OTL question: Celtization of the Atlantic region

Stephen Oppenheimer says that the 'Celts' i.e. Scots, Irish, Welsh etc. came from he Basque country and spread along the post-glacial landbridge. They lived like the natives from he Pacific North-West, fishing etc. during the Mesolithic.

Central Europe in the Mesolithic was populated from the Ukraine and the Balkans and that the neolithic period began with agriculture spreading from Anatolia by cultural exchange- NOT MASS MIGRATIONS; the idea of migrations of large numbers of people is widely discredited; whole populations rarely move, adn events like the Viking and Saxon invasions weren't movements of peopel but elites and the culture they broguht with them.

The neolithic 'celtic' peoples thus came from Eastern Europe, while the peoples of the Atlantic seaboard came almost uniquely from the Basque country.
 
Note than the "Celiberians" weren't an actual culture. Iberia, arount the punic wars time, was settled by the iberians (the descendant of the tartessian culture mixed with phoenician and cartaginens settlers) on the south, and the celtic tribes on the north. "Celtiberians" is the name given to the tribes on central iberia, wich shared influences from both groups

I disagree, because it's complicated: the Iberians and the Turdetani (the latter being the descendants of the Tartessians) were two distinct people, which were quite possibly unrelated.

And yes, while Celtiberian in the strict sense only refers to the to the tribe in central Iberia, in the wider sense you can use it to describe the Celticized Iberians, as a bracket term, if you fill. There is also a few tribes (the Turduli, specifically, and a few other tribes) which themselves probably were Celticized Tartessians, rather than Celticized Iberians.

Stephen Oppenheimer says that the 'Celts' i.e. Scots, Irish, Welsh etc. came from he Basque country and spread along the post-glacial landbridge. They lived like the natives from he Pacific North-West, fishing etc. during the Mesolithic.

Central Europe in the Mesolithic was populated from the Ukraine and the Balkans and that the neolithic period began with agriculture spreading from Anatolia by cultural exchange- NOT MASS MIGRATIONS; the idea of migrations of large numbers of people is widely discredited; whole populations rarely move, adn events like the Viking and Saxon invasions weren't movements of peopel but elites and the culture they broguht with them.

The neolithic 'celtic' peoples thus came from Eastern Europe, while the peoples of the Atlantic seaboard came almost uniquely from the Basque country.

That doesn't make any sense at all, because the people of the Atlantic region almost certainly didn't speak a Indo-European language in the neolithic. Even if we assume that the original denizens of the British Isles spoke a language related with Basque (or possibly Iberian or Tartessian, it should be noted that the three may not be related with each other at all).

Besides, Oppenheimer is a jerk who makes ludicrous claims that English separated from Germanic before Romans times (and that it was spoken in England before Roman times). It sounds like a projection of local patriotism into genetics, something that can't be taken seriously. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Could be a completely extinct language. After all, the Romans were in Britain for 400 years and yet Latin contributed almost nothing to English (what Latinate words do exist in English were introduced later by the Normans). An even more daunting statistic is to consider the linguistic influence of Welsh (Brythonic) on English, considering the speakers of the two languages have lived alongside each other since the 400s. According to linguists I've seen quoted, the number of Welsh loan words incorporated into English is precisely six. We have incorporated more loan words from the Filipinos than the people we've been living beside for more than a millennium.

I don't know why that is, but my point is that I could easily see the ur-language you mention having completely died out without a trace.

Thande said:
Well, the Builders of Stonehenge (as I like to call them, given that there seems to be no universally accepted term for the pre-Celts anymore) lacked a system of writing, and if there was a similar case of no cultural exchange as with the English and Welsh much later that I mentioned, there would be no way for the language to survive orally either.

Actually, there's a bit more diffusion of Brythonic into the English language than that. It's in the form of place names, of which there are literally hundreds, and maybe thousands, in areas settled by the English which trace back to Celtic roots. I think that you'd find traces of the language of the pre-Celtic people of Europe in the landscape itself, in the form of place names. Possibly by studying the place names mentioned in the records of classical times.
 
I disagree, because it's complicated: the Iberians and the Turdetani (the latter being the descendants of the Tartessians) were two distinct people, which were quite possibly unrelated.

And yes, while Celtiberian in the strict sense only refers to the to the tribe in central Iberia, in the wider sense you can use it to describe the Celticized Iberians, as a bracket term, if you fill. There is also a few tribes (the Turduli, specifically, and a few other tribes) which themselves probably were Celticized Tartessians, rather than Celticized Iberians.



That doesn't make any sense at all, because the people of the Atlantic region almost certainly didn't speak a Indo-European language in the neolithic. Even if we assume that the original denizens of the British Isles spoke a language related with Basque (or possibly Iberian or Tartessian, it should be noted that the three may not be related with each other at all).

Besides, Oppenheimer is a jerk who makes ludicrous claims that English separated from Germanic before Romans times (and that it was spoken in England before Roman times). It sounds like a projection of local patriotism into genetics, something that can't be taken seriously. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm just saying what he says. Besides, your basing your argument on this previous supposition without regards to any evidense (I can't comment, I haven't finished his book yet) shows a thoroughly unscientific method.

And as I said, the Atlantic peoples didn't speak an Indo-European language, however it later morphed with other Scandinavian and Germanic influences.
 
Note than the "Celiberians" weren't an actual culture. Iberia, arount the punic wars time, was settled by the iberians (the descendant of the tartessian culture mixed with phoenician and cartaginens settlers) on the south, and the celtic tribes on the north. "Celtiberians" is the name given to the tribes on central iberia, wich shared influences from both groups

All true, but how does that make 'Celtiberian' no culture? :confused:

IMHO if two unique cultures join together, the outcome can easily be called a new culture. But i guess that's mostly opinion-based though! :eek:
 
Well, I'm just saying what he says. Besides, your basing your argument on this previous supposition without regards to any evidense (I can't comment, I haven't finished his book yet) shows a thoroughly unscientific method.

I've been reading up on Oppenheimer earlier and his ideas seem to be wild-eyed at best, and there's no evidence that supports Oppenheimer's hypothesis. And you will apologize for saying I'm having a thoroughly unscientific method! Genetics-wise, yes, the denizens of the British Isles are descended from the Iberian glacial refuge.

And as I said, the Atlantic peoples didn't speak an Indo-European language, however it later morphed with other Scandinavian and Germanic influences.

Well, but you claimed that the Celts arrived there in the Neolithic. For which there exists no evidence because there is a clear cut that marks the end of the Atlantic Megalithic builders which existed during the Stone Age. Also, it would violate the chronology of the Kurgan hypothesis.

That's the point: Oppenheimer claims that English diverged from Germanic much earlier than than commonly thought, and that it was spoken in England much earlier than commonly thought. And well, historic sources show very clearly that this idea is completely nonsense.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
That's the point: Oppenheimer claims that English diverged from Germanic much earlier than than commonly thought, and that it was spoken in England much earlier than commonly thought. And well, historic sources show very clearly that this idea is completely nonsense.

Yes the grammatic similarities of English with Frisian and South Jutish would be a mighthy weird if that was true, honestly English should be member of separate subfamily of Germanic rather than being part of West Germanic if that was the case.
 
I've been reading up on Oppenheimer earlier and his ideas seem to be wild-eyed at best, and there's no evidence that supports Oppenheimer's hypothesis. And you will apologize for saying I'm having a thoroughly unscientific method! Genetics-wise, yes, the denizens of the British Isles are descended from the Iberian glacial refuge.



Well, but you claimed that the Celts arrived there in the Neolithic. For which there exists no evidence because there is a clear cut that marks the end of the Atlantic Megalithic builders which existed during the Stone Age. Also, it would violate the chronology of the Kurgan hypothesis.

That's the point: Oppenheimer claims that English diverged from Germanic much earlier than than commonly thought, and that it was spoken in England much earlier than commonly thought. And well, historic sources show very clearly that this idea is completely nonsense.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The inhabitants of Wales etc. arrived from Iberia in the Mesolithic. The denizens of England and the south east arived in the Mesolithic as well, but were descended from humans previously inhabiting the Balkans (where they had been since the last ice age). The Neolithic was caused not by shift sof people (like the Kurgan invasion) but of culture. If you don't agree with Openheimer then please provide some evidence, because he has thorough genetic mapping (showing a clear movement of people in the Mesolithic period from the LGM refuges).
Invasions that eradicate indiginous peoples and replace them genetically just do not happen. Consider the Vikings; they imported their culture and placed a new elite in England. However, genetically they are a small part of the population because they didn't remove the indiginous population, they merely seized control of it.

The Kurgan invasion hypothesis, moreover, would have stepp horsemen from Ukraine moving into central Europe in the early Neolithic.late Mesolithic. At this point, the woodland would be too dense even to admit the smaller Neolithic horses in use. What has been shown through genetic studies and archaeological searches is that there were three clear movements of people in the Mesolithic:
1. From the Basque Country up into Brittany, Wales etc. as we previously discussed.
2. From the Balkans up along the Danube to Central Europe, Frisia and England
3. From Ukraine up into Lapland and Scandinavia and then again south to Scotland (although in smaller numbers).
As I said the spread of the Neolithic was not genetic but cultural, as there is no genetic evidense for a mass movement of Anatolian or Middle Eastern settlers in the relevent time period. Their spread with agriculture etc. woiuld also spread Indo-European languages throughout the continent.
 
