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  April 2002

CELTIC-L April 2002

Subject:

Re: CELTIC-L Digest - 1 Apr 2002 to 2 Apr 2002 (#2002-12)

From:

Toner Quinn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:13:49 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1853 lines)

unsubscribe CELTIC-L

> From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:00:10 +0100
> To: Recipients of CELTIC-L digests <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: CELTIC-L Digest - 1 Apr 2002 to 2 Apr 2002 (#2002-12)
> 
> There are 16 messages totalling 1859 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
> 1. A few comments on last skirmishes WAS Caesar on the Gauls
> 2. Celtic & English,              was: Re: Method and evidence was Re: Caesar
> on the Gauls (3)
> 3. Caesar on the Gauls (2)
> 4. vercingetorix stater (2)
> 5. Caesar on the Gauls part I
> 6. Caesar on the Gauls part II (3)
> 7. Caesar on the Gauls part I (thanks Ray!)
> 8. Caesar on the Gau (2)
> 9. Many Duplicate Messages (Caesar on the Gauls)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:51:59 +0930
> From:    Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A few comments on last skirmishes WAS Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> G'day, Tom.
> 
> Thank you for your comments.  I'm not sure whether you wanted a reply or
> not, but lest I be accused of not bothering to answer fair criticism, I'll
> give you one.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T. Walsh" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2002 12:15 PM
> Subject: A few comments on last skirmishes WAS Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> 
>> A bit longer of a post than I wanted, but perhaps it makes a contribution
> on the
>> "skirmishes":
>> 
>> Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, Chris,
>>> Responding to charges of not responding to all criticism, here goes:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Christopher Gwinn" <[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> <Snipping all the back and forth arguments>
>> 
>> This has all gotten very interesting with strong arguments from a number
> of
>> people responding to Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne ideas and opinions.
>> I'm not sure this is all that productive, and I'm sure words like
> "ignorant"
>> and phrases like "where do you get this stuff" are not too helpful.
>> Yet, I share deeply the frustration. Imagine thinking that Catholic
> and
>> Goidelic are related, when a trip to the dictionary can set the matter
> straight,
>> with no loss to anything.
> 
> Please, this worries me.  Why are you so sanguine about the infallibility of
> dictionaries?  They are written by people who are trained to represent
> current professional opinions about the etymologies of words, not to have
> uncanny knowledge of truths beyond the ken of ordinary scholars. They are
> individuals under enormous pressure to come to some agreement as to which
> etymological possibility it should proffer and which ones to ignore.  Not
> one of them has special powers of past-penetrating. Just as written language
> is very slow to register changes in language once spelling has become
> formalised, so are dictionaries probably the last place to look for current,
> up to date etymological opinion.
> 
> (Catholic comes from "kath-holos", a Greek form,
>> ultimately approbative of the "unity" of the "one true church." And so
> forth.)
> 
> I find that etymology in my dictionaries too, but none of them give dates
> for its first appearance.  It could easily have been postulated in
> retrospect to accord with later belief within the Church about its own very
> complex beginnings..  And anyway, you can't tell, even from a word's
> earliest appearance, what its derivation might have been.  That's still a
> matter of guesswork.
> 
> And you don't explain away its more than passing resemblance to Goidelic.
> 
>> But the response is then, no doubt, that the Greek form is one person's
> opinion.
>> (I have a hard time having opinions, myself anyway, that look like
> dictionary
>> entries. Some people have all the luck, I guess.)
>> But Vyvyan is right in one way in that Vyvyan can choose not to accept
> the
>> dictionary entry as fact. So too there are flat-earthers, and maybe
> someone out
>> there still believes in phlogiston (my spelling or spelling-opinion might
> be
>> wrong here, of course).
> 
> Are you equating the truth value of a dictionary entry to that of that the
> Earth is a spheroid?  The word of the OED is infallible fact?  I really am
> concerned about this.  It's is quite eerie.
> 
>> The question remains, what should a reader of a list like this do?
> Certainly
>> the impulse is to correct the error or suggest new ways of approach. Say
> someone
>> connected katholos and Goidelic, I think most of us would say, whoa, let's
> help
>> out by giving the Greek derivation of Catholic and beginning to set the
> matter
>> straight. (No controversy here, I don't think.)
> 
> It's not a derivation, it's a hypothesis: the one most fancied by a very few
> scholars, in competition with many other equally highly qualified and
> equally good scholars whose opinions are as diverse as opinion generally is
> among scholars engaged in cautious speculation.
> 
> 
>> But, here's the problem, some folks want their opinions to be
> fundamentally
>> accepted and not subject to correction. And some people don't want to
> subject
>> their opinion or idea to the standard methods of source, comparison,
> analysis,
>> refutation, and so forth. Essentially those people are operating outside
> the
>> paradigm (as in T. H. Kuhn's well-known analysis of paradigms in the
> history of
>> science indicates). It won't do to speak louder or rant, since in fact the
> game
>> that is being played is quite different. (I spare you many analogies that
> are
>> quite available to chess and other games.)
> 
> All competitive, I fear. Are scholars competetive knowers?  Should they be?
> 
>> I don't think, no, that the stakes are non-existent. I think a lot
> rides, as
>> we are seeing, on understanding history clearly. But sometimes one has
> merely to
>> endure the person over there talking on the cell-phone to someone very
> very far
>> away.
> 
> You don't have to open ever email.
> 
> I think this is a very human situation, and how we handle it makes a
>> difference. In Plato's Gorgias, Socrates seems to stop talking entirely to
> the
>> young Sophist, Polus. Why does the champion of dialog do this? I, and some
>> others, think he's telling us that sometimes people step outside the
> circle and
>> want to spin their wheels on their own.
> 
> Are you objecting to thinking things through for oneself?  Do you think I
> have a moral obligation to over-value the opinions of certain others,
> elected without my vote?
> 
>> We are not obliged, then,  to play their
>> game, as they have not felt obliged to play ours. (And no, no implication
> here
>> that all games are equal.)
> 
> I'm not playing a game, I'm proffering a considered opinion. And no one is
> accusing you of egalitarianism! You seem want everyone to agree with you
> that the game you contribute to is the only valid one or be themselves
> declared not valid..
> 
>> They don't want truth but validation. How sad!
> 
> You chided the put-downs the others levelled at me, and now here's one of
> your won.  Unscholarly.  An obvious power ploy.
> 
> The truth sometimes, maybe
>> often, doesn't give us validation, indeed might leave us quite alone and
>> disoriented.
> 
> I'm aware that sensitive psychological issues are involved.
> 
>> So I suspect our obligation on a list like this is to be helpful when
> we
>> know the answer that someone else seems not to have and to suggest
> alternatives
>> when we suspect that something is amiss but don't have an answer, and, now
> the
>> interesting part, it may be necessary also let go when we realize someone
> is
>> engaging in "folk-scholarship" which I define here as "discourse that uses
> the
>> apparatus of scholarship in a whimsical and ad hoc manner to support ideas
> and
>> opinions that seem to but really do not make scholarly claims."
> 
> This is polemic, not scholarship.  The distinction you are making is between
> what you believe, and people who disagree with you believe. That's
> narrow-mindedness, and makes for inadequate scholarship.
> 
>> A good example outside our area is the work of Carlos Casteneda, as
> analyzed
>> by Richard de Mille. Here scholarly methods and sources were, according to
> de
>> Mille, used to buttress works of fiction.
> 
> de Mille's opinion isn't shared by all. It's the scoffing.of a skeptic, not
> scholarly opinion.  He's simply calling Castenada a liar.
> 
> If de Mille is right (note the "if"),
>> this is a widely distributed example of "folk scholarship."
> 
> Except that it came out of a scholars's PhD thesis, and so was within the
> circle.
> 
>> So, I advise, when someone seems to be doing folk scholarship, no ad
>> hominems, just a tip of the hat and go n-eiri an bothar leat. We'll all
> live
>> longer.
> 
> Let's hope so.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Tom
> 
> Peace
> 
> Vyvyan  /|\
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:32:21 +0930
> From:    Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Celtic & English,
> was: Re: Method and evidence was Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> Hallo Doug,
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Weller" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2002 9:18 PM
> Subject: Celtic & English, was: Re: Method and evidence was Re: Caesar on
> the Gauls
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Which linguists in the last 50 years have suggested that there was an
> influence on English by Celtic?  So far as I know, there is a consensus
> among linguists that there was virtually no influence.
> 
> I don't know how many linguists have concurred about this point in the last
> fifty years, but I'm not looking at lists of etymologists, I'm looking at
> languages.
> 
> There's not much vocabulary visible now.  Many natural cognates from the
> many forms of Norse, Dutch, Angles, Saxons and Celts both C- and P- which
> were shared are now assumed to come exclusively from the Germanic parents of
> English.  Further more, the majority of Celts having become the more
> numerous serfs, the use of 'dialect' words like Draggletail for tardy.  My
> aging Concise OED gives it as draggle-tail, a draggle-tailed person, one
> whose skirts drag in the mud. Yet drogall is an Irish word meaning
> reluctance and the suffix -t/ail turns it into a verb-noun.  Now
> drogallt/ail might be awful Irish, but quite good 'dialect' English.  A
> language whose preferred accent and vocabulary, that of the upper classes,
> were Anglo-Saxon would strongly influence words to either pass muster among
> AS or become extinct.  So those that could be mistaken for AS have been
> subsumed in this way, or become extinct in dialects whose speakers were
> deemed uneducated and inferior, and whose children , being ashamed, learned
> not to imitate them.  Not only Irish words are lost in this way, of course.
> And not all were lost.  Dearie me comes from an earlier form of deirim, I
> say, and English even has a translation of it.  Do any other related
> Germanic languages use such an expression as an interjection? 'Good heavens'
> is probably a politification of go deimhin.  There are plenty of others.
> Instances go leor/galore!
> 
> Idioms that English shares with Irish and not with other predominately
> Germanic languages include use of the word 'on' in English, corresponding to
> the Irish ann.  Compare T/a damhsa 'ann' ch'uile deireadh seachtaine with
> its translation, There's dancing 'on' every weekend. Here, the Gaelic 'ann'
> (pronounced like English 'on') has been rationalised as actually meaning
> 'on', which it resembles, so that in English you can even say, 'The dancing
> is 'off' for this weekend.'   I don't think you can do this in Irish, but
> someone who speaks it well would know.
> 
> Irish 'in ann' is in use slightly changed in meaning in English as 'in on'.
> 'T/a an buachaill 'in ann' scr/iobh.' means The boy can write. In English
> you would say he's in on the techniques of writing.  Again, its a
> rationalisation.
> 
> They're there if you look for them.  I don't know how many. And while it's
> not the dominant influence, it's not the less significant for being rather
> subtle.
> 
> Consensus is a problematical term anyway.  The OED for example, which is
> considered a sound sort of guide to English words, is compiled by people who
> got the job because they fitted in with the Oxford viewpoint.  A person who
> didn't wouldn't get the job. I think this is true for all universities and
> bodies that produce and maintain reference works which they aim to present
> as authoritative. With the best will in the world, they have to select and
> judge, and human judgement is always dependent of criteria which are
> themselves the subject of debate. So you get a kind of loose group of people
> who support a selection of 'authorities' and if all others are defined by
> this as 'wrong', then you have the kind of circular reasoning that Ray has
> claimed to find in some of my emails.
> 
>> Doug
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Vyvyan  /|\
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:35:36 +0930
> From:    Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> Hallo John,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hooker" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2002 5:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> 
>> Hi Vyvyan,
>> 
>>> I don't think you can insist that it is a Celtic coin.  It is stamped
> with
>>> the Roman alphabet and it is in Latin.  Provincial, what's more.
>> 
>> No, it's Celtic. The Romans did not issue coins in Britain until much
> later
>> (and as part of their normal coinage -- not provincial), and Roman
>> provincial coins have other characteristics. Besides, nearly all British
>> Celtic coins are pre-conquest. After studying Celtic coins for over thirty
>> five years, I can usually at least tell if a coin is Celtic!
> 
> Nevertheless, it is stamped with the Roman alphabet and it is in Latin.
>> 
>>>> No, all of these coins are Celtic.
>>> 
>>> The Gauls didn't use the Roman alphabet.
>>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps if you actually looked at some Gaulish coins then you would see
>> that they did use the Roman alphabet.
> 
> This is faulty logic.  Here's your syllogism::
> The coins are Gaulish.
> They have Latin inscriptions.
> Therefore Gaulish coins may have Latin inscriptions.
> 
> But the question is 'are the coins Gaulish or Romano-Celtic or Roman?'  So
> your basic premise is unproved.
> 
> And it becomes circular when you use this false 'proof' as evidence that
> Gauls used the Roman alphabet on coins.
> 
> The earliest Celtic coin legend is
>> "EIQITIVICO" on a gold stater derived from the posthumous issues of Philip
>> II of Macedon.
> 
> Well, we're a long way from England. But it is very close to the Latin I
> learnt at school, and the differences are within reasonable bounds.
> 
> I divide it into two words: EIQITI VICO .
> EQUES, EQUITIS means a horseman, rider or cavalryman. This 'provincial' form
> of Latin if that's what it is shows a mutation of a Classical Latin e
> something like the one we see mutated in IISUPRASU, but this time to a
> diphthong, EI.  The Q has no accompanying U so this mutation can be explaine
> d by the slenderisation of the Q, which the lack of a U denotes. That's a
> Celtic language trait. But it is still a recognisable form of a Latin word,
> EQVITI.  I don't know what case it is.  These may have varied from the
> Latin, but  in the absence of advice from a Latin Expert, I'm taking it to
> be a kind of ablative.
> VINCO means I conquer. In Classical Latin, the N in VINCO was already
> 'coming unstuck' and had gone from its perfect tenses and supine
> derivatives.  Its principal parts are VINCO VINCERE VICI VICTVM.
> So my guess is subject to further consideration, but so far it looks
> something like 'I conquer from horseback' - again a 'Latin' motto, or
> victory slogan if you like.  Why not ask a Latin Language expert?
> 
> And how does that compare with any Celtic translations offered? It doesn't
> look at all C-Celtic, and with that Q in it, it doesn't look P-Celtic
> either.  Has any Celtic language expert offered a Celtic interpretation?
> 
> Derek Allen says the early date is attested by the use of EI
>> for E and that Q is not followed by V. He allows a possible 3rd cent B.C.
>> date, but it might be as late as the start of the 2nd cent B.C. An early
>> date is further confirmed by the heavy weight.
> 
>> Also, the gold stater of Vercingertorix is in Latin letters, and (in case
>> you will claim this is a Roman coin!) the metal alloy is Gaulish and
>> absolutely not Roman who used very fine gold.The predecessor of
>> Vercingetorix also used coins of the same type with the name in Latin
>> letters. These are just a couple of hundreds of other examples.
> 
> This is educated conjecture and needs to be carefully considered before it's
> taken on board.  It just isn't fact.
> 
>> Greek letters are seen on Celtic coins but they are rarer, and Allen notes
>> that psi, phi and omega do not occur at all. Sometimes, a mixture of Latin
>> and Greek letters is used (especially where there is a theta). Allen
> worked
>> out that about one in fifteen Gaulish coins contains some Greek element. I
>> don't think he included the use of the theta in this, but he is not
>> explicit. Theta shows up where other Greek letters do not (in Belgic Gaul
>> and Britain).
> 
> That's interesting. INteresting interface, the Celto-Greek.  Or is it
> Graeco-Celtic?
>> 
>> Put _The Coins of the Ancient Celts_ by D. F. Allen (ed. Daphne Nash),
>> Edinburgh, 1980. on your reading list. You can probably still buy a copy
> at
>> the Castle Bookshop in Wales -- they have a web site with a catalogue.
>> Allen is the giant on whose shoulders we (Celtic numismatists) all stand.
>> To be making his brain-child (The Celtic Coin Index) even more functional
>> and freely available to the world is certainly one of the high points in
>> the lives of both my wife (Carin Perron) and myself.
>> 
>> It is fine (and essential to good research) to question everything, but
>> always use the primary evidence as the measure -- and be careful of data
>> sets -- you (and everyone else) might be surprised at just how much
>> published primary data has been entered or written up wrong.
> 
> Not at all.  Prasto was a case in point.
> 
> One published
>> example that I dealt with (handling the actual coins at the Ashmolean
>> Museum as my check) showed a twenty percent error rate in the published
>> data sample (not an Ashmolean publication I should hasten to add).
> 
> By 'error' do you just mean disagreement with you?  Or with the the
> particular peer-group concensus you subscribe to?  Because where there's
> still guesswork happening, however cautious and however well-informed, it
> can't be used to determine the rightness of wrongness of another opinion.
> 
> We are
>> building various checks into our Arethusa database for the Celtic Coin
>> Index  to both avoid and reveal some of these errors. Double entry
> systems,
>> second party proof reading and fact checking might avert some of these
>> errors in research and subsequent publications.
> 
> Thank you for these very interesting references, John.  And again, for
> hearing me out with such patience, despite some occasional exasparation!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> http://www.writer2001.com/
>> Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
>> Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
>> Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web:
>> http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/
> 
> Peace.
> 
> Vyvyan  /|\
>> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:09:39 -0500
> From:    dan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: vercingetorix stater
> 
> thanks for the reply to my question. do you know where i might find a
> picture of the *reverse* instead of the obverse? i'm specicically
> interested in how the 'diota' was represented, but every book i have
> ever seen with a vercingetorix stater shows only the obverse. i suppose
> this is natural, as people in general would be interested to see
> vercingetorix's "portrait". but i've been completely unable to find a
> picture of the reverse side...i'm not a numismatist by any means and so
> it really wouldn't make sense for me to purchase a rather academic
> treatise just for a glance at one coin. do you know of any general
> interest books that just happen to have a picture of the reverse?
> 
> i really do appreciate your help,
> -dan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:58:33 -0700
> From:    John Hooker <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: vercingetorix stater
> 
> --=======D1453CD=======
> Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64F7153B; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I'll scan what illustrations I have in the next day or so and I'll post
> them on our site and provide the url so everyone can see them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
>> 
>> thanks for the reply to my question. do you know where i might find a
>> picture of the *reverse* instead of the obverse? i'm specicically
>> interested in how the 'diota' was represented, but every book i have
>> ever seen with a vercingetorix stater shows only the obverse. i suppose
>> this is natural, as people in general would be interested to see
>> vercingetorix's "portrait". but i've been completely unable to find a
>> picture of the reverse side...i'm not a numismatist by any means and so
>> it really wouldn't make sense for me to purchase a rather academic
>> treatise just for a glance at one coin. do you know of any general
>> interest books that just happen to have a picture of the reverse?
>> 
>> i really do appreciate your help,
>> -dan
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01
>> 
> http://www.writer2001.com/
> Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
> Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
> Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web:
> http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/
> 
> --=======D1453CD=======
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64F7153B
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01
> 
> --=======D1453CD=======--
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:16:40 +0100
> From:    Doug Weller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Celtic & English,
> was: Re: Method and evidence was Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Hallo Doug,
>> 
>> [SNIP]
>> Consensus is a problematical term anyway.
> 
> But it was you who claimed lack of consensus, and I asked for evidence of that
> claim.  So far as I can see all you offer is the reasons why you disagree with
> the current consensus on the relationship between Celtic and English. Your
> disagreement does not signify lack of consensus.
> 
> Doug
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:25:58 +0100
> From:    Doug Weller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Celtic & English,
> was: Re: Method and evidence was Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>> Consensus is a problematical term anyway.
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> But you introduced the term and claimed a lack of consensus.  What you have
> provided, however, does not indicate a lack of consensus, but rather some
> opinions of yours which show disagreement with what I understand to be the
> consensus of linguists about the relationship between Celtic and English.
> 
> Doug
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:21:33 +0200
> From:    Raimund KARL <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part I
> 
> Hi Vyvyan,
> 
> Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne schrieb:
>>> No, that's Chris and the vast majority of all scholars opinion agains=
> t
>>> your speculation. Opinion should be seen as an educated and reasonabl=
> e
>>> judgment based on perceivable evidence, which is what the opinion of
>>> Chris and scholars in Celtic languages is. Your speculation, however,=
> is
>>> based on ignorance rather than on knowledge of the evidence, which
>>> disqualifies your statements from being a viable opinion.
>> =20
>> This is polemic, not scholarship, but I'll give you fair answers.
> 
> No, this is not polemic, this is a scholarly opinion based on what you
> have shown us as yet. Every time someone, be it me or someone else,
> quotes evidence, your response clearly shows that you have never heard
> of that evidence before, and that you immediatly summarily dismiss it as
> it does not fit into your theoretical framework. This shows that you do
> not know and actually are not much interested in explaining existing
> evidence, but rather are attempting to save a preconceived idea from
> being disrupted by actual evidence. What you argue in is thin air, which
> results in your theory constantly colliding with evidence as it turns
> up, which makes it a non-viable opinion in a scholarly discourse. It's
> quality, and this is a scholarly assessment, is comparable to claiming
> the world is flat or that the Celts actually were green-skinned Martians
> that spoke a Viennese dialect more than a millenium before Viennese is
> first attested at all. You are free to nonetheless stay with it, but it
> is not a opinion that can be seen as a serious, scholarly attempt to
> explain the existing evidence.=20
> This doesn't indicate that you may not be right and that not scholarly
> opinion, regardless of it's specific content, may be wrong - this, of
> course, is possible. But it does indicate that it is not testable based
> on the existing evidence, and thus is not scholarly, as scholarly
> opinion is defined by being testable against the existing evidence.
> That's all I say. Given the evidence as it is, your theory is extremely
> unlikely.
> =20
>> It's a question of whether a word from another language, upon being
> <snipped>
>> until they were included in the Macquarie Australian Dictionary.  Simil=
> arly,
>> I don't think you can speak of a correct spelling of Boudicca/Boadicea =
> until
>> you have it in a dictionary, and then, only by virtue of its appearing
>> there, which it does at the arbitrary judgement of the lexicographer.
> 
> I never spoke of a correct spelling of Boudica. What I do speak of,
> however, is that a spelling Boudicca or Boadicea can not be the result
> of any possible original word, but that it can only be the result of
> several different terms, based on the options of pronouncation that were
> available to the British of the 1st century AD, and that these
> possibilities should be attested in several independent cases as a
> regular pattern, as, else, Boudica can equally vaild be derived from my
> Viennese explanation, or from the term Berdache (as we have it in the
> anthropological literature), or from south Bantu dialect. To differ
> between these possibile derivations, we need to put her name in an
> explanatory framework that considers the spatiotemporal context in which
> the term was first recorded, and this requires us to base this on the
> availbable evidence, which, for instance, tells us, that in all
> likelihood, no language that can be 1:1 equated with modern Irish was
> spoken in Britain in 60-70AD. I have already quoted numerous sources on
> this, and in fact, there is an innumerable amount of evidence that tells
> us that this is extremely unlikely, about as unlikely as that modern
> Viennese was spoken then and there. We do, however, have evidence that
> tells us that it is very likely that another language was spoken then
> and there, a language that can be explained and even translated, and
> that is able to explain the name of Boudicca/Boadicea as transliterated
> by Roman authors, who, in turn, followed regular, self-similar patterns
> of transliteration that can independently be documented from classical
> sources. As such, while the definition of a "correct" spelling is a
> mostly arbitary decision, the sum of potential transliterations and the
> number of terms they have possibly come from are limited to a certain
> group of terms, which are arrived at by applying regular, attested
> possible mutations due to transliteration possibilities. Within this
> group of potential pronouncations, the term Bardacha is not included,
> and as such could only be explained as a single-case individual
> deviation from else commonly attested transliteration patterns. Now,
> such deviations, of course, always are possible. However, if an
> explanation is based on the postulation of such a deviation, as is
> yours, while there is another theory, which can explain the same term by
> regular transliteration patterns that are attested in numerous other
> contemporary terms, the second possibility is a vastly preferrable
> option, as it succeeds in explaining a whole group of terms and thus is
> testable (which the individual case - explanation is not, as you either
> have to believe in it or not, as it is nowhere else attested).
> =20
>> Now you are being the Fals Knight on the Road.
>> That there is no correct spelling of Boudicca/Boadicea, or that Matting=
> ly
>> might be naive, doesn't equate to that the Earth is flat.
> 
> This is not what you have claimed. You have claimed that your opinion is
> explaining the evidence a lot better or at least equal to that of
> Mattingly, which is like claiming that the earth is flat is an equally
> valid explanation for the shape of earth as is the explanation of it as
> a geoid. And thus, my equation is quite fitting: Of course, no one can
> prove that the earth is not flat, but the huge majority of all available
> evidence points towards the opinion that the earth is not flat but a
> geoid. Equally, all available evidence points towards the opinion of
> Mattingly and not towards your opinion.
> =20
>>> Now, of course, you are free to stick to that opinion, but all
>>> available evidence
>> =20
>> You give no references.
> 
> Well, I have given numerous referneces in the past mails, while you, as
> yet, have given not a single one. Anyway, I refer you for this to P.Y.
> Lambert, La Langue Gauloise, Holder's Altceltischer Sprachschatz,
> Birkhan's Kelten, Cunliffe's the Celtic World, Rankin's The Celts in the
> view of the Classical Word and Koch&Carey's The Celtic Heroic Age, as a
> starter, pointing you towards the evidence that I refer to here as "all
> available". Quote me equivalent literature refering to evidence for your
> opinion.
> =20
>>> clearly points to the fact
>> =20
>> It is an opinion.
> 
> As I have already pointed out, everything is opinion, but not every
> opinion is equally qualified. As such, constantly repeating that "this
> is an opinion" does not increase the value of your opinion, as, as you
> yourself have already agreed to in another mail, not every opinion is
> equally valid. As such, this above opinion is referring to the
> near-factuality (in that it is commonly perceived as a viable statement
> by the vast majority of active, and most likely also passive
> listmembers) of my statement:
> =20
>>> that such an opinion is blatant nonsense
>> =20
>> This is a value judgement, and therefore opinion.
> 
> See above. It is referring to a viable explanation with near-factual
> status. Thus, it is a qualified opinion, one that can be backed up by
> evidence and thus can be considered inter-subjective.
> =20
> <snipped>
>>> one drops off its edge when she/he reaches the horizon. As such,
>>> if you uphold the idea that the earth is flat IN SPITE of the availab=
> le
>>> evidence, you of course are welcome to do so, but nonetheless, it is =
> not
>>> a viable scholarly opinion, but just a crackpot idea.
