celts were R1b 116 or even R1b.
Germn ethnicity is mainly made up by R1a, R1b U106 and I1.
So why should we conceive Celts as R1b S116 "race".
R1b S116 in Iberia is to me Pre-Celtic (basque and Iberian related)related.
I think that R1b L21 is also Pre Celtic (linked with the first Indo European wave in western Europe during the bronze age) and is associated with Q celtic
Lusitanian is a mystery to me as I don't really what subclade of R1b prevails in Portugal or to what wave of Indo European it is linked
Halstatt Celt may have been partly R1b U106 as Austria and Czech republic have high frequencies of it
Western Halstatt, La tène, Villanovian, Belgae and Italic tribes were maybe al R1b U152 (and also G2a) distant cousins spreading at different times from the Western Alpe and Black forest region

 

[Reinaert]

How so? I mean, obviously the Nazis distorted the history of the peopling of Europe, but the old model of multiple migrations into Europe, with the original "remnants" being a minority, has panned out. There is also evidence for the correlation of genetics with culture and language, at least to a degree that would have been more expected under the older models... What propaganda do you see?

The Nazi's were idiots. I am talking about Greek, Roman, and later on Roman Catholic and Protestant propaganda. Then the British Empire with it's continuous lies. And then the USA.

Aggressive people tell lies. As if mankind would be evil.
Europeans are a more gentile people. We don't believe that shit anymore.
Our Celtic history proves we were taking better care for each other, than any barbarians that ever ruled the world.

So, the Celtic civilization was and is the most humane ever in the world.
Europe is our homeland. Our cradle.
We will survive!

 

[Wilhelm]

What makes you believe that Central European Celts were R1b 116 or even R1b.
Germn ethnicity is mainly made up by R1a, R1b U106 and I1.
So why should we conceive Celts as R1b S116 "race".

Because the higher frequencies of U106, I1 and R1a is found in areas with little celtic settlement such as Northern-Denmark, Scandinavia, Northern Germany,

R1b S116 in Iberia is to me Pre-Celtic (basque and Iberian related)related.

How can it be Iberian when S-116 is found at 17% in Ireland or 20% in France ? See this table from Myres et. al. :

[FONT=&quot]http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/extref/ejhg2010146x5.xls[/FONT]

Lusitanian is a mystery to me as I don't really what subclade of R1b prevails in Portugal

In Portugal is the S116* like in the rest of Iberia.

Halstatt Celt may have been partly R1b U106 as Austria and Czech republic have high frequencies of it

Well, in Portugal (Lisbon) there is more U106 than Czech Republic (7% vs 5.7 %) . But Northern Denmark has 21% of U106, which hasn't had celtic influence.

Western Halstatt, La tène, Villanovian, Belgae and Italic tribes were maybe al R1b U152 (and also G2a) distant cousins spreading at different times from the Western Alpe and Black forest region

Western Poland has 20% of U152, more than England, Ireland, France or Germany. Btw the Bashkirs North (Bashkortostan, Russia) have 71% of U152

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I agree with the idea that Central Europe is the Celtic craddle but I haven't enough knowledges to refute the Atlantic Celtic school.
Can you please post some map that prove the Atlantic Celtic school theory

To begin:

http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf

You may also want to read research by one of the most respected Celtic archaeologists, Barry Cunliffe (2005, 2010) as well as Untermann, Wodtko and many others.

 

[Taranis]

The Atlantic Celtic school has mounted a strong challenge to the traditional notion of Central Europe being the Celtic Cradle. The research continues at a brisk pace... BTW, I don't have a set opinion on the topic myself.

The main beef I have with the Atlantic School is archaeologically that there is an absence of west-to-east movements out of the Atlantic Façade into Central Europe. All archaeological cultural influences into the Atlantic region (Urnfield, Hallstatt, La-Tene) seem to have arrived from the east in the west, not vice versa.

To begin:
http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf
You may also want to read research by one of the most respected Celtic archaeologists, Barry Cunliffe (2005, 2010) as well as Untermann, Wodtko and many others.

I have given many arguments before on why Tartessian wasn't a Celtic language, and given how much bad blood did flow on that issue in the past, which I do not wish to repeat here. However, I find the argument that Tartessian wasn't a Celtic - or even otherwise Indo-European language - compelling.

However, having said that, the Atlantic School technically doesn't really need Tartessian to work. What I mean by that is that where the Atlantic School does have a point is that Hallstatt/La-Tene and even Urnfield alone cannot wholly explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region. In my opinion, the Atlantic Bronze region was at least partially Celtic-speaking (it can't have been exclusively Celtic-speaking, for obvious reasons).

