What would offend a Celt?

[cmacq]

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

[Jolt]

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).

[Hax]

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]

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.

[Hax]

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]

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]

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.

[paullus]

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.

[Jolt]

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]

Ah, well that answers the original question at least.

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.

[Uhlan]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Che Roriniho]

I remember reading somewher that grabbing someone elses moustache was almost the ultimate insult. Don't quote me though.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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).

[Cyclops]

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!).

[cmacq]

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

[Jolt]

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.

[Maeran]

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/n...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.