View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I am reading a book right now called "The Philosopher and the Druids." It re-tells a tale that now exists only in fragments -- the purported journey into Europe by a Greek philosopher named "Posidonius".
Now...I personally suspect that about 99% of all this is complete lies or is completely misunderstood, but I keep reading it for morsels of facts-that-don't-fit. I figure what doesn't match the presumptions of moderns and ancients alike (ancients being medieval redactors, editors and forgers) is most likely to be "true.'
So here are some interesting morsels I've come across (I'll quote chapter and verse if this garners any interest).
One ancient source refers to the Celts as "godless." That is as a pejorative, "The godless Celts."
Now that's interesting. Thought I. If we know anything about the Celts, we know they were certainly not godless. Surely they had as many gods as the Greeks. Maybe more!
Another ancient source -- many in fact -- says of the Celts that they venerated trees. Ok. Well that fits with what we know of the Druids so no surprise there.
But another ancient source writes that the Celts fed their dead to vultures. Huh? Now this is new. What about the Viking Funerals and all that? The only other people I've heard of to feed their dead to vultures are Zorastrians in India. Hmm...and Zorastrians are Monotheistic Dualists. Interesting. Would that make them "godless" to a Greek?
But then yesterday afternoon I was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel and all three elements came together in one culture right there on my T.V. screen! The narrator said of the people under study that they "practise sky-burial" [that is, they feed their dead to vultures] "do not have any gods but, instead, revere their ancestors and venerate certain trees."
Holy crap. Godless tree-worshippers who feed their dead to vultures!
And who are these people?
Mongols.
From which I conclude that the Celts were Mongolian and everyone else has been wrong for hundreds of years.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Komorikid

In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Sky burial is an ancient practice of the Tibetans and was practised widely up until the Chinese invasion in 1950. Sky burials still take place in Tibet today but much more infrequently than in the past as more people are cremated under Chinese rule. The practice has not been outlawed and is in fact legitimate under Chinese Law.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
There is a much more significant overlap between Druids and Tibetans -- monasteries.
You will recall that THOBR advances the case that the Celtic Revival is the basis for modern Western Civilisation and the basis of the Celtic Revival is the use of monasteries to kick-start and spread literacy (et al) in the teeth of Roman Catholic monolithic obduracy. And the basis of Celtic monasticism were the Druids who had survived in Ireland because Ireland was the only bit of Western Europe not conquered by the Romish mymridons.
Anyway, at the same time (he says wildly, not knowing one way or the other) monasteries start popping up in Tibet. And also start educating the locals. Though unfortunately for the theory the Tibetan monasteries have themselves turned out to be centres of monolithic obduracy.
Still, plenty there to get our teeth into. So first of all there's St Thomas, the apostle who's supposed to have Gawn East and founded the monasteries. But an idle Wikisearch brought up a couple of references which should perk up the salt-freaks:
Christian monasticism started in Egypt and later continued on into Abyssinia (Ethiopia). According to tradition, in the third century St. Anthony was the first Christian to adopt this lifestyle. After a short while others followed. Originally, all Christian monks were hermits seldom encountering other people. But because of the extreme difficulty of the solitary life, many monks failed, either returning to their previous lives in the city, or becoming spiritually deluded.
A transitional form of monasticism was later created by Saint Amun in which 'solitary' monks lived close enough to one another to offer mutual support as well as gathering together on Sundays for common services.
It was St. Pachomios who developed the idea of having monks live together and worship together under the same roof (Coenobitic Monasticism). Soon the Egyptian desert blossomed with monasteries, especially around Nitria, which was called the "Holy City". Estimates are the upwards of 50,000 monks lived in this area at any one time.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Are Mongols Mongauls?
Are there two types of Gauls? The Gauls and the Mon-Gauls?
Is Mon-gol actually Mon-wol or Monuol? Surviving today in Europe as Manuel (and once rendered in ancient times as Meneleaus)?
Are the Gauls/Gols the Goths? Are they the cousins of "Mon-Goths?" Who were the Visigoths? Wise-Wols? Wise-Ones? Wise-Wars? Wise-Warriors?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Komorikid

In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Gauls = Goths is my assessment.
One of the three races of Galitia - Celtus, Galas and Ilyrius
The Celts = Germania
The Gauls = France/Spain
The Ilyrians = Ilos = Ilium = Trojans = England
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The inhabitants of Spain were divided from France by the Pyrenees, though the Vascos/Basques in the northwest occupied both sides of the Pyrenees, and were known collectively as Iberians, in places as Celtiberians, which implies the Celts and Iberians co-existed. Quite different from the tall blonde people of Germania but interestingly the word hermano ('brother') may well have meant 'German'.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting stuff
Hi folks, interesting stuff, I'll read over again as there's a load of content there.
Few of my own pointers:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/davel/
Portugal - Port of Gaul. Lochgoilhead Scotland - Head of the loch of the Gaels, Goils, Gauls etc.
Gaul or whatever you want to call it: (1st Photo) minus African sites. Stretching W to Denmark and Scandanavia, although megalithic remains are also found right through to Russia etc.
Don't forget Morocco, W Med, W coast N Africa, all fertile areas, not much different to Orkneys pre-2000BC when climate was warmer. (2nd & 3rd photos)
Guanches Berbers etc could be megalithic.
Prof Colin Renfrew's 'fault line' from C14 data separates E & W Med cultures around Malta which sits uniquely on border in central Med with even older remains than Carnac. (see 4th photo)
So possibly same indigenous people dating way back to caves 10,000BC ie Lescaux. Not so much diffusion and invasions, as indigenous people developing slowly. Pre Roman central France Spain Italy etc were not speaking romance languages. When Caesar invaded Vercingtorix would have been speaking Gaul, not French, similar to the British languages at the time. What about the Basques though?
So where is the Celtic invasion in all this?
I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bonus speculation:
Cel Gaul Kel Cal-edonii Cal-gacus (Pict chief at Mons Graupius battle with Romans)
Now really far out:
Columbine: Any of various perennial herbs of the genus Aquilegia native to north temperate regions, cultivated for their showy, variously colored flowers that have petals with long hollow spurs. Also called aquilegia.
Columba, dove -, St Columba, etc etc.
Association white dove, northern people, white peelly wally skin?
Then there's Kells, Kil-martic etc Killin, and on and on.
Maybe of help or maybe rubbish...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
DPCrisp

In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Who determined the Irish/Welsh/Scots (Picts) were ever Celtic? I can't find any corroborating evidence. Seventeenth and eighteenth century speculators do not a nation make. Follow the evidence. Blood, language and stonemason skills don't lie. |
All that evidence is in our favour, Komori. The Insular Celts did and still do constitute the low level population in pockets on the fringes of Europe. I say that these pockets correspond very strongly to the "landing zones" of the megalith builders. Where they penetrated inland, all the way to the Black Sea, they did not replace the indigenous populations. (Obviously they did have control of these areas and seem to have restricted movement of the peasantry because the divisions created by Megalithia correspond to the divisions of the Romance languages.) Their Rhesus Negativeness will have kept them separate from the locals.
Alternatively, but harder to swallow: they really did displace the natives and then really were eradicated by the Romans and marauding barbarians, leaving the indigenes to flow back into the gaps. Either way, there is now no link to be found between the Celts and central Europeans, per the article mentioned to above.
The Megalith builders were not the Continental Celts though they may have inherited the real builder's legacy. |
Megalithia corresponds precisely to descriptions of where the Celts were to be found. The megalith builders were the Celts, but the Continental Celts were not the ancestors of modern continental Europeans.
---
Tell us what you know of the so-called Celtic invasion(s) of the first millenium BC, Komori.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Komorikid

In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Celtic invasion in the first millennium BC? Don't know what you're talking about.
My scenario is much older. The RhNegs fetch up on Brittany some time prior to 2500BC by sailing from the Med and N Africa. They sail west to Britain and Ireland and populate the coastal regions, others sail east in the Med and eventually end up in the Black Sea. Those who stay in Brittany spread east using their sailing knowledge on the inland rivers. Those in the Black Sea do the same heading north and west along the Dniper and Danube. The western Atlantic tribe pushes north via Holland and Denmark into the Baltic and eventually make contact with their southern clan who have pushed beyond the Dniper across the Valdai Hills watershed into the Baltic from the east some thousand years later.
Thus we have the Megalithic Celts not to be confused with the much later Hallstadt/La Tene Celts who were supposed to be the progenitors of the Irish/British Celts.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
DPCrisp

In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
The Celts believed that it was sent by the God of Lightning as oaks were often hit by lightning. |
And the God of Thunder would be... Gene Simmons... no, I mean... Zeus/Jupiter.
It's also noteworthy that mistletoe is evergreen and does not have roots and stem growing in the ground: it hangs in clumps up in trees. And the berries are white spheres.
While we're on white: why does St Albans keep popping up? Julius Caesar went (through) there; as did Boudicca; it was a Belgic capital; St Alban was the first English Christian martyr; they give out some crappy excuse about the relative positions of the abbey & the modern city versus Verulamium and Watling Street...
In fact mistle itself can be interpreted as dung. |
Mistle thrush = Turdus viscivorus
Turdus speaks for itself. Viscous comes from viscum, birdlime, according to my dictionary, but -vorus surely mean -eater. Birdshit eater? I don't think so. But mistletoe berries are also very sticky and the birds have trouble wiping the seeds off their beaks. I'll betcha viscous meant sticky as in mistletoe berries first.
But viscus means an organ (of the body) and mistle thrushes are not known for eating those. Except that the body of Jesus, etc., is meant to be eaten...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
I expect it's going one bridge too far but all this talk of birds and organs reminds me that ALL the ancients--from Etruscans to Spartans--were obsessed with divination from inspecting bird's livers. What's that all about?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Komorikid

In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Were the Cynesians just the Cyrenians shifted further west?
And what if any similarities are there between the Cynesians, Cyrenians and the Carthaginians?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
DPCrisp

In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Were the Cynesians just the Cyrenian shifted further west? |
No idea. What do you know about the Cyrenians?
"Cynesian" takes the form Cynetes, Kinetes, Ginetes; and is related to La Gineta and Jennet, perhaps Zenetes/Zeneta.
And what if any similarities are there between the Cynesians, Cyrenians and the Carthaginians? |
Again, I have no idea, but if Carthaginians are Rh- types, I'd expect them to be connected to the Celts, not the Cynesians who are, I reckon, the indigenous Portuguese.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
DPCrisp

In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
I see on GHMB that
"Kjell Aartun... writes that he can prove that the first Norwegian runic inscriptions were written in a Semitic language..." |
Arguments about Phoenician and Semitic notwithstanding, this squares nicely with the picture we've got, in broad terms, of Rh- people spreading from the Middle East along Mediterranean north Africa and up the Atlantic coasts and islands (at least) as far as Norway; being known as Phoenicians, Gauls and Trolls in different places and times.
Whether all the islands were islands at the time we have yet to determine.
---
I still want to know the connection between the Roma, Romania and Rome. Romania had Celtic neighbours in Walachia and it may be significant that Rome is in the opposite direction, in fairly Celt-free Italy, fairly close to Carthage.
---
Speaking of the extent of Megalithia in the Med: the map I have does not show megaliths all along the African coast, but let us assume this was all Rh- country: presumably Phoenician/Carthaginian. Except for Egypt, of course, which was a separate entity.
There were definitely megaliths, therefore Celts, along the Spanish and French coasts; and we know the Cisalpine Gauls were in the Po valley. And we know the Celts were widespread on the Altantic coasts.
So that's nearby but outside the Pillars of Heracles (and penetrating inland to cover parts of the continent); and inside the Med as far as northern Italy and Egypt. Sound familiar?
---
Now, if Troy was in northwestern Europe, where was Athens...?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|