🚀 go-pugleaf

Sleepalot <sleepy@carlisle98.freeserve.co.uk>
<0s4cetgbbadfk7s7jbto1jc05pnqct9tdh@4ax.com>  :
 
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:09:52 +0200, andy roberts wrote:
>
>>Sleepalot <sleepy@carlisle98.freeserve.co.uk>
>><b4nbetcb400onpretk2bejvtju0899fog9@4ax.com>  :
>> 

<snip>

>>>>but on the other hand neither do
>>>>the Celts - what happened to the people they oppressed? 
>>>
>>Very little is known about the pre-celtic europeans. They only appear to
>>have held their own in terms of language and therefore culture in the Basque
>>Country and Finland. Everywhere else got taken over by peoples from Asia who
>>knew about farming. 
>
>The question was wrt pre-Celtic britons.
>
Yes, I'm including them within the pre-celtic europeans. I don't know enough
information to be more precise, going that far back.

>>>There never was an invasion that wasn't followed by
>>>a bit of mating.
>>>
>>Indeed, we are not talking about distinct genetics here, but about cultural
>>invasions. The victims are assimilated, not destroyed. 
>
>Huh ? That's a very confused pair of statements.
>
It may sound that way, but the real world is not black and white. When two
distinct tribes with different cultures and genetics meet one appears to
"win" over the other, because their culture gains the upper hand. To some
historians it looks like the weaker tribe has been wiped out, but in fact
they are still there, but changed. Unless there is a period of genocide and
mass immigration then the original population is only diluted to a minor
extent by the addition of the new genetic stock.

>I doubt that when a Cornish person describes themself
>as "Celtic", that they mean they live/farm/believe as the Celts 
>of 2 - 3,000 years ago did; they mean *racially*.
>
Not really racially, no. In humans, race is a bit of bogus concept without
any real scientific basis. There is usually more genetic similarity between
two people with the same blood group but different skin colour than the
reverse.

>When I said "mating", I meant sex as in genetics.
>The Celtic invasion was a genetic invasion. 
>
I'm not sure about that. Do you know much about the pre-celtic
britons/europeans genetic composition?

[europa.historia optimistically added]

>A purely cultural invasion would be one in which the native 
>(pre-Celtic) britons imported Celtic art/literature/farming
>methods/etc, but not Celtic genes.   

I didn't say "purely cultural" but implied mostly cultural.  
Most likely,  It would have been where a small number of technologically
superior people invade and conquer the natives, passing on their science and
social ways mostly through domination but also some interbreeding at the
same time. This seems to be the usual pattern except in extreme cases, such
as the very sudden and violent meeting of European voyagers with native
Americans.

Andy R
-- 
Europa.*   a new usenet hierarchy now created 
for europe wide topics without language restrictions.

see http://www.europa.usenet.eu.org