On 10 Jun 97 at 17:47, Raimund Karl wrote:
> > Are there other major differences and, if so, are they sufficiently
> > major to warrant a division of `Celtic culture' into European and
> > insular `sub-cultures'?
And then Ray said:
> Definitly. There are even enough major differences to allow for at
> least three continental "sub-cultures". The British culture is
> also definitly different enough from the continent ones to be split
> of as a subculture on its own, and so is the Irish. And some of these
> cultures once again can be split into subsubcultures.
Ray, you can't just leave us wondering. Can you expand on this? I
appreciate that there were Halstatt and La Tene cultures on
continental Europe, but there have been only a small number
of Halstatt artifacts found in Ireland, so you could ignore that
aspect. Working from early La Tene onwards, did, for example, the
continental Celts have a legal system similar to the Brehon Law system in
Ireland? Art forms seem to differ too. British and Irish Celtic art
seems to have a lot more knots, key patterns, spirals, triskeles and zoomorphs
than the continental equivalent. Human forms are more commonly
depicted on the continent than in Ireland, at least in pre-Christian
Ireland, although there is a carving of what is thought to be
Cernunnos on a 'cross' in Clonmacnois.
Maybe there's a thesis for someone in this.