Removing the Celts from History?

[Phi]

As most of you likely know, since 1999 with the publication of Dr Simon James The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern INvention, many archaeological articles of interest to Celticists will not be found researching via the word "Celt." More importantly
this idea and controversy has led to archaeologists avoiding the term "Celtic" or "Celt" in any description of finds.

I recently purchased a new edition of The Celts A History by Peter Beresford Ellis. In the new preface (2003) he gives a brief accounting of the controversy, in which he argues that the word Celtic, like the words Anglo-Saxon, Greek, Latin refer to a linguistic rather than an ethnic link between these peoples. Dr James argues that the word "Celtic" can't be used for these peoples because they did not call themselves "Celts." But PBElllis argues that neither did the Anglo-Saxons call themselves Anglo-Saxons, nor the Greeks call themselves Greeks and therefore if the word "Celt" should not be used, then neither should these and many other language-based terms.

The media got into the fray, including a BBC radio program asking Ellis and James to "slug it out" over the airwaves.

Dr Simon James also wrote in 1997 Britain and the Celtic Iron Age and in 1993 Exploring the World of the Celts. so why the change? According to Ellis, it is obviously political, and says
Dr Norman Davies who wrote The Isles A History
"succinctly discussed why, in an effort to rubbish the rise of modern
Celtic nationalism, some people might want to remove the Celts as an entity from history."

In 2002, the French got into the fray, with Professor Christian Goudeneou, chairman of Antiquities Nationales, stating that Gaulish Celts did not exist either!

Politics. Dissention. After writing two books about the Celts, suddenly Dr. James decides they do not exist...

Should these ideas continue to take hold and should the Celtic archaeological evidence be mislabeled, then any respect for the ideas and ideals of the ancient world of Celts, and therefore any chance of respect for the Druidic and Celtic groups (like this!) goes down the drain.
Has anyone here read
The Isles A History ? If so could you give more info regarding the politics of this?

[Seren_]

As far as I'm aware, most academics don't hold much water with Simon James' article in many respects. Whether or not they called themselves Celts is irrelevant. The fact that a number of peoples shared similarities in language and culture means that the term continues to be a useful word to use in a general sense.

However, I do agree that treating them as a homogenous culture - "the Celts", as if they were all identical to each other - is pointless; they never were and never will be. In times past, they were studied in that way, by scholars and authors that are still respected today. Academics are now beginning to focus much more on the individual peoples - the Irish, the Gauls etc, and even the sub-groups/tribes within those. Since a lot of work has been put into noting the similarities between them in the past, I see this as a natural and useful progression of studies in the field.

[Phi]

Ellis seemed to think it was unfortunate that

"archaeologists...in recent years have resorted more and more to talking about the "Iron Age People" in Britain, Ireland, and France. In April 2003, when the University of Leichester announced the discovery of a hoard of Celtic coins minted before the arrival of the Romans they decided to announce 'in excess of 3,000 silver and gold coins have been found, mostly made by the local Iron Age tribe-the Corieltauvi.' That is sad for it does not inform the people who this 'Iron Age Tribe' was not explain what language they spoke. 'Do you speak Iron Age?' is a joke now often heard among Celtic students in modern universities."

also he mentions
[The Celts]"confused helter-skelter descent into Iron Age People."

So, do you speak Iron Age?:lol: J/K
Actually I do think they were one people, culturally as well as linguistically speaking, though not necessarily one genetic strain of people, and of course keeping their own local customs within the larger culture. At least as much as Great Britain is "one people" today... They're not? Oh ask them that when some "foreign power" attacks them...then they become one fighting mad people, right?


Anyhow the extent of the cultural ties is still unknown. I just hate to see the "Celtic World"
subsumed once more by the idea of many completely independent tribes, as if they were so primitive they hardly even knew one another existed...

[Meadhbh]

Anyhow the extent of the cultural ties is still unknown. I just hate to see the "Celtic World"subsumed once more by the idea of many completely independent tribes, as if they were so primitive they hardly even knew one another existed...

Things like that end to get annoying. Yes, I know celts, because I still use the word, are not carbon copies of each other nor did they use the word celt. However they did share some, not all features in their societies and of course the langue was all related. If they do that to the celts then they'll be doing to all the tribal people of europe before long and no one save academics will have a clue as to who people are talking about. Its good to remember that all the tribes were not the same and customs might be diffirent fifteen miles up the road, but to make it easier on people a catch all culture name should be used otherwise things are going to become so completly boged down with names of tribes, and clans and whatever else that people aren't going to be able to piece anything together.

[ap Dafydd]

I share the analysis of the Simon James line that it is the last refuge of a group of English imperial academics against the resurgence of Celtic identity and pride in these countries, and is based on a refusal to accept either the evidence of written sources or the existence of regional differences within a culture.

I'd class the whole thing as a racist attempt to denigrate Celtic people and ethnically cleanse us from history.

Not that I feel strongly about it, y'know?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Ron]

I share the analysis of the Simon James line that it is the last refuge of a group of English imperial academics against the resurgence of Celtic identity and pride in these countries, and is based on a refusal to accept either the evidence of written sources or the existence of regional differences within a culture.

I'd class the whole thing as a racist attempt to denigrate Celtic people and ethnically cleanse us from history.

Not that I feel strongly about it, y'know?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred
I second that. :bangyourh

[Phi]

So, okay...anybody quoting material from John Collins or Simon James as a reference to what they are saying is quoting from these racists, then!

Easy names to recall when you are looking at reference materials, and recalling that they are such can give you fair warning of their slant on things when reading!

[KellyP]

Interesting. In the field of mathematics we always referred to researchers as either "lumpers" or "splitters". The lumpers tended to write journal articles documenting the common elements of a group of mathematics constructs. While the splitters would take any given construct and further refine it into subclasses based on unique characteristics.

While I understand there may be more involved -- I personally have not read or researched the author involved -- I think the continual refinement done by the lumpers and splitters valuable to any field. Understanding what can be applied to all "Celts" is no less and no more valuable than understanding what characteristics uniquely identified a specific tribe.

[Sonic Seamus]

I'm not familiar with the other authors but I really like Ellis and his boat-rocker tendencies.

For some reason I'm reminded of the local controversy about celtic shamanism which has come under the same fire. Was the druidic pratice true shamanism? Probably not but the term shamansim is a lot like the term celt.....a very large umbrella word that encapsulates quite a bit.

"lumpers and splitters"......I like that.

[Phi]

Interesting. In the field of mathematics we always referred to researchers as either "lumpers" or "splitters". The lumpers tended to write journal articles documenting the common elements of a group of mathematics constructs. While the splitters would take any given construct and further refine it into subclasses based on unique characteristics.

While I understand there may be more involved -- I personally have not read or researched the author involved -- I think the continual refinement done by the lumpers and splitters valuable to any field. Understanding what can be applied to all "Celts" is no less and no more valuable than understanding what characteristics uniquely identified a specific tribe.
I'd be all for further in depth study of each tribal group, that's not the issue.
They're not trying to split Celts into their respective groups for refining. They are saying that the groups were not Celts and that Celts did not exist.

The splitters in your example aren't saying the group of math constructs is invalid or does not exist are they?
So the comparison really doesn't work.

[Dave the Druid]

Racist? a bit harsh I think (though possibly valid). Revisionist is more fitting. There are way too many academics who classify the Celts as an umbrella culture to cause it to disappear. There were different sub-groups to be sure, based on geographical dispersion.
a good map (http://www.celticgrounds.com/chapters/appendix/map-celticworld.htm)

On the lingustic side it was this dispersal that gave the romance languages their local flavours. NB the difference between Italian and French. If they had in fact been homogeneous there would be little difference in the languages.

There are way too many Celt derived groups to cause the Celtic identity to disappear.