"Celt" Conjecture

[Brennus]

I'd like to hear some of your opinions and ideas on what the word "Celt" meant to the actual Celts in their time. Although the English term "Celt" seems to be modern, it certainly appears to have meant something at the time as well. I think we can all agree that the Celts (as we now know them), as a whole, never called themselves "Celts" but it appears to have been at least a tribal name (possibly) as referenced by Greeks and Romans. Vercingetorix's father was also named Celtillus, so I am curious as to what this meant. I wonder if it had a similar meaning as the word "teut" or "teuta" (meaning people or tribe). For example, the Gauls called some Germans Teutons, meaning the people, or worshipped Teutates, god of the people or tribe. So did the name Celtillus mean something like "of the Celts?"

[M. Demetrius]

If we can believe Julius Caesar, who had considerable first hand knowledge of the Celtic/Gaulic and the Germanic peoples, he opens his commentaries on the Gallic wars with, "All Gaul is divided into three parts, in which the Belgae, Aquitani, and "those who by their own language are called Celts, but in ours [Latin/Roman] are called Gauls..." He seemed to believe that the Gallic tribes called themselves "Celts". [Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quorum unum incolunt Belgae, alii Aquitanii, tertii ei qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appelantur...] Should we discredit his statement?

He calls those who live in modern Germany, those north of the Rhine, "Germanics", unless he uses their particular tribal names. We can conclude that he made a distinction that is often not so clearly made these days.

What does it mean? Dunno. I'm pretty sure this has other threads dedicated to that topic, but it's been a while. Maybe that info is in one of those.

[Rumo]

I don't believe Julius Caesar was particularly well-informed about the ethnography of the places where he campaigned, actually I don't believe most Romans or Greeks were particularly interested in gathering such type of knowledge. It was often argued Caesar's borrowed the/some ethnographic material from earlier writers such as Poseidonius.

The Latin Celtae corresponds to Greek Keltoi/Keltai, and most likely the Latin word comes from Greek, not from Gaulish or whatever other Celtic dialect. Strabo, using Poseidonius as source, also has Gaul divided between Belgai, Akuitanoi and Keltai (IV.1.1). However Strabo pointed out that some people (IV.1.1, IV.1.14) called them Keltai.

[Astiryu1]

I have read that the "Celts" and the Greeks had been trading since the Bronze Age. Massilia (before Roman Gaul) was a Greek colony. The "Vix Krater" is a Greek mixing bowl found in a Celtic woman's grave in northern France dates to 500 b.c.e. (Late Halstatt- Early La Tene) Would the Greeks just render the tribe's own word for themselves in Greek? I have also read that "Keltoi" is Greek for "barbarian".

[Q Rutilius]

I suspect that Julius Caesar (who was not stupid) knew perfectly well whom he was talking to ,and knew pefectly well wether they were they were Germans or Celts.

[Brennus]

I'd suspect Caesar had fair knowledge as well; after all, he did spend a considerable amount of time in the region. In his writings, he seems intrigued by the Gauls and sometimes even fairly impressed by them, so i'd imagine that he had a natural curiosity and willingness to learn about these people that he set out to conquer. I just can't imagine being a man in his position and not wanting to know absolutely everything I possibly can about the people he is fighting and forging alliances with. I'd say he had good knowledge of the people and customs, but wether he wrote everything true to what he knew or embelished some things would be another matter. The interesting creatures he mentions that existed in Gaul are certainly questionable, heh. I just wish we knew more about this mysterious Celtillus figure, who appeared to be ahead of his time.

[Rumo]

I hope I'm not stupid, because I was in places I couldn't care less about the local history or ethnography or even language. Conversely, I know of foreigners in my own city, businessmen or globe-trotters, who (knowing they won't live a lifetime here) also don't pay much attention to such details. Not everyone is an ethnographer, not everyone is a scholar. It's fallacious to find in every source someone eager to tell an accurate account on what the modern scholar wants to know.

There's a consistent body of literature on Otherness in Greek and Roman writings. Here's a quick find on Germans in Roman eyes, with some considerations on Gauls vs Germans in De Bello Gallico and on ethnography as justification for Roman political and military agenda.

Back to the original question, not only Caesar's claim is disputed by Strabo (probably because they read differently their common source), but the "Kelt" name was known to Greeks for several centuries. Even Strabo acknowledged that: "the people [...] whom the men of former times named Celtae" (IV.1.14).

[Conal]

I hope I'm not stupid, because I was in places I couldn't care less about the local history or ethnography or even language. Conversely, I know of foreigners in my own city, businessmen or globe-trotters, who (knowing they won't live a lifetime here) also don't pay much attention to such details. Not everyone is an ethnographer, not everyone is a scholar. It's fallacious to find in every source a man/woman eager to tell an accurate account on what the modern scholar wants to know.
There's a consistent body of literature on Otherness in Greek and Roman writings. Here's a quick find on Germans in De Bello Gallico, more precisely on Gauls vs Germans and on ethnography as justification for Roman political and military agenda.

Back to the original question, not only Caesar's claim is disputed by Strabo (probably because they read differently their common source), but the "Kelt" name was known to Greeks for several centuries. Even Strabo acknowledged that: "the people [...] whom the men of former times named Celtae" (IV.1.14).

Ceasar was not just an everyman was he ... he was the foremost militarian/politician of his time and I find it incredulous that you

don't believe Julius Caesar was particularly well-informed about the ethnography of the places where he campaigned

as I would have thought that it was a pre-requisite that such knowledge was available at the very least so that he would needed to know who to divide in order to conquer.

Ceasar was a political animal and I find it hard to believe that he would not be aware of tribal and political alliances within the local population as his political survival depend very much on success.

[Rumo]

Ceasar was not just an everyman was he ... he was the foremost militarian/politician of his time

But not ethnographer.

as I would have thought that it was a pre-requisite that such knowledge was available at the very least so that he would needed to know who to divide in order to conquer.

Ceasar was a political animal and I find it hard to believe that he would not be aware of tribal and political alliances within the local population as his political survival depend very much on success.

And how is the ethnographic map of Gaul relevant to that (and in particular, the name that all Gauls used to call themselves, if there was any such name)?

How many American politicians know the ethnographic map of Iraq?

[M. Demetrius]

but the "Kelt" name was known to Greeks for several centuries

That would seem to me to be a point in favor of the name, not an argument against it.

How many American politicians know the ethnographic map of Iraq?

Probably not many. But surely you don't think the generals in charge are lacking in cultural understanding, do you? It's their very business to know things like that.

[Rumo]

but the "Kelt" name was known to Greeks for several centuries

That would seem to me to be a point in favor of the name, not an argument against it.

So you're suggesting Caesar heard in Gaul the authentic name of the 'Celtae', which happened to be exactly the same name (*kelt-) the Greeks gathered from some other tribesmen some 4-5 centuries before? Was there a persistent, pan-European Celthood spanning from Atlantic to Asia Minor, lasting from the age of Herodotus to Caesar's time in which all its members identified themselves as Celts, so that each author writing about them in Greek or Latin could rightfully maintain this name? Or was there just an amazing coincidence, that all Romans and Greeks happened to interrogate the same tribe and they always came up with the same name?

How many American politicians know the ethnographic map of Iraq?

Probably not many. But surely you don't think the generals in charge are lacking in cultural understanding, do you? It's their very business to know things like that.[/quote]
I'd rather believe most generals are similarly ignorant, because ethnography is useless to them just for the sake of it. I also don't see how can they get reliable ethnographic data, unless they would set foot in the villages they are bombing, which I really doubt they'd do. Just to keep things at the surface, can you a name one American general who can speak Iraqi Arabic, Kurdish, Neo-Aramaic and Azeri Turkish (just to name the four most important local languages in Iraq)?

[Astiryu1]

With the Bureaucracy of modern times at least that is what translators are for. I could imagine Caesar had some form of Diplomat for parleys and other duties. The Diplomat was always at least somewhat tolerated by most cultures if not respected as a non-combatant. How else would some be able to surrender without a fight. Don't kill the Messenger!

[Robert Vermaat]

Please remember to quote properly, gentlemen! Your raders like to keep track of who said what.

[Conal]

But not ethnographer.

As that "profession" as it may exist now did not exist then , no he was not but as has been pointed out he was intersted enough to point out cultural traits and differences in Gauls and Briton so he or his entourage did soem ethnographing for sure.

How many American politicians know the ethnographic map of Iraq?

You tell me .... maybe enough of them to make a difference, but you bet your next meal that the Generals who invaded were briefed on it or found out prettry quickley for themselves. Pretty daft to compare todays politician with JC as they are not in the same league.

[Conal]

So you're suggesting Caesar heard in Gaul the authentic name of the 'Celtae', which happened to be exactly the same name (*kelt-) the Greeks gathered from some other tribesmen some 4-5 centuries before? Was there a persistent, pan-European Celthood spanning from Atlantic to Asia Minor, lasting from the age of Herodotus to Caesar's time in which all its members identified themselves as Celts, so that each author writing about them in Greek or Latin could rightfully maintain this name? Or was there just an amazing coincidence, that all Romans and Greeks happened to interrogate the same tribe and they always came up with the same name?

Have a think about it ... the Greeks knew the Keltae from their interactions via Massilia, which is at the southern end of the area said to be held by those calling themselves Celtae in Ceasars time. What is so difficult about that?

I'd rather believe most generals are similarly ignorant, because ethnography is useless to them just for the sake of it. I also don't see how can they get reliable ethnographic data, unless they would set foot in the villages they are bombing, which I really doubt they'd do. Just to keep things at the surface, can you a name one American general who can speak Iraqi Arabic, Kurdish, Neo-Aramaic and Azeri Turkish (just to name the four most important local languages in Iraq)?

I think if you are going to belive what you would rather believe rather than what the evidence (or lack of it shows) then a starting point would be to ask why you would rather believe that? I would suggest that ethnography is very useful to any general going to war, now as in the past, however you can persist in that stance if it suits you but please consider that getting reliable ethnographical information does not require presence in a partucular villiage by a general, he has guys who can help him. If you are not aware that the US has a large information gathering service please take this as notice that it has and so did Ceasar.

Why would a general need to speak a language to need to understand its existance? There are plenty of soldiers who are specially trained in languages and of course there are always local translators. I dont speak Lakota but I know a tribe who do.