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The inhabitants of Wales etc. arrived from Iberia in the Mesolithic. The denizens of England and the south east arived in the Mesolithic as well, but were descended from humans previously inhabiting the Balkans (where they had been since the last ice age). The Neolithic was caused not by shift sof people (like the Kurgan invasion) but of culture. If you don't agree with Openheimer then please provide some evidence, because he has thorough genetic mapping (showing a clear movement of people in the Mesolithic period from the LGM refuges).

Well, my point only is that the origin of the population in Britain has no effect on the origin of the Celtic languages. All this happened many millennia before the arrival of the Celtic languages.

Invasions that eradicate indiginous peoples and replace them genetically just do not happen. Consider the Vikings; they imported their culture and placed a new elite in England. However, genetically they are a small part of the population because they didn't remove the indiginous population, they merely seized control of it.

I never claimed in the first place that the original population was "eradicated", conversely, I claimed that there is no evidence for such a thing.

The Kurgan invasion hypothesis, moreover, would have stepp horsemen from Ukraine moving into central Europe in the early Neolithic.late Mesolithic. At this point, the woodland would be too dense even to admit the smaller Neolithic horses in use. What has been shown through genetic studies and archaeological searches is that there were three clear movements of people in the Mesolithic:
1. From the Basque Country up into Brittany, Wales etc. as we previously discussed.
2. From the Balkans up along the Danube to Central Europe, Frisia and England
3. From Ukraine up into Lapland and Scandinavia and then again south to Scotland (although in smaller numbers).
As I said the spread of the Neolithic was not genetic but cultural, as there is no genetic evidense for a mass movement of Anatolian or Middle Eastern settlers in the relevent time period. Their spread with agriculture etc. woiuld also spread Indo-European languages throughout the continent.

Again, this has nothing to do with the origin of Celtic and the spread of the Indo-European languages. Also, nobody claimed that the Indo-Europeans arrived in Late Mesolithic/Early Mesolithic (except Oppenheimer himself!). There is however no evidence for that. If we follow the models as put forth by the Kurgan hypothesis, the spread of the Indo-European language didn't occur until ca. the 4th/3rd millennium BC.

I personally think that Oppenheimer overinterpretes the genetic evidence, and tries to correlate it 1:1 with ethnolinguistic groups, which produces disasterous effects.
 
*BUMP*

- The producers of the Andronovo (in Central Asia) and Corded Ware (in Central and Eastern Europe) cultures were with a very high probability both speakers of Indo-European languages. Furthermore, DNA from graves of these cultures show that they had - with vast majority - Haplogroup R1a - the Haplogroup most closely associated with the Indo-Europeans. If we follow this train of thought further, with high probability, the Kurgan hypothesis is correct. Furthermore, this puts the spread of IE into the Late Neolithic and NOT - as Oppenheimer asserts - into the Late Mesolithic / Early Neolithic.

- This also means that the producers of the Atlantic Megalithic culture were quite certainly NOT Indo-Europeans. And this means the earliest point at which Celtic- or Proto-Celtic-speaking languages came into the Atlantic region must have been the Bronze Age. They must however been contemporary with - and hence heavily interacted with - the various Non-IE peoples of the Atlantic region (Aquitanians, Iberians, Tartessians/Turdetani, and hypothetically speaking - other peoples farther to the north, including in the British Isles) without a significant population transfer taking place. Also, across the centuries, the Celtic languages must have thoroughly supplanted any previous languages. However, the generous maximum timeframe (circa 1300 BC to 50BC!) leaves more than enough time to do that.

