edgewaters

Oh, yes, I agree that the two cannot be distinguished totally. However, I'm trying to think of another culture in which it is actually claimed, explicitly, on record, that criminals are killed as an offering to the gods. Enemy warriors, maybe, but criminals? I mean, would you expect the gods to be grateful for this? I expect you're right about the Druids but I can't remember what source supports the claim that Druids did this. Sure ... lots of cultures had religious edicts demanding the appeasement of the gods by offering the lives of offenders as atonement. Hebrews, for instance (just read your OT, a long list of crimes God would demand you be put to death for). The idea behind it being that the laws were divine, and therefore, when someone violated them, it was the gods (not the community) who demanded satisfaction. Technically, that is human sacrifice, but .... because we are a Judeo-Christian culture, and atonement sacrifice is heavily present in our religious heritage while other types of sacrifice are rejected, we have a difficulty seeing atonement sacrifice as the same thing as sacrifice done for other reasons (such as giving thanks). We usually mean that victims either volunteer or are chosen for purely spiritual reasons, not because they violated some taboo/law. When we say human sacrifice, we mean something other than atonement usually - we mean as a giving of thanks, for divination, to curry additional favour, to dedicate a building, and so on. So ... if we mean human sacrifice in that way - as something other than atonement or payment for misdeeds - then it is very, very difficult to say that a culture practices human sacrifice, since we often can't know the motivations involved. Presented with a body slain in a ceremonial way, we can really say nothing unless we can establish more details. We don't know if we are looking at a victim slain because he disobeyed his father and some deity demanded that disobedient sons be slain as atonement, or if we are looking at a victim slain to ensure fertility and prosperity and chosen at random.

There are ziggurats earlier than 2500BC actually ... not much earlier though ... 2900BC for the Tappeh Sialk ziggurat. However, ziggurats were not the first sign of civilization in the Fertile Crescent ... the first sign is large urban settlements with massive walls, such as Uruk or Jericho. Ziggurats did not appear until Mesopotamian civilization was quite old. In Egypt, by contrast, the onset of urban life produced rapid advancement at breathtaking speed; in the matter of a few centuries Egypt had gone from simple garden/fishing villages to having metropolises rivalling those in Mesopotamia, and was easily keeping pace with them technologically. Still, the fact remains, that cities first appeared in Mesopotamia. Taxes were definately being collected in 4000BC in Uruk. You don't need a ziggurat to collect taxes. They would be used for the same things taxes were always used for in the ancient world - public works, paying officials, paying for the military, building defences, etc. It is not true that "any type of economy" qualifies as civilization. Many primitive tribal groups have a subsistence/barter economy. Look at Otzi the Iceman. His artifacts indicate a certain sophistication, such as his copper axe (which must have been smelted and smithed). An agricultural economy is present, because his stomach contained processed wheat bran, possibly from bread. But we don't call what was going on in Europe at that period a "civilization".

It's from the 4th dynasty and as you said it was not from the pre-dyanstic era so Egypt is older then you claim. You skimmed your page without actually reading it. Djoser is from the 3rd Dynasty; his step-pyramid influenced tomb styles of the 4th Dynasty. It's from the 2600s BC. This is extraordinarily well-established. Dig Offers a Rare Peek at 'Pre-Dynastic' Egypt . Egypt had at least a partly agricultural economy as early as 5000 B.C., and archaeologists have uncovered royal tombs dating back as far as 4000 B.C. By the time Narmer unified Egypt from his base in southern Hierakonpolis, local chieftains had evolved into the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Uhhmmm ... elite tumuli are not evidence of "civilization", and they aren't "monuments" either. Nor is a "partly agricultural economy" - they probably mean limited horticulture. Horticulture by this time was already several thousand years old in some remote corners of Europe! It probably goes back considerably farther than 5000 BC in Egypt. It had spread far and wide. However, tribes ruled by chieftains (as they were chieftains, according to your link, prior to the dynastic era) with ritual burials, some agriculture, beads, copper axes, drums, etc .... that's not civilization. It's an advanced pre-urban tribal society. Your own link actually refutes your claim, since there are no temples present at the site earlier than 3400 BC. Again, show me a monument dated to a time that supports your claim. A tomb is not necessarily a monument. And not all monuments indicate civilization (e.g. Stonehenge).

That's the step pyramid of Djoser (c. 2600s BC), and it is NOT from 4000 BC as you claimed. It isn't even from the pre-Dynastic period at all, its from the 3rd Dynasty. Show me an Egyptian monument of 4500BC, then. The only things dated to 4500 BC in Egyptian archaeology are some knapped flint, postholes for huts, beads, woven mats, skin drums, copper axeheads, etc.

The first pyramid ever built was by the Egyptians in 4000 BC, a mud tomb in Saqqara. There had to be a good amount of technology and intelligence prior to the date 3300 BC. The pharaoh era in Egypt started as early as 5000 BC. The step-pyramid at Saqqara ... the first Egyptian pyramid ... was built by Djoser around 2650 BC. If you're talking about mastabas in the necropolis at Saqqara, these are definately not pyramids, and don't date back earlier than the First Dynasty, c. 3100 BC. All the tombs at Saqqara - pyramids, mastabas, and other - are listed here: http://www.narmer.pl/map/sakkara_en.htm To which one do you refer?

I think people would actually find it interesting to subdivide it down a bit. Not right to individual tribes, but to regions that can be defined as somewhat distinct. Say: Gauls; Britons; Iberians; Alpines; and Danubians. Not necessarily those names, of course, but those areas. It would give people a whole new range of cultures to explore. The archaeology and historical understanding is there now to depict distinct cultures for each of these places. It's just that old problem, that historians are generally not very motivated to educate the general public and more internally focussed in the scholarly world.

Peruvian cities have had public buildings from the first examples, for instance the early site at Caral, which features an amphitheatre and several large plazas - likely the site of marketplaces (in addition to numerous temple-pyramids), since Caral was at the centre of a trade network. Most Mayan "cities" featured a large plaza in the middle of the temple complex which was used as a marketplace. Mayan "cities", however, don't really qualify as cities, since an "acropolis" with public buildings is often all there is - with dwellings scattered rurally around the site. In either case, economic activity was certainly different than that of villages, with trade (or tribute) and the manufacture of luxury and trade goods taking place on a large scale.

Hallstatt A starts in about 1200 BC. Hallstatt D ends about 500 BC, to be succeeded by La Tene.

Ancient Egypt You can see Egyptian society started in 5500 BC, not 3100 BC. Link The issue is very debatable. The oldest known city is Sumer, but the Egyptians started urban planning well before the Mesopatamians did. From your link: Between 5500 and 3100 BC, during Egypt's Predynastic Period, small settlements flourished along the Nile. Villages. Not "urban planning". Society? Yes. Every inhabited region had society. Many had small riverside settlements, but there's nothing particularly remarkable about villages by this period. During this same period, city-states have emerged in Mesopotamia. By the Uruk period, they are 200-300 acres in size, often fortified, with populations reaching 25 000. If we define the emergence of civilization by the emergence of true urban settlements, with economic activities distinct from villages (which disqaulifies Catal Hoyuk), then Egypt didn't really develop one until 3500-3300; there simply aren't any truly urban sites prior to this.

I think so too ... not to mention that controlling England and both sides of the Channel might have other benefits (or the Romans may have imagined other benefits), like easier access to Baltic amber and control of the other major highway for amber (besides the Elbe).

Romans eventually achieved superiority in iron metallurgy ... but not intitially. The Roman phalanxes (they were still using them) sent out to defend the city in the Battle of Allia weren't just unprepared tactically, they were relatively poorly equipped to deal with the short swords wielded by the Celts of that age - for the same reasons the Romans would later obliterate phalanxes, as in the Battle of Pydna. The gladius is definately of Celtic origin. One thing to keep in mind here is that the martial culture of the Celts that were in the Po Valley, or the ones that swept down on Greece, was very very different from the Celtic martial culture found in northern France or the British Isles. They didn't have chariots, but cavalry forces; and their typical weaponry included short swords, darts (javelins), oval shields, and chainmail (for the elites). Romans adopted all this, because it was very effective equipment. The best (iron) metallurgical centers the Celts possessed, however, were virtually all within the Eastern Alps and/or Iberia. This is where Hallstatt was discovered, this is where the famed Norici smiths were, in fact, you could go right back to the Bell Beakers, who spread out from these areas. By strength or diplomacy, Rome added these territories to its empire early on, its earliest additions of Celtic territory. Rome also put alot of funds into developing these centers and vastly increasing their output, especially the client state at Noricum. By the time the Romans marched on Britain or Gaul, they already possessed (or had exclusive trade with) all of the high-quality metallurgical centres that had formerly been part of the central and western European trade networks.

I think the main difference is that it clears up confusion surrounding issues of identity, culture, and so forth. Not only were the inhabitants of Britain not politically united, judging from archaeological remains, they weren't culturally united either - settlements of a very different style coexist contemporaneously, in a kind of heterogenous mixture with patterns apparent only at a very large scale. Yes, but it's a shame, because it tends to misguide people into not realizing the richness and complexity of the cultures of the time, or even of the nature of the Triple Alliance itself. Ah ... it's even worse with the Maya ... at least the Aztecs and Celts generally shared similar languages ... the Maya have an entire constellation of languages, 33 proper languages, up to 69 if you count dialects: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...e_in_colour.png A good case could be made to divide what is now called "Celtic" down into several distinct groups, dependant on time period and location. In Caesar's day, I think it would be fair to recognize that there were very distinctive differences between the culture that straddled the Channel, with its druids and chariots, and the culture we find in the eastern Alps or Iberia, which had neither of those things. It would be easy to subdivide down into a half-dozen different groups and thus be alot more accurate about how much cultural relationship these people were sharing.

Sumerians - or Mesopotamian civilization - is considerably earlier. By the time the Sumerians were raising their first ziggurats and had established urban life, Egypt was still in its infancy, a collection of tribal villages living mainly off hunting and fishing. The Late Predynastic period in Egypt - the first appearance of anything advanced enough to be called a civilization - is dated no earlier than 3100 BC, while the Ubaid Period of Mesopotamia originates around 5300 BC.

It's as good an explanation as any, isn't it? The theme of possession by animal spirits or transformation into animals is hardly unusual among ancient tribal groups all over the world. One can imagine tribes of neolithic woodland Europe practicing something similar, turning it to martial use, and evolving it over time, so that it ceased to be a personification of any particular animal but simply possession by a spirit embodying feral nature as a whole. Who knows? Like alot of questions about the pre-Roman past, this looks like one that will remain speculation forever. There's probably nothing in the material remains to answer it.

I won't venture any conclusions about his numbers ... Pausanius is certainly not 100% reliable, given his account of Brennus being driven off by thunderbolts from the sky and ancient heroes appearing from the heavens at Delphi. However, there's no particular reason to dispute his account of the trimarcisia system. Likely his numbers are grossly inflated, as Pausanius seems to be at pains to render excuses for the Greek defeat. My personal suspicion is that the cavalry of Brennus forces' were probably in much smaller numbers, and fought in a manner similar to Xenophon's description of Celtic mercenary cavalry. If so, then the 'squires' would easily be able to observe and replenish their leaders on the field.

Phoenicians also played a large role in the development of Greek civilization (though probably not in its initial formation).

It also has to be considered that in the east, lay empires which were already well-organized and possessed infrastructure and bureaucracies which could be used by a conqueror to govern, and orderly trade networks through which Hellenic culture might spread. Also, rule could be established through a few major battles and conquests, and it was not necessary to pacify every square inch. As well, these urban civilizations would possess stores of supplies which could be used by Alexander's armies. To go north or west was quite different. Conquest would have to be largely piecemeal, every village individually pacified (and probably garrisons stationed all over the place for an indefinite amount of time), and in order to maintain rule, infrastructure and a bureaucracy would have to be built from the ground up. Without any large stores, the armies would have spent much time in forage. The Romans, in time, became well-suited to this sort of conquest, but Alexander wouldn't have got far before he would be bogged down building up an administrative structure and resolving logistic difficulties. I don't think it would have been possible to go north or west with the same sort of rapidity as in the east.

Hmmm ... lets not forget that these same tactics appear to be highly characteristic of several ancient Western cultures, too. Principally Irish warfare comes to mind (throughout its entire history), but it can also be seen in Germanic groups (a famous example being Teutoburger). I think ambush was likely quite a natural method of attack for tribal groups in heavily forested areas. Cavalry, too, seemed to have been frequently employed by Western barbaric groups. Cavalry played an important element as early as the Battle of Allia and the invasion of Greece by Brennus (in fact, cavalry played a key role in the Third Battle of Thermopylae). During the invasion of Greece, the trimarcisia system of cavalry the Celts used is credited as being partially responsible for their victories. Pausanius describes the trimarcisia as follows: The muster of foot amounted to one hundred and fifty-two thousand, with twenty thousand four hundred horse. This was the number of horsemen in action at any one time, but the real number was sixty-one thousand two hundred. For to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse. When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks ... the Gauls kept reinforcing the horsemen to their full number during the height of the action. This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse." Xenophon describes how Celtic cavalry hired as mercenaries fought, which, surprisingly, bears a great deal of resemblance to the evasive style of the light cavalry of the East: "Few though they were, they were scattered here and there. They charged towards the Thebans, threw their javelins, and then dashed away as the enemy moved towards them, often turning and throwing more javelins. While pursuing these tactics, they sometimes dismounted for a rest. But if anyone charged upon them while they were resting, they would easily leap onto their horses and retreat. If enemy warriors pursued them from the Theban army, these horsemen would then turn around and wrack them with their javelins. Thus they manipulated the entire Theban army, compelling to advance or fall back at their will." The best Roman swords came from a client state - the Norici - which was a Celtic group. "Noricum Ensis", very very highly prized by Roman elites. Also, not all Celtic groups fought with the longswords. The gladius itself is a weapon originally associated with Celts, and adopted by Romans later: Acquisition by the Romans The Hispanic sword was probably not acquired from Hispania and not from the Carthaginians. Livy[6] relates the story of Titus Manlius taking up a Gallic challenge to a single combat by a large-size soldier at a bridge over the Anio river, where the Gauls and the Romans were encamped on opposite sides of the river. Manlius strapped on a Hispanic sword (Gladius Hispanus[7]). During the combat he thrust twice with it under the shield of the Gaul, dealing fatal blows to the abdomen. He then removed the Gaul's torc and placed it around his own neck, whence the name, torquatus. The combat happened in the consulships of C. Sulpicius and C. Licinius in about 361 BCE, much before the Punic Wars, but during the frontier wars with the Gauls, 366-341. One theory therefore proposes the borrowing of the word gladius from *kladi- during this period, relying on the principle that k becomes g in Latin only in loans. Ennius attests the word. Gladius may have replaced ensis, which in the literary periods was used mainly by the poets.[8] The debate on the origin of the gladius Hispanus continues. That it descended ultimately from Celtic swords of the La Tene and Hallstat periods is unquestioned. Whether it did so directly from Celtiberian troops of the Punic Wars or through Gallic troops of the Gallic Wars remains the question of the Hispanic sword. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

I certainly don't think Gaul was the "Egypt of the West", but, just a few points on the technological argument ... Celtic culture was technologically innovative - but an entirely different line of technological development from anything produced by the Meditteranean cultures. Celtic technological innovation had a narrow focus on metallurgy and metal implements, and achieved a great many firsts some of which are with us today - belt buckles, chainmail, soap, saws, files, and many implements in iron for the first time rather than bronze (chisels, rims for wheels, scythes, ploughs, etc). A study of the Norici and the role of Noricum in the empire is highly instructive as to this sort of innovation and skill. The Meditteranean cultures had a much broader focus of technological development. Principally, they were way ahead in engineering, social institutions, agriculture, science, art, and mechanics. This allowed them to leap ahead in shipbuilding, fortification, construction, infrastructure, and so forth. These things were not easily adopted by groups that weren't part of the Meditteranean sphere of development, whereas, what innovations that the Celts did have were easily copied or traded for. It was nothing for the Greeks or Etruscans or Phoenicians to get a saw or file and have their own smiths imitate it, or even just hire or enslave some foreign smiths.

A little off-topic, but ... The reason Celtic arms and equipment often look Roman is because, in many cases, the Romans lifted their designs from the Celts. The gladius comes from the Celtiberians, the Weisenau helmets and chainmail from Alpine Celts (likely Norici or similar), even the pilum is probably Celtic in origin since the use of darts and javelins (gaesum) was exceedingly widespread throughout many Celtic cultures (and attested to in accounts of the Battle of Allia). Allia, in fact, is strongly reminiscent of later Roman techniques - javelins and swords backed up by a cavalry group. I agree that things like chainmail would be restricted to warrior elites. I don't think, however, that the average Celtic foot-soldier looked anything like the Dying Gaul. Nor do I think it is entirely Roman invention. There seems to have been an element of many fighting forces, common to Celtic, Nordic, and Germanic cultures, that fought in some sort of battle ecstacy, a small shock force of fanatical warriors, who were used both as a high response force and also as a psychological weapon to startle the enemy - such was the reason they fought naked, to further impress upon their opponents their sheer animal ferocity (perhaps very real, if it were induced by some drug). I believe that Celtic groups the Romans encountered did occasionally feature such groups in small numbers.

I'm most interested in "Celtic" culture, or rather, indigineous European culture not part of the Meditteranean sphere ... everything from the Britons, the Gauls, the Alpine groups (Norici, Cisalpine Gauls etc), the Celtiberians and Iberians, the culture of Denmark which produced the Gundestrup Cauldron ... etc

One interesting line of theory lately is that of the "Atlantic facade", an indigenous prehistoric culture encompassing everything from Denmark and the British Isles down to Spain. Genetic data seems to support the notion. If so, then France was an axis through which waves of linguistic, cultural, and technological innovation periodically spread from the Alpine regions into the Atlantic facade, from the Beaker "guild" onward through to Hallstatt and La Tene cultures. Conceivably, some or most of these waves of change may have come about without any large migrations, only a minor trickle of people (this is looking especially certain in the case of the Beakers).

Probably a better analogy would be Cahokia than any sort of masonry or mud-brick artificial mountain (pyramids, ziggurats etc). One thing I find most curious about Woodhenge is the tree, buried upside down in the center! What can this mean?

I'd be careful with that! Sacrifice is very difficult to ascertain from mere ritualistic or ceremonial killing. Crucifixion was ritualistic and ceremonial, and so is the gas chamber or the electric chair. To really nail it down, you need a clear indication of religious motivation, discrete from any other possible motivations. Oh no ... there was contact prior to Caesar, for certain ... coins of some tribes are being minted in a "Romanic" style with Roman/Hellenic motifs. Britain was important. Before Caesar's landings an argument put forth against any move on Britain was that Rome was taking in more from duties and tarriffs than could possibly be gathered by taxation under occupation. So trade - and therefore contact - must have been quite signifigant. As well, Romans would have been familiar with Pytheas' writings on "Pretannia" which is the etymological root of Britannia. Using Pytheas and Timaeus of Tauromenium as sources, Diodorus writes that inhabitants of the Cornish peninsula "adopted a civilized way of life, because of their interaction with traders".