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

[Suu]

YES!

Very interesting, keep it up!

Ohai!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture

Question, where do your criteria come from?

Linguistically, Gauls and Iberians, as well as the natives of the British Isles, were Celtic. Aside from that, I can't accurately comment on how widespread the Celtic language was.

As religion goes, I disagree that it should be a criteria. There were Romans who adhered to religions other than "Roman polytheism", would they qualify as being Romans, culturally and ethnically, then? Your logic seems to suggest otherwise.

In terms of culture, I'm not as sure what you are saying. Take a Jew, living in Judaea. If our Jew identifies him or herself as a Jew, practices Judaism, but participates in Roman cultural practices, would our Jew be a Jew still? Is the self-identity or the relevant cultural identity more important? Or are they of equal importance?

Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.

Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.

Roman identity= changed over time. THe criteria for Romanness therefore changes over time. For the purposes of this argument, America makes a good analog, in that being American is defined by American citizenship. Roman identity comes from Roman citizenship. Bear in mind also that Roman polytheism was inclusive, in that you could worship Mithras and still be Roman. Conversely, it was common for Gauls to adopt Roman gods and give them a place in their worship subordinate to Celtic gods. It was quite possible to be both Roman and Celtic within the criteria I offer, much as it is possible to be Navajo medicine man and be just as American and just as distinct from an Angloamerican Baptist.

Jewishness has always been difficult to define, and I'm not going to attempt putting criteria on that, since I've known people who self-identify with being a Jew under certain criteria that other people have also met and don't consider themselves Jewish due to atheism. I guess in this context, you'll have to define what Josephus was, since he fits the description of your hypothetical Judaean.

[Suu]

Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.

Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.

That's because there should be no definition as to what "being Celtic" is. And Wikipedia? Really? You could at LEAST post the cited source, as that should take to you a site or text that would essential define the boundaries you're looking for. Language and religion are terrible things to go by, and you just contradicted yourself when you brought up being American or Roman. The only difference is that there was no "Celtic Citizenship". Romans with Roman Citizenship spoke Greek, localized dialects, even Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Latin.

Cultures assimilate to other cultures, they acclimate, they evolve. Just as Roman identity changed, so did the Celtic one, and from that, other cultures were born.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Which Caesar? I'm assuming you mean Julius and using Caesar as a surname and not a title, so we're talking about the time of Vercingetorix, who was Arverni, a Gallic tribe in what was then known as Celtae.

By then, the Germanics were getting pretty well defined, but all tribes go back to the common ancestry of the Hallstatt Celtic Culture 8 centuries prior, EXCEPT those that were Turkic or Mongol and coming in from the East, so the linguistics would be evolving rapidly to keep up with necessary trade. That's something more up Jenne's alley though, I get the idea of linguistics, but I don't know enough to really solidify the argument, so perhaps if she checks into the thread she could have some input.

At the time the Vikings existed, the Norse culture and language was definitely defined, and that's still over a millennia from when the Hallstatt region was said to have been the predominant culture in Europe. To say that the Proto-Celtic and Celtic cultures of central Europe in that period didn't influence the other peoples that lived in the Baltic region is kind of hard to believe.

Also the spirals you speak of...ALSO used quite extensively in the Norse culture. Then again, it's a pretty easy shape to make.

I hope General Stuart/Frungle sees this thread, this discussion is RIGHT up his alley. Keep it up though, I love discussing this stuff.

Perhaps I should have specified Gaius Iulius Caesar for clarity, but to someone familiar with the topic, it's a clear reference to Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

You are correct in that we're jumping around across centuries. But, I'd like to point out that by the time of the Gallic Wars, Julius mentions that there was war between the Celts and what he identifies are distinctly Germanic tribes. I have read in one book about Celtic mythology (I want to say by Charles Squire, but I think I'm wrong and it was that other guy whose name I can't remember), that there is some evidence to suggest that the Celtic tribes had asserted dominance over some of the Germanic tribes and by the time of the late Roman Republic were rebelling against them. Most of the evidence is linguistic, which might be tenuous, but there were cognates for words regarding governance and such. I'll see if I can find it. Of course, this is also from a book written in the late 19th/early 20th century, so it could just as easily be dismissed as admitted.

Either way, I can agree with some cross cultural borrowing between the Celts and the Germanic tribes, but would not define such influences as sameness.

Also, including this for interest/evidence, showing the extent of the Celts throughout their history.

Stolen from wikipedia. Leaves plenty of room for non-Celtic barbarians.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.

Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.

That's because there should be no definition as to what "being Celtic" is. And Wikipedia? Really? You could at LEAST post the cited source, as that should take to you a site or text that would essential define the boundaries you're looking for. Language and religion are terrible things to go by, and you just contradicted yourself when you brought up being American or Roman. The only difference is that there was no "Celtic Citizenship". Romans with Roman Citizenship spoke Greek, localized dialects, even Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Latin.

Cultures assimilate to other cultures, they acclimate, they evolve. Just as Roman identity changed, so did the Celtic one, and from that, other cultures were born.

I've noticed there is a rule for internet debate: wikipedia is perfectly admissible unless you're not the one making the point. I'm using it for the short term, to keep the conversation going, and I'm going to get a better reference later. Settle down. At least I didn't use the Pagan sites.

I'm not contradicting myself with my criteria either. Once you become an Empire, what you are is defined by imperial citizenship. The Celts never had an Empire, but only a cultural, linguistic and religious identity.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Adding:

Definition of Celt in wikipedia foot notes to this:

^ Koch, John (2005). Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia. ABL-CIO. pp. xx. ISBN 978-1851094400. http://books.google.com/?id=f899xH_quaMC&printsec=frontcover&q=peoples%20and%20countries. Retrieved June 9, 2010.  


And ref for the map, just so no one jumps on that either:

References: Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood; London Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001, pp.30-37 and other sources (see talkpage for details).

[Phox]

To be considered a Celt, a particular tribe must:
Adhere to Celtic polytheism
Speak a Celtic language
Identify with Celtic culture

Question, where do your criteria come from?

Linguistically, Gauls and Iberians, as well as the natives of the British Isles, were Celtic. Aside from that, I can't accurately comment on how widespread the Celtic language was.

As religion goes, I disagree that it should be a criteria. There were Romans who adhered to religions other than "Roman polytheism", would they qualify as being Romans, culturally and ethnically, then? Your logic seems to suggest otherwise.

In terms of culture, I'm not as sure what you are saying. Take a Jew, living in Judaea. If our Jew identifies him or herself as a Jew, practices Judaism, but participates in Roman cultural practices, would our Jew be a Jew still? Is the self-identity or the relevant cultural identity more important? Or are they of equal importance?

Criteria=
Pretty certain this is an accepted barometer of Celtiness. Having trouble finding confirmation from a non-Pagan site, but wikipedia's only criterion is to speak a Celtic language, which still cuts out a lot of barbarian tribes.

Celtic language was fairly widespread throughout Europe prior to Roman dominance and decline.

Roman identity= changed over time. THe criteria for Romanness therefore changes over time. For the purposes of this argument, America makes a good analog, in that being American is defined by American citizenship. Roman identity comes from Roman citizenship. Bear in mind also that Roman polytheism was inclusive, in that you could worship Mithras and still be Roman. Conversely, it was common for Gauls to adopt Roman gods and give them a place in their worship subordinate to Celtic gods. It was quite possible to be both Roman and Celtic within the criteria I offer, much as it is possible to be Navajo medicine man and be just as American and just as distinct from an Angloamerican Baptist.

Jewishness has always been difficult to define, and I'm not going to attempt putting criteria on that, since I've known people who self-identify with being a Jew under certain criteria that other people have also met and don't consider themselves Jewish due to atheism. I guess in this context, you'll have to define what Josephus was, since he fits the description of your hypothetical Judaean.

Next problem, what is Celticness? A cultural identity? An ethnicity? A linguistic category? Your criteria is still too broad. And religion still doesn't factor into any of these. Roman Polytheism was inclusive, yes. But what about Roman Christians, who actively denied Roman Polytheism, even while it was still part of what identified one as "Roman"? If you won't even attempt to define Jewishness, why would you attempt to define Celticness?

[LMNO]

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

[Phox]

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

Being primarily Scots/Irish (and partly Welsh), I can attest that I am indeed Celtic, if that is the case.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

A propensity towards inebriation and violence, perhaps?

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

[LMNO]

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

[Phox]

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

Goddamnit! 








That category still includes me. 

[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.

[Suu]

Adding:

Definition of Celt in wikipedia foot notes to this:

^ Koch, John (2005). Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia. ABL-CIO. pp. xx. ISBN 978-1851094400. http://books.google.com/?id=f899xH_quaMC&printsec=frontcover&q=peoples%20and%20countries. Retrieved June 9, 2010.  


And ref for the map, just so no one jumps on that either:

References: Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood; London Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001, pp.30-37 and other sources (see talkpage for details).

Thanks. I may go pull them from the school library in a few.

And thanks for not quoting the Pagan sites. I would have just...had to get on the train and beat you for that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Next problem, what is Celticness? A cultural identity? An ethnicity? A linguistic category? Your criteria is still too broad. And religion still doesn't factor into any of these. Roman Polytheism was inclusive, yes. But what about Roman Christians, who actively denied Roman Polytheism, even while it was still part of what identified one as "Roman"? If you won't even attempt to define Jewishness, why would you attempt to define Celticness?

Going backwards- I'm not going to define Jewishness because the best knowledge I have about Jewishness is that I was raised Catholic and therefore prayed to a dead Jew, and they cut off their sons' foreskins. Oh, and the occasional Jewish holiday.

I'm not using Roman polytheism as a criterion for Romanness (especially since Christianity became the state religion). I am using Celtic polytheism as a criterion for Celticity because by the time they stopped worshipping Celtic gods they were defined by geographical location.

Again, Romans and Celts can't be held be the same standards because the Romans had an empire. The Celts did not. Having hegemony over a diverse group of people changes the definition of "some jack off who lives in Rome" to "citizen of the Roman Empire."

In my further googling, it seems like the commonly agreed upon basic definition of a Celt is someone who speaks a Celtic language. I agree that's too broad. It would then include someone from Vietnam who decided to take up learning Manx as a hobby.

Cultural identity helps narrow it down. Now we're talking about people in modern times include Irish, Scots, Manx, Cornish, Bretons and Welsh.

Ethnic identity, most definitely not. As I noted before, various Celtic tribes had diverse origins. I noted earlier that Gaels are Celticized Basques, meaning that you and I are ehtnically Basque, but still culturally and linguistically (at least in a historical way) distinct from them. Just as we are ethnically distinct from the original Hallstatt Celts and the later La Tene culture Gauls.

Also, how does religion not get tied up with culture? Celtic polytheism still has a presence, albeit very diluted, in modern Irish culture. I'm not Welsh so I can't speak about that, but I imagine its not different for them.