Quote Originally Posted by khelvan
Some additional references... (A lot of really good information on archaeological finds)
Wonderful information and very interesting! The only thing that I might ask is perhaps the war hammers and two-handers were used for ceremonial purposes - more for show than actual use on the battlefield? Since swords were considered an elite weapon, and only the upper class warriors (either on foot or horse) would wield them in battle, could not a larger version of the battlefield weapon be granted to those truly elite - those great champions, as a status symbol?

Later in your post you mention texts that make this idea not so far fetched...

Quote Originally Posted by khelvan
The Romans (including Tacitus, I believe) refer to Briton two-handed swords, though slightly out of period; period evidence exists, but the Briton unit is not definite yet, and may be dropped en lieu of another unit if the need arises. These two-handed swords were not the massive swords of Medieval times mind you, they're more or less a somewhat widened longsword blade, slightly longer. They're mentioned in numerous cycles, and have been found both in Britain and Poland in archaeological dig sites from the period. Brodhaie states that an invading king from southern Britain, and his twenty guards, all had two-handed swords. Brodhaie's origins probably predate the conquest of Gaul, based on references in it, so it is an even older work than Dun na nFerg. Luachmharleannbann (Also known as Lomharlebann, Lomharleabhair, or Lomhapaisti) says, plainly, that the invaders from the south of Ilba/Alba (Britain), before the Romans came, used to invade and their greatest champions carried great, heavy swords in two hands. It differentiates heavily between the pre and post-Romans in Britain and between the 'Broitaigh/Cumrataigh' (midland Britons) and 'Goalla' (southern Britons/Gauls).
Now I haven't read any of the sources that you give, so I can't say whether or not these mentioned swords were used in battle but I would assume that would be the case?

Quote Originally Posted by khelvan
The tales of King Arthur are no example here...
Point taken. After re-reading my post I can see that it looked that I was stating that the tales of King Arthur was another example of oral tradition - where as I really meant it as an example of tales changing as they are handed down over the years. I mistakenly didn't present it as such...

Now in regards to my statement about Dun na nFerg and your reply, I didn't mean to imply that like the Iliad and Tain that it is a legendary epic. I did read your statement that there are different forms of oral literature, legendary epic, religious, and historical and I fully agree with you on that stance. The whole point to my previous post was that could it be possible that over time tales - whether it be passed down orally or written, or whether it be legendary or historical - could change, taking on attributes of later eras?

The simple answer would be yes, all tales handed down through the years have some change in them as we have them now, from when they originally were conceived, (in the case of legendary tales), or occurred, (in the case of historical).

However, you make a good point in regards to how little such tales, (especially in regards to Irish historic tales), have changed when you explained how little Irish culture changed very little from 300 BC to 600 AD. Also your excellent explanation of the Celtic oral tradition furthers this point.

Now let me see if I have this straight. The legendary tales are only used as circumstantial evidence to back up evidence based in historic texts that have correlating archaeological evidence as well?

And if that being the case, such is the reasoning behind the two-handed swordsmen and hammer units, correct?

Last thing: Is there any published material I can get my hands on for Dun na nFerg and any other texts you mentioned in your post? Any good books on the topic of Celtic Ireland you would suggest?