Irrational Boudicca

[Conal]

Why specifically Southern Uk ? Take the Canti, of which Ceasar says;

"Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt, quae regio est maritima omnis, neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine."

"Of all these (British tribes), by far the most civilised are they who dwell in Kent, which is entirely a maritime region, and who differ but little from the Gauls in their customs".

I am afraid I am one of those people that do not believe that using the term "Celt" to describe a homogeneous culture, based upon the similarity of archaeological artefacts across a broad geographical region, is either desireable or useful. In the quote from Caesar he specifically uses the term "Gauls", again I believe that this is a Roman term, and may not necessary be how the people in question identified themselves. Professor Collis looks at this from a European (in the geographical sense) perspective (he is widely acknowledged as one of the leading experts in Iron age culture - both academic and fieldwork). I restricted the geographical area in my previous posts to southern UK, mainly because the Romans had not progressed much further than this at the time of the Boudiccan Revolt.

This uneasiness with cultural identity based upon artefact typology stems from some work I did as a student upon "Romanisation". For example, you discover in the archaeological record artefacts that have previously been classified as Roman, lets say Samian Ware pottery. It is discovered in lets say Kent, UK in a dateable context of 50AD or later. However, it is not discovered within a "typical" Roman settlement or fortification, but is actually discovered in a "typical" Late Iron Age settlement, with traces of a rectilinear timber structure overlying an earlier circular timber structure. Conclusion - Roman invasion a few years earlier, local people adopt Roman material culture, therefore becoming Romanised. Why? Well it is obvious, Roman culture was somehow "better" than indigenous culture, and within a few years they were all wearing togas, reading Virgil and laying on a couch to dine from fine Samian Ware pottery.

By applying the term Celt, you are implying that there was some unity, or cultural identity that was constructed by these peoples in antiquity. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that this was the case. Contra to the Romans who, whilst embracing many aspects of the cultures that they came into contact with and absorbed within a geographic empire, were able to project a sense of cultural identity accross both a large geographical area and time period. I think this is best summed up by Virgil;

"On these people I place neither boundaries nor periods of empire; I have granted them dominion without end".

I shall now get off my sopabox and exit stage left to a deathly silence.

Whereas I am quite happy to call an Indian an Indian whilst recognising a Sikh is not the same as a Bengali.

I dont agree that by using the term Celt I am "implying that there was some unity, or cultural identity that was constructed by these peoples" but implying that enough simalarity existed culturaly, behaviourally and maybe religeously and physically in such things as arms & armour etc to allow such a term to be used as a broad description.

I am wiling to acknowledge that a Silure of south Wales, who are desribed as short dark & swarthy and a Belgic gaul who is tall blond & pale are different but if they both live in round houses, ride chariots, wear their swords from a leather & chain belt from the right hip, roast hogs & listen to bards sing badly & have Druids to adminsiter law then ..... I will cal them Asterix & Obilix :wink: