Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Norse Magic and Beliefs"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
10:00 In Geographica, book 3, chapter 2, section 15, line 3, he says clearly that the Celts were of the same ethnicity ("kinship") as the Turdetani who were ethnically southern Portuguese. In 4.1.1, 4.1.14 and 4.4.1 he explains that Celts in Gallia are only the Narbonensis, those who live in the extreme south by the gulf. Everyone else in Gallia, he says, are Gallians, not Celts. Diodorus Siculus (V.32.1) agrees with him exactly. Also Augustus, after Caesar, correctly denominated Gallia Narbonensis as "Gallia Celtica" taking that name away from "Gallia Lugdunensis" which had been given to it incorrectly by Caesar.
3
-
3
-
@z2fh3le8j Hi, I apologize for being rude earlier. I will try here to be much more constructive.
"Aye, it's not like this person is incorrect about the origin of the world Celt/Celtic. That isn't even argued. But the fact is, Celtic has been used now for centuries to describe a much broader region of peoples who's cultural types are similar (gods, traditions, languages etc). Much like the Norse and Saxon can be considered Germanic its a cultural type."
Thank you for acknowledging where we do agree (the original meaning of Celt/Celtic).
I understand this extended meaning. Your parallel with Germanic encompassing Norse and Saxon argues the point well. I even accept this extended meaning.
I just object at the point where the -ic is clipped out of Celtic and then all of a sudden the Irish and the British have become "the" Celts. This is inevitably the slippery slope that has been happening ever since the end of the Victorian and Romanticist eras.
All the BBC documentaries called "The Celts" and dozens of popular books and hundreds of popular mentions to it contribute to the daily confusion that has lead many people today to say proudly "I'm an Irish and I'm a Celt!" when no Norse or Saxon person would say "I'm a Norse/Saxon and I'm a German!".
Do you acknowledge that this has been an issue and that this crosses the line of what should be acceptable? I also gave you a parallel example with Norse/Saxon and Germans.
"And ultimately it comes down to that, originally Celtic referred to a specific people, now it refers to both that and a cultural type of people. I.e cruithne, picti, celti, pritani, gaul, gael, etc can all fall under the cultural type of Celtic. This isn't a theft, it just is what it is."
And I would not object to that were it not for the constant slippery slope that suddenly allows the British and the Irish to be "the" Celts and to collect all the military glory associated with the ancient Celts.
"And the new meaning is a heavily ingrained in the identity of British Isle countries, especially Wales, Ireland, Scotland. You go down any high street in these countries and you will see references to Celtic identity by means of shops, sport teams, museums, symbolism in tattoos, clothing, music etc. "
This has actually been convincingly argued against in many celtosceptic academic papers, where it is shown that the idea of anything Celtic does not have a substantial presence in most so-called Celtic countries.
Not to mention, again, it was a recent idea popularized with Victorian Romanticism at the turn of the 19th century. It was heavily tied with biblical ideas of connecting the British ancestry with Japheth through the Celts, and therefore heavily clad in mysticism.
There are many Irish and other Gaels and Brythons today who are proud of their ancestry and confidently proclaim the Irish and the British are not Celts and were never Celts, and that there is nothing Celtic about those islands. I could quote you dozens of academics who say the same. It is a matter of spreading that information to more people, which has been happening slowly.
"Arguably the fact the word Celt of Celtic was the world chosen of these cultural groups to be used as the cultural type is more complimentary no? It could have easily been the word Brittonic for the cultural type and this guy would be sat here kicking off about how only the people in the British Isles went by this title and we shouldn't be using it as a means of describing cultural type"
I understand your point, but do you not agree that, if this was ever a compliment, it sure backfired, as now the Spanish, the Portuguese and the southern French are thought to be only "marginal Celts" and seen as "the least Celtic" when in fact they were the ones who variously called themselves Celtici, Celti, Celtiati, Celtigun, etc?
This is a "compliment" just like naming the country "Mexico" was a compliment to the Mexicas (the Mexica people or tribe that originated the name). Sure, the whole country was named after them, but now everyone gets to call themselves "Mexican" when in fact only the Mexicas are "Mexica". Now you could argue, hey, at least there's a suffix difference between the two. I would say yes, at least there is that suffix differentiating them indeed. Because as I said, the Irish and the British are all too quick to drop the -ic suffix from their given "Celtic" only to call themselves "the Celts" and collect military valor, while in the same breath classing Spanish, Portuguese and southern French as "less Celtic" in all their maps and documentaries. Just like the Mexica, the people of Portugal (from *kale likely cognate with *kelt, and the only region in Iberia where the tribal name Celti appeared without suffix), Galicia (likewise from *kale; the Celtici inhabited it; also, it has places like the several Celtigos from *kelt), Spain (places like Celtiberia, Celtica, Celti were documented there, the latter two in the southwest in Baetica and Peñaflor respectively) and southern France (where the Celti without suffix are sporadically found in personal items, likely Celtic colonies in Narbo and Marseille) still exist and still remember that they are the direct descendants of the historical people who called themselves Celts and from which the Greeks and Romans admittedly generalized their usage of "Celts" as Strabo and Pliny explained and alluded to. In this way, this compliment sure backfired for them.
