>Respectfully, this part-celt disagrees.
I agree with you on this part. There were no CELTS at that time, only Proto-Celts. (Anything before 610BC or is is Proto-Celtic. They are related.) While they did seem to have a large impact, there numbers were nothing like the REAL CELTS who followed, a thousand or so years later. The major Celtic dig at Hallstatt is a good example of that.
>I think the celts failed to leave very much impact,
Gotta disagree on that one. The Celtic impact on western civilization alone is immense. The CELTS became Western Europe and offspring and their total population today is around 1 BILLION.
>due partly to lack of a written language
The "lack" of written language was deliberate. It was not that were incapeable of writing as it sometimes alleged, but writing was prohibited by their theology. Their use of "oral tradition" carried them through quite nicely.
>... lack of a centralized government.
Centralized government didn't really make any sense since they were split into 10 tribes to begin with, and they were scattered all over the European and west Asian frontier. Their population size was over 5 MILLION at the time they were first identified, about 600 BC, at the same place the Lost Tribes of Israel disappeared. Without the internet for communications it would have been tough to hold them all together {ggg}.
>Also, they didn't survive as the cultural basis for any single nation.
True, but they DID survive as the cultural basis for the entire western hemisphere, made up of many tribes and nations, most of them "King-based" in accordance with prophesy.
>For example, modern Ireland is little more celtic, than it is anglo-saxon or norman or viking. Of course, I do grant that the language(s) remains with a not insignificant number of people, mainly in Ireland, Wales and Brittany.
Most of that unfortunately is ethnic and cultural myth. The Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Vikings WERE also Celts.
I spent time at the University of Dublin (Trinity College) as a Post-Doctoral Student studying Ancient Celtic History. (Did the same thing at Oxford University a little earlier). Turns out the Irish and Brits are terribly anal-retentive when it comes to their "Celtic heritage", to the point they virtually ignore the vast Celtic history of Continental Europe, which contains FAR more Celts.
Much of what we hear today from Ireland and England (Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, etc.) is designed to encourage the local tourist trade and should not be confused with historic fact. To really understand the Celts you also have to understand the European Celts.
Please check post #5, especially paragraphs 6 and 7 to see the broader picture of Who Were (and Are Today) The Celts.
-LT
Now Reuban and Gad were across the river Jordan and probably absorbed and got absorbed into the related tribes of Moab, Ammon etc.
int he south there were THREE tribes, FOUR if you count the Levites -- Judah, Benjamin and Simeon, who were given towns within Judah (in fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Jacob when Levi and Simeon slaughtered their sister's rapist).
The first Celtic archaeological pieces date from 900 BC, waaaay before the exile by the Assyrians.
The Assyrians would have dispersed the Israelis into Iraq, PART of the Assyrian empire and they would have split them up to fulfil their aim of ensuring that the conquered peoples NEVER posed a threat to Assyria (pretty good policy, the ones who did destroy Assyria were a federations of the Holy City (Babylon) residents adn outsiders -- the Medes.
True, but they DID survive as the cultural basis for the entire western hemisphere, made up of many tribes and nations, most of them "King-based" in accordance with prophesy.
err... no, they did NOT survive, they were slaughtered by the Romans and later 'Germans', well they may have been related, but their languages are not the same, quite distinct (as distinct as Welsh and English)
The Romans expanded far more and most people have Roman blood (the soldiers were given lands among hte conquered peoples)
Were the Romans Barbaric with their centuries long blood lust for Christians and others in the Coliseum? Were the Romans Warlike? Illiteracy becomes a relative thing when keeping written records was specifically prohibited
Maybe, but compared to the Celtic-GErmanic peoples, the Romans were hgihly civilised, almost like comparing America to the Bushmen tribes. THe Romans had cities, the Barbarians lived in caves or huts. the Romans had high literature, the Barbarians didn't have a widepsread written language. the Roman built great aquaducts, roads, etc. the Barbarians made swords to fight naked with. The Romans had civilisation, the barbarians had stone-age culture until the Romans gave them the gift of civilisation. All Europeans (and by derivative) Americans base their culture on Rome with Christian morals and teachings NOT on Germanic-Celtic primitive ways (even Wiccans dont' have the original Germanic primitve cultures which were lost when the Germans adopted civilisation)
Yup.