Celtic admixture peaks in Arpitans and nearby people. People popularly known as Celts like the Irish and Scots have little Celtic blood. Why is this? Who do Irishmen and Scots descend from then?

Insular Celts are mostly native British IEs from Bell Beaker migrations, they do have a not insignificant amount of Celtic admixture though.

>>17749810
and continental Celts? were they really similar to modern-day Spaniards or is that faulty projection?

>>17749805 (OP)
the celtics race is a the reddits race lol

>>17749805 (OP)
From bell beakers aka cousins of ancestors of Celts who migrated to Britain before they mixed enough with ANF to became Celts. But their language was probably similar to Italo-Celtic.

>>17749818
so bell beaker=celtic and islanders are just more pure than continentals?

>>17749812
A lot of them were. They have no one singular profile, they range from English-like in the north to Spanish/North Italian-like in southern areas. They mixed a lot with other Beakers.

>>17749824
>so bell beaker=celtic
I think they speak kinda proto-italo-celtic.
>and islanders are just more pure than continentals?
They are more pure indoeuropeans (yamnaya). But historical continental Celts were heavily ANF since their formation.

>>17749805 (OP)
Insular Celts ≠ Continental Celts

>>17749805 (OP)
It's very simple...
Bell beakers weren't "celts", since they were the source for much of peoples throughout bronze age, even the germanics. The "celts", as cultural and linguistic group, only appears in the Iron Age. And yes, the celts (hallstatt) were Spaniards

>>17749863
>>17749824
>>17749812
the latest study on the languages left open the question of whether the Irish are really Celtic and whether there was a continental Celtic influx into the place. and it makes no sense that they are, since their high WSH does not correlate with the supposed "Celtic" genetic profile, which has something to do with Barcin. the Irish are probably pre-Celtic anyway. their language to this day leaves linguists confused as to where it could fit in

>>17749810
Wrong. They're bell beakers

>>17749902
Yes, that's what I said

>>17749889
Irish is demonstrably descended from Proto-Celtic, that is not something in dispute. The exact structure of the Celtic language family is debated, but not which languages belong to it.

>>17749889
Celtis sisters? The Celtz wuz just southern meds??

>>17749880
who are insular celts most similar to?

>>17749923
Germanics.

>>17749923
French and Spaniards
>>17749914
You have two choices
Either Celtic is a culture that includes Ireland, Britain and Brittany, or it is an archaeogenetic culture that includes many continental countries, (which you would have a hard time explaining)
possibly as far as Turkey, but excludes Ireland and Britain. It can't be both, because the Celtic cultures of today are basically 100% ethnically pre-Celtic. Until some genetic study is published showing an Iron Age migration into Ireland that could have brought Celtic and is related to a similar migration into Iberia, I am open to accepting it... but the latest study says nothing.
we should reformulate the Italo-Celtic language family. It would be ironic if Gaelic really was indigenous to Ireland since the time of Bell Beaker, but it only resembles Brythonic because Gaelic is actually 'para-Celtic' and not truly Celtic. The identification error would be due to coincidental similarities that may occur within a broader Italo-Celtic context.

>>17749805 (OP)
Celts were matriarchal
In his writings, Julius Caesar mentions the existence of a form of marriage contract among the Gauls. Women had the same rights as men, with an equitable division of property.

Provisions regulated the relationships between spouses and inheritance issues. Genetics proves the same, and what's more, the "Celtic" cities were poorly made copies of the Greco-Roman ones. And they were so dirty that they left poor bodies on the walls to look like "tough guys." An attitude that we only see in the extreme south of Algeria or south of the Rio Grande with the cartels.

>>17749981
So where the scythians and sarmartians

>>17749981
>poor bodies on the walls to look like "tough guys.
You didn't see anything
These bodies usually stayed there and turned into bones... can you imagine the smell of carrion in the air? These matriarchs prove that you can be a little motherfucker and obey your wives while being as frantic as the Mexicans from Sinaloa
Thank you, Romans, for taking the Celtic plague out of the world

>>17749981
>>17749997
Ironically, the most Celtic places were where feminism was strong and where we had prominent and powerful fig trees, leading and saving men because it's genetic
I went to France and England 6 times when I worked at Madrinha Mercante, and it was always women who were at the forefront of negotiations

>>17750016
Feminism is a Celtic creation

>>17749996
That's why we should be eternally grateful to Romans and Greeks. If not for them, I don't know if patriarchy would exist.
Prostitution would be illegal, but women would be able to be sluts.
I don't know why people started liking celts.
It's good that their culture was erased. germanic + med europe >>>>
Unfortunately it seems celtic spirit is rising again within the west, and that's why western nations are being humiliated like this.

>>17749805 (OP)
“Celtic” can mean a language group, a material culture, a genetic cluster, a modern identity, or a specific group of tribes from Gaul (Celtica). People use it interchangably for some or all of these things sometimes simultaneously without clarifying.

Ex. Insular Celts being mostly Bell Beaker-descended and not from the group north of the alps where Celtic language and material culture developed. It might have been an elite replacement, cultural diffusion, or some combination.

>>17750082
>If not for them, I don't know if patriarchy would exist
Patriarchy is Mediterranean concept
>I don't know why people started liking celts.
Purely aesthetics

>>17750029
>Feminism is a Celtic creation

>>17750180
He is correct

There are several definitions of "Celtic":
• a language family
• an archaeological culture
• a genetic grouping

First and foremost, Insular Celts are Celtic linguistically. Here, "Celtic" is an abstract linguistic concept centered around an unattested language called Proto-Celtic, and languages are labeled Celtic by their presumed descent from this abstract entity that is reconstructed by merging attested languages into a series of regular sound changes among other things.

A Proto language can be created through any two or more languages that have enough similarity, but their period of ultimate unification can be surprisingly deceptive, and gaps in the data can thwart out ability to pinpoint a homeland, or urheimat, in time and space.

For example, if within the IE language family, the Anatolian data were missing, there would be no awareness of a pre-Yamnaya IE culture nor a CLV cline genetic group. Another scenario worth considering would be if we only had data for Italic and Germanic or Celtic and Indo-Iranian. What would Proto-Indo-European look like then? If only Germanic and Italic, or perhaps Italic and Greek, our attempts at inferring the ultimate urheimat would be nonsense. Likewise combining Celtic and Indo-Iranian would give us a Proto language for sure, but it wouldn't resemble the clarity of reconstruction we take for granted in what is known about PIE today.

The point is that languages can be combined *as if* they are directly related even when there are several degrees of indirection. Linguistics are right when they say languages are ultimately related but there is easily a great deal of vagueness in determining the most recent branch they necessarily have in common. The reason PIE is so well understood is because of the variety of attestations across vast distances in time and space.

1/2

>>17750210
With that in mind consider this attempt at dating Proto-Celtic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages#Continental/Insular_Celtic_and_P/Q-Celtic_hypotheses
>A controversial paper by Forster & Toth[65] included Gaulish and put the break-up much earlier at 3200 BC ± 1500 years. They support the Insular Celtic hypothesis. The early Celts were commonly associated with the archaeological Urnfield culture, the Hallstatt culture, and the La Tène culture,

2/2

>>17750210
Your point is?

>>17750213
The central issue regarding why there is vagueness and uncertainty has to do with what I would call "linguistic dark ages". We can reconstruct English through a few stages, such as contemporary, middle, and old English, but there is no such luxury for languages without written records.

A Proto language for a series of attested languages 1, 2, ... n gives us the original language held in common between these descendants at the latest stage before their breakup. This stage reflects various sound changes before the attested period that can be reversed and unified into a coherent proto language.

We have Proto-Germanic, but between Proto-Germanic and PIE there are no identifiable discreet stages that can be reconstructed with the comparative method (because there's nothing to compare with). The continuum between PGmc and PIE is called Pre-Germanic. All that is known about Pre-Gmc is sound change x is followed by sound change y, but there are no discreet language stages reconstructible. If we put PGmc at 500BC - 200AD and PIE at 4500-2500BC, then the Pre-Gmc dark ages must have been a long time.

Similarly, the dark ages of Pre-Celtic are vast. They are only illuminated a little by the Proto-Italo-Celtic stage.

>>17750265
So here is a question relevant to the proceeding walls of text, what stops us logically from reconstructing a language like "Common Celtic" or "Continental Celtic" that combined Brythonic and Gaulish and has a lot to do with Hallstatt and La Tène and another language called "Archaic Celtic" that compares Common Celtic with Goidelic and Celtiberian?

>>17750185
All you philosemites are severely mentally ill. You aren't convincing anyone. In fact, you are making us hate you even more.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.29487199
there's a couple of good chapters here on the topic of Celtic language in the bronze-iron age transition
>11 Cross-disciplinary considerations: ‘hedge’, ‘hull’, ‘fool’, and the triumph of linguistic palaeontology (pp. 191-202)
>12 Convergence in situ: the formation of the Indo European branches and the Bronze–Iron transition (pp. 203-220)
both by John Koch

>>17750483
>Copyright Date: 2025
What seriously?? How come I haven't heard of this?

This paper even lists John Koch as an advisor, so I'm hopeful he has some commentary about recent genetic findings.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.640770v1

Celt and Celtic are completely artificial modern constructs and never actually existed eg There is no such thing as "Celts"
>>17749889
Irish is literally stolen from Wales and the Romans and is form of pigeon latin and Briton. Even Germanic and Greek in there probably.
Its basically just an incredibly mangled British dialect.

>>17749981
This just makes me want a celtic warrior gf though??? If these descriptors were true you know these bitches could FUCK.
L for Roman cucks.

>>17749805 (OP)
It can’t be a coincidence that Celtic admixture coincides almost 1:1 with HDI.

>Celtic DNA peaks in Switzerland
>Switzerland has the highest HDI in the world
>Southern Germany has a higher HDI than Northern Germany
>North Italy higher than Southern Italy
>Northern Spain higher than Southern Spain
>Southern France higher than Northern France

>>17752687
doesn't explain scandinavia, northern spain having a higher HDI than most of france, the british isles also having a higher HDI than most of france etc

>>17752695
Continental Celtic DNA seems to increase HDI. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only possible source to increase it.
The Nordics, Japan, etc. can have a high HDI without significant admixture.
Essentially, higher continental celtic admixture correlates with higher HDI, but high HDI doesn’t require continental celtic admixture.

John Koch has some interesting ideas. Geneticists and linguists are having to reconcile with the fact that LBA-EIA southern Britain shows signs of a migration that can be correlated with the introduction of Brythonic but Scotland and Ireland have no such genetic shift around the same time period. Koch proposes that the further back in time and closer to PIE we get, the more likely that large culturally IE regions spoke varying degrees of mutually intelligible dialects, and sound changes were able to be shared across large distances and to opposite coastlines which can give us the illusion of things like a Proto-Celtic language and urheimat.

In short, the idea is that throughout the Bronze Age, the British isles stayed in contact with the continent. Rather than there being a sudden introduction of Celtic by an invasion in the Iron Age, the speech of British Bell Beakers was continually updated by continental dialects that were mutually intelligible until the Iron Age. This concept is called Convergence in Situ (CIS). The primary tool of historical linguistics is the comparative method, and it is blind to the effects of CIS—that is, when two languages decide to adopt the same feature without having inherited that feature from a shared parent language. Some changes happen independently. Others are shared with neighboring language regions.

So one idea is that Goidelic developed in situ on the British Isles, but it resembles other Celtic languages, not because Goidelic descends from Proto-Celtic at Hallstatt, but rather because the Isles stayed in continual contact with a mutually intelligible post-PIE language of the continent. An idea such as this has explanatory power when we are dealing with a limited number of migrations according to genetics.

>>17753110
If it is true that there was no sudden introduction of Goidelic to the Isles, then there was no Proto-Celtic language, only a chain of languages on continuums of mutual intelligibility. How would this change the approach of historical linguistics?

