Origin and early history of the Celts; sources. Interesting facts from the history of the ancient Celts
Celts are the name given to tribes of Indo-European origin in ancient times and at the turn of the era, who occupied vast areas in Western and Central Europe. They were a very warlike people, who in 390 BC. even captured and sacked Rome. But internecine wars weakened the warlike people. As a result, the Germans and Romans drove the Celts out of their lands. These tribes remained surrounded by numerous secrets, intrigues, and therefore myths. Let's try to understand who they really were.
The Celts lived in what is now Britain and Ireland. It is difficult to say anything definitive about the origins of the Celts. Some historians believe that they inhabited Britain as early as 3,200 years ago, while others believe that they inhabited Britain long before that. But one thing is clear - the migration of the Celts began around 400 BC. from Central Europe. The tribes began to spread in all directions, but to the south they had to face the strong Romans. It turned out that the warlike but disparate Celts were opposed by a single unified empire. The tribes constantly fought with each other, without thinking about uniting against a common enemy. As a result, some of the tribes were completely destroyed, others submitted to the Romans, adopting their culture, and others generally went to the remote corners of that world - to Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There are still communities of modern Celts there who even strive to preserve their culture. And in their travels, the Celts even reached Greece and Egypt.
The Celts fought naked. When mentioning the Celts, there is always someone who will mention their tradition of fighting naked with a gold band around their necks, a neck mane. This myth about the Celts is one of the most popular. But once you think about such a statement, its absurdity immediately becomes clear. And this false statement appeared thanks to the Romans. Today, almost all the information we have about these ancient tribes comes from the records of Roman historians. There is no doubt that they exaggerated their exploits, and described the enemy as absolutely primitive savages. In this case, history was made by the victors; was it worth expecting honesty from it towards the vanquished? But there is another side to this story. The Celts lived during a period of history called the Iron Age. Then, instead of bronze, they just started using iron. It was used to make armor, weapons and tools. The Celts had the opportunity to arm themselves with swords, axes, hammers, create metal armor, chain mail, and rivet leather. Given the existence of armor, it would be foolish to assume that warriors abandoned them and fought naked.
Druids were ancient wizards. For that time, the Celtic Druids were truly powerful characters. They didn't just wear white robes and perform human sacrifices, but they did truly incredible things. Druids acted as advisers to tribal leaders and even kings. With their help, laws were born, just as today the English Parliament “invites” the Queen to sign acts. Druids often acted as judges, ensuring compliance with the rules they themselves introduced. For the Celts, the Druids were the personification of wisdom. No wonder you had to study for 20 years to earn such a title. The Druids had knowledge in the field of astronomy, they preserved folk legends and cultivated natural philosophy. Celtic wise men told villagers when they should start sowing. The Druids even believed that they could predict the future.
Celtic traditions died with them. Thanks to Celtic Druids One interesting tradition appeared and was preserved, which we know today. The fact is that in those days the oak was considered a sacred tree. The Druids believed that the gods lived in everything that surrounds us, including rocks, water, and plants. No less sacred a thing than the oak tree was the mistletoe, which grew on it. Beliefs in the powers of these plants continue to this day. It is no coincidence that in the English-speaking world there is a Christmas tradition of kissing under the mistletoe.
Celtic women were sullen. Based on the assumption that the Celts were savages (thanks to the Romans!), it is logical to consider their women gloomy and downtrodden. But this is a myth. In fact, Celtic women could be quite powerful and influential, owning their own land and even divorcing at will. For those times, such freedoms seemed incredible. Roman women were essentially limited in their rights, but among the Celts, women could make a career by climbing the social ladder. High status could be either inherited or acquired through merit. Among the Celts, landowners followed their leader into battle. If it turned out to be a woman, then she too went into battle. In fact, among the Celts, female warriors even taught boys and girls the art of war. Women could even become druids, creating the laws of society. These norms protected everyone in the Celtic tribe, including the elderly, the sick and infirm, and children. It was believed that the latter were still innocent, and therefore they should be protected. But in Roman society, children were often abandoned, left to die hungry in garbage dumps. So the Celts were not savages at all, as the Romans would have us believe.
The Celts didn't build roads. It is difficult to argue with the fact that it was thanks to Roman engineers that a network of roads appeared that enveloped the whole of Europe. In fact, we cannot agree with this. After all, long before the Romans, the Celts built a whole network of wooden roads that connected neighboring tribes. These lines of communication allowed the Celts to trade with each other. It’s just that wooden roads turned out to be short-lived, there was practically nothing left of this material - it rotted. But today, in the marshes of France, England and Ireland, some wooden planks, parts of the road, are still found. Based on the fact that the Romans were never able to conquer Ireland, we can safely assume that the old planks were created by the Celts as part of the road surface. In the same Ireland there is the Corlea Trail, on which there are many parts of the old road. In some places it was even reconstructed so that you could see which way the Celtic tribes moved at one time.
The Celts had strange, but uniform helmets. Based on the fact that the Celts had metal armor, it is logical to assume the existence of helmets corresponding to it. They were often unusual - the Celts were not shy about experimenting with design. One such piece of equipment was found in the Romanian village of Cumesti, where these tribes also went. Here archaeologists found an old cemetery dating back to the Iron Age. Among the 34 graves there was one that belonged to a Celtic leader. He was buried along with numerous items, including bronze axes and rich armor. It was believed that they were supposed to help the deceased in the afterlife. But an unusual helmet stood out among all the vestments. On it, an unknown craftsman forged a large bird of prey, spreading its bronze wings. The design of this decoration looks unusual - the bird’s wings were suspended on hinges, so when the owner of the helmet walked, the creature seemed to be flying. Historians believe that the fluttering helmet was still rather impractical in battle and the leader wore it only on special occasions. But the helmet became one of the most famous and copied masterpieces of Celtic art. Even Asterisk and Obelix have something similar.
The Celts thought only about who to fight with. This people became famous not only for their travels, but also for their love of battles. However, the Celts fought on anyone’s side, but not for free. Even King Ptolemy II, a representative of the glorious Egyptian dynasty, took these warriors as mercenaries. And the European tribes turned out to be such good soldiers that the king was afraid that they might take over his country. Ptolemy therefore ordered the Celts to be landed on an uninhabited island in the Nile. The Greeks also met with the Celts. At that time, the tribes were just expanding their territories. Those events are known in history as the Gallic invasion of the Balkans. Its culmination was the Battle of Delphi, which ended in the defeat of the uninvited guests. The fact is that once again the scattered Celts were opposed by trained united armies. So in 270 BC. The Celts were expelled from Delphi.
The Celts cut off the heads of their enemies. This fact is almost the most famous about the Celts, but it is still true. Indeed, the tribes were engaged in a real headhunt. It was this part of the body of a defeated enemy that was considered the most coveted trophy for the Celts. The reason for this is religion, which asserts the existence of spirits in all things. Likewise, the human head was imagined as a place where the souls of defeated enemies live. The warrior who had such a collection was surrounded by honor. And the heads of enemies around gave the Celts self-confidence and a sense of importance. It was customary to decorate saddles and house doors with the severed heads of enemies. It was something of owning a collection of luxury luxury cars in modern world. Today people boast about a new stylish car, but back then they boasted about the head of a powerful, hostile leader appearing in their collection.
The Celts were a poor people. To debunk this myth, it’s worth diving into history a little. For the time being, the Celts and Romans coexisted peacefully next to each other. But then Julius Caesar appeared on the scene. His political career did not work out, and he was burdened with burdensome debts. It seemed obvious that a small, victorious war against the primitive barbarians, the Celts, could improve the situation. The Gallic Wars are often considered the most important military manifestation of the genius of Julius Caesar. Thanks to that campaign, the border of the empire began to expand rapidly. At the same time, Caesar defeated the Celtic tribes one after another and captured their territories. This victory changed the fate of that region known in the ancient world as Gaul, with its Celtic tribes living there. Caesar himself gained fame and influence. But why exactly did he attack Gaul? The Roman himself wrote that he tried to push back the barbarian tribes that threatened Rome. But historians see the reasons somewhat differently. One of these invading tribes were the Helvetii, who lived near the Alps. Caesar promised them protection when moving to Gaul. But then Rome changed its mind, and the barbarians decided to act on their own. Caesar stated that it was necessary to protect the Celts living in Gaul. As a result, the Romans exterminated more than a quarter of a million “invaders,” and in the process of defending their territories, almost all the Celts were destroyed. Gaul itself became part of a powerful empire. And this has a lot to do with wealth. Caesar needed money to pay off his debts and gain influence for his career. Not only did Gaul bring him fame as a commander, this territory was very rich in gold deposits. The Celts were known to have gold coins and jewelry, but these were thought to have been obtained through trade. But Caesar did not believe it. It turned out that there were more than four hundred gold mines on the territory of Gaul. This testified to the incredible wealth of the Celts, which was the reason for Caesar’s interest in them. Interestingly, Rome began minting its gold coins just after the conquest of Gaul.
The Celts were poorly educated. Once again, it is worth understanding that the Romans did their best to cast their rivals in the worst possible light. In fact, these people were not at all as simple-minded as they are imagined. Moreover, the Celts owned something that even the Romans did not have - an accurate calendar. Yes, there was a Julian calendar, but the Celts had their own calendar from Coligny. It was found in this French city back in 1897, which gave its name to the discovery. Not only does it have an unusual appearance, but the calendar turned out to be made of mysterious metal plates with numerous marks: holes, numbers, lines, a set of Greek and Roman letters. For a hundred years, scientists could only understand that they were dealing with a calendar, but the principle of its operation remained a mystery. Only in 1989 was the invention of the Celts able to be deciphered. It turned out that the find was a solar-lunar calendar, which calculated the time of year based on the cycles of the appearance of celestial bodies. For that state of civilization, the calendar was very accurate, being an advanced invention. With its help, the Celts could predict where the sun would be in the sky in future months. This find clearly proved that the Celts had developed scientific and mathematical thinking. It would be interesting to compare the invention of the “barbarians” with the calendar used by the Romans. It was also considered quite accurate for its time, having an error with the actual solar calendar of only 11.5 minutes per year. But over centuries, this error quickly accumulates. As a result, in our time the Romans would celebrate the beginning of spring when it would be August in our yard. But the Celtic calendar, even today, would be able to correctly predict the seasons. So the Romans had a lot to learn from the “uneducated” barbarians.
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, the wise wizard Merlin, the fairy-tale elves from Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings”, all these semi-legendary characters that are well known to us actually came into modern popular culture straight from ancient Celtic folklore. In those distant times, when ancient civilizations flourished in the south of Europe and the Mediterranean, the mysterious people of the Celts lived in the north of Europe. Mysterious largely due to the fact that, having a developed culture, rich mythology, interesting traditions, he did not leave behind any written evidence. All that we know about the Celts from written sources is mainly the works of ancient Roman historians, who cannot be objective due to the fact that the Romans and the Celts often fought, and the Celts themselves were seen by the Romans as sort of savages, barbarians, who must certainly be conquered and “ civilize".
Where did the Celts live?
At the height of their civilization, the ancient Celts lived in vast European territories, occupying modern Ireland, England, France, Belgium, part of Germany and Austria.
Map of the settlement of the Celts.
However, being lovers of wanderings, some Celtic tribes wandered even into Asia Minor, were in the Balkans and Spain. As for our country Ukraine, there is a hypothesis according to which the Celts lived in the Carpathians and, in particular, our Hutsuls are distant descendants of the Celts. But this is just a hypothesis, an assumption, there is no direct evidence that the Hutsuls are descendants of the Celts. But the modern Irish, Scots, Bretons, Welsh are indeed distant descendants of those same ancient Celts.
Origin of the Celts
First of all, it is worth noting that the very name of this people “Celts” is not true. That’s what the ancient Greeks called them, but the Romans called them Gauls, which means “roosters,” probably because of the warlike nature of the Celts, who were said to be as pugnacious as roosters. Unfortunately, we do not know what the Celts called themselves, since they did not have a written language, and they did not leave any written sources about themselves.
We also do not know the exact place where the Celts appeared on the historical stage. The Celts were first mentioned in the works of the “father of history” Herodotus; according to him, they lived in the upper reaches of the Danube, and were adjacent to the Cynets, the extreme western tribe, according to the Greeks. However, archaeological data tell us that already in the 5th century BC. That is, the Celts inhabited a vast territory, from England to the upper reaches of the Danube; where was the source of the emergence of the Celtic civilization, alas, is not known for certain.
History of the Celts
Throughout its history, the Celtic civilization seemed to compete with the ancient one, represented by ancient Rome. Moreover, she competed, sometimes quite successfully, so when Rome was just gaining strength, the Celts invaded northern Italy, won a number of brilliant victories and even besieged the “eternal city.” And they would have captured and plundered it if not for the geese; according to legend, the Celts decided to launch a night assault when the Roman guards fell asleep. But the unwanted guests were noticed by geese from the temple of the goddess Vesta and made such a noise that the whole city was on its feet, ready to repel the attack. This is where the saying “Geese saved Rome” came from. Although, most likely this is just a poetic legend.
But let’s return to the Celts, in addition to Italy, they invaded the Balkans, the territory of ancient Greece, and Asia Minor, for example, the king of Bithynia (modern Turkey) Nicomedes I hired a large army of Galatian Celts for wars with local nomads. And Alexander the Great, setting out on his famous campaign against Greece, concluded a so-called non-aggression pact with the Celts, thus securing his rear, since Celtic raids on Greek territory were quite real.
