[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 10:22:05 ago (+1/-0)
The decorative design framing the girl is Celtic interlace. It appears in such illuminated manuscripts as The Book of Kells and The Lindisfarne Gospels. The Angles and the Saxons were pagans and didn't use Celtic interlace in anything the created. It was an established design in masonry before early Christians came to Ireland, and monks in Ireland, Scotland, and northern England used it in their manuscripts, often incorporating animals, like this one does.
It's an attractive picture, but it's riddled with anachronisms. Whoever set this up likely thought, It's pretty, it's old, so it has to be pagan, or even Anglo-Saxon.
The Celts were pagans. Pagan is a Christian word that means non-Christian. The better argument is that they called 6th century AD the pagan period even though Christianity was well spread throughout most of Europe by then.
By the 6th century, the Celts were not pagan, they were Christian.
When the Celts, who were living in Ireland and Scotland, were decorating their illuminated manuscripts with the lovely intertwining that shows up in OP's picture, they were Christians, not pagans. And they were definitely not Anglo-Saxon. This sort of decoration was limited to manuscripts, and not decorative woodwork. The 6th century Angles and Saxons of Britain would never had used this motif.
The Celts were pagans. Pagan is a Christian word that means non-Christian.
Not what you said.
by the 6th century weren't the Celts more or less completely wiped out by the Romans?
You're talking about the Celts on the continent. And no, they weren't, the Celts adapted to Roman influence, but more than that, they were overwhelmed by Franks coming across the Rhine in search of better land.
I, however, was talking about Hibernian and Alban Celts, where the monks established monasteries where the illuminated manuscripts were created.
You quoted the wrong half of my first post. Which was:
The better argument is that they called 6th century AD the pagan period even though Christianity was well spread throughout most of Europe by then.
If the Celts adapted to Roman influence they weren't really Celts anymore. Especially not after a couple hundred of years. Their culture died out much the same as the Gaul that came before them. Before them in both time sense and geographical sense. As the Celts were further North than the Gaul and the Romans were to the South. I felt the need to stipulate because I had a gut feeling you were going to misrepresent and pick apart a statement based on incorrect pretenses.
It has an artstation link attached to it. Artstation is a website where professional artists build public portfolios to use for freelance work. It's regularly frequented by art directors in movies and video game companies looking to pick up workers on new projects.
Lapis Lazuli was used for blue dye as far back as the Indus Valley Civilization which died out in the 1700s BC. Woad was used in Europe as early as the 2500s BC.
Lapis Lazuli wasn't a dye. They could put it in murals, but not use it to dye clothes. Woad was used to make indigo dyes. But that's closer to purple. Not blue.
Romans imported Egyptian blue (cerulean), lapis, woad, and indigo. All of which were shades of blue. Funnily enough, neither they nor the Greeks actually had a word for the color blue. Neither did the Chinese or Japs. I'm sure there are other civilizations that didn't either. As it rarely appears in nature, most early civilizations had little to no exposure to it.
But, depending on who you ask, indigo is either blue or purple. Seems no one can make up their mind on it. I think from Roman point of view, it would definitely not be seen as a purple. Since purple was their color of wealth and royalty, yet indigo was fairly prevalent. https://files.catbox.moe/hvdows.png
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 12:01:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 10:22:05 ago (+1/-0)
It's an attractive picture, but it's riddled with anachronisms. Whoever set this up likely thought, It's pretty, it's old, so it has to be pagan, or even Anglo-Saxon.
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 22:34:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 27, 2022 01:28:49 ago (+0/-0)
When the Celts, who were living in Ireland and Scotland, were decorating their illuminated manuscripts with the lovely intertwining that shows up in OP's picture, they were Christians, not pagans. And they were definitely not Anglo-Saxon. This sort of decoration was limited to manuscripts, and not decorative woodwork. The 6th century Angles and Saxons of Britain would never had used this motif.
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 27, 2022 05:26:41 ago (+0/-0)
Now that I think about it, by the 6th century weren't the Celts more or less completely wiped out by the Romans?
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 27, 2022 09:31:34 ago (+0/-0)
Not what you said.
You're talking about the Celts on the continent. And no, they weren't, the Celts adapted to Roman influence, but more than that, they were overwhelmed by Franks coming across the Rhine in search of better land.
I, however, was talking about Hibernian and Alban Celts, where the monks established monasteries where the illuminated manuscripts were created.
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 27, 2022 09:37:22 ago (+0/-0)
If the Celts adapted to Roman influence they weren't really Celts anymore. Especially not after a couple hundred of years. Their culture died out much the same as the Gaul that came before them. Before them in both time sense and geographical sense. As the Celts were further North than the Gaul and the Romans were to the South. I felt the need to stipulate because I had a gut feeling you were going to misrepresent and pick apart a statement based on incorrect pretenses.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 27, 2022 10:01:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ItsOk2bArian
[ - ] ItsOk2bArian -1 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:26:55 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:39:08 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism [op] 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:40:19 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 02:47:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 02:01:10 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 2 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:37:39 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:40:44 ago (+0/-1)*
Woad was used to make indigo dyes. But that's closer to purple. Not blue.
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:42:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism [op] 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:48:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:54:15 ago (+1/-0)*
But, depending on who you ask, indigo is either blue or purple. Seems no one can make up their mind on it. I think from Roman point of view, it would definitely not be seen as a purple. Since purple was their color of wealth and royalty, yet indigo was fairly prevalent.
https://files.catbox.moe/hvdows.png
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:45:05 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] throwawayaccount
[ - ] throwawayaccount 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 03:52:00 ago (+1/-0)*
https://files.catbox.moe/hvdows.png
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 26, 2022 07:09:26 ago (+1/-0)