World Families Forums - British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 26, 2014, 04:03:13 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?  (Read 3955 times)
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2011, 11:53:44 AM »

Here's a paragraph form what Tacitus says about thre Britons.

Forming a general judgment, however, it is credible that the Gauls seized the neighbouring island. One sees here their sacred rites and their religious beliefs; even the speech does not differ much; there is the same boldness in seeking dangers, and the same shrinking from meeting them when they are present. The Britons show more savageness, as those not yet civilized by a long-continued peace. We have been given to understand that the Gauls, too, were formerly conspicuous for their fighting; sluggishness, however, entered with ease, and bravery was lost together with liberty. The same thing has happened to those of the Britons who were formerly conquered, while the rest remain as the Gauls were.

Seems pretty clear to me.Just out of curiousity who are the archaeologist/historians who are pushing this idea?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 09:34:50 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2011, 12:08:49 PM »

Its taken me a while to see the value in the Atlantic model of the emergence of the Celtic language.  The old central European model was still very much in the ascendancy when I was studying.  The first Koch (or Koch-type) article I recall was about 20 years ago and I know at that time a lot of famous archaeologists were not too keen on it and it has taken a lot of work to give it some level of popularity.  However, I dont totally agree with all of the model as it is sometimes presented.  

One thing I should make clear is I think its an excellent model for explaining Celtic language.  

However I dont think the Atlantic Bronze Age is the whole story and its pretty clear that although P312 dominates, the specific clades actually quite badly split the Atlantic zone rather than unite it.  The age of the P312 clades suggests at the point of dispersal of the clades the individual languages like Celtic may not have existed.  So in essence there may have been a dispersal of P312 4500 years ago but the Atlantic Bronze Age is about 1000 years later at its oldest.  So I believe its most likely a two step process with a spread of various P312 lineages most likely speaking some form of undifferentiated IE language and then maybe 1000 years later through the contact network of the Atlantic Bronze Age (in its widest sense) the dialect we call Celtic emerged.  

I dont see the latter process as strongly migratory and that is borne out by how different the yDNA ratios in Atlantic Iberia is to the isles and NW France.  However, it would also be wrong to assume there was not a bit of yDNA geneflow and that might be seen in terms of individuals with clades that are outlying from there main distribution and of relatively low variance.  

My hunch is that the Ligurian and Lusitanian and related element recorded from the border of Italy to Atlantic Spain is a relic of another contract network that existed in pre-Atlantic Bronze Age times in that area.  These language in some ways seem Celtic-like but they do seem to lack the specific sound shifts that define Celtic as a language. 

« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 12:20:28 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2011, 12:20:17 PM »

Its taken me a while to see the value in the Atlantic model of the emergence of the Celtic language.  The old central European model was still very much in the ascendancy when I was studying .  However, I dont totally agree with the model as it is sometimes presented.  One thing I should make clear is I think its an excellent model for explaining Celtic language.  However I dont think the Atlantic Bronze Age is the whole story and its pretty clear that although P312 dominates, the specific clades actually quite badly split the Atlantic zone rather than unite it.  The age of the P312 clades suggests at the point of dispersal of the clades the individual languages may not have existed.  So in essence there may have been a dispersal of P312 4500 years ago but the Atlantic Bronze Age is about 1000 years later at its oldest.  So I believe its most likely a two step process with a spread of various P312 lineages most likely speaking some form of undifferentiated IE language and then maybe 1000 years later through the contact network of the Atlantic Bronze Age (in its widest sense) the dialect we call Celtic emerged.  I dont see the latter process as strongly migratory and that is borne out by how different the yDNA in Atlantic Iberia is to the isles.  However, it would also be wrong to assume there was not a bit of yDNA geneflow and that may be seen in terms of individuals with clades that are outlying from there main distribution and of relatively low variance.  

Is there any evidence of any migration from Iberia to the Brittish isles during the Bronze age?
Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2011, 12:34:01 PM »

Its taken me a while to see the value in the Atlantic model of the emergence of the Celtic language.  The old central European model was still very much in the ascendancy when I was studying .  However, I dont totally agree with the model as it is sometimes presented.  One thing I should make clear is I think its an excellent model for explaining Celtic language.  However I dont think the Atlantic Bronze Age is the whole story and its pretty clear that although P312 dominates, the specific clades actually quite badly split the Atlantic zone rather than unite it.  The age of the P312 clades suggests at the point of dispersal of the clades the individual languages may not have existed.  So in essence there may have been a dispersal of P312 4500 years ago but the Atlantic Bronze Age is about 1000 years later at its oldest.  So I believe its most likely a two step process with a spread of various P312 lineages most likely speaking some form of undifferentiated IE language and then maybe 1000 years later through the contact network of the Atlantic Bronze Age (in its widest sense) the dialect we call Celtic emerged.  I dont see the latter process as strongly migratory and that is borne out by how different the yDNA in Atlantic Iberia is to the isles.  However, it would also be wrong to assume there was not a bit of yDNA geneflow and that may be seen in terms of individuals with clades that are outlying from there main distribution and of relatively low variance.  

