Gauls and Celts identity in Iron age Europe

[Vingauld]

Hello people,

I'm soon starting a paper for my studies (Ma. Archaeology), to be more precise for the course Archaeological Theory and approach. The paper will deal with the issue of the different interpretations concerning identity of the Celts and Gauls e.g. was one group a subgroup of the other, where they two seperate groups, where the two groups overlapping etc.

If I remember correctly this is an issue that has been encountered by either the Wildfire Games crew, more specifically the history departement or as a discusion within the general community. Because of this I decided to start my quest for literature on these forums as an extra to the more conventional methods such as google and the University library catalogue. So my question is, does anyone happen to know any interesting and usefull publications or authors that deal with the subject of "Celts vs. Gauls"?

Also there's no reason to worry if this topic stays empty, as I said before it's an extra to the regular methods. I just had some vague recolection of this issue beeing discussed somewhere around here before which is why I decided to go here. Any help is however much appreciated. If there are any questions I will do my best to check this topic on a regular bases and clear up any confusions.

Sincerely, "vingauld"

[Mythos_Ruler]

It is my understanding that "Gauls" is an artificial designation given to all Celts by the Romans, and that there was never really a combined "Celtic" culture, as most Celts identified with their tribe first and foremost. I may only be half-right though.

[AuroN2]

Gauls are Celtic, theres no identity difference, because one is the other, and the other is not one.

Because There was an Ethnical Celtic Empire Going from Spain to britain to Asia Minor (they crossed the Hellespont after Brennus the somethingth plundered either greece or italy.. or both and left their wealth in a pond in Tarraco guarded by a tribe that voulentered to stick with it until they crossed the hellespont again to take it back, pity a roman plundered it)

Mythos you can't be half right, Three quaters Right at least.

[ribez]

Gauls are Celtic, theres no identity difference, because one is the other, and the other is not one.

Because There was an Ethnical Celtic Empire Going from Spain to britain to Asia Minor (they crossed the Hellespont after Brennus the somethingth plundered either greece or italy.. or both and left their wealth in a pond in Tarraco guarded by a tribe that voulentered to stick with it until they crossed the hellespont again to take it back, pity a roman plundered it)

Mythos you can't be half right, Three quaters Right at least.

we shouldn't speak of a celtic empire, because there wasn't a centralized power, and every tribe was indipendent from others. In many circumstances, after moving in new territories, they lived in peace with natives.

And yes, celts and gauls was the same thing, and celts didn't called themself celts or gauls, because they called themself with tribe name. They shared the same culture, but with obvious differences from location to location.

Also Galatians, that dominated inner Turkey for two centuries, were 3 celtic tribes: Tectosages, Tolistobogii and Trocmi.

I'm reading a book on celts written by Venceslas Kruta

Edited September 30, 2011 by ribez

[AuroN2]

by empire it was an ethnic empire, not an empire by the one we think of when we think rome.

And why did i say tarraco? I'm sure it was called something else. Bah beer.

Edited October 7, 2011 by AuroN2

[Vingauld]

by empire it was an ethnic empire, not an empire by the one we think of when we think rome.

And why did i say tarraco? I'm sure it was called something else. Bah beer.

My question to you than is, why speak of an empire? what is the value of the word empire in this context? Why do you not just speak of an ethnic or cultural group? Would that not cover the definition of what you are speaking of?