Celtic cross explained
David Dalton
with any given one of the five at the centre surrounded by
the other four, so the circle inside the four points. Currently
that may be also be like my "buddha" belly circle surrounded
by four women, one with a multi-life eternal vow with me but
who died in the last life at age 14 but our vow reformed when
I died (Sarah McLachlan) and the other three formed a
foursome eternal vow with me in the last life (Tanita
Tikaram, Liz Pickard, and Sinead O'Connor). In that
life Tanita and I wrote the song Road to Clady. In
her life before that Tanita wrote the song quoted in
The Tempest as "Honour riches, marriage blessing,
long continuance and increasing...". But Sarah and
I were not human before that last life in which I
co-wrote The Road to Clady.
Anyway, that is one interpretation of the celtic
cross for you. I would love to read your
explanations as well so please follow up
if you know alternate explanations.
(I think Amergin had an incompatible early
marriage, like me he was compatible only with
bisexual women and not other women or men,
and later was involved with Eriu, Banba, Fotla
and Flidais.)
Good night,
David
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton
Searles O'Dubhain
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:8il2j09e762fvi833...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> (I think Amergin had an incompatible early
> marriage, like me he was compatible only with
> bisexual women and not other women or men,
> and later was involved with Eriu, Banba, Fotla
> and Flidais.)
>
Amergin related to these goddesses through his role as Druid/Fili for
the Sons of Mil. Their sexual orientation was not a primary factor. For
me they represent different aspects of Ireland (Sky, Land, Sea and
Animal Life/Forces of Nature). Amergin set up the means for the kingship
to marry the sovereignty of Ireland. Through this relationship, the Land
and People should both prosper through the Truth of the King.
The Celtic Cross is a symbol composed of intersecting orthogonal
horizontal and vertical arms as well as a circle that is centered on the
intersection. The horizontal line is always bisected by the vertical arm
(which can be bisected itself by the horizontal arm). The symbol of a
cross generally indicates an opening or a point of commonality, while
the symbol of a circle shows continuity and a bounded space. Their use
in a Celtic Cross seem to me to indicate that creation is constantly
being renewed by a connection to spirit at the center. I see it as the
motor that runs the universe. Its B field and H field are constrained
through orientation to cause motion/life/continuous reality. The Three
Cauldrons of Formation, Motion and Celebration have this sort of
relationship. When spirit moves through matter, then life occurs.
I can't get over the Celtic Cross looking to me to be a loop antenna or
a microphone:-) Then again, it is very appropriate for a religious
symbol to be based on connection and communication. It is better to have
the symbols be an interface than an object.
Searles
Searles O'Dubhain
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:lv84j01jgla3jt8km...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net>:
> >I can't get over the Celtic Cross looking to me to be a loop antenna
or
> >a microphone:-)
>
>
I think that the idea of creation being ongoing is what is symbolized in
the Celtic Cross vs. other strictly Christian images. As such, it is
more like Chi Rho +. It's not just beginning and ending but also
ongoing as in the circle. Celtic Crosses are empowered toroids while Chi
Rho's seem to be one-shots to me.:-)
Searles
flink
variant of XP, the Greek for Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ.
Searles O'Dubhain
"flink" <fl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:chtave$6e6$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Absolute crap. Celtic crosses were first manufactured at Chester, and
are a
> variant of XP, the Greek for Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ.
How was this information verified? Are you claiming Chester as the
point of origin for all Celtic crosses?
Searles
Kevin Jones
a
> variant of XP, the Greek for Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ.
Incorrect on just about every count. The circle and cross symbol predates
Christianity by a long chalk - the earliest are late Neolithic/early Bronze
Age. It is most definitely a common symbol in Celtic cultures by the Bronze
Age. Examples with a long stem are known from the Iron Age. The Chi-rho
combination - the labarum - comes much later and looks nothing like a Celtic
cross.
Furthermore, the cross and circle design is not Christian - it is associated
with a pagan deity, for whom it sometimes completely substititutes. In fact
if a cross and circle design is the only evidence for early Christianity in
an area of Ireland, then it is no evidence at all, given the extensive pagan
use of the symbol in Celtic and Romano-Celtic religion across Europe.
As for Chester being the origin of the symbol - PUHLEESE! The earliest known
examples in Europe are Danish petroglyphs - well known petroglyphs at that -
after which they get a wide currency in the rest of Europe. Chester didn't
even exist then.
Kevin
Bogman
"Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4u6dnYMweri...@giganews.com...
Romano-British and Christian city, both these two cities guarded the
corridor between Acotland and Wales, i.e. Strathclyde or Ystradclwyd and
Powys.
Boggie
Kevin Jones
news:cidc5g$7g8$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
But I repeat, the circle and cross design aka wheel symbol aka Celtic cross
predates the existence of either city by several centuries, predates
Christianity by several centuries, and is found all over Europe by the
Bronze Age. It is a pagan symbol and the attribute of a pagan god, for whom
it sometimes completely substitutes - though Celtic Christians probably
later adopted it. The earliest examples known are however late
Neolithic/early Bronze Age and are Danish - in short, the symbol even
predates the ethnogenesis of the Celts. Hell, I've just done an MA
Archaeology dissertation on the subject!
Kevin
allan connochie
I don't think he's asking for evidence that Chester and Carlisle existed.
He's asking for evidence that 'Celtic crosses were first manufactured at
Chester' which is what you claimed. If it is so and is verified by
archaeology then why don't you just give the references?
Allan
Kevin Jones
news:414a...@news.greennet.net...
It isn't verified by archaeology. I've just finished an MA in archaeology -
here's a passage from my dissertation. The reference to the wheel symbol
refers to a cross-and-circle design otherwise known as a Celtic cross:
Wheel symbolism appears early in the archaeological record; four-spoked
examples appear in central Europe during the second millennium BC (Green
1984, 17). They are plentiful in both the middle and late Bronze Age, the
petroglyphs of Scandinavia and North Italy being notable and apparently
closely linked examples (Green 1984, 19, 20, 23, 24). They continue to be
widespread in Iron Age and Roman contexts (Green 1984, 33, 47-48).
Green M J (1984), The Wheel as a Cult Symbol in the Romano-Celtic World,
Brussels.
Then there's the following remark on an academic petroglyph site re: Norre,
Blaholt:
The wheel in Danish petroglyphs dates from the Late Neolithic and the
earliest Bronze Age, and has a continuing existence through the Iron Age on
metal objects and pottery.
http://europreart.net/preart.htm
The Danish wheel symbols are the earliest known - they are usually (90%+)
four-spoked. Can't recall the date of the earliest British wheel symbol, but
a) it's later than the earliest Danish example b) predates the Roman
conquest. Chester hadn't even been thought of. As for being Christian, not a
hope. Here's another para from my dissertation dealing with the
Jupiter-Giant columns. These were pagan Romano-Celtic monuments:
The summit group often consists of a rider-god, frequently carrying a wheel,
riding down a giant (Green 1976, 10; 1986b, 67). The wheel is undoubtedly
the symbol of the Celtic Jupiter and is so completely identified with the
deity that it sometimes appears alone, as a substitute for the god (Green
1981, 111; 1984, 168). The Mouhet giant, for example, kneels in the attitude
of a captive, a wheel balanced on his back (Green 1986a, 59).
The wheel symbol is most definitely not a variation of the labarum.
