close
more_vert

"I find it interesting that there are examples that are EXACTLY the sme as British RA . Despite similarities between RA in British regions there are no examples of an exact copy of motifs"

"It is the very ubiquity of very similar motifs world wide that destroys the diffusion /invasion argument that is often heard in RA studies .That is not to say that there were no exchange or invasions , just that it is not the full explanation ."

that's exactly what i believe and i am saying elsewhere.

rock art is universal but then the code used is applied following cultural reasons. one more example, Galician rock art (=Northumbrian rock art) is used in a certain area of Galicia and only on specific places of the countryside (as a 'gateway' to the highlands and always high above the valleys, often just off ancient cattle trackways) and what's more, it is completely different from megalithic art (the painted slabs that decorate Galician dolmens), which in itself has more of a Brittany/Eire connection, although in this case it is far more indigenous than the similarities in rock art between Galicia and Britain. AND dates are beginning to prove that cup and rings (rock art) began to be created in the late neolithic, therefore contemporary with megalithic art (the one used in graves).

As for migrations, you know the way that archaeology is seen by the public as one-dimensional sometimes even by archaeologists. Usually the public consider places as Celtic supposing that huge populations moved and replaced earlier ones. Let's take celtic art for instance. you find it all over europe and yet even the irish are genetically NOT celtic (if we follow one side of the studies). As you say, migrations ARE possible. I would add that WHOLE replacements of population are virtually impossible - affirmations you tend to hear everywhere like, say, the irish or the welsh are not related to the basques because the basques are not IE (and they stand alone in europe genetically speaking) would imply that the whole of ireland was replaced by incoming IE migrations. Thus, all of Europe retains a Paleolithic (=Basque) sub-stratum in some places it has been definitely more altered than others. The more isolated places like the Basque lands, the Welsh mountains or Western Ireland must have definitely retained that pre-IE stock, which is STILL the one that EVERYONE in Europe still possess. Most likely a few warriors arrived and imposed themselves and their language on the vast majority like they did later on in the dark ages (goths in iberia or normans in britain) but the peasant can still be traced back to paleolithic times.

by the way, could you perhaps post details of Baku rock art if possible? I have been there and I was not aware of it, it is definitely very interesting for me.

Placement of RA differs from region to region often in Britain it is on terraces above river systems but then again there is Dumfries and Galloway where it is predomantly low lying and coastal . Then in Valcamonica it is snow covered for half the year due to the altitude. An area like Dartmoor is exactly where you would expect to find RA except it is an RA desert , until now anyway. Sometimes it is just a case of some areas being unexplored . Might there not be a possibility that RA is to be found further inland like Gargamala ?

"but the peasant can still be traced back to paleolithic times."

Yes and that has been shown throughout Britain by genetic mapping. It seems so obvious when considered objectively. The more tangible indications can be understood better if more recent invasions are considered. We know that the Norman invasion happened and laws, culture and even language changed (for a while), but the population didn't. Yes it did at the upper land-owning end and Domesday Book shows who owned what land before and after.

There is real anguish in Anglo-Saxon circles when the argument is put forward that the mass AS migration was much less than supposed. Then the language, law, customs and building techniques really did change. But the population stayed put, merged with the newcomers and adopted their ways. High status clan leaders lost out and may have moved westwards, but genetic mapping again has shown that even people in the east of England are predominantly descended from a stable, original population. There was no mass exodus or ethnic cleansing.

Similarly with the the Roman occupation - very few "Italian" Romans settled here, a fair number of auxiliaries especially German probably did. But the bulk of the population just continued.

Genetic mapping and such techiques as dna sampling from teeth and the ability to establish where people lived as children, will sweep away the preconceptions and mythologies. The answer must lie between the extremes that have both been "orthodox" in their time. The old idea of successive waves of mass folk movements has been abandoned. As a reaction, the pendulum has swung too far the other way with the new orthodoxy being one of zero movement and diffusionism. Surely the answer is likely to be that a finite number of people did sometimes move for economic and social reasons. Sometimes, that movement was peaceful through trade while at other times it was only acheived by conflict. That which is most likely, seems to be that which most probably did happen. Occam's razor again!