Celt - No such thing !!!

[Conal]

Watching Spooks on BBC1 last night when Harry said there is no such thing as a Celt hock:

My Flabber was Gasted ... so who decided this then ... no more Celts ?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Yoda,

That'll teach him to watch BBC1 and expect to hear trustworthy information. :twisted:

No seriously, the writers of 'Spooks' presenting scientific statements???? hock: Especially about topics like 'Celtic' or 'Celts'? I'd accept evidence from Wikipedia before that!! hock:

[Carlton Bach]

He's got something of a point.

Thing is, we have several languages that are defined as the 'Celtic' family. Some people cal their speakers 'Celts'.

Then we have references in our sources to people called 'Keltoi' (the Romans called them 'Galli'). Some people call those 'Celts'.

Then we have a material culture in the archeological record that associates with the regions where the Keltoi are located by ancient writers. Some people refer to all people who were part of this material culture 'Celts'.

The problem is that we have no way of being sure how, to what extent, or even whether the three things are coterminous. It is just about possible that the material culture of La Tene and post-La Tene went hand in hand with a cultural and linguistic identity based on precursors of modern Celtic languages, and that the Greek writers appreciated that and referred to these people as 'Keltoi'. But it is far from certain. La Tene may be a material culture that spread beyond the speakers of 'Celtic' languages, or there may have been Celtic speakers who did not share in it. The 'Keltoi' might have been no more than a figment of Greek ethnographers' imagination, with no unifying identity felt between the groups so labelled. We simply do not know.

Quite a few German (and an increasding number of other) archeologists nowadays refusae to even use the term 'Celt'.

[Tarbicus]

I think he was specifically referring to the Scots. At least, that's what I remember he was having the conversation about over a glass of whisky.

Top episode. How dare they leave it like that. :evil:

[richsc]

no such thing as a Celt

They might have gotten that from Simon James' "Atlantic Celts". He made that assertion some years ago that the idea of 'celt' was invented in the 17th century, and never used in the ancient world. He says he has gotten death threats on this one, particularly from new age fans.

The Celtic peoples hold a fundamental place in the British national conscious-ness. In this book Simon James surveys ancient and modern ideas of the Celts and challenges them in the light of revolutionary new thinking on the Iron Age peoples of Britain. Examining how ethnic and national identities are constructed, he presents an alternative history of the British Isles, proposing that the idea of insular Celtic identity is really a product of the rise of nationalism in the eighteenth century. He considers whether the "Celticness" of the British Isles is a romantic, even politically dangerous, falsification of history, with implications for the debate on self-government for the Celtic regions of the United Kingdom.

[Chuck Russell]

maybe he was talking about american basketball. there is no such think as a SELT as they say it

[Robert Vermaat]

@ Carlton:

Thing is, we have several languages that are defined as the 'Celtic' family. Some people call their speakers 'Celts'.
Then we have references in our sources to people called 'Keltoi' (the Romans called them 'Galli'). Some people call those 'Celts'.
Then we have a material culture in the archeological record that associates with the regions where the Keltoi are located by ancient writers. Some people refer to all people who were part of this material culture 'Celts'.

The problem is that we have no way of being sure how, to what extent, or even whether the three things are coterminous. It is just about possible that the material culture of La Tene and post-La Tene went hand in hand with a cultural and linguistic identity based on precursors of modern Celtic languages, and that the Greek writers appreciated that and referred to these people as 'Keltoi'. But it is far from certain.

I agree - but I think you can put that a lot stronger - it's not possible to determine if the owner of a certain item spoke a certain language or even had an idea of himself as a 'such-and-such'. Only from written sources you once in a while get a glimpse of such a combination.

Many Roman citizens continued to speak a Celtic language even after centuries of 'occupation'. So are they 'Celts' or 'Romans'?
The Byzantines referred to certain European groups as 'Celts'- call that anachronistic! But to them it was the proper term.

Anyone using the terminology shoul clearly define what they are speaking about - ancient or modern language, material culture, classical source, or modern modern political of society-determined group.

Are there Celtic languages - yes, but only because modern scientists defined them as such.
Is there, say, 'Celtic pottery'? I'd say no, only styles used by groups that we today define as 'belonging to a Celtic group', which is extremely thin ice.

And then you have the modern nation states who claim ancient 'ancestors'as 'theirs', which especially has soured the research into germanic and Celtic languages and groups for a very long time.

Quite a few German (and an increasding number of other) archeologists nowadays refusae to even use the term 'Celt'.

Now that I find extremely silly. I can only imagine that the reason for that is political.

[Agraes]

I think the best definition is the linguistic one: a Celt is someone speaking a celtic language since his early childhood. With this definition - teached here in Brittany's universities about 'celtic studies' - a Celt can be a Gaul of the first century BC, a Gael from the Vth century AD or today an old breton peasant... Tell him he is a celt, he won't care at all and will probably laugh at you!

Now British isles probably received few Celts in the Iron Age, it was more the adoption of the celtic culture over centuries.

[Conal]

I have been doing a lot of reading up on this recently and I believe there is an apparent political element to it, if not a nationality thing certainly a bit of friction between the various fields of study.

One of the arguements is the invasion/no invasion theory of expansion. For example if a "culture" spread with a minimal of personal movement but to an extent that language changed, artifacts changed, religion changed are we then correct to then call the whole by an overarching name? Can they never been seen as as belonging to that "culture" because racially their DNA came from a different part of ... say Spain ?

Take the Belgic tribes, considered Galli by JC but they saw them selves as eminating from Germanics. Some say JC was putting a political boundry around a number of tribes who were neither Gallic or Celtic. Some believe he was merely reflecting things on the ground and that these guys saw themselves as part of a whole.

The language thing is a difficult one as it has been argued that regional differences in the Celtic spoken points to separate and disparate tribes which cannot be lumped together but consider the UK in 1916 ... Durham miner speaking to a Somerset farmer listend to by a Cumbrian fisherman in the trenches ... all English but they would have had trouble fully understanding each other due to the languages having borrowed from neighbours, friendly or otherwise!!

I have had some quite cross words with an "Italian American" gentleman on this subject :?

[M. Demetrius]

He made that assertion some years ago that the idea of 'celt' was invented in the 17th century, and never used in the ancient world

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quorum unum incolunt Belgae, alii Aquitanii, terti ei qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli apellantur....
(All [of] Gaul is divided into three parts, in one of which live the Belgians, another the Aquitanians, the third called by their own language "Celts", [but] by ours are called "Gauls"....) De Bello Gallico, Julius Caesar, who had first hand contact with these people. (Written from school memorization, could be spelling errors in the Latin.)

Caesar believed that the Gauls called themselves "Celts". I guess I'd pick his testimony over Simon James, but that's just me.

As far as languages are concerned, my limited knowledge agrees with some of the "not the same language, but perhaps the same linguistic family" statements above. Portugese (Lusitanian + Latin) is not the same as Spanish (Celtiberian + Latin and Iberian + Latin, hence Castillian and Aragonian), French (Gaulic + Latin) are all examples of "Celtic root languages", their differences preserved by the common Latin connection. A Lusitanian would not have been able to converse directly with a Northern Gaul, unless the one knew the other's language, then, or spoke some common language. Am I thinking correctly?

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the best definition is the linguistic one: a Celt is someone speaking a celtic language since his early childhood.

So you would refer to a 4th c. Roman citizens as a Celt when he speaks Gallic? :?:

Now British isles probably received few Celts in the Iron Age, it was more the adoption of the celtic culture over centuries.

Ah! Now, if you can define 'Celtic culture'that would be a big step forward in research of this problem. My guess would be that that's not possible, the definition I mean.

[M. Demetrius]

So you would refer to a 4th c. Roman citizens as a Celt when he speaks Gallic?

Only if a 4th c. Roman citizen speaking Greek would be referred to as a Greek. I think I know what you mean. I wonder how much difference was, in a "racist" sort of way made between Romans who lived for generations in Italy and those who had been made Romans by virtue of their countries having been annexed into the Empire.

There is a conversation in Acts between Paul (born Roman) and a centurion (who had purchased his citizenship) that lends credence to there being a distinction. But Paul didn't call himself a "Tarsian", he called himself a Roman, speaking of nationality. I'm sure he called himself other things depending on to whom he was speaking.

[Carlton Bach]

Quite a few German (and an increasding number of other) archeologists nowadays refusae to even use the term 'Celt'.

Now that I find extremely silly. I can only imagine that the reason for that is political.

Never attribute to politics what you can satifactorily explain through sheer anal retentiveness. The reasoning is that since we can not say with any certainty whether the people we identify archeologically are the same people the ancient sources call Celts, the proper term should be 'La Tene Iron Age'.

Mind you, there is plenty of silly Celtophilia in Germany, most of it imported, and it does make archeologists angry.

[Robert Vermaat]

Never attribute to politics what you can satifactorily explain through sheer anal retentiveness.

:lol:

[authun]

No seriously, the writers of 'Spooks' presenting scientific statements???? Shocked Especially about topics like 'Celtic' or 'Celts'? I'd accept evidence from Wikipedia before that!!

The scriptwriter probably did. They've been caught out before - writing the obituary for one of their own employees, Ronnie Hazlehurst. Someone edited the wiki page for Hazlehurst just before the journalists got there.

http://www2.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/0 ... _and_paste

In this case though, I guess the scriptwriter had heard of Stephen Oppenheimer. But, what do you expect from an organisation whose premier news programme expresses surprise on learning that "stonehenge is not the archetypal anglo saxon site we all thought it was?" or makes such statements as "in the year 800 Greenland was known as Vinland and it was warm enough to grow grapes there".

best

Harry Amphlett