New Documentary on Celts

Fire Haired14 · Oct 30, 2015

Source. Roman coin 48 BC. Probably made because Ceasar had just conquered Gaul. Characteristic spiked hair, goatee, and Torc, which has become an iconic and romantic image of ancient Celts.

This month BBC aired a Documentary on Celts titled: The Celts - Blood, Iron and Sacrifice. The documentary is lead by Alice Roberts and Neil Oliver who are both perfect documentary personalities.

It has 3 parts all of whom you can find on YouTube. I watched the first one. For the most part I think it's great. It teaches a lot about what is known about the Celts and debated theories about the Celts.

What I don't like is exaggerations that are meant to make the film interesting instead of accurate. The documentary at time uses the same biased narrative about the relationship between Romans-Celts as is given between European colonist-Native Americans in my school history book. The exact same phrases are used at times.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d4o9oCKJ8XoWCBxHISKOmTC6r6yhKQQW6_tmp9N-zXQ/edit?usp=sharing

The Celts are very mysterious because they didn't write and basically disappeared after (British Isles doesn't count in this case)being conquered by Rome. Most information we have are from remains and writings by non-Celts, so no one knows a lot about them. Lots is guess work.

It is important to learn about the Celts because..
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OEKrBQGgDkMeQdBWRJvfGkMnK0tyF9hMc7uTiszBN4U/edit

The earliest documentation we have of Celts comes from the Iron age.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n5u1Hpq5iK1h5hJrO4W-BzIUWN4T4jICEePou1LMXZM/edit?usp=sharing

The old-theory that the Hallstatt culture(700-500 BC) was proto-Celtic has been proven incorrect. The Celts have an older origin. Traits associated with the Hallstatt culture are styles that grew in popularity in an already Celtic speaking Central and Western Europe.

Ultimately Celtic-languages came from modern day Russia/Ukraine like all(most?) Indo European languages but that was way back in 3000 BC. The origin of Celtic languages may not be as simple as IEs arrived from East Europe in 2500 BC then expanded with Celtic languages. Like Slavic languages did in the Middle Ages, Celtic languages could have expanded on top of already existing Indo European languages very quickly.

Now that the Hallstatt=Proto Celtic theory has been debunked, there's many new theories on Celtic origins.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nG5Ne1pH-fTm05AHGvTn9BkAuYArioIJZvLENlSnB4s/edit?usp=sharing

Sile · Oct 30, 2015

Fire Haired14 said:
Source. Roman coin 48 BC. Probably made because Ceasar had just conquered Gaul. Characteristic spiked hair, goatee, and Torc, which has become an iconic and romantic image of ancient Celts.

This month BBC aired a Documentary on Celts titled: The Celts - Blood, Iron and Sacrifice. The documentary is lead by Alice Roberts and Neil Oliver who are both perfect documentary personalities.

It has 3 parts all of whom you can find on YouTube. I watched the first one. For the most part I think it's great. It teaches a lot about what is known about the Celts and debated theories about the Celts.

What I don't like is exaggerations that are meant to make the film interesting instead of accurate. The documentary at time uses the same biased narrative about the relationship between Romans-Celts as is given between European colonist-Native Americans in my school history book. The exact same phrases are used at times.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d4o9oCKJ8XoWCBxHISKOmTC6r6yhKQQW6_tmp9N-zXQ/edit?usp=sharing

The Celts are very mysterious because they didn't write and basically disappeared after (British Isles doesn't count in this case)being conquered by Rome. Most information we have are from remains and writings by non-Celts, so no one knows a lot about them. Lots is guess work.

It is important to learn about the Celts because..
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OEKrBQGgDkMeQdBWRJvfGkMnK0tyF9hMc7uTiszBN4U/edit

The earliest documentation we have of Celts comes from the Iron age.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n5u1Hpq5iK1h5hJrO4W-BzIUWN4T4jICEePou1LMXZM/edit?usp=sharing

The old-theory that the Hallstatt culture(700-500 BC) was proto-Celtic has been proven incorrect. The Celts have an older origin. Traits associated with the Hallstatt culture are styles that grew in popularity in an already Celtic speaking Central and Western Europe.

Ultimately Celtic-languages came from modern day Russia/Ukraine like all(most?) Indo European languages but that was way back in 3000 BC. The origin of Celtic languages may not be as simple as IEs arrived from East Europe in 2500 BC then expanded with Celtic languages. Like Slavic languages did in the Middle Ages, Celtic languages could have expanded on top of already existing Indo European languages very quickly.

Now that the Hallstatt=Proto Celtic theory has been debunked, there's many new theories on Celtic origins.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nG5Ne1pH-fTm05AHGvTn9BkAuYArioIJZvLENlSnB4s/edit?usp=sharing

My idea of celts , is a beginning in southern germany and some central germany of Gallic tribes who turned celtic with incoming different culture from the East circa 3000BC.
they then spread west through alsace into modern france etc etc
The migration over the top of the alps came in late bronze-age to very early iron age

LeBrok · Oct 31, 2015

Great, something to watch tonight.

bicicleur 2 · Oct 31, 2015

there were Celts left in Gaul but they were Romanised

for what it is worth, it is estimated that there were 10 million Celts in Gaul before the Roman invasion, of which some 2 million were killed

but before the Roman arrived, the Celts were allready under a lot of pressure from Germanic tribes
there were no more Celtic tribes north of the Rhine, and about half of the Belgian Celtic tribes were replaced by Germanic tribes
there is also the Germanic warlord Ariovistus, who had crossed the Rhine with his army into Gaul, north of the Alps to interfere in some rivalry between local Celtic tribes

MOESAN · Oct 31, 2015

there are a lot of things to say about facts and believings around Celts -
Gallic? what is that??? a new concept? there is no fact for now which could separate the 'celtic' and the 'gallic' concepts. Namings, no more.
concerning Celts and Germans, their frist frontiers were very northern: around Nieder-Sachsen limes with more southern regions (Hessen, Rheinland); in some way and by a slight simplification we could assume the diminant BB cultural world became (or was?) celtic, the ancient dominent Corded cultural world bcame germanic (by a complex process, I imagine);
seemingly, in last times, there have been new combinations between old Germanics tribes, incroportating in some way the ancient Belgae tribes (it's is evident on metrics and in Y-R1b subclades dictributions); by example the conféderation of Franks physically showed a kind of mix between Germanics and Celts elites.
before germanics and Roma domination, but surely under pression of Germanics, a lot of Belgae tribes went southwards, taking some grounds in Gallia but also, very often , in Iberia as far as southern Portugal; it's well documented. sometimes some parts of Germanics tribes followed the same roads trhough Pyreness at the same time.

Angela · Oct 31, 2015

Fire Haired14 said:
Fire Haired14 said:

Source. Roman coin 48 BC. Probably made because Ceasar had just conquered Gaul. Characteristic spiked hair, goatee, and Torc, which has become an iconic and romantic image of ancient Celts.

This month BBC aired a Documentary on Celts titled: The Celts - Blood, Iron and Sacrifice. The documentary is lead by Alice Roberts and Neil Oliver who are both perfect documentary personalities.

It has 3 parts all of whom you can find on YouTube. I watched the first one. For the most part I think it's great. It teaches a lot about what is known about the Celts and debated theories about the Celts.

What I don't like is exaggerations that are meant to make the film interesting instead of accurate. The documentary at time uses the same biased narrative about the relationship between Romans-Celts as is given between European colonist-Native Americans in my school history book. The exact same phrases are used at times.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d4o9oCKJ8XoWCBxHISKOmTC6r6yhKQQW6_tmp9N-zXQ/edit?usp=sharing

Click to expand...

Fire-Haired, one way of describing this is through the "Noble Savage" concept. It's quite well known. When sophisticated, advanced civilizations encounter primitive ones there's a tendency in some members of that sophisticated civilization, those who believe that "man" is naturally "good" and only turns "bad" when corrupted by civilization, to romanticize the "native" people whom they encounter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Sometimes these native peoples also serve as a foil for the exploration of the problems in their own societies, societies where they see the corruption, perhaps, or the wages of too much wealth.

What they don't see, or perhaps better said, don't choose to see are the less "noble" aspects of these primitive societies. For example, you'll never get from these type of people too much exploration of human sacrifice, or head hunting, or incest, or slavery, or how captives are treated and on and on.

In my personal opinion, it's all romantic nonsense. How anyone who has ever raised or taught children can believe that mankind is born "pure" or "good" is beyond me. I'm much more in tune with Hobbes than with Rousseau:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/#H5

After years of readings in history and anthropology, and more exposure than was probably good for me to the seamier side of life, it's my considered opinion that all human societies and groups exhibit both "noble" and not so "noble" traits, although the proportions may change depending on the place and time. The main things that change are technology driven. Those aren't to be sneezed at, however, at least not in my opinion. More crops so more food for more people, tools that make physical work easier, better transportation, better medical care, cleaner water, more literacy, eventually phones and computers etc. are all good things in my book, not to mention heated homes and baths.

Fire Haired14 · Oct 31, 2015

Angela said:
Fire-Haired, one way of describing this is through the "Noble Savage" concept. It's quite well known. When sophisticated, advanced civilizations encounter primitive ones there's a tendency in some members of that sophisticated civilization, those who believe that "man" is naturally "good" and only turns "bad" when corrupted by civilization, to romanticize the "native" people whom they encounter.

I get that. The problem I have is modern historians keep the good aspects of Nobel Savage and take the bad aspects out and claim the bad aspects didn't exist and come only from prejudice outside sources.

Angela said:
What they don't see, or perhaps better said, don't choose to see are the less "noble" aspects of these primitive societies. For example, you'll never get from these type of people too much exploration of human sacrifice, or head hunting, or incest, or slavery, or how captives are treated and on and on.

Good point. These bad characteristics of more primitive societies are sometimes ignored and almost only positive things are said about them. I know it is true many Euro colonist and I'm sure Romans had prejudice and wrongly viewed Native Americans/Celts as more primitive than they actually were, although there was truth in what they said.

Sile · Oct 31, 2015

bicicleur said:
there were Celts left in Gaul but they were Romanised

for what it is worth, it is estimated that there were 10 million Celts in Gaul before the Roman invasion, of which some 2 million were killed

but before the Roman arrived, the Celts were allready under a lot of pressure from Germanic tribes
there were no more Celtic tribes north of the Rhine, and about half of the Belgian Celtic tribes were replaced by Germanic tribes
there is also the Germanic warlord Ariovistus, who had crossed the Rhine with his army into Gaul, north of the Alps to interfere in some rivalry between local Celtic tribes

As per the program, there was 3 million gauls of which 1 million where killed and 1 million enslaved.

in 1420 "census" via a cambridge publication and another publication , states, france had 11 million, ..................you 10 million is way off
of the others in 1420, Germany 16M, Italy 13M, Spain 5.5M, Portugal 1.5M and England 4M

Sile · Oct 31, 2015

MOESAN said:
there are a lot of things to say about facts and believings around Celts -
Gallic? what is that??? a new concept? there is no fact for now which could separate the 'celtic' and the 'gallic' concepts. Namings, no more.
concerning Celts and Germans, their frist frontiers were very northern: around Nieder-Sachsen limes with more southern regions (Hessen, Rheinland); in some way and by a slight simplification we could assume the diminant BB cultural world became (or was?) celtic, the ancient dominent Corded cultural world bcame germanic (by a complex process, I imagine);
seemingly, in last times, there have been new combinations between old Germanics tribes, incroportating in some way the ancient Belgae tribes (it's is evident on metrics and in Y-R1b subclades dictributions); by example the conféderation of Franks physically showed a kind of mix between Germanics and Celts elites.
before germanics and Roma domination, but surely under pression of Germanics, a lot of Belgae tribes went southwards, taking some grounds in Gallia but also, very often , in Iberia as far as southern Portugal; it's well documented. sometimes some parts of Germanics tribes followed the same roads trhough Pyreness at the same time.

As Caesar states in his books, the only place the germanic people crossed the Rhine river was in the north and that led to a gallic and germanic mix which created the Belgae

bicicleur 2 · Oct 31, 2015

Sile said:
As Caesar states in his books, the only place the germanic people crossed the Rhine river was in the north and that led to a gallic and germanic mix which created the Belgae

except for Ariovistus who crossed the Rhine near where is now Basel, but this was more an army than a tribe
furthermore there is evidence that before the time of Julius Caesar there were Celts living north of the Rhine too, in the Netherlands

Twilight · Oct 31, 2015

Fire Haired14 said:
I get that. The problem I have is modern historians keep the good aspects of Nobel Savage and take the bad aspects out and claim the bad aspects didn't exist and come only from prejudice outside sources.

Good point. These bad characteristics of more primitive societies are sometimes ignored and almost only positive things are said about them. I know it is true many Euro colonist and I'm sure Romans had prejudice and wrongly viewed Native Americans/Celts as more primitive than they actually were, although there was truth in what they said.

Wasn't there a scene where they showed a Horse skull? The archaeologists were mentioning about a dent in the horses brain cavity indicating that the Celts did have rotten heads spiked to a pole. Also, the hosts have been turning to Roman scripture for explanations giving the Romans their due.
Alice Roberts and Oliver don't seem to come across as Propagandists but that is just me.

Maleth · Oct 31, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA-itb5NwDU episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGI6gud8MUo episode 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhkuLeobhXo episode 3

MOESAN · Nov 1, 2015

Sile said:
As Caesar states in his books, the only place the germanic people crossed the Rhine river was in the north and that led to a gallic and germanic mix which created the Belgae

Caesar was not a linguist and Belgae were not a mix AT FIRST - but the inhabitant of what begun the "Belgia" of Romans was inhabited by a majority of Celts tribes and a minority of Germanics tribes. Celtic place names were stated very far North in germany (at least Hessen). The very term of Germans given by Caesar is a easy solution to name an imbrication of tribes of several kinds, their common quality being they were not submitted to the Empire. by the way, the less dubious etymology of the term "german" is a celtic one! The Rhine limes cannot help us to figure out with precision which people were on the other side. SO Caesar's Germans # all Germanics: (and Caesar Belgae # all Belgae) - in fact history of Celts and Germanics begun before Caesar, and Caesar constated with more or less accuracy what was occurring in his time.
I suppose the mix occurred a bit later, when celts had definetly lost their previous military superiority.

Sile · Nov 1, 2015

the program at one point states the celts origin as portugal and they travelled east , but before that they migrated to britain as their bronze swords found in Britain are far older that the celtic bronze swords of Halstatt.
Also the alphabet , originally phoenician became celtinized in Portugal

Sile · Nov 1, 2015

MOESAN said:
Caesar was not a linguist and Belgae were not a mix AT FIRST - but the inhabitant of what begun the "Belgia" of Romans was inhabited by a majority of Celts tribes and a minority of Germanics tribes. Celtic place names were stated very far North in germany (at least Hessen). The very term of Germans given by Caesar is a easy solution to name an imbrication of tribes of several kinds, their common quality being they were not submitted to the Empire. by the way, the less dubious etymology of the term "german" is a celtic one! The Rhine limes cannot help us to figure out with precision which people were on the other side. SO Caesar's Germans # all Germanics: (and Caesar Belgae # all Belgae) - in fact history of Celts and Germanics begun before Caesar, and Caesar constated with more or less accuracy what was occurring in his time.
I suppose the mix occurred a bit later, when celts had definetly lost their previous military superiority.

caesar said his grandfather told him these facts, Caesar just stated them

bicicleur 2 · Nov 1, 2015

Sile said:
caesar said his grandfather told him these facts, Caesar just stated them

there is no proof Caesar ever has been in Belgium himself

bicicleur 2 · Nov 1, 2015

MOESAN said:
Caesar was not a linguist and Belgae were not a mix AT FIRST - but the inhabitant of what begun the "Belgia" of Romans was inhabited by a majority of Celts tribes and a minority of Germanics tribes. Celtic place names were stated very far North in germany (at least Hessen). The very term of Germans given by Caesar is a easy solution to name an imbrication of tribes of several kinds, their common quality being they were not submitted to the Empire. by the way, the less dubious etymology of the term "german" is a celtic one! The Rhine limes cannot help us to figure out with precision which people were on the other side. SO Caesar's Germans # all Germanics: (and Caesar Belgae # all Belgae) - in fact history of Celts and Germanics begun before Caesar, and Caesar constated with more or less accuracy what was occurring in his time.
I suppose the mix occurred a bit later, when celts had definetly lost their previous military superiority.

the southward push of the German tribes was allready going on before Julius Ceasar
the Romans actually stopped this movement for a few centuries till presure became to big
for a few decades they even occupied big parts of Germany, till they were beaten by Arminius in 9 AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius
Arminius lured 3 legions into a forest and no Roman ever returned from that forest
later Germanicus tried to reconquer Germany, but his campaigns were not a big succes and to costly for the Roman treasury

Twilight · Nov 1, 2015

Sile said:
caesar said his grandfather told him these facts, Caesar just stated them

bicicleur said:
there is no proof Caesar ever has been in Belgium himself

I don't know, I could totally see a Roman elder like Senetor Julius II telling tall tales to his Grandchildren Emperor Julius Ceaser. However Gaius Julius Ceasar II acquired the information is quite an enigma. Senetor Julius II seems like a humble man for not much of his careers was written down and recorded.

This maybe a little off subject but I think this would be good to test Julius Ceaser's honesty. If we are going to prove that Emperor Julius Ceaser was being honest or not, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to check out his Ydna. If Julius Ceaser has a Anatolian Haplogroup, then there is at least some substance that Julius was descended from "real life" Venus' Grandson; alas not trying to make up stories for the sake of bolstering Julius' claim to the throne.

In a nutshell, I'm not sure if Ceaser's Grandfather was either telling tall tales or Ceaser's method of bolstering his claim to the throne.

Source:
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.181; Broughton, MRR¹, p. 437.
Badian 2009, p. 15

Angela · Nov 1, 2015

Twilight said:
I don't know, I could totally see a Roman elder like Senetor Julius II telling tall tales to his Grandchildren Emperor Julius Ceaser. However Gaius Julius Ceasar II acquired the information is quite an enigma. Senetor Julius II seems like a humble man for not much of his careers was written down and recorded.

This maybe a little off subject but I think this would be good to test Julius Ceaser's honesty. If we are going to prove that Emperor Julius Ceaser was being honest or not, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to check out his Ydna. If Julius Ceaser has a Anatolian Haplogroup, then there is at least some substance that Julius was descended from "real life" Venus' Grandson; alas not trying to make up stories for the sake of bolstering Julius' claim to the throne.

In a nutshell, I'm not sure if Ceaser's Grandfather was either telling tall tales or Ceaser's method of bolstering his claim to the throne.

Source:
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.181; Broughton, MRR¹, p. 437.
Badian 2009, p. 15

I'm not quite getting this. Who says we know what yDna the Trojans carried? I've seen speculation that some of the levels might have been settled by steppe people. Plus, even if they weren't, and we could prove they carried J2a, for example, there was J2a in Europe by 4500 BC in the transition from the mid-to-late Neolithic. E-V13 was there too. What if he carried one of those? Could we get sufficient subclade resolution that we could figure out when his particular line arrived in Italy?

Plus, it's all academic anyway as we don't have his skeleton and are unlikely ever to get it. If we're ever able to test some Roman remains I'll be very surprised if it's all one y Dna line.

I think what has to be kept in mind is that the Romans were jumped up shepherds before they took on the Greeks, and the Carthaginians and the Celts and everyone else. They needed an illustrious ancestry. The Trojans were about as illustrious as you could get if you weren't Greek.

The English did a similar thing, claiming descent from Brutus and the Trojans . No doubt feeling left out, the Scots said they were descended from a Greek prince and his Egyptian wife Scota, who brought with her the Stone of Destiny. I don't think anyone uses that as evidence for what yDna the English and Scots Kings carried. Of course, the Aeneid deserves a little more attention since the genes had been flowing from Anatolia into Europe since the early Neolithic, so it wouldn't be totally outlandish.

As for how many Celts Caesar killed or enslaved I would assume that some exaggeration was involved. However, historians don't rely only on the statements of the participants. Plus, he must have gotten a lot of booty and sold a lot of slaves, because he went from being a relatively poor man to one who has incredibly wealthy, a wealth that he liberally bestowed on the Roman populace, which accounts for some, at least, of his popularity, and likewise for the loathing and distrust of the patricians.

Twilight · Nov 2, 2015

Angela said:
I'm not quite getting this. Who says we know what yDna the Trojans carried? I've seen speculation that some of the levels might have been settled by steppe people. Plus, even if they weren't, and we could prove they carried J2a, for example, there was J2a in Europe by 4500 BC in the transition from the mid-to-late Neolithic. E-V13 was there too. What if he carried one of those? Could we get sufficient subclade resolution that we could figure out when his particular line arrived in Italy?

Plus, it's all academic anyway as we don't have his skeleton and are unlikely ever to get it. If we're ever able to test some Roman remains I'll be very surprised if it's all one y Dna line.

I figured, if the Trojans or Ceasar's remains are impossible to find then it's okay

It was worth a shot. It was an honesty test at best. But good to know that kings made outlandish ancestry claims.

Angela said:
I think what has to be kept in mind is that the Romans were jumped up shepherds before they took on the Greeks, and the Carthaginians and the Celts and everyone else. They needed an illustrious ancestry. The Trojans were about as illustrious as you could get if you weren't Greek.

The English did a similar thing, claiming descent from Brutus and the Trojans . No doubt feeling left out, the Scots said they were descended from a Greek prince and his Egyptian wife Scota, who brought with her the Stone of Destiny. I don't think anyone uses that as evidence for what yDna the English and Scots Kings carried. Of course, the Aeneid deserves a little more attention since the genes had been flowing from Anatolia into Europe since the early Neolithic, so it wouldn't be totally outlandish.

As for how many Celts Caesar killed or enslaved I would assume that some exaggeration was involved. However, historians don't rely only on the statements of the participants. Plus, he must have gotten a lot of booty and sold a lot of slaves, because he went from being a relatively poor man to one who has incredibly wealthy, a wealth that he liberally bestowed on the Roman populace, which accounts for some, at least, of his popularity, and likewise for the loathing and distrust of the patricians.

I'm still con-puzzled how Roman Upperclassmen would be able to track to Gaul without much documentation and then suddenly mention his trip to young Julius Ceasar.

Here are Ceasar's Granddaddies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Aurelius_Cotta_(consul_119_BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius_Cotta_Maximus_Messalinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Julius_Caesar#Gaius_Julius_Caesar_II

New Documentary on Celts

Banned

Banned

Elite member

Regular Member

Elite member

Elite member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Elite member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Regular Member