Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Scottish Celts or Gaul Celts? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||
Penda 
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 22-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Scottish Celts or Gaul Celts?Posted: 24-Dec-2006 at 10:54 |
||||
|
Celts originate from the Greek word `Keltoi` meaning `Common people`,a large tribe of peoples of lesser tribes that came from somewhere around modern day Turkey(before which maybe the steppes or China i dont know).
Of course as we know the Celts became the dominant people of southern Europe in what we call Gaul which was in short France,Spain,Switzerland and Northern Italy.The Celts also came in three waves to the British isles and Ireland either assimilating or massacring the previous population to become the dominant species of the tin isles(Britain). During Caesers `Gallic Wars` in which Gaul was subdued,perhaps Millions of Celts were put to the sword in the name of the glory of Rome,the others embraced Roman culture and Gaul became a rich Roman province. 43 AD Rome began its conquest of Celtic Britain which it succesfully did eventually `Romanising`the population from hill fort dwelling Celts to Roman Citizens.However,Ireland the Romans never bothered with and despite many attempts the Romans could never conquer the far highlands of the Caledonian Celts who would later be referred to as `the Picts` or `painted people`. After the last of the Roman legions left of course there was the Saxon-Briton wars in which many Britons settled in Armorica or Brittany as it is known today,the Breton language `Brezhoneg` is a P Celtic language very similar to the language of the ancient Celts and modern gaelic Gymraeg(Welsh).Whilst up in the North the Picts were joined by many settling `Scotti`(Latin for Irish)who settled on the west coast eventually integrating the Picts and giving the north its name today-Scotland. Of course this is much condensed but it is a fascinating look at our little isle and there is plenty of websites and literature dedicated to what is often called `the dark ages`.As for Celts of today the people who could call themselves today are the `P` Celts of Btittany,Wales and Cornwall and the Q` Celts of Scotland and Ireland. |
|||||
 |
|||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 10:28 |
||||
|
Carnac in Brittany, France is dotted with megaliths that are not as sophisticated as stonehenge. My mother grew up in this region and I know very little about the "Stones of Carnac." I've been told they are a mystery. Do you know much about the French megaliths?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph 
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 05:33 |
||||
|
Paul, do you have any titles of books about this? I've been looking, but I can only find historical, not archaeological info. And I need books, websites are generally not accepted as sources by my profs unless they are really well credited.
|
|||||
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 00:38 |
||||
Lol, Ok, The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departments of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, University of London; Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis; Faculteit Biologie, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands - all amateurs. This was an international collaborative venture between some of the world's most prestigious academic institutions.
This is the only survey of the genetic data regarding the Anglo-Saxon migration that's been done, so, no. There is no evidence to disagree with the accounts of early historians, in fact, the evidence agrees with them strongly. The link you quote starts with: "The data indicates at least some areas of eastern England absorbed very few Anglo-Saxon invaders[/quote] I.e. the "genetic barrier" in the east. This is elaborated upon in another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2076470.stm You have to read the very last paragraph of the article you linked to, to see what that study was really about. They saw that, after a certain point, there are no more bodies going in the native cemetaries and everyone is getting interred in Saxon graves. They study the teeth, and find that alot of them grew up on the native water. That doesn't mean they were natives; it just means that they grew up there. It is not really surprising that alot of them would, since only a few generations would be immigrants, but all their offspring would be native-born. Given that the cemetaries date from the 5th to 7th centuries, and the Saxon entry probably ended in the 5th century, out of a sample of only 24 bodies it's rather surprising they found any who weren't born and bred on the island. There's no reason to assume they're Britons, just because they drank the local water as children. There is such a thing as second and third generation immigrants. Edited by edgewaters - 02-Jul-2006 at 01:35 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General 
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 00:29 |
||||
The work of an amateur at most. Genetics and archaelogical finding revealed that the anglo-saxons were not more numerous than the Normans. It seemed the britons (the majority) had simply embraced the Anglo-saxons culture rather than being displaced by the latter. No mass migration occured.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 02-Jul-2006 at 00:29 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 22:09 |
||||
|
Mass migration is actually well-supported by the genetic data, it does not appear that the original inhabitants remained in the area after the Anglo-Saxon arrival:
Our results indicate the presence of a strong genetic barrier between Central England and North Wales and the virtual absence of a barrier between Central England and Friesland. Any attempt to explain these results in terms of demographic history and migration needs to encompass both these findings satisfactorily. The Central English-North Welsh barrier cannot be explained purely as a simple isolation-by-distance phenomenon because it contrasts strongly with the lack of evidence for a cline among the five widely separated English towns. Our findings are particularly striking, given the high resolution and rapid mutation rate of the Y chromosome haplotypes on which they are based. These allow genetic barriers, if they exist, to be clearly defined. The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008#SEC4 There is, however, a "genetic barrier" separating Wales and Cornwall from Saxon England. The original inhabitants appear to have remained in the southeast part of the island. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 10:27 |
||||
|
I think the objections you make have been noticed and agreed upon by others and archaeology has tried to address them. While there is no written history of the period there is a strong archeaological record, which has been the subject of intense study.
The Anglo-Saxon migration to England has been studied quite a lot by archaeology, to Scotland less. Firstly, England after Roman rule. The Empire didn't go away overnight, the trade routes didn't disappear, Gaul was still there and Romanised society didn't suddenly vanish. In it seems for the English life didn't really change much for a whole century after the Romans left. After a century we then begin to see a decline set in. The Roman buildings beginning to stop being repaired, newer buildings show a lower standard of architecture. ----- So what happened, the favourite answer England was dependant on foreign trade as an autonomous part of the Roman Empire which was collapsing and as the trade diminished the Romano-English civilisation went into decline. The Anglo-Saxons arrived in the east of England and Scotland.... Far from Hollywood's reckoning they were not barbarians but a civilised people and part of and established northern European network. Estimates vary, but possibly as many as 25,000 may have migrated into a native population of 2 million English and Scottish. The Anglo-Saxons far from the great plundering rabble they are portrayed as seem to integrated pretty quickly into England and been welcomed. The Anglo-Saxons moved into existing towns, rather than destroy them and found new ones. Signs of a non-bloody integration. Evidence seems to show intermarriage occurs immediately and evidence from graveyards shows the English quickly abandoned Roman style dress and donned Anglo-Saxon style clothing and within a few decades the Christian graveyards are abandoned and all buried in Pagan ones. Also it can be assumed the language the children of locals spoke changed. For so few to come and have such a large influence the Anglo-Saxons must have had something to offer the English and Scots. The answer lies in trade. England was in decline as its trade with former Roman colonies diminished. The Anglo-Saxons plugged Britain into a long established and fruitful Nordic trade network. Subsequently the east coast towns began to boom. Back in the west it was a different story, the post Roman decline was hitting hard. What seems to have happened then is a migration of people from the west of England to the east. People migrated to where the work was. Within a few decades many of the east coast towns had doubled in size and new ones beside them were being founded ever and ever further westwards. And as this happened more and more people by moving to Anglo-Saxon towns converted from Romano-English to Anglo-Saxon culture. Soon the powerful eastern realms began to spread westward politcally, economically and militarily dominating the weaker western parts until you get the picture of Anglo-Saxon England we are all familiar with. For Scotland things happened a little different and the post-Roman-Welsh found a different solution to the decline of the empire.
Edited by Paul - 01-Jul-2006 at 10:38 |
|||||
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 09:44 |
||||
Although I know nothing on earlier history, I know a bit about this... And that is mainly that not much is known. By the time the Saxons started to invade Britain, the Romans had left. Presumably there must have been some culture of writing amongst the Romanised Britons, but non of it survived. The invading Saxons did not write at all. Anooyingly, there is also not a great lot of araeology from this period. So there is a bit of a blank here. In the 6th century a monk named Gildas write a history, and this is the earliest written evidence there is, almost 200 years after, containig the well known story of Hengist and Horsa.
From what I have read about the subject, it is not likely they completely wiped out the Britons, as England after the Roman time was quite densely populated. It is more likely that a part of them indeed went west, and that the rest was assimilated into the Saxon culture, something wich can be quite swiftly reached by intermarriage. A (small) proof for this is the apparent survival of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England before the conversion by Augustine, on a really small scale. The reason they seemed to have disappeared is because by the time the people started to write again, they were merged into the rest of the population. As the later writers of history were Anglo-Saxon, they did not concern themselves with the Britons, winners write their own history.
This info comes mainly from: J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, (Penguin books, London, 1989) Edited by Aelfgifu - 01-Jul-2006 at 09:45 |
|||||
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 04:08 |
||||
If you want to trace it back further, you get to La Tene culture. Same area. Go back further, and you get Urnfield culture. A little further back, you get Beaker culture. We're already in the late Neolithic now, but go back a little further, you get Tumulus culture. And you can even go back farther than that to Unetice culture. All did the exact same thing as the Celtic culture - they start out in central Europe and spread, generally without movement of populations but sometimes, like the Beakers, with movement of small groups of people. Mystery? In the last two decades, so much work has been done in this area, that we know now more about the origin of Celtic culture, than we do about the origin of Greek culture! Edited by edgewaters - 30-Jun-2006 at 04:18 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 03:53 |
||||
Common now, they traced it back to that but that's not its origin. Even the archaelogists made mention of the mysterious origin of the Celts when talking about the Hallstatt culture. Open any history book and they wouldn't know the ultimate origin of the Celts.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 03:51 |
||||
No, not really. It was 50 or 100 years ago, when Celtic Romanticism was in full bloom. It's not anymore. We trace it to the emergence of Hallstatt culture.
Yes, so superficial that not a single person of the time ever referred to Britons as "Celts" and, in fact, no one did until the 1700s.
Diffusion happened in the ancient world too. It is hardly new at all. To say there was no diffusion in the ancient world, is just being silly - almost every civilization was the product of massive diffusion.
Yes, one account, that was 250 years old by the time the Romans invaded Britain. Celts did use chariots at one time - everybody did - but by the time of the Roman invasions, nobody, except the Britons, did. That says alot about differences.
The word "Gaul" doesn't originally come from anyplace in Western Europe, though. It comes from the Greek for Galatian, originally. That's why it's called "The Dying Gaul". The first time anyone called anyone a Gaul, they were referring to Turkish Celts. Also, Brennus didn't come from France - that group is known to have originally come from Pannonia and Noricum. Edited by edgewaters - 30-Jun-2006 at 04:06 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 03:39 |
||||
The Helvetii and the Sequani did have Druids. Druids originated from the British Isles? The first reports of Druidry was in Gaul; there was no mention of the Britons. There are more menhir in Gauls than in the british Isles for a starter.
These were superficial difference. Just like two neighby Gallic tribes had different customs. But if you look at the big picture, the cultures were very similar.
Chariots absent on the continents? Chariots characterised the Gauls. It was reported the Gauls had 20,000 cavalry and Chariots.
Tattooing was also common among the Gauls.
Common, you cannot compare the modern day era with its globalisation with the ancient time. The tribes were isolated and commonality in culture only meant they were once related.
They wouldn't name the statue the dying Gaul, if the warrior was not Gallic. Brennus (not to confuse with the Brennus that sacked Rome) and his Gauls went as far Turkey.
The ultimate origin of the Celts is rather a mystery. They moved into Gauls, that's a fact. Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 30-Jun-2006 at 03:44 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 02:55 |
||||
For one thing, there were never any druids in Bavaria. Druids were not typical of the Celtic world at all; they were an anomaly, typical only of Britain and exported across the channel to nearby regions in Gaul and Belgia. Likewise, there were many, many differences between Celtic groups on the continent, and the Britons and Irish (with northern Gaul and Belgia being a sort of mixed region). Cavalry were unknown among the Britons, just as nobody on the continent was using chariots. Tattooing was common in Britain, but never practiced on the continent. Even pottery was quite different. They didn't even wear the same clothes - continental Celts wore trousers which was entirely unique in the world at the time, but nobody in the British isles did. They wore what everyone else around the world did - robes, rough tunics tied at the waist, skirts, etc, although they were made of wool and often brilliantly coloured. Secondly, you're talking about cultural commonality, which is an entirely different thing than being a "race". All over the world people eat cheeseburgers and wear jeans, but it's not like Americans have arrived and displaced everyone; it's a cultural penetration, but not a genetic penetration.
Nonsense. Ever seen the statue of the Dying Gaul? Do you know what campaign that is from? The original commemorates a battle between Greeks and Galatians - Celts living in present-day Turkey. Their ancestors had migrated from the area of the lower Danube, in present day Romania and Bulgaria. Their presence there is well-attested by archaeological remains, and numerous other Greek and Roman references. The earliest Celts emerged in present-day Austria and Switzerland, and spread outward from there. Dilution of the culture is extremely evident by the time it reaches England, even more so by the time it hits the more remote fringes of the British Isles (the present-day "Celtic" fringe). The only reason it's still evident in these places is because penetration was just as difficult for later cultures. Edited by edgewaters - 30-Jun-2006 at 03:19 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 23:29 |
||||
Haplotype isn't a single gene but a group of genes that are usually inherited together.
Druidery, metallurgy, languages, architecture and burial traditions were the factors that linked a people from Bavaria to Ireland. Anything passed Bavaria cannot be considered celtic, or have been been racially and culturally dilluted to the oint they could no longer be considered Celt.
Notes the Picts and the Scoti (I would hardly consider the Scoti celt more like some pre-celtic native tribes) were two different tribes, while the Scoti had nigh to nothing in common with the Gauls, the Picti had ancestral ties with western Central Gauls.
Gallic tribes that raided or had settled in British Isle. THe Remi, the strongest Belgae tribe that resided in the Champagne region, raided the britons regularly.
 Celtic settlements (from the least romanized Gaul to Ireland) were similar. Some were very large, while in contrast, the Germanic (not to confuse with Celtic tribes inhabiting Germania) had no permanent settlements. This was one the reason the Romans couldn't conquer the Eastern Germanic tribes: there was nothing to conquer.
  Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 29-Jun-2006 at 23:45 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005 Location: Pittsburgh, USA Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 12:31 |
||||
|
I believe I was reading about a small connection between the Gauls and the Scots. Supposedly, a few Scottish clans actually have a connection to the ancient Gauls.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 10:31 |
||||
Not really. Celts are historically associated with central Europe, spreading outwards from there, but the so-called Celtic gene is highest along the Atlantic coast and descends as you move east. It's exactly the reverse of what you would expect to see. Moreover, "Cheddar Man" has it, 7000 years before the Celts arrived in England. The reality of that haplogroup is that it indicates the indigineous population of Western Europe (and is therefore technically known as the Atlantic Modal haplogroup). It's only called the Celtic haplotype because the areas where it is most present are areas which have retained strong traces of Celtic culture. However, we also know they are among the areas least penetrated by Celtic culture at its zenith; the reason Celtic culture is presently most present there is that they are geographically remote and difficult for migrations to penetrate, and the very same was true in Celtic times. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 06:32 |
||||
|
Actually there is a celtic race. Haplotype shows that the Connacht haplotype associated with the celtic people occurs more frequently in areas that are historically considered as celt. THe Gallic language and those of the British islands were in variants of a celtic language.
Yes the picts and the Gauls are related. While the Gauls were not related to the Germanic. And the Belgae (of Northern France and Belgium) were pure Celts, saying they were bastadized is an ignomy and preversion of history by the anglo-saxon and germanists. All their leaders had Gallic names and had traditions very like the other Gauls. Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 29-Jun-2006 at 06:42 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005 Location: Pittsburgh, USA Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:26 |
||||
|
Well, the Gaelic myth of their origins says that they went from Scythia, through Egypt, through North Africa, through Iberia, and then invaded the indeginous Irish. However, this is just a myth.
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:19 |
||||
Hmm, not really. The origins of the culture are in Switzerland/Austria and along the Danube. Krakow seems to have been the eastern limit of Celtic culture, with the exception of a movement out of Europe into Asia Minor (Galatia). However, they certainly were affected by technology and culture spreading out from the steppes, including language. Also, note that the spread of Celtic culture was usually independant of any movement of peoples. Edited by edgewaters - 27-Jun-2006 at 09:26 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Polish Rob
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Mar-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 08:23 |
||||
|
One thing is for sure, Celtic's originated from the steppe lands of Asia, and migrated westward.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.142 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.142 seconds.
