Who were the "Horde"?
Yovinmeister
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) mumbled:
>Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
>they just something invented for this episode?
My guess is that they are cannibals!
No Spam alias in use! To reply,
remove "YO" from yovinm...@mindspring.com!
Jim, I think he's dead! You take his weapon, I'll take his wallet!
Lisa or Jeff
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>
> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
> they just something invented for this episode?
No. they were just ripped off from some crappy 'Star Drek'
episode or other, just as you say the idea for 'The Price' was.
Sean
Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>
> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
> they just something invented for this episode?
Well, they:
1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
2)do not speek greek
3)paint their faces/bodies
4)have a thing for skulls
5)have a "warrior code"
So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
What I _was_ reminded of was an old movie called, IIRC, "Drums on the
Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
Cooper.
--
"Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately
explained by stupidity" Mark Twain
Zig Zichterman
> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
> they just something invented for this episode?
They were meant to represent a hefty helping of the four-star movie
"Zulu", to give an environment for the writers to show some of Xena's
military past.
--Z
--
Zig Zichterman zi...@nospam.best.com http://www.best.com/~ziggr
"If you ever cross me again, I will flog you first. Then I will have you
drawn and quartered. I'll roll you in salt and feed you to my horse. You
got that?"
--Lucy Lawless, on "Something So Right"
Jason Gera
In article <336c2b15...@news.mindspring.com>, yovinm...@mindspring.com (Yovinmeister) wrote:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) mumbled:
>
>>they just something invented for this episode?
>
>
>
My guess is that they were the ancestors to the Horde which
was led by Gengis Khan in the future
--
Jason
to...@fred.net
Sean (gal...@erols.com) wrote:
:
: Lisa or Jeff wrote:
: >
: > Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
: > they just something invented for this episode?
: Well, they:
: 1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
: 2)do not speek greek
: 3)paint their faces/bodies
: 4)have a thing for skulls
: 5)have a "warrior code"
Ohhhh.... Drama majors who minor in PoliSci....
*tap* *tap* *tap*
[Turns around to see Warrior Princess not very pleased...]
"What did I say about 'being nice'....?"
--
To...@Fred.Net
http://www.fred.net/tomr
Does a.t.x have a Narn Bat Squad?
ck...@erinet.com
> So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
> bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
> use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
I wondered where they would have found the animals that provided the
nose-bones, which reminded me of wart-hog horns. They wore no 'clothing' from
the waist up, just body paint, which might indicate a warmer climate. They
were also cannibals, so I was trying to come up with a culture that matched all
three. Since Xena is filmed in New Zealand, I wondered about the Maori
culture. Could that have influenced the writers? Of course, the writers
are creating fiction, so they can create whatever they want without regard to
reality.
ck
>
>
CKais 8-)
"We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It shades our cheeks and hides our eyes..."
P.L. Dunbar
Sauron
To my knowledge, they have no historical base. They looked like a cross
between the Mongols the Maoris...hella great "fantasy" foes though!!
S
Sean
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> In article <336CF6...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip my five "maybe they are celtic" points>
> >
> >So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
> >bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
> >use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
>
> The Gauls have been referred to several times in the series already. I would
> argue against the Horde being anything like the Gauls. Probably they are to
> be associated with the Scythians and/or Sarmatians, but not in the sense that
> they are a steppe-based horde (although I've never heard of a horde that
> wasn't mounted).
>
The Gauls were a celtic group, but known, so I agree, not them. But
there were other Celtic groups on the move around then. The Scythians,
Cimmerians (actually existed:Robert E. Howard just borrowed the name),
etc... were related groups. But again, it's just a SWAG; the producers
may just have been up late drinking beer and watching F-Troop :-)
><snip similar movies>
>
> It's basically a "Soldiers sent to die" morality story.
>
> IMHO, of course.
>
With a twist.
--
"I'll publish right or wrong:
Fools are my theme,
Let satire be my song" Lord Byron
Jay Markle
Hi folks!
Actually, as far as their customs, language and ritual dress is
concerned, they reminded me of the "Head hunters" episode of "Gilligan's
Island." You know, the one where Gilligan is the totem God and saves
the rest of the castaways?
Just a thought.
Jay
Michael Martinez
>>
>> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
>> they just something invented for this episode?
>
>Well, they:
> 1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
The Greeks considered all non-Greeks to be barbarians, in the sense that the
word from which we derive "barbarian" was (IIRC) "barbaros", and meant
something like "non-speaker of Greek" or "foreigner".
> 2)do not speek greek
That would fit with the definition of "barbarous" as I understand it.
> 3)paint their faces/bodies
Actually, this was quite a common thing in the ancient world, but I suspect
they were intended to represent Fantasy hordes (like The Jonzz in
"Beastmaster").
> 4)have a thing for skulls
Bone-dancers have appeared in XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS before. They tend to be
more primitive culturally than the Greeks and nearby peoples.
> 5)have a "warrior code"
>
>So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
>bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
>use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
The Gauls have been referred to several times in the series already. I would
argue against the Horde being anything like the Gauls. Probably they are to
be associated with the Scythians and/or Sarmatians, but not in the sense that
they are a steppe-based horde (although I've never heard of a horde that
wasn't mounted).
>What I _was_ reminded of was an old movie called, IIRC, "Drums on the
>Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
>York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
>Cooper.
I was reminded of Vietnam (aka Viet Nam), which inspired some of the STAR TREK
episodes that people have recalled. There were quite a few, actually, that
would be reminiscent of "The Price".
But the story was basically a morality story -- concentrating on "end doesn't
justify means" type of politics. Gabrielle was playing the Spockian "There
are always alternatives" role to Xena's playing Kirk's "We have to defend
these people and...build schools for their...children!"
The connection with the movie "Zulu" is, I think, also a valid one. And
probably also the episode was intended to identify with some of the old US
Cavalry movies where the isolated outposts are being worn down by Indians and
so forth.
It's basically a "Soldiers sent to die" morality story.
IMHO, of course.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Rayctate
I thought the Horde might be Beserkers, the mythologic
group of really nasty fighters. Either that, or they may
have been metaphorical Native Americans.
Ray
Michael Valdivielso
Jay Markle (JayM...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Hi folks!
: Just a thought.
: Jay
Two things hit my head when I heard Horde. 1. Golden Horde. 2. She-Ra.
Mike V.
Don't ask me, I just live on this planet.
--
"You can't get us all, Hercules," someone called from his left.
"Some of us, though," another answered nervously.
"But not all," the first one insisted. -Hercules : By the Sword
|-]=======> bar...@netcom.com <=======[-|
Scanner
In article <336CF6...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> says:
>
>
>Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>>
>> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
>> they just something invented for this episode?
>
>Well, they:
> 1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
> 3)paint their faces/bodies
>
>So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
>bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
>use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
>
>Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
>York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
>Cooper.
>"Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately
> explained by stupidity" Mark Twain
Nice quote. Anyway, about 50 years after the fall of Troy, the entire
Mycenaean Greek world, roughly where Xena is set, was razed by a still
unidentified group of people. I think this was about 1150 BC. Classical
Greek legends credit the Dorian Greeks, the 'Sons of Heracles.' Some
modern scholars are inclined to cite local warfare. The period following
was a Dark Age in the Aegean, until 700 BC when the Classical Greeks
began recording history again.
DAWickstro
In article <5ktj18$ff6$1...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>, ed...@meena.cc.uregina.ca
(Scanner) writes:
>In article <336CF6...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> says:
>>
>>
>>Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or
were
>>> they just something invented for this episode?
>>
>>Well, they:
>> 1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
>> 2)do not speek greek
>> 3)paint their faces/bodies
>> 4)have a thing for skulls
>> 5)have a "warrior code"
>>
>>So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
>>bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
>>use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
>>
>>What I _was_ reminded of was an old movie called, IIRC, "Drums on the
>>Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
>>York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
>>Cooper.
>>--
Off-topic, but since you brought it up--
"Drums Along the Mohawk" based on a popular novel of the same name that
was current prior to WWII. It, in turn was based loosely on true events
involving the siege of Ft. Stanwyx and its attempted relief by Gen.
Herkimer. Ft. Stanwyx was sited at what is now the city of Rome, New
York. A fairly accurate reproduction may be seen on the original site,
and the site of one of the outlying stockades is at the Erie Canal
Village, nearby. J.F. Cooper had nothing to do with the story, though
Cooperstown isn't all that far, if you're a baseball nut.
>>"Never attribute to maliciousness what can be adequately
>> explained by stupidity" Mark Twain
>
>Nice quote. Anyway, about 50 years after the fall of Troy, the entire
>Mycenaean Greek world, roughly where Xena is set, was razed by a still
>unidentified group of people. I think this was about 1150 BC. Classical
>Greek legends credit the Dorian Greeks, the 'Sons of Heracles.' Some
>modern scholars are inclined to cite local warfare. The period following
>was a Dark Age in the Aegean, until 700 BC when the Classical Greeks
>began recording history again.
>
Douglas A. Wickstrom
E-Mail to nimshubur(at)aol(dot)com
Sean
DAWickstro wrote:
>
> In article <5ktj18$ff6$1...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>, ed...@meena.cc.uregina.ca
> (Scanner) writes:
>
> >In article <336CF6...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> says:
> >>
> >>What I _was_ reminded of was an old movie called, IIRC, "Drums on the
> >>Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
> >>York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
> >>Cooper.
> >>--
>
> Off-topic, but since you brought it up--
> "Drums Along the Mohawk" based on a popular novel of the same name that
> was current prior to WWII. It, in turn was based loosely on true events
> involving the siege of Ft. Stanwyx and its attempted relief by Gen.
> Herkimer. Ft. Stanwyx was sited at what is now the city of Rome, New
> York. A fairly accurate reproduction may be seen on the original site,
> and the site of one of the outlying stockades is at the Erie Canal
> Village, nearby. J.F. Cooper had nothing to do with the story, though
> Cooperstown isn't all that far, if you're a baseball nut.
THANK YOU!!! This has been driving me nuts for over a week! Nice to
know my memory isn't _completely_ off. Now I'll have to try and find
the movie or the book.
Again, thanks.
Michael Martinez
In article <N.050497.200237.54@Mommy>, ck...@erinet.com wrote:
>> So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
>> bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
>> use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
>
>nose-bones, which reminded me of wart-hog horns. They wore no 'clothing' from
>the waist up, just body paint, which might indicate a warmer climate. They
>were also cannibals, so I was trying to come up with a culture that matched all
>three. Since Xena is filmed in New Zealand, I wondered about the Maori
>culture. Could that have influenced the writers? Of course, the writers
>are creating fiction, so they can create whatever they want without regard to
>reality.
I don't remember seeing the Horde eat anyone. Did Xena or the Athenians say
they were cannibals? I would consider such second-hand information very
suspect, given that they completely misunderstood the Horde altogether.
In any event, they were not even remotely Celtic. The Gauls have already been
mentioned on the show several times and we've seen Magmer The Gaul (in "The
Royadl Couple of Thieves"). Celts are out.
The Horde sort of resembles Scythians. There were even Scythian infantry who
were pretty widely used in the ancient world.
But my opinion is that the Horde is just supposed to be a fantasy people.
They don't closely resemble any particular historical culture I've studied.
Could there be Maori influences? Why not? But I don't know anything about
Maori culture(s) and can't form an opinion on that.
Sean
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In any event, they were not even remotely Celtic. The Gauls have already been
> mentioned on the show several times and we've seen Magmer The Gaul (in "The
> Royal Couple of Thieves"). Celts are out.
>
> The Horde sort of resembles Scythians. There were even Scythian infantry who
> were pretty widely used in the ancient world.
>
Actually, they were quite Celtic. At that time the Celts were quite a
large group. They wore trousers (as shown). They painted their faces
and bodies before battle (as shown). Heads and skulls were symbols of
power, used extensively in "decorating" (as shown). And they had a
warriors code which the greeks of the time did not understand (as
shown).
There were many groups of celts migrating east to west in that era. The
Gauls were one of them. While the Scythians were not celtic, they were
a related group.
But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
what you like.
Michael Martinez
In article <3373B1...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> In any event, they were not even remotely Celtic. The Gauls have already
> been
>> mentioned on the show several times and we've seen Magmer The Gaul (in "The
>> Royal Couple of Thieves"). Celts are out.
>>
>> The Horde sort of resembles Scythians. There were even Scythian infantry who
>> were pretty widely used in the ancient world.
>>
>Actually, they were quite Celtic. At that time the Celts were quite a
>large group. They wore trousers (as shown).
The Scthians also wore trousers, as did other groups to the east and south of
Greece. The Celts and Germans wore cloaks, too, but the Celts went into
battle naked (in Greek experience -- the western Celts stopped doing this at
some point). Of course, I wouldn't expect to see naked warriors on X:WP. But
trousers are not a particularly "Celtic" form of clothing.
>They painted their faces and bodies before battle (as shown).
The picts painted their bodies. The Celts and Germans did practice tattooing,
too, but I've never read that they used body paint.
>Heads and skulls were symbols of power, used extensively in "decorating"
>(as shown).
The huns did this. I've reviewed a lot of Celtic art and have never seen
skulls or bones in it. Heads are usually put on torques, but they are just as
likely to be animal heads as human heads.
Skulls also figured in Germanic and Scandinavian tradition to a lesser extent
than the Huns' but more than the Celts'.
>And they had a warriors code which the greeks of the time did not understand
>(as shown).
I've never read of a "warriors code" among the Celts. They had a warrior
tradition, and their culture was different from the Greeks'. But the Celts
also had a lot of interaction with the Greeks. Heuneberg, a Celtic fortress
of the 6th Century BC, was built by Greek architects. Other Celtic oppida
reveal similar influences.
>There were many groups of celts migrating east to west in that era. The
>Gauls were one of them. While the Scythians were not celtic, they were
>a related group.
If "that era" is Greece circa 1200 BC there were no Celts or Germans to
migrate west. Of course, anacronisms aside, the Horde does not resemble the
Celts in battle tactics or weapons. Nor did they appear to be a
particulary migratory group, although we never saw their camp, so I'll agree
that is fairly left as an open question.
>But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
>theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
>what you like.
We could just as easily suggest they resemble American Indians (in fact, the
mentions of a particular movie evoke this image).
Sean
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> In article <3373B1...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> The Scthians also wore trousers, as did other groups to the east and south of
> Greece. The Celts and Germans wore cloaks, too, but the Celts went into
> battle naked (in Greek experience -- the western Celts stopped doing this at
> some point). Of course, I wouldn't expect to see naked warriors on X:WP. But
> trousers are not a particularly "Celtic" form of clothing.
>
> >They painted their faces and bodies before battle (as shown).
>
> The picts painted their bodies. The Celts and Germans did practice tattooing,
> too, but I've never read that they used body paint.
>
> >Heads and skulls were symbols of power, used extensively in "decorating"
> >(as shown).
>
> The huns did this. I've reviewed a lot of Celtic art and have never seen
> skulls or bones in it. Heads are usually put on torques, but they are just as
> likely to be animal heads as human heads.
>
> Skulls also figured in Germanic and Scandinavian tradition to a lesser extent
> than the Huns' but more than the Celts'.
>
"Their aspect is terrifying...They are very tall in stature, with
ripling muscles under clear white skin. Their hair is blond, but not
naturally so: they bleach it, to this day, artificially, washing it in
lime and combing it back from their foreheaads. They look like
wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a horse's mane. Some of
them are cleanshaven, but others - especially those of high rank, shave
their cheeks but leave a moustache that covers the whole mouth and, when
they eat and drink, acts like a sieve, trapping particles of food...The
way they dress is astonishing: they wear brightly coloured and
embroidered shirts, with trousers called bracae and cloaks fastened at
the shoulder with a brooch, heavy in winter, light in summer. These
cloaks are striped or checkered in design, with the seperate checks
close together and in various colours.
[The Celts] wear bronze helmets with figures picked out on them,
even horns, which made them look even taller than they already
are...while others cover themselves with breast-armour made out of
chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them:
they go naked into battle...Weird, discordant horns were
sounded, [they shouted in chorus with their] deep and harsh voices, they
beat their swords rythmically against
their shields......
In exactly the same way as hunters do with their skulls of the
animals they have slain...they preserved the heads of their most
high-ranking victims in cedar oil, keeping them carefully in wooden
boxes. "
> >And they had a warriors code which the greeks of the time did not understand
> >(as shown).
>
> I've never read of a "warriors code" among the Celts. They had a warrior
> tradition, and their culture was different from the Greeks'.
Brehon Law. Geas. Single combat. They had a quite strict warrior
code, which is not intuitively grasped from observation; you must
understand the culture it belongs to.
> But the Celts
> also had a lot of interaction with the Greeks. Heuneberg, a Celtic fortress
> of the 6th Century BC, was built by Greek architects. Other Celtic oppida
> reveal similar influences.
They also rejected most elements of greek culture. Celtic art and
architecture showed vry little greek influence. Check out
http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
this topic in depth.
>
> >There were many groups of celts migrating east to west in that era. The
> >Gauls were one of them. While the Scythians were not celtic, they were
> >a related group.
>
> If "that era" is Greece circa 1200 BC there were no Celts or Germans to
> migrate west.
Celt (kelt) n. a member of one of the ancient peoples speaking Celtic.
They originated (c. 1500 B.C.) in S.W.
Germany and spread (7th c. B.C.) through France to N.Spain and the
British Isles. Successive Celtic invasions
reached upper Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, Illyria (4th c. B.C.), and Asia
Minor (3rd c. B.C.).
The Celts (pronounced with a hard C like "Claymore") appear in Europe as
a group of peoples who spoke languages in the Celtic branch of the
Indo-European family of languages. ...
The Celts evolved from the Urnfield Culture (given that name because of
the burial system of cremation and placement of ashes in urns which in
turn were buried in fields...) much earlier than the Romanized Celtic
world of the late 500-400 BC.
Depending on your time frame, they could be proto-celts or another
indo-european group migrating west (circa !%00BC), or true Celts
expanding east (circa 500BC)
> Of course, anacronisms aside, the Horde does not resemble the
> Celts in battle tactics or weapons.
Again, see the Diodorus quote above.
> Nor did they appear to be a
> particulary migratory group, although we never saw their camp, so I'll agree
> that is fairly left as an open question.
The Athenians were there first, then the Horde shows up. They may be
migrating, they may be just wandering. But they were not "at home".
>
> >But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
> >theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
> >what you like.
>
> We could just as easily suggest they resemble American Indians (in fact, the
> mentions of a particular movie evoke this image).
They can certainly remind you of them, but they can't be considered a
possible identity for the Horde. A "The Horde as Celtic" theory
certainly can be proposed, though hardly definitively. There really are
a number of similarities.
Michael Martinez
In article <337897...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Skulls also figured in Germanic and Scandinavian tradition to a lesser extent
>> than the Huns' but more than the Celts'.
>>
>Quote from the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus, History.
Which section? I'm unable to find this passage in Diodorus' History.
[snip of citation]
> In exactly the same way as hunters do with their skulls of the
>animals they have slain...they preserved the heads of their most
>high-ranking victims in cedar oil, keeping them carefully in wooden
>boxes. "
This is an unusual attribution. Caesar and other writers make no mention of
the practice.
I note that the web site you mention below has a picture of "The Dying Gaul",
which is a Greek representation of a Gallic warrior very unlike the
description in your citation.
>> >And they had a warriors code which the greeks of the time did not understand
>> >(as shown).
>>
>> I've never read of a "warriors code" among the Celts. They had a warrior
>> tradition, and their culture was different from the Greeks'.
>
>Brehon Law. Geas. Single combat. They had a quite strict warrior
>code, which is not intuitively grasped from observation; you must
>understand the culture it belongs to.
What is your source for this? "Brehon Law" is an ancient Irish tradition
(not well regarded by some writers and for all I know possibly colored by
Romantic notions just as Druidism is), and is not to be generally associated
(so far as I know) with continental Celts -- certainly not those who lived
1000 years prior to the time when Irish traditions were being recorded.
>> But the Celts
>> also had a lot of interaction with the Greeks. Heuneberg, a Celtic fortress
>> of the 6th Century BC, was built by Greek architects. Other Celtic oppida
>> reveal similar influences.
>
>They also rejected most elements of greek culture. Celtic art and
>architecture showed vry little greek influence. Check out
>http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
>this topic in depth.
Well, the continental Celts adopted Greek culture to the extent that they
started to coin their own money, engaged in trade with the Greeks (and other
peoples, including the Romans), and in fact one of the sections on that web
site disagrees with you:
"Two tenets of the "Hellenization" model that will be examined closely
involve the interpretation of goods found in funerary contexts. They
assert that Greek and Etruscan imports are evidence, on the one hand, that
the Celtic socioeconomic structures were dependent on the "high" cultures
of Mediterranean; and, on the other hand, that these imports were carriers
of ideas and institutions, providing Greek impetus for cultural and
artistic change in Europe."
[Some intervening text snipped for brevity]
"These two tenets of the 'Hellenization' model are inextricably linked;
the Celts imported Greek goods because of their associated meanings, and
once in the Celtic lands, these imports played key roles in the local
systems...."
>>
>> >There were many groups of celts migrating east to west in that era. The
>> >Gauls were one of them. While the Scythians were not celtic, they were
>> >a related group.
>>
>> If "that era" is Greece circa 1200 BC there were no Celts or Germans to
>> migrate west.
>
>Celt (kelt) n. a member of one of the ancient peoples speaking Celtic.
>They originated (c. 1500 B.C.) in S.W.
This is an absurd date. The Urnfield Culture dates only from the 8th Century
BC and the Hallstatt Culture dates from the 5th Century BC.
The putative Celto-Germanic linguistic split from the rest of the
Indo-European language family is thought to have occurred between 2000 BC and
1500 BC.
>
>The Celts evolved from the Urnfield Culture (given that name because of
>the burial system of cremation and placement of ashes in urns which in
>turn were buried in fields...) much earlier than the Romanized Celtic
>world of the late 500-400 BC.
>
>Depending on your time frame, they could be proto-celts or another
>indo-european group migrating west (circa !%00BC), or true Celts
>expanding east (circa 500BC)
There could be nothing like Proto-Celts in circa 1200BC Greece. No
such connection has ever been suggested.
>> Of course, anacronisms aside, the Horde does not resemble the
>> Celts in battle tactics or weapons.
>
>Again, see the Diodorus quote above.
Again, please give a specific section.
>> Nor did they appear to be a
>> particulary migratory group, although we never saw their camp, so I'll agree
>> that is fairly left as an open question.
>
>The Athenians were there first, then the Horde shows up. They may be
>migrating, they may be just wandering. But they were not "at home".
You're inferring this. It was not stated in the episode who was where first,
nor even why the Athenians were there (at least, after viewing it twice, I
haven't heard any such statements). And a raid does not constitute a
migration. If the Horde was merely raiding Greek territory, what we saw would
fit with that scenario -- which is why I can agree that this is an open
question.
>> >But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
>> >theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
>> >what you like.
>>
>> We could just as easily suggest they resemble American Indians (in fact, the
>> mentions of a particular movie evoke this image).
>
>They can certainly remind you of them, but they can't be considered a
>possible identity for the Horde. A "The Horde as Celtic" theory
>certainly can be proposed, though hardly definitively. There really are
>a number of similarities.
Proposed but not very strongly supported. The Horde more closely resembles
the Scythians, who dressed similarly. The use of battle-axes is completely
anacronistic or made up, not to mention the other weapons they used. The
Celts used swords and/spears.
So, in all probability, the Horde is just a fantasy enemy not intended to
resemble any particular historical group.
Sarah Sammis
"The noises proceeded from Chytos cove, across the bay, and Lynceus,
straining his eyes, cried: 'A fight is in progress between our guards
and a great horde of men who seem to have six hands-for they are dressed
in bear-skins with four paws dangling. To the rescue!'"
This little passage I found while reading HERCULES, MY SHIPMATE by
Robert Graves. It's a great book which has the same cheekiness of the
H:TLJ and X:WP. I realize that the Horde in the Price weren't wearing
bear skins but it still seemed interesting.
:)
Sean
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> >Quote from the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus, History.
>
> Which section? I'm unable to find this passage in Diodorus' History.
>
first, then 28. Section 29 is the part you left in below).
>
> > In exactly the same way as hunters do with their skulls of the
> >animals they have slain...they preserved the heads of their most
> >high-ranking victims in cedar oil, keeping them carefully in wooden
> >boxes. "
>
> This is an unusual attribution. Caesar and other writers make no mention of
> the practice.
>
"...when they depart from the battle they hang the heads of their
enemies from the necks of their horses, and when they have brought them
home, nail the spectacle to the entrance of their houses. At any rate
Posidonius says he himself saw this spectacle in many places,..."
Strabo, book 4, sections 4,5.
> I note that the web site you mention below has a picture of "The Dying Gaul",
> which is a Greek representation of a Gallic warrior very unlike the
> description in your citation.
Here is the relevant bit:
"They are very tall in stature, with ripling muscles under clear white
skin. Their hair is blond, but not
naturally so: they bleach it, to this day, artificially, washing it in
lime and combing it back from their foreheaads. They look like
wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a horse's mane. Some of
them are cleanshaven, but others - especially those of high rank, shave
their cheeks but leave a moustache...most content themselves with the
weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle..."
The sculpture shows a tall muscular man with spiked hair, a moustache,
and naked. So just HOW is it different from my citation. Wrong again
Michael.
<snip>
> >Brehon Law. Geas. Single combat. They had a quite strict warrior
> >code, which is not intuitively grasped from observation; you must
> >understand the culture it belongs to.
>
> What is your source for this? "Brehon Law" is an ancient Irish tradition
> (not well regarded by some writers and for all I know possibly colored by
> Romantic notions just as Druidism is), and is not to be generally associated
> (so far as I know) with continental Celts -- certainly not those who lived
> 1000 years prior to the time when Irish traditions were being recorded.
"The Celts" by TGE Powell. "The Celts" by Nora Chadwick. "The World of
the Celts", Simon James. "In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by J.P.
Mallory. In case you were not aware, the Irish are a Celtic groug (the
Goidelic). If you want to get picky with me about which verse I am
quoting, I think you had better be a little more specific than "some
writers". Writers who happen to be pretty ignorant, as this particular
"ancient Irish tradition" was still in common practice up until the
early 1600's. It is strongly related to the Laws of Hywel Dda, from the
Welsh (a Brythonic celtic group). Julius Caesar (Gallic War, 6,13-15)
and Diodorus again (5,31) both discuss the profesional classes (Brehons,
Bards, Druids). We could also discuss the battles with Celts settled by
single combat by M Claudius Marsellus or M. Valerius Corvinus. Before
the Senate passed a law against it. 0 for 4, now.
>
><snip>
> >They also rejected most elements of greek culture. Celtic art and
> >architecture showed vry little greek influence. Check out
> >http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
> >this topic in depth.
>
> Well, the continental Celts adopted Greek culture to the extent that they
> started to coin their own money, engaged in trade with the Greeks (and other
> peoples, including the Romans), and in fact one of the sections on that web
> site disagrees with you:
> <snip>
No, it doesn't. What you quoted is what the thesis was setting out to
DISPROVE. "The Greek and Etruscan imports consist of a limited range of
items, almost entirely connected with wine..." from "The World of the
Celts", Simon James. The Celts did adopt coins, but your point is still
wrong.
<snip>
> This is an absurd date. The Urnfield Culture dates only from the 8th Century
> BC and the Hallstatt Culture dates from the 5th Century BC.
>
Wrong again, but at least you were close. La Tene dates from the 5th
century BC. Hallstatt A and B date from 1200BC to 800BC, and Hallstatt
C and D 800BC to 600BC. The Urnfield culture
> The putative Celto-Germanic linguistic split from the rest of the
> Indo-European language family is thought to have occurred between 2000 BC and
> 1500 BC.
> >
Wrong again. "In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by J.P. Mallory,(pages
14-21) presents 7 models of the indo-european language group. All show
Celtic and German to be in completely different branches. Page 127 of
the same book estimates the IE split occured 4500BC-2500BC.
<snip>`
> There could be nothing like Proto-Celts in circa 1200BC Greece. No
> such connection has ever been suggested.
>
"The Battle Axe" group, migrating from the Pontic/Caspian area
3000BC-1500BC. Only 200 years off from the accepted date for Hercules
(1300BC). Next to nothing on a show that has spanned a millenium. But
wait, there is more. "...may be identifiedun the steppes of southern
russia...who, at a slightly earlier date appear to have been pushed
westward by the Scythians. It seems probable that some aristocratic
refugees came, either to dominate, or more probably to become absorbed
in [the immediate ancestors of the Celts]" "The Celts" by Nora Chadwick,
page 32. You are now 0 for 8.
><snip>
> >
> >The Athenians were there first, then the Horde shows up. They may be
> >migrating, they may be just wandering. But they were not "at home".
>
> You're inferring this. It was not stated in the episode who was where first,
> nor even why the Athenians were there (at least, after viewing it twice, I
> haven't heard any such statements).
<snip>
Watch it again. Pay attention to the map scene.
>
> >> >But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
> >> >theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
> >> >what you like.
<snip>
>
> Proposed but not very strongly supported. The Horde more closely resembles
> the Scythians, who dressed similarly. The use of battle-axes is completely
> anacronistic or made up, not to mention the other weapons they used. The
> Celts used swords and/spears.
If you are going to bust my chops over my documentation, shouldn't you
document your own assertions? Perhaps using Herodotus (book 4) where he
describes the Scythians as archers, on horseback. Oh, and check book 2,
I believe, where he discussed the pointy hats they wear. Gee, seems to
me the Scythians are less like the Horde than the Celts are. That would
make you 0 for 10.
It is far easier to tear down somebody elses theory than it is to build
up your own. I've supported all my points. You ought to make sure you
can support your statements before you try to trash mine.
--
Michael Martinez
On 5/15/97, in message <337AA8...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com>
wrote:
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> > Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Quote from the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus, History.
> >
> > Which section? I'm unable to find this passage in Diodorus' History.
> >
> Did you try the index? It's book 5, sections 28-30 (though I quoted 30
> first, then 28. Section 29 is the part you left in below).
No, I did not try the index because the only hardcopy translation of Diodorus
I know of (the 1939 Loeb Classic edition) is out-of-print. All I have to go
by is The Perseus Project. However, now that you've given me the book and
section numbers I've been able to determine (with confirmation from their
webmaster) that a significant portion of the text is not available on-line.
The same goes for Strabo. I'll have to cite books from my personal library.
And, for what it's worth, I normally read and post to ATX from work, where my
personal library ain't.
> >
> > > In exactly the same way as hunters do with their skulls of the
> > >animals they have slain...they preserved the heads of their most
> > >high-ranking victims in cedar oil, keeping them carefully in wooden
> > >boxes. "
> >
> > This is an unusual attribution. Caesar and other writers make no mention
> > of the practice.
> >
> Sorry Michael, you are wrong.
No, Sean, Michael is correct. The fact that you found another reference in no
way refutes what I said. Your logic is extremely faulty and I'll demonstrate
that below. Caesar makes no mention of the practice. OTHER WRITERS make no
mention of the practice. It was not common.
Furthermore, perhaps for the sake of saving time, you offer extremely poor
citations (where you offer them at all, that is).
Your admission of shifting stuff around after the fact underscores this.
Whenever you cite something be sure to provide a full context. Someone like
me may or may not be able to look up the reference (if nothing else I can run
down to a major library and do further research, though pulling the wind out
of your sails isn't THAT important to me), but there ARE people who don't have
access to any of our resources who may have an interest in this sort of thing.
Also, if you choose to continue this discussion, please do me the courtesy of
NOT changing things around and making it seem as if I was addressing some
point that I really wasn't. Perhaps you're just inattentive. I don't know,
but you appear to be using shifty tactics that I've run into before and I'm
not about to let you slide. When you cite me, please leave the context alone.
And drop the condescending bullshit, too, if you've a mind to be civil at all.
Talking down to people doesn't prove you right or them wrong. If you want to
lecture me, at least get your facts straight. Indeed -- try getting some
facts.
And I'll save you the trouble of pointing fingers back at me: I'm talking down
to you. That seems to be the only kind of attitude you appreciate. Show me
otherwise and I'll be glad to return to a more civil tone.
> > I note that the web site you mention below has a picture of "The Dying
> > Gaul", which is a Greek representation of a Gallic warrior very unlike the
> > description in your citation.
>
> Here is the relevant bit:
Nope, you're wrong again, Sean.
That's not the "relevant" bit. Don't chop the whole argument and then
re-present it as if you are just repeating yourself verbatim. You are not
repeating yourself, but have quite obviously chopped your original citation in
order to make your refutation appear to work.
Your doctored citation reads:
> "They are very tall in stature, with ripling muscles under clear white
> skin. Their hair is blond, but not naturally so: they bleach it, to this
> day, artificially, washing it in lime and combing it back from their
> foreheaads. They look like wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a
> horse's mane. Some of them are cleanshaven, but others - especially those of
> high rank, shave their cheeks but leave a moustache...most content
> themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle..."
> The sculpture shows a tall muscular man with spiked hair, a moustache,
> and naked. So just HOW is it different from my citation. Wrong again
> Michael.
And now, the citation to which I was actually replying:
:"Their aspect is terrifying...They are very tall in stature, with
:ripling muscles under clear white skin. Their hair is blond, but not
:naturally so: they bleach it, to this day, artificially, washing it in
:lime and combing it back from their foreheaads. They look like
:wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a horse's mane. Some of
:them are cleanshaven, but others - especially those of high rank, shave
:their cheeks but leave a moustache that covers the whole mouth and, when
:they eat and drink, acts like a sieve, trapping particles of food...The
:way they dress is astonishing: they wear brightly coloured and
:embroidered shirts, with trousers called bracae and cloaks fastened at
:the shoulder with a brooch, heavy in winter, light in summer. These
:cloaks are striped or checkered in design, with the seperate checks
:close together and in various colours.
"The Dying Gaul" doesn't have the breeches and cloak, or the shirt. If you
wanted to present a consistent picture of a Celt you should have refrained
from editing the citation (indicated by your use of the elipsis), which
perhaps provides some distinguishing context. But you made no attempt to
clarify your description, and in fact were arguing that because of the
breeches and cloak the Horde's warriors resembled the Celts.
Remember that part of your argument? Now you're disavowing it in
none-too-subtle a way.
Furthermore:
: [The Celts] wear bronze helmets with figures picked out on them,
:even horns, which made them look even taller than they already
:are...while others cover themselves with breast-armour made out of
:chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them:
:they go naked into battle...Weird, discordant horns were
:sounded, [they shouted in chorus with their] deep and harsh voices, they
:beat their swords rythmically against their shields......
These guys don't sound a bit like the Horde's warriors, though I wonder what
was actually written in the text which you replaced with the summarization of
"[The Celts]".
The beating of swords on shield, btw, is a tactic the Germans also used (more
often beating spears than swords, since the Germans didn't use swords much
until the middle ages).
But I've pointed out enough concerning your injudicious hypocrisy on this
point, I trust.
> <snip>
> > >Brehon Law. Geas. Single combat. They had a quite strict warrior
> > >code, which is not intuitively grasped from observation; you must
> > >understand the culture it belongs to.
> >
> > What is your source for this? "Brehon Law" is an ancient Irish tradition
> > (not well regarded by some writers and for all I know possibly colored by
> > Romantic notions just as Druidism is), and is not to be generally
> > associated (so far as I know) with continental Celts -- certainly not
> > those who lived 1000 years prior to the time when Irish traditions were
> > being recorded.
>
> "The Celts" by TGE Powell. "The Celts" by Nora Chadwick. "The World of
> the Celts", Simon James. "In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by J.P.
> Mallory. In case you were not aware, the Irish are a Celtic groug (the
> Goidelic).
You're not getting off this lightly. Chadwick makes no mention of these
traditions in her discussion of the Irish laws (which differ from the Welsh
laws and which she dates only to the 7th or 8th centuries AD -- more than 1500
years after the start of the Hallstatt Culture of east central Europe).
In fact, W.F. and J.N.G. Ritchie, S.E. Winbolt, Christiane Eluere (perhaps
today's premier Celtic scholar), and others all fail to mention this warrior
code you have inferred from your intimate knowledge of Celtic culture. I
would cite something but they apparently did not feel it necessary to use the
phrase "warrior code" or anything approximating it, so they must have missed
the whole shebang.
And in case you are not aware (which you don't seem to be), the Irish
represent a mixture of peoples -- indeed, even a mixture of Celts, as several
waves of Celts settled in Ireland as well as Britain.
> If you want to get picky with me about which verse I am
> quoting, I think you had better be a little more specific than "some
> writers".
Fine. Herodotus makes no mention of the warrior code or the practice of
head-hunting among the Celts. Caesar makes no mention of either. Livy makes
no mention of either (but his works are generally regarded as a mixture of
history and polemic), Rufus Festus Avienus failed to describe the practices,
Iamblichus, and others. Would you like to get more picky than these? In some
cases I have only summarizations to refer to (and whatever the Perseus Project
and the Internet Classics Archive care to cough up). I have translations of
Caesar, Herodotus, Livy, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and some others.
> Writers who happen to be pretty ignorant, as this particular
> "ancient Irish tradition" was still in common practice up until the
> early 1600's.
Well, today's writers also seem to be pretty ignorant, too. I can't find my
copy of Powell's book but Eleure cites him in various places and doesn't
mention Powell's exceeding passion for the warrior code.
> It is strongly related to the Laws of Hywel Dda, from the
> Welsh (a Brythonic celtic group). Julius Caesar (Gallic War, 6,13-15)
> and Diodorus again (5,31) both discuss the profesional classes (Brehons,
> Bards, Druids).
The Welsh of today are considered to be Brythonic for linguistic purposes
only. "Welsh" is an Anglo-Saxon term meaning "foreigner" and the Celts who
settled in Wales came from all over: Scotland, Ireland, and Brittannia proper
-- but they were a mixture of Romanized, half-Romanized, and "wild" Celts.
Caesar speaks of two privileged classes -- "professional classes" appears to
be your own interpretation. The Druids were the priestly caste and the
"knights" were the warrior aristocracy. Caesar makes no mention of a wariior
code, let alone a "strict one". Here is a sample citation from Caesar's
"Customs of the Gauls" (translation by S.A. Handford):
"Everywhere in Gaul there are only two classes of men who are of any
account or consideration. The common people are treated almost as
slaved, never venture to act on their own initiative, and are not
consulted on any subject. Most of them, crushed by debt or heavy
taxation or the oppression of more powerful persons, bind themselves
to serve men of rank, who exercise over them all the rights that
masters have over slaves. The two privileged classes are the Druids
and the Knights. The Druids officiate at the worship of the gods,
regulate public and private sacrifices, and give rulings on all
religious questions. Large numbers of young men flock to them
for instruction, and they are held in great honour by the people.
They act as judges in practically all disputes, whether between
tribes or between individuals; when any crime is committed, or
a murder takes place, or a dispute arises about an inheritance
or boundary, it is they who adjudicate the matter and appoint
the compensation to be paid and received by the parties concerned...."
He has much more to say about the Druids, of course, but not much to say about
the "Knights". The translator does not explain his choice of term in "Knight"
but the one paragraph Caesar wrote concerning them goes:
"The second class is that of the Knights. When their services
are required in some war that has broken out -- and before
Caesar's arrival in the country the Gallic states used to fight
offensive or defensive wars almost every year -- these all
take the field, surrounded by their servants and retainers,
of whom each Knight has a greater or smaller number according
to his birth and fortune. The possession of such a following
is the only criterion of position and power that they recognize."
If Caesar even mentions bards the reference is not significant enough to
warrant inclusion in the glossary. Bards would have come from the Druidic
tradition but Caesar says that all the Druids had to memorize their poetic
tradition (which could not be written down). Bards are also popularly thought
to precede medieval minstrels as travellers and tale-tellers. In fact, in the
chapter on the start of Vercingetorix, there is a passage which purports to
explain how news was passed around Gaul:
"When the appointed day arrived, the Carnutes, led by two
desperadoes named Gutuater and Conconnetodumnus, swooped down
at a given signal on Cenabum, killed the Romans who had
settled there for purposes of commerce -- including Gaius
Fufius Cita, a Roman Knight of high standing, whom Caesar
had put in charge of the commisariat -- and plundered their
property. Tidings of these events sped swiftly to all the
tribes of Gaul: for when anything specially important or
remarkable occurs, the people shout the news to one another
through the countryside and villages, and others in turn
take up the cry and pass it on to their neighbors. Thus,
on the present occasion, what happened at Cenabum at dawn
was known before eight o'clock at night in the country
of the Arverni, about a hundred and fifty miles away."
So, there seems to be no role for Bards in Caesar's Gaul.
> We could also discuss the battles with Celts settled by
> single combat by M Claudius Marsellus or M. Valerius Corvinus. Before
> the Senate passed a law against it. 0 for 4, now.
You are missing on all bangers, that's for sure. Yes, I'm aware of the TWO
documented battles decided by single combat. I'm also aware of many, many
more (including some before those two) which were NOT decided by single combat.
> >
> ><snip>
> > >They also rejected most elements of greek culture. Celtic art and
> > >architecture showed vry little greek influence. Check out
> > >http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
> > >this topic in depth.
> >
> > Well, the continental Celts adopted Greek culture to the extent that they
> > started to coin their own money, engaged in trade with the Greeks (and
> > other peoples, including the Romans), and in fact one of the sections on
> > that web site disagrees with you:
> > <snip>
>
> No, it doesn't. What you quoted is what the thesis was setting out to
> DISPROVE. "The Greek and Etruscan imports consist of a limited range of
> items, almost entirely connected with wine..." from "The World of the
> Celts", Simon James. The Celts did adopt coins, but your point is still
> wrong.
Wrong again. Here is the stated thesis:
"This dissertation will examine the material evidence for the great
stylistic change that took place in fifth century Celtic art, the highly
complex and distinctive cultures that produced it, and their relationships
with the Mediterranean. It cites recent alternative anthropological
reconstructions of the history of the period, and re-evaluates
art-historical interpretations of cultural and stylistic change
from Hallstatt to La Tčne. In so doing, limitations of the 'Hellenization'
model as an interpretational tool are demonstrated. Early Celtic art
reveals an autochthonous, indigenous aesthetic development that is
essentially different from, even incompatible with, that of the Greeks."
"Early Celtic art reveals an autochthonous, indigenous aesthetic development
that is essentially different from, even incompatible with, that of the
Greeks."
The dissertation's primary thesis is that the ART FORMS WERE DIFFERENT -- not
that the Greeks didn't influence the Celts culturally. Your reading
comprehension skills are not impressive at all.
The abstract makes it painfully clear that Celtic Art is being studied -- not
Celtic cultural sources:
"The arts of early Iron Age Europe are highly complex and abstract
products of a stylistic development that is as yet poorly understood.
The period of the transition from late Hallstatt to early La Tčne in
the fifth century B.C.E. is particularly rich in information about
internal artistic developments, regional cultural change, and important
aspects of the relations between west-central Europe and the
Mediterranean, particularly classical Greece. Studies of Celtic art have
concentrated largely on the relationship between the Celts and the Greeks.
The Greeks, Romans, and many modern scholars have seen the Celts as
barbarians living on the periphery of "higher" Mediterranean
civilizations. Underlying most interpretations of Celtic art has been
the assumption that when the ancient Celts imported Greek goods and
included them in their funerary assemblages, they imported Greek ideas
and customs as well. In addition, the stylistic change in Celtic art
in the fifth century B.C.E. has been ascribed to imitation of Greek art,
the product of external stimuli and the desire to emulate the Greeks.
The study of specific works of Celtic art in their regional, local and
artistic context demonstrates that Iron Age Europe was an important
center of artistic production and innovation in its own right.
Archaeology reveals that the Celtic lands were economically and
politically independent of Greece. Local funerary customs and beliefs
explain the mortuary assemblages. Finally, stylistic change is the
product of a local, indigenous, and remarkably un-classical aesthetic
development.
"Celtic art is removed in this study from the periphery of Western art
history and restored to its rightful place as a rival style that
consciously rejected Greek figural representation in favor of
non-illusionistic abstraction."
Culturally, the Celts were deeply indebted to the Greeks by the 1st Century
BC. They were using Greek letters (Caesar mentions this concerning the
Helvetti):
"Some documents found in the Helvetian camp were brought to Caesar.
They were written in Greek characters, and contained a register of
the names of all the emigrants capable of bearing arms, and also,
under separate heads, the numbers of old men, women, and children...."
Arcaheology, however, does not totally agree with the author above. There are
many examples of Greek and Etruscan pottery and art throughout Celtic Europe.
The Celts undeniably were independent of but were not isolated from the Greeks
and Etruscans, with whom they traded extensively. We know that as many as
20,000 Gallic warriors became embroiled in Greek politics in the 3rd Century
BC and eventually settled in what became known as Galatia near the kingdom of
Bithynia (in Asia Minor).
Nora Chadwick has this to say about the Gauls:
"By Caesar's time, and indeed long before, the Gauls clearly
dominated a large part of Gaul, but earlier populations lingered
on. At the time of Caesar's conquest the Armorican peninsula
was at least partially under Celtic domination, but in more
ancient times it was probably the least Celticized area of Gaul.
Of the names of the five Gaulish tribes in Armorica, enumerated
by Caesar, only that of the Redones (modern Rennes) in the
valley of the Vilaine is certainly Celtic, those of the Namnetes
(modern Nantes) and the Venetes (modern Vannes) being only
doubtfully Celtic, while those of the coastal tribes of the
Coriosolites in the north and the Osismii in the west are
almost certainly pre-Celtic. The Ligurians and Iberians occupied
relatively small areas in the south-east and south-west
respectively. Already in the sixth century B.C. the Phocaeans
had established an important colony and trading state in
Massalia (Latin Massilia, modern Maeseilles) which remained
permanently in good relations with Rome, from which it was
separated till the third century B.C. by the Ligurians."
>
> <snip>
> > This is an absurd date. The Urnfield Culture dates only from the 8th
> > Century BC and the Hallstatt Culture dates from the 5th Century BC.
> >
> Wrong again, but at least you were close. La Tene dates from the 5th
> century BC. Hallstatt A and B date from 1200BC to 800BC, and Hallstatt
> C and D 800BC to 600BC. The Urnfield culture
You're correct on my using the wrong names. But your dating is completely
bogus. Christiane Eleure writes in THE CELTS: CONQUERORS OF EUROPE:
"In 1824 came the first signs of the existence of an important
Iron Age cemetary at Hallstatt, a village in central Austria;
ancient salt mines had been found there as early as the 14th
century. Then, i1857, excavations near the Lake of Neuchatel,
in western Swizerland, led to the discovery of stores of arms
and personal ornaments at La tene, the shallows at the east
end of the lake. Hallstatt and La Tene became sites whose
names were used to denote the Early (800--500 BC) and Late
(500 BC -- AD 200) Iron Ages, respectively."
According to THE WORLD ATLAS OF ARCHAEOLOGY, Hallstatt dates from 800 BC and
Urnfield dates from Circa 1000 BC. The LAROUSE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ARCHAEOLOGY
extends the period back to 1000 BC while the Urnfield Culture is dated to
1200-1000 BC. The ANCHOR ATLAS OF WORLD HISTORY says the Urnfield Culture is
dated after 1300 BC and puts Hallstatt from 800 BC on to about 450 BC (when La
Tene takes over).
> > The putative Celto-Germanic linguistic split from the rest of the
> > Indo-European language family is thought to have occurred between
> > 2000 BC and 1500 BC.
> > >
> Wrong again. "In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by J.P. Mallory,(pages
> 14-21) presents 7 models of the indo-european language group. All show
> Celtic and German to be in completely different branches. Page 127 of
> the same book estimates the IE split occured 4500BC-2500BC.
You still aren't comprehending what you're reading.
The IE split is indeed customarily dated to the period of 3500-2500 BC
(4500-2500 is a bit more liberal but not significant). This marked the
division in the CENTUM and SATEM groups (the words denote the reconstructed
words for "hundred", and approximate an east-west division of the IE
languages). The CENTUM group contained the Hellenic, Italic, Germanic, and
Celtic languages. The language tree is usually indicated something like:
INDO-EUROPEAN
|
+-----+-------+
| |
SATEM CENTUM
|
+-----+------+
| |
Hellenic Italo-Germanic
|
+-----+------+
| |
Celto-Germanic Italic
|
+-----+----+
| |
Celtic Germanic
And so forth. Source: A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 3rd Edition.
>
> <snip>`
> > There could be nothing like Proto-Celts in circa 1200BC Greece. No
> > such connection has ever been suggested.
> >
> "The Battle Axe" group, migrating from the Pontic/Caspian area
> 3000BC-1500BC.
The Battle-Axe people moved up into Scandinavia, down into Greece and Italy,
and as far west as Iberia! Give us a break! And the Celts did not use battle
axes -- a lot of time passed between these two cultural periods.
> Only 200 years off from the accepted date for Hercules
> (1300BC). Next to nothing on a show that has spanned a millenium. But
> wait, there is more.
Carefully snipped so as to hide the correct context, we see. Chadwick is
being extremely modest in her connections between the pre-Celtic Battle-Axe
period (third millenium) and the Celtic cultures of the first millenium.
Your judiciously snipped (and misleading) citation:
> "...may be identifiedun the steppes of southern
> russia...who, at a slightly earlier date appear to have been pushed
> westward by the Scythians. It seems probable that some aristocratic
> refugees came, either to dominate, or more probably to become absorbed
> in [the immediate ancestors of the Celts]" "The Celts" by Nora Chadwick,
> page 32. You are now 0 for 8.
Wrong as usual, Sean. Since you've deliberately misrepresented Chadwick's
thesis it's only fair that we provide onlookers with the truth:
"The second group is characterized by a perforated battle-axe of
stone, some few of which might also be accompanied by a metal
dagger and personal ornaments. The common form of burial is that
of an individual, accompanied by his grave goods, often under
a circular barrow or earthen mound, and sometimes enclosed
with a timber mortuary-house. All evidence points toward an
origin for this burial practice, and some of the associated
artifacts, in the steppe-lands of southern Russia, between
the Caucasus and the Carpathian mountains. The stone battle-axe
is of particular interest, for its shape may have been influenced
by shaft-hole axe-heads of copper of Middle Eastern derivation.
Closely comparable axe-heads, possibly cast from local metal
deposits in the Carpathians, are known from eastern Europe
and from Slovakia, and date from the latter part of the third
millenium B.C. The initial spread of Battle-Axe people,
however, apparently outpaced any widespread use of metal in
Central Europe, and any local exploitation of raw materials.
The spread of the Beaker Folk was similarly rapid, and there
is evidence to suggest that they may have been involved more
directly than were the Battle-Axe folk in the extraction of
metal and the production of metal artifacts. In Central
Europe the two groups fused.
"The significance of this influx of new peoples was twofold.
They provided a nucleus from which were to grow warrior
aristocratic elements, and introduced into Central Europe
a knowldge of, and demand for, the use of metal. In doing
so they brought to an end the simple self-sufficiency of
Neolithic economy and society. At this time, that is at
the close of the third millenium B.C., the foundations of
the Celtic culture contemporary with the classical civilizations
were laid, although there was to be more development before
the full achievement was realized.
"The movement of the Battle-Axe people has an additiona;
significance, and not only for the origins of the Celts. Some
reservations must remain in any attempt at identifying the
pre-literate forerunner of a historically attested language
with an archaeological culture, yet there are cogent arguments,
based on the study of both philology and arcaheology, for
suggesting that the initial spread of the Indo-European group
of languages may be attributed to the Battle-Axe folk. These
peoples not only penetrated Central Europe, but spread over
wide areas of the Continent. The Indo-European group of languages
embraces most of those current in present-day Europe, including
modern Celtic languages, as well as ancient Celtic, Greek and
Latin, and ancient languages beyond Europe, such as Hittite
and Sanskrit. It is also possible that the basis of a social
organization common to a number of barbarian peoples in
Europe, and indeed to the progenitors of the Greeks and
Romans also, was disseminated by Battle-Axe people at this time."
In any event, even Chadwick's somewhat dated material (1970) shows you don't
understand what you are talking about when you say the Battle-Axe people were
dated to 1500 BC.
According to LAROUSE, the Bronze Age hit central Europe by 1800 BC and swords
supplanted the earlier battle axes). The Middle Bronze Age is dated 1500 -
1200 BC.
> ><snip>
> > >
> > >The Athenians were there first, then the Horde shows up. They may be
> > >migrating, they may be just wandering. But they were not "at home".
> >
> > You're inferring this. It was not stated in the episode who was where
> > first, nor even why the Athenians were there (at least, after viewing
> > it twice, I haven't heard any such statements).
> <snip>
> Watch it again. Pay attention to the map scene.
Haven't had the chance. But which map scene are you referring to? The one
with the prisoner or the one before that? In the scene with the prisoner,
Xena points to where the compound is and then asks where the Horde's camp is.
He wouldn't tell her.
> >
> > >> >But as I said before, they were a number of strikes against a celtic
> > >> >theory as well (no horses, bones in the nose, no swords, etc...). Pick
> > >> >what you like.
> <snip>
> >
> > Proposed but not very strongly supported. The Horde more closely resembles
> > the Scythians, who dressed similarly. The use of battle-axes is completely
> > anacronistic or made up, not to mention the other weapons they used. The
> > Celts used swords and/spears.
>
> If you are going to bust my chops over my documentation, shouldn't you
> document your own assertions?
Sure. Of course, up until this point I've been ripping apart your faulty
knowledge of history and archaeology. It's taken me a while to get to this
point.
> Perhaps using Herodotus (book 4) where he describes the Scythians as
> archers, on horseback.
Let's say what the old boy had to say about Scythians:
In Book One (you missed that -- how convenient), near section 215
"In their dress and way of living the Massagetae are like the
Scythians. Some ride, some do not -- for they use both infantry
and cavalry. The have archers and spearmen and are accustomed
to carry the 'sagaris', or bill. The only metals they use are
gold and bronze:...[various descriptions of bronze metal and gear
snipped]...."
There is also mention of cannibalism, but since it was never shown that the
Horde were cannibals, I don't see the need to go on about that.
Of course, Herodotus mentions Scythians all over the place and at great length
sometimes. I won't try to cite all that stuff here, but I will cite this
passage from Book Four (near section 131) which discusses how the Scythians
fought against Darius' Persians:
"After the presents had been sent to Darius, the Scythians who
had not gone to the Danube drew up their cavalry and infantry
with the apparent intention of offereing the Persians battle.
But as soon as their dispositions were made, a hare started up
between the two armies and began running. The Scythians were
after it in a moment -- company after company of them, directly
they caught sight of it...."
Well, I guess the second mention of infantry is sufficient to show you don't
know what you're talking about.
> Oh, and check book 2, I believe, where he discussed the pointy hats they
> wear.
<sigh>
You obviously haven't read Herodotus lately -- or else weren't paying
attention (as usual). Most of the discussion of their customs occurs in Book
Three. The only pointy hat reference I know of, however, comes from Book
Seven, where their use of axes (shades of the Horde!) is mentioned. This
passage is describing Xerxes' army:
"The Bactrians had caps almost exactly like those worn by the Medes,
and were armed with their native cane bows and short spears. The
Sacae (a Scythian people) wore trousers and tall pointed hats set
upright on their heads, and were armed with the bows of their
country, daggers, and the *sagaris*, or battle-axe...."
> Gee, seems to me the Scythians are less like the Horde than the Celts are.
Sure. Anyone can see that, based on your deep scholarly research, your
exquisite citations, and your precise dating and descriptions of customs and
clothing, that there were no similarities between the Scythians and the Horde
-- as well as that the Celts were not culturally influenced by the Greeks, and
were directly preceded by the Battle-Axe people (never mind the intervening
1200 or so years), and so forth.
> That would make you 0 for 10.
Look again. :)
> It is far easier to tear down somebody elses theory than it is to build
> up your own. I've supported all my points. You ought to make sure you
> can support your statements before you try to trash mine.
Basically, you've made yourself look like an idiot, which was not what I set
out to do. But if you want to look stupid and ignorant before thousands of
people, just go ahead and post another article like the one I just responded
to.
In my original article, which so bothered your Celtic loyalties, I merely
pointed out the objective alternative to your identification of the Horde with
the Celts. They don't even resemble romanticized Celts. And I left out all
the stuff about Celtic torques, their love of gold and use of tons of gold
ornamentation, the stuff about the chariots, and the fact that the Celts
generally had little stamina in battle (whereas the Horde were rather
determined foes who wore down their prey -- er, enemies).
As for the Scythian connection, I don't see the need to post citation after
citation concerning their clothing, their use of infantry, whatever. It
appears that would be a completely wasted effort.
Now, if you want sign off by calling me a name, fine, do so. If you want to
come back and cite some more sources, I may respond, although your
condescending attitude leaves me thinking you're not interested in learning or
discussing anything -- just in trying to look good at someone else's expense,
no matter how much you have to twist the citations in order to do so.
We both expressed our opinions. You turned this into a pseudo-scholarly war
of words -- one which you are pitifully ill-equipped to wage if you feel you
must resort to trickery (chopping citations), snide and condescending remarks,
and attempts to bring in non sequiturs (such as Book Two of Herodotus and the
pointy hats on Xerxes' Scythians). As for a war of facts -- well, you're
underarmed in that department too, it seems.
Sean
On May 4th, I posted my "scientific wild-ass guess" that the horde was
Celtic or a group related to them. I also offered some points that
argued against this. Michael Martinez felt it necessary to completely
deny the possibility. So I posted some of the similarities which I saw,
and quoted some of the historical theories that supported this
possibility. Michael continued to deny the possibility, becoming more
picky and petty with each post. If I quoted an author, he demanded page
references. If I referenced a theory, he denied its accuracy or
existence. If I provided examples, he refused to accept them. I was not
saying that the horde MUST be Celts, but that they COULD be Celts.
Michael declared that I was wrong.
What Michael did not seem to grasp is that it was a theory. Finding an
opposing theory does not make the first false. Nor did he grasp the
related concepts of none/some/all.
With my last post, I showed that some of Michaels definitive statements
were wrong. In response to which Michael sent an insulting, pompous and
condescending reply. Well Michael, if it makes you feel better to be
rude and insulting, go ahead. What you think doesn't make any
difference to me. You are convinced that the Horde could not be Celtic,
fine. But your pathetic self-righteousness is offensive.
Favorite Quotes:
1)On "headhunting" Michael states
> > > This is an unusual attribution. Caesar and other writers make no mention
> > > of the practice.
I replied
"<snip>"
Strabo, book 4, sections 4,5.
To which, Michael responded
>OTHER WRITERS make no mention of the practice. It was not common.
Sorry Michael, Strabo IS another writer.
2)The Dying Gaul
> > > I note that the web site you mention below has a picture of "The Dying
> > > Gaul", which is a Greek representation of a Gallic warrior very unlike the
> > > description in your citation.
And yes, I am trimming the quote. Not for the petty reasons you accuse
me of, but because I don't like sending 11 page posts, as you do. Or
quoting an entire page for two relevant sentences
> Some of them are cleanshaven, but others .. leave a moustache
> most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle...
Michael, do you understand the meaning of "some" or "most"? "The Dying
Gaul" resembles some or most, but not all. Until you figure out how one
sculpture can resemble a naked Gaul and a clothed one at the same time,
don't make accusations.
3)Quote wars
You disagree with my quotes and conclusions, and respond with 4 pages of
quotes. After which you made grand sweeping definitive statements, like
"The Celts were deeply indebted to the Greeks by the 1st century".
Volume and opinion do not create facts. And you are certainly not
qualified to judge which theories are true. I presented a theory and
opinion, you pretend to factual knowledge.
4)Ignored examples
Michael Says:
> You are missing on all bangers, that's for sure. Yes, I'm aware of the TWO documented battles decided by >single combat. I'm also aware of many, many more (including some before those two) which were NOT decided by >single combat.
Two documented against the Romans. Many more elsewhere. But because
you only know of two instances, you don't have to consider you might be
wrong.
5)Reading is fundamental:
I wrote:
> > > >Celtic art and architecture showed very little greek influence. Check out
> > > >http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
> > > >this topic in depth.
> > >
After Michael (IMO) did deliberately misquote the above site, and I
responded, he posted:
> The dissertation's primary thesis is that the ART FORMS WERE DIFFERENT -- not
> that the Greeks didn't influence the Celts culturally. Your reading
> comprehension skills are not impressive at all.
What did I say, Michael? Can YOU read??? I said art, it was about
art. So you insult me.
6)Quote Wars 2
Michael says:
> You're correct on my using the wrong names. But your dating is completely
> bogus. Christiane Eleure writes in THE CELTS: CONQUERORS OF EUROPE:
Ah. So my sources are wrong, but yours are right. Well gee Michael,
why don't you go end all that scholarly debate, since you know the one
and only truth.
Oh, don't forget to accuse me of editing the quotes to deliberately
mislead, instead of doing it to aviod posting a reply so large my
newsreader cannot handle it.
7) Do your own homework
Last time I wrote:
>If you are going to bust my chops over my documentation, shouldn't you
> document your own assertions?
So Michael made sarcastic comments, and responded only to the Scythian
points that I raised. Michael seems to think I must justify my
theories, but he doesn't have to justify his own.
8)Be nice
I wrote:
>It is far easier to tear down somebody elses theory than it is to build
> up your own. I've supported all my points. You ought to make sure you
> can support your statements before you try to trash mine.
Michael did not. Michael made many pathetic, insulting, pompous,
asinine, and downright rude comments. Then Michael tried to cast
himself as the poor martyred scholar.
So enough of this. I presented a theory on the horde. Like it, dislike
it, whatever. I have better uses for my time than defending it against
petty nitpicking. Or replying to pompous little hypocrites who hurl
insults when somebody does not agree with them.
So dig under those sofa cushions for a quater Michael, and buy yourself
a clue. You are in desperate need of it.
Michael Martinez
In article <337CAE...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> really had
the guts to write the following:
>On May 4th, I posted my "scientific wild-ass guess" that the horde was
>Celtic or a group related to them. I also offered some points that
>argued against this. Michael Martinez felt it necessary to completely
>deny the possibility.
Really? I provide my article below for anyone who's still interested in your
thoughts on the matter to consider (it was posted on May 6, for anyone who
wants to search Dejanews at http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html):
=============================================================================
In article <336CF6...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>>
>> Were they supposed to represent any ancient or mythological group, or were
>> they just something invented for this episode?
>
>Well, they:
> 1)are considered barbarians by the greeks
The Greeks considered all non-Greeks to be barbarians, in the sense that the
word from which we derive "barbarian" was (IIRC) "barbaros", and meant
something like "non-speaker of Greek" or "foreigner".
> 2)do not speek greek
That would fit with the definition of "barbarous" as I understand it.
> 3)paint their faces/bodies
Actually, this was quite a common thing in the ancient world, but I suspect
they were intended to represent Fantasy hordes (like The Jonzz in
"Beastmaster").
> 4)have a thing for skulls
Bone-dancers have appeared in XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS before. They tend to be
more primitive culturally than the Greeks and nearby peoples.
> 5)have a "warrior code"
>
>So my SWAG would be Celts or some group related to them. Of course, the
>bones through the noses, lack of chariots/horses, and almost exclusive
>use of axes argue against it. Take your pick.
The Gauls have been referred to several times in the series already. I would
argue against the Horde being anything like the Gauls. Probably they are to
be associated with the Scythians and/or Sarmatians, but not in the sense that
they are a steppe-based horde (although I've never heard of a horde that
wasn't mounted).
>What I _was_ reminded of was an old movie called, IIRC, "Drums on the
>Mohawk", where American Indians had besieged a fort in upstate New
>York. Again IIRC, it was based on the writings of James Fenimore
>Cooper.
I was reminded of Vietnam (aka Viet Nam), which inspired some of the STAR TREK
episodes that people have recalled. There were quite a few, actually, that
would be reminiscent of "The Price".
But the story was basically a morality story -- concentrating on "end doesn't
justify means" type of politics. Gabrielle was playing the Spockian "There
are always alternatives" role to Xena's playing Kirk's "We have to defend
these people and...build schools for their...children!"
The connection with the movie "Zulu" is, I think, also a valid one. And
probably also the episode was intended to identify with some of the old US
Cavalry movies where the isolated outposts are being worn down by Indians and
so forth.
It's basically a "Soldiers sent to die" morality story.
IMHO, of course.
=============================================================================
Now, you may not understand what I wrote above, Sean, but that is not a
complete denial of anything. I was just tossing in some information.
>So I posted some of the similarities which I saw, and quoted some of the
>historical theories that supported this possibility. Michael continued
>to deny the possibility,
"Continued to deny the possibility" is misleading, since it's obvious I didn't
deny the possibility in the above article. What I DID write in my second
article was:
=============================================================================
I don't remember seeing the Horde eat anyone. Did Xena or the Athenians say
they were cannibals? I would consider such second-hand information very
suspect, given that they completely misunderstood the Horde altogether.
In any event, they were not even remotely Celtic. The Gauls have already been
mentioned on the show several times and we've seen Magmer The Gaul (in "The
Royadl Couple of Thieves"). Celts are out.
The Horde sort of resembles Scythians. There were even Scythian infantry who
were pretty widely used in the ancient world.
But my opinion is that the Horde is just supposed to be a fantasy people.
They don't closely resemble any particular historical culture I've studied.
Could there be Maori influences? Why not? But I don't know anything about
Maori culture(s) and can't form an opinion on that.
=============================================================================
Now, there is a flat denial in THIS article. But I posted this
particular article on May 9. I'd had a few days to think about the possible
connections. I formed an opinion between May 6 (when I posted my first
thoughts on the subject) and May 9. The fact someone holds and expresses an
opinion different from yours shouldn't upset you. I realize now that you were
upset at seeing a different opinion expressed -- and that you don't appreciate
having the facts used to show up your theories.
>becoming more picky and petty with each post. If I quoted an author, he
>demanded page references.
Nothing of the sort in the above article. You're certainly misremembering
what happened.
>If I referenced a theory, he denied its accuracy or existence.
Really? I suppose it would be petty and cruel of me to ask you to back up
this outrageous statement, but, what the heck -- you're obviously going to
trump up charges against me no matter what I do. So, Please cite the articles
showing that this actually happened.
Remember, most people can look up these articles on Dejanews (not that anyone
other than me will -- no one really cares if you stick your foot in your mouth
and get your feelings hurt around here -- that's the risk we take when we post
to Usenet).
>If I provided examples, he refused to accept them.
No, I merely pointed out that you didn't know what you were talking about.
You still don't know what you're talking about.
I tried to be as polite as I'm able to, but you decided I was engaging in some
sort of personal crusade to destroy you or something and turned this into a
one-on-one war of words -- you're still taking the truth too personally
(actually, considering how little truth is in what you've written here, I
guess that's a poor choice of words -- but obviously I've embarrassed you and
that was not my intention on May 6 -- I was just sharing my thoughts and
reactions in a public forum).
>I was not saying that the horde MUST be Celts, but that they COULD be Celts.
>Michael declared that I was wrong.
Well, this is pretty much correct. You did say they could be Celts at first,
and then started painting yourself into a corner by saying things like:
>Actually, they were quite Celtic. At that time the Celts were quite a
>large group. They wore trousers (as shown).
And I realized you were not aware of a lot of other facts so I presented them.
You didn't seem to appreciate being given the additional info and, voila, you
started this little flame war.
"that time", we seem to have tacitly agreed, was about 1200 B.C. -- maybe a
little earlier, although it's impossible to assign any real dates to the show.
But there were no Celts in 1200 B.C. Their ancestors were obviously around,
but they wouldn't have been particularly Celtic at the time because of lot of
what is associated with Celtic culture hadn't yet developed. It's also
questionable how much their language would have resembled the language of the
Celts of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Manx, Cornwall, and Brittany in the 6th
Century AD (some 1800 years later.
>What Michael did not seem to grasp is that it was a theory. Finding an
>opposing theory does not make the first false. Nor did he grasp the
>related concepts of none/some/all.
Well, at least we see how I'm supposed to be at fault here. Since I didn't
grasp it was a "theory", I must have decided that you were trying to preach
insanity to the world -- that impression stands out clearly in the words of my
first article. All that stuff about STAR TREK and Viet Nam was thrown in
there to mask my true intentions which you've cleverly unmasked for all of us.
You DID see the stuff I wrote about STAR TREK and 'Nam, didn't you? Oh well,
doesn't matter.
>With my last post, I showed that some of Michaels definitive statements
>were wrong.
Well, you tried. Of course, you wrong on virtually every point.
>In response to which Michael sent an insulting, pompous and
>condescending reply.
I realize that in your imagined hurts you don't think you could possibly have
done anything wrong, Sean, but 'twas you who launched the pompous insults.
If you don't like what you got back, you shouldn't have been rude in the first
place. This news group is here for us all to ramble on endlessly, and if you
decide that you have to be right about everything then you're in for some
startling responses. That you choose to perceive differences of opinion as
rude shows you have yet to learn what it means to share a public forum with
other people in a mature and responsible manner.
>Well Michael, if it makes you feel better to be rude and insulting, go
>ahead.
Hah! Sean, that is funny. So far, you're the only person trying to find
solace in crudity. Get over it. I would have preferred to avoid this
altogether but you're the one dragging this out.
Or is there some law which states no one else is allowed to respond when Sean
post's Sean's opinions? Surely you're not claiming exclusive privilege on the
Usenet?
>What you think doesn't make any difference to me.
You made that clear in your numerous condescending remarks. You were quite
rude and are still quite rude.
>You are convinced that the Horde could not be Celtic,
>fine. But your pathetic self-righteousness is offensive.
Ah, the "pathetic" insult. Hey, Sean, it just wouldn't have been a cheap
flame if you hadn't tried to belittle me in some way. At least you're staying
true to form.
>Favorite Quotes:
>1)On "headhunting" Michael states
>
>> > > This is an unusual attribution. Caesar and other writers make no mention
>> > > of the practice.
>
>I replied
>"<snip>"
>Strabo, book 4, sections 4,5.
>To which, Michael responded
>>OTHER WRITERS make no mention of the practice. It was not common.
>Sorry Michael, Strabo IS another writer.
Sean, this is obviously a stumbling point for you. Try to understand that
Strabo is not all other writers. I listed plenty for you who didn't mention
this skull-collecting practice. In fact, what I spared you was a citation or
two questioning the validity of the tradition. There is simply no evidence to
back up Diodorus' claims. It's not accepted as a Celtic custom by scholars
today -- at best they keep an open mind about it, but generally speaking,
they ain't got no evidence for it. Historians take what the ancient writers
say with a grain of salt. Those guys gave a lot of credulity to stories which
today would be questioned or rejected out-of-hand as patently false or
unsubstantiable.
>2)The Dying Gaul
>> > > I note that the web site you mention below has a picture of "The Dying
>> > > Gaul", which is a Greek representation of a Gallic warrior very unlike
>> > > the description in your citation.
>And yes, I am trimming the quote. Not for the petty reasons you accuse
>me of, but because I don't like sending 11 page posts, as you do. Or
>quoting an entire page for two relevant sentences
Actually, Sean, I left open the question of what your motives for short-citing
are. Since you don't pay attention to the written word, however, but just see
what you want to see, I don't expect you to admit that you're in error and
just blowing this entire thing out of proportion.
In fact, you were the one who posted the first long citation -- that was the
one from Diodorus that admitted was not provided in quite proper sequence.
That's okay. I don't expect you to take responsibility for your actions. Do
I seem cyncical? I am. You gave me good reason to be cynical about you.
>> Some of them are cleanshaven, but others .. leave a moustache
>> most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into
> battle...
>
>Michael, do you understand the meaning of "some" or "most"? "The Dying
>Gaul" resembles some or most, but not all. Until you figure out how one
>sculpture can resemble a naked Gaul and a clothed one at the same time,
>don't make accusations.
Sean, it's obvious I understand the written word far better than you. You
should have had sense enough to provide a complete and well-annotated
citation, stating your thesis clearly. Since you didn't, it was pretty easy
to show how you were not paying attention to what you had cited. If you
didn't want anyone to look at the parts describing the cloaks, trousers, and
so forth you shouldn't have cited them.
Of course, since you were arguing that the trousers made the Horde Celtic, you
were more-or-less committed to providing that citation. You blew it. Get
over it.
>3)Quote wars
>
>You disagree with my quotes and conclusions, and respond with 4 pages of
>quotes. After which you made grand sweeping definitive statements, like
>"The Celts were deeply indebted to the Greeks by the 1st century".
>Volume and opinion do not create facts. And you are certainly not
>qualified to judge which theories are true. I presented a theory and
>opinion, you pretend to factual knowledge.
Sean, you presented nonsense. I don't know how else to put it.
You don't know half as much about the Celts as you pretend to and
perhaps you're too embarrassed to admit that I showed how wrong you are about
Celtic origins and culture. I don't know if you really understand just how
incredibly far off base your assertions are.
You don't comprehend what you've read but you HAVE concocted these
pet theories (such as the thing about the "warriors code which the greeks of
the time did not understand" -- none of the professionals mention or discuss
this alleged code, so it appears to be all in your head).
And I pretended to nothing: I merely cited the experts and some of the sources
in such a manner that no one (especially you) could come back and accuse me of
doing what you had done (short-citing).
You certainly wouldn't get away with that kind of sloppy work in a term paper
or thesis -- so why try to pass it off in public, where you're more likely to
run into people who know better than to buy into Celts living in 1200 BC?
>4)Ignored examples
>Michael Says:
>> You are missing on all bangers, that's for sure. Yes, I'm aware of the TWO
> documented battles decided by >single combat. I'm also aware of many, many
> more (including some before those two) which were NOT decided by >single
> combat.
>Two documented against the Romans. Many more elsewhere. But because
>you only know of two instances, you don't have to consider you might be
>wrong.
Okay, Mr. I-Know-Everything-About-The-Celts. Start citing references. And I
mean CITING them. These vague, unsubstantiated claims that you feel are
important and worthy comments are just a waste of bandwidth.
>5)Reading is fundamental:
I wish you understood that. It's not just a phrase that you can use as an
insult. It *means* something. When you read stuff you don't agree with, you
shouldn't mask it out -- you should try to undrestand and accept that maybe
you're wrong on occasion. No one will think less of you for that, but you
certainly don't win any brownie points for posting long whiny articles
pretending you've been maligned.
