Cernunous
Bracken MacLeod
Hello all,
I was hoping that someone could give me some background
information on the figure known as Cernunous (Cerrunos). I would
appreciate it greatly even if someone could point me toward a FAQ or
website. Thanks much.
Slainte,
Bracken
--
*********************************************
*"...Without music, life would be an error."*
* Nietzsche -Twilight of the Idols- *
*********************************************
WRvnCoatl
>information on the figure known as Cernunous (Cerrunos). I would
>appreciate it greatly even if someone could point me toward a FAQ or
>website. Thanks much.
>
>Slainte,
>Bracken
Cernunnos (KAIR-nuu-nos) was "Often portrayed with antlers growing from
his brow, he was attended by deer and snakes and other wild
animals"..."sometimes with hair of vegetation."... "Most representations
of him are of the period after the Roman conquest and settlement of Gaul
and Britain". -- "Green Man" William Anderson.
He was the famed horned god of fertility in mainland and Briton cultures
(As such I don't know as much about him as I do about the Danaan and
Fomori). He was the bestial hunter nature of the male aspect (In fact the
leader of the famed "Wild Hunt" with the fae hounds of white with red
ears.
Might I suggest alt.religion.druid as a fine newsgroup for this sort of
information (Isaac Bonewits, founder of the ADF frequents it, and I'm sure
he can tell you more than you want to know about Cernunnos.
WhiteRaven Coatl
Po agosaf i`r eglwys, pellaf o baradwys.
"Nearest to church, furthest from heaven"
WhiteRaven Coatl
Bracken MacLeod
start for me. I appreciate your help.
Kevin Daly
br...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Bracken MacLeod) wrote:
>
>Hello all,
> I was hoping that someone could give me some background
>information on the figure known as Cernunous (Cerrunos). I would
>appreciate it greatly even if someone could point me toward a FAQ or
>website. Thanks much.
>
There's not much to say. Early Celtic art features depictions of a stag-headed
god, evidently a relic of the old hunter-gatherer days. In Gaul this god was
known as "Cernunnos", meaning (showing they spent a lot of time coming up with
the name) "The Horned one", or something similar. Mystical link between the
hunter and the hunted, and all that stuff.
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
cross-posted here, but it wasn't. In my other post I didn't point out
the correct spelling of the name--it should be "Cernunnos."
I also note I didn't give you the source for Mac Cana--the book is
"Celtic Mythology" by Proinsias Mac Cana. Cernunnos is the horned god
of the hunt of Old Europe & predates the emergence of proto-Celtic
peoples. Marija Gimbutas, in either "Language of the Goddess" or
"Civilization of the Goddess" points out this god is more prominent in
Paleolithic times amongst hunter-gatherers, than it is in the
Neolithic period, when much of Europe was becoming settled and
sedentary--there is much less evidence of the god from that time. It
re-emerges with the rise of patriarch warrior cults after the
Neolithic period. But in both the Neolithic & Paleolithic periods,
the god isn't nearly as common as the goddess figures, and it is found
as an adjunct to the Great Goddess in most instances, rarely on its
own in Stone Age art. I think there are remnants of that relationship
between the horned god & the Great Goddess in the themes of the Medbh
tales especially, and I would ascribe Fionn mac Cumhaill to this god
as well. But that's another thread...
br...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Bracken MacLeod) wrote:
>Hello,
> I was hoping that someone here could give me some info on the
>Celtic figure Cernunous (Cerunnos)? No one in soc.celtic has been very
>helpful and the folks in alt.pagan... Well, do I need to go into that?
>Anyhow, Any help would be appreciated.
>Thank you,
>Bracken
>--
>*********************************************
>*"...Without music, life would be an error."*
>* Nietzsche -Twilight of the Idols- *
>*********************************************
Cernunnos--a vague sort of guy--the horned god found on the Gundestrup
bowl--check out Nora Chadwick's or Anne Ross' books on the Celts, you
are bound to find some obscure references. Nothing in Irish myth
relates directly to a god by this name that I'm aware of--MacCana
attributes way more time and attention to a sort of half-assed theory
put forth by Anne Ross on this horned god figure than it probably
deserves, but it really isn't anything more than that. Its more an
attempt by Celticists to link Irish myth to a wider Indo-European
pantheon (incorrectly IMO & a few others with more than a hobby
interest like mine, i.e. Jeffrey Gantz & some others who argue for
indigenous European roots, not a mythic "Indo-European" explanation
for Irish myth based on shaky linguistic evidence).
Good luck.
Janet
ChrisRHood
Robin of Sherwood--who featured the same archetype under the name Herne
the Hunter, God of the Forest, Lord of the Trees.
Character: Herne the Hunter
---------------------------
Basic Legend:
-------------
Herne is a phantom hunter who supposedly haunts Windsor Great Park in
England, near an ancient oak known as Herne's Oak. This tree was
estimated
to be about 700 years old when it was blown down in 1863. A new tree was
planted on the spot by Queen Victoria. Herne is supposed to ride at
night,
especially during storms. He wears a large pair of horns on his head and
rides through the forest rattling chains and blasting trees and cattle.
On
rare occasions he appears to mortals.
Origins of the Myth:
--------------------
It is possible that there really was once a keeper of the forest named
Herne, but it is more likely that Herne is a local version of the Wild
Huntsman,
who is a popular character in myths throughout the world. These myths are
generally much more violent than Herne's, though. The Wild Huntsman (or
Phantom Huntsman) was supposedly once a mortal who was exceedingly fond of
hunting and struck an unwise bet with a stranger, who turned out to be the
devil in disguise. When he could not pay his debt, the man was doomed to
ride on the
hunt forever. The Wild Huntsman is usually pictured with horns or wearing
a
stags head, and he is usually accompanied by a pack of vicious phantom
dogs.
(In
some versions they're headless, in others they have glowing red eyes.) In
most
legends, it is considered terrible luck to see the Phantom Huntsman,
because
it
means you will die within a very short time. Some mortals have even
supposedly
been "struck down by the Phantom Hunt" and torn to pieces by the Wild
Huntsman or his dogs if they were out during the awful storms when he
rides.
Supposedly praying and crossing oneself will provide some protection from
the
Hunt.
Herne's name is also associated with Herlechin (Harlequin), a leader of
the
dead. Herne is not the only Horned God in history. The earliest known
image of a Horned God was found in a cave painting in Caverne des Trois
Freres at Ariege,
France. It was the figure of an upright stag or a man wearing a stag's
skin. There have been several others, including the Greek Pan, Jannus,
the
two-faced Roman god of good beginnings, and Cernunnos, the Celtic god of
Fertility, Animals, the Hunt, and the Underworld. It is possible that
Herne's name was derived from Cernunnos's. Cernunnos was sometimes
portrayed with serpent's legs ( Serpents have legs?! Hey, don't ask me,
that's what the book said.) a man's torso, and the head of a bull, ram, or
stag. Sometimes he has three faces. He is often carved in a squatting
position, or sitting cross-legged. Often statues show him with serpents
which have the heads of rams. There are few authentic original stories
about Cernunnos left today. One of the few surviving stories tells how
Cernunnos was torn apart, thrown into a cauldron, and boiled, after which
he
returned to life. He is also said to be the opener of the gates between
life and death.
Present-day neo-pagans sometimes believe in a Horned god similar to
Cernunnos or Herne. While he is sometimes associated with the underworld,
"there is no association between the Horned God and the Devil, except in
the
minds of confused Christians." Presumably, those are the same confused
Christians who popularized the Wild Hunt ideas. Anyway, the Horned God is
supposed to represent "vitality, sexuality, the hunt, logic, and power,
but
not in an exploitative fashion." So he's actually a pretty good guy, and
more like
Cernunnos than the Wild Huntsman. In fact, he is often addressed as
Cernunnos in ceremonies. Cernunnos and the modern day Horned God both
seem
closer to the
Herne we know than the Wild Huntsman does.
Other Horned Gods:
------------------
Apis Bull (Egypt), Osirius (Egypt), Pan (Greece), the Sacred Bull of
Mythras (Rome), Cernunnos (Celtic lands), Cern (Brittany), Cerne Abbas
(Anglo-
Saxon), Gwyn ap Nudd {Light, Son of Darkness, Welsh Lord of the Faeries}
(Wales)
Stories:
--------
Herne is mentioned in W. H. Ainsworth's Windsor Castle and acts 4 and 5 of
Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor, as well as in other works. Also, in
1150,
Geoffrey of Monmount wrote Vita Merlinni {the Life of Merlin} a primitive
Arthurian cycle in which Merlin is a forest man who wears a horned helmet,
is
called Lord of the Stags, and is obeyed by deer and other animals.
Books used: Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia; Encyclopedia of Witches
and
Witchcraft; Dictionary of Names, Nicknames, and Surnames; Mythology,
Volume
1; and my own general knowledge about the Wild Hunt.
Nothing's Forgotten,
Christine (Chris...@aol.com)
Spirit of Sherwood--The Official Robin of Sherwood Fan Club & Cybermerries
Email list:)
Weekend in Sherwood IV--A Robin of Sherwood Convention
Check out our RoS webpage at http://www.interport.net/~logomanc/ros.html
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
newsgroups. I guess these newsgroups have been pretty much taken over
by the fairy worshipping new agers, as has the Celtic-L mailing list.
Guess there isn't a place in cyberspace for serious discussion of
Celtic culture, art, literature, etc. is there? Heavy sigh.
Janet
Peter C-B
chris...@aol.com (ChrisRHood) wrote:
> [...]
> Other Horned Gods:
> ------------------
> [...]
> Mythras (Rome), Cernunnos (Celtic lands), Cern (Brittany), Cerne Abbas
> (Anglo-
> Saxon),
The Giant of Cerne Abbas, also called Helith, is no later than Roman
times and probably earlier. It is cut into the turf of a hillside above
the village of Cerne Abbas and has an associated earthwork called the
Trundle above it, where maypole dancing took place. The figure has an
enormous phallus and is obviously a fertility figure, though the great
club raised above its head may also indicate a warlike intention.
Peter C-B
Bracken MacLeod
Hey all,
I just had to say thank you to all of the people who have
responded to my request for information. It is greatly appreciated.
Slainte,
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>Janet--who asked you any way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HEY YOU, OUT OF THE "SWIMMING" POOL
>
>
>Black Sandy
Ooooh, did my post hit a little too close to home with certain new age
pagans trying to worm their way into legitimate status on the Celtic
newsgroups?
Your contribution to the understanding of Celtic tradtions via your
Wiccan diatribe in the other thread on Cernunnos has been downright
enlightening, Black Sandy.
And why "Black Sandy" here, but in your other posts you are just plain
"Sandy" or "Sandra?" Is there some ritual significance or something
I'm missing out on?
Janet
Ba Romaron
: Its been awhile since I was posting to the <soc.culture> Celtic
: newsgroups. I guess these newsgroups have been pretty much taken over
: by the fairy worshipping new agers, as has the Celtic-L mailing list.
What have you got against fairies? They have done marvellous work at
making everything so green, and growing the flowers. Besides, we don't
worship them, we just have a deep respect for them.
: Guess there isn't a place in cyberspace for serious discussion of
: Celtic culture, art, literature, etc. is there? Heavy sigh.
Culture, art, and literature have value, in proportion to how spiritually
uplifting they are. When you think of "serious" discussion as ignoring
the spiritual aspects, and "frivolous" discussion from the new agers who
enjoy the spiritual levels of reality, aren't you forgetting the whole
purpose of culture, art, and literature?
Ba Romaron
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>Ba Romaron
Oh yes, the kind, loving, non-violent fairies. Perhaps we could
reinstitute changeling testing for you faire folks too--just like in
the good old days when tradition was tradition. Back then we could
flush out an cre/atu/r with a good hot poker or a pot of boiling
water.
I recommend it highly for all youse faire folks seeking enlightenment
through transformation. Guaranteed to bring the inner child right out
of ye.
Janet
Neil A. McEwan
Ba Romaron (rom...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) writes:
>
> Culture, art, and literature have value, in proportion to how spiritually
> uplifting they are. When you think of "serious" discussion as ignoring
> the spiritual aspects, and "frivolous" discussion from the new agers who
> enjoy the spiritual levels of reality, aren't you forgetting the whole
> purpose of culture, art, and literature?
>
> Ba Romaron
What exactly is "spiritual" about taking little bits and pieces of
spirituality out of the context of their original cultures, as the New
Agers do? Do you think culture is a buffet table? Find your roots and
rediscover your culture by all means, but please, if you are not a Celt
then leave Celtic spirituality alone, and if you are a Celt then embrace
Celtic culture exclusively and seriously.
le durachdan,
Neil A. McEwan
--
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>Now, Now Janet!
A bit condescending this, innit?
>Sandy's name is from her family, she is of the Black Douglas line and is
>quite a Scot even if she is over here on this side of the water. (Also
>where you're at?)
Well Rusty Celt, you and Black Sandy do seem to be coming from the
same place, but I wouldn't say I'm coming from the same place as the
two of you, to be sure.
>Yours aye,
>Rusty Celt (Why? Rusty- Because I have red hair of Scottish and Irish
>descent and Celt-with a non-tanning, vampire complexion, so my roots are
>definitely not Chinese! Now, give it your best shot!
Its been awhile since I've been posting to the soc.culture groups, but
is there a new trend for Americans of Celtic ancestry of posting our
ancestral hair color as proof of our ethnic authenticity then?
Janet
Robert A. Vierra II
way a wiccan cannot be a part of a "Legitimate celtic newsgroup" I am
a pagan, that is my religion, I am Irish, that is my heritage, and I am
a Celtic scholar, that is my love, and I am a historian. Is ther
anything in any of those statements that is mutually exclusive?
Anymore than a Christian posting on a newsgroup about religious
toleration? What makes one more legitmate than the other? In a lot of
ways they are completely separate?
Kitsa
Neil A. McEwan
>
> I am relatively new to this newsgroup but is there a particular reason
> way a wiccan cannot be a part of a "Legitimate celtic newsgroup" I am
> a pagan, that is my religion, I am Irish, that is my heritage, and I am
> a Celtic scholar, that is my love, and I am a historian. Is ther
> anything in any of those statements that is mutually exclusive?
> Anymore than a Christian posting on a newsgroup about religious
> toleration? What makes one more legitmate than the other? In a lot of
> ways they are completely separate?
>
> Kitsa
There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
"New Age" or dilettantish paganism, which seeks either to combine elements
of Celtic paganism with elements of other cultures (e.g. North American
Indian), or to trim Celtic paganism into a sweetness-and-light theology
drained of all its real force. And these are by far the most common ways
in which Celtic paganism is "experienced" by people who are desperately
searching for meaning in their lives but who don't have the intellectual
capacity to properly pay attention when they do find it. I would say that
middle-class North Americans are particularly to blame in this -- for
them, Celtic paganism is just a way-station between primal scream therapy
and other self-indulgences of the past and whatever new scam is invented
for their benefit in the future.
Le durachdan,
Neil A. McEwan
--
Harry H. Howard
>
> There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
>all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
>"New Age" or dilettantish paganism, which seeks either to combine elements
>of Celtic paganism with elements of other cultures (e.g. North American
>Indian), or to trim Celtic paganism into a sweetness-and-light theology
>drained of all its real force. And these are by far the most common ways
>in which Celtic paganism is "experienced" by people who are desperately
>searching for meaning in their lives but who don't have the intellectual
>capacity to properly pay attention when they do find it. I would say that
>middle-class North Americans are particularly to blame in this -- for
>them, Celtic paganism is just a way-station between primal scream therapy
>and other self-indulgences of the past and whatever new scam is invented
>for their benefit in the future.
>
>
>Le durachdan,
>
>Neil A. McEwan
I would have to agree with you Neil,although I would protect their
desire to try it. No matter how muddled their thinking,some of them
will find the truth to their pagan roots.
Just my 2 cents,
Harry
"I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years and I'm glad to say
I finally won out over it"---Elwood P. Dowd----
"Harvey" Universal Pictures 1950
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>Robert A. Vierra II (sir...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>
>> I am relatively new to this newsgroup but is there a particular reason
>> way a wiccan cannot be a part of a "Legitimate celtic newsgroup" I am
>> a pagan, that is my religion, I am Irish, that is my heritage, and I am
>> a Celtic scholar, that is my love, and I am a historian. Is ther
>> anything in any of those statements that is mutually exclusive?
>> Anymore than a Christian posting on a newsgroup about religious
>> toleration? What makes one more legitmate than the other? In a lot of
>> ways they are completely separate?
>>
>> Kitsa
> There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
>all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
As many people have noted continuosly--paganism has not been our
heritage for hundreds of years--Christianity has. I've explained
where I stand on this issue before. I'm not anti-pagan according to
my definition of it, just according to new age or as Neil puts
it--dilettantish pagan definitions.
>"New Age" or dilettantish paganism, which seeks either to combine elements
>of Celtic paganism with elements of other cultures (e.g. North American
>Indian), or to trim Celtic paganism into a sweetness-and-light theology
>drained of all its real force. And these are by far the most common ways
>in which Celtic paganism is "experienced" by people who are desperately
>searching for meaning in their lives but who don't have the intellectual
>capacity to properly pay attention when they do find it. I would say that
>middle-class North Americans are particularly to blame in this -- for
>them, Celtic paganism is just a way-station between primal scream therapy
>and other self-indulgences of the past and whatever new scam is invented
>for their benefit in the future.
Well, to be fair, I think this is a class issue much more than an
issue of which side of the water you're on. I found the new age
pagans in Ireland to be just as deluded as Americans about Celtic
traditions when I was living there. Although I think an argument can
certainly be made that they are adopting European and European
American primitivist & nativist ideologies. This is every bit as
prevalent with European new age pagan/Wiccans as it is
Americans--there are just more of us numerically. Believe me, the
Europeans are some of the worst when it comes to exploitation of
American Indians, romanticizing them, and the whole European construct
of "noble savage" is at the heart of it.
Americans do it too, but are less likely to engage in it if they live
in close proximity to American Indians. Then most of us are just
plain racist. But if you are from say, an eastern city or have never
had any contact with American Indians, then you are every bit as
likely as Europeans to view them romantically, nativistically, etc. I
think the same holds true in Ireland, and the Highlands and Islands of
Scotland. In areas where Gaelic people aren't as assimilated as
middle class urbanites/suburbanites--you find bigotry against them is
much more prevalent and less romanticized.
The whole new age movement is a middle class primitivist/nativist
movement, like we saw in both Britain and the States from the turn of
the century until WWII, but less so in Ireland for historic reasons
unique to it. A good read on this issue in the US is the book "The
Party of Fear: From Nativist Movements to the New Right in American
History" by David H. Bennett.
>Le durachdan,
>Neil A. McEwan
>--
Neil has it partly right. But what makes me really angry is cultural
expropriation and exploitation--and not just of Celts, but of all
colonized and formerly colonized people. Also, there are newsgroups
where these posts are appropriate--the pagan newsgroups. I've lost
all patience with people coming into the Celtic newsgroups and quoting
sources from everywhere EXCEPT Celtic sources. That to me indicates
they are posting to the wrong newsgroups, pure and simple. Their
posts regarding their invented, scurrilous versions of Celtic
spiritual traditions are bogus, and have no place in these newsgroups.
They have other newsgroups like alt.religion.druid, alt.religion.wicca
and alt.pagan to post to with this stuff to their hearts content.
The newsgroups are open to everyone, not just people with Celtic
ancestry. But I do believe we have an obligation to be respectful of
one another, and that includes refraining from off-topic posting and
engaging in cross-posting inappropriately.
Since these newsgroups aren't moderated, only the people who post
regularly to the newsgroups can control the level of inappropriate
posts to the groups--good newsgroups are self-policing. I think
people should tell these posters to go back to the pagan newsgroups
where these discussions really do belong, and stop cross-posting here.
I know what they want is attention and validation for what they
suspect are bogus beliefs--that is why they are seeking validation in
the Celtic newsgroups--they are looking for evidence that supports the
new age pagan/Wiccan worldview where none exists. But the Celtic
newsgroups aren't here to provide therapy for deluded and confused
seekers, you know? That isn't the purpose of the soc.culture
newsgroups, and we've every right to call people on their
inappropriate posting.
If they want to discuss Celtic, Irish, Scottish, Breton, Welsh, etc.
traditions, art, culture, language, history, etc. of course they are
welcome to do so. But not the new age crap that has no relevance in
Celtic newsgroups, no matter how much they want to believe it does.
It is no more appropriate for them to post here than new age voodoo to
African lists, or new age shamanism on the Native American lists,
etc.--such posting to the soc.culture groups is incredibly racist and
bigoted. Now new agers don't see it as racist, but I assure you, the
Native Americans in the Native American groups see it that way, the
Africans, African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in their groups see it
that way, and I see it that way here in the Celtic newsgroups too.
I've been raving on about this for about a week now. Sorry that I
don't have any more time to devote to the soc.culture.groups, because
I'd love to get into discussions with some of you about Celtic myth,
spiritual traditions, etc. But I will say this. Don't be so afraid
to speak up and tell these people to go back to the pagan newsgroups
where they belong! Whether you are Celt or non-Celt isn't the issue.
Responsible, respectful posting to the appropriate newsgroups is the
internet issue, and the really damaging effects of cultural
exploitation by new age pagans of many people's cultural traditions is
the larger more important issue to me--on or off the net.
Slan,
Janet
RUSTY CELT
(ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>
>If they want to discuss Celtic, Irish, Scottish, Breton, Welsh, etc.
>traditions, art, culture, language, history, etc. of course they are
>welcome to do so. But not the new age crap that has no relevance in
>Celtic newsgroups, no matter how much they want to believe it does.
>It is no more appropriate for them to post here than new age voodoo to
>African lists, or new age shamanism on the Native American lists,
>etc.--such posting to the soc.culture groups is incredibly racist and
>bigoted. Now new agers don't see it as racist, but I assure you, the
>Native Americans in the Native American groups see it that way, the
>Africans, African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in their groups see it
>that way, and I see it that way here in the Celtic newsgroups too.
>
>I've been raving on about this for about a week now. Sorry that I
>don't have any more time to devote to the soc.culture.groups, because
>I'd love to get into discussions with some of you about Celtic myth,
>spiritual traditions, etc. But I will say this. Don't be so afraid
>to speak up and tell these people to go back to the pagan newsgroups
>where they belong! Whether you are Celt or non-Celt isn't the issue.
>Responsible, respectful posting to the appropriate newsgroups is the
>internet issue, and the really damaging effects of cultural
>exploitation by new age pagans of many people's cultural traditions is
>the larger more important issue to me--on or off the net.
Well said, Janet,
Hear, Hear! The Scots newsgroup was worried about you sitting around
in the stinging nettles without your knickers on. You do have respect for
the clootie wells, etc. But you will have to take the case of the "Fairy"
Flag (Am Bratach Sith) up with the Chief of Clan MacLeod of Dunvegan.
I'll have to let G-Grandpa sign his Autobiography for you. He
currently holds a permanent position at The British Museum in London. He
goes by the nick-name, Lindow but he actually came form Mobberley. Seems
he was out on a date with a Haggis at a time when interspecies
relationships were so frowned upon...Well, you can read the rest if you
haven't already, it's called, "The Life and Death of a Druid Prince." It
was written by Anne Ross and Don Robins.
One more word of advice however, hold off on your current holiday
plans until after the Spring Equinox. I heard over the weekend that there
is still a postion open for an alternate in case the mad cow sacrifices to
the bonfires are not enough.
Lynette Aasheim (aka Rusty)
Celto-Viking Princess without a country
P.S. Did I ever tell you about one of my Viking ancestors? His name was
Thorfinn, the Skull-splitter, Earl of Orkney, but that's another story...
Neil A. McEwan
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
> ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>
>
>> There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
>>all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
>
> As many people have noted continuosly--paganism has not been our
> heritage for hundreds of years--Christianity has. I've explained
> where I stand on this issue before. I'm not anti-pagan according to
> my definition of it, just according to new age or as Neil puts
> it--dilettantish pagan definitions.
>
Perhaps I can meet you halfway: paganism and Christianity have
managed to co-exist in a reasonably accommodating manner for centuries.
Any of us who have lived in Scotland or Ireland, or who have close family
there, know the kind of odd and non-Christian beliefs they often have in
addition to the religions of their birth -- belief in banshees and fairy-
folk (malevolent in spite of the New Agers) and gatherings of the dead are
all commonplace in my extended family, and they are working-class Belfast
people with no possible dilettantish reasons for believing these things.
When their Christian faith slips, these underlying creeds are exposed.
Now if their Christianity is part of their culture, then to be fair their
residual paganism -- even if they don't recognize it as such -- must be as
well.
le durachdan,
Neil A. McEwan
--
"tha soitheach geal am measg nam bata
's am measg nan adan dubh' tha crun"
Harry H. Howard
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu <ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu > wrote:
>
>Slan,
>
>Janet
>
>
Damn now I got to appologise to you! This is the first post I've seen
from you(well okay so I don't read every post on the group) that
bloddy made sense without straining to bring an external temperature
of 451F to a person. Now why did you go and do that?
Okay,in the words of a "Treasure Island" Character:"I own myself an
ass".
Harry
"I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years Doctor and I'm happy to
state I finally won out over it."---Elwood P. Dowd----
"Harvey" Universal Pictures 1950
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
it needs a new header--or at least this post does.
ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>> ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
>>>all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
then Janet Ryan said:
>> As many people have noted continuosly--paganism has not been our
>> heritage for hundreds of years--Christianity has. I've explained
>> where I stand on this issue before. I'm not anti-pagan according to
>> my definition of it, just according to new age or as Neil puts
>> it--dilettantish pagan definitions.
>>
then Neil McEwan said:
> Perhaps I can meet you halfway: paganism and Christianity have
>managed to co-exist in a reasonably accommodating manner for centuries.
>Any of us who have lived in Scotland or Ireland, or who have close family
>there, know the kind of odd and non-Christian beliefs they often have in
>addition to the religions of their birth -- belief in banshees and fairy-
>folk (malevolent in spite of the New Agers) and gatherings of the dead are
>all commonplace in my extended family, and they are working-class Belfast
>people with no possible dilettantish reasons for believing these things.
>When their Christian faith slips, these underlying creeds are exposed.
>Now if their Christianity is part of their culture, then to be fair their
>residual paganism -- even if they don't recognize it as such -- must be as
>well.
Many postings back I talked about pagan/Christian syncretism, and
STILL the new agers come back with "The White Goddess," you know? They
don't want to learn about the living or historic Celtic cultures--they
reject them--they have to because the truth of that reality conflicts
with their so-called "alternative" romanticized middle class construct
of Celtic culture and racial identity--they are only interested in
seeing *their* version of "pure" Celtic traditons gain popular
acceptance. Racial and ethnic purity is often a central issue with
middle class people with a strong interst in their ethnic "origins" or
"roots." And it's really racist.
When the living bearers of indigenous people's traditions don't fit
the sanitized, middle class representations of them, middle class
interests (i.e. governments, multi-national, national and local
corporations and businesses, the mass media, politicians, religious
leaders, academics, new age book publishers :-), etc) will attempt to
discredit and/or destroy the credibilty of the indigenous people's
representations of themselves, their community, and their traditions.
They usually succeed at it too, because most tradtional indigenous
people don't have access to the money, political power and media
resources the middle class has access to--and *that* is Cultural
Appropriation 101, in a nutshell. Of course, this is a really complex
issue (my favorite kind ;-) ), so this post is a bit long winded. But
I think some people are interested in learning about and discussing
these distinctions, so here goes.
It is very damaging to the fragile cultures who are desperately trying
to survive--new agers, along with multi-national corporations after
their land and resources, tourism, government development projects,
and a lack of accurate media representation (i.e. romanticized or
demonized representations of traditonal indigenous peoples) can
destroy what's left of them--that IS the bottom line as far as I'm
concerned.
My experience living in Ireland was pretty much as you described it
above Neil, so yes I do agree with what you are saying in essence.
You and I seem to be pretty much in agreement here--my problem is with
new agers in a general sense, but specifically--I don't think their
new age discussions should be carried out in the soc.culture Celtic
newsgroups--that is what has become my main concern as a result of my
participation in these threads, and my cruises around Celtic
cyberspace in the last week or so.
I am not trying to prevent people from discovering their roots, from
finding their personal spiritual truth, or any of those things. But
the pagan discussions belong in the pagan newsgroups and mailing
lists. They have mailing lists (NEMETON & IMBAS--for those interested
in "reconstructionist" Celtic religion--tailor made for these people).
The have alt.religion.druid, alt.religion.wiccan, alt.pagan, and
alt.mythology and I suppose others too.
The Celtic-L mailing list has been totally consumed by these
people--there simply aren't any postings there anymore about Celtic
culture, literature, music, language, scholarly work, etc. as there
was 6 months ago. It's all "what'll ye be wearing for the "Beltain"
ceremonies?" I didn't know that until I recently posted my request
for information about Tory Island & the Donegal Gaeltacht to a bunch
of newsgroups. Someone responded who saw my request on Celtic-L, and
told me I would have better luck posting to the Irish Studies list for
any serious discussion of Celtic culture and language. So I subbed to
Celtic-L to check it out (I hadn't been on it since early last fall),
and was blown away. Then I downloaded the messages in
soc.culture.celtic, soc.culture.scottish & soc.culture.irish, and I
see more of the same, though not as all-consuming--yet.
My question is, with all these other newsgroups and mailing lists
available, what are new agers' motives for insisting we discuss new
age interpretations of Celtic mythology in the soc.culture newsgroups?
Why do they insist it is their "right" to disuss their "religion" in
inappropriate newsgroups, when they have plenty of their own
discussion groups already on-line? I'm not saying "ban the pagans,"
I'm asking people to examine their motives, and to question why the
new agers insist on bringing their off-topic discussions into the
soc.culture Celtic newsgroups.
The Celtic-L mailing list is a perfect illustration of cultural
appropriation. That is *exactly* how cultural appropriation works.
The people who once made up the Celtic-L list are largely gone--there
is no serious discussion taking place there anymore. It is a mailing
list of people who *claim* to be authoritatively and authentically
representing Celtic culture and traditions to the rest of the world
(just ask them), and no one is there countering it. So if someone
from say, the US or Germany wanted information on Celtic culture, they
find Celtic-L (it comes from UCD-making it look all the more
legitimate), subscribe to the group, read the FAQ--and start
downloading the messages. What will they be learning about Celtic
culture? The new age pagan version of Celtic culture. Not too many
posts from Ireland and Scotland there, I can tell you.
So you all understand where I'm coming from--I'm coming from a place
in the States that has seen a lot of damage done by new agers to
traditional American Indian communities--I live and work in what is
known as the Upper Midwest--I've lived here most of my life, with the
exception of a few years to the east and a few years to the west.
I've lived mostly in proximity to Lakota and Anishinabe people
(although there are a lot of other tribal groups in the Upper Midwest,
these two are numerically the largest & most influential, and the ones
I'm most familiar with). For comparison sake, I'm posting a quote
from the soc.culture.native FAQ, to give people an idea of how
seriously cultural appropriation is viewed by native people who have
been negatively impacted by new agers around here:
BEGIN QUOTE:
11. What's the story on New Agers and Shamanism?
I'm (Eric) working on a suitable response to this one, my nickle
story is:
The word "shamanism" comes to the world from anthropological work
done in East Siberia. It entered the anthropological literature as a
general term in about the early 1900's as a "shorthand" for a wide
variety of spiritual and social practices. Modernly it refers to
several different types of "shamanism", see newsgroup
soc.religion.shamanism, particularly its FAQ for more.
The word "new age" is a recent pan-Euro-American creation, it
doesn't appear to have any core tenets as a belief system, except
glibly imitating predominantly Lakota-stolen external forms of faith
expression, and other trinketized objects, such as (Anishabe)
dreamcatchers and so forth. There is a "Lakota Declaration of War" of
recent date which, IMO, speaks to the central issues of cultural
appropriation by the current batch of "new agers". Personally, I think
it worth knowing that these post-60's air-heads are simply a new twist
on the turn of the century American Primativists. Now the targets are
Lakota, then they were Eastern Tribes, and I see them in the context
of European Primitivist Movements, of which Blye's drum banging is
simply the most recent incantation.
Again, a better answer may be forthcomming. Less biased perhaps <g>.
END QUOTE
The American Primativists of which Eric speaks were influenced by the
European Primativists who were guilty of the same exploitation and
misrepresentation of Gaelic culture as were their American
counterparts of exploiting and misrepresenting American Indian
cultures at the same time. It is the scholarship of European
Primativists most new agers get their information from and use as
"scholarly" sources--not from living tradition bearers or contemporary
Celtic scholars. I attribute the "Celtic" new age phenomenon to be a
reincarnation of those same movements in Europe and the US. In fact,
when I logged onto the NEMETON and IMBAS mailing lists for the
"reconstructionists" of Celtic religion, I discovered their thing is
to actually *believe* in the gods and goddesses of Celtic mythology,
which Celtic scholars all agree are the inventions of Christian
scribes--they are a fanatic cult, IMO. And frankly, I think the fact
they are using a lot of legitimate scholarly sources to prove the
"authenticity" of their gods and goddesses to be all the scarier. It
seems to be convincing them all the more of their "rightness,"
particularly when invoking Celtic racial purity arguments.
Now if anyone wants to get into a history discussion on these
movements and the role they played historically in destroying the
cultural traditions of indigenous peoples around the world, their ties
to fascist and right wing political movements, etc. and the Celtic
manifestations of it particularly--I'm happy to discuss it. It would
be a great thread.
And to all three of you folks (ok, maybe only one or two of ya) who
made it to the end of this long post--thanks for reading all the way
through.
Janet
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>On 21 Apr 1996 16:56:39 -0400,
>Neil A. McEwan <ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > wrote:
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with legitimate Celtic paganism -- that after
>>all is our heritage -- but what the original poster was angry about was
>>"New Age" or dilettantish paganism, which seeks either to combine elements
>>of Celtic paganism with elements of other cultures (e.g. North American
>>Indian), or to trim Celtic paganism into a sweetness-and-light theology
>>drained of all its real force. And these are by far the most common ways
>>in which Celtic paganism is "experienced" by people who are desperately
>>searching for meaning in their lives but who don't have the intellectual
>>capacity to properly pay attention when they do find it. I would say that
>>middle-class North Americans are particularly to blame in this -- for
>>them, Celtic paganism is just a way-station between primal scream therapy
>>and other self-indulgences of the past and whatever new scam is invented
>>for their benefit in the future.
>>
>>
>>Le durachdan,
>>
>>Neil A. McEwan
>I would have to agree with you Neil,although I would protect their
>desire to try it. No matter how muddled their thinking,some of them
>will find the truth to their pagan roots.
>Just my 2 cents,
>Harry
>"I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years and I'm glad to say
>I finally won out over it"---Elwood P. Dowd----
>"Harvey" Universal Pictures 1950
Harry,
It's interesting you should say that, as I think I probably found my
way to my return to university doing just that. I was more interested
in the meminist side of things--archaeology particularly, but it all
is starting to look pretty much the same to me now. But I didn't just
blindly accept all the new age, women's spirituality stuff and make it
my dogma. This work I'm doing has transformed me, no doubt about it.
But I've been transformed because I've continued questioning, because
I trust living tradition more than I do any academic sources, and
because I know no representation of culture can be comprehensive or
complete.
I have never said these people have no right to go rooting around in
Celtic mythology looking for themselves. What I've said is they
should carry on pagan discussions in the pagan newsgroups, they should
familiarlize themselves with Celtic scholarly sources, they should use
their given intelligence to make reasonable distinctions between what
is real and what is not, and they should be aware of new age cultural
appropriation of indigenous people's traditions.
No one is trying to censor new age pagans. But I certainly do seem to
have struck a chord among many of them in the celtic newsgroups, and
they are attacking me in large numbers simply for speaking my mind and
citing Celtic sources. So you tell me, am I preventing them from
doing anything with my posts here? Are my posts appropriate in these
newsgroups?
Janet
Harry H. Howard
>"Harry H. Howard" <howa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Harry,
>
>It's interesting you should say that, as I think I probably found my
>way to my return to university doing just that. I was more interested
>in the meminist side of things--archaeology particularly, but it all
>is starting to look pretty much the same to me now. But I didn't just
>blindly accept all the new age, women's spirituality stuff and make it
>my dogma. This work I'm doing has transformed me, no doubt about it.
>But I've been transformed because I've continued questioning, because
>I trust living tradition more than I do any academic sources, and
>because I know no representation of culture can be comprehensive or
>complete.
Good! Nevr quit searching cause no one has all the answers.
I got into computers from a simple curiosity.I now do some programing.
I was a History/religion major in college and was working towards a
Philosophy degree( I recently took the one question exam which is:
Now that you have your degree in Philosophy,what are you going to do
to support yourself the rest of your life?). I am a drop-out but I
didn't let that get in the way of my education.
>I have never said these people have no right to go rooting around in
>Celtic mythology looking for themselves. What I've said is they
>should carry on pagan discussions in the pagan newsgroups, they should
>familiarlize themselves with Celtic scholarly sources, they should use
>their given intelligence to make reasonable distinctions between what
>is real and what is not, and they should be aware of new age cultural
>appropriation of indigenous people's traditions.
And I have agreed with you that the Paganist should take their
discussions to their Newsgroup. Helps to keep the airwaves clear.
Many of the modern Paganist though are fighting an uphill battle since
so many texts are not published due to pressure from religious groups
to keep some things from being published. How many Gay childrens books
do you see published each year?(just an example).
>No one is trying to censor new age pagans. But I certainly do seem to
>have struck a chord among many of them in the celtic newsgroups, and
>they are attacking me in large numbers simply for speaking my mind and
>citing Celtic sources. So you tell me, am I preventing them from
>doing anything with my posts here? Are my posts appropriate in these
>newsgroups?
>
>Janet
Some of your post are most definately appropriate here,some would have
been better delivered in private. No one likes to be seen as a fool or
as ignorant. We all need more kindness in our thoughts and actions and
less heel digging. I was truly asking for references when I asked you
for some. I wasn't intending to offend or attack. As I said,when I was
last in school Graves was an accepted scholar,even over his
preferences. I would be interested in learning what is being used as
source material for Celtic Studies these days. I would also like to
learn what is bveing used for source material for Pagan studies these
days. Cambridge(I believe) had a Pagan studies group for awhile in the
late 60's. I'm not current and would be glad of some enlightenment.
The majority of my education comes from a consuming flame of desire to
learn and to read anything and all things. I have been known to hold
opposing view points at the same time for the sake of discussion.
Thank you for your well thought out reply and I await the pleasure of
more such readings.
Harry
"I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years Doctor and I'm happy to
state I finally won out over it."---Elwood P. Dowd----
"Harvey" Universal Pictures 1950
celticblue
who dwell on the dirt of the united states) often have nebulous
relationships with their cultural traditions, especially when it comes to
religion and spirituality.
witness the vast numbers of new agers who embraced Native American
spiritual traditions in the 1980's and early 1990's, to the tune of
stealing sacred ceremonies like the sweat lodge, stealing red pipestone
and carving it into little animal totems, stealing the tobacco ceremony,
etc.; perhaps innocently, perhaps withthe best of intentions, but stealing
nonetheless, all in the name of identifying with a spiritual or
religious\tradition which would make them feel connected to the land...
what of "celts" who have never been to the White Isle?
what of germans who have never set foot in germany, chinese-americans
who have never been to china, etc.?
we must needs show sympathy for those who are grasping at things not
"native" to their ethnic background, displaced as we are on this huge
continent which, after all, was occupied by its indigenous people
long before white or black or yellow men arrived...
is it the blood which defines us?
or the land we are born to?
these are not easy questions...
celticblue
>
>
> Americans do it too, but are less likely to engage in it if they live
> in close proximity to American Indians. Then most of us are just
> plain racist. But if you are from say, an eastern city or have never
so being from an eastern city means not having contact with native
americans!!!??? since when?
i am from the finger lakes region of new york, and that would be news to the
Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, Keuka and Canandaigua Nations of that area...
i have been on many a res, have spoken with many native american people,
and do not romanticize them; i see no need to; my society has already
ruined their lives, they don't need my pity or patronizing...
> had any contact with American Indians, then you are every bit as
> likely as Europeans to view them romantically, nativistically, etc. I
> think the same holds true in Ireland, and the Highlands and Islands of
> colonized and formerly colonized people. Also, there are newsgroups
> where these posts are appropriate--the pagan newsgroups. I've lost
> all patience with people coming into the Celtic newsgroups and quoting
> sources from everywhere EXCEPT Celtic sources. That to me indicates
scuse me, but some of us are pagan, AND of Celtic heritage; by your
definiton, that makes us ciphers, Philistines, or worse...i also study
celtic languages at harvard; in fact am currently taking a course called
"Celtic Paganism"; so where do i fit into this? i am no new age white
light fairy; nor a christian; i simply am; i defy your attempt to
categorize me.
> they are posting to the wrong newsgroups, pure and simple. Their
> posts regarding their invented, scurrilous versions of Celtic
> spiritual traditions are bogus, and have no place in these newsgroups.
> They have other newsgroups like alt.religion.druid, alt.religion.wicca
> and alt.pagan to post to with this stuff to their hearts content.
>
> The newsgroups are open to everyone, not just people with Celtic
open to everyone? i thought you wanted people to stop posting to the "wrong"
newsgroups?
> ancestry. But I do believe we have an obligation to be respectful of
> one another, and that includes refraining from off-topic posting and
> engaging in cross-posting inappropriately.
>
> Since these newsgroups aren't moderated, only the people who post
> regularly to the newsgroups can control the level of inappropriate
> posts to the groups--good newsgroups are self-policing. I think
> people should tell these posters to go back to the pagan newsgroups
> where these discussions really do belong, and stop cross-posting here.
>
> I know what they want is attention and validation for what they
> suspect are bogus beliefs--that is why they are seeking validation in
who are "they"? all pagans who post to newsgroups? that's a hefty criticism;
you're talking millions of people.
> the Celtic newsgroups--they are looking for evidence that supports the
> new age pagan/Wiccan worldview where none exists. But the Celtic
where i come from pagan, wiccan and new age all mean something vastly
different; i am sorry you have remained confused about this, and that you
have been exposed to those who don't know the difference.
> newsgroups aren't here to provide therapy for deluded and confused
> seekers, you know? That isn't the purpose of the soc.culture
> newsgroups, and we've every right to call people on their
> inappropriate posting.
>
> If they want to discuss Celtic, Irish, Scottish, Breton, Welsh, etc.
> traditions, art, culture, language, history, etc. of course they are
> welcome to do so. But not the new age crap that has no relevance in
> Celtic newsgroups, no matter how much they want to believe it does.
> It is no more appropriate for them to post here than new age voodoo to
> African lists, or new age shamanism on the Native American lists,
> etc.--such posting to the soc.culture groups is incredibly racist and
> bigoted. Now new agers don't see it as racist, but I assure you, the
> Native Americans in the Native American groups see it that way, the
> Africans, African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in their groups see it
> that way, and I see it that way here in the Celtic newsgroups too.
so now you are speaking for all other marginalized ethnic newsgroups,
Oh great wise white celt; hjow arrogant can you get?
>
> I've been raving on about this for about a week now. Sorry that I
> don't have any more time to devote to the soc.culture.groups, because
> I'd love to get into discussions with some of you about Celtic myth,
> spiritual traditions, etc. But I will say this. Don't be so afraid
> to speak up and tell these people to go back to the pagan newsgroups
> where they belong! Whether you are Celt or non-Celt isn't the issue.
for you it is; have you read your own posts lately??
> Responsible, respectful posting to the appropriate newsgroups is the
> internet issue, and the really damaging effects of cultural
> exploitation by new age pagans of many people's cultural traditions is
> the larger more important issue to me--on or off the net.
like i said, new age and pagan uttered in the same sentence is a confusion
of terms; learn that much, will you?
>
> Slan,
>
> Janet
>
>
>
Sheila McGregor
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu "ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu" writes:
> Cernunnos--a vague sort of guy--the horned god found on the Gundestrup
> bowl--check out Nora Chadwick's or Anne Ross' books on the Celts, you
> are bound to find some obscure references. Nothing in Irish myth
> relates directly to a god by this name that I'm aware of--MacCana
> attributes way more time and attention to a sort of half-assed theory
> put forth by Anne Ross on this horned god figure than it probably
> deserves, but it really isn't anything more than that. Its more an
> attempt by Celticists to link Irish myth to a wider Indo-European
> pantheon (incorrectly IMO & a few others with more than a hobby
> interest like mine, i.e. Jeffrey Gantz & some others who argue for
> indigenous European roots, not a mythic "Indo-European" explanation
> for Irish myth based on shaky linguistic evidence).
>
Huh? The Horned God isn't Celtic? We don't have Stag Dances in
Britain? Antlers, that kind of thing? What's vague about the
Horned God? And what is the difference between 'indigenous European
roots' and 'a mythic IE explanation' for Irish myth? If there is
one repository in Europe of continuous, surviving, indigenous IE
myth, it is in Ireland. This doesn't depend on shaky linguistic
evidence, though I would agree that most linguistic evidence is
shaky.
--
Sheila McGregor
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
Is there a horned god in Celtic myth and legend known by name? What
name would it be? I have never heard of it, so if you've got a
source, I'd like to hear about it.
Cernunnos is mentioned in one place only in Chadwick's book "The
Celts" when she says the horned human figure on the Gundestrup bowl
"...is assumed by most scholars that this is Cernunnos, whose name has
been translated variously as 'the horned one' or 'the god with the
head of the deer."
and then she says:
"The name Cernunnos occurs on a single inscription only, on an altar
from Paris, although representations of horned gods without
inscriptions are more numerous."
Both quotes found on p. 153
In the first instance, she says "assumed by most scholars." That
means some scholars don't assume that--and that the various
translations are nothing more than various opinions. It is also odd,
in that this reference begins by talking about the bull as a horned
figure--which figures much more prominently in the mythology of
Ireland. She states in the second quote that there is only one known
reference to Cernunnos, and that is a continental, not an insular
reference to it--I interpret that to mean it's a pretty vague and
obscure reference, particularly as she doesn't substantiate the
"representations of horned gods without incriptions are more numerous"
claim (and neither does Mac Cana when he makes the same claim in
"Celtic Mythology"). I would guess if this so-called horned god was
so important to the Celts, we'd see it more often in a lot of places,
in both the physical and literary evidence. But I've only ever seen
these unsubstantiated claims.
No god by the name of Cernunnos is listed in "Irish Mythology" by
Ellis, "A Guide to Irish Mythology" by Smyth; or O/ hO/ga/in in "Myth,
Legend & Romance." In Davidson's "Myths & Symbols in Pagan Europe"
there are 2 short references to Cernunnos/a horned god, one which
says:
"The horned god in Gaul, generally known as Cernunnos, is not only
depicted as Lord of the Animals but also as a dispenser of wealth,
holding a neck-ring or a sack from which coins pour out." p.121
Davidson fails to give any sources for this claim. But even more
tellingly vague is the following statement Davidson makes later:
"The third group of gods in Dumezil's scheme...(is one which) our
knowledge of possible cults attached to them is limited. One is the
horned deity known as Cernunnos (Horned or Peaked One), because the
incomplete name...ernunnos has been made out on a stone altar from
Paris on which the horned deity appears. His horns resemble those of
a stag, and he may have been the guardian of the forest animals. He
may be the same as the bearded god on the Gundestrup Cauldron,although
the latter is without horns, who is shown on one of the main panels of
the same cauldron..." p. 209
So Davidson is contradictory between these two statements in different
parts of the book--in the first, Cernunnos is pretty definitively
described, but with no source. In the second reference, Davidson is
much more vague, corroborates Chadwick's passing reference, but most
importantly invokes Dumezil. She say "may have been" in every
instance. This is how "received wisdom" gets created in
academia--people keep repeating the same thing over and over without
substantiation. But if enough people keep saying the same thing,
voila! Some people actually come to believe it is the god's own
truth. It ain't.
Dumezil is sort of the god-father of Indo-European theory, and this
generation of Celtic scholars (i.e. Chadwick, Mac Cana, et al)
followed his lead. His stuff has pretty much become yesterday's
quaint theory, and a lot of contemporary scholars don't use or rely on
it anymore. I asked my anthropology professor (who is also the
department chair and an Indian scholar, about Dumezil not long ago &
she said she didn't know of any anthropologists who use Dumezil, that
Indo-European theory was always viewed with skepticism in India and by
Indian scholars because of it's Eurocentric biases). I don't know of
any scholars in the U.S., with the exception of a handful of pretty
conservative Celtic scholars, who use Dumezil. The theory is just
plain outdated.
Gantz, who I also mentioned, speaks to the academic debate between
those who accept and use Dumezil's Indo-European origins arguments,
and those who argue for an indigenous pre-Indo-European origin for
Celtic myths, of which Gantz is one. You can find a brief overview of
that academic position in the Introduction to his book "Early Irish
Myths and Legends."
Mac Cana says the horn-bearing figures are definitely pre-Celtic
(everybody agrees on that point--there is no specific horned god known
only to the Celts), and says of the figures that they "...have a long
history which extends back far before the emergence of the Celts as a
recognisable socio-cultural grouping, but in the course of time they
apparently became an integral part of the religious thought of the
Celtic people."
He gives no cites, no reasons why he claims this figure is a deity to
begin with (and nor does anyone else--because a figure is present
doesn't mean in and of itself that it is a deity, or if it is a deity,
that it is one the person who created the artifact necessarily
believed in--it could have been represented from another culture--we
just have no way of knowing). He doesn't explain how this shady,
vague figure became such "an integral part of the religious thought"
of the Celts--and the fact that there is no horned god in the insular
mythology would seriously call that statement into question, IMO.
I could go on, but I ain't writing a term paper here. Let me just say
that a couple of obscure references in some books written about the
Celts, particularly references which lack any really substantial proof
or evidence to back them up, are really nothing more than the
"received wisdom" of *some* (not all) Celtic scholars' opinions. We
are talking about a single, very obscure fragment of evidence from a
Paris altar, and several Celtic scholars making sweeping claims based
on it, despite the fact there is no literary evidence of Celts
worshipping this god that has survived. I'd say that's pretty damn
vague and shaky.
But have at me Sheila--let me know why you thought I was so off base
in my comments.
Janet
Francois Soeler
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu wrote:
>
> Sheila McGregor <she...@emplus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <4ktk50$k...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
> > ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu "ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu" writes:
>
> >> Cernunnos--a vague sort of guy--the horned god found on the Gundestrup
> >Britain? Antlers, that kind of thing? What's vague about the
> >Horned God? And what is the difference between 'indigenous European
> >roots' and 'a mythic IE explanation' for Irish myth? If there is
> >one repository in Europe of continuous, surviving, indigenous IE
> >myth, it is in Ireland. This doesn't depend on shaky linguistic
> >evidence, though I would agree that most linguistic evidence is
> >shaky.
> >--
> >Sheila McGregor
>
> Is there a horned god in Celtic myth and legend known by name? What
> name would it be? I have never heard of it, so if you've got a
> source, I'd like to hear about it.
> Cernunnos is mentioned in one place only in Chadwick's book "The
> Celts" when she says the horned human figure on the Gundestrup bowl
> "...is assumed by most scholars that this is Cernunnos, whose name has
> been translated variously as 'the horned one' or 'the god with the
> head of the deer."
>
> and then she says:
>
> "The name Cernunnos occurs on a single inscription only, on an altar
> from Paris, although representations of horned gods without
> inscriptions are more numerous."
>
> Janet....................................................................
A lot of Galiza place-names are derived from Celtic god names.
The name Galleciae they give the Romans after meeting the Celtic tribe,
first they spell Caelleci, of the worshipers of -the old-woman-
Cailleach. The Lir-es worshipers of Lir in the more western part of
Galiza, in the actual Cap Finisterre (land-end, know too as the
Promontorium Celticum ) , Brig-antia the worshipers of Briga, Lug-ones
the worshipers of Lug, .... and lots more.
The point is there is a remote area and thick forest in Galiza
that has the name of the god Cern-unnos in the form of Cerv-antes ( or
Cern-antes the worshipers of Cern ).
So other the Paris proof it is a clear support of the idea of a Celtic
god with this name.
francois soeler
.......................................
Searles O'Dubhain
>>scuse me, but some of us are pagan, AND of Celtic heritage;
by your definiton, that makes us ciphers, Philistines, or
worse...i also study celtic languages at harvard; in fact am
currently taking a course called "Celtic Paganism";<<
I welcome your inputs here as I am also a Celtic Pagan and proud
of it. I too distinguish Paganism from NewAge and study the
information that I can find (where I can find it). This
includes such works as Leabor na hUidre and Cath Mage Tuired. I
find that the more recent "Pagan" translations of the older works
are more accurate, since the translators have a better idea of
what the original authors were discussing. If one does not walk
the walk how can they possibly talk the talk?
Beir bua agus beannachtai/,
Searles O'Dubhain
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
In playing the game of the hierarchy of suffering Neil, it is clear
you come out with hands clean, lily white and guiltless.
Congratulations on your sainthood. And your emotional invocation of
your family's poverty and suffering to score points.
Fight the real enemy Neil. The ugly one that lives inside of all of
us. You do your people no honor carrying on like this.
Janet
ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>> ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>>>> Ian Morrison <I...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article: <4lj68t$7...@epx.cis.umn.edu> ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>>>>>(ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>globe to Edinburgh. Once here, the natives persuade them to exchange large
>>>>>numbers of their beads for the local firewater, and other goods and
>>>>>services. What's wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>>>Ian O. Morrison (i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk OR i...@nms.ac.uk)
>>>>>Scottish Museums Documentation Officer BBS: 0131 226 6527
>>>>>National Museums of Scotland Tel.: 0131 247 4203
>>>>>Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1JF Fax : 0131 220 4819
>>>>>"Tough on documentation, tough on the causes of documentation"
>>>>
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> I just reread your post. This ugly, racist reference to Native
>>>> Americans escaped my attention the first time I read your post.
>>>>
>>>> Are we to presume your racist mentalite represents the official
>>>> position of the National Museums of Scotland? Or is this depraved
>>>> "noble savage" comment simply a reflection of your own prejudices?
>>>>
>>>> I admit to being deeply ashamed for having responded so casually to
>>>> such a blatantly racist post in the first instance. Apologies to
>>>> everyone for my oversight. I'll certainly make note of this poster's
>>>> racist proclivities in the future, I assure you.
>>
>>
>>> Janet, I've been with you all the way in your battle against the
>>>faux-Celt New Agers, but this posting of yours is simply maudlin and
>>
>> I didn't ask for, nor do I want your support. I am perfectly capable
>> of stating and defending my opinions.
>>
> I never said you weren't, so there's no need to be so touchy; though
>in retrospect it must be said that your capability of stating and
>defending opinions seems to extend only so far as putting labels on
>people, which isn't really the same thing.
>
>> Frankly, now that I read through some of Mr. Morrison's other posts,
>> such as his participation in the misogynist postings in the Haggis
>> thread, I believe I hit the nail on the head.
> Well, I am not familiar with the postings you mention, though if your
>application of the word "misogynist" is as breathtakingly rapid and
>causeless as your application of the word "racist" has been then I am
>immediately tempted to sympathize with Ian. In any case, when I go to
>answer a post, I address the matter at hand, not the poster's personal
>history. That is why, although I find your attitude at the moment very
>disturbing, I have agreed with you in the past and may do again in the
>future.
>>
>>>ridiculous, and your last comment borders on hysteria. For someone who
>>>can drop the word "racist" four times in a relatively short posting,
>>
>> If the shoe fits...
>>
> Not only does the shoe not fit in this case, it's doubtful whether
>any particular kind of footwear is called for here at all.
>
>>>you've used it rather freely. In no way can Ian's comment be construed as
>>>damaging to Native Americans. In fact, I read it as rather a wry comment
>>
>> And just what is your personal experience with Native Americans that
>> qualifies you to make this statement on their behalf? I never claimed
>> the statement would damage Native Americans. I said it was racist,
> Same thing -- if it *had* been a racist comment, it certainly would
>have been harmful to Native Americans. That incidentally is not speaking
>on anyone's behalf -- it is obvious to anyone who thinks clearly.
>> and it offended *me.* I don't have to be a Native American to be
>> offended by racist slurs against Native Americans. Being a human
>> being is the only qualification required.
>>
> I agree with you completely here. But the comment still wasn't
>racist. And I never said you had to be "qualified" or to be yourself a
>Native to make a comment -- where are you getting this from? Please slow
>down and read what I *actually* said, rather than what you wish I had said
>in order for you to make a snappy comeback.
>>>on the way that Native and Scottish cultures are being treated -- the way
>>>that, for example, both Natives and Scots have been willing to sell their
>>>cultural experiences for the sake of a few "beads", i.e. dollars. Ian
>>>doesn't disapprove of this process, but he clearly sees the connection.
>>>As for the unhappy connotations of the "beads-for-firewater", please keep
>>>in mind that a) however much we may regret it, such transactions actually
>>>occurred, and so referring to them cannot possibly be a result of a
>>>"depraved" mind; and b) Scottish people (thank God) do not have the
>>>hair-trigger racial sensitivities of North Americans such as you. While
>>
>> I see. Your Scots ancestors were free to colonize the American South
>> using genocide to clear the land of native peoples, own slaves, run
>> the slave trade while keeping the home and empire lily white, and
>> these "racial sensitivities" are just delusions North Americans suffer
>> from. And of course, that isn't even taking into account the Scots
>> legacy in Australia and New Zeqaland, and the Scots treatment of
>> aboriginal peoples there. Just we North Americans are suffering from
>> racial guilt--you decent, humane and just Scotsman have no reason to
>> suffer from anything like that.
>>
> Damn right. Where were all the Scotsmen who owned slaves? In
>America. Therefore, slavery wasn't a Scottish experience, because it
>didn't occur in Scotland, and it doesn't have any resonance with modern
>Scots. You seem to believe in a kind of "guilt by association" where
>poor, illiterate Highlanders clinging to rocks and slum-dwelling
>Lowlanders, none of whom had ever seen a black person in their lives, were
>automatically guilty because their skin had the same lack of melanin as
>that of a North Briton who went to the Colonies and made good. If this is
>true, then is it also true that modern-day West Africans suffer an
>inherited guilt from their forefathers who sold the slaves to the whites
>in the first place? Is it also true that the modern-day Iroquois suffer
>inherited guilt for the destruction of the Huron nation? Or are some
>races more equal than others? The whole concept of "inherited guilt",
>ironically put forward most often by people who claim to believe that
>no behaviour is genetically determined, is simply a pretext for for
>persecution, and always has been. Since in your last post you used the
>offensive term "white boy" as an attempt at an insult, I guess we can see
>your true motives for imputing American guilt to Celtic people -- racial
>self-loathing brought on by the unfortunate exigencies of your upbringing.
>Well, kindly include us out.
>> And of course, we all know there are no race problems in Scotland.
> I didn't say this either -- wow, where *are* all these straw-men
>coming from? They say the sleep of reason produces monsters, but anyway --
>the race problems in Scotland, such as they are, are not of a sufficient
>magnitude and extent to tar all Scots as being irremediably racist. You
>see, countries and cultures are not racist. People are. The fact that I
>have to tell this to an educated person such as yourself is indescribably
>depressing.
>>
>> And I presume you will also educate the world, via your net trolling,
>> as to how the present day circumstances of Scottish nationalists
> Highlanders, not nationalists. You know, *Highlanders*? Those white
>boys whose culture and language were nearly destroyed? Still, they must
>have deserved it, right? After all, one of them might have been distantly
>related to a slave-owner!
>> should be equated to the present day persecution and suffering of
>> native peoples in North and South America, or that the people of
>> Scotland are living under the same repressive circumstances as are the
>> people of Northern Ireland.
>>
> The parallels between the Highland experience and those of the
>Natives of the Americas are various, and I have detailed them elsewhere
>for your benefit (though I suspect you are too enmeshed in the simplistic
>white person=bad and dark person=good paradigm to think about this
>rationally). As for Scotland and Northern Ireland, I've lived in both
>places and although the situations are different and I never pretended to
>compare them (learn to fucking read), the problems faced by the Gaelic-
>speaking peoples in Scotland and Ireland -- which I *did* compare -- are
>of equal urgency.
>> Just like the middle class pagans who claim victimization by aligning
>> themselves with the victims of the Inquisition, you are cynically and
>> manipulatively using the suffering of other people to justify your own
>> depraved racist worldview, and regain what you perversely view as some
>> kind of "advantage" that people of color have over you.
>>
> On the contrary, if you implying that I am suffering from "white
>guilt", you're wrong -- that was the original reason for this argument,
>remember? I don't feel guilt because I have never oppressed anybody, and
>because I don't believe in inherited guilt. As for your charge that I am
>somehow "manipulating" or making up history for some ulterior motive, the
>more fool you if you are so ignorant of the suffering of the Scottish
>Highlanders as to think this. I don't have any power over anyone, and
>they don't have any power over me. I neither feel white guilt, or white
>rage. We immigrated to this country with absolutely no money after having
>lived in slums in Scotland and Northern Ireland, our grandparents were
>Highlanders who were displaced and lost their culture through ethnocide,
>their lives have been bleak affairs of drink, back-breaking work, and
>abuse -- and yet I'm supposed to listen to some smug middle-class American
>tell me that because I am white that none of this happened, or that if it
>did happen I am forbidden to mention it because it might detract from the
>racial humiliation I am supposed to undergo with everyone else? What do
>your parents do for a living, Janet? What kind of upbringing did *you*
>have? I'm going to keep fighting for my culture and my language for as
>long as it takes, no matter what any suburban princess such as yourself
>has to say about the matter!
>
>>>you're busy looking out for slurs on other cultures, be sure to respect
>>>the fact that Scotland does not have the tortured racial history of the
>>>U.S. and Canada, and so does not have the anguished soul-searching and
>>>unorthodoxy-sniffing that comes of racial paranoia and inherited guilt
>>>complexes.
>>
>> Well, we know you are certainly complacent, smug and self-righteous
>> about racism. I wouldn't say that means all Scottish people couldn't
>> care less about racial problems, in their own country or elsewhere.
>> Fighting against injustice isn't something I consider to be a
>> nationalist endeavor, but a human one. It has absolutely nothing to
>> do with where one lives, or who one's ancestors are.
>>
>> I have respect for those who deserve it. For you Neil, and for Ian
>> Morrison, I just have contempt.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>>
> Middle-class contempt, you mean; that, and an inherited racial guilt
>complex a mile wide. Seek help. Often this perverse desire to identify
>yourself as oppressed despite your privileged upbringing, and to negate
>the genuine experiences and suffering of those you don't categorize as
>"oppressed", bespeaks a merely personal neurosis that has been allowed to
>get out of hand and infect your entire worldview.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Sheila McGregor wrote:
>
> In article <4ktk50$k...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
> ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu "ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu" writes:
>
> > Cernunnos--a vague sort of guy--the horned god found on the Gundestrup
> > are bound to find some obscure references. Nothing in Irish myth
> > relates directly to a god by this name that I'm aware of--MacCana
> > attributes way more time and attention to a sort of half-assed theory
> > put forth by Anne Ross on this horned god figure than it probably
> > deserves, but it really isn't anything more than that. Its more an
> > attempt by Celticists to link Irish myth to a wider Indo-European
> > pantheon (incorrectly IMO & a few others with more than a hobby
> > interest like mine, i.e. Jeffrey Gantz & some others who argue for
> > indigenous European roots, not a mythic "Indo-European" explanation
> > for Irish myth based on shaky linguistic evidence).
> >
>
> Britain? Antlers, that kind of thing? What's vague about the
> Horned God? And what is the difference between 'indigenous European
> roots' and 'a mythic IE explanation' for Irish myth? If there is
> one repository in Europe of continuous, surviving, indigenous IE
> myth, it is in Ireland. This doesn't depend on shaky linguistic
> evidence, though I would agree that most linguistic evidence is
> shaky.
> --
> Sheila McGregor
I do not think much is known about the pre-Roman beliefs and rituals in Britain.
However, evidence shows that the Britons adopted Mithraism from the Romans early
on. The symbol of Mithra is a bull. Bulls, however were common to Persia. What was
the availability of bulls in Europe and especially in Briton? Could a stag have
been used instead? How much do these stag dances and other horned-god rituals
relate to Mithraism?
Any information on these rituals would be greatly appreciate.
This does not mean, however, that the stag was not an important symbol throughout
Europe. For hunter-gatherers in early European history, the stag was the primary
source of food. Respect and veneration for the stag would have been common. The
seasonal availability of stags would have increased the mystery surrounding them.
Where did they go? Why did they go? How can we convince them to come back?
However the veneration came about, the staggered appearance of the stag (red deer
in october, elk in january, roe deer in october) provided hunter gatherers with a
year round source of food.
For agriculturalists, the stag probably still maintained some of its mystic. The
cyclic patterns of the stag corresponded with seasonal patterns. Perhaps a belief
arose tracing the stags disappearance to some sort of celestial travel? This would
explain the use of stag horns in burual sites in Britain.
I do not know the reasons or cerimonies behind the many diverse rituals which
surrounded the stag, but there is really no reason to assume that the Gundestrup
stag, the earlier paintings of stags, or the stag rituals in Britain are related.
The stag was a major symbol in Native America and among the many peoples in Asias
tundra. In fact, the stag seems to be a major symbol throughout most of their
natuaral habitat.
Ian O. Morrison
In article <4ltjps$5...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu "ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu" writes:
> In playing the game of the hierarchy of suffering Neil, it is clear
> you come out with hands clean, lily white and guiltless.
>
> Congratulations on your sainthood. And your emotional invocation of
> your family's poverty and suffering to score points.
>
> Fight the real enemy Neil. The ugly one that lives inside of all of
> us. You do your people no honor carrying on like this.
Read your own post again, Janet, and apply your arguments to yourself.
Bye, bye you incorrigible dunderheid. Life's too short.
--
Ian O. Morrison
Neil A. McEwan
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
> ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) wrote:
>
>
Kristopher G. Dowling
On Apr 27, 1996 22:16:12 in article <Re: Cultural appropriation of Celtic
cyberspace (long)>, '"Ian O. Morrison" <I...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>
>Bye, bye you incorrigible dunderheid. Life's too short.
alternative.
Pax Christi.
Priest Kristopher, S.S.B.
Neil A. McEwan
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
> In playing the game of the hierarchy of suffering Neil, it is clear
> you come out with hands clean, lily white and guiltless.
Quite right. You see, in order to be accounted guilty, you first
have to have actually done something to bring down guilt upon yourself.
I haven't. Ergo, I am not guilty. It's called logic, Janet, you really
ought to look into it.
>
> Congratulations on your sainthood. And your emotional invocation of
> your family's poverty and suffering to score points.
>
I don't enjoy playing more-oppressed-than-thou, but when someone like
you starts the game I find it quite easy to win. You should read a
little, you'll find that poverty and suffering are not exclusive to your
favourite ethnic-group-of-the-month.
> Fight the real enemy Neil. The ugly one that lives inside of all of
> us. You do your people no honor carrying on like this.
I do my people more honour by keeping alive the memory of what
happened to us and by helping to preserve our language and traditions than
I would by lining up for a racial self-flagellation at your behest,
wouldn't you agree?
Speaking of "carrying on", Janet, are you intending to make yourself
the official thought cop of s.c.s., sniffing out unorthodoxies and
"dangerous thoughts" in other people's postings, a label gun at your side
instead of a firearm? Or do you actually have a life?
Love,
Neil A. McEwan
--
white boy and proud
Searles O'Dubhain
>>What was the availability of bulls in Europe and especially in
Briton? Could a stag have been used instead? How much do these
stag dances and other horned-god rituals relate to Mithraism?<<
Please note that the word "damh" in Old Irish equates to an ox or
a stag. This is one reason why the "Song of Amergin" has "ox of
seven combats" or "stag of seven tines" in it. A bull god could
easily be equated to a stag god... even a horned god.
Beannachtai/ ("horns to you"<G>)
Searles
Sheila McGregor
In article <318255...@ix.netcom.com> Sis...@ix.netcom.com writes:
anent Cernunnos and the Survival of Belief Among the Celts:
> I do not think much is known about the pre-Roman beliefs and rituals in
> Britain. However, evidence shows that the Britons adopted Mithraism
> from the Romans early on. The symbol of Mithra is a bull. Bulls, however
> these stag dances and other horned-god rituals relate to Mithraism?
Please note. The Romans didn't get much beyond the Wash, in terms of
effective settlement. Mithraism was one of several imported religions
mostly in urban or villa contexts, which went away again when the Romans
did in the fifth century (Christianity was another of these exotic
and short-lived imports). Sure, Mithra loved his bull; so did the
Cretans, the Iberians and the Gaels, to mention only a few. Every
pastoral farming culture in the world loved the bull. The Celts
even used them for ploughing (hazardous stuff) and the Gaels of Scotland
sacrificed them by drowing up to the eighteenth century (at Loch Maree,
in Strathfillan and at Kenmore in Perthshire).
What was the availability of bulls in Europe? Well, to keep a herd of
cattle going, you need boy cows and girls cows, and there were probably
just about as many boys cows as girl cows, at least until they discovered
oxen were more useful and less bother.
Stags were certainly magical animals also, since these Celts hunted
when they were not herding cattle. Nothing of this derives from
Mithraism. Both this and Mithraism may relate to an earlier common
stratum which worshipped bulls, boars, stags, and the male of the
species in one form or another. There is a lot about this in Scotland,
where the interference of Christianity was minimal and where the old
ways survived more or less untouched through thousands of years. It
didn't go anywhere, and neither did the stags; we still have thousands
of them up here. What makes you think they disappeared? In some
countries herds migrated (reindeer or caribou) but people migrated
with them. Stags, bulls, boars are relatively pedestrian, every-day
animals, bread-and-butter animals if you like. Most early magic is
purely practical, day-to-day stuff, mostly to do with food IMHO.
Mysticism is a luxury only people with a food surplus can afford.
--
Sheila McGregor
Leslie Sitek
chris...@aol.com (ChrisRHood) wrote:
>>Origins of the Myth:
>--------------------
>It is possible that there really was once a keeper of the forest named
>Herne, but it is more likely that Herne is a local version of the Wild
>dead. Herne is not the only Horned God in history.
The name 'Herne' derived from the word 'horn'
> The earliest known
>image of a Horned God was found in a cave painting in Caverne des Trois
>Freres at Ariege,
>France. It was the figure of an upright stag or a man wearing a stag's
>skin. There have been several others, including the Greek Pan, Jannus,
>the
>two-faced Roman god of good beginnings, and Cernunnos, the Celtic god of
>Fertility, Animals, the Hunt, and the Underworld. It is possible that
>Herne's name was derived from Cernunnos's. Cernunnos was sometimes
The name 'Herne' derived from the word 'horn'
(well... my says so: Cetic Lore of Ward Rutherford)
Cernunnos is also commemorated in the place name Herne Bay in Kent.
>Other Horned Gods:
>------------------
>Apis Bull (Egypt), Osirius (Egypt), Pan (Greece), the Sacred Bull of
>Mythras (Rome), Cernunnos (Celtic lands), Cern (Brittany), Cerne Abbas
>(Anglo-
>Saxon), Gwyn ap Nudd {Light, Son of Darkness, Welsh Lord of the Faeries}
>(Wales)
There are many more phantom hunters in.... Good (?) Old (ok) England:
One is connected with the Buchinghamshire village of Fingest, is said
to be a fouteenth-century Bishop of Lincoln, Henry Burghersh, who
caused hardship to the people of the area when he anexed 300 acres od
common land to his own estates. The fact that the Bishop was a keen
huntsman and that his ghost is described as dressed in green seems to
place him firmly among the Lords of the Forest. 'Green Man' sightings
from another part of Buckinghamshire , Hughenden, as well as from
Leeds and Swindon, were recorded in 1986 and 1987.
Leslie Sitek
I Johnston
ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu (ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Fight the real enemy Neil. The ugly one that lives inside of all of
: us.
I'm told that if you fast for a day, then place a dish of milk in front
of your open mouth they'll come crawling up for food and you can grap
'em.
Ian
: >Le durachdan,
: >Neil A. McEwan
: >--
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
Sharon Krossa
In article <4lc1t3$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
sir...@ix.netcom.com(Robert A. Vierra II ) wrote:
>In <4l8irq$e...@epx.cis.umn.edu> ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>(ryan...@gold.tc.umn.edu) writes:
>>
>>ga...@usa.pipeline.com(Sandra Douglass) wrote:
>>
>>>Janet--who asked you any way.
>>>
>>> HEY YOU, OUT OF THE "SWIMMING" POOL
>>>
>>>Black Sandy
>>
>>Ooooh, did my post hit a little too close to home with certain new age
>>pagans trying to worm their way into legitimate status on the Celtic
>>newsgroups?
>>
>>Your contribution to the understanding of Celtic tradtions via your
>>Wiccan diatribe in the other thread on Cernunnos has been downright
>>enlightening, Black Sandy.
>>
>>And why "Black Sandy" here, but in your other posts you are just plain
>>"Sandy" or "Sandra?" Is there some ritual significance or something
>>I'm missing out on?
>>
>>Janet
>>
>I am relatively new to this newsgroup but is there a particular reason
>way a wiccan cannot be a part of a "Legitimate celtic newsgroup" I am
>a pagan, that is my religion, I am Irish, that is my heritage, and I am
>a Celtic scholar, that is my love, and I am a historian. Is ther
>anything in any of those statements that is mutually exclusive?
>Anymore than a Christian posting on a newsgroup about religious
>toleration? What makes one more legitmate than the other? In a lot of
>ways they are completely separate?
>
>Kitsa
>
Well, lets put it this way. Discussing what its like to be Catholic in
Scotland today may be appropriate to the newsgroup, as might discussing the
history of presbyterianism in Scotland (okay, except for on the *.irish
group). Advertising or advocating that everyone recite the Rosary on Lady
Day would not be appropriate, nor would organizing an evangelical
Christrian retreat to Iona. No one is suggesting Wiccans or other
Neo-Pagans aren't welcome here, they are just suggesting that there are
more appropriate forums for discussing your faith than these. These are for
discussing Scottish, Irish, and/or Celtic culture, not for expounding
religious doctrine. I won't post telling you that Jesus of Nazareth is God
and that he rose from the dead, and you don't post telling me whatever you
believe about your gods.
Sharon Krossa, hoping people can see the distinction
PS Those of you who sign your posts with various neo-pagan religious
valedictions, consider for a moment what your reaction would be if I signed
my posts "Yours in Christ" or "Praise Jesus!". If you'd be happy for me to
do that, that's great, but if you wouldn't, perhaps you should reconsider
how you sign yours.
skr...@svpal.org (permanent) -or- s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (until June 1996)
Jack Campin
s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa) writes:
> PS Those of you who sign your posts with various neo-pagan religious
> valedictions, consider for a moment what your reaction would be if I
> signed my posts "Yours in Christ" or "Praise Jesus!".
As a more-or-less atheist, my reaction is "why on earth is this woman
censoring herself like that?" Why should this be offensive to anyone?
> If you'd be happy for me to do that, that's great, but if you wouldn't,
> perhaps you should reconsider how you sign yours.
I like knowing where people stand, and this sort of thing helps.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin ja...@purr.demon.co.uk
T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland (+44) 131 556 5272
--------------------- Save Scunthorpe from Censorship ---------------------
Harry H. Howard
On Thu, 02 May 1996 13:43:32 +0000,
Sharon Krossa <s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk > wrote:
>
>PS Those of you who sign your posts with various neo-pagan religious
>valedictions, consider for a moment what your reaction would be if I signed
>do that, that's great, but if you wouldn't, perhaps you should reconsider
>how you sign yours.
>
God,made man,in his own image,therefore man is God.
Turnerpfj
Regarding, Romans not getting much beyond the Wash.
I assume this means in terms of civilain cultural penetration. The Roman
army, of course, had a major presence beyond this point, including the
establishment of the large towns of York (Eboracum) and Carlisle
(Luguvalium). St. Patrick, who most likely came from the Carlisle area,
considered himself Roman - a citizen (civis). The cultural influence of
the military presence, and the associated civiliam settlements and
mercantile activities should not be underestimated.
-pfjt
--------------------------------------------------------
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D.410-A.D.593.
Available from from SKS Publishing Co., 1306 Parkway Ct., Houston, Tx.
77077 @ $29.95.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheila McGregor
In article <4mggil$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
turn...@aol.com "Turnerpfj" writes:
> Regarding, Romans not getting much beyond the Wash.
> I assume this means in terms of civilian cultural penetration.
I said: effective settlement. The mapped distribution of religious
finds (of all sorts) is 90 per cent south of the Wash, ie, focussed
on SE England. Sorry, Britannia.
I don't believe there was any appreciable level of civilian
cultural penetration. When the Romans (civilians and army) went
away, they took their culture away with them. Native culture
continued, I believe, without much change. The proof of that,
if you need it, is that Mithraism died out and Christianity had
to be re-introduced. This was a military occupation, not a
cultural indoctrination exercise.
Incidentally, not perhaps to topic, but an enlightening thought:
could the signs of upheaval and removal found at the end of Roman
rule not be the natives going home? Returning to their old
settlements, their old farms, from wherever they had been forced
to live and work in the mean time?
--
Sheila McGregor
Francis Davey
In article <4mggil$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>army, of course, had a major presence beyond this point, including the
>establishment of the large towns of York (Eboracum) and Carlisle
>(Luguvalium). St. Patrick, who most likely came from the Carlisle area,
>considered himself Roman - a citizen (civis). The cultural influence of
>the military presence, and the associated civiliam settlements and
>mercantile activities should not be underestimated.
>
And, since we have been discussing Mithraism (don't you love
soc.culture.celtic's variety) it is in the Northern part of the province that
the overwhelming majority of Mithraic monuments are found. An obvious fact, but
maybe not to all readers.
Alexander Maclennan
fj...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Francis Davey) wrote:
> And, since we have been discussing Mithraism (don't you love
> soc.culture.celtic's variety) it is in the Northern part of the province
> that the overwhelming majority of Mithraic monuments are found. An
> obvious fact, but maybe not to all readers.
This has been attributed, reasonably enough to the garrison of Hadrian`s
Wall. One might expect Roman religious dedications and artefacts toturn up
herever there was a Roman presence, even relatively briefly but probablywith
little or no influence on the indigenes.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Turnerpfj
Regarding the Romans in north Britannia:
Needless to say, the relative degree of Romanization in Britannia is a
subject of scholarly debate. I think, however, the impression that for
over three centuries a non-Romanized Celtic civilization was waiting in a
pure form for the "foreignors" to leave is wrong. The Roman army was not
simply an alien army of occupation; it was a major carrier of cultural
influence and had enormous impact upon the peoples, both inside and
outside the Empire, with whom it came into contact - especially in times
of peace when it established industries and created markets. Its recruits
(especially in the Late Empire) were found locally, not imported from
Italy. The post-Roman "native" regimes that emerged in the island show
important Roman legal, economic, military and cultural influences.
The Roman cultural impact in Britannia, on the other hand, does not seem
to have been as deep rooted as in Gaul, where the local Romance language
overwhelmed the invaders' tongue. Perhaps if the Roman influence had been
stronger, English today might not be a Germanic language?
Of course, all traces of Roman civilization would have probably vansihed
from the face of the earth had the Irish not saved civilization. :)
And, to get this thread back on track, Cernunous was obviously not a
Roman.
-pfjt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D.410-A.D.593.
Available from from SKS Publishing Co., 1306 Parkway Ct., Houston, Tx.
77077 @ $29.95.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila McGregor
In article <4mn3qn$b...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
fj...@cl.cam.ac.uk "Francis Davey" writes:
<snip>
> And, since we have been discussing Mithraism (don't you love
> soc.culture.celtic's variety) it is in the Northern part of the
> province that the overwhelming majority of Mithraic monuments are found.
Army, huh? Right along the Wall? And when they went away, so
did Mithra, right?
--
Sheila McGregor
Sheila McGregor
I'm a bit confused abaout what "Turnerpfj" means about the
local Romance language in France overwhelming the invaders'
tongue, since I thought the Romance language in France is
generally supposed to be the invaders' tongue. But I am
more and more convinced that the vernacular languages of
Europe (French, Dutch, German, English) have been in situ
for a very long time, insofar as the old words for the same
things are shared between them. It is easy enough to explain
differences in language but necessary and more difficult to
explain the common features.
Just because written French (from when, 12C?) onwards looks rather
like written Latin doesn't in fact mean that French derived from
the invaders' tongue. French Celtic survived as the spoken
language still in the 4th century, after 400 years of Roman
occupation, and among the middle classes. How did this change
over the next 800 years? Did everyone go to school and learn
to talk proper so that they could get a better job? Not
likely, IMO. It's difficult to recognised French Celtic of the
Roman period because there is very little of it in written form
and it is very close to Latin in many ways. Nevertheless it is
not good enough to wait until a Celtic word appears in writing
(how many Celts were literate in their own language?) before you
recognise it as a Celtic word, not a Latin word borrowed by the
poor speechless Gauls. Looked at from the other side, as I
do from time to time, Latin seems to be stuffed with Celtic
words, just as the Romans were surrounded by Celtic tribes,
in Italy, Helvetia, Spain, France, Belgium, Britannia, etc.
Question: if you find a word shared by French, Latin, German,
English, and perhaps also by Spanish and by Dutch (but at
least by Latin and a Germanic language), do you explain it
as (a) a borrowing from Latin into German?
(b) a common IE root?
(c) a common Celtic root?
And, of course, Cernunnos was not a Roman either.
--
Sheila McGregor
Turnerpfj
To continue with the subsidiary topic that has emerged in this thread:
When it comes to Roman settlement north of the Wash, I should think that
York (Eboracum) and Carlisle (Luguvalium) qualify as a major Roman
presences since both were major towns in the Roman period. There were
also the numerous small military and commercial towns located in the
vicinity of Hadrian's Wall and scattered throughout the region.
The Roman military deployment in north Britannia was not quite the same
as, say, the U.S. military deployment in Bosnia. The soldiers came to
stay, and they set down roots. Even the more transitory troopers played a
major role in the social and economic lives of the areas where they were
stationed. For the most part, by the late Empire, the Roman soldiers who
served in Britannia were recruited in Britannia, retired in Britannia and
raised families in Britannia. Many units (especially limitani, or
defensive units) had been stationed in Britannia, and sometimes even at
the same fort, for over two centuries.
(Incidentally, Mithra was always most popular in military and mercantile
circles, and so does appear most often in association with military and
commercial sites. The religion died out BEFORE the Roman withdrawal,
having been superceded by Christianity.)
It should also be borne in mind that almost all of the "Romans" in
Britannia were also Britons - not only in the sense that they made their
permanent homes on the island, but also in the sense that their ancestors
painted their bodies with woad and stiffened their hair with lime (the
punk rockers of the early iron age). They were "natives" (especially
tribal aristocrats) who had - generations earlier - adopted Roman culture,
customs, habits and ways.
Therefore, when Roman Imperial government came to an end in Britannia in
A.D. 410, the "Romans" in Britannia did not go home; they were already
home. They then formed new local governments based upon the institutions
and practices already known to them.
Ultimately, of course, they were swept away (for the most part by A.D.
593), and Angles, Saxons and Jutes took their place in what is now
England.
Meanwhile, the Irish, who could be considered the most purely Celtic
people on the face of the earth, and who lived on an island were no Roman
military sandal ever trod, learned Roman Latin, copied Roman books and
carried Roman learning to many other parts of Europe where it had never
been or had been lost. If ever there is a rebuke to the vociferous
proponents of narrow ethnicity, the Irish, in suitably Gaelic ironic
fashion, have ably provided it.
Anyway, Cernunous is indeed not a Roman - although his grandson might very
well have been.
-pfjt
Turnerpfj
In an earlier posting in this thread, I made reference to the fact that,
while both Britannia and Gaul were overrum by Germanic invaders (the
Angles and the Franks, respectively), the invaders' Germanic language
prevailed in the former case, but the natives' Romance language in the
latter.
Another poster objected to this assertion, but the basis of the objection
was not made clear.
Is French now considered to be a Celtic language, rather than a Romance
language? Are the Franks now thought to have been Celts rather than
Germans?
-pfjt
--------------------------------------------------------------
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D.410-A.D.593.
Available from from SKS Publishing Co., 1306 Parkway Ct., Houston, Tx.
77077 @ $29.95.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mcgregor
In message <4n5djv$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
turn...@aol.com (Turnerpfj) writes:
> In an earlier posting in this thread, I made reference to the fact that,
> while both Britannia and Gaul were overrum by Germanic invaders (the
> Angles and the Franks, respectively), the invaders' Germanic language
> prevailed in the former case, but the natives' Romance language in the
> latter.
> Another poster objected to this assertion, but the basis of the objection
> was not made clear.
> Is French now considered to be a Celtic language, rather than a Romance
> language? Are the Franks now thought to have been Celts rather than
> Germans?
I think the main revisionist point is that the idea of 'overrun' is
or has been greatly exaggerated by past historians. There is no
evidence to support mass genocide in ancient times.
There is debate on where (culturally) Celtic ends and Germanic
begins. The very term Teuton is now recognised to be a Celtic word
meaning 'people'. Many of the 20th C Major Celtic finds have been in Germany.
Linguistically, Germanic, Celtic and Latin languages are all
traceable back to a common Indo-European source.
The major Ethnic grouping in France, is now deemed to be Celtic.
The Celts occupied nearly all of non classical Europe and large parts
of classical Europe, immediately prior to the Roman Empire. These
people were not eradicated at all, but they did undergo cultural change.
Ironically German Academia has had a lot to do with what is regarded
as Classical epitomised by Schliemann even more ironically, they had
a lot to do with what is regarded as Celtic epitomised by Zeuss or
Meyer. Now if Zeuss had come before Schliemann, who knows we may
have been looking at a Greco-Roman re-appraisal today rather than a Celtic one.
As it is every year that passes brings more appreciation of their
technological and cultural contribution to modern Europe.
Francis Davey
In article <nCAA...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>,
Alexander Maclennan <sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>fj...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Francis Davey) wrote:
>
>> And, since we have been discussing Mithraism (don't you love
>> soc.culture.celtic's variety) it is in the Northern part of the province
>> obvious fact, but maybe not to all readers.
> This has been attributed, reasonably enough to the garrison of Hadrian`s
>Wall. One might expect Roman religious dedications and artefacts toturn up
>herever there was a Roman presence, even relatively briefly but probablywith
>little or no influence on the indigenes.
>--
I just threw that in because (elsewhere) there was a lot of wibbling about
relationships between early Celtic Christianity, Celtc religion and Mithraism.
The fact that Mithraism was basically male and in the provinces associated
with the army seemed to be being mixed.
Two of the three important legionary fortresses (Deva and Eboracum) are both
North of the Wash. In this area there have been excavations of Villas and
other signs of settled Roman life, there does seem to have been a great deal
of Roman cultural penetration.
This would also explain the fast and otherwise mysterious takeover of English
in the previously Romanised areas. English moves quite fast all the way along
the East coast as far as perhaps Lothian. Its hard to explain this if there
is a thriving inidigenous Celtic culture, but easier with a collapsing
Romano-British one.
Skye Wolf
It is my understanding that Gaul was never completely
overrun by the "Franks". The conquest of Gaul was achieved
by Julius Ceaser, and even then it was like the situation
of a colonized area, the majority of inhabitants still
being Gauls.
Skye Wolf-Child
Doug Weller
In article <4nl8e6$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
turn...@aol.com (Turnerpfj) wrote:
> Regarding Franks and Saxons:
>
> Both Britannia and Gaul were overrun by the Saxons and Franks in the sense
> of being conquered, not in the sense that the local population was
> exterminated. Nor were the conquerers more than a minority of the total
> population of the area they settled in.
>
> Yet, it is traditionally and commonly held that the Germanic language of
> the conquerors dominated in what became England, whereas the Romance
I think it shows that over much of Britain the indigenous population
largely clung to their own language(s). I've just been reading a short
article which indicates that in the north of England the locals kept
pretty much separate from the Roman army, even when living in settlements
near them. (There's a lot of place-name evidence for this also).
However, in Gaul and Spain the indigenous population gave up their
own languages, and Nick Higham in Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons
estimates that Gaulish had probably disappeared by the end of the
4th century.
To carry on, Gaelic (Q-Celtic) was probably introduced into Scotland
by a small Irish tribe migrating to the west of Scotland, taking over
territory (and probably the population) of peoples speaking Pictish
and/or British, and later Kenneth mac Alpin ending up as King of
a larger kingdom which although mainly Pictish soon ended up speaking
'Scottish.'
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@mccomb.vip.best.com
Requests To: ar...@lists.colorado.edu
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Turnerpfj
Regarding Franks and Saxons:
Both Britannia and Gaul were overrun by the Saxons and Franks in the sense
of being conquered, not in the sense that the local population was
exterminated. Nor were the conquerers more than a minority of the total
population of the area they settled in.
Yet, it is traditionally and commonly held that the Germanic language of
the conquerors dominated in what became England, whereas the Romance
language of the conquered prevailed in what became France.
I find this an interesting, and important, phenominon. I have to
particular point in bringing it up, except to wonder what it might mean
about the pre-conquest cultures of the two regions, and their relative
"celtic-ness."
-pfjt
Turnerpfj
Continuing with the Franks and the Saxons:
The question remains, why did the indigenous language surive when it was
Romance, notwithstanding Germanic conquest, whereas is was supplanted by
Germanic when it was probably Celtic?
Or maybe it was some other circumstance peculiar to post-Roman Britannia
that allowed the invader's language to prevail?
Just an interesting question, for which there may be no facile answer.
graeme fairbrother
In article <f5276...@ramtops.demon.co.uk>, Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>To carry on, Gaelic (Q-Celtic) was probably introduced into Scotland
>by a small Irish tribe migrating to the west of Scotland, taking over
>territory (and probably the population) of peoples speaking Pictish
>and/or British, and later Kenneth mac Alpin ending up as King of
>a larger kingdom which although mainly Pictish soon ended up speaking
>'Scottish.'
I would broadly agree, but Pictland was really north of the Forth Ismuth
and spoke pictish. South of the Forth spoke British/Welsh and english to
the East.
I would welcome any references you have to the Pictish 'heartland' ie
Fidach and Ce (North-east Scotland) which appears to have resisted
Gaelic to the greatest extent and now speak Doric Scots. In particular
as to whether the switch was direct or as to whether there was a limited
peiod of Gaelic? Period in question; 900 - 1200.
Graeme
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Alexander Maclennan
graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I would welcome any references you have to the Pictish
'heartland' ie > Fidach and Ce (North-east Scotland) which
appears to have resisted > Gaelic to the greatest extent and now
speak Doric Scots. In particular > as to whether the switch was
direct or as to whether there was a limited > peiod of Gaelic?
Period in question; 900 - 1200.
The Book of Deer ?Nineth Century? is the earliest Gaelic
manuscript to survive in Scotland and Deer is in Buchan. Gaelic
was spoken in landward Aberdeenshire until the present century,
though sparsely by then. The little town of Nairn was Gaelic
speaking in its western part but not in its eastern Fishertown.
There is a tale that one of the Scottish kings, I forget which
one, boasted to the king of France that there was a city in his
kingdom so large that the speech at one end was not understood by
the people at the other end, referring to little Nairn. The
coastal fisher communities of Buchan possibly were never Gaelic
speaking. There is little love lost between east coast fishers
and the west coast fishers to this day.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
graeme fairbrother
In article <nD0E...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>, Alexander Maclennan
<sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk> writes
Thanks Sandy...I found a reference to the Book of Deer in Duncan's the
Making of the Kingdom (I shall have to chase it up further) However, it
being written in Gaelic...only suggests that by that time the
clergy/aristocracy etc., spoke gaelic...not the common folk. But Duncan
also ties the book in with the king giving 'liberty' to the church from
Pictish servitude, and also in relation to the institution of mormaer
(great steward) which he argues is pictish and perhaps demoted tribal
kingship.
I also came across a reference (which I have now lost that the
"rebellious nation of Murray"[Fidach?] in 966 rose up and killed Dubh a
member of the Scots royal family
Would love to have further info re your statement about Nairn and
time..was the split Gaelic/Doric or Gaelic/Pictish?
Does anyone have any good information re the Battle of the Bauds, again
960s Scots versus Vikings (between the towns of Portknockie and Cullen),
I know who died, but in terms of who made up the Scots side, I did hear
that it included men of Lothian, but I thought that at that timescale
Lothian was in the process of being conquered/assimilated into Scotland.
Ah ken the difference between Moray Firth Fisherfolk and the West
coast...my gran was a fishwifie following the herring boats around the
coast
Graeme
>
>
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
graeme fairbrother
In article <T8CQuDAL...@pictish.demon.co.uk>, graeme fairbrother
<Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <nD0E...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>, Alexander Maclennan
><sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>manuscript to survive in Scotland and Deer is in Buchan.
>
>Making of the Kingdom (I shall have to chase it up further) However, it
>being written in Gaelic...only suggests that by that time the
>clergy/aristocracy etc., spoke gaelic...not the common folk. But Duncan
>also ties the book in with the king giving 'liberty' to the church from
>Pictish servitude, and also in relation to the institution of mormaer
>(great steward) which he argues is pictish and perhaps demoted tribal
>kingship.
Just came across another reference to the Book of Deer....Foster "Picts,
Gaels and Scots" pp21-23.
The Book of Deer is ninth century pictish drawings of Abraham with 12th
Century Gaelic notes in the margin's. The notes themselves make
reference to systems of land tenure (as above) in Buchan. Is this
another instance of Gaelic appropriation of Pictish Culture!
graeme fairbrother
In article <830826...@emplus.demon.co.uk>, Sheila McGregor
<she...@emplus.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <318255...@ix.netcom.com> Sis...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>anent Cernunnos and the Survival of Belief Among the Celts:
>
>> I do not think much is known about the pre-Roman beliefs and rituals in
>> Britain. However, evidence shows that the Britons adopted Mithraism
>> from the Romans early on. The symbol of Mithra is a bull. Bulls, however
>> were common to Persia. What was the availability of bulls in Europe and
>> especially in Briton? Could a stag have been used instead? How much do
>> these stag dances and other horned-god rituals relate to Mithraism?
>
>Please note. The Romans didn't get much beyond the Wash, in terms of
>effective settlement. Mithraism was one of several imported religions
>mostly in urban or villa contexts, which went away again when the Romans
>did in the fifth century (Christianity was another of these exotic
>and short-lived imports). Sure, Mithra loved his bull; so did the
>Cretans, the Iberians and the Gaels, to mention only a few. Every
>pastoral farming culture in the world loved the bull. The Celts
>even used them for ploughing (hazardous stuff) and the Gaels of Scotland
>sacrificed them by drowing up to the eighteenth century (at Loch Maree,
>in Strathfillan and at Kenmore in Perthshire).
Shiela, I posted elsewhere about the Pictish Burghead Bulls, with
sacrifice continuing up the 18C..out of interest do you have any
references for Loch Maree/Kenmore.
Pictland of course had it's own Cernunnos, in addition to the usual
depictions of Cernunnous of the groves, in pictish stones ie as deers
and symbols of fertility. One specific part of an architerural frieze,
gives the pictish version of Cernunnos, in classic cross-legged pose,
but his legs have become elongated and end in fish-tails and his horns
have become serpentine coils. The stone in question is preserved at
Meigle Museum, Scotland (Small photo in "Picts" by Anna Ritchie)
graeme fairbrother
In article <4o249q$o...@news6.erols.com>, Gordon Douglas Duffus
<gdu...@pop.erols.com> writes
>Regarding the reference in this thread concerning King Dubh
>(Duff/Duffus):
>He was assasinated (in 967) by one of his own people, probably the keeper
>of Forres Castle, one Donald (& his wife). At the time, Dubh was fighting
>a civil war w/ his cousin, Cullen "The Whelp". Dubhs' support came from
>Moray, Cullens' from the south. Just thought I'd throw this in.
His Cousin's name was 'Culen', which differentiates it from the Royal
Burgh of Cullen (not far from Forress) where his Father Indulf was
(apparently) killed in 971 fighting the Vikings. Moray was a bloody area
in these times.
Do you have any further information about Dubh and his killer, was Dubh
descended from the Pictish Sub-king of Fidach? What was the reasons for
the murder/assasination/uprising? Any help appreciated.
graeme fairbrother
In article <ADCAD1259...@annex-p8.abdn.ac.uk>, Sharon Krossa
<s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk> writes
>In article <PpL5XBAl...@pictish.demon.co.uk>,
>graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote on 20 May 1996:
>Latin, and it is ascribed to the ninth century. It contains, in somewhat
>corrupt or careless versions, the complete Gospel of St. John, portions of
>the other three Gospels, the Apostles' Creed, a fragment of a prayer for
>the visitation of the sick and the charter granted by David I (1124-53) to
>the clerics of Deer. The manuscript is illuminated in a style related to
>that of the Books of Dimma and Durrow and other gospel books. It has an Old
>Irish colophon, probably of ninth-century date, and an Old Irish rubric.The
>Gaelic notitiae are written later by five hands on blank spaces and margins
>in the Book." The Gaelic notitiae are "the earliest example we have of
>continuous Gaelic written in a manuscript in Scotland" [Companion to Gaelic
>Scotland, entry by Derick Thompson]
>
>This does not sound like "Gaelic appropriation of Pictish Culture" to me.
I have no difficulty with the main text being written in Latin, but all
of my references point to the Gaelic being written some two hundred
years later.
"The earliest surviving pictish manuscripts were written in Latin....the
ninth century St Lukes Gospel in the book of deer were written in Latin,
the international language of learning"
WA Cummins "The Age of the Picts"
"It is in the tradition of the pocket gospels produced in Ireland, and
the treatment of figures on a pictish stone from elgin is so close to
the similar treatment of figures in Deer that it is very likely that the
scribe was familiar with this or some other pictish stones"
Lang "The Picts and the Scots"
"The ninth century Gospel book, the book of deer, contains Gaelic notes
written in the 1130s - 1150s. They describe systems of land tenure in
Buchan relating back to earlier practice and hence relevent to us"
Sally M Foster "Picts, Gaels and Celts"
The point, this discussion was as to the point/timescale that gaelic was
spoken in the north-east of Scotland, ie how long it was spoken, before
itself being replaced by Scots. The example of the Book of Deer was
given to show the early use of Gaelic, however the references I have
tend to show that the Gaelic was a late addition to the book. My comment
in *questioning* was deliberately so, as the book is held up as being
one of the earliest recordings of gaelic, however as does appear (by my
references) that the Gaelic was a later addition.
As such it cannot be taken as indicative of the use of Gaelic in North-
east Scotland, in the 9th Century.
Graeme
Sheila McGregor
Re the Book of Deer, my understanding of it is that the
book itself is a Latin Gospel, of Irish type, and that the
blank spaces were used in the twelfth century for notes
about land-holdings belonging to the monastery of Deer.
That these notes are in Irish Gaelic can be assumed from
the fact that all written Gaelic was Irish at this period
and confirmed from the confusion in the writer's mind
between the local word damhach, a land unit (literally
cattle-land) which isn't used in Ireland, and an unrelated
Irish word dabhach which sounds the same (literally two-
handled, from da, two and bac, a handle, so a large two-
handled vat or tub or amphora). Ossian's wife was known as
the Dabhach, and I wonder, thinking about some Irish poets
I have known, if she was in fact a very large flagon of
wine.
--
Sheila McGregor
Francis Davey
In article <4nnoet$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Turnerpfj <turn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Continuing with the Franks and the Saxons:
>
>The question remains, why did the indigenous language surive when it was
>Romance, notwithstanding Germanic conquest, whereas is was supplanted by
>Germanic when it was probably Celtic?
>
>Or maybe it was some other circumstance peculiar to post-Roman Britannia
>that allowed the invader's language to prevail?
>
>Just an interesting question, for which there may be no facile answer.
>
This is what I have been working hard trying to sort out. Basically the
answer seems to go something like this:
[1] Almost all of the invasions/takeovers and so on in Western Europe had
little or no effect on the languages spoken in the Middle Ages. Neither the
Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, Normans or Vikings caused the linguistic death of
the peoples they invaded.
[2] On the other hand the Romans seem to have managed fairly well to export
Latin (which slowly becomes Romance) into the provinces (at least those that
didn't speak Greek).
Why? Well partly because the Roman occupation was much longer, much better
organised but also because the Romans didn't loose contact with their own
(entirely Latin speaking) homeland in a way that the Germanic tribes did.
The Romans also, unlike almost anyone else, persued a linguistic education
policy.
The main reason so far is quite simple: the German invaders came simply
to take over a well-organised society that they had no desire to change. They
kept their own languages for a while as a ruling elite but eventually learnt
the vernacular, much as barbarian invaders of China have done for generations.
So what about Britain, here the replacement of Celtic by Anglo-Saxon is
anomolous (though not entirely so). There are several reasons for this:
[1] The replacement happened initally only in part of what is now England and
Southern Scotland. Large parts of upland Britain remained Celtic.
[2] The lowland areas were very heavily Romanised (Villa-building was
quite extensive and adoption of Roman culture quite far advanced) so that
when Roman Imperial civilisation started to break down the Lowland British
society started to have difficulties.
The highly organised Anglo-Saxon, who were by now living in tight-knit separate
communities (as is evinced by archaeological evidence) were clearly attractive.
There seems to have been an asimilation by a majority population of E. British
Romano-Celts of the Anglo-Saxon language and society.
[3] The later expansion of English was driven by the better population growth
of the lowlands coupled with the by now well known Fire+Sword.
This is by no means the only time something like this has happened, but its
unusual.
Gordon Douglas Duffus
Regarding the reference in this thread concerning King Dubh
(Duff/Duffus):
He was assasinated (in 967) by one of his own people, probably the keeper
of Forres Castle, one Donald (& his wife). At the time, Dubh was fighting
a civil war w/ his cousin, Cullen "The Whelp". Dubhs' support came from
Moray, Cullens' from the south. Just thought I'd throw this in.
Sharon Krossa
Sharon Krossa, who is keeping some comments she could make here to herself.
Sharon Krossa: skr...@svpal.org (permanent)
-or- s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (until November 1996)
Sheila McGregor
In article <4nl8e6$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
turn...@aol.com "Turnerpfj" writes:
> Regarding Franks and Saxons:
>
> Both Britannia and Gaul were overrun by the Saxons and Franks in the sense
> of being conquered, not in the sense that the local population was
> exterminated. Nor were the conquerers more than a minority of the total
> population of the area they settled in.
>
> Yet, it is traditionally and commonly held that the Germanic language of
> the conquerors dominated in what became England, whereas the Romance
> language of the conquered prevailed in what became France.
>
> I find this an interesting, and important, phenominon. I have to
> particular point in bringing it up, except to wonder what it might mean
> about the pre-conquest cultures of the two regions, and their relative
> "celtic-ness."
Regarding Saxons as the originators of English, a few points puzzle
me.
Anglo-Saxon differs very much in grammar and vocabulary from Middle
English, over just a few centuries, yet Middle English is recognisable
today, and no similar changes are evident in Dutch or German. Is this
because AS was the written language of a few, not the spoken language
of the many?
Before the Romans arrived, there was a Belgic migration to England.
So they were probably an elite, rather than a lot, but what language
did they speak? Were they Celts or Germans?
Are the modern Belgians Celts or Germans? They are rather confused.
They think they speak a Germanic language but at the same time they
think they're Celts, or used to be. How did they come to change
their language from a Celtic language to a Germanic language? Or
is Dutch in fact a Celtic language?
How do you explain words apparently borrowed from Latin into
German and then appearing in English? Of course, if the
extermination hypothesis is dropped, they could have gone straight
into English from the Romans, but that takes us back to some kind
of pre-Saxon English.
I know this runs completely contrary to all the wisdom of hist.
linguistics but I also think there is a solution to the dilemma
somewhere.
Part of it may be that most linguistic studies deal with written
words and the written language is not much of a guide to the
vernacular. Words appear in the 15th or 16th centuries in England
for the first time in print, which have evidently been around for
a thousand years (or five). Some good old words (many with
good old Gaelic cognates) did not make it into print until very
recently and you still won't find them in a dictionary.
My personal belief is that if a population is substantially
Celtic or post-Celtic, so is its vernacular.
--
Sheila McGregor
Sheila McGregor
I knew I should never have got involved in this thread!
In article <4nnoet$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
turn...@aol.com "Turnerpfj" writes:
> Continuing with the Franks and the Saxons:
>
> The question remains, why did the indigenous language surive when it was
> Romance, notwithstanding Germanic conquest, whereas is was supplanted by
> Germanic when it was probably Celtic?
Is it possible to propose that both vernaculars survived, as
a collection of regional dialects, perhaps, which are not
represented in any literary forms? I have this deep suspicion
that a lot of arguments are based on a very few surviving texts
which are about as relevant as Shakespeare and the King James
Bible would be to modern English. I don't know anything about
Spanish, but I do know that in France there are a lot of short
words which are not felt to be polite. Educated people use
long words, which they learn from books and practise. Only
peasants and Scrabble players use short words. It seems to
me very like the situation in England; Scots is closer to the
short-word phase, having lost all its fantoosh expressions
when it lost its Court and fashionable people in the 1600s.
--
Sheila McGregor
Sheila McGregor
Dear Doug
First you say that over much of Britain the indigenous
population kept its own language, in the teeth of Rome,
over 400 years, despite Latin literacy, schools, the Army,
(and if I understand you right, they were speaking English
already under the Romans??)
And then you say that
> Gaelic (Q-Celtic) was probably introduced into Scotland
> by a small Irish tribe migrating to the west of Scotland, taking over
> territory (and probably the population) of peoples speaking Pictish
> and/or British, and later Kenneth mac Alpin ending up as King of
> a larger kingdom which although mainly Pictish soon ended up speaking
> 'Scottish.'
A small Irish tribe did what the might of Rome could not do
and changed the entire language of the most conservative tribes
on mainland Britain? Sorry, I don't believe it.
I think the standard story about Irish coming into Scotland
refers only to written Irish.
A few of the Irish were trained to write a classical standard
Gaelic, which had absolutely no effect at all on the natives
of Alba, since they couldn't read or write, and so went on
talking their peculiar local dialects. Of course the Albanach,
if asked, thought Irish was just as peculiar.
--
Sheila McGregor
Sheila McGregor
In article <SSeQMIAM...@pictish.demon.co.uk>
Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk "graeme fairbrother" writes:
> Shiela, I posted elsewhere about the Pictish Burghead Bulls, with
> sacrifice continuing up the 18C..out of interest do you have any
> references for Loch Maree/Kenmore.
Not live ones, but there are references in Perthshire books,
here and there, Statistical Accounts, Gillies 'Breadalbane', um,
you can always quote me. They said the virtue went out of the
Holy Pool in Strathfillan because a bull drowned in it; more
likely that the virtue went out of it because they hadn't drowned
a bull in it. Bull sacrifice in Loch Maree is probably in
Folklore of Scottish Lochs and Springs, by James MacKinlay. His
index reads:
Bull, Mad, in Holy Pool 106; raging at St John's Well, Harpham,
136; sacred to Neptune, 6; sacrificed to St Mourie, 30.
On p126, the problem with the Holy Pool in the river Fillan was
caused by a farmer who tried to cure a mad bull by plunging him
into it; I reckon he was trying to drown it, and was stopped.
Since then there has been no virtue in the water, presumably
because they haven't drowned any bulls recently. As MacKinlay
says, this story otherwise doesn't make sense, since magic
water was generally used to cure animals.
The well at Harpham in the East Riding of Yorkshire was believed
to have the power to calm a raging bull.
Sacrificing a bull to Mourie (Maelrubha in another guise) was
done on 25 August every year up to about 1700 at Loch Maree,
probably to maintain the potency of the magic spring on the
island there (also used to cure mad people). It isn't said
how the bull was sacrificed, but there seems to be a connection
with water.
From Gillies, In Famed Breadalbane, 409, the Poll Tairbh or
Bull's Pool was in the Tay beside the old holy site of Inchadney,
at Kenmore, dedicated to the Nine Maidens, where there was a
great fair on a meadow beside the Tay. Inchadney also had a
holy well, and was visited particularly on 1 May. No mention
of the bull being drowned here, but it's interesting that
the Tay is the continuation of the river Fillan.
--
Sheila McGregor
Sheila McGregor
In article <nD0E...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>
sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk "Alexander Maclennan" writes:
> The Book of Deer ?Nineth Century? is the earliest Gaelic
> manuscript to survive in Scotland and Deer is in Buchan. Gaelic
> was spoken in landward Aberdeenshire until the present century,
> though sparsely by then. The little town of Nairn was Gaelic
> speaking in its western part but not in its eastern Fishertown.
> There is a tale that one of the Scottish kings, I forget which
> one, boasted to the king of France that there was a city in his
> kingdom so large that the speech at one end was not understood by
> the people at the other end, referring to little Nairn. The
> coastal fisher communities of Buchan possibly were never Gaelic
> speaking. There is little love lost between east coast fishers
> and the west coast fishers to this day.
A reference is Kenneth Jackson, The Gaelic Notes in the Book of
Deer; it is Irish Gaelic, Common Gaelic, the standard written
Gaelic of the early Middle Ages, probably written at different
periods from 11th to 12th centuries, but very badly written;
there are not just inconsistencies and mistakes but a profusion
of them. But despite them the language 'is in all essentials
the Irish of Ireland.' Well, it would be, since all written
Irish was from Ireland. There are no examples of written
Scottish Gaelic, from Pictish times or later, until you hit
the Dean of Lismore. He invented a phonetic system for his own
Perthshire Gaelic, and people find it very difficult to read,
possibly because they expect it to be Irish Gaelic and it's
not (this is supposition; I don't know this). But the Gaelic
notes in the Book of Deer are entirely Irish, Middle Irish or
what Jackson calls Common Gaelic, possibly because it was
the standard written form. It's quite possible no-one ever
spoke it, I mean, exactly as written. It was a very formal
artificially designed language, or so I have been told.
--
Sheila McGregor
Alan Smaill
In article <4o21dq$4...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
fj...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Francis Davey) writes:
fjmd1> This is what I have been working hard trying to sort
fjmd1> out. Basically the answer seems to go something like this:
fjmd1> [1] Almost all of the invasions/takeovers and so on in Western
fjmd1> Europe had little or no effect on the languages spoken in the
fjmd1> Middle Ages. Neither the Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, Normans
fjmd1> or Vikings caused the linguistic death of the peoples they
fjmd1> invaded.
Saying that the Normans had little or no effect on English is surely
overdoing it.
As for the Vikings, the earlier language of eg Shetland more or less
disappeared when they took over, judging by the place names.
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science tel: 44-31-650-2710
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK.
Alan Smaill
Alexander Maclennan
Sheila McGregor <she...@emplus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not live ones, but there are references in Perthshire books,
here and > there, Statistical Accounts, Gillies 'Breadalbane',
um, you can always > quote me. They said the virtue went out of
the Holy Pool in > Strathfillan because a bull drowned in it;
more likely that the virtue > went out of it because they hadn't
drowned a bull in it. Bull sacrifice > in Loch Maree is probably
in Folklore of Scottish Lochs and Springs, by > James MacKinlay.
His index reads:
If memory serves, the Loch Maree well lost its virtue after a
shepherd dunked a mad collie dog in it and both dog and shepherd
died. Our lot came from Contin parish. We got the push in mid
nineteenth century. My grandfather settled in Inverness and built
a house there. Contin was in trouble with Dingwall prebytery in
1657 over its habit of bull sacrifice. My grandfather`s house
had mounted bulls horns over every internal door on the ground
floor. There was a stuffed black cockerel in the entrance hall.
Had he poured cockerel`s blood into the foundations, apparently
an adequate substitute for a sacrificial burial in the
foundations? When dying he had water brought from a traditional
healing well. All this before I was born. He was a Wee Free.
His son, at one time a Wee Free missionary, also had water from
the same well when he was dying because, so he said, the
Infirmary tap water tasted bad.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Doug Weller
In article <832982...@emplus.demon.co.uk>
Sheila McGregor <she...@emplus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Doug
>
> First you say that over much of Britain the indigenous
> population kept its own language, in the teeth of Rome,
> over 400 years, despite Latin literacy, schools, the Army,
> (and if I understand you right, they were speaking English
> already under the Romans??)
English? What did I say to make you think that? And I'd imagine that
most soldiers normally spoke their own languages, not necessarily Latin.
> And then you say that
>
> > Gaelic (Q-Celtic) was probably introduced into Scotland
> > by a small Irish tribe migrating to the west of Scotland, taking over
> > territory (and probably the population) of peoples speaking Pictish
> > and/or British, and later Kenneth mac Alpin ending up as King of
> > a larger kingdom which although mainly Pictish soon ended up speaking
> > 'Scottish.'
Not me, David Crystal, in the Cambridge Encylopedia of Language.
Do you know what language the Picts spoke?
In his later book The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language,
he says that during the Anglo-Saxon period 'most of Scotland was Celtic-
speaking (chiefly the variety known as Celtic)."
> A small Irish tribe did what the might of Rome could not do
> and changed the entire language of the most conservative tribes
> on mainland Britain? Sorry, I don't believe it.
Well, I'm not sure how relevant this is, but other than making
quite sure that the north of Britain wasn't a source of trouble
for the south, and a bit of trade, there was virtually no
attempt to exert Roman influence north of Hadrian's wall.
What precisely do you mean by 'changed the entire language'?
[SNIP]
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Eoghan Craig Ballard
Graeme wrote:
<A lot deleted>
> The point, this discussion was as to the point/timescale that gaelic was
> spoken in the north-east of Scotland, ie how long it was spoken, before
> itself being replaced by Scots. The example of the Book of Deer was
> given to show the early use of Gaelic, however the references I have
> tend to show that the Gaelic was a late addition to the book. My comment
> in *questioning* was deliberately so, as the book is held up as being
> one of the earliest recordings of gaelic, however as does appear (by my
> references) that the Gaelic was a later addition.
>
> As such it cannot be taken as indicative of the use of Gaelic in North-
> east Scotland, in the 9th Century.
Further, it should be noted that especially when looking at clergy we are
dealing with a fairly mobile, cross-cultural and well educated class of
people. That makes them unlikely candidates to support theories concerning
linguistic range. A far better source of linguistic evidence is to be
found in placenames. Even when translated into English orthography (which
is far less common in Scotland than in Ireland) the forms of names often
retain clues to the time when a name was adopted.
graeme fairbrother
In article <eballard-290...@cgsmac45.sas.upenn.edu>, Eoghan
Craig Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> writes
Yes, I would agree with you, Simon Taylor did an interesting study, on
the development of 'cill' names associated with columban and/or Irish
influence and the presence of 'both' names asociated with pictish areas
of (Nynian?) influence in the seventh, eight century.
I have also (temporarily) lost a reference which examined the diversity
of place names within Scotland and concluded that Pictish was pre-irish
goedelic with Brythonic influences.
But I also have some references of place names which appear to be non-
indo-european such as Blackadder and possibly even Loch Ness!
However, I have not as yet came across any studies which explain
language in the North-east 9th Cent onwards, whether by place name or
otherwise and particularly the relationship between
Pictish/Gaelic/Doric.
Perhaps more work requires to be done.
Sharon Krossa
In article <iJGkbBAQ...@pictish.demon.co.uk>,
graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ADCAD1259...@annex-p8.abdn.ac.uk>, Sharon Krossa
><s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk> writes
>>In article <PpL5XBAl...@pictish.demon.co.uk>,
>>graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote on 20 May 1996:
>>
>>>In article <T8CQuDAL...@pictish.demon.co.uk>, graeme fairbrother
>>><Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>In article <nD0E...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>, Alexander Maclennan
>>>><sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>>The Book of Deer ?Nineth Century? is the earliest Gaelic
>>>>>manuscript to survive in Scotland and Deer is in Buchan.
>>>>
>I have no difficulty with the main text being written in Latin, but all
>of my references point to the Gaelic being written some two hundred
>years later.
>
>"The earliest surviving pictish manuscripts were written in Latin....the
>ninth century St Lukes Gospel in the book of deer were written in Latin,
>the international language of learning"
>WA Cummins "The Age of the Picts"
>
>"It is in the tradition of the pocket gospels produced in Ireland, and
>the treatment of figures on a pictish stone from elgin is so close to
>the similar treatment of figures in Deer that it is very likely that the
>scribe was familiar with this or some other pictish stones"
>Lang "The Picts and the Scots"
>
>"The ninth century Gospel book, the book of deer, contains Gaelic notes
>written in the 1130s - 1150s. They describe systems of land tenure in
>Buchan relating back to earlier practice and hence relevent to us"
>Sally M Foster "Picts, Gaels and Celts"
>
>The point, this discussion was as to the point/timescale that gaelic was
>spoken in the north-east of Scotland, ie how long it was spoken, before
>itself being replaced by Scots. The example of the Book of Deer was
>given to show the early use of Gaelic, however the references I have
>tend to show that the Gaelic was a late addition to the book. My comment
>in *questioning* was deliberately so, as the book is held up as being
>one of the earliest recordings of gaelic, however as does appear (by my
>references) that the Gaelic was a later addition.
>
>As such it cannot be taken as indicative of the use of Gaelic in North-
>east Scotland, in the 9th Century.
Unless you count the "an Old Irish colophon, probably of ninth-century
date, and an Old Irish rubric." Since I don't know exactly what these
consist of, I couldn't really say myself. However, assuming something
written in Latin is 'pictish' seem fairly bizzare to me. If the pictish
stone in Elgin is older than the 9th century, it could only be an
indication that whatever language the Deer Latin writers used, they liked
the *pictures* of the stone which they had seen (or seen something like).
Doesn't really tell you anything, that.
BTW, I did not mean to imply the gaelic notiae were 9th century, rather
than 12th century, just that 12th century Gaelic writing in a 9th century
*Latin* book (with Old Irish colophon of similar date) does not sound like
Gaelic appropriation of *Pictish* culture. It still doesn't, for that
matter.
Also, the last speaker of Dee-side Gaelic apparently died within the last
few decades (maybe 60s or 70s?), though she had learned it as a little
girl. Anyway, Gaelic was spoken in the North-East this century, and not
just by displaced west coasters or islanders.
Sharon Krossa, wondering why everyone has to interpret everything as evilly
"appropriating" others cultures...
Michael Paterson
graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But I also have some references of place names which appear to be non-
>indo-european such as Blackadder and possibly even Loch Ness!
Black-adder, formerly black nadder (Gaelic: Nathair) from Old Enlish
blaec + OE naedre, Middle English, a nadder, transp. to an adder.
Loch, Gaelic for lac, (French) lago (Italian) Lake (English, etc.
Ness (Gaelic Nis) Anyone's guess.
All these words are iredeemably Indo-European.
>Perhaps more work requires to be done.
Your gift for understatement transcends anything I could say.
Mi\cheil Rob Mac Pha\druig
Dru\idh:duine-uasal
Francis Davey
In article <fwehgt5...@papa.dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
Alan Smaill <sma...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <4o21dq$4...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
> fj...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Francis Davey) writes:
>
>fjmd1> This is what I have been working hard trying to sort
>fjmd1> out. Basically the answer seems to go something like this:
>
>fjmd1> [1] Almost all of the invasions/takeovers and so on in Western
>fjmd1> Europe had little or no effect on the languages spoken in the
>fjmd1> Middle Ages. Neither the Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, Normans
>fjmd1> or Vikings caused the linguistic death of the peoples they
>fjmd1> invaded.
>
>Saying that the Normans had little or no effect on English is surely
>overdoing it.
>
Which of course I didn't do. The Normans did have an effect on English, true,
but arguably not a very large one; certainly not one of the order of a
Creolisation or a supplantation.
The focus of the original discussion was: why did Latin vanish from Britain
under the Anglo-Saxons, when it didn't in the rest of Western Europe under
Germanic invasions. Hence it is total linguistic death that is interesting.
Norman French did loan quite a few words to ME but thats quite another matter.
>As for the Vikings, the earlier language of eg Shetland more or less
>disappeared when they took over, judging by the place names.
>
Er yes maybe. Not really relevant here. Norn is, of course, another important
example of a successful linguistic takeover. I was thinking of the Sudreys
(where they failed).
Alexander Maclennan
"Alan Smaill" <sma...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Saying that the Normans had little or no effect on English is surely
> overdoing it.
> As for the Vikings, the earlier language of eg Shetland more or less
> disappeared when they took over, judging by the place names.
Some French words adopted into Scots and not English
are commonly attributed to Mary Queen of Scots French speaking court
e.g. gigot, ashet, pettycoat tails, gardyloo and so forth.
The Edinburgh speech uses a curiously French u sound.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Francis Davey wrote:
> The focus of the original discussion was: why did Latin vanish from Britain
> under the Anglo-Saxons, when it didn't in the rest of Western Europe under
> Germanic invasions. Hence it is total linguistic death that is interesting.
> Norman French did loan quite a few words to ME but thats quite another matter.
Where does the concept come from that Latin was that common in England? Latin
appears to have dominated Spain, which contained a high density of Roman colonies.
Gaul apparently adopted Latin early on, as the Gall-Graeci adopted Greek. But,
this seems to be the limit of the spread of Latin. Greece, Syria, Egypt, and most
others maintained their own language through Roman occupation.
I can think of no reason for the Britons to adopt Latin. As far as I can tell,
there were only three legions stationed in Britain, and most of these troops were
from Gaul. It would have been easier for these Gallic troops to learn the language
of the Britons (which appears to be similar to their own) than for an entire
population to adopt Latin.
Latin would have been an important trade language and some Latin was also adopted
along with Christianity. Some of the Roman culture was adopted, as it was
throughout the empire, but this is about the extent of Roman influence.
The language of the Britons was removed from England when the Britons retreated in
the face of Anglo-Saxon invasions. However, it survived in Wales, Cornwall,and
Brittany. The fact that these migrations carried with them the Brittonic languages
also supports a belief that Latin was not the dominant language in Britain.
Doug Weller
In article <31B069...@ix.netcom.com>
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Francis Davey wrote:
>
> > The focus of the original discussion was: why did Latin vanish from Britain
> > under the Anglo-Saxons, when it didn't in the rest of Western Europe under
> > Germanic invasions. Hence it is total linguistic death that is interesting.
> > Norman French did loan quite a few words to ME but thats quite another matter.
>
> Where does the concept come from that Latin was that common in England? Latin
> appears to have dominated Spain, which contained a high density of Roman colonies.
> Gaul apparently adopted Latin early on, as the Gall-Graeci adopted Greek. But,
> this seems to be the limit of the spread of Latin. Greece, Syria, Egypt, and most
> others maintained their own language through Roman occupation.
>
Agreed so far.
[SNIP]
>
> The language of the Britons was removed from England when the Britons retreated in
> the face of Anglo-Saxon invasions. However, it survived in Wales, Cornwall,and
> Brittany. The fact that these migrations carried with them the Brittonic languages
> also supports a belief that Latin was not the dominant language in Britain.
Migrations? There is growing evidence that the Britons in England were
neither exterminated nor forced out, but remained and learned the language
and customs of the Anglo-Saxons.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
I do not doubt this, but the mass movement of Britons out of England cannot be
ignored. This in no way implies that all Britons left.
Even with the hypothesis you present, wouldn't the Anglo-Saxon population in
England still be larger than the Briton population?
Doug Weller
In article <31B101...@ix.netcom.com>
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> > In article <31B069...@ix.netcom.com>
> > Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >>The language of the Britons was removed from England when the Britons retreated
> >>in the face of Anglo-Saxon invasions. However, it survived in Wales,
> >>Cornwall,and Brittany. The fact that these migrations carried with them the
> >>Brittonic languages also supports a belief that Latin was not the dominant
> >>language in Britain.
>
> > Migrations? There is growing evidence that the Britons in England were
> > neither exterminated nor forced out, but remained and learned the language
> > and customs of the Anglo-Saxons.
>
> I do not doubt this, but the mass movement of Britons out of England cannot > > be ignored. This in no way implies that all Britons left.
Have you got evidence for a 'mass movement'?
> Even with the hypothesis you present, wouldn't the Anglo-Saxon population in
> England still be larger than the Briton population?
Not at all. This used to be a popular theory, but no longer.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
First, 'popular theory' is not valid evidence. The opinions I state are my own.
The question presented related to why the Anglo-Saxon language replaced Latin as
the primary language of England. My point was that (1) Latin was not the primary
language of England, and (2) that circumstances were created which resulted in the
loss of Brittonic identity (ie migrations, supression, assimilation, etc...)
Argument:
That, c.5-6, Brittonic culture in England was weakened by large migrations out of
England and by the supression of cultural expression throughout England; that by
c.7 the Anglo-Saxon culture dominated any surviving Brittonic culture in England;
that Brittonic culture in England was assimilated by c.8. (Note: by England, I
mean the area of Britain not including Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland)
Evidence (sites):
Brittany (c.5-6 CE): St. Pol de Leon,Treguier, St. Malo, Dol, Quimper, Vannes,
Rennes, etc... These locations show evidence of large Brittonic migrations into
the area.
Spain and Portugal (c.5-6): Based on information provided me by the University of
La Coruna in response to my questions regarding Galicia, there were large
Brittonic migrations into Spain and Portugal. The only site I have examined so far
is Britonia in Galicia.
Evidence (works):
Taliesin and Aneurin (c.6) hint of (1) a large influx of Britons into Wales, and
(2) the suppression of Brittonic culture by the Anglo-Saxons. (Note: the
supression of Brittonic culture is a common theme in early Welsh literature)
Nennius (c.8) covers migrations into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.
The edict of King Ine (c.7), making Britons equal under law to their Germanic
conquerors.
St. Bede (c.7), discusses the culture and people of England; suggests an
assimilation of Brittonic culture.
Conclusions:
1) There can be no doubt that a large number of Britons left England (they spoke
Brythonic languages, not Latin). How many Britons remained vs how many
Anglo-Saxons? This would depend on the number of Britons leaving England vs. the
number of Germanic peoples arriving in England. As far as I know, no clear numbers
exist.
2) The culture of the Britons who remained appears to have been supressed until
Wessex expanded it's power. Historically, language is the first to be supressed.
At what point during this process did the Britons lose their seperate cultural
identity? Early c.7 a distinction between cultures is still made (Ine), but by
late c.7 the Brittonic culture appears fully assimilated (Bede)
3)The Anglo-Saxon restoration (c.10), after Danelaw (c.9), shows little evidence
of the Brittonic influences found in the writings of St. Bede.
graeme fairbrother
In article <ADD2F3779...@annex-p4.abdn.ac.uk>, Sharon Krossa
Considering that the monastaries in the North-east were established by
Columba, I would be highly surprised if it did not have any allusion to
Irish Art.
>However, assuming something
>written in Latin is 'pictish' seem fairly bizzare to me.
Perhaps because it was written in Pictland in "the international
language of learning", just as the Pictish Chronicles were also written
in Latin. And much Irish or English writings of the period were also
written in Latin.
> If the pictish
>stone in Elgin is older than the 9th century, it could only be an
>indication that whatever language the Deer Latin writers used, they liked
>the *pictures* of the stone which they had seen (or seen something like).
>Doesn't really tell you anything, that.
The Stones in Elgin are Class I, II and III. Considering that it was a
religous book, I would assume (could be wrong) that it was based on
Class III stones which would put them into the same time period. There
are similar arguments in relation to the Book of Kells (now in Dublin)
and the Book of Durrow (northumbria?). However, in the case of the Book
of Durrow, I believe that the argument is weakest because of the poor
quality of copying. However, in the case of the other two, the high
quality of copying, shows at the very least, that the scribes were fully
aware of (and probably linked to) pictish artists of that period. I will
be interested to find out how the book of kells is described, when I go
to see it next month.
>
>BTW, I did not mean to imply the gaelic notiae were 9th century, rather
>than 12th century, just that 12th century Gaelic writing in a 9th century
>*Latin* book (with Old Irish colophon of similar date) does not sound like
>Gaelic appropriation of *Pictish* culture. It still doesn't, for that
>matter.
I would accept that you didn't imply, but the original poster did, as an
example of early gaelic (9th century) work in the north east. In
relation to your latter comment, I shall repeat that I merely
*questioned* as to whether it was the appropriation by one culture over
another.
>
>Also, the last speaker of Dee-side Gaelic apparently died within the last
>few decades (maybe 60s or 70s?), though she had learned it as a little
>girl. Anyway, Gaelic was spoken in the North-East this century, and not
>just by displaced west coasters or islanders.
I have no difficulty with this statement, gaelic survived in some parts
of the north-east until quite late, and I would presume that they were
indigenous. I have never put forward the belief that the Picts died out,
they simply changed languages. However given the nature of language
changing it is often those areas which are most isolated, which are last
to change. Presumably on that basis, pictish also survived as a spoken
tongue to a later date, in isolated areas. Duncan states
" Yet in the Pict-Scot situation a comparitively small migration was
accompanied by the replacement of Pictish by Gaelic, a process evidently
complete by the twelth century, when the gaelic in the book of deer
shows only slight divergence from Middle-Irish" Duncan the Making of the
Kingdom p102
MacKenzie, puts forward an interesting argument (which i do not hold)
that pictish moved straight to doric, I would presume that any
interchange would be much more complicated. Cummins argues that Old
Irish and Pictish combined to give rise to scottish gaelic.
The North-east has to be interesting, because it is here, that we find a
mixing of three (at least) linguisic groups and associated cultures.
>
>Sharon Krossa, wondering why everyone has to interpret everything as evilly
>"appropriating" others cultures...
I dont know about "evilly", but appropriating other cultures is about
the only thing that is certain in history! Once you get down to a real
examinition you find that nothing is really unique, its been copied or
is similar to something elsewhere. All cultures attempt to create their
own myths and portray it as being their own, and therefore unique. "King
Arthur" is a useful point in question, If you asked the man on the
Clapham Bus, he would probably think of King Arthur as being
English/British and on further examination would probably subscribe
anglo-saxon values. Nothing is further from the truth.
Similarly, in relation to pictish/scottish there was probably an
attempt/move in the 10th Century onwards to present the longevity of
scottish things over pictish, this may have been for no more reason than
the splits within the scottish aristocracy, in order to support one
specific side. If in modern parliance we view 'scottish' to include all
our traditions, then there is no "appropriation", if however, it is used
to define one specific stream then "appropriation" does occur.
Graeme
Francis Davey
In article <31B069...@ix.netcom.com>, <Sis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Francis Davey wrote:
>
>> The focus of the original discussion was: why did Latin vanish from Britain
>> under the Anglo-Saxons, when it didn't in the rest of Western Europe under
>> Germanic invasions. Hence it is total linguistic death that is interesting.
>> Norman French did loan quite a few words to ME but thats quite another matter.
>
>Where does the concept come from that Latin was that common in England? Latin
>appears to have dominated Spain, which contained a high density of Roman colonies.
>Gaul apparently adopted Latin early on, as the Gall-Graeci adopted Greek. But,
>this seems to be the limit of the spread of Latin. Greece, Syria, Egypt, and most
>others maintained their own language through Roman occupation.
>
Latin was also adopted in the Balkans (where it was later displaced mostly
by Slavic and Ugric languages) itself replacing whatever was already being
spoken there (on which there is much debate). This is why Rumanian is a Romance
language. North Africa was also, I believe, fairly strongly Latinised, this
I would have to check.
Latin didn't seem very good at replacing Greek, which is quite another matter.
>I can think of no reason for the Britons to adopt Latin. As far as I can tell,
>there were only three legions stationed in Britain, and most of these troops were
>from Gaul. It would have been easier for these Gallic troops to learn the language
>of the Britons (which appears to be similar to their own) than for an entire
>population to adopt Latin.
>
Number of legions really hasn't much to do with it (actually there were at
times four along with quite a lot of auxiliaries and so on). Brittannia was
really quite militarised compared with Spain, which did adopt Latin (yes I do
know that it was occupied for much longer).
There was a positive effort to introduce Latin; Agricola introduced Latin
schools during his governorship for example. It does seem that by the 4th
centuary towns were largely Latin speaking, certainly in the South-East and
that the local British Elite had become heavily Romanised. Much the same thing
happened in Gaul (where arguably Celtic did not vanish till after the fall of
Rome).
>Latin would have been an important trade language and some Latin was also adopted
>along with Christianity. Some of the Roman culture was adopted, as it was
>throughout the empire, but this is about the extent of Roman influence.
>
>The language of the Britons was removed from England when the Britons retreated in
>the face of Anglo-Saxon invasions. However, it survived in Wales, Cornwall,and
>Brittany. The fact that these migrations carried with them the Brittonic languages
>also supports a belief that Latin was not the dominant language in Britain.
I don't think "Anglo-Saxons force Britons to retreat to Wales/Cornwall etc" is
a very good model of what was happening in C5/6. Brittany was essentially
a Cornish introduction, so is hardly relevant.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Francis Davey wrote:
> Latin was also adopted in the Balkans (where it was later displaced mostly
> by Slavic and Ugric languages) itself replacing whatever was already being
> spoken there (on which there is much debate). This is why Rumanian is a Romance
> language. North Africa was also, I believe, fairly strongly Latinised, this
> I would have to check.
> Latin didn't seem very good at replacing Greek, which is quite another matter.
I was probably a bit hasty. Latin was also common along the Danube.
> Number of legions really hasn't much to do with it (actually there were at
> times four along with quite a lot of auxiliaries and so on). Brittannia was
> really quite militarised compared with Spain, which did adopt Latin (yes I do
> know that it was occupied for much longer).
Spain was pretty much a second Italy as far as Roman colonies went.
> There was a positive effort to introduce Latin; Agricola introduced Latin
> schools during his governorship for example. It does seem that by the 4th
> centuary towns were largely Latin speaking, certainly in the South-East and
> that the local British Elite had become heavily Romanised. Much the same thing
> happened in Gaul (where arguably Celtic did not vanish till after the fall of
> Rome).
I do not doubt that Latin was common, only that it replaced the language of the
Britons. Latin was an important language for trade throughout the empire. Latin
was likely to have been the only written language taught.
> I don't think "Anglo-Saxons force Britons to retreat to Wales/Cornwall etc" is
> a very good model of what was happening in C5/6. Brittany was essentially
> a Cornish introduction, so is hardly relevant.
Perhaps not, do you have another model to suggest? What I see is large numbers of
Britons moving into Brittany, Spain and Wales (and proabably Cornwall) during the
period of Anglo-Saxon expansion. In this they appear to be refugees.
Also, any refugees would have had to have departed through Cornwall, just as the
refugees arriving in Spain would have set off from Brittany. Large scale
immigration into Cornwall could not be supported. And, Cornwall did not support a
population large enough to explain the size and number of the settlements in
Brittany and Spain.
Sharon Krossa
In article <qtFgMBAG...@pictish.demon.co.uk>,
graeme fairbrother <Crui...@pictish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I think there is a problem of terminology, though -- most people hear
"appropriating" and automatically stick "evilly" in front of it. It is a
value laden term. One of the dictionary definitions I found for
"appropriate" was "To take possession of or make use of exclusively for
oneself, often without permission" These days, one most often hears of
cultural appropriation as a bad thing -- of people taking or "stealing"
something they have no "right" to, and of course we all know that stealing
is a bad and evil thing. (Personally I think this is a nonsense when it
comes to culture, however it remains that many people do think in these
ways.) This is what I am objecting to, and even if this is not what you
mean by it, I'm afraid that is what people are conciously or unconciously
hearing when you say/write it. I'd really much prefer the process of
adopting borrowed cultural elements be expressed in less problematic terms,
so we can get beyond the terms and look at the process, and learn to
understand, and appreciate ;-), this apparently universal societal
tendency. Since this process is a continuous one, and even now various (one
can perhaps even say all) cultures are adopting elements from other
cultures and inventing themselves all over again, I think this is
especially important.
In addition to all this, I think "appropriation" as a term, even meant the
way you have explained above, can mask what in many cases is not culture A
taking Element 1 from culture B, but in fact Culture A and Culture B
blending together, keeping element 1 from Culture B, and element 2 from
Culture A, etc., etc. etc. While this may not always be the case, starting
out by talking of "appropriation" of culture *by* one culture *from*
another can blind you to the times when blending *is* the case.
All in all, I think "appropriation" simply isn't a useful term, and fails
in the basic need to communicate clearly what one means without adding
anything one doesn't mean. The word just causes too many problems.
Sharon Krossa, still not happy with people discussing culture in terms of
"appropriation"
Doug Weller
In article <31B321...@ix.netcom.com>
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Why would they have had to depart through Cornwall? Why not Dorest?
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Doug Weller wrote:
> Why would they have had to depart through Cornwall? Why not Dorest?
First, I tend to lump the lands west of Saxon settlement as Cornwall. The current
boundry was certainly not always the historical boundry. It would depend largely
on the extent of Saxon expansion at the time.
Second, I would think that the ideal point of departure for Brittany back then
would have been west of the Dart. But, as I have not sailed the English Channel, I
really could not eliminate Dorset as a possible point of departure.
graeme fairbrother
In article <ADD86DD6...@annex-p3.abdn.ac.uk>, Sharon Krossa
<s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk> writes
>
>
Alas, I think that we still disagree..."appropriation" is a useful term
to use or at least to flag up...my dictionary defines it as "the act of
setting apart or taking for ones own use" Therefore appropriation could
be out of admiration,be neutral or have malign intent. However it does
imply a *power-relationship*, and this is important in the studies of
culture. In order to appropriate something you have to be *able* to do
so.
The use of such terminology therefore forces us to examine the shifting
sands of power-relationships within culture/history. I would probably
accept that in the case of the Picts/Scots the lack of sufficient
evidence does make such a study difficult, but not impossible.
Particularly when comparative models are introduced.
It is also perhaps useful as a metaphor for subsequent changes in
Scottish Culture, is testable and much modern scottish history is
written from such a perspective.
At all times, we have to be aware of who is trying to appropriate
aspects of history/culture, what is their motive?, who would benefit
from such such appropriation?, who would be disempowered?
>Sharon Krossa, still not happy with people discussing culture in terms of
>"appropriation"
Graeme Fairbrother, always happy with people discussing culture in terms
of "power-relationships"
Turnerpfj
A suggestion:
Perhaps it was not the size of the Briton migration that mattered so much
as the content. If the upper classes were most likely to emigrate, that
would have left a large, but politically and culturally leaderless, number
of Britons behind. Abandoned by their native leaders, perhaps the common
folk would have been more likely to adopt the newcomers' language and
ways?
(I have been enjoying these recent postings, by the way!)
-pfjt
----------------------------------------------------
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D.410-A.D.593.
Available from from SKS Publishing Co., 1306 Parkway Ct., Houston, Tx.
77077 @ $29.95.
----------------------------------------------------