Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
22
-
19
-
17
-
12
-
12
-
9
-
8
-
@GerdLPluu Everyone agrees that now that Chevron deference is no more, the US is more libertarian, not less. Whatever you want to call them, whatever names you want to use, the truth is, everyone recognizes two political extremes: no background/government laws and only voluntary contracts on one end (usually called anarcho-capitalist Libertarian) in one extreme, and dictatorial totalitarianism in the other extreme.
From this point-of-view, "freedom" is not a semantically varying word. Its meaning is tied to voluntary contracts. The US was created for a moral people, which excluded the behaviors you misconstrue as freedoms, such as joining a union or behaving immorally according to the mores of the society. All this has already been firmly defined by Hoppe.
There is such a thing as objective freedom: only the people closest to a decision having a say over that decision. That turns out to be voluntary contracts in our human reality. The other extreme is someone far away controlling your behavior over here. That turns out to be dictatorial totalitarianism.
This video is simply word-play as is usual for the left to employ these tactics. No one on the Libertarian side would argue this - ask yourself why. To us it is clear you are word manipulators. I have attempted to show you the logic. It's a structural difference between the two political extremes, and it has to do with nearness of decision.
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RexNicolaus "Celtic people are a large conglomerate of people but not a definitive identity, considering what little information we have about them."
This is wrong - this is what I'm trying to communicate to you. Celtic people are not "a large conglomerate of people but not a definitive identity", on the contrary, they're a very definitive identity, seeing that they identified themselves from 200 BC to 200 AD in tombstones in western Iberia using the names "Celti", "Celtici", "Celtiati", "Celtius", etc. So they are a very definitive identity, you just so happen to not know about it.
"That George Buchanan character and the statement you mentioned is not a definitive way of saying that’s what everyone believes about the Celts today. May have spread a myth? Maybe. But studies have been made well before his time, even dating back centuries prior."
Actually there were no studies about Celts before his time, he was the first in modern times, and the point is he started calling these languages Celtic because he thought they came from the Celtici of Spain. Whether true or not, the point is, they were NAMED "Celtic" BECAUSE OF SPAIN, not because anyone ever thought any Britons were "Celts", because no one ever did. Do you understand the point now?
"Gauls and Gaels are a Celtic sub group."
No, they're not. This is some modernist agreement with no formality or academic support. Gauls in the past never called themselves Celts neither did Gaels. So no, they're not Celts.
"Celts started to appear in the British Isles around 1000 BC"
No they didn't, nothing in 1000 BC said "Celt" in the name and went to the British Isles. We may call those people "Celtic speakers" today but at the time of 1000 BC they did not call themselves Celts, hence they were not Celts.
"With all that being said, I don’t know how you’re basing everything you understand off one film you mentioned and one 16th gentleman who made a statement about the Celts. Many studies you’re going up against. "
I'm basing what I'm saying on tombstones. The only tombstones in all of Europe self-identifying as "Celts" are in western Iberia. Hence they're the only Celts because they are actually the only ones who called themselves Celts. What modern academics decide to call "Celts" is immaterial because those names are arbitrarily chosen. But "Celts" in the tombstones in western Iberia was not arbitrary, it was their native names.
Watch the movie-documentary on Amazon I told you about and you'll learn it all. Did you watch it? Did you find it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IrishColin "How are the Iberians celts then because the tribe which brought that culture isn’t believed to have originated there."
It is now according to the latest research. Published two weeks ago by the Max Planck Institute, it is the largest genetic-linguistic study ever done. It's called "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages". Not only were Celtic languages native to Iberia since 7,000 years ago, but Lusitanian itself was also Celtic, as it can no longer be Italic due to Italic having been found by this study to have split from Celtic too early for that to be possible and still sound like Italian, and too early in comparison to Germanic which actually split later, so that there would even be more chance that Lusitanian were Germanic than Italic, and since we know it's not Germanic, the only other option left is Celtic, as the study concludes.
Ask any further questions and I'll answer them. But there's really nothing holding back the Iberians from being Celtic-speakers since 7,000 years ago at this point, and that is according to the smartest people doing research today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "No Celtic people called themselves Celts. "
Incorrect. Several Celtic tribes in Iberia called themselves "Celtici" natively. Also, Both Gallaecians and Lusitanians (yes, Lusitanians) called themselves "Celti", "Celtius", "Celtus", "Celtiati", etc in their own votive altars, tombstones and personal pottery.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Here are some academic sources for you:
Pliny the Elder saying that the Celts of Portugal called themselves Celts by surname:
> "Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigenses, who are (sur)named Celtici" - Mirobriga is in Central Portugal)
Source: Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Book IV, paragraph 118.
Independent epigraphic confirmation:
> "D(IS) M(ANIBUS) S(ACRUM) / C(AIUS) PORCIUS SEVE/RUS MIROBRIGEN(SIS) / CELT(ICUS) ANN(ORUM) LX / H(IC) S(ITUS) E(ST) S(IT) T(IBI) T(ERRA) L(EVIS)"
Source: Inscription in the sanctuary of Mirobriga. Fernando de Almeida. Breve noticia sobre o santuario campestre romano de Mirobriga dos Celticos (Portugal).
Evidence from ceramics inscriptions and graffiti
> "The cognomen Celtus [natively attested in personal pottery, in the form of graffito or inscription on pots, pans, combs, etc] is known from the Hispanic provinces as well as from Gallia Narbonensis"
Source: Zandstra, Marenne. Miles Aways From Home. Material culture as a guide to the composition and deployment of the Roman army in the Lower Rhine area during the 1st century AD, ISBN-13: 978-90-77744-00-0, p. 173
"Celt is derived from Greek and is the term the Greeks used to describe people from a specific region."
This is actually not true, as I just showed you tribes in Iberia using the name "Celt" natively for themselves. I can also refute that with two academic quotes:
> "It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental".
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
> "Despite their distance from the Celts, Hecataeus and Herodotus both distinguish them from their immediate neighbours (the Ligurians and Cynesians respectively), and are thus more useful to us than some later writers such as Ephorus (c. 400-330 BC), who used the term Keltoi in a generalized, schematic way, assigning the four points of the compass to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts, and Scythians.2 This shorthand should not be taken out of its astronomical context, as it is by modern scholars who deduce that the Keltoi were just the western, non-Greek "Other". Just as Ephorus can hardly have imagined that the east and south were solely occupied by Indians and Ethiopians (without Persians, Egyptians, etc.), so he cannot be assumed to have believed that only Celts inhabited his "Celtic" quadrant. In fact, in another context, he distinguished between Celts and Iberians, although getting their relative proportions wrong according to Josephus and Strabo. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus, and Apollonius of Rhodes, also regard the Celts as a distinct people."
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. The location of the Celts according to Hecataeus, Herodotus, and other Greek writers, 2016.
So you are completely wrong: there were tribes who called themselves Celts - they lived in western Iberia - and Celt was not a Greek word but instead a native Celtic name for the western Iberia-located tribes.
"It is now used to refer to anyone who speaks a Celtic language."
No it is not, just like "Aryan" may no longer be used for anyone who speaks a language related to that of the Aryans. Irish people do not technically speak "Celtic" - they speak Hibernian. Scottish people don't technically speak Celtic - they speak Caledonian.
Speaking a Celtic language has never made anyone a Celt anyways - the Ligures spoke Celtic yet were famously non-Celtic; the Veneti spoke Celtic even though everyone knew they were not Celts. The same goes for some Pannonians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc - they all spoke Celtic and they all were non-Celts.
Only in the 19th century, after the Victorian Romanticism of the 17th century, were "cultural groups" defined such that languages started naming people. But before the 19th century, people named languages. Otherwise, the French are Romans because they speak a Romance language. For an academic refutation of this idea, please watch Celts and the End of Roman Britain - John Collis on the YouTube Channel "Royal Archaeological Institute" and skip to 4:30 timestamp so that you can hear a lesson from the researcher who defines Celtic Studies today, that speaking a Celtic language does not make anyone a Celt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "Gaelic is a branch of Celtic. You cannot be Gaelic and not be Celtic. If you are Gaelic you are Celtic."
Wrong. Gaelic is a tribal name. So is "Celtic". The Gaels never ever used the name "Celt" for themselves while alive. So they cannot be called "Celts".
"And Celt comes from Greek, not Latin."
Wrong:
> "It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental".
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
> "Despite their distance from the Celts, Hecataeus and Herodotus both distinguish them from their immediate neighbours (the Ligurians and Cynesians respectively), and are thus more useful to us than some later writers such as Ephorus (c. 400-330 BC), who used the term Keltoi in a generalized, schematic way, assigning the four points of the compass to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts, and Scythians.2 This shorthand should not be taken out of its astronomical context, as it is by modern scholars who deduce that the Keltoi were just the western, non-Greek "Other". Just as Ephorus can hardly have imagined that the east and south were solely occupied by Indians and Ethiopians (without Persians, Egyptians, etc.), so he cannot be assumed to have believed that only Celts inhabited his "Celtic" quadrant. In fact, in another context, he distinguished between Celts and Iberians, although getting their relative proportions wrong according to Josephus and Strabo. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus, and Apollonius of Rhodes, also regard the Celts as a distinct people."
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. The location of the Celts according to Hecataeus, Herodotus, and other Greek writers, 2016.
So "Celtic" is not a greek nor latin word but actually a native Celtic name for western Iberian tribes.
1
-
@stgibbs86 "LOL but we dont call things today by what the romans called them, we use a new language, called english. You took that in high school, right? So yes, there are languages known as celtic. They are part of the celtic culture. Just as metatron said."
Nice try now, saying "celtic" with a lowercase C so as to pretend it's "just a modern English word and not totally a tribal name".
Listen, George Buchanan in 1582 introduced the word "Celt" to the English language as a word about people. Before that it was only used in poetry to talk about fields. And when George Buchanan did that, he said:
"[...][George Buchanan] thus argued for an Iberian origin for the Irish and the Scots. To support this he noted the name of Brigantia (A Coruna) in Spain, and the Britgantes of south-eastern Ireland and of northern England mentioned by Ptolemy. He may, however, have also been influenced by the long medieval tradition for the links with the Iberian peninsula. As the inhabitants of Spain were called Celts, he [George Buchanan in 1582] suggested a Celtic origin for the Irish and Scots. For southern Britain he suggested colonisation from northern Gaul, especially by the Belgae."
"In his Historia, Buchanan is the first author to suggest that the origin of some of the population of Ireland and the British Isles was Celtic. Only the Irish and Scots were strictly speaking Celtic, while the Britons and their successors, the Welsh, were Gallic or Belgic, and the Picts, though of Gallic origin and Gallic speaking, came from Germania."
Source: The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 40.
"For at first, the (a) Celtae, and the (b) Belgae did use a different Dialect, as Strabo thinks. Afterwards, when the Celtae sent abroad great Colonies into Spain, as the Names of the Celtiberi and Celtici do declare. And the Belgae made their descent into the Maritime parts of Britain, as may be collected from the Names of (c) Venta Belgarum, of the (d) Atrebates, and (e) Icceni"
Source: George Buchanan, 1582, The History of Scotland.
Hence, from the moment the name "Celt" entered the English language, it referred to the Celtici of Spain, who spanned all over western Iberia including Portugal.
There is no need to change the meaning of "Celt" to please the Irish and Scottish - and in fact the meaning is not being changed, as the lecture "Celts and the End of Roman Britain" by John Collis here on YouTube explains - the Irish and Scottish were only wrongly called "Celts" and they will no longer be called Celts in academia starting now or rather when Celtosceptic Patrick Sims-Williams became the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It doesn't work that way, however - people are not named after the language they speak, but on the contrary, languages are named after the people who first spoke them. That is why the Romans did not call themselves Latini just for speaking Latin (which they called Latine Lingua), but they called themselves Romans after the place they came from, and today we call the descendants of their language "Romance" after the "Romans", and we do not call "Romans" those French and Spanish people who speak "Romance". So as you can see the direction is people -> language. People name languages. Languages do not name people.
Not even the Romans themselves dared to call themselves "Latino" because they had enough respect not to steal the tribal name of the Latini from them. Everyone has a tribal name and there is no need to steal other people's tribe names through a web of linguistic confusion. If you are more Polish then you are not Latino, you're Polish. If you're more Ukrainian then you're not Latino, you're Ukrainian. And so on. You do not name yourself after a language, because academics name languages, and those are arbitrary, technical choices, not historical. If you do what you are doing, you end up with native Peruvians calling themselves "Hispanic" when they are 100% Quechua.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Inquisitor_Vex Hold on, that is not correct. The theory he presented is the one currently made mainstream in all of Celtic Studies by being the one held by its current president - that is, the current president of the International Congress of Celtic Studies. It is not about believing it. The only reason "Celts" and "Britons" were initially erroneously associated with each other is because the first scholars rushed through reading a Herodotus' passage on the Celts and misunderstood him to be locating the Celts at the true source of the Danube river.
No academic today defends that to be the correct reading of Herodotus anymore. Instead, it is clear that the Romans only discovered the source of the Danube much after Herodotus died, and that in his passage he is assuming that the Danube starts in the Pyrenees, in order for his point about that river dividing the whole European continent in half to work. Otherwise, it doesn't. Plus, the phrasing is clear in that he is talking about the westernmost parts of Europe, hence he could not be talking about the true source of the Danube, which is in Central Europe. And finally, he phrases it so as to anchor Celts knowingly as the westernmost people except for the Cynetes, and then says that the river Danube starts from Celtic lands, i.e. not the contrary, which would be saying that he knows where the Danube starts and that the Celts live nearby; in other words, he was using the Celts being westernmost to located the source of the Danube, and not using the source of the Danube to locate the Celts.
Will you please read Patrick Sims-Williams' paper "An alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West'"? If only you would read it, you would quickly understand.
Also, there were two more reasons to conflate Britons and Celts, but they are much more minor than the one I explained above. They are also explained in Sims-Williams' paper I suggested to you above. But for completeness, I will quickly summarize them.
The first other reason is the name Nyrax which scholars thought was Heuneberg, on the basis of Noreia sharing N and R with Nyrax. However, even Dechelette said that is not a good enough reason to consider Nyrax to be Noreia, because actually the vowels matter most. And nowadays with Nura, Nurra, Norace and other related places in Sardinia, not to mention the context of the passage in which Nyrax is cited, makes today's scholars confident that Nyrax was in Sardinia. Sardinia was also home to the Celsitani tribe, of PIE root *cels- which is the same as *celt and used in Iberia interchangeably with it. There were also continental Celtic tribes called Serdi and other Sardinian-cognate names.
The second reason was the existence of Celtic place names in Central Europe. However, all of those turned out to be too recent to prove any connection with any source population, much less Celts.
All I am saying is that Celt is an ethnic name which belongs to southwestern Europeans, not an academic word with which the Britannic peoples can shower themselves in, as they do not have any historical connection with it whatsoever.
Ancient people knew the name "Celts" at the same level as any other tribal name, like "Atrebates". The Romans mostly used the name Celt to refer to Iberian peoples - for Gauls and northern Italian tribes, the name Gallic, Gallian, Gallia was used. And I have already explained how Julius Caesar's Gallia Celtica was incorrectly named as per Strabo and Siculus. The Greeks also mainly use Keltoi, Keltikoi for southwestern Europeans, Iberians and southern French, while using Galatai for northern France, Germany and eastern Continental Europe. Also, Eratosthenes, Ephorus and Pseudo-Scymnus, all called "Celtica" the western part of Iberia, "outside the Pillars of Hercules". Finally, George Buchanan in 1582, the pioneer in coining the term "Celtic languages", suggested we should call the larger term "Gallic languages". He also said that the Celts are the Iberians because the Keltoi lived in southern France and they were related to the Celtici in Iberia, whereas he said the Britannic peoples were Belgian as the Belgae lived both there and in northern France. Hence he correctly identified what the genetic study I linked you concluded about northern France being Britannic and southern France being Celtic/Iberia in genes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "No one originally called themselves Celts."
Yes they did, western Iberians did: "It must also be significant that of the approximately 25 occurrences of the name Celtius in Hispania all of them come from Lusitania excepting one from Marañón (Navarra) on IRMN 53 8. All the occurrences of other names from the
stem kelt- such as Celtienus, Celtiatus, Celtiatis, Arceltius, Conceltius, etc. come from Western Hispania, too."
"Celtic was a culture and they were written about by both Greeks and Romans."
No, it wasn't, it was initially a tribal name just like "Illyrian" which then got expanded only some times in some Greeks and Romans only, while others like Siculus and Strabo always knew that Celts were tribes and corrected the wrong usage of Caesar and others.
"If in Western Iberia there was a group of Celts who eventually picked up the name Celt, it isn’t because they came up with the name themselves."
It is indeed they who came up with the name, and then Herodotus first picked it up (after Hecataeus) by identifying the Celts as living only west of the Strait of Gibraltar, which coincides perfectly with the tombstones of people names "Celt-" in western Iberia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crusaderACR Read Patrick Sims-Williams's paper entitled "An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West'".
He is the current President of the International Congress of Celtic Studies.
Long story short: The British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, were never called Celts historically. The same Greeks who lived among the Celts of Iberia and southern France also visited Britannia and Hibernia (Ireland) and they never identified the people there as Celts, even though they sometimes called even the Basques and Lusitanians Celts.
The British, Irish, etc, only started calling themselves Celts with the Romanticism movement of the 18th century which had lasting influences in academia up until today. These Romanticist ideas were usually associated with Biblical origins - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with British Israelism - as well as with Nordic people - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with Nordicism.
The now-known erroneous association between Celts and Hallstatt and La Tene came from only three facts, all of which have come to be refuted:
(1) Herodotus was misread to have located the Celts "at the source of the Danube river" which is correctly in modern-day southern Germany, when instead he said the opposite, i.e. he was trying to locate not the Celts by referring to the river Danube, but instead he was trying to locate the source of the river Danube by referring to the Celts. In other words, he had the location of the Celts secure in his mind, and the location of the source of the Danube was the thing in question which he was guessing where it started. Hence why he says with certainty that the Celts were the [1] westernmost people, [2] living beyond (western of, from the perspective of Greek sailors) the Straits of Gibraltar, and [3] neighbors of the Cynetes (who lived in modern-day southern Portugal), hence locating the Celts with 3 separate references without needing the source of the river Danube to locate them, and locating the Celts in Lusitania where currently the highest number and density of individuals named Celti have been found in local inscriptions, where it appears over a hundred times and which appears nowhere else more than once, and which also shows the idea of who was a Celt was not based on what language they spoke, but on blood relations. Therefore, Herodotus was not locating the Celts in southern Germany, but instead he was incorrectly locating the source of the Danube river in the Pyrenees (he says "Pyrene" also incorrectly), "in the land of the Celts" which he just described to be Iberia with 3 other references as I explained above.
(2) the "Celtic town of Nyrax" in one of the old Greek texts was incorrectly assumed to be the old town of Noreia in modern-day Austria. However, it turned out to be a town in Sardinia, again keeping with the theme of Celts being southwestern Europeans like southern French and western Iberians. In Sardinia there are many towns called Nura, Nora, Nurac, and Nurace.
(3) the Celtic place names in southern Germany and Austria were thought to be among the oldest, thereby proving the origin of the Celts to be there; however, those place names turned out to actually be among the most recent, from a Roman-time eastern migration of southeastern French Gauls.
