|
|
Post by buddyrydell on May 22, 2005 20:36:32 GMT -5
From what I understand, the the pre-Roman Celtic-speaking inhabitants of France were predominantly Alpine in type. Was this the original type of the first Celtic-speakers as the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of Britain were mainly UP in type? I was always under the impression that a small group of more Alpine Celts from Gaul (France) imposed their language and culture upon a predominantly UP population. Does anybody have anything to offer?
Because if this were true, the original Celts would really be the French, even though they speak a Romance language and have considerable admixture from Germanic peoples in the north and Romans, Iberians, and other Mediterranean groups in the south.
|
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 22, 2005 21:56:34 GMT -5
The gauls of the celtic iron age were very likely similar to the people living there today in being varied in type. The archeological reports I have seen indicated mix of round and long headed types. I haven't seen anything that would indicate alpine was the predominate type if anything I have seen the opposite implication that the rate of alpinism has been increasing since the iron age.
The only evidence of celtic invaders from continent in britian are belgae types from northern gaul who were probably more nordic in type then alpine and likely had a significant UP inheritance as well. These invaders though are much later then the advent of celtic speaker in britain. There is really no direct evidence of celtic invasion of any sorts into britain nor any evidence that they carried a specific physical type based on the areast in europe closest to britian its unlikely alpine would have been the predominate type among the invaders and the type has allways been rare in britain.
Most models that propose any sort of "first true celts" locate their homeland in centraleurope (austria southern germany, czech republic) which is the homeland of the alpine types but most celtic sites I have read about have shown a variety of phsical types including long and broad headed types.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 22, 2005 22:11:04 GMT -5
Since there's no evidence of a Celtic invasion or migration into Britain, how do you propose the Celtic languages crossed the Channel, Fael? Simple transferance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 22, 2005 22:20:27 GMT -5
My understanding is that the current most popular theory is that celtic languages devoloped in situ from indo-european across a broad stretch of western and central europe that was connected through trade. I don't find this theory extremely convincing personally and think there was probably many invasions moving back and forth a cross europe as the historical records seem to indicate. Small amounts of celtic speaking continentals probably invaded the british isles multiple times their genetic impact is likely hard to detect as the groups were small and were formed from groups of celts from northwest europe who all ready were heavily mixed with the same UP stocks as found in the british isles.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwydion on May 23, 2005 2:13:35 GMT -5
Northern Italy too, has a notable Gaul influence in his appearence. The native northern italian pop. in the mean reseamble a typical French people. Afterall, yes the Major point of expansion was central europe(southern Germany, Czech republic)) : From there the Celts colonized France, North-Italy, Switzerlandand British isles. To be more exact we must add the Dinarid among the typical racial groups present in the celtic populations. Alpinid-Dinarid, is the most common mix in central europe area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 23, 2005 6:24:20 GMT -5
maybe later ill post some maps by Professor barry cunliffe
|
|
|
|
Post by amksa on May 23, 2005 9:50:47 GMT -5
Because if this were true, the original Celts would really be the French, even though they speak a Romance language and have considerable admixture from Germanic peoples in the north and Romans, Iberians, and other Mediterranean groups in the south. the French took their name after a germanic tribe, the Franks, that doesn't make Fench deeply Goths, Frisons, Angles or Saxons. So the fact that French speak a Romance language don't group automatiacally them with Romans. there is in France a sentence which sums up how French view themselves : "Nos ancêtres, les Gaulois !" Vercingetorix  |
|
Bryce
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bryce on May 23, 2005 12:12:43 GMT -5
the French took their name after a germanic tribe, the Franks, that doesn't make Fench deeply Goths, Frisons, Angles or Saxons. So the fact that French speak a Romance language don't group automatiacally them with Romans. there is in France a sentence which sums up how French view themselves : "Nos ancêtres, les Gaulois !" Well, "Our ancestors the Gauls" were a motto taught at least twenty years ago to grade-school pupils and junior-high-school students, and even to North- and West- African and East Asian colonials in the olden days of the French Commonwealth. As I and other Dodonians said in other threads, white French folks are mostly Gallo-Roman (Keltic-Latin, if you like it better), with a more or less pronounced Germanic admixture. There is not really a "standard" Frenchman or Frenchwoman, but rather a panel of physiques that are not surprising at all for a French person, from tall lanky depigmentated individuals to shorter, stockier and darker persons, with all the possible combinations of traits. I live in a town hosting an important naval station, and I often see groups of young men (and in a lesser measure, young women) enlisted in the British, German, Italian, Spanish or US naval forces, strolling through the streets. If I set aside people of obvious African or Asian ancestry, the difference between the French specimens and their foreign counterparts is not striking, even if statistically, you'll find more subjects presenting this or that trait in this or that population. |
|
|
|
Post by fabbrice on May 23, 2005 12:58:23 GMT -5
" The french... have considerable admixture from Germanic peoples in the north and Romans, Iberians, and other Mediterranean groups in the south. "
This is a deeply worng idea that I had alredy seen said in this forum (and others) that northern French peoples would be deeply different from southern french people.
In ALL the country we are a mix of mediterranean, celtic and some germanic groups (plus more recent admixture from north africa, caribean, africa and asia)
You can come to Paris (north) and you'would see that the people are not more "germanic" than the people in Bordeaux or Nice. Only the extreme northern Regions (nord-pas de calais, picardie) and north-eastern regions (Lorraine, Alsace) can show a more important proportion of nordic characteristics.
In the same time, after the fall of roman empire, there have been as much germanic invaders who settled in the south (even to Spain and north Africa) than in the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on May 23, 2005 14:25:20 GMT -5
This Northern Frenchman, is quoted by Coon as an Example of Keltic Nordic brachycephalised by Alpine mix  |
|
|
|
Post by amksa on May 24, 2005 9:22:27 GMT -5
Well, "Our ancestors the Gauls" were a motto taught at least twenty years ago to grade-school pupils and junior-high-school students, and even to North- and West- African and East Asian colonials in the olden days of the French Commonwealth. As I and other Dodonians said in other threads, white French folks are mostly Gallo-Roman (Keltic-Latin, if you like it better), with a more or less pronounced Germanic admixture. There is not really a "standard" Frenchman or Frenchwoman, but rather a panel of physiques that are not surprising at all for a French person, from tall lanky depigmentated individuals to shorter, stockier and darker persons, with all the possible combinations of traits. I live in a town hosting an important naval station, and I often see groups of young men (and in a lesser measure, young women) enlisted in the British, German, Italian, Spanish or US naval forces, strolling through the streets. If I set aside people of obvious African or Asian ancestry, the difference between the French specimens and their foreign counterparts is not striking, even if statistically, you'll find more subjects presenting this or that trait in this or that population. I think that French still deeply believe that they are related to Astérix and Obélix... and even to Idéfix. i think that self-representation is more important that reality and racial classification. no one could really prevent a Marseillais to believe that he's from the same racial stock than a Lillois or a Breton. however, Saracens (and their ancestors, the Numides) probably settled in South of France long before the arrival of the "Beurs" (= the second generation of the North African immigration.) |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 24, 2005 9:34:20 GMT -5
Gual was just a region of land which the Romans named Gaul,much like they did with Germania(where you had a mix of Germanic,Celtic,Slavic,and Iranian tribes living in such a landmass).
Gaul to had numerious other peoples,besides the Gauls, like Phoencians,Carthagians and Greeks who had alot of Colonies in Gaul..Their was even Roman Colonies(pre-Invasion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 24, 2005 9:36:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 24, 2005 9:46:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 24, 2005 9:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
