Jump to content

Talk:Celtic Britons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firsteleventh (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 3 January 2023 (→‎Pytheas seemingly called the people of Britain and Ireland the Pretanoí or Bretanoí: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Celt - Modern Invention?

Isn't Celtic rather a modern invention (1700s) to have such blanket acceptance in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia? It is not without controversy and has also attracted accusations of white racism and elitism. I do find Wiki's cherry picking authors on the subject rather worrying.

(86.177.138.203 (talk)) 86.177.138.203 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Celtic" as a term is modern (see Celts), but the peoples the article covers existed. "Iron Age Britons" doesn't have much public acceptance. It's news to me it has "attracted accusations of white racism and elitism" - how would that work? We are not "cherry picking authors on the subject" at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Celtic is an anachronism - Ancient Britons being preferred by most historians of the period now. Firsteleventh (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firsteleventh You sure? You might like this book.[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Celts_Romans_Britons/Sf7-DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=celtic+britons&printsec=frontcover]. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - yes, I am aware. The introduction highlights the problematic use of "Celtic". Firsteleventh (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "Celtic" is our way of describing these peoples, based on the fact they spoke Celtic tongues and had a culture we now recognize as a Celtic one. They may not have called themselves 'Celtic', but neither did the 'Germanic' peoples, the 'Vikings', the 'Byzantines', and so on. They wouldn't have called themselves 'ancient' either. But we speak modern English and we use these names because they're useful to us. – Asarrlaí (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic peoples is borrowed from the Latin germanus (see Caesar and Tacitus) and Byzantine has its uses in distinguishing East Rome , but it is used with particular care in my field. As you no doubt know, you’ll not find many historians embracing “Viking” in papers or serious articles etc. Just as with “Celtic” it is recognised as unhelpful at best, but is currently still too deeply entrenched in popular culture to be completely discarded. In what way is Celtic useful to us? Many of us, in my experience, are finding the term restrictive. Firsteleventh (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, those peoples didn't refer to themselves collectively as "Germanic peoples", "Scandinavians", "Byzantines" etc (those are just three examples out of many). But they're handy descriptions for *us*. In this article, "Celtic" is useful to distinguish the Celtic-speaking Britons from other meanings of "Briton". As explained in the section below, "Ancient Britons" is inaccurate, because they existed as a group long into the Middle Ages as well. – Asarrlaí (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s part of the problem, using it in such a manner occludes those Britons that remained in place and gradually adopted Germanic languages. It reinforces the problematic narrative of a mass expulsion of Britons on the face of various invasions. As I responded below, the argument that *they* existed as a unchanged group long into the Middle Ages is equally problematic, I suggest. Firsteleventh (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britons who adopted Germanic language and culture became Anglo-Saxons. Their article mentions that some Britons underwent a cultural shift, and some of that should be copied into this article. I don't think we're suggesting that the Celtic Britons were unchanged for a thousand years. This article outlines how they remained as a broad cultural group into the High Middle Ages (and continued to be called 'Britons'), gradually branching into the Welsh, Cornish, Bretons and Cumbrians. But the article does need expanded a lot. – Asarrlaí (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m still uncomfortable with unguarded use of “Celtic” for Britons as we risk reinforcing an increasing discredited narrative. Moreover, describing Britons becoming Anglo-Saxons risks lacking nuance, I suggest. The term seemingly only came into use in the time of Alfred, by which time half of “England” was under Nordic influence, but agreed that it would benefit from careful expansion. Kind regards Firsteleventh (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Britons' in a pre-modern context usually refers to the Welsh or Bretons, the article is titled 'Celtic Britons' to distinguish those Britons from modern usage where the term might more often mean 'UKers' or (esp. outside the UK) 'English'. Arguably the article's title would be better at Britons (pre-Modern) or something. 'Celtic' is useful because they spoke Celtic languages, and Celtic is indeed a real linguistic concept/term with firm academic consensus behind it just like Germanic. Ethnic group articles aren't where Wikipedia's glory shines brightest, but I think even many of the worst accommodate the fact that ethnic groups are constructs and they change over time rather than remain fixed cultural essences. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think pre-Modern an intriguing suggestion. Firsteleventh (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"ancient Britons" is stupid

Either 'Ancient Britons' (with a capital A), 'Celtic Britons', or perhaps 'Iron Age Britons'. All of these terms have their problems. If we're going to prefer 'Ancient Britons', then we should probably just rename the article. By the way, the disputed passage In English, the terms "Briton" and British for many centuries originally denoted only the ancient Britons and their descendants, most particularly the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons, who were seen as heirs to the ancient British people isn't really supported by the source anyway.  Tewdar  14:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an awkward topic in terms of terminology, but Ancient is far better than ancient. Firsteleventh (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ancient Britons" is inaccurate, because they existed as an ethnic group long into the Middle Ages as well. – Asarrlaí (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest surviving reference I am aware refers to the archipelago as the British Isles and the inhabitants as Britons. During the Middle Ages, all parts of these islands saw ethnic groups change, such as through the influence of settlers from Scandinavia (be they referred to as Danes, Northmen, or Ostmen). Firsteleventh (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pytheas seemingly called the people of Britain and Ireland the Pretanoí or Bretanoí

Source only mentions Britain, not Ireland. Claiming Pytheas called the people of both Britain and Ireland Pretanoí is Original Research unless a reliable source exists for this statement.  Tewdar  14:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pytheus is described as travelling all that was accessible so it is not clear that he only used "Britain" for the modern region rather than the whole archipelago. That he circumnavigated these islands isn't original - see the wikipedia article on terminology of the British Isles, for example, and the sole use of αἱ Βρεττανιαι for the peoples of Βρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι, which seemingly included Ireland. Firsteleventh (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to add, that piece in Terminology - Historical Aspects is referenced, but I haven't had the chance to confirm that they match the statement. Firsteleventh (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except we're not talking about whether Pytheas travelled to Britain and Ireland or not. We're talking about "do we have a modern authority who states that 'Pretanoí' in this context refers to (the people of) Britain and Ireland". The given source does not do this, and thus the disputed sentence is indeed an original interpretation.  Tewdar  16:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is covered in the article with modern references . Sorry if I wasn’t clear Firsteleventh (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the referenced Wikipedia piece on the Terminology of the British Isles 👍 Firsteleventh (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worded the sentence to match the source. – Asarrlaí (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll revisit this once I’ve chased down the references given in the Terminology piece Firsteleventh (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Snyder book is really explicit enough either, but you might disagree...  Tewdar  22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Snyder is not useful for Pytheas but does cover the debate over Celtic identity and use of Briton, pp. 2-7 - albeit as at 2003. Barry Cunliffe is of more use, I think, in his Ancient Celts (p. 4) in confirming that Pytheas explored the British Isles (as opposed to just Britain) and only refers to a single people - the Pretani who he did not identify as Celts. On p. 146, he goes on the describe the use of gens Hiernorum (Irish people) in Massilliot Periplus. Interesting stuff :-) Firsteleventh (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_Britons&oldid=1131296488"