 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / May 2008What historic or archaeological treasure would you most like to own ?
If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures you're fascinated by, would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for anything named. Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures > you're fascinated by, > would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for > anything named. Private persons shouldn't have the right to own unique treasures. They must be kept in a museum for everyone to enjoy.  Signaturep.a. > Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: > > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > p.a. Treasure hunter and general all-around iconoclast, Sir Robert Marx, says most of the stuff he gave to museums as part of his usual license to find treasure and relics underwater have been sold to private persons. The things on display are replicas. >> Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: >>> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to find treasure and relics underwater have been sold to private > persons. The things on display are replicas. Does he give any examples or evidence? Anyway do I seriously doubt that Marx ever found any of the unique treasures mentioned by Peter. SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >> Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: > >>> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > History is not what it used to be. All I can say is when he gives one of his little slide show talks the front three rows are filled with treasure seekers. He has thee houses here in Florida and at least one is filled with Chinese porcelain and other "recovered" items. http://www.scubaboard.com/drupal/?q=node/74 The guy who had tried to find this ship attended one of Mrax' lecture that I also attended and spent a long conversation with him about how Marx found the Flora do Mar when the guy had not. It was damn near in wading water. > Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: >> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unique treasures. They must be kept in a museum > for everyone to enjoy. Saying that sort of thing gets you sent to Guantanamo Bay... SignatureJohn Briggs wrongg'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'! museums are run by morons who turn around and sell anything they want to private individuals or whoeverm, staffed by greedy avaricious rich types who know no bounds indeceipt...... and you name it! Museums ceased to act in the pubic interest by the mid 1970s's culminated by the Reagan Revolution in privatisation of all public wealth! > Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: > > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > p.a. jerry warner wrote, 20/05/2008 06:05: [topposting corrected] >> Eric wrote: on, 19/05/2008 10:33: >>> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique >>> historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures >>> you're fascinated by, >>> would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for >>> anything named. >> Private persons shouldn't have the right to own >> unique treasures. They must be kept in a museum >> for everyone to enjoy. > wrongg'g'g'g'g'g'g'g'! museums are run by morons who turn > around and sell anything they want to private individuals or > whoeverm, staffed by greedy avaricious rich types who know > no bounds indeceipt...... and you name it! Museums ceased to > act in the pubic interest by the mid 1970s's culminated by the > Reagan Revolution in privatisation of all public wealth! Thank you for sharing your belief that there are only museums in the USA. Signaturep.a. > Museums ceased to act in the pubic interest by the mid 1970s's culminated > by the Reagan Revolution in privatisation of all public wealth! Did you notice that your post made no sense to newsgroups that are specifically international or more specifically British? ie all the newsgroups you posted to ... SignatureJ > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, > what unique historic, archaeological and / or any > religious - occult treasures you're fascinated by, would > you most like to hunt for and own and please say why > for anything named. Besides the Arc of the Covenant, you mean. Because who amongst us wasn't inspired by "Raiders of the Lost Arc"? You're missing something here. When I asked some friends a similar questions, I added, "And if it doesn't exist, you could find/uncover whatever it is that it was based on." ....because part of me really wants to say "The Trojan Horse," but the intellectual side says that it never existed, that it was only a myth. As a kid, the "Trojan Horse" was a bit like a dinosaur in that *Everybody* knew what it looked like -- it was a big, wooden horse -- yet no two images of it were exactly alike. As a matter fact, I'd say that growing up there was even LESS variation in the depiction of dinosaurs than there was in the Trojan Horse. Today, of course, with the "Dinosaurs were birds" thing, dinosaurs are depicted as being as colorful as birds... with each artists choosing their own colors... I wouldn't & pick pick that though, without some sort of back-up clause like I included in my question. You know, because the grown-up me is so convinced that it's nothing but legend, that it couldn't ever be found because it never existed. Just about ANY of the other six "Seven Wonders" would be quite a find. The one I'd like to dig up most of all is the Colossus of Rhodes. Again, finally settling on what it looked like... it's exact size... the face... how it was built... it's stance... all questions the western civilization has been asking for centuries. But that one doesn't exit. We cdo believe that it DID once exist -- to a great level of certainty -- but we also believe that it doesn't remain, or at least no part large enough to answer any of our questions. So, what would we most like to discover/uncover amongst the items which we are certain were not myth, and have a reasonable chance of surviving until today.... ???? Imhotep's tomb? Many believe the secrets to the building of the Step Pyramid -- the first Egyptian pyramid -- could be contained within. Here's a website of lost treasures. Anyone one of them could make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, not to mention neck-high in historically significant items: http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/treas ures.html > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures > you're fascinated by, > would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for > anything named. 'hunt for and own' Leaving aside the ownership bit, that was the kind of stuff that motivated guys like Evans or Schliemann. Today treasures are a lot of bother, and they don't really answer many questions. I'd personall prefer good preservation conditions for organic materials over gold and jewels most of the time. Having said this one item does come to my mind, the famous hoard of the Nibelungen. It could tell a lot about the the biology of dragons, with a little luck even some DNA :-) It could tell a lot about the geographic and anthropologic background of an influential group of people at the time they were transforming into a tribe. Treasured artefacts, presents from guests and allies, and loot, should document a little more of their history. have fun Uwe mueller >> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique >> historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nibelungen. It could tell a lot about the the biology of dragons, with a > little luck even some DNA :-) Though it wouldn't be real dragon DNA though would it, because Fafnir wasn't originally a dragon, he only turned himself into one by magic after gaining control of the treasure. You need the hoard of Beowulf's dragon, which also wouldn't come with the unfortunate consequences of owning Andvari's ring... > It could tell a lot about the geographic and anthropologic background of an > influential group of people at the time they were transforming into a tribe. > Treasured artefacts, presents from guests and allies, and loot, should > document a little more of their history. Yes indeed. Sophia >>> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique >>> historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > wasn't originally a dragon, he only turned himself into one by magic after > gaining control of the treasure. You mean he did not accomplish a real change-over, but settled for some cosmetic job? I'm diappointed. > snip > have fun Uwe Müller In article <aa3fb7b6-cb08-4988-8370-9b6fa6869155@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures you're > fascinated by, would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why > for anything named. The answer is simple but requires a slight modification of history. I'd like to see the contents of the library at Alexandria to have been spirited away and resurface. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > In article > <aa3fb7b6-cb08-4988-8370-9b6fa6869...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com > Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing Just the copies taken out and never returned would be a start > The answer is simple but requires a slight modification of history. I'd like > to see the contents of the library at Alexandria to have been spirited away > and resurface. Absolutely! Imagine the Complete Works of Sophocles, Aischylos, Sappho etc. These divine gifts to humanity. To get a proper measure of the Gain! Assume: Shakespeare was known to us by only "Timon of Athens" and some fragments of a sonnet! And then His 33 Plays and all Poems Resurface! Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, etc. What a gain! The resurfacing scientific texts would most likely be only of historical value. Later generations have already covered the loss with the possible exception of Archimedes. But if Sophocles or Shakespeare were never born no one would ever write Antigone and Hamlet. Sigge > The resurfacing scientific texts would most likely be only > of historical value. Later generations have already > covered the loss with the possible exception of Archimedes. http://tinyurl.com/5g45es > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures > you're fascinated by, > would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for > anything named. The complete works of Tacitus Because I want to read his account of Caligula, the fall of Sejanus and Domitian. The complete works of Suetonius Because so many of the lost ones sound fascinating, especially 'Lives of the Great Prostitutes' The alleged Q source for the synoptic gospels Because it would set the cat among the pigeons and would keep scholars busy for centuries. Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli, complete and undamaged Pure aesthetic reasons The Sacred Palace of Constantinople, complete and undamaged Pure aesthetic reasons The complete corpus of Anglo-Saxon heroic, epic and mythological poetry Because we'd learn so much Raglan Castle/Corfe Castle/Bodiam Castle, complete and undamaged Aesthetic and scholarly reasons, plus putative homes for me A complete and undamaged major English monastery with contents as it stood in 1529, preferably Malmesbury, Abingdon, Fountains Aesthetic and scholarly reasons Excalibur Who wouldn't want a magic sword forged in Faerie that also protects one from ever being injured? Sophia > Raglan Castle/Corfe Castle/Bodiam Castle, complete and undamaged There's an awful lot of Raglan Castle left - and what do you think is missing at Bodiam? SignatureJohn Briggs >> Raglan Castle/Corfe Castle/Bodiam Castle, complete and undamaged > > There's an awful lot of Raglan Castle left You are right, the shell of most of the structure is there and the ruins are very impressive, and beautiful too if you like late mediaeval castles, which I do. But this is a fantasy thread so I get it complete and undamaged, which means the interiors, which must have been wonderful (some of the panelling survives at Badminton House IIRC), the wierd water powered machinery (the last inhabitant was an inventor) and the library full of rare MS (sadly burned after the seige) which apparently contained the painstakingly collected spoils of half the monasteries of Wales. - and what do you think is > missing at Bodiam? The domestic buildings, primarily, they are mostly reduced to footings: the heart of the castle is missing. True, we have a fair idea of what they were like, but it'd still be wonderful to have them standing to wander around. Oh, and I'd like to see the strange little octagonal island barbican - if that's what it was - complete. Sophia > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures > you're fascinated by, > would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for > anything named. The skull of Stephen Spielberg as a small boy. SignatureGovernment sponsored terrorism, ex. Bush paying for bomb attacks in Iran. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4011 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 >> If financial resources and manpower >> weren't a limitation, what unique [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The skull of Stephen Spielberg as a small > boy. Well, if I can't have Rasputin's penis... http://www.drugs-dictionary.com/todaypicture/rasputinpenis1.gif I'll have to settle for the Wilton Diptych. http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/images/wiltback_big.jpg Or even, at a pinch, the GayerAnderson Cat. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21678/21678-h/images/cat.jpg opps, sorry... http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1112/560561913_6a138dcef7.jpg?v=0 > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures > you're fascinated by, > would you most like to hunt for and own and please say why for > anything named. personally i'd like to see the the old guard's eagle returned to the gardiner museum in boston when the thieves stole the rembranbts and vermeer they also grabbed the eagle carried by the 1st regt of the imperial guard that caused so much terror among the armies of europe. the eagle was on top of the staff that houses the flag of said regt but unlike the flag which was enclosed in a locked glass case the eagle was just perched in the open. it always annoys me when listing the artifacts stolen in the worlds greatest art heist the eagle is always listed last and referred to as an "ornemental eagle for a flag" i want to kick themin the a.s and tell them the damn flag was an ornement for the eagle. Good Post... DSH >> If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique >> historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > i want to kick themin the a.s and tell them the damn flag was an ornement > for the eagle. great post! and the truth. People are a.sholes and morons. > > If financial resources and manpower weren't a limitation, what unique > > historic, archaeological and / or any religious - occult treasures [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > i want to kick themin the a.s and tell them the damn flag was an ornement > for the eagle. The Jules Rimet. http://pele.m-qp-m.com/images/photos/camp/camp_019.jpg I am certain ownership confers mastery of the world, eternal life and unsurpassable glory :) Marcus I'd love to own the nine oldest surviving manuscripts of the Anglo- Saxon chronicles. I'd be willing to occassionally share them with some of you. :-) An eolith > An eolith I'd like to own some of those super secret maps of Vinland, that only Inger E. has seen. cheers....Jeff >> An eolith > > I'd like to own some of those super secret maps of Vinland, that only Inger > E. has seen. You may find them on-line, but you need to use search terms such as 'sooper', 'sekrit', 'vindaloo' (for that Indian flavor) and 'swedish'. The maps are hidden in plain sight, except for the spelling. > >> An eolith > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'swedish'. The maps are hidden in plain sight, except for the > spelling. :-) I'd still prefer the eolith thanks. At least they exist If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. I would take ownership of every artefact that has been removed from its rightful home, then return it to the people who SHOULD have it. I'd start with the Elgin Marbles, move on to the Benin Bronzes, then work my way around the world from there. > If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. > I would take ownership of every artefact that has been removed from its > rightful home, then return it to the people who SHOULD have it. I'd start > with the Elgin Marbles, move on to the Benin Bronzes, then work my way > around the world from there. So how do you decide who SHOULD have it? SignatureJ >If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. > >I would take ownership of every artefact that has been removed from its >rightful home, then return it to the people who SHOULD have it. I'd start >with the Elgin Marbles, move on to the Benin Bronzes, then work my way >around the world from there. You'll have a bit of a job collecting all the Rembrandts around the world and returning them to the Dutch. And you might piss off a few people in the process. James >> If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > world and returning them to the Dutch. And you might piss off a few > people in the process. And what about the Antiquities Dealers around the world who have paid for such artefacts? Should they be put out of pocket? Responsible dealers should join ADA, which my father helped to found more than two decades ago as a means of enabling tracking the provenance of artefacts. http://www.theada.co.uk/ As James Ede says there: > Antiquities have been collected for thousands of years - for example the Romans were avid collectors of Greek sculpture - And where are those sculptures now? All over Europe and elsewhere. And how do you decide which sculpture went where? The OP's plan would also involve the demolition of many buildings and castles, for recycling is not new. Rome is not the only city to use Ancient Roman materials in its more modern structures. And, of course, the OP would need to define "artefact", because even modern stuff is an artefact. All those little Russian dollies I've been buying around Eastern Europe - should I send them back to their respective countries? > >> If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > buying around Eastern Europe - should I send them back to their > respective countries? Then you get to the buried stuff, land and sea. >>> If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >And what about the Antiquities Dealers around the world who have paid >for such artefacts? Should they be put out of pocket? It's always the buyer's responsibility to ensure that it isn't stolen property... >Responsible dealers should join ADA, which my father helped to found >more than two decades ago as a means of enabling tracking the provenance [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >buying around Eastern Europe - should I send them back to their >respective countries? Another problem is where we find the Hittites so that we can give them back all their treasures that are now in museums in places like London and Istanbul. Who do we give Gothic artefacts back to? Where are the Iceni now? James >>>> If I could own any artefact I think I'd have to be greedy. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > James As for modern stuff. If you buy something (even indirectly) from its maker, it's yours. Period. However, I'm with Digger on this one. Regardless of who is in power in a REGION, the historical/archeological artifacts found in that region belong to the people of that region. Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived there and I believe the artifacts belong to them as part of their heritage. Remember that conquerers may rule a country, but seldom (maybe China exempted) do they re- inhabit a country. This last has been amply shown in Britain where the genetic makeup of the people is as it has been, for the most part, for at least 5000 years despite having been Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norman and whatever. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=7817 >... > Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Anglo-Saxon, Norman and whatever. >.... Stephen Oppenheimer makes this point and it overturned my preconception. d.c. >> ... >> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Stephen Oppenheimer makes this point and it overturned my > preconception. Well, he's completely wrong. SignatureJohn Briggs > >> ... > >> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Stephen Oppenheimer makes this point and it overturned my > > preconception. > Well, he's completely wrong. Wrong in detail - certainly. Wrong in general? You need to put up a good case - and I doubt you'll manage that unless you have some so-far unpublished data. SignatureJ >>> ... >>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, he's completely wrong. So you say. Can you provide cites to support your statement? I provided Oppenheimer's article. >>>> ... >>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So you say. Can you provide cites to support your statement? > I provided Oppenheimer's article. The idea that the Celtic languages came in the Neolithic period is ridiculous - you won't find any support for that. Similarly, the idea that a Germanic languge (rather than a Celtic language) was spoken in lowland England before the Roman invasion is also ridiculous - you won't find any serious support for that either. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the > >>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived there [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So you say. Can you provide cites to support your statement? I provided > > Oppenheimer's article. > The idea that the Celtic languages came in the Neolithic period is > ridiculous - you won't find any support for that. Similarly, the idea that > a Germanic languge (rather than a Celtic language) was spoken in lowland > England before the Roman invasion is also ridiculous - you won't find any > serious support for that either. Except that you do find support for it in the only commentary of the time (Caesar) and there is *no* support for Celtic languages in that area before the Romans and no support for its later acceptance - except that was the guess (without any evidence) that historians made. There *is* evidence for English being much older than it is supposed to be and there is good reason to expect the general view that Oppenheimer takes. SignatureJ >>>>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the >>>>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > supposed to be and there is good reason to expect the general view > that Oppenheimer takes. There is no such evidence. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the > >>>>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > evidence for English being much older than it is supposed to be and there > > is good reason to expect the general view that Oppenheimer takes. > There is no such evidence. You have what Oppenheimer puts forward. There is much more - but it's your turn to offer evidence in rebuttal of Oppenheimer. Your move. SignatureJ >>>>>>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the >>>>>>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > You have what Oppenheimer puts forward. There is much more - but it's your > turn to offer evidence in rebuttal of Oppenheimer. Your move. What is Oppenheimer's evidence? >>>>>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the >>>>>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always lived [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > There is no such evidence. Right. Always follow proof by assertion with refutation by denial. Well done! >>>>>>>> ... Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the >>>>>>>> artifacts were probably made by the people who have always [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Always follow proof by assertion with refutation by denial. > Well done! Well, there isn't any evidence, so it is difficult to say anything else. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>> ... >>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > England before the Roman invasion is also ridiculous - you won't find any > serious support for that either. Well I have never seen anything stating that Celtic languages came to the British Isles any earlier than late Bronze/Early Iron Age. I don't think Oppenheimer's article that I posted said anything any different. As for a Germanic language predating Roman occupation, I've heard this before, I can't remember where. In Oppenheimer's article he states this as only a possibility based on some small amount of evidence, not a sure thing by any means. >>>>>> ... >>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Iron Age. I don't think Oppenheimer's article that I posted > said anything any different. "Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first arrived during the Neolithic period." Don't you *read* the nonsense you peddle? > As for a Germanic language predating Roman occupation, I've > heard this before, I can't remember where. In Oppenheimer's > article he states this as only a possibility based on some > small amount of evidence, not a sure thing by any means. "In support of this inference, there is some recent lexical (vocabulary) evidence analysed by Cambridge geneticist Peter Forster and continental colleagues." He's citing a geneticist for the linguistic evidence! Do you think he would believe what linguists say about the genetics? SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>> ... > >>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > England before the Roman invasion is also ridiculous - you won't find any > > serious support for that either. > Well I have never seen anything stating that Celtic languages came to the > British Isles any earlier than late Bronze/Early Iron Age. I don't think > Oppenheimer's article that I posted said anything any different. I don't know what you're arguing against. Not me. > As for a Germanic language predating Roman occupation, I've heard this > before, I can't remember where. In Oppenheimer's article he states this as > only a possibility based on some small amount of evidence, not a sure thing > by any means. There is good evidence. There is no evidence to the contrary. By all means offer whatever evidence that you can - other than that historians have long assumed it to be so without that evidence. SignatureJ >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > means offer whatever evidence that you can - other than that > historians have long assumed it to be so without that evidence. Tell us about this "good evidence". SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > means offer whatever evidence that you can - other than that > > historians have long assumed it to be so without that evidence. > Tell us about this "good evidence". Start with what Oppenheimer says. You counter that first. If necessary I'll take the trouble to respond to whatever you can find. SignatureJ >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Start with what Oppenheimer says. You counter that first. If > necessary I'll take the trouble to respond to whatever you can find. "So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman invasion? The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals an influence from Belgic Gaul. The tribes of England south of the Thames and along the south coast during Caesar's time all had Belgic names or affiliations. Caesar tells us that these large intrusive settlements had replaced an earlier British population, which had retreated to the hinterland of southeast England. The latter may have been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated in the home counties north of the Thames. Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language differs but little." The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by Caesar." That is the sum total of his "evidence". SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > That is the sum total of his "evidence". Yes, this is what Oppenheimer says in his article. You've repeated it, now refute it as J and I have asked. BTW, I'm not ready to accept this idea yet either, but I don't find the notion "ridiculous". >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Yes, this is what Oppenheimer says in his article. You've repeated > it, now refute it as J and I have asked. Caesar is being treated as a well argued modern piece of scientific publication in that citation. Now AFAIK noone takes Ceasar at face value anymore, except those people, that find no other evidence for their preconceived ideas. According to Caesar, the Galli were the people living west of the river Rhine, and Germanics lived to the east of it. This does not fit the archaeologic evidence. It is common usage in antiquity though, to name the people according to the country they live in, not the other way round. So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic speaking people, nor what the archaeologists call celtic cultures. To presume, Caesars Galli were identical with a certain set of genetic informations in modern people, seem a bit far fetched, at best. > BTW, I'm not ready to accept this idea yet either, but I don't > find the notion "ridiculous". have fun Uwe Mueller > So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic speaking > people, nor what the archaeologists call celtic cultures. To presume, > Caesars Galli were identical with a certain set of genetic informations in > modern people, seem a bit far fetched, at best. As soon as you speak of the celtic culture you have your concepts wrapped in ever-linked circles. It's surely certain that the archaeologists have conflated quite distinct cultures and called them Celtic. Which do you mean? SignatureJ J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:36: >> So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic speaking >> people, nor what the archaeologists call celtic cultures. To presume, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ever-linked circles. It's surely certain that the archaeologists have > conflated quite distinct cultures and called them Celtic. Which do you mean? West/Central European Iron age Hallstatt (c 1200-c 400 bc) and La Tène (c 400-0 bc) Best read: Barry Cunliffe. 1997. "The Ancient Celts" Sabatino Moscati ea (ed) 1991 "The Celts" >J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:36: >>> So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >West/Central European Iron age >Hallstatt (c 1200-c 400 bc) I'd be happy to argue against that any day. Not the least reason being, that the iron age Hallstatt (Hallstatt C and D) is only the later part of the late bronce age Hallstatt culture (Hallstatt A und B, often called the Urnfield culture) . >and La Tène (c 400-0 bc) I'd accept that, even if I'm not quite happy with it. Btw. most of the celtic oppidae were abandoned by ca. 50 BC. >Best read: >Barry Cunliffe. 1997. "The Ancient Celts" >Sabatino Moscati ea (ed) 1991 "The Celts" Let's say start with the two, than look at the artefacts, settlements and burials. have fun Uwe Mueller Uwe Müller wrote, 23/05/2008 15:15: >> J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:36: >>>> So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > late bronce age Hallstatt culture (Hallstatt A und B, often called the > Urnfield culture) Yes, okay. I was a bit quick >> and La Tène (c 400-0 bc) > > I'd accept that, even if I'm not quite happy with it. Btw. most of the > celtic oppidae were abandoned by ca. 50 BC. That is always the problem with naming periods. They have to have a more or less fixed start and end. I our part of Europe the Iron Age ends very strange with the invasion of the Romans. >> Best read: >> Barry Cunliffe. 1997. "The Ancient Celts" >> Sabatino Moscati ea (ed) 1991 "The Celts" > > Let's say start with the two, than look at the artefacts, settlements and > burials. Signaturep.a. >> So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic speaking >> people, nor what the archaeologists call celtic cultures. To presume, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > conflated quite distinct cultures and called them Celtic. Which do you > mean? If you are 'surely certain' that the archaeologists have messed it all up, why don't you tell me, where they went wrong? AFAIR your point was, that no one had refuted Oppenheimer. Well I have, and if you were interested, I'd point you to http://www.amazon.com/Celts-Sabatino-Moscati/dp/product-description/0847821935 to read more about it. Which seems a bit silly, as you are 'surely certain' you know everything archaeologists have to offer. have fun Uwe Mueller Uwe Müller wrote, 23/05/2008 15:04: >>> So what Caesar calls Galli is not what the linguists call celtic speaking >>> people, nor what the archaeologists call celtic cultures. To presume, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Uwe Mueller Strange how persistent these misconceptions about Celts are. Signaturep.a. > > As soon as you speak of the celtic culture you have your concepts wrapped > > in ever-linked circles. It's surely certain that the archaeologists have > > conflated quite distinct cultures and called them Celtic. Which do you > > mean? > If you are 'surely certain' that the archaeologists have messed it all up, > why don't you tell me, where they went wrong? The question is where is the celtic cultured centred and what area did it cover? The cultures of central Europe and western Europe appear to have been falsely conflated and the Celts of western Britain having the same name - but no connection - with the Celts of central Europe. SignatureJ >> > As soon as you speak of the celtic culture you have your concepts >> > wrapped [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The question is where is the celtic cultured centred and what area did it > cover? My first question would be: what is the celtic culture? the second question would ask for variations in time and space. Telling differences. > The cultures of central Europe and western Europe appear to have been > falsely conflated and the Celts of western Britain having the same name - > but > no connection - with the Celts of central Europe. What about eastern European celtic people, Hungary as an example, and southern? They are well attested in both areas, in writing and with archaeological finds. Right now the discussion goes on about how far celtic culture reached to the north. See for instance the debates about the Glauberg finds (Hessia had been considere little more than a fringe area before that) or about the distribution of the iron double drumhead fibulae in northern Germany. But you must know all this already, don't you? Did I understand correctly, that you can point out no major topics, where archaeologists went wrong concerning the celtic culture(s)? have fun Uwe Mueller > >> > As soon as you speak of the celtic culture you have your concepts > >> > wrapped in ever-linked circles. It's surely certain that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The question is where is the celtic cultured centred and what area did it > > cover? > My first question would be: what is the celtic culture? the second question > would ask for variations in time and space. Telling differences. Yes. > > The cultures of central Europe and western Europe appear to have been > > falsely conflated and the Celts of western Britain having the same name - > > but no connection - with the Celts of central Europe. > What about eastern European celtic people, Hungary as an example, and > southern? They are well attested in both areas, in writing and with > archaeological finds. Yes. But no real connection with what are called celts in Britain. > Right now the discussion goes on about how far celtic culture reached to > the north. See for instance the debates about the Glauberg finds (Hessia > had been considere little more than a fringe area before that) or about the > distribution of the iron double drumhead fibulae in northern Germany. > But you must know all this already, don't you? Yes. But that's not connected with Britain until much later when my lot (probably from the Balkans) dropped into Britain with their tickets paid for by Rome. ;-) > Did I understand correctly, that you can point out no major topics, where > archaeologists went wrong concerning the celtic culture(s)? Connecting the celtic culture of central Europe with those living in western Europe. It gets difficult using the same name for quite different cultures. SignatureJ > Yes, this is what Oppenheimer says in his article. You've repeated > it, now refute it as J and I have asked. It is hard to refute as there is nothing there. It is all assumptions. "probably not Celtic" "possibly Germanic" Caesar seldom if ever bothered to imply something. He states which tribes in Gaul were not Celtic. Ken Young > > Yes, this is what Oppenheimer says in his article. You've repeated > > it, now refute it as J and I have asked. > It is hard to refute as there is nothing there. It is all assumptions. > "probably not Celtic" "possibly Germanic" > > Caesar seldom if ever bothered to imply something. He states which > tribes in Gaul were not Celtic. Then state what you regard as the opposite claims with evidence. Show Oppenheimer wrong by showing that something else is correct. Oppenheimer is rejecting the 'established' view so, assuming that it ever had any evidence in its favour, that established view should be easy to state and supply lots of good solid evidence for. Shouldn't it? SignatureJ >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> Even if you can't find any Goths in Ukraine, remember the [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Yes, this is what Oppenheimer says in his article. You've repeated > it, now refute it as J and I have asked. "The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals an influence from Belgic Gaul." Gaul, notice - what languge would they be speaking in Gaul? "The tribes of England south of the Thames and along the south coast during Caesar's time all had Belgic names or affiliations." What he doesn't say is that those "Belgic names or affiliations" were in the Gaulish language! "Caesar tells us that these large intrusive settlements had replaced an earlier British population, which had retreated to the hinterland of southeast England." Hang on - what he doesn't say is that the proponents of the "most people stayed where they were" school deny that there were large incursions of people from Gaul, or that anyone (other than the ruling class) was displaced anywhere! So there is no logical reason to believe that a Germanic language would have been imported by thes Gaulish 'invaders'. "The latter may have been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated in the home counties north of the Thames." They may have been - but this says nothing about them speaking a Germanic language, rather than a Celtic language such as Gaulish or British. "Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language differs but little." The only obvious reading of this is that the Gaulish language is similar to the British language. "The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by Caesar." Interesting use of "probably"! The Belgae "may have been a Germanic people", whether Caesar "implies" it or not (does he really?), but this says absolutely nothing about the language they spoke - which was supposed to be the whole point of the discussion. SignatureJohn Briggs > "Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language differs but > little." > > The only obvious reading of this is that the Gaulish language is similar to > the British language. The language in Brittany is similar to Welsh (i.e. Gaelic). That is, some of the road signs and names in Brittany look Welsh. How they sound is another matter. >> "Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language differs >> but little." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some of the road signs and names in Brittany look Welsh. How they sound > is another matter. The Bretons immigrated from Wales to Brittany in historic times. And Welsh is not Gaelic, That's Irish and Scots Gaelic. Welsh is Brythonic as is Breton, as was probably the language of Strathclyde unless they spoke a variant of Latin. The Irish traditions says the Gaelic speakers. Milesians, came from Iberia somewhere around 500 to 200 BC. We have no idea what their immediate predecessors, the DeDannan, spoke for a language. Nor do we know what the Firbolgs and Formorians (other peoples from Irish tradition) spoke either. >> "Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language >> differs but little." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some of the road signs and names in Brittany look Welsh. How they > sound is another matter. It is actually closer to Cornish. None are Gaelic - they are all three Brythonic. The conventional explanation is that Brittany was settled by refugees from Britain in the post-Roman period. This is overwhelmingly probable - but presents a problem for the "everyone stayed where they were" School, who have to find another explanation. SignatureJohn Briggs [Snip] > > Start with what Oppenheimer says. You counter that first. If > > necessary I'll take the trouble to respond to whatever you can find. > "So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman > invasion? Mainly those from the Iberian refuge who had settled on the west coast of Cornwall, Ireland, and Scotland and moved east (in contact with one another and others along the western seaboard) and those from the Iberian refuge who had settled around the Rhine/Thames/Doggerland and kept contact ith one another then across the English Channel. > The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals an influence > from Belgic Gaul. The tribes of England south of the Thames and along the > south coast during Caesar's time all had Belgic names or affiliations. > Caesar tells us that these large intrusive settlements had replaced an > earlier British population, which had retreated to the hinterland of > southeast England. Caesar assumes that from the similarities of those across the Channel without realising the more likely possibility that it was one population divided by the later arriving Channel. > The latter may have been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated > in the home counties north of the Thames. Tacitus reported that between > Britain and Gaul "the language differs but little." The common language > referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that > spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by > Caesar." > That is the sum total of his "evidence". No. There is evidence from the genes and language. SignatureJ > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > No. There is evidence from the genes and language. Tell us about this "evidence from language". SignatureJohn Briggs > Tell us about this "evidence from language". The ball is still in *your* court. Don't ask for more evidence from us until you have clearly stated your interpretation with evidence. You are trying desperately to hide the fact that you can find nothing other than a children's story painted in place of any real history. SignatureJ >> Tell us about this "evidence from language". > > The ball is still in *your* court. Don't ask for more evidence from > us until you have clearly stated your interpretation with evidence. > You are trying desperately to hide the fact that you can find nothing > other than a children's story painted in place of any real history. You said: " There is evidence from the genes and language." I asked what this "evidence from language" might be. SignatureJohn Briggs > You said: " There is evidence from the genes and language." > I asked what this "evidence from language" might be. It's really, *Really* old news. Start your Google searches on "Tartessian." Next, move on up to "Ogham" and, after that, you can add "Iberia." Here are some interesting thoughts. I like this site because they're quite up front with their disclaimers: http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article7.html Also, "Ireland" or "Irish" together with "runes" and maybe "Iberia" might get you there quicker. The point is (and, like I said, it's nothing new) is if you take a map of Europe's western coast -- from the tip of Iberia to Ireland -- and turn it on it's side, it's very easy to see how one culture with sea-going technlogy would spread everywhere from north to south. ...and I hate to feed into the "Agamemnon" sock puppet's ego, but there's even a strong case to be made that the Phoenicians had a hand in all of it.... spreading out... searching for new markets and/or sources of materials... following the coast through the Straits and up to the north... After all, if there's one thing that has never changed through the millennia: You can increase your profits by eliminating the middleman! >> You said: " There is evidence from the genes and language." >> I asked what this "evidence from language" might be. > > It's really, *Really* old news. Start your Google searches on > "Tartessian." Next, move on up to "Ogham" and, after that, > you can add "Iberia." "Ogham" has no connection with "Tartessian" or even "Iberia". SignatureJohn Briggs > "Ogham" has no connection with "Tartessian" or even "Iberia". Well, besides being just plain wrong -- Ogham is similar to carvings found in Iberia, and is widely viewed as evidence of cultural origins -- you're not at all clear. With all this talk of Doggerland, the landmass between Britain and the Continent in the Mesolithic Period, we need some... NAVAL CONTENT... Here. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dogger_Bank_%281915%29> DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > With all this talk of Doggerland, the landmass between Britain and the > Continent in the Mesolithic Period, we need some... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas Very interesting reading, thanks. You're welcome. DSH >> With all this talk of Doggerland, the landmass between Britain and the >> Continent in the Mesolithic Period, we need some... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Very interesting reading, thanks. > You're welcome. I read a book a few months ago called "Castles of the Sea"( I think) and that book covered (I assume)all the major naval actions of the First World War. Was a great read and explained what events lead to what actions, etc. I had not heard of the 'Battle OF Doggerbank' until then. The naval Gallipoli campaign was also nicely described in it as well. >> You're welcome. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I had not heard of the 'Battle OF Doggerbank' until then. The naval >Gallipoli campaign was also nicely described in it as well. Massie, Castles of Steel. A good read, and reasonably reliable but he has the odd axe to grind. Peter Skelton > > You're welcome. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I had not heard of the 'Battle OF Doggerbank' until then. The naval > Gallipoli campaign was also nicely described in it as well. the dogger bank is a fishing ground of great wealth. much like the georges bank and stellwagon bank of the coast of New England banks are shallow areas where fish like to hang out. it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet and the british fishing fleet. in 1905. > it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet and > the british fishing fleet. in 1905. Would it be correct to say that this "battle" ended with a draw? One sunk fishing boat vs. one damaged cruiser (by friendly fire). To quote Wikipedia: "More serious losses on both sides were only avoided by the extremely low quality of Russian naval artillery fire, with one battleship reported to have fired more than 500 shots without hitting anything" >> it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet >> and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > quality of Russian naval artillery fire, with one battleship reported to > have fired more than 500 shots without hitting anything" Is this the same fleet that got their butts thoroughly kicked at Tsushima in the same year? Of course. DSH >>> it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet >>> and the british fishing fleet. in 1905. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is this the same fleet that got their butts thoroughly kicked at Tsushima > in the same year? > >> it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet > >> and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is this the same fleet that got their butts thoroughly kicked at Tsushima in > the same year? yes. it was the first of many adventures. >>> it is the site of the famous battle of the imperial russian battle fleet >>> and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is this the same fleet that got their butts thoroughly kicked at Tsushima > in the same year? Yes. There's a memorial to the fishermen killed by the Russians, who claim they thought they were being attacked by Japanese torpedo boats. It's at the junction of Hessle Road and The Boulevard in Hull. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> With all this talk of Doggerland, the landmass between Britain and the >> Continent in the Mesolithic Period, we need some... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >Very interesting reading, thanks. Here's some more historical naval content, equally relevant to a thread about covetable archaeological treasures. This time it's not from Wikipedia but from an original historical source from 1911: "Commander Hines was court-martialed last May for responsibility for the loss of a target raft and sentenced to lose three files." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F03E3DF1131E233A25757C0A 9619C946096D6CF&oref=slogin James J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:30: > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had settled around the Rhine/Thames/Doggerland and kept contact ith one > another then across the English Channel. Huh? Doggerland? Watch your chronology. Doggerland was gone c 5500 years BC > [...] > J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:30: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > refuge who had settled around the Rhine/Thames/Doggerland and kept > > contact ith one another then across the English Channel. > Huh? Doggerland? Watch your chronology. Doggerland was gone c 5500 years BC Where is the problem? One people settled then split when the centre of their region flooded - but keeping (intermittent?) contact across the sea thereafter. AFAIK there is no evidence against that scenario - but there is evidence against overwhelming replacement of the British by continental foreigners at any time. SignatureJ J wrote, 23/05/2008 16:00: >> J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:30: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> "So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman >>>> invasion? >>> Mainly those from the Iberian refuge who had settled on the west coast of >>> Cornwall, Ireland, and Scotland and moved east (in contact with one >>> another and others along the western seaboard) and those from the Iberian >>> refuge who had settled around the Rhine/Thames/Doggerland and kept >>> contact ith one another then across the English Channel. >> Huh? Doggerland? Watch your chronology. Doggerland was gone c 5500 years BC > Where is the problem? One people settled then split when the centre of their > region flooded - but keeping (intermittent?) contact across the sea > thereafter. AFAIK there is no evidence against that scenario - but there is > evidence against overwhelming replacement of the British by continental > foreigners at any time. Mentioning Doggerland in relation with Celts is rediculous. And when it comes to Doggerland once connecting the now Continent with the now Britain: for a lot of people at the time it must have been much easier to cross the Channel than to walk thousend kilometers to take the doggerland route. Signaturep.a. > J wrote, 23/05/2008 16:00: > >> J wrote, 23/05/2008 12:30: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>>> "So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman > >>>> invasion? > >>> Mainly those from the Iberian refuge who had settled on the west coast > >>> of Cornwall, Ireland, and Scotland and moved east (in contact with one > >>> another and others along the western seaboard) and those from the > >>> Iberian refuge who had settled around the Rhine/Thames/Doggerland and > >>> kept contact ith one another then across the English Channel. > >> Huh? Doggerland? Watch your chronology. Doggerland was gone c 5500 years > >> BC > > Where is the problem? One people settled then split when the centre of > > their region flooded - but keeping (intermittent?) contact across the sea > > thereafter. AFAIK there is no evidence against that scenario - but there > > is evidence against overwhelming replacement of the British by > > continental foreigners at any time. > Mentioning Doggerland in relation with Celts is rediculous. And when it > comes to Doggerland once connecting the now Continent with the now Britain: > for a lot of people at the time it must have been much easier to cross the > Channel than to walk thousend kilometers to take the doggerland route. Who mentioned Doggerland in relation with t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message