Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[JeffF]

A couple of months ago I watched this British documentary, The Celts - The Complete Epic Saga (2010, 6 episodes total 303 minutes), whose premise was that the Celts are a myth and that the term was invented a few centuries ago to perpetuate the cherished myths of dark age Britain. There were a few other revisionist theories. One was that there was no Anglo-Saxon invasion; that no archaeological evidence exists for burnt out or destroyed Briton communities in that period, that peaceful activities like farming and trade continued without interruption and most interestingly that the genetic evidence shows no influx of people from northern Germany or Denmark (backed up by a lack of isotopes in the teeth of skeletons of that period that would show origin in those lands). The adoption of English language is explained as due to it being the new language of the powerful and that people learned and used it to become part of that population with power and influence. Another theory was that the Saxon Shore fortresses were not built to defend against a Germanic invasion, that there is no evidence that they were ever attacked and that their real function was as centers of trade and commerce.

I consider myself open minded and am willing to consider new theories and evidence but the theory ignores the documented military interventions from Carausius to Theodosius and Stilicho that were necessary to defend the island against infaders as well as ignores the "groans of the Britons" entreaties made to Aetius to send help against the Saxons.

The last the theory about the fortresses I find to be lacking incredible. I can think of many fortresses/defenses that would show no evidence of being attacked. Future archaeologists will search in vain to find any evidence that the Maginot Line suffered any general or prolonged attack, the Great Wall of China shows little to no evidence of assault. I would find theories that these were not built to address some perceived threat as equally incredible. The Saxon Shore fortresses were too well designed to be successfully attacked by Germanic raiders of that period, perhaps the evidence of trade originated due to this near invulnerability of the forts and the safety they provided for goods and traders.

I wonder if these researchers have found any genetic or isotopic evidence of the Norman invasion or the Viking invasion of Alfred the Great's period (or for that matter of the German invasions of France in the 20th Century).

Has anyone else seen these documentaries? Any comments?

[M. Demetrius]

Sounds like they were citing some myths, all right. :wink:

[john m roberts]

Having examined all the arguments concerning the nonexistance of such peoples as the Celts, Picts, Germanics, Slavs, Magyars, Dorians and so forth, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that nobody has ever actually existed in all of history.

[M. Demetrius]

lol: :!:

[cagwinn]

This deconstruction of the Celts - often called Celtoscepticism - has more to do with English insecurity over their own ethnicity, along with prejudice against the Welsh, Cornish and Scottish (exacerbated during the devolution movements of the 1990's), than any scientific basis. The main proponents of the anti-Celtic movement are English archaeologists, who are in denial that some of their non-Saxon ancestors might have cultural, linguistic, and (god forbid!) genetic links with the French. Most of their arguments do not hold water.

[D B Campbell]

... the Celts are a myth and that the term was invented a few centuries ago to perpetuate the cherished myths of dark age Britain.

I presume that this is simply a misunderstanding of the long-running debate (typified by Simon James' The Atlantic Celts, but instigated earlier -- afaik -- by John Collis) which questions whether we can legitimately talk about "The Celts" as the indigenous peoples of western Europe, or whether there were really fundamental differences separating the different peoples.

[Conal]

I think the arguement is that there was not a body of Iron Age peoples across Europe who identified themselves as a homogenous who were called Celts. That 19th century types constructed this identity for them based on their own romantisied view of the down trodden Scots/Irish/Welsh/Bretons based perhaps in an ethnic view.

It may well be that only those in the area identified by Julius Ceasar called themselves Celts in their own language and that such as the Belgic tribes did not. However as these Celts were the 1st contact and that if it can be established that the language they spoke was linked to all other IA communities then I see no reason why that cannot be denoted as Celtic thus identifying the lot as a linguistic group rather than a race. Also there may well have been a loose cultural/religious commonality running from Anglesea to central France via Druidic practices.

IIRC was there not a letter sent to a Gaul to intercede with another in Turkey thus indicating connection/influence over quite a distance. I keep meaning to look this up but never get round to it :|

I have read these Celto-Sceptic books and certrainly Collis has a political aspect to it which seems to stem from a sceptisism about the Celtic countries/areas seeking devolotion by way of ethnic identity ( as was once said by a fellow student some years ago " why do the Irish see themselves as different, it's not as though they have a their own language or culture?"), he seems to worry about such seperatism as a negative in light of incresaed movement to an enlarged EU with less national identity. Seems to me a bad resson to deconstruct the Celts

[Jona Lendering]

I think the arguement is that there was not a body of Iron Age peoples across Europe who identified themselves as a homogenous who were called Celts.

Exactly. The word is first employed by Greek authors who describe a group of people directly north of Marseilles. Their territory expands: to Herodotus, both the Pyrenees and the source of the Danube are in the land of the Celts; to Ephorus, the word means "westerner" or "barbarian", and hence we get Cassius Dio, who uses it as synonym for Germans - the exact opposite of what Caesar says (who distinguishes Gauls/Celts from Germans). In short, the word means everything and therefore nothing.

Use "La Tène" or "Iron Age", I'd say, or use "Celtic languages" while making it clear that you're discussing language, not ethnicity. Frankly, I can't see a reason to use this confusing expression, except the "Celtic" here. :wink:

[Vindex]

IFrankly, I can't see a reason to use this confusing expression, except the "Celtic" here. :wink:

If you look at the "members", there is still somewhat of an identity crisis!

http://www.celticfc.net/home/players/firstTeam.aspx

[cagwinn]

I think the arguement is that there was not a body of Iron Age peoples across Europe who identified themselves as a homogenous who were called Celts.

Exactly. The word is first employed by Greek authors who describe a group of people directly north of Marseilles. Their territory expands: to Herodotus, both the Pyrenees and the source of the Danube are in the land of the Celts; to Ephorus, the word means "westerner" or "barbarian", and hence we get Cassius Dio, who uses it as synonym for Germans - the exact opposite of what Caesar says (who distinguishes Gauls/Celts from Germans). In short, the word means everything and therefore nothing.

Use "La Tène" or "Iron Age", I'd say, or use "Celtic languages" while making it clear that you're discussing language, not ethnicity. Frankly, I can't see a reason to use this confusing expression, except the "Celtic" here. :wink:

"Celtic" is a perfectly acceptable term for describing the socio-linguistic group in question - just as acceptable as "Slavic","Greek", "Germanic", "Italic", in fact. No serious Celticist claims that there was one unified ethnic group called the "Celts", by the way - that is a strawman invented by the Celtosceptics, many of whom are woefully misinformed about any fields outside of archaeology.

As we have discussed in another thread here, Greek "Keltoi", Latin "Celtae" were likely borrowed from a Celtic language and certainly had a specific meaning in that language - even if it was occasionally used as a generic term for any western barbarian peoples by later classical authors, this was not its normal usage.

A couple online summaries of the early references to the Celts:
[url:2g6a4z03]http://books.google.com/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA845#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]
[url:2g6a4z03]http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html[/url]

[Sean Manning]

I wouldn't call it a strawman, because its very clear that many people believe in an ancient Celtic ethnicity, or that we can use the term to neatly label ancient populations (but see the mess along the Rhine, where its clear that 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' languages and material culture were intermingled). It may not be a view held by experts though. Its significant that "The Atlantic Celts" was written for a popular audience more than an academic one.

A parallel would be the arguments among medievalists about whether the modern jargon of fiefs (edit: corrected typo), vassals, and feudal/feusalism is useful. While they have some connection to the sources, they do not have firmly accepted definitions, and they are often used as a mould into which the evidence is hammered.

[Merlkir]

I've seen the documentary some time ago and I'd say the content of the film itself is far less scandalous than the taglines attached to it. The celtic part was just explaining how the term "celt" is or isn't defined and interpreted nowadays, and examining similarities between continental celts and inhabitants of the British isles. I was also quite convinced by the Anglo Saxon part, their arguments against a massive violent invasion are quite good I thought.

edit: I may be confusing this with another documentary, a more recent one. Is this 6 part one from 1987?

[Ghostmojo]

This deconstruction of the Celts - often called Celtoscepticism - has more to do with English insecurity over their own ethnicity, along with prejudice against the Welsh, Cornish and Scottish (exacerbated during the devolution movements of the 1990's), than any scientific basis. The main proponents of the anti-Celtic movement are English archaeologists, who are in denial that some of their non-Saxon ancestors might have cultural, linguistic, and (god forbid!) genetic links with the French. Most of their arguments do not hold water.

That is an incredibly simplistic view of the issue. It is also in my view quite misplaced.

I am English/British and have no insecurity whatsoever. My family also happens to have Welsh blood in it (and other groupings too).

This issue is complex and needs to be unpicked right the way back through history. What you are actually seeing is an attempt to redress the balance somewhat, and more significantly to get at a real historic truth rather than the dressed up myths passing as accepted lore. The prejudice you cite is quite without basis.

Isn't it right that we try to get to the real truth of any historic issue? Even if that means cherished notions prove to be either exaggerated or occasionally completely without any factual basis? The worldwide diaspora of Celticness and supposed Celtic 'culture' these days is something approaching a lifestyle/money spinning business. Much of it is completely fanciful. The strength of it owes much to entrenched views which are quite specious, and date back to the days when there was a reaction towards the growth of the largely English dominated empire. It is always worth looking into when the word itself first came into use in the British Isles. There is undoubtedly an anti-Englishness about these days. You get it in certain parts of the USA and Australia, usually from people descended from non-English (but perhaps from the British Isles) emigrants. It is worth remembering that the enterprise that was the British Empire was an Anglo-Scots affair. Many of our friends north of the border were so enamoured of the union they actually stopped using the word Scotland and referred to their area as North Britain. All of this of course has to be seen through different lenses these days with the growth or reemergence of nationalism. I can quite understand that now - just as I can when England might have been seen as the unwelcome dominant force within Britain. But none of it helps us get at the real historic truths.

I have read some of the books mentioned here and others. It strikes me that as students of history we should seek a truth based upon reason, archaeology, linguistic research and even DNA testings - anything that will get us closer to what really happened as opposed to what some groups like to think happened.

I also think you need to decide which strand you are researching/following. I am prepared to discuss the notion of whether the various peoples of the ancient British Isles were Celts or not, or perhaps just Celtic-influenced. When it comes to the whole of Europe the issue gets even more confusing.

Let's be careful about labelling all recent research and evaluation as revisionism. There have been plenty of examples of investigation that has quite overturned earlier views of history. We might be further away from the happenings of the past, but modern technology actually brings us closer to the reality than our Victorian forbears from whence much accepted fact originates. I don't mind what the truth is - as long as it is the truth and not quasi-mystical yearning for a glorious celtic past that never existed. There are huge established Celtic powerbases these days, in whose interests it is to continue to promote and develop this business. The dynamics of it involve tourism; politics; culture and above all both the romantic attachment to some kind of almost Tolkienesque mythical culture or art, literature, language and song - and a lot of new age money.

Oh and BTW - as much as I admire (and consult the words of) Herotodos; the father of history - he did get mixed up as to where the source of the Danube was, which is why there was so much debate as to whether the homeland of these Keltoi was in the Swiss/Austrian area - or around the Pyrenees.

[Jona Lendering]

I am prepared to discuss the notion of whether the various peoples of the ancient British Isles were Celts or not, or perhaps just Celtic-influenced. When it comes to the whole of Europe the issue gets even more confusing.

Actually, it is not that complex. Nationalities and ethnicities are social constructs, not biological categories. They are, therefore, inevitably ambiguous. King Herod, for example, could be labeled citizen of Jerusalem, Roman citizen, king of the Judaeans, ethnarch of the Jews, Greek in culture, Idumean by birth, Phoenician by family, and Jewish by religion. I may have missed a couple of labels. To make things complex, some of those ancient labels have reached modern times, which adds to the confusion.

So it's complex, and that makes it simple. It's too complex, so we should not study it. My personal solution is to abandon nationality and ethnicity from our research, as there is too much to lose and almost nothing to gain. Others may have other solutions, but this works fine with me.

Let's be careful about labelling all recent research and evaluation as revisionism. There have been plenty of examples of investigation that has quite overturned earlier views of history.

Good point.

[Ghostmojo]

I mean it is complicated because it breaks down into different areas of research (all of which interconnect). There is the issue of whether this was a homogeneous group that spread across much of Europe, or just a bunch of different tribes who got labelled as a larger collective. Then there is the issue of their culture and again whether it was homogeneous or borrowed, and where it originated from anyway. Then there is the whole issue of whether the ancient inhabitants of Britain and Ireland were indeed related to some or all of these peoples - or not. Or whether they just imported the culture. There are so many strands. I express no expertise in any of it, other than to say I have looked into the whole issue of the Celtic nature of the British Isles in more detail (than say the general European situation) and found it to be seriously wanting. The same is true of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Yes it happened to some extent - but dominating warrior bands arriving (just as did the Normans) rather than a full scale genocidic movement across England wiping out the previous occupants. There is no evidence of that at all. Gildas and Bede have a lot to account for...