Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Celts: Did they exist?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
The latset interpretation of the evidence seems to posit the idea that the Celts were not an actual group; where does that leave us interms of iron age people and the remnants of 'celtic culture' on the 'celtic fringe'? -
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
From what I've understood Celt is merely a collective term placed on a wide ranging group of various tribes by the Romans. And there was never an actual people who called themselves or named themselves the Celts.
However, I could be wrong. There are a few on these boards who are very knowledgeable on this topic and it will be interesting to read their opinion. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
Hi Shane,
One of the best reasons for abandoning the word 'Celt' is that it used in so many different ways: a group of languages, a material culture, or an ethnic group. The name was seemingly coined in the 18th century from a Greek name applied to tribal people in southern France. The worse excesses of historians and archaeologists resulted in the word coming to mean a single pan-European population speaking a Celtic language, using a similar cultural package, and worshipping a similar pantheon. I really don't think the evidence will sustain this view.
Many people in modern Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotland & Brittany speak languages with recognisable family resemblances and which have been known since the 18th century as 'Celtic' languages. In the Iron Age none of the precursors of these modern languages were written down, but linguistic and place name evidence (which others on this board understand better than myself) suggest an even wider territory for this language family which certainly included northern Spain, and much of Roman Gaul. There is some evidence that other members of this language group were spoken in northern Italy, central Europe and as far away as Galicia in modern Turkey. Some of this dispersal can be equated with recorded tribal migrations in classical times.
The fact that the continental Celtic languages are now largely extinct is the result of competition from two other highly successful groups: the Romance and Germanic languages. But as you will appreciate it is extremely dangerous to equate a language with an ethnic group. In New York City the descendants of Irish immigrants, west African slaves, and Cantonese labourers all speak English.
The material culture of Iron Age Europe has been divided into two categories: Hallstat and La Tene. Hallstat is earlier and its type site is an Austrian lakeside village. The later La Tene material (c400 BC onwards) is notable for bronze broaches, shields, horse-trappings, torcs, and those beautiful spiral designs often, most confusingly, described as 'Celtic'. The Celtic languages and the La Tene cultural package certainly share large areas of Europe, but are by no means co-terminous. It is difficult to be quite certain where the 'core' areas are but for language the south of France has been suggested whereas the material culture has core areas far to the north and east.
To equate then a Celtic language with the La Tene cultural package is, at the very least, an oversimplification. There could be no more 'Celtic' regions than modern Ireland & Scotland, but Irish archaeologists have told me that La Tene forms in that country are 'diluted', and in northern Scotland they are virtually non-existent. Finally no classical writer ever refers to the inhabitants of Britain as 'celts'; they are Britons.
I think anyone using 'Celts' or 'celtic', on this message board for example, has to explain in what sense they are using the word. Personally I would avoid it.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
"I think anyone using 'Celts' or 'celtic', on this message board for example, has to explain in what sense they are using the word. Personally I would avoid it."
Yes, I would tend to agree, it has far too much of the 19th century romanticism about it. DNA evidence seems to suggest the survival of groups in Ireland which preceed and seem undisturbed by the supposed 'celtic invasions', much in the same way that the Anglo-Saxon 'invasions' seem to have a similarly undisturbed affect on the DNA picture of the post-Roman British population. -
Message 5
Posted by prof_muster (U14549653) on Monday, 12th July 2010
IF, 'Celts' or Keltoi is Greek, does it mean ' just Handsome'? (= KALAS.)
-
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Re: Message 3.
TwinProbe,
it is always a pleasure to read your clear and logic messages.
In fact it is a survey and correction of the dozens of messages we have had on these messageboards about the Celts and from all what I learned from it I fully agree with what you said.
Kind regards and with high esteem,
Paul. -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Yes, I would tend to agree, it has far too much of the 19th century romanticism about it.Ìý
Apologies for side-tracking the thread, but does 150 years of common cultural belief in defining people as celtic not justify using the term "celtic fringe"? If we're willing to talk about common cultural items from the Iron Age giving rise to celtic culture, should we also consider common cultural views from the Victorian period (even if based on factual inaccuracies)? -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Hi cloudyj
Is not 'celtic fringe' a rather demeaning term used by the metropolitan English about their Celtic language speaking neighbours? Rather in the way that 'up North' is used to imply cultural homogeneity in an area that starts at Derby and finishes in Newcastle.
I would be really interested to know if modern Welsh speakers feel cultural affinities with Ireland and Scotland which they don't feel for England. I wouldn't blame them if they did I may add.
Kind regards
TP -
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
If someone feels demeaned in any way because they have been described as being a part of the "celtic fringe" then they really are looking hard for reasons to be offended, I'd say. I have always understood the term to mean those areas which possess a language derived from a Celtic origin in the true (and only) application of the term, that of linguistics. There is no denying that a bird's eye view of western Europe places these areas most definitely on or near the continent's fringes.
In Ireland we are probably more generally aware of the cultural links which bind Irish and Welsh tradition and language than are most Welsh people. But I would suggest that this is a result of a particular political and educational importance placed on such awareness in Ireland which is not quite duplicated in Wales, where there is no doubt a strong and popular recognition of Celtic tradition. However it tends to be emphasised with more of a view to establishing a difference from English tradition and culture than necessarily finding commonality with Irish or Scottish. -
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
I would be really interested to know if modern Welsh speakers feel cultural affinities with Ireland and Scotland which they don't feel for England. I wouldn't blame them if they did I may add.
Ìý
I'd say there is some understanding of the other Celtic languages and certainly interest amongs all Celtic language speakers of each others languages.
I have a Welsh friend who is currently living in the Hebrides learning Gaelic. And I remember watching the news on S4C once when I was in Wales and was surprised to be watching a Sinn Fein member being interviewed in Welsh - in fact I have since seen this happen with more than one Sinn Fein politician on S4C.
And S4C made a film a few years ago (called Branwen) of a Welsh woman living in Belfast and marrying a local Catholic man who spoke Welsh.
Certainly from me perspective, I garnered an interest in the other Celtic languages through my knowldge of Welsh. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
I will try to use a slightly different approach to define the Celts.
It has to be understood that the Celts were certainly not more of one nation other than Greeks , Thraecians, and Italics formed one nation. They were rather a collection of tribes speaking cousin languages having cousin religions as much as Phrygians, Kares, Moesians, Thraecians, Greeks & Italics were cousin tribes speaking cousin languages having cousin religions. As a single nation, Celtics never existed. As an identifiable collection of tribes, Celtics certainly existed as their contemporaries could tell the difference at least on a basic level.
The term "Keltes" was used by Greek colonists to call specific tribes in southern France and north western Spain, none of which is by any means considered as an epicenter of what is perceived today to had been the Celtics! Most probably it was the world these particular tribes (I note again, NOT the epicenter of what we think as Celtic) used for themselves.
And I say specific since Greeks did not use it for every single tribe they met there. In Spain for example they made talk about Iberians & Celts implying that there was at least some differentiation between these two. From there on, Greeks went on to call "Galates" all the tribes habitating north of Marseilles, but the term "Galates" was never used for the "Keltes" of Spain.
However, during the massive Gaulic raid in Greece in the 3rd century B.C., the Greeks identified the raiders as "Galates" since these came from the lands of modern day central eastern France, despite these had certainly dragged a substantial number of central European populations who are alledgedly Celtics, ref. La Tene, Hallstat etc. all over north Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Serbia etc. (back then not populated by Slavic or Hungarian stocks but alledgedly "Celtic") and many of these lands (the rectangle among modern day eastern France, Switzerland Italy and Austria) were indeed Celtic epicenters. Quite interesting as for the use of the term "Keltes".
Herodotus simply refers to Keltes as a collection of related tribes habitating in a bow-like direction from western Spain east to the delta of Danube in modern day Romania. Was it just an oversimplification to describe all tribes habitating north of the Greeks? Not so, if one thinks that he differentiated the Italics and the Iberians. On the other hand, there is nothing more natural than to imagine that central European tribes would had travelled via the rivers and this communication and commerce via the rivers created a continuum even since pre-historic times.
However Strabon says that "Keltes" are the tribes that predominantly lived in the south of France (just above the Greek colonies), and these of course were naturally related to those identified as Keltes in Spain (also having as an original point South France), while "Galates" are the tribes that habitate in central-North France. Does that mean that Strabon saw a fundamendal difference between the two groups? Or is it simple 2 names used for collections of tribes that are otherwise related in an indivisible continuum. Probably the latter if we think what Ceasar wrote on them: "Keltes is the name they use for them, Gaules is the name we use for them". Ceasar also identified the Belgians and the Aquitanes (=most probably a mix of Celts & Basques) as distinct groups of people risiding in the greater area of Galatia (roughly modern France) next to the Celts/Gauls.
Now, the question if Celts existed as 1 distinguishable collection of tribe just like the Greeks, the Italics or the Iberians is quite a philosophical one and reminds me of the other similar question on Illyrians & Thraecians: were they a single collection of close tribes that could be eventually described as a nation? Or did writers just bunch all tribes habitating in eastern peninsula?
In the case of Illyrians the most prominent answer is that they were not a specific nation but clearly random collection of quite differentiated tribes. Some of the tribes that in the past had been branded Illyrians, eastern ones like the Dardanes & Triballoi are now known to had been more related to Thraecians, some very northern ones, quite obscure were actually southern Celtics while some of the southwestern that are recently
"riff-raffly" bunched along as Illyrians like the Chaones are clearly Greek tribes (whom some call Illyrians for modern day political assertions in the region... well they call Epirots as Illyrians what else do you expect?).
In accordance to Greeks who, contrary to Keltes & Thraecians described as a large collection of tribes, never claimed the Illyrians to be any particulargly big group, Roman writers wrote "most of what we call Illyrian tribes are actually not really Illyrians", i.e. implying that Illyrians really were not any large collection of tribes but a smaller one in the rectangle defined by modern day Kosovo, Bosnia, Montenegro and the coastal stripe of Bosnia, yet the term Illyrian was used back then for all tribes along the Dalmatian coastline up to the Pannonian planes (the triangle of modern day Slovenia, Hungary, Austria).
So could really the term "Keltes" be simply a term used by specific tribes in South France and north/central/western Spain which was later expanded to included much of Europe, thus including unrelated tribes?
The case of Thraecians (in conjunction with the case of Illyrians) is quite educating. More than the terms Keltes & Illyrians, the term Thraecian came most probably from the geographical definition of the land that lies between the Danube Delta and the Aegean i.e. covering modern day Bulgaria, the bit of of north Eastern Greece and the lands of Turkey in Europe. However the geographical term could had been born out of the term of one tribe habitating there and that is the most probable. But then whatever the case, later on the term was used with little distinction to all tribes circulating in the region, even more north of the Danube as well as for tribes that moved from Thrace into Minor Asia.
However, there we have the paradox of the Thraecian Phrygians, a south Thraecian tribe that moved deeply in Minor Asia at a region where it did not have direct borders with any Greek state, whose language is actually the closest language we know to Greek, implying that back in pre-archaic times, Thraecian tribes like the Phrygians might had formed a tribal continuum with all the rest of Greek tribes which of course is the most natural thing to imagine. So if Greeks were somehow related to Thraecians, were they related to... Dacians too who are often described as Thraecians? Quite impossible to assert such an affirmation. There is everything to show that Greek tribes were related to coastal Thraecian tribes both in Europe and Minor Asia and nothing to show they were related to tribes so distant like the Dacians. -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
The Greeks' tendency to dismiss all who spoke a non-Greek tongue as "barbarians" would tend to knock one's confidence in their enthusiasm for detailed anthropological assessement of their neighbours.
No one now maintains that "Celtic" can be used to imply genetic or even cultural commonality between the diverse people grouped under the banner, but most agree that it can still (roughly) apply in the case of the languages they spoke. The custom of calling anything non-linguistic "Celtic" has largely fallen out of favour in academia and museums etc, though it still enjoys currency in music, I notice, however inaccurately or misleadingly the term actually is in that context. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
So what is the case?
The case is that it is time to stop talking and get a map showing mountains and rivers. See the Danube. See the Aegean. Thraecians were nothing else than the collection of tribes that ranged from the northern ones like Dacians down to the southern ones like Phrygians, Moesians and Bithynians. I.e. Thraecians were nothing else than the meeting point of nothern tribes related either to central Europe or Ukraine (or more commonly both) with the southern ones (Mediterraneans). In the same way Illyrians were the meeting point of the northern tribes with the southern ones with one difference: strangely, it would be eastern tribes that would mostly arrive in western Balkans and western tribes that would arrive in eastern Balkans as the eastern ones arrived by horses and would be dragged by the Pannonian plains, while the western ones arrived on the river and would naturally end up in the Danube delta.
This case makes it more interesting as some of the so called nothern Illyrian tribes would be mixes coming from the Ukraine area on horse while some of the so called northern Thraecian tribes would be mixes coming from central Europe on the Danube.
So let us go back to the Celts:
With so much differentiation among much smaller areas (Illyrian, Thrace) who can assert anything more specific for the vast geographical areas that the term Celtic applies?
What is logical to imagine is that there was a continuum of tribes in central and Western Europe. Such tribes moved around on rivers. Hence, the presence of central European population in the Danube delta. Hence the diffusion of population all over France. From there on, these tribes would move around the Atlantic coastline from the British isles down to Spain. There is nothing illogical in imagining this. Ships and boats transfer population much more effectively and much more quickly than horses.
From there on, one can easily imagine a large part of central-western Europe (and following the Danube line up to the Black Sea) a continuum of loosely related tribes. How much related? Well, as Greeks to Latin. That means quite related but not necessarily forming something that could be called one nation.
One has to take into consideration that back then the Germanic stocks were situation more north, quite around northern Germany, nothern Poland, southern Sweden & Norway with an epicenter (refering to those times) in modern Danmark. That is another hint as to how central western Europe was in a relative tribal continuum.
How things had been back then, one could find 6 basic continuums:
1) The Mediterranean continuum: Minor Asian tribes Greek tribes, Italic tribes and perhaps including there Iberanians, though we know little of them.
2) The Basque continuum: small continuum of tribes around the Gascognic gulf.
3) The Celtic continuum: expanding in a Y-shape dropped to the left from Spain and British Isles to Austria and from there in a thin line following the Danube to the Black sea.
4) The Nordic continuum: back then constrained in the western Baltic region including northern Germany, northern Poland, south Sweden & Norway epicentered in Danemark.
5) The Baltic continuum: streching from northern Lithuania up to Finland
6) The Slavic continuum: back then quite smaller than today, stretching from Moscow down to Kiev.
epicentered in the region between Moscow and Kiev between the great rivers of the regions.
There is a 7th continuum also, the Scythian but then this streched from south Ukraine east to central Asia so it can be considered as mostly an Asiatic continuum despite Scythians being a tribe that today would be considered as of "European stock".
To be noted that Caucasus even back then did not present any continuum of tribes but was habitated even back then by quite differentiated tribes - northern Armenians for example were not really related to southern Scythians but more with other eastern Minor Asian tribes (some related them to Phrygians but that has never been established clearly).
------------------------------------------------
So... when you put things in th eright context and speak of these continuums, then the question on Celtics becomes much more easy to deal with. There is nothing basically incomprehensible about them being a large continuum of river-travelling loosely related tribes in Central Europe distinguished as a group only when opposed to the southern Mediterranean tribes or the northern Nordic ones. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
"""The Greeks' tendency to dismiss all who spoke a non-Greek tongue as "barbarians" would tend to knock one's confidence in their enthusiasm for detailed anthropological assessement of their neighbours."""
Nordman, you use the term "barbarian" in the modern sense. The term back in early archaic times was simply a coloqial word for "foreigner" and in classical times was often used in a derogatory sense even among Greeks themselves. But it made sense. Whoever was not Greek was a barbarian, i.e. whoever was not Greek, was a foreigner... what is so difficult for you to understand in that?
From there on, it is more than natural to beware of the classifications Greeks made on others, however we cannot go on and wipe everything with a sponge. If Herodotus mentioned what he mentioned he must had heard it somewhere, and this should be a valid source. There is nothing spectacularly unbelievable to think that Danube flows from north-central Europe east down to the Black Sea and thus the most natural path for tribes on it would be from from the upstream to down stream. From there on, one may talk about continuums. If you do not accept the idea of continuum then you may as well remain to the "its all about whites, blacks and yellows"... but wonder what good can such an approach do.
What I do here is using the most basic of all: land morhology and human movement to explain why there could be such a continuum in central Europe. And I do believe there was a continuum just like there was one in the Mediterranean.
"""No one now maintains that "Celtic" can be used to imply genetic or even cultural commonality between the diverse people grouped under the banner, but most agree that it can still (roughly) apply in the case of the languages they spoke."""
None talked about nation-like tribes. I talk about a continuum. Celtic tribes were very differentiated but were still dinstinguished from the southern Mediterranean ones and the northern Nordic ones. It is not me, it is the writers of the times that mention it.
"""The custom of calling anything non-linguistic "Celtic" has largely fallen out of favour in academia and museums etc, though it still enjoys currency in music, I notice, however inaccurately or misleadingly the term actually is in that context."""
Yes, indeed. It has become quite a coin, not to use a bubble-gum. Just as the term Thraecian in the early 20th century, then the term "Turkic" and very recently the term "Illyrian". It seems that some consider the other bubblegum, "Nordic", as a bit more accurate (but still none has explained to us why people like Swedish, considered to be the very Nordic have visible Asian characteristics below their blond hair - a legacy of the half-Asiatic Baltics obviously...).
That is what I avoid when speaking of Greeks and Mediterraneans. There is no bubble gum. Greeks were a distinct nation comprising of a large number of tribes that originated in the Aegean space and who were related in a cousin style with western Minor Asian, southern Thraecian and Italic tribes. From there on Mediterranean is a term that encompasses a continuum of people from western Mediterranean up to northern Palestine and southern Black Sea. Not a nation, not a particular sort of people, just a group of inter-related people with an epicenter in Aegean - thus even today unsuspecting tourists call Mediterrranean only those who resemble Greeks and none else. That is what I call a continuum.
Of course people use such terms bending them according to modern wishes. It is not of our interest to mix all that. In my understanding all the above Celtocult that revolved in the triangle of Bretagne, Irland and Scottland actually refers to the finges and not the epicenter of the Celtic world which was of course the rectangle between eastern France, Switzeland, western Austria and southern Germany. -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
"Continuum" - is that one you invented?
The Greeks, and later the Romans, have presented us with a terminology for those outside their borders which may have suited their own cultural biases, levels of interest and understanding, and political ends at the time. They have proven woefully inadequate however from an historical perspective in reconstructing the actual cultural and political alignments and distinctions which applied in the late Iron Age. Archaeology has actually done a much better job.
While the Roman habit of ascribing tribal status to non-Romans gives us a clear indication of how Rome saw the world outside, it has also led to centuries of false starts and red herrings when trying to piece together just who these people were, how they organised themselves and most importantly in the context of this discussion, how they defined commonality and distinction among and between themselves.
The term "Celt" has proven to be just such a red herring in many ways and has given rise to much more misunderstanding about Europe in the Iron Age than understanding of it. I don't think your suggestion of calling them "Continuums" helps much either. -
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Is not 'celtic fringe' a rather demeaning term used by the metropolitan English about their Celtic language speaking neighbours?Ìý
Firstly, the term isn't synonymous with "celtic"-language speaking. For instance the issue of the Welsh language is often more contentious among anglophone Welsh than English immigrants to Wales.
However, I fully and unreservedly withdraw the term "fringe". Does 150 years of enough people believing in a common over-arching celtic heritage make them culturally celtic even if the term had no historical reality beyond that 150 years?
Society accepts that modern druids are what they claim to be despite having little in common with ancient druids.
Rather in the way that 'up North' is used to imply cultural homogeneity in an area that starts at Derby and finishes in Newcastle.Ìý
Now who's being demeaning? As a proud Cumbrian, I thoroughly reject the idea that Derby is in the North. I'll just about begrudgingly accept the M62 as the boundary, but Derby's practically London.
I would be really interested to know if modern Welsh speakers feel cultural affinities with Ireland and Scotland which they don't feel for England.Ìý
If life in Wales taught me anything, many Welsh speakers don't even feel cultural affinity with Anglophone Welsh, let alone the English. A purely personal experience of course and largely based on anecdote from anglophone Welsh friends. -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Hi cloudyj
The M62 the boundary of the north? Phew, I just get in. Pity about the good people of Sheffield & Huddersfield though.
But I was being ironic.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
The M62 the boundary of the north? Phew, I just get in. Pity about the good people of Sheffield & Huddersfield though.Ìý
I've moderated my tone over the years, so I may be able to spare some little sympathy for Sheffielders as near-northerners.
But I was being ironic.
Ìý
I'll blame cheap wine at the conference for my inability to spot it....
-
Message 19
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Great posts Nik, very illuminating. On the basis of what you've written the term 'celts' has been reinstated - though ameliorated by Nordmans language only reference.
Must say I've never been offended by the term Celtic fringe other than seeing it as obsolete which seems not to have been the case after all... -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
"""
"Continuum" - is that one you invented?
"""
Well, Nordmann I do not remember reading it anywhere. Hehe! Can I take the copyright? Nontheless, really besides all my above analysis I do find cross-sections with your point of view:
"""The Greeks, and later the Romans, have presented us with a terminology for those outside their borders which may have suited their own cultural biases, levels of interest and understanding, and political ends at the time."""
Correct. Both of them were not particularly interested in studying in details these northern people and naturally were relatively more motivated in studying the more organised states of the Middle East. Here one has to add the fact that back then central-northern Europe was not as densely habitated as today. Only France was relatively more habitated (about 15 million people but then the tiny Greece, 5 times smaller, back then had easily more than half of that to put it in the context). Hence for the Greekoromans, these nothern lands were habitated by sparse tribes bound in loose and volatile state formations of no special interest. Finding out who was who among them was useless apart the case of wanting to make alliances but then as long as talking to the local aristocracies sufficed for Romans, they did not need to do any deeper research in these cultures.
"""They have proven woefully inadequate however from an historical perspective in reconstructing the actual cultural and political alignments and distinctions which applied in the late Iron Age. Archaeology has actually done a much better job."""
Exactly. As said above.
"""While the Roman habit of ascribing tribal status to non-Romans gives us a clear indication of how Rome saw the world outside, it has also led to centuries of false starts and red herrings when trying to piece together just who these people were, how they organised themselves and most importantly in the context of this discussion, how they defined commonality and distinction among and between themselves."""
But that does not change the fact that societies that no matter if in knowledge of an alphabet they hardly used it to write their name (or so we know so far) let alone to write any law are more easily classified as tribal even today. I guess here we have the complex of all the notions around the term "tribal". However, we have to keep in mind that the likes of Latins and Greeks (especially the latter) had very often very tribal organisations. Some Greek tribes, like the Epirots & Aetolians, retained purely tribal organisations till well into A.D. times.
"""The term "Celt" has proven to be just such a red herring in many ways and has given rise to much more misunderstanding about Europe in the Iron Age than understanding of it."""
True. I 100% agree.
"""I don't think your suggestion of calling them "Continuums" helps much either."""
It might surprise you but yes in a way I agree it does not aid just as talking about Mediterranean people does not aid us particularly in the stufy of Carthagenians, Romans and Spartans... -
Message 21
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
"the vast majority of the inhabitants of the British Isles, whether they consider themselves to be "Anglo Saxon", "Celt" or otherwise, are descended from the original Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who migrated north from Iberia approximately 13,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age."
Probably one of the most profound and important conclusions I've read on the subject...ever! -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi Shane
You're absolutely right of course.
The more popular view, which you will note even on this hallowed board, is that Britain was invaded from the south-east by Anglo-Saxons who moved west exterminating as they travelled, from the north by Vikings who moved south exterminating as they travelled, and from the west by the Irish who moved east.....well you get the picture.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Re: Message 21.
ShaneONeal,
if you click on "This is a reply to this message" in the right corner beneath it refers to Nik's message 21. I read first his long message and then three times in a hurry all Nik's other long messages and nowhere found the quote
After two times reading the Wiki article I found at the end the quote
Now my question: What proves this "profound and important conclusion"?
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Addendum to message 23.
OOPS, of course you need to have a certain level to understand the quotes...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 25
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
"What proves this "profound and important conclusion"?"
Well, I think there has been so much division in these Islands for centuries, the fact that we are scientifically proven to be genetically from the same gene pool is highly significant.
In the recent past people believed in 'races' and being of the 'same blood' - I imagine these facts would have had a great impact on the history of the past several hundred years. -
Message 26
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
I think most of our 'divisions' have been down to good old-fashioned 'coveting thy neighbour's ass', or whatever else he happened to have, and resorting to a spot of GBH to get it, rather than true racial differences.
After all, the Irish, Welsh and Scots (and the English too) made a very good job of murdering each other long before the Normans came along to be blamed for everything.
And no doubt will continue to do so! -
Message 27
Posted by glen berro (U14271421) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
cloudy, As a resident of Newcastle I would consider the Tyne as the border between North and South.
To be serious, I once read a book by, I think, Colin Burgess called Against the Ocean. I am not sure if I have the right author or title so perhaps someone could advise.
The premise seemed to be that waterways from southern France via Spain, W.France, Brittany and thus into Wales and Ireland had been spreading cultural influences since the Neolithic without necessarily any great transplanting of people.
glen -
Message 28
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
The ('british'-)Canal of Dover/Calais,
was cracked open in 1055 bc by a Moon bounching off at the other end of the Globe. at Antartica causing the greek Titano-Machia.
Causing the Deucalian or biblical'Great-Flood'
This was a site for another Atlantis( like german-Gottland in the Botnic-Gulf.) called by dutch researchers, ' Dogger-Land'.
Lonely isles yielded silt and neolithic artefacts
so neolithic people with Mastodonts were living in this 'North-Sea' in historical times.
Only in Year 855 bc the same Moon bounched-off Earth again and caused the OgygianFlood. called by the Greeks the Giganto-Machia.
The QUARTERNARY - LAKE BURST is usually time-set at 8.000 bc causing gletscher-lakes/Mountainlakes to empty in a day.
HOWEVER THIS QUARTERNARY LAKE-BURST MAY RATHER HAVE BEEN MISJUDJED AND SHOULD BE RE-DATED AS HAVING OCCURRED IN 855 bc RATHER THAN 8.000 bc
This also implies that the neolithic was timed too ancient by 10.000 years, meaning that the MAGDALIEN-Epoch was NOT around 8.000 bc but rather 855 bc in Europe.
CELTs were rather named Gauls orGaaulois in France I wondere wheree the recently'new' word Celts for Gauls came from ?
Dutch-Cartographic researcher Mr. Alfred Delahaye
has found out that the landed gentry-farmers in Holland originated from invited emigration from Armorica the" Celtic/ Arthurian region of northeren-Armorica, to Count Derek-1 of Holland in 900 ad.
However,
FRANKS were actually SALIC - SAXONS, who were misnamed SALIC - FRANKS
Under King CLOVIS-1( died 511 ad.) around 450 ad they began to subdue their Saxon-tribal brothers along the Coast of Holland ending by murdering Count/King Syagrius in 489 ad.
King Arthur or Artorius was according to the New Film a cavalry leader transported from the Dacian/Sarmatian battlefields to North France to help defending it against the encroaching Saxons.
Only with the Norse-troops of William-2 from Normandy the Arthur Saga came to England where King Arthur was named as a Celtish leader.
But in the new-view-Arthur Film the Socalled Romans were rather a mixture of Celts/Gauls and Romans.
King Arthur was impressed by the Free-will theology of the Monk Pelagius,
Arthur was helped i repelling the Saxon advance in West-Germany by a people called the WOADS of whom quine Guinevere was a warleader and Merlin the political leader.
What finally happened to the Gauls after they had been overrun by Saxons and Franks (= Austria +Neustria.)and Norsemen?( Normandy.)
If Arthur was a Count -bellorum over celtish territory than Armorica/=Belgium/ARTOIS+ Britany was a celtic province.
Didn't Caesar mention that of the Gauls, the Batavians were the bravest ?( Batavians lived in Holland the" Isle of Batavia")
Scholars and historians still don't know whether Batavians thus dutchmen were Celts /Gaulois,or German/Saxons.
The mind boggles -
Message 29
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
Caesar's veteran soldiers who he used to occupy Rome during the Civil war of 50 bc, were re-settled in Israel and by Josephus Flavius were given the biography of Caesar turned Roman God,
as the New-Testament of Jesus where all of Caesar's Battles were turned into wonderfull conversions, because Josephus did not want their descendanyts to know that the Gospels were born during Civil-strife.
SO THE LONGEST cELTIC TRADITIONS MAY HAVE BEEN PRESEVED BY EX-cELTIC soldiers of Caesar in israel
Some celtic tribes supposedly went to Tibet since their frozen graves were found in the Tarim region, with " celtic" artefacts clothing and customary grave gifts. -
Message 30
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
Hi Prof
Dear oh dear. I don't suppose you like to give the evidence that the Channel opened in the Bronze Age? The general evidence is otherwise I have to say.
But best wishes anyway,
TP -
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
I'm more concerned about bouncing moons. It seems it's not only a faith in archaeological and geological evidence which require suspension in order to become a professor in Delft.
-
Message 32
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
Well the moon is a balloon after all, well according to David Niven anyway.
-
Message 33
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
The mind bogglesÌý Indeed it does!
-
Message 34
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Evidence that the Canal opened very late in the bronze age is mudded because the crevasse dived deep into older ( silt-)layers which does not mean that these lower/earlier layers were cut open before the Bronze age any evidence saying that the Channel opened earlier is a misinterpretation.
The Himalay- mountain ridge top[ is eroded and now ) seems to be dating from the Miocene & Eocene
Which ofcourse does NOT mean that that region was up-lifted in the Eocene ! but rather in the Quartenary -
Message 35
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
S4C made a film a few years ago (called Branwen) of a Welsh woman living in Belfast and marrying a local Catholic man who spoke Welsh.Ìý
I've seen that film Stoggler. It is, of course, a modern re-working of the ancient story of Branwen daughter of Llyr from the Mabinogion. I seem to remember a scene from the wedding with guests exclaiming "Iechyd Da!" in broad Belfast accents. Hilarious.
But there aren't many more laughs in the film though as the marriage goes steadily downhill from there and the respective families descend into a tragic spiral of violence. A rare film. Recommended.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.