Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:27 am

" If yu are intersted incidently the famous stone that is suppoosed to have shown the key battle of Nechtansmere has been reiniterpreted. What is intersting is that the warrirors depicted are mounted, like the warriors in the Yr Goddoddin - maybe these were Picts. "

Keep up .The most recent reinterpretation is that of the site of the battle of Dun Eachtain , now identified as Dunachton in Badenoch not Dunnichen , near Aberlemno where the stone was erected and 85 miles as the crow flies from the more likely site .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:23 am

2016 2:03 pm
"Don't know what laguage they spoke? You definitely called them "Celts" a few posts ago. Changed our mind have we? Read more of Wikipedia? "

Do keep up .Still not learnt anything from a basic wiki entry . Remember your confusion about Celtic languages , note the plural .
You have already been told , nobody knows the language spoken by the Picts , but it was almost certainly Celtic .
That means that there are various possibilities . This is so basic I'm starting to wonder about your age .


More wind

Don't you read your own posts? Or is it that you don't understand their garbled nature? Do not worry you are not alone most of the world is with you.

Perhaps you shouldn't get invoived in debates wher you are out of your depth?

Remember calling the Picts Celtic? Recall that? On what did you base that defninitive conclusion.? You will remember my answer.

That means that there are various possibilities .


Yeah this doesn't mean "Of course they were Celtic" - your words. Opps!

I am afraid I am begining to wonder if you are fully literate in this langauge. Apologies if written English is not your first langage.
Simon21
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:46 am

Lol .
Note the various possibilities followed on from of course they are Celtic .,which also followed ,the picts are not imporatnt to the main points of the discussion ,ie. you were attempting to evade the main probelms and introduce side issues as a diversion .
If you really want to discuss the picts ,as you were told ,start a new thread , although it It looks like your undersatdning is on a par with that of the Celtic problem .

I try to keep it as simple as possible ,and you still can't understand . I refuse to resort to using pictures .
It's very simple .
The Picts were almost certainly Celts .
That means that they almost certainly spoke a Celtic language .
There are various Celtic languages , not just one ,therefore there are various possibilities .
There are some obvious choices and some wild suggestions .But that's probabaly over taxed you enough as it is .
This has been said before , if only you could get the skills to understand it .
I treally seems a waste of time and possibly you are being obtuse simply because you have nothing substantial to say .
Last edited by Tiompan on Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tiompan
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:48 am

Don't know what laguage they spoke? You definitely called them "Celts" a few posts ago. Changed our mind have we? Read more of Wikipedia? "

Do keep up .Still not learnt anything from a basic wiki entry . Remember your confusion about Celtic languages , note the plural .
You have already been told , nobody knows the language spoken by the Picts , but it was almost certainly Celtic .
That means that there are various possibilities . This is so basic I'm starting to wonder about your age .


I respectfully suggest you read your own posts. "Of course they were Celtic" - sounds like you were being pretty defnitive to me.


"In light of the radio carbon calibration revolution, the questions of migration versus diffusion are still being worked out."
In the light of the later archaeogenetic revolution we have moved much further ,that is part of the point showing Celtic is an entirely appropriate term for a group of and culture .See above P312 & L21 .

Atrchaeogentitics have not yet found any evidence to support for any labelling. Celt is a misused cultural term. Nothing more "
Further evidence of your ignorance and errors , did you not read or understand the extract from the paper , did you fail to see the word "Celtic " .
I did mention that you check up on some snp's and sub clades , but it was a waste of time .


Sorry do you understand English properely? Archaeogentics gets its labels not from genetics but from the historians way back. They came up with the term. And they are now realising it is inadequate (do you remember my point at the Renaissance - wiki it). Archaeogenticists will simply change the terms they use.

Happens all the time.

And of course a total failure to provide anything to refute /falsify the major points .You at least had the sense to stay quiet on that .


I think I have tied you up in knots fairly comprehenisvely. Basiucally you had no argument but an awful lot of stale repetition.

