Roman DNA

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: Roman DNA

Postby Simon21 » Mon May 21, 2018 8:06 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:[size=135]

Good morning, simon -
$125... $125... $125...
And if you look at the preview, all he did for the first part is take what is known, and add in Columba materials.
I wonder who Cambridge is raising as their champion,
or if they have given up the field.


Not sure what this means. Columba is important for the conversion not so important for the accuturalisation debate

$125...
If I only had Grahma Hancocks's ego and rather complete lack of morals,
I could pirate what he published, sell it cheaper,
go into the Druids and replace Hancock's ayahausca tourism.
but I spent so much time talking experimenters down years ago,
that I certainly am reluctant to mention specifics of Druid hallucinogen use.
Christ, the National Health Service would be all over my ass.


No idea who this is. No evidence the druids used halicogenic drugs, apart from alcohol. Since they did not write anything down little is known of them

so on to the issues you raise - but in a more convenient order..

$125

That is not what I said.
I said the English are not interested in Scottish history,
any more than OHS is interested in Shawnee history.
This can be seen in the spending of funds,
and the failure to handle the PIct stelae properly.


No evidence for this. Many key sites in Scotland were excavated with UK money. In any case my point remains, the Scots are very interested in thier own history. The Pictish stelae have their own museum and are handled very well.


Again, not what I said. I said Bazas had been hit by an impact airburst.


Ahh you know this because you were there? Odd because the phrase "impact airburst" does not occur in any source I have read.


Thanks for the news.


Pleased to be of service. Crucially they have found evidence for the making of vellum. This means the creation of manuscripts (in Latin of course vernacular writing did not occur till years later). It is posited that some early manuscripts in the BM come from Argyle. Though I have seen this sort of trick before with Cornwall where Ken Dark claims some manuscripts in the Vatican were made in Western Britain - stunning stuff if true.

Again, not what I said.
What I did claim was that three morphemes are preserved,
along with spelling confusions indicating that Indo European speakers
are trying to record a PIE language.


You can't read the language but can comment on "spelling confusion"? The Picts spoke Brythonic. If you want to call that PIE of BIE or EEE go ahead, but that is the latest evidence. Tryinbg to build a theary on "mispellings" and three morphemes

Simon21 wrote:2 yrs it is your fault if you won't learn how to read docs in their original language.
3 indeed you cannot comment on any languages you do not know.

Before my stroke, I could at least check texts and translations.
For omse strange reason, Pliny's warning
"quo nihil terribilisimus mortalium timori est"
still remains.imprinted.
Along with Crete and SW Anatolia, Sunny Tuscany also comes in ahead of SW Scotland.
Please note Hancok' complete lack of abilities with ancient cultures,
and the same holds for the entire Ancient Aliens crew.
$125..$125... $125...


How can you check tranlsations If You Do Not Know the Languages. Surely this is elementary.


Obviosusly, you have never excavated or for that matter have any knowledge of
any metal workshop. Put up or shut up.


So according to you the Anglo saxons never manufactured their own jewellery, never built boats and never used latrines - because we haven't found a boatyard or a toilet block.

I suppose the Irish didn't make the Ardagh Chalice because we haven't found an Irish metal workshop? Ho ho again. Don't say that in a Dublin bar.

This is in effect what you are saying and it is ridiculous. I suggest you read a basic book on the Anglo Saxons (and early Ireland). A whole civilisation lasting for over 500 years and never made a thing. Amazing.

Leaves you with a big question though, who did make all this material? In different styles and for different purposes? Was it made in outer space and came down in an ateroid storm perhaps?
That is not my fault.


But it makes you look a bit silly though. Since going by the same logic you presumably think the A/S stole all their boats? And cooking pots and swords etc etc. When did they plant crops? Or didn't they do that either? We haven't found any bags with seed grain - hey suspiscious.


And I wonder how the Turks are making out at Aphrodisias.
I am unfamiliar with the materials on Milesian brothels.


Well presumably they never existed because we haven't found one. Haven't found one in Athens either (suspsiscions of one) so presumbly the Athenians were all totally continent. None found in Rome either, Hmmm. As for Aphrodisias dunno, but it is unlikely all the statuary in the ancient world came from Aphrodisias eh - including the 5000 pieces Cassius took from Rhodes. Yet sculpture worshops are as rare as hens teeth.

So as I say the worshop obession is ridiculous. Precious items at this time were not created in version of Tiffany's with large shopfronts, tills, glass walls and counters.

As for Bede. Well the answer to my question is simple. He used the term "anglo Saxons" to distinguish those in Britain from the Saxons in Germany.
Simon21
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon May 21, 2018 8:39 am


simon,
The late President of Estonia , Lennart Meri,
got his start as a travel writer,
which led to three very successful books on the
Kaali impact. See:
https://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/13029/

You may enjoy reading them,
as they may help you to understand
the Anglo Saxons' belief systems.

"Traveling is the only passion that doesn't need to feel shy in front of intellect," wrote Meri.
"Urban people still have an inner urge to see the world, hunger for nature."
Meri did not underestimate the drawbacks of mass tourism but concluded that
"science will liberate us from the chains of big cities and lead us back to nature".

https://www.baltictimes.com/the_russian ... ectations/

E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon May 21, 2018 9:30 am



Simon21 wrote:Not sure what this means. Columba is important for the conversion not so important for the accuturalisation debate


What this means is that one of the current world experts
also thinks that factual materials were used to construct the Life of Columba,
and he is using them to recover Cruit history.

Simon21 wrote:No idea who Hancock is.


All the better. 8)

Simon21 wrote:No evidence the druids used halicogenic drugs, apart from alcohol.
Since they did not write anything down little is known of them


Piggott's book used to be the standard introduction.

Simon21 wrote:No evidence for this (funding bias).
Many key sites in Scotland were excavated with UK money.
In any case my point remains, the Scots are very interested in their own history.
The Pictish stelae have their own museum and are handled very well.


$125... $125... $125...
You have already seen the locals complaints
about the handing off those Pict stelae.
That work is currently being carried on at essential sites is also telling.
It was clearly not done before.

Simon21 wrote:Ahh you know this because you were there?
Odd because the phrase "impact airburst" does not occur in any source I have read.


Then you need to re-read your sources.
If you are expecting them to use either
"impact airburst" or "asteroid" you will be disappointed.

Simon21 wrote:Crucially they have found evidence for the making of vellum.
This means the creation of manuscripts (in Latin of course vernacular writing did not occur till years later).
It is posited that some early manuscripts in the BM come from Argyle.
Though I have seen this sort of trick before with Cornwall
where Ken Dark claims some manuscripts in the Vatican were made in Western Britain - stunning stuff if true.


Given the parallels in motifs between that "Anglo-Sazon" bling
and those in the early manuscripts,
this comes as no surprise to me.

Simon21 wrote:You can't read the language but can comment on "spelling confusion"?
The Picts spoke Brythonic.
If you want to call that PIE of BIE or EEE go ahead, but that is the latest evidence.
Trying to build a theory on "mispellings" and three morphemes


The spelling variants all occur in the same text.

Simon21 wrote:How can you check translations If You Do Not Know the Languages.
Surely this is elementary.


They have developed these new things called dictionaries and grammars.

Simon21 wrote:So according to you the Anglo Saxons never manufactured their own jewellery,
never built boats and never used latrines -
because we haven't found a boatyard or a toilet block.


Its not my job to find any of them.

When latern sail and hull technologies
arrived in the Baltic are good questions.
I expect that the sea raiding began afterwards.
I seem to recall you were going to tell me something
about those Baltic garnet sources.
I am still waiting for at least a pointer to them

Simon21 wrote:Well presumably they never existed because we haven't found one.
Haven't found one in Athens either (suspsiscions of one) so presumbly the Athenians were all totally continent.
None found in Rome either, Hmmm.
As for Aphrodisias dunno, but it is unlikely all the statuary in the ancient world came from Aphrodisias eh -
including the 5000 pieces Cassius took from Rhodes.
Yet sculpture workshops are as rare as hens teeth.


The marble quarries are well documented.

Simon21 wrote:I suppose the Irish didn't make the Armagh Chalice because we haven't found an Irish metal workshop?
Ho ho again. Don't say that in a Dublin bar.


They used to have a nice collection of metal work in the Dublin museum.
I wonder how their isotopic analysis is coming along?

I have not looked into Irish relations with the PIcts and Scots,
which would have been my line of attack on the Irish materials,
if I had ever gotten to them.
But I doubt if I am going to ever write "Man and Impact in Europe",
and as a matter of fact, my little vacation is coming to an end.

Simon21 wrote:This is in effect what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
I suggest you read a basic book on the Anglo Saxons (and early Ireland).
A whole civilisation lasting for over 500 years and never made a thing. Amazing.


None of this is what I said.
What I said is that
the better pieces of early Anglo Saxon bling were plunder.
I expect that later on the "Anglo Saxons" made off with the craftsmen themselves as plunder.

Simon21 wrote:Leaves you with a big question though, who did make all this material?
In different styles and for different purposes?

So as I say the worshop obession is ridiculous.

Precious items at this time were not created in version of Tiffany's
with large shopfronts, tills, glass walls and counters.


Well. you're right about that .
No question, no problem, no obsession.
I have mentioned my little collection of "geological specimens" to you before.

Simon21 wrote:But it makes you look a bit silly though.


Just another colonial here. :) :D

E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby circumspice » Mon May 21, 2018 12:52 pm

None of this is what I said. What I said is that
the better pieces of early Anglo Saxon bling were plunder.
I expect that later on the "Anglo Saxons" made off with the craftsmen themselves as plunder.



Um, so let us see if I interpreted your word salad correctly EP...

Not only did the Anglo Saxons steal all their bling.... They were totally incapable of manufacturing any, therefore they had to capture artisans to do the work for them... Right?
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Roman DNA

Postby Simon21 » Tue May 22, 2018 5:44 am

What this means is that one of the current world experts
also thinks that factual materials were used to construct the Life of Columba,
and he is using them to recover Cruit history.


No that simply isn't true. That is self evidently ridiculous. Suggest again you read more Sant's lives.

Simon21 wrote:No idea who Hancock is.

All the better. 8)


If you say so but he is not a current authority like Forsyth whose books are readily available. Suggest you listen to the Pictish episode on "In our Time" Melvynn Bragg's programme

Piggott's book used to be the standard introduction.


Yippee but aren't we talking about 60 years ago before the excavations at Cadbury, etc. And professor Piggot would never have claimed that one single Sant's life in translation can teach you the language of the Picts

Simon21 wrote:No evidence for this (funding bias).
Many key sites in Scotland were excavated with UK money.
In any case my point remains, the Scots are very interested in their own history.
The Pictish stelae have their own museum and are handled very well.


$125... $125... $125...
You have already seen the locals complaints
about the handing off those Pict stelae.
That work is currently being carried on at essential sites is also telling.
It was clearly not done before.


Have I? I've been to the local museum. Complaints are complaints, doesn't mean they are accurate or true. Sorry you will get nowhere by making wild speculations about a people whose langague you don't speak and whose archaeology you obviously do not keep up on.


Then you need to re-read your sources.
If you are expecting them to use either
"impact airburst" or "asteroid" you will be disappointed.


Yes er that is rather the point isn't it. As you arfe unaware of the literary forms of this period "asteroid starburst" is your er translation.
Are you sure it was not an attack by the Klingons, or the Cybermen perhaps. Perhaps that pesky Dr Smith from Lost in Space, a right villain


Given the parallels in motifs between that "Anglo-Sazon" bling
and those in the early manuscripts,
this comes as no surprise to me.


Just a note you seem to think using the word bling means you are up to date with current trends. Sadly it makes you look a bit silly. Anglo saxon jewellery was the genuine article not gold plated tat (if you have some and think it is just "bling" you can send it to me) and its oriigins are proven.

The spelling variants all occur in the same text.


Which you can't actually read so how would you know and speling variants occur in all medieval texts, comes with the territory. Sorry to burst a bubble.


They have developed these new things called dictionaries and grammars.


So you can read the languages? Contradicting yourself aren't you? Can you or can't you?

[Its not my job to find any of them.

When latern sail and hull technologies
arrived in the Baltic are good questions.
I expect that the sea raiding began afterwards.
I seem to recall you were going to tell me something
about those Baltic garnet sources.
I am still waiting for at least a pointer to them


It is also not your job to make very silly remarks. You can't asnwer the point because you know it makes you look foolish. And I do agree that boat raiding dod not start until people had learned how to build boats er yeah.

As for the sources of the garnets thanks for the offer, but you can do your own research. The origins of the materials is open info read a book or look it up. Simples.

[The marble quarries are well documented
.

Really? But a quarry is not a workshop is it? Different things? A sculptor is not likely to ask you to step into his quarry is he/she. Quite desperate.

Simon21 wrote:I suppose the Irish didn't make the Armagh Chalice because we haven't found an Irish metal workshop?
Ho ho again. Don't say that in a Dublin bar.

They used to have a nice collection of metal work in the Dublin museum.
I wonder how their isotopic analysis is coming along?[/quote

I have not looked into Irish relations with the PIcts and Scots,
which would have been my line of attack on the Irish materials,
if I had ever gotten to them.
But I doubt if I am going to ever write "Man and Impact in Europe",
and as a matter of fact, my little vacation is coming to an end.


Yes but you do not asnwer the point do you. Simple issue no ancient Irish Tiffany's has been found so you presumably beleive all the Irish treasures were stolen from others. This is your belief. Oh dear. As I say don't say this in Dublin.

None of this is what I said.
What I said is that
the better pieces of early Anglo Saxon bling were plunder.
I expect that later on the "Anglo Saxons" made off with the craftsmen themselves as plunder.


Actually my point was pretty accurate. We can see this because you have tied yorself in knots. Now apparently the A/S did have craftsmen, but stolen ones (stolen from where? A passing asteriod?). But you were obsessed with workshops so where did these kidnapped artisans work? In the non-existant latrines on the non existant boats perhaps? Your point about workshops is contradicted by yourself.

I think your problem, and it is not confined to you, is that you do not understand ancient cultures. Craftsman were in many cases peripatetic, like the courts they served. There were no huge factories with magnificent display boards and greedy salespeople acting on commission. We are talking very small scale here.


Well. you're right about that .
No question, no problem, no obsession.
I have mentioned my little collection of "geological specimens" to you before.


No answer ot the question who made all this bling the A/S and Irish apparently stole. Simple question surely. Was it the Chinese? The Picts? Who owned the stuff originally.

Just another colonial here. :) :D


You cannot be more colonial than me, we stood up for the Queen's picture and all had to take a school oath to "fight the Communists". But some of us grew out of it
Last edited by Simon21 on Tue May 22, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Simon21
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Have we found it yet?

Postby kbs2244 » Tue May 22, 2018 2:04 pm

I think a long proven by later findings is the saying

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
kbs2244
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: Have we found it yet?

Postby Simon21 » Tue May 22, 2018 4:26 pm

kbs2244 wrote:I think a long proven by later findings is the saying

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Well quite. The great Jonathan Meades quotes the famous story of the German scientiests and archaeologists who were compelled by Himmler to spend their time looking for the lost civilisation that existed beneath the earth's crust. When they objected that this was hardly likely they wer told they were just not trying hard enough.
Simon21
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Tue May 29, 2018 10:55 pm

Hi simon -

Sorry to be so late in responding, but life in the real world sometimes intrudes upon life in cyberspace.
I'll get back to you shortly in detail.

I've been using the term impact airburst with my colleagues for so long I did not realize it is not publicly understood.
God night. Be with you shortly...

I hope you have those references to Baltic garnet sources available.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed May 30, 2018 8:25 am


Preliminary comments.

I had thought of the western PIcts (and I have not thought of them as southern PIcts or lowland Picts)
as Cruit (simple English approximation).
Their name may be better represented by kH r/l o/u t/d.
IN addition to the r/l, o/u, and t/d spelling confusions,
we have consonants plus aspirates as another indication of PIE
(following Dr. Brown's work on Lycian and Luwian).

I never suspected
1)kH r/l o/u t/d => Caledonia
nor
2) kH r/l o/u t/d => Clyde

But then PIE morphology and IE morphology are pretty heavy sailing,
taking place over thousands of years, with very few sources.

I know that the idea of recent asteroid and comet impacts is an "outrageous" idea that most people have trouble dealing with.
For that matter, when Dr. Teller began speaking about it in the mid 1980's,
I dismissed his warnings as simply coming from a nuclear scientist looking for work.
But then I did not have access to the data from the early warning systems,
which both Dr. Teller an Dr. Alvarez had.
It was not until 1997-1998 that I became aware of Drs Clube's and Napier's speculations
that I had any idea of how bad the impact hazard actually is.

We were making good progress,
but then Dr. Peiser took the Cambridge Conference over to global warming scepticism in 2004,
and I had my stroke in 2005.

That was 15 years for me, and I really can not fairly expect better from others.
The evidence will have to be overwhelming,
and with the passing of several prominent geologists,
done on a shoestring budget,
in the face of well funded massive resistance.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Have we found it yet?

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed May 30, 2018 8:42 am

kbs2244 wrote:I think a long proven by later findings is the saying

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Actually, as seen with the Holocene Start Impact Events, there is an abundance of evidence.
The problem lies with limited intellects.

simon wrote:Well quite. The great Jonathan Meades quotes the famous story of the German scientists and archaeologists who were compelled by Himmler to spend their time looking for the lost civilisation that existed beneath the earth's crust. When they objected that this was hardly likely they were told they were just not trying hard enough.


All true.
The roots of Nazism in theosophy and its subsequent promotion of Theosophist Cult Archaeology
are not well known enough.
I've already done what I can to rectify that:
ww.danieljglenn.com/the_podcasts/Stelle/Documentation/He Walked Among Us Part 1.pdf

But this analogy holds no water here.
A much better analogy to the case of impact studies
is the development of the concept of evolution,
as surely no omniscient, omnipotent, beneficial Deity would simply allow his best creations,
and his worshippers, people, to be blown off the face of the Earth by asteroid and comet impacts,
would He?
But then the data is what it is.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed May 30, 2018 8:46 am


circumspice wrote:
None of this is what I said. What I said is that
the better pieces of early Anglo Saxon bling were plunder.
I expect that later on the "Anglo Saxons" made off with the craftsmen themselves as plunder.


Um, so let us see if I interpreted your word salad correctly EP...

Not only did the Anglo Saxons steal all their bling.... They were totally incapable of manufacturing any, therefore they had to capture artisans to do the work for them... Right?


Spice, there is an important adjective in there that you are gliding right by:
"better".

YES, THIS IS A F*****G SEAL, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THEM IN GAUL OR GERMANIA
AT THE TIME THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED -

Image

Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Wed May 30, 2018 10:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed May 30, 2018 9:08 am

Simon21 wrote:
What this means is that one of the current world experts
also thinks that factual materials were used to construct the Life of Columba,
and he is using them to recover Cruit history.


No that simply isn't true. That is self evidently ridiculous. Suggest again you read more Sant's lives.


Better work on trying to improve your reading comprehension, simon.
That is exactly true.
And DENIAL is one way of handling data that upsets you.
IMO, $125 is a poor solution to the low royalty rates offered by academic presses,
but it is a solution.

Simon21 wrote:No idea who Hancock is.

All the better. 8)


Simon21 wrote:If you say so but he is not a current authority like Forsyth whose books are readily available.
Suggest you listen to the Pictish episode on "In our Time" Melvynn Bragg's programme.


Thank you for some pointers at last.
But that will be for my own entertainment on a time available basis.

Simon21 wrote:
Piggott's book used to be the standard introduction.


Yippee but aren't we talking about 60 years ago before the excavations at Cadbury, etc.
And professor Piggot would never have claimed that one single Saint's life in translation can teach you the language of the Picts.


Christ, has it really been that long?

Let me run this by you again, simon:
It appears Adomnan's Life of Columba was constructed from contemporary text sources.
From what limited materials remain,
it appears that Pict was PIE.
This accords well with the mt DNA evidence.

Simon21 wrote:No evidence for this (funding bias).
Many key sites in Scotland were excavated with UK money.
In any case my point remains, the Scots are very interested in their own history.
The Pictish stelae have their own museum and are handled very well.


$125... $125... $125...
You have already seen the locals complaints
about the handing off those Pict stelae.
That work is currently being carried on at essential sites is also telling.
It was clearly not done before.


Simon21 wrote:Have I? I've been to the local museum. Complaints are complaints, doesn't mean they are accurate or true. Sorry you will get nowhere by making wild speculations about a people whose language you don't speak and whose archaeology you obviously do not keep up on.


Keep visiting those museums, as one of them will likely have some new artifacts on display shortly.

Then you need to re-read your sources.
If you are expecting them to use either
"impact airburst" or "asteroid" you will be disappointed.


Simon21 wrote:Yes er that is rather the point isn't it. As you are unaware of the literary forms of this period "asteroid starburst" is your er translation.
Are you sure it was not an attack by the Klingons, or the Cybermen perhaps. Perhaps that pesky Dr Smith from Lost in Space, a right villain


I never changed any translation in my work, bur use those readings given.
"Impact airburst" is a standard term in current standard usage, not "asteroid starburst".
If anyone were to use the term "asteroid starbust",
they would be viewed as an idiot.

Simon21 wrote:
Given the parallels in motifs between that "Anglo-Saxon" bling
and those in the early manuscripts,
this comes as no surprise to me.


Just a note you seem to think using the word bling means you are up to date with current trends. Sadly it makes you look a bit silly. Anglo Saxon jewellery was the genuine article not gold plated tat (if you have some and think it is just "bling" you can send it to me) and its origins are proven.


YES, THIS IS A F*****G SEAL, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THEM IN GAUL OR GERMANIA
AT THE TIME THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED-

Image

I am still waiting for you to provide me with any pointers to the Baltic garnet deposits.

Simon21 wrote:
The spelling variants all occur in the same text.


Which you can't actually read so how would you know and spelling variants occur in all medieval texts, comes with the territory. Sorry to burst a bubble.

They have developed these new things called dictionaries and grammars.


So you can read the languages? Contradicting yourself aren't you? Can you or can't you?



I stand by my comments on PIE.

When latern sail and hull technologies
arrived in the Baltic are good questions.
I expect that the sea raiding began afterwards.
I seem to recall you were going to tell me something
about those Baltic garnet sources.
I am still waiting for at least a pointer to them


Simon21 wrote:It is also not your job to make very silly remarks. You can't answer the point because you know it makes you look foolish.
And I do agree that boat raiding did not start until people had learned how to build boats er yeah.


If you have trouble with the archaeological sequence for Bazas,
take it up with the local archaeologists.
Er, Yeah - Thank you for so graciously conceding my point about boat building.
Now to figure out where the Venturiones (from Ventus?) came from.

Simon21 wrote:As for the sources of the garnets thanks for the offer, but you can do your own research. The origins of the materials is open info read a book or look it up. Simples.
.

Thanks ever so much for your help.

In the same spirit of of academic cooperation and respect, here's a little help for you:
Image

Since you appear very determined to hang yourself,
giving you a little rope to do the job is the least I can do.


Simon21 wrote:
[The marble quarries are well documented
.

Really? But a quarry is not a workshop is it? Different things? A sculptor is not likely to ask you to step into his quarry is he/she. Quite desperate.
.

Indeed, a quarry is not a workshop.
But it is likely that that the sculptor's workshops may be found nearby.
In the case of metal working, metal workshops have often been found near metal sources.

Simon21 wrote:I suppose the Irish didn't make the Armagh Chalice because we haven't found an Irish metal workshop?
Ho ho again. Don't say that in a Dublin bar.

They used to have a nice collection of metal work in the Dublin museum.
I wonder how their isotopic analysis is coming along?[/quote

I have not looked into Irish relations with the PIcts and Scots,
which would have been my line of attack on the Irish materials,
if I had ever gotten to them.
But I doubt if I am going to ever write "Man and Impact in Europe",
and as a matter of fact, my little vacation is coming to an end.


Yes but you do not asnwer the point do you.
Simple issue no ancient Irish Tiffany's has been found so you presumably believe all the Irish treasures were stolen from others. This is your belief. Oh dear. As I say don't say this in Dublin.



Simon, as I could not even interest you in a discussion of Irish gold deposits and metal workshops,
I suggest you look into them before concerning yourself with my safety in Dublin.

Simon21 wrote:
None of this is what I said.
What I said is that
the better pieces of early Anglo Saxon bling were plunder.
I expect that later on the "Anglo Saxons" made off with the craftsmen themselves as plunder.


Actually my point was pretty accurate. We can see this because you have tied yourself in knots. Now apparently the A/S did have craftsmen, but stolen ones (stolen from where? A passing asteriod?). But you were obsessed with workshops so where did these kidnapped artisans work? In the non-existant latrines on the non existant boats perhaps? Your point about workshops is contradicted by yourself.

I think your problem, and it is not confined to you, is that you do not understand ancient cultures. Craftsman were in many cases peripatetic, like the courts they served. There were no huge factories with magnificent display boards and greedy salespeople acting on commission. We are talking very small scale here.


Well, one way of dealing with evidence is to simply ignore it.
Another way of dealing with evidence is to attack those presenting it,
and one way of doing this is by misstating their words.
But it does get tiresome.
If you want t continue putting words into my mouth
to build an imaginary strawman against whom you can score points,
you may find me repeating your casual insults back to you.
But then I am not very sensitive by this point.

Simon21 wrote:
Well. you're right about that .
No question, no problem, no obsession.
I have mentioned my little collection of "geological specimens" to you before.


No answer to the question who made all this bling the A/S and Irish apparently stole.
Simple question surely. Was it the Chinese? The Picts? Who owned the stuff originally?



The metal craftsmen of SW Scotland.

On your next museum tour,
you may want to take note of the early stone anvils,
in particular the early triangular ones for fine work.

Go back and carefully re-read what I wrote.
I never said the Irish stole any of the Pict craftsmen's work.

YES, THIS IS A F*****G SEAL, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THEM IN GAUL OR GERMANIA
AT THE TIME THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED-

Image
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Roman DNA

Postby Simon21 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:02 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:
Preliminary comments.

I had thought of the western PIcts (and I have not thought of them as southern PIcts or lowland Picts)
as Cruit (simple English approximation).
Their name may be better represented by kH r/l o/u t/d.
IN addition to the r/l, o/u, and t/d spelling confusions,
we have consonants plus aspirates as another indication of PIE
(following Dr. Brown's work on Lycian and Luwian).

I never suspected
1)kH r/l o/u t/d => Caledonia
nor
2) kH r/l o/u t/d => Clyde

But then PIE morphology and IE morphology are pretty heavy sailing,
taking place over thousands of years, with very few sources.

I know that the idea of recent asteroid and comet impacts is an "outrageous" idea that most people have trouble dealing with.
For that matter, when Dr. Teller began speaking about it in the mid 1980's,
I dismissed his warnings as simply coming from a nuclear scientist looking for work.
But then I did not have access to the data from the early warning systems,
which both Dr. Teller an Dr. Alvarez had.
It was not until 1997-1998 that I became aware of Drs Clube's and Napier's speculations
that I had any idea of how bad the impact hazard actually is.

We were making good progress,
but then Dr. Peiser took the Cambridge Conference over to global warming scepticism in 2004,
and I had my stroke in 2005.

That was 15 years for me, and I really can not fairly expect better from others.
The evidence will have to be overwhelming,
and with the passing of several prominent geologists,
done on a shoestring budget,
in the face of well funded massive resistance.



Sorry you admit you do not speak ancient Irish, Brittonic so it is like commenting on atomic theory without knowing Einstein.

Their name may be better represented by kH r/l o/u t/d.
IN addition to the r/l, o/u, and t/d spelling confusions,


If you cannot speak the language or know the alphabet how can you comment onb the spelling of anything?

I never suspected
1)kH r/l o/u t/d => Caledonia
nor
2) kH r/l o/u t/d => Clyde

But then PIE morphology and IE morphology are pretty heavy sailing,
taking place over thousands of years, with very few sources.


Yes! And XCr/t = Ohio oo/ltkH = Talahatchee bridge

I know that the idea of recent asteroid and comet impacts is an "outrageous" idea that most people have trouble dealing with.
For that matter, when Dr. Teller began speaking about it in the mid 1980's,
I dismissed his warnings as simply coming from a nuclear scientist looking for work.
But then I did not have access to the data from the early warning systems,
which both Dr. Teller an Dr. Alvarez had.
It was not until 1997-1998 that I became aware of Drs Clube's and Napier's speculations
that I had any idea of how bad the impact hazard actually is.


I don't know who these self styled academics are but none of them are archaeologists or noted historian. Maybe they got their degrees from that famous Univeresity in Florida that gives them out over the internet.

Whatever the future I am concerned with the past and no source even slightly mentions a bursting asteroid in the fifth century.
Simon21
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Roman DNA

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:22 am


Dr. Kennett and his correspondents, most of the people working on pre-clovis sites, are archaeologists.

simon wrote:Whatever the future, I am concerned with the past and no source even slightly mentions a bursting asteroid in the fifth century.


Well, if you can not read English,
specifically the English of the accepted standard translations,
then you are going to have a real problem understanding the past.

YES, THIS IS A F*****G SEAL, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THEM IN GAUL OR GERMANIA
AT THE TIME THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED-

Image
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Have we found it yet?

Postby Simon21 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:52 am

I do not know what a Holocene impact event is but it sounds very bad English - I had a car impact event once. Using elliptical language does not increase understanding.

I think evolution is more than a concept.

Is he an expert? He is going to recover cruit history (presumably this is a history of salt and pepper sets) from one source is he? Remarkable. I for one shall not be holding my breath and I suggest you do not either. Self evidently this is not going to happen. On the other hand the recent discovery that a body from an Anglo saxon cemetery in Norwich hales from Rajasthan (according to the DNA) is far more interesting. And relevant.

No you know what you are saying in this regard is ridiculous. I have suggested reading I can do not more.

Read more Saint's Lives.

Asteroid burst whatever they are not reffered to in any 5th or 6th century source, zilch, nada.

YES, THIS IS A F*****G SEAL, AND THERE WERE NONE OF THEM IN GAUL OR GERMANIA
AT THE TIME THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED-


I am not sure this is meant seriously. Let's be clear you a. say this is a seal, it looks like a fish does it not? b. You think along the whole coasts of Germania and Gaul no one ever saw seals?

I must say I find you concept of the world of the fifth century intruguing. Illuminated by the occasional meteorite bomb we have ww have nations who do not make anything bu8t steal from other nations who also do not make anything and everything ultimately comes down to the Picts whose language we can identify from a few casual references in a saints' life?

May I recomment "In Search of the Dark Agtes" by Michael wood. A simple text a bit dated but a very good introduction to the period.

Here is a simple acct of A/S craftwork. Note the fact that a A/S goldsmith (whom you refuse to beleive existed) becamer bishop of london
http://primaryfacts.com/8113/anglo-saxo ... ery-facts/

Accord9ing to you the A/S people made nothing. An idiotic position which would cause you to be laughed at.

Once again

1. Who did make these items according to you?


Well, one way of dealing with evidence is to simply ignore it.


Or you can make it up from texts one cannot actually read.

Another way of dealing with evidence is to attack those presenting it,
and one way of doing this is by misstating their words.


No not really. The world is round whether Hitler says it or Mthr Theresa. The evidence stands.

And you are the one stating the Anglo Saxons made nothing. Which is about the same as saying all America's Native peoples beleived in cannibalism and mass human sacrifice. It is self evidently a very sily thing to say.

Oh yeah. Acculturalization of the Germanic Sea Raiders.
(Oh And did I mention before that they were beserkers?
If you know what that really means.)


Opps you are getting the Vikings confused with the Anglo Saxons. It seems you do not know what a Beserker is. Who will you bring in next the Jannisaries?

The way the studies are going to go is Mercia, Rheged, and then the Cruit.

But of course, some new archaeological find could change this


Er a bit meaningless. Are we saying the rest of Britain was wiped out by an asteroid. Whe you have done your reading you will find out that fifth/sixth century Britain had a numbe4r of states including Powys, Wessex, east Anglia, Sussex etc

You and I are partly the peopl we are because of what happened in these kingdoms, especially those south of the wall. After all we speak Englsih do we not? Not Pict and not irish but English.

Sorry if that causes you pain

As near as I can make out,
all of the sea raiders were referred to as "Angles" by the locals,
after the first of them to show up.


So we have not read Bede either it seems. Bede is the man who largely gave the Englsish people their name (Gens Anglorum). He was a Northumbrian (another kingdom you do not appear to have hear of).

If you haven't read the man who is generally regarded as the father of Enlgish history you ar enot likely to understand anything about this period.
Simon21
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests