Who Were ‘The Celts’ and How Did They (Some of Them) Fight? | Hacker News Reader

Who Were ‘The Celts’ and How Did They (Some of Them) Fight?

acoup.blog

74 pointsgostsamo30 comments

I have a degree in "Celtic Studies" and while I tend to study the Irish early medieval period rather than the ancient period, I would highly recommend reconsidering the entire idea of "Celtic". A couple of books that might be good to read if you have time are: John Collis, The Celts : origins, myths & inventions (https://www.worldcat.org/title/921219683) and Simon James, The Atlantic Celts : ancient people or modern invention? (https://www.worldcat.org/title/249450858). I have not had the time lately to read up on the state of the question so I will read the recommended article: Rachel Pope, Re-approaching Celts: Origins, Society, and Social Change (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-021-09157-1) with keen interest.

From somewhere near the middle of the linked article:

> All of that is to make the point that any treatment of ‘Celtic’ warfare is immediately begging an enormous question because ‘who were the Celts?’ is at best an unanswered question and to be frank, probably an unanswerable question.

This table is also of interest: https://acoup.blog/2023/05/12/collections-who-were-the-celts....

So I guess you agree with the author.

That's not the middle - that's pretty near the beginning (look at your scroll bar).

But yeah, the author spends a great deal of time on the question and it's really interesting. I got maybe 20 paragraphs in before I realized "this is fascinating, but I need to be doing other things".

I intend to return later though, the author's style is great and this is a really interesting article.

I was surprised by the length of his writing, then said, "Ah, that's what he meant by unmitigated."

I think Devereaux mentioned on Twitter that this is the longest single post he's written; he usually breaks his more detailed writing into series.

Could you very briefly describe what you consider to be a more productive way of thinking of "The Celts"?

I will try. I tend to think of "The Celts" linguistically as a set of related languages. However, that is an artefact of my own training and background. How the people who spoke those related languages lived can differ radically wherever you find them. For me, to define Celtic is: did they speak a language that is related to those that we have labelled as Celtic? That means that "Celtic" is a convenient shorthand for talking about these languages and does not necessarily have a meaning outside of that.

I have not yet finished reading the linked article so I will see if it may alter my thinking any.

Where would the origin of the Celts be according to current archeological finds if you approached it from this linguistic point of view? Atlantic or central Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture

Lorient in Brittany hosts an Interceltique festival; it's a cross-cultural festival that celebrates art, food, language, but it's centered around music and features the best bands from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, The Isle of Man, Cornwall, Brittany, Galicia, Cape Breton, PEI, and New Brunswick.

I've gone several times as an accompanist attached to Irish bands, and it's remarkable to me how I can sit in with other musicians from any of those regions and the idioms, base tunes, time signatures, and ornamentation are so similar. I grew up speaking Irish, and while I can understand Scottish Gaelic, I can't follow anything but a word or two of other other Celtic languages. But with music and dance, things seem much much closer. I have to listen and learn much much more to play with other regional folk music, like Eastern European or even French Canadian (which is sort of close to Celtic and shares many tunes), but with the Celtic countries, I've literally sat in on main stages with no rehearsal and we just all know what to do. It does feel like there is quite a deep shared history there.

Awesome anecdote, I'd love to listen to you guys play.

I like this answer because it's relatable to today's English. English is spoken by many people around the world, but it's not one group of people, it's many many different people and cultures who have come to use English for one reason or another.

> who have come to use English for one reason or another

Pretty sure that singular reason was colonialism.

For a great many, yes, but not for all. Some because of much much worse things (Slavery), some because of trade.

What a strange hill to die on. English is the colonial language, and its global success was singularly due to imperialist hegemony. This is taught at the university system level and is in every textbook on the subject. I love a good myth about capitalism just as much as the next exploited worker, but attributing the success of English to trade is equivalent to teaching children myths about Thanksgiving and Washington chopping down a cherry tree.

I cannot see anyone trying to argue anything about why it was successful, only you have decided that that is the point.

I've merely pointed out that it is widespread and that there are (at least) three reasons for people to speak it.

Edit: Note, if you don't wish to speak it, that's fine by me - I'll be just as happy to not hear from you again :-)

English is widely spoken because it was the colonial language enforced at the highest levels of society. This is still true today and is currently a primary plank in the political platform of US conservatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement

There are libraries of books written solely on this subject. Your bizarre hypothesis ignores this and instead points to slavery and trade. More to the point, there are new articles on how English was enforced on subjugated people published on an almost weekly basis. Last week, the article I read on this topic was about how indigenous orphans were prohibited from using their native language and forced to use only English. But let’s talk about glowing myths about trade and slavery instead which have literally nothing to do with it.

Then stop speaking it.

Let's have a korero in Maaori instead.

Why do you think an irreversible binomial employed as a thought-terminating cliché in the form of an argumentum ergo decedo is an appropriate response?

National Library of New Zealand:

"During the period of colonization…Maori were banned from speaking their native language in public places including schools, and forced to speak the foreign language of English…Maori were deprived…of their language, but also of the dimensions of culture and history inherent in language customers and worldview."

This only changed in the 1970s.

But you can still point out who the original English were or at least trace almost 100% of English speakers today as originating from 1600s England's conquest of the world.

The debate about 'The Celts' is that we can't point out where the original language emerged, and the potential range of where it emerged is quite huge stretching from Ireland through central Europe with some claiming it emerged in Turkey even.

I'm not sure how that's related to what I am saying, or what I was replying to.

The point being made is how celts are peoples that are grouped by language, but have a disparate set of histories.

And I am recognising that a contemporary analogy is how English speakers around the world also share a language, but have disparate histories.

Your problem of where the Celts originated from is separate.

Picts or it didn't happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com