 Rwy'n rhoi, rwy'n rhoi bod gallwn gweld i'n gweithredu, yn fath ymweld, roedd yna'r gweithredu? Mae'r gwleidio ychydig yn rhoi, mae sy'n tu… Yn ni'n rhoi. Rwy'n rhoi, mae'n gyffredig o'r ffordd ymlaenwyr. Rwy'n rhoi'n rhoi'n rhoi'n rhoi, ond nid oedd yn siaradu'n gwneud yn fath. Ond rydyn ni'n rhoi, roeddwn ni'n rhoi'n rhoi'n rhoi'n rhoi. Mae'n rhoi'n rhoi, roeddwn ni'n rhoi'n rhoi'n rhoi. ac ymlaen nhw'n mynd i gael ychydig, yw'r ystod y gallwn ei ddweud y leisio. Mae'r ddweud y leisio'r ystod, ac yn 5 oed, mae'r llwyffydd yn ymdweud, i'w leisio'r ystyried yn y rhan o'r cymdeilwyd, ac mae'r llwyffydd yn ei ddweud. Mae'r ddweud yn ni'n ymddangos yma yw'r cyfeirio cyffredinol yn llwyffydd. Yn gyflawni'r leisio, mae'n ymddangos yn y gweithio, a dyna'n gwybod i'w gwertho'u wneud yn y ddweud o'r ardal, ond yn y bydd yn yw'r ffordd yn ei weld oedd yn ddweud, ac rydyn ni'n gweithio i'n gwybod i'ch gael. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i gyd o'r ddweud o'r hyn yn gweld i'r rhaid, i'n dweud i'r ddweud i gael rhaid. Yn rhaid, dyna lle rhaid i'w Llyfrgell yn Brytyn. Mae'n llwyddiad ar hyn yn y Llyfrgell yn y maer i fi i rhaid i'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Ac obviously there is the Celtic exhibition at the British Museum, which I hope a lot of people have seen, it is really good. And I must say at this stage, I and the people at the British Museum largely see eye to eye on the Celts, which is more than I can say for the television programs that are on, a real missed opportunity I think, Yn y gallu gydig i'w gweithio ar hyn o'r pethau newydd a'r dweud y mynedd. Mae hwn i'r ddaeth i ddweud cyllideb ar bobl ar gyfer adeiladau ar gyfer cael eu bod yn cydweithio ar hyn. Mae'r ddweud yn gweld o'r ddwylo'n ddweud ar gweithio'r 20 o 30 oed. Ond rwy'n wedi gweld o bobl o'r ffordd o'r mewn gwirionedd o'r glasgau. One was the International Caltech Studies Congress, which I normally try to attend, and they're actually accepting some of my ideas now. And also the European Archaeologists, one of the main themes there was the calts. So there's a lot of interest at this moment in the calts, but there are some rather peculiar things started appearing in the press, or things that had appeared before and had hoped were dead, like statements like the calts never existed, and that people like myself said this. I never did. It's the complete invention. It's one of those things that's gone all the way around Europe, and I've spent a lot of my life digging up people who thought of themselves as calts in the first century BC. So that was where I started getting involved in what was going on in the British Museum. I hadn't been involved in actually setting up the exhibition or the theme. But it's structured around what is unfortunately labelled as a Celtoskeptic framework, and I think you'd better deal with that word as well. It's a term which was introduced by Patrick Sins-Williams, the Professor of Celtic Studies in Averrisswith, and unlike Euroskeptic, which is anti-Europe, Celtoskeptics are pro-calts. We're trying to get rid of a lot of the rubbish that is written about calts, these drunken barbarians and so on, and indeed Patrick himself describes himself as a Celtoskeptic. The critique that we have been going through in these last 20, 30 years I think is now largely accepted by most British, not all, but most British archaeologists and quite a wide number of continental Iron Age archaeologists. I still have a good old battle with the linguists, we don't entirely think in the same way, but they'll come round one day. But anyway, some of the basic things, the one that gets the most press is that there is no evidence that the early inhabitants of Britain were ever to be calts. You get statements like the Britons were like calts, you even get Strabo saying about one of his fellow Greeks, oh he got mixed up between the calts and the Britons. So we have to accept that it is not a term that was used for whatever reason, ethnic, geographical or whatever was not used by the inhabitants of Britain. But there's also been a change in the theoretical basis of how we study the calts and for me this is based in the new archaeology of the 1960s, 1970s and the rejection of the so-called cultural historical paradigm. And my generation was using very much more anthropological and geographical models rather than ones based on philology. But anyway, just to let us on two sort of fundamental questions like why are Celtic languages called Celtic, why are the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Bretons called Celtic. Coming to the archaeology, what is meant by Latin culture and why is it equated with Celtic. Today I'm talking about why is Celtic art called Celtic and why do we think that calts originate from southern Germany or from south west Iberia. And so it's a lot of very fundamental questions which we're asking and as we then anything Celtic, the answer is not simple. It's always very convoluted in one way or another. As I said, no informed archaeologist has ever suggested that the Celts never existed, but we would consider them to be a continental phenomenon. I also insist that we need to distinguish between the ancient Celts and the modern Celts in the way that we go around studying. There are different phenomena, definitions and the questions that we're asking of the material are different and we just have to accept this. I suppose there have been three books, there have been a lot of articles so many of us have written, but really just three books which have dealt specifically with this problem. The first one which caused all the consternation written by Simon James published in 1999 and this is where all the statements like the Celts never existed come from. If one reads his text he doesn't say it, he talks about the Celts on the continent. He was an archaeologist, the other person that I had a fair amount of dealings with was Mike Morse coming in from the history of science he studied in Chicago and looking at things like the impact of techniques like linguistic studies but craniology and so on. That was for me quite a revelation when he came and talked to me about it. Then there's my own book which they were talking mainly about Britain. I was taking a rather more continental view and so those are really the three books. Some of this I'll perhaps go through fairly quickly because just recently I've had a paper come out called The Sheffield Origins. We'll come back to that a little bit later on in brief but it needs to be updated and new things have been coming out. I've also been going on to look at what's happening on the continent and also taking it on a little bit past the 19th century and early 20th century which in that article I was concentrating on. First of all we need to look at the British background because basically the idea that this art is Celtic comes from Britain, it doesn't come from the continent and so we have to understand why people were considered to be Celts. I don't want to go into this in detail but first of all the statement that they would never call Celts. It's not something new and I don't know where the first article appeared but a major article by McNeill 100 years ago talking about the rediscovery of the Celts and the importance of people like George Buchanan and his publication in 1582. Of looking at the British and Irish origins but especially you're looking at it from perhaps a Scottish point of view. And we must also be aware that Celtic languages got their name because Breton Pauli Pesron thought that the language, his language Breton was the final survival of the language spoken by the Celtic of Caesar. In fact it's not, it is the language, our most linguist I think would say that it is a language which was introduced from Cornwall in Wales in the post Roman period. So it's a British language, it's not a Gallic language. The key person really is Edward Floyd and I won't go into this, let's try and go fast but he uses the word when he does his comparison of the modern languages and indeed comparing it with what was then known about the Iron Age languages. He decided to use the term Celtic. He seems to have realised that it was perhaps not quite the right word to use but in many ways he was following Pesron and so we have this idea that we can call these languages Celtic. There's a process that goes on in the 19th century and in the 18th century, by the end of the century there is a substantial group of people who are thinking of themselves as Celts in Britain and Ireland. Again a complicated question as to what went on there and that I fear again is another paper but we must recognise that all other usages in Britain derive from these original mistakes really from Pesron and so on. So things like Celtic art, the Celtic church, Celtic music, Celtic fields, Celtic tiger economies, they're all based on these ideas which were going on in the 18th and early 19th century but that does mean that there is a problem if we start trying to use things like language or art to define the Celts in the past. I would say because of the flawed nature of this we can't use those as definitions. Going into the early 19th century, there are really two groups who are looking at the origins of the people in Western Europe. Mainly it's a sort of chronological thing in that what we're seeing is the change in the chronologies that people were using. In the early 19th century we still were on Bishop Usher's short biblical chronology and so it was considered the Celts or people living in Western Europe. Hadn't been there all that long and indeed one was looking at things like the Tower of Babel and so on to talk about where they may have come from. So we find that the Celts and Gauls who were the first people we hear about in the written records must have been the original inhabitants, descendants of Gomo. And so we find in Amedee Thierry doesn't go into the biblical background unlike Pesron but the standard book really for the 19th century is Istwade Gaulois. It's he considered that the Gauls were the original inhabitants of Gaul and they arrived somewhere perhaps about 1500 BC. But we then move on into the long geological chronology starting really in the 1930s especially and sudden recognition that the world is very much older than the Bible tells us. And against this background we start getting rather new ideas. First of all Christian Thompson coming out with his chronology for prehistory with his three age system, the ages of stone, bronze and iron. But then we also get the idea that perhaps the languages that we're looking at the Celtic and indeed the other in what are now gradually being recognized as Indo-European languages that these people may well have replaced earlier people. And there were recognition that there were people around who were not speaking Indo-European language and so who might the earlier people have been. Possibly the Finns, possibly the Basques. And the idea was that there had been a change of the population perhaps at the beginning of the Bronze Age. And this is where the chronology comes in and the three age system. And it's suggested there's a change in the skull shape which indicates the arrival of a new people perhaps Indo-Europeans being defined by language. But anyway, long heads in long barrels, in theolithic round heads in round barrels as in the beaker burials. Still not quite entirely wrong but anyway this is where these ideas come from. So it's against this background that we must look at this term called Celtic art and ask anyone or ten years ago if you'd asked virtually anyone why is Celtic art called Celtic. And they would simply say well it was the art of the ancient Celts, the people who lived in Europe. But in fact what we shall be seeing is that the term was first applied to the art in Britain and Ireland in the 1850s and was another 50 years or more before this idea was accepted on the continent. And it was this man Joseph de Chelet whose centenary of whose death in the First World War we were commemorating last year. So what I'm going to be doing here is first of all we'll try and do a quick run through of what was happening in Britain and then we'll go and look at why the people on the continent were not accepting the British ideas. And then we'll come back to Britain and see how they developed and then we'll move on to see what happened subsequently with de Chelet and afterwards. One thing where I was wrong in the article that I referred to was that I thought it was a man from Sheffield who was the first person who coined the term Celtic art. But as Fraser Hunter pointed out to me, this is not the case. There is an earlier usage and it's by Daniel Wilson who is probably best known as the man who introduced the word prehistoric into the English language. And he was also an early user of the three age system and he refers to a thing called Celtic art, which for him is the art and ornaments of the Celtic peoples of Scotland. In other words the people of the highlands and the islands. So it was not something which was confined to a specific period and he doesn't go into any detailed definition of what this art is. He does also publish drawings of things that nowadays people would call Celtic art, but it's in a chapter on the Teutonic Iron Age, although he does change this in the second edition which came out 10 years later. But the sorts of things that he was thinking about and well one object you can see in the exhibition, the Hunderston broach, these were the sorts of things that he was talking about, but also sort of going on very much later here, a powder horn. And his only definition really other than it being the arts of the Scottish Gaelic speaking peoples was that one was getting this interlaced ornament and we'll see that that is a thing which goes on and on. The man I was trying to champion was John Ovidai Westwood and I'd just quickly say that what I'm talking about here you'll find in summary form in the catalogue which goes with the British Museum. This I think is now these are things which we are generally accepting but you never know, new person may suddenly emerge from somewhere. In a rate this man John Ovidai Westwood was the professor of zoology at Oxford but he also was very interested in art, in fact how he was the thing that joins it, he was a brilliant artist and so he was drawing lots of insects and but also looking at the early Christian manuscripts both from Ireland, Northern Britain and indeed from the Saxon area. He is the first one to describe what he considers to be Celtic characteristics, very specifically a thing called the trumpet scroll or the trumpet pattern, terms that are still used. This was published in the famous book, it's Owen Jones' book The Grammar of Ornament which incidentally is still in print but not in the fine form that it was originally produced in. Here we can see the contrast with the stuff that he is labelling as Celtic in the centre, the spirals and trascales and so on and then contrasting with the Anglo-Saxon use of foliage and so on. So he is introducing these ethnic terms really to describe different styles of art and he gives the first definition narrow ribbons interlaced and knotted or monstrous animals extended into long interlacing ribbons and so on but if we look at the last one, the use of red dots and points, this is very obviously just coming from the manuscripts. So that is the first appearance, as I'm better at time I'll move over this but he's giving a verbal description of what the trumpet pattern looks like and then he goes on to say that remarkable pattern which since a few years we have been in the habit of calling the trumpet pattern you have a peculiar characteristic of form of beauty which belongs to no nation but our own and to no portion of our nation but the Celtic portion. So here we have a very strong statement about the style. We find a very similar sort of statement in the next person we deal with which is John Kemble. He gave his famous lecture just a year after the publication of Westwood's paper but pointing out that there were also prehistoric objects and this is where we must remind ourselves. This is the period when things like the Battersea Shield, the Wandsworth Shield and so on, these were just being fished out of the Thames so there was a lot of new material and he again emphasises that this art style is a peculiarly British phenomenon. Of course sadly he died just a week or two after he gave his lecture and it was then published as a memorial ball in the R.A. Ferales by his colleagues most notably Augustus Franks and we'll see that this volume is in fact extremely well known across Europe, published in 1863. But they're going back to fundamentals again. These antiquities are chiefly within the limits of Celtic occupation. The patterns differ from those of the Danes, the Saxons and Romans and these patterns continued in use with modification among the peculiar Celtic races of Ireland though not in a pure state after the introduction of Christianity. So both for the prehistoric and for the medieval usage is being very firmly labelled as a peculiar British and Irish phenomenon. At the same time of course we have the finds turning out from the lake villages in Switzerland at 1857 when we start getting the finds turning up from the last ten. And these were being collected by people like Friedrich Schwab, Edward de Zor who introduces the three age system and then the publications by Ferdinand Keller. And well we started knowing about these broaches and other forms of ornament and very specifically the very well preserved iron scabbards with this decoration on it. So we have the publication of these finds coming out in the 1860s and one thing to point out is that Keller actually was very familiar with Britain, he'd worked here and they started organising international conferences. So he knew people like Franks and Sir John Evans face to face, I mean they would be able to talk about this and they recognised the similarity of the art with the from La Tène with what was called the late Celtic art in the Oré Therales. But this is the thing that surprises people when I read it out, it is actually taken from the English version of Keller's publication. We must however remind the reader that these ornamentations do not show the least resemblance to the Celtic implements which have come to light and quite so little to those of Roman origin. We cannot however help mentioning the peculiar ornamentation so very different from the Celtic element. So here is the first publication for the site which we all take is the absolutely typical place for Celtic art and initially it just wasn't accepted as being Celtic. He was using words like Helvetic or Gallo Helvetic. We'll clarify that a little bit more I think when we come to France. Those recent art will be published by Laurent Olivier to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the foundation of the National Museum. He was specifically looking at one of his predecessors at Saint Germain, Alexandre Bertrand. He is really one of the key things to understand what was happening in France. I think generally speaking all the people writing at this time, whether they're British or continental, consider that either the Celts or the Indo-Europeans were arriving at the beginning of the Bronze Age with these beaker burials. But for Bertrand, Lars Celtic was the geometric art of the Bronze Age and the Holstatt period. He distinguished between the Celts and the Gauls and the Gauls for him were people who arrived at the beginning of the Iron Age. So when he was talking about Larten art, which he never really did, he would have been talking about using the term probably Larch Gaulois. So he never really discusses it but he had major impact. He published only really one object which we might label as Celtic and it's the helmet from Beru. But at the time we had no parallels for it in Western Europe. Since then we have other examples of these pointed helmets. But the only parallels he knew was on sculpture and other items from the Near East and so he thought this was an import from the Near East. The only person in France who really seems to suggest that there is a distinctive art style going on is a numismatist, Eugène Ucher, who published a couple of papers on Larch Gaulois based on the decoration on the coins. But this wasn't really taken over into the studies of the other material. This gives an interesting background to the monograph which was published by Vincent and Ruth McGall by the antiquaries on the basiwt's flagons. And they were just considered to be fakes in France which is how the British Museum managed to acquire them. And of course again you'll see those in the exhibition in the British Museum. Move on to Germany and another group of objects which you'll see in the British Museum exhibition are these famous objects from Waldogersheim. The first person to publish them, Ausenwerth, again he is using terms like Gallic to describe these. But Germany is rather different from what is going on in France or at least as far as the main person who is publishing this material. And the person who is publishing it was Ludwig Lindenfischnit, the elder, the father, who was the founder of the Rymysggymarnyshys Central Museum in Mainz, still one of the major museums in Europe, especially for its conservation work. And he is the man who published many of the key finds which we nowadays label as Celtic in a series of volumes, The Elder Tumor and the Sarah Heidnish and Horside. And what I'll do is I'll just quickly whiz through, I won't say much about them, given the time constraint of the sorts of objects that he was illustrating really for the first time. Not only to find some museums but also from private collections. So he's publishing some of the beaked flagons, some of them imports but some of them probably not. Here some of the torcs a little bit later found in female burials, usually with decoration of enamel in them. Here the finds from Dirkheim gold torcs but also bronze vessels and so on with which one was familiar in the classical world. Publishing for the first time some of these broaches on the right hand one, top left a bit from the Schwarzenbach bowl. Here the finds from Rodenbach. But here we can see what the problem is. You'll see at the top there it's all labeled as Etruscan and he considered all of these things to be imports. Here the finds from Kleiners-Bergler associated with Attic red figureware vessels. So this stuff was being dated correctly to the 5th century BC and then here he's publishing again the material from Valdolgesheim and showing some of the ornamentation on them. Most of the things, he just published these little fascicules which were subsequently bound together and most of them are purely descriptive but under Valdolgesheim he goes in for a long discussion of what he thinks these things are. First of all he rejects Thompson's three age system and then secondly he considers that all metal objects from north of the Alps were imports from Etruria and northern Italy until the Roman conquest. So no metal objects were made north of the Alps until the Romans arrived. And he said the barbarians were just producing raw materials which were then traded to Italy for the finished goods. And so he's seeing the art objects as being produced by the Italians or these barbarians rather along the lines of what one finds in the Black Sea where the Greek colonies are producing things for the Syrian market. And this is what he says about Britain, my translation of the German. We know of the Britons that they only use their metal for exchange that Irish gold, like the British gold, silver and tin was exported as raw material and came back to the land as finished objects. And he goes on to say well in the R.A. Ferales they've got all these things decorated with enamel. There was no enamel until the Romans arrived in this area so how can this be pre-Roman? And then he goes on to say if all the ornaments which through their arbitrary representation differ from the strict style of classical or equally early oriental motifs were declared to be Celtic so an excessively large number of the examples of Italian metalwork would without a doom be assigned to a Celtic origin so he's rejecting anything being Celtic. And then he goes on, this is one quote that when I've lectured on this in the Stuttgart called the amusement to the German audience the attempt to represent some of these vessels and objects as copies from the Renish workshops could only be considered as a manifestation of that false national vanity which through the fantasies of nationalism with which our neighbours choose to embellish their cultural links to their prehistoric past leads to lively emulation. So he is just rejecting any just saying oh it's just the British trying to pretend they have a greater past than they did. So he is the man who is publishing virtually all of the material that we now label as Celtic. But I'm not sure quite how much his ideas were accepted right where across Germany certainly other people were writing other things and so we have Otto Tischler in 1885 coming out with the first chronology of the Larten period based on the typology of broaches and on the shapes of the shapes on the scabbards and he divided the Larten period up into an early, middle and late on the basis of this typology terms which we still use this chronology actually stuck but certainly he is not following the Lyndon Schmidt line there are a couple of other volumes which come out in the after the elder Lyndon Schmidt's death produced by his son and also one to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Rhywmish Gwmarnys Central Museum and these are ones that contain Paul Reynicka's major papers on the chronology of the Larten period which in one way or another we are still using but it is interesting, I mean first of all he sees some of the real classic objects like the Schwartzenbach bowl as being imported from areas of Greek influence rather than being locally made and though he talks about Celts and to a certain extent Germans when he is describing the objects he only uses the cultural term Larten to describe it as in Larten ornament or ornamentik or Larten denkmaler but he is accepting that much of the stuff is of local origin so that was why on the continent the British ideas weren't accepted we now come back to Britain in the later 19th century and the key person here seems to be Sir Arthur Evans of course director of the Ashmolean Museum giving lectures in fact on Celtic art in Oxford and then very famously the Rhine Lectures in 1895 in Edinburgh which was on the origins of Celtic art and he is pointing out the classical origins of the art style and he is using the stuff of Lyndon Schmidt and saying well these early objects belong to the 5th century BC from southern Germany the problem is he never published his work and so it is very difficult to know quite what he was saying we are having to rely on newspaper reports there are lists of his lecture titles in the archives that I found in Oxford that's only one written out lecture which survives and that was not very helpful and then otherwise we're just relying on what other people writing at the time were saying spent this time a little bit later of 1904 that we get the first book on Celtic art by Jay Romally Allen and he is covering the whole as we've seen the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Christian art so he starts off again with the description of the beaker pottery which essentially is for him the early Celtic art and then the Iron Age and early Christian stuff which is the late Celtic art and he is the person who really gets into the lot work and is not a book which is still in print the other major book which comes in the following year is the guide to the Iron Age by the British Museum and this is written by Reginald Smith the problem with Reginald Smith is we don't know to what extent it's his work and to what extent he is using Evans' work and it probably can't quite read it up here but the very top line on the left hand side is where he is acknowledging the work that is being done by Dr Arthur Evans and so he is one of the people who is referring to this but here for the very first time either on the continent or in Britain we see a direct comparison between the decoration that is appearing on these things that are labelled at Celtic art alongside classical stuff so on the right hand side you have a classical palmet and adjacent to it the decoration on the talk from Wolforgersheim so here we are seeing the direct correlation really going on between the so-called Celtic art and the classical world so here then we are beginning to see something which we can recognise a little bit more in terms of our definitions back to France because something important happens there and this is initially the work of Henri-Darois-De-Jubainville who is the first professor of Celtic studies in the Soul Bomb he says that he disagrees with Bertrand who was making this distinction between the Celts and the Gauls and he says well the two terms okay the term Galatai, Galli turns up a couple of hundred years later than Celtoi but it is just being used as an equivalent of one another and on the historical grounds he's suggesting the Celts or the Gauls are arriving in 500 BC so here we see a fundamental difference rather than the Celts being a bronze age phenomenon they are now becoming an Iron Age phenomenon he is using the evidence of linguistics and some of his ideas are rather bizarre he talks about empires the earliest one is the cavemen which is typified by Polyphemus but the only time he mentions archaeologists he puts in brackets archaeologists are digging things up in caves as well so this goes with his classical background then he says we've got non-Indo-European speakers the Iberians he suggests they could perhaps come from Atlantis Lugurians he thinks of the first Indo-Europeans introducing farming and arriving somewhere around 1500 BC and then he has the Celts or Gauls arriving in France somewhere around 500 BC but coming from south-western Germany and this he was doing based on the names of rivers and so on this is my attempt at trying to work out what David-Ajou Bambill is saying but essentially seeing his Celts starting off in somewhere east of the Rhine in Baden-Württemberg and the River Main and so on then spreading to low countries then into Britain and then only later into France and Spain and even later into Italy so that is his interpretation of what is going on what is important from archaeology is that Joseph de Chelet then tries to fit in the archaeology with the ideas of David-Ajou Bambill and published in the last two volumes that he got out on the on the archaeology and yes the second volume last of them published just after he died but anyway he starts off with a historical synthesis of the Celts and then as I said tries to correlate them with the archaeological record and what he comes out with at the end in a slightly changed form is the view that dominated really the whole of the 20th century and his first time is we're beginning to use archaeology specifically to identify the origin and the spread of the Celts using burial rites, art style, lauten, cultural, burial rites, again one looks at it and says well no but he distinguishes between the Ligurians with their burial rite of crouched inhumation in other words beaker burials Celts with extended inhumation in other words the north of France and then the Germans and the bell guy with cremation unfortunately it doesn't work as we now know especially the main site that he and his uncle have been excavating at Mont-Bervere typical Celtic site, the capital of the Idawe right in the middle of the Celtic area but unfortunately it has a cremation cemetery we now know so that correlation just doesn't work In the location of the Celts he follows the Dabois-de-Jubainville he looks at this area north of the Alps as being their origin rather than Amedetiery we've been looking at it at central France he's also considering that the Ligurians were replaced by the Celts in the Iron Age this is my attempt at showing the relationship between the areas of extended inhumations in the late Holstatt period and the area where it's being suggested by Evans and also picked up by Deschelet as the area of the origin of this art style but basically Deschelet when he comes to talk about Celtic art he's following the British tradition and the people he's citing are Campbell, Franks, Romley Allen and Reginald Smith so he is picking up very much on the British stuff he doesn't entirely agree with the chronology he thinks the Celts might have arrived in France a little bit earlier but anyway this publication then starts having an impact on especially the archaeologists and what we find going on in the post war period is there is a shift from referring to the late Celtic art of Campbell and Franks by the time we come to Jacob style in 1944 it has become early Celtic art and this change of nomenclature is associated with this change of idea of the Celts being a Bronze Age phenomenon to them being an Iron Age phenomenon whether one takes it as Holstatt or Laudan and so one question which I've still not really answered is when and how does this happen I've looked at one or two authors Dan Ian McNeill in his 1919 book Phases of Irish History that's suggesting the Celts arriving in Ireland in the Laudan period so he's picking up on this new chronology and tying the archaeology in whereas on the rewbear in his history of the Celtic people arguing from linguistics still considers the Celts belong to the Bronze Age with their Boedetic Q Celtic and then the Iron Age is perhaps the P Celtic the Brythons and so he's in some way still following Bertron but anyway it means that in the period after the First World War there doesn't seem to be a general consensus so it's interesting then exactly why Jacob style goes on to have this really this new chronology and this new nomenclature and it's partly under the influence of the British tradition but anyway his famous book, his great book is referred to as Early Celtic Art and so what we're seeing on first of all to quote Jacob style in my opinion the whole of the Celtic art of Celtic art is a unit it is a creation of one race the Celts and so we contrast between the nomenclature in Romelu Allen Early Celtic Art is Bronze Age Late Celtic Art is Latin and Early Christian by the time we come to Jacob style later Early Celtic Art is the Latin Iron Age and Late Celtic Art is the Early Christian or Insular Art so I think when we look at the idea to the spread of the Celts which was an Iron Age phenomenon which is the idea that really dominates the second half of the 20th century I think Jacob style was a key person in this and then we have a whole series of maps which appear showing the expansion of the Celts from south west Germany suggestions of typological continuity of the artefacts such as broaches and daggers and swords and that is really the origin of all of the variations of this particular map I just always take the one from Mughals because it shows it all really very clearly but there are lots of variations on this particular theme and we find similar things going on in for instance Jan-Philippe spoke on the Celtic flat inhumations where he is looking at the arrival of the Celts in central Europe again in terms of the burial right to the flat inhumations but also linking it with the appearance of the artefacts broaches and so on so quickly to sum up that we find really their problems with Daward Azubanville's interpretations we just wouldn't accept his basic ideas also I think increasingly rejecting the idea of the culture historical paradigm from Gustaf Gocin and Gordon Child and this is really the background to this fundamental rethink that we archaeologists have been having so Celtic art is only a British term as I said until the beginning of the 20th century and rejected, literally rejected they know about it but they reject it on the continent and then we get this change which starts with the Jacob style sorry with Deschelet and then is taken up by the Jacob style personally I would like to see us giving up terms like Halstatt and Launton his names for cultural groups they have too much baggage with them and preconceived ideas but we have things words like style or tradition and network and so on that we can be using and for the iron age in paratronology we can use words instead of Halstatt and Launton we can be using words like early and late or first and second already fairly standard in the literature and I'm going on to suggest we really need to be rethinking how we construct archaeologies and the whole nomenclature for it even one or two of the Germans seem to be taking up my ideas so does Celtic art exist? well the answer is as the British Museum will be saying there are many Celtic arts, regional styles and local changes but there are some traits which are shared over an extremely wide area from Romania across to Britain problems with the traditional use of ethnic terms in early Christian arts problems with the origin of not work and interlaced ornament people tend to be using the term insular art suggesting that there are many different traditions that are making it up and then a final thought how would British and world history have changed if Lloyd had followed Buchanan and called the language calic rather than the Celts would the Celts even have existed? but anyway that's my final thought but we like drinking and celebrating so I'll just finish off with this picture where we were getting the peshrift meant we passing it over to Vincent McGall and I'm very nicely placed between the two leading or two of the leading people in the 20th century between Paul Yyach of Starr and Otto Hermann Fry so we have lovely battles but we also have nice cakes and things together so I'll stop there