LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  June 2000

CELTIC-L June 2000

Subject:

Re: Celtic people?.

From:

Lars De Richter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Lars De Richter <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:56:03 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (228 lines)

Lars wrote:
> Before we can accept or refute this hypothesis, we need to establish what
> the word 'Celt' means for us. The word comes from the Greek word 'Keltoi',
> which became 'Celtae' in Latin. (Although many authors like Caesar and
> Polybius preferred the words 'Galli' or 'Galatae'.)
> Interestingly enough, these words were only used for people living on the
> Continent.
>

Francine wrote:
>>        The words were used at different times and places to denote
specific
>>groups, not "Celts" as a whole. Your statements give the impression that
in
>>the ancient world, there was a general agreement that certain fgroups
spread
>>all over Europe were cultureally and linguistically linked.

I write:
Exactly my point. I was trying to proof that the Celts were never a united
group and that they were not seen as belonging to one group (except that
they were barbaroi, for not being Greek (also a modern common denominator
for different groups) or Roman and as such they would be classified together
with all the other "barbaric" peoples of ancient Europe. I also wanted to
make clear that the word Celt as it is used today is imposed upon us by
linguists since the 16th and 17th Century (Edward Lhwyd, a.o.). The origin
of the word itself may be (according to Cunliffe, Barry. 1997. The Ancient
Celts. London: Penguin.) from an ancient IE-root meaning stranger. "In which
case it could hardly be an ethnonym" he goes on. (If this root exists it has
changed in Germanic languages to wealas or something like it. Using this as
an ethnonym would imply classifying the French-speaking Belgians (who would
be of Romance origin) and the Welsh as belonging to the same ethnicity, how
stupid would that be!!!))



Francine wrote:
>>       And BTW, Keltoi may itself be a corruption of Galatae.

I write:
Where did you get this. It is against my linguistic sixth sense that the
form with kappa precedes the one with gamma and Hecateus and Herodotos, who
were among the first to name these people used Keltoi, not Galatae. If you
look at their distribution, you can see a difference of meaning though: the
terms Keltoi/Celtae were the general name and were used to indicate the
peoples who lived in the area stretching from north of the Alps to Iberia
and the terms Galli/Galatae were used more often for the tribes who
emigrated to the south and south-east (although Caesar makes another
distinction, see the following point).



Lars wrote:
> No person living in the British Isles was ever called a Celt by
> the classical authors.
>

Francine wrote:
        >>And no person living in Gaul was, either.

I write:
I didn't say anything about this, but they were. Herodotos called people in
the area that is seen as Gaul almost the whole of France and Belgium (Called
Gallia Transalpina by the Romans), while part of northern Italy was called
Gallia Cisalpina) Keltoi (and Caesar wrote:"Gallia est omnis divisa in
partes tres, [...], tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli
appelantur. Which is roughly translated as follows: "Gallia as a whole is
divided in three parts, [...], the third one [is inhabited by people who]
are called Celts [=Celtae] in their own language and in ours Gauls [=Galli].



Lars wrote:
> Caesar and others saw the people in Britannia as
> closely related to the ones living in Gaul, but distinctive enough to have
> other names.
>

Francine wrote:
>>        Quote your sources, please.

I write:
a.o. Caesar: De Bello Gallico: V, 14: "+- The inhabitants of Kent [...]
differ but little from the Gallic manner.
V, 12: "the maritime part [was inhabited] by tribes who came in an earlier
stage from Belgium."
V, 12: "the farmbuildings [...] being very like those of the Gauls"
VI, 13: "It is believed that their rule of life [the druids'] was discovered
in Britain and transferred from there to Gaul; and today those who would
study the subject more accurately, journey, as a rule, to Britain to learn
it. (this implies that they had the same religion and probably also that
there languages were intercomprehensible). (Sorry I haven't got any more
materials at this time + I believe I took this notion from Simon James (see
bibliography of my original email))



Lars wrote:
> If we would use the word 'Celt' as the classical authors did, they could
> not be pushed back or slaughtered by the Anglo-Saxons when they came to
> England, because they were not living there in the first place.
>

Francine wrote:
>>        Huh?

I write:
Sorry about that. Bad formulation (English is not my native tongue). I meant
that you can't wipe out a people that is not there.




Francine wrote:
>>        Your view of groups as solely made up of one genetic group or
>>another is, IMGHO, naive and misleading. How do you think people spread
and
>>conquered others? By massacring the ones who were already there? Not as a
>>rule. They killed the ruling groups or made them subject by marrying the
>>women and taking over their lands, then using the existing peasantry to go
>>on doing what they knew how to do: farm the land. Only very isolated
groups
>>remain "racially" pure. Most are mongrels, to say the least.

I write:
Where in my piece did you read that I think groups are solely made up of one
genetic group. The piece was written to prove or at least give some
indications that the Celts never existed as a genetically unified group. And
that the English living now probably have inherited genes from so-called
"Celtic" peoples (meaning next to the ones they got from Picts, Angles,
Saxons, Jutes, Danes, French, Romans, and so on). All these groups are
genetically diverse and often intertwined. (I read some time ago that 99% of
people living in Europe are descendants of seven (or was it eight) different
women, no more!!! so there must have been a lot of inbreeding and even
incest). But still there is Luca Cavalli-Sforza who has proved or is proving
that the family tree of human genes is almost completely parallel with the
family tree of human languages (there is one very notable exception: the
Basques look genetically very much like the Spanish, although there language
is an isolate) see http://human.stanford.edu/;
http://redshift.stanford.edu/P12/human_origins/050200sci-genetics-evolution.
html; and the book I mentioned in my original email)
This thing about genetics was only there to say that if we could prove that
the English living in England now are genetically related to people (who we
now called Celts) of whom we know that they lived in Britain before people
(who are now classified as Germanic) came to Britain (e.g. through
genetically analysis of bodies that are date via carbon-dating or some other
method to be from the first century BC until e.g. the fourth century AD (or
some other better time-scale) and prove that they are related (in a
statistically relevant way) to the people living in England now, we can also
prove that David Crystal & all. are wrong in saying that the Anglo-Saxons
(as they call them) wiped out or drove back the Celts (as they call them)
from England. This would also prove that our theory (we seem to share this
one) that conquering people do not (or did not) replace the conquered
people, only there elite and after a while (can be a long time, but
eventually you get to this stage) they get so intertwined (because they
influence each others cultures and languages and because they start to
intermarry) that no difference is made anymore. And if we can prove this
beyond doubt, all the blabla going on about sterilisation will be proved to
be bullshit, because then we could say that the English are as celtic as any
other celtic people and that our celtic friends should be sterilised too for
what they did to our pictish cousins. (And so on, there is even some
Neanderthal blood in our veins that still would need to be avenged). there
is only one problem: I don't know of such an investigation and if anyone
here does, I would love to hear about it.




Lars wrote:
> Many of the peoples that we now call Celtic, would never have considered
> themselves as such.
>

Francine wrote:
      >>And were not called such by anyone--including classical writers.

I write:
I did not say anything else, nor would I.




Lars wrote:
> It is very probable that the peoples living in England before the
> Anglo-Saxons came in, were a mix of partly or fully Celtic Gauls, who
> crossed the channel and Picts, who were living in Britain before the
> arrival of the Gaulish and Belgic tribes. Why is it then that most people
> consider this collection of quite diverse people to be 'Celts'?
>

Francine wrote:
        >>Where did you get this?

I write:
Picts were living in Britain before (so-called) Celts came to Britain (and
it doesn't matter if those Picts were proto-Celtic or not). If you hang on
to our theory of conquering and being conquered, we have to conclude that
there were Picts living together with "Celts" in England and that they at
some stage influenced each other and that it is very probable that they
intermarried at some points which would cause this mix I was talking about.)



To conclude I can say that we agreed on most points and that a lot of your
critique was premature. Please read this piece and then reread my original
mail, so you can see for yourself that we have to agree on most points.
Please also bear in mind that it was originally written for a course on old
English and that the only question of it was "How celtic are the English
now?" all other questions and answers only served to shed some light on this
question. (I did not want to write about Celt Iberians or the Galatians Paul
wrote to; e.g. in respect to your "were not called such..."-remark.

And now I am finally of to bed. I thank all of you for the many responses I
have had (I still like the one by Sean Oberle most), although I did not
expect to cause such a stir. And I ask you to read everything carefully
(even if it is in a bad, heavy, dry style, I should have rewritten it a long
time ago, but I am, at least for the time being, too lazy for that) before
criticizing it so heavily.

Slán,

Lars

ps. Francine, I hope there will be no bad feelings between us. I very much
like most of the messages you write. (I don't know if personal messages like
this one are appropriate here, please let me know if they are not. I am a
listserv-newbee)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager