Tribes of Gaul

[L.D.Brousse]

How many of the so called Celtic tribes of Gaul do you think are true Celts?

I think a large percentage are Celtic in the true sense. But I also think many tribes are not Celtic but clumped together with all of Gaul.

[Cimmerianbloke]

What do you mean by true Celts? I checked the Wiki page and I found what I expected. "Celtic" in Gaul is like "European" today, it is a geographical, cultural, linguistic and civilizational compound term that englobes vague amounts of land and population, that stretches and shrinks in time and space. However, I think the migration waves in Europe have been studied long enough for you to find adequate answers on the net.

[sparkey]

I agree that "true Celts" is too ambiguous a term to work with here. Although, I think that even in the narrowest sense of the term, "Celt" becomes a synonym for "Gaul," with other Celtic peoples (Gaels, Brythons, Celtiberians, etc.) called "Celtic" but not "Celt." In the wider sense of the term "Celt," it also encompasses those peoples. Either way, all Gaulish speakers would have fit the definition of a "Celt."

But I think I might know what you're getting at with the question. You are probably wondering something more like: what is the actual percentage contribution of the Halstatt/La Tene expansions to different Gaulish tribes? I think that may be interesting to explore... and I wouldn't doubt that some (like the Helvetii) were basically direct descendants of La Tene folk, while others (like the Osismii) had strong pre-Halstatt/La Tene substrata.

[L.D.Brousse]

I agree Sparkey As you know my research is with the Santones and Pictones from what little I can find I do not think they are the same people as the rest of the tribes. And now that it is looking like SRY 2627's birth place is France I'm looking harder. I think the mass migration into Iberia and other places might go along with the Roman invasion. Even know these people Santones and Pictones help the Romans build a fleet of ships for the Roman help in defeating the Helviti who planed on taking their lands. Some of the population may have been displaced I have also heard that the Druids maybe from these people and you know what the Romans thought of them.

[zanipolo]

I agree Sparkey As you know my research is with the Santones and Pictones from what little I can find I do not think they are the same people as the rest of the tribes. And now that it is looking like SRY 2627's birth place is France I'm looking harder. I think the mass migration into Iberia and other places might go along with the Roman invasion. Even know these people Santones and Pictones help the Romans build a fleet of ships for the Roman help in defeating the Helviti who planed on taking their lands. Some of the population may have been displaced I have also heard that the Druids maybe from these people and you know what the Romans thought of them.

IIRC I read that some pockets of gallic france did not speak celtic/gallic, like aquitaine area which spoke a gascon dialect which originated from basque plus the taurisci and carni who originated in southern France and migrated to eastern austria and eastern italy respectively did not speak a celtic language as no evidence has been found.
Apparently, and I am still checking , the Nori an illyrian tribe in eastern austria got overrun by these taurisci around 500Bc and over time, the taurisci became to be called Norici.

The issue of celtic being a people or simply a term bracketing tribes who spoke the same/similar language still baffles me

[Diviacus]

But I think I might know what you're getting at with the question. You are probably wondering something more like: what is the actual percentage contribution of the Halstatt/La Tene expansions to different Gaulish tribes? I think that may be interesting to explore... and I wouldn't doubt that some (like the Helvetii) were basically direct descendants of La Tene folk, while others (like the Osismii) had strong pre-Halstatt/La Tene substrata.

What does mean "descendants of La Tene folks "?
and what is the relation with "true Celts" ?
These two expression don't have any sense, or too many.

[zanipolo]

we need to be careful here on La Tene and Halstatt. While I agree fully La Tene was celtic, issues with Halstatt being started by celtic is suspect. What is written is that Halsatt started around 800BC in eastern Austria, but there where no celts there until 500BC, the only people I can find there are Rhaetians, Venetic and illyrians. My guess is Halstatt expanded after the arrival of the celts but was not started by the celts.
If someone can link different evidence it would be appreciated

[Taranis]

we need to be careful here on La Tene and Halstatt. While I agree fully La Tene was celtic, issues with Halstatt being started by celtic is suspect. What is written is that Halsatt started around 800BC in eastern Austria, but there where no celts there until 500BC, the only people I can find there are Rhaetians, Venetic and illyrians. My guess is Halstatt expanded after the arrival of the celts but was not started by the celts.
If someone can link different evidence it would be appreciated

Zanipolo, I think you are confusing something here. The Hallstatt Culture did not originate at the location of Hallstatt - that is merely the place after which is the archaeological culture is named, because it's origins are different: The Hallstatt Culture evolves without a clear break from the earlier Urnfield Culture, and it's core area is a wide arc from eastern France to Bohemia. Beyond that, there is absolutely no evidence that the Illyrians or the Adriatic Veneti (I'm excluding the Raeti because they were not a homogenous ethnic group) ever were in eastern France or in Bohemia.

