Bibliography
Kaul, Flemming, “The Gundestrup Cauldron: Thracian Art, Celtic Motifs”, Études Celtiques 37 (2011): 81–110.
- journal article
Citation details
Contributors
Article
“The Gundestrup Cauldron: Thracian Art, Celtic Motifs”
Periodical
Études Celtiques 37 (2011)
Études Celtiques 37 (2011), Paris: CNRS Editions.
Persée – Études Celtiques, vol. 37, 2011: <link>
Volume
37
Pages
81–110
BibTeX
Description
Abstract (cited)
[FR] Presque chaque année paraissent de nouveaux articles sur le chaudron de Gundestrup. Le principal objet du débat reste le lieu de production. On a privilégié deux possibilités : soit la France, soit la zone du Bas-Danube. Cette divergence s’explique par l’ambiguïté des données offertes par le chaudron lui-même : d’un côté, le style et la technique artisanale sont clairement thraces, mais de l’autre, certains objets ou motifs sont celtiques. Mais beaucoup de ces objets celtiques (boucliers, carnyces, etc.) sont présents aussi bien au Sud-Est qu’à l’Ouest de l’Europe. Le style et la technique, quant à eux, fournissent un argument plus décisif : le chaudron présente tellement de similitudes avec le style artistique thrace qu’il n’y a pas de doute qu’il s’agit d’un produit de l’artisanat thrace. On ne trouve nulle part en Europe occidentale une telle tradition de travail au repoussé sur argent doré avant la naissance du Christ. Entre autres traits caractéristiques de l’art thrace, on peut citer la façon de rendre la fourrure animale. Le chaudron présente un mélange surprenant d’éléments celtiques et thraces. Sa forme est celtique, mais la technique est thrace. Le dieu aux bois de cerfs est reconnu comme un dieu celtique, mais il porte un vêtement thrace en même temps qu’un torque celtique, et il est entouré d’animaux thraces. Sur d’autres plaques, nous trouvons des torques, de forme celtique ou, clairement, non celtique, et ainsi de suite. Si nous acceptons cette ambiguïté des données, nous ne devons pas essayer de démontrer une origine soit celtique, soit thrace, mais utiliser l’ambiguïté culturelle inhérente au chaudron comme point de départ pour comprendre l’arrière-plan historique et culturel, en acceptant qu’il implique deux peuples différents. On doit donc se demander où pouvait se produire un scenario archéologique qui puisse répondre à la question posée par le chaudron de Gundestrup, qui relève de la coexistence culturelle d’une tribu celtique et d’une tribu thrace. Or les données archéologiques et les sources historiques indiquent qu’il y eut échange culturel voire symbiose entre des thraces et les Scordisques celtes en Bulgarie du Nord-Est et en Roumanie du Sud-Est au IIe s. av. J.-C.
[EN] Almost every year new articles dealing with the Gundestrup Cauldron occur. The place of origin has been the main issue of the discussion. Two areas have been preferred : present day France and the areas around Lower Danube. The reason for this divergence is the ambivalence of the testimony provided by the cauldron itself : on one hand the style and workmanship is clearly Thracian, on the other, some of the motifs and objects depicted are Celtic. But many of these Celtic features (shields, carnyces, etc.) occur both in Western and SE-Europe. The style and technique however provide more decisive arguments : the cauldron shows so many close similarities with the Thracian art style that it is clear that it must be a piece of Thracian workmanship. Nowhere in the West do we find a well-established tradition of gilded silver repoussé works in the centuries before the birth of Christ. Amongst characteristic details which are typical of Thracian art, one could mention the way of depicting fur on animals. The cauldron displays a perplexing mixture of Celtic and Thracian elements. Its shape is Celtic, the workmanship Thracian. The antlered god is known as a Celtic god, but is wearing a Thracian garment and a Celtic torque and is surrounded by Thracian animals. On other plates we see torques, both Celtic and clearly non-Celtic – and so forth. If we accept this ambiguity in the evidence, we should not try to argue for a Thracian or a Celtic origin, but use the cultural ambiguity which it expresses as a positive base for understanding its cultural and historical background and accept that two different peoples were involved. One should thus ask where there existed an archaeological scenario which can satisfy the Gundestrup Cauldron’s requirement for cultural coexistence between a Celtic and Thracian tribe. Both archaeological evidence and historical sources hint at a cultural mixture or symbiosis between Thracians and the Celtic Scordisci during the 2nd century BC in NE-Bulgaria and SE-Romania.
[EN] Almost every year new articles dealing with the Gundestrup Cauldron occur. The place of origin has been the main issue of the discussion. Two areas have been preferred : present day France and the areas around Lower Danube. The reason for this divergence is the ambivalence of the testimony provided by the cauldron itself : on one hand the style and workmanship is clearly Thracian, on the other, some of the motifs and objects depicted are Celtic. But many of these Celtic features (shields, carnyces, etc.) occur both in Western and SE-Europe. The style and technique however provide more decisive arguments : the cauldron shows so many close similarities with the Thracian art style that it is clear that it must be a piece of Thracian workmanship. Nowhere in the West do we find a well-established tradition of gilded silver repoussé works in the centuries before the birth of Christ. Amongst characteristic details which are typical of Thracian art, one could mention the way of depicting fur on animals. The cauldron displays a perplexing mixture of Celtic and Thracian elements. Its shape is Celtic, the workmanship Thracian. The antlered god is known as a Celtic god, but is wearing a Thracian garment and a Celtic torque and is surrounded by Thracian animals. On other plates we see torques, both Celtic and clearly non-Celtic – and so forth. If we accept this ambiguity in the evidence, we should not try to argue for a Thracian or a Celtic origin, but use the cultural ambiguity which it expresses as a positive base for understanding its cultural and historical background and accept that two different peoples were involved. One should thus ask where there existed an archaeological scenario which can satisfy the Gundestrup Cauldron’s requirement for cultural coexistence between a Celtic and Thracian tribe. Both archaeological evidence and historical sources hint at a cultural mixture or symbiosis between Thracians and the Celtic Scordisci during the 2nd century BC in NE-Bulgaria and SE-Romania.
web page identifiers
page name: Kaul (Flemming) 2011 37hke
page url: https://codecs.vanhamel.nl/Kaul_(Flemming)_2011_37hke
redirect: https://codecs.vanhamel.nl/Special:Redirect/page/45401
numerical alternative: https://codecs.vanhamel.nl/index.php?curid=45401
page ID: 45401
page ID tracker: https://codecs.vanhamel.nl/index.php?title=Show:ID&id=45401
Contributors
Pierre Faure
Page created
April 2020
