My point was that the Romans had a classification of "Celtic" to refer, as you say, to a large group of tribes. How they decided which tribes were "Celtic" is not, as far as I know, documented nor is there precise method of deciding who was "Celtic" and who wasn't. This reflects fairly accurately the "Red Indian" ethos of the old west in the USA. The differences between tribes wasn't, to the average white American, important. Nor was the racial origin of black slaves presented many different African cultures. I wasn't suggesting that Celtic tribes were nomads but, as often happens, there is a "bleeding" of cultures that live close to each other or are defeated in battle etc so there is an overlap As music and language are so dynamic, it's not unknown for a musician from one culture to "borrow" from another - as, I think, we all have. Popular opinion will soon assimilate anything "good" into their own culture (which is also dynamic and ever-changing).Although we word it differently, I think we are actually saying the same thing. Colin Hill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jocelyn Demuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [HG] My page about Asturias and Galicia
> The "Celtic" label is not a Roman "red Indian" misnomer but a historical and > archeological label to describe a large group of tribes that had similar > language, culture and religous aspects. Nor did the Romans did not label all > tribes as "Celtic" without distinction. Romans distinguished between many > different Celtic tribes. Futhermore, these tribes were not "free roaming."
