Celtic Coins in Britain
Aidan J Meehan
John Hooker <wri...@writer2001.com> wrote in message
news:385D0CA7...@writer2001.com...
>
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
> > Yep, without any doubt there was Celtic rule in SE Britain in the first
century
> > BCE. I don't see how this implies that mainland immigrants were the
majority
> > population,
>
[snip stuff about Brittany]
[snip stuff about Germany]
[snip more about Brittany]
[snip more irrelevancy]
> Caesar stated that the population of Britain "is exceedingly large,
> the ground thickly studded with homesteads, closely resembling those
> of the Gauls" (V.12) he does say that the interior is inhabited "by
> people who claim, on the strength of an oral tradition, to be
> aboriginal",
Iron age dwellings in ancient Gaul and Britain resemble similar dwellings in
Africa.
Iron age dwellings resemble iron age dwellings anywhere, any period of
history.
[snip as irellevant, as if Caesar depended on Druids for information!]
> So it follows that the Celtic population in Britain would have been
> vastly greater than that of Armorica. Allen estimated that more than a
> million gold staters were minted by Cunobelin (this from the number of
> dies combined with estimates of die survival during the minting
> process) These coins mostly stayed in Trinovantian territory, they
> were not trade items. A very small percentage have survived.
Who is Cunobelin?
[snip personal speculations]
[snip rant about anti-celtic archeoligists]
[snip rant of lack of appreciation of numismatists]
> > and it certainly says nothing about the non-coin-using majority of
> > Britons in the rest of the island.
[snip weasling]
> Also, British Celtic coin use is not restricted to the South East,
> although attention has been given to that area by reason of it being
> the focus of Colin Haselgrove's work. He does also give coin phases
> for south western, southern, western, eastern, east Anglian and north
> eastern zones of coin use. Jeffrey May has written on Celtic coin use
> in Yorkshire. A recent work and one that is very useful for the
> subject is "Celtic Coinage: Britain and beyond, the 11th Oxford
> symposium on coinage and monetary history" (BAR British series 222,
> 1992).
So, some celtic coins were found in some parts of Britain? Doug?
[snip]
[snip]
> I have only dealt with a
> very tiny part here.
[snip]
So, you had your chance, and what did you produce, some in south east
Britain, where we know there was Gaulish contact in the last centuries of
the first millenium, maybe some in Yorkshire, as Doug already pointed out,
"without any doubt there was Celtic rule in SE Britain in the first century
BCE. I ?
No mention of Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, then?
I didn't really think so.
Aidan
John Hooker
Aidan J Meehan wrote:
> Who is Cunobelin?
So you have not actually read anything about this period then?
Cunobelin (The hound of the god Belinus) was the king of the
Trinovantes. His capital was Camulodunum (Colchester, Essex), He also
had Verolamium (St. Albans, Hertfordshire) He held considerable
political power in Britain. "Suetonius could call him Britannorum
rex"--(Sheppard Frere, Britannia, 1967) He had a Celtic name that
refers to a Celtic god, and he issued a huge number of Celtic coins,
some of which called him the son of Tasciovanus -- another important
Celtic king.
> > Also, British Celtic coin use is not restricted to the South East,
> > although attention has been given to that area by reason of it being
> > the focus of Colin Haselgrove's work. He does also give coin phases
> > for south western, southern, western, eastern, east Anglian and north
> > eastern zones of coin use. Jeffrey May has written on Celtic coin use
> > in Yorkshire. A recent work and one that is very useful for the
> > subject is "Celtic Coinage: Britain and beyond, the 11th Oxford
> > symposium on coinage and monetary history" (BAR British series 222,
> > 1992).
>
> So, some celtic coins were found in some parts of Britain? Doug?
> So, you had your chance, and what did you produce, some in south east
> Britain, where we know there was Gaulish contact in the last centuries of
> the first millenium, maybe some in Yorkshire, as Doug already pointed out,
> "without any doubt there was Celtic rule in SE Britain in the first century
> BCE. I ?
>
> No mention of Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, then?
>
> I didn't really think so.
You are really not paying attention. There is nothing I can do about
that other than repeat what I have already said, or direct you to read
what you quote here.
(hint: think of a compass)
Give up?
O.K. I'll tell. More English counties have Celtic coins in their
archaeological record than do not, and most of them are from fairly
local mints.
As the answer to the last comment is not quoted, I will repeat, and
elaborate, on what I have said: Early coin use among Celts depends on
their military relationship with the classical world, or on their
relationship with other tribes that had a military relationship with
the classical world. The Bellovaci never struck coins, nor did the
Brigantes. The Parisii in England never struck coins, but the Parisii
in France did. You see, it doesn't have a direct bearing on whether
they were Celtic or not. Later coin use was based more on an economic
connection with the classical world, or with tribes that had such a
connection.
Regards,
John
--
Visit our Website at http://www.writer2001.com
Coriosolite Expert System...Animation...Poetry...Books
Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
Technical Writing...Graphics...Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
C. Gwinn
Do you know if there were coins struck around the area of Bregenz,
Switerland or Briancon, France? Both were tribal settlements of continental
Brigantes.
John Hooker
Chris,
Tough one!
Somewhat north of there in Haute-Savoie there are some gold coins
attributed to the gold producing tribe of the Salassi, and Allen in
"The Coins of the Ancient Celts" says: "six legends are known: Ases
(or Asem), Prikou (the Brigantes root again), Ulkos, Anatikou,
Kasiloi, and Kat.." He identifies them as a succession of names.
I can't find a tribal name exactly at the places you mention, although
the Medulli might be one candidate, but the largest tribe in the
general region was the Allobroges -- I don't know if the latter part
of that name is significant in this context. This tribe was defeated
by Cn Domitius Ahenobarbus in 121 B.C. (I used to have a coin of his
depicting -- as a subsidiary device -- a dog attacking a soldier)
Later hunting dogs were listed as an export of the British Brigantes I
believe. Yes -- a tenuous connection at best! two other tribes are
mentioned by Allen for the area, the Vocontii and the Cavares.
A number of gold copies of Alexander III staters follows a line from
the Great St Bernard pass to the territory of the Salassi and Allen
says "This attests a tribe, of which there is other evidence, between
the Boii and north Italy.
I cannot find any coins provenanced to either Bregenz or Briancon, but
the records are not great, and if they were gold coins, they would not
generally be found at settlement sites anyway.
A number of Swiss types are rather generic copies of the stater of
Phillip II and do not yield much information thus.
Sorry I cannot be of more help.
Doug Weller
>
> > Caesar stated that the population of Britain "is exceedingly large,
> > the ground thickly studded with homesteads, closely resembling those
> > of the Gauls" (V.12) he does say that the interior is inhabited "by
> > people who claim, on the strength of an oral tradition, to be
> > aboriginal",
>
> Iron age dwellings in ancient Gaul and Britain resemble similar dwellings in
> Africa.
> Iron age dwellings resemble iron age dwellings anywhere, any period of
> history.
In fact there are some important distinctions, important at least to this
discussion. Among the major features of British Iron Age archaeology are
circular or ovoid round houses, very different from the rectangular continental
houses found in the Celtic French and German homelands. Nor do we find, says
James, "wholesale transfers of farming regimes and of beliefs and social
practices, such as imported burial rites (like the 'flat cemeteries' common in
the 'homelands'." Where there have been accepted Celtic intrusions, such as
that into the Po valley, these alien traditions are clearly present. Even where
there are some similarities, such as in some Yorkshire cemeteries, we find major
differences such as the positioning of the bodies.
[SNIP]]
>
> > > and it certainly says nothing about the non-coin-using majority of
> > > Britons in the rest of the island.
>
> [snip weasling]
>
> > Also, British Celtic coin use is not restricted to the South East,
> > although attention has been given to that area by reason of it being
> > the focus of Colin Haselgrove's work. He does also give coin phases
> > for south western, southern, western, eastern, east Anglian and north
> > eastern zones of coin use. Jeffrey May has written on Celtic coin use
> > in Yorkshire. A recent work and one that is very useful for the
> > subject is "Celtic Coinage: Britain and beyond, the 11th Oxford
> > symposium on coinage and monetary history" (BAR British series 222,
> > 1992).
>
> So, some celtic coins were found in some parts of Britain? Doug?
>
I haven't read this BAR report. Coin use is certainly concentrated in SE
Britain, and starts around the early 2nd century BCE. It isn't just Hazelgrove
of course, before him there were other writers, eg Hodder, Kimes, Sellwood..
>
> So, you had your chance, and what did you produce, some in south east
> Britain, where we know there was Gaulish contact in the last centuries of
> the first millenium, maybe some in Yorkshire, as Doug already pointed out,
> "without any doubt there was Celtic rule in SE Britain in the first century
> BCE. I ?
>
> No mention of Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, then?
>
In any case, John appears to be saying that early coin use does not depend upon
whether the group using coins was Celtic, but upon trade relationships. If they
copied the art form of the coins in other areas, that wouldn't be surprising.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
> In fact there are some important distinctions, important at least to this
> discussion. Among the major features of British Iron Age archaeology are
> circular or ovoid round houses, very different from the rectangular continental
> houses found in the Celtic French and German homelands. Nor do we find, says
> James, "wholesale transfers of farming regimes and of beliefs and social
> practices, such as imported burial rites (like the 'flat cemeteries' common in
> the 'homelands'." Where there have been accepted Celtic intrusions, such as
> that into the Po valley, these alien traditions are clearly present. Even where
> there are some similarities, such as in some Yorkshire cemeteries, we find major
> differences such as the positioning of the bodies.
There is really no reason that house structures should change. The
traditions, types of material used, and factors of environment and
climate favor a more localized industry. The house types on the
continent were similar enough to those that existed before La Tene
Celts entered that area, so what we really should be saying is that
the Celts had no reason to affect a new architecture, and especially
one that would have originated with them in a very different
environment than western Europe.
James is just plain wrong on his statement about beliefs and social
practices, unless he has restricted his view to include only a few
aspects of these subjects.
> In any case, John appears to be saying that early coin use does not depend upon
> whether the group using coins was Celtic, but upon trade relationships. If they
> copied the art form of the coins in other areas, that wouldn't be surprising.
Coins were not used for inter tribal trade. The increase in Roman
trade to Trinovantian areas, and the resulting possibilities of local
purchases made for an environment in which a number of low value
copper denominations would be needed. Most of these types show every
indication of having been designed and made by artisans that came with
the trade, certainly Romans and perhaps Greeks. The situation is
rather different in Atrebatic areas, and the greatest number of
smaller denomination coins were found at a temple site -- these being
silver. The very small denominations of these might have had a similar
value to the copper coins of the Trinovantes, as the latter never had
this tiny silver denomination. The earlier gold coins had more to do
with political and military matters, they were not spent on goods.
The British Celtic style coins are not copies of continental issues,
but rather show an evolution of design, that started on the continent.
There is, in the choices made by British Celtic celators about the use
of symbols, design elements, and the compositional factors of these,
very clear evidence of the religious and artistic tenets of the Celts.
It is often the lack of this type of understanding that art historians
use to establish the fact of copying, because this is not communicated
whatsoever by copyists of any art form, even in today's world. The
only British Celtic coins that are copies are the potin issues known
as the Thurrock type. These are versions of other copies that are
found northwards along the Loire from the Massilia area, and are
copies of some Greek coins of Massilia. The evolution of Celtic coin
design is really no different in England than it is on the continent,
with the exception of Armorica where the work is of a higher order.
If there is new data about how to distinguish original and
evolutionary art from copies of such, I would like to hear it, but I
can't imagine what it would be. With regard to the art on Celtic
coins, I have done the most detailed work on this subject. With the
exception of the general changes in Gallo-Belgic coinage and the first
British issues, all other studies have used devices on individual
coins to interpret the art and iconography. I have not only studied
sequences of die production (as opposed to die use), but I also
developed the only method for doing this.
At some point in the new year I will be putting my book on-line. Being
so specialized, it is unlikely to sell enough copies to make it
commercially viable for mainstream publishers. Spink's said as much to
me. Their reviewer said that is was important, and that it was the
most comprehensive and detailed study of a Celtic coinage that he had
seen.
It is a shame that too few archaeologist who claim knowledge about the
late pre-Roman Iron Age study the coins, and that even fewer study the
nature of the art and iconography in combination. Philip de Jersey (at
the Celtic Coin Index at Oxford) told me that the subject of Celtic
coins is not taught in British universities, so it is not too
surprising.
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
> > In fact there are some important distinctions, important at least to this
> > discussion. Among the major features of British Iron Age archaeology are
> > circular or ovoid round houses, very different from the rectangular continental
> > houses found in the Celtic French and German homelands. Nor do we find, says
> > James, "wholesale transfers of farming regimes and of beliefs and social
> > practices, such as imported burial rites (like the 'flat cemeteries' common in
> > the 'homelands'." Where there have been accepted Celtic intrusions, such as
> > that into the Po valley, these alien traditions are clearly present. Even where
> > there are some similarities, such as in some Yorkshire cemeteries, we find major
> > differences such as the positioning of the bodies.
>
> There is really no reason that house structures should change. The
> traditions, types of material used, and factors of environment and
> climate favor a more localized industry. The house types on the
> continent were similar enough to those that existed before La Tene
> Celts entered that area, so what we really should be saying is that
> the Celts had no reason to affect a new architecture, and especially
> one that would have originated with them in a very different
> environment than western Europe.
>
There's no reason why house structures should change unless there are different
people building the houses. So long as you are agreeing that the local people
aren't being replaced wholesale by Celts from the European mainland, we don't
disagree. And of course this is what the other evidence suggests.
[SNIPPED the coin stuff, which is not particularly relevant to what I'm
discussing].
Doug
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
> > There is really no reason that house structures should change. The
> > traditions, types of material used, and factors of environment and
> > climate favor a more localized industry. The house types on the
> > continent were similar enough to those that existed before La Tene
> > Celts entered that area, so what we really should be saying is that
> > the Celts had no reason to affect a new architecture, and especially
> > one that would have originated with them in a very different
> > environment than western Europe.
> >
>
> There's no reason why house structures should change unless there are different
> people building the houses. So long as you are agreeing that the local people
> aren't being replaced wholesale by Celts from the European mainland, we don't
> disagree. And of course this is what the other evidence suggests.
Invasions rarely, if ever, involve replacing populations for menial
tasks. The house evidence is no evidence at all.
> [SNIPPED the coin stuff, which is not particularly relevant to what I'm
> discussing].
>
That's because you don't seem interested in the complete picture. If
you choose to avoid one type of evidence, especially a numerically
stronger form of evidence (more than thirty thousand examples in
England), then a different picture will ensue.
If there was a strong indigenous British culture as apart from the
Celtic in the four centuries preceding the invasion, then what was
their iconography, religious beliefs, language, names of tribes, or
native art form? Surely you cannot define an ethos on the basis of
pots and houses alone -- The Athenians and the Corinthians were both
Greek, but they had a different style of pottery.
I used coins as a statistically valid group of artifacts on which to
examine the culture, and I combined this with the study of other
decorated artifacts. Decoration can tell more than construction (which
relies on easily learnable technique). Also both coins and decorated
artifacts give evidence of their pattern of thought and
Weltanschauung, and this is more essential to a deeper understanding
of cultures, than are their mundane objects.
Regards,
John
Doug Weller
> If there was a strong indigenous British culture as apart from the
> Celtic in the four centuries preceding the invasion, then what was
> their iconography, religious beliefs, language, names of tribes, or
> native art form?
>
Age British culture.
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <38653F3E...@writer2001.com>, wri...@writer2001.com says...
> > If there was a strong indigenous British culture as apart from the
> > Celtic in the four centuries preceding the invasion, then what was
> > their iconography, religious beliefs, language, names of tribes, or
> > native art form?
> >
> Which invasion? And the last thing I am claiming is some homogenous early Iron
> Age British culture.
We don't have evidence one way or the other about invasion(s), but
given the type of society at the time, we might have a variety of
arrivals, from movements of people from their home tribe on the
continent to their British territory (as we know happened with
Commios), a mass exodus consisting of about half the wealth of a tribe
(as what seems to have happened with the "Armoricaine emigres" leaving
their homeland close to the Seubi, and moving to Armorica, thus
allowing the subsequent movement of the Treviri into their homeland,
raiding parties that stayed, migrants offering some support in return
for land, and many other possibilities.
This is the way it seems to work almost everywhere. I'd bet that a
number of people who though of themselves as either Roman or Celtic in
the 5th century soon started naming their children with Saxon names
when the politics started to swing that way, just as some immigrants
from eastern Europe into the U.S. affected English sounding last names
and gave their children American first names.
The variations in the archaeological record in Britain are no more
diverse than can be found in the Celtic areas of the continent, but it
is sounder, in my opinion, to base definitions of culture on the
creative areas of life such as language, art, and religion. In the
three or four centuries prior to the conquest (and even after the
conquest in many outlying areas) this was Celtic.
Aidan J Meehan
> > >
> > Which invasion? And the last thing I am claiming is some homogenous
early Iron
> > Age British culture.
> The variations in the archaeological record in Britain are no more
> diverse than can be found in the Celtic areas of the continent, but it
> is sounder, in my opinion, to base definitions of culture on the
> creative areas of life such as language, art, and religion. In the
> three or four centuries prior to the conquest (and even after the
> conquest in many outlying areas) this was Celtic.
Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts and
religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a scientific
term.
Aidan
Conrad Jay Bladey "Peasant"
a scientific term.
I have seen it used by many professional archeologists.
I would however, say that its utility is limited due to
the fact
that it is extremely broad and applies to a constelation
of
sub cultures, styles etc.... extending right down to
Aidan....
Just remember one thing:
Archeologists have never found basket balls or hoops or
basket
ball courts or any associated artifacts. But, they all
assure me
that when they do they will change the official
pronunciation from:
"Keltic"
to
"Selltic"
As in Boston Celtics the basketball team.
Keep that in mind.
Conrad
--
###################################################################
And a Merry Christmas to Each and Every One!
Stop by our Christmas Card!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2553/christmascard.html
As is OUR custom we extend the hospitality of the
Christmas Season to
Each and Every One. Send us an e.mail and arrange to
stop in!
cbl...@mail.bcpl.net
Don't be shy! Christmas has always been a time of
sharing! Join in!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
John Hooker
> > Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts and
> > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
> > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a scientific
> > term.
Conrad Jay Bladey \"Peasant\" wrote:
>
> I would not go as far as to say that Celt/Celtic is not
> a scientific term.
> I have seen it used by many professional archeologists.
> I would however, say that its utility is limited due to
> the fact
> that it is extremely broad and applies to a constelation
> of
> sub cultures, styles etc.... extending right down to
> Aidan....
Aiden, Conrad,
These distinctions are not indicative of differences in culture, they
are merely indicative of a lack of understanding about the culture. If
you want to establish that there was no unified Celtic culture, then
your investigations will cease at the point that this appears to be
true. In the case of Celtic art of the La Tene periods, we have two
unifying factors that are present in all regions and time periods. The
first is the reuse of certain motifs in similar context, and the
second is the gradual evolution of the style.
This is a holistic effect: you can see it if you take a broad look,
say, in tracking the changes from the early grave goods at
Waldalgesheim to the late mirror style in Britain, and you can also
see it by taking the work of a single Celtic artist through the time
of the production of a number of artifacts. The latter, to the best of
my knowledge, has only been done in four bodies of work: once by E. M.
Jope (The Waldalgesheim Master), and three times by myself (two series
of Coriosolite coins and one of a series formerly considered to be
Coriosolite, that I have reattributed to the Unelli). The problem with
this type of analysis is that the Celtic art that has survived is only
the tiniest proportion of what was originally made, so it is very
difficult to come up with statistically valid sets. It takes unusual
circumstances for much of this stuff to survive so long: being mainly
metalwork, what did not corrode away was melted down if it was ever
found.
The pattern seen in the broad look is affected by the movement of
artisans from one area to another. Its change is plotted against the
interplay between the number of people involved, the relative
isolation from the region of the prototype, the status and changes in
status of those doing the work, and the relative conservatism of the
local society.
Someone once said that there was no unified Celtic culture because la
Tene art does not exist in Spain. The Celts moved into Spain in the
late Hallstatt, after some initial success, they were contained and
isolated by the cultures already there. The brooch types started in a
similar style to other Hallstatt brooches from Celtic areas, and then
evolved very slowly over a long period of time. They did not become
typical La Tene brooches as the communication was impeded by the
Spanish populations.
Nevertheless, there still was some communication -- even an extremely
rare Class VI Coriosolite coin was found in Spain. These coins, the
earliest in the series, can be dated to the very first Roman campaign
in Armorica. They seem to have been carried to remote areas by groups
who did not want to stay and fight. In the large Jersey hoards they
form only 0.01 to 0.02% of the totals. In their homeland they are more
numerous, but still rare: 0.1% at Merdrignac, and 0.3% at Trebry. In
England, they are 10% of the total of the hundred Coriosolite coins
found there.
To use a few reductio ad absurdum examples, there are great
differences in the works of the painters Monet and Pissarro, yet we
have no problem in including them under the term "impressionists".
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists are all Christian regardless
of their differences, and Quebecois and Parisian are also different,
but both are French. The latter example is very appropriate to this
discussion as the French language came to Canada in the 17th century,
and because of the smaller population, it evolved at a slower rate so
that it retains many elements of 17th century French in combination
with later, local developments.
Regards,
John
--
C. Gwinn
majority non-Celtic as late as the first century A.D., we would have
linguistic remains and even survivals well into historical times - as we
have in southern Gaul with the Basque majority survivng Celtic overlordship
even today. The fact is that there IS NO non-Celtic linguistic remains in
Britain (there is nothing non-Celtic about the scant Pictish forms known to
us) - thus I believe that the Celts entered Britain much earlier and in much
greater numbers than people like Simon James, et al. would like to admit.
Doug Weller
says...
This is getting ridiculous. No one is suggesting, as you seem to think, that
even a sizable minority in Britain wasn't speaking a Celtic language in the
first century AD. Your argument seems here to boil down to since they were
indeed Celtic speaking there must have been mass Celtic migrations. No
discussion, just assertion.
C. Gwinn
> Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts and
> religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
> Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a scientific
> term.
There is not a sufficient enough distinction to mark the British and Irish
culture as non-Celtic. All later differences between the modern languages
and the ancient languages are simply due to the ravages of time and not of a
non-Celtic substrate. In fact, the ancient British and Irish languages are
close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be said to be
sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for example.
C. Gwinn
> This is getting ridiculous. No one is suggesting, as you seem to think,
that
> even a sizable minority in Britain wasn't speaking a Celtic language in
the
> first century AD. Your argument seems here to boil down to since they
were
> indeed Celtic speaking there must have been mass Celtic migrations. No
> discussion, just assertion.
You have asserted over and over again that there were small influxes of
Celts into Britain in the first century B.C., right? Would you like to
explain how these minority soldiers and perhaps a few of their Druids got
the whole island to speak Celtic in under fifty years (accepting that these
Belgic Celts must have arrived in the fifty years prior to Caesar's
expidition)? The Romans never got the whole island speaking Latin in 400
years - and they had an organized state government!
It seems to me that if there was indeed a minority of Gauls entering
Britain, in order to get the entire island to completely forsake their
native language by the time of Caesar, they would need at least as much time
there as the Romans had in Britain - and likely more, considering that
minorities rarely completely impose their language on the majority without
strong central governments.
The fact is, the evidence from the continent proves that Celts did indeed
engage in mass migrations of tribes - elderly men, women and children
included - so there is no reason to believe that Britain was the lone
exception to the rule. If soldiers did manage to go first and conquer, they
would have sent for others from the continent quite quickly. Your argument,
Doug, is really based on scant archaeological ividence and ignorance of the
anthropological data available.
Aidan J Meehan
> > Aidan J Meehan wrote:
>
> > > Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts
and
> > > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
> > > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a
scientific
> > > term.
>
> are merely indicative of a lack of understanding about the culture. If
> you want to establish that there was no unified Celtic culture, then
> your investigations will cease at the point that this appears to be
> true. In the case of Celtic art of the La Tene periods, we have two
> unifying factors that are present in all regions and time periods. The
> first is the reuse of certain motifs in similar context, and the
> second is the gradual evolution of the style.
[snip]
A lot of material - Celtic art - has survived in all sort of media. As you
say, the classification depends on a broad look, which is convenient for
purposes of classification only. That does not imply that there was a
homogenous culture of "the Celts". Even at a local level the culture breaks
down into small groups, each with their own dialects, customs, etcetera. If
there was a common Celtic culture, we would expect Celtic coinage to be
adopted throughout the culture, equally. Yet similar coinage seems to be
almost entirely absent from the archeological record, in Ireland, for
instance.
>
> The pattern seen in the broad look is affected by the movement of
> artisans from one area to another. Its change is plotted against the
> interplay between the number of people involved, the relative
> isolation from the region of the prototype, the status and changes in
> status of those doing the work, and the relative conservatism of the
> local society.
There was a lot of interchange, and movement of artisans might explain
apparent transmission of styles. Many local, and very different cultures can
share many things in common, without necessarily implying that a given
people were invaded. There was nothing as monolithic as an invading horde of
Celts moving lock, stock and barrell into Britain and Ireland, replacing the
previous culture.
>
> Someone once said that there was no unified Celtic culture because la
> Tene art does not exist in Spain. The Celts moved into Spain in the
> late Hallstatt, after some initial success, they were contained and
> isolated by the cultures already there.
[snip]
Do you know of any La Tene-style brooches in Ireland? Do you know of any
Hallstatt-style art in early Ireland?
No one is arguing that there was some communication. But "some
communication" does not imply wholesale takeover by a foreign people.
[snip]
Aidan
John Hooker
Aidan J Meehan wrote:
>
> A lot of material - Celtic art - has survived in all sort of media. As you
> say, the classification depends on a broad look, which is convenient for
> purposes of classification only. That does not imply that there was a
> homogenous culture of "the Celts". Even at a local level the culture breaks
> down into small groups, each with their own dialects, customs, etcetera. If
> there was a common Celtic culture, we would expect Celtic coinage to be
> adopted throughout the culture, equally. Yet similar coinage seems to be
> almost entirely absent from the archeological record, in Ireland, for
> instance.
Most of it is metalwork, there are very few examples of Celtic
decorated pottery, most pottery is rather humble. A few exceptions
exist such as a few nicely decorated pots from France and the Canewdon
pottery from a small part of Essex in England. There are also a few
trial bone pieces from Ireland. There is a little more in the way of
decorated stone, and one famous La Tene example from Ireland might be
compared to some in Germany.
Once you get past overall classifications and look at the art in more
detail you can see how it changed over time, and also see many
unifying features regardless of local styles. What is more important,
and more or less proves a unified culture, is that the tenets of the
art that we can reconstruct are universal, and do not change region to
region. These tenets include some evidence of a taboo on repeating
decoration unchanged, the use of decoration to be seen mainly by the
user of the object, a wonderful example is the foreshortening in the
back section of the Torrs pony cap to balance with an elongated
section at the front. The design is only balanced when viewed from the
chariot. My cow's head bucket mount was mounted to be seen by the
person using the object. This feature is far from universal in Celtic
art, but it does show up in diverse regions. The compositional
elements of Celtic art are comparable regardless of where we find the
art. It is a very complicated subject, and little studied. Celtic art
changed over time and had local variants as any culture's art does,
but it is all identifiably Celtic.
I don't know of examples of very local dialects or customs. It is not
true that we would expect coinage to be universal across tribal
boundaries as coinage was adopted by some celts but not others, and
the reasons for that adoption are many and varied. The Durotriges in
Dorset were traders and manufacturers, but their coinage was not used
in a market context. The Ambiani did not allow traders into their
country but they did have coinage, some of their neighbors on the
continent had no coins. The Trinovantes used copper coins as both
temple offerings and for purchasing local goods, but used gold
primarily for political/military matters. Some probable subsidiary
tribes of the Trinovantes had no coins. There is no relationship
between a Celtic identity and the use of coinage. It was a foreign
custom adopted by those that had use for it
> There was a lot of interchange, and movement of artisans might explain
> apparent transmission of styles. Many local, and very different cultures can
> share many things in common, without necessarily implying that a given
> people were invaded. There was nothing as monolithic as an invading horde of
> Celts moving lock, stock and barrell into Britain and Ireland, replacing the
> previous culture.
The evolution of style in any region lasted longer than the lifetime
of any artisan, and the local variant evolved in its own way, rigidly
keeping to the tenets of Celtic art. The art is most difficult and
probably took many years to master. I know of no example of a copy of
Celtic art, it had an entirely different ethos from all other
cultures. No artist from one culture has successfully copied the work
of another, even Roman art is distinguishable from the Greek art they
emulated, and renaissance copies of Roman coins look very Italian and
would not fool anyone who had knowledge of either. Modern Japanese
copies of impressionist paintings are easily identified by their
"look". In fact forgeries usually only fool people in the time that
the forgery was made (with some notable exceptions like the work of
Carl Becker who faked Greek coins in the nineteenth century)
There undoubtedly were many movements of Celtic people into Britain,
including entire tribes, and over a long period. What on earth could
have prevented them from doing in Britain what they did all over
western Europe? Celtic ships had no problems with the channel. A
widespread language means a widespread people. It is utter fantasy to
imagine that a few visitors could affect such a dramatic change in
language and religion.
>
> Do you know of any La Tene-style brooches in Ireland? Do you know of any
> Hallstatt-style art in early Ireland?
A number of la Tene brooches come from Ireland, twenty six are
mentioned by Raftery. a problem with small bronze artifacts in Ireland
is that the damp soil in not conducive to survival, although peat bogs
do a great job of preservation. The most famous style of La Tene
brooches in Ireland is the Navan, but the leaf bow are more numerous.
Hawkes placed the date of the earliest La tene style brooches in
Ireland to the 3rd century B.C., but with so few examples, and his
dependence on the absence of involuted brooches which makes the
assumption that La Tene brooches came first via Britain, and that
involuted brooches were widespread in Britain, we cannot be sure.
There are quite a number of Hallstatt style items from Ireland, some
imports and some of local manufacture. All the Hallstatt brooches are
local, only imports of a few La Tene III brooches have been found, and
these date much later than most of the Irish la Tene brooches. All the
imports are 1st cent B.C. The commonest Hallstatt bracelets are the
ribbed variety that is commonest on the continent along the Danube. a
large number of very similar types are coming out of Bulgaria over the
last year or so. They are rather different from the commoner type of
German bracelets, more massive in style, and without the linear
engraved decoration.
The later la Tene style in Ireland finds its greatest similarity in
the Torrs or Llyn Cerrig style in western Britain, and much
communication between the two areas must be assumed. It developed a
particular Irish flavour though. The earlier Irish Hallstatt, if I had
to guess an origin, would have been the Danube, and suggests a rather
early transmission.
The succession of Hallstatt to la Tene in Ireland clearly shows the
sustained communication that is apparent in other Celtic cultures, and
we see there the ongoing local variations that we find everywhere in
western Celtic lands. There is nothing about this pattern to set it
apart from the path of Celtic art in Britain, France, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland or Austria. Only Spain was different
because of considerable, but not total, isolation after the Hallstatt
period.
> No one is arguing that there was some communication. But "some
> communication" does not imply wholesale takeover by a foreign people.
The idea that there was only "some communication" is very wrong, so to
argue its implications as fact is a circular argument. More Celtic art
has survived in Britain than in Armorica -- hundreds of times the
number. Armorica was about 50% Celtic in the 1st century B.C. by
estimations of biological ethnicity. It was entirely Celtic
culturally. Britain was a much more attractive prize than Armorica,
and far more named tribes occupied smaller territories in many areas.
This attests to its attraction for massive incursions of Celtic
people. The Celts had the military might and skill to take it, and
there can be no reason imaginable as to why they would not. It was
part of their cultural make up to split up tribes and move wholesale
to new areas. Many of these movements can be plotted, and they covered
long distances.
All you really need to do is to list the evidence of both sides of the
question to see that Britain was Celtic for some hundreds of years
prior to the Roman invasion. The evidence that it was not is slight
and also very weak. Its basis is really wishful thinking, and little
else. If more archaeologists would study coins, iconography, art, and
language, they wouldn't make such claims. To include only certain
types of evidence as relevant invalidates their argument, renders it
utterly unscientific, and makes me very suspicious of their motives.
Doug Weller
says...
> You have asserted over and over again that there were small influxes of
> Celts into Britain in the first century B.C., right? Would you like to
> explain how these minority soldiers and perhaps a few of their Druids got
> the whole island to speak Celtic in under fifty years (accepting that these
> Belgic Celts must have arrived in the fifty years prior to Caesar's
> expidition)?
>
Aidan J Meehan
Surely, if it were to be viewed from the chariot, it would be the opposite,
elongated towards the viewer, to compensate for foreshortening. Cyril Fox
made this point with regards a scabbard design, as designed to be viewed as
it lay on the owner's thigh. I have not heard it mentioned in the context of
the Torrs Poney cap. Where did you read that?
>The design is only balanced when viewed from the
> chariot. My cow's head bucket mount was mounted to be seen by the
> person using the object. This feature is far from universal in Celtic
> art, but it does show up in diverse regions. The compositional
> elements of Celtic art are comparable regardless of where we find the
> art.
>It is a very complicated subject, and little studied. Celtic art
> changed over time and had local variants as any culture's art does,
> but it is all identifiably Celtic.
I am not sure that it is all that identifiably Celtic. Many of the elements
that you speak of are common to other cultures.
>
> I don't know of examples of very local dialects or customs. It is not
> true that we would expect coinage to be universal across tribal
> boundaries as coinage was adopted by some celts but not others, and
> the reasons for that adoption are many and varied. The Durotriges in
> Dorset were traders and manufacturers, but their coinage was not used
> in a market context. The Ambiani did not allow traders into their
> country but they did have coinage, some of their neighbors on the
> continent had no coins. The Trinovantes used copper coins as both
> temple offerings and for purchasing local goods, but used gold
> primarily for political/military matters. Some probable subsidiary
> tribes of the Trinovantes had no coins. There is no relationship
> between a Celtic identity and the use of coinage. It was a foreign
> custom adopted by those that had use for it
What you say about the coinage seems to indicate that, although we can
define certain coinage as Celtic, it cannot be used to support the view that
there was once a universal, homogenous Celtic culture. Some Celts used
coins, some did not. This suggests cultural variation, rather than
homogeneity. If there was a common culture, one would reasonably expect
coinage to be adopted universally throughout the domain supposedly occupied
by that people. Since there is no relationship between a Celtic identity and
the use of coinage, the same can be admitted for the adoption of any class
of artifact, which is all the archeologiat is saying: you cannot make
assumptions about a people's ethnicity or religion, or language , from
archeological remains.
>
> > There was a lot of interchange, and movement of artisans might explain
> > apparent transmission of styles. Many local, and very different cultures
can
> > share many things in common, without necessarily implying that a given
> > people were invaded. There was nothing as monolithic as an invading
horde of
> > Celts moving lock, stock and barrell into Britain and Ireland, replacing
the
> > previous culture.
>
> The evolution of style in any region lasted longer than the lifetime
> of any artisan, and the local variant evolved in its own way, rigidly
> keeping to the tenets of Celtic art. The art is most difficult and
> probably took many years to master. I know of no example of a copy of
> Celtic art, it had an entirely different ethos from all other
> cultures.
I am not sure what you mean, by copy. Weren't the coins copied, originally
from Classical coinage, and then progressively more and more abstracted the
further removed from the original models. The same goes for decorative
features such as palmettes and lyres, or the development of early Germanic
animal style from the Roman tympanum. Imitation and repetition were the
means of development of such a primitive style.
>No artist from one culture has successfully copied the work
> of another, even Roman art is distinguishable from the Greek art they
> emulated, and renaissance copies of Roman coins look very Italian and
> would not fool anyone who had knowledge of either. Modern Japanese
> copies of impressionist paintings are easily identified by their
> "look". In fact forgeries usually only fool people in the time that
> the forgery was made (with some notable exceptions like the work of
> Carl Becker who faked Greek coins in the nineteenth century)
The stylisation of Celtic art begins by poor copies of alien motifs,
improperly understood, recopied, and gradually the forms emerge into a
language of their own, with rules that arise out of conventions established
by endless repetition.
>
> There undoubtedly were many movements of Celtic people into Britain,
> including entire tribes, and over a long period.
But this is exactly what we are beginning to doubt. We have been looking for
the evidence of such, specific invasions, and found none of any consequence
early enough to account for the commonalities. There are folk myths that
attest to invasions, but no hard evidence, apart from a few isolated groups,
consistent with continuous exchange and interchange between many different,
indigenous peoples.
>What on earth could
> have prevented them from doing in Britain what they did all over
> western Europe? Celtic ships had no problems with the channel. A
> widespread language means a widespread people. It is utter fantasy to
> imagine that a few visitors could affect such a dramatic change in
> language and religion.
The same thing that prevented the Romans from occupying the whole land.
Territorial tribalism, many tribes, with many different cultures, unwilling
to federate, much less permit invasion beyond the coastal fringes. The
English language today is widespread, but that does not imply uniformity of
ethnic origins, religion, or culture throughout the English speaking world.
> >
> > Do you know of any La Tene-style brooches in Ireland? Do you know of any
> > Hallstatt-style art in early Ireland?
>
> A number of la Tene brooches come from Ireland, twenty six are
> mentioned by Raftery. a problem with small bronze artifacts in Ireland
> is that the damp soil in not conducive to survival, although peat bogs
> do a great job of preservation.
Two or three dozen? Trade would account for so few.
>The most famous style of La Tene
> brooches in Ireland is the Navan, but the leaf bow are more numerous.
There is also a famous baboon skull found at Navan, but that does not mean
there was an indigenous population of apes.
> Hawkes placed the date of the earliest La tene style brooches in
> Ireland to the 3rd century B.C., but with so few examples, and his
> dependence on the absence of involuted brooches which makes the
> assumption that La Tene brooches came first via Britain, and that
> involuted brooches were widespread in Britain, we cannot be sure.
This seems to suggest that, as with coinage, the evidence of the art, such
as La Tene, or Halstatt style, is so little represented in Ireland that, for
all intents and purposes, the Irish were a separate culture from the rest of
the Celtic-speaking peoples in Europe.
>
> There are quite a number of Hallstatt style items from Ireland, some
> imports and some of local manufacture. All the Hallstatt brooches are
> local, only imports of a few La Tene III brooches have been found, and
> these date much later than most of the Irish la Tene brooches. All the
> imports are 1st cent B.C. The commonest Hallstatt bracelets are the
> ribbed variety that is commonest on the continent along the Danube. a
> large number of very similar types are coming out of Bulgaria over the
> last year or so. They are rather different from the commoner type of
> German bracelets, more massive in style, and without the linear
> engraved decoration.
Ribbing is a very ancient style of primitive geometric pattern, a mainstay
of the Bronze age. If it is local, why class it as Hallstatt? What makes it
more Halstattian than, say, Irish?
>
> The later la Tene style in Ireland finds its greatest similarity in
> the Torrs or Llyn Cerrig style in western Britain, and much
> communication between the two areas must be assumed. It developed a
> particular Irish flavour though. The earlier Irish Hallstatt, if I had
> to guess an origin, would have been the Danube, and suggests a rather
> early transmission.
I don't see a similarity between Torrs and Llyn Cerrig style. But between
them and say, the Turoe stone, there seems to me to be quite a lot of
difference, both in style and construction. Three entirely different
schools, I would say. The Irish were raiding Wales from the second century,
and certainly there was much interchange, not only raiding, but trade.
Objects such as armour, horse trappings, fine workmanship of any sort, would
have travelled far and wide, as plunder, or as ransom for slaves, or as
diplomatic gifts, payment to troops, or dowrys in marriages. Fine objects
were treasured, and inspired local artisans. There was a common form
language throughout the crafts, throughout northern Europe. Not necessarily
invasion of one group of people by another.
>
> The succession of Hallstatt to la Tene in Ireland clearly shows the
> sustained communication that is apparent in other Celtic cultures, and
> we see there the ongoing local variations that we find everywhere in
> western Celtic lands. There is nothing about this pattern to set it
> apart from the path of Celtic art in Britain, France, Belgium,
> Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland or Austria. Only Spain was different
> because of considerable, but not total, isolation after the Hallstatt
> period.
Sustained communication over a long period of time, rather than mass
migration, or invasion.
>
> > No one is arguing that there was some communication. But "some
> > communication" does not imply wholesale takeover by a foreign people.
>
> The idea that there was only "some communication" is very wrong, so to
> argue its implications as fact is a circular argument.
So you assert. However, you seem to be arguing more effectively for some
forms of communication, whether considerable and prolonged, it does not
matter. At issue is the type of "communication". All the forms of
communication that you mention do not suggest a massive invasion of Ireland
from Britain or Gaul.
>More Celtic art
> has survived in Britain than in Armorica -- hundreds of times the
> number. Armorica was about 50% Celtic in the 1st century B.C. by
> estimations of biological ethnicity. It was entirely Celtic
> culturally. Britain was a much more attractive prize than Armorica,
> and far more named tribes occupied smaller territories in many areas.
By the end of the first millenium, the Celts were, arguably, on the verge of
extinction by the Romans. The question of invasion hinges around the history
of Britain and Ireland in the first half of the millenium. Archeologically,
there is little to suggest that the Iron age came about in the Islands as a
result of invasions by Celts from Halstatt. More likely, over a prolonged
period of time, given continuous communications throughout, certain aspects
of the art, language and culture in became adopted generally, with local
modifications, by indigenous populations, who were essentially the same
peoples who had inhabited their respective domains since the mesolithic
pioneers who first settled there. Europe was continually invaded, but not
the Islands. Few really wanted those islands, and they were never easy to
take without wholesale colonisation, as partly by the Romans, and then by
the more efficient Anglo-Saxons. These invasions left their mark. The
supposed earlier invasions, attested by myth and legend, left no mark. The
conclusion is dawning that there simply was no invasion. We need to explain
the commonality of language some other way.
> This attests to its attraction for massive incursions of Celtic
> people. The Celts had the military might and skill to take it, and
> there can be no reason imaginable as to why they would not. It was
> part of their cultural make up to split up tribes and move wholesale
> to new areas. Many of these movements can be plotted, and they covered
> long distances.
