do other day I was watching timewatch, it mostly concerned the debate of what happened to the Celts. All the way through the program [timewatch] the presenter archaeologist was talking about the mathematics of gene distribution by recent test. Then at the end I was expecting to get the maths but instead the whole thing was glossed over, worse they were in a pub and casually made out there was an almost complete Anglo-Saxon takeover. They also said Saxons came from Frisian ~ Holland and hence the language ‘English’ was Anglo-Saxon [old English derives from old Frisian]. The Saxons came from upper Germany and Denmark at various times, but I think the Frisian were the inhabitants of northern Holland and not the Saxons?
The archaeologist agreed that:
a, that the first generations of Germans were not invaders, and there was never an invasion.
b, Anglo-Saxons were they agreed numbered only in their tens of thousands, where Britons after the Romans had gone were around 2 million.
They said that Saxons became the nobility at a later point a few generations in, then they would be more successful while the poorer Britons less successful in terms of survival rate. So by that reasoning we must all be Normans! As that is evidently not true, and 2009 census showed Celts as 50-70% of the population by the then count. Unless a great deal more numbers have been counted since 2009 and the percentages have changed dramatically, then I don’t see how the whole thing adds up.
The maths would have sorted this out, but we didn’t get that. Secondly the theory which would make us genetically Normans doesn’t stand up. Large scale migrations did later occur [e.g. most angles [the tribe] moved from northern Germany to Britain and they wouldn’t have all been elite. Secondly natives wives are the natural prize for success.
In my lifetime people have gone from having little idea about their genetic origins, to virtually everyone you speak to has an idea they are Celtic or Saxon etc. to gloss over our inheritance for some unspoken agenda I think is deplorable. Maybe the powers that be wish to preserve the status quo, and don’t want a Celtic renaissance ~ which is bound to occur with an expansive coverage of gene stats showed a high percentage of Celts?
They both came originally from Turkey, and long before that Africa. The Germanic’s didn’t wholly push the Celts out, they mixed and merged with them ~ especially the females. In Iceland the majority of females are genetically Celtic and the males Germanic. Often it is difficult to even distinguish between them genetically, and take a look around, most of us a something of a mix.
The maths say that genetically at least 50% of Britons [and hence a high percentage of Americans] are Celtic. In fact with the Latin American mix its probably higher in America.
First off, Saxons are not originally from Holland, and are not descended from the Freisans. They speak a break off medieval dialect of middle English, you can make out some of it be listening.
Secondly, Celts were steppe people, not from Turkey. You goota look to areas like the Tyrol for the origins of the group the Romans came into contact with in their early history, it’s a culture, not a race. Etruscan grew in reaction to them, Romans grew in reaction to Etruscan. But Romans had as much Latin Heritage as Etruscan and Celtic… in fact it’s not always easy to say they were completely independent of one another as we can say the Sardanians are (they are a very distinct group to this day).
Its true Germans come from the north, but it’s not always Scandinavia… and not it’s northern regions. Baltic would be a better name. Romans found them on either side of the ocean.
Caesar massacred the German tribes he found in the Netherlands, when they ventured to join in alliance with him (cause he was a swell guy). People think the Franks are Celts, but they are German. Whatever the Celts are, they are smeared across Europe. While countries like Ireland and Wales and Scotland claim a high Celtic ancestry, they didn’t arrive much before the Romans did, and you have a mix of different stocks. I wouldn’t go so far as to say some of the most stereotypical “celtic people” are really Celtic. It really is a historical nightmare, and genetics don’t do much to help, as it’s doubtful the Celts was one genetic group… it was a culture if a few different pools. They may all of dressed the same, but didn’t necessarily have the same genetics. Germans however, are expected to be more homogeneous. Romans thought they could tell the difference at least.
The Celts that Invaded Turkey the same as the Celts in Ireland?
That’s what I said – my complaint, or one of them. I agree Freisans can understand old English, I saw a guy speak it to them on a documentary and he cited the linguistic similarity between old English and old Frisian.
Well Iberian Celts share genes with people of the steppe and china [and some Jews, people of Cameroon etc], but prior to homo-sapiens entering the step and northern Europe they were in turkey first [as they came up out of Africa]. The blonde gene for example can be traced to eastern turkey.
I didn’t know that about the Dutch being wiped out by Caesar, though I did know the franks were in Germany prior to France. The Romans claimed to have slaughtered a great many people and for sure did, but tribes usually move elsewhere or what’s left of them do.
Not so sure about that, as the genetic tests show majoritively Iberian Celt genes [e.g. not Gauls or Austrians]. The people who built the stones also shared those genes, though I agree the Celts was a culture more than anything. Its more the deception I am railing against here.
The Romans thought Britain was 1/3rd Germans in the north Gaul in the middle and Spanish/Iberians in the south. Not really much to go by. Celtic roads go deep into southern Germany also.
but another one who invaded Greece and defeated the Macedonians at thermopylae no less, prior to invading and settling it what was thereafter known as Galatia.
Gauls are Celts, and Celts most definitely did NOT build Stonehenge. That was already quite ancient by that era.
You should look into Tacitus, Jordanes, and Julius Caesar’ works. Others too, but if your interested in this era, they are essential. Once your done, Ill give you more classical historians to look up.
Genetically the same I meant. Though you can trace the art and ideas through to the Celts [knot-work, celtic dragon and boar designs et]. If we are going to be ambiguous about it, there was no such things as Celts either. The main change after Stonehenge at around 2000bc was the arrival of metalworking, which came in the form of one man from southern France. There was no Celtic invasion of the Hallstalt or la-tene Celts, the same people were here throughout.
The only reason we cannot connect the Stonehenge builders to the later ‘Celts’, is that metal artefacts hadn’t arrived. Naturally designs on stone wont look synonymous to those on metal.