The British Museum Collection online is the most useful site for obtaining photographs and information on British early Celtic art. The BM has fully embraced the concept of Open Access and gives clear instruction on how the site can be used. Whenever I use any of their images I link to the main catalogue page for the object and to their terms of use for the copyright notice.
Over the years I have written a few articles on the use of the boar as a Celtic icon so if I wanted to do another one for this blog then picking one of the Hounslow boars as an illustration would be the obvious choice as they are the most famous figurines of the animal. But I might also refer to a comparison that Joseph Campbell made between the Irish Megalithic and a boar cult practiced on the Island of Malekula. A search for "Malekula" did not provide the photo on the left, but searching for "boar ivory" did -- such is the nature of database searches. The British Museum database is usually easy to use and the waiting time is rarely very long, but it is always best to try different search terms. For example, a strap junction is sometimes called a strap union. A search for iron agestrap junction gives these ten results, most of which are photos of strap junctions, but a search for iron age strap union gave a few more -- the trouble being that none in the first search were also found in the second. More results came from a search for iron age strap fittings
but these were different results from a search on iron age harness fittings, so try different terms and look at the listings in the first search results for ideas about the catalogue terminology for other search term ideas. When old catalogues are converted to databases standardizing all the nomenclature is often neglected. Once, when testing such a database, I discovered that a Coriosolite billon stater could be listed as a Curiosolite billon stater; Coriosolitae base silver stater; Armorican silver stater; Coriosolite copper alloy stater and several other variations. I see more databases with faults than without them, but the British Museum Collection online database has less problems than most and the listings soon reveal the better search terms. To look for a specific object, the place of discovery is always a good search term and, sometimes, you might find other useful objects from the same find to illustrate.
It is a shame that more museums do not follow the British Museum's lead. Too often, I cannot illustrate something because the museum holding the object has no pictures of it on their site or prevents use by charging for the privilege. Often, the amount that you must pay is not clearly explained and you have to get an estimate. This sort of thing does not match the workflow of a blog very well at all!
There is more than the Collection online hosted by the British Museum -- there is also the Celtic art database and the Portable Antiquities Scheme so we will continue with these tomorrow.
All sorts of roadblocks present themselves to anyone who wants to study early Celtic art in Britain. First of all, the British or insular (which includes Irish) forms of early Celtic art should not be studied with any obsessive specialization: it is not only important to have at least a working familiarity with the continental forms, but to understand the nature of the Classical Greek design motifs adapted by the Celts.
Building a good library is an essential part of presenting a website or blog as a resource for researching and presenting information about British early Celtic art. But not only are the few absolutely essential books very expensive, but some of them are very difficult to find at all. In the latter case, all that can be done is to obtain a copy through an interlibrary loan, and then photocopy it all until you are able to purchase one. Even obtaining things through interlibrary loans can be difficult to impossible. For many years I searched for Die Alterthümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit, (AuhV) one of Paul Jacobsthal's important sources. The only library in North America which had a copy of the multi-volume set was UCLA Berkeley and, decades ago, I learned that it was in the reference section of their library and could not be removed from that department by a student, let alone be shipped to Canada. In more recent years, a student at Berkeley who knew that I wanted to borrow it had discovered that the set was starting to deteriorate and had been moved to the archives. This is a common problem with many nineteenth century books printed on very acidic paper -- the paper browns and becomes brittle, gradually all turning to the dust you see appearing on your desk after reading such a book. At this stage, digital preservation of some sort becomes more than a convenience, and a mere photocopy -- usually also on acidic paper is only postponing the problem.
Plastic style hinged anklet, Jacobsthal 267, Germany, 3rd cent. BC. Image adapted from Die Alterthümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit.
My friend at Berkeley realized that now the set had been moved away from the reference section in the library it was actually possible to take it off the campus, and he kindly packed it all up and shipped it to me in Canada by courier. As I did not have to return it for a couple of months (unless it was specially requested), I scanned all of the plates I needed in high resolution. Afterward, I was able to digitally enhance some of the scans, like the one shown here. After trying very hard to keep the dust to a minimum on the scanner plate, I shipped the set back to Berkeley-- with my gratitude.
This series will investigate online sources for this material. Most people will not want to spend thousands of dollars to build their own reference library unless the subject was going to take up a lot of their life! Presenting such material here has its frustrations -- often there are no online photos at all, or available photographs are restricted with, often exorbitant, charges for their use. Over the next few episodes. I will discuss some of these sources -- the good; the not-so-good; the awful. Tomorrow, one of the best -- the British Museum Collection online. Find out what is there, and what you can do with it.
In the diagram to the right, the red represents the original glass or enamel; the black is the chased line ornament; and the green is the outline of the object. As each example is slightly different in its exact proportions, it is an approximation of the remains of the design recovered from each of the two rings of the strap junction. As the outer edge of each ring steeply curves to the back surface, the chased lines "fall off" the object at the back and are not completely visible.
Another example of Type 1 (R. J. Taylor and J. W. Brailsford, British Iron Age Strap Unions, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 1985, No 1 (Arundel Park, Sussex) is described as "characteristic" and has a single leaf-pair on the outer side of each ring.
Only one of the leaf-pairs was very clear on the strap junction and it is a very small detail. It is interesting that the same position was picked for the same detail on the rings on the Arundel Park example.
The last task remaining on this project is to get all of the proportions more accurate and to produce a reconstruction of the entire strap junction showing all of the reconstructed decoration.
This is the first reconstruction of the chased line decoration on the trumpet shapes of the previously catalogued British Celtic strap junction. I am still working on the decoration on the rings of this same strap junction.
In the diagram to the right, the red represents the original glass or enamel; the black is the chased line ornament; the green is the outline of the object and the solid green is the trumpet mouth. As each example is slightly different in its exact proportions, it is an approximation of the remains of the design recovered from each of the four trumpet shapes of the strap junction.
Although the exact design appears to be unique, the various design elements making up the complete design are mostly fairly common on other objects. Most unusual are the elongated comma-shaped "lobes" or "ears" on either side of the enamel disc -- this design is seen more often in earlier continental Rhineland work. The undulating line at the base is very common on British work and can be seen on the Battersea Shield.
The cusps revealed above each end of the undulating line are only apparent -- the curved back being represented by only the outline of the object.
The inner circle around the red enamel is a narrow bezel raised from the edges of the drilled hole. Very little of it remains; the outer circle shares some of its lines with the inside edges of the lobes. It would have served as a "faux wide bezel" for the enamel.
British Celtic strap-junction, mid 1st cent BC, Snettisham-style, Bronze H: 3.2 cm, W: 2.9 cm, Taylor and Brailsford type 1 Figure of eight form
(flanked at each side by a vertical bar attached at
each end. Apparently unpublished subtype.
(click to enlarge)
This example of Type 1 (R. J. Taylor and J. W. Brailsford, British Iron Age Strap Unions, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 1985, pp. 247 - 272.) is in the Snettisham-style and this subtype is not recorded by Jope, the PAS, or the UK detector finds database. It was also not represented in a search of the British Museum online collection.
At first glance, the design seems to be an example of fold-over symmetry where the lower disc's design is flipped upside down and then reversed right to left. However, this is true only for the two crescents and the voids -- the internal details within the voids using similar elements in a different arrangement. For example, within the comma-shaped void in the top disc are two beads, while in the same void on the lower disc there is only one.
The subtype is named for the goldwork found at Snettisham, Norfolk, which has relief design elements set against a chased basket-hatched background. Basket hatching is always considered to be a design element in its own right, and this is further demonstrated in the latter mirror style where there are no relief elements and the designs are made with chased outlines alone. However, in this example, the voids that contain both the basket hatching and the relief design elements are set lower than the empty cusp-shaped void and the basket hatching seems not to be used as a design element, but a roughing of the surface so that molten glass would fill the area securely. The surface of this "enamelling" would then be at the same level as the cusp-void.
It might be speculated about which examples of basket hatching were used as design elements and which were used to roughen the surface in an attempt to make molten glass stick to the object. It seems that many of these attachment methods (as in the elaborate locking mechanism of anthropomorphic sword pommels) has limited success. Earlier, rivets were used to join coral and other appliqués to the main body of the object. Later, a slight bezelling of the drilled hole was used.
There is some erosion damage to the edges of both discs, but enough details remain to reconstruct the original design. Similar erosion can be seen on the posts. Bare metal (from an overly-harsh cleaning?) is visible on the highest points of the crescents, and there a few other light cleaning marks in the thin patina, otherwise, the patina is fairly smooth.
British Celtic Y-strap junction of unpublished (?) type, Bronze, H: 21mm W: 20mm. Mid 1st cent AD (click to enlarge)
This pretty little Y-strap junction in my collection appears to have no precedent for its form. There is no similar object in Jope (Britain), Jacobsthal (continent) or Raftery (Ireland). It is not listed as a type in R. J. Taylor and J. W. Brailsford, British Iron Age Strap Unions, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 1985, pp. 247 - 272.
For its design features, however, we are on firmer ground and the same "overlaid" decoration on the bottom of the ring can be seen on the handle of the Birdlip Mirror.
Seemingly too small for a horse or chariot fitting, it might be an item for personal dress or perhaps it served as a strap-junction for some sort of satchel flap.
The Armorican Celtic coin Series Xn, which was formerly attributed to the Abrincatui, seems to have been made from spare parts. It is a confusing issue with wildly erratic die links and some of the dies were used until they were badly damaged.
The obverse die of the coin on the right was made by the same die cutter who made dies for the earliest Coriosolite coinage. Through a stylistic analysis, we can see that the die was cut prior to the start of the Coriosolite coinage.
The key is the the design of the nose and the design elements which connect to it: at the top of the nose, a lock of hair is set too far forward, and a beaded line also connects to the area in a clumsy manner.
This unsatisfactory arrangement must have been on his mind when starting the Coriosolite dies because he revised the design so that the front lock of hair then formed the design of the upper part of the nose,
Coriosolite Group A design
and the start of the beaded line was moved to a lower position. Eventually, the beaded line was integrated with the ornamentation of the top of the nose and later still, the beads were replaced by solid lines.
We can only speculate on why Series Xn is so confused. Perhaps they could not afford to hire a die cutter to develop the entire coinage and had to rely on a few "sample dies" from die cutters eager for new clients and who had moved on before the issue was completed. As the dies became too damaged to use at all, other less-worn dies were reused.
The evolution of the design can be followed here and on the subsequent pages.
Yesterday, the temperature was - 13 C with a wind chill factor of -26 C and the wind was 40 km/h gusting to 60 km/h, but it was the snow that made it unpleasant. Photographs can be deceptive -- in the one on the right, you cannot see how the trees were swaying and the blowing snow is only visible in the distance. It was not the sort of snow you see in Christmas cards where big fluffy flakes meander slowly to the ground. These were small, granular flakes that whipped against the face like a sandblaster.
I suppose I could have set the camera to manual and chosen a fast shutter speed to capture the snow and then changed to a slow shutter speed to capture the blowing trees but I lacked enthusiasm for the task and wanted to get back inside as soon as possible. Normally, there would be more vehicles on the street around the corner. It is a main road and at that time in the morning quite a number of people would be driving to work. But only an empty school bus crawled by as I stood there.
Tristan, my coyote hybrid, seemed quite enthused by it all and was bouncing around like a puppy, burying his nose deep in the snow every so often as if expecting to find a mouse or something. He really loves snow -- perhaps it makes the air smell cleaner, but he seems able to smell things just under the snow's surface. He was indignant about the walk being so short even though he had been out earlier when it was still dark.
Outside my place, the maintenance man had been working with his snow blower not an hour earlier but the snow was starting to drift back again. Almost everything outside was drab and grey -- only the mountain ash berries brought some colour to the scene, the Nanking cherries in front of them having long vanished -- they were sweeter than usual this year.
I had originally planned to get some things done downtown and go for lunch somewhere, but travel did not seem to be a good plan so I stayed at home. The storm continued and was going strong until bedtime.
This morning, the wind had died down and it had stopped snowing. It was bit colder, -17 C. Tristan and I went for a half-hour walk. I needed to buy some eggs. The snow was lying in drifts, some as deep as 1 m. but mostly about 50 cm. In some places the sidewalks had bare patches. "Nice day!" I said to the man at the 7-11.
British Celtic strap-junction, circa 20-40 AD Bronze, with six glass inlaid discs. H. 4.4 cm W. 4.8 cm Taylor and Brailsford type 1 Figure of eight form (flanked at each side by a vertical bar attached at each end), No. 4 (variety). Dealer states "ex Ringrose coll. (Essex)" (click to enlarge photo)
This British Celtic strap-junction is the latest addition to my collection, arriving from the UK last week complete with export permit. It is the second recorded example of the type (R. J. Taylor and J. W. Brailsford, British Iron Age Strap Unions, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 1985, pp. 247 - 272. Type 1, No. 4.
The form is a flat-backed bas-relief cast with chased modification on the front and consists of three elements: an extremely swelled ring; finely tapered trumpet; and a slightly oval bar.
Its design is of two opposed rings, swelling at the top and bottom, each bezel-set set with discs of glass. Between them, extends two opposed sets of finely tapered trumpets conjoined at the narrow ends with a joining bar set at the outer half of the trumpets' mouths. Each trumpet is set with similar glass discs between the outer curve and the mouth. It appears that the edges of each drilled hole were raised slightly and then bent inward to form a very thin bezel. Subsequently, a "faux bezel" was indicated with the use of a chased line circling the inset. All of the glass inlay is eroded and was probably red in colour, originally. Further chased linear decoration surrounds each of the glass inlays.
The condition is as follows: it is slightly bent vertically at the centre of each ring which as resulted in a crack in the top face of the metal which extends through the glass inlay at the top ring and the whole strap junction has a slight diagonal twist. These all appear to have occurred during use. It has a fairly smooth green patina only slightly bumpy. The glass is eroded and its colour degraded with a small piece missing from the lower ring.
Simplified version of the type illustration (op. cit.) H. 5.5 cm W. 5.1 cm
The current example is a very slightly smaller version of the type illustration but of far finer workmanship and essentially complete. The lines are more sinuous and the ring swelling more pronounced.
The type example appears to have been damaged through use in exactly the same way but more extremely so which resulted in the loss of about 40%. The conjoined trumpets are less tapered and also flatter between the rings; the rings are not as extremely swelled; and the bars are not off-set at the trumpet mouth. There can be only two explanations for the differences in design between the two: the type example is an earlier attempt which was improved upon in the current example, or the type example was a crude copy of the current form. I am inclined to favor the first explanation as the current example appears to be an evolved version: the clumsy flattening of the narrow ends of the trumpets being also hesitant in execution and poorly opposed above and below could well have served as impetus for the elegant tapering of the current example -- something which would have at least been attempted to emulate if the type example was a copy of the current example. However, if the type example was copied only from memory, that would explain the uncertainty -- it seems unlikely, though, that a model would not be available to copy as surviving examples of early Celtic art are only a tiny fraction of what must have existed. the find spot of the current example was not recorded and while it is tempting to state that it must be from the same general region, higher status objects did often travel some distance: The design of opposed swollen rings have a very slightly earlier version in the strap-junction from Sudeley, Glos. (Jope, 2000, Plate 270 a-f) and the type example is illustrated with a reconstruction from the type illustration on Plate 271(b) following. These and other widespread examples form the two plates that Jope entitles "Pressure tectonics" In his introduction to the subject (p. 300), he says:
Grouped together here are items in which strong structural pressures are implied by the shaping of the solid metal. In some examples these are associated with the tensions in flexible straps (270, 271 a. b), in others not so (271 c. i).
Commenting on the type example, he says: "...with reminiscence of the pressure-tectonic design of a [harness-hook from Polden Hill] but its implied forces much weaker."
The Polden Hill example, however, is very close in effect to the current example -- perhaps even slightly less demonstrative of such forces, so it just goes to show how variations of the same sort of design can affect opinions attributed to their type, alone. I also think that the "implied forces" are not so much a feature of the straps than the power that is exerted upon them by the ponies in battle -- a metaphor. One is reminded of Shakespeare's Henry V pre-battle speech:
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, straining upon the start.
Dobunnic lower linchpin terminal early 1st cent AD (or perhaps very slightly earlier)
Matching the Sudeley strap-junction, and likely from the same rig, is a lower linchpin terminal in my own collection which also has the same swelled ring (two are opposed on the Sudeley strap-junction). If made for local use, about the only regional conflict was (perhaps) between Corio and Bodvoc - estimates of the dates of these two vary and such things are highly uncertain to date exactly within such a short span of years.
Reconstruction of the line decoration of the strap-junction will be in a later post (not necessarily tomorrow!)
This critique of Chris Gosden and J. D. Hill, Introduction: re-integrating 'Celtic' Art in Rethinking Celtic Art, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2008, at about ten thousand words, seems to be about the same length as the chapter, itself. Like most of my posts, It has been written "on the fly", one post each morning, and with minimal editing.
I can usually write a glowing review of an entire book in 500-1,000 words. My article on Celtic Coinage for John Koch, (ed) Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia (Five Volume Set) was 2,000 words. So why was this so long? If you are instructing someone on how to cross a farmer's field a sentence or two will suffice, but if it is also a mine-field then the directions will probably take several pages.
The book, itself, has a few excellent articles -- I really enjoyed those of the Megaws and the one by Fraser Hunter. Others, too, were quite good. Some had a flaw or two -- but doesn't everything? Others were of not so much interest to me, personally, but I'm sure would be valuable to those with strong interests in their subject matter. Some were not so good at all. I was not at all happy with the theme -- the idea that one approach to a subject should replace, and not just augment all of the others is, at the very least, misguided. It can also be sinister. The same could be said for the decision not to include articles presented at the original workshop that dealt with manufacturing methods -- actually I would likely have found those far more useful than what was included. The title was deliberately misleading as it suggests severe flaws in the established methods. I assume that it was a typical and crass advertising ploy and was not intended to be accurate. It worked, and it got my seventy bucks. All of this sort of thing is typical for books containing collections of papers. Sometimes, one very good paper can be worth the whole book and will serve as the standard text on a topic.
Whenever I see scare quotes being used in the title of an academic article my hackles rise, and the subsequent dismissal of the methods of the giants in the subject as "notions" is beyond The Pale. The chapter takes a theory and turns it into propaganda thus. I hope that what I have presented in this series is more like directions through a mine-field than just a tirade. For anyone familiar with the subjects the book could be useful, but for a beginner it would be poison.
I have no way of determining which of the statements in the chapter were unknowing memes; which of them were memes deliberately and knowingly selected; which were based on memes accidentally; and which were an academic version of what Phil Agre designated as The New Jargon. I have a few suspicions, though.
Some archaeologist think of themselves as scientists. In some cases, this can be true -- true specialists in archaeometallurgy, C14 testing etc. certainly are scientists. Coming down from those heights are the technicians who properly use the methods invented and/or refined by the scientists. Some field archaeologist might well fall into the latter category, but only within their excavating and plotting activities -- never in their creation of an extended history from archaeological remains -- that belongs more with art. The absolute scientific method is difficult to follow within archaeology as it requires experimentation, but a lot of quantum physics cannot do this either and has to rely on model building enhanced with mathematics. Quantum physics is still science, though. Archaeological interpretation can emulate hard science, to a degree, also by model building -- but it must clearly compare its new models with what have already been presented and demonstrate, with evidence, the flaws in the other models. This is what I have attempted to do in this series. The subject of my critique, however, did not do so at all.
I can give an example which does not occur in Rethinking Celtic Art. Only today I came across the following statement attributed to someone: "once antiquities are taken from the ground, they instantly lose 90 per cent of their scientific value" This, of course, is pure bunk. I have seen variations of the same statement for years -- sometimes the given percentage varies. These sort of statements fall into the same category of jargon that I mention above. Again, it is always difficult to disentangle memes from propaganda. The statement implies that scientific value is quantified in units and is not a subjective observation. There is never any attempt to justify this sort of statement, and no comparisons are made with the arguments of those who give different percentages. Ironically, opinionated would be a better term for such a statement than scientific.
On Monday I will be starting a new series about another important example of British early Celtic art. It is sitting on my desk as I write this. It is not as important as the first one I covered in this blog, nor is it as important as the seal of Alexander the Great. It is a strap junction -- the finest known of its type (which is extremely rare in any case) and exhibits details that are not visible in the only other example of the exact design -- a fragment from Camulodunum housed in what used to be called the Colchester and Essex Museum and published in Jope and more thoroughly in R. J. Taylor and J. W. Brailsford, British Iron Age Strap-Unions in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 51, 1985, p. 249, No 4, Fig 2.4. As there is much for me to do with this research, and as the nomenclature varies -- "strap-junctions"; "strap-unions" and even more within the PAS database (and other sources), which appears not to use standardized nomenclature at all and even has such things included as "harness mounts" -- finding as many examples similar (within the broader type) as possible and reconstructing the details which would have been visible on the object when it was new will take some time and it will thus be an intermittent series -- there might be a few consecutive posts, though.
.jpg)
