Ancient Celts Did Not Exist...

[Celtictool]

Hi, Celtictool. I would be tempted to say something interesting, new (and maybe even controvertial) on the subject. Regular contributors watch the threads, and the conversation is likely to restart of its own accord.

 

That sounds awesome! Currently I'm working on an MA in Roman Archaeology where many of these issues (ones surrounding identity and certainty about the archaeological record) been been brought up. I'm deeply interested to know what people visiting fora, such as this one, have to say on the subject -- where they see issues, benefits, etc. From my perspective as a MA student I see that there's quite a large amount of disconnect between what academics say and what is said in public spaces. It is this topic -- the reality/myth of the Celts -- that most interests me. I've looked at some of the works by Simon James, David Mattingly, Sian Jones, J P Mallory, and Lord Colin Renfrew just to name a few. Hopefully we can discuss what's new vs. old and what's academic vs. public. Just let me know what you're thinking. What's new? What do you see as issues?

[Northern Neil]

Is anyone interested in continuing this discussion? Please reply if you are! I would not mind discussing this further.

Well, how about sharing your own views, and airing your opinions on what has already been said? I gather from your forum name that your main area of interest is the Celts - ancient and modern! Basically, what a lot of us seem to be saying is that what the ancients called Celtic, and what we now call Celtic, are not neccessarily the same thing, and that huge areas of Central Europe once thought to be 'Celtic' (because of association with the La Tene culture) might actually have been a mixture of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Iranian speakers. What do you reckon?

 

EDIT: Oppenheimer's 'Origins of the British' may be of interest to you. It is fairly recent, 2006, and he challenges the traditional view that all of the Britons were Celtic. Using primary sources such as Tacitus and Caesar, genetic and linguistic studies, he argues that the Lowland Britons of the South East and Midlands may in fact have been Germanic - or 'English' - all along, or at least since quite a while before the Roman invasions.

[Celtictool]

Well, how about sharing your own views, and airing your opinions on what has already been said? I gather from your forum name that your main area of interest is the Celts - ancient and modern!

 

Yes, I am indeed interested in what (I guess use to be called) Celtic Studies -- including both ancient and modern. My forum name is a name I came up with in my early teens from my interest in the Celts and the band Tool. Just wanted to clarify that, haha.

 

(Sorry for repeating some of this, but I feel that it flows into my understanding so it's worth stating again, I think)

During my undergraduate, at a US University, I took courses in anthropology (American anthropology which includes archaeology -- I'm still learning the differences between the US version of anthropology and the UK version), classics, and more focused studies of archaeology. I combined these courses with history courses in modern Irish History. Fortunately I was able to dove-tail these studies to look at both archaeology and modern representations of Northern European peoples in pre-history and in modern Irish and American representations. I've found this to be very interesting, yet to be increasingly fractured. The fracturing is mainly due to the disconnect I feel that is present between academic research and what reaches the public realm. Currently I am working on a MA in Roman Archaeology -- part of this program (which is in the UK) -- is looking at identity in the Roman provinces.

 

I don't mean to come off as sound like I am on a high-horse or something like that, but what I feel is there's a disconnect between what academics are writing about and what can be reasonably portrayed to the public. That is to say, the current paradigm favoring deconstructive/anti-positivist view points looking at lack of homogeneity of the archaeological record has either confused the public or been unable to engage the public at a level that is meaningful.

 

My main question is this: At what point are academics bickering amongst themselves to little or no use of the public's understanding of their research?

 

This is why I have come to a forum to ask these questions. I feel I might get a better understanding of what people, both academic and non-academic, get out of archaeological research. Mainly, do people feel they read these books and are left with more questions than answers? Maybe you were hoping to gain a better understanding of the Northern European Iron Age peoples only to be left wondering what exactly does "Northern European" and "Iron Age" mean. I realize this is a bit extreme and out there, but hopefully it illustrates my point.

 

Personally, I read through Simon James' book The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People Or Modern Invention? and I thought it was amazing. It rapidly introduces complex issues and concepts that have come about in archaeological thought, but, if it was not for already almost having finished my degree by this point, I probably would have needed a good amount of office time with a professor to fully appreciate what was being stated in the book. Actually...come to think of it...I still need a fair amount of office time with professors to fully, or partially, understand what is being said in some works. James, like John Collis, has looked at ancient authors and mainly seen them as biased in that they are Romans and not entirely or at all Celts. This is good, I would say, since we are stating that they initial literary data-set that we are starting off with has a few flaws in it. This is a point which both authors have stated against George Buchanan whom they claim to be, more or less, the father of the modern concept of the Celts. From there we see a fracture of different aspects of life such as language and material culture. Is someone a Celt because they speak a Celtic language or are they a Celt because they live in a round house and wear torcs? Well, if we go with the linguistic route then we cannot really go into pre-history on a firm stance otherwise we could make a similar mistake as Gustaf Kossinna. However, some academic work, which appears to be appreciated even in light of the research conducted by Gustaf Kossinna, continues to do this such as Lord Colin Renfrew and J P Mallory both of whom either focus or dabble in researching the Indo-Europeans. So, if we cannot focus on linguistics as a limiting factor then how about material culture? If we are to speak of the Celts, then what unifying aspect of material culture unites Northern European peoples? Some say the La Tene or Hallstatt cultures, but some academics have rejected these cultures. I think some of the work by James, Collis, and, possibly, Colin Haselgrove might be seen as a rejection of La Tene culture. By this I mean that they reject a single monolithic Celtic culture which started in La Tene and spread out from there. Instead, there appears to be an acceptance of Northern European Iron Age peoples which, broadly, shared some aspects of material culture, but should not be seen as homogeneous. However, this appears to be commonly interpreted to mean that we should understand the Celts in terms of their tribal names given to them by the Romans -- or at least recorded by the Romans/Latin speakers. Yet, tribal names suggests that they are tribes which suggest a form of socio-political structure/organization which might not have been the case. Therefore we are left without an ability to project linguistic research into archaeology, no monolithic culture, and no set socio-political organization...what are we left with then? Well, for me, there's a lot of questions. Maybe we could look at architectural styles and materials, types of pottery, types of weaponry, burial practices, etc. and from that define groups of peoples which might have considered themselves related at a socio-political level. But how many of these factors do we have to have before we say that we have one group? Of course the most rigorous studies would suggest all points while the most general would say that one type of pot equals one kind of people (something that is highly frowned upon these days it seems). Are we then left to make distribution maps in a GIS (Geographic Information Systems -- an electronic map producing software) which give us general boundaries then kind of make them "fuzzy" to show that these items have no "clear-cut" boundary and by layering these general boundaries we develop some breakdown of possible "cultural complexes"?

 

This doesn't even begin to take into account the general issues with taphonomic and preservation issues for which thousands of works have been devoted to not to mention the statistical methodologies which attempt to suggest something about the archaeological record by finding one pottery sherd in a valley where there was once a boggy area.

 

Now, ignoring the brevity and possibly shotty delivery, how many of you would have paid to have me tell this to you at a museum or public lecture and gained something from it? And, if not wanting to pay, would you or do you feel that, in the case that your money/taxes are going to public archaeology, you are getting your money's worth?

 

Sorry for the lack of quoting from other users, but there's already four pages and going through to quote each individual one would have taken substantially longer. I hope that this comes to energize this discussion and that I, along with others, come to understand more about how people feel about the concept of the Celts. Also, please feel free to ask me to elaborate on anything you feel that I have unduly skimmed over (I was starting to feel like this is a bit of an essay so I tried to shorten up parts of it -- I already have two essays to write! heh)

[iolo]

Since the people of Britain didn't call themselves Celts and nobody else did either, mightn't it be sensible to call them what they were - British?

[caldrail]

From where I sit the problem seems to be - as it often is - the modern interpretation of celticness. It is interesting that the Romans regarded germanic tribes as 'true celts' (that's what the word means) and those tribes peripheral to the germans such as the gauls were not all that well regarded, partly because of earlier conflict with Rome, partly because of their eroding warrior virtue.

 

The problem with the Romans of course is their lack of objectivity and insight when describing the barbarian world. They drew associations based almost completely on appearance thus tacitus wonders if the Silures were Spanish in origin. Despite his arrogance and dismissal of people on the fringe of the Roman world, he also shows a lack of any distinct racism, which again appears to be a phomenon of the modern age.

 

Halstatt and La Tene celts may not have been ethically different from many of the tribes in western europe before their grasp of iron working turned them into explorers and conquerors, but there is a distinct cultural difference that definitely impacts on Iron Age Britain when they arrived there between 700 and 500BC. I've long argued that that the white horses carved in chalk uplands of southern england were not just religious symbols, they were also territorial markers.

 

How then do we reconcile the Roman view with our own? They saw tribal divisions that mean very little to us, and we now recategorise celts in a way that would baffle the Romans. What we need to do is establish the differences between ethnic and cultural grouping. Do we regard the celts as a distinct tribe or as a distinct culture?

Edited April 13, 2011 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

Antiquarian writers and all too many historians have long 'accepted' the patchy written sources at face value as describing particular 'racial' or 'ethnic' groupings. 'Celt' may have long been a 'convenient' term but what it actually means and how representative it is is coming under increasing scrutiny and consequently does it not necessarly mean the same thing to any of the modern 'experts' on the period.

 

Caldrail has hit the nail on the head with his question. The recurring problem archaelogically is that when sites are excavated there is often a lot of ambiguity in what artefacts may or may not be a marker of cultural, ethnic or simply geographic differences down to the proximity or otherwise of particular manufacturing sites or trade routes.

 

The ways in which individuals chose or used particular artefacts in life and how they deposited them as grave goods show a high degree of variation even within very small geographic areas and their associated cemeteries. This problem is compounded when individual bodies are analysed and similarly ambiguous patterns of use can be identified irrespective of an individuals place of origin or where is being surveyed.

 

The term 'Celt' is in effect a very vague categorisation and actually incorporates numerous groupings who probably did not consider themselves of one 'race' but may in effect have been a much looser and possibly temporary groupings which came under the sway of different warlords/ leaders or village councils. Effectively the various 'tribal' names which have been recorded may only have been the name of their 'current' leader with groupings reforming on each leader's death and new individuals or groups came to prominence.

[caldrail]

It's not entirely the fault of antiquarians. Roman titles had a cachet all of their own in the early medieval period. Roman authority was still still respected in those times even if the empire had long gone. We see Dark Age tribeal leaders in England with Roman ranks. Even if Arthur wasn't actually made Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) as one source claims, the idea was valid in that a man could be rewarded with Roman rank for service etc. It also appears this practice was applied to cement treaties between factions, though oddly enough there seems little self aggrandisement involved. Perhaps that was a little too assuming?

[iolo]

It's not entirely the fault of antiquarians. Roman titles had a cachet all of their own in the early medieval period. Roman authority was still still respected in those times even if the empire had long gone. We see Dark Age tribeal leaders in England with Roman ranks. Even if Arthur wasn't actually made Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) as one source claims, the idea was valid in that a man could be rewarded with Roman rank for service etc. It also appears this practice was applied to cement treaties between factions, though oddly enough there seems little self aggrandisement involved. Perhaps that was a little too assuming?

 

Isn't 'England' anachronistic, and didn't Roman titles continue mostly in Britannia Prima?

[caldrail]

I used England as a regional description, not historical, but your observation is correct. As regards Britannia Prima, bear in mind that although the Roman control over Britain was strongest in the southeast, the political manipulation of british tribes included those in other areas, not forgetting those north of the border

 

Also, in the sub-Roman era, the overall strategy of Roman politics was no longer present, and we have a peculiar situation where a balkanised Britain is divided into petty warlords who still pay lip service to Roman authority even though it collapsed soon after the withdrawal of the legions.

 

The evidence we have is that at least two tribes in the north of england retained latin titles. This practice may well have continued further had the Saxons not ignored it. I note the practice persisted longer on the continent by hundreds of years. Since the Saxons were already resident in the Thames Valley and grabbed much of southeast england for themselves early on, the practice of Roman titles might well have died out in Britannia Prima much quicker than outlying regions.

 

It's hard to figure out exactly what the political balance was in sub-roman Britain. On the one hand, Gildas writes about tyrants and features four of them in his sermon on the decay of Britain. On the other, we keep seeing hints in sources that individuals were assigned Roman governmental positions even after the government has gone and that these people had authority that exceeded, or at least influenced, those very same warlords who by their natire probably weren't inclined to listen to anyone else.

 

Our biggest problem here is the lack of information. The germanic settlers weren't bothered with histories (The Saxons for instance never wrote anything down until they became more sophisticated after the Settlement Period bagins, and seem more content with listing either that they'd been in a battle or had won it), and much of the monastic record kept might have been destroyed by foreign raiders up until the Norman Conquest.

 

Folklore is a persistent source of information, even if somewhat unreliable, but the fantasies of the middle ages have distorted what we know about the era.

[BenevolentOrder55]

Even if their was no such thing as Celtic Tribes, there was still a language group that would identify the multiple Cultures of the "Celts" right? Obviously the Germanic languages would be different. The Celtic Culture extended throughout Europe even though those specific Tribes may have been different.

 

My link [Ed. by Legatii: Wikipedia]