Celtic - Serbian parallels

Status
Not open for further replies.
zanipolo




it is a lot more complicated than that.

I will await your "complicated" message.

As my slovenian, croat and serbian friends have said...anyone who follows Olga's book has fallen for the slavic propoganda.

unless you are a pole or a ukraine, then the likelyhood is that you are NOT genetically a slav. Just accept this is how it is.
 
could you please give me some examples of Celtic language? Remember Gaels are not Celts. and tell me who celts are and how were they identified as Celts. and explain how did all the Serbian words get into modern Gaelic languages?

The Gaelic languages are one branch of the extant Celtic languages. They are indeed different than the Brythonic Celtic languages such as Welsh and Breton, but the two families are still more closely related than Gaelic is to Serbian. I don't know anything about Serbian language or culture, so I won't try to discuss that. But Gaelic (or Goidelic) being a Celtic language family is well known. For what reason do you think that the Irish were not Celts?

As for what a Celt is, that's easy. The Celts were the Iron Age-era tribes that spoke Celtic languages and bore Celtic culture. "Celtic culture" usually defined as being derived from the La Tène culture. You say that Gaels aren't Celts as if that's common knowledge, when the exact opposite is what's true.
 
lebrok



This is not true.


Triglav (Serbian Latin, Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian: Triglav; Macedonian, Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian Cyrillic: Триглав; Czech and Slovak: Trihlav; Polish: Trygław, Trzygłów) (meaning 'three headed') also sometimes called troglav is a deity in Slavic mythology.

What are you proving dude, that the word was translated to other languages? What about Germanic Triglaus?
Give us archaeological evidence. I dug through the web and what I found out is that it is almost strictly west Pomeranian god.
I'm not saying that to agree with my hypothesis, cause I have none in this matter. I'm just going with evidence, with artifacts, and they point to west Pomerania, and mixed Germanic/Slavic tribes, especially Volin.




It is generally believed that Triglav, the highest mountain in Slovenia and Troglav, highest peak of Dinara in Bosnia and Herzegovina were named after the god.
If we based science on believes we would have still lived in caves. Let's use some hard data here.



Triglav is depicted as representation of three major Slavic gods that vary from one Slavic tribe to others that serve as the representatives of the above mentioned realms. An early variation included Svarog, Perun, and Dajbog. Later, Dajbog was replaced by Svetovid or Veles. Triglav is usually described as a fusion of these gods.
Again, Triglav was almost strictly west Pomeranian deity. There is no evidence, archaeological or written, that Triglav was a pan-slavic god, except Pomerania and Rus.


I can see that you have not actually read the book. Somewhere in the book there is a dating table and the earliest dating is 5 – 8 century. If you want to talk seriously please at least try to read relevant works on the subject.
Off course I didn't, no time for this, I did look it over though. If you want us to catch the relevant info paste it here and give us the link to the source.
Please don't lecture me about serious talk. You came here with fantastic claims and rewritten history in linguistic, archeology and other fields. You should know that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs, right?


could you please give me some examples of Celtic language? Remember Gaels are not Celts. and tell me who Celts are and how were they identified as Celts. and explain how did all the Serbian words get into modern Gaelic languages?
Yes, on your commend, I will disregard 200 years of linguistic research linking Gaelic with Celtic, and believe you.


is this the kind of argument you are resorting to?
It is a good motive.




you don't think it is triglav. why? is it because it is too old to be slavic and just old enough to be "Celtic" and would prove that celts and slavs could be related.
Exactly. And yes it is some sort of Triglav, but you can't link it with Slavs.
Celts and Slavs are related, but not on timescale you are proposing. Go back at least 4000 years.


would you tell me then which other european deity has that three headed representation? the guys from irish national museum don't know so maybe you should enlighten them.
No need, you are doing much better job, lol.


this is not true. at one stage all balkan slavs were called vlahs.
Again, you are rewriting history. Although it might have been of Germanic origin, word Vlach, Vloch, Vlosi was/is used by all Slavs to describe roman speakers of Balkans, and Italians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs



and roma are gypsies
No, this is what Gypsies wants to be called. Their origin is India/Bangladesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people
 
During the second part of the 11th and the first part of the 12the century the Slavic naval power was at it's peak. During that same period, Roskilde in Denmark was destroyed by the Slavs. In the second half of the 20th century archeologists discovered in Roskilde a Viking ship built entirely from oak. Considering that viking ships entirely made from oak were only built by Slavs, this ship was most probably part of the Slavic invasion fleet and was sunk during the battle. When dating and dendrochronology of the ship was done it was discovered that the ship was built in 1060 from the oak that grew near Dublin Ireland.
So here we have a Slavic ship built from oak (dub) in Dublin (oak town) in the eleventh century, which then sales to the Baltic and gets sunk during one of pagan Slavic raids of christian Denmark.
Wow, what a stretch. Here is a history of Viking shipbuilding:
http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/chronology-vikingships.htm

Oak was always preferred ship building material for viking ships, period.
There is no evidence of Slavic settlements beyond Denmark on North Sea.

Having said that, there might be a vague possibility that some of Slavic-Vikings landed in Ireland after 800-900s and started a town called Dublin. Surely if it happened it wasn't substantial enough to change language, replace Norse/Danish Vikings or make a dent in Celtic population.
Anything later than that would be noticed and written in history. Anything sooner and it falls short of Slavic expansion to the Baltic Sea.
This is highly speculative and only possible because of lack of written history of dark ages to prove otherwise.

For the shortfall of evidence to support your hypothesis, I have to conclude again that the only reasons you stick to your story (with strong voice of certainty) are your romantic feelings of brotherhood and closeness of two, dear to you, nations.
 
yetos

there no Slav Vlachs, but Vlachs exist in South Slavic countries

During medieval time Serbs were called vlahs or vlasi by both Turkish and the Catholic sources. I don’t believe that serbs ever called themselves vlahs but I am not sure.

Vlachs comes from Villaches the one who lived and worked in Roman Villas and not the one who are Slavs or Greeks or Albanians or Romanians
All vlah areas in the Balkans today are in the mountains and highlands. People who call themselves vlahs today are well known shepards. They don’t come from villages; they are herders, migrants and were until the 20th century not even considered subjects of any particular state.

Vlachs culture is always connected with the rest of local people but they share a latin vocabulary which even in written is following the local alphabet and not Latin,

only vlahs from Homolje lowlands might fit into this category. All the other vlahs speak Serbian, like the ones from Vlasina on the border between Serbia and Bulgaria. My father was born just below the Vlasina mountain, near place called Vlasotince.
In Serbian the words vlah and vlasi was used to depict a peasant, ordinary villager and in particular herders from the mountains. There is an expression “da se vlasi ne dosete” which means “so that the ordinary people don’t realize what is going on”.
 
Last edited:
zanipolo

I will await your "complicated" message.
As my slovenian, croat and serbian friends have said...anyone who follows Olga's book has fallen for the slavic propoganda.
unless you are a pole or a ukraine, then the likelyhood is that you are NOT genetically a slav. Just accept this is how it is.
Just short for now:

I don’t believe that Serbs are the same as Slavs. But I don’t believe that Serbs were slovenized either. I believe that it was the opposite, that the Slavs were Serbianized. I also believe that Serbs and Slavs were related and that Serbs were either a ruling caste of the Slavic tribal union, or the part of the Slavic nation which got separated in Europe and middle east from the rest of the Slavs in Asia by the last glacial floods. There is no other way to explain ancient written documents from Europe, middle east which can be read using Slavic languages. And this is the only way to explain all the toponyms and hydronyms all over Europe and middle east that have serb, sorb, sorab, wend, venet, vandal as their part. Or all the mentions of these people in antiquity. Or finds like the above mentioned triglav totems from 2000 years ago. Or the fact that some of the oldest European customs have only survived in the customs of Slavs.
As for olga, living in Ireland has persuaded me that: Gaels are not Celts and that the Serbs are not Gaels. But I do believe that Serbs are Celts. And more and more evidence is being unearthed that proves this.

Very complicated…
But fun to study and explore.
 
keegah

The Gaelic languages are one branch of the extant Celtic languages.

There is no such a thing as Celtic language. The term “Celtic” languages is used for Gaelic languages because people from UK and Ireland were the first people identified as “Celtic” so the logic was their languages must be “Celtic” languages.

They are indeed different than the Brythonic Celtic languages such as Welsh and Breton, but the two families are still more closely related than Gaelic is to Serbian.

No problem with that. Gaelic languages have some Serbian words in them but Serbian is not a Gaelic language. As to how and when did these words came into Gaelic languages, this is one of the things that i am trying to discovere. Slavic vykings could be one of the posibilities.

I don't know anything about Serbian language or culture, so I won't try to discuss that. But Gaelic (or Goidelic) being a Celtic language family is well known.

As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages.

For what reason do you think that the Irish were not Celts?
There a lots of reasons and one of them is that Irish themselves never call themselves Celts or Valahi.

As for what a Celt is, that's easy.

Nothing about Celts is easy.

The Celts were the Iron Age-era tribes that spoke Celtic languages and bore Celtic culture.

Here you are using circular logic. As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages. And now you are using this made up language to define what Celts were. Don’t you see the problem with this?


"Celtic culture" usually defined as being derived from the La Tène culture.

There is a debate who the la tene people were. Again the objects from la tene culture did not have mark “made by Celts”. We decided to call them Celtic. Funnily enough, very little of la tene type artifacts has ever been found in brittish isles. You would expect a cultural continuation between the central Europe and the brittish isles but it does not exist. So you can not say that the Gaels are continuing the la tene culture and that because of this they are Celts.

You say that Gaels aren't Celts as if that's common knowledge, when the exact opposite is what's true.
It is not common knowledge, just commonly accepted opinion.
 
Lebrok

What are you proving dude, that the word was translated to other languages? What about Germanic Triglaus?

Do you know anything about development of German language from Slavic languages? Here is something for you to ponder on:

http://ihjj.academia.edu/TPronk/Papers/1044050/The_etymology_of_Ljubljana_-_Laibach

triglaus is germanised triglav. like venceslaus is of venceslav, and stanislaus is from stanislav. In Slovenia they still say triglau. Triglav means three headed in Slavic languages. Triglaus means nothing in any Germanic language. In german it should be dreikopf.

west Pomerania, and mixed Germanic/Slavic tribes

there were never any mixed germanic - slavic tribes. west pomerania was slavic (vendish) country.

If we based science on believes we would have still lived in caves. Let's use some hard data here.

the reason why people believe that these mountains are attributed to god triglav, is because there is nothing else called triglav except god triglav.

so you say
Off course I didn't, no time for this, I did look it over though. If you want us to catch the relevant info paste it here and give us the link to the source.

but in the previous post you said
Oh please, now we are jumping to 11-12 century into Baltic coast. This research is only about shipwrecks in Baltic Coast around 1200CE. It is much to late for anonymous invasion of Ireland by Slavs, isn't it? Did Irish archaeologists find these boats around Dublin, and dated them before 10 century? We could have something relevant then.

how can you make such a statement about something you didn't even read? and now that you know that there were lots of slavic shipwrecks from before 10th century do you think that we have something relevant?

i asked you
could you please give me some examples of Celtic language?
and you reply
Yes, on your commend, I will disregard 200 years of linguistic research linking Gaelic with Celtic, and believe you.
As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages. And now you are using this made up language to define what Celts were. Don’t you see the problem with this?

i said
you don't think it is triglav. why? is it because it is too old to be slavic and just old enough to be "Celtic" and would prove that celts and slavs could be related.
and you answered
Exactly. And yes it is some sort of Triglav, but you can't link it with Slavs.
this is the problem. there is only one triglav and it is slavic or vendish or serbian god triglav. no one else in europe has a deity like this. this proves that slavs or serbs or vends or venets lived in europe 2000 years ago. And considering that only "Celts" lived on those teritories at that time it also proves that celts were slavs or at least serbs. and that is soooo not politically correct. and that is why you are refusing to see the obvious.

and here is an example of a slavic vyking ship from danish viking museum website. it is one of the ships mentioned in the book i asked you to read. And because you dont like reading here is the important bit:

In contrast to the Scandinavian finds of ships from the Viking Age, Puck 2 was largely assembled using small treenails and not iron rivets. On the stretches of coast where the population in Viking times and the early Middle Ages was predominantly Western Slavic, the use of treenails and moss as caulking was predominant in a form of ship-building which otherwise was very similar to that employed in Scandinavia.

the shipwrecks from ireland have treenails.

http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en...haeological-sources/puck-2-a-slavic-longship/
 
Last edited:
Considering that shipwrecks in Ireland are of 10+ century does not surprise me

I read the post about PUCK 2 ship,

and I think I know the answer

in 6th Century Vikings dare to run down Volga river until Crimea
They settled in Ucraine while some of them may join the Varrangian Guards
how about some Vikings kept conection with Scans or return and use that technique?

A) the time of shipwreck is 400 years after the entrance of vikings to ucraine and crimea so it is possible to have change some naval architecture customs

B) the PUCK 2 could be a prisoner ship, a ship that vikings get after a battle in east parts of Baltic

nothing proves that Puck was build by Vikings,
but how sure we are that Vikings use it?

I thing we speak about 1 kind of ship that Vikings use? or better just 1 ship ruin?
 
yetos

please read this book

http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/...ski-MA1996.pdf

you can go straight to conclusion. There were lots of ships. The available written sources talk about navel battles where Slavic fleets had hundreds of ships. The earliest shipwreck is from the 6th century. (table on page 191) The Baltic slavs had many very important ports which had been mentioned in German and Danish reports. I have to mention that this book does not contain finds from last 20 years and this is the period of increased archeological activity in the area.
 
yetos

please read this book

http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/...ski-MA1996.pdf

you can go straight to conclusion. There were lots of ships. The available written sources talk about navel battles where Slavic fleets had hundreds of ships. The earliest shipwreck is from the 6th century. (table on page 191) The Baltic slavs had many very important ports which had been mentioned in German and Danish reports. I have to mention that this book does not contain finds from last 20 years and this is the period of increased archeological activity in the area.

hRIAAAAAAIA3838G+X7YL5N7OwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==


Now lets see when Vikings enter Volga river
According to the 12th century Kievan Primary Chronicle, a group of Varangians known as the Rus' settled in Novgorod in 864, under the leadership of Rurik. Before Rurik, the Rus' might have ruled an earlier hypothetical polity. Rurik's relative Oleg conquered Kiev in 882, and established the state of Kievan Rus', which was later ruled by Ruriks descendants.[7][8] The name of the Rus' is the origin of the name Russia.
Wiki

you see Vikings enter much earlier to what is known as Slavic lands
so the connection among these 2 is obvious, meaning 2 hundred years living beside or rulling class,
Novgorod and Kiev is not clear a Slavic culture even the name rus or as attested by Greeks Ρως Roos

Besides thread is about Serbs and Celts, not Viking and Slavs,
surely you do not believe that vikings were Celts,
Although I personally believe that in Scandinavia ends the 'journey' of Getae

PS i only heard about the Puck 2 kind of ship that is after Slavic naval architecture, and not the whole kind of ships, besides the Slavic ship architecture is simmilar to Viking which for me after 2 hundred years of neighborhood it is possible an exchange of ideas.

JUST LOOK THE MAP TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT 8TH CENTURY VIKINGS

Viking_Expansion.svg


Even the above map is incorrect about Ucraine and Crimea
Since Byzantine emperor Theophilos (Greek: Θεόφιλος; 813 – 20 January 842)
is mentioning that HE SAW THE ROOS, and establish trade with them in Crimea
 
yetos


Besides thread is about Serbs and Celts, not Viking and Slavs, surely you do not believe that vikings were Celts,

no but i believe that celts and serbs vends venets slavs are the same people and that gaels and celts are not. i also believe that it was slavic vikings that brought a lot of serbian words to ireland, wales, scotland.

