About the Celts.....

Well here is my post in the "History of the Germanic people" thread if it helps:

It was said that in some circles the name Celts is a faux-pas. There is another movement that denies e.g. the term Germanic. It is true that we have to be careful with such terms, but should we deny them or call them faux-pas? I don't think so. We have celtish languages. They are very similar, so what is against speaking of Celts? There are some great problems. The La-Tene-culture is the first culture we can undoubtfully related with the Celts. So we have to ask the question, did there were Celts before the La-Tene? The first migrations of Celts to Iberia and Britannia shall have happened about 900 BC. If we would accept this then Celts was existing even in Hallstatt, yes perhaps in The Urnfield-Age. I have a little doubt of that. The oldest material from La-Tene is in the area between Marne, Mosel and the Middle-Rhine. It is on the Territory of the Hunsr�ck-Eifel- and Marne-culture. It is not the central Hallstatt region but at the borders. That is why I expect the Celtic Origins not in the Hallstatt. Of course the Hallstatt-people shared the same indo-european origin, they were even very close to each other. If you'll follow me, we shouldn't speak of Celts not before 600 BC. That is throwing great doubt on the migrations before that time. So Britannia got Celtizised not before 400 or 300 and we have to expect grat non-celtic groups there, even if there were indo-europeans before the Celts. It's the same with Gaul. Civitates like the Veneti, the Pictones perhaps or the Aquitani are probably just celtizised in different grades. Perhaps civitates like these of the Aquitani just shared the La-Tene-culture and weren't Celts at all at the time Cesar arrived in Gaul.

Edited by Paul - 11-Jan-2008 at 17:34

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Originally posted by beorna One single peace of evidence? Well, what we now about the Celtic Language is that it was spoken on the continent and in Britain. There are also Belgish tribes mentioned, e.g in Cesar B.G., There is La-Tene-culture moving to Britain. So of course that could have happened by trading. But do you really believe it? I agree with you that the Celts were not so important for long times. I told you I don't believe Celts came about 900 or 800 to Britain, I believe they just entered it with the La-Tene-culture but there were enough areas that were not influenced. The Celtization of Britain we have today in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a just result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion since the middle of the 5th century.

Edited by Paul - 11-Jan-2008 at 21:25

Originally posted by beorna We have celtish languages. They are very similar, so what is against speaking of Celts?

Originally posted by Chilbudios For me, and probably for many others, Celtic (like Germanic, Slavic, etc.) represents a linguistic group.

excatly!

actually, those who accuse others of racism are the first ones to use the words "genetics" and "DNA"... look out for them, you will se that i am right...

if we speak about culture, i found out that neither language nor genetics define culture. nothign defines culture more than geography. as example, take Steppe people. sakas were indo-iranians with caucasian features. now there are Kazakhs, Turkics with Mongoloid features. see, almost dientical culture without common language nor genetics. include to that even magyars, finno-ugrians with steppe culture that have little resemblance to Finns or other ugrians. and include to that Cossacks. they developed completely different from urban slavs. same goes for the Caucasus for example. many ethnicities there, but same costume (Cherkesska etc).

Ok, from a quick research (it's 1:30 am and I have just returned from cinema after having watched the entertaining but stupid movie "Alien vs Predator 2" so please spare me) I found that Celts as an entity are not disputed, just the modern image of them as people who had the same culture and identified themselves as Celts. Thee is also controversy over whether Ireland and Britain can actually claim a Celtic past. However the term Celts is accepted.

Found a useful website for beginners http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/celtindex.html

Now Paul, please don't attack me (just kidding) it's possible that my 10-minute google search didn't find much, so if you please direct me to some other source that can be easily accessed (not a book, my university studies are close)


Edited by Vorian - 11-Jan-2008 at 23:43

there are a lot arguments in which I agree with you. The Celtization of Britain came late, but to say language has nothing to do with ethnicity is nonsense. What make a ethnos become one. Do you say: Come on, mate, let's join together. Your genes are white as mine. I love your genes? No, you don't. Your language is making an ethnos, common political interests, religions, often your skin colour. The Celts spoke Celtic. And the Celts today speak Celtic (but mostly English). The DNA research is in this point not helpful. It is good for another point. It shows that people can change their ethnicity. That's was happened to the non-celtic Britains, they became Celtic without the necessary of overwhelming invasions. For example. Let the Celtic migration begin 400BC. Everyday there were coming just 10 people. In a year 3650, in 10 years 36.500, in 100 years, 365.000, after 400 years nearly 1,5 Mio. So you needn't 10 a day to get a mass.

What's in a name?

We don't have a collective name for the eastern Spanish, Northern Germans and llyrians, but we seem to manage without one.

Edited by Paul - 12-Jan-2008 at 18:17