Ancient Celts Did Not Exist...

[Moonlapse]

"Celt" is good for ambiguous generalizations based on language and sometimes culture (discounting the 'Celtic' person in your local head shop). Anything more is sure to start rabid semantic sophistry and exasperated slapping of foreheads. The word is about as specific as "Indo-European."

 

Using regional or tribal names would probably make discussions more fruitful, IMO.

[CiceroD]

I dont know if this will help the discussion, but according to the March 2006 issue of National Geographic the term Celt comes from the Greek Keltoi from the sixth century BCE to describe barbarians beyond the Danube. Therefore its very unlikely that anyone ever called themselves Celts.

 

"Little suggests that these people united or ever called themselves Celts" Tom O'Neill

 

But I think that its important to keep these broad classifications such as Scythian Germanic and indeed Celtic to describe what would be, to most readers, unrecognisable tribal names.

[edgewaters]

I think people would actually find it interesting to subdivide it down a bit. Not right to individual tribes, but to regions that can be defined as somewhat distinct. Say: Gauls; Britons; Iberians; Alpines; and Danubians. Not necessarily those names, of course, but those areas. It would give people a whole new range of cultures to explore.

 

The archaeology and historical understanding is there now to depict distinct cultures for each of these places. It's just that old problem, that historians are generally not very motivated to educate the general public and more internally focussed in the scholarly world.

[DecimusCaesar]

Thanks for the links Edgewaters. After reading other sources in the past few months it does seem to make sense to ditch the word Celtic (especially when referring to the Britons or Iberians, as Dr. James suggested) for something better. It is obvious that there was also a lot of differance between the Iberians, Gauls and Britons. It seems that they did share some things alike (Druidism existed in Gaul and Britain, but not in Iberia as well as the same "opened ended curve" art). The differnaces between these peoples and the Galatians are even bigger, considering the Galatians adopted some Hellenistic styles.

 

Perhaps it is best therefore to adopt regional names or tribal names to specific areas. Too muddy the waters even more , could it be argued that the Hallstat and La Tene cultures should be viewed as seperate entities, or were they of the same origins (The La Tene developing from the Hallstat for instance).

[Ursus]

Since we now have a "Celtic & Germanic" subfolder, how about we complicate the discussion.

 

Some people hold to the theory that the Continental Celts and Germans are essentially the same in culture if not so much in language. The theory holds Caesar simply decided the Rhine would divide Celts from Germans, but this is an artificial dichotomy that has been wrongly upheld ever since.

 

If true, this further complicates matters to assign identity to Iron Age European tribes.

[edgewaters]

Since we now have a "Celtic & Germanic" subfolder, how about we complicate the discussion.

 

Some people hold to the theory that the Continental Celts and Germans are essentially the same in culture if not so much in language. The theory holds Caesar simply decided the Rhine would divide Celts from Germans, but this is an artificial dichotomy that has been wrongly upheld ever since.

 

If true, this further complicates matters to assign identity to Iron Age European tribes.

 

Essentially, its true that Caesar's division is more or less arbitrary. Even Caesar gets confused when he talks about the Belgae; he can't decide if they're German or Celtic. You've also got things like the Gundestrup Cauldron, which places very Celtic imagery and concepts right in the heart of Denmark, home of the Cimbri and Teutones (if the Romans were at all accurate about the origins of that group, which is definately less than certain - they just wouldn't know the geography in that area at the date they met the Cimbri and Teutones).

 

But it's not to say that the tribes in the Germanic territory weren't different. They really only shared a material culture. Even if it's difficult to fix precise borders and there are "twilight cultures" along the shared frontier, a gradual change rather than an abrupt one, the Germans were still unique from their neighbours. They were not so different as they're often made out to be, but, they had a different language and much different origins, different religious traditions, and behaved very differently. Even their material culture was only similar - it wasn't identical. Germanics didn't wear dyed tartans or woolen twill, both universal hallmarks of Celtic dress. They seem to have worn very drab-coloured textiles, and skins/furs. No hill-forts in the Celtic style, either. Differences in style too: the Suebian topknot, for instance.

[Ursus]

Interesting response, Edgewaters. Glad you have joined our forum.

[Centofante]

So say we assume that there is no such thing as an ethnic Celt, would it be a mistake to say that the original Trans-Alpine "celtic" people were of a Germanic ethnicity? The Roman physical description of a Celt and a German were identical.

[edgewaters]

So say we assume that there is no such thing as an ethnic Celt, would it be a mistake to say that the original Trans-Alpine "celtic" people were of a Germanic ethnicity? The Roman physical description of a Celt and a German were identical.

 

That's just substituting one artificial generalization with another. I wouldn't say they were of a Germanic ethnicity, no. They may have been close biologically, but culturally Celts (at least, Alpine Celts) had much in common with the Romans as well - the languages of Celtic peoples and the Latin language are very close relatives, for instance, but the Germanic languages are a whole different branch. Lifestyle was much different - Germans tended to be at least partially nomadic herders, while Celts were very much an agrarian peoples. Inclusion of Celts with Germans confuses the issue even worse than the name "Celts" does, making things even less specific and accurate.

[docoflove1974]

the languages of Celtic peoples and the Latin language are very close relatives, for instance, but the Germanic languages are a whole different branch.

 

Well...not exactly. The Celtic, Italic, and Germanic branches are all different branches of Proto-Indo-European. What can be said is that Germanic did break off earlier from the tree than Celtic and Italic, and that Celtic and Italic probably broke off at about the same time. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans and Schwink (2004) The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender are both good sources on this. But Celtic and Italic are not of the same branch, so to speak.

Edited June 13, 2007 by docoflove1974

[edgewaters]

the languages of Celtic peoples and the Latin language are very close relatives, for instance, but the Germanic languages are a whole different branch.

 

Well...not exactly. The Celtic, Italic, and Germanic branches are all different branches of Proto-Indo-European. What can be said is that Germanic did break off earlier from the tree than Celtic and Italic, and that Celtic and Italic probably broke off at about the same time. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans and Schwink (2004) The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender are both good sources on this. But Celtic and Italic are not of the same branch, so to speak.

 

Celtic and Italic language groups are nonetheless close relatives, the closest contemporaries to each other. Germanic is more distantly related to either.

[docoflove1974]

the languages of Celtic peoples and the Latin language are very close relatives, for instance, but the Germanic languages are a whole different branch.

 

Well...not exactly. The Celtic, Italic, and Germanic branches are all different branches of Proto-Indo-European. What can be said is that Germanic did break off earlier from the tree than Celtic and Italic, and that Celtic and Italic probably broke off at about the same time. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans and Schwink (2004) The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender are both good sources on this. But Celtic and Italic are not of the same branch, so to speak.

 

Celtic and Italic language groups are nonetheless close relatives, the closest contemporaries to each other. Germanic is more distantly related to either.

 

Yes, although the wording of your statement presumes more similiarities than there are. There are still many distinctions between the two groups, and because of its proximity and contact with speakers, Germanic as a family is about as dis/similar to Celtic and Italic as Celtic and Italic are to each other.

[rick]

that is the most absurd nonsense i ever heard in my life, how can this dr james fool deny the existence of the celts? their culture, language and physical characteristics have been well documented by reliable sources, tacituc, caesar and some other people. what decides the argument for me is that all the original inhabitants of the european continent are of similar appearance, they possess the same combination of phenotypes...that is what determines race and ehtnicity, it doesnt matter if they speak a slightly different dialect, or if they worship a different god....they look the same! they have the same genetic composition....end of story. caesar said in his commentaries that all the celtic peoples, including the germans, speak a mutually intelligible dialect.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

caesar said in his commentaries that all the celtic peoples, including the germans, speak a mutually intelligible dialect.

How, then, are we to explain the startling difference between Gaelic spoken in Ireland and the language of the Welsh? Are we to assume that they evolved from a "mutually intelligible dialect" in just over two millennia?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Just as an afterthought - the situation with ancient Celtic tongues might be analogous to that of the different dialects spoken in the Arab world. A person from Morocco and an Iraqi would hardly find each other mutually intelligible if they spoke in their own respective dialects, but if they used proper spoken Arabic they would have no problem doing so. Similarly, the different Celtic tribes might have spoken a lingua franca used, perhaps, in Druidic ceremonies and official correspondence, with which they would have communicated with each other. Perhaps this is what Caesar meant?