So Celts were North Europeans after all?

[SharpFork]

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.

[brennus dux gallorum]

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

[SharpFork]

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?

[brennus dux gallorum]

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)

[J. Ketch]

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?

[brennus dux gallorum]

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

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?

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

[SharpFork]

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.

[J. Ketch]

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.

[Fantomas]

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

[Fantomas]

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.