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

What makes you believe that Central European Celts were R1b 116 or even R1b.
Germn ethnicity is mainly made up by R1a, R1b U106 and I1.
So why should we conceive Celts as R1b S116 "race".
R1b S116 in Iberia is to me Pre-Celtic (basque and Iberian related)related.
I think that R1b L21 is also Pre Celtic (linked with the first Indo European wave in western Europe during the bronze age) and is associated with Q celtic
Lusitanian is a mystery to me as I don't really what subclade of R1b prevails in Portugal or to what wave of Indo European it is linked
Halstatt Celt may have been partly R1b U106 as Austria and Czech republic have high frequencies of it
Western Halstatt, La tène, Villanovian, Belgae and Italic tribes were maybe al R1b U152 (and also G2a) distant cousins spreading at different times from the Western Alpe and Black forest region

The main R1b subclade in Portugal is S116*

Lusitanian was / is (it was partially reconstructed recently) an Indo-European language. Many believe it to be a form of Common Celtic or Proto-Celtic. It appears to have both Italic and Celtic influences. Some scholars like Untermann (1987) see it as Celtic but most do not, presently. It was spoken mainly in central Portugal and central-west Spain. Lusitanian impacted certain aspects of Gallaic, the Celtic language spoken in ancient Gallaecia (Galicia and N. Portugal). The main reason that Lusitanian does not have full Celtic classification is due to the fact that it retained the initial *P (e.g., porcum)

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The main beef I have with the Atlantic School is archaeologically that there is an absence of west-to-east movements out of the Atlantic Façade into Central Europe. All archaeological cultural influences into the Atlantic region (Urnfield, Hallstatt, La-Tene) seem to have arrived from the east in the west, not vice versa.
I have given many arguments before on why Tartessian wasn't a Celtic language, and given how much bad blood did flow on that issue in the past, which I do not wish to repeat here. However, I find the argument that Tartessian wasn't a Celtic - or even otherwise Indo-European language - compelling.
However, having said that, the Atlantic School technically doesn't really need Tartessian to work. What I mean by that is that where the Atlantic School does have a point is that Hallstatt/La-Tene and even Urnfield alone cannot wholly explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region. In my opinion, the Atlantic Bronze region was at least partially Celtic-speaking (it can't have been exclusively Celtic-speaking, for obvious reasons).

As you know, we are in agreement on a number of points, as regards the Atlantic School. Keep in mind that I do not have a definitive position on the Atlantic Celtic theory at the present time.

From my perspective, the jury is still very much out and it may well be that there were two main regions of Celticity that could have developed around the same time. I'll have more to say on this.

 

[Regulus]

However, having said that, the Atlantic School technically doesn't really need Tartessian to work. What I mean by that is that where the Atlantic School does have a point is that Hallstatt/La-Tene and even Urnfield alone cannot wholly explain the presence of Celtic languages in the Atlantic region. In my opinion, the Atlantic Bronze region was at least partially Celtic-speaking (it can't have been exclusively Celtic-speaking, for obvious reasons).

This is where from my side I am starting to go more with the Bell-Beakers or an as-yet unidentified earlier group as being the carriers of proto-Celtic to the region.
Of the West coast of Iberia having high concentrations of very early Celts, quite some time before Urnfielders can be discerned in Central Europe, there seems to be no doubt.
The question posed by the Atlanticist school is if the existence of these people/their language actually begins here. Looking at it from the outside, I guess that I can't be surprised that some may arrive at the conclusion that this is indeed the case simply due to the age of the evidence.
From my side, what I think must be taken into account is this; since the earliest groups bringing the language moved so quickly and essentially directly to the West coast, we have very early physical evidence of their presence there that could lead one to assume that it originated there. But we don't seem to have a west to east movement.
The relationship between the languages is just so close that I still have to stand by the old theory of various waves of migrants. The developements of all of the IE tongues seem to me to too connected with the movements of migrants to be coincidence. If we have some type of Celtic originating in Iberia, to me it would be a million-to-one shot.

Does anyone have a good grip on dating of genetic markers in Iberia? We seem to know that the markers are, but can someone explain where/when those markers began?

 

[spongetaro]

The main R1b subclade is Portugal is S116*

Lusitanian was / is (it was partially reconstructed recently) an Indo-European language. Many believe it to be a form of common Celtic or Proto-Celtic. It appears to have both Italic and Celtic influences.