The Lusatian culture existed in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1300 BCE – 500 BCE) in most of today's Poland, parts of Czech Republic and Slovakia, parts of eastern Germany (where it is known as Lausitz, Latin: Lusatia) and parts ofUkraine. It covers the Periods Montelius III (early Lusatian culture) to V of the Northern-European chronological scheme.
There were close contacts with the Nordic Bronze Age, and the Scandinavian influence on Pomerania and northern Poland during this period was so considerable[1] that this region is sometimes included in the Nordic Bronze Age culture.[2]Hallstatt and La Tène influences are seen particularly in ornaments (fibulae, pins) and weapons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture


A gord is a medieval Slavic fortified settlement, also occasionally known as a burgwall or Slavic burgwall after the German name for these sites. This Proto-Slavic word (*gordъ) for town or city, later differentiated into grad (Cyrillic: град), gard,[1][2] gorod (Cyrillic: город), etc.[3][4][5] The ancient peoples were known for building wooden fortified settlements. The reconstructed Centum-satem isogloss word for such a settlement is g'herdh, gordъ, related to the Germanic *gard and *gart (as in Stuttgart etc.).
Similar strongholds were built during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages by the people of the Lusatian culture (ca. 1300 BC – 500 BC), and later in the 7th - 8th centuries CE in modern-day Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and eastern Germany. These settlements were usually founded on strategic sites such as hills, riverbanks, lake islands or peninsulas.


The helmets from the Vendel period are perhaps the most impressive grave goods from these burials.

vendel vendish slavic celtic

http://archeurope.com/index.php?page=vendel-helmets


Valsgärde or Vallsgärde is a farm on the Fyris river, about three kilometres north of Gamla Uppsala, the ancient centre of the Swedish kings and of the pagan faith in Sweden.

valsgarde vals garde (garde slavic fortified town in sweden)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsgärde


After the Slavic migrations, the eastern area of modern Holstein was inhabited by Slavic Wagrians (Vagri) subgroup of Obotrites(Obotritae).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Schleswig-Holstein




Nordalbingia and Wagria in 8th century-9th century


Apart from northern Holstein and Schleswig inhabited by Danes there were Nordalbingia and Wagria in respectively, Western and Easterm Holstein.
Nordalbingia (German: Nordalbingien, i.e. land north of the Elbe river) was one of the four administrative regions of the medieval Duchy of Saxony, the others being Angria, Eastphalia, and Westphalia. Nordalbingia consisted of four districts: Dithmarschen, Holstein, Stormarn (north of the Elbe) and Hadeln (south of the Elbe).
The Wagri, Wagiri, or Wagrians were a tribe of Polabian Slavs inhabiting Wagria, or eastern Holstein in northern Germany, from the ninth to twelfth centuries. They were a constituent tribe of the Obodrite confederacy.


There was a legend that Swedish Vikings established Russia ( Novgorod) but it has been proven long ago by Russian historians (like Rybakov and others) to be completely false. Germanic tribe Rus never existed.


New genetic studies by Roewer at al. 2008 confirmed that Rybakov was right. Germanic haplogroups are not present in Novogrod (there is nothing in Ukraine too). From this paper you will also learn who the Russians are and how distant the Finns are:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...6/?tool=pubmed


Here you can find Excel files with data for Novogrod:


http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/top...plotypes-data/


I1 is 2.5% (1/40) and probably Polish or Baltic, R1b1b2 is 5% (2/40) and probably Armenian or Jewish. No trace of Germanic people in Novogrod.


Rus were excellent horse riders and warriors and were using Sarmatian Coast of arms ‘tamygas’. West Slavic tribe Wagrians is considered to be the Rus by some. Wends were ruling on Baltic Sea then and it was called Wends Sea by contemporary writers so they could come with some help for Slavic brothers. I read somewhere that Novogrod and Tver areas are very close to Poland genetically, Fst lower than 0.002, so this would make sense.


Vikings were merchants or sea robbers and didn’t ride horses, they were fighting on foot. How could they match Slavic Sarmatian, Scythian or Wendic horse mounted warriors. Wends defeated Saxons on many occasions and here is link where you can learn what Anglo-Saxons were doing with Vikings when they caught some:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ution-pit.html


int the book i asked you to read


http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/...ski-MA1996.pdf


there is a mention of slavic vikings using transporting horses and usig cavalery in the attack on Denmark.


so there are your varangians and rus.
 
Looks like three headed deities were not that seldom in Europe.
Here is Celtic god Lugus
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianLugii.htm

Greek, Trivia-Hekate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity

Second century BCE from Ireland
This is a three-faced head from Corleck, Co. Cavan in Ireland, just over 12 inches in height.
Triplism is an extremely common theme in ancient Celtic religion, where triple goddesses and gods are commonplace.
A number of sculptures of native triple-headed or triple-faced Celtic gods were produced in Roman Gaul, but this is the only work of this kind found in Ireland.
http://whitefiles.org/b2_h/1_celtic_museum/zcm/cm3/3_vsart.htm
Slavic Vikings must have gotten there really early. :))
Also looks like Julius Cesar was fighting Slavs in Gaul, or more precisely Serbs.

Norse horn shows 3 headed god from 5th century BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horns_of_Gallehus

It just dawn on me: Who would call an important god "Triglav"? Looks like Slavs didn't know the name of this Celtic or Germanic god found in West Pomerania, so they called it Triglav. Same might have happened wherever Slavs found Celtic 3 headed statues, like in Balkans.
Honestly, what would you call a three headed statue that you would have found? How would you describe it to others?
God Swiatowit, is function descriptive, 4 faced Swiatowid looks in 4 directions to see the whole world (swiato-world, wid-see). It is not Fourglav or something in this regard.
But Triglav, what did it do? Slavs didn't know, that's why it is just Triglav!
 
keegah

There is no such a thing as Celtic language. The term “Celtic” languages is used for Gaelic languages because people from UK and Ireland were the first people identified as “Celtic” so the logic was their languages must be “Celtic” languages.

Hrm... no. The term "Celtic" is derived from the term "Keltoi", which was used by the ancient Greeks to refer to a group of continental European tribes with a common culture. The Romans went on to use it to refer to the Gauls, and eventually the Celtiberians. The term wasn't originally used to refer specifically to Insular Celts - that is, the Brythons and, yes, the Gaels.

No problem with that. Gaelic languages have some Serbian words in them but Serbian is not a Gaelic language. As to how and when did these words came into Gaelic languages, this is one of the things that i am trying to discovere. Slavic vykings could be one of the posibilities.

As multiple people have told you, there being words cognate to each other in Gaelic and Serbian could easily be explained by them having a common ancestor in the original Indo-European language. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Slavs to say whether or not there was any cultural or linguistic exchange between those peoples and the Gaels, but it's irrelevant. You can find cognates in several different languages that have no close relationship to each other.

As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages.

Here's the problem - you build your arguments off of a statement that you have yet to prove, and goes against years upon years of established research. "No Celtic language has ever been found"? They don't need to be found, they're still alive. The living Celtic languages include Irish, Scottish (Gaelic), Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. The last three are Brythonic Celtic languages, the first three are Goidelic Celtic languages. Since those six languages are still living today, there have been plenty of opportunities to compare and find similarities between them, contrary to what you say. As a result, after years of linguistic research, we know that there exist common qualities between, say, Irish and Welsh, that differentiate them from other Indo-European languages such as, say, Serbian. You have yet to successfully explain why all of that research should be ignored.

There a lots of reasons and one of them is that Irish themselves never call themselves Celts or Valahi.

Like I explained before, the term "Celt" or "Keltoi" was a Greek term. It may have been derived from the name a Continental Celtic tribe called itself, but we don't know - and it is totally irrelevant. The Picts never would have called themselves Picts either, that was simply a Latin term the Romans used to describe the Celtic peoples living in Northern Scotland, who according to the Romans were a people distinct from the other Brythonic Celts down South. We do not know the name the Picts used to describe themselves - so we just use the already established term. By your logic, because we know they never would have called themselves Picts - and we have no name for them other than Picts - those people never existed.

Nothing about Celts is easy.

No, there are few things about Celts that are easy. But some things are. The fact of their historical existence is one.

Here you are using circular logic. As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages. And now you are using this made up language to define what Celts were. Don’t you see the problem with this?

Repeating to yourself that no Celtic languages have ever been found will not make it true. You're getting hung up on terminology, when the terminology is just for convenience's sake. We could call the Celts anything we wanted to call them. As long as the term was unique to those people and we were consistent, it would still be a perfectly valid term. Do me a favor. Before you make any more arguments that the Gaels are not Celts - or, even better, that the Celts are an imaginary people, and that the existence of a distinct Celtic branch of the Indo-European language family is a total fabrication, prove it. Read up on the Celtic languages, read up on Welsh and Scottish and Irish, and then present a cogent and well-documented argument on why the Celtic languages are not real. You're going against years of research here, so make sure you're thorough.

There is a debate who the la tene people were. Again the objects from la tene culture did not have mark “made by Celts”. We decided to call them Celtic. Funnily enough, very little of la tene type artifacts has ever been found in brittish isles. You would expect a cultural continuation between the central Europe and the brittish isles but it does not exist. So you can not say that the Gaels are continuing the la tene culture and that because of this they are Celts.

Again with the terminology. The tenets of La Tène artwork - spirals and interlace - are seen everywhere in historical Irish artwork. When you merge La Tène artwork with ancient Germanic artwork, reflecting Anglo-Saxon influence, it creates what we now call the Celtic art style.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. It isn't enough to keep saying that Celtic languages have never been discovered, when so much research says otherwise. Prove it.
 
You have it backward Dublin. It was like this:
We all know that there was a big ship building industry in Ireland by 10th century, or earlier. It means that Celts learned from Vikings how to build ships by that time. By 10 century, at the peak of their power, they invaded Baltic Coast and Started their communities.
It very simply explains why their 3 faced god, Slavs called just Triglav, showed up in the slavic coastal area. Also it explains why similar ships were found in Pomerania and Ireland. When we have so much evidence, we can conclude that Volinians and west Pomeranian spoke Celtic/Irish language till probably 14th century.
Nobody had heard Volinians speaking Slavic or Germanic tongue, there is no record of it, therefore in lights of other artifacts, it is easy to conclude that they spoke Celtic-Irish language. If some ancient historians said it was Wendic or Slavic they, easily confused them as such, because they didn't speak celtic or slavic. As you very well know they are the same!
As you know Dublin, Slavic same as Celtic was only assumed and reconstructed as a mother language of modern varieties, right?
Nobody speaks Slavic, there is Serb, Bulgarian, Polish, Russian but there is no Slavic language. All written, supposedly slavic records, are not slavic. First writings were in Bulgarian, Moravian, Serb, Czech, Polish and Russian. Again, there are no records in Slavic! So, how can we say that it existed?

We have Greek and Roman records about Celtus or Keltoi roaming around Europe from 500 BC. Thousands of Celtic experts who analyzed Celtic language and dialects, for last 200 years, concluded this:
Knowledge of Gaulish derives form a number of sources: the few Gaulish loanwords in French; Gaulish words, personal and tribal names, and toponyms, in Greek and Latin sources; and most importantly, the hundreds of Gaulish inscriptions. Many inscriptions consist of only a few words (often names) in rote phrases, and many are fragmentary.[4][5] They provide us with some evidence for morphology and better evidence for personal and mythological names. Occasionally, marked surface clausal configurations provide some evidence of a more formal, or poetic, register.
The earliest Continental Celtic inscriptions, dating to as early as the 6th century BC, are in Lepontic, found in Cisalpine Gaul, and were written in a form of the Old Italic alphabet. Inscriptions in the Greek alphabet dating from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD have been found mainly in the Rhône delta, while later inscriptions dating to Roman Gaul are mostly in the Latin alphabet and were found principally in central France.
Gaulish is a P-Celtic language, though some inscriptions (e.g. the Coligny Calendar) potentially show Q-Celtic characteristics (however, this is a matter of debate among Celticists). Gaulish has a very close relationship to Insular Celtic (Goidelic and Brythonic), and many forms are identical in the two[citation needed]. Epigraphical remains have been uncovered across all of what used to be Roman Gaul, which covered modern France, as well as parts of Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Belgium.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language

On the other hand we have amateur historian and linguist Dublin claiming that Celts didn't exist, they were just Serbs! On bases of Triglav (popular in whole Europe), viking like ships used by Odobrites, few IE similarities of slavic to celtic, word Dublin, and a big dose of Slavic/Serb nationalistic feelings!

Please dude, do you realize how ridiculous your position is!!!


Let me point you to simple logic:
Romans fought and traded with Gauls and other celtus for few hundred years. They captured each other as slaves, they had many translators and political contacts, etc, etc. So, during this long time including Julius Cesar campaign, nobody from Celts made the record straight and said to Romans: "Actually, we are not Celts, we are Serbs, we are Slavs"?
 
valsgarde vals garde (garde slavic fortified town in sweden)
This is a prime example how confusing the terminology or rather classification is for you.
Gherdh - Indo-European
Gard, Garde - Germanic
Gord, Grod, Gorod - Slavic
Now, if you care, you can edit your post. Unless you claim that germanic as celtic doesn't exist.
 
@dublin

You need to read - Making of the Slavs by Florin Curta , a recent book

I have a question , what where then the people whose tribes departed east germany and poland and invaded, the balkans, italy, austria, france, spain, portugal and north Africa.
I am talking about the goths, burgundians, lombards, rugii, heruli, vandals, gepids etc etc etc ..........

below is a small sample of the book
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00052915.pdf


counter arguement for the above
[url]http://www.unibuc.ro/uploads_en/29535/28/Slavs_Marginalia_EN.pdf

[/URL]
 
lebrok and others

thanks for the links. i will respond after i read it all.
 
lebrok

romans fought and traded with Gauls and other celtus for few hundred years. They captured each other as slaves, they had many translators and political contacts, etc, etc. So, during this long time including Julius Cesar campaign, nobody from Celts made the record straight and said to Romans: "Actually, we are not Celts, we are Serbs, we are Slavs"?

Slavs were never a nation. They are a race. They never did and they still don’t call themselves Slavs. In the past they called themselves by their tribal (family, clan) name. Today they call themselves Polish, Serbs, Croats which is a teritorial name, but within the countries they still use tribal regional and clan names (at least in the Balkans)... Other peoples called Slavs many different names. Sometimes they used their tribal name, sometimes their territorial name, sometimes they called them Slavs and sometimes they called them Thracians and Celts.
Look at Germans. Serbs call them Nemci, French call them alemani, and they call themselves Deutsch.
 
lebrok



Slavs were never a nation. They are a race. They never did and they still don’t call themselves Slavs. In the past they called themselves by their tribal (family, clan) name. Today they call themselves Polish, Serbs, Croats which is a teritorial name, but within the countries they still use tribal regional and clan names (at least in the Balkans)... Other peoples called Slavs many different names. Sometimes they used their tribal name, sometimes their territorial name, sometimes they called them Slavs and sometimes they called them Thracians and Celts.
Look at Germans. Serbs call them Nemci, French call them alemani, and they call themselves Deutsch.
You're going against your own logic here. Earlier you attempted to use the fact that the Gaels never called themselves Celts to defend your belief that the Gaels weren't Celts. However, here you try to defend your arguments by claiming that the Slavs never called themselves Slavs - yet you don't seem to be questioning their existence, which is what your earlier line of reasoning would suggest. If the Gaels never called themselves Celts, and therefore were not Celts, then surely that must mean that the Poles, Serbs and Croats were not Slavs either, since they never referred to themselves by that name?

You must be able to see how warped your logic is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 231518 times.

Back
Top