"Celt" Conjecture

[Rumo]

Why? You challenged the claim by others that names with -celt- in them could be used as proof for 'Celt' being a correct name for the group - well, what's being discussed here. You say that the names provided are not admissable because the come from the Roman period.
First of all, I do not see why any name from the Roman period must be a name that arrived only after the Roman occupation. Hundreds of names that we find in Gaul and other occupied territories are clearly not Roman, so i fail to see your argument that these must be Roman and cannot be pre-Roman.

But for that claim to hold, it must be shown the Celt- names pre-date Caesar's account.

I agree we find hundreds of non Roman names in Gaul, but for most of them there's no clear evidence they are pre-Roman. We perhaps can identify names which are not Latin, but we wouldn't know if those names came recently into fashion. We only know the "ancestral" names which were earlier attested in Gaul (see below on pre-Roman names).

Secondly, I think that we do know precious little pre-Roman names, since history only begins with the Romans. Hence my question - if you dismiss names from the Roman period as inadmissable, I ask you if you even know sources that provide names from the pre-Roman period.

Well, we have some names.

On one hand we have those early Gaulish inscriptions in Greek and Etruscan script. A short overview here.

On the other hand we have several inscriptions in Spain. Three of the Botorrita plaques (I, III and IV) are in an indigenous (Celtiberian) language and in an Iberian, non-Latin script. The fourth plaque (Botorrita II) is in Latin and can be dated in early 1st century BCE.
The side B of Botorrita I and Botoritta III contain long lists of names. Some of them look indigenous, some of them expectedly seem to have other origins (Greek, Latin).

No -kelt- sequence, as far as I could check. The rich "Celt-"Iberian onomastics which was presented earlier in the thread, has no echo in these lists.

To resume an earlier point on Celtillus, there are few names ending in -los, which may be used as argument for an indigenous form adapted in Latin as -illus.

However we have no reason to believe that only Celtic speakers had "Celtic" names.

Are you arguing that this is a case like the personal name 'Dutch', which is not being used by a Dutchman, and also does not originate with a group calling themselves 'Dutch', but are referred to as such by others only?

Yes, indeed.

I'm very familiar with Vlach and Romanian anthroponomastics, so here are some examples.

There is an entire class of Romanian surnames derived from ethnonyms: Rusu (the Russian), T?taru (the Tatar), Ungureanu (the Hungarian), Grecu (the Greek), Neam?u (the German), Turcu (the Turk), Sârbu (the Serbian). In some cases it might reflect a remote ancestry, in some cases not. The Romanians from Hungarian kindgom / Austro-Hungary were known as "ungureni". In Romanian language both "unguri" and "ungureni" mean "Hungarians", the former is just a plural and usually refers to ethnic Hungarians, while the latter is also suffixed and refers to people coming from Hungarian lands. This brings me to another point that those lines coming of more humble origin (freedmen) got their names from the lands they worked on, from their last master (maybe one of his nick-names, not his real name), etc.

Some names are created by folk etymology. One famous example is a Hungarian medieval hero Pál Kinizsi which is known in Romanian as Pavel Chinezu (literally Paul the Chinese, even though he was no Chinese and arguably had no Chinese ancestry!)

Also we should not forget about nicknames. They reflect physical appearance, attitudes, etc and one class of Romanian nicknames is about ethnic stereotypes. Usually you get nicknames as a kid, so here's an informal list of such nicknames and possible explanations.
Neam?u (the German) - a blonde kid
Brazilianu (the Brazilian) - someone good at playing soccer
Africanu (the African) or ?iganu (the Gypsy) - someone with darker complexion
Chinezu (the Chinese) - someone with slightly Mongoloid eyes
Americanu (the American) - a cool kid

So you see, it is quite possible for someone to bear an ethnic/nation-derived name, with no relation whatsoever with his own language, ancestry, citizenship, and so on.

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, so now we have the possiblity that Romans COULD have had names for other groups that were not used by these groups themselves.

