mainoff.gif
lastdyoff.gif
lastwkoff.gif
treeoff.gif
searchoff.gif
helpoff.gif
contactoff.gif
creditsoff.gif
homeoff.gif


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2005 (September-October) » Archive through October 12, 2005 » The Atlantic Celts, DNA, and Celtic Languages « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Firbolg
Member
Username: Firbolg

Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:03 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I recently discovered a fascinating but lengthy book entitled "Facing the Ocean, The Atlantic and its Peoples" by Barry Cunliffe (2001). In this work the author theorizes that the Celtic languages actually spread eastward from areas bordering the Irish Sea. He suggests that the original home of the Atlantic Celts was the western coast of the Iberian peninsula. I was also sent a copy of something about "The Paleolithic Indo-Europeans" which is at http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/ indoeuropean3.html. Picking up the same idea but taking into account the recent DNA research indicating some type of common origin with the Basques, he discusses the possibility of the descendants of the builders of Stonehenge actually being the same who developed the insular Celtic speech rather than having it imposed on them by conquest from the Continent. After all the statements in the popular media about how we really aren't Celts after all because of the genetic evidence, it is comforting to think the Celtic languages really are our ancient ancestral legacy. Comments?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 389
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:17 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ní oibríonn an nasc thuas toisc go bhfuil spás ann. Bain triail as an gceann seo:

http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/indoeuropean3.html

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 793
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:50 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A comment? Yes, totally and utterly wrong and unreliable.

The interesting thing is the old question about why the origins of people and languages attract so many silly theories. Is it because of chauvinistic reasons? Do people want to prove the value of their own nation by rewriting its history even though it is obvious that they are wrong.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djwebb2002
Member
Username: Djwebb2002

Post Number: 104
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 05:33 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

The language in Europe that is of Palaeolithic origin is Basque. Celtic came later, and was associated with the Halstatt and other cultures in central Europe before arrival in Ireland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

TSJ
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 07:34 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Who is right? And who is wrong? Or is it just a matter of opinion? What was the direction anyway? West to East or East to West? And who says so? Just because a theory has been around for a long time and has received a lot of publicity does not necessarily make it an historical fact, even if as some people say, it is generally accepted. Who was the first to come up with the theory? What was his nationality and what was his motivation? We can speculate on the motivation but that is all. Who is right and who is wrong? I would say that I am right and that everyone else is wrong. However, unfortuately for me, everyone else says that I am wrong and that they are right.

So there I lave yiz.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 2149
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 04:14 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

It is dangerous to mix the archaelogical Celts of Halstatt with the linguistic Celts of these islands.

Cultures spread differently to people - consider English!

Also, how many of you drive a japanese car? Does that make you japanese the same way someone who had a Halstatt pot was a Celt?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djwebb2002
Member
Username: Djwebb2002

Post Number: 105
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 07:00 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Aonghus, use of the Halstatt pot does not make someone a Celt, but certain technologies, such as pots, are traced by archaeologists on the assumption that they are related to the cultures and thus the actual spread of certain peoples. But: now it is argued that the cultures and languages may have spread with no invasions, or much smaller population movements. What is undeniably the case is that the Irish population is largely of Palaeolithic origin. However the Celtic languages spread, whether by actually invasions and population movements, or just by cultural osmosis, maybe accompanied with more minor population mixing, it is undeniably the case that the Indo-European languages did not originate in Ireland and then spread East, but originate in the East and spread West. The archaism of Sanskrit and Avestan is one pointer of that. Another is that Hittite is the most ancient Indo-European language - and Hittite wasn't spoken in Ireland. Linguistic, historical, genetic, archaeological evidence all needs to be combined. Now as for the idea by TSJ that "everyone has his own ideas" : yes that is true. I have ideas on brain surgery, but I have no training in the subject, and so to let me loose on a patient's brain would be dangerous. There is a difference between entitlement to a point of view, andn the intellectual value of the point of view. Not everyone can enunciate an EDUCATED view on certain subjects. TSJ may think the world is flat; that doesn't make it so.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Antaine
Member
Username: Antaine

Post Number: 542
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 07:43 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

oh, YEAH!?!?!?!?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

take that! (tongue planted firmly in cheek ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 2151
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 09:10 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I am just cautioning against the assumption that the original makers of Halstatt pots spoke a celtic language. As I understand it, there is no evidence for that.

And how the languages/peoples spread is a matter of dispute not helped by conflating the linguist's Celts with the archaeologist's.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 794
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 09:46 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"And how the languages/peoples spread is a matter of dispute not helped by conflating the linguist's Celts with the archaeologist's."

Very true. It's almost certain that the people of Ireland (as all other insular Celts) who came to speak Celtic langugages were not genetically Celts. It's unlikely that there was a huge influx of Celts from mainland Europe, much more probable that the language was spread by a rather small but influential group. It's of course not unique. Most people in Europe speak Indo-European languages and most people in Europe probably originate from the same populations who lived here before the arrival of the Indo-European langugages.

As for the spread of the Indo-European languages, including the Celtic ones, they spread from the East to the West, not in the other direction.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djwebb2002
Member
Username: Djwebb2002

Post Number: 106
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:16 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

And how the languages/peoples spread is a matter of dispute not helped by conflating the linguist's Celts with the archaeologist's.

Aonghus, we can't tell for sure what language any archaeological site's people spoke. It is a hypothesis that the spread of people can be compared to the spread of cultural artefacts. But for an example of a good study that integrates language, history, archaeology and genetics, you should see Luigi Cavalli-Svorza's Genes, Peoples and Languages. Dr Cavalli-Svorza is the world's leading authority in this area.

As Jonas says, the mainstream opinion is now that the languages were spread byh smaller groups of people, leaving the basic European populations with little impact on their Palaeolithic and Neolithic genetic footprints. There are many similar examples, not least, the Finns and Hungarians. It is estimated by Cavalli-Svorza using DNA evidence that the original Finno-Ugric components of the Finnish and Hungarian populations is around 10% and 12% respectively. However, there are a lot of assumptions and hypotheses behind such statements. But languages can be spread in various ways - Nigeria speaks English, for example.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 246
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:31 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

And how the languages/peoples spread is a matter of dispute not helped by conflating the linguist's Celts with the archaeologist's.

THERE IS A BRANCH OF ANTHROPOLOGY SPECIALIZING IN LINGUISTIC ARCHAEOLOGY. I know very little about the subject's discipline, but perhaps these are the people to talk to here.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Firbolg
Member
Username: Firbolg

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 01:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Chairde,
I did not intend to start a "Cogadh domhanda" with my posting. Would it be possible for someone to actually look at the book and the link (which had to be corrected for me, go raibh maith agat!) and debate the issue after checking out the theory before passing judgment. If you have already read Cunliffe's book, fine. This subject seem to conflate history, archeology, linguistics, and genetics. Síocháin libh.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 795
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 01:49 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A chara,
I haven't read the book, and to be quite honest I doubt I ever will. I did take a look at the link you provided before I posted my reply.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 401
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 08:19 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Fuair mé Facing the Ocean, The Atlantic and its Peoples as an leabharlann tráthnóna inniu. Tabharfaidh súil air chomh luath agus is féidir.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dalta
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:33 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ye should check 'The Atlantean Irish' by Bob Quinn if you find this stuff interesting. He's not saying that Irish spread from Ireland, but he examines the links between all the people of the Atlantic, especially the Irish(obviously).

I find it interesting that the Lebor Gabála Eirinn written however many centuries ago says that the Milesians came from Spain and now, here we are, however many centuries later and we're all saying 'Yes, latest evidence shows that the Irish originally came from Spain'.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 405
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 06:17 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Here is something else to check (which I intend to grab on my trip to the library):

"The Nature and Origins of the Celtic Languages: Atlantic Seaways, Italo-Celtic and Other Paralinguistic Misapprehensions", Studia Celtica, Vol. 38, No. 1. (January 2004), pp. 49-58.

The problem with Cunliffe's book is that he outlines his theory about the origin and diffusion of the Celtic languages extremely briefly using very broad -- one might say impressionistic -- brushstrokes. It really all amounts to less than a paragraph beginning "it could further be argued" on page 296 and ending seven sentences later with "The suggestion takes with it no implication that the two languages were different." His "two languages" are the Proto-Celtic of conventional scholarship and his own fuzzy "Atlantic Celtic" which supposedly developed "over the four millennia that maritime contacts had been maintained". Four millennia is simply too long a span for Proto-Celtic within the time span of Indo-European generally, in the view of most linguists.

Ní déarfaidh aon rud eile go dtí go mbeidh an t-alt thuas léite agam.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mícheál
Member
Username: Mícheál

Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 02:43 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Dennis, thanks for referencing the article since I would like to read it as well.

If you subscribe (I do not) to the services of Ingenta, the article is available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/uwp/stce/2004/00000038/00000001/art00002

However, going to the library can be a very rewarding experience.

Is leabharlanní mé.

Mícheál

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 415
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 05:39 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

Is leabharlanní mé.

Maith thú! Gairm uasal í sin. Fuair mé an iris sin, Studia Celtica, as an leabharlann, ceart go leor, ach níl an t-alt léite agam fós.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mícheál
Member
Username: Mícheál

Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 12:07 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Go raibh maith agat. Is breá liom cad dúirt sé faoi leabharlannaí: gairm uasal í sin. Más é do thoil é, inis dom cad meas tú nuair a an t-alt léite agat. Tá súil agam go tá sé suimiúil duit. Go maith leithscéal mo Ghaeilge. Níl ach beagán Gaeilge agam fós.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dalta
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 03:10 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Tá do Ghaeilge neart go leor a Mhicheál, togha fir! Chun an Ghaeilge a neartú, labhair í!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 419
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 05:35 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Táim díreach tar éis an t-alt in Studia Celtica a léamh. After first pointing out aspects of the vagueness of Cunliffe's theory, G. R. Isaac writes:

quote:

Apart from these empirical details, the model of the 'Celtic language' having 'developed gradually' over four millennia, c. 5000 - c. 1000 BC, on the western seaboard of Europe is linguistically incoherent at a deeper level. If the major axis of linguistic innovation and cohesion is the north-south one on the Western European Atlantic seaboard, then there can logically be no way that a language or group of languages so constituted could have participated during that period in linguistic innovation and cohesion in, say, the Balkans, the western Steppes or the area of modern Poland. Any speech communities developing and diverging in the two regions, Western European seaboard and East European inland must have been doing so independently of each other, especially since it is central to Cunliffe's thesis that the land was the barrier, the sea the highway. This separation of linguistic communities is the empirical content of Cunliffe's theory to which I referred earlier. It makes clear and specific statements about the way languages in these two regions must be related to each other, or not; in specifically comparative-historical linguistic terms, allowing that all languages concerned are Indo-European, thus sharing a common lexical and morphological base, the languages evolving in the two regions must nevertheless be characterized by different sets of innovative features: they cannot be linked by isoglossic innovation. They can, of course, preserve common archaisms, due to their inheritance of the lexical and morphological base of Indo-European; that is a matter of chance, but their geographic separation means that they cannot share diagnostic innovations. And the reason Cunliffe's model is untenable is because Celtic does share diagnostic innovations with the Indo-European language groupings of Eastern Europe and Asia, that is, Baltic, Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian (and the fragmentarily attested Phrygian). [He goes on to list specific innovations.]




©Daltaí na Gaeilge