Meanwhile, Rome was gaining its strength and power, having subjugated all of Italy, it began external expansion, and now Roman troops are invading the Celtic lands, having first conquered Gaul ( modern France), and then Britain. Roman legionaries and Celtic tribes are successfully pushing back on the Danube and the Balkans.
Why were the Celts unable to repel the Roman invasion and, as a result, found themselves conquered by the Romans, because they were always brave and courageous warriors, owned significant territories, and enjoyed great influence in Europe at that time? Probably the whole point is the lack of unity and discipline; living from Britain to the Balkans, having a common culture, religion, traditions, rituals, and customs, the Celts were never able to create a single centralized state. The Celts were divided, while the Romans, on the contrary, created a strong centralized state. Also in military affairs, yes, the Celts were strong and brave warriors, but, like other barbarian tribes, they could not do anything against the well-coordinated Roman legion.
Celts versus Romans.
The Celts conquered by the Romans gradually adopted their culture, customs, learned to write, and later many of them themselves entered Roman service. Of course, sometimes there were Celtic uprisings against Roman rule, the largest such uprising was the uprising in Gaul in 54 BC. e. under the leadership of the Gallic leader Vercingetrix. The talented Roman military leader and future Roman Emperor Julius Caesar managed to suppress this uprising. It was he who broke the final resistance of the Celts, in addition to Gaul, also conquering Britain. From then on, the Celtic civilization disappeared from the historical scene forever.
Celtic culture
Although the Celts did not leave us written sources about themselves, we nevertheless know a lot about the culture of the ancient Celts from numerous archaeological finds throughout Europe. In particular, we know that:
- The Celts were among the first to learn how to produce iron and steel.
- The Celts were the first to learn how to obtain copper, mercury, lead and tin from deep deposits.
- The Celtic horse-drawn carriages were the best in the ancient world.
- The Celts were the first to mine gold on Alpine rivers.
This is only a small part of the historical facts about the Celts, obtained through archaeology. We also know that the Celts were skilled architects: for example, in the territory of modern Bavaria alone, the Celts erected 250 religious temples and founded eight large cities. In particular, it was the Celts who founded such famous modern cities as Paris, Turin and Budapest.
And the most famous architectural monument of the Celts is, of course, the famous Stonehenge in England.
Scientists are still arguing about the purpose of this grandiose structure. And the fact that the positions of the Stonehenge stones can be linked to astronomical phenomena speaks of the deep knowledge of the ancient Celts in astronomy, and some scientists even believe that Stonehenge itself was not only a temple, but also a giant observatory.
Now let's give the floor to Roman historians and chroniclers, according to their description, all the Celts were born horsemen, their women were distinguished by their panache, they shaved their eyebrows and wore narrow belts. Women in Celtic society enjoyed great freedom, in particular they could easily obtain a divorce and even take their dowry from their husband. Men wore mustaches and gold rings around their necks, and women wore bracelets on their legs.
Interesting fact: the Celts had a law according to which everyone had to be thin, and whoever did not fit a standard belt was fined for being overweight. Therefore, in order to avoid a fine, everyone played sports intensively.
At the head of the Celtic society were special people - the Druids, who were not just priests - clergy in Celtic society, but also performed many other important social functions, in particular they were:
- healers, as they were well versed in various medicinal herbs,
- judges, resolving disputes between ordinary members of the community,
- teachers for those who were going to become a druid in the future,
- historians, or rather keepers of ancient tales, legends, stories about the past. All information was transmitted orally, so the Druids must have had a very good memory.
Celtic Druids.
As we wrote above, the Celts did not have a single state; at most they created tribal unions, with a leader at the head of each tribe. But the power of the leader was not absolute; in their decisions, the Celtic leaders often consulted with the Druids, and it happened that the last word was with the Druids, who in certain matters had even more power than the leaders.
In general, the comic image of the Celts is very cheerfully conveyed in the good old French cartoon “Asterisk and Obelisk”.
Celtic art
Surely many works of Celtic art have not survived to this day. But from the things that have survived, we can safely say that the Celts were very skillful in terms of artistic ornamentation on metal. Applying ornaments to hardware was carried out by engraving, and later relief images began to be made. The Celtic ornaments themselves are dominated by geometric, plant and zoomorphic elements.
Celtic sculpture was strongly influenced by ancient art, although original Celtic works are also found.
Celtic religion
The Celts had their own pagan religion, many gods they worshiped, and a rich mythology. True, the mythology of the Celts, unlike the ancient Greek mythology, is, alas, far from being so promoted and popular, but that makes it no less interesting.
Among the gods of the Celtic pantheon one can note such characters as:
- Lug is the patron god of crafts and arts. Including the art of war, therefore the Celts named many military fortresses after him, for example the French city of Lyon, also founded by the Celts, in ancient times was called Lugundun - Fortress of Luga.
- Taranis is the thunder god, patron of natural elements: winds, storms, thunderstorms, rain. He was depicted with a hammer in his hands, in many ways similar to our Slavic god Perun.
- Cernun is the patron god of the forest kingdom, trees and all plants and animals.
- Brigid is the female goddess of love, fertility and healing; the Celts believed that it was Brigid who helped women during childbirth.
In addition to the gods, the Celts also revered certain plants, such as the evergreen shrub mistletoe, which was considered sacred. The Druids, considering the properties of mistletoe to be miraculous, cut it with a special golden sickle at a strictly defined astronomical time, in order to then use it in certain cleansing ceremonies.
The beliefs of the Celts about the afterlife were very interesting; in particular, like the Hindus, they believed in reincarnation, the rebirth of the soul after death in another body. But according to the Celtic religion, the soul is not reborn immediately, but ends up in the afterlife, some paradise islands, where it indulges in heavenly bliss until it is reborn in our material world.
- The well-known Halloween holiday actually has Celtic roots, its original Celtic name is Samhain (or Samhain or Shroud). According to the beliefs of the Celts, on this day, October 31, the doors between the world of the living and the world of the dead open. With the advent of Christianity, this holiday acquired a Christian connotation, it began to be called “All Hallows Eve”, and the tradition of going to cemeteries and remembering dead relatives comes from Celtic beliefs.
- Funerals among the Celts are strikingly different from those among other peoples; if it is usually customary to cry at a wake, then for the Celts everything was exactly the opposite; at the wake they had frantic fun, celebrating the return of the soul of the deceased to the afterlife, where heavenly bliss awaits him. In our time, an interesting tradition of having fun at funerals has been preserved by the Irish, descendants of the Celts.
- The Celts also explained the crying of newborn babies in a very interesting way in accordance with their beliefs about afterlife, they say, they cry for the lost other world and the heavenly bliss in which they remained after death until the moment of their new birth - reincarnation.
- The Celts believed in the existence of various magical creatures, elves, trolls, and gnomes. Now you know where the English writer and linguist John Tolkien got ideas for his works. True, Tolkien's elves and elves in Celtic beliefs, of course, have many differences. The same goes for gnomes, trolls and other goblins.
Celts, video
And finally, we invite you to watch an interesting documentary about the Celts.
Anna Krivosheina
Scientists have been studying the heritage of the Celts for a long time, but there are still more questions than clear, indisputable answers. One of the most pressing questions is how did this people arise, where did they come from? And here history meets myth...
An archaeological view. The people who conquered Europe
There are many theories regarding the origin of the Celts and their ancestral homeland. Researchers agree that the Celts were part of a powerful migration wave of Indo-Europeans, but there are several answers to the question of where they came from, of which two main ones can be distinguished. One version connects the ancestral home of the proto-Celts with the territory of present-day Iran, Afghanistan, and Northern India. The second, so-called Nordic, theory seeks their origins in the north, and there are several hypotheses about which islands became the cradle of this civilization.
According to the most common opinion, the history of the proto-Celts in Europe is connected with the appearance in the 3rd millennium BC. culture of Corded Ware and Battle Axes. Then we can mention the culture of burial mounds, which is characterized by large mounds that had a complex internal structure and rich grave goods (gold bracelets covered with ornaments, pins, temple rings, spiral rings and much more). This culture was replaced at the end of the Bronze Age by the culture of the urn fields. Its bearers had very highly developed metal processing, which made it possible to create the first European civilization military armor.
The historically known Celtic tribes are associated with two subsequent periods representing the European iron age, - Hallstatt (named after the settlement in Austria) and La Tène (La Tène site in Switzerland). The ancestral homeland of the Celts in Europe is considered to be the territory of the south and west of Germany, Austria, and some researchers also consider the southeast and northeast of France. The Hallstatt period (8th–6th centuries BC) was a period of significant growth of civilization. In one of the mounds of this period, the famous burial of the “princess” was discovered, in which a large number of exquisitely crafted jewelry was found. According to researchers, this burial speaks of the high position of women in Celtic society and confirms literary evidence of the existence of Queen Boudica in Britain and the legendary Queen Medb in Ireland.
The La Tène period lasted from 500 BC. to the 1st century BC, and in Ireland - several more centuries. During this period, the Celts settled throughout Europe. They occupy the territory of present-day Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy, reach Rome, conquer Spain and create the famous Celtic-Iberian culture there, form the state of Galatia in Asia Minor, populate the British Isles, in 279 BC. occupy Greece. There are suggestions that they even reached Kyiv. In 335 BC. On the Danube, the Celts met Alexander the Great. Legend says that when the great commander asked the fearless Celts what they were afraid of, they answered: “We fear only one thing - that the sky does not fall on us.” The Celts who settled in Europe (the so-called mainland) were called Gauls by the Romans, and Galatians by the Greeks, and the island Celts were called Britons.
The beginning of the decline of this culture is associated with a number of military campaigns of the Romans against the Gauls. After the famous battle of 52 BC. under Alesia, Julius Caesar conquers Gaul, which becomes a province of the Roman Empire. In the 1st century The Romans conquer the British Isles, although there remains territory that never became Roman. Establishment of Christianity in Ireland in the 5th century. became a milestone not only in its own history, but also in the life of the entire Celtic world, in the vast territories of which there was not a single corner left where only its own traditions would be preserved.
The Celts played a large role in the history of Europe. It is known that even in the Roman era, people from all over Europe came to study in the schools of Druids, who had the deepest knowledge; Roman schools in Europe became the successors of the Celtic schools, which were headed by Druid priests. In addition, Irish monasticism arose on the basis of druidic centers and preserved for us the most ancient traditions of the Celts, recording ancient myths in books and transferring ancient wisdom into modern times. One of the researchers, A. Hubert, called the Celts the torchbearers of the ancient world, who gave a powerful civilizing impulse to all of Europe.
The look is mythological. Ultima Tula
It is impossible to truly meet the culture of a people if you do not try to understand what was important and valuable for its representatives, the most sacred, without which they could not imagine life, what they considered good and evil. And this can best be told by legends and myths that have been preserved through millennia - despite countless generations succeeding each other, despite wars. Let's try to see what the legends tell about the origin of the Celtic civilization, about its origins. Since such myths survive only in Ireland, they tell the mythical history of this island.
The sagas of the so-called mythological cycle tell of the legendary peoples who settled Ireland before the Goidels, or sons of Mil, the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of the country, sailed there.
So, in a certain initial era, Ireland was empty and had no form, and then was successively inhabited by tribes who gave it shape, gradually creating the cosmos in which the Goidels and their descendants would eventually live. This myth can be compared with the cosmogonic myths of other peoples: the myth of the tribes tells about the emergence of the world, about the first hill that rose from the waters of chaos, about the stages of the creation of the cosmos, about the principles that work in a holistic, great world. In this world there are visible and invisible parts, and the realities of the earthly world are only a small fraction of that integrity called “space”.
Legends also tell about successive waves of migrations to the island, which are called races. First, the Kessar tribe, the only antediluvian tribe, arrives here, then the Partholon race, which creates seven lakes and clears four valleys. After this, the race of Nemed (“Sacred”) appears, it lights the first fire, which will never go out; with her the first king appears and the first oath is pronounced. Then come the Fir Bolg people (lightning people), who were the first to divide the island into five provinces - four and one central, and since then this sacred structure of the world has been supported by all subsequent generations.
But the most famous were the tribes of the goddess Danu. They arrived in Ireland not by ship, but by air, shrouded in fog. As legends say, these were the brightest people, the most courageous warriors, the most subtle sages, the greatest magicians and wizards. They came from a mysterious island, the Great Island, which is located somewhere far to the north. There they gained knowledge, learned magic, sorcery and craft from the greatest and mysterious druids, magicians, bards who lived on this island. This race fought the Fomorians - the hostile forces of the frontier world that constantly attack Ireland.
Celtic settlements
The Celts lived in oppidiums - fortified places. These could be small settlements or huge "cities" (although in the Celtic language there is no word equivalent to "city", only "settlement, village"). Powerful walls were built around them - made of logs, stone, and earth. One of these oppidiums is enclosed by a wall of 2000 m, the width of which is 5–10 m. Archaeologists are excavating magnificent “cities” with an area of 100–200 hectares.
Such, for example, is Bibract (Bibraktis), which occupied an area of 135 hectares. There was a quarter for wealthy people, one of the residential buildings of which, for example, totaled 1150 m2 and consisted of 30 rooms. Found in another house heating system located under the floor. Another quarter was the civic and business center, the third was the sacred part of the city. A huge number of workshops were also found there - foundries, enamellers, blacksmiths, etc. The walls surrounding Bibract, rising 5 m in height, had a circumference of 5 km. On the outside there was a ditch 11 m wide and 6 m deep. The city was destroyed by the Romans in the 1st century. BC.
J.M. Ragon describes it as follows: “Bibractis, the mother of sciences, the soul of the ancient peoples of Europe, a city equally famous for its sacred school of the Druids, its civilization, its schools, where 40,000 students studied philosophy, literature, grammar, law, medicine, occult sciences and etc. A rival of Thebes, Athens and Rome, it had an amphitheater surrounded by colossal statues, temples of Janus, Pluto, Jupiter, Cybele, Anubis and others, fountains, ramparts, the construction of which dates back to the heroic centuries...”
When the Goidels came to the land of Ireland, after the battle they divided the island with the tribes of the goddess Danu: the Goidels got the land, and the tribes went into the hills, under the lakes and overseas. “The Sids (divine beings who lived underground in hills, caves, rock crevices - A.K.) demanded from Mananan that he find safe shelters for them. And he found beautiful valleys for them in Ireland and placed invisible walls around them, which were inaccessible to mere mortals, but for the Sids they were like open doors.”
The Celts called this invisible side of the world the Other World. Thanks to the seeds, people got the opportunity to communicate with the Other World, in which the Source of Wisdom is located; you can see there true meaning events taking place on earth. Thanks to communication with this world, people knew that they were immortal, that after death they would go to the Promised Land, where they would be trained by the Ancient People, the Marvelous People, as they called the Sids. There one could meet the secret of the secrets of this world - the great island of Ultima Tula. This name came to us from the Romans (Virgil, Seneca, Tacitus). Initially, this was the name of a legendary island country, located, according to the ancients, in the far north of Europe. (Later this expression became a common noun meaning “the extreme limit of something.”) What the Celts themselves called this island is not known for sure today.
Path to the Center
There is one important principle in Celtic culture, without understanding which it is impossible to comprehend it. We are talking about a deep inner, innermost craving for the Center. Through all the myths and through many of the teachings of the Druids, the idea runs that every person should have a center around which he builds his life, to which he constantly strives, which is the criterion and point of reference. You have to look for it, look for it constantly, strive for it. The center, like an invisible knot, connects all manifestations of this world into a single whole. Untie it and everything will crumble into meaningless pieces.
This center can appear in different forms. This is the heart of man, and the sacred groves, and the sacred areas of Usnekh and Tara, these are the Druids, and the great kings... And as a person moves along the path, he discovers more and more deeply the concept of the center, he sees more and more manifestations of it , sees the entire depth of the world.
But still, the innermost, greatest manifestation of the center is the great island of Ultima Tula. A majestic image that was left as a legacy to Europe as an archetype, as the last gift of the Druids to our civilization.
Memory of the Island
As legends say, in the north, beyond everything visible, there is a sacred Island, an island of light, an island of purity. On this Island live all the guardians of wisdom, knowledge and secrets on Earth, divine bards, divine artists. Legends say that all the Druids and kings studied on Tula and it was from there that they brought their mysterious art. There is a cauldron of rebirth, which quenches any thirst and gives immortality. The Celtic legends about Thule and her search became the source of legends about the search for the Grail - the cup of light, thanks to which the earth cannot be swallowed up by darkness. Finding Tula means not only finding wisdom, knowledge, being reborn - this is the Grail - but touching the secret of secrets, which is the basis of all human existence.
Getting to the sacred Island is not easy; it must be earned by completing the Great Voyage. In order to understand the essence of this voyage, the sacred path to the Island, you need to know that in the Celtic Other World there is no time, or, in other words, it flows completely differently. Many myths and legends tell that people, having entered the Other World, think that they spent several days or months there, and when they return, they discover that centuries have passed. A day there is equal to a century, and eternity is a moment. But this moment is filled with the greatest feats, trials, miracles and realizations. You just need to find a ship and make a voyage that will last a moment - or just an eternity.
The Island has Guardians, for the forces of chaos, darkness, and destruction do not sleep and are always ready to devour the world. Some of those who reached the Island remain to guard it there, and some return back to our world to protect it here. The Druids and Kings are the ones who returned to bring Tula to earth with them. For the Celts, the Druids, bards and kings, Fenians and great heroes were the island of light, justice, honor, and wisdom, thanks to whom people could live in a true world, illuminated by the light of Tula.
Legends say that only those who have heard its Call can get to the Island. This call always sounds, and at special moments a person is able to hear it. The only question is whether he can respond to it.
For many centuries, the chain of guardians was not interrupted, and then the memory of the Island was erased from a person’s head. But not from the heart. And this memory forces us to peer into this culture again and again in an attempt to find something important that will make our life filled with meaning, like that people who had Druids and kings, had Great Tula and who remembered where they came from and where it goes.
Sacred Centers of Ireland
Tara- one of the two most important sacred centers in Ireland. The tradition of sacred royal power was associated specifically with Tara and its rulers, who entered into a sacred marriage with the land of Ireland. The structure of the royal palace in Tara had a symbolic meaning; it reveals many parallels with the cosmological traditions of other peoples. Surrounded by seven rows of ramparts, the palace consisted of the main Honey Chamber and four others, oriented along the four cardinal points and personifying the four main kingdoms of the country. The arrangement of the central chamber repeated this scheme, allocating seats to the representatives of the four kingdoms around the dais intended for the ruler of Tara. The most important concept of the center for any cosmology was personified by the Fal stone. Only he became the ruler of Ireland under whom the stone screamed loudly. The emergence of Tara is associated with the mythical ruler of the Fir Bolg - Eochaid.
The second sacred center of Ireland was located west of Tara Usneh, where the famous Division Stone was located. According to legend, it was at this stone that a druid named Mide from the Nemeda race lit the first sacred fire of Ireland, which, judging by archaeological data, did not go out for several millennia. The stone was pentagonal, symbolizing the five kingdoms. The 12 most important rivers of the island originated here. The famous oenah in ancient times - the people's assembly of Usnekh - was a parallel to the Festival of Tara, associated with the establishment of royal power.
The road connecting Tara with Usnekh was called the Assal road. The Spear of Assal - the spear of the god Lugh - had a cosmological meaning and was correlated with Axis Mundi, the Axis of the World, symbolized by a ray of the sun.
Despite the obvious interest in Celticology not only in secular academic science, but also among church historians talking about the phenomenon of the Celtic church, the answer to the fundamental question is not generally known and clear: who are the Celts? The author of this publication tries to answer this question.
The ancient writers called the people who played a key role in the historical formation of Central and Northern Europe by different names - “Celts” (keltoi/keltai/celtae), “Galls” (galli), “Galatians” (galatae). This group of tribes of Indo-European origin came to Western Europe earlier than other Aryans.
“Herodotus in the middle of the 5th century mentions this people, speaking about the location of the source of the Danube, and Hecataeus, who became famous a little earlier (c. 540-775 BC), but whose work is known only from quotations given by other authors, describes the Greek colony of Massalia (Marseille), located, according to him, on the land of the Ligurians next to the possessions of the Celts."
“About a quarter of a century after the death of Herodotus, northern Italy was invaded by barbarians who came along the Alpine passes. The description of their appearance and names indicate that they were Celts, but the Romans called them “galli” (hence Gallia Cis- and Transalpina - Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul). More than two centuries later, Polybius refers to the invaders under the name "galatae", a word used by many ancient Greek authors. On the other hand, Diodorus Siculus, Caesar, Strabo and Pausanias say that galli and galatae were identical designations for keltoi/celtae, and Caesar testifies that contemporary galli called themselves celtae. Diodorus uses all these names indiscriminately, but notes that the version keltoi is more correct, and Strabo reports that this word was known to the Greeks firsthand, since the keltoi lived in the vicinity of Massalia. Pausanias also prefers the name "Celts" in relation to the Gauls and Galatians. It is now impossible to establish what is causing this terminological uncertainty, but we can confidently conclude that the Celts called themselves keltoi for a long time, although other names may have appeared during the 5th and 4th centuries BC.”
The polymath, lawyer and popularizer of history Jean Bodin (1530-1596) sets out the medieval view of this issue as follows: “Appian establishes their origin from Celt, the son of Polyphemus, but this is as stupid as the fact that our contemporaries establish the origin of the Franks from Frankino , son of Horus, a mythological personality... The word “Celt” is translated by many as “horseman”. The Gauls, inhabiting the temperate climatic regions of Europe, were called the first Celts, because among all peoples they were the most capable horsemen... Since many argued about the origin of the word "Celt", Caesar wrote that those who live between the rivers Seine and Garonne, truly and justly called Celts. Even despite the similarity of language, origin, birth, and repeated migrations, the Greeks always called our ancestors Celts, both in their own language and in the Celtic language. Where the name “Gauls” came from and what it means, as far as I know, no one can explain for sure... Strabo, relying on the opinions of the ancients, divided the world into four parts, placing the Indians in the east, the Celts in the west, the Ethiopians in the south , the Scythians in the north... The Gauls were located in the lands of the distant western region... In another passage, Strabo placed the Celts and Iberians in the west, and the Normans and Scythians in the north... It is a fact that Herodotus and then Diodorus expanded the Celtic borders in Scythia to the west, then Plutarch brought them to Pontus, showing quite clearly that the Celts managed to spread their tribe everywhere and fill the whole of Europe with their numerous settlements.”
Modern celtologist Hubert believes that Keltoi, Galatai and Galli may be three forms of the same name, heard at different times, in different environments, transmitted and written down by people who did not have the same spelling skills. However, Guyonvarch and Leroux take a different point of view: “Is it difficult to understand that the ethnonym Celts designates a set of ethnic groups, while other ethnonyms: Gauls, Welsh, Bretons, Galatians, Gaels, are used to designate different peoples?”
With reference to the era of the Roman conquests in northern Europe in the middle of the first century BC. Celts are the peoples of northwestern Europe who became part of the Roman Empire and separated from the Germanic tribes living east of the Rhine. Despite the fact that ancient writers did not call the inhabitants of the British Isles Celts, but used the names brettanoi, brittani, brittones, these were also Celtic tribes. The closeness and even identity of origin of the island and mainland inhabitants is confirmed by the words of Tacitus about the inhabitants of Britain. “Those living in the immediate neighborhood of Gaul are similar to the Gauls, either because the common origin still affects them or the same climate in these countries located opposite each other gives the inhabitants the same features. Having weighed all this, it may be considered probable that, on the whole, it was the Gauls who occupied and peopled the island nearest to them. Due to adherence to the same religious beliefs, one can see here the same sacred rites as among the Gauls; and the languages of both are not much different.” Julius Caesar also mentions the close relations between the inhabitants of Britain and the tribes of the Armorican Peninsula in his Notes on the Gallic War.
For a linguist, the Celts are peoples who speak Celtic languages that arose on the basis of the ancient common Celtic dialect. The so-called Celtic language is divided into two groups: Q-Celtic, called Gaelic or Goidelic. It contains the original Indo-European
To the archaeologist, the Celts are people who can be classified into a particular group on the basis of their distinctive material culture. Archaeologists distinguish two major phases in the evolution of Celtic society, which are called Hallstatt and La Tène. In the 19th century in Austria, near Lake Hallstatt in a beautiful mountainous area, a huge number of Celtic antiquities dating back to the 7th century BC were found. Ancient salt mines and a cemetery containing more than two thousand burials were discovered. Salt protected many objects and remains of bodies from destruction. Numerous "imported" items indicate trade relations with Etruria and Greece, as well as with Rome. Some items come from the regions where Croatia and Slovenia are located today. Amber indicates connections with the Baltic region. Traces of Egyptian influence can also be seen. Fragments of clothing made of leather, wool and linen, leather hats, shoes and gloves were found. Leftover food contains barley, millet, beans, varieties of apples and cherries.
“Halstatt was a settlement with a thriving local salt industry, and on it depended the wealth of the community, as evidenced by the cemetery. The Hallstatt people used iron and it was in honor of this unusually rich and interesting place the entire early Iron Age began to be called the Hallstatt era." This civilization was far superior to that of the Bronze Age. The second phase of the evolution of the Celts is associated with archaeological discoveries in the town of La Tène in Switzerland. The number of finds and the nature of the site are less impressive than Hallstatt, but the quality of the objects found made the discovery no less significant. Analysis of the found objects showed their Celtic origin, dating back to a more recent era compared to Hallstatt. As an example, two-wheeled war chariots, which differed from the four-wheeled carts of Hallstatt. Thus, from the archaeologist's point of view, "the first people we can call Celtic are the tribes of Central Europe, who used iron and new technologies, who left impressive monuments in Hallstatt and in other areas of Europe."
Today, when we talk about the Celts, we represent the few peoples who are speakers of Celtic languages on the periphery of the western regions of Europe, but for historians “the Celts are a people whose culture covers vast territories and long periods of time.” After all, it was they who created most of the cities, borders or regional associations to which we are accustomed. “Their languages were not preserved in this vast space, but they left their traces. Major cities in Europe bear Celtic names: Paris (Lutetia), London (Londinium), Geneva (Genava), Milan (Mediolanum), Nijmegen (Noviomagus), Bonn (Bonna), Vienna (Vindobona), Krakow (Carrodunum). “We still find their tribal names in some modern place names that have already lost their Celtic connections: Boii (Bohemia), Belgae (Belgium), Helvetii (Helvetia - Switzerland), Treveri (Trier), Parisi (Paris), Redones (Rennes) , Dumnonii (Devon), Cantiaci (Kent), Brigantes (Brigsteer). Ukrainian Galicia, Spanish Galicia, Asia Minor Galatia and many other geographical names, such as Donegal, Caledonia, Paidegal, Galloway, with the root “gal-” in their names, testify to the Celts who once lived and ruled in these places.
One of the “calling cards” of the Celtic civilization is the Druid religion. With all the diversity of the Celtic world, “... this heterogeneous ethnically huge composition of tribes was united [...] by the mysterious Celtic religion and a single sacred language, which has only an oral tradition of transmitting sacred knowledge, the custodians of which were no less mysterious Druid priests, standing in their own way position above tribal leaders."
Scientists say that the main “problem” of the Celtic civilization is caused by the fact that the Celtic people lived the longest and most interesting period for researchers outside of written, recorded history. Unlike the civilizations of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the Celts were carriers of an oral cultural tradition. This order of things is not unique to regions that are peripheral compared to developed civilizations. It is explained by the fact that “the agrarian and aristocratic society of the Celts, like many other peoples, was not so complex as to require written recording of legal norms, financial statements and historical events". Social norms, religious traditions and folk customs were transmitted through oral transmission from generation to generation. When it was necessary to preserve large amounts of information, continuity was supported by a corporation of specially trained experts in traditional wisdom - the Druids. In classical texts the word "Druids" appears only in the plural. "Druidai" in Greek, "druidae" and "druides" in Latin. Scientists debate the origin of this word. Today the most common point of view, coinciding with the opinion of ancient scientists, in particular Pliny, is that it is associated with the Greek name for oak - “drus”. The second syllable of the word is seen as coming from the Indo-European root "wid", equating to the verb "to know". Pigott states that "the special connection of the Druids with oak trees has been repeatedly confirmed."
Classical sources, as Pigott writes, attribute three important functions to the Druids. Firstly, they were bearers of traditional beliefs and rituals, as well as keepers of the history of the tribe and other information about the world, be it information about the gods, space and the afterlife, be it a set of everyday laws and practical skills such as drawing up a calendar. The bulk of this knowledge was transmitted orally, perhaps in poetry, and continuity of knowledge was ensured by strict apprenticeship. The second function was the practical application of laws or the administration of justice, although it is not explained how this power related to the power of the chiefs. The third function was control over the offering of sacrifices and other religious ceremonies. “It is hardly reasonable to absolve the Druids of blame for their faith and participation in human sacrifices, perhaps even very Active participation". In the civilized Roman world this was only done away with at the beginning of the 1st century BC. The Druids were the sages of a barbarian society, and the religion of that time was their religion with all its barbaric savagery and brutality. Defending the Celts, Poisson notes: “In any case, the Celts did not have the massacre that took place in the circuses and dedicated to the monstrous idol, which was called the “Roman people”.”
Mainly, the Druids were prophets, clairvoyants; they predicted, they interpreted omens. Celtic traditions indicate that the Druids spoke at public meetings and imposed punishments on those who did not accept their decisions or the decisions of the king. They played the role of ambassadors and thus, despite the rivalry of clans, cemented the spiritual union of the Celts. “The education of youth existed as far as it was connected with Druidry, Druids will exist in Roman Gaul as professors of high schools.” This education took the form of countless poems learned by heart, including epics and historical works on the origin of the race, cosmological digressions, and journeys to another world. The ancients attributed to the Druids the creation of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. The Celtic faith was so vibrant that it surprised the Romans. The teachings of the Druids were supplemented by mythology and corresponding funeral rites. Death for the Celts was only a transfer, when life continues in another world, “which they considered as a reservoir of souls.”
Here is what Caesar wrote about the Druids: “Druids take an active part in matters of worship, monitor the correctness of public sacrifices, interpret all questions related to religion; Many young people come to them to study science, and in general they are held in great esteem by the Gauls. Namely, they pronounce judgment on almost all controversial cases, public and private; whether a crime or murder has been committed, whether there is a dispute over inheritance or boundaries - the same Druids decide; They also assign rewards and punishments; and if anyone - whether it be a private person or a whole nation - does not obey their determination, then they excommunicate the culprit from the sacrifices. This is their heaviest punishment. Anyone who is excommunicated in this way is considered an atheist and a criminal, everyone shuns him, avoids meeting and talking with him, so as not to get into trouble, as if from an infectious disease; no matter how much he strives for it, no judgment is carried out for him; He also has no right to any position. At the head of all the Druids is one who enjoys the greatest authority among them. Upon his death, the most worthy one succeeds him, and if there are several of them, then the Druids decide the matter by voting, and sometimes the dispute about primacy is even resolved by force of arms. At certain times of the year, the Druids gather for meetings in a sacred place in the country of the Carnuts, which is considered the center of all Gaul. All litigants come here from everywhere and submit to their determinations and sentences. Their science is thought to have originated in Britain and from there carried into Gaul; and to this day, in order to get to know it more thoroughly, they go there to study it.
Druids usually do not take part in war and do not pay taxes on an equal basis with others; they are generally free from military service and from all other duties. As a result of such advantages, many people partly join them in science, partly they are sent by their parents and relatives. There, they say, they learn many poems by heart, and therefore some remain in the Druid school until they are twenty years old. They even consider it a sin to write down these verses, while in almost all other cases, namely in public and private records, they use the Greek alphabet. It seems to me that they have this order for two reasons: the Druids do not want their teaching to be made publicly available and so that their students, relying too much on writing, pay less attention to strengthening their memory; and indeed it happens to many people that, finding support for themselves in writing, they are less diligent in learning by heart and remembering what they read. Most of all, the Druids try to strengthen the belief in the immortality of the soul: the soul, according to their teaching, passes after the death of one body into another; they think that this faith eliminates the fear of death and thereby arouses courage. In addition, they talk a lot to their young students about the luminaries and their movement, about the size of the world and the earth, about nature and about the power and authority of the immortal gods.”
For two thousand years, tribes and peoples united under the name Celts, attract the attention of historians, linguists, politicians, nationalists, and, accordingly, the general public. Historians are attracted, in particular, by the contribution of the Celts to the material and cultural development of Europe; linguists are attracted by the fact that the Celts, according to their concepts, spoke an archaic (or not necessarily archaic) type of Indo-European language, dating back to the middle of the 1st millennium BC AD Politicians and nationalists are playing the “Celtic card”, which has become a brand and an important factor in the struggle for political independence called “Celtic separatism”.
A lot of literature has been written about the Celts, and, for example, entering the words “Celtic civilization” into the search engine of the famous bookstore Amazom.com returns 838 book titles. Two years ago there were 130 fewer books. This is overwhelmingly what can be called recycling, chewing on what has long been known, or fantasies on the theme of the Celts. We are not interested in that here. We are interested in questions related to DNA genealogy, namely - who were the Celts and can their descendants be identified by DNA, whether they “originally” (as they became known as “Celts”) belonged to one clan, or is this a collective name, such as “Soviet people”, and if it was originally a clan or tribe with any dominant haplogroup, then where did they come from, who their Y-chromosome ancestors were, what language they spoke – both ancestors and “Celts” at the time of their identification in historical literature. This is apparently the clearest formulation of the question that can be presented in this context.
As soon as we ask these questions, the circle of literature immediately narrows sharply, literally to a few primary sources, or even to a few quotes. It is amazing how much verbal ink is spilled on the basis of just a few quotations, and what a heap of fantasy, including by professional historians, is made on such a limited basis. Naturally, a lot of work by historians has been and is being done based on archaeological data, many objects have been excavated that are attributed to the “Celts”, a gigantic amount of literature has been produced about the contribution of the Celts to the cultural and material development of Europe, but few people address the question of whether these are the Celts they were talking about historians of antiquity, and they made a connection with the data of archeology and cultural studies, as well as with the data of linguistics, according to which the Celts in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. spoke Indo-European (IE) languages.
The question remains open: where did the IE languages appear among the Celts in the middle of the 1st millennium BC? Were they “from the very beginning,” that is, thousands of years earlier, or was the IE language adopted from others? After all, the history of the IE language goes back at least 6-9 thousand years; the Celts appeared on the European stage only 2500 years ago, a maximum of 3200 years ago. What happened before? Who were the Celts before? Moreover, the Celtic languages mainly refer to the circle of (British) Insular languages, and this circle was formulated only three hundred years ago. Are these the same Celtic languages spoken by the “primordial” Celts in Central Europe in the mid-1st millennium BC?
These are questions of DNA genealogy and related disciplines. But ancient authors do not answer these questions, there are no answers to them in serious books and articles, pseudo-scientific and non-scientific literature proclaims any fantasies, without, naturally, bothering to justify them.
As a consequence of this situation, serious historians generally try not to use the term "Celts". This is because the definitions of "Celts" are ambiguous, multiple, they seem to cover generally ancient population Europe, a lot of different tribes, especially those who by the beginning of our era already spoke Indo-European languages. They are all "Celts". We know that in Europe by the beginning of our era there were already many tribes of haplogroup R1a, which, of course, spoke Indo-European languages. All of them, therefore, are also “Celts”. Or not? Where are the criteria?
Now the Celts (their descendants) mean the population primarily of the British Isles, and primarily the Irish. Therefore, they are carriers of haplogroup R1b in the first place. But were the first (known) “Celts” carriers of haplogroup R1b? The literature does not talk about this for obvious reasons, but many who understand what haplogroup R1b is mean that the first Celts were, naturally, haplogroup R1b. This means that they were most likely descendants of the archaeological culture of bell-shaped beakers. And they, therefore, spoke Indo-European languages. What about the Basques, also R1b, but non-Indo-European languages? They don’t answer this question, or they put forward different versions that the Basques have a language that is not Basque, but someone else’s, it just so happened.
In other words, it could not be that R1b (Celts, or “secondary Celts”) borrowed an IE language from another people, for example, speakers of R1a, but that the Basques (R1b) borrowed a non-IE language from another people, so it could have been. Good logic, correct. So to speak.
In contrast to this, I can offer a completely consistent picture, namely, that the first “Celts” in Europe were carriers of haplogroup R1a, who, of course, spoke an IE language, and who arrived by migration from the east, from the Russian Plain, in the first half of 1st millennium BC At least a dozen branches of haplogroup R1a may be candidates for this, and they will be shown below.
Before moving on to ancient authors, it is worth quoting from the book of French authors “La civilization celtique” (Christian-J Guyonvarc’h, Françoise Le Roux; Payot, 1995, 285 pp.): “ We insist on what we have repeatedly accepted as an axiom, namely that Celtic research should be based not so much on the search for new sources, but on the new interpretation of existing ones: texts that need a new reading, or insufficiently described archaeological objects».
At first glance, the position is reasonable, but it conceals the roots of the problem, why in two thousand years, since the time of ancient historians, the understanding of the essence of the Celts has hardly advanced. There are actually two problems. The first is that “new interpretations of already existing texts” multiply fantasies, if not supplemented by new and independent material. For two thousand years, several quotes from ancient authors have been “interpreted,” but things are still there. But new books are written and written, and all on the same topic - what exactly the ancient historians said and what they meant. Here is another book - “Celts and the Classical World” (by David Rankin, 1987, Croom Helm Ltd., 319 pp.), which begins exactly like this: “To observe the Celts through the eyes of the Greek and Romans is the first aim of this book". That is " the main objective This book is to look at the Celts through the eyes of the (ancient) Greeks and Romans.” Reviews say that the book is a “diamond”. In fact, it is well written, quoting verses from antiquity, those few quotes from ancient authors are discussed in three hundred pages. The book is educational and entertaining; it can be recommended to those who want to educate themselves and read an interesting book. Only the answers to our questions above are not there. In fact, the book is the same recycling that has been going on for two thousand years. Moreover, the author, in his enthusiasm, distorts and changes the material of historians of antiquity, since the Celts need to be mentioned more often, but the ancient authors did not mention them. We need to fix them. If this is a “new interpretation”, then it is unimportant.
As for “insufficiently described archaeological objects,” the French authors essentially call for the same thing - to bring archeology closer to the Celts created by our imagination. There is no “Celts” inscription on the excavated objects; this is all a zone of interpretation. The principle of “similarity” is at work, an important principle of archaeological interpretation. Of course, archaeologists cannot be blamed; this is their apparatus and their conceptual tool. They don't have anything else.
French authors put forward, and in fact repeat, a fairly common position of Celticology: Those who think that it is possible to give a satisfactory definition of Celtic civilization based only on the moment when it becomes the subject of speculation by Greek authors of the 6th or 5th century BC, and without relating it to the general Indo-European context, are deeply mistaken.
The position is correct, all that remains is to determine what the “general Indo-European context” is. If the "original Celts" are R1a haplogroups, then the overall Indo-European context is correct and can be justified by linking the R1a tribes and their Indo-European language. If, as is now accepted by many, they are haplogroup R1b, descendants of the Bell Beaker Culture (BBC) - then the “general Indo-European context” hangs, because the BCC, most likely, had no relation to any IE context until the end of the 2nd millennium BC AD, and most likely until the first half of the 1st millennium AD. The French authors, having proclaimed this IE context, did not advance one iota further. And again, you can’t blame them, they are also involved in “recycling”. They do not have new, independent data, and cannot have it, because the methodology is not the same. In this regard, archeology has already developed its fundamental resource, but linguistics, apparently, cannot and does not want to go deeper.
Let's look at what today's science says about the Celts in the context of those questions of DNA genealogy that we addressed above, then take a look at what exactly ancient authors said about the Celts. And we will try to understand if there are any answers to the questions formulated by us, and how the hypothesis about the “original Celts” of haplogroup R1a looks against this background, and whether the hypothesis about the Celts as the original R1b is stronger, better substantiated.