In the first half of the first millenium BCE? Apparently not. Irish
archeology is quite well established, by the way. The evidence suggests an
unbroken continuity from Bronze age through to the end of the first
millenium, when people start moving around. Irish mythology tells us the
Celts invaded and supplanted older peoples. But these legends are written in
medieval times. A century of research has not turned up any evidence to
support the myth. Perhaps it is time to consider that the myths were not
literally true.
>
> All you really need to do is to list the evidence of both sides of the
> question to see that Britain was Celtic for some hundreds of years
> prior to the Roman invasion. The evidence that it was not is slight
> and also very weak. Its basis is really wishful thinking, and little
> else. If more archaeologists would study coins, iconography, art, and
> language, they wouldn't make such claims. To include only certain
> types of evidence as relevant invalidates their argument, renders it
> utterly unscientific, and makes me very suspicious of their motives.
Britain was Celtic -in language, art and religion, a few hundred years BCE.
But any incursions that we can point to are very late, and there is record
of a mass-scale invasion that happened mid-millenium. None that left any
evidence. So, you must look for a major take over in the last centuries of
the millenium, before the Romans came. And, as we come closer to the cut-off
time, there is more and more evidence of continuity and communication, but
less likelihood of massive invasion. When, between the 6th and the 2nd did
the supposed invasion of Britain by Celts occur, exactly? What evidence is
there?
Aidan
John Hooker
Aidan J Meehan wrote:
> Surely, if it were to be viewed from the chariot, it would be the opposite,
> elongated towards the viewer, to compensate for foreshortening. Cyril Fox
> made this point with regards a scabbard design, as designed to be viewed as
> it lay on the owner's thigh. I have not heard it mentioned in the context of
> the Torrs Poney cap. Where did you read that?
The foreshortening is in the viewing of the front part of the pony
cap, that lies to the front of the pony's ears. This is elongated to
compensate for this. The back end of the pony cap is shorter (up and
down) as it is viewed head on. Cyril Fox, _Pattern and Purpose_
(p23-4).
> I am not sure that it is all that identifiably Celtic. Many of the elements
> that you speak of are common to other cultures.
This is not true, only a very few of them are found in other cultures.
Most of the Celtic design elements are very specific, as is the manner
of their variation and how they are used in conjunction with each
other.
> What you say about the coinage seems to indicate that, although we can
> define certain coinage as Celtic, it cannot be used to support the view that
> there was once a universal, homogenous Celtic culture.
The iconography of the coins proves homogeneity.
> Some Celts used
> coins, some did not. This suggests cultural variation, rather than
> homogeneity. If there was a common culture, one would reasonably expect
> coinage to be adopted universally throughout the domain supposedly occupied
> by that people. Since there is no relationship between a Celtic identity and
> the use of coinage, the same can be admitted for the adoption of any class
> of artifact, which is all the archeologiat is saying: you cannot make
> assumptions about a people's ethnicity or religion, or language , from
> archeological remains.
The use of early coinage is defined mostly by event (warfare, where
large sums would be paid for the use of troops). Later, coinage was
needed in areas of a strong market economy. Often, if not only,
because of the importation of luxury goods.
> I am not sure what you mean, by copy. Weren't the coins copied, originally
> from Classical coinage, and then progressively more and more abstracted the
> further removed from the original models. The same goes for decorative
> features such as palmettes and lyres, or the development of early Germanic
> animal style from the Roman tympanum. Imitation and repetition were the
> means of development of such a primitive style.
The coins were initially copied in from two models the stater of
Philip II of Macedon (an issue that lasted longer than Philip did) and
gold coins of Taras in Italy. Both of these were given to Celts that
fought in the various campaigns associated with Antigonas Gonatas. The
Celts used the Greek model, rather badly copied at first, and later
managed to achieve a synthesis of style with their own. The style of
Celtic coin differs from other objects like roundels, to maintain the
familiarity and identity of a coin image. Be careful of the term
"primitive" they utilized negative spaces in examples of figure-ground
reversal in a way that was not equaled until very modern times. A
sophisticated geometry is apparent in many other ways, and their
balance of composition is unexcelled.
> The stylisation of Celtic art begins by poor copies of alien motifs,
> improperly understood, recopied, and gradually the forms emerge into a
> language of their own, with rules that arise out of conventions established
> by endless repetition.
This view is long outdated (about 50 years), and it caused many errors
in coin classification that were finally realized and corrected by
paying attention to reductions in weight and fineness.
> But this is exactly what we are beginning to doubt. We have been looking for
> the evidence of such, specific invasions, and found none of any consequence
> early enough to account for the commonalities. There are folk myths that
> attest to invasions, but no hard evidence, apart from a few isolated groups,
> consistent with continuous exchange and interchange between many different,
> indigenous peoples.
Why do archaeologists believe that they can use no evidence as
evidence? This is a logical fallacy and is not accepted as legitimate
in a student's work in any science. That the archaeological record is
incomplete should make this nasty habit even more reprehensible. You
have to provide actual evidence to support your claims that the Celts
were not a majority in Britain. In other words, provide evidence that
non Celtic Britons were a majority. On our side we have a developed
Celtic language that is widespread, a unified iconography that is no
different in Britain than on the continent, and a unified art form
that uses elements in a similar manner whether the object is from
Ireland, England, France or Germany etc. We also have much evidence of
Celtic syncretism in religion both from epigraphy and Classical
authors such as Lucian. For historical evidence we have the
commentaries of Caesar that discuss much about a unified system of
belief, and a unified culture where all the tribes met in council once
a year. It goes on.
> >What on earth could
> > have prevented them from doing in Britain what they did all over
> > western Europe? Celtic ships had no problems with the channel. A
> > widespread language means a widespread people. It is utter fantasy to
> > imagine that a few visitors could affect such a dramatic change in
> > language and religion.
>
> The same thing that prevented the Romans from occupying the whole land.
> Territorial tribalism, many tribes, with many different cultures, unwilling
> to federate, much less permit invasion beyond the coastal fringes. The
> English language today is widespread, but that does not imply uniformity of
> ethnic origins, religion, or culture throughout the English speaking world.
There were many Celtic federations. What evidence of a strong native
opposition to Celtic intruders do you have?
> > A number of la Tene brooches come from Ireland, twenty six are
> > mentioned by Raftery. a problem with small bronze artifacts in Ireland
> > is that the damp soil in not conducive to survival, although peat bogs
> > do a great job of preservation.
>
> Two or three dozen? Trade would account for so few.
They are of a style only known in Ireland. No archaeologist has ever
claimed them to be imports. The small numbers attest to the fallacy of
using no evidence as evidence. The archaeological record is not a
record of what existed, it is a record of what has survived, and has
been found to date.
> >The most famous style of La Tene
> > brooches in Ireland is the Navan, but the leaf bow are more numerous.
>
> There is also a famous baboon skull found at Navan, but that does not mean
> there was an indigenous population of apes.
But apes (monkeys in this case) exist elsewhere, Navan brooches do
not.
> > Hawkes placed the date of the earliest La tene style brooches in
> > Ireland to the 3rd century B.C., but with so few examples, and his
> > dependence on the absence of involuted brooches which makes the
> > assumption that La Tene brooches came first via Britain, and that
> > involuted brooches were widespread in Britain, we cannot be sure.
>
> This seems to suggest that, as with coinage, the evidence of the art, such
> as La Tene, or Halstatt style, is so little represented in Ireland that, for
> all intents and purposes, the Irish were a separate culture from the rest of
> the Celtic-speaking peoples in Europe.
There you go again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Cite examples of non Celtic Irish brooches of the same period (there
are none) -- so by your own reasoning we do not have non Celtic people
in Ireland at that time. See how that from of argument can be turned
against any hypothesis. This is why it is not accepted in the
scientific world. it is not even accepted in the arts and humanities.
I have only ever seen this spurious reasoning in archaeology and in
the popular media where it is commonly used for political or
commercial purposes.
> > There are quite a number of Hallstatt style items from Ireland, some
> > imports and some of local manufacture. All the Hallstatt brooches are
> > local, only imports of a few La Tene III brooches have been found, and
> > these date much later than most of the Irish la Tene brooches. All the
> > imports are 1st cent B.C. The commonest Hallstatt bracelets are the
> > ribbed variety that is commonest on the continent along the Danube. a
> > large number of very similar types are coming out of Bulgaria over the
> > last year or so. They are rather different from the commoner type of
> > German bracelets, more massive in style, and without the linear
> > engraved decoration.
>
> Ribbing is a very ancient style of primitive geometric pattern, a mainstay
> of the Bronze age. If it is local, why class it as Hallstatt? What makes it
> more Halstattian than, say, Irish?
The form of the Irish bracelets is identical to that of the Bulgarian
bracelets, but we do not have examples of the fine linear decoration
found commonly on the bracelets from Bavaria. The Irish Hallstatt
brooches are also typical of Hallstatt generally. No one has any
problems with this identification, certainly not Raftery, and he wrote
the corpus of Irish artifacts of that time.
> > The later la Tene style in Ireland finds its greatest similarity in
> > the Torrs or Llyn Cerrig style in western Britain, and much
> > communication between the two areas must be assumed. It developed a
> > particular Irish flavour though. The earlier Irish Hallstatt, if I had
> > to guess an origin, would have been the Danube, and suggests a rather
> > early transmission.
>
> I don't see a similarity between Torrs and Llyn Cerrig style. But between
> them and say, the Turoe stone, there seems to me to be quite a lot of
> difference, both in style and construction. Three entirely different
> schools, I would say. The Irish were raiding Wales from the second century,
> and certainly there was much interchange, not only raiding, but trade.
> Objects such as armour, horse trappings, fine workmanship of any sort, would
> have travelled far and wide, as plunder, or as ransom for slaves, or as
> diplomatic gifts, payment to troops, or dowrys in marriages. Fine objects
> were treasured, and inspired local artisans. There was a common form
> language throughout the crafts, throughout northern Europe. Not necessarily
> invasion of one group of people by another.
As for the similarities between Torrs and Llyn Cerrig, read Cyril Fox
(op cit p.33),
The Turoe stone finds parallels in Germany in the type of object, and
in England with its studied use of asymmetry. What evidence do you
have that Celtic work inspired non Celtic artisans? Occam's razor
would have it that Celtic work was done by Celts. The common artistic
language was Celtic, as the tenets of the art are unvaried from place
to place. I can't imagine how this could be coincidental. If any
culture started out with their own art form, then traces of that,
especially in methodology and composition, are seen in later
emulations of a foreign form. If there is no evidence of another art
form alongside the Celtic, then there is no evidence that can be used
to refute my claims.
> > The succession of Hallstatt to la Tene in Ireland clearly shows the
> > sustained communication that is apparent in other Celtic cultures, and
> > we see there the ongoing local variations that we find everywhere in
> > western Celtic lands. There is nothing about this pattern to set it
> > apart from the path of Celtic art in Britain, France, Belgium,
> > Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland or Austria. Only Spain was different
> > because of considerable, but not total, isolation after the Hallstatt
> > period.
>
> Sustained communication over a long period of time, rather than mass
> migration, or invasion.
What evidence do you have that counters the evidence I and others here
have presented?
> > > No one is arguing that there was some communication. But "some
> > > communication" does not imply wholesale takeover by a foreign people.
> >
> > The idea that there was only "some communication" is very wrong, so to
> > argue its implications as fact is a circular argument.
>
> So you assert. However, you seem to be arguing more effectively for some
> forms of communication, whether considerable and prolonged, it does not
> matter. At issue is the type of "communication". All the forms of
> communication that you mention do not suggest a massive invasion of Ireland
> from Britain or Gaul.
Again what evidence do you have that says there was no invasions or
mass migrations?
> >More Celtic art
> > has survived in Britain than in Armorica -- hundreds of times the
> > number. Armorica was about 50% Celtic in the 1st century B.C. by
> > estimations of biological ethnicity. It was entirely Celtic
> > culturally. Britain was a much more attractive prize than Armorica,
> > and far more named tribes occupied smaller territories in many areas.
>
> By the end of the first millenium, the Celts were, arguably, on the verge of
> extinction by the Romans. The question of invasion hinges around the history
> of Britain and Ireland in the first half of the millenium. Archeologically,
> there is little to suggest that the Iron age came about in the Islands as a
> result of invasions by Celts from Halstatt. More likely, over a prolonged
> period of time, given continuous communications throughout, certain aspects
> of the art, language and culture in became adopted generally, with local
> modifications, by indigenous populations, who were essentially the same
> peoples who had inhabited their respective domains since the mesolithic
> pioneers who first settled there. Europe was continually invaded, but not
> the Islands. Few really wanted those islands, and they were never easy to
> take without wholesale colonisation, as partly by the Romans, and then by
> the more efficient Anglo-Saxons. These invasions left their mark. The
> supposed earlier invasions, attested by myth and legend, left no mark. The
> conclusion is dawning that there simply was no invasion. We need to explain
> the commonality of language some other way.
You are trying to make the evidence support a belief only. It does
not, and certainly the language is very strong evidence that this
belief is not correct. You can't just say there must be some other
explanation because it does not fit the model that you have proposed.
> > This attests to its attraction for massive incursions of Celtic
> > people. The Celts had the military might and skill to take it, and
> > there can be no reason imaginable as to why they would not. It was
> > part of their cultural make up to split up tribes and move wholesale
> > to new areas. Many of these movements can be plotted, and they covered
> > long distances.
>
> In the first half of the first millenium BCE? Apparently not. Irish
> archeology is quite well established, by the way. The evidence suggests an
> unbroken continuity from Bronze age through to the end of the first
> millenium, when people start moving around. Irish mythology tells us the
> Celts invaded and supplanted older peoples. But these legends are written in
> medieval times. A century of research has not turned up any evidence to
> support the myth. Perhaps it is time to consider that the myths were not
> literally true.
There are no native precursors to a number of Irish Hallstatt and La
Tene objects. I don't know what continuity you are speaking of here,
cite some examples.
> Britain was Celtic -in language, art and religion, a few hundred years BCE.
> But any incursions that we can point to are very late, and there is record
> of a mass-scale invasion that happened mid-millenium. None that left any
> evidence. So, you must look for a major take over in the last centuries of
> the millenium, before the Romans came. And, as we come closer to the cut-off
> time, there is more and more evidence of continuity and communication, but
> less likelihood of massive invasion. When, between the 6th and the 2nd did
> the supposed invasion of Britain by Celts occur, exactly? What evidence is
> there?
There would have been more than one invasion or mass migration, and
the evidence is in the number of La Tene and Hallstatt weapons from
this period, together with the thorough establishment of Celtic tribes
as known from their language. More Celtic weapons are known from
Britain than are known from the invasion of Cnut in 1016. In fact I
don't know of any archaeological evidence of Cnut's invasion at all.
Would you care to claim that Cnut's coins are all copies by local
artisans as there is no evidence of an invasion?
C. Gwinn
C. Gwinn
> "You have asserted over and over again that there were small influxes of
> Celts into Britain in the first century B.C., right? Would you like to
> explain how these minority soldiers and perhaps a few of their Druids got
> the whole island to speak Celtic in under fifty years (accepting that
these
> Belgic Celts must have arrived in the fifty years prior to Caesar's
> expidition)? "
to which Doug replied:
"And this is why I get fed up with you. I have NEVER said any of the above.
"
Well, courtesy of Dejanews, here's some of Doug's greatest hits (in
quotations), judge for yourself what he said or didn't say:
6/6/99
"And the myth of ethnic Celts in the British Isles is simply that, a myth.
He's not the only one, but Simon James in The Atlantic Celts makes this
clear:
James points out that in the 19th c in particular Caesar's words were taken
as gospel, especially when added to the evidence of hill forts, martial
finds like the Battersea shield, and 'Celtic art', and well into the 20th
century archaeologists believed in massive Celtic immigration.
"But these archaeological interpretations are now discredited, with serious
implications for the rest of the Celtic construct. In British archaeology,
particularly, major new discoveries after the 2nd World War threw the whole
invasion model of the insular Iron Age into serious doubt. More generally,
the lawt few decades have seen a collapse in long-established theories and
assumptions about how human groups develop, function and change. The idea
that change in early landscapes is best explained by waves of invaders has
been completely discredited." (p. 36).
He then comments that we no longer have just a few fine art objects,
hillforts and graves of a few rich people, but have found the Iron Age rural
population (in Britain, not Ireland). What we do not have is "plenty of
identical, or near-identical art and artefacts, but we should also see
extensive signs of wholsale transfers of farming regimes and of beliefs and
social practices, such as imported burial rites (like the 'flat cemeteries'
common in the 'homelands') and, we might surely expect, rectangular
continental house types." Such as have been found in other areas which texts
tell us were colonized by Celts, eg the Po Valley of Northern Italy.
He says that there are "many powerful resonances in the artistic styles of
the Middle and Later Iron Age, and in the types of artefacts on which they
are found....Yet they are far from being the same: actual imports are rare,
and the examples we have are clearly distinctive insular versions -
reinterpretations of continental fashions...There is also clear evidence for
continental influence in burial rites, notably in the square ditched burial
mounds of East Yorkshire (a handful of which contain chariots), but such are
highly localized. Across most of the archipelago, people did not bury the
dead at all....Interestingly, while the Yorkshire burials are clearly
connected with similar fenerary practices in parts of Gaul, the details of
burial are very different (the body is curled up in the 'foetal position' in
Yorkshire, but stretched out in Gaul), and the Yorkshire burial goods are
local in style, not imports. It seems to have been the *idea* of such
burials that was imported (perhaps as part of a religious belief system),
not the population practising it." "
10/11/99
> James' book seems to me to be an argument in terminology. He does not
deny
> that the inhabitants of the "Atlantic archipelago" spoke languages akin to
> the peoples of the continent. He simply doesn't like the name "celt" as
Mr.
> James thinks this implies some huge centralised culture (he points out
that
> Britain was in fact a matrix of local cultures).
"You don't seem to be dealing with his points about the archaeological
evidence at all here. Why? Once again, he is saying there was no folk
migration as was thought in the 19th century, and most of the 20th century.
His argument for this is archaeological. And your point about a 'croppies
lay down' attitude seems to ignore the point that the archaeological
evidence points to a continuity of peoples not just in Wales, Scotland, and
Ireland, but also in England.
The commonalities you mention exist on the continent. They don't exist in
the British Isles."
10/12/99
[re: Simon James' theory of Celtic minority in Britain]
"the dispute is over earlier claims for a folk migration and the idea that
there was Celtic cultural *influence* on Bronze age Britons, but not a
massive change of population.'
10/18/99
>gwy...@aracnet.com says...
> I chose the Belgae as an example because I think, I may be wrong, they are
> the most ancient group of continental Celts who can be assumed to have
> displaced Celtic *speaking* Britons in the area they controlled. Prior
to,
> say, 150 BC I have seen no evidence to convince me that incoming Celts
> displaced indigenous Briton populations.
"Thanks for this. We seem to be in agreement! [Doug]"
11/01/99
> IIRC from college days (longer ago than I'd rather not remember), the
> Celts arrived in successive waves rather than any "major" invasion.
>
"Yes, that was the old argument. Others are now arguing that that simply
didn't happen, that there was Celtic influence but not a lot more except in
the South East just before Julius's invasion."
11/4/99
[re: alleged 1st Century B.C. "vast" Celtic armies fighting Romans]
"my point is still that (outside the SE, where the Celts were probably a
large minority at least) those 'armies' (certainly not vast) in Wales, etc.
were British, not Celtic."
11/6/99
[RE: my statement that the Britons shared in La Tene culture with Gaul]
"1. La Tene is too late for this argument.
2. You imply something far too general. I don't have to go to Simon James
to show the problems here. Barry Cunliffe (Iron Age Britain) will do for a
start:
Looking at the 5th century Arras Culture burials, often cited in this
regard, he says that although the similarities have been used to show that
this was due to 'high status newcomers' (not a mass invasion, note, just an
elite), "some writers have suggested that the phenomenon can equally well be
xplained as the emulation of exotic, 'foreign' behaviour by indigenous
elites striving to distinguish themselves." (p 48) He thinks archaeology
may never be able to resolve the issue, but James does show associated
archaeological evidence that distinguishes Arras culture from La Tene.
In relationship to 5th/4th century pottery assemblages in Britain that
resemble continental types, he says "While in the past, this kind of
observation has led to suggestions of 'invasions' from Europe, it is more
likely that we are simply observing the archaeological reflection of long
and well-established contacts involving networks of exchange." (p. 45)
Cunliffe is a well known expert on the Celts, and as far as I know no fan of
Simon James.
It's also worth noting that despite some similarities in some pottery
assemblages and some *Yorkshire* burial customs, architecture doesn't change
to copy European architecture.
Let's see what Tim Darvill has to say in his book 1987 book Ancient Britain.
"There are a number of similarities between the Arras culture burials and
those found in the Champagne region of France in the La Tene period, but
there are also a lot of differences. As a result, many archaeologists
believe that there may have been an actual movement of people to Yorkshire
from that area. As Ian Stead has written, 'they need not have been
numerically strong; perhaps they were adventurers, mercenaries, evangelists,
or a few farmers'." (p. 1540.
