Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots
NY Times ^ | July 1, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

Posted on 07/01/2003 5:48:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
To: Pharmboy
Bookmark....
51 posted on 07/01/2003 7:40:50 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them, like, eat cake, or whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The library at Ebla, which provided us with our first historic (and non-Biblical) references to King David also provided us with messages from Celtic kings in the near Middle East to each other and to the folks at Ebla. They were written in a Celtic language Do you have a source/link for this?
52 posted on 07/01/2003 8:02:17 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"Geneticists often assume that the rate of mutation will average out over time, so that if one or two branch points in a tree can be dated by fossil evidence, the timing of the other branch points can be inferred."

Other geneticists challenge this, and the concept of a gradual evolution of one species into another has been displaced in many circles by another conept that states evolution occurs suddenly by large jumps instead of slowly over a long period of time as formerly believed. If this is true, dating based on an average rate of genetic change is invalid (i.e. the "African Eve" theory.)

53 posted on 07/01/2003 8:07:51 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"Likewise, the Gauls maintained their language for centuries after Caesar's conquest, but lost it after they successfully conquered back territory."

When did the Celts ever conque territory back from the Romans? Rome fell to invading Germainc barbarians,not to Celtic invasions.

54 posted on 07/01/2003 8:09:47 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
I have a book published shortly after the initial forays into that library (of clay tablets), but I guess it doesn't exist without a URL, eh?!

Just do a search for "EBLA".

55 posted on 07/01/2003 8:13:04 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Good catch. "English" should read "Germanic", also they left out the Balto-Slavic Lingustic subfamily, ,more distantly related to the other four, but still an Indo-European language, like the Iranian languages, Sanskrit and it modern descedants Hindi, etc, ancient Hittite and the Anatolic Language related to it, Armenian, and Tocharian, an extinct language spoken in Central Asia by a long dead people who looked European.
56 posted on 07/01/2003 8:13:53 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
The ancient Celts didn't play with baseballs. They collected human heads - of their enemies of course, and decorated their temples and gates with them. Our custom of Halloween pumpkins comes from that tradition.
57 posted on 07/01/2003 8:15:34 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Gallic tribes participated in the Swabian invasions of Roman territory in the 300s.
58 posted on 07/01/2003 8:17:04 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Pumpkins? I still use skulls.
59 posted on 07/01/2003 8:17:21 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Read Buddy's, (the labrador retriever), new book about the Clintons, "Living Hell")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Quite civilized Germans living within the Roman Empire attempted mightily to resucitate the place. Even such reputed barbarians as Alaric came from inside the Empire as did the followers who ended up stranded in North Africa. (See Visigoths).

You have to keep separate in your mind the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the Fall of Rome (in the West) and the Dark Ages. They each had an impact on all or part of the Empire, but each had it's own impetus.

Barbara Tuchman (the famous historian) noted that the mere fact something was reported amplifies its apparant importance a thousand times. People often overlook this phenomenon and incorrectly assume that the Roman Empire fell to barbarians sometime during the Dark Ages since Rome, barbarians and Dark Ages were reported. Actually Rome did not fall until the 1400s when the city of Byzantium and it's environs were seized by the Turks (who were, by that time, quite civilized themselves, or things would have been much, much worse).

60 posted on 07/01/2003 8:20:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Nubbytwanger
"Furthermore, the migration of the Celts from Scythia through the Mediterranean, Egypt, Rome (where their presence is documented) through to Galicia in Spain and on to Ireland is pretty compelling."

Although the Indo-Europeans may have originated in eastern Europe, all evidence indicates the Celts originated in central Europe, in what is now Austria and neighboring areas. They then spread south into north Italy (Cisapline Gaul, west into Switzerland and Gaul, southwest into northern Spain (the Celt-Iberians) and across the English Channel or Bay of Biscay into the British Isles. Another group spread south and east into Anatolia (see the Galatians in the Bible) and even as far as Egypt where they served as mercenaries.

From what I have read, the Celtic and Italic languages are actually closest to each other, both are closer to Tocharian, and Germaic is closer to them than it is to the Balto-Slavic languages.


61 posted on 07/01/2003 8:21:08 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
What actually happened is that Indo-European split into a number of subbranches. One of these gave rise to the Italic Languages, another to the Celtic, another to the Germanic, another to ancient Greek and another to Tocharian.

The Italic Languages consisted of languages like Osco-Umbrian, Sicanian, etc. and were eventually entirely replace by Latin. Latin then evolved into the modern Romance Languages. Early Germanic split into Old Norse or North Germanic which became Icelandic, Norweigan, Swedish, Faroese, and Danish, East Germanic or Gothic (extinct) and West Germaic which comprised Frisian, Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Franconian, and Old High German among many others).
Celtic gave rise to the various languages mentioned above.

