Leaderboard

I had to do an essay for college on greco-roman writings on the celts. and here it is... How useful are the Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life and events in Iron Age Britain?History is by no means set in stone. Though we can piece together much of the past’s events through the use of archaeology and interpretation of historical documents, we can never be truly sure of what really happened. I believe that this can definitely apply to Iron Age Britain; I say this for a variety of reasons. For instance, archaeological evidence can only inform us about the basic details of Celtic life—e.g. distribution of communities, appearance of houses and farming activities. As this is apparent, the only other source of information is contemporary literature. Though the Celtic inhabitants of Britain (Britons) were an illiterate civilization; most Celts recorded information by memory rather than by use of script. So the only other source of contemporary literature would be from nearby Greco-Roman societies. However, there are many flaws in these sources. In this essay I aim to question the validity of Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life in Iron Age Britain. I will begin by looking at one of the earliest accounts of the British people from around 300BC. At this point in time, ideas about Britain were very vague and as Britain was outside the Sea of Ocean (the assumed border of the known world) it was often portrayed as a fantasyland where mythological beasts and gods roamed. At this time only a handful of people had explored Britain, namely the explorer Pythias of Massilia, who recorded his fantastic adventures around the North Sea in a book; though there is now no surviving copy of this written text. However, over the years ideas about Britain began to become more realistic. This could be due to possible trade links between the Britons and the Greeks: Greek pottery dating from 220BC was found in the South West of England. But these Greco-Roman sources were to become clearer in the years 55-54BC upon the two invasions of the ambitious Roman general & politician, Giaus Julius Caesar. Even though Caesar’s invasion was an unsuccessful one, he stayed on the island long enough to write (in his book, The Gallic War) an accurate ethnographical account of the customs, appearance and military tactics of the indigenous Britons. For instance, he mentions that ‘All Britons dye themselves with woad, which produces a blue colour and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting. They wear their hair long and shave all their bodies with the exception of their heads and upper lips…’ As well as writing about the appearance of the Britons Caesar enlightens us with a description of their traditions and values: ‘They have a taboo against eating hare, chicken and goose…Wives are shared between groups of up to twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons.’ However, these descriptions may have been exaggerated; Caesar had many reasons for doing this. For example, when Caesar wrote his book he wanted it to sell. So in order to make ‘The Gallic War’ a bestseller back in Rome this would mean that he would have to leave out the mundane elements of Celtic life (e.g. agricultural activities) and would have to emphasize the weird and wonderful (e.g. the sharing of women). Furthermore Caesar was always trying to out do his rivals; the hero of the east, Pompey and the vanquisher of Spartacus, Crassus. Therefore to increase his reputation as a general and add to his presidge, Caesar would have depicted the British Celts as a formidable enemy. Another fault in Caesar’s writing was that he had a tendency to make sweeping generalisations about the natives of Britain. For instance, he stereotypes the ‘…people in the interior…’ as being more barbarous than the people of the South; this is odd because Caesar never really ventured as far as the British interior. However, despite these inaccuracies and exaggerations I personally believe that Caesar’s portrays an accurate description of Celtic Britain. I say this because unlike the contemporary writers before him (with the exception of Pythias), he was the only one of them to actually set foot on British soil. Also Archaeology (e.g. excavations of British Hill forts) can support Caesar’s descriptions of Celtic society. After Julius Caesar’s invasion of Britain, many other contemporary writers began to produce similar descriptions of the indigenous population of Britain. A good example of one of these writers was the Geographer Strabo (who was writing around the late BC-early AD period). In his works about Britain he provides us with an ethnographical description of the Britons. He writes a variety of information on their appearance: ‘…the men (of Britain) are taller than the Gauls, not so blond, and of looser build’. There customs: ‘Their customs are in some respects like those of the Celts (Gauls), in other respects simpler and more barbaric…’ And their political life: ‘…they are ruled by chieftains. Another one of these writers was the Historian Diodorus Siculus, who like Strabo heavily based his depictions of the Britons on Julius Caesar’s writing. As these two writers borrowed so heavily from Caesar’s work, I personally believe that they do not actually provide us with any new information on the life of the British Celts; they merely just re-hash previous knowledge. Since this is apparent their writings possess the same faults that Caesar’s did. Furthermore, these writers never visited Britain, nor did they have any direct links with the island. But having said this, they were writing at a time when Britain was opening up to trade diplomatic links with Rome (it is mentioned in Emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae that two British Kings paid homage to him), so the writers at this time may have had know more about Celtic Britain then I have given them credit for. In 44AD Britain faced another Roman invasion, this time under Emperor Claudius. Unlike Caesar’s invasion, the 44AD conquest was incredibly successful and Britain soon became a Roman province. So with most of Britain in the hands of Rome, knowledge of the island should have increased. The early book (that survives) which informs us about the Britons after Claudius’ invasion is Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’, written around 100AD. In this book Tacitus informs us about the life of his father-in-law and successful governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Though Agricola is the main focus of attention, Tacitus writes a small section on the inhabitants of Britain, though he mainly concentrates on the way in which the Britons fight. He mentions details such as the fact that they use ‘…battle chariots…’ which archaeology has proved to be correct. Tacitus also mentions that their armies are unorganised and divided, and ‘…do not plan joint operations…’ with other tribes. The works of Tacitus seem to be correct as he was able to use his father-in-law as a primary source. However, even though Tacitus was able to ask Agricola about the Celtic way of life, there are many errors in his work. For instance, Tacitus was a very proud man and never liked to admit he was wrong. So when he did not know a certain fact, he had a tendency to invent falsehoods. Furthermore, in some parts of ‘Agricola’, Tacitus contradicts a lot of what Caesar wrote in ‘The Gallic War’. For example, Tacitus writes that ‘…some tribes fight in chariots. The nobleman is the diver; his retainers do the fighting…’ Caesar on the other hand states that it was actually the nobleman who did the fighting, and as Caesar had actually been to Britain, I personally believe that he was correct. One of the only other sources that give an account of the Celts in Britain was written around 300AD by Dio Cassius. However this account seems to be incredibly inaccurate. This is because he depicts the Britons as simple barbarians who ‘…live off bark and roots’ and ‘…live in tents…’ whereas at this point in time Britain had been a Roman province for almost 250 years and most Celts were living a very Roman way of life. But how was Dio Cassius supposed to know…he never went to Britain! Although these contemporary sources paint a fairly accurate picture of Celtic Britain, they only tell us half the story. This is because all the surviving sources about Celtic Britain were written by Greco-Romans, not the Britons themselves. As we only get an idea about the Celtic life style though Greco-Roman writers, their accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is due to the fact that most Greco-Roman held particular prejudices against their Celtic neighbours. For instance, the philosopher and naturalist Aristotle once stated that man is a ‘Political animal’ in other words it was in mans nature to live in towns and cities. As this was a popular view and it was so ingrained in Greco-Roman writers, many of them just dismissed the Britons as sub-human barbarians just because of the fact that they did not live in pertinent towns. However, no all writers viewed the Celts as mindless barbarians. Some writers had a slight admiration of the Celtic lifestyle. For example, the Greek philosopher Posidonius once declared that ‘Barbarism was mans’ natural state’, which basically means that living simple lives away from the corruptions of the big cities is a very admirable way to live. But the vast majority of the Greco-Romans believed that the Britons were barbarous. So the fact that the Greco-Roman writers were judging the British Celts by the standards of their own culture is a reason why these sources are not completely trustworthy. Other than cultural reasons we cannot completely trust the sources just because of the style in which they are written. This is mainly because not a single Greco-Roman book that souly focuses on Britain survives. Most of are information about Iron age Britain comes from books where the country is mentioned in passing. And the vast majority of surviving texts on Celtic Britain were mainly about political and military history (the actions of King, Queens and armies) rather than social history (the action of ordinary people), so we cannot extract the full truth about the Celtic lifestyle from these sources. As well as this the writers also had a predisposition to exaggerate and make generalisations about the Celts, particularly if they want to sell their book. They often only just emphasised the violent and bizarre aspects (e.g. human sacrifice) of the Britons, as this was the stuff that sold books. So though their books were highly entertaining, they were not completely reliable. Finally archaeology has proved many of the sources wrong. For example, Pomponius Mela (an obscure source) mentions that the Britons used scythed chariots in battle. This was thought to be true until recent excavations proved that this was not so. In conclusion to the question, I believe that though these sources depict a fairly accurate picture of Iron Age Britain, they also possess many faults and inaccuracies.