I don't have James to hand, but he also notes that what you find in
Yorkshire is often what is obviously a local adaptation of European Celtic
art, not identical stuff.
Darvill does believe that there were probably groups of Belgic immigrants
moving into Kent and the Chilterns during the second half of the 1st century
BC. I have no problems with this.
So on, prehistoric Britons did not, as a general rule, share in la Tene
culture. "
11/14/99
"I presume this is the argument that the people living in the British Isles
in the first millennium bce were Celtic speaking, but not Celts, i.e. they
were the descendants of the people living there the millennium before, with
a different language and probably religion. The archaeology pretty much
backs this."
11/14/99
"As I've written, the archaeological evidence shows that the people in the
British Isles in the first millennium bce may have spoken the same language
as the Celts, but didn't share the same material culture."
11/16/99
[in response to my post:"La Tene culture, which is the culture most
assuredly identified with the Celts of ancient history, was diffused accross
the entire Celtic world - from the British Isles to Turkey in a wide band.
It is generally held that this culture began to appear in the first
millenium B.C. -perhaps around +/- 600 B.C.and flourished from +/- 500 B.C.
all the way into the Roman conquest"]
to which Doug says:
"No, it appears either immediately after the end of the Hallstadt in 450
bce, or overlaps by about a generation (according to Barry Cunliffe, these
are the dating arguments).
[To my post: "Its epicenter was roughly western/central France into
western/central Germany. It is also believed that La Tene reached the
British Isles certainly prior to the Roman invasion in the first century
B.C. and perhaps coincides with its appearance on the continent."]
Doug says:
"The archaeological evidence is against you, and I note that all you have is
assertions with no evidence."
11/17/99
"The archaeology strongly suggests that the people living in the British
Isles in the first millenium bce were not in the main Celtic immigrants from
the mainland, but indigenous peoples."
11/20/99
[re: my post quoting Cunliffe commenting on Celtic burials in Yorkshire
matching recently discovered Celtic burials in France.]
"I was quoting Cunliffe re the La Tene culture, I believe. I also said he
and James disagree. But all he is saying is that some Celts might have
settled in Yorkshire late in the last millennium bce. I've never disagreed
with that possibility. Yorkshire is indeed an area where I have said there
was some Celtic influence. But there aren't many such areas even this late,
and even in Yorkshire it's clear that the local population hasn't been
driven out and replaced by continental Celts.
And note what Chris has done. Turned a possibility of Celts settling in
Yorkshire into an assertion about a folk-migration. "
11/21/99
"[Quoting Simon James] 'The peoples of Iron Age Britain were not newcomers,
but generally seem to have been descendants of earlier local populations,
and similar patterns are observed in Ireland. And indeed Julius Caesar
recorded that British groups considerd themselves to be indigenous." P. 40.
"Mass Celtic migration into Britain is now implausible. Archaeology in
Ireland does not fit with the idea of invasions either.' "
11/21/99
"And I've also said that SE England had a heavy Celtic influx in the first
century bce. "
11/22/99
> But the archaeologists say that Celts arrived before 1st century B.C. -
"Missed this. Anyone reading it would think I'd claimed differently -- one
more example where you are distorting what I post and why I think replying
to you is a waste of time or worse.
I repeat, James' argument, which I and others agree with, is 'Continuity
with Contact, Not Mass Migration'. So far you've skirted all around this,
talking about cultural conquest, mythology, inaccurate claims for a shared
La Tene culture, etc."
11/22/99
> Perhaps Mr. Weller would like to explain references in Pytheus from the
4th
> century B.C. (some even claim 5th century B.C.) to "the Pretanic islands
of
> Albion and Ierne" - if there were no Celts in Britain and Ireland prior to
> the first century B.C.
>
"That's it. I've never said that about no Celts in Britain prior to the
first century BC "
11/29/99
"Celtic is definitely intrusive to the British Isles. How exactly Britons
and the Irish acquired the Celtic language is not known, but the
archaeological record shows continuity over the period during which they
could have acquired the language, ie the native peoples were neither
replaced nor outnumbered by Celts.
It is certainly believed that a non-IE language was spoken in Britain before
British/Celtic, although I'm not sure about your comments about river names.
What were you thinking of? Alne I know has been one suggestion, and even
Londinium, but this isn't subject to proof."
12/11/99
"There is simply no archaeological evidence that Celtic Gauls were ever a
majority in the British Isles. Sure, Celts came to Britain, and in
different times and different places had differing influences and control.
But Britain remained archaeologically distinct from Celtic Gaul."
12/18/99
"The vast majority of the people living in the British Isles in the 2nd half
of the first millennium bce were Celtic speaking. No problem there. My
argument, which you usually choose to ignore and/or distort, is that the
archaeological evidence suggests that these people were basically, although
not entirely, the descendants of the people who had lived there a millennium
early and who did not then speak Celtic."
12/19/99
"Yep, without any doubt there was Celtic rule in SE Britain in the first
century BCE. I don't see how this implies that mainland immigrants were the
majority population, and it certainly says nothing about the non-coin-using
majority of Britons in the rest of the island."
12/21/99
> There was Celtic rule in SE Britain long before that - Pytheus found Celts
> there in 300 B.C.
"It's very easy to see a statement like this and just accept it. I've often
done that, and too often found I shouldn't have. In this case, I'd like
some proof of this claim. That's because Barry Cunliffe, in his book The
Ancient Celts, writes about Pytheas (his spelling) explored the south and
east coasts of Britain, 'even venturing still further north. For him the
British Isles lay north of the land of the Celts and were known as the
Pretanic islands. There is no suggestion in the surviving quotations about
his voyage that he regarded the Pretani as Celtic.' "
Doug Weller
rigv...@hotmail.com says...
> Then what HAVE you said!?
>
It's in my posts, which you in the past have either denied existed or as this
time distorted. If you really want to know, read dejanews. No point in my
repeating myself over and over (as I did in the past for you) only to have you
once again claim I said things I never said.
Doug Weller
rigv...@hotmail.com says...
> I said:
> > "You have asserted over and over again that there were small influxes of
> > Celts into Britain in the first century B.C., right? Would you like to
> > explain how these minority soldiers and perhaps a few of their Druids got
> > the whole island to speak Celtic in under fifty years (accepting that
> these
> > Belgic Celts must have arrived in the fifty years prior to Caesar's
> > expidition)? "
>
> to which Doug replied:
> "And this is why I get fed up with you. I have NEVER said any of the above.
>
Celtic speaking only during this period. Case closed.
Aidan J Meehan
>
>
> Aidan J Meehan wrote:
By omitting the header, the context was lost. However, here was the
pertinent quote:
[John H.]
"The design is only balanced when viewed from the
chariot. My cow's head bucket mount was mounted to be seen by the
person using the object. This feature is far from universal in Celtic
art, but it does show up in diverse regions. The compositional
elements of Celtic art are comparable regardless of where we find the
art.
It is a very complicated subject, and little studied. Celtic art
changed over time and had local variants as any culture's art does,
but it is all identifiably Celtic."
[My reply, as quoted, without the above!]
> > I am not sure that it is all that identifiably Celtic. Many of the
elements
> > that you speak of are common to other cultures.
The idea of the design being distorted to fit the POV of the viewer is an
intriguing idea which I first came across in Cyril Fox, many years ago. I
have not come across it elsewhere, nor, in studying thousands of examples of
Celtic art, have I seen this feature repeat. Could it be an original idea,
which occurred to Fox, rather than a principle of Celtic design?
Anyway, perspective distortion is a feature of Greek architecture, for
instance, as where a column is made wider at the top, so as to appear
regular from below.
Another example is the letter-height of the inscription on Trajan's column,
taller above, so as to appear regular when viewed from below. So this
feature is not peculiar to Celtic art.
Then you draw our attention to a bucket mount you say is designed to be seen
by the person using the bucket. Do you mean it was originally mounted upside
down? You assert that it shows up in diverse regions, without further
elucidation, then admit that it is far from universal, in Celtic art.
You quote Cyril Fox's principle of "Pattern and Purpose", which is another
way to say "form follows function", a universal principle of good craft
design, hardly a distinguishing feature of Celtic art.
Further you assert that "The compositional elements of Celtic art are
comparable regardless of where we find the art". Well, speaking as one who
has studied the compositional elements of Celtic art, and having compared
them across different cultures, and related styles and constructional
elements, I have to say that many of the elements of Celtic art,
compositional and otherwise, are common to other cultures and other
cultures. To which you replied:
[John H.]
> This is not true, only a very few of them are found in other cultures.
> Most of the Celtic design elements are very specific, as is the manner
> of their variation and how they are used in conjunction with each
> other.
Well, feel free to specify.
What Celtic design elements would you say are very specific to the Celts?
Surely some are specific to Ireland, some to the Netherlands, some to
Northern Italy. I can think of many localised elements that are only
specific to the Celts if you class all the productions of all the Celtic
cultures that ever existed as a single Celtic entity. This does a disservice
to the particular genius of particular peoples. I prefer the multi-cultural
approach to Celticism.
In my considered view, there are local variations, and a great deal of
original inventions, such that, when you get down to it, since there is
little or no actual duplication, what exactly are these "universal
elements", in your mind?
Surely not Fox's lyre-and-pelta derived patterns, such as constitute the
scabbard designs of Britain, or Ireland, a mainstay of Celtic decoration
from the third century BCE through to early Christian times.
Like the coinage, these are classical motifs that have been copied and
recopied, until they reduce to an abstract form language of their own, as
is a principle of Primitive art everywhere (and you needn't remind me that
the word primitive means principial, or of the first rank).
[snipped by John H. , restored here for purposes of intelligibility,
(John H.)
>>> The evolution of style in any region lasted longer than the lifetime
>>> of any artisan, and the local variant evolved in its own way, rigidly
>>> keeping to the tenets of Celtic art. The art is most difficult and
>>> probably took many years to master. I know of no example of a copy of
>>>Celtic art, it had an entirely different ethos from all other
>>> cultures.]
[Aidan M.]
>
> > I am not sure what you mean, by copy. Weren't the coins copied,
originally
> > from Classical coinage, and then progressively more and more abstracted
the
> > further removed from the original models. The same goes for decorative
> > features such as palmettes and lyres, or the development of early
Germanic
> > animal style from the Roman tympanum. Imitation and repetition were the
> > means of development of such a primitive style.
>
> The coins were initially copied in from two models the stater of
> Philip II of Macedon (an issue that lasted longer than Philip did) and
> gold coins of Taras in Italy. Both of these were given to Celts that
> fought in the various campaigns associated with Antigonas Gonatas. The
> Celts used the Greek model, rather badly copied at first, and later
> managed to achieve a synthesis of style with their own. The style of
> Celtic coin differs from other objects like roundels, to maintain the
> familiarity and identity of a coin image. Be careful of the term
> "primitive" they utilized negative spaces in examples of figure-ground
> reversal in a way that was not equaled until very modern times. A
> sophisticated geometry is apparent in many other ways, and their
> balance of composition is unexcelled.
You said that you know of no example of a copy of Celtic art. I say the
coins were copied from Greek models. You reply that indeed they were. But
they were sophisticated in their use of geometry and aesthetic composition.
I am no wiser as to what you intended by your original statement.
>
> > The stylisation of Celtic art begins by poor copies of alien motifs,
> > improperly understood, recopied, and gradually the forms emerge into a
> > language of their own, with rules that arise out of conventions
established
> > by endless repetition.
>
> This view is long outdated (about 50 years), and it caused many errors
> in coin classification that were finally realized and corrected by
> paying attention to reductions in weight and fineness.
Did we not just agree that the stylisation of Celtic coin design, for
instance, began by copying Greek models "rather badly copied at first, and
later managed to achieve a synthesis of style with their own", in your own
words?
How then does this differ from my point, that Celtic art begins by poor
copies of alien motifs, etc?
I say " gradually the forms emerge into a language of their own, with
rules that arise out of conventions established by endless repetition " ,
you say this is a view outdated by more than 50 years. Ignoring the
non-sequitur about the coinage, how come you think my point is 50 years
out-of-date, while you are saying the same thing yourself, as for instance
"later managed to achieve a synthesis of style with their own".
In either case, models were copied, whether Macedonian staters, or Roman
lyre-and-palmette, these were abstracted through repeated copying, and a
distinctive style emerged, based on the formalisation of the abstract
elements into an articulate language of ornament.
John H.,
>>> There undoubtedly were many movements of Celtic people into Britain,
>>> including entire tribes, and over a long period.
[John, you snipped the rest of this to which I was directly replying,
quoting me out of context:
You wrote:
"What on earth could
have prevented them from doing in Britain what they did all over
western Europe? Celtic ships had no problems with the channel. A
widespread language means a widespread people. It is utter fantasy to
imagine that a few visitors could affect such a dramatic change in
language and religion". ]
I am not doubting that there were many movements of Celtic people, etc. I
question
that the kind of displacement of population that might have happened on the
Mainland actually happened to any great extent in Britain, and certainly
less likely to have happened in Ireland. I specifically question my former
assumption that there was a large replacement of an indigenous population by
Continental Celts, in the form of an invasion, such as that of Britain by
the Romans, or in the form of a wholesale colonisation, as of Britain by the
Anglo-Saxons, specifically in the earlier part of the first millenium BCE.
The evidence tends to contradict this popular myth, just as Caesar noted
that in the interior of Britain the inhabitants claimed to have been there
since the beginning.
[Aidan M.],
> > But this is exactly what we are beginning to doubt. We have been looking
for
> > the evidence of such, specific invasions, and found none of any
consequence
> > early enough to account for the commonalities. There are folk myths that
> > attest to invasions, but no hard evidence, apart from a few isolated
groups,
> > consistent with continuous exchange and interchange between many
different,
> > indigenous peoples.
I repeat, I am talking about *major* invasions, not sporadic incursions, or
minor migrations of one or two tribes. Apart from a few such minor and late
examples, the evidence suggests an aboriginal population relatively
unchanged throughout the millenium before the Romans.
From Roman times, I suggest, there was likely an increase of actual invaders
from Continental Europe, which would account for such evidence as exists
for intrusion from Gaul. But prior to Roman times, what evidence, or even
likelihood that actual warlords from the most powerful elites of the Iron
age would want to invade a depressed and bankrupt island such as Ireland in
earlier times.
On the other hand, the fact that Halstatt culture dominated the mainland at
the time would explain the adoption of Halstatt-style status objects by
local chieftains, through emulation, and the appearance of Hallstatt objects
in Ireland does not *necessarily* imply a massive invasion of Ireland at the
height of the Halstatt expansion, around the mid-millenium point.
> Why do archaeologists believe that they can use no evidence as
> evidence?
Here we go again. Gee, how would I know, John? Go ask an Archeologist!
You are the one who is using no evidence as evidence. Because there is no
evidence that Ireland was invaded by a major influx of Halstatians, nor any
reason why the ruling elite of Europe should concern themselves with
conquering the lest wealthy countries to the north, you argue that that does
not prove it doesn't happen.
>This is a logical fallacy and is not accepted as legitimate
> in a student's work in any science.
Well, why are you telling me this? I do not see how it applies to me, or to
anything I have said.
>That the archaeological record is
> incomplete should make this nasty habit even more reprehensible.
I see, we should continue to speculate in the hope of some evidence turning
up eventually? Or is it that, since the majority of archeologists have
determined that the populations of Britain and Ireland were likely
indigenous peoples inhabitanting their islands relatively unmolested for a
thousand years before the present era, that we should be suspicious of their
conclusions because they are nasty archeologists? Forgive me if I
misrepresent your view, but this appears to be the basis of your arguement.
In any case, you are wasting your breath telling me this. I rely on
archeological evidence for my own conclusions.
>You
> have to provide actual evidence to support your claims that the Celts
> were not a majority in Britain.
Wrong. The only thing we know for sure is that the Britons spoke a form of
Celtic language. Language does not imply racial descent, genetic inheritance
or ethnic identity. Art does not imply ethnicity, nor does religion.
>In other words, provide evidence that
> non Celtic Britons were a majority.
"Celtic" is not applicable to a specific population, it is a generic term.
"Keltoi" applies to people of the Rhineland, if we are to be specific. If
those were the historical Celts, then it is not up to me to prove that they
did not invade Ireland. I am simply stating that, so far as I can see, there
is no good reason to suppose they ever did.
>On our side we have a developed
> Celtic language that is widespread, a unified iconography that is no
> different in Britain than on the continent, and a unified art form
> that uses elements in a similar manner whether the object is from
> Ireland, England, France or Germany etc.
"Our side?" I see no evidence for a unified artform common to all the
countries you describe. Besides, the transmission of style does not prove
invasion, or direct intrusion. Continuous contact and exchange accounts for
it well enough.
>We also have much evidence of
> Celtic syncretism in religion both from epigraphy and Classical
> authors such as Lucian.
What does Celtic syncretism of religion mean? In fact, this is an arguement
against a unified Celtic culture. Syncretism occurs in a multicultural
context. Perhaps you mean synthesis? Lucian's Gaul, incidentally,
underscores that it is highly suspect to interpret attributes of Classical
divinities as found in Celtic contexts. You certainly should be very
cautious about drawing conclusions from such perceived concordances. It is
nonsense to speak of a "Celtic religion", in the sense that we understand
the term religion today.
> For historical evidence we have the
> commentaries of Caesar that discuss much about a unified system of
> belief, and a unified culture where all the tribes met in council once
> a year. It goes on.
I know that. I used to think as you do. I am open to learning a new
perspective, though.
>
> > >What on earth could
> > > have prevented them from doing in Britain what they did all over
> > > western Europe? Celtic ships had no problems with the channel. A
> > > widespread language means a widespread people. It is utter fantasy to
> > > imagine that a few visitors could affect such a dramatic change in
> > > language and religion.
> >
> > The same thing that prevented the Romans from occupying the whole land.
> > Territorial tribalism, many tribes, with many different cultures,
unwilling
> > to federate, much less permit invasion beyond the coastal fringes. The
> > English language today is widespread, but that does not imply uniformity
of
> > ethnic origins, religion, or culture throughout the English speaking
world.
>
> There were many Celtic federations. What evidence of a strong native
> opposition to Celtic intruders do you have?
There was never a singel federation uniting all the different Celtic
peoples, because there was no commonality of Celtic identity in ancient
times, not even among Classical observers.
>
> > > A number of la Tene brooches come from Ireland, twenty six are
> > > mentioned by Raftery. a problem with small bronze artifacts in Ireland
> > > is that the damp soil in not conducive to survival, although peat bogs
> > > do a great job of preservation.
> >
> > Two or three dozen? Trade would account for so few.
>
> They are of a style only known in Ireland. No archaeologist has ever
> claimed them to be imports. The small numbers attest to the fallacy of
> using no evidence as evidence. The archaeological record is not a
> record of what existed, it is a record of what has survived, and has
> been found to date.
Exactly. Look closely at a given type of Celtic object, and you discover it
is as unique to its locale as it has superficial correspondences to the
style of the dominant fashions of the period. The evidence of a few La Tene
brooches in Ireland does not argue for the invasion of Ireland by the Celts
of the La Tene culture. The Celts of Ireland thad their own indigenous
culture, and adopted the current fashion for a certain style of brooch.
Plenty has survived to see that this happened continuously from the Bronze
age up to the onset of the Common Era. The same applies to the fashion for
Halstatt-style sword handles: it means these were fashionable, not
necessarily that the Halstatts invaded Ireland.
[snip]
>
> > > Hawkes placed the date of the earliest La tene style brooches in
> > > Ireland to the 3rd century B.C., but with so few examples, and his
> > > dependence on the absence of involuted brooches which makes the
> > > assumption that La Tene brooches came first via Britain, and that
> > > involuted brooches were widespread in Britain, we cannot be sure.
> >
> > This seems to suggest that, as with coinage, the evidence of the art,
such
> > as La Tene, or Halstatt style, is so little represented in Ireland that,
for
> > all intents and purposes, the Irish were a separate culture from the
rest of
> > the Celtic-speaking peoples in Europe.
>
> There you go again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> Cite examples of non Celtic Irish brooches of the same period (there
> are none) -- so by your own reasoning we do not have non Celtic people
> in Ireland at that time. See how that from of argument can be turned
> against any hypothesis. This is why it is not accepted in the
> scientific world. it is not even accepted in the arts and humanities.
> I have only ever seen this spurious reasoning in archaeology and in
> the popular media where it is commonly used for political or
> commercial purposes.
No, it means there is very little in Ireland that is directly comparable to
other Celtic material, that cannot be accounted for by non-invasive
continual exchanges, and influences by any number of alternatives to actual
colonisation on a massive scale.
>
> > > There are quite a number of Hallstatt style items from Ireland, some
> > > imports and some of local manufacture. All the Hallstatt brooches are
> > > local, only imports of a few La Tene III brooches have been found, and
> > > these date much later than most of the Irish la Tene brooches. All the
> > > imports are 1st cent B.C. The commonest Hallstatt bracelets are the
> > > ribbed variety that is commonest on the continent along the Danube. a
> > > large number of very similar types are coming out of Bulgaria over the
> > > last year or so. They are rather different from the commoner type of
> > > German bracelets, more massive in style, and without the linear
> > > engraved decoration.
> >
> > Ribbing is a very ancient style of primitive geometric pattern, a
mainstay
> > of the Bronze age. If it is local, why class it as Hallstatt? What makes
it
> > more Halstattian than, say, Irish?
>
> The form of the Irish bracelets is identical to that of the Bulgarian
> bracelets, but we do not have examples of the fine linear decoration
> found commonly on the bracelets from Bavaria. The Irish Hallstatt
> brooches are also typical of Hallstatt generally. No one has any
> problems with this identification, certainly not Raftery, and he wrote
> the corpus of Irish artifacts of that time.
Well, very interesting, but this does not mean the Keltoi invaded Ireland at
the same time that they invaded Bulgaria, if that's what they did. More
likely the bracelets were a) copied locally from imported items b) traded.
c) payment for mercenary services rendered to mainland warlords.
>
> > > The later la Tene style in Ireland finds its greatest similarity in
> > > the Torrs or Llyn Cerrig style in western Britain, and much
> > > communication between the two areas must be assumed. It developed a
> > > particular Irish flavour though. The earlier Irish Hallstatt, if I had
> > > to guess an origin, would have been the Danube, and suggests a rather
> > > early transmission.
> >
> > I don't see a similarity between Torrs and Llyn Cerrig style. But
between
> > them and say, the Turoe stone, there seems to me to be quite a lot of
> > difference, both in style and construction. Three entirely different
> > schools, I would say. The Irish were raiding Wales from the second
century,
> > and certainly there was much interchange, not only raiding, but trade.
> > Objects such as armour, horse trappings, fine workmanship of any sort,
would
> > have travelled far and wide, as plunder, or as ransom for slaves, or as
> > diplomatic gifts, payment to troops, or dowrys in marriages. Fine
objects
> > were treasured, and inspired local artisans. There was a common form
> > language throughout the crafts, throughout northern Europe. Not
necessarily
> > invasion of one group of people by another.
>
> As for the similarities between Torrs and Llyn Cerrig, read Cyril Fox
> (op cit p.33),
I see that the single-spiral duckhead from Torrs Pony Cap may be drawn in
one continuous stroke. In the Llyn Cerrig lunula plaque, the pattern here is
based on petal shapes, freely drawn and randomly grouped. The petal comes
from the shape between the spirals in the basic s-scroll, Fox's
sub-triangular template. It bears no relation to the pattern from the Torrs
Pony cap. Again, in the duck-head type terminal, Torrs Poney Cap. Background
and foreground are interchangeable, but in the Llyn Cerrig trisquele, the
background templates are subordinate elements.
Compare the Turoe pattern with the duck motif, or the dog motifs, from the
Waldenbuch stele, in Germany, in which the apparent assymmetry of the motif
implies a useful repeating pattern. The Turoe stone is more like a crazed
mirror-back design. I don't see evidence for the sub-triangular module and
lobe used as a template on the Turoe stone, but I do in the mirror-back
style, and it has limitless modular design posibilities which, however, were
never fully exploited elsewhere in Celtic art, or in any other period, and
consequently, if they were to be applied today, would probably not even be
recognised as "Celtic art". The comparison between the Turoe stone and the
Llyn Cerrig triskele is tenuous. The styles are quite different, unique and
specific to different periods and places.
> The Turoe stone finds parallels in Germany in the type of object, and
> in England with its studied use of asymmetry.
If you mean there are large, decorated omphaloi in Germany, we find this
type of object in many other places, from Greece to India.
>What evidence do you
> have that Celtic work inspired non Celtic artisans? Occam's razor
> would have it that Celtic work was done by Celts. The common artistic
> language was Celtic, as the tenets of the art are unvaried from place
> to place. I can't imagine how this could be coincidental. If any
> culture started out with their own art form, then traces of that,
> especially in methodology and composition, are seen in later
> emulations of a foreign form. If there is no evidence of another art
> form alongside the Celtic, then there is no evidence that can be used
> to refute my claims.
As has been adequately demonstrated elsewhere, the tenets, techniques, and
actual forms of Celtic art vary considerably throughout the Celtic world.
Most of your references are to dates from the 300BCE, or subsequently. Go
back to 600 BCE, and look for extensive evidence of Celtic culture in
Britain, or better still, Ireland, and see what you come up with.
Bronze-age Irish art, yes. Local workshops modelling their output on all
sorts of influences, such as styles imported (presumeably) from Norway, and
inventing techniques unsurpassed anywhere in the world at the time, as for
instance the output from the Shannon region (gold wires coiled
concentrically up to five per millimetre). The latter show influences from
Etruscan jewellry, but no one suggests that Ireland was invaded by
Etruscans, on that basis.
>
> > > The succession of Hallstatt to la Tene in Ireland clearly shows the
> > > sustained communication that is apparent in other Celtic cultures, and
> > > we see there the ongoing local variations that we find everywhere in
> > > western Celtic lands. There is nothing about this pattern to set it
> > > apart from the path of Celtic art in Britain, France, Belgium,
> > > Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland or Austria. Only Spain was different
> > > because of considerable, but not total, isolation after the Hallstatt
> > > period.
> >
> > Sustained communication over a long period of time, rather than mass
> > migration, or invasion.
>
> What evidence do you have that counters the evidence I and others here
> have presented?
What evidence? That there was a Celtic culture at some point, in Europe. I
agree. That there was an massive invasion of Britain and Ireland by the
Keltoi, I don't think it is necessary to disprove that.
>
> > > > No one is arguing that there was some communication. But "some
> > > > communication" does not imply wholesale takeover by a foreign
people.
> > >
> > > The idea that there was only "some communication" is very wrong, so to
> > > argue its implications as fact is a circular argument.
> >
> > So you assert. However, you seem to be arguing more effectively for some
> > forms of communication, whether considerable and prolonged, it does not
> > matter. At issue is the type of "communication". All the forms of
> > communication that you mention do not suggest a massive invasion of
Ireland
> > from Britain or Gaul.
>
> Again what evidence do you have that says there was no invasions or
> mass migrations?
>
> > >More Celtic art
> > > has survived in Britain than in Armorica -- hundreds of times the
> > > number. Armorica was about 50% Celtic in the 1st century B.C. by
> > > estimations of biological ethnicity. It was entirely Celtic
> > > culturally. Britain was a much more attractive prize than Armorica,
> > > and far more named tribes occupied smaller territories in many areas.
I am not talking about relatively-recent Roman times. We are talking about
the 600BCE. Did the end of the bronze age economy in Ireland it come about
by the displacement of the local inhabitants by a mass invasion of Celts,
who forced iron age technology on the subjugated aboriginals?
I question that Celtic culture was introduced to Britain and Ireland as a
result of a single, overwhelming military invasion by Celts from the Rhine.
Native inhabitants could well have slowly adopted the dominant cultural
styles - and the language - of the mainland. The process can be explained by
continual contact, interchange, and such-like forms of communications. It is
not necessary to suppose there was a mass invasion, to account for the
gradual adoption of mainland culture in the British Isles or Ireland.
>
> > > This attests to its attraction for massive incursions of Celtic
> > > people. The Celts had the military might and skill to take it, and
> > > there can be no reason imaginable as to why they would not. It was
> > > part of their cultural make up to split up tribes and move wholesale
> > > to new areas. Many of these movements can be plotted, and they covered
> > > long distances.
At the outset of Iron age? Ireland is the proving ground for your theory.
Why would the Keltoi waste their time invading Ireland? It was neither a
threat, nor an attraction. It was washed up, and did not begin to emerge
from the doldrums until Christian times. Yet, it was as Celtic as everywhere
else in the Celtic world. Ireland was an impoverished and backward place
after the Age of Bronze. It took a thousand years to catch up, and did so
just in time. Incidentally, Irish culture and language spread all over
Europe, in consequence, but not in the form of military invasion. Invasion
is not the only way for a foreign culture - and language - to be adopted
wholesale by an indigenous culture.
> > In the first half of the first millenium BCE? Apparently not. Irish
> > archeology is quite well established, by the way. The evidence suggests
an
> > unbroken continuity from Bronze age through to the end of the first
> > millenium, when people start moving around. Irish mythology tells us the
> > Celts invaded and supplanted older peoples. But these legends are
written in
> > medieval times. A century of research has not turned up any evidence to
> > support the myth. Perhaps it is time to consider that the myths were not
> > literally true.
>
> There are no native precursors to a number of Irish Hallstatt and La
> Tene objects. I don't know what continuity you are speaking of here,
> cite some examples.
The Bronze Age in Ireland. Bronze age torcs and lunulae? Cauldrons? 1500
BCE. Much the same stuff a thousand years later. Continuity.
>
> > Britain was Celtic -in language, art and religion, a few hundred years
BCE.
> > But any incursions that we can point to are very late, and there is
record
> > of a mass-scale invasion that happened mid-millenium. None that left any
> > evidence. So, you must look for a major take over in the last centuries
of
> > the millenium, before the Romans came. And, as we come closer to the
cut-off
> > time, there is more and more evidence of continuity and communication,
but
> > less likelihood of massive invasion. When, between the 6th and the 2nd
did
> > the supposed invasion of Britain by Celts occur, exactly? What evidence
is
> > there?
>
> There would have been more than one invasion or mass migration, and
> the evidence is in the number of La Tene and Hallstatt weapons from
> this period, together with the thorough establishment of Celtic tribes
> as known from their language. More Celtic weapons are known from
> Britain than are known from the invasion of Cnut in 1016. In fact I
> don't know of any archaeological evidence of Cnut's invasion at all.
> Would you care to claim that Cnut's coins are all copies by local
> artisans as there is no evidence of an invasion?
I *would* accept that there was an invasion of Britain by the Danes, in
historic times. There is no such similar evidence to suggest that a similar
invasion by Alpine Celts inaugurated the Iron age in Britain and Ireland.
In my view, Celtic identity is not ethnic, or racial. It can be considered
as a purely cultural phenomenon, with specific permutation in different
parts of the Celtic world. It need not have spread the way that the Roman
empire spread, nor by direct colonialization. It could have spread by
communication, and through mutual interchange.
Aidan Meehan
John Hooker
Aidan J Meehan wrote:
> The idea of the design being distorted to fit the POV of the viewer is an
> intriguing idea which I first came across in Cyril Fox, many years ago. I
> have not come across it elsewhere, nor, in studying thousands of examples of
> Celtic art, have I seen this feature repeat. Could it be an original idea,
> which occurred to Fox, rather than a principle of Celtic design?
> Then you draw our attention to a bucket mount you say is designed to be seen
> by the person using the bucket. Do you mean it was originally mounted upside
> down? You assert that it shows up in diverse regions, without further
> elucidation, then admit that it is far from universal, in Celtic art.
It was observed by Cyril Fox, and is an excessively rare feature, with
some examples being rather debatable, such as the elongated boar on
the Witham shield, and the decoration on some chariot harness fittings
that only utilize decoration on the side that would be visible, unlike
many other cultures that prefer symmetry in such designs.
The bucket mount can be seen at:
http://www.writer2001.com/vmus.htm
The round opening is for the bucket handle and the cow is positioned
on the bucket so that the snout points upward, and the horns issue
from the head parallel to the edge of the bucket before turning
upward. It was found near Verolamium about five years ago.
> You quote Cyril Fox's principle of "Pattern and Purpose", which is another
> way to say "form follows function", a universal principle of good craft
> design, hardly a distinguishing feature of Celtic art.
No, it is the title of a book. And form does not follow function in
Celtic applied decoration. That is a feature of Celtic Art.
> What Celtic design elements would you say are very specific to the Celts?
> Surely some are specific to Ireland, some to the Netherlands, some to
> Northern Italy. I can think of many localised elements that are only
> specific to the Celts if you class all the productions of all the Celtic
> cultures that ever existed as a single Celtic entity. This does a disservice
> to the particular genius of particular peoples. I prefer the multi-cultural
> approach to Celticism.
For one, the running scroll variations based on a triskelion form. It
originated as a more formal subsidiary design on pottery manufactured
by eastern Greek refugees working in Etruria, and was transmitted up
the Rhine on Greek figurative pottery. The Celts, having this pattern
resonate with their own ethos developed it into a form of their own.
They did not do the same with the figure elements, but they did take
the split palmette and derived many variations from it. This is the
genesis of la Tene style.
Both of these elements spawned other elements and countless regional
variations, but it was not a simple matter of trade or familiarity
that caused the elements to be archetypes, as the elements were only
used by tribes bearing Celtic names. These pots and their precursors
in Cyprus and Rhodes found their way to various locations around the
classical world, but the elements in question did not, in turn,
generate a similar response.
Another purely Celtic design is Jacobsthal's "Plastic style" this is
widespread across many regions (see provenances in Jacobsthal's Early
Celtic Art).
Some examples from the coins (and these are most valuable in that
provenance to specific tribal areas are more certain as the coins were
mainly used locally and not for trade between tribes -- plus there are
thousands of them), include the outlined "coffee bean" shape -- common
to both Gaul and Britain, and the conjoined boar and sun symbols such
as can be found on Belgic and other Celtic tribes, all over Armorica,
and into Britain even to tribes with no continental counterparts such
as the Iceni. Browsing through De La Tour's Atlas de Monnaies
Gauloises will provide you with many more examples, another one that
springs to mind is a specific style of human headed horse from both
Germany and Armorica
> > This view is long outdated (about 50 years), and it caused many errors
> > in coin classification that were finally realized and corrected by
> > paying attention to reductions in weight and fineness.
>
> Did we not just agree that the stylisation of Celtic coin design, for
> instance, began by copying Greek models "rather badly copied at first, and
> later managed to achieve a synthesis of style with their own", in your own
> words?
>
> How then does this differ from my point, that Celtic art begins by poor
> copies of alien motifs, etc?
That only has an element of truth to it and cannot be used in
classification. It is at best a vague generality and has done
considerable harm to the understanding of the subject. Colbert de
Beaulieu tried to apply it to Coriosolite coin classification,
following a similar model that was done (under advisement from an art
historian) by Major Rybot. It was based on the gradual disintegration
of the image, very popular with Jungians as late as the sixties as we
can see in "Man and his symbols". This method gave a chronology of
Classes I to VI (from earliest to latest). The revised chronology
based on numismatic methods alone gave VI, V, IV, I, III, II. I have
since revised the classification to three stylistic groups (VI, V, IV)
(I, III) (II), each from a different mint and running more or less
concurrently.
Copies were poor only when the artist tried to emulate a foreign art
form, this is not restricted to Celtic art, but to all art. That there
are virtually no "poor copies" of
Celtic artifacts is proof that these items were not copied by people
that already had an art of a different ethos. The most telling aspect
of Celtic composition is the use of negative space as integral to the
composition, but there are other tenets that I have started to reveal
as well, certainly the use of small symbols to differentiate coin dies
(there is no statistically valid numismatic reason for this), and this
evolves from Celtic taboos on repetition. You'll have to wait for my
book to see how I have revealed this -- it takes a lot of explanation
and examples.
> I am not doubting that there were many movements of Celtic people, etc. I
> question
> that the kind of displacement of population that might have happened on the
> Mainland actually happened to any great extent in Britain, and certainly
> less likely to have happened in Ireland. I specifically question my former
> assumption that there was a large replacement of an indigenous population by
> Continental Celts, in the form of an invasion, such as that of Britain by
> the Romans, or in the form of a wholesale colonisation, as of Britain by the
> Anglo-Saxons, specifically in the earlier part of the first millenium BCE.
> The evidence tends to contradict this popular myth, just as Caesar noted
> that in the interior of Britain the inhabitants claimed to have been there
> since the beginning.
There was neither a wholesale displacement of peoples in Britain nor
on the Continent, although some tribes might have displaced the power
structure and land holding populations, I doubt there was a need to
displace everyone. In any case, it could not have been wholesale the
culture changed to Celtic through initial groups staying, holding
power, and breeding with the locals. It took a while, but both Britain
and the continent became Celtic through this process over centuries.
Remember, after ten generations you are related to everyone.
It is an anthropological effect that inhabitants of regions claim to
"always have been there", no special significance should be drawn from
that fact in this case. If that were true, the human species would
have evolved everywhere at the same time, and we would have earlier
hominids in North America.
> I repeat, I am talking about *major* invasions, not sporadic incursions, or
> minor migrations of one or two tribes. Apart from a few such minor and late
> examples, the evidence suggests an aboriginal population relatively
> unchanged throughout the millenium before the Romans.
Then how do you explain the language and the Celtic names of tribes?
what process could bring a language to a region without speakers of
that language. Also, how do you separate ethos from language and say
that more important than language religion and art, are burial
customs, pots and house styles. This is surely placing a very
unreasonable importance on these objects. Would you define yourself by
your recent deceased relative's graves, your house and your dishes?
What part of you is expressed by these items?
> From Roman times, I suggest, there was likely an increase of actual invaders
> from Continental Europe, which would account for such evidence as exists
> for intrusion from Gaul. But prior to Roman times, what evidence, or even
> likelihood that actual warlords from the most powerful elites of the Iron
> age would want to invade a depressed and bankrupt island such as Ireland in
> earlier times.
All you need for cattle is a lot of grass. There were no banks.
> On the other hand, the fact that Halstatt culture dominated the mainland at
> the time would explain the adoption of Halstatt-style status objects by
> local chieftains, through emulation, and the appearance of Hallstatt objects
> in Ireland does not *necessarily* imply a massive invasion of Ireland at the
> height of the Halstatt expansion, around the mid-millenium point.
The bracelet type I mentioned does not show up in England, France,
Belgium, or most of Germany. It is very common in the Bulgarian
Danube. The Irish examples are not "like" the Danubian bracelets, they
are the Danubian bracelets. The most logical explanation is that they
arrived on the arms of Danubian Celts. Another example of this effect
is the kraftig profliert brooches from Pannonia. They were never
traded outside of that area, but were purchased by Roman soldiers who
served in Pannonia. Subsequently, some were lost elsewhere, but only
in regions that were also visited by those legions that served in
Pannonia. Such items do not have enough value to warrant long-distance
trade.
> You are the one who is using no evidence as evidence. Because there is no
> evidence that Ireland was invaded by a major influx of Halstatians, nor any
> reason why the ruling elite of Europe should concern themselves with
> conquering the lest wealthy countries to the north, you argue that that does
> not prove it doesn't happen.
The bracelets and the language are evidence, as are the Hallstatt
swords from Ireland. Movements of Celts are most often concerned with
either leaving areas under heavy German attack, or to seek better
agricultural land.
> I see, we should continue to speculate in the hope of some evidence turning
> up eventually? Or is it that, since the majority of archeologists have
> determined that the populations of Britain and Ireland were likely
> indigenous peoples inhabitanting their islands relatively unmolested for a
> thousand years before the present era, that we should be suspicious of their
> conclusions because they are nasty archeologists?
I am only saying that the archaeological record is incomplete, and
that archaeology does not pay enough attention to other disciplines,
and many archaeologists commonly use "no evidence" to make certain
claims.
> Wrong. The only thing we know for sure is that the Britons spoke a form of
> Celtic language. Language does not imply racial descent, genetic inheritance
> or ethnic identity. Art does not imply ethnicity, nor does religion.
1 ethnic 2: of or relating to races or large groups of people classed
according to common traits and customs.
2 ethnic n: a member of an ethnic group; esp : a member of a minority
group who retains the customs, language, or social views of his group.
ethnicity n : ethnic quality or affiliation.
In Webster's definition language is specifically mentioned, and art
and religion certainly would be included in the terms, customs and
social views.
> >In other words, provide evidence that
> > non Celtic Britons were a majority.
>
> "Celtic" is not applicable to a specific population, it is a generic term.
> "Keltoi" applies to people of the Rhineland, if we are to be specific. If
> those were the historical Celts, then it is not up to me to prove that they
> did not invade Ireland. I am simply stating that, so far as I can see, there
> is no good reason to suppose they ever did.
Caesar says "Gaul comprises three areas, inhabited respectively by the
Belgae, the Aquitani, and a people who call themselves Celts, though
we call them Gauls" (I.1)
He does mention some displacement on the part of of the Belgae, but
not in the case of those he calls Celts:
"the envoys stated that most of the Belgae were descended from tribes
which long ago came across the Rhine from Germany and settled in that
part of Gaul on account of its fertility, expelling the former
inhabitants". (II.4)
We have to be careful of Celtic rhetoric in this statement. Belgic
iconography is very Celtic, and it seems more likely that they came
from Celtic areas of the Rhine rather than German tribal territories.
The fact of their presence might even suggest that at one time they
were harassed by the Suebi. The association of Celtic tribes with
Germans, and hints of the German custom of clearing lands, around
their settlements, of people, might well have been a veiled threat.
Such tactics in rhetoric are known of the Celts.
> "Our side?" I see no evidence for a unified artform common to all the
> countries you describe. Besides, the transmission of style does not prove
> invasion, or direct intrusion. Continuous contact and exchange accounts for
> it well enough.
You can find lots of examples cited by Jacobsthal. As i said,
proximity to an art form does not also supply the motive, nor the
skill and understanding, to copy it. When copies are done of foreign
forms, they are not very successful.
> >We also have much evidence of
> > Celtic syncretism in religion both from epigraphy and Classical
> > authors such as Lucian.
>
> What does Celtic syncretism of religion mean? In fact, this is an arguement
> against a unified Celtic culture. Syncretism occurs in a multicultural
> context. Perhaps you mean synthesis? Lucian's Gaul, incidentally,
> underscores that it is highly suspect to interpret attributes of Classical
> divinities as found in Celtic contexts. You certainly should be very
> cautious about drawing conclusions from such perceived concordances. It is
> nonsense to speak of a "Celtic religion", in the sense that we understand
> the term religion today.
Again, a very complex subject. Generally, it uses parallels in the
Celtic ethos to bring tutelary deities, and various remnants of
earlier indigenous beliefs into the Celtic culture. It was similar to
a synthesis, but was controlled by the Druid class, who had strict
rules against the uncensored transmission of knowledge from one area
to another. It was a successful strategy that avoided much xenophobia
in the indigenous populations. After some time, the religion in one
area was not really different from that in another area. The Celts
were masters of rhetoric, and many wealthy Roman families sought them
out as tutors for their sons. They made great use of this rhetoric in
discussions of religion and cosmology. There is little about Celtic
religion that can be paralleled in modern religions, or in the way we
understand religion today.
> There was never a singel federation uniting all the different Celtic
> peoples, because there was no commonality of Celtic identity in ancient
> times, not even among Classical observers.
Federations came and went, but mostly were only needed to solve
localized problems. General celtic customs and characteristics are
described by classical authors.
>
> Exactly. Look closely at a given type of Celtic object, and you discover it
> is as unique to its locale as it has superficial correspondences to the
> style of the dominant fashions of the period. The evidence of a few La Tene
> brooches in Ireland does not argue for the invasion of Ireland by the Celts
> of the La Tene culture. The Celts of Ireland thad their own indigenous
> culture, and adopted the current fashion for a certain style of brooch.
> Plenty has survived to see that this happened continuously from the Bronze
> age up to the onset of the Common Era. The same applies to the fashion for
> Halstatt-style sword handles: it means these were fashionable, not
> necessarily that the Halstatts invaded Ireland.
The surface variations are better described as superficial, the
underlying ethos goes right to the bone of Celtic culture and
religion. Fashion is affected by trade, I find it hard to believe that
weapons would be an object of trade other than internal trade.
Also, trade of luxury goods is generally a later phenomenon in
Britain.
> > There you go again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> > Cite examples of non Celtic Irish brooches of the same period (there
> > are none) -- so by your own reasoning we do not have non Celtic people
> > in Ireland at that time. See how that from of argument can be turned
> > against any hypothesis. This is why it is not accepted in the
> > scientific world. it is not even accepted in the arts and humanities.
> > I have only ever seen this spurious reasoning in archaeology and in
> > the popular media where it is commonly used for political or
> > commercial purposes.
>
> No, it means there is very little in Ireland that is directly comparable to
> other Celtic material, that cannot be accounted for by non-invasive
> continual exchanges, and influences by any number of alternatives to actual
> colonisation on a massive scale.
Are you saying that the Irish could achieve wonderful examples of
Celtic art, but could not make a simple brooch of their own unique
design that was not derivative?
Why struggle to come up with alternatives at all, when the evidence is
heavily weighted, or if you have to come up with alternatives, then
"maybes" don't carry much weight without supporting evidence.
> > The form of the Irish bracelets is identical to that of the Bulgarian
> > bracelets, but we do not have examples of the fine linear decoration
> > found commonly on the bracelets from Bavaria. The Irish Hallstatt
> > brooches are also typical of Hallstatt generally. No one has any
> > problems with this identification, certainly not Raftery, and he wrote
> > the corpus of Irish artifacts of that time.
>
> Well, very interesting, but this does not mean the Keltoi invaded Ireland at
> the same time that they invaded Bulgaria, if that's what they did. More
> likely the bracelets were a) copied locally from imported items b) traded.
> c) payment for mercenary services rendered to mainland warlords.
Why would this be more likely? we don't have evidence of intermediate
trade, Bulgarian bracelets don't show up elsewhere in western Europe.
A hell of a long way to go to sell a few baubles. If essentially only
the Irish, the Bulgarians and some of their local neighbors had these
items, then it is most likely that they were worn by people who
travelled from the Danube to Ireland, and did not pause much on the
journey. That the Danube area was the homeland of Hallstatt Celts adds
greater weight to the argument.
> I see that the single-spiral duckhead from Torrs Pony Cap may be drawn in
> one continuous stroke. In the Llyn Cerrig lunula plaque, the pattern here is
> based on petal shapes, freely drawn and randomly grouped. The petal comes
> from the shape between the spirals in the basic s-scroll, Fox's
> sub-triangular template. It bears no relation to the pattern from the Torrs
> Pony cap. Again, in the duck-head type terminal, Torrs Poney Cap. Background
> and foreground are interchangeable, but in the Llyn Cerrig trisquele, the
> background templates are subordinate elements.
>
> Compare the Turoe pattern with the duck motif, or the dog motifs, from the
> Waldenbuch stele, in Germany, in which the apparent assymmetry of the motif
> implies a useful repeating pattern. The Turoe stone is more like a crazed
> mirror-back design. I don't see evidence for the sub-triangular module and
> lobe used as a template on the Turoe stone, but I do in the mirror-back
> style, and it has limitless modular design posibilities which, however, were
> never fully exploited elsewhere in Celtic art, or in any other period, and
> consequently, if they were to be applied today, would probably not even be
> recognised as "Celtic art". The comparison between the Turoe stone and the
> Llyn Cerrig triskele is tenuous. The styles are quite different, unique and
> specific to different periods and places.
There are just as many opinions as there are people studying the
subject. I gave one of Cyril Fox's. Jope compares Torrs to Turoe and
to Wandsworth. Megaw has other things to say, as does Warner. The
problem is, that not much has survived in those classes of artifact,
and opinions can be varied in the face of little evidence.
I chose Coriosolite coins as the basis of a study because there are so
many of them, and their designs are varied. Much of what I understand
about the tenets of Celtic art, and the problems that Celtic artists
sought to solve in their work, comes from this full-time research of
many years where I dealt with combinations of hundreds of design
elements. I will say one thing, and that is very little of what was
revealed to me could have ever been predicted hypothetically.
I believe that I have covered your subsequent points in my reply so
far.
Aidan J Meehan
[snip]
>You'll have to wait for my
> book to see how I have revealed this -- it takes a lot of explanation
[snip]
> Much of what I understand
> about the tenets of Celtic art, and the problems that Celtic artists
> sought to solve in their work, comes from this full-time research of
> many years where I dealt with combinations of hundreds of design
> elements.
Thank you, John, for taking the time to share your deep command of the
tenets of Celtic design, and your understanding of the problems that Celtic
artists seek to solve in their work.
Best of luck with your forthcoming book.
Aidan Meehan
Boo Koo
"C. Gwinn" <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts
and
> > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply
ancient
> > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a
scientific
> > term.
>
Irish
> culture as non-Celtic. All later differences between the modern
languages
> and the ancient languages are simply due to the ravages of time and
not of a
> non-Celtic substrate. In fact, the ancient British and Irish
languages are
> close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be said
to be
> sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for example.
>
>
P and Q linguistic distinctions are not an indicator of any significant
degree of cultural or religious or legal diversity. They would have
also been perfectly understandable to each other in the 'Roman' period.
--
Boo Koo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Boo Koo
"Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts
and
> religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
> Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a
scientific
> term.
>
> Aidan
>
>
The archeologists who use it are therefore not scientists? It is
patently a term to describe a manifestation which is specific enough to
be regarded as something very real and very pervasive.
Why call anybody anything? The 'Celts' had a lot in common. Religion,
law and language. Celtic is akin to "Arabic' maybe. The original Celts
might be diluted within the greater thing as the Arabs were in theirs.
Anthony West
Boo Koo wrote in message <84ehue$pqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <849aoe$8u7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "C. Gwinn" <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be said
>to be
>> sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for example.
>
>P and Q linguistic distinctions are not an indicator of any significant
>degree of cultural or religious or legal diversity.
In fact, Q>P is an isolated sound shift that does not represent any
genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic linguists no
longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory way.
>They would have
>also been perfectly understandable to each other in the 'Roman' period.
Quite likely so. At least, "Classical" Irish and Gaulo-Brythonic (in the
Roman period) would have been partially intelligible, in the way
Standard High German and Standard Dutch are partially intelligible.
Celtiberian, however, is pretty distinct from both of the above
and probably a Spanish Celt and a Belgian Celt of Caesar's era
would not have understood each other.
--Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Aidan J Meehan
news:84ei94$q50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I mean that the term "Celtic" is too general term for archeology. 'Celt' is
a modern label to describe a heterogeneous variety of cultures with related
languages. Apparently, the term itself was introduced in the translation
of Pezron's _L'antiquitez de la Nation et la Langue Celt in 1703_.
As a term, it is useful in its general sense but it has limitations.
I doubt if it is specific enough to be useful as a scientific
classification, archeologically speaking. Archeologists don't recognise
"Celtic art" for instance, in the sense of George Bain's "Celtic Art,
the Methods of Construction". And Bain himself did not accept the art-
historical classification, being a Pictomane of sorts. The term "Celtic art"
is a convenient tag, but to an antiquarian, a numismatist, a paleographer, a
philologist, a historian, it is too vague to be useful as a scientific term.
Likewise, there is no "Celtic language", how to learn to speak "Celtic"?
Nor is there a "Celtic religion" - that has been interpreted variously as
druidism, neo-druidism, paganism, wicca, Celtic-christian, and New Age.
So I seem to hear the scientists saying, "we don't know what
*you* mean by "Celtic Culture", it's not a scientifically useful term.
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan
> In article <849aoe$8u7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "C. Gwinn" <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts
> and
> > > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply
> ancient
> > > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a
> scientific
> > > term.
> >
> Irish
> > culture as non-Celtic. All later differences between the modern
> languages
> > and the ancient languages are simply due to the ravages of time and
> not of a
> languages are
> > close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be said
> to be
> > sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for example.
> >
> >
>
>
> P and Q linguistic distinctions are not an indicator of any significant
> also been perfectly understandable to each other in the 'Roman' period.
Do you mean that there was cultural, religious and legal uniformity
throughout the Celtic world?
Aidan
Sheela
wrote:
>The archeologists who use it are therefore not scientists?
Not considered real scientists by hardened critics I'm afraid. I am
far more interested in inheritance of the psyche than I am in coins.
Except for the odd sixpence. I have found myself understanding
languages sometimes that I have not learned. How much of what we know
is not learned but passed or shared? It is the mystical aspects of
inheritance that cannot be explained by DNA or dating techniques that
I find compelling. I see this is going to soc.culture.celtic so I must
add I really don't fancy some past life Celtic Goddess kinda Druid
crap. I've shared enough cider with the Archdruid to know that, King
of the Hippies PR man so he be. I want to know why I only feel okay if
I am on the road and why Roscommon scares me so. Why I know I would
die alongside a friend for a principal. Rather egocentric pondering
maybe.
____________________________________________________
"I never play to win" Is what she said
And poured a little cocaine in my head
Aidan J Meehan
Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in message
news:84f7ca$ne1$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org...
> > "C. Gwinn" <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be said
> >to be
> >> sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for example.
> >
> >P and Q linguistic distinctions are not an indicator of any significant
> >degree of cultural or religious or legal diversity.
>
> genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic linguists no
> longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory way.
In other words, the identity of a people cannot be determined by the
language that they speak.
"P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" are unscientific terms, because they imply genetic
identification, which it is not possible to determine from language.
Different peoples, of different origins, can share a common language. So we
cannot identify a population by the language they speak. Thank you, Anthony.
Aidan J Meehan
John Hooker
than "Celtic", and that ancient Celts called themselves "Celts" as I
keep saying, is stated in Caesar. There are a number of archaeologists
that use the word Celt or Celtic, and the term is widely accepted in
describing the art, language, mythology, and iconography. It is
commonly used in coins. "Iron Age coins" is an affectation.
Method, rather than nomenclature, is a better test of what is
"scientific".
Regards,
John
Aidan J Meehan wrote:
>
> I mean that the term "Celtic" is too general term for archeology. 'Celt' is
> a modern label to describe a heterogeneous variety of cultures with related
> languages. Apparently, the term itself was introduced in the translation
> of Pezron's _L'antiquitez de la Nation et la Langue Celt in 1703_.
> As a term, it is useful in its general sense but it has limitations.
> I doubt if it is specific enough to be useful as a scientific
> classification, archeologically speaking. Archeologists don't recognise
> "Celtic art" for instance, in the sense of George Bain's "Celtic Art,
> the Methods of Construction". And Bain himself did not accept the art-
> historical classification, being a Pictomane of sorts. The term "Celtic art"
> is a convenient tag, but to an antiquarian, a numismatist, a paleographer, a
> philologist, a historian, it is too vague to be useful as a scientific term.
> Likewise, there is no "Celtic language", how to learn to speak "Celtic"?
> Nor is there a "Celtic religion" - that has been interpreted variously as
> druidism, neo-druidism, paganism, wicca, Celtic-christian, and New Age.
> So I seem to hear the scientists saying, "we don't know what
> *you* mean by "Celtic Culture", it's not a scientifically useful term.
>
> Aidan
--
Aidan J Meehan
Sheela <She...@lomans.com> wrote in message
news:tsRrOAo5NeChS4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:17:15 GMT, Boo Koo <psycho...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The archeologists who use it are therefore not scientists?
>
> Not considered real scientists by hardened critics I'm afraid. I am
> far more interested in inheritance of the psyche than I am in coins.
> Except for the odd sixpence. I have found myself understanding
> languages sometimes that I have not learned. How much of what we know
> is not learned but passed or shared? It is the mystical aspects of
> inheritance that cannot be explained by DNA or dating techniques that
> I find compelling. I see this is going to soc.culture.celtic so I must
> add I really don't fancy some past life Celtic Goddess kinda Druid
> crap.
Well, if not a Celtic Goddess, perhaps we could interest you in the Tooth
Fairy?
Aidan J Meehan
C. Gwinn
> In fact, Q>P is an isolated sound shift that does not represent any
> genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic linguists no
> longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory way.
What do you mean by an isolated sound shift?
Many premiere Celtic linguists still use P-Celtic and Q-Celtic, so I don't
know where you get the idea that as a whole the terms have been dropped.
Granted, they are not the prefferable names, but they serve their purpose.
> >They would have
> >also been perfectly understandable to each other in the 'Roman' period.
For the most part, yes - but local dialectal pronunciations would have
caused some problems.
> Celtiberian, however, is pretty distinct from both of the above
> and probably a Spanish Celt and a Belgian Celt of Caesar's era
> would not have understood each other.
I disagree - one of the reasons Celtiberian looks so weird is because of its
faulty orthograohy - under proper transliteration, however, it shows more
similarities to Goidelic than differences. Examination of Spanish onomastics
proves this as well - Gaulish place and personal names are rarely
distinguishable from Gaulish names
Doug Weller
> Archaeology uses very general terms. "Iron Age" is far more general
> than "Celtic", and that ancient Celts called themselves "Celts" as I
> keep saying, is stated in Caesar.
>
is why archaeologists more and more try to avoid such generalisations.
Doug
Doug Weller
says...
> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:21:44 -0700, John Hooker
> <wri...@writer2001.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> >> In fact there are some important distinctions, important at least to this
> >> discussion. Among the major features of British Iron Age archaeology are
> >> circular or ovoid round houses, very different from the rectangular continental
> >> houses found in the Celtic French and German homelands.
>
> This is irrelevant. Scottish building practices, styles and materials
> are, to this day, wholly different from English practices, styles and
> materials. You couldn't conclude from studying the architecture of
> Scotland and England that the two societies have two wholly unrelated
> cultures.
>
Which of course I am not doing. It does very much suggest that rectangular
house builders didn't replace round house builders, though.
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <386BC7C5...@writer2001.com>, wri...@writer2001.com says...
> > Archaeology uses very general terms. "Iron Age" is far more general
> > than "Celtic", and that ancient Celts called themselves "Celts" as I
> > keep saying, is stated in Caesar.
> >
> And 'Iron Age' is not a terribly useful term, no more than Neolithic, etc. Which
> is why archaeologists more and more try to avoid such generalisations.
>
> Doug
Are we still in the Iron Age, or have we entered the Silicon Age?
John
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
> > This is irrelevant. Scottish building practices, styles and materials
> > are, to this day, wholly different from English practices, styles and
> > materials. You couldn't conclude from studying the architecture of
> > Scotland and England that the two societies have two wholly unrelated
> > cultures.
> >
> Which of course I am not doing. It does very much suggest that rectangular
> house builders didn't replace round house builders, though.
>
> Doug
This quote was from Alan Hardie, not from myself.
I don't think anyone is disputing this fact, just the modern
inferences that are drawn from it. I am curious though, about the
presence of pre-Roman rectangular Celtic shrines in Britain, even
those within structures that can contain round houses such as Maiden
Castle. At what point does religious architecture in Britain cease to
be round?
Regards,
Conrad Jay Bladey "Peasant"
Perhaps the best way to explain things is that
Celtic like any term is most useful in specific
instances. As one goes from regional to local its
utility is more limited.
It is a scientific term with many good uses.
Conrad
John Hooker wrote:
>
> > Aidan J Meehan wrote:
>
> > > Sufficient distinctions exist between British Irish languages, arts and
> > > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply ancient
> > > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a scientific
> > > term.
>
> Conrad Jay Bladey \"Peasant\" wrote:
> >
> > I would not go as far as to say that Celt/Celtic is not
> > a scientific term.
> > I have seen it used by many professional archeologists.
> > I would however, say that its utility is limited due to
> > the fact
> > that it is extremely broad and applies to a constelation
> > of
> > sub cultures, styles etc.... extending right down to
> > Aidan....
>
> Aiden, Conrad,
>
> These distinctions are not indicative of differences in culture, they
> are merely indicative of a lack of understanding about the culture. If
> you want to establish that there was no unified Celtic culture, then
> your investigations will cease at the point that this appears to be
> true. In the case of Celtic art of the La Tene periods, we have two
> unifying factors that are present in all regions and time periods. The
> first is the reuse of certain motifs in similar context, and the
> second is the gradual evolution of the style.
>
> This is a holistic effect: you can see it if you take a broad look,
> say, in tracking the changes from the early grave goods at
> Waldalgesheim to the late mirror style in Britain, and you can also
> see it by taking the work of a single Celtic artist through the time
> of the production of a number of artifacts. The latter, to the best of
> my knowledge, has only been done in four bodies of work: once by E. M.
> Jope (The Waldalgesheim Master), and three times by myself (two series
> of Coriosolite coins and one of a series formerly considered to be
> Coriosolite, that I have reattributed to the Unelli). The problem with
> this type of analysis is that the Celtic art that has survived is only
> the tiniest proportion of what was originally made, so it is very
> difficult to come up with statistically valid sets. It takes unusual
> circumstances for much of this stuff to survive so long: being mainly
> metalwork, what did not corrode away was melted down if it was ever
> found.
>
> The pattern seen in the broad look is affected by the movement of
> artisans from one area to another. Its change is plotted against the
> interplay between the number of people involved, the relative
> isolation from the region of the prototype, the status and changes in
> status of those doing the work, and the relative conservatism of the
> local society.
>
> Someone once said that there was no unified Celtic culture because la
> Tene art does not exist in Spain. The Celts moved into Spain in the
> late Hallstatt, after some initial success, they were contained and
> isolated by the cultures already there. The brooch types started in a
> similar style to other Hallstatt brooches from Celtic areas, and then
> evolved very slowly over a long period of time. They did not become
> typical La Tene brooches as the communication was impeded by the
> Spanish populations.
>
> Nevertheless, there still was some communication -- even an extremely
> rare Class VI Coriosolite coin was found in Spain. These coins, the
> earliest in the series, can be dated to the very first Roman campaign
> in Armorica. They seem to have been carried to remote areas by groups
> who did not want to stay and fight. In the large Jersey hoards they
> form only 0.01 to 0.02% of the totals. In their homeland they are more
> numerous, but still rare: 0.1% at Merdrignac, and 0.3% at Trebry. In
> England, they are 10% of the total of the hundred Coriosolite coins
> found there.
>
> To use a few reductio ad absurdum examples, there are great
> differences in the works of the painters Monet and Pissarro, yet we
> have no problem in including them under the term "impressionists".
> Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists are all Christian regardless
> of their differences, and Quebecois and Parisian are also different,
> but both are French. The latter example is very appropriate to this
> discussion as the French language came to Canada in the 17th century,
> and because of the smaller population, it evolved at a slower rate so
> that it retains many elements of 17th century French in combination
> with later, local developments.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> --
> Visit our Website at http://www.writer2001.com
> Coriosolite Expert System...Animation...Poetry...Books
> Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
> Technical Writing...Graphics...Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
--
###################################################################
And a Merry Christmas to Each and Every One!
Stop by our Christmas Card!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2553/christmascard.html
As is OUR custom we extend the hospitality of the
Christmas Season to
Each and Every One. Send us an e.mail and arrange to
stop in!
cbl...@mail.bcpl.net
Don't be shy! Christmas has always been a time of
sharing! Join in!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Madra Dubh
renew our discussion of the Mythical Celt. Are you game?
-Conway
--
"Never Turn Your Back On A Hamster"
Doug Weller wrote in message ...
Boo Koo
Sheela is in real life an American scientist of national import and
effect. Usenet is in her case not entirely bogus. She really is a
scientist.
She is investing in sixpences because Cathal charges sixpence for
everything. Now Cathal is a Bogus little bear. He is my little pet. He
has a treasure chest and a girlfriend called Prude.
Boo Koo
> > In article <LKK94.2616$BL.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
arts
> > and
> > > religious practices, why call them them Celts, why not simply
ancient
> > > Britons, or ancient Irish? Archeologically, "Celtic" is not a
> > scientific
> > > term.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The archeologists who use it are therefore not scientists? It is
enough to
> > be regarded as something very real and very pervasive.
> >
> > Why call anybody anything? The 'Celts' had a lot in common.
Religion,
> > law and language. Celtic is akin to "Arabic' maybe. The original
Celts
> > might be diluted within the greater thing as the Arabs were in
theirs.
>
The historical sources were known to be very general, we might dump the
expression "Greek" or "Roman" if we followed your advice. We might put
the expression "Ice Age" in the trash. Science is what science does and
Celt and Celtic are essential terms of reference.
> 'Celt' is
> a modern label to describe a heterogeneous variety of cultures with
related
> languages.
Caesar was therefore a very manipulative guy or just gifted with an
uncanny ability to see into the future and import his contemporary
terms of reference from there? Can we all laugh now?
>Apparently, the term itself was introduced in the translation
> of Pezron's _L'antiquitez de la Nation et la Langue Celt in 1703_.
He copied the ancients I see. Smart man nothing like revivalism to make
a fast buck. You are on sand and still building - give it up.
Boo Koo
> news:84f7ca$ne1$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org...
> >
> > Boo Koo wrote in message <84ehue$pqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >In article <849aoe$8u7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > "C. Gwinn" <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The ancient British and Irish languages are
> > >> close enough to Gaulish and Celtiberian that they can really be
said
> > >to be
> > >> sister languages - closer even than Italian and Spanish, for
example.
> > >
> > >P and Q linguistic distinctions are not an indicator of any
significant
> > >degree of cultural or religious or legal diversity.
> >
> > genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic
linguists no
> > longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory way.
>
> language that they speak.
> "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" are unscientific terms, because they imply
genetic
> identification, which it is not possible to determine from language.
> Different peoples, of different origins, can share a common language.
So we
> cannot identify a population by the language they speak. Thank you,
Anthony.
>
> Aidan J Meehan
>
>
They imply nothing of the kind. The adoption of a language merely
suggests vey strongly that a culture of sorts is doing rather well. It
invariably brings with it, religion and law and a host of other core
manifestations.
Therefore legal concepts common to many Celtic peoples can be traced
back to a period when the isolated legal concept itself stood alone
amidst the culture that birthed it - by the 'original' celts even,
nowhere is a 'pure' race needed.
We can identify a population by the language they speak. We can say
they are X speakers or Y speakers and with it assume that they might
very likely have lots in common. Language is a bed rock of culture and
in the classical period also law and religion and politics.
Boo Koo
Sheela
wrote:
>> Well, if not a Celtic Goddess, perhaps we could interest you in the
>Tooth
>> Fairy?
Aidan, dentists and children? Are you mad? I'd sooner get hypnotised
and tell you all I'm the reincarnation of Maeve. I was offered a
doctoral position formulating that shite that coats yer teeth so ya
have no cavities. I thought how fecking boring. I cleaned up hazardous
waste and got nuked instead. It was a bit cool.
>Sheela is in real life an American scientist of national import and
>effect. Usenet is in her case not entirely bogus. She really is a
>scientist.
Jaysis am I being imported? Last time I went across the border it was
the special room for me. It was sheela babe you fit the profile of a
terrorist. I says what the fuck me? Cripes and I was showing the fat
arsed red faced culchie the modem and the cable and saying ri, this is
a mouse see, and the modem fits in here.
>She is investing in sixpences because Cathal charges sixpence for
>everything. Now Cathal is a Bogus little bear. He is my little pet. He
>has a treasure chest and a girlfriend called Prude.
I am hurt beyond measure. Cathal was mine. I paid him a fecking
fortune.
John Hooker
Sheela wrote:
> I see this is going to soc.culture.celtic so I must
> add I really don't fancy some past life Celtic Goddess kinda Druid
> crap. I've shared enough cider with the Archdruid to know that, King
> of the Hippies PR man so he be.
Sheela,
But that was now, this is then.
John Hooker
Conrad Jay Bladey \"Peasant\" wrote:
>
> You are correct.
> Perhaps the best way to explain things is that
> Celtic like any term is most useful in specific
> instances. As one goes from regional to local its
> utility is more limited.
>
> It is a scientific term with many good uses.
Conrad,
I think some use the term "Iron Age" when they can't quite grasp the
Celtic. Only after understanding the essential "Celticness" does the
individual artist begin to emerge. It is indeed scientific -- if done
correctly.
John Hooker
speculate that politics might have had a little do with it.
John
Boo Koo wrote:
>
> In article <BuKa4.98$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> "Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> > Boo Koo <psycho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:84ei94$q50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <LKK94.2616$BL.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > > "Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> --
> Boo Koo
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
John Hooker
John
Boo Koo wrote:
>
> In article <oGPa4.151$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> "Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> >
Aidan J Meehan
> > Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in message
> > news:84f7ca$ne1$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org...
> > > In fact, Q>P is an isolated sound shift that does not represent any
> > > genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic
> > > linguists no
> > > longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory way.
I am not sure what Anthony meant by a genetic reality, but I interpreted him
to mean that ...
> > "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" are unscientific terms, because they imply
> > genetic
> > identification, which it is not possible to determine from language.
> We can identify a population by the language they speak. We can say
> they are X speakers or Y speakers and with it assume that they might
> very likely have lots in common.
Yes, we can identify them as a group of "P-Celtic-speakers", I suppose. But
surely it is not correct to speak of "P-Celts" and "Q-Celts", as the
language used does not identify a given population in genetic terms.
At some point, Ireland was P-Celtic-speaking, and then became
Q-Celtic-speaking. This does not necessarily tell us that the population
changed, or that the culture changed. Or does it?
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan
> In article <BuKa4.98$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > > In article <LKK94.2616$BL.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > > "Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> > > > 'Celt' is
> > > > a modern label to describe a heterogeneous variety of cultures with
> > > > related
> > > > languages.
> Caesar was therefore a very manipulative guy or just gifted with an
> uncanny ability to see into the future and import his contemporary
> terms of reference from there? Can we all laugh now?
Caesar used the word "Celtae" to refer just to some of the Gauls, I think.
That did not include, Belgae, some of whom were mainlanders, and some of
whom were in Britain. But the Belgae distinguished themselves from both
Gauls and Britons, and the native Britons distinguished themselves from both
Caesar's Celtae, and the Belgic invaders. If by "Celts", Caesar was
referring to non-Belgic inhabitants of Gaul, then his use of the word was
very different from what we mean today when we use the word.
> >Apparently, the term itself was introduced in the translation
> > of Pezron's _L'antiquitez de la Nation et la Langue Celt in 1703_.
When we say, "Celtic art", or "Celtic music", we are not necessarily talking
about Caesar's Celts. We might mean modern Irish, or Scottish, or Canadian
Maritime, for that matter. So the term "Celtic" has taken on a broader, more
general scope than it originally had. The notion of a "Celtic Race and
Language", as implied in Pezron's title, is an eighteenth-century concept
that has gained ground since.
> He copied the ancients I see. Smart man nothing like revivalism to make
> a fast buck. You are on sand and still building - give it up.
You refer to Pezron, I take it. The Eighteenth-century saw the beginning of
the Celtic revivalism that has really become a cultural phenomenon in the
past twenty years.
Aidan
Madra Dubh
-Conway
--
"Never Turn Your Back On A Hamster"
Aidan J Meehan wrote in message ...
Boo Koo
> > > Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in message
> > > news:84f7ca$ne1$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org...
>
> > > > In fact, Q>P is an isolated sound shift that does not represent
any
> > > > genetic reality within Celtic linguistics as a whole. Celtic
> > > > linguists no
> > > > longer use the terms "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" in a classificatory
way.
>
> I am not sure what Anthony meant by a genetic reality, but I
interpreted him
> to mean that ...
>
> > > "P-Celt" and "Q-Celt" are unscientific terms, because they imply
> > > genetic
> > > identification, which it is not possible to determine from
language.
>
> > We can identify a population by the language they speak. We can say
> > they are X speakers or Y speakers and with it assume that they might
> > very likely have lots in common.
>
> Yes, we can identify them as a group of "P-Celtic-speakers", I
suppose. But
> surely it is not correct to speak of "P-Celts" and "Q-Celts", as the
> language used does not identify a given population in genetic terms.
You are spoofing or trolling. Who the hell suggested we were doing
paternity tests? The Romans were not really 'Roman' then, were they? Of
course not they were also a mixture.
They had a culture though. A pretty famous one as well. Go to Trier or
Arles and have a look, better still go to Rome. Even their capital was
full of every Tom, Dick and Harry the empire could provide. They still
had something cultural going on though with essentially one language.
Much more of a mixture than our little old Irish friends. The language
identifies linguistic groups and even today that is a pretty big
cultural giveaway, it was more of a clue in them faraway olden times if
you'll excuse the technical expressions.
>
> At some point, Ireland was P-Celtic-speaking, and then became
> Q-Celtic-speaking. This does not necessarily tell us that the
population
> changed, or that the culture changed. Or does it?
>
> Aidan
>
>
When exactly was Ireland exclusively P-Celtic speaking? If they were
mutually understandable in the 400s AD then say 600 years previously
they'd have much more in common surely? At some point it was the same
bloody language.
Therefore are we even talking about the same thing? I don't think so
clever clogs. Where is your proof Mister? I think you are trolling.
Boo Koo
jo...@writer2001.com wrote:
> Yes, I think that Simon James "rushed to print". Of course, we could
> speculate that politics might have had a little do with it.
>
> John
Trolling even at this point. Either that or our friend is bored and
this is his social life. I had two bottles of bolly last night and I am
still haking it out my arse and gob.
Never a vomitorium when you need one. I feel so ill it is unreal, it is
like being at freshers night again. I even went to bed and pretended I
had some contagion but it didn't work. Everybody knows I am hung over.
Boo Koo
> > In article <BuKa4.98$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > "Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> > > Boo Koo <psycho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > In article <LKK94.2616$BL.1...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > > > > a modern label to describe a heterogeneous variety of
cultures with
> > > > > related
> > > > > languages.
>
> > Caesar was therefore a very manipulative guy or just gifted with an
> > uncanny ability to see into the future and import his contemporary
> > terms of reference from there? Can we all laugh now?
>
> Caesar used the word "Celtae" to refer just to some of the Gauls, I
think.
> That did not include, Belgae, some of whom were mainlanders, and some
of
> whom were in Britain. But the Belgae distinguished themselves from
both
> Gauls and Britons, and the native Britons distinguished themselves
from both
> Caesar's Celtae, and the Belgic invaders. If by "Celts", Caesar was
> referring to non-Belgic inhabitants of Gaul, then his use of the word
was
> very different from what we mean today when we use the word.
Caesar was using the word as 'we' use it today. We if not he is in
better company than your strangeness. Just give it up and stop
bullshitting. You are making a fool out of yourself.
Most folks on this news group use the term the same way as that famous
and clever Roman and you know it and we know it. Caesar was firmly of
the opinion that Britain was the primary source of religious orthodoxy
for the Gallic enemies he had defeated.
People like Diviciacus held sway in both Gaul and Britain as well
significantly before even Ceasar had been to either place. The Belgics
thought nothing of running away to Britain when the going got tough and
they had cousins willing to let them have the spare room.
Caesar also mentions that in most of his Gallic campaigns Britons were
reliably always there fighting for the other team. The Romans clearly
and unambiguously presumed a common culture.
>
> > >Apparently, the term itself was introduced in the translation
> > > of Pezron's _L'antiquitez de la Nation et la Langue Celt in 1703_.
>
> When we say, "Celtic art", or "Celtic music", we are not necessarily
talking
> about Caesar's Celts. We might mean modern Irish, or Scottish, or
Canadian
> Maritime, for that matter. So the term "Celtic" has taken on a
broader, more
> general scope than it originally had.
Are you going to just give it up or what? German also has a broader
scope now than it had then as their greatest writers and composers had
not been born when Caesar was about. We are talking about the Celts
then, not now.
Even the Romans had much to add to their thing for that matter. Caesar
thought the Britons were Celts - end of story - most Romans agreed with
him at that time and so do most of the people in the real world today.
We are discussing the Celts then, and Caesar thought they were Celts.
So did they, the 'Celts' themselves that is. You are out voted in other
words.
Boo Koo
jo...@writer2001.com wrote:
>
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
> > > This is irrelevant. Scottish building practices, styles and
materials
> > > are, to this day, wholly different from English practices, styles
and
> > > materials. You couldn't conclude from studying the architecture of
> > > Scotland and England that the two societies have two wholly
unrelated
> > > cultures.
> > >
> > Which of course I am not doing. It does very much suggest that
rectangular
> > house builders didn't replace round house builders, though.
> >
> > Doug
>
> This quote was from Alan Hardie, not from myself.
>
> I don't think anyone is disputing this fact, just the modern
> inferences that are drawn from it. I am curious though, about the
> presence of pre-Roman rectangular Celtic shrines in Britain, even
> those within structures that can contain round houses such as Maiden
> Castle. At what point does religious architecture in Britain cease to
> be round?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Peterborough New Town they had certainly stopped building round ones
then by 1976. Harlow follows a similar fashion, you'd need to check
Basildon as well in my opinion.
What is this thread about anyway? Didn't the Romans give quite a few a
fashionable reworking? When were they essentially always round? Pray
forgive my ignorance.
Boo Koo
>
> > Caesar stated that the population of Britain "is exceedingly large,
> > the ground thickly studded with homesteads, closely resembling those
> > of the Gauls" (V.12) he does say that the interior is inhabited "by
> > people who claim, on the strength of an oral tradition, to be
> > aboriginal",
>
> Iron age dwellings in ancient Gaul and Britain resemble similar
dwellings in
> Africa.
> Iron age dwellings resemble iron age dwellings anywhere, any period of
> history.
A trifle simplistic. There might be significant differences after their
own fashion. By 600 BC the 'Hallstatt' influence was spreading rapidly
throughout Britain. By 500 BC it had reached the North West.
In the fourth and third centuries La Tene characteristics materialise
in Britain as well. I think that is broadly in line with what one
would expect.
Yorkshire also had it's own "Arras culture' as well with a relationship
to the Marne and indeed much further east.
It seemingly also had a "Parisi' tribe to go with it. Social systems
throughout Britain were thought and are still thought to be closely
related. The Scottish Highlands are possibly excepted I think.
>
> [snip as irellevant, as if Caesar depended on Druids for information!]
He was very concerned about the Druids and the Romans remained very
concerned about them. The Romans identified that aspect as the single
most threatening political manifestation the "Celts' might project and
coalesce around.
The Romans were not looking to pamper them or give them better
facilities and a subsidy, the Romans wanted the druids whacked. The
Romans were not taking the diplomatic road on that score.
Caesar would have had spies, informants, academics and mercants. The
Romans were interested in everybody and anybody within reach of them.
So from Poland to Ireland to Africa they were just simply very
interested. They'd make bigger efforts the closer and more dangerous
the region was.
In fact the Oxford history of Roman Britain by Peter Salway goes so far
as to regard the English Channel as little more than a big river in a
Celtic world. Oxford University Press reputable or not?
Technical and legal expressions can be assigned or located in all
surviving Celtic languages and then the same exact terms postulated
backwards to the common Celtic period.
The legal expression 'distraint' is complex and involved and is known
to be common to all the surviving Celtic languages. It goes way, way,
way back.
A coherent legalo-religious and linguistic unity for this 'culture'
or 'people' is very probable. They were 'the' original Celts or on
first name terms with the same beast.
Boo Koo
jo...@writer2001.com wrote:
>
> Give up?
>
> O.K. I'll tell. More English counties have Celtic coins in their
> archaeological record than do not, and most of them are from fairly
> local mints.
>
> As the answer to the last comment is not quoted, I will repeat, and
> elaborate, on what I have said: Early coin use among Celts depends on
> their military relationship with the classical world, or on their
> relationship with other tribes that had a military relationship with
> the classical world. The Bellovaci never struck coins, nor did the
> Brigantes. The Parisii in England never struck coins, but the Parisii
> in France did. You see, it doesn't have a direct bearing on whether
> they were Celtic or not. Later coin use was based more on an economic
> connection with the classical world, or with tribes that had such a
> connection.
>
> Regards,
> John
> --
Forget that guy, interestingly the Roman Army was an essential part of
the economic mechanism, without it the requirement and means to process
cash was severely hampered.
After the rebellion the Britons probably realised that cash by way of
small change was never going to be what it was because they left mounds
of coins unused.
Previously these would have been exchanged for high value coins or
recouped via taxation from folks selling stuff to the military. The
circle had a big gap in it with no military.
One might presume that merchants chased after 'their' army as it
went 'Emperor' making in Gaul. It was certainly not in the artisans
interests to see a captive market just go away. It was probably not
even in the land owning classes interests.
They would not be taxed but a world would collapse utterly leaving a
society poorer than it was before Caesar.
Patrick Brown
<ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
> Yes, we can identify them as a group of "P-Celtic-speakers", I
> suppose. But
> surely it is not correct to speak of "P-Celts" and "Q-Celts", as
> the
> language used does not identify a given population in genetic
> terms.
> At some point, Ireland was P-Celtic-speaking, and then became
> Q-Celtic-speaking. This does not necessarily tell us that the
> population
> changed, or that the culture changed. Or does it?
Not necessarily, you're right. But it suggests that some new cultural
influence came to bear, perhaps due to an important new population
group arriving.
But surely the idea that "Celtic" and related words represent something
genetic should have been abandoned long before now. I'm always amazed
when contemporary academics, like that bunch who claimed that the Irish
were more English than Celtic recently, attempt to advance it (it's
absolutely true, but not for the reasons they give. Irish people are
much more likely to speak English than any Celtic language, and have a
culture that is strongly influenced by the English as well). Large
swathes of Europe spoke Latin for quite some time, but I don't think
they were genetically Roman.
Saying "Celts" for "Celtic speakers" is probably bit lazy, but no more
so than "Slavs" or "Arabs".
Patrick
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Boo Koo
Patrick Brown <patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ezmb4.447$B6.3...@brie.direct.ca>, "Aidan J Meehan"
> <ame...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we can identify them as a group of "P-Celtic-speakers", I
> > suppose. But
> > surely it is not correct to speak of "P-Celts" and "Q-Celts", as
> > the
> > language used does not identify a given population in genetic
> > terms.
> > At some point, Ireland was P-Celtic-speaking, and then became
> > Q-Celtic-speaking. This does not necessarily tell us that the
> > population
> > changed, or that the culture changed. Or does it?
>
> Not necessarily, you're right. But it suggests that some new cultural
> influence came to bear, perhaps due to an important new population
> group arriving.
They adopted a religion, legal code and a language. What maketh
a 'culture'? They were Celtic.
Caesar thought they were Celtic and they themselves thought they were
Celtic and acted it out in so far as they were the same as their
continental cousins. The archeology says the same.
>
> But surely the idea that "Celtic" and related words represent
something
> genetic should have been abandoned long before now. I'm always amazed
> when contemporary academics, like that bunch who claimed that the
Irish
> were more English than Celtic recently, attempt to advance it (it's
> absolutely true, but not for the reasons they give.
How can it be true? There was not enough English blood breeding fast
enough to make the Irish more than slightly English.
The English such as they were already had Celtic stock in common with
the Irish. The English clearly might be more Celtic than German before
it got diluted further.
We are an anglo-celtic culture for sure but hardly 'English'. We have
changed utterly from what we were but can hardly be thought English.
Boo Koo
she...@the.mental wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:17:15 GMT, Boo Koo <psycho...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >The archeologists who use it are therefore not scientists?
>
> far more interested in inheritance of the psyche than I am in coins.
> Except for the odd sixpence. I have found myself understanding
> languages sometimes that I have not learned. How much of what we know
> is not learned but passed or shared? It is the mystical aspects of
> inheritance that cannot be explained by DNA or dating techniques that
> I find compelling.
My dating techniques are a bit like Cathal's. I am more a thruppenny
bit man though. I jez pays da girl and says bye bye.
Cathal is quite keen on pimping, I have tried to explain that he can't
take the whole sixpence. He is quite adamant. He has done his sums.
He doesn't think the lass deserves anything, he wants the entire cut.
He says 'She gets free sex'. I mean there is some logic in his position
but not much.
Doug Weller
> Caesar thought they were Celtic and they themselves thought they were
> Celtic and acted it out in so far as they were the same as their
> continental cousins. The archeology says the same.
>
Not just a few artefacts, please. And some dates and references.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
>
> In fact the Oxford history of Roman Britain by Peter Salway goes so far
> as to regard the English Channel as little more than a big river in a
> Celtic world. Oxford University Press reputable or not?
This is just stupid. You can't use a publisher as an argument. The OUP is
reputable, but not everything it publishes is 100% accurate.
You are also being dishonest in this selective quoting of Salway. On the page
before he mentions the English Channel, he also writes:
"It is also true that the recurrence of names of tribes and of places in
districts far apart from one another is not that uncommon in the Celtic world -
the Veneti of Brittany, for example, are paralleled by the Veneti of north-east
Italy, a case in which no recent migration is suggested. One may suspect that
this phenomenon generally had more to do with language than actual kinship.
While it is always highly dangerous to reject a contemporary account without
very good reason, it is also always appropriate to consider the circumstances in
which the statements were written. It is not at all clear whether Caesar here,
in his description of Britain, is reporting what he knew, or had been told, or
had deduced from what he had observed, in much the same way as we have to
deduce."
> Technical and legal expressions can be assigned or located in all
> surviving Celtic languages and then the same exact terms postulated
> backwards to the common Celtic period.
>
Sounds good until you try to make sense of it.
Your comments about trollers, by the way, are a bit ironical considering the
nature of your postings vs the nature of the serious postings you consider
trolls.
jo...@writer2001.com
Before skating out too far on the thin ice of ad hominem arguments, we
had better examine the evidence a little closer.
Salway's "example" is flawed in so many ways, that it would be better if
everyone forgot he ever wrote it. First, there is hardly a parallel
between the Veneti in Armorica, and the Veneti in Italy. The latter
spoke an Illyrian dialect, and while we might one day sort out the
Illyrian/Italo-Celtic connections, we hardly have anything pinned down
yet. In any case, the connections are more likely to have pre-dated the
La Tene period, and tribal names and territories of that time are little
recorded. Second, if we deal with what we might call "major" tribes, or
tribes where we have strong evidence of both their name, and the
territory they occupied at a specific time, then we should restrict our
attention to two tribes only.
The Parisii in France and England can easily be connected by reason of
the archaeological record. La Tene items from the Parisii region in
England consist of both Marnian imports and local items following the
Marnian style. This is strong evidence, but we must leave absolute proof
for the next example.
The Atrebates are both British and continental. We have a related
iconography, and the historical fact that a king of the Atrebates in
England was born to the continental branch of the tribe and was an envoy
and personal acquaintance of Caesar. Further political, cultural and
familial ties link the British Atrebates with the Cantii in the time of
Epillus.
Two continental tribes might have some connections, but the evidence is
less certain: the Eburones lived on the borders of the German Suebi, and
not far away was an unnamed tribed that occupied an area that later was
taken over by the Treverii. In the face of attacks from the Suebi, this
unamed tribe split, and a large number of them moved to Armorica where
they are known as the Aulerci Cenomani. a neighbour of theirs, who
shares the same coin iconography, is the Aulerci Eburovices. So we have
a related name, although not identical, coupled with iconographic and
numismatic evidence (a sudden devaluation of the coinage in their
homeland). Furthermore, there is a continuation of design elements from
this general area close to the German tribes to elements found on
Coriosolite coins in Armorica. The specific focus of the Coriosolite
coin design elements tracks to Weisskirchen in Saar (S scroll with
leaves: Jacobsthal P409, No 100; S shaped split palmette derivative:
Jacobsthal P412, No 350; Wide leaf shape: Jacobsthal No 20. The last
shape also shows up in Jacobsthal No 21 from Schwabsburg, Rhinehessen;
Jacobsthal No 23 from Klein Aspergle, Wurttemburg; and Jacobsthal No 24
from Eygenbilsen, Limburg, Belgium. In an 18th century book, I found a
reference to a Coriosvallum in Limburg, but I have yet to track this
down further. The only French example of the wide leaf shape apart
from Corisolite coins comes from Bethany, Marne. A few other examples
exist in Germany, but the design is somewhat different. The previous
shapes from Weisskirchen do not show up anywhere else but on
Coriosolite coins).
In dealing with the accounts of Caesar, a convenient method is to weight
his evidence strongly when it deals with people, tribes, and economies.
He used a wide variety of sources, and had many people interviewed.
Inconsistencies in their testimonials would have been taken into
consideration. He was a good general, and he knew his job well. Less
attention should be paid to his reports of anecdotes (my favorite is his
story of the elk), and on matters of religion and custom. This does not
mean that they are wrong (except for the elk story), it just means that
his level of "quality control" over the data was less demanding than it
was when dealing with military matters.
If anyone has not read Caesar and does not know the elk story, it is, as
far as I know, the earliest Celtic joke. I'll tell it as the Celt would
have told it to Caesar:
"We often hunt elk, they are easy to catch as they have no joints in
their legs and therefore cannot lie down. When they sleep, they have to
lean against trees. So what we do is saw through the trees so they break
when the elk leans against them. The elk tips over and because they have
no leg joints they can't get up and run away"
Regards,
John Hooker
C. Gwinn
Of course there was! The parent language of Irish, Welsh, Gaulish, Lepontic,
etc etc was the "Celtic language" (it is often called Common Celtic). Its
dialectal variances split off into the Q-Celtic and P-Celtic branches, which
later split themselves.
> Nor is there a "Celtic religion" - that has been interpreted variously as
> druidism, neo-druidism, paganism, wicca, Celtic-christian, and New Age.
Once again, there certainly was a Celtic religion that coexisted with the
Common Celtic language.
C. Gwinn
that the British isles were known as "Pretanic isles" in the fourth century
b.c. shows that P-Celtic was spoken there at least that early. It is not
certain, whether the whole island was P-Celtic and then became Q-Celtic
speaking - both languahe groups may have coexisted by the fourth century
b.c. with Q-Celtic winning out due to politcal/cultural influence.
"Madra Dubh" <m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:84lmqv$c07$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Was it now? And your proof?
> -Conway
>
> --
> "Never Turn Your Back On A Hamster"
>
> Aidan J Meehan wrote in message ...
>
> >
C. Gwinn
> Caesar used the word "Celtae" to refer just to some of the Gauls, I think.
Caesar said that the people whom the Italians called Galli called themselves
Celtae.
> That did not include, Belgae, some of whom were mainlanders, and some of
> whom were in Britain. But the Belgae distinguished themselves from both
> Gauls and Britons, and the native Britons distinguished themselves from
both
> Caesar's Celtae, and the Belgic invaders.
And early Americans distinguished themselves from the British - yet they
overwhelmingly partook in British culture if they were not directly of
British stock. The Belgae said they were a mixture of Celts and Germans -
which is not a linguistic or ethnic term back then, but a geographical term.
The Belgae an Britons distinguished themselves based on geography - just as
we do today, despite common cultures.
C. Gwinn
> "It is also true that the recurrence of names of tribes and of places in
> districts far apart from one another is not that uncommon in the Celtic
world -
> the Veneti of Brittany, for example, are paralleled by the Veneti of
north-east
> Italy, a case in which no recent migration is suggested. One may suspect
that
> this phenomenon generally had more to do with language than actual
kinship.
This is an accident of Indo European linguistics. The language of the
Italian Veneti is entirely un-Celtic, while the Veneti of Brittany are most
assuredly Celtic (their name comes from Ueni- "tribe/kin").
Patrick Brown
<psycho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, you're right. But it suggests that some new
> cultural
> > influence came to bear, perhaps due to an important new
> population
> > group arriving.
> They adopted a religion, legal code and a language. What maketh
> a 'culture'? They were Celtic.
The shift from P-Celtic to Q-Celtic languages suggests that a different
group of Celts came into the ascendancy.
> Caesar thought they were Celtic and they themselves thought they
> were
> Celtic and acted it out in so far as they were the same as their
> continental cousins. The archeology says the same.
I don't know anything about archeology but Caesar says nothing about
Ireland.
> > But surely the idea that "Celtic" and related words represent
> something
> > genetic should have been abandoned long before now. I'm always
> amazed
> > when contemporary academics, like that bunch who claimed that the
> Irish
> > were more English than Celtic recently, attempt to advance it
> (it's
> > absolutely true, but not for the reasons they give.
> How can it be true? There was not enough English blood breeding
> fast
> enough to make the Irish more than slightly English.
You misunderstand (perhaps because I was being a bit mischeivous). It's
nothing whatsoever to do with "blood", not least because we're all such
mongrels anyway. English linguistic and cultural influences have taken
over Ireland in only a few centuries without mass population
replacement or mass interbreeding. Is it too much of a jump to imagine
that something similar might have happened when Ireland became Celtic,
or when the language changed from P-Celtic to Q-Celtic?
Doug Weller
> Before skating out too far on the thin ice of ad hominem arguments, we
> had better examine the evidence a little closer.
>
> Salway's "example" is flawed in so many ways, that it would be better if
> everyone forgot he ever wrote it.
>
selectively while at the same time calling other people trolls.
The elk joke was great!
John Hooker
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <84o0jg$u9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jo...@writer2001.com says...
> > Before skating out too far on the thin ice of ad hominem arguments, we
> > had better examine the evidence a little closer.
> >
> > Salway's "example" is flawed in so many ways, that it would be better if
> > everyone forgot he ever wrote it.
> >
> Thanks John. I'm not defending Salway, just annoyed by people who quote so
> selectively while at the same time calling other people trolls.
>
> The elk joke was great!
Doug,
Okey dokey,
Btw, I happen to know that elk do indeed bend at the knees. I live not
far from Banff Alberta. A lot of elk live in that town, probably to
keep clear of hunters and grizzly bears. You can often see them lying
down in front gardens (after eating anything resembling an edible
plant that the inhabitants fancied they might get away with growing).
They can get a little cantankerous at times -- one German tourist
thought they were tame and put his toddler on an elks back to take his
photograph. Fortunately, the kid lived through the ordeal of being
gored by the antlers.
Despite the Celtic name of the town I have yet to see trees that were
sawed part the way through.
Regards,
John
Sheela
wrote:
>My dating techniques are a bit like Cathal's.
It's radio-carbon dating any more technical information is a sixpence
headed back my way.
____________________________________________________
"I never play to win" Is what she said
And poured a little cocaine in my head
indr...@my-deja.com
England was able to culturally dominate Ireland because of their
massive, organized state government which instituted a policy of
cultural supression in Ireland. This type of organization could not
have existed anciently in Ireland or Britain prior to the coming of the
Romans.
If I am not mistaken, there does seem to be some disruption of British
and Irish society in the Bronze age which may indicate a new element
appearing in these countries. Whether this new element was Celtic- or
late Proto Indo European-speaking cannot be stated with certainty - but
no pre-Celtic language survives there in any form, so we may as well
assume that this new element is Celtic (by comparison, in Iberia we
seem to have a pre-Celtic Indo European language surviving into the
historical period which is called Lusitanian. It is notably marked by
the retention of the PIE P- which makes it definitely non-Celtic -
should we not have seen evidence for a pre-Celtic language surviving in
Britain and Ireland if the island was not significantly populated by
Celtic speaking people from the continent?).
C. Gwinn
In article <00091c0e...@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>,
Doug Weller
> If I am not mistaken, there does seem to be some disruption of British
> and Irish society in the Bronze age which may indicate a new element
> appearing in these countries. Whether this new element was Celtic- or
> late Proto Indo European-speaking cannot be stated with certainty - but
> no pre-Celtic language survives there in any form, so we may as well
> assume that this new element is Celtic
>
it means (as you seem to be saying) an influx from the Continent of Celts?
Doug
Boo Koo
she...@the.mental wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:25:15 GMT, Boo Koo <psycho...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >My dating techniques are a bit like Cathal's.
>
> It's radio-carbon dating any more technical information is a sixpence
> headed back my way.
>
Cathal is too concerned about third world debt to get involved in huge
hard currency transfers out of Europe.
You can have a pot of jam instead, there are hardly any bits of butter
or bread in it as he usually cleans the knife before scooping some out.
It is a third full.
Cathal is not into speculative forex transfers, he was not stuffed
yesterday. it will take more than some babe in Merka to screw him out
of sixpence. He will rub your arm for cash up front his end.
--
Boo Koo
Robin Popplestone
>
>At some point, Ireland was P-Celtic-speaking, and then became
>Q-Celtic-speaking. This does not necessarily tell us that the population
>changed, or that the culture changed. Or does it?
Unlikely, I'd say. P-Celtic is generally reckoned to have evolved from Q-Celtic.
(A namby-pamby softening of consonants). Ireland, linguistically as in other ways,
was more conservative.
Robin.
com...@my-deja.com
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <84sqcn$9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, indr...@my-deja.com
says...
> > If I am not mistaken, there does seem to be some disruption of
British
> > and Irish society in the Bronze age which may indicate a new element
> > appearing in these countries. Whether this new element was Celtic-
or
> > late Proto Indo European-speaking cannot be stated with certainty -
but
> > no pre-Celtic language survives there in any form, so we may as well
> > assume that this new element is Celtic
> >
> Can we start by being specific about what the disruption was and why
you think
> it means (as you seem to be saying) an influx from the Continent of
Celts?
technological advances (especially in farming), The population of the
Danube area increased and started to spread westward. This was the
Urnfield culture and the subsequent Hallstatt culture. It was these that
carried the Celtic language. Later, another wave from the east appeared
in the form of the La Tene culture. Such movements of large numbers of
people during this time is part of the historical record: Cimbri,
Teutones, Celts sacking Rome, and the even later attempt of the Helvetii
to grab more land in the time of Caesar.
The signs of all of this in Britain and on the continent is the increase
in fortifications, and the shift in the use of hillforts and hilltop
enclosures from the defence of cattle raids to habitations of the elite
built to withstand war.
The divisions between Britain and the continent are more apparent than
real. I did a little more research into the assumption that Britons used
round huts and the Continent used rectangular huts.
There was a circular hut excavated at Ile de Groix in Morbihan, and
circular huts of wattle and daub are known at Alesia along with
rectangular huts (Mortimer Wheeler-- The Hillforts of Northern France)
Peter J Reynolds says (in "Beginnings in the Celtic World", in _The
Celtic Consciousness_ NY 1981), "Throughout the United Kingdom and
Ireland and along the western sea board of Europe and Spain, the Celtic
houses were circular in plan."
So this pretty well explodes the idea that circular houses separate
Britain from Europe. It is only a maritime feature. It also makes more
sense to make wattle and daub houses circular for structural reasons.
I also notice that Peter Reynolds uses the term "Celtic". He is a noted
British archaeologist with a particularly practical bent, and has
contributed more than anyone to our knowledge of Celtic farming
techniques. He heads the Butser Farm Project.
Regards,
John
C. Gwinn
there were some (note, - not all) P-Celtic tribes from Britain, Gaul and
Belgica living in Ireland - but they were completely Gaelicized by the 5th
century A.D., so they must not have been the cultural/linguistic majority
" Robin Popplestone " <p...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3873...@rcfnews.cs.umass.edu...
C. Gwinn
> Can we start by being specific about what the disruption was and why you
think
> it means (as you seem to be saying) an influx from the Continent of Celts?
Olmsted (Gods of the Celts and the Indo Europeans) states that the IE people
likely began dispersing west around 1200 B.C., if not earlier, quoting C.
Burgess (1974 "the Bronze age" in British Prehistory - by C. Renfrew - pg
198-200) saying that there were disruptions of the cultural continuity in
Britain in the Middle Bronze Age which may indicate an influx of new
people - likely IE speakers, if not outright Celts.. Olmsted has Britain,
France and Spain being certainly Celtic by 700B.C. The language family had
certainly already distinguished itself from PIE much before 600 B.C. - after
which we see the Celts entering the historical period.
John Hooker
> com...@my-deja.com wrote:
Sorry about my "Commios" handle, I forgot to change it to my own
email. Usenet seems screwed up since Y2K and I have been having
constant problems reading and posting. I don't know whether it my ISP,
phone company, or software that is causing the problems.
If anyone has any info, please let me know.
I see Chris also answered this question, and gave a similar response.
One other point, in the late Bronze Age in Britain, there seems to
have been a metal shortage. The new economy seems to have taken care
of that.
Regards,
John Hooker
Doug Weller
> In article <MPG.12dc69718...@news.btinternet.com>,
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <84sqcn$9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, indr...@my-deja.com
> says...
> > > If I am not mistaken, there does seem to be some disruption of
> British
> > > and Irish society in the Bronze age which may indicate a new element
> > > appearing in these countries. Whether this new element was Celtic-
> or
> > > late Proto Indo European-speaking cannot be stated with certainty -
> but
> > > no pre-Celtic language survives there in any form, so we may as well
> > > assume that this new element is Celtic
> > >
> you think
> > it means (as you seem to be saying) an influx from the Continent of
> Celts?
> technological advances (especially in farming), The population of the
> Danube area increased and started to spread westward.
>
far I haven't had.
C. Gwinn
which so
> far I haven't had.
Your news reader must be slow - I posted my response hours before you posted
this.
C. Gwinn
"they have houses made from beams and wicker, big and with a conical roof,
over which they throw a lot of thatch."
Doug implies that the Britons and the Gauls were different people because
the Britons had round houses while the Gauls only had rectangular ones. It
seems to me that it would be hard to get a conical roof on a rectangular
house - but I could be wrong. "Conica roofl" seems to imply a round house.
BTW - Pre-Roman rectangular temples have been found in Britain, so the
practice of rectangular building styles certainly existered there anciently
Doug Weller
says...
Doug Weller
rigv...@hotmail.com says...
> And Strabo - which Doug asked us to refer to - says of the Gauls that:
>
> "they have houses made from beams and wicker, big and with a conical roof,
> over which they throw a lot of thatch."
>
> Doug implies that the Britons and the Gauls were different people because
> the Britons had round houses while the Gauls only had rectangular ones.
>
though this is the whole of my argument.
Doug Weller
dwe...@ramtops.co.uk says...
> Thanks. I'll come back to this, but I really wanted Chris's comments, which so
> far I haven't had.
>
"C. Gwinn" wrote:
I wrote:
> > Can we start by being specific about what the disruption was and why you
> think
> > it means (as you seem to be saying) an influx from the Continent of Celts?
>
> Olmsted (Gods of the Celts and the Indo Europeans) states that the IE people
> likely began dispersing west around 1200 B.C., if not earlier, quoting C.
> Burgess (1974 "the Bronze age" in British Prehistory - by C. Renfrew - pg
> 198-200) saying that there were disruptions of the cultural continuity in
> Britain in the Middle Bronze Age which may indicate an influx of new
> people - likely IE speakers, if not outright Celts.. Olmsted has Britain,
> France and Spain being certainly Celtic by 700B.C. The language family had
> certainly already distinguished itself from PIE much before 600 B.C. - after
> which we see the Celts entering the historical period.
This is combining several things, but I'll focus on disruptions in the
middle Bronze Age.
In the 19th century and the earlier part of this century, any change in
British prehistory was interpreted as being caused by invasions from the
continent, starting with the assumption that European farmers invaded
and started the Neolithic (although we now know that the British
Neolithic isn't characterised by farming as was first thought).
Megaliths were also supposedly introduced by invaders. But Colin Renfrew
used RC dating to show that this simply wasn't the case, and that the
earliest monuments show up on the periphery of Europe.
Trade has also been seen as an important motor for change.
More recently, climate changes around 3000 BP are seen as having a
serious effect on British society. (At one point the explosion of the
Hekla volcano was seen as a factor, but that doesn't seem so likely now
I gather).
Another possible factor is internal growth and development, conflict
within society.
Something I read today seems perhaps relevant, although it's more or
less off the top of my head:
It's from the 1992 Rhinds Lectures by Richard Bradley:
"In fact, it was only later, in the Mississippian period, that large
monuments were erected by communities who were dependent on maize. The
history of these monuments is a particularly revealing one, for the
increasing dependence on a single resource, and on the fixed plots where
it was grown, led to the spread of infectious disease...There are signs
of violence, and some of the ceremonial centres were provided with
defences. One feature of those sites was the large scale storage of
foodstuffs." (12).
Certainly the early Bronze Age had a very favourable climate, even
milder than today's. Farming was extended into new areas and
environments. Then a period of cliamtic deterioration began a bit over
3000 BP, with colder and wetter conditions. The growing season was
shortened, upland areas became more inhospitable for farming. Human
over-production also affected some areas such as the acid heathlands in
the Hampshire-Dorest area. By the end of the Bronze Age human
occupation had drastically contracted from its peak.
Some good reasons there for disruption and change in society.
C. Gwinn
aware of your arguments and have already reposted many of them for everybody
else to see.
Doug Weller
rigv...@hotmail.com says...
> Don't start that up again, Weller - I have already proven that I am fully
> aware of your arguments and have already reposted many of them for everybody
> else to see.
>
>
though I'm saying things I'm not, and you've done this more than once.
Doug
Tommy Murphy
>In article <6G9d4.313$Nu6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>rigv...@hotmail.com says...
>> Don't start that up again, Weller - I have already proven that I am fully
>> aware of your arguments and have already reposted many of them for
everybody
>> else to see.
>>
>Yes, I know. That doesn't change the fact that you make me look as
>though I'm saying things I'm not, and you've done this more than once.
>
Bloody hell! It's Keith Harris and Orville!
Cheers
Tommy Murphy
______________________________________________
| Phil wrote in message <83m7vu$20...@drn.newsguy.com>
| And this guy, he IS funny