What would offend a Celt?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.