Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[Conal]

I think the arguement is that there was not a body of Iron Age peoples across Europe who identified themselves as a homogenous who were called Celts. That 19th century types constructed this identity for them based on their own romantisied view of the down trodden Scots/Irish/Welsh/Bretons based perhaps in an ethnic view.

It may well be that only those in the area identified by Julius Ceasar called themselves Celts in their own language and that such as the Belgic tribes did not. However as these Celts were the 1st contact and that if it can be established that the language they spoke was linked to all other IA communities then I see no reason why that cannot be denoted as Celtic thus identifying the lot as a linguistic group rather than a race. Also there may well have been a loose cultural/religious commonality running from Anglesea to central France via Druidic practices.

IIRC was there not a letter sent to a Gaul to intercede with another in Turkey thus indicating connection/influence over quite a distance. I keep meaning to look this up but never get round to it :|

I have read these Celto-Sceptic books and certrainly Collis has a political aspect to it which seems to stem from a sceptisism about the Celtic countries/areas seeking devolotion by way of ethnic identity ( as was once said by a fellow student some years ago " why do the Irish see themselves as different, it's not as though they have a their own language or culture?"), he seems to worry about such seperatism as a negative in light of incresaed movement to an enlarged EU with less national identity. Seems to me a bad resson to deconstruct the Celts