Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[Ghostmojo]

When authors write the sort of statements above, it's important to know what 'old ideas' they are attempting to change. Usually that is set out in the preface or introduction. People of my generation were taught that the Celts were a single people who invaded the British Isles in the iron age and that there were some further invasions between 55/54BC and 43AD. History started with the Greeks, then the Romans, then the Roman invasion and then the Anglo Saxons. Hence Sellar's and Yateman's famous line, 'Britain didn't have a history until the Romans came and gave us one'. Where all these Celts came from was completely omitted, other than a mention of the Belgae.

I guess I am of the same generation Authun! In a funny way my curiosity about all of this goes right back to school, and the way 'native' history was taught back then. It was kind of very vague ancient Brits stuff (can't even remember if the teachers called them Celts) with phrases like stone age, bronze age, iron age liberally thrown around; then the Romans arrived; then they went; next came the Anglo-Saxons; the following week the Vikings; after half-term it was the Normans; then the Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts etc. What struck me as odd was the lack of discussion about what happened to previous groups when new ones arrived and whether there was any interaction. It was almost like the country became a blank slate for each new wave of immigrants to write their story upon. Thereafter I always thought that with history always being about the 'big' people during these times (kings, warrior bands etc.) it was clear that the 'little' people were always around - it was just that nobody ever took any notice of them!!!

There are many puzzling aspects about celtic speakers in Britain. For example, the Brigantes, who we think spoke a celtic language, show a good deal of continuity from the Bronze age. Their neighbours in East Yorkshire however show a sudden change around 450BC. Whether this change was cultural or demic is something which is debated but it at least tells us that the 'celtic' Brigantes are older, in terms of archaeology, than the 'celtic' Parisii and that they don't fit into the old 'iron age' series of invasions model. It becomes a question, 'when did groups like the Brigantes enter Britain?'

And who were the Brigantes anyway - and what about the Caledonians ... what about the Picts?

I have become somewhat persuaded by some of the propositions of Stephen Oppenheimer regarding the more obscure parts of our history. I don't think anybody could accuse him of some kind of English/Anglo-Saxon based revisionism given his mixed background. He seems to me to approach the subject from a very neutral position. What I did take away from his book was something that chimed in with a view that I had long held - that the English (as well as the Welsh, Scottish, Irish & others) for the most part, may well have been resident for a great deal longer in these islands than traditional accepted orthodoxy holds. The problem as ever comes down to nomenclature, just as the same issue attaches itself to the Celts. If for arguments sake (as a name rather than race/culture) the pre-Roman peoples of the west of Britain might be termed Celts/Brythones/Britons - Celtobritons if you will; could not there also be an parallel group of inhabitants (as Oppenheimer speculates (with good reason)) occupying the east (for whom we really do not have a name) who might also be termed Celts(?)/Others/Britons - Anglobritons or Belgaebritons for want of a better term? His theory has most of us in these islands descended from post-glacial settlers who were well in place long before the arrival (or non-arrival) of the Celts; Romans; Angles; Saxons; Jutes; Frisians; Danes; Norse; Normans etc. These incoming influences being more in the way of dominating cultured warrior elites, rather than massive waves of immigrants (hence the problem of what happened to all those massacred/displaced previous peoples not really being an issue). And of course his treatise stipulates with considerable voracity that there were two separate groups which co-existed; it was just that they had been doing it all along, rather than the original 'indigenous' people (Celts/Britons) displaced/nudged over by incoming 'arrivee' settlers/invaders (Anglo-Saxons et al). With the various cultural and linguistic influences that both physical invaders/settlers and commercial importation brought; it is entirely reasonable to see us all as far more 'mongrel' in our make-up (and less pure) and also far more interconnected as well. The contention that English as a language was also developing independently of other Germanic tongues before the arrival of the Frisians etc. is also hugely interesting and worthy of greater investigation and discussion.

When I left college I had a landlord who owned my flat with whom I got on quite well. Mr. Clement-Evans was very Welsh and very proud of it. He also had a keen interest in history and often ribbed me (in friendly fashion) about how the Welsh were the actual aboriginal Britons and 'us lot' were just mongrel later arrivals. I used to remind him of my Welsh heritage (both sides of my family - my paternal side including the Tudors) which I think gave me some brownie points with him. Oh how I would like to debate this issue with him now. The viewpoint of the historic make-up of the peoples of the British Isles has developed enormously since my school days (the same orthodoxy he subscribed to) and I guess will continue to unabated. 8)

Nationalism is the worry - especially nationalism based upon name, territory and language. Nationalism is exclusive and tribal. It doesn't exactly represent the best of ourselves as humanity, despite being fascinating for the social historian. And what is a name, a people, a border? Take the land north of the border - Scotland. The people there are descended from a mix of invading/arriving Scotti (who were Irish); surviving Picts; Strathclyde Britons (and Welsh); Norse; and Angles in Lothian. Add to that later Anglo-Norman and English incursions etc. and even more recent arrivals from all manner of places. The name in itself has no bearing upon either the original peoples or those who brought it since it means raiders or pirates (much as Viking did). Caledonia, Alba etc.? Nope - Scotland = Raiderland! Wales of course gets its name from foreigners appended by the English rather than their own Cymru term. The Welsh too are pretty multi-cultural these days; but even before that is the mix of west Britons; coastal Irish and Scandinavian infringers; alongside later English. And finally England (named after just one small group of Angle settlers) with certainly the broadest mixture of the lot. All of these countries could/should have claims on celtic history/ancestry should they choose to make them (and some do) and yet perhaps none do at all - or only groups within the larger collective. One good reason for the continuance of the word and catch-all identity of British. We may well have started off as far more of a heterogeneous (but connected) crowd than many would care to admit - and in modern times we have become even more so. So why not accept that the British identity is now doing pretty much what it was doing two thousand or more years ago? 8)