General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Metatron
comments

Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "I HAD to Make a Response to This..." video.

@noelienoelie8425 Celt is not just a Roman word for outsider - it is the native name of western Iberian tribes. Stop repeating these outdated myths.
22
@edgar7456 Nothing makes the Gaels "Celtic". They never called themselves "Celts" and never knew themselves as such. Only modern academics incorrectly call them so.
8
@FaithfulOfBrigantia The Gaels are not Celts. No one ever called them Celts. Speaking a Celtic language doesn't make one Celt, just like speaking Romance doesn't make the French roman.
7
What cultural heritage? The Irish have only been incorrectly called "Celts" since the 16th century. Certainly no ancient Roman or Greek ever called them Celts, so again - what heritage?
4
@Seanain_O_hEarchai Yes. Gaelic people have nothing "Celtic" about their history. Their languages only started being called Celtic in the 17th century and only by a minority of scholars. John Collis, current Celtic Scholar, points out that languages are named after people, not the other way around. Hence Scottish and Irish cannot be called Celts even if they speak a so-called "Celtic Langauge" just like the Romans did not call themselves "Latini" for speaking Latin, they called themselves Romans after the place they came from, not the language they spoke, and the languages from the Romans today are called Romance, and their speakers today are not called Roman, so just the same Celtic speakers cannot be called "Celts". Irish people are Hibernians and speakers of Hibernian and Scottish people are Caledonians and speakers of Caledonian. The name "Celt" is not a part of the history of those peoples.
4
@kekeke8988 Gaelic is not Celtic. It was first called Gallic. It is actually Gallic, and not Celtic.
4
This video itself is a great example of that - the Irish are not actually Celtic, but this host keeps repeating that.
3
That is the excuse phrase British use to steal the name of the Celts from the Lusitanians and the western Iberians.
3
@loairn That is the question they avoid, my friend. I can tell you know your history.
3
@loairn The answer is no, the Greco-Roman historians never called any British Islander or Irish person "Celt". That name was reserved for Iberians and southern French.
3
@IrishColin "Iberians ended up with Celtic culture the SAME way that the Irish did. " Not the same way at all - the Iberians called themselves Celts in personal name and tribe names, such as Celtici and Celti. The Irish never knew about that name until the 17th century. There has never been a "Celtic culture". Since the beginning, when Herodotus first identified the Celts as "the westernmost people of Europe bordering on the Cynetes" (of southern Portugal, hence the Celts being the Lusitanians), the Celts have always been the western Iberians, and then there's tons of British Islanders and Irish people trying to falsify this history in order to steal their name, and that is what you're doing here, trying to find any excuse to not look at originally how people called themselves, because you know that the evidence is not on your side of course, and because it is convenient to you.
3
@revilo178 The Sun being a star is a definitional matter. But when it comes to people's identities, what matters is self-identification, and those who called themselves Celts in ancient times were Iberians, not Irish.
3
@Seanain_O_hEarchai "Celt" is not a cultural grouping, that idea is a modern one from Romanticist British scholars in the 17th century. Ancient Romans and especially Greeks used "Celts" as a tribal name to refer to people from Iberia and those similar to them in southern France. There were no "culture names" in ancient times, only tribal names.
3
@YSLRD Metatron is falling for Romanticist takes here. The Irish are not Celts, all academics know that today.
3
@viljamtheninja Hi, thanks for the interest. 1. Yes I did watch the video fully. 2. I am against post-modernism. 3. the current association between Irish and Celts is actually Romanticist and has a "post-modern" attitude in it, which has already been reviewed by academics. 4. the current president of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, who regulates all Celtic Studies in universities, agrees that the Irish are not Celts and that Celts were tribes living in western Iberia who called themselves Celts. Any questions? I have references for anything you want.
3
@kekeke8988 Exactly, thank you for thinking. Metatron being Italian is insensitive to the peoples his ancestors conquered - the Celts of Iberia and southern France, the peoples who actually called themselves Celts, not the modern fiction of "linguistic and cultural Celts" that even Metatron is now agreeing with and that I am happy to see some of his audience reject, like you. Thank you for giving me some hope that there are still thinking people.
3
Oldest Celtic language is Lusitanian, as shown by its retention of the initial-P.
3
You're correct! How do you know so confidently the Irish are not Celts? George Buchanan in 1582 said he was only calling Irish and Scottish "Celtic languages" because he believed they were brought to Ireland and Scotland by the Ancient Spaniards who called themselves Celtici at the time. So he never meant to say "the Irish are Celts" but instead "the Spanish are Celts and they brought their Celtic language to Ireland therefore Irish is (a) Celtic (language)". He also never said "therefore the Irish are Celts", that came in the 19th century.
2
Yes, but the Hallstatt and LaTene are not Celts anyway, that theory is already outdated - please read the paper "An alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams who is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
2
Absolutely correct. The video is of very poor quality of research. On top of everything you said, and as alluded by the Irish Times article you mentioned, the theory that the Irish are Celts is an outdated, Romanticist, Victorian point-of-view, and no longer valid to being with. Patrick Sims-Williams is a Celtosceptic - meaning he rejects the Irish are Celts - and he is the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies which regulates all academic Celtic Studies.
2
The Irish are not Celtic, my friend. No ancient historian ever called them Celts. They were known as Hibernians.
