|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 21:46:31 GMT -5
Portugal: From the Latin portus, "port" and the name of the Roman port of Cale, on the earlier Greek colony of Calle (beautiful in Greek). The junction name cames after the name of the Portus Cale (adding Portus to the old name), modern Porto. Thus, Portugal is a joint Greek and Latin word that means "Beautiful Port."
I find the idea of the "gal" in Portugal meaning "Gaul" exceedingly unlikely in light of the probability of the popular etymology. Any connection to Gaul sounds like wishful thinking, but who knows sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 21:52:01 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. Well, linguistic transference is a common phenomenon. Case in point: Melanesians. They speak an Austronesian language yet show little signs of Mongoloid mixture. I just want to know who the true Keltoi of the Greeks were. I also want to know if the La Tène language was a direct ancestor of the so-called "Celtic" languages like Gaulish, Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, etc. Because if it is, I see no problem with calling these people Celts, since Celtic is just a linguistic appellation anyway and doesn't carry much racial significance because so many types are represented.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 30, 2005 21:52:12 GMT -5
www.answers.com/topic/lusitaniaLusitanians Main article: Lusitanians The Lusitani may have come from the Alps and established themselves in the region in the 6th century BC. But historians and archeologists largely discuss their ethnic origins. Some modern authors consider them to be autochthonous and initially dominated by the Celts, before gaining full independence from them. This hypothesis is also backed by Avienus, who wrote ORA MARITIMA, inspired by documents from 6th century BC. The investigator Lambrino defended that the Lusitanians were a tribal group of Celt origin related to the Lusoni (a tribe that have inhabited the east of Iberia). Possibly, both tribes came from the Swiss mountains. But some rather prefer to see the Lusitanians has a native Iberian tribe, resulting of intermarriage between different tribes. Pre-Roman Lusitania The first area colonized by the Lusitani was probably the Douro valley and the region of Beira Alta; in Beira they stayed until they defeated the Celts and other tribes, then they expanded to cover a territory that reached Estremadura before the arrival of the Romans.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 22:05:03 GMT -5
Well those supposed Genetic tests of the British Isle's leave out the Neolithic Colonizeres who built the Megaliths and first settled in that land..They where an non-Indo European people and of North African/Middle Eastern origin. Also according to Irish lore the Celts where the last invaders/migrations onto that land.. <<You're always a dick--but somehow you can get away with it because 99.9999% of the time you're also right.>> Thanks, I'am a dick cause I'am always right,i could see that! Droop,All I'am basically saying is that theirs alot of fake Etymology out their,and alot of Nationalist propaganda . Most of what we know or "think" we know of the Celts,is from the Romans and Greeks,the rest is often controversial and guess work,and theirs 100's of different theories . The name Kelt is of Greek Origin,they didnt even call themselves that. My view their part real and part invention/myth...Their an enigma !
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 30, 2005 22:09:12 GMT -5
The name Kelt is of Greek Origin,they didnt even call themselves that. This is true. But if the Keltoi of the Greeks refers to the Gaulic-speakers, then I don't see the problem with the word Celtic. It would just become another word for the same thing. Same kind of thing with the Greeks themselves. Even if the Greeks are properly called Hellenes, they are still Greeks just the same.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 30, 2005 22:27:13 GMT -5
Mike I know what your saying but its not really the same thing at all!
The Greeks where known by many names,cause of the particular tribe like the Argives, Danaans and Achaeans, and all with equal meaning .
The english Greek, has its origins from from the Latin name for the Greeks called "Graecus".This came from the Hellenic tribe named "Graikos",which came outve central Greece and that settled in Italy. Grecia in Latin derives from this of course.
And the Greeks from Hellas under Roman occupation began calling themselves Romans..wierd how it all works out!
The name Celt was from a son of Hercules called Celtus,the Greeks named these barbarians after him.
Mike the truth is the term "Celt" is misleading.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Jul 1, 2005 0:27:40 GMT -5
How there is allot of baseless stuff being spread around here. First of all, weres your evidence that the keltic nordic type is the most common type in britian Mike. The only source I can remember saying that is McCullough and his description of Keltic nordic sounds like little more then an attempt make the Nordic label fit the "Celtic" peoples of the british isles while simply exagerrating the blondism. The Bruenn, Keltic nordic, and Atlanto-med types of brits are all just variations on commmon theme of atlantic phenotypes varrying in little more then pigmentation and extent of meso/ectomorphy.
So who says that the Keltic nordic type of Brit neccesarily is derived from Celtic peoples. Of course there has been gene flow into the british isles from the france, the low countries and scandinavia over the centuries and fair hair is more common in later two then in britain so eastern brits may be fairer and fit more closely into continental types, no single invasion need be seen as the source variation in point of fact since the MTDNA of the peoples of british isles more closely resembles that of their continental counterparts then the Y-chromsome DNA, the invasion seems unlikely.
Drooperdoo I have pointed out to you before that Herodotus quote refers to the source of Danube I.E southern germany as well as spain it iss not geographically reliable. No people in spain were ever none as Gauls and Gaul and Gael are likely not cognates, Gael is infact most likely a very recent name for the Gaelic speaking peoples, derived from welsh word for foreigner which is a cognate with the Gaelic Gall meaning also meaning foreigner from which the Terms Gallway, and Galloway are derived. The gaelic speakers of ireland used to refer to themselves as Feni meaning free people. The Gaellacci of north western spain are not considered cultural celtic by archeologists of linguistic celtic by linguists so stop using that red herring the celts of spain are the celtiberians of the Castille and Leon Region. Celt Iberian almost certainly actually derives not from celt crossed with iberians but rather celts who live by the Ibhar or river same root as that of Ebro river or.
Crimsonguard allmost all the roman accounts describe the celts as tall blond, and heavily muscled with long faces, does that sound, alpine/med to you. Not that I am saying the celts were perfect aryans but don't misrepresent the sources. Seriously read up on this you make your self sound a fool, Caesar specifical says in De Bello Gallico that The gauls are made of up three peoples, Celtae, Belgae and Aquitani and eariler sources used Celtae/keltoi and Galli/Galatae interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 1, 2005 1:08:08 GMT -5
<<Crimsonguard allmost all the roman accounts describe the celts as tall blond, and heavily muscled with long faces, does that sound, alpine/med to you. Not that I am saying the celts were perfect aryans but don't misrepresent the sources. Seriously read up on this you make your self sound a fool, Caesar specifical says in De Bello Gallico that The gauls are made of up three peoples, Celtae, Belgae and Aquitani and eariler sources used Celtae/keltoi and Galli/Galatae interchangeable. >>
I dont know why your so dishonest Faelcind?!
I read the ROMAN stuff,perhaps you need a re-education yourself,because its mentioned their aswell that they dyed/limed their hair. Which produced that blond effect,it was artificial . A person so adept with the Celts should of remembered this small but very important point before making remarks about me...
The so-called Celts where never a homogenous people nor made up of one single genetic make up..Their influence in Central Europe and even in Britain was more linguistic and cultural not racial.They where notorious for race mixing and assimilation with the already local peoples.
Their height was the same as the Romans and Greeks,maybe an inch taller in some cases,lol..They where exaggerated by the writers of their time,much like the Viking where later on.
And for your information, Julius Caesar, described the Aquitani as not being Celtic but Iberian.And even the Belgai who where in Northern Gaul and modern belgium where mentioned as having come outve Germania...most historians believe they where of partial Gaulish & Germanic ancestry .
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Jul 1, 2005 1:13:24 GMT -5
The quote that mentions the Dying of the hair says "that their hair is blond and made more so by their practice of washing it with lime"(loose quote) They were still considered a blond peoples, the greeks refered to the celts as having Leukos or white hair. I never said the celts were a homogenous people I agree with you completely there I just know what the sources say and know how unreliable the are, the height, colouring, physiques, relgious practices, and vocal timbres of the celts were all exagerrated. Though I think the height differences was more like three inches. The Aquitani are indeed described as less celtic but like the Welsh they were celtic speaking but physically more similar to iberians/ligurians. The inscriptions in the Aquitane region frome period are indeed celtic. The Germans that Caesar refered have been shown by archeological evidence to have been celtic speaking the Germani of Caesar were not Germanic. German seems to have simply meant people from east of the rhine.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 1, 2005 1:34:17 GMT -5
no no your confused... Correct quote: <<Their aspect is terrifying...They are very tall in stature, with ripling muscles under clear white skin. Their hair is blond, but not naturally so: they bleach it, to this day, artificially, washing it in lime and combing it back from their foreheaads. They look like wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a horse's mane. Some of them are cleanshaven, but others - especially those of high rank, shave their cheeks but leave a moustache that covers the whole mouth and, when they eat and drink, acts like a sieve, trapping particles of food...The way they dress is astonishing: they wear brightly coloured and embroidered shirts, with trousers called bracae and cloaks fastened at the shoulder with a brooch, heavy in winter, light in summer. These cloaks are striped or checkered in design, with the seperate checks close together and in various colours. They wear bronze helmets with figures picked out on them, even horns, which made them look even taller than they already are...while others cover themselves with breast-armour made out of chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle...Weird, discordant horns were sounded, [they shouted in chorus with their] deep and harsh voices, they beat their swords rythmically against their shields. Diodorus Siculus, History. >> I know my history and what I speak...trust me!
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Jul 1, 2005 1:40:05 GMT -5
The translation is usually not only naturally so as I have seen it. The consensus among classical authors certainly describes the ethnic stereotype of the celts as blond.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 1, 2005 1:46:53 GMT -5
Maybe your reading Kemp?! I even own the book in my collection,same thing!
Their is loads of archeological evidence that the Gauls/Celts dyed their hair...Most where brunettes.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Jul 1, 2005 1:50:44 GMT -5
Here is the normal translation. Dropping a single word their crimson and you changed the whole meaning.
"Diodorus Siculus [c. 60-30 BCE]
¶ 28. The Gauls are very tall with white skin and blond hair, not only blond by nature but more so by the artificial means they use to lighten their hair. For they continually wash their hair in a lime solution, combing it back from the forehead to the back of the neck. This process makes them resemble Satyrs and Pans since this treatment makes the hair thick like a horse's mane. "
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Jul 1, 2005 1:55:03 GMT -5
Oh I agree with you, that the celts were probably predominately brunette and hair dying was common. The difference is I don't need the Roman sources to have been write I understand it was an ethnic stereotype like Irish people all having red hair according to many americans.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jul 1, 2005 8:53:08 GMT -5
I remember reading somewhere that Ceasar had to enlist some Belgians in the parade after his victory in Gaul because the Gauls captured werent Blonde and foreign looking enough.
It would make sense that the Kelts today are limited to the Northwestern fringes of europe. Since their dominance in the first centuries AD, they have been have been pressed by other peoples.
To say that the British Isles have never been invaded by Kelts is nonsense. Britain was only not the original centre of the Keltic culture that as we know was in central Europe, originating in from the collapsed Hallstatt Iron Age industry
The Keltic culture, was identyfied by its typical decorated metallurgical style as well as by its warbands,. In the West, the Kelts expanded easily, settling especially well in the then peaceful areas of Gaul and Britain, Those who stayed in Germany become mixed and entangled in the Germanic tribal warfare, such as in E.Gaul, Belgium and Switzerland. Whlie in Southern Europe they limited themselves to grand or small-scale raids or by forming relitavely isolated enclaves.
As for the racial type, I can only speculate a mixture of Brachycephalic C Europeans and Bronze Age Dinarics with the general dolicocephalic trends of the iron age era. In Gaul this type might have mixed with further Alpines and Meds; in Britain maybe Atlantic and Dinaric types. In Ireland with Irish Brunn.
|
|