Re: [tied] Re: NWB

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49918
Date: 2007-09-16

Yes, I saw the DNA info on that --but that doesn't
necessarily mean that Celtic languages are from
Aquitania and Aragón. It's very likely true that the
Celts were a elite group that imposed their language
on the majority in the British Isles in the same way
that the Turks did in Anatolia (I seem to remember
that only about 1% of Anatolian Turks show genetic
markers from the Turkish Siberian homeland).
So the common DNA of Iberia and the British Isles is
more likely due to pre-IE substrate.

--- michelmrvn <michelmrvn@...> wrote:

> --- In, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wikipedia I saw an article that claims that the
> > Eastern Britons were Belgae who spoke languages
> > closely related to Ango-Saxon, which accounts for
> the
> > general lack of Celtic substrate in Old English.
> It
> > claims that no Celtic inscriptions are found in E.
> > Briton. My impression was that it saw Belgae as
> > essentially a Celtic influenced form of Germanic
> and
> > similar to Frankish.
> > I'd like to hear from the rest of you regarding
> this
> It's the recent theory of Stephen Oppenheimer (The
> Origins of the
> British) He thinks that celtic people did not arrive
> from eastern
> Europe through Germany but from the south-east of
> Europe. What seems
> to be true is that genetic studies have shown that
> western celtic
> people have a lot in common with the Basques for
> instance. So the
> oldest human stock might be non-celtic people who
> adopted celtic
> languages, in Ireland namely. About the Belgae it is
> difficult to
> know if Oppenheimer is right or not. There are
> perhaps less celtic
> toponyms east of the Rhine than west, but Germany
> has nevertheless
> many celtic toponyms too.
> Michel Morvan.
> >
> >
> >
> ______________
> > Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network
> Research Panel
> today!
> >

Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.