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: Caesar on the Gauls

From:

Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:03:03 +0930

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (412 lines)

G'day John,

I began to answer you line by line but I can't see any point in it. I don't
know why you're going to such lengths to refute a point of view you despise
so very much.  You could so easily have ignored me or mumbled something
polite.  If you hadn't attacked me so savagely I'd have just smiled and
nodded and agreed to differ.  I won't forget the lessons I've learned here,
and I'll undervalue my own viewpoint much less now that I've seen how little
value there is in that of the 'experts' who oppose all opinions not their
own with hysterical rage and hatred.

I'm sorry for you, for your lack of dignity, self-control, and credibility.

I am unsubscribing as of asap.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hooker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2002 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls


> Hi Vyvyan,
>
> >I'm saying that if you want to make intelligent, informed conjectures
about
> >the possible meaning of an antique inscription you can't ignore a
possible
> >meaning in a language in use at the time to which the coin belongs,
> >especially if there is one that fits in spelling and meaning as well.  It
> >must be considered along with all other viable hypotheses.
>
> The coin is Belgic, and typically so. The legend is also in keeping with
> other Celtic coins. But, as you brought up the idea that the inscription
> could be possibly Latin, I gave you a solid list of evidence and examples
> that demonstrates that this idea of yours is wrong.

No.  It supports your hypothesis, without proving it, and doesn't even
address mine.
>
> >Chris has come up with another hypothesis.  It is farther-fetched than
mine.
>
> Nothing is farther-fetched than your hypothesis. Chris has given you solid
> linguistic and numismatic evidence. Obviously, Chris focuses more on the
> linguistic as it is his specialty, as I focus on the numismatic as it is
> mine. We both have enough familiarity with other forms of evidence to see
> that our ideas are well supported.

I must say that you have given me quite the opposite impression.  I
interpret the unwarranted ferocity of your hatred of me personally, and your
insults and jibes as a defensiveness and wonder what you've got to defend
from an amateur who only glances at what appears to be evidence that doesn't
support your hypothesis and gets savaged for it.  It certainly has
undermined your credibility in my eyes at least.

I really did sign on to this list with the innocent intention of
participating in a sharing of ideas from which all would learn.  I had no
idea I'd have to defend myself from so much hatred.  I'm seriously in shock.
I wasn't expecting to be taken up on it to this extent, and attacked on a
line by line basis for offering a point of view.  I have learned a lot, and
it doesn't reflect well on you.  I can't imagine what I did to incur your
hatred.
>
> >> I knew it would be a lot easier than the "esu praso" inscription.
> >
> >ESUPRASTO, not ESU PRASO.   Are you saying it isn't a Latin phrase?
Without
> >consulting any impartial Latin scholar expert in provincial languages of
the
> >time.  Or even glancing at some of the work being done on it by experts
in
> >Latin.  Having your finger on the pulse, surely you'd know of any such
work
> >being done.  You and Chris both seem to me to be utterly ignorant of any
> >work but Chris's very recent effort, which appears to have been come up
with
> >simply to support you against me in a war you've made by refusing to
> >acknowledge that there remain, in the absence of clinching evidence, many
> >possibilities, all of which should be closely examined by scholars of
> >integrity and skill.
>
> A number of scholars of integrity and skill have examined this legend.
None
> of them have given any merit to your translation.

We saw what they did with the SUBESUPRASTO before the full legend was
examined, didn't we?  It was a blind, wild, uninformed guess, wasn't it.  So
you'll forgive me for not taking the above as doing my hypothesis the least
amount of harm.

> >I do know that a Latin translation is possible and I do believe it is
very
> >seriously very relevant to the study of the coins concerned. Not to have
> >examined all possibilities, or to have overlooked this one seems to me to
> >represent a serious departure from scholarly integrity, and should be
> >remedied.
>
> It is not relevant to these coins at all. The only connection you have
> offered that is factual is that the coins were minted at a time when Latin
> was used.

Also that it has an immediately possible and appropriate Latin meaning,
while a 'Gaulish' one is ony hypothetical and its meaning bizarre.

This is not strong evidence if we knew nothing about Roman and
> Gaulish coins, and nothing about the Gallic war and the Nervii.

There is very little proven knowledge and not much to go on, that much I do
know.

What we do
> know about these subjects says that this is not a Latin coin legend. You,
> on the other hand, have not examined this evidence at all, but have
> invented reasons that could support your idea. You have offered no real
> evidence, just a bunch of "could haves" that themselves demonstrate no
> knowledge of these subjects.

It has an appropriate Latin meaning.  It hasn't got a Gaulish one, except
one hypothetically derived by guesswork with a most unlikely meaning.

When given actual evidence, you ignore it and
> attack the knowledge and integrity of those that have offered it.

Yes, evidence, but not conclusive and not strong enough to overcome my
objection that it is more plausibly a Latin inscription than a Gaulish one.

> >It does exist as a Latin word, and you should have known it.  Your
> >credibility as a scholar is seriously compromised, and collapses
altogether
> >if you continue to deny that that FACT is relevant.
>
> This particular fact of a Latin word that corresponds to this coin legend
> is irrelevant in the face of all the other evidence. If you have any other
> evidence then present it. No amount of rudeness and insults on your part
> can strengthen your argument. It is sad that you feel you have to resort
to
> this.

That was not rudeness, nor an insult.  It was a straight and honest remark.
I have not received a single email from you, Chris or Ray and one or two
others that did not contain insults and barbs.  I confess I'm utterly
bewildered.  I have not encountered so much such unwarranted hatred for
offering a point of view before.  I was expecting a civilised atmosphere in
which it would be safe to learn to participate in Celtic Studies.

>
> >After all, you did for Vercingetorix.
> >
> >No one has faulted my interpretation.
>
> Untrue, Chris did on the 29th March, and emphatically so. Ray did also on
> the same day.

No they didn't.  They only offered another opinion, and most of the emphasis
was on hurting me personally as much as they could.  They succeeded.  I'm
stunned at you.

>
> >I'm sure you know a lot about all these things, but it is appalling that
you
> >didn't know that it had a Latin meaning which has a high degree of
> >appropriateness, and it's clear that you hadn't even a clue that there
was a
> >possible 'Celtic' one.
>
> First there is no appropriateness in a Nervii coin of this period having a
> Latin legend at all, and second, I picked this example because the legend
> is in keeping with many other legends on Celtic coins.

You said before it was Belgic.
>
> >None of these unusual circumstances have any precedent
> >> that you can point to, nor were any of these circumstances evidenced
> >later.
> >
> >That VIROS is a Latin word is not an unprecedented circumstance it is a
> >simple fact.
>
> I am talking about coin legends. Please try to keep on topic. Give me
other
> examples of coin legends issued, or authorized by Romans that support your
> hypothesis.

VIROS is a coin legend.
>
> >I mentioned that my knowledge of Latin is slight, but that VIROS is in my
> >vocabulary and certainly means 'troops' or 'men'.
>
> This has nothing to do with these coins. So what if one word resembles
> another?

You're cute.
>
> >you have
> >> not exhibited any knowledge of Roman, or provincial Roman coin legends.
> >
> >None of which would change the FACT that the inscription has a direct
Latin
> >translation that is appropriate and in my opinion it is irresponsible for
> >scholars to have ignored this.
>
> Why do you keep saying it is appropriate. It is not. I picked it because
> all the evidence shows that it is not Latin. As I said, you are seeing
> horses in the clouds. You are not seeing a Latin word, you are seeing a
> word that looks like one.
>
> >> So you see, there is no reason to assume
> >
> >I only hypothesise.
> >
> >that VIROS on a coin of the Nervii
> >> would have any Roman authority at all. It would be illegal.
> >
> >Sorry I miss your logic here.  Are you saying that there are signs on
these
> >coins that prove that they were minted under Roman authorisation?
>
> You cut off the sentence. There are no signs on these coins that any Roman
> was involved with their issue at all. If a Roman made, or authorized such
a
> coin he would be breaking Roman law. There are no other examples where
such
> coins were issued without authority that I am aware of in Imperatorial or
> Imperial times, with the exception of the coins of Athens. The reason for
> the Athenian coins is fairly obvious.
>
> > If so
> >what's the problem?  They'd be legal.  Or are you saying that the coins
are
> >unauthorised and have no marks on them that acknowledge Roman
authorisation,
> >and are therefore illegal?
>
> Yes,
>
> >  And how does this relate to the possibility that
> >VIROS is the acc pl of the Latin word for man or soldier.
>
>
> The Nervii had no prior contact with the Romans. They did not trade with
> anyone and they were vehemently anti-Roman.
>
> >>  Roman soldiers would accept whatever booty they were given. Their pay
was
> >> different. It was highly regulated and standardized.
> >
> >And never late and they never improvised? I doubt it.
>
> No, never late, and never impovised. If you have any evidence to the
> contrary then present it.
>
> >What possible evidence can you base this on? IF such an
> >> absurd event happened, then the resulting coins would have to be
stamped
> >> with the issuing authority. The legend that you propose is not in
keeping
> >> with any other Roman coin legend either in it's content, or in the
manner
> >> of its language.
> >>
> >
> >Why is the idea of a Belgic mint absurd?  You yourself have said that
> >'Celts' minted coins of inferior gold alloy.  That means they had mints.
> >You yourself say the coins are Belgaean.  It is quite possible that the
> >Romans captured a mint
>
> I wish you would read what I actually said. A Belgic mint is not absurd. A
> permanent, and constantly staffed Belgic mint would be rather absurd, but
> capturing and then using a Belgic mint is absurd on so many levels. The
> coins were issued to finance the fight against the Romans. They had no
> other reasons to make coins. Coins would have been made wherever. There
> would be no physical mint to capture. The Romans would have no need to use
> inferior technology to mint coins and would not have done so.
>
> >> I have made a guess that some of these Nervii coins were issued in
payment
> >> to their client tribes for their continuing support. But this is a
guess
> >> based on available evidence.
> >
> >Yes, and why should they put a Latin inscription on them?
>
> It is not a Latin legend.
>
>
> >For 'we know' you should have said, 'according to Caesar', whose
testimony
> >is not considered by all scholars to be reliable.  I find it shonky.
>
> Give me a single example where Caesar lied.
>
> >We can sometimes even track the retreat lines of Gauls
> >> by the hoards of coins that they hurriedly buried as they fled.
> >
> >Do these hoards of coins bear the word VIROS?
>
> The Ledringhem hoard (Nord, 1852, consisting of a vase containing 15 to 18
> litres of Gaulish coins. -- containing 5 of the 13 VIROS coins recorded in
> the B.N. catalogue)
>
> >So my guess
> >> fits all of the available evidence.
> >
> >No, it jars with the linguistic evidence, that there is an inscription
that
> >has a Latin meaning that you would have me believe has never been
> >investigated before.
>
> Then you should reconsider your singular evidence in the face of my
> multiple evidence, No
>
> >> >Yes, but if you happened to capture a mint you'd use what you found
> >there.
> >> >You would need to have it attested that they had a tradition of not
> >> >plundering Celtic mints or stores of gold and using it for their own
> >> >purposes.  I find this very unlikely.
> >>
> >> The Romans plundered everything, everwhere they could. They did not
start
> >> using these "mints", nor did they start farming if they captured a
farm.
> >> There was no need for them to start issuing coins when they were
fighting
> >> battles. What on earth do you think the Roman soldiers would have done
>
> >with
> >> the money -- there were no shops. Or do you imagine they only fought
> >during
> >> the week and then took off to a nearby town to booze it up on the
weekends
> >> at the local bar?
> >
> >
> >Are you now suggesting that Roman soldiers weren't paid at all?  But you
> >told me earlier that they always took their own mint along with them on
> >campaign, that they always paid their ordinary soldiers in silver
denarii.
> >I myself can't think for the life of me what they'd have spent it on.
> >Weren't they fond of gambling?  But that they were paid is undeniable, I
> >think.
>
> Roman soldiers were paid. A travelling mint is unusual but was used, for
> example, by Mark Antony at a later date. They would not have needed money
> in that part of Gaul, because there was nothing for them to spend it on.
> The locals did not use money in the way that we, or the Romans of the
time,
> understood. There were no traders, no shops.
>
> >>
> >> Yes, there is. I have listed all of the evidence.
> >
> >You asserted that they were Belgaean coins, not Nerviian.
>
> Further confirmation that you have not studied the subject. Belgica is a
> part of Gaul and had many tribes living there. The Nervii were Belgic.
>
> >
> >No.  I'm repeating what I have said because you haven't answered.  You've
> >only repeated that you have interpreted a lot of circumstantial evidence
as
> >precluding a possible Latin translation for a word that without
interpreting
> >or hypothesising anything at all has a plausible meaning in Latin and no
> >meaning except a hypothetical one that leaves a lot of questions
unanswered
> >in hypothetical Old Celtic. And you haven't even consulted an impartial
> >Latin scholar with expertise in provincial Latin dialects.
>
> There are many Gaulish coin legends that you might see as Latin. This does
> not mean that they are. The Nerviian coins are a good example of why such
> an interpretation would be wrong. Gaulish names end in OS. VIR is common
in
> both Latin abbreviations and in Gaulish names. If you insist that what you
> are seeing is Latin, and not Gaulish, then it is your task to present
other
> evidence to support this idea. You have not done this in the case of the
> Nervii, and you will not be able to do this. This is why I picked the
> example of the Nervii. I  will not continue this ridiculous discussion
> unless you present some evidence as to why these coins could have Latin
> inscriptions. There are many words that look like other unrelated words in
> other languages. There are many langauges that have a common root and thus
> similar looking words can have similar meanings. To me, a Gallic war
> Nerviian coin with a Latin legend is absurd in the face of the other
> evidence. That you even think that the name Vercingetorix is Latin, leads
> me to believe that you will always ignore all other evidence. That you did
> not even remember the other messages refuting your Vercingetorix
> interpretation confirms this.
>
> 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/
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>
> ---
> 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
>
Peace,

Vyvyan  /|\

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