Galatians

[WotWotius]

The other day I met a Turkish archaeologist in the local student bar (I think he may have been using the university to further some research). We got talking about the cultures of Asia Minor, and it turns out that he has done large amount of fieldwork involving ancient Galatia. The only problem was that his English was not particularly good; therefore he was unable to elaborate on his points, and I could not ask him all the questions I wanted to. I feel that this was just a missed opportunity.

 

What I tired to ask him was: in terms of culture and customs, how exactly did the Galatians differ from the Celts from the European mainland? I know that there were some language differences, but does archaeology prove the Galatians to be vastly different to, let's say, the Gauls.

 

Any ideas?

[DecimusCaesar]

I suppose that the Galatians had many similarities to the Gauls since they had migrated to the area as part of Brennus's invasion of Macedonia and Greece. Many of them were men and women from around the Danube. They consisted of about three tribes: The Tectosages, the Trocmii and the Tolistobogii and these tribes were separated into four septs ruled by tetrarchs (according to Greek Sources).

 

They intermingled with the native population (the Greeks in Anatolia) and became increasingly Hellenized, with some adopting Greek names. The Famous statue of the Dying 'Gaul' is actually that of a Galatian...as you can see, the Galatian looks very similar to the Gauls with large torc around his neck and the spiky hairstyle.

 

The Dying Gaul (Galatian)

Edited October 2, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Ursus]

Cunliffe says the Galatians eventually adopted the material culture of their Balkan neighbors, thus in terms of physical items produced and consumed they would have been different from the Gauls.

 

However, they showed the same mentalty. An aristocratic warrior elite presided over the commoners, and demonstrated their might and status by launching raids on neighbors or selling their services as mercenaries.

 

Their "government" worked thus: the three tribes were divided into four parts called tetrarchies. Each tetrarchy had a supreme magistrate (tetrarch), two subordinate commanders, a warlord, and a judge. The Gauls had a similar method where civil power was invested in a supreme magistrate, the military headed by an elected warlord, and tribal law invested in a separate judicial class - in their case, the infamous Druids.

 

In matters religious, the Galatians adopted many of the local cults already in the area. But they gave it a Celtic twist - like executing prisoners of war in the name of the gods. It is not known if they had a Druid caste.

 

All in all they behaved much like other groups defined as Celts.

[WotWotius]

They intermingled with the native population (the Greeks in Anatolia) and became increasingly Hellenized, with some adopting Greek names. The Famous ststue of the Dying 'Gaul' is acttually that of a Galatian...as you can see, the Galatian looks very similar to the Gauls with large torc around it's next and the spiky hairstyle.

 

Yes, I believe it was a copy of a statue erected in Perganom to commemorate a victory over the various Galation tribes. The original, as I was told, was part of a tri-podia statue: on the left podium was the beautiful, yet pathetic depiction of the 'Dying Gaul'; the centre one showed a more noble Galation holding his dead wife in one arm, while he gloriously fell on his sword; and on the right, if my memory serves, was a fallen warrior. Below is an artists impression:

 

 

In regards to contemporary sources on the Galations themselves, I vaguely remember Strabo writing about them. Does anybody have a quote handy?

[longbow]

The statue we have today is a Roman marble copy of a Bronze which formed part of a group (pictured in the above post).The Bronze's were erected at Pergamon by Attalos to commemorate his victory over the Celts of Asia minor,the Galatae.

The statue is one of my favourites allthough its slightly stereo typical 'Celtic',a big strong naked barbarian with his lime washed hair.How many Galatians actually looked like him?The earliest representations of Armoured 'Celts' are on reliefs on the temple of Athene at Pergamon,there descriptions are identical to the armour shown on the statue at Vacheres in Gaul,he looks very Roman.

Gallic nobleman of Vacheres.

Edited October 1, 2006 by longbow

[WotWotius]

Osprey books often depict Galatians as armoured warriors; I am not sure if this a reputable source, but there has to be some true behind their drawings. I think the naked, but noble savage we see in the tri-podia statue from Perganom, was erected with more Romanism than accuracy.

 

As mentioned earlier, the Galatians may well have been more

[Julius Ratus]

IIRC, some Gallo-Galatian horsemen were used in the Battle of Pharsalus by Pompey Magnus against Caesar.

[DecimusCaesar]

It's interesting to see that they wore arms and armour, although those statues obviously represent the Nobles and not the average infantryman who would not have been able to afford the armour and helmets of the picture shown by Longbow. It's true that they look Roman. Around this time the hellenistic armies of the middle east began supplying their soldiers with chainmail. This was probably the influence of the Galatians who had brought them to the region.

[Neos Dionysos]

Having worked on several Galatian sites in Turkey I can say a few things...

 

 

Trying to use archeology to compare them to thier Gallic brethren is difficult to put it simply, mainly because at many of these sites nothing much remains, and most have been re-used over the centuries and so what we have is a bastardization of what was originally there. In some places you can clearly make out walls and area's of habitation and you can compare these to sites in France which bear resemblance, others are not close in any manner. I am not sure how Gauls lived in ancient times though from Caesar's accounts they had villages and towns and 'cities' per sa, but in Galatia there is no evidence of this. So, were they a migrating people who roamed a certain range around thier established defensive fortifications in the hills? Or did they have wooden houses and so none of thier material remains? There isn't any evidence to show that the hillforts were occupied year round, since when Rome encountered them, they always retreated to these places up in the highlands, so perhaps it was a temporary thing. Some sites had the 'usual' find of pottery like courseware and some fineware, which suggest habitation, (one also has to realize these sites have ALL been looted and so what you find might not be much), and in a couple lithic material was found which is just beyond me. Why not use a simple, easy to make rock instrument, (forgive me I cannot remember the name it's used for sewing I have to check my blog I wrote about it there), for sewing but instead use a brittle, hard to make lithic one? This shows an amazing skill with craftmanship and the possibility that the site might have supported a large community below the fort with textile production.

 

The Galatians are still very much an unknown and I will have to say, there is a forthcoming publication on them which goes in great depth on the Galatians, (but it is in Turkish), by Dr. Levent Vardar.

[QwertyMIDX]

I think the real question here has to be not "were the Galatians like other Celts" but when were they like other celts. Up until the Roman conquest them seem to have retained a generally celtic culture with the raid and mercenary service along with the feast and other shows of largesse being central to the social system. The evolution of more heavily armored military forces seem to have come about a bit early than in other celtic areas, but is not in any way out of synch with the developments seen in say Gaul. Ethnically there was presumably some mixing with the pre-existing populations of Anatolian but it seems more like the Galatians dominated these peoples rather than building a hybrid political and cultural system (there are some examples of this of course exist, such as the aforementioned adoption of native gods into celtic religious practice, but is important to remember that this happened within the context of celtic practices). Linguistically it seems that they retained some form of Celtic language until at least the 4th century AD as reported by Saint Jerome. On the other hand Paul's letter to the Galatians (in the first century AD) treats them the same as other peoples in the region. Presumably the Galatians at some point became Hellenized, Romanized, and Orientalized. It is often argued that the key event in this is the assassination of most of the tetrarchs by Mirathadates IV in 88 BC. In my estimation it is likely that it was a more gradual process, probably broadly bounded by the defeats of the Galatians at the hands of the Rome and Pergamum (189/167 BC) and the period following the Roman annexation in 25 BC. It is also important to remember that the Galatians were likely regularly bolstered by influxs of celts from farther west who were regularly drawn into the east to serve as mercenaries.

Edited December 28, 2006 by QwertyMIDX

[edgewaters]

It's interesting to see that they wore arms and armour, although those statues obviously represent the Nobles and not the average infantryman who would not have been able to afford the armour and helmets of the picture shown by Longbow. It's true that they look Roman. Around this time the hellenistic armies of the middle east began supplying their soldiers with chainmail. This was probably the influence of the Galatians who had brought them to the region.

 

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.

[Ursus]

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).

 

 

Perhaps something stemming from their shared proto-Indo-European past? A belief that warriors could take on the persona of animals like wolves and bears for battle.

[edgewaters]

Perhaps something stemming from their shared proto-Indo-European past? A belief that warriors could take on the persona of animals like wolves and bears for battle.

 

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.