|
Post by ruadh on Aug 21, 2011 11:19:03 GMT -5
You are right, old doesn't necessarily mean false. 2 of the links provide some interesting information. I look forward to your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Aug 30, 2011 18:39:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uz on Aug 30, 2011 21:53:46 GMT -5
cool.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Aug 31, 2011 1:48:33 GMT -5
celts spread not only to balkans but in turkish penisula (asia minor) as well. it is remarkable how many traces the slavs left in comparison with the minimal traces of the celts.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 2, 2011 10:38:27 GMT -5
In your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by theyshoothorses on Sept 2, 2011 14:26:59 GMT -5
celts spread not only to balkans but in turkish penisula (asia minor) as well. it is remarkable how many traces the slavs left in comparison with the minimal traces of the celts. While that statement may seem correct on a surface view, we must also keep in mind that it does not tell the whole story. If the slavs have left more traces than the celts it's because the celts were merely passing through the balkans on their way to the low countries and the british isles, while the slavs settled. The celts also made their incursions during times of high-population densities while the Roman empire was still a powerful organizing force, thus diluting their traces, whereas the slavs came in more opportunisitically after waves of barbarian ingressions had reduced the native populations densities along the invasion corridors. Besides, I don't really understand about what's so "remarkable" about leaving more traces than someone else. Does that mean they were "better"?
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Sept 2, 2011 14:32:46 GMT -5
Celtic Bulgaria, is there such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 2, 2011 15:18:30 GMT -5
celts spread not only to balkans but in turkish penisula (asia minor) as well. it is remarkable how many traces the slavs left in comparison with the minimal traces of the celts. While that statement may seem correct on a surface view, we must also keep in mind that it does not tell the whole story. If the slavs have left more traces than the celts it's because the celts were merely passing through the balkans on their way to the low countries and the british isles, while the slavs settled. The celts also made their incursions during times of high-population densities while the Roman empire was still a powerful organizing force, thus diluting their traces, whereas the slavs came in more opportunisitically after waves of barbarian ingressions had reduced the native populations densities along the invasion corridors. Besides, I don't really understand about what's so "remarkable" about leaving more traces than someone else. Does that mean they were "better"? You are correct on most points, except when you say that the Celts were on their way to the British isles. They were not. The Celts that passed through the Balkans and eventually settled in Asia Minor--Galatia--were Gauls from present-day France. They managed to repell a Roman force of two legions. They also had a minor influence on the Dacians in Transylvania. But, as you correctly stated, the Roman culture was overwhelming and the Celts could not compete with it (nor did they try to). Overall, the Celtic legacy in the antiquity and early Middle Ages is far greater than that of the Slavs, even in the Balkans. The Gauls were very innovative in arms making and the Romans adopted many of their inventions. As for your last question, in terms of evaluating a civilization (or a group of people), you look at the impact it had on other civilizations and the legacy it has left to the world. The word "better" is not suitable here. You can instead say someone was more sophisticated, more industrious, military superior. Of course, none of these qualities were provided by any migratory group of people penetrating the Balkans, including the Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 2, 2011 15:39:19 GMT -5
The Celts retreated from the Balkans, they were essentially driven-out.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 3, 2011 0:04:51 GMT -5
Besides, I don't really understand about what's so "remarkable" about leaving more traces than someone else. Does that mean they were "better"?
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 3, 2011 9:22:06 GMT -5
The Celts who arrived in Bulgaria in the 4th / 3rd c. BC were not on their way anywhere. They came from the Pannonian plain (roughly today's Hungary) in search of new territory to settle. This settlement occured largely peacefully. At least their is no archaeological evidence to suggest otherwise. Conflict between the Celtic tribes was only with the Macedonian state, who tried to stop their migration. 10, 000 of the Celtic warriors out of a total of circa 200,000 later migrated onwards to Galatia (Central Turkey). Scientific evidence (Archaeological, linguistic, numismatic etc. - see site and attached Pdf.) suggests that the majority simply settled in the central Balkans and gradually merged with the local Thracians, forming a Celto-Thracian population. balkancelts.wordpress.com
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 3, 2011 14:32:36 GMT -5
^^^ loads of anti-slav frenzy in bulgaria.... no surprise here. classic Nazi tactics.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 4, 2011 15:22:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 4, 2011 15:24:50 GMT -5
Interesting. I wonder what inspired these images.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 4, 2011 16:04:33 GMT -5
War
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 4, 2011 16:05:51 GMT -5
I don't recognize war in these images.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 4, 2011 17:07:27 GMT -5
What do u recognise?
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 4, 2011 17:14:18 GMT -5
I see a fish, which can be symbolizing "an era", similiar to what to mayans/paegans and some sub-african cultures say; age-of pisces.
I see also a human figure with an "animal head", this can perhaps define harmony between two entities. Man/snake, male/female, /man/bird...etc The indented dotted area may represent some sort power/spiritualism/divinity...etc
I see a profile head shot that seems to be a royal character, maybe this was a significant king/queen/leader etc...
I also see a strange human body with alonged 3-fingers. The indented dots most likely represent some sort of divinity or divine power that goes along with the human figure.
|
|
|
Post by ruadh on Sept 4, 2011 17:22:01 GMT -5
The imagery on these coins is generally religious/iconic. That one does resemble a fish, others have snake-like quality etc. I don't think it represents a king or real person, however. Celtic coins never have images of real people, but frequently zoomorphic people/creatures, which I think have religious significance.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 4, 2011 17:24:58 GMT -5
I notice a lot of snake-like refrencing in their symbology.
What do you know about their religion?
|
|