"Celt" Conjecture

[Rumo]

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.

I believe the common "ethnic knowledge" is restricted to stereotypes of the worst kind: Scots are greedy, Americans are fat, etc and I see no reason why in Antiquity in should have been different.

One of my favorite games when traveling abroad in Europe is faking identity, often spontaneously when I realize it's an opportunity for me to find out what some people believe. Depending on the situation, sometimes I disclose my little game, sometimes I just let them believe what they initially chose to.

One time in northern Italy I was asked where I am from. I said I'm from Romania, but the Italian believed I'm from Emilia-Romagna. My badly spoken Italian was enough for him to see me a Romagnolo. To be sure, throughout Italy I was asked what province I'm from even when speaking my own language which was interpreted as an Italian dialect.

There are some districts in Istanbul with a substantial Russian minority (in Laleli, IIRC). While walking on the streets, being overheard by local Turks speaking in my own native language, I was questioned if I'm a Russian (Romanian indeed has some Slavic loans). Sometimes I could play the game to the end with my mediocre grasp of Russian.

However it's not only the language, but also the look. My wife has curly, black hair and slightly darker complexion. Often, based on her appearance I guess, we were questioned if we're Spaniards or Greeks.

Or in my own country. It's economically rather undeveloped and the middle class is thin. Thus sometimes when I enter a high-class restaurant, but with nonchalance and casual dress, I get a "Hello, Sir". That is my attitude and dress code doesn't reflect the (stereo)typical Romanian who affords spending time and money in such a place and I must be a foreigner, a tourist perhaps.

So it's difficult for me to believe that people care too much to know their neighbors. Even if you'd dismiss these stories as anecdotic (which they certainly are), it remains the question how do you know your ancient informants were not that ignorant and indolent about their neighbors as some modern people are?

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.

Similarly Caesar doesn't claim to have heard the Gauls calling themselves Celts.

You can try to explain unicorns that way, but the problem is these fabulous animals live in Germania, whose tribes are also described. So it seems that beyond the Rhine there was this mythical land with savage tribes and unusual beasts. In this case how can we rely on Caesar's account of the German or on the differences he set between Germans and Celts?

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.

But for Caesar Germans were less civilized (cities, by the way, are one of the hallmarks of civilization, back then and now). See Riggsby's careful analysis I linked above.
As mentioned repeatedly, beyond the Rhine there was a similar "city"-based culture, proving Caesar's account wrong.

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.

What evidence do you have for "research"" and "interviews" and "firsthand knowledge"?

Why would Caesar invent something? The question is why not?

So he calls them Gauls with their Roman name. And he knows this other names for them, Celts, a name which was known by many people (see Strabo) and he couldn't ignore (he writes about them as someone who was in their country, he couldn't afford to miss the important topics and names). Should we expect Caesar to write something like "I know some people called them Celts, but no more than that. This is what I've read in Poseidonios. Otherwise I don't give a damn about who these barbarians are anyway"? Isn't so tempting to link this name to a local tradition, to persuade the readers of the authenticity of the information?

Yes, Caesar mentions many tribes. But a half of them show up only in lists (probably to impress his readers with the numerous tribes conquered), mostly undifferentiated or explained (who they were, what they did). His ethnographic survey is quite generous in broad terms, but failing in detail, in describing accurately each community.
Some of those tribes might have well never existed, their Roman name being derived from the name of some local leader or even envoy, the name of a village or a fortification chosen to be defended or even an indigenous uttering yelled in the eve of a battle. We have to understand that Caesar often faced conjunctural solidarities, and lacking a careful field investigation (modern anthropologists spend sometimes a lifetime living in indigenous communities), his groupings and names might tell nothing of the real tribal affiliations existing in Gaul prior to his conquest.