Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[authun]

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...."

Apparantly not. Your quote from Gallic Wars refers to the Gauls, not the Britons. Ghostmojo's Haywood quote and my quote from Koch are solid:

"But notions of the 'Celts' might be more seriously defective if we attach great significance to the negative evidence that the Greeks and Romans never (so far as we know) applied the label Keltoi or Galli to the inhabitants of Ireland or Britain and that the pre modern Gaels and Britons never applied such a label to themselves (again, so far as we know) (Cunliffe 2003, 5; Koch 2003)."

best
authun

[M. Demetrius]

True enough.

So the Gauls (in modern France) referred to themselves as Celts, and the Celts? in Belgae did not. And the Celtic-speakers of Britain and Ireland did not call themselves Celts. The one group of people in what is now Spain were Celtic, but the Iberians and Lusitanians were not Celtic? Clearly to me, at least, it's unfair to say the Britons and Irish did not consider their Celtic roots. Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are still Gaelic (Gallic/Gaulish and those people did call themselves Celts, if we can believe Caesar who knew them first hand).

It seems like we're grasping for straws while swimming underwater...but if it makes folks happy, go for it.

[Sean Manning]

True enough.

So the Gauls (in modern France) referred to themselves as Celts, and the Celts? in Belgae did not. And the Celtic-speakers of Britain and Ireland did not call themselves Celts. The one group of people in what is now Spain were Celtic, but the Iberians and Lusitanians were not Celtic? Clearly to me, at least, it's unfair to say the Britons and Irish did not consider their Celtic roots. Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are still Gaelic (Gallic/Gaulish and those people did call themselves Celts, if we can believe Caesar who knew them first hand).

It seems like we're grasping for straws while swimming underwater...but if it makes folks happy, go for it.

The point is that there is no evidence that people in Britain and Ireland felt they had "Celtic roots" with all these other places before the 18th century when antiquarians discovered that their langugages were related. Judging by anthropological parallels, its unlikely that all British or all Irish felt a sense of commonality with each other! Pre-Roman elites in some parts of Britain and Ireland imitated Gaulish goods and Gaulish customs, but that doesn't tell us much about ethnicity (if a Welshman today drinks coke and listens to rap and lives in a home designed by an American architect, that doesn't mean he would call himself American!)

[Rumo]

So the Gauls (in modern France) referred to themselves as Celts, and the Celts? in Belgae did not. And the Celtic-speakers of Britain and Ireland did not call themselves Celts. The one group of people in what is now Spain were Celtic, but the Iberians and Lusitanians were not Celtic? Clearly to me, at least, it's unfair to say the Britons and Irish did not consider their Celtic roots. Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are still Gaelic (Gallic/Gaulish and those people did call themselves Celts, if we can believe Caesar who knew them first hand).

Ironically, if we take Caesar's account at face value, then the only true Celts are the Gauls , all the other, from the British Isles and Iberian peninsula to Anatolia are not really Celts. For Caesar the Gauls were living between the Ocean and the rivers Garonne, Rhone, Seine and Marne, except for two tribes - Sequani and Helvetii which were more to the east, the latter being separated from Germans by the Rhine river.

Andrew M. Riggsby, Caesar in Gaul and Rome: War in Words (2006), p. 67:

From time to time Caesar makes reference to information he gained by inquiring of local informants. Yet as both a military commander and governor of three provinces - Illyricum, Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul - Caesar was a very busy man. One might reasonably assume that much of his information, whether German or Gallic, was at best second-hand.

And I tend to agree with that. Even if at times he indeed had personal brief meetings with his informants, I know of no evidence Caesar was speaking in Gallic and not using translators.

Riggsby makes also an interesting remark on the factuality of ancient accounts which directed me to a book in his bibliography. J. H. C. Williams, Beyond the Rubicon: Romans and Gauls in Republican Italy (OUP 2001), p. 220-1:

Apparently factual remarks in the literary sources therefore require cautious handling as evidence for three reasons. First, what Polybius or Cato have to say about the material aspects of Celtic life is not to be considered value-free and reliable simply because it appears to convey information rather than opinion. The two are deeply implicated in one another. Secondly, what they wrote cannot be considered to convey a full picture of ancient reality. Facts can be selectively omitted, or denied, as well as included. Polybius on Celtic towns is a case in point. He misses them out, indeed denies their existence is his sketch of Celtic life in Book 2, but then proceeds to include a number of them in his subsequent narrative of the Romans' wars against the Celts. Whether he was right to consider them as towns in the proper sense is of course an entirely different matter, and this brings us to the third caveat about the use of Greek and Roman literary evidence is reconstructing the realia of life in pre-Roman northern Italy. Anything said by the relevant Greek and Roman authors about the alien and, for most of them, the past world of the Celts in Italy may simply be factually wrong, a consequence of misinformation or misunderstanding, the opportunities for which will have been manifold.

Except for the fact Caesar was contemporary with the world he was describing, all the other points are valid for his account, too.

In this book there's also a nice wording in introduction, summarizing why 'Celts' are a myth (p. 12):

'Celtic' has become, in the opinion of many, so controversial as to be an unacceptable academic usage, on the grounds that it imputes a spurious, or at least dubious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic homogenity to an area (most of Iron Age western Europe) and a time (the Iron Age) for which there is insufficient evidence to show that any such homogeneity existed. The way in which the term 'Celtic' has commonly been used by academics, it is argued, has involved an unfortunate confusion between two different kinds of ethnic terms which need to be carefully distinguished: those referring to ethnic, or ethno-linguistic, categories imposed from without upon populations with no sense of themselves as belonging to that category, and those referring to ethnic communities which are conscious of themselves as separate historical and cultural groups. The ethnonym 'Celt', as used by Greek and Roman writers and modern historians and archaeologists, more probably belongs to the former rather than the latter group, given that the evidence on which it is based is taken entirely from external sources which may or may not have accurately described contemporary ancient communities.

[Ron Andrea]

In this book there's also a nice wording in introduction, summarizing why 'Celts' are a myth (p. 12):

'Celtic' has become, in the opinion of many, so controversial as to be an unacceptable academic usage, on the grounds that it imputes a spurious, or at least dubious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic homogenity to an area (most of Iron Age western Europe) and a time (the Iron Age) for which there is insufficient evidence to show that any such homogeneity existed. The way in which the term 'Celtic' has commonly been used by academics, it is argued, has involved an unfortunate confusion between two different kinds of ethnic terms which need to be carefully distinguished: those referring to ethnic, or ethno-linguistic, categories imposed from without upon populations with no sense of themselves as belonging to that category, and those referring to ethnic communities which are conscious of themselves as separate historical and cultural groups. The ethnonym 'Celt', as used by Greek and Roman writers and modern historians and archaeologists, more probably belongs to the former rather than the latter group, given that the evidence on which it is based is taken entirely from external sources which may or may not have accurately described contemporary ancient communities.

Now, that actually makes some sense.

Just as Western Europeans today talk about "Moslems" as if they were a homogeneous group, and they discuss "Christians" the same way, in both cases imputing certain value judgments which--while they might actually apply to part of the category--don't necessarily apply to all. On the other hand, it is useful to talk about "Western Europeans" as I just have (even including North Americans) as a kind of short hand to identify a category of peoples who may or may not see themselves as a community. And that's what we're doing with the ancient Celts.

The other problem is that discussions of ancient Celts get conflated with preconceived notions of modern peoples who are labeled or call themselves Celtic, which may have no direct connection with the ancient peoples to whom that label is applied.

However, saying that the term "Celt" is so vague and misused as to be of no scientific, academic or linguistic vale, is far different from saying--much less proving--that no such category of peoples ever existed, even if we can't agree on all the particulars of that category.

