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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
That was true of indigenous people all over the world who were forced to learn English to trade. It doesn’t change the fact that English went global because of colonization, not because of trade. The trading happened because of colonization. This is the subject of numerous studies. William Cronon’s "Changes in the Land" documents exactly this scenario with the indigenous population of New England and painstakingly recounts how colonization led to trade, decade by decade, century by century. Your argument makes zero sense and is one of the strangest claims I’ve ever seen. The Māori of New Zealand primarily learned to read and write English not from trade, but from Christian settlements. (Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand) Christian missionaries were the leading edge and primary agents of European colonialism. Attributing the wide adoption of the English language to trade is historical revisionism on a grand scale.
> English as we know it today came to be exported to other parts of the world through British colonisation…The efforts of English-speaking Christian missionaries have resulted in English becoming a second language for many other groups.
It’s interesting that English only became the primary global language after British empire had already collapsed…
Also the British subjugation native populations and forcing to speak English doesn’t really explain its prominence outside of a some areas like Indian and parts of Africa.
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?
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle and ignoring our request to stop. Regardless of what you're battling for or against, this is not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
1. Could be worse, could be constant false accusations (as per your responses). You are more than welcome to paste any denial of colonialism.
2. You have not offered anything close to a reasoned argument, and then you complain that you haven't received one back.
3. I have said before, and I am quite happy to reiterate, because you have nothing to offer here, and I am very VERY happy if I never hear from you again. (Although I doubt you will stop, you are getting the attention you seem to want)
4. Finally, also, please fix your state of denial, and, can I strongly recommend that you stop looking to books for the effects of colonialism, when you are dealing with people that have actually experienced it, and continue to experience its effects.
Please stop posting flamewar comments and/or using HN for ideological battle. Regardless of what you're battling for or against, this is not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for.
I'm not going to ban you right now because this doesn't seem to be what you've primarily been using HN for, but your comments in this thread were not ok.