Somehow a subgroup called Tocharian spread into Central Asia and evolved into two separate languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B and died out by the end of the first millenium as a spoken language.
62 posted on 07/01/2003 8:27:39 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Swordmaker
Though the Gauls were strong enough to sack Rome in 390 B.C
Oh.
Dr. Forster said that his estimated date of 3200 B.C. for the arrival of Celtic speakers in England and Ireland was also much earlier than the usual date, 600 B.C., posited on the basis of archaeological evidence.

Dr. Forster said his method of comparing groups of languages was unfamiliar to historical linguists, many of whom study how words in a single language have changed over time. Asked what linguists thought of his method he said: "To be honest, they don't understand it, most of them. They don't even know what I'm talking about."

Ah.

"It's only a matter of time," ping.


63 posted on 07/01/2003 8:27:47 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I think the journalist had an imprecise grasp of language classifications. Indo-European is a "Language Family". It is broken down into 12 "Branches". Of those 12, four are: Celtic, Latin, Hellenic (Greek), and Germanic. The Germanic branch is then broken down into "Languages", one of which is English.

Saying that Indo-European led to Celtic, Latin, Greek, and English is not wrong, but it's sloppy and (I feel) a bit misleading -- since it lumps English in with Language Branches and makes English seem a bit more significant than it is (some the standpoint of linguistic history/genealogy).

It's also incomplete, since, as you point out, there are many other branches and languages that are not mentioned at all. Again, it is not "wrong" to provide an incomplete list of what Indo-European led to, but it is perhaps a bit misleading.

64 posted on 07/01/2003 8:30:31 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Thats news to me. Where did they come from? The only independent Celtic tribes at that time I know of were living in Ireland and northern Scotland, and the Swabians came from western Germany.
65 posted on 07/01/2003 8:32:47 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
Atavism is its own reward! Carry on!
66 posted on 07/01/2003 8:33:17 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Though the Gauls were strong enough to sack Rome in 390 B.C.

Actually, the cisalpine ("this side of the Alps") Gauls did sack Rome early on, very temporarily reversing the Roman ascendancy. A citadel in the center of town held out, but most soldiers and citizens fled. Many houses were looted.

It proved a temporary hiccup.

67 posted on 07/01/2003 8:36:29 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
the reason the greeks still speak greek is that they never sacked rome. The Celts and the Carthaginians did and the former were decimated and the latters were "delenda est".

The Celts sacked Rome in 295 BC. Yet they retained their language until they were conquered by the Franks 800 years later.

The Carthaginians never sacked Rome - though Hannibal certainly tried very hard. The Carthaginian language (Punic) was eliminated in Africa by eliminating its speakers through genocide (and a well-deserved genocide it was), not by a large pool of subjects learning the language of their conquerors.

Punic was still spoken in the Near East but was gradually replaced by Aramaic.

68 posted on 07/01/2003 8:36:58 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"From what I have read, the Celtic and Italic languages are actually closest to each other, both are closer to Tocharian, and Germaic is closer to them than it is to the Balto-Slavic languages. "

The ancestors of the 4,000 year old Caucasian mummies found in the Chinese desert spoke/wrote Tocharian A & B.

69 posted on 07/01/2003 8:37:29 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
bump for later
70 posted on 07/01/2003 8:38:14 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I agree with you. Theodoric wanted to resuscitate the Roman Empire. The fact that his people were Arian Christians and the native Italians were Orthodox western Christians frustrated his efforts, as did the machinations of Justinian which destroyed his successor.

The "Dark Ages" were dark realtive to the depth of our knowledge of them. The Goths, etc, were frequently highly Romanized by that time as the Romans had become Germanicized. What many scholars think really created the collapse of western civilization was the eruption of Isalm and the closing of sea routes between western Europe and Byzantium by Islamic expansion into Iberia, Sicily, southern Italy and the Mediterranean area.

Most of the barbarian invaders were seeking incorporation into the empire, not the destruction of the empire. Charlemagne himself had himself crowned a Roman Emperor.

As for the civlization of the Turks, I suggest you read about the sack of Constantinople. Murder, rape, desecration of religious places and mass enslavement of the population was the outcome.
71 posted on 07/01/2003 8:40:26 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: blam
Are those the Tarim Basin remains where Caucazoids are still found?
72 posted on 07/01/2003 8:42:17 AM PDT by wardaddy (DIVERSITY IS BEST SERVED EARNED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Read the posts carefully. You're putting words in my mouth.

I never mentioned "independent Celtic tribes" from Scotland or Ireland - I mentioned the Celtic people known as Gauls, who collaborated with the Swabian invasion of Cisalpine Gaul.

My original post said that the Gauls reconquered some territory from the Romans - not that tribes from Ireland or Scotland invaded Roman territory.

73 posted on 07/01/2003 8:43:18 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
What can I say? It's a genetic thing.
74 posted on 07/01/2003 8:43:22 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Read Buddy's, (the labrador retriever), new book about the Clintons, "Living Hell")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Interesting. How early?


75 posted on 07/01/2003 8:44:06 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Once again, the most ancient place names along the Danube are Celtic. The culture originated in Central Europe and moved down the Danube river to the Black Sea. That's how they ended up at Illium ("Troy").

The Milesians are probably the sea-faring Celts who traded all around the Mediterranean for many centuries. By the time of the Punic Wars the Celts in what are now North Africa, Spain and France were allied with the Cartheginians.

Upon the defeat of Carthage the sea-faring Celts switched their sympathies to Rome. It remained for Julius Caesar to change the minds of those who lived inland. Obviously the Romans knew the difference since they left the sea-faring guys alone with their Irish possessions although Rome did rebuild the Galician lighthouse at Brigantia.

76 posted on 07/01/2003 8:45:07 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Some of those branches are supposedly more closely related. Linguists once distinguished between the Satem and Centum languages. I don't know if they still do, but the Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Greek (Hellenic) and Tocharian languages appear to fomr one sub family while the Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages form another and the Anatolic languages another still.

Journalist unfortunately possess a superficial grasp of anything they choose to review, be it in the scientific or the political realm. Unfortunately, it easier to point out their shortcomings in the scientific areas.
77 posted on 07/01/2003 8:45:28 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Yes, all that and then some, but it could have been much, much worse.
78 posted on 07/01/2003 8:46:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Italian Archaeologist: Anatolia - Home To First Civilization On Earth
79 posted on 07/01/2003 8:46:32 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
A good book on that subject is "The Mystery of the Sesert Mummies" or something like that. I think Discovery or the Hsitory Channel had a number of specials on these people. SOme of them had red or blonde hair and were over 6 feet tall and wore plaid garments woven in an ancient western European manner.
80 posted on 07/01/2003 8:47:48 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rod1
Dr. Forster says he assumes that the rate of language change can also be averaged over time.

This fellow needs to study creole languages a little before he makes that assumption. I hate it when linguists try to use genetic models on language. This whole "language is a living thing" is bogus. A geologic model would be far more accurate.

81 posted on 07/01/2003 8:48:43 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them, like, eat cake, or whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
"Are those the Tarim Basin remains where Caucazoids are still found?"

Yes. The best book on the subject is The Tarim Mummies, by Victor Mair.
Another good one is The Mummies Of Urumchi, by Elizabeth Barber.

82 posted on 07/01/2003 8:49:55 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: MalcolmS
Adios. Vaya Con Dios. Hasta la vista.

Interestingly, all those words and phrases have been incorporated into English.

83 posted on 07/01/2003 8:50:09 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"I never mentioned "independent Celtic tribes" from Scotland or Ireland - I mentioned the Celtic people known as Gauls, who collaborated with the Swabian invasion of Cisalpine Gaul."

Sorry I misread your posting. I guess the 300's you are referring to were 300 B.C. as iin the 300 A.D. period all of Gaul had long been a Roman province and the population thoroughly Romanized. Is that correct?

84 posted on 07/01/2003 8:51:28 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Like the article says, 390 BC.
85 posted on 07/01/2003 8:51:28 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
A few tidbits to wet your appetite.

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/celt/celtic.html

http://www.thezaurus.com/sloveniana/venetic_culture.htm

http://www.prah.net/europaveneta/garumna/garumna.htm

http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/anthony_ambrozic.htm

86 posted on 07/01/2003 8:51:54 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
For later reading - BUMPS!!
87 posted on 07/01/2003 8:58:40 AM PDT by TruthConquers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The Curse Of The Red-Headed Mummy
88 posted on 07/01/2003 8:58:48 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Adios. Vaya Con Dios. Hasta la vista.
Interestingly, all those words and phrases have been incorporated into English.

We are the anglos
Your language will be assimilated.
Your linguistic diversity will be incorporated into our own.
Your words will serve us.
Resistance is futile!

89 posted on 07/01/2003 8:59:49 AM PDT by MalcolmS (Do Not Remove This Tagline Under Penalty Of Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thanks for the link. It's good and bracing to get slapped with the facts in the morning.


90 posted on 07/01/2003 8:59:52 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Archaeologists Find Celts In Unlikely Spot: Central Turkey
91 posted on 07/01/2003 9:01:59 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Do you have sources on Illium being Celtic? Quite a few people think they spoke Luwian, which is an Anatolian Indo-European dialect, since Luwian inscriptions were found there. Robert Drews believes they spoke a language related to Phrygian, which may be closer to Armenian than any other IE languages.

