What do you think of Koch's theory about the Tartessians actually being a Celtic people? at least linguistically.honestly, the academy discarded it and treated it as a fanfic, I personally think that they could be more Celticized than we think. some leaders' names were clearly Celtic.
>>17274519they were reinded by Celts. They would clearly have an influence, but it doesn't mean much. Our knowledge of the Celts is changing, from Hallstatt and its origins. we thought they were a direct offshoot of the urnfield, but genetic research shows they were actually Spanish.
>>17274519They most likely were celtic and mixed with some proto half north african half ANF population to create modern Josè
>>17274528>north african half ANF population to create modern JosèFucking spamming
>>17274519Nah they had 20/25% steppe ancestry
>>17274544they could be a Celtiziated people
>>17274547extremely unlikelythey were actually influenced by the Carthaginians and Greeks. whether on a religious or architectural level. and their cultural rites were not Celtic. Furthermore, they were architectural masters who learned from their masters in the Aegean and North Africa and made significant buildings, very different from the Celtic shit we see in Britain.Tartessians in Iberia had advanced architectural skills:https://phys.org/news/2024-10-archaeologists-tartessos-culture-sustainable-skills.html
women had a lot of social elevation and were very rich. they were matriarchal
>>17274519>I personally think that they could be more Celticized than we think. some leaders' names were clearly Celtic.Most names of early Germanic leaders are also Celtic (Ariovistus, many named leaders of the Cimbrii & Teutonii) but nobody assumes that the Baltic was Celticized.
>>17274793Stupid post
>>17274544Hunterjeet xistas it's ovyr, clearly RVMAN superiority was due to the near absence of whgreto in their blood, beacucker tardassians got eradicated for good and the Mediterranean race is grateful for that.
>>17274528kys lying rat.>>17274544yes they were similar to modern basques
>>17274519Spain had two races Gauls from Northern ItalyBasques from the Caucus, most likely That's it
>>17274544The OP is talking about Celtic languages. Since "Celtic" isn't really a single unified ethnicity it's also fair to say they're Celtic despite being low steppe as long as we understand insular Celts and other Celts are not the same thing. Koch doesn't really deal with genetics in detail anyway. He's a linguist.As an umbrella term, "Celtic" is not very different as a label from "Indo-European" in that by calling someone that, we aren't implying they are Proto-Indo-European or Northern European. Even Greeks are Indo-Europeans despite the low steppe % simply by virtue of speaking an Indo-European language and having received Indo-European culture and a small contribution of Indo-European genes. It's mainly about language and culture. For example, I don't think anyone actually believes Galatians were the same as Irish only because they are both Celts in some sense.The Tartessian question isn't really a haploautism topic. Their language is still unclassified. It actually could still be a Celtic language. It's just that the amount of evidence has caused indecisiveness, but even if the language itself isn't Celtic, nobody disputes the fact that the corpus contains many Celtic names. The presence of Celtic culture in Iberia shouldn't really be surprising unless you had the preconceived notion that they had to be high steppe for that to happen.
>>17274909>understand insular Celts and other Celts are not the same thingThe majority of Celts in Britain and Ireland by the Roman invasion were from Belgium and spike Gaelic Calm down
>>17274928I'm not aware of any migration from Belgium to Ireland but the introduction of Brythonic to Britain has been correlated with a migration from the continent. The way by which Ireland became Celtic speaking remains a mystery.
>>17274908both wrong
>>17274582And then they died and disappeared like Sparta.
>>17274908All of Spain is tubalitic, a shared origins with Caucasians. The Gallic element arrived with the tyrant Geryon.
>>17275082
>>17274909Much text
>>17275011>The way by which Ireland became Celtic speaking remains a mystery.Maybe for a dumb like you.They came from the continent
>>17274526>>17274526>they were actually Spanish.You again? They were belgians and French dudes
>>17275132No1/4
>>172751362/4Closest populations= Lech MBA.They're considered to be representative of the Middle to Late Bronze Age proto-celts, which brought proto celtic languages.
>>172751393/4See the sample
>>172751544/4>Combining uniparental and autosomal data, we were able to prove a close biological relationship between the two central princely burials of Eberdingen-Hochdorf (HOC001) and Asperg-Grafenbühl (APG001), representing two of the richest graves of European prehistory.Distance to: Celtic:HOC001_merged0.07217447 French_Provence0.07237979 Spanish_Galicia0.07247621 Spanish_Extremadura0.07263407 Spanish_Baleares0.07291229 PortugueseDistance to: Celtic:APG001_merged0.03306230 Spanish_Barcelones0.03393686 French_Auvergne0.03503920 French_Occitanie0.03531511 Spanish_Asturias0.03636077 Spanish_Camp_de_Tarragona
>>17274519No, their language was non-IE.
>>17275127There's no evidence of a Celtic invasion into Ireland after the initial arrival of steppe derived Bell Beakers. This is important because Proto-Celtic is typically dated over 1000 years after Indo-Europeans colonized the isles.The fact that there is no evidence of a late Celtic migration that would bring Celtic speech to Ireland is the biggest elephant in the room in Celtic studies right now. No theory for the origin and spread of Celtic languages stands on solid ground if it cannot properly address the Irish problem.
>>17275183Why do you write semantics with more than two paragraphs? Wasn't that shitty map of yours enough? OP is talking about Tartessians. not Irish Celts.
>>17274519what linguistic evidence? As far as I know, the Tartessian language is definitely not IE.although some Celtic leaders prove absolutely nothing
>>17275205I haven't posted any maps, and I'm not responding to a post about Tartessians. If you know how Ireland became Celtic speaking, feel free to explain, but evidence must be forthcoming.
>>17274519They were ANF, not steppeboosthey were there before the IE migrations happenedthey speak a language that as far as I know has not been successfully connected to any other languagethey owned mountainous lands, like a kind of geographical fortress
>>17275231>>17275214they have mostly Y-DNA Bell Beaker>>17275205Hes the guy of "aryan cognate" chart
>>17275214>As far as I know, the Tartessian language is definitely not IE.You heard wrong. It's unclassified and technically could still be IE, but the low amount of evidence has made some linguists insist that it's not definitely IE but actually indeterminate until we get more information. I'm sure some think it's likely to be non-IE but that doesn't mean much when there's nothing to compare it to. A positive association with Basque would help for example.
>>17275237>they have mostly Y-DNA Bell Beakerwhich is 100% irrelevant again.haplolixes do not represent anything and do not say anything. Did you know that autosomally he has as much steppe as the Mycenaeans?
>>17275242>could still be IEUnlikely >However, the language as a whole remains inexplicable from the Celtic or Indo-European point of view; the structure of Tartessian syllables appears to be incompatible with Celtic or even Indo-European phonetics and more compatible with Iberian or Basque; some scholars consider that all Celtic elements are borrowings.[23]
>>17275214>what linguistic evidence?>>17275242Oh yes!isolated loans and personal names.... yes. definitely 100% IEBy this logic, how about we consider Anatolio as non-IE? Well, they both have IE loans! but Anatolia has triple
>>17275249The state of the field is such that you could just pick someone's opinion you like and come to any conclusion you want. It's a mess and pretending there's a consensus is much less interesting than going into detailed arguments about why it is or isn't IE.
>Since 2009, John T. Koch has argued that Tartessian is a Celtic language and that the texts can be translated.[24][25][26][27] Koch's thesis has been popularised by the BBC TV series The Celts: Blood, Iron and Sacrifice[28] and the associated book by Alice Roberts.Big mommy Alice? Koch submissive bro? Our answer?>The current academic consensus regarding the classification of Tartessian as a Celtic language is summarized by de Hoz:[32]J. Koch’s recent proposal that the south-western inscriptions should be deciphered as Celtic has had considerable impact, above all in archaeological circles. However, the almost unanimous opinion of scholars in the field of Palaeohispanic studies is that, despite the author’s indisputable academic standing, this is a case of a false decipherment based on texts that have not been sufficiently refined, his acceptance of a wide range of unjustified variations, and on purely chance similarities that cannot be reduced to a system; these deficiencies give rise to translations lacking in parallels in the recorded epigraphic usage.Btw, they probably don't worshipped Ie deities and were somehow, matrilineal
>>17275260I'm not saying it's definitely IE. I'm not sure why you've responded like this
>>17275262How do you define a consensus anon?
>>17275260I meant that the logic of sameflag (you) is to treat personal names, place names and isolated words as possibilities of being IE.So, why isn't Anatolian a pre-Ie language?! we have loans from various places even from MesopotamianWe wuz celtz
>>17275272>17% aryanKek even the BA Armenians had more steppe
>>17275277I can tell you I don't define it by copying and pasting Wikipedia, and I don't pretend this is Koch against the world as if he didn't build upon and cite the works of other scholars.All I'm saying is "not so fast, this language is unclassified. It could be anything." and since some experts have seriously entertained the idea that it is Celtic, I would be much more interested in seeing why you think it can't be Celtic or IE instead of seeing the same rehashed discussions again where the uninformed posters just see it as a boxing match between team-IE and team-non-IE academics while not understanding any of the things the experts actually argue about.
>>17274793Also Cedric of Wessex and some other early kings over there.And don't get me started on Hebrew names like "John", "James", and "David". Is OP going to tell us that the Scots were secretly ruled by Jews most of the time?
>>17275345I m not the OP, you useless sack of shit
>>17275303>>17275303Semantics...You are the one who uses Wikipedia articles the most for your amateur chart.Anyway, you lost here, since I'm not these guys above. Why not tell them this? My dear, your post still hasn't responded to me.How do you define a cosensus? Maybe it's a consensus among the main experts in the area? or the opinion of a renowned academy?
>>17275362>You are the one who uses Wikipedia articles the most for your amateur chart.I have no idea what you're accusing me of here. You seem confused.>How do you define a cosensus?Consensus is when the main participants in the field agree.
>>17275160give the g25 coord plz
>>17275011>migration from Belgium to IrelandSee Julius Caesar, the placenames of Ireland and the oldest histories of Ireland > of Brythonic to Britain has been correlated with a migration from the continent. Just say British.
>>17275345>OP going to tell us that the Scots were secretly ruled by Jews most of the timeWe have evidence that people in Scotland practiced a religion with Hebrew figuresWe do not have evidence of any similar cultural situation of adopting names like this in Iberia or antiquity.
>>17275407Place names might yield some information. Might. It really begs the question why genetics hasn't shown any signs of a late migration to Ireland yet though.
>>17274519Iberians and Tartessians lived in a completely urban environment, Herodotus mentions that before the collapse of their kingdom after the death of Arganthonius, the Tartessians obtained from the trade of ceramics, minerals and metals with Cádiz and Málaga a good % of their income.The Celts in the western/northern parts of the peninsula instead lived like the rest of the Celts on the mainland, a tribal world that revolved around hill forts, like rats with foot odor.
>>17274566>>17275082Regarding the Tartessian deities, the names of their gods did not survive the Greco-Phoenician colonization, they syncretized with the Phoenician and Greek gods very early.some were already worshiped by Celts from other parts of the continent, others were local deities.
>>17275272>>17274544Target: Spain_EIA_TartessianDistance: 2.6350% / 0.0263503255.0 Spain_EN36.0 Netherlands_BellBeaker6.6 Spain_ElMiron2.4 Italy_North_Villabruna_HGTarget: Basque_Navarre_NorthDistance: 1.7612% / 0.0176119048.6 Netherlands_BellBeaker46.8 Spain_EN4.6 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
>>17275512Non-celtic swordIts greekAnd your samples sucksShitty model
>>17275521>>17275512
>>17274566hello monkeyYou don't even know that Tartessos precedes the presence of Carthage in Iberia by a few centuries lol.Not to mention that the Tartessians were Testend and grouped with Basques, so they weren't foreigners either. You retards are literally coping.
>>17275303literally all alphabets in iberia are 100% derived from proto-sinaitic of the phoenician related branch.There is no such thing as a native script from iberia.All symbols in iberian scripts are lineraly derived beyond any doubt from phoenician.It has no similarity with minoan.Also what the fuck is this shit of writen circularly lmao. Do you think its some kind of unique feature to write among two twisted lines? It is read in the same way other scripts are.There is nothing unique or native about it. You have nothing like us, you never invented writing
Why didn't iberians ever developed sculpture on their own before phoenician colonization? Amerindians did it way before
>>17275563>literally all alphabets in iberia are 100% derived from proto-sinaitic of the phoenician related branch.>There is no such thing as a native script from iberia.>All symbols in iberian scripts are lineraly derived beyond any doubt from phoenician.European alphabets are all directly or indirectly derived from from Phoenician except for maybe something like Irish Ogham script. What is your point? A script has nothing to do with how a spoken language is classified.>It has no similarity with minoan.Did anyone mention Minoan?>You have nothing like us, you never invented writingUm, anon, have you forgotten your medications? This reads like you've brought some weird baggage into the thread.
>>17275463>MightIreland is filled with places named after the Belgians
>>17275489>like rats with foot odor.Very brown post
>>17276612This isn't a very compelling statement if you have no examples. Is there a paper about this you can cite?
>>17276612I was just reading that most Belgic names are identifiably Gaulish. If Belgic tribes spoke P-Celtic, that would seem to rule out the idea that they brought Celtic speech to Ireland since Goidelic is Q-Celtic. Again, this shouldn't be surprising if you're already aware that there is no genetic evidence (yet) of a late migration that would bring Celtic to Ireland.
>>17275183>>17275407>>migration from Belgium to Ireland>>17276612>Ireland is filled with places named after the BelgiansI am the perfect proof that the celts were in Belgium-northern France before arriving to Ireland and Iberia.I have a paternal subhaplogroup (terminal) which 5% of Irish people also have it (DF27 ZZ19 and below). And I am Spaniard from a rural and remote area in western Spain.
>>17277553You don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence. There are at least two big issues that remain to be explained:1. The fact that Goidelic is Q-Celtic2. The lack of DNA evidence for a late Celtic migration into Ireland.What good are Belgic place names (how many of these even exist?) if Belgic tribes spoke P-Celtic?Celtic speakers were of course in Belgium and Northern France at some point but this knowledge alone isn't helpful.
>>17274519>we wuz aztec and roman and celtic toono sanchez, you are the sorry reminder that berbers and nafris shouldn't have raped spanish women and that their sons shouldn't have raped injun womenAl-Andalus and its consequences were a disaster for humankind
>>17277622There are chronicles (I read it in some old history book in Spanish) that talk about the "celtic group of the Belgae along the sefes" going throw central-western Spain towards Portugal. In this area there are many celtic triskels and tetratriskel. "Los belovacos belgas se establecieron en la Meseta y dieron lugar a las tribus de celtíberas de los arévacos, belos y tittos. Los arévacos tenían su centro en Soria y en las montañas al N de esta provincia se establecieron los belendones, cuyo nombre es igual al de una tribu de Aquitania.La "celtización" de España se atribuye a los celtíberos, pero gallegos, astures y cántabros sufrieron muy poco y tarde esta influencia, por lo que el componente indoeuropeo de Callaecia responde más a la influencia arcaica del Bronce Final que a la celtíbera de la Edad del Hierro, tal y como lo corrobora Plinio al afirmar que sólo unas pocas tribus galaicas son celtas. Bosch-Gimpera cree que alrededor del 700 a. C. llegaron a la Península los cempsi y sobre el 650-600 a.C. los sefes, turones y nemetes.Los sefes deben su nombre a la raíz indoeuropea “saeph” que significa serpiente, nombre que le dieron los romanos ya que este animal era su dios nacional y representaba el poder guerrero, motivo por el cual lucían la efigie de una serpiente en sus escudos. Los sefes habitaban las riberas del Rhin hasta que tuvieron que desplazarse junto con otros muchos pueblos debido a la presión que ejercían las tribus germanas. Según Bosch-Gimpera, en el 600 a.C. llegaron a la Meseta y continuaron hacia el O, dirigiéndose al valle del Coa (Vilanova de Foz), N de la Serra da Estrela, costa N de Portugal y S de Galicia. Tras ellos llegaron los tundros que se establecieron en Tras-os-Montes."http://oestrymnio.blogspot.com/2012/02/historia-de-galicia-vi-los-celtas-y.htmlBosch-Gimpera
>>17278043Ok
>>17274544That loos like 18%. Can you read?
>>17278892It didn't stop Mycenaeans from speaking Greek.
>>17278904and 25% didn't stop the Etruscans from speaking Etruscan, or 30-35% Basque to speak Basque
>>17278907The Etruscan claim is misleading. They were heterogenous and we don't have strong reasons to believe the higher steppe "Etruscans" actually spoke Etruscan just because we can find Etruscan writing.Now as for Basques, where are you getting 30-35%?
>>17278916qpadm. And all Etruscans except for outleirs have at least 20-25% Steppe
>>17278942What's wrong with the steppe % measurements in these studies?https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.010>The genetic continuity of Basques since the Iron Age also supports the hypothesis that the expansion of the Steppe ancestry did not completely erase Pre-Indo-European languages in Western Europe, as previously suggested in other studies.Figure 2https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982221003493-mmc1.pdfFigure S4b.https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1509851112Figure 3
The CHG is insanely low
