BREAKING NEWS: HUNS INVADE EUROPE. VISIGOTHS SACK ROME...

[Suu]

I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.

Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.

[Suu]

Then let us narrow it down by adding "and are genetically inclined to root for the Red Sox."

Goddamnit! 








That category still includes me. 

Thank Mithra I missed that gene.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.

Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.

As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)

The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.

We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.

The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.

Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.

[Suu]

Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.

Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.

As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)

The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.

We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.

The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.

Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.

Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.

Fair enough. Russianness is an analog to Romanness and Americanness.
But, that would still have to be a Scot who moved to St. Petersburg, and not someone descended from the Rus.

[Suu]

Downloading Chrome, this is driving me batshit...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.

Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.

As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)

The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.

We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.

The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.

Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.

I'm not going to remember everything I've read on the topic and specific names.
There is no such thing as Celtic ethnicity.
Also the earth revolves around the sun. Both objects are spherical.

ETA: looking for citation, even though so far I seem to be the only one to have offered citations.

[Suu]

I have to apologize for the frequent posting and lack of quotes. I'm using Internet Exploader at work and it's being a shit. When I quote, the text box jumps and I can't see what I'm typing. It sucks.

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

While your definition is deadly accurate, it's still broad and defines Russians as Celts.

Some Russians are. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity.

Fair enough. Russianness is an analog to Romanness and Americanness.
But, that would still have to be a Scot who moved to St. Petersburg, and not someone descended from the Rus.

Before the Rus. Celtic tribes made contact with Sarmatian tribes. You can't deny this.

Rome didn't have Anthropologists. What they knew as "Celts" and "Germanics" were the boundaries in which they lived, not the culture or their history. Modern research has since proven otherwise.

Although Julius Caesar is a great contemporary to the Gallic Wars (at least THOSE Gallic Wars, there were several over quite some time), the Romans at the time wanted to know very little about the ethnic groups. Romans were superior to barbarians. They were a lesser lifeform that stood in the way of what Rome wanted and needed to be taken care of accordingly.

As for the map, if you take out the Mediterranean, which would have been controlled almost exclusively by Hellenistic Greece and Etrusca, later Rome, the areas that were left were primarily under control of Turkic tribes. Once they made contact with the Celtic tribes, that's what formed the Germanics and Baltics, which were again, later influenced by another incursion of Turkic/Mongol ethnicities (Huns, Goths, Magyar.)

The peoples were already ethnically Celtic, but their cultures and languages were influenced more by the later tribes.

We say Hungary, but Hungarians say Magyarország. The Huns were there, but the Magyar took it over.

The Celts were there, but the later tribes took them over.

Nit picking, but no Celtic scholar would ever refer to anyone being ethnically Celtic.

There is no such thing as Celtic ethnicity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

You made this case before, to be "Celtic" you had to exhibit "Celticness" in your culture, language, religion, etc.

Ethnic is defined as pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group)  sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

Modern peoples in Ireland who speak Gaelic still call themselves Celtic and may still practice, or at least mimic, some form of a Celtic religion as modern life allows. Nyx just called herself Celtic by being Scotch/Irish which is considered popularly Celtic, apparently you're saying otherwise.

Even if there's no such thing as a TRUE Celtic ethnicity anymore, there sure as hell was in 800BC, and according to Julius Caesar.

This is unfortunately where some srs bsns cultural anthropology comes in, but that's not my field.

There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.

On page 242 of Cultural identity and archaeology: the construction of European communities, it's stated that there is no central idea of being "Celtic". No, not everyone in Europe during the Iron Age was Celtic, but my argument is simply that outside of Rome, in the period in which I'm currently studying (5th Century), all tribes were in some form, descendants of the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures from over 1000 years prior. With the exception being, of course, the Turkic steppe tribes that were starting to wash in.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html

Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-

"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."

It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.

The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.

The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."

After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.

In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.

Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-

"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."

Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."

Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.

According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-

"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."

Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.

[Suu]

http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html

Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-

"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."

It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.

The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.

The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."

After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.

In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.

Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-

"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."

Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."

Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.

According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-

"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."

Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.

But the Celts weren't Germanic, right?

And I know that about the Irish, in fact I kinda just touched on that. The true Celts were thousands of years ago. Modern Celts is what happens when the Victorians want to find an excuse as to why the Irish exist, or, you know...The Romans calling them that in slang because they wanted to give them a potentially derogatory name other than spitting out "Hibernians".

Like in King Arthur when they called the Picts, "Woads". It was meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion. Of course, the whole use of Woad is another ridiculous debate, again, started by the fucking Victorians who read a Roman contemporary and drew their own conclusion.

In short: The Victorians ruined everything, and we're STILL cleaning up their mess. We don't have a time machine, nobody knows, and until then, it's all theories.


OT: My head is killing me. Not because of this thread, but because of fucking IE making the text box jump. I'm on Chrome now, but I need a break. @_@

[Don Coyote]

In short: The Victorians ruined everything, and we're STILL cleaning up their mess. We don't have a time machine, nobody knows, and until then, it's all theories.

Because it's true. Those fuckers. On so many topics.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Before the Rus. Celtic tribes made contact with Sarmatian tribes. You can't deny this.

Does not make some Russians Celts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country: ethnic dances.

I am using this as a basis. Common recent genetic origin. You are ethnically Italian. I'm ethnically Irish. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the mot commonly used definition of the word.

You made this case before, to be "Celtic" you had to exhibit "Celticness" in your culture, language, religion, etc.

Ethnic is defined as pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group)  sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

Modern peoples in Ireland who speak Gaelic still call themselves Celtic and may still practice, or at least mimic, some form of a Celtic religion as modern life allows. Nyx just called herself Celtic by being Scotch/Irish which is considered popularly Celtic, apparently you're saying otherwise.

I'm making the point that Celticity is memetic, not genetic. Being Irish and Scottish genetically does not make you a Celt. It means that your ancestors were Celts. However, if she decides to learn Irish and/or Scots Gaelic, then she at least meets the commonly agreed upon minimum criteria. By this definition, I am a Celt, albeit not a very good one.

Even if there's no such thing as a TRUE Celtic ethnicity anymore, there sure as hell was in 800BC, and according to Julius Caesar.

This is unfortunately where some srs bsns cultural anthropology comes in, but that's not my field.

Yeah, I think that this particular point take a level of scholarship that is beyond the both of us, so we'll leave this one where it is.

There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.

The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.

On page 242 of Cultural identity and archaeology: the construction of European communities, it's stated that there is no central idea of being "Celtic". No, not everyone in Europe during the Iron Age was Celtic, but my argument is simply that outside of Rome, in the period in which I'm currently studying (5th Century), all tribes were in some form, descendants of the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures from over 1000 years prior. With the exception being, of course, the Turkic steppe tribes that were starting to wash in.

I missed the details about the Turkic tribes. Did they also occupy Scandinavia and such?
Also, I might have my time lines messed up, but I don't think there is any sort of people or culture identifiable as Celtic prior to 1200 BCE. I can agree with the idea that some Celts and the Norse may have common origin, but they would have diverged even before the proto-Celtic stage.

[Suu]

There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.

The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.

Allow me to elaborate on my point of view.

Essentially the point that I was laboriously trying to get to was that in the time period of say, Julius Caesar, or even Diocletian and the later Gallic Wars, the terms "Celtic", "Celtae", "Gaul", "Gallia" were somewhat interchangeable. Germania was a region, but I have yet to find a contemporary that used the term Germanic or a Latin equivalent to define a group of people. They called the people in these regions "Gauls" or "Celts", even though modernly speaking, we know there were much more tribes. Eventually they discerned the Franks, and Alemanni, and Goths as they became more powerful and established their own kingdoms as the Empire withdrew, and there are still regions today named for such, but to any Joe-Roman soldier, unless they were a Limitenei stationed at the borders and knew better from constant interaction, if you weren't Roman, you were a barbaric Celt or Gaul.

So I was speaking from the Roman mindset, not the modern.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

http://www.spearhead.com/0001-jt3.html

Two leading archaeologists have recently produced evidence of the origins of the Irish which badly dents the theory of distinct Celtic ethnicity which forms an important part of the basis of Irish Nationalism.
Richard Warner, of the Ulster Museum in Belfast, said in an address to the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations that:-

"In round terms, the image of the Irish as a genetically Celtic people - in fact the whole idea of a Celtic ethnicity and of Celtic peoples, Irish, Welsh and all the rest of it - is a load of complete cock and bull. The average Irish person probably has more English genes than Celtic."

It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner said, that the idea of a common Celtic origin caught on, acting as a wellspring of Irish Nationalism. Since independence in the 1920s, Irish children have been taught that the Celts or Gaels settled the country and became the predominant racial group in the 5th or 6th century BC.

The evidence of archaeology, Warner argued, is that most Irish people are descended not from Celts but from Mesolithic hunters and fishermen who arrived around 8000 BC, possibly from Scotland. English invaders, he said, exerted the next greatest influence.

The Celts blossomed as a distinct civilisation around the 5th century BC, but although they were a distinct ethnic group within Central Europe they had no significant effect on the Irish gene pool, Warner continued. "If you find Celtic blood lines now, it will probably be among the Germans."

After prehistoric settlers, Irish leaders such as Brian Boru (born in AD 941) established proper kingdoms. But from about 1170 AD the English began arriving in waves of invasion after Dermot McMurragh, the King of Leinster, invited Richard de Clare, an Anglo-Norman warlord, to help him settle a dynastic dispute. The campaigns of Elizabeth I and Cromwell settled English tenants and former soldiers in Ireland.

In terms of the ability to recognise present DNA values, said Warner, the intrusion of English blood and Southern Scottish would be larger than any other group apart from the original Mesolithic inhabitants.

Professor Jim Mallory, an archaeologist and linguist from Queens University, Belfast, agreed, saying:-

"If you believe the Celtic languages spread late in pre-history, they were accompanied by a minimal population movement. There is no evidence in the archaeological record for a large influx of a foreign population."

Even Celtic music may be no more than a marketing ploy. According to Tommy Munnelly, chairman of the Irish Traditional Music Archive, "We have no idea what kind of music the Celts played."

Warner believes his case will be proved next year when the Royal Irish Academy completes its genetic map of Ireland. Thousands of DNA samples will be analysed and compared with genes from skeletons found by archaeologists.

According to Warner, whose findings were quoted in a report in The Sunday Times of 14th November:-

"There is a final irony in Ireland's 'Celtic' origin. The Aran islands off Galway, whose population is partly descended from a settlement of Cromwell's soldiers, is one of the last refuges of the Irish language. Aran is going to be the last bastion of spoken Irish, so the Irish language will die in the mouths of the English."

Citation.
Note that while the article refers briefly to Celtic "ethnicity" said ethnicity would only be identified as Celtic along cultural and linguistic lines. This definition still excludes all Celts that are not from the original Halstatt area.

But the Celts weren't Germanic, right?

Correct. The "ethnic Celts" while indigenous to Germany were not Germanic. Germanic tribes were a distinct group that later dominated the area. Some Americans are of Cherokee descent. They may have no affiliation with Cherokees. Maybe not the best example since Cherokees still exist and again, America has the whole multicultural multiethnic thing going on, but it's the best analogy I can think of right now.

I'm going to have to break from this myself. I'm hungry and have things to attend to, but I look forward to coming back to this.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

There's also the belief there there is no such thing as Celticity, and it was just a label used by the Romans to define the people in a certain area. There's just way too much gray matter. Which is why it's easy to say, "Anyone who wasn't Roman at a certain point in time was Celtic" and that's inherently correct.

The statement is essentially what I am disagreeing with. The unquoted I agree with. I was trying to make a case for excluding the Jutes, Vikings, Goths, etc as non-Celtic since they were distinct from the Celts.

Allow me to elaborate on my point of view.

Essentially the point that I was laboriously trying to get to was that in the time period of say, Julius Caesar, or even Diocletian and the later Gallic Wars, the terms "Celtic", "Celtae", "Gaul", "Gallia" were somewhat interchangeable. Germania was a region, but I have yet to find a contemporary that used the term Germanic or a Latin equivalent to define a group of people. They called the people in these regions "Gauls" or "Celts", even though modernly speaking, we know there were much more tribes. Eventually they discerned the Franks, and Alemanni, and Goths as they became more powerful and established their own kingdoms as the Empire withdrew, and there are still regions today named for such, but to any Joe-Roman soldier, unless they were a Limitenei stationed at the borders and knew better from constant interaction, if you weren't Roman, you were a barbaric Celt or Gaul.

So I was speaking from the Roman mindset, not the modern.

Which British Celts? Everyone who wasn't Roman was essentially a Celt or Gaul or "Barbarian". The Britons, Picts, Caledonians...We hit on it last night in class (and I've heard both Richter and General Stuart scream about it on multiple occasions), you gotta use the word "Celt" sparingly unless you definitely don't know the name of the tribe, in that case, you can say Irish Celt (Hibernians), Scottish Celt (Caledonians), or Danish Celt (Jutes) etc...The Vikings were Celts, the Goths were Celts... The only tribe that was not "Celtic" in origin, were the Huns, as they were from the Far East.

Indicates that you accept what you identify as the Roman, rather than the modern, definition of a Celt. This still excludes Goths and Jutes, since they were reckoned as distinct from Celts by the time they came around, and excludes Vikings since they didn't exist yet.

Also, bolded to point out that I am using the term Celt sparingly, since I'm giving a narrow enough definition of Celt to exclude several barbaric groups.