08-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Didn't the original question have to do with whether the "Celts" were called so by themselves, or others? Given that the "socialogical science of ethnography" didn't exist as a discipline in those days, it's likewise simple to assume that the peoples in any given area knew quite a lot about those nearby, and maybe only some reportage by travelers or prisoners concerning those farther away. Of course some of the "elk and unicorn, human sacrifice in a wicker man" stories are fanciful, but these are things that are reported to him, not things Caesar claimed to have seen. Reminiscent of the "Here there be dragons" inserts on medieval maps.
Let's look at it another way. Why in the world would Caesar open his commentary with the statement that the people in modern France/Belgium called themselves Celts if they didn't? What would be the point of that? He certainly knew what the Romans called them, right? And he was aware of dozens of tribal names for the regional inhabitants, and wrote about differing characteristics/local histories/political personalities of those. He didn't just make that information up, it was researched by various means, including interviewing people who lived in those areas and firsthand knowledge.
The Germanics he describes were not "less advanced" than the Gauls, but they had less metal, were less affluent, and did not build cities at that time. Instead, they were more nomadic, staying in an area for a year or two, then moving on to another area. That didn't make them more or less civilized, just different. In the long term, being less centralized proved to be an advantage. The Gaullish people frequently surrendered when their hard-point cities were taken, but the Germanics simply moved back into the forest and vanished to fight another day. Of course this is overly simplistically stated. I'm hoping to avoid multi-page posts.
So why, then, would Caesar say the Gauls called themselves "Celts", if it were not so?
Let's look at it another way. Why in the world would Caesar open his commentary with the statement that the people in modern France/Belgium called themselves Celts if they didn't? What would be the point of that? He certainly knew what the Romans called them, right? And he was aware of dozens of tribal names for the regional inhabitants, and wrote about differing characteristics/local histories/political personalities of those. He didn't just make that information up, it was researched by various means, including interviewing people who lived in those areas and firsthand knowledge.
The Germanics he describes were not "less advanced" than the Gauls, but they had less metal, were less affluent, and did not build cities at that time. Instead, they were more nomadic, staying in an area for a year or two, then moving on to another area. That didn't make them more or less civilized, just different. In the long term, being less centralized proved to be an advantage. The Gaullish people frequently surrendered when their hard-point cities were taken, but the Germanics simply moved back into the forest and vanished to fight another day. Of course this is overly simplistically stated. I'm hoping to avoid multi-page posts.
So why, then, would Caesar say the Gauls called themselves "Celts", if it were not so?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
