If I may answer for John here a moment, I think that
this is only part of the point of the article. (I am
excited because we have finally reached the area of my
specialization and that happens so infrequently I
thought I would mention it.)
The article esplains the concept of culture in two
ways, one is the cultural oatmeal of the Cultural
Frames. And you are right, in general, this has only
limited use in the arena of Archaeology and historical
mythology. Such disciplines look to reify cultures
using identifiable traits and often resort to
geographical area for identification. Still it is of
some interest given the nature of John's
The other way is one that Marti, the author of the
cultural frames paper, rejects. It is the three part
system explained as representative, neutral, and
rejected culture. However, Marti conceeds that, "With
all those reflections, I do not pretend to deny the
possible existence of certain cultural traits, which
can be characteristic for a given collective". John,
I believe, has used the idea of representative
cultural traits to identify what he termed Celtic B.
But the cultural difference bewtween A and B can best
be explained using the cultural frames argument.
Celtic A and B would be in some way related by sharing
a great number of these frames, and distinct by
differing on others. Art or religion were two large
frames John mentioned where Celtic A and B would
differ. Language would be the main unifying frame
where the two would be linked. (Though language,
religion and art are all larger concepts than can be
contained by a single frame.)
It might be best to think of the frames in terms of a
venn diagram. The important part is to understand
that the circles of frames that represent the
different groups have fuzzy edges and are not
coterminous with specific nations (or even tribes)
which are primarily defined by geographical
Hope this helps, (also hope I represented John's
--- Fhiona MacGhilleRhuadh <[log in to unmask]>
> --- John Hooker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Fióna
> > I agree completely. It is best not to use
> > generalizations at all. That is
> > why I like the expert system approach.
> Hullo John
> I finally finished reading the article you suggested
> in response to my query regarding how one defines
> It made my head hurt. And I had to read it twice.
> I understand the idea of breaking things down to
> smallest common denominator for classification
> purposes and categorizing from the smallest common
> denominator forward to divergence.
> So, I can say I understand the concept of cultural
> But largely what I got out of the article was using
> cultural frames as a means of deculturization moving
> towards a global economy and global culture, which
> me seems like a means of doing away with unique
> cultures and turning the world into a great bowl of
> "ootmeal" (oatmeal").
> At the same time, I can see how CF could be used as
> classification system, useful in the type of studies
> and work that you yourself are engaged in.
> Did I miss something? Am I missing the point?
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of
> You can unsubscribe yourself by logging in on the
> list archives page at
> selecting the 'join or leave Celtic-L' link and
> going through the unsubscription routine there.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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.