Celts or Gauls?

[greycat]

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

However, language does not determine ethnicity (that would make the modern islanders 'Germans', since they mostly speak English, classified as a Germanic tongue). And anyway, no one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the archipelago - they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues, when our evidence begins. Certainly, there is no reason to link the coming of 'Celtic' language with any great 'Celtic invasions' from Europe during the Iron Age, because there is no hard evidence to suggest there were any.

Source: BBC History: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

[GunChleoc]

Exactly my point. The English don't call themselves Germans and have no reason to, although they speak a Germanic language. In the same vein, old German is not a Celtic language, even if the Romans called them Celts.

[greycat]

I can't trust a 17th century language classification based on an assumption over the words of both Greek and Roman historians and archeological evidence though...

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

The literature I have read based on The Scotish Highlanders customs and traditions state that Germanic and Celt/Kelt are the same also. They are anciently both called Celts/Kelts. I understand Romans used propaganda, that is why Greek sources and archeology are also important.

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[GunChleoc]

I can't trust a 17th century language classification based on an assumption over the words of both Greek and Roman historians and archeological evidence though...

But this is not just a 17th century language classification. The studies have continued until this century. So, if you think 400 years of science count for nothing, be my guest

[greycat]

But this is not just a 17th century language classification. The studies have continued until this century. So, if you think 400 years of science count for nothing, be my guest

You have to understand a theory is accepted as true... it also can't be proven as true, thus it is a theory. It is a modern myth that a theory = fact.

the·o·ry

noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[Andrettin]

You have to understand a theory is accepted as true... it also can't be proven as true, thus it is a theory.

That would be a hypothesis, not a theory - a theory is possible to be proven as false, and this particular classification has not been proved false simply because there is overwhelming linguistic evidence in its favor.

[greycat]

That would be a hypothesis, not a theory

That is not what the dictionary states.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

we are debating not arguing b.t.w.

[greycat]

Modern archeology shows that there was major Celtic cities in modern day Germany and surrounding areas c. 500 BC. Could they have displaced by Germans from the north, sure... But we also have evidence by both Greek and Roman writers that claim the two came from the same people. I also have evidence from a writer within the Scotish Highlander community saying the same thing from the year 1831, long before archeology supported this. This is what my hypothesis is based on.

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[Mega Mania]

Hypothesis?

[greycat]

Hypothesis?

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

[greycat]

Current Celtic language theory? is based on the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts.

problems with theory.

Is there evidence that only one Celtic language existed. No

Is there evidence that more than one Celtic language existed. Yes

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[Lion.Kanzen]

This post now is for Topic off forum, don't have any to do with the game.

[greycat]

ok

Edited October 22, 2013 by greycat

[GunChleoc]

Of course there were Celts in what are now German-speaking areas, e.g. Halstatt is in Austria. And of course there were cultural interactions between Celts and Germans. I am not disputing this at all. However, this does not turn Celtic languages into Germanic languages or Germanic languages into Celtic languages. That's an entirely different matter. Most of Scottish Highlanders have had their Celtic language beaten out of them so they have to speak English instead. Does that make them less Celtic? The cultural identities involved here are a very complex issue.

You have to understand a theory is accepted as true... it also can't be proven as true, thus it is a theory. It is a modern myth that a theory = fact.

But this also goes for your arguments. Only because people wrote something long ago rather than fairly recently, this doesn't make it a fact.

Current Celtic language theory? is based on the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts.

problems with theory.

Is there evidence that only one Celtic language existed. No

Is there evidence that more than one Celtic language existed. Yes

Well, this doesn't prove anything. Maybe you'll see why if I replace "Celtic" by other language designations:

Is there evidence that only one Germanic language existed. No

Is there evidence that more than one Germanic language existed. Yes

Is there evidence that only one Romance language existed. No

Is there evidence that more than one Romance language existed. Yes

Is there evidence that only one Indo-European language existed. No

Is there evidence that more than one Indo-European language existed. Yes

[greycat]

These are all good points. My problem with the current classification is that its purpose seems, according to most historians I have read, to be politically motivated only, to prove Celtic origins of England. Its intention was not to look into the true origins of the Celtic language. The Scottish Highlanders are of interest to me for their oral traditions and customs. Here is opinion of someone with more knowledge than me or the people 17th century and unlike them they use science. I was calling it a hypothesis but it may be more a theory.

'Welsh aren't 'true' Celts' http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-arent-true-celts-claim-2354395

THE MODERN nations that consider themselves to be Celtic are not actually anything to do with the "true Celts" who once dominated Iron Age Europe, according to anthropological research.The Welsh, Irish and other peoples who regard themselves as Celtic cousins are in fact ancient Bretons who include the original English peoples. Being Celtic is not about blood, tribes and red hair; nor is it about loving folk music and believing in the little people.In a landmark special to be broadcast tonight, anthropologist Richard Rudgley, who comes from London, aims to separate myth from fact as he reveals the Celtic world. Chris Malone, producer for Granada TV, joined him on the journey tracing the Celtic tradition across the world and said that it actually originated with the "true Celts" of central Europe.Mr Malone said, "It is assumed that the Celts are the people who speak a 'Celtic' language like the Scots and Welsh."These are the peoples who were pushed to the fringes after the Roman invasion. People also think about the Celtic crosses, and about the whole pagan druid thing."But those are all the cliches. When the Romans arrived in Britain, they never described the people as Celts.

Like I said before this has always been known by some people, but it has never had the science behind it. The current model from the 17th century has no science behind it. I try to approach subject with care because I know some people have very strong feelings of nationality.

Edited October 23, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

On the matter about Germans being Celts, Other than writings of Greeks and Romans of the time, this is all we really have to go on.

The name ‘German’ is itself Celtic. The root gair (near), to mean ‘neighbours’, has been suggested. However the root gaé (spear), to mean ‘spear-carrier’ or ‘sharp-witted’, is stronger. The Roman word germanus (‘real’ or ‘authentic’) takes up the latter meaning.

[GunChleoc]

So? Germans don't call themselves "German", but "Deutsch", which goes back to the Teutonic tribe. I don't know where that name originally came from though.

And you have a point about the Celtic thing, people like to mystify stuff, which makes if very hard to divide fact from wishful thinking and fabrications.

Please explain which the Indo-European linguistic model is supposed to have no science to it and be a relic of the 17th century, since research has been and still is ongoing. AFAIK the Celtic languages weren't even included in the original model, because they are so different on the surface that the similarity was not recognised at first.

[greycat]

Please explain which the Indo-European linguistic model is supposed to have no science to it and be a relic of the 17th century, since research has been and still is ongoing.

Calling the language group "Celtic" is based on 17th century, non science, not the research.

Edited October 23, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

I think the most important thing taught to me is to not confuse the Celtic language with the Celtic culture.

[GunChleoc]

Calling the language group "Celtic" is based on 17th century, non science, not the research.

And what would you call it instead then?

[greycat]

And what would you call it instead then?

Brythonic and Goedelic maybe?

The name Brythonic was derived by Welsh Celticist John Rhys from the Welsh word Brython, meaning an indigenous Briton as opposed to an Anglo-Saxon or Gael.

Edited October 27, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

Sir John Rhys was a Welsh scholar, fellow of the British Academy, celticist and the first Professor of Celtic at Oxford University.

Rhys gained his knighthood in 1907, and in 1911 was appointed to the Privy Council. Rhys was one of the founding Fellows of The British Academy when it was given its Royal Charter in 1902, and after his death the Academy established an annual lecture in his name, the Sir John Rhys Memorial Lecture. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography declares him to be "foremost among the scholars of his time" in his published fields, noting that "his pioneering studies provided a firm foundation for future Celtic scholarship and research for many decades."

Edited October 27, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

"As might be expected, ancient authors commonly mix up the two names, and from that of the Celtae of old modern writers have derived the terms Celt and Celtic, which are employed in speaking of the family in its widest sense. This would be a further extension of the meaning of the old word, as Britain was considered to be outside the Celtic world. It was an island beyond Celtica, or over against it, as the ancients were wont to say."

"The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them, since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to settle in Britain. Moreover, the language of most of the country south of the Forth, where English now prevails, probably differed little at the time of the Roman conquest from that of the Gauls of the Continent. This form of Celtic afterwards spread itself by degrees among the Goidels in the west of the island ; so that the later Brythons there cannot be regarded as wholly Brythons in point of blood, a very considerable proportion of them being probably Goidels using the language of the other Celts"

"Roughly speaking, however, one may say that the whole Celtic family was made up of two branches or groups, the Goidelic group and the Gallo-Brythonic one ; and every Celt of the United Kingdom is, so far as language is concerned, either a Goidel or a Brython. The Goidels were undoubtedly the first Celts to come to Britain, as their geographical position to the west and north of the others would indicate, as well as the fact that no trace of them has ever been identified on the Continent. They had probably been in the island for centuries when the Brythons, or Gauls, came and drove them westward. The Goidels, it is right to say, had done the same with another people, for there is no reason to suppose that when they came here, they found the country without inhabitants. Thus we get at least three peoples to deal with — two Celtic and one pre-Celtic ; and a great difficulty in writing the history of early Britain arises from the circumstance that the ancient authors, on whom we have to rely for our information, never troubled themselves to make nice distinctions between these races, though they were probably in different stages of civilization."

John Rhys: Celtic Britain (1884)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jHMNAAAAIAAJ&oe=UTF-8

https://archive.org/details/celticbritain00rhysgoog

Edited October 27, 2013 by greycat