Read The Origins of the British: The New Prehistory of Britain for Free Online Page A

extension as far as the Rhine. In the north, the Belgae were mostly ‘descended’ from Germani. Arrows show Celtic tribal invasions of Italy (around 600 BC, according to Livy).
     
    These dead but not completely lost languages, for which there is clear archaeological evidence, are ancient Gaulish in Trans-Alpine and Cis-Alpine Gaul, and Celtiberian in east-central Spain. The evidence for Gaulish is extensive and includes bilingual inscriptions of Rosetta Stone quality and inscriptions accompanied by unmistakable depictions. 2 Gaulish inscriptions are found in southern France from the third century BC until the first century AD, initially in Greek script and later, post-Caesar, in Roman script. Some Roman inscriptions are found in central France; the latest of them, from the third century AD , was recently discovered (1997) in Châteaubleau, about 40 km south-east of Paris.

     
    Figure 2.1b
Where was the evidence for celtic language in classical times? Map of Europe and Asia Minor with the percentages of ancient place-names that were celtic shown as contours. The highest frequencies were in Celtica, Britannia and Iberia. Their absence in western Ireland is due to lack of data. Unexpectedly low rates, e.g. in northern Italy and Galatia, are due to the 10% contour cut-off point used for contrast.
     
    Although very similar, the Italian or Cis-Alpine version of Gaulish is usually called Lepontic. Lepontic is not an Italic language, although the earliest inscriptions from northern Italy are dated (controversially) to the sixth century BC and are written in Etruscan script. This early celtic-linguistic date in Italy would clearly be consistent with Livy’s disputed historical claim for early Celtic invasions of northern Italy. 3 Gaulish, lacking its own script, would be unlikely to reveal similarly early dates for inscriptions in France before the Roman invasion.
    For some reason, however, Collis seems particularly unwilling to accept Livy’s early date of 600 BC for an initial Celtic invasion of northern Italy from Gaul. However, if we review Polybius and Livy for the actual origins of the first northern Italian Celts, 4 in spite of their disagreement over the exact date (respectively c.400 BC and c.600 BC ), we find no suggestion that they came across the Alps from any direction other than the west – from Gaul, south of the Seine. Livy in fact gives the names of several Alpine passes, which makes it clear that these early invading Gauls came from Trans-Alpine Gaul (i.e. southern France) rather than from Germany or Austria. 5
    This early date – written in stone – is consistent with trends to move back the age of the celtic-language family using other methods (which I shall discuss further at the end of thischapter and later in the book). Also, the early break-up of celtic languages, combined with Caesar’s language link, is consistent with the inference from Himilco’s
Periplus
that insular Celts could have arrived in the British Isles at least as long ago as the mid-first millennium BC (see Chapter 1 ).
    The quality of these extant records of an ancient Gaulish relative of the insular-celtic languages, and its clear association, in time and place, with the Celtic cultures of south-west Europe, make Pezron’s and Lhuyd’s suggestion of a Celtic link across the Channel less of a false leap of imagination than Simon James and John Collis imply. The critical false step seems to have been the conviction of nineteenth- and twentieth-century archaeologists that the Celtic homeland was in Central Europe. Far from being the nationalist, New Age amateurs that the Celto-sceptics paint them as, those Enlightenment bookworms Pezron and Lhuyd made the most useful theoretical advance in the past three hundred years of Celtic studies.
    The Gaulish records are not the only evidence of celtic languages in south-west Europe, but they are the best, both for textual reference and for inscriptions. 6 Iberia is the other region with the