Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby uniface » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:17 pm

Ten years ago, an Irish pub owner was clearing land for a driveway when his digging exposed an unusually large flat stone. The stone, in turn, obscured a dark gap underneath. He grabbed a flashlight to peer in.

"I shot the torch in and saw the gentleman, well, his skull and bones," Bertie Currie, the pub owner, said this week.

The remains of three humans, in fact, were found behind McCuaig's Pub in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. And though police were called, it was not, as it turned out, a crime scene.

Instead, what Currie had stumbled over was an ancient burial that, after a recent DNA analysis, challenges the traditional centuries-old account of Irish origins.

From as far back as the 16th century, historians taught that the Irish are the descendants of the Celts, an Iron Age people who originated in the middle of Europe and invaded Ireland somewhere between 1000 BC and 500 BC.

That story has inspired innumerable references linking the Irish with Celtic culture. The Nobel-winning Irish poet William Butler Yeats titled a book "Celtic Twilight." Irish songs are deemed "Celtic" music. Some nationalists embraced the Celtic distinction. And in Boston, arguably the most Irish city in the United States, the owners of the NBA franchise dress their players in green and call them the Celtics.

Yet the bones discovered behind McCuaig's tell a different story of Irish origins, and it does not include the Celts.

"The DNA evidence based on those bones completely upends the traditional view," said Barry Cunliffe, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Oxford who has written books on the origins of the people of Ireland.

DNA research indicates that the three skeletons found behind McCuaig's are the ancestors of the modern Irish and they predate the Celts and their purported arrival by a thousand years or more. The genetic roots of today's Irish, in other words, existed in Ireland before the Celts arrived.

"The most striking feature" of the bones, according to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science journal, is how much their DNA resembles that of contemporary Irish, Welsh and Scots. (By contrast, older bones found in Ireland were more like Mediterranean people, not the modern Irish.)

Radiocarbon dating shows that the bones discovered at McCuaig's go back to about 2000 BC. That makes them hundreds of years older than the oldest artifacts generally considered to be Celtic - relics unearthed from Celt homelands of continental Europe, most notably around Switzerland, Austria and Germany.

For a group of scholars who in recent years have alleged that the Celts, beginning from the middle of Europe, may never have reached Ireland, the arrival of the DNA evidence provides the biological certitude that the science has sometimes brought to criminal trials.

"With the genetic evidence, the old model is completely shot," John Koch, a linguist at the Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies at the University of Wales.

The senior author of the DNA research paper, Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, was reluctant to weigh in on the cultural implications, but he offered that the findings do challenge popular beliefs about Irish origins.

"The genomes of the contemporary people in Ireland are older - much older - than we previously thought," he said.

Exactly where this leaves the pervasive idea that the Irish and other people of the area are "Celtic" is unclear. It depends on the definition of Celtic.

There are essentially two definitions - and two arguments.

The first revolves around language. The Irish language is, like Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, part of a group that linguists have labeled Celtic. The languages share words and grammar. They seem to have emerged after a similar evolution from Indo-European. They are indisputably related, and indisputably a well-defined category.

What is unclear is whether or not the term "Celtic" is an appropriate name for that group of languages.

To be sure, some think that Celtic languages originated with the Celts on continental Europe and subsequently spread to Ireland, Wales and Scotland. This is the traditional view, and it dovetails with the idea that the Celts moved into Ireland during the Iron Age.

But over the last decade, a growing number of scholars have argued that the first Celtic languages were spoken not by the Celts in the middle of Europe but by ancient people on Europe's westernmost extremities, possibly in Portugal, Spain, Ireland or the other locales on the western edges of the British Isles.

Koch, the linguist at the University of Wales, for example, proposed in 2008 that "Celtic" languages were not imports to the region but instead were developed somewhere in the British Isles or the Iberian peninsula - and then spread eastward into continental Europe.

His doubts about the traditional view arose as he was studying inscriptions on artifacts from southern Portugal. The inscriptions on those artifacts strongly resembled the languages known as Celtic, yet they dated as far back as 700 BC. This placed Celtic languages far from the Celt homelands in the middle of Europe at a very, very early date.

