Origins of the Keltic Nordic Type in Britain?

[lurker4now]

drooperdoo said:

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!

all my sources are scholars or people with credentials.not no names.

[lurker4now]

faelcind said:

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. "

you go to becareful as soon as you say blonde hair they all go ape shit.lol

[Crimson Guard]

The only time you'll find your version your resiting is on some Nordicists site or Celtic-Nationalist site...Its quite simply, not the real legit quote!



The word he actually used was "leukon" which meant white back then..So it wasnt even "Blond" but "White"....They deffinitly werent white haired naturally as a rule,unless they where all old farts running around naked,lol.The lime produced that white or blond effect.

But where in agreement that they where predominantly Brunettes ,and that hair dying was common practice..So all of this rather academic.

[bert]

The way they dress is astonishing: they wear brightly coloured and embroidered shirts, with trousers called bracae ................................................................................I want to enter in no way into your discussion , just one thing I want to notice with regards to those so called ''enclaves'' of northern Italy ( I' m using the correct Italy instead of italy to avoid that someone may tell me I' m extremely uncorrect ) : trousers in Italian is ''pantaloni'' . Italian for those who are not well informed is the dialect of Florence extended to the whole peninsula . But when my father asks my mother where his blue trousers are , like anyone else in northern Italy he asks where his blue ''braghe'' are . And again when he wants to say '' io ho '' i.e. I have , he says '' mi go '' . He uses the particle ''mi'' instead of Io ( English I , French Je , Spanish Io , German Ich ) . That ''mi'' , so different from Io-I , derives from celtic as many studies have established . Four hundred years ago all the Florentines were used to laugh with no limit hearing a northern Italian , saying ''mi'' instead of Io . They thought we were all addicted to agriculture and well ignorant to speak in such a way . All this for those that are interested in knowing what the link to the past means . Ah Faelcind you are quite right , but you' re wasting time imo .

[Faelcind]

Yes its all rather academic but I find it ridiculous that every time you see something on the celts you disagree with its Celticists or Nordicists. Thats the quote as I have seen it in ever scholary publication on the matter. Leukon is indeed the word used in greek to describe people with very fair hair, as Dienekes has pointed out the word Xanthos which we usually translate as blond actuall means more like golden brown so there wasn't a better word to describe true blonds.

[Liquid Len]

Julius Caesar wrote that Gaul as a whole was made up of three parts: One was inhabited by the Belgians (who were probably something between Celts and Germanics, but not necessarily a mixture of these two), one by the Aquitanians (highly probably Basques) and the third part was inhabited by those who called themselves Celts and who were called Galli (Gauls) in Latin. Thus it seems like the Greek designation Keltoi was closer to what they called themselves than the Roman word Galli. But they were obviously synonymous; one Greek, the other Latin.

Crimson Guard wrote something about the ancient Celts being predominantly Alpine. Now, we don't have to rely on (perhaps) dubious and flawed accounts of ancient historians in this matter, since we've got nowadays loads of celtic crania and postcranial remains. While they don't give any clues about the complexion of the ancient Celts (it seems reasonable though that it was about the same as today among Celts and Frankophones - i.e. lighter than among Italians, which partly explains why they stroke the Romans and Greeks as light coloured), their mean CI is well below the brachycephalic range.

Drooperdoo asked why there is an ancient people called "Celt-Iberians", but none that is called "Celt-Frenchmen"... Well, that's a very easy one: "Celt-Iberians" (as well as "Iberians") was a term that was used by ancient (Roman etc) writers. But "Frenchman" was not - basically because in that age there didn't exist any Frenchmen yet. The term "French" comes from an ancient Germanic tribe, the Franks; they conquered what is now France rightly after the Roman period. But, for example, in Caesar's age, even the Franks didn't exist yet. They were a later aggregation of several smaller, earlier Germanic tribes. Thus, there was not the slightest occasion for the anciant historians to use some designation similar to "Frenchmen".

Drooperdoo further wrote that Proto-Celtic inscriptions were found in Spain. On this page on the Celt-Iberians www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_8/burillo_6_8.html (and btw not only there) it is stated that Celt-Iberian was an archaic form of Celtic, which is not quite the same as Proto-Celtic. There you can also read, that an equally archaic form of Celtic was spoken by the Lepontians, who lived in what is now southern Switzerland. So there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the Celtic origins were in Spain rather than in central Europe. It seems plausible that Celt-Iberian and Lepontian started as early off-shoots of the common archaic central European Celtic and probably got seperated from the rest during some Urnfield expansions around 1200 BC. The seperation explains their retaining of archaic characteristics.

[Faelcind]

Good post overall Liquid but two things the northern portion of Gauls was inhabited by the Belgae, not Belgians. They idea that they were mixed germans doesn't stand up there were people east of the rhine who spoke celtic dialects with germanic influences but not in gaul proper, and the Aquitani were almost certainl celtic speakers as the inscription from the area from that time period. are all in a celtic language.

[Liquid Len]

One point that may produce perplexities is that the Romans never called the Britons Gauls. But from today's linguistic point of view the affinity is clear and even Caesar noticed the great cultural similarity between at least the more southern living Britons and the Gauls. I suppose the Romans oriented themselves here mainly geographically and since there was Gaul (not even completely inhabited by Celts) on the one hand and Britannia on the other, they took the designations of the corresponding inhabitants from there.

Faelcind, concerning the Belgae and the Celtic-Germanic difference: It is generally assumed that the first German sound shift occured relatively lately, only some centuries BC. Tacitus wrote that the name Germania (and hence Germanic) was of relatively recent origin. It's probable that not all proto-Germanic tribes were affected by this. And thus they couldn't be called Germanics proper, but neither they were Gaulish speakers. According to old sources the Belgae themselves claimed they were of part Germanic origin. But I've read that when you look at their names or the names of tribes or places none of them really looks Germanic. I think that might be explained with what I mentioned. But you're also right that the Rhine wasn't that clear a border between Celts and Germanics as Caesar wanted his readers to believe. That was part of his political program to conquer Gaul but not what is on the other side of the Rhine.

Concerning the Aquitanians I draw upon this link: www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/larryt/basque.prehistory.html

As we shall see, there is good evidence that the Aquitanian language was also spoken in the Pyrenees themselves, at least as far east as the valley of Arán, in territory which is today Catalan-speaking, including Andorra. There is also evidence that Aquitanian was spoken south of the Pyrenees, at least in eastern Navarre. We suspect that Aquitanian was also spoken in at least part of Gipuzkoa, but we have no direct evidence for this, since no Aquitanian texts have ever been found there (in fact, there are hardly any texts at all from Gipuzkoa at this period).

The Aquitanians did not have writing at the time of the Roman conquest, but, after that conquest, they learned to write in Latin. We have a sizeable number of Latin texts written by the speakers of Aquitanian during the Roman period, and, crucially, these texts contain a large number of Aquitanian names: about 400 personal names and about 70 names of divinities, most of them found in votive and funerary inscriptions; these inscriptions typically identify the sex and the parents of the people referred to, a fact which is highly convenient.
Now here's the crunch: many of those Aquitanian names are unmistakably Basque. Consequently, we are now satisfied that Aquitanian was an ancestral form of Basque: modern Basque is the direct descendant of that Aquitanian language spoken in southwestern Gaul and in most of the Pyrenees, with (so far as we know) only a rather modest extension into Spain, in eastern Navarre and probably Gipuzkoa. Hence, in origin, Basque was primarily a language of Gaul which later spread west and south into Spain, into the remainder of the modern Basque Country. In the early Roman period, in Bizkaia, in Araba, and in western Navarre, we find evidence only for Indo-European speech: not a single Aquitanian name is recorded in this area. We therefore believe that Basque must have spread into these territories (and beyond) only later, probably after the collapse of Roman power in the area (see below).
Here is a sample of some Aquitanian personal names and elements of names; where relevant, all are found exclusively in the names of individuals of the appropriate sex.

Aq Nescato; Bq neskato `young girl'
Aq Cison; Bq gizon `man'
Aq Andere; Bq andere `lady'
Aq Sembe-; Bq seme `son' (from earlier *senbe)
Aq Ombe- and Vmme; Bq ume `child' (from *unbe)
Aq Osso-, Oxso-; Bq otso `wolf'
Aq Heraus; Bq herauts `boar'
Aq Bihos-; Bq bihotz `heart'
Aq Beles-, Belex-; Bq beltz `black'
Aq Sahar; Bq zahar `old'
Aq -corri; Bq gorri `red'
Aq -co; Bq -ko (relational suffix)
Aq -tar; Bq -tar (ethnonymic suffix)

The word-structure of the Aquitanian names is identical to the word-structure of modern Basque; the phonology of Aquitanian is similar to that of Basque and even more similar to that independently reconstructed for Pre-Basque; a few of the Aquitanian names are attested as surnames in medieval Basque; the use of kinship terms as personal names is abundantly attested in medieval Basques. The identity of Aquitanian and Basque may therefore be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt.

[bert]

(it seems reasonable though that it was about the same as today among Celts and Frankophones - i.e. lighter than among Italians, which partly explains why they stroke the Romans and Greeks as light coloured), their mean CI is well below the brachycephalic range............................................................................................................................................. You know that the German tribe called Franks invaded actual France ( and much more ) and then you say .........................lighter than among Italians, which partly explains why they stroke the Romans and Greeks as light coloured . This means that to you Romans = Italians . In part of Italy those that you call Kelts , established their new home coming from actual France while other Celtic tribes were in the north eastern part of the peninsula before these newcomers arrived . So perhaps talking about the Romans they were not talking about the Italians , otherwise they would have been talking partly about themselves . That said , I read that someones have some difficulties to accept the fact that the Indoeuropeans had to be fair and with tendency to have blond hair . In the Region of Lazio i.e. central part of the peninsula there were the so called Rutuli whose name has been translated as '' the blonds '' . They were Indoeuropeans . Blond probably doesn' t mean ''white blond'' as a Scandinavian . So in summary in my opinion the actual difference between north and south Europe is due to a different amount of admixture with aboriginal Europeans . When you have a mix with not blond people , generation after generation blondism disappears being it recessive . So I presume the aboriginal Europeans were more in number in the more temperate southern part of Europe . Two last considerations : the fact that the Kelts should have been more blond haired than black haired is a simple deduction from their skin . The Kelts so called Cenomani , that you probably don' t know , but I do know because they lived here , have their characteristics inside their name . Cenomani means '' water clear people '' . As you should know the clearer the skin is , the more possibilities you have that your hair is blond . This obviously before they mixed with the resident not indoeuropeans Etruscans , surely much darker . Recent findings in Emilia have demonstrated that the two peoples at the end mixed together . With regards to whom actually looks like ''Celtic'' , I notice you say the '' Francophones '' . I totally disagree with you . To me those that look more ''Celtic'' are exactly placed where anyone places them : Wales , Ireland , Scotland , part of northern France . With regards to this , recently I saw a detailed chart of skin tones regarding the whole Europe . I saw three different colours for Italy ( one for the south part , another one for the central part , and a third one for the northern part ) . Then I saw that the colour of Greece was uniform and equal to the southern Italian one . The major part of Spain had the colour of southern Italy , while a minor northern part had the same colour of central Italy . Southern to central France had the same colour of northern Italy , while the northern part had a different colour . Given that each colour represents a different skin tone , I would say that this confirms that France is not more Celtic with regards to skin tone than northern Italy . Apart obviously part of northern France . France is another great mix , because if you consider the Alsatian region , it has been part of Germany and it has German surnames mostly , I believe . But , anyway , actual Celtic looking people is exactly in Britain , imo . And don' t tell me that examining a skull you can establish that it is '' Celtic'' . After a long series of measures of guys belonging to a same people , you can establish what are the typical proportions of a skull of that people , but different proportions are represented too . This means that these typical proportions occur just in a percentage , otherwise they wouldn' t be typical but they would be '' the exact proportions '' of any skull belonging to that group . So when you say this skull is '' Celtic'' , you should say instead this skull has 50% of possibilities to be Celtic . Another thing is if you find 5.000 buried guys and studying the proportions of their skulls , you find that the curve of distribution of them is equal to that which is commonly known as to represent the skull features of the '' Kelts'' , which thing let you say those 5.000 buried guys are more probably Kelts . This is a serious study. In other words one single skull may be whatever it wants to be , while a vast amount of skulls can indicate , if it is proved that different peoples have different curves of distribution of skull features , to which group a community of buried guys belongs . As a last consideration I would say that what is far more distinctive as to be '' nordish'' is the nose . Being it concavic , the possibility that a skull belongs to a nordic guy is far stronger .

[hs]

the Rhineland is said to have had a significant Celtic presence. here Celtic settlements in the Hunsruck area (mountain region in Rheinland Pfalz):

img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=keltensiedlungeni0kn.png




img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=keltensiedlungenii2kd.png



further information here: www.hunsrueckreise.de/Burgen-Hunsrueck/Altburg-Hunsrueck.shtml

a brief chronology by the Zell an Mosel burg site, showing the town takes its name from Celts... and some more info
www.zellmosel.de/Geschichte.shtml

[Faelcind]

Nice link Liguid interesting thanks for bringing an actual link to the discussion. What you say makes sense but what I have read also indicates that in extensive areas considered part of Aquitani by Caesar there were many celtic inscriptions.

As for the belgae Caesar does indeed say they claim to be Germani, but Germani is itself a word of dubious lingustic origin(possible celtic, possible germanic) and seems indicate in thise case nothing more then that they came from east of the rhine which as we have seen also housed celtic inhabitants. The celtic dialect spoken among Belgae does not appear to have had any signficant germanic substrate at least based on that articles I have read.

[captainusa1]

drooperdoo said:

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.)

The Fitzgeralds came from Florence to Normandy. They were a powerful and prominent family in Italy, although they were known by a different name there. They married members of the Welsh royal family before they came to Ireland, so some members of the family had Celtic blood before they arrived in Eire. They're called Anglo-Norman, but "Cambro-Florentine" is more like it.

[Liquid Len]

waldm said:

I suppose the Romans oriented themselves here mainly geographically and since there was Gaul (not even completely inhabited by Celts) on the one hand and Britannia on the other, they took the designations of the corresponding inhabitants from there.

I think I have to oppose my own explanation, because the north Italian Celts were also called Gauls by the Romans.
But I've got another one: The Britons didn't call themselves Celts (perhaps like the Belgae). But as I said: We today can still (and have to) include them into the Celtic language family anyway.

Concerning the thread-topic (Mike's question): First I would ask, if the so called Celtic Nordic type has any very distinctive features that would, if present, make the assumption of a close relationship to the continent necessary. Then I would ask, if it's really sure that these features are common among Brits and Irish folks.

bert said:

then you say .........................lighter than among Italians, which partly explains why they stroke the Romans and Greeks as light coloured . This means that to you Romans = Italians .
In part of Italy those that you call Kelts , established their new home coming from actual France while other Celtic tribes were in the north eastern part of the peninsula before these newcomers arrived . So perhaps talking about the Romans they were not talking about the Italians , otherwise they would have been talking partly about themselves .

What I was trying to say: If you look at Coon's pigmentation map, then most of Italy, except the northermost parts, is somewhat darker pigmented than the francophone and Celtic areas. Both the Romans and the earliest romanised Italians were from this darker pigmented area.

bert said:

With regards to whom actually looks like ''Celtic'' , I notice you say the '' Francophones '' . I totally disagree with you . To me those that look more ''Celtic'' are exactly placed where anyone places them : Wales , Ireland , Scotland , part of northern France .

I didn't say the Francophones looked mostly like the old Celts. I said the pigmentation probably didn't change much - because there was neither much admixture nor can a selective pressure towards a darker complexion be made plausible. The peoples you mention are usually called Celtic, because their language was very recently, and to some extent still is Celtic. But genetically they've got little connection with formerly Celtic populations on the continent (except the Bretons of course), probably because they aquired their Celtic ethnicity through a process of elite dominance. And note that the Bretons are on average short, brunet and brachycephalic. Some Breton areas have got the shortest average heights of France.

bert said:

France is another great mix , because if you consider the Alsatian region , it has been part of Germany and it has German surnames mostly , I believe .

The Alsatians took up speaking predominantly French only very recently. Most of the time they spoke a German dialect, and some are still bilingue. But that doesn't make the original Francophones more a mix than they are.