> The identification of Irish, Scots Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and
> Breton as "Celtic" languages is not a sociopolitical fabrication.
> it is the result of typological analysis. Therefore, I would be
> to know how James accounts for the linguistic data, if at all.
Not at all. James is an archaeologist, and for that one with a very
specific approach to the social interpretation of archaeological data
that is by far not shared by all archaeologists. His knowledge of
historical linguistics is very limited, and he is not actually
interested in the linguistic aspects at all, because in his book, a
specific interpretation of what archaeology shows about Iron Age
societies in Britain takes precedence over all evidence. Also see my
paper 'Celtosceptocism : a convenient excuse for ignoring
non-archaeological evidence?', in: E. Sauer (ed.), Archaeology and
Ancient History: breaking down boundaries. London and New York,
Routledge 2004: 185-99.
Mag.Dr. Raimund Karl
Lecturer in Heritage and Archaeology
Department for History and Welsh History, University of Wales Bangor,
Ogwen Building, Siliwen Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG
mailto: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
homepage: http://ausgegraben.org or http://www.bangor.ac.uk/history or