From: george knysh
Message: 49664
Date: 2007-08-26
> Dear Gentlemen,****GK: Find the map then make the point. How much
>
> I am afraid you are rejoicing a little bit too
> early.
>
> Kuhn's maps are interesting
> BUT
> 1. the coast-line was lying more to the south in old
> days
> 2. Kuhn has overlooked data :****GK: As stated, this, even if true (we don't know
> Instances of Condat and -ialos exist in higher
> numbers
> in the area where they allegedly "should not",
> 3. Kuhn's Celtic markers are not the only Celtic
> markers available.
> The area is just covered with Celtic markers, not
> taken into account by Kuhn.
>****GK: Both premature and irrelevant.****
> Henceforth,
>
> 1. I must tell you that I feel undaunted
>
> 2. I am afraid that after we have filled up the
> holes in Kuhn's maps
> and put the coast-line in the right place,
> there is a clear risk that non-Celtic areas will be
> squeezed out.
>****GK: Caesar accepted the prior Celtic status of all
> Next,
>
> I would like to ask Two questions about methodology
> :
> Q1 :
> Once place-names of Latin, Flemish, Frankish, Saxon
> are taken out of account,
> how much Celtic percentage is necessary to consider
> an area as Celtic ?
> Q2 :****GK: That's a fair question. If we assume that the
> How can a "Belgian" word be identified as being
> Belgian ?
>****GK: It happens though. E.g. the Cimmerians in
> I have never seen an invading population leaving no
> clear traces of its presence.