Finally, the so-called Celtic languages were named incorrectly based on the now-known wrong conception that the modern-day Bretons are the direct descendants of the Gauls when in fact they are Medieval-Age British transplants from Britain. Indeed, the so-called Celtic languages were first called "Gallic languages" and if this had remained so, the British, Irish etc would have wrongly associated their identity with Gauls instead of wrongly associating it with Celts. As well, being a speaker of a language family does not make one that name of that language - for instance, being a Romance speaker does not make the Iberians or the Romanians "Romans". Just like speaking Latin did not make the Romans "the Latini" - instead, they knew they spoke the language of the tribe of the Latini, showing that language names came from people names, not the other way around. Hence, speaking a Celtic language cannot make the British, Irish etc "Celts" not only because Romance speakers are not "Romans", but because whatever language the Irish speak has to be called a word derived from the name of the Irish, hence "Irish" is also the name of their version of Gaelic, and should also be the name of their language family - something like Britanno-Hibernian would be fine. People name languages; languages do not name people.
I tried my best to summarize why the name "Celts" does not belong in any way, shape or form to the British and Irish etc according to the latest research which I cited above and invited you to read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SockAccount111 They did not. That is just something historians say because they have very little sources to go off of and need to come up with interesting stories to tell.
First of all, different cultures don't usually mix. The moors were genetically Natufian and of a newly-invented muslim religion. They were also much prouder of their ancestry than Iberians at the time, so that the moors would not want to mix their blood with that of the vanquished.
But most importantly, we know there was no mix because Iberian autosomal DNA still plots exactly in the same place it did in the Copper Age, much earlier than the moors' invasion of Iberia. Therefore whatever happened between the Copper Age, after Germanic people mixed with EEF southern Europeans to form the Bell-Beakers, and today, is as good as not having happened, as it had no effect on the current gene pool of Iberians.
In other words the only mixture that can be detected in Iberians is the Germanic admixture of 2,500 BC when Corded-Ware peoples of the Eastern Bell-Beaker culture entered Iberia which was 100% EEF at the time and mixed with them leaving them at 60% EEF and 40% Yamnaya.
Since the Copper Age, the gene pool of Iberians has remained constant and unchanged. However, the Iberians are not an exception - the gene pool of all of western Europe has not changed since 2,500 BC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@tired-boy I am not conflating culture and DNA, you are, by saying "Iberians are Latin" when that is only their language - not even their "culture".
"I've never heard a Portuguese claiming celtness instead of latinness, that you may have heard of Galicians, "
That is you. Portuguese people who are educate know that their ancestors called themselves Celts in their tombstones and personal pottery, and that the Father of History, Herodotus, first located the Celts in Lusitania, "next to the westernmost people of Europe, the Cynetes".
There is nothing "Latin" about any Iberian people. Their language is called Romance for a reason - and the Romans never called themselves "Latin" for that same reason - the reason being you don't use a TRIBAL, PEOPLE'S name as an adjective for language, culture, etc, because that waters down their name disrespectfully in the same way that calling razor blades "gillettes" waters down their brand name.
"not beacause of a distinct celt culture, but because they have a peripheric nationalism that want to distance themselves from the rest of Spain."
Oh, stop it. It is perfectly genuine to seek your own political independence when you are a separate people, and the Galicians and the Portuguese have been a Galaico-Lusitanian people for over 4,000 years now after the Bell Beakers started this.
Both Portuguese and Galicians rightfully claim their Celticity based on what their ancestors called themselves as can be verified by anyone online searching for "celt" in a free epigraphic database of ancient tombstones - most tombstones containing the four letter name C-E-L-T are located in Lusitania quite definitely.
"Nontheless it's been proven that a big chunk of modern day Iberians' DNA stem from celts"
Their whole DNA is Celtic by definition as 2,000 years ago they had the same DNA and they called themselves Celts. What the mixture is doesn't matter - a people in the past had this same DNA and called themselves Celts with this DNA and they were the ancestors of the Iberians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "the Irish are Celts by virtue of them speaking Celtic language."
I've already refuted this on my previous message. The French are not Romans for speaking a Romance language, hence the Irish cannot be Celts for speaking a Celtic language.