"What it shows is that the language that became Irish was already out there - before 700 BC and before the Iron Age," Koch said. " It just didn't fit with the traditional theory of Celtic spreading west to Britain and Iberia."

The second line of argument arises from archaeology and related sources.

Numerous digs, most notably in Austria and Switzerland, have traced the outlines of the Celts. The artifacts offer evidence going back as far as about 800 BC. The ancient Greeks and Romans also left written accounts of the Celts, and probably knew them well - the Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC and attacked Delphi in Greece in 279 BC.

It seemed plausible that this group that had invaded Rome had invaded Ireland as well, and in the standard view, it was this people that eventually made it to Ireland.

For decades, however, archaeologists and other scholars have noted just how flimsy the evidence is for that standard account and how broad, nonetheless, is the application of the word.

In 1955, an Oxford professor, J.R.R. Tolkien, better known as the author of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" novels, described the popular understanding of "Celtic" in a celebrated lecture: "'Celtic' of any sort is . . . a magic bag into which anything may be put, and out of which almost anything may come. . . . Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight, which is not so much a twilight of the gods as of the reason."

Moreover, in recent years, some archaeologists have proposed that the traditional story of the Celts' invasion was, in a sense, exactly wrong - the culture was not imported but exported - originating on the western edge of Europe much earlier than previously thought and spreading into the continent.

In a 2001 book, Cunliffe, the Oxford scholar, argued on the basis of archaeological evidence that the flow of Celtic culture was opposite that of the traditional view - it flowed from the western edge of Europe, what he calls "the Atlantic zone" - into the rest of the continent. In many places of the Atlantic zone, he notes, people were buried in passages aligned with the solstices, a sign that they shared a unified belief system.

"From about 5,000 BC onwards, complicated ideas of status, art, cosmology were being disseminated along the Atlantic seaways," Cunliffe said, and that culture then spread eastward.

"If we're right, the roots of what is known as 'Celtic' culture go way way back in time," Cunliffe said. "And the genetic evidence is going to be an absolute game-changer."

If the new scholarship proves correct, exactly what to do with the word Celtic will probably be a matter of some dispute: Should it be applied to languages or cultures that, no matter how clearly defined, were largely uninfluenced by the historical Celts of continental Europe?

Complicating any answer are old ethnic antagonisms: The old notions of a distinct "Celtic race" or "Irish race" have been used not just for poetic tributes, but for scorn.

The famed American anthropologist Daniel Garrison Brinton, for example, described the Celts in 1890 as having conspicuous mental traits: "turbulent, boastful, alert, courageous, but deficient in caution, persistence and self-control, they never have succeeded in forming an independent state, and are a dangerous element in the body politic of a free country. In religion they are fanatic and bigoted, ready to swear in the words of their master rather than to exercise independent judgment."

The new evidence from genetics, however, undermine notions of a separate Irish race, describing them instead as one sliver of the European spectrum.

According to the genetic research, the Irish are at the extreme end of a genetic wave that washed across Europe, a wave of migrants that swept eastward from above the Black Sea across Europe about 2,500 BC.

That wave of migration had been documented in previous research led by David Reich at Harvard University, but it was unclear whether it had extended all the way to Ireland. The Y chromosome and other aspects of the DNA in the bones found behind McCuaig's, however, links the Irish to that surge of population.

"The way to think about genetic variation in Europe is that it is more of a gradient than it is of sharp boundaries," said Bradley, the DNA researcher. "Sometimes, cultural features like language and natural borders can coincide with genetics, but most times not. Genetics is fuzzy, and it doesn't follow political and cultural borders."

Even so, some experts warned that the new findings will disappoint many who would prefer a simpler answer to the question Irish origins.

"The public will always want a place on the map and for someone to point and say, 'This where the Irish are from,' " said J.P. Mallory, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Queen's University Belfast and the author of a book, "The Origins of the Irish."

"But there's going to be no way to do that. These groups were frequently traveling east-west across Europe, from one place to another. Everyone is a mix."


http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2016/m ... pub-irish/
uniface
 

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:20 am

What do you mean by “flush the celtic nonsense ” ?
If it is anything related to romantic notions based on old books with creation myths like the Lebor Gabala Erenn , which as historically accurate as more famed middle eastern collections , then fine . But that was done a long time by anyone with an ounce of sense .
The earliest mention of the Celts was c 500 BC , people had been living in Ireland in Ireland for 9500 years prior to that , again only the fantasists would describe these earliest peoples as Celts .
What defines a Celt is someone speaking a Celtic language eg Gaulish, Brittonic, Cornish, Welsh, Irish Gaelic , Scots Gaelic , Breton etc .
There were a large number of such speakers ,they and their descendants consider themselves Celtic . You won’t flush them away .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:35 pm

HI Tiompan -

Having dished up Native American Nonsense for quite a while,
uni now turns his attention to Ireland, producing a similar muddle.
Fir Bolc, Eochaid..forget it. uni never heard of them.

You're lucky you do not have Mormons, or you would be dealing with "Nephite" ancestors.
Who knows, if they get creative enough, you may yet.
Then they could pray your Catholic souls into heaven.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:45 am

Worthless babble which confuses romanticism with history and archaeology.

1. It has been argued for at least 10 years that the term "celts" is incorrect we are talking about a widely disparate group of people - hence the recent disdcovery of the Iron Age cemetery, not "Celitic" cemetery.

2. The fact people adopt different cultures does not mean they themsleves belong to some group of invaders. There may never have been a massive "celtic" invasion of Ireland or indeed much anywhere else.
Simon21
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby uniface » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:45 am

Just as places like American Samoa were to anthropologists during the 1930s, this site will be of immense value someday to people studying group psychopathology.
uniface
 

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:48 am

Simon21 wrote:
1. It has been argued for at least 10 years that the term "celts" is incorrect we are talking about a widely disparate group of people - hence the recent disdcovery of the Iron Age cemetery, not "Celitic" cemetery.


More like 25 years .You could date it from the “I Celti “exhibition in the Palazzo Grassi in Venice in 1991 The reaction was politically based around a fear of various independence movements . There was also an element anglo racism , in that members of the Celtic fringe were often seen as less Aryan
It was argued unsuccessfully by a very small group with an agenda and particularly in the case of the early genetic writers like Sykes and Oppenheimer , hopelessly outdated and demonstrably wrong . The anti –migrationist school in archaeology have also been shown to be wrong due to the more recent genetic findings e.g. the first migration of farmers in the Neolithic period ,then the later Bell Beaker . Both of which are found in the most recent data from Irish DNA e.g. Rathlin Island (mentioned in the original pub article ) and Ballynahattin .

Simon21 wrote:
2. The fact people adopt different cultures does not mean they themsleves belong to some group of invaders. There may never have been a massive "celtic" invasion of Ireland or indeed much anywhere else.


Migration does not mean invasion .
Better to judge from the evidence provided by DNA disproving the earlier beliefs of Collis etc , rather than “may never have been” s .
To repeat , there were tribal peoples in Europe who were referred to as Celts by various writers , they spoke Celtic languages , they also had similar myths and practices that is what made them Celtic .
Would you doubt that there were Germanic or Slavic peoples with similar languages and culture ?
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:13 am

Migration does not mean invasion .
Better to judge from the evidence provided by DNA disproving the earlier beliefs of Collis etc , rather than “may never have been” s .
To repeat , there were tribal peoples in Europe who were referred to as Celts by various writers , they spoke Celtic languages , they also had similar myths and practices that is what made them Celtic .
Would you doubt that there were Germanic or Slavic peoples with similar languages and culture ?"


Depends what you mean by "similar". That is the point at issue. Some of the languages vary very considerably. And in any case langauge similarities are not the be all and end all - many native Americans share language groupings, they did not however see themselves as belonging one vast mass. And it is not clear the "Celts" saw themselves as one cultural grouping

As is the question of "sharing" ? Was everyone who carried out a certain ritual a "celt" - given our very limited knowledge of pagan practices in Britain and Ireland?