Do you think it would be too much to ask that the Irish and the British and everyone else who became Celtic from this modern meaning of the word attain themselves to using "Celtic" and not clipping that down to "Celt", so as to leave "Celt" reserved for those Spanish, Portuguese and French people who still exist? I am not asking this ironically, I am trying to reach an agreement that is reasonable.
3
-
@user-jz2fh3le8j " And if I may make that statement the peoples of the British Isles are Celtic but not the Celts and nor of the Celts as by the peoples who originally used the term in title. We are Celtic via the collective cultural type only."
Thank you for saying that. This is how it was originally meant to be, but through this process it often ends up confused, and clearing up that confusion is not always easy with the lay public.
"I also agree how despite the suffix, for some it is an area of confusion as you say."
Thank you. And it's not easy to propose a solution. Even the name "Celtic" with the suffix technically belongs to the Spanish (Celtici) and the Galicians (same) so even "Celtic" is being graciously lent by the Spanish to western Europe to use as a general "Celtic". It was not the Romans or the Greeks who added that -ic there - they saw it from the natives using it in Spain.
But Spain is very laid-back and is happy to share "Celtic". But then the British and Irish also took "Celt" and often use it to exclude those they took it from. At some point the Celts will end up with no identity and the British with their (southwestern Europeans') identity, if this continues.
I think Academia is doing its part, especially in the last few years, to correct this mistake. They are much more careful about who they call Celts now. Proof of that is the documentary The Celtic World on Amazon (from The Great Courses) which does call western Iberians "Celts" on maps twice, and never calls any British or Irish "Celts" on any map while clarifying they were not considered Celts before modern academia.
I am open to learning to share this term correctly but right now the side that is misbehaving the most is the side that is being lent the name to use, namely the British and the Irish. Because I do not see an immediate way to resolve this, this is why I was suggesting to disconnect the terms "Celt" and "Celtic" entirely from Britain and Ireland, as many academics now do. Unfortunately we do not know what the Bell-Beakers collectively called themselves, and I do not see a new term like "Celtish" taking off in the Anglosphere. And if nothing changes then the Celts will lose their identity to the Celtics.
I am open to suggestions.
"That would be like the area formally known as Germania and the Germanic countries within it being seen as lesser Germanic that Norway or Sweden or somet of that nature."
That is a very apt parallel to the situation of the Celts, native of southwestern Europe. They are currently considered lesser Celts y most publications, living "at the margins" of the "Celtic core" of "Hallstatt and La Tene" which we already know to be the previously running paradigm.
"But aye for me I'm aware we are Celtic by cultural type not by ancestory to the Celti whom we know via DNA we didn't seem to interbreed with to a high degree and most likely just had alliance and trade with."
I think that alliance survives in a slightly different shape in the oldest alliance in the world, between England and Portugal, the Treaty of Windsor.
3
-
3
-
@FaithfulOfBrigantia "Romans also describe the Caledonians (Sctoland) as having nordic features, and then assume this must mean they were of Germanic origin, implying they associated Nordic features with Germanics not Celts. They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture."
Yes, that was Tacitus in Agricola, Chapter XI, "The reddish (_rutilae_) hair and large limbs of the Caledonians proclaim a German origin".
"They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture."
Yes, that was Caesar in Bello Gallico, Book II, Chapter 4, "that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung, from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions;".
Also note that Strabo in Geographica, Book 3, Chapter 2, section 5, line 3, agrees with Polybius in saying that the Celts were ethnically like the southern Portuguese: "in the case of the Turdetani (southern Portuguese), and with the Celtici on account of their proximity, as Polybius has stated, due to their consanguinity and kinship."
Pliny also says the people who actually call themselves Celts were ethnically central Portuguese: "Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur" (meaning "the central-Portuguese people of Mirobriga, who call themselves Celts by surname"). (Source: Pliny, Natural History, Book IV, paragraph 118, confirmed independently by epigraphic evidence "CAIUS PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGENSIS CELTICUS ANNORUM LX" inscription found in Mirobriga, Portugal)
And finally, that same Pliny reiterates the idea of Celts being ethnically Portuguese by saying "Celticos a Celtiberis ex Lusitania advenisse manifestum est sacris, lingua, oppidorum vocabulis, quae cognominibus in Baetica distinguntur" (Source: Pliny, Natural History, 3.13.5), meaning "It is obvious that the Celts originate from those Celtiberians out of Lusitania, on account of their religion, language, city names and surnames which distinguish them in Baetica".
3
-
@ce5894 "Other than the Gauls (whom the Greeks recorded as referring to themselves as Celts) there's no evidence to suggest other tribes did, or did not. "
Oof, you're very uninformed. There are hundreds of ancient tombstones only in western Iberia with the names "Celti", "Celtiati", "Celtici", "Celtigun", etc.
It is quite silly to see people who have no right to use the name of the Celts and no direct inheritance of the name of the Celts wanting to use the name of the Celts instead of the names of their own ancestors. But the truth is only Lusitanians and Galicians called themselves Celts (yes, even though everyone wants to believe Lusitanian was not a "Celtic language", whatever that means, since "Celtic" was never a language in ancient times, this only started in 1582 among British scholars).
Go ahead and do your own research but your ancestors are laughing at your confusion around their names. They never saw themselves as Celts. There is some evidence they saw themselves as Gallians and as Belgians (yes both Irish and British used the name of the Belgians natively, look up "Builg").
"Neither did the Anglo-Saxons or Jutes and other tribes refer to themselves as German."
That is right, and they are not German. Do you see English people saying "I'm German"? No. You are confusing linguistic designations. The only people who called themselves Germani (and those people did exist) were the western Germans (there is an entire paper on that called "Developing the Germani in Roman Studies"). The others had their own names. What is so hard to understand about this?
Look at the case of the Illyrians which happened throughout Greek chronicling: the Greeks first said the Illyrians were a specific people, then later said they were an entire country, then later they were all Balkanic peoples. The term European was also first only referring to Macedonians, then to Balkanic peoples, then to all Europeans. All terms went through that path, or most of the commonly used ones that became famous, at least. The same happened to Celts. Strabo even says so, saying the Greeks generalized the name of the Celts of southern France to all Galatians of France due to the fame of the Narbonese Celts who of course lived right next to colonizing Greeks.
I could go on and on but I recommend you start loving your own ancestors, their history and their name, and honor those things, instead of trying to adopt foreign history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@t8dh4se3e " I will checkout the references you mentioned. I am interested in the cultures in Europe at this time. are there any good books you would recommend on this subject or other tribes peoples of Europe at the time?"
The only good books about the Celts currently in existence that I am aware of, which incorporate the latest findings, are John Collis' "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions" and Simon James' "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?". I have read both and I can recommend both.
In this regard, while I have not read this, I could suppose it to be a good book, judging by its abstract which mentions the Celtic problematic and also mentions the two books above by Simon James and John Collis; that would be Manuel Fernandez-Gotz' "Celts: art and identity exhibition: New Celticism at the British Museum. I know, long title.
I also recommend reading whatever recent papers you find about the Celts on ResearchGate (dot net) and Academia (dot edu), you need an email but otherwise it's free.
As for other tribes and peoples of Europe, I do not know of any specifically up-to-date books on that subject in general. If you are interested in a given group I can try and find the best information on it for you. My methods are not secret, I simply look to see what opinions are currently being published and what opinions are the underdogs that are about to overtake the current paradigm, as sometimes there is one as was the case for the topic of the Celts until a few years ago - today its paradigm shift is complete.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@ce5894 "Brythonic tongues in Strathclyde, Gwynedd, Cumbria and Breton, not to mention the P-Celtic tongue of their Pictish cousins = Celtic.
The beautiful Goedelic lilts of my Dalriadan ancestors = Celtic.
All of which had developed from the proto celtic of the Atlantic seaways. "
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Many Celtic academics (like John Collis) have already pointed out that languages were historically named after the people who spoke them, not the other way around.
This thing of saying "the Irish are Celts because they speak a Celtic language" only started in the 1900's. Before that, the language you spoke was always called a name derived from the name of the people who spoke it. So only a people called "Celts" (as in actually called that by themselves, like the Celti in Lusitania and the Celtici in Galicia did, not by Greeks or Romans) could have spoken "Celtic".
In fact so much so was the naming of languages after the people, that Tacitus once said that the Galatians spoke "Germanice", betraying that languages were named after the ethnicity of the people who spoke it; no people has ever been named historically after the language they spoke: a clear example of that is the Romans who spoke Latin (a language started by a specific tribe called Latini) and yet the Romans never dared to call themselves "the Latins". Only you and other misinformed people by linguistic academics are going around daring to call yourself by the name of the people who happened to have originated the language you currently speak.
Also consider that if you are "Celtic" because of your language, well, most Irish and Scottish people no longer speak "Celtic", so that means you should stop calling yourself "Celts" and now call yourself "Germans" instead. See how that doesn't make any sense?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brutalisaxeworth3024 "One of these that split off would go on to become the Celtic culture. For the majority of their history, the Celts actually dominated much of central Europe. Eventually they made their way to the British isles and completely wiped out and replaced the hunter gatherers there. The Celts living on the islands then split into different tribal affiliations like the Picts, Welsh, and, you guessed it, THE BRITTONS."
This is a fantasy and there is no documentary evidence linking the word or name "Celts" historically to the Britons nor to the Welsh, Picts, Irish, etc.
There's no such thing as "Celtic culture", that is a Romanticist invention of British academics - not the whole world is British and most of the Celtic academics do not accept this association between Britons and Celts, including the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Patrick Sims-Williams, which regulates all academic Celtic Studies programs.
There was never any association between the name of the Celts and anything in Central Europe nor in the British Isles nor specifically in Ireland. If there were you would simply show it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianBorumaMacCennetig367 "This is incredibly unlikely as I told you, show me evidence that the greeks didn't invent it."
Gladly. The linguistic consensus as you can see by going to Wiktionary and looking up Britannia and clicking on the Etymology until you get to it, is that Britannia is ultimately derived from a Celtic language ethnonym (hence right there it can't have been Greek), reconstructed as early Brythonic *Pritani, perhaps from a Proto-Celtic *Kwritani, whence Welsh "Prydyn" meaning "Picts", Old Irish "Cruthne", "Cruithen-túath" meaning "Picts" (so if the Greeks had invented it, it would be very unlikely for those peoples to adopt those names for themselves and the Picts), all from PIE *kwer "to do, to make, to shape".
In fact this is why basically "Picts" and "Brits" are the same meaning from different roots, both meaning "shapes" or "the people of shapes" due to the drawings they made on their bodies.
On the other hand there is no plausible theory for the Greeks having come up with the term "Britannia", not to mention it was not usual of the Greeks to invent names of other peoples they referred to, but instead to use the names of those peoples in order to make their references useful in the real-world.
1
-
1
-
@BrianBorumaMacCennetig367 "O'Rahilly has been heavily debunked by modern historians his theories are questionable.. "
Agreed. However I never said "Listen to everything O'Rahilly said", I only said he identified, correctly so, that the Belgae went to Ireland and called themselves Builg there. The linguistic derivation makes sense here.
"Belgae were related to the Gaulish people was it not?"
Well, I don't mean to be pedantic, but "Gaulish" is a modern term. Greco-Romans used either "Celts" a name which was "Galli", "Gallo", in English "Gallians" by the Romans, and "Galates", "Galatas", in English "Galatians" by the Greeks.
People usually translate "Galli" from the Romans and "Galates" from the Greeks as "Gaulish" but it's important to understand "Gaulish" was never a word in the mind of any ancient peoples.
To answer your question, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus both said that the Galatians were the same people as the Belgae, and that Galatians lived all over Gallia except in the southern shore where the Celts lived.
Therefore it seems the two most well-informed ethnologists of the ancient world agreed that the Gallians were coethnic with the Belgae but neither was coethic with the southern Celts.
1
-
@SteelRiverWolf "it is now well known to describe a type of culture, traditions, religious practices, gods etc rather than a specific one from a specific place."
On the contrary, it is now (as in currently in academia) well known that the Celts were NOT those things you said, and that saying the Celts were those things you said is now invalid in academia - and has been for a while ever since the invasionist paradigm of Kossina and Childe fell.
"Which is why all the nations of the British Isles are known as Celtic."
They are NOT "known as Celtic" - only some English speakers think that. The whole rest of the world is well aware there were only ever Celts in the southern half of the European continent.
"Even if within that there is variation and specific titling as to what kind of Celtic."
Their names are Britons, Gaelics, Caledonians, etc - not Celtic.
Celtic is not a name historically associated with the British Isles and the Irish.
It was, for a brief moment, a name erroneously associated to them by linguists and only linguists. That paradigm fell. Now they're no longer Celts. The only Celts now are again the southern Europeans in France and western Iberia.
1
-
1
-
@SteelRiverWolf "Though I do agree n perhaps we should be using the collective term 'Bell-Beakers' to describe the cultural collective of that area of Europe at that time, it doesn't quite ring as well as Celtic does it. "
So you admit that using Celtic for Brits and Irish is purely an "aesthetic choice" that you are making and hence this has no merit whatsoever. To steal the identity of another people simply because it pleases you the way it sounds is perverse and evil.
"I do appreciate where you're coming from with this but ultimately Celtic has now evolved to be a term to describe the cultures, languages and beliefs of the peoples in these regions, including the British Isles but by title we'll known to have derived from Celts who actually acknowledged themselves as Celts. "
The way you think Celtic has evolved is no more in academia - that paradigm is over. Academia has reverted back to calling Celts only those people who called themselves Celts, which were not the ancestors of the Brits as you're now saying for what reason I don't know, but rather the southern French and western Iberian peoples who were preceded by Bell-Beakers who actually called themselves Celts, unlike the Brits and Irish.
"Much the same as the use of the term Germanic when that refers to many numerous nations whom most definitely didn't acknowledge themselves by that title. Its just a cultural collective term we use and that's all. "
Okay in that case please proceed to calling the English and the Irish and the Scottish "Germanic" since they speak a Germanic language today, right? Almost no one speaks Gaelic anymore... So they went from being Celts to being Germans? This is why it doesn't make any sense to call people by the language they speak and this is why it was never done in the past, and why academia has corrected this mistake which you seem to believe is still ongoing.
"Also, interesting that Britannia was dubbed on us from the Romans and prior to this we were known as the Albion Isles for some time."
You are very ignorant and this commentary shows. Britannia was not given as a name by the Romans to the Brits. Britannia is from Proto-Celtic *kuer- "to do, to shape", hence Cruithne, a cognate, all meaning "shape people, people of the shapes" due to their painting their bodies. Britannia is 100% a native term. Many places had more than one name and Albion also being Britannia would no be surprising.
You need to do a lot more research over what you think you know - most of it is obsolete by now and the half you know is incomplete.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-rt8dh4se3e "lets not get too hung up on terminology and right or wrong!"
Easy for you to say - nothing is on the balance for you. Plus this is not about terminology, it is about ethnonyms and who are their rightful owners for being the descendants of people who called themselves Celts. Terminology is arbitrary and I would not be having a discussion about choosing an arbitrary name. Some people historically were naturally called Celts due to having called themselves Celts. Other people are envious of the name "Celts" because they dislike their own name "Cruithne".
"As most information seems to have been lost in the midst of time."
Except this piece of information - who called themselves Celts and who didn't - has not been lost to time. We know exactly who did: western Iberians and southern French. And we know exactly who didn't: all the modern Celtic speakers trying to call themselves "Celts" just for speaking Celtic - although they never dare call themselves "Germans" for now speaking English.
"It seems to me that "Celtic" (adopted modern term) refers to Ideas or culture from our history and the fact that many of these genetically unrelated tribes adopted these aspects of culture and art point to it being something worth experiencing."
That is the outdated academic view as I have repeatedly asserted. Hence that view is incorrect today. Today, "Celtic" is not a generic term like you said. Rather, it is a specific ethnonym like "Roman", and like "Roman" it only refers originally to a specific group of people, despite later having had its meaning extended.
"I see nothing wrong with feeling free to go experimenting with ideas and delving into our histories as something worthwhile and fascinating."
Then let's start calling Sub-Saharan Africans "British" and "Irish" while saying that the British and Irish aren't really so "British" and so "Irish" anyways. After all this is exact what you are doing with the name "Celtic" - you're saying "there's nothing wrong with the British and the Irish taking the name Celtic for themselves and then later on excluding the actual Celtic people from their Celtic language societies, while saying they're not as Celtic as we are". Of course you see nothing wrong with this, you probably benefit from it, or at least you don't stand to lose your own identity that you inherited from your ancestors who actually called themselves Celts - because yours didn't.
"I started with a very naive point of view about 'Celtic' culture. but having bought books on the customs and culture of the 'Celts', as well reading about the myths and legends. I have found things that interest me in art, language and self expression."
Unfortunately all those books you read are now outdated because they follow the outdated theory that "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene". So everything you read is wrong and does not concern anyone who ever called themselves Celts. What you read was about Britons, Caledonians, Hibernians, La Tene people and Hallstatt people - none of which ever called themselves Celts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1