03-23-2004, 09:14 AM
Hi Gregg,<br>
In answer to some of your remarks, here they go some more remarks...<br>
1. You cannot take too seriously when on an ancient (or not so ancient) report they state that an item is made of 'bronze' or of 'brass'. The most correct approach to the problem is to understand it -unless modern analysis have been made- simply as 'copper alloy'.<br>
2. The narrowing form of the palate was surely intended to be connected to the narrow tube forming the body of the carnyx. No airflow lost then. I have no idea on how wind instruments do work and maybe if somebody reading this does have, we would thank some help on this respect!<br>
3. The Numantia 'bugle' cannot be by any means termed as a 'carnyx'.<br>
4. You cannot dismiss the 'dish' as not being part of the Deskford object simply because it does not fit your ideas about it!. There is no hint on the report about items not belongin to the object in the find. The 'dish' belongs to the head. What the XIXth century scholar says is just that the diameter of the 'dish' is slightly bigger than that of the back of the head. A missing middle part would account for the difference. I know that it is too easy to resort to missing parts to fill the gaps but it is clear that objects deposited in the bogs were previously ritually killed and not all the parts were deposited. You can find many examples in the contemporary Jutland deposits.<br>
5. The attachment system in the Niederbieber draco is as straightforward as two holes, one on top of the other, transfixing vertically the head. Nothing similar is present on the Deskford head (or are you going to resort to a missing section now ? )<br>
6. By Mithra's sake, Deskford is in Scotland, not in North England. A carnyx would be there as much at home as a draco inside the Roman Empire! (if you start saying things like that, maybe some Scots will start thinking of making haggish of you! )<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
In answer to some of your remarks, here they go some more remarks...<br>
1. You cannot take too seriously when on an ancient (or not so ancient) report they state that an item is made of 'bronze' or of 'brass'. The most correct approach to the problem is to understand it -unless modern analysis have been made- simply as 'copper alloy'.<br>
2. The narrowing form of the palate was surely intended to be connected to the narrow tube forming the body of the carnyx. No airflow lost then. I have no idea on how wind instruments do work and maybe if somebody reading this does have, we would thank some help on this respect!<br>
3. The Numantia 'bugle' cannot be by any means termed as a 'carnyx'.<br>
4. You cannot dismiss the 'dish' as not being part of the Deskford object simply because it does not fit your ideas about it!. There is no hint on the report about items not belongin to the object in the find. The 'dish' belongs to the head. What the XIXth century scholar says is just that the diameter of the 'dish' is slightly bigger than that of the back of the head. A missing middle part would account for the difference. I know that it is too easy to resort to missing parts to fill the gaps but it is clear that objects deposited in the bogs were previously ritually killed and not all the parts were deposited. You can find many examples in the contemporary Jutland deposits.<br>
5. The attachment system in the Niederbieber draco is as straightforward as two holes, one on top of the other, transfixing vertically the head. Nothing similar is present on the Deskford head (or are you going to resort to a missing section now ? )<br>
6. By Mithra's sake, Deskford is in Scotland, not in North England. A carnyx would be there as much at home as a draco inside the Roman Empire! (if you start saying things like that, maybe some Scots will start thinking of making haggish of you! )<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Rolf Steiner
