Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Celtic Aedui oppidum (from a Facebook thread)


I usually don't repost Archaeology Magazine articles as they're barely more than teasers with photos, but this oppidum dig was about a Celtic tribe, the Aedui—a tribe that left an impact—as Caesar practiced genocide and scorched earth politics. The Celtic oppidum (hillfort) was founded in the third or second c. BC. The (Burgundian) settlement was abandoned after the Romans defeated a coalition of Celtic tribes including the Aedui and Arverni in 52 BC, at the the Battle of Alesia. The oppidum fell after Gaulish leader, Vercingetorix, who unified the Gallic tribes against the Romans -(no mean feat in, and of itself), was defeated—he was held prisoner for 5 years, then paraded through the streets of Rome and then brutally executed. That was, in effect, the end of Gaulish resistance. They cowped.

And the Vikings stole it from...? They are not "Viking artifacts." Sloppy, misleading writing, An snameled 9th c. silver Celtic cross? Not bloody Viking. Galloway was settled by the Irish 1200 years ago.


Nik Saulter If it helps paint a clearer picture of Viking raiding/travel history, I don't see what your problem is.

Maureen Hurley The problem is that Irish artifacts suddenly become "Viking art" when found in a Viking hoard. Much of what we think of as "Viking" art is not. The Gundestrup Cauldron is a good example. Only recently has that been corrected. Bot there's lots more in Scandinavian museums that is identified as as Viking art—when it really came from Viking raids.

Martin Mcsweeney As someone who was there and witnessed this all being found and excavated I totally agree with your statement, many of the silver items are what we call viking but many items such as this bird, the pot, etc are not in fact of viking origin but booty collected or traded or even passed down along the way so yes this doesn't appear to be viking origin but it was labelled viking due to it being found in a viking hoard, stupid media lol

Maureen Hurley Drives me fecking crazy! So many Irish artifacts were labeled as "Viking" during the Romantic Era—the beginnings of modern archaeology—that it's now impossible to untangle the mess. This merely promulgates it... You'd think the Vikings had invented La Tène art before they even existed! (Thesis-worthy...)

Karalea Hirneisen The vikings did indeed pillage and plunder but they also established vast trade networks that ranged from present day North America North into what is now Russia and East into the Baltic regions and South into the Mediterranean regions. The horde isn't necessarily stolen goods. It could very well be made up of trade goods and or Viking made ornaments. Vikings were a very well traveled people and they saw flora and fauna from many different geographical locations, including flamingos from the Mediterranean area. This is a fact as it has been confirmed. At one time there was even a contingent of Vikings who were employed as the personal bodyguard for a Roman Emperor.

Maureen Hurley Not necessarily, but probably stolen goods during the 9th c. Much of what is labeled as as "Viking art" is actually art styles borrowed from (or executed from) the conquered tribes. In Northern Europe. the Vikings borrowed heavily from the Celts, and probably kept Irish and Pictish artisans as well. Interesting to note that the Irish art style (or so-called Viking art style) did not travel east with the Vikings to the Eurasian Steppe—which leaves the definition of what is "Viking" art suspect. Hmm—only from the British Isles, but not in Russia? If it was Viking art to begin with, you'd see Celtic art turning up in the Ukraine and beyond. But you don't. However, a reverse tide introduced Eurasian art styles to Scandinavian Romanesque art. It would be great to see more comparative analysis in some of these papers—the myopist view is so limited.

No comments: