A strange thing...no lions in the Nordic yet every country has a lion as either heraldic animal or in the coat of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Printable View
A strange thing...no lions in the Nordic yet every country has a lion as either heraldic animal or in the coat of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Someone way back must've had a major fetish for the poor animal.
Funny detail: the Finnish word for King, kuningas, also happens to be a loanword of fairly obvious ancestry...
Well, my initial question was regarding the existence of Galatian soldiers fighting in a fanatical manner during the Christian period of the Roman Empire. Its quite obvious that during the EB timeframe, the Tindanotae fit fine.
And I'm not demanding sources, or demanding anything for that matter, merely asking politely. I'm interested in late antiquity, and, as I said in my OP, it would definitely change my conception of the region if there were indeed Galatians that adhered to the native culture in any manner but language. I believe Jerome about the language, by the way, as Celtic tongues were still being spoken in Gaul, and throughout the empire other native languages such as Syrian, Coptic, ect. lived on.
Now Paullus said something about some archeological indications for Christian Tindanotae/ fanatics/something or other. That is the kind of thing I was asking about. If he cares to elaborate in any way, I would be most appreciative.
The lion is seen as a regal animal. It rules the savannah, I suppose.
This article mentions that the star constellation contributed to its status. I dare not say what authority the site has though.
Apologies for contributing to making the thread off-topic.Quote:
Jacob used the constellation of the lion to speak of Judah. Thereafter, the lion became the symbol of royalty — king of the jungle — and the royal tribe through which the Messiah would come. In Revelation 5, a search is made for someone worthy enough to redeem the earth. After a seemingly fruitless search, John is told:
“The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book” (Rev. 5:5).
Off-topic ? Sheesh, I was making an underhanded jab at Elmetiacos by giving a parallel example of the loaning of "prestige" symbols/terminology from neighbours, and that this doesn't per ce mean much else than they were thought "cool"... :beam:
1. Jerome, in mentioning that the Galatians still speak a somewhat corrupted form of Gaulish as well as Greek, directly compares it to languages spoken in Gaul, he had visited (or so I've read), and with which he definitely had frequent contact. He also lists several heresies the names of which have Gaulish roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
2. Writing Basileos on coins in the time of Deiotaros' line is by no means "plenty of Greek influence early on." That's near the end of the period covered by EB, in a time period that many scholars wouldn't even consider Hellenistic! How in the world is that refutation of Celtic character for the first century or so of their existence in Galatia? I already said a few posts ago that Hellenization only began in earnest in the 1c under the line of Deiotaros, thus we'd naturally expect to see coins minted with some Greek words. At the same time, Deiotaros is Gaulish, and inscriptions from that time record quite a few other Gaulish names. And isn't it significant that we don't get those sorts of coins until then?
edit: wow, lots of posts while I was typing that up.
As for the evidence of Christian devotion in Galatia, the few excavations at major population centers of Imperial and Late Antique Galatia have turned up a pretty good number of tombstones and other dedications, the vast majority of which have a Christian character. At Tavion, one of the 3 tribal capitals, there are literally hundreds of Christian tombstones, including quite a few that preceded the legalization of Christianity. What I thought was really cool was that, while the tombstones and archaeological edifices of Tavion were marble, the designs on many of the monuments look A LOT like Celtic artwork of the Late Antique/early medieval period, as far as knotwork and the like, etched into the marble. That's a little unsettling to me, it seems odd that two Celtic populations separated by well more than a thousand miles could develop such similar artistic conventions.
That is really cool. Obviously on both sides of the Empire, Celtic culture remained latent but alive through the Roman period.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Would you by any chance know who did some of these excavations? I did a quick search of JSTOR for articles, but any search that has anything to do with Galatians or Christianity just brings up massive numbers of articles on the Pauline Epistle.
There's a 19th c. British travel narrative that describes Tavion as a gleaming city on a hill, due to all the marble used in its construction and its visibility from many miles away on the main highway. The narrative describes some of the monuments and their Christian character, but I don't recall the particular writer.
As for modern things, there might be a bit about Tavion/Tavium in Mitchell, but not much has been published so far. Strobel may discuss it in Die Galater, and you may find some in publications by Levant Vardar, but those are likely to be in Turkish. Not much has been published so far, unless you can find a publication on the holdings of the Yozgat museum.
And? Armenian kings also stamped their coins with greek words in the greek alphabet, hell their alphabet is based upon the greek one. Their ruling class were bilingual (either in Armenian/Persian or Armenian/Greek depending on what period we are talking about), hell! Tigran the Great's son wrote Greek plays (quite good ones). Greek influence in Armenian culture was huge, but it still didn't stop the Armenian language from maintaining its top spot for communication, even though it couldn't be written down until the 5th century AD!Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Foot
Let me add some for the Parthians; Greek was largely the language of the administration, and one of the lingua franca along with Aramaic. The Aspasine nation of Characene largely was Greek-speaking. Yet this does not rule out the existence of the Pârnî language, or indeed the Parthian Pahlavîg language, let alone the multiple pockets where Avestan (The Clergy) was used, or Ancient Persian and Medean (The frâtarâkân of Sûsiânâ/Elymaïs, Persis, marzspendân of Âdûrbâdagân/Atropatene) or even early Deylamite/Hyrcanian (Ancestor of the Iranic Gîlakî and Mâzandarânî languages) of the Gashnaspid dynasty of Vêrkhânâ. When the dynasts adopted Hellenized names, in the shadows do we see treasures such as the Nîsâ-Mithradatkart ostraca showing clear-cut Iranian names. Yet the Arsacid kings minted their coinage with an inherited Seleucid nomenclature, along with the epithets. They also claimed descendence from Alexander The Great and the Achaemenids. It is not difficult to understand the complexity of state propaganda. Coins in particular, have always been a popular method.
The Sassanians envied the Arsacids. In the midst of their superficial hatred against them, on grounds of "blasphemy" we actually find a poorly disguised admiration of them. A re-codification of the "good faith", over-strikes of coins with Mithradates II The Great, and forever the association of the Parthians as champions and heroes. The Pahlavîg. For a while, even the early Sassanians continued the usage of Greek in many instances.
History is rarely as black-and-white as some would rather have it to be.
Ouch! Ow...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
That, or the Galatian kings decided this is a nice way of showing everyone who's boss. Obviously there were many people around in the kingdom itself who could at least understand Greek that well enough. (just like many people understand some basic French without being able to actually speak French fluently let alone write it) And obviously it served as a fine way to get a message across on the receiving end of such coins -- predominantly Greek speaking or bilingual peoples abroad. "We are here, and you better don't mess with our affairs." 'sides it's not unlike the more powerful Galatian rulers considered this Basileus concept thing a pretty neat idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
The difference is that Armenian was always the language of ordinary Armenians as well as their rulers. Galatian Gaulish was only ever the language of a relatively small warrior aristocracy. As such, its survival depends on maintaining itself as the prestige language of the ruling class. With the Celtic aristocracy increasingly part of a Greek speaking world and with their language definitely identified as "barbarian" Gaulish would be sidelined fairly easily. We have the temple grafitti c.185 BC in which all the mercenaries who wrote it and who self-identify as Galatians have, with one possible exception, Greek names and are writing in Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
None of which has much to do with fanatical Christians...
Or, does it depend on such things? For one thing, despite they now virtually all write and speak English in their daily lifes; the Scots still very much indentify themselves as Scots, right? Or how about the Welsh? Or the Irish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
And doubly so given that the mercenaries might've learned to actually write Greek simply because they made their living in the armies where Greek was the norm, rather than the exception? Wouldn't it be much easier to stick with Greek after some 20 years of service in which all you ever wrote (if you even had written in your life once, before you signed up in the military of those Greeks & co.) would probably have been Greek, and yet more Greek?
Indeed, the very fact that they still went to their 'own' temples serves as a testimony to sticking to your own culture?
To me the use of one language which is foreign to your own culture; even if it comes to virtually supplant (which is still a long way from what you can assert based on those facts) the 'native' tongue; it simply does not equal cultural assimilation.
No, this was an Egyptian temple.
Did this occur during some Kush inspired revolt in southern Egypt?
whoa whoa whoa.
you celtic experts are getting way out of your area when you start talking about Galatian inscriptions in Egypt. Several things about that inscription:
1) its a temple graffiti, its not associated with worship
2) the men leaving the inscription identify as "of the galatians," which, while definitely an ethnic identifier, in the Ptolemaic context could refer to the name of a unit, a type of unit, or to an ethnicity. they are not even necessarily Galatians.
3) if they are "Galatians," the men are NOT imported Galatian mercenaries. they are verifiably Galatian settlers who were likely two or three generations removed from the original immigrants to Egypt, and even their ancestors had probably never set foot in "Galatia." Only one has a Celtic name, Akannon, the others have Greek names popularized in Egypt, save for Thoas, which is a rare Aitolian name.
There is little reason to cite that inscription as having any bearing whatsoever on Hellenization in Galatia. The Ptolemaic context is drastically different from the Anatolian context.
How can you tell this? Was it just that by this date, no new mercenaries were arriving?Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
the date isn't actually certain. 185 is the more commonly given date, but it could also have been, if I remember correctly, 197 or 167. All are years of major military campaigns in the vicinity of the Memnoneion. Technically, it could have been any other year, but the inscription does look early 2c.
there may have still been occasional Galatian mercs arriving at that time, though by the mid-2c the Gaulish mercs are coming more from either Massilia or the Balkans, rather than Tylis, Bithynia, or Galatia. The appearance of Greek names makes me think it unlikely they are first generation. No known first generation Galatian mercs have Greek names--only the kings seem to have adopted Greek names on occasion (eg Amyntas of Tylis). Many second-gen Galatians frequently retained Greek names, and only few retained them after that.
Which makes me think that fairly quickly "Galatian" became simply a regional rather than an ethnic indicator.
regional? most of the men in the successor kingdoms whom documents, inscriptions, or histories identify as galatians never lived in any galatian settlement areas. i'd say its remains primarily a label for ethnicity, especially if we understand ethnicity as being primarily a factor of culture, and secondarily one of descent or physical appearance. region of origin has little do with it I think, at least in Ptolemaic Egypt. In the Seleukid empire, I think you may be right; I would be very surprised (if this could be found out) if there were no native Anatolians or Thracians soldiering as part of Galatian units.