|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 30, 2005 19:51:42 GMT -5
mike kill the big picuture
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 20:10:33 GMT -5
Goonie, you adopted a heckling, insulting tone--and I hadn't even been talking to you. I mentioned source after source, citing Herodotus, genetic studies, Parle, etc. And your obnoxious response was "Dude, you gotta start reading".
I daresay the sources I cited were a tad more authoritative than your URL link. And even people who disagree with me on these threads know that I have a source for everything I say. EVERYTHING.
So just ask politely, if you're not sure of something. I'll be equally polite back.
Don't heckle me after I've posted something.
Take Crimson Guard. He asked about the alternate etymology of "Portugal" and I gave him a source. That's it.
No fighting, no insults, no back-and-forth.
Just ask for the source. Don't heckle and make up stuff . . . like "the pillars of Hercules" meaning France???
God!
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 20:11:05 GMT -5
Well, nevermind the discussion about who is Celtic and who isn't because that's not the point of the thread. I just want to know the source of the Nordic type of Britain.  The timeline for the coming of all the other types to Britain sort of falls into place: 1.) Upper Paleolithic: Brunn and to a lesser extent, Borreby 2.) Mesolithic: Atlantid 3.) Bronze Age: Noric 4.) Germanic Invasion: Anglo-Saxon and to a lesser extent, Hallstatt 5.) Viking and Norman Invasion: Tronder, Borreby, Phalian, Sub-Alpine All fall into place save the Keltic Nordic. If this type is derived from Iron Age migrants, then everything would be dandy. But if that invasion never took place, then everything becomes a lot more complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 20:13:54 GMT -5
Mike,
Why can't there be TWO peoples--Celts and Gauls?
Why must there be one?
The terms weren't used interchangeably at all till the eighteenth century. And even then scholars scoffed when the so-called Celtic Renaissance began in Ireland. [And they were probably right to scoff--if one believe genetics.]
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 20:20:57 GMT -5
Because I've been led to believe that Gaul and Celt mean virtually the same thing. If the "true" Celts of the La Tène culture weren't the predecessors of the Gauls, then who were they and what happened to them?
All the "Celtic" languages ultimately have their origins in Central Europe.
Who were the Keltoi referred to by the ancient Greeks if not Gauls?
If this is a case in misnomers, I fail to see what the misnomer is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 21:12:25 GMT -5
<<The ancient name for Portugal is "Lusitania". When the Romans entered Iberia, one of the main languages of <<the peninsula was "Lusitanian". What kind of language was "Lusitanian?"
According to linguists, its listed as "proto-Celtic".
So the founders of Lusitania were so-called Celtic. I.e, Celt-Iberians.
As for the etymology of Portugal having "Gaul" in it, I've read it dozens of times. That's the thing about etymology. Sometimes it's guess-work. Your etymology may be correct, and so may the ones I"ve read. Here's a link I found in five minutes on "Google" that lists the "gal" as being from "Gaul". >>
The name Portugal meant what I said it meant..NOTHING to do with Gaul!
The Celtic-Iberians are not Iberians..thats a name given to the mixed tribes between those groups that moden historians gave them.
The Iberians where not Celts and they spoke a non-Indo European language.
The name "Iberian" is also Latin as is Lusitania.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 21:19:44 GMT -5
Crimson Guard,
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
How peremptory! --I cited an alternate etymology for "portugal," and you asked where I heard it. I said that I heard it dozens of places and gave you a link that also listed "Gaul" as the etymological origin of the "gal" in "Portugal".
You crack me up!
"Portugal's etymology is what I said it is!"
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
I guess there's only ever one answer with etymology. Are you aware that in English, there are at least four competing etymologies for the phrase "o.k."?
"O.K."--And that's of relatively recent origin.
How much more murky the etymologies of ancient countries???
Stop acting like there's only one truth--and you have it.
Be humble. . . . You asked for a source and I proved that I didn't make up the alternate etymology.
Don't be obnoxious.
Just be a gentleman and agree to disagree. But don't be insulting and peremptory.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 21:20:48 GMT -5
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the Celtiberians were just a mixed group of Gauls and Iberians. They certainly weren't the "true" Celts anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 21:24:17 GMT -5
Mike those maps are not correct,not to mention that is way to exaggerating  Isnt that what Nationalist call Celtia,LOL! The so-called celts may of lived in those areas , but so did the very non-Celtic peoples that include,Dacians,Scythians,Sarmatians,Lingurians,Iberias,Thracians Illyrian,slavs,Germanics among a few others . The celts where not a single people,and never unified.Their more mythic than anything else,most of what we know,is from the Romans and Greek sources.The british historians love them and inflate them. |
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 21:25:35 GMT -5
Mike, All I said was that Portugal's ancient name was Lusitania. Is that incorrect? And the Lusitanian language is considered proto-Celtic, linguistically. Therefore the people who lived in Lusitania were--if one goes by the language of the people--"proto-Celtic". Here's a link mentioning Lusitanian as proto-Celtic. www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/indoeuropean3.html"There is linguistic evidence for this migration as well, in the form of an obscure but apparently Indo-European language called Lusitanian, which was the Romans encountered when they colonized western Iberia. The handful of surviving inscriptions in this language suggest that it had distant Celtic affinities, and yet it was not at all similar to the Celtiberian languages of central Spain, which had arrived from France as part of the recent Celtic expansion. It seems quite possible that Lusitanian was a survivor of the proto-Celtic spoken in the late Ice Age." |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 21:30:13 GMT -5
Yes, Crimson, but who lived in Central Europe (by which I mean places near and around Austria and Switzerland) besides the Celts?
Germans lived in the north. Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, etc. lived in the Balkans. Italians lived in... durr... Italy. Kind of narrows everything down. Either the La Tene people were the progenitors of Celtic-speakers or they were pre-Indo-European. Or possibly Indo-Europeans who spoke a different branch... I don't know. This is confusing.
I guess the real question is... who were the Keltoi mentioned by the Greeks? Might as well go to the source, where the word "Celt" came from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 21:32:30 GMT -5
Droop! I'am not being a dick,and you can laugh all you want that doenst phase me.
etymology be manipulated by Nationalists and other shady people that like putting their own spin on things.Portugal meant what i said it meant,which it does,how else would like me to say it?It doesnt have anything to do with Gaul. Lusitania was not even Gaul,come on man be realistic!
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 21:37:50 GMT -5
Mike,
That seemingly simple question is tying me in circles. Herodotus says the Keltoi lived in Spain. But the Spanish "Celts" were the same "Celts" in Austria. Genetically, the two groups aren't the same.
Could it be that the Celts in Austria and Switzerland invaded Spain and France, decapitated the elites and imposed their tongues on the Basques--accounting for the Basque Y-chromosomes of the Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Iberians--but the so-called Celtic language and culture?
That would account for the dna discrepancy.
I mean, blacks speak English but aren't anglo-saxon. Or a better example: Hungarians. Magyars came in but were never the majority. They imposed their language on pre-existing Avars. So modern "Magyars" are like 10% Magyar.
And in Finland, you have Caucasoids adopting an Altaic language from, basically, Siberians. Dna proves that Finns aren't "Siberians," but the language is. So when they entered the arctic circle from their homeland "at the bend in the Volga River" they found Siberians. Since the Siberians were their first, the initially smaller Finnish groups adopted the language but not the dna.
So maybe the Kelts imposed their culture in Spain and France--and then those genetically paleolithic groups spread the Celtic language and culture while not spreading "Celtic" genes from Southern Germany?
Just a rambling guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 21:39:48 GMT -5
The Lusitanians are a mystery..They spoke a paleo-Iberian lanaguge that seems to be related to Italic. But their language was older and not the same as spoken by the mixed Iberian-Celtic tribes nor was it "Celtic".
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 21:40:23 GMT -5
Crimson,
You're always a dick--but somehow you can get away with it because 99.9999% of the time you're also right.
I agree with you that "cale" is the mainstream etymology. You're not wrong one iota. I just mentioned an alternate etymology--one that I didn't make up.
In the balance of things, though, the betting man would have to side with you--despite the fact that Celt-Iberians did indeed speak Lusitanian and Lusitanian was a proto-Celtic tongue.
Just because there were Celt speakers there doesn't mean that the "gal" means "Gaul".
You're right.
|
|
