The Italo-Celtic expansion

[Wilhelm]

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.

Yes. But the whole R-S116 branch is considered a proto-Celtic marker. See the latest studies on the subject :

"-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe

Natalie M Myres et al.

The phylogenetic relationships of numerous branches within the core Y-chromosome haplogroup R-M207 support a West Asian origin of haplogroup R1b, its initial differentiation there followed by a rapid spread of one of its sub-clades carrying the M269 mutation to Europe. Here, we present phylogeographically resolved data for 2043 M269-derived Y-chromosomes from 118 West Asian and European populations assessed for the M412 SNP that largely separates the majority of Central and West European R1b lineages from those observed in Eastern Europe, the Circum-Uralic region, the Near East, the Caucasus and Pakistan. Within the M412 dichotomy, the major S116 sub-clade shows a frequency peak in the upper Danube basin and Paris area with declining frequency toward Italy, Iberia, Southern France and British Isles. Although this frequency pattern closely approximates the spread of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), Neolithic culture, an advent leading to a number of pre-historic cultural developments during the past ≤10 thousand years, more complex pre-Neolithic scenarios remain possible for the L23(xM412) components in Southeast Europe and elsewhere."


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/abs/ejhg2010146a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CX7-50V8C33-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F22%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bf6eeb1f249a39197d4c6eaa497eff93&searchtype=a

 

[Regulus]

Correction, I was not sure about screen name you mentioned. Yes, I have seen a lot of his results that he published here. If you have a few minutes, let me know what results he had for Iberia.

My main question, though, will be on the conclusion we draw, not on whether or L21 Celts were settling in Spain. In other words, the question needs to be how they got there. Note that I did give a rough date for the arrival of Halstatt Celts in Iberia, which I hold came after the earlier proto-Celtic migrations.

 

[Regulus]

Yes. But the whole R-S116 branch is considered a proto-Celtic marker. See the latest studies on the subject :

"-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe

Natalie M Myres et al.

The phylogenetic relationships of numerous branches within the core Y-chromosome haplogroup R-M207 support a West Asian origin of haplogroup R1b, its initial differentiation there followed by a rapid spread of one of its sub-clades carrying the M269 mutation to Europe. Here, we present phylogeographically resolved data for 2043 M269-derived Y-chromosomes from 118 West Asian and European populations assessed for the M412 SNP that largely separates the majority of Central and West European R1b lineages from those observed in Eastern Europe, the Circum-Uralic region, the Near East, the Caucasus and Pakistan. Within the M412 dichotomy, the major S116 sub-clade shows a frequency peak in the upper Danube basin and Paris area with declining frequency toward Italy, Iberia, Southern France and British Isles. Although this frequency pattern closely approximates the spread of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), Neolithic culture, an advent leading to a number of pre-historic cultural developments during the past ≤10 thousand years, more complex pre-Neolithic scenarios remain possible for the L23(xM412) components in Southeast Europe and elsewhere."


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/abs/ejhg2010146a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CX7-50V8C33-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F22%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bf6eeb1f249a39197d4c6eaa497eff93&searchtype=a

Would your position be that the markers you mentioned are indicative of a westward movement into France, Spain, Britain, etc.? It looks like the timing you mention may indeed be linked to Neolithic migrants. That would make sense to me as I have always held that there were westward Neolithic migrants before the Bronze-Age.
I sort of stuck more than I wanted to with Bronze-Age topics in my first post, but I’m all for the possibility of others. I noted the possibility of a merged Bell-Beaker/Urnfield group earlier. They may have moved in opposite directions, met and merged, then migrated westward again.

 

[Grizzly]

Yes, there were also inscriptions in Northwest Iberia.

[FONT=&quot]You are right for this point. But not for the rest.

[/FONT]

The Gallaecian was a Q-Celtic language.

Frankish language was a western Germanic language. Do you consider early medieval France as Germanic ?
Runes have been found in Normandy, British Isles, Ukraine…Do you consider those regions as Scandinavian culture ?

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk...ut.htm?PropID=PL_205&PropName=The Norse runes
http://laclefdesrunes.l.a.pic.centerblog.net/bdkd4vpi.jpg
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gothic.htm

Second, the is archaelogocial testymony of Hallstatt celtic culture in that part of Iberian.

Not really. The Hallstatt culture is truly attested only in Central Europe (Eastern France, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria), especially graves with chariots. The regions outside of this central core are at best influences and traces, at worst extrapolations or speculations (Haywood uses the term of “possible” for Iberia).

http://membres.multimania.fr/ayla01/images/carte Hallstatt.jpg
http://pm.revues.org/docannexe/image/365/img-4-small480.jpg
http://www.arbre-celtique.com/etude/01-origines/carte1b.jpg


That’s why making a link between archaeology and culture is speculative (V.Kruta). A Celtic inscription or a Celtic spoon in the ground does not mean that the indigenous spoke here a Celtic language, not more than an old tyre tagged “Goodyear” in the ground of Madrid will mean that Castillan people speak a Germanic language.

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.

Wrong again. The culture of castros are not related to the Celts, but to indigenous pre-indo-european peoples. Because the structure, the dating and the size have nothing to do with the Celtic oppida. You can find below the official archaeological European website of the Celtic oppida, based on the work of Stephan Fichtl. Iberic peninsula is not at all concerned :
http://www.oppida.org/index-en.html
http://www.inrap.fr/userdata/c_bloc_file/6/6921/6712_fichier_dossier20-guichard.pdf

the roman writters described them as having a typical barbarian lifestyle similar of that of the Gaulish Celts.

The roman have seen as barbarian all non-roman peoples, whatever the culture they belonged (Iberians, Celts or Huns…).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=barbarian&searchmode=none

the anthroponyms

In early medieval France, more than 80% of the anthroponyms were of Germanic origin, and a lot of them are still today among the most wear (see Bernard, Robert, Richard, Henry, Lambert…). Even in Iberic peninsula, some anthroponyms have Germanic roots.

plus the isolated words of Celtic langauges preserved in the local Romance langauges.

It proves only that Celts have entered in Spain. Nothing else. By comparison, about 10-15 % of the French vocabulary comes from Germanic. And there are many antic Latin words in German language (see Pferd, Pfeil, Spiegel…). It won’t mean that French were Germanics, not more than Germanics were Roman speaking.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.plattmaster.de/roemer.htm[/FONT]

I did not made any agument about language...I did not make any reference about language.

Celtic culture was characterized essentially by the language of the indigenous, described and attested by the roman texts in Gaul and Britain, but not in Spain. Some authors use the term “Celtiberi” or “Celtici”, but no-one can presume their language. Every other criterion is just the expression of traces or influences, not of culture. The Celtic inscriptions in Spain are probably like the runes in France, Scotland or Ukraine.
The use of the word “Celtiberian” is in its own controversial. Do you know in History “Celto-Germanic” languages or “Germano-Slavic” languages ? No sense. In fact, the Celtiberians were Iberians living in the country hold by the Celtic who where the upper-classes (this is exactly the roman translation of the name “Celtiberi” used for Spain : Iberians from the land of the Celts = hold by the Celts). This analysis is confirmed by an academic author.

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

Wrong. We have not the same definition of the term “common”. Your links present areas which have maybe 50,100 toponyms ? The question is not the absolute value, but relative. The fact is that the Celtic toponyms are scattered in Spain, sometimes concentrated in some regions. Exactly the same situation as the hundreds of Germanic toponyms in France, where a Germanic language has never been spoken (excepted fringes).
Those Celtic toponyms have never been majority in Northern Spain. For example, I give you below this source about Northern Spain. The source is in French, but if you see pages 20 to 43, you will see that many toponyms or Northern Spain are rather related to the Basque toponymy. For example, Bayona in Galicia is related to Bayonne in SW France, Bescos to Beskoitze (formely Berascoiz), Ezaro in Galicia with the same name in Biscaye…Even the name of Galicia has a pre-indo-european root. And the conclusion is clear (page 5) : the celtic consience in Galicia is nothing else than the result of politic aims (Spanish use the term of “galleguismo”). Many academic authors are quoted in page 5, it is not a personal view :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

In contrary, Celtic toponyms don’t really cohabit with pre-indo-european ones in France (and Britain), excepted for some exceptions. BTW, the same controversy can exist for southern France (Provence, Languedoc, Aquitaine…) where Celtic culture tends to disappear and is as questionable as Iberia.

That's what historians say

Not “historians”, but historians that you have chosen. If you want other academic sources, you can check for example authors like Putzger, Konstam or Villar who have excluded Iberic peninsula from the Celtic world. Graves talks about “mythologization” about the Celtic “consience” in Galicia. And it seems that Spanish authors are among the most septic about the increasing “Celticism” in foreign searchers about Spain.
Just some examples :
http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/numero4_1/articulo4_1_diazsantana.html
http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2005-4-070.pdf
(see p. 180) http://books.google.fr/books?id=SmW...&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So, I maintain : few archaeological heritage (no oppida, few or no chariot, few material… compared to Gaul, British Isles and Central Europe), dispersed toponyms compared to pre-indo-european ones, not attested Celtic vernacular language (in contrary of Gaul or Britain in Roman texts…). The best option is to not make extrapolations from some plates or swords found in the ground or scattered toponyms.

You seem very ignorant on the subject.

Between ignorants, we will understand ourselves. I am breaking a teenage dream, but soon or later, the reality will have to be admitted. The Celtic problematic in Spain is rather ideological than scientific. It’s neither a shame nor a quality to have a Celtic heritage. Your reaction is the proof : such a thread in Britain or Switerland would have created surprise or indifference at most.

the great part of recent archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence is.

No, they are not : some searchers and a lot of users on the net want to claim Celtic roots from some archaeological traces and toponyms. But the real evidence is that there is no consensus about this question. There is a huge controversy about the Celtic heritage in Iberia. The maps of the Celts in Iberic peninsula are all different, which is a sign, in contrary of Gauls or Britain.
My Spanish is poor, but the controversy seems to be confirmed here for example :
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=2374148&orden=0
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=1083664&orden=0

Even the publications of University of Wisconsin (E-Keltoi), probably the most affirmative about the “Celtic” Spain (and by there one of the least credible…), recognize clearly those controversies. Controversies which are almost marginal in Britain or France.

