Celts.

Originally posted by Socrates I think Paul was right saying that Anglo-Saxons had some ''special traits'' to offer to indigenous populations-how can u explain that their culture and lang. became dominant?If AS were just a bunch of thugs-why would anyone accept their language:Fear?

Sure.

Obviously domination isn't kept merely by military means (a propaganda branch is also useful, and bribery and odd alliances are always possible). But just look at Mexico or North Africa: places where the native languages and religion have been removed to marginal areas, while the population remains largely native in the genetic plane. Those transformations happened as fast or faster than that of British "Anglization". I see no problem in accepting it.

... Why didn't a part of south slavs accept Avar language( their cruelty was beyond any doubt)

As has been discussed in other topics: Hungarians are (mostly) natives of the Pannonias who probably spoke Slavic languages at some period. Slavs themselves were invaders in the Balcans, anyhow.

... or why don't Chinese speak Mongolian,etc.

The Chinese case is most outstanding, comparable to that of Persia and Romania (Latin/Romance speaking Europe). My guess is that their own solidly stabilished culture, associated to the imperial tools of domination (administration, bueraucracy, scribes, priests) was seductive enough for the invaders who felt a "complex of inferiority" in comparison. The case is that, most  (but not all) "Romans", Persians and Chinese kept their language and partly their culture despite being invaded by barbarians. At least in China and Romania, these barbarians adopted largelly or fully the native imperial tongue along with other imperial cultural traits. That happened too in Persia, I believe.

The diference between Spain and Britain is that most Spaniards spoke Latin (even if a vulgar dialect) and that there was an administration and a liturgy written in that language. The Goths had nothing to compete with that but their military power. Also the Goths themselves had been legitimized as Roman "allies".

Instead in Britain the literacy and the Romanization was surely much smaller. Rome had abandoned the territory to its own forces and the invaders had no mutual recognition with the former legality. They werent even Christians initially...

I think that explains all.

I know-there r cases and cases-strangely, according to u , the IE's were always able to impose their own language and culture-although a very small minority...Since u think they had nothing more to offer than brutal force, that's a ...well- a certain phenomenon in the history...

Brutal force is the state. Of course brutal force has griots or trouvateurs and druids or priests to glorify its wielders. It's not just a matter of mere violence but it is that as well and essentially.

As Engels said: any constitution of the state is a constitution of the army.

Originally posted by Maju As Engels said: any constitution of the state is a constitution of the army.

As Marx said(my translation from serbian):The evil is not within  men, it comes from the private property......funny how all evils come from outside for communists...i guess Buddha, Lao-Tsu and Jesus were on the wrong trail all along...if it was up to Marx, Freud and Jung would never accomplish anything- after all, men r not evil by nature-they r corrupted with private property-what I can't understand is how-if they r not prosponed(sp) for it .

Originally posted by Maju Celts are speakers of Celtic languages. That's clear enough.

So Germans are speakers of Germanic languages. Wow! That makes Zimbabweans German, and Singaporeans, Jamacans too, Brunei to the Seychelles. Widely spread people these Germans

Originally posted by Paul Originally posted by Maju Celts are speakers of Celtic languages. That's clear enough.  So Germans are speakers of Germanic languages. Wow! That makes Zimbabweans German, and Singaporeans, Jamacans too, Brunei to the Seychelles. Widely spread people these Germans

Well, Zimbabweans usually speak Shona and Ndbele (Sindebele) so far. English is so far just like Latin was in Poland or Hungary in the High Middle Ages: an official administrative tongue and lingua franca for inter-ethnic relations. Singapore is Chinese and Malayan, Brunei is exclussively Malayan.

Jamaican is English though, that's clear enough, isn't it? We don't usually call English German but Germanic, reserving German for a sepecific group of Germanic-speaking people - but with that little common-use correction, I do agree that "Jamaicans are German(-ic)".

Anyhow, such massive colonization as which happened in America or Australia in the last centuries, is not likely to have happened but very locally in other periods. A good example of this case could be the Orkney and Shetland islands, which seem very much Norwegian genetically (though not 100% - maybe about 50%).

Sorry to butt into a quarrel.

What do any of you mean by "Celt" - I have never seen any proof of Celtic languages beyond "this is different and olde, it is where Celts live [no definition of Celt beyond 'these are Celts!'}
so I find it difficult to accept linguistics as location of a people!

The term was used by Caesar for extremely polemic and political reasons - we must treat all his evidence with care.

Academic evidence for the British Isles
shows
-evidence of exchange of goods from the European mainland right back to Mesolithic times,
-little evidence of invasion and large-scale migration since that period!
-that copying a pot or design might mean that that pot or design is important but usually does not indicate more than that (I am wearing jeans as I type but am not American),
-being "Celtic" is important to groups in north-west Europe which really makes the water murky.

Once we get discussions on druids, I always ask for sources and, once I've crossed out Welsh and Irish tales, I find little. I do not trust these tales as literary truth!

Originally posted by reddrabs Sorry to butt into a quarrel. What do any of you mean by "Celt" - I have never seen any proof of Celtic languages beyond "this is different and olde, it is where Celts live [no definition of Celt beyond 'these are Celts!'} so I find it difficult to accept linguistics as location of a people!

The best evidence, of course, is the material culture. But we do have evidence of the language elsewhere. There are surviving fragments of Lepontic - the language of Cisalpine Gaul - written in a post-Etruscan alphabet, scattered fragments and references to the Galatian language, and pockets of other continental Celtic languages which persisted to the present day, eg Breton.

Still, Celts are mostly recognized as non-ethnic non-political grouping based primarily on material culture.

The term was used by Caesar for extremely polemic and political reasons - we must treat all his evidence with care.

True, but there was a culture which shared many traditions and features. It all depends on your definition of a "people". Are the Mayans a "people"? No more than the Celts - they are a collection of different ethnicities and dozens of languages who were never politically united, but we group them up for the reason that all those groups share a common culture. Same thing could be said about alot of different groups of the ancient world.

Academic evidence for the British Isles

Interestingly, neither Caesar nor any other Roman writer ever referred to the Britons as "Celts". They were always named Brittanii, the name thought to be derived from Pythias' accounts of encountering a race in the general area which he named the Prettanii.

-little evidence of invasion and large-scale migration since that period!

Well, aside from intriguing mythological traditions (such as those contained in the Irish Book of Invasions) there is some material evidence for the movement of people across the Channel - in both directions. Northern France, Britain, and the Netherlands appear to have been very intimately connected.

Once we get discussions on druids, I always ask for sources

Druids are mentioned in numerous Classical works. It is indicated that Druids are primarily a feature of the Britons, not the "Celts" (remember that the Romans distinguished between the two), although the druids were seemingly extending their sway across the area of Britonnic influence (eg, into Northern France and Belgium). The Romans do not mention the Druids as merely a religious sect - rather, they appear to have been administrators and enforcers of law, not very much unlike religious authorities in Judea.

Caesar is the chief source, but Posidonius writes of druids in Gaul in the 2nd century BC, they are mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History, Tacitus writes of them, etc. One thing that is also interesting to keep in mind is that Pytheas - who, if he went there, would have been in Britain much earlier, in the 4th century BC - may not have mentioned them. We don't have a copy of any of Pytheas' works, but they are referred to by other authors - none of whom mention anything about druids among the Prettanni.