- Again, the problem is that Oppenheimer makes a radical overinterpretation of genetic evidence and basically asserts that languages essentially evolve contemporary to genes. It's a basic problem: correlation does not equal causality. The question that I have is, does Oppenheimer make this overinterpretation out of accidential innocence, or does he make it because of some political agenda behind it? The part that makes me think about the latter (and worries me) is because he asserts that the English language split from common Germanic earlier than Roman times, and that the Saxons arrived in England before Roman times, something for which there is no historic evidence. The only way I see somebody claim that is because he follows some weird agenda of "Atlantic" (or British) supremacism. He seems to refuse any idea that the British - and even the English for that matter - have any origin in Central Europe. :rolleyes:
 
- Again, the problem is that Oppenheimer makes a radical overinterpretation of genetic evidence and basically asserts that languages essentially evolve contemporary to genes. It's a basic problem: correlation does not equal causality. The question that I have is, does Oppenheimer make this overinterpretation out of accidential innocence, or does he make it because of some political agenda behind it? The part that makes me think about the latter (and worries me) is because he asserts that the English language split from common Germanic earlier than Roman times, and that the Saxons arrived in England before Roman times, something for which there is no historic evidence. The only way I see somebody claim that is because he follows some weird agenda of "Atlantic" (or British) supremacism. He seems to refuse any idea that the British - and even the English for that matter - have any origin in Central Europe. :rolleyes:
[Bolding added by me for emphasis] Wait, what? But, why? It's not like the history of Roman Britain is unknown! We know (roughly) who was there, and Anglo-Saxons were certainly not among them. Plus, English is definitely not different enough to be that old. That's very strange.

Plus, trying to say that English has no Central European origin is a bit of a losing battle. English has to come from Proto-Germanic, and theres no way that didn't come from somewhere in Central Europe. What, does he want to move proto-Germanic all the way to England?
 
- Again, the problem is that Oppenheimer makes a radical overinterpretation of genetic evidence and basically asserts that languages essentially evolve contemporary to genes. It's a basic problem: correlation does not equal causality. The question that I have is, does Oppenheimer make this overinterpretation out of accidential innocence, or does he make it because of some political agenda behind it? The part that makes me think about the latter (and worries me) is because he asserts that the English language split from common Germanic earlier than Roman times, and that the Saxons arrived in England before Roman times, something for which there is no historic evidence. The only way I see somebody claim that is because he follows some weird agenda of "Atlantic" (or British) supremacism. He seems to refuse any idea that the British - and even the English for that matter - have any origin in Central Europe. :rolleyes:

[Bolding added by me for emphasis] Wait, what? But, why? It's not like the history of Roman Britain is unknown! We know (roughly) who was there, and Anglo-Saxons were certainly not among them. Plus, English is definitely not different enough to be that old. That's very strange.

Plus, trying to say that English has no Central European origin is a bit of a losing battle. English has to come from Proto-Germanic, and theres no way that didn't come from somewhere in Central Europe. What, does he want to move proto-Germanic all the way to England?

Indeed. That's just bizarre for such a learned man of his position to assert.
I agree with Qianlong that for him to do so must reflect a particular British supremacist agenda of his. It's not unknown for geneticists to have a racial bias though odd that that is.
 
Another issue with Iberia is that we have the (non-IE!) Iberians there, which were (if we follow the name "Celtiberians"), partially Celticized.

Well, there is a problem with the term "celtiberian" that is still discussed mong the specialists. As you know, it's an exonymus coined by the romans. Strictly speaking, the "celtiberians" where a sort of confederation of tribes living in the Ebro valley and te iberian chain. But sometimes it is used as extension to all the "celtic" peoples in Iberia.

The first doubt about the term is what it is referrig exactly. That means celtic peoples mixed with iberians? That means celtic people living in Iberia? or tha means iberian peoples "celtified"?

On the other hand there were well known contacts between celtic (celtiberians, but also vettonii, vacceii etc peoples) and the iberian world. Even there are, apparently, linguistical shares among each others.

Regarding the general picture in the atlantic region. There are also evidences of a common cultural area in the region sice, at least, the bronze age, but probably before, as the bell-shaped culture(?) and the megalithics suggest. So, there is also problems with the celtic ethnogenesis in the area. It seems very possible that the same lanes used by those atlantic peoples on close contact since old times would be used by the celtic cultural innovations to spread, whatever if it's a volkswanderung or only cultural transmision (I preffer the later). In that sense, there are rupture but also continuities in the "celtization" of the atlantic region. Not only in the reutilization of bronze age structures but also in certin dynamics. In the iberian case the castrum of Cogotas is a book exemple of that. There is a continuum since the Bronze Age until the celtic or "celtized" culture just before the roman conquest. So, maybe we should addopt a more open view about hat is a "celtic".

Also, the problem with genetist as Oppenheimer, or Cavalli-Sforza for that matter, is that they have a tendence to hard-line difusionist interpretations, even ignoring the archaeologic evidence that points in other directions, often asimmilating genetics to culture. As other are saying, there is not neccesary causality between genetics and language. But also the achaeological cultures should be taken with caution. A common material culture or a common technic don't implies a common symbolic world. Of course that's an evidence of contacts ad cultural exchanging but beyod thatwe enter in the terrain of uncertainty...


