LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  October 2001

CELTIC-L October 2001

Subject:

Re: Celts in The British Isles. Le

From:

"Mag.phil. Raimund KARL" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:28:02 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (132 lines)

Hi Doug, hi all,

Doug Weller schrieb:
>
> The language change issue isn't for archaeologists to solve, although
> they may contribute to its solution.

Well, we seem to differ on that one, I'd say. Actually, this "language
change" argument has arisen in archaeology to dogde the problem of
having no evidence for (largescale population) migration but ending up
with several societies in the British isles (which, when looking at them
via the archaeological record, seem to be considerably different) that
all speak similar languages, have quite similar cultural practices as
soon as they are recorded in writing either abroad or locally, have
similar social structures, similar laws, similar religions and so on,
and as such, archaeology (or better, the theories developed by
archaeologists that require such a language change) should also be able
to explain how that language change should have happened - which it
absolutely can't as yet, at least as far as I can see. As such, I'd say
that's taking the easy escape route to avoid the problem of having to
explain how it came to be that all those similarities arose in societies
that seem to be mostly local developments and seem to be considerably
different in the archaeological record. In fact, this problem threatens
the very self-understanding of archaeology, and especially
Anglo-American archaeology since the rising of "New Archaeology", as a
discipline able to explain cultural processes in the past based on the
material remains as recovered in excavations.

In fact, I'm with Sir Mortimer Wheeler on this, in that "archaeology is
about people, not about things", and as such it should not reduce itself
to explanations like "there was a XY change, but we don't know why or
how that came to be, because that's for others to solve".

> The reasons that a people in one
> place adopt bits of the culture from another place vary, but are
> fairly obvious - trade, religion, intermarriage, maybe small
> invasions/migrations, etc.

Well, but that doesn't solve the question as to when, how and why
Britain became "Celtic" (if it became at all), this only sound well. We
could immediatly end all archaeological research, as the above
commonplace actually explains every cultural change in human history if
we add "local development" and "mass migration" to the above list.

In fact, the British, for whatever reason, adopted not only a few
elements of continental Celtic culture, but rather a horrible lot, to
such a degree that, in the second Iron Age, most of Britain is
considered to form part of the wider european La Tène cultural complex
(even though there may not at all have been that many adoptions that
this actually is justified, that's something one could discuss). And
it's not only the material culture, it's obviously a lot of other
things, including language etc., that were "adopted" as well, in fact,
almost the whole cultural package seems to have been "adopted". This
needs specific explanation in my opinion, which is not what I currently
can notice in English archaeology (at least not in the currently
especially influential "Celtosceptic" lobby), which argues that the
"British" never were "Celts" because there are differences in material
culture.

To me, this looks like claiming that archaeology can tell us that the
theories developed by scholars in linguistics, literature, art history,
ancient history and similar disciplines are wrong because the
similarities they see do not fit with what differences archaeologists
have unearthed, but at the same time being absolutely unable to explain
why there are all these similarities these other disciplines see. James'
"Atlantic Celts" is very enlightening on this - while he argues that
archaeology prooves that the ancient British were no "Celts", and while
he extensively tackles the historical aspects of the development of the
term "Celtic" for the Iron Age cultures of western and central Europe,
he silently avoids to tackle the numerous similarities that cannot be
explained away either by differences in material culture or the
political agenda behing the development of the term "Celtic" in the last
centuries. Retorically well done, I have to say, but intellectually
dishonest.

> British archaeologists are well aware of the lack of uniformity in European
> 'Celtic culture'.

Well, I'd not be that sure about that, given what I've heard in various
discussions with British archaeologists, who insist on the distinct
differences between various British Iron Age cultures in contrast to
"European La Tène culture".

> Archaeology deals with the 'hard' facts, and those indicate continuity
> of populations.

Well, but this tells us little about how that alleged "change" that made
Britain more or less "Celtic" happened to happen. In fact, there's a
very interesting paper on the Roman conquest of Gaul, seen
archaeologically, in Hill&Cumberpatch (eds.) "Different Iron Ages.
Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe." BAR International Series
602 (Oxford 1995), arguing that, wouldn't we have Caesar's record, the
Romanisation of northern Gaul would rather seem to have been a slow
acculturation than a conquest.

I don't doubt that there was a continuity of populations, but this only
rules out mass immigration with almost total annihilation of local
populations, nothing more. As such, the question as to how this "change"
happened to happen is not in the slightest solved with this
interpretation of the "hard facts", it only pretends to solve it.

> But you also wrote:
> "Only in the long term if at all. There's little indication of one
> determinable migration from somewhere in central Europe to Britain (or
<snipped my own stuff>
> best of small population groups (most likely social elites)."
>
> I thought you and I were more or less in agreement when I saw that!

We are more or less in agreement. I will definitly not argue mass
migrations with annihilation of local populations. But I definitly do
think that the current "archaeological solution" of the problem of
"Celtisation" of Britain is no solution at all.

Anyways, all the best from someone who whould perhaps start to think of
himself as a British archaeologist as well, given that I sit here in
Aberystwyth,

RAY
________________________________________________________________________
Mag.phil. Raimund KARL <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Universität Wien, Institut für Alte Geschichte
A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830
________________________________________________________________________

     Besuchen Sie die Homepage der Studienrichtung Keltologie unter
       Visit the Celtic Studies at Vienna University homepage at
            <http://www.univie.ac.at/keltologie/index.html>
________________________________________________________________________

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager