Post by Brochfael on Mar 30, 2005 16:47:33 GMT -1
I've read several references to "the Celts" in pages on this site and I feel the need to clarify what the word actually means.
Celts is an anglicisation of Celtae (latin) and Keltoi (greek). Different classical writers seem to have used slightly different definitions of the word even then. Some (Caesar) used it interchangeably with Galli (Gauls). Others implied that not all gauls were celts, not or celts were gauls or even that they were seperate ethnic or cultural groups. One thing common to all ancient writer though is that they never referred to people living in Britain or Ireland as Celts (or Gauls for that matter).
A few people living in what is now southern England were described as Belgae whom other writers included as Gauls but British people were always Britoni or, if they wanted to be rude about us, Britunculi.
The identification of British and Irish people as Celts only starts in the nineteenth century when scholars started comparitive linguistic studies and began to talk about a Celtic branch of the indo-European language group which would include Gaelic, Welsh, Manx, Breton and Cornish.
There is a close relationship between these languages and the ancient Gaulish tongue but latin is also quite closely related:
eg Bull in latin is Taurus, Welsh Tarw, Mediaeval Irish Tarbh and ancient Gaulish Tarvos.
You can also see in this example how different the English word is due to it's Germanic roots.
Incidently although there are extremely few Brythonic, Welsh or (if you really insist) Celtic words in English, the use of participle verbs in English may be derived from a native tradition.
The problem is that the idea of Iron Age "Celts" is so entrenched in the modern psyche that even those of us who would rather refer to Britons are sometimes forced to refer to Celts.
So how similar were the Celts, Britons and the ancient peoples of Ireland (Hiberniae to the Romans)?
There are strong cultural similarities. Perhaps most important to us, they all seem to have had druids, they also had gods with very similar names (Nuadhu and Nodens being a good example). The art style in Iron Age artifacts is very similar but not identical a skilled eye can tell the difference. The Celts on the continent were more technologically advanced than the Britons and Hibernians, for example wheel thrown pots and updraft kilns were in use much earlier south of the channel. There were differences in architecture (You don't find roundhouses south of the channel) and farming practices.
However there were regional differences within Britain. Hillfort type settlements are not universal, Brochs aren't found outside Northern Scotland and Much of yorkshire seems to have been farmed as open cattle ranches by Iron age cowboys with backslung swords unlike many other parts of Britain.
In the South east of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, some people were buried under square mounds with chariots or carts. This doesn't seem to happen in other parts of Britain but it does happen in part of central France!
Ethnicity and culture in pre-christian Britain is an extremely complicated subject with many different interpretations but it is very likely that to describe our ancient ancestors in this land as Celts is a mistake
How about Britons or Brythoniaid?
Celts is an anglicisation of Celtae (latin) and Keltoi (greek). Different classical writers seem to have used slightly different definitions of the word even then. Some (Caesar) used it interchangeably with Galli (Gauls). Others implied that not all gauls were celts, not or celts were gauls or even that they were seperate ethnic or cultural groups. One thing common to all ancient writer though is that they never referred to people living in Britain or Ireland as Celts (or Gauls for that matter).
A few people living in what is now southern England were described as Belgae whom other writers included as Gauls but British people were always Britoni or, if they wanted to be rude about us, Britunculi.
The identification of British and Irish people as Celts only starts in the nineteenth century when scholars started comparitive linguistic studies and began to talk about a Celtic branch of the indo-European language group which would include Gaelic, Welsh, Manx, Breton and Cornish.
There is a close relationship between these languages and the ancient Gaulish tongue but latin is also quite closely related:
eg Bull in latin is Taurus, Welsh Tarw, Mediaeval Irish Tarbh and ancient Gaulish Tarvos.
You can also see in this example how different the English word is due to it's Germanic roots.
Incidently although there are extremely few Brythonic, Welsh or (if you really insist) Celtic words in English, the use of participle verbs in English may be derived from a native tradition.
The problem is that the idea of Iron Age "Celts" is so entrenched in the modern psyche that even those of us who would rather refer to Britons are sometimes forced to refer to Celts.
So how similar were the Celts, Britons and the ancient peoples of Ireland (Hiberniae to the Romans)?
There are strong cultural similarities. Perhaps most important to us, they all seem to have had druids, they also had gods with very similar names (Nuadhu and Nodens being a good example). The art style in Iron Age artifacts is very similar but not identical a skilled eye can tell the difference. The Celts on the continent were more technologically advanced than the Britons and Hibernians, for example wheel thrown pots and updraft kilns were in use much earlier south of the channel. There were differences in architecture (You don't find roundhouses south of the channel) and farming practices.
However there were regional differences within Britain. Hillfort type settlements are not universal, Brochs aren't found outside Northern Scotland and Much of yorkshire seems to have been farmed as open cattle ranches by Iron age cowboys with backslung swords unlike many other parts of Britain.
In the South east of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, some people were buried under square mounds with chariots or carts. This doesn't seem to happen in other parts of Britain but it does happen in part of central France!
Ethnicity and culture in pre-christian Britain is an extremely complicated subject with many different interpretations but it is very likely that to describe our ancient ancestors in this land as Celts is a mistake
How about Britons or Brythoniaid?