Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[Ghostmojo]

... There is no reason to suppose that they could all understand each other so it is not a common celtic language, rather a group of celtic languages that developed from the same branch. To date, Lepontic was thought to be the oldest celtic language but recently Koch has proposed that the Tartessian scripts, from the 7th cent. BC are celtic ...

That all seems perfectly reasonable to me

... Galicia in NW Iberia and the celtic inscriptions towards the Black Sea are different to what is seen as the expansion of celtic languages. The place name evidence in Galicia. eg. Citania de Briteiros, points to brythonic migrations there, they are not a development from Celt Iberian. Celts near the Black Sea appear to have been a migration of Central European Celtic speakers into that region, ie taking the language there rather than being developed there ...

Again entirely logical. Are the inscriptions you speak about scripted in the Greek alphabet?

Just to return to the original basis of this thread, and perhaps to clarify to some who might have wondered, I don't believe the Celts (ancient Celtae/Keltoi) are a myth - at least when it comes to discussing the well-established and documented group of people occupying either the central European area north of the Alps, or southern France/northern Spain. My own view on the myth aspect of it relates to two things: the first being more modern usage of the term - in as much as people identifying themselves with something which seemingly lacks plausible substance. That seems to me to be more about psychology and a rejection of fact or reality in favour of romantic attachment to a largely artificial construct. There is a complete lack of historic linear continuity for people to claim such descent. It is extremely tenuous at best. The other aspect of it that unsettles me is the fact that the (supposed) modern surviving heartland of Celticism i.e. the British Isles, may be nothing of the sort. There is a paradox there in my opinion. If there is no real proof that out islands were ever invaded by Celts (as opposed to say being affected by imported culture) then why do so many people feel attracted to the contrary notion?

"There is today no convincing archaeological evidence that either island was invaded by Celtic peoples. By contrast, all indications point to continuity from earlier times..."

"In Ireland and Britain, at any rate, Celts remain, as yet, in the shadows. On the European mainland, however, Celts emerge in the full light of history, as larger-than-life figures of flesh and blood, the first to escape the darkness of the unlettered past..."

Dr. Barry Raftery - Professor of Celtic Studies (University College, Dublin) 2001