08-19-2010, 11:09 PM
There is a general trend in English academia to dismiss the label of 'Celtic' and to replace it with native Briton. Which is absolutely useless. There were native Britons here in 2200 BC, and as far as I know, in 2010 AD, I am a native Briton. Laudible though the new term is, it lacks historical or cultural reference.
Meanwhile the same academia uses the term Roman. What an earth is that!? What is a Roman road, piece of pottery, farm or temple, found in Briton? Built and used by Romans from Rome? No, we know these things were built and used by local Britons who had adopted the Roman culture, they were Romano-Britons.
Pre-Romans had adopted a similar cultural concept and adopted its art and institutions. Of course I do not subscribe to the idea of Celtic invasions (which the label Briton is wholeheartedly aimed at countering), but the cultural horizon that the British were part of is what we today term Celtic. It is irrelevant what they themselves termed it (if anything). Using the term Celt is not some kind of swear word (which it seems sometimes to be), but simply a simple modern label for a cultural influence predominant during the British iron-age. Some British academics avoid the word like the plague, others use ther term in inverted commas, as if it were a parody or slang word.
It's just a simple label, like Roman, describing cultural influence. Now the word Celts, maybe that's different. 'Did Celts live here?' is a question I get asked when I go into schools with my iron-age kit; well, the movement of people is an age old problem, and one not yet properly resolved.
But can we Brits not get so uptight about the word Celtic please?
Meanwhile the same academia uses the term Roman. What an earth is that!? What is a Roman road, piece of pottery, farm or temple, found in Briton? Built and used by Romans from Rome? No, we know these things were built and used by local Britons who had adopted the Roman culture, they were Romano-Britons.
Pre-Romans had adopted a similar cultural concept and adopted its art and institutions. Of course I do not subscribe to the idea of Celtic invasions (which the label Briton is wholeheartedly aimed at countering), but the cultural horizon that the British were part of is what we today term Celtic. It is irrelevant what they themselves termed it (if anything). Using the term Celt is not some kind of swear word (which it seems sometimes to be), but simply a simple modern label for a cultural influence predominant during the British iron-age. Some British academics avoid the word like the plague, others use ther term in inverted commas, as if it were a parody or slang word.
It's just a simple label, like Roman, describing cultural influence. Now the word Celts, maybe that's different. 'Did Celts live here?' is a question I get asked when I go into schools with my iron-age kit; well, the movement of people is an age old problem, and one not yet properly resolved.
But can we Brits not get so uptight about the word Celtic please?
Paul Elliott
Legions in Crisis
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/17815...d_i=468294
Charting the Third Century military crisis - with a focus on the change in weapons and tactics.
Legions in Crisis
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/17815...d_i=468294
Charting the Third Century military crisis - with a focus on the change in weapons and tactics.
