Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:16 PM
protoboard protoboard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 831
Was there a "Celtic genocide" in England?

I've always thought that the Celtic tribes in England gradually intermarried with the Anglo-Saxon and Norse settlers, and took on their customs rather than there being any sort of mass wipeout of people ala the Native Americans. Genetically the English and Scottish are very similar to the Irish and Welsh and if there was a genocide of Celtic people they would have far more affinity to continental Germans and Scandinavian people.

It doesn't seem like there was always bad blood between Germanic and Celtic people either - their cultures merged pretty gracefully in places like Northumbria where you had people speaking Anglian whilst practicing Celtic Christianity and the Isle of Man, Scottish Isles and Cumbria where you had a robust Norse-Gaelic culture.

Last edited by protoboard; 06-19-2014 at 04:17 PM.
  #2  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:21 PM
protoboard protoboard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 831
People often cite the lack of Celtic place names in regions like Yorkshire as evidence of a genocide but I'd note that Native American names persist in America despite a near complete population replacement, so the fact that the names were changed doesn't necessarily mean the people themselves disappeared.
  #3  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:27 PM
Doyle Doyle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 749
The Anglo-Saxon invasion just kind of drove the Celts to the corners and edges of Britain: Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland.
  #4  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:31 PM
robert_columbia robert_columbia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by protoboard View Post
People often cite the lack of Celtic place names in regions like Yorkshire as evidence of a genocide but I'd note that Native American names persist in America despite a near complete population replacement, so the fact that the names were changed doesn't necessarily mean the people themselves disappeared.
Place names are one of the things that change the least. Consider the many places in the US that have been under multiple regimes without a major name change. E.g. Los Angeles was originally a Spanish city (El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula, i.e. The Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the Porciuncula River). When Mexico gained independence from Spain, it took LA with it. Later on, the US took much of northern Mexico and filled it with English speakers. People still call it Los Angeles, not "The Angels", or "New Americatown".
  #5  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:34 PM
Sattua Sattua is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Close to home
Posts: 9,917
There are a couple of historical events that came to my mind when I read this. Neither of them are exactly a genocide of Celts, but they were major upheavals.

The first is the Harrying of the North by William the Conquerer in the winter of 1069-1070. Admittedly, the target wasn't Celts, but the north of England near the Scottish border. Still, it appears to have been a real genocide, and created a virtual desert between Norman England and Scotland. The Domesday Book shows it in pretty stark terms; estate after estate in the north of England simply has nothing on it.

The second is the Highland clearances after the battle of Culloden/Drumossie in 1745. While the battle itself wasn't a genocide, many people starved or emigrated in the aftermath and significant parts of Celtic culture were suppressed.

Like I said, neither of them are directly applicable to your question, but it's all I've got.
  #6  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:40 PM
NDP's Avatar
NDP NDP is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: PNW USA
Posts: 8,818
It may not have been active genocide so much as disease. Around the middle of the 6th century, the Plague of Justinian supposedly hit the native Celtic (i.e., Romano-British) population harder than the Germanic (i.e., Anglo-Saxon-Jute) settlers. With the country largely depopulated, the Anglo-Saxons moved into the rest of what is now England and were able to easily impose their language, religion, and culture.
__________________
Can also be seen at:

Last FM Library Thing

Last edited by NDP; 06-19-2014 at 04:41 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-19-2014, 04:52 PM
protoboard protoboard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle View Post
The Anglo-Saxon invasion just kind of drove the Celts to the corners and edges of Britain: Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland.
Then why are English people still so closely related to these nations, as well as to the Irish? I suppose maybe Celtic and Germanic people are just fairly close to begin with, perhaps both being "Nordic" northern Europeans.
  #8  
Old 06-19-2014, 05:08 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle View Post
The Anglo-Saxon invasion just kind of drove the Celts to the corners and edges of Britain: Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland.
The Anglo-Saxon invasion ( if invasion is even an appropriate descriptor - it is still argued ), drove Celtic polities to the edges of Britain. It's not likely to have significantly altered the underlying strata of the population of England as a whole.

Thus is the case with virtually all foreign invasions. The more modern historians take a closer look at conquests throughout history, the more we see that previous assumptions about wholesale replacements of one people with another probably never happened or did so only very locally. Modern Egyptians don't speak Arabic because the Arabs exterminated the native Egyptians and replaced them - very few Arabs actually settled in Egypt after it was conquered ( and most of those stuck to new garrison towns ). They speak Arabic because Roman-era Egyptians adopted the new universal lingua franca of their conquerors.

It's exceptions that stand out. One of the remarkable things about William I's conquest of England is how virtually the entire native ruling class was disenfranchised and replaced by mostly French-speaking continentals in just a single generation. Even then the peasant population remained intact ( well, when not harryed to death by endemic warfare ). In the Americas you has massive die-off from disease. But these stand out as a fairly unusual events.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 06-19-2014 at 05:12 PM.
  #9  
Old 06-19-2014, 07:00 PM
njtt njtt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
We had a thread on this fairly recently (though based on almost the opposite premise): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=722217
  #10  
Old 06-19-2014, 09:30 PM
Slithy Tove Slithy Tove is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Buford, Georgia
Posts: 8,011
Ireland's population lost 25% in the 1650's as a result of Cromwell's invasion.

Compare this to Poland, the nation with the largest percentage loss of WWII: 18%.
  #11  
Old 06-19-2014, 10:21 PM
LC Strawhouse LC Strawhouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sattua View Post
The second is the Highland clearances after the battle of Culloden/Drumossie in 1745. While the battle itself wasn't a genocide, many people starved or emigrated in the aftermath and significant parts of Celtic culture were suppressed.
Can I nitpick - the bulk of the Highland Clearances went on for many years and had nothing to do with Culloden or anti-Celtic activity. They were essentially an internal class war where the Scottish clan chiefs booted their own peasants off the land in order to establish huge estates of their own (mostly for sheep farming.)

Last edited by LC Strawhouse; 06-19-2014 at 10:25 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-19-2014, 10:42 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by protoboard View Post
People often cite the lack of Celtic place names in regions like Yorkshire as evidence of a genocide but I'd note that Native American names persist in America despite a near complete population replacement, so the fact that the names were changed doesn't necessarily mean the people themselves disappeared.
I've been reading Leslie Alcock's Arthur's Britain during lunch and laughed out loud when, having gone through the steps a place name apparently went through from Old Welsh to Saxon to Old English to Middle English, he commented that the roots of the modern English people's inability to pronounce foreign words correctly goes back a long way. It doesn't help that, as near as I can tell, whoever first wrote the Celtic languages down had only the vaguest idea how letters are used or how they sound. Much like when St Cyril created the Russian alphabet while trying to keep straight in his head the Roman and Greek alphabets he had learned as a child but hadn't used since. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!

BTW, that's a great book! First published in 1971, when he revised it slightly in 1987 he said that more-recent studies have shown that much of it is rubbish. But Penguin republished it anyway, and appears to do so still. The first 120 pages or so are an attempt to build a chronology of Dark Age Britain out of too few and too contradictory references--many lunches (I read slowly) of edge of my seat thrills--followed by trying to work the absolute minimum of archaeological evidence (not much survives in a wet climate, and many techniques were in their infancy; much of what I learned in archaeology school at about the same time is wrong or can only be used in dry climates) AND those worthless documents into a useful history. Plenty of "Bede says this, Gildas says that, and this Easter annal says another thing, but most of it was hearsay and it's sometimes impossible to know what calendar they used, so this event could have happened any time between 450 and 575. Or in 363, if it even happened."

Alcock, so far, thinks the genocide was overstated because there is too little archaeological evidence, like charred remains of buildings and corpses in the wrong places. He cites one site that was long thought to be a site of a massacre, but further study showed to be a plain ol' graveyard. I think he's going toward "some of the locals got shoved along, some died in one of the many plagues, but most stuck around and married the new folk." But at this rate I may never finish the book.
  #13  
Old 06-20-2014, 05:36 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,895
Yes, it was genocide. You can tell that by chromosomes.

From Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration:

Quote:
Using novel population genetic models that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.
IOW most of the indigenous men died or were killed.
  #14  
Old 06-20-2014, 05:59 AM
crucible crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse View Post
Can I nitpick - the bulk of the Highland Clearances went on for many years and had nothing to do with Culloden or anti-Celtic activity. They were essentially an internal class war where the Scottish clan chiefs booted their own peasants off the land in order to establish huge estates of their own (mostly for sheep farming.)
There still seems an element of cultural genocide there. Seems to me the English have long gotten their way in their 'possessions' by rewarding the nobility and telling them what they should do in order to obtain more rewards. Too bad they didn't think to use that strategy on their own descendants in the Americas; all that unpleasantness during the 40 year perior starting with 1773 might have been avoided.

I hear the Scots don't raise sheep now, and you can't buy decent woolen goods there anymore.

Last edited by crucible; 06-20-2014 at 06:00 AM.
  #15  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:02 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slithy Tove View Post
Ireland's population lost 25% in the 1650's as a result of Cromwell's invasion.

Compare this to Poland, the nation with the largest percentage loss of WWII: 18%.
Ireland is not in England, as per the OPs question (and nor is Scotland, for Sattua's benefit).

As Tamerlane points out, the idea that all the Celts upped sticks and moved to Wales, Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland is really a misinterpretation of the dominance of Anglo-Saxon culture in England. The Celts were still here, they just adopted the language and religion of their conquerors. I imagine most current English people are a healthy mixed breed.
  #16  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:03 AM
crucible crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slithy Tove View Post
Ireland's population lost 25% in the 1650's as a result of Cromwell's invasion.

Compare this to Poland, the nation with the largest percentage loss of WWII: 18%.
Poland much larger than Ireland? certain areas of Poland/Belarus lost at least 50%
  #17  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:06 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucible View Post
I hear the Scots don't raise sheep now, and you can't buy decent woolen goods there anymore.
Have you ever been to Scotland? You can't move for sheep. What a daft comment.

For you: http://www.scotchbeefandlamb.com/, Scottish Wool Centre, one of innumerable wool retailing outlets.
  #18  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:50 AM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucible View Post
I hear the Scots don't raise sheep now, and you can't buy decent woolen goods there anymore.
This is quite hilariously wrong. Raising sheep was one of the chief motivations for driving the crofters from the land.
  #19  
Old 06-20-2014, 09:38 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
The Celts were still here, they just adopted the language and religion of their conquerors.
Not really. As was SOP in days of yore the men were killed and the women taken.
  #20  
Old 06-20-2014, 09:50 AM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Ireland is not in England, as per the OPs question (and nor is Scotland, for Sattua's benefit).

As Tamerlane points out, the idea that all the Celts upped sticks and moved to Wales, Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland is really a misinterpretation of the dominance of Anglo-Saxon culture in England. The Celts were still here, they just adopted the language and religion of their conquerors. I imagine most current English people are a healthy mixed breed.
That's what I always have read as well- the Celtic rulers and culture got pushed into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, but the actual peasants who worked their farms more or less stayed put with new neighbors and new overlords. It was similar to the Viking invasions and the later Norman Conquest- the overlords changed in both cases, but the people stayed the same- nobody forced the peasants off the land.
  #21  
Old 06-20-2014, 10:11 AM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's what I always have read as well- the Celtic rulers and culture got pushed into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, but the actual peasants who worked their farms more or less stayed put with new neighbors and new overlords. It was similar to the Viking invasions and the later Norman Conquest- the overlords changed in both cases, but the people stayed the same- nobody forced the peasants off the land.
This, plus strong if informal cultural pressure to assimilate to being English.

Remember the process of anglicization took hundreds of years. There have always been Celtic speakers in England: in Cornwall until a few hundred years ago, in villages along the border with Wales until the 20th century, and also in the cities through immigration. It looks like a Celtic language was spoken in N. England / Southern Scotland into the 12th or 13th century, well over half a millennium following the English invasion / conquest / friendly takeover / whatever you want to call it.

The Anglo-Saxons probably wouldn't have objected to the concept of genocide, since they were a pretty ethnocentric bunch and a warrior aristocracy besides, but they also didn't practice it. If they did, they weren't very good at it.

As far as place-names, note that even today there are Celtic / English place-name pairs that are unrelated: Old Welsh Ty Gogofog / Nottingham, modern Abertawe / Swansea, Abergwaun / Fishguard, Caer Grawnt / Cambridge, and others that look unrecognizable because they are loan translations or distant cognates: Rhydychen / Oxford, Caer / Chester. So the lack of Celtic place-names could mean a period of bilingualism rather than replacement.

Last edited by Dr. Drake; 06-20-2014 at 10:12 AM.
  #22  
Old 06-20-2014, 12:51 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Yes, it was genocide. You can tell that by chromosomes.

From Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration:

IOW most of the indigenous men died or were killed.
We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place.

