If you ever feel academic discussion has gotten polarised & politicised today, think back to the time Nicolas Fréret, an 18th-century French scholar, was thrown in the Bastille for several months for asserting the Franks to have been a Germanic tribe, and not adventuring Trojans.
Clearly, philology was a slightly heftier topic back then.
Why yes gospodin komissar, my latest readings indicate the Rus were indeed in origin a Norse tribe from eastern Scandinavia, a fascina- wait, where are you taking me?
Nor did the issue go away soon after, though it morphed. The Franks had long been associated with the aristocracy (contrasted with the Roman/Gaulish peasantry).
Thus, come the French Revolution, even supposing the French to be descended from the Franks was politically unsavvy
This part is particularly amusing - come the 19th century and the advent of scientific racialism, and you get French republicans and royalists smearing each other with insults of portraying the Gauls and Franks as respectively dull and placid and savage and war-like.
There's something surreally hilarious and indescribably 19th-century about feuding academics boiling down the French Revolution to a conflict between different cranial-shapes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the craziest points of history/ethnology is & will remain to me that a Celtic language was at one pointed spoken in the central regions of what is now Turkey. They were the Galatians of Epistle-fame
Not only that, but their language may have survived longer than Gaulish
Their place-names included things such as Drunemeton, which shares a root with the word 'Druid', and Acitorigiaco, 'Settlement of Acitorix', to which a more classically Gaulish-sounding name can hardly be mustered.
For a time, the Galatians ruled Ankara.
One of the first peoples to be Christianised, the Galatians had prior to this fought the Galatian War, wherein they allied with the Greek state of Pergamon against the expanding Rome. Probably the Celts are the only ppl of Northwestern Europe to appear in the Bible.
A reading from old Danish folklore which may interest people, of a great battle on western Zealand which, though mythical, is rife with old remembrances. This story was collected in the 1800s.
The very spot today
Note several things in this tale - the peasants of 19th-century Zealand still knew the barrows were associated with paganism, and that ancient warriors were buried in them. The common motif associating barrows with giants is present, but mixed with a more historical element.
Some might say the only thing swinging here is the media reports, not the bulk of the evidence. *That* has been clear to interested parties for a while
I've not seen in the last decade one study arriving at a climate-induced extinction for the mammoth that is not either a) not even a direct study of extinction causality or b) profoundly methodologically flawed
I'll repeat my request from many times prior - show me a study arriving at a climatic cause that actually addresses the existence of the past glacials and interglacials, as well as the temporal disjunction of the Weichsel-Holocene extinctions. Show me 1.
The Caspian Sea is the world's largest inland body of water, famously possessing even an endemic species of seal. Yet did you know it used to be far, far larger? During much of the Pleistocene, its area more than doubled. It even seems to have until quite recently housed whales.
Dolphin-fossils are known from the Quaternary of the Caspian, and artistic evidence in the form of the Gobustan Rock Art, dating to between 5-20kya, seems to portray some large marine mammal. Also seabirds, plausible guillemots, seem evidenced
Also the origin of the Caspian seal is something of a mystery. It, along with the equally isolated Baikal seal, seems to have radiated around the late Pliocene, just at the start of the Ice Age, but how exactly it got there is, as with the dolphins, a great mystery.
It is a rather interesting fact that Rhododendron, despite its common status as an 'invasive' species nowadays, and its undeniable deleterious environmental consequences, is in fact native to the British isles, having occurred there in the Eemian.
How can this be explained? Few studies to my knowledge have been carried out explicitly on the subject, but it seems most probable that the key thing controlling R. ponticum was also the main thing now missing from European ecosystems - large, destructive megafauna.
Likewise, though it's true that closed-canopy woods were once predominant across Western Europe, this was itself an unnatural result of human-induced megafauna extinctions. See for instance Sandom et al. (2014) comparing the Eemian to Early Holocene
(1) Of all the daring deeds in the history of Man, few can rival the great voyages of the Polynesians. From their origins in the west, they spread north, south, and east, ever east. Yet what of the furthest east? Were the Americas a sea too far?
(2) The origin of the Polynesians is a mystery that has long perplexed anthropologists. From vagrant Indo-Aryans to castaway Amerindians, it is the latter idea, through the exploits of Thor Heyerdahl, that has captivated the world. Genetics, however, are less kind than the public
(3) Today, we know beyond doubt that the Polynesians came, not from the Americas, but from Asia - almost certainly what is now Taiwan, and before that, the south Chinese coast.
Yet just because the Polynesians did not come *from* America, does not mean they did not go *to* it.