Genava55

An article you can read with google translate: https://books.openedition.org/pcjb/330

Well, it is unlikely that a sacred grove would be simply a bunch of trees. More probably there were clearings, enclosed area, altars etc. In some cases, the sacred grove are gathering places, able to hold at least 1000 persons. You wouldn't be able to hold a council of 1000 persons in a natural forest. A real natural forest is much different than from the modern perspective, with a lot of felled trees on the ground. There must have been some layouts. I am not against the inclusion of sacred groves, I simply want to highlight the misconceptions linked to them.

The idea could be innovative but I would like to point out some minor issues: - Firstly, sacred groves are common among multiple cultures, including the Romans and the Greeks. It can be garden like or wild like area. A Greek temple requires a Temenos and it is simply an area dedicated to the gods, it can be constructed or natural. Plato teach to his students in the public garden of Athens which is a sacred grove. Philip V attacked Pergamon and ordered his men to cut down the trees in the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros to humiliate the city and proving they lost the protection of the gods. The Romans have the concept of Lucus and it was common in any area of the Roman republic or of the Roman empire, it is also a sacred grove, generally like a garden or a field. It can be pretty large like the Lucus of Lacinian Juno, enclosed by dense woods and with pastures inside. Apollo was revered as the god of woodlands at Kourion (Chypre) and the accounts from the Roman empire era suggest that the sacred grove dedicated to the god was filled with wild-animals. - Secondly, I think it could further deceive people in making them believing the 'barbarians' were following a naturalistic or primitive religion, without constructed temples or shrines. It depends how you would portray the sacred grove and if the civs can still build proper temples. - Thirdly, the archaeological record is pretty thin on the matter of sacred grove. The evidences are mostly related to locations and places where there is water. A bog, a river, a lake, a well etc. We know that water is particularly important for domestic religion too during the iron age.

Middle one is great

Reenactment of decorated organic cuirasses Celtic art: Pages de Archaeology_of_Celtic_Art.pdf

http://vandervaart-verschoof.com/coloring-the-iron-age-oldest-dress-in-the-netherlands-was-bright-red-and-blue/ And about the adornment, bear tusks pendant are plausible for Britain: Glass beads too:

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=144555277660492&id=100063180612630 Produced on the Arebona archaeological center with Les Ambiani, historical reenactment group, this album depicts the traditional and military life of a Celtic tribe, belonging to the Ambian people, in the first century BC. The Ambiens, who left their name to the city of Amiens and its region, were a Celtic people of Gaul Belgium who occupied the Samara valley (the Somme river in Celtic language), from the lower area of the river to its mouth. Far from the clichés that often describe them as savage and bloodthirsty barbarians, the Celts were, on the contrary, a learned, refined people with a culture close to nature and master of a high quality craft.

It could be too. I interpreted your message as saying this is a ceremonial item. But as a prop it is also plausible. The idea of beautiful clothes?

I would say yes, this is THE feature of those sanctuaries, there are walls separating it to the outside world. And those walls weren't in stones. It can be wooden planks or clayed wattle and daub walls.

Much better. The fibula with the lambda is a bit odd but that's a minor issue and a great improvement The ditches are unnecessary. In fact, most sanctuaries simply follow the concept of an enclosed perimeter, many have ditches but not all have it. Well, there are some examples there: Wooden statues and other wooden figures, weapon trophies, small shrines... I am pretty sure that something like Roseldorf's experiment would be obvious to the players: A chainmail would be more accurate or even unarmored but with beautiful clothes. The site of La Tène with its dozen of swords, shields etc. is also a votive offering. Votive doesn't mean non-functional. The old school interpretation of nonfunctional and ceremonial weapons isn't favored anymore. First of all because we are finding more and more decorated items with visible marks of use. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/celtic-shield-warrior-grave-1725090

See:

Boudicca has a bronze girl-chested armor which is both fantasy and inaccurate: Caratacos has the weird belt from its concept art, which is conan the barbarian -like stuff: http://images.gamedev.net/columns/spotlight/0AD/big02.jpg http://images.gamedev.net/columns/spotlight/0AD/big02.jpg Cunobelin is less problematic but he has weird leather straps (purely decorative) over the body and with buckles (belt buckles are actually something the Romans popularized, the Celts used belt hooks and rings), there is also a Roman fibula on the shoulder (the penannular fibula appeared during the Roman empire) and the wooden scabbard that should be in metal and on the other side: Vercingetorix still has a round shield (which isn't accurate), the scabbard on the wrong side and a weird belt: Viridomarus uses the Battersea shield (which has been found in UK), a bronze fantasy cuirass, a weird animal pelt and the same problematic wooden scabbard: Finally the temple... isn't really looking like a temple: Honestly, you could use it for anything else and you wouldn't see the issue. There is nothing telling you it is a temple or any building with a religious function. This could be a storehouse, barracks, a noble house, a military camp etc. The building isn't bad, except for the round shields, but it is super generic and unspecific.

This evening I will explain. I am working now.

It's nice that someone is checking the literature for references, well done. In case, I added a few links there:

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/660692207841666209/

Romania (Dacians) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_County

If you think this way, I don't see the point to wait. Close it. There will be always one guy coming over and starting to be insulting/offensive. Even if you are 10 people debating in good faith, there is always someone coming over to troll or to release his rage and frustration. Either you consider the topic as being the problem or you consider it is the guy. Edit: to illustrate the issue, how do you deal with this:

But is it really possible to get what Marx wanted without having it transformed into a corrupted and authoritarian state? Pardon my rhetorical question, but all the political party actually referring to marxism have the tendency to derive into authoritarian governments, limiting free speech and democratic rights. I am not against social protection and such things. But the whole anti-capitalist rhetoric, I cannot understand it nor approve it.

By marxism you mean centralized state capitalism? I always thought that Chernobyl and the Aral Sea were enough to remember that marxism isn't better for the environment.

In 2021, you should have noticed by now that you don't need a doomsday scenario to have a huge socio-economical problem. Is COVID a threat to the very existence of humanity? No. Just like the Spanish flu or any other pandemic, humanity has never been threatened by those. But still, pandemics are huge issues that have enormous impact on our lives. Climate change doesn't need to be a doomsday scenario to be a threat to our society and our lifestyle.

I see you need to learn some basics about the carbon cycle. Let's start with a simplified figure, on this one you can see the size of the "reservoirs" (the quantity of carbon stored in different parts of the Earth from a systematic pov) and the scale of the fluxes (the annual fluxes from a reservoir to another): As you can see, the arrow on the far left represents the burning of fossil fuels, a flux of carbon towards the atmosphere. The natural fluxes between the ocean and the atmosphere are indeed bigger than the burning of fossil fuels, however you should also notice they almost balance each others. And that's the difference I mentioned before, our contribution to the atmosphere is not balanced, we don't cause a flux in the other direction. While natural fluxes are going in both direction, photosynthesis and respiration are balancing each other, for example. Some people still doesn't get how a smaller contribution can cause such a problem even after seeing this figure, so I will use an analogy to make it clearer. Imagine a bathtub with a tap contributing for X liters by minute and imagine the drain open evacuating the same amount, X liters by minute. The water level should be at equilibrium. The human contribution is like turning on the tap to release more liters by minute. If the drain is flowing slower than the tap, then the level rises. And finally, can science prove it? Yes. Actually we can. Because not all CO2 is exactly the same. There are isotopes. Some isotopes are radioactive, most people know radiocarbon (14C) but there are stable isotopes as well (13C and 12C for example). And isotopic ratios varies between the reservoirs because chemical and biochemical processes discriminate CO2 made of certain isotopes (because different isotopes have different chemical bond strength). For example, inorganic carbon in the ocean is much richer in 13C isotopes than inorganic carbon in the atmosphere (CO2). So an increasing contribution from the ocean would make not only the atmospheric CO2 increasing but also the ratio of 13C isotopes. But we actually observe the reverse! Which is coherent with an increasing contribution from fossil fuels. If you want more information on this topic, check this website: https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/ There are quite a lot of evidences supporting the idea that humanity is the cause of the increase in CO2. Maybe you should give the scientific community the benefit of the doubt and dive more in the literature.

I have a master degree in Earth science, I studied plant ecology in my curriculum and even plant histology. But thanks. Every scientists know that CO2 facilitate photosynthesis and limitate water loss in plants. This is explicitely stated in IPCC reports. However, plants rely on other things to grow properly, notably nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium etc. And they also need water, light and a good range of temperatures. We know that climate change will impact those parameters as well and we know that in some cases the gain from CO2 fertilization won't be greater than the losses from water scarcity, interspecies competition etc. This idea of CO2 being always good for plants comes from a kind people that have a relationship with plants exclusively through greenhouses. If you have a basic knowledge of plant ecology in natural system, you wouldn't make such gross generalization. You mentioned C4 photosynthesis but this pathway has evolved to cope with lower CO2 during the last millions of years. This pathway gives a benefit to the plant in scarce situation. However in a world with higher CO2, this pathway is less suited. C4 plants struggle against C3 plants during higher CO2 levels because the latter are better to use the increase in CO2. They are outcompetiting the C4 most of the time. So it is not that simple, saying CO2 is good for plants is a no brainer claim from people believing they know better than those studying the topic.