Who are the descendants of the Celts? Celtic women were moody

Hello, friends!

Welcome to the World of the Celts. My name is Suren Israilyan, I am from Bulgaria and I am the chairman of the Bulgarian Society „ Celtic Heritage”.

The main goal of the Society– introduce our audience to thousand-year-old Celtic customs and holidays. Why not celebrate them with you?

You may not know that on the territory of today's Bulgaria there was a Celtic Kingdom " TILE” in the 3rd century BC. We want to recreate the celebration of the Eight Celtic Holidays, realize the idea, and also popularize Celtic Dishes and Music.

History of the Celts

Celts is probably one of the oldest pan-European civilizations, and Celtic customs and deities had a significant influence on early Christianity.

It is customary to date the appearance of the Celts VIII-VII centuries BC, but there is evidence of their earlier presence in Europe. There is even archaeological evidence of the presence of Celts in what is now France and western Germany around 1200 BC, but most archaeologists believe that the “first Celts” were found during excavations at Hallstatt in Austria.

The Romans called the Celts - " Gauls”, Greeks - „ Keltoi”, but in both languages ​​it is translated as “barbarians”. In the V-III centuries BC. The Celts are invincible, they conquer most of Europe, especially the northern part (above the Alps), and in the 3rd century BC. heading south.

Around 281 BC The Celtic army reaches the lands of today's Bulgaria and establishes the Kingdom, which is called Thiele(Thile), then continue their march to the south and in the lands of today’s Turkey, in Anadol, they found the southernmost Kingdom - Galatia(Galatia). Galatia existed for more than 300 years (according to some sources - even longer), but Thiele clearly interfered with the Thracians and they destroyed this Celtic Kingdom around 218 BC.

The influence and power over the Celts is shown in this 3rd century BC map:

• yellow: Greece and Greek colonies.
• dark green: Hellenistic cultures.
• green: Etruscans.
• Bordeaux: early Roman Empire.

It is believed that the Celts appeared in the British Isles around the 5th-4th centuries BC. At this time, the bulk of the Celts lived on the mainland, but with the rise of Rome and the military campaigns of the Roman legions, the British Isles and the province of Brittany in France remained the safest places. The Romans attacked the islands several times and when England was conquered, the Celtic clans moved to areas "on the periphery" - Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

In these lands, Celtic influence was almost never interrupted, so today most Irish people believe that they have Celtic roots. Many modern inhabitants of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Brittany (France) speak Celtic dialects.

Celtic languages

Celtic languages ​​included to the Indo-European group and are currently used in the territory of the so-called “Six Celtic Nations”.

According to the Celtic League, about 3 million people understand or speak Celtic dialects. These facts clearly prove that Celtic languages ​​and culture are not dead, but are very active factors that are developing, albeit on a regional scale.

Where do the descendants of the Celts live today?

In modern times, people who consider themselves descendants of the Celts live in the following regions:

• Republic of Ireland(Ireland), in Celtic – “Eire”.
• Isle of Man(Isle of Man) is an independent community within Great Britain.
• County of Cornwall(Cornwall), Southern England. In Cornish (Celtic dialect) – Kernow.
• Scotland(Scotland), in Scottish Celtic - Alba.
• Wales(Wales), in Welsh (Celtic dialect) - Cymru.
• Province of Brittany(Brittany), France, in Breton (Celtic dialect) - Breizh.

What did the Celts leave to Europe and the world?

Love for “Mother Nature”

Each of the Eight Celtic Festivals (Imbolg, Ostara, Belten, Lytha, Lunasach, Lamas, Mabon, Sauin and Yule) contains rituals of veneration to “Mother Nature”. At the Belten festival, God Bel is dressed in a tunic with green leaves and is called “Green Jack”.

Even the Celtic horoscope is associated with trees: the zodiac signs are named after different names of trees and change every 10 days.

Equality between men and women

According to Celtic mythology, life is led by "Triple Deity": Girl, Mother and Grandmother, which are symbols Life, Death and Rebirth. For this reason, probably, the Celts observed the first equality of the sexes in Europe.

Celtic contemporaries describe with surprise Celtic female generals, female traders and property owners, even female Druids.

Items made of iron

Plow. When the Celts weren't fighting, they were good farmers, so good that they could have up to 8 oxen in the field at a time. Therefore, they invented a metal plow, which, in combination with a team of oxen, was much more effective.

Sword, chain mail. In Kirkbum (Kirkburn - East Yorkshire) a sword was found that was assembled from 70 different parts (the likely reason is the secret transportation of the sword). The sword and scabbard are assembled from 70 separate parts, which speaks of the high skill of Celtic gunsmiths.

But here is an even more impressive fact - around the 3rd century. BC Celtic masters invented chain mail, which is still known today. Roman contemporaries write that the Empire copied chain mail from the bodies of slain Celts and thus this attribute spread throughout Europe.

Druids

The Druids were the most respected people in Celtic society. They were healers, preachers, judges, scientists and teachers. In certain cases (for example, in case of a sudden enemy attack) they had more rights than even the king. In practice, they linked the Celtic clans into one community. Druidry has excited people at all times, even in the 17th century it was revived as a tradition (Druid Revival). The influence of the Druids on Celtic society was so strong that the Romans, when attacking Celtic settlements, killed the Druid first.

Here is one of the interpretations of the Druid Philosophy - the so-called Seven Talents of Druidry:

• First Talent- a philosophy that asserts that life is a holy gift and emphasizes the role of man in its creation.
• Second Talent- closeness with Nature, synchronization of our lives with the natural cycles of Nature, and from there the development of a sense of community with all living beings.
• Third Talent- Healing through experiences that promote healing and rejuvenation along with mental and physical methods for health and longevity.
• Fourth Talent- the perception of our life as a journey through adolescence, marriage and death in the name of our children.
• Fifth Talent- the discovery of New realities, New consciousness, New World, which will be built on Celtic and Druid images and traditions.
• Sixth Talent- development of our capabilities as a path to self-improvement, disclosure of our creative powers, mental qualities and intuition, development of intellectual and spiritual powers.
• Seventh Talent- Magic that teaches how ideas become reality, how to discover, develop and use the power of the spiritual impulse, which the Druids call Awen (enlightenment, inspiration).

Celtic Holidays - Wheel of the Year

Wheel of the Year is the Celtic concept of the cycle of the seasons of life. All holidays are strongly associated with natural cycles - solstice, equinox, “quarters” (dates midway between the solstice and equinox).

Each of these holidays has its own energy and at the same time is connected with the other, and together they form an eternal cycle of life.

The Celtic Wheel introduces us to the cycles of growth, harvest, rest and renewal. Each cycle is important and cannot exist without the other.

The Celts lived and worked according to these cycles of life so that there would be more “mutual understanding and success.” They believed that if they noted the cycles of the seasons and were guided by them, they could unlock many secrets of life, earth and magic.

Celtic holidays:

The dates of the Celtic holidays are not fixed, because each Celtic community celebrated them, according to various sources, from several days to 2 weeks.

♦ Category: .
of Indo-European origin, in ancient times at the turn of eras they occupied a vast territory in Western and Central Europe.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The appearance of the word “Celtic” in English occurred in the 17th century. The Oxford-based 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 the name stuck. The word "Celtic" is also used to describe the "scroll" style of a variety of jewelry sold in gift shops in Ireland. However, there is no evidence that this design was created by an ethnically homogeneous group of people.

  Story

  The internecine wars that weakened the Celts contributed to the invasion of the Germans from the east and the Romans from the south. The Germans pushed back some of the Celts in the 1st century BC. e. beyond the Rhine. Julius Caesar in 58 BC. e. - 51 BC e. took possession of all of Gaul. Under Augustus, the Romans conquered areas along the upper Danube, northern Spain, Galatia, and under Claudius (mid-1st century AD) a significant part of Britain. The Celts, who wished to remain on the territory of the Roman Empire, underwent strong Romanization.

  Contacts with ancient civilizations

  The Celts were one of the most warlike peoples in Europe. To intimidate the enemy before the battle, the Celts uttered deafening screams and blew war trumpets - carnyxes, the bells of which were made in the form of animal heads.

  The Eastern Celts, settled along the Danube valley, penetrated far to the east in 281 BC. e. to Thrace in northern Greece, the Greeks called them Galatians.

  While settling, the Celts mixed with local tribes: Iberians, Ligurians, Illyrians, Thracians, but some of them managed to maintain their identity for a long time (Lingones, Boii), which was one of the reasons for their small numbers. So, for example, in 58 BC. e., according to Julius Caesar, there were 263,000 Helvetii and only 32,000 Boii [the argument is controversial, because with the Boii around 60 BC. e. the Dacian king Burebista dealt mercilessly]. The Celts of southern France developed in conditions of active interaction with ancient city-states and therefore were distinguished by the highest level of culture. Driven out by the Romans in the 2nd century BC. e. from the north of Italy (from the so-called Cisalpine Gaul), the Celts settled in central and northwestern Bohemia (these were the Boii tribes, from which the territory received the name Boiohaemum - the homeland of the Boii - Bohemia).

  The most numerous tribes of the Celts were the Helvetii, Belgians, and Arverni.

  It should also be noted that the Celtic origin of the Arverni is still in question, and most of the Belgian tribal union had Germanic roots; in any case, most experts consider their tribes as probably having a mixed German-Celtic origin. The Biturigs and Volci were also not native Celtic tribes. However, the very formulation of the question of origin needs clarification, formulating which scientists come to the conclusion that during the migrations of the Bronze and Iron Ages, newcomers (in different historical periods these could be Celts, Germans and others) did not so much displace (or exterminate) the defeated autochthonous population , how many were included with them in the process of mutual assimilation, the consequence of which was the formation of new ethnic groups that retained one of the previous ethnonyms.

  Celtic beliefs

  Irish law

  The original national law, which had been in force in Ireland since ancient times, was abolished by the English government at the beginning of the 17th century and doomed to oblivion, like everything that could remind the Irish of their former national existence. But in 1852, the English government commissioned Irish scientists to find and publish monuments of ancient Irish law.

  It is believed that the legal provisions contained in Great Book of Ancient Law, developed under the influence of the Brehons, approximately in the 1st century AD, and the legal treatises that serve as the basis of the collection and the subject of the later gloss were compiled during the era of the introduction of Christianity in Ireland, that is, in the first half of the 5th century, then for several centuries they were preserved by oral tradition , and were recorded in the 8th century. The oldest manuscript that has come down to us dates back to the 14th century. For the study of the original foundations and evolution of primitive Indo-European law, there is no other source - with the possible exception of the laws of Manu - that would surpass in importance the ancient Irish laws. Senchus-Mor consists of 5 books, of which the first two treat legal proceedings, the last three deal with the upbringing of children, various forms of tenancy, and the relations of different persons among themselves, as well as with the church.

  The book of Aicillus, another source of information on Celtic law, was based on two works, one by King Cormac (circa 250 AD) and the other by Cennfelads, who lived four centuries later; its manuscripts are no older than the 15th century, but the book itself was compiled much earlier, and the institutions described in it date back to remote antiquity.

  In addition to these two main sources, other monuments of ancient Irish literature can serve, especially church texts - the confession of St. Patrick, Collatio canonum hibernica, etc.

  All these monuments find the people in a state of tribal life, the highest manifestation of which was the clan. Along with clan relations, and sometimes in addition to them, a dependence similar to the vassal relations of the feudal system was established through the lease of land. The basis of the lease, which, however, could be free, that is, not to establish a dependent relationship between the tenant and the owner, was actually the giving for use not of land, but of livestock (the so-called shetel, cheptel, from the Celtic chatal or chetal - livestock) .

  The owner by name was in fact only the manager of the common family estate, burdened with duties for the benefit of the family. Marriage was concluded through the purchase of wives and, before the introduction of Christianity, apparently could be performed for one year. The ransom for the daughter went in favor of the father, but in subsequent marriages a certain part of it, which gradually increased with each new marriage (the law provides for 21 marriages), was turned in favor of the daughter. When a brother replaced a father, he received half of what the father was due. When the spouses were equal both in social status and in the contributions they made to compile a common property fund, then the wife enjoyed the same rights as her husband and one could not enter into transactions without the other; in the case of an unequal marriage, priority in household affairs belongs to the spouse who made the contribution. Along with these cases, Senkhus-Mor provides for 7 more forms of marriage relations, reminiscent of irregular marriages, which are mentioned in the laws of Manu. When spouses separate, each takes their entire contribution, while acquired property is distributed between them on the basis of special rules that provide for the smallest details.

