12-19-2007, 02:01 PM
I have been doing a lot of reading up on this recently and I believe there is an apparent political element to it, if not a nationality thing certainly a bit of friction between the various fields of study.
One of the arguements is the invasion/no invasion theory of expansion. For example if a "culture" spread with a minimal of personal movement but to an extent that language changed, artifacts changed, religion changed are we then correct to then call the whole by an overarching name? Can they never been seen as as belonging to that "culture" because racially their DNA came from a different part of ... say Spain ?
Take the Belgic tribes, considered Galli by JC but they saw them selves as eminating from Germanics. Some say JC was putting a political boundry around a number of tribes who were neither Gallic or Celtic. Some believe he was merely reflecting things on the ground and that these guys saw themselves as part of a whole.
The language thing is a difficult one as it has been argued that regional differences in the Celtic spoken points to separate and disparate tribes which cannot be lumped together but consider the UK in 1916 ... Durham miner speaking to a Somerset farmer listend to by a Cumbrian fisherman in the trenches ... all English but they would have had trouble fully understanding each other due to the languages having borrowed from neighbours, friendly or otherwise!!
I have had some quite cross words with an "Italian American" gentleman on this subject :?
One of the arguements is the invasion/no invasion theory of expansion. For example if a "culture" spread with a minimal of personal movement but to an extent that language changed, artifacts changed, religion changed are we then correct to then call the whole by an overarching name? Can they never been seen as as belonging to that "culture" because racially their DNA came from a different part of ... say Spain ?
Take the Belgic tribes, considered Galli by JC but they saw them selves as eminating from Germanics. Some say JC was putting a political boundry around a number of tribes who were neither Gallic or Celtic. Some believe he was merely reflecting things on the ground and that these guys saw themselves as part of a whole.
The language thing is a difficult one as it has been argued that regional differences in the Celtic spoken points to separate and disparate tribes which cannot be lumped together but consider the UK in 1916 ... Durham miner speaking to a Somerset farmer listend to by a Cumbrian fisherman in the trenches ... all English but they would have had trouble fully understanding each other due to the languages having borrowed from neighbours, friendly or otherwise!!
I have had some quite cross words with an "Italian American" gentleman on this subject :?
Conal Moran
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
