Customer Reviews

The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People Or Modern Invention?

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Dr James's book is not intended as a "denial of [British] Celtic" ancestry, but as a presentation of a well-known approach to British history in academic circles. Dr James clearly explains that academics' reluctance to talk to the general public about their latest findings has resulted in a serious gap between academic and public views of the past.

The book comes to no firm conclusions about Britain's ancient past, but points out clearly: that the finds for the era are far fewer than on the Continent; that the finds are open to multiple interpretations; that the competing theories of mass invasion, the imposition of an elite group's culture on the populous, or that some aspects of Continental Celtic culture were enthusiastically embraced while the British retained their own identity/ies cannot yet be resolved; that cultural and ethnic identities are complex; that the current concepts of Celtic identity were formed in opposition to English domination of British politics and power.

None of this is new - I was taught precisely the same by the [native Welsh-speaking] faculty of the Department of Welsh History at Aberystwyth over 10 years ago. In fact, Prof Geraint Jenkins gave a marvellous lecture on how Celtic Studies came to be, which closely matched Dr James's explaination. Prof Ronald Hutton explains in 'The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles' (an oldy, but goody) that the modern concepts of Celtic and Saxon national traits are traceable directly to the 18th century, and that we've been unconsciously living up (or down) to them ever since.

None of this is to deny modern Celtic cultural identification, and Dr James is explicit about that; what IS vitally important to us all is to be able to look clearly at the evidence for how our ethnic identities may have been formed, and to accept that some of our dearly-held beliefs may not be as firmly rooted in hard fact as we would like, and that the ancient past is still "an unknown country".

With so much emotional attachment to the identity of being "Celtic", it was a gutsy move to publish a book bringing the Celtic identity of Britain into question. However, despite this, it is always good to take a fresh look at evidence from a different angle, whether one agrees with the conclusions or not.

James presents his argument against a unified "Celtic" people in the British Isles, and presents this argument well. He especially calls into question the theory of a mass migration of Celtic peoples from Europe, demonstrating that there is very little archaeological evidence for it, especially when compared to regions where such migrations are known to have happened. In fact, the archaeological record just does not square with the theory.

Unlike some, I did not find James' book overly burdensome with the details of what James was trying to say and how he approached it. Being from a non-archaeological background, I found this information both helpful and interesting. Admittedly, if you are experienced in such matters, you might find it a bit boring.

It seems that James treats the evidence available from the archaeological record reasonably fairly, and presents a reasonably plausible argument for his views. He covers a lot of territory in such a small book, and at times, I would have liked to get more detail on some aspects of it.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed a book that dared rock the boat, and take a new look at the available evidence. In concluding that the identity of the British people as "Celtic" is an 18th century response due to political and social conditions of the time was a gutsy move, but one that needed to be made. James has hit a nerve, and some of the threats he has received are testament to that. A brave man, indeed!

One note of caution: if you have absolutely no knowledge about Celts and theories of the Celtic identity of British people, I would suggest that you read a broader introduction. This book is not really an introduction to Celtic history in itself.

Finally, a popularly-published book available in the same stores that sell the pro-Celtic master race neopagan drivel that many believe at present. What defines a Celt has been and still is widely debated in academic circles, from the famed mummies of Urumchi to some of the Sea Peoples recorded by Egyptians and Hebrews. Although not the best book of academic inquiry I've read, I'm happy to give it five stars for the courageous publication.

I wholeheartely agree with the first reviewer. In these days of "politically correct histories." It was very enjoyable to read an author who refuses to join the inane ranks of revisionist twisters of the facts that we have!

At 144 pages it could have been longer. However, Mr. Simon reviews the 18th century creation of "the Celtic World." He shows that Minority Nationalism led by self annointed scholars like George Buchanan and William Stuckley, twisted history into a false knot by peoples being oppressed by the British Empire and turned into Celtic Studies. Which lumps many diverse groups under the term Celtic. There is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of any massive Celtic invasion to the British Isles. As the author stated-"kings created peoples, not peoples kings." Well done.

In his 1707 work "Archaeologia Britannica", Oxford scholar Edward Lhuyd proposed that similarities in the Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Irish, and Scots Gaelic languages were attributable to common origins he called "Celtique". The notion of a "lost civilization" captured the public imagination and inspired a mad rush to rediscover/invent the Celts.

The past three centuries have given us scholarly insight into the Celts and mountains of fictitious rubbish. In "The Atlantic Celts", Archaeologist Simon James of the University of Durham gives us one chapter of the former and five chapters of the later. Chapter Five is an excellent and concise social history of the British Isles. Unfortunately, the other five chapters are strongly flavored by Professor James fear that devolution will dismember the United Kingdom.

Dr. James argues that the ancient peoples of the British Isles should not be called Celts because they were culturally diverse and probably lacked a sense of common identity. True enough, but the same could be said of any cultural group that lacks a unifying political structure. The aboriginal peoples of North America saw themselves as over 500 distinct tribes until, faced with extinction in the 19th century, they developed a sense of common identity and destiny.

Mr. James latest book is another example of the British state of denial concerning their Celtic heritage.

Mr. James asserts that the idea of a "Celtic" people is a modern invention and does not apply to the Iron Age population of Britain. This is baffling in light of the fact that I have personally witnessed Mr. James referring to the aforementioned population as "Celtic" repeatedly in documentary programs for the History Channel. This also flies in the face of information presented at the British Museum, for whom he does archaeology work. Currently, on the BBC webpage, there is an article by Mr. James where he also uses the word "Celtic" repeatedly while describing the Iron Age Britons, ironically while talking about this very book. Why the sudden change?

Mr. James asserts that although the Iron Age Britons spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, produced Celtic art and shared a Celtic culture, this does not make them Celts. This is exactly what makes them Celts! Incredibly, he further goes on to use these exact same criteria to label later Britons as Romans! Mr. James states that these people (Britons) would not have referred to themselves as "Celts", that they were never a unified political entity and that they were ethnically (racially) diverse (and so, are not "Celts"). This is all true. So what? Ancient Native Americans didn't run around saying "hey, we're Native Americans", nor did the Anglo-Saxons (in their many small Kingdoms) for that matter. Most of the countries of Europe have only achieved their current forms of political unity in the last century or so, yet we have no problem using the terms, Italian, Austian, French German or even British. Since when is pure ethnicity the mark of what makes a legitimate cultural group (oh yes,perhaps in the 3rd Reich). I assume you've heard of a place called America?

Sadly, this book appears to indicate a bias prevalent among many members of the English intelligentsia. They have no problem refering to their ancestors as "Roman-Britons" or "Anglo-Saxon", but simply cannot extend the same logic to face a valuable contribution to their past (and present) by the 'barbarian hordes of European Celticdom'. Hell, then they'd have to admit they shared a degree of commonality with the Scots, Welsh, French and (God forbid) Irish!

Simon James' basic argument in this book is valid. He manages to explode the myth that peoples of the British Isles are Celts, but not particularly convincingly.

The book is often excruciatingly verbose, and the author spends far too much time defining terms and parameters before getting to the point. Additionally, he does not drive his argument home to its logical conclusion, namely that the 'Atlantic Celts' really are a fraud and should cease referring to themselves as such. Instead, he invents a dubious system whereby an ethnic group can call themselves what they like, when they like. He also dismisses the concept of Anglo-Saxon nationhood without any substantiation. He does not explain, for example, how the Anglo-Saxons rather uniquely and completely managed to impose their language on southern Britain, supposedly without significantly replacing the indigenous population.

The value of this book lies in its novelty and, given the nature of modern 'Celtic' nationalism, its fairly courageous and long-overdue exposure of a widely accepted myth.

Read this book at your peril. This book is pure politics. Firstly remember Mr James is English and the English face the real prospect of Scotland joining Ireland as a free and independant Celtic nation in the near future with Celtic nationalism rising in Wales also and the Irish population in the 6 counties getting close to the 51% mark which will see the reunification of Ireland. The final breaking up of what remains of the English empire is facing them in the face and this is pure political propaganda. Rupert Murdoch would be proud of this cultural revisionism.

The Celtic language group is one among several in the Indo-European family of languages. The Celts of Europe are as much a group as the Slavs, the Germanic peoples, the Romance language speakers, etc., contemporary cultural differences between Croats and Serbs, Bretons and Scottish Highlanders, or what have you, notwithstanding.

Well, this books seems to me as the process to finnally admit, that there was a time when Celts were a Great Power and Culture, you know sometimes you dont need a great city to be a "culture".

It is quite interesting that such a comment could be considered harsh, but Did Mongols have a great city?, why to even think or state the possibility of celts as a creation of a modern mind, are there not enough proves of their existance?

Romans couldnt vanish celts from the map, by reducing their cities to ashes with man, woman, elders and babies inside, "PAX ROMANA".

Proudly for Irish, they have been strong to resist.

Romans did make a lot for culture but at the same time, were destroyers of cultures. It is NOT just a mind creation that Jews where so affraid of calling the roman attention to them. They knew what could happen to them.

Even without great cities and big monuments, some cultures deserve to be called as what they were.