Celtic presence in Iberia should not be viewed as a static number

I have never contested the Celtic “presence” in Iberia. I contest that they should have imposed their culture, like Germanics have not printed their culture in Spain or in Ukraine. Celts have probably formed small communities like some cultural minorities in Balkans, or maybe an artistocratic varnish like Germanics in France. So, we can't claim that Spain was "Celtic" in Antiquity, not even Galicia.

Let’s stick with getting their origin straight. Endlessly debating how many were there or not is silly and pointless.

If Celts were a minority among the indigenous population, it is not pointless in a scientific aim. The panick that my contradictor has presented proves that this subject is sensitive in Iberia, not anywhere else.

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.

Genetics are genetics. Culture is culture. The first can't prove or refute the second...

 

[Regulus]

Grizzly, you clearly try hard, but you need to check your quotes first. Just slow down. The last three you quoted were mistakenly attributed to Cambria Red. When he posted those, he was quoting me.

If you want to reply to my posts, I suggest going back, look at my entire posts and see the context in which I wrote them, then reply quoting me.

I was writing those lines when Cambria Red and I did not see eye to eye on the subject and intended them to be an answer to him. You refuted "words of his" that he did not even write. I can't even reply to your answer to my quoted words as I can't be sure that you know what I meant by them.

 

[Regulus]

Also, try not to come across too strong. Those people (Wilhelm and Cambria Red) who take the opposite position, have been on this forum for quite some time and are decent guys.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

[FONT=&quot]You are right for this point. But not for the rest.

[/FONT]

Frankish language was a western Germanic language. Do you consider early medieval France as Germanic ?
Runes have been found in Normandy, British Isles, Ukraine…Do you consider those regions as Scandinavian culture ?

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk...ut.htm?PropID=PL_205&PropName=The Norse runes
http://laclefdesrunes.l.a.pic.centerblog.net/bdkd4vpi.jpg
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gothic.htm



Not really. The Hallstatt culture is truly attested only in Central Europe (Eastern France, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria), especially graves with chariots. The regions outside of this central core are at best influences and traces, at worst extrapolations or speculations (Haywood uses the term of “possible” for Iberia).

http://membres.multimania.fr/ayla01/images/carte Hallstatt.jpg
http://pm.revues.org/docannexe/image/365/img-4-small480.jpg
http://www.arbre-celtique.com/etude/01-origines/carte1b.jpg


That’s why making a link between archaeology and culture is speculative (V.Kruta). A Celtic inscription or a Celtic spoon in the ground does not mean that the indigenous spoke here a Celtic language, not more than an old tyre tagged “Goodyear” in the ground of Madrid will mean that Castillan people speak a Germanic language.



Wrong again. The culture of castros are not related to the Celts, but to indigenous pre-indo-european peoples. Because the structure, the dating and the size have nothing to do with the Celtic oppida. You can find below the official archaeological European website of the Celtic oppida, based on the work of Stephan Fichtl. Iberic peninsula is not at all concerned :
http://www.oppida.org/index-en.html
http://www.inrap.fr/userdata/c_bloc_file/6/6921/6712_fichier_dossier20-guichard.pdf





The roman have seen as barbarian all non-roman peoples, whatever the culture they belonged (Iberians, Celts or Huns…).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=barbarian&searchmode=none



In early medieval France, more than 80% of the anthroponyms were of Germanic origin, and a lot of them are still today among the most wear (see Bernard, Robert, Richard, Henry, Lambert…). Even in Iberic peninsula, some anthroponyms have Germanic roots.




It proves only that Celts have entered in Spain. Nothing else. By comparison, about 10-15 % of the French vocabulary comes from Germanic. And there are many antic Latin words in German language (see Pferd, Pfeil, Spiegel…). It won’t mean that French were Germanics, not more than Germanics were Roman speaking.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.plattmaster.de/roemer.htm[/FONT]




Celtic culture was characterized essentially by the language of the indigenous, described and attested by the roman texts in Gaul and Britain, but not in Spain. Some authors use the term “Celtiberi” or “Celtici”, but no-one can presume their language. Every other criterion is just the expression of traces or influences, not of culture. The Celtic inscriptions in Spain are probably like the runes in France, Scotland or Ukraine.
The use of the word “Celtiberian” is in its own controversial. Do you know in History “Celto-Germanic” languages or “Germano-Slavic” languages ? No sense. In fact, the Celtiberians were Iberians living in the country hold by the Celtic who where the upper-classes (this is exactly the roman translation of the name “Celtiberi” used for Spain : Iberians from the land of the Celts = hold by the Celts). This analysis is confirmed by an academic author.




Wrong. We have not the same definition of the term “common”. Your links present areas which have maybe 50,100 toponyms ? The question is not the absolute value, but relative. The fact is that the Celtic toponyms are scattered in Spain, sometimes concentrated in some regions. Exactly the same situation as the hundreds of Germanic toponyms in France, where a Germanic language has never been spoken (excepted fringes).
Those Celtic toponyms have never been majority in Northern Spain. For example, I give you below this source about Northern Spain. The source is in French, but if you see pages 20 to 43, you will see that many toponyms or Northern Spain are rather related to the Basque toponymy. For example, Bayona in Galicia is related to Bayonne in SW France, Bescos to Beskoitze (formely Berascoiz), Ezaro in Galicia with the same name in Biscaye…Even the name of Galicia has a pre-indo-european root. And the conclusion is clear (page 5) : the celtic consience in Galicia is nothing else than the result of politic aims (Spanish use the term of “galleguismo”). Many academic authors are quoted in page 5, it is not a personal view :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

In contrary, Celtic toponyms don’t really cohabit with pre-indo-european ones in France (and Britain), excepted for some exceptions. BTW, the same controversy can exist for southern France (Provence, Languedoc, Aquitaine…) where Celtic culture tends to disappear and is as questionable as Iberia.



Not “historians”, but historians that you have chosen. If you want other academic sources, you can check for example authors like Putzger, Konstam or Villar who have excluded Iberic peninsula from the Celtic world. Graves talks about “mythologization” about the Celtic “consience” in Galicia. And it seems that Spanish authors are among the most septic about the increasing “Celticism” in foreign searchers about Spain.
Just some examples :
http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/numero4_1/articulo4_1_diazsantana.html
http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2005-4-070.pdf
(see p. 180) http://books.google.fr/books?id=SmW...&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So, I maintain : few archaeological heritage (no oppida, few or no chariot, few material… compared to Gaul, British Isles and Central Europe), dispersed toponyms compared to pre-indo-european ones, not attested Celtic vernacular language (in contrary of Gaul or Britain in Roman texts…). The best option is to not make extrapolations from some plates or swords found in the ground or scattered toponyms.




Between ignorants, we will understand ourselves. I am breaking a teenage dream, but soon or later, the reality will have to be admitted. The Celtic problematic in Spain is rather ideological than scientific. It’s neither a shame nor a quality to have a Celtic heritage. Your reaction is the proof : such a thread in Britain or Switerland would have created surprise or indifference at most.




No, they are not : some searchers and a lot of users on the net want to claim Celtic roots from some archaeological traces and toponyms. But the real evidence is that there is no consensus about this question. There is a huge controversy about the Celtic heritage in Iberia. The maps of the Celts in Iberic peninsula are all different, which is a sign, in contrary of Gauls or Britain.
My Spanish is poor, but the controversy seems to be confirmed here for example :
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=2374148&orden=0
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=1083664&orden=0

Even the publications of University of Wisconsin (E-Keltoi), probably the most affirmative about the “Celtic” Spain (and by there one of the least credible…), recognize clearly those controversies. Controversies which are almost marginal in Britain or France.




I have never contested the Celtic “presence” in Iberia. I contest that they should have imposed their culture, like Germanics have not printed their culture in Spain or in Ukraine. Celts have probably formed small communities like some cultural minorities in Balkans, or maybe an artistocratic varnish like Germanics in France. So, we can't claim that Spain was "Celtic" in Antiquity, not even Galicia.



If Celts were a minority among the indigenous population, it is not pointless in a scientific aim. The panick that my contradictor has presented proves that this subject is sensitive in Iberia, not anywhere else.




Genetics are genetics. Culture is culture. The first can't prove or refute the second...

Again, what you are saying (and quoting) is the exact opposite of all accepted research findings. You are twisting things beyond belief using fringe opinion. Hardly acceptable. Time for a reality check guy.

BTW, language is one the fundamental components of Celticity. In Iberia, Celtic and proto-Celtic languages, such as Celtiberian, Galaeic and Lusitanian (a dialect of Galaeic) were spoken by a majority of the population.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Also, try not to come across too strong. Those people (Wilhelm and Cambria Red) who take the opposite position, have been on this forum for quite some time and are decent guys.

Thank you for dealing with the topic in a reasonable fashion.

Why would anyone deny fundamental facts about Iberian Celticity that have been repeatedly confirmed and accepted?

 

[Regulus]

No thanks needed, but I appreciate that.

Our only impasse as far as I see it is how the Celts came to be in Iberia.
I hold that it was a result of several migrations starting out from Neolithic through the Bronze Age, with a Halstatt wave towards the end.

I think that I have your position correct in saying that you would say that the Celts originated as a culture/group in Iberia.

We both agree that there was a significant Celtic component in Iberia. Our differences with how many or how mixed they may have been are not much of an issue.

When you have a chance, could you reply with your understanding of the L21 results of which you wrote and what your conclusion would be of its origin? I think that would put us back on track for what the thread was about.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

No thanks needed, but I appreciate that.

Our only impasse as far as I see it is how the Celts came to be in Iberia.
I hold that it was a result of several migrations starting out from Neolithic through the Bronze Age, with a Halstatt wave towards the end.

I think that I have your position correct in saying that you would say that the Celts originated as a culture/group in Iberia.

We both agree that there was a significant Celtic component in Iberia. Our differences with how many or how mixed they may have been are not much of an issue.

When you have a chance, could you reply with your understanding of the L21 results of which you wrote and what your conclusion would be of its origin? I think that would put us back on track for what the thread was about.

Yes, I'll dig up the latest figures...

 

[Wilhelm]

Frankish language was a western Germanic language. Do you consider early medieval France as Germanic ?

First of all, France did not exist in medieval times. Some parts of what today is France were indeed Germanic (such as Alsace, etc).

Runes have been found in Normandy, British Isles, Ukraine…Do you consider those regions as Scandinavian culture ?

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertyabout.htm?PropID=PL_205&PropName=The%20Norse%20runes
http://laclefdesrunes.l.a.pic.centerblog.net/bdkd4vpi.jpg
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gothic.htm

These regions indeed were a mix of scandinavian culture and the native ones.

Not really. The Hallstatt culture is truly attested only in Central Europe (Eastern France, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria), especially graves with chariots. The regions outside of this central core are at best influences and traces, at worst extrapolations or speculations (Haywood uses the term of “possible” for Iberia).

http://membres.multimania.fr/ayla01/images/carte Hallstatt.jpg
http://pm.revues.org/docannexe/image/365/img-4-small480.jpg
h

I didn't say Iberia had Hallstatt culture. What I said is that objects and typical burials from Hallstatt culture have been found in central-northern Iberia (north Portugal, Castile, Galicia, Asturies, etc)

That’s why making a link between archaeology and culture is speculative (V.Kruta). A Celtic inscription or a Celtic spoon in the ground does not mean that the indigenous spoke here a Celtic language, not more than an old tyre tagged “Goodyear” in the ground of Madrid will mean that Castillan people speak a Germanic language.

No. Like I said, it is the addition of everything : Anthroponyms, archeology, toponyms, inscriptions, celtic words in romance langauges plus the fact that they were not so distant from the Celtiberians who spoke also a Celtic language.

The roman have seen as barbarian all non-roman peoples, whatever the culture they belonged (Iberians, Celts or Huns…).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=barbarian&searchmode=none

Yes, but they described the Celts of Gallaecia as being like the Gauls

In early medieval France, more than 80% of the anthroponyms were of Germanic origin, and a lot of them are still today among the most wear (see Bernard, Robert, Richard, Henry, Lambert…). Even in Iberic peninsula, some anthroponyms have Germanic roots.

I know. So ? Gothic was also spoken among the visigoths, and other germanics like the Suevi. In France differnet regions were Germanic-speaking indeed.

It proves only that Celts have entered in Spain. Nothing else. By comparison, about 10-15 % of the French vocabulary comes from Germanic.

What do you mean by "nothing else " ?? Why are you always using the germanic argument of France ? France has a lot of germanic inlfluence no one denies that. Some areas of modern France were germanic.

And there are many antic Latin words in German language (see Pferd, Pfeil, Spiegel…). It won’t mean that French were Germanics, not more than Germanics were Roman speaking.
[FONT="]http://www.plattmaster.de/roemer.htm[/FONT]

French is a very broad term. France is a vast territory, with many different ethnicities, cultures, etc. Some were germanic, others basque, etc.

Celtic culture was characterized essentially by the language of the indigenous, described and attested by the roman texts in Gaul and Britain, but not in Spain.

Actually there lots of references on Celtic iberia by greco-roman texts. See this for example : Pliny (N.H., III, 3, 13): "The Celtici arriving from Lusitania originate from the Celtiberians, and this is manifested through the religious rites, the language, and the names of the oppida, which are identified in Baetica by their cognomen: Seria, which is called Fama Iulia, Nertobriga, which is called Concordia Iulia, Segida, called Restituta Iulia...".

On the other hand, Appian (Iber. 2) affirmed that Celtiberians were Celts who had settled among the Iberians. This latter opinion was shared by Strabo (III, 4, 5), who made a reference to "the Celts who now call themselves Celtiberians and Berones".

Some authors use the term “Celtiberi” or “Celtici”, but no-one can presume their language. Every other criterion is just the expression of traces or influences, not of culture. The Celtic inscriptions in Spain are probably like the runes in France, Scotland or Ukraine.
The use of the word “Celtiberian” is in its own controversial. Do you know in History “Celto-Germanic” languages or “Germano-Slavic” languages ? No sense.

LOL, actually Celtiberian was a 100% celtic langauge. The word Celtiberian is not an invention, it was the name given by classical authors. They were called Celtiberians because the population consisted of celts who had adopted some iberian culture.

In fact, the Celtiberians were Iberians living in the country hold by the Celtic who where the upper-classes (this is exactly the roman translation of the name “Celtiberi” used for Spain : Iberians from the land of the Celts = hold by the Celts). This analysis is confirmed by an academic author.

Classical sources clearly separate the Celtiberians from the Iberians. As well as their materials, language, etc. They were not the same.

Wrong. We have not the same definition of the term “common”. Your links present areas which have maybe 50,100 toponyms ? The question is not the absolute value, but relative. The fact is that the Celtic toponyms are scattered in Spain, sometimes concentrated in some regions. Exactly the same situation as the hundreds of Germanic toponyms in France, where a Germanic language has never been spoken (excepted fringes).

You are wrong again :
1. The fact that celtiberians (and others) spoke celtic languages is not based on toponyms. (we have already discussed about this)
2. Germanic languages have been spoken in parts of modern France.

Those Celtic toponyms have never been majority in Northern Spain.
For example, I give you below this source about Northern Spain. The source is in French, but if you see pages 20 to 43, you will see that many toponyms or Northern Spain are rather related to the Basque toponymy. For example, Bayona in Galicia is related to Bayonne in SW France, Bescos to Beskoitze (formely Berascoiz), Ezaro in Galicia with the same name in Biscaye…Even the name of Galicia has a pre-indo-european root. And the conclusion is clear (page 5) : the celtic consience in Galicia is nothing else than the result of politic aims (Spanish use the term of “galleguismo”). Many academic authors are quoted in page 5, it is not a personal view :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

LOL. First of all, the "celtic conscience" that you talk is not just in Galicia, but also in Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, Northern Portugal, etc. Well, actually other parts of Iberian have more Celtic heritage despite not having today a more Celtic culture than all the mentioned.

Not “historians”, but historians that you have chosen. If you want other academic sources, you can check for example authors like Putzger, Konstam or Villar who have excluded Iberic peninsula from the Celtic world.
Graves talks about “mythologization” about the Celtic “consience” in Galicia.

This has nothing do with history.

dispersed toponyms compared to pre-indo-european ones, not attested

The pre-Indoeuropean ones are mostly attested in Eastern Iberia, which was an iberian speaking region. The other parts of Iberia, apart from the obvious Latin-derived toponyms the rest are mostly Celtic derived toponyms. Not pre-Indo-European. There is no pre-Indoeuropean toponyms in Central Iberia (Castille)

Celtic vernacular language (in contrary of Gaul or Britain in Roman texts…). The best option is to not make extrapolations from some plates or swords found in the ground or scattered toponyms.

Sure, so why Plyn says the Celtiberians spoke the same langauges as the Gauls ? Why he said he learnt a lot of Celtic words in both Iberia and Gaulia ? Etcetera, etc.

Genetics are genetics. Culture is culture. The first can't prove or refute the second...

Genetics can prove ancestry. The presence of R-S116 is highest in Iberia, Britain, Ireland, Western-France, etc

 

[Grizzly]

First of all, France did not exist in medieval times. Some parts of what today is France were indeed Germanic (such as Alsace, etc).

You travesty my question : do you consider early medieval territory of what is now France as Germanic ?

These regions indeed were a mix of scandinavian culture and the native ones.

Not in a scientific way. Because those regions have never spoken any Scandinavian language. We can only speak about Scandinavian traces or minority heritage. Like Celts in Spain.

I didn't say Iberia had Hallstatt culture. What I said is that objects and typical burials from Hallstatt culture have been found in central-northern Iberia (north Portugal, Castile, Galicia, Asturies, etc)

If by typical Celtic burials, you mean the graves with chariots, they are quasi-absent of Iberia (Raimund Karl). If you talk about the Urnfield culture, it is not related to the Celts.

No. Like I said, it is the addition of everything : Anthroponyms, archeology, toponyms, inscriptions, celtic words in romance langauges plus the fact that they were not so distant from the Celtiberians who spoke also a Celtic language.

This kind of "addition" exist for a lot of examples. I have taken the Germanic one, especially for Northern half of France where the Germanic heritage is far deeper, and where Germanic languages have never been spoken, excepted fringes. You will have difficulties to find academic sources presenting early medieval France as "Germanic". That's why in the same logic, there is no reason to consider antic Iberia as "Celtic".

Yes, but they described the Celts of Gallaecia as being like the Gauls

I did not check, but it does not mean that those Celts were majority in Galicia. Some specialist historians of those regions say clearly no. I have already quoted some examples.

I know. So ? Gothic was also spoken among the visigoths, and other germanics like the Suevi. In France differnet regions were Germanic-speaking indeed.

No, France has never spoken any Germanic language. You have spoken about antroponyms to prove the Celtic culture in Spain, hence my comparison to show you that it is not a receivable criterion.

What do you mean by "nothing else " ?? Why are you always using the germanic argument of France ? France has a lot of germanic inlfluence no one denies that. Some areas of modern France were germanic.

Nothing else = no Celtic culture in a scientific way. And if I use the Germanic argument, this is because the impact of the Celts in Iberia was about of the same logic as the impact of the Celts in Spain : superficial and minority (and I would say far less deep for the second).

French is a very broad term. France is a vast territory, with many different ethnicities, cultures, etc. Some were germanic, others basque, etc.

You have well understood. The fact that some Celtic words exist in the Galician dialects does not prove that this region has ever been "Celtic", just compare with my examples.

Actually there lots of references on Celtic iberia by greco-roman texts.

By reference, I meant an ascertainment that the natives peoples were speaking a Celtic language, like in the "De Bello Gallico" (the only document to do so according to Alby Stone), and not the single evocation of some names of tribes whose language will be always uncertain. By the way, I don't give too much credit to ancient authors who can have mistaken too. For example, Hecataeus of Miletus considered that the inhabitants of Provence were Ligurians (Timaeus LVl), while Strabo called them Celts. Inhabitants of Britain have never been named "Celts" by classical authors. For Greeks, all the northwestern barbarians were Celts, whatever their culture. In fact, according to the classical sources, there are Celts who were not Celtic speakers, and peoples with other names who were Celtic ones.

See this for example : Pliny (N.H., III, 3, 13): "The Celtici arriving from Lusitania originate from the Celtiberians, and this is manifested through the religious rites, the language, and the names of the oppida, which are identified in Baetica by their cognomen: Seria, which is called Fama Iulia, Nertobriga, which is called Concordia Iulia, Segida, called Restituta Iulia...".

What I understand in your Pline's quote, is that the Betic region (actual Andalusia) was Celtiberian...while according to your theroy and your Luis Fraga's map, it is an area out of the Celtic zone. So, Pline would in the contrary confirm that Celtiberians were not Celtic. How much confusion...
Furthermore, according to some authors (ex : Wilhelm de Humbold), the term of "Celtici" used by Pline is an adjective meaning "inhabitants of the Celtic regions" = hold by a Celtic power. It is confirmed by other authors (H. Iglesias - I don't put the French link).

You see, all of this is very controversial...Above all if we realize that the Roman or Greek authors have made a lot of geographical mistakes about regions with so much geographical difficulties (peninsulas, capes...).

On the other hand, Appian (Iber. 2) affirmed that Celtiberians were Celts who had settled among the Iberians. This latter opinion was shared by Strabo (III, 4, 5), who made a reference to "the Celts who now call themselves Celtiberians and Berones".

Don't overrate the meaning of the names of tribes. Many regions still wear today the name of historical minority cultures (see Lombardy, Andalusia, Schwaben, Burgundy, Sachsen, France, Normandy...). The Saxon case (Germany) is interesting because we see that an antic cultural group (the first Saxons) who has probably never put his feet in actual Saxony, has anyway given its name to this region, by the very moving historical frontiers of this region...at the point that all the settlers sent in Eastern Europe by the Holy Empire were called...Saxons (cf minorities of Romania, Ukraine...). And if you realize that the antic Saxons probably wear formely other names, like "Chauci", the name of a tribe is really not a proof. If I don't mistake, the Spanish authorities were still called until recently "Goths" by some peripheral regions like Canaries Islands.

LOL, actually Celtiberian was a 100% celtic langauge.

The term "Celtiberian" is not a cultural term, but an "administrative" or social one to refer to the Iberian people living in the country hold by th aristocratic Celts. It is not my own vision, it is an academic one.

The word Celtiberian is not an invention, it was the name given by classical authors. They were called Celtiberians because the population consisted of celts who had adopted some iberian culture.

According to the Roman grammatics habits, it is the exactly the contrary.

Classical sources clearly separate the Celtiberians from the Iberians. As well as their materials, language, etc. They were not the same.

More exactly, they separate the Iberians living in the territory hold by the Celts, and the Iberians who were free of the Celtic aristocracy domination.

The fact that celtiberians (and others) spoke celtic languages is not based on toponyms. (we have already discussed about this)

I have said that you can't use the term "common" about the Celtic place names in Spain, especially Northern Spain, where those ones are even less numerous than the Germanic place names in France. And don't forget that some toponyms could have been shift by the Celtic aristocracies, like they did in Northern Italy (ex : Bologna). Once again, toponymy does not prove culture, but influence of culture.

Germanic languages have been spoken in parts of modern France.

No, they have been almost not. It does not prevent that Germanic toponyms are very numerous in France, especially in Northern half, and in Normandy, they are almost exlusive. Hence my comparison with your Celtic toponymic argument for Iberia.

LOL. First of all, the "celtic conscience" that you talk is not just in Galicia, but also in Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, Northern Portugal, etc. Well, actually other parts of Iberian have more Celtic heritage despite not having today a more Celtic culture than all the mentioned.

The Celtic "conscience" has developed first in Galicia through the "Galleguismo". The rest of your arguments has nothing to do with my quote.

This has nothing do with history.

They are (or have been) all historians.

The pre-Indoeuropean ones are mostly attested in Eastern Iberia, which was an iberian speaking region. The other parts of Iberia, apart from the obvious Latin-derived toponyms the rest are mostly Celtic derived toponyms.

This is wrong. I have proved it with the link in the previous post about the toponyms in Northern Spain and Nothern Portugal. And even if it would have been right, it would not mean that those regions were Celtic speaking.

Not pre-Indo-European. There is no pre-Indoeuropean toponyms in Central Iberia (Castille)

First, I am not a specialist, bu you can find pre-indo-european toponyms throught places names ending in "-car" like Iscar, maybe Montejicar, or "-ara" like Rio Zancara, but also Badajoz, Vilches (site of Giribaile) or other examples. By the way, Central Spain was probably few inhabited in Antic times maybe due to weaker agricultural potential (dry climate).
Second, even some sources of the wiki (a leader in the "Celtic Spain theory") show clearly pre-indo-european groups in Central Spain : Instituto Bachiller Sabuco or Jose I.Lsago, which adds to the confusion...

http://bachiller.sabuco.com/historia/images/Pueblos prerromanos.jpg

http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_mapa_hispania_03.gif

Once again, we have only controversy about Celtic impact in Spain, nothing else, simply because Celts were not the majority culture, but just a warrior aristocracy.

Sure, so why Plyn says the Celtiberians spoke the same langauges as the Gauls ? Why he said he learnt a lot of Celtic words in both Iberia and Gaulia ? Etcetera, etc.

I did not find your quote about Gauls. Anyway, don't overrate Pline (see examples above).

Genetics can prove ancestry. The presence of R-S116 is highest in Iberia, Britain, Ireland, Western-France, etc

Yes, we know your obsession to connect Spain with Scandinavia or Britain.Yesterday, we had "craniologists", now we have geneticists...Genetics will never prove any cultural feature, it is a truism.

 

[Grizzly]

You are twisting things beyond belief using fringe opinion. Hardly acceptable. Time for a reality check guy.

Yes, Cambria Red, when official scientifical websites and academic authors do not match to your misconceptions, they are "fringe opinions"...Time for a reality check guy.

In Iberia, Celtic and proto-Celtic languages, such as Celtiberian, Galaeic and Lusitanian (a dialect of Galaeic) were spoken by a majority of the population.

No, they were not.

 

[Grizzly]

Our only impasse as far as I see it is how the Celts came to be in Iberia.

No, our impasse is the question : was Iberia really an area of Celtic culture in antiquity ? And the answer is : probably not according to many sources, even if we will never have certitudes about a period with so much lack of scientifical material.

 

[Wilhelm]

Yes, we know your obsession to connect Spain with Scandinavia or Britain.Yesterday, we had "craniologists", now we have geneticists...Genetics will never prove any cultural feature, it is a truism.

LOL I did not even mention Scandinavia. The R-S116 is pretty low there actually. They have mostly the germanic branch R-U106, not the proto-Celtic S116 :

Im not gonna waste more time with an ignorant like you.

 

[Grizzly]

The R-S116 is pretty low there actually. They have mostly the germanic branch R-U106, not the proto-Celtic S116

The terms "Celtic" and "Germanic" are terms referring to cultures, and not to a hypothetical genetic feature.

 

[Wilhelm]

The terms "Celtic" and "Germanic" are terms referring to cultures, and not to a hypothetical genetic feature.

They are terms referring to cultures, which happen to be associated with people migrations associated with these cultures, as shown by y-dna patterns. For example the branch U-106 is mostly found in germanic countries, while the S116 if found mostly in ancient-Celtic countries. Btw it is not an invention of mine, there are studies about this :

"R-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage. "

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CX7-50V8C33-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F22%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bf6eeb1f249a39197d4c6eaa497eff93&searchtype=a

 

[Grizzly]

For example the branch U-106 is mostly found in germanic countries

The problem is that the maps of those subtypes are all different, depending of the samples. Conclusion : all of this is extrapolation. Human being likes to classificate everything. Example for the U-106 :

The most antic "Germanic" regions (essentially Sweden) is under-represented...Some few germanized regions (Italy) are well represented, more than attested germanized regions (Poland).


And S 116 :

Many non-celtic areas (even according to your theories) are the most represented, while the attested "Celtic" areas (Central Europe) are almost absent.

I have read a lot of things about Genetics. I notice that since ten years, a lot of people jumps in quick conclusions, while we need some time to judge. I don't deny that some genetical features can help us to follow human movements, but what I read on the net and on the forums makes me smile for the moment. I'm sure that in few time that regionalists will be able to prove their difference with genetics features. It has been more or less the case with the Basques (extrapolations of the negative rhesus), but I am suspicious when conclusions are too quick. It is a sign that politics is preceding science.

 

[Wilhelm]

The most antic "Germanic" regions (essentially Sweden) is under-represented...Some few germanized regions (Italy) are well represented, more than attested germanized regions (Poland).

Because paternally Sweden has a higher presence of the pre-Indoeuropean I1 and the indo-european R1a, which came from the east. Poland is also the country with the highest presence of R1a.

Many non-celtic areas (even according to your theories) are the most represented, while the attested "Celtic" areas (Central Europe) are almost absent.

Because these Central areas have receieved and mixed with many different populations (Slavs, near-east farmers, etc). While the western-europeans have mantained more or less their ancient substratus.

 

[spongetaro]

to me S116 and celtic people things apart. If not why is S116 so high in Corsica and Sardinia and why it is so low in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic (craddle of Halstatt civilization).