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  February 2008

CELTIC-L February 2008

Subject:

More on Celtic A & B

From:

John Hooker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:49:17 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (283 lines)

Hi all,

In my last message, I said that all clasification divisions are
subjective. There is nothing that we can do about that, so it remains to
come up with classification systems that can be broadly agreed upon and
can be understood by people of differing interests.

There are very few people who would claim that the languages spoken in
Pre-Roman Gaul, Britain and Ireland etc. were not Celtic languages. This
term is one of the divisions of the classification system of Indo-European
languages and it is widely accepted. Those few who claim that the
pre-Roman British were speaking a Germanic language can be dismisssed by
simply showing them a British Celtic coin where its legend is clearly
Celtic. My primary classification is that Celtic A means those who spoke a
Celtic language.

Celtic B means those Celtic A people who made and used objects decorated
in the styles where the main design elements are derived from the palmette
and running scroll and were made from the fifth century B.C. to (roughly)
the second century A.D. This definition takes a little more study to
understand than does Celtic A, but this should not be an insurmountable
task for most people.

So the next stage of the explanation is to say why these two preliminary
divisions should be made to describe cultures. It is a strange thing that
when an exception is seen to a classification term for a culture that the
existence of the culture is first called into question rather than the
classification system that defines it. Yet, this is what happened. the
confusion started, I believe, by the observation that not all people who
were being called Celtic were using the styles that had become to be
called La Tène even though they existed in the same time span and in the
very broadly-defined geographical regions of this style. Instead of saying
'We should not define Celts by the use of the La Tène style', it was said
that ancient Celts did not exist. Examples where classical writers had
mentioned Celts or keltoi were either ignored or were explained away by
saying that these writers were somehow mistaken. Simon James came up with
the idea that as he could not find an example prior to the seventeenth
century where a writer had used the name Celt to describe the ancient
British then the ancient British could not be Celts. This imposes far too
much importance in the ethnological skills of pre-seventeenth century
writers and there is really no reason to suppose that they should have
been more skilled in this subject than modern specialists.

That such an idea was even put forward must call into question its real
motives. At the very least, it displays a lack of understanding of the
function and techniques of classification systems and their history.
Perhaps Simon James never read Michel Foucault's _The Order of Things_ to
get a grasp on how classification systems have changed over the centuries.
Foucault starts his book by describing the taxonomy of animals as
described in an old Chinese encyclopaedia:

(a) belonging to the emperor
(b) embalmed
(c) tame
(d) sucking pigs
(e) sirens
(f) fabulous
(g) stray dogs
(h) included in the present classification
(i) frenzied
(j) innumerable
(k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush
(l) et cetera
(m) having just broken the water pitcher
(n) that from along way off look like flies

So let us look at the way that ancient Celtic cultures had been divided in
the past. essentially, there were two main divisions: Hallstatt and La
Tène. These terms were the names of places where objects had been found of
what was seen to be sharing stylistic similarities. These divisions were
further broken down into other divisons using A, B, C, or 1, 2, 3, etc.
Hallstatt preceded La Tène and the other divisions were chronological. In
most taxonomic systems, the place is usually fairly low down in the order
of description and preceding it are terms that might describe how it
looks, who it is named after etc. In the popular archaeology of previous
days this order was reversed and something might be called La Tène Celtic.

It would have been more accurate to name a sub-style after the place it is
usually found as La Tène is a different place from Waldalgesheim and the
latter is sometimes used to describe the art style from that region,
although Jope suggested 'Waldalgesheim Master' to describe the art of a
particular atelier. Waldalgesheim was also used to describe a sub style of
La Tène, so you can see how confused was this taxonomy.