Lusitanian and gaulish might have had a common substratum as nasal vowels are found almost exclusively in Portugal and France

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Lusitanian and gaulish might have had a common substratum as nasal vowels are found almost exclusively in Portugal and France

Some people have noted a Gaulish connection (Untermann, 1987?). It's possible.

The big problem is that we still do not have a significant level of material on the Lusitanian language.

 

[spongetaro]

How can it be Iberian when S-116 is found at 17% in Ireland or 20% in France ? See this table from Myres et. al. :

Do you mean M167 ? it is found in France in ancient non indo european Aquitania

 

[spongetaro]

The big problem is that we still do not have a significant level of material on the Lusitanian language.

That's why I was saying that evidences of the Celts in Iberia couldn't be "overwehlming" as we mainly identify Celts with their language (Gaulish is not well known too)

 

[spongetaro]

Well, in Portugal (Lisbon) there is more U106 than Czech Republic (7% vs 5.7 %) . But Northern Denmark has 21% of U106, which hasn't had celtic influence.

Western Poland has 20% of U152, more than England, Ireland, France or Germany. Btw the Bashkirs North (Bashkortostan, Russia) have 71% of U152

Saying that U106 is exclusively German is like saying that R1a is exclusively Slavic. U106 is thousands years old. Over the time, people of a same haplogroup can switch language family (M167 typically).
There could have been a R1b U106 founder effect around Halstatt and spreading from there Celtic culture. I found 13% for Czech Republic on wikipedia.


You are comparing a part of Poland to whole countries. Eastern reion of France like Alsace and Provence have all more than 20% of U152

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

That's why I was saying that evidences of the Celts in Iberia couldn't be "overwehlming" as we mainly identify Celts with their language (Gaulish is not well known too)

The accumulated evidence for the Lusitanian language is modest. However, it was only just one IE language (possibly fully Celtic) spoken in Iberia. Roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of the Peninsula's populace was Celtic speaking, in one form or another, at high point.

Wilhelm, recently posted some very interesting demographic research on Celtiberian communities. They made up 40% of Iberia's population. This DOES NOT include the Celts of the west (full Celts) that comprised possibly another 35%.

 

[Wilhelm]

That's why I was saying that evidences of the Celts in Iberia couldn't be "overwehlming" as we mainly identify Celts with their language (Gaulish is not well known too)

Actually the fact that it's related with langauge is what makes the evidences overwhelming. The inscriptions, toponyms, onomastics, etc. The celtic-speakin area covers 2/3 of Iberia

Does anyone have a good grip on dating of genetic markers in Iberia? We seem to know that the markers are, but can someone explain where/when those markers began?

I've shown the table of R1b from the Myres et. al 2010 study , see above.

Do you mean M167 ? it is found in France in ancient non indo european Aquitania

But M167 is not even common in Iberia. It makes only 3.65% of the total, the most common subclade of R1b is S116*

 

[Taranis]

@ Regulus: the main problem with Bell-Beaker that I see is that it also extends into clearly non-Celtic areas (in particular southern Scandinavia and Italy). The case for Beaker-Bell being associated with some kind of common 'western' branch of IE (from which Common Celtic, Common Italic and Lusitanian evolved, as well as which heavily contributed to Germanic) is way better than the case that for Beaker-Bell being Celtic, in my opinion.

@ Cambria Red: Regarding the 'Celtic' area in Iberia, while I agree on the rough size, I would say that 'Celtic' is a slight misnomer, and I would further suggest to very roughly break it down into four sub-regions (which are also somewhat anachronistically) to explain what we are actually talking about:

- Central Area: apparently Celtic-speaking without other influences (though I'm uncertain about the Cantabrians? ), with exception of what I would dubb "Celtiberia proper": it was culturally influenced by the Iberians (including writing system and cremation).

- Gallaecia: Celtic-speaking over an earlier Lusitanian substrate (including Lusitanian deities and mixed Celtic-Lusitanian typonomy).

- Tejo area: The Lusitanian-speaking area.

- Post-Tartessian region (Algarve, Guadiana river and Guadalquivir river areas): even if we assume that this region was previously non-Celtic (ie, Tartessian as a non-IE language), it is clear that the region must have been heavily settled by Celtic-speaking peoples between the 5th and 1st century BC.

 

[Regulus]

@ Regulus: the main problem with Bell-Beaker that I see is that it also extends into clearly non-Celtic areas (in particular southern Scandinavia and Italy). The case for Beaker-Bell being associated with some kind of common 'western' branch of IE (from which Common Celtic, Common Italic and Lusitanian evolved, as well as which heavily contributed to Germanic) is way better than the case that for Beaker-Bell being Celtic, in my opinion.
century BC.

I need to be quick as I have to run out. I actually don't have a problem with your position at all. I would submit, though, that there is very good evidence of proto-Celtic or quasi-Celtic types having lived in places such as Denmark.

I also hold that the base group was the same that also formed Italic and German also (Of course German had much more influence from other tongues while being formed). So I sort of lean towards your conclusion of western IE/centum rather than Celtic-only.

The best way to phrase the question from my side would be whether or not regional/cultural differences that were to lead to the later forming of Celtic, Germanic, and Italic (not to leave out Ligurians, etc.) were in existence in some type of nascent form by the time of the Bell Beakers.

I am still trying to sort the whole thing out myself at this point; consequently I am not anywhere near being fully convinced myself.
My assertions only indicate my leanings. I want to also look into the possibility of earlier groups that may have left little behind other than DNA and languages. That of course is a tall order as they say.

 

[Wilhelm]

Saying that U106 is exclusively German is like saying that R1a is exclusively Slavic. U106 is thousands years old.

Excuse me, but I never said U106 is exclusively germanic. What I said is that the highest frequencies are found in germanic countries (denmark, netherlands, england, etc). But for example Portugal has more U106 than Czech Republic, as you can see in the table of Myers et. al

Over the time, people of a same haplogroup can switch language family (M167 typically).

I don't know why you insist so much on M167 when it's not even common in Spain. Overall it's about 3-4%. I

There could have been a R1b U106 founder effect around Halstatt and spreading from there Celtic culture. I found 13% for Czech Republic on wikipedia.

Well, according to the Myers study the Portuguese have 7% of U106 which slightly higher than France (6.6%), Czech Republic (5.7 %), or Germany (5.3%) , but then again, northern-Denmark has 21.4%

You are comparing a part of Poland to whole countries. Eastern reion of France like Alsace and Provence have all more than 20% of U152

But if you say U152 is Celtic how can you explain that Greece has more of it than Hungay, which is right in the middle of the Hallstatt culture

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

@ Regulus: the main problem with Bell-Beaker that I see is that it also extends into clearly non-Celtic areas (in particular southern Scandinavia and Italy). The case for Beaker-Bell being associated with some kind of common 'western' branch of IE (from which Common Celtic, Common Italic and Lusitanian evolved, as well as which heavily contributed to Germanic) is way better than the case that for Beaker-Bell being Celtic, in my opinion.
@ Cambria Red: Regarding the 'Celtic' area in Iberia, while I agree on the rough size, I would say that 'Celtic' is a slight misnomer, and I would further suggest to very roughly break it down into four sub-regions (which are also somewhat anachronistically) to explain what we are actually talking about:
- Central Area: apparently Celtic-speaking without other influences (though I'm uncertain about the Cantabrians? ), with exception of what I would dubb "Celtiberia proper": it was culturally influenced by the Iberians (including writing system and cremation).
- Gallaecia: Celtic-speaking over an earlier Lusitanian substrate (including Lusitanian deities and mixed Celtic-Lusitanian typonomy).
- Tejo area: The Lusitanian-speaking area.
- Post-Tartessian region (Algarve, Guadiana river and Guadalquivir river areas): even if we assume that this region was previously non-Celtic (ie, Tartessian as a non-IE language), it is clear that the region must have been heavily settled by Celtic-speaking peoples between the 5th and 1st century BC.

One of the interesting things about the ancient Lusitanian region is that, in its north, Celtic speakers were surely present. This is clear from the writings of classical authors and the categorization of the area as part of Celtica in local Latin inscriptions, as well as from indigenous names that were unquestionably Celtic (see Wodko, 2010).

Lusitanian also has Celtic "loan words" (perhaps a large number) and people such as Schmidt (1985) hypothesize the language to be a hybrid form of Common-Celtic. Some scholars actually consider Lusitanian and Gallaic (Gallaecian Celtic) to be one language, simply with dialectal diversification (Corominas 1972, 2006) - is it possible that the preserved initial *P is dialectal in Lusitanian? Others like Slmagro-Gorbea (1993) suggest that Lusitanian may well be a pre-Celtic language that served as the foundation for the development of Celtic in western Iberia.

More to come...