Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
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