This article discusses a problem in integrating archaeology and philology. For most of the twentieth century, archaeologists associated the spread of the Celtic languages with the supposed westward spread of the ‘eastern Hallstatt culture’ in the first millenniumbc. More recently, some have discarded ‘Celtic from the East’ in favour of ‘Celtic from the West’, according to which Celtic was a much olderlingua francawhich evolved from a hypothetical Neolithic Proto-Indo-European language in the Atlantic zone and then spread eastwards in the third millenniumbc. This article (1) criticizes the assumptions and misinterpretations of classical texts and onomastics that led to ‘Celtic from the East’ in the first place; (2) notes the unreliability of the linguistic evidence for ‘Celtic from the West’, namely (i) ‘glottochronology’ (which assumes that languages change at a steady rate), (ii) misunderstood place-name distribution maps and (iii) the undeciphered inscriptions in southwest Iberia; and (3) proposes that Celtic radiating from France during the first millenniumbcwould be a more economical explanation of the known facts.

中文翻译：

---

替代“来自东方的凯尔特人”和“来自西方的凯尔特人”

本文讨论了考古学和语言学相结合的一个问题。在 20 世纪的大部分时间里，考古学家将凯尔特语的传播与第一个千年中所谓的“东部哈尔施塔特文化”向西传播联系起来公元前. 最近，有些人放弃了“来自东方的凯尔特人”，转而使用“来自西方的凯尔特人”，根据这种说法，凯尔特人的年龄要大得多通用语它从一种假设的新石器时代原始印欧语在大西洋地区演变而来，然后在第三个千年向东传播公元前. 这篇文章 (1) 批评了最初导致“来自东方的凯尔特人”的经典文本和名词术语的假设和误解；(2) 注意到“来自西方的凯尔特人”的语言证据的不可靠性，即 (i) “声门年代学”（假设语言以稳定的速度变化），(ii) 被误解的地名分布图和 (iii)伊比利亚西南部未破译的铭文；(3) 提出凯尔特人在第一个千年从法国辐射公元前将是对已知事实的更经济的解释。