"Celt" Conjecture

[cagwinn]

Vercingetorix's father Celtillus was born (and named) well before the Roman conquest.

No, he is actually gets his name in Caesar's account, there' s no way to show it's not a Roman interpretation.

In this case I go with Chris, there's no logical reason whatsoever to suppose that Caesar would invent a name for him, and a Roman name at that. An interpretation of what exactly?

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

The Celtici tribe of Spain bore this name before the Roman conquest.

Evidence?

Evidence of the contrary?

I repeat, they are mentioned by this name by Greek authors long before Roman the conquest.
A discussion of some of the earliest sources mentioning the "Celts" of Spain:
[url:ngcm6ahm]http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html[/url]

The name Kelti was inscribed on a stone in Iberian script along with numerous other Celtiberian graffiti in Peñalba, Spain and a tombstone from Langa de Duero:, Spain bears a Celtiberina inscription with a name on it that can be read as Keltis.

Interesting. But evidence?
For example on the inscription from Langa de Duero, it can be as well "Beltis" (to be sure, the first symbol on the last line doesn't look really neither as a "be", nor as a "ke")

OK, the evidence seems not 100% conclusive.

Enough scholars support the keltis reading for us to take it seriously. Anyway, my argument certainly does not hinge on this one inscription!

You are right here, however, Chris is not arguing for anything like that. I think all serious schoars accept that the 'categories Celt and German' are not clear-cut, homogenous, black and white groups, but a much more difficult mixture of ethnicity, culture and language.

But that's not what Chris is arguing - he does not say that Caesar and tacitus are right by saying that Celts or Germans saw themselves as part of one common group. Or do you Chris?
He is trying to show us that at least some groups knew and used the name Celt or Kelt in their personal names and tribal names.

I think that those people who called themselves "Celts", who spoke very similar languages, worshiped similar gods, and had similar social institutions, saw themselves as part of a common cultural group (it would be bizarre if they didn't!!), though obviously their first loyalties were to their families and tribes (they had no concept of a nation yet - though folks such as Vercingetorix were working to develop one; some scholars propose that Gaul effectively had a proto-nation on the eve of the Roman conquest).

It think it's funny that the Celts are the only ancient people who get dissected in such a manner - where are all the deconstructionists/revisionists when it comes to the Iranians, the Indians, or the Slavs?? Why do some of you people not want them to have existed? Do you feel threatened, or something?