Who were the first Britons
william
The Celts came from the continent and settled in the British Isles, but
who did they oust or merge with? Is there any evidence of their
culture/civilisation? Was Stonehenge one of their legacies????
William.
William Black
"william" <wmacd...@askme.com> wrote in message
news:1Xi9d.33101$HO1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Modern DNA evidence seems to suggest that the Celts were not an ethnic group
but a 'culture'.
People liked living like that. In much the same way that American culture
and lifestyle is popular in the world today, but there is no American
ethnicity.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Thur
Finding a definition of "Celt" would be a start.
Migration from the Continent seems to have been
regular since before we were "isolated" from it
by sea. The sea seems not to have stopped
further migrations at all.
Stonehenge has little to do with the first part of your
question.
There are carvings on the standing stones, but they
seem to consist of representations of knives.
The people(s) who brought their "Celtic" language,
cultures and technologies from the Continent were
no less than cultural cousins of those who were here
already.
Trying to show that a people who were here already who
were racially and/or culturally different is difficult given the
poor data.
Thur
a.spencer3
Where do you want to start?
Swanscombe Man, 250,000BC?
Surreyman
William MacDouglas
and I accept that it my fault for not giving sufficient parameters. But,
from what I'm reading, the "Celt people", as we were taught in School
eons ago "the ancient Britons", seem to have been here since before the
British Isles separated from the continent. And that continued trading
migrations etc. kept their Celtic culture on par with those on the
mainland. So this would indicate that they were responsible for the
numerous henges in England and iron forts found in Scotland. Correct?
William.
Vaughan Sanders
"William MacDouglas" <"William MacDouglas"@canada.com> wrote in message
news:%jC9d.33962$jj2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Celtic archaeology in Britain dates from about 300 BC, possibly 400 BC,
Stone Henge is 3000 BC, pre Celtic archaeology is known as Beaker
(people).
The oldest structure in the British Isles is in Ireland, (Newgrange)
this burial chamber contained the antlers (8ft span) of the Great Elk
that went extinct in Ireland about 5000 BC and a little later in
Scotland.
Celtic or Keltoi as they were known to the Greeks and early Romans date
to about 800 BC (Hallstat culture) in northern Europe. 500 BC for the La
Tene culture that is similar to the archaeology of 300 BC found in
Britain, (Ireland's Celtic heritage is not so certain as that of the
main island btw).
However modern DNA science can find no link to the people buried at La
Tene and anyone in the British Isles today.
It seems to be the latest fashion in academia to rule out mass
migrations to change a culture, only a small influx would be needed to
create this change they say, some even claim this for the Anglo-Saxons.
Personally I think this is complete bollocks, I don't think the Celts of
Britain would have become Romano Brits by trade alone, or a handful of
Anglo-Saxon traders could completely replace the Celtic language.
Jamie
Thur
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck899m$t28$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
anything, you must forgive the next question.
I would have thought that a DNA test would only prove the level of
relationships
we all have rather than finding "no link"?
> I don't think the Celts of
> Britain would have become Romano Brits by trade alone, or a handful of
> Anglo-Saxon traders could completely replace the Celtic language.
The impact of some things upon cultures of civilizations by small events
can be huge.
The sudden arrival of new technologies, especially weaponry, but also
the new capabilities of farming techniques.
Plagues.
Defeats in battles similar to the Amerindian peoples. Wasn't it one of those
Spaniards who managed to overthrow and exterminate the Royal leadership
(of the Incas?) with just a small band, using sections of the Amerindians
to do the heavy work?
Having said that, there does not seem to be much that I have read to support
these new suggestions.
Thur
William Black
"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message
news:w7W9d.136$5I2...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:ck899m$t28$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > It seems to be the latest fashion in academia to rule out mass
> > migrations to change a culture, only a small influx would be needed to
> > create this change they say, some even claim this for the Anglo-Saxons.
> > Personally I think this is complete bollocks, I don't think the Celts of
> > Britain would have become Romano Brits by trade alone, or a handful of
> > Anglo-Saxon traders could completely replace the Celtic language.
> >
> Because I do not understand DNA testing and it's possibilities of proving
> anything, you must forgive the next question.
> I would have thought that a DNA test would only prove the level of
> relationships
> we all have rather than finding "no link"?
What DNA testing seems to imply is that populations in the island of Great
Britain seem not to have moved about a great deal in the pre Roman period
and that few incomers (in comparison to what was believed) actually arrived
and intermarried.
They can't actually rule out a vast genocidal influx sweeping the indigenous
people into the Irish Sea to a man, but indications are that it didn't
happen.
Fashion in academia tends to fit the latest research because sticking to
obviously outmoded ideas that the scientists have blown bloody great holes
in (The obvious exception being in France and when studying ancient Egypt)
is considered a touch daft.
The latest theories that the Celts were 'fashion' rather than 'invasion'
fits the known facts at this time...
Thur
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ck9kgu$e0m$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
one line of father's father's .... etc.
or mother's mother's mother's... etc. depending upon how and where
the dna is obtained.
There may well be other pointers too, but I have not heard them.
What I would really like to hear is the logic used to come to the seemingly
complex conclusions, rather than acquire further technical knowhow.
Since we have a vast array of other combinations of ancestry, I get
confused trying to work out how so much can be guessed by using
the data.
I like to hear new ideas about history, but it's frustrating when I
cannot follow the logic so easily. :-)
Thur
William Black
"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message
> What I would really like to hear is the logic used to come to the
seemingly
> complex conclusions, rather than acquire further technical knowhow.
>
> Since we have a vast array of other combinations of ancestry, I get
> confused trying to work out how so much can be guessed by using
> the data.
There was a article on this in an edition of New Scientist last year. It
talks at some length about how the conclusions are reached, and yes, it's
obviously a 'best guess', but it is one that fits the currently known
facts.
There seems to have been no huge influx of Celtic people in pre-Roman
Britain, but, according to contemporary writings and the archaeology,
they shared a common culture with much of Western Europe.
The logical conclusion is that Celtic culture wasn't an ethnic thing at all.
Vaughan Sanders
"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message
>
snip
> > It seems to be the latest fashion in academia to rule out mass
> > migrations to change a culture, only a small influx would be needed
to
> > create this change they say, some even claim this for the
Anglo-Saxons.
> > Personally I think this is complete bollocks, I don't think the
Celts of
> > Britain would have become Romano Brits by trade alone, or a handful
of
> > Anglo-Saxon traders could completely replace the Celtic language.
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> Because I do not understand DNA testing and it's possibilities of
proving
> anything, you must forgive the next question.
> I would have thought that a DNA test would only prove the level of
> relationships
> we all have rather than finding "no link"?
The experts seem to think they should be able to find a link, whether
the experts are as expert as the think, your guess is as good as mine.
>
> > I don't think the Celts of
> > Britain would have become Romano Brits by trade alone, or a handful
of
> > Anglo-Saxon traders could completely replace the Celtic language.
>
> The impact of some things upon cultures of civilizations by small
events
> can be huge.
> The sudden arrival of new technologies, especially weaponry, but also
> the new capabilities of farming techniques.
> Plagues.
> Defeats in battles similar to the Amerindian peoples. Wasn't it one of
those
> Spaniards who managed to overthrow and exterminate the Royal
leadership
> (of the Incas?) with just a small band, using sections of the
Amerindians
> to do the heavy work?
>
> Having said that, there does not seem to be much that I have read to
support
> these new suggestions.
> Thur
>
>
If a handful of Spanish traders had turned up instead of Conquistadors,
I think the Incas would still be Incas.
Jamie
Thur
and conquest. The Incas now worship the God of their Conquerors and
speak their language.
This is the sort of change that might be strong enough to leave clues for
archaeologists.
Thur