Aye, it was pretty poor. Still, I turned over to watch it rather than Living with Lucy - possibly the worst programme RTE have ever made (and that's saying something).
"In the programme they suggest that we are not really a Celtic country as the Irish never referred to themselves as Celtic."
I missed that bit - that's absurd logic!
My mother was watching Livin With Lucy in the living room and I was in the kitchen watching Blueprint, I'm not sure which programme was worse lol.
How are you Chris?, it’s been a long time
Hope that you don’t mind me throwing my tuppence into the ring for discussion regarding the DNA genealogy of our nation’s people and its historical linguistic claims although it may necessitate a few, [minor], corrections regarding the languages order of antiquity.
[And probably underlines my obvious bias] :0)
“We also have DNA evidence which shows extreme similarities between Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people”
“Dr. Daniel G. Bradley and colleagues at Trinity analyzed a DNA signature that was assumed to belong to the first inhabitants. In terms of the percentage of the population that carries the signature, there is a gradient across Europe, from 2 percent in Turkey to 63 percent in Britain to 78 percent in Ireland as a whole, as if reflecting the degree of mixing between Europe's ancestral hunters and gatherers and the farming invaders from the east”
“Outside of Ireland, the signature is most common in the Basque country of northern Spain, where 89 percent of men carry it”
http://www.irishside.com/tis/con...ent/nyt/
128.htm
“Irish is the 3rd oldest written language in Europe, behind Greek and Latin”
“Scientists remain puzzled by the Basque people of northern Spain and southern France, believed to be the oldest Europeans, whose language appears to date from the Palaeolithic age and whose origin is a mystery”
http://meta-religion.com/
Linguis...ue_language.htm
Judging by the response to the programme I thank Christ that I don’t have the BBC here.
Ádh Mór ort a chara ta súil agam go beidh me ag labhairt aris leat roimh i bhad.
Paul
BTW, If the offer is still in place I'd be happy to contribute the occasional blog.
Hi Paul
The offer is indeed still in place, send me an e-mail and I will set up the account.
Possibly the most politically inspired "historical" programme the BBC have produced. Flies in the face of historical and linguistic evidence in a manner not seen since the bad old days.
"The Irish didn't call themselves Celts, so they weren't."
The Greeks didn't call themselves Greeks. So who were they?
"The Vikings didn't conquer the North!"
They didn't conquer the South, East or West, either.
They settled, built ports, raided, traded and eventually got the shit kicked out of them and started putting an "O" in front of their names.
"Lios is Irish for rath!"
What's rath Irish for?
The obvious implication in the Viking and rath comments is that there is a differences between North and South. The North is not quite Irish.
The "no evidence for the Celtic culture" performs the same purpose.
Doesn't matter what the evidence suggests. We don't like it and we would prefer it would just go away.
Occams Razor is an alien concept to unionist archaeology. They spoke a Celtic language, they had a Celtic culture, they had recognisable Celtic laws and folklore and even a generic Celtic religion. But the problem is that Celtic culture has been romanticised and is admired for it's dynamism and flair.
Let's see if we can find another hypothesis. O yes, a couple of Celts came over with fancy tools. All the bogmen just loved them, so they adopted their language, culture, myths, religion and political/societal structures and pretended they were Celts (but never called themselves that).
I wonder if this programme could be grounds for contesting the TV licence?
Under the Stupidity Act.
Someone should remind the BBC that England was Celtic before the Frisians, the Danes and the French came along.
Don't equate Gaelic with Celtic, though. It is generally accepted that the Celts, moving westward within mainland Europe, split up in Belgium, whence some tribes made it across to England and the rest continued into France and Spain. Over the centuries, the linguistic changes resulted in the Ancient Britons speaking P-Celtic (many words like who, what, where beginning with p), while the Gallic Celts developed Q-Celtic tongues. The generally accepted history holds that, after arriving in Ireland from western France and northern Spain (cf. Galicia), the Gaels gradually dominated Irish society, subjugating their P-Celtic-speaking cousins who, for many centuries, had interchange with the P-Celts in Scotland and Wales.
Anyway, that was then, and this is now.
Your most telling line mentioned those so insecure with who they are trying to do the most stirring Chris.
That seems about right.
"Don't equate Gaelic with Celtic,"
My understanding, BU, is that no single Celtic language exists. Gaelic is one of the oldest surviving languages from a family of related languages, generically referred to as Celtic.
I haven't seen the programme but the myth that we are descended from the "Celts" when questioned often produces some very irrational and absurd hagiography, frankly it's all nonsense. The very word Celt is a misnomer and refers to the unflattering Greek description of alpine europeans. The word Celt is as meaningful as the word European. The term is used to refer to a myriad of peoples known collectively as the Celts who shared a linguistic connection not a common language. The latest genetic research points to an earlier migratian and common geneology for countries like Wales and Ireland of Iberians. They were people living on this Island before the "Celts" came and a much greater percentage of our DNA comes from these people. If only people on this Island took our cultural heritage seriously then the truly great megalithic civilisation responsible for Newgrange would be the focal point of our ancient heritage and not at risk from a motorway. If your "Celtic" heritage makes you feel more Irish then your definition of Irishness belongs firmly in the past.
reggie
The use of 'Celtic' is because there is no better label yet available or known to describe our culture and the close relations between the original peoples of these islands. Not having a dig, but if you knew one then I suppose you would have used it.
Agree with you a million percent over Newgrange, it is so absurd that I can't believe that we have got to this stage.
REggie
"If your "Celtic" heritage makes you feel more Irish then your definition of Irishness belongs firmly in the past."
I think you know that is a red herring, Reggie.
There has been a move in recent years to find some way of marginalising Ireland's cultural heritage. The main thrust of this appears to be an effort to detach Ireland from the mainstream Celtic culture which flourished in Europe and the Isles before being swallowed up in mass migrations from the East toward the end of the Roman period.
It has nothing to do with history, it has everything to do with minimising Ireland's place in the world before it was "civilised" by the English.
The same approach was used by the conquerors of the North American indigenous peoples, the civilizations of Central and South America ("A backward people.They don't even have the wheel").
Difficult to adopt this approach when the people in question are part of a much admired European wide culture whose similarities in dress, customs, martial style, language and societal organisation connect the Roman records of Irish, Britons, Celtiberians and Gauls to the Keltoi nemesis of the Greeks, who eventually wound up in Galatia.
The English are proud of their Celtic past (Boudicca and all that)
and it would be tidier if Ireland didn't share in it.
The I'm sorry you didn't see the programme. There were some very interesting hints as to the agenda.
A point was made about Irish art containing elements of Norse. It was not, therefore "Truly Celtic". And here's the punchline "Thats not to say it's in any way inferior". Then why make the point. Surely any historian would have pointed out that Ireland was the only Celtic society which remained autonomous long enough to incorporate new styles into its traditional art forms.
History is politics!
"There has been a move in recent years to find some way of marginalising Ireland's cultural heritage. The main thrust of this appears to be an effort to detach Ireland from the mainstream Celtic culture."
What exactly is mainstream Celtic culture? I have no idea what this refers to.
There is no doubt that there was "Celtic" migration to Ireland and over a long period of time. But the influence of this migration on the indegenous population more likely evolved over a process of gradual osmosis and absortion rather than the invasions in the Lebor Gabála Érenn of mythical tribes which some have equated to the Belgae and others.The Archaeology does not support mass invasion or migration. What it does show consistently is a huge amount of trade not just with Britain but with mainland Europe. Modern day Wexford was a hub for this and international trade can be dated from the very early bronze age. In other areas of europe like illyria Celtic and indegenous tribes mixed together quite rapidly. What no one can say is what part the people who lived here before the "Celts" had on the development of our culture and how can anyone argue that it was more or less than the "Celts".
What is beyond any doubt is the beauty of Irelands cultural heritage in music language and writing. I don't think that gets validated or invalidated by any strenghthening or loosening of an association to a disperate group of peoples who spoke hundreds of different languages and in the course of migrating through europe influenced in some way every country from Turkey to Ireland.
What makes Ireland unique is the literature which originates from the christianisation of the Island in the 6th and 7th centuries. This recording of an ancient oral tradition and the slightly later hagiographies were for many years the only writing being done in western europe. Along with Patricks course latin letter and confession they can only give us the slightest glimpse into the late 5AD and 6AD. How Ireland and its language evolved in the 1000 years prior to this is simply not known. What is known however is that at this time Ireland was exporting its language and church in Dal Riada and Alba and the effects of this linguistically and culturally are still felt today. This isn't "Celtic" this is Gaelic and should be seen as yes being influenced by but also distinct if you believe as I do that based on the few facts and many theories presented that Gaelic was not imported to Ireland but evolved on this Island some 2500-2000 years ago.
People who distort history and angle it against the evidence available are often naive but still extremely dangerous. Anything related to the subject of ancient history on these Islands unfortunately finds enough harmless fantasists and outright bigots to use the ancient history and culture of these islands to score modern day political points.Ian Adamsons book on the Cruithni is typical of this nonsense but the same techniques and sources have been used by many many others to propagate the Celtic myth including Chris which i'll come to that later. These misrepresentations are very sad but fortunately the enjoyment of our very much living culture and heritage in reality looses nothing in content. We do however loose in understanding and personally that angers me.
As for Chris initial blog entry without any serious study on the subject he expresses views which have no basis in fact. It's a subject that has moved on since the 18th century Celtic revival.Almost every serious study carried out in the last forty years has picked huge holes in the then accepted wisdom that we are Celts (whatever that means) and the DNA evidence is conclusive. This shows the vast majority of the our DNA belongs to a much earlier migration.
"We are not really a Celtic country as the Irish never referred to themselves as Celtic."
The point is there is no such thing as a Celtic country it exists as a modern fantasy not as an ancient reality.What part of the penny hasn't dropped.
"The medieval "Book of Invasions"(Lebor Gabála Érenn) talks about Milesians and Fír Bolg arriving in Ireland. These have been identified with displaced Celts from Spain and Belgium.
The archaeological void makes a "Celtic Invasion" or successive ones between the 5th and 1st centuries BC look untenable. Considering the source for this which is a hagiographical much later text it cannot be treated as factual but with extreme scepticism. Further to extrapolate that the Milesians and others were in fact identifiable as actual tribes is extremely dubious. Thank God it doesn't mention the Munchkins or the lost tribe of Israel. The crticisms of such texts as historical sources is hundreds of years old.
"We also have DNA evidence which shows extreme similarities between Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people."
Here Chris crosses the line and joins the likes of Adamson. Indeed there are similarities between the above groups however and this is the part that Chris forgets to mention the study proposes that a migration at the end of the last ice age from the Iberian peninsula is responsible for this. This is thousands of years before the Celts. This is the study by Daniel Bradley (Trinity) a scientist and a respected genetisist you should be very careful before you misrepresent someones work to validate your own personal celtic wonderlust.
"The rest of us will laugh at the length that revisionists will go to in order to insult."
Enjoy your laugh then
Enjoy your laugh then and i'll pass on the message to Bradley and others that their years of work and scientific study cause you so much myrth.
"What exactly is mainstream Celtic culture? I have no idea what this refers to."
Why are you arguing then?
"hagiographies"
You seem to be using this term (saints biography) in a number of different contexts.
"This isn't "Celtic" this is Gaelic and should be seen as yes being influenced by but also distinct if you believe as I do that based on the few facts and many theories presented that Gaelic was not imported to Ireland but evolved on this Island some 2500-2000 years ago."
Gaelic is one of a number of languages which linguists describe as "Celtic". It is also possibly 1200 years older than you suggest.
"Ian Adamsons book on the Cruithni is typical of this nonsense but the same techniques and sources have been used by many many others to propagate the Celtic myth including Chris which i'll come to that later."
There is absolutely no evidence for describing the Celtic nature of Ireland as a myth. The genetic study by Bradley (which you apparently revere) establishes a link between the Iberian Peninsula and the Isles and Atlantic Fringe. The genetic marker presence is strongest around the edges and markedly (though not significantly) weaker in England.
Bradley is unable to timeframe the migration but tentatively suggests pre neolithic.
Pliny the Younger, writing in the First Century, states that Iberia is the original home of the Celts.
Irish is a Celtic language (sorry if that offends you, but the linguists won't have it any other way).
The mainstream (the one you don't know about but was, fortunately, familiar to the Greeks and Romans) Celtic culture is similar in structure, customs, dress, religion and historical record (Roman and Greek maps of Ireland with Celtic tribal names suggesting links with Britain and Gaul).
You really gotta work hard to suggest Ireland is not the product of a rich Celtic tradition.
Why would you want to go to all that trouble?
I said it before, straying too far from Occams Razor will tie you up in knots.
"You really gotta work hard to suggest Ireland is not the product of a rich Celtic tradition."
No the hard work has already been done by much brighter individuals than me. Without doubt alot of modern irish heritage is a product of a rich "Celtic" tradition which you can trace back to the early modern times.
I think some clarity needs to be brought to the discussion regarding the term "Celt" and "Celtic" which unfortunately can confuse the subject matter. The word "Celt" and "Celtic" have different meanings. In the fields of archaeology and history the term" Celt" was used until quite recently to refer to the Iron Age peoples of continental europe Ireland and Britain.
As an adjective "Celtic" is often used to designate medieval, early modern traditions including myths legend music and craftwork in Ireland Wales Scotland and Brittany.Edward Lhuyd when he used the term "Celtic" linguistically had no idea that the word would take a life of its to encompass the culture of early modern Ireland.
Celtic as a linguistic term refers to ancient languages such as Gaulish Old Irish and to modern languages in the same family such as Irish and Scots Gaelic.
As i previously stated it is in this context that I have no idea what mainstream Celtic culture refers to perhaps you can propose a definition.
"Why would you want to go to all that trouble?"
.
Its absolutely no trouble at all, and my motives have nothing to do with my politics if that is what you are inferring. This debate is scientific not political sorry to disappoint, there are enough crackpots who have used the geneology of these Islands over the years to make political points. I am neither inclined or interested in adding to these fabrications. For those that don't know a number of debates on the "celts" have been raging between scholars for over twenty years producing some excellant articles, books and critiques on both sides of the debate. Chris Blog entry and other posters simply dismiss this work and present the traditional view of these Islands as it was 40 years ago at the very least we would all welcome the ending of the oppressive Romanticism within the traditional view. Furthermore traditional scholars such as Christopher Snyder in "The Britons" acknowledge that the debate has moved on and that most archaeologists working in the area now question the link between the La Tenne and Halstatt cultures and Celtic speaking europeans. There is nothing healthy in the sanctity of accepted wisdom. If you look at Simon James traditional first book 1993, Exploring the World of the Celts and his academic journey to where he is now it was his own meticulous research of the evidence and archaeology when applied with the full rigours of modern techniques that made him begin to doubt the traditional claims. I fail to see how an academic can be criticised for being thorough. John Collis work should be mentioned as well as Oppenheimers DNA work. Other
Other work such as Chapman anthropological assertions and Wells forensic study of context and source in "Beyond Celts scythians and Germans" cannot be dismissed out of hand and no word for word critique has been produced. Its simple the Archaeology has improved, social anthropology has given new insights and together with the DNA evidence it has become increasingly difficult to argue the traditional case for the "Celts".
Reggie
Lots of references are about as useful as a boil on the bum unless they are used to marshall an argument.
All of these works have value, yet none have produced anything other than theories.
There is a robust dabate over the Halstatt and La Tene links, certainly, but the latter is unlikely to have had an impact on the migration to the Isles thesis, given that La Tene post dates the likely date of such a migration by more than a millenium.
Perhaps you are arguing that the Celts didn't exist at all?
It is interesting that you choose to interpret the findings in a particular way, given that nothing to date militates against the early Iberian migration of Celtic (I use the term advisedly as I do not accept your suggestion that the term is used in the Hellenic/Hellenistic context) peoples to Ireland and Britain.
In fact, linguistic, archaeological, historical, mythological and genetic studies all indicate that an early migration from a Celtic area of the European mainland to Ireland took place.
I have yet to come across anything in the literature which suggests otherwise and backs it up with evidence.
"Its absolutely no trouble at all, and my motives have nothing to do with my politics if that is what you are inferring."
Perhaps you could elucidate.
"Perhaps you could elucidate"
I'm a socialist republican.
I meant about your motives
"It is interesting that you choose to interpret the findings in a particular way, given that nothing to date militates against the early Iberian migration of Celtic (I use the term advisedly as I do not accept your suggestion that the term is used in the Hellenic/Hellenistic context) peoples to Ireland and Britain."
So correct me if i'm wrong you are using the term "Celt" to mean Indo - European and not linking it to the tribes influential in Europe from the 7th to 1st centuries BC. That's creative alright but your assertion is ridiculous and makes the term "Celt" utterly meaningless.
"That's creative alright but your assertion is ridiculous and makes the term "Celt" utterly meaningless."
I clarified my position in an earlier post.
You suggested the term "Celtic" is analogous to the term "Hellenic" (you didn't say that, mind you, but your suggestion implied that historians viewed it in that way). I disagreed.
The term Celt is used to describe a person who is a member of a Celtic people.
It's quite simple but you are, of course, welcome to complicate if you wish.
Haven't heard anything about your motives, Reggie. Clearly not scientific, so what are they?
Oops!
Hellenic should read Hellenistic.
There goes the last of my credibility!
My motivation is simply to reflect the modern debate that scholars are having on this subject and how it has formed my opinion. Its not a revisionist conspiracy its the logical most logical conclusion from the evidence.
"The term Celt is used to describe a person who is a member of a Celtic people."
The Archaeology and the DNA make it clear there was no large migration of "Celts" to Ireland. The vast majority of our DNA belongs to the people who were resident on this Island before the people below in your quote were talked about.
"The people in question are part of a much admired European wide culture whose similarities in dress, customs, martial style, language and societal organisation connect the Roman records of Irish, Britons, Celtiberians and Gauls to the Keltoi nemesis of the Greeks, who eventually wound up in Galatia."
Correct me I'm wrong now but you've now opted out of the above classical designation for the "Celts" .
"It is interesting that you choose to interpret the findings in a particular way, given that nothing to date militates against the early Iberian migration of Celtic (I use the term advisedly as I do not accept your suggestion that the term is used in the Hellenic/Hellenistic context) peoples to Ireland and Britain."
Your confusion is understandable as some linguists unfortunately use the designation Celtic but it is a linguistic term, it does not mean that the people were "Celts" what it means is that they have a linguistic connection. It is a modern term given to an Indo European language. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.
"Correct me I'm wrong now but you've now opted out of the above classical designation for the "Celts" ."
My pleasure.
You're wrong.
My contention is that the term Celt applies to a member of a Celtic people. There were many Celtic peoples who shared a similar culture, related language, etc, etc.
I (and many others) contend that the people of the island of Ireland fall into this group.
The earliest inhabitants of the island were likely to have been migrants from Europe, indeed, may have originated in what were to become Celtic areas.
Successive migrations brought more of these people, who were later described as Celts by the Romans and Greeks.
It is important, Reggie, to remember that the neither the Romans nor the Greeks invented the Celts. They did not appear out of the mist, fully developed flamboyant headhunters with a penchant for internicine warfare and an artistic bent.
Both Romans and Greeks recorded their first and subsequent contacts.
They had no idea how old the Celtic peoples were. The Romans dated their civilisation based on the foundation of their state. The Greeks from the southern migration of the Dorians and the destruction of the older Mycenaean polities, if you were Dorian. Ionians had a different view.
Celtic culture wasn't based on cities. It didn't adhere to a state structure.
Lets see if we can simplify this;
People are not indiginous to Ireland.
Consequently, people migrated to Ireland.
The migration to the Isles came from Europe.
The Celts dominated Europe in the historical period. There is no reason to assume they didn't inhabit the same areas before the Romans "found" them.
The people who migrated to Ireland were European Celts.
When people migrated to America in the 17th and 18th Centuries, they did not adopt the customs of the indiginous people, nor did they begin to speak their language.
The culture they brought with them became dominant.
North America is not a Souix, Seminole or Blackfoot nation.
It is a Western nation, because that is the dominant culture.
Ireland was a Celtic nation during the period in question, because that was the dominant culture as a result of migration.
"Your confusion is understandable as some linguists unfortunately use the designation Celtic but it is a linguistic term, it does not mean that the people were "Celts" what it means is that they have a linguistic connection."
Sorry, Reggie.
My "confusion" is based on your inability to articulate a coherent argument.
I speak without rancour
"My "confusion" is based on your inability to articulate a coherent argument."
I think your confusion is based on a lack of knowledge and context however incoherent I may be. I really don't want to get too deep and too bogged down because this simply isn't the venue and my attempts to spoon feed you have obviously been regurgatated.
"It is important, Reggie, to remember that the neither the Romans nor the Greeks invented the Celts."
No the people they described and referenced without fear of contradiction existed the term Celt is a much later invention.
Obs what exactly is your assertion it obviously isn't the traditional argument of Celtic origin from Beaker people, Únětice, Tumulus, Urnfield, and then La Tène otherwise you wouldn't have opted out of the classical definition of the "Celts".Therefore on the linguistic front you obviously disagree with the Kurgan hypothesis on the direction geography and time frame for the spread of a proto "Celtic" language. If you indeed hold these views how can you possibly link as you have previously stated the people below to your notion of the "Celts".
"the people in question are part of a much admired European wide culture whose similarities in dress, customs, martial style, language and societal organisation connect the Roman records of Irish, Britons, Celtiberians and Gauls to the Keltoi nemesis of the Greeks, who eventually wound up in Galatia."
Even the magical Celts would have had difficulty migrating to Ireland from Eurasia and Iberia on two different timelines and languages. Do you believe that the Celts as you describe above are the direct Iberian tourists that inspired Cunliffes latest work or the mismash of peoples long referred to as "Celts" who pushed westwards from the Danube to Iberia. It's patently obvious that you can't have it both ways.
Reggie
I'm going to do you a favour and ignore your initial comments in the hope you may learn that insults are uneccessary at this stage in any debate.
"Obs what exactly is your assertion it obviously isn't the traditional argument of Celtic origin from Beaker people, Únětice, Tumulus, Urnfield, and then La Tène otherwise you wouldn't have opted out of the classical definition of the "Celts"."
That is exactly what my assertion is.
I must say, though, the lack of Urnfield evidence along the Atlantic shoreline suggests this phase was fairly shortlived and was overtaken rather quickly.
You seem to use the term "Celt" in it's linguistic sense. It should be remembered that Kurgan's hypothesis is full of holes and no longer carries the weight it once did.
"If you indeed hold these views how can you possibly link as you have previously stated the people below to your notion of the "Celts"."
Kurgan deals with extremely early evidence of linguistic development.
Historical references to the Celts first occur around the Third Century. What were the early people doing since the initial migrations?
The evidence of cultural and linguistic similarities between Galli and Keltoi and Gael suggest they were expanding across Europe.
"Even the magical Celts would have had difficulty migrating to Ireland from Eurasia and Iberia on two different timelines and languages."
They did it in one!From Hecataeus first reference to Caesar's Gallic war was about 500 years. The Huns completed a similar expansion in less than a hundred years.
As in all future migrations, it was less of a wave and more of a slow steady stream, bringing changes in custom, technology and linguistic nuance.
I haven't read Cunliffe's latest work.
Life gets in the way, you know.
Save the smart Alec remarks until your certain you've lost the debate.
Unless of course...
Obs i've enjoyed the debate and it's very difficult as you know to distil the huge amount of the current research and theory on the subject without having to write an essay, if i could i'd recommend two very different works the first being Cunliffes "Facing the ocean" and the second if you haven't read it Collis Celts origins myths and inventions, both are excellant and if life doesn't get in the way there well worth a read.
On the subject of the original blog entry and your first post not all the crticisms of the "Celts" are politically motivated but are a result of archaeology and science and secondly any loosening or tightening of our culture with a "Celtic" one makes it more or less valid or beautiful.
Obs i've enjoyed the debate and it's very difficult as you know to distil the huge amount of the current research and theory on the subject without having to write an essay, if i could i'd recommend two very different works the first being Cunliffes "Facing the ocean" and the second if you haven't read it Collis Celts origins myths and inventions, both are excellant and if life doesn't get in the way there well worth a read.
On the subject of the original blog entry and your first post not all the crticisms of the "Celts" are politically motivated but are a result of archaeology and science and secondly any loosening or tightening of our culture with a "Celtic" one doesn't makes it more or less valid or beautiful.
"On the subject of the original blog entry and your first post not all the crticisms of the "Celts" are politically motivated but are a result of archaeology and science and secondly any loosening or tightening of our culture with a "Celtic" one doesn't makes it more or less valid or beautiful."
No question about that.
The current archaeological evidence is open to interpretation and previous experience tells us that a rich find next week can overturn even the most carefully thought out theories.
Experience also tells us that the BBC have more hidden agendas than a wheelie bin at the back door of Stormont.
I tend to stick to the simplest explanation, avoiding assumptions as much as possible.
It's a good policy in other disciplines, why not archaeology.
I look forward to reading Cunliffe, I have read his "Ancient Celts" and found it enjoyable.
I'll put the Collis book on my list as well.
You mentioned an essay.
What about a blog? Two blogs, in fact. One for and one against. Marshall the evidence, present the hypothesis and let the reader judge?
If Chris were agreeable, obviously.
Might be a bit time consuming but it would certainly be interesting and would take out the argumentative element that tends to plague threads.
What do you think?
Chris?
Commenting by HaloScan
