MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Beaker People (Pre-History)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

This material is spun off from a Treasure Hunt concerned with the development of Civilisation (hence the otherwise mystifying references to C-squares).

Not sure how it will proceed. Since we have other threads touching on various pre-historic British issues, perhaps we might stick to Beaker Folk and their direct appertunances. Since many of our brightest and best are in frenzied pursuit of Atlantis (or whatever) and the rest of the board is falling into slothishness, perhaps you might all speedily develop an interest in Beaker People.

Remember two things:

1. Nobody else knows much about Beakerdom (either here or in academia) so don't let ignorance hold you back

2. I am reasonably convinced that they hold the key to most of (pre- and therefore) history.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'll chuck this in here for the hellovit:

Everyone says England was finally united by William the Conqueror... or Alfred the Great... or our national character was being forged in the days of Arthur or Rome...

But look at this map of the "Beaker People"

http://www.comp-archaeology.org/BenzGramschEtAl1988MapCordedWareCAWEB


and notice how well England is shaded. Western Ireland should be, too. They're in Lowland Scotland, but not Cornwall/Devon or Wales. And they are in 'English' south Wales and Snowdonia/Anglesey [Angle Sea?] [Whence the Druids fled...]

These are (pretty well) all the places that THOBR says are 'native English'. (The patchy influence all over the continent is interesting, but that's for another time.)

Whatever the Beaker burials actually represent in terms of people or culture, there is a remarkable completeness and consistency about the English bit of it. Something was recognised as unifying England and distinguishing it from 'Celtica'.


A sense of national identity 3,500 years before there were any nations? How does that affect the picture in your head, Mick?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Slightly breathtaking, Dan. Of course, if this were a normal "political economy" map, we would immediately conclude that the Beaker homeland was the large area in the north-west (i.e. Britain), and the rest were "pockets" of either Beaker colonisation or of Beaker "influence" i.e. political control or economic penetration.

But being as how this is "orthodox" pre-history we are assured that the Beakers are Central European folk and that they (or their trade goods) reached as far as Britain.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course, if this were a normal "political economy" map, we would immediately conclude that the Beaker homeland was the large area in the north-west (i.e. Britain), and the rest were "pockets" of either Beaker colonisation or of Beaker "influence" i.e. political control or economic penetration.

Quite.

Some of the pockets are inside Celtica/Megalithia, some outside it. Their timing overlaps with megalith building, so I'm sure some interesting political upheavals are indicated [Maybe they correlate with the Celtic migrations recorded by the Classix?] but we should pick this up at another time and thread.

For now, I was just wondering whether nationhood existed long before 1000 AD and, if so, what effect it has on the model you're unfolding. Is it irrelevant coz the Roman Empire reset the clock -- only to have its teeth taken out, leaving RC behind? Does it make some pieces fall into place and tell us something particluar about Britain's rôle in world history? Or what?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The question of British pre-historic nation-hood is something I've been wanting to get my teeth into for ages. There's no doubt that Albion or Britannia or The Blessed Isles or whatever was regarded by outsiders as a kind of unity, but this might be no more than a nod to a geographic entity. Something like "Scythia" or "Africa".

The basic problem (for us) is that without historical evidence we are thrown back on a combination of myth and megalith. How on earth do we proceed?

One thing that definitely needs to be cleared up though is whether these wretched Druids are
a) English-speakers
b) Celtic-speakers
c) None of the above or
d) All of the above.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote


What exactly are "Beaker people" and how did they earn that name?
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Beaker people are a putative group of immigrants into Britain during the third millenium B.C. , at about the time of the construction of Avebury Henge and Silbury Hill. They are named after the characteristic drinking vessels that are buried with their dead, in Round Barrows as opposed to the previous custom of burying the dead in Long Barrows. The immigrants, apparently, had rounder heads than the natives who had longer heads.

Corded Beakers have a source in the Netherlands, where the earliest examples come from, and came to Britain from there. They are concentrated in eastern Britain. Bell Beakers came from Portugal and are dispersed along the Atlantic facade. Barry Cunliffe thinks the latter could be the celtic speakers... We could be dealing with two groups distinct here, the northern one being the likely proto-English speakers.

There is still considerable debate within orthodox archaeological circles about the Beaker invasion, just like there is with the Anglo-Saxon invasion. There is a 'cultural' school which argues for a small elite immigration and plenty of local imitation and a migrationist school which argues for a mass invasion from the European continent. Sound familiar?

What really opens this up, as I've said elsewhere, is the genetics. There is evidence of large-scale immigration into Britain at the time of the late Neolithic, from precisely those areas to be later associated with the Anglo-Saxons. This adds real credence to the hypothesis you are proposing.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One thing that definitely needs to be cleared up though is whether these wretched Druids are
a) English-speakers
b) Celtic-speakers
c) None of the above or
d) All of the above
.

Suetonius Paulinus nipped over to Ynys Mon, or Anglesey, in A.D. 61 to destroy the Druid stronghold. Anglesey is firmly in Celtic speaking territory. These people must, therefore, be Celtic speakers if we are to accept Roman sources.

Ronald Hutton has just published his latest offering, entitled 'The Druids'. It's on my list. I might speed read it if this thread gets interesting though from the preamble the historical sources are VERY sketchy.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is still considerable debate within orthodox archaeological circles about the Beaker invasion

But not it would seem any debate that the "invasion" might have been the other way about. As has already been pointed out, Beaker distribution per se is far more consistent with a British origin and a Continental expansion than it is with a Continental origin that expanded into Britain.

Similarly, Dunc, notice how you fall unconsciously into the same orthodox paradigm trap. You mention three cultural advances associated with the Beakers:
1. Corded beakers from Holland (ie a bit of decoration turning up first on the Continent)
2. Bell beakers from Portugal (ie a bit of styling turning up first on the Continent)
3. the building of Avebury Henge and Silbury Hill in Britain (stupendous objects for which there is no counterpart on the Continent).
Which of these did you take for granted?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

These people must, therefore, be Celtic speakers if we are to accept Roman sources.

It's true that the Druids had retreated to (and had important groves etc in) Anglesey by the time the Romans arrived but this does not mean that therefore the Druids were Celtic-speakers. After all, even if Anglesey were their capital (and of course the sources don't actually say this) this might simply be because Anglesey happens to be a perfect centre for a religion that covered the whole of the British Isles. And anyway, the Druids must have been aware since at least Caesar's invasion a century before, that it was time to "make dispositions".

The Classical sources say that the Druids were big in Gaul too but made it clear that Frog Druids had to go to Britain for training. Would 'Britain' be used in this context if they were strictly going to Anglesey, Wales, Ireland etc?

The question of native language is pretty important in a system that requires eighteen years of memory training. It is worth thinking about for a moment. Is it actually easier to remember things in a learned language or one's native language? Perhaps native languages simply weren't relevant to Druids generally (like with the Catholic Church today). Are Celtic languages intrinsically memorable (poetic?)? Is English so complex (see French Translation thread) precisely because it was the Druidic language for several thousand years. etc etc

PS Hutton is the only academic I know (maybe Aubrey Burl too)who is truly open to influence from the crazies.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But not it would seem any debate that the "invasion" might have been the other way about. As has already been pointed out, Beaker distribution per se is far more consistent with a British origin and a Continental expansion than it is with a Continental origin that expanded into Britain.

The problem with this thesis is that both styles of Beaker turn up in Britain well after they do in their continental homelands. This is why it was possible for several academics to associate the Beaker people with the Kurgan hypothesis i.e. a Ukrainian homeland for the Beaker people with pottery styles representing innovations along the way.

Secondly, Corded ware, as shown on the link posted by Dan, doesn't appear in western Britain or Ireland. Why?

Thirdly, the superhenges in Britain were the culmination of changes going on within British society BUT the shift to Beakers, Round Barrows and Copper weaponry seemed to be part of a cultural package. It seems more likely that the Brits adopted this from northern Europe, with movements along the Danube being the way in, as the genetics shows, rather than the other way around.

The Classical sources say that the Druids were big in Gaul too but made it clear that Frog Druids had to go to Britain for training.

I remember you discussing this on C4 website in relation to Celtic inscriptions found in Gaul. At the time you were of the opinion that they were written by Celtic-speaking Brits, probably Druids. Now this did allow you to explain how evidence of a written form of Celtic appeared throughout France and therefore maintain the view that the Gauls spoke French but it still implies that the Druids were Celtic-speakers. Consistency alone would have you consider this much more carefully.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have always operated from the assumption that Druids were Celtic-speakers. And that Megalithia is an essentially Celtic activity. My comments, as usual, were because of the certainty of your tone.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Would you just be playing the advocate of the Devil?

So, if the Druids were celtic (Welsh) speakers and their laity built the Long Barrows and Stone Circles, do you think the Beaker people were English speakers?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Would you just be playing the advocate of the Devil?

Only in the sense that he has the best tunes. Once you get used to the AE way of doing things you will find that your own beliefs slowly acquire the patina of orthodoxy and one becomes offended by people just charging off assuming a hypothesis is a reality even when you approve of the hypothesis.

Of course this is possible only when you are a little way down the road (and we are a long way down the megalithic road). Generally speaking, for new hypotheses, it is best to hurtle along assuming it to be true.

So, if the Druids were celtic (Welsh) speakers and their laity built the Long Barrows and Stone Circles, do you think the Beaker people were English speakers?

Well now...let's sort out one or two things.
1. The only connection between Beaker and English-speakers is that the area of widest Beaker distribution is presently English-speaking. (Good but not gaudy.)
2. The only connection between Druids and Celtic-speaking is the ones we have already covered. (Tenuous but reasonable.)
3. The only connection between long barrows and stone circles is physical propinquity (they were not built at the same time, were they?) (Definitely subject to The Three Card Trick.)
4. Since the Druids were a tiny caste operating for sure in three language areas (Celtic-, English- and French-) we can reasonably presume that their 'laity' were these native speakers. In any case we do not know that megalithia was built by True Believers -- they could have been built by local forced labour (shades of various Pyramid stereotypes).
5. ...er...
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course this is possible only when you are a little way down the road (and we are a long way down the megalithic road).

Boasts like this are what needs to be explained to those of us as yet unaccustomed to the twisting byways of the AE mind.

So where do points 1-4 leave us then?

1. The only connection between Beaker and English-speakers is that the area of widest Beaker distribution is presently English-speaking.

For this to hold water we could assume that the Beaker people brought the olde English with them. It's 4500 years ago since they arrived and a hell of a lot can change in that time but there is prima facie evidence for it in the genetic markers to which I have previously referred. It does strengthen the case.

3. The only connection between long barrows and stone circles is physical propinquity (they were not built at the same time, were they?)

This is a tricky one. It is conceivable that the Long Barrows and the Stone Circles were built by different people for different purposes. As I have previously said a case can be made for seeing Long Barrows and Passage Graves as evidence for a chthonic cult of sorts, ancestor worship and the like. A case could also be made for seeing Stone Circles as more of a solar cult (Stukeley's idea of the Avebury winged serpent). At Bryn Celli Du on Anglesey a henge was replaced by a passage grave hinting at a return to the old ways and in many parts of western Britain passage graves continued to be constructed throughout the megalithic period.

In the Avebury landscape the proximity between the Long Barrows and the later monuments is very close, suggesting the continuation of the area as a religious centre for thousands of years.

4. Since the Druids were a tiny caste operating for sure in three language areas (Celtic-, English- and French-) we can reasonably presume that their 'laity' were these native speakers. In any case we do not know that megalithia was built by True Believers -- they could have been built by local forced labour

We can, of course, never know for sure but IF you accept that the Druids were the priestly caste of celtic speakers (Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish?) then to impose their authority over such a wide geographical area they must have had a strong military arm to do the domination bit. I can accept celtic Druids in celtic Britain and Brittany but what about English speaking Britain and French speaking France. Do we have evidence for a celtic military hierarchy there? Or is it wiser to assume that the Druids were more like a roving band of missionaries converting the locals with the word rather than the sword?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 24

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group