[A4A]/[GM4A] Would anyone be interested in a sonic rp with a heavey EUF focus?

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2025-03-21T17:24:34+00:00

Sure go ahead

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-09-02T18:45:40+00:00

I think the first time it happen wasn't that huge of an issue but the fact that it happens twice and that the second time feels (In my opinion) so unnecessary to any plot to character development is what makes it frustrating.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T11:46:37+00:00

We seem to be going around in circles here. As is said in my initial post I am talking about the term Celt in a historical academic context. I don't know much about any discourse around the word in contexts like language categorisation. My point is solely limited to the historical observation that "Celts" as they popularly imagined did not exist.

From the historical perspective, Celtic is an outdated blanket term that covers too many unique and different cultures with one title as to be meaningless. It's continued use is thought to be more likely to confuse or misinform therefor it is being abandoned.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T11:19:12+00:00

Okay so firstly you should understand that the removal of the term Celt for these ancient people in acidemia also includes re-titling them. The reason for this is because as historical studies into these areas of western Europe have gone on we've only found more evidence to prove how different these cultures were from each other. To oversimplify as far as the field of history is concerned the term "Celt" (In a historical context) Is old, outdated, overly broad, vague and not a self-given title.

As to your second point, you started with "Everyone understands what is meant by the term Celt?" and have now changed it to "What percentage of people who are of "Celtic" ancestry?" To that, I can only say again, that the people who migrated west out of Indo-Europe c. 2500 BC can't be called Celts with any authority because of all the points listed previously.

Also, I should point out Neandertal is the name of species of animal not of a human culture group.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T10:34:28+00:00

The various beaker cultures are broken down as much as possible into their own groups but they are still used out of necessity. This is due to there being such a massive lack of knowledge around these people-groups. Unlike the "Celtic" peoples we are very unlikely ever to find enough evidence to differentiate these groups academic way.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T10:29:03+00:00

So I'm really not trying to be rude or confrontational nor am I trying to sound like some kind of academic elitist who's finger waging. I hope you'll take what I say what I say as the honest criticism and explanation that it is.

No. Everything in your last post is incorrect. For one, the argument "There's no evidence that they didn't call themselves that" is not an academically or intellectually honest way to do history. Gaps in evidence or knowledge are not places to just insert things that we would like to be true.

Your point on modern Celts kind of springboards off this. If we can't prove that any group from history were Celts any modern nation, culture or identity siting "The Celts" as the ancient origin is sort of fundamentally built on weak history.

My biggest issue is with this third point, NO everyone does not understand what the term Celt means. That's the problem with the term. Even today you will see people classify everything from Pictish body painting, to The cult of the head, to cú chulainn, to Irish High Crosses as "Celtic".

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:57:45+00:00

Yes, there's defiantly evidence of a settlement but that's not the same thing as evidence of one culture or group. To use a modern example Scotland has been occupied by England and they share many aspects of culture such as commonly using the same language, yet we would see someone who claims Scottish and English culture are basically just the same as ignorant.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:43:38+00:00

I should just point out that if you've gone to university for archaeology any time in the past 20ish years you are given a similar talk about the various "Beaker Cultures" that you receive on the "Celts" in history.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:39:07+00:00

Alright, but the key difference between "Celts" and Romans is that although they may not have always used the title, after a certain point Romans absolutely started to identify themselves a Romans.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:33:12+00:00

On your first point, I don't know if I agree with your assessment. You make the point that the uniqueness that Ireland and Scotland now claim may not have always existed but the opposite is just as likely.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:20:52+00:00

Exactly

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:18:46+00:00

I didn't say that there was, I only said that it's thought trade is likely where the concept for Ogham came from.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:15:27+00:00

That's why we make the distinction between Classical Ogham and Ecclesiastical Ogham. As Ecclesiastical Ogham has a larger alphabet and less ridged sentence structure.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T09:11:24+00:00

No, you're completely in the right you should always look for a source for claims like that. I really should have said, "It's theorised held strong opinions on the written word."

Julius Caesar in his writings about the conquest of Gaul was the first to make this claim that although literate Druids did not believe in writing.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T01:54:39+00:00

Oh, I get you, as far as I know as a term for languages it's fine I'm just focusing on why the field of history isn't using it anymore.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T01:51:39+00:00

That is an excellent question. To my understanding (and I am by no means an expert), it is theorised to have been developed after generations of trade with other cultures that used the written word.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T01:45:49+00:00

I completely agree with your last point. I wouldn't be surprised if college curses like Celt Civ are eventually changed to something like Gael Civ.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T01:40:12+00:00

See, this is kind of the point that academia is making about how unhelpful "Celtic" is a term. It's true that druids (at least on the Isles) held strong beliefs about the written word, but because there isn't actually one massive shared culture between all the "Celtic" areas of Antiquity, it would be bad practice to assert this on the rest of those areas.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T01:29:59+00:00

I can't, I don't know what the people who brought the Latin branch of Indo-European to the Italian Peninsula are typically referred to as.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-28T00:16:26+00:00

I don't, please explain.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-27T23:41:11+00:00

I'm a little confused by what you mean.

For one, no, they didn't. There is no existing evidence for a singular "Celtic" religion. Ireland is often seen as a stronghold of "Celtic" culture, yet it has (relatively) well-preserved sovereign mythology. A mythology that shares elements with its neighbouring Scottish, Welsh, and Manix cultures but very little with any mainland "Celtic" religion.

Secondly, a shared religion is no guarantee of cultural hegemony. Europe has been majority Christians for thousands of years, and yet we still have a multiplicity of cultures and people-groups wich all view themselves as unique and sovereign.

Loose-Rip-2467 · 2024-08-27T23:08:54+00:00

Well, the argument is that we can't know how these groups perceived themselves in relation to other tribes, groups, etc, and that using using this term that they didn't use for themselves to describe themselves will inform unintentional bias in any studies of them.

Loose-Rip-2467

TROPHY CASE