  There was a very complex system of kinship relations, which was applied not only to the distribution of inherited property, but also to the distribution of monetary fines that took the place of blood feud: relatives were called upon to pay and receive these fines in the same manner as to inheritance. The reward for killing a free person (the price of blood, eric) was determined at 7 slaves (a slave was a common unit of value among the Celts) or 21 milk cows. In addition, there was also a price for honor (enechlann), the size of which depended on the wealth and social position of the victim. It was up to the relatives of the criminal to either pay for him, or abandon him and doom him to exile. Accidental killing did not exempt from payment of reward; murder by secret or ambush carried a double fine. There was a tariff of fines for injuries and beatings. The amount of remuneration for losses was in direct relation to the rank of the victim and inversely to the rank of the one who caused the harm. The initial stage of the process was the arrest, which was imposed by the plaintiff on the property (livestock) of the defendant and at the same time served as security for the claim. If the defendant did not have any property, then he was subjected to personal detention and taken to the plaintiff with shackles on his legs and a chain around his neck; the plaintiff was obliged to give him only a cup of meat broth a day. If the plaintiff and defendant belonged to different tribes and the seizure of the latter’s property was inconvenient, then the plaintiff could detain any person from the defendant’s tribe. The hostage paid for his fellow tribesman and had the right to claim back against him. If, by seizing property, it was impossible to induce the defendant to appear in court, then the case ended in a duel, the conditions of which were established by custom and which, in any case, took place in front of witnesses.

  The court belonged to the head of the clan or the people's assembly, but in general it had an arbitration character. When making a decision, he was guided by the opinion Bregon(actually brithem, then brehon - judge), who in the pagan era belonged to the number fillet(filé - clairvoyant, prophet) - to the class of priests who directly followed the Druids; in the Middle Ages they became a hereditary corporation. Bregons are the broadcasters of law, the custodians of formulas and rather complex rituals of the process, characterized by the formalism usual in antiquity; in their conclusions they do not create law, but only reveal and formulate those legal norms that lie in the legal consciousness of the people. The Bregons were also poets and were at the head of schools in which law was studied through oral transmission, along with the rules of poetic creativity. In the pagan era, the Bregons’ belonging to the number of priests imparted their religious authority to the conclusions, especially since the fillet was attributed with supernatural power, the ability to bring all sorts of troubles to the rebellious. At that time, at the head of the Phile class was the so-called ollaw, corresponding in position to the chief druid of the Gauls. And after the introduction of Christianity, the conclusions of the Bregons did not lose their mystical connotations: various magical actions of Oregon were performed at the trial, which were supposed to cause supernatural revelations. Then the evidence was a judicial duel, an oath, ordeals, and the support of fellow jurors.

  Celtic names in modern Europe

  • Amiens - on behalf of the Gallic Ambian tribe;
  • Belgium - on behalf of the Belgian tribe;
  • Belfast - in Celtic “bel fersde” - “ford of the sandbank”;
  • Bohemia (obsolete name of the historical region of the Czech Republic) - on behalf of the Boj tribe;
  • Brittany (region in France) - named after the Briton tribe;
  • Britain too;
  • Burj - on behalf of the Biturigian tribe;
  • Galatia (historical region in the territory of modern Turkey) - from the Greek name of the Celts “Galatians”;
  • Galicia (province in Spain);
  • Galicia (historical region on the territory of Ukraine);
  • Gaul - (historical region on the territory of modern France, Belgium, parts of Switzerland, Germany and Northern Italy);
  • Dublin - Irish for “black lake”;
  • Quimper - Breton for “confluence of rivers”;
  • Cambrian mountains - from the ancient self-name of the Welsh “Cymry”;
  • Langres - from the name of the Gaulish tribe Lingones;
  • Lyon - “Fortress of Lug”, from the ancient name “Lugdunum” (Lug - Gallic god of the Sun, Gallic “dun” - fortress, hill);
  • Nantes - on behalf of the Namnet tribe;
  • Auvergne - on behalf of the Arverni tribe;
  • Paris - from the name of the Celtic tribe of Parisians;
  • Périgord is a historical region in France;
  • Poitiers - from the name of the Picton (Pictavi) tribe;
  • Seine (river in France), from Gaulish Sequana;
  • Tur - on behalf of the Turon tribe;
  • Troyes - on behalf of the Tricasse tribe.

  Modern Celtic peoples

  • Irish (self-name - Irish. Muintir na hÉireann or Irish. na hÉireannaigh, singular - Éireannach, name of the language - An Ghaeilge, name of the state - Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland))
  • Welsh (self-name - Welsh. Cymry, singular - Cymro, name of the language - Cymraeg, name of the country - Cymru, name of the administrative-territorial entity - Tywysogaeth Cymru (Principality of Wales))
  • Scots (self-name - Gaelic. Albannaich, name of the language - Gàidhlig, name of the country - Alba, name of the administrative-territorial entity - Rìoghachd na h-Alba (Kingdom of Scotland))
  • Bretons (self-name - Bret. Brezhoned, name of the language - Brezhoneg, name of the province - Breizh)
  • Kornsy (self-name - Kernowyon, language name - Kernowek, county name - Kernow (

  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 in general the ancient population of 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 purpose of 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 entered the 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 Plutarch's English translation of this story 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 indicated, technically these could be different concepts, such as 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 Romanorum 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 is a 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 time for the last to reach 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 research, 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 the Greek name for 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 the finds, including arrowheads, spears, round stone structures attributed to the Celts, all date back to the 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. In fact, the same general 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 field culture (1300-750 BC), namely the burial of the remains of corpses of corpses 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 “ the movements of Iranian nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians) in the south of Eastern Europe caused a kind of new mound 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 , Middle East, northern China), but no less (perhaps more) radically transformed the west, acting as 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?

  Vinko Klaric says:

  • • • Konstantin Anisimov says:

        • I. Rozhansky says:

          Arsens says:

          I. Rozhansky says:

  Celts- one of the most famous and mysterious ancient peoples. There was a time when the sphere of their military activity covered most of Europe, but by the beginning of the new era, only a tiny part of this people in the very north-west of the continent retained independence. During the period of maximum power ancient celts their speech sounded from Spain and Brittany in the west to Asia Minor in the east, from Britain in the north to Italy in the south. Celtic culture belongs to the basic foundations of a number of cultures of modern Western and Central Europe. Some of the Celtic peoples still exist today. The peculiar art of the Celts still amazes both professional art historians and a wide range of connoisseurs, and the religion that embodied their subtle and complex worldview remains a mystery. Even after the unified Celtic civilization left the historical scene, its heritage in various forms experienced a revival more than once.

  These people were called Celts, the Romans called them Gauls(roosters), but what they called themselves, and whether they had a single name, is unknown. The ancient Greek and Latin (Roman) authors probably wrote more about the Celts than about other peoples of Europe, which is quite consistent with the importance of these northern neighbors in the life of ancient civilization.

  Map. Celts in Europe in the 1st millennium BC.

  

  The entry of the Celts into the historical arena

  First news about the ancient Celts found in written sources around 500 BC. e. It says that these people had several cities and were warlike neighbors of the Ligurians, a tribe that lived near the Greek colony of Massalia (now the French city of Marseille).

  In the work of the “father of history” Herodotus, completed no later than 431 or 425 BC. e., it was reported that the Celts inhabited the upper reaches of the Danube (and, according to the Greeks, the source of this river is in the Pyrenees Mountains), their proximity to the Kinetes, the westernmost people of Europe, was mentioned.

  Around 400 BC e. the tribes of this people invaded Northern Italy and occupied it, subjugating the Etruscans, Ligurians, and Umbrians who lived here. Around 396 BC e. The Celtic and Subrians founded the city of Mediolan (now Italian Milan). In 387 BC. e. The Celtic people, led by Brenn, defeated the Roman army at Alia, and then. True, the city Kremlin (Capitol) was never captured. The origin of the Roman saying “ Geese saved Rome" According to legend, the Celts marched at night to storm the Capitol. The Roman guards were asleep. But the invaders were noticed by geese from the temple of the goddess Vesta. They made a noise and woke up the guards. The attack was repulsed, and Rome was saved from capture.

  

  In those years, Celtic raids reached the south of Italy until they were stopped by Rome, which sought hegemony in Italy and relied on a reformed army. Having encountered such resistance, some groups in 358 BC. e. moved to Illyria (northwest of the Balkan Peninsula), where their movement encountered counter pressure from the Macedonians. And already in 335 BC. e. Celtic ambassadors entered into negotiations with Alexander the Great. Probably, the concluded agreement on the division of spheres of influence allowed the Macedonians and Greeks to go to 334 BC. e. to conquer Persia, without fear for his rear, and gave the Celts the opportunity to establish themselves in the Middle Danube.

  From 299 BC e. The military activity of the Celts in Italy resumed; they managed to defeat the Romans at Clusium and annex a number of tribes dissatisfied with Rome. However, just four years later, in 295 BC. e., the Romans took revenge, uniting and subjugating a significant part of Italy. In 283 BC. e. they occupied the lands of the Senone Celts, cutting off access to the Adriatic Sea for their other tribesmen. In 280 BC. e. inflicted a crushing defeat on the Northern Italian Celts and their allies on Lake Vadimon.

  Then it intensified military expansion of the Celts in southeastern Europe. Perhaps it was the outflow of forces in this direction that weakened their onslaught in Italy. By 298 BC. e. includes information about their penetration into the territory of modern Bulgaria, although unsuccessful. In 281 BC. e. Numerous Celtic troops flooded a number of regions of the Balkan Peninsula, and on the 20th, a thousand-strong army of Celts-Galates was hired by Nicomedes I, king of Bithynia (in the territory of modern Turkey), for a war in Asia Minor. A huge Celtic army led by Brennus in 279 BC. e. , plundering, among other things, the sanctuary at Delphi, especially revered by the Greeks. And although the barbarians were driven out of Greece and Macedonia, they remained the dominant force in the more northern regions of the Balkans, establishing several kingdoms there. In 278 BC. e. Nicomedes I again invited the Galatians to Asia Minor, where they strengthened themselves, establishing in 270 BC. e. in the area of ​​modern Ankara, a federation governed by 12 leaders. The Federation did not last long: after the defeats of 240-230. BC e. she has lost her independence. These same or some other Galatians in the second half of the 3rd or early 2nd century. BC e. appear among the tribes that threatened Olbia on the northern shore of the Black Sea.

  In 232 BC. e. again conflict broke out and the Celts in Italy, and in 225 BC. e. The local Gauls and their relatives summoned from beyond the Alps were brutally defeated. At the site of the battle, the Romans built a memorial temple, where many years later they thanked the gods for the victory. This defeat marked the beginning of the decline of the military power of the Celts. Carthaginian commander Hannibal, moving in 218 BC. e. from Africa through Spain, the south of France and the Alps to Rome, he counted on an alliance with the Celts in Italy, but the latter, weakened by previous defeats, were unable to help him to the extent he had hoped. In 212 BC. e. uprisings of the local population put an end to Celtic rule in the Balkans.

  Having ended the war with Carthage, the Celtic people. In 196 BC. e. defeated the Insubrians in 192 BC. e. - Boii, and their center Bononia (modern Bologna) was destroyed. The remnants of the Boii went north and settled on the territory of what is now the Czech Republic (from them came the name of one of the regions of the Czech Republic - Bohemia). By 190 BC. e. All lands south of the Alps were captured by the Romans, later (82 BC) establishing the province of Cisalpine Gaul here. In 181 BC. e. Not far from modern Venice, Roman colonists founded Aquileia, which became a stronghold for the expansion of Roman influence in the Danube region. During another war by 146 BC. e. The Romans took possessions in Iberia (present-day Spain) from the Carthaginians, and by 133 BC. e. finally subjugated the Celto-Iberian tribes living there, taking their last stronghold - Numatia. In 121 BC. e. under the pretext of protecting Massalia from the attacks of its neighbors, Rome occupied the south of modern France, conquering the local Celts and Ligurians, and in 118. BC e. the province of Narbonese Gaul was created there.

  At the end of the 2nd century. BC e. Roman historians wrote about the onslaught on the Celts from their northeastern neighbors - the Germans. Shortly before 113 BC e. The Boii repelled the attack of the German tribe of the Cimbri. But they moved south, united with the Teutons (who were probably Celts), defeated a number of Celtic tribes and Roman armies, but in 101 BC. e. The Cimbri were almost completely destroyed by the Roman commander Marius. Later, other Germanic tribes nevertheless pushed the Boii out of the Czech Republic into the Danube regions.

  By 85 BC. e. The Romans broke the resistance of the Scordisci living at the mouth of the Sava, the last stronghold of the Celts in the northern Balkans. Around 60 BC e. The Teurisci and Boii were almost destroyed by the Dacians under the leadership of Burebista, which is probably part of the events associated with the expansion of the Thracian tribes, which crushed Celtic dominance in the territory east and north of the Middle Danube.

  

  Shortly before 59 BC. e., taking advantage of civil strife in Gaul, the Suevi and some other Germanic tribes led by Ariovistus captured part of the territory of the Sequani, one of the strongest Celtic tribes. This was the reason for the Romans to intervene. In 58 BC. e. Julius Caesar, then proconsul of Illyria, Cisalpine and Narbonese Gaul, defeated the union of Ariovistus, and soon basically took control of the rest of the “shaggy” Gaul. In response, the ancient Celts rebelled (54 BC), but in 52 BC. e. Alesia, the base of the most active leader of the rebels, Vercingetorix, fell, and by 51 BC. e. Caesar finally suppressed the Celtic resistance.

  During a series of campaigns from 35 to 9 BC. e. The Romans established themselves on the right bank of the Middle Danube, conquering the Celtic and other local tribes. Later the province of Pannonia arose here. In 25 BC. e. Galatia in Asia Minor submitted to Rome, having lost the remnants of independence, but the descendants of the Celts continued to live on these lands, preserving their language for several more centuries. In 16 BC. e. The “kingdom of Noricum”, which united their possessions in the Upper Danube, became part of the Roman state in 16 AD. e. The Roman provinces of Noricum and Raetia were formed here.

  Following the waves of Celtic settlers, the Romans came to Britain. Julius Caesar visited there in 55 and 54. BC e. By 43 AD e., under Emperor Caligula, the Romans, having suppressed the stubborn resistance of the Celts, captured southern Britain, and by 80, during the reign of Agricola, the border of Roman possessions on these islands was formed.

  Thus, in the 1st century. The Celts remained free only in Ireland.

  The Celts are a people formed from tribes that have lived in Western Europe since time immemorial. They were descendants of a once united prehistoric people, which is commonly called Indo-European. From this single ancient race subsequently came the Slavs, Germans, Persians, Latins, Goths (an extinct people) and even Indians. And just as Russians, Serbs and Belarusians, for example, are descendants of the Slavs, so are modern Scots, as well as The inhabitants of Wales - the Welsh, Bretons and Irish - have common ancestors - the Celts.

  Five thousand years ago, a single, genetically homogeneous people, the Indo-Europeans, lived on the territory of the modern Krasnodar Territory of Russia.
  At the beginning of the Bronze Age, these people managed to unravel the mystery of not only the creation of bronze weapons, but also domesticate the horse and invent the wheel. This led to a revolutionary breakthrough. Armed fast cavalry, convoys with provisions, the latest weapons, such were the Indo-Europeans. They began expansion, captured new territories in Europe and Asia, and subsequently became one of the most widespread groups of peoples on earth.

  The Indo-Europeans of Western Europe formed a new community, the CELTS.
  The center of the Celtic world was in the Alps, which is why the Celtic language group is also called Alpine.

  The largest Celtic people are the Gauls. Even during the times of the Roman Empire, it was heavily influenced by Latin, practically losing its language. Then the Celtic kingdoms were attacked by the Germans; the Frankish tribe invaded from the north into the territory of modern France.
  Things were different in Britain. Due to their remoteness, the Celts of Britain escaped enslavement by Rome and retained their language and culture. Three thousand years ago, the Celts developed the religious cult of the Druids. Huge stones placed vertically served the Druids as altars, as at Stonehenge. The Druid class had sacred sanctity and the Druids ruled Celtic society.

  In Great Britain, the Celts appeared at the dawn of the Iron Age, approximately 600 years before Christ. They were disparate groups that did not recognize themselves as a single people.
  Historical information about the Celts was first documented by the Romans, who invaded Albion two thousand years ago. They portray the Celts as dense barbarians, while the Romans naturally positioned themselves as an enlightened people. One can hardly trust such information, because the Celts were their enemies. The Celts were excellent warriors, living by robberies and raids; they were at enmity with the Romans and among themselves. The Celts did not have a single political center, simply put, they did not have kings, and each group of Celts obeyed only the leader of the clan.
  These people created some of the greatest monuments of the ancient world, three thousand years before the advent of Rome, they built their stone fortifications, massive tombs and built the most famous ancient monument in Europe - Stonehenge. . The pagan tribes of the Celts did not have a written language, so we are left with few clues as to how they built these incredible structures, but five thousand years later, evidence of their art still stands on the ground.