| |
A CONTINUING INFLUENCE
A similar scenario existed for the consideration of the Celtic contribution to the political formation and evolution of Europe during the first millenium BC. Through the advent of archeological research, we now know that the various 'provinces' established by the Romans in Celtic countries were based on pre-existing industrial and agricultural systems, which were suited for local conditions. These pre-existing structures were only slightly modified by Roman 'colonization primarily to enhance production and distribution to Roman benefit. The idea that Romans advanced farming techniques is quite false. In fact, some of the techniques and implements used by the Celts were new to the Romans. Further, pre-Roman implements remained basically unchanged throughout Europe until the relative recent introduction of machinery.
The impact on Europe by the diverse Celtic people was considerable right up into the 4th century CE. They dominated northern Italy and defeated the Etruscan empire and even sacked Rome itself c. 387 BC. They negotiated peaceful terms with Alexander the great on the Danube in 335-334 BC. Following Alexander's death, they invaded Greece itself and sacked the shrine at Delphi and established the state of Galatia on the central plain of Turkey.
In the third century BC, the forces of Rome at last halted the Celts expanding influence. Roman legions first defeated them in Northern Italy, then Spain and finally Gaul. Then gradually the eastern Celtic areas such as the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Switzerland and Romania were also being conquered and absorbed by strengthening Germanic tribes. Finally, old Europe took on a new energy, fired by new racial drives. But, as modern Europe began to build, much of the foundation was decidedly Celtic.
No, we don't know exactly when the Celtic cultures first developed. The prevailing theory of the 2nd Millenium BC may be correct, but I take the controversial view that even this date is a bit too modern and that the Celtic languages, cultures and their religions began to coalesce in the 3rd millenium BC. Whichever the case, the influence of the Celtic civilizations on Europe and the Mediterranean areas has been considerable.
Reminders of the broad Celtic influence is still to be seen from Ireland and Britain in the west, to southwest corner of Russia in the east in modern day France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Spain, Italy, Greece and possibly China. The most intense archeological finds are the traces of architecture, weapons, art and domestic items. Where recent finds continue to push the window to the broader Celtic culture ever earlier.
Little is known of the Celtic religion from texts and nothing before the 6th century CE. Still, examination of text copied from older documents and careful scrutiny of the Law in conjunction with the archeological data gives us some insight and continued critical research can continue to expand our growing knowledge base.
THE LIKELY SCENARIO
From what we know today, the most likely scenario for the development of the Celtic culture begins in Eastern Europe in the mid to late 3rd or early 2nd millenium BC. Undoubtedly, the beginnings were modest. Assuming the characteristics as later evidenced, the original Celts prospered and expanded. Innovative and entrepreneurial, they became the craftsmen and traders who reached out in widening circles of influence. By the early 2nd millenium, migrating clans became the dominant culture in their areas of occupation. As is the case of culture to this day, the dominant culture extends its influence into all aspects of life, including language, art, agriculture, technology and religion. Though dominant, the Celts were ever ready to assimilate new ideas, new techniques and new people. Just as with Ireland in later times, the dominant culture assimilated those around it, broadening their horizons, their technology, developing their work force, and absorbing them into the broader culture.
Though clannish, the Celtic nature was also curious and exploratory. As a result, migrating bands moved further and further away from the center, becoming the merchants and traders of their ever-increasing sphere of influence. As they moved into each new area, the pre-existing people saw the advantages new farming techniques, new implements and advanced craftsmanship. Through co-existence and assimilation including marriage, the new culture slowly achieved dominance and the new and old became one.
A MATTER OF CULTURES
Some credit the Urnfield culture with being the ancestor of the Celts. However the growing body of evidence indicates that the divergence of culture and language proceeded such a 13th century BC date. Actually, the Urnfield culture was generated in the lowlands around the Danube and disseminated from there throughout Europe including the mountainous region of Austria. Thus, though the Halstadt culture was a beneficiary, it was not the originator of the Urn burials.
There is also the matter of the Halstadt culture itself. The culture is not identified much prior to the 6th century BC. Named for a salt-mining community, the Halstadt culture has apparent roots that extend back to at least the mid 2nd Millenium BC when major salt-mining efforts began in the area. Known as "white gold," salt has been a precious commodity since the dawn of man. Because of the volume of the salt extracted and archeological evidence, it is apparent that a vigorous European trade, including transalpine which reached into the Mediterranean area, in this precious commodity was underway nearly a thousand years prior to the recorded history that identifies the culture.
The assimilation of ethnic groups gave the "Celtic" people greater diversity. Obviously, some of those that blended with the original Celts were peaceful agrarians, while others were more war-like and the differences in Celticism began to develop in the 2nd Millenium BCE. Thus the so-called Lowland Celts developed in a generally peaceful bent. Some of the influence may have been due to generally more accessible sparsely populated arable land.
On the other hand, the "Highland Celts" migrating down from their mountainous homelands in the Balkans and Carpathians, worked into more populated areas where competition for tillable land was stronger. Consequently, in the age-old practice of humankind, the have-nots reverted to their last resort and took by might what they were otherwise denied. The result was development of more aggressive tendencies and the development of superior battle techniques in their struggle for survival.
Of course, it would make a nice tidy scenario if we could say that the peaceful type A folks worked their way west, while the aggressive type B folks worked their way east and that is where they stayed. Unfortunately, for the sake of neatness, one common character of both groups and their descendants was a curiosity and sense of adventure that was not governed by a compass. As a result, throughout the history of the Celts, they migrated from time to time in whatever direction held the most interest. As a result, the continued contact between the various Celtic cultural groups contributed to many commonalties, such as art, law, mythology, and language. Perhaps an even greater influence toward cross-polination was the great trade routes that crisscrossed Europe and the Mediterranean areas. For, when the Phoenician civilization waned under various pressures including the wars with Egypt, opportunistic traders, especially the Celts were ready to fill the void. As a result, the various developing branches of Celts remained in frequent contact with their cousins and maintained much of their cultural commonality. On the other hand, they blended with coexisting peoples and adapted to climatic, geographical and other pressures to take on the many different hues that we can see reflected today.
To understand the diversity of the Celtic peoples of yesterday, you might consider the English-speaking peoples of today. We do have a similar language and can generally communicate with each other whether from Australia, New Zealand, The Phillipines (where English is the "Legal" language), The United States, Canada, Britain, and Ireland. Yet we are not one people. We do not have one Religion, We do not all look alike. In final analysis, we are not all one culture - and neither were the Celts. The bottom line is, if you are going to study a particular Celtic people, you must study that people. It is totally inaccurate to review a reference of one part of the world in one particular time to make a point about another particular people at another time. Not all Celts are the same.
LIMITED BIBLIOGRAPHY
- The Celts
- edited by Sabotino Moscati et al, Rizzoli, New York, 1991
- The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe
- Marija Gimbutas,
- Language of the Goddess
- Marija Gimbutas, HarperCollins, New York, 1991
- Pagan Celtic Ireland
- Barry Raftery, Thames and Hudson, London, 1994
- Lady with a Mead Cup
- Michael J. Enright, Four Courts Press, Oregon, 1996
- The Celts
- T. G. E. Powell, Thames and Hudson, London 1958
- Celtic Civilization
- Jean Markale, Gordon and Cremonesi, Paris, 1976
|
|
