Definition of Celts
Raimund Karl
be methodically important for this newsgroup, namely to define what
anybody considers to be Celtic and perhaps come to a more common
opinion concerning that. I feel that the diversity of understanding
what is Celtic is very problematic, as I think that for most of the
time we are not talking about the same thing, when we talk about
Celts. I asked the question:
"How about a definition of anybody out there on this newsgroup. What
do you think defines Celts?"
Here I do this again, and I really would like to get some answers.
Oh, by the way, thanks to the one answer I already found, perhaps you
could try to explain a little bit more detailed what you mean, Harry
H.Howard. I want to start this thread with some more or less provocative
statements in the beginning, but I will not be able to take part
in this converssation for the next two weeks I assume, as I am off
to Ireland tomorrow morning and won`t be back till the third of May.
So I will be offline a little bit and see who has verbally killed
me only in some weeks.
I will start with two different opinions, which both are not mine,
but which I have collected during my study of archaeology at the
University of Vienna, Austria.
First (which I have from Prof. John Collis, University of Sheffield):
We only should call Celts those peoples, whom of we have direct
historical evidence that they were considering themselves to be Celts.
This means, some Gaulish tribes in Middle France (for instance the
Averni), would be Celts, as mentioned by Caesar, as is true for some
tribes at the lower Danube, as we know from Aristoteles. We perhaps
may assume that some Celts lived at the upper Danube as says Herodot,
and perhaps some tribes at the western edge of Spain, as told to us
by Livy. The Rest of what settled in Europe was not celtic, and thus
their heirs cannot be Celtic either. This means: Neither Scots, nor
Irish, nor Welsh, nor Bretons, nor anybody else who claims to be
celtic actually is. There are no Celts anymore, and there were not
many at any time.
Second (which is a transmutation of a theory of Prof. Falko Daim,
University of Vienna originally targeted towards some slavic tribes,
who became that by stopping to be Awars)
Anybody who thinks of himself as being a Celt actually is. Thus, if
you hit a dog on his head and it becomes intelligent and you tell
him he is a Celt and he believes, so he is.
Actually I do not believe in both of these theories, at least not in
the radicalised form I have used to describe them above.
Additionally I will ask some questions now, which also have to do
with the main question above:
1) Can Archaeology on its own tell that something is Celtic?
2) Do the messages of the ancient historical authors have any
importance to assuming something is Celtic?
3) Can Linguistics help anything to define what is Celtic?
4) From which date on towards which ending date may we talk of Celts?
5) In which region may we talk of Celts?
6) Which methods of natural sciences may be used to define what is
Celtic?
7) Is Art history of any use for defining whats Celtic?
8) Is Religion important to define something as Celtic?
9) I am sure I mised some important questions, but anyone who has
should fill in his here.
I do not want to give any statement of myself by the moment, because
it could either sound too patronizing, too scholarly or perhaps could
take the discussion into too close borders, and that is not what I
want, I really do want that we first try to discuss this as openly as
possible and then perhaps come to a consense somehow. I think this
could be very helpful for further discussions.
RAY
Just to come back to the point that I am in Ireland for the next two
weeks approximatly. If somebody on this group living in Ireland wants
to meet me personally, perhaps just to talk oà to hit me in the face
for all the rubbish I publish here, I do a lecture on Continental
Celtic Archaeology at the Society for Celtic Studies at the University
of Maynooth on the 28th of February, I think somewhen in the evening.
So if you`d like to meet me, just be there.
Sheila McGregor
a870...@unet.univie.ac.at "Raimund Karl" writes:
> I do want to start a new thread here, which does what I think would
> be methodically important for this newsgroup, namely to define what
> anybody considers to be Celtic and perhaps come to a more common
> opinion concerning that. I feel that the diversity of understanding
> what is Celtic is very problematic, as I think that for most of the
> time we are not talking about the same thing, when we talk about
> Celts. I asked the question:
>
> "How about a definition of anybody out there on this newsgroup. What
> do you think defines Celts?"
<snipped a lot of interesting discourse>
Really, I thought we had decided we couldn't do this since it doesn't
seem to depend on genes, race, culture, locality, or even language,
since the language of this group is English. Someone proposed that
if you felt you were Celtic, you were. This is attractive since in
theory no-one would normally claim to be Celtic who has not got some
affinity.
But <snipping a lot more earnest monologue>,
Prof. John Collis, University of Sheffield is said to have said:
> "We only should call Celts those peoples, whom of we have direct
> historical evidence that they were considering themselves to be Celts.
> This means, some Gaulish tribes in Middle France (for instance the
> Averni), would be Celts, as mentioned by Caesar, as is true for some
> tribes at the lower Danube, as we know from Aristoteles. We perhaps
> may assume that some Celts lived at the upper Danube as says Herodot,
> and perhaps some tribes at the western edge of Spain, as told to us
> by Livy. The Rest of what settled in Europe was not celtic, and thus
> their heirs cannot be Celtic either. This means: Neither Scots, nor
> Irish, nor Welsh, nor Bretons, nor anybody else who claims to be
> celtic actually is. There are no Celts anymore, and there were not
> many at any time."
This is like defining 'land' as the little bits sticking up above the
water. Since the Celts are a prehistoric people, a definition based
on history is not much use.
Might as well add my tuppence, having copied over the whole thing.
> 1) Can Archaeology on its own tell that something is Celtic?
No
> 2) Do the messages of the ancient historical authors have any
> importance to assuming something is Celtic?
Yes
> 3) Can Linguistics help anything to define what is Celtic?
Not as presently understood but yes, certainly
> 4) From which date on towards which ending date may we talk of Celts?
I believe something very like Celts were around, using
something very like a Celtic language before 3000 BC.
> 5) In which region may we talk of Celts?
Since you have to accommodate the Scots and Irish, this is
a problem. You need to see them all over Western Europe.
I even believe most of the present population of England
is or was Celtic. They've forgotten, so maybe they don't
count.
> 6) Which methods of natural sciences may be used to define what is
> Celtic?
Pass
> 7) Is Art history of any use for defining what's Celtic?
You mean like whirly things? Perhaps
> 8) Is Religion important to define something as Celtic?
Define religion.
9) Is it a Celtic trait to try to define the indefinable and to
continue to do so after it is evidently impossible to do so?
--
Sheila McGregor
Raimund Karl
>
> In article <4gae76$1c...@ftp.univie.ac.at>
> a870...@unet.univie.ac.at "Raimund Karl" writes:
>
>
> Really, I thought we had decided we couldn't do this since it doesn't
> seem to depend on genes, race, culture, locality, or even language,
> since the language of this group is English. Someone proposed that
> if you felt you were Celtic, you were. This is attractive since in
> theory no-one would normally claim to be Celtic who has not got some
> affinity.
>
do so with the little bits of knowledge about science that you can
provide us with. So to your first point, I really like that. You
tell me that it is undefinable and by the way always try to do so
by comming up with most sensational and no-evidence based makeup
explanations of everything. I do not think that it is impossible, and
even the point you take up I think was quite good, being a matter
of self definition, but actually this only works as long we have
the necessary evidence. And as a matter of fact, we do not have the
evidence of Celtic `Selfdefinition`till up to the time of Christs
Birth approximatly.
> But <snipping a lot more of my earnest monologue>,
> water. Since the Celts are a prehistoric people, a definition based
> on history is not much use.
And actually most the things almost anybody else but you assumes
most of what we have of Celtic People comes from historical times,
being at least two thirds of it (by starting a Celtic Culture at
about 750 BC in the West Hallstatt Culture gives us about 600 years
to the first large historical evidence of Posidonius, from then on
to 450 AD we have to consider times as historical and in Ireland
at least again from 700 AD on until today, so most of the Celtic
Culture would as a matter of fact be historical. But, of course,
you see them since 3000 BC, so this changes the matter...
By the way, were you possibly the woman who wanted to get sperm
from the man from the Alps discovered about 5 Years ago and now
being dated to about 3000 BC, to get a child from him?
> Might as well add my tuppence, having copied over the whole thing.
>
Well fine, here I would not go along with you, but ...
Why do you then use it as an argument that Perthshire was Celtic
from at least 600 BC on?
> > 2) Do the messages of the ancient historical authors have any
> > importance to assuming something is Celtic?
So if archaeology doesn`t have any relevance, why should the historical
authors have? They all could be made up. (Most of all those who tell
of Romans conquering half of scotland and pressing the Votadini
and other tribes to the north (Oh, by the way, those were P-Celtic
speaking tribes, so they were Celts, but probably some of them came
to Perthshire too)
> > 3) Can Linguistics help anything to define what is Celtic?
More the way it was done in the metrical Dinshenchas?
(I now cite from there, Gwynn Translation, Todd Lecture Series 8, Temair I)
Round her house was built a rampart
by Tea daughter of Lugaid;
she was buried beyond the wall without,
so that from her is Temair named.
> > 4) From which date on towards which ending date may we talk of Celts?
> something very like a Celtic language before 3000 BC.
(Macalister Translation, ITS Vol.XXXIV,35) says:
God said unto Noe to come out of the ark ...
which is reconed to be about at the year 2500 BC says the Lebor
Gabála, being the most extant source of old celtic Mythology we have.
Now, how should this fit to your theory, Sheila!
> > 5) In which region may we talk of Celts?
> a problem. You need to see them all over Western Europe.
> I even believe most of the present population of England
> is or was Celtic. They've forgotten, so maybe they don't
> count.
and southern Poland in the Northeast, and down to Galatia to the
Southeast. Since for instance the Austrian oral tradition tells
nothing of us ever having changed our settlement area, we therefor
must, following your Perthshire and Denkmark Theory, Sheila, be Celts,
too.
> > 6) Which methods of natural sciences may be used to define what is
> > Celtic?
Thanks a lot, at least here you didn`t come up with rubbish!
> > 7) Is Art history of any use for defining what's Celtic?
> You mean like whirly things? Perhaps
is only possible through Archaeological Finds. And as most old
Celtic Art history is understood to be a part of archaeological
research, can`t you stay at least consistent with what you say?
Oh, or is it possible that you simply don`t know what you are talking
about?
> > 8) Is Religion important to define something as Celtic?
Is Religion not a term clear enough? Do your friends in Rannoch
have any story to tell about the comming of the faith to Rannoch?
Or are they still Pagan, eh Sheila? Give us more of your most
scientific knowledge from the Scottish Highlands.
>
> 9) Is it a Celtic trait to try to define the indefinable and to
> continue to do so after it is evidently impossible to do so?
> --
> Sheila McGregor
And, all the way, Sheila, I have to confess:
I believe you, that you are Celtic, and probably allmost anybody on
this Newsgroup does, and it is not in the least important to us thatt
your ancestors were not in Perthshire for since the beginning of
Mankind, and we still love you for being Celtic, just as you are.
Bye
RAY
PS: And I am sorry for being that nasty in some of the points I made,
but I think the level in this discussion could be much higher if we
did at least a little bit try to keep Science as what it is:
A big collection of knowledge
and not what you seemingly believe it is, Sheila,
a illogical front of people proud of what they believe is right,
defending it fiercly against good new ideas.
Actually, we Scientist love good knew ideas - but yours are definitly
not good, and even less new.
Sheila McGregor
and ever-congenial "Raimund Karl" wrote a lot of rather abusive
and utterly unconstructive drivel, which is not worth copying,
so I snipped it.
<snip>
This poor Germanic plonker is way out of line. I don't know what
he thinks he is (a 'scientist' perhaps) or what he thinks I am,
but he is certainly not a Celt, by my definition, since (a) he has
no sense of humour; (b) he takes himself seriously; (c) he thinks
he knows a lot; (d) he thinks he knows more than I do; (e) and
he has no sense of humour.
He started this thread. I'm not that interested in it. It seems
no-one else is interested in it either. So if he has a problem
defining 'Celtic' he seems to be alone in this.
The End. Byeee!!
--
Sheila McGregor
Raimund Karl
Actually I think it needs a good deal of humour to still be answering
to your senseless proposals which you give us with all your fine
knowlegde. I am dearly sorry that I missed that point where I am
a scientist sitting im my isolated far off tower and clinging to
terms to strictly. I have been to scotland quite often, even more
to Ireland, and I visited most of the other Celtic countries too,
once or twice. I do like Scotland, the Scots and almost everything
which is going on up there which I get to know of, and, perhaps
you want believe but it is true, I even like you. You are at least
trying to help other persons, which a lot of other people do not,
so this is a big point for you. As it is, though, science is somewhat
misunderstood by you, I assume. We scientists (I consider myself being
such a miserable person) do not sit in ivory towers, neither
isolated nor anything else. And we do, as a matter of fact, like to
get as much information as possible, including oral tradition. By the
way, I just came bach from a two weeks trip to Ireland, where I not
only have been reading in the UCD Libary and the RIA Libary, but also
spent quite a time talking to the local population (you somehow
allways get to meet them once you go to a pub). The difference
between scientist and non-scientist also is not that the scientist
has a certain "secret knowledge" that he does not tell anybody, and
it is not that scientists try to cling to terms as close as possible,
but the big difference usually is, that we do a fulltime job doing
studies in this matter and thus, normally tend to have more know-
ledge than non scientist. We are not more wise, more intelligent
or more whatever, we are, so to say, just more experienced. The
second big advantage in being a scientist is that we not only
think about what we are studying, but, too, which methods will give
us correct results and wich will, forever, stay a matter of believe
it or believe it not.
And that is the problem I have with you, Sheila. You come strolling
along and tell us your wisdom to anything. As it looks, you believe
we scientist are crazy because we follow some patterns which are not
as open as yours. But we do this because the way you follow will
never tell us something about history in a way that we can check
if what you say is right or wrong. What you are doing, leads us to
a system where everybody can believe anything to be historical
truth, and the one will succed who cries loudest. And that is exactly
what, for instance, the Nazi did.
I can try to show you what your methods would lead to, which is
also understandable for one being as English as I am German, no,
even more, because I live in Austria, which is a independent country.
But to come to my point.
I propse herewith, that Austria is a celtic country. I have the
following arguments for this:
1) Nobody in the remote Regions of Austria has any tradition of ever
travelling there. For instance in the Inner Alps, this proves to us
(following your Rannoch Example), that the Inner Alps where never
occupied by anybody else then the people living there.
2.) As the name Alps itself is Celtic, most of the Placenames in the
Alps are Celtic too, and almost all local terms for Transhumance and
the jobs connected with cheesemaking are celtic, too, we may safely
assume that the Alps were first settled by Celts, who ever since
lived there.
3) For the regions North of the Alps, which are in Austria too, the
same is true.
4) Archaeology proofes continual settling since the late Neolithic.
5) History proofes, that we were a Celtic Country some time ago.
There is nothing in History which disproofes we changed ever since.
6) The Capitol of Austria is Vienna. This name is definitly a celtic
name, so no Country being non-Celtic would give a celtic name to its
capitol. No country Celtic would, on the other hand, do the opposite.
Ireland thus would be no Celtic Country (as Dublin is Norse), as would
be Scotland, as Edinburgh is Saxon.
7) There is no hint to that the modern Austrian Language usually
being completely wrongly called German ever was another one than
it was now (normal temporal changes admitted), so Austrian is a
Celtic Language, which proofes even more that we are a Celtic
country.
8) We have all the funny things like Music (even sometimes the
dudelsack being equivalent to bagpipes), we make use of the harp
or similar instruments, we have a rich background of Celtic tales
with elves, and Dwarves, and Brownies and other faerie creatures.
As is now definitly proofen bejond any doubt that Austria today is
a Celtic Country, as is that it alsways was, we now have to see how
far back in prehistory we can take this.
The earliest finds from Austria made at all date about 70000 years
of age, and they are from the inner alpine Region. As nobody there
remembers anything of ever having come there, and having proofen that
Austria is a Celtic Country today, it is absolutely logical that
our ancestors 70000 years ago already were Celts.
And that is what the point is Sheila. That is the way you are
obviously doing it with perthshire, and now, would you be so nice
and show why my theory I presented here is wrong?
Thanks you for reading all this lot, Sheila McGregor, I a m pleased
you take your time in making those interesting debates with me
RAY
VANNARIX MAQQ VANNABILUGOS
Raimund Karl
>
> Dear Verne
>
> Do you really think he is serious? I thought this was another
> heavy attempt at Austrian humour. The only time I ever went to
> Austria I was warned, seriously warned, not to try any humour on
> the natives, and believe me, I didn't feel at all inclined to.
>
> Celts in Austria? With red hair and green eyes and remote lost
> Celtic dialects up the deep valleys? I'm all in favour. There
> are some difficulties of course with linguistic categories,
> but what's in a name?
> --
> Sheila McGregor
Uups, it could be that I´ve gone too far. I consider, so to say,
what I said not to be that serious, but I think my point was something
different. I wanted all who were reading this, to think for a short
moment, that my argumentation has its point, but in a completely
different direction. Of course there are Celtic roots in Austria.
As there are Preindoeuropean, Roman, Germanic, Slavic, Hunnic,
Avaric, and probably a lot of other roots. This is less true for
Scotland and Ireland, where heritage of less people went into your
blood. But what I was wishing to show is that with a certain way
of using arguments in an unscientific way it is very easy to
proofe, that Austria is Celtic from the Mesolithic on at least.
By this I wanted to show what the problem is with Sheilas
argumentation. She argues the way I did in this Austria is Celtic
thing, and this argumentation leads to nothing, because yu could
show the same for Turkey for instance, or Italy if you`d like. It
is not the ideas of Sheila I criticise, it is the way she argues!
RAY
Oh, just another word on humor - I can imagine it being hard to
understand Austrian humor when you don`t speak German. So Sheila,
don`t worry about our Austrian humor, we Austrians definitly do like
it, and we like the Scottish humor too - And I`ve tried that quite
often.