History proved wrong - Castle debate says ‘nay’ to Celts

[Bren123]

Wasn't sure where to put this but would like your opinion on this article?




Published on Saturday 14 April 2012 10:00



An enthralled audience which filled the Parade Tower to capacity heard four of Irelands leading Celtic scholars defend and attack the motion ‘The Celts - did they occupy Ireland’. The enthralling debate waxed first one way and then another before concluding with a resounding defeat for the motion.


The question was debated on two levels. The negative, if the Celts did not come to Ireland, then how and why do we have a Celtic language which is a manifest reality. This strong argument was advanced by Professor David Stifter, professor of Old Irish in Maynooth College who was supported in this contention by Dr. Graham Isaac of NUI Galway. There seems little opportunity to set aside the logic and rational of their well argued position.

LINK

[alan trowel hands.]

Wasn't sure where to put this but would like your opinion on this article?




Published on Saturday 14 April 2012 10:00



An enthralled audience which filled the Parade Tower to capacity heard four of Irelands leading Celtic scholars defend and attack the motion ‘The Celts - did they occupy Ireland’. The enthralling debate waxed first one way and then another before concluding with a resounding defeat for the motion.


The question was debated on two levels. The negative, if the Celts did not come to Ireland, then how and why do we have a Celtic language which is a manifest reality. This strong argument was advanced by Professor David Stifter, professor of Old Irish in Maynooth College who was supported in this contention by Dr. Graham Isaac of NUI Galway. There seems little opportunity to set aside the logic and rational of their well argued position.

LINK

Actually all this is really saying is the evidence that Celtic was brought by the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures to Ireland (or indeed that these cultures were the main vector of its spread anywhere) is looking very shaky.  You could extend this lack of convincing evidence for a major migration phase spreading Celtic to most of Britain and IMO much of Gaul too.  From what I know of Gaulish archaeology there is little convincing evidence for a major migration in the Hallstatt and La Tene periods in most of Gaul either.  I think people the realisation is setting in that Hallstatt and La Tene were just regional style changes among an already Celtic Europe.  The whole maps of La Tene and Hallstatt centres with arrows spreading out from them cannot be seen as a population spread in much of Europe.  The problem seems to have come about that migratory phases into Italy and eastern Europe (perhaps triggered by the collapse of the Hallstatt D north-Alpine chiefdoms) was a unique phase and not the norm and certainly not the story of the spread of Celtic in western Europe (bar Italy).  I think it is looking more and more likely that the Atlantic school are right and La Tene and Hallstatt D were late flourishes towards the eastern edge of a much older Celtic world. 

[rms2]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

[Bren123]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

[Jean M]

There's no evidence for that!

If you mean that there is nothing in writing from the period - that's true. Hence all the arguments! It is a process of deduction that Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles with metallurgy. There just isn't enough evidence of Iron Age migration into Ireland to make that period likely.  The Copper Age is when we see a new culture arrive over the whole of the British Isles.

[rms2]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

Sure there is. Irish Celtic is the arguably older Q-Celtic, and it got to Ireland somehow.

Irish language, culture, and laws contain a number of archaic Indo-European characteristics that suggest it arrived there very early, certainly before Hallstatt and La Tene.

We know that there are Beaker influences in Britain and Ireland that predate Hallstatt and La Tene, and a number of scholars have suggested that early Celtic could have been carried by Beaker Folk.

Ireland and Iberia missed out on the change to P-Celtic that the Continent and Britain experienced.

All of that is not absolute proof, but it is evidence.

It seems likely that Celtic languages were spoken throughout much of western Europe well before Hallstatt and La Tene developed as continental artistic styles.

[Bren123]

This is according to Wikipedia:

At present over 100 large-scale excavations of Iron Age sites have taken place,[4] dating from the 8th century BC to the 1st century AD, and overlapping into the Bronze Age in the 8th century BC.[5] Hundreds of radiocarbon dates have been acquired and have been calibrated on four different curves, the most precise being based on tree ring sequences.
 
