The Celts of Iberia

[jonihnj]

Sorry - meant to say Celt vs. Gael

etrified:

 

[jonihnj]

sorry - meant to say Celt vs. Gael

 

[Taranis]

Along these lines, does anyone know why the Irish revolutionary leader Michael Collins would have made a distinction between the Celt and the Gaul? In one of his speeches he makes this distinction, claiming the Celt is "feminine." I'm at a loss to understand why.

That's the first time I hear that statement.

Well, originally, the terms "Gauls" (or Galli) was just the Roman word used for the people whom the Greeks called "Keltoi" (Julius Caesar claimed that in their own tongue, they would call themselves 'Celtae'). However, from the 1st century BC onward (essentially following Caesar's conquest of Gaul), the term became increasingly used as a geographic term (since Caesar arbitrarily cut the border between Gaul and Germania at the Rhine).

Interestingly, neither the Belgae*, nor the Britons, nor the Irish - despite all overtly Celtic-speaking - were apparently considered Celts.

*based on some comments by Caesar and Tacitus, there are statements about some of the Belgae being of Germanic rather than Celtic descend, but from the onomastic perspective, Gallia Belgica was clearly Celtic-speaking.

 

[Regulus]

For the Celts, yes we do have a huge number of names being tossed about in that time. Celtae, Galatae, Keltoi (I believe in Greek it referred to their height), Gauls, etc. Remember that the Irish themselves have not even taken on a name for themselves at that time. They are still running around using tribal designations. The Belgae, in fact, used the term 'German' to describe themselves. In their case it appears to be meaning 'germane' or that they were the real Celts.

I think that we find similar situations with a number of groups. In the case of the Germanic peoples, I think we have very little evidence that there was any true pan-Germanic mentality. Today we can easily say that we have the East, West, and Nordic branches of Germanic, but I would imagine that there was very little in the way of recognition of kinship between each other. I say this even though my personal position is that, because their (The Germans) widespread expansion happened so much later that that of the proto-celts/Celts, the Germans are more closely related to each other than todays people of Celtic descent. The Germans too were more along tribal lines. We are prone to labeling and tend to look for the same trend among the ancients.

I find it important to reinforce that the restriction of the word Celt to apply specifically to those referred to as Gauls is a very modern outlook.
I normally date the trend at twenty years but we could push that to maybe thirty. Prior to that time, historical sources, probably with the realization that we needed some type of general name (labeling), used Celtic in a manner maybe akin to Germanic and broke down the specifics from there. There we would see Gaul/Gaulish, Brythonic, Goidelic, Galician, etc. The most recent source of which I can think that used the term Celt in the older manner would be Nora Chadwick's "The Celts".

The emergence of what I later found to be called the Atlantic school (Thanks to Cambria Red - I knew of the theories but not the name of the movement), which held that Celtic language/culture started in Iberia, was in my opinion, a major albeit unintentional contributor to the fray. Their work/positions and the trend towards restricting of Celt to Gaul, although both not necessarily coming from the same source, seem to have influenced each other. The two are more recent developments, going back about the same amount of time. It is possible that in order to work or cooperate with the position of Iberian origination of Celtic, a sort of default was required to explain how we had two possible ‘source’ locations of Celts. The result would be then to restrict Celt to the Gauls of central Europe.


The only thing appears to be 100% certain now is that this subject, being 20-30 years old, has while to go before it is settled.

 

[Grizzly]

when he compares the Aquitanians to the Iberians he means that the first are closer to the peoples of the peninsula as a whole, not only the Iberian speaking part which never had any political unity nor administrative reality by the way. I don't understand why you're all focusing on such a detail.

This is probably very true.

 

[Grizzly]

On the other hand, it may be nothing more than the somewhat acidulous manner in which you attempt to dismiss the notion of Iberian celticity

I did not all followed, but "Iberian celticity" is probably nothing else than a myth. A regionalist myth first begun in Galicia in 19th century, and extended in all Spain far later. Celts have entered in Spain, but were a minority.

 

[Grizzly]

"European" haplogroups total 78% (R1b =69%) in Spain and 66% (R1b = 58%) in Portugal. The great majority of E in both countries is actually (M-81) which is not Near Eastern, but Eurasian (native origin NW African Berber) and likely pre-Neolithic. M-81 has been recorded in many Atlantic countries and Scandinavia. J1 averages 1.5% in Iberia.

The word "Celt" refers to a culture, especially a linguistic group, nothing else. Genetics considerations are off topic.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I did not all followed, but "Iberian celticity" is probably nothing else than a myth. A regionalist myth first begun in Galicia in 19th century, and extended in all Spain far later. Celts have entered in Spain, but were a minority.

Are the modern studies on Celticity in Iberia by the University of Wisconsin, Cunliffe and numerous others a "myth"? Just what are you up to anyway?

Google e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee for starters. There are several in-depth papers on the Celtic presence in Spain and Portugal in their rather large research corpus.

 

[Sirius2b]

I did not all followed, but "Iberian celticity" is probably nothing else than a myth. A regionalist myth first begun in Galicia in 19th century, and extended in all Spain far later. Celts have entered in Spain, but were a minority.

:innocent:

 

[Taranis]

Are the modern studies on Celticity in Iberia by the University of Wisconsin, Cunliffe and numerous others a "myth"? Just what are you up to anyway?

Google e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee for starters. There are several in-depth studies on the Celtic presence in Spain and Portugal in the research corpus.

I find it a tad ironic that you bring up e-Keltoi. I recently linked you a paper from that, which suggested a Lusitanian substrate in Gallaecia, and you seemingly dismissed it.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I find it a tad ironic that you bring up e-Keltoi. I recently linked you a paper from that, which suggested a Lusitanian substrate in Gallaecia, and you seemingly dismissed it.

I haven't read it yet. I've known about the Lusitanian substrate for some time. Wodtko discusses it thoroughly in a recent article.

 

[Taranis]

I haven't read it yet. I've known about the Lusitanian substrate for some time. Wodtko discusses it thoroughly in a recent article.

Alright then, sorry.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

:innocent:

Listen, if you have nothing meaningful to add don't comment.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The word "Celt" refers to a culture, especially a linguistic group, nothing else. Genetics considerations are off topic.

Did I ever say that the "Celtic" category is not essentially cultural?
However, there are some researchers investigating the possibility of genetic commonalities between historically well-settled Celtic territories. But even if they were to establish connections, genetic affinities would not be the defining characteristic of "Celticity".

 

[Wilhelm]

I did not all followed, but "Iberian celticity" is probably nothing else than a myth. A regionalist myth first begun in Galicia in 19th century, and extended in all Spain far later. Celts have entered in Spain, but were a minority.

Yeah, nothing but a myth. Obviously you are not a historian.

 

[Carlitos]

It is a fact that the Celts are part of the Iberian peninsula, it is true that some regional nationalists have used the Celtic in the nineteenth century for consistency to their arguments separatists. Normally the central or northern Europeans believe that the current Spanish Celtic claimed their complex, however one must ask what have complex in central or northern Europe to deny the Celtic view on the Iberian peninsula, the Spanish and Portuguese feel and is current Celtic make sure that their genetic makeup, cultural and so to a significant extent, then, why a Frenchman, for example, dares to say that the Celts arrived in Spain were in an insignificant number?, who has the complex? Spanish or Portuguese to defend its celticity because reneging of the Iberian world, defends the reality of facts shown historically and genetically, though it would be interesting to know why some Europeans deny Celtic Spain and Portugal, including why exclude the Iberian Peninsula the West in maps as we have seen in other threads, perhaps due to social reasons, political and economic, but in the Iberian peninsula have no vocation to be slaves and no one, no European nation is going to deny our own identity.


"If the Celtic myth of the Iberian peninsula, why do I have the same three mitochondrial DNA match with people from Ireland and one just someone from France or Belgium? In forty years will probably have 40 new match, what happens?

My ancestor ended up living in the Beturia, with a pair of ovaries and is going to come a French, German or any other European to deny the reality and all because they think that by sending in the European economic system can also send in our souls and tell us where we are geographically and what we should be genetically.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I did not all followed, but "Iberian celticity" is probably nothing else than a myth. A regionalist myth first begun in Galicia in 19th century, and extended in all Spain far later. Celts have entered in Spain, but were a minority.

Minority? Try one of the highest levels of Celtic settlement in Europe. Your strange notions are completely at odds with what all the Celtic historians, archaeologists and linguists have stated about Iberia. Deal with it.

 

[Regulus]

The word "Celt" refers to a culture, especially a linguistic group, nothing else. Genetics considerations are off topic.

There is of course more to the word Celt than that of a culture or a linguistic group. Sure, I would readily allow that the closeness of kinship would be less than that of, say Germans, who did not "spread out" in their migrations until much later. I would also allow that many groups may have become "Celtized" through contact. But from what I have learned, the genetic side should not be ignored when we consider Iberia. Germanization appears to have happened to certain groups also, just like it did with some that were is close contactor ruled by proto-Celts/Celts.

There were several waves of proto-Celts and Celts into Iberia over time.
The earliest groups settled more to the West, later were Urnfielders and possibly Halstsatts both of which were more spread out. Control bounced back and forth in many areas between them and Iberians and much mixing seems to have resulted. From reading what is available here in the forum, the genetic markers do seem to tell a tale of a population that can be identified by DNA.


The twin arguments about Celtic culture beginning in Iberia and equating Celtic only with Gauls are both recent developments in historical terms.
To me, they both leave too many unanswered questions. It looks to me like the genetic information now at out fingertips is or will cause us to dispense with both and result in a general return to the traditional view.

When one mentions that Celts were a minority in Iberia, maybe we should ask for more details, i.e., was it 15% or 45%? There is a massive difference between the two. I am somewhat confused at what may be the motivation to minimize the presence of Celts in Iberia, but the trend seems to have a surprising number of adherents.

 

[Carlitos]

It is certain that trend, but interestingly those Europeans who seek to minimize the Celtic Iberian Peninsula at the Spanish want to blame Celtic for having us be complex, I wonder how complex, by the Iberians? when more complex in denying Celtic Spain and Portugal are these Europeans, including some factories compared Phoenician, Greek and Carthaginian presence, Roman Iberia Celtic migrations to the Iberian peninsula, and is incomparable. We should ask ourselves what are the complex of these Europeans to deny the evidence. As I said in another post, I think that it is socio-economic issues.

 

[Taranis]

I think there's two very obvious issues with the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula: they didn't constitute a homogenous group, and instead, they were very diverse. The Celtiberians of the upper Ebro area were culturally heavily Iberian-influenced, whereas said influence was absent further to the west. The Gallaecians were cultural influenced by earlier Lusitanian culture in the area.