|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 15:39:14 GMT -5
This might belong in the Prehistory and History forum, but I'm not sure, so I'll just put it in this forum which does include discussions about population movements.
Okay, here goes. If there was no Celtic migration to Britain from continental Europe, then how and when do you suppose the Keltic Nordic type ended up in Britain? Because apparently it is the dominant type on the isles.
Does the history of this type on the isles go back to prehistoric times as it does with the Brunn and the Atlantid types? Or was it brought in a recent age by Indo-Europeans?
People keep telling me that there was no Celtic invasion of the British Isles, but I don't know what to think.
So I have some options about what to think. Either:
a.) It is prehistoric and indigenous to the isles. Still, it can't be that old since the Nordic type itself is not that old, being a fusion of Corded and Danubian folks.
b.) There was indeed an Iron Age Celtic migration to the isles and this type came with it.
c.) The Anglo-Saxons brought it with them when they colonized England. This isn't convincing because the Keltic Nordic type is supposedly just as strong in Ireland and Scotland as it is in England.
d.) Those pesky Vikings brought it! This is the one I think Drooperdoo espouses, but I don't believe it for a second.
e.) A combination of everything.
What do y'all think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 30, 2005 15:55:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 16:29:43 GMT -5
Hey, it's Boromir, one of my Gondorian brothers!  |
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 16:31:22 GMT -5
Mike,
You have quoted me and I am flattered--and, intelligently, you have taken my own personal theories with a grain of salt. Frankly, I am confused about the whole Celtic thing, too. We're told by geneticists that the people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales aren't actually genetically related to the Celtic culture in Central Europe.
Okay.
Then how did they pick up Celtic languages and Celtic crosses, dress, culture, etc.?
And if they're so Basque--i.e., so un-Indo-European--how come they named Ireland "Eire" [the old form of which is Eirann which is pronounced just like "Iran" (both of whose countries mean "Land of the Aryans".)
My own personal theory is that the Irish, Scots and Welsh are "Gallic" and not Celtic. And that these "Gauls" arrived in the British Isles from Spain. DNA backs that up. But here's the hole in my theory: The oldest reference to "Celts" in Western History comes from Herodotus in 500 BC--placing the "Keltoi" in Spain.
He doesn't say "Gauls". He says "Celts".
So he identified Celts as the people in Iberia, not the people in Austria.
So if they're too separate peoples--as dna seems to suggest--how come all the common linguistics and cultural things?
I'm in the dark here. But I'm in good company. Most respectable experts in this field are confused, too.
P.S.--I only mention the Viking genes in Ireland because I read that Dublin was the world's biggest slave port in the Middle Ages. The slave-masters? --Vikings.
(Surnames like "Fitzgerald" that we think of as purely Irish are actually Norman. "Fitz" means "son of" [from the French "fils"] and Gerald is from the Scandinavian Gerhardt. So "Fitzgerald" actually translates as "Son of Gerhardt" and was from the Norman conquerors--not from the beat-down Irish.)
So, knowing this history, I know that a lot of the "Nordic" genes in Ireland aren't that ancient. They're of recent vintage--which is why Conan O'Brien looks nothing like the dark Colin Farrell. Two entirely different strains.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 16:48:12 GMT -5
I dont believe in that Keltic-Nordic term,its a very shady deeply flawed and never made sence to me.
Coon seemed to use it only when he never knew quitely what lable he should give something ,like he had a hard time calling something either as Nordic or Dinaric.
The Celts where mostly a central European culture and made up of many sub-racial forms never one particular type,but moslty alpine often Med like in British Isles. It was very popular in the 18/19th and up to the early 20th century to view Celts as brothers of the Germans,therfore they where given a Tuetonic and later Nordic look. Statues of them by the Greeks revealed a a Alpine-med look.
Tacitus is not a reliable source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 30, 2005 16:58:22 GMT -5
I dont believe in that Keltic-Nordic term,its a very shady deeply flawed and never made sence to me. Coon seemed to use it only when he never knew quitely what lable he should give something ,like he had a hard time calling something either as Nordic or Dinaric. The Celts where mostly a central European culture and made up of many sub-racial forms never one particular type,but moslty alpine often Med like in British Isles. It was very popular in the 18/19th and up to the early 20th century to view Celts as brothers of the Germans,therfore they where given a Tuetonic and later Nordic look. Statues of them by the Greeks revealed a a Alpine-med look. Tacitus is not a reliable source. Are you implying Tacitus may have lied about Germanic-type people inhabiting Scotland during the Roman occupation? What motivation would there be for this? |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 17:05:06 GMT -5
Mike, You have quoted me and I am flattered--and, intelligently, you have taken my own personal theories with a grain of salt. Frankly, I am confused about the whole Celtic thing, too. We're told by geneticists that the people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales aren't actually genetically related to the Celtic culture in Central Europe. Okay. Then how did they pick up Celtic languages and Celtic crosses, dress, culture, etc.? My own personal theory is that the Irish, Scots and Welsh are "Gallic" and not Celtic. And that these "Gauls" arrived in the British Isles from Spain. DNA backs that up. But here's the hole in my theory: The oldest reference to "Celts" in Western History comes from Herodotus in 500 BC--placing the "Keltoi" in Spain. He doesn't say "Gauls". He says "Celts". So he identified Celts as the people in Iberia, not the people in Austria. So if they're too separate peoples--as dna seems to suggest--how come all the common linguistics and cultural things? I'm in the dark here. But I'm in good company. Most respectable experts in this field are confused, too. Aren't the Gauls a subdivision of the Celts? I've always thought of the Celts as being subdivided into Brythonic Celts (Britons), Gallic Celts (Gauls), and Goidelic Celts (Gaels). Weren't the La Tène people related to if not the linguistic ancestors of many of the continental Celts? I dont believe in that Keltic-Nordic term,its a very shady deeply flawed and never made sence to me. Coon seemed to use it only when he never knew quitely what lable he should give something ,like he had a hard time calling something either as Nordic or Dinaric. This is true. Coon even admitted that the Keltic Nordic is not only differentiated from the Hallstatt by divergent evolution, but that it likely absorbed other elements before and after its migration to Britain. It is still basically a Nordic type, though you could consider it sub-Nordic like the Neo-Danubian of Eastern Europe. The Celts where mostly a central European culture and made up of many sub-racial forms never one particular type,but moslty alpine often Med like in British Isles. It was very popular in the 18/19th and up to the early 20th century to view Celts as brothers of the Germans,therfore they where given a Tuetonic and later Nordic look. Statues of them by the Greeks revealed a a Alpine-med look. Indeed, it's true that the Celts were not all the same. They did come in many different shapes and sizes. All three of the classic subraces (Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean) were represented. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 17:08:35 GMT -5
Yes their is controvery surrounding over Tacitas work..That he used other peoples work as the basis of his own and that he himself never witnessed any of these places and peoples.Political motivation could be found within his writings.Their is much evidence to support this! For quick review of him check here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TacitusRegarless I dont find his work always wholly satisfactory nor factual myself,but sometimes he made sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 17:17:33 GMT -5
<<Aren't the Gauls a subdivision of the Celts?>>
Not really,this was attributed much later and by modern writers. The Ancient accounts and the Romans never called them Celtic...
The Gauls where in modern France,and the Britons and Picts where in Britannia,and they where called as such.
The name "Celtic " has taken on an erroneous umbrella like significance,born outve Polictics and Nationalism which started in the 18th centery mainly by the English to better unite/control the Irish,Welsh,Cornish and Scotish.....One people one culture one goverment type of thing. Before that the English thought they they where Germanic(ie Anglo-Saxon). The whole thing is screwed up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 30, 2005 18:26:42 GMT -5
<<Aren't the Gauls a subdivision of the Celts?>> Not really,this was attributed much later and by modern writers. The Ancient accounts and the Romans never called them Celtic... The Gauls where in modern France,and the Britons and Picts where in Britannia,and they where called as such. The name "Celtic " has taken on an erroneous umbrella like significance,born outve Polictics and Nationalism which started in the 18th centery mainly by the English to better unite/control the Irish,Welsh,Cornish and Scotish.....One people one culture one goverment type of thing. Before that the English thought they they where Germanic(ie Anglo-Saxon). The whole thing is screwed up! You'll find all over in Scotland and in Wales, Ireland too, names of people and places with "Gall". Galloway, Galway, Gallacher- even the name for Wales in Romance languages I believe is "Galles". In Scotland we have a "gala" day, which is a town fayre. I think these are all derived from Gaul. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 18:44:32 GMT -5
Etymology is very tricky and not always accurate! Even so they can simply be modern names created in the past few hundreds years.
For instance the surname Gallo is a very common and popular last name in Italian and Sicilian.
The Roman name for Wales was Cambria . After Rome conquered that land,the Romans and Welsh got along quite well. However the Welsh fiercely and successfully fought off the Anglo-Saxons,who never conquered Wales.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 30, 2005 18:48:41 GMT -5
Mike, You have quoted me and I am flattered--and, intelligently, you have taken my own personal theories with a grain of salt. Frankly, I am confused about the whole Celtic thing, too. We're told by geneticists that the people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales aren't actually genetically related to the Celtic culture in Central Europe. Okay. Then how did they pick up Celtic languages and Celtic crosses, dress, culture, etc.? And if they're so Basque--i.e., so un-Indo-European--how come they named Ireland "Eire" [the old form of which is Eirann which is pronounced just like "Iran" (both of whose countries mean "Land of the Aryans".) My own personal theory is that the Irish, Scots and Welsh are "Gallic" and not Celtic. And that these "Gauls" arrived in the British Isles from Spain. DNA backs that up. But here's the hole in my theory: The oldest reference to "Celts" in Western History comes from Herodotus in 500 BC--placing the "Keltoi" in Spain. He doesn't say "Gauls". He says "Celts". So he identified Celts as the people in Iberia, not the people in Austria. So if they're too separate peoples--as dna seems to suggest--how come all the common linguistics and cultural things? I'm in the dark here. But I'm in good company. Most respectable experts in this field are confused, too. P.S.--I only mention the Viking genes in Ireland because I read that Dublin was the world's biggest slave port in the Middle Ages. The slave-masters? --Vikings. (Surnames like "Fitzgerald" that we think of as purely Irish are actually Norman. "Fitz" means "son of" [from the French "fils"] and Gerald is from the Scandinavian Gerhardt. So "Fitzgerald" actually translates as "Son of Gerhardt" and was from the Norman conquerors--not from the beat-down Irish.) So, knowing this history, I know that a lot of the "Nordic" genes in Ireland aren't that ancient. They're of recent vintage--which is why Conan O'Brien looks nothing like the dark Colin Farrell. Two entirely different strains. "keltoi" of france and parts of spain.not keltoi of spain and certainly not in reference to basques. |
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 18:48:53 GMT -5
Xen,
Yeah, that's why I theorize that Western Europeans should be called "Gauls" instead of Celts. The so-called Celtic region of Spain is Galicia [from "Gaul"]. The "gal" from PortuGAL is from "Gaul". The Spanish name for Wales is "Gales". The Irish name for their own language is not Celtic but "Gaelic". Etc. --There were even the Galatians . . . Hellenized Gauls mentioned even in the Bible.
I think these Gauls were typically a mix of brunets and redheads--with a low level of blonds. The Romans--when in the Iberian province of Galicia--said "Beware of the short, redheaded Gallegos. They know no fear".
Likewise the Galatians in Herodotus' time were described as fair. Herodotus, I believe, said that each nation makes the gods in their own image, saying, "The gods of the Ethiopians are snub-nosed and black while the gods of the Galatians have red hair and blue eyes".
So red hair in Iberia, Ireland, Scotland, etc. didn't come with Vikings [although I suspect Viking dna increased blondism rates]
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 30, 2005 18:51:02 GMT -5
man its about time someone start backing up what they type.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 30, 2005 18:52:30 GMT -5
Xen, Yeah, that's why I theorize that Western Europeans should be called "Gauls" instead of Celts. The so-called Celtic region of Spain is Galicia [from "Gaul"]. The "gal" from PortuGAL is from "Gaul". The Spanish name for Wales is "Gales". The Irish name for their own language is not Celtic but "Gaelic". Etc. I think these Gauls were typically a mix of brunets and redheads--with a low level of blonds. The Romans--when in the Iberian province of Galicia--said "Beware of the short, redheaded Gallegos. They know no fear". So red hair in Iberia, Ireland, Scotland, etc. didn't come with Vikings [although I suspect Viking dna increased blondism rates] Portugal the name has nothing to do with "gaul" can you please start providing refernces to what you write. |
|