>> =20
>> Yes, but that the name represented as Boudicca here and Boadicea there =
> had
>> no correct spelling until someone judged between the two and published =
> this
>> judgement as fact doesn't equate to cosmological madness.
> 
> Which, however, is not the limit of the explanatory scope you ascribe to
> your theory. I do not argue with you that there is nothing as a
> "correct" spelling of the name of Boudica, in fact, I have already
> written this quite explictly in the mail you are responding with this
> answer. It is the larger explanatory scope of your theory I am equating
> with the belief in a flat earth, as this larger explanatory scope of
> your theory is not fitting with the available evidence, for sources for
> this again, see the avbove mentioned literature.
> =20
>> Deconstructing mental illness is a bit ambitious, and probably vital to
>> Celtic Studies.  Nevertheless, Thinking that 'correctness' in spellings=
> is a
>> matter of opinion, except insofar as prescribed by a dictionary as a ma=
> tter
>> of convention, is a far cry from believing oneself to be Napolean.
> 
> I repeat, it is not your questioning of the belief in a "correct"
> spelling that I am critizising. It is the theory that you build out of
> thin air that I am critizising. Of course, it is a good trick to attempt
> to make people believe that I critizise the valid points which you make
> about the absence of a correct spelling, but this is not what I do, I
> critizise your wild speculation about the name of Boudica, which you
> base completely on misapplications of such deconstruction-techniques, by
> implying that, if something has no ONE correct spelling, EVERY spelling
> is equally possible, which, of course, is complete nonsense. There are
> preferred spellings, and these follow a consistent pattern, and thus
> neither are clearly determined, nor completey arbitrary.
> =20
>>> Similarly, your statements about the Celts are not valid scholarly
>>> opinions, as they go against all available evidence, which you need t=
> o
>>> twist in horrible and non-regular fashion (i.e. you have to twist eac=
> h
>>> piece of information in the evidence differently, and not interpret
>>> several larger portions of it in similar ways, following a regular,
>>> self-similar pattern) to come to the results you arrive at.
>> =20
>> No.  Facts aren't things.  To twist them is a metaphor.  I don't work
>> according to your metaphor.
> 
> Your mails clearly show that you do. You are not applying self-similar
> patterns with a certain degree, but not unlimited freedom of choice, but
> you are implying that something which is not precisely defined is
> necessarily completely arbitary. Thus, you twist the evidence to fot
> your preconceived idea, instead of exploring the possible degrees of
> freedom and interpreting within the limits of these possibilities.
> 
>> You have to check out all its possible references and in
> <snipped>
>> nothing is twisted, and many more possibilities are viewed,
>> followed up, and compared.
> 
> Oh, now I get it: you are argueing for a freeform phenomenological
> hermenteutic! Well, this is exactly what I call a "anything goes"
> approach: my wedding ring and the sun both are round, and as such, they
> are the same. Karl Raimund Popper and Raimund Karl share the same names,
> and thus are the same. Berdache is a term describing a trans-gender role
> and Boudica is a trans-gender leader thus Boudica is a Berdache. Boudica
> and Bards sound remotely familiar, thus the two things can be equated.
> Boudica can be explained as a Viennese dialect sentence and thus is
> derived from Viennese dialect. Anything goes, as I said, no
> possibilities to determine whether one opinion is more likely than
> another, hard contemporary social constructivism: there is no past, the
> past is what we make of it. Very postmodernist, I agree! In my opinion,
> and in this case I have to agree that this is just an opinion, as this
> is a purely philosophical argument without any possibility of deciding
> which opinion is more viable, this is a completely un-scholarly
> paradigm.
> =20
>>> As such, your opinion, as interesting as it may sound to some, is
>>> nothing but an individual,
>> =20
>> No one, not even a specimen of the many supporters of a single opinion,=
> is
>> more than an individual.
> 
> Of course not, but a viable inter-subjective opinion is a systemic
> opinion and thus not dependent on any given single individual holding
> it. And, while an individual opinion can be upheld even though it
> radically conflicts with reality even if subjected to rigorous testing
> and failing (which is what we call a delusion, most commonly),
> inter-subjective opinion cannot be upheld when radically conflicting
> with reality. This means that individual opinion becomes non-viable at
> the death of the mortal individual holding it, while inter-subjective
> opinion becomes non-viable if conflicting with reality when tested
> against it.
> =20
>>> non-intersubjective opinion
>> =20
>> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> This means limited to you, not bound into a systemic, inter-subjective
> opinion that is viable as an autopoietic system. A non-intersubjective
> opinion is not able to transmit the informations it contains beyong the
> single individual holding it, and thus becomes extinct at his/her death.
> Every personal opinion not tied into a larger system of self-reproducing
> opinion is non-intersubjective.
> =20
>>> that has no validity as a
>>> scholarly opinion (which needs to be intersubjective to fulfill the
>>> criterium of being a valid opinion).
>> =20
>> If you mean others should think so too, exposure on on email list can't
>> establish whether it is or isn't.
> 
> No, I mean that it should be tied to a common frame of reference. This
> can be acchieved by referring it to primary and secondary sources that
> allow to cross-relate them with other opinions (be those opinions
> similar and in agreement to the one held by an individual, or be they in
> opposition to it). This can, for instance, be done by using a commonly
> accepted terminology (like P- and Q-Celtic intead of self-defined, only
> self-referential terminology like C-Celtic), but also by finding other
> ends that can be tied in with a commonly understood frame of reference.
> 
>>> Therefore, Chris' and your opinion are not on the same level of
>>> intersubjective quality: while Chris' is, even though many scholars
>>> might disagree on minor aspects of his opinion, within the range of
>>> general, intersubjectively acceptable and thus scholarly opinions, wh=
> ile
>>> yours is nothing of that, but a delusion.
>> =20
>> Are you saying that 'fifty thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong?'=20
> 
> No, I am not. I am saying that speaking in a language that is not
> understood by anyone but you is not likely to help you be understood by
> anyone else.=20
> 
> As repeatedly said, right or wrong can only be determined in
> relationship to a common frame of reference (as right or wrong, if used
> as absolute terms, can only be applied if there is something like
> absolute truth, which is something which I don't think to be accessible
> to limited minds, whether it exists or not). As such, all I can say as a
> scholar is that your theory does not refer to the common frame of
> scholarly reference, which is, in general, the available evidence, and
> thus is, under the conditions of scholarly research, irrelevant and thus
> has to be considered, if you insist on the idea that it is a scholarly
> _opinion_ and not a (religious or otherwise arrived at) _belief_, to be
> a delusion (which means insisted upon even though documentably wrong as
> related to the scholarly frame of reference). This does not indicate
> that that your _belief_ might not be much closer to an _absolute truth_
> about what we are talking (which is something of which I, as a scholar,
> can't speak, as truth is outside of the scope of scholarly discourse),
> it only says that it is not within what can be considered _scholarly_
> discourse.
> 
> In other words, 50.000 Frenchmen can be wrong with everything, but
> 50.000 Frenchmen are not wrong in calling you deluded if you claim you
> speak French as they do, when as far as they can tell you don't speak
> the language that they speak, but speak English. Now, there is a
> possibility that, if there is an _absolute truth_, this absolute truth
> is that English is French, and the French who speak a different language
> which they, in error, call French, then, are all wrong as they don't
> speak French but you do, but they nonetheless are right in saying that
> you are deluded in claiming you speak the same language as they do, as
> you don't understand them and they don't understand you.
> 
>> Scholarly intersubjectively acceptable opinion to the effect that
>> the sun was at the centre of the universe was orthodoxy, with torture
>> and cruel deaths as punishment for heresy at one time.=20
>> Intersubjectivity can only ever be among scholars in agreement, so
>> as a criterion for deciding the validity of an opinion, it is based
>> on a tautology and is therefore of dubious value to scholarship.
> 
> Not at all. Intersubjectivity is based on a common frame of reference,
> with is a necessary prerequisite for understanding each other. Only if
> scholarship would be looking for truth, then this would be problematic,
> but scholarship, as I have already explained, is not looking for truth,
> but for explanations of the world as we are able to perceive it and talk
> about it. And, as you might know had you dealt with the history of the
> conflict about the heliocentric world-view, you would have realised that
> it was not the question of whether the earth or the sun was at the
> centre of the universe, but rather if truth could be found without the
> word of god. The actual conflict between Galileo and the papal
> authorities was whether mathematical proof of _the truth_ was possible,
> not if the sun was at the centre of the universe. But by only looking at
> popular representations of the conflict, where it is much easier to
> transport that they differed about what was the centre of the universe,
> this minor but nonetheless extremely important snippet of information
> has gone unnoticed by you. It has not, btw, in most of the academic
> literature on the conflict about the heliocentric world-view.
> Even more, the historical context in which academic word is progressing
> nowadays has considerably changed since the times of a Galileo and the
> conflict about the heliocentric world-view. Thus, understanding
> orthodoxy and its repression of heterodoxy is a much more complex issue
> than to simply do it away by argueing that scholarly opinion as
> intersubjective opinion is necessarily repressive and orthodox. In fact,
> academic heterodoxy is much more widespread than you would have us
> believe by quoting a non-scholarly conflict (as it was a
> scholarly/theological conflict) from 500 years ago. In fact, to give an
> example, I do totally disagree with Simon James an almost anything, but
> nontheless, we both are working within the same intersubjectice
> framework. There are several more scholars with which I utterly
> disagree, but nonetheless, they are working within the same
> intersubjective framework - which is that we all derive our theories
> from the existing evidence, even though they are completely opposed
> theories. Your theories, on the other hand, are outside of this
> intersubjective framework, as you summarily dismiss _all evidence_ as
> useless in analysing the past, but on the contrary argue that an alleged
> 'common sense', which documently is at least not 'common' as I do not
> share it, nor does, seemingly, anyone else on this list, nor do all
> Celtic scholars that I, personally or by their writings, know of (which
> is sufficent to demonstrate that your alleged 'common sense' it is not
> at all common), should be used to make statements about the past, which
> is as such nothing but an attempt to make people believe your
> authoritative (i.e. non-referenced) statements, seemingly because you
> have some miraculous way of accessing _the truth_ about the past that
> all others do not have.
> In other words, while it is absolutely possible to completely and
> fundamentally disagree within the same intersubjective framework,
> requiring to accept the opposing possibilities as viable alternative
> interpretations to my own, this is not possible within your
> authoritative approach, which one can believe or not, but which cannot
> be tested against an intersubjective framework, as your approach
> summarily dismisses any framework against which anything could be
> tested. As such, accepting or disagreeing with your theory is not a
> matter of reasoning, but a matter of belief, if one accets your
> framework. I can believe you that there was an unattested dialect of
> Irish spoken in 1st century AD Britain, but I can't look for myself if
> there was. Accepting your paradigma means accepting your interpretation,
> which amounts to accepting a dogma, as your whole paradigm is based on
> single-instance explanations, not on systemic relations. Thus, you are
> creating a new orthodoxy (orthodoxy is derived from dogma) with no
> possibility for heterodoxy within your framework, as heterodox opinions
> would amount to leaving your paradigma, and thus would be heresy.
> Thus, while the intersubjective paradigm of scholarly discourse allows
> for heterodoxy, yours doesn't and thus is an authoritative paradigm.
> =20
>>> As such, while there of course is nothing
>>> like "one correct" spelling of any spoken term, the transscribed form=
> s
>>> are self-similar in appearance, and this self-similarity follows regu=
> lar
>>> patterns.
>> =20
>> I'm not understanding you.
> 
> This is evident, but this line should be suffivent to show that you a)
> see the fact that I do not dispute the fact that there was nothing like
> "one correct" spelling and that you b) haven't understood the
> implications of Chaos theory. The central message of Chaos theory is
> that it tells us about the development of self-similarity, as seen e.g.
> in the famous Mandelbrot fractals. It is the concept of strange
> attractors that tells us how self-similarity develops in dynamic
> equilibrium in complex interactive open systems sensitive to intitial
> conditions within phase space distributions.
> 
> In more simple terms, relating to our specific problem of
> transliteration of terms, it tells us that a certain cluster of
> spellings can only be derived from a certain, different cluster of
> divergent pronouncations, as transliteration follows a Latin
> "transliteration attractor" that results in similar clusters being
> transliterated in non-identical but self-similar, non-arbitrary ways. In
> other words, all foreign language-terms transliterated with an ending of
> -icca or -icea in Latin should go back to similarly pronounced terms in
> the languages transscribed.
> 
>> We have one spelling from the Roman Tacitus, and those who copied
>> him. We know when that spelling dates from.=20
> 
> Both date from the 14th century AD, which is when the Tacitus texts were
> discovered in Monte Cassino after having been thought of as lost for at
> least 10 centuries. We only have copied spellings, not the one of
> Tacitus himself. As such, the two spellings known might both be copying
> errors.
> 
>> We can scarcely imagine that the few texts that survive from the
>> period of the Roman occupation and the following centuries are the
>> only ones written,
> 
> You can scarcely imagine that. Many people can. This mainly depends on
> the amount of literacy we want to ascribe to pre-Roman populations in
> Britain, Roman Britain and post-Roman Britain.
> 
>> and in the multitudes of destroyed or unpreserved material, we can't
>> know how many spellings arose in Britain itself, or when they dated
>> from.=20
> 
> But we can't argue with something we don't know. The argument that "we
> don't know how may different spellings existed" cannot be reversed to
> justify that every spelling is possible! What you are implying here is
> that we should ignore the available evidence, as we don't know how much
> evidence has been lost, and go on to argue that the lost evidence may
> have included something which goes along with your theory, and continue
> to argue that, therefore, your explanation is more likely than those
> that are based on the existing evidence. In other words, you are asking
> us to buy into an ex silentio argument that is not able to explain the
> existing evidence, because the existing evidence _might_ potentially be
> wrong, without showing that the existing evidence is _actually_ wrong!
> 
>> Anyway, is the earliest spelling always
>> given as the correct spelling?  All you can say is that two different
>> spellings are known and make no judgement between them.
> 
> No, what the current theories about the name Boudica say is that her
> name most probably meant "victorious", because this fits with regular
> patterns of change observable in Latin transcriptions of native British
> names, because the application of observable changes that lead from
> ancient British to modern Welsh would lead to a term meaning
> victiorious, and that also the observable patterns of regular change=20
> show that it's Irish cognate should be the term buadach, also attested
> as a name in Irish, meaning "victoriuos". As such, the current theory
> explains the existing evidence, is able to show derived terms of this
> name in the language most likely being a direct descendant of the
> language in which the original term was used, and is able to show a
> cognate term in an indirectly related language where there even is an
> attested case of this term used as a name element.
> Your theory, in contrast, requires us to assume that the name is the
> result of an individual complete misunderstanding of an unattested
> phrase in a language that was most likely not spoken then, requires a
> preassumption that the ancient British did not tell their names in
> public and requires us to discard the existing evidence as being
> ultimately meaningless. In fact, you have to construct, out of thin air,
> every single element in your theory: the Roman who wrote that term down
> did not have the slightest understanding of the language they spoke and
> heard the term on a single occasion, had no reason and no possibility to
> further inquire about that and thus never found out that it was not in
> fact her name, but a term referring to her people, and in general had no
> idea about customs and practices of the ancient British; they themselves
> spoke a language identical to modern Irish in the meaning of the terms,
> but pronounced in a different way to allow the Roman to transliterate
> the term at all, and this pronouncation was not recorded in any other
> instance by anywhom, anywhere, in any way, as it already had vanished at
> the next contact between Romans and British. As such, your theory
> operates in thin air, outside any attested evidence, with pure
> speculation, implying that because one cannot directly disprove your
> theory, it is more likely than a theory that can be backed up by massive
> amounts of evidence. This hardly can be thought of as scholarly.
> 
> For more see part II
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Mag.phil. Raimund KARL=20
> =D6sterreich: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Lektor f=FCr kulturwissenschaftliche Keltologie
> Univ.Wien, Inst.f.Alte Geschichte, A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
> United Kingdom: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Research fellow (European Archaeology)
> Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd, Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru,=20
> Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3HH; ff=F4n: (+44 781) 6464861
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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>
> 
> Visit the Canolfan homepage at
> <http://www.cymru.ac.uk/canolfan>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:19:43 +0200
> From:    Raimund KARL <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part II
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne schrieb:
>>> As you fail to show such regular patterns, but do present us
>>> time and again with individual, unattested cases,
>> =20
>> They don't exist.=20
> 
> So you are arguing that there exist no regular patterns, or that there
> exist no attested cases of Roman transcription of British languages?
> 
>> We have only the Roman form and those who use it, and the
>> British form which may have surfaced into the preserved
>> literature after spending a long time in the lost literature
>> and in unrecordable speech. There may have been others, which
>> haven't survived.
> 
> And as such, we rather explain the Roman forms away, and speculate about
> those that haven't survived based on single-case transformations? Thank
> you, but no. This is ex silentio argumentation, which is acceptable in
> fantasy literature and religious writings, but not in scholarly
> discourse. Scholarly discourse requires that, at least at some point,
> your theory has a connection to existing evidence, and not only to
> postulated potential evidence that was, if it ever existed at all,
> completely lost without trace.
> =20
>>> and you are violating the
>>> basic principles that underly any scholarship, including, BTW, Chaos
>>> theory.
>> =20
>> That's not how I would use Chaos theory in this.
> 
> Well, so how would you use Chaos theory?
> =20
>>> Your explanations are, to be precise, explanations as if human
>>> societies were non-deterministic Chaos,
>> =20
>> I'm not sure why you say non-deterministic there.
> 
> Because your explanations are single-case ad hoc explanations that do
> not follow regular patterns, and what you argue for is that attested
> versions are arbitrary choices, not reflections of structurated patterns
> of deterministic choas. As far as can be said from your mails, you argue
> that every single case depends on individual attractors rather than
> phase-space attractors, and if every single case is the result of a
> case-specific individual attractor, you are describing absolute or
> non-deterministic chaos. I thought you had read about Chaos theory?
> 
>> Nor do I imply that human
>> societies in general are chaotic, although it could be argued that they=
> are.
> 
> Well, I do argue they are, but are subject to what is called
> deterministic Chaos (in difference to non-deterministic or absolute
> Chaos, i.e. completely unstructured and unpredictable interaction),
> which leads to the development of self-similar patterns. Fractals, if
> you want, phase space attractors, dynamic equilibrium, temporary
> stability, self-similarity, whatever you want.
> 
>> I'm saying that we have no clear knowledge of who was in Britain
>> during the time of the Roman occupation, where they were from,
>> what languages they spoke, how diverse or similar they were, which
>> ones were natives, and which ones were refugees or allies.
> 
> No, you are argueing that we have no knowledge at all, and thus are
> allowed to speculate freely without any reference to attested evidence.
> No one argues with that we have no clear knowledge, but it cannot be
> derived from the fact that our knowledge isn't perfectly clear that we
> have _absolutely_ no idea what languages they most likely spoke, how
> diverse or similar they were, which ones were natives, refugees, allies
> or occupiers. Actually, we have an incredibly large amount of evidence
> available for all those things, in the archaeological record, the
> linguistic and onomastic evidence, in classical literature as well as in
> post-Roman indigenious literature (see e.g. John Koch's Manawydan -
> Mandubracios in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies), in art history,
> numismatics and so on. As such, while our knowledge is nowhere clear,
> our choices for explanations are considerably limited by this evidence.
> Evidence which you, as I have repeatedly said, obviously have no idea
> about, as you still have failed to quote any literature on that
> evidence. You have no idea how transition from pre-Roman to Roman to
> post-Roman contexts shows up in sites like Castell Henllys, or in
> Whitton Farm, or on any other site in Britain, how Roman villa economy
> can be distinguished from local native farmsteads and other
> organisational patterns during the Roman period, you don't know anything
> about pre-conquest contact and post-conquest relationships between
> British natives and Roman "occupiers", you have no idea about such sites
> as Hengistbury Head or anything that would allow you to build a
> qualified opinion.=20
> You simply make an authoritative statement that we do not clearly know
> (still correct), by which you imply that we do not know anything at all
> (no longer correct), from which you imply that you are allowed to
> postulate anything you would like based on an alleged "common sense" and
> have this postulate accepted as a valid theory (not at all correct, and
> definitly not scholarly). And while it might be fashionable in some
> radical narrativist circles to never let evidence get in the way of a
> good theory, this hardly can be seen as scholarly discourse.
> 
>> So cultural turbulence is indicated.
> 
> So the term turbulence is what you actually take from Chaos theory? As
> you don't seem to think of the self-similar structures appearing in
> turbulence, like the Lorenz attractor forming turbulent weather patterns
> or the characteristic spirals witnessed in turbulent waters, but what
> you understand as turbulence is a wild mix of many things in which
> anything goes?
> =20
>>> which, of course, as we can
>>> clearly and intersubjectively observe, they are not, but rather show =
> all
>>> the features associated with deterministic Chaos as described by Chao=
> s
>>> and Complexity theory.
>> =20
>> Perhaps, but I don't think Chaos theory can tell us much about the spel=
> ling
>> of Boadicea/Boudicca at this point
> 
> Well, I'd say it can tell us a lot about the development of self-similar
> patterns and that, thus, it is likely that the spelling of
> Boudicca/Boadicea should not be expected to be an isolated singe-case
> example of the same transliteration attractor in action, but should
> belong to a whole cluster of transliteration examples following the same
> transliteration attractor and thus forming what is observable in the
> evidence as a regular pattern of transliteration. Also, it should not be
> expected to be an isolated case in the naming evidence, but should also
> appear as a name in other examples from Celtic and Romano-Celtic
> contexts. As such, it is little surprising that the name Boudica
> actually also appears as the name of a godess on a Gaulo-Roman
> inscription (see CIL, also referenced in Maier's Lexikon der keltischen
> Religion und Kultur) from France, and that it is also attested as the
> name of an Irish king, Loegaire Buadach (see DIL, also referenced in
> Koch&Carey). Neither, however, applies to your postulated form
> "bardacha", which neither appears in any Romano-Celtic inscription nor
> in any Irish source, so you neither can present us with evidence for a
> transliteration in accordance with your theory, nor with a use as a
> naming element.
> 
>> though I agree that it in general it is
>> useful in examining the contexts within which linguistic studies of
>> the past are done.
> 
> It is helpful for knowing what to expect in the actual evidence as
> patterns of self-similarity, and thus is extremely helpful not only for
> examining the contexts within linguistic studies of the past, but also
> of the linguistic evidence itself.
> 
>> It could very well be a kenning.  Bards competed a lot.  In declaring a=
> team
>> of poets victorious at an eisteddfod or similar competiton you would be=
> a
>> equating the idea of bards with the idea of victors in just such a way =
> as mi
>> ght give rise to a kenning, accidental to deliberate.  Becoming a bard =
> was a
>> competetive thing, wasn't it?
> 
> Again, this is a "could be" explanation, not a "is attested" one.
> Becoming a bard may have been, to a certain extent, a competitive thing
> (even though you should not overestimate the tradition of the
> Eisteddfodau, which is a tradition that originated in the 19th century
> and is not attested earlier), but as far as the sources which are older
> than the 19th century seem to tell us, it rather had to do with long and
> thorough education rather than with winning at an Eisteddfod. Thus,
> again, this is idle speculation without any attestation, in an attempt
> to save your theory against better evidence.
> =20
>>> Well, this shows the basic problem you have, which, BTW, is a basic
>>> problem quite common to people who come up with theories like you: Yo=
> u
>>> can't imagine that a queen that was defeated by conquering enemies
>>> called herself "Victoria".
>> =20
>> I can't imagine that she'd have given her personal name on being conque=
> red.
> 
> But it is no way a given that she'd hadn't given her personal name on
> being defeated, and even less that the Romans would not have heard of
> the personal name of their opponent's leader before defeating them,
> especially given the considerable likelihood that there was considerable
> peaceful contact between the Romans and the British in east England well
> before the Icenian rebellion and the defeat of Boudica and her troops in
> battle. In fact, if the story related to us in Tacitus and Dio Cassius
> is not a complete Roman fiction but at least contains some amount of
> factual evidence, if is pretty likely that Boudica started that
> rebellion because her daughters, who had been given to the Roman
> governer of Venta Icenorum to be educated, were sexually harassed and
> raped by him, which implies that there was some kind of extended contact
> between the Romans and the very person Boudica well before there was
> anything like an armed conflict, as the Romans would most likely have
> known the name of the mother of the two daughters of a friendly king
> next door. Also, the archaeological record clearly demonstrates that
> there was considerable peaceful contact between the Romans and the
> people living in East Anglia in the first few decades AD, again
> indicating that the Romans had considerable firsthand knowledge of the
> people that were lead by Boudica in a rebellion after her daughters had
> been raped by the very person they were entrusted with.
> Your whole idea of the misunderstanding of Boudica's name by Roman
> conquerors, however, rests on the assumption that there was virtually no
> pre-defeat contact at all, as if the Romans, at the time of the Icenian
> rebellion, had suddenly=B4and surprisingly invaded a country that they ha=
> d
> never even heard of before, which is clearly a wrong assumption. In
> fact, your very theory rests on the rather dubious idea that there were
> two mostly isolated groups of people, the one "the Romans" and the other
> "the Celts" which had virtually no contact before the one suddenly
> decided to conquer and opress the others, which of course is, even from
> a purely theoretical point of view, a ridiculous assumption, as evident
> from modern anthropological literature, which clearly shows that there
> never were such mostly isolated, monolithic blocks of people, but that
> contact and knowledge of each other existed between all even remotely
> neighbouring peoples.
> =20
>>> However, apart from the fact that this is an
>>> application of hindsight (and I am pretty sure that Boudica did not
>>> expect to loose when she started the British rebellion), there are
>>> several queens that carried the name "Victoria" and still never won
>>> large wars.
>> =20
>> Still it's more likely that that the Roman who took down her name, got =
> it
>> the way I said:  Bardacha.  The bards were who she represented, and an
>> utterance something like 'Is i sin an ceann /i' was how the leader was
>> pointed out to him.
> 
> Why? You still have not presented a single piece of evidence for it, but
> all you have asked of us is to accept your authoritative statements that
> this is more likely. You have quoted no literature, have not presented
> us with any consistent patterns that we might test for ourselves by
> applying it to other names, all you have done is postulated that this is
> more likely than something which follows regular patterns, about which
> there is plenty of literature, something which is attested for in
> several other instances as a name, is in line with current scholarship,
> does not require to leave the existing interpretative frameworks for
> British late Iron Age / Early Roman social systems, results in a name,
> as might be expected of a person and is attested in numerous instances
> in Britain at this time, instead of a misunderstood phrase in a language
> most probably not then spoken there, and does not require the assumption
> of an isolated misunderstanding based on a rather unlikely singular
> contact between a isolated Roman and Boudica after her defeat as the
> source of both her name and the name recorded for her people, the Iceni,
> for the latter even a phrase that had to be horribly shortened to result
> in the form recorded anyway.
> Given this, there is not the slightest reason to ascribe a greater
> likelihood to your theory than to the traditional one, quite to the
> contrary, your theory is laughably ridiculous!
> 
>> It was a turbulent time.
> 
> And therefore, we should ignore the massive amounts of evidence that are
> available for it, and rather make up our own theories and not let any
> boring evidence come in our way? Again, I have to say thank you, but no!
> Turbulent times or not, this doesn't allow us to make up freak theories
> from thin air and disregard the existing evidence!
> =20
>>> We know quite a lot about Celtic naming customs, even from Antiquity.
>>> Additionally, insights can be gained from the archaeological record t=
> hat
>>> indicate that children were given a name when they had reached a cert=
> ain
>>> age, at earliest with about six months, at latest with about 6 years,=
> a
>>> practice that is quite well in line with what is recorded for most
>>> non-modern societies, is in line with what is recorded for almost all
>>> European societies in Antiquity and fits well with the patterns found=
> in
>>> the Early Irish and Welsh literature, be it the legal literature or t=
> he
>>> epic one.
>> This tells us nothing about what kinds of names they gave their childre=
> n
> 
> No, except for those hundreds of names attested in various inscriptions
> from the Continent and Britain, those attested in classical authors, on
> coin legends (definitly pre-conquest coins!) and on various tools, like
> swords, pottery and the like. That you haven't as yet heard of those
> attestations does not tell us that they don't exist, in fact, they even
> do exist in considerable numbers!=20
> =20
>>> This, of course, all apart from the fact that
>>> Boudica's name was known to the Romans well before her defeat, as aga=
> in
>>> is evident from the available sources.
>> Which sources, please?
> 
> Tacitus and Dio Cassius, as already quoted. If the stories they relate
> are not completely invented from beginning to end, which in fact would
> then make it more likely that there was noone like a Boudica and that
> she is completely invented as well, clearly shows that there was
> considerable contact between the Romans and Boudica and her people well
> before there was any kind of military conflict. This is also backed up
> by the archaeological record, which shows that there was considerable
> Roman influence on the native East Anglian British we now call Iceni
> well before 60 AD, indicating that there were many merchants trading in
> goods, and most likely especially good contacts between parts of the
> Icenian nobility and the Roman authorities, first in Gaul and then,
> later, in Southern Britain. There quite obviously was a quite constant
> and regular exchange of goods, indicating that the Romans and British
> were not at all isolated from each other, but must have known each other
> pretty well, from over a hundred years of quite frequent contact.=20
> That there could, at any time around 60 AD, suddenly have appeared out
> of nothingness a wife of a deceased king to take over the leadership of
> the Icenian people, without the Romans having had contect with her
> immediate family well before, and thus having had multiple chances to
> learn of her name well before the military conflict ensued, is extremely
> unlikely.
> This gives the theory that the Romans knew Boudica well before her
> rebellion near-factual status. I abbreviated this to "the fact", which
> of course, as always in scholarly discourse, ist to be read as "my
> interpretation of the evidence", as we all know that there are no facts
> but only interpretations of evidence.
> =20
>>> There are numerous cases of similar names that are attested from the
>>> Celtic world,
>> =20
>> You haven't cited any.
> 
> I have already, in several mails. But if you want other examples, why
> not look into Holder's altceltischer Sprachschatz? Or, to make it easier
> for you, look into Caesar, where you will find quite a number of similar
> names, as you will in sources for Early Irish and Early Welsh names.
> And, as I have already numerously said, even Buadach, the Old Irish
> cognate of Boudica, is attested as a name in Old Irish material. It is
> not my responsibility that you have no idea of this, and I have quoted
> more than enough sources that you should be able to find out for
> yourself.
> =20
> All the best,
> 
> RAY
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Mag.phil. Raimund KARL=20
> =D6sterreich: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Lektor f=FCr kulturwissenschaftliche Keltologie
> Univ.Wien, Inst.f.Alte Geschichte, A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
> United Kingdom: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Research fellow (European Archaeology)
> Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd, Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru,=20
> Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3HH; ff=F4n: (+44 781) 6464861
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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>
> 
> Visit the Canolfan homepage at
> <http://www.cymru.ac.uk/canolfan>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:00:12 -0500
> From:    Christopher Gwinn <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part II
> 
>> Your whole idea of the misunderstanding of Boudica's name by Roman
>> conquerors, however, rests on the assumption that there was virtually no
>> pre-defeat contact at all, as if the Romans, at the time of the Icenian
>> rebellion, had suddenly´and surprisingly invaded a country that they had
>> never even heard of before, which is clearly a wrong assumption. In
>> fact, your very theory rests on the rather dubious idea that there were
>> two mostly isolated groups of people, the one "the Romans" and the other
>> "the Celts" which had virtually no contact before the one suddenly
>> decided to conquer and opress the others, which of course is, even from
>> a purely theoretical point of view, a ridiculous assumption, as evident
>> from modern anthropological literature, which clearly shows that there
>> never were such mostly isolated, monolithic blocks of people, but that
>> contact and knowledge of each other existed between all even remotely
>> neighbouring peoples.
> 
> A very good point, Ray - you could even add the fact that a good number of
> Roman troops serving in Britain were actually ethnic Celts from both
> Cisalpine Transalpine Gaul - so it is more than likely that British Celtic
> names were transmitted properly into Latin via the assitance of bilingual
> Romanized Celts. Furthermore, there is some very good evidence that Tacitus
> himself, despite being a proud Roman citizen, was ethnically Celtic - and he
> was certainly familiar enough with both Gaulish and Brittonic to have
> remarked that their respective languages were virtually the same.
> 
> - Chris Gwinn
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 07:01:53 -0800
> From:    James Mathieson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part I (thanks Ray!)
> 
> --- Raimund KARL <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> <large SNIP>
> 
>> Not at all. Intersubjectivity is based on a common frame of reference,
>> with is a necessary prerequisite for understanding each other...
> 
> <further big SNIP>
> 
> Ray,
> 
> While this thread has blossomed into something rather large and painful, I
> have to say that, at least from my standpoint, something good is coming
> out of it, namely your excellent discourses on the scholarly framework and
> methods.
> 
> My thanks to everyone for the great background info regarding our common
> framework as Celticists (profesional or amateur), and the wealth of source
> materials that I know I at least have added to my "must read" list.
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> =====
> It is better to go barefoot than to be without books.
> 
> -Icelandic Proverb
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:37:12 -0500
> From:    Christopher Gwinn <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gau
> 
>> I know my hypotheses are rather radical,
> 
> No, just rather stupid.
> 
>> but no one has to take them seriously
> 
> Have no fear.
> 
>> - I'm only a patchily educated amateur
> 
> Perfectly evident.
> 
>> - and all I want is to be allowed to air my views along with everyone
>>> else; and of  course, I enjoy the feedback.
> 
> No, all you want to do is flood everyone's mailbox with a lot of unfounded,
> uneducated, unresearched drivel as a means of getting attention.
> 
>> A lot hinges on the relationship between the cognates Catholic and
>> Goidelic.
> 
> Which is nonexistent! The word Goidil wasn't even coined in Irish until
> approximately the 6th-7th centuries AD (no Irishman called themselves Goidil
> before this time!) - it was borrowed from Archaic Welsh Guoidel (from a
> Brittonic *Ue:del-), meaning something to the effect of "wildman" or "people
> of the woods/wilds" - whereas the Greek word katholou, with its derivative
> katholikos (meaning "universal" - it has a perfectly good Greek etymology,
> by the way), appears in ancient Greek sources, such as Aristotle (4th
> century BC) and Polybius (2nd century BC). The two words are not only
> nono-cognate in meaning, but they do not even share the same etymology!! Get
> your damn facts straight!
> 
>> Cath is a common enough C-Celtic title. Cath Bad's an example.
> 
> LOL!! It's Cathbad, not Cath Bad!! Old Irish cath "battle" comes from
> Proto-Irish catu-, which we find in early Ogam inscriptions (that you do not
> seem aware of this is further evidence of your ignorance). Furthermore, the
> word is a clear cognate of Gallo-Brittonic catu- "battle", which has also
> given Welsh cad. It is not a title.
> 
>> Olic is the Romanisation of
>> the a C-Celtic word similar to, and meaning roughly the same as, the modern
>> Irish word 'eolach', which means 'knowledgable'.
> 
> Complete BS.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Now my ten year old Shorter OED lists the word Goidel, which they equate
>> with Gael, as having first appeared (presumably in some text) in 1882,  and
>> yet they somehow manage to derive it from Old Irish!
> 
> 
> AAAAGGHHHH!!!! Gael is an ANGLICIZATION of Modern Irish Gaidhil! Modern
> Irish Gaidhil is derived from Old Irish Goidil! Old Irish Goidil was
> borrowed from Archaic Welsh Guoidel!
> 
>> Goidelic, they say, is
>> formed from it, just as, say, Icelandic is formed from Iceland. Does anyone
>> know of an earlier instance of the occurence of the word Goidel?
> 
> 
> It appears in Irish literature in the 7th century AD - its Old Welsh
> equivalent appears as a personal name in the Liber Landavensis.
> 
> 
>> While the lack of evidence doesn't exclude the possibility, you'd want some
>> supporting
>> evidence, wouldn't you? Especially in view of the fact that my rather
>> obvious equation of Goidelic with Catholic works rather better.
> 
> You have GOT to be kidding! Spare us all, please!
> 
> 
> 
>> Cognates of both Cath and Path are found across cultures, and from the
>> earliest to the most recent times, which leads me to believe that the c-p
>> split preceded the 'splitting' of the proto language into Greek, what we
>> now
>> call Celtic, and the Germanic languages.  Rome's pre-Trojan history
>> unpacks,
>> too.
> 
> Some P-Celtic cognates of Old Irish cath "battle" are Gaulish catus "battle"
> and Old Welsh cat, Modern Welsh cad "battle".
> 
> 
>> But for now I want to consider some Cath cognates.  Cathars, Caesar,
>> Cadwallader, Cuthbert, Catherine (could that be Cath /Eirinn?) Cassandra
>> (could that be Cass an Draoi, and she a mature druid and not a nubile young
>> spear prize?), Irish cathair (a city), and with eclipsis  Goth, gad, god,
>> gus as in an Gus (the cath) Fergus (fear gus - a cath man) and Mother
>> Goose,
>> which is a body of  'folk' wisdom and magical tales of great antiquity,
>> Geth(semane) and more, and with lenition, Chair, as in the Chairs of study
>> at Universities.
> 
> 
> Alright - this is pure insanity now. What is the point of all this nonsense?
> 
> 
>> I'd better stop here and see if anyone's still with me.
> 
> 
> I wish you would unsubscribe from this list while you're at it - you are
> easily one of the most annoying people I have ever run accross here, and you
> are degrading the quality of the list. Is this an academic list or not? If
> it isn't, perhaps I should go elsewhere, as I am not interested in being
> bombarded with junk in my mailbox everyday. Seeing that you have no interest
> in learning from the more experienced here, but rather blasting us all with
> utter nonsense, I would say that your posts are no better than spam.
> 
> - Chris Gwinn
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:35:11 +0100
> From:    Martin Burns <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gau
> 
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 04:37  pm, Christopher Gwinn wrote:
> 
>> Is this an academic list or not?
> 
> No, but it has a strong academic thread through it, particularly when
> talking about academic issues.
> 
> IoW if people are talking about an academic issue, respect for
> each person's input is somewhat related to the understanding
> they display regarding the subject matter at hand.
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> email: [log in to unmask]             PGP ID: 0xA835CCCB
> [log in to unmask]      snailmail:        30 Shandon Place
> tel: +44 (0)774 063 9985                             Edinburgh,
> url: http://www.easyweb.co.uk                        Scotland
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:33:24 -0700
> From:    John Hooker <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> 
> --=======CC5A67=======
> Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7338119F; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> 
> Hi Vyvyan,
> 
>>> Perhaps if you actually looked at some Gaulish coins then you would see
>>> that they did use the Roman alphabet.
>> 
>> This is faulty logic.  Here's your syllogism::
>> The coins are Gaulish.
>> They have Latin inscriptions.
>> Therefore Gaulish coins may have Latin inscriptions.
>> 
>> But the question is 'are the coins Gaulish or Romano-Celtic or Roman?'  So
>> your basic premise is unproved.
>> 
>> And it becomes circular when you use this false 'proof' as evidence that
>> Gauls used the Roman alphabet on coins.
> 
> None of this makes any sense. Define "Gaulish", "Romano-Celtic", and
> "Roman" in a numismatic context for me and I might better understand what
> you are trying to say.
> 
>>> Also, the gold stater of Vercingertorix is in Latin letters, and (in case
>>> you will claim this is a Roman coin!) the metal alloy is Gaulish and
>>> absolutely not Roman who used very fine gold.The predecessor of
>>> Vercingetorix also used coins of the same type with the name in Latin
>>> letters. These are just a couple of hundreds of other examples.
>> 
>> This is educated conjecture and needs to be carefully considered before it's
>> taken on board.  It just isn't fact.
> 
> Explain why you think this is not fact. Again, you are not making any
> sense, and I can't argue such fuzzy thinking -- it has no substance.
> 
>>> Greek letters are seen on Celtic coins but they are rarer, and Allen notes
>>> that psi, phi and omega do not occur at all. Sometimes, a mixture of Latin
>>> and Greek letters is used (especially where there is a theta). Allen
>> worked
>>> out that about one in fifteen Gaulish coins contains some Greek element. I
>>> don't think he included the use of the theta in this, but he is not
>>> explicit. Theta shows up where other Greek letters do not (in Belgic Gaul
>>> and Britain).
>> 
>> That's interesting. INteresting interface, the Celto-Greek.  Or is it
>> Graeco-Celtic?
> 
> You have to understand that the prototypes of the earliest Celtic coins are
> Greek, and that Celts were involved with Greeks through trade and served
> with and against them in war. I use the term Graeco-Celtic when explaining
> the artistic fusion that is characteristic of the evolution of Celtic coin
> designs as they assert their Celtic style while maintaining the general
> subject (such as Apollo head/chariot) of their Greek prototypes. Some later
> Celtic coins followed Roman prototypes such as the boar design on Iceni and
> Corieltauvian coins following the Republican denarius of C. Hosidius c.f.
> Geta of 60 B.C. that depicts the Calydonian boar (Ovid).
> 
>> One published
>>> example that I dealt with (handling the actual coins at the Ashmolean
>>> Museum as my check) showed a twenty percent error rate in the published
>>> data sample (not an Ashmolean publication I should hasten to add).
>> 
>> By 'error' do you just mean disagreement with you?  Or with the the
>> particular peer-group concensus you subscribe to?  Because where there's
>> still guesswork happening, however cautious and however well-informed, it
>> can't be used to determine the rightness of wrongness of another opinion.
> 
> LOL, You are way off on both, and rather rudely so. I mean data-entry
> errors e.g. writing up one coin and giving it the catalogue number of
> another, writing 5.72 g instead of 5.27 g, getting coins and their data
> mixed up. that sort of thing -- sloppy work. Nothing at all to do with
> opinions, theories or the like. How else would double entry and second
> party proof reading help to alleviate the problem?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> http://www.writer2001.com/
> Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
> Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
> Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web:
> http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/
> 
> --=======CC5A67=======
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7338119F
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01
> 
> --=======CC5A67=======--
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:08:10 +0300
> From:    Daniela and Jim Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part II
> 
> Could you possibly expand a little on this question of Tacitus' possible
> Celtic connections? And, by the way, is there any explanation for his
> strange claim in Germania about the amber-gathering Aestii (Estonians?)
> "quibus ritus habitusque Sueborum, lingua Britannicae propior" - ie. they
> have "a language approximating to the British"? (I was going to ask if this
> didn't cast doubt on his sensitivity to language similarity and difference,
> but I suppose he could have known well enought what the British language was
> like and been misinformed about the more remote Aestii.)
> 
> Your remark makes me very curious.
> 
> Jim Brown
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Gwinn <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 02 April 2002 18:04
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls part II
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is some very good evidence that Tacitus
>> himself, despite being a proud Roman citizen, was ethnically Celtic - and
> he
>> was certainly familiar enough with both Gaulish and Brittonic to have
>> remarked that their respective languages were virtually the same.
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:43:05 -0800
> From:    =?ISO-8859-1?B?UOFkcmFpZyBM?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Many Duplicate Messages (Caesar on the Gauls)
> 
> Hello Tom et al,
> On Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 15:10:42, you wrote:
> 
> TJ> Dia Duit, Ray! Where do you get started to study -- and I mean very
> TJ> basic knowledge -- to learn this "stuff?" You read what? You take
> TJ> what course of study?
> 
> I have been receiving many duplicate messages which begin with the
> above. Anyone else having this?
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Pádraig L
> [log in to unmask]
> Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 14:40:28 (-0800 UTC)
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of CELTIC-L Digest - 1 Apr 2002 to 2 Apr 2002 (#2002-12)
> ************************************************************
> 

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