the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

"The Latin (and Levantine) brain visualises the conclusion before it has collected all the premisses: it is therefore too intelligent to be archaeologically minded.
The Teutonic brain, on the contrary, is content to inspect all its hurdles before jumping them. It is willing to collect evidence even though it never draws any conclusions. And the mere collection of evidence was the first and greatest necessity before archaeology could become useful and effective. Winckelmann was a splendid instance of the unhurried Teutonic temperament brought into prolonged contact with the versatile and volatile humanistic traditions of Italy."
"That is one reason why it has taken so long to breed archaeologists among the Latin races of Europe to-day."
--Rhys Carpenter, Humanistic Value of Archaeology, Vol. 4, p. 3-4.

Anyone else think this is the truth?
And maybe see this as an explanation for the differences between the "Latin races of Europe to-day" and the Teutonic Germans?
What he means by intelligence: "It is difficult for a person of quick wit and lively intellect to become a good archaeologist."

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Nope, it sounds like BS, if not racist BS.

Click to expand...

Pretty odd comment on christianforums.

Bob Crowley said:

I had a look at the date of publication which was 1933 just as Hitler was lauding the Teutonic brain in Germany.

I suspect Mr. Carpenter had been affected to some extent by that ideology.

Who even uses the word "Teutonic" these days?

I assume the "Winckelmann" in the passage referred to Joachim Winckelmann.

Johann Joachim Winckelmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would appear Mr. Carpenter used one of his personal heroes as a Teutonic / Latin exemplar and who was supposed to be "one of the founders of scientific archaeology".

I'd never heard of him myself.

Click to expand...

Well now you have... you're welcome.

But why do you think that Rhys Carpenter was in favor of the Teutonic brain in all cases? He liked them for their plodding research in Archaeology... but he never labelled them brilliant... or even "too intelligent".

Carpenter's first name "Rhys" is Welsh. The small dark Welsh... like the small dark Latins.
"Carpenter" last name is probably not... unless it's been Anglicized.

And it's not like Hitler was a Viking or even Saxon-looking, so his "lauding the Teutonic brain"... definitely odd.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Not really.
It's inline with the modern day thinking of a book from 1933, with ideas that have since been debunked by science.

The phrase "Latin races of Europe" is racist.

Click to expand...

Sure it is... "Christianity" comes from "the chosen race".

Lukaris said:

I tend to think the Latin & Levantine mind created the history for the Teutonic mind to be the archaeologists of.

Click to expand...

I don't think "Latin" and "Levantine" have anything in common.

I disagree with Rhys on this parenthetical addition...

"The Latin (and Levantine) brain visualises the conclusion before it has collected all the premisses: it is therefore too intelligent to be archaeologically minded."

... if by Levantine Rhys means Jewish. Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed, Forgotten Kingdom, etc., prove him wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

... Christianity comes from the name of Christ. Race has nothing to do with it. [...]

Click to expand...

Christ from the tribe of Judah... of Jehovah's "chosen race".
Can't get away from it, so you might as well give that part up.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And tell me: what actually IS the difference between the Teutonic 'race' and the Latin 'race'? Who were/are they? Where did/do they come from? Since you seem to support the idea that there is a racial difference between then.

Click to expand...

Teutonic means Germans, who are also called the Aryans. There are many overlord kingdoms that came from these people. (The Mitanni and Hittites are the two you might be more familiar with. The Mitanni were the foreign overlords of the Hurrians. The Hittites took over the Hatti kingdom with whom the Egyptians had dealt.) But the Saxons were the Sacae from beyond Iran... they were Scythians. The Scythians chased the Cimmerians off the Caspian steppe into the Chersonesus. And the Cimbri are probably the Cimmerians. These Cimbri show up on Cirencester's map, here:



See them? Cimbri are at KL and ED on the Cornish Peninsula. They weren't in Silurian Wales, but in Devon and Somerset... apparently a conquest is responsible for the name Cambrian farther north, and the addition of "Cymry" into Silurian history. The Cymry were never Silurians... they mention the Silurian Dialect as being what the Bardic ordinances were written in.

All of Wales was originally either Silurian or their dependent tribes, the Demetae and the Ordovices, and the Ordivices' dependent tribe seated on the Snowdon Range and on the island next to it. The older writers came to the conclusion that the Indigenous Silurians were an Iberian Tribe, and that the Druids were from these tribes. Modernists say the Celts of Caesar were the Druids, but it isn't true. The Celts had a very different religion from that... and were big strawberry blondes, not small dark Welsh and Cornish.

People like to think Cirencester was a fraud because that's what they tend to call all inconvenient history, these days.

The Latins are originally Ligurians whom the ancient authors say lived on the southern coast of Portugal and were known as the Cynetes (in several different spellings). The whole Iberian Peninsula was called Ligurian, back in the day. But the Celts invaded. And then Augustus Caesar took some Ligurian tribes and switched them with two North African tribes who were called Iberian, etc.

Ligurian tribes were in France and Liguria and Italy. The legend of Marsailles says a Ligurian princess chose a Greek husband. Just above Marsailles was the Ligurian Nemeton (aka, Druid grove) whom the Romans burned down to support the Greeks.

The Lepontic Inscriptions are Ligurian, as proven by Whatmough. Celtic from the center is the theory that the Celtic language developed in Gaul... by Patrick Sims-Williams.

Peet is the archaeologist who pulled together previous Italian writings, and says that Italy was a Ligurian peninsula, in a book called the Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy and Sicily.

Ridgeway, in a paper called Who were the Romans?, pulls together the Greek writings that show the Indigenes of Rome to have been the Ligurians. And he says that the incoming Pelasgians worked with the Ligurians against the common enemy: Umbrians and Sabines... which were Gaulish tribes, similar to what we call Celts today. The Ligurians melded with the pre-Greek Pelasgians and together were called the Plebeians, while the Gauls became the Patricians of Rome by conquest.

It happens everywhere. The incoming invaders are overlords of the indigenous plebeian/peon. The Roman Empire wasn't being run by the Ligurians or the Pelasgians... it was run by the Gauls who ruled Rome.

So... where did the Gauls come from? What language did they speak before they learned Ligurian Latin? My guess would be that the people called Celts were the ones who made that jewelry. Halstatt wasn't Celtic, it seems to have been Slavic or Germanic. The same shield wikipedia used to call Celtic they used to call Scythian at the same time... they weren't wrong. Except German is not Celtic... so why do the Scandinavians speak Germanic?

People who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
No wonder the ruling people destroy histories and/or call them forgeries.