The first is the location of the Celts on maps, according to various authors. Maps are taken from Wikipedia, assuming that this online publication reflects the contemporary views of at least those who compiled this section.
Settlement of the Celts
So, we see that the Celts are recorded here on the territory of the Hallstatt culture, in the Iron Age (the culture is usually limited to the time frame of 900-400 BC, in Central Europe and the Balkans). The Celts are placed in Central Europe, in the Balkans - the Thracians and Illyrians, also classified as the same culture. It is interesting that both the Thracian and Illyrian languages are classified as Indo-European languages, and according to the ancient Greek historian Xenophanes, the Thracians were fair-haired and blue-eyed. The history of the Thracians goes back at least 4 thousand years. In the 2nd millennium BC. (that is, 4000-3000 from back), part of them migrated from the Carpathians to the southern bank of the Danube. It is worth noting here that all three young Carpathian branches R1a - northern, eastern, and western (all - 1st millennium BC, see above), as well as the Baltic-Carpathian branch R1a (4300±500 years ago , with its two sub-branches), are branches of the R1a-Z280 subclade (4900±500 years ago). So here, too, there is room for the Hallstatt Celts of the 1st millennium BC, and earlier, to be carriers of haplogroup R1a and, accordingly, the Indo-European language.
It should be noted that the Hallstatt culture quite soon, after 150-200 years, develops into the La Tene culture, or La Tène culture. This “outgrowing” is more often called decay. It is unclear whether R1a was replaced by R1b, or vice versa, but this is not of particular importance for our consideration. We know that those regions are still inhabited by carriers of both haplogroups, plus others, primarily I1 and I2.
More importantly, on the map we see that the Celts expanded rapidly from the 6th to the 3rd century BC. It is clear that this is not haplogroup R1b in Europe - why should it expand, it has lived in those territories for two thousand years, from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. That is, this expansion is not of the haplogroup itself, but of culture, language, material characteristics - what archeology operates with. Moreover, this expansion most likely goes into the environment of haplogroup R1b, as the map indicates. This is an expansion to France (now and, apparently, then mainly R1b), to the Pyrenees (almost solid R1b there), to the British Isles (solid R1b, R1a will appear there only after one and a half thousand years, from the Vikings and their descendants with the troops of William the Conqueror) . Here we have received the first fairly confident evidence of how the Celts of haplogroup R1a could become the Celts of haplogroup R1b. This apparently happened between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC. By the time of ancient authors who wrote about the Celts - mainly the 2nd century BC. - 1st century AD, the Celts had already become R1b, and lived as indicated on the map - from the Pyrenees (they were usually called Celtiberians) through France (Celts) and to the Alps, as well as in the British Isles. This is how ancient authors described them.
For reference, we present exactly which of the ancient authors wrote about the Celts, and when these authors lived. Below we will describe what exactly they wrote about the Celts. This is, first of all, or only:
- Hecetaeus of Miletos (Hecataeus of Miletus) 550-476. BC. (550-490)
— Herodotus of Halicarnassus (Herodotus), 484-425. BC.
- Polybius (Polybius), 200-118. BC.
— Julius Caesar, 102-44. BC. (Notes on the Gallic War - 51 BC)
— Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dionysius of Halicarnassus) 60-7. BC.
— Strabo (Strabo), 63 BC – 24 AD
— Livy (Livy), 59 BC – 17 AD
— Diodorus Siculus, 60g. BC. – 30g. AD
- Plutarch (Plutarch), 46-127. AD
— Jordan (Jordan), 6th century AD
The next map is similar to the first, but it shows Hallstatt and La Tene.
Distribution of the first Celts in Europe: Hallstatt and La Tène cultures
The following map shows how different the data in the same Wikipedia are. The map is the same, but the dating is completely different. It is no coincidence that they are marked by the Wikipedia editor as “needs clarification.” And indeed, they are completely inconsistent with other data. And this is the main Wikipedia article on the topic, called “Celts”.
Approximate area of settlement of Celtic tribes in Europe.
The area where the Celts settled in 1500-1000 is highlighted in blue. BC.; pink - in 400 BC.
The last map shows the settlement of the Coelian tribes at the beginning of our era.
Settlement of Celtic tribes in the 1st century AD.
The fact that the “pre-Celtic tribes” of Europe are usually called those who lived in Europe before the 1st century BC shows that the Celts spread throughout Europe only at the beginning of our era. Then, at the end of our era, the Gallic wars of Julius Caesar radically changed the ethnic and tribal landscape of Europe. According to Plutarch, approximately a million Gauls (according to Caesar, the same Celts) died, and the same number were taken into slavery. According to some historians, the “Celtic period” in Europe begins in the 9th century BC, according to others - from the 6th century BC, according to others - it was formed in the second half of the 1st millennium BC AD It is recognized by many historians that the pre-Celtic population of Europe, that is, what is largely R1b, was most likely non-Indo-European. It is noted that the bearers of the bell-shaped beaker culture were not necessarily the ancestors of the Celts. This is generally consistent with the first Celts being R1a rather than R1b, but by the end of the 1st millennium BC. the concept of “Celts” transferred to R1b speakers, to the territories shown on the maps above.
When historians write that “by the time of the first mention of the Celts in written sources, around 600 BC. e., they were already widespread in Iberia, Gaul and Central Europe,” then one must understand that anyone here can be called “Celts.” There are no criteria for “Celts” in such descriptions. In other words, this quote actually says that before the 6th century BC. Various tribes lived in Europe. It is clear that this is beyond doubt. One KKK movement across Europe occurred from 4800 years ago and at least until the end of the 2nd millennium BC. But these were not Celts in many ways. They do not fall under the definition of Celts.
It is known that the word “Celtic” itself fell into English language only three hundred years ago, to designate similar groups of languages of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Before this, this term had an extremely narrow meaning, like dozens and hundreds of names of other ancient tribes. Since then, this term - “Celts” - has been used to designate a set of ethnic groups, and, for example, “Gauls” - to designate a people or tribe. Having accepted this classification, it becomes clear that these terms are not identical, and one cannot be substituted for the other, although a common quote from Julius Caesar’s book “Notes on the Gallic War” is “... tribes that in their own language are called Celts, but in ours - Gauls." An analogy can be drawn that “there are peoples who are called Russians in their language, and Slavs in ours.” Or vice versa. However, many people juggle these concepts, easily replacing one with another.
A typical example. In Plutarch's book "Lives", in the third volume in the section "Camillus", the famous story of the weighing of a thousand pounds of gold is told. This gold was a ransom that the defeated Romans were to give to the Gauls, led by their leader Brennus. This happened in 390 BC. Here's how the Russian translation from Plutarch's book tells about it:
However, things were no better for the besieged: hunger was intensifying, and the lack of news about Camille, from whom no one appeared, was cruelly depressing. Gauls vigilantly guarded the city. Since both sides were in distress, negotiations began - first through the guards, most often communicating with each other. Then, when the authorities approved their initiative, Brennus and the military tribune Sulpicius met and agreed that the Romans would pay a thousand pounds of gold, and Gauls Having received the ransom, they will immediately leave the city and Roman possessions. These conditions were confirmed by an oath, but when the gold was brought, Celts behaved in bad faith, first quietly and then openly tipping the scales. The Romans were indignant, and Brenn, as if mocking them, unfastened the sword along with his belt and threw it on the scales. "What is this?" - asked Sulpicius. “Woe to the vanquished, that’s what!” Brenn responded. His answer has long been proverbial. The opinions of the Romans were divided: some indignantly demanded to take the gold and, returning to the fortress, endure the siege further, others advised turning a blind eye to this minor offense and, giving more than what was assigned, not to consider it a shame, since by the will of circumstances they generally agreed to give up their property, which It’s not sweet at all, but, alas, it’s necessary.
We see that here Gauls and Celts are used interchangeably. But this was not the case in the original; this was the translator’s liberty. IN English translation In this story of Plutarch there is no word “Celts” at all, only Gauls. Plutarch lived, as stated above, in 46-127. ad. But the same story was described by Livy almost a hundred years before the life of Plutarch (Titus Livius Patavinus, 59 BC - 17 AD) in his work Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Liber V:
Sed ante omnia obsidionis bellique mala fames utrimque exercitum urgebat, Gallos pestilentia etiam, cum loco iacente inter tumulos castra habentes, tum ab incendiis torrido et uaporis pleno cineremque non puluerem modo ferente cum quid uenti motum esset. Quorum intolerantissima gens umorique ac frigori adsueta cum aestu et angore uexati uolgatis uelut in pecua morbis morerentur, iam pigritia singulos sepeliendi promisce aceruatos cumulos hominum urebant, bustorumque inde Gallicorum nomine insignem locum fecere. Indutiae deinde cum Romanis factae et conloquia permissu imperatorum habita; in quibus cum identidem Galli famem obicerent eaque necessitate ad deditionem uocarent, dicitur auertendae eius opinionis causa multis locis panis de Capitolio iactatus esse in hostium stationes. Sed iam neque dissimulari neque ferri ultra fames poterat. itaque dum dictator dilectum per se Ardeae habet, magistrum equitum L. Valerium a Veiis adducere exercitum iubet, parat instruitque quibus haud impar adoriatur hostes, interim Capitolinus exercitus, stationibus uigiliis fessus, superatis tamen humanis omnibus malis cum famem unam natura uinci non sineret, diem de die prospectans ecquod auxilium ab dictatore appareret, postremo spe quoque iam non solum cibo deficiente et cum stationes procederent prope obruentibus infirmum corpus armis, uel dedi uel redimi se quacumque pactione possint iussit, iactantibus non obscure Gallis haud magna mercede se adduci posse ut obsidionem relinquant. Tum senatus habitus tribunisque militum negotium datum ut paciscerentur. Inde inter Q. Sulpicium tribunum militum et Brennum regulum Gallorum conloquio transacta res est, et mille pondo auri pretium populi gentibus mox imperaturi factum. Rei foedissimae per se adiecta indignitas est: pondera ab Gallis allata iniqua et tribuno recusante additus ab insolente Gallo ponderi gladius, auditaque intoleranda Romanis uox, uae uictis.
As we see, the word “Celts” is not found in Livy either. By the way, the last two words are the famous “woe to the vanquished,” pronounced by Brenn, in an archaic version of Latin. Now these words are written vae victis, in English translation woe to the conqured, or woe to the vanquished. Finally, here is Plutarch's version in English translation:
All this, however, brought no relief to the besieged, for famine increased upon them, and their ignorance of what Camillus was doing made them dejected. No messenger could come from him because the city was now closely watched by the Barbarians. Wherefore, both parties being in such a plight, a compromise was proposed, at first by the outposts as they encountered one another. Then, since those in authority thought it best, Sulpicius, the military tribune of the Romans, held a conference with Brennus, and it was agreed that on the delivery of a thousand pounds of gold by the Romans, the Gauls should straightaway depart out of the city and the country. Oaths were sworn to these terms, and the gold was brought to be weighed. But the Gauls tampered with the scales, secretly at first, then they openly pulled the balance back out of its poise. The Romans were incensed at this, but Brennus, with a mocking laugh, stripped off his sword, and added, belt and all, to the weights. When Sulpicius asked, "What means this?" “What else,” said Brennus, “but woe to the vanquished?” and the phrase passed at once into a proverb. Some of the Romans were incensed, and thought they ought to go back again with their gold, and endure the siege. Others noted acquiescence in the mild injustice. Their shame lay, they discussed, not in giving more, but in giving at all. This they consented to do because of the emergency; it was not honorable, but it was necessary.
As we see, Plutarch does not have the word “Celts”, only “Gauls” and “barbarians”. To complete the picture, here is another version of the translation of Plutarch's history into English (The John Dryden Translation, 1683-1686, revised in the 1859 edition by Arthur Hugh Clough, published by The Folio Society, 2010):
Neither, indeed, were things on that account any better with the besieged, for famine increased upon them, and despondency with not hearing anything of Camillus, is being impossible to send anyone to him, the city was so guarded by the barbarians. Things being in this sad condition on both sides, a motion of treaty was made at first by some of the outposts, as they happened to speak with one another; which being embraced by the leading men, Sulpicius, tribune of the Romans, came to a parley with Brennus, in which it was agreed, that the Romans laying down a thousand weight of gold, the Gauls upon the receipt of it should immediately quit the city and territories. The agreement being confirmed by oath on both sides, and the gold brought forth, the Gauls used false dealing in the weights, secretly at first, but afterwords openly pulled back and disturbed the balance; at which the Romans indignantly complaining, Brennus in a scoffing and insulting manner pulled off his sword and belt, and threw them both into the scales; and when Sulpicius asked what that meant, “What should it mean,” says he, “but woe to the conquered?” which subsequently became a proverbial saying. As for the Romans, some were so incensed that they were for taking their gold back again and returning, to endure the siege. Others were for passing by and dissembling a petty injury, and not to account for that the indignity of the thing lay in paying more than was due, since the paying anything at all was itself a dishonor only submitted to as a necessity of the times.
As we see, again only Gauls, no Celts. The Russian academic translation showed unacceptable freedom.
The author of the book “Celts and the Classical World,” which was already mentioned above (David Rankin, 1987), takes similar liberties with the names of tribes, to the point of distortion. After describing Brenn's story, Rankin writes: " The Romans… correctly identified the people whom they called Galli, who attacked their city in 390 BC: the individual tribes were known by name, and the tribal names were Celtic "(The Romans correctly identified the people they called Gauls who attacked their city in 390 BC: specific tribes were known by name, and the names of the tribes were Celtic).
Actually this is not true. That same tribe of Brennus was called the Senones, and Livy wrote about this in the same volume 5, section 34 (emphasis mine, AAK):
Is quod eius ex populis abundabat, Bituriges, Aruernos,
Senones, Haeduos, Ambarros, Carnutes, Aulercos exciuit.
The word “Celts” was known to Livy, although in the surviving 35 volumes of his works it appears (Celtico) only once. But Livy wrote a lot about the Celtiberians (Celtiberis), however, mainly in the last volumes, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41 and 42, with several mentions each. Let's continue about which of the ancient authors wrote about the Celts, and what exactly.
Hecataeus of Miletus (550-476 BC; other dates of life 550-490). Apparently, he has the very first mention of the Celts, as people living near the Greek colony of Massalia (Marseille), in the south of France. In the retelling (the works of Hecataeus have not survived), this presentation looks like this: “ The Scythians live on the northern coast of the Black Sea, to the west of them are the Celts, next to the Massaliots».
Herodotus of Helicarnassus (484-425 BC). In his nine-volume History, Book II (“Euterpe”), Herodotus writes: “ ...The Ister River begins in the country of the Celts near the city of Pyrenees and flows, crossing Europe in the middle. The Celts live behind the Pillars of Hercules in the neighborhood of the Kinets, who live in the extreme west of Europe. The Ister flows into the Euxine Pontus, flowing through the whole of Europe where the Milesian settlers founded the city of Istria».
In Book IV (“Melpomene”) he repeats: “ After all, the Ister flows through the whole of Europe, starting in the land of the Celts - the most western nation in Europe after the Cynetes. So the Ister crosses the whole of Europe and flows into the sea on the outskirts of Scythia" (link)
In addition, the Celts are not mentioned by Herodotus in the remaining volumes of the History. In this passage, as we see, Herodotus identifies the Celts in both the Pyrenees and the Danube. One can only guess on what basis Herodotus unites them, or rather connects them, but with his light hand, subsequent historians continued to call them that way - Celtiberians in the Pyrenees, Celts in continental Europe. Modern historians usually write that since Herodotus is a reliable and reliable historian, he knew what he was writing about, so so be it. Herodotus did not report anything about the language of the Celts. A good illustration of the approach of historians and linguists is the reasoning of David Rankin in the book “Celts and the Classical World” cited above - he concluded that since Herodotus did not write anything about the language of the Celts, we should assume that the language was Indo-European (! – AAK), both in Europe and in the Pyrenees.
Polybius (200-118 BC). The Celts were further mentioned by the Greek historian Polybius (The Histories), who lived in 200-118. BC. He left behind 39 volumes of his Histories, and he mentioned the Celts in volumes 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 34, often with one word or phrase per volume. So, in Volume 1 he mentioned "Celts" and "Italian Celts" and that was it. Volume 2 states that " the Italian Celts were close neighbors of the Etruscans, and were often associated with them" This did not stop the Celts" attack the Etruscans with a large army, drive them out of the Po plain, and occupy the plain themselves" He also mentioned " Celts who arrived in Etruria", and that the Romans " killed approximately 50 thousand Celts and at least 10 thousand were captured».
Starting from volume 3, Polybius increasingly begins to mention the Celtiberians, especially in connection with Hannibal's Pyrenean wars. Polybius was a contemporary of Hannibal (247-183 BC), intersecting with the latter 17 years of his life, and therefore his descriptions should be largely reliable. Through volumes 3 to 34 there is a description of the Celtiberians as the worst enemies of Rome, a description of their betrayals of both Rome and Hannibal, retreats and escapes. In his descriptions, Iberia and Celtiberia border each other. Polybius usually uses the term "Celts" to describe the peoples north of Celtiberia, living "on both sides of the Alps." In his descriptions " The Celts live from the Narbo River a short distance west of Marseille, and from the mouth of the Rhone, which flows into the Sardinian Sea, and to the chain of the Pyrenees Mountains to the External Sea." Further, " The Pyrenees separate the Celts from the Iberians».
In Volume 11, Polybius describes Hannibal's troops, in which " included Africans, Spaniards, Ligurians, Celts, Phoenicians, Italians and Greeks", adding that these " people in their laws, customs, language and in general had nothing in common" From this we can conditionally conclude that the Celts, if we accept that they spoke Indo-European languages, did not understand the language of the Ligurians, Spaniards (Basque language?), Italics (non-Indo-European languages?) and others. Volume 12 again mentions the Ligurians, Celts and Iberians as different peoples. Volume 14 describes the deaths of more than 4 thousand Celtiberians, mercenaries of Carthage, in battle and flight. On other pages of the same volume the death of 10 thousand and 30 thousand Celtiberians is mentioned. The same descriptions continue in subsequent volumes. In contrast to the Celtiberians, the Celts are described by Polybius as "having a quiet and orderly character" (vol. 34).
Julius Caesar (102-44 BC). In his Notes on the Gallic War, Caesar writes a lot about the Gauls, and almost nothing about the Celts. Perhaps this is because at the very beginning of the book he actually made these names synonymous, writing - “ Gaul in its entirety is divided into three parts. In one of them live the Belgae, in the other the Aquitani, in the third those tribes who in their own language are called Celts, and in ours - Gauls" Overall, this book does not provide much information regarding the Celts.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60-7 BC). In his book Roman Antiquities he mentions Keltika.
Strabo (63 BC – 24 AD). In his main work, Geography, Strabo stated: The regions beyond the Rhine, facing east and beyond the territory of the Celts, are inhabited by the Germans. The latter differ little from the Celtic tribe: they are more savage, taller and lighter in hair; in everything else they are similar: in physique, morals and way of life they are the same as I described the Celts. Therefore, it seems to me, the Romans called them Germans, as if wanting to indicate that these were the “true” Galatians. After all, the word “germani” in the Roman language means “genuine”.
Strabo’s statement regarding the mixed names “Celtiberians” or “Celto-Scythians” is interesting: “ I affirm, in accordance with the opinion of the ancient Hellenes, that, just as the famous peoples of the northern countries were called by one name, Scythians or Nomads, as Homer calls them, and later, when the western countries also became known, their inhabitants were called Celts and Iberians, or mixed Celtoeiberians and Celto-Scythians, for through ignorance the individual peoples in each country were brought under one common name».
This can be understood in two ways - either Strabo considers the Celts to be Scythians, or the Celtiberians and Celto-Scythians to be unrelated to the Celts, and simply subsumed under an already known name, which Strabo ridicules. Yu.N. Drozdov in his book “Turkic ethnonymy of ancient European peoples” (Moscow, 2008, p. 168) also tries to decipher this statement of Strabo: “ in other words, the Celts were first called Celto-Scythians, since they belonged to the already known Scythian people».
Diodorus Siculus (90-30 BC). In his Bibliotheca Historica, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus wrote that, having killed the enemy, the Celts " they cut off their heads and hang them on the necks of their horses, and having brought them home, they nail them to the entrances of their homes. They preserved the severed heads of defeated enemies in cedar oil... And some boasted that they would not give up these heads even for the same amount of gold by weight...».
Plutarch (46-127 AD). Above are excerpts from the works of Plutarch, although they are about the Gauls, not the Celts. As stated, technically these could be different concepts, such as the Slavs and Poles. But the name "Celts" was certainly familiar to Plutarch, although he used it only a few times. For example, in his biography of Marcus Cato, Plutarch wrote that Cato was “called upon his neighbors, called Celtiberians, for help.” In the biography of Caius Marius, Plutarch wrote - “... the country of the Celti... to that part of Scythia which is near Pontus” (the country of the Celts... [refers] to that part of Scythia, which [is] near the Black Sea), again, like a number of ancient authors linking the Celts with the Scythians. And further - “whole army was called by the common name of Celto-Scythians” (the whole army was called by the common name of the Celto-Scythians).
Jordan (6th century AD). Little is known about Jordan, and might not have been known at all if he had not mentioned his name in his works. In the book Getica (another title is De origine actibuscque Getarum, or “On the origin and deeds of the Getae”), he mentioned the warriors of “Celtica” as part of the Visigoth army, but this is already in the later times of Attila and Emperor Valentinian: “ And so Theodorid, king of the Visigoths, brings out countless troops; Leaving four sons at home, namely Frederick and Euric, Retemer and Himnerit, he takes with him only the eldest by birth, Thorismud and Theoderic, to participate in the battles. The army is happy, reinforcements are provided, the community is pleasant: all this is evident when you have the goodwill of those who are pleased to face danger together. On the part of the Romans, great foresight was shown by the patrician Aetius, who was responsible for the Hesperian side of the empire; He gathered warriors from everywhere, so as not to appear unequal against the fierce and countless crowd. He had the following auxiliary units: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Lithicians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparioli, Brioni - former Roman soldiers, and then already among the auxiliary troops, and many others, both from Celtics, and from Germany».
In the original language it looks like this: ...producitur itaque a rege Theodorido Vesegotharum innumerabilis multitudo; qui quattuor filios domi dimissos, id est Friderichum et Eurichum, Betemerim et Himnerith secum tantum Thorismud et Theodericum maiores natu participes laboris adsumit, felix procinctum, auxilium tutum, suave collegium habere solacia illorum, quibus delectat ipsa etiam simul subire discrimina, a parte vero Romanor um tanta patricii Aetii providentia fuit, cui tunc innitebatur res publica Hesperiae plagae, ut undique bellatoribus congregatis adversus ferocem et infinitam multitudinem non impar occurreret. hi enim adfuerunt auxiliares: Franci, Sarmatae, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Ripari, Olibriones, quondam milites Romani, tunc vero iam in numero auxiliarium exquisiti, aliaeque nonnulli Celticae vel Germanie nations...
And now, after such a detailed consideration of the form in which the ancient authors mentioned and described the Celts, let us come to the main question of our presentation: where did the celts come from? What people, namely clan, gave birth to them? What previous people, clan, or population are they genetically related to? Where did the Celtic language come from? What kind of language was this?
It is clear that no people appears from nowhere, just like their language. The Celts must have had a predominant haplogroup, or subclade, which goes back thousands of years, and is almost unambiguously associated by haplogroups and language with their corresponding branch in the DNA genealogy system, from which the regional affiliation of the Celts, or those who became that name, almost unambiguously appears to name classical authors, and it is possible that they began to name not themselves, but those who carried their name on centuries later after the original, “real” Celts.
And who could these “original”, “real” Celts be? For the sake of coherence and historicity, we must accept that the "original" Celts were the first recorded bearers of the Hallstatt culture, whose cemetery was discovered at Hallstatt, southeast of modern Salzburg in Austria, and dated to approximately 700 BC. Over the next three or four centuries, the Celts spread like wildfire in different directions, and this spread was unlikely to be mainly physical, rather, it was the spread of their Indo-European language, culture, technology. This, in turn, leads to the important point that the language in Europe at that time was not Indo-European, otherwise there would be no point in spreading it in its linguistic environment. So it was, of course, and the fact that the language in Europe at that time was non-Indo-European is evidenced by various data - both the abundance of non-Indo-European languages in Europe at that time and earlier, and, most importantly, the general lack of data that in Europe in 2nd millennium BC there were IE languages, in addition to the IE languages of previously expelled carriers of haplogroup R1a, who transferred these languages to the Russian Plain and further to Anatolia-Mitanni, Iran, India in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.
That is why we mentioned above that classical authors could no longer call Celts the “original” Celts, but those who carried on their name centuries later. These were already “acquired” Celts in language. As will be shown below, this is one of the many confusions regarding the origin of the Celts and their language. Historians take an Indo-European language brought by the “acquired” Celts to, say, Iberia, and proclaim that this IE language has been there since ancient times, and was spoken by the Bell Beaker Culture (BBC) people two thousand years earlier.
Bell Beaker Culture Items
A typical example of this approach is the recent book Celts from the West: Revisiting the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-Europeans in Atlantic Europe (2013, Oxbow Books, 237 pp., editors Johm T. Koch, Barry Cunliffe), which recognizes that According to established views, Atlantic Europe in the Bronze Age was entirely non-Indo-European, but it is argued that the Celtic language appeared there, and in the Bronze Age. Where he came from remains a mystery, but the book's editors claim that he did not come from the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures of central Europe in the Iron Age. Where and who brought it from is again a matter of fantasy in the book. The book does not provide any data for this.
So, speaking about the origin of the “first” Celts, we note that their language was the Indo-European language, which at that time was characteristic of haplogroup R1a, but not haplogroup R1b. In Europe, where the Celtic language soon began to spread like wildfire, the population at that time belonged largely to haplogroup R1b, the main haplogroup of the KKK. In other words, the time from about the 7th to the 4th century BC. - this is the time of the formation of the “Celtic” Indo-European language as the lingua franca of Central Europe. Why did this happen? Apparently, advanced metallurgical technology, amazingly beautiful decorations, many in the traditional Scythian “animal style”, which again suggests haplogroup R1a of the first Celts.
Where did the first Celts get their Indo-European language, and what is the source of their haplogroup R1a? The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that the first Celts, carriers of haplogroup R1a, and who, of course, spoke an IE language, arrived by migration from the east, from the Russian Plain, at the end of the 2nd millennium or the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. At least a dozen branches of haplogroup R1a may be candidates for this, as listed below. In other words, there were plenty of candidates for the first “Celts” in Europe, speaking IE languages. And then R1b speakers adopt the language and carry it throughout Europe. At the same time, it was not at all necessary to displace or physically destroy those from whom the language was adopted. Then it is clear why ancient authors mentioned the Scythians in connection with the territory of settlement of the Celts, and mentioned the territories up to the Black Sea.
In this regard, a reference can be made to the book by V.E. Eremenko “Celtic veil” and Zarubintsy culture. Experience in reconstructing ethnopolitical processes of the 3rd-1st centuries. BC. in Central and Eastern Europe" (St. Petersburg, 1997), and the abstract of his Ph.D. thesis ( Eremenko V.E. The process of latenization of archaeological communities of late pre-Roman times in Eastern Europe and the formation of the Zarubintsy culture. Abstract of Ph.D. ist. Sci. L. 1990). According to the author, V. Eremenko, some finds of the Pomeranian culture, which is considered by some researchers as Proto-Slavic, have analogues in the Latene. True, the author considers them as possible evidence of “contacts between the Pomor population and the Celts,” even, apparently, without suggesting that the Pomors could have turned out to be those same Celts. As V. Eremenko notes, consideration of the chronology of La Tène antiquities of Transcarpathian Ukraine and a detailed study of dated analogues of Transcarpathian finds, determination of narrow dates for existing complexes allows us to conclude that the first contacts with the Celtic world took place in the V-IV centuries. BC, that is, at least 200-300 years after the appearance of the “initial Celts” in Hallstatt.
An interesting message from Plutarch is that the Roman scout, going to the Cimbri camp, learned the Celtic language and dressed in the Celtic way (quoted from V. Eremenko, PhD thesis). Since the origin of the Cimbri remains unknown, and I.L. Rozhansky classifies them as carriers of haplogroup R1a, who arrived from the east to Central Europe ( Rozhansky I.L. The mystery of the Cimbri. Experience in historical and genealogical investigation. Bulletin of DNA Genealogy, vol. 3, no. 4, 2010, p. 545-594), then the “trace of R1a” is again visible in the origin of the Celts.
Thus, we have put forward a solution to the problem of the origin of the Indo-European language of the first Celts of the Hallstatt archaeological culture, and the mechanism of its spread as the lingua franca of Europe. This coincided with the destruction of the Etruscan Empire and the formation of ancient Rome.
Are there any other clues about the origins of the first Celts? We immediately have to put aside all the descriptions of the ancient Celts by the classics. None of them are suitable for this purpose, none of them concern the origin of the Celts or their language.
Let's look at modern sources on the Celts, which already include archaeological and linguistic data. It is striking how poor the linguistic data on the Celtic language (or languages) is. All sources repeat the position about the Indo-European nature of the Celtic language, but either completely unfounded, or mentioning the corresponding isoglosses on the fly, or unrestrainedly fantasize about the sources of IE roots in the Celtic language. As examples, consider the books:
—Christian-J. Guyonvarc'h, Françoise Le Roux (1995). La civilization celtique Payot, 285 pp.
— Theodor Mommsen (1909). History of Rome. Edition 2010, Moscow, “Veche”, 383 pp.
— Jean-Louis Brunaux (2008). Les Gaulois, Les Belles Lettres, Paris; Russian edition by Jean-Louis Bruno. Galli, Moscow, “Veche”, 2011, 399 pp.
— Nora Chadwick (1971). The Celts. London. The Folio Society, 317 pp.
— Gudz-Markov, A.V. (2004). Indo-Europeans of Eurasia and Slavs. Moscow, “Veche”, 231 pp.
— and several articles on Celtic linguistics in the academic press.
So what about the origins of the Celts and their language?
There are many criticisms in the book by Guyonvarch and Leroux, such as “ Celtic language is misnomer ", that the ethnonym Celts designates a set of ethnic groups (while the ethnonyms Gauls, Bretons, Galatians are used to designate different peoples). What is characteristic is that the authors honestly write: “ we don't know what language was spoken in Gaul before the Celtic languages" Many other authors, without blinking an eye, write that in Europe the “Procelts” spoke Indo-European languages for thousands of years. Quotes (from the book of Guyonvarch and Leroux):
1. The Celts were part of invaders in successive waves, especially from the second millennium BC, and Celtic is the oldest language in Western Europe to which a specific geographical region can be assigned.
2. The Celts must have been preceded by “proto-Celts”. However, we have absolutely no idea how everything happened between the fifth and fourth millennia BC, an era whose only archives are Chinese, Egyptian or Mesopotamian.
3. Many French archaeologists still find it more convenient to date the appearance of the Celts in Gaul around 500 BC. e., which hardly leaves last time, so that until the 3rd century. BC. reach the Pyrenees and the Mediterranean, not to mention Britain and Ireland. Linguistic dating, on the contrary, suggests that the Celts were already present in Europe from the end of the third millennium BC.
4. In relation to the entire body of Indo-European studies, Celticology breaks a peculiar (negative) “record”, due to the insignificant number of specialists (who initially came from other disciplines: Greek in France and Sanskrit in Germany - due to the fact that Celtic languages are marginal subject in only a few universities in Western Europe), and the extreme dialectal fragmentation of modern Celtic languages.
5. We can define the pre-Celtic substratum of Western Europe at best and with the greatest precautions only in relation to toponyms. And what was this substrate? Nobody will say this.
6. The study of linguistic layers also gives a lot: without it we would have no idea about the diffusion of Celtic languages throughout Europe.
7. One of the most fantastic conjectures belongs to Polybius, who says in the most serious manner that the swords of the Gauls, as soon as they strike, bend and twist, so that the warrior must straighten them. This statement is in complete contradiction to the amazing abilities of the Celtic metallurgists. Information that seems erroneous to us ended up in the annals because at the time of their compilation, no one thought to check it. For example, in the 5th century. BC. Herodotus located the sources of the Danube in the lands of the Celts, and Hecataeus of Miletus argued that Marseille (Massalia) was founded in Liguria. ...However, there can be no talk of any clarification, since in the 4th century the Greeks distinguished only four barbarian (that is, those who did not speak Greek) peoples: Celts, Scythians, Persians and Libyans.
8. The Greeks attached even less importance to internal differences, and modern scientists only indulge themselves in self-deception, trying to find in Greco-Latin terminology the difference between Celtae, Galatae and Galli. Galatians is Greek name Gauls and nothing more: they did not necessarily live in Galatia in Asia Minor; and Galli is the Latin name for the Gauls. But Celtae are also Gauls from Gaul.
9. They often prefer to talk about “proto-Celts,” and this term indicates not so much the facts as the lack of documentation and the costs of the methodology. …The purpose of this term has to be narrowed, willy-nilly, since it presupposes a certain formation process that is not confirmed by any archaeological or linguistic data. Dotten, skeptical by nature and little inclined to original hypotheses, in his textbook speaks directly of the “Bronze Age Celts,” and such a great archaeologist as Henri Hubert, to whom we owe the only attempt at a synthesis in this field, wasted a lot of time trying to find in Gaul, linguistic or toponymic traces of the first Celtic invasion.
10. Funeral burning, which was the most characteristic rite of the Hallstatt era, was replaced by burial in the ground, which became generally accepted during the La Tène period, although no changes in the ethnic composition of the population of these eras can be discerned. However, Caesar, speaking of the magnificent funeral rites of the Gauls, does not forget to mention bonfires, while the most archaic Irish texts, perhaps under the influence of Christianity, do not even hint at a word about them. The Celts took part in the spread of the Hallstatt culture and were its bearers; they were also the bearers of the La Tène culture. But what can you think about all this and what conclusions can you draw if, as seems obvious, from the Bronze Age to Hallstatt and La Tene there were no changes in the composition of the population?
11. The geography of the Celtic world is not difficult to describe, at least if we touch only on general issues. After a period of supposed Indo-European invasions, the main center of expansion became Central Europe, especially Bohemia, at the junction of the Hallstatt and La Tène eras. ...In any case, undeniable traces of the presence of the Celts are found in Western and Southern Poland, in Hungary and in the Balkans, where the advance of the Celts went along the Danube. But the main area of their settlement from Hallstatt to the end of La Tène became Gaul as such, from the English Channel to the Mediterranean, from the Atlantic to the Alps and the Rhine, and, according to Titus Livy... it was from there that the waves of conquerors poured in, flooding the Black Forest and Northern Italy.
Be that as it may, the Celtic invasion soon reached the Iberian Peninsula, Northern Italy, southern France, all the Rhine regions from Switzerland to the Netherlands and, probably from Belgium, the British Isles, which were then destined to become the last and only refuge of the Celts. On the other hand, the Greeks and Romans brought to us evidence of Celtic invasions of Italy and the Balkans. Celtic material is present in Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria; Celtic traces are found all the way to Odessa...
12. At the junctions of the Celtic and Germanic worlds, it is impossible to determine with sufficient clarity where the Celts begin and where the Germans end. And yet, apart from their ancient Indo-European kinship, a linguistic or cultural Celto-Germanic unity never existed.
13. Celtic languages belong to the “Italo-Celtic” group of Indo-European languages; they are divided into two branches, each of which has its own distinctive feature: the Indo-European labiovelar (labiovelar) *kw- is reduced to the velar /X/ in Goidelic and to the labial /p/ in Brythonic. *ekwo-s (Latin equus) "horse" became ech in Old Irish and epo-s in Gaulish. Therefore the Goidels are called "Q-Celts", and the Britons and Gauls are called "P-Celts". But the true classification is morphological. It is also chronological, since it contrasts the Celtic insular languages, known since the end of antiquity (new Celtic languages), and the Celtic continental languages, which disappeared before the beginning of the Middle Ages.
14. Here is a brief definition of an Indo-European language from Jean Haudry's book (L'indo-européen, Paris, 1980, p. 3): It is an undocumented language whose existence must be postulated in order to explain the numerous and precise correspondences that celebrated in most languages of Europe and in many languages of Asia.
15. The irreparable weakness, or rather the abnormally small role of the Celtic languages in most, if not all, work on Indo-European studies is a fact that needs to be emphasized at the beginning of a review of this subject. Not to mention that the number of celtologists who specialize in ancient languages and occupy a university position can be counted on the fingers of one hand, at least in France, and it is difficult to say that their research is respected and supported.
16. Insular languages are chronologically opposed to continental Celtic, more often called Gaulish to simplify terminology. But this opposition is not morphological or even geographical: Gaulish is included in the British group. This opposition is chronological: thus, we agree to call the above-mentioned language ancient Celtic. In fact, we are talking about a language or group of languages that were spoken not only in Gaul, but also in other areas of Europe inhabited by the Celts. The name "Gallic" only indicates the area where this language was better preserved and lasted longer. In fact, it will be necessary to talk about Celtic. So Celtic was also spoken in Belgium, Switzerland and the Rhineland, where Germanic peoples, such as the Trevirs, were obviously Celticized; in Cisalpine Gaul, where Latin was finally established only in the 1st century. ad; in Spain, Central Europe, on the Black Sea coast and in Asia Minor. Celtiberian in Spain, Galatian in Asia Minor, to the extent that they are identifiable from the scanty traces left of them, are Celtic continental languages, and they do not appear to have differed very much from the Celtic spoken in Belgian Gaul or among the Helvetii .
17. The immediate documents, all epigraphic without exception (there is not a single Celtic text similar to the texts of classical writers that would have been transmitted through the written tradition until the early Middle Ages), consist of short inscriptions (about three hundred in total), mostly funerary, and sometimes initiatory, discovered between Northern Italy, Southern France and Spain, where classical influence determined the origin of writing based on the Greek, Latin, Iberian or Lepontine (Etruscan) alphabets. The discovery of a Gallic inscription in Belgium or in Western or Southern Germany would be a significant philological event, for which one should not hope too much.
18. List of Celtic languages: Goidelic - Irish; Scottish Gaelic; Manx (extinct in the first half of the 20th century); Brythonic - Gaulish or ancient Celtic (extinct by the 5th century AD); Welsh; Cornish (extinct by the end of the 18th century); Breton.
Such a large number of citations are given here to create a certain “priming of the canvas”, onto which considerations dictated by DNA genealogy can now be superimposed. Let's go through some of the quotes above.
1. The quote actually means that the Indo-European, Celtic language appeared in Europe no earlier than the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. This is consistent with our assumption that this language was brought to Europe by migrants of haplogroup R1a speaking IE languages. This was the repopulation of Europe by R1a speakers and the return of Indo-European languages to Europe.
2. The Celts must have been preceded by the "proto-Celts". This provision can be given two interpretations. If we are talking about the “original” Celts, carriers of R1a, who arrived from the east, then the “proto-Celts” are actually the Proto-Slavs, or other carriers of R1a, like the Scythians. If we are talking about the “secondary” Celts who carried the IE language across Europe, then these are mainly carriers of haplogroup R1b, and the “proto-Celts” are the descendants of the Bell-Beaker culture that arrived in the Pyrenees and further on the continent starting 4800 years ago, from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC When the authors write: “ However, we have absolutely no idea how everything happened between the fifth and fourth millennia BC.", that is, 7-6 thousand years ago, then DNA genealogy gives a very clear answer: the ethnic and clan (haplogroup) landscape in Europe was completely different, there were no R1b carriers in Europe, they were at that time on the Russian Plain and on The Caucasus, gradually moving towards Anatolia and the territory of the future Sumerians, and in Europe lived, in particular (and probably especially) carriers of haplogroups R1a, I1, I2, G, who in two thousand years would be displaced or destroyed by the arriving carriers of haplogroup R1b, who will become the “Celts” in the British Isles at the end of the old era and at the beginning of the new era. This is their language, in the British Isles, which will later be called “Celtic languages” (see paragraph 18 above).
