08-07-2010, 09:45 PM
Quote:Why? You challenged the claim by others that names with -celt- in them could be used as proof for 'Celt' being a correct name for the group - well, what's being discussed here. You say that the names provided are not admissable because the come from the Roman period.Quote:Also, it's quite unfair to dismiss this evidence 'because it's from the Roman period'. I imagine that you can tell us a good number of names from the pre-Roman period (that is, taken from other sources than Roman)?Why?
First of all, I do not see why any name from the Roman period must be a name that arrived only after the Roman occupation. Hundreds of names that we find in Gaul and other occupied territories are clearly not Roman, so i fail to see your argument that these must be Roman and cannot be pre-Roman.
Secondly, I think that we do know precious little pre-Roman names, since history only begins with the Romans. Hence my question - if you dismiss names from the Roman period as inadmissable, I ask you if you even know sources that provide names from the pre-Roman period.
Quote:However we have no reason to believe that only Celtic speakers had "Celtic" names.Are you arguing that this is a case like the personal name 'Dutch', which is not being used by a Dutchman, and also does not originate with a group calling themselves 'Dutch', but are referred to as such by others only?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)