“No sorry you do not seem to understand the point. The langauges of the Irish and Welsh say share similarities, but they are substantially different. It may indicate that at omne time in the dim distant past they wre the same, but that is of little consequence in considering later cultural attrributes. “
You don’t understand the point made by the experts , the linguists , who group the Welsh and Irish into the category Celtic . We are not talking of later attributes we are talking of the LBA and IA .
I am not sure you understand linguistic study at all. The idea of grouping is not the samer as saying language familiers mean cultural affinity for the third time. You are aware the Irish are said to have invaded parts of Wales?
“Do you tell the Danes and Dutch they are "Germanic"? I would not like to be standing next to you when you do. “
It’s not how they might describe their language , it’s how linguists would .
No it is not nor how they owould describe their cultural affinities either - Thanks for conceeding.
“Sorry again I was referring to the number of times you used it. Tryiung to use distant language relations to assert cultural uniformity is inaccurate. I again refer you to the peoplee of North America, or of Southern Africa. “
They are not distant languages they belong to the same linguistic grouping . The cultural affinities like the genetics and art also apparent .
Simply untrue sorry.
“Well the experts are revising their opinion - you said you attended ther BM exhibition? Celt is just a word, not a poitical term.”
The experts in linguistics , genetics , art and history are not changing their opinion .A few archaeologists did 20 years ago but they have been very quiet of late .
Where did I say I attended the exhibition .
Yes , Celtic is just a word like Germanic and Slavic it describes a group of people from a particular period and time with similar languages , art , genes and culture .The word was borrowed from the Greek and Roman historians it could be anything .
I hate to burst your bubble but trying to make something out of broad langauge families is highly dubious. The Poles and Russians have distinct cultures, hoiwever much you may claim that they do not.
“Is it and this is a direct reference to cultutal affinity is it? The paper asserts that there was a cultural uniformity among the Welsh Scots and Irish? This seems more a reference to genetics, not to religious belief, language, political association economic activity ie the very things once defined as "Celtic".[
Of course it was a quote a from the paper if you had read it instead of a garbled confused hack article you would have recognised it as such . The paper was about genetics not culture .
Not a very good quote though was it. And geneticists sometimes tend not to be very good when it comes to history and archeology. And "sigh" once again my genetics do not determine what language I speak, whether I read Ogham or whether I am a Christian.
The reference to the impact of Anglo-Saxon migration is very dubious to say the least. No one of sense says "undoubtedly" about anything regarding regarding the A/S adventus. What is meant here? is the assertion that the migrations (invasions) involved substantial numbers or mass displacement of peoples? The general feeling now is that it did not. Does the (again increasingly outmoded) term "Anglo-Saxons" include the Franks and the Flemings? “
Tell that to the geneticists . The “undoubtedly “ was clearly a reference to the signal from the genetic data . The important point being the distinguishing markers “Anglo Saxon “ and “Celtic “ . Remember this was the paper that is the basis for the hack article .
You are the one quoting them with unquestioning almost religious approval. When someone writes a paper you accept it totally on trust? You are aware that there have been many assertions/claims etc made by geneticists and others regarding the fourth to sixth centuries?
You are aware that the allegedly clear cultural differntials between the A/S and R/B are not longer thought to be so clear cut?
And were the people who wrote the paper historians and archaeologists? The asserttion about the English would imply not. “
Of course not , they were geneticists , the same experts who have put flesh on the bones of what the historians and archaeologists fantasise about . The term (modern) English was used perfectly correctly in relation to the same signal and data . Do you want to be rid of the term English too ?
“Interesting but still no reference to cultutral attrributes, which is what the issue is.”
So why pretend that they are or have especial knowledge? Geneticis need context to make their points and it doesn't help when they use ridiculous words like "undoubtedly". And the use of the term English in this period does cause problems yes. The presence of the Franks in part of PRB has only recently been advbanced - and not fully accepted. And of course we have the issue of the Belgae - who they?
And what do these geneticists say happened to the R/B population? They evaporated?
“Actually I would, and these terms are not used near as much in a cultural sense as they once were. Most of us do not call all people of the far east "chinese" any more. Do you? “[/quote]Yes , very interesting , genetics destroyed any credibility that the celtosceptics had .
Genes are obviously not culture .They are only one aspect of the term Celtic ,albeit a more recent one .
There are important differences between Germanic and Celtic cultures . You have already been told of the linguistic , artistic ,and genetic thread running through Celtic culture . That is enough ,but in the far more difficult to retrieve historical sense it is clear that Celtic culture was more clan based than Germanic ,which was based on war bands ,Celtic had a priestly caste Druids / Vates mentioned historically and venerated bards etc this is not something we find associated with Germanic tribes . The term nemeton is found widely in Celtic areas , but not in Germanic areas .
Don't know what you are talking about - what "thread" and what are you defing as "Germanic". Simply asserting things does not make them true. How many Ogham stones are there in Gaul? How many full chariot burrials are there in Wales? And what of the Picts? Do they share this "thread"? Why are there no hillforts in some areas, but lots in others etc etc
No idea what "clan based" is supposed to mean, clans are largely an 18th century invention. Are you seriously suggesting your "Germanic" and "Celtic" cuttures were not both warrior based? The native Irish did not have war bands? So much for the Fianna. I was under the impression the Germans had a priestly class - so was the Venerable Bede so was St Boniface - got it wrong did they?
.We are talking about terms in relation to the IA , they make perfect sense
You seem to be desperately jumping all over the place - I am talking about the alleged single culture which mysteriously united the people, all the peoples of Western Europe (apart from the "Germanics") from the Iron age and beyond. Surely you would not ignore the "Celtic flowering" of the fifth century?
The Chinese comment is as silly as it gets .
“. And one reason people go quiet (whatever this means) is that the argument is won. “
We no longer hear from Collis and James on the Celtic question any more because they lost the argument with the art and linguistic experts long ago , the genetics was the final nail in the coffin .
Really well the fact remains sorry. And I am sorry my point about the Chinese irritates you, but you have not answered it. Have you.
And here's a tip it is very foolish in debates of this type to talk of "final nails in the coffin" as you would know if you have seen and read the BM exhibition, which you claimed to have done.