Where did the Celts come from?

I hope that I am not revisisting an old topic here, but the question in the title has fascinated me for some time. I do realize that the Celtic cultures have two primary sub-groupings, if understand correctly the current thinking, originating in La Tene and Hallstatt, but apart from that am entirely ignorant. I have heard all sorts of crazy things, even one supposedly popular science program (which I will not name) that went for some odd Himalayan origin point. I know they speak an Indo-European language. Did they have some relationship to the Mesolithic peoples (in that they represent a mixing of I-E with Mesolithic, something I read somewhere a long time ago)? Are the Mesolithic peoples considered the "beaker" peoples? Were they a part of the general I-E migration that settled in La Tene and Hallstatt respectively and developed their cultural identifiers there, or did they arrive with the full cultural complement? Am I getting all of this wrong? Argh, so many questions.

Thanks, and feel free to ignore if this has already been addressed, or is simply too annoying to be addressed.

The Celts are not the beaker people, or the monolith builders (though they may share relationships with them, but that's a moot point; numerous cultures probably do). The Celts, as a definable culture (not merely a subset of another culture) appeared out of developments in the bronze age in central Europe, as the propegators of iron weaponry.

There are numerous myths about how the Celts came about; the Gauls believed all of them were descended from a conquering god or demi-god named Dis (literally just 'God' or 'Godly'). The Greeks are the first to write about Celts, mentioning them as 'keltoi'. In Greek mythos, the Celts were descended from the son of Heracles, Celtus, and the daughter of Bretannus, Celtine.

However, realistically, they probably were born out of the Urnfeld culture, where they developed into the distinctly Celtic people we know of now; the Urnfeld culture was itself descended out of the Tumulus and Unetica cultures, and was a collection of apparently very creative people, who had a knack for invention. The development of iron working techniques was inevitable. Around 700 BC, this led to the development of the Hallstatt culture, who were the first Celts (or true proto-Celts, if one ascribes that only the La Tène structured culture is truly Celtic). This culture remained for a fairly long time, and if one wants to be pedantic, parts of it outlasted the La Tène culture, because remnants of the Halstatt culture existed in Ireland, even after the people there had been introduced to La Tène developments.

The Celtic culture most recognized is, of course, the La Tène culture. This shows the apex of pre-Christian Celtic art, metal working, urbanization (development of large cities occured in this period; few beyond major trade centers really grew very large before), and all manner of technology and society was vastly more developed under the La Tène influence. This culture spread through most of Europe, superceding Halstatt developments, replacing them with the new, modernized culture.

The story also drags on from here, but, that's pretty much the origin of the Celtic overculture. There are specific Celtic peoples with various origins and practices and such, numerous sub-cultures and seperate cultures, with their own way of life, but all affected by the La Tène culture; how they developed personally and when they came about, but those things are so situational and dependant upon the region, and sometimes so complex (IE; Ireland; huge amount of very complex stuff happened there that led to the development of refering to Ireland as 'Celtic'; however, some scholars prefer to view it as Celtic in part).

I've read that the Hallstatt culture began around 1200 BC, or rather, when it began to take a more 'Celtic' colouring, if you will, than the Urnfield culture.

That's true in some respects. It was 'emergent' then, I suppose is how to say, and can be considered Hallstatt, but it was not reliant on iron tools and weapons yet (the true premiere part of early Celtic society was that they, unlike their neighbors, relied heavily upon iron, though their art and society clearly were unique). The Urnfeld culture, itself, had sub-cultures, as it was over a wide area. So, the proto-Hallstatters may be seen as a subset of the Urnfeld culture, emerging uniquely as the first Celts sometime probably between 1000-700 BC; personally, I'd estimate toward the latter end of this period, though proto-Celts were definitely appearing before then. These might be seen as a kind of Urnfeld-Hallstatt culture, as opposed to the slightly later iron-wielding Celtic-Hallstatters.

The Celts were most likeley indoeuropean migrants who established themselves as the ruling caste in the lands the conquerd. That's supposed to be the reason they had so many serfs, the serfs were the descendants of the defeated natives.

So their origin should be somewhere around the Black sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

That's true in some respects. It was 'emergent' then, I suppose is how to say, and can be considered Hallstatt, but it was not reliant on iron tools and weapons yet (the true premiere part of early Celtic society was that they, unlike their neighbors, relied heavily upon iron, though their art and society clearly were unique). The Urnfeld culture, itself, had sub-cultures, as it was over a wide area. So, the proto-Hallstatters may be seen as a subset of the Urnfeld culture, emerging uniquely as the first Celts sometime probably between 1000-700 BC; personally, I'd estimate toward the latter end of this period, though proto-Celts were definitely appearing before then. These might be seen as a kind of Urnfeld-Hallstatt culture, as opposed to the slightly later iron-wielding Celtic-Hallstatters.