Is there any evidence of any migration from Iberia to the Brittish isles during the Bronze age?

Iberia was linked to a trade network c. 1500-800BC that linked to NW France and the isles.  However, while metalwork was traded and to some extent united these areas, there are many differences too.  My own feeling is there was probably a little gene flow but not huge.  That is borne out by major differences in the proportions of clades and haplotypes from one end of the Atlantic zone to the other.  However, it would definitely be wrong to say there was no gene flow.  There would have been marriages, traders, craftsmen etc but I dont think there is much evidence of an 'invasion'.  I dont think that a simple invasion model generally works either for the DNA or archaeology of the Atlantic zone in the Bronze Age.  However, one problem is an awful lot remains to be discovered in terms of settlement sites of this period.  The evidence of contact is strong but invasion is not so.  It seems to me that the clade pattern was established in an earlier period than the Atlantic Bronze Age although there may be exceptions.     
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2011, 07:37:26 PM »

Here's a praragraph form what Tacitus says about thre Britons.

Forming a general judgment, however, it is credible that the Gauls seized the neighbouring island. One sees here their sacred rites and their religious beliefs; even the speech does not differ much; there is the same boldness in seeking dangers, and the same shrinking from meeting them when they are present. The Britons show more savageness, as those not yet civilized by a long-continued peace. We have been given to understand that the Gauls, too, were formerly conspicuous for their fighting; sluggishness, however, entered with ease, and bravery was lost together with liberty. The same thing has happened to those of the Britons who were formerly conquered, while the rest remain as the Gauls were.

Seems pretty clear to me.Just out of curiousity who are the archaeologist/historians who are pushing this idea?

The two chief "Celto-Skeptics" are John Collis and Simon James.
Logged

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2011, 10:46:42 AM »

Here's a praragraph form what Tacitus says about thre Britons.

Forming a general judgment, however, it is credible that the Gauls seized the neighbouring island. One sees here their sacred rites and their religious beliefs; even the speech does not differ much; there is the same boldness in seeking dangers, and the same shrinking from meeting them when they are present. The Britons show more savageness, as those not yet civilized by a long-continued peace. We have been given to understand that the Gauls, too, were formerly conspicuous for their fighting; sluggishness, however, entered with ease, and bravery was lost together with liberty. The same thing has happened to those of the Britons who were formerly conquered, while the rest remain as the Gauls were.

Seems pretty clear to me.Just out of curiousity who are the archaeologist/historians who are pushing this idea?

The two chief "Celto-Skeptics" are John Collis and Simon James.

I remember reading soemthing on The Irish Democrat about Simon James,although the criticism was directed at Stephen Oppenhiemer.
Hrtr's the linl:

http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/relax-were-all-anglo-saxon-anyway/
Logged

LDJ
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2011, 04:47:27 PM »



Honestly, I am shaking my head as I begin this topic and compose this first post. Am I alone in regarding the arguments of the Celto-Skeptics as essentially so stupid as to be almost beyond belief?


I've always thought that the Celto-Skeptics arguments were trivial and completely stupid!
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 04:47:53 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2011, 05:33:38 PM »

Celto-skepticism is a silly idea in my opinion.  You could apply the same logic to Germanic, Slavic and many other groups. 
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2011, 12:31:09 PM »

Ceaser described the Celts as the red hair blue eyed types 
   

There was a map posted on here some time ago showing the distrubution of people who carry the gene that cuases red hair?
Logged

LDJ
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2011, 12:58:54 PM »

I think when Ceaser said 'Red' he was referring to '' as her says that the Germans were 'redder' I think this is how the Romans described 'fair hair in general. I can't remember where I read it it was on the web somewhere. It is possible as in Irish a 'white horse is called a green horse and a 'black man 'is called a 'blue man'.
I have no idea why this linguistic quirk came about. Maybe thet all suffered from genetic colour blindness LOL. 
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2011, 07:54:55 PM »

I think when Ceaser said 'Red' he was referring to '' as her says that the Germans were 'redder' I think this is how the Romans described 'fair hair in general. I can't remember where I read it it was on the web somewhere. It is possible as in Irish a 'white horse is called a green horse and a 'black man 'is called a 'blue man'.
I have no idea why this linguistic quirk came about. Maybe thet all suffered from genetic colour blindness LOL. 
I know the term "fear gorm" (blue man) is used for a black man because I heard it used myself at the scene of an accident when I was a kid. A man in my neighborhood from Kerry used it.
Sometimes "glas" can mean green or gray. So, a 'capple glas" could be a gray horse, but some might read it as a green horse.
But, I'm an American from San Francisco, so I could be way, way off!
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2011, 08:32:58 AM »


  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.


