My book: www.amazon.co.... www.lulu.com/s... Backing: Alice Roberts - The Celts: Search for a Civilization www.nature.com... www.academia.e... www.gutenberg.... www.gutenberg....
The Gaels are Celts, because the Celts are the descendents of the 2500bc Bell-Beaker people and NOT defined adopting a generic central European artistic trend known as a posteriori as the Halsttat culture. While it is true that the Gaels never called themselves Celts, the Gauls and Iberian Celts did, and they too descend from the 2500bc Bell-Beakers.
The Irish are wrongly called Celts, since the belief stems from misunderstandings about their roots, not since they are Bell Beakers. Not all Bell Beaker groups were Celtish, Belgish or Islander, which were the Bell Beaker groups I had listed in the film. There were others, like Iberish, Italish and Germanish folk, whose crafts were Bell Beaker. Germanish folk blended Bell Beaker and Corded Ware crafts, but can still fairly be grouped with the rest. Under your thinking, they would all be Celts, even though the wording does not match. There were no Celts until about 3,200 years ago, which came about 900 years after Bell Beaker crafts had split into their own things throughout the spots in Europe that had been settled by them.
@CCMADL Western Indo-European languages were brought by the ~75% Steppe-Ancestry Corded Ware people into central Europe, where it came into contact with the already existing, non-Steppe Ancestry, non-Indo-European, Maritime Bell Beaker folk. These 75% Steppe Ancestry, West Indo-European speaking peoples then got accultured into the Bell Beaker culture, and migrated west, mixing with the already existing Maitime bell beakers, and creating new ethnic groups due to different mixing percentages. Although all of Western Europe was decisively +80% replaced paternally, maternally it varied widely. The British Islands were largely replaced, up to 60%, by these Bell-Beakers coming from the Belgian area. This area around the North Sea because one genetic population composed of circa 50-60% Steppe Ancestry. In Northern Gaul and the Alps, the steppe ancestry was 35-45% In Iberia, Southern Gaul and Northern Italy, the Steppe Ancestry was 25%-35% Going into the Bronze Age, you had about 3-4 different genetic clusters in Western Europe. You named as couple of Folks, whom i can identify as being defined by particular Y-haplogroups of the R1b variants. That's one way of looking at it although i prefer to look at Autossomal DNA, it's more of a spectrum and less clear than Haplogroups, but ultimately it corresponds more accurately to phenotype, which os what would matter in practical terms. All a result of this Bell-Beaker-period diffusion, yet in different amounts. Linguistically, the West Indo-European dialects formed a sort of Celto-Italo-Germanic Sprachbund, from Gibraltar to Jutland, over time these language began diverging, Italic isolating first East of the Alps and then migrating South into Italy, and Celto-Germanic existing as a spectrum of dialects, which included for example Pictish and Lusitanian in opposite corners of this spectrum. The Belgae language situation is particularly subjective, as it existed precisely in this middle grey area between Celtic and Germanic, making it's classification naturally harder and subjective, culturally the situation was similar (genetically they belonged to the aforementioned Northwestern group). Linguists seem to agree on a definite split between Celtic and Germanic roughly by 1200c-800bc which makes the claim that "Bell-Beakers weren't Celts, Celts only came some 1500 years after" technically true, but misleading, as it implies Celts were a completely distinct population who moved in and displaced thr Beakers, rather than the natural cultural evolution of Bell-Beakers all across Western Europe. So what gets to be classified as Celtic? Well, objectively the Celts are, whoever contemporarily indentified as such. So the Iberian Celts, and the Southern Gauls, which do belong to the same genetic cluster of sorts. So from a genetic perspective Celts would only be the Iberian Celts and the Southern Gauls. Linguistically and Culturally, the situation is more complicated. Linguistically, the Gauls spoke a P-Celtic variant that is related to Brythonic (Brythonics probably arrived in Britain later in the 10th century bc, from Gaul, as opposed to the Goidels who had already been living there since the Beaker invasion) so if we classify the Gaulish language as Celtic, then Britons would be Celtic but Gaels wouldn't. On the flip side, the Celts of Iberia spoke Q-Celtic languages, like the Goidels, so it would be arbitrary to only consider the P-ones as Celtic. Culturally it was a similar phenomen, the material cultures of Alpine Europe was generally distinct from Atlantic Europe, and within no clear correlation with genetics or language. So to put it simply: -The peoples of West Iberia and Southern Gaul were called Celts -The peoples of the British Islands shared related languages, religious elements, toponomy and material culture with both or either of these groups, as well as internal migrations (There was a generalized genetic convergence between the 16th and 8th century bc) -Therefore, it is legitimate to consider the Gaels/Brythons as belonging to this Iron Age Western European civilization, whom we name after those of them who self-identified as Celts, for lack of a better term.
@FaithfulOfBrigantia What you wrote in your latest answer about blood along Atlantish Europe is almost wholly true, but there are some wrong bits. You wrote "The British Islands were largely replaced, up to 60%, by these Bell-Beakers coming from around the Belgian area", but it is well-known that there was a blood shift in Britain and Ireland, that within a few hundred years, from 4,500 years ago to 4,200 years ago, almost fully wiped out the blood from the folk already living there, 90% being from the Bell Beakers, with the rest being from the non-Bell Beakers. What you were thinking about there is the lothood of Eryish blood, which was about 75% early on, but from the aforewritten blending, became roughly 65% (today it is between 45-50%). It was from Northwest Germany, not Belgish Gaul, that they reached Britain and Ireland, hence why, out of every other group in the world, those living in Northwest Germany match them best. Their fatherlines were overwhelmingly R-L21, which broke away from other fatherlines about 4,500 years ago, in Britain, not Gaul. As for their motherlines, they were from all over. At least we can understand overall blood is most meaningful. Writing or saying that the Celts came a set time after the Bell Beakers means that it is understood they became their own group at a later, not earlier, time. All Celts are Bell Beakers, but not all Bell Beakers are Celts. The word's meaning should not be broadened or narrowed beyond what is fair, and, since it is not something anybody can do, it should be left alone in that way. The Romans, Greeks and Celts themselves did indeed understand the Celts like that. Their speech, which is what should be talked about a lot more without rudeness on either side (it is something I am thankful neither I nor you have done during our talk), was Atlantish Bell Beaker, which had many children, those being Celtish, Belgish, Crithish and Irish. Between 4,500 years ago and 3,000 years ago, these tongues had, within that time, gone from being byleeds into tongues. After that, between 3,000 to 2,750 years ago, there was great blending between the Crithish and Belgish, birthing the British. Since their speech was already almost the same, and there was not a leadership shift, the tongue that was born from this, British, was overwhelmingly Crithish in its wording, but was Belgish-shifted in some ways, like /p/ instead of /kw/, a big vowel and consonant shift that set it far away from Irish vowels and consonants. In Iberia, such as among the Gallaecish, they bore /kw/ over /p/, since they did not undergo the /kwh/ to /p/ shift that Celtish did. It is little-known that before it became /p/, it was not /kw/, but instead /kwh/. As Irish, Crithish (as shown through the word 'maqqo', found in Formaston, Alba, being 1,225 to 1,000 years old, not matching Old British or Old Irish well enough to be from them, but rather a fellow Island Bell Beaker tongue) and Gallaecish were from folk whose backgrounds were not in Gaul, and there is no backing Northwest Eryish (also the root of Germanish and Italish) had /kwh/, but instead /kw/, and, by the time the shift from /kw/ to /kwh/ happened, these groups had made their own groups a long time before, it must be so that the Celts are Atlantish Bell Beakers like them, but underwent their own speech shifts, which, one, made its way into Southern Crithish, making British. The British, Irish, Iberish, Celtish and Belgish folk, rather than all coming from a shared 'Celtish' root about 3,200 years ago, stem from a shared Atlantish Bell Beaker root roughly 4,500 years ago, hence why they are all sorely much alike in blood, speech and lifeways, but also, on each thing listed, sometimes bearing things that are not the same, but, overall, being alike. That is what best fits the backing gathered over blood, speechlore, folklore and unearthed findings.
@@CCMADL I have nothing else to add, i admit your knowledge of the British Islands indeed goes into further detail than mine, which is a bit more continentally-focused. But it seems perfectly plausible to me. It seems to me that most discussions about who the Celts are, when and how they came about ultimately boils down to people using different words to mean same things, or same words to mean different things. So for the sake of clarity, what would you say "Celtic" means, who qualifies, and (in case you exclude some groups traditionally recognised as Celtic-speaking) what would you call them instead?
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia I feel the same towards it. Almost every time the Celts are talked about, something like that happens. I would say it means 'of or from the Celts', in blood, speech lifeways, all things that make up a group of folk. I would call the other folk Islanders, or Island Bell Beakers. The names match them well, while also being understood with great ease. The Celtish naming is only followed in the way it is since, even though it is flawed in many ways, it has become settled among Islanders and many other groups. I am glad our talk was worth it.
While correct on the genetic front, with the population still being bell-beaker descendant, I thought there was evidence of linguistic and cultural changes, and some Y chromosome changes - pointing to invasion and elite replacement? Also the line of reasoning around tribe names seems silly: “Why didn’t they call themselves Celts?” Is like saying about Germanic tribes “why didn’t they call themselves Germanics?”. In modern context we’re usually talking about language groups and material culture when using the word Celtic.
There is no backing that a shift like that in their leadership ever happened. Nothing shows how they lived had shifted greatly from the Bronze Eld, nor did the leading fatherlines become overwhelmingly Belgish. Thus, there could not have been a shift in speech and the ways in which folk lived, that would stem from the Belgish, not Celtish, folk who did settle Britain. The British and Irish tongues stem from Island Bell Beaker, but, while the Irish line was not shifted in any way by the Belgish folkwandering into Britain, the British line came into being from it. What happened was that, during the Iron Eld, there was a blend between Crithish (how the word for 'British' would look if made by Q-Island Bell Bell Beaker and brought into English) and Belgish stock, their speech, which was already sorely much tied through being Atlantish Bell Beaker, blended together, which is why British is a lot more like Irish than Belgish, but bearing stuff in it from the Belgish, with the most meaningful borrowing being /p/, which took the spot /kw/ had among those in Britain, like the folk in Ireland. While those two things are seemingly alike, upon looking at what is and is not the same, they are not. 'Germanish' does not have a known root word, but has not been twisted into meaning anything other than 'of or from the Germanish folk', whereas 'Celtish' has been, which can be witnessed. Following the meaning of the word 'Celtish', as laid out by the Romans, Greeks and Celts themselves, is best, since a folk's name should be shown great care, and no group in Britain or Ireland is Celtish, altogether showing the word does not fit us. It was once widely believed among Europish folk that we stem from the Israelites, yet almost nobody would welcome that understanding anymore. If, for likething, the belief that all Europish groups are from the Israelites held the same great sway that the belief the British and Irish are Celtish in any way does, would it be right that another name, one that would truly match their blood, lifeways and tongues, is not chosen? If you want papers showing these things did not happen, I would gladly tell you their names.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The Gaels are Celts, because the Celts are the descendents of the 2500bc Bell-Beaker people and NOT defined adopting a generic central European artistic trend known as a posteriori as the Halsttat culture.
While it is true that the Gaels never called themselves Celts, the Gauls and Iberian Celts did, and they too descend from the 2500bc Bell-Beakers.
The Irish are wrongly called Celts, since the belief stems from misunderstandings about their roots, not since they are Bell Beakers. Not all Bell Beaker groups were Celtish, Belgish or Islander, which were the Bell Beaker groups I had listed in the film. There were others, like Iberish, Italish and Germanish folk, whose crafts were Bell Beaker. Germanish folk blended Bell Beaker and Corded Ware crafts, but can still fairly be grouped with the rest.
Under your thinking, they would all be Celts, even though the wording does not match. There were no Celts until about 3,200 years ago, which came about 900 years after Bell Beaker crafts had split into their own things throughout the spots in Europe that had been settled by them.
@CCMADL
Western Indo-European languages were brought by the ~75% Steppe-Ancestry Corded Ware people into central Europe, where it came into contact with the already existing, non-Steppe Ancestry, non-Indo-European, Maritime Bell Beaker folk.
These 75% Steppe Ancestry, West Indo-European speaking peoples then got accultured into the Bell Beaker culture, and migrated west, mixing with the already existing Maitime bell beakers, and creating new ethnic groups due to different mixing percentages. Although all of Western Europe was decisively +80% replaced paternally, maternally it varied widely.
The British Islands were largely replaced, up to 60%, by these Bell-Beakers coming from the Belgian area. This area around the North Sea because one genetic population composed of circa 50-60% Steppe Ancestry.
In Northern Gaul and the Alps, the steppe ancestry was 35-45%
In Iberia, Southern Gaul and Northern Italy, the Steppe Ancestry was 25%-35%
Going into the Bronze Age, you had about 3-4 different genetic clusters in Western Europe. You named as couple of Folks, whom i can identify as being defined by particular Y-haplogroups of the R1b variants. That's one way of looking at it although i prefer to look at Autossomal DNA, it's more of a spectrum and less clear than Haplogroups, but ultimately it corresponds more accurately to phenotype, which os what would matter in practical terms.
All a result of this Bell-Beaker-period diffusion, yet in different amounts.
Linguistically, the West Indo-European dialects formed a sort of Celto-Italo-Germanic Sprachbund, from Gibraltar to Jutland, over time these language began diverging, Italic isolating first East of the Alps and then migrating South into Italy, and Celto-Germanic existing as a spectrum of dialects, which included for example Pictish and Lusitanian in opposite corners of this spectrum.
The Belgae language situation is particularly subjective, as it existed precisely in this middle grey area between Celtic and Germanic, making it's classification naturally harder and subjective, culturally the situation was similar (genetically they belonged to the aforementioned Northwestern group).
Linguists seem to agree on a definite split between Celtic and Germanic roughly by 1200c-800bc which makes the claim that "Bell-Beakers weren't Celts, Celts only came some 1500 years after" technically true, but misleading, as it implies Celts were a completely distinct population who moved in and displaced thr Beakers, rather than the natural cultural evolution of Bell-Beakers all across Western Europe.
So what gets to be classified as Celtic?
Well, objectively the Celts are, whoever contemporarily indentified as such. So the Iberian Celts, and the Southern Gauls, which do belong to the same genetic cluster of sorts. So from a genetic perspective Celts would only be the Iberian Celts and the Southern Gauls.
Linguistically and Culturally, the situation is more complicated.
Linguistically, the Gauls spoke a P-Celtic variant that is related to Brythonic (Brythonics probably arrived in Britain later in the 10th century bc, from Gaul, as opposed to the Goidels who had already been living there since the Beaker invasion) so if we classify the Gaulish language as Celtic, then Britons would be Celtic but Gaels wouldn't.
On the flip side, the Celts of Iberia spoke Q-Celtic languages, like the Goidels, so it would be arbitrary to only consider the P-ones as Celtic.
Culturally it was a similar phenomen, the material cultures of Alpine Europe was generally distinct from Atlantic Europe, and within no clear correlation with genetics or language.
So to put it simply:
-The peoples of West Iberia and Southern Gaul were called Celts
-The peoples of the British Islands shared related languages, religious elements, toponomy and material culture with both or either of these groups, as well as internal migrations (There was a generalized genetic convergence between the 16th and 8th century bc)
-Therefore, it is legitimate to consider the Gaels/Brythons as belonging to this Iron Age Western European civilization, whom we name after those of them who self-identified as Celts, for lack of a better term.
@FaithfulOfBrigantia What you wrote in your latest answer about blood along Atlantish Europe is almost wholly true, but there are some wrong bits. You wrote "The British Islands were largely replaced, up to 60%, by these Bell-Beakers coming from around the Belgian area", but it is well-known that there was a blood shift in Britain and Ireland, that within a few hundred years, from 4,500 years ago to 4,200 years ago, almost fully wiped out the blood from the folk already living there, 90% being from the Bell Beakers, with the rest being from the non-Bell Beakers. What you were thinking about there is the lothood of Eryish blood, which was about 75% early on, but from the aforewritten blending, became roughly 65% (today it is between 45-50%). It was from Northwest Germany, not Belgish Gaul, that they reached Britain and Ireland, hence why, out of every other group in the world, those living in Northwest Germany match them best. Their fatherlines were overwhelmingly R-L21, which broke away from other fatherlines about 4,500 years ago, in Britain, not Gaul. As for their motherlines, they were from all over. At least we can understand overall blood is most meaningful.
Writing or saying that the Celts came a set time after the Bell Beakers means that it is understood they became their own group at a later, not earlier, time. All Celts are Bell Beakers, but not all Bell Beakers are Celts. The word's meaning should not be broadened or narrowed beyond what is fair, and, since it is not something anybody can do, it should be left alone in that way. The Romans, Greeks and Celts themselves did indeed understand the Celts like that.
Their speech, which is what should be talked about a lot more without rudeness on either side (it is something I am thankful neither I nor you have done during our talk), was Atlantish Bell Beaker, which had many children, those being Celtish, Belgish, Crithish and Irish. Between 4,500 years ago and 3,000 years ago, these tongues had, within that time, gone from being byleeds into tongues. After that, between 3,000 to 2,750 years ago, there was great blending between the Crithish and Belgish, birthing the British. Since their speech was already almost the same, and there was not a leadership shift, the tongue that was born from this, British, was overwhelmingly Crithish in its wording, but was Belgish-shifted in some ways, like /p/ instead of /kw/, a big vowel and consonant shift that set it far away from Irish vowels and consonants. In Iberia, such as among the Gallaecish, they bore /kw/ over /p/, since they did not undergo the /kwh/ to /p/ shift that Celtish did. It is little-known that before it became /p/, it was not /kw/, but instead /kwh/.
As Irish, Crithish (as shown through the word 'maqqo', found in Formaston, Alba, being 1,225 to 1,000 years old, not matching Old British or Old Irish well enough to be from them, but rather a fellow Island Bell Beaker tongue) and Gallaecish were from folk whose backgrounds were not in Gaul, and there is no backing Northwest Eryish (also the root of Germanish and Italish) had /kwh/, but instead /kw/, and, by the time the shift from /kw/ to /kwh/ happened, these groups had made their own groups a long time before, it must be so that the Celts are Atlantish Bell Beakers like them, but underwent their own speech shifts, which, one, made its way into Southern Crithish, making British.
The British, Irish, Iberish, Celtish and Belgish folk, rather than all coming from a shared 'Celtish' root about 3,200 years ago, stem from a shared Atlantish Bell Beaker root roughly 4,500 years ago, hence why they are all sorely much alike in blood, speech and lifeways, but also, on each thing listed, sometimes bearing things that are not the same, but, overall, being alike. That is what best fits the backing gathered over blood, speechlore, folklore and unearthed findings.
@@CCMADL
I have nothing else to add, i admit your knowledge of the British Islands indeed goes into further detail than mine, which is a bit more continentally-focused. But it seems perfectly plausible to me.
It seems to me that most discussions about who the Celts are, when and how they came about ultimately boils down to people using different words to mean same things, or same words to mean different things.
So for the sake of clarity, what would you say "Celtic" means, who qualifies, and (in case you exclude some groups traditionally recognised as Celtic-speaking) what would you call them instead?
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia I feel the same towards it. Almost every time the Celts are talked about, something like that happens. I would say it means 'of or from the Celts', in blood, speech lifeways, all things that make up a group of folk. I would call the other folk Islanders, or Island Bell Beakers. The names match them well, while also being understood with great ease. The Celtish naming is only followed in the way it is since, even though it is flawed in many ways, it has become settled among Islanders and many other groups. I am glad our talk was worth it.
While correct on the genetic front, with the population still being bell-beaker descendant, I thought there was evidence of linguistic and cultural changes, and some Y chromosome changes - pointing to invasion and elite replacement?
Also the line of reasoning around tribe names seems silly: “Why didn’t they call themselves Celts?” Is like saying about Germanic tribes “why didn’t they call themselves Germanics?”. In modern context we’re usually talking about language groups and material culture when using the word Celtic.
There is no backing that a shift like that in their leadership ever happened. Nothing shows how they lived had shifted greatly from the Bronze Eld, nor did the leading fatherlines become overwhelmingly Belgish. Thus, there could not have been a shift in speech and the ways in which folk lived, that would stem from the Belgish, not Celtish, folk who did settle Britain. The British and Irish tongues stem from Island Bell Beaker, but, while the Irish line was not shifted in any way by the Belgish folkwandering into Britain, the British line came into being from it.
What happened was that, during the Iron Eld, there was a blend between Crithish (how the word for 'British' would look if made by Q-Island Bell Bell Beaker and brought into English) and Belgish stock, their speech, which was already sorely much tied through being Atlantish Bell Beaker, blended together, which is why British is a lot more like Irish than Belgish, but bearing stuff in it from the Belgish, with the most meaningful borrowing being /p/, which took the spot /kw/ had among those in Britain, like the folk in Ireland.
While those two things are seemingly alike, upon looking at what is and is not the same, they are not. 'Germanish' does not have a known root word, but has not been twisted into meaning anything other than 'of or from the Germanish folk', whereas 'Celtish' has been, which can be witnessed. Following the meaning of the word 'Celtish', as laid out by the Romans, Greeks and Celts themselves, is best, since a folk's name should be shown great care, and no group in Britain or Ireland is Celtish, altogether showing the word does not fit us. It was once widely believed among Europish folk that we stem from the Israelites, yet almost nobody would welcome that understanding anymore. If, for likething, the belief that all Europish groups are from the Israelites held the same great sway that the belief the British and Irish are Celtish in any way does, would it be right that another name, one that would truly match their blood, lifeways and tongues, is not chosen?
If you want papers showing these things did not happen, I would gladly tell you their names.
Why does the narrator have such a weird voice?
@@ivandinsmore6217 Oh, thank you. Why do you feel that being rude towards my speech does anything meaningful?
@@ivandinsmore6217 He speaks like a boy.
@@mogs7595 He does not comprehend that words change meaning as they age.
This is BS.
What makes you feel it is 'BS'?
@@cathalduffy1618 He does not care about that.
Only words, no backing. Do better next time.
In both the film and writing below, I shared among the best backing there is.