From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 64926
Date: 2009-08-22
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[...]
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 2:00:17 PM on Saturday, August 22, 2009, tgpedersen wrote:
>>> in the area of Insular Celtic languages included. ThisI'm not. You're trying to equivocate on 'Celtic'.
>>> means (Stephen Oppenheimer pointed this out) that either
>> > 1) the Insular Celtic languages are not Celtic, or
>> Which is obviously false: the definition of 'Celtic
>> language' is pretty unambiguous.
> Don't be disingenuous.
>>> 2) Hallstatt and La Tène cultures are not Celtic cultures.Of course you can, unless you're under the delusion that
> I was pointing out that whatever term you use, you can't
> use it both of the relict languages on the British Isles
> and in Brittany and of the Hallstatt culture, which was
> Oppenheimer's point.
>> Also from the La Tène article:I can't say that Oppenheimer's opinions matter much to me;
>> Some of the societies that are archaeologically identified
>> with La Tène material culture were identified by Greek and
>> Roman authors from the 5th century onwards as keltoi
>> ("Celts") and galli ("Gauls").
> Which is obviously irrelevant. The question is: who got
> the idea of identifying the relict Western languages with
> the Celtic culture of Gaul?
>> Herodotus placed keltoi at the source of the Danube, in the
>> heartland of La Tène material culture.
> Oppenheimer has problems with that one too.
>> Whether this means that the whole of LaZero marks for failing to understand (or at any rate to
>> Tène culture can be attributed to a unified Celtic people
>> is difficult to assess; archaeologists have repeatedly
>> concluded that language, material culture, and political
>> affiliation do not necessarily run parallel.
> A platitude by which the author tries to dispel doubts
> about the present assignations.