Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > The Celts > Where Did The Celts Origionally Come From?


Posted by: CelticRose 04-Jun-2005, 08:21 PM
sorry to post a new topic, but I was asked this question and could not answer. I have read some of the threads in here, but I don't see where the Celtic people orginally came from. Can someone answer this question for me so I can pass it along to my mother in law? Is the answer in here already and I just missed it somehow? unsure.gif Many thanks!

Posted by: gaberlunzie 04-Jun-2005, 09:03 PM
Rose, an article Paul posted here might be a good place to start for you. You'll find it here:
http://www.celticradio.net/php/forums/index.php?showtopic=2261.

Posted by: Viriato 05-Jun-2005, 06:23 AM
Hi there!

I am the new "kid in the block" from Galiza (Cail-laech?).

I'm mad about my roots I since I moved to UK I'm discovering that we got it all wrong. We always thought that we came from Eire, but I've discovered that is the other way roung. Is it? Unfortunately lost the gaelic language and we speak that variation of Portuguese that they insist in calling "language" but most of the geographical names still are sheer gaelic, including Galiza and Galego (Galeg of Gailaech).

I've found the follosing link long time that I have in personal website (which at the moment -for some reason- is not working. I'm waiting an answer from my host company):

http://members.tripod.com/~Breogan/celtic.htm

So, What is the truth? Were we come from?

Posted by: Viriato 05-Jun-2005, 06:27 AM
Sorry!

By the way

How can I edit the post when I realise that is full of mistakes and has been already posted?

I can't find where...

Sorry about the mess. I hope that can be understood...

Posted by: dfilpus 05-Jun-2005, 06:52 AM
QUOTE (Viriato @ 05-Jun-2005, 09:27 AM)
Sorry!

By the way

How can I edit the post when I realise that is full of mistakes and has been already posted?

I can't find where...

Sorry about the mess. I hope that can be understood...

Welcome to the forums.

The typos are okay. We all have submitted posts with major typos.

You need to be a Founder before you can edit posts after submitting. This requires a bit of money, but it does support this excellent community/

You can Preview the post before submitting it by the Preview button next to the Add Topic or Add Reply button.

Posted by: Aaediwen 06-Jun-2005, 03:00 PM
Exactly where the Celts came from is not known. Unless I'm mistaken, there was a migration of culture from the area of what is now Turkey, up through Europe, and eventually as far as the isles we've come to associate with the word "Celt" As a result, at one time, most of Europe would have been Celtic lands, with what is now Ireland, Scotland, and England being some of the youngest. Then you had the Romans who came in and slapped their name on everything except for Ireland. Again, the Isles being the last, they had less time before the fall. Also, since Rome never decided to take Eire, that remained as a refuge for Celtic culture under a Celtic name until the Normans came along later.

As a result of all this, The isles may have out Celtic associations by virtue of being the last on both ends. It seems the Celts themselves can be traced backwards from the isles, south east across Europe (possibly to Messopitamia) However, for the research I've found so far, any claims further back than Germany are speculation. It was when I started seeking the question of where the Celts came from, that I found history and mythology mixing, leading back to the Thutha de Danann, and from there indicating devine creation, Atlantis, or a couple other ideas.

Posted by: Viriato 06-Jun-2005, 04:58 PM
Ta dfilpus for your "fàilte" and the information.

I've got the message.

Hi aaediwen

Yes... Your comments seems to be in line with the link of my post, but more I read -and since I am in UK I have managed to build up a substantial library- more messy becomes, what makes it more appealing.

Perhaps one of these days we find something...

Posted by: ImmortalAvalon 07-Jun-2005, 10:56 PM
From what I've read, the first culture that can verifiably be labelled "Celtic" was the Halstatt Culture which flourished around 700 BC and was succeeded by the La Tene Culture which lasted from about 500 BC until the coming of the Romans. Both of these cultures thrived in Austria, Switzerland, parts of Germany, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic.

Before the Iron Age Halstatt Culture, there was a Bronze Age culture in that area called the Urnfield Culture (c. 1200 BC). There is much debate as to whether or not the Urnfield people can be termed "Celtic" or not. From archaeological evidence, it has been determined that the Halstatt Culture evolved in peaceful succession from the Urnfield, which, in turn, had evolved from the preceding culture.

So, generally, the homeland of the Celtic peoples was located, approximately, at the headwaters of the Rhine and the Danube, both of which have Celtic names. From the there, the Celts spread out across Europe in all directions, advancing, though sparsely, even into parts of Poland and the Ukraine.

Posted by: bigjimhainey 07-Jun-2005, 11:18 PM
Everything that i have read about the celts also starts about the area that is now germany. Ive never seen anything that says where it came from before they moved to germany, but it hinted that they might have come from further east or southeast ,but there was no actual proof of it.

Posted by: CelticRose 26-Jun-2005, 02:16 AM
Thank you everyone for your feedback! Gosh! there are so many different versions to study from.

Gabby, thanks for the link. I copied that as well. Somehow I had missed that. Thanks!

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 26-Jun-2005, 06:00 AM
I've read that the Beaker people (same as Urnfield, I think) were spread across Northern Europe. A new culture, the Battle Axe people, (I'm not kidding, that is their name) migrated into Europe from the Russian steppes. These two cultures merged in central Europe (the areas of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic) to form the Celtic people. The Celts then developed (as mentioned by Immortal Avalon) the Halstatt Culture and then the La Tene Culture. These cultures then spread throughout Europe in an arc from the British Isles to Galatia.

The ancient Celts were noted for their high level of learning. Most tutors employed by Greeks for the benefit of their children were Celtic. Then with the rise of the Roman Empire, the Celts were conquered. What Celtic culture did survive was at the fringes of Europe where the Romans did not conquer. It is important to remember that the Celts were never a nation or empire as such, but a large grouping or loose association of tribes and peoples who shared the same culture and language. There is some debate as to whether or not they were all the same genetic grouping. (I would say "race", but that term has become very pejorative.)

Please understand also that these two paragraphs are condensing one to two thousand years of history and development. A good site for background is http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/skyelander/menu14.html .

Posted by: Viriato 03-Aug-2005, 04:30 PM
I've just found this link...

http://www.gallica.co.uk/celts/timeline.htm

Posted by: CelticRose 04-Aug-2005, 03:54 PM
Pretty interesting info there to all of you. thanks so much! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Maddie 13-Aug-2005, 07:26 PM
Celts belong to the indogermanic tribes means they came from the East. The race were called the "Keltoi" (later "Celts") and they inhabited much of central Europe. Over the centuries branches of these "Keltoi" made incursions into surrounding regions. Central Turkey was one such and they are identified as the "Galatians" in the New Testament - a modification of "Keltoi". Another group, moving westward, crossed the sea and established itself in Ireland. Their tribal name was "Goidal", from which "Gaelic" has emerged. Afterwards they crossed over to Scotland and the Hebrides. Unfortunaltely the Picts drove the Scottish group back. Later, another group, called the "Brythons" (giving "Britons") secured domination over much of the north-west (later known as "Strathclyde"), Wales and the South-West. The Romans who occupied most of this Island, naming it Britannia - the Brythons being the first Keltoi they encountered. They were, however, unable to get far into Scotland and made negligible process in Ireland. In 500 A.D. the Romans abandoned Britain, which soon after fell under the domination of Anglo-Saxon invaders from northern Europe. Around the same time the Scottish groups managed to re-conquere Scotland.
The Germanic tribes pushing before Christ from the East had named the Celts Welshe = strangers. Again later when the Anglo Saxons met Brythons and called them Welsh = aliens.

Well, in Scottish Gaelic the Lowlands are Galldachd = land of Strangers.

Posted by: Aaediwen 15-Aug-2005, 04:52 PM
some interesting tidbits smile.gif

Posted by: Copar a'Beannichte 19-Aug-2005, 06:45 AM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 04-Jun-2005, 09:21 PM)
sorry to post a new topic, but I was asked this question and could not answer. I have read some of the threads in here, but I don't see where the Celtic people orginally came from. Can someone answer this question for me so I can pass it along to my mother in law? Is the answer in here already and I just missed it somehow? unsure.gif Many thanks!

Hi there, as far as my information goes the Celts originate from central/ eastern European area. They have roamed many parts of the continent and did have quite some influence. It is a pity that not many people know that they were even the first ever known people to have settlements in the Netherlands, in an area not far from the town of the city of Utrecht which was founded by the Romans much later.
This Celtic settlement was called the "Hilversum culture" after the small town Hilversum , very close to the site were pots etc. were found.
Kindest greetings, Marc.

Posted by: ImmortalAvalon 20-Aug-2005, 04:27 AM
QUOTE
The Romans who occupied most of this Island, naming it Britannia - the Brythons being the first Keltoi they encountered.


Actually, the name comes from the word Pretani, which was the Brythonic for Picts (the Gaelic being Cruthin).

QUOTE
Their tribal name was "Goidal", from which "Gaelic" has emerged.


This is the name given to the Celtic dialect they spoke. There were literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Celtic tribes (i.e. Parisii, Iceni, Cassiovelauni, Silurii, Arverni, Carnutes, Insubres, Boii, etc).

The portions of the Isles which are currently Celtic are not the only areas in which the Celtic peoples settled. Later on, various Germanic tribes settled in those areas and gradually subjugated and absorbed the Britons.

QUOTE
In 500 A.D. the Romans abandoned Britain, which soon after fell under the domination of Anglo-Saxon invaders from northern Europe.


Rome abandoned Britain long before 500 A.D. Before the Visigoths sacked the city in 410 A.D., the leaders of Britain sent a letter to Emperor Honorius, begging for Roman aid, but Honorius wrote back that they should see to their own defense. By 413, the legions stationed at Hadrain's Wall were gone.

Also, the Anglo-Saxons already had a few petty kingdoms in England before 500 A.D., namely Kent, Sussex, and Essex.

Posted by: Barry 03-Mar-2007, 12:22 PM
Archeology and genetics seem to indicate that the Indo-European languages (to which the Celtic languages belong) originated either in what is today's Ukraine or Turkey. Many words - invariably those that we can imagine would have been important way-back-when, like 'wolf' or 'mother' (she's still important, for sure) are similar across many Indo-European languages. More modern words, say 'gun,' are entirely different words across the languages. Anyway, when the words are added up, compared and contrasted, it looks like Indo-European may have had a forest and hills origin. That points to Turkey more than it does the Ukraine, this being more savanna-like than the heavily-wooded and mountainous Turkey. Where ever it was, all Indo-European languages can be traced to a group of people that had evolved a language that we might term today as 'Proto-Indo-European' (First-Indo-European).

With the rise of agriculture maybe 10,000 years ago in lands south of Turkey - Mesopotamia, more or less in Iraq (god bless them) it probably was not long before agriculture spread to an Indo-European speaking tribe(s) in Turkey. (As an aside, perhaps the NON-Semitic speaking civilizations of Mesopotamia were Indo-European.) Then, either Indo-European tribes (or their culture), spread westward across Europe bringing agriculture with them. For all its faults, agriculture feeds more people than does hunting and gathering, so population numbers rose and young folks set off for new lands to till. Or, agri-culture spread quickly, more quickly than did actual people, over Europe's pre-farming tribes. In any case, Indo-European dialects made the journey too, and in the various quasi-isolated areas developed into new languages (within the Indo-European family). There surely developed a proto-Germanic, a proto-Slavic, and a proto-Celtic language, among others. These too, continued to evolve as they traveled, intermingled with other Indo-European groups (and with the Cro-magnon non-agricultural people already living in Europe), or became isolated themselves. The spread of peoples out of the hearth-land continued for thousands of years, with Celts of several linguistic persuasions making it all the way to the margins of western Europe.

As I mentioned before, these Celtic speaking tribes would have encountered pre-existing people, people now called the Cro-Magnon. The Cro-Magnon are those humans (likely indistinguishable from us or the incoming Indo-European tribes) that replaced the Neanderthal in Europe, and had now been there for tens of thousands of years. I'd venture to say that the Basque people of northern Spain and southwestern France are the descendents of the Cro-Magnon - and perhaps so to were the Etruscans of Tuscany, Italy - now extinct as a culture. And perhaps, so too, descendents of Cro-Magnon were the Picts and Scotti of Ireland and Scotland.

The question is - as always - are the people of the Celtic lands (the 7-nations more or less) primarily Celtic in genetic origins or are they primarily Cro-Magnon with some Celtic genetic input. Certainly, the cultures became what we call Celtic, but we don't know how much is input from pre-Celts and how much is Celtic proper. What we know for sure is that the pre-Celtic populations were not eliminated, so Celts of today are a blend of the two. So that makes Stonehenge and New Grange ours, even if they are pre-Celtic in origin.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 06-Mar-2007, 11:21 AM
Most of the research I have read suggests that being Celtic is less a matter of genetics than of culture. For example, I was rather surprised that while my own haplotye suggests that my direct paternal line was in Ireland at least by the 3d Century A.D. and is fairly typical of Ireland, it is not considered a Celtic haplotype.

Indeed, the available evidence tends to suggest that Ireland became a Celtic nation without a large influx of Celtic genetics. Whether this was due to a Celtic invasion or simply adaptation through, for example, trade relations is still open to debate.

The relationship between the Cro-Magnons and current European populations also seems to be somewhat undecided. It is entirely possible that the mainland Celts and ice-age Irish were both descended from different groups of Cro-Magnons.


Posted by: McRoach 17-Sep-2008, 01:17 PM
Wow, everyone sure seems to have a lot of different yet very informative and interesting information on this subject. I haven't done near the research I'm sure that I should have but I came across some info that suggested that in the northern highlands of Scotland there were the Picts named for the tatoos they had across most of their bodies and that they were part of the first group labeled as celts.
After reading all the different backgrounds mentioned in this forum it would appear that any group who peacefully traded and spoke the same language in the time before Rome conquered and spread north could be considered a root of celtic ancestry.

Posted by: glaswegian 17-Sep-2008, 01:35 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 06-Mar-2007, 12:21 PM)
Most of the research I have read suggests that being Celtic is less a matter of genetics than of culture. For example, I was rather surprised that while my own haplotye suggests that my direct paternal line was in Ireland at least by the 3d Century A.D. and is fairly typical of Ireland, it is not considered a Celtic haplotype.

Indeed, the available evidence tends to suggest that Ireland became a Celtic nation without a large influx of Celtic genetics. Whether this was due to a Celtic invasion or simply adaptation through, for example, trade relations is still open to debate.

The relationship between the Cro-Magnons and current European populations also seems to be somewhat undecided. It is entirely possible that the mainland Celts and ice-age Irish were both descended from different groups of Cro-Magnons.

The celts are not defined as a racial group, the celts shared a common language and culture. If the celts were a racial group then the whole of europe would be celtic.

Posted by: oldraven 25-Sep-2008, 12:37 PM
QUOTE (McRoach @ 17-Sep-2008, 12:17 PM)
Wow, everyone sure seems to have a lot of different yet very informative and interesting information on this subject. I haven't done near the research I'm sure that I should have but I came across some info that suggested that in the northern highlands of Scotland there were the Picts named for the tatoos they had across most of their bodies and that they were part of the first group labeled as celts.
After reading all the different backgrounds mentioned in this forum it would appear that any group who peacefully traded and spoke the same language in the time before Rome conquered and spread north could be considered a root of celtic ancestry.

Well, the first people to be 'labelled' as Celts, or a derivative of Celt, were people found in modern day France/Spain who were mentioned in text by visiting Mediterranean people (Greek or Roman, I can't recall, but it was one of them). That name came from a particular tribe's name.

Posted by: Camac 26-Sep-2008, 09:02 AM
QUOTE (oldraven @ 25-Sep-2008, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE (McRoach @ 17-Sep-2008, 12:17 PM)
Wow, everyone sure seems to have a lot of different yet very informative and interesting information on this subject.  I haven't done near the research I'm sure that I should have but I came across some info that suggested that in the northern highlands of Scotland there were the Picts named for the tatoos they had across most of their bodies and that they were part of the first group labeled as celts. 
After reading all the different backgrounds mentioned in this forum it would appear that any group who peacefully traded and spoke the same language in the time before Rome conquered and spread north could be considered a root of celtic ancestry.

Well, the first people to be 'labelled' as Celts, or a derivative of Celt, were people found in modern day France/Spain who were mentioned in text by visiting Mediterranean people (Greek or Roman, I can't recall, but it was one of them). That name came from a particular tribe's name.

oldraven;

The first recording of the celts in History is from the Greeks who named them the "KELTOI". As the Celtic Language is Indo-Euoropean many believe that they originated in South-East Asia in the Northern Indian Sub-continent or the Hindu-Kush. The Northern Celts of Ireland and Scotland are thought to have migrated out of the Iberian Pennisula (Spain,Potugal) moving North along the Atlantic Coast of Europe. There is a very good reference to the Indo-European Language in Wikipedia.


Camac.

Posted by: Camac 26-Sep-2008, 09:06 AM
QUOTE (McRoach @ 17-Sep-2008, 02:17 PM)
Wow, everyone sure seems to have a lot of different yet very informative and interesting information on this subject. I haven't done near the research I'm sure that I should have but I came across some info that suggested that in the northern highlands of Scotland there were the Picts named for the tatoos they had across most of their bodies and that they were part of the first group labeled as celts.
After reading all the different backgrounds mentioned in this forum it would appear that any group who peacefully traded and spoke the same language in the time before Rome conquered and spread north could be considered a root of celtic ancestry.

McRoach;

The early encounters between the Romans and Celts did not fair well for Rome. In 390 BCE the Celts humiliated Rome and sacked the City. The Romans of course never forgave them.

Posted by: drjohn 25-Jan-2009, 04:12 PM
to answer your question, might i suggest you first read your Bible, then the Scottish declaration of independence, and then search out some of the excellent books on this subject by E. Raymond Capt. i believe that this will give you a good overall view, the specifics may be rooted out at will.

Posted by: Camac 02-Feb-2009, 02:35 PM
drjohn;

If by saying read the Bible to find the Celtic roots, I believe you are referriing to the myth of the Lost Tribes of Isreal. It is exactly that a Myth, Fable, the Celts are Indo European not Semetic.


Camac.

Posted by: miolchu 08-Apr-2009, 09:22 PM
There is some good information about the bronze and Iron age Celts contained in the responses above and I can't really elaborate much on what has been already posted.

I did want to point out that one cannot compare the the bronze and Iron age peoples that the Greeks referred to as Keltoi and the Romans referred to as Gauli to contemporary peoples living in the areas popularly referred to as the "Celtic Fringe" in the British Isles, especially Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

With the advent of affordable genetic testing some interesting findings have emerged. On the Eastern Atlantic of Portugal, Spain, France and the British Isles a predominant Y chromosome haplotype referred to as R1b is found. It is suggested that these R1b haplotypes are the remainder of peoples populating an Ice age refuge on the Iberian Penninsula and are not found in peoples whose ancestors migrated into Europe bringing with them the Indo European languages (including the Celts).

If this is the case, then many Scots, British, Welsh and Irish are descendants of aboriginal Europeans who at some point adopted Celtic languages and to varying degrees, Celtic culture.

One happy thing about this is the genetic work supports the Irish folklore such as that written about in the Book of Invasions as having some genetic support for the assertion that the Irish came from Spain.

I always knew there was something about Spain other than the fact the Spanish were one of the few Europeans who knew how to prepare beef.

Thomas Mitchell

Posted by: Amergin 01-May-2009, 07:56 PM
Many fascinating replies about the origins of the Celtic people. The simple answer seems to be that the people we know today as Celts (Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, and Bretons) came from areas of western Europe, mostly Gaul, Brittany, and Iberia. They probably came from other places before that, but those people account for most of the culture we identify today as Celtic.

Posted by: Amergin 01-May-2009, 08:06 PM
By the way, for an outstanding overview of the Celtic migration to Ireland, read http://www.amazon.com/Greener-Shore-Novel-Druids-Hibernia/dp/0345477677/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1241229621&sr=1-2.

It's not history, but she really knows her stuff and it's a fascinating read.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)