Celtic culture

 

Imagine that in the far future, after a world wide disaster (that wiped out all archives), in the year AD 10 000, archaeologists discover remains of gothic art all over Europe. Will they conclude that this is the very proof that in ‘those” days all the Europeans were one people and spoke the same language? Will they conclude that this art was brought by war and conquest, by massive migrations? Indeed, the same can be supposed with nearly all major European art and style periods. From the Roman style to Art Nouveau, it was the whole of Europe that followed the same fashion, moved in the same direction, adopted the same art and technology despite differences in language, country, politics, even alphabet.
Gothic art, which was by far more a technology than an art, was invented and developed in Northern France and spread rapidly all over Europe. This spreading of a new art and subsequent culture is typical for Europe and does not prove a unique language for the last 2500 years. Why should this have been so different concerning the Celtic culture? [1]

Suppose the world Celt means nothing else but culture(man). In the sense of adept of a superior thinking or a new technology. In this sense, it would be quite possible that the 'Hallstatt-people' found something new that gave them superiority for a while.

Economy always provided the means to manufacture art although many people today prefer to ignore that. Agriculture remained the main factor of production and wealth until the early 19th century. The more productive agriculture is, the more time and means are left to produce art. A new technology, most probably in agriculture, preceded the Celtic art development and provided more added value. That was followed by a distinguishing new ‘Celtic’ art. It brought prestige and envy, so all other people in Europe would soon imitate it. The emergence of Gothic art has a similar history. It was made possible by a leap forward in the Middle Ages in agriculture. This was caused by a slightly warmer climate than today and the subsequent growth of the population. Gothic art became possible simply because more money was available.

It is probable that the word ‘Celt’ had no link with a specific people and language. As a new culture, a new technology, a religion, a social organization, the Celtic culture spread from Mid-Europe to east and west, independently of the people it encountered. To be a Kelt would mean the same as to be modern, upgraded. Celt became a synonym for ‘people with the Celtic culture’.

Many historians stick to the idea that the Celts invaded Britain in the 4th century BC and imposed their language. The last Celtic renewal, called ‘La Tène' (see Wikipedia article) dates from this period.

Even the Romans could not conquer all of (Great) Britain. We know that Britain was not deserted before the Celtic period. I doubt that the oldest Britons would have allowed such a conquest without a good fight.

Those historians link firmly the Celtic culture with a alleged Celtic people. There is however no proof for that. More recently, historians 'softened' their point of view. They now state that the Celtic language was spread by peaceful means, trade for instance. What they don't seem to realize is that most of us need years to learn a language. It's unlikely that the Celtic merchants stayed for so long in Britain. It's also unlikely that the short periods they were in Britain were sufficient to learn the local population a new language. And why on earth would merchants learn their clients a new language? In most cases it's the merchant who learns the local language.

As the Britons would have reacted exactly like all other Europeans, they simply adopted this new art and technology as their own. Taking over a culture (or religion) is far more easy than learning a new language. It's also more rewarding. The Celtic culture was found all over Britain, including the smallest isles and Ireland.

Germans invaded 'Celtica' on Continent

Tacitus reported that the Germans came from Scandinavia (or 'the North') and conquered Germany. Historians deduced that they must have imported their language to the Celtic south of Germany (called Celtica). Another explanation is however possible. Migrations (wagon trails) from the Scandinavian region happened regularly with some interval, before, during and after the Roman period. This started at the beginning of the agricultural age and continued until the 5th century AD. It is quite possible that one of those migrations brought the qualification ‘German’. 'German' would then be a word given by the people who lived in (modern) Bavaria, to the newcomers. 'Wolkae' could be the name the migrants gave to themselves although people in those days rarely gave themselves a name. In most cases, local people labeled the new arrivals, or neighbours gave each other ‘names’. The concerned tribes called themselves often 'the people' or 'who speaks our language'.

The name ‘German’ [2] could be given to the well-armed and aggressive Scandinavian or northern German migrants by the southern people, who themselves practiced the advanced Celtic culture. The local language however was and remained ‘Deutsch’ (earlier written as "Teuton" , '-on' is a plural. The 'o' is aphonic. 'teut' means people, so teut's language = Deutsch).
There are no (old) place-names of Brythonic origin in southern Germany. Some local place-names however do refer to a ‘Welsh’ (Gaul) presence, but this is not enough proof that the local language was Brythonic. After all, the name ‘France’ is short for ‘kingdom of the Franks’, who were a non-Gallic people. The Franks conquered not only Gaul but also a mayor part of Germany. An example in southern France is the small region of Fronsac (excellent wines there!). The place-name is derived from (stronghold) 'Franciacus' (from the Franks). In Germany, the city of Frankfurt means 'fort of the Franks'. For the etymology and origin of the 'Franks' click here.

Superior Art

It's a common mistake to believe that Celtic art was inferior to the ancient Greek art. In fact, there are reasons enough to state the opposite. The superiority of the Mediterranean culture resided mainly in its social organization (a formalized democracy e.g.), their armies and the fact that they had a written culture.

It is possible that the label ‘Kelt’ was used by the Romans and Gallo-Romans to indicate that the Britons had preserved the Celtic culture and habits. This could be an understatement for ‘old fashioned’ or ‘traditional’.