Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[authun]

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

The Botorrita inscriptions which are Celt-Iberian are written in a Celt Iberian script : [url:iqgswg0k]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Botorrita_1.jpg[/url]

Most of the Leptontic inscriptions are written using the Lugano alphabet, one of a few alphabets in northern Italy derived from the Etruscan alphabet. You can see what this looks like in this paper which also has a lot of useful information about celtic languages : [url:iqgswg0k]http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_2_lepontic.pdf[/url]

I don't think we have inscriptions for Galicia or the Black Sea, perhaps someone can correct me on that. In Galicia, the evidence is placename only from what I can see and in the black sea a combination of placename evidence and celtic personal names that occur in other texts, eg. Greek.

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 the central European area north of the Alps. 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

When authors write the sort of statements above, it's important to know what 'old ideas' they are attempting to change. Usually that is set out in the preface or introduction. People of my generation were taught that the Celts were a single people who invaded the British Isles in the iron age and that there were some further invasions between 55/54BC and 43AD. History started with the Greeks, then the Romans, then the Roman invasion and then the Anglo Saxons. Hence Sellar's and Yateman's famous line, 'Britain didn't have a history until the Romans came and gave us one'. Where all these Celts came from was completely omitted, other than a mention of the Belgae.

There are many puzzling aspects about celtic speakers in Britain. For example, the Brigantes, who we think spoke a celtic language, show a good deal of continuity from the Bronze age. Their neighbours in East Yorkshire however show a sudden change around 450BC. Whether this change was cultural or demic is something which is debated but it at least tells us that the 'celtic' Brigantes are older, in terms of archaeology, than the 'celtic' Parisii and that they don't fit into the old 'iron age' series of invasions model. It becomes a question, 'when did groups like the Brigantes enter Britain?'

best
authun