DNA is of limited use here - trying to marry someone's cultural orientation and choice of langauge with their DNA is to say the least difficult as one of the sourcves quoted makes clear.

The recent display of objects in the BM exhibition showed the vast range of cultural artifacts - supposedly all "celtic". The differences were striking.

It is not a political issue though if it was it might be argued that simply lumping large numbers of pre Roman Empire Europeans as one cultural group and robbing them of their particular identity is wrong.

And it is a fact that the word Celtic is ceasing to be used.
Simon21
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:19 am

Simon21 wrote:[

Depends what you mean by "similar". That is the point at issue. Some of the languages vary very considerably. And in any case langauge similarities are not the be all and end all - many native Americans share language groupings, they did not however see themselves as belonging one vast mass. And it is not clear the "Celts" saw themselves as one cultural grouping .


Tell that to the the linguists ,it is they who describe the various languages as being similar .
The members of the Germanic or Slavic groupings didn’t describe themselves as such , it was outsiders . Again “Would you doubt that there were Germanic or Slavic peoples with similar languages and culture ?”

"DNA is of limited use here - trying to marry someone's cultural orientation and choice of langauge with their DNA is to say the least difficult as one of the sourcves quoted makes clear."

DNA is central , it has provided the final nail in the coffin of Celtosceptcism ,it shows that the language groupings are also associated by DNA .

"The recent display of objects in the BM exhibition showed the vast range of cultural artifacts - supposedly all "celtic". The differences were striking."

As were the similarities , Celtic art is recognised by art historians ,it is very distinctive across the Celtic cultures , but is more than just artefacts .

"It is not a political issue though if it was it might be argued that simply lumping large numbers of pre Roman Empire Europeans as one cultural group and robbing them of their particular identity is wrong."

Celtoscepticism was politically motivated , from two persepctives ,read Michael Dietler which in many respects started the whole thing off .


"And it is a fact that the word Celtic is ceasing to be used "

No it isn’t , you just mentioned above the recent major British Museum exhibition , “Celts art and identity “ which ran for 4 months , what is waning is the celtoscepticism .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:06 am

uniface wrote:Just as places like American Samoa were to anthropologists during the 1930s, this site will be of immense value someday to people studying group psychopathology.


If anything ,it wopuld be the psychopathology of those who see a headline and either accept it without reading and understanding the content or reading some wacky web site and believing it .
Then , when either are pointed out as being problematic the subjects fail to respond with any meaningful content but might manage the odd empty platitude and emoticons .

Why do you consistently post links that are rubbish then fail to respond to the problems that are highlighted .?
That's a rhetorica lquestion , we know why .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby uniface » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:16 am

"The answer to a fool is silence" -- Persian Proverb
uniface
 

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:48 am

Why didn't you stay silent in the first place , instead of coming up with consistent foolishness ?
Still evading the problems and the only response is platitudes . Thankfully no smileys .
If you could respond with anythimg meaningful you would , we know why you don't .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:16 pm

Tell that to the the linguists ,it is they who describe the various languages as being similar .


Don't need to. Danish and German are similar. They are not the same. Engiish and Flemish ditto.
The members of the Germanic or Slavic groupings didn’t describe themselves as such , it was outsiders . Again “Would you doubt that there were Germanic or Slavic peoples with similar languages and culture ?”


You fling the word "similar" about without qualification. Serbs and Poles are different cultures, but they speak slavic languages. The Itlaians and Poles may be said to be "similar" they have the same religion (largely)


"DNA is of limited use here - trying to marry someone's cultural orientation and choice of langauge with their DNA is to say the least difficult as one of the sourcves quoted makes clear."

DNA is central , it has provided the final nail in the coffin of Celtosceptcism ,it shows that the language groupings are also associated by DNA .


Sorry but DNA (as the quote shows) does not do this. I don't know what "celtoscepticism" is supposed to be but the word Celtic is a cultural one, not a biological.

"The recent display of objects in the BM exhibition showed the vast range of cultural artifacts - supposedly all "celtic". The differences were striking."
As were the similarities , Celtic art is recognised by art historians ,it is very distinctive across the Celtic cultures , but is more than just artefacts .


Well there we will have to differ. If you could not see the differences between the various stone carvings alone or the Austrian and Irish items or the production of coins in one region only, then there is no reasoning. And I think it is not wise to use labels used by art historians (and ceasing to be used) as if they have some divine sanction. Renaissance is also a term much loved of old art historians. There are questions being asked about this well loved term as well.

You would see similarities between what are held to be anglo-saxon (another term needing revision) objects and supposedly "celtic" objects.

"It is not a political issue though if it was it might be argued that simply lumping large numbers of pre Roman Empire Europeans as one cultural group and robbing them of their particular identity is wrong."
Celtoscepticism was politically motivated , from two persepctives ,read Michael Dietler which in many respects started the whole thing off .


Not sure about this one could argue celtophilism was also culturally politically motivated - who cares.

The point is it is false to presume the pre Roman Europeans were all one mass identity.

"And it is a fact that the word Celtic is ceasing to be used "

No it isn’t , you just mentioned above the recent major British Museum exhibition , “Celts art and identity “ which ran for 4 months , what is waning is the celtoscepticism .
Tiompan


If you went to the exhibition you would have seen it being questioned it was one of the points being debated on the first panels.

And sorry it is eroding you will see that in exhibitions, book titles etc. As I say we hear of an "Iron age warrior", not a celtic one.
Simon21
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:11 pm

“Don't need to. Danish and German are similar. They are not the same. Engiish and Flemish ditto. “

All are Germanic and as you say similar . Just as the Celtic languages are similar and don’t vary considerably as you had suggested earlier which is what you have to tell the linguists who consider both groups to have similarities in their own categories .

“You fling the word "similar" about without qualification. “
You just used it in relation to Germanic languages My mention was in relation to Celtic , and qualified by the linguists who have classified the Celtic languages into the same category . As I said ,tell that to the linguists .

“Sorry but DNA (as the quote shows) does not do this. I don't know what "celtoscepticism" is supposed to be but the word Celtic is a cultural one, not a biological. “

I never said it was biological , I said it was linguistic and cultural , yet the peoples with languages and culture grouped together by experts in these fields share the same genes too .

Do you know what the finds actually were from the DNA mentioned in the article , I doubt it ? .
There is no quote that shows that DNA from Celtic peoples in various parts of Europe shared the same genes , if you mean the confused article on the Pub burials there is nothing of any substance there .

This is a quote from the actual paper “This affinity with Irish, Scottish, and Welsh (a weaker signal from modern English populations is undoubtedly due to the effects of Anglo-Saxon migrations; suggests a degree of continuity stretching over 4,000 y at the insular Celtic
edge of Europe. Ireland shows the global maxima for frequencies
of the R1b1a2a1a2c (M529) Y chromosome haplotype, lactase
persistence, and the C282Y hemochromatosis allele. “



“The point is it is false to presume the pre Roman Europeans were all one mass identity. “
Describing them as Celtic is not the same . Would you make the same point for Germanic or Slavic ? .



"And sorry it is eroding you will see that in exhibitions, book titles etc. As I say we hear of an "Iron age warrior", not a celtic one."

Celtoscepticism has all but gone , the genetics has seen to that .They have nothing .Today the linguists talk in terms of Celtic languages , the geneticists talk in in the same terms ,see above , the historians always did , see the Greek and Romans ,the art experts talk in terms of Celtic art . The British Museum puts on a major exhibition and uses Celtic as the key word . Who is left ? Collis and James have gone quiet on the subject ,it’s hardly surprising .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:24 am

Don't need to. Danish and German are similar. They are not the same. Engiish and Flemish ditto. “

All are Germanic and as you say similar . Just as the Celtic languages are similar and don’t vary considerably as you had suggested earlier which is what you have to tell the linguists who consider both groups to have similarities in their own categories .



No sorry you do not seem to understand the point. The languages of the Irish and Welsh say share similarities, but they are substantially different. It may indicate that at one time in the dim distant past they were largely the same, but that is of little consequence in considering much later cultural attrributes. It is important to understand what linguists mean when they talk about language affinities.

Do you tell the Danes and Dutch they are "Germanic"? I would not like to be standing next to you when you do.

You fling the word "similar" about without qualification. “
You just used it in relation to Germanic languages My mention was in relation to Celtic , and qualified by the linguists who have classified the Celtic languages into the same category . As I said ,tell that to the linguists.


Sorry again I was referring to the number of times you used it. Trying to use distant language relations to assert some form of cultural uniformity is inaccurate. I again refer you to the people of North America, or of Southern Africa. To claim the Zulu and Xhosa peoples are not very culturally etc different simply because they both speak what is known as an "nguni language" is in fact offensive. And most linguists would agree.

“Sorry but DNA (as the quote shows) does not do this. I don't know what "celtoscepticism" is supposed to be but the word Celtic is a cultural one, not a biological. “

I never said it was biological , I said it was linguistic and cultural , yet the peoples with languages and culture grouped together by experts in these fields share the same genes too .


Well that is the impression one gets. The experts are revising their opinion - you said you attended the BM exhibition? Not sure in what sense you are using the term.

[
Do you know what the finds actually were from the DNA mentioned in the article , I doubt it ? .
There is no quote that shows that DNA from Celtic peoples in various parts of Europe shared the same genes , if you mean the confused article on the Pub burials there is nothing of any substance there .

This is a quote from the actual paper “This affinity with Irish, Scottish, and Welsh (a weaker signal from modern English populations is undoubtedly due to the effects of Anglo-Saxon migrations; suggests a degree of continuity stretching over 4,000 y at the insular Celtic


Is it and this is a direct reference to cultutal affinity is it? The paper asserts that there was a strong cultural uniformity among the Welsh Scots and Irish? This seems more a reference to genetics, not to religious belief, language, political association, economic activity ie those very things once defined as "Celtic".

The reference to the impact of Anglo-Saxon migration is very dubious to say the least. No one of sense says "undoubtedly" about anything regarding regarding the A/S adventus. What is meant here? is the assertion that the migrations (invasions) involved substantial numbers or mass displacement of peoples? The general feeling now is that it did not. Is the (again increasingly outmoded) term "Anglo-Saxons" meant here also to include the Franks and the Flemings etc? What of the Irish (Scotti)?

And were the people who wrote the paper historians and archaeologists? The asserttion about the English would imply not.

edge of Europe. Ireland shows the global maxima for frequencies
of the R1b1a2a1a2c (M529) Y chromosome haplotype, lactase
persistence, and the C282Y hemochromatosis allele. “



Interesting but still no reference to cultutral attrributes, which is what the issue is.

“The point is it is false to presume the pre Roman Europeans were all one mass identity. “
Describing them as Celtic is not the same . Would you make the same point for Germanic or Slavic ? .



Actually I would, and these terms are not used near as much in a cultural sense as they once were. Most of us do not call all people of the far east "chinese" any more. Do you?

And sorry it is eroding as a term you will see that in exhibitions, book titles etc. As I say we hear of an "Iron age warrior", not a celtic one."
Celtoscepticism has all but gone , the genetics has seen to that .They have nothing .Today the linguists talk in terms of Celtic languages , the geneticists talk in in the same terms ,see above , the historians always did , see the Greek and Romans ,the art experts talk in terms of Celtic art . The British Museum puts on a major exhibition and uses Celtic as the key word . Who is left ? Collis and James have gone quiet on the subject ,it’s hardly surprising .


Well in your own tems plainly not otherwise why are you arguing? Unfortunately you clearly did not go to the BM exhibition as you would have seen this was one of the points at issue and one of the lectures. Historians are abandoning the term -reference the third time to the recent "Iron Age" (not Celitic) discoveries, Art historians, as I understand it, are using it less (reference again the questioning of hte far more pervasive term "Renaissance"). What woould the point be of labeling an art object "Celtic" (or "Germanic") when the various cultural differences are obvious? Art historians would call for far more precision. And one reason people go quiet (whatever this means) is that the argument is won.

