DaRC wrote:Ermmm having read the book quite recently I can say that quite a lot of that post is bs.
e.g.Oppenheimer seems to be under the impression that populations do not change their languages, rather language replacement only stems from population replacement.
Absolutely not he's quite clear that populations change their language with culture.#claiming that speakers of a Celtic language arrived in the British Isles around 9000 BC is ludicrous,
He doesn't say that he says that various linguistic models indicate that the earliest it could've arrived is. He then clearly states that the frustrating thing about linguists is their refusal to date anything!On the other hand, I don't concoct wild theories about genetics and foist them on the unsuspecting public in paperback form.
He's quite clear in stating what he know, genetics, and what he's taken from other studies in other disciplines. He then had his book reviewed by experts in the field. He also clearly references his information to the research papers it is based upon - so suggesting that he's concocted wild theories is somewhat of an overstatement.
There is only one area, from my reading of the book, where the quotes from the other forum raises a valid pointIf during the Roman occupation of Britain this area was speaking some early form of English, why don't we have records of Germanic place names here (Ed DaRC - those In eastern England)?
This is something that is a valid criticism - although once again it's looking at a specific point rather than the themes which are around a genetic & cultural split between Eastern and Western Britain that started in the Mesolithic and has continued into recent times.
At the end of the day we can all be traced back to Africa so I really dont think genetics has too much relevance to cultural heritage - I mean Im probably pretty much genetically identical to a Frenchman but....
Celts were really if anything a loose conglomorate of different tribes - some even described as very dark skinned - linked together by some cultural and linguistic bonds .
The basque thing is interesting though - one of the few places they also have stone circles Euskadi....
they are probably the source of the word British
The more I read the more I supect Scythia had a larger role to play in things as well.
Fox wrote:Celtic is a state of mind
Gus wrote:Although it does beg the question - how do we know that the ancient Britons spelt it with a P ? Or even how they pronounced it ? Im sure a historical linguist would be able to answer this one.
I mean say it to your self now - Pritain - P r i t a i n - sounds pretty much like Britain eh ? The same word can be written down in a variety of different ways depending on the interpretation of the listener - since langauges start as oral traditions and writing is secondary it is important to recognise that homophones are more important than homographs when it comes to assesing the etymological origins of words.
Scrool down :
Celtic *briga 'hill, high place' > Irish brí 'hill'
Celtic *brigant- 'high, lofty, elevated'; used as a feminine divine name, rendered Brigantia in Latin
The first settlements date from 1500 BC. Celtic tribe named Brigantii is mentioned by Strabo as a sub-tribe in these region of the Alps
Were these the same people ? - ancient celtic stories abound with visitss to the alps.
Gus wrote:Granted its good to be cautious but I think in this case there seem to be a lot of evidence pointing in one direction.
Another thing that is interesting is the Morroco connection, hers a tone circle at Msoura :
http://lostcities.weebly.com/uploads/3/ ... 96.jpg?312
Then the Basque describe there stone circles as work of the Moors (basically Morrocans) and I was also reading somewhere jumping through a fire at Beltaine is still practiced in Morroco to this day.... then something else I was reading took this back to Egypt so..... the plot thickens !
Right off to work....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests