3 ms·

This reminds me of a theory that some of the linguistic features shared between the extant Celtic languages and Semitic languages may be due to the existence of

This reminds me of a theory that some of the linguistic features shared between the extant Celtic languages and Semitic languages may be due to the existence of a semitic population in the British Isles that lived together with early Celtic-speaking groups. It seems that the British Isles has always had multiple co-existing populations due to ongoing migration waves, from the ancient past, to the arrival of Germanic speakers in the late first millennium, to more recent migration of subjects from across the former empire.

recuter 4y ago
Yeah that is a pretty laughable theory that has been thoroughly debunked. Not that it really needs serious debunking in the first place with the most basic knowledge of world history. Same sort of people also came up with that line of thinking when first making contact with the Japanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-Jewish_common_ancestry_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-Jewish_common_ancestr... Some folks just really want to be one of the lost tribes of Israel. Incidentally and unsurprisingly given you know, history, the actual people of Israel do not find this flattering at all.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  We do know that there were multiple waves of settlement into Europe including a wave of farmers from the near east and finally people from the steppe. I don't think that says anything about linguistics though.
- goidalglas 4y ago
  So what do you make of the scythian connections to gaelic/gaulic cultures? They share the same brass work and distinct styles of jewelry. How's about the fact that the anatolian steppe herder genetics that spawned celtic culture are found in the Caucus mountain area, and have been confirmed to be shared with present European populations? What's to make of the fact that Europe is named after a Phoenician goddess?
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    All of these listed are indo-european peoples/languages (except Phoenician), so similarities are to be expected. Europe we can credit from the Greeks, also indo-european.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Ex post facto rationlizations. The original theories are of the nature described in my link. > They share the same brass work and distinct styles of jewelry. Are there in your view no other examples of such parallels between different pairs? And if you can find such examples do they all match up towards similar conclusions as what you are pushing here?
  - arethuza 4y ago
    The 14th century Declaration of Arbroath repeats the claim that the Scots came from Scythia: "They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today."
- janef0421 4y ago
  By "Semitic population", I was referring to speakers of a language in the Semitic language group, which includes Arabic and other languages of the Near and Middle East. These groups would have migrated before the formation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and may not be closely related to the population groups that founded those kingdoms. As such, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Please stare at this timeline: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_languages_-_Chronology.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_... > As such, I fail to see the relevance of your comment. By all means, Celts are actually Arabic speakers who have splintered off during the Bronze Age - some 3500 years ago prior to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea - and the genesis of your theories revolving around the lost tribes of Israel is irrelevant. That bit is just an inexplicable coincidence. Obvious, my bad for being confused.
    - janef0421 4y ago
      I never made any claim about ancestry, I was referencing a theory about Celtic languages in the British Isles being influenced by Semitic languages. And I don't think the lost tribes of Israel stuff is relevant, both because I'm not sure if the theory I referenced is actually derived from such ideas, and because it is so different as to be functionally distinct.
      - recuter 4y ago
        Quite the theory that explains 35 centuries of linguistic evolution but whose own origin itself is lost to the mists of time. Perhaps you should solve that mystery first, you know, if only in the interest of proper scientific attribution. Maybe one of us could be enlightened if you look up and provide citations of the author. Surely you'll agree at least that is relevant.
        4y ago
jjtheblunt 4y ago
Does the DNA of Britons and Mediterraneans of the Levant and surrounding areas support that theory? (I don't know the answer)

recuter 4y ago

Yeah that is a pretty laughable theory that has been thoroughly debunked. Not that it really needs serious debunking in the first place with the most basic knowledge of world history. Same sort of people also came up with that line of thinking when first making contact with the Japanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-Jewish_common_ancestry_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-Jewish_common_ancestr... Some folks just really want to be one of the lost tribes of Israel. Incidentally and unsurprisingly given you know, history, the actual people of Israel do not find this flattering at all.

ch4s3 4y ago
We do know that there were multiple waves of settlement into Europe including a wave of farmers from the near east and finally people from the steppe. I don't think that says anything about linguistics though.
goidalglas 4y ago
So what do you make of the scythian connections to gaelic/gaulic cultures? They share the same brass work and distinct styles of jewelry. How's about the fact that the anatolian steppe herder genetics that spawned celtic culture are found in the Caucus mountain area, and have been confirmed to be shared with present European populations? What's to make of the fact that Europe is named after a Phoenician goddess?
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  All of these listed are indo-european peoples/languages (except Phoenician), so similarities are to be expected. Europe we can credit from the Greeks, also indo-european.
- recuter 4y ago
  Ex post facto rationlizations. The original theories are of the nature described in my link. > They share the same brass work and distinct styles of jewelry. Are there in your view no other examples of such parallels between different pairs? And if you can find such examples do they all match up towards similar conclusions as what you are pushing here?
- arethuza 4y ago
  The 14th century Declaration of Arbroath repeats the claim that the Scots came from Scythia: "They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today."
janef0421 4y ago
By "Semitic population", I was referring to speakers of a language in the Semitic language group, which includes Arabic and other languages of the Near and Middle East. These groups would have migrated before the formation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and may not be closely related to the population groups that founded those kingdoms. As such, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
- recuter 4y ago
  Please stare at this timeline: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_languages_-_Chronology.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_... > As such, I fail to see the relevance of your comment. By all means, Celts are actually Arabic speakers who have splintered off during the Bronze Age - some 3500 years ago prior to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea - and the genesis of your theories revolving around the lost tribes of Israel is irrelevant. That bit is just an inexplicable coincidence. Obvious, my bad for being confused.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    I never made any claim about ancestry, I was referencing a theory about Celtic languages in the British Isles being influenced by Semitic languages. And I don't think the lost tribes of Israel stuff is relevant, both because I'm not sure if the theory I referenced is actually derived from such ideas, and because it is so different as to be functionally distinct.
    - recuter 4y ago
      Quite the theory that explains 35 centuries of linguistic evolution but whose own origin itself is lost to the mists of time. Perhaps you should solve that mystery first, you know, if only in the interest of proper scientific attribution. Maybe one of us could be enlightened if you look up and provide citations of the author. Surely you'll agree at least that is relevant.
      - 4y ago

jjtheblunt 4y ago

Does the DNA of Britons and Mediterraneans of the Levant and surrounding areas support that theory? (I don't know the answer)