I must admit I find this vaguely weird. To assert the cultural identities of the European peoples from the early period is not in any way to demean them. The Irish do not cease to be Irish because the msiplaced notion of some vast "Celtic" proto-empire falls by the wayside.
Simon21
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:00 am

“No sorry you do not seem to understand the point. The langauges of the Irish and Welsh say share similarities, but they are substantially different. It may indicate that at omne time in the dim distant past they wre the same, but that is of little consequence in considering later cultural attrributes. “

You don’t understand the point made by the experts , the linguists , who group the Welsh and Irish into the category Celtic . We are not talking of later attributes we are talking of the LBA and IA .

“Do you tell the Danes and Dutch they are "Germanic"? I would not like to be standing next to you when you do. “

It’s not how they might describe their language , it’s how linguists would .

“Sorry again I was referring to the number of times you used it. Tryiung to use distant language relations to assert cultural uniformity is inaccurate. I again refer you to the peoplee of North America, or of Southern Africa. “

They are not distant languages they belong to the same linguistic grouping . The cultural affinities like the genetics and art also apparent .

“Well the experts are revising their opinion - you said you attended ther BM exhibition? Celt is just a word, not a poitical term.”


The experts in linguistics , genetics , art and history are not changing their opinion .A few archaeologists did 20 years ago but they have been very quiet of late .
Where did I say I attended the exhibition .
Yes , Celtic is just a word like Germanic and Slavic it describes a group of people from a particular period and time with similar languages , art , genes and culture .The word was borrowed from the Greek and Roman historians it could be anything .
“Is it and this is a direct reference to cultutal affinity is it? The paper asserts that there was a cultural uniformity among the Welsh Scots and Irish? This seems more a reference to genetics, not to religious belief, language, political association economic activity ie the very things once defined as "Celtic".

Of course it was a quote a from the paper if you had read it instead of a garbled confused hack article you would have recognised it as such . The paper was about genetics not culture .

“The reference to the impact of Anglo-Saxon migration is very dubious to say the least. No one of sense says "undoubtedly" about anything regarding regarding the A/S adventus. What is meant here? is the assertion that the migrations (invasions) involved substantial numbers or mass displacement of peoples? The general feeling now is that it did not. Does the (again increasingly outmoded) term "Anglo-Saxons" include the Franks and the Flemings? “

Tell that to the geneticists . The “undoubtedly “ was clearly a reference to the signal from the genetic data . The important point being the distinguishing markers “Anglo Saxon “ and “Celtic “ . Remember this was the paper that is the basis for the hack article .

“And were the people who wrote the paper historians and archaeologists? The asserttion about the English would imply not. “
Of course not , they were geneticists , the same experts who have put flesh on the bones of what the historians and archaeologists fantasise about . The term (modern) English was used perfectly correctly in relation to the same signal and data . Do you want to be rid of the term English too ?
“Interesting but still no reference to cultutral attrributes, which is what the issue is.”


Yes , very interesting , genetics destroyed any credibility that the celtosceptics had .
Genes are obviously not culture .They are only one aspect of the term Celtic ,albeit a more recent one .
There are important differences between Germanic and Celtic cultures . You have already been told of the linguistic , artistic ,and genetic thread running through Celtic culture . That is enough ,but in the far more difficult to retrieve historical sense it is clear that Celtic culture was more clan based than Germanic ,which was based on war bands ,Celtic had a priestly caste Druids / Vates mentioned historically and venerated bards etc this is not something we find associated with Germanic tribes . The term nemeton is found widely in Celtic areas , but not in Germanic areas .

“Actually I would, and these terms are not used near as much in a cultural sense as they once were. Most of us do not call all people of the far east "chinese" any more. Do you? “

We are talking about terms in relation to the IA , they make perfect sense .
The Chinese comment is as silly as it gets .

“. And one reason people go quiet (whatever this means) is that the argument is won. “
We no longer hear from Collis and James on the Celtic question any more because they lost the argument with the art and linguistic experts long ago , the genetics was the final nail in the coffin .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Next

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests

cron