Re: Celtic origin myths

On Apr 14, 3:08 pm, igor <inbellt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:50 am, VtSkier <u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



igor wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:11 pm, imipak <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:59 pm, igor <inbellt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 11, 3:25 pm, imipak <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:51 pm, Chazwin <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:07 pm, imipak <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:11 am, igor <inbellt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:09 am, igor <inbellt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stephen Oppenheimer suggests the Celts were a Mediterranean people
first established in what is now southern France by the end of the
last glacial maxum, around 11,000BC. From there through further
integration with what might have been proto-Basque populations, these
people spread outward into Italy, Spain, the British Isles and
Germany. Indeed, Celtic origin myths recorded in Medieval Scotland and
Ireland suggest a possible beginning in Anatolia and then to Iberia
via Egypt.
My question is: did anyone read his books? sounds far fetched,
Anatolia via Egypt 11000 BC, what myths is he talking about? He must
of been hanging out with Aggie.
I've read "Origins of the British", which is his argument by means of
genetics. He does make a strong case for the bulk of genetic markers
being ancient rather than from more modern sources (such as Saxons,
Angles or Normans) and certainly there is a fair amount of data now on
how humans migrated, using the genetic markers rather than
archaeological data. The two, as Mr Oppenheimer points out, need not
be the same thing. Technology can be traded, giving a false impression
of a migration that never happened. (To go back to an earlier
argument, this is why it is folly to rely on a single source of
information. Other sources may say something very different and
without analyzing the data as a whole, you'll never get an honest
picture.)
11,000 BC is not impossible. The earliest surviving cave paintings in
Britain are from roughly that time, so someone was in Britain then. My
main objection to Oppenheimer is that he argues that the centre of
Britain was uninhabited at this time, with the population mostly being
on what was the coast at that time. Certainly, undersea archaeology
has indeed found villages at depth around what would have been the
coastline at that time, and these were found after "Origins of the
British" was published. However, the cave paintings show that the
population was also present well inland, right in the heart of modern
Britain. These were not coastal-only folks, but quite capable of
living and even thriving right on the ice sheets.
One of the peculiarities of the early Britons is that they don't
appear to have true origin myths. Once you subtract out all of the
Christian additions, the earliest myths pre-suppose the existence of a
"somewhere else". You cannot have people come from beyond the ninth
wave if there isn't something beyond the ninth wave for them to have
come from. His coverage of the mythological links is nowhere near as
convincing as the genetic links. In terms of genetic migration,
Oppenheimer is on very solid ground. Beyond that, there are reasons
for questioning whether he's trying to fit the facts to his theory.
The best model for human migrations at the moment (post-dating the
publication of his book) can be found at the National Geographic's
Genography Project.https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Additional up-to-date geographic information on genetic distribution
can be found at:http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml
These should allow you to adjust the older data he used to produce a
"cleaner" picture of human migration.
Celtic is a cultural category - we do not carry culture in our genes.
Only in the modern perjorative usage, and Oppenheimer's point is that
the culture came later than the people, that the language and
technology migrations were not synonymous with population migrations.
Sarmation serboi moved from the Caspian sea area, conquered Slavic
tribes and the end result is present day Serbians who speak Slavic
language. The same result is for Bulgarians with Turkic Bulgars,
Iranians with Elamites, Celts with central Europeans and etc. On the
other hand Turks in Anatolia retained their ancestral language. IE
invasions changed languages of the whole continent. I wonder what is
the determining factor in formation of the languages after conquests,
is it a percentile ratio of invaders and the conquered populations?
No, it's not a percentile thing, otherwise Britain would have more
Norman and Saxon descendants than indigenous Palaeolithic descendants.
In the case of Britain, the invaders have been largely pushed out of
the gene pool. It's more likely to do with who was ruling at the time,
as the ruling elite would have dictated what could be taught. The USA
demonstrated that - until very recently (as in the past decade or so),
many schools prohibited native Americans from speaking their own
language and punished those who attempted to learn it. This might
still be the practice in some areas. One would imagine that similar
tactics have been used throughout history, which is why myths often
speak of invaders cutting out the tongues of the wise who were there
before.

Most of the aboriginal inhabitants of Americas were replaced, I use to
think that the same happened when IE invaded Europe.

No, there is no reason for the indigenous population of
Europe to die off or be killed when IE peoples moved in.

In the Americas, disease killed off as many as 95% of
the population and some say more, before European settlers
came and filled the void.

Not entirely, in countries like Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Nicaragua
majority of population is indigenous but speak an IE language.

 And there was a void which,



as far as I know, there was no such void during any
of the population movements (in favorable climate zones)
in Eurasia.

Cortez and Pizzaro saw great empires in the Americas
within 30 or 40 years of Columbus. Desoto saw the
Mississippian culture. And the dude (whose name I
forget) who floated down the Amazon from Peru found
great cities along the river.

Even Pizzaro's success was due in part to the death
of a recent Inca and many members of his family and
strife within his family as to who would be Inca.

These empires were pretty much gone by 1550.

Other European immigrants had it easy in spite of
themselves (read the accounts) at least in part
because the locals were feeling stress from
population crash.

Columbus himself noted that the local Indians
(on Hispanola) did not make good slaves because
they didn't live long enough. This is a good
part of the reason Africans were imported as
slaves. They had reasonable resistance to
European diseases.

This is my take on it: IE haplotype R1a is prevalent in East Europe
and diminishes further to the west so there was a general movement of
aboriginal tribes to the west, but many of them were assimilated.

Or IE tribes exhausted them selfs numerically and assimilated only the
eastern part of Europe.
.

Loading