The Celts
Dr J D Hill of the British Museum on what ‘Celtic’ means …
The reality of life in Europe 2,000 years ago is as much to do with a mosaic of very distinctive local cultures than something more homogenous.
Yes, there is a commonality of symbols and motifs, but the danger in stressing the commonality is that we overlook the radical differences. For me, what the word ‘Celtic’ meant in Europe 2,000 years ago is similar to what we mean by the word ‘European’ now. At one level, Europeans today are a lot the same, partly through sharing a common cultural heritage. But at the same time, no one is stopping the French from being French or denying that somebody in northern England is quite different from someone who comes from southern Denmark …
The Celtic world was essentially a Europe of the regions, a patchwork of different communities. A huge amount of contact took place, but at the same time, the people were saying: ‘I am this particular local person and I am quite different from my immediate neighbours.’ I don’t think they would have understood the idea that they were a common European entity …
For me, this notion of a common Celtic-ness across Europe is doing a massive disservice to the people whose lives we’re trying to describe. As an archaeologist, I can’t escape making statements and comments about the contemporary world – that’s what archaeology has always done. But that’s how this problem of the Celts has actually arisen. I suppose what I am trying to say is: go back to the reality of pre-Roman Europe and stop looking at the past as a homogenous whole. The Celtic world may have been a model for Europe, which is a mosaic of different societies but still bound together in some way. This can actually help us envisage where Europe is going tomorrow.
