Originally posted by Shane
From my seating in this discussion, I believe ogham is at least 3000-4000 Years Old, from reviewing items. I have found some indications this date could extend to 7000 years old, but from a Prime Language or Root Language. Today, we understand Ogham as a 'Celtic' language, but it has changed along with time.

Hi Shane
If you are talking/writing root language?...then perhaps it can be traced to Linear A...I will have to edit to post url. Byrd earlier provided a historical chronology of languages (will search and find it and then post it).

Now I can hear the gasps with your 7,000 years conjecture... *sigh
but... the ogham alphabet cannot be found anywhere in that time so c'mon... lol...THAT means it did not exist because it does not exist credibly in the scientific world. Thankfully, my thinking is not restricted or justified by the scientific worldview. I am open to the possibility of your conjecture; quite simply because we/me in our/my limited human capacity do not have all the answers.

Well, after 2 weeks of 140+ hours at work, I finally have the time to catch up here!

wooo hooo, have RDO tommorrow!!!

yippppeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit= more OC fussy formatting


[edit on 25-5-2006 by NJE777]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by NJE777
Druids: the Gauls had been enemies of Rome for 3 centuries - the word Druid is omitted from narratives and yet Diviciacus was certainly a Druid known to Cicero.

Possibly because the Gauls didn't call their priests "druids."

There wasn't a single, unified religion of the Celts. They held many gods in common, but they didn't worship the same gods in different areas. Caesar does describe Druids, as does Cicero. But the druids would not be of that much importance to the soldier or statesman, because they were the equivalent of our modern localministers. Soldiers and historians seldom dealt with religious leaders. They weren't the group around which resistance formed (that was the chiefs and war leaders) and few of them seemed to seek public power or contact with the Romans and other cultures.

Okay, lol
I have read back through the discussion and have noted at least on 4 occasions you have patiently stated a) ogham is an alphabet and not a language. *clunk...the pedantic, scientically correct penny has dropped. Please excuse my 'wide' approach...but from now on, I will adopt a 'narrow' approach.

Thank you for your persistence...I guess this is after hours r & r for me and so, tend not to be pedantic.

b) the Celts contain numerous groups who at different stages and topography evolved to incorporate similarities that are collectively refered to, over simplistically of course, the Celts.

So from the scientifically accepted information we have, we can, at an educated level, ascertain that at least one group of the collective (and here, I adopt a very narrow approach with the absolute minimum ) had at some stage called Priests: Druids.

Is the above, a more accepted/accurate historical overview/summary?

As to Ogham being a global ancient script, this really isn't so. Yes, I've seen the "evidence" produced and it's not convincing (actually, it's pretty lame and if you look at the rock surface and compare to actual ancient rock art, the "Ogham" is clearly modern rather than ancient.)

Thank you for your learned opinion. But it is opinion and not fact.
When I see absolute evidence to the contrary, I will abandon my pursuit, until then...I am grateful for your contribution and do value your imput.

Really! and again, I want to reclarify my 'white academia' retort. In Australia, the term 'white academia' is specific to translating oral history into English grammar and not as you may understand it. I just read again, as I said the discussion and felt my response didnt extend to you an adequate explanation. So, please understand where I was coming from...and disregard any offence the term may have caused.

cheers
Nat

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Hey Nat, an article which i had read and am now having difficulty finding again states,

the description of Atlantean Government resembles Celtic rule in Gaul and Britain

I am desperately trying to find the source again.

Hi Mojo

well, I am so sorry, but had a quick man's look (lol...joke!!) cos I really have not had 5 minutes to myself and couldnt find it. But I am sure, one of us will stumble across it unwittingly...

I am trying to find some more information on Pierre Termier. The Smithsonian annual report this lecture was in isnt available on line unfortunately. It does date from 1915. Though there is this article that argues against his hypothesis.

ah, baloney!! stuff the argument that negates the hypothesis...I will have a look for this one too... It is all relative !!!!!!!!!

Hope ive not covered something thats already been discussed.

hun lol... I've been doing that since day one!!! and I am still sleeping at night!! Don't apologise!! I just wanted to say, I value your contributions here... I really do!! mwah!!

I have re-read the entire discussion and your advice about one word changing the whole meaning of a sentence really was apt!! Brilliant!!

so thanks again!

I have RDO tommorrow and will log in for a while but am going to see my Mum and Dad for the weekend and will be away for the weekend. aw... I havent been home since xmas so they are going crazy with excitement!!!

cheers and thanks again
Nat

Originally posted by Shane
Hello Again Nat

I know we have seen some difficulties by some, (you know who you are ), who have had been exceeding vocal in dismissing your thoughts claiming lack of evidence, yet, I really can not go a day, without finding something that reflects back on the Celts, even when I am reseaching the Altaic Peoples from the Steppes, who are the forerunners of the Germanic Languages.

And when reviewing this, what is it that is constantly being acknowledged, yet obviously not accepted.

THE CELTS HAVE BEEN IN THE ISLES for Thousands of year more than some of the discouraging peoples wish to admit. Now, we are seeing 10000 BC as a date, and this is due to solely to the all mighty science, that some wish to utilize only for debunking purposes...

...but I do know why the dismissive respond as they do. They fail to understand, that all these things ARE RELATED, and treat them as seperate items to debunk.

Sorry for all the reading material!

Shane,

The link provided was most informative and gave a really interesting theory. But your use of a straw man here I cannot understand.

Where here has anyone tried to "debunk" the Celts, or "dismissed" their presence in Northern Europe at some particular time in the past? After all, we do know that there were people around during the last couple of Ice Ages, do we not? We are aware of Homo Sapiens living all over Europe starting around 175,000 years ago. In what way does this impact the theory previously discussed here?

I mean, the presence of people does not imply the presence of a written, alphabetic language (like Ogham, which was what I thought we were talking about.) I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there were human beings living in Europe 10,000 years ago (even 15 times further back than that.) But what does that mean? Not being an expert, I didn't know (prior to this thread) what the generally agreed upon scientific theory about dissemination of Celts in Europe was. So of course I'm willing to posit that the Celts might have their roots in stone age humanity living in Europe. Why not?

The big deal you seem to be making about people "dismissing Nat's thoughts," that "some wish to utilize (science) only for debunking purposes," and the many "dismissive" responses in this thread can't possibly be applied to the subject you have here brought up, that of the actual origin of the Celts. That is because this subject hasn't been discussed, much less "debunked" here in this thread, where the subject (or so I took it) was the written (secret) language of the Celts, not their existence.

Also consider this, how is it then that the Celts are related to the Egyptian civilization, if they originated from stone age tribes extant in Ireland circa 10,000 BCE, at least 6,000 years before there even was anything even slightly resembling an Egyptian civilization?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Where here has anyone tried to "debunk" the Celts, or "dismissed" their presence in Northern Europe at some particular time in the past?

Actually yes, this is infact evident. The simple implications dismissing their presense prior to say, "Stonehedge" and it's construction has been denied by some here.

After all, we do know that there were people around during the last couple of Ice Ages, do we not? We are aware of Homo Sapiens living all over Europe starting around 175,000 years ago. In what way does this impact the theory previously discussed here?

As noted, I am not certain. I am only presenting the idea, that has been not considered. How does the Previous Ige Age, effect this premise, seeing that beyond what I had ever considered, the plains of the North Sea, had been inhabited. This is something that I have never run across noted in any Discussions, in respects to Atlantis. It is something that is foreign to this ATS Board as well.

Certainly conjecture speculates it could be Crete, It Could be the Canaries, It could be in the Carribbean. I have felt it was all of the above, but that just my personal view.

But the interesting notion is that, why would these Plains in the North Sea, not also be considered as a place of habitation?

Let's be frank

There are some who have claimed people could not navigate in the old days to get to these islands. Well, they may not have been islands 10000 Years ago according to this. (The Russian Link)

Byrd himself, has difficulties predating Celts to Ireland and is completely against the notion they may have even predated Stonehedge. Is this, an viable reason why one could look and accept, that the possibilities are much greater that this took place, than just waiting some some period about 3000 years ago. The history that is spun to satisfy those who wish to view it that way.

And then there is the Genetics, which is clearly showing that the Celts are not really from the Mid East, but the theory is they spread to the Mid East from the west.

This is a view which gives me reason to pause, since I have always maintained the Celts are part thereof the Missing Tribes. I can not argue Science, and this must be considered, inlight of the new and improved evidence out there.

As I noted elsewhere, I am learning Harte. It is the least we can do as upright man.

The big deal you seem to be making about people "dismissing Nat's thoughts," that "some wish to utilize (science) only for debunking purposes," and the many "dismissive" responses in this thread can't possibly be applied to the subject you have here brought up, that of the actual origin of the Celts. That is because this subject hasn't been discussed, much less "debunked" here in this thread, where the subject (or so I took it) was the written (secret) language of the Celts, not their existence.

And I guess you missed, what was noted earlier. I noted I did not know how it would effect her (Nat's) Topic. I believe Nat is able to take evidence, and review it with an open mind, and will be able to address this, whenever she see's fit.

You see, for previous reasons, it has been ASSUMED by all, the Celts came from the Proto Indian Families, but this is not accurate. Nor is there any evidence to suggest they have 'arrived' in Ireland as a last bastion of their existance.

The Languages are noted in these posts. These links elaborate in this, but you have to review the links to get the premise. Through Science of the Genes, it seems what we ASSUMED, is actually the reverse.

If we once believed, and many still do, that the Celts originated from the east, then everything Byrd has noted is viable.

His reflactions on what he believes Ceasar was implying, and his observations of Druid's not being apart of the Mainland Celtic Speaking Peoples, make a good arguement, but as noted, during Ceasars time, a small portion of the known world dealt with Latin, and another small segment had the Germatic langauges coming from the Altai, and Steppes people that spread into Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and so on.

But with the compelling evidence that Celts Originated within the British Isles, and Spread across the Continent, from the West, to the Alps, Italy and through to the Black Sea, then is there anywonder why the Druids are still in Ireland, and not found with the Gauls and such.

Also consider this, how is it then that the Celts are related to the Egyptian civilization, if they originated from stone age tribes extant in Ireland circa 10,000 BCE, at least 6,000 years before there even was anything even slightly resembling an Egyptian civilization.

We'll pickup on this real soon

Ciao

Shane

To continue Harte...

: Also consider this, how is it then that the Celts are related to the Egyptian civilization, if they originated from stone age tribes extant in Ireland circa 10,000 BCE, at least 6,000 years before there even was anything even slightly resembling an Egyptian civilization.

As my post noted, in here, this topic, there was conjecture about the Druids. I offered Nat a section of Paul's Acts, (found within the New Testament) which did not seem to make it into the Bible, for one reason or another.

My dear friend Byrd, was quick to speculate that the document being referenced was some "Channeled" text, at the worst, and at best, some ramblings of British Israelism. I understand his position on this, but must disagree.

Anyways, this Missing Chapter of Acts, refered to as Acts 29, had a brief notation about Paul meeting the Druids, and that his impression was they knew the Holy Manners of the Preisthood, and noted they claimed to be from Egypt.

Since I believe, this is a text worthy of consideration, I presented this, and now, not all that long after, I am seeing overwhelming evidence to support this premise. The sad thing about this, is at the time, I couldn't.

Now, I have been trying to findout what sorts of finds have been located east of the Black Sea for another topic, unrelated to this, and these fascinating links are being found. It is just all falling into place.

Now to your Viable and reasonable question above.

Try this.

I do not buy 1 piece of crap that has spewed out of the mouth of the foremost Egyptologist, Hawass in respects to Egypt.

I believe Egypt is much much more than the Demon worshippers Hawass wish us all to believe. More so, I believe the Demon Worshiping Greeks and Romans have added to this premise. Certianly at some point in the vast History of Egypt, the people became such, but I do not believe they started out as such.

And I believe, it was during these times, (Prior to the Black Sea Flood of 5600 BC) if not to the Glacial Melt Flood of 9600 BC, that we may find this preisthood going to Ireland.

Do you not ever wonder, why Ireland is a piece of Heaven? Maybe it actually is, a piece of Heaven on Earth. But I digress.

But there are several points here

i If they (The Druids) migrated from Egypt to Ireland they could have walked at one time.

ii If they (The Druids) migrated from Egypt to Ireland, they could have Navigated, since they had their Cross.

iii If the new research that shows the Celts are a distinct people from the rest of Europa, then we now can find where they came from. Especially, if the notion the Russian Link and the findings in the North Sea are factual.

iv I have never implied in any post presented, that Egyptians as known today, are Egyptians of 10000 Years ago. I know, without a doubt, Egypt has been something special for an excess of 10000 Years. God says as much, since Egypt is his people. Today they may not look that way, but in the next few years (LITERALLY) they will become so again.