2
@nobody-y7i1r No one in ancient times called the Irish Celtic, so the Irish are not Celtic. Speaking a Celtic language doesn't make anyone Celtic, just like speaking Romance doesn't make the French "Romans". The Irish people are called Hibernian and their language is Hibernian. The Scottish people are Caledonian and their language is Caledonian.
2
@irishwoman3975 There actually were people who called themselves Celts - yes, they called themselves Celts without having to wait for the Greeks and the Romans to call them anything - and they lived where today is Portugal. The Portuguese are the direct descendants of those people who called themselves Celts. There were no other tribes in Europe who called themselves Celts, only that were erroneously called so by one or two ancient Roman or Greek.
2
Excellent response from a true Irish. You're one of the few people who took into consideration the matter of self-identification, otherwise known as "what people call themselves". As you expertly explained, never in the history of the Irish did they ever refer to themselves as Celts. The people who did refer to themselves as Celts are, unexpectedly to some, the Lusitanians, as can be seen easily from any epigraphic database online by searching for "celt" and observing the massive concentration of tombstones with that name in the exact area of Lusitania.
2
@drakron It's still relevant because Celts were Iberians and the Irish were and are no Iberians.
2
@martinjackman2943 Let's pick Herodotus, then. He doesn't say Celts are in Ireland. He says Celts are the westernmost people except for the Cynetes. The Cynetes lived in southern Portugal. Next to them were the Lusitanians who actually called themselves Celts. Hence Herodotus was clearly talking about the Lusitanians as being the Celts. Your move.
2
The French language has very few words from Celtic. Portuguese is the Romance language with most Celtic words by far, over six times the amount that French has.
2
His video is not spot on, it is actually completely wrong and outdated. Would you like to talk to me about it?
2
@brettrichards2972 George Buchanan in 1582 while coining the term "Celtic languages" acknowledge the Celts come from Spain where they are called Celtici. The Iberians are the foremost Celts, the actual Celts, the genetic, ethnic Celts. If there's such a thing as "cultural Celt" and "linguistic Celt" then I guess the Irish and Scottish are it but it's silly to stretch those terms, the Irish and Scottish already have their native tribal names to denote themselves, namely Hibernian and Caledonian.
2
@brettrichards2972 The Irish were never called Celts. Why would they be Celts? Because linguists in the 17th century made a naming mistake? What do you care to mix your ethnic identity with the opinions of academic linguists? You have to search that far for a connection with the name "Celt"? Because the Portuguese just have those names in the tombstones of their own ancestors in their own country, no need to ask for a linguist to name your language the name of a foreign tribe to get that name!
2
@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 "@kekeke8988, If those Somalis stay in Sweden for 1,000+ years, adopt the Nordic culture and language for 1,000+ years, and they and their descendants intermarry with the current population 1,000+ years, then YES 1,000 years from now their descendants will be Norse. That’s the fair and accurate comparison by the way." I disagree. One tribe does not become another. Somalis will forever be Somalis. Norse will forever be Norse. If they mix 50-50 they will be NorseSomali but not just one or the other.
2
You said it better than Metatron. "As another historian YouTuber put it, calling the Gaels and Britons "Celts" is a bit like calling anyone who spoke a Germanic language or had a Germanic culture "Germans";" Yes, this is correct and was completely missed by Metatron. Languages don't name people. People name languages - meaning, languages are named after people, not the other way around.
1
By the way the Celts were not the Gauls, but the western Iberians - in particular the Lusitanians who called themselves Celts, they were only known as Lusitanians by outsiders. The Gauls knew themselves as "Gallic" which is why France is known as "Gallia" and not "Celtia".
1
"and since as far as we know (assuming I'm recalling correctly), no peoples in the British Isles ever called themselves Celts, and no contemporaries from the time of Pliny the Elder in antiquity through the late Middle Ages/early modern era ever called the Gaels and Britons Celts, despite their language and culture." You nailed it here. Right on!
1
You are so wrong. 1. "before the Visigoths and Latins, there was a Celtic influence in Iberia" No, there was no "Celtic influence in Iberia". Rather, the Iberians were the Celts. They called themselves Celts in their own personal items and tombstones, altars and so on. It was not "an influence" - they WERE Celts like no one else in Europe was, since only the western Iberians called themselves Celts and no one else did. 2. " thus calling the people of that time the Celtiberians." Only what today is Spain was called Celtiberia, minus Galicia. What today is Portugal and Galicia was called Celtica. 3. "But I dont think the Celts left too much of a linguistic nor cultural influence as compared to the Visigoths. " Actually the Celtic vocabulary in Portuguese is the largest of any Romance language, having at least six times as many Celtic words as French and with Celtic being the first non-Italic vocabulary in Portuguese in size ahead of the Germanic vocabulary. 4. "Many names and families in Spain and Portugal hail from Visigothic origins" And many more have a Celtic origin.
1
No Gaelics are Celts, because Gaelic people were never called Celt. George Buchanan in 1582 was the first person to call Gaels "Celts" and he did that explicitly because, as he said, the Celts came from Spain, where they were called the Celtici, and brought their Celtic language to Scotland and Ireland.
1
We can't make theories around off chances.
1
Clearly it's the Irish who are jealous of the Portuguese Celtic roots - after all the only tribes who called themselves "Celts" in their own tribe names and personal names lived in Lusitania as can be verified by anyone online for free by searching for "celt" in any online epigraphic database. None of this is new or a mystery or hidden from the public - it's just that the public is largely uninterested in the truth and only interested in lies that paint them in a good light, such as the Irish as being Celts which was never the case historically.
1
South Africans are not African genetically, they are British genetically (those descended from the British, in this example). Anything else is post-modernism. You are being implicitly led to accept post-modernism by accepting the Irish are "Celtic" just because they "do Celtic things" (like speak a Celtic language).
1
The Swedish and the Irish are basically the same ethnicity.
1
Exactly. You're thinking. He is just repeating outdated arguments about the Celts that the International Congress for Celtic Studies no longer defend.
1
He is the one denying a people exist, and he doesn't even notice it.
1
That theory has already been debunked.
1
"Welsh contains very little Latin" ? You must be joking.
1
@miastupid7911 Who was it by?
1
Congratulations for knowing that the connection between the Irish and British Isles and the Celts was a Victorian invention. Few know that and are still deluded about their own ethnicity which they think they care about.
1
Celtic DNA is Iberian DNA because the western Iberians were the first and only people to call themselves Celts in their personal items and cemetery stones.
1
You are the ones disrupting the Iberian sense of Celticity by stealing their name.
1
" In truth the Celts were a multicultural and ethnically diverse civilization" You joke, but that is exactly the view Metatron is defending in this video - that Celts "were a culture of multiple ethnicities".
1
The most Celtic people are currently the Portuguese because they're the only people with ancestors who actually called themselves "Celts" by name and tribe name - Celtici, Celti, etc. No one else in Europe called themselves "Celts". There is in fact nothing "Celtic" about the Scottish and their history does not include the name "Celt".
1
And they never once say "Celts". The Irish are not Celts - that name is not a part of Irish history.
1
@IrishColin " The term Celtic was used by the Greeks to describe a culture that a bunch of tribes in southern Gaul (modern day France)." Herodotus said: "The Celts are the westernmost people of Europe, bordering the Cynetes". The Cynetes lived in southern Portugal. The Lusitanians were the bordering tribe. The Lusitanians have the highest density of tombstones with personal names using the name "Celt" and with tribes using the name "Celt". The Lusitanians have the highest density of personal pottery and votive altars referencing owners and dead people named "Celt". "These tribes spread that culture to Iberia and Ireland amongst others." This did not happen. See "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Ind-European languages" by the Max Planck Institute from two weeks ago in order have that assertion of yours refuted. No, the Iberians have been speaking Celtic since the beginning, no southern French needed to go there to give them anything. "It doesn't matter what they called themselves, what matters is that they adopted the culture that was known as Celtic." This is "harmonious thinking" but not "logical thinking". The only definition of identity is self-ascription - what people call themselves. The only people in ancient times who called themselves Celts were the Lusitanians as can be seen by anyone searching "celt" in any online epigraphic database - they're free, try it yourself! And there's no such thing as "a culture known as Celtic", especially if the "known" part is only by people who are ignorant of the fact and being educated by uninformed Nordicist Victorian Romanticist scholars. "I can't self identify as a monkey and have it come true. " And yet your scholars have artificially called your language "Celtic" (when it is in fact Hibernian or Caledonian) to justify calling you Celtic (instead of the Spanish Celtici which even George Buchanan identified as the original Celts in 1582 when he coined the term "Celtic languages"). "Using his logic then the Mexican and Southern American people wouldn't be Spanish if they didn't call themselves Spanish but hat wouldn't be true. They have the language and the culture as well as shared lineage from intermixing of the populations so therefore they would be Spanish no matter what they called themselves." You are correct about my position here. No American is "Spanish" unless they are genetically of Iberian stock. Speaking "Spanish" doesn't make anyone "Spanish" just like speaking Romance is not making modern-day Romans out of anyone today. "A good example is you can be Columbian and Spanish at the same time, one is a cultural identity and one is an ethnic identity. The same goes for the Irish. Gaelic is heavily influenced by the Celtic culture." So long as you know that the Gaels are only CULTURALLY celtic (if there's such a thing) while the original, ethnic Celts are the Lusitanians who were the only people in ancient times who actually called themselves Celts by personal name and tribe - and to be CLEAR I am not saying their tribe names and personal names "were Celtic", I am saying their tribe names and personal names used the four-letters C-E-L-T in their names all the time.
1
Metatron is not aware that there was an ethnic Celtic people because he still believes the Romanticist Victorian Nordicist narrative.
1
The Irish and the Welsh are not Celtic. They were "made Celtic-speakers" by the Victorian Romanticist Nordicist scholars of the 17th century. Before that, even George Buchanan who coined the term "Celtic languages" in 1582 knew that "the Spanish are the Celts on the grounds of the Celtici tribe being from there" and his belief that tribe migrated to Ireland and Scotland was his only reason to call Irish and Scottish "Celtic".
1
Unfortunately the explanation is not correct. Celts were not a "culture" and there were no "name dcultures" in antiquity the way modern academics talk about. Celts were tribes living in western Iberia and southern France and their name became wrongly associated with a language family.
1
So the Irish really have nothing to do with the Celts.
1
@IrishColin Incorrect. Just go to any online epigraphic database and search for "celt" and you don't have to believe me - you will se with your own eyes who the Celts were.
1
Ireland was never Celtic, it was and is Hibernian.
1
There is nothing Celtic in the British Isles. No one in ancient times every called the British or the Irish "Celts".
1
@Wolfways But the direct descendants of the Celts, namely the Portuguese, still exist, so why not use the name Celts for the Portuguese and stop using it incorrectly for the British and Irish?
1
@Wolfways No, "Celt" is not a name to be distributed willy-nily like that. It was a tribal name used only by the western Iberian tribes. Look it up in epigraphic archives. I can give you links if you want but any will work. The Portuguese have nothing "para-celtic" about them. The tribes residing in now-Portugal were the only in the whole of Europe to actually call themselves "Celts". You can't devise an academic scheme where all of a sudden the only tribe who actually called themselves "Celts" (the Lusitanians) are no longer "Celts". That doesn't make any sense. Why not keep the names with the people who originally used them? The name "Celt" never entered ancient British history, only in the 17th century. No British or Irish has any right to call themselves "Celt".
1
@mandowarrior123 It is admittedly hard to come up with a word to describe the collective similarity of Western Bell-Beaker descendants. You could simply called them by the two major groups they form: Gallics and Celts - Gallics were the northern French, the Belgians and the British Islandes and Irish historically, while Celts historically were the people from Provence to Portugal. Celt is not Greek, it was natively used by western tribes in Iberia who called themselves variously Celtici, Celti, etc. Those native names were not given by Greeks. In fact they were even used in personal names by the Lusitanians who called themselves "Celt" in their personal pottery, votive altars and tombstones. No academic today defends that "Celt" is a foreign word - it is today known - and anyone can verify in any free epigraphic database online without even having to go to your local library - that the Lusitanians called themselves "Celts" natively and were only known as "Lusitanians" territorially and exonymically.
1
@IrishColin The video is not the boss of nature. In nature there are different peoples who name themselves different names. The Irish and Scottish never named themselves Celts in ancient times - the ancestors of the Portuguese did. The video dispels the myth that the Irish are Celts, which they are not. That is a Victorian and Romanticist view which comes from Nordicism. I would never say Cleopatra was black. She was of an Amazigh ethnicity. There was no Moroccan Empire in America. I have plenty of evidence to show you if you want. Have you read Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination by Stuart Piggott where an academic first debunked this Victorian romanticist notion that British Islanders and Irish are Celts? What about its academic successor The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention by Simon James, have you read that important work? Or how about The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions, by John Collis - a pivotal work for this discussion - have you read it? Do you know Patrick Sims-Williams is a Celtosceptic (meaning he rejects that the Irish are Celts) and he is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies which regulates ALL academic Celtic Studies degrees? Did you know any of that and are you sure you are equipped to have this discussion? What do you really need me to cite for you specifically that you don't already know, assuming you're familiar with the few works I've cited?
1
@IrishColin By the way here is a prefect response for your attitude, by another person who agrees with me: @kekeke8988 11 minutes ago (edited) @jboss1073 Then Somalis born in Sweden are true Norseman by Metatron's logic if only culture matters. I'm surprised he's against blackwashing. By the same token, Afro-British are just as Anglo-Saxon as everyone else. What's his issue with Englishmen representing English historical figures? You are defending the same "we can be Celts because culturally we're Celts" that the leftists defend in order to call Somali people "Swedish".
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
The Irish are not actually Celts, no one in ancient times every called them Celts. When they talked of Celts they were talking about Iberians and southern French people.
1
Correct. Metatron did not take the time to understand the context of the article because he is not familiar with the history of the controversy of the name "Celt" in academia.
1
""Celt" has long been established as a cultural rather than genetic appellation. " That is part of the old "Hallstatt and La Tene == Celts" theory. That theory is outdated and has been superseded. The Irish no longer have any Celtic links that academics support. Celts were not a cultural appelation - culture groups as an idea started in the 19th century. Ancient peoples saw race and ethnicity. The ethnic Celts were the Lusitanians because they were the only tribe using the name "Celt" in their personal names and tribe names (Celtici, Celti, Celtiatus, Celtius, etc).
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
@stgibbs86 " Bro, they used celtic culture and spoke a celtic language, thats literally what makes one a celt" Bro, "celtic culture" and "celtic language" were concepts invented in the 19th century along with the concept of "cultural groups". Proper nouns in antiquity were used for ethnicites and tribes, not for "cultures" and "languages". The Celts were a people called Celts living in western Iberia and their descendants today are the Portuguese and the Galicians.
1
@johnnonamegibbon3580 "This suggest to John T. Koch about ten or more years ago, that Celts are a mix of three proto Celtic tribes. One from the British Isles, one From Central Europe, and many from Spain. Spaniards used to speak a from of Scottish before the Romans too over. It's not that the Celts aren't Irish, it's that the Celts are a mix of three larger European tribes." No. Only one of those "three tribes" called themselves Celts - those in Iberia. Those in Britain called themselves Britannic, Caledonic and Hibernic, and those in Central Europe called themselves Gallians (Galli) and never Celts. Tribes who called themselves Celts only existed in Iberia.
1
@markiec8914 " @edgar7456 Celtic or Germanic are cultural groupings rather than racial ones. The ancient Irish and British Celts were notably different from, say, the Celtiberians of Spain or Insubri of Northern Italy. Yet they all shared similar cultural traits and beliefs system. But that's just my opinion... " Your opinion is wrong. Celtic and Germanic are not "cultural groupings rather than racial ones". On the contrary, the 19th century academics when creating the concept of "cultural groups" attempted to stamp out the Germanic and Celtic ethnicities and their origins without succeeding. The Germanics were a tribe (they called themselves "Germani" in their tombstones) and the Celtics were a tribe (they called themselves "Celti" in their tombstones). What you should ask yourself is why in the 19th century some academics decided that just Celtic and Germanic should cease to represent their original populations and become silly academic labels.
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
Well said.
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
This is the same thinking that is calling Somali people "Swedish" in Sweden and it is wrong and unnatural.
1
Correct.
1
You are correct. Specifically, the people who called themselves Celts by tribe name and personal name were the Lusitanians, as anyone can verify online by searching any epigraphic database for "celt" and observing that most of the results are concentrated in a single area in the region of Lusitania. This also happens to be the exact place that Herodotus first identified as the country of the Celts, "the westernmost people in Europe except for the Cynetes" who were in southern Portugal outside Lusitania and bordering it.
1
Agreed. That is correct. And even George Buchanan in 1582 admitted the Irish and Scottish could only be said to speak Celtic languages because those languages were brought there "by the Celts of Spain who call themselves Celtici". Those wore the original Celts as identified by Herodotus and the only Celts who self-identified as such in their personal items and cemeteries.
1
The Irish never called themselves Celts and were never called Celts by anyone in ancient history. They're not Celts.
1
You got it. Saying "Celts don't exist" is the actual ethnic cleansing here. Metatron is ignorantly doing what he preaches against.
1
He is 100% incorrect. The Max Planck Institute just released a genetic-linguistic study that everyone is talking about and which invalidates what the host of this video just said. This directly contradicts Metatron's idea that there can be no genetic-linguistic studies.
1
@stevenkobb156 Listen, the studies that Metatron criticized in the video are garbage and I agree with Metatron's criticism. I just wish he then would have said "now, outside of those news, the Irish are not really Celtic because no one in ancient times ever called them such, and there were actual tribes who called themselves Celts in Iberia".
1
@stevenkobb156 If you want to check out the Max Planck Institute research I cited, it's called "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages".
1
Your TLDR is incorrect, because your definition of "Celtic" is incorrect. Please read Patrick Sims-Williams pivotal paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the West and Celtic from the East". The Irish have nothing to do with the name "Celt". The only people in ancient times who called themselves Celts were Lusitanians as anyone can verify in any free, online epigraphic database by searching "celt" and observing the location of the results.
1
You are right about it being a Victorian invention (finally someone here who knows this) but not right about the Celts being a "culture" - the name "Celt" was first used natively by tribes in western Iberia - today's Galicia and Portugal - to call themselves in their tribal names and personal names. Herodotus himself first located the Celts "as the westernmost people of Europe bordering on the Cynetes" which is exactly where the Lusitanians are. The Lusitanians called themselves "Celts" in their own tombstones.
1
The theory that Irish are Celts was also supported by ONE CASE, ONE PASSAGE, namely a misreading of Herodotus. Outside that ONE CASE there was really nothing connecting the Irish to the Celts - and there still isn't.
1
Exactly. How Metatron missed this is insane. John Collis makes this exact point in his lecture Celts And The End Of Roman Britain, available here on YouTube.
1
No. None of those people would recognize the word "Celt" if you said it to them. The only people in antiquity who called themselves Celts were the Lusitanians. You can verify that yourself online by going to any epigraphic database and searching for the name "celt". The others were called "Gallic" peoples. Not Celtic.
1
Why would the Irish be Celtic if no one knew their ancestors as Celts? The people called "Celts" by ancient Greeks and Romans were located in Portugal.
1
Good question. The answer is, there is proof that there was a Celtic people who called themselves Celts. Go to any epigraphic database online and search for "celt". You will see they lived only in Lusitania. Sorry that doesn't fit with your expectations.
1
Brazilians are not Latin, not even the Romans had the audacity to call themselves "Latin" and they were the first to speak Latin outside of the Latini tribe who invented the language. I wonder how dare modern people call themselves Latino when not even the Romans called themselves that. Unbelievable amount of disrespect. I wonder why a people would so quickly steal the name of a foreign tribe for themselves instead of using their own native tribal names.
1
@TheBusyHoneyBee "Portuguese, spanish, french, italian are all latin languages from latin people. " And what I'm saying is that that is WRONG. Not even the Romans themselves DARED to called THEMSELVES "Latinos" since they RESPECTED the actual Latini tribe who lived there. They called their language "Lingua Latina" giving credit to the Latini, INSTEAD of STEALING the name of the Latini for themselves and taking credit themselves. Do you see the difference? You should not bathe yourself in the glory of another tribe's name, that is impious. You told a whole story but when were the Latini involved there? Never. Oh, because they birthed the language a long time ago? And how does that give some Brazilian the right to call themselves Latino? Again, NOT EVEN THE ROMANS DARED CALL THEMSELVES LATINO. How DARE YOU?
1
Also he is still repeating outdated Romanticist Victorian Nordicist myths about the Celts, so his attention to detail is not that great. Most of what he said has already been refuted by the current president of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
1
That is what a post-modernist would say. No, "Celtic" is not up for grabs by language and culture. It is an ethnic, tribal name reserved for the western Iberians who first used it for themselves, as you can verify for yourself by searching "celt" in any epigraphic database online.
1
@alpharius8264 " @jboss1073 : Uetymology is not the same as definition. By that logic, we should only use the term "Greek" for the inhabitants of the city-state from which the name is derived. " Please stop this desperation of trying to find an excuse fort the Irish to be Celts. They aren't and they never were. No amount of your acrobatic arguments will make the Irish "Celts". People are not named after languages. The example of Greek you gave is not parallel to this Celt issue, because no one is stealing the name "Greek" from anyone - "Greek" is an exonym and the Greeks themselves call themselves "Hellenes".
1
Why?
1
"The Irish are certainly Celts in every sense, including racial - they come from tribes of people of archaeological la Tene culture who came to the Irish islands and not just speak one of the Celtic languages" Wrong. That "Hallstatt and La Tene" equals "Celtic" is an outdated theory already - simply read a paper called "an alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams, the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, and you will learn this. The Irish are in no way genetically Celtic as they never called themselves Celt in any time of their history.
1
"look further understandable that they found what is called "Neolithic farmers" the ancestors of southern Europeans from the Middle East are, of course, not Celts or Indo-Europeans at all. " What nonsense. The EEF people were obviously Indo-European and in no way related to Middle Easterners.
1
No ancient historian ever called the Irish "Celts".
1
Nothing is being protected here, he is ignorantly contributing to British Romanticists from the 17th century who stole the name "Celts" from the Iberians. Watch Celts and The End of Roman Britain and you will learn something up-to-date.
1
Irish mythology NEVER mentions the name "Celts".
1
Almost right. "The term Celtic is meaningless" is another way that the British use to dismiss the real Celts from Iberia.
1
"Still, the CULTURE which prevails in Ireland is clearly Celtic" This is begging the question. How do you know the culture in Ireland is "clearly Celtic"? You cannot assume what you intend to prove.
1
The "Hallstatt and La Tene" being (pre-)Celtic theory is completely outdated today - please read the paper "An alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams who is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
1
@garnix6390 The "Hallstatt and La Tene" being (pre-)Celtic theory is completely outdated in the Archeological Field today - please read the paper "An alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams who is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
1
@garnix6390 Did you read the paper? Saying "Nope it isn't" isn't a refutation. Read the paper and refute it.
1
The Spanish and the Portuguese are the only genetically Celtic peoples. All others do not have ancestors who called themselves "Celts" by tribe name and personal name the way the Iberians did. The Iberians only changed languages but they did not change their Celtic DNA as you correctly pointed out.
1
@martinjackman2943 "The greeks referred to all those populations North of the Balkans as 'kelto'i which translates as hidden or unknown .." Not true - quote the passage you base that assertion on. It doesn't exist.
1
Exactly that. @dannyboywhaa3146
1
Who ever called the Irish Celts in Antiquity? Answer: no one. Therefore they are not Celts.
1
@lrdr5404 "Even the modern Irish don’t really identify as Celts either. Sure, it’s the name for the language group and It’s used as a convenient term in some other cultural contexts, but it’s not meaningfully an identity for Irish individuals." You are absolutely correct and thank you for saying that. On the other hand, the Portuguese and the Galician fiercely identify as Celts and will point out all the tribes and personal names in tombstones found in ancient Iberia with names bearing the four letters C-E-L-T. They are the only people in Europe with so many personal names and tribe names using the name "Celt" for themselves. From the lack of meaningfulness the Irish have towards the name Celt (correctly so, after all it's not theirs) and from the passion with which the Portuguese and Galicians defend their Celticity (also importantly considering all the evidence they present from first-hand tombstones and personal pottery) it is clear who are the real Celts and who are the people who are either being forced the label "Celtic" on or who are ignorantly parading it - not you, of course.
1
@revilo178 "Are we allowed to call the Greeks "Greeks" anymore or should we say "Hellenes"? Can we still say "India" or do we have to say "Bharat"?" Once again: "Greek" is an exonym. "Indian" is an exonym. "Celt" was NEVER an exonym for the Irish and Scottish. I hope this has made it simple enough for you to understand.
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
"I watched a talk the other day where the “expert” was mind blown by the fact that the ancient Celts were a bunch of different groups and not 1 giant monolith. " Because that is incorrect. That is the old, outdated, debunked, nordicist, victorian, romanticist idea perpetrated in the 17th century by British scholars. None of it is true. The Celts were a single tribe who called themselves Celts like no other tribe did for themselves. That tribe was known to others - the outsiders - as Lusitanians. To themselves - they called themselves Celts, as you can verify yourself for free online by searching any epigraphic database for "celt" and watching the results land almost only in Lusitania.
1
@Inquisitor_Vex WE might have. I think the only X lived wherever people called X lived in ancient times. For Celts, that is western Iberia. Nowhere else can we find a people that called themselves Celts in epigraphic and ceramic pottery.
1
The so-called "Celtic languages" are only modernly known this way and that name was coined by academics in the 17th century. Before that, languages used to be named after the people who spoke them, so that the language of the Irish was called Irish or Hibernian after their name from Classical Times. So the language being called "Celtic" does not imply anything since that naming was artificially done by academics in modern times. Not to mention that those languages were first called "Gallic languages" and only later were they called "Celtic languages" so does that mean the Irish were Gaulish for a while and then not?
1
The Scottish history does not include the name "Celts". So they're not really Celts. Just the academics "made them so".
1
@AnthropomorphicTrilobite I'm not talking about "words" which are "improper nouns" but about names which are "proper nouns". A German is a German from the beginning of the Germanic people until today and it shouldn't change because "today is different than yesterday". So is the case with Celts - the Celts today are the same as the Celts who called themselves Celts in antiquity, namely the Portuguese, and outside of that everyone is practicing cultural appropriation by stealing their native tribal name and claiming it for themselves under the excuse that "the professors of my British country called my language Celtic therefore I am the Celts of the ancient times and Celt is just a word so I can totally just take it without caring about offending the actual descendants of the Celts who actually still exist today and actually still know they are descendants of the Celts and hence the only real Celts and are probably laughing at us right now for not calling ourselves Caledonians and Hibernians and being proud of our own name and ancestry and instead wanting to coast on the ancient prestige of the Celts just because they were talked about by the Greeks and Romans and neverminding that they were talking about the western Iberians and southern French when they mentioned the Celts, we Caledonians and Hibernians are just going to be the Celts now because it doesn't matter how ancient people used words". Congratulations, your point-of-view ends up destroying your own identity. Now that most Irish speak English, a Germanic language and not a Celtic language, I guess the Irish are no longer Celts but Germans, then, by your rule. So I will start calling Irish and Scottish people "Germans" no as per you and @IrishColin.
1
@blanketparty5259 Not in the Dark Ages - it was probably around 800 BC.
1
The Celts were a cohesive single people as you can verify by yourself by looking up "celt" in any epigraphic database - "Celt" was how the Lusitanians called themselves - their endonymic name.
1
You are correct! I agree.
1
The Scottish are not Celts. The name "Celt" was never a part of Scottish history. They never knew the name, never used it, and were never known by it. They're not Celts by any measure.
1
The Irish certainly do NOT have "records off since ancient times about being Celts" - please learn your history. The Celts being the Irish was a Victorian, romanticist invention of the British in the 17th century. In 1582 George Buchanan who coined the term "Celtic languages" said "only the Irish and Scottish can be said to be Celtic languages because they came with migrants from Spain who were Celts on the grounds their tribes were named Celtici and such". So if anyone has "records off since ancient times about being Celts" it is the Iberians, not the Irish.
1
Incorrect. That is only what the current academics want you to believe, in their elimination of identities. No, Celtic were an ethnicity, they were the people who called themselves Celts in western Iberia.
1
@metatronyt Sir, the Irish are not Celts, and many serious scholars think otherwise. I could quote you many of them. Would you like me to?
1
@deaconblooze1 What I've been told? No, I believe that Science is done by evidence, and not by consensus. The consensus on Irish being Celts is based on Romanticist Nordicism from the 17th century. It is incorrect and ahistorical. The Irish were never called Celts in antiquity. Simple as that.
1
@branthomas1621 The Irish language is and has always been called "Irish". It has never been called "Celtic" until two academics made a mistake in interpreting Herodotus and interpreting the original place of Breton, that they named Scottish and Irish (at first only those two) "Celtic" and it was only because George Buchanan said in 1582 that the Celts came from Spain as the Celtici tribe in Spain proves. So even the British who coined the term "Celtic languages" only did so because they thought those languages came from Spain where they were sure there were Celts, by name, the Celtici tribes. Celtic is an adjective for the Celts tribe in western Iberia, who is said to have carried the language to Ireland and beyond. But the Irish do not have Celtic culture: they have Hibernian culture, or Irish culture. And the Irish also do not speak a Celtic language - they speak a Hibernian language, or an Irish language. The only people speaking Celtic are the western Iberians - they mixed their Celtic with the Latin they were given, and in the mix they became the original language with the highest Celtic vocabulary. The ancestors of the Iberians called themselves Celts in their personal items. On the other hand the Irish and SCottish do not have the name "Celt" anywhere in their history.
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
@stgibbs86 "The celts in iberia moved there from france bringing the culture with them." That never happened. There were no movements of people in western Europe after the Bell Beaker phenomenon. There is simply no archaeological evidence for any western Europe migration after 3,000 BC.
1
@helgaioannidis9365 "I'm sorry to show my ignorance so blatantly, but I was convinced Celts used to live in large parts of Europe once and later got pushed more to the west of the continent. " Read "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" by Patrick Sims-Williams the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies so you can disabuse yourself of that outdated view. The Celts were only the tribes in western Iberia who called themselves Celts. No one knows what Hallstatt and La Tene people spoke.
1
@stgibbs86 " There you are appealing to authority again, which is a fallacy. "the opinions of academic linguists" who themselves have an agenda to push. " You must have misread me as I never said that.
1
@stgibbs86 "You missed that point that this video was all about culture and linguistics and not genetics. The celtic CULTURE came from around the alps, FYI." There is NO SUCH THING as "Celtic Culture", that is a Romanticist, Victorian, Nordicist invention by pseudoscientic academics conducting Biblical research. Read about the invention of the concept of kulturgruppen. It happened in the 19th century. It's not something that exists in reality, it's a post-modernist idea that steals the identity of the Celts.
1
@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 "Not only that, but you don’t even respect the traditional Norse conception of who is Norse — which is that you could marry into the culture and be Norse, and you could even live among the people adopting the culture and become fully Norse irrespective of genetics." No you could not, Mr. Leftist. We all know some are attempting to erase the legacy of Europeans. Go away. You don't belong in this discussion.
1
@helgaioannidis9365 " from your point of view today Hungarians are not Hungarians. And today Turks are not Turks. " That is EXACTLY RIGHT. Hungarians are not Hungarians - they are Germans, Slavs and Iranians, in order of most to least genetics, and only their Orseg tribe/people are still Hungarian. And yes the Turks are not Turks and they haven't been Turks since Ancient Greek times when they were already mostly of Mediterranean/Anatolian descent. They are only 17% Turkic on average today. Stop changing the ethnic names of peoples and stealing them just to create academic labels - that contributes to the deracination of people and the forgetting of their culture. You don't want to do that, do you?
1
@minutemansam1214 "Yes, actually, they do [tribes become other tribes] and it happens all the time." Not, they don't. Not in western Europe since the Bell Beaker phenomenon, they don't. That was the last time ethnogenesis happened in western Europe.
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
@augustsnowfall5189 "The Congress of Celtic Studies that regulates?…signifies to me a person paid to spread the wantonly narrative’s of the days political agendas. Do tell me who pays this man’s wages and salary?" Let's just save time and you tell me the refutation to their arguments.
1
@brettrichards2972 "dude what is the matter with you the Irish in their personal and earliest accounts attested they sailed to era from Iberia the northwest corner which is called Galicia from which they are called Gales which are a Celtic people to which they referred to themselves as when the sub Roman. Begin they even retreated back to those areas which helped to reinforce the Celtic cultural identity of Spain" All that is correct. Hence the conclusion should be that the Iberians are the Celts, not the Irish. That was the conclusion that George Buchanan arrived at in 1582 when he said "Irish and Scottish are Celtic languages".
1
@YouAintGotNoTegridyBoi "you must be trolling because we in Ireland are exceptionally proud of our Celtic heritage. " No way. Fintan O'Toole the literary editor of The Irish Times has already published long ago an uncontroversial article you can still find online where he explains why the Irish are not Celtic in any way. You must have missed that, and the usual native Irish proud which in its informed form knows Celtic is not a part of their history. "There is no mistaking the undeniable fact that we're an ethnically Celtic people," The Irish never used the name "Celtic" for themselves nor did anyone else. There is no doubt the Irish are NOT Celtic ethnically. "with a Celtic culture and language to prove our heritage's existence in the modern day." "Celtic culture" does not exist, it is a 19th century invention claled "kulturgruppe" which has been since refuted.
1
@brettrichards2972 "the worst most ludacris scholars. The viewpoint that the Irish are not Celtic is just more political whitewashing of history. And it is extremely offensive as there are not only 6 million people living in Ireland but one of the worlds largest diaspora and we are all proud Celts" Everything you said is extremely offensive to the Portuguese for the same reasons, because they are the only people whose ancestors actually called themselves "Celts" in antiquity. The Irish never did.
1
@stgibbs86 "It would be foolish to say that the only people who are celtic are those who called themselves celts." How exactly would that be foolish? It would be definitional: Norwegian social anthropologist Fredrik Barth concluded "that the only sure indication of identity is self-ascription, or what people say that they are". Source: 1969. Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, pp. 9-38. London: Allen and Unwin.
1
@stgibbs86 "Who cares what the current president of the ICCS says? There you are appealing to authority again. Try using actual facts like historians of the past did." It's an appeal TO YOU TO READ THEIR ARGUMENTS. Just go and read them so I don't have to repeat them. They're free online.
1
@stgibbs86 "You do understand the difference between a roman lanugage and a romance language, right? And you do understand what culture is, like art work, language and things like that, right?" Romance comes from the word "Romanice" which we could say "Romanic" is on the same level as "Celtic". So speaking "Romanic" (Romance with a different spelling) does not make the French "Roman", therefore speaking "Celtic" does not make the Irish "Celt". Regardless, the Irish don't speak Celtic anyways, they SPOKE HIBERNIAN and now they speak ENGLISH so are they GERMAN now because they speak a Germanic language? Say they are, according to your rules you have to.
1
@stgibbs86 " Sorry but lots of tribes mix with other tribes and become new ones. Look at how the franks mixed with the gallo romans to become the french. Or the normans with the anglo saxons to become english." Yeah but you can't mix Gaels and Hibernians and get Celts, lol. You can only get Celts where they lived by calling themselves that way, and that was only in western Iberia.
1
Gaels were never called Celts.
1
They are not "Hispanic", only outsiders call them that. They see themselves as "mestizos" and NOT as "hispanics" AT ALL. Only Americans think in those terms.
1
@donwild50 Thank you. I agree it's not only Americans, but mostly. And this situation parallels the situation with the Celts: everyone knows the Lusitanians as a tribe, but few know that was their exonymic name - to the Lusitanians themselves, they were known as Celts and they called themselves Celts in their tombstones and personal ceramic items.
1
@lrdr5404 Exactly, thank you.
1
You are wrong. Celtic is not a culture - that is only ever said by British people and those who believe what they publish, never by Iberians and southern Europeans who know history. Go to any online epigraphic database and search "celt" and observe how they concentrate specifically in Lusitania. The Lusitanians called themselves Celts according to freely available evidence from national archives who publish online. They were and are a race.
1
The Irish only "became Celtic in the 17th century. Before that no one called the Irish Celts. Even the Irish people in the 15th century called the Iberians "Celts". How quickly you forget when you want to steal a name.
1