Morocco is part of the Atlantic facade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-2...AF%D9%88%D8%B3
Printable View
Morocco is part of the Atlantic facade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-2...AF%D9%88%D8%B3
Here's the original map from Oppenheimer 2010, it's indeed based on Hellenistic and Roman sources:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...010Celts-2.jpg
I've found it strange that eastern Britain had so many Celtic toponymy when it is well known that Anglo-Saxons practically erased them. That explains it. It is interesting to see how much of a impact the Celts were able to make in Britain when we consider that place names tend to fossilize if the newcomers are largely outnumbered by the natives.
Can you expand on this?
btw here is your map again
https://i.postimg.cc/Df1Yc05w/Cunliffe2010-Celts-2.jpg
I don't know that much about Celts to be able to contribute, I just wanted to point out here that this comparison you did with russians learning welsh doesn't really make sense, does it? Irish people speak gaelic as a second language only due to colonization and english having been "forced" upon them, but originally spoke irish or irish gaelic (it differs from scottish gaelic doesnt it?), however it is called, I'm not sure. They usually refer to it (as far as I was able to understand while I was living there) as simply Irish. It's not really just like learning any random second language. Also, even though the majority of them is not fluent in gaelic, they are still in contact with the language all the time: they still learn it in school, their signs on the streets are written in both english and gaelic, most phone services will have english and Irish options, they very often have Irish names, and there are even some places where they still mostly speak Irish. I remember that an irish friend told me she went to some kind of summer camp/school in a place where everyone would speak Irish, and that was the objective.
Again, I dont know much about the subject but if you are going to call any single people "Celts", It is the Irish, isn't it ? Does it get more Celt than them?
When the newcomers aren't numerous enough there is a natural tendency of the invaders to insert themselves into the existing superstructure and adopt the place names of the native population because that's easier and far more lucrative than entirely reorganizing and redistributing the land. That's essentially what migration studies call "elite dominance model". Case studies of the Norman conquest of Britain (where the invaders simply accommodated themselves in the existing estates, without any significant redistribution of land) and earlier in the fall of the Roman Empire prove the point - in both cases the toponymy remained largely untouched. The same is true for parts of Latin America (Peru comes to mind as a very good example). On the opposite, when the invaders are numerically significant, the existing superstructure isn't able to accommodate the newcomers. Thus the land is completely reorganized and redistributed, and the invaders give new names to the newly formed "places". That's essentially what occurred in Anglo-Saxon England: the Romano-British landed estates were forcefully broken up into smaller fragments, otherwise there wouldn't be sufficient land to make all of the king's subjects happy and the consequences would be numerous revolts. "Forcefully" because maintaining the existing structure is always more lucrative and less problematic. In this case, the previous place-names can be almost completely erased as we see in Anglo-Saxon England. It seems to me that the Celtic migration comes closer to the Anglo-Saxon model of invasion.
Right, I agree completely. The parallels between the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain is something that has been surprisingly unremarked upon in my opinion.
I made a thread on that point 2.5 years ago
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...in-and-Ireland
Yeah, things will be settled soon for Britain. But i think the Irish problem is more complicated from the genetic and especially linguistic point of view. After reading a thesis by Professor Peter Schrijver i'm convinced that Celtic entered Ireland from Britain in a very late date, perhaps in the 1st century of the common era, thus making Ireland the last place to shift to Celtic. In the subsequent few centuries Old Irish seems to have undergone a complete overhaul of its sound system (for example, what in 400AD was *wiras ‘man’ had become fer /f ́er/, fi r /f ́iŕ/ three centuries later) and an extreme rise in the complexity of the morphological structure of the language which made it one of the morphologically most complex languages of the world. Schrijver is convinced that post 5th century Old Irish is the result of pre-Celtic natives using their phonetic inventory to speak Celtic, thus creating a very weird variety of Celtic in the process, which does fits the genetic evidence to some degree.
A child of Russian immigrant parents growing up in Ireland would have the same experiences with the old Gaelic language as the Irish children. My original question was about the importance of ancestry and language-speaking for Celtic identity. Is only one of those necessary, or both? Of course, this question can apply to any ethnic identity.