A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Sydney 1993 Contents AA BAR BBCS GBA CEDRBI CMCS ECMW IJNA LCL MGH P. L. PRIA JRSAI PSAS SLH SS rer. Merov. TDGNHASwill emerge that failures of method, with archaeologists and historians arguing in circular fashion from each others' work", have seen a consistent model of activity imposed on the period 400-800 at the expense of change from century tci century, with the seventh century traffic between Ireland and Gaul in particular tending to overwhelm earlier links primarily focussed on Britain. The previous historiography, as much as the data, has coloured our interpretation of the sources and continues to require re-examination.The choice of the period 400-800 AD seemed most appropriate for a doctoral dissertation. Though the period and geographical scope of the study are reasonably large, the quantity of evidence for actual communication and commerce is not overwhelming -one of the reasons why the historiography of the topic is so confused. It is vitally important that we now successfully distinguish phases of activity within the period 400-800, refining the rough grouping 'early christian' (often only distinguished as separate from 'Roman' and 'Viking') which hampers understanding of four centuries which saw considerable change". In a subject where such sweeping comparative models are created as travels of 'the Megalithic saints'14(!) more distinction of chronological phases would indeed seem desirable. With regard to the geographical scope of the study, the area taken in is defined by the sources.Where artefactual assemblages are shared between Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Gaul and Iberia, to narrow the scope to any one region or

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article arises from a plenary invitation to compare myth and archaeology in the context of Celtic-speaking cultures. Approaches to myth in this context have undergone significant reassessment in the light of revisionist approaches to definitions of ‘native’ culture and ‘Celtic’ identity. These reassessments have implications for comparisons that are made between archaeological evidence and narratives, or elements thereof, that are arguably identifiable as mythic. New approaches to data in both subject areas affect roles that have long been played by myth in public reception of archaeological discoveries and in supporting cultural identities. Past approaches to such comparisons inspire caution, even scepticism, but some critical use of myth as an idea can be seen as productive – for example, in questioning conservative interpretations of textual or material data.