3. Linguistic dating, on the contrary, suggests that the Celts were already present in Europe from the end of the third millennium BC. Since we are definitely talking about Indo-European languages, “Celts” here should be taken to mean speakers of R1a in Europe. And then, naturally, 4500-4000 years ago, the “Celts” as R1a lived on the Russian Plain, were Aryans, and were already heading in this capacity to the south, to the Caucasus, to Anatolia, Mitanni and further to the Arabian Peninsula, to the southeast, to become Avestan Aryans, to the east, to create the Andronovo culture, the Sintashta culture, and then move to Hindustan. It is clear that the "linguistic dating" here simply cannot apply to the non-Indo-European languages of Europe, since they were not "Celtic".
6. This paragraph concerns “ diffusion of Celtic languages throughout Europe" Indeed, the exceptionally rapid spread of the Celts across Europe is associated more with the rapid diffusion of languages than with the physical migration of people speaking foreign languages, which would hardly have been peaceful.
9. ...Wasted a lot of time trying to find linguistic or toponymic traces of the first Celtic invasion in Gaul. See paragraph 6. There was no Celtic “invasion”, unless one counts as such the arrival of carriers of haplogroup R1a from the east as the “original” Celts. The spread of the Celtic language, culture, and technology in the second half of the 1st millennium was completely peaceful and effective. Apparently, the corresponding cultural and economic prerequisites have matured for Europe’s transition to Indo-European languages.
10. Funeral burning, which was the most characteristic rite of the Hallstatt era, was replaced by burial in the ground, which became generally accepted during the La Tène period, although no changes in the ethnic composition of the population of these eras can be discerned. It is possible that this was a direct consequence of the transition of cultural characteristics from R1a, the “original Celts” of Hallstatt, to R1b, the “acquired” Celts. As you know, the Proto-Slavs burned their dead for several thousand years.
13. ...Contrastes the Celtic insular languages, known since the end of antiquity (new Celtic languages), and the Celtic continental languages, which disappeared before the beginning of the Middle Ages. Since the insular languages are now considered Celtic, linguists attribute the main conclusions about their structure and patterns of composition to them. Celtic continental ones, as follows from this point, and which, perhaps, were closest to the Proto-Slavic ones, disappeared.
In Theodor Mommsen's 1909 book, The History of Rome, which won the author a Nobel Prize, the Celts are barely mentioned. It is reported that in the 4th century BC. on the Apennine Peninsula a powerful tribe of Celts appears, who belonged to the “Indo-European tribe”, that “in time immemorial they occupied the space of present-day France,” and then it is described how the Gauls occupied Rome, repeating the description of Plutarch. This, in fact, is all Mommsen has to say about the Celts. Mommsen has nothing about their origin or in more detail about the language.
In the book J.-L. Bruno “The Gauls” also says nothing about the origin and language of the ancient Celts. It is reported that the Gauls were part of the Celts, that the Cimbri and Teutones bore Gaulish names. The author notes that in Gallic history it is extremely difficult to find a starting point, just as it is almost impossible to determine the time of its completion. Another detail - as the author writes, the Celts were known to other peoples at least from the 5th century BC, and the people under the name “Gauls” appeared only in the 3rd century. The author writes that “ there is no doubt that there once existed an ancient people - the Indo-Europeans, who settled throughout Europe and Western Asia, and the Celts certainly came from their midst" This, of course, is a somewhat naive statement, since there was no “Indo-European” people, but there was an Indo-European language. Since these were the carriers of haplogroup R1a in ancient times, the author may unintentionally classify the ancestors of the Celts as haplogroup R1a.
A few words about the “Celts in the British Isles”. This is largely mystical, and explains why the pursuit of Celtic history and languages is so unpopular in the West, as evidenced by several quotes above. It seems that there were no Celts in the British Isles at all, nor was there their language, and this whole story about the island Celts has a purely political significance. The usual “argument” is how there were no Celts, because there are Celtic languages? – basically doesn’t work. There are no Celtic languages on the islands as such. The term "Celtic languages" is an artificial one, introduced only in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Welsh linguist Edward Lloyd drew attention to the similarities inherent in the languages spoken in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. He called these languages "Celtic" - and this name entered linguistics and then into everyday language. Therefore, the word "Celtic languages" simply by definition refers to the island languages.
But the mysticism of the Celts in the British Isles is far from being reduced to the artificial introduction of the concept of “Celtic languages”. The leading celtologists of the Islands themselves have already come to a de facto agreement that there were no Celts as such on the Islands, and they did not occupy Ireland, like the rest of the islands. The archeology of the Islands does not find any traces of the invasion or arrival of the Celts in the 1st millennium BC, including after 700-400 BC. All finds, including arrowheads, spears, round stone structures attributed to the Celts, are all dated bronze age, long before the supposed arrival of the Celts.
Nora Chadwick's The Celts, published 40 years ago, is a wonderful read on the history of Europe in the 1st millennium BC. and 1st millennium AD, but also says little about the origin of the Celts and their language. Actually the same common phrases about the Indo-European language of the Celts, about the transition of the funeral ritual of the Celts from the burials of the burial fields culture (1300-750 BC), namely the burial of the remains of corpses incinerated in clay vessels to cremation with horses, weapons, carts, as well as burials in wooden coffins Some archaeologists interpret this as a transfer of burial customs from the east, in particular from the Black Sea steppes.
Chadwick again returns to the point we discussed above - that the spread of the Celts across Europe was not necessarily associated with invasions or migration. Otherwise, the book is an interesting, fascinating account of the life of the Gauls and Celts, but nothing new about their possible origins.
In the book by A.V. Gudz-Markov “Indo-Europeans of Eurasia and the Slavs” the Celts are discussed in the chapters “Hallstatt of Europe. General overview of the cultures of Europe in the first half of the 1st millennium BC.” and “The La Tène Epoch in Europe. Expansion of the Celts." Is there anything there about the origins of the Celts on the Russian Plain and their migration to the Austrian Alps, and about their language?
A typical misconception, so typical of historians who are not familiar with the picture of Indo-European languages in Europe at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, immediately attracts attention. The picture is simple - they were not there at all. Europe of the 2nd millennium and the first half of the 1st millennium BC. did not speak IE languages at all, they were spoken only by carriers of haplogroup R1a on the Russian Plain, and by those branches of haplogroup R1a that began to move to Europe. That is why the Celtic languages, which were the languages of haplogroup R1a, began to spread so quickly throughout Europe, in the non-Indo-European language environment. But this was already after the 7-6th century BC.
What does A. Gudz-Markov write? Speaking about the first half of the 1st millennium BC, he reports that “ movements of Iranian nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians) in the south of Eastern Europe caused a kind of new kurgan renaissance in the center and partly in the west of Europe. Many Indo-European population groups in France, Germany and partly in the center of Europe moved away from the traditions of the era of burial fields and returned to the customs of the times of the dominance of the burial mound culture of the 15th-14th centuries. BC. The burials of early Hallstatt (8th century BC) are replete with items of horse harness, the prototypes of which are found in the steppes of southern Russia in the 10th-8th centuries. BC." But the fact is that there were no “many Indo-European population groups in France, the center of Europe,” etc. If there were, then these were precisely the recently arrived speakers of R1a, Indo-Europeans in language, and these were their ancient burial customs, which is what they did. There was no adoption of burial customs by Central Europeans (mainly carriers of haplogroup R1b); burial customs are too conservative to be immediately adopted.
That is, in fact, A. Gudz-Markov writes that carriers of haplogroup R1a began to arrive in Central Europe at the beginning of the 1st millennium, as evidenced by DNA genealogy. They continued to carry out burials as they always did on the Russian Plain, and continued the custom of placing items of horse harness in the graves, as their relatives in haplogroup R1a did in the steppes of southern Russia. This was not observed in early Hallstatt burials from the 8th century BC onwards. A. Gudz-Markov stopped right at the threshold of the conclusion that the “initial” Celts of Hallstatt were migrants from the Russian Plain.
And further he writes that “ around 6th century BC. separate, significant detachments of Scythians passed in the west to France, in the north to the basin of the Oder and Vistula, leaving treasures of things of the famous “animal style” of the Iranian steppe world of the 1st millennium BC." Naturally, the “Iranian world” here has nothing to do with Iran, this is the Aryan world, we are talking about speakers of languages of the Iranian group, Aryan languages. Thus, this further strengthens the position that the “primary” Celts are carriers of haplogroup R1a from the Russian Plain. And further A. Gudz-Markov writes that “ The central motif of the Hallstatt ornament is the classical Indo-European geometric element. And the forms of pottery from the Hallstatt era are based on the Lusatian traditions of the 13th-8th centuries. BC. era of burial fields" Again we are talking about the Indo-Indo-European elements of R1a in the non-Indo-European world, which will not remain so for long in Europe. From the middle of the 1st millennium BC. the unbridled spread of the Indo-European language across Europe will begin, which will begin in Central Europe (Hallstatt is one of the central places where its spread began), sweep over Gaelic France, the Apennines, Iberia, and go to the British Isles - again not as an invasion of migrants, but as a diffusion of language and culture.
In many places, there was a gradual displacement of R1a speakers by R1b speakers, that is, the newcomer Aryans were replaced by local Erbins. As a consequence of this, there was again a rollback to the traditional burial rite, and the burning of the Aryan corpses was replaced by the burial of the Erbins.
As A. Gudz-Markov writes, “ The Hallstatt era seems to be a time of further, and in many ways final, crystallization of individual Indo-European communities in Europe and Asia" This phrase seems too evasive to be informative. The picture actually seems different - the Hallstatt era seems to be the time of the beginning of the rapid Indo-Europeanization of Europe, which became final. This was initiated by the settlement of carriers of haplogroup R1a in Europe, starting from the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.
Let's look at three articles taken almost at random on the linguistics of the Coelian languages: one by the French author Patrice Brun, L’origine des Celtes. Communautės linguistiques et rėseaux sociaux, from the collection Celtes et Gaulois, l’Archeologie face a l’Histoire, 2: la Prehistoire des Celtes, Center archeologique europeen, 2006, p. 29-44; the other by the Welsh author, John Koch (Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, University of Wales), entitled “A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language” (Acta Palaeohispanica X, Palaeohispanica 9 (2009) pp. 339-351), and an article by C. Gibson and D.S. Wodtko “The background of the Celtic languages: theories from archeology and linguistics” from the same Center for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, University of Wales, published in 2010. I thought that such recent articles and from such specialized centers for the study of Celts would give a good idea of the level of linguistics of the Celtic languages.
The first article, I must admit, disappointed me from the very beginning. The article “suggests” (no data available) that the family of Celtic languages arose in the 3rd millennium BC, that is, about 5 thousand years ago, “on the substrate of the Bell Beaker culture.” Throughout the article there is talk of "new social networks of interaction through commonwealths and exchanges that have preserved the Kelian languages over these five thousand years." No evidence is provided in the article. Herodotus, Polybius and other historians of antiquity are again quoted.
In the second article, the author proceeds from the position that if Celtic languages spread from the cultures of Hallstatt and La Tene, then these languages in Iberia will be different from those in the British Isles. An alternative assumption, according to the author, is that Celtic languages first arose in Western Europe, on the Atlantic. The author is a supporter of the second hypothesis (he is also the editor of the book cited above, in which he emphasizes his hypothesis). He goes further and suggests that Tartessian (a dead Paleo-Spanish language related to Iberian) was an Indo-European, and specifically a Celtic, language. On the other hand, he accepts the alternative possibility that Tartessian was a non-Indo-European language, and may have included elements of an acquired Celtic language. The examples given by the author refer to the period between 625 and 545. BC.
The third article, "The background of the Celtic languages: theories from archaeology and linguistics", suggests that as a result of the expansion of the Celtic languages, they displaced other languages, Indo-European or not. This again shows that the author does not quite understand the linguistic landscape of Europe during the spread of the Kelian languages. There is no evidence that there were other IE languages that Celtic would have supplanted. It is significant that the author cites the work of Mac Eoin (2007), who argues that the Celtic language in Europe was preceded only by non-Indo-European languages. However, the author constantly returns to the Bell Beaker culture as a possible predecessor of the Celtic languages, although he mentions that Pokorny (1936) considered this option and rejected it.
Let us bring our consideration to an end. It is difficult to deny the possibility that the “primary” Celts were carriers of haplogroup R1a who arrived from the east. The following are possible tribes or branches of haplogroup R1a that moved west into Europe in the 1st millennium BC (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, Advances in Anthropology, 2012) (the column on the right indicates the time of origin or the beginning of the expansion of the branch, years BC):
The next step in developing this hypothesis would be to carefully consider the archeology of the Celts, on the one hand, and the indicated branches of haplogroup R1a, and to identify common “artifacts”.
To summarize, the hypothesis put forward has multi-layered grounds that the carriers of haplogroup R1a, in fact the Proto-Slavs, or, in any case, their brothers, transformed not only the east in the 2nd millennium BC, acting as Aryans (India, Iran, Central Asia , Near East, northern China), but no less (perhaps more) radically transformed the West, acting like the original Celts (Western and Central Europe), bringing there in the 1st millennium BC. your language and your culture. In this sense, the west and center of Europe are a cultural product of the Proto-Slavic Russian Plain.
Anatoly A. Klyosov,
Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Professor
Did you like the article? Share the link with your friends!
80 comments: Where did the Celts come from?
-
Konstantin Anisimov says:
I. Rozhansky says:
Arsens says:
I. Rozhansky says:
Vinko Klaric says: