Re: Celtic Origins

"prd" <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oJcCf.299402$qk4.90050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In sci.archaeology message
> news:43d8db1e$0$24960$ba620d2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "JMB"
> <johnmbyrne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>
>> "Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:draft2$9du$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "JMB" <johnmbyrne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> news:43d8a5af$0$24962$ba620d2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> "Hayabusa" <peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:ah3gt15ij1668jcu092sgulb94sp39qa1k@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:23:03 -0000, "JMB"
>>>> > <johnmbyrne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>> I would imagine that it would require some
>>>> >>> speakers of the new language actually settling in the
>>>> >>> country.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I'm sure some did, but not in any large numbers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> If those speakers also had power and prestige there would
>>>> >>> be greater incentive for the natives to adopt the new
>>>> >>> language.
>>>> >
>>>> > In my view you are on the right track. The Hungarians, for
>>>> > example, are proper European stock genetically, but they
>>>> > speak the language of a long-forgotten conqueror who came in
>>>> > relatively low numbers.
>>>>
>>>> But there is also plenty or archaeological proof the the Huns
>>>> were there,
>>> no
>>>> such proof exists that any mainland Celts were in Ireland.
>>>> Why would
>>> anyone
>>>> invade, and only bring their own language, nothing else?
>>>
>>> So you would have to consider a migration (small numbers)
>>> instead of an invasion (large number of peoples). Consider the
>>> spread of the Islam, there
>>> were both options and both options were taken. Most interesting
>>> for the topic considered is the spread of Islam with the trans
>>> Sahara trade. Plenty
>>> of people adopted the new religion and the arabic language for
>>> the benefits
>>> it would provide in trading.
>>>
>>> If that does not clarify the issue consider the following.
>>> Since the megaliths at least times with strong cross-channel
>>> ties and times with little ties came and went. The Armoricain
>>> Early Bronze age is nearly indistinguishable from its
>>> cross-channel counterparts. Late Bronze Age artefacts are very
>>> close over far greater distances. Early Latène scrollwork
>>> is a common feature on both sides.
>>>
>>> There is presumably a local part of 'culture' and a 'non-local'
>>> part. If burial customs, providing the mass of archaeological
>>> data, are local based,
>>> what chance do you have of deciding who is a mainland celt and
>>> who isn't? People would be buried according to local customs,
>>> no matter were they were
>>> born. OTOH if burial customs rely on customs that were
>>> widespread, again there would be little data to separate locals
>>> from immigrants.
>>>
>>> So only in those cases, where burial customs were transported
>>> with people, in cases of massive invasions of whole populations
>>> or the consideration of personal preferences, would archaeology
>>> be able to distinguish between locals and Celts. The warriors
>>> would marry local women, they would have to use local products,
>>> and they would be buried according to local customs.
>>>
>>> The grave of the archer found at Stonehenge (Avebury?) was
>>> according to local customs, only analysis of the teeth showed,
>>> that he had been born in Switzerland. Absence of proof is not
>>> proof of absence.
>>
>> It's not just a continuation of burial practices. Small
>> migrations, as I have alreay said, would certainly have
>> happened, but no invasions, either mass or of elite rulers. The
>> people making the products were locals, they pretty much kept
>> everything as it was. An invasion of an elite ruling class
>> would have changed more than just the language surely. They
>> would have brought their own artesans, burial practices (at
>> least for themselves), dwelling types, modes of transport, etc.
>> In this case, it's not a case of there being an absense of
>> evidence of an invasion, it is a case of there being quite a bit
>> of evidence that there was no invasion. That is a different
>> situation altogether.
>
> Your starting to sound like Doug, some of the evidence is
> interpretively either way.

And what evidence is that?

> To say the evidence suggests the opposite
> you have to also include the potential that subjectively interpreted
> evidence is negible in favor of continuity.
>
> I am intriqued by some of the hapltypes in the UK british, enough
> so that I want to see a resolution of the northern coast of france
> and belgium. ALthough timing is a big question. If the history of GB
> is correct and all the indigeonous peoples were pushed into wales,
> then it is possible you are correct, but _HISTORY_ reflected on by
> genetics has a POOR track record. Historians tend to exaggerate
> effects 2 or 3 fold in favor of whoever is writing the history. I am
> still kind of pissed by this concept that the 'grecan' celts was
> nothing more than confused understanding of language and culture,
> further confounded by the Romans.
> I have to say, I need to see the genetics, I need to see for fact
> that some pocketed groups of northern europeans did not migrated with
> some density during the neolithic period. The only thing that I trust
> are the CwB and A Cw B haplotypes.

The genetic studies have already shown that there is a cutoff line that can
be drawn in western England. There is also a north-south divide apparently.
However, the evidence does not show that the original population were all
crammed into Wales. IIRC the evidence showed that the Anglo-Saxons (and
later, the Vikings) mixed with the locals. They just didn't do it to the
same degree in Wales, Cornwall, or Scotland for some reason. Way back when,
there was a long discussion about that study carried on here. Can anyone
remember the thread(s)?

>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Celtic Origins
    ... >>> such proof exists that any mainland Celts were in Ireland. ... >> instead of an invasion. ... If burial customs, ... >> be able to distinguish between locals and Celts. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Celtic Origins
    ... > invasion. ... > People would be buried according to local customs, ... OTOH if burial customs rely on customs that were widespread, ... > there would be little data to separate locals from immigrants. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... or at the very least some Scots were indeed Irish. ... It was only later that the term Scotland came to ... > evidence for an Irish invasion of Scotland. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... or at the very least some Scots were indeed Irish. ... It was only later that the term Scotland came to ... > evidence for an Irish invasion of Scotland. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Without objection
    ... The experi-mental evidence is that some people will believe ... apparently completely unable to find the thick file on the trouble ... paperwork and spying on potentially dangerous locals to keep them ... most liberal view probably based on some poor past ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)