First of all, I do not see why any name from the Roman period must be a name that arrived only after the Roman occupation. Hundreds of names that we find in Gaul and other occupied territories are clearly not Roman, so i fail to see your argument that these must be Roman and cannot be pre-Roman.

But for that claim to hold, it must be shown the Celt- names pre-date Caesar's account.
I agree we find hundreds of non Roman names in Gaul, but for most of them there's no clear evidence they are pre-Roman. We perhaps can identify names which are not Latin, but we wouldn't know if those names came recently into fashion. We only know the "ancestral" names which were earlier attested in Gaul (see below on pre-Roman names).

This goes both ways, because it's nigh impossible to prove that Celt-names were first introduced to Gaul by the Romans either. It's the problem of sources again - the historical period in these parts often only starts with Caesar.

So even for Celt-names as a Roman introduction, they could predate Caesar because of the long Roman contacts with southern Gaul.
Equally, a theory could be made (as done earlier in this discussion) for the Greeks learning the name Celt from Gallic tribes, in turn passing the name on to the Romans.
Can we ever prove either case conclusively?

Secondly, I think that we do know precious little pre-Roman names, since history only begins with the Romans. Hence my question - if you dismiss names from the Roman period as inadmissable, I ask you if you even know sources that provide names from the pre-Roman period.

Well, we have some names.
[..]
No -kelt- sequence, as far as I could check. The rich "Celt-"Iberian onomastics which was presented earlier in the thread, has no echo in these lists.

Same as above, we have some but the dearth of pre-Roman sources also ensures that we cab't prove either case conclusively. So, 'Celt-names' do not seem to occur among pre-Roman names so far (agreed Chris?), but on the other hand we can't claim to know enough of pre-Roman names to say that this absence indeed proves that they did NOT occur.

Are you arguing that this is a case like the personal name 'Dutch', which is not being used by a Dutchman, and also does not originate with a group calling themselves 'Dutch', but are referred to as such by others only?

Yes, indeed.
I'm very familiar with Vlach and Romanian anthroponomastics, so here are some examples.

Good point! Never knew there were so many.

[Astiryu1]

I'm very familiar with Vlach and Romanian anthroponomastics, so here are some examples.

So you see, it is quite possible for someone to bear an ethnic/nation-derived name, with no relation whatsoever with his own language, ancestry, citizenship, and so on.

I myself am descended on my fathers side with the name of "Greco(the Greek)" and on my mothers side "Young(Jung?)". It is not unknown in America either. Even still we(Caucasian Americans) are only "normally" around 200 years removed from Europe.
The main problem is there is no evidence of La Tene culture coming from anywhere else and that leads most to believe that the culture was primarily sedentary towards that part of Europe; at least throughout Greek and Roman influence. The Greek and then Roman records of the time reinforce this view.

[cagwinn]

So, 'Celt-names' do not seem to occur among pre-Roman names so far (agreed Chris?),

No. Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest. The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest. The name Kelti was inscribed on a stone in Iberian script along with numerous other Celtiberian graffiti in Peñalba, Spain and a tombstone from Langa de Duero:, Spain bears a Celtiberina inscription with a name on it that can be read as Keltis.

This is not controversial stuff, folks. No serious scholars question that *kelt- is a Celtic root word, or that some tribes in Gaul and Spain used it as an ethnic term.

[Rumo]

So, 'Celt-names' do not seem to occur among pre-Roman names so far (agreed Chris?),

No. Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest.

No, he is actually gets his name in Caesar's account, there' s no way to show it's not a Roman construct.

The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest.

Evidence?

The name Kelti was inscribed on a stone in Iberian script along with numerous other Celtiberian graffiti in Peñalba, Spain and a tombstone from Langa de Duero:, Spain bears a Celtiberina inscription with a name on it that can be read as Keltis.

Interesting. But evidence?
For example on the inscription from Langa de Duero, it can be as well "Beltis" (to be sure, the first symbol on the last line doesn't look really neither as a "be", nor as a "ke")
Here I should note that in Celtiberian script voiced and voiceless stops (p/b, k/g, t/d) are represented with the same symbol. In some readings P, K, T are just graphic conventions, each of them can stand for any of the two sounds.

This is not controversial stuff, folks. No serious scholars question that *kelt- is a Celtic root word, or that some tribes in Gaul and Spain used it as an ethnic term.

Let me quote from an "unserious" scholar about the latter part. Peter S. Wells in The Barbarians Speak (Princeton 1999):

• The Greeks and the Romans defined the categories Celt and German, associated them with particular regions of temperate Europe, and ascribed specific characteristics to the peoples so designated. There is no reason for us to think that all of the groups whom the Classical writers referred to as the Celts ever felt they belonged to a common people, nor that those Caesar and Tacitus called Germans saw themselves as members of a distinct super-regional population. Outsiders dominated the written discourse, and the domination persists today, in the way most researchers approach issues of identity among the indigenous Europeans.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest.

No, he is actually gets his name in Caesar's account, there' s no way to show it's not a Roman interpretation.

In this case I go with Chris, there's no logical reason whatsoever to suppose that Caesar would invent a name for him, and a Roman name at that. An interpretation of what exactly?

The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest.

Evidence?

Evidence of the contrary? And I don't mean 'it was written by a Roman writer so it could have been invented by that writer'. If you suggest that the Romans' use of the name 'Celt' was really an invention, you must be able prove that as well in each case. If not, as a historian I acceot names of people and places at face value. I accept different versions when the author misunderstand s a name, but I can't accept that authors like Caesar go on to invent names altogether and use Roman names.
so in this case, if we have a Roman source that describes to subjugation of the Spanish tribe of the Celtici, i see no reason to think that they were called differently but that some author wanted for some odd reason to use a different name.

The name Kelti was inscribed on a stone in Iberian script along with numerous other Celtiberian graffiti in Peñalba, Spain and a tombstone from Langa de Duero:, Spain bears a Celtiberina inscription with a name on it that can be read as Keltis.

Interesting. But evidence?
For example on the inscription from Langa de Duero, it can be as well "Beltis" (to be sure, the first symbol on the last line doesn't look really neither as a "be", nor as a "ke")

OK, the evidence seems not 100% conclusive.

This is not controversial stuff, folks. No serious scholars question that *kelt- is a Celtic root word, or that some tribes in Gaul and Spain used it as an ethnic term.

Let me quote you an "unserious" scholar about the latter part. Peter S. Wells in The Barbarians Speak (Princeton 1999):
The Greeks and the Romans defined the categories Celt and German, associated them with particular regions of temperate Europe, and ascribed specific characteristics to the peoples so designated. There is no reason for us to think that all of the groups whom the Classical writers referred to as the Celts ever felt they belonged to a common people, nor that those Caesar and Tacitus called Germans saw themselves as members of a distinct super-regional population. Outsiders dominated the written discourse, and the domination persists today, in the way most researchers approach issues of identity among the indigenous Europeans.

You are right here, however, Chris is not arguing for anything like that. I think all serious schoars accept that the 'categories Celt and German' are not clear-cut, homogenous, black and white groups, but a much more difficult mixture of ethnicity, culture and language.

But that's not what Chris is arguing - he does not say that Caesar and tacitus are right by saying that Celts or Germans saw themselves as part of one common group. Or do you Chris?
He is trying to show us that at least some groups knew and used the name Celt or Kelt in their personal names and tribal names.

[M. Demetrius]

Not to bring more divisiveness to an already contentious topic, but if Caesar says the "Gauls" were known in there own language as "Celts", why would he not do that if it were not so? It would be so easy to check, and peoples were not so out of touch, because of trade and other contact not to know. Of course he would call the countries by the names in his own language, just as we in America call Germany "Germany", not Deutschland, we call the Nederlands "Holland", etc. But I can't begin to understand his motive, if he's alleged to have called peoples in an area the size of modern France + Belgium by a collective name that didn't exist.

But what do I know?

[cagwinn]

Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest.

No, he is actually gets his name in Caesar's account, there' s no way to show it's not a Roman interpretation.

In this case I go with Chris, there's no logical reason whatsoever to suppose that Caesar would invent a name for him, and a Roman name at that. An interpretation of what exactly?

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest.

Evidence?

Evidence of the contrary?

I repeat, they are mentioned by this name by Greek authors long before Roman the conquest.
A discussion of some of the earliest sources mentioning the "Celts" of Spain:
[url:ngcm6ahm]http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html[/url]

The name Kelti was inscribed on a stone in Iberian script along with numerous other Celtiberian graffiti in Peñalba, Spain and a tombstone from Langa de Duero:, Spain bears a Celtiberina inscription with a name on it that can be read as Keltis.

Interesting. But evidence?
For example on the inscription from Langa de Duero, it can be as well "Beltis" (to be sure, the first symbol on the last line doesn't look really neither as a "be", nor as a "ke")

OK, the evidence seems not 100% conclusive.

Enough scholars support the keltis reading for us to take it seriously. Anyway, my argument certainly does not hinge on this one inscription!

You are right here, however, Chris is not arguing for anything like that. I think all serious schoars accept that the 'categories Celt and German' are not clear-cut, homogenous, black and white groups, but a much more difficult mixture of ethnicity, culture and language.

But that's not what Chris is arguing - he does not say that Caesar and tacitus are right by saying that Celts or Germans saw themselves as part of one common group. Or do you Chris?
He is trying to show us that at least some groups knew and used the name Celt or Kelt in their personal names and tribal names.

I think that those people who called themselves "Celts", who spoke very similar languages, worshiped similar gods, and had similar social institutions, saw themselves as part of a common cultural group (it would be bizarre if they didn't!!), though obviously their first loyalties were to their families and tribes (they had no concept of a nation yet - though folks such as Vercingetorix were working to develop one; some scholars propose that Gaul effectively had a proto-nation on the eve of the Roman conquest).

It think it's funny that the Celts are the only ancient people who get dissected in such a manner - where are all the deconstructionists/revisionists when it comes to the Iranians, the Indians, or the Slavs?? Why do some of you people not want them to have existed? Do you feel threatened, or something?

[Astiryu1]

It think it's funny that the Celts are the only ancient people who get dissected in such a manner - where are all the deconstructionists/revisionists when it comes to the Iranians, the Indians, or the Slavs?? Why do some of you people not want them to have existed? Do you feel threatened, or something?

Mostly I think it is a counter argument to the Victorian Era of "Historical Research". Though I do not agree with many (or most) of their findings they did unearth a wealth of evidence to something. I wish they documented better how they found and where they found artifacts but modern archeology is now much better having learned from those mistakes. Someone during the time at least did enough digging to find the word "Celt" in the first place! Whether they applied it correctly is open to interpretation (I guess) but the similarities are there.
There are revisionists that wage outright war between each other over the date of early Greek events (The Iliad). I follow this debate as close as I can; so the mindset is NOT unknown in other periods.

[cagwinn]

There are revisionists that wage outright war between each other over the date of early Greek events (The Iliad). I follow this debate as close as I can; so the mindset is NOT unknown in other periods.

Yes, but unlike the Celts, no one is seriously trying to deny that the Greeks ever existed, LOL!

[Rumo]

Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest.

No, he is actually gets his name in Caesar's account, there' s no way to show it's not a Roman interpretation.

In this case I go with Chris, there's no logical reason whatsoever to suppose that Caesar would invent a name for him, and a Roman name at that. An interpretation of what exactly?

It was already covered in the thread. Celtillus reads as "little Celt".

For instance, the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan (Kalo-Ioannes, John the Handsome, the Fair) was nicknamed by Greeks Skylo-Ioannes (John the Dog). Was he a dog? I mentioned already the Hungarian Paul Kinizsi (the Knyaz) who was known to Vlachs as Paul the Chinese. Was he a Chinese?

Some of these re-interpretations serve to make the foreign name more familiar. The Ancient Greeks and Romans practiced it too on a wide scale: so the Persian names starting in Baga- are rendered in Greek by Mega- (e.g. Megabyzos instead of Bagabuxša - please note the difference between the original and the Greek variant of it, in case you seek meanings in names recorded in Latin and Greek). Or my experience. English speakers often call me Drago, even though they hear my name and the last sound is š as in "she" or in "shop", so it's not like they can't pronounce it. In few cases I was nick-named (by mistake) Dragon and/or also asked if my name actually means "dragon".

Constructing and interpreting names and identities happens, even though some modern readers will not find logical reasons for that. If there's no logical reason (we don't know or can't imagine one) for something to happen, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest.

Evidence?

Evidence of the contrary?

The burden of proof lies always on the affirmative. I can as well claim the ancient populations of Spain called themselves Martians or Leprechauns, but if I do, I must bring evidence for that.

And I don't mean 'it was written by a Roman writer so it could have been invented by that writer'. If you suggest that the Romans' use of the name 'Celt' was really an invention, you must be able prove that as well in each case. If not, as a historian I acceot names of people and places at face value. I accept different versions when the author misunderstand s a name, but I can't accept that authors like Caesar go on to invent names altogether and use Roman names.
so in this case, if we have a Roman source that describes to subjugation of the Spanish tribe of the Celtici, i see no reason to think that they were called differently but that some author wanted for some odd reason to use a different name.

What's to be proven if it's an invention? This alternative springs from the fact there's no 'Celt' attested in an authentic indigenous context, all of them are attested after significant contact with outsiders, and mostly by and for outsiders (Latin authors, Latin inscriptions)
I really don't care if it's an invention or not, but you and others who assaulted me with such questions. There's no shred of evidence Celts called themselves that way before Greeks and Romans did. Interpret it as you want - Graeco-Roman invention or whatever else.

Did the indigenous people of North America call themselves Indians or Native Americans before Europeans did? What odd reason had those Europeans to call them with names which weren't theirs in the first place?

You are right here, however, Chris is not arguing for anything like that. I think all serious schoars accept that the 'categories Celt and German' are not clear-cut, homogenous, black and white groups, but a much more difficult mixture of ethnicity, culture and language.

But that's not what Chris is arguing - he does not say that Caesar and tacitus are right by saying that Celts or Germans saw themselves as part of one common group. Or do you Chris?
He is trying to show us that at least some groups knew and used the name Celt or Kelt in their personal names and tribal names.

If my understanding is correct, his actual point is that Celts existed as a group (aware of their identity and calling themselves as such), encompassing Iron Age populations from the territories modern Spain and France at the least.

[Astiryu1]

There are some that believe The Iliad never happened. So it is comparable is it not?

Theories are a dime a dozen and the older a theory is the more it is believed. I dislike them but also understand the need for them. The problem is sifting between theory and fact as the two are often put together in one paragraph.

My usual way of writing them down in my personal studies is:

Fact-
The La Tene culture spread through most of Western Europe according to Archeological evidence.

Theory-
This was a large culture that was comprised of many similar tribes that are known as Celtic.

I am a simple man that often tries to explain things in a simple manner(especially to myself).
By the way this was the way my senior exam in High School was written in history class(only the topic was the Japanese Ninja and their possible influence on special forces of modern day) I got an A.

[Astiryu1]

Did the indigenous people of North America call themselves Indians or Native Americans before Europeans did? What odd reason had those Europeans to call them with names which weren't theirs in the first place?

Most Native Americans from what I gather is that they called themselves and their neighbors the equivalent of "The People" in their respective languages. Simple but effective! 8) Maybe they added the appropriate tribal name to be more specific. I do not know any of the words for people however in Native American Language.

Maybe that can help in our conversation? Was Celt the general name for people and misconstrued as the name for their nation?

[Rumo]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

But as you admit, it does have a meaning. For Romans Celts were some people. If you would have asked Caesar "what is a Celt" he would have given you an answer, right?
As for that root, if an English speaker tells you "well, this sounds Greek to me", does it mean that a root *grik- (*grek-, *graik- whatever) was inherited from PIE to English?

I repeat, they are mentioned by this name by Greek authors long before Roman the conquest.
A discussion of some of the earliest sources mentioning the "Celts" of Spain:
[url:990rsnk0]http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html[/url]

They are called so by the Greeks, not by themselves. That's what I said earlier in the thread, that Caesar (and Romans) got this name from previous (Greek) authors, not from interviews.

Enough scholars support the keltis reading for us to take it seriously. Anyway, my argument certainly does not hinge on this one inscription!

Here's more: Lectura muy difícil.
Suggested readings: beldis or keldis.

Or here, the reading "retukeno esto keltis" (that strange symbol is read as an axe(!) + ke) and translated by "of Retugenos be it the stele". According to this reading, that kelt- word is not a name, nor a tribe. Should we understand that Celts thought of themselves they are the stele-people? :lol:

If this is not the only one, what other local inscriptions attest those Kelt- names?

I think that those people who called themselves "Celts", who spoke very similar languages, worshiped similar gods, and had similar social institutions, saw themselves as part of a common cultural group (it would be bizarre if they didn't!!), though obviously their first loyalties were to their families and tribes (they had no concept of a nation yet - though folks such as Vercingetorix were working to develop one; some scholars propose that Gaul effectively had a proto-nation on the eve of the Roman conquest).

Celt-ness as proto-nation?

It think it's funny that the Celts are the only ancient people who get dissected in such a manner - where are all the deconstructionists/revisionists when it comes to the Iranians, the Indians, or the Slavs?? Why do some of you people not want them to have existed? Do you feel threatened, or something?

Not at all. Slavs, Germans, Thracians, etc have been deconstructed in a similar fashion. It's strange you mention Indians however because for a long time India was considered a heterogenous space (and India a Graeco-Roman construct, as well).

Here're the first 25 pages from Curta's The Making of the Slavs. The author argues there was no Slavic ethnie, that it was a Roman invention, an umbrella term for barbarians at the northern border, and Slavs as a group (and identity) formed during the contacts with the empire. Only centuries later they started to call themselves that way.

[cagwinn]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

But as you admit, it does have a meaning. For Romans Celts were some people. If you would have asked Caesar "what is a Celt" he would have given you an answer, right?
As for that root, if an English speaker tells you "well, this sounds Greek to me", does it mean that a root *grik- (*grek-, *graik- whatever) was inherited from PIE to English?

:roll: I can't believe I am having this argument. "Greeks" in English is a loanword from Latin Graeci, which is itself derived from Greek ??????? (Graikoi), the name of the Greek colonists from Graia who settled in Italy. Thus, just as "Celt"/Celtus/Keltos is ultimately derived from an ethnic/tribal name native to Gaul and Spain, "Greek"/Graecus/Graikos is derived from an ethnic/tribal name native to western Greece.

They are called so by the Greeks, not by themselves. That's what I said earlier in the thread, that Caesar (and Romans) got this name from previous (Greek) authors, not from interviews.

You keep saying this, but you offer zero evidence to support it.

According to this reading, that kelt- word is not a name, nor a tribe. Should we understand that Celts thought of themselves they are the stele-people? :lol: [/quot]

Well in a way, yes, since the author here translates keltis as "stele" by way of "raised up thing", from the Proto-Indo-European root *kel- "to tower/raise up" (which gives us English "hill"); it has been proposed that as an ethnic name. *Keltoi meant something like "Lofty (Ones)" (compare Germanic Burgundi).

If this is not the only one, what other local inscriptions attest those Kelt- names?

I already gave you another one. There is also the"Celtica" graffito from Roanne (where other short Gaulish inscriptions have been found) listed in Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises II.2, L-81a.

The author argues there was no Slavic ethnie, that it was a Roman invention, an umbrella term for barbarians at the northern border, and Slavs as a group (and identity) formed during the contacts with the empire. Only centuries later they started to call themselves that way.

And yet "slav" is a Slavic root word common to all the Slavic languages and commonly found in Slavic personal and tribal names - JUST LIKE "CELT". What is the problem here, people?