GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119806042


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] if there is a point to this indigenous discussion
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:14:02 -0300
References: <BKEPIIDHHKEPCMDIEBKBIEMCCIAA.andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>
In-Reply-To: <BKEPIIDHHKEPCMDIEBKBIEMCCIAA.andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>


At 05:20 PM 25/06/2005, you wrote:
>Does any of the people going on about invasions and immigrations know of any
>evidence at all which suggests any replacement to any significant extent of
>previous inhabitants by any immigrating group at all, ever? I know of none,
>and think its all just speculation. What evidence is there against the
>possibility that every immigrating group that ever came to Britain
>(something which happens constantly even now) only made a small impact on
>the genes?


Southwestern Britain. There was a mass migration of the British
to what is referred to as Brittany in the 5th century. There
are a number of sources for this including Gildas.



>Also I would suggest a more careful use of the linguistic terms. P-Celtic
>and Q-Celtic are terms which are being questioned by linguists now, and
>basically reflect another assumption - that Gaelic and Welsh are simply the
>most recent counter parts of an ancient dichotomy of languages in the
>British Isles. Fact is that we have very little evidence for any ancient
>Celtic languages before Welsh and Gaelic became standard languages in two
>parts of the Isles, but there is evidence that the ancient Irish and ancient
>British sometimes understood each other to be using C and P as in their own
>languages - almost if the difference was very small for some of them.


There is a continuity of some place names (not just in Wales) almost
from the time of Ptolomey. Furthermore, there is evidence from the
names of historical figures. What sources do you have in mind for your
new thought?


>We
>also do not know how many British residents spoke Latin as a first language.
>It is for example possible that Latin-based dialects were widely spoken and
>had already pushed Celtic languages into a minority position - after all the
>areas where we know Welsh was spoken when it first appears in history are
>all isolated from Romanisation and inter-connected by allegiances of various
>sorts. Early Welsh and Gaelic show signs of having become important because
>they were accepted standard "second languages" for communication between
>communities.

Again what source do you have in mind for this thought?
How can it be that, at the very least, those people living between
the two walls decided to adopt Latin as their first language, as
opposed to their native tongue, when for the most part the Romans
weren't even around. It has been widely accepted that the Romans
had little impact north of the Hadrian wall with military occupations
lasting for only brief periods.

Best wishes!

Peter


This thread: