Celts in Greek Mythology

[Fearnest]

Occam's razor, anyone?

[Erisianmonkey]

Yeah, well, Keltos (the Greek spelling) was indeed the son of Heracles and Keltine in Greek mythology, and is indeed the father of the Celts! (Remember, that "kelts" with a hard C, not "Selts" like the Boston basketball team.)

<thread hijack> Every time I hear the word Celtic pronounced with an "s" sound, I see red and start hearing war pipes. I've used that very thing to shoot somebody down in a discussion of most offensive ethnic team name.</thread hijack>

Well, Dreadbelly, the sensationalism surrounding pyramids and other archaeological site may be fun and exciting, but don't forget the known fact about the sites either.

There are a lot of people that'll say stuff to get attention. Saying the pyramids were built in 10,000 BCE may sell newspapers, but any true archaeologist will tell you it is an impossibility, being that it wasn't until at least 6,000 BCE that there was agriculture in the Nile valley.

There's a lot of stuff archaeologists say that later gets proved wrong. Such as one article I read years ago that said that there were no humans in Ireland previous to 1000 BCE. (Apparently that author had never heard of Newgrange.) Until archaeology quits borrowing the notion of "scientific imagination" from sociology, I will continue to take what archaeologists say with a grain of salt.

And the temple structure that exists under the pyramids? The retaining wall that is now visable? The finding of an ancient foundation under the pyramids that predates them and is made from a completely different stone?

All questions, no easy answers. I'm not saying I understand it, but evidence to the contrary is out there, and it is more than just crackpot claims.

Also unusual is the fact that there are some pyramids in South America that because of the realisation that computers can be used to adjust the stars, which are now considered much older because there are now patterns that now fit with certain features that used to baffle the dirt diggers and drive them nuts.

I can't think of the guy's name, but he is the world's leading Egyptologist. He's bald. He is the world's leading authority on ancient Egypt... He posed the question that if the pyramids were only a few thousand years old, then a greater mystery exists on how those ancient people were able to align the pyramids to star patterns that existed thousands of years before their time and take in to account plate drift. No easy answer for that... It is easier to answer that they could be older than previously thought.

As well they could and probably are. Lack of evidence thus far uncovered does not mean that there is no evidence extant, merely that it has not been found. The findings under the pyramids are, in fact (if you will excuse the unintentional pun) a bit more solid than the lack of evidence of agriculture in the Nile Valley.

[Dreadbelly]

<thread hijack> Every time I hear the word Celtic pronounced with an "s" sound, I see red and start hearing war pipes. I've used that very thing to shoot somebody down in a discussion of most offensive ethnic team name.</thread hijack>

There's a lot of stuff archaeologists say that later gets proved wrong. Such as one article I read years ago that said that there were no humans in Ireland previous to 1000 BCE. (Apparently that author had never heard of Newgrange.) Until archaeology quits borrowing the notion of "scientific imagination" from sociology, I will continue to take what archaeologists say with a grain of salt.


As well they could and probably are. Lack of evidence thus far uncovered does not mean that there is no evidence extant, merely that it has not been found. The findings under the pyramids are, in fact (if you will excuse the unintentional pun) a bit more solid than the lack of evidence of agriculture in the Nile Valley.

Not to long ago they found out that the area was a lush rainforest for a long while after the inland sea receded. The sphinx has solid proof that it was submerged for a while. That, and the retaining wall show signs of water errosion. Which, if the evidence is to be believed, means that the Sphinx is old. The water receded a long time ago obviously, at least more than 10,000 years if the star alignments are to believed, and the inland sea that was there existed for thousands of years before that. For the Sphinx to have taken its bath, it would have had to been built before the inland sea flooded the area. There is some speculation that the sea that flooded the area could have been what destroyed the previous temple structure that existed where the pyramids are now, and could explain a lot of things about the area.

[beloitpiper]

My theory:

1) the temple under the pyramids were built before the pyramids, possibly, but not thousands of year. That goes against everything we know about the area.

2) as a person has has dug at those pyramids in South America, I want to say that there is little controversy about them. My mentor, a leading Incan and Quechuan archaeologist, has disproved many of the "alien" theories surrounding the pyramids of Central and South America.

3) of course there is a retaining wall around the Sphinx! The Nile floods like clockwork, and before the Nile straightened itself out, the meandering brought it right next to the Sphinx. You are right, however, about most of it being jungle, because a lot of it still is. And the flood you mentioned did happen, but never close to the time of even the earliest Egpytian Dynasties.

[Erisianmonkey]

My theory:

1) the temple under the pyramids were built before the pyramids, possibly, but not thousands of year. That goes against everything we know about the area.

2) as a person has has dug at those pyramids in South America, I want to say that there is little controversy about them. My mentor, a leading Incan and Quechuan archaeologist, has disproved many of the "alien" theories surrounding the pyramids of Central and South America.

3) of course there is a retaining wall around the Sphinx! The Nile floods like clockwork, and before the Nile straightened itself out, the meandering brought it right next to the Sphinx. You are right, however, about most of it being jungle, because a lot of it still is. And the flood you mentioned did happen, but never close to the time of even the earliest Egpytian Dynasties.

Point one: Everything we "knew" at one point was that the Earth was the flat center of the universe. The star alignments would certainly be considered by most people to be new evidence.

Point two: I've checked the thread and the only two mentions of aliens have been Dreadbelly saying that this (what he posted on the pyramids) had nothing to do with aliens, and Auld Argonian talking about an article unrelated to the pyramids.

Point three: Is it not possible to predate the Egyptian dynasties?

I hereby bow out of this topic. I think at this point we are getting dangerously close to what I have seen Dreadbelly describe as "Pointy stick, meet hornet's nest. Hornet's nest, meet pointy stick"

[Wulfestieg]

As another archaeologist, I have to say that this is exactly the sort of thing that we find so darned frustrating. So many people don't really think of archaeology as a true science, and therefore tend to be willing to make arguements and leaps of faith that they wouldn't with any other science.

When it comes down to it, there are good archaeologists, and there are bad ones. Most of the bad ones are that way because they lack the proper training in the discipline. Instead, they are historians, religious studies people, or some other field, who think that sitting in on a dig makes them an expert. These are the people who make the wild leaps of faith that aren't soundly grounded in scientific theory and methodology. Good archaeology, done by good archaeologists, consists of logical conclusions based off of scientific data.

As to the two specific areas here, the Pyramids and the Tarim Basin mummies, here are my thoughts:

There is not one single shred of scientific evidence that says our dating system for the Pyramids is wrong. Therefore I see no reason to believe they date to 25kya, or whatever the number is. Until there is unquestionable scientific data otherwise, I'll continue to believe that.

The Tarim Basin mummies date to about 1000 BC. Not 10,000 BC. They seem to have features consistent with European features and European DNA patterns. Visually, they appear to be pale-skinned and red-haired. Their mummies, though. Coloration changes, and the fact that they appear to be pale-skinned and red-haired doesn't really mean much. The DNA is a much more telling feature. Of course, the fact that some Europeans happened to be in Western China in 1000 BC really isn't that big a deal. Trade routes existed, and there were Indo-Europeans all over the place.

So, can we be happy with this, until some genuine scientific data comes along that says otherwise?

[auld argonian]

Point two: I've checked the thread and the only two mentions of aliens have been Dreadbelly saying that this (what he posted on the pyramids) had nothing to do with aliens, and Auld Argonian talking about an article unrelated to the pyramids.

...and I only alluded to that website as a joke...but it does get to the pyramids if you read far enough...Erik von Daniken, where are you when we need you?

Best

AA

[Erisianmonkey]

Didn't mean to offend AA.

I am going back on bowing out long enough to post this link and then I'm really out of it for good. http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/...ids/page02.htm

I will point out that this is further analysis of Kate Spence's work in dating the pyramids.

As far as what this thread originally started out to be, I will say that the mentions of Celts in ancient Greek lit. match up with stories told in certain Celtic circles that I will not say anymore about because I don't want to get into religious debate. (Besides, that's 'gainst the rules you know...)

[David White]

As another archaeologist, I have to say that this is exactly the sort of thing that we find so darned frustrating. So many people don't really think of archaeology as a true science, and therefore tend to be willing to make arguements and leaps of faith that they wouldn't with any other science.

When it comes down to it, there are good archaeologists, and there are bad ones. Most of the bad ones are that way because they lack the proper training in the discipline. Instead, they are historians, religious studies people, or some other field, who think that sitting in on a dig makes them an expert. These are the people who make the wild leaps of faith that aren't soundly grounded in scientific theory and methodology. Good archaeology, done by good archaeologists, consists of logical conclusions based off of scientific data.

As to the two specific areas here, the Pyramids and the Tarim Basin mummies, here are my thoughts:

There is not one single shred of scientific evidence that says our dating system for the Pyramids is wrong. Therefore I see no reason to believe they date to 25kya, or whatever the number is. Until there is unquestionable scientific data otherwise, I'll continue to believe that.

The Tarim Basin mummies date to about 1000 BC. Not 10,000 BC. They seem to have features consistent with European features and European DNA patterns. Visually, they appear to be pale-skinned and red-haired. Their mummies, though. Coloration changes, and the fact that they appear to be pale-skinned and red-haired doesn't really mean much. The DNA is a much more telling feature. Of course, the fact that some Europeans happened to be in Western China in 1000 BC really isn't that big a deal. Trade routes existed, and there were Indo-Europeans all over the place.

So, can we be happy with this, until some genuine scientific data comes along that says otherwise?

As an ex-archaeologist who spent some 20 years in the field I agree Wulfestieg.

[bubba]

One thing we do know is all current conclusions are open to reevaluation as data is introduced. After all, Troy was once considered a myth.