Cheers.
 
*bumped*

Well, there is a problem with the term "celtiberian" that is still discussed mong the specialists. As you know, it's an exonymus coined by the romans. Strictly speaking, the "celtiberians" where a sort of confederation of tribes living in the Ebro valley and te iberian chain. But sometimes it is used as extension to all the "celtic" peoples in Iberia.

The first doubt about the term is what it is referrig exactly. That means celtic peoples mixed with iberians? That means celtic people living in Iberia? or tha means iberian peoples "celtified"?

On the other hand there were well known contacts between celtic (celtiberians, but also vettonii, vacceii etc peoples) and the iberian world. Even there are, apparently, linguistical shares among each others.

Well, I agree that the term "Celtiberian" is somewhat confusing, and I myself have used it somewhat confusingly. :eek:
First off, yes, "Celtiberi" in the strictest sense of the word only refers to the tribe of the Ebro valley. Still, other definitions are possible:
- the Roman exonym.
- quite similar to above, any Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.
- Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula which have an Iberian background.

If find the latter two the most useful ones. The latter one in particular is worthy of note, because if we look at the situation in 200 BC, there is a clear-cut distinction between an apparently 'purely' Celtic area (in the northwest along the coast of the Atlantic) and an apparently 'purely' Iberian area (along the coast of the Mediterranean). Between that, you had an area of mixed affinities.

Regarding the general picture in the atlantic region. There are also evidences of a common cultural area in the region sice, at least, the bronze age, but probably before, as the bell-shaped culture(?) and the megalithics suggest.

The main problem I have with the general picture (and with any of the 'early' Celtization scenarios) is the existence of non-IE languages in the Iberian penninsula. It's easy to say that Celtic branched very early (ie, early Neolithic or even Mesolithic as Oppenheimer claims!) from the other IE languages and has been native to the Atlantic region since the Mesolithic - if you ignore the existence of other, non-IE languages, in the region: around 200 BC, we have Aquitanian (Old Basque), Iberian and Turdetanian (which probably is the successor of Tartessian). The mere existence of these languages (and their diversity) casts doubt on any Meso-/Neolithic arrival of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region. Conversely, there's a much stronger case for an ancient continuity of Basque/Aquitanian, both from the genetic and linguistic perspective:
- Haplogroup R1b has the highest concentration in the Atlantic region, and the Basques are almost entirely R1b.
- Basque is obviously an isolate language, wheras Celtic is part of the Indo-European language family. I admit that the situation with the Iberians and Tartessians is less clear-cut (mainly because both languages are extinct), because both definitely were heavily influenced by Greeks and Phoenicians by 200BC. However, the Tartessians were very definitely part of the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network - in fact their position can be explained by being part of both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean trade networks, thereby making Tartessos the 'hub' that connects both networks.

If we think this through (combined with the fact that Indo-European must have originated farther eastwards), we get that the Atlantic cultural area of the Neolithic (and probably well into the Bronze Age) was dominated by non-IE peoples.

In regard for the Beaker/Bell culture, they are late-neolithic through earliest bronze age, and approximately contemporary to the Corded Ware culture. If we assume that Corded Ware was produced by a branch of early Indo-Europeans (which fits very well into the Kurgan hypothesis), then the Beaker/Bell culture was probably produced by non-IE peoples. The problem is, we know basically nothing about the ethnic identity of them - and we have no idea if they were something indigenous, or something else that established itself.

So, there is also problems with the celtic ethnogenesis in the area.

The Celtic ethnogenesis is a serious problem, and material cultures are of no reliable help here. Genetics isn't a help, either, here, because the genetic marker - Haplogroup R1a - which is commonly associated with the Indo-Europeans is largely absent from the Atlantic region, or arrived there only much later. The only thing we can assume from that without any reasonable doubt is that no large-scale population replacement took place in the region.

It seems very possible that the same lanes used by those atlantic peoples on close contact since old times would be used by the celtic cultural innovations to spread, whatever if it's a volkswanderung or only cultural transmision (I preffer the later). In that sense, there are rupture but also continuities in the "celtization" of the atlantic region. Not only in the reutilization of bronze age structures but also in certin dynamics. In the iberian case the castrum of Cogotas is a book exemple of that. There is a continuum since the Bronze Age until the celtic or "celtized" culture just before the roman conquest. So, maybe we should addopt a more open view about hat is a "celtic".

The only material culture that can be linked with Celts beyond any doubt are the Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures, however these represent only a part of the Celts, as the Irish and the Celtiberians (note: Celtiberians in the sense of any Celts on the Iberian penninsula ;) ) were located clearly outside of Hallstatt/La-Tene influence for most of the time. The rapid expansion of La-Tene into the Atlantic region makes only sense if people in these areas already spoke a form of Celtic - and we indeed are talking about a cultural transmission then - just like you said.

Now, I had an idea there that perhaps linguistics can help here. There exists the idea of the split between Q-Celtic and P-Celtic, the former including Irish and Celtiberian, the latter including Gaulish, Bretonic and Welsh. It should be noted that the Q-Celtic languages are restricted then to the Atlantic region (Iberia and Ireland), wheras the P-Celtic languages are also found in the east. The eastward thrust of the Celts (which led to the invasion of Greece and the subsequent settlement of Celts in central Anatolia) seems to have been done exclusivel by P-Celts, as Galatian was probably very similar to Gaulish. Thande also mentioned that there's genetic evidence for the Irish link to Iberia.
Linguistics, genetics and even Irish legend (though the latter shouldn't be taken that seriously, it still gives us a hunch ;) ) hold that the Irish have a relationship with the Celts of the Iberian peninsula.
If we look at the archaeological evidence, we must assume that Q-Celtic is probably the older branch of the two, and that P-Celtic was a linguistic innovation that occured farther in the east in the Hallstatt/La-Tene core area. At least, this hypothesis reconciles linguistic and archaeological evidence much better.

This in turn means that Q-Celtic must have arrived significantly earlier (not sure when, but probably in the Bronze Age), and perhaps we can interprete it that way that there were La-Tene "missionaries" who spread ironworking in the Atlantic region after circa 500BC. I admit that this doesn't solve the problem wholly, it only pushes things earlier. :eek:

Also, the problem with genetist as Oppenheimer, or Cavalli-Sforza for that matter, is that they have a tendence to hard-line difusionist interpretations, even ignoring the archaeologic evidence that points in other directions, often asimmilating genetics to culture. As other are saying, there is not neccesary causality between genetics and language. But also the achaeological cultures should be taken with caution. A common material culture or a common technic don't implies a common symbolic world. Of course that's an evidence of contacts ad cultural exchanging but beyod thatwe enter in the terrain of uncertainty...


Cheers.

Well, I agree that continuity of a material culture is by no means a proof of a common language.
 
*bumped*



Well, I agree that the term "Celtiberian" is somewhat confusing, and I myself have used it somewhat confusingly. :eek:
First off, yes, "Celtiberi" in the strictest sense of the word only refers to the tribe of the Ebro valley. Still, other definitions are possible:
- the Roman exonym.
- quite similar to above, any Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.
- Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula which have an Iberian background.

If find the latter two the most useful ones. The latter one in particular is worthy of note, because if we look at the situation in 200 BC, there is a clear-cut distinction between an apparently 'purely' Celtic area (in the northwest along the coast of the Atlantic) and an apparently 'purely' Iberian area (along the coast of the Mediterranean). Between that, you had an area of mixed affinities.

Sorry if you understood my questions about the celtiberian as a direct critic against your statements. That wasn't my intention. In fact I understood perfectly what you meant. I only wanted to point the inherent problems to the term and its ambiguity. But all we have the same problem with it and it's a subject still debated among the experts. After all, it's Strabo's fault. And I think that it is interesting because it can be extrapolated in some extent to the "general picure".


The main problem I have with the general picture (and with any of the 'early' Celtization scenarios) is the existence of non-IE languages in the Iberian penninsula. It's easy to say that Celtic branched very early (ie, early Neolithic or even Mesolithic as Oppenheimer claims!) from the other IE languages and has been native to the Atlantic region since the Mesolithic - if you ignore the existence of other, non-IE languages, in the region: around 200 BC, we have Aquitanian (Old Basque), Iberian and Turdetanian (which probably is the successor of Tartessian). The mere existence of these languages (and their diversity) casts doubt on any Meso-/Neolithic arrival of the Celtic languages in the Atlantic region. Conversely, there's a much stronger case for an ancient continuity of Basque/Aquitanian, both from the genetic and linguistic perspective:
- Haplogroup R1b has the highest concentration in the Atlantic region, and the Basques are almost entirely R1b.
- Basque is obviously an isolate language, wheras Celtic is part of the Indo-European language family. I admit that the situation with the Iberians and Tartessians is less clear-cut (mainly because both languages are extinct), because both definitely were heavily influenced by Greeks and Phoenicians by 200BC. However, the Tartessians were very definitely part of the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network - in fact their position can be explained by being part of both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean trade networks, thereby making Tartessos the 'hub' that connects both networks.

If we think this through (combined with the fact that Indo-European must have originated farther eastwards), we get that the Atlantic cultural area of the Neolithic (and probably well into the Bronze Age) was dominated by non-IE peoples.

I agree with you in most what you say. I have also problems with ealy celtization scenarios. But I have also problems with the whole idea of cetization. I first place, we lack a clear definition of what a celt was. As it happens with the term "celtiberian", the term celt is not less foreign to the people named by it. It's the product of a greco-roman generalization. and also in this case it has been the victim of political anipulations and appropriations along the history. So sometimes (not now:)) I don't know if the debate is about historical questions of the past or about political differences in the present. So, I assume that we speak here about linguistical-archaeological questions. But we should bear in mind the corruption suffered by the terms that we use.

This said, I wanted to point that the spreading of IE /celtic languages across the Atlantic Region, once they arrived to the zone, seems to me the less problematic question. There was a very old "network" of relations, contacts and exchanges (both material and probably also symbolic) in the atlantic area that could have made the things easier. Of course, there is still some problems. Why the basques-aquitanians remained appart of that wave? It's also interesting and puzzling in that matter that the Urnfield culture entered in Iberia through the current Catalonia, an iberian area. Of course, as you say, that's another evidence of the few reliability of the archaeological record to solve the question. If we had more konwledge about the iberian origins and language at least we could get some light on the basque question. Was the basque actually related to the iberian languages? I know, the basque-iberian hypothesis is démodé nowadays, but...

Regarding to Tartessos, indeed it's even a more obscure question. It's difficult to find the limit between the myth and the history (and Schulten's works in the 40's didn't help*). I agree with you that probably its importance lay in its role as hub between the atlantic and mediteranean worlds. Even, the Tartessian influence, and later the "punizised" culture that flourished in the Guadalquivir valley seamless, spreaded its influence further beyond to the iberian south-west. Maybe we underrate the efects of that in the lusitanian world.

In regard for the Beaker/Bell culture, they are late-neolithic through earliest bronze age, and approximately contemporary to the Corded Ware culture. If we assume that Corded Ware was produced by a branch of early Indo-Europeans (which fits very well into the Kurgan hypothesis), then the Beaker/Bell culture was probably produced by non-IE peoples. The problem is, we know basically nothing about the ethnic identity of them - and we have no idea if they were something indigenous, or something else that established itself.

That is, baker/bell culture, thanks. I didn't remeber the english term and I was lazy to search it. My apologies. Of course, I completly agree with you. I cited it as the better example of old atlantic networks, but I didn't pretend that they were IE peoples. In fact I would bet my left hand that they weren't.

I'm sorry but I have to go now. I will comment the rest (and most interesting part) of your post later. Thanks:)

*An anecdote about Schulten: Some people say that during WWII he profited the searching of the city of Tartessos near Cadiz to note what allied ships crossed the strait of Gibraltar, visible from the digging site.
 
Sorry if you understood my questions about the celtiberian as a direct critic against your statements. That wasn't my intention. In fact I understood perfectly what you meant. I only wanted to point the inherent problems to the term and its ambiguity. But all we have the same problem with it and it's a subject still debated among the experts. After all, it's Strabo's fault. And I think that it is interesting because it can be extrapolated in some extent to the "general picure".

Yeah, I see your point. The generalizations made by the Greeks and Romans are problematic, and you have to look at the old sources in detail to make a proper distinction. For instance, many of the people living in western and southern Germania (including the Roman provinces) were actually obviously Celtic (for example the Treveri), rather than Germanic.... :rolleyes:

I agree with you in most what you say. I have also problems with ealy celtization scenarios. But I have also problems with the whole idea of cetization. I first place, we lack a clear definition of what a celt was. As it happens with the term "celtiberian", the term celt is not less foreign to the people named by it. It's the product of a greco-roman generalization. and also in this case it has been the victim of political anipulations and appropriations along the history. So sometimes (not now:)) I don't know if the debate is about historical questions of the past or about political differences in the present. So, I assume that we speak here about linguistical-archaeological questions. But we should bear in mind the corruption suffered by the terms that we use.

Yes, this is primary about the ethnolinguistic group. We certainly have to be careful there. For instance, it's also entirely possible that Lusitanian *was* actually a variety of Celtic, but in the Romans' eyes they were too "un-Celtic" to be considered Celts.

This said, I wanted to point that the spreading of IE /celtic languages across the Atlantic Region, once they arrived to the zone, seems to me the less problematic question. There was a very old "network" of relations, contacts and exchanges (both material and probably also symbolic) in the atlantic area that could have made the things easier.

