Equinox, Soltice, Fire festival (bit long, sorry:))
Beirn
I am constantly asked whether or not the celts celebrated the equinoxes
and soltices as well as the four main festivals of Samhain, Imbolg,
Beltine and Lughnassa. I have always thought that they would have been
marked, although not as significantly as the fire festivals.
Also, I have a friend who was part of the original excavations of
Newgrange (among other sites of course over his career!) who says that
after years of archaeological experience he believes our Neolithic
ancestors *definately* marked the Soltice/equinoxes although he feels
the celts would have mainly marked the fire festivals. However the
continued use and occupation of many sites well into the celtic era and
beyond (plus the fact that most scholars decry the idea now of a celtic
invasion of Ireland and think it was a gradual immigration involving
extensive intermarrying with the native settlers who adopted
wholeheartedly celtic technology and customs) would suggest that the
celts in turn adopted some of the customs of their predecessors at least
in Ireland.
That's what I have always based my opinion on, pretty much - and hence
would usually answer " yes they did mark them but the other four
festivals would have been far more important" But recently I have been
asked so often and have read such conflicting views, from there was no
marking of the soltice/equinox to of course the wiccan eightspoked wheel
of life theory, that I would like to decide it once and for all:)
So what is the general consensus
1. only the four fire festivals
2. only the four equinox/soltice (ok, just throwing that in the be
even:))
3. all eight?
and for a million quid....phone a friend if you want....
4. WHY do you think that?
would appreciate any feedback esp as I know some of ye are very up to
date on this stuff!
thanks,
Beirn
Thorn
"Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7Em8.1233$04....@news.iol.ie...
> Morning all:)
> So what is the general consensus
> 1. only the four fire festivals
> 2. only the four equinox/soltice (ok, just throwing that in the be
> even:))
> 3. all eight?
Not a scholary response but my tuppenth worth.
I don't think the Celts did anything as the big pan-Celtic group they get
represented as today.
Of the eight festivals I think Beltane & Samhain were probably the most
widely celebrated.
I think what we have as Lughnasad is a 'rolling up' of a number of primarily
secular hiring & trading fairs that took place in July/August. (Given more
interweaving of secular & religous events than we have today that doesn't
mean I think there was no religious significance to it, just that it was
secondary)
Imbolc I'm still getting my head around. Its always felt to me as the one
put in create the eight spoke, which may mean it was more widely spread
amongst the Gaelic than the Brythonic (or just that I don't like February
<g>). What has survived is well dressing so maybe my unease is with seeing
it described as a fire festival
I'm undecided about the soltices & equinoxes, if they were marked I think it
may just have been amongst the priesthood rather than the general
population.
>
> and for a million quid....phone a friend if you want....
> 4. WHY do you think that?
Cos I can?<g> It's a distilling of what I've read, more in folk traditons
than in academic or pagan books. If one moves outside the pagan community
and looks at remaining country traditions up to around the end of the 19thC,
some of which still continue.
--
Thorn
To your own self be true
Beirn
"Thorn" <thorns...@M0VElycos.com> wrote in message
news:YUEm8.1163$k61.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l7Em8.1233$04....@news.iol.ie...
> > Morning all:)
> > So what is the general consensus
> > 1. only the four fire festivals
> > 2. only the four equinox/soltice (ok, just throwing that in the be
> > even:))
> > 3. all eight?
>
> Not a scholary response but my tuppenth worth.
> I don't think the Celts did anything as the big pan-Celtic group they
get
> represented as today.
>
> Of the eight festivals I think Beltane & Samhain were probably the
most
> widely celebrated.
> I think what we have as Lughnasad is a 'rolling up' of a number of
primarily
> secular hiring & trading fairs that took place in July/August.
Hiya Thorn and thanks muchly for the reply:)
re lughnassa I would have to diverge in opinion:) to say -
Lughnassa *is* religious , in so far as any celtic festival can be said
to be: it is the funeral games of Tailtiu foster mother of Lugh and the
games survived in Teal-town in Ireland for many centuries: it is also
clearly and definatively outlined in early celtic lit and in medieval
lit. the idea of these games seems definately to be as old as one could
wish: its later connection with hiring and firing is merely a modern
superimposition on an ancient feast
but I would absolutely agree that a lot of what we fondly imagine to be
older, are in fact modern or early modern. And i find myself agreeing
very much with your comment "> I don't think the Celts did anything as
the big pan-Celtic group they get > represented as today." I think you
have hit at one of the great problems today...taking this issue as an
example, people imagine very set and defined rules for celtic behaviour
when in fact regional differences alone have a huge effect on behaviour.
>
(Given more
> interweaving of secular & religous events than we have today that
doesn't
> mean I think there was no religious significance to it, just that it
was
> secondary)
would totally agree - fish have no word for water:)
> Imbolc I'm still getting my head around. Its always felt to me as the
one
> put in create the eight spoke, which may mean it was more widely
spread
> amongst the Gaelic than the Brythonic
Again, as with all four of the fire festivals I would have to stress
that there is no real question about them being observed by the
celts....these festivals were enshrined in custom and in literature, all
across the celtic world. Many cutoms survived longer in Ireland for
example because of geographic and political forces, but their actuality
in celtic society is not really an issue....not so however the equinoxes
and soltices, and here the problem arises, of their place if any in
Celtic observations
(or just that I don't like February
> <g>). What has survived is well dressing so maybe my unease is with
seeing
> it described as a fire festival
http://homepage.eircom.net/~liossa/home/index.htm: go to contents for
two essays on irish folklore re Feb 1st: the folkcustoms outlined
including the role of fire are absolutely well researched:
However take the point:) "fire festivals" is just a handy - ok ;azy -way
of lumping them altogether ..I'll stop now, o I will.
>
> I'm undecided about the soltices & equinoxes, if they were marked I
think it
> may just have been amongst the priesthood rather than the general
> population.
Again, that is something I would think likely too: I will be surprised
to hear that they were widely marked...although I will be surprised if
they weren't marked at all..
> >
> > and for a million quid....phone a friend if you want....
> > 4. WHY do you think that?
>
> Cos I can?<g>
Ah there's always one:)
It's a distilling of what I've read, more in folk traditons
> than in academic or pagan books. If one moves outside the pagan
community
> and looks at remaining country traditions up to around the end of the
19thC,
> some of which still continue.
>
My perspective is largely from academic sources with a certain degree of
research into folk customs and beliefs...I would tend not to accept
something unless I can see the archealogical records, ta very much:) In
one way though here I am asking this learned bunch for historical input
into the question (old habit you see:)) I am actually trying at the
moment to relax a bit and try accepting more intuitive "evidence"...I've
been called pedantic and suspicious minded for insisting on "proof":)
But where possible if there's a reasoned argument based on sound
historical proof to be heard - I'm your girl, put me down for one of
them!
> --
> Thorn
> To your own self be true
>
Anyway, ta very much, really enjoyed your reply...
regards
Beirn
--
"Don't run - we are your friends"...the Martians, "Mars Attack"
>
>
Aeryn
My personal feelings on this come from intuition more then research..
in other words, I am probably wrong... but, I feel the the equinoxes
and solstices would have been important to the ancients. Why do I
feel this way? Because they are observable acts of Nature.. and as
much of the religion was based on Nature worship these events would
have held meaning to them.. although from all historical documents the
other four festivals were the major ones. I just find in
inconcievable that the ancestors didn't pay attention to the Sun
positions.
The only real proof I can offer is that Stonehenge, although not built
by the Celts, was used by them and it is certainly oriented to the
Sun. But perhaps only the priests truly cared about those four days.
It's an interesting question really.
ThtreLady
dan
response. i dunno. i thought it was interesting. anyway it's at least
tangentially related to your question.
what's interesting to me is that the irish may have given more weight in
their minds to a day of equal night and day, than to the specific
astronomical event. i think this fits nicely with their whole interest
in liminality and balanced opposites....
what's also interesting is that *if* st patrick's day is considered as
the day of the "apparent" equinox, then the period between this day
(march 17) and the much more observable solstice (dec. 21--i say more
observable because the sun's progression along the horizon at each
sunrise along the course of the year seems to get "stuck" for a while.
hence "sol-stitium" "sun stoppage" or in irish, "grianstad") consists of
86 days.right in between these dates (43 days) would be february
2-imbolc. nice symmetry.
anyway this is my first post to a.r.d. i hope it's of some use to y'all,
-dan]
howdy all,
here's something interesting. it's a
popular misconception that on
the equinoxes, day and night are of equal
duration. this is only true
if the observer is located exactly on the
equator, of course. the
real definition of an equinox is one of two
points on the celestial
sphere at which the ecliptic intersects the
celestial equator, and
thus the moment when the sun is at one of
these two points...but
still, astronomers of old understood the
principle of equal day and
night to be essential enough to the event
that they used the term
equinox to name it...
now we all know that days are longer in
summer and shorter in
winter, so there must be *some* day in
between when night and day are
in fact equal, even if that day isn't on the
official equinox.so when
is this?
well it turns out it depends on your
latitude. the farther north you
go, the farther the official equinox is from
this "apparent equinox".
Ireland is quite far north compared to
anywhere in the continental
united states, so i was curious as to when
their "apparent equinox"
would occur.
i found a website that calculates
sunrise/sunset times and added up
the hours to find which day had a 12-hour
length
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/custom_srss_calendar.asp
(i'm sorry i don't know how to include
hypertext as a link. i'm
somewhat technologically inept)
if the calendar's city is set to "Dublin" it
will calculate all the
sunrise/sunset times for you. (and also
moonrise/moonset, moonphase,
and those beautiful periods of liminality
called "twilight" )
can anyone guess what date is the closest to
equal day/night in
ireland?
Beirn
Beirn
> response. i dunno. i thought it was interesting. anyway it's at least
> tangentially related to your question.
Dan, thank you so much that is madly interesting....one question, how
much did you allow for the change over say 2000yrs? I ask because at
Newgrange they had to recalculate the difference over time in the earths
position in order to get "true" sunrise/sunset ie the time it *would*
have happened when Newgrange was first in use, roughly 5-4 ooo years
ago. You obviously understand this stuff a lot better than i do (me use
my fingers to calculate , me do:) ) if you allow for these changes over
time does your observation still hold true?
thanks, fascinating idea -
Beirn
Thorn
> Hiya Thorn and thanks muchly for the reply:)
> re lughnassa I would have to diverge in opinion:) to say -
> Lughnassa *is* religious , in so far as any celtic festival can be said
> to be: it is the funeral games of Tailtiu foster mother of Lugh and the
> games survived in Teal-town in Ireland for many centuries: it is also
> clearly and definatively outlined in early celtic lit and in medieval
> lit. the idea of these games seems definately to be as old as one could
> wish: its later connection with hiring and firing is merely a modern
> superimposition on an ancient feast
Should have been clearer Lughnassa as celebrated at Teal-Town clearly
happened and was an important festival, I just don't think it it indicates a
pan-celtic festival, celebrating the Sun gods funeral (or his wedding)
which is how its often presented these days.
There is much more evidence in Irish lore still available to us today, than
for the other Celtic nations. I occaisionally worry that a lot of people
who arn't themselves Celts equate Irish practice with "Celtic" practice. I
didn't spot any reference to the Cailleach/Bride connection that orginated
in Scotland in the two articles on Imbolg for example on the web site. Its
that connection that to my mind demonstrates the link between winter/spring
in her celebrations.
Bright Thunder
Aeryn wrote:
I'd bet on your assumption. If so many other world cultures way back then were cognizant of
the suns path in the sky, why not the druids themselves. Then even among the druids there
could have been a grouping that addressed themselves to such matters.
O'Neilan
Bright Thunder
dan wrote:
> [here's a message i recently posted to the IMBAS group and got no
> response. i dunno. i thought it was interesting. anyway it's at least
> tangentially related to your question.
> what's interesting to me is that the irish may have given more weight in
> their minds to a day of equal night and day, than to the specific
> astronomical event. i think this fits nicely with their whole interest
> in liminality and balanced opposites....
> what's also interesting is that *if* st patrick's day is considered as
> the day of the "apparent" equinox, then the period between this day
> (march 17) and the much more observable solstice (dec. 21--i say more
> observable because the sun's progression along the horizon at each
> sunrise along the course of the year seems to get "stuck" for a while.
> hence "sol-stitium" "sun stoppage" or in irish, "grianstad") consists of
> 86 days.right in between these dates (43 days) would be february
> 2-imbolc. nice symmetry.
>
> anyway this is my first post to a.r.d. i hope it's of some use to y'all,
>
> -dan]
I see no way possible that anyone back then could come to the conclusion
that the day and night were of equal length/duration. Not without an
instrument that could accurately measure the passage of time.
O'Neilan
Searles O'Dubhain
Plough), the stone alignments, a knowledge of astronomy and an understanding
of geography as well. I suspect that one could find information on the
internet describing the ability of other cultures of a similar timeframe
determining day length and having a unit measure for the passage of time.
Searles
"Bright Thunder" <clo...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:3C9C5446...@softcom.net...
<snip>
Beirn
"Thorn" <thorns...@M0VElycos.com> wrote in message
>
> "Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:T1Km8.1266$04....@news.iol.ie...
> > Hiya Thorn and thanks muchly for the reply:)
> There is much more evidence in Irish lore still available to us today,
than
> for the other Celtic nations. I occaisionally worry that a lot of
people
> who arn't themselves Celts equate Irish practice with "Celtic"
practice.
Once again, couldn't agree more; we get it the other way round too,
where people equate european celtic practices with Irish, when in fact
even small geographical differences can mean huge cultural differences.
The other prob I find all the time is that people see modern practices
and project them back onto the celts, without allowing for political /
cultural developments over time, and of course the linguistics have
changed so dramatically.
I
> didn't spot any reference to the Cailleach/Bride connection that
orginated
> in Scotland in the two articles on Imbolg for example on the web site.
Well, the Scottish culture originated in Ireland, as what we think of as
Scotland was actually ruled by Irish settlers from the Ulster kingdoms,
and who replaced the native culture supposed to be pictish (although of
course every such statement has to be largely qualified by the term "we
think!")In fact the word scot comes from the roman for Irish.
It is a problem with scottish culture that its roots are actually
Irish, and therefore because of the centuries of overseership form
Ulster it is nearly impossible to say any custom originated in Scotland
prior to circa the 6th century.
Certainly in celtic terms it was Irish celtic culture exported to
scotland. As an example, the Cailleach and Brid were brought from
Ulster to Scotland: there of course they developed into different
characterisations over centuries, and Calvinism certainly left its mark
on all aspects of the culture as did the English so what emerges at the
end looks different but it's nothing more than chinese whisper syndrom.
Once you are talking about modern scotland then they are from the
thirteenth century onwards easily identifiable as scottish celtic but go
back to 300 bce - 6oo ad and the picture is so different. Therefore,
(and not out of any disrespect to Scotland or scottish celticism but
speaking only in the narrow terms of historical research), the irish
model where possible is taken, because it is the actual root of the
customs practiced in Scotland: differences are evolutionary and it is
the opposite that we are trying to get at, it's the source not the
course of the river:)
Also the problem with the scottish model and also the welsh is the fact
that the neo-druidic and neopagan movements of the seventeenth to
nineteenth centuries rewrote a lot of what we now fondly imagine to be
givens. Just as Murray's theory of a universal goddess religion was
extrapolated from flawed evidence badly examined and just as this theory
was widely accepted without any evidence to back it up so were the
concepts of British and Continental celticism subjected to a mix of wish
fulfilment and assumption. So too was Irish celticism but to a lesser
degree, with more original souces left extant to enable a revision.
Its
> that connection that to my mind demonstrates the link between
winter/spring
> in her celebrations.
>
Which not withstanding everything I just said above is still perfectly
feasible:) But hell if there's a tangent to go off on and explore, I'm
the woman to do it:) ONce agina thakns for the input, you are helping me
no end to sort this out in my own head !
regards
Beirn
Beirn
conclusion
> that the day and night were of equal length/duration. Not without an
> instrument that could accurately measure the passage of time.
>
> O'Neilan
>
measure the larger movement of time, from season to season, hence the
builing of Newgrange. This may not be the primary purpose of such
monuments but it was a secondary one at elast and very accurately done.
If we are to believe the archaeological evidence the Celts had superios
technology, one of the reasons why the Neolithic groups embraced and
adopted celtic culture...o perhaps they could measure time
accurately......ok, right now I'm having visions of huge eggtimers but i
reckon it's possible. Not down to the second but still, they seemed to
be very fond of measurements - why not come up with a way of measuring
time?
<ok, now I just know someone's going to tell me why not:)>
Beirn
dan
have accurately measured the duration of day and night. i think this is
the weakest point of the theory that march 17 substituted for the
equinox. still it is quite curious that this would be the date of this
"apparent" equinox...and there is evidence linking st. patrick with what
were earlier sites of solar observation. i'm thinking of craogh patrick
in westport, where patrick rolled a bell down the side of the mountain.
it seems that twice a year the setting sun actually traces the slope of
the mountain as it sets...this does nothing to support the assertion
that march17 functioned as one of the solar festivals for the irish of
course, it's just interesting...
it may of course be much simpler than measuring the exact length...the
difference in duration between night and day becomes greater and greater
as one moves away from the equinox, so that only a few days before or
after the difference is a quarter of an hour. i don't know if a quarter
of an hour would have been measurable or noticeable...
i'm also thinking that perhaps they marked the equinox the same way that
they marked the solstice i.e. by observation of the sun along the
horizon. if they were able to mark the northernmost and southernmost
points of the sun's rising(or setting) they could have surmised that
exactly in between these points (which they would have noticed marked
the longest and shortest days) there would occur *some* day when night
and day would be equal. they would only have had to wait for the day
that the sun rose or set at this midpoint. the question here is this:
does this midpoint on the horizon indicate the date where day and night
are equal for a given lattitude OR does this point indicate the
"official" equinox when the sun crosses the celestial equator? i'm
getting a headache trying to determine this but i'll get back to you on
it.
there is an interesting website
http://www.geomancy.org/orthographic/html/section-1/1-1.html
here there is a photo of the sun actually moving across the sky. if you
notice, the "midpoint" on the horizon, which should indicate both
equinoxes, is actually two seperate points. i don't know why, but i
suspect (that is to say "i make the pure speculation") that the dates of
the equinoxes,perhaps because of lattitude, do not coincide with this
physical midpoint on the horizon.remember that at the equinoxes the sun
is "moving" the equivalent of its own diameter each day, so a difference
of a couple of day or two, while immensely difficult to "time" with a
clock, would have been somewhat easily observable if sightings were
taken along the horizon. i find it really interesting that equal
day/night may have been more important than the ecliptic crossing the
equator, and that the observations of the sun at the horizon may be
involved, but not only that, that it may involve a midpoint along the
sun's path *at the level of the land*..this is what interests me the
liminality of the point between extremes and the "meeting" of the sky
and land as the sun rose or set...
ok i'm gonna give it up here, cause i'm merely speculating now. it's not
a pet theory i need to defend at all, i just find it interesting. and if
i'm entirely wrong,at least it's a fascinating coincidence.: )
-dan
Ruiseart agus Ceit
"Bright Thunder" wrote :
> I see no way possible that anyone back then could come to the conclusion
> that the day and night were of equal length/duration. Not without an
> instrument that could accurately measure the passage of time.
>
> O'Neilan
I disagree here. I believe they were very capable of such measurements. Just
because I don't know what instrument they used doesn't mean they couldn't do
it. Did you know that the current system of measurement between railway
tracks [ie axle size] is still based on the distance set by ancient Celts on
their chariots, which were the most stable? If we have not been able to
better their measuring system in thousands of years, what right do we have
to cast aspersions on their intelligence?
Beannachdan ort
Ceit.
--
http://gdosc.mybravenet.com
'RavensWing' - environmentally conscious Celtic music played by an
environmentally conscious Druid at:
http://www.amitar.com.au/~druid1/RavensWing.html
Bright Thunder
dan wrote:
Speculation. supposition and conjecture are a major part of Druid studies.
Xtianity is no different in my book!
The books all say Samhain eve is when the veil is the thinnest between this
and the other side.
How the heck would the ancients have determined the exact time of Samhain
eve lest it be by psychic abilities.
Take the druid year. If it ended and commenced once again on Samhain it
would have to have been calculated based on the relationship of a full moon
and it's relativity to the to autumnal equinox. Say determine the fall
equinox then wait for the next full moon then wait 28 more days.
Oh what the heck. I use the thesaurus and determine the hours and minutes
between my town and Greenwich.
O'Neilan
Searles O'Dubhain
<snip>
>
> Take the druid year. If it ended and commenced once again on Samhain it
> would have to have been calculated based on the relationship of a full
moon
> and it's relativity to the to autumnal equinox. Say determine the fall
> equinox then wait for the next full moon then wait 28 more days.
Sounds close to me. It seems to me that in the Coligny Calendar (which was
made by Druids in Gaul) that the months were marked by New Moons and the
festivals were counted up from there to the time of the Full Moon.The
synchronization between a year of Moons and a solar year was accomplished by
adding an extra month every two and a half years. This appears to have been
done at Bealtaine and Samhain (allowing those two festivals to be held on
the months closest to the mid-points between the equivnoxes).
>
> Oh what the heck. I use the thesaurus and determine the hours and minutes
> between my town and Greenwich.
>
> O'Neilan
Did you mean ephemeris? I use it to determine where the planets and Moon are
located in the sky (as well as the times of the festivals and rituals).
Searles
Bright Thunder
Searles O'Dubhain wrote:
Yea, I meant to say ephemeris. Smile!
O'Neilan
Kevin
> Morning all:)
>
> I am constantly asked whether or not the celts celebrated the equinoxes
> and soltices as well as the four main festivals of Samhain, Imbolg,
> Beltine and Lughnassa. I have always thought that they would have been
> marked, although not as significantly as the fire festivals.
Hmm! A thorny problem. The continental Celtic goddess, Epona, had a
midwinter festival. There's more than a few bits and pieces to show her
connection with insular goddesses. Olmsted translates one inscription which
gives a whole variety of names to a goddess, who is called both Epona and
Imona (Ir: Emain, as in Emain Macha). One might also note the connection
between Newgrange and the Morrigan in the texts, at least through its
various alternate names, which suggests the Morrigan had a midwinter
festival as well.
Taking it further, it has been noted before that the Irish pattern of
festivals can be derived from intervals between the solstices and the
equinoxes. As it happens, the Coligny calendar does just that when it
creates a pattern of festivals identical to the Irish ones, albeit by
adapting Greek calendrical mathematics in the form of a soli-lunar calendar.
You therefore have the same pattern of festivals in Gaul and in Ireland - it
is also implied that there was a native August 1 festival at Lugudunum in
Gaul.
My feeling, having looked at the Coligny calendar reasonably closely, was
that it was a mathematical refinement of an earlier rules-based system using
a gnomon. Presumably therefore the solstices had religious significance in
the Iron Age - well, there wasn't really any other way to divide the year -
though it is a bit of a leap to go from religious significance to actual
religious observation. Of course it raises the point as to whether what we
understand as religious observation was practised anyway - that presupposes
an organised religion, and organised religion was a rather later phenomenon.
Even so, the connection of Newgrange, which was orientated to the midwinter
solstice, with the Morrigan, and the catagorical mention fo a midwinter
festival for Epona, plus rather old midsummer fire festivals in Ireland,
might well suggest that some sort of festival occurred. They may however
have been rather less important to the majority of people than Imbolg,
Beltane, Lughnasad and Samhain, which were centred around agricultural
events, and therefore of the highest importance.
> Also, I have a friend who was part of the original excavations of
> Newgrange (among other sites of course over his career!) who says that
> after years of archaeological experience he believes our Neolithic
> ancestors *definately* marked the Soltice/equinoxes although he feels
> the celts would have mainly marked the fire festivals. However the
> continued use and occupation of many sites well into the celtic era and
> beyond (plus the fact that most scholars decry the idea now of a celtic
> invasion of Ireland and think it was a gradual immigration involving
> extensive intermarrying with the native settlers who adopted
> wholeheartedly celtic technology and customs) would suggest that the
> celts in turn adopted some of the customs of their predecessors at least
> in Ireland.
I agree - and in any case, 'Celtic' culture(s) itself would have emerged
from central European Neolithic cultures. It would have been far more a case
of ethnogenesis and evolution, rather than a radical break with the past.
Given a rather underestimated degree of trade and contact between the
various areas (e.g. there's more than a little contact between Ireland and
the heartland of La Tene culture - the gold for the Broighter Boat came from
there), plus a common language family, it is not unreasonable to assume the
emergence of a common Celtic koine. More dramatic changes would have
happened when one area came in contact with Mediterranean culture and
another did not - you can see that first happening in Gaul and later in
pre-conquest Britain, with the emergence of contact zones and the increasing
centralisation of society. It starts to happen amongst the Brigantes at
Stanwick in the immediate post-conquest years, as a consequence of contact
finally reaching them, but the Roman army advances too quickly and it is
abortive.
Kevin
Kevin
news:3c9e...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
>
> "Bright Thunder" wrote :
>
> > I see no way possible that anyone back then could come to the conclusion
> > that the day and night were of equal length/duration. Not without an
> > instrument that could accurately measure the passage of time.
> >
> > O'Neilan
>
> I disagree here. I believe they were very capable of such measurements.
Just
> because I don't know what instrument they used doesn't mean they couldn't
do
> it. Did you know that the current system of measurement between railway
> tracks [ie axle size] is still based on the distance set by ancient Celts
on
> their chariots, which were the most stable? If we have not been able to
> better their measuring system in thousands of years, what right do we have
> to cast aspersions on their intelligence?
Actually he's correct - the accurate measurement of time has been a problem
that has bedevilled (and still bedevils) calendar calculations. In fact
anciently the year was not measured from one spring equinox to another, but
from one midsummer solstice to another. The simplest, and most accurate
method, for determining the length of the solar year was to record the day
on which the shortest shadow was cast by a pillar when the sun was at its
zenith, and then measure the time taken until it happens again. Now that
roughly takes 365.25 days - that gives you the solar year. Having got that
far, you can subdivide it, develop soli-lunar calendars and all sorts -
eventually you may get around to accurately subdividing the day - but first
you need an accurate measurement for the solar year. Even then, there will
be calendar drift.
However, if you are using direct observation - a pre-calendrical system -
there is no drift. You just correct as you go along. You will however have
some sort of sighting system, and the drift of whatever you were observing
can date it.
As for the dimensions of railway tracks and the space shuttle being based on
the length of chariot axles - it is not because they had an advanced
measuring system that we have been unable to better. Quite simply, wheeled
vehicles will eventually leave ruts in roads - so you build your axles
according to the distance between the ruts, thus perpetuating the dimensions
used. When roads were eventually built, the dimensions of the axles were
more or less set in stone, and in any case metalled roads were built on top
of the old tracks since these were the best way of getting round the
countryside - so the existing size of the road was already defined. When
railways came to be built, they had to use the existing transport
infrastructure, and existing ideas of a suitable length of axle - which
meant that these factors decided the commonest gauge of railway track (there
were several different widths though). Consequently when parts of the space
shuttle came to be designed, they had to be designed with rail transport in
mind, the dimensions of which are traceable back to the dimensions of
chariot axles. As I said, it is nothing to do with a better system of
measurement, and everything to do with it being easier to adapt things to
what you've already got, rather than start over again from scratch.
Kevin
Beirn
"Kevin" <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a7r48r$hcu$1...@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com...
> "Ruiseart agus Ceit" <dru...@amitar.com.au> wrote in <snip excellent
info!>
> Kevin
>
>
Now, why aren't I surprised that you knew all that:)?
Beirn
Beirn
> Kevin
>
>
WOW.
thanks:) I have downloaded all of that and your previous post: thanks a
mill, Kevin , very much appreciate the info:)
Beirn
Bright Thunder
Kevin wrote:
You know Kevin, my "rough" theory is that the ancients could determine the exact
days of the equinox's and solstices. It follows that they could then calculate
the 45.5 day mid point to establish the timing for the four major bonfire
festivals.
It would require very thin sighting monuments, a couple of sticks cut to a
certain length and some basic math, but it should be close enough.
The only critical solar time measurement would then be for Samhain. That is if
we are to believe that only on Samhain eve is the veil so thin that we can
contact the other side. Thin is one thing and thinnest is something else. I for
one adamantly believe the Samhain eve thing is way over stated. Folk lore run
amuck.
Niall
Kevin
<grin!> Just trying to be informative.
Kevin
Kevin
You're welcome.
Kevin
Kevin
>
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
> You know Kevin, my "rough" theory is that the ancients could determine the
exact
> days of the equinox's and solstices. It follows that they could then
calculate
> the 45.5 day mid point to establish the timing for the four major bonfire
> festivals.
True - determining when the solstices occur isn't hugely difficult, if you
can manage the technology to make a sufficiently precise gnomon (i.e. with a
nice pointy bit on the top for precise shadow indication)and shadow marker,
and you chose the right time of day to take the measurements. In any case
they are just the extremes of the sun's annual travel, and as such are
cardinal. The equinoxes can then be worked out by basic geometry, since they
are just the midpoints. You then further divide what is now a diagonal cross
with another set of midpoints, and you've got the points for the festivals.
Doesn't need to be hugely accurate as a system, and it lends itself to
rules-based direct observation systems of dividing the year. I'd go out on a
limb and say such a system may date back to the Bronze Age. Complicating it
by introducing lunar months and the necessary cycles, in the way that the
Coligny calendar does is however mathematically sophisticated, and is
probably the result of adding Greek technology and maths to an already
pre-existing and very old system. Hatt did remark that it was typical of the
continental Celts to borrow Greek ideas and technology in order to express
their own culture more.
> It would require very thin sighting monuments, a couple of sticks cut to a
> certain length and some basic math, but it should be close enough.
That would do it - though basic geometry is all that's really needed. A
length of rope and pegs - it is probably an extremely archaic art, geometry.
Mind you, there might be a degree of error - something like a day either
side. However, if you've got a festival running three or more days, that's
inconsequential.
It has occurred to me to wonder how, in the days before clocks and
calendars, and given a rather scattered population, people knew when to turn
up at oenach. Ireland used to have standing stones like other people have
mice. A few were put up in the historical period. OK, so the odd farmer
described his as a scratching post for cattle - however, you don't need to
put up a 15 foot tall block of granite (that's not taking into account the
bit below ground!) for cattle, not unless you're breeding them the size of
elephants! Without machinery, that's a lot of effort, and irrelevant affort
at that - you try shifting even a 6 foot by 3-4 foot diameter block of
granite using human and animal muscle alone. You want less effort, you
shorten the stone - simplest way is to light a fire against a given point,
and then throw water on the hot rock. It shatters - it is an old method. But
then such columns would do for a simple time marker - time to sow, harvest,
or got to the fair - and height then has some advantage. Not accurate by
modern standards, but accurate enough. However, no one has ever queried that
old farmer's explanation - personally I think he was winding up the
city-bred enquirer.
BTW, getting a 20-25 foot long bit of granite and tapering one end to a cone
is itself time consuming. I think it would take at least a day for one
professional hedgebuilder I know to shape it with a sledgehammer. That's not
counting actually breaking out a suitably large rock (without busting it)
and transporting it to the site. There's several days of very tough work
there. Seems an awful lot of effort to go to for scratching posts or even
boundary markers. Hell, even boundary markers don't have to be that size - a
good 6 foot unworked block or slab will stick out like a sore thumb in
moorland for example, which is exactly what they used for stoups in the Peak
District. It was vital stoups were seen, since they pointed the way across
the moors before maps were made of the area - people died out on the moors
due to getting lost.
> The only critical solar time measurement would then be for Samhain. That
is if
> we are to believe that only on Samhain eve is the veil so thin that we can
> contact the other side. Thin is one thing and thinnest is something else.
I for
> one adamantly believe the Samhain eve thing is way over stated. Folk lore
run
> amuck.
:-)
Kevin
James Hunter Heinlen
: Hatt did remark that it was typical of the
: continental Celts to borrow Greek ideas and technology in order to express
: their own culture more.
Do you have a source for that? Not that I doubt it (I have read similar
statements from other sources), but I do want to read that one.
: Without machinery, that's a lot of effort, and irrelevant affort
: at that - you try shifting even a 6 foot by 3-4 foot diameter block of
: granite using human and animal muscle alone.
The stones at Four Quarters Farms (www.4qf.org) were lifted by hand,
and their blocks are non-trivial. Groups of workers working with
Egyptologists have moved and lifted larger blocks with comparable
technology, as have some Mexican crews (though they used
archaeologists of the Mayan or Toltec schools). All you really need is
a large number of people and time, and since all of the really large
stone circles were made over periods of hundreds or thousands of
years, it seems very manageable to me.
Hunter
Beirn
That is if
> we are to believe that only on Samhain eve is the veil so thin that we
can
> contact the other side. Thin is one thing and thinnest is something
else. I for
> one adamantly believe the Samhain eve thing is way over stated. Folk
lore run
> amuck.
Well, Samhain was traditionally celebrated in Ireland on Nov 7/8th
(called little samhain) until the change to gregorian calendar.....what
is celebrated now as samhain is a wee bit off. Also it was
traditionally a several-day feast (three to seven depending who you
believe) so getting the "exact" time of Samhain may not have been as
important as we now think...it seems to me it was more a festival of
samhain than a feast "day"....perhaps the individual in their ritual
over a few days divined the moment at which the veil was thinest for
them. btw, it is still considered right in some occult groups in
Ireland to mark the Nov 8th date.
>
> Niall
>
>
Kevin
news:Gto8J...@world.std.com...
> Kevin (1006...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>
> : Hatt did remark that it was typical of the
> : continental Celts to borrow Greek ideas and technology in order to
express
> : their own culture more.
>
> Do you have a source for that? Not that I doubt it (I have read similar
> statements from other sources), but I do want to read that one.
I'll look it out for you.
> : Without machinery, that's a lot of effort, and irrelevant affort
> : at that - you try shifting even a 6 foot by 3-4 foot diameter block of
> : granite using human and animal muscle alone.
>
> The stones at Four Quarters Farms (www.4qf.org) were lifted by hand,
> and their blocks are non-trivial.
Hmm! Interesting. Looks like a Neolithic stone circle, with a holed stone in
one location. The latter reminds me of Men-an-Tol.
> Groups of workers working with
> Egyptologists have moved and lifted larger blocks with comparable
> technology, as have some Mexican crews (though they used
> archaeologists of the Mayan or Toltec schools). All you really need is
> a large number of people and time, and since all of the really large
> stone circles were made over periods of hundreds or thousands of
> years, it seems very manageable to me.
True - but it's the investment of effort involved that is interesting,
particularly considering that these were not state-directed efforts (or
their analogues) like the pyramids, and that you are dealing with a smaller
available workforce in rural localities. In some cases you're talking of
small rural communities, in others just the farmer and his family. In some
cases you are talking of much bigger single standing stones than the slabs
at Four Quarters Farm - I'm working on a guesstimate of scale, but some are
double the size. It doesn't square with the usual explanations - cattle are
quite satisfied a slab 4-5 feet high (I've watched them), and a boundary
stone needn't be more than 5-6 feet at most. You don't really need to shape
the stone for either use, so you're talking a lot of superfluous effort for
the supposed uses.
Kevin
dan
[True - but it's the investment of effort involved that is interesting,
particularly considering that these were not state-directed efforts (or
their analogues) like the pyramids, and that you are dealing with a
smaller
available workforce in rural localities. In some cases you're talking
of
small rural communities, in others just the farmer and his family.]
hi. this is interesting. the implication is that if there were one
enormous stone circle somewhere we could infer a state effort and an
attendent workforce of some size, but in the situation of many
scattered
standing stones, the likelihood increases that they were local efforts.
the more examples you have, the more it implies a smaller locality
involved, perhaps down to just a farming family.
while i certainly agree with you, if i understand you correctly, i
wonder what meaning these small scale stone monuments may have had to a
farmer. it seems like an enormously cumbersome version of The Old
Farmer's Almanac...there must have been a profoundly strong motivation
for this investment of effort to exist at such a localized level, and
for such information to (seemingly) not be preserved as the culture
transitioned from stone age to bronze and iron age strikes me as quite
interesting.
it may represent the almost desperate dependence that ancient
agriculture had on the land,
a dependence which may have been alleviated with advances in
agricultural technology in later ages...lessening the very importance
of
the stones themselves...
any thoughts on this?
-dan
Kevin
Sure - I think you're spot on. Farmers were desperately dependent upon the
land. If you sow too late, you're screwed. You leave it a week too long to
harvest, you may lose the crop. Your yields fail - you starve. They had no
printed page for most of history, no Farmer's Almanac, no calendar, no TV or
radi, nothing except what the land gave them. It was vital - a matter of
life and death - to know when to do things. A crude observation, fine-tuned
by knowledge of the weather, phase of the moon and so on, would give you an
edge. Your family might not die this year. Have a look at the Potato Famine
for what happens when things went wrong. That why farmers rarely moved off
their land, even during war. It wasn't just your land - it was your only
method of feeding yourself and your family. To leave it meant an even more
uncertain future - where did you go? How did you get food? Again, look at
the Potato Famine - god knows how many died on the road of starvation and
typhoid. War generally just meant one load of bosses were exchanged for
another, and they still needed farmers.
Personally I think the technology of time is probably the most
underestimated part of the agicultural revolution, yet it was also vital to
it. A hunter-gatherer can do things in broad seasons - in summer the deer
are here, these plants are to be found, in winter animals migrate there, and
so on. You don't need accurate time measurement. Farming is different - you
start getting more nucleation of society and the need for knowing when in
the year you are becomes more marked. And obviously a knowledge of time can
be used to co-ordinate whole communities.
In an atomised society, such as Ireland was before the Scandinavians and the
English introduced towns, time could be the one invisible thing that
co-ordinated a non-centralised society. No one is centrally setting out for
the whole community when things are done - only tradition does that - and it
is marked by the one universal, the sun - or the deities, depending on your
POV. You don't need a messenger coming over and saying 'oh, the festival has
been organised for next Wednesday - particularly since you may not know what
a Wednesday is. You just look at your 'clock', which you've put up cos it's
just another farming tool (but don't disassociate farming from religion) and
is primarily to tell you when to do what in farming, and know that in a few
days its on. You might even be able to sell some surplus (they were used for
trade) or buy that extra cow. It might make life easier.
As for loss of info, well remember things weren't written down until very,
very late. In Ireland the calendar came in with Christianity. Of course,
when calendars and almanacs come along there is les and less need to use
these things or put them up, though there's still odd cases of standing
stones being shoved up in the 17th and 18th century. Maybe even their
original use gets forgotten, except in a vague sort of way. As for no one
bothering to write down much about them - think of modern stories. When
someone in modern fiction turns on a light, the author assumes you know that
it's an electric light, that electricity is generated by various means, and
controlled by a lightswitch, so there's no need to explain this. Everyone
knows it anyway, so it's is superfluous. Similarly much of the day to day
stuff of even Graeco-Roman culture (a highly literate culture) was never
recorded, because everyone accepted these things as background, taken for
granted things. It's worse in a pre-literate society. The how and why to do
things in farming would have been part oral tradition, part instruction, and
part learning from practical experience to apply the first two. Still is in
some places.
Now that said, it almost certainly was transmitted from the Neolithic to the
Bronze Age to the Iron Age and beyond. In one chat with a lecturer at
Vienna, and another with a guy at Oxford, I modelled the principles behind
the Coligny calendar in comparison to a separate model of the Jupiter-Giant
columns. The Coligny calendar, I determined, would have been based on the
use of a gnomon. A pillar is thus a practical expression of the passage of
time and its determination. The Jupiter-Giant columns are associated with
time, through the deities of the days of the week. It is a gnomon of sorts -
but the summit group makes it impractical for taking observations. The
pillar has now become a symbol of time in the abstract - it has no
functional purpose, but is an abstract conception of what the pillar
originally was. Not an unusual development.
As for Irish boundary stones - well Cormac's Glossary reckons the idea was
introduced from Gaul. Not impossible, though what I would reckon was
introduced was the practice of carving inscriptions on them, not the idea of
the stones themselves. In short, the slight modification of an already
indigenous practice, rather than the introduction of a new one. That would
put the introduction of the idea at around the 4th century AD, since that's
the earliest period that you get Ogham carved on pillar stones. Note that
this does not mean that the Ogham was invented in the 4th century - only
that it started being carved on stones then. The uses mentioned in the
texts - eg painting it on shields and carving it on wood - would be
archaeologically invisible. Of course, you might want to ask why Ogham is
carved on boundary stones, given their probable religious function, as
discussed below. Why Ogham, why on pillar stones?
In the Roman empire boundary stones had a sacred function; inscriptions were
carved on them. In fact that practice goes back to the Greeks and the
introduction of writing - boundaries were special even back to the beginning
of Greek culture - Zeus is in the earliest of accounts described as creating
things by establishing boundaries, and various important boundaries were
marked by shrines. As an idea, it probably predates Archaic Greece.
Boundaries were holy places (and therefore also dangerous) in the
Graeco-Roman world, and they were certainly very special Otherworldly places
in Ireland. Elsewhere in the Celtic world as well - archaeologically more
than a few Celtic fairs and shrines turn up on boundaries. Early Gaulish
boundary stones, inscribed using Greek letters, include dedications to
deities.
Fairs of course mark the passage of time by festivals, as well as being
religious occasions, so there may be a reasonably logical assocation between
boundaries, time, and religion. That would certainly be suggested by the Boa
Island Janus, a small pillar stone carved with a double-faced deity stuck on
an island in a lough. A boundary stone might then easily also be a means of
marking the passage of time and the division of the year, as well as marking
boundaries, and be associated with religious ideas, all in one role. BTW,
these are not different roles, but different aspects of one role.
Of course, once the calendrical use is gone, it is still a marker, and still
assocated with local mythology and pagan or semi-pagan observances. What has
been lost, in short, is the unrecorded oral traditions which may have gone
on for a very long time. Though there's hints - an ulaid is (in Cormac's
Glossary I think) a shrine marked by a stone pillar, while there was an
enormous wood pillar at the heart of Emain Macha. Pillars need not be only
of stone. In fact pillars of one sort or another turn up over the Celtic
world, whether it's a little gold Hallstatt model gnomon or a Jupiter-Giant
column or Emain Macha.
Kevin
dan
[As for Irish boundary stones - well Cormac's Glossary reckons the idea
was
introduced from Gaul. Not impossible, though what I would reckon was
introduced was the practice of carving inscriptions on them, not the
idea of
the stones themselves. In short, the slight modification of an already
indigenous practice, rather than the introduction of a new one. That
would
put the introduction of the idea at around the 4th century AD, since
that's
the earliest period that you get Ogham carved on pillar stones.
...{snip}...
Of course, once the calendrical use is gone, it is still a marker, and
still
assocated with local mythology and pagan or semi-pagan observances. What
has
been lost, in short, is the unrecorded oral traditions which may have
gone
on for a very long time. Though there's hints - an ulaid is (in Cormac's
Glossary I think) a shrine marked by a stone pillar, while there was an
enormous wood pillar at the heart of Emain Macha. Pillars need not be
only
of stone. In fact pillars of one sort or another turn up over the Celtic
world, whether it's a little gold Hallstatt model gnomon or a
Jupiter-Giant
column or Emain Macha.
Kevin]
nice.interesting...i'm right now looking at a picture of an iron-age
stela from Kermaria en Pont-L'Abbé in Brittany...it's four sided, and
decorated with different fourfold designs upon each side..these figures
are sometimes interpreted as solar symbols, but may easily function as
cosmological representations of "the four quarters" comparable to the
irish system...fascinating idea that the division of time and the
division of the land may simply be two aspects of the same
thing...(these 'fourfold designs'--one resembles a swastika, another a
maltese cross--are also accompanied by a wave-like key pattern...this
might be an instance where sky and sea symbols are combined upon a land
symbol-stone-)...if i'm not mistaken wasn't it it you who argued quite
convinvingly that the temporal symbol of the "wheel of the year" might
be derived from the physical realm of the land?
i'm also reminded that one of the buildings of the Court of Tara that
Cormac mac Airt made for his daughter was called the "palace of the
single pillar"...i've always assumed a connection to the hindu lingam,
or greek omphalos...a sacred-sexual representation of "the center"...now
you've got me thinking about the possible conflation of many religious
functions within one object...lingam, omphalos, gnomon, boundry-marker,
etc...
-dan
p.s. i'm unfamiliar with the Jupiter-Giant columns...if it isn't any
trouble, any info?
Kevin
Yup, why not? An ancient division of Ireland was the four provinces and the
centre, at Tara. The idea of a centre appears in Gaul as well, according to
Caesar, and I'm pretty sure it existed in Britain, though proving it is
another matter. I have a hunch - no more than that - that it was the Bath -
Gloucester - Forest of Dean area. The place turns up in mythology, is
littered with important sacred places, and had visitors from different
places even before the Romans, to go by the limited coin evidence. However,
to argue that securely requires me to bolt down one or two other academic
arguments.
> fascinating idea that the division of time and the
> division of the land may simply be two aspects of the same
> thing...
Not that odd, if you are aware of the old, traditional (and very old
fashioned) Irish direction giving. All directions are given in the form of
compass directions. To walk forward is to go to your east, to turn right is
to go to your south, left is to go north, and to go backwards is to go west.
*But* these aren't just spatial directions - to be late is to literally be
west of yourself - what is behind you is literally behind you both spatially
and temporally. Similarly what is front of you is both spatially and
temporally removed from you. Which is logical - to go forward to pick
something up requires you to move in both space and time. similarly, to go
back in time requires you to go back in space as well - the two are more
closely related than they are in English. It's a different way of thinking.
Suffice to say that modern ideas of space-time probably wouldn't come as a
surprise.
Now firstly, this is a bloody archaic way of doing things - the same sort of
ideas appear in early Indian texts I gather. Secondly, it implies that the
individual is at the centre - hence the old Irish riddle 'where is the
centre of the world? Between my own two feet'. Which then has some
implications for texts such as Bretha Dein Cecht - a medical text.
(these 'fourfold designs'--one resembles a swastika, another a
> maltese cross--are also accompanied by a wave-like key pattern...this
> might be an instance where sky and sea symbols are combined upon a land
> symbol-stone-)...if i'm not mistaken wasn't it it you who argued quite
> convinvingly that the temporal symbol of the "wheel of the year" might
> be derived from the physical realm of the land?
I'm not sure if it was me. I'd argue that it was derived from temporal
divisions but in its simplest form of a four spoked wheel it could just as
easily be applied to spatial as temporal divisions. After all from one point
of view it was divine law establishing boundaries, and these boundaries are
in space, time and the structure of society.
> i'm also reminded that one of the buildings of the Court of Tara that
> Cormac mac Airt made for his daughter was called the "palace of the
> single pillar"...i've always assumed a connection to the hindu lingam,
> or greek omphalos...a sacred-sexual representation of "the center"...now
> you've got me thinking about the possible conflation of many religious
> functions within one object...lingam, omphalos, gnomon, boundry-marker,
> etc...
That's probably spot on. The connection with the lingam or the omphalos is
almost certainly correct, *but* religious stuff in any culture is invariably
multi-layered (or rather, it may be multi-layered to us, but possibly very
obvious to people then, with a different culture and language). If you have
a look at that dissertation of mine, you'll find that creation stems from a
sacred-sexual interaction at the centre - which of course would then create
divisions of time and space. In short, it creates boundaries.
There's an analogy I've used in ard before about boundaries. You have a
field - there is no outside, because there is as yet no inside to compare it
to. Build a wall, and you now have inside and outside. The wall itself is,
however, neither inside nor outside, but both and a thing in itself which is
neither inside nor outside. Boundaries are what create reality - they are
powerful places. and dangerous ones.
> p.s. i'm unfamiliar with the Jupiter-Giant columns...if it isn't any
trouble, any info?
Again, there's a whole pile of refs in the dissertation (Searles, can you
post the URL for it?). Miranda Green is one prominent source - mind you,
though she's good on data, she's lousy on interpretation.
They are largely a phenomenon of northern Gaul and the Rhineland (a Celtic
area in the period in question), though probable examples are known from
Britain, one from the reign of Julian. One possible imitation is known from
Ireland, though the identification is very tentative. Some were decorated to
resemble bark, fitted out with acorns and given carved oak leaves, so they
probably substitute for trees. One Celtic deity was Mars Olludios, Olludios
meaning 'Great Tree' - the Celtic Mars was often very priapic. Mars'
attribute was a spear - again a priapic emblem. The connection between spear
and penis is particularly underlined by one Celtic religious poletip which
fuses penis and spear in one artefact. so the link between pillar and lingam
would appear to be justified, even without one Irish source referring to the
standing stone at Tara as 'the stone penis'.
Kevin
dan
[Not that odd, if you are aware of the old, traditional (and very old
fashioned) Irish direction giving. All directions are given in the form
of
compass directions. To walk forward is to go to your east, to turn
right
is
to go to your south, left is to go north, and to go backwards is to go
west.
*But* these aren't just spatial directions - to be late is to literally
be
west of yourself - what is behind you is literally behind you both
spatially
and temporally. Similarly what is front of you is both spatially and
temporally removed from you. Which is logical - to go forward to pick
something up requires you to move in both space and time. similarly, to
go
back in time requires you to go back in space as well - the two are
more
closely related than they are in English. It's a different way of
thinking.
Suffice to say that modern ideas of space-time probably wouldn't come
as
a
surprise.]
-------[grin] yes i'm familiar with this...i'm taking irish lessons
right now from
Alexei Kondratiev here in New York : ) i think his ideas about language
determining
one's cultural perceptions are fairly well known by people in this
group!
he's full of these fascinating and really quite essential bits of info!
[There's an analogy I've used in ard before about boundaries. You have
a
field - there is no outside, because there is as yet no inside to
compare it
to. Build a wall, and you now have inside and outside. The wall itself
is,
however, neither inside nor outside, but both and a thing in itself
which is
neither inside nor outside. Boundaries are what create reality - they
are
powerful places. and dangerous ones.]
-------yes i quite agree with you. my primary field of study (i.e my
'vocation',
if i ever find myself deriving an income from it i might be able to
call
it
my 'profession' LOL) is the fine arts.did you know this is remarkably
similar to
some twentieth century ideas about spatial representation? from some of
the
analytical cubists' interpretations of what they assumed Cezanne was
attempting, to giorgio morandi, bruce naumann,donald judd, (to mention
ony some of the most popularly accessible)...there's been much
theorization
(-aside from a *huge* area of political/ideological/identity art which
tends
to center around content-), centered around the physical form of 'the
object', and what philosophical parameters determine it's form and
its boundaries, and ultimately some important aspects of "meaning"...
anyway thanks for the fine discussion. you've written quite alot, and i
must
admit i need some time to digest it. i should also mention i am
terribly
envious of your obvious typing skills, so i hope you forgive me if my
replies are
slower in coming than your own : )
-dan
Kevin
Well, I had a chat a couple of years back with an Irish guy who was doing
philosophy at Birkbeck. He was tackling Toland, and he was curious about his
ideas. They were non-obvious and radical in English thought apparently, and
he was heavily criticised at the time. I had a think and asked what Toland's
first language was. It was apparently most likely to have been Gaelic - he
was born in one of the last areas where the old Gaelic order prevailed. So I
asked Padraigh if his ideas made more sense in Gaelic (which Padraigh
spoke). He went away and mulled it over, came back, and said he could now
see where Toland got his ideas from - apparently they were conditioned by
ways of thinking in his first language.
There's other examples I can think of concerning radical departures from the
English mindset which have knock-on effect in perception - there's one or
two Native American languages which don't have the singular. The nearest
analogy in English is deer and deer. In short, everything is effectively an
individual representation of the group as a whole. Even more complex is
Cherokee - that which moves is alive, that which doesn't is dead. There is
therefore a different word for a dead animal than for a live one - it is not
an animal without life, it is altogether different. Water (or beer) moving
is one word, water (or beer) in a glass is another. Even the word for 'wife'
has different connotations - the Cherokee word literally means 'the person
who cooks for me'. No issues of gender or sexual relationships - what
defines 'wifehood' (regardless of anything else) is cooking for someone
else. Which since I occasionally cook for my wife, I guess that makes me in
Cherokee terms 'wife' as well. Mind you, the moment my wife (who is
Cherokee) got here, she made the kitchen predominantly hers. A woman cooking
for someone else is not the sexually submissive role for Cherokee women that
some feminists would see it as.
Mind you, there are those who oppose Kondratiev's ideas. I recall a Harvard
professor who did an experiment showing a video of a dog sliding across the
floor to people who spoke different languages, She argued that the different
implications about movement should wind up with different accounts of the
dog if language affected perception - however, all the participants saw a
dog sliding across the floor. Therefore she argued that language did not
affect perception.
Well, duh! A dog sliding across a floor is concrete - I wouldn't expect much
variation in that. However, perception is not all about observations of the
concrete, any more than human thought is totally preoccupied with the
external. A lot of human thought is abstract, particularly when it concerns
stuff like life, it's meaning, and the structure behind what happens in the
world which, if we can understand it, will make sense of everything. Such
abstract thinking is very affected by how language allows you to think about
things, and those mental constructs then become your personal or cultural
mental framework within which you interact with your environment. A dog
sliding across a floor will always be a dog sliding across a floor, but what
you deduce from sliding dogs is something else.
Silly woman!! A good example of a bone-headed academic operating of faulty
premises! And she's a professor!
Actually I didn't, till the other day, when an artist reckoned that made sen
se; an artist, they reckoned divides space on a canvas by effectively
marking boundaries, rather than drawing the object itself. I've seen some
obviously doing that, come to think of it. Mind you, to an extent the
debates on meaning are rehashing a very, very ancient idea, which was
formalised in Plato's idea of forms.
Now primarily I play music (guitar, pennywhistle and mouthorgan), though I
have been known to sculpt, draw and write poetry. In music the notes don't
define musical space, but musical space defines where the notes are. The
notes are the boundaries of that space - it's the spaces between the notes
that give them meaning . You can think of music as a succession of
intervals, rather than notes. Just to make things complex, there are strong
analogies between musical space and maths. You can perform things like
transformations in music - just play it backwards, upside-down or whatever,
and then reflect it against the melody. Contrary to one author's ideas
(forget who) musical space isn't two dimensional, though most people treat
it as such by listening to the individual notes of one part alone, rather
than the intervals of all parts. Mind you, before you get to doing that, you
have to be able to pick out at will each individual instrument, rather than
just let the melody dominate your attention and push the others into the
background.
At the moment I'm heavily brushing up classical guitar and Irish
pennywhistle, though I've got a sculpting project in mind for the near
future (sort of crystalised by a visit to the Picasso Museum in Paris),
using a yew trunk and incorporating some of the ideas under discussion,
kinda by way of the Battersea Shield and various arcane pieces picked up
over the years.
> anyway thanks for the fine discussion. you've written quite alot, and i
> must
> admit i need some time to digest it. i should also mention i am
> terribly
>
> envious of your obvious typing skills, so i hope you forgive me if my
> replies are
> slower in coming than your own : )
Oh, I'm not that fast - maybe 50wpm, pretty much touch-typing, but I still
occasionally look at the keys. You should see the wife type! :-)
Kevin
James Hunter Heinlen
: I'll look it out for you.
Thanks in advance. I needs to get my 'to read' stack of books back up to
6 feet....
: True - but it's the investment of effort involved that is interesting,
: particularly considering that these were not state-directed efforts (or
: their analogues) like the pyramids, and that you are dealing with a smaller
: available workforce in rural localities. In some cases you're talking of
: small rural communities, in others just the farmer and his family.
Which does more to dictate means and time then total manpower. It you
are reasonably patient, then levers and stones piles will do instead
of ropes and chains. Just as effective, much smaller manpower
requirements. Also, we do not really know that the manpower available
in farming communities would have been effectively smaller. While the
total number of people would likely have been about the same, or
smaller, they would have needed a much more community based culture to
achieve an effective technology base for farming. Anything that would
have assisted the larger community significantly would have drawn
large numbers of people to aid in the work. Look at the Amish and
Mennonite communities of today to get an idea of what I mean. The
Celtic equivalent of barn raising, or traditional Japanese rice
farming. Since the circles would have acted as 'clocks' not for just
the immediate locals, but, through trade, fairs, a somewhat central
navigation aid, etc, been a community center much further then the few
neighboring farms. So, the construction project would drawn people
from miles to help raise the circle. Since there were not population
centers to act as community centers, geographical points would have
needed to take their place. This happened extensively in the
community I grew up in. The community center building for the town I
grew up in got its repairs paid for by not just the inhabitants of my
little town (population: 32), but also by people who had been coming
to our functions from the surrounding area, mostly by people that had
been coming to our town from when their father brought them. From
larger communities that did not have such a community center.
: In some
: cases you are talking of much bigger single standing stones than the slabs
: at Four Quarters Farm - I'm working on a guesstimate of scale, but some are
: double the size.
Four Quarters Farm also has little problem setting the stones with untrained
help. They state that they could set much larger stones with practice. And
without increasing crew size. Given a crew fairly familiar with what needed
to be done, and you can get much larger stones right there.
: It doesn't square with the usual explanations - cattle are
: quite satisfied a slab 4-5 feet high (I've watched them), and a boundary
: stone needn't be more than 5-6 feet at most. You don't really need to shape
: the stone for either use, so you're talking a lot of superfluous effort for
: the supposed uses.
I read your later posts, and I agree: they were used for allot more then the
stated purposes. Many of them are more elaborate then what you would want
if you were just marking territory, restricting cattle grazing range, etc.
I was going to post on a technique of determining which day had an equal
length to its associated night using a gnomon, some other sticks, and some
patience, by doing the reverse. You would also have needed such technology
to determine the solstices and equinoxes, etc. On top of that, to have
reading keep their meaning over years, you would have wanted the gnomon
to have been quite permanent. For me, the best reason yet for big stone
circles.
Hunter
DaRC
message:<l7Em8.1233$04....@news.iol.ie>...
> Morning all:)
>
<snip>
> So what is the general consensus
> 1. only the four fire festivals
> 2. only the four equinox/soltice (ok, just throwing that in the be
> even:))
> 3. all eight?
>
> and for a million quid....phone a friend if you want....
> 4. WHY do you think that?
Personally I think they celebrated all eight in some form or manner -
perhaps the Fire festivals were more the community festivals whilst
the Equinox/Solstice were more clan/family oriented.
I believe the Celts did because there is archeological evidence of
them using New Grange & Stonehenge which are Equinox/Solstice based
whilst the tales & traditions mention the fire festivals.
This works for me as I was brought up in a rural village where our
primary school year was built (in hindsight) around the fire
festivals. Thus Bonfire night (Samhain) was the first major
excitement of the school year after we'd had to trudge along to the
Harvest Festival almost as soon as we'd started back at school.
Imbolc (the arrival of the Spring lambs so a trip out ;-) came after
Xmas. Then we'd prepare for Easter - the school didn't do much about
May Day but in the village it was a day of fun - races for charity
round the village, Morris dancing and generally a trip to the pub.
Then the longest day was some trip to the church but all school work
went towards the Summer Fete (Lughnasadh). It seemd that Fire
festivals ended in fun whilst the Solstice / Equinox festivals
involved a trip to the church (well I did go to a C of E school).
Looking at Kevin's et al's conversation that a well calculated
calendar is essential for an agricultural economy. I think they are
right but it strikes me that the reasons are wrong.
Here are my thoughts...
Most competent gardeners/farmers know when the conditions are right to
sow & reap. This is based upon observable signs that don't require an
accurate calendar. The relative part of the year (from the height of
the sun in the sky), plus the local weather for that year will dictate
to the farmer when the best time sow / reap is - this will vary year
on year. An accurate calendar is not going to save you from. The
animal calendar (i.e. mating & birthing) is pre-set!
However to an agricultural community what IS important is the time to
trade - of which a key requirement would be an accurate calendar.
This is important so that farmers can get together to buy & sell. If
they have to move cattle, swine or sheep for miles along a Downland
track you want to time their getting to market just right. Screwing
that up would mean starvation or worse. It would be the same with
grain. I'm making a rash assumption here that trade was important to
the Celts.
>
> would appreciate any feedback esp as I know some of ye are very up to
> date on this stuff!
>
> thanks,
> Beirn
juts MHO, Dave.
dan
DaRC wrote:
>
>
>
> Looking at Kevin's et al's conversation that a well calculated
> calendar is essential for an agricultural economy. I think they are
> right but it strikes me that the reasons are wrong.
> Here are my thoughts...
>
> Most competent gardeners/farmers know when the conditions are right to
> sow & reap. This is based upon observable signs that don't require an
> accurate calendar. The relative part of the year (from the height of
> the sun in the sky), plus the local weather for that year will dictate
> to the farmer when the best time sow / reap is - this will vary year
> on year. An accurate calendar is not going to save you from. The
> animal calendar (i.e. mating & birthing) is pre-set!
>
yeah. i like this thinking. it's straightforward and practical...
i guess all i was trying to say within a bunch of obfuscatory speculation
is that
1) if they have a calendar, accuracy is essential. i agree with most
everyone here
2) i don't think the fire festivals were so absolutely dependent upon this
calendar- i think there's room for slight fluctuation in the rhythm of the
agricultural year
3) *if* someone wants to suggest *why* or *how* the dates of the fire
festivals were determined, i would be more easily convinced if the
suggested method actually acheived a date close to the one that became
fixed later on. preferably a method without a lot of tortuous reasoning.
possibly connected to a readily observable natural phenomenon (like the
lactation of ewes e.g. i'm certainly not hitched to the idea of the
pleiades...if the consensus is that it ain't so, well then it ain't so...)
4) i think there might be more than one method after all. like knowing
when it's springtime...there would probably be many factors which could be
used to determine the dates of the festivals. some quite consistent from
year to year...even if the *precise* date varied from locale to locale,
any method that would be used would be "theologically" acceptable, if it
could be applied consistently...
5) ultimately i think it's a historical/archeological question as to
whether they *used to*
be celebrated. the plain fact is that in all the modern celtic countries
they *are* celebrated, and they have been for a long time.
6) festivals are fun. a few extra holidays never hurt anyone...besides
they get people interested in celestial mechanics and the like,which also
can't be bad for the brain...
-dan
Kevin
news:b4049d4.02040...@posting.google.com...
> "Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> mused in
> message:<l7Em8.1233$04....@news.iol.ie>...
> > Morning all:)
> >
> <snip>
> > So what is the general consensus
> > 1. only the four fire festivals
> > 2. only the four equinox/soltice (ok, just throwing that in the be
> > even:))
> > 3. all eight?
> >
> > and for a million quid....phone a friend if you want....
> > 4. WHY do you think that?
>
> calendar is essential for an agricultural economy. I think they are
> right but it strikes me that the reasons are wrong.
> Here are my thoughts...
>
> Most competent gardeners/farmers know when the conditions are right to
> sow & reap. This is based upon observable signs that don't require an
> accurate calendar. The relative part of the year (from the height of
> the sun in the sky), plus the local weather for that year will dictate
> to the farmer when the best time sow / reap is - this will vary year
> on year. An accurate calendar is not going to save you from. The
> animal calendar (i.e. mating & birthing) is pre-set!
>
> However to an agricultural community what IS important is the time to
> trade - of which a key requirement would be an accurate calendar.
> This is important so that farmers can get together to buy & sell. If
> they have to move cattle, swine or sheep for miles along a Downland
> track you want to time their getting to market just right. Screwing
> that up would mean starvation or worse. It would be the same with
> grain. I'm making a rash assumption here that trade was important to
> the Celts.
Good point, though I think I touched on that in one of my posts. Yes, trade
was important, and the Roman empire imported a lot of agricultural produce
from pre-conquest Britain. That said, the timing of the festivals do reflect
the agricultural year.
I have BTW seen a Sauk lady use a gnomon and marker to determine planting
times.
Kevin
DaRC
thinking about Southern England now where the Celtic communities lived
mostly on the tops of the hills. I don't know if this was typical for
most Celtic communities across Europe.
Wouldn't a huge bonfire be a sign of the start of festivites that
could be seen for quite large distances of upto 50 miles or so (on a
good day)?
A big bonfire at Chanctonbury Ring on the S. Downs (a temple to the
Romano-British Taranis-Jupiter) could be seen from the Isle of Wight,
the North Downs and possibly even France (or at least the smoke).
> I have BTW seen a Sauk lady use a gnomon and marker to determine planting
> times.
>
Yep I was thinking of putting a gnomon in my new garden - but I still
think I'll use the back of the packets for planting times ;-)
> Kevin
Cheers, Dave.
Kevin
> Kevin (1006...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>
> : I'll look it out for you.
>
> Thanks in advance. I needs to get my 'to read' stack of books back up to
> 6 feet....
OK, it's somewhere in the English title, but I've included his other work as
well:
Hatt J J (1965) Essai sur l'évolution de la religion gauloise, Rev. des
Etudes Anc. vol. 57, 80-125.
Hatt J J (1970), Celts and Gallo-Romans, Geneva.
> Since the circles would have acted as 'clocks' not for just
> the immediate locals, but, through trade, fairs, a somewhat central
> navigation aid, etc, been a community center much further then the few
> neighboring farms. So, the construction project would drawn people
> from miles to help raise the circle. Since there were not population
> centers to act as community centers, geographical points would have
> needed to take their place. This happened extensively in the
> community I grew up in. The community center building for the town I
> grew up in got its repairs paid for by not just the inhabitants of my
> little town (population: 32), but also by people who had been coming
> to our functions from the surrounding area, mostly by people that had
> been coming to our town from when their father brought them. From
> larger communities that did not have such a community center.
That is certainly something to be taken into consideration. Of course,
another factor is the surrounding terrain - how easily is it traversed, what
size population do you have within reasonable walking or riding distance
etc. In some locations (Dartmoor, for example), 20 miles was a couple of
days away, and further than most people ever travelled from their villages.
Kevin
Kevin
> p.s. i'm unfamiliar with the Jupiter-Giant columns...if it isn't any
> trouble, any info?
This'll get you started:
Green H J M (1986), Religious cults at Roman Godmanchester, in Henig M & A
King, Pagan Gods & Shrines of the Roman Empire, Oxford 29-56.
Green M J (1976), The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain, BAR 24, Oxford.
Green M J (1984), The Wheel as a Cult Symbol in the Romano-Celtic World,
Brussels.
Green M J (1986), The Gods of the Celts, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Green M J (1986b), Jupiter, Taranis & the solar wheel, in Henig M & A King,
Pagan Gods & Shrines of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 65-76.
Henig M (1986), Ita intellexit numine inductus tuo: Some personal
interpretations of deity, in Henig M & A King, Pagan gods and shrines of the
Roman Empire, Oxford, 159-170.
Phillips E J (1976), A Roman figured capital in Cirencester, J. Brit.
Archaeol. Assoc. 129, 25-41, with pls. 10-11.
Kevin
Kevin
> Now I start wondering on why they're called Fire Festivals. I'm
> thinking about Southern England now where the Celtic communities lived
> mostly on the tops of the hills. I don't know if this was typical for
> most Celtic communities across Europe.
> Wouldn't a huge bonfire be a sign of the start of festivites that
> could be seen for quite large distances of upto 50 miles or so (on a
> good day)?
It would that - but additionally, if you look at the sources, you'll find a
constant association between heat and light, and firenne (aka truth, the
essence of life, law, maintainer of fertility etc).
BTW, one thing I neglected to mention - Macha is also named grian (sun)
(Met. Dinds. IV, Ard Macha, 127, lines 45-48; O'Rahilly 1946, 293; Mac Cana
1955). Another sovereignty, Mor Muman, is explicitly identified with the sun
(Coir Anmann 1; Mac Cana 1958, 77), and then you've got Etaine Echraidh
(Horse-riding shining one), which nicely connects with the horse goddess
Epona, who had a mid-winter solstice observance. Oaks has also effectively
and convincingly demonstrated theoretically the identification between Epona
and Macha, which is supported by Olmsted's translation of an Iberian Celtic
inscription that gives Imona (=Emain) and Epona as two names of the same
goddess (Olmsted 1988, 317). Epona's Latin name was Regina Sancta, a name
echoed by another (British) Celtic goddess Dea Rigiina. Of course, there's
also Rigantona (Rhiannon, also horse-riding) and the Irish Mor Rigan (Great
Queen) - the latter also had mid-winter solstice associations (Gruffydd
1953, 67, 103, 98; Oaks 1986, 78; 81; Met. Dinds. II, Brug na Bóinde, 19,
lines 5-16; Stokes 1894, 292; Olmsted 1969, 139; Green 1989, 23). It might
be remarked that midwinter is the point when the sun's heat and light starts
getting stronger. Later Scots Gaelic poetry refers to the sun as a heavenly
queen (Carmina Gadelica III, 310-311). See also Gray 1982, 118; O'Hehir
1983, 172; Green 1989, 188-189; Ross 1967, 219.
So all in all, there was a major religious motive, as well as practicality,
for using the solar movements as the framework for the agricultural year and
the festivals, even in pre-calendrical periods. BTW, The references are in
the dissertation to be helpful, I tried to send through in the form of an
e-book, courtesy Searles. However, nothing much happened. :-( Anyway, last I
heard, it was in the Summerlands library. One or two other people may have
it up on a webpage somewhere - willows for example. Failing that, I'll
e-mail it to you if you want.
Kevin
DaRC
Yep I found it on Summerlands yesterday - and managed to read it.
Excellent stuff - I'll be saving my pocket money for some of those
books I think ;-)
Whilst reading it I was thinking that it seems that both the Sun and
Moon were identified with femalinine deities - is this true for their
concept of celestial bodies I wonder?
Sovereignity thus passed within England to Brittania and so the
concept has continued into the modern world in some ways. BTW I've
always preferred 'Rule Brittania' to 'God Save the Queen' for a
national anthem - especially since Freddy Mercury's passing ;-)
Cheers, Dave
dan
i finally have read your long post regarding the jupiter giant
columns. i agree with much of what you say. especially your quite clear
and persuasive iconographical analysis of the solar-wheel/ horse goddess
connection. beautiful explanation of the masculine-feminine duality...
i must say that that i also have some disagreements. unfortunately my
disagreements concern what i suspect are some of your favorite ideas
regarding the whole thing!
because of this i have been hesitant to respond. i know how these
newsgroups can magnify friendly disagreements into contentious
arguments, and i certainly would hate for that to happen.
i wish i were a fine enough writer (as some are on this list that i have
seen) to express my disagreements as they are intended, purely as a
friendly debate and without causing the slightest bit of ill-feeling to
pop up, as sometimes happens in the medium of electronic communication.
my lack of confidence in my ability to always make that clear is what
prompts me to write this now. after all i'm a newcomer to this group and
i don't want to enter a room shouting...that would be inexcusably
impolite and contrary to one of the potential strengths of this group,
i.e. the building of a network of friendly correspondence into a
community (of sorts)...
anyway regarding my disagreements, many of your assertions about the
symbolism of the wheel,while i must say in terms of their *conclusions*
they are quite elegant and persuasive, i am unconvinced in their
derivations...i think nearly all of them can be derived more simply and
straightforwardly by other means, and sometimes your derivations are
argued against by other evidence...for example i think the wheel
certainly expressed the cycle of the year, and was linked to the
division of the spatial dimension as well. i don't think it was derived
from the gnomon. i could be more detailed in my objections if you 'd
like.
also you seem to unnecessarily bring the coligny calendar into the
argument. i actually think this weakens the over-all theory...the idea
of the gnomon being represented in the columns is interesting on its
own, and by bringing in the calendar, you have to move your argument
there and take on the task of proving the use of gnomons in two places.
i suspect that you believe the mere existence of an accurate lunisolar
calendar supports the idea of the gnomon. but this really creates more
arguments that you have to take on:
was the coligny calendar derived from gnomon use? does it support the
gnomon as central to the solar-wheel symbol? can the coligny calendar
only have been derived from accurate solar observation? -my answer to
all of these is 'no'...again i could be more detailed..
anyway while i disagree that the cosmological conception of the wheel
symbolism is *derived* from a gnomon...i would certainly agree that it
could be *consistent* with it, up to a point. it is in the area of the
inconsistencies that i doubt it could have been derived from it. the
gnomon-wheel scheme is possibly quite resonant with the cosmological
conceptions of time and space, and now that you have suggested this
view, i don't see why it can't be used that way, but i don't think the
ancient celts used it that way. in fact some of your supporting
evidence, like the coligny calendar, argues against it...
i think you've got a great explanation of a lot of iconographical
symbols. but it seems that many of your conclusions are not dependent
upon your arguments, and in fact simpler and more conventional
derivations can be offered, while still retaining the pattern of the
symbols' interaction which you so nicely elucidate...
agreeably disagreeing(i hope) : )
-dan
Kevin
Neugebauer O (1975), A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy,
Berlin.
Neugebauer O (1957), The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed., Providence
RI.
Olmstead G S (1992), The Gaulish Calendar, Bonn.
Kevin
Kevin
An interesting post - don't worry, I'm not usually given to ranting and
unnecessary discourtesy. Mind you, as I remarked on another ng, necessary
discourtesy is another thing! :-)
> for example i think the wheel
> certainly expressed the cycle of the year, and was linked to the
> division of the spatial dimension as well. i don't think it was derived
> from the gnomon.
Well, I'd agree that it expressed the cycle of the year - in a very concrete
way. Not to mention divine power and law.
> also you seem to unnecessarily bring the coligny calendar into the
> argument. i actually think this weakens the over-all theory...the idea
> of the gnomon being represented in the columns is interesting on its
> own, and by bringing in the calendar, you have to move your argument
> there and take on the task of proving the use of gnomons in two places.
> i suspect that you believe the mere existence of an accurate lunisolar
> calendar supports the idea of the gnomon. but this really creates more
> arguments that you have to take on:
Well, it should be taken in context of the earlier dissertation. Searles has
got it over on
http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/kevin_dissertation.html
Now introducing the Coligny calendar wasn't unnecessary at all. The
theoretical method used was one developed at the University of Vienna in
order to facilitate multidisciplinary approaches by developing functional
models, and at the same time deal with the objections of antinativists and
Celtosceptics. Not too long back it was thrashed out an a conference in
Ireland (I'll have to get some feedback). Anyway, I've employed the method
very exactly.
There is a link between the Jupitar-Giant columns and the Coligny calendar -
time, perceptions of time and religion. The Coligny calendar is a sacred
calendar, the Jupiter-Giant columns religious symbols that are frequently
strongly connected with time - it's a sometimes neglected aspect of the
columns. Bearing in mind that a mythological scene is portrayed on its
summit that isn't a million miles away from Cath Maige Tuired, one is
probably looking at a very powerful religious symbol. They were certainly
considered so by Christians, who broke a lot up.
Admittedly some of the arguments in the e-mail were sketched around, but
that's because we both know them, and were concentrating on particular
aspects only - mostly the ones that would get the antinativists and
Celtosceptics up in arms. Wasn't much point in going over the
uncontroversial bits! :-)The e-mail wasn't intended for third parties to
read, unless they knew the background and unless they'd read the
dissertation. I just chucked it because there were some useful bits and bobs
in there - but I was hoping you'd be able to read the earlier work first.
That's got a nice statistical analysis of wheel symbolism with respect to
the analysis of the iconography.
> was the coligny calendar derived from gnomon use?
Err, well almost certainly. The mathematical method is Greek (derived from
Babylon) as is the whole concept (or technology) of a soli-lunar calendar.
Greek contact is evident in the orthography, according to Olmsted. The most
accurate method at the time for determining the solar year was by using a
gnomon - that is exactly how the Greeks established the length of the solar
year in order to create calendars. No other sufficiently accurate method is
known - nor, if Greek contact is involved, would the Greeks have suggested
any other method. They didn't have any other method accurate enough - we're
talking of measuring the solar year to an accuracy of hours and minutes, and
they got a very creditable value. It has only been bettered in far more
recent history. We're on very strong ground here, with the evidence of
manuscripts - see Neugebauer.
However, this does *not* imply that the Greeks introduced gnomon. In fact we
have what is almost certainly a gold model gnomon from the Bronze Age,
complete with probable celestial imagery. Further, the pattern of festivals
is stubbornly Celtic (there's other pointers, but I'm just picking on a
few). What we probably have in the Coligny calendar is a mathematical
elaboration of an indigenous non-calendrical system, achieved by bolting on
Greek technology to an already existing rules-based system that used a
pillar. Pillars, we know, were important in Celtic religion and, as
mentioned previously, the Jupiter-Giant columns are directly connected with
the passage of time. The mechanism itself fits what is known of Greek-Celtic
contact, and implies that society was becoming more hierarchical, which we
know happened.
I could, at that point, dragged in Irish sources, but the purpose of that
discussion was to lay a solid theoretical groundwork designed to deal with
specific academic arguments.
> does it support the
> gnomon as central to the solar-wheel symbol? can the coligny calendar
> only have been derived from accurate solar observation?
Errm! Yes - we know that cos we've got contemporary manuscripts on
soli-lunar calendars. The only way to be able to develop a soli-lunar
calendar is to have a very accurate measurement of the tropical year. If it
is not as accurate as possible, errors stack up in a very few cycles, and
the whole system goes to pot - if you are out in measuring the solar year by
an hour per year, then in 24 years you are out by a day. The errors are
cumulative. If there are also errors in the lunar year, the situation is
even worse. The calendar very quickly becomes useless.
The problems are very well understood, and were well understood in
antiquity. There were several attempts to devise an accurate calendar, with
repeated attempts to measure the length of the solar year more accurately.
Intensely accurate solar observation is a prerequisite. There is, from a
scientific point of view, no other way. It's basic astronomy and maths. The
next prerequisite is a very accurate measurement of the lunar month. The
cycles come by equating the two so that x solar years with y lunar years to
give z cycles.
> anyway while i disagree that the cosmological conception of the wheel
> symbolism is *derived* from a gnomon...i would certainly agree that it
> could be *consistent* with it, up to a point. it is in the area of the
> inconsistencies that i doubt it could have been derived from it. the
> gnomon-wheel scheme is possibly quite resonant with the cosmological
> conceptions of time and space,
Well, before GPS and magnetic compasses, the heavens defined directions on
earth. The static part of the sky, for example, is true north. Similarly, in
antiquity the rotation of the heavens was thought to generate time, rather
than mark it. So divisions of time and space were both connected to the
celestial, which can be thought of as unifying them.
> and now that you have suggested this
> view, i don't see why it can't be used that way, but i don't think the
> ancient celts used it that way. in fact some of your supporting
> evidence, like the coligny calendar, argues against it...
?
Actually the weakest parts of the argument don't lie in these bits - these
are strong enough for Dr Henig to have suggested I speak to a couple of his
colleagues with a view to publication. It does, for example, solve a few
conundrums regarding survival and change in Celtic religion under the Romans
fairly simply, and in a wide range of circumstances. However, I think I'll
keep it over for a PhD thesis. Oddly enough, since that correspondence I did
get an invite to submit a paper at one conference. Dunno who gave them my
address. Anyway, I was a bit too busy with the run-up to the MA course and
work to take it up.
Kevin
Wade Baugher
Actually, a number of events conspired to keep me away for a while.
The change over from my @home account to my new account was
rocky. They still haven't made their news server work well enough to
use; I had to buy a third party news service. Throw in a major project
deliverable that required my complete attention, and days quickly
became weeks.
One observation on the planting issue. In researching my family history,
I came across an interesting reference. Native Americans (Nagasqua,
Upkhannum and Ugagogesket) told early Maine settlers to plant corn
"when the oak leaves were as big as the ears of a mouse".
--
Wade
"Kevin" wrote:
<snip>
Kevin
news:3cb09915$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
> Geeez... how quickly we're forgotten. :^}
Ah, sorry, I forgot you had it. I hadn't been keeping a close track of
exactly who had it now, since I've had all sorts of fun over here to contend
with.
Hadn't forgotten you though - your new e-mail has been put in my address
book.
Kevin