So Celts were North Europeans after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

How exactly was it dismantled? Celts could emerge from Bell Beakers at the Atlantic coast.

You are forgetting that Celts emerged during the Late Bronze Age, not during Copper Age.

======

This image clearly says "Atlantic Late Bronze Age networks" as the Proto-Celtic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png

^^^
In Late Bronze Age times, everyone had a lot of Steppe ancestry all over that yellow area.

---

Where though? Possibly France? Linguistically though it is a non-starter as Celtic languages developed in close proximity to Italic and then split and there after Celtic developed separately from Italic in close proximity to Proto-Germanic as there are some loan words from Celtic in Proto-Germanic. This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was? It's like some people have their pet theories and don't want to let them go.

As an Irish person I don't even care if I'm not a bone fide Celt. I'm just happy to go with what the evidence shows. It really doesn't change my views on who or what I am. I'm still a Gael so whether I descend from Continental Celts doesn't make much difference to my history or place in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was?

---

Well according to SNP Tracker, my subclade of R1b probably came to Poland from France during the Iron Age:

http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

The oldest R1b-L151 has now been discovered in Swiss Corded Ware, so pretty close to France if you ask me.

======

Other early R1b-L151 seem to be from Lingolsheim in France and Auvernier in French Switzerland (Romandy):

https://i.imgur.com/AMHS8iS.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Very interesting, i am at full attention. How Gaulish, Iberian, British and easpecially Irish were impacted in Iron Age by Central European. Are you going by genetics here, or maybe archaeological, historical?


Maybe,... not sure, there must be more DNA samples from late Halstatt and especially La Tene graves

---

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/...Transect_0.pdf

^^The difference between Bronze Age Iberians and Iron Age Celtiberians is all there. Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent (which goes along with the traditional historical record of Celts coming from Central Europe to Britain in the Iron Age, and the appearance of La Tene cultural artefacts in Britain from that time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Well according to SNP Tracker, my subclade of R1b probably came to Poland from France during the Iron Age:

http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

The oldest R1b-L51 has now been discovered in Swiss Corded Ware, so pretty close to France if you ask me.

---

I'm sure that's where a lot of L21 came from specifically Northern France so that's why I'm waiting on some more studies from France but it is also obvious that Dutch Bell Beakers obviously carried L21 so I think ultimately it will be Corded Ware - Single Grave - Dutch Bell Beakers. Nothing earth shattering and it explains the British Isles and Dutch connection which is why Irish also have this connection despite not being Saxons.

It is Swiss Corded Ware > French Bell Beakers probably.

Dutch Bell Beakers were probably descended from French Bell Beakers (and ultimately from Swiss Corded Ware).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent

---

Yes it suggests admixture from the Continent, but it could be admixture from France and from Northern Iberia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

Where though? Possibly France? Linguistically though it is a non-starter as Celtic languages developed in close proximity to Italic and then split and there after Celtic developed separately from Italic in close proximity to Proto-Germanic as there are some loan words from Celtic in Proto-Germanic. This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was? It's like some people have their pet theories and don't want to let them go.

---

https://i.imgur.com/eI7AWzo.png
https://i.imgur.com/53gnOh3.png

Celtic language (Gaulish) had first contact wirh proto-Germanic at very late time, already in Iron Age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/...Transect_0.pdf

^^The difference between Bronze Age Iberians and Iron Age Celtiberians is all there.

---

This trend documents
gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze
Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with
the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18).
Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where
Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction
of Indo-European languages (12), our results
indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches
to Indo-European languages. This is consistent
with the genetic profile of present-day Basques
who speak the only non-Indo-European language
in Western Europe but overlap genetically with
Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry
:thumb001:

Quote:

---

Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent (which goes along with the traditional historical record of Celts coming from Central Europe to Britain in the Iron Age, and the appearance of La Tene cultural artefacts in Britain from that time).

---

In that Reich's paper that you posted Urnfield central European culture associated with Nordic DNA, but at the same time increasing Neolithic Farmer genes in Iron Age Britts you interpreted as invasion from central Europeans which was Nordic, maybe textbook Nordic population?!

There are many problems with the Celtic from the West theory as proposed by Cunliffe and the guy that worked on the Tartessian language:

1. Languages (almost?) never expand from merely trade and lingua francas rarely end up becoming permanently spoken languages, if trade on the other hand is postulated to have kept the Bell Beaker languages close then the question is why didn't this happen with Romance or Germanic languages which had arguably far more contact from the moment they separated.

2. The linguistic diversity in Iberia itself makes the idea that somehow Celtic started from there and took over so much of Central Europe questionable, maybe we miss real existing non-Celtic populations in the sources but even the linguistic diversity in Iberia is too peculiar and not found in Gaul or Germany. Also the existence of the diverging "para-Celtic" or "Italo-Celtic"-like Lusitanian also rises many questions.

3. On the topic of the lingustic situation in Iberia, the Celtic status of Tartessian is questionable and the weak evidence we have makes it non-Celticity a more reasonable proposal, given how many non-Celtic languages there were anyway.

4. I honestly don't see how one could discard Hallstatt on archeological grounds while supporting this theory, where are the advtanges of this new theory? There is nothing as close as the cohesiveness and interconnectedness of Hallstatt and La Tene that explains the kind of continental wide ethnic and linguistic relatedness we

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

https://i.imgur.com/eI7AWzo.png
https://i.imgur.com/53gnOh3.png

Celtic language (Gaulish) had first contact wirh proto-Germanic at very late time, already in Iron Age

---

Does Cunliffe actually believe Italo-Celtic separated from the rest as far early as Hittite in 6500 BCE? What? This is just ridiculous, outside Anatolian and maybe Tocharian I'm not sure how anyone can postulated IE breaking before 3000 BCE

Edit: Ah, it's Renfrew's Anatolian theory, complete garbage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

This seems fairly reasonable, all of them looke western European aboriginal and not migrants from east as traditional speculations used to claim

---

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.

---

How does Etruscan have Anatolian or Mycenean influence? Also Urnfield wasn't really eastern and Scythian influence was extremely weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

Where though? Possibly France? Linguistically though it is a non-starter as Celtic languages developed in close proximity to Italic and then split and there after Celtic developed separately from Italic in close proximity to Proto-Germanic as there are some loan words from Celtic in Proto-Germanic. This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was? It's like some people have their pet theories and don't want to let them go.

As an Irish person I don't even care if I'm not a bone fide Celt. I'm just happy to go with what the evidence shows. It really doesn't change my views on who or what I am. I'm still a Gael so whether I descend from Continental Celts doesn't make much difference to my history or place in the world.

---

Proto-celtic language wasn't developed in close proximity to italic. They had the same ancestor, just like Germanic has the same ancestor with balto-Slavic

But that has nothing to do with genetics, as italic speakers just like all IE speakers of southern Europe have assimilated native non-IE neolithics, which is the reason that they don't plot near modern Germanic and Celtic speakers

I haven't seen samples from celts of Spain or Portugal but I am pretty confident that they would plot in Southern Europe, and they still were Celts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brennus dux gallorum

Proto-celtic language wasn't developed in close proximity to italic. They had the same ancestor, just like Germanic has the same ancestor with balto-Slavic

But that has nothing to do with genetics, as italic speakers just like all IE speakers of southern Europe have assimilated native non-IE neolithics, which is the reason that they don't plot near modern Germanic and Celtic speakers

---

How do you know for sure there were a Italo-Celtic ancestor, any specific arguments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

How do you know for sure there were a Italo-Celtic ancestor, any specific arguments?

---

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brennus dux gallorum

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)

---

Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?

Summarizing, the op is wrong, as he concludes "celts were north European" as if there was any Proto-IE population which was not equally "northern European". Southern European admixture technically means non-IE neolithic

He further makes the mistake to generalize La tene results to all historical Celtic populations of all periods. I haven't seen sample from Celtic speakers of Iberia, but I am sure that this 52% neolithic in modern Iberia didn't come out of nowhere, it was there when the majority of its population was speaking a celtic language. Celts can't be seen as a genetic/racial group, but as a linguocultural group

Fact remains that northern European celts had the same ancestor with the genetically equally northern European Italics who gave the language and civilization to modern Latin-speaking countries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?

---

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpr...amily-tree.jpg

in spite of posting from my mobile phone i was able to find the most famous IE tree. there are several alternatives (I have seen for example in some authors proto-Greek being originated from Italo-celtic or Thracian from Germano/Balto-slavic) but all of them have one thing in common: Celts with italics and Germanics with Balto-slavs. I will post even more links and sources tomorrow from my pc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brennus dux gallorum

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)

---

There is no such consensus, again if you have actual arguments bring them, arguments from fictitious authority are boring and pointless as you use your limited experience on the topic to dictate what linguistics think when we all know there are almost no definitive answers and everything is being questioned for a reason or another. Only scholars should have a voice in determining what the consensus or not, given they actually engage more than any of us on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brennus dux gallorum

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpr...amily-tree.jpg

in spite of posting from my mobile phone i was able to find the most famous IE tree. there are several alternatives (I have seen for example in some authors proto-Greek being originated from Italo-celtic or Thracian from Germano/Balto-slavic) but all of them have one thing in common: Celts with italics and Germanics with Balto-slavs. I will post even more links and sources tomorrow from my pc

---

Weird because nearly every tree I look at shows Germanic as its own separate branch from the PIE root. There's also the obvious fact that Germanic is Centum with Italo-Celtic, unlike Satem Balto-Slavic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

There are many problems with the Celtic from the West theory as proposed by Cunliffe and the guy that worked on the Tartessian language:

1. Languages (almost?) never expand from merely trade and lingua francas rarely end up becoming permanently spoken languages, if trade on the other hand is postulated to have kept the Bell Beaker languages close then the question is why didn't this happen with Romance or Germanic languages which had arguably far more contact from the moment they separated.

2. The linguistic diversity in Iberia itself makes the idea that somehow Celtic started from there and took over so much of Central Europe questionable, maybe we miss real existing non-Celtic populations in the sources but even the linguistic diversity in Iberia is too peculiar and not found in Gaul or Germany. Also the existence of the diverging "para-Celtic" or "Italo-Celtic"-like Lusitanian also rises many questions.

3. On the topic of the lingustic situation in Iberia, the Celtic status of Tartessian is questionable and the weak evidence we have makes it non-Celticity a more reasonable proposal, given how many non-Celtic languages there were anyway.

4. I honestly don't see how one could discard Hallstatt on archeological grounds while supporting this theory, where are the advtanges of this new theory? There is nothing as close as the cohesiveness and interconnectedness of Hallstatt and La Tene that explains the kind of continental wide ethnic and linguistic relatedness we

---

1. Correct me if i wrong, evolution of Germanic languages has very similar history with Proto-Celtic, if Jastorf and Nordic Bronze Age cultures are associated with it. From Corded ware culture to Nordic Bronze/Jastorf (proto-Nordic) around 1000-1500 years and they're also separated by sea and spread over a large geographic area. Proto-Celtic evolved from Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker and by 1000-500 BC began separating into different branches. Seaways are better means of communiactions than ground movements btw.

2.it's impossible to state categorically where exactly lived that group of people who have caused proto-Celtic. But the version with Atlantic seashore contains much less controversy, than others and allayed many problems.

3. In that case Koch's version would be destroyed by other linguists long time ago. Particularly since Celts were the closest neighbours of Tartessians and even supposed to be related

4.Yes, i agree. There're still many problems and blank pots, just like with Central European hypothesis by the way. But Halstatt in fact doesn't look like huge monolitic culture that cover half of Europe as shown in Wiki, in contrast it's a limited area around Alps and La Tene is too late for that. Yes Western Halstatt was probably Celtic and La Tene was 100% Celtic culture, but that's just eastern periphery of Celtic world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.

---

Yeah, Halstatt looke like multicultural supranational culture based on trading river system, mineral extraction and prestigious goods. They willingly took new foreign ideas, prestige metal works ,wine, new types of carts, architecture from Greece and Italy, funeral customs for the nobility from Scythians and who knows, maybe pants also. Thus presence of "Scythinans" there would make sence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?

---

Proto-Germanic, possibly, broke away from Italo-Celtic, but very early and had been in close contacts with Baltic for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

1. Correct me if i wrong, evolution of Germanic languages has very similar history with Proto-Celtic, if Jastorf and Nordic Bronze Age cultures are associated with it. From Corded ware culture to Nordic Bronze/Jastorf (proto-Nordic) around 1000-1500 years and they're also separated by sea and spread over a large geographic area. Proto-Celtic evolved from Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker and by 1000-500 BC began separating into different branches. Seaways are better means of communiactions than ground movements btw.

---

I don't believe it's the same because ultimately the land in the Germanic case is more tightly connected also because proto-Germanic is date relatively early in the process, a bit more that a century after the formation of Jastorf I believe. Plus nobody is postulating "lingua francas" or the kind of long-distance unity and communication between England/Ireland and Iberia.

Quote:

---

2.it's impossible to state categorically where exactly lived that group of people who have caused proto-Celtic. But the version with Atlantic seashore contains much less controversy, than others and allayed many problems.

---

Such as? What exactly are the advantages? To me they are not apparent at all, I barely see anyone actively arguing about them outside Cunliffe and no actual good deciding arguments so far.

Quote:

---

3. In that case Koch's version would be destroyed by other linguists long time ago. Particularly since Celts were the closest neighbours of Tartessians and even supposed to be related

---

http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Som...eltic_language

Let's not beat around the bush, the classification of Tartessian as Celtic is highly unwarrantedn and a very low confidence claim given the evidence so far, plus it would not contradict a Central European expansion at all but it would merely help shape the timeline, given the earliest Tartessian inscription are not before the 8th century anyway.

Quote:

---

4.Yes, i agee. There're still many problems and blank pots, just like with Central European hypothesis by the way. But Halstatt in fact doesn't look like huge monolitic culture that cover half of Europe as shown in Wiki, in contrast it's a limited area around Alps and La Tene is too late for that. Yes Western Halstatt was probably Celtic and La Tene was 100% Celtic culture, but that's just eastern periphery of Celtic world

---

Obviously nobody is makign the argument that material culture is 1:1 with languages, but we do see a lot of interconnectedness during the Hallstatt period and I still haven't seen anyone actually addressing what kind of secret knowledge they have that indicates Celtic from West is an actual necessary theory to explain the arrival of Celtic in Central Europe and Eastern France rather than a local development.

Regardless of material culture some Celts in Lombardy by this point, having Celtic in Spain can be argued using the same Tartessian language whose Celtic-like elements can be argued to come from borrowings. A Celtic from the West theory cannot possibly have had a different timeline of expansion than the Central European theory, so I still don't see why is it necessary, if you have just one very good argument for it please just show it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

I don't believe it's the same because ultimately the land in the Germanic case is more tightly connected also because proto-Germanic is date relatively early in the process, a bit more that a century after the formation of Jastorf I believe. Plus nobody is postulating "lingua francas" or the kind of long-distance unity and communication between England/Ireland and Iberia.

---

Proto-Germanic language originated for just one century?!:confused: I think you get process formation of languages incorrectly. Language doesn't just happen from nothing, it evolves long time, many centuries, on a definitive basis. Land in the Germanic case was not more tightly connected.
Why distance contacts from central Norway to Gotland or from Northern Nederlands to central Sweden as a matter of course for you, but distance between northen Iberia and Gironde or around La Manche is something fantastically incredible?

Quote:

---

Such as? What exactly are the advantages? To me they are not apparent at all, I barely see anyone actively arguing about them outside Cunliffe and no actual good deciding arguments so far.

---

It's very simple. There's no Urnfield/ Halstatt presence in Atlantic and even La Tene doesn't cover small part of area. Historians of the past resolved this problem easy, they just combined Central European archaeological cultures, idea that all migrations must have east-weat direction with ancient written sources which placed Celts on half of the Continent, and that's it!

Quote:

---

http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Som...eltic_language

Let's not beat around the bush, the classification of Tartessian as Celtic is highly unwarrantedn and a very low confidence claim given the evidence so far, plus it would not contradict a Central European expansion at all but it would merely help shape the timeline, given the earliest Tartessian inscription are not before the 8th century anyway.

---

To sum up, Koch's analysis reflects the author's superior scholarship, but is not really convincing. The reader is left with a number of inconsistencies, in form and content, ad hoc solutions and divergencies from the results of the other Hispano-Celtic sources. Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach. As in the case of Lusitanian, it may very well be a hybrid language with a non-Celtic matrix and extensive Celtic loanwords (as previously assumed by Francisco Villar) or vice versa.

I shall begin by saying I find no a priori reason to rule
out a Celtic classification of Tartessian. But it is important
to note that this idea, originally put forward by José
Antonio Correa, rests on the interpretation of a large
number of words as Celtic personal names (in fact, a third
part of the corpus in Koch’s approach). As is obvious to
nearly every linguist (including Koch, but interestingly not
some of the works on Lusitanian that he quotes), proper
names are not diagnostic of the genetic appurtenance of
the language in which the text is conducted. This is why –
briga place names mentioned in indigenous Lusitanian
inscriptions contribute nothing to the study of Lusitanian.
People travel, and the allusion to persons bearing Celtic
names in ancient epigraphy, whether Celtic or not, is
entirely unproblematic. But this faces us with a problem
that is seldom reckoned with: If the matrix language of the
SW epigraphy is not Celtic, but nearly a third part of its
contents consists of Celtic personal names, these may have
been borrowed (or simply consigned in writing) long after
the dawn of literacy, and consequently may reflect the
actual synchronic phonetics of SW Celtic dialects more
faithfully than the non–Celtic appellative vocabulary

Both of these reviews suggested that can be Celtic

Quote:

---

Obviously nobody is makign the argument that material culture is 1:1 with languages, but we do see a lot of interconnectedness during the Hallstatt period and I still haven't seen anyone actually addressing what kind of secret knowledge they have that indicates Celtic from West is an actual necessary theory to explain the arrival of Celtic in Central Europe and Eastern France rather than a local development.

Regardless of material culture some Celts in Lombardy by this point, having Celtic in Spain can be argued using the same Tartessian language whose Celtic-like elements can be argued to come from borrowings. A Celtic from the West theory cannot possibly have had a different timeline of expansion than the Central European theory, so I still don't see why is it necessary, if you have just one very good argument for it please just show it.

---

OK. contemporaries described "Celtic world" in many respects, we know tribes, names, cities and sometimes even history of their origin. But the main problem that most of these tribes, maybe 90% were not in Central Europe, moreover they're recent migrants from west there! Furthemore we even know from written sources when they began to move to Italy for example and what mountain pass they used, its a Ha D1 period. so i honestly don't understand why it is bothering you so much. There are no discrepancies at all, no between Celts in Iberia and Italy nor between presence of Lepontic and Tartessian inscriptions and its Celtic origin, just if we accept western theory of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Proto-Germanic language originated for just one century?!:confused: I think you get process formation of languages incorrectly. Language doesn't just happen from nothing, it evolves long time, many centuries, on a definitive basis. Land in the Germanic case was not more tightly connected.

---

What I mean is that proto-Germanic started to split around 500 BCE I believe. Although it is also dated as late as 200 CE when through glottochronogical-based comparison between North and West Germanic, as people consider East Germanic to be a more basal split between it and North-West.

Plus the late dating is explained by actual migrations from north to south, not magical trade-driven lingua francas taking over entire regions somehow. When proponents of Celtic from the West make actual argument using migration we can compare the 2 theories, but they aren't.

Quote:

---

Why distance contacts from central Norway to Gotland or from Northern Nederlands to central Sweden as a matter of course for you, but distance between northen Iberia and Gironde or around La Manche is something fantastically incredible?

---

Yes look at a map please. Plus nobody is postulating that Germanic was FORMED as a lingua franca over a large region, while those proponents do for celtic.

Plus Celtic from the West postulates Celtic was also spoken in Ireland and Britain prior to expanding into central Europe. The distance between Tartessus and Scotland is much large than even the distance between Trondheim and Thuringia. Celtic from the West also doesn't explain why the language broke up at all if primitive societies(yes they were primitive stateless societies by all accounts) could create and maintain linguistic unity over such distances.

I[QUOTE]t's very simple. There's no Urnfield/ Halstatt presence in Atlantic and even La Tene doesn't cover small part of area. Historians of the past resolved this problem easy, they just combined Central European archaeological cultures, idea that all migrations must have east-weat direction with ancient written sources which placed Celts on half of the Continent, and that's it![QUOTE]
There is Hallstatt influence in Britain, not a lot but at the same time it is not necessary to explain the migrations, we know there were Lepontii in Italy prior to La Tene without having Lombardy being part of the Hallstatt cohesiveness.

Also no, scholars did not invent Hallstatt or La Tene unity to fit with the sources, you are literally making stuff up simply because you don't want to revise or defend the theory you prefer with actual arguments.

Quote:

---

Both of these reviews suggested that can be Celtic

---

It can be Celtic and it could anything because if use such weak arguments you could argue a lot of things. Not enough to base an entire theory, especially given it's not like Tartessian has incredibly early dating.

Quote:

---

OK. contemporaries described "Celtic world" in many respects, we know tribes, names, cities and sometimes even history of their origin. But the main problem that most of these tribes, maybe 90% were not in Central Europe, moreover they're recent migrants from west there! Furthemore we even know from written sources when they began to move to Italy for example and what mountain pass they used, its a Ha D1 period. so i honestly don't understand why it is bothering you so much. There are no discrepancies at all, no between Celts in Iberia and Italy nor between presence of Lepontic and Tartessian inscriptions and its Celtic origin, just if we accept western theory of course.

---

Maybe they weren't in Central Europe, maybe Tartessian was Celtic, maybe the scholars made up material cultures. All maybes.

What's bothering me is that there is no reason this theory should exist, it doesn't explain anything at all while claiming so much stuff WITHOUT evidence. There is no discrepancy in the Hallstatt theory either if you think there are non in the Western theory, you are hypocritically criticizing only Hallstatt for faults that the Western theory has, if you can demonstrably show that Hallstatt derived inctrovertably from Western sources from Iberia or Britain fell free.

Double

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

What I mean is that proto-Germanic started to split around 500 BCE I believe. Although it is also dated as late as 200 CE when through glottochronogical-based comparison between North and West Germanic, as people consider East Germanic to be a more basal split between it and North-West.

Plus the late dating is explained by actual migrations from north to south, not magical trade-driven lingua francas taking over entire regions somehow. When proponents of Celtic from the West make actual argument using migration we can compare the 2 theories, but they aren't.


Yes look at a map please. Plus nobody is postulating that Germanic was FORMED as a lingua franca over a large region, while those proponents do for celtic.

---

Then, how proto-Germanic before splitting around 500 BC was managed to develope in Northern Europe all that time? If only you have got alternative theory of speedy occupations of all Northern Europe by proto-Germanics in 500 BC from some small point

Quote:

---

Plus Celtic from the West postulates Celtic was also spoken in Ireland and Britain prior to expanding into central Europe. The distance between Tartessus and Scotland is much large than even the distance between Trondheim and Thuringia. Celtic from the West also doesn't explain why the language broke up at all if primitive societies(yes they were primitive stateless societies by all accounts) could create and maintain linguistic unity over such distances.

---

It's not inconceivable, provided that language used by relative, neighbouring communties in close contacts with each other preserve some language for a couple of times. Don't look at the map of whole Europe if it's iterrifying to imagine for you, just look at it like it's a continuum of settlements in clear line of sight.

Quote:

---

There is Hallstatt influence in Britain, not a lot but at the same time it is not necessary to explain the migrations, we know there were Lepontii in Italy prior to La Tene without having Lombardy being part of the Hallstatt cohesiveness.

Also no, scholars did not invent Hallstatt or La Tene unity to fit with the sources, you are literally making stuff up simply because you don't want to revise or defend the theory you prefer with actual arguments.

---

Sorry i don't understand you. Are you supporting Celtic invasion theory from central Europe in Iron Age or not? because it's a classic. Open any book and you'll see how Celts do conquer Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland etc. just right from Halstatt and La Tene cemeteries.

Quote:

---

It can be Celtic and it could anything because if use such weak arguments you could argue a lot of things. Not enough to base an entire theory, especially given it's not like Tartessian has incredibly early dating.


Maybe they weren't in Central Europe, maybe Tartessian was Celtic, maybe the scholars made up material cultures. All maybes.

What's bothering me is that there is no reason this theory should exist, it doesn't explain anything at all while claiming so much stuff WITHOUT evidence. There is no discrepancy in the Hallstatt theory either if you think there are non in the Western theory, you are hypocritically criticizing only Hallstatt for faults that the Western theory has, if you can demonstrably show that Hallstatt derived inctrovertably from Western sources from Iberia or Britain fell free.

---

I already said that Hallstatt is a supranational phenomenon. Even in classic hypothesis it belongs to different ethnic groups, western Halstatt is Celtic and eastern Halstatt is not. The picture is much more complicated. Halstatt as such is not derived from Britain and Iberia surely, but its the result of wars and collapse of Urnfield culture. so Celts just took a part of its developing right there together with local previous population and not had been brought it Central Europe as a ready-made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Then, how proto-Germanic before splitting around 500 BC was managed to develope in Northern Europe all that time? If only you have got alternative theory of speedy occupations of all Northern Europe by proto-Germanics in 500 BC from some small point

---

Because contrary to Western Celts they don't have a oceans dividing them, c'mon now. Also nobody is talking about small points, you are building strawmans, sure glottochronology might fail in small regions but here we are talking about distances of dozens of hundreds of kilometers through the Atlantic, not a couple hundred.

Also like I said before virtually everyone takes into consideration the importance of migrations from the north reinforcing the unity. In 500 BCE Germanic was just moving south from Mecklenburg, Holstein and northern Lower Saxony.

Quote:

---

It's not inconceivable, provided that language used by relative, neighbouring communties in close contacts with each other preserve some language for a couple of times. Don't look at the map of whole Europe if it's iterrifying to imagine for you, just look at it like it's a continuum of settlements in clear line of sight.

---

Yes I totally forgot about the line of settlements between Galicia and Ireland, silly me. Even if you consider France it's an extremely large area, the distance between Northern Scotland and Tartessos between 1.6 and 2 times as long of a distance as from Trondheim to Thuringia or Harz, plus it's based on the idea that the language was spread by trade and contact, NOT migration. Are you ever going to address that?

Quote:

---

Sorry i don't understand you. Are you supporting Celtic invasion theory from central Europe in Iron Age or not? because it's a classic. Open any book and you'll see how Celts do conquer Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland etc. just right from Halstatt and La Tene cemeteries.

---

Not sure what the fuck you are saying but neither Hallstatt nor La Tene have been invented, the fact that such large material cultures exists coincides with what we know of Celtic migrations happening both in the Balkans, Italy and Southern France and Iberia. It's evidence converging, not bias.

Quote:

---

I already said that Hallstatt is a supranational phenomenon. Even in classic hypothesis it belongs to different ethnic groups, western Halstatt is Celtic and eastern Halstatt is not. The picture is much more complicated. Halstatt as such is not derived from Britain and Iberia surely, but its the result of wars and collapse of Urnfield culture. so Celts just took a part of its developing right there together with local previous population and not had been brought it Central Europe as a ready-made.

---

And your evidence for that is? If you can come up with such a theory that totally ignores archeological cultures to talk about the expansion of linguistic communities, what fucking argument do you have against Hallstatt? You literally have nothing against Hallstatt, just tell one argument that applies against only to Hallstatt Celtic expansion theory that doesn't to yours.

Regardless it's not like I'm going to defend the Hallstatt theory for the sake of it, there are some problems about the dating of proto-Celtic that could push the expansion some centuries prior to the Iron age Hallstatt period, but they don't benefit at all Celtic from the West, as they would still be unable to explain the diversity in Spain, the division between Brythonic and and Gaelic and of course they would still have to rely on Hallstatt to explain the Celtic expansion past the Rhine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Well, here's my go to model for Western Europeans+new Swiss samples. Every single sample labeled Celtic has their closest distance to a N. Iberian or S. French population. I still use Collegno_o1 to represent Imperial Romans in my go to model over Imperial_Rome because the Imperial_Rome sample was likely too southern shifted for the average Italian colonist, a plurality of samples were Cyprus like, not to mention all the literal fresh off the boat MENA immigrants, South Italian-Greek islander seems more about right to me. Based on K36 results south of the Rhine Dutch are pretty different from all other Dutch and Flemish are pretty different from Walloons, so there's definitely some regional variation there, but those pops aren't on G25.

model(same model for all the pops, if you use the model yourself I recommend using DEU_MA as individuals rather than the average, not a good idea comparing averages of pops vs individuals of pops, I was just too lazy):


Target: English_Cornwall
Distance: 1.2712% / 0.01271192
43.4 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
29.6 Germanic
27.0 Celtic
(darkest eyed British Isles pop scores the most S. French-like Celt, coincidence?)

Target: English
Distance: 1.1496% / 0.01149641
45.2 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
34.0 Germanic
19.2 Celtic
1.6 Italic

Target: Irish
Distance: 1.3893% / 0.01389258
72.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
16.4 Germanic
11.0 Celtic

Target: Dutch
Distance: 1.0855% / 0.01085496
71.2 Germanic
15.0 Celtic
13.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker

Target: Belgian
Distance: 0.8557% / 0.00855729
35.8 Germanic
24.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
23.6 Celtic
8.6 Italic
7.2 ImperialRoman

Target: French_Nord
Distance: 0.8087% / 0.00808733
34.2 Celtic
28.8 Germanic
21.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
8.6 ImperialRoman
6.8 Italic

Target: Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
Distance: 0.9247% / 0.00924716
39.8 Celtic
25.0 Iberia_Central_BA
17.4 ImperialRoman
8.0 Italic
5.0 Mozabite
4.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker



Maybe the Empuires samples were even all Celts, it's still silly, imo, to use samples from Iberia instead of from the actual Alps, regardless of age. If anything the older age of the Alpine samples should make them prefer any newer Italic samples but they don't. I do not disagree with late period Alpine Celts being 34-40% steppe. The only thing I disagree with is people with however much % steppe N. French have making up the average of people in the Hallstatt/La Tene period Alps.

No samples from the Basque area, but as far as I know, Iberia, from the North-East all the way to Portugal, was Basque-like pre-Celtic/Roman invasions, going on PCA plot position. Not just "around Basque", but very specifically Basque. Celts likely shifted them north as Empuires shows but North Africans and Imperial Romans back down to modern Iberians. Southern France clearly got more southern via Imperial Roman admixture, perhaps even modern Spanish, but may also likely have extra northern admixture from post-medieval northern French migrating, etc, which can explain why they still cluster around my hypothesized Celts. It's like N. Italians, they are almost identical to Etruscans but obviously they are not 100% Etruscan, nowhere close to it, despite circumstances of later migrations making them extremely similar.

E has been found in neolithic Europe, nearly all of it in the south-east, nearly all of it the specific clade E-V13, and still in tiny tiny amounts, nowhere close to the rate modern Europeans have it. J has even been found in EHGs and Yamnaya, that does not mean the vast majority of modern European J isn't from later Middle-Eastern migrations.

I believe La Tene areas in N. France and Belgium are dated older to anywhere else in France(but of course oldest are in La Tene/Switzerland) along the Rhine, maybe that supports Alpine Celts moving north first before they spread to southern France/Iberia.


The Celtic speakers that crossed the English straight definitely weren't S. French like, they undoubtably picked up admixture from the Rhine area/NW France area, a region which I do think was N. French-like, if not even more northern similar to England/Scotland MBA/LBA, so while English/Irish may show low amounts of S. French-like admixture(don't forget the case of elite language conquest in Hungary/Finland btw), that wasn't the entire % of the population movement by people who spoke the language.


The Celts were pretty civilized and urbanized for their time, I would be more surprised if they were overwhelmingly Bell Beaker descended rather than heavily neolithic farmer. The Celtic language is literally closer linguistically to Italic than it is to Germanic. Keep in mind back then Latium or anywhere in Italy should really be considered the same thing as northern Italy, Slovenia, etc geographically, the Mediterranean sea used to be a barrier between gene flow, not a conduit. It's not really that far fetched for populations on both sides of a mountain range(albeit big) to be pretty similar(Celts were more northern anyway, again I'm not arguing for the Celt average to be around N. Iberians lol, the distance between Iberians and S. French is pretty big).

There's also one important point I forgot earlier, populations like Czechs, Slovaks, southern Poles show this southern shifted Celt signal. Are we really going to say Czechs and Poles have Italic and Roman admixture now?

---

Was just thinking, a possible point in favour of your theory that the original Celts were SW Euro-like was the Italian affinity that NW Euro countries scored surprisingly high amounts of in the Viking paper.
https://i.postimg.cc/9fv9JwGy/Got-VW...-estimates.png

English = 19% 'Celtic' in your model, 18% (17-20%) 'Italian' in the paper
Irish = 11% 'Celtic' in your model, 9% (7-12%) 'Italian' in the paper
Scandinavians get 5-10% of it as well, which would be hard to explain through Romans or something.

Might be a coincidence, but just putting it out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Because contrary to Western Celts they don't have a oceans dividing them, c'mon now. Also nobody is talking about small points, you are building strawmans, sure glottochronology might fail in small regions but here we are talking about distances of dozens of hundreds of kilometers through the Atlantic, not a couple hundred.

Also like I said before virtually everyone takes into consideration the importance of migrations from the north reinforcing the unity. In 500 BCE Germanic was just moving south from Mecklenburg, Holstein and northern Lower Saxony.


Yes I totally forgot about the line of settlements between Galicia and Ireland, silly me. Even if you consider France it's an extremely large area, the distance between Northern Scotland and Tartessos between 1.6 and 2 times as long of a distance as from Trondheim to Thuringia or Harz, plus it's based on the idea that the language was spread by trade and contact, NOT migration. Are you ever going to address that?


Not sure what the fuck you are saying but neither Hallstatt nor La Tene have been invented, the fact that such large material cultures exists coincides with what we know of Celtic migrations happening both in the Balkans, Italy and Southern France and Iberia. It's evidence converging, not bias.


And your evidence for that is? If you can come up with such a theory that totally ignores archeological cultures to talk about the expansion of linguistic communities, what fucking argument do you have against Hallstatt? You literally have nothing against Hallstatt, just tell one argument that applies against only to Hallstatt Celtic expansion theory that doesn't to yours.

---

Allright, i've seen your arguments. Proto-Germanic language that developed for 1000 years, covered whole northern Europe (Nordic Bronze Age) and divided by sea is absolutely par for the course for you, but almost the same process in Atlantic Bronze Age is something fantastically impossible.

Is that so difficult to understanding? Not from Scotland to Tartessos, you're improperly going by direct distance. But people those era travelling from settlement to settlement, between closest havens, that might be half day away from each other. If the connection between areas was intensive enough, and archaeology shows that it really was, there's nothing unusual, that these people spoke one language.

That's what western Hallstatt and La Tene look like in reality

https://i.imgur.com/rMQQl1V.png
https://i.imgur.com/McziHaj.png

There must be wild flights of imagination. to make up hypothesis how people of these archaeological cultures populated whole Atlantic part of Europe right up to Ireland and Portugal. From another side western theory is much more realistic because coastline and lower parts of large rivers is much better for connecting people and long distance travelling, than mountain Alpine area (Halstatt homeland). Journey that took a week by sea, on the ground took a months especially in mountainous region

Although I am not going to say much about this issue since I have not read much about it, since I am a Spaniard just wanted to tell you that there is even an older civilization than Tartessos in southern Spain which is Turdetanians. They seem to be related.

And also saying that most people in "Spain" spoke a basque like language: iberian (most people agree that basque was extremely related with iberian). And some theories say that in many places of Europe and previously to the arrival of indoeuropeans, the natives spoke an "iberian" like language.

And there was also a intermedial language called celtiberian, which is related to celtic (it even has PIE Consonants, and iberian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language

This is the celtiberian language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botorrita_plaque

https://www.uni-due.de/DI/Botorrita.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Botorrita1.jpg

llengües paleohispàniques
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...niques-ang.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Allright, i've seen your arguments. Proto-Germanic language that developed for 1000 years, covered whole northern Europe (Nordic Bronze Age) and divided by sea is absolutely par for the course for you, but almost the same process in Atlantic Bronze Age is something fantastically impossible.

---

The Nordic Bronze Age covered only the southern half of Scandinavia and the northern coast of Germany around Holstein, like I said it's smaller than the Atlantic Bronze Age and it was NOT created by magical lingua francas taking over large territories.

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/...llense_cut.jpg

Stop ignoring my points, it was NOT the same process, if Cunliffe and Koch were claiming that the Celtic Atlantic unifciaiton happened through migration it would be similar but it's not.

Quote:

---

Is that so difficult to understanding? Not from Scotland to Tartessos, you're improperly going by direct distance. But people those era travelling from settlement to settlement, between closest havens, that might be half day away from each other. If the connection between areas was intensive enough, and archaeology shows that it really was, there's nothing unusual, that these people spoke one language.

---

The Atlantic Bronze Age starts in 1300 BCE and prior to that those populations were separated for centuries, there is NO reason to assume they spoke the same language nor is there any evidence that trade or merely contact unifies such large regions.

How does Basque and Lusitanian fit in this theory? Somehow those 2 populations were not unified when the areas between Scotland and Tartessos? Why are you not considering the chronological division between Brythonic and Gaelic at all?

Quote:

---

That's what western Hallstatt and La Tene look like in reality

---

No this shows the core areas, not the maximum spread of their artifacts, Cunliffe's maps shows the maximum spread too. Also you find plenty of Bronze Hallstatt swords in Britain and Ireland

Quote:

---

There must be wild flights of imagination. to make up hypothesis how people of these archaeological cultures populated whole Atlantic part of Europe right up to Ireland and Portugal. From another side western theory is much more realistic because coastline and lower parts of large rivers is much better for connecting people and long distance travelling, than mountain Alpine area (Halstatt homeland). Journey that took a week by sea, on the ground took a months especially in mountainous region

---

Whatever you say, you are not actually engaging with my arguments and provided no evidence of your arguments, we have to be here pretending you are some sort of genius and your ideas are supposed to be valid just by being sound. Just come up with evidencec

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

The Nordic Bronze Age covered only the southern half of Scandinavia and the northern coast of Germany around Holstein, like I said it's smaller than the Atlantic Bronze Age and it was NOT created by magical lingua francas taking over large territories.


Stop ignoring my points, it was NOT the same process, if Cunliffe and Koch were claiming that the Celtic Atlantic unifciaiton happened through migration it would be similar but it's not.

The Atlantic Bronze Age starts in 1300 BCE and prior to that those populations were separated for centuries, there is NO reason to assume they spoke the same language nor is there any evidence that trade or merely contact unifies such large regions.

---

You have not read that book. just like anything about Atlantic core zone. There're constant contacts for thousands of years. since late Neolithic up to Late Bronze Age forming actually one contact zone. There's just huge intensification for the latter period. However, it's impossible to say when and how IE, proto-Celtic, common Celtic was introduced there, the only thing can be said confidently that in the late Bronze Age it was broadly introduсed in Atlantic zone,and it was commonly used language there, THAT'S THE POINT, who knows maybe all late Neolithic or Bell Beakers, or Armorican/Wessex cultures comprised one linguistic area and proto-Celtic evolved from it. Absolutely the same about proto-Germanic, very large part of Northern Europe accepted to be proto-Germanic and nobody knows how it exactly had happened, maybe it was 'lingua france' as well. Stop counting kilometres,it's not going to make any difference.

Quote:

---

How does Basque and Lusitanian fit in this theory? Somehow those 2 populations were not unified when the areas between Scotland and Tartessos? Why are you not considering the chronological division between Brythonic and Gaelic at all?

No this shows the core areas, not the maximum spread of their artifacts, Cunliffe's maps shows the maximum spread too. Also you find plenty of Bronze Hallstatt swords in Britain and Ireland


Whatever you say, you are not actually engaging with my arguments and provided no evidence of your arguments, we have to be here pretending you are some sort of genius and your ideas are supposed to be valid just by being sound. Just come up with evidencec

---

Lusitanian seemes to be a Celtic variation or Celtic influenced, and area around Pyrenees was not belonged to Atlantic Bronze cultures, that's shown in the map i posted earlier. Anyway, is it so unbelievable that there can be another languages?

What are the problems with Brithonic/Gaelic chronolgical division? If it happened in Ha.C/D periods as shown in that table, that was exactly the period when Ireland and Scotland fall out of old Bronze contact system and became archaic, the same time Brithonic-Gallic zone was still in a state of intensive contacts

Hallstatt swords (Gundlingen type) are of Atlantic origin and spreaded into Central Europe during Ha.C period.

Halstatt/La Tene warriors conquered so large territory without leaving any burial, that is the only characteristic forms these archaeological culture?:confused:

Since you talk about Tartessos I am showing you some of the material culture they left, so maybe you can find others that could resemble them in other áreas:
http://benedante.blogspot.com/2017/0...-treasure.html
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KIcXfw_c5...h%2Bc%2BBC.jpg

http://www.civilization.org.uk/wp-co..._Carambolo.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkYuaycIyA...1600/111+2.jpg
Many more: http://www.civilization.org.uk/intermezzo/tartessos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

You have not read that book. just like anything about Atlantic core zone. There're constant contacts for thousands of years. since late Neolithic up to Late Bronze Age forming actually one contact zone.

---

Did you actually read Cunliffe? He thinks Celtic SPREAD continued with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not that a previous unity was maintained:

(Page 67):

Spoiler!

The Atlantic seaways continued to develop throughout the Bronze Age, and
by the Late Bronze Age (1300–800bc) the maritime interactions had reached
a peak of intensity. The prime motivation is likely to have been the exchange
of commodities, particularly metals, but the archaeological evidence leaves little
doubt that complex social relationships played a large part in the mobility. By the end
of the period similar warrior weapon sets were in use along the entire Atlantic façade
and feasting played a vital role in maintaining social engagement. The Celtic language
would now have been in regular use throughout the maritime zone to facilitate the
intricate networks of connectivity

When did a language ever spread in such a large area through trade? We have similar evidence for Greece and Phoenicia and neither Italians, French Anatolian nor Iberians adopted the colonizing language so thoroughly and so quickly, they needed to be conquered.

Quote:

---

There's just huge intensification for the latter period. However, it's impossible to say when and how IE, proto-Celtic, common Celtic was introduced there, the only thing can be said confidently that in the late Bronze Age it was broadly introduсed in Atlantic zone,and it was commonly used language there, THAT'S THE POINT, who knows maybe all late Neolithic or Bell Beakers, or Armorican/Wessex cultures comprised one linguistic area and proto-Celtic evolved from it. Absolutely the same about proto-Germanic, very large part of Northern Europe accepted to be proto-Germanic and nobody knows how it exactly had happened, maybe it was 'lingua france' as well. Stop counting kilometres,it's not going to make any difference.

---

We have no idea if Celtic was spoken in any of those regions at any specific point in time prior to their attestation.

You basically want everyone to ignore the problems with the theory, not ask any question and just accept everything, why can't YOU do the fucking same with Hallstatt?

Quote:

---

Lusitanian seemes to be a Celtic variation or Celtic influenced, and area around Pyrenees was not belonged to Atlantic Bronze cultures, that's shown in the map i posted earlier. Anyway, is it so unbelievable that there can be another languages?

---

No, Lusitanian misses important Celtic sound changes, it's not Celtic and it being Celtic influenced doesn't prove anything given it could have happened with the Hallstatt theory too.

Also the Basque and Aquitanian coastal region was under the influence of the culture too:

https://i.imgur.com/F22yj5X.png

In other maps they are not but this only puts into question the idea even more, if there was such a large gap betwwn the French and Cantabrian coast, how can one speak of a continuous "settlement to settlement" connection?

Quote:

---

What are the problems with Brithonic/Gaelic chronolgical division? If it happened in Ha.C/D periods as shown in that table, that was exactly the period when Ireland and Scotland fall out of old Bronze contact system and became archaic, the same time Brithonic-Gallic zone was still in a state of intensive contacts

---

Oh yes the unfalsiable theory, If Celtic was divided in 1300 BCE it was literally at the start of the Atlantic Bronze Age and if it was in 900 BCE it was still during the Atlantic Bronze Age and if you by Cunliffe chronology it was way latter, literally none of the chronologies fits your theory.

Quote:

---

Hallstatt swords (Gundlingen type) are of Atlantic origin and spreaded into Central Europe during Ha.C period.

---

I see, I'm not sure why they are called Hallstatt then.

Quote:

---

Halstatt/La Tene warriors conquered so large territory without leaving any burial, that is the only characteristic forms these archaeological culture?:confused:

---

And pray tell how did Celts magically take over Hallstatt without their own burials? Also burials were not the only characteristic of Hallstatt...

Also using this logic Celts never spread to Italy or the southern Balkans/Anatolia...

Also nevermind the fact that Cunliffe pushed his theory based on the erroneous Renfrew's Anatolian IE theory and now he pushes the idea that Indo-European somehow spread both from Anatolia and the Steppe, it's almost as if he's grasping at straws!
He even theorizes that Italo-Celtic came from Anatolia and Germanic and Balto-Slavic from a mix of Neolithic with the Steppe, what a genius, why did nobody think of that?

Cunliffe and Koch clearly come up with ridiculous theories just as easy as we breath, and Koch's interpretation of Tartessian is controversial at best. So why is this theory, again, more valid than Hallstatt/Urnfield expansion?

He even thinks that somehow Basque was a WHG language...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Did you actually read Cunliffe? He thinks Celtic SPREAD continued with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not that a previous unity was maintained:

---

Yes, CONTINUED spread, not began, with the Late BA, and where exactly there's previous unity we don't know, there can be just suggested scenarios

Quote:

---

We have no idea if Celtic was spoken in any of those regions at any specific point in time prior to their attestation.

You basically want everyone to ignore the problems with the theory, not ask any question and just accept everything, why can't YOU do the fucking same with Hallstatt?

---

Once again, because there's no Halstatt culture in Atlantic Europe, which directly continued form previous cultures from Bronze Age through Iron Age up to Roman conquest. Classic hypothesis doesn't work at all.

Quote:

---

No, Lusitanian misses important Celtic sound changes, it's not Celtic and it being Celtic influenced doesn't prove anything given it could have happened with the Hallstatt theory too.

---

So what that was the langauge, Ibero-Celtic, Para-Celtic, Gallo-Italic or what?

Quote:

---

Also the Basque and Aquitanian coastal region was under the influence of the culture too:


In other maps they are not but this only puts into question the idea even more, if there was such a large gap betwwn the French and Cantabrian coast, how can one speak of a continuous "settlement to settlement" connection?

---

There's a lot of space for Basques, Iberians, para-IE and whoever you want.

What's the large gap, this one? https://i.imgur.com/dJ9TvYf.png

Quote:

---

I see, I'm not sure why they are called Hallstatt then.

---

Because it's one of the main weapons of western Halstatt elites. BTw, Halstatt elites thereat invented iron Mindelheim swords and its almost completely absent in Atalntic Europe. One more agrument against Halstatt invasion.

Quote:

---

And pray tell how did Celts magically take over Hallstatt without their own burials? Also burials were not the only characteristic of Hallstatt...

Also using this logic Celts never spread to Italy or the southern Balkans/Anatolia...

---

Halstatt burial tradition and entire culture at all, was born right there using different customs including native, Italian, Greek and Scythian. they lived around controlled trading rivers and mineral resources and seems like they were not long distance invaders. Anyway we has well documented evidences of Celtic invasion in Italy and Balkans and there's no problems with La Tene material there.

Quote:

---

Oh yes the unfalsiable theory, If Celtic was divided in 1300 BCE it was literally at the start of the Atlantic Bronze Age and if it was in 900 BCE it was still during the Atlantic Bronze Age and if you by Cunliffe chronology it was way latter, literally none of the chronologies fits your theory.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Also nevermind the fact that Cunliffe pushed his theory based on the erroneous Renfrew's Anatolian IE theory and now he pushes the idea that Indo-European somehow spread both from Anatolia and the Steppe, it's almost as if he's grasping at straws!
He even theorizes that Italo-Celtic came from Anatolia and Germanic and Balto-Slavic from a mix of Neolithic with the Steppe, what a genius, why did nobody think of that?

Cunliffe and Koch clearly come up with ridiculous theories just as easy as we breath, and Koch's interpretation of Tartessian is controversial at best. So why is this theory, again, more valid than Hallstatt/Urnfield expansion?

---

I'm completely confused with you. If you're going by earlier separation of Celtics, so how can you support the same time Halstatt common-Celtic unity?
Western theory better at least it maintains earlier Celtic division.(by Late BA). Cunliffe provides different works, including Grey-Atkinson one and different hypothesises and oipions about earlier spreads of IE and proto-langiages. Anyway dating range of Goidelic seaparation is between 1100-600 BC. according different linguists (Grey-Atkinson -900 BC) And the main thing, that by 600 BC this process was under way, while Halstatt assumes Celtic unity even in Iron Age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Was just thinking, a possible point in favour of your theory that the original Celts were SW Euro-like was the Italian affinity that NW Euro countries scored surprisingly high amounts of in the Viking paper.
https://i.postimg.cc/9fv9JwGy/Got-VW...-estimates.png

English = 19% 'Celtic' in your model, 18% (17-20%) 'Italian' in the paper
Irish = 11% 'Celtic' in your model, 9% (7-12%) 'Italian' in the paper
Scandinavians get 5-10% of it as well, which would be hard to explain through Romans or something.

Might be a coincidence, but just putting it out there.

---

Yep, that's actually a really great point.

Irish have no business having Roman admixture at all other noise levels from admixture with the English(who should be no more than 1-4% at most anyway) and Normans, if English are 17-20% and Irish are 7-12% that would need to make Irish about 50% English, which is obviously not a thing. You also have a group of Poles scoring 13%, again, not going to be a thing, meanwhile Poles do also score around that for the samples people have been associating with Alpine Celts, especially south Poles. If you don't provide the exact source of admixture the models just pick the closest thing. I even get around that same amount of Celtic in Norwegians in my models, likely all of it coming from the significant British Isles admixture they have. Would be hard to be a coincidence. Good find, I think that's actually exactly what's happening there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Yes, CONTINUED spread, not began, with the Late BA, and where exactly there's previous unity we don't know, there can be just suggested scenarios

---

Again show me a historically recorded scenarion in the pre-industrial era where a language spread over heterogeneous areas without some kind of political unity, unity that we have no evidence for in the Atlantic.


[/QUOTE]
Once again, because there's no Halstatt culture in Atlantic Europe, which directly continued form previous cultures from Bronze Age through Iron Age up to Roman conquest. Classic hypothesis doesn't work at all.[/QUOTE]
And is there altantic Culture in Hallstatt?

Quote:

---

So what that was the langauge, Ibero-Celtic, Para-Celtic, Gallo-Italic or what?

---

Some people call it Para-Celtic, others think it's Italic, other think it's another branch within Italo-Celtic. Regardless it shows how unlikely it is to have had linguistical unity between Tartessos and Britain, I can understand believing Celtic came either from Spain or from Britain but both at the same time? How? Plus it doesn't really fit with the genetic evidence that show both Spain and England being pulled towards some intermediate group during the transition to the iron age. More evidence from France could help further

Quote:

---

What's the large gap, this one?

---

https://i.imgur.com/hRIC2ya.png

Quote:

---

Because it's one of the main weapons of western Halstatt elites. BTw, Halstatt elites thereat invented iron Mindelheim swords and its almost completely absent in Atalntic Europe. One more agrument against Halstatt invasion.

---

It's completely absent in most of France too...

[QUOTE]Halstatt burial tradition and entire culture at all, was born right there using different customs including native, Italian, Greek and Scythian. they lived around controlled trading rivers and mineral resources and seems like they were not long distance invaders. Anyway we has well documented evidences of Celtic invasion in Italy and Balkans and there's no problems with La Tene material there.[QUOTE]
Hallstatt is a continuation of a local Urnfield tradition.

There is virtually no La Tene material in Italy or Anatolia and yet you have clearly Celts there.

Quote:

---

I'm completely confused with you. If you're going by earlier separation of Celtics, so how can you support the same time Halstatt common-Celtic unity?

---

I'm just showing that Cunliffe has contradictory points, you can cherrypick his theory and other people's specific datings to come up with whatever theory but so could I do the same by using Cunliffe dating and using Hallstatt.

Like I said I don't have a particular attachment to Hallstatt but you on the contrary can't help but being hypocritically only criticize Hallstatt while not taking into considerations all the faults of the Atlantic theory.

Quote:

---

Western theory better at least it maintains earlier Celtic division.(by Late BA).

---

Without actually explaing how the unity could have come to be in a plausible and real way that we can see in actual history.

Quote:

---

Cunliffe provides different works, including Grey-Atkinson one and different hypothesises and oipions about earlier spreads of IE and proto-langiages. Anyway dating range of Goidelic seaparation is between 1100-600 BC. according different linguists (Grey-Atkinson -900 BC) And the main thing, that by 600 BC this process was under way, while Halstatt assumes Celtic unity even in Iron Age

---

Cunliffe and Koch could fit their theory in a 1000 different theories of Indo-European spread, it's almost as if they are simply stubborn and are biased towards their own theory despite lack of evidence on all fronts.

It doesn't matter if Celtic came in the region in the Neolithic or Bronze Age, the theory remains unchanged. Are you going to defend those 2 people's random theories as well? That Germanic is a mix between farmer Indo-European and Steppe INdo-European?

In any case I'm tired of this discussion, you have still not presented any actual reason why this theory is needed and what it offers more than Hallstatt/Urnfield, especially when you ignore the fact that in multiple cases the spread of Celtic was not fllowed by spread of material culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Yep, that's actually a really great point.

Irish have no business having Roman admixture at all other noise levels from admixture with the English(who should be no more than 1-4% at most anyway) and Normans, if English are 17-20% and Irish are 7-12% that would need to make Irish about 50% English, which is obviously not a thing. You also have a group of Poles scoring 13%, again, not going to be a thing, meanwhile Poles do also score around that for the samples people have been associating with Alpine Celts, especially south Poles. If you don't provide the exact source of admixture the models just pick the closest thing. I even get around that same amount of Celtic in Norwegians in my models, likely all of it coming from the significant British Isles admixture they have. Would be hard to be a coincidence. Good find, I think that's actually exactly what's happening there.

---

I don't believe this makes any sense, mostly unmixed Italian like Celts spreading from the Danube to Ireland?
Plus Italian is the only southern reference. I personally don't see how this evidence changes what we know at all.