I have noticed that many of you are using the term 'celts' often, as if
there was some monolithic culture group in place during the western iron
age. 'But no!' You may cry, 'I know that there were different tribes,
therefore my knowledge is not generalising!' Hmmmm.
The 'idea' of the 'celts' was in fact an invention of the 18th and 19th
century. Before this, archaeology was too muddled to be able to define
anything beyond renaissance gentlemen dressed up in skins and wielding
swords. However, the development of the nation state and capitalism meant
that a social environment was created, where the devising of a national
character to draw together people in the same country was promoted.
Before this, if you asked a peasant what country he lived in he may have
been baffled, and instead talked about his local town. The emergent
protestant religion also helped promote the dissemination of secular
'givens' ie. 'we are all englishmen.'
For example, in france during the napoleonic wars, the celts were seen as
heroic, artistic collossi, who represented the essence of french
civilisation and refinement. Their enemies at that period, the germans
and british (english), regarded the ancient celts as effeminate and weak.
They turned to the doughty saxons as their role models - promoters of
democracy and state builders. They were inspired by the writings of
Tacitus, who wrote of the 'barbarians' in the forests of germany. He
stated that they were innocent and noble, whereas the romans were
decadent and soon to collapse. This also obviously inspired later
philosophers such as Rosseau ('noble savages'). In this century, the
fascists in germany and italy reused the spectres of the past - the
classical world, to legitimate their rule. As Hegel and Marx have said,
every event in history takes place at least twice; the first time as
tragedy, the second as farce. Hence, the whole concept of culture was
politicised.
Much later, in archaeology there began a movement known as 'culture
history,' which sought to plot the development of great cultures (often
initially inspired by the 'classics'- taken for granted knowledge derived
from ancient classical texts, and renaissance/enlightenment
reformulations). This sought to trace the movement of these cultures
across the globe - change was often attributed to migrations, the
diffusion of ideas from elsewhere, or to invasions. Independent
development was conceived of as somewhat untenable at this time. This
paradigm was immensely important, and popular. Famous exponents of this
approach include the great marxist archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe (he
was originally from australia, but did most of his work in Britain), and the
fascist german archaeologist Gustav Kossina. You may have heard of some
famous ideas from this time. They are still lurking about in the publics
consciousness, even though archaeologists abandoned them years ago.
For instance, 'ex oriente lux' - the idea that the developments of the ancient world (egypt, mesopotamia) diffused into europe, where they were adapted. The ancient world was seen as decadent - the term 'oriental despotism' crops up often. Whereas europe was seen as possessing an enterprising spirit which enabled it to use these social and technological developments to eventually build the capitalist world. Obviously, as well as sounding slightly naieve these days, the concept carried many orientalist (ie. racist) assumptions. The idea was developed from the ideas of Marx (the asiatic mode of production) and Weber (oriental patrimonialism). Briefly, the ideas held that there was no true concept of private property, which inhibited social evolution beyond despotic forms, and that any created surplus was merely 'siphoned off,' rather than applied for reinvestment or to increase social power.
These ideas have been effectively smashed by colin renfrew (in his
marvellous book 'before civilisation' 1973), who through research, proved
chronologically that there was absolutely no correspondence between the
'rise' of the cultural systems in the middle east and europe. Therefore
they had to be indigenous developments primarily. Furthermore, the
discovery of sites like Catal Huyuk in Anatolia suggests that the urban
revolution was also available earlier than was originally thought, and
not necessarily linked to the middle east (see Ian Hodder 'the
domestication of europe' 1990).
However, further problems existed in culture-history. The idea of
cultures charging about antiquity in europe started to become very silly
indeed. Rather than conmsidering indigenous development of complexity, it
was always said to be a movement of people or ideas. Hence, in the
runequest digest a short time ago, someone was able to say 'the celts
invaded greece.' Oh dear! Furthermore, during the bronze age we got the
beaker people invading britain more than once (bringing their own
distinctive brand of pots with them). Bleee....In the iron age, the wessex
culture gets attributed to a migratory breton aristocracy; we get different
phases of la tene and Hallstatt culture groups deciding to take residence
in britain for no apparent reason, except to flaunt their distinctive art
styles. Bleeee....