Let's review

1. Pretending information that supported my argument (such as the BM exhibition) somehow supported yours (not to mention lying about going)
2. inventing ridiculous words such as "anti-migrationist" (a colleague tells me this is probably an oblique refence to Donald Trump and given the other guff you have posted it makes about as much sense)
3. hilariously twisting oneself in knots using wiki to try and make some argument about Celtic and Germanic distinctions being about clans and bands> Undercut by the complete ignorance of anglo-saxon, Frankish etc society at this period.
4. Complete ignorance of the sources (practically total)
5. Inventing conspiracies and "agendas" - "Those rascally historians are at it again Bond"

Game set and match by any objective standard

But let us now return to sanity and look at this question of "migration"

This is a very fashionable concept at the moment. In Britain after Rome Robin Fleming makes much of this to explain the total acculturisation of the British.

While it has to be admitterd there is no archaeological evidence to the contrary ie little signs of wholesale violence, we do have Gildas who speaks of invasion and genocide, and he is a contemporary. We also have Patrick who was kidnaped with" thousands" of others. Both these sources are very clear about the violence they witnessed or endured.

Then therre is the issue of ther acculturalisation. Why and how did the British totally change their culture - its language (to the extent that it seems t5hat there is only on Britthonic word it it) and religion.

So archaeology and the wrtten sources appear to be in conflict.

So maybe we should not be so definitive when usuing the word "migration".
Simon21
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:08 am

Lol .


Oh dear we are losing it. You know when LOL appears.


Note the various possibilities followed on from of course they are Celtic .,which also followed ,the picts are not imporatnt to the main points of the discussion ,ie. you were attempting to evade the main probelms and introduce side issues as a diversion .
If you really want to discuss the picts ,as you were told ,start a new thread , although it It looks like your undersatdning is on a par with that of the Celtic problem .


More gibberish. Why "of course" on what do you base this ridiculously defnitive judgement? Not a on language, on what then? Simple question surely. "The Picts were Celts because xxxxx)

Surely you have some basis for your answer?

The is not a Celtic problem. Never has been. The only problerm is your strange paranoia and ignorance about the subject.


I
try to keep it as simple as possible ,and you still can't understand . I refuse to resort to using pictures .
It's very simple .
The Picts were almost certainly Celts .


Oh "almost certainly" is it. You said "Of course" before just a sentence before. Hmm.. Oh dear you are in trouble are you not? "Of coure" does not mean "of course"

That means that they almost certainly spoke a Celtic language .
There are various Celtic languages , not just one ,therefore there are various possibilities .
There are some obvious choices and some wild suggestions .But that's probabaly over taxed you enough as it is .
This has been said before , if only you could get the skills to understand it .
I treally seems a waste of time and possibly you are being obtuse simply because you have nothing substantial to say .


Given your ignorant failure to understand basic liguistics one presumes you would call any langauge they spoke as "Celtic" be it Basque, be it hungarian.

But cal;ling them "celtic" on no evidence and then trying to row back pretty much epitomises yiour attitude.
Simon21
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:38 am

[quote="Simon21"][quote]
" Archaeogentics gets its labels not from genetics but from the historians way back."
Really , is that why you failed to understand any of the extract ,and got totally confused about the use of English ?
Way back is that a historical term ? Celtic is used by many disciplines because it is useful and appropriate e.g. Archaeology , linguistics ,archaeogenetics etc .

" I think I have tied you up in knots fairly comprehenisvely. Basiucally you had no argument but an awful lot of stale repetition."
Lol , I think you are even more deluded than I suspected . You have failed entirely to argue against meaningfully and provide evidence to falsify or refute the two main points .
The same applied years ago to the few mistaken historians who had the same attitude , science and data disproved them on the main point then genetics did for them entirely ,including the
anti-migration stance ,your ignorance of the term is as telling as the rest of your errors .

"Let's review

1. Pretending information that supported my argument (such as the BM exhibition) somehow supported yours (not to mention lying about going) "

Yes lets review .You continually ignore evidence in favout of bluff and nonsense .A simple point that I had highlighted a few times is that you keep saying that I had said I had attended the BM exhibition
e.g. "“you have seen and read the BM exhibition, which you claimed to have done.” ,I have asked for you to provide the quote where I had said that I had attended the exhibition You have always failed to do so , that's because
I had never said it . Now you turn that into me lying about it. Provide the evidence where I had said that I had attended the exhibition ,then we can see who the real liar is .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:47 am

"
Archaeogentics gets its labels not from genetics but from the historians way back."
Really , is that why you failed to understand any of the extract ,and got totally confused about the use of English ?
Way back is that a historical term ? Celtic is used by many disciplines because it is useful and appropriate e.g. Archaeology , linguistics ,archaeogenetics etc .


Sorry is this the paper that you quoted and oicked out the quote about an "Undoubted english migration?" Ho ho

Back to your sacred paper are we?

The term Celtic comes from history - don't you even know this? Archaeogenetics has only been around for the last 20 years if that. The term Celt is somewhat older. Isn't it. Sort of before any science oif genetics was even thought of.

You do enjoy making a fool of yourself.


" I think I have tied you up in knots fairly comprehenisvely. Basiucally you had no argument but an awful lot of stale repetition."
Lol , I think you are even more deluded than I suspected . You have failed entirely to argue against meaningfully and provide evidence to falsify or refute the two main points .
The same applied years ago to the few mistaken historians who had the same attitude , science and data disproved them on the main point then genetics did for them entirely ,including the
anti-migration stance ,your ignorance of the term is as telling as the rest of your errors .



Deluded? Words from ther Master. Er What about your "Great Celtic Conspiracy" that historians are involved in according to you? The sinister Celtosceptics who will stop at nothing and their allies the even more weird "migrationsceptics" among whom we surely must number Gildas and Bede but not Robin Fleming.

Sorry I think that sort of stuff is practically clinical. How are you on the Kennedy assasination incidently? Lee Harvey Oswald or Mossad aided by the Cubans and er er er the French with ET guiding everything?

Another tip if you are reduced to telling silly lies about visiting exhibitions in a desperate bid to defend your case (you commented on the exhibits, you do remember this?) things are bad. As I say I went five times - by the end I felt I should have at least been given a torc (*a kind of largely Brithonic supposed neck ornament - purpose generally unknown) for effort. You really hadn't a hope of pulling this off.

I beleive the expression fish in a barrel is the appropriate phrase here.

But let us not wallow. What can be the source of your problem why can one term cause someone so much angst and bitterness. that they invent conspiracies, contradict themselves etc. Were they bitten by an maddened Iron age historian in their cradle? How will this individual cope when the far more prevasive term renaissance comes under increasing pressure to be dropped?

I will close with a concession. Read Bede's (you recall he is the "monk that writes" you seemed to find it a revelation that he was not a druid) history of the English Church and People - partially because it is a great work but also because he does contain an anecdote that vaguely could be said to support your position.

But you will not find it on Wiki

I am nothing if not sporting.
Last edited by Simon21 on Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simon21
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:51 am

As expected
Nothing to falsify or refute the two major points .

And we now know who the liar is .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:52 pm

As expected
Nothing to falsify or refute the two major points .

And we now know who the liar is .


I don't think anyone who read your squirmings would ever doubt it. My conscience is clear though, I gave you plenty of chances to come clean.

You do not tend to make "points" you seem to recycle material from elsewhere you barely understand like your comment on the Pictish symbol stone. You apparently do not know what the name Dun Nechtain is equivalent to in English .
Simon21
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:28 pm

The fact that you have a clear conscience says it all .

You were asked to provide evidence to support your claim that I was a liar , you failed to do so .
As in so many other examples that I have pointed out , you made it up . I never said that I had been to the exhibition , you either dreamt that I did ,or lied about it ,and you can't face up to the fact .
We can see who the liar is and who is doing the squirming .

Of course I know the English translation of Dun Echtain .It's about as simple as a celtic placename coule be . I would expect the average cockney to make a fist of that .
Although onsidering that your understanding of Celtic languages is that they are "substantially different " I wonder if you could .

Not quite up to date about that particular Aberlemno stone are we ?
Still taking about the Battle of Nechtansmere kind of gave the game away there .
Start a thread on the Picts ,you could do with getting up to date , after the basics .
As for this thread , still no meaningful response to the two main points and like any of the evidence previously requested , none expected .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Previous

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron