Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[Ron Andrea]

Am I the only one who is puzzled by the references to LPIRA, LBK, TRB, etc.?

I assume these are references to historic epochs; could LBK mean Late Bronze Age?

Help. :?

[Ghostmojo]

I accept all of that (Authun's last post) but as we know, the use of a language and the appearance of a culture can so often be by acquisition. I agree there are certain indicators and connectors with continental neighbours and cultures but as John Haywood says; "the Celts of Britain and Ireland were different. So far as we know, none of the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of those islands ever used the word Celt to describe themselves before modern times. Though Roman writers recognised similarities of language and culture between the British Celts and the Gauls, they regarded them as a separate people, as, indeed, the Britons seem to have regarded themselves."

As there seems no convincing archaeological evidence (that I am aware of) of Celtic invasion of the British isles we have to fall back on the language issue. Were these native speakers or transmitted celtophones? Surely, as with the production of 'celtic' artistic culture, the latter notion of importation seems more likely.

[Conal]

but as John Haywood says; "the Celts of Britain and Ireland were different. So far as we know, none of the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of those islands ever used the word Celt to describe themselves before modern times. Though Roman writers recognised similarities of language and culture between the British Celts and the Gauls, they regarded them as a separate people, as, indeed, the Britons seem to have regarded themselves."

Why do you keep quoting this? This arguement is partucularly redundent as it is recognised that Celtic is a modern terminology used to describe a language group that may very well be a cultural group too. The inhabitants of Ireland, Britain and France probably did not call their language Celtic or Gallic, not did they call their culture La Tene. The Beglae are said to have differentiated themselves from the softer "Celts" but if they are of the same language group you can't just opt one out just because there is no evidence that they called themselves Celtic speakers, did they have a concept of language groups to te extent that not calling themselves Celtic would be relevant?

As for th ecultural links take the Truroe stone, bang in the middle of Galway but of La Tene style ... possible copying of European ones, may have been taken there by traders or perhaps settlers or it may have be there because the cultures were similar enough to warrant it ... we cant tell.. the art style may have had a deeper social/cultural/religious significance than we have been able to glean from mere objects with no written context.

As there seems no convincing archaeological evidence (that I am aware of) of Celtic invasion of the British isles we have to fall back on the language issue. Were these native speakers or transmitted celtophones? Surely, as with the production of 'celtic' artistic culture, the latter notion of importation seems more likely.

Who is now arguing for the Celtic invasion theory? I thought that this was long flung out and that now there was more of an acceptance that cultural trends spred out from Europe and were diluted/adjusted to local custom. Thios is a good book which explores this aspect;

The Britons (The Peoples of Europe)
Christopher A. Snyder

He identifies regions of influence.

[authun]

Am I the only one who is puzzled by the references to LPIRA, LBK, TRB, etc.?

Sorry for the abbreviations.

LPRIA = Late pre roman iron age
LBK = Linearbandkeramik often translated, but not always, as Linear Pottery culture in England.
TRB = Trichterbecherkultur often translated as Funnelbeaker culture in England.

The periods vary depending on which part of europe one is discussing. As a rough guide however, LBK refers to the early neolithic, 5500–4500 BC whilst the TRB is later, 4000 BC–2700 BC. You can think of the LPRIA in Britain as after 500 BC.

Each period covers a long time span and the abbreviations are used in a general sense, but they are often used abbreviations. They also cover a lot of different cultures. See:
[url:1x7d8hpg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture[/url]
[url:1x7d8hpg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture[/url]

best
authun

[M. Demetrius]

Some have posed the theory that most ancient cultures died out because they were unschooled in using acronyms, so they couldnt transmit long sentences quickly, and their communications networks were overtaxed with long words. The Romans tried using simpler abbreviations, but they succumbed to that, too. Others say that's an absurd theory. You be the judge. :lol:

[authun]

Some have posed the theory that most ancient cultures died out because they were unschooled in using acronyms, so they couldnt transmit long sentences quickly, and their communications networks were overtaxed with long words. The Romans tried using simpler abbreviations, but they succumbed to that, too. Others say that's an absurd theory. You be the judge. :lol:

Well I've never understood why abbreviation is such a long word.

Interesting thought about the use of acronyms and text messaging. Will english change and chinese (and arabic and cyrillic) disappear completely?

cheers
authun

[Rumo]

Well we more or less 'know' that speakers of celtic languages lived in Britain and Ireland in the LPRIA and that these languages replaced an earlier unknown language, the remnants of which survives in the hydronymy. If the hydronymy is an indication, this earlier unknown language was at one time widespread in Europe, eg. the river Don has cognates in the Danube, Rhone (Rhodanus) and the Dnieper.

In Rhodanus the root probably is *rod- or something like that, if so then it's not related to the other names.

I don't think there were any Celts on Don. Its ancient names was Tanais, maybe related to the names of Danastris (Dniester) and Danapris (Dnieper). The ancient IE languages spoken in these territories north of Black Sea were Iranic, not Celtic. It's possible that Danubius is derived from a similar *dan- name from these languages, as well.

[authun]

In Rhodanus the root probably is *rod- or something like that, if so then it's not related to the other names.

I am aware that 'rot' or 'rod' is an alternative etymology where this element is pre Indo European, but many still cite the 'dan' element as the root. Either way, it appears to be an earlier language than Celtic.

I don't think there were any Celts on Don. Its ancient names was Tanais, maybe related to the names of Danastris (Dniester) and Danapris (Dnieper). The ancient IE languages spoken in these territories north of Black Sea were Iranic, not Celtic. It's possible that Danubius is derived from a similar *dan- name from these languages, as well.

I'm not saying they are celtic. I'm saying that, in Britain, these hydronyms, Don, Hodder, Clun, Tees, Tyne etc. pre date celtic.

There are several theories as to what the language of the old european hydronymy was, ranging from a lost indo european language to a non indo european language.

best
authun

[Ghostmojo]

but as John Haywood says; "the Celts of Britain and Ireland were different. So far as we know, none of the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of those islands ever used the word Celt to describe themselves before modern times. Though Roman writers recognised similarities of language and culture between the British Celts and the Gauls, they regarded them as a separate people, as, indeed, the Britons seem to have regarded themselves."

Why do you keep quoting this?

I apologise Conal. I hadn't realised I had quoted it before. I haven't scrolled back through this thread to check. I recognise there is a possibility of falling into the trap of circular repetition, to which I seem to have strayed. Looks like I've been going around in circles (like those carved stone ones!). Guilty as charged! :oops:

[M. Demetrius]

Easy to do, when the discussion runs to 70 posts. I sort of doubt that this one will get solved here, don't you?

[authun]

Easy to do, when the discussion runs to 70 posts. I sort of doubt that this one will get solved here, don't you?

Well it took the pre roman celtic speakers of Britain and Ireland something like 1700 or 1800 years to decide to call themselves Celts so you can't expect to hurry these things.

cheers
authun

[M. Demetrius]

In approximately what year was that decision made? :?:

[authun]

In approximately what year was that decision made? :?:

Well it's less of a decision and more a gradual acceptance.

The antiquarians started to use it in the 17th century. I think the first attestation is in 1607, "The Indians were wont to use no bridles, like the Græcians and Celts." in 'The historie of foure-footed beastes'. Then it is picked up by the likes of Milton, "the Ionian gods ... who o'er the Celtic fields roamed the utmost Isles.".

Of course it is still a long way before the term becomes popular. Celtic Football Club was established in 1887, so it had definitely happened by then as presumably there were enough fans around in Scotland who knew what it meant. In Ireland Robert Cane founded the Celtic Union in 1853 which then started to issue a publication named 'The Celt'. Again the term too must have meant something to the membership.

So, I reckon it must have made the change from literary term to popular term sometime between 1667 and 1853, but I don't know the track.

cheers
authun

[Ron Andrea]

Not to mention the Boston Celtics in 1946. But they can't even pronounce it correctly, let alone play decent basketball. :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

So we're utterly discrediting Julius Caesar who said that they called themselves "Celts" in his day, am I reading this right?
"...ei qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appelantur...."