View Full Version : What would offend a Celt?
Theodotos I
07-14-2008, 18:12
An unusual question, obviously, but I need it answered for my Aedui AAR. I mean, one thing you could do in ancient times in the Middle East to insult a king's messenger would be to forcibly shave off his beard, but the Celts generally shied away from beards. So, what would be the Gallic/Celtic equivalent of such an ? Thanks for any constructive advice.
Dump him in the settlements latrine? That would certainly be construed as insulting in some cultures.
Would even allow for "Madness? THIS-IS-<Name of settlement here>!"
johnhughthom
07-14-2008, 18:26
I think the main way to offend a modern Celt is to call him English.
DaCrAzYmOfO
07-14-2008, 20:15
I say shave off his mustache :D
satalexton
07-14-2008, 20:34
call him a roman? (read too much astrix >_>)
As there are no Celts today, I assume you're question is about pre-Roman Gaul or southern Germany. In that case, one Gaul to another may tell their enemy, that after he took his head, above the door he'd nail it to the shed, so his ugly face might scare away the crows. And for his body, if he could only hide the smell, he will chop it up and feed it to the dogs, if they'd deem it fit enough to eat?
ezekiel2517
07-14-2008, 21:28
I think the main way to offend a modern Celt is to call him English.
couldn't help but to laugh at this one :laugh4:
Shylence
07-14-2008, 21:33
Spit in his face. right in the eye. that would definatly offened anyone let alone a gaul
Olaf The Great
07-14-2008, 21:35
Insult his plaid pants/kilt.
Shigawire
07-14-2008, 22:28
Certainly by insulting his more famous ancestors.
Insult his plaid pants/kilt.
ohh dear.....
hahahahahah!
Swordmaster
07-14-2008, 22:39
Tell them their bagpipes and tartans are all fake 19th century stuff.
Tell them their bagpipes and tartans are all fake 19th century stuff.
i aint scottish but i was deeply offended by that >_>
General Appo
07-14-2008, 23:38
Rape and kill his entire family (including male members, pets and husbandry animals, any servants and the occasional passer-by), burn his home, discredit his name to make him the laughing stock of the entire world and get him exiled from pretty much everywhere, turn his friends against him (and then rape and kill them just for the heck of it), beat him up and leave him alone completely naked in the wilderness, crush his private parts (not cut off, crush), breck his fingers, nose, toes and some various other bones, publicy torture him infront of a laughing crowd throwing tomatoes and passing water on him, have dogs rape him, slowly force him to eat parts of his own body, and then finally say something really mean about his mother. That usually makes them feel a bit insulted, though admitedly, it doesn´t always work.
Rape and kill his entire family (including male members, pets and husbandry animals, any servants and the occasional passer-by), burn his home, discredit his name to make him the laughing stock of the entire world and get him exiled from pretty much everywhere, turn his friends against him (and then rape and kill them just for the heck of it), beat him up and leave him alone completely naked in the wilderness, crush his private parts (not cut off, crush), breck his fingers, nose, toes and some various other bones, publicy torture him infront of a laughing crowd throwing tomatoes and passing water on him, have dogs rape him, slowly force him to eat parts of his own body, and then finally say something really mean about his mother. That usually makes them feel a bit insulted, though admitedly, it doesn´t always work.
You're one scary guy :dizzy2:
You're one scary guy :dizzy2:
nah... he's just appo :laugh4:, its... normal...
nah... he's just appo :laugh4:, its... normal...
:clown:
Power2the1
07-15-2008, 01:33
Certainly by insulting his more famous ancestors.
Definitely that!
Another thing is if you and another warrior both lay claim to the Heroes portion of meat at dinner time...that'll end in death for one or both of y'all probably.
Raiding his land/cattle is another sure way to guarantee a reprisal raid of your own land and cattle in the future.
artavazd
07-15-2008, 02:36
Calling him a ManWhore?
What would offend a Celt?
Hide his menhir?
Kidnap his druid?
Tell him he is a mythical creation of Hellenic/Roman xenophobia compounded with 19th century sectarian/nationalist sentiment?
As there are no Celts today....
Cheeky fellow, there's lots of people who call themselves Celts.
They live in their ancient homelands of Brooklyn and possibly Queens, and worship at the shrine of the Gallo-Lenape deity Tammany :saint:
Tell him that he is a part of "Fantasy" 2 hander sword unit, and is desperately trying to substitute lack of manhood with the size of the sword.
Plus i would guess a show of disrespect towards ones chosen deity might get things started nicely as well.
ibleedgrenchese
07-15-2008, 05:41
Just cut off his head stock it in his ass and throw him back to the gaul imsure someone might find that provoking
russia almighty
07-15-2008, 07:56
If he has a hot red head sister, banging her?
Tyrfingr
07-15-2008, 09:27
Calling him a ManWhore?
Or accusing him of loving the crappy band Manowar?
Tellos Athenaios
07-15-2008, 10:17
IIRC the Celts were (compared to Romans and others) exceedingly well aware of the need to keep themselves clean & keep up shape. Something along the lines of comparing him to a fat, smelly Roman barbarian might've offended him -- I guess. <_<
i aint scottish but i was deeply offended by that >_>
Yeah, then seriously, don't be offended.
I play the bagpipes myself. Or should I say the horrible sound of a goat in pain.
QuintusSertorius
07-15-2008, 11:47
Questioning his personal honour and the value of his word? Didn't Gauls take oaths very seriously?
Insulting the hospitality of his home.
Yeah, then seriously, don't be offended.
I play the bagpipes myself. Or should I say the horrible sound of a goat in pain.
Me too
though i'm a player of Portuguese bagpipes, called Transmontana, not sure if you guys know it...:smash:
Olimpian
07-15-2008, 16:03
Showing him how his people are portrayed in RTW vanilla?
Olimpian said it all :laugh4:
Chirurgeon
07-15-2008, 16:29
Dress him up in a Toga and send him to Academy?
QuintusSertorius
07-15-2008, 16:34
Dress him up in a Toga and send him to Academy?
He didn't ask how you offend traditional Roman sensibilities. :laugh4:
Theodotos I
07-15-2008, 17:06
To be more specific. If I, as a ancient Gallic king, sent a messenger to another king, what would he do if he wanted to insult me and my messenger. There are several ancient accounts in the middle east of messengers being sent back with their beards shaved off. What's the Gallic equivalent?
And I'll have to say the replies I've gotten so far are very, shall we say, interesting. . .
QuintusSertorius
07-15-2008, 17:08
Refuse to see him and make him eat with the slaves?
Brand him or cut off his sword arm?
What would certainly offend a whole celtic tribe?
hmmm....
To be more specific. If I, as a ancient Gallic king, sent a messenger to another king, what would he do if he wanted to insult me and my messenger. There are several ancient accounts in the middle east of messengers being sent back with their beards shaved off. What's the Gallic equivalent?
And I'll have to say the replies I've gotten so far are very, shall we say, interesting. . .
When Vercingetorix didn't agree with someone, he had his ears cut off and one of his eyes gouged out.
Me too
though i'm a player of Portuguese bagpipes, called Transmontana, not sure if you guys know it...
Ah, gaita de fole Transmontana?
I play the Gaita Galega and Cornemuse du Centre myself.
Me too
though i'm a player of Portuguese bagpipes, called Transmontana, not sure if you guys know it...:smash:
No, I didn't know you played them. .:beam:
Appo's idea just takes too long. You'd be tired.
The tradition of hospitality is a wide ranging one (it would work with Greeks too probably). Presumably you're looking for a reason for war here.
Perhaps you could throw meat to the dogs but not give any to the emissary. Or present him with a humiliating gift (like the king of France sending Henry V tennis balls in Shakespeare's play, but not as lame).
Cadwalader
07-15-2008, 23:27
Send a "gift", like a small sack of money or something: "obviously you need this lol".
I think that would piss a majesty off. I got the inspiration from Snorri's Heimskringla, where the English king sends Norway's king a sword. This is seen as something you do to your servants. The offended king (Harald I, the first king of all Norway) sent the English king Athelstan one of his sons in return. This was seen as even more humiliating. Athelstan kept the boy, which later became Hàkon the good of Norway!
Celtic_Punk
07-15-2008, 23:28
I think the main way to offend a modern Celt is to call him English.
thats more than an offence, thats the quickest way to be sleeping at the bottom of the irish sea
:ireland:
but seriously, if you call into question the parentage of himself or his children, or his skills as a tradesmen/businessmen then you are going to get a mouthful of knuckles
When Vercingetorix didn't agree with someone, he had his ears cut off and one of his eyes gouged out.
Wow. Then Vercingetorix was a earless, eyeless man from boyhood, it seems. >_> :P
No, I mean that when someone didn't agree with Vercingetorix, the latter had the ears cut off and one eye gouged out of the guy that didn't agree with him.
Ah, gaita de fole Transmontana?
I play the Gaita Galega and Cornemuse du Centre myself.
Aye, besides that one, Transmontana, i'm gathering money for a Scottish Smallpipe too
just beatiful :2thumbsup:
No, I mean that when someone didn't agree with Vercingetorix, the latter had the ears cut off and one eye gouged out of the guy that didn't agree with him.
I know. -_-' I was just making fun of a possible:
"Random guy: No
Vercingetorix: Oh yeah? Hehehe. HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS? *cuts off one of his own ears
Random guy: ...Eew. Ugh...Still no..
Vercingetorix: You sure? Really? Then.. *cuts off the other ear and takes off one eye*
Random guy: ...Okay...
Vercingetorix: Really? YAY!!"
Hahaha, sorry.
It's getting late. Awesome.
Aye, besides that one, Transmontana, i'm gathering money for a Scottish Smallpipe too
Smallpipes have a really weird style of playing. They sound nice, but are pretty weird.
Smallpipes have a really weird style of playing. They sound nice, but are pretty weird.
They are quite different from the majority of bagpipes, and i totally agree they are something a bit unusual :yes: but their sound is truly amazing
:2thumbsup:
sorry, back to the topic now lads
Sorry not to give a serious answer.
Here's an example of a successful (?) insult given to a Gaul.
Negotiations broke down, resulting in Quintus Fabius, a member of a powerful patrician family, killing one of the Gallic leaders. The Gauls demanded the Fabians be handed over to them for justice. However, the defiant Romans not only refused, but, as Livy writes, "those who ought to have been punished were instead appointed for the coming year military tribunes with consular powers (the highest that could be granted)." The enraged Gauls promised war against the Romans to avenge the insult that they had been dealt, resulting in the Battle of the Allia and the subsequent siege of Rome itself.
from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia
slightly different version of events in Appian here:
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_gallic_2.html
Yes, and thus these moronic Latins were set straight on the path to empire.
Again, in the Gaulish Culture (450-45 BC) the greatest insult to a defeated enemy would be the desecration of the falled foe's body by removing the head (seat of the soul) and displaying it as a trophy. Within the belief system of this society, this act alone deigned the dead an afterlife. By the way, their concept of an afterlife was the keystone that held this Culture and individual Gaulish societies together. Then cutting the corpse into small bits and scattering them or feeding them to animals (burning the body bits would actually have been seen as favorable). On this line, feeding the body bits to the victors hounds, would have been by far the most insulting. Anything more would have been seen as crass window dressing.
dominique
07-16-2008, 04:33
Yes, and thus these moronic Latins were set straight on the path to empire.
Your post gave me a strange idea and a good laugh:
The romans were like this guy who got dressed as a girl and raped in prison, and when he's back in the 'hood, he gets even with the world by bullying everybody and his dog.
Modern version: NO, I WAS NO PRISON BITCH!
Roman version: NO, ROME WASN'T SACKED, THE GEESE SAVED US!
:laugh4:
for a little reference on the joke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia
As there are no Celts today, I assume you're question is about pre-Roman Gaul or southern Germany. In that case, one Gaul to another may tell their enemy, that after he took his head, above the door he'd nail it to the shed, so his ugly face might scare away the crows. And for his body, if he could only hide the smell, he will chop it up and feed it to the dogs, if they'd deem it fit enough to eat?
What do you mean, there are still Celts in Scotland and Ireland, and most "English" people are in fact at least parts Celt, there are very few Roman bloodlines left in Britain. Did you perhaps mean Gauls?
And in answer to what would offend a Celt, the best thing you could possibly do is kill him, behead him, and then throw his head into a ditch and take the Torque, as a Roman "hero" did in some famous battle in CisAlpine Gaul, although I don't remember the exact battle.
Celtic_Punk
07-18-2008, 05:36
tell one of us, we ain't a Celt. someone did that to me back in the last month of school this year. busted his nose in a rage. Wasn't the OOONLY thing he said tho, but thats what really set me off haha.
Thats really only because we are a dying breed these days. Celts were very numerous. The "celt empire" spread from central Europe (around Austria) to all across northern Europe. not united, even so thats quite the achievement for one culture to spread so vastly.
Insulting a Celts honour, forcing him to his knees, defiling his wife, insulting his gods, Hell spit in his face, just simple things like that. Or you could always just dress him up like a prostitute and drag him through Rome?
Actually, the term Celt means a person that lived in Gaul. It has been misused in recent times to make nationalistic common cause, which is also strange enough another modern myth. Referring in an analytical sense to a Celtic Culture, Language Group, or Archaeological Construct is one thing, however claiming one is a qualitative abstract is quite another, indeed.
edited: sorry it actually means a Gaul.
Actually, the term Celt means a person that lived in Gaul. It has been misused in recent times to make nationalistic common cause, which is also strange enough another modern myth.
watch out you said he wasn't celt... he might bust your nose too :smash: JK
Another myth, as maybe we'll get a little cheese with that?
Celtic_Punk
07-18-2008, 06:12
lol good one LZ3
and what the other guy said, that IS not true. Celts ORIGINALLY from central europe. some tribes in northern gaul sailed to Britain (most likely swam considering our shitty boats we had then haha) in search of tin.
When Caesar wanted to pass a law that would allow "Celtus" to serve as senators(the bill being proposed just before he was murdered I believe) INCLUDED ALL clans under Roman rule.
Celtus was a blanket term for all people of the Celtic ethnicity, which was based on a native term Celts gave themselves.
All the peoples considered as Celts (Gauls, Britons, Gaels, Galatians, ect.) share similarities in language, religion, warfare, society, and other certain areas of daily life.
one exception to this is the Gaelic languages, the three surviving languages(Irish, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic) developed quite differently (and im sure they were still different to continental celts) due to the isolation of the isles. Till the Romans came there was little contact with mainland Europe.
Actually, the term Celt means a person that lived in Gaul. It has been misused in recent times to make nationalistic common cause, which is also strange enough another modern myth. Referring in an analytical sense to a Celtic Culture, Language Group, or Archaeological Construct is one thing, however claiming one is qualitative abstract is quite another, indeed.
...yep, that'll do it.:2thumbsup:
Were the Keltoi the folks up the Danube from the Thrakoi? I suspect the Hellenikoi first struck the occasionally-blue-painted metalworkers of La Tene thereabouts. Or was it around Massilia?
Caesar says there were 3 groups in "All Gaul", Belgae, Aquitani and Gauls. Are they all Celts? Its so confusing. And are Celtiberians really Basques, or Irish?
I suppose its a bit like "what is a Turk?" There's a political, linguistic, cultural and mythical answer and all rather different.
Personally I think if you're angry and drink beer you're a Celt. I consider myself a Celt, more so on a Saturday night after my football team loses.
Hety one answer to the OP would be to denigrate the Celt's footy team, that works for me.
Sorry C-Punk, I think you may have jumped a few rungs on your logic ladder? Better check your facts, as there were people the Romans called Gauls, whom they considered Celts that didn’t live in Gaul. Then there were others they simply called Celts that also didn’t live in Gaul. For example the Cimbri in Denmark. Yet, the Romans never called the Britons Celt; nor did they the Irish, or even the Scotts. There were even people that lived in Gaul they did not call Celt. You however may be confusing the Latin Celti or Celtae and Greek Κέλται or Κελτός for the English word taken from the work of Edward Lhuyd in the early 1700’s. A very common mistake but the later is a horse of a different colour.
Strange how if the Roman or Greek historical record doesn’t agree with a preconception, suddenly the ancient, which ironically is the source of most knowledge, becomes so stunningly ignorant.
CmacQ
Celtic_Punk
07-18-2008, 06:50
A gaul was no more a celt by your reasoning than any other. The first recorded settlement (by the greeks) of celts was north of the Alps. NOT in Gaul. The word Celtus (the roman term for celts) is an ethnic word that is a blanket for all celtic clans stretching from iberia to galatia. The only people you can really get away with calling non celts are iberians (due to punic infulence) and Galatians.
even if the Romans thought celts were just Gauls(which they didn't), why was there an entire word just for Gauls? and another thing, The Romans were stunningly ignorant people. so if they even believed celts were only gauls, id still be looking for another source.
edit: im familiar with the term from the 1700's, but the fact of the matter is, the celts spread from north of the alps, to iberia, to galatia, and then to the isles. the cultures may have changed (which is why you are most likely so confused) but they still shared critical similarities which allowed them to be traced.
Celtic_Punk
07-18-2008, 07:05
...yep, that'll do it.:2thumbsup:
Were the Keltoi the folks up the Danube from the Thrakoi? I suspect the Hellenikoi first struck the occasionally-blue-painted metalworkers of La Tene thereabouts. Or was it around Massilia?
Caesar says there were 3 groups in "All Gaul", Belgae, Aquitani and Gauls. Are they all Celts? Its so confusing. And are Celtiberians really Basques, or Irish?
I suppose its a bit like "what is a Turk?" There's a political, linguistic, cultural and mythical answer and all rather different.
Personally I think if you're angry and drink beer you're a Celt. I consider myself a Celt, more so on a Saturday night after my football team loses.
Hety one answer to the OP would be to denigrate the Celt's footy team, that works for me.
i doubt the celtiberians were irish, people who came to my island went to britian first, and stopped in ireland (there really isnt another place to go, cept davy jones locker) im sure they are a mix of Basques and celts migrating from southwest Gaul. Celts from Britain and Eire came from the northern coast of France and from belgium, (probably more north aswell) the Isolation of ireland resulted in a strange change of syntax with the Gaelic language aswell. (thats why its so friggin hard to learn the language, i was one of the unfortunate kids who's mum was afraid of the "troubles" so we moved to canada and I never learned it )
You are probably a Gael by blood Cyclops, being from aussyland. Hell theres an entire part of my family that lives in NZ cause their dad's dad's dad's dad's (so on n so on) got shafted stealing corn cause his family had no food (i wonder why? 800 years of theft, rape, murder, oppression come to mind anyone?)
C-Punk
Of course you’re certainly entitled to your own beliefs, and if you prefer to refer to yourself as a Celt, so be it.
CmacQ
There is no scientific convention about the identity of a "Modern Celt people", because there is no such thing nowadays. Ancient Celtic people have just mingled with foreign ethnicities and cultures, up to a point where the culture of the Celts had become merged with all others (Much like Macedonians). What we have is a nationalism driven concept, with the objective of clearly spliting the world influent English culture, from the Irish one. It was later adopted by several other regions with the same differentiating purpose.
On a curious note (About the "Celt" term, I think it was used to determine Gauls, really, but I could be wrong. Only the modern term is much broader.) about the "union of the Celtic peoples", is that there have been findings in China of Celtic materials, leading some to believe that the Celtic migrations are much bigger then anyone expected (The Chinese government is playing down these findings. Apparently, they don't want ancient european blood among their ethnical history. That's probably why most people don't even know this fact).
There...are some places that could (!) have some ethnic Celtic populations still.
Orkney, Island of Skye, Man, etc. Perhaps even Bretagne (little chance though).
dominique
07-18-2008, 15:42
I let some specialist as Cmacq correct me if I'm wrong.
But...
There's a wide misuse of the name Celt here.
The Celt referred to the inhabitants of Gaul that were first in contact with the greeks in Massilia and Caesar defined them as a sub tribe of gauls living between the Seine and the Garonne. North of the Seine lived the Belgians and south of the Garonne lived the Aquitanians (either a celtiberian or a protobasque tribe).
The greeks made a distinction between Keltoi and Galatoi (the first one living in France, the second referring to the migrating La Tene culture tribes).
The "celts" never called themselves Celts. Gael, Gaul, Goidil, Briton, Cymri (cymbri?), or their tribe name.
As for the "celtic" peoples of the British Isles... The Irish, Manx, Scottish, Welsh peoples are a good mix of ancient Gael, Viking, Norman, English, Pictish and britonnic stock. The lowlanders of Scotland are descendant of Britons and Saxons who joined the kingdom of Alba to form the kingdom of Scotland.
I know people descending directly/undirectly from La Tene cultures call themselves Celts by convention, but it would be like Jewish/Palestinians/Libanese people calling themselves canaanites... Hum...
Anyway, I have O'Neil blood in my veins, but I won't call myself a Celt because of that. That would make me part Gael, though. My paternal ancestor came from a little uphill village in Burgundy. There's a fat chance that his far away ancestors were celts.
Hear hear!
Dominique says wise things.
Also, in modern-day we usually make a distinction from neo-Celtic and Celtic (the former being more of a -cough- lifestyle -cough)
russia almighty
07-18-2008, 17:20
The Chinese have a fear in general of "non-Chinese" blood being in them.
Are you sure those Celtic Items weren't just from trade? I mean, they've found Parthian and Sassanid coins in China.
Celtic_Punk
07-18-2008, 18:07
I let some specialist as Cmacq correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I have O'Neil blood in my veins, but I won't call myself a Celt because of that. That would make me part Gael, though. My paternal ancestor came from a little uphill village in Burgundy. There's a fat chance that his far away ancestors were celts.
An O'Neil eh? I'm from Armagh, how bout you? My family was under the O'Neil rule.
back to the OP, because the Celts were largely an oral culture, and as someone else has pointed out, oaths were very important. breaking an oath--by mistreating ambassadors or sojourners, or even by slaying a chieftain in a diplomatic negotiation--is probably one of the best ways to have offended a Celt, though cmacq's vivid description of the desecration of a body may be more fitting, depending on the circumstances surrounding your AAR.
and here's an ambassor-related version of cmacq's, from the fragments of Appian, not my translation:
The Senones, although they had a treaty with the Romans, nevertheless furnished mercenaries against them, wherefore the Senate sent an embassy to them to remonstrate against this infraction of the treaty. Britomaris, the Gaul, being incensed against them on account of his father, who had been killed by the Romans while fighting on the side of the Etruscans in this very war, slew the ambassadors while they held the caduceus in their hands, and wore the garments of their office. He then cut their bodies in small pieces and scattered them in the fields.
The Chinese have a fear in general of "non-Chinese" blood being in them.
Are you sure those Celtic Items weren't just from trade? I mean, they've found Parthian and Sassanid coins in China.
Nop, because Celts have also been found there. And plenty of them. Red haired, high cheekbones and a long nose. All pattern physical characteristics of the Celts. Furthermore, the DNA is also alike. And it ain't skeletons, it's mummies. According to one of my archaeological teacher, it's even better preserved then Egyptian mummies.
Cambyses
07-19-2008, 15:46
Ah, well that answers the original question at least. :2thumbsup:
One way to offend a celt: try to deprive him of certainty in his cultural background by telling him he's not really a celt, but actually only a Gaul / Briton / Galatian etc.
Had to join the Forum just for this...
1. Laugh uncontrollably at his "manhood" as he ran at you naked. At your own risk, of course...
2. Compare his "manhood" to the big, but bent floppy sword hes been whipping around... (Ok, not SO true, they made good steel... especially in Spain.) Again, consider your ability to out-pace the average 6 foot tall Celt...
3. Tell him his descendants will eventually start worshiping the "Po-ta-toe" *duck*, instead of the bloody gods of war! and will all move to a place called "Boston", speak with a "funny" accent, drink beer (er...) get completely smashed, while watching a sport where a ball is thrown around by a team whose name has had the HARD, manly "C" reduced to an effeminate "Ssssss".
4. Tell him his spiky limed hair is SOOOO early 80's Billy Idol...
BTW,
As to "Celtic" mummies being found in China, there have been some discoveries of the mummified remains of Caucasoids bearing clothing and symbology consistent with Celtic culture (Lots of "C's" there....). Probably part of a people who originally lived in the modern Eastern Ukraine and went much further eastward, while the rest went westward Into Europe most likely after the invention of the Chariot around 2500 BCE?. Or as some have speculated, moved by the vacuum created during the "Sea Peoples" invasions around 1200 BCE or so.
Also, words in ancient Chinese seem to have been borrowed from Indo-European. Chariot, horse, warrior, prince, spear, axe and ruler/emperor. Even the Chinese character for king seems to come from elsewhere. In modern Chinese it is “wang,” but the ancient Chinese pronounced it “gwang.” Chinese characters "White" + "King" = Emperor. "White" + "Man" = Duke. So, (the theory goes) a white man is an Emperor or a Duke. The common folk were called the "Black haired people". Even much later in history, there are tales of the "Orangutan" barbarians. Hairy, wild-men with reddish hair north and west of their borders.
It has also been commented by some historians, (white racial bias not-withstanding), that Temujin himself was tall, red-haired and blue eyed. Much debate about this has been around for centuries... after all, Alexander the Great, and even Jesus Christ have all been portrayed in this manner. Be that as it may, a recent genetic study of a small clan of folks living in northern Pakistan have claimed that they are descended from Alexanders Macedonians (stationed in what was then Bactria). The testing did indeed prove the clans story to a certain degree. As the DNA showed a very close relationship to the Greeks as opposed to the Central Asians and Indians typical of the area. So, I guess anything is possible.
Also, Latin and Celtic, both being Indo-European languages, are fairly close in that many scholars of the time cited a common ancestry. In fact a VERY recent theory suggests that the "Latins" themselves were very early (possibly) Celtic invaders of what was, even by that time, a more or less "Greek" peninsula. The fact that the Etruscans who weren't related linguistically, and "boxed" (or were pushed aside?) the Latins between themselves and the Greeks is somewhat telling, and the date of the founding of Rome at 753 BCE is also consistent with the movement of peoples from the heartland of Eastern Europe further westward.
Sorry for the first post rant explosion.
Graduate from College and this is what happens. What else am I going to do with a degree in History and Genetics?
Thanks for letting me dribble on.
MeinPanzer
07-19-2008, 22:49
Nop, because Celts have also been found there. And plenty of them. Red haired, high cheekbones and a long nose. All pattern physical characteristics of the Celts. Furthermore, the DNA is also alike. And it ain't skeletons, it's mummies. According to one of my archaeological teacher, it's even better preserved then Egyptian mummies.
As to "Celtic" mummies being found in China, there have been some discoveries of the mummified remains of Caucasoids bearing clothing and symbology consistent with Celtic culture (Lots of "C's" there....). Probably part of a people who originally lived in the modern Eastern Ukraine and went much further eastward, while the rest went westward Into Europe most likely after the invention of the Chariot around 2500 BCE?. Or as some have speculated, moved by the vacuum created during the "Sea Peoples" invasions around 1200 BCE or so.
The Tarim basin mummies are remarkable and very well preserved, but they are not Celtic and any claim to the contrary is just sensationalism. The two characteristics that led to this claim were firstly that the mummies were tall with fair skin and hair and that they wore some clothing with a tartan pattern on it. The first is entirely irrelevant because many Central Asian peoples were Iranian and thus tall and fair (nomadic skeletons of Sarmatians have been found which measure almost 7 feet in height!), while the latter is almost certainly just coincidence. Basically, a single author postulated that they could have been a group of Indo-European peoples who migrated to central Europe and later became the Celts, and this was picked up and amplified in the echo chamber that is the media. As to the claim that the DNA matches, could you cite a source for this? With what did they match the DNA?
Also, words in ancient Chinese seem to have been borrowed from Indo-European. Chariot, horse, warrior, prince, spear, axe and ruler/emperor. Even the Chinese character for king seems to come from elsewhere. In modern Chinese it is “wang,” but the ancient Chinese pronounced it “gwang.” Chinese characters "White" + "King" = Emperor. "White" + "Man" = Duke. So, (the theory goes) a white man is an Emperor or a Duke. The common folk were called the "Black haired people". Even much later in history, there are tales of the "Orangutan" barbarians. Hairy, wild-men with reddish hair north and west of their borders.
This can all be explained by the fact that the Tocharians were a group that spoke a language from the easternmost branch of Indo-European and seem to have been fair. No ridiculous link to the Celts is necessary.
It has also been commented by some historians, (white racial bias not-withstanding), that Temujin himself was tall, red-haired and blue eyed. Much debate about this has been around for centuries... after all, Alexander the Great, and even Jesus Christ have all been portrayed in this manner. Be that as it may, a recent genetic study of a small clan of folks living in northern Pakistan have claimed that they are descended from Alexanders Macedonians (stationed in what was then Bactria). The testing did indeed prove the clans story to a certain degree. As the DNA showed a very close relationship to the Greeks as opposed to the Central Asians and Indians typical of the area. So, I guess anything is possible.
There are Mongolians today with reddish-blond hair, light skin, and light eyes. There have been various peoples living in Central Asia throughout history who were fair.
Thank you MeinPanzer, for doing what I didn't have time to do.
McScottish
07-20-2008, 13:01
Would it be more accurate then to refer to the Irish as Gaels, Ancient British as Britons/Brythonic and leave 'Celt' for the more European based cultures?
Orkney, Island of Skye, Man, etc. Perhaps even Bretagne (little chance though).
As far as I'm aware, those locations have large amounts of 'Viking' blood so it'd be hard to find a true 'celt' amongst them.
The Tarim basin mummies are remarkable and very well preserved, but they are not Celtic and any claim to the contrary is just sensationalism. The two characteristics that led to this claim were firstly that the mummies were tall with fair skin and hair and that they wore some clothing with a tartan pattern on it. The first is entirely irrelevant because many Central Asian peoples were Iranian and thus tall and fair (nomadic skeletons of Sarmatians have been found which measure almost 7 feet in height!), while the latter is almost certainly just coincidence. Basically, a single author postulated that they could have been a group of Indo-European peoples who migrated to central Europe and later became the Celts, and this was picked up and amplified in the echo chamber that is the media. As to the claim that the DNA matches, could you cite a source for this? With what did they match the DNA?
I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not. As far as sources go, I'd say that my archaeological teacher would be a good one. I'm merely retransmitting what I heard in the said class. As to what did they match with in the DNA, I'd suppose something on the line of European present-day citizens, though I am by no means anywhere near an informed people as to DNA proceedures, so I can't really give any answer not based on my common sense.
Would it be more accurate then to refer to the Irish as Gaels, Ancient British as Britons/Brythonic and leave 'Celt' for the more European based cultures?
As far as I'm aware, those locations have large amounts of 'Viking' blood so it'd be hard to find a true 'celt' amongst them.
The way the term was used in the Classical sense, yes. Now, as to the modern usage, which is a recent usurpation and abstraction of the ancient concept, it can only be applied in terms of a general ill-defined culture, both past and present.
Right,
These things are never so cut and dry. The Orkney, Shetland, Outer Hebrides, and Faeroe islands took in a lot of Norse in the Medieval Period. The Inner Hebrides not so much. For example, as I'm somewhat fimiliar with the subject, my family occupied Mull, and Iona, but their main island was Ulva. If clan names are any indication, there was a lot of intermarriage with the Norse settlers, particularly those that occupied the Outer Hebrides in the late Medieval Period.
Now, my family line, which bears the clan name, traces a lineage to the House of Alpin, and thus is tied to the ruling houses of Dalriata (in Ireland) and several in Alba. However, tradition holds that my surname, was not Goidelic and its meaning applied to horse rearing, as are several other clan names from the same vicinity. In the 1930’s a linguist phonetically matched the clan name to a dialect of ancient Greek ; a word with a similar meaning, again having to do with horses (this most likely goes back to some earlier IE root word). Interestingly enough when the Classical Greeks and later Romans did mention the Hebrides, they used the term Haemodae or Hebudes and called the inhabitants the Επίδιοι or Epidii, which contains the Brittonic and/or Gaulish root epos, meaning horse. I think Epidii has been rendered to mean 'those of the horse.' This would precede the Goidelic migration by as little as 400, or possible as much as 1000 yrs. There is more family tradition, but I don't want to muddy the water any more than it is already. I think you get my drift. Something like this may appear simple on the surface, yet as you go deeper, one finds nothing is as clear as it once seemed.
Right,
the point is I’ve never heard any relative, which many are well read and steeped in family lore and history, ever refer to any relation as a Celt or collective as being Celtic in any way, shape, or form. Not to draw too fine a point, nor offend anyone, but I had always supposed that the term, Celt, was yet another Fenian ploy to extract quick cash from the unwitting American; a fool and his money. Of course, this to support of their various vices, and other ill-conceived sundries, all in the name of a unity and relationship that for most there never was. I had hoped this would have subsided a bit with the recent appearance of the Gaelic Tiger and all, but I guess old habits are hard to break?
Hope this may help
CmacQ
MeinPanzer
07-20-2008, 18:03
I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not. As far as sources go, I'd say that my archaeological teacher would be a good one. I'm merely retransmitting what I heard in the said class. As to what did they match with in the DNA, I'd suppose something on the line of European present-day citizens, though I am by no means anywhere near an informed people as to DNA proceedures, so I can't really give any answer not based on my common sense.
I think the lesson here is that you should be chary of pronouncements made by professors in class, since they are of course human and will sometimes repeat things without evaluating the source material. I think we've all had some eyebrow-raising comments from professors before, and it's just good to keep in mind.
True enough, but I bear the fact that he actually has knowledge on DNA. (One of his thesis was about Neanderthalensis/Sapiens DNA comparisons), so I would assume he knows the proceedures used on the example he gave. But the question at hand is arguable enough and since I can't provide the necessary sources to clarify, it will remain so.
True enough, but I bear the fact that he actually has knowledge on DNA. (One of his thesis was about Neanderthalensis/Sapiens DNA comparisons), so I would assume he knows the proceedures used on the example he gave. But the question at hand is arguable enough and since I can't provide the necessary sources to clarify, it will remain so.
Right,
some words have meaning. For Neanderthal remains to have survived into the current era requires fossilization. DNA as used here indicates a comparative analysis based on a chemical composition. DNA from fossilized bone? Think about it for a minute, then tell everyone how one would make that match, as...
fossilization represents the physical replacement of the all the original organics with carbonates. And...
the chemical composite of the carbonates that replace the original organics of the bone are not the same. This is actually rather elementary and sadly very common; if this passes for science I suggest you find a new school quickly if you can. No reflection on you my dear fellow, but can you imagine a grown man, indeed a teacher of science, filling his young pupils with such rubbish, without even the most cursory evaluation in logic? I for one, can’t conceive of it.
This being his masters thesis is entirely another mater altogether. Of course I can remember a certain PhD from ASU not that long ago, who claimed he could date rock art using the radio carbon method. Interestingly, the dates being returned from the lab were many times older than anyone thought possible. The thing was several tried, but no one could reproduce the same or similar results. Then after he had received millions of dollars in grants from all over the world, for him to come and date their rock art, a lowly RC lab tech finally noticed the strange colouration of his samples, sent in for analysis. You see, when a sample is sent in for analysis, part of it is retained as a control measure.
Well, the short of it is that when they ran a chemical analysis, on this sample and several others he had turned in, they found they all contained significant proportions of industrial grade coal. Apparently, he figured out a way of mixing very old coal with burned wood from his back yard to get dates that ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 yrs old. And, apparently it worked pretty well, until he got caught. I heard that ASU was going to convene an ethics committee, but not really sure what happened to that one, as he kind of dropped off the radar.
Again the point is, I only know about this little tale because I was working on a field project and the director told me he was going to hire this guy to date some rock art found in our project area. He wanted to get this particular guy because of all the very early dates he was turning up in northern Mexico and Japan at the time, but he just had to get together the huge chunk of cash needed to pay for his services. I of course argued against it, simply because the nature of the patination process makes it is impossible to date carbonates. One week later the director realized he had just dodged a bullet when the story about the fraud broke.
CmacQ
Might consider to take this to PM's folks :shame:
This tread was played out long ago...
...and my offerings were just the case in point, and words to the wise for further reference.
Che Roriniho
07-20-2008, 21:29
I remember reading somewher that grabbing someone elses moustache was almost the ultimate insult. Don't quote me though.
Right,
some words have meaning. For Neanderthal remains to have survived into the current era requires fossilization. DNA as used here indicates a comparative analysis based on a chemical composition. DNA from fossilized bone? Think about it for a minute, then tell everyone how one would make that match, as...
fossilization represents the physical replacement of the all the original organics with carbonates. And...
the chemical composite of the carbonates that replace the original organics of the bone are not the same. This is actually rather elementary and sadly very common; if this passes for science I suggest you find a new school quickly if you can. No reflection on you my dear fellow, but can you imagine a grown man, indeed a teacher of science, filling his young pupils with such rubbish, without even the most cursory evaluation in logic? I for one, can’t conceive of it.
I don't get it? Have you not heard about the Neanderthal Genome Project?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_Genome_Project
Foot
Well, that sample of part of one bone, looks very interesting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Institute_for_Evolutionary_Anthropology)? What do you think?
CmacQ
I don't get it? Have you not heard about the Neanderthal Genome Project?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_Genome_Project
Foot
Indeed, I think that is one of the sources from whence came to be his thesis on the DNA. He went on to explain that now one could get DNA out of fossilized bones (only Mitochondrial or whatever is it named in English), but they could not recover the full DNA sequence because that was corrupted not too long from the death of the organism.
Tellos Athenaios
07-20-2008, 22:41
Well the main point with a lot of language is that it isn't used very carefully. "Fossilised" may not be quite adequate, but what *is* certainly possible is that a sort of air-thight seal was created around the object containing the DNA. (This tends to happen with stuff caught in a mud-flood for instance.) Such a seal would have prevented much of the "usual" damage DNA would undergo, though it must be said that DNA is a highly unstable substance so the object containing the DNA must have been very large or by default very isolated (e.g.: parts of the root of a tooth).
Didn't they find a dinosaur drumstick with meat still on it? Maybe there's DNA in that?
As for my blood, its been in Ireland and not doubt some of my ancestors have called themselves Gaelic, Goidel, Celtic, as well as English, Jewish, Francais, Romani, Sweboz, Boz Boz Boz, Triarii, and Grunt (or "Grnt" in Egyptian).
I conside myself a Pig of the Magpie totem, and you can insult me by denigrating my tribal or personal animal spirit. That or saying I'm a neanderthal (those splitters!).
Very well,
actually the pig/boar would indeed be a Celt/Gaulish totem, and a sign of noblity/kingship. The magpie/crow the Celtic/Gaulish symbol for prowess at war. See M Valerius and his personal combat with a giant Gaul and the crow. The boar was depicted on Gaulish coins and artifacts more than any other animal, except of course the horse.
CmacQ
Didn't they find a dinosaur drumstick with meat still on it? Maybe there's DNA in that?
The Neanderthalensis is normally dated from 130.000/32.000 B.P. (Before Present). Whereas dinossaurs generally ended about 65.000.000 B.P. Since the timeline difference is not that great, yeah, maybe they'll find meat on a dinosaur's bone.
There are several processes by which fossilisation can take place. Not all involve total replacement of the organic material. In any case, the Neanderthal bones used to extract the DNA are relatively young and so can have some fragmentary DNA left.
The occasional 'mummified dinosaur' (I remember there being one found when I was a kid and this search threw up a more recent one- both duck billed dinosaurs interestingly) has soft parts preserved, but they have been replaced by mineral- so no Jurassic Park for you.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1010_021010_dinomummy.html
I have no doubt that most people in Europe, and a majority in North America and Australia will have ancestors who are considered 'celts' (incidentally, is Keltoi Greek for the people around Massalia or the people of Pannonia?), along with a vast assortment of others, including Attila the Hun, probably. You can't call them all Celtic. Well you can, but that would be meaningless.
MeinPanzer
07-21-2008, 17:15
The occasional 'mummified dinosaur' (I remember there being one found when I was a kid and this search threw up a more recent one- both duck billed dinosaurs interestingly) has soft parts preserved, but they have been replaced by mineral- so no Jurassic Park for you.
'Dinosaur mummies' are not all that uncommon, but they are simply fossilized remains of the soft tissues of an animal. A Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton found some years ago, however, actually included some soft tissue in the femur:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
Does speaking a Celtic language make one a Celt? As opposed to utilising a Haltstatt or La Tene material culture.
... so no Jurassic Park for you.....
Now I'm upset. Does that mean I'm a celt?~;)
...incidentally, is Keltoi Greek for the people around Massalia or the people of Pannonia?....
A quick wiki search (for what thats worth) says the first mentions put the Keltoi in W or SW Germany and at the root of the Danube. So I think Bavaria/Switzerland is intended.
... including Attila the Hun, probably...
I knew he was a brother! Drank so hard on his wedding night his head popped before he could get to the bride! Now thats a true Celt.
Does speaking a Celtic language make one a Celt? As opposed to utilising a Haltstatt or La Tene material culture.
Now I'm upset. Does that mean I'm a celt?~;)
A quick wiki search (for what thats worth) says the first mentions put the Keltoi in W or SW Germany and at the root of the Danube. So I think Bavaria/Switzerland is intended.
I knew he was a brother! Drank so hard on his wedding night his head popped before he could get to the bride! Now thats a true Celt.
Continuing to my previous post, but back to the Celt topic, and on the DNA issue.
If Neanderthalensis DNA was already extracted from the previous timelines I mentioned before, how much more likely would it be to retrieve DNA from highly preserved Eastern Red-hairs in China (Celtic or otherwise), from 4.000/2.000 B.P., and be compared with other Celtic remains/present-day people? So yeah, I'd believe that could be done.
Theodotos I
07-22-2008, 17:54
Well, Cadwalader had a very interesting idea, a few others had good suggestions, and Paullus tried his hardest to get this thread back on topic, but I'm afraid it didn't work. My intent was not to create a war over who the Celts were, but rather to accumulate research information for my story. Thanks all that tried to help. The rest of you--can keep arguing. . . :2thumbsup:
king hannibal
07-23-2008, 00:03
put the price of there wine up :P although that'll just get them to turn you into there bitch :whip:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.