Danes and Saxons are the Same?
I. Marc Carlson
>The Jutes,Angle and Saxons lived within modern what we call Denmark and
>spoke the same language and were basically different names for almost
>identical germanic "tribes" as they pushed by Charlemagne in circa 800 they
>migrated north. It is also about this time that the area we Call Norway
>became heavily populated, probably due to this infux of southern tribes.
Now. I admit I'm no expert in this area, but it was my impression that the Danes
were NOT related (Closely) to the Saxons, and that while the Saxons did push the
Danes out of much of the southern regions of Dane-Mark by c.900, there were
already people in Norway prior to that time.
While there is some debate over the details, the "North Germanic" speakers
diverged from their kindred to the south not merely linguistically, but
culturally not much later than the 2nd-3rd centuries before the Common Era.
These then gradually further branched into East and West linguistic and
cultural groups, the "West Scandinavians" being the ancestors of the Danes.
Meanwhile the "Eastern Germanic" peoples eventually branched into the Gothic
tribes, the Vandals and the Burgundians before losing their cultural identities
altogether.
The "Western Germanic" eventually became the Franconians and then later,
the Saxons, the Frisians (the Jutes were Frisians, I believe) and the
Old Dutch, Old Low German and Old High German speakers. All of whom
were as distinct from one another as the Italians, the French and the
Spanish are today (all of whom are about as closely related linguistically).
I think that what's confusing is that to say that the Vikings were "attacking
their cousins" is about as accurate as to say that the French dominion over
southern Italy was one group ruling IT'S cousins.
Marc C. "We're i-in cha-arge, We're i-in cha-arge"
I...@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU -- Yakko, Wakko & Dot
LIB...@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU "The Three Musketeers"
I...@vax2.utulsa.edu
Ferret
>>Ferret (dnb...@psu.edu) wrote:
>>The Jutes,Angle and Saxons lived within modern what we call Denmark and
>>spoke the same language and were basically different names for almost
>>identical germanic "tribes" as they pushed by Charlemagne in circa 800 they
>>migrated north. It is also about this time that the area we Call Norway
>>became heavily populated, probably due to this infux of southern tribes.
>Now. I admit I'm no expert in this area, but it was my impression that the Danes
>were NOT related (Closely) to the Saxons, and that while the Saxons did push the
>Danes out of much of the southern regions of Dane-Mark by c.900, there were
>already people in Norway prior to that time.
Besides the similarities culturaly and linguistically the obvious
geographical proximity (200 mile radius) would alone justify refering to the
various tribes (Angles,Saxons,Jutes,Frisians,Franks etc.) under a single
general name. It would also suggest (as many documented inter-tribal
marriages demonstrate) that the bloodlines are mixed and that they are
ethnically, politically and culturally similar. Unfortunately historians
classify these peoples by their contemperary names which do not usually
describe ethnic structure.
>While there is some debate over the details, the "North Germanic" speakers
>diverged from their kindred to the south not merely linguistically, but
>culturally not much later than the 2nd-3rd centuries before the Common Era.
>These then gradually further branched into East and West linguistic and
>cultural groups, the "West Scandinavians" being the ancestors of the Danes.
I don't give linguistics alot of weight. There is to much controversy in the
field and it seems like they try to rewrite history to fit their theories.
There are many archeological and contemporary sources refuting the linguists.
>The "Western Germanic" eventually became the Franconians and then later,
>the Saxons, the Frisians (the Jutes were Frisians, I believe) and the
>Old Dutch, Old Low German and Old High German speakers. All of whom
>were as distinct from one another as the Italians, the French and the
>Spanish are today (all of whom are about as closely related linguistically).
Franks and Saxons tribes are contemporaries the former living between the
Frisians(N),Thuringians(S),and Saxons(E) The main difference between the
Franks and Saxons is that the Saxons had access to the North Sea and the
Franks were land locked, hence there different methods of expansion.
Spainish is basically Latin with a lot of Moorish(Isalamic) influence.
French is closest to the original Latin as the Invaders (Franks and Norman
Danes) adopted most of the Roman culture and language.They also considered
themselves the inheritors of the roman Empire.
again Language has little to do with ethnic origins in alot of cases (enough
to not give linguistics not much weight).
>I think that what's confusing is that to say that the Vikings were "attacking
>their cousins" is about as accurate as to say that the French dominion over
>southern Italy was one group ruling IT'S cousins.
Considering that the Merovingian Franks controlled Gaul which contained 2/3
mixed population of Roman coloni and Romanized Gallics (for at least 500
years) the Gallo-Romans were relatives of the Italic-Romans.
Ferret
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
: In article <aldersonC...@netcom.com> alde...@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) writes:
: >Ferret writes:
: >>again Language has little to do with ethnic origins in alot of cases (enough
: >Linguistics has nothing to do with ethnic origins, it has to do with language.
: >This seems to bother amateur archaeologists and anthropologists a great deal,
: >but we simply do not care about ethnicity as such.
: >I can understand how you give so little weight to the linguistic data. It is
: >clear that you haven't studied enough linguistics to know what the data mean.
: What I _am_ clear on, is that language variations mean little to classify
: cultures and bloodlines as any American can tell you.
: My post related to blood lines and cultures. I am not about to ignore the
: blood and cultutal identities of people because their languages are
: different. That would be not only erroneous but deliberately false.
I don't think anyone claims that language=culture, but it's certainly a
big part of it. Could you cite the part in Bede where he refers to the
Angles/ Saxons/Jutes as Danes (to which you earlier alluded)?
What my original post on this subject was getting at is, if they were
Danes, why did they speak West Gmc.? One would think that if they were
Danes, they would be speaking the Danish language, so if they weren't,
they must have switched for some reason (or possibly the rest of the Danes
switched). If your theory is to hold up, you're going to have to explain
this odd little fact. Completely ignoring linguistic evidence is as silly
as depending on it solely.
Ben Buckner
buc...@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu
Ferret
>I don't think anyone claims that language=culture, but it's certainly a
>big part of it. Could you cite the part in Bede where he refers to the
>Angles/ Saxons/Jutes as Danes (to which you earlier alluded)?
>What my original post on this subject was getting at is, if they were
>Danes, why did they speak West Gmc.? One would think that if they were
>Danes, they would be speaking the Danish language, so if they weren't,
>they must have switched for some reason (or possibly the rest of the Danes
>switched). If your theory is to hold up, you're going to have to explain
>this odd little fact. Completely ignoring linguistic evidence is as silly
>as depending on it solely.
There is no extant writing of any of these languages prior to the 8th
century so to refer to the languages is difficult and guess work.
The first major work in a Germanic language is the A/S chronicals and that
is 8th century Old English at best (it also uses alot of letters that are
usually associated with Norse ! and before the "Vikings" !)
"Danish" as a language did not exist at this time nor did English and many
other languages.
Bede book V chapter 9 says "There were many such nations in
Germany, of whose stock came the Angles or Saxons now settled in Brittain,
who are for this reason still miscalled "Garmans" by their neighbors the
Britons. These nations include the Frisians, Rugians, Danes, Huns (Avars),
Old Saxons, and Boructuars besides many other races in that region who stil
observe pagan rites.Bede died in 725, prior to the invasion of "Vikings"
A/S Chronicles uses the term Norwegian once and uses Danes predominantly in
reference to the invaders begining 787.
However Notiker refers to the Saxons at the time of Charlemagne as "
Northmen". While Einhard differentiates the land enemies as Saxon and
seaborn invaders as Danes.
The main point is that the period authors used Dane predominantly as a
general term for the invaders; much as, in the 19th Century, German was
used to decribe the AXIS powers although Austria and Hungary and Germany are
different peoples and cultures.
Ferret
Ferret
Heimskringla, Samuel Laing writes:
"Our historians and their readers are apt to forget that, pagan and
barbarian as these Danes or Northmen of the 9th and 10th centuries
undoubtedly were, they were the same people, only in a different stage of
civilization, as the Anglo-Saxons themselves, and were in the 10th century,
in their social state, institutions, laws, religion and language, what the
Anglo-Saxons had been in the 5th century when they first landed on the
Isle of Thanet."
Ferret
Richard M. Alderson III
>I don't give linguistics alot of weight. There is to much controversy in the
>field and it seems like they try to rewrite history to fit their theories.
>There are many archeological and contemporary sources refuting the linguists.
There is very little controversy in the field with respect to the placement of
the various Germanic languages at the start of the common era, or later.
Neither do we rewrite history, to suit ourselves or anyone else.
The "Angles, Saxons, and Jutes" of tradition were speakers of one or more
Ingvaeonic West Germanic languages. That is to say, Anglo-Frisian speakers.
The Danes, including the Normans, were speakers of a North Germanic language.
There are significant differences between West Germanic, North Germanic, and
East Germanic (Gothic), demonstrable even to those who have little or no
training in linguistics.
>again Language has little to do with ethnic origins in alot of cases (enough
>to not give linguistics not much weight).
Linguistics has nothing to do with ethnic origins, it has to do with language.
This seems to bother amateur archaeologists and anthropologists a great deal,
but we simply do not care about ethnicity as such.
I can understand how you give so little weight to the linguistic data. It is
clear that you haven't studied enough linguistics to know what the data mean.
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Ferret
>Ferret writes:
>>to not give linguistics not much weight).
>Linguistics has nothing to do with ethnic origins, it has to do with language.
>This seems to bother amateur archaeologists and anthropologists a great deal,
>but we simply do not care about ethnicity as such.
>I can understand how you give so little weight to the linguistic data. It is
>clear that you haven't studied enough linguistics to know what the data mean.
What I _am_ clear on, is that language variations mean little to classify
cultures and bloodlines as any American can tell you.
My post related to blood lines and cultures. I am not about to ignore the
blood and cultutal identities of people because their languages are
different. That would be not only erroneous but deliberately false.
Ferret
EUR...@mvs.sas.com
"AXIS powers" is a term coined in the mid-thirties of this century
(for the Nazi-Fascist alliance of Germany and Italy and other countries)
It should not be used for earlier periods.
Austria has been part of the German Confederation ("Deutscher Bund")
till 1866 with parts of its realm (excluding Hungary). German-speaking
"Austrians" contributed a lot to German literature, art, and "culture"
in general (just to mention Mozart, Grillparzer, Hoffmansthal,
Kafka, and many others).
Regards,
M. Kiefer
Ferret
>Well Samuel Laing is just plain wrong!
Really good scientific statement.
I suppose you have translated all of Sturluson's works and written tomes on
the subject.
Sorry but I prefer Laing's opion until given _valid_ _intelligent_ evidence
to the contrary.
Ferret
Ferret
>>general term for the invaders; much as, in the 19th Century, German was
Should have been 20th (sorry)
>>used to decribe the AXIS powers although Austria and Hungary and Germany are
>>different peoples and cultures.
Been reading so much old stuff I must have forgotten what the current
century is !
Ferret
Ferret
>>"Danish" as a language did not exist at this time nor did English and many
>>other languages.
>>
>I think you have forgotten Beowolf.
Beowolf is basically a Norse Saga written in an Anlo-Saxon language. A
further demonstration of the similarities of the two cultures.
>As I remember correctly, the tribe in what is now Denmark and southern
>Sweden at the time of the poem was called the Geats. They seem to be
>related to the Friesians and were defeated by Swedes. From this I infer
>that power, and language, past from W. Germanic to N. Germanic sometime
>between the 5th and 8th centuries
At the time of Tacitus, the Swedes(Sitones), Norwegians(Suiones) and Danish(
Cimbri et Anglii) had similar customs, religion, language and dress. He also
states that they all considered themselves as Suevi. (Germania 40-50) Note
also that inter-tribal warfare was a common practice among all the Germani
especially the northern Suevi.
Ferret
Ferret
>Beowulf is not basically a Norse saga written in old english, although the
>poem does make reference to Norse history. This may be some attempt by the
>author to ground the poem in history, and therefore give it some authority.
>There were of course, cross-cultural links between the Scandinavians and the
>Saxons, but the poem was written in the west Saxon dialect, which linguists
>can describe with some accuracy.
So if an Angl-Saxon writes down a Norse legend it is no longer it is no
longer Norse ? I would be inclined to believe that the legends date from a
time when before the cultures diverged. I suppose A-S Wodin and Nordic Odin
have nothing to do with each other either. Let alone that OE uses alot of
Norse charcters.
>the various tribes (the records of Tacitus and Bede may just show their
>propensity for giving any group a tribal name, regardless of whether the
>people considered themselves separate from their neighbors-many undoubtably
>were, while others may have just been geographically separated).
Tacitus tells us the the Germanics all considered themselves as Suevi and
that they had recently begun to call themselves Germani. He also states that
the languages, customs and religions were the same, with very few exceptions
wich he points out. He specifically includes the Suiones and Sitones, which
lived north of the Cimbri (the Juteland peninsula) as being definetely
germani.
>However, to say that the germanic cultures were all the same merely because
>the record is muddy, is to ignore what archaeology is about.
That isn't what I'm saying. I am saying that the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes
all came from the same ancestors living within a coastal region 300 miles
either side of the modern German-Danish Border.
Ferret
Richard M. Alderson III
>In article <Cy1Jr...@cix.compulink.co.uk> dfo...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>("David Forth") writes:
>>Well Samuel Laing is just plain wrong!
>Really good scientific statement.
I agree, which is why I didn't bother posting something very similar when you
quoted from him.
>I suppose you have translated all of Sturluson's works and written tomes on
>the subject.
>Sorry but I prefer Laing's opion until given _valid_ _intelligent_ evidence
>to the contrary.
Ah, but who gets to determine its validity and intelligence? As far as I'm
concerned, you've already shown your unwillingness to entertain evidence that I
consider, from a position of 25 years as a linguist, to be both.
Richard M. Alderson III
That may not be what you *intended* to say, but most assuredly *is* what you
said.
In any case, there are good reasons for connecting the North Germanic languages
more closely with the East Germanic (Gothic), in terms of shared innovations.
So even there, you would be wrong about the linguistic data.
And you are still late by about 500 years at the least.
Paul J. Gans
: Hang on...
: First, somebody talks about the 5th-8th centuries, then you start with
: Tacitus.
: Tacitus lived and wrote in the *second* century AD, and there is still
: debate about the identity and even the exact locality of some of the
: tribes he mentions. Also, between Tacitus' time and the migration period
: (5th century) there seems to have been a major change in he tribal
: organisation of Central Europe. There are no Saxons in Tacitus, for
: example.
: So please, be careful which sources you consult!!
: Catriona
I'd like to ask that the participants in this discussion please avoid
getting upset with each other. It is a *very* interesting subject.
I think that the point made above is quite important. Please,
everybody, date your statements. I've seen people mixing periods
hundreds of years apart. I don't have to point out that major
changes take place on such a time scale.
Let's keep it calm. It's a good thread.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Ferret
>Hang on...
>First, somebody talks about the 5th-8th centuries, then you start with
>Tacitus.
>Tacitus lived and wrote in the *second* century AD, and there is still
>debate about the identity and even the exact locality of some of the
>tribes he mentions. Also, between Tacitus' time and the migration period
>(5th century) there seems to have been a major change in he tribal
>organisation of Central Europe. There are no Saxons in Tacitus, for
>example.
In order to establish these peoples in the 5th Century it is proper to check
primary sources prior to the dat in question to establish a history. That is
alot different than checking secondary and tertiary reports 1000 years after
the fact.
Ferret
David Forth
Well Samuel Laing is just plain wrong!
dave
St. Ives, England
Michael_Fiedler
the cheops pyramide to find some hidden chambers.
Does anybody have some information about those results ?
Who were these scientists and what kind of equipment did they use ?
(private interest)
-= Michael =-
--
** Beispiel-Signatur für öffentliche Nachrichten **
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
K Thier
: >First, somebody talks about the 5th-8th centuries, then you start with
: >Tacitus.
: >Tacitus lived and wrote in the *second* century AD, and there is still
: >debate about the identity and even the exact locality of some of the
: >tribes he mentions. Also, between Tacitus' time and the migration period
: >(5th century) there seems to have been a major change in he tribal
: >organisation of Central Europe. There are no Saxons in Tacitus, for
: >example.
: In order to establish these peoples in the 5th Century it is proper to check
: primary sources prior to the dat in question to establish a history. That is
: alot different than checking secondary and tertiary reports 1000 years after
: the fact.
Sure, it is essential to consult whatever primary sources are avilable
for the time and also the preceding centuries. But they must be used
with great care.In the article I first replied to, you made it look as
if the tribes mentioned in
Tacitus were more or less the same as in the Migration Period and later,
and that their interactions in Tacitus' time were represntative for
the power shifts taking place several centuries later. As mentioned
above, tribal organisation did change during these centuries, and so
would their interactions have done. We must also remember that
Tacitus' information is biased. He has probably never been to Germany
himself and thus might have had third-hand -information about many
details he mentions. Some things, however have been supported by
archaeology. To cut it short, Tacitus (as well as Ptolemy) is useful
to give us an idea of the broader makeup of the Germanic World in his
time, but he is dodgy for details (like who fought whom and why), and
these details cannot be transferred to later centuries without careful
reviewing.
Catriona
Bill Bedford
To which Ferret replied
:Really good scientific statement.
:I suppose you have translated all of Sturluson's works and written tomes
on
:the subject.
:Sorry but I prefer Laing's opion until given _valid_ _intelligent_
evidence
:to the contrary.
:Ferret
Sorry Laing is wrong, for instance there were Germans/Saxons in Britian a
long time before this alledged invation.
You cannot expect Laing to be able in incorporate any of the discoveries of
the 150 years with out clavoiance. Also please remember that Taticus and
Snurlasson are separated by 1100 years, what may have been true one was not
true for the other. Its a bit like consulting the Doomsday book to find out
how much tax was paid in 1600.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bedford Designer of Photo-Etches
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
+44 9505 327
Living on a island gives the world a different perspective
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard T Morgan
> In article <23OCT199...@zeus.tamu.edu> mpm...@zeus.tamu.edu (MCDANIEL, MASON PALMER) writes:
>
> >Beowulf is not basically a Norse saga written in old english, although the
> >poem does make reference to Norse history. This may be some attempt by the
> >author to ground the poem in history, and therefore give it some authority.
> >There were of course, cross-cultural links between the Scandinavians and the
> >Saxons, but the poem was written in the west Saxon dialect, which linguists
> >can describe with some accuracy.
>
> So if an Angl-Saxon writes down a Norse legend it is no longer it is no
> longer Norse ? I would be inclined to believe that the legends date from a
> time when before the cultures diverged. I suppose A-S Wodin and Nordic Odin
> have nothing to do with each other either. Let alone that OE uses alot of
> Norse charcters.
>
> >the various tribes (the records of Tacitus and Bede may just show their
> >propensity for giving any group a tribal name, regardless of whether the
> >people considered themselves separate from their neighbors-many undoubtably
> >were, while others may have just been geographically separated).
>
> Tacitus tells us the the Germanics all considered themselves as Suevi and
> that they had recently begun to call themselves Germani. He also states that
> the languages, customs and religions were the same, with very few exceptions
> wich he points out. He specifically includes the Suiones and Sitones, which
> lived north of the Cimbri (the Juteland peninsula) as being definetely
> germani.
Two things, one haven't the Cimbri been deemed Celtic from the goods and
behavour. And that the Germans don't understand why we call them German or
Teuton.
Like the way that the Celts in the north of Britain call the English
people Sacanach (also ancient Rome), and Francs called them Anglais.
Why the English never called them selves Saxon, but even the ones in the
south (the saxons) even called them selves Angle. The term Anglo-saxon was
re-invented in modern time, and only briefly did the Franc church discribe
them as such to make the difference between the saxons in England and those
on the contient.
The kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Middlesex and Sussex were late inventions. Wessex had various names before becoming Wessex which I read
and forgot.
> >However, to say that the germanic cultures were all the same merely because
> >the record is muddy, is to ignore what archaeology is about.
>
> That isn't what I'm saying. I am saying that the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes
> all came from the same ancestors living within a coastal region 300 miles
> either side of the modern German-Danish Border.
My Danish friends tell me that the Danes originally come from Sweden. But
it does it stop them ruling the locals.
One friend in North Jutland tells that in his city the is a status to the
Cimbri Bull?
Bernard.
Ferret
>Two things, one haven't the Cimbri been deemed Celtic from the goods and
>behavour. And that the Germans don't understand why we call them German or
>Teuton.
There are the Cimbri in Wales and the Cimbri in Juteland. If these were
related celtic peoples the appearance of celtic names in Wessex regal
lineage could be explained easily. However that would make the "Saxons" in
Wessex "Celts" wouldn't it. Actually I am convinced that the Welsh, Saxons
and Danes have a similar ethnicity. Unfortunately that notion gets flamed
here.
>Like the way that the Celts in the north of Britain call the English
>people Sacanach (also ancient Rome), and Francs called them Anglais.
>Why the English never called them selves Saxon, but even the ones in the
>south (the saxons) even called them selves Angle. The term Anglo-saxon was
>re-invented in modern time, and only briefly did the Franc church discribe
>them as such to make the difference between the saxons in England and those
>on the contient.
Bede refers to the "old Saxons" to distinguish them. However, Einhard states
that the old Saxons were conquered circa 800 and thase who didn't flee into
Juteland or into the Avar's lands were "relocated" through-out Gaul and
Germania.
Alot points to everyone coming from, and going into, the "Danish" peninsula
but don't call them Danish or imply that the "Danes" circa 900 CE came from
there either.
Seems like a plot against the Juteland peninsula doesn't it ?
Ferret
David Forth
the >poem does make reference to Norse history. This may be some attempt
by the >author to ground the poem in history, and therefore give it some
authority.
dave
St. Ives, England
David Forth
> > > There are the Cimbri in Wales and the Cimbri in Juteland. If these
were > related celtic peoples the appearance of celtic names in Wessex
regal > lineage could be explained easily. However that would make the
"Saxons"
> in Wessex "Celts" wouldn't it. Actually I am convinced that the Welsh,
> Saxons and Danes have a similar ethnicity. Unfortunately that notion
> gets flamed here.
the reign of Henry I. It is a myth that "Saxon" or "Danish" invasions
drove the Celtic/Saxon populations into Wales and Cornwall etc. Blood
group evidence does not support your idea that the Celtic and later
Germanic (Saxon etc) tribes were very closely related.
Shame I missed the flaming :-)
dave
St. Ives, England
Ferret
I wonder how you can tell ethnicity of populations in Britain and
Germany(et al) before 500 CE by blood of people in the 20th Cent.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Diversity and isolation of peoples has come and
gone _alot_ in that time.
Ferret
K Thier
: >Two things, one haven't the Cimbri been deemed Celtic from the goods and
: >behavour. And that the Germans don't understand why we call them German or
: >Teuton.
: There are the Cimbri in Wales and the Cimbri in Juteland. If these were
: related celtic peoples the appearance of celtic names in Wessex regal
: lineage could be explained easily. However that would make the "Saxons" in
: Wessex "Celts" wouldn't it. Actually I am convinced that the Welsh, Saxons
: and Danes have a similar ethnicity. Unfortunately that notion gets flamed
: here.
As far as I am aware,the Cimbri of Juteland and the Cymry of Wales are
not connected. If you think I'm wrong give me some *hard* evidence.
The concept of Cymru as a country is a rather late one anyway (AD),
and the word is still the same. I can go and look up the etymology.
The name of the Germanic Cimbri has undergone the Germanic sound shift
and is still extant in the area of Himmerland in present-day Denmark.
Also, the Britons, that is the Celts of Britain, of whom Welsh and
cornishpeople survive,spoke p-Celtic languages before the
Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. So leave the Welsh out of your
argument, please.
Catriona
Ferret
>From: kth...@festival.ed.ac.uk (K Thier)
>Subject: Re: Danes and Saxons are the Same?
>Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 19:29:19 GMT
Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
what could have been properly called Celts.
Since the only record we have of the original Celts, as opposed to
these later Celtic and Romano-Gallic peoples, comes from Roman and Latin
authors it is amazing that we can know what their language was, especially
as they wrote nothing down being a totally oral society.
Wishing someone would lend me that time machine they seem to have.
BTW the Danescan (danes) called Wales Britland, in case it wasn't confusing
enough.
Ferret
Richard M. Alderson III
>Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
>languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
>gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
>what could have been properly called Celts.
What, pray tell, distinguishes the two concepts, since "Celt" is a linguistic
term defined as "a speaker of a Celtic language"?
David Forth
"I wonder how you can tell ethnicity of populations in Britain and
Germany(et al) before 500 CE by blood of people in the 20th Cent.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Diversity and isolation of peoples has come and
gone _alot_ in that time."
Well I think this is because there has been far less change than you may
believe. For example the Irish invasion of South West Wales of circ.
500AD shows up in blood group analysis.
dave
St. Ives, England
Jeff Foehringer
>In article <dnb105.29...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>>Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
>>languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
>>gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
>>what could have been properly called Celts.
>What, pray tell, distinguishes the two concepts, since "Celt" is a linguistic
>term defined as "a speaker of a Celtic language"?
There is no record of what the Bronze Age Celts spoke and so the Celts
perhaps are not Celts (?!)
The Celtic speaking peoples are a few hundred years and miles from the
central european bronze age Celts.I wish people wouldn't make them identical.
You seem to speak English, does that mean you are ethnically English?
Are all English speaking people English and descended from the Angles?
Ferret
Jeff Foehringer
>Well I think this is because there has been far less change than you may
>believe. For example the Irish invasion of South West Wales of circ.
>500AD shows up in blood group analysis.
>dave
>St. Ives, England
This could as easily be due to the Welsh being descended from the Irish much
earlier than 500AD.
Ferret
Richard M. Alderson III
writes:
>In article <Cz11z...@cix.compulink.co.uk> dfo...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>("David Forth") writes:
>>Well I think this is because there has been far less change than you may
>>believe. For example the Irish invasion of South West Wales of circ. 500AD
>>shows up in blood group analysis.
>This could as easily be due to the Welsh being descended from the Irish much
>earlier than 500AD.
*CHOKE*
Although both the Welsh and Irish languages are Celtic, neither is descended
from the other. Welsh, along with Breton and Cornish (and a host of unnamed
others killed off by the Saxons), are p-Celtic languages, in which Proto-Indo-
European *k{^w} > p; Irish, along with Manx and the majority of continental
Celtic languages (e. g., Gallic), is a q-Celtic language, in which *k{^w} > k.
An easy touchstone for this is the Welsh and (Old) Irish for the number 5:
Welsh pump
Irish coic
both from Proto-Celtic *k{^w}enk{^w]e, with the same change in the first
consonant of PIE *penk{^w}e that we see in Italic and Germanic (Latin quinque,
Gothic fimf): Cf. Sanskrit panca, Greek pente.
Perhaps you are confusing the Welsh with the Gaelic Scots?
Mike Maxwell
Well, wait a minute. Could this also be partly explained by the
Cambro-Normans who came over to Ireland in the 1100's?
As I understand it, tribes of Munster (esp. Deisi) were heavily involved in
the above mentioned invasion of Wales. I would be very surprised if blood
group analysis specifically shows this Munster-Wales link.
Mike
K Thier
: Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
: gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
: what could have been properly called Celts.
no comment :-/
: Since the only record we have of the original Celts, as opposed to
: these later Celtic and Romano-Gallic peoples, comes from Roman and Latin
: authors it is amazing that we can know what their language was, especially
: as they wrote nothing down being a totally oral society.
They did write. little of it is more than proper names and short
phrases of the style "this bowl belongs to xy", but that is
enough to establish that we are dealing with a Celtic language.
More than one is attested on th continent, some in the islands.
: BTW the Danescan (danes) called Wales Britland, in case it wasn't confusing
: enough.
British is probably a Celtic word!
Catriona
K Thier
: from the other. Welsh, along with Breton and Cornish (and a host of unnamed
: others killed off by the Saxons), are p-Celtic languages, in which Proto-Indo-
: European *k{^w} > p; Irish, along with Manx and the majority of continental
: Celtic languages (e. g., Gallic), is a q-Celtic language, in which *k{^w} > k.
Are you sure about Gallic? I learned that it was probably (not
certainly) a p-Celtic language. If it isn't what do you do with
tribal names containing p, which was lost in Celtic and until late
only re-adopted (right expression?) by p-Celtic. Earliest Irish (and
the ogham alphabet) have no p.
If I'm wrong, please help me on into the right direction.
: Perhaps you are confusing the Welsh with the Gaelic Scots?
Catriona
Huston McCulloch
[quoting someone else]:
>: Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
>: languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
>: gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
>: what could have been properly called Celts.
>
>no comment :-/
>
>: Since the only record we have of the original Celts, as opposed to
>: these later Celtic and Romano-Gallic peoples, comes from Roman and Latin
>: authors it is amazing that we can know what their language was, especially
>: as they wrote nothing down being a totally oral society.
>
>They did write. little of it is more than proper names and short
>phrases of the style "this bowl belongs to xy", but that is
>enough to establish that we are dealing with a Celtic language.
>More than one is attested on th continent, some in the islands.
>Catriona
Interesting! What alphabet or script did they write in, and how
early do these inscriptions appear? I realize
that Greek letters were used by the Gauls to write their language in
the centuries immediately before the Roman conquest, but I assume
here you are talking about the late Bronze/early Iron age mentioned
in the quote. Was ogam already in use? Some say it was not
invented until circa 400 AD.
(Actually, I'm not sure from your "no comment" whether you are agreeing
with what you quoted and were lamenting the fate of the "Celts", or
disagreeing and tacitly commenting to that effect.)
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State Univ.
K Thier
: There is no record of what the Bronze Age Celts spoke and so the Celts
two things.
First, the earliest people called Celts by archaeologists are from the
Iron Age. Second, some of those we call celts might not actually be
Celts, but there is evidence for continental Celtic languages.
: You seem to speak English, does that mean you are ethnically English?
: Are all English speaking people English and descended from the Angles?
Valid point. I'm not. Still, althoughwe define the Celtic peoples by
their language, they have more in common than that. But sure, they
are not identical (but related, a word you like so much).
Catriona
Ferret
>Interesting! What alphabet or script did they write in, and how
>early do these inscriptions appear? I realize
>that Greek letters were used by the Gauls to write their language in
>the centuries immediately before the Roman conquest, but I assume
>here you are talking about the late Bronze/early Iron age mentioned
>in the quote. Was ogam already in use? Some say it was not
>invented until circa 400 AD.
K. Thier posted that ogam is 7th cent. and that the Celts are iron age.
I disagree per seperate post.
Ferret
Ferret
>From: kth...@festival.ed.ac.uk (K Thier)
>Saxons are the Same?)
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:16:15 GMT
>: There is no record of what the Bronze Age Celts spoke and so the Celts
>: perhaps are not Celts (?!)
>two things.
>First, the earliest people called Celts by archaeologists are from the
>Iron Age. Second, some of those we call celts might not actually be
>Celts, but there is evidence for continental Celtic languages.
I would argue that, since iron was introduced by the Celts to the Romans and
Greeks and the Celts can be traced back to their use of bronze swords I
would call them a Bronze age culture.
Ferret
Ferret
>They did write. little of it is more than proper names and short
>phrases of the style "this bowl belongs to xy", but that is
>enough to establish that we are dealing with a Celtic language.
>More than one is attested on th continent, some in the islands.
What are the dating of these items?
Ferret
Robert Harbison
In article <dnb105.29...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>
>Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
>languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
>gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
>what could have been properly called Celts.
Celtae? Why did they refer to themselves as Celts (as tribe members of a
Celtic speaking group? The Celts as a whole covered more ground than the
ancient Roman Empire. At its height the "Celtic Empire" spread from
the British Isles to Spain to Hungary to Anatolia (Asia Minor-Turkey)
They stayed in power at least to the Middle Ages with the coming of the
'barbarians' Most Celtic peoples reclaimed their heritage after the
Romans left. Inb some cases this was not but a few years, Spain never
really regained its heritage.
Rob
Celticist/Medievalist-in-training
Ferret
>From: RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu (Robert Harbison)
>Subject: Re: Speakers of Celtic languages are not Celts? (was Re: Danes and
>Saxons are the Same?)
>>
>In article <dnb105.29...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>>
>>Welsh, Irish et al are not Celts. They are celtic peoples speaking celtic
>>languages. The Celts were a Bronze to early Iron Age people that was long
>>gone at the time Caesar invaded Rome. Perhaps the Dacians were the last of
>>what could have been properly called Celts.
>
>If the Celts were "long gone" when Caesar took Rome then why did he call them
>Celtae? Why did they refer to themselves as Celts (as tribe members of a
>Celtic speaking group? The Celts as a whole covered more ground than the
>ancient Roman Empire. At its height the "Celtic Empire" spread from
>the British Isles to Spain to Hungary to Anatolia (Asia Minor-Turkey)
The Gauls in (modern)France and Spain called themselves Celtae and the
Romans called them Celtae or Belgae. There is also the belief held by the
Romans, Celts and Germans that the Celts and Germans were descended from the
same people(Tacitus,The Agricola) This is easy to convieve as the evidence
of Bronze swords, La Tene and Haldstsat culture of the original Celt's is in
the (Modern) Germany and Denmark.
>They stayed in power at least to the Middle Ages with the coming of the
>'barbarians' Most Celtic peoples reclaimed their heritage after the
>Romans left. Inb some cases this was not but a few years, Spain never
>really regained its heritage.
After the Romans left, the Saxons took Britain and the Franks took Gaul.
When did the "celts" have time to re-establish themselves.Also, the "
barbarians" were more like the original Celts in dress, religion and customs
than the Romanized Gauls and Brittons.
There is more evidence to support the German Barbarians as true Celts than
the Gauls or Brittons. Excepting that we name and generalize people by there
languages which would make almost everyone in the USA English, which is far
from truth.
Ferret
Doug Weller
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) wrote:
> After the Romans left, the Saxons took Britain and the Franks took Gaul.
> When did the "celts" have time to re-establish themselves.Also, the "
> barbarians" were more like the original Celts in dress, religion and customs
> than the Romanized Gauls and Brittons.
>
That's a big oversimplification -- the Saxon's didn't 'take' Britain --
they gradually gained political control over increasing areas -- took
them a long time to get Wales, and remember James 1st of England
was James 6 of Scots -- ie a King of Scots became King of England --
the Saxons never did 'take' Scotland.
Doug
--
Doug Weller | looking after uk.education.teachers,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk | the newsgroup for the use of the
voice +44 121 708 1254 | Internet in schools
Langley Primary School, St. Bernard's Road, Solihull UK 2:2501/405.16
Ferret
>From: aden_s...@uow.edu.au (Aden Steinke)
>Subject: Re: Speakers of Celtic languages are not Celts? (was Re: Danes and
>Saxons are the Same?)
>Hi All;
>In article <1706FC3D0S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu
>(Robert Harbison) wrote in response to ferret:
>> If the Celts were "long gone" when Caesar took Rome then why did he call
>them
>> Celtae? Why did they refer to themselves as Celts (as tribe members of a
>> Celtic speaking group? The Celts as a whole covered more ground than the
>> ancient Roman Empire. At its height the "Celtic Empire" spread from
>> the British Isles to Spain to Hungary to Anatolia (Asia Minor-Turkey)
>> They stayed in power at least to the Middle Ages with the coming of the
>> 'barbarians'
>Celts/Gauls/Galatians/Picts etc were only ever in power in small pockets
>such as Ireland during the first millenia CE. Gallo-Romans etc did provide
>the basal population in large areas, after the breakup of the Western
>Empire, under Germanic domination though.
>> Most Celtic peoples reclaimed their heritage after the
>> Romans left. Inb some cases this was not but a few years, Spain never
>> really regained its heritage.
>Much of Spain didn't have a Celtic heritage to regain, the Celtic invaders
>had failed to displace the Iberians in a substantial portion of the
>peninsula (Yay Basques!!!).
The Basques' language at least seems to be unrelated to anything else and
this _may_ represent a prehistoric european language that survived in
isolation despite the Celts (they were in Iberia at the time of Hannibal's
assault on Rome and were mercinaries and allies of Carthege),Roman and
Frankish occupations of everything around them.
The same appeared to have happened in the extremeties of Caledonia till the
advent of the Scots. The pre-Scot Picts seem to have been mostly peoples
indigenous since the stone age.There was a theory that the Basque, pre-Scot
Pictish and Ugaric were possible more related to each other than any other
language. Sounds good, but little is known of the pre-Scot Picts' language.
Ferret
Ferret
>Celts/Gauls/Galatians/Picts etc were only ever in power in small pockets
>such as Ireland during the first millenia CE. Gallo-Romans etc did provide
>the basal population in large areas, after the breakup of the Western
>Empire, under Germanic domination though.
The Gallo-Roman populations throughout Europe were replaced by Germanics
causing and following the "fall of Rome".
circa 600 AD
The Goths held Iberia
The N.African Coast;
The Franks held Gaul
The Anglo-Saxons held 2/3s of Britain
The Lombards held most of Italy
circa 1000 AD
The Danes (Vikings,Norsemen) held:
Ireland, England, Scotland, Sicily, W.Russia and N.France(normandy)
There just isn't much but pockets of Romano-Gallics left in Europe even
before the Danes and definitely not after. The Romans and Gallics(and
anyone else in the wake of the Germans) had been totally replaced by
Germanics in Europe.Especially considering the Germanics penchant for
exterminating populations in their "migrations".
Ferret
Ferret
>From: dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)
>Subject: Re: Speakers of Celtic languages are not Celts? (was Re: Danes and
>Saxons are t
>In article <dnb105.33...@psu.edu>,
> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) wrote:
>> After the Romans left, the Saxons took Britain and the Franks took Gaul.
>> When did the "celts" have time to re-establish themselves.Also, the "
>> barbarians" were more like the original Celts in dress, religion and customs
>> than the Romanized Gauls and Brittons.
>>
>That's a big oversimplification -- the Saxon's didn't 'take' Britain --
>they gradually gained political control over increasing areas -- took
>them a long time to get Wales, and remember James 1st of England
>was James 6 of Scots -- ie a King of Scots became King of England --
>the Saxons never did 'take' Scotland.
See my other post. although the Saxons didn't take Wales or Scotland the
Danes certainly conquered both Ireland and Scotland as did the English later.
The "celtic" myth of the Scots and Irish being somehow isolated and pure is
just myth and national pride propaganda. As for Wales, almost the entire
Anglo-Saxon population was driven there in refuge during the Danish
invasions _incuding_ Alfred (Asser's propaganda not withstanding).
There just isn't any "celtic race" in Britain or Ireland, only a few dying
dialects of what may not even be a "celtic" language.
Ferret
Aden Steinke
In article <1706FC3D0S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu
(Robert Harbison) wrote in response to ferret:
> If the Celts were "long gone" when Caesar took Rome then why did he call them
> Celtae? Why did they refer to themselves as Celts (as tribe members of a
> Celtic speaking group? The Celts as a whole covered more ground than the
> ancient Roman Empire. At its height the "Celtic Empire" spread from
> the British Isles to Spain to Hungary to Anatolia (Asia Minor-Turkey)
> They stayed in power at least to the Middle Ages with the coming of the
> 'barbarians'
Celts/Gauls/Galatians/Picts etc were only ever in power in small pockets
such as Ireland during the first millenia CE. Gallo-Romans etc did provide
the basal population in large areas, after the breakup of the Western
Empire, under Germanic domination though.
> Most Celtic peoples reclaimed their heritage after the
> Romans left. Inb some cases this was not but a few years, Spain never
> really regained its heritage.
Much of Spain didn't have a Celtic heritage to regain, the Celtic invaders
had failed to displace the Iberians in a substantial portion of the
peninsula (Yay Basques!!!).
>
> Rob
> Celticist/Medievalist-in-training
Aden
Basque (a bit)
--
Aden Steinke, /\_/\
a.st...@uow.edu.au < o.o >
All his own work. > ^ <
Any resemblance to the opionions of the UOW SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW
are entirely acidental. A CAT IS WATCHING YOU
Markus Figel
Just last weekend I saw 2 sherds with writings on it, in the "Praehistorische
Staatssammlung" museum in Munich, Germany. The sherds were from a big celtic
oppidum in Manching (Bavaria,Germany), which was one of the biggest celtic
oppidums ever found in Germany (it was bigger than the town Munich in middle
ages and before 20th/19th century). If I remember right then the sherds were
from LaTene time (450 - 0 BC), one had latin characters on, it the other greek.
I dont remember what the meaning of the writing was, but I think they were
something like names. Celtic writing I could not see. Even
the coins used (gold and silver in different values) had no writings on it,
only different horses and dots.
Having more info about Celtic writing in "Halstatt" Culture (800 - 450 BC) or
maybe "Urnenfelder" (urnfield) time (1300 - 450 BC, bronze age), would be
interesting!
Never heard of it.
Markus
---------------
Markus Figel GSF-Forschungszentrum
e-mail:fi...@gsf.de Neuherberg, Munich, Germany
A.T. Fear
: Ferret (dnb...@psu.edu) wrote:
: : Ferret
: I did *not* say that ogham is 7th century. what I said is
: that ogham is in use in Pictland from th e 7th century.
: Nobody is entirely sure when it was invented, the first inscriptions
: occur in Ireland ca. in the 4th century.
: continental inscriptions are iron age. I'll find out more.
: Catriona
: g(
Charles Tomas _And shall these stones Speak_ thinks Ogham was firmly
established by late C4 AD and could have been devised at the turn of that
century or earlier. As he points out 'an informed guess is all that can be
offered'
Andy
K Thier
Benjamin Castellot Melendez
: >Celts/Gauls/Galatians/Picts etc were only ever in power in small pockets
: >such as Ireland during the first millenia CE. Gallo-Romans etc did provide
: >the basal population in large areas, after the breakup of the Western
: >Empire, under Germanic domination though.
: The Gallo-Roman populations throughout Europe were replaced by Germanics
: causing and following the "fall of Rome".
What do you mean by "replace"? The best estimation I have read, say that
the population in Hispaniae at the fall of the empire was about six million
people and the gots invaders were about two hundred thousand people. We have
no information about massive killings or migrations. On the contrary, we
have plenty of information about hispano-roman population supporting the
invaders. We also have information about laws banning marriages
between hispano-romans and gots and how they were abolished in the VIIth
century
David Florez
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
David Florez Rodriguez | "But the end of War
| did not mean the
Disclaimer: Benjamin Menendez is only the | beginning of Peace"
owner of the account, and none of the |
opinions of the signer should be | Tacitus, Historiae
charged on him. Any complaints or |
requests should be sent to: |
|
ro...@isdn.tid.es or |
ro...@porfia.tid.es |
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Castellot Melendez
: >Much of Spain didn't have a Celtic heritage to regain, the Celtic invaders
: >had failed to displace the Iberians in a substantial portion of the
: >peninsula (Yay Basques!!!).
: The Basques' language at least seems to be unrelated to anything else and
: this _may_ represent a prehistoric european language that survived in
: isolation despite the Celts (they were in Iberia at the time of Hannibal's
: assault on Rome and were mercinaries and allies of Carthege),Roman and
: Frankish occupations of everything around them.
Celts in fact only occupy a minor part of Iberia, exactly the area
corresponding to the north of portugal and Gallaecia. In other parts
of Hispanie they have mixed with the aborigin population, giving
birth to the Celtiberian people. In the south and the east (the areas
occupied by Carthago) lived the original population, not celtic in
origin, called the Iberians. By the way, we have some inscription
in the Iberian language and it is not a IE language, and it seems
closely realted with basque.
Ferret
>Just last weekend I saw 2 sherds with writings on it, in the "Praehistorische
>Staatssammlung" museum in Munich, Germany. The sherds were from a big celtic
>oppidum in Manching (Bavaria,Germany), which was one of the biggest celtic
>oppidums ever found in Germany (it was bigger than the town Munich in middle
>ages and before 20th/19th century). If I remember right then the sherds were
>from LaTene time (450 - 0 BC), one had latin characters on, it the other
>greek.
>I dont remember what the meaning of the writing was, but I think they were
>something like names. Celtic writing I could not see. Even
>the coins used (gold and silver in different values) had no writings on it,
>only different horses and dots.
>Having more info about Celtic writing in "Halstatt" Culture (800 - 450 BC) or
>maybe "Urnenfelder" (urnfield) time (1300 - 450 BC, bronze age), would be
>interesting!
>Never heard of it.
The artifacts may also be imports as well. That the character _may_ be latin
or greek demonstrates contact with them.
Ferret
Amy Scott
In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
>
>The Gallo-Roman populations throughout Europe were replaced by Germanics
>causing and following the "fall of Rome".
>circa 1000 AD
>The Danes (Vikings,Norsemen) held:
>Ireland, England, Scotland, Sicily, W.Russia and N.France(normandy)
>
>There just isn't much but pockets of Romano-Gallics left in Europe even
>before the Danes and definitely not after. The Romans and Gallics(and
>anyone else in the wake of the Germans) had been totally replaced by
>Germanics in Europe.Especially considering the Germanics penchant for
>exterminating populations in their "migrations".
Er, I hate to bring this into such a wide-ranging thread, but we should
all keep in mind that invasion doesn't equate with extermination/genocide.
Some people jump to the conclusion that because a language and even a
culture have 'disappeared', the people who had previously spoken/practiced
it have similarly disappeared. There is a little thing called 'cultural
assimilation' which is being overlooked :-)
Furthermore, in the spirit of this being an ARCHAEOLOGY newsgroup, and not
a history group, I thought I would throw my two cents in. Archaeologists
in Ireland are currently wrestling with the problem of whether the Irish,
the so-called 'archetypal' Celts, are in fact Celts at all. There is a
tremendous amount of cultural continuity in the archaeological record
throughout the period when the Celts were *supposed* to have invaded.
Unfortunately archaeology in Ireland was for a long time secondary to the
historians' agenda. It is becoming clear that the question of who are
Celts and who the Celts *were* is a whole heck of a lot more complicated
than was once thought.
Keep smiling!
--
Amy Scott
e-mail: ah...@freenet.carleton.ca
Robert Harbison
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>language. Sounds good, but little is known of the pre-Scot Picts' language.
>
has some Proto-Celtic characteristics. There are elements of Pre-Roman
British (P-Celtic) in addition to an almost untraceable base. This is
believed to be the "Pictish" language as it was is the ca.2nd Millenia BCE.
The Celtic Shift is now believed to have occured natuarlly, with some later
additions, or advancements coming in in waves with trade.
ROB
Robert Harbison
>The Danes (Vikings,Norsemen) held:
>Ireland, England, Scotland, Sicily, W.Russia and N.France(normandy)
>
>There just isn't much but pockets of Romano-Gallics left in Europe even
>before the Danes and definitely not after. The Romans and Gallics(and
>anyone else in the wake of the Germans) had been totally replaced by
>Germanics in Europe.Especially considering the Germanics penchant for
>exterminating populations in their "migrations".
>
The Vikings NEVER _HELD_ much of any potion of Europe. They took
administrative control over Normandy, Sicily, and the area around the city of
Dublin. They held control of Iceland, and the outer Islands around Scotland
They held the area known as the Danelaw, in simple dimensions Northumbria to
London.
My main beef is with your misconceptions about the Germanic migrations.
Where did you discover that the Germans exterminated the native populations?
Read Roger Collin's _Early Medieval Europe_ sometime. Or maybe Nick Higham's
_The Kingdom of Northumbria_ or the _North Country_ The Germans did not
exterminate the population, in fact in Northumbria, the population stayed the
same, the kings changed. The fact that the kingdoms Bernica and Deira were
all Celt, until the Angles came, and still mostly Celt afterward, is pointed
out in these works. The Kings. of B. and D. joined together in one King. in the
Country of Northumbria-Land North of the Humber River.
Rob
Robert Harbison
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>
>The Gauls in (modern)France and Spain called themselves Celtae and the
>Romans called them Celtae or Belgae. There is also the belief held by the
>Romans, Celts and Germans that the Celts and Germans were descended from the
>same people(Tacitus,The Agricola) This is easy to convieve as the evidence
>of Bronze swords, La Tene and Haldstsat culture of the original Celt's is in
>the (Modern) Germany and Denmark.
>
>When did the "celts" have time to re-establish themselves.Also, the "
>barbarians" were more like the original Celts in dress, religion and customs
>than the Romanized Gauls and Brittons.
>
>There is more evidence to support the German Barbarians as true Celts than
>the Gauls or Brittons. Excepting that we name and generalize people by there
>languages which would make almost everyone in the USA English, which is far
>from truth.
>
Switzerland.
The belief that the Celts and Germans were the same people is based on the
Romans prejudice about other peoples. They were not Romans so they were
all 'others.'
After the Romans left Britain in the 5th century there was a period of
recovery for the Celts, before the massive invasion of the Saxons, Angles
and Frisians in the 6th century.
There was less time in north Gaul, where the Franks moved, but there was
more in South Gaul where the Allamans settled later on.
The Germans did not have the same dress, religion, or metal skill. Think
of a Scottish Highlander, engraving the Book of Kells on a Gold sword,
while praying to his family Druid. Does this sound at all like the typical
German?
You have a point about language. Only the point is not valid because you
are leaving the context out. In this period of time a person WAS defined
by his language. An Angle WAS English, and Greek WAS Greek a Welshman
was Celtic. Modern 'International Culture' has wiped out the language
defining characteristics of a people. Now all a person who is Culturally-
minded can do is look to ancestry. I speak English, I can translate French
Welsh, Latin, and Scots Gaelic a little. I am of Celtic descent. My
ancestors were Irish, Scottish, and Welsh, so that is my culture. Historically-
defined, not linguistically.
Hwyl
Rob
K Thier
Middle and later iron age bc, I'm still looking for my notes, more
when i've found them.
Catriona
K Thier
: | >phrases of the style "this bowl belongs to xy", but that is
: | >enough to establish that we are dealing with a Celtic language.
: | >More than one is attested on th continent, some in the islands.
: | [stuff deleted]
: | Interesting! What alphabet or script did they write in, and how
: | early do these inscriptions appear? I realize
: | that Greek letters were used by the Gauls to write their language in
: | the centuries immediately before the Roman conquest, but I assume
: | here you are talking about the late Bronze/early Iron age mentioned
: | in the quote. Was ogam already in use? Some say it was not
: | invented until circa 400 AD.
: | (Actually, I'm not sure from your "no comment" whether you are agreeing
: | with what you quoted and were lamenting the fate of the "Celts", or
: | disagreeing and tacitly commenting to that effect.)
Disagreeing
: Just last weekend I saw 2 sherds with writings on it, in the "Praehistorische
: Staatssammlung" museum in Munich, Germany. The sherds were from a big celtic
: oppidum in Manching (Bavaria,Germany), which was one of the biggest celtic
: oppidums ever found in Germany (it was bigger than the town Munich in middle
: ages and before 20th/19th century). If I remember right then the sherds were
: from LaTene time (450 - 0 BC), one had latin characters on, it the other greek.
: I dont remember what the meaning of the writing was, but I think they were
: something like names. Celtic writing I could not see. Even
: the coins used (gold and silver in different values) had no writings on it,
: only different horses and dots.
Thank you for that, i have mislaid my notes with the dates on.
Continental Celtic is written in Mediterranean scripts: Lepontic in
Etruscan script, Hispano-Celtic in Iberean, Gaulish in Latin, Greek
and etruscan-derived letters.
Ogham is not recorded before the 4th century AD.
: Having more info about Celtic writing in "Halstatt" Culture (800 - 450 BC) or
: maybe "Urnenfelder" (urnfield) time (1300 - 450 BC, bronze age), would be
: interesting!
: Never heard of it.
I doubt there is any. would like to learn the opposite.
Catriona
Louis Emmet Mahoney
<megasnip>
>See my other post. although the Saxons didn't take Wales or Scotland the
>Danes certainly conquered both Ireland and Scotland as did the English later.
>The "celtic" myth of the Scots and Irish being somehow isolated and pure is
>just myth and national pride propaganda. As for Wales, almost the entire
>Anglo-Saxon population was driven there in refuge during the Danish
>invasions _incuding_ Alfred (Asser's propaganda not withstanding).
Gosh, Ferret, you are mixing up an awful lot of half-truths here. They
may not have "conquered" it, but West Germanic peoples did *colonize* the
East of Scotland during the Middle Ages. That is why Scots aka 'Lallans'
is a West Germanic language. At about then same time, the *Irish* (Dal
Riada) did the same in the West of Scotland; this is why Gaelic and not
Pictish is the historic language of the Highlands and Islands. Later, the
Danes conquered and colonized *parts* of England, East Scotland, and the
Pale of Ireland; other Norsemen, mainly Norwegian, conquered and colonized
other seaport towns of Western Scotland, Man, and Western Ireland. Then
the *Normans* (Frenchified Norsemen) conquered *England*. *None* of these
ever "conquered" all Ireland or all Scotland; only the "English" state and
culture did that, and after 1600 at that, when these had arisen from the
homogenizing of the preceding Pretanno-Romano-Anglo-Saxon-Danish-Norman
cultures. No reputable scholar has asserted that the Scots or Irish have
ever been "isolated and pure"; you are simply straw-manning here. As for
Wales, the *Pretannic* polities survived longer here, but not in any way
because any "entire Anglo-Saxon population was driven there..." -- that's
utter nonsense. All evidence indicates that successive invasions simply
imported a new ruling class and culture into each area, and this was in
time absorbed into the great mass of older population that remained. Its
cultural contribution was proportioned to the cultural and economic
advantage it brought, and the amount of force it was willing to use to
extinguish the formerly-prevailing culture.
>There just isn't any "celtic race" in Britain or Ireland, only a few dying
>dialects of what may not even be a "celtic" language.
The intrusion of "race" is another straw man. As others have told you,
"Celtic" is the language group identified with Hallstatt and La Tene
cultures, that once spanned Europe from Ireland and Galicia to the Danube.
Whether or not you agree, historically they did occupy Britain and
Ireland, and their continuous presence and identity can be
archaeologically and historically verified. Cromwell and his ilk
notwithstanding, they didn't disappear, and their descendants can be found
in the modern populations of *all* those areas. Separately, trying to
assert that Gaelic and Welsh are not Celtic languages is as silly as
asserting the Pope is not Polish.
>Ferret
Beir bua is beannacht,
Pooka.
Ferret
>The Germans did not have the same dress, religion, or metal skill. Think
>of a Scottish Highlander, engraving the Book of Kells on a Gold sword,
>while praying to his family Druid. Does this sound at all like the typical
>German?
First, Druid is a Roman term for _all_ profesional classes not just "
priests".
The Highlander and Book of Kells have little in common with the Original
Celts, first he wouldn't be writing and second he would be wearing pants not
a kilt, the latter being an adaptation of Roman dress. The Germans still
wore pants and worshipped the mother godess while the "pseudo-celts" were
Romanized, especially in Gaul.
>You have a point about language. Only the point is not valid because you
>are leaving the context out. In this period of time a person WAS defined
>by his language. An Angle WAS English, and Greek WAS Greek a Welshman
>was Celtic.
Since the according to every primary document the Saxons spoke Anglii (Bede
A-S chronicles Nennius et al) Why weren't they called Angles instead of
Saxons and we should have Wesangl, Sudandgl etc. Welsh and Brittons spoke
Brytwylsc, Irish spoke Scithi and the Scots spoke Picti. Seems the record
contradicts this notion.
Ferret
Ferret
simply straw-manning here.
is another straw man.
Have no idea of what straw-manning is. If it means I don't by the linguistic
BS that is promulgated as truth then I am guilty.
> As others have told you,
>"Celtic" is the language group identified with Hallstatt and La Tene
>cultures, that once spanned Europe from Ireland and Galicia to the
>Danube
There is no evidence of the language(s) of these cultures. You are
attempting a link which has no support in anyway. This is more BS
promulgated by linguists, at times in conflict with eye witness reports and
even archeological evidence(or lack there of)
>Whether or not you agree, historically they did occupy Britain and
>Ireland, and their continuous presence and identity can be
>archaeologically and historically verified.
The "Celts" in Ireland and Scotland are 1) culturaly far removed from the
Bronze age Celts 2) they are intermixed with Romans (who were mixed peoples
esp the foederati), Saxons and Danes(Vikings if you prefer)
To call them Celts would be like calling the French Romans because
their language is a very clear evolution from Latin.
>notwithstanding, they didn't disappear, and their descendants can be found
>in the modern populations of *all* those areas. Separately, trying to
>assert that Gaelic and Welsh are not Celtic languages is as silly as
>asserting the Pope is not Polish.
There gas been NOTHING to support that these languages are what the Bronze
age Celts spoke. GIVE ME PROOF NOT POLITICAL AGGENDAS.
Ferret
Ferret
>Charles Tomas _And shall these stones Speak_ thinks Ogham was firmly
>established by late C4 AD and could have been devised at the turn of that
>century or earlier. As he points out 'an informed guess is all that can be
>offered'
I like Charles' honesty. Now, my question is:
How can anyone trace back this 4cad writing to prove that the Bronze age
Celts spoke anything like what is currently refered to as a Celtic Language.
Ferret
Ferret
>Well.....There has been enough work to determine that the Pictish language
>has some Proto-Celtic characteristics. There are elements of Pre-Roman
>British (P-Celtic) in addition to an almost untraceable base. This is
>believed to be the "Pictish" language as it was is the ca.2nd Millenia BCE.
>The Celtic Shift is now believed to have occured natuarlly, with some later
>additions, or advancements coming in in waves with trade.
>ROB
That two shifts (Eire and DalReada) occured within a few hudred years and
were both heavily influenced by Latin, Scandinavian and German languages
makes the belief in a "pure" celtic language traceable nothing but the
nationist (and seperatist) attitudes of the Irish and Scots. More politics
than science.
Ferret
Ferret
>administrative control over Normandy, Sicily, and the area around the city of
>Dublin. They held control of Iceland, and the outer Islands around Scotland
>They held the area known as the Danelaw, in simple dimensions Northumbria to
>London.
The Danelaw gave Guthrum EVERYTHING NORTH OF THE ROMAN ROAD FROM CHESTER TO
LONDON according to every period document because the DANES' INVASIONS LEFT
THAT AREA UNPOPULATED The danes also divided Mercia between them which may
have extended beyond the agreed to borders. READ THE PRIMARY SOURCES.
>My main beef is with your misconceptions about the Germanic migrations.
>Where did you discover that the Germans exterminated the native populations?
>Read Roger Collin's Nick Higham's
Maybe these authors should try not ignoring every period document that
disagrees with them. I hate disregarding eye witness reports to support
preconcieved notions.
Ferret
Robert Harbison
Sorry Ferret you deserve a Flame now.
I can't believe that Penn State would turnout such a misinformed, uneducated,
fool in the guise of an academic. Why don't you have one of the professors
there interpret some of those primary sources for you? Most of the writting
Historians have from this period is of propagandic form. They were kept
because they allowed rulers to push his people to certain ends. It also
allows them to rewrite history. Think of the Bayeux Tapestry. Were it not
for random accounts of the events that could not be erased Historians would
still believe that William was reclaiming 'his' throne, rather than stealing
someone else's.
Robert Harbison
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>
>In article <17072A83BS...@ukcc.uky.edu> RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu (Robert Harbison) writes:
>
>First, Druid is a Roman term for _all_ profesional classes not just "
>priests".
>The Highlander and Book of Kells have little in common with the Original
>Celts, first he wouldn't be writing and second he would be wearing pants not
>a kilt, the latter being an adaptation of Roman dress. The Germans still
>wore pants and worshipped the mother godess while the "pseudo-celts" were
>Romanized, especially in Gaul.
>
Gaelic grammars handy but they derive from the Celtic prefix Dru meaning
oak. Druids were Oak Priests. Where did you find ANY scholar who said that Dr
Druid was a Roman term?
The Celts of Britain wore both Kilts and pants. The 'Kilt' was a tartan
cloak that was wraped around the wearer, with or with out pants. At night it
served as a blanket.
The Germans never worshiped a 'mother Goddess' They were primarily male
dominated and used male fetishes. The 'mother goddess' is a New Age
fabrication. The Celts had many god figures, most were male.
I never mentioned writing, I said engraving--these are two different things
>
>Since the according to every primary document the Saxons spoke Anglii (Bede
> A-S chronicles Nennius et al) Why weren't they called Angles instead of
>Saxons and we should have Wesangl, Sudandgl etc. Welsh and Brittons spoke
>Brytwylsc, Irish spoke Scithi and the Scots spoke Picti. Seems the record
>contradicts this notion.
>
of the area around his monastery of Jarrow. This area was settled by Angles.
The areas of Wessex, Sussex, and Essex are small compared to the areas of
Northumbria, Kent, and Cumbria. The Former spoke Saxon, the later spoke
Anglish. BTW the Scots are from Ireland. They settled in Scotland in the
late 6th century and merged with the Picts. These Scots spoke the Scots Gaelic
language formed from Irish and Pictish (call it Picto-Irish if you want)
BTW Bede wrote of the legend of Gregory seeing young boys from England
and thinking that they looked so pure, he asked them what people they were..
they said they were Angles. To which Gregory replied it is appropriate
for they look like angels. They were not Saxons. Gregory would have looked
foolish saying they look like saxnos :)
Rob
Ferret
>
>dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>>First, Druid is a Roman term for _all_ profesional classes not just "
>>priests".
>>The Highlander and Book of Kells have little in common with the Original
>>Celts, first he wouldn't be writing and second he would be wearing pants not
>>a kilt, the latter being an adaptation of Roman dress. The Germans still
>>wore pants and worshipped the mother godess while the "pseudo-celts" were
>>Romanized, especially in Gaul.
>Druid is a transliteration of a Celtic term. I do not have my Welsh or
>Gaelic grammars handy but they derive from the Celtic prefix Dru meaning
>oak. Druids were Oak Priests.
Unfortunately it is the Germanics who worshipped the sacred oak.
It was Charlemagne who chopped down The Oak of the Old Saxons circa 800AD
and the Danes about the same time began recognizing religious symbolism of
Yggdrsl the sacred oak, coinciding with the influx of Saxon refugees from
Charlemagne's wars.
Read the way druid is _used_ by Caesar instead of some linguistic theory's
"wish it were so".
>The Germans never worshiped a 'mother Goddess' They were primarily male
>dominated and used male fetishes. The 'mother goddess' is a New Age
>fabrication. The Celts had many god figures, most were male.
>I never mentioned writing, I said engraving--these are two different things
Wrong, Read Caesar and Tacitus to demonstrate the religious practices of
Brittani and Germanii respectively.The nonsense of Wicca and "celtic"
mysticism is recent invention the former being a Victorian invention.
>>Since the according to every primary document the Saxons spoke Anglii (Bede
>> A-S chronicles Nennius et al) Why weren't they called Angles instead of
>>Saxons and we should have Wesangl, Sudandgl etc. Welsh and Brittons spoke
>>Brytwylsc, Irish spoke Scithi and the Scots spoke Picti. Seems the record
>>contradicts this notion.
>>
>Ferret I'll admit my Bede is rusty but he primarily wrote about the peoples
>of the area around his monastery of Jarrow. This area was settled by Angles.
>The areas of Wessex, Sussex, and Essex are small compared to the areas of
>Northumbria, Kent, and Cumbria. The Former spoke Saxon, the later spoke
>Anglish. BTW the Scots are from Ireland. They settled in Scotland in the
>late 6th century and merged with the Picts. These Scots spoke the Scots
>Gaelic
>language formed from Irish and Pictish (call it Picto-Irish if you want)
The point I was making is that period writers _did not_ use languages and
names of peoples interchangably. Bede, nor any other writers distinguish
angle, saxon or jutish as seperate languages, but they did differentiate the
peoples. They also state that the Irish speak Scottish and the Scotts as
speaking Pictish, further demonstrating the distinction between peoples and
language even at the risk of appearing contradictory.
Ferret
Ferret
>From: RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu (Robert Harbison)
>Subject: Re: Speakers of Celtic languages are not Celts? (was Re: Danes and
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 13:17:53 EST
Pathetic flaming is a demonstration of the inability to demonstrate your
beliefs. PROVE something for a change instead of spouting BS without support.
You seem to want to rewrite history to fit some preconcieved notion.
Everything isn't propaganda. The claims of Harald and William were both
frivolous and everyone knew it, then and now. Since you discount everything
written in period, why is it you don't claim the tapestry is propaganda as
well. Is it that you only select what you want to believe and condemn the
rest? Doesn't sound like science to me!
Ferret
BTW I was taught to think for myself and not accept everything the "
scholars" write on a subject. Perhaps you might try thinking for your self
instead of believing everything the "scholars" tell you to believe.
Ferret
>From: RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu (Robert Harbison)
>Sorry Ferret you deserve a Flame now.
To bad you can't enter a decent argument for your beliefs instead of making
personal assaults.
Ferret
Ferret
>From: sas...@phantom.com (Steve Sohn)
>Subject: Re: Speakers of Celtic languages are not Celts? (was Re: Danes and
>Saxons are the Same?)
>Ferret (dnb...@psu.edu) wrote:
>: >for random accounts of the events that could not be erased Historians would
>: >still believe that William was reclaiming 'his' throne, rather than
>stealing
>: >someone else's.
>whether William was "stealing" the throne he expected from Godwin, or was
>reclaiming, he did possess the Papal Banner, which gave him all the
>authenticity he needed, to the point that Harold was reluctant to attack,
>even though one last attack would have won the day.
Sweyn of Norway had also claimed the throne via Cnut. He got beaten by
Harald several times in 1066 and later by William. No one at the time tried
to hide these facts nor tried to rewrite history.
>RE: Sacred Oaks; which of the Germanic cousins did not, indeed, worship
>the great Oak, sustainer of the ritual, parasitic & toxic, berries?
I don't know of any, other than there was a steady shift towards a "Gods"
based mythology inter-twined with the nature based religion.
These religions may have been introduced by the various steppe people
invasions,esp the Huns. The Norse Sagas claim that Odin was from Asia and
placed Isengard in the Steppes.
Ferret
Amy Scott
In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
>In article <3ai0kv$n...@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cl...@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>
>>Charles Tomas _And shall these stones Speak_ thinks Ogham was firmly
>>established by late C4 AD and could have been devised at the turn of that
>>century or earlier. As he points out 'an informed guess is all that can be
>>offered'
>
>I like Charles' honesty. Now, my question is:
>
>How can anyone trace back this 4cad writing to prove that the Bronze age
>Celts spoke anything like what is currently refered to as a Celtic Language.
>
>Ferret
Not to be pulling out my flamethrower or anything, but cultural continuity
generally points to linguistic continuity. To my knowledge, it is
accepted that the Iron Age continental Celts are the cultural descendants
of the Bronze Age Celts. Since there is limited but definite evidence
that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
Languages are always in the state of change, but one language can be
proven to be a sister or daughter language to another, cultural
affiliations aside. If you think the Bronze Age Celts didn't speak a
'Celtic' language, what language do you think they spoke, and where do you
feel the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age Celts came from?
"In the interests of friendly resolutions of arguments"
Amy
Steve Sohn
: >for random accounts of the events that could not be erased Historians would
: >still believe that William was reclaiming 'his' throne, rather than stealing
: >someone else's.
whether William was "stealing" the throne he expected from Godwin, or was
reclaiming, he did possess the Papal Banner, which gave him all the
authenticity he needed, to the point that Harold was reluctant to attack,
even though one last attack would have won the day.
RE: Sacred Oaks; which of the Germanic cousins did not, indeed, worship
the great Oak, sustainer of the ritual, parasitic & toxic, berries?
--
__________________________________________
If it were done when 'tis done,
then 'twere well it was done quickly:
My message is done.
Steve Sohn
sas...@phantom.com
sas...@pipeline.com
fax: 718.421.4098
Ferret
>From: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Amy Scott)
>Subject: Re: Celtic writing
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 18:57:59 GMT
>In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
>>In article <3ai0kv$n...@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cl...@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
>writes:
>>
>>>Charles Tomas _And shall these stones Speak_ thinks Ogham was firmly
>>>established by late C4 AD and could have been devised at the turn of that
>>>century or earlier. As he points out 'an informed guess is all that can be
>>>offered'
>>
>>I like Charles' honesty. Now, my question is:
>>
>>How can anyone trace back this 4cad writing to prove that the Bronze age
>>Celts spoke anything like what is currently refered to as a Celtic Language.
>>
>>Ferret
>Not to be pulling out my flamethrower or anything, but cultural continuity
>generally points to linguistic continuity.
The English and French languages are perfect examples that this is a false
assumption.
> To my knowledge, it is
>accepted that the Iron Age continental Celts are the cultural descendants
>of the Bronze Age Celts.
It was also supposed at one time that the earth was the center of the
universe and that automobiles were impossible because a human would die from
speeds of 50 miles per hour and the atom was the smallest unit of matter,
all upheld by scholars and accepted theories. Sorry no-one likes devil's
advocates but I don't think even the greatest scholars know everything, are
perfect, and can not be questioned or modified.
> Since there is limited but definite evidence
>that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
>into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
>language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
There is nothing pre 400AD to indicate what the Celts spoke. There is more
reason to believe that the Bronze and Iron age Celts' language developed
into German since the greatest Celt finds are in (modern) Germany and
Denmark. That the recent Celtic languages are closer to Latin than German
could easily be explained by a) the peoples in Ireland, Britain and Gaul had
much more contact and trading with the mediteranean peoples. b) the 300
years of Roman occupation of Britain and Gaul had influenced or completely
changed the original language(s) of those people.
>Languages are always in the state of change, but one language can be
>proven to be a sister or daughter language to another, cultural
>affiliations aside. If you think the Bronze Age Celts didn't speak a
>'Celtic' language, what language do you think they spoke, and where do you
>feel the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age Celts came from?
I believe that the Celts in central europe spoke a proto Germanic language
that on the western coast was replaced and or modified by a latin or proto-
latin language.
Ferret
Ferret
>Ferret (dnb...@psu.edu) wrote:
>: >for random accounts of the events that could not be erased Historians would
>: >still believe that William was reclaiming 'his' throne, rather than
>stealing
>: >someone else's.
I didn't write the above. I totally disagree with it. See previous replies.
Ferret
K Thier
: >Druid is a transliteration of a Celtic term. I do not have my Welsh or
: >Gaelic grammars handy but they derive from the Celtic prefix Dru meaning
: >oak. Druids were Oak Priests.
It's a root, not a prefix. They have something to do with oaks,
they need not necessarily be oak priests. Tree symbolism is big in
Celtic literature up to recent times.
: Unfortunately it is the Germanics who worshipped the sacred oak.
: It was Charlemagne who chopped down The Oak of the Old Saxons circa 800AD
: and the Danes about the same time began recognizing religious symbolism of
: Yggdrsl the sacred oak, coinciding with the influx of Saxon refugees from
: Charlemagne's wars.
The beginning of this is a good point. Yggdrasil, however, is an ash-
tree (askr).
: >The Germans never worshiped a 'mother Goddess' They were primarily male
: >dominated and used male fetishes. The 'mother goddess' is a New Age
: >fabrication. The Celts had many god figures, most were male.
: >I never mentioned writing, I said engraving--these are two different things
: Wrong, Read Caesar and Tacitus to demonstrate the religious practices of
: Brittani and Germanii respectively.The nonsense of Wicca and "celtic"
: mysticism is recent invention the former being a Victorian invention.
I don't know who Wicca is, but there is definitely evidence for powerful
godesses in both Celtic and Germanic religions. what exactly their
significance was, we have no way of telling.
: >BTW the Scots are from Ireland. They settled in Scotland in the
: >late 6th century and merged with the Picts. These Scots spoke the Scots
: >Gaelic
: >language formed from Irish and Pictish (call it Picto-Irish if you want)
Scottish gaelic is a descendent from Irish, *not* Picto-irish. If there
is Pictish influence at all (which i haven't heard of save in place-
names), it would be *extremely* slight.
: The point I was making is that period writers _did not_ use languages and
: names of peoples interchangably. Bede, nor any other writers distinguish
: angle, saxon or jutish as seperate languages, but they did differentiate the
: peoples.
in one passage, Bede writes about the "Anglian or Saxon people" .
The Latin word sive "or" implies that these were used interchangeably.
Catriona
K Thier
: >>>Charles Tomas _And shall these stones Speak_ thinks Ogham was firmly
: >>>established by late C4 AD and could have been devised at the turn of that
: >>>century or earlier. As he points out 'an informed guess is all that can be
: >>>offered'
: >>
: >>I like Charles' honesty. Now, my question is:
: >>How can anyone trace back this 4cad writing to prove that the Bronze age
: >>Celts spoke anything like what is currently refered to as a Celtic Language.
You don't trace back writing to establish language. Important is *what* is
written, the nature of the script is secondary.
: It was also supposed at one time that the earth was the center of the
: universe and that automobiles were impossible because a human would die from
: speeds of 50 miles per hour and the atom was the smallest unit of matter,
: all upheld by scholars and accepted theories. Sorry no-one likes devil's
: advocates but I don't think even the greatest scholars know everything, are
: perfect, and can not be questioned or modified.
Nobody says they do. Some of the greates recent scholars have been
proved wrong ( thats why we argued for up-to-date literature a while
ago.
: > Since there is limited but definite evidence
: >that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
: >into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
: >language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
: There is nothing pre 400AD to indicate what the Celts spoke. There is more
: reason to believe that the Bronze and Iron age Celts' language developed
: into German since the greatest Celt finds are in (modern) Germany and
: Denmark.
And you had said that cultural continuity does not imply linguistic
continuity!
That the recent Celtic languages are closer to Latin than German
: could easily be explained by a) the peoples in Ireland, Britain and Gaul had
: much more contact and trading with the mediteranean peoples. b) the 300
: years of Roman occupation of Britain and Gaul had influenced or completely
: changed the original language(s) of those people.
Some similarities can be proven to go much further back than that.
Also there are structural peculiarities in all the modern celtic
languages that cannot derive from Latin. I'm not arguing there was no
contact, there was quite a lot. But linguistically they were distinct
much before recorded history.
For example, do you believe, the average Roman would have noticed,
that Ver- in Vercingetorix and lat super were actually the same
long before that?
Catriona
K Thier
: >Well.....There has been enough work to determine that the Pictish language
: >has some Proto-Celtic characteristics. There are elements of Pre-Roman
: >British (P-Celtic) in addition to an almost untraceable base. This is
: >believed to be the "Pictish" language as it was is the ca.2nd Millenia BCE.
: >The Celtic Shift is now believed to have occured natuarlly, with some later
: >additions, or advancements coming in in waves with trade.
Interesting. Where is that from?
: That two shifts (Eire and DalReada) occured within a few hudred years and
: were both heavily influenced by Latin, Scandinavian and German languages
: makes the belief in a "pure" celtic language traceable nothing but the
: nationist (and seperatist) attitudes of the Irish and Scots. More politics
: than science.
I'm not quite getting the bit about shifts.
Dal Riata was part of Eire before (and after) it took over chunks
of Scotland.
There is no such thing as a pure language. agreed. But there are
distinctively Celtic languages around, even if they've taken over words
from latin, norse, even modern English. Language is not only words,
it's also sounds, grammar and syntax!
Catriona
Ferret
>: There is nothing pre 400AD to indicate what the Celts spoke. There is more
>: reason to believe that the Bronze and Iron age Celts' language developed
>: into German since the greatest Celt finds are in (modern) Germany and
>: Denmark.
>And you had said that cultural continuity does not imply linguistic
>continuity!
It doesn't, without a force other than itself. Without an event to
explain why the central Europeans switched from a celtic language to a
germanic one there is only the possibility that the celts in central europe
always spoke a german tongue. Without a major event to introduce anew
language, they would have had to decide to invent a language for no reason
at all.
The Franks adopted Latin only when they had invaded Gaul. The Anglish and
Normans evolved a combination of Germanic and French only after a major
invasion. People don't usually drop change their languages with out a reason.
Perhaps it parallels physics: X stays X unless acted upon by another force,
the amount of change in X is proportional to the force exerted upon it.
Ferret
Louis Emmet Mahoney
<lotsadeletia, crudities included>
<pooka>
>> ... trying to
>>assert that Gaelic and Welsh are not Celtic languages is as silly as
>>asserting the Pope is not Polish.
>There gas been NOTHING to support that these languages are what the Bronze
>age Celts spoke. GIVE ME PROOF NOT POLITICAL AGGENDAS.
>Ferret
Thank you for your rude reply. You might be simply ignorant, or possibly
just flame-baiting. If you have a contrary theory (for example, that they
actually spoke Old Klingon) then by all means please publish it for our
benefit.
It is not necessary to SHOUT. The only agenda visible is some sophomoric
(freshmannic?) one of yours, asserting that the Celts aren't Celts, aren't
descended from Celts either, and didn't speak Celtic languages, while the
people identified as Celts were really Romans and/or Germans, and that
classical and medieval history are different from that commonly accepted.
Provide some proof yourself for your own curious assertions, if you
please. Otherwise please buzz off until you have acquired some education
and some manners.
-pooka
Ferret
>Thank you for your rude reply.
Shouting is an appropriate reply to flames and people who call you an
asshole in my opinion and maybe you should examine your own post for
rudeness.
>If you have a contrary theory (for example, that they
>actually spoke Old Klingon) then by all means please publish it for our
>benefit.
I have and all I am told is that the experts (who ever they are) know that
the Bronze age celts spoke a celtic language because we named them celts and
celts spoke celtic languages. It would have been nice if there were theories
presented rather than calling me an asshole because I don't buy into such
tautology. I have found no evidence for a shift in central european language
from celtic to germanic and proposed that the people called Celts in central
europe spoke a proto germanic language.
Not one post has presented any evidence to disprove that other than
"scholors know it and your an asshole if you think they're wrong".
Yes, I'm rude _now_ and will change when someone talks science instead of
letting "scholors" think for them.
>It is not necessary to SHOUT. Otherwise please buzz off until you
have acquired some education and some manners.
I see, you can be rude but I can't. Nice BS attitude that proves my point.
Ferret
Amy Scott
In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
>>>How can anyone trace back this 4cad writing to prove that the Bronze age
>>>Celts spoke anything like what is currently refered to as a Celtic Language.
>>>
>>>Ferret
>
In response to this A. Scott wrote:
>> Since there is limited but definite evidence
>>that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
>>into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
>>language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
>
To which Ferret responded:
>There is nothing pre 400AD to indicate what the Celts spoke. There is more
>reason to believe that the Bronze and Iron age Celts' language developed
>into German since the greatest Celt finds are in (modern) Germany and
>Denmark. That the recent Celtic languages are closer to Latin than German
>could easily be explained by a) the peoples in Ireland, Britain and Gaul had
>much more contact and trading with the mediteranean peoples. b) the 300
>years of Roman occupation of Britain and Gaul had influenced or completely
>changed the original language(s) of those people.
It seems to me that you are working from an informational disadvantage
here. When I speak of evidence for the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age
Celts, I am not talking about Ogam. There are a number of different
sources which point to a 'Celtic' language, and I will attempt to outline
those which I can remember here.
1)The Latin writings of Posidonius and Julius Caesar. Although Posidonius'
writings have only come down to us in quotations by other writers, there
is still quite a bit of information to work with. The particularly
significant linguistic information comes from the names of the various
tribes/peoples of the Celts which both Posidonius and later Caesar wrote
of in his Gallic Wars. These names have been demonstrated to have come
from roots in the Celtic language family.
2)Place-names in what is modern France and Germany. I am less familiar
with this aspect, but I understand that many of the named natural features
of the landscape derive from Celtic words, especially rivers. FOR
EXAMPLE, the river Seine in France derives its name from the Celtic
goddess Sequana. At the moment I don't have my notes pertinent to this
topic handy, or I would give more examples.
3)Actual writings in Celtic dialects found in Iron Age Celtic contexts.
This writing was composed in (I think) Greek lettering, but it is *very*
identifiable as belonging to the Celtic language family. The most
prominent of these written items (which are few and far between, but still
exist nonetheless) are tablets found in healing springs which are presumed
to have been religious sites. The tablets generally beseech a deity (with
a Celtic name) to make a sick person well again.
If you want, I can go to my Celtic Studies professor and get more definite
references on this stuff for you; it's not a particular interest of mine,
but I personally prefer to have reliable information on my side before I
try and argue an opinion (actually, my best friend would laugh to hear me
say that :>).
Stay calm, ok? It's just a friendly debate, alright?
AAS
Ferret
>1)The Latin writings of Posidonius and Julius Caesar. Although Posidonius'
>writings have only come down to us in quotations by other writers, there
>is still quite a bit of information to work with. The particularly
>significant linguistic information comes from the names of the various
>tribes/peoples of the Celts which both Posidonius and later Caesar wrote
>of in his Gallic Wars. These names have been demonstrated to have come
>from roots in the Celtic language family.
The roots being Italo-celtic namely pre-Latin, it is more likely that the
classic writers used ancient terms that are Italo-celtic, rather than the
terms used by the Residents of Gaul and Germania. Tacitus exemplifies this
by stating that the middle europeans called themselves Sueve but that the
Latin term Germanii was based on an ancient _common_ancestor of the Gauls
and Sueve.The same possibly applies to place names.
>3)Actual writings in Celtic dialects found in Iron Age Celtic contexts.
>This writing was composed in (I think) Greek lettering, but it is *very*
>identifiable as belonging to the Celtic language family. The most
>prominent of these written items (which are few and far between, but still
>exist nonetheless) are tablets found in healing springs which are presumed
>to have been religious sites. The tablets generally beseech a deity (with
>a Celtic name) to make a sick person well again.
How old are these and where exactly were they discovered. I know that the
bronze age celtic tombs had "imported" items and greek and latin wouldn't be
supprising on those items.
>If you want, I can go to my Celtic Studies professor and get more definite
>references on this stuff for you; it's not a particular interest of mine,
>but I personally prefer to have reliable information on my side before I
>try and argue an opinion (actually, my best friend would laugh to hear me
>say that :>).
That would be great if he could supply some info on the Central European
finds and dates and examples of any writing esp. late bronze age.
I'm willing to be convinced but not by the usual "everyone knows the celts
are celts..."
Ferret
Robert Harbison
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>It doesn't, without a force other than itself. Without an event to
>explain why the central Europeans switched from a celtic language to a
>germanic one there is only the possibility that the celts in central europe
>always spoke a german tongue. Without a major event to introduce anew
>language, they would have had to decide to invent a language for no reason
>at all.
>
as a major event? Are you a Freshman, or what?
Amy Scott
In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
Now, I know I am a Newbie to this newsgroup, so I perhaps I am breaking
some bizarre rule about not posting unless formally introduced or
something, but I have posted several messages relating to this topic which
appear to have been ignored. Granted, the last one was under the topic
"Re: Celtic writing', so perhaps people on this thread didn't read it. Of
course, IMHO, the two threads are the same, just with confusingly
different headers.
Anyways, ATTENTION FERRET. I don't feel like repeating myself, so go back
and read my post as referred to above. It should give you ample evidence
of the Celtic language spoken by Celts. I will admit that all this
evidence dates from the Iron Age (I believe), but unless the
ever-bellicose Ferret decides that the Iron Age Celts *aren't* the
descendants of the Bronze Age Celts, as is generally accepted (horrors,
something accepted by the academic community!), then in his scheme of
things, the BA Celts spoke proto-Germanic, then suddenly switched to a
Celtic language in the the Iron Age, then back to Germanic in the early
medieval period.
Whew! It's enough to make your head spin :)
Amy Scott
Markus Figel
|
|
[deletions]
|
| Not to be pulling out my flamethrower or anything, but cultural continuity
| generally points to linguistic continuity. To my knowledge, it is
| accepted that the Iron Age continental Celts are the cultural descendants
| of the Bronze Age Celts. Since there is limited but definite evidence
| that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
| into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
| language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
|
| Languages are always in the state of change, but one language can be
| proven to be a sister or daughter language to another, cultural
| affiliations aside. If you think the Bronze Age Celts didn't speak a
| 'Celtic' language, what language do you think they spoke, and where do you
| feel the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age Celts came from?
|
| "In the interests of friendly resolutions of arguments"
| Amy
What cultures do mean with Bronze Age Celts? The terminus Celts is mainly
used with the Hallstatt Culture (okay, first the Hallstatt swords where made
from bronze) and following the LaTene Culture, where the "Celtic" culture
reached its climax, spreading to Britain, Ireland, Spain, Balkan, Greek,
Turkey.
Markus
------------
Markus Figel
e-mail:fi...@gsf.de
Markus Figel
| In article <CzMso...@freenet.carleton.ca> ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Amy Scott) writes:
| >From: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Amy Scott)
| >Subject: Re: Celtic writing
| >Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 18:57:59 GMT
|
|
| >In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
|
| >>In article <3ai0kv$n...@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cl...@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
| >writes:
|
| >that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
| >into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
| >language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
|
| There is nothing pre 400AD to indicate what the Celts spoke. There is more
| reason to believe that the Bronze and Iron age Celts' language developed
| into German since the greatest Celt finds are in (modern) Germany and
| Denmark. That the recent Celtic languages are closer to Latin than German
| could easily be explained by a) the peoples in Ireland, Britain and Gaul had
| much more contact and trading with the mediteranean peoples. b) the 300
| years of Roman occupation of Britain and Gaul had influenced or completely
| changed the original language(s) of those people.
|
| >Languages are always in the state of change, but one language can be
| >proven to be a sister or daughter language to another, cultural
| >affiliations aside. If you think the Bronze Age Celts didn't speak a
| >'Celtic' language, what language do you think they spoke, and where do you
| >feel the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age Celts came from?
|
| I believe that the Celts in central europe spoke a proto Germanic language
| that on the western coast was replaced and or modified by a latin or proto-
| latin language.
|
| Ferret
I come from a city in South Germany near the Bavarian Alps, called "Kempten".
It is suposed to be one or the oldest city in Germany. The romans had AD a
big town there called "Cambodunum". The city was much earlier mentioned by
a roman historian (I think it was Strabo, but I dont know exactly). He wrote
of a Celtic oppidum "Cambodunum" inhabited by the celtic tribe of the Estions.
Nothing was found until today of the Celtic oppidum, but it must have been a
LaTene site.
Take away the Roman ending of "Cambodunum" and you will get "Cambo-dun". I
think even with todays Gaelic you can translate this to something like
"Fortress of Cambo" (I dont speak Gealic but I saw some "Duns" in Ireland).
Some people recognized this before me and you can read this translation
in history books. In German "Cambodun" or "Cambodunum" gives absolutely no
sense. Interesting, isn´t it?
You find big celtic (LaTene) oppidums in South Germany, but not in North
Germany, the Culture there was different, especially if you look for big
oppidas. They were Germans up there, not Celts. What we suppose to be celtic
or pre celtic remains in German language are names of some rivers or very
old dialect words in Southern Germany, but nothing in proper German language.
BTW you were talking of big Celtic finds in Denmark, could you give me more
info about that? I never heard from one.
Markus
------------------------
Markus Figel
e-mail:fi...@gsf.de
Patrick J Crowe
(Amy Scott) writes...
> [oops! this line says like] Ferret wrote:
>>I have and all I am told is that the experts (who ever they are) know that
>>the Bronze age celts spoke a celtic language because we named them celts and
>>celts spoke celtic languages. It would have been nice if there were theories
>>presented rather than calling me an asshole because I don't buy into such
>>tautology. I have found no evidence for a shift in central european language
>>from celtic to germanic and proposed that the people called Celts in central
>>europe spoke a proto germanic language.
>
>some bizarre rule about not posting unless formally introduced or
>something, but I have posted several messages relating to this topic which
>appear to have been ignored. Granted, the last one was under the topic
>"Re: Celtic writing', so perhaps people on this thread didn't read it. Of
>course, IMHO, the two threads are the same, just with confusingly
>different headers.
>
>Anyways, ATTENTION FERRET. I don't feel like repeating myself, so go back
>and read my post as referred to above. It should give you ample evidence
>of the Celtic language spoken by Celts. I will admit that all this
>evidence dates from the Iron Age (I believe), but unless the
>ever-bellicose Ferret decides that the Iron Age Celts *aren't* the
>descendants of the Bronze Age Celts, as is generally accepted (horrors,
>something accepted by the academic community!), then in his scheme of
>things, the BA Celts spoke proto-Germanic, then suddenly switched to a
>Celtic language in the the Iron Age, then back to Germanic in the early
>medieval period.
First, a (limited) defence of Ferret: it is legitimate to critique the
identification of the Hallstadt (sp?) and Urnfield materials with the
spread of proto-Celtic (cf. Renfrew's earlier works). These older cultures
get called Bronze Age Celts because we assume they were the ancestors of
the historical Celtic peoples.
Now a critique: Ferret started this subthread by claiming that the historical
Celtic peoples weren't Celts because they spoke things like Gaelic, Welsh,
and Breton, rather than the Celt language of the B.A. Celts, a reification
if I've ever seen one (and I have). Now he seems to be arguing that the
B.A. Celts weren't Celts either.
-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
Ferret
>Anyways, ATTENTION FERRET. I don't feel like repeating myself, so go back
>and read my post as referred to above. It should give you ample evidence
>of the Celtic language spoken by Celts. I will admit that all this
>evidence dates from the Iron Age (I believe), but unless the
>ever-bellicose Ferret decides that the Iron Age Celts *aren't* the
>descendants of the Bronze Age Celts, as is generally accepted (horrors,
>something accepted by the academic community!), then in his scheme of
>things, the BA Celts spoke proto-Germanic, then suddenly switched to a
>Celtic language in the the Iron Age, then back to Germanic in the early
>medieval period.
I have read your post and gave you my sentiments regearding your refering to
evidence. Had you given actual examples I might be swayed. What celt place
names are you refering to in central europe, what are the insriptions
written in greek letters that are supposedly celtic words, what celtic
people names are you refering to (Juteland cimbri and Welsh cimbri are one
of the few, but a handful of cognates does not a language make).
In as much as Latin and Gallic are related (Italo-celtic) there would be
lots of similarities and saying that the Latins used Celtic place and people
names need alot of support to clarify it.
Ferret
Ferret
>Now a critique: Ferret started this subthread by claiming that the historical
>Celtic peoples weren't Celts because they spoke things like Gaelic, Welsh,
>and Breton, rather than the Celt language of the B.A. Celts, a reification
>if I've ever seen one (and I have). Now he seems to be arguing that the
>B.A. Celts weren't Celts either.
Most _assume_ that the people in Central Europe during the Bronze age are
ancestors of the people living in the British Isles and Ireland. From this
assumption they _assume_ that the C.E. peoples spoke a similar language.
I doubt these assumptions and postulate that the CE peoples spoke a proto-
germanic language and that the related peoples in W.Europe either changed
their language due to contact with mediteranean peoples or that the peoples
in W.Europe are descended from mediteranian peoples and not the E. and C.
Europe bronze age peoples.
The problem is that we have _labeled_ two seperate peoples as Celts based
totally on assumptions. Forget the celts are celts tautology for a while.
Ferret
Ferret
>From: RGH...@ukcc.uky.edu (Robert Harbison)
>Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 09:24:29 EST
Pardon me oh great master, What Huns in the Bronze age are you refering to
and Where did these Huns get a german language ?
Perhaps you are refering to the Finno-Ugaric language and E.Europe peoples
like the Hungarians and Finns ? German was in existance long before that.
Attila's Huns were 5th Cent.
Ferret
Ferret
>What cultures do mean with Bronze Age Celts? The terminus Celts is mainly
>used with the Hallstatt Culture (okay, first the Hallstatt swords where made
>from bronze) and following the LaTene Culture, where the "Celtic" culture
>reached its climax, spreading to Britain, Ireland, Spain, Balkan, Greek,
>Turkey.
It is the latter migrations that are the crux of the matter. Are these
migrations demonstrable by more than the "Irish are "celts" so they must be
related to the C.Europe "celts" tautology ? And, What evidence is there from
LaTene and Hallstatt of a language for their cultures ? When and Where was
the German language introduced in C.Europe.
Demonstrate these with good evidence and I will believe it. Until then I
consider most of these ideas as weakly supported and well open to debate.
Ferret
Ferret
>BTW you were talking of big Celtic finds in Denmark, could you give me more
>info about that? I never heard from one.
There is the Gundestrup cauldron found in a Danish peat bog. I recall alot
of "celt" artifacts being in Danish museums.
Ferret
Richard M. Alderson III
>In article <CzovG...@freenet.carleton.ca> ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>(Amy Scott) writes:
>>1)The Latin writings of Posidonius and Julius Caesar. Although Posidonius'
>>writings have only come down to us in quotations by other writers, there is
>>still quite a bit of information to work with. The particularly significant
>>linguistic information comes from the names of the various tribes/peoples of
>>the Celts which both Posidonius and later Caesar wrote of in his Gallic Wars.
>>These names have been demonstrated to have come from roots in the Celtic
>>language family.
>The roots being Italo-celtic namely pre-Latin, it is more likely that the
>classic writers used ancient terms that are Italo-celtic, rather than the
>terms used by the Residents of Gaul and Germania. Tacitus exemplifies this by
>stating that the middle europeans called themselves Sueve but that the Latin
>term Germanii was based on an ancient _common_ancestor of the Gauls and
>Sueve. The same possibly applies to place names.
Italo-Celtic, when it was posited, was viewed as a far precursor both to Italic
and Celtic, not as pre-Latin. In any case, it has not been the view of the
majority of Indo-Europeanists that Italo-Celtic existed as a separate stage for
30 years.
The evidence adduced for Italo-Celtic was of two kinds: The split between the
Latin & Irish developments of the labiovelars vs. the Oscan-Umbrian & British
developments thereof; and the -r- formant in verb forms. Given that both
developments of labiovelars are natural (cf. Romanian vs. the rest of Romance,
for example), and therefore hardly definitive, that leaves only the supposedly
unique verb formations in -r-.
However, it is now known that the -r- forms are found in Hittite (1800 BCE),
Tokharian (7th c. CE), and Sanskrit (1200-400 BCE). They were not recognized
in Sanskrit until the evidence against "Italo-Celtic" was accepted.
It's interesting that you are so ready to condemn what you perceive linguistics
to be, when it is clear that you have no understanding of linguistics at all.
It's also noteworthy that you believe that linguistics has a political agenda
with regard to history, usually an indication that the writer has an agenda of
his or her own. What's yours?
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Ferret
>It's also noteworthy that you believe that linguistics has a political
agenda>with regard to history, usually an indication that the writer has an
agenda of>his or her own. What's yours?
I think that there is bias towards giving the Irish and British "celts"
credit for a civilization many centuries and miles away and attributing the
greatness of that older culture to the vestiges of it in the more recent
culture.
My major problem with linguistics is the time frame. English changed in very
short time from a germanic language to a french-german mix that is
unintelligable to speakers of french and german and that change occured in
the presense of writing and education, yet linguist seem to assume that
changes occur over hunreds and thousands of years over many miles in mostly
oral cultures. My sentiments are that the linguists try to _prove_ much more
than they can. Unless supported by archeology and/or primary documentation
it is a weak argument at best.
Ferret
Amy Scott
In a previous article, fi...@cony.gsf.de (Markus Figel) says:
>In article <CzMso...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Amy Scott) writes:
>|
>|
>
>[deletions]
>
>|
>| Not to be pulling out my flamethrower or anything, but cultural continuity
>| generally points to linguistic continuity. To my knowledge, it is
>| accepted that the Iron Age continental Celts are the cultural descendants
>| of the Bronze Age Celts. Since there is limited but definite evidence
>| that the Iron Age Celts spoke (or at least wrote) a language which falls
>| into the 'Celtic' linguistic family, are you then claiming that this
>| language was spontaneously created out of nowhere?
>|
>| Languages are always in the state of change, but one language can be
>| proven to be a sister or daughter language to another, cultural
>| affiliations aside. If you think the Bronze Age Celts didn't speak a
>| 'Celtic' language, what language do you think they spoke, and where do you
>| feel the 'Celtic' language of the Iron Age Celts came from?
>|
>| "In the interests of friendly resolutions of arguments"
>| Amy
>
>What cultures do mean with Bronze Age Celts? The terminus Celts is mainly
>used with the Hallstatt Culture (okay, first the Hallstatt swords where made
>from bronze) and following the LaTene Culture, where the "Celtic" culture
>reached its climax, spreading to Britain, Ireland, Spain, Balkan, Greek,
>Turkey.
>Markus
Urgh. I feel kind of silly now. I'm afraid that my knowledge of Celtic
archaeology on the continent is a little hazy... I don't know where I
picked up 'Bronze Age', I'm *pretty* sure I was talking about the Halstatt
culture. My tired, aching head doesn't recall if they were Bronze or Iron
Age. Is it just me or is this debate going around in circles? I keep
seeing people posting various opinions and information which just keep
getting shot down as being the citation of 'so-called' experts, as
if experts are somehow a great evil, mind-controlling horror.
Amy, who thinks that Posidonius was using the Celts own tribal names and
that most people differentiate between the continental Celts and the
Insular Celts the way she does, but hey, what does she know?
Amy Scott
In a previous article, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) says:
>In article <CzqGL...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v187...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe) writes:
>
>>Now a critique: Ferret started this subthread by claiming that the historical
>>Celtic peoples weren't Celts because they spoke things like Gaelic, Welsh,
>>and Breton, rather than the Celt language of the B.A. Celts, a reification
>>if I've ever seen one (and I have). Now he seems to be arguing that the
>>B.A. Celts weren't Celts either.
>
>Most _assume_ that the people in Central Europe during the Bronze age are
>ancestors of the people living in the British Isles and Ireland. From this
>assumption they _assume_ that the C.E. peoples spoke a similar language.
>
>I doubt these assumptions and postulate that the CE peoples spoke a proto-
>germanic language and that the related peoples in W.Europe either changed
>their language due to contact with mediteranean peoples or that the peoples
>in W.Europe are descended from mediteranian peoples and not the E. and C.
>Europe bronze age peoples.
>
>The problem is that we have _labeled_ two seperate peoples as Celts based
>totally on assumptions. Forget the celts are celts tautology for a while.
>
>Ferret
>
I think the problem that I (and it would appear, anyone else foolhardy to
follow this thread) have had is that our man Ferret is wandering all
around the landscape with his argument. This is confusing and so I shall
endeavour to put some perspective on this.
The way I see it, certain opinions have been expressed:
1) That it isn't possible to determine whether the Central Europe Celts
(I'm assuming we're talking about Halstatt culture here) are related to a)
the Western European Celts (at this point we seem to be referring to the
La Tene Celts of Gaul, but I could be wrong) or b) the various and sundry
Celtic peoples of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Man and Brittany.
[Personal aside here, any up-to-date Irish archaeologist would be happy to
tell you that 1b) is a very popular issue now; the continuity of the
material culture of Ireland has led to the questioning of whether the
Irish are Celts at all]
2) That the Halstatt (or La Tene, it's hard to keep track) Celts spoke a
proto-Germanic language (or, alternately, that they did in fact speak a
Celtic language).
3) That the barbarian invasions of the early medieval period, specifically
the Huns, were responsible for the presence of Germanic speaking peoples
in Western Europe (I am assuming that the argument is that the Germans
were pushed west by these invaders until they found themselves in lands
which, it has been postulated, were previously inhabited by Celtic speakers).
4) That Ferret has this thing about shaking up the establishment :)
5) Any number of other things, which I cannot recall at the moment, but I
sure you'll all jump in and remind me.
Amy, who is beginning to regret abandoning her 'Lurker' status.
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
It's not exactly universally accepted that the G. cauldron is Celtic,
horned "god" aside, and even if it is, it could pretty easily have been
manufactured somewhere else.
I remember an interesting article in Scientific American (I think) in
which the author speculated that the artisans who created the cauldron
belonged to a sort of itinerant wide-spread sub-culture of highly skilled
silver smiths and workers of precious metals. He had some good arguments
based on similarities in motifs around Europe and the Mediterranean. I
thought his attempts to link them with India might be stretching it a bit,
but it worked for the Gypsies/Romanies. Wish I could find it, but if you
want to see it, I guess you'll have to do an index search.
: Ferret
Once again, I have resisted the temptation to make fun of people who use
handles in newsgroups :).
Ben Buckner
buc...@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu
Markus Figel
| In article <CzovG...@freenet.carleton.ca> ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Amy Scott) writes:
|
| >1)The Latin writings of Posidonius and Julius Caesar. Although Posidonius'
| >writings have only come down to us in quotations by other writers, there
| >is still quite a bit of information to work with. The particularly
| >significant linguistic information comes from the names of the various
| >tribes/peoples of the Celts which both Posidonius and later Caesar wrote
| >of in his Gallic Wars. These names have been demonstrated to have come
| >from roots in the Celtic language family.
|
| The roots being Italo-celtic namely pre-Latin, it is more likely that the
| classic writers used ancient terms that are Italo-celtic, rather than the
| terms used by the Residents of Gaul and Germania. Tacitus exemplifies this
| by stating that the middle europeans called themselves Sueve but that the
| Latin term Germanii was based on an ancient _common_ancestor of the Gauls
| and Sueve.The same possibly applies to place names.
|
As Amy said before, Celtic names and words you find mainly in the names of
Rivers, Cities and other geographic things. Some of the names are cited from
roman historians before the region north of the alps was occupied by the
romans. Regions west of Lake of Constanz and north of the alps ( later part
of the roman province Raetia ) were occupied by the romans after Ceasar
( I think it was Augustus, but I am not sure). There lived for example
the celtic tribes, Brigantones (the romans named their biggest
oppidum Brigantinum, now the city Bregenz at the Lake of Constanz), or
the Estiones and their oppidum Cambodunum, I mentioned in my last posting
( Cambodunum -> (Celtic) Cambo-dun , means "fortress of Cambo").
The name of the roman historian who cited this celtic tribes and cities
(Strabo ???) I can give you next week, after a short visit of me in later
Cambodunum (now Kempten).
You dont find other celtic words in the german language!!!!!
|
|
| >3)Actual writings in Celtic dialects found in Iron Age Celtic contexts.
| >This writing was composed in (I think) Greek lettering, but it is *very*
| >identifiable as belonging to the Celtic language family. The most
| >prominent of these written items (which are few and far between, but still
| >exist nonetheless) are tablets found in healing springs which are presumed
| >to have been religious sites. The tablets generally beseech a deity (with
| >a Celtic name) to make a sick person well again.
|
| How old are these and where exactly were they discovered. I know that the
| bronze age celtic tombs had "imported" items and greek and latin wouldn't be
| supprising on those items.
|
|
| >If you want, I can go to my Celtic Studies professor and get more definite
| >references on this stuff for you; it's not a particular interest of mine,
| >but I personally prefer to have reliable information on my side before I
| >try and argue an opinion (actually, my best friend would laugh to hear me
| >say that :>).
|
| That would be great if he could supply some info on the Central European
| finds and dates and examples of any writing esp. late bronze age.
| I'm willing to be convinced but not by the usual "everyone knows the celts
| are celts..."
|
| Ferret
Some writings, I told earlier, where found on sherds in the LaTene oppidum
in Manching / Bavaria. The culture which dominated most parts of middle
Europe before the romans was the Iron Age LaTene Culture. They were the
people who builded this big oppidums (cities) in the Southern parts of Germany
and brought this city culture to the other middle European regions.
If you take a map where the regions are marked dominated by the LaTene culture,
you see a big empty region in North Germany, Denmark and the Nordic Countries
where the Germans lived.
What cultures do you mean if you write of Bronze Age Celts? I think first
we should talk about what Cultures are meant by the word "Celts".
Markus