A subsequent paper by Simon James (1998) rebutted Megaw and Megaw, and while concurring with Collis on the "methodological arguments" arising from Collis' paper, was not satisfied with his dealing of the subject from a political standpoint (James, 1998: p. 201).

In due course Patrick Sims-Williams, writing in the journal for Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies (Winter 1998, 36), entered the debate, not so much from the viewpoint of adding fuel to the fire, rather putting water on the fire. In his substantial tome in which he explored every issue at debate, Sims Williams put a succinct ending to what might have been termed altogether a pointless exercise. What had this three year battle of words and wills added to the advancement of Celtic studies? What was a novice like I to make of the whole debate?

When we read the ancient authors who do we need to believe? When we read the works of modern day scholars, who is right and who is wrong? To what degree do we take the work and word of the archaeologist? Throw into the ring the linguist and ethnographer, and you have a diverse yet largely fractured view of Celtic history.

For someone relatively new to reading ancient scholarship this debate proved to be a largely meaningless excursion away from the heart of what I wanted to learn about Celtic history. Yet it proved that no area of life is exempt from the vagaries of human emotion. Indeed a lot of what was written seemed to side-step issues of Celtic studies and move into more personal arenas.

Despite an initial reservation about writing an essay based on subject matter such as this, I felt it necessary and in doing so I endeavoured to put into perspective some of the claims and counter-claims that had been made by the parties concerned.

After all having come from a brief background of studying Roman, Greek and Near Eastern history, I was amazed by the differences of opinion toward elements of Celtic history. Roman, Greek and Near Eastern scholarship appeared to be laid upon a solid foundation of agreement, and in less need of debate. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in any historic context. Needless to say, it is the existence of a wealth of accepted primary source material relating to Roman, Greek and Near Eastern ancient history that allows it the luxury of historic stability. Whereas the absence of primary source material only adds to the divergent nature of compiling Celtic ancient history.

It should be said that at no time would I argue that people concerned with documenting Celtic history are guilty of not being passionate about their field of expertise. It would be hard to reconcile the thought of one scholar opposing another on the basis of anything other than solid evidence. Rather I advocate a manner of working together that channels this passion into a united force toward the documentation of Celtic history.

In the course of this paper I will argue that it is the amalgam of all sources of evidence, viz.; archaeological, linguistic, written, ethnographical et al, that lays the foundation for a clearer, more concise picture of ancient Celtic existence, indeed any existence for that matter. It would appear that a reluctance to acknowledge fully the contribution of each means of evidence, is what lies at the heart of the current debate.

The amalgamation of archaeological, linguistic, anthropological, ethnographical and written material, ensures that it is then the reader's objective to discern what is relevant and what is superfluous. Given the dearth of source material in Celtic studies, as opposed to say Greek, Roman, or Near Eastern, it would appear that a united and concerted effort on the part of practitioners from each of the disciplines would be the most prudent way to approach the notion of Celtic scholarship. This, as Patrick Sims Williams points out, is easier said than done.

I would not for one minute argue against debate among scholars. It is debate which often clears muddied waters. I do believe it is problematic that in the case of the debate to which I aforementioned referred, that there appears such strong opposition among the different areas of research. That at times it can appear as though there are forces working in distinct opposition, rather than in conjunction, with one another. Diversity is healthy, but unity is the means to a more productive end. Why do art historians Megaw and Megaw disagree with archaeologist Collis? Or linguist Sims-Williams with ethnographer James? Why does James and Collis find fault with Megaw and Megaw? Why is Chapman seen as a saint by some and a sinner by others? Are what these people advocating really off the mark?

We witness calls by Collis for changing the nomenclature by which we identify the peoples aforementioned as the "Celts". We find scholars opposed to the blanket use of the term "Celt" to identify those people inhabiting northern Europe in the period 400 BC onwards (Chapman, 1992; James, 1998; Collis, 1997; Cunliffe, 1997). Others who take issue with the idea that people calling themselves Celts inhabited Britain (Ross, 1974). Renfrew (1996: p. 128) argues that the Celts "never existed in any meaningful sense", yet believes that Celtic language speakers arrived in Britain in 4500 BC. Of course Renfrew is making a distinction between linguistics and the notion that the Celts probably didn't refer to themselves as Celts.

What though, is being achieved by these divergent opinions. It would appear that a notion of working to prove, rather than to disprove a theory would be the way forward toward a better understanding and acceptance of what constitutes Celtic history or the history of the Celts.