What's the difference between a Celtic cross and a wheel symbol. None, if
you're talking about the commonest version of the wheel symbol, the 4 spoked
variety (about 80-90% frequency in the continental Iron Age). For
convenience, some people refer to the Christian version as a Celtic cross,
and the pagan version as a wheel symbol, but its actually the same symbol -
and yes, pagan versions with long down stem are known. More tellingly, lots
of people call it a Celtic if its in the UK or Ireland, and a wheel symbol
if it's on the continent. However, in practice there is no difference -
which is why I once remarked that if a Celtic cross is the only evidence for
the presence of early Christians in Ireland, then you have no evidence at
all. A common argument is that a cross-and-circle design on a pagan Irish
monument is evidence of Christianisation. After all, the symbol is known to
have been the attribute of a pagan god across practically all of the Celtic
areas; one of the names of the Irish deity, the Dagda, was Roth or Wheel.
And yes I got my MA, and have now been asked to do a couple of academic
articles on the subject at my leisure. I shall probably revisit the topic of
wheel symbolism and pagan Celtic and Romano-Celtic religion for a PhD.
Green M J (1976), The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain: A Corpus of
Religious Material from the Civilian Areas of Roman Britain , BAR 24,
Oxford.
Green M J (1986a), The Gods of the Celts, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Green M J (1986b), Jupiter, Taranis and the solar wheel, in Henig M & A King
(eds.), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 65-76.
Kevin
allan connochie
"Kevin Jones" <laig...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cifmog$ok8$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
I suspected not. Not much of what Boggie writes is verified by anything.
Thanks for the interesting post Kevin.
Allan
Kevin Jones
:-)
> Thanks for the interesting post Kevin.
You're welcome. I've occasionally grumbled about the rather artificial
division between wheel symbols and Celtic crosses - I suspect that Celtic
Christians just continued to use an indigenous symbol, which is probably
unsurprising. It's becoming academically accepted that Christianity in
Ireland, for example, proceeded by syncretism, rather than replacement. In
fact I've seen a couple of articles arguing that Christianity in Late Roman
Britain wasn't exactly orthodox, and was likely to have been influenced by
other religions in the province.
Incidentally, the topic of the dissertation related wheel symbolism and
religious iconography to concepts of time and time measurement, as applied
to the agricultural cycle. I had a chat while writing it with a Danish
colleague who had done some work on the orientation of wheel symbols in
Danish petroglyphs. The four-spoked varieties appear to be generally
orientated to cardinal points in the sun's annual travel i.e. solstice
points. This concurred with my hypothesis. I did wonder why the late
Neolithic/early Bronze Age Danes didn't simply use a post and shadow for
marking solar positions, until a friend in Michigan pointed out that frost
heave would have the post going all over the place, and thus rapidly make it
useless. This is apparently easily observed in their area by the drunken
attitude soon assumed by rural electricity poles. It appears that the
climate in parts of Michigan is not far removed from that of Scandinavia in
that respect. To avoid this problem, you need to bury a post more than four
feet deep with a massive foundation, and even then it may flex unacceptably
for such work. It was simpler, it appears, to simply carve an orientated
design on a massive flat bit of bedrock that would be unaffected by frost
heave. It obviously worked if my colleague can still mark the alignments.
The only other alternative for the period was a massive orientated earthwork
structure, which would require a large workforce to construct, plus a degree
of central organisation. As I recall, there is at least one example of such
a structure in Denmark - it's later however.
Kevin
flink
I once read it in a library book. The book was about archeology. Chester
was once between Flintshire and Gobbinshire, which were both Welsh (Cymraeg)
speaking shires, and the masons of Chester used to carve these crosses based
on XP, chi rho.
>
>
flink
Celtic Christians were inspired by earlier traditions.
"Kevin Jones" <laig...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cifmog$ok8$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
flink
flink
Christianity and Druidism, in addition the insularity of Britain was such
that the later edict suppressing polytheism were not recognised in Britain,
which stuck to Constantine's original edict of religious toleration.news:cig1ej$rtm$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Kevin Jones
> The Celtic cross is undoubtedly based upon the chi rho XP, but as always
> Celtic Christians were inspired by earlier traditions.
The Celtic Cross is most definitely *not* based on the lambara. Go back and
read my post again.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> You have to remember that the pagan Roman authorities suppressed both
> Christianity and Druidism, in addition the insularity of Britain was such
> that the later edict suppressing polytheism were not recognised in
Britain,
> which stuck to Constantine's original edict of religious toleration.
<Sigh!> I've gone over Romans vs druids god knows how many times over the
years - it's probably in Google.
The best analysis would suggest that what was suppressed was not druidism,
but the practice of human sacrifice. There's actually one hell of a lot of
continuity at religious sites between the Celtic Iron Age and the
Romano-Celtic period. Furthermore, you get mention of druids in the later
period - one prominent mention is in Ausonius, but its not the only one.
They were seen as quite respectable by then.
Forget about Anglesey being the last battle of the druids, or that there was
a druid army there, or that the reason for the attack was anything to do
with druids. Actually the idea that Anglesey was the most sacred of druid
sites is no older than the 17th century AD. There's a difference between
popular historical myth and academic history. In fact the former frequently
shows bugger all connection with the latter. And none of the above is
particularly controversial - sit in on an undergrad lecture and you'll
probably hear all of the popular myth shot down in flames.
Britain was not that isolated. Have a look at the various pottery
assemblages to see what trade routes Britain was involved in - Cornwall was
still trading with North Africa and Turkey after Britain had left the Roman
world.
Britain was, as a Roman province, also a major part of the trade axis direct
to the army on the Rhine. Furthermore, Britain was fairly heavily garrisoned
throughout the Roman period by comparison to some other provinces, the army
was the principle consumer of agricultural surpluses, was also responsible
for maintaining the money supply, and helped collect taxes. One didn't
decide to just not recognise an imperial order from Constantine's
successors, some of whom were religious fanatics. If a Roman emperor wanted
things enforced in Britain, they would be - by the army if need be. In those
circumstances one might hope that the emperor didn't turn his attention your
way - but you kept your head down rather than saying "we're going to ignore
this" and carrying on as if nothing happened.
Of course, there were times when the emperor wasn't going to be able to do
anything, like the occasion when Carausius seceded from the empire, or
because the Gaulish empire was in the way. Military matters might also keep
him preoccupied, although there were several occasions when those military
matters involved Britain. Still, just because the emperor was occupied
elsewhere didn't mean that local Christians wouldn't demolish pagan temples
if they felt it was a good idea, or even that local landowners or the
provincial government wouldn't decide that they needed the stone from a
temple to build a church. In fact you do get the destruction of some pagan
monuments in Britain after Constantine, plus the dilapidation of temples,
followed by a brief period of reconstruction in the period of Julian the
Apostate. It's a slow decline, true - but then Britain was rather less
urbanised, and more rural, than other parts of the western empire, and there
had been a drift away from the cities. Suppression moved faster in urban
environments, for obvious reasons. In fact many rural temples went into a
terminal decline largely because the elite stopped supporting them and
people stopped coming.
That's some very general background. Specifics. You don't get the final
prohibition of paganism, by Theodosius, until 391 - after that all pagan
temples are closed by law. However, by 392 Theodosius was on a threshold of
a war in the Balkans and Italy, which he won in 394 and died in January 395.
He therefore didn't have time to do anything in Britain. Theodosius was
succeeded by Honorius - although Stilicho acted as regent in his minority.
Stilicho did come to Britain in 396 and 397, but he was more concerned with
military matters than religious issues. Of course, by 410 Britain was no
longer part of the empire.
Kevin
allan connochie
Wow you once insisted that Bede's "Ecclesiastical History" was written in
German; that the Anglian army was held up in Bamborough by Urien; that the
kingdom of Northumbria never existed; etc etc. Your track record is hardly
good so why on earth would I believe you - just cos you once bought a
library book?
Allan
allan connochie
"Celtic University" <celticun...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ckmsgc$spg$1...@titan.btinternet.com...> news:415d...@news.greennet.net...
There was no record of any Anglian cavalry at that time and the Anglian
forces were not under siege at Bamburgh. They were more properly under
siege on Lindisfarne. My point was that someone who claims they are from
the north of England should know how to spell Bamburgh. There is no such
place as Bamborough.
> Bede's history was written in Latin.
That was my point. Boggie, Flink, Celtic Warrior, or Celtic
Uni...........whatever you're calling yourself today, claimed it was written
in German.
Northumbria was a term invented by Bede
> to describe North Britain,
The point is not who was first to use the term for what was only a part of
northern Britain! The point is that Boggie, Flink etc etc claimed that the
said kingdom did not exist at all.
Allan
Allan
allan connochie
>
> > The Anglian cavalry was in fact under seige at Dun Gwarai aka Bamburgh.
>
> There was no record of any Anglian cavalry at that time and the Anglian
> forces were not under siege at Bamburgh. They were more properly under
> siege on Lindisfarne.
For anyone else unfortunate enough to read Boggies/Flinks drivel I'd
forgotten to mention the reference of "History of the Britons, by Nennius"
"Chapter 63........... Against him fought four kings, Urien, and Ryderthen,
and Gaulllauc, and Morcant. Theodoric fought bravely, together with his
sons, against that Urien. But at that time sometimes the enemy and
sometimes our countrymen were defeated, and he shut them up three days and
three nights in the island of Metcaut, and whilst he was on expedition he
was murdered, at the instance of Morcant"
As I'd previously said Metcaut is generally recognised as Lindisfarne. In
fact there are no other realistic possibilities in the said area in
question. Certainly not Bamburgh which is no island and is mentioned
elsewhere in the same chapter anyway.
Allan
Kevin Jones
I know the passage. Figured you didn't need any assistance. :-)
Kevin
flink
Anglo-Saxon Chronicles about Anglian horsemen defeating the Picts, so look
it up if you are not too busy.news:416f...@news.greennet.net...
flink
Kevin Jones
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/lindis/lindisfarne.shtml
http://www.britannia.com/bios/ebk/urienrd.html
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/kingdoms/496.html
It's not in the least controversial. You know you really should learn to do
some research before you open your mouth. It's not difficult to learn how to
use Google - or even to learn to read a book
Kevin
allan connochie
Well for a start let's look at the passage. What else could the 'island of
Metcaut' be? Certainly not Bamburgh which isn't even an island. The only
other possibilities in that region are some of the smaller Farne Isalnds.
Historians generally consider that Lindisfarne is the island in question
though. Of course you can see Lindisfarne from Bamburgh quite easily as
they are only a few miles distance from each other. Doesn't make them the
same thing though.
Allan
allan connochie
> Allan has been reading too many comic books. There is a passage in the
> Anglo-Saxon Chronicles about Anglian horsemen defeating the Picts, so look
> it up if you are not too busy.
It would help if you stuck to the period in question. You claimed that the
Anglian cavalry were under siege by Urien. That is towards the end of the
6thC. The earliest mention of any Anglian cavalry in fact refers to the
year 672AD when Ecgfrith mounted an expedition against the Picts. I don't
know about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (it's not mentioned in the version I
have) but it is mentioned in "Life Of Wilfred......by Eddius". However this
is certainly about 80 years after the period in question. In Leslie
Alcock's "1978 O' Donnel Lecture" he mentions this first known use of horses
by the Anglians and suggests that they learned it directly from the
Gododdin. In fact he goes as far as to argue that many of them were indeed
themselves Gododdin. An interesting subject but not relevant to your
statement. There is no proof or mention of 6thC mounted Anglian warriors.
Allan
Kevin Jones
> Allan has been reading too many comic books. There is a passage in the
> Anglo-Saxon Chronicles about Anglian horsemen defeating the Picts, so look
> it up if you are not too busy.
> "allan connochie"
That's 9th century (circa 875 AD). The seige of Ynys Metcaut was circa 590
AD, or nearly 300 years earlier. At that time the Anglians, like the other
Germanic tribes settling in England, were almost entirely dependent on
infantry, whilst the post-Roman Celtic kingdoms would appear to have
continued with Late Roman military tactics and the use of cavalry, either
alone or as a complement to infantry. This might in part have been due to
the nature of cavalry. Firstly, horses and horse gear were and are
expensive, and beyond the purse of the average person in an army of the
period.Secondly, its effective use (as opposed to hit and run skirmishing)
requires drilling. It's more along the lines of a professional aristocratic
army or a fulltime warband or a very powerful, wealthy leader. OTOH, the
Germanic shield wall tactic was well suited to a militia drawn from farmers,
and require less drilling to be effective - and it is very effective,
although there are ways of breaking it. One or two high ranking Anglian
individuals may have had a horse and ridden to battle on it, but that's not
the same thing as having a disciplined cavalry force and using it as such.
One might have anticipated that, by 875 AD, the Germanic kingdoms might have
picked up a few ideas, so one might expect, by this time, to see some use of
cavalry. However, even by the time of Harold Godwinson the infantry, with
its shield wall, was the dominant military form of the Germanic people in
Britain. In part, that may be a reflection of social and military
structure - plus a degree of tradition. It wasn't inadequate military
tradition - indeed Senlac was a close run thing. A good deep shield wall
could cope with a cavalry charge, and the axes used by the Saxons at Senlac
were capable of taking out rider and horse. Where cavalry scored was in
mobility and speed - they could outflank a shield wall quickly, unless the
opposing commander had chosen a landscape that secured his flanks (e.g marsh
on one side, cliffs on the other), and could, under the right conditions,
come up on the opposing forces before they were ready. They are also good
for a long range strike force - one might interpret Y Gododdin as such a
use.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
>
> "flink" <fl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:clc1bv$31h$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > Allan has been reading too many comic books. There is a passage in the
> > Anglo-Saxon Chronicles about Anglian horsemen defeating the Picts, so
look
> > it up if you are not too busy.
>
> It would help if you stuck to the period in question.
I'm not sure that he realises what a period is.
> You claimed that the Anglian cavalry were under siege by Urien. That is
> towards the end of the 6thC. The earliest mention of any Anglian cavalry
in
> fact refers to the year 672AD when Ecgfrith mounted an expedition against
> the Picts.
I did a quick search and found a mention of 875 AD. Hadn't found the 672 AD
reference, but I wasn't devoting myself to the subject. :-) That said, I'd
expect the Anglians to learn new tactics - though interestingly it doesn't
appear to become a dominant military form.
> I don't know about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (it's not mentioned in the
> version I have) but it is mentioned in "Life Of Wilfred......by Eddius".
> However this is certainly about 80 years after the period in question. In
> Leslie Alcock's "1978 O' Donnel Lecture" he mentions this first known use
> of horses by the Anglians and suggests that they learned it directly from
the
> Gododdin.
Who were known to have used cavalry in a manner learnt at one point from the
Romans.
> In fact he goes as far as to argue that many of them were indeed
> themselves Gododdin. An interesting subject but not relevant to your
> statement.
Quite possible by then.
>There is no proof or mention of 6thC mounted Anglian warriors.
Nope - there ain't.
Kevin
rex_b
Look no further than www.religiousforums.com/forum/ . We have areas
for all religions to co-mingle and discuss their own beliefs.
Join our community of over 1,000 users today and experience diversity.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
1X2Willows
> Looking for a religious forum?
>
> Look no further than www.religiousforums.com/forum/ . We have areas
> for all religions to co-mingle and discuss their own beliefs.
>
> Join our community of over 1,000 users today and experience diversity.
Thank You!!! rex_b
Dan