Furthermore, what we consider as monolithic 'blocks' of culture ('the
celts') was infact far, far more complex. Childe had to develop a
polythetic conception of culture, because THERE WAS NOT ONE SINGLE PLACE
in the whole of europe where a single cultural assemblage could be found
and attributable to a distinct culture group. Instead, he had to say that
races ('the celts') were made up of different groups which shared certain
different cultural assemblages. Imagine a set of three rings, overlapping
at the centre. Each ring defines a specific cultural assemblage, whereas
the central overlapping area defines 'the racial assemblage' which they
all share. Most of the time, many geographically distinct culture groups
demonstrated little correspondence (this is why many cultures were named
after geographical regions in europe). The culture-history paradigm was
obviously crumbling.
The picture is worsened when you consider that people use material
culture to denote psoitionality. For example, Ian hodder's work among
tribes in Kenya has demonstrated that tribes use material culture
reflexively to say different things (Ian Hodder, 'Symbols in Action'
1982). Women may use mens beaded bracelets to challenge the power of men,
for instance, or young people may use the styles of 'the elders,' or
women married into a new tribe may use their old tribes material culture
(eg. earflaps) to remember their old life. The idea that we can therefore
scientifically say what 'culture means' is somewhat untenable.
Celts therefore only existed as a great miasma of overlapping cultural
systems. Many were not aware of each other, and many may not have
considered themselves as 'celts,'let alone european. However, many
layperson manuals of archaeology still use the culture history paradigm.
Probably because it is relatively simplistic, also because it appeals to
the ignorant sense of 'national character' which many of us accept (the
archaeologist certainly should not do so).
Morally, it is also wrong, as the whole idea carries with it much
generalising, racist baggage. Nazi germany, for example, used archaeology
to legitimate its invasion of europe. The cultural assemblage of corded
ware and bronze axes (suitably warlike) was considered to represent the
teutonic spirit. It was a common assemblage in europe, particularly in
germany. However, it allowed the nazis to argue that they had good
reasons to invade the likes of poland, because the territory contained
the relevant assemblage, therefore it 'belonged' to germany from
long-ago. However, Hitler later was heard to admit that he found the
scruffy iron age roundhouses of germany somewhat embarrassing in contrast
with the glorious stone buildings of greece! It was archaeology's finest
(and most appalling) hour.
Many people today refer to their supposed 'celtic ancestry' to invoke the
idea that they have hot tempers, artistic temperaments, etc. Of course,
its a load of rubbish - as if character was created by culture! Of
course, it is easy for us to laugh off the ideas of the early
archaeologists, but culture-historical ideas are alive and well today. In
europe, for example, we recently had an EC funded archaeology conference,
attracting many european prehistorians, about 'the creation of a european
spirit.' In the USA, many people believe that the vikings colonised a
small part of the country, despite the fact that the evidence is
constructed of hilarious fakes or extremely dubious sites. Ask
yourself why many americans find it so important to try and desperately
'prove' that vikings lived in the USA. One interpretation is that WASP
americans find it necessary to legitimate the cultural genocide and
slavery whereby europeans claimed the country - because if the vikings
were there in the distant past, then it is acceptable that they
returned to 'claim what was theirs' (sounds similar to the nazis use of
archaeology?). I am sure that many non-white americans are not as
interested in whether vikings were in the USA or not.
Eventually then, what i am arguing against is the dubious idea of
'archaeological facts.' It is a characteristic element of postmodern
knowledge that it must be constructed of self-evident 'facts,' and these
'facts' must be widely available and easily understandable to allow the
layperson to 'get the knowledge.' Essentially we are making consumer
decision for obtaining matters of 'fact.' The 'information explosion,'
promoted by the proliferation of electronic media, allows the consumer
to choose the 'facts' to suit his own mindset and weltanschauung. I
have noticed that similar things happen in roleplaying - rather than
be critical, the roleplayer usually accepts the simplest answer (which
is often the wrong one).
I am sorry about the long email, but i hope that it proves illuminating
(this is a riddle where you roll on 'world law'), or at least provokes
argument.
Dominic.
Powered by hypermail