PDA

View Full Version : Historical facts



Maciamo
06-08-07, 19:34
The concept of this thread is to cite a few interesting or surprising historical facts about any period of history.


- Charlemagne

Roland and Ronceveaux

Contrarily to idées reçues, it was not the Muslims of Spain who defeated the troops of Charlemagne at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Roncevaux_Pass), but the Basque people. Charlemagne had in fact been invited by the wali of Barcelona, Sulaiman Ibn Yakzan Ibn al-Arabi,, to help him fight the Emir of Cordoba. Very unusually for this time of deep religious conviction, the lord protector of Christianity was helping Muslim governor against its own Muslim prince.

The battle became famous through the Song of Roland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Roland), composed centuries later. Because of this song, there is a common misconception that Roland (who died in the battle) was the nephew of Charlemagne. This isn't true. They were not even related. Roland (or Hruoland, in fact) was the governor of Brittany.

Emperor

It is not known whether Charlemagne planned his coronation as Emperor of the Occident. It is more likely that Pope Leo III crowned him emperor to his own surprise, so as to make of the Frankish leader the official protector of the Church. The records mention him as "Roman Emperor", and Charlemagne was indeed seen as the heir of the Western Roman Empire by both the Catholic Church and by the Muslim world. Only the Byzantines refused to ackowledge him as such, as they saw him as a rival to their own power.


- French Revolution

The Bastille

14 July 1789 is one of the most important dates in French history. It is when the Parisian populace took the Bastille, marking the real start of the French Revolution. The Bastille was an enormous prison seen as the symbol of totalitarian power and arbitrary justice. What few people know, and few people knew even at the time, is that the Bastille was almost empty. It had only 4 prisoners, all petty criminals, and not a single political prisoners. Far from being a hellish place with prisoners attached by chains in dark and humid cells, the cells we actually quite spacious and comfortable. One prisoner reported that the food was not bad and that he could get as much paper and ink as he wanted to write. The prison even had a nice library !

The Terror

The practice of displaying severed heads on top of a pike or pitchfork started with the French Revolution. The governor of the Bastille was one of the first victims of this macabre practice.

During the Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror) (September 1793 to July 1794), 18,500 to 40,000 people died, including about 16,000 guillotined.

Maciamo
15-08-07, 19:14
- Ancient Europe

Wine

The Greeks and Romans put water in their wine. The Celts didn't, which was seen as a barbaric practice by the Gallo-Romans.

Human sacrifices

The Celts practised human sacrifice to the gods, typically near water (lake, river, spring). They also decapitated the defeated after a battle, took the heads back home as trophies, and exposed the headless bodies hanging on wooden frames.

Sometimes, they replaced humans by huge amphoras of wine, and simulated the decapitation by cutting off the top of the amphora with a sword. The spilling wine would represent the blood.

Celtic culture vs genes

A common Celtic culture originating from the south-west of Germany spread to half of Europe, to the British Isles, around France, Switzerland and southern Germany, in northern Spain, and as far as Anatolia via the Danube region. They spoke a similar language, shared a same religion and beliefs, had traditions, the same arts and techniques.

However, DNA tests have not been able to find any common genes between the various areas once settled by the Celts, which leads to think that the cultures spread across a variety of ethnic groups.

The Romans did not refer to the Britons as Celts, probably because they looked different to them. For instance, continental Celts buried their war leaders with their chariots, a tradition virtually unknown in Celtic Britain.

Celtic technology

Before the Roman Conquest, the Celts were as developed as the Greeks and Romans. They invented the chainmail, and had swords and shield at least as strong as the Romans. The decoration of the weapons, chariots and artifacts was superior to those of many Mediterranean cultures.

The Celts traded actively with the Mediterranean world, exchanging notably their iron tools and weapons for wine and pottery.

Their defeat against the Romans was mainly due to the fact that they were disunited against the Roman ennemy, and victims of internal tribal struggles. Well before Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the Celts had plundered Rome (390 BCE), and sacked Delphi (279 BCE).

Maciamo
23-08-07, 20:07
Catholic saints are typically depicted with an aureola above the head. Originally the aureola had no religious meaning; it was just a disk place above sculptures to protect them from pigeons' defecations. It is only later that it was associated with the protection of the Holy Ghost.

Maciamo
18-10-07, 00:01
Celtic technology and wealth

Recent studies have shown that the Celts were more advanced than the Romans in some scientific and economic aspects. Pre-Roman Celtic calendars were much more accurate than the Roman one. In fact, they were possibly more accurate than the Gregorian calendar in use nowadays.

The Celts were also immensely rich. We now know that Julius Caesar's main reason to conquer Gaul was to lay hands on Celtic gold. Over 400 Celtic gold mines were found in France alone. The Romans had little gold on their home territory, so the conquest of Gaul was a tremendous boost to their power. This is what allowed Julius Caesar to become so powerful politically - more than the generals who conquered any other part of the Roman Empire. It is estimated that Caesar massacred 1 out of 10 million of Celts in Gaul, and put another million into slavery. In modern terms, this would be called a genocide.

The Celts also preempted the Romans in their construction of a road network across the European continent. The Celtic world was very decentralised compared to the Roman one, but at least a dozen Celtic towns possessed high stone walls rivalling those of Rome at the time. The longest were 5km long.

Ancient Celtic society gave much more freedom and power to women than the Greeks and Romans did. Greco-Roman housewives were prohibited to do business and mostly sequestrated in their home under the supervision of male family members. Celtic women could sometimes become powerful tribe leaders.

Maciamo
22-08-08, 18:20
The Vandals

Nowadays the term "vandalism" means "wantonly destructive act". The term comes from the name of the East Germanic tribe that was pushed by the Huns into the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, and that finally settled in North Africa.

But were these people really so violent or barbaric to deserve to be remembered the way they are ? Many historians now believe that it was not the case.

It is true that the arrival of over a hundred thousands Vandals in Gaul caused great upheaval, as can be expected from such a large population movement inside a foreign land. This was not specific to the Vandals, but to any invaders. The Vandals did not have the choice, and pay a heavy price for escaping from the Huns. The allied Frankish and Roman armies killed one third of their population, who escaped southward. The Vandals were then attacked by the Visigoths in south-west France, and moved to Spain.

Despite being Christians, the Romans hated the Vandals more than the pagans. The reason is that the Vandals were not adept of Catholicism but Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism), a version of Christianity ruled as heretic by Rome in 325.

Unable to remain peacefully in southern Spain (in Andalusia, which was probably named after the Vandals), King Geiseric ordered the construction of hundreds of ships and led his people across the Mediterranean to North Africa, then the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire. The Romans were completely taken aback by this move, so that the Vandals did not meet any resistance in this prosperous, peaceful and remote part of the empire. They advanced as far as Carthage, one of the most important cities in the empire, and took the city without a fight.

Contrarily to popular beliefs, the Vandals did not destroy the cities they took, but preserved them and ruled peacefully over them. Many North Africans displeased with the corrupt Roman administration even greeted the new Vandal rule.

Geiseric gave freedom of religion to the Catholics, while insisting that the regime's elite follow Arianism. The common folk had low taxes under his reign, as most of the tax pressure was on the rich Roman families and the Catholic clergy.

It is interesting to note that the incidence of fair hair and eyes is still more common in some pockets of North Africa (e.g. at the border of Morocco and Algeria => see maps (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml#hair_colour)) than in southern Europe, due to Vandal settlements.

The only event that would have earned the Vandals their bad reputation is the sack of Rome in 455. The Vandals had previously signed a peace treaty with Emperor Valentinian III, who offered his daughter's hand in marriage to Geiseric's son. The assassination of Valentinian III by Petronius Maximus to usurp the throne caused Geiseric to bring his troops to Rome to avenge his father-in-law. Although they did pillage Rome, the Vandals did not destroy any building, as requested by Pope Leo I.

Although the Roman Empire disappeared, the Catholic Church continued to exist and prospered afterwards. As heir of the Christian Roman Empire, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church rewrote history from its biased point of view, describing the Vandals as destructive barbarians. Historians are now rediscovering that the Vandalic rule in North Africa was in fact one of exemplary rule (compared to the power in Rome at the time, at least) and refinement in the arts, such as poetry.

Maciamo
21-03-09, 00:39
A 9th-century Pope is said to have been a woman under the name of John (or Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)). She is said to have fooled everyone by wearing men's clothing. She got busted when she got pregnant and gave birth in the street while wearing her papal garments. The Catholic Church now refutes the existence of Pope Joan as a lie invented by heretics to discredit the Church. What else could they say ?

LearningSign
15-09-09, 21:21
Wow that's nice!!

Maciamo
13-12-09, 13:26
I would like to cast away a few common historical misconceptions here.

The Spanish colonisation of the Americas

Contrarily to what many people think, it took a long time (many centuries) for the Spaniards to convert the native Amerindian population to Christianity and to establish Spanish as the dominant language. Although the Spaniards set out immediately to convert the locals, the language barrier was immense. There were approximately 2000 languages in the Americas around 1500, and 493 were studied by Spanish linguists. In the 16th century, missionaries had no other choice but to learn Amerindian languages if they had any chance to spread their faith effectively.

The linguistic conversion took even longer, and is far from complete to this day. There are still 6 million Mexicans who speak indigenous languages, and over 10 million Quechua speakers in the former Inca empire, although these were two of the first regions to be conquered by the Spaniards.

The Spanish language spread little by little through the Spanish-born administrators of the colonies, through the work of missionaries and schooling, but most importantly through inter-racial marriages. A popular image of the Spanish colonists is that of the blood-thirsty conquistador who massacred natives who refused to accept the Bible or Spanish dominion. Although true in some places during some decades,, this phenomenon has been vastly exaggerated. In fact, the Spaniards were much more likely to take native brides and recognise their offspring from such unions than the English, French or Dutch colonists. Almost all of the famous conquistadors took Amerindian wives and had mestizo children (e.g. Cortes, Pizarro, Alvarado, Benalcazar).

This was a common practice among Spanish colonists because the Spanish immigrants were overwhelmingly male, but also because it was seen as an acceptable practice. This is why Latin America has so much more mestizos than the former British colonies, anywhere in the world. It was this way that the Spanish language spread, more than by any other way, before the advent of compulsory education in the 20th century. Had the Spaniards refused to intermarry with the natives, Spanish might well have not survived the independence of the colonies. Spanish was indeed quickly forgotten in the Pacific colonies ceded to the United States in 1898 (namely the Philippines, Guam and the Marianas), a sure sign that the language was not yet established after 300 years of colonisation. The same thing happened with Dutch in Indonesia.


Is Japan really an old civilisation ?

I often hear Americans say that Japan and China are such an old civilisations, with thousands of years of history. I have explained (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43752) earlier than China is not as old a civilisation as is often thought. Let's concentrate on Japan here.

Firstly, it is arguable whether Japan is a civilisation at all. It should be considered part of the Chinese Civilisation (or in more politically correct way, "East Asian Civilisation") as everything required to acquire the status of civilisation (agriculture, writing) ultimately came from China (some via Korea).

The Japanese culture developed very late by Eurasia standards. Agriculture didn't reach Japan until about 1000 BCE (in Kyushu), did not become intensive until the Yayoi period (500 BCE-300 CE) and didn't spread to the north of Honshu and Hokkaido until the Edo period (1603-1868). Writing was not formally adopted by the Japanese until about year 500, in the form of Chinese characters. This is also when the first organised governments emerged, around Nara (from 456), until the first permanent capital was established in present-day Kyoto in 794.

In every regard Japan is a young country and a young culture. Agriculture in Mesoamerica started 10,000 years ago (like in the Near East), and had become intensive 7,000 years ago, preceding Japan by about 5,000 years. The Maya and the Zapotec had already built an elaborate empire and flourished by the time the Yamato people unified and established their first capital. Yet, Central American civilisations are seen as recent by Eurasian standards. Their apogee came a thousand years after the zenith of Classical Greece, and 3,000 years after the Great Egyptian Pyramids, to which the Maya pyramids are often (always ?) compared.

Let's now compare Japan to supposedly "younger" parts of Europe, like Britain or Germany. Agriculture reached Germany 6,500 years ago, Britain 5,000 years ago, and Japan 3,000 years ago. Writing was commonly used 2000 years ago in Roman Britain and Germania, although it had been in use before occasionally. The Japanese also imported their script from their powerful neighbours, but were forced to adapt it to their very different grammar and phonetics. Developed around 800 CE, the Japanese Kana syllabaries took a few centuries to become established. It can be said without exaggerating that Japanese language could not be written properly until about 1000 years after Celtic and Germanic languages.

LeBrok
13-12-09, 19:10
Catholic saints are typically depicted with an aureola above the head. Originally the aureola had no religious meaning; it was just a disk place above sculptures to protect them from pigeons' defecations. It is only later that it was associated with the protection of the Holy Ghost.

Aureola most likely was invented few times through history. Was always used as a symbol of importance and holiness. Even ancient Egyptians use it in some form.
Here is a brief history of aureola.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)

At some point someone tilted it over a head of statue and invented a second meaning (double use) for halo, as protection against pigeons poop.

LeBrok
13-12-09, 19:21
- French Revolution

The Bastille

14 July 1789 is one of the most important dates in French history. It is when the Parisian populace took the Bastille, marking the real start of the French Revolution. The Bastille was an enormous prison seen as the symbol of totalitarian power and arbitrary justice. What few people know, and few people knew even at the time, is that the Bastille was almost empty. It had only 4 prisoners, all petty criminals, and not a single political prisoners. Far from being a hellish place with prisoners attached by chains in dark and humid cells, the cells we actually quite spacious and comfortable. One prisoner reported that the food was not bad and that he could get as much paper and ink as he wanted to write. The prison even had a nice library !

.

lol, yep, the Bastille was a prison for elite, the upper class. As you mentioned they were kept in great living conditions. I think the people attacked Bastille because of a weapon and food cash located there, for small garrison of soldiers and high class prisoners.

LeBrok
13-12-09, 19:32
A 9th-century Pope is said to have been a woman under the name of John (or Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)). She is said to have fooled everyone by wearing men's clothing. She got busted when she got pregnant and gave birth in the street while wearing her papal garments. The Catholic Church now refutes the existence of Pope Joan as a lie invented by heretics to discredit the Church. What else could they say ?

My common sense radar is telling me it's not truth.
If it were, the Vatican officials and top bishops would be so ashamed (at the time) that the last thing they would want is the truth to get out. The female pope would die "naturally during the sleep at night", and new pope would be elected soon after. The end of story. What happens in Vatican, stays in Vatican.
What the bishops gain by exposing the truth to the public? To show how blind and stupid they were?
For her to give birth in the street still in papal cloths, not plausible, conspiracy theory like.

JPtoEurope
07-01-10, 19:14
@Maciamo

I read your post about the china,
(replace ** by WW)
**w.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43752
very good, a perfect demonstration against a legend.

