| How DO we find suitable common agreement for terms to identify the
| various Celtic/pre-Celtic tribal and racial groups, for the early groups
This is, of course, the problem. There is no separate 'Celtic race'.
They are racially the same as other IE's. The reason why most of us are
interested in the Celts is because of their culture, not their genes.
| of peoples which endured regionally (but intermingled) over a period
| of hundreds/ thousands of years ...
Over such a wide range of space and time, you can imagine the culture
is going to have a lot of regional variation, that cultures naturally
change over time and circumstance, and that local variations may also
be influenced by pre-IE peoples absorbed into Celtic/IE culture.
| What indeed can we collectively call these melting-pots of peoples
| who inhabited the (later) Celtic lands - from Spain, to Basque-region
| (another linguistic and haemotological 'can of worms') to Brittany,
| Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Logres, etc.
| And do we group these peoples by LANGUAGE, or by LINEAGE (blood-type,
| patriarchal descent/ marriage or matriarchal descent/ family-lands and
| affinities, etc.)?
If you're talking about Celts, who are defined ethno-linguistically,
language is the strongest marker. But much of this is basic quandry with
definitions. There was an article I saw about this about a year ago,
though I'm not totally sure what the academic archaeological journal was:
British Archaological Association, or some such...
I believe that language is the only meaningful indicator, and that this
can be paralleled in modern times by formerly Celtic-speaking peoples
being Anglicised and de-ethnicised foremost through attack on their