Why do the Spanish have so many tattoos...

Everyone i know is tattooed, I mean one of our friends is doing them for free, gen X and Z, almost everyone of those generations has a piercing or a tattoo

that's not an answer, quite the contrary.. if you truly don't have any sandniggers and thus no problems, then why are Estonian people leaving Estonia?

Join this discord... Why the FUCK not???
discordapp.com\invite\mhHPe8D
GO GO GO

-64f

Yeah an 80IQ one, being retarded is pretty Chad to be honest, you can't care less abouth shit

what a stupid fucking question.

Well, tattoos are an ancient, European tradition after all. Celts and Germanic in particular have been practising that art for millennia.

That's a very good question. The answer is simply better wages abroad. Although some people come back after seeing the state of the west with their own eyes.

You can paint yourself, but tattooing itself isn't ancient wtf

Huge portions of Iberia were Celtic in antiquity, including the entire meseta which was the heartland of the Celtiberians. Speaking of Celt "genetics" is somewhat moronic because it is a culturo-linguistic group which absolutely did have a stronghold (possible the eldest if Koch's theories about Tartessian are accurate) in Iberia.

The only "Med" population in Iberia, historically, were Iberians proper. Those that lived along what is now called El Levante.

By the way, Galicians have the highest proportion of North African DNA in Iberia. Granted, this is prehistorical and probably related to Iberomaurusians, but still. I'm tired of hearing about how Celtic the Galicians supposedly are when, in reality, the Gallaeci were not especially unique in Iberian antiquity.

You can be med and celt, they're called ibero-celts. Just like how northern and central italy are mostly celt, italic celt.

>Celts and Germanic
aka 'barbarians' we are all Romans now brother.
SPQR.

> Chad
> married a roastie
You gotta pick one lmao

dagos are inferior

The Spanish are mutts, there is nothing wrong with that.

Celts didn't have a particularly strong tradition of tattooing as we know it, actually. They painted themselves typically with woad, and really the only people who were celebrated for having done so are the Britons. I am not aware of any source which attributes this practice to any Celtic populations outside of Britain, personally.

>tattooing itself isn't ancient
yes, yes it is.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/01/30/scientists-mapped-otzi-icemans-61-tattoos/

see
>that's not an answer
Our boss at work literally tells us to stop being lazy niggers and get to work and we all laugh about it. If your little bitch ass decided to say something similar about niggerarabs you'd be fined and thrown to jail.

> Just like how northern and central italy are mostly celt, italic celt.
Just like hot north and south China are mostly celt, Chinic celt

>comparing a European nation to China

Southern Germany and Switzerland too, yes.
speak for yourself, Rome never conquered Scandinavia.
>mutts
>nothing wrong with that
lol burgers

According to Roman scribes, Britons and Picts were heavily tattooed.

Hows the current aids epidemic going for you guys?

Sergio Ramos is a certified chad. Even if he managed to fuck up Mo Salah I want to take mma lessons from him

Denmark is 96% white, google it. And seriously, stop coming here looking for work and start rebuilding your failed nations.

I shagged an ibero-celt bird one time.I say once time- it was actually loads of times because I went out with her for a bit. She came from the Asturias,in Northern Spain, and can confirm they are physically different from spanish in many subtle ways that you wouldnt really notice- like soft downy hair on their temples and some other things I cant remember, but that surprised me at the time.

I was only young, but that was when I first realised that Spanish weren't proper human beings.

Not tattoo'd, painted with "glaustum" (Pliny). Also, the Picts were Britons and almost certainly spoke a Brythonic language.

I think Germanicus refers to the tribes east of the Rhine having 'tattoos.'

Again, the modern word tattoo is not actually used, so who knows what he is actually describing though.

>Not tattoo'd, painted with "glaustum" (Pliny).
as far as I've studied, it's a combination of both; tattoos, and paint for special occasions like war, religious ceremony etc. And yes, the Picts were related to the Britons and spoke the P-Celtic variant of the insular Celtic languages. Q-Celtic, the ancestor to Goidelic and later Gaelic, came from Ireland when the Scots amalgamated the Picts.

How do you know he was referring to Celtic-speakers and not Germans? I don't know much about tattooing as a custom among the Germans, and it may well be the case that they did practice it, but I can say fairly unequivocally that there is no evidence for its practice among the Celts.

>the modern word tattoo is not actually used
that's because the word "tattoo" is a borrowed word.

"pigment design in skin," 1769 (noun and verb, both first attested in writing of Capt. Cook), from a Polynesian noun (such as Tahitian and Samoan tatau, Marquesan tatu "puncture, mark made on skin"). Century Dictionary (1902) describes them as found on sailors and uncivilized people or as a sentence of punishment. Earlier names in English included Jerusalem cross (1690s) in reference to tattoos on the arms of pilgrims to the Holy Land, also Jerusalem letters (1760).

I'm sorry, there is no evidence for "both". I suppose you could say that in referencing the practice of painting among the Britons the Romans could have been referring to tattooing, but again there is no evidence for it. We are fairly confident that the "glaustum" Pliny mentions is woad, which has been tested as an alternative to tattoo ink and found to be fairly useless. It is a good paint, however.

My yw Kernow. Yth esof vy owth aswon owth istoris.

>tattoos are ancient
nice argument

Attached: srsly.jpg (600x391, 28K)

Ramos is a fucking legend

Attached: rm.jpg (671x1000, 319K)

>How do you know he was referring to Celtic-speakers and not Germans?

He was referring to East of the Rhine, so 'Germans.' If you're looking for sources that mention tattooing in the Gallic tribes, I can think of none.

it's not an argument, it's just a fact. Take from it whatever the fuck you want, Hansi.

>that's because the word "tattoo" is a borrowed word.

Of course man, thats the point I'm making. I doubt there is even a Latin equivalent word, so how could the ancient sources describe it as anything other than 'designs on skin'? Thats why we cannot really tell if was painted or pierced.

Footballers do have that many tattoos but normal people here dont.
I remember being a kid and on a trip to England I saw for the first time a man over 70 years old with tattoos we dont have that here in Spain yet.

true, there's no concrete evidence for Celtic tattooing like there is with the Scythians and the Vikings for example. But I, for one, believe that the circumstantial evidence is plenty and that they were tattooed, like other ancient Europeans. If the tattooed Germanic neighbours to the Celtic Gauls had tattoos, then why not the Gauls? And the Gauls had cultural exchange with their insular Celtic brothers in the British Isles, so.. there we have it.
>something in Cornish I believe
k den

>Denmark is 96% white, google it!

Using google as a source for anything. LMAOing at your life

He truly is

Attached: 170603 SR Duodecima6.jpg (1080x1080, 227K)

no, you were clearly seperating tattoos from piercing with the argument they were ancient and thus less degenerate. sacrificing random people was also ancient tradition. if any, millennial old traditions are rather degenerate than making any sense.

We have a handful of bog bodies from Ireland and Britain and thus far not a one has anything approaching a conventional tattoo. Hardly conclusive, but one would think that if this practice was so normative as to lead the Romans and Greeks to actually call the Britains "painted," by which they meant the puncturing of the skin to imprint permanent markings on their bodies, then the odds would be reasonably good that we would find something.

valid point, but the factual evidence is plentiful.. mummified tattooed warriors from 5500 years ago, so I think it's pretty safe to say that the practise of tattooing was known amongst the ancient Europeans and widely spread in all the cultures.

sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/men-who-lived-spain-4500-years-ago-left-almost-no-descendants-alive-today

>you're not romans, you're not meds.
Youre confusing 'Roman' with 'Italian'

Rome was a meme- wear the toga, go to the bathhouse, speak in Latin and you too were Roman. Thats how the Empire expanded.

Iam vero principum filios liberalibus artibus erudire, et ingenia Britannorum studiis Gallorum anteferre, ut qui modo linguam Romanam abnuebant, eloquentiam concupiscerent. Inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga; paulatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balinea et conviviorum elegantiam. Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.

' He likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the toga became fashionable. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of their servitude. '

Agricola.

that little exclamation mark at the end of the quote, tells me you don't even know how to paste and quote in greentext. So, with all due respect, I will choose google over your schizoid gibberish.

sport fan idiots

This is the truth.

Attached: 1561353168678.jpg (720x720, 76K)

>conjecture, the post.
I wasn't saying anything, at all, about piercings. Neither did I mention "degeneration", in any way, shape or form. If you want to debate me, then stick to debating what I actually write, not what you pretend to read.

grüß Gott.

Can confirm, lot's of gross people with tattoos here, branding themselves trash with debt servitude.
Makes me feel really good seeing people with disgusting tattoos when I have none and never will.

well, to be fair, most the bog bodies (both British and Danish) predate the Celtic Britons (and the Vikings) with some 2000 years or more.

Spaniards are a very sensual people, in the tactile sense.

It would be somewhat strange, in my opinion, that the Romans and Greeks would make no mention of the practice among the Gauls, or the Iberians, or the Galatians, etc., but only and specifically among the Britons, if this was a practice that was customary among Celtic-speakers generally.

I suppose you could posit the possibility that, at one time, Continental Celts did paint themselves and subsequently stopped, possibly due to their interactions with Mediterranean civilisations. Perhaps this was an old practice that survived in Britain, since we know other traditions survived more purely in Britain than they did in, say, Gaul (hence the claim that the Gauls sent their druids to be taught in Britain by their British equivalents).

But, like I said, there's no evidence for tattooing among Celts. We don't really know why they would have painted themselves, so it's difficult to say whether painting themselves would have been more advantageous than permanently marking their bodies (perhaps the designs changed according to the calendar, or improved or diminished martial status - who knows?).

Shut up fat virgin that cant play sports and has too much envy to watch them in TV

Men didn't, they were all exterminated like in the rest of Europe by the Indo-European invaders. Women did though.

Eh? Virtually all of the bog bodies in Britain that have been successfully carbon-dated have been dated to the Celtic "period" (i.e., from the Iron Age to late antiquity). Ireland is where some of the older bodies have been found, but even there many have been dated to the period we're speaking of.

valid point, but.. politics, maybe? The Gauls were pretty domesticated at the time Rome went on to invade the British Isles, and maybe Rome wanted to highlight and exaggerate the "barbaric" traits of the Britons, and the Picts in particular, because of the fierce resistance they met from them. That's what they did with the Germanic tribes, especially after they failed to conquer them.

Just to be clear, I'm discussing the sources and the difficulty of accurate knowledge, but I don't for a moment question the reality that some Bronze age Europeans had tattoos.

I suppose the question is as much about cultural interchange between different groups in those times: I mean, if a young Gallic warrior saw a Dane or an Oestrogoth with tattoos, whats to stop him getting one himself?

Although as Im writing this, it occurs to me that its a naievely modernistic perspective: the tattoos are likely to be be as much about religious and cult symbolism as they are 'decoration'

The Valknut tattoo, for example, was a a part of the Odin cult, although it is debated whether it was used to mark prisoners for sacrifice to odin, or members of his cult.

I doubt the intention was decoration of beautification-it would be magical and religious. So from that context, getting a tattoo would simply be a matter of joining the Odin cult, rather than locale.

They want to imitate the picts

Attached: pict-painting-of-warrior.jpg (600x768, 42K)

I didn't know that.. I thought they were as old as their Danish equivalents. Back to the books I go!

valid points, brit bro. Valid points indeed.

.. I miss good fish n chips btw.

Yes, that's no doubt true. Archeologists are still digging for evidence of the elusive wicker man without much success.

This is also a good point. It's difficult to truly appreciate how far removed we are from our forefathers. We don't even think the same, or perceive the world anything like they did.

I think it's almost certain that where body markings were common practice in antiquity (whether temporary or permanent), there was some arcane purpose for it that we probably could never fully comprehend.

>Archeologists are still digging for evidence of the elusive wicker man
silly archaeologists.. don't they know the wicker men were all burned?

huehuehuehuehue

>Why do the Spanish have so many tattoos?
Why do the Englishmen drink until falling into a puddle of their own vomit?

>Spanish weren't proper human beings
Same goes for welsh and English girls. All of them had smelly vaginas. How fortunate i haven't fucked yet a Spanish girl who's smelly down there

>One post by this ID
sage
/thread

>Gypsy blood

Attached: tfwgfwbtada10.jpg (628x404, 80K)

Attached: u r diz sloe.png (287x275, 23K)

Sailor culture.

>has to /thread himself
Pretty pathetic desu

Because spain fell into a degeneracy pit like most of europe. they also have one of the biggest gay communities in the world and have an aging population that is soon going to be replaced by muhammad and ahmed.

Kek