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 Simon21 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:12 am

“No sorry you do not seem to understand the point. The langauges of the Irish and Welsh say share similarities, but they are substantially different. It may indicate that at omne time in the dim distant past they wre the same, but that is of little consequence in considering later cultural attrributes. “

You don’t understand the point made by the experts , the linguists , who group the Welsh and Irish into the category Celtic . We are not talking of later attributes we are talking of the LBA and IA .


I am not sure you understand linguistic study at all. The idea of grouping is not the samer as saying language familiers mean cultural affinity for the third time. You are aware the Irish are said to have invaded parts of Wales?

“Do you tell the Danes and Dutch they are "Germanic"? I would not like to be standing next to you when you do. “

It’s not how they might describe their language , it’s how linguists would .


No it is not nor how they owould describe their cultural affinities either - Thanks for conceeding.

“Sorry again I was referring to the number of times you used it. Tryiung to use distant language relations to assert cultural uniformity is inaccurate. I again refer you to the peoplee of North America, or of Southern Africa. “

They are not distant languages they belong to the same linguistic grouping . The cultural affinities like the genetics and art also apparent .


Simply untrue sorry.

“Well the experts are revising their opinion - you said you attended ther BM exhibition? Celt is just a word, not a poitical term.”
The experts in linguistics , genetics , art and history are not changing their opinion .A few archaeologists did 20 years ago but they have been very quiet of late .
Where did I say I attended the exhibition .
Yes , Celtic is just a word like Germanic and Slavic it describes a group of people from a particular period and time with similar languages , art , genes and culture .The word was borrowed from the Greek and Roman historians it could be anything .



I hate to burst your bubble but trying to make something out of broad langauge families is highly dubious. The Poles and Russians have distinct cultures, hoiwever much you may claim that they do not.

“Is it and this is a direct reference to cultutal affinity is it? The paper asserts that there was a cultural uniformity among the Welsh Scots and Irish? This seems more a reference to genetics, not to religious belief, language, political association economic activity ie the very things once defined as "Celtic".[

Of course it was a quote a from the paper if you had read it instead of a garbled confused hack article you would have recognised it as such . The paper was about genetics not culture .


Not a very good quote though was it. And geneticists sometimes tend not to be very good when it comes to history and archeology. And "sigh" once again my genetics do not determine what language I speak, whether I read Ogham or whether I am a Christian.

The reference to the impact of Anglo-Saxon migration is very dubious to say the least. No one of sense says "undoubtedly" about anything regarding regarding the A/S adventus. What is meant here? is the assertion that the migrations (invasions) involved substantial numbers or mass displacement of peoples? The general feeling now is that it did not. Does the (again increasingly outmoded) term "Anglo-Saxons" include the Franks and the Flemings? “

Tell that to the geneticists . The “undoubtedly “ was clearly a reference to the signal from the genetic data . The important point being the distinguishing markers “Anglo Saxon “ and “Celtic “ . Remember this was the paper that is the basis for the hack article .


You are the one quoting them with unquestioning almost religious approval. When someone writes a paper you accept it totally on trust? You are aware that there have been many assertions/claims etc made by geneticists and others regarding the fourth to sixth centuries?

You are aware that the allegedly clear cultural differntials between the A/S and R/B are not longer thought to be so clear cut?

And were the people who wrote the paper historians and archaeologists? The asserttion about the English would imply not. “
Of course not , they were geneticists , the same experts who have put flesh on the bones of what the historians and archaeologists fantasise about . The term (modern) English was used perfectly correctly in relation to the same signal and data . Do you want to be rid of the term English too ?
“Interesting but still no reference to cultutral attrributes, which is what the issue is.”


So why pretend that they are or have especial knowledge? Geneticis need context to make their points and it doesn't help when they use ridiculous words like "undoubtedly". And the use of the term English in this period does cause problems yes. The presence of the Franks in part of PRB has only recently been advbanced - and not fully accepted. And of course we have the issue of the Belgae - who they?

And what do these geneticists say happened to the R/B population? They evaporated?

Yes , very interesting , genetics destroyed any credibility that the celtosceptics had .
Genes are obviously not culture .They are only one aspect of the term Celtic ,albeit a more recent one .
There are important differences between Germanic and Celtic cultures . You have already been told of the linguistic , artistic ,and genetic thread running through Celtic culture . That is enough ,but in the far more difficult to retrieve historical sense it is clear that Celtic culture was more clan based than Germanic ,which was based on war bands ,Celtic had a priestly caste Druids / Vates mentioned historically and venerated bards etc this is not something we find associated with Germanic tribes . The term nemeton is found widely in Celtic areas , but not in Germanic areas .
“Actually I would, and these terms are not used near as much in a cultural sense as they once were. Most of us do not call all people of the far east "chinese" any more. Do you? “[/quote]

Don't know what you are talking about - what "thread" and what are you defing as "Germanic". Simply asserting things does not make them true. How many Ogham stones are there in Gaul? How many full chariot burrials are there in Wales? And what of the Picts? Do they share this "thread"? Why are there no hillforts in some areas, but lots in others etc etc

No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they?

We are talking about terms in relation to the IA , they make perfect sense
.

You seem to be desperately jumping all over the place - I am talking about the alleged single culture which mysteriously united the people, all the peoples of Western Europe (apart from the "Germanics") from the Iron age and beyond. Surely you would not ignore the "Celtic flowering" of the fifth century?
The Chinese comment is as silly as it gets .
“. And one reason people go quiet (whatever this means) is that the argument is won. “
We no longer hear from Collis and James on the Celtic question any more because they lost the argument with the art and linguistic experts long ago , the genetics was the final nail in the coffin .


Really well the fact remains sorry. And I am sorry my point about the Chinese irritates you, but you have not answered it. Have you.

And here's a tip it is very foolish in debates of this type to talk of "final nails in the coffin" as you would know if you have seen and read the BM exhibition, which you claimed to have done.
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:44 am

My apologies to both of you gentlemen.

I forgot that instead of Mormons and Theosophists,
You have self proclaimed "Wiccans" to deal with,
and the women are a particularly nasty bunch.

But I will ask you to give some respect to "hacks".
Turning out entertaining and flowing copy on many different subjects is difficult.
Generally, they like to be accurate.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:40 am

“ Don't know what you are talking about - what "thread"

The linguistic , genetic , artistic and cultural thread .


“and what are you defing as "Germanic". “ .
Simple answer will suffice . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples

“How many Ogham stones are there in Gaul? How many full chariot burrials are there in Wales? And what of the Picts? Do they share this "thread"? Why are there no hillforts in some areas, but lots in others etc etc “

None of these questions impact on why the term “ Celtic “ is perfectly sensible , and used by experts to define linguistic and cultural group , that are also , as we have more recently discovered also linked genetically . If you want an answer highlight them in a different topic , answering even the picts question could take a while .

“No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they? “

Your’e getting confused again , clans are an anthropological term and also a Celtic word .Simple explanation .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan .
Note the distinction between clan and band . Both obviously had warriors ,it was almost a given in the period , but there is an important cultural difference .
Monks ,like Bede , are not the same as the class described as druids .


“You seem to be desperately jumping all over the place - I am talking about the alleged single culture which mysteriously united the people, all the peoples of Western Europe (apart from the "Germanics") from the Iron age and beyond. Surely you would not ignore the "Celtic flowering" of the fifth century? “

No I am talking consistently of the one thing , you are the one who is desperate and jumping from period to period and place to place .
There was no mention of uniting all the peoples of Europe from the IA and beyond . You made that up too .

“ And I am sorry my point about the Chinese irritates you, but you have not answered it. Have you. “
It doesn’t annoy ,it was just incredibly silly ,and didn’t deserve an answer .

“ it is very foolish in debates of this type to talk of "final nails in the coffin" as you would know if you have seen and read the BM exhibition, which you claimed to have done.”
You continue to make up stuff about that too .I have already asked , where did I say I had gone to the exhibition ?
Experts will be using the term Celtic to describe a aparticular IA group of european languages ,culture ,art and genes long after Celtoscepticism was binned in the early years of the 21 st C .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:19 am

“ Don't know what you are talking about - what "thread"

The linguistic , genetic , artistic and cultural thread
.

Sorry "thread" is again a term I do not recognise in this contest - it seems to be the very issue we are discussing.


“and what are you defing as "Germanic". “ .
Simple answer will suffice . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples


Yeah simple is the word. I am asking how you are using the term,

“How many Ogham stones are there in Gaul? How many full chariot burrials are there in Wales? And what of the Picts? Do they share this "thread"? Why are there no hillforts in some areas, but lots in others etc etc “

None of these questions impact on why the term “ Celtic “ is perfectly sensible , and used by experts to define linguistic and cultural group , that are also , as we have more recently discovered also linked genetically . If you want an answer highlight them in a different topic , answering even the picts question could take a while .


Oh it rather does if you are asserting some mysterious deep cultural affinity. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. I point out blatant cultural differences and you ignore them. How this makes the term "Celtic" perfectly "sensible" when you cannot explain the massive anomalies defies meaning. If cultural (and linguistic) differences do not matter then what are you actually saying? Answer very little. One suspects you know very little about the peoples you are attempting to define.

“No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they? “

Your’e getting confused again , clans are an anthropological term and also a Celtic word .Simple explanation .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan .
Note the distinction between clan and band . Both obviously had warriors ,it was almost a given in the period , but there is an important cultural difference .
Monks ,like Bede , are not the same as the class described as
druids .[/quote]

Sorry this is babble quite hilarious. Differnce between "clan" (meaning children) and a "band"? Are you being serious? What is the distinction? How do you precisely define a "band"? Can't a "band" include members of one's family and become a "clan" ? What do you think Cerdic, founder of Wessex (allegedly) used - clan or band? Cunedda what did he use? Do you think "Germanics" had no families, or did they just not want to turn up?

And the word clan does not occur until relatively modern times. Do you now claim to own a time machine? I won't embrass you by mentioning the Welsh who seem to have missed out on clans - did they have bands? or bands/clans? Does that mean the Welsh are not "Celtic"?

Incidently how was Patrick kidnapped and what did Coroticus use to attack his neophytes? Sorry desperate stuff.

Monks not in the same class as druids? What on earth does this mean. I think Columba would have given you a severe lecture on class (he probably wouldn't have stopped at words). We know practically nothing about the Druids, you must have been using your time machine again. The point is the "Germanics" had a class of priests - Bede refers to them and Boniface fought them. As far as can be told the Druids were priest, nothing more. Quite common in ancient societies.

“You seem to be desperately jumping all over the place - I am talking about the alleged single culture which mysteriously united the people, all the peoples of Western Europe (apart from the "Germanics") from the Iron age and beyond. Surely you would not ignore the "Celtic flowering" of the fifth century? “

No I am talking consistently of the one thing , you are the one who is desperate and jumping from period to period and place to place .
There was no mention of uniting all the peoples of Europe from the IA and beyond . You made that up too .


Are you? Is that why you quoted the fifth century from your holy paper? That is when the English migration is said to have happened. And the word "clan" quoted by you - that is not known until the sixteenth century. Consistency? I am simply poking holes that others have poked in such ideas before.

“ And I am sorry my point about the Chinese irritates you, but you have not answered it. Have you. “
It doesn’t annoy ,it was just incredibly silly ,and didn’t deserve an answer .


Noi I think it was because the answer weould embarass you. You know that overarching labels to describe different cultures is fairly insulting and sometimes racist. Isn't it. It is the thing done when you want to hold a group of people wholly responsible for the actions of another group as the native peoples of the Americas/India/Africa found to their immense cost.


“ it is very foolish in debates of this type to talk of "final nails in the coffin" as you would know if you have seen and read the BM exhibition, which you claimed to have done.”
You continue to make up stuff about that too .I have already asked , where did I say I had gone to the exhibition ?
Experts will be using the term Celtic to describe a aparticular IA group of european languages ,culture ,art and genes long after Celtoscepticism was binned in the early years of the 21 st C .


My apologies but you quoted the exhibition to reinforce your point and said the items featured "were very similar". Now you deny going. So you never actually saw the items. Sorry your experts (which in your case seem a very strange crew) are changing their mind. Terms that obscure should be ditched. Erin Go Bragh - Cymru am byth.
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:42 am

“Sorry "thread" is again a term I do not recognise in this contest - it seems to be the very issue we are discussing.”
The thread is common link Related to 1) language . i.e. The Celtic languages , which have great similarities e.fg. see http://omniglot.com/language/celtic/con ... /index.php
Not substantially different as you seem to believe .
2) Genetics :Read any of the recent findings from the past decade including the recent hack article that was alluded to in the first post . Pay particular attention to sub clade P312 and SNP L 21 . Then note the association with the languages group .
3)Art . Read the experts on Iron Age art and note how they describe the art found in the same regions as above as being Celtic and also argue against celtoscepticism .

“Yeah simple is the word. I am asking how you are using the term, “
Exactly as it is used by anthropologists , archaeologists , linguists , historians tc . See the wiki or any reputable definition .

!Oh it rather does if you are asserting some mysterious deep cultural affinity. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. How do thei Picts fit in - are they part of your "Celtic" empire? If not why not? "
There is no need for a "mysterious deep cultural affinity" . The facts are all there ,see above .
The above is all that you need . and what you have to falsify to show there the term Celtic is not applicable . The other questions are smoke screens .If you really want answers to them start another topic .
However , short answer , Like the Celts the Picts were an the Iron Age Celtic group named by the Romans ,they would not have called themselves Picts any more than the greater grouping would have called themselves Celts . They lived roughly from the Tay to Caithness .

“No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they? “

Your’e getting confused again , clans are an anthropological term and also a Celtic word .Simple explanation .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan .
Note the distinction between clan and band . Both obviously had warriors ,it was almost a given in the period , but there is an important cultural difference .
Monks ,like Bede , are not the same as the class described as
druids .[/quote]

You obviously didn’t read or understand the difference between band and clan .
Take your time , clue , it is related to lineage . The term was in use long before the 18 th C as you had claimed ,if you had read the the simple link you would have seen that it was to be found in 1425 in an English dictionary . Of course the meaning long predates the use of a foreign term in a n Engilsh dictionary .



“ Monks not in the same class as druids? What on earth does this mean. I think Columba would have given you a severe lecture on class (he probably wouldn't have stopped at words). We know practically nothing about the Druids, you must have been using your time machine again. “
At the most basic level monks were belonged to a christian order . Druids were around pre Christianity .We don’t know much about them ,but enough to realise they they were not like monks .
Waht distinguishes Bede is his writing , something the druids didn't do

“Noi I think it was because the answer weould embarass you. “

You are getting even sillier .

“My apologies but you quoted the exhibition to reinforce your point and said the items featured "were very similar". Now you deny going. “

You don’t read or understand much . You said that I had claimed that I had gone to the exhibition . You made that up , I never suggested that I did .Now you say that I denied going , you made that up too , I never said I didn’t go .You managed to get it wrong on both counts , that takes a bit of doing . read slowly , the info is all there .

“Sorry your experts (which in your case seem a very strange crew) are changing their mind. “
Check out the experts on linguistics ,art and genetics and they will not support the Celtosceptocism view . The few who did support it are the ones we no longer hear from , on that point .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:29 am

“Sorry "thread" is again a term I do not recognise in this contest - it seems to be the very issue we are discussing.”
The thread is common link Related to 1) language . i.e. The Celtic languages , which have great similarities e.fg. see http://omniglot.com/language/celtic/con ... /index.php
Not substantially different as you seem to believe .
2) Genetics :Read any of the recent findings from the past decade including the recent hack article that was alluded to in the first post . Pay particular attention to sub clade P312 and SNP L 21 . Then note the association with the languages group .
3)Art . Read the experts on Iron Age art and note how they describe the art found in the same regions as above as being Celtic and also argue against celtoscepticism . ]“Yeah simple is the word. I am asking how you are using the term, “
Exactly as it is used by anthropologists , archaeologists , linguists , historians tc . See the wiki or any reputable definition .


I suggest you read something about Iron Age Britain and basic antropology. Sorry the BM exhibition which you saw or did not see(?) did not label its items Celtic. The French also do not use this derivation in their museums. Neither do the Spanish - odd that eh.

Do tell us if an art historian labelled someting as "Celtic" what would he/she be saying? Where would they being saying the object was made? Or does that not matter in your world?

Plain fact sorry.

Keep asserting it though - "Everything I say three times is true" and you have quoted your" experts" more than tree times.- worked for Lewis Carol.



Oh it rather does if you are asserting some mysterious deep cultural affinity. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. How do thei Picts fit in - are they part of your "Celtic" empire? If not why not? "
There is no need for a "mysterious deep cultural affinity" . The facts are all there ,see above .
The above is all that you need . and what you have to falsify to show there the term Celtic is not applicable . The other questions are smoke screens .If you really want answers to them start another topic .
However , short answer , Like the Celts the Picts were an the Iron Age Celtic group named by the Romans ,they would not have called themselves Picts any more than the greater grouping would have called themselves Celts . They lived roughly from the Tay to Caithness .


Glad to see you include a single fact in this fairly vacuous restatement of your position. I asked you do you consider the Picts to be Celts. Simple question surely? You call them an "Iron age people" why not Celts? Suddenly frightened of the term?

“No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they? “

Your’e getting confused again , clans are an anthropological term and also a Celtic word .Simple explanation .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan .
Note the distinction between clan and band . Both obviously had warriors ,it was almost a given in the period , but there is an important cultural difference .
Monks ,like Bede , are not the same as the class described as
druids .

You obviously didn’t read or understand the difference between band and clan .
Take your time , clue , it is related to lineage . The term was in use long before the 18 th C as you had claimed ,if you had read the the simple link you would have seen that it was to be found in 1425 in an English dictionary . Of course the meaning long predates the use of a foreign term in a n Engilsh dictionary .


Ho ho, no because you provided no distinction, because there isn't one. No one knows about "Clans" in the IA and PRB period do they. Your problem is that the "Germanics" were also strong on lineage weren't they? I mean with their king lists, Woden Born heritage, ancestor veneration n all? Do you know anything about the "Germanics" - seriously? Is it not odd that the Romans who were on the receiving end of both bands and clans did not make any distinction.

1425 is a thousand years after the supposed "Celtic floruit" You don't think you come across a bit silly and little bit desperate.

Perhaps you could extend your reading beyond Wikipedia? Which is not good in this area as it is a bit dated.

Monks not in the same class as druids? What on earth does this mean. I think Columba would have given you a severe lecture on class (he probably wouldn't have stopped at words). We know practically nothing about the Druids, you must have been using your time machine again. “
At the most basic level monks were belonged to a christian order . Druids were around pre Christianity .We don’t know much about them ,but enough to realise they they were not like monks .
Waht distinguishes Bede is his writing , something the druids didn't do


This is gibberish. Who says Druids were monks? Bizzare. the point made is that Bede describes A/s pagan priests. Have you not even read Bede? His section on the conversion of the pagan priests is heavily quoted.

All we know about druids was that they seem to have perfomed some sacred functions - apart form that we know nothing. They may have been celibate of course and some beleive they may have had a form of writing. There is a theory that this is why the irish took to monasticism so keenly - it reflected what they already knew (I mean monasticism in its earliest form of course something like the culdees- not the Benedictines). The Welsh (again through Bede) seem to have been more keen on Bishops -Patrick describes himself as a bishop - which means he must have been ordained by other bishops.

“Noi I think it was because the answer weould embarass you. “

You are getting even sillier .


Not very good try - the point still stands does it not?

“My apologies but you quoted the exhibition to reinforce your point and said the items featured "were very similar". Now you deny going. “

You don’t read or understand much . You said that I had claimed that I had gone to the exhibition . You made that up , I never suggested that I did .Now you say that I denied going , you made that up too , I never said I didn’t go .You managed to get it wrong on both counts , that takes a bit of doing . read slowly , the info is all there
.

Well it is fairly clear you didn't go (as you show no familiarity with it) and fairly clear you wanted to imply you did by commenting on the exhibits. I went to the exhibition 5 times. There is a very easy way to prove me wrong is there not? Instead ofjust blustering?

“Sorry your experts (which in your case seem a very strange crew) are changing their mind. “
Check out the experts on linguistics ,art and genetics and they will not support the Celtosceptocism view . The few who did support it are the ones we no longer hear from , on that point .


Hmm as I say a very strange crew. The experts ot the BM we hear from do we not? I heard them lecture fairly recently on coin hordes, another native British (largely southern) not "Celtic" phenomenon incidently - which they comented on. Doubtless you were there? Or were you?
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:12 pm

“I suggest you read something about Iron Age Britain and basic antropology. “
Something that you have obviously failed to do or understand .

“Sorry the BM exhibition which you saw or did not see(?) did not label its items Celtic. The French also do not use this derivation in their museums. Neither do the Spanish - odd that eh. “
The BM exhibition ,the one which you managed to get my relationship with , entirely wrong on two counts despite simple comments , was called “Celtic art and identity “ . Not that it matters or changes anything apart from yet another error but note
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and ... m-scotland
French examples : The National Archaeological Museum of France as the name suggest is pretty important .
Note the third of four pics ,Celtic wheels , odd that eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... 8France%29
Then there is
http://www.burgundytoday.com/historic-p ... bracte.htm
The name give it away though .
Spain . note the collections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... m_of_Spain
Why no mention Germany ,too Germanic ?
http://www.dezeen.com/2011/05/18/celtic ... chitektur/
Bit of a clue in the name again .

“Do tell us if an art historian labelled someting as "Celtic" what would he/she be saying? “
Very simple , read about Celtic art and various clues given about the term Celtic in multiple posts here .


“Glad to see you include a single fact in this fairly vacuous restatement of your position. I asked you do you consider the Picts to be Celts. Simple question surely? You call them an "Iron age people" why not Celts? Suddenly frightened of the term?”
Of course the Picts were Celtic .


“Ho ho, no because you provided no distinction, because there isn't one. “
You still didn’t read or understand the distinction

1425 is a thousand years after the supposed "Celtic floruit"

Perhaps you could extend your reading beyond Wikipedia? Which is not good in this area as it is a bit dated.

Sadly you can’t seem to understand the simplest of comments ,even on Wiki .
The date 1425 is the date that the word clan was used in an English dictionary . This makes a nonsense of your comment “clans are largely an 18th century invention “ .Worse that is just the use of the term in a foreign dictionary ,it is the meaning of the concept that matters ,which obviously predates a word in a dictionary .



All we know about druids was that they seem to have perfomed some sacred functions - apart form that we know nothing.
We know that they did not write and were employed as ministers for sacrifices and were not Christian . Bede was a Christian is famous for his writings and had no known involvement in sacrifices .

“There is a very easy way to prove me wrong is there not? Instead ofjust blustering?”
You are the one who is blustering and have managed to prove yourself wrong . I never said that I went or that I didn’t , you said that I had said I had gone , then contradicted yourself by suggesting that I had said that I hadn’t ,wrong on both counts .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:00 pm

“I suggest you read something about Iron Age Britain and basic antropology. “
Something that you have obviously failed to do or understand .


This from someone who does not know what Bede wrote, has no idea about the culture of the "Germanics", seems further not to know about Patrick or basic archaeology, contradicts themselves, ties themselves up in knots about clans and bands (though it was funny) and who refuses to acknowledge the basic racism of terms used to deny people their cultural identity.

“Sorry the BM exhibition which you saw or did not see(?) did not label its items Celtic. The French also do not use this derivation in their museums. Neither do the Spanish - odd that eh. “
The BM exhibition ,the one which you managed to get my relationship with , entirely wrong on two counts despite simple comments , was called “Celtic art and identity “ . Not that it matters or changes anything apart from yet another error but note
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and ... m-scotland
French examples : The National Archaeological Museum of France as the name suggest is pretty important .
Note the third of four pics ,Celtic wheels , odd that eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... 8France%29
Then there is
http://www.burgundytoday.com/historic-p ... bracte.htm
The name give it away though .
Spain . note the collections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... m_of_Spain
Why no mention Germany ,too Germanic ?
http://www.dezeen.com/2011/05/18/celtic ... chitektur/
Bit of a clue in the name again .



Not sure what this collection of silly nonsense is trying to prove. I went to the BM exhibition the message behind the title was explained in the first panels.
which you obviously missed otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to make the point. Pathetically You pretended you had visited the BM exhibition, you hadn't that's clear. You could have admitted it earlier and not made a fool of yourself. Although to be fair you might have gone with your eyes closed

Not sure Wiki your source for everything is considered a leading source? You will have noted its dated references especially in terms of PRB? I am not sure Culture 24 is all it is cut out to be either.

What a rag bag of sources. Though the term Celtic is used in the Glauberg discoveries, the Hallstatt culture would be the correct term one suspects it is used in marketing to lure people like you -Halllstatt culture would be the correct term as was made clear in the recent BBC doco on the subject which examined subject.

Let me try to make something clear to you the word Celtic is still used. You may buy a Celtic burger in NY but as a historical/cutltrual reference it is ceasing to be used. This is because with increased scholarship the differences are proving to be bigger than the similarities.

You will still see the phrase "Wars of the Roses" used - though it is largely conceded to be inaccurate
“Do tell us if an art historian labelled someting as "Celtic" what would he/she be saying? “
Very simple , read about Celtic art and various clues given about the term Celtic in multiple posts here .


So we can't answer the question can we? Never mind.

“Glad to see you include a single fact in this fairly vacuous restatement of your position. I asked you do you consider the Picts to be Celts. Simple question surely? You call them an "Iron age people" why not Celts? Suddenly frightened of the term?”
Of course the Picts were Celtic .


Are you sure? In what sense? What did Bede mean then by seeing them as a distinct people? Distinct from the Irish in particular? How could he make such an error?

Oh dear!


“Ho ho, no because you provided no distinction, because there isn't one. “
You still didn’t read or understand the distinction


But you didn't provide one did you? Just silly blather which showed you did not clearly understand what you were talking about. I still await a clear definition. Doesn't wiki have one, oh dear again.

More bluster

1425 is a thousand years after the supposed "Celtic floruit"

Perhaps you could extend your reading beyond Wikipedia? Which is not good in this area as it is a bit dated.

Sadly you can’t seem to understand the simplest of comments ,even on Wiki .
The date 1425 is the date that the word clan was used in an English dictionary . This makes a nonsense of your comment “clans are largely an 18th century invention “ .Worse that is just the use of the term in a foreign dictionary ,it is the meaning of the concept that matters ,which obviously predates a word in a dictionary.


The 18th century is a typo. But 1425 is still 1000 years from 400 and the fifth century is it not? The so-called (but no longer) Celtic cultural apogee. Long time eh? It could have been mentioned earlier in Scottish law texts, religious works etc. 1425 isn't the date of the first book written in Britain is it genius?

Think some English words might have changed meaning since 1100? And do remind me what do the Welsh use, bands or clans? And how do these fit into the Welsh kingdoms - Gwynedd, Dyfed, Deheubath, Powys etc?

Did they have clans in Elmet?


All we know about druids was that they seem to have perfomed some sacred functions - apart form that we know nothing.
We know that they did not write and were employed as ministers for sacrifices and were not Christian . Bede was a Christian is famous for his writings and had no known involvement in sacrifices .


Do we? Actually there is evidence that some may have written at least partially. No one has suggested they were christian, where on earth did you get this idea from? same as your garbled account about the bands and clans? What are "ministers for sacrifices" ? It is hardly likely that all they did was kill things.

You don't know much about Bede at all do you?

“There is a very easy way to prove me wrong is there not? Instead ofjust blustering?”
You are the one who is blustering and have managed to prove yourself wrong . I never said that I went or that I didn’t , you said that I had said I had gone , then contradicted yourself by suggesting that I had said that I hadn’t ,wrong on both counts .
Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense


Whatever you said I can tell by the fact you are unaware of the exhibition and what it showed. That emerges from your answers. You could just admit the fact.

Heres another tip, do not get attached ot cultural labels. They are just constructs and do change. I have already pointed out that the term Renaissance is now being increasingly questioned.
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:49 pm

“You pretended you had visited the BM exhibition, “
I have already pointed out a few times that I never “pretended to have to visited the exhibition “ at all , this is another of your made up fantasies .
You even suggested that I had said that I hadn’t visited the exhibition , you got that wrong too .
If you think that is true why don’t you simply quote me . You can’t ,as I never said that . Yet another example of you making stuff up .

Wiki is obviously is not my source for everything , it is simple , but seems to be beyond the basic limits of your understanding .

You keep coming up with rubbish that is easily refuted . The latest was “The French also do not use this derivation in their museums. Neither do the Spanish “ I provided the simplest refutation possible , a wiki page with the name of the museum and one of only four pics of exhibits from the museum which had the very derivation you had said wasn’t used . You made that up too .
The word Celtic is used by the museum ,you said it wasn’t . Hamburgers are neither here nor there and another example of the desperation to avoid the central argument .

Ah 18th C was typo ? 8 close to 5 on your keyboard is it ? took a while to sink in . Regardless , the error was immaterial you got the understanding of the situation entirely wrong too .

The exhibition at the BM which seems to be the basis of your entire understanding of the subject and subsequent errors was entitled “Celtic art and identity “ .Notice the operative .

Essentially Bede , Picts ,the exhibitions your errors, typos and misunderstandings , avoid the central issue .

Linguists have shown that there is a European group of languages they have called Celtic that have much in common . They could have called the languages anything ,it doesn’t matter Celtic is simply a convenient name for the group .e use that name to describe the speakers of these languages , that alone is sufficient reason for it’s use . It is the same reason we use the term Germanic or Slavic for speakers of these group of languages , and nobody bats an eye .
Your responses to the fact that linguists group the Celtic languages into the same category were 1)the languages “ are substantially different” , if you believe that then you are on your own ,nobody with any knowledge of linguistics would agree with you . You attempted to evade that problem with a wonderful non sequitor 2) “You are aware the Irish are said to have invaded parts of Wales?” and then 3)” The idea of grouping is not the samer as saying language familiers mean cultural affinity “ Nobody ,least of all me had said anything like that .
You have no meaningful response to this at all .The celtosceptics had the same problem .
But that is not all ,latterly we have had the findings from genetics which shows an association with the these linguistic groups i.e where we find Celtic languages we find the same haplotype and snp’s and sub clades . These findings can be traced chronologically and they provide a movement east to west , as had been suggested by many before the findings , and argued against by the some celtosceptics who also had an anti- migrationist stance as part of their beliefs . The genetic findings destroyed their stance .You have provided nothing to against this , how could you ? The expert geneticists use the same terminology as the expert linguists , i.e. Celtic . Some historians with an agenda but with no expertise or knowledge in either of the two disciplines have still to catch up , it sounds like you might have come across them .
One of the two alone would be sufficient for reasonable use of the term , both together is more than enough . The fact that Iron Age art experts also refer to Celtic art and argued successfully against the celtoscepticism is icing on the cake .
That is what you have to refute /falsify . Don't attempt more bluster ,just do it , if you can . If you can't , don't waste more time and space .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:47 pm

Hi guys -

As it is tough for me to type, please do not take my brevity for rudeness,

In the Americas, mt DNA is about the only useful indicator of population movements.
This is undoubtedly related to Hardachre's Observation.

Within those mt DNA groups one can find a wide range of cultures,
many very distinct.

As far as Pict goes, to my knowledge it is a PIE relic, and the oldest linguistic layer preserved.
Quite useful, that.

In light of the radio carbon calibration revolution, the questions of migration versus diffusion are still being worked out.
And It is not all one way or the other, but some mix.
A little less heat gentlemen, and a little more light, please.

But both of you are missing a big point here, and I invite both of you to review:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html

which I put together back when I had a brain.

Or my little research summary here:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc062402.html

Afterwards, discuss Celtic and Germanic peoples.

Finally, due to the rise in sea levels much key data awaits discovery;
further new data is recovered all of the time, leading to new insights.
That's why there's "Archaeological News".

So I'm going to be bold here and suggest you tone it down, and try to make yourselves useful to modern societies.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:33 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:
As far as Pict goes, to my knowledge it is a PIE relic, and the oldest linguistic layer preserved.



Picts are not really germane to discussion but fwiw ,they left no writing and we simply dont' know what language they spoke , although it would have been almost certainly Celtic and certainly a long way up stream from P.I.E. .

"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 .

"Afterwards, discuss Celtic and Germanic peoples."
You have missed the point , some suggest it is not appropriate to talk of Celtic peoples , as in the title of the thread .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:38 am

“You pretended you had visited the BM exhibition, “
I have already pointed out a few times that I never “pretended to have to visited the exhibition “ at all , this is another of your made up fantasies .
You even suggested that I had said that I hadn’t visited the exhibition , you got that wrong too .
If you think that is true why don’t you simply quote me . You can’t ,as I never said that . Yet another example of you making stuff up .


Why don't you simply say yes or no instead of all this wind and pomposity. If you had gone you wouldn't only quote the poster would you? You keepo dasncing around the point because you know you will be caught out.


Wiki is obviously is not my source for everything , it is simple , but seems to be beyond the basic limits of your understanding .


Well pardon me but you have not read the sources have you? Incidently do you notice how Wiki is ceasing to use the word Celtic in this context.

You keep coming up with rubbish that is easily refuted . The latest was “The French also do not use this derivation in their museums. Neither do the Spanish “ I provided the simplest refutation possible , a wiki page with the name of the museum and one of only four pics of exhibits from the museum which had the very derivation you had said wasn’t used . You made that up too .
The word Celtic is used by the museum ,you said it wasn’t . Hamburgers are neither here nor there and another example of the desperation to avoid the central argument .


You provided single examples which I explained. Plainly you have never visited museums in these areas?

As I say people like you use the word, wrongly, and it is used in marketing. Never said otherwise, do keep up.


Ah 18th C was typo ? 8 close to 5 on your keyboard is it ? took a while to sink in . Regardless , the error was immaterial you got the understanding of the situation entirely wrong too .

The exhibition at the BM which seems to be the basis of your entire understanding of the subject and subsequent errors was entitled “Celtic art and identity “ .Notice the operative .

Essentially Bede , Picts ,the exhibitions your errors, typos and misunderstandings , avoid the central issue .


If the error is immaterial why mention it ho ho?

Sorry but I am still waiting to hear how a word written down in one doc in 1425 is related to the social structures of Britain, Ireland Wales, Britanny Gaul and Spain etc in 400 AD and before. 1000 years earlier. Your priceless bands and clans.

Yes I know the BM poster trouble for you is that I went to the exh heard the lectures and read the info which explored this very issue. Perhaps attending exhibitions is better than just reading the posters? I just suggest this as a way to help you learn. You obviously place great faith in posters and taking them literally.

Is this really the best you can do. Oh dear. The Celts seem to be in peril.

Linguists have shown that there is a European group of languages they have called Celtic that have much in common . They could have called the languages anything ,it doesn’t matter Celtic is simply a convenient name for the group .e use that name to describe the speakers of these languages , that alone is sufficient reason for it’s use . It is the same reason we use the term Germanic or Slavic for speakers of these group of languages , and nobody bats an eye .
Your responses to the fact that linguists group the Celtic languages into the same category were 1)the languages “ are substantially different” , if you believe that then you are on your own ,nobody with any knowledge of linguistics would agree with you . You attempted to evade that problem with a wonderful non sequitor 2) “You are aware the Irish are said to have invaded parts of Wales?” and then 3)” The idea of grouping is not the samer as saying language familiers mean cultural affinity “ Nobody ,least of all me had said anything like that .
You have no meaningful response to this at all .The celtosceptics had the same problem .


You really should not talk on subjects of which you have no understanding and no context. I have diosposed of this point ad nauseum.

You are not capable of dealing with this subject endlessly repeating Germanic and Slavic wiothout fully undeerstanding what these terms mean.

You are aware that some consider that the Belgae (wiki it) who you would consider Cletic, may have spoken flemish or an early verison of.

Incidently (to highlight just one point) few liguists woiuld just use the word "Slavic" - it too is nearly meaningless. Eastern and middle European languages are divided further.

Remember my point about calling all asians "Chinese". You never answered it. Very indicative. I imagine you do not bother distinguishiing between peoples and cultures in Africa either. And god help the native Americans.

But that is not all ,latterly we have had the findings from genetics which shows an association with the these linguistic groups i.e where we find Celtic languages we find the same haplotype and snp’s and sub clades . These findings can be traced chronologically and they provide a movement east to west , as had been suggested by many before the findings , and argued against by the some celtosceptics who also had an anti- migrationist stance as part of their beliefs . The genetic findings destroyed their stance .You have provided nothing to against this , how could you ? The expert geneticists use the same terminology as the expert linguists , i.e. Celtic . Some historians with an agenda but with no expertise or knowledge in either of the two disciplines have still to catch up , it sounds like you might have come across them .
One of the two alone would be sufficient for reasonable use of the term , both together is more than enough . The fact that Iron Age art experts also refer to Celtic art and argued successfully against the celtoscepticism is icing on the cake .
That is what you have to refute /falsify . Don't attempt more bluster ,just do it , if you can . If you can't , don't waste more time and space .


You have repeated this and again all it shows is that you have little understanding of what this actually means. I simply refer you to the quote earlier. To aide you I will point out that in historical terms the chronology used by genetics is of very limited use. And I wouldn't talk about lacking knowledge - from someone who has not read Bede or any of the sources for this period. Very silly as is your weird idea that cultures seem to spread only by migration.

How does genetics help with your clan/band routine?

I think your definition of expert is probably better described as crank. True experts demand precision (or should) not slap sloppy and inadequate labels on things. and it is the experts who are driving the change. A recent conference at the BM on this period did not use the term once in fifteen presentations.

Perhaps you could illuminate tihs mysterious and chilling agenda being wrought by evil historians. Paranoia or what. The Great Anti-Celt conspiracy (GAC)! Since you beleive in this can you tell us more? Where do they meet? What is the agenda?

Your use of ridiculous labels like "Celtosceptic" (meaningless are there Reniassancesceptics?) and "anti-migrationist" (not even clear english, what does it even mean? That one opposes all migration? What has that got to do with cultural affinity in the IA and PRB? And what on earth is a "migrationist" someone who always moves about a lot? Things are pretty desperate when you start using silly terms.).

I presume you are aware that cutures do not need mass human migration to spread ? The reason the Irish are catholic is not because they were mass settled by the Romano British.

May I suggest instead of taking a hopelessly political and paranoid view you read some sources, look at some dig reports? Partick (who was actually Britthonic), Bede and Gildas are good and are freely availalble. You can also get access to the Yr Goddoidin. This describes the attempt of some Britthonic horsemen to meet with Germanic migrants in Catterick with a view to checking their immigrant status, explaining to them the benefits system and why they dont qualify for social housing. Whether the horsement travel as a band or clan (to use your hilarious words) they do not say. Perhaps if they played instruments on their way they may have been a clan band!

Sorry couldn't resist it.
Last edited by Simon21 on Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:51 am

As far as Pict goes, to my knowledge it is a PIE relic, and the oldest linguistic layer preserved.


Picts are not really germane to discussion but fwiw ,they left no writing and we simply dont' know what language they spoke , although it would have been almost certainly Celtic and certainly a long way up stream from P.I.E.


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?

"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 .


Because it appeals to you. Atrchaeogentitics have not yet found any evidence to support for any labelling. Celt is a misused cultural term. Nothing more
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Simon21 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:09 am

As it is tough for me to type, please do not take my brevity for rudeness,

In the Americas, mt DNA is about the only useful indicator of population movements.
This is undoubtedly related to Hardachre's Observation.

Within those mt DNA groups one can find a wide range of cultures,
many very distinct.


But of course cultures do not require population shifts to alter do they? We have no DNA to chroncile the arrival of St Augustine of St Columba or St Patrick, but they wrought pretty big cultural changes. And the Englsih are not protestant because Henry VIII imported masses of Germans.

As far as Pict goes, to my knowledge it is a PIE relic, and the oldest linguistic layer preserved.
Quite useful, that.


The Pictish language is still largely a mystery - the problem largely stems from Bede who seems to have seen them as a distinct people, but he does not explain what he means by this. 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.

In light of the radio carbon calibration revolution, the questions of migration versus diffusion are still being worked out.
And It is not all one way or the other, but some mix.
A little less heat gentlemen, and a little more light, please.
But both of you are missing a big point here, and I invite both of you to review:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html


Unfortunately my opposite number seems to have a somewhat hysterical approach to the subject and appears to think Historians are inviolved in a secret conspiracy to eliminate the word Celt. Not sure why a label shoud promote such a response.

It is imprtant to understand that we only have a few sources for this period
Finally, due to the rise in sea levels much key data awaits discovery;
further new data is recovered all of the time, leading to new insights.
That's why there's "Archaeological News".


Which is exactly the point, knowledge moves on. At one time all the peoples in pre Roman Britain were assumed to be the same - painted themselves in woad and hunted heads. As all native Americans/Australians were lumped with one identity, thus making it easier to dispossess them.

Now we know different - or at least some of us do.
Simon21
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Flush the "Celtic" Nonsense

Postby Tiompan » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:03 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 .


"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 .
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 .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

PreviousNext

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron