Pssssttt… we’re not really Celts…
As Fintan O’Toole says, it’s not really a secret (subs needed). Lot’s of people know it, but no one seems to want to talk about it. The Celtic Fringe is a Oxford myth cooked up by the polymath keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, and popularised in a book called The Antiquities of Nations. The integrity of our ancient Celtic identity is, it seems, bogus. “There never was a Celtic invasion of Ireland or Britain. The identity our Celtic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany dates back, not to the mists of time, but to 1707″ (Just after the first Act of Union in fact). O’Toole goes on:
Edward Lhuyd, brilliantly, argued that Gaelic, Cornish, Breton and Welsh were related to the language spoken by the ancient Gauls. He called these languages “Celtic” (largely because the term Gallic then denoted the hated French) and suggested that they had spread to Britain and Ireland through migration.
In an intellectual culture saturated with classical learning, the link with the “Keltoi” who had invaded ancient Greece, and with the Gauls whom Caesar slaughtered and described, was flattering, not least in Ireland. Instead of being marginal people, we were the remnants of an ancient and once all-powerful European civilisation. With the rise of 19th-century cultural nationalism, this ready-made genealogy, with its neat racial distinction between Celts and Saxons, was far too useful to be refused. In an era obsessed with so-called scientific racism, it provided a seemingly natural case for Irish independence. The Celtic Twilight (or as that rare sceptic James Joyce called it, the Cultic Twalette) added a rich layer of modern cultural prestige.
Indeed, he argues that the only thing genuinely Celtic about ancient Ireland was our ancestor’s predilection for ‘Celtic bling’:
There is an Iron Age material culture that is evident in findings from northern Europe between Paris and Prague. It is named after a site in Switzerland called La Tène and is associated with what we call the Celts (there is no evidence that these people ever used the term or even identified themselves as a single ethnic group).
And none of the things you would find if these people invaded or migrated to Ireland – their pots, their houses, their burial-sites, their coins, their horse-fittings – exist here. There are high-end La Tène-style objects, but virtually all of them are of recognisably local manufacture. As Barry Raftery, one of the leading authorities on Iron Age Ireland, puts it of the presumed Celtic invasion, “It seems strange that a warrior aristocracy supposedly responsible for imposing so many aspects of its culture on the indigenous population . . . should have had almost no impact on the archaeological record.”
In fact, what both archaeology and genetic studies show is continuity – broadly the same people who built Newgrange continuing to inhabit the island, speaking a version of the language of the Atlantic seaboard from which they had originated. What did happen in the Iron Age is that an emergent aristocracy began to adopt the international style they knew from trade and other contacts. Local craft-workers produced their own versions of Celtic chic – a bit like us copying Gucci or Prada. It was a way for the knobs to distinguish themselves from the yobs. As the archaeologist Simon Jones puts it, “‘Celtic art’ . . . is not a marker of ethnic identity but of status, wealth, and power”. If we are Celts today because our elites developed a taste for continental bling, then half the denizens of Foxrock and Montenotte are Italians.
Revisionism penned by a revisionist and published by the revisionist Irish Thames seeking to reassert themselves as Britain’s paper in Ireland.
So the (undeniably Celtic) Irish language can be explained away how? Maybe it never existed?
How is it that the Irish are always inventing things so as to pretend that they are so much different from everyone else on the islands?
Mick
It’s also why, as previously noted, there is no Celtic section in the National Museum of Ireland.
so what about the HH gene mutation (the ‘celtic gene’) that causes hemochromatosis? it’s found in the irish, british, scottish and welsh. the mutation is undeniable. so what should it really be called … the ‘gaelic gene’? the ‘pasty white gene’?
Una
The question is is the language Celtic? You could be in part different but the difference may not be as assumed.
Anyone who gets a high on thoughts of the racial purity or unique qualities or exclusivity of the race has to be at best suspect and at worst certifiable. We are mongrels and much healthier for it. Celts, pre Celts, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, throw in a few Spanish, and now Poles and East Europeans. A fine mix.
“In fact, what both archaeology and genetic studies show is continuity – broadly the same people who built Newgrange continuing to inhabit the island, speaking a version of the language of the Atlantic seaboard from which they had originated.”
Funny how people read the title of an atricle then continue right ahead and spout their usual rubbish. I maybe not be a ‘celt’ but (most of) my ancestors have been living on this island for five thousand years longer than some people.
Last month’s Irish Democrat has an interesting piece on this debate by Peter Berresford Ellis:
Relax – we’re all Anglo-Saxon anyway!
A leaked letter from the British Ambassador to Ireland detailing a meeting he had with one of the principle shareholders and the chief executive of The Irish Times from 1962 and 1997, Major McDowell, wherein McDowell asks Downing Street for “guidance” on how he might better control the paper’s “renegade white nigger” editor, Douglas Gageby, who was displeasing McDowell by his terrible tendency to leave “authorised†pro-British material out of the Irish Times and include “unauthorised†material in it, specifically related to the practice and policy of the British government on Northern Ireland, shows that the owners of the Irish Times strove to please their British masters in using the Irish media to disseminate pro-British propaganda. O’Toole, Myers, Dudley-Edwards, et al, are simply a continuance of that policy of using the media as a platform for stooges to serve their master’s agenda.
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/apr2004/irtimesmcdowell.gif
The previous Slugger post that Pete linked to and the article therein shows that its author was dearly concerned that “nationalists from Devoy to Pearse made Celt and Gael synonymous” and, presumably, saw it as his solemn duty as a non-historian and non-archaeologist but adept propagandist to serve his master’s by reversing what was seen as beneficial to Irish nationalism and thereby detrimental to British nationalism by the simple (but pissing in the wind) expedient of attempting to unlink “Celt and Gael.” You might write it as “Pro-British stooges from O’Toole to Myers made Celt and Gael mutually exclusive.”
The fly in the ointment, of course, is how Gaels came to speak a Celtic language. The stooges have no explanation for this beyond embarrassing themselves by claiming that it was the result of ether “a small upper crust” or kidnap of women over many years.” Heh. Game over.
Dur, everyone knows we’re the lost tribe of Israel anyway. Up through Spain we came, aye, that we did.
We’re certainly not Anglo-saxon.
We’re actually pre-Celts, who have adopted, and now largely abandoned, Celtic linguistic habits.
Does the extra syllable make any difference?
bpower, it’s a pity that the panto season is over as I could have answered your remark, ‘Oh no, yiz didn’t.’
) LOL
However, to be serious, I fail to see why some of the contributors above have got their dander up on this topic. It’s been quite obvious for centuries we have been a mongrel race with many forms of integrations going on (except with the DUP, of course, (heh)) due to immigration, emigration, inter-marriage or invasion. My current passport says I’m Irish – mind you, my other one says I’m British – but that’s another story. However, it’s good enough to get me around the world if I choose and shout for Ireland as I did on Sunday. Anyone who gives a shit about racial purity in the 21st C needs their head examined?
I liked the bling bit though. I can just picture Cuchulainn with his medallion and Brian Boru with his nose pierced (before the axe hit him, of course).
The Dubliner, the Indymedia can be a bit too lefty so…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Gageby
Ath Cliath abu !!
Celtic people Celtic. That’s what’s at issue, not the existence or otherwise of the Irish language.
Fintan says that it’s attachment to Ireland was primarily due to the imaginative figuring of an Oxford academic. And, because of the power of the brand, even in funding circles, no one is prepared asked difficult questions about it.
If he’s right, then surely we are just getting het up over simple nomenclature? Or, given some of the invective above, does it go deeper than that?
TD,
Whilst I am grateful you managed to get to the point by your last paragraph, it’s not clear what you mean when you say, “the fly in the ointment, of course, is how Gaels came to speak a Celtic language”?
Soup, anyone?
Why is there is a single person on the planet for whom this is news? Are there really that many gormless, sub-educated goons out there?
On a personal note,as a Scot,I’ve always felt that saying Scotland is ‘celtic’ makes a mockery of the rich and varied cultures , languages and peoples from our history , that made Scotland what it is today !
We have a saying used in Scotland today One Scotland , Many Cultures and not only is that true of modern Scotland but it’s even more so , when applied to our rich and diverse historical past !
For example, in the 9th century the area that is now Scotland had almost half a dozen different cultures speaking as many different languages divided up into even more different kingdoms. In the southwest they were speaking Cumbric (a Brythonic language closely related to Welsh), in the southeast they were speaking Old English, in the northeast they were speaking Pictish, in the far north they were speaking Norse, and in the west they were speaking Gaelic.All these different influences came together and played their own important role in making Scotland what it is today ![
“However, to be serious, I fail to see why some of the contributors above have got their dander up on this topic.”
Wasn’t that the point of the article, Mick?
This is old news. The population genetics research of Dan Bradley’s lab (TCD) has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the Irish are pre-Celtic and our that the Basque population is our closest genetic relative. The Basques have previously been identified (by linguistic and genetic research) to be the descendents of the first colonisers of Europe and so it is quite likely that the Irish are the direct descendents of the first people to make it to Ireland, about 14-19,000 years ago.
All these stories about Tuatha de Danaan, the Fir Bolg and so on are the products of the Annals of the Four Masters – written by franciscan monks in the 17th century. Grand as a guide but if there’s a conflict between that and scientific research I know which side I’ll put my money on.
Slugger previously hosted this particular debate but I don’t know if those threads have survived the subsquent data losses. The most amusing part (for me) was when Davros called me a racist for talking about population genetics.
Obs,
Not in the least!!
I only wish we could talk through serious cultural and political issues on Slugger with a bit more light and a lot less heat.
There are interesting questions posed by that article that may well have parallels in science or reflections in the way the National Museum categorises their exhibits, but they deserve more direct consideration that they have been given heretofore…
Not least the reluctance (apparently in highly respectable circles) to break with a powerful branding…
Or is it just me?
The Celtic “bling” that MIck mentions can easily be explained by trade and fashion. Look at the 16th century when English, French and Spanish (and others) wore frilly lace collars. And look at today: the business suit is almost universal. It is worn in Japan, China, even by the Iranian prime minister and he hates the West and its influence, though he still wears western business suits!
The Japanese are still Japanese, not descendants of western whities. Maybe in the future someone will look at the archaeological evidence and talk (in error) about the c20th century western invasions into everwhere.
As to where the Irish originated, a couple of years ago someone did a comparative genetic study and found that many Irish are genetically related to the Basques. Now Irish myths have always said that the MIlesians came from Spain and fought and conquered the Tuatha Dé Danann, so maybe the myths have some historical truth.
In mythology some of the Tuatha D̩ Danann exiled themselves to Scandinavia and others to Greece. The Greek Tuatha D̩ Danann returned to Ireland and were called FirBolgs and were acknowledged as different from the Milesian descendants such as C̼chulaind whose best friend Ferdiad was a FirBolg, and whom he killed in battle (nothing changes much in Northern Ireland) РAnother example: at one point in the Christian era there was a dual power sharing system in eastern Ulster.
Some other recent genetic research has found that many people in Donegal and Tyrone are descended from one ancestor, I think Conn of 100 battles was mentioned.
The myths of Ireland were discounted and rubbished by the English – but maybe they are true historical records or based on fact. So far at least a couple of have been proven scientifically. The myths were written by people who lived here, after all, not some crank academic from Oxford.
There is nothing unique about the Celtic issue. Most people all over Europe are descended from ancestors who were here during the neolithic. Yet almost all European languages are descended from a common ancestor which spread west from Asia much more recently.
Does that mean that the Germans, Italians, Slavs, and Greeks etc don’t exist?
The key issue is how a Celtic language spread to Ireland. Is there any example in recorded history of a people adopting a completely new language wholseslae without some element of migration?
Mick Fealty on Feb 05, 2007 @ 08:00 PM wrote “…Or, given some of the invective above, does it go deeper than that? …“
As far as I’m concerned the answer is… yes it does go deeper than that. The Irish Thames journo (for want of a better description) continually posts Anglo propaganda, as does his collegues RDE & Meyers. This is a seemless continuation from the time of The Major McDowell.
If the Min of Justice can criticize a newspaper as being Nazi propaganda in hastening it’s demise then surely I can question the Toole’s writings and the background of his paymasters.
Tom:
I don’t think for the Irish it was a case of “a people adopting a completely new language wholseslae without some element of migration” rather that the Irish language is a remnant of the original language which changed over time in isolation. In the meantime other parts of Europe were successively invaded/influenced by other languages and thus the local speech changed/adapted. It does not mean that the Germans, Italians… don’t exist.
It is generally accepted that nearly all European languages, including Latin, are descended from Sanskrit, except, I think, Finnish. Lithuanian is still very close to Sanskrit and German has a Sanskrit habit of joining words into really long ones. The Sanskrit word for boat “nav” is used in English for “navy”. There are lots of other similarities, “do”, “two”, “deux”… “tri”, “three”…
An example of languages (at least accents) developing due to relative isolation is Yorkshire English which a lot of southern English cannot understand very well and Australians wonder if some Yorkshire people are speaking English at all. The same goes for parts of Northern Ireland. I remember a Protestant youth from Northern Ireland being interviewed on Australian TV and his comments had to be subtitled.
And in recorded history there is the use of English as the lingua franca throughout the world. In Iceland and in other places children learn English so that they can read so many of their text books.
I would not be surprised that in a couple of centuries English will be the universal language and most other languages will be in the same situation as Irish is today – that is, unless Mandarin surpasses English – and I doubt that.
Annon:
That’s not questioning anything much. Both the Minister’s comments re Daily Ireland and yours above have this much in common: they are both ad hominem and devoid of content!
Fraggle
“I maybe not be a ‘celt’ but (most of) my ancestors have been living on this island for five thousand years longer than some people. ”
Really and you can prove that. Why all of sudden are you no longer celts but pre celts.
The sad truth id that most Irish couldn´t tell you a thing about the celts. I recently had a converstaion with a Queen´s irish history graduate, who referred to the islands dolmens as celtic artifacts. Completely ignoring the fact that most of them predated the celts by 4000 years.
Besides Fraggle so what, when you meet an East European migrant are you going to tell them that as well. Is someone who is second generation Irish, less Irish than you.
I’ve read some of the letters written by Hugh O’Neill, in which he referred to the Irish people as Gaels. He also wrote of Irish / Gaelic ancestory in a letter to Phillip III of Spain in which he mentioned the migration of our peoples via Spain to Ireland etc etc (why he was willing to collaborate with Spain). Personally I’d take the word of Hugh O’Neill above that of some English woofer.
We’ve already seen how the English have re-written Irish history, and are in the process of trying to doing do again (including collusion). One must also look at supposed English anscestory in which they claim their ‘monarchs’ are descended from the Irish kings via Scotland, so there must be something in the Irish pedegree that they wish to claim as their own.
This also resonates within the halls of Orange Lodges (and webpages). Thay are willing to claim Irish genealogy as their own, but retisent to claim to be part of Ireland or Irish culture. Probably this is to do with the bastarsisation of the ‘true faith’ ie Protestantism into Catholicism. This is just another attempt to disenfranchise the Irish from their true roots and lineage as part od the British Agenda. Anyone who is familair with British Israelism, the only way they can claim such, is through Ireland. That in itself speaks volumes.
so does this mean that this always was our country, we were not “invaders too” and should be free to decide our own country’s destiny as one country ?
Really, P O’Neil, citing a letter written as part of a political attempt to secure military support against the English, Spain’s main opposition in a Europe-wide conflict, as evidence in your argument – a letter which doesn’t mention the later artificial construct of ‘The Celts’ – is not very convincing..
In fact, it’s not even relevant to the discussion.
P O’N, et al:
Gaelic is not Celtic.
Can I just ask that people actually read the material before commenting?
If you don’t, it’s likely to speak volumes about you that you might prefer it didn’t!!
I picked this response to the thread this evening from an old English friend:
Most of that seems reasonable, Mick.
But I’d take issue with the conclusion -
That is unnecessarily provocative. Almost to the point of trolling.
More realistic, and historically accurate, to simply describe it as the desire for the anti-English of the time to bolster the other disparate elements in unity against that national identity – such as existed then.
It was a perfectly understandable impulse, but it has left an historically inaccurate impression.
“Whilst I am grateful you managed to get to the point by your last paragraph, it’s not clear what you mean when you say, “the fly in the ointment, of course, is how Gaels came to speak a Celtic languageâ€?” – Mick
Mick, Gaelic is a Celtic language. Those propagandists who claim that the Irish are not Celtic have to explain why the Irish came to speak a Celtic language en masse in the absence of mass migration. So far, their only attempt to gloss over this fatal flaw in their propaganda is to risibly claim that it is the result of either “a small upper crust†of Celts who settled in Ireland or the result of Irish marauders “kidnap of women over many years†that then spread the language. Now there isn’t a linguist, historian or archaeologist who wouldn’t split his sides laughing at that “explanation.” This does not merit serious discussion and those who proffer it are not experts, but lowly journalists with a transparant political agenda.
Tom Griffin addressed the salient issue in his post:
“There is nothing unique about the Celtic issue. Most people all over Europe are descended from ancestors who were here during the neolithic. Yet almost all European languages are descended from a common ancestor which spread west from Asia much more recently.
Does that mean that the Germans, Italians, Slavs, and Greeks etc don’t exist?
The key issue is how a Celtic language spread to Ireland. Is there any example in recorded history of a people adopting a completely new language wholseslae without some element of migration?”
It seems there are two types of invasions. One is where the native population is submerged by the invading one and one where there is just a political and military takeover.
In the first case, like America, the native culture is overwhelmed. In the second, like the British in India, the control remains political and is not able to exert enough influence on the local population. Hence India is not English speaking.
The original Norman invaders in Ireland actually were in this situation, as I understand it, and they became Irish speaking in the main. It wasn’t until later after the Flight of the Earls and the Plantation that Ireland began to become English speaking. The balance of the population were speaking Irish around 1800.
So we don’t know what kind of invasion brought gaelic to our shores. We know that just because we speak English we can’t conclude that all our ancestors were English. And the English, in turn, had become English speaking by part invasions. I think we need more research on this.
Niall
“I think we need more research on this.”
Indeed. But the important point at this stage is that there is no, absolutely none, evidence for any invasion which transformed the indigenous culture into a Gaelic speaking one.
In fact the evidence that does exist points to an indigenous culture which adopted European tics, themes, whatever.
That indicates trade, an openness to other influences, and a willingness to adapt. All points made in the earlier post.
Gaelic is not Celtic
Depends what you mean. Gaelic is not the same as Celtic, because there are other Celtic groups.
But Gaelic is a Celtic language, i.e. it is one of a group of related languages usually labelled Celtic.
The label is a modern one, but the linguistic affinity it describes goes back thousands of years.
Mick / Unionist tossers et al
Celtic was derived from the Roman name Keltoi (means ‘different), given to the inhabitants of Gaul. When the Romans invaded Britain, they used the same name because of the similarities of the Gauls and Gaels. Historically, ‘Celtic’ was a name applied by Roman and the Saxon invades as opposed to a name used by the natives.
Poche Mahon, sassanachs.
PS the native language of the Highlands of Scotland is Gaelic, not Celitic, or the Lowland Scots derivative that the Ulster Scots claim as their own.
Like most academics, archaeologists and historians, can’t even agree on the colour of pish let alone anything else. In a hundred years time there will still be there same circular arguments. But no matter whatever we or other might call the natives of Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland, be it Gael or Celt, we were here a long time before the plantation, so piss off back to where ever you crawled from.
Paddy,
Check you Keltoi, ya might find that it’s Greek.
I think it is high time we had another discussion on what to call Derry. It’s almost never mentioned here.
At the same time I would invite a learned Slugger discourse on the design of a 32 county flag. There should be a navel somewhere on the feckin’ thing to gaze at.
P O’Neil
That would be the Greek name Keltoi, first used in reference to a tribe in Rhenania (West/Southwest Germany).
There’s more interesting stuff, usual caveats apply, on Wikipedia
Snap, Jim. ;o)
“Hence India is not English speaking”
But it is. English is an important bridge language and much used in Indian commerce.
I think it is quite possible that a traders language would work its way into use alongside other languages, and that it could become dominant because of the economic dominance of the people who spoke it first. It would survive the ebb and flow of the fortunes of other smaller local groups, because more people spoke it elsewhere. and it could recover from a setback after a time, recolonising areas where it had lost ground. The Celtic flavour could just come from the other far end of the trade routes, the oceans and rivers that were the motorways of the day.
Mick Fealty on Feb 05, 2007 @ 10:11 PM wrote†…ad hominem and devoid of content! “
1. In light of what has been written on this site in the last few weeks, high lighted and then allowed remain, then I can’t see how ‘I played the man not ball’ to a greater degree than many others – sauce, goose, gander.
2. My posts were in support of The Dub who has an issue with the postings coming from the Irish Thames regarding something intrinsically Irish, Gaelic or Celtic. I believe that the opinion (it was an op-ed piece) of a journo in a widely published newspaper should be open to criticism of that journo (hence no foul for man nor ball). I criticized Tooles opinion as it was, like most of his writings, dismissive of all things Irish – not ad hominem.
3. Lastly, Tintan O’Fooles comments were made in the ‘paper of record’ for the RoI. If this self awarded handle doesn’t subject the Irish Thames to ridicule I also backed up The Dubs Indymedia link with one from wikipedia. This, I believe should taint the Ol’ Lady of D’Olier street and show it to be less that non partisan. Therefore the content of my posting was to point out that paper’s editorial line, background, aims and aspirations of promoting the West Britishness of the RoI to the detriment of anything Irish, Gaelic or Celtic.
I’m sorry if you didn’t get the gist of my post… try taking off the rose (…and white & blue) tinted glasses.
Touch a nerve did I ?
Mick, may be the case, but the Greeks never made it into Gaul, let alone Ireland, England etc. That was the Romans, although, the name Keltoi was never applied to the Highland Scots, they were called Picts (painted people) by the Romans. [ad hominem text removed - moderator]
Keep going, P.
The limits of your knowledge and ability to argue your, or any, case are gradually being revealed by your own comments.
Does anyone refer to themself as a Celtic? Isn’t this a strawman argment?
Very interesting on an academic level but utterly irrelevant when people generally see themslves as just plain old Irish.
Listen, the idea that it takes a long time and a vast invasion to change the local genetic lay of the land just ain’t so. Just take a look at some of those feral cats in the Botanical Gardens whose ma’s I, uh, chatted with before they shipped me arse down here.
Bring on the ginger whingers!
O’Toole’s article is simply the re-hashing of one side of a more political than historical debate.
And not a particularly clever one.
He states that there are no La Tene artifacts in Ireland. Not true. Many artifacts of this type have been found, but more older, Hallstatt type, material has been unearthed. This is not surprising, given that the La Tene style was heavily influenced by Greek and eastern designs, suggesting the liklihood of Celts in geographic proximity to these areas adopting these ideas over time. Imports of these artifacts were likely to be available to only the wealthiest, the rest making do with the old fashioned locally produced stuff.
Core religious beliefs across the Celtic territories were similar, as was the art, customs and social structure. The Romans considered the Iberian peninsular to be the original Celtic homeland (Celtae, Celtiberians etc) and the Greeks didn’t have a clue were the Keltoi came from.
I don’t think anyone has claimed the Celts were a nation. They weren’t in Ireland and they certainly weren’t in Europe. They were, however, a distinct people. They fought amongst themselves and against the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Goths, Huns, Vandals etc. Their enemies are regarded as distinct population entities. There is more to suggest that the Celts were a distinct people (from the Danube to the Shannon) than the Vandals.
Raising question marks against a Vandal identity wouldn’t annoy anyone, however.
Would it?
Tom,
I meant the former. I should have been clearer. But a few of our posters up to now have been treating the two as one, which is both untrue and obscuring the case O’Toole is making.
Obs,
Please, please, read the bleedin’ source:
You say:
Yet O’Toole actually says:
annony:
Where exactly do you do this? You make an essentially ad hominem attack upon O’Toole and the Irish Times which foregoes any reference to the subject in hand. Your defence that others have got away with it is no defence.
Guys in amongst the trolling there is the guts of an interesting conversation here. I don’t want to cut anyone out of that conversation, all I ask is that if you want to attack O’Toole’s proposition that you do it on what he says, rather than what you think (or want) him to have said.
To aid intelligibility, I’m going to start cutting the ad hominem stuff from here on…
I’m going back to bed….