And about historical link to mesopotamia to Europe, exist this exellent site creat by a serious historian, without (on the face of it) politic leanings
**w.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/neolithic.shtml

And personally I would say rather "link to north Eurasia to mésopotamia...". Because the white skins is a spécificity of North peoples (because climate of course) and so, they come of the North, not of the South in first. If this had been a flow South > North, skin peoples of the Middle East would have been rather black than white. But deserts have played in reducing the flow from that direction.

Off course a lot things come of Mesopotamia (agriculture, first civilisations,etc), but where did the Sumerians? for example? And, on the face of it, they are not Semites, knowing that in this region there were only Europeans or Semites peoples... And the white skin and appearance of Egyptians? And the general white skins of those regions? Of North definitely. Well before the demographic/cultural/linguistic/civilization emergence of Indo-Europeans. Of proto-Indo-Europeans? Maybe... But but we shall call simply them "North Eurasia peoples".

Regards

Maciamo
13-02-10, 14:34
How the Europeans helped spread American and Asian languages

The Europeans did not only spread their own languages in their colonies, but also contributed to the survival and expansion of some native languages. It took over three centuries for the Spaniards and Portuguese to diffuse Spanish and Portuguese around all their American colonies. In the meantime they relied on well-established native tongues as lingua franca. Christianity was spread principally though native Amerindian languages, not in Spanish or Portuguese. The languages that benefited the most of their alliance with the new colonists are Quechua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua) in the Andes, Guarani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tup%C3%AD-Guaran%C3%AD_languages) (and the closely related Tupinamba) in Paraguay and Brazil, and Nahuatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl) in Mexico. All three are still spoken and owe their survival (as opposed to many other native tongues) to their role in colonial history.

The Dutch failed to propagate their language in their worldwide colonies, except in South Africa where they settled in large numbers. The Dutch took over most of the Portuguese colonies in Asia. Portugal and Spain were united under a single monarchy between 1580 and 1640, when the Dutch proclaimed their independence from Spain and captured the Portuguese trading posts in Asia. Such was the Dutch animosity towards the Iberians that they preferred using the completely alien tongues of the indigenes as lingua franca than to resort to using Portuguese, which was already widely understood by Asian traders. This is how Bahasa Melayu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahasa_Melayu) (Malay) became the dominant language in Indonesia, under 300 years of Dutch rule. It is now the official and most spoken language in both Malaysia and Indonesia.

transmitter
15-02-10, 01:36
Celts were assimilated by Romans and then by Germans .

Before the Roman Conquest, the Celts were as developed as the Greeks....:annoyed:
Where are the ancient cities of Celts? The temples? Sculptures?
They were not like the Greeks or Romans.
Roads, science, architecture, sculpture, art of war, philosophy, = Greece or Rome.
Greece is the mother of Europe. Greece>>>> Romans>>> Celts, Germans.
We can say that their languages have been deleted from Europe ...
Currently the Anglo-Saxons have half the world. Maybe I exaggerate ...
Germans destroyed the Roman Empire and then they founded kingdoms in Europe.
Their Kings possessed Europe for years
i think the Irish are the real Celts who were not assimilated.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Celtic_Nations.svg

^ lynx ^
30-09-10, 02:16
Such a good thread needs to be bumped. :good_job:

Carlitos
30-09-10, 03:47
Omar ibn HafsĂșn


Origins

HafsĂșn Ben Omar was born in the region Parauta, Spanish town located east of the province of Malaga, Andalusia, Genal Valley, one of the stocks that make up the region of the Sierra de Ronda, probably in the place known The Torrepilla "Parauta people today, in a family of aristocratic landowners Muslims of Gothic, one of whose grandparents had converted to Islam. Thus, by birth was muladĂ­ Omar (name given to the descendants of Hispanic converts to Islam Goths) was not Mozarabic (those of Spanish-Goths who remained Christians), despite his conversion to Islam; time from which may be referred to convert (from an Islamic perspective) or Renegade (from a Christian perspective).

According to historian D. Isidro Garcia CigĂŒenza, the origin of the name of Omar was Hafs and it added the term "one" that was distinctive among the Arab nobility, being set HafsĂșn surname.

Omar's mother does not know anything, the father know that he died under the claws of a bear, and his brothers, one named Ayyub and the other Ya `far. Born in the house that her parents were in the village of Parauta, near Ronda, although this statement about his birthplace into discussion with the neighbors for purely topographical JĂșzcar: the farmhouse was known as the farmstead and Torrichela found near the castle AUTH, which is now known as Parauta, currently owned at the end of JĂșzcar, hence the controversy.

Life as a fugitive

The origin of how Omar became a rebel, as recorded by the writer Jorge Alonso Garcia, is an incident that happened when he discovered that a Berber shepherd was stealing his grandfather's cattle, Ya `far ibn Salim. Omar confronted him, killing him. After the murder, Omar went into hiding in the mountains of Alto Guadalhorce (Los Gaitanes), taking refuge in the ruins of an old castle that will be the impregnable Bobastro, since he knew he would be persecuted by vigilantes Berbers.

With other fugitive as he began to steal the hearts of Rayya and Takoronna until he was captured by the wali of Malaga, which, ignoring the murder, just hit. He decided to escape to North Africa, settling in as an apprentice tailor Tahart until, encouraged by another muladĂ­ decided to return in 880 taking advantage of the growing internal chaos of Al-Andalus.

Lordship of Bobastro

With the support of his uncle Muhad brought together a game of Mozarabic and even Berbers muladĂ­es unhappy with the ruling Arab aristocracy, and showing signs of what later would be tested in many battles, that is their great feats of military strategist Omar, as a first step to strengthen and improve the defenses of the castle Bobastro in the northern province of Malaga, making it virtually impregnable, as show over more than forty years resisted the stakes of the Umayyads.

His hosts were very powerful and numerous, and fought bravely in clear defiance against the power of the emirs of CĂłrdoba. His soldiers affectionately called him "Captain of the big nose." Wherever he went, people cheered Omar and his men, so the Emir of CĂłrdoba, Muhammad I forgave him and took him as a bodyguard for his service with General Hashim ibn Abd al-Aziz took part in fierce battles , like Pancorbo, where he demonstrated his bravery against the enemy.

But far from obtaining recognition of their worth and that of his men, Omar was belittled and insulted by high representatives of the emirate, even to a lack of food or, failing that, when it did arrive, it did not meet the minimum conditions. Rebelling against the emir, conquered a large territory.

Omar military supremacy showed unstoppable this great military deployment took him to grab strengths and AUTH, Comares and Mijas.

Amir Al-Mundhir, son of Muhammad, he sent his army, but only recovered IznĂĄjar, at 888, so the emir in person decides to go in front of his troops and lay siege where muladĂ­es Archidona surrender Mozarabic defenders being executed. The same applies Priego is also recovered by the Umayyads.

After these victories the emir Bobastro besieged, Ibn causing HafsĂșn sign a pact with the king to surrender in exchange for amnesty, but broke the truce when the emir and retired, so he returned to Al-Mundir siege sick and dying, was succeeded by his brother Abdallah.

During the emirate of internal rebellions Abdallah Al-Andalus followed, Omar ben HafsĂșn took the opportunity to sign alliances with other rebels and take Estepa, Osuna and Ecija in 889, conquering Baena massacring its supporters for what the rest Priego SubbĂ©tica of surrender without a fight and his troops made raids near the capital, CĂłrdoba. It was a big state, from Elvira and Jaen in the west and east to the region of Seville, and as far as Cordoba.

At the height of his power, Omar Ben HafsĂșn dominated provinces of Malaga and Granada (where the emirate had to recognize officially as governor) and had close relations with rebels in JaĂ©n. In their struggle against the Umayyads supported him on all the Berbers and the Mozarabic.

He also established contacts with Ifriquiya (Tunisia, Libya), first with the Aghlabids and then the victors, who were Shiite Fatimid although the population was Sunni doctrine and Badajoz and Saragossa. At the same time a Christian bishop installed in Bobastro and built there a church converted to Christianity in the year 899, adopting the name of Samuel, and also seeking recognition of their status by the Asturian King Alfonso III.

The emirate achieved largely isolate forming a coalition with the Banu Qasi, a family in the Upper muladĂ­. Abdallah defeated him May 16 at Poley year 891 (the Arabic name of Aguilar de la Frontera, located in the southern province of CĂłrdoba) and began his decline. Supporters played down his baptism, but continued the fight from his fortress of Bobastro, until his death in 917. Your child could hold Bobastro Suleyman against Rahman III to 928. The rebellion was suppressed and HafsĂșn clan had to go into exile. His daughter, Santa Argentea, is remembered in the Catholic Church as a virgin and martyr.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_W2gUw19UEe8/S-l3PDn4n0I/AAAAAAAAACA/rj39XDKySaU/s400/P1040442.JPG
This sculpture is made of cedar and was gilded and painted, has a height of 80cm and as was done in the thirteenth century. Santa Argentea represents, in the town of Ardales (MĂĄlaga). Was blessed in May 2008.

chris eblana
17-10-10, 18:40
Celts were assimilated by Romans and then by Germans .
:annoyed:
Where are the ancient cities of Celts? The temples? Sculptures?
They were not like the Greeks or Romans.
Roads, science, architecture, sculpture, art of war, philosophy, = Greece or Rome.
Greece is the mother of Europe. Greece>>>> Romans>>> Celts, Germans.
We can say that their languages have been deleted from Europe ...
Currently the Anglo-Saxons have half the world. Maybe I exaggerate ...
Germans destroyed the Roman Empire and then they founded kingdoms in Europe.
Their Kings possessed Europe for years
i think the Irish are the real Celts who were not assimilated.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Celtic_Nations.svg


the greeks and the romans did see the celts as barbarians, because of their practices, they did though consider them great craftsmen as they were, and they were trading with them....celtic ornaments were found in ancient greece, and vice versa...there used to be a greek settlement even here in dublin and greek merchants were visiting ireland since the ancient times....in fact dublin, or a region near dublin was know to ancient greeks, and it was named as eblana...(ΔÎČλαΜα)

Regulus
14-02-11, 15:32
A 9th-century Pope is said to have been a woman under the name of John (or Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)). She is said to have fooled everyone by wearing men's clothing. She got busted when she got pregnant and gave birth in the street while wearing her papal garments. The Catholic Church now refutes the existence of Pope Joan as a lie invented by heretics to discredit the Church. What else could they say ?

The story of Pope Joan is an older myth that fairly recently has been resurrected by those who desire that females be admitted into the priesthood.
The story kind of gives itself away (I think that it was intended to do so.) when one reads about the circumstances of how she was discovered to be a woman. There are various versions, but each has her not having her "water break", but actually giving birth. Without bringing in Obstetricians for expert testimony, we can pretty safely go with stating that this type of event would be extremely rare. Anyone in that condition could have pleaded or feigned illness and confined herself to a bedroom somewhere with trusted servants. At least there would have been a chance to hide the baby then.


The point in the other post about the Basques was a good one to bring up. They had thought that they were getting support, but found out that it was more likely that they would be incorporated into the Frankish empire. That did not sit well with them.
The assault on the rear guard commanded by Roland went down in historical myth as a defense against a Moslem army. The facts are actually even more interesting me. The fiercely independent people have been able to maintain at least a degree of either independence or autonomy for most of there history.

Regulus
14-02-11, 15:40
- Ancient Europe

Celtic culture vs genes

A common Celtic culture originating from the south-west of Germany spread to half of Europe, to the British Isles, around France, Switzerland and southern Germany, in northern Spain, and as far as Anatolia via the Danube region. They spoke a similar language, shared a same religion and beliefs, had traditions, the same arts and techniques.

However, DNA tests have not been able to find any common genes between the various areas once settled by the Celts, which leads to think that the cultures spread across a variety of ethnic groups.

The Romans did not refer to the Britons as Celts, probably because they looked different to them. For instance, continental Celts buried their war leaders with their chariots, a tradition virtually unknown in Celtic Britain.

).

I am a little confused on this one. Many of the threads and posts here refer to certain DNA markers being associated with movements/settlements of Celts. The migrations of groups speaking Italo-Celtic and carrying the L21 and U152? markers have been described in great detail here.
This post seems to contradict much of what has been presented. It appears to be from the "cultural diffusion" school of thought. Was it intended to spur discussion on that subject?

Taranis
14-02-11, 19:57
I am a little confused on this one. Many of the threads and posts here refer to certain DNA markers being associated with movements/settlements of Celts. The migrations of groups speaking Italo-Celtic and carrying the L21 and U152? markers have been described in great detail here.
This post seems to contradict much of what has been presented. It appears to be from the "cultural diffusion" school of thought. Was it intended to spur discussion on that subject?

This isn't contradictionary at all. Languages and archaeological cultures can spread without a population replacement (or more broadly, spread of genetic markers). Likewise, consider that the Basques, which do not speak an Indo-European language at all are mostly R1b. On the other hand, it seems likely that the bearers of the Hallstatt / La-Tene Cultures were R1b-U152, but conversely said marker probably wasn't exlusive to them.

Also, there's the possibility (even the likelihood, see below) that the Pre-Celtic population in many areas already spoke a Italo-Celtic (or "Para-Celtic" as some people say) language, and hence easily adopted a Celtic language: we know of at least two of such languages (although they are poorly attested), namely Ligurian in southern France and northwestern Italy, and Lusitanian in western Iberia.

Regulus
14-02-11, 20:10
This isn't contradictionary at all. Languages and archaeological cultures can spread without a population replacement (or more broadly, spread of genetic markers). Likewise, consider that the Basques, which do not speak an Indo-European language at all are mostly R1b. On the other hand, it seems likely that the bearers of the Hallstatt / La-Tene Cultures were R1b-U152, but conversely said marker probably wasn't exlusive to them.

Perhaps I was not clear in my point. I had intended to stress that there has been much evidence presented on this forum in numerous threads/posts that appear to show that there was an appreciable migration of the very same people who spoke and carried that language. So it is indeed quite contradictory with those threads/posts mentioned.

As I myself have also mentioned in earlier posts, I am not, nor to my knowledge is anyone else aware of, any language ever being taken in by another people without a sizeable migration of outsiders who bring that language. The very least that is needed is a group that move into and assume some type of influential position among the native people, such as what happened to the Basques. There also have been a number of posts/threads about that topic here.


I would submit that the evidence presented in favor of an Italo-Celtic pre-language type existing in Europe prior to the migrations of people bringing that language is not only very weak, but also leaves out numerous other peoples that lived in those areas long before and had their own languages. The Ligurians themselves apear to be somewhere between the Italics and the Celts (referring to the Italo-celtic split) and are seen by many as sort of a midway point in language and culture. They were not a pre-existing people or language-speaker of a para-celtic but moved into that area in the same way as the Italo-Celts did. All these groups met peoples who lived there first, but original groups themselves did not speak these languages until actual speakers of the new languages moved in.

Taranis
14-02-11, 20:25
I would submit that the evidence presented in favor of an Italo-Celtic pre-language type existing in Europe prior to the migrations of people bringing that language is not only very weak, but also leaves out numerous other peoples that lived in those areas long before and had their own languages. The Ligurians themselves apear to be somewhere between the Italics and the Celts (referring to the Italo-celtic split) and are seen by many as sort of a midway point in language and culture. They were not a pre-existing people or language-speaker of a para-celtic but moved into that area in the same way as the Italo-Celts did. All these groups met peoples who lived there first, but original groups themselves did not speak these languages until actual speakers of the new languages moved in.

Sorry, but the Ligurians very clearly were a 'pre-existing' people (before Celtization, that is), however you have to consider the timing. The Celts invaded northern Italy only in the 6th or 5th century BC (culminating in the sacking of Rome by the Senones under Brennus). I also must add that I myself am unhappy with the term "Para-Celtic" since it is confusing.

Regulus
14-02-11, 20:39
Sorry, but the Ligurians very clearly were a 'pre-existing' people (before Celtization, that is), however you have to consider the timing. The Celts invaded northern Italy only in the 6th or 5th century BC (culminating in the sacking of Rome by the Senones under Brennus). I also must add that I myself am unhappy with the term "Para-Celtic" since it is confusing.

No sorry, that is not the case.
They may certainly have existed in some sense, but not in the manner about which we are speaking. The Ligurians may indeed have had a pre IE component, but they did not have the characteristics or language with which we are familiar until they received an appreciable IE admixture. Their battle practices mentioned by the Greeks and Romans, for example, reflect a very close image to that of the Celts. Their assimilation into the world of the Romans went even easier for them than it did for the Celts.

I did a more long-winded post than I wanted to about the same general subject about a month and a half back. Maybe it would be better for you to go to that one and take it from there. It needed a restart anyway. If you have time, look up the thread “The Italo-Celtic expansion”. I wrote out my too-long post about halfway through. Read it and come back with your position.

Taranis
14-02-11, 20:45
No sorry, that is not the case.
They may certainly have existed in some sense, but not in the manner about which we are speaking. The Ligurians may indeed have had a pre IE component, but they did not have the characteristics or language with which we are familiar until they received an appreciable IE admixture. Their battle practices mentioned by the Greeks and Romans, for example, reflect a very close image to that of the Celts. Their assimilation into the world of the Romans went even easier for them than it did for the Celts.

I did a more long-winded post than I wanted to about the same general subject about a month and a half back. Maybe it would be better for you to go to that one and take it from there. It needed a restart anyway. If you have time, look up the thread “The Italo-Celtic expansion”. I wrote out my too long post about halfway through. Read it and come back with your position.

Sorry, but at no point in any of my posts did I claim that the Ligurians had a pre-Indo-European component. However, it is clear that the Ligurians didn't speak a Celtic language, but they nonetheless spoke a language closely related with the Celtic family (and the Italic family). Neither was Lusitanian a Celtic language, though it too was closely related with the Celtic languages.

Regulus
14-02-11, 20:58
It looks like we are not that far off then. Our impasse only appears to be whether or not some type of somewhat Celtic-style language existed prior to any migrations.
Of benefit would be mentioning that, in the years prior to speaking of the movements of the Italo-Celtic group, the more common way to explain it was to have the Italics already split off and on the own and speak of the other movements as "Celto-Ligurian" in order to denote the movement of the peoples who would speak that range of tongues and be referred to by those names.
In the earlier post that I mentioned, I made my arguments against the existence of the languages that you mentioned. I submitted that those theories are a product of a sort of revisionism that that happened for the last twenty years or so.

Regulus
14-02-11, 21:01
Taranis,

I think that my post is on page 2 of "The Italo-Celtic Expansion". Go see it and have your way with me. LOL

Taranis
14-02-11, 21:11
It looks like we are not that far off then. Our impasse only appears to be whether or not some type of somewhat Celtic-style language existed prior to any migrations.
Of benefit would be mentioning that, in the years prior to speaking of the movements of the Italo-Celtic group, the more common way to explain it was to have the Italics already split off and on the own and speak of the other movements as "Celto-Ligurian" in order to denote the movement of the peoples who would speak that range of tongues and be referred to by those names.
In the earlier post that I mentioned, I made my arguments against the existence of the languages that you mentioned. I submitted that those theories are a product of a sort of revisionism that that happened for the last twenty years or so.

Sorry, but evidence that these languages existed is verymuch there. There's inscriptions of Lusitanian, and although Ligurian doesn't have any written inscriptions, there's plenty of onomastic evidence. Likewise, there's plenty of Lusitanian onomastic evidence (both in Lusitania proper, as well as in Gallaecia), showing a clear pre-Celtic evidence. For example, one unifying feature of the Celtic languages is the loss of initial P, whereas Lusitanian (similar to the Italic languages) retained the initial P.

Regulus
14-02-11, 21:18
[QUOTE=Taranis;365371]Sorry, but evidence that these languages existed is verymuch there. There's inscriptions of Lusitanian, and although Ligurian doesn't have any written inscriptions, there's plenty of onomastic evidence. Likewise, there's plenty of Lusitanian onomastic evidence (both in Lusitania proper, as well as in Gallaecia), showing a clear pre-Celtic evidence. For example, one unifying feature of the Celtic languages is the loss of initial P, whereas Lusitanian (similar to the Italic languages) retained the initial P.[/QUOTE}

Sorry, we are speaking the same language here but this should be on the other thread. You are correct in mentioning P-celtic, but there is no evidence that this was pre-existing. The language came in a number of waves, some smaller, some bigger. This happened over a number of generations, possibly contributing to the confusion of the dating of the languages. Changes happened to it for reasons such as native speaker having a hard time with certain sounds or having a different grammatical order of sentence structure.

Taranis
14-02-11, 21:33
Sorry, we are speaking the same language here but this should be on the other thread. You are correct in mentiong P-celtic, but there is no evidence that this was pre-existing. The language came in a number of waves, some smaller, some bigger. This happened over a number of generations, possibly contributing to the confusion of the dating of the languages. Changes happened to it for reasons such as native speaker having a hard time with certain sounds or having a different grammatical order of sentence structure.

Lusitanian was not a P-Celtic language. As I mentioned, the Celtic languages are defined by the loss of the initial P. For example, the Gaulish word for plain is "lanos", compare it with Latin "planum". Likewise, the Gaulish word for pig was "orcos", compare with Latin "porcum". In contrast, Lusitanian was more archaic as it didn't lose this initial P (the Lusitanian word for pig was "porcom"). Now, regarding P-Celtic languages, this is a very different beast. Proto-Celtic language lacked the morpheme "P" entirely (which is attested in primitive Irish, which was still reasonably close to Proto-Celtic), however the P-Celtic branch of the Celtic languages secondarily developed a P by turning Q into P. For instance, the Proto-Celtic word for horse was "eqos" (compare Latin "Equus"), which was rendered into "epos" in Gaulish (the cognate in modern Welsh is "ebol"). In contrast to that, the Q-Celtic languages (eg, Celtiberian and Goidelic) retained the archaic Q, which is why the modern Irish word for horse is "eoch".

Sorry, just a small lecture in linguistics here. :good_job:

Regulus
14-02-11, 21:40
Lusitanian was not a P-Celtic language. As I mentioned, the Celtic languages are defined by the loss of the initial P. For example, the Gaulish word for plain is "lanos", compare it with Latin "planum". Likewise, the Gaulish word for pig was "orcos", compare with Latin "porcum". In contrast, Lusitanian was more archaic as it didn't lose this initial P (the Lusitanian word for pig was "porcom"). Now, regarding P-Celtic languages, this is a very different beast. Proto-Celtic language lacked the morpheme "P" entirely (which is attested in primitive Irish, which was still reasonably close to Proto-Celtic), however the P-Celtic branch of the Celtic languages secondarily developed a P by turning Q into P. For instance, the Proto-Celtic word for horse was "eqos" (compare Latin "Equus"), which was rendered into "epos" in Gaulish (the cognate in modern Welsh is "ebol"). In contrast to that, the Q-Celtic languages (eg, Celtiberian and Goidelic) retained the archaic Q, which is why the modern Irish word for horse is "eoch".

Sorry, just a small lecture in linguistics here. :good_job:


Yes, also a good mention of "Q" celtic. Nice details but you are not the only one who is aware of "P" and "Q". This still does not prove what you are trying to say. You are trying to state that these predate any movements of the Italo-Celtic speakers, Celto-Ligurian speakers, or whatever else you wish to call them. You have yet to prove anything other than things with which I would agree. The things you want to prove are questioned by dating.

Taranis
14-02-11, 21:53
Yes, also a good mention of "Q" celtic. Nice details but you are not the only one who is aware of "P" and "Q". This still does not prove what you are trying to say. You are trying to state that these predate any movements of the Italo-Celtic speakers, Celto-Ligurian speakers, or whatever else you wish to call them. You have yet to prove anything other than things with which I would agree. The things you want to prove are questioned by dating.

Frankly, I'm confused by what you're trying to accuse me of. I now say for second (or possibly third?) time that I'm NOT arguing that the Lusitanian or Ligurian languages are pre-Italo-Celtic languages.

What I'm trying to say is that the expansion of the Celtic languages occured inside an Italo-Celtic-speaking context, and that the existence of Ligurian and Lusitanian is evidence for this.

Regulus
14-02-11, 21:59
Like I said, then, we are speaking the same language. I hope that you don't see me as being accusatory. I didn't want that to be the case.
I think the only difference is that I link the pre, proto, para tongues more closely to the various movements and therefore would not use the cultural diffusion explanation.

I am very sorry if I came across too hard. I won't do that again.

Regulus
14-02-11, 22:29
I think that I realized what happened - you define Celtic more narrowly, probably associating them with Halstatt and La Tene.

I go with a broader and I believe earlier opinion by using Celtic or proto- celtic also for P and Q and using specific cultural terms like those above when needed.

My post that I mentioned clears up the approach that I use.
I think that is what caused us to disagree - we did not see what each other meant by the use of a word.


sorry again.

Taranis
15-02-11, 00:15
[QUOTE=Regulus;365379]I'm not sure if a "broader" definition of "Celtic" really holds up (from the linguistic perspective, that is), at least, not without one being forced to include the Italic languages, too. Regarding Hallstatt and La-Tene, I'm not going to narrow myself down here (for instance, I've speculated that the Urnfield Culture already took place within a mostly Celtic-speaking context, though this raises the question about Catalonia, which by the 3rd century BC was firmly Iberian-speaking), but it's clear that both linguistic and cultural innovations always arrived from the east in the west, and that it is broadly possible to correlate that.

Regulus
15-02-11, 00:51
[QUOTE=Regulus;365379]I'm not sure if a "broader" definition of "Celtic" really holds up (from the linguistic perspective, that is), at least, not without one being forced to include the Italic languages, too. Regarding Hallstatt and La-Tene, I'm not going to narrow myself down here (for instance, I've speculated that the Urnfield Culture already took place within a mostly Celtic-speaking context, though this raises the question about Catalonia, which by the 3rd century BC was firmly Iberian-speaking), but it's clear that both linguistic and cultural innovations always arrived from the east in the west, and that it is broadly possible to correlate that.

At least now we know what each other is saying.
I had addressed some of my personal opinions on the use of the word Celtic in the post that I mentioned. To keep it as brief as possible here-
many today equate Celtic with Gaulish. I find that much too narrow. Keltoi first appears to be used by the Greeks, the Romans seems mostly to stick with Gauls, partly because they were from the region named after them.
Germanic refers to Low, High, and Nordic Germanics. I just think that a similar method would be most appropriate for Celts. If you have a minute, please consider taking a look at the post because I really don't feel like typing more of it. The possible meeting/merging of the Bell Beakers and the Urnfielders resulted in numerous movements at different times. At some points, the Iberians had most of Iberia. At others, proto-Celts or Celts held sway. I try to avoid leaving groups like the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish, Bretons, Galician, etc. as being sort of, as I wrote in the other post, a "Proto celtic - not otherwise specified.

Taranis
15-02-11, 01:13
[QUOTE=Taranis;365389]

At least now we know what each other is saying.
I had addressed some of my personal opinions on the use of the word Celtic in the post that I mentioned. To keep it as brief as possible here-
many today equate Celtic with Gaulish. I find that much too narrow. Keltoi first appears to be used by the Greeks, the Romans seems mostly to stick with Gauls, partly because they were from the region named after them.
Germanic refers to Low, High, and Nordic Germanics. I just think that a similar method would be most appropriate for Celts. If you have a minute, please consider taking a look at the post because I really don't feel like typing more of it. The possible meeting/merging of the Bell Beakers and the Urnfielders resulted in numerous movements at different times. At some points, the Iberians had most of Iberia. At others, proto-Celts or Celts held sway. I try to avoid leaving groups like the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish, Bretons, Galician, etc. as being sort of, as I wrote in the other post, a "Proto celtic - not otherwise specified.


Frankly, you must ask yourself a question there: who is (or who was) a Celt? From the historic context, it indeed makes sense that the 'Celts' in narrowest sense of the word were only the people whom the Greeks called "Keltoi" and the Romans called "Galli" - basically, the Gauls and their eastern relatives. It's a bit ambiguous about the Celtiberians (and there indeed seems to be a discussion in Antiquity about their identity), but it's clear that the ancient sources never considered the British or the Irish to be Celts.

This brings us to the second approach, namely the linguistic approach. The only thing that the Gauls, Britons and Irish have in common is the Celtic language family. The modern Celtic languages and their speakers, you must consider that until the 19th century, none of them considered themselves to be 'Celts', nor did they think of themselves to have a common identity. The only commonalities you have there is that Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic are part of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages, whereas Breton, Cornish and Welsh are part of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages.

Otherwise, a nitpick: the Bell-Beaker cultures and the Urnfield cultures never "met", since they were separated by many centuries...

Regulus
15-02-11, 01:48
[QUOTE=Regulus;365400]

Frankly, you must ask yourself a question there: who is (or who was) a Celt? From the historic context, it indeed makes sense that the 'Celts' in narrowest sense of the word were only the people whom the Greeks called "Keltoi" and the Romans called "Galli" - basically, the Gauls and their eastern relatives. It's a bit ambiguous about the Celtiberians (and there indeed seems to be a discussion in Antiquity about their identity), but it's clear that the ancient sources never considered the British or the Irish to be Celts.

This brings us to the second approach, namely the linguistic approach. The only thing that the Gauls, Britons and Irish have in common is the Celtic language family. The modern Celtic languages and their speakers, you must consider that until the 19th century, none of them considered themselves to be 'Celts', nor did they think of themselves to have a common identity. The only commonalities you have there is that Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic are part of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages, whereas Breton, Cornish and Welsh are part of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages.

Otherwise, a nitpick: the Bell-Beaker cultures and the Urnfield cultures never "met", since they were separated by many centuries...


That was exactly the point that I made with the post that I mentioned. From a historical or a linguistic perspective, it does not make much sense at all to narrow the term Celtic to the Gauls. Indeed there was no "celtic identity", just as there was none for the Germans or the Slavs until fairly recently, so we can't take the fact that the Irish were not holding up some type of celtic banner and say that this must mean that they were not Celts. Even today one would have to use caution in speaking of a pan- Iranian identity, language, or culture with Iranian-based language speakers who are not from modern day Iran. They don't take kindly to it.

The restricting of the term Celtic to those who inhabited Gaul just does not work, unless we come up with a new category for the others.

I also outlined the Brythonic and Goidelic branches in the same post, so again you are welcome to read and dispute it. By all means, read it and rip it apart. It is on page 3.

Also, I would stick with my position with the Bell-beaker and the Urnfielders; they did meet and merge, probably not in much of a friendly way. Some have the Bell-beakers moving east, some have them moving west, but either way the Urnfielders and they did wind up merging.
The Bell beakers are identified by some as sort of the vanguard of the Celto-Ligurians or Italo-Celts. They are on the map by the 19th century BCE and are as far as Ireland by the 17th century. Urnfielders are fully in much of the same continental areas by a thousand years later. Dispersals of it to the rest of Western Europe begin later, with Halstatt influence not hitting Britain by the 4th century. All of these groups went by tribal names and loyalties - they could barely bring themselves to unite against threats such as that of Rome. To hold that the lack of a type of "ethnic' unity means that they were not in the same general group does not hold water.

hangman
15-02-11, 04:55
- Ancient Europe

Wine

The Greeks and Romans put water in their wine. The Celts didn't, which was seen as a barbaric practice by the Gallo-Romans.

Human sacrifices

The Celts practised human sacrifice to the gods, typically near water (lake, river, spring). They also decapitated the defeated after a battle, took the heads back home as trophies, and exposed the headless bodies hanging on wooden frames.

Sometimes, they replaced humans by huge amphoras of wine, and simulated the decapitation by cutting off the top of the amphora with a sword. The spilling wine would represent the blood.

Celtic culture vs genes

A common Celtic culture originating from the south-west of Germany spread to half of Europe, to the British Isles, around France, Switzerland and southern Germany, in northern Spain, and as far as Anatolia via the Danube region. They spoke a similar language, shared a same religion and beliefs, had traditions, the same arts and techniques.

However, DNA tests have not been able to find any common genes between the various areas once settled by the Celts, which leads to think that the cultures spread across a variety of ethnic groups.

The Romans did not refer to the Britons as Celts, probably because they looked different to them. For instance, continental Celts buried their war leaders with their chariots, a tradition virtually unknown in Celtic Britain.

Celtic technology

Before the Roman Conquest, the Celts were as developed as the Greeks and Romans. They invented the chainmail, and had swords and shield at least as strong as the Romans. The decoration of the weapons, chariots and artifacts was superior to those of many Mediterranean cultures.

The Celts traded actively with the Mediterranean world, exchanging notably their iron tools and weapons for wine and pottery.

Their defeat against the Romans was mainly due to the fact that they were disunited against the Roman ennemy, and victims of internal tribal struggles. Well before Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the Celts had plundered Rome (390 BCE), and sacked Delphi (279 BCE).

This is a great topic. I didn't know about the Human sacrifices and genes of the celts...it is amazing. Congratulations dude.

Grizzly
18-02-11, 21:08
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

Taranis
18-02-11, 21:31
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

I mostly agree with that, although with two caveats:
- First off, while I generally agree with you regarding the usage of "Celt" as a linguistic notion, there's also the historic usage of the term "Celt" by the Greeks and the Romans.
- Secondly, the Ligurians were definitely not a non-Indo-European people (although I must admit that some older literature tries to assert that).

hangman
18-02-11, 21:45
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

It's a stock of knowledge....terrific dude.

Grizzly
18-02-11, 22:08
I know, thanks.

hangman
18-02-11, 22:16
I know, thanks.

Not at all...Is there something else around human sacrifice in celtic culture?

Regulus
18-02-11, 22:19
The word "Celt" concerns only a linguistic notion, and refers to a linguistic group, as the Germanics or the Slavics. Every other consideration is vague and non-scientifical.

If we consider that indo-european peoples have come from the East by one or several waves, we have to admit that the non-indo-european groups as the Ligurians, the Aquitanians, the Etruscans...have necessarily preceded these waves. And the fact that some Celtic superficial features can be found in those cultures does not change anything.

For the purposes of argument, I would be willing to agree with your statement seeing that the same logic is applied to the Germans, Slavs, Iranians, etc.

Grizzly
18-02-11, 22:24
there's also the historic usage of the term "Celt" by the Greeks and the Romans.

Yes, but the historical usage by the ancient authors can be very inconstant. And the problem comes too when a minority gives its name to the majority. I have already cited the case of the French, the Swabians, the Burgundians or the Lombardians. The actual Saxon case (in Antic times on the North-sea coast, now near the Czech border) shows how it is impossible to refer to a name of the inhabitants, or to trust the names given by the ancients for describing a culture.


Secondly, the Ligurians were definitely not a non-Indo-European people (although I must admit that some older literature tries to assert that).

Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;

Regulus
18-02-11, 22:31
Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;


I would have no problem saying that the Ligurians were comprised of a base group that also had an Italo-Celt admixture, but we have to stick with Ligurian being an Indo-European language.

Also, their culture of cutting off and keeping heads of slain adversaries is too much like that of their close neighbors to the North to ignore.

Taranis
18-02-11, 22:39
Yes, but the historical usage by the ancient authors can be very inconstant. And the problem comes too when a minority gives its name to the majority. I have already cited the case of the French, the Swabians, the Burgundians or the Lombardians. The actual Saxon case (in Antic times on the North-sea coast, now near the Czech border) shows how it is impossible to refer to a name of the inhabitants, or to trust the names given by the ancients for describing a culture.

This is all very true. The main reason I brought it up is because I often hear people talking about "Celticity" and "Celtic identity" (which I consider a fabrication/fantasy), but it should be clearly noted that no matter how inconsistent ancient sources are, none of the ancient sources never refered to the Irish or the Britons as "Celts", neither did the Goidelic- or Brythonic- speaking peoples see themselves as Celts until the 19th century.


Yes, this is what I have said : the Ligurians were not indo-europeans and have probably (because no-one can be sure) preceded them, maybe a heritage of the neolithic waves. We will probably never know;

Actually, like I said, from the little evidence that there is (ie, onomastic evidence like place names), Ligurian actually was an Indo-European language. There were authors in the past which tried to link the Ligurians with the pre-Indo-European population, but since generally the Ligurian place names can be derived via Indo-European etymologies, this is pretty spurious.

Grizzly
18-02-11, 22:58
There were authors in the past which tried to link the Ligurians with the pre-Indo-European population

They did it probably due to absence of clear link with indo-european toponymy.


but since generally the Ligurian place names can be derived via Indo-European etymologies, this is pretty spurious.

It is surprising. I have not much knowledge about Ligurians, but it seems for France that the pre-indo-european place-names (though not a proof for a dominant culture) are very common in Southern France. According to the current knowledge, they seem to be linked to the Ligurians in Provence and Northern Italy. If they were indo-european, I guess that the link with the Celtic or the Italic languages would have been more or less easily done. But I can mistake.

Grizzly
18-02-11, 23:13
but we have to stick with Ligurian being an Indo-European language.

If there is a source to demonstrate it, I don't see any problem. But it will be difficult to admit that archaeologist and linguist searchers could have missed such links between Celts and Ligurians. And once again, we can't really trust ancient authors. For some greeks ones, the hinterland of Marseille was settled by Ligurians, for others, they were Celts...


Also, their culture of cutting off and keeping heads of slain adversaries is too much like that of their close neighbors to the North to ignore.

It is not enough to claim a Celtic culture for such groups, since beheading is not especially rattached to them, but to many ones.

Taranis
19-02-11, 01:13
They did it probably due to absence of clear link with indo-european toponymy.

Depends. If you go by typonomy, Ligurian definitely was an Indo-European language because you can readily make cognates with the Celtic and Italic languages. For instance, the tribal name of "Taurini" could easily be a cognate with Latin "Taurus" and Gaulish "Tarvos" (both meaning Bull).


It is surprising. I have not much knowledge about Ligurians, but it seems for France that the pre-indo-european place-names (though not a proof for a dominant culture) are very common in Southern France. According to the current knowledge, they seem to be linked to the Ligurians in Provence and Northern Italy. If they were indo-european, I guess that the link with the Celtic or the Italic languages would have been more or less easily done. But I can mistake.

Yes, there is non-Indo-European typonomy in southern France, but we are talking about Southwestern France: that is, the Basque/Aquitanian areas, as well as the Roussillon where you find evidence of the Iberian language. The interesting part is that you have evidence for Aquitanian typonomy even in areas which in historic terms were known to be inhabited by Celtic tribes, which (not quite surpisingly, anyways) suggests that the Celts settled in these areas not very long ago.

However, further to the east (ie, Provence) you have Ligurian typonomy, which as I can show above, was related with the Celtic and Italic languages.

crudshoveller
28-02-11, 17:09
Anyone know what this means. It is lost on me:
You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 10 posts or more.

Ah links Monika, thanks - in my overawing ignorance I had thought it supposed I wanted to make reference to some external web site - which I didn't, I simply to tried to encapsulate a quote from an earlier post into my response. I guess in the meantime I can mumble on about nothing until I cross the 10 post boundary.

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:09
Yes, there is non-Indo-European typonomy in southern France, but we are talking about Southwestern France

No, I was talking about Southeastern France, especially in Provence where Celtic toponyms almost disappear. In the litterature, they are reputed to be related with Ligurians. That's why I think that those regions, with Northern Italy was probably not indo-european speaking, or only by small communities like in Balkans.


The interesting part is that you have evidence for Aquitanian typonomy even in areas which in historic terms were known to be inhabited by Celtic tribes, which (not quite surpisingly, anyways) suggests that the Celts settled in these areas not very long ago.

Or have settled not numerous enough to impose their language. And that's why I think that the Spanish case is about the same as SW France.

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:51
Or have settled not numerous enough to impose their language. And that's why I think that the Spanish case is about the same as SW France.
No. In SW France other languages were spoken (aquitanian or proto-basque) In Spain, in the Celtic speaking areas no other language was spoken.

Carlitos
03-03-11, 01:09
oh my God!, this man bear chases Spain.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 00:08
No. In SW France other languages were spoken (aquitanian or proto-basque) In Spain, in the Celtic speaking areas no other language was spoken.

It's wrong, and you know it.

Wilhelm
12-03-11, 00:18
It's wrong, and you know it.
No, I don't know it. No other languages were spoken other than Celtic. If you have any prove for the contrary, show it, otherwise shut up.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 01:03
No, I don't know it. No other languages were spoken other than Celtic. If you have any prove for the contrary, show it, otherwise shut up.

You know it because we have discussed about it. If you have nothing to add to our discussion, shut up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad+faith

Cambrius (The Red)
12-03-11, 03:09
You know it because we have discussed about it. If you have nothing to add to our discussion, shut up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad+faith
Start proving what you say, please. Otherwise, move on. BTW, Celtic scholars and linguists on this forum (or anywhere else) do not agree with you. Obviously you have an agenda...denial?:innocent:

Carlitos
12-03-11, 03:42
Grizzly has a job in Spanish leader or Spanish origin, is something that as a French nationalist not withstanding, the Spanish leader also has cut the hopes of promotion and that is the source of their loathing and denial of any comparison or relationship Spain with the rest of Western Europe, is his little revenge on the frustration felt to be a superior work of Spanish origin.

Wilhelm
12-03-11, 03:45
You know it because we have discussed about it. If you have nothing to add to our discussion, shut up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad+faith
No, you have never proved it.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 17:20
Start proving what you say, please. Otherwise, move on. BTW, Celtic scholars and linguists on this forum (or anywhere else) do not agree with you. Obviously you have an agenda...denial?:innocent:

Look at the thread "Italo-Cetic expansion" otherwise move on. BTW, Celtic scholars and linguists do not agree with you. Obviously you have an agenda...denial ? :innocent:

Grizzly
12-03-11, 17:21
Grizzly has a job in Spanish leader or Spanish origin, is something that as a French nationalist not withstanding, the Spanish leader also has cut the hopes of promotion and that is the source of their loathing and denial of any comparison or relationship Spain with the rest of Western Europe, is his little revenge on the frustration felt to be a superior work of Spanish origin.

You are bad in history, you are worse in psychology.

Carlitos
12-03-11, 17:43
Although these towns shared certain common characteristics, they were not a homogeneous ethnic group and that differed in many respects. It is not known in detail the origin of the Iberians, although there are several theories that seek to establish:

One hypothesis suggests that arrived in the Iberian Peninsula in the Neolithic period, and their arrival is dated from the fifth millennium BC to the third millennium BC. Most scholars who adopt this theory is supported by archaeological evidence, anthropological and genetic view that the Iberians came from the Mediterranean regions further east.
Other scholars have suggested they may have originated in North Africa but it was confirmed that this theory was wrong. The Iberians would initially settled along the eastern coast of Spain and possibly later spread throughout the rest of the Iberian Peninsula.
Another alternative hypothesis states that were part of the original inhabitants of Western Europe and the creators / heirs of the great megalithic culture that arises in this whole area, possibly, a theory supported by genetic studies. The Iberians would be similar to the Celtic peoples of the first millennium BC in Ireland, Britain and France. Subsequently, the Celts would cross the Pyrenees into two major migrations: the IX and VII century a. C. The Celts settled mostly north of the River Duero and the River Ebro, where they mixed with the Iberians to form the group called Celtiberian.

Grizzly
26-03-11, 00:32
Another alternative hypothesis states that were part of the original inhabitants of Western Europe and the creators / heirs of the great megalithic culture that arises in this whole area, possibly, a theory supported by genetic studies. The Iberians would be similar to the Celtic peoples of the first millennium BC in Ireland, Britain and France. Subsequently, the Celts would cross the Pyrenees into two major migrations: the IX and VII century a. C. The Celts settled mostly north of the River Duero and the River Ebro, where they mixed with the Iberians to form the group called Celtiberian.

The neolithic theory is plausible. But I don't believe in the Celtic expansion from the ouest. Inaccurate archaeologically and historically.

Carlitos
26-03-11, 01:55
The neolithic theory is plausible. But I don't believe in the Celtic expansion from the ouest. Inaccurate archaeologically and historically.

Do you think that someone has invented?, when and why they invented?

Grizzly
02-04-11, 00:30
Do you think that someone has invented?, when and why they invented?

Good questions.