Deciphering the Pagan Stones

muzzleflash

Logarock
reply to post by Ramcheck

 

Wow Ram. Have you even bothered to look at whats been presented on this thread or just being a smart azz?

You don't even know what you're talking about half the time though...

Why don't you make an apology to him?
It was very rude and unprofessional IMHO...

He was merely stating that he thought more well versed posters could have shown up.

I understood what he was saying there flash thank you very much. As far as apologies I was thinking he may owe one. A comment like he made is like taking a dump in a good thread. No one here would consider any contributions to this thread ready for a doctoral thesis just yet mind you. And frankly considering some of the official commentary posted here as references by the experts on these stones I would conclude that there is very little expertise on these stones. These stones require a cross cultural knowledge of motifs and icons used around the world and that expertise is severely lacking in the official explanations of these stones. At least some of us amateurs are smart enough to have understood this and have endeavored in that direction and have shown this to be true. Its clear to me that the amount of very good comparative cross cultural iconographic comparison done in this thread, some of it original and showing greater understanding than the greater part of the official version, doesn't rate a "hay, maybe some experts could show up" sort of comment. I would say it is disrespectful but wouldn't waste my time going that far with someone that hasn't seemed to grasp the amount and quality of information posted on this thread in contrast with official explanations and interpretations of the stones.

Gordi The Drummer
I'm feeling...
kinda proud of my Celtic ancestors right now!
and
kinda... angry at the official history that's been accepted and handed down to me by one and all!
We need to get this thread "compiled" and put out there!
The truth will out!
LOL

Thank you so much! to all the contributors here. I'm getting so much closer to knowing who I am!!!

You're a contributor too Gordi!
What are you thinking? That we should do something further with this thread? That's interesting.
Let's see how far we get - I'm feeling a lot more confident that we will be able to 'read' these stones sometime soon. Do you want to publish this, or take it to, for example, the Pictish Arts' Society? (Just off the top of my head).

ETA: I want a LOT more evidence and at least two volunteers to join me before I go stumbling about Aberdeenshire, bothering John Craven on 'Countryfile'....

Ramcheck
reply to post by Logarock

 

I was being a smart azz last night yes. Apologies. I don't even know what I meant.

Its ok. Maybe you simply wanted some more input or opinions about some of the idea we have about the stones. Nothing wrong with that. Some info has been posted by "official" students of the stones. I for one don't like do this sort of research in a vacuum anyway.

I get a bit snappy its true. If you knew me and understood my reasons, which are to lengthy but relevant, you would not be offended.

beansidhe

Gordi The Drummer
I'm feeling...
kinda proud of my Celtic ancestors right now!
and
kinda... angry at the official history that's been accepted and handed down to me by one and all!
We need to get this thread "compiled" and put out there!
The truth will out!
LOL

Thank you so much! to all the contributors here. I'm getting so much closer to knowing who I am!!!

You're a contributor too Gordi!
What are you thinking? That we should do something further with this thread? That's interesting.
Let's see how far we get - I'm feeling a lot more confident that we will be able to 'read' these stones sometime soon. Do you want to publish this, or take it to, for example, the Pictish Arts' Society? (Just off the top of my head).

I would be shocked if the Society lent any credence to much we have done here. Its the nature of many such Societies to flame and then steal any good contributions to make their own. Better wear a flame retardant outfit! That's been my experience. Lots of politics and established ideas to work around and they go down hard friend. Many times these Societies are not open ended affairs seeking the truth and looking for contributions that have large impact. For example, just the whiff, the very spark of the thought that these stones are not organic/local in influence to Scottish culture may result in cries to burn you at the stake for heresy! Most of these Societies are simply gate keepers of the official handed down version.

Logarock

beansidhe
reply to post by Logarock

 

Let me see if I've got this right. Before the Etruscans, there were the Umbri, a Celtic clan, living in Italy and having over 300 cities; 300 being destroyed by the Etruscans - the Etruscans then going on to found Rome.
It is possible that these Umbri -a Celtic clan- were descendants of the Israeli king Omri, from the line of Judah. This is around 9th/10th c BC. Omri is said to have bought land and strengthened Samaria.

A couple of hundred years later, the Celtic Senones/Samnites booted out the Umbrians and established Sena Gallica. They then invaded Etruria leading to the Battle of Allia in 390 BC, a Roman defeat. Hence the Romans learned the art of war from the Celts.

Wow. And here's me thinking the Celts were raggedy bands of mercenaries, scratching out a living around the prosperous Mediterranean.

So the Romans had dealt with, and lost wars with, the Celtic tribes for centuries before they ever came to Britain. Ireland and Scotland were the Western edge, the last bastion of Celtic rule and safety from the sprawling Roman empire.

It looks like at one time the Senones, Samnites and the Umbrians all lived at the same time, eventually and with some differences between them lol, in Italy. Most maps only show the northern Senones as being Celtic but this is not the case. It looks like at one time most of Italy was Celtic. As well at this time the Celtic tribes controlled the Balkans just across the way there in Alba-nia land....just east of the Umbrians.

Yea the Umbrians separated the Samnites and the Senones.

You know as I set here, I realized there is a place in GB called North Umbria. Or remembered. Haven't even thought about making a connection yet. lol I am sure you guys saw that right off. That's Just down the road a spell from you guys.

Northumbria is an interesting one, as the Picts and Northumbrians were often at war. It used to stretch up as far north as Edinburgh at one point. Ptolemy has the Votadini as being the main tribe there at the time.
There's also C-umbria, from the ancient C-umberland, just to the west of North-umbria.

Cumbric was a variety of the Common Brittonic language spoken during the Early Middle Ages in the Hen Ogledd or "Old North" in what is now northern England and southern Lowland Scotland.[2] It was closely related to Old Welsh and the other Brittonic languages..
The term "Cumbric" is strictly a geographical one, used by linguists to refer to the evidence for a Brittonic language within a particular area of northern England and Southern Scotland. The definition of that area is therefore essential to any further study of Cumbric, though there has been no scholarly consensus as to exactly what constitutes the Cumbric region

It's a bit like smacking your head repeatedly off a brick wall. It's a vague something language, of unknown celtic origin, in a sort-of area of Britain but no one really knows.

reply to post by Logarock


Good point. We might be ridiculed as 'conspiracy nutcases'!
It's an interesting point to keep in mind though - what an end product of this could be? Let's hang on to it for now, and own it, since we've all worked damn hard at it and we're making new connections every day.

Logarock
Just about every time you read some history about contact between the Classical cultures and the Celts there are excuses or cover-ups made for Rome and/or the Celts are made to look like simple belligerent, pagan and superstitious.

I don't get that impression so much.
I am afraid there has been overwhelming bias against "Rome" however.

Replacing one untenable bias position with the opposite bias position doesn't solve the problem, it only perpetuates it.

Why else did the "National Socialist" stuff come up in my particular research path?
Because this topic itself is a honey pot for notions of ethnic bigotry...

I haven't actually heard many positive things about the "Romans" in who knows how long?
I can't even believe I'm defending it, that's how unfair it's become.
I can't even believe I have to express something like this.

Coming into historical topics with a predetermined notion to "find evidence supporting the 'awesomeness' of said culture and show the other as bad guys" will make it impossible for anyone to find the "Truth" because everything will be twisted to suit a sense of quasi-nationalist or ethnic pride. It's rarely accurate in it's conclusions.

It's extremely important to avoid attaching one's self-identity to the subjects one discusses.
Of course we all fall prey to prejudice often, but Cmon...
We need to accept there is a problem and address it properly.

I'm really disappointed in these attitudes and have decided to take up for the 'evil Romans' finally...they aren't as bad as people typically assume. It was very diverse...a thousand plus years gives a lot of leeway.
The "Truth" is somewhere in the "Gray" I'd say.

I agree wholeheartedly that the thread is in need of some neutral unaligned viewpoints.

beansidhe
....You're a contributor too Gordi!
What are you thinking? That we should do something further with this thread? That's interesting.
Let's see how far we get - I'm feeling a lot more confident that we will be able to 'read' these stones sometime soon. Do you want to publish this, or take it to, for example, the Pictish Arts' Society? (Just off the top of my head).

ETA: I want a LOT more evidence and at least two volunteers to join me before I go stumbling about Aberdeenshire, bothering John Craven on 'Countryfile'....

edit on 16-4-2014 by beansidhe because: eta

Aww, Thanks Beans! maybe a teensy weensy wee one!

I was actually thinking that we could publish our own completely Independent E-Book on the subject?
(I believe that can be done online through Amazon.)
There have been quite a few amazing connections and discoveries made here regarding Scotland's Hidden Past, especially with regards to the links with Ancient Greek cultures, the thracians, etruscans, macedonians etc which I believe would interest a great many people.

If we could "compile" all of the discoveries and connections into one volume, it would read like an ancient detective story!
We'd be doing our own small bit to put the official records straight, we wouldn't have to cow-tow to any already established historical societies, and we might just be able to make a couple of quid into the bargain!
(You could sell the E-Book as a download, through Amazon at whatever price we thought was suitable!)

*Stumbling about Aberdeenshire??
Are we planning an expedition??? I'm In!! (Where's me wellies....?)

beansidhe

PonderingSceptic

beansidhe
reply to post by PonderingSceptic

 

Princess Meda, from what little I can find about her, was the daughter of the Thracian King Cothelas. She married Philip II of Macedon, who had previously been married to Olympia, herself a princess of Epirus (an area around Greece/Albania) and mother of Alexander the Great.
The marriage , presumably, cemented relationships between Thrace and Macedonia? Meda herself would have become Alexander the Great's step-mother?

Epirus was important as alliance was needed. Thrace was important as a place of amphictyony with allies including Dacians, Getes, earlier with Troy (Ilion/Wilion, Wilusa) and more. Places beyond Danube were poorly known (Herodotus writes about it) to Greeks for a reason, they weren't allowed there. It likely changed and it may coincide with some of the old laws followed by Getes.
History about Princess Meda is not so widely known as most traces of it were erased from history. Claims come from Athenaios who writes, he knows it from Satyrus, which is disputed by Jordanes on the grounds, that she couldn't have accepted it in the first place. While at the same time all agree that Odessos goes from Cothelas (called by Greeks, while real name was likely Gudila) to Philip rather peacefully. Either way (despite opinions on marriage story) there were changes to amphictyony(-s) and archeology on large scale (widely outside The Area) from that point.

At around the same time period that the Romans were being attacked by the Celts, the Greeks were securing relations with Thrace via the marriage (willing or unwilling) of Princess Meda to the Greek Philip. From this point on, relations are altered, and the Greeks have greater access to these areas.
Hmmm.

That's logical sequence of events.

Unconfirmed, real conspiracy or less available is movement of religious center (with religious leader mentioned) where Celts might have been directly involved. There are several sources with this part intentionally omitted. Jean Bouchet book written from Hinnibaldus writings was used as originals are all gone. This one translated or written initially by Trithemius have gotten him into real problem for copying such books and possibly other copies have some parts written differently. There's a big question, why he was writing a book that will definitely get him into problem (he must have known it) unless he was copying old document. Didn't check it, so my knowledge in it is only through secondary source which may be right or wrong.
So this movement, up to 1179BC Troy, up to 436BC Sicambria (likely not one place), up to 499 (or 382BC-499) Ghent (Clovis?), which doesn't end there, goes north and up to 785 (..), up to 1168 Arkona, Meklenburg, 2 Romuva, up to 1387 Vilnius, (...). Starting from medieval times and places like Arkona there are numerous sources, and it's off topic. There's also Roman period that gets into question.

Involvement possibly is since 400BC through marriage of princess and this possibly goes until 284BC event which leads to a war.

Outcome of this would be similarities of religion, considering direct involvement marriages and place (Ghent or Ganda?). Explains purpose of Vergilius writings about Aeneid (Lat. Aeneis) which legitimizes Rome as following or another religious center, with lineages of Troyan descent.

muzzleflash

Logarock
Just about every time you read some history about contact between the Classical cultures and the Celts there are excuses or cover-ups made for Rome and/or the Celts are made to look like simple belligerent, pagan and superstitious.

I don't get that impression so much.
I am afraid there has been overwhelming bias against "Rome" however.

Replacing one untenable bias position with the opposite bias position doesn't solve the problem, it only perpetuates it.

Why else did the "National Socialist" stuff come up in my particular research path?
Because this topic itself is a honey pot for notions of ethnic bigotry...

I haven't actually heard many positive things about the "Romans" in who knows how long?
I can't even believe I'm defending it, that's how unfair it's become.
I can't even believe I have to express something like this.

Coming into historical topics with a predetermined notion to "find evidence supporting the 'awesomeness' of said culture and show the other as bad guys" will make it impossible for anyone to find the "Truth" because everything will be twisted to suit a sense of quasi-nationalist or ethnic pride. It's rarely accurate in it's conclusions.

It's extremely important to avoid attaching one's self-identity to the subjects one discusses.
Of course we all fall prey to prejudice often, but Cmon...
We need to accept there is a problem and address it properly.

I'm really disappointed in these attitudes and have decided to take up for the 'evil Romans' finally...they aren't as bad as people typically assume. It was very diverse...a thousand plus years gives a lot of leeway.
The "Truth" is somewhere in the "Gray" I'd say.

I agree wholeheartedly that the thread is in need of some neutral unaligned viewpoints.

Oh geee. This is just classic. You have not defined what this thread is about at all. If I were a Scotophile at all why would I be exposing the fact that the Pict stones were not ichnographically organic to the Island? And who's twisting? We are untwisting and even using Roman records to do so.

Nope. Just straw man manufacturing is all you are doing here.

Logarock

Oh geee. This is just classic. You have not defined what this thread is about at all. If I were a Scotophile at all why would I be exposing the fact that the Pict stones were not ichnographically organic to the Island? And who's twisting? We are untwisting and even using Roman records to do so.

Nope. Just straw man manufacturing is all you are doing here.

You just created a straw man with this response it seems.
I will explain:

You said:

Just about every time you read some history about contact between the Classical cultures and the Celts there are excuses or cover-ups made for Rome and/or the Celts are made to look like simple belligerent, pagan and superstitious.

I responded:

I don't get that impression so much.
I am afraid there has been overwhelming bias against "Rome" however.

Please explain how this is a straw man fallacy on my part?
I was responding directly and articulating my reasoning.

I didn't even say anyone was a "Scotophile", I haven't heard of the term before nor has my spellchecker.
Are you claiming you are Not an enthusiast or lover of the Scots?

Isn't your insinuation alone an example of :

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]

Contextomy
Straw man

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.[3][4]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Articulate how my response to your exact statement with an exact counter is the creation of a "straw man" please.
Also explain how your post above isn't a straw man itself as you 'put words in my mouth' literally.

Wasn't I actually expressing a desire for a wider range of opinions, which was an agreement (partially at least) with another posters prior stated sentiments? How could the passive desire for more views on a topic cause personal offense?

I would love to see the "average person" take direct interest in these types of topics, the more minds the better. And I'd love to see more career historians frequent ATS in general.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Well that was a whole load of nothing.

If you think a few little digs at the Romans come under the heading of 'bigotry', then you've lost it somewhere.

We are trying to decipher some stones and find links between ancient civilizations. I don't recall any 'Nationalism' in the thread, certainly not from me and I don't recall any from Bead either, so that doesn't make any sense at all. Gordi wants to learn about his country's past, since he wasn't taught it at school - none of us were - and every single book (possibly not published papers) that's been released on the subject up until now has been bereft of real facts and in-depth information relating to the period xBC-800AD, hence the thread in the first place I believe.

Let's get back on track, I know it was my fault last night I swerved a little but can we just please, just try?

Thank you.

reply to post by muzzleflash


We're doing our best!!
It would be wonderful if someone with academic expertise could come along and say for certain if we were right or wrong, but in my defense I'm citing some of the best historians on the subject and trying to share as much original source material as possible. The problem is that the Welsh records are discredited by academia as being fiction, we have no Scottish records other than the stones, and the Roman records are naturally skewed in their favour.
Gildas, a British monk writes of them:

No sooner were they gone, than the Picts and Scots, like worms which in the heat of mid-day come forth from their holes, hastily land again from their canoes, in which they had been carried beyond the Cichican valley, differing one from another in manners, but inspired with the same avidity for blood, and all more eager to shroud their villainous faces in bushy hair than to cover with decent clothing those parts of their body which required it.

Comparative study between Gildas and Bede

Now that's not discredited, and is cited as proof that the people north of Hadrian's wall were little more than animals. And so it goes on. Aaaaargh!!!

You're right, it does become emotive, and we do need to strike a balance somewhere.
We've already noted how the Romans intermarried with the Welsh/British nobility and so relations weren't all bad. There were extended periods of peace at times too.
We're very quick to forget in the UK that the super-duper Romans who civilised us (?) and made our roads (they didn't) were also keen on feeding people to lions and tying people up on crosses.

An impartial expert would be wonderful at this point, but they're thin on the ground, as is the literature. We're not doing too bad ourselves, I reckon

reply to post by PonderingSceptic


Wow this stuff is really hard to get hold of, but trust me, I am looking into it. Lithuania seems to have poorly recorded (available) history too in the 'dark ages', just like Scotland.

This is Alan Wilson's point too (there's a video of his earlier in the thread, but he's difficult to understand, he has a very strong accent) that this history is deliberately suppressed.

reply to post by Logarock


Hey Log,
You mentioned the Samnites earlier, and how they crossed the Alps to settle in Italy?
That got me thinking about the Alps themselves - (Alps? Alpas? Albas? Alba? Could that have Celtic connections?)

And It turns out that the word Alp does indeed come from the Celts!

from wiki - en.wikipedia.org...
The English word Alps derives from the Latin Alpes (through French). Maurus Servius Honoratus, an ancient commentator of Virgil, says in his commentary (A. X 13) that all high mountains are called Alpes by Celts. The term may be common to Italo-Celtic, because the Celtic languages have terms for high mountains derived from alp. This may be consistent with the theory that in Latin Alpes is a name of non-Indo-European origin (which is common for prominent mountains and mountain ranges in the Mediterranean region). According to the Old English Dictionary, the Latin Alpes might possibly derive from a pre-Indo-European word *alb "hill", with Albania being a related derivation. Interestingly, Albania (which is a foreign name for modern Albanians) has been used as a name for a number of mountainous areas across Europe. In Roman times, Albania was a name for the eastern Caucasus, while in the English language Albania (or Albany) was occasionally used as a name for Scotland.[3]

If it's an ancient Celtic (or pre-Indo-European) term for mountain(s), is that not another possible source for the actual naming of the northern part of the British Isles as Alba? (When the ancient Celts arrived and saw the mountains.... "Alba"!!)
Just thinking out loud! (again!! sheeesh!)

reply to post by Gordi The Drummer


Let's bear it in mind, and see where this goes. I have no objections to anyone using this at all. Definitely up for that, Gordi!

ETA: You've scooped me in posting, making this read like an idiot wrote it. Alps is an excellent find, superb. Funnily enough I was reading A New History of the Picts last night, one of McHardy's books and in it he was discussing the possibility of the cruithne calling Scotland Alba long, long before it was recorded as such. The argument being that Albannach is the gaelic for Scotland/Scottish which is a kind of circular logic.

reply to post by Gordi The Drummer


Very interesting. And just to reiterate that Alba for those reading it as Al-Ba, is pronounced Ala-pah by the Gaels and Scots. Which further strengthens your thinking there.

Gordi The Drummer
reply to post by Logarock

 

Hey Log,
You mentioned the Samnites earlier, and how they crossed the Alps to settle in Italy?
That got me thinking about the Alps themselves - (Alps? Alpas? Albas? Alba? Could that have Celtic connections?)

And It turns out that the word Alp does indeed come from the Celts!