For people who left little in the way of written records, or evidence of a common language, what can we expect? We rely on Caesar's word alone to put Celts in Britain in 1^st Century AD and that word being one that draws upon his perceived notion of similarities between the people of Gaul and Britain. Yet, if scholars, like John Collis (1997: p. 196) for example, choose to take issue with Caesar's account based on their belief that it may not be an accurate assumption that these inhabitants of Britain were much like those inhabitants of Gaul, then it dispenses with the only tangible record that we have for that time advocating that belief. There is very little reason to suspect that Caesar was wrong. So why are there challenges made to his depiction of events when there is little to base these challenges upon. It is not enough to say Caesar has no basis to form this opinion, any more than it is plausible to say he was probably correct in what he says. The fact is that he has recorded an observation that, if taken in the context of his writings in general, leaves no reason for not believing him. After all what was he to gain by making this statement?

Collis bases his beliefs upon statements by Powell, Megaw & Megaw and James that "no ancient author refers to Celts in Britain or Ireland" (1997: p. 196). Which is true, if attributed to these four historians at least. They do point out that Caesar makes no explicit reference to the Celts by name. However, that Caesar makes no explicit reference to the Celts is immaterial, because it is accepted that the Gauls of modern day France to which Caesar refers were interchangeably known as Celt, Keltoi (Green, 1995: p. 4) and Celtae (Merriman, 1987: p. 113). Sims-Williams (1998, p. 21) and Cunliffe (1979: p. 8) concur that the term Celts "derives from Greek Keltoi and Latin Celti or Celtae" and Sims-Williams acknowledges interchangeable uses of the terms Keltoi, Galatai and Galli. In addition he writes that it is seemingly "impossible to detect any original distinctions between" these terms (1998: ibid.). Therefore there is agreement on at least this point among scholars: the Romans and the Greeks named people who were not Roman or Greek as "others", or "barbarians", or variously as Keltoi, Celti, Galatai, Galli or Celtae.

There is therefore something missed by Collis that ties the whole notion of Celts into various groups of people all being somewhat similar in physical appearance but living at various locations throughout northern Europe. Collis' ideas seem to be an example of him reading more or less into something than is necessarily warranted, and not taking terms on face value.

Much earlier in history we have Herodotus' account of Keltoi at the mouth of the Danube (Book II: p. 98). In addition there is Hecataeus' writings. Herodotus' writings are widely accepted in historical Greek scholarship as being mostly reliable. He is variously known as the "Father of History", and also for his "pro-Athenian bias". Like him or loathe him, and he has his admirers and detractors, Herodotus is one of histories' few windows on the world for that time. His curriculum vitae is impressive. It is believed that he travelled widely and wrote ostensibly for a pan-Hellenic audience (Histories: p. x-xii). However, there are gaps in what is known about the person and some cynics might say that he wrote what his friends wanted to hear. Put another way, it might be construed that he wrote favorably to the highest bidder. After all he was courted by the Greeks and had lavish gifts thrust upon his person.

Collis has a problem with Herodotus' depiction of Celts living "outside the Pillars of Herakles, and that the Danube rose in their territory" (1997: p. 196). And so too does Sims-Williams, for that matter (1998: pp. 22-23). Sims-Williams appears to give him the benefit of the doubt, yet Collis is not so forgiving.

It is most likely arrogance and the belief of Celts as barbarians that is behind Herodotus' writing. Another theory that stems from the idea of Celts as barbarians is that as barbarians the Celts would have been seen as inferior by the Greeks and therefore as warranting only a passing mention. There is no reason to believe that there is anything else to be read into what Herodotus has written about the Celts.

Another idea is the notion that Herodotus existed in a time where geographical mapping was not an overly reliable means of record. This and the idea that the Celts were seen as entertaining barbarians makes most sense. The notion of poor geography is addressed at a later time in this essay.

Merriman (1987: pp. 111-112) puts a different spin on the theory by stating that the Celts indeed called themselves "something approximating to the Greek 'keltoi'." He uses as his sources Herodotus and Hecataeus of Miletus, and variously Strabo, Posidonius, Diodorus, Livy, Caesar and Tacitus. We know that Herodotus wrote in his day, hence the term chronicler. Hecataeus, as Herodotus' predecessor, probably provided some inspiration to Herodotus' work (1994: p. xvii). Herodotus makes two references to the Celts, and both references refer to their geographical proximity to the Danube (ibid.: pp. 98 & 232). Hecataeus describes Massalia as "having been founded in the land of the Ligurians near the land of the Celts" (Merriman, 1987: p. 111).

Green (1995: p. 4) tells us that "Livy and Polybius chronicle the expansion of the Celts during the fourth and third centuries". Of course these writers wrote in a later period to which they referred and it is presumed used sources that may have themselves used previous sources. Livy and Polybius (1979: pp. 124-147) both refer to the Roman defeat of the Celts in the later half of the third century BC. There is little to suggest that Caesar, Herodotus and Hecataeus were telling the truth and that Livy and Polybius were doing the same. However, there is also little to suggest they weren't. At the very least there should be something said about the fact that these ancient writings, having survived this far, are our only historical chronicles for the time.