And again, Hawass and his sad tell, can go and slurp back some yummy mummy soup, because he is a hinderance to the Egyptian people today, and a deterant to Egypt reclaiming their position on this planet. God's People.

Sorry, but you have asked Harte, and I will not attempt to short change that question.

How this aligns with Nat's Topic here, is unclear. Her premise is there is something in her mind that links the Celts to Minonians, and Atlantis. Her theory started to address the Script of Ogham. Driuds became discussed. Celtic habitation and when this could have occured has been discussed. History of the areas have been discussed. DNA and Science has been discussed. Many things have been covered and considered, and all along, Nat has been able to review consider what has been presented.

But my recent posts here, are simply more to consider, since it may infact require her to address some of her ideas in a different light. Just because, there may be a change of direction, does not diminish, the premise. It only alters the search.

Now, Have I explained MY OWN VIEW ON THIS, to you satisfaction HARTE???

Do I have the approval to continue to think, and see new and interesting theories that may redirect the Scholarly to areas they should be looking at?

Well, I'll answer that for you. A Skeptic will always be one. They refuse to accept. I like to learn about things. I will continue to learn about things. And I will continue to post my observations and provide what I deem as adequate support for my views whenever I see fit. I will also, as I tend to do most times anyway, try and find something that may assist my fellow CONTRIBUTORS whenever there is something to consider. Hell Harte, Someday you may have an Original thought to consider in ATS as well. I'd be happy to help if I could when that day arises.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
the people in India are their own peoples, and therefore not part of something that attributes recivilization of the Planet from four people. Much akin to what I can support, both Biblically and through simple common sense, the Races are their own people.

lol now Shane, this has stood out for me But wonder where this is taking us?
I am intrigued as to your thoughts regarding: The 'planet from 4 people' ... have my own thoughts inline with Native American Indian mythologies that the planet is made up of 4 main races, the yellow, red, white and black...corresponding with the seasons and directions of the planet. This extended again means each distinct people is from their own planet, so there are four in total. Your words just grabbed me as unique. Not sure, if you have heard of this before? But just had to throw it out there. lol
I just read the above link and as I read it...*sigh, as usual I am not surprised. Everything historically is tainted with political motivation.

Starseed Theory is another strategy of satan, the work of the nephilim.

We are in delusional times and it is theories such as these that are designed for a specific purpose.

Do you know why the star seed group are interested/keen to hear from anyone with a score of over 75? That test is designed to seek out and corrupt 'flesh'...one of 12???? What does this pertain to? It most certainly has nothing to do with the zodiac...it relates to the 12 Disciples...the 12 blood lines.

From the moment I saw this, I wanted to learn as much as I could about it. Whilst reading, I asked myself some pertinent questions...First and foremost: 'how does this fit in with GOD?' It doesnt sit with GOD at all. It is the delusional work of satan.

GOD is!

I always find it amusing the things people will deny because it doesn't fit into their religion, when it itself cannot be proven. Take this, for example; instead of realizing the evidence does not support the claims made, it is denied because it's "satan's work". I do, however, respect peoples' beliefs, even though I do not subscribe to them, I agree with the values most of them teach.

Having said that, I think we as a race know very little about what's "out there", whether it be God, Aliens, et cetera. I think in part due to what people will and won't accept. There are a lot of things I wish people would look into, but more often than not they are concerned about their carreer, or being relentlessly rediculed. My personal view is, anything is possible. But as Harte's signature says... (though I don't *fully* agree with it)

Originally posted by Ecidemon
Having said that, I think we as a race know very little about what's "out there", whether it be God, Aliens, et cetera. I think in part due to what people will and won't accept. There are a lot of things I wish people would look into, but more often than not they are concerned about their carreer, or being relentlessly rediculed.

Ecidemon,

I sort of agree with this statement. However, I think that ultimately the reasons often lie with the loopy frauds that have "contaminated" the ideas. When you have a guy like Von Daniken or Hancock saying idiotic things about an archaeological site or theory, in book after book after book, any serious archaeologist won't go near the subject. This is what I mean by "contamination."

It is mainly for this reason that I so despise the pseudoscientific crapola that people like Hancock produce for (substantial) profit. Label it fiction, which is what it really is, and I'd have no problem at all with it.

Harte