George Buchanan in 1582 only named Irish and Scottish as "Celtic languages" because according to him "the Celts came from Spain as their name Celtici there does show".
Before 1707 the Celts were normally associated with the Spaniards and other southwestern European peoples by everyone, including George Buchanan who first suggested the Celtic languages to be related, although he originally called them Gallic languages:
"[...][George Buchanan] thus argued for an Iberian origin for the Irish and the Scots. To support this he noted the name of Brigantia (A Coruna) in Spain, and the Britgantes of south-eastern Ireland and of northern England mentioned by Ptolemy. He may, however, have also been influenced by the long medieval tradition for the links with the Iberian peninsula. As the inhabitants of Spain were called Celts, he [George Buchanan in 1582] suggested a Celtic origin for the Irish and Scots. For southern Britain he suggested colonisation from northern Gaul, especially by the Belgae."
"In his Historia, Buchanan is the first author to suggest that the origin of some of the population of Ireland and the British Isles was Celtic. Only the Irish and Scots were strictly speaking Celtic, while the Britons and their successors, the Welsh, were Gallic or Belgic, and the Picts, though of Gallic origin and Gallic speaking, came from Germania."
Source: The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 40.
"For at first, the (a) Celtae, and the (b) Belgae did use a different Dialect, as Strabo thinks. Afterwards, when the Celtae sent abroad great Colonies into Spain, as the Names of the Celtiberi and Celtici do declare. And the Belgae made their descent into the Maritime parts of Britain, as may be collected from the Names of (c) Venta Belgarum, of the (d) Atrebates, and (e) Icceni"
Source: George Buchanan, 1582, The History of Scotland.
"How people who don't exist anymore referred to themselves 2,000 years ago isn't relevant."
But it's not true that the Celts "don't exist anymore and hence their name is up for grabs by foreign Brits", not at all..
In fact the descendants of the Celts - the people who actually called themselves Celts in western Iberia - still exist as the Portuguese and the Galicians. They are the only ones who can rightfully be called Celts and therefore you should stop trying to steal their name, legacy and cultural items.
"In modern day English Celt refers to speakers of a language family, not a specific ethnicity."
No language, not even "Modern day English", gets to define PROPER NOUNS. No langauge gets to define Names. You can define words, but not names. The name Celt is already taken by the ancestors of the Portuguese and the Galicians. Hence the Irish can only be known as Hibernians, Fenians, or whatever else they want, just not Celts, because that name is taken, and no language can steal a name and an identity from another people.
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "Celtic studies or Celtology is the academic discipline occupied with the study of any sort of cultural output relating to the Celtic-speaking peoples (i.e. speakers of Celtic languages). This ranges from linguistics, literature and art history, archaeology and history, the focus lying on the study of the various Celtic languages, living and extinct.[1] The primary areas of focus are the six Celtic languages currently in use: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton."
The current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Dr. Patrick Sims-Williams, agrees that the Irish and Scottish are not Celtic and that the Celts were an ethnicity whose ancestors have descendants today in the Protuguese and the Galicians. I sent you a lecture to watch about this for proof: Celts and the End of Roman Britain by John Collis here on YouTube on the Royal Archaeological Institute channel. Good luck, maybe you can learn something up-to-date.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stgibbs86 "LOL tell that to the gauls who migrated all over the place. Ever heard of galatians in the bible? It was written for a church in the province of galatia, a place in turkey named for the gauls, a group using the celtic culture, who moved there."
Both Gauls and Galatians called themselves "Galli" as both their names attest (Gaul isn't a name in antiquity, the name was Galli, not related to Gaul, but related to Galatians). Neither of them called themselves "Celts".
Only Victorian, Romanticist, Nordicist British academics ever called Gauls, Galatians, Irish and Scottish people "Celts".
Even the Ligures spoke Celtic and the Greeks made sure to call them "NOT a Celtic people".
1
-
@stgibbs86 "Seems you have a bias against the 1800s. Who cares when the term was coined, it exists and is an accurate representation of a valid idea."
That's just the point - it's important to know when it was coined because it was coined incorrectly:
> "The term 'Celtic' to describe the language group is an eighteenth-century innovation, and was due to a misconception that modern Breton was a survival of the language of the ancient Celts who lived in Gaul rather than a more recent introduction from Britain."
Source: Collis, James. The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 223.
"Thats what language is for bud."
No, language is not for "stealing the name of southwestern European tribes so that Irish and Scottish people can shower themselves in that name they never used in their entire history just because they dislike their native names of Hibernian and Caledonian". No, it's not for that.
"Yes culture absolutely exists, there is no denying that. Irish culture is different from scottish which is different from english, different from russia, different from arabian, different from african, different from native american and so on and so forth."
But the concept of "kulturgruppe" that was invented in the 19th century and which is responsible for the false labels "celtic culture" and "celtic language" is a false concept. Please watch here on youtube the video "Celts and the End of Roman Britain" by John Collis where he explains all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OPEN LETTER TO METATRON:
In your "Were the Ancient Romans Nordic? The Truth" video, at 8:37, you said:
"But the wars between the Romans and the Gauls in both Cisalpine Gaul and Gallia Narbonensis brought into home Celtic slaves, therefore Nordic, if you will"
At 9:13 you repeat this idea that slaves from the "Celtic world" would have brought "Nordic types" to Rome.
Please make a publicly official correction to this statement.
There is not, nor has there ever been, "Nordic" Celts in Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis.
Strabo (Geographia 4.1.1, 4.1.14, 4.4.1) and Diodorus Siculus (V.32.1), and Posidonius (cited by Strabo and Siculus) all say that the Celtic race south of the Alps was not the same as the Gallic race north of the Alps; in other words, that it was clear even then, that the Narbonenses and the Cisalpines were of the same southwestern European ethnicity as those Celts in Iberia whose descendants are modern-day Iberians.
And what race was that? Well, Polybius in Historiae, Book 34, Chapter 9, Section 3, Line 3, tells us:
"And in terms of the prosperity of the land, both the pleasantness and the political stability followed the Turdetani, and with the Celts due to their proximity, as Polybius has stated, because of their kinship."
Hence, the Celts were of the same ethnicity as the extreme southwestern Europeans of southwestern Portugal.
What you said, that "if you will, Celts being brought into Rome from Gallia Cisalpine and Gallia Narbonensis brought Nordic blood into Rome", is a patent lie, a misunderstanding of basic history, and a continuation of Nordicist claims against the heritage of the modern-day people of southern France whose ancestors called themselves Celts (according to emic evidence such as personal pottery items, votive altars and tombstones, not according to disparate etic Greco-Roman sources).
My patience is really running thin with you disgracing the history and heritage of the Celts and assigning them to the Nordic people.
If you do not correct your statement publicly and I have to end up doing that, I will definitely put you in your place such that your audience forever knows what a careless researcher you are.
You say you hire a team to help you make these videos - why don't you hire me to help with sources to do with the Celts? There is no one in the world more familiar with every piece of evidence to do with the Celts than I am.
FYI I am participating in a decade-long project that will revise every single mention of the Celts in all of history from the Greco-Roman sources to today's scholars, and our publication will make sure that every incompetent scholar who has opined on the Celts from a position of authority will have their name dragged in mud through a meticulous autopsy of every single thing they have said about the Celts and how exactly they did a disservice to their audience by being able to easily know the truth but choosing not to, and choosing to continue to listen to Nordicist, Victorian, Romanticist British sources for information on the Celts.
Mark my words, this project will upend "Celts", and if you are no found to be putting out correct information on the Celts, you will be exposed as a fraudulent scholar and as a cavalier, intolerant person, for continuing to slander the Celts through the Nordicist myth perpetrated by Romanticist, Victorian British scholars.
I am very disappointed in you for showing no respect to your southwestern European Celtic brothers and sisters. You keep giving their name and heritage away to the Nordics just like the British did. All of that is wrong and the time is coming where you will have to answer to your audience for your lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1