Personally, I like non-descriptive taxonomic terms as they cannot be
argued. This type of taxonomy was used by Derek Allen to describe British
Celtic coins, so we have British A, B, etc. Van Arsdell tried to associate
tribes with the series, but that is problematical as we cannot be
absolutely sure whether many ribal attributions are correct: just because
a tribe is recorded in an area in 20 A.D. it does not mean that the same
tribe was on that same area in 80 B.C. or that coins from that area were
not made by different tribe that was eventually absorbed into another
tribe. Colin Haselgrove invented a classification system based on region
and time phase to avoid this problem, so an example of a group of coins is
SW41 in Haselgrove's system and this means South-western phase 4, series
1. These coins were called British B1 by Allen and are designated
Durotriges by Van Arsdell. The popular term is "Chute stater", named after
the place where a hoard of this type was discovered. I prefer Allen's
system because there is always the possibility that a coin thought to be
from one of Haselgrove's phases might turn out to be from another phase.
Similarly, a coin attributed to the Atrebates by Van Arsdell might turn
out to be from another tribe. This actually happened with British A, which
has a wide distribution that spans several tribes. Kent believes this
series to be of Cassivelaunos and is a federal issue. Van Arsdell lists it
at Atrebates despite the fact that the type is popularly known as the
"Westerham stater" named after a hoard in Westerham, Kent -- which should
have been in Cantii territory, anyway! Yet, these coins are also found in
great numbers north of the Thames in territories that were controlled,
apparently, by Cassivellaunos who might have been of the Catuvellauni.

I give all of the above to demonstrate how confusing things can get. This
confusion cannot be avoided when we get down to the nitty-gritty in the
study of the ancient Celts. Many of us actually like the subject because
of its mysteries and confusions and because it offers the sorts of
challenges that other places and periods do not offer. As a numismatist, I
was never interested in forming a collection of modern pennies arranged by
dates. It seemed to me to lack a certain challenge -- the only one being
finding something rare and thus filling a hole in the display.

I can understand that Simon James prefers to be a penny collector and have
things made simple, but I cannot extend that to John Collis, and I think
that he might be annoyed by the type of vagaries I outlined in the
previous paragraph and yet is unwilling to go with what is most
convenient, even if it means using the abstract and non-descriptive
terminology favoured by Derek Allen and myself.

When many people started to get afraid of what their peers might think and
began using Iron Age instead of Celtic, they seemed to have no worries
that the Iron Age spanned even more cultures than did the Celtic. I can
only think that they were unconcerned about that because no one was
bullying them over the term. Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are far
less representative of what we might think to be how any ancient people
identified themselves than is Celtic. We do know that some ancient people
actually called themselves Celts.

Those who did not write Celts, and yet found Iron Age to be inadequate for
their pupose, started to write "Celtic" with the quotation marks to
signify that the term was not curently accepted as legitimate. This was
unfortunate because in English usage, this can also mean that the term is
being used for irony. I have known many people who have read "Celtic" and
assumed that to mean that the author did not believe that Celts existed
when, really, the author was just being timid and yet wanted to convey
something for which the term Iron Age was inadequate.

The very first answer to a message I had posted about Celtic art said
"There were no bloody Celts". It was from the email address of a
professor, and it was later discovered that one of his students had used
his email account. The message was later removed from the archives. Now,
was this student just very bad, or were his or her professors bad in
giving him or her such ideas unintentionally? Simon James disclaimed any
responsibility for how his word were taken in his book, but he seems not
to understand the legal term: due dilligence. It is certain that his
editors were not using due dilligence, otherwise they would have told him
'Can you not see how this might be taken?' Denying responsibility often
does not hold up in court when damage is done.

I am proposing Celtic A because it is simply defined as describing people
who had a Celtic language. Celtic is used as a vaild term by linguists and
that has not been challenged. Language shapes culture, especially in the
choices of words and where a number of words are used to describe
something where, in another language, only one word is used. This tells us
that a greater variety of considerations are made by the people who have a
need for more than one defining word in their descriptions. As I said,
before, you cannot use the English translation which reads "life" when it
has been translated from the Greek -- especially in philosophical matters
because they had two words with very different connotations.

Language is also intimately connected with culture in idiom and metaphor
and I think that it very safe to assume that certain Celtic words have
roots that decribe such. In othet cultures we can be sure of such things.
Take a look at this famous Chinese painting. It is called "two patriarchs"
and is sometimes known as "two patriarchs harmonizing their minds":

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2923/800pxtwopatriarchsc73afhm0.jpg

In English, when we call someone a tiger we mean that they are ferociously
determined. From that definition, this painting makes no sense. We have to
know two things to understand the painting: the Chinese sign for "prince"
is the marking on a tiger's head  and a tiger is considered to be fat and
lazy. Now the painting and the title make sense!

We have no way to tell how the ancient Celts viewed their own identity, we
can only guess, and the best gueses will probably come from how the
language was evolved using idiom and metaphor.

I also propose Celtic B and define it as a culture that is marked by its
use of a series of closely related artistic styles by Celtic A people. It
is thus a division of Celtic A, and not something that replaced it. In
this way, we avoid such phrases as "the La Tène culture
replaced/invaded/followed the Hallstatt culture". We cannot be sure of the
accuracy of this type of statement, or anything similar, but we know that,
at the very least there is going to be problems and exceptions and we then
have to explain why we do not see La Tène in certain places. We are
saying, by stating Celtic B, that these people were a part of Celtic A and
this has little or nothing to do with territory as part of the definition.

Art is another from of language, and in its design elements and
composition it also contains idiom and metaphor and it can help to define
a culture very well. The Romantic movement was a culture that inhabited
other cultures and it was expresssed in both art and literature. I would
say that Celtic B is best described as a movement. I have spent many years
in trying to analyse the art-form from that perspective, treating it in
ways that we treat the subject of language. This is not new. I have yet to
obtain a thesis in Vincent Megaw's reading list as even he finds it
tough-going:


 Castriota, David Richard 1981.
University Microfilms 1982] 745.4 C355c

"Continuity and innovation in Celtic and Mediterranean ornament: a
grammatical-syntactic analysis of the processes of the reception and
transformation in the decorative arts of antiquity" PhD Thesis, Columbia
University

Abstract:

http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI8211090/

"The ornament of the Celtic peoples of Transalpine Europe resulted
initially from the impact of imported late Archaic and Classical Greek and
Etruscan decorative arts. Subsequently, Celtic ornament continued to draw
upon Southern or Greco-Italic arts, although these borrowings were
increasingly altered or transformed as Celtic art achieved a more
distinctive identity.

"The study of the Celtic transformations of Southern ornament requires a
more objective and consistent means of formal analysis. Patterns are
intelligible as groupings of basic two-dimensional components or elements.
These may be arranged with an areally discrete structure as proximate,
tangent, or conterminous forms, and also as areally continuous series
connected by juncture. These arrangements may be characterized more
precisely on the analogy of the syntactic structure of words in language,
as paratactic and hypotactic connections. Larger aggregates of elements
consist of serial arrangements, as strings, and more elaborate structures,
perimetral and complex aggregates, and still more elaborate closed string
aggregates, network strings, and valenced mass compositions.

"The earliest Celtic ornament of the fifth century B.C. (Early Style)
represents an anachronistic but selective borrowing of areally discrete
patterns of sub-Orientalizing or sub-Archaic type, probably conditioned by
the similar structure of pre-La Tene ornament in Central Europe.
Subsequently, the Celts developed patterns with a continuous structure as
hypotactically junctured strings of elements incorporating features from
Classical tendril ornament (Waldalgesheim Style). These strings were then
elaborated using complex and perimetral aggregates of Southern derivation,
or transformed into closed string aggregates and network strings of purely
Celtic type (Waldalgesheim sub-styles).

"This Continental Celtic legacy evolved further in the British Isles to
produce more complex types of closed string aggregates and network
strings, as well as new open string aggregates and mass compositions.
These pattern structures continued in the latest La Tene ornament of
Britain and Ireland, and in the La Tene derivative ornament of Late
Antiquity which also assimilated more complex types of mass composition
from Mediterranean meander and interlace patterns.

"In conclusion, Celtic ornament emerges as one long continuous and
internally motivated artistic phenomenon. Borrowings from Mediterranean
ornament were highly selective, and such borrowings were consistently and
thoroughly re-integrated within a distinctive and essentially independent
Celtic artistic tradition."



I suppose I should "bite the bullet", soon and fork over the $39 for the
PDF file!

I hope this message helps with the why and the what of Celtic A & B!

Cheers,

John

John's home page:
http://www.writer2001.com
Celtic Improvisations (the on line book):
http://www.writer2001.com/improvisations.htm
Celtic Coin Index On Line:
http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/index.htm

You can unsubscribe yourself by logging in on the list archives page at https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CELTIC-L&X=36DAE1476AF514EF73, selecting the 'join or leave Celtic-L' link and going through the unsubscription routine there.

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