Well, the earliest date for an emergence of the Celtic is probably in the aftermath of the Corded Ware culture - in other words the early bronze age. I agree that once the languages were there,

Of course, there is still some problems. Why the basques-aquitanians remained appart of that wave? It's also interesting and puzzling in that matter that the Urnfield culture entered in Iberia through the current Catalonia, an iberian area. Of course, as you say, that's another evidence of the few reliability of the archaeological record to solve the question. If we had more konwledge about the iberian origins and language at least we could get some light on the basque question. Was the basque actually related to the iberian languages? I know, the basque-iberian hypothesis is démodé nowadays, but...

Well, if Basque/Aquitanian and Iberian were related, this would argue strongly for the existence of some kind of "Atlantic" language family, which may have been more widespread (ie, into Gaul and even the British Isles?) before the arrival of the Celtic languages. As for why the Aquitanians remained separate, I have no idea. And about the Iberian/Urnfield connection, I have noticed it before, but I have no explanation for it, other than the fact that it's a good case that material cultures shouldn't be taken as 100% evidence for a linguistic affiliation. The way I see it, both Urnfield and the Atlantic bronze age cultures were produced by both speakers of Indo-European and non-IE languages.

Regarding to Tartessos, indeed it's even a more obscure question. It's difficult to find the limit between the myth and the history (and Schulten's works in the 40's didn't help*). I agree with you that probably its importance lay in its role as hub between the atlantic and mediteranean worlds. Even, the Tartessian influence, and later the "punizised" culture that flourished in the Guadalquivir valley seamless, spreaded its influence further beyond to the iberian south-west. Maybe we underrate the efects of that in the lusitanian world.

Generally, both the Iberians and Tartessians were influenced by the Phoenicians, and to a lesser degree, probably also by the Greeks. After all, the alphabets used by the Iberians and Tartessians were derived from the Phoenician alphabet. And if you look at the preserved Iberian sculptures, you can also see a heavy Greek influence. While I think it's unlikely that Tartessian was actually a Semitic, given the fact that we know so little about it, it's also entirely possible that they spoke a variety of Afro-Asiatic. The Berbers, after all, were only across the Strait of Gibraltar (or, if we speak in the terminology of antiquity, the Pillars of Hercules ;) ).

That is, baker/bell culture, thanks. I didn't remeber the english term and I was lazy to search it. My apologies. Of course, I completly agree with you. I cited it as the better example of old atlantic networks, but I didn't pretend that they were IE peoples. In fact I would bet my left hand that they weren't.

Hehehe, no worries. :eek:
And about the Beakers there is an interesting possibility there: it's also possible that Basques/Iberians themselves aren't native to the Atlantic region themselves. Evidence for that comes from some recent genetic evidence which points into that direction (I only very recently read about it, and it's from articles on genetics published in 2010!). The classic idea is that Haplogroup R1b is indigenous to the Atlantic region, and developed there separately during the last glacial maximum. However, this recent evidence suggests that R1b is actually more diverse (and older) in Anatolia and the Caucasus, even though today it isn't as dominant there as it is in the Atlantic region (Atlantic peoples, especially the Basques have a very high occurance of Haplogroup R1b, the Basques are even 90% R1b!). This in turn means that almost the entire population of the Atlantic region (at least the entire male population) isn't native to the Atlantic region, meaning that there must have been a massive replacement of the population. According to molecular data (which is always to be taken with a grain of salt, anyways), the arrival of R1b was around 4000 years before present, which would fall into Bell/Beaker times. From the genetic perspective, this means that the Beakers established themselves as an elite in the old trade networks - perhaps through some kind of mass killings and successive intermarriages (that would seem insane, but genetic evidence suggests this!). Of course, there's no way of telling if the Beakers indeed spoke Basque (or a variety thereof), but it's a possibility. The only thing reasonably safe to assume is that they didn't speak a variety of IE as Beaker was approximately contemporary to Corded Ware.

The only Haplogroup that is - as a consequence of that - thought to be actually indigenous to Europe is Haplogroup I, which however only accounts about 10% of the modern Basque population.

I'm sorry but I have to go now. I will comment the rest (and most interesting part) of your post later. Thanks:)

No worries. It's not like you - or anybody on this board - has to hurry. ;)

*An anecdote about Schulten: Some people say that during WWII he profited the searching of the city of Tartessos near Cadiz to note what allied ships crossed the strait of Gibraltar, visible from the digging site.

How very German of him... :D:p;)
 
Top