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.
The Galatians did not much assimilate with the locals, at least not for the first few centuries. Establishing themselves in fortified farms and settlements, their rule was enforced by warrior-bands likely analogous to the Dark Age Brythonic institution of the Teulu.
The famous Hellenistic statue of the Dying Gaul, a portrayal of a mortally wounded Gallic warrior, wrought in marble, is also termed the Dying Galatian, and was in fact most likely commissioned King Attalus I of Pergamon to celebrate his victory over the Galatians.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why is it that "primitive horticulturalists" - i.e. peoples such as the Dani of Papua or the Yanomami or Pirahã of South America - seem to tend towards a sort of "atheistic supernaturalism," believing in a world of invisible, often malicious spirits, but without any higher, organising powers, whilst both more sophisticated cultures *and* more primitive hunter-gathers seem to tend towards theistic cosmologies?
What happens in the jungle vegetable gardens?
This is a genuinely strange phenomenon - there is a remarkable coalescence between the "style" of cosmology found among Papuans, Amazonians and certain Congolese tribes, all extremely distantly related but united by a common climate and lifestyle. Yet this "vegetable garden spirituality," though highly consistent among similar rainforest-dwelling Neolithics, is markedly aberrant compared to what we see both among true hunter-gatherers and more complex societies.
"Hunter-gatherer-grade cultures," from the various Aboriginal tribes to the San Bushmen, the Hadza and various North American peoples tend to have "higher-level" theistic cosmologies, i.e. cosmologies with clear mono- or polytheistic figures exercising demiurgic functions, though (usually) less strongly developed than in complex, urban societies.
The area of what was once Gaul went through a truly remarkable process of ethnogenesis in the period between 1-600 AD.
From a barely romanized, still essentially Iron Age Celtic culture to Christian, Germanized Gallo-Romans, all the while retaining mostly the same ancestry.
Most people probably don't realize - I certainly didn't, originally - that the Gaulish language was still widely spoken throughout Gallia at the time of the Frankish conquest. It was the *Franks*, ironically, who completed the "Romanization" process.
This sort of thing is not too uncommon, actually - you have an initial tension between a colonized and a colonizer group, which may persist for generations until a *third* group conquers both, thus relativizing and diminishing the original conflict and hastening assimilation.
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.