Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Norse Magic and Beliefs"
channel.
-
@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