Atlas for Celtic Studies

[Heron]

Oh what value is the term Celtic? Apart from being a subject that has arisen on this forum on a number of occasions, it is one that has preoccupied many academics including some who have emerged from the discipline that is still, in many quarters, called 'Celtic Studies'. Where that just refers to the languages studied this can be seen as a quite valid term with limited applicability, but one that cannot be applied in a wider context (as advertised by Megli on TV!)

I'm drawn to consideration of this issue by a review in the current edition of PLANET magazine ('The Welsh Internationalist' www.planetmagazine.org.uk) in which Miranda Green reviews An Atlas for Celtic Studies by John Koch and others. The funding for the publication comes from an Arts and Humanities Research Council project on 'Celticity'. John Koch and the others involved in the project no doubt subscribe to the notion but Miranda Green (in spite of her own published titles) does not seem so sure. In her review she seeks to balance the views of the 'Celto-sceptics' who question the Celtic provenance of Iron Age and Romano-British culture claiming that the arguments for it elide "the archaeological and the linguistic evidence and lump together huge tracts of land over immense chronological distances under the term 'Celtic' " thereby creating "a timeless, spaceless continuum ... under an overarching Celticity". Miranda Green seems to feel that the producers of this Atlas sidestep the issue here in particular in respect of the nature of Ancient Britain. She points out that Caesar, Strabo, Pliny et.al. never called the inhabitants of Britain Celts and that only in parts of Gaul to we have evidence of self-identity as Celts by any Ancient people.

The fact that many modern speakers of Celtic languages regard themselves as Celts only further complicates the issue as this stems form interpretation of evidence which scholars now question. A further problem is that archaeology and philology have such different frameworks and terms of reference that the evidence from each can scarcely be compared. If modern inhabitants of the western Atlantic seaboard choose to self-identify as Celts where does that leave those who doubt the self -identification of ancient peoples? That there is a continuity between those ancient peoples and the current Celtic self-identifiers might be sufficient reason for applying the term retrospectively to the ancestors of these modern populations. Whether that ancestry is genetic, linguistic or cultural might not matter to the inhabitants of what Miranda Green calls "edgy places" in the West who feel comfortable enough with the term.

She concludes that "people's foci of identity lay in much smaller communities" in the ancient world but that language and other cultural identifiers might have knit such fragmented communities together both in their own minds and in the minds of 'foreigners'. In spite of her doubts she does commend this Atlas as a valuable artifact. So if you've got fifty quids to spare .....

[megli]

Oh it is a sod. Heron - many thanks for this immensely useful review. I'll get a copy, I think - Koch is a major, creative figure whose scholarship I enjoy hugely even when I am unconvinced by his arguments.

[Blackbird]

I really really want a copy of this... but I'll have to wait for a lottery win

I agree with Miranda Green on the idea that identity lay in smaller communities, though I don't know enough to back that up with much fact. It simply seems like human nature to me - most folk now will identify themselves most strongly with a small group, be that cultural or social, even if we understand ourselves to be part of wider groupings too. For instance, where I was brought up, there was rivalry between my small town and the neighbouring one. But we would stick together as Nottinghamites if threatened by folk from Derby And then if threatened by furriners, even Notts and Derby folk would join forces... but on a day to day basis, even being British was largely irrelevant.

People will always have an instinct to belong to a group and to defend their own. Britain is a small place and there will always have been pressure for the best land. Humans bumping up against other people's boundaries are always going to be in conflict, and local rivalry will always be the main concern.

[Tegernacus]

of course, and this is backed up by the old saying that the "celts" were too busy fighting each other to fight Rome. Infact, nationhood only comes into play when the country at large is threatened, whether Vercingetorix and the Gauls fighting off Caesar, or Churchill and the Brits fighting off Hitler. In other times, the nation of a "united kingdom" becomes silly and irrelevant. BB is right... I grew up in a valley town split in the middle by a river. People on one side of the river hated the other side, and would never go there (and vice versa). People need something to identify with, some banner to gather behind. Which is why the whole "celtic" thing gained such importance in places like Ireland, Wales and Scotland, as they started to get the idea that maybe they shouldn't just be under English rule, hey we are actually sovereign countries too. People like that, although it is more an intellectual or political banner rather than a geneological one.

Saying that, these are more enlightened times, so I think the Celtic term is long past its sell-by date, and I inform everyone of such on a daily basis. Some people actually listen to me too

[talheres]

Verses, say, Germanic or Slavic? These language and cultural groups did and do exist, whether or not there is or was a homogeneous self-identity. It’s like saying the Semetic or Finno-Ugric cultures couldn’t exist, because they didn’t all self identify as one people back them, much less do now. Sorry, but I fail to see how Celto-skepticism is anything but a pseudoscience, and indifferent to how study of historical and comparative linguistics is truly done. And I do say this, because I’m very well aware that the Celtic language were not discovered by Romantics, but a Welsh linguist, and was later tested and then proven by others (like how science is done). And while national and cultural identity may indeed, and did, attract nationalists, but that doesn’t mean that we have to get go down the path of solipsism about the matter.

My other problem with Celto-skepticism is how it reflects much of the worst of post modernist anti-science claims. Bruce Latour, in one of his books, went as far as to allege that that molecules do not exist until a scientist discovers it, which isn't too different than what I've read people saying of the Celtic cultures as of late. Should we really apply this type of thinking to the study of language and linguistics as well?

[megli]

No, we shouldn't. However, the point is that 'Celtic' holds up very well as a linguistic category, but then shades off into a series of more and more nebulous meanings in other areas of endeavour. 'Celtic literature' is a meaningful phrase if one takes it to refer to 'literature in a Celtic language', but what about writers from tradtionally Celtic-speaking areas who write in English, like Joyce? Or who write in both English *and* a Celtic language, like Morgan Llwyd o Wynedd? 'Celtic History' is even vaguer as a label....and so it goes on until you end up with shops selling 'Celtic' crystals, blasted out of the earth in Brazil.

Personally I tack hard to the position that 'Celtic' is very useful as a linguistic category, rather less useful as a cultural/historical category, and not useful at all in most other senses.

[littleraven]

Jun 12, 2008 8:50:15 GMT -1 megli said:

Personally I tack hard to the position that 'Celtic' is very useful as a linguistic category, rather less useful as a cultural/historical category, and not useful at all in most other senses.

I utterly, completely and wholeheartedly agree with this viewpoint.

Talheres, the idea of a 'Celtic culture' is very modern and somewhat reminiscent of the sentiments of Empire (the society which spawned the concept of Celtic culture in the first place). Today, even in places that may be considered 'Celtic' by outsiders do not consider themselves as such, their loyalty lies to a *much* smaller and essentially tribal identity. This exists, I've seen it and been a part of it. In my persaonl experience they simply do not identify to a homogenous 'Greater Celtic' identity. Some peolpe will infact argue that the Celtic concept is just another example of English attempts to destroy Welsh culture by removing it's geogrphical uniqueness relative to the rest of Britain.

In an ancient context, you only have to look at the most fundamental aspect of life, the home. British houses were round, Gaulish were rectangular. If the culture was homogenous, even though the langaugaes were related, you would expect a continuation into how they ordered their lives.

[Tegernacus]

you only have to take the modern situation to see perfect reflections of this. For example, an archaeologist in 2000 years digs up my house: she finds an American novel, some blue jeans, and a rusty old Coke can. What does she infer from this? Does she think "ahhh... the family living here were American.. they speak American, and look, American artifacts". Obviously absurd, but that's what we're doing in the prehistoric world.

[littleraven]

Jun 19, 2008 8:31:12 GMT -1 Tegernacus said:

you only have to take the modern situation to see perfect reflections of this. For example, an archaeologist in 2000 years digs up my house: she finds an American novel, some blue jeans, and a rusty old Coke can. What does she infer from this? Does she think "ahhh... the family living here were American.. they speak American, and look, American artifacts". Obviously absurd, but that's what we're doing in the prehistoric world.

I thinks that's a good analogy. I was in the USA last year, and whilst I could function there were *very* major cultural differences such as the driving laws, the lack of NHS, music, tv etc etc etc. People may say such things as "51st state" but it's really very different.