VANDALS RIP ACROSS EUROPE...TAKE A LOT OF GAUL!
:news:
NEWS AT 11!
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:00:06 AM
VANDALS RIP ACROSS EUROPE...TAKE A LOT OF GAUL!
:news:
NEWS AT 11!
:lulz:
CAME FROM THE NORTH SEA
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
SLICING UP ROMANS
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
GAUL YOU'RE SO GROOVY
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU
BUT I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
WANNA GROW
UP TO BE
BE A DEBASER
:apple:
In other news, Welshman successfully fend off the Saxons by pointing out that they are about to invade Wales.
Saxons grateful.
Saxons ain't shit compared to the earlier mainland tribes.
...As you can guess, tonight's lecture was about Federati Agreements and techniques of accommodation between Rome and the tribes.
Such as...
(http://www.rainfall.com/posters/images140/WWI/3g02792u.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m314/METAL_Up_Y0UR_ASS/vandals.jpg)
And
(http://intrepidcaptain.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/goth-1.jpg)
No wait...that's not right...
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:28:40 AM
CAME FROM THE NORTH SEA
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
SLICING UP ROMANS
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
GAUL YOU'RE SO GROOVY
I WANT YOU TO KNOW
DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU
BUT I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
I AM AT THEN VANDALUSIA
WANNA GROW
UP TO BE
BE A DEBASER
:apple:
Bump for my ego.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:40:49 AM
Saxons ain't shit compared to the earlier mainland tribes.
True, but bear in mind that they were going up against British Celts used to having the Romans protect them.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 01:57:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:40:49 AM
Saxons ain't shit compared to the earlier mainland tribes.
True, but bear in mind that they were going up against British Celts used to having the Romans protect them.
Which British Celts? Everyone who wasn't Roman was essentially a Celt or Gaul or "Barbarian". The Britons, Picts, Caledonians...We hit on it last night in class (and I've heard both Richter and General Stuart scream about it on multiple occasions), you gotta use the word "Celt" sparingly unless you definitely don't know the name of the tribe, in that case, you can say Irish Celt (Hibernians), Scottish Celt (Caledonians), or Danish Celt (Jutes) etc...The Vikings were Celts, the Goths were Celts... The only tribe that was not "Celtic" in origin, were the Huns, as they were from the Far East.
The first Celtic culture is said to have started in the Hallstatt region of Germany in 800BC, and from there they spread out and formed the Germanic cultures that spread into Iberia, Africa, and even as far East as Armenia. Ever heard of Galicia? Galipoli? Galatia? The Romans weren't very inventive with names...Gaul were mainland "Celts".
The reason why we use Celtic to pinpoint the insular tribes of Britain and Hibernia is because they were able to be Romanized the least, and maintained certain aspects of their culture such as Gaelic (There's that Gaul word again...) language.
And all that pretty knotwork stuff? That's actually primarily Roman and Islamic in origin. The tribes were so nomadic that they brought the technique everywhere, and it's just mostly popularized as being from Ireland and Scotland.
-Suu
Ruining romanticized history again. Now THERE'S a word, ROMANTIC.
...I go back to work now.
Huns were pretty cool, but I always preferred the Avars. If a theory that was developed in the late 1980s is correct, they represented the first invasion of Europe at the hands of the Mongolians (well, their core leadership, at least).
I thought the Avars were more Turkic, like the Magyars.
I would disagree with your inclusion of Jutes and Vikings as Celts. Not all European Barbarians were Celtic.
To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture
Vikings would not be Celts because they worshipped the Aesir and spoke a Nordic language. I can't speak to the similarities of Celtic and Norse culture. Note also that Caesar clearly differentiates between Celts (so called in their language, and "in ours, Gauls"), Belgae and Aquitani from Germanic tribes)
The Basque would not be Celts because they don't meet any of the criteria (even though Gaels are Celticized Basque)
Picts are debatable. We can't really tell what their language was like.
Anyway, I said British Celts which does specify a particular group of Celts, whose decendants include the Welsh and the Cornish.
Scots would not be considered British Celts, since they are Gaels.
British Celts spoke a P-Celtic languages
Gaels spoke Q-Celtic languages
Both have distinct origins, but became Celticized.
Modern Irish and Scottish people would not be Celts, since they generally only meet 2 criteria at best, unless they're Celtic Reconstructionists.
Also well aware of Galatians, Halstatt, etc, as well as the non Celtic origin of knotwork. True Celtic designs generally involved spirals.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 02:50:07 PM
I thought the Avars were more Turkic, like the Magyars.
Yes, for the most part. No steppe people were ever really ethnically homogenous, but their origins are believed to be Turkic. However there was something about Mongol skulls being found in Avar graves. Also the Rouran Mongols supposedly conquered the Avars maybe a century and a half before their migration westwards, which lends some weight to the hypothesis that their ruling clans had Mongol origins.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture
Question, where do your criteria come from?
Linguistically, Gauls and Iberians, as well as the natives of the British Isles, were Celtic. Aside from that, I can't accurately comment on how widespread the Celtic language was.
As religion goes, I disagree that it should be a criteria. There were Romans who adhered to religions other than "Roman polytheism", would they qualify as being Romans, culturally and ethnically, then? Your logic seems to suggest otherwise.
In terms of culture, I'm not as sure what you are saying. Take a Jew, living in Judaea. If our Jew identifies him or herself as a Jew, practices Judaism, but participates in Roman cultural practices, would our Jew be a Jew still? Is the self-identity or the relevant cultural identity more important? Or are they of equal importance?
Which Caesar? I'm assuming you mean Julius and using Caesar as a surname and not a title, so we're talking about the time of Vercingetorix, who was Arverni, a Gallic tribe in what was then known as Celtae.
By then, the Germanics were getting pretty well defined, but all tribes go back to the common ancestry of the Hallstatt Celtic Culture 8 centuries prior, EXCEPT those that were Turkic or Mongol and coming in from the East, so the linguistics would be evolving rapidly to keep up with necessary trade. That's something more up Jenne's alley though, I get the idea of linguistics, but I don't know enough to really solidify the argument, so perhaps if she checks into the thread she could have some input.
At the time the Vikings existed, the Norse culture and language was definitely defined, and that's still over a millennia from when the Hallstatt region was said to have been the predominant culture in Europe. To say that the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures of central Europe in that period didn't influence the other peoples that lived in the Baltic region is kind of hard to believe.
Also the spirals you speak of...ALSO used quite extensively in the Norse culture. Then again, it's a pretty easy shape to make.
I hope General Stuart/Frungle sees this thread, this discussion is RIGHT up his alley. Keep it up though, I love discussing this stuff.
YES!
Very interesting, keep it up!
Quote from: Lady Nyx on September 30, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture
Question, where do your criteria come from?
Linguistically, Gauls and Iberians, as well as the natives of the British Isles, were Celtic. Aside from that, I can't accurately comment on how widespread the Celtic language was.
As religion goes, I disagree that it should be a criteria. There were Romans who adhered to religions other than "Roman polytheism", would they qualify as being Romans, culturally and ethnically, then? Your logic seems to suggest otherwise.
In terms of culture, I'm not as sure what you are saying. Take a Jew, living in Judaea. If our Jew identifies him or herself as a Jew, practices Judaism, but participates in Roman cultural practices, would our Jew be a Jew still? Is the self-identity or the relevant cultural identity more important? Or are they of equal importance?
Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.
Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.
Roman identity= changed over time. THe criteria for Romanness therefore changes over time. For the purposes of this argument, America makes a good analog, in that being American is defined by American citizenship. Roman identity comes from Roman citizenship. Bear in mind also that Roman polytheism was inclusive, in that you could worship Mithras and still be Roman. Conversely, it was common for Gauls to adopt Roman gods and give them a place in their worship subordinate to Celtic gods. It was quite possible to be both Roman and Celtic within the criteria I offer, much as it is possible to be Navajo medicine man and be just as American and just as distinct from an Angloamerican Baptist.
Jewishness has always been difficult to define, and I'm not going to attempt putting criteria on that, since I've known people who self-identify with being a Jew under certain criteria that other people have also met and don't consider themselves Jewish due to atheism. I guess in this context, you'll have to define what Josephus was, since he fits the description of your hypothetical Judaean.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.
Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.
That's because there should be no definition as to what "being Celtic" is. And Wikipedia? Really? You could at LEAST post the cited source, as that should take to you a site or text that would essential define the boundaries you're looking for. Language and religion are terrible things to go by, and you just contradicted yourself when you brought up being American or Roman. The only difference is that there was no "Celtic Citizenship". Romans with Roman Citizenship spoke Greek, localized dialects, even Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Latin.
Cultures assimilate to other cultures, they acclimate, they evolve. Just as Roman identity changed, so did the Celtic one, and from that, other cultures were born.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:15:46 PM
Which Caesar? I'm assuming you mean Julius and using Caesar as a surname and not a title, so we're talking about the time of Vercingetorix, who was Arverni, a Gallic tribe in what was then known as Celtae.
By then, the Germanics were getting pretty well defined, but all tribes go back to the common ancestry of the Hallstatt Celtic Culture 8 centuries prior, EXCEPT those that were Turkic or Mongol and coming in from the East, so the linguistics would be evolving rapidly to keep up with necessary trade. That's something more up Jenne's alley though, I get the idea of linguistics, but I don't know enough to really solidify the argument, so perhaps if she checks into the thread she could have some input.
At the time the Vikings existed, the Norse culture and language was definitely defined, and that's still over a millennia from when the Hallstatt region was said to have been the predominant culture in Europe. To say that the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures of central Europe in that period didn't influence the other peoples that lived in the Baltic region is kind of hard to believe.
Also the spirals you speak of...ALSO used quite extensively in the Norse culture. Then again, it's a pretty easy shape to make.
I hope General Stuart/Frungle sees this thread, this discussion is RIGHT up his alley. Keep it up though, I love discussing this stuff.
Perhaps I should have specified Gaius Iulius Caesar for clarity, but to someone familiar with the topic, it's a clear reference to Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
You are correct in that we're jumping around across centuries. But, I'd like to point out that by the time of the Gallic Wars, Julius mentions that there was war between the Celts and what he identifies are distinctly Germanic tribes. I have read in one book about Celtic mythology (I want to say by Charles Squire, but I think I'm wrong and it was that other guy whose name I can't remember), that there is some evidence to suggest that the Celtic tribes had asserted dominance over some of the Germanic tribes and by the time of the late Roman Republic were rebelling against them. Most of the evidence is linguistic, which might be tenuous, but there were cognates for words regarding governance and such. I'll see if I can find it. Of course, this is also from a book written in the late 19th/early 20th century, so it could just as easily be dismissed as admitted.
Either way, I can agree with some cross cultural borrowing between the Celts and the Germanic tribes, but would not define such influences as sameness.
Also, including this for interest/evidence, showing the extent of the Celts throughout their history.
Stolen from wikipedia. Leaves plenty of room for non-Celtic barbarians.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png)
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.
Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.
That's because there should be no definition as to what "being Celtic" is. And Wikipedia? Really? You could at LEAST post the cited source, as that should take to you a site or text that would essential define the boundaries you're looking for. Language and religion are terrible things to go by, and you just contradicted yourself when you brought up being American or Roman. The only difference is that there was no "Celtic Citizenship". Romans with Roman Citizenship spoke Greek, localized dialects, even Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Latin.
Cultures assimilate to other cultures, they acclimate, they evolve. Just as Roman identity changed, so did the Celtic one, and from that, other cultures were born.
I've noticed there is a rule for internet debate: wikipedia is perfectly admissible unless you're not the one making the point. I'm using it for the short term, to keep the conversation going, and I'm going to get a better reference later. Settle down. At least I didn't use the Pagan sites.
I'm not contradicting myself with my criteria either. Once you become an Empire, what you are is defined by imperial citizenship. The Celts never had an Empire, but only a cultural, linguistic and religious identity.
Adding:
Definition of Celt in wikipedia foot notes to this:
^ Koch, John (2005). Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia. ABL-CIO. pp. xx. ISBN 978-1851094400. http://books.google.com/?id=f899xH_quaMC&printsec=frontcover&q=peoples%20and%20countries. Retrieved June 9, 2010.
And ref for the map, just so no one jumps on that either:
References: Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood; London Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001, pp.30-37 and other sources (see talkpage for details).
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
Quote from: Lady Nyx on September 30, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture
Question, where do your criteria come from?
Linguistically, Gauls and Iberians, as well as the natives of the British Isles, were Celtic. Aside from that, I can't accurately comment on how widespread the Celtic language was.
As religion goes, I disagree that it should be a criteria. There were Romans who adhered to religions other than "Roman polytheism", would they qualify as being Romans, culturally and ethnically, then? Your logic seems to suggest otherwise.
In terms of culture, I'm not as sure what you are saying. Take a Jew, living in Judaea. If our Jew identifies him or herself as a Jew, practices Judaism, but participates in Roman cultural practices, would our Jew be a Jew still? Is the self-identity or the relevant cultural identity more important? Or are they of equal importance?
Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.
Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.
Roman identity= changed over time. THe criteria for Romanness therefore changes over time. For the purposes of this argument, America makes a good analog, in that being American is defined by American citizenship. Roman identity comes from Roman citizenship. Bear in mind also that Roman polytheism was inclusive, in that you could worship Mithras and still be Roman. Conversely, it was common for Gauls to adopt Roman gods and give them a place in their worship subordinate to Celtic gods. It was quite possible to be both Roman and Celtic within the criteria I offer, much as it is possible to be Navajo medicine man and be just as American and just as distinct from an Angloamerican Baptist.
Jewishness has always been difficult to define, and I'm not going to attempt putting criteria on that, since I've known people who self-identify with being a Jew under certain criteria that other people have also met and don't consider themselves Jewish due to atheism. I guess in this context, you'll have to define what Josephus was, since he fits the description of your hypothetical Judaean.
Next problem, what is Celticness? A cultural identity? An ethnicity? A linguistic category? Your criteria is still too broad. And religion still doesn't factor into any of these. Roman Polytheism was inclusive, yes. But what about Roman Christians, who actively denied Roman Polytheism, even while it was still part of what identified one as "Roman"? If you won't even attempt to define Jewishness, why would you attempt to define Celticness?
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 03:58:43 PM
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
Being primarily Scots/Irish
(and partly Welsh), I can attest that I am indeed Celtic, if that is the case.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 03:58:43 PM
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.
Then let us narrow it down by adding "and are genetically inclined to root for the Red Sox."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
Then let us narrow it down by adding "and are genetically inclined to root for the Red Sox."
Goddamnit! :argh!:
That category still includes me. :oops:
Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.
Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.
As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)
The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.
We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.
The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Adding:
Definition of Celt in wikipedia foot notes to this:
^ Koch, John (2005). Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia. ABL-CIO. pp. xx. ISBN 978-1851094400. http://books.google.com/?id=f899xH_quaMC&printsec=frontcover&q=peoples%20and%20countries. Retrieved June 9, 2010.
And ref for the map, just so no one jumps on that either:
References: Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood; London Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001, pp.30-37 and other sources (see talkpage for details).
Thanks. I may go pull them from the school library in a few.
And thanks for not quoting the Pagan sites. I would have just...had to get on the train and beat you for that.
Quote from: Lady Nyx on September 30, 2010, 03:57:25 PM
Next problem, what is Celticness? A cultural identity? An ethnicity? A linguistic category? Your criteria is still too broad. And religion still doesn't factor into any of these. Roman Polytheism was inclusive, yes. But what about Roman Christians, who actively denied Roman Polytheism, even while it was still part of what identified one as "Roman"? If you won't even attempt to define Jewishness, why would you attempt to define Celticness?
Going backwards- I'm not going to define Jewishness because the best knowledge I have about Jewishness is that I was raised Catholic and therefore prayed to a dead Jew, and they cut off their sons' foreskins. Oh, and the occasional Jewish holiday.
I'm not using Roman polytheism as a criterion for Romanness (especially since Christianity became the state religion). I am using Celtic polytheism as a criterion for Celticity because by the time they stopped worshipping Celtic gods they were defined by geographical location.
Again, Romans and Celts can't be held be the same standards because the Romans had an empire. The Celts did not. Having hegemony over a diverse group of people changes the definition of "some jack off who lives in Rome" to "citizen of the Roman Empire."
In my further googling, it seems like the commonly agreed upon basic definition of a Celt is someone who speaks a Celtic language. I agree that's too broad. It would then include someone from Vietnam who decided to take up learning Manx as a hobby.
Cultural identity helps narrow it down. Now we're talking about people in modern times include Irish, Scots, Manx, Cornish, Bretons and Welsh.
Ethnic identity, most definitely not. As I noted before, various Celtic tribes had diverse origins. I noted earlier that Gaels are Celticized Basques, meaning that you and I are ehtnically Basque, but still culturally and linguistically (at least in a historical way) distinct from them. Just as we are ethnically distinct from the original Hallstatt Celts and the later La Tene culture Gauls.
Also, how does religion not get tied up with culture? Celtic polytheism still has a presence, albeit very diluted, in modern Irish culture. I'm not Welsh so I can't speak about that, but I imagine its not different for them.
I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 03:58:43 PM
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.
Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.
Quote from: Lady Nyx on September 30, 2010, 04:06:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
Then let us narrow it down by adding "and are genetically inclined to root for the Red Sox."
Goddamnit! :argh!:
That category still includes me. :oops:
Thank Mithra I missed that gene.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:09:52 PM
Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.
Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.
As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)
The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.
We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.
The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.
Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:19:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:09:52 PM
Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.
Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.
As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)
The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.
We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.
The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.
Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.
:cn:
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:18:14 PM
I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 03:58:43 PM
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.
Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.
Fair enough. Russianness is an analog to Romanness and Americanness.
But, that would still have to be a Scot who moved to St. Petersburg, and not someone descended from the Rus.
Downloading Chrome, this is driving me batshit...
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:22:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:19:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:09:52 PM
Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.
Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.
As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)
The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.
We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.
The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.
Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.
:cn:
I'm not going to remember everything I've read on the topic and specific names.
There is no such thing as Celtic ethnicity.
Also the earth revolves around the sun. Both objects are spherical.
ETA: looking for citation, even though so far I seem to be the only one to have offered citations.
QuoteQuote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:18:14 PM
I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 03:58:43 PM
A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?
While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.
Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.
Fair enough. Russianness is an analog to Romanness and Americanness.
But, that would still have to be a Scot who moved to St. Petersburg, and not someone descended from the Rus.
Before the Rus. Celtic tribes made contact with Sarmatian tribes. You can't deny this.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:27:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:22:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:19:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:09:52 PM
Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.
Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.
As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)
The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.
We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.
The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.
Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.
:cn:
There is no such thing as Celtic ethnicity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic
You made this case before, to be "Celtic" you had to exhibit "Celticness" in your culture, language, religion, etc.
Ethnic is defined as pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
Modern peoples in Ireland who speak Gaelic still call themselves Celtic and may still practice, or at least mimic, some form of a Celtic religion as modern life allows. Nyx just called herself Celtic by being Scotch/Irish which is considered popularly Celtic, apparently you're saying otherwise.
Even if there's no such thing as a TRUE Celtic ethnicity anymore, there sure as hell was in 800BC, and according to Julius Caesar.
This is unfortunately where some srs bsns cultural anthropology comes in, but that's not my field.
There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.
On page 242 of Cultural identity and archaeology: the construction of European communities, it's stated that there is no central idea of being "Celtic". No, not everyone in Europe during the Iron Age was Celtic, but my argument is simply that outside of Rome, in the period in which I'm currently studying (5th Century), all tribes were in some form, descendants of the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures from over 1000 years prior. With the exception being, of course, the Turkic steppe tribes that were starting to wash in.
http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html
Quote
Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-
"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."
It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.
The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.
The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."
After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.
In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.
Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-
"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."
Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."
Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.
According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-
"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."
Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:57:25 PM
http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html
Quote
Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-
"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."
It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.
The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.
The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."
After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.
In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.
Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-
"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."
Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."
Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.
According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-
"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."
Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.
But the Celts weren't Germanic, right?
And I know that about the Irish, in fact I kinda just touched on that. The true Celts were thousands of years ago. Modern Celts is what happens when the Victorians want to find an excuse as to why the Irish exist, or, you know...The Romans calling them that in slang because they wanted to give them a potentially derogatory name other than spitting out "Hibernians".
Like in King Arthur when they called the Picts, "Woads". It was meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion. Of course, the whole use of Woad is another ridiculous debate, again, started by the fucking Victorians who read a Roman contemporary and drew their own conclusion.
In short: The Victorians ruined everything, and we're STILL cleaning up their mess. We don't have a time machine, nobody knows, and until then, it's all theories.
OT: My head is killing me. Not because of this thread, but because of fucking IE making the text box jump. I'm on Chrome now, but I need a break. @_@
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 05:08:49 PM
In short: The Victorians ruined everything, and we're STILL cleaning up their mess. We don't have a time machine, nobody knows, and until then, it's all theories.
Because it's true. Those fuckers. On so many topics.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 04:50:48 PM
Before the Rus. Celtic tribes made contact with Sarmatian tribes. You can't deny this.
Does not make some Russians Celts.
Quote
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic
belonging to or deriving from the cultural,
racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country: ethnic dances.
I am using this as a basis. Common recent genetic origin. You are ethnically Italian. I'm ethnically Irish. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the mot commonly used definition of the word.
Quote
You made this case before, to be "Celtic" you had to exhibit "Celticness" in your culture, language, religion, etc.
Ethnic is defined as pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
Modern peoples in Ireland who speak Gaelic still call themselves Celtic and may still practice, or at least mimic, some form of a Celtic religion as modern life allows. Nyx just called herself Celtic by being Scotch/Irish which is considered popularly Celtic, apparently you're saying otherwise.
