So Celts were North Europeans after all?

[mutabor]

Is it me who hears common vibe in Norwegian and Irish languages?

Norwegian



Irish

[mutabor]

Another weird thing when I hear Norwegian rap music I think it sounds a bit French.

[Fantomas]

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.


And is there altantic Culture in Hallstatt?

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








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


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.



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.


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


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.

We are talking here about pre-historic period of late Bronze Age. The earliest textual information about Celts is the 6 century BC And we don't know anything about their political unity for the earlier period. Maybe that was, maybe not. But if structure of Celtic world in LBA was similar to those in Iron Age with political centre, high kings and even supra-national religious system, so there's nothing surprising that similar system may have existed along Atlantic areas. Also, Atlantic Bronze Age cultures were straight descendants of Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker tribes, so they could have common ethnic backroung and sibling language initially.

There's widespread infiltration of Atlantic bronze wares including weapon just right before Ha C. period, for St Brieuc-des-Iffs, Carp's Tongue' and Ewart Park phases. just right coinciding with Urnfield system collapse. Halstatt is just partially continuation of preceding Urnfield tradition.

Well if you can not believe in presence of Celts in Britain and Iberia in LBA, the only alternative is later conquest of half of Europe by some Halstatt "Genghis Khans"

I don't know why these archaeological maps are little different, anyway it doesn't change anything. For maritime transport it's not the serious obstacle.

Lesser traces in new conquered lands during middle La tene period mean just Celts were newcomers there as a raiding armies, for a short period of time. From another side they lived in Alpine area. Pannonia, and especially in Marne-Rhine area for many centuries in far greater numbers, that's why La tene is less visible outside that zone.

Cunliffe's theory has some vulnerabilities and i can't agree with some his points, but it much better explains Celtic pre-history, than old unrealistic theory, taken together archaeological, historical and linguistic data doen't make a chance for the latter. And it needed because puts everything in its place and resolve many problems with Celtic pre-history. You can read John Collis book about Celtic origin, for example, to realise what were those problems. British archaeologists detected many significant inconsistencies in old theory since 1960's, Cunliff's work is the first that sort of experience, maybe relatively crude and undigested at some points

[SharpFork]

But if structure of Celtic world in LBA was similar to those in Iron Age with political centre, high kings and even supra-national religious system, so there's nothing surprising that similar system may have existed along Atlantic areas.

It would be surprising, do you have any evidence of the kind of wealth centralization that Hallstatt noble centers had?

Also, Atlantic Bronze Age cultures were straight descendants of Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker tribes, so they could have common ethnic backroung and sibling language initially.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that, instead we have evidence of very different linguistic group in Iron Age Iberia, we have evidence of very different groups in Iron Age Italy and so on. Linguistic unity is to be proven not assumed.

There's widespread infiltration of Atlantic bronze wares including weapon just right before Ha C. period, for St Brieuc-des-Iffs, Carp's Tongue' and Ewart Park phases. just right coinciding with Urnfield system collapse. Halstatt is just partially continuation of preceding Urnfield tradition.

Citation needed:

https://www.academia.edu/3195723/Soc...theast_Hungary

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_developments

Well if you can not believe in presence of Celts in Britain and Iberia in LBA, the only alternative is later conquest of half of Europe by some Halstatt "Genghis Khans"

Like I said repeatedly before, the Urnfield expansion could also be a candidate for an early incursion into Britain.
Well that's the exact same thing your theory assumes, literally.

I don't know why these archaeological maps are little different, anyway it doesn't change anything. For maritime transport it's not the serious obstacle.

So then why did Britan and Ireland diverge at all, if maritime transport is so easy, why do languages divide at all? Are you going to argue that Atlantic Bronze age was more interconnected that 99% of human societies and somehow everything was carried without any political conquest or military or migratory activity?

[QUOTE]Lesser traces in new conquered lands during middle La tene period mean just Celts were newcomers there as a raiding armies, for a short period of time. From another side they lived in Alpine area. Pannonia, and especially in Marne-Rhine area for many centuries in far greater numbers, that's why La tene is less visible outside that zone.[QUOTE]
Celtic was in Italy prior to La Tene, so how do you explain that?

Yes and we have that same influence in England and Ireland too, plus we have comparative evidence in the late pre-Roman iron age in the form of Belgic tribes in England.

than old unrealistic theory, taken together archaeological, historical and linguistic data doen't make a chance for the latter.

What exactly IS explained better? If you can use La Tene or Hallstatt or even despite not having them and explain the expansion into Italy, Anatolia and Balkans that way, all without proving anything, why can't you accept this "outdated" theory?

And it needed because puts everything in its place and resolve many problems with Celtic pre-history. You can read John Collis book about Celtic origin, for example, to realise what were those problems. British archaeologists detected many significant inconsistencies in old theory since 1960's, Cunliff's work is the first that sort of experience, maybe relatively crude and undigested at some points

I don't believe anyone that knows what Cunliffe thinks about Indo-Europeans with the current evidence can or should take him seriously. You can come up with a better theory but this theory simply doesn't work, it relies on too many "ifs" and in trying to argue for it you just vindicate and also remove the weaknesses of the Hallstatt/La Tene theory.

Also John Collis book from 2003? What kind of new knowledge does it have?

[Fantomas]

It would be surprising, do you have any evidence of the kind of wealth centralization that Hallstatt noble centers had?

I don't think so. However, Halstatt noble centers system was short-lived experience and were wiped out by new waves of invasions from west. Nothing is known about their poltical power, except it was limited by neighboring small territory, otherwise there would be one great "capital" instead of many small "castles", they're just reach nobles on trading routs. From another side we know about colossal political power of elected late Gaulish kings, in the complete absence of reach burials, seems like it is an Atlantic old tradition.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that, instead we have evidence of very different linguistic group in Iron Age Iberia, we have evidence of very different groups in Iron Age Italy and so on. Linguistic unity is to be proven not assumed.

Celtic deity names in the Iberian Peninsula (After Olivares 2002).

Citation needed:

The transition from the Urnfield culture to the Hallstatt period was accompanied by a broad horizon of discontinuity in settlement and burial traditions (cf. Ruoff 1974). This break was common to, and contemporaneous in, the north and the south.12 Climatic deterioration (cf. Smolla 1954; Willerding 1977) and incursions of eastern nomads ('Thraco-Cimmerian horizon'; dismissed by Jockenhovel 1975, 54-55; Torbriigge 1979,209) have been called upon to account for the disruption of the Late Urnfield pattern. But discontinuity and reorganisation are such widespread phenomena of settlement patterns in the transition from the final Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in Europe that they may best be explained by the economic and social changes resulting from the technological change-over from bronze to iron (Nylen 1974).

The reason for that Urnfield collapse was a transition from bronze to iron, hmmm... very interesting guess

Like I said repeatedly before, the Urnfield expansion could also be a candidate for an early incursion into Britain.
Well that's the exact same thing your theory assumes, literally.

And in Iberia as well

So then why did Britan and Ireland diverge at all, if maritime transport is so easy, why do languages divide at all? Are you going to argue that Atlantic Bronze age was more interconnected that 99% of human societies and somehow everything was carried without any political conquest or military or migratory activity?

By the beginning of Iron Age old contact axis was mainly disrupted because it shifted from Atlantic toward Central Europe and many Atlantic regions had become more isolated, that's the good reason for language divergence . There's a strong enough migratory activity in Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker period

Celtic was in Italy prior to La Tene, so how do you explain that?

By Halstatt activity

Yes and we have that same influence in England and Ireland too, plus we have comparative evidence in the late pre-Roman iron age in the form of Belgic tribes in England.

La Tene and especially Belgic tribes are too late and limited events to explain Celtic presence in Islands

What exactly IS explained better? If you can use La Tene or Hallstatt or even despite not having them and explain the expansion into Italy, Anatolia and Balkans that way, all without proving anything, why can't you accept this "outdated" theory?

I must accept outdated theory just because La Tene in Italy and Anatolia is not deeply rooted? Brilliant logic! Anyway, Celtic homleand and their later invasions were well described by contemporaries.

Also John Collis book from 2003? What kind of new knowledge does it have?

Does he changed his mind about failure of obsolete east-west hypothesis since then?

[Creoda]

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.

As already said, they presumably would have mixed with more Northern people before settling Britain (by ancient accounts Belgic Gauls were similar to Southern Britons), and the Italian-like admixture would be further diluted for Ireland. It maybe similar to the story of the Early Medieval Germanic expansion in Southern Europe, you can see that the Langobard groups in Northern Italy and Hungary are already highly mixed with the groups they've passed through, so while purely Germanic ancestry in Italy and Spain seems low, the overall effect of Celtic/Roman admixed Germanic speakers in Italy and Spain would be higher.

The high Italian affinity for those countries in the paper seemed inexplicable, but that admixture being of ultimately Celtic origin is the best explanation I can think of.

[PaleoEuropean]

As already said, they presumably would have mixed with more Northern people before settling Britain (by ancient accounts Belgic Gauls were similar to Southern Britons), and the Italian-like admixture would be further diluted for Ireland. It maybe similar to the story of the Early Medieval Germanic expansion in Southern Europe, you can see that the Langobard groups in Northern Italy and Hungary are already highly mixed with the groups they've passed through, so while purely Germanic ancestry in Italy and Spain seems low, the overall effect of Celtic/Roman admixed Germanic speakers in Italy and Spain would be higher.

The high Italian affinity for those countries in the paper seemed inexplicable, but that admixture being of ultimately Celtic origin is the best explanation I can think of.

Yea not to mention Celts passed through what is now Germanic territory and many parts of Germany and German speaking countries were Celtic, Celtic is a culture not a single ethnicity, people who try to use ADNA for agenda's usually are really uneducated. They look only at what is there not what is not there.

[ninjaboy]

not all Celts were described as pale, for example if i am not mistaken those who lived in southern England and wales were described as dark

anyway, you, as everyone here make the mistake to see Celts as a racial group instead of linguo-cultural which they really were, and as a linguocultural group they were originated from the same subclade with Italics, just like Germanics came from the same subclade with Balto-slavs

Nope, it's you that has a misconception since you fail to understand that there is no language without its native speakers. Germanic people were indeed a racial group that is confirmed by DNA. All Germanic tribes the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Teutons& Cimberi, Franks, Langobards/Lombards, Cherusci, Vandals were basically the same people. So the Romans weren't that wrong to lump all Germanics into one basket. The same goes for Arabs, there are indeed ethnic Arabs. Arab is not just merely language and culture. The point is there is such a thing as assimilation and absorption. People from other ethnic groups can be drafted into a distinct ethnic group that is more dominant or larger or just be assimilated. Hence there are terms like arabized, germanized or celtized. For instance, due to the process of Arabization, you have people in North Africa identifying as Arab while they are ethnically speaking Berbers. However, Celtic isn't only a language or culture but also an ethnicity. Besides Celtics and Italics have some genetical and linguistic links because the Bell Beaker who formed the Italic ethnic group came from Germany, Central Europe from a time where Germany was Celtic (prior to the Germanic people's arrival from Scandinavia). Germanic people have nothing to do with Balto-Slavs.

[ninjaboy]

Yea not to mention Celts passed through what is now Germanic territory and many parts of Germany and German speaking countries were Celtic, Celtic is a culture not a single ethnicity, people who try to use ADNA for agenda's usually are really uneducated. They look only at what is there not what is not there.

I clicked for thumb up green and the red one showed up. Couldn't fix it. Sorry. However you are spot on.

[PaleoEuropean]

I clicked for thumb up green and the red one showed up. Couldn't fix it. Sorry. However you are spot on.

Np, it showed thumbs up . Germans and Celts are complex terms, Germans have a rich diverse history. We like to think of Germans and Celts as homogeneous familiar things but culture has never been cut and dry nor has ethnicity. If we took every Celt and every German who ever lived we would see quite a few different pictures.