11-28-2010, 10:54 PM
Perhaps it would be approriate to see the view of a scholar of Celtic Studies on the subject of Celtoscepticsm.
"One would be seriously misled to accept at face value sweeping conclusions which dismiss the Celts as a constructed 'myth' (Chapman 1992; Collis 1997) or purely a 'modern invention' (James 1999). Nonetheless the Celtosceptics have usefully highlighted a fact that can no longer be ignored: modern writers - of both semi-popular and specialist publications - have written as though three disparate approaches to ancient group identity invariably defined one and the same people. Thus, the Celts have been assumed to be (1) all users of the iron age material culture called 'La Tene' for the Swiss type site, (2) all speakers of early celtic type languages and (3) all groups called Keltoi or Celtae by the Greeks and Romans. (The same ancient writers also repeatedly stated the equivalence of the name Keltoi/Celtae with Galli or Galatae and generally regarded the former part to be more ancient and correct.) Thus, any one of these three symptoms has often been taken to imply the other two and to be adequate to confirm the presence of Celts. A coherent narrative 'Story of the Celts' could thus be achieved, shifting seamlessly between the three types of evidence. At best, this three way modern synthesis is frayed at the edges. La Tene material is rare to nonexistent in areas with well attested Celtic languages - south west Ireland, the Iberian Peninsular, central Anatolia. But notions of the 'Celts' might be more seriously defective if we attach great significance to the negative evidence that the Greeks and Romans never (so far as we know) applied the label Keltoi or Galli to the inhabitants of Ireland or Britain and that the pre modern Gaels and Britons never applied such a label to themselves (again, so far as we know) (Cunliffe 2003, 5; Koch 2003)."
(John T Koch, An Atlas of Celtic Studies)
best
authun
"One would be seriously misled to accept at face value sweeping conclusions which dismiss the Celts as a constructed 'myth' (Chapman 1992; Collis 1997) or purely a 'modern invention' (James 1999). Nonetheless the Celtosceptics have usefully highlighted a fact that can no longer be ignored: modern writers - of both semi-popular and specialist publications - have written as though three disparate approaches to ancient group identity invariably defined one and the same people. Thus, the Celts have been assumed to be (1) all users of the iron age material culture called 'La Tene' for the Swiss type site, (2) all speakers of early celtic type languages and (3) all groups called Keltoi or Celtae by the Greeks and Romans. (The same ancient writers also repeatedly stated the equivalence of the name Keltoi/Celtae with Galli or Galatae and generally regarded the former part to be more ancient and correct.) Thus, any one of these three symptoms has often been taken to imply the other two and to be adequate to confirm the presence of Celts. A coherent narrative 'Story of the Celts' could thus be achieved, shifting seamlessly between the three types of evidence. At best, this three way modern synthesis is frayed at the edges. La Tene material is rare to nonexistent in areas with well attested Celtic languages - south west Ireland, the Iberian Peninsular, central Anatolia. But notions of the 'Celts' might be more seriously defective if we attach great significance to the negative evidence that the Greeks and Romans never (so far as we know) applied the label Keltoi or Galli to the inhabitants of Ireland or Britain and that the pre modern Gaels and Britons never applied such a label to themselves (again, so far as we know) (Cunliffe 2003, 5; Koch 2003)."
(John T Koch, An Atlas of Celtic Studies)
best
authun
Harry Amphlett