I'm making the point that Celticity is memetic, not genetic. Being Irish and Scottish genetically does not make you a Celt. It means that your ancestors were Celts. However, if she decides to learn Irish and/or Scots Gaelic, then she at least meets the commonly agreed upon minimum criteria. By this definition, I am a Celt, albeit not a very good one.
Quote
Even if there's no such thing as a TRUE Celtic ethnicity anymore, there sure as hell was in 800BC, and according to Julius Caesar.
This is unfortunately where some srs bsns cultural anthropology comes in, but that's not my field.
Yeah, I think that this particular point take a level of scholarship that is beyond the both of us, so we'll leave this one where it is.
Quote
There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.
The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.
Quote
On page 242 of Cultural identity and archaeology: the construction of European communities, it's stated that there is no central idea of being "Celtic". No, not everyone in Europe during the Iron Age was Celtic, but my argument is simply that outside of Rome, in the period in which I'm currently studying (5th Century), all tribes were in some form, descendants of the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures from over 1000 years prior. With the exception being, of course, the Turkic steppe tribes that were starting to wash in.
I missed the details about the Turkic tribes. Did they also occupy Scandinavia and such?
Also, I might have my time lines messed up, but I don't think there is any sort of people or culture identifiable as Celtic prior to 1200 BCE. I can agree with the idea that some Celts and the Norse may have common origin, but they would have diverged even before the proto-Celtic stage.
Quote
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.
The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.
Allow me to elaborate on my point of view.
Essentially the point that I was laboriously trying to get to was that in the time period of say, Julius Caesar, or even Diocletian and the later Gallic Wars, the terms "Celtic", "Celtae", "Gaul", "Gallia" were somewhat interchangeable. Germania was a region, but I have yet to find a contemporary that used the term Germanic or a Latin equivalent to define a group of people. They called the people in these regions "Gauls" or "Celts", even though modernly speaking, we know there were much more tribes. Eventually they discerned the Franks, and Alemanni, and Goths as they became more powerful and established their own kingdoms as the Empire withdrew, and there are still regions today named for such, but to any Joe-Roman soldier, unless they were a Limitenei stationed at the borders and knew better from constant interaction, if you weren't Roman, you were a barbaric Celt or Gaul.
So I was speaking from the Roman mindset, not the modern.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 05:08:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:57:25 PM
http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html
Quote
Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-
"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."
It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.
The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.
The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."
After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.
In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.
Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-
"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."
Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."
Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.
According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-
"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."
Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.
But the Celts weren't Germanic, right?
Correct. The "ethnic Celts" while indigenous to Germany were not Germanic. Germanic tribes were a distinct group that later dominated the area. Some Americans are of Cherokee descent. They may have no affiliation with Cherokees. Maybe not the best example since Cherokees still exist and again, America has the whole multicultural multiethnic thing going on, but it's the best analogy I can think of right now.
I'm going to have to break from this myself. I'm hungry and have things to attend to, but I look forward to coming back to this.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 05:28:36 PM
Quote
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.
The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.
Allow me to elaborate on my point of view.
Essentially the point that I was laboriously trying to get to was that in the time period of say, Julius Caesar, or even Diocletian and the later Gallic Wars, the terms "Celtic", "Celtae", "Gaul", "Gallia" were somewhat interchangeable. Germania was a region, but I have yet to find a contemporary that used the term Germanic or a Latin equivalent to define a group of people. They called the people in these regions "Gauls" or "Celts", even though modernly speaking, we know there were much more tribes. Eventually they discerned the Franks, and Alemanni, and Goths as they became more powerful and established their own kingdoms as the Empire withdrew, and there are still regions today named for such, but to any Joe-Roman soldier, unless they were a Limitenei stationed at the borders and knew better from constant interaction, if you weren't Roman, you were a barbaric Celt or Gaul.
So I was speaking from the Roman mindset, not the modern.
Quote
Which British Celts? Everyone who wasn't Roman was essentially a Celt or Gaul or "Barbarian". The Britons, Picts, Caledonians...We hit on it last night in class (and I've heard both Richter and General Stuart scream about it on multiple occasions), you gotta use the word "Celt" sparingly unless you definitely don't know the name of the tribe, in that case, you can say Irish Celt (Hibernians), Scottish Celt (Caledonians), or Danish Celt (Jutes) etc...The Vikings were Celts, the Goths were Celts... The only tribe that was not "Celtic" in origin, were the Huns, as they were from the Far East.
Indicates that you accept what you identify as the Roman, rather than the modern, definition of a Celt. This still excludes Goths and Jutes, since they were reckoned as distinct from Celts by the time they came around, and excludes Vikings since they didn't exist yet.
Also, bolded to point out that I am using the term Celt sparingly, since I'm giving a narrow enough definition of Celt to exclude several barbaric groups.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
I'm making the point that Celticity is memetic, not genetic.
You're saying that it's a
choice, like being a furry?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
I'm making the point that Celticity is memetic, not genetic.
You're saying that it's a choice, like being a furry?
I CHOOSE TO BE SCYTHIAN!
Reptilian, and damned proud of it.
(http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww151/nouveaubanjo/reptilerog.jpg)
One final note (for the time being) while I wait for my lunch to cook,
Since I'm having trouble finding a citation to support my criteria for Celticity, I'll defend my position.
Since Celt can pretty much mean anything depending on what position you take, we must take into consideration what common ties peoples that are undeniably "Celts" have in common.
They speak some sort of Celtic language (Gaulish, Erse, Brythonic, Galatian, etc.), they have Celtic culture (art, various practices which overlap with religion, methods of warfare, etc), and they have Celtic polytheism (interesting side note, "Druidism" is a Gaulish and Insular phenomenon. Galatians didn't have them, don't know about Celt-Iberians. Indicates some sort of assimilation of pre-Celtic practices in the "6 nations" area).
These three things may have local quirks but have general commonalities: Hibernian Brigantes probably never heard of Teutates or Nemetona, but Lugos would be recognizeable as Lug. Evidence has shown that Roman era Gauls viewed Apollo and Mercury as subordinates to Cernunnos. Nuada Argetlam is likely identical to Llud Llaw Eraint.
There is also little evidence of Celticism spreading much through conquest and interbreeding with indigenous populations, and most likely came about through trading and thinking, "hey, these guys are cool. Let's be cool too."
Describing it as a linguistic identity is not terribly satisfying. I speak English, but am not in anyway definable as British. Religion is also, in and of itself, not satisfying. My father has a label attached to him that ties him to Rome, but he's not in any way Italian (though, due to skin tone and hair color, he could pass if he wanted to. Accent gives it away though). Culture works on its own, but is not entirely distinct on its own, as certain amounts of cultural assimilation would take place- other barbarians not identifiable as Celts may share some cultural similarities, whether they be through adoption or coincidence. Take the three together and it makes a better definition. Nicely enough, culture and religion match up with the language family, and taken together, makes a satisfactory definition of what it means to be a Celt. Would be modern Celts don't have to throw out the definition on the grounds of being Christian, atheist, or other. The polytheism is fused with the modern culture by means of literature, folklore, and art. Bonus if you're Catholic since Irish Catholics assimilated aspects of local Hibernian variants of Celtic polytheism.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
I'm making the point that Celticity is memetic, not genetic.
You're saying that it's a choice, like being a furry?
More or less. My ancestors weren't related to Gauls. Genes don't satisfy a Celtic identity.
ETA: Not sure what your background is, but if you wanted to be a Celt, you'd just have to learn Irish, drink more whiskey, carry a shillelagh, sing Wild Rover over and over again, and talk about the amazing feats of Fionn Mac Cumhail and Cu Chulainn.
Couldn't I just get drunk and shout, "LET'S GO RED SOX, LET'S GO" while beating up anyone south of Hartford, CT?
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 06:36:17 PM
Couldn't I just get drunk and shout, "LET'S GO RED SOX, LET'S GO" while beating up anyone south of Hartford, CT?
One time, my ex and I were in Ireland. It was getting close to playoffs time and we saw an old dude wearing a Yankees hat. Ex starts mocking him for a Yankees fan. His response: "I don't even know what a Yankees is. My grandson gave this to me."
True story.
What you're planning makes you from Southie or Charlestown, though there could be some overlap there.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 04:18:05 PM
Quote from: Lady Nyx on September 30, 2010, 03:57:25 PM
Next problem, what is Celticness? A cultural identity? An ethnicity? A linguistic category? Your criteria is still too broad. And religion still doesn't factor into any of these. Roman Polytheism was inclusive, yes. But what about Roman Christians, who actively denied Roman Polytheism, even while it was still part of what identified one as "Roman"? If you won't even attempt to define Jewishness, why would you attempt to define Celticness?
Going backwards- I'm not going to define Jewishness because the best knowledge I have about Jewishness is that I was raised Catholic and therefore prayed to a dead Jew, and they cut off their sons' foreskins. Oh, and the occasional Jewish holiday.
I'm not using Roman polytheism as a criterion for Romanness (especially since Christianity became the state religion). I am using Celtic polytheism as a criterion for Celticity because by the time they stopped worshipping Celtic gods they were defined by geographical location.
Again, Romans and Celts can't be held be the same standards because the Romans had an empire. The Celts did not. Having hegemony over a diverse group of people changes the definition of "some jack off who lives in Rome" to "citizen of the Roman Empire."
In my further googling, it seems like the commonly agreed upon basic definition of a Celt is someone who speaks a Celtic language. I agree that's too broad. It would then include someone from Vietnam who decided to take up learning Manx as a hobby.
Cultural identity helps narrow it down. Now we're talking about people in modern times include Irish, Scots, Manx, Cornish, Bretons and Welsh.
Ethnic identity, most definitely not. As I noted before, various Celtic tribes had diverse origins. I noted earlier that Gaels are Celticized Basques, meaning that you and I are ehtnically Basque, but still culturally and linguistically (at least in a historical way) distinct from them. Just as we are ethnically distinct from the original Hallstatt Celts and the later La Tene culture Gauls.
Also, how does religion not get tied up with culture? Celtic polytheism still has a presence, albeit very diluted, in modern Irish culture. I'm not Welsh so I can't speak about that, but I imagine its not different for them.
Isn't growing up an Irish Catholic wonderful? Doubly so when you're a girl.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
One final note (for the time being) while I wait for my lunch to cook,
Since I'm having trouble finding a citation to support my criteria for Celticity, I'll defend my position.
Since Celt can pretty much mean anything depending on what position you take, we must take into consideration what common ties peoples that are undeniably "Celts" have in common.
They speak some sort of Celtic language (Gaulish, Erse, Brythonic, Galatian, etc.), they have Celtic culture (art, various practices which overlap with religion, methods of warfare, etc), and they have Celtic polytheism (interesting side note, "Druidism" is a Gaulish and Insular phenomenon. Galatians didn't have them, don't know about Celt-Iberians. Indicates some sort of assimilation of pre-Celtic practices in the "6 nations" area).
These three things may have local quirks but have general commonalities: Hibernian Brigantes probably never heard of Teutates or Nemetona, but Lugos would be recognizeable as Lug. Evidence has shown that Roman era Gauls viewed Apollo and Mercury as subordinates to Cernunnos. Nuada Argetlam is likely identical to Llud Llaw Eraint.
There is also little evidence of Celticism spreading much through conquest and interbreeding with indigenous populations, and most likely came about through trading and thinking, "hey, these guys are cool. Let's be cool too."
Describing it as a linguistic identity is not terribly satisfying. I speak English, but am not in anyway definable as British. Religion is also, in and of itself, not satisfying. My father has a label attached to him that ties him to Rome, but he's not in any way Italian (though, due to skin tone and hair color, he could pass if he wanted to. Accent gives it away though). Culture works on its own, but is not entirely distinct on its own, as certain amounts of cultural assimilation would take place- other barbarians not identifiable as Celts may share some cultural similarities, whether they be through adoption or coincidence. Take the three together and it makes a better definition. Nicely enough, culture and religion match up with the language family, and taken together, makes a satisfactory definition of what it means to be a Celt. Would be modern Celts don't have to throw out the definition on the grounds of being Christian, atheist, or other. The polytheism is fused with the modern culture by means of literature, folklore, and art. Bonus if you're Catholic since Irish Catholics assimilated aspects of local Hibernian variants of Celtic polytheism.
Alright, this I can agree with.
Let me get this straight: Blight, your position is that there is no Celt ethnic grouping?
I think he believes it's a lifestyle.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:59:27 PM
Let me get this straight: Blight, your position is that there is no Celt ethnic grouping?
There are distinct ethnic groups (ethnic in a genetic sense) that have in the past or currently identify with Celtic identity. But Celts have never been ethnically unified. Neither have they been politically unified.
In other words, there is no distinct Celtic ethnicity, but there are distinct ethnicities that are or were Celtic.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:02:16 PM
I think he believes it's a lifestyle.
Oversimplifying, but not inaccurate.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:03:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:59:27 PM
Let me get this straight: Blight, your position is that there is no Celt ethnic grouping?
There are distinct ethnic groups (ethnic in a genetic sense) that have in the past or currently identify with Celtic identity. But Celts have never been ethnically unified. Neither have they been politically unified.
In other words, there is no distinct Celtic ethnicity, but there are distinct ethnicities that are or were Celtic.
We're not talking politics, here.
Now, anthropologists will tell you that Celtic cultures were distinct, sharing language, art, religion, social conventions, and (later) writing.
It's also a fact that certain physical traits are common among Celts.
So I'm kind of wondering what you define "ethnicity" as.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:05:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:02:16 PM
I think he believes it's a lifestyle.
Oversimplifying, but not inaccurate.
I am going to take a handful of pills before I respond to this.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
He has adamantly insisted on staying out of it except for noting he was a reptilian. I assume he'll pop in when he's ready.
HELP ME, SIR DIGBY CHICKEN CAESAR! YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
He has adamantly insisted on staying out of it except for noting he was a reptilian. I assume he'll pop in when he's ready.
HELP ME, SIR DIGBY CHICKEN CAESAR! YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!
I just learned yesterday, to my horror, that Carrie Fisher's mother is Debbie Reynolds.
STAR WARS ROONT.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
He has adamantly insisted on staying out of it except for noting he was a reptilian. I assume he'll pop in when he's ready.
HELP ME, SIR DIGBY CHICKEN CAESAR! YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!
I just learned yesterday, to my horror, that Carrie Fisher's mother is Debbie Reynolds.
STAR WARS ROONT.
And her dad just died.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:21:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
He has adamantly insisted on staying out of it except for noting he was a reptilian. I assume he'll pop in when he's ready.
HELP ME, SIR DIGBY CHICKEN CAESAR! YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!
I just learned yesterday, to my horror, that Carrie Fisher's mother is Debbie Reynolds.
STAR WARS ROONT.
And her dad just died.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
That's like learning that Elvis's dad was Perry Como. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:03:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:59:27 PM
Let me get this straight: Blight, your position is that there is no Celt ethnic grouping?
There are distinct ethnic groups (ethnic in a genetic sense) that have in the past or currently identify with Celtic identity. But Celts have never been ethnically unified. Neither have they been politically unified.
In other words, there is no distinct Celtic ethnicity, but there are distinct ethnicities that are or were Celtic.
We're not talking politics, here.
Now, anthropologists will tell you that Celtic cultures were distinct, sharing language, art, religion, social conventions, and (later) writing.
It's also a fact that certain physical traits are common among Celts.
So I'm kind of wondering what you define "ethnicity" as.
Politics were included to cover national identity.
Certain Celts. Ok, you're Cornish and have red hair. This is not unheard of with Irish or Scots. All three identities are close to each other geographically, so it makes sense that those genes would be in high rotation in those areas. But red hair is not a Pan-Celtic trait.
As far as ethnicity, I imagine it depends on the particular ethnic group. I would define my ethnicity as Gaelic. This recognizes common origins with Scots, which is not my national identity. I would not have the same ethnicity as a Halstatt Celt (other than I have trace German heritage, which would make any Halstatt ties so dilute as to be insignificant). Genetic tests of Gaels have indicated common origin with the Basque, who are not Celts. Where and when they diverged, I don't know.
Any common origins with other distinct ethnicities that were Celtic go back well before the Halstatt period.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:22:58 PM
Politics were included to cover national identity.
What national identity?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:26:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:22:58 PM
Politics were included to cover national identity.
What national identity?
For example, Irish=Celt, but Celt=/=Irish. Ireland is not representative of other Celts. I was just covering a base in case it came up rather than try to bring up a different point.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
If the Welsh are involved, it's going to turn bad.
Just look at the Spiders thread. Cudgel is Welshing it up like a madman.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
If the Welsh are involved, it's going to turn bad.
Just look at the Spiders thread. Cudgel is Welshing it up like a madman.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
If the Welsh are involved, it's going to turn bad.
Just look at the Spiders thread. Cudgel is Welshing it up like a madman.
Yeah, I'll know not to do that in the future.
But, I think that I've made all the points that I can, unless someone else wants to address something I missed or didn't adequately explain.
Otherwise I'm ready for Digby Chicken Caesar, or any hidden Celticists to weigh in.
Tear it apart if I'm wrong. I'm playing with the idea of grad schooling in Celtic Language and Literature, so if I'm misinformed, set me straight.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
It's not going to piss me off if I'm wrong. I don't want it to become a fight either.
Like I said, I'm considering doing this for grad school, when I get there at the age of 45 or whatever, so if I'm off the mark set me straight. If I'm kinda right, ok, cool. If I'm spot on, I won't complain.
Blight,
can admit if he was wrong if sufficiently pointed out
ALRIGHT ALREADY
Yes, I am an anthropologist.
A great degree of my study focuses on the BLANKET GROUP KNOWN AS THE CELTS, which includes ANYBODY (yes, even VIKINGS, note that the true name of a VIKING is NORSE, to be a VIKing means you were "ON THE VIK" VIK meaning "TO RAID" in the old norse tongue), from Europe from the IRON AGE ON. Yes, they started out in the Halstadt region, and then branched out like the spokes of a bicycle wheel throughout the continent and beyond. Blue Macaw feathers have been found in burials, which suggests that there was trade with the african continent at the time.
NORSE=CELT
VARIOUS TRIBES OF THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT=CELT
FRANC=CELT
NORMAN=CELT
SAXON=CELT
I can go on and on, ad absurdum, but I won't.
DUBLIN was founded as a NORSE town before it was ever rebuilt into what became known as the City of Dublin.
The argument of INTERMARRIAGE is irrelevant, because they were ALREADY CELTIC.
If you were a Roman, good for you, still Celtic at the time whether you want to believe it or not.
EUROPE>IRON AGE=CELTIC
Done, I'm going back to my bowl of gruel now while I grumble around the fire, complaining about trade tariffs and the state of opera as it is today.
BAH! HUMBUG!
I've been telling everyone who will listen that they came out of India, like the Aryans.
I have no idea if any of that is true, I just like to feed random people bad data.
But what about incoherent adoration of the Red Sox and movies about Charlestown?
I find your conclusions suspicious.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:56:40 PM
I've been telling everyone who will listen that they came out of India, like the Aryans.
I have no idea if any of that is true, I just like to feed random people bad data.
Yes, I agree with this.
Misinformation from the interwebs causes hilarity to ensue and also spells doom for the academic system.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:56:40 PM
I've been telling everyone who will listen that they came out of India, like the Aryans.
Don't bring the injuns into this, it ended badly last time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 07:58:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:56:40 PM
I've been telling everyone who will listen that they came out of India, like the Aryans.
I have no idea if any of that is true, I just like to feed random people bad data.
Yes, I agree with this.
Misinformation from the interwebs causes hilarity to ensue and also spells doom for the academic system.
IRL, too.
Of course, I've also convinced people that Lou Diamond Phillips was the pitcher on the same team as Babe Ruth, and that Ralph Waldo Emerson is a scholar who is currently being held without trial.
Cultural illiteracy: It can work for YOU.
...I think he just told us all to STFU.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
I'm fine with theories, as long as they have some founding to them, some reality.
What I love is "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion..."
To this, I offer the words of Harlan Ellison:
"No, schmuck, you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Without information, it's just babble, hot air, and farts in the wind."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:57:23 PM
But what about incoherent adoration of the Red Sox and movies about Charlestown?
I find your conclusions suspicious.
I blame that on genetic mutation, not anything doing with cultural anthropology.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:07:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:57:23 PM
But what about incoherent adoration of the Red Sox and movies about Charlestown?
I find your conclusions suspicious.
I blame that on genetic mutation, not anything doing with cultural anthropology.
Fuck Sports.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:07:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:57:23 PM
But what about incoherent adoration of the Red Sox and movies about Charlestown?
I find your conclusions suspicious.
I blame that on genetic mutation, not anything doing with cultural anthropology.
Fuck Sports.
Baseball isn't a sport. It's a way to make a half million people sit still for three hours.
God dammit.
I try to live peacefully, in harmony with the interdumpster, and Roger drags me back in.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
I'm fine with theories, as long as they have some founding to them, some reality.
What I love is "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion..."
To this, I offer the words of Harlan Ellison:
"No, schmuck, you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Without information, it's just babble, hot air, and farts in the wind."
What about the Newport Tower and it's keystones? Which you blindly attributed to being colonial until you saw them?
I won that one, ya windbag! Haha! I say...*clears throat* The croquet hoops look damn pretty this time of year.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:09:46 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:07:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 30, 2010, 07:57:23 PM
But what about incoherent adoration of the Red Sox and movies about Charlestown?
I find your conclusions suspicious.
I blame that on genetic mutation, not anything doing with cultural anthropology.
Fuck Sports.
Baseball isn't a sport. It's a way to make a half million people sit still for three hours.
Gotta love the fact that people spend hundreds of dollars on tickets to watch others whack balls with big wooden sticks over their heads. There's a job for everybody these days, right? especially when your only marketable skill is "the guy who can slap the piece of leather with his big stick over the heads of the people that came to see him do that."
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
I'm fine with theories, as long as they have some founding to them, some reality.
What I love is "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion..."
To this, I offer the words of Harlan Ellison:
"No, schmuck, you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Without information, it's just babble, hot air, and farts in the wind."
Willing to discuss further IRL if you consider my previous assertions informed and not necessarily hot air. Respecting your authority as an anthropologist, but am still willing to debate the merits and failings of my definition of a Celt. Not seeing how Norsemen are Celts, but am willing to take your word for it in the interim.
Of course, if you think I'm full of shit, we'll just have to leave it at this.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
I'm fine with theories, as long as they have some founding to them, some reality.
What I love is "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion..."
To this, I offer the words of Harlan Ellison:
"No, schmuck, you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Without information, it's just babble, hot air, and farts in the wind."
What about the Newport Tower and it's keystones? Which you blindly attributed to being colonial until you saw them?
I won that one, ya windbag! Haha! I say...*clears throat* The croquet hoops look damn pretty this time of year.
Well, no, you really didn't.
You see, anyone from any POST ROMAN society would have used keystoning, therefore dating it to a group of people who had knowledge of that architecture at the time. Digs have been done around it and there has never been anything found to prove that it was erected by any culture other than that of anybody who was here in the post-contact period.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
I wonder what an anthropologist would say.
He's sitting at home with the popcorn watching this thread.
Well, tell him to fucking spill it. Are they an ethnic group, culture, what?
I would welcome his input, even if it contradicts anything that I'm saying.
Funny how a joke about the Welsh turned into this.
He may pop in. I dunno...he doesn't want to piss people off and cause a pointless fight.
What have you DONE to him, Suu?
I haven't done ANYTHING, he would just rather discuss this in person than over the internet, especially after the last anthropological "discussion" we had on this board in which he got involved.
I mean, if Doktor Blight wants to come down to Providence one day and sit and bullshit with Sir General Frungle, I'm sure it can be arranged. This is something that he does love very much and can talk for HOURS on. Hell, we get into debates about shit like this all the time. Mostly because historians like myself view things more romantically than an anthropologist/archaeologist. He wants facts, I'm fine with theories.
I'm fine with theories, as long as they have some founding to them, some reality.
What I love is "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion..."
To this, I offer the words of Harlan Ellison:
"No, schmuck, you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Without information, it's just babble, hot air, and farts in the wind."
Willing to discuss further IRL if you consider my previous assertions informed and not necessarily hot air. Respecting your authority as an anthropologist, but am still willing to debate the merits and failings of my definition of a Celt. Not seeing how Norsemen are Celts, but am willing to take your word for it in the interim.
Of course, if you think I'm full of shit, we'll just have to leave it at this.
It's really not up FOR debate, the facts have already been found. Of course I don't think you're full of shit, any information you have put out here absolutely has the ring of truth. There is simply no way to synthesize any theories on the culture since that synthesis already happened, around the 1930's. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
God dammit.
I try to live peacefully, in harmony with the interdumpster, and Roger drags me back in.
Misery/company/you know.
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:20:34 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
God dammit.
I try to live peacefully, in harmony with the interdumpster, and Roger drags me back in.
Misery/company/you know.
It's awfully cold in hell, folks...Roger needs the body heat.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
For those that are interested in what we're talking about: http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/special_collections/old_stone_mill.html
I just refuse to believe that the colonists, who built structures in Newport that are still up, including in the vicinity of the tower, built that. It's a completely different look. Why wouldn't they have just made a damn lookout tower or windmill in the same old boring square look as the typical architecture of the time? There's also no evidence supporting that it was a mill except for Governor Benedict Arnold's will in 1678 in which he calls it his "Stonebuilt-Windmill".
I'm not saying it was Norse, because we still don't have hard evidence they came into Narragansett Bay, but I just don't think it was colonial.
When was the last time they allowed a dig there? And did the archaeologists...on the payroll of the state of Rhode Island no doubt, think to dig any FURTHER than finding colonial artifacts? OF COURSE the colonists would have use it, it's a standing structure on the highest hill on Aquidneck (Rhode) Island!
I know other institutions want to do excavations again, but the city of Newport scorns archaeologists something fierce...I wonder why. What are they trying to hide?
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Fair enough. Not considering my intellect being attacked. More that I'm not wrong (data) but I'm not right (interpretation) either.
Though I would like to hear more (rather than debate, since debate is the wrong word) as to the Norse link. Plus I haven't been to Providence in awhile and would make a good excuse to get out of Boston for a little bit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
Fortunately with something like this, there is no definite right or wrong. It's a lot of opinions and ideas. Nobody knows or will probably ever know for sure.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:25:49 PM
For those that are interested in what we're talking about: http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/special_collections/old_stone_mill.html
I just refuse to believe that the colonists, who built structures in Newport that are still up, including in the vicinity of the tower, built that. It's a completely different look. Why wouldn't they have just made a damn lookout tower or windmill in the same old boring square look as the typical architecture of the time? There's also no evidence supporting that it was a mill except for Governor Benedict Arnold's will in 1678 in which he calls it his "Stonebuilt-Windmill".
I'm not saying it was Norse, because we still don't have hard evidence they came into Narragansett Bay, but I just don't think it was colonial.
When was the last time they allowed a dig there? And did the archaeologists...on the payroll of the state of Rhode Island no doubt, think to dig any FURTHER than finding colonial artifacts? OF COURSE the colonists would have use it, it's a standing structure on the highest hill on Aquidneck (Rhode) Island!
I know other institutions want to do excavations again, but the city of Newport scorns archaeologists something fierce...I wonder why. What are they trying to hide?
They're covering it up so that the el chupacabra burial won't be found.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
DOIN' IT WRONG.
You're supposed to deflect, redefine words, and play on semantics for the sake of argument, until everyone is screaming insults at each other, and at least 3 people attempt to flounce.
For fuck's sake, Doktor Blight, there are
protocols for this sort of thing.
:crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
Fortunately with something like this, there is no definite right or wrong. It's a lot of opinions and ideas. Nobody knows or will probably ever know for sure.
CELTS, no, TOWER, yes.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
Fortunately with something like this, there is no definite right or wrong. It's a lot of opinions and ideas. Nobody knows or will probably ever know for sure.
Thanks, Suu.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PD?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
DOIN' IT WRONG.
You're supposed to deflect, redefine words, and play on semantics for the sake of argument, until everyone is screaming insults at each other, and at least 3 people attempt to flounce.
For fuck's sake, Doktor Blight, there are protocols for this sort of thing.
:crankey:
FUCK YOU DOCTOR BLIGHT!
I GOTS FIVE KIDS TO FEED!
I KNOW WUT ANTHROOPOLOGIES IS, AND WHATCHU GOT AIN'T NO ANTHROOPOLOGIES!
there, happy now, Rog?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
DOIN' IT WRONG.
You're supposed to deflect, redefine words, and play on semantics for the sake of argument, until everyone is screaming insults at each other, and at least 3 people attempt to flounce.
For fuck's sake, Doktor Blight, there are protocols for this sort of thing.
:crankey:
Meh. Wrong personality type for that sort of thing. I wouldn't be very convincing.
Don't worry Dok, someone will satisfy the need for an unlimited appreciation thread soon. It never fails.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:32:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
Fortunately with something like this, there is no definite right or wrong. It's a lot of opinions and ideas. Nobody knows or will probably ever know for sure.
CELTS, no, TOWER, yes.
...Are we gonna have to take this outside?!
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:22:22 PM
However, if there were to be any opposing information found to this, then that would pave the way for more discussion.
This is what I hate about these discussions, it always ends up with people attacking each other when they perceive to have had their intellects attacked. For anybody reading this: NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU! However, don't post an easily refutable opinion...not saying anybody has, but if they do, then you are causing your own intellectual defeat.
Don't listen to him, Doktor Blight...Your honor is at stake, here. Dig those fucking heels and and fight to the bitter end.
No, I'm not interested in an Unlimited Doktor Blight appreciation thread.
Besides choosing to be wrong to save face is for suckers.
DOIN' IT WRONG.
You're supposed to deflect, redefine words, and play on semantics for the sake of argument, until everyone is screaming insults at each other, and at least 3 people attempt to flounce.
For fuck's sake, Doktor Blight, there are protocols for this sort of thing.
:crankey:
FUCK YOU DOCTOR BLIGHT!
I GOTS FIVE KIDS TO FEED!
I KNOW WUT ANTHROOPOLOGIES IS, AND WHATCHU GOT AIN'T NO ANTHROOPOLOGIES!
there, happy now, Rog?
You're right sir. I got no anthropologies.
It's just not the same. :cry:
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 30, 2010, 08:25:49 PM
For those that are interested in what we're talking about: http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/special_collections/old_stone_mill.html
I just refuse to believe that the colonists, who built structures in Newport that are still up, including in the vicinity of the tower, built that. It's a completely different look. Why wouldn't they have just made a damn lookout tower or windmill in the same old boring square look as the typical architecture of the time? There's also no evidence supporting that it was a mill except for Governor Benedict Arnold's will in 1678 in which he calls it his "Stonebuilt-Windmill".
I'm not saying it was Norse, because we still don't have hard evidence they came into Narragansett Bay, but I just don't think it was colonial.
When was the last time they allowed a dig there? And did the archaeologists...on the payroll of the state of Rhode Island no doubt, think to dig any FURTHER than finding colonial artifacts? OF COURSE the colonists would have use it, it's a standing structure on the highest hill on Aquidneck (Rhode) Island!
I know other institutions want to do excavations again, but the city of Newport scorns archaeologists something fierce...I wonder why. What are they trying to hide?
They're covering it up so that the el chupacabra burial won't be found.
OH SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm just trying to sate Roger's blood-lust man.
Looks like we made him cry.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:38:35 PM
I'm just trying to sate Roger's blood-lust man.
Looks like we made him cry.
PD has become civilized. 4Chan did something nice for an old vet. FC is gone. :(
All that's left is Capitol Grilling, and they have registration turned off.
The internet is ruined. RUINED!
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:38:35 PM
I'm just trying to sate Roger's blood-lust man.
Looks like we made him cry.
It's my fault for accepting that I was incorrect and being conciliatory.
I'd apologize for making him sad, but that would just make it worse.
We'll just have to goad Great POO into something.
We could just start another thread on Injuns.
What's next for PD?
We can't attack minority groups, because that's just wrong....
WAIT! WE CAN! We need to find the world's most minute minority group and have at them.
The last I new...it was the INU, a caucasoid race that lives in Japan, and supposedly the world's oldest culture....there's about 50 of them left in existence....
I propose a thread of hatred towards the INU.
It's spelled Ainu. :D
And the Australian Aborigines have the oldest culture.
SO FUCK YOU.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 30, 2010, 08:53:11 PM
It's spelled Ainu. :D
Thank you, DB....
OW! MY INTELLIGENCE IS ALL BUTTHURT!
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:53:50 PM
And the Australian Aborigines have the oldest culture.
SO FUCK YOU.
No, cake is best served with feces, Roger.
YOU ARE WRONG.
NO CAKE, NO FECES.
I'm done arguing about it.
Seriously.
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:53:50 PM
And the Australian Aborigines have the oldest culture.
SO FUCK YOU.
No, cake is best served with feces, Roger.
YOU ARE WRONG.
NO CAKE, NO FECES.
I'm done arguing about it.
Seriously.
You ever seen a bearded Ainu next to a bearded Aussie Aborigine?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/AinuManStilflied.JPG) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1615000/images/_1619506_aborigine300.jpg)
GOOD Thread!
Now I want to buy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Celts-Germans-Scythians-Archaeology/dp/0715630369
Wells is BRILLIANT!
Forced reading back in school, but after graduation I developed a true appreciation of him.....
I mean...uhhhh....FUCK YOU!
(Did that for Roger, who feels we need some serious caustic dialog)
P.S.
Has anybody watched the UK reality series "Life in the Iron Age"?
They have to live like ANY PERSON OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN AT THE TIME (celt) and they fail, miserably....
hilarity ensuus....
and the one who makes it out relatively unscathed is the dirty hippie.
Good (pre-roman-empire) times.
Quote from: Telarus on September 30, 2010, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 08:53:50 PM
And the Australian Aborigines have the oldest culture.
SO FUCK YOU.
No, cake is best served with feces, Roger.
YOU ARE WRONG.
NO CAKE, NO FECES.
I'm done arguing about it.
Seriously.
You ever seen a bearded Ainu next to a bearded Aussie Aborigine?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/AinuManStilflied.JPG) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1615000/images/_1619506_aborigine300.jpg)
(http://www.theancientweb.com/images/explore/Japan_Ainu_Woman.jpg) = :3 ???
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
What's next for PD?
We can't attack minority groups, because that's just wrong....
WAIT! WE CAN! We need to find the world's most minute minority group and have at them.
The last I new...it was the INU, a caucasoid race that lives in Japan, and supposedly the world's oldest culture....there's about 50 of them left in existence....
I propose a thread of hatred towards the INU.
The Ainu are thought to be descended from the native Jomon era inhabitants of Japan, who have Austronesian features. So they are very old, but not quite as old as others, I think. When immigrants came from mainland Asia (the Yayoi) they were pushed out and relegated to Hokkaido and Sakhalin. And there are many more than 50, although that may very well be the number of remaining native speakers of Ainu. An accurate estimate of population is difficult due to mixing with Japanese and also historical and ongoing racial stigma.
Quote from: Nast on October 01, 2010, 03:03:15 AM
Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar! on September 30, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
What's next for PD?
We can't attack minority groups, because that's just wrong....
WAIT! WE CAN! We need to find the world's most minute minority group and have at them.
The last I new...it was the INU, a caucasoid race that lives in Japan, and supposedly the world's oldest culture....there's about 50 of them left in existence....
I propose a thread of hatred towards the INU.
The Ainu are thought to be descended from the native Jomon era inhabitants of Japan, who have Austronesian features. So they are very old, but not quite as old as others, I think. When immigrants came from mainland Asia (the Yayoi) they were pushed out and relegated to Hokkaido and Sakhalin. And there are many more than 50, although that may very well be the number of remaining native speakers of Ainu. An accurate estimate of population is difficult due to mixing with Japanese and also historical and ongoing racial stigma.
PEDANT!
EAT CAKE!
AND FECES!
AND...NATTO!
YEAH!
I DON'T SUPPORT YOUR DIRTY HAWAII-BOMBING EMPIRE OF HATE!
(http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww151/nouveaubanjo/punched-2.jpg)