[M. Demetrius]

Somehow it seems that we have devolved into discussing the "Myth that 'Celts' are a theory".

What we know (unfootnoted here, but mentioned down in the annals of this thread):
There was an ancient culturo-linguistic group that gradually migrated westward across much of Europe, and their contemporaries called them Keltoi, which became the word "Celt".

They were not a monolithic block of people who shared all attributes that we assign them (religious practice, material culture, etc.) but they did have some similarities.

At least one of the contemporary writers says that they called themselves Celts.

There are some similarities in art, and other archeological finds that could loosely link the Britons to the Continental European Celts. (Such as the Dacians, Gauls, Iberians, Germanics, North Britons, Irish, Welsh, et al.)

There were some differences between what we know of their culture and what we know of the surrounding tribes/cultures. (Such as the Dacians, Gauls, Iberians, Germanics, North Britons, Irish, Welsh, et al.)

Most of what we know of these people is derived from excavated relics, as they did not keep written records of their culture and history, though they did write about other things.

Some of what we know of these people is derived by writings (perhaps propagandistic) of their contemporaries, such as the Greeks and Romans. This data, while available from different individual authors is also not necessarily objective, as these writers had an agenda to make their own culture appear superior to all others.

DNA seems to support the notion that there is a common link between these people, although they are/were living in a wide area.

**********

But we seem unable to agree that the label fits the people, regardless of various seemingly well-thought-out positions taken by various people, ancient, more modern, and us on the forum. OK, so what now?

What general label would be acceptable to those opposed to the label "Celt"? And is this proposed label documented in any way in the ancient record? If not, why should it be accepted instead of the label that is supported by the ancient recorders?

[caiusbeerquitius]

What general label would be acceptable to those opposed to the label "Celt"? And is this proposed label documented in any way in the ancient record? If not, why should it be accepted instead of the label that is supported by the ancient recorders?

The terms we use influence our thoughts and our perception. I think the general critique is to use a label at all instead of using the tribal names we know, resp.: we should specify clearer what we are talking about. I like the terminology of LaTene culture, Jastorf culture etc. when I need to talk about groups of tribes. It is less(!) ideological.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, we couldn't really use only the names of the tribes, as there were hundreds of those, and there is such a small body of knowledge about the familial/tribal differences between, say, the Helvetii and the Lusitanii, the Nervii and Belgae, the Coritani and the Iceni, except from the ancient sources mentioned below, like Julius Caesar, whom some of the forum writers seem inclined to dismiss as irrelevant second-hand knowledge--without providing any first-hand knowledge to replace it with. But I get your point, and I am just asking a clarifying question.

We know some of the material differences between, say, Halstatt and La Tene, but we also see enough similarities to make the analysis that these are artifacts of the same ethnic culture, taken from different centuries of time. Is there not one name that is better than "Celt" to represent these ancient people as a collective? If not, I think we can't talk intelligently about the culture at all without a paragraph of explanation of about whom we are talking. But that's just me. If someone says 1st century Celt, for example, I have a fair idea that they are talking about the general group of Western Europeans who sometimes opposed Roman expansion into their areas.

If there is not a better convenient name, then, how shall we talk about these "X Culture" folks?

[caiusbeerquitius]

But I get your point, and I am just asking a clarifying question.

Sure, you are absolutely right. It depends on your question, of course, on what you want to know or find out. It´s difficult. If you don´t know what the tribe you are talking about was called, you could call it a Latene Culture tribe, e.g. and add "close to the territory of the Arverni" or so, or give a geographical place. At least this is unideological. ^^

If someone says 1st century Celt, for example, I have a fair idea that they are talking about the general group of Western Europeans who sometimes opposed Roman expansion into their areas.

But you´d have the same idea, if someone said "The grave is from LaTene D1" or from "Hallstatt B". Just follow Reinecke.

[authun]

If there is not a better convenient name, then, how shall we talk about these "X Culture" folks?

This is not a question that anyone has yet successfully answered. Archaeologists do use the term culture, as caiusbeerquitius has indicated. So in the East Riding of Yorkshire, from about 450 BC, they talk of the Arras Culture, which is quite different from the West Riding of Yorkshire, which shows much more continuity with the bronze age. The tribe in the East Riding of Yorkshire in the Roman Period were the Parisii. Those in the West Riding of Yorkshire were the Brigantes. So we have two supposedly celtic speaking groups who are neighbours, one showing continuity whilst the other shows a sudden change in the mid 5th cent. BC. This method of naming however is not very satisfactory because we don't have a name for a culture which preceded the Arras Culture when the Pre Arras Culture, Culture is pretty much the same as the Culture of the Brigantes, though they weren't probably called Brigantes around 1000 BC.

It's not a situation where one can easily apply labels without being long winded or getting confused so I tend to call them celtic speakers of britain or just brythonic speakers, as opposed to goildelic speakers in Ireland and gaulish speakers in Gaul. We still have the problem of the language of the Picts and the Belgae so they have to be termed by their global name even though each has several tribes. Calling them celtic speakers would be misleading because we don't know if they actually were.

NB. Arras culture is named after Arras Farm in East Yorks, not the region in France. It is made even more confusing as the continental Parisi lived near Arras and have very similar archaeology. One archaeologist suggested that the two be distinguished by the Yorkshire Parisii being written with a double 'i'. The trouble is, lots of people write about the continental Parisi now using to 'i's. As a result I tend to use the terms Yorkshire Parisii and Continental Parisi.

best
authun

[Rumo]

Well, we couldn't really use only the names of the tribes, as there were hundreds of those, and there is such a small body of knowledge about the familial/tribal differences between, say, the Helvetii and the Lusitanii, the Nervii and Belgae, the Coritani and the Iceni, except from the ancient sources mentioned below, like Julius Caesar, whom some of the forum writers seem inclined to dismiss as irrelevant second-hand knowledge--without providing any first-hand knowledge to replace it with.

Two clarifications here:
- according to Caesar, tribes such as the Belgae weren't Celtic, and they did not call themselves Celts (he says that of Gauls only).
- Andrew Riggsby and others are not "some of the forum writers"; moreover such scholars usually also question the fact there was much first-hand knowledge or a general genuine interest in things barbarian

There was an ancient culturo-linguistic group that gradually migrated westward across much of Europe, and their contemporaries called them Keltoi, which became the word "Celt".

They were not a monolithic block of people who shared all attributes that we assign them (religious practice, material culture, etc.) but they did have some similarities.

At least one of the contemporary writers says that they called themselves Celts.

What's common in the material cultures of Iron Age Britain, Rhone valley and Hellenistic Anatolia? The material culture of neighbouring territories is sometimes similar, but it also can be different as suggested by Harry. Sometimes we find objects of Greek or Roman origin or inspiration, but certainly we don't think of those people as Greeks or Romans.
As for language, of the overwhelming majority of these tribes we only know their names. We are not sure those names which are "Celtic" (whatever this means - I suppose someone can find a securely attested Celtic word which looks similar enough) were used by those people in their self-description (did the Germans call themselves Germans?), and not given by neighbours or travellers (merchants, mercenaries). Even when we have words attested, often we can't tell if the language is indeed native or a second language used for whatever purpose. When barbarians speak Greek or Latin, we don't always think of them as Greeks or Romans, do we?

Many Greek and Roman authors described people being defined by climate, geography (sometimes separated by mountains, rivers or isolated in islands) and appearances (body height, weapons and armor, clothing, tattoos, hairstyles or merely hair color, diet, stereotypical appetites for violence, mysticism and heavy drinking, practicing polygamy, or in the remoter areas also cannibalism, etc) - see, for example, Tacitus with his Germans and Sarmatians. The mechanisms behind such rationalizations are multiple and complex, and are not related to "positivistic" attempts to understand the surrounding reality. Strabo considered the Cimbri and the Cimmerians one people, obviously through folk etymology (both names starting with Cim-). In this case we are quite certain no Cimbri migrated to the shores of Azov, but can we separate fact from fiction in all instances, especially when we have no other sources (testis unus ... )? In the end, Tacitus, Pliny, Strabo and Julius Caesar himself were no National Geographic reporters!

[Ghostmojo]

The word Celt has become a loaded term (politically, artistically, culturally, nationalistically, socio-economically, emigrant-nostalgically) and for many (not perhaps us here) it becomes hard to separate its ancient usage and nomenclature from its modern. The two things are not necessarliy connected, although many Celts out there like to believe in this linear continuity. Regarding Britain I would prefer the term ancient Britons (who may or may not have been 'celtic' and/or spoken 'celtic' or 'celtic'-derived tongues). They seem to have a life of their own and are not necessarily part of a heterogeneous mass - although they clearly have links and common cultural aspects. Not immediately labelling them Atlantic Celts - but simply Britons - allows them to be absorbed or integrated into any Celtic discussion without preconditions - to whatever degree - or none.

[authun]

Not immediately labelling them Atlantic Celts - but simply Britons - allows them to be absorbed or integrated into any Celtic discussion without preconditions - to whatever degree - or none.

Well Pytheas of Massilia wrote that they called themselves the Pretani and Strabo names Ireland as Ierne so Britain and Ireland, or Hybernia, does appear to be valid. I am not sure if Strabo claims that the irish themselves used the term Ierne but Pytheas make his claim about Britain. The Greek world initially referred to the two as the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands, so it doesn't seem likely that the terms Pretani and Ierne come from Greek.

best
authun

[Rumo]

Well Pytheas of Massilia wrote that they called themselves the Pretani and Strabo names Ireland as Ierne so Britain and Ireland, or Hybernia, does appear to be valid. I am not sure if Strabo claims that the irish themselves used the term Ierne but Pytheas make his claim about Britain. The Greek world initially referred to the two as the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands, so it doesn't seem likely that the terms Pretani and Ierne come from Greek.

The problem is no writings from Pytheas survived. To be sure, most authors (quoting Pytheas or not) use the B-variants. True, in some authors and manuscripts there are P-variants, but it's virtually impossible to determine which is the original form, even though some believe the P-name is authentic and the B-name is the later, Graeco-Roman version of the name. Few mentions:

Diodorus Siculus, V.21-2: Brettanik? n?sos
Strabo, I.4 and IV.5 (calling Pytheas a falsifier!): Brettanik? and Iern?
Pliny, IV.102-3: Britannia insula (but known as Albion when the entire group of islands was named Britanniae) and Hibernia
Ptolemy, II.1: Iouernias n?sou Bretanik?s and II.2: Aloui?nos n?sou Bretanik?s

At a first glance I'd say there are two traditions: 1) of one island named Britain , and 2) of a group of islands named Britain, with the largest one named Albion (Ptolemy proably using the same source has here Alwion) and the second largest one named Hibernia (Ptolemy: Iwernia)

[authun]

The problem is no writings from Pytheas survived. To be sure, most authors (quoting Pytheas or not) use the B-variants. True, in some authors and manuscripts there are P-variants, but it's virtually impossible to determine which is the original form, even though some believe the P-name is authentic and the B-name is the later, Graeco-Roman version of the name.

Yes. I wasn't being entirely serious and insisting on Pretani, merely supporting Ghostmojo's case for using the term Britain. Strabo claimed Pytheas was a falsifier because he couldn't believe Pytheas' feat was possible. But the 2nd hand accounts of his voyage are nonetheless pretty good. I take your point though, if a chinese speaker told me what a place was called and then I tried to write it in english, I'd be lucky to get close to what was meant.

When Pytheas inquired of the Briton, what is this place called, Pretani could, for all we know, have been a rather rude response. :lol:

cheers
authun