[zanipolo]

Zanipolo, I think you are confusing something here. The Hallstatt Culture did not originate at the location of Hallstatt - that is merely the place after which is the archaeological culture is named, because it's origins are different: The Hallstatt Culture evolves without a clear break from the earlier Urnfield Culture, and it's core area is a wide arc from eastern France to Bohemia. Beyond that, there is absolutely no evidence that the Illyrians or the Adriatic Veneti (I'm excluding the Raeti because they were not a homogenous ethnic group) ever were in eastern France or in Bohemia.

I am confused in why you mentioned france, as far as i know halstatt is near salzburg ( eastern austria) and La Tene is in Switzerland. I am referring to only halstatt

I did find 2 books which contradict each other , the first is a metururgy book , stating illyrians in Halstatt , like strabo did
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...yrians&f=false
page 268

and the next says ,there where no illyrians but venetics and norici ( which seems to be a name used as a confederation of many tribes as per Ptolemy)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...yrians&f=false
Page 20

Where there celts in slazburg area around 800BC ? ....i have not read about it

[Taranis]

I am confused in why you mentioned france, as far as i know halstatt is near salzburg ( eastern austria) and La Tene is in Switzerland. I am referring to only halstatt

I did find 2 books which contradict each other , the first is a metururgy book , stating illyrians in Halstatt , like strabo did
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...yrians&f=false
page 268

and the next says ,there where no illyrians but venetics and norici ( which seems to be a name used as a confederation of many tribes as per Ptolemy)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...yrians&f=false
Page 20

Where there celts in slazburg area around 800BC ? ....i have not read about it

Zanipolo, you seem to be reducing the archaeological cultures to the types sites (ie, Hallstatt in Austria, La-Tene in Switzerland) after which these cultures are named. The Hallstatt Culture stretched across a much larger area, including eastern France and Bohemia.

It should be added that we obviously do not *know* what language people in the Hallstatt time spoke as they were iliterate, but if we extrapolate from the evidence in Roman times, then I find it problematic to argue for any non-Celtic (Etruscan, Germanic, Illyrian... or, which makes even less sense than any of the former, Slavic) identification of the culture.

[zanipolo]

Zanipolo, you seem to be reducing the archaeological cultures to the types sites (ie, Hallstatt in Austria, La-Tene in Switzerland) after which these cultures are named. The Hallstatt Culture stretched across a much larger area, including eastern France and Bohemia.

It should be added that we obviously do not *know* what language people in the Hallstatt time spoke as they were iliterate, but if we extrapolate from the evidence in Roman times, then I find it problematic to argue for any non-Celtic (Etruscan, Germanic, Illyrian... or, which makes even less sense than any of the former, Slavic) identification of the culture.

I avoid reducing Archaeological cultures,its not what I want, but maybe this boils down to the question I have asked many times..........what is a celtic , is it a culture or is it a linguistic association of tribes.
Then again historians say the venetics dressed like celts but did not speak like celts. Illyrians did not dressed like celts but adopted celtic customs and phrases ............so its highly confusing.


link below is available in german which could hold more information
http://www2.rgzm.de/Transformation/N...r_englisch.htm

[Cimmerianbloke]

I agree with Zanipolo that the whole "Celtic" thing is very unsettling if you start digging. The problem is that a lot of our research is based on classical texts, that can be quite vague to translate and prone to exaggeration and clichés. To answer to LD's question to the best of my limited knowledge, I would say that Gaul was celtic before Cesar's invasion and shortly afterwards. As for how long it had been celtic at that point will probably never be known, but it is safe to say that Celts coming from the east settled and mixed with locals, and might not be seen as "true Celts" anymore. I recommend you check Barry Cunliffe's books, they are pretty accurate, as are Wencelas Kruta's works. The problem with Celtic studies is that some pseudo-scholars wrote a lot of garbage (the worst of them being French writer Jean Markale) that totally discredited serious academic research. I'd be delighted if you'd share your research with us at a later stage. Good luck...

[Cimmerianbloke]

Moimelop,
the best reference I have ever seen is a catalogue guide to an exhibition held in 1991 in Venice at the Palazzo Grassi that featured all specialists of the Celtic studies world. It has been recently re-printed in french but is sadly extremely rare and expensive in english. It is however, the only book you need to read to know everything you need to about the Celts.
The ISBN for the abridged version is 0847821935.

[Taranis]

I agree with Zanipolo that the whole "Celtic" thing is very unsettling if you start digging. The problem is that a lot of our research is based on classical texts, that can be quite vague to translate and prone to exaggeration and clichés. To answer to LD's question to the best of my limited knowledge, I would say that Gaul was celtic before Cesar's invasion and shortly afterwards. As for how long it had been celtic at that point is probably never be known, but it is safe to say that Celts coming from the east settled and mixed with locals, and might not be seen as "true Celts" anymore. I recommend you check Barry Cunliffe's books, they are pretty accurate, as are Wencelas Kruta's works. The problem with Celtic studies is that some pseudo-scholars wrote a lot of garbage (the worst of them being French writer Jean Markale) that totally discredited serious academic research. I'd be delighted if you'd share your reasearch with us at a later stage. Good luck...

I agree in so far as that the problem, indeed, one of the main problems is that there is not "one" definition of who or what a "Celt" is, and that several definitions are around which are sometimes used in free variation with each other (partially because there is also significant overlap between them):

1) in the historic context, the "Celts" were the people(s) that the Greeks refered to as "Keltoi" or "Galatoi", and the Romans refered to as "Celtae" or "Galli". What might be added is that the term "Celt" appears to have been an endonym (self-designation) of the people that inhabited that the Romans perceived as "Gaul" and the lands along the Danube.

2) in the archaeological context, we associate the culture of La-Tene with the people described in #1. We thus might (with a big caveat) describe it as "Celtic".

3) in the context of linguistics, anybody who speaks a Celtic language. This is actually a very clean-cut definition, but when looking into ancient sources, this poses a huge problem since the Celtic-speaking peoples were for the greater part illiterate. This means, the main source of information about them are onomastics, that is place names, personal names, deity names, etc. - all these sources are only basically from the Roman period, and it's admittedly a gamble to try to project this on the situation centuries earlier.

(if we compare definitions #1, #2 and #3 against each other, we notice a striking difference: although linguistically clearly Celtic, the Romans never refered to the Britons or the Gaels as "Celts", and the term is only used inconsistently to the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian peninsula. Likewise, the La-Tene Culture certainly didn't encompass all Celtic-speaking peoples - and conversely, people like the Illyrians and Thracians adopted La-Tene styles without themselves speaking a Celtic language)

4) a denizen of any one of the modern "Celtic" nations, regardless of wether they speak a Celtic language or not (after all, with exception of Welsh, they are all either endangered or moribund). Since there never was a unifying "Celtic" identity until modern times (read: neither the Gaels nor the Britons refered to, or saw themselves as Celts until ca. the 19th century), it's obvious that this is a modern construct and when erroneously applied, can lead to a lot of confusions (which is why I think it's the worst confusion).

One problem that I see with the whole discussion with anything "Celtic", whenever it arises, is that I think people are almost always biases in one way or another, especially in the way that they have become a subject of a strange kind of romanticism (or worse, nationalist/irredentist agendas) that is projected onto the past, and my sad impression is that even many scholars have succumbed to this. A truly bad very recent example in popular culture would be Pixar's "Brave" film.

[L.D.Brousse]

It's pretty much like us in North America and our use of the term Indian. And the Roman conquest of Gaul and rest of Europe is not unlike our conquest of America With the exception the Celtic tribes did not look that much different from the Romans so assimilation was possible. This was not true for American Indians. The other thing I find pretty neat is the Language since the Celts had no written langauge and invading armys tried to translate Celt into words. My surname to me is a case in point it was Brousse "old French" meaning from the Forest or Bush it was Anglitize to Bruce in 1704 in America which also means from the thickets One from France one from England different spellings but mean near the same thing

[zanipolo]

interesting article - gauls invasiion of italy and austria

http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...lts/celt1a.pdf

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/celts/celt1b.pdf




theres an A and B

[Diviacus]

Moimelop,
the best reference I have ever seen is a catalogue guide to an exhibition held in 1991 in Venice at the Palazzo Grassi that featured all specialists of the Celtic studies world. It has been recently re-printed in french but is sadly extremely rare and expensive in english. It is however, the only book you need to read to know everything you need to about the Celts.
The ISBN for the abridged version is 0847821935.

This is a good book but somehow outdated.

[MOESAN]

celtic # Celt well defined tribes
OK, but, notwithstanding the language, we know or believe knowing that Gaul druids were supposed being used to go to Britannia for religious contacts and that more than a time Brittons send help to Gauls in their war against Roman Empire - maybe rubbish? maybe the military help was the fact of only southern tribes of the Island lately arrived from Gaul or Belgium in Britannia?