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
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.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.