antiquity of oghams (was: about Micmac script
Yuri Kuchinsky
Doug,
This really needs a new thread name.
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 29 Jun 1997 15:20:21 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: >Well, Doug, here's Marshall McKusick, a noted, not to say notorious,
: >"refuter of odd theories":
: >
: >"Irish ogham developed after the forth century ad as a writing system...
: >Although this innovative script developed separately from traditional
: >European alphabetical characters, each of the ogham letters derives its
: >phonetic values from written Latin of the late Roman empire. Ogham script
: >had a very restricted range in eastern Ireland and adjacent colonies
: >across the Irish Sea in Wales and Scotland...." (THE DAVENPORT CONSPIRACY
: >REVISITED, 1991, p. 152)
:
: Thank you for confirming what I thought was the case. McCusick is very
: clear that Ogham is not based on Latin script.
No, according to him, its "phonetic values" derive from "written Latin".
Sounds pretty strange to me...
: >The latter statement about _where_ ogham inscriptions are found is plain
: >wrong. Plenty of ogham writings are found in the Alps, mostly in
: >Switzerland.
: >
: >The previous two statements about the age and the derivation are arguably
: >wrong.
:
: You mentioned script, not phonetic value. If you think he's wrong about
: the phonetic values, fine. A bit of evidence would be nice though. I'd
: like some references to Swiss ogham also.
Well, I don't really have exact references. I read about the Swiss
inscriptions in the Enc. Britannica a few years ago.
I've been reading about oghams on and off for many years, but I haven't
been keeping notes, and don't have recent references at hand. I'm sure a
copious literature exists. Much info probably also exists on the WWW.
: >I don't know where is the consensus at the moment about the age of oghams,
: >but it seems obvious to me that oghams existed at least when the Romans
: >invaded Britain.
:
: I give up. Obvious with no evidence?
Check Caesar's THE GALLIC WAR. Robert Graves, who wrote a lot about
oghams, writes this (without a further ref.) on p. 115 of the WHITE
GODDESS:
"Julius Caesar records in his GALLIC WAR that the Druids of Gaul used
'Greek letters' for their public records and private correspondnce but did
not consign their sacred doctrine to writing 'lest it should become
vulgarized and lest, also, the memory of scholars should become
impaired.'"
: >The above quote should indicate abundantly how unreliable the
: >"professional refuters" can be. I suppose Steven Williams, of FANTASTIC
: >ARCHAEOLOGY fame, has got his name and reputation mixed into this by
: >writing a glowing introduction to this book.
:
: Well, you haven't produced any evidence to prove McCusick incorrect.
Did now.
As far as McKusick's "ogham developed after the forth century ad as a
writing system", Graves also says this on p. 114:
"Dr. Mcalister proves that in Ireland Ohgams were not used in public
inscriptions until Druidism began to decline..."
Mcalister was the leading Keltic scholar of his day.
Also, Graves adds that oghams "when used for written messages between one
Druid and another, nicked on wooden billets, were usually cyphered."
Perhaps others can suggest a useful bibliography, and also let us know
what may be the current consensus, if any, among the concerned scholars
about the likely age of earliest oghams?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
-=- | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
in Toronto | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
----- my webpage is for now at: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----
Douglas Weller
On 30 Jun 1997 13:57:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>Doug,
>
>This really needs a new thread name.
>
>Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 29 Jun 1997 15:20:21 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>: >Well, Doug, here's Marshall McKusick, a noted, not to say notorious,
>: >"refuter of odd theories":
>: >
>: >"Irish ogham developed after the forth century ad as a writing system...
>: >Although this innovative script developed separately from traditional
>: >European alphabetical characters, each of the ogham letters derives its
>: >phonetic values from written Latin of the late Roman empire. Ogham script
>: >had a very restricted range in eastern Ireland and adjacent colonies
>: >across the Irish Sea in Wales and Scotland...." (THE DAVENPORT CONSPIRACY
>: >REVISITED, 1991, p. 152)
>:
>: Thank you for confirming what I thought was the case. McCusick is very
>: clear that Ogham is not based on Latin script.
>
>No, according to him, its "phonetic values" derive from "written Latin".
>Sounds pretty strange to me...
