So Celts were North Europeans after all?

[Gota_type_]

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




llengües paleohispàniques

[SharpFork]

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.



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.

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?

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

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

[Fantomas]

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.

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?

[Gota_type_]

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




Many more: http://www.civilization.org.uk/intermezzo/tartessos

[SharpFork]

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.

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?

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:



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?

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.

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.

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

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...

[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?

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

[Fantomas]

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[XenophobicPrussian]

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.


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.

[SharpFork]

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?

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

What's the large gap, this one?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SharpFork]

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.