I must admit to being a bit of a Tacitus fan. On the theme of 'What Defines a Celt', here are a few words from Tacitus on Germans...
"The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former times it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail from our world. And, beside the perils of rough and unknown seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa for Italy for Germany, with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners and aspect, unless indeed it were his home? In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past they celebrate an earth-born god Tuisco, and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones. Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilij, and that these are nine old names. The name Germany, on the other hand, they say is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror."
The Germanica: The Inhabitants. 0rigins of the Name Germany
Caesar, writing on the Gauls (Celt's) said:
"All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage war on their frontiers. One part of these, which it has been said that the Gauls occupy, takes its beginning at the river Rhone; it is bounded by the river Garonne, the ocean, and the territories of the Belgae; it borders, too, on the side of the Sequani and the Helvetii, upon the river Rhine, and stretches toward the north. The Belgae rises from the extreme frontier of Gaul, extend to the lower part of the river Rhine; and look toward the north and the rising sun. Aquitania extends from the river Garonne to the Pyrenaean mountains and to that part of the ocean which is near Spain: it looks between the setting of the sun, and the north star."
Caesar: The Gallic Wars, Book 1 Chapter 1
So I ask this, are modern historians overly complicating the organisation and definition of a 'Celtic' culture/nation. As we can see from classical descriptions the Romans took a much looser definition of these peoples. Basically, if you we're not a 'German' and lived west of the Rhine you were a Celt. Yes, there are many common themes in art etc. between peoples distributed over a large geographical area in Western Europe, but that is even more the case today and I would not describe myself as a German (not after what Tacitus had to say about them
) or a Spaniard even though, apart from language, we are pretty much the same. The same is true of Ancient times is it not if you read Caesars description.Of course deep down there are fundamental differences between European peoples, but was that not also the case with the 'Gaulish' tribes in Caesars times?
) but, are you saying that the integration of these peoples went hand in hand with the introduction of Iron? Why then did other Irong age peoples not become part of this european wide Celtic integration? The only classical reference say theses peoples were confined to Gaul and Asia (As Asia was then, eastern anatolia) yet virtually all european and north africal civilisations were using Iron as well, but maintained a very differient cultural identity.