>I wrote:
>> > > >Celtic art and architecture showed very little greek influence. Check
> out
>> > > >http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
>> > > >this topic in depth.
>> > >
>After Michael (IMO) did deliberately misquote the above site, and I
>responded, he posted:
Really? How did I deliberately misquote the site? Including that (IMO)
doesn't excuse you for lying, Sean. In fact, you've deliberately left out the
first sentence of your paragraph. Here's what was actually posted by us (I
just cut-and-paste this stuff from Dejanews -- no editing necessary):
============================================================================
>They also rejected most elements of greek culture. Celtic art and
>architecture showed vry little greek influence. Check out
>http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~umw8f/Cze/HomePage.html which discussed
>this topic in depth.
Well, the continental Celts adopted Greek culture to the extent that they
started to coin their own money, engaged in trade with the Greeks (and other
peoples, including the Romans), and in fact one of the sections on that web
site disagrees with you:
"Two tenets of the "Hellenization" model that will be examined closely
involve the interpretation of goods found in funerary contexts. They
assert that Greek and Etruscan imports are evidence, on the one hand, that
the Celtic socioeconomic structures were dependent on the "high" cultures
of Mediterranean; and, on the other hand, that these imports were carriers
of ideas and institutions, providing Greek impetus for cultural and
artistic change in Europe."
[Some intervening text snipped for brevity]
"These two tenets of the 'Hellenization' model are inextricably linked;
the Celts imported Greek goods because of their associated meanings, and
once in the Celtic lands, these imports played key roles in the local
systems...."
============================================================================
Considering that I left your URL in the article, Sean, I'd look pretty stupid
to anyone checking out that site if I tried to change what was written there.
Your thesis was "they also rejected most elements of greek culture". Celtic
art and architecture don't constitute the majority of Celtic culture, although
there was plenty of Greek archictecture in the oppida which were constructed
with the help of the Greeks (who were thoughtful enough to leave their pottery
behind in various sites for archaeologists to find).
>> The dissertation's primary thesis is that the ART FORMS WERE DIFFERENT -- not
>> that the Greeks didn't influence the Celts culturally. Your reading
>> comprehension skills are not impressive at all.
>
>What did I say, Michael? Can YOU read??? I said art, it was about
>art. So you insult me.
No, Sean, you did not say that (as I show above) -- and YOU started with the
insults. It's difficult to understand how you justify launching insults and
ridicule at others and then feeling wronged when you get your own attitude
reflected back at you.
>6)Quote Wars 2
>Michael says:
>> You're correct on my using the wrong names. But your dating is completely
>> bogus. Christiane Eleure writes in THE CELTS: CONQUERORS OF EUROPE:
>Ah. So my sources are wrong, but yours are right. Well gee Michael,
>why don't you go end all that scholarly debate, since you know the one
>and only truth.
Sean, I honestly don't believe you cracked a book when you typed in those
dates. Perhaps I'm mistaken and you actually have books which have bogus
dates for these periods. I won't be buying them, I assure you. Anyone who
wants dates for the Urnfield, Hallstatt, and La Tene cultures is NOT going to
find much variation among reputable authors. The dates you gave were just not
correct.
>Oh, don't forget to accuse me of editing the quotes to deliberately
>mislead, instead of doing it to aviod posting a reply so large my
>newsreader cannot handle it.
Then break it up into multiple posts. Other people do that, so there's no
reason why you shouldn't. In fact, when you deliberately leave off the first
sentence of a short paragraph (as you did above), it's clear you have no
intention of being faithful in your citation. Perhaps you really believe this
is okay, but it's not the way you win debates and reasoned arguments. You
can't just conveniently discard sentences that don't fit your theories.
Someone will inevitably point them out to you (as I've done several times
now).
>7) Do your own homework
>Last time I wrote:
>
>>If you are going to bust my chops over my documentation, shouldn't you
>> document your own assertions?
>
>So Michael made sarcastic comments, and responded only to the Scythian
>points that I raised. Michael seems to think I must justify my
>theories, but he doesn't have to justify his own.
Hm. You apparently missed all those extensive Celtic citations I offered (the
stuff from Nora Chadwick's book doesn't really touch on the Scythians).
I'm sure you'll just assign this to another sarcastic bout -- I don't have any
chance of you perceiving me correctly on this point. You're too deep in your
imagined persecution to acknowledge what was actually written.
>8)Be nice
>I wrote:
>
>>It is far easier to tear down somebody elses theory than it is to build
>> up your own. I've supported all my points. You ought to make sure you
>> can support your statements before you try to trash mine.
>
>Michael did not. Michael made many pathetic, insulting, pompous,
>asinine, and downright rude comments. Then Michael tried to cast
>himself as the poor martyred scholar.
You broke your own rule, Sean. You were rude and nasty and now you're upset
because I didn't sit still and take it from you as you intended me to.
Instead of talking down to people you should try to get along with them and
accept that occasionally you are wrong. You've not admitted to even one of
your errors in this lecture you posted. You really have a problem with
accepting your short-comings.
>So enough of this. I presented a theory on the horde. Like it, dislike
>it, whatever. I have better uses for my time than defending it against
>petty nitpicking. Or replying to pompous little hypocrites who hurl
>insults when somebody does not agree with them.
Sure. Well, I guess that means I get the last word in for a change. Oh,
goody.
Sean, you're a basket case. I hope you don't decide to slice and dice anyone
else who points out your errors on the Usenet. You'll very quickly find no
one is "nice" if you think you can be rude and insulting and then turn around
and accuse others of starting it.
>So dig under those sofa cushions for a quater Michael, and buy yourself
>a clue. You are in desperate need of it.
Hah! Sean, you must really live in a cloud. Instead of pretending that you
were the victim, just admit you got caught up in an emotional reaction. It
happens to all of us on the Usenet. The fact you don't know what you're
talking about and that you are extremely rude and arrogant doesn't mean no one
will ever read your opinions. It does mean you'll be corrected on a fairly
regular basis, and that you'll be launching flames at any and all who express
opinions which differ from your own.
But whether you choose to live with reality or your own imagined world of
rights and wrongs doesn't matter to me. If I see someone post inaccurate
information I'll try to correct them -- I expect the same would happen to me
(and has, occasionally).
When you post things like "the Romanized Celtic world of late 500-400 B.C."
it's pretty obvious to anyone with a history book that you haven't looked up
your dates. There was no Romanized Celtic world in that time. The Romans
hadn't even HEARD of the Celts in the 5th Century B.C. (at least -- there is
no indication they had).
Sean
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
><snip another 9 page posting of bizzarre self-justification>
>
Michael, I have no desire to consider this "discussion" with you. I was
blowing you off. In case it wasn't clear, I have no desire to bang my
head against the wall explaining things to you. You have fixed in your
head that you KNOW what happened, and anybody who disagrees with you is
wrong. You can pretent it is a moral imperative for you to post
enormous justifications here, but how many people in atx do you really
think want to read 11 pages of citations or 9 pages of quoting previous
posts?
So split hairs how you like. Misquote what you like. Justify your ill
manners. Tell yourself you must be better/smarter/more knowledgeable
than those who disagree with you. Defend the american public against
quotes trimmed for brevity. Continue your self appointed task to tell
others what to think. And maybe someday you can get a life. But I
doubt it.
...plonk...
--
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing. All you will do is
waste your time and annoy the pig." Mark Twain
Sean's Worst Nightmare
On 05/17/97 08:12:59AM, in message <337DA0CB.4320.erols.com> Sean
<gal...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>><snip another 9 page posting of bizzarre self-justification>
>>
>Michael, I have no desire to consider this "discussion" with you. I was
>blowing you off.
You're amazing, Sean. You launch personal attacks on people and then whine
about being misunderstood.
>In case it wasn't clear, I have no desire to bang my head against the wall
>explaining things to you. You have fixed in your head that you KNOW what
>happened, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong.
And you have quite an imagination. No one cares what delusions you want to
concoct and post here. You were rude, I pointed that out, and then you came
back and launched a personal attack. You're the only one trying to justify
your actions.
Of course, anyone browsing Dejanews will see what happened -- and if anyone
other than you cared about this exchange between us they'll see just how
full of yourself you are -- and how out of touch with reality you are.
>You can pretent it is a moral imperative for you to post enormous
>justifications here, but how many people in atx do you really think
>want to read 11 pages of citations or 9 pages of quoting previous posts?
You apparently don't read much at all, Sean -- at least you've demonstrated
you don't comprehend what you read.
>So split hairs how you like. Misquote what you like.
And do you think anyone is fooled by your lies? I didn't misquote anything.
Had I done so you could easily have proven it.
>Justify your ill manners. Tell yourself you must be better/smarter/more
>knowledgeable than those who disagree with you. Defend the american public
>against quotes trimmed for brevity. Continue your self appointed task to
>tell others what to think. And maybe someday you can get a life. But I
>doubt it.
Give it up, Sean. You continue to look like an idiot.
BTW -- you plonked the wrong account. Here's a word of advice I'm sure you're
too arrogant to accept: next time you stick your neck out without checking
your "facts", don't get upset when someone shows how little you know of what
you're talking about.
--
--
Truth is a heavy burden, whereas delusion is a light-hearted
foil.
Sean
Michael Martinez in disguise wrote
<snip>
I checked Deja News, Michael. You have made the same accusations almost
verbatim against others who disagree with you. Go away. Or do I have
to killfile each account of yours one by one?
...plonk...
Michael Martinez
In article <337EF2...@erols.com>, Sean <gal...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Martinez in disguise wrote
>
><snip>
>
>I checked Deja News, Michael. You have made the same accusations almost
>verbatim against others who disagree with you.
Sure I have. Millions of people suffer my wrath every day. I notice you did
a nice job of citing these articles, and referring to the articles of the
people whom I was making almost the same accusations verbatim. Um, just out
of curiosity, HOW MANY people have I accused of not knowing Celtic history?
How many people have I discussed a particular web site about Celtic art with?
How many times have I shown someone to be a liar by posting their articles
back at them (there were a couple of people whom I won retractions from by
reposting their articles for them and all to see -- you're the only holdout).
>Go away. Or do I have to killfile each account of yours one by one?
It doesn't matter what you plonk or what you say, Sean. Anyone reading
Dejanews will see the truth -- which you obviously hide from.
Plonk me, baby! Plonk me!
Once you've got all my accounts plonked I'll be able to show you up for not
knowing what you're talking about and not doing your research without having
to watch you come back with these snide remarks. Assuming, of course, you
care to start lecturing people about imaginary history, or being rude and
condescending again.
It works for me, Sean. Does it work for you?
Remember -- you started this. You can finish it. Just don't respond any
more. Plonk in silence.
And next time, don't be so rude. You'll make fewer enemies in life if you
don't start these little wars with people.