For one, there would be no effect on PIE since ironically, PIE is better understood in some ways than the descendant proto languages. Instead of a hierarchical Celtic family descending from a common Proto-Celtic, one might reconstruct multiple proto languages including the same language family. For Goidelic, let's assume the nearest continental neighbor was some form of Brythonic. Then we should reconstruct Proto-Goidelic-Brythonic in order to imagine the minimal mutually intelligible lingua franca. Next consider Brythonic's closest neighbor Gaulish and then proceed to reconstruct Proto-Brythonic-Gaulish. Next, something like Proto-Gaulish-Celtiberian. The immediate ancestor of all these languages was either PIE or something like Proto-Italo-Celtic with no more middlemen in between, but they evolved in tandem to create the illusion of Proto-Celtic.

A language chain—not a language hierarchy.

>>17749889
"the latest study"
post it you mong. Irish is 100% a Celtic language, the only thing that histlinguistics are confused with is the exact configuration of the Celtic language family. Q & P Celtic branches have fallen out of favour except where the theory remains in popular culture and most people think in terms of Continental & Insular branches, or a Gallo-Brittonic vs Goidelic vs Celtiberian branches. Gaulish maps on almost perfectly to reconstructed proto Celtic and early stages of Irish are likewise predictably similar, but Celtiberian is high aberrant

>>17753110
>So one idea is that Goidelic developed in situ on the British Isles, but it resembles other Celtic languages, not because Goidelic descends from Proto-Celtic at Hallstatt, but rather because the Isles stayed in continual contact with a mutually intelligible post-PIE language of the continent. An idea such as this has explanatory power when we are dealing with a limited number of migrations according to genetics.
Peter Schrijver theorizes that Goidelic originates in Britain around the 1st-2nd century BC from an unattested Celtic British language which migrated to Ireland in flight from the Roman conquest of Britain. This coincides sociologically with the incredibly rapid social/political transformation of Ireland in the same time frame from society based around cult affiliation and ritual kingship to a much more hierarchical, militarized society ruled by a warrior aristocracy who organized commoners into clans to provide subsistence. There was probably a pre-Goidelic Celtic language as well as pre-IE languages in Ireland when this proto-Goidelic arrived.

>>17753752
Read chapter 12 written by Koch:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.29487199

The latest study on Celtic languages failed to directly address Ireland for whatever reason, but there's already speculation that it needs to be handled with a better linguistic model rather than expecting to find a mass migration which introduced Goidelic long after the Bell Beakers colonized the Isles.

There's basically two migrations which are currently under consideration:
• the Bronze Age when the Bell Beakers came
• the Iron Age when Brythonic came to Southern England

No major genetic changes occurred in Scotland and Ireland due to this Iron Age migration. So if we're stuck in a hierarchical family tree paradigm, the distribution of the Celtic languages won't make much sense. Koch uses the concept of Convergence in Situ (CIS) in order to explain the spread of language features without always needing to invoke a recent common ancestor language as the source of the shared features.

>>17753781
>Peter Schrijver theorizes that Goidelic originates in Britain around the 1st-2nd century BC from an unattested Celtic British language which migrated to Ireland in flight from the Roman conquest of Britain.
That's all well and good but what does genetics say?
The linguists who don't take a back seat behind the geneticists are going to have a bad time. They aren't running the show anymore. Koch is showing adaptability to the new empirical understanding of migrations that genetics provides.

>>17753781
yeah its quite obviously welsh, even the root of Goidelic is Welsh

>>17749981
Apparently the Gauls also kept the heads of the enemies they slaughtered in battle in a chest INSIDE their homes. Especially if that enemy was high-ranking and they would open the chest and show them to visitors with pride, imagine the smell

>>17751147
>Irish is literally stolen from Wales and the Romans and is form of pigeon latin and Briton. Even Germanic and Greek in there probably.
>Its basically just an incredibly mangled British dialect.

This is just nonsense

>>17749805 (OP)
post model or the pic is bullshit

>invader admixture is less present in mountainous, inhospitable terrain
really sparks my engine...

>>17754943
No, its factually and historically correct and verifiable.