It is plausible that a Celtic people settled in that area but people make all sorts of claims on the Internet and I like to know the sources of strong claims like this. As a particularly wild example, Clyde Winters claims that Africans are the source of all great cultural achievements and then goes on to meticulously cite his sources -- which are often enough his own other works. I'm also curious about whether you are claiming that they were linguisticly or culturally "Celtic" -- or both.

92 posted on 07/01/2003 10:12:13 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon
Thanks for the "ping". It's always interesting to get more linguistic background. Written Welsh that is recognizable by modern speakers dates back to 396 AD. A switch to the latin alphabets probably occurred in that time frame. You still see some of the older alphabet symbols on headstones and various monuments around the castle in Aberystwyth. Below is a modern PC font to print the ancient symbols. link


93 posted on 07/01/2003 10:13:15 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Illium and Allium are one and the same place. You still find the vowel substitution in Celtic languages that have lasted until modern times. I am going to have to assume the "ium" part is a Greek or Latin suffix (after all, the Greeks got to tell the story).
94 posted on 07/01/2003 10:45:20 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Illium and Allium are one and the same place.

Actually, the leading theory is that "(W)ilios" was the Hittite "Wilusa". Indeed, there are Hittite texts that talk about "Wilusa" (Illios), "Alaksandu" (Alexander), "Appaliunas" (Apollo), Taruisa (Troia or Troy), and war with the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans). Your interpretation and certainty is not mainstream, which is why I would like to look at the sources. Just saying that this is so doesn't tell me why you think so. It is broadly plausible that Celts had some role but, as I said, this is not a mainstream interpretation of the facts.

You still find the vowel substitution in Celtic languages that have lasted until modern times.

You can do vowel and consonant substitution between almost any two Indo-European dialects and get the same effect, which is why we are able to determine the relationship between languages and can apply theories like Grimm's Law to language changes.

I am going to have to assume the "ium" part is a Greek or Latin suffix (after all, the Greeks got to tell the story).

It was likely something like "Wilios" in the pre-Homeric Greek. What you need to remember is that Indo-European languages have actually lost a lot of complexity over time and Hittite actually retained a lot of the phonetic features that linguists had long assumed should be there based on various sound transformations in surrounding parts of the word. That's one of the things that always surprised me about language evolution -- many languages seem to be getting simpler over time (e.g., English no longer has a dual case, nominative and accusative noun forms in most cases, etc.) which seem pretty counter-intuitive to me. Who invented all of the complexity in the first place and why?

95 posted on 07/01/2003 12:01:38 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Sorry, meant to say Spain West of Bulgaria. Of course you are right about Anatolia. Sorry for the confusion.
96 posted on 07/01/2003 12:18:01 PM PDT by Nubbytwanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Now I'm really confused. Just googling Milesius, it is unclear whether he is a mythical or historical character, but nobody disputes that he was a King in Spain. The Annals of the Four Masters sets forth the story as it is told at least in legend about the conquest of Ireland by his nine sons and uncle.

At the same time I now consult the Annals and see that the prior inhabitants were indeed thought to have descended from the Northern Gaul, hence Celtic. The story about wandering through the Med seems to be about the Spanish line, i.e. Milesius'

So, aprapos the discussion on linguistics, I take back what I said, although I would be interested to hear the source on Milesius being not from Spain, but Bulgaria
97 posted on 07/01/2003 12:55:52 PM PDT by Nubbytwanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nubbytwanger
From Fomorians To Milesians
98 posted on 07/01/2003 2:53:40 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Nubbytwanger
"Mil" simply means "man", in contradistinction to "Scota", the great goddess of the seagoing Celtic people.

A recent archaeology article referenced in Science News noted that Stonehenge, properly viewed, is a diagram of the female reproductive apparatus. No doubt whoever built that temple worshipped the great goddess. Was it "Scota"?

That probably cannot be answered, but it was the "Three Brothers" who sailed from the Dead Coast in Galicia to Ireland to conquer the locals, take all the women, and roast a few cows here and there. I presume they arrived with iron weapons too!

BTW, students of the Celtic past who examine it from the vantagepoint of Galicia invariably note that the coast of the Bay of Biscay has been pretty nearly dominated by Celts of one kind or the other for many thousands of years. It has also seen Celts move from one part to another and back again. Some of the Milesians moved from Galicia to Ireland circa 500BC. The same folks moved to Great Britain somewhat later to become the people the Romans met. In the early part of the Dark Ages the very same people moved on to Brittany, and as the Angles and Saxons moved in, the Celts further South in Cornwall moved back to Galicia, this time as the founders of the kingdoms that took the entire peninsula away from the Arabs.

It's not like these guys stayed in one place all the time.

99 posted on 07/01/2003 3:39:39 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Unearthed: The Prince Of Stonehenge
100 posted on 07/01/2003 3:55:50 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson