Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Celtic confusion
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
What exactly do we mean when we use the term Celts?
I am not referring to its use for modern or post Roman people but in pre-Roman Britain.
It used to be used to refer to Iron Age people as there was an assumption that the technology and culture that arrived at the beginning of the Iron Age was brought by an influx of Celtic settlers related to the Celts who moved into central Europe, northern Italy, France and Iberia during classical times.
I understand that genetic studies have shown that was not the case and that people remained ethnically unchanged from the end of the Ice Age until the arrival of Germanic settlers. Now sum populist historians use the term to refer to all the peoples during that period which does not seem very sensible.
If it is being used to refer to Celtic culture then surely it should not be used in reference to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age or Roman periods.
If it refers to an ethnic group then unless it is qualified in some way it is inaccurate.
Any thoughts -
Message 2
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
The Celtic people lived in Germany [Halstatt] and Switzerland [La Tene] .They had their own cultural entity by about 600 BCE.They sacked Rome and reached Anatolia.The Irish,Scots,Welsh and some Brits spoke a Celtic languages,but were not genetically related to the Celts of central Europe.
-
Message 3
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Thank you for that it confirms what I thought
I simply don't think it is appropriate to refer to people in the British Isles as Celts prior to the arrival of Celtic culture and Iron Age technology. -
Message 4
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Thank you for that it confirms what I thought
I simply don't think it is appropriate to refer to people in the British Isles as Celts prior to the arrival of Celtic culture and Iron Age technology. Speaking as someone who does use the C-word, I really don't see any problem with it.
It's just a label. As such, it is about as accurate as other labels such as "English".
It is becoming increasingly clear that the lumpen masses steadfastly refused to become Celtic, Roman, English, Norse or Norman to order. Yes, there was intermarriage which contributed to our current genetic soup, but ultimately these ethnic tags really refer only to the ruling classes - numerically small numbers of people who, by dint of their social status and wealth, had a very significant impact on those around them.
Imagine that there is an end of the world apocalypse of some sort. All records are obliterated, but some folk survive and rebuild our world. 1,500 years later, alarmingy hirsute archaeologists find masses of evidence of early 21st century people in Britain wearing American fashions and using Japanese technology. So, Britain must have been populated by migrants or conquerors from those countries, right?
"Celt" is just the same. It is a very handy and well-understood term which tells us about the tastes and languages of the great and the good at a certain period in history. The fact that it is not a particularly accurate ethnic tag is perhaps less important.
Regards,
A R -
Message 5
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Yes I agree with that and don't have a problem with the term being used to refer to iron Age culture and people, where I do have a problem is with it being used to refer to people in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age who clearly had different cultures
-
Message 6
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
tucuxii, Have you an example of the term being used in a pre iron age context? I can't think of an instance off hand.
-
Message 7
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Neil Oliver is the main culprit he has used the term Celt in that context in at least two series
-
Message 8
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Saturday, 14th May 2011
Yes I agree with that and don't have a problem with the term being used to refer to iron Age culture and people, where I do have a problem is with it being used to refer to people in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age who clearly had different cultures The problem is that you cant say conclusively that these people were different, for example, we cant say the languages were different from the pre-Iron age languages.
There seemed to be a link across Europe in the fact that the names used by these people to describe themselves was the same/similar: Gael (Ireland/Scotland), Gaul (France), Galatians (Turkey).
As usual with historical investigation, the more we find out the more complex the picture gets and the further from the 'truth' we seem to be... -
Message 9
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
Genetic studies show that there was not a major influx of new people at the beginning of the Iron Age, so people in Britain adopted Celtic culture - the culture prior to this was plainly different when one considers the treatment of the dead and the use of monuments.
-
Message 10
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
"Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
What exactly do we mean when we use the term Celts?"Â All I know is that the recent series 'The Celts' should have been done under the trades descriptions act. The word occurred so seldom, we might just as well have been watching any other basic, British prehistoric primer. Decent enough pub-grub, but not what we ordered. -
Message 11
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 16th May 2011
Genetic studies show that there was not a major influx of new people at the beginning of the Iron Age, so people in Britain adopted Celtic culture - the culture prior to this was plainly different when one considers the treatment of the dead and the use of monuments. I accept thst, but were language is concerned, can we really make the statement that the language changed - its quite possible that the languages were there before the arrival of Celtic culture and therefore the "Celtic" languages are in fact pre-Celtic...
-
Message 12
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
That is possible and I guess the genetic studies would favour the idea of the existing Celtic languages being part of an insular "Celtic" language group while the extinct continental languages belonged to peoples who brought Celtic culture into central Europe and Gall
-
Message 13
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
There is tentative evidence to suggest that the language which ultimately became Irish was originally spoken over a much wider chunk of the British Isles and that it may have been supplanted and pushed out by a newer language which went on to become Welsh.
By the time Wome became our Fwend, this process was well underway although probably not complete. Roman records preserve names which allow us to look for root "Celtic" words behind them. Many of these names appear to be Old Irish, although by the time Wome stopped being our fwend, Old Welsh was stronger. By way of example, Cartimandua and Venutius are both arguably Latinised forms of OI words (as is Boudicca). However the post Roman chiefs of what had been the Brigantian lands had OW names - Owain, Rhun etc.
As I say, it's tentative, but if it's correct, we have to ask where OW came from. My guess would be that it is not an indigenous tongue - or a pre-Celtic language, as you rather aptly put it.
Regards,
A R -
Message 14
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Monday, 30th May 2011
You save yourself a lot of headache if you start from that there is no such thing as 'A Celt'.
There are Celtic artefacts- Hallstatt, La Tene, etc., and there are Celtic languages, P- Celtic, Q- Celtic, both living and not.
There were peoples who may have called themselves Keltoi according to Greek and Roman sources. The relationship between them and the above categories is speculative.
The idea that Old Irish as a Q-Celtic tongue must have preceded any P=Celtic British tongue is interesting and seems a logical proposition to me. Although, it is possible that Q-Celtic came to Ireland from the south while P-Celtic came across the Channel or North Sea.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.