MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Celtic Wal/Gal (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They spoke 'Crooked Greek' or ancient English.

How do you make this equation?

Greek is reckoned akin to Phoenician is reckoned akin to Gaelic. Surely it's Gaelic that is Crooked Greek.

The Druids and Gauls wrote in "Greek". For you, I suppose, this point by itself means the Druids and Gauls were not Celts. But it works equally for both of us: my argument says the Gauls are the Megalithics are the Celts are the Gaelics.

You reckon English was spoken in large areas of the continent, including France? How do you know? The THOBR argument indicates English was the language of the plebs in England, the actual population. But the historical references will all be to the ruling classes, who can come from anywhere and everywhere.

Surely, the French plebs were speaking French... and what their rulers were speaking is not stated in Homer or anywhere else.

The allies of the Trojans (Britain) who came from present day Wales, Scotland and Brittany DID NOT SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE.

The Trojans might have been Beaker People... from England and speaking English... or from somewhere else and speaking I dunno what.

They were not of the same ethnic stock as the former group and spoke a form of Phoenician which became the GAELIC we know today. They were of Mediterranean/North African stock and NEVER WERE CELTS, GAUL or ILLYRIAN.


What defines the Celts, Gauls and Illyrians for you and shows that they were not the Rhesus Negatives of North Africa and the Atlantic coast?

Wilkens says he's talking about Celts... the comments I posted on the Troy thread show that much of what he says lines up nicely with my Megalithic thesis... and (whether he realises it or not), he's talking about the ruling classes in all these places and says little or nothing about the native languages and people.
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Call them the 'Beaker people' or call them the Picts/Gauls, but it is these people who are originally western European (Druidic Gauls). The Celts are the first of successive waves of invaders/immigrants to take up residence and have a social order upon the lands they reach.

The original land of the berbers/ barbarians/ gals/ gauls was the western enclave. Pushing and throwing off ruling classes and military might has blurred the edges. But Britain has definitely had an unwritten history upon the modern world.
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think Gal didn't originally mean foreigner but was later a term used to mark out foreigners. For instance Wal/Gal etc was an original term for a whole system of religion/ideas/administration under Druid guidance. Gallt being its original form meaning worshippers of hills/tree groves (or the mistletoe that grows on the oak trees in those groves, now it's clear why mistletoe is important to the winter equinox/Christmas). It even suggests that Troy was at some time a Gal outpost (Gallipoli) and why the Greeks said that the Gauls were philosophers of nature (and the Roman accounts say the same). Don't forget that the original Druids were Picts, not the invading Celts who later adopted it.

I have always thought Gypsy to be Egyptian (nomads), hence the religious overtones of Tarot and fortune-telling.

We have a struggle to piece it together but I think it's possible.

The original Gals would have been dark haired/blond white people (tanned in Africa/Berber) and of a reasonably tall build (by Roman standards but smaller than Germanic Celtic invaders) until the Germanic/Celtic invasions around 50BC. The invading parties would take up the already well-established faith/administration of the more advanced Picts. Hence a tendency for Celts and original Pict/Gals/Gauls to label one or the other foreigner before the Anglo-Saxon invasions. The Gal/Wal labelling existed before the Germanic 'neighbours' invaded they just adopted it.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The group you're speaking of Oakey are the Rh-negative people who populated all the islands of Western Europe, from the Canary Islands to the Lofoten in the Arctic; all were sailors, fishermen and ocean explorers. They all had the same dark hair and long skulls of the Berbers and Basques. These were the original Irish, Welsh and Picts. Their blood tells the story that they were originally Berbers who first hunted in the Basque country and then moved north along the western European islands as far as Finnmark in Norway.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

According to Wiki the Berbers are mainly made up of E1b1b......... see below:

"The general parent Y-chromosome Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b), originating either in the Horn of Africa[43] or the Near East[44], is by far the most common clade in North and Northeast Africa, and is also common throughout the majority of Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean and South Eastern Europe. E1b1b reaches its highest concentration in Greece and the Balkan region, but also enjoys a significant presence in other regions such as Hungary, Italy, France, Iberia and Austria."

This would agree with the hypothesis that there is a link with the Greeks, but as most of Britain and Ireland are R1b I don't see how you link these two genetically.......
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

According to Wiki the Berbers are mainly made up of e1b1b... This would agree with the hypothesis that there is a link with the Greeks, but as most of Britain and Ireland are R1b I don't see how you link these two genetically..

Easy: the Rh Negatives Komori is talking about were incomers and do not account for most of Britain and Ireland.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Genetics has the ability to determine the make up of a defined area NOW it does not however have the ability to tell us anything about the make up of a defined area 2000 years ago.

Let's use India as an example. The British became the ruling elite during the time of the Raj for a short 100 years. British emigration ensued but there was little racial mixture apart from some of the soldiery. This elite overlay eventually ceased and the bulk of the émigrés left. There was some linguistic and cultural interchange during the Raj and some of it still lingers on but at the grass roots Indian life has remained just as it ever was.

Lets now fast forward 1000 year and look back at the sub continent's genetic make up and try and make sense of it using today's genetic technology. Could we even speculate that the Raj ever happened assuming all written history of the era was absent?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Genetics has the ability to determine the make up of a defined area NOW it does not however have the ability to tell us anything about the make up of a defined area 2000 years ago.

This is sorta wrong, in that the sampling for genetic testing deliberately avoids the transients and tries to test only long-established families.

What grinds my gears about this is that the assumption -- absolutely essential to historical genetic profiling -- that the general population essentially stays put and only expands organically, flies directly in the face of every (pre)historical scenario they underpin with the genetic results, where whole populations migrate on a whim.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:

What grinds my gears about this is that the assumption -- absolutely essential to historical genetic profiling -- that the general population essentially stays put and only expands organically, flies directly in the face of every (pre)historical scenario they underpin with the genetic results, where whole populations migrate on a whim.

This was the point I was trying to make above. How long is long established. The British census may go back 500 years but the time we are talking about is when every Hans, Carlos and Spiro was supposed to be traipsing all over a green and pleasant land.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If the Basques came up to populate Wales and Cornwall after the last ice age as Oppenheimer says...is there any lingual parity between Basque and Brythonic? If not why not.

Observation: does Cornwall mean 'horn of the Welsh'? ( i.e. Cornwall is horn shaped)
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think it's Megalithic ie Kernow (Cornwall) = corner (which it is navigationally). Just as Kent is the other corner. The word obviously is English, not Welsh (or for that matter Basque).
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group