|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » National Geographic and Celts |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PeterH 1180 posts |
Mar 12, 2006, 19:13
|
||
|
Great fun if at times infuriating. I have just watched the repeat of Rudgley's "Celts". Great to see so many locations, infuriating to hear him constantly saying "Celts" when the French archaeologists said "Gauls" and the Irish ones said "Irish". He went on and on and only retrieved things by putting the case in perspective in the last few sentences. Anyone missing the last 5 minutes would have received the same old nonsense unchallenged. I kinda wonder if that last 5 minutes will not be chopped for American television. As regards language - we really need to look much further back in time to the origins of modern Welsh, Erse, Manx, Cornish etc. Let us stop calling them the "Celtic languages" now and study them and their relationships with each other and with the rest of Europe. Clearly they originated (if language can ever be said to originate anywhere at any particular time) and developed long, long before the brilliant Iron Age cultures mistakenly called "Celtic" ever arose. The ideas that really fascinate me are along the lines of trade routes and how ideas, goods and people moved around in the ancient world.
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Mar 12, 2006, 19:25
|
||
|
Thanks again.. Yes, Cunliffe's book is pretty good if patchy. I am fascinated by the cultural and religious similarities you mention and know something of some of them. That does seem to be an area of study that could illuminate our understanding of Bronze and Iron Age peoples. There are so many similarities with Germanic beliefs and customs also and these wretched labels just get in the way. It is an accident of Roman terminology (as Tacitus clearly tells us) that we have the Germans on one side of the Rhine and the Gauls on the other. Ever since, they have been treated as different races. If we could now start to look for similarities and differences in language, customs, artifacts and DNA without prejudice and without trying to make any particular case!!!
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Mar 12, 2006, 23:52
|
||
|
"That does seem to be an area of study that could illuminate our understanding of Bronze and Iron Age peoples" If only archaeologists everywhere spoke the same language! But let's not panic, there are various megalithic conventions around europe every year; comparative archaeology is alive. And researchers are taking more of this into account. A book like Bradley's comparative Rock Art would have been unthinkable years ago. There is just so much stuff that I doubt anyone alive can keep up with it all though. But I hope to one day! "There are so many similarities with Germanic beliefs and customs also and these wretched labels just get in the way. It is an accident of Roman terminology (as Tacitus clearly tells us) that we have the Germans on one side of the Rhine and the Gauls on the other. Ever since, they have been treated as different races. " Yes if you are saying that Europeans all descend from a common paleolithic root with 'later' additions. Countries are clearly not 'races'. If we go for 'ethnicities' or peoples however, we would have to look at each country one by one. France was always a collection of different nations - occitanians, catalans, basques, germanic alsatians, franks, gauls, etc and so was germany, where the only clearly *germanic* part was the north, indistinguishable from denmark and scandinavia for many centuries, living almost in isolation. The fact that these people began to stir and move southwards around the time of the romans and partly merged with/fought along the MAIN 'keltic' population of western germany must have moved the writers of the time to call them all Germanic in the same way that the greeks called everyone they met in Spain or France kelltoi. Both immediate sides of the Rhine clearly had the same people until today, rivers separate and join at the same time. Also, eastern germany had a high influx of slavs and the south a high degree of ancient alpine/north italian/dinaric elements. Parts of Mediterranean France (and Med Europe) for instance has had far more 'foreign' additions and migratory upheavals than anybody else. In other words, france does not equal germany but neither does ANY part of france or germany if we look in 'ethnic' terms. However, as you say, if we look at the bulk of the ancient original population, both countries have the same paleolithic stratum with IE additions but so has the czech republic or italy. The 'bulk' that genetic studies show the basques and the irish may preserve in common due to their luck- in -isolation is the same that each one of us has among many other extra IE additions. "If we could now start to look for similarities and differences in language, customs, artifacts and DNA without prejudice and without trying to make any particular case!!!" Ah but that is a different matter. Once modern politics gets in the way then things begin to fade. I am convinced that some archaeological researchers are often told to shut up. Tourism in 'celtic' Ireland, Wales or Galicia brings americans and dollars to europe. And nationalist / independentist parties in Iberia stick to their own 'archaeologies' as a form of rejection of Spanish culture. In that way, archaeology everywhere is damaged and will be hindered for many years to come. And the fact that modern languages separate EXACTLY the same megalithic cultural area (Portuguese-Spanish, French-German, etc etc) is actually far more common than anyone may think. Hence the need for researchers to begin getting multilingual ! It's been a real pleasure. XXX GP
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 00:03
|
||
|
Regarding rudgley's tv programme, I am sure he is aware of this and is deliberalety *selling* his story. Anything on tv is always highly suspicious. As regards 'celtic' languages, I believe in a P- and a Q- stream of dialects, but we should also not believe that whoever spoke it was indeed 'celtic' or belonged to the same people. language can tell us a lot, but only in contrast with archeological excavation etc the same goes for the rest of the IE language family, it was adopted everywhere and yet it is highly unlikely that original paleolithic populations were replaced. Perhaps the emphasis should be put on what elements in 'celtic' languages are pre-IE... ie loans from the natives. "The ideas that really fascinate me are along the lines of trade routes and how ideas, goods and people moved around in the ancient world." Agreed. I believe that things in the trade department really began to stir on a wide scale in the Bronze Age and many ideas already circulated on a small scale in megalithic times.
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 00:05
|
||
|
I couldnt agree more with every single word of your lucid dissertation, especially with the last bits: "The old idea of successive waves of mass folk movements has been abandoned. As a reaction, the pendulum has swung too far the other way with the new orthodoxy being one of zero movement and diffusionism. Surely the answer is likely to be that a finite number of people did sometimes move for economic and social reasons. Sometimes, that movement was peaceful through trade while at other times it was only acheived by conflict. That which is most likely, seems to be that which most probably did happen. "
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 00:19
|
||
|
those are really healthy and excellent doubts which I also share: - pathways & intervisibility , - complex motifs being on the higher ground , - complexity itself being considered from the purely visual i.e. numbers of rings and uncommon motifs highlight certain sites when the vast majority of cases are quite simple and rarely get considered in the equation - the importance attached to drawings (which I almost prefer to pics ) which priveleges a certain viewpoint and doesn't consider the immediate texture , colour and gradations of the surface and wider landsape (difficult to do ) but the end result is concentrated on the motifs . There is so far no definitive study on the 'patterns' of rock art. But I dont think there ever will be. As if prehistoric populations all acted the same! And rock art is possibly the most complex section of prehistory. However, I tend to accept some of the generalizations, not only at least for personal appeasement but also as a board for later research. I am sure that is what is happening in archaeology. One study always denies another but much has been achieved in the last few decades. Related to your last point, the motifs that remain are the ones that are considered whereas paint or other engravings are now invisible. It was only until recently that paint in dolmens was not even considered. Imagine the information this would mean for rock art. Problem with rock art is that paint can hardly ever remain in the open unlike grave art unless it has been covered by chance. Some people do pay attention to landscape archaeology in rock art though maybe not enough as they concentrate on the motifs. As for Pastora, I got the hoskin story straight from the caretaker at hte grave, recalling his meeting with Hoskin himself and the latter’s initial cynicism when being told there was at least ONE passage grave which did not conform to the rule. Once he checked it himself, his surprise became legend. Mind you, I think Hoskin’s work is laudable and it is tremendously important that orientations in some areas have been checked ‘officially’ and all follow that famous certain pattern. You or me may have always supported that after years of field work, but the fact that a well known British archaeologist is claiming that and proving it publicly is always important. Hoskin’s published studies are these: Hoskin, M. (1997): Tombs, temples and orientations. En O Neolítico Atlántico e as orixes do Megalitismo. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, (Coruña). Hoskin, M. (2001): Tombs, Temples and their orientations. A new perspective on Mediterranean Prhistory You can alternatvely focus your attention on this short paper: http://www.us.es/dpreyarq/web/archaeoastronomy.pdf And for an overview on Pastora and the rest of the passage and gallery graves in the area around Seville: http://www.us.es/dpreyarq/web/almaden11.htm Enjoy. XXX GP
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 00:38
|
||
|
"I also love the way that Hoskin's magnificent work of passage grave orientations (you know the SE/E generalizations) were shattered when he came across the great passage graves of Pastora (near Seville), one with the longest corridor ever - nearly 50 metres - the other one 40 metres. After months of intensive study and finding that nearly all had winter solstice sunrise orientations, the biggest one was orientated west! " Is this study just in Spain? |
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 08:21
|
||
|
Likewise. As regards the term "Germanic", personally I am as unhappy with that as I am with "Celtic". Tacitus lets the secret out: "The name Germania, however, is said to have been only recently applied to the country. The first people to cross the Rhine and appropriate Gallic territory, though they are known nowadays as Tungri, were at that time called Germani; and what was at first the name of this one tribe, not of the entire race, gradually came into general use in the wider sense. It was first applied to the whole people by the conquerors of the Gauls, to frighten them; later, all the Germans adopted it and called themselves by the new name." Time to deconstruct the old categories and examine evidence uncluttered by Roman and Victorian baggage. Take the bog bodies for example. The reality is that a similar practice of ritual sacrifice in peat bogs went on during the Iron Age from Ireland to Denmark and Germany. Yet are these considered as being of a single culture? No - the recent Irish ones are described as "well preserved Celts". - conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the others that have been found are in Denmark which is labelled "Germanic". The labels make artificial watertight containers and hinder the comparison of like with like.
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 08:39
|
||
|
PS Can anyone doubt that Taranis , the "Celtic" Thunderer, is not also the "Germanic" Thunor and the "Norse" Thor. Taran is still the modern Welsh and Breton for thunder. The old god lives on and comes from a single source.
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Mar 13, 2006, 11:24
|
||
He did it all over the mediterranean including the islands. Check the titles of the book on one my replies to Tiompan.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