The context in which they mention the Celts, proves the existence of a group of people who were known (even in the writer's own interpretation) as the Celts or people who spoke a Celtic language. These writings can be viewed with scepticism, however blanket dismissals are unproductive. Just as modern day scholars make conflicting interpretations of the writings of ancient scholars, it must be remembered that modern day scholars also have conflicting interpretations about the writings of other modern day scholars. Put simply, there is always going to be opposition, conflict, liberal and narrow interpretation, and concurrence, within any or all of the disparate branches of scholarship. Indeed there will always be a notion of rivalry among the various disciplines. I keep getting back to Fitzpatrick's notion of every branch working together.

Sims-Williams, for the most part sees little wrong with what Herodotus is saying. Furthermore, he views the writings of Hecataeus (Herodotus' mentor and thus possibly the source of at least some of Herodotus' writings) as reliable on the proviso the writings have been correctly reported in antiquity. Despite this caveat Sims-Williams positively puts the Celts at various places mentioned in Hecataeus' and Herodotus' writings. On the issue of Herodotus' geographical positioning of the Danube, while thought flawed in the modern context (with the help of aerial mapping etc.), is consistent with geographical mapping in general for that time. A example of brave, yet inconsistent geographical mapping can be found in the work of Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) 400-500 years later. It is commonly accepted that it was Ptolemy's overstatement of the land mass from Spain to China and the miscalculation of the size of the ocean in between, that led to Columbus' epic voyage of discovery in 1492. Therefore in the context of geography for Herodotus' time, it may be somewhat harsh on the part of Collis (1997: p.196) to be sceptical of Herodotus' geographical integrity, which can be the only feasible difficulty one can have with what Herodotus has written on the Celts.

In their original paper, Megaw and Megaw based their accusation of "some English archaeologists" who would deny a "Celticity of ancient Europe", on a platform of politics (James, 1998: p. 200). Megaw and Megaw write of an "anti-European mentality", and "internal challenges to United Kingdom sovereignty throughout 25 years of armed strife in North Ireland" (1996: p. 179), as being the basis of a conspiracy to deny the existence of the Celts in Europe.

Whatever political side one chooses to support, or which side of the fence one sits on matters of Northern Ireland. Or what political agenda shapes modern life, there can be no place in archaeology or history for that matter for a reliance on modern politics to put into focus ancient historical events. The playing arenas are so different, so clouded by the 2000-odd years that separate the Celts in Europe from the present. So why would the Megaws choose to explore this angle, what is it that moved them to believe a conspiracy was at work?

James believes that the "conspiracy" is in essence a challenge to a "blanket" use of the word "Celts" to identify the groups of peoples that populated various parts of what is now known as Europe (1998: p. 201). There is merit in what James says, and indeed, his views are supported by Collis (1997: p. 196); Green (1995: p. 3); Renfrew (1996: p. 128); Sims-Williams (1998) and others. However, distinction must be made as to what one means by the term blanket. If it is used as Collis believes to cobble together anything remotely connected to the idea of Celticity, or as Sims-Williams says, to sell books (1998: p. 1), then there is a problem and the notion of the mis-use of the nomenclature "Celts", is correct. If however, the evidence for the existence of Celts is based on primary evidence, such as Caesar, Herodotus or Hecataeus, or the distribution of La Tène and Hallstatt material culture throughout parts of Europe in conjunction with burial practices feasibly linked to Celtic speaking peoples, then there is no harm in using this as the basis of history until it can be further proved or disproved. The notion of writing off a theory or evidence based on conflicting methodologies is problematic.

There is no harm in generalizations if the generalizations are well-meaning. When Green tells us that "early linguistic evidence for the Celts is extremely sparse before the Roman period", because Celts were "virtually non-literate" (1995: p. 4), this opinion has been formed because of an absence of written material to prove otherwise. It uses as a benchmark Roman and Greek history and its abundance of material. The appearance of Celtic place and personal names, coins and inscriptions after 600 BC, gives a small indication of the extent to which the Celts used language and writing. It is by no means on par with that of Roman and Greek sources, yet it is treated as dubious evidence. It would be more productive to agree on the notion of what is available than to dismiss the evidence altogether.

John Collis takes issue with the use of the terms "Celts" and "Celtic" as used by T. G. E. Powell in 1958. This view is supported by Simon James for reasons that appear to be little more than, as he writes, (1998: p. 204) to "distance" himself from the "perceived error" of Celticity in the pre-Chapman era. His need for a "clear and powerful rejection of old attitudes and assumptions" is not a problem in itself - it is the dismissal of the "old attitudes and assumptions" per se that presents a problem. Would it be wrong to assume that within the divergent disciplines studying Celtic history (archaeological, linguistic, written, and ethnographical) there are distinctions to be made among what is believed by new school and old school scholars? Is it a case of Simon James becoming bored with old concepts and seeking a fresh way of interpreting things?

These ideas have the propensity of stripping Celtic studies down to a state of who is right and who is wrong, rather than the more constructive acceptance of how to marry each divergent discipline into a unified, central construct. Simon James is quoted as saying that "Iron Age archaeologists in Britain and Ireland 'no longer see the Celtic paradigm as very useful' (1998: p. 2)." James sees archaeologists "entering a phase of what he calls 'post-Celticism'", where the new catchphrase to label the discipline is essential but as yet, undiscovered. It seems by James' reckoning that we are stuck with 'post-Celticism' until someone comes up with a more appropriate term. Why a new term, anyway? Is changing the name of Celtic History to a post-Celtic term as pertinent or relevant to its further study, than maybe studying its history further? Simply put what is more important: is it the name or what the name represents?

Sims-Williams points out that the debate is centred around the notions of generalizations. It can be argued that most theories are essentially based on generalizations, given that it is often difficult and time consuming to base a theory on a small sample. That is how theories attain widespread acceptance. The idea however is to disseminate between what is worthy of acknowledgement and what is not. The combined and unified acceptance of both scholarly and archaeological material, encompassing both pan-Celtic and post-Celtic theories, such as that which Fitzpatrick (1996) espouses, would appear to be a logical tack for the debate to take.

It would seem that by and large Simon James finds it problematic that generalizations formed by archaeologists and historians impede what is of scholarly substance and what is folly. He might put this down to the proliferation of Celtic books, some of dubious merit, that have swamped the bookshelves in the past few years. Nevertheless, it must be left up to the public to decide what is worthwhile and what is not. Time will separate the dross from the diamonds just as Sims-Williams has added illuminated insight to a dark, dreary chapter of Celtic historical debate with his paper Celtomania and Celtoscepticism.

There are a number of facts that cannot be refuted with regard to the notion of Celticity. It is widely accepted that the Iron Age peoples who inhabited parts of modern day France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and Britain herewith called the "Celts" for matters of simplicity, had no name for themselves in terms of the use of a linguistic term like "Celts". Green (1995: p. 3) understands that it was the "observers from the Mediterranean lands of Greece and Rome who called their northern neighbours Celts". Many would, and do concur with Green's understanding of matters. Nevertheless, blanket assumptions aside, there is too much evidence to merely suggest that there were not large groups of people bearing similarities in physical and linguistic make-up. There is written accounts of a Celtic people; examples of material culture that can be tied to many different regions of Europe at any one time; notions that groups of people spoke similar languages and looked and lived similarly; people who lived and worshipped the same Gods; people who farmed their lands using tools that cross many hundreds of years of agriculture.

There is too much evidence to refute the existence of a Celtic-speaking peoples. It is only that this 'abundance' of evidence palls into insignificance when viewed against the 'bevy' of Greco-Roman or Near Eastern material evidence. It would seem pointless for the dedicated persons researching Iron Age history to get caught up in petty definitions, for the sake of being different. A united and concerted approach to the building of the Celtic past must be a more productive avenue of research.

• Chapman, M. (1992). The Celts: the construction of a myth. London: Macmillan
• Collis, J. in Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. & Gamble, C. (eds.) (1996) Cultural Identity & Archaeology - The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge
• Collis, J. (1997). Celtic myths. Antiquity. 71: p. 195-201
• Cunliffe, B. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Cunliffe, B. (1979). The Celtic World. London: The Bodley Head Limited
• Fitzpatrick, A. in Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. & Gamble, C. (eds.) (1996) Cultural Identity & Archaeology - The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge
• Green, M. J. in Green, M. (ed). (1995). The Celtic World. London: Routledge
• Herodotus. in de Sélincourt, A. (trans.) (1996). The Histories. London: Penguin
• James, S. (1998). Celts, politics and motivation in archaeology. Antiquity. 72: pp. 200-209
• Megaw, J. V. S. & Megaw, M. R. (1996). Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity. Antiquity. 70: pp. 175-181
• Merriman, N. in Hodder, I. (ed.) (1987). The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning. London: Cambridge University Press
• Polybius. in Scott-Kilvert, I. (trans.) (1979). The Rise of the Roman Empire. Middlesex: Penguin
• Renfrew, C. in Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. & Gamble, C. (eds.) (1996) Cultural Identity & Archaeology - The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge
• Ross, A. (1974). Pagan Celtic Britain. London: Cardinal
• Sims-Williams, P. (1998). Celtomania and Celtoscepticism. Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies. Aberystwyth: CMCS