MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Celtic Wal/Gal (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wal and Gal are the same word.

They mean foreigner or outsider or even 'next to'

I seriously think that the whole Celtic region was referred to as the "outsiders" or Galatia.

I'll repeat a few earlier posts I made in another thread as they seem to be very on topic here:

Barb -Female- Latin The foreigner or stranger. From the name Barbara.


Barbara- Female Latin- The foreigner or stranger.


WALE (British). "Foreign" (Germanic); or, "choice, excellent, noble" (Middle English); or, "ridge, bank".

GERMAN (British). "German." The term 'German' is a Celtic word meaning either "neighbour" or "battle-cry."


And MOST interestingly with W = G

Gaul in Latin is Gallia
the Welsh noun plural - les Gallois - The Welsh.
So Wales was known as the foreigners before the English coined the word Wal for them!!! WOW now that is odd.


The whole of Britain at the end of the last Ice Age was becoming detached from mainland Europe, there was little distinction between the tribes until the English Channel filled.

Gal- Britain (post Ice age)
Wal- Britain (pre Celtic? ie Picts, Viking etc)
Portugal, Galicia, Gaul (France), Cornwall (Cornugales - Cornu=horn), Gales (Wales)

British lands end Fingal? End of Britain?
Galloway etc
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

How about an Ancient Egyptian general called 'Gaedhal'?
Did he start this wandering 'foreigner' tribe of Celts (not the original Picts).
I would say that there is good evidence now to suggest the Biblical Galatians!
Now it's just a matter of chronologically putting the order of naming and arrival of the Picts, Celts, Gauls in the land named Gal (Western Europe as a whole).

Gallipoli - Greek 'Beautiful City' from 'Kallipolis'
It's a peninsula in northern Turkey (Troy link?)
It's also a place in southern Italy.
What if this whole western region from North Africa to the ice sheets had been a super-nation of Galatians at the retreat of the last glaciation max?
Would the Med, Azores and Canaries (Gaunchies-Gua±ac) all have been part of this empire? Yes, I would tend to think so.


Also

Gall
nm. g. Goill; pl. Goill, foreigner, a Scottish Lowlander

The Irish Scots also saw Lowland Scots as foreigners.


& finally

Gal was not a country.

It was an idea.
Gal also means hill/wood (gallt). The Druids of the ancient west practiced a dualistic approach to monotheism. It's hard to describe but most Gnostic traditions saw the scenario as such:
One source or head god, He gave rise to two other gods. Male/female, Good/evil etc. Basically balancing forces or whatever.
They believed that the two lesser gods fought over your soul for reincarnation or enlightenment and your subsequent release from earthly bondage.

The Druidic faith is no different. The interesting point is that their places of worship were hills and tree groves (gallt). Are these western Galatians hill/wood worshippers? The people who worship on hills and in woods? It explains why witches were so badly persecuted by the Church as were the Cathars and Bogomils. They ARE the same idea.

The main pointer is that the Druids were around before the Celts and adopted by the Celts, the Druids were not just priests, they were wealthy administrators. To break the Celtic and Gaulish nations, Rome knew the Druids were the only way of eliminating the unity of the 'barbarians'.


What's most interesting is if you overlay these people's locations with the maps you provided earlier.
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I can't find the translation online but my daughter (a fluent Welsh speaker) says that Gall in Welsh also means 'clever' or 'bright'

(adj.) wise, sensible, rational, prudent, astute, discreet, judicious, politic
gallu [gall-; 3.s. gall, geill; 2.s.imp. gall]
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

How about this:

The Kelts/Celts/Cymry are the Keltoi the Greeks knew of to their north and in fact traded and fought with. The inhouse name for the whole of the peoples was Gauls or 'of the gal' and this is the confusion. That seeking a national identity the Roman translation of the Greek accounts of the northern Gallic tribes had been transcribed onto ONE specific tribe amongst many in the British Isles if not in Wales. For instance the French traditionally thought of as Gauls call the Welsh and Wales - pays de galles.

I suspect that Celt was not so much a people as a battle technology or way of life of ancient times(metal working and art) that swept Europe as the technologies moved from the east to west amongst Gaulish society with a little bit of migration. We are most likely mixing terms up that follow the Beaker people revolution westward. To be a Celt is to say ancient European, north of Greek and Roman interest (of which they probably owe a bit to their creation).

The languages are most likely quite close for many reasons but the Gauls were said at first to be educators of the Roman elites' children and to trade freely with Rome. Quite a feat for a people who were supposedly iliterate and have no written form of language.

Celts' association with Welsh Britain and ancient momument-builders should be sifted into the category of "they are the same people but mistranslated".

The Beaker people were most likely a societal change by migration and technology influx from the east that gave birth to what we term Gaul- or Celt.

Why the Welsh are different in appearance to most other Gaulish nations is another matter :)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I find your connections, Oakey, to be literally farfetched. Your thesis involves the Welsh to be "the same people" as the Galatians of Northern Turkey. Now unless you're arguing that "Celts" is just a synonym for "barbarians" ie anybody that the Greeks don't like very much, I just don't see it. I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility that "Celts" are a pan-European bunch of metalsmiths (or whatever) but then what has that got to do with Welsh people?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It would be very interesting to find out exactly how long the French have referred to Wales as Pays De Galles (Land of Gauls). Perhaps it is a derogatory term that came into being after the 18th Century Breton Monk Paul-Yves Pezron wrote his manifesto naming the Bretons and Welsh as the true Gauls; something that didn't sit too well with the French court at the time.

Welsh scholar Edward Lhuyd was enamoured of Pezron's ideals and developed his own theory of Celticness, which has since passed into mainstream society and for reasons of political correctness has become the standard dogma of British Archaeology and History.

The Bretons are the last remaining continental remnant of a linguistic and genetic group of people that had nothing in common with the classic Keltoi. They are related to the Irish. These people were maritime emigrants and traders with genetic and linguistic links to the Berbers of North Africa.

The Irish/Welsh/Bretons/Scots etc (goedelic/brithonnic) are not and never were related linguistically or genetically to the classically described Keltoi. Any similarities in artistic/cultural style are purely by contact transmission. They were after all maritime traders.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I suspect that Celt was not so much a people as a battle technology or way of life of ancient times (metal working and art) that swept Europe as the technologies moved from the east to west

Careful. The archaeologists and historians think everything is so easy. Pick up and drop languages, cultures, technologies... at the drop of a hat.

Given appropriate resources, you can try to reproduce, i.e. diffuse, someone else's technology... but commanding the necessary materials, infrastructure and expertise is far easier said than done.

To be a Celt is to say ancient European, north of Greek and Roman interest

Careful. The archaeologists and historians usually think they are talking about the population at large when, manifestly, they are not. I don't think the presence of a Megalithic empire across Europe meant Europeans were Celtic any more than they were Roman, Gothic or Norman at other times.

The languages are most likely quite close for many reasons but the Gauls were said at first to be educators of the Roman elites' children and to trade freely with Rome. Quite a feat for a people who were supposedly iliterate and have no written form of language.

The writing they admit to is "Greek". That's sure to be telling.

Celts' association with Welsh Britain and ancient momument-builders should be shifted into the category of "they are the same people but mistranslated".

I don't getcha. I reckon they're the same people, although while one "Welshman" was directing a quarry in Bavaria, another was grubbing up turnips in the Black Mountains.

Why the Welsh are different in appearance to most other Gaulish nations is another matter

Wadya mean? Aren't all you Trolls dark?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Your thesis involves the Welsh to be "the same people" as the Galatians of Northern Turkey.

What's wrong with that? Bearing in mind that white New Zealanders are British, while the French are not Franks.

Now unless you're arguing that "Celts" is just a synonym for "barbarians" ie anybody that the Greeks don't like very much, I just don't see it.

We've already ruminated on the possibility that barbarians were a specific bunch that the Greeks don't like: the Berbers and their relatives.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It would be very interesting to find out exactly how long the French have referred to Wales as Pays De Galles (Land of Gauls).

From scanning this discussion thread

http://www.gyxu.com/soccer/41-169-french-question-read.shtml

it appears "Wales" and its cognates (including Gaul) are used all over Europe for people and places associated with Megalithia... The Celts may never have called themselves Celts, but there's an awful lot of consistency in what other people call them.

[W and V are so prevalent among these other versions of "Wales" that we must be looking at a case of G = U, i.e. "Gaul" ought to be "wall"... which begs the question about Gaul and Kelt being cognate. Maybe it's just that linguistic rectitude has been playing games with G for a very long time...]


The Bretons are the last remaining continental remnant of a linguistic and genetic group of people that had nothing in common with the classic Keltoi.

What do you know of the Keltoi to substantiate this Komori?

[The Bretons] are related to the Irish. These people were maritime emigrants and traders with genetic and linguistic links to the Berbers of North Africa.

And the problem with saying the Keltoi were emigrants/traders/rulers with genetic and linguistic links to the Berbers of North Africa is... what?

The Irish/Welsh/Bretons/Scots etc (goedelic/brithonnic) are not and never were related linguistically or genetically to the classically described Keltoi.

What evidence do you have for the language and genetics of the Keltoi that is incompatible with my thesis? I need to know.

Any similarities in artistic/cultural style are purely by contact transmission.

(Artistic/cultural style does not enter into my argument.)
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

What I have been trying to say that Celt is a mistranslation of a Greek term for Gaulish societies (the religion, art and warfare). It's known that this society was governed by Druids and as Mick points out they based their religion around the oak tree. But I suspect Greece was originally an enclave (as was Troy) of some form of Gaulish society. The ancient Greeks say themselves they displaced a people already there (why not a population of Gauls?). The likelihood that a common people who were generally bigger-built and fairer-skinned than the Greeks is not an impossibillty. After all the Med is the 'melting pot' of ancient Europe.

Dan, the Welsh are traditionally thought of as short, dark haired and stocky, whereas most accounts of Gauls are tall, fair-haired (even red-haired) and lean. It's possible when Rome cut off its trade with Britain that the only major trading ports left were the fiercely independent Wales and Cornwall (tin), the constant Romany blood coming in coupled with the severe population decrease from Roman traded plague suggest that the current population of Wales is more likely to be of Italian descent (yes, yes, I realise this makes the English more 'Celtic' than the Celts, lol).

Let's not forget that the term Keltoi and Celtae (Greek and Roman) is from mythology. The son of Heracles and Celtine (daughter of Bretannus) was Celtus who was supposedly the father of the Celtic peoples, another indicator that Greek influences may not have arrived with the Greeks but may have been the original Greek peoples' beliefs.
And as we have seen in other threads it's quite likely that the Gal/Sel/Sal - salt link is instrumental in the whole thing.

But yes the Welsh aren't 'Celts' until the 18th century
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The original placements of the Gaulish people and their relation to the internal workings of what it 'is' to be Gaulish are long lost. All we have is circumstantial evidence. But as I have said the similarities of some of the customs, religions and languages is strong enough to find links to most of Europe pre 'Greek' and 'Roman'

We don't know if Turkish, Greek, Roman and Spanish were traditionally any different in appearance to 'Gauls' before the Greek and Roman classic eras. All we know is most of these peoples came from 'elsewhere' to settle the Med and suddenly flourished. But why? Why a distinct difference from what we know of as 'Mediterranean' and northern Germanic type peoples? Northern Europe pre Greece and Rome was a black hole with little known or written about it save to say these peoples were excellent warriors and a great war machine. And this was well before Carthage, and Hannibal's invasion of Spain, then northern Italy - basically the birth of the Roman empire itself. So Greece and Rome were tiny in comparison to the northern Gaulish tribal nation, it's just we hear the Greek and Roman version of things as if little took place outside the Med.

It seems odd that most of the modern 'Celtic' nations and mythology have a lot in common with what gave birth to both the Greek and Roman States and there mythology. Even the underlying religious roots of the Oak (Zeus and Diana) seem to say these peoples have something in common. But did Greece and Rome give these ideas to the Gauls (who could very well have been the megalithic creators) or was it the other way around?

So, are the northern reaches of Europe populated by peoples of the original Oak tree religion and therefore called Gauls (of the oak)?

Were these peoples the original inhabitants of the Med which was constantly invaded from North Africa(Carthage etc). Who in turn owe their existence as a nation to the Phoenicians of Tyre.
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you overlay the current areas of 'gaulishness' with place names of Gal then you will see that the Med was a stronghold of this language if this is to be taken seriously.

