MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Scotching the Scotch : from the east or from the west? (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"and that many Scots spoke Old Welsh before Gaelic."

Can you give me a reference for this, Dan? It should be enough to counter Harry Amp's claim that Old Welsh changed into Modern Welsh in a coupla hundred years. In other words Old Welsh wasn't Welsh at all, it was Gaelic.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Is it agreed that Scythians = Scandinavians?

Scyth = Scut = Scot is a shorter route and seems a pretty compelling equation.

I reckon the Picts were really Scandinavians (or the other way around): the Highlanders and Islanders of Scotland speak with strong Norwegian and Icelandic accents!; at least some Pictish inscriptions have been shown to be Norse; and Tacitus said they were Germanic types.

This might mean the Irish were Germanic/Scandinavian - which we knew already because Mick told us that in THOBR - but which Irish? The notion of "Celt" is an ever-present obfuscater. It's no wonder that the Picts should be confused with (Insular) Celts - who seem to have a Phoenician origin.

At the heart of the Salt thread is the idea, contrary to what's quoted here, that the (continental) Celts were really none other than the Saxons.
Send private message
Jaq White



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I agree, Dan, that the connection with "Scot" and Scythian" is more plausible.

With regard to the often stated Phoenician element of Irish descent, we should note that the ancient Greeks once held that Phoenicia was founded by one Phoenix, whose brother Cadmus had invented the alphabet.

"The early Irish recalled the time when they lived under a king named . . . Phenius, who devoted himself especially to the study of languages, and composed an alphabet and the elements of grammar. It is clear that at the very least, the early Irish chroniclers were passing on an account, albeit garbled in places, of authentic historical events and personages, and of the equally historic descent of their own race from Phoenician and Scythian stock."

'As the Milesians were the last of the ancient colonists . . . only their genealogies, with a few exceptions, have been preserved. The genealogical tree begins, therefore, with the brothers Eber and Eremon, the two surviving leaders of the expedition, whose ancestors are traced back to Magog, the son of Japhet. "
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can you give me a reference for this, Dan?

Original web page reference inserted above:

http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/ensign2/mcintyre/
pickofday/2005/january/jan21/1infivescots.html
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't buy it. I think this is just something invented because the writers noticed a superficial linguistic similarity between words and needed to establish for themselves an ancient pedigree to earn respect for their independence movement.

It is totally ridiculous to imagine that the inhabitants of Northern England emigrated there from the Black Sea! Were there no people living in Scotland before that?

The Scots have always been exactly where they are right now. Because what is, is what was, except when it wasn't.

Just because some Scot, at some time, with the political motive to do so, assigned his ancestors a disjointed origin is no excuse for us to make the same mistake.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're misquoting the First Law which is "What is is what was unless there's evidence to the contrary." Now the Arbroath Declaration IS evidence. Not proof, not even very good evidence, but it is evidence. People don't claim to be from Scythia just for the hell of it. The signatories probably believed it and (since Scythia is not a normal Creation Myth hangout) it is worthy of at least a passing nod.

But anyway you cannot confound it simply by sitting on your haunches saying "The Scots were always in Scotland." For a start, Scotland was covered by ice-sheets barely ten thousand years ago, so even Applied Epistemology would probably acknowledge that the human population is relatively recent. That it must have come from somewhere else.

Actually if you did apply Applied Epistemological principles you would probably say "Well, the hoi polloi are probably from somewhere nearby because the lower orders don't shift around very much; but the nobs are almost certainly from somewhere more distant because nobs do shift around a lot."
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Scottish clan system according to wiki is of Celtic/Norse origin but there's an uncanny resemblance to the kinship structure of the Scythian nomads/tribes (Herodotus, who wrote the first detailed description of the Scythians, distinguished two categories: a nomadic group in the north and an agricultural group in the south).

{It would be interesting to know when cattle branding was introduced to Europe, it was practised by nomadic herders who shared grazing on the steppes - the Scythian tamgas, or branding, are probably the only 'writing' they used}

There may be a connection between the cairn burial sites and the kurgans, the individual royal and collective clan Scythian tombs.
Send private message
Ra


In: Finland
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
Though interestingly the Scottish nobs at the time of the Arbroath Declaration were rather proud of being a) Normans and b) Templars.

Sure, but nobs claiming to be one thing or another can not be seen as evidence of them actually having been Normans, but rather a wish to embellish their own origins. A good example is the modern Finnish people, half of which "originate" from the Vikings and the other half from the Russian emperors! Whereas we most probably are Scythian halfbreeds. Or related to the Picts, even.

The Scottish nobs claiming to be Templars is naturally another issue altogether, since not tied to origins.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You are right about the Finns, Ra, a nation of parvenus of the worst sort. But not, I think, about Scottish lords. They all know each others' pedigrees back to the Ark (though possibly not Scythia) so anyone claiming Norman ancestry fraudulently would be laughed out of court.

However, there is a mystery both to the Normans and the Templars (and especially the links between the Normans and the Templars) in Scotland. The Normans did not conquer Scotland (as they did England, Ireland, Calabria, Sicily, Greece, Antioch etc etc) and yet they still managed somehow to end up owning most of it (and providing the various Royal families).

But the Templars slipped in somehow too. Oddly, the Templars tended to come from everywhere around Normandy but not Normandy itself. That's a puzzler. If true.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't know the details, but there are indications of a connection between Black Sea Scythia and the Scandinavians... whence the Normans. Something to do with Cimmerians, too.

Note the megalithic 'trail' between the Baltic and Black Seas.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
You're misquoting the First Law which is "What is is what was unless there's evidence to the contrary." Now the Arbroath Declaration IS evidence. Not proof, not even very good evidence, but it is evidence. People don't claim to be from Scythia just for the hell of it. The signatories probably believed it and (since Scythia is not a normal Creation Myth hangout) it is worthy of at least a passing nod.

I would state rather that "What is, is what was, except when it wasn't" requires the "wasn't" to be supported not by just "evidence" but by "overwhelming evidence." This single notation justifies further investigation but cannot, of itself, negate the inherent presumption of the first rule.

The Romans not only believed they descended from Troy but also located Troy in Turkey. That belief is not enough for us to conclude they spoke the truth. I rather believe the Romans were just Italians and came from the same place as the rest of the Italians.

But anyway you cannot confound it simply by sitting on your haunches saying "The Scots were always in Scotland." For a start, Scotland was covered by ice-sheets barely ten thousand years ago, so even Applied Epistemology would probably acknowledge that the human population is relatively recent. That it must have come from somewhere else.

The Ice Sheets are indeed "overwhelming evidence" that "what is, wasn't." However, Occam's Razor allows us only to marginally transplant the present inhabitants. That is, moving backward through time, we may only remove the Scottish just sufficiently south to escape the ravages of the Ice. That would put them in the England/English Channel region.

As I said however, if some additional evidence exists to confirm the Scythain/Scotland link, I am all ears. But we need overwhelming evidence to support such a massive transplantation of a whole people over such a vast distance.

Actually if you did apply Applied Epistemological principles you would probably say "Well, the hoi polloi are probably from somewhere nearby because the lower orders don't shift around very much; but the nobs are almost certainly from somewhere more distant because nobs do shift around a lot."

Yet, the histories apparently tell of literally millions of Germans pouring down and around the Alps seeking to settle permanently on the peninsula -- entire families in wagon-trains fleeing their homeland. That is not at all what we would expect from the AE understanding outlined in THOB Revealed. Rather, we would expect an army of field units, temporarily removed from their homes, in service of an aristocratic elite hoping to form industrial colonies in Italy for some exploitative purpose.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you all can see, the origins and journey to Scotland are rather clearly described.

Yes, interesting.

The "Pillars of Hercules" are particularly vexed, but Tyrrhenia is, apparently, a post-Homeric name and points, presumably unambiguously, to the Etruscan, left hand side of Italy. Whether over land or out of the Black Sea and past Greece, the Declaration says the Scots passed through the western Med to Atlantic Iberia.

Homeric references are gonna be trickier. Whether we agree in detail with Wilkens or not, the indications are that ancient "Greek" names refer to western Europe and/or the Baltic. The trouble is, Scythia is among them: "Homer called them 'the mare-milkers'".

That's interesting: Poseidon is the Tamer of Horses and strongly associated with the Atlantic.

"Scythians were also known for their useage of barbed arrows, nomadic life centered around horses -- "fed from horse-blood" according to a Roman historian -- and skill in guerilla warfare. The Scythians are thought to have been the first to tame the horse and use it in combat as well." The name Scyth is supposed to be related to 'shoot' and refer to archers. This reminds me

-- of Beaker People (archers) getting together with Battle Axe People (horsemen);

-- of centaurs, who have some connection with Andalucia, and are clearly archers-inseparable-from-their-horses (Sagittarius);

-- of Chiron, the centaur, tutor to Asclepius, Theseus, Jason, Heracles and Achilles, protected by the power of the Styx;

-- of Charon, ferry-across-the-Styx-to-the-Underworld franchise-holder;

-- of it's-a-trap...there's-two-of-them Scots.

(Whether Irish or Scythian, the Scots "should" be horsy. Are they?)

{Speaking of using horses in combat, what's all this rubbish about early domesticated horses being too small to ride? Look at the Mongols: their feet almost touch the ground!}

The Scots say they were in Spain for a while. We say the Rhesus-Negatives were in Spain before Scotland.

They say they came to Scotland 1200 years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea. That'd be circa 400 BC {Bollox to the Dalriadans, then}, not far off the time of the supposed Celtic invasion.

113 kings between then and 1320 is about 15 years a piece: a very reasonable figure.

"The Britons they first drove out,"


!!!

"the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts;"


"Untold efforts" are completely in line with a THOBR-style invasion.

I wouldn't be surprised if these Britons were the English-speaking pussy-wimps that everyone was walking all over in them days.

The Picts need further attention: I think one phase of evidence very clearly puts them on the eastern margins and rivers, while a distinct phase puts them in the Hebrides. Maybe they were driven out only from the west, or they came back in the east.

Danes distinct from Norwegians? I wonder whether that meant Jutlanders/Frisians/Germans at that time.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael raises issues that go the heart of our re-writing of history. Let's start with the End of the Ice Age. As you say, AE principles demand that this process be accompanied by the minimum response, which is a gradual northward shift of people.

However this does not permit us to straightforwardly shift English-speakers from the Channel area to fill Scotland because "What is" (or at least what demonstratively was) is Celtic-speakers in the farthest north of Scotland. However you are permitted (since the Celtic-speakers form a westerly rather than a northerly arc of settlement) to assume they are a later maritime incursion (if you wish, I am just saying it wouldn't break AE principles).

But now we come to the hiatus between guvnors and governed. The basic problem is that the literature ALWAYS deals with the top brass and the literature is what is ALWAYS used for the reconstruction of history. So when, for instance, the Romans say they are Trojans from Turkey, historians dismiss this as simple window-dressing and we dismiss it as breaking the Romans-are-Italians rule.

But these are both, in my view, incorrect assumptions. If we take the Normans as exemplars (because their history IS very well known) then we have a bunch of dudes ruling southern Italy, speaking Italian (and Latin) and claiming to come from the English Channel! How is that so different from the Romans? If we didn't know any better would we now be saying of the Normans, "Tsk, a typical Origins Myth...obviously they're just a bunch of Eye-talians made good."

But onwards to Jerry-and-his-handcarts. Again, let's take another German invasion of Italy about which we have good evidence--Charles V's expedition of the 1520's. What do we see? Well. there are thirty, forty, fifty thousand soldiers accompanied by hundreds of thousands of camp followers with handcarts. That's the way armies travelled. (And actually it's not that different from the German invasion of Italy in 1943.)