But clearly not the script itself. Looking at it, who could think it
came from Latin or Greek script?
>: >The latter statement about _where_ ogham inscriptions are found is plain
>: >wrong. Plenty of ogham writings are found in the Alps, mostly in
>: >Switzerland.
>: >
>: >The previous two statements about the age and the derivation are arguably
>: >wrong.
>:
>: You mentioned script, not phonetic value. If you think he's wrong about
>: the phonetic values, fine. A bit of evidence would be nice though. I'd
>: like some references to Swiss ogham also.
>
>Well, I don't really have exact references. I read about the Swiss
>inscriptions in the Enc. Britannica a few years ago.
Hardly an reliable source, certainly not any where good enough to say
'plain wrong'.
>I've been reading about oghams on and off for many years, but I haven't
>been keeping notes, and don't have recent references at hand. I'm sure a
>copious literature exists. Much info probably also exists on the WWW.
>
>: >I don't know where is the consensus at the moment about the age of oghams,
>: >but it seems obvious to me that oghams existed at least when the Romans
>: >invaded Britain.
>:
>: I give up. Obvious with no evidence?
>
>Check Caesar's THE GALLIC WAR. Robert Graves, who wrote a lot about
>oghams, writes this (without a further ref.) on p. 115 of the WHITE
>GODDESS:
>
>"Julius Caesar records in his GALLIC WAR that the Druids of Gaul used
>'Greek letters' for their public records and private correspondnce but did
>not consign their sacred doctrine to writing 'lest it should become
>vulgarized and lest, also, the memory of scholars should become
>impaired.'"
Although White Goddess should never be used as a reference source, this
is as far as I recall correct, and evidence that the Druids did not use
Ogham at this time.
>: >The above quote should indicate abundantly how unreliable the
>: >"professional refuters" can be. I suppose Steven Williams, of FANTASTIC
>: >ARCHAEOLOGY fame, has got his name and reputation mixed into this by
>: >writing a glowing introduction to this book.
>:
>: Well, you haven't produced any evidence to prove McCusick incorrect.
>
>Did now.
Nope, the opposite.
>As far as McKusick's "ogham developed after the forth century ad as a
>writing system", Graves also says this on p. 114:
>
>"Dr. Mcalister proves that in Ireland Ohgams were not used in public
>inscriptions until Druidism began to decline..."
>
>Mcalister was the leading Keltic scholar of his day.
>
>Also, Graves adds that oghams "when used for written messages between one
>Druid and another, nicked on wooden billets, were usually cyphered."
Which is what I've understood.
>Perhaps others can suggest a useful bibliography, and also let us know
>what may be the current consensus, if any, among the concerned scholars
>about the likely age of earliest oghams?
>
'Twould be useful.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
JORDAN_ELECTRON
> >: >"Irish ogham developed after the forth century ad as a writing system...
> >: >Although this innovative script developed separately from traditional
> >: >European alphabetical characters, each of the ogham letters derives its
> >: >phonetic values from written Latin of the late Roman empire.
> >'Greek letters' for their public records and private correspondnce
> >
> >Druid and another, nicked on wooden billets, were usually cyphered."
>
The runes are similar to Ogham, in that they are composed of straight
lines, easily carved into wood or stone. Runes also constitute a
semaphore system that an individual can contort into. They appear
related to Latin, Greek, and Phoenician letters.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 30 Jun 1997 13:57:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
...
: >Well, I don't really have exact references. I read about the Swiss
: >inscriptions in the Enc. Britannica a few years ago.
I have to make a correction here. I tried to find more information about
those Swiss oghams inscriptions, but it's not in Enc. Brit.. I already
checked. I really cannot remember at this time where I read about Swiss
inscriptions (it was a few years ago), so I cannot vouch if this
information is reliable or correct. If someone else knows anything about
this, please let us know.
...
: >Check Caesar's THE GALLIC WAR. Robert Graves, who wrote a lot about
: >oghams, writes this (without a further ref.) on p. 115 of the WHITE
: >GODDESS:
: >
: >"Julius Caesar records in his GALLIC WAR that the Druids of Gaul used
: >'Greek letters' for their public records and private correspondnce but did
: >not consign their sacred doctrine to writing 'lest it should become
: >vulgarized and lest, also, the memory of scholars should become
: >impaired.'"
:
: Although White Goddess should never be used as a reference source, this
: is as far as I recall correct, and evidence that the Druids did not use
: Ogham at this time.
No, just that they were literate.
As far as the antiquity of oghams, has anyone heard about Celtic coins
minted in Europe around 2c. bce? These coins feature oghams. I can post
more info about these coins. This is all we need to prove that oghmas were
much more ancient than is commonly believed.
...
: >Perhaps others can suggest a useful bibliography, and also let us know
: >what may be the current consensus, if any, among the concerned scholars
: >about the likely age of earliest oghams?
: >
:
: 'Twould be useful.
There's plenty of materials available on the WWW. Some of it quite well
researched. One only needs to do a search on "ogham" in YAHOO, at
yahoo.com, or any other search engine.
It seems like plenty of controversy exists in the area of early history of
oghams. There are many competing theories. It is an extremely obscure
area, and even your average academic historian often doesn't know the
first thing about oghams, not to speak about the general public. Those
who're interested should get on the WWW and they will find many basic
introductory websites.
We have to ask some basic questions, such as, What is the exact connection
of this alphabet with tree-names? Was it used by all Keltic druids from
early times, or just in Ireland and Britain in later times? What about the
secrecy associated with oghams? What was the connection with the runes?
Re: oghams and trees. I think the connection here is solid and goes back
into early history of druid religion. (To explain: every ogham letter is
also a tree-name in Gaelic, and this connection persists also in the
modern Gaelic.)
I think oghams were invented very early, and originated in continental
Europe. But taboos existed about their use.
I can post a bibliography later. I've seen a couple of very long ones on
the Web.
All the best,
Morgoth
Runes are not celtic or so I have heard. They are Germanic. With
muc of their shape coming from the material used, and their
vvalue (what sound and such) coming from some greco-roman
alphabet, or like.
After all, the early germanic tribes had some contact with other
peoples than Rome.
The FUTHARK/FOTHARK coming from the first letters normally used.
The letters names all come from germanic sources. LAst instances
of being used was around the 14th century, but most users stoped
using them as they became christian. After all to talk to the
church you needed to speak latin, and latin uses the roman
alphabet (the one we basically use today, with some minor
differences).
Of course he english used a few characters in their alphabet to
designate sounds that are in english. Such as dh, th, w (hw/wh),
and a few others, but the alphabet is basically roman.
Morgoth the Wyrd
Yuri Kuchinsky
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 1 Jul 1997 15:44:29 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: >As far as the antiquity of oghams, has anyone heard about Celtic coins
: >minted in Europe around 2c. bce? These coins feature oghams. I can post
: >more info about these coins. This is all we need to prove that oghmas were
: >much more ancient than is commonly believed.
:
: Yuri, why is alt.mythology in the newsgroup line? I do suspect a lot of
: your suggestions are myths, but that still doesn't make them on topic
: there.
Doug,
Mythology is very relevant. You see, Ogma Sun-Face, a Celtic god, was
credited with the invention of oghams. But I cut it out of the follow-ups
anyway, so anyone in alt.mythology who is interested is encouraged to read
this thread in sci.archaeology.
: No, I haven't heard of these coins. I'm interested, but hope you can
: prove both their date and that there is ogham on them.
I will post it soon. The dating seems solid, and the oghams are "on the
surface" for all to see! Later on, I will try to scan those photos and put
them up on the WWW. But I must advise the anti-Fell crowd that it was
Barry Fell who first pointed out the significance of those coins...
: (btw what do you
: mean by 'oghams' -- different variety of oghams, or what?
Yes, precisely, there're dozens of different oghams.
: >It seems like plenty of controversy exists in the area of early history of
: >oghams. There are many competing theories.
:
: Of course there are. There's at least one that has Pleidians involved. A
: multiplicity of theories doesn't mean much more than it's an area which
: attracts kooks.
Well, let's say many people are enthusiastic about this ancient heritage.
Oghams were and are used widely in divination.
: It is an extremely obscure
: >area, and even your average academic historian often doesn't know the
: >first thing about oghams,
:
: Your average academic historian doesn't know the first think about
: Sanskrit I'd imagine. But I would expect the average Irish historian to
: know a bit about them, or historians of Celtic Britain,etc.
True.
: >Re: oghams and trees. I think the connection here is solid and goes back
: >into early history of druid religion. (To explain: every ogham letter is
: >also a tree-name in Gaelic, and this connection persists also in the
: >modern Gaelic.)
:
: Come on, you say this as though it's accepted fact,
Well, Doug, actually it is fact. Why do you think it isn't?
: instead of something
: you just found on the web.
Now, now, Doug, this is not nice. I actually researched this matter over
many years, but haven't looked into it recently. There're some interesting
new books published in the last few years, as I've discovered.
: The idea comes from Robert Graves' book The
: White Goddess,
Which idea? That ogham letters are also tree-names? No, this idea comes
from the Gaelic alphabet!
: which, as I think I've said recently, is simply not a
: reliable source. This is not an attack on Graves, Grave enjoyed writing
: it but, as I recall, didn't expect people to take it as gospel or as a
: source document.
I think you're quite wrong about this. Graves is widely underestimated by
the "mainstream". He's a lot more reliable overall than people give him
credit for.
: (Can anyone help confirm this? I'm sure there's a quote
: from Graves himself about this).
I'm sure there isn't.
: Anyway, the connection is hardly solid.
: Why do you think it's solid? Convince me.
It's on the surface. Pick up the Gaelic dictionary and check. Perhaps
there's one or two exceptions, but tree-names connections are there.
: Why not put up the main web site? It's
:
: http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/og/ogmharc.html
Yes, this one has a lot of links.
Among those links, I especially recommend the following:
[begin quote]
**** Bibliography of Ogham. A long list of books which used to
be at the end of this page:
http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/og/leabhair.html
**** Curtis Clark's introduction to Ogham:
http://www.is.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ogham/
**** Exploring the Origins of the Celtic Ogham: Curtis Clark's
essay on the location of certain trees in ancient Europe:
http://www.is.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ogham/ogh-orig.htm
[end quote]
I hope those links work.
Best regards,
Douglas Weller
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:17:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Douglas Weller
wrote:
>
>Although White Goddess should never be used as a reference source, this
>is as far as I recall correct, and evidence that the Druids did not use
>Ogham at this time.
To follow up on myself, this is what I've been told about The White
Goddess and Robert Graves' worries about it:
>
>Discussed in Grave's preface to the White Goddess, as well as in the
>biography of his life by Seymour-Smith. He was bloody apalled during his
>lifetime by what folks were claiming he wrote in the White Goddess by
>folks who never really understood that he was writing about poetic
>inspiration. He approached his ideas like a poet, not as a historian.
>
>One of his greatest fears (expressed to his biographer) was that he would
>be remembered for such things as his Claudius books, his White Goddess,
>his Golden Ass and other self-described pot-boilers written to keep a
>roof over the heads of his unconventional household, rather than for the
>poetry he was proud of having written.
Yuri Kuchinsky
[sci.lang snipped from the header]
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >Discussed in Grave's preface to the White Goddess, as well as in the
: >biography of his life by Seymour-Smith. He was bloody apalled during his
: >lifetime by what folks were claiming he wrote in the White Goddess by
: >folks who never really understood that he was writing about poetic
: >inspiration. He approached his ideas like a poet, not as a historian.
But he was a great historian, Doug. He knew the Classical age perhaps
better than any of his contemporaries. All those historical novels he
wrote are testimony of this. Not to mention all those authoritative
translations of ancient text that he did...
: >One of his greatest fears (expressed to his biographer) was that he would
: >be remembered for such things as his Claudius books, his White Goddess,
: >his Golden Ass and other self-described pot-boilers written to keep a
: >roof over the heads of his unconventional household, rather than for the
: >poetry he was proud of having written.
This is interesting but quite problematic.
To begin with, it is a mistake to place the WHITE GODDESS alongside his
bestselling historical novels. They are very different types of books. The
WG is _ostensibly_ about poetry and the poetic Muse, so this alone makes
me very suspicious about the above statement. It was probably distorted or
misreported. I can see how Graves may have felt this way about his
historical novels, but I see it as a mistake to include the WG in this
characterisation.
Best,
Douglas Weller
On 4 Jul 1997 14:26:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>To begin with, it is a mistake to place the WHITE GODDESS alongside his
>bestselling historical novels. They are very different types of books. The
>WG is _ostensibly_ about poetry and the poetic Muse, so this alone makes
>me very suspicious about the above statement. It was probably distorted or
>misreported. I can see how Graves may have felt this way about his
>historical novels, but I see it as a mistake to include the WG in this
>characterisation.
Are you saying this after having read his introduction to it, or are you
making up your mind without reading what he said?
Doug
Yuri Kuchinsky
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
Doug,
Why do you so often have to display your cynicism in public? What makes
you think I haven't read the White Goddess?
Kevin Daly
You seem confused.
There ARE no Celtic runes, because runes were a Germanic writing system
(which is why the names are in Germanic languages), not Celtic. The forms
of the runic letters appear to be an independent borrowing from Etruscan
writing (independent from the Roman alphabet, which had the same origin).
It's important not to get your ancient cultures mixed up.
The pre-Christian Celtic peoples didn't have much use for a writing system,
since they did not organise themselves into the sort of bureaucratic
structures that would require accountants and record keepers, and history
and other knowledge were transmitted orally.
Ogham is a very interesting invention in itself, and a significant
achievement, even though the idea came from elsewhere.
JORDAN_ELECTRON <JORDAN_...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<33B7CD...@prodigy.net>...
> > >: >"Irish ogham developed after the forth century ad as a writing
system...
> > >: >Although this innovative script developed separately from
traditional
> > >: >European alphabetical characters, each of the ogham letters derives
its
> > >: >phonetic values from written Latin of the late Roman empire.
> > >"Julius Caesar records in his GALLIC WAR that the Druids of Gaul used
> > >'Greek letters' for their public records and private correspondnce
> > >
Douglas Weller
On 5 Jul 1997 13:22:41 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>Why do you so often have to display your cynicism in public? What makes
>you think I haven't read the White Goddess?
Simply because you made no specific reference to it. Perhaps you can
help me, as I've only glanced through it. What does he actually say
about ogham?
Doug
Paul J. Gans
Yuri Kuchinsky (yu...@mail.trends.ca) wrote:
: [sci.lang snipped from the header]
:
: Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: : >Discussed in Grave's preface to the White Goddess, as well as in the
: : >biography of his life by Seymour-Smith. He was bloody apalled during his
: : >lifetime by what folks were claiming he wrote in the White Goddess by
: : >folks who never really understood that he was writing about poetic
: : >inspiration. He approached his ideas like a poet, not as a historian.
:
: But he was a great historian, Doug. He knew the Classical age perhaps
: better than any of his contemporaries. All those historical novels he
: wrote are testimony of this. Not to mention all those authoritative
: translations of ancient text that he did...
Oh Yuri. How little you know. "He knew the Classical age
perhaps better than any of his contemporaries." Wow.
: : >One of his greatest fears (expressed to his biographer) was that he would
: : >be remembered for such things as his Claudius books, his White Goddess,
: : >his Golden Ass and other self-described pot-boilers written to keep a
: : >roof over the heads of his unconventional household, rather than for the
: : >poetry he was proud of having written.
:
: This is interesting but quite problematic.
What is problematic? That he expressed this view to his
biographer or that he had an unconventional household.
How little you know, Yuri, how little you know.
: To begin with, it is a mistake to place the WHITE GODDESS alongside his
: bestselling historical novels. They are very different types of books. The
: WG is _ostensibly_ about poetry and the poetic Muse, so this alone makes
: me very suspicious about the above statement. It was probably distorted or
: misreported. I can see how Graves may have felt this way about his
: historical novels, but I see it as a mistake to include the WG in this
: characterisation.
Have you read the WHITE GODDESS? It is clearly about poetry
and the poetic way of looking at things -- including the
distortions introduced when one tries to understand poetry
"logically". A mistake, by the way, hyperdiffusionists
make quite frequently.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 4 Jul 1997 14:26:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:
: >
: >To begin with, it is a mistake to place the WHITE GODDESS alongside his
: >bestselling historical novels. They are very different types of books. The
: >WG is _ostensibly_ about poetry and the poetic Muse, so this alone makes
: >me very suspicious about the above statement. It was probably distorted or
: >misreported. I can see how Graves may have felt this way about his
: >historical novels, but I see it as a mistake to include the WG in this
: >characterisation.
: Are you saying this after having read his introduction to it, or are you
: making up your mind without reading what he said?
I'm glad you pointed this out. Folks who have actually
*read* the WHITE GODDESS are about as common as folks
who actually read Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_.
Many have read parts, some have skimmed it all, but
few have actually read them.
I'll admit to having read the White Goddess. It is one
of the most dense books I've ever peered into. A very
very difficult read -- and I came to it with some background
in what he writes about. Indeed, it is not clear to me
that he did not write a prose book in a poetical manner,
or, put more simply, that he was not having a bit of fun
with his readers. The unpronouncible true name of God
being one of those bits.
Eco's book, of course, has some very dense parts containing
detailed discussions of several very fine points of medieval
religious doctrine. After 30 or 40 pages the mind begins to
numb up...
Yuri Kuchinsky
Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
...
: I'm glad you pointed this out. Folks who have actually
: *read* the WHITE GODDESS are about as common as folks
: who actually read Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_.
Agreed. Except the WG is ten times harder to read.
: Many have read parts, some have skimmed it all, but
: few have actually read them.
:
: I'll admit to having read the White Goddess. It is one
: of the most dense books I've ever peered into.
Agreed.
: A very
: very difficult read -- and I came to it with some background
: in what he writes about. Indeed, it is not clear to me
: that he did not write a prose book in a poetical manner,
: or, put more simply, that he was not having a bit of fun
: with his readers.
This is possible.
: The unpronouncible true name of God
: being one of those bits.
So, this means you didn't understand it, Paul!
Yuri Kuchinsky
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 5 Jul 1997 13:22:41 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: >Why do you so often have to display your cynicism in public? What makes
: >you think I haven't read the White Goddess?
:
: Simply because you made no specific reference to it. Perhaps you can
: help me, as I've only glanced through it. What does he actually say
: about ogham?
Doug,
I can assure you that I read this book quite carefully -- many years ago.
He is one of my favourite writers, and I actually have some links and
files dedicated to him on my webpage. I consider him a great Gnostic
thinker of our time.
His arguments about oghams are extremely complex. For example he explains
in detail about letters-tree names connections, and why certain trees were
important in various seasons. Because tree names were also month names,
according to him. Thus the ogham alphabet letters also were connected to
the calendar and various seasonal celebrations.
Many of his arguments are of course quite speculative and he usually
doesn't explain things in detail or provide footnotes. But he makes sense
to me overall. I'm aware of one scholarly book that looks at all this, and
I will try to look it up for you if you wish. It's been years since I
studied all this...
Now, as far as the so called "battle of the trees" that provides the
starting point of his scholarly investigation, this is really too complex
to get into in detail. Basically he claims to solve two quite obscure
puzzles in Celtic mythology connected with some bardic poems the verses of
which he claims were "scrambled" to hide their true meaning from the
outsiders. The ancient "battle of the trees" poem, CAD GODDEU, according
to him, is a cryptic account of an important battle between two Celtic
tribes that had somewhat different oghams and whose calendar observances
were slightly different. The result of the battle was letter sequence and
calendar reform.
Confusing enough for you yet? But nobody said this stuff is easy to figure
out...
More generally, the greatest achievement of Graves in my opinion was that
he was the first to point out the many connections between the biblical
and Greek and other pagan mythologies. All this stuff is in his and
Raphael Patai's HEBREW MYTHS. Patai, of course, is a great biblical
scholar and a specialist in biblical anthropology and history. This is why
I see Graves as a Gnostic thinker. His biblical interpretations and
theories are very little known, unfortunately.
Regards,
Kim Burkard
In article 1...@trends.ca, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
<snip>
>Now, as far as the so called "battle of the trees" that provides the
>starting point of his scholarly investigation, this is really too complex
>to get into in detail. Basically he claims to solve two quite obscure
>puzzles in Celtic mythology connected with some bardic poems the verses of
>which he claims were "scrambled" to hide their true meaning from the
>outsiders. The ancient "battle of the trees" poem, CAD GODDEU, according
>to him, is a cryptic account of an important battle between two Celtic
>tribes that had somewhat different oghams and whose calendar observances
>were slightly different. The result of the battle was letter sequence and
>calendar reform.
<snip>
There is an entire chapter on the Ogam and Cad Goddeu in the following
book:
_Taliesin: Shamanism and the Bardic Mysteries in Britain and Ireland_
by John Matthews, The Aquarian Press, London, 1991,
isbn 1-85538-109-5.
BTW, Robert Graves and his ideas on this subject are also noted.
Enjoy.
-kim
---
Kimberly Burkard | _ Everything I needed to know in life, I
Eastman Kodak Company| _____C .._. learned from my ferret:
Rochester, New York | ____/ \___/ Frolic and dance for joy often, have
bur...@kodak.com |<____/\_---\_\ no fear or worries, and enjoy life.
Douglas Weller
On 7 Jul 1997 14:40:11 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 5 Jul 1997 13:22:41 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>: >Why do you so often have to display your cynicism in public? What makes
>: >you think I haven't read the White Goddess?
>:
>: Simply because you made no specific reference to it. Perhaps you can
>: help me, as I've only glanced through it. What does he actually say
>: about ogham?
>
>Doug,
>
>I can assure you that I read this book quite carefully -- many years ago.
>He is one of my favourite writers, and I actually have some links and
>files dedicated to him on my webpage. I consider him a great Gnostic
>thinker of our time.
Ok, fine. As I said, the tree thing is interesting but hardly relevant
to the age, location, etc of ogham, and his analysis is, as I think you
suggest, still very iffy.
Thanks for the info, though. Someone has sent me a huge file on tree
names!
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <5pqv4b$22f$1...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
<yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
>I can assure you that I read this book quite carefully -- many years ago.
>He is one of my favourite writers, and I actually have some links and
>files dedicated to him on my webpage. I consider him a great Gnostic
>thinker of our time.
>
Come off it. Even Graves himself laughed outright in later years at the
thought that anybody might have taken 'The White Goddess' seriously.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
des wolt ih mih darben,
daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!
Yuri Kuchinsky
Alan M. Dunsmuir (al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5pqv4b$22f$1...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
: <yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
: >I can assure you that I read this book quite carefully -- many years ago.
: >He is one of my favourite writers, and I actually have some links and
: >files dedicated to him on my webpage. I consider him a great Gnostic
: >thinker of our time.
: Come off it. Even Graves himself laughed outright in later years at the
: thought that anybody might have taken 'The White Goddess' seriously.
This is misleading information. Have you read this book, Alan?
dcl...@best.com
In article <lxisjDAf...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
Alan M. Dunsmuir <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5pqv4b$22f$1...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
><yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
>>I can assure you that I read this book quite carefully -- many years ago.
>>He is one of my favourite writers, and I actually have some links and
>>files dedicated to him on my webpage. I consider him a great Gnostic
>>thinker of our time.
>Come off it. Even Graves himself laughed outright in later years at the
>thought that anybody might have taken 'The White Goddess' seriously.
it is a very funny book, if you have the background to get the jokes.
how does this disqualify graves from being a great gnostic thinkher,
though?
personally, I consider philip k. dick to be a saint.
josh
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <5pti62$mdr$3...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
<yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
>This is misleading information. Have you read this book, Alan?
Of course. I do not usually comment on matters about which I am
uniformed.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: <yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
: >This is misleading information. Have you read this book, Alan?
:
: Of course. I do not usually comment on matters about which I am
: uniformed.
So why do you think the WHITE GODDESS is so funny then? Which are the
funny parts?
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <5pu2ce$5m5$1...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
<yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
>So why do you think the WHITE GODDESS is so funny then? Which are the
>funny parts?
I didn't say I had found it funny. I said that Graves had laughed to
think that anybody might have taken it seriously.
As the transcribed fantasies of a young poet, it has as much historical
validity as Colleridge's 'Kubla Khan'.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: <yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
: >So why do you think the WHITE GODDESS is so funny then? Which are the
: >funny parts?
:
: I didn't say I had found it funny. I said that Graves had laughed to
: think that anybody might have taken it seriously.
:
: As the transcribed fantasies of a young poet, it has as much historical
: validity as Colleridge's 'Kubla Khan'.
Alarm bell!!! Alan doesn't know what he's talking about...
A YOUNG POET?
Do you have any idea how old he was when he wrote the book?
Hint: it's in the book... So read it!
dcl...@best.com
In article <DCHV$CAKwx...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
Alan M. Dunsmuir <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5pu2ce$5m5$1...@trends.ca>, Yuri Kuchinsky
><yu...@mail.trends.ca> writes
>>So why do you think the WHITE GODDESS is so funny then? Which are the
>>funny parts?
>I didn't say I had found it funny. I said that Graves had laughed to
>think that anybody might have taken it seriously.
>As the transcribed fantasies of a young poet, it has as much historical
>validity as Colleridge's 'Kubla Khan'.
it's at least fifteen years since I read it, but I recall laughing out
loud more than once, and finding a fair amount of food for thought.
josh
Alex Kashko
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> wrote:
> I'll admit to having read the White Goddess. It is one
> of the most dense books I've ever peered into. A very
> very difficult read -- and I came to it with some background
> in what he writes about. Indeed, it is not clear to me
> that he did not write a prose book in a poetical manner,
> or, put more simply, that he was not having a bit of fun
> with his readers. The unpronouncible true name of God
> being one of those bits.
It is a very complex read. The argument is not always easy to
follow. There are several strands and he seems to be arguing several
different things: Goddess worship, Tree alphabets and euhemerised
mythology as explanation for all the greek myths for a start. Ther eis a
lot in there, probably of doubtful value to the historian
--
Grenville Translations, All Languages - G...@galdr.demon.co.uk
UK National Phone calls from 2p/minute - un...@galdr.demon.co.uk
$2000 -$300/month after six months - World...@galdr.demon.co.uk
Multimedia Writing,publishing & coding - aay...@galdr.demon.co.uk
Alex Kashko
<dcl...@best.com> wrote:
Well I just finished reading it again after several years and
find it a fascinating book but I am not sure what if anything is to be
believed. He seems to be takiong Frazer far too seriously ( all the talk
of ritual deathj and resurrection could aalso be a shamanic reference
for example) and his etymology is more like lexilinking.
The central premise, that the Druids and Bards loved riddles is
plausible. I am more than a little skeptical about the idea that the
triple Goddess was worshipped as universally as he seems to make out.
A dodgy source but a fun read.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Alex Kashko (al...@galdr.demon.co.uk) wrote:
...
: Well I just finished reading it again after several years and
: find it a fascinating book but I am not sure what if anything is to be
: believed.
Well, Alex, I'm sure some things are definitely to be believed there. But
which ones? This is the big question.
Let's look at the two big historical/literary puzzles in the bardic poems
about the "battle of the trees" that provided the frame for the book, for
instance. Graves claimed to have solved them. It's a big claim. Suppose he
was wrong about his solution. So what? Even if he was wrong, the main
themes of the book, and his exploration of them will still remain very
valid.
As far as I know, the only _obvious_ factual inaccuracies that have been
pointed out by his critics so far have been rather few and trivial ones. I
believe Graves was actually quite proud of the research that he's done and
included in this book. He makes plenty of big interpretative claims, often
unsubstantiated, true. But this is not the same as obvious factual
errors... I don't think there are many of those.
: He seems to be takiong Frazer far too seriously
Sure does. But perhaps Frazer needs to be taken a lot more seriously than
he's taken at this time. Frazer is often misunderstood and swept under the
rug currently. He's unfashionable, true. But academic fashions come and
go. Important works remain.
: ( all the talk
: of ritual deathj and resurrection could aalso be a shamanic reference
: for example)
They don't have to contradict each other. We know that both phenomena are
well documented.
: and his etymology is more like lexilinking.
This is the most obvious weak spot that many critics zeroed in onto. We
should see all this as speculative and leave it at that.
: The central premise, that the Druids and Bards loved riddles is
: plausible. I am more than a little skeptical about the idea that the
: triple Goddess was worshipped as universally as he seems to make out.
The triple goddess is problematic in some respects. But the idea that
various goddesses were very important during Bronze Age and previously
isn't really.
Regards,