---

I agree about the Urnfield culture having subcultures; it makes perfect sense, and I agree that the early Hallstatt Celts would not have been without un-Celtic traits while still early in their history. However, the use of iron tools is not so much a tenant of their Culture as a technology, improved and different as it was. You're probably right that the Hallstatters with iron tools were definitively Hallstatt, but the use of iron tools is not a necessary tenant of Hallstatt culture; it's more of a temporal indication, a historical 'bookmark', if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

I agree about the Urnfield culture having subcultures; it makes perfect sense, and I agree that the early Hallstatt Celts would not have been without un-Celtic traits while still early in their history. However, the use of iron tools is not so much a tenant of their Culture as a technology, improved and different as it was. You're probably right that the Hallstatters with iron tools were definitively Hallstatt, but the use of iron tools is not a necessary tenant of Hallstatt culture; it's more of a temporal indication, a historical 'bookmark', if you will.

---

Yes, but I mean to say that the particular landmark in their history is where they're no longer a subset of the Urnfeld, and more specifically Celtic. Not simply because they were using iron (though the use of iron was the first employment of iron in weapons), but because of how they used it (iron works and such display the first evidence of specifically Celtic art). Of course, it's not like, one day a Hallstatt-region craftsman decided to work iron into a hunting knife, and suddenly they're all 'Celts', but it does represent the dynamic shift from being 'another part of the Urnfeld culture', into being what we recognize as Celts (a combination of warriors-ironsmiths-traders).

Then we are agreed.

Ranika, to return to your point about 'Dis', is that figure that same figure as 'Dis Pater', as Julius Caesar wrote?

Julian, if you're looking for a geographical beginning, it's thought that Hallstatt culture developed out of the Urnfield culture somewhere near what is today Bavaria.

Yes, that's pretty much the same god, though Caesar elevates him from a demigod of death and paternity to the god of these things (which doesn't make sense; Gauls never built temples to Dis, just shrines, though they probably had festivals and the like specifically honoring Dis, since he was 'father of all Gaul', hence his moniker 'Godly Father').

So the Gauls held Donn in higher esteem than the Goidils did?

Probably. Goidilic gods are more affected by British and northern Iberian gods; while related to Gallic gods, the propensity to worship certain gods was different.

Excellent information. Thanks particularly to Ranika. Some of this information I have been able to find elsewhere, but there is a spectacular amount of disinformation to wade through. Any good sources I should gather?

I find Barry Cunliffe often has great insight into the early Celtic world, and Powell as well. If you're more concerned with disinformation and wading through misconception, a great book is The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions, which is by John Collis.

Edit; I think it's John Collis. I'm sure PyschoV has the book, he'd know the author. I'm fairly sure it's Collis.

I would recommend A Brief History of the Celts by Peter Berresford Ellis. Nothing too heavy or or scholarly.

Ranika, it is Collis and is certainly a great read presenting a radical re-interpretation of the 'celts' along the lines of James and Chapman. I certainly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about how contemporary archaeologists view and interpret the second half of the 1st Mill BC

Gauls, gaels, goidils, galatians, britons, casse, caledonians, belgae...

:dizzy2: Tribes... so many tribes...

How do you keep track of all of them? Lots and lots of study or what?

Well, Gaels and Goidils are the same thing...

It's the Celtic memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian the Apostrophe

Some of this information I have been able to find elsewhere, but there is a spectacular amount of disinformation to wade through. Any good sources I should gather?

---

Unfortunately, there are few really good books on the Celts. Most either tend to be the more heavy scholarly type and thus focus either on specifics or broad generalities; usually concentrating on the material culture (archeology, and by association anthropology), or the're just regurgitated and simplified candy. Few cover the issue in a holistic or exhaustive manner (ie history married with archeology etc). To get a good understanding, one is forced to read through just about everything written on the subject and put the pieces together. A very time consuming process...but if one has the interest... ~;)

If none bet me to it, I hope one day to write a book / s to see if I can better provide a more exhaustive account of these peoples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

I find Barry Cunliffe often has great insight into the early Celtic world, and Powell as well. If you're more concerned with disinformation and wading through misconception, a great book is The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions, which is by John Collis.

Edit; I think it's John Collis. I'm sure PyschoV has the book, he'd know the author. I'm fairly sure it's Collis.

---

Yer Collis wrote 'Origins, Myths and Inventions'. He also wrote 'Oppida' in 84 and other works on the Iron Age..much of which he's included in his 'Origins, Myths and Inventions' book.
There's some very good info in Collins 'Origins..' but I generally wasn't a huge fan. He never really clearly defines his hypothesis. He raises allot on interesting points which appear on face value to challenge other establish understandings but fails to actually explore that data and provide a clear interpretation himself. As such one tends to come to the conclusion that he has tended to sensationalise and focus on the data that lie outside the mean of normal findings... to focus on the 'statistical outliers'. Imho, this modes operandi is not inducive to one gaining a holistic picture of the data at hand. An interesting read nonetheless.

Cunliffe is exceptional with the material culture but a little weaker on the history. Powell is one of the venerated pioneers of much of our current Celtic study. His works however lack some of the more recent data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

I would recommend A Brief History of the Celts by Peter Berresford Ellis. Nothing too heavy or or scholarly.

---

Yer, Ellis is good value. If your looking for a more simple / easy to read history of the celts / various tribes, Daithi O' Hogan’s "The Celts, A History" is good. If you’re wanting to start a study on the Celts, I’d definitely start with O’ Hogan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Gauls, gaels, goidils, galatians, britons, casse, caledonians, belgae...

:dizzy2: Tribes... so many tribes...

How do you keep track of all of them? Lots and lots of study or what?

---

Actually, Gauls, Gaels/Goidils, Galatians (though essentially Gauls still), Britons (assuming you mean the midlanders; southern 'Britons' were ostensibly Gallic), Belgae, and Caledonians are all sub-cultures with various tribes in them. Listing every tribe in every one of them would be a much longer, more complicated list, and still leave out eastern/central European Celtic tribes, and Galaecian-Celtic tribes in Iberia (and possibly Luggones, Asturians with a Celtic name meaning 'sons of Lug', a Celtic god); of all of those you mentioned, only the Casse are actually a single tribe (well, there was a 'Caledoni' tribe, but even that has been suspect to being stated as a collection of smaller tribes, which isn't that unusual; that and Caledonian is also used to refer to all tribes inhabitting Caledonia), and themselves had somewhere between 3-6 minor 'subject' tribes (akin to vassals) in 272 BC (based on the spread of their art and imagery) plus probably the Cenimages (which were somewhat minor, but their ability to mint decent coinage, and that they eventually spawned the Icenes, makes them a bit more notable).

As for Celtic history books; Psycho has it best, I think. Really, you're not going to find much really good out there today. At best, read as much as you're recommended; I was once told that you can ask a dozen Celtic historians about their conception of the Celtic civilization, and you'll probably get a dozen different answers. A bit cliche, but pretty true; even similar theories have underlying finer points that are ultimately all left to suspiscion and argument. The best one can do is examine as much as they can and form an opinion that way.

I was once told that you can ask a dozen Celtic historians about their conception of the Celtic civilization, and you'll probably get a dozen different answers.

Maybe cliched but very true in particular when you ask an archaeologist, linguist or historian for their approaches. As you might have noticed I’m one of those who rarely uses the term ‘Celtic’ very much for describing 1st Mil BC Europe, except in very particular circumstances including the language group and the artistic style. Because I come from a mid-1990s archaeological background I suppose.

I guess there is a gap in the market between the public orientated out-dated clichéd Celtic books and the more academic articles and books. Also the many journals and large monographs are frequently incredibly expensive to buy and many people don’t have access to a good archaeological section in a university library. There has been huge changes within iron age studies (certainly in the UK and Ireland) in the last 15-20 years, but I don’t really think they have come down to the public yet except in more area-based publications. You would be hard-pushed to find the work of people like Haselgrove, Hill, Armit and Champion in mainstream book-shops unless you got lucky or knew what you were looking for. For those out there who do wish to dip into the british iron age archaeological scene, this is probably the best glance at current research trends, although it is out of date (2001) - http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~lascretn/IAAgenda.htm Unfortunately my knowledge of the wider European context is slightly limited – there’s just too little contemporary scholarship in English and I’m not the best with reading other languages ~:confused:

Psycho – I think the problem with Collis’s book is that his title is slightly misleading. What he has produced is a kind of mid-point thesis on his current thoughts on Celts while the title does seem to suggest that it could be a complete account. I agree with most of his arguments, but I do understand what you mean about his losing the strands of his points at times. I wish that he had finished up in a slightly tighter manner, but have a feeling that he’ll bring out a 2nd edition in a couple of years with updated thoughts.

Funnily enough Barry Cunliffe used to be considered as taking a too historical-sourced approach to his findings by many archaeologists particularly with the publication of his Danebury excavations in the 80s. He has veered away from that though since the late 80s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakalwe

Psycho – I think the problem with Collis’s book is that his title is slightly misleading. What he has produced is a kind of mid-point thesis on his current thoughts on Celts while the title does seem to suggest that it could be a complete account. I agree with most of his arguments, but I do understand what you mean about his losing the strands of his points at times..

---

Yup, exactly. It reads more like "My personal thoughts / musings / work in progress" than a definitive argument for "Origins, Myths and Inventions". Contrary to expectations I found much of his data to be consistent with my current understanding of the subject mattter. Bit of a let down considering the title (as you have already pointed out). One can only deduce that either my understanding is not 'old school' enough or he just failed to make his point. I believe it to be more of the later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakalwe

I wish that he had finished up in a slightly tighter manner, but have a feeling that he’ll bring out a 2nd edition in a couple of years with updated thoughts.

---

I'd be very interested if he ever did. He's in semi-retirement now..so not sure of the chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakalwe

Funnily enough Barry Cunliffe used to be considered as taking a too historical-sourced approach to his findings by many archaeologists particularly with the publication of his Danebury excavations in the 80s. He has veered away from that though since the late 80s.

---

Yup. Wouldn't mind seeing some new literature from Cunliffe either. I'm sure when the material / findings from Naves are published, there'll be some new materials for us to digest. Least that's what sources tell me.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakalwe

I guess there is a gap in the market between the public orientated out-dated clichéd Celtic books and the more academic articles and books.

---

I think this is because the more we know about Celts, the less romantic an image they are. The more we understand about Celts, the more they are an anthropological subject; not so mythic. Instead, we examine politics, military structure, the particulars of craftsmanship, and other aspects of life which really aren't popular in public consumption. Most casual Celtic enthusiasts seem more concerned with the romantic hero image; indeed, Celts were a hero culture, but there is so much more to it. Just, that so much more is generally far less colorful; almost scientific and sterile. Most enthusiasts probably don't want to hear about how Celts affixed wagon wheels, or fashioned a cart, or how they organized law, or built their houses. The first thing we knew about Celts when the studies really caught on was that Celts were a warrior people, and that image kind of sticks, or the blatantly false 'peaceful' Celts of early new age movements. Those interested in the warrior aspect don't really care about the peace time pursuits of Celtic society; they want fierce warrior Celts, and those who embrace the 'noble savage' aspect don't care for their understanding of warfare or science; they want to believe they were some mystic ancient people. It's hard to appeal to such groups with modern research, and they sadly make up a great number of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Actually, Gauls, Gaels/Goidils, Galatians (though essentially Gauls still), Britons (assuming you mean the midlanders; southern 'Britons' were ostensibly Gallic), Belgae, and Caledonians are all sub-cultures with various tribes in them. Listing every tribe in every one of them would be a much longer, more complicated list, and still leave out eastern/central European Celtic tribes, and Galaecian-Celtic tribes in Iberia (and possibly Luggones, Asturians with a Celtic name meaning 'sons of Lug', a Celtic god); of all of those you mentioned, only the Casse are actually a single tribe (well, there was a 'Caledoni' tribe, but even that has been suspect to being stated as a collection of smaller tribes, which isn't that unusual; that and Caledonian is also used to refer to all tribes inhabitting Caledonia), and themselves had somewhere between 3-6 minor 'subject' tribes (akin to vassals) in 272 BC (based on the spread of their art and imagery) plus probably the Cenimages (which were somewhat minor, but their ability to mint decent coinage, and that they eventually spawned the Icenes, makes them a bit more notable).

As for Celtic history books; Psycho has it best, I think. Really, you're not going to find much really good out there today. At best, read as much as you're recommended; I was once told that you can ask a dozen Celtic historians about their conception of the Celtic civilization, and you'll probably get a dozen different answers. A bit cliche, but pretty true; even similar theories have underlying finer points that are ultimately all left to suspiscion and argument. The best one can do is examine as much as they can and form an opinion that way.

---

See, this is why I both love and am afraid of reading the threads in EB. They make me feel like a simpleton.

To put in smilie terms:

you: :book:
me: :freak:

The trouble is, I am so busy reading Henry Miller, Nikos Kazantzakis and Hunter S. Thompson, I have no time to read up on history. I have to choose between enriching my life or my knowledge. It's driving me nuts. :wall:

It's not that hard to do both, just carry books everywhere you go. I used to read all day when I was in highschool. I just read in class, far more informative anyway.