Gaulish was p celtic the same as brythonic in fact Tacitus mentioned that the language of the Britons differed little from that of Gaul.Where do you get the idea that Irish is simillar to the celtic langugae spoken in Gaul?
Logged

LDJ
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2011, 12:11:48 PM »


  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.


Gaulish was p celtic the same as brythonic in fact Tacitus mentioned that the language of the Britons differed little from that of Gaul.Where do you get the idea that Irish is simillar to the celtic langugae spoken in Gaul?
Well I get this crazy idea from the fact that Irish is a Celtic language and Gaulish was a Celtic language. Insane, yes, but for some stupid reason I think that languages on the same branch (Celtic) of the Indo-European language tree have similarities.

You're probably right. Irish would be more similar to Latin, German, or even Slavic than to Gaulish. I must have been drunk! And I don't even drink anymore!

Thanks for showing me the way!  Miles Kehoe :)
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 04:32:52 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2011, 04:59:00 PM »

Well, they were similar, since they were both Celtic. But, yeah, Gaelic is Q-Celtic and thought to be the older form. The Gauls spoke P-Celtic, like the Britons.

I understand the P-Celtic innovation never reached Iberia either.
Logged

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2011, 03:53:54 AM »


  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.


Gaulish was p celtic the same as brythonic in fact Tacitus mentioned that the language of the Britons differed little from that of Gaul.Where do you get the idea that Irish is simillar to the celtic langugae spoken in Gaul?
Well I get this crazy idea from the fact that Irish is a Celtic language and Gaulish was a Celtic language. Insane, yes, but for some stupid reason I think that languages on the same branch (Celtic) of the Indo-European language tree have similarities.

You're probably right. Irish would be more similar to Latin, German, or even Slavic than to Gaulish. I must have been drunk! And I don't even drink anymore!

Thanks for showing me the way!  Miles Kehoe :)

Point out where I said that Irish wasn't a celtic language!
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 03:56:03 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2011, 09:01:48 AM »


  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.


Gaulish was p celtic the same as brythonic in fact Tacitus mentioned that the language of the Britons differed little from that of Gaul.Where do you get the idea that Irish is simillar to the celtic langugae spoken in Gaul?
Well I get this crazy idea from the fact that Irish is a Celtic language and Gaulish was a Celtic language. Insane, yes, but for some stupid reason I think that languages on the same branch (Celtic) of the Indo-European language tree have similarities.

You're probably right. Irish would be more similar to Latin, German, or even Slavic than to Gaulish. I must have been drunk! And I don't even drink anymore!

Thanks for showing me the way!  Miles Kehoe :)

Point out where I said that Irish wasn't a celtic language!
When you asked: "Where do you get the idea that Irish is similar to the celtic language spoken in Gaul?" I assumed you mustn't know that Irish is a Celtic language, as is Gaulish, or you wouldn't have asked the question. How could you have asked the question if you knew that both Irish and Gaulish were both on the Celtic branch of the Indo-European Family Tree? Obviously the languages found on the same branch of the tree have similarities.

And yes, I know that Irish is Q-Celtic and Gaulish is P-Celtic, which is why I said that Irish is older in form than Gaulish. However, I don't believe that the Q/P shift wipes out all similarities between the two.

Thanks, Miles Kehoe
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 09:04:05 AM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: December 26, 2011, 02:47:17 PM »

We owe part of the confusion that spawned the Celto-Skeptics to the old "Cantabrian R1b Ice Age Refuge" thing promoted in the early days of genetic research by the likes of Oppenheimer, Sykes, Wells, et al.

That stuff is still current on the internet. You know how it goes. Our ancestors were all hunter-gatherer "aborigines" who probably spoke some language akin to Basque. All subsequent advances in language, culture, technology, etc., were brought to us by tall, blond, better-looking conquerors from the east, blah, blah, blah.

Escaping that designation seemed to be part of the impetus behind finding new R1b SNPs. I remember the scramble to make "S28" (U152) and "S21" (U106) into "invader" subclades (relative to the British Isles, anyway). If they could be dubbed "invader", that relieved their bearers of the onus of being descended from hapless "aborigines".

Some of you were around Rootsweb and dna-forums at the time and remember it.
Logged

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2012, 03:16:21 PM »

We owe part of the confusion that spawned the Celto-Skeptics to the old "Cantabrian R1b Ice Age Refuge" thing promoted in the early days of genetic research by the likes of Oppenheimer, Sykes, Wells, et al.

I thought that the celto Sceptics spawned the,"we're all descended form hunter-Gathere's rubbish? Is there anybody out there that still  believes this?

Quote
That stuff is still current on the internet. You know how it goes. Our ancestors were all hunter-gatherer "aborigines" who probably spoke some language akin to Basque. All subsequent advances in language, culture, technology, etc., were brought to us by tall, blond, better-looking conquerors from the east, blah, blah, blah.

Another problem with this ideas is that it has encouraged the BNP( a fascist party in the UK) to proclaim they're all idigenous.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 03:18:30 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2012, 03:28:49 PM »

I found this recent study of the history of the head measurers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Its a very comprehensive look at the strange ideas of the time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76013421/16/The-second-superior-race-dark-brachycephalic-Celts

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 11:03:30 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2012, 05:28:55 PM »

I found this recent study of the history of the head measurers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Its a very comprehensive look at the strange ideas of the time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76013421/16/The-second-superior-race-dark-brachycephalic-Celts

I just spent over an hour reading a lot of that. Interesting. Many of those ideas were still current when, as a young boy, I started reading history books. Their impact is by no means exhausted today.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2012, 05:59:29 PM »

Actually, sometimes I despair of ever learning much about our deep ancestry and think that perhaps it is better to concentrate on genetics for genealogical purposes.

I get a sense of satisfaction, happiness and, yes, pride in knowing that L21 is most common in countries that I regard as pretty cool.

Maybe that's enough. :-)
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2012, 10:24:50 AM »

I found this recent study of the history of the head measurers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Its a very comprehensive look at the strange ideas of the time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76013421/16/The-second-superior-race-dark-brachycephalic-Celts

Speaking of physical characteristics, here's an interesting web site with photos of Bretonnes en coiffe.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2012, 10:33:52 AM »

I found this recent study of the history of the head measurers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Its a very comprehensive look at the strange ideas of the time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76013421/16/The-second-superior-race-dark-brachycephalic-Celts

Speaking of physical characteristics, here's an interesting web site with photos of Bretonnes en coiffe.

Here is another interesting site with photos from Breton festivals.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2012, 11:04:07 AM »

I found this recent study of the history of the head measurers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Its a very comprehensive look at the strange ideas of the time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76013421/16/The-second-superior-race-dark-brachycephalic-Celts

I just spent over an hour reading a lot of that. Interesting. Many of those ideas were still current when, as a young boy, I started reading history books. Their impact is by no means exhausted today.

When you read over it they really didnt have a clue what they were talking about, just off the cuff ideas without any survey and completely doing a volte face every so often.  If you actually look at the more systematic percentages of hair colour differences across Europe you can see how in reality the overlap is much more between most countries with just a bit of a trend one way or other.  The sterotypes are based on 10 or 20% swings one way or another.  For example red hair is associated with the Scots, Irish and Welsh but even all the shades of red rarely go much above 10% although maybe there are localised spots of higher.  However the stereotypes about red haired insular Celts are as old as the Romans and persisted until today.  The reality is that red hair is far more common in the isles than most of the continent but its probably only really a swing of 5%.  I remember seeing the stats for light hair and again when you see them the swing between say Germany and France and the isles is again a moderate swing.  Sterotypes are based on trends, often not huge ones.  From personal observation much of temperate Europe is a lot more middling in hair colour and its just the differences in trends that are magnified into stereotypes. The stereotypes do reflect genuine trends but the way they are magnified is somewhat ridiculous and my personal observations make me think that the huge difference these head measurers claimed are total nonsense.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2012, 01:38:52 PM »

Yes, and a lot of it was based on ideals of beauty. Everyone, it seems, likes the idea of being tall and blond and blue-eyed. Nobody wants to be short and dark, and even if one is short and dark, he wants to think his ancestors were better looking than he is.

In my own family there are tall, blond, blue-eyed folks, short, dark-haired, brown-eyed folks, and folks whose appearance is one or other combination or variation of those features. There are even a number of redheads.

I've seen plenty of short, stocky blonds in my time, as well as many tall people with dark hair and dark eyes.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:47:05 PM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.14 seconds with 19 queries.