Greatest Iron Age fortifications ?

[M. Demetrius]

OK, well, that's one plank in the platform. From what I see on this forum, there are few scholars that agree that the Gauls called themselves Celts, even though Caesar clearly says they do, speaking (perhaps) firsthand.

To me, it's not an issue, as I have no dog in that race. We with some Scot or Irish background sometimes say we have Celt ancestry, though many would argue that. A cold stare and a subtle reach for a dirk usually settles things....

[Sean Manning]

The specialists don't agree, either, sir.

You'll find few scholars these days who would deny that Britain was culturally Celtic by the 5th century BC.

Cagwin, you aren't going to convince readers just by claiming things strongly. How about some sources? And do "most scholars" agree on what it means to be "culturally Celtic"? Simon James has some good arguments that "Celtic" features like a warrior aristocracy were absent from the large parts of the British Isles in many periods.

[Sean Manning]

Also, all I was trying to get across is that if you ask a question about something "Celtic" and don't define what you mean, people are going to give different answers. There are at least three definitions in common use (the language family, the Halstatt and La Tene archaeological cultures, and a proposed family of Iron Age cultures) relevant to ancient history, let alone modern definitions like "Scots, Welsh, Irish, and Brettons". So maybe Theodosius should explain what he thought he was asking about?

[cagwinn]

The specialists don't agree, either, sir.

You'll find few scholars these days who would deny that Britain was culturally Celtic by the 5th century BC.

Cagwin, you aren't going to convince readers just by claiming things strongly. How about some sources? And do "most scholars" agree on what it means to be "culturally Celtic"? Simon James has some good arguments that "Celtic" features like a warrior aristocracy were absent from the large parts of the British Isles in many periods.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything - just stating the general scholarly consensus opinion about 5th c. BC British culture.

By the way, Simon James (and the same goes for John Collis) totally made a fool of himself with his ridiculous Celtskeptic books/articles and was thoroughly drubbed in reviews by his peers.

See:
Sims-Williams, Patick. "Celtomania and Celtoscepticism", Cambrian medieval Celtic studies, 36, 1998, pp/ 1-35.

Koch, J. T. "Celtoscepticism: Some Intellectual Sources and Ideological Implications", Indo-European Studies Bulletin 9.2 (2001).

Koch, J. T. ‘Celts, Britons, and Gaels – Names, Peoples, and Identities’, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion , new series 9 (2003), pp. 41–56.

Isaac, G. R. (Review of) Zimmer, Stefan, "Die Kelten: Mythos und Wirklichkeit", Cambrian medieval Celtic studies, 51, pp. 93-95. A snippet:
"It is encouraging to read a popular introduction to the broad field of Celtic Studies that shuns the misguided and ultimately counterproductive 're-evaluations' of the concept of 'Celtic' which have characterized several books on the Celts in recent years [Note 4: For example, Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? (London, 1999); John Collis, The Celts: Origins, Myths, Inventions (Stroued, 2002)]. Not that the resulting debate is ignored in the present book: the penultimate paragraph of Professor Zimmer's intriduction (pp. 10-11) is as concise yet comprehensive a critique as I have read of the fundamental errors on which so-called 'Celtoscepticism' rests."

For a general summary of the arguments for and against Celtoscepticism see:
McPherson, Mathew Dowdell. "MAKING SENSE OUT OF THE EXPERTS: The divergent nature of 21st Century Celtic Studies," University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2000 (Online article).
[url:3w27e529]http://www.angelfire.com/bc/henryknox/celts.htm[/url]

[Theodosius the Great]

Having read the last few posts it might be better if I revise my question by substituting Celtic with Iron Age.
I'd rather avoid getting side-tracked, no matter how interesting the subject might be, about what constitutes a Celtic site.

So, any stone fortifications built by IA peoples in Europe and Anatolia would be of interest to me.
I originally asked because I wondered which sites would have posed the greatest challenge for a hellenistic army to besiege.

