"Celt" Conjecture

[cagwinn]

So why, then, would Caesar say the Gauls called themselves "Celts", if it were not so?

Caesar was right - the called themselves *Celtoi. We even see the root Celt- attested in pre-Roman personal names in Iberia and Gaul, so it was certainly a native word in both Gaulish and Iberian Celtic. The exact etymology is still debated by linguists (some suggest "hidden ones", others "exalted"), but it likely comes from one of the several Proto-Indo-European *kel- roots (with a -t- suffix).

[Ron Andrea]

I guess it depends on which "great expert" you read . . . and believe. :?

[M. Demetrius]

I'm a little out of touch with academia. Is the prevailing policy still "trust the original or oldest account of an event to the ancients rather than supplant it with modern thinking"? Used to be, way back in the 20th Century.

[Ron Andrea]

That was the standard then; the standard now seems to be make the most original, outlandish theory the facts can be twisted to support; if necessary, fake or create your sources-- like Ward Churchill.

[MD]

Was he? Did he? Let's see. For instance, Caesar described significant social, economic and cultural differences between people west (Gauls) and east (Germans) of Rhine. Generally the latter were more primitive, poor and savage than the Gauls. Should we believe that? Well, of course not.

The archaeology of the Late Iron Age argues for a north-south articulation of the northwest European continent, in which the Rhine does not function as a cultural boundary. However, as part of the new politico-geographic order, all emphasis in Roman Germani discourse came to lie on the east-west articulation, with the Rhine functioning as a boundary between the civilised world and a world of barbarism.

Exactly.

Oppida existed only in the southern portion of modern Germany, not further north than central Hesse and southern Thuringia.
In Hesse, which is closest to Caesars Rhine crossing most Oppida and Celtic settlements were abandoned around the end of La Tene D1 (except Duensberg), thus maybe already two decades before Caesars Gallic war maybe they were still inhabited when arrived. In every case these Oppida were already in decline.

Caesars crosses the Rhine in the territory of the Ubii. He considers them a Germanic tribe, but has to admit that they're more civilized and have some Gallic customs (BG IV 3). These people may very well be the same that inhabited the Oppida. Later (BG VI 24) he mentions that Gauls (Volcae Tectosages) are still living east of the Rhine. Thus there isn't any real contradiction between Caesars writings and archeology.

[Rumo]

Interesting points. And certainly the term "Celt" must have had some significance amongst themselves if a man who tried to be King of Gaul was known as Celtillus.

Celtillus rather sounds like a Latin name. -llus/-lla is a diminutive suffix (e.g. Marcellus, Catullus, Metellus, Camillus). So it meant - to Romans! - something like 'little Celt'. Question is why Vercingetorix' father had a name which made sense to Romans.

Assuming it was nevertheless an indigenous name, it looks like it was altered through folk etymology, case in which there's no reliable *kelt root for an argument.

These people may very well be the same that inhabited the Oppida. Later (BG VI 24) he mentions that Gauls (Volcae Tectosages) are still living east of the Rhine. Thus there isn't any real contradiction between Caesars writings and archeology.

However archaeology does not show where the Gauls lived, it only gives an image of the material culture.

Let's read BG VI 24: ... now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization.

[Rumo]

David wrote,

For example, many native Americans of a certain heritage answer to "Cherokee" today, even though their own name for themselves is entirely other: ???, pronounced "Tsalagi"

And they, along with the Lakota, Apache, etc., all collectively group themselves as "Native Americans."

Sure beats calling them/us "Indians," which also reflects how visitors/invaders occasionally are way off base on the ethnology. :?

Good examples both of them.

"Native Americans" is actually as post-conquest as it may be. American < America named after an European explorer and "Native" suggesting the presence of some conquerors/colonists which make the locals identify themselves as "Native".

Since the Mediterranean cultures had had contact with the Celts for over five centuries by then, it's possible that many Celts had adopted the foreigners' name, even if they retained they own tribal identity in conversation among themselves.

This may be, but I'd rather expect this identity shift to happen after Roman conquest. But isn't curious that while we have Dacian auxiliaries which are of "natione Dacus", there're no Roman soldiers from a Celtic "nation" (at least not to my knowledge). I guess the difference is because Dacia was a pre-Roman polity, as well, but there was no Celtia. Why all people in Gaul would have a common name for themselves, if they did not have anything in common? It makes sense for outsiders to give them names, and so they did.

[Brennus]

Interesting points. And certainly the term "Celt" must have had some significance amongst themselves if a man who tried to be King of Gaul was known as Celtillus.

Celtillus rather sounds like a Latin name. -llus/-lla is a diminutive suffix (e.g. Marcellus, Catullus, Metellus, Camillus). So it meant - to Romans! - something like 'little Celt'. Question is why Vercingetorix' father had a name which made sense to Romans.

Assuming it was nevertheless an indigenous name, it looks like it was altered through folk etymology, case in which there's no reliable *kelt root for an argument.

I agree. Assuming Celtillus was real, yes, it was probably a latinized version of the name. Just like Brennus & Commius would probably be Brennos or Commios in the native tongue. I think the "os" was a common Gallic feature in names.

[Rumo]

I'm a little out of touch with academia. Is the prevailing policy still "trust the original or oldest account of an event to the ancients rather than supplant it with modern thinking"? Used to be, way bak in the 20th Century.

Are we to believe that Caspian Sea was in Antiquity a gulf opening to the Arctic Ocean? Or that in the Scythian wilderness there were gold-guarding gryphons, occasionally engaging in battles with the one-eyed people trying to take their gold? Or, as Caesar wrote, that there were unicorns in the Hercynian forest? I certainly prefer my modern thinking to that, and I'm sure many others would.

My examples are some obvious fantasies. The problem however is why when something sounds verosimile (often not to everybody), then it becomes suddenly true, probably true, likely true? What can explain this sudden shift in reliability? I'm afraid a good part of it is just wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, Weber denounced the artificiality of "ethnic" groups (such as these Celts) almost a century ago. What happened meanwhile is that historians and archaeologists started to read some sociology, anthropology, etc and understand what an identity is, what a tribe is, and so on. That's mainly how and why the ancient maps of tribes become less and less believable.

[Astiryu1]

I think alot of those fantasy creatures were exaggerated or lost in translation. The unicorn sounds "fishy" until you think of the Narwhale. :wink: I am a stout believer in explaining things but it only becomes a theory and most is second hand;and that where Caesar got those elements in the first place. Griffins could be large predatory birds that are something like an ostrich mixed with a buzzard but I have no proof. I would love to go tromping around the parts of Europe these things were supposed to be,digging holes and looking for these things but alas I have not. :lol: Like I said this is theory so don't go all crazy on me! :wink:

I believe a culture knew mostly their part of the map but as you get farther away the reliability goes down a couple of pegs. 8)

[cagwinn]

Interesting points. And certainly the term "Celt" must have had some significance amongst themselves if a man who tried to be King of Gaul was known as Celtillus.

Celtillus rather sounds like a Latin name. -llus/-lla is a diminutive suffix (e.g. Marcellus, Catullus, Metellus, Camillus). So it meant - to Romans! - something like 'little Celt'. Question is why Vercingetorix' father had a name which made sense to Romans.

Assuming it was nevertheless an indigenous name, it looks like it was altered through folk etymology, case in which there's no reliable *kelt root for an argument.

Celtillus is certainly a Gaulish name - the -us is simply a Latin substitution for the Gaulish -os (it was common practice for Latin authors to Latinize the endings of foreign names). There are numerous attested examples of the native Celtic suffix -il(l)-, so there is no need to suggest that we have some sort of Latin name here. That a *kelt- root existed in both the Gaulish and Celtiberian languages is beyond doubt - the root is amply attested in both.

If you want to learn a little about the Gaulish language, read Pierre-Yves Lambert's "La language gauloise" and Xavier Delamarre's "Dictionnaire de la langue gaulloise" - both are excellent introductions to the language.

[Alanus]

Excellent and sound advice, Cagwinn
Also, check out the Thesaurus Linguae Gallicae by Henri Billy. Celtilus is simply a Latinization of Celtilos, which is a lot like Celtic unless you have just arrived on Wilson and Blackett's space ship.

Sun Tzu's advice, "Know your enemy," has been quoted in this thread, but he also said, "First and foremost, know yourself." This could not have been better said of Caesar; and the above implications that Caesar was full of bull-- or that he was no better than an American politician-- are unjust to that knowledgable general.

Tossing language aside, there certainly was a Celtic substratum, or culture, that extented from east of Massalia to east of the Juras and then west to Ireland. Proof? I collect ancient hooks, and among them I have a huge iron tuna hook that was used in south-eastern Gaul. Identical hooks, slightly smaller, have been found in the Swiss Lakes where it was used for catching anchorago. A much later identical hook, in conformation and bend, was manufactured by O'Shaunessy of Dublin from traditional Irish examples. These hooks are unique in design and shape, and totally unlike Roman and Greek examples (which I also have); and they represent a cultural design formula that can only be described as "Celtic." :wink:

[Astiryu1]

Oh come on Alanus! Where is the picture of the hook and other examples?
I like fishing just as much as the next guy! :mrgreen:

[Alanus]

Of course it's all a lie. The Celts never existed in reality, only in the minds in people who lived south and west of the Germans. According to revisionist historians, we need to scrap a lot of our RAT threads-- like "Show Your Celtic Impression." Or change its name to "Show Your Non Roman - Non Germanic Impression." :roll:

[Rumo]

Celtillus is certainly a Gaulish name - the -us is simply a Latin substitution for the Gaulish -os (it was common practice for Latin authors to Latinize the endings of foreign names). There are numerous attested examples of the native Celtic suffix -il(l)-, so there is no need to suggest that we have some sort of Latin name here. That a *kelt- root existed in both the Gaulish and Celtiberian languages is beyond doubt - the root is amply attested in both.

"Certainly" requires arguments, but I see only claims. Which are those numerous examples?

Celtilus is simply a Latinization of Celtilos, which is a lot like Celtic unless you have just arrived on Wilson and Blackett's space ship.

Except for modern languages like Spanish having this name as Celtilo (because they pronounce -ll- differently), where is this Celtilos attested?

The Celts never existed in reality, only in the minds in people who lived south and west of the Germans. According to revisionist historians, we need to scrap a lot of our RAT threads-- like "Show Your Celtic Impression."

As pointed out, this "revisionism" goes back to Weber, a century ago. Some scholars read sociology and anthropology, some scholars don't. And I believe in some cases the ignorance is intentional because some people simply don't have the heart to throw away what they believed in for a long time.