If it's an ancient Celtic (or pre-Indo-European) term for mountain(s), is that not another possible source for the actual naming of the northern part of the British Isles as Alba? (When the ancient Celts arrived and saw the mountains.... "Alba"!!)
Just thinking out loud! (again!! sheeesh!)

The Senones were the ones that came down form the north into Italy. The Samnites and Umbrians were already there. The Umbrians were said to be an ancient Celtic tribe that had been there for a good long while. Apparently they had some issues with the Senones.

What is of note here is that the city Albalonga goes way back hundreds of years before the Senones came into Italy. This city was about a dozen miles south of Rome in the Alban Hills. The only point I am making is that the Latins used the word as well. But it is apparently an indo/European word that could have been used in forms by all from a common root. Some say it is not an indo European word.

Another interesting thing to note is that when Rome and Alba were city states in the antiquity the Umbrians and the Samnites were thier neighbors to the east a days ride so to speak, with the Etruscans to the north who did not speak an indo European language. The Umbrians came into the are very early and the Samnites were there early as well. To whatever level they maintained any Celtic identity during those years, they certainly made up a good portion of the Roman enterprise by the rise of Rome. Pontius Pilot Pilate was a Samnite.

It looks like these major historical civilizations, Greek, Etruscan, Roman/Latins all had close proximity to Celtic tribes.

originally posted by: beansidhe
reply to post by PonderingSceptic

 

Wow this stuff is really hard to get hold of, but trust me, I am looking into it. Lithuania seems to have poorly recorded (available) history too in the 'dark ages', just like Scotland.

This is Alan Wilson's point too (there's a video of his earlier in the thread, but he's difficult to understand, he has a very strong accent) that this history is deliberately suppressed.

Runes should be addressed when this period is considered, which becomes widely debated topic till this day. They were disappearing on religious grounds. Now "officially recognized" is only runic Lithuanian calendar which is kept in Ukraine. Secondary sources, books published from ancient sources suffered similar fate. There were several chronicles on this period, unfortunately during occupation (XIX age.) Lithuanian books were banned, Vilnius University was closed, the first Lithuanian archeological museum and most chronicles, libraries were taken to the East, so that never were heard from again. Surviving references, indexes, copies, translations show their existence. They could form picture of events or history of early middle ages, unfortunately it's not being done. Most find late middle ages more favorable.

Some of the history is available in English language J.S.Rosales "Goths And Balts" where part of this suppression is disclosed in detail. One mistranslation of Jordanes Getica with distortion of phrases, omitting of entire text parts by Wilhelm Martens, was mistakenly repeated by Charles Christopher Mierow in scientific literature and noone bothered to look at the original for a long time. Later this "mistranslation" was retranslated by Theedrich Yeat back into Latin language, "correcting" the original text? Entire book used Skandza word only once in description of exact form of island. Skandzae is used again only once and tells that it can be seen from place where Vistula flows in three parts into Ocean separating Scythia and Germania. Skandzia in Prussian (and understood by Lithuanians) language means shoreline. This was about delta of Vistula, homeland of Getes, or Wielbark culture which is almost identical along all shoreline up to Latvia. At the time of this translation archaeological data wasn't available. Also it's a place where St. Adalbert was killed and at the time there were no questions who lived there. Historians come up to descriptions where things start to make no sense and leave it. Not everyone bothers to look why.

a reply to: Logarock

I feel like I'm getting a better sense of the Celtic tribes, and what might have been important to them in their lives.
I was reading 'Quest for the Celtic Key' (Ralston-MacLeod) again, and in it they were talking about Caesar's writings about the Druids. According to Caesar, there were 600 druid 'colleges' in Britain alone. High status families from Gaul would send their sons and daughters to these institutes to be taught astronomy, poetry, history -the arts and sciences, really. A typical druid could spend between 7-20 years learning.

Rather than teaching a select few in sacred oak groves, hidden from the masses, Caesar described an almost bustling industry in these teachings. As well as the continual flow of young people from mainland Europe, Caesar also claimed that the Druids would be responsible for the political wellbeing of a region, and would raise great numbers of neighbouring or sympathetic clans from Gaul in times of war.

This fits in with our thinking of Scotland being 'fed' warriors via Ireland.