Respectfully, this part-celt disagrees. I think the celts failed to leave very much impact, due partly to lack of a written language at the time, and lack of a centralized government.
Also, they didn't survive as the cultural basis for any single nation. 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.
An uncle of mine, born in the mid-1800s in Minnesota, of Canadian-Irish-protestant (eg. Scots) origins, was named Adomnan. This is the name of St. Columba's scribe, another priest at Iona. Scottish and Irish protestants can be good celts, too.
>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
but the dynasty lives on in my sweater that is named "backhair"