Kent,
Sorry but the Celts did have a form of writing. It was called >Ogham or
Ogam and developed a few centuries into the Christian era. >
Please re-read my comment, more closely. I never said that the Celts
had no FORM OF WRITING. I said that they did not ever use RUNES. Runes are
a specific form of writing, which, as I said, was probably derived
(somewhere in the Baltic region) from Etruscan or another Italic script
sometime a few centuries either side of 1 AD, and used to write various
Germanic languages, most notably Old English and Old Norse.
Ogham, on the other hand, is probably Irish in origin, and developed
around the same time as the runes, but in a completely separate context. It
appears to have been invented by an individual or group familiar with the
Latin alphabet--one of the earliest known examples is a gaming die,
inscribed with dots for most of the numbers, but the character which is
called (in the ogham manuscripts of early Christian Ireland, several hundred
years later) fern--equivalent to Latin V-- for the number five.
Ogham is not in any way, shape, or form a runic script. It consists of
varying numbers of strokes on a medial line, often formed by the corner of a
piece of stone. Runes, on the other hand, are discrete letters, much like
those of the alphabet from which it most likely developed. Their only
common features are that that both are designed to be cut on wood or stone
and developed in peripheral regions having commercial contacts with the
Mediterranean civilisations.
The later switched o the latin alphabet. It's worth noting that the
They may have been using it all along--this is a hotly contested field
of study just now. Ogham is arguably as much a code as an alphabet, and was
obviously developed by a person or persons familar with the Latin
alphabet--as well as the die there are features in the relationship of
strokes to sound which are remniscent of said alphabet's structure. It's
also damnably hard to read, and appears to have been largely limited to
short inscriptions on monuments--mostly things along the line of
"Such-and-Such, Son of So-and-So, lies here." The few short inscriptions
known from small artifacts appear to be of a magico-religious nature. An'
there were ever such things as "Druid Books" (another highly debateable
subject), they most likely weren't in ogham.
Celts of Julius Caeser's time didn't have a written language, which >is
probably where this misunderstanding came from.
The Celts of Julius Caesar's time were completely different to the
people who used Ogham--Gauls, rather than Gaels, with less similarity
between their languages than between German and English. There was most
likely little or no common feeling--in New Irish, the word _gall_ (i.e.
"Gaul") means "foreigner," a useage which has existed for at least nine
hundred years. Ogham is not known to have ever been used to write a
P-Celtic language, not even Welsh which was in contact with Ogham-using
Irish-speakers after the Roman withdrawl.
It is also incorrect to state that the Gauls had no written
language--see De Bello Gallico for textual references, and the Coligny
tablet (to name one example out of many) for artifactual. They made limited
use of the Greek alphabet (acquired through trading contacts around
present-day Marseille), and would likely have used it more extensively but
for their learned/priestly class' dislike of it.
Latin or Greek are probably better choices for langauges, anyway. >Dr.
Tofu might be able to read them with a little trouble, which >would avoid
the problems with Ranma the scholar.
Agreed. That said, I still don't like the idea of bringing in
unnecessary Western influence without a damned good reason for it. Perhaps
Tibetan or Sanskrit, or the Chinese of the Shang or Xia (yes, I know that
the latter is arguably mythic--this is Ranma we're talking, a mythological
dynasty is par for the course:-)?
My tuppence,
Andrew
Andrew Carey -- ap_carey3@hotmail.com
"Mirie it is, while sumer ilast,
With fugheles song..."
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com