What would offend a Celt?

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[cmacq]

Thank you MeinPanzer, for doing what I didn't have time to do.

[McScottish]

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.

[cmacq]

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

[Jolt]

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.

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[Jolt]

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.

[cmacq]

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

[Havok.]

Might consider to take this to PM's folks

[cmacq]

This tread was played out long ago...

...and my offerings were just the case in point, and words to the wise for further reference.

[Foot]

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

[cmacq]

Well, that sample of part of one bone, looks very interesting? What do you think?


CmacQ

[Jolt]

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.