Celtic Language Spread & Evolution Options

[Pantagathus]

I was going to just send Andrew Dalby a PM about this but have decided to post it here for open discussion…

My current issue is with the spread of ‘Celtic’ language(s) and the mainstream dating of its/their evolution. There are some things that really bother me about it.

My first caveat is that I am willing to say that one of my main issues is that by calling it ‘Celtic’ implies that it spread and was innovated from the Celtic core which is represented by the Hallstatt & La Tène cultures. In my opinion, bestowing that much cultural mojo on the La Tène elite to suggest that they got large swaths of the Atlantic Cultural zone to switch to ‘Celtic’ languages to make trade easier in the middle of the 1st Millennium BC is a bit of a reach at best.

Then there is the fact that the ‘oldest’ versions of Celtic were at the periphery. With language, it takes a while for the core to advance ahead of the frontiers does it not; especially if there is still relatively strong cultural links between the people?

If Hispano-Celtic is one of the closest to ‘proto-Celtic’ and one of the first branches off the Celtic language tree, then I cannot accept that it was introduced during the La Tène era or even the Hallstatt period for that matter.

From what I’ve read recently, Ireland was a major player in the Atlantic zone before 600 BC and then was relegated to a forgotten backwater between 600-200 BC (hmmm, about when the Hallstatt & La Tène elites were flexing their muscles...). Since they have one of the older Celtic language forms, it is supposed to have been in place at least between 1200-600BC.

Thinking about Bell Beaker & Urnfield distribution maps, is it not enticing to consider that the seeds of these languages spread in the very late Neolithic and early Bronze Age?

If so, isn’t calling these languages pre-seventh century BC ‘Celtic’ putting the cart before the horse?

One other thing, did the Ligurians speak a form of Leptonic or something completely non-IE? Do we even know?

[docoflove1974]

One other thing, did the Ligurians speak a form of Leptonic or something completely non-IE? Do we even know?

As far as I know (and I can definitely be wrong on this), the language of the Ligurians was indeed a form of Leptonic...but I don't know that we have much of anything in the way of evidence.

I'm also curious about this discussion...with Romance and Celtic being closely related in the IE tree, I definitely want to know more!

[Pantagathus]

I'm also curious about this discussion...with Romance and Celtic being closely related in the IE tree, I definitely want to know more!

Seen as how this has been met with the sound of crickets so far we way be S.O.L

So, your info on Ligurians & Leptonic, where did you hear/learn that? Do you think it was an inference based on population proximity to where it was known to be spoken? (i.e. Alps & along the Po?)

[Andrew Dalby]

I don't know if this will be helpful, Pantagathus ...

In my view, whether prehistorians want to identify Celtic with La Tene/Hallstatt is up to them (and they are no doubt right up to a point).

Celtic is the name of a language group, within Indo-European. Since that's what Celtic is, it's correct to use the name for any identifiable or reconstructable language that lies, linguistically, somewhere between proto-Indo-European and the modern Celtic languages.

La Tène and Hallstatt are names of archaeologically identified material cultures. No doubt, the boundaries of material cultures have some relation to the boundaries within which particular languages are spoken, but they don't always coincide.

I said I didn't know if it would be helpful ...

[Pantagathus]

I don't know if this will be helpful, Pantagathus ...

Well, no pressure Andrew cause that's kind of my horribly misarticulated starting point. But do you basically see what I'm trying to get at though?

It's kind of the (big) question of when & how did I-E language permeate these Atlantic zone areas if we accept that it happened before and not after ~7th Century BC.

Because then I get into the whole thing of why did the Celtiberians adopt a Mediterranean script by the 5th Century when other 'Celtic' peoples stuck with Ogham? How come Massalia didn't have the same effect in Gaul on Celtic people in regards to the adoption of the Mediterranean writing form as they & other Greeks + Phoenicians had in Spain?

Or am I overlooking something?

This post has been edited by Pantagathus: Mar 14 2006, 06:23 PM

[docoflove1974]

So, your info on Ligurians & Leptonic, where did you hear/learn that? Do you think it was an inference based on population proximity to where it was known to be spoken? (i.e. Alps & along the Po?)

According to Robert Beekes' Comparative Indo-European Linguistics (1995), Ligurian was probably IE, but is not certain. Venetic is definitely IE, and either considered to be part of the Italic group or on its own...perhaps the same is true for Ligurian.

The exact quote of the whole thing (p. 26):

Whether the North Picenian inscriptions and Ligurian (in the vicinity of Genua), which we only know in the forms of names, were in fact Indo-European languages is uncertain. It seems improbable that Rhaetian (spoken from Lake Garda as far as to the Alps) is an Indo-European language, as it appears to contain Etruscan elements. (Rhaetian must not be confused with Rheto-Romance [sometimes called Rhaeto-Romanic], a Romance language spoken in Switzerland.)

I know that goes a little more than you originally asked for, but it just gives a bigger picture.

[docoflove1974]

Also, just to post what Beekes says about Celtic:

The Celts came from Central Europe, from whence they swarmed out in a number of different directions. For instance, the Galatians of St. Paul's letter who lived in Central Turkey were Celts.

a. Continental Celts
On the continent of Europe Celtic became extinct. Gaulish, which was still spoken in France when Caesar was busy with his conquests, is known now from a number of inscriptions. Lepontic, which we know from inscriptions around Lake Maggiore and the other lakes, was a separate Celtic language. In the north of Spain there was Celtiberian. Some time ago a Celtiberian inscription--the most extensive of all Celtic inscriptions--was discovered near Botorrita.

b. Insular Celtic
On the islands of western Europe, that is to say, in England and Ireland, Celtic was able to maintain itself. Old Irish is known as of the Ogham inscriptions which date from about 300 A.D., but they have very little information to offer us. By the time that glosses and texts begin to appear in the 7th century, the language was much further developed. The sound changes which Irish underwent are very complex, and the language has for this reason become exceptionally difficult. Irish continued to have a very rich literature. Scots Gaelic is a dialect of Irish (the Irish call themselves Goídel, from which Gael derives,) as is Manx, spoken on the Isle of Man. At the present moment the number of speakers of Irish is very small.

The other Celtic language form one group, the British language, that is to say, the Celtic languages of Great Britain. Celtic was spoken all throughout England when the Romans arrived (with the exception perhaps of Pictish ini the far north). In the 5th century A.D. British Celtic began to subdivide into Welsh, Cornish and Breton. These languages are all very much simpler than Irish. Middle Welsh, like Irish, has a very rich literature which dates from the 12th century. Old Welsh can be dated from the 7th century, but its texts are extremely hard to understand. Cornish and Breton are more closely related to each other, but neither has a very interesting literature. Cornish, which was spoken in Cornwall, died out in the 18th century. Breton crossed the English Channel from Wales and Cornwall and became established in Brittany (Bretagne) sometime between 450 and 600 A.D. There are still a considerable number of people who speak it, but the youngest generation mostly speak only French (the French are not particularly tolerante with respect to Breton).

[Pantagathus]

So, your info on Ligurians & Leptonic, where did you hear/learn that? Do you think it was an inference based on population proximity to where it was known to be spoken? (i.e. Alps & along the Po?)

According to Robert Beekes' Comparative Indo-European Linguistics (1995), Ligurian was probably IE, but is not certain. Venetic is definitely IE, and either considered to be part of the Italic group or on its own...perhaps the same is true for Ligurian.

Thanks Docoflove,

Take this with a grain of salt... but based on what the ancient geographers said about them, I personally have a sneaking suspicion that their initial language (though many tribes would indeed have been 'Celticized' depending on their location) would have been in the same family as Basque before they were then Romanized in the 2nd Century BC...

[docoflove1974]

Thanks Docoflove,

Take this with a grain of salt... but based on what the ancient geographers said about them, I personally have a sneaking suspicion that their initial language (though many tribes would indeed have been 'Celticized' depending on their location) would have been in the same family as Basque before they were then Romanized in the 2nd Century BC...

And I can't exactly disagree with you. We have so little of Ligurian and Lepontic, I doubt we'll ever truly know.

Dammit, Mr. Peabody...hurry up with that time machine!

[Lacertus]

I hope I'm not very late. I would like to clarify a matter (something )
There is an opinion that the Celts spoke a common Celtic language. Celtic scholars have supposed this common Celtic may have been spoken just before the start of the first millennium BC. during the Urnfield/Hallstatt eras. Soon after, five(?) distinct dialects emerged which may be subdivided as follows:

Hispano-Celtic (now obsolete)
Gallic (now obsolete)
Lepontic (now obsolete). Lepontic was a speech-form spoken in Northern Italy around the time of Christ, attested by a handful of short inscriptions in a form of the Etruscan alphabet.
Goidelic or ‘Q-Celtic' (which includes Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx)
Brythonic or ‘P-Celtic' (which includes Welsh, Breton, and Cornish)

Unfortunately, since no version of Hispano-Celtic, Gallic, or Lepontic has survived, we do not know whether they were distinct dialects, or whether they also were part of the P-Celtic and Q-Celtic variety. Pictish seems to have included a large element of Gallic or Welsh, but of an early type no longer identical with the Welsh of today.
Goidelic is said to be an older form than Brythonic, which may have developed from Goidelic at a later stage. Brythonic simplified itself in its case endings and in changes of gender. The major difference between the two dialects, is the substitution of P for Q in Brythonic, hence the terms P-Celtic and Q-Celtic. This is based on the Indo-European sound "qu(kw)". The sound in Goidelic later became represented by "c" (always hard), which in Bythonic it was replaced by "p". An example of this can be seen in the word for son. In Goidelic it is "mac", in Bythonic it is "map" or "mab".

From what I’ve read recently, Ireland was a major player in the Atlantic zone before 600 BC and then was relegated to a forgotten backwater between 600-200 BC (hmmm, about when the Hallstatt & La Tène elites were flexing their muscles...). Since they have one of the older Celtic language forms, it is supposed to have been in place at least between 1200-600BC.

The Hallstatt era is divided into four phases: A, B, C, and D, by modern day archaeologists. Approximately, Hallstatt A and B correspond to the late Bronze Age, c. 1200-800 BC; Hallstatt C refers to the very early Iron age, c. 800-600 BC; and Hallstatt D ranges from c. 600-500 BC. During Hallstatt A and B there is an apparent lack of large scale political organization. Until the eighth century, the known settlements suggest no more than petty chiefdoms. It is during the Hallstatt C period that we start to see fortified settlements on hilltops north of the Alps with greater frequency. Consequently, many burial mounds mark the graves of the rising noble classes, who no doubt had the hillforts built. Increased trade volumes seem to have contributed to the rise of these nobles. In the last phase, Hallstatt D, the richest graves are more concentrated in the west than previously. Resulting, seemly from the wishing to be closer to trade routes to the newly founded Greek colony of Massalia (Marseilles), near the mouth of the Rhône. Reaching the Greek world via Massalia, stories about the 'barbarian' chiefdoms were in all likelihood one of the earliest sources for tales of the people called Keltoi.
The fifth century BC began with a sudden extinction of the rich chiefdoms of the Hallstatt D. Hillforts all over Central Europe were abandoned, and rich burials ceased. At about the same time, wealthy warrior societies were developing, mostly to the north of the old Hallstatt centers. Almost certainly Celtic speakers, these peoples founded a unique culture and developed an artistic style unlike anything previously seen. This then is the developement of the La Tène culture.
Whereas the Hallstatt culture probably consisted of many different peoples and language groups, the La Tène culture can truly be termed "Celtic". The La Tène culture evolved during the fifth century BC in part of the Hallstatt area. There are several reasons for distniguishing archaeologically between the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. One most important and distictively different feature of the La Tène culture is the unique art-style, usually represented in their metal-work. This style most likely developed between the Meuse, Neckar, and Main, and had spread quite rapidly. The era in which it flourished begins around 500 BC. and ends, on the European continent at least, around 50 BC.
La Tène Culture lifts the Celts from being just another of the many European tribal peoples. La Tène truly establishes the Celts as a real 'civilization'. La Tène Culture generated some of the ancient world's most stunningly beautiful pieces of decorative art. The use of animals, plants, and spiral patterns in the art eventually epitomized and perpetuated the legend of the Celts.
La Tène society seems to have risen to prominence through trade with the Mediterranean, with the Greeks and Etruscans, and later the Romans. La Tène Culture finds the Celts amonst wealth and glory and expression. In general, the technological level of the La Tène Celts, with very few exceptions, was equal to, and in some cases surpassed. that of the Romans.
It was inevitable, however, that in any conflict between the Celts and Romans, the superior powers of organization, discipline, and orderliness of the Roman culture were bound to overcome the passionate and undisciplined Celts. But before the Romans were able to conquer the greater part of Celtic-dominated areas of continental Europe, the Celts during the La Tène period were to achieve their most widespread expansion. They spread into and beyond those areas previously held by the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures. They forced their way into Greek and Roman history by sacking Rome in 390 BC and Delphi around 279 BC.
With the La Tène Culture, the Celts came of age and marked a major cultural presence in Europe. Through La Tène, European peoples saw them as important, powerful, and something to be feared. Their spread across the continent and their impressive pressence, made them a force to be reckoned with. From Germany and Eastern Europe they spread southward into the balkans and Italy, and westward into France and Iberia. Before the La Tène culture of the Celts was finally destroyed by Roman conquest and culture, some of its elements had travelled beyond the continent into the British Isles. Ireland remained (at least no evidence suggests) untouched by the Romans.
With the La Tène culture, the Celts had given themselves definition, acquired a considerable presence, and earned respect from all the peoples of Europe at that time.

Sorry, I would like to give a link but couldn't find the site. I used thoughts of Michael Wangbickler in my work a time ago.

[Pantagathus]

Thanks for the more indepth background info Lacertus

Seems your source also speculates on what proto-Celtic should be defined as and what was spoken over the extent of the Halstatt areas

[Rameses the Grea...]

Was the Celtic language based on Latin. I know all the languages were based on Latin in Europe, I think even Slavic was, the only group in Europe that did not use it was the ever fascinating Basques. Can anyone please give me an answer?

[docoflove1974]

Was the Celtic language based on Latin. I know all the languages were based on Latin in Europe, I think even Slavic was, the only group in Europe that did not use it was the ever fascinating Basques. Can anyone please give me an answer?

Unequivocally not. Proto-Indo-European was the 'mother language' from which derived several of the 'classic' languages--Latin (and the Italic branch), Ancient Greek (and other Hellenic languages), the Balto-Slavic family (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and many others), the Germanic family (German, English, etc.), the Celtic family (Insular and Continental), Indo-Iranian (Persian/Avestan, Sanskrit/Hindi, etc.), Anatolian/Hittite, and a couple of isolets. Basque and Etruscan, while spoken in areas which were/are surrounded by Indo-European speakers, are not part of this family, and in fact are unrelated to any other language family studied thusfar.

This post has been edited by docoflove1974: Apr 4 2006, 01:25 AM