At any rate that study has been challenged on a couple of grounds, including deliberate policies of intermarriage by the Germanic rulers and uncertainty over just what the pre-Anglo-Saxon population looked like genetically in the first place. The pre-Roman Conquest continental Belgae in Britain, Saxon foederati settlement in the late empire - there is a lot of uncertainty just how similar folk would have been genetically back then.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 06-20-2014 at 12:52 PM.
  #23  
Old 06-20-2014, 01:14 PM
Doyle Doyle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place.

At any rate that study has been challenged on a couple of grounds, including deliberate policies of intermarriage by the Germanic rulers and uncertainty over just what the pre-Anglo-Saxon population looked like genetically in the first place. The pre-Roman Conquest continental Belgae in Britain, Saxon foederati settlement in the late empire - there is a lot of uncertainty just how similar folk would have been genetically back then.
Is there a Celtic population in the British Isles that never really felt the Viking influence?
  #24  
Old 06-20-2014, 01:49 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle View Post
Is there a Celtic population in the British Isles that never really felt the Viking influence?
As far as settlement? There wasn't much in Wales, though there may have been a couple of brief establishments in Anglesey ( which is basically a Norse name ), ironically a stronghold of the Welsh language today. But in terms of raiding pretty much every corner got hit.
  #25  
Old 06-20-2014, 02:09 PM
Doyle Doyle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
As far as settlement? There wasn't much in Wales, though there may have been a couple of brief establishments in Anglesey ( which is basically a Norse name ), ironically a stronghold of the Welsh language today. But in terms of raiding pretty much every corner got hit.
If that's the case, wouldn't the Welsh bear a resemblance to the Celtic people in Britain prior to the Angles and the Saxons?
  #26  
Old 06-20-2014, 02:24 PM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
This is one of the issues on which the pendulum of consensus thinking has swung back and forth a few times over recend decades.

The original notion was that there was an invasion and a massacre. Then, the pendulum swung in favor of a gradual assimilation by the locals into Anglo-Saxon culture.

Recently, I think, the pendulum has swung back somewhat to thinking it was likely a massacre after all, or as good as - based on new types of evidence, such as genetic studies.

The fact is, there is no definitive answer yet, because the events took place in a true dark age - a time when writing (and, apparently, urbanism) almost died out. The accounts of that period are all dubious or much later, or both.
  #27  
Old 06-20-2014, 02:52 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,669
While the genetic evidence covering the past 2000 years in England may be unclear, there is very clear evidence that the Y-chromosomes of Britain and Ireland were almost completely replaced by unknown events probably sometime during 3000 BC-100 BC. (Some of these events probably involved "genocides" by Celts, not against them. I'd Google for cites but we've been here before.)
  #28  
Old 06-20-2014, 03:09 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle View Post
If that's the case, wouldn't the Welsh bear a resemblance to the Celtic people in Britain prior to the Angles and the Saxons?
Perhaps. Or maybe they just resembled the Celtic people in Wales prior to the Angles and Saxons .
  #29  
Old 06-20-2014, 04:19 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lost Strangeles
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
While the genetic evidence covering the past 2000 years in England may be unclear, there is very clear evidence that the Y-chromosomes of Britain and Ireland were almost completely replaced by unknown events probably sometime during 3000 BC-100 BC. (Some of these events probably involved "genocides" by Celts, not against them. I'd Google for cites but we've been here before.)
Are the events unknown? I thought it was taken for granted that this was the result of the Indo-European invasion, with the Celts being the leading edge?
  #30  
Old 06-20-2014, 05:02 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0 View Post
Are the events unknown? I thought it was taken for granted that this was the result of the Indo-European invasion, with the Celts being the leading edge?
How would they be known? It's all prehistoric. The Indo-European languages can be reconstructed, but the indigenous languages cannot. Archaeology helps, but it's far from a complete picture.
  #31  
Old 06-20-2014, 07:29 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lost Strangeles
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
How would they be known? It's all prehistoric. The Indo-European languages can be reconstructed, but the indigenous languages cannot. Archaeology helps, but it's far from a complete picture.
Okay. I agree, not known for sure. But this would be the main speculation, no? The Celtic Y DNA would be Indo_European, and the original Y DNA would be non_Indo, showing links to the Basques and/or Sardinians.
  #32  
Old 06-20-2014, 07:40 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0 View Post
Okay. I agree, not known for sure. But this would be the main speculation, no? The Celtic Y DNA would be Indo_European, and the original Y DNA would be non_Indo, showing links to the Basques and/or Sardinians.
Well... no. "Celtic" is a language family. One of the contemporary theories is that Celtic spread through providing an economic and / or social advantage, much as English is spreading today, rather than by an invasion of Celtic speakers. In that case, they wouldn't have Indo-European Y-chromosomes.

Whether correct or incorrect, that hypothesis doesn't preclude an invasion by somebody else. So it could be that the indigenous Y-chromosome was wiped out in 2000 BC, and Celtic began to be spoken in 1000 BC.

Besides, just because the Basques are still around doesn't mean that all pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe were related to them.

So there are a lot of different possibilities, and no solid way to choose between them as yet.
  #33  
Old 06-20-2014, 11:10 PM
NDP's Avatar
NDP NDP is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: PNW USA
Posts: 8,818
On a purely technical note, doesn't this thread really belong in General Questions?
__________________
Can also be seen at:

Last FM Library Thing
  #34  
Old 06-21-2014, 07:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Besides, just because the Basques are still around doesn't mean that all pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe were related to them.

So there are a lot of different possibilities, and no solid way to choose between them as yet.
The Basques have a very high concentration of the R1b-L11 ("Western Indo-European"?) haplogroup. Presumably their ancestors had their manhood almost completely replaced at some point.

Any model in which "Indo-Europeans" came overland from the east may have to account that one of the most advanced copper-age cultures was in southern Spain. Some speculate these copper workers came via sea from the Eastern Mediterranean.

DNA analysis of ancient skeletons may be a way to get clarity. But despite the recent analysis of a 24,000-year old Siberian boy, few European skeletons older than 5000 years have had Y-chromosome analyzed; none of these were R1b-L11.
  #35  
Old 06-21-2014, 09:28 AM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The Basques have a very high concentration of the R1b-L11 ("Western Indo-European"?) haplogroup. Presumably their ancestors had their manhood almost completely replaced at some point.

Any model in which "Indo-Europeans" came overland from the east may have to account that one of the most advanced copper-age cultures was in southern Spain. Some speculate these copper workers came via sea from the Eastern Mediterranean.
Well and good, but that doesn't mean that the people of pre-IE Britain had any connection to them.

That's the basis of the spread-like-English theory above, though; the advanced cultures of southern Spain were the impetus for other people to adopt their language. Those people may or may not have been genetically related, though.
  #36  
Old 06-21-2014, 02:53 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lost Strangeles
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Well... no. "Celtic" is a language family. One of the contemporary theories is that Celtic spread through providing an economic and / or social advantage, much as English is spreading today, rather than by an invasion of Celtic speakers. In that case, they wouldn't have Indo-European Y-chromosomes.

Whether correct or incorrect, that hypothesis doesn't preclude an invasion by somebody else. So it could be that the indigenous Y-chromosome was wiped out in 2000 BC, and Celtic began to be spoken in 1000 BC.

Besides, just because the Basques are still around doesn't mean that all pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe were related to them.

So there are a lot of different possibilities, and no solid way to choose between them as yet.
Of course it's a language family, part of the larger Indo-European family. The original speakers of proto-Celtic were Indo-Europeans.

Language transmission without at least some genetic transmission is rare. Language transmission is often though not always a result of conquest/invasion.
  #37  
Old 06-21-2014, 05:06 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0 View Post
Language transmission without at least some genetic transmission is rare.
No it is not (or: cite?). There are millions of people who speak an Indo-European language because they have immigrated (or been brought as slaves) to an Indo-European-speaking country like America. They are no less Indo-European for their non-Indo-European ancestry. There are even more millions who have learned English as a second language for economic reasons. Why should ancient people be any different, especially if you remember that people can be multilingual?

In the ancient world, we have abundant examples of language shift for political reasons. The genetic connection may be subsequent to the shift, rather than causal. The question is whether Celtic was a result of language shift in an originally non-Indo-European substrate group (no or minimal genetic transmission, Hypothesis A) or a branch of the Indo-European family that physically brought a speech community into Western Europe (Hypothesis B).
  #38  
Old 06-21-2014, 10:07 PM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,485
Genetics aside, I wonder if the lack of Celtic place names isn't more a function of who was in charge when towns and cities were named?

I mean, plenty of rivers have names of Celtic origin, but it seems that most English town names are either Roman, Saxon or Dane in origin, probably because most of the towns were founded during those time periods.

There wasn't a post-Roman, pre-Saxon time when the Celts ran around founding cities, and prior to the Romans, there weren't really any major cities.
  #39  
Old 06-21-2014, 10:59 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
"London" may be Celtic, but may be pre-Celtic.

"York" and "Dover" are certainly British Celtic. "Gloucester" and "Leicester" are part Celtic, as are many of the -cesters and -chesters, and "Bath" probably is as well. The "Exe-" in "Exeter" is Celtic, as is the "Edin-" in "Edinburgh." County names Devon and Kent are Celtic. There are Celtic names attested for Nottingham, Cambridge, and Manchester.

In other words, I think the dearth of Celtic place-names has been over-emphasized. There are quite a lot in England and in Scotland (not even counting Gaelic ones) for areas that haven't been in the control of Celtic-speakers for a thousand years.
  #40  
Old 06-22-2014, 04:27 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
"York" and "Dover" are certainly British Celtic.
York comes from the Viking Yorvik.

Quote:
"Gloucester" and "Leicester" are part Celtic, as are many of the -cesters and -chesters,
Actually, -c(h)ester denotes a Roman origin as it comes from castrum, which means camp.
  #41  
Old 06-22-2014, 09:55 AM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
York comes from the Viking Yorvik.
Ultimately, it comes from what attested in Ptolemy as Eboracum, which is based on the Celtic word for the yew tree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Actually, -c(h)ester denotes a Roman origin as it comes from castrum, which means camp.
You misunderstood; my fault for not being clear. The place-name compound including derivatives of the Roman -castrum are often have a Celtic first element, e.g. Brancaster, Cirencester, Dorchester, Gloucester, Ilchester, Leicester, Manchester, etc. (Edit: as a further argument against place-names as genocide evidence, as the "-chester" forms have passed through Old English.)

Last edited by Dr. Drake; 06-22-2014 at 09:57 AM.
  #42  
Old 06-22-2014, 10:45 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,585
Was there a "Celtic genocide" in England?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
York comes from the Viking Yorvik.

Before that it was Anglo-Saxon Eoforwic. And before that it was Romano-British Eboracum.

Last edited by Acsenray; 06-22-2014 at 10:45 AM.
  #43  
Old 06-22-2014, 07:52 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lost Strangeles
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
No it is not (or: cite?). There are millions of people who speak an Indo-European language because they have immigrated (or been brought as slaves) to an Indo-European-speaking country like America. They are no less Indo-European for their non-Indo-European ancestry. There are even more millions who have learned English as a second language for economic reasons. Why should ancient people be any different, especially if you remember that people can be multilingual?

In the ancient world, we have abundant examples of language shift for political reasons. The genetic connection may be subsequent to the shift, rather than causal. The question is whether Celtic was a result of language shift in an originally non-Indo-European substrate group (no or minimal genetic transmission, Hypothesis A) or a branch of the Indo-European family that physically brought a speech community into Western Europe (Hypothesis B).
Almost every New World nation has considerable European admixture. Black Americans are about 20% Euro, Mexicans are about 50% Euro and so on. Most of this admixture is via the Y chromosome. Not genocide as such, but the conquerors/invaders taking the women of the conquered.

Turks speak a Central Asian language even though genetically they're very close to the Greeks and other Mediterranean populations. There is a Central Asian genetic element to the Turkish population, though. The new language and the new genes were established through invasion/conquest.

It's not useful to compare the modern history of migration and language acquisition to what went on in the relatively primitive past. As Jared Diamond explains in The World Until Yesterday, interactions between different human groups were much more violent before the rise of states as organizing institutions for human societies.

The Indo European expansion pretty much necessitated some form of invasion/conquest. We'd have to find a reason for a rapidly growing population, with well documented warlike inclinations NOT to overrun their neighbors and kidnap their women.
  #44  
Old 08-13-2018, 08:34 AM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slithy Tove View Post
Ireland's population lost 25% in the 1650's as a result of Cromwell's invasion.

Compare this to Poland, the nation with the largest percentage loss of WWII: 18%.
Ireland: the figure quoted (might even be on the low side, but there was no accurate census in those days) covers around 15 years of warfare from 1639. And it was not just Cromwell; the Civil war in Ireland was mostly a three-sided affair with players such as Ormonde changing sides every now and again. Confused? So were the locals.

While Poland lost heavily in WW2, Serbia lost around 25% of its population in WW1.
  #45  
Old Today, 08:30 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
York comes from the Viking Yorvik.
Which comes from the Roman name for the city, Eboracum. Eboracum is a Latinization of the Celtic Eburakon.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017