I personally think megalithic structures to be 'gaulish'. I also don't think the modern term Celt a very helpful one. Not unless you take it to mean of "early Arabic peninsula or Phoenician descent". Then it might have some substance on modern Wales!!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oakey wrote:
What I have been trying to say that Celt is a mistranslation of a Greek term for Gaulish societies (the religion, art and warfare).

Apart from a celt being a chisel, which seems relevant, I don't know of Celt as anything but a name, a label. Does it matter whether we use Greek Kelt or Latin Gaul (any more than mono- or uni-, say)? How does translation -- let alone mistranslation -- come into it? Are you saying the classical sources themselves are muddled?

Or do you mean "Celt" should stick to referring to religion/ art/ warfare and has been misapplied to ethnicity/ genetics/ linguistics. What's your take on the relationship between the two, Oakey?

I suspect Greece was originally an enclave (as was Troy) of some form of Gaulish society.

You might stand a chance of being right, given the megalithic time frame to play with... and no chance given the Hallstatt time frame.

The ancient Greeks say themselves they displaced a peoples already there

There isn't much of this sort of thing on record, is there? It's cruxial what is actually written: they displaced people... they displaced rulers... there was simply already someone there when they arrived...?

why not a population of Gauls?

Wot, kick out the Gauls but take up their Gaulishisms? Leave it out.

The Welsh are traditionally thought of as short, dark haired and stocky,

All of a piece with the Berbers, Galicians, Bretons, Cornish, Black Irish, {any typically dark Scots? No one knows what's going on up there.... yet} and Norwegian Trolls, then.

{I'm not being rude about Welsh Trolls, by the way. I've got a little Welshness myself -- nothing beggable, certainly not leprosy -- and it seems to me that the Trolls, Dwarfs and Giants are the technically advanced interlopers that the fair Teutons/Norse fought off.}

whereas most accounts of Gauls are tall, fair-haired (even red-haired) and lean.

Gimme the accounts!
I read once that the Celts were Germanic, but since orthodoxy's knickers are thoroughly twisted, it's hard to know what to make of it. Maybe La Tène, arising on Megalithic-Germanic borders, really is more to do with Germanics than Celts... and the Germanics ousting the Megalithics from Jutland et al is a big chapter in this story... and there's something about Celts, Germanics and pigs...

the constant Romany blood comming in... the current population of Wales is more likely to be of Italian descent

The truth about the travellers has been taunting us, just out of reach, for a while. You think you have a firm grasp of it?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

severe population decrease from Roman traded plague

What is the actual evidence for either population decrease or plague?

yes, yes, I realise this makes the English more 'Celtic' than the Celts, lol.

Don't laugh: you get six of the best for that. What makes you think the English have any Celtic blood to speak of at all?

Let's not forget that the term Keltoi and Celtae (Greek and Roman) is from mythology. The son of Heracles and Celtine (daughter of Bretannus) was Celtus who was supposedly the father of the Celtic peoples

I don't draw a sharp line between history and mythology. Instead, I note with interest i) yet another connection between Heracles and the extreme west and ii) the closest thing I've seen to an explicit classical link between the Celts and Britain.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At around 1200BC the inhabitants of England, France, Denmark, The Low Countries, Coastal France and Andalusia in Spain spoke the same language. IT WAS NOT A GAELIC LANGUAGE. This group were of the same ethnic stock and constitute the combatants in the Trojan War. They spoke 'Crooked Greek' or ancient English.

The allies of the Trojans (Britain) who came from present day Wales, Scotland and Brittany DID NOT SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. They were not of the same ethnic stock as the former group and spoke a form of Phoenician which became the GAELIC we know today. They were of Mediterranean/North African stock and NEVER WERE CELTS, GAUL or ILLYRIAN.

The assumption that the Gaelic speakers were/are Celts cannot be traced back beyond the 17th century when this ridiculous theory was developed. It has no historical basis beyond this point in time. It is because historians and archaeologists reference everything Gaelic as Celtic that this theory was accepted as fact. It is a bogus theory that cannot be supported historically or archaeologically. It is an accepted paradigm that cannot be changed because of the political and social repercussions it would cause in Britain and France.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group