But one big difference between Ancient and Modern is that the Ancients had come to stay. So their handcarts contained even more in the way of women-and-children. But even so they are still an army. Not the totality of a Volk on the move. They are the elite (in this case the military elite) not the hoi polloi.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Re-reading this last part I am not sure the difference is not rather starker. If we take the British Army in Wellington's time fighting in the Peninsular War and "look at it" through Roman eyes, what would we see? We would see a relatively small (forty thousand would denote this to be the main army of a major military power) number of formed, uniformed, soldiers. Then we would see, let's say, half that number of 'technical support' troops, carrying along bridging equipment, siege guns, what have you. Then we would see perhaps twice that number of 'camp followers', mainly women.

Now, how is that different from the 'Visigothic nation' on the move?
Send private message
Jaq White



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The decidedly pagan Irish traced their origins back to the biblical patriarch, Magog, the son of Japheth. This is in direct contrast to the claims of the Britons and other European nations, whose genealogies were traced back to Javan, another son of Japheth. Now, Magog. . . was considered, with Ashchenaz, the father of the Scythian peoples, and the early Irish chroniclers were most emphatic in their insistence that the Irish were of Scythian stock. And there is good etymological evidence for this.

The Irish were long referred to as Scots even before some of them migrated to the country that today bears their name, and as Brewer tells us:

'Scot (is) the same as Scythian in etymology; the root of both is Sct. The Greeks had no c, and would change t into th making the root skth, and by adding a phonetic vowel we get Skuthai (Scythians), and Skodiai (Skoths). The Welsh disliked s at the beginning of a word, and would change it to ys; they would also change c or k to g, and th to d; whence the Welsh root would be Ysgd, and Skuth or Skoth would become ysgod. Once more, the Saxons would cut off the Welsh y, and change the g back again to c, and the d to t, converting the Ysgod to Scot.'

It would be no strange thing to find Scythian peoples as far west as Ireland. After all, the land in Asia Minor known of old as Galatia, was populated by a migrating colony of Gallic Celts from whom the country got its name. St Paul wrote his famous epistle to their descendants. . . .

But it is at this stage that we must notice those four particular patriarchs whose names we have already noted in the Table of European Nations passed down to us by Nennius. There we encountered the names of Baath, Iobaath, Izrau and Esra. And we see precisely the same names (allowing for linguistic variation) emerging from the early Irish genealogy, where they are rendered Baath, Jobbath, Easru and Sru.

Now, it is known amongst archaeologists and ethnologists that the early Britons and many of the ancient peoples of Europe were Celts as were the early Irish. (The Saxons were not Celts. Hence the absence of these patriarchal names from the Saxon pedigree.)

And this is known purely from archaeological evidence, without any reference whatever to these genealogies. Indeed, most modern scholars within these disciplines would scorn such a reference. So how do we account for the presence of these names in such diverse genealogies as the early British and the Irish?

There is one discrepancy. Nennius's Table of European Nations traces the descent of these four patriarchs from Javan, whereas the Irish genealogy traces them from Magog. Which is right? They both are. The discrepancy is explained by the fact that there was certainly a mixing of the various patriarchal lines before Babel. It was only after Babel that the nations were separated. From this moment in time, the pedigrees branched away from each other in a markedly emphatic way.

But previously the families of mankind were uniting into a single people, which was their expressed intent of course, and the dispersal of the nations as recorded in the Genesis account happened for the precise purpose of preventing this process of unification.

Interestingly, the dispersal is depicted in Genesis as having occurred in the fifth generation after the Flood, and we note in these ancient genealogies that after the fifth generation the Irish and continental pedigrees diverge in a most pointed way in exact accordance with the Genesis account. The four patriarchs noted, then, were clearly the pre-Babel founders of both the British and the Irish Celts, which should give us some idea of the extreme antiquity of some of the material that is to be found in the early pagan Irish chronicles and Nennius's Table of European Nations.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 13

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