~Theo

[diegis]

As general Iron Age (so not just Celtic) fortifications, the Dacian Sarmisegetuza was the most impressive fortress outside the Greco-Roman world, comparable with some of Roman empire.
The fortress town and other 5 smaller ones who made togheter a fortified mountain complex in Orastie/Sureanu Mountains (western Carpathians) are part of UNESCO World Heritage and the walls was build in a kinda original system called "murus dacicus" make them more able to resist to any siege weapons of their era. In fact Romans conquer them after a hard long war and just after they find and destroy the burried water pipes who bring water in the fortress, and not by destroying the walls

[Steffen Schöps]

Do not forget the pre Roman Italic People. The Etruscan Towns had most impressive City walls and even the Messapian erected strongest fortresses like "altamura".

[Darth_Roach]

Outside the Greco-Roman world? What about Babylon, Carthage, Memphis, Tyre, Sidon or pretty much any other eastern capital city.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As general Iron Age (so not just Celtic) fortifications, the Dacian Sarmisegetuza was the most impressive fortress outside the Greco-Roman world, comparable with some of Roman empire.
The fortress town and other 5 smaller ones who made togheter a fortified mountain complex in Orastie/Sureanu Mountains (western Carpathians) are part of UNESCO World Heritage and the walls was build in a kinda original system called "murus dacicus" make them more able to resist to any siege weapons of their era. In fact Romans conquer them after a hard long war and just after they find and destroy the burried water pipes who bring water in the fortress, and not by destroying the walls

any photos of the remains?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

For starters, does everyone on this thread agree what "Celtic" refers to?

Could be a football team in some circles...lol (soccar for those across the pond!) :mrgreen:

[Gunthamund Hasding]

As general Iron Age (so not just Celtic) fortifications, the Dacian Sarmisegetuza was the most impressive fortress outside the Greco-Roman world, comparable with some of Roman empire.
The fortress town and other 5 smaller ones who made togheter a fortified mountain complex in Orastie/Sureanu Mountains (western Carpathians) are part of UNESCO World Heritage and the walls was build in a kinda original system called "murus dacicus" make them more able to resist to any siege weapons of their era. In fact Romans conquer them after a hard long war and just after they find and destroy the burried water pipes who bring water in the fortress, and not by destroying the walls

any photos of the remains?

well if you google photos you will have more some here.

[Darth_Roach]

IMHO Ctesiphon was much greater than Sarmizagethusa.

[diegis]

IMHO Ctesiphon was much greater than Sarmizagethusa.

Well, i am sure you can find few cities in Persia, China or India that was much bigger or greater then Sarmizegetusa. What i want to say is that was the bigger or greater in Europe, outside the Roman Empire (which included Greek towns as well).

It was made at over 1000 m altitude in some forested mountain areas, with fairy impenetrable walls made with big rocks bring from some 40 km distance, and carved very precisely, had paved roads, sewers and aqueducts, temples, workshops, a forum and so on, similar with what you find in a Roman town.

[Darth_Roach]

And Ctesiphon had a massive wall surrounding it, an underground ventilation and water supply system, paved roads and massive palaces, surrounded by smaller cities, which were all in fact massive settlements - like Seleucia, and wast fields of crops. All in the middle of what would naturally be a desert. That's one real capital city.

My point is that there is no reason to say that the "barbarians" were inherently inferior.

[jho]

Iron Age fortifications could be very extensive, even more extensive than Roman cities. A little google "research" gives the following numbers for comparison

Titelberg Oppidum 50 ha

Roman London 130 ha

Heidetränk-Oppidum 130 ha

Oppidum at Na Závisti by Zbraslav 170 ha

Augusta Treverorum 285 ha

Oppidum at Manching 380 ha

Rome (Aurelian Walls) 1372,5 ha

Heidengraben-Oppidum 1662 ha

Ktesiphon 3000 ha

Of course these numbers do not tell anything about the actual number of occupants.