Archeologists revise image of ancient Celts
Date: 19.01.2013
Author: Richard A. Fuchs / kbm
Editor: Helen Whittle
The Celts were long considered a barbaric and violent society.
But new findings from a 2,600-year-old grave in Germany suggest the ancient people were much more sophisticated than previously thought.
The little Bettelbühl stream on the Danube River was completely unknown, except to local residents.
But that changed in the summer of 2010 when a spectacular discovery was made just next to the creek.
Not far from the Heuneburg, the site of an early Celtic settlement, researchers stumbled upon the elaborate grave of a Celtic princess.
In addition to gold and amber, they found a subterranean burial chamber fitted with massive oak beams. It was an archeological sensation that, after 2,600 years, the chamber was completely intact.
More: http://www.dw.de/archeologists-revis...lts/a-16528844
Celts were an amazing culture. People get he wrong idea about them because most sources on them were the Romans who were busy murdering them, stealing their lands and raping their women by the millions. The pattern welding technique that fan boys jerk to on Katanas and other late middle age Japanese weapons? Celts did that in the middle Iron Age, 1000 years before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuneburg
The Heuneburg was a major celtic settlement, and was likely known to the Greeks as Pyrene (according to Herodotus).
The term "Heuneburg" ("Heathen Castle") probably means that the locals always knew this was a old place, the site was still used as a temporary refuge in the middle ages.
The settlements in southwestern Germany usually followed an down-up-down-up-down motion.
First the hill forts of the Celts were the major centers, then in roman times people lived in the valleys, in middle ages there were again Castles on the hills (though the majority still lived in the valleys) and they came back down in the renaissance
So you often have sites that have celtic settlement and a medieval castle on top but nothing roman.
Well not exactly always true. Most of celtic ruins(from both settlements and "castles", and their graveyards) in my region are now in middle of woods or fields, with only 1 on a hill. And there are way too many hills here. So up/down doesnt exactly apply everywhere.Originally Posted by JCR
The settlements in southwestern Germany usually followed an down-up-down-up-down motion.
First the hill forts of the Celts were the major centers, then in roman times people lived in the valleys, in middle ages there were again Castles on the hills (though the majority still lived in the valleys) and they came back down in the renaissance
that zigzag pattern? how does the celt named it? is there pictures?
Here (Rhein-Main/Middle Hesse) it usually fits.
The nearest Hill Fort from me, Altkönig, was never occupied after the celts while in Glauburg you have the celto-medieval settlement while the roman fort was in Altenstadt in the valley below.
On the other hand there were hill forts that are continously settled through roman times until today like Amöneburg.
They used to be a good basketball team too.
Celts were indeed more advanced than most common people though until now
More advanced than the Romans in forgery, weaving, cattle and horses breeding
Their druids knew to speak and read greek and were fully trained in astronomy, medicinal plants and medicine
Celts had also complex laws
They were almost on the edge to reach a political status that would be seen only hundred of years later : (con)federalism with a pinch of feodalism
The problem is that they were divided politicaly and couldn't stand against an homogenous military force like Rome
Well this obviously depends on landscape. In my case they had to settle in valley near river. Now when any old building being destroy and new are being build, they start to find either roman or celtic buildings under it and have to wait till archaeologists are done.
lol... )
Actually, it depends on the location. In archeology, we differ between the Westhallstattkreis (Western Hallstatt Zone, roughly from NE-France to SW-Germany for the current topic) and Osthallstattkreis (Eastern Hallstatt Zone, roughly Eastwards from there towards Bohemia). The interesting thing is, in the early Hallstatt Culture ("early Celts"), we can find settlements in a very specific topographical situation in the Western Hallstatt Zone: On top of a hill and right next to a river. Most of these settlements had walls and probably an outer settlement (the infamous "Fürstensitze"): Like the Heuneburg, Glauberg, Mont Lassois or Marienberg.
In the Eastern Hallstatt Zone we can find so called "Herrensitze" (estates?) in the lowlands. They are also thought as the residences of local "lords"/"princes". But there's a region (around the Ipf near Bopfingen) where these two settlement types seem to merge: There's a settlement on the hill (Ipf) as well as the estate in the lowland. But where did the "lord" live, if he ever existed? Other places like the French Bragny show imported pottery from Greece and the other criteria of a "Fürstensitz", but lack the topographical situation. Bragny is a lowlands settlement, but is still counted as a "Fürstensitz", due to the Greek pottery. But was it indeed a "Fürstensitz" or just a "trade hub"?
With other words: Any honest archaeologist must admit that we don't know enough to be 100% sure whether or not the Celts knew "lords", "princes" or "princesses" (like in Vix) who ruled from these special places. For all we know, they could also be rich merchants, some important cultic person or something completely different. We know next to nothing about the social structures of the "Celts", since Roman sources are notoriously unreliable.
When Kimmig tried to start the discussion about those "Celtic princes" in the late 50s, he wanted to do just that: starting a discussion. Unfortunately, his ideas sort of became the very criteria by which a Celtic settlement is described as a "Fürstensitz" and now we have Celtic "princes", "princesses" and "lords" everywhere.
It's still an awesome and interesting find. All I found on my current excavation are animal bones and a wall. I wouldn't mind some Celtic gold, though
I think there will be a revival of the Hallstatt culture in China, seeing as they built a full scale replica of the town.
Jokes aside, the museum in Hallstatt is quite nice, and the salt mine museum is really interesting as well.
I was at Ipf, its only 30 km from me. Really nice hill in middle of nowhere. But it made sense to build on it, since one could see from it in every direction as most of it was flat. But most of Schwäbische Alb isnt flat. It has a lot of valleys. But building up there is questionable, as it removes you from good land and rivers, while not offering enough protection, since you are only protected from one or two directions max.
I think the problem with some of the statements made here (the Celts were..., the Celts did...) is that they oversimplify things, ignoring the fragmented nature of the Celts (you can have tribes with access to different level of metallurgy or knowledge --- the Celts were a generic population, not a nation like Rome) and the timespan (if at the beginning they were naked, covered in moss and barbaric it doesn't mean they stayed the same as the world evolved).
This had always been my impression of the Celts. I had always been under the impression that they spoke Celtic dialects and had, possibly, similarities in material culture but outside of that they were mostly independent tribes, chiefdoms, "city states," etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
