Celtic Knotwork prior to Christianity
CELTIC01
The debate here concerning the history of Wicca and modern Druidism has
brought up an interesting question:
Did the art form consisting ofCeltic knotwork exist prior to the
Christian illuminated manuscripts?
Did the pagan metal worker and other craftsmen of Ireland use knotwork and
interlacing prior to the arrival of St. Patrick?
Did the Irish monks introduce interlacing and knotwork to the Alexandrian
artist/craftsmen? Or was it the other way around? Did this lead to Islamic
art centuries latter?