The precision of the dates in this first millennium BC does not allow a periodisation based on the radiocarbon dates. The range of any one radiocarbon date varies by one Standard deviation; that is, there is a 68% probability of the historical date occurring within the range of a few hundred years. Many schemes have been proposed based on sequences of pottery and other artefacts. The following scheme summarises a comparative chart presented in a recent book by Barry Cunliffe,[6] but it should be noted that British artefacts were much later in adopting Continental styles such as the La Tène style of Celtic art:
 



Earliest Iron Age;   800-600 BC; Parallel to Hallstatt C on the continent
 
Early Iron Age: 600-400 BC:  Hallstat D and half of La Tène I
 
Middle Iron Age: 400-100 BC: The rest of La Tène I, all of II and half of III
 
Late Iron Age: 100-50 BC:The rest of La Tène III
 
Latest Iron Age:50 BC - AD 100
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Iron_Age

[Bren123]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

Sure there is. Irish Celtic is the arguably older Q-Celtic, and it got to Ireland somehow.

Irish language, culture, and laws contain a number of archaic Indo-European characteristics that suggest it arrived there very early, certainly before Hallstatt and La Tene.

We know that there are Beaker influences in Britain and Ireland that predate Hallstatt and La Tene, and a number of scholars have suggested that early Celtic could have been carried by Beaker Folk.

Ireland and Iberia missed out on the change to P-Celtic that the Continent and Britain experienced.

All of that is not absolute proof, but it is evidence.

It seems likely that Celtic languages were spoken throughout much of western Europe well before Hallstatt and La Tene developed as continental artistic styles.

I wouldn't argue with any of that my problem is with the dating of the arrival of the celtic language in Ireland and Britain!

[authun]

The article talks of 'the Celtic Race'. I don't think anyone has thought of the Celtic speakers as a single ethnic group for two or three decades now. The article asks the question, Ireland has no Halstatt, why do we speak a Celtic language? This kind of thing is not unusual for no one part of the 'celtic world' enjoys a comprehensive array of celtic cultural indicators. They all miss either this or that. Ultimately, the problem is a misconception of what is meant by celtic. A single race or ethinc group or even religious or lingusitic group is highly unlikely.

[rms2]

This is according to Wikipedia:
 
. . .  but it should be noted that British artefacts were much later in adopting Continental styles such as the La Tène style of Celtic art . . .

Right. Long after they had started speaking Celtic languages. The point is that Celtic is not synonymous with either Hallstatt or La Tene. They came later.

[rms2]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

Sure there is. Irish Celtic is the arguably older Q-Celtic, and it got to Ireland somehow.

Irish language, culture, and laws contain a number of archaic Indo-European characteristics that suggest it arrived there very early, certainly before Hallstatt and La Tene.

We know that there are Beaker influences in Britain and Ireland that predate Hallstatt and La Tene, and a number of scholars have suggested that early Celtic could have been carried by Beaker Folk.

Ireland and Iberia missed out on the change to P-Celtic that the Continent and Britain experienced.

All of that is not absolute proof, but it is evidence.

It seems likely that Celtic languages were spoken throughout much of western Europe well before Hallstatt and La Tene developed as continental artistic styles.

I wouldn't argue with any of that my problem is with the dating of the arrival of the celtic language in Ireland and Britain!

You posted the article that is the topic of this thread.

So, when and how do you think Celtic language got to Ireland?

[Bren123]

The article talks of 'the Celtic Race'. I don't think anyone has thought of the Celtic speakers as a single ethnic group for two or three decades now. The article asks the question, Ireland has no Halstatt, why do we speak a Celtic language? This kind of thing is not unusual for no one part of the 'celtic world' enjoys a comprehensive array of celtic cultural indicators. They all miss either this or that. Ultimately, the problem is a misconception of what is meant by celtic. A single race or ethinc group or even religious or lingusitic group is highly unlikely.

This celtic race fad has been made worse by geneitcs! When I think of Celts I'm thinking solely of a linguistic/cultural phenomenon!

[Bren123]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

Sure there is. Irish Celtic is the arguably older Q-Celtic, and it got to Ireland somehow.

Irish language, culture, and laws contain a number of archaic Indo-European characteristics that suggest it arrived there very early, certainly before Hallstatt and La Tene.

We know that there are Beaker influences in Britain and Ireland that predate Hallstatt and La Tene, and a number of scholars have suggested that early Celtic could have been carried by Beaker Folk.

Ireland and Iberia missed out on the change to P-Celtic that the Continent and Britain experienced.

All of that is not absolute proof, but it is evidence.

It seems likely that Celtic languages were spoken throughout much of western Europe well before Hallstatt and La Tene developed as continental artistic styles.

I wouldn't argue with any of that my problem is with the dating of the arrival of the celtic language in Ireland and Britain!

You posted the article that is the topic of this thread.

So, when and how do you think Celtic language got to Ireland?

Late Bronze age!

[alan trowel hands.]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

 The Celtic Ossismi tribe (whose name is Celtic) in NW France seem to be mentioned in Pytheas in the 4th century BC (when very little La Tene material or classic burials are known in the area) and apparently also in the Ora Maritima which is thought to originate in the 6th century BC.  That also implies the Celticity of at least that part of Gaul probably owes nothing to La Tene.  As far as I recall that area was also very marginal in Hallstatt terms.

[rms2]

You posted the article that is the topic of this thread.

So, when and how do you think Celtic language got to Ireland?

Late Bronze age!

So, who was responsible?

[alan trowel hands.]

I agree with Alan. I read about this a few days ago and thought it no great revelation. I think we've known for quite some time that Celtic languages and culture in Britain and Ireland predate Hallstatt and La Tene.

There's no evidence for that!

Well the Ora Maritima mentions the Celtic names of a NW French tribe, Ireland and Britain in pre-La Tene times and there basically not any Hallstatt D material (the period in which the Ora Maritima was apparently originally written or at least draws on) in Ireland despite tons of material in the preceding Bronze Age.  

[alan trowel hands.]

I think the idea of Celts 'arriving' in the main Celtic speaking block of Europe west of the Rhine and north of the Alps is a misnomer.  Indo-European speakers probably arrived and Celtic simply developed as a dialect in the Bronze Age out of that in parallel through all the interacting groups in what was later Celtic speaking Europe.  It is only the spread of Celtic outside this zone into eastern Europe and Italy that requires migration to explain.  I think the initial beaker network probably involved some IE dialect not yet split into languages like Celtic - it was far too widespread to be just one language.  IMO Celtic probably developed in the period 2000-1200BC when the big beaker network broke down into smaller networks.

[Bren123]

I think the idea of Celts 'arriving' in the main Celtic speaking block of Europe west of the Rhine and north of the Alps is a misnomer.  Indo-European speakers probably arrived and Celtic simply developed as a dialect in the Bronze Age out of that in parallel through all the interacting groups in what was later Celtic speaking Europe.  It is only the spread of Celtic outside this zone into eastern Europe and Italy that requires migration to explain.  I think the initial beaker network probably involved some IE dialect not yet split into languages like Celtic - it was far too widespread to be just one language.  IMO Celtic probably developed in the period 2000-1200BC when the big beaker network broke down into smaller networks.

Did the atlantic bronze age network have a direct connection to central Europe?

[Bren123]

There's no evidence for that!

If you mean that there is nothing in writing from the period - that's true. Hence all the arguments! It is a process of deduction that Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles with metallurgy. There just isn't enough evidence of Iron Age migration into Ireland to make that period likely.  The Copper Age is when we see a new culture arrive over the whole of the British Isles.

At one time it was argued by archaeologists that the Beaker folk were a continuum of the Neolithic which in turn was from the Mesolithic etc.Also placing the celtic languages that far back into the Beaker period is a bit of a stretch,the late Bronze age is certainly plausible.There's no garantee that the Beaker folk were speaking the Proto Indo-European language never mind Celtic!

[alan trowel hands.]

I think the idea of Celts 'arriving' in the main Celtic speaking block of Europe west of the Rhine and north of the Alps is a misnomer.  Indo-European speakers probably arrived and Celtic simply developed as a dialect in the Bronze Age out of that in parallel through all the interacting groups in what was later Celtic speaking Europe.  It is only the spread of Celtic outside this zone into eastern Europe and Italy that requires migration to explain.  I think the initial beaker network probably involved some IE dialect not yet split into languages like Celtic - it was far too widespread to be just one language.  IMO Celtic probably developed in the period 2000-1200BC when the big beaker network broke down into smaller networks.

Did the atlantic bronze age network have a direct connection to central Europe?

I can see why you are asking that.  Any model for Celtic has to explain the indication of Celtic languages in the west as early as 7th century BC as well as Celts in central Europe from the 6th century BC.  I think the problem may be that people are focussing on 2 periods - the beaker period of c. 2500BC and the Atlantic Bronze period of over 1000 years late.  In fact in between these there was the early Bronze Age and in that period the Wessex (and other isles cultures), the Armorican dagger culture and the Unetice culture of central Europe were in close contact.  So, it may have been that period c. 2000-1500BC when Celtic developed and linked north Atlantic and central Europe.  

[Bren123]

I think the idea of Celts 'arriving' in the main Celtic speaking block of Europe west of the Rhine and north of the Alps is a misnomer.  Indo-European speakers probably arrived and Celtic simply developed as a dialect in the Bronze Age out of that in parallel through all the interacting groups in what was later Celtic speaking Europe.  It is only the spread of Celtic outside this zone into eastern Europe and Italy that requires migration to explain.  I think the initial beaker network probably involved some IE dialect not yet split into languages like Celtic - it was far too widespread to be just one language.  IMO Celtic probably developed in the period 2000-1200BC when the big beaker network broke down into smaller networks.

Did the atlantic bronze age network have a direct connection to central Europe?

I can see why you are asking that.  Any model for Celtic has to explain the indication of Celtic languages in the west as early as 7th century BC as well as Celts in central Europe from the 6th century BC.  I think the problem may be that people are focussing on 2 periods - the beaker period of c. 2500BC and the Atlantic Bronze period of over 1000 years late.  In fact in between these there was the early Bronze Age and in that period the Wessex (and other isles cultures), the Armorican dagger culture and the Unetice culture of central Europe were in close contact.  So, it may have been that period c. 2000-1500BC when Celtic developed and linked north Atlantic and central Europe.  

Circa 1500BCE for Proto-Celtic is much more respectable,IMHO!

[authun]

This celtic race fad has been made worse by geneitcs! When I think of Celts I'm thinking solely of a linguistic/cultural phenomenon!

Linguistically, some of the ancient celtic languages are quite different, eg. Lepontic and Noric and some have had their 'celticity' questioned, eg. Celt-Iberian and there are claims that some non-celtic languages, eg Tartessian, are in fact, Celtic. It's not a homogeneous language by any means. Culturally, the picture is the same with , for example, La Tene being absent in some parts, eg. south west Ireland. In the UK, we have the Brigantes in the north showing a good deal of continuity with the bronze age but their neighbours, the Parisii apparantly appearing on the scene around 450BC with an entirely different culture, one which in some respects is much more 'celtic'.

Finally, as far as we know, neither the romans nor greeks ever referred to the inhabitants of these islands as either keltoi or galatae and, again as far as we know, neither did the people of britain or ireland ever refer to themselves as such. The article is written assuming that everyone understands what is meant by celtic and then points out the disparities. However, many things can be thrown in the pot and called celtic, and they are not always the same.

[authun]

Did the atlantic bronze age network have a direct connection to central Europe?

The Nebra Sky disk contains gold and tin from Cornwall according to the most recent analysis.

[Jean M]

At one time it was argued by archaeologists that the Beaker folk were a continuum of the Neolithic which in turn was from the Mesolithic etc.

Yes indeed. Archaeology is only just emerging (very gradually) from decades of anti-migrationism, starting in the 1960s. Burgess and Shennan 1976 took that view to Bell Beaker, despite the anthropological evidence that Beaker people looked very different from the Neolithic people who preceded them in the British Isles, had different burial customs, etc. Now that we have isotope evidence in Britain and on the Continent that Bell Beaker people had come from afar, some rethinking is going on.  

[Bren123]

Linguistically, some of the ancient celtic languages are quite different, eg. Lepontic and Noric and some have had their 'celticity' questioned, eg. Celt-Iberian and there are claims that some non-celtic languages, eg Tartessian, are in fact, Celtic. It's not a homogeneous language by any

Neither are the modern celtic languages

a as far as we know, neither the romans nor greeks ever referred to the inhabitants of these islands as either keltoi or galatae and, again as far as we know, neither did the people of britain or ireland

Neither did they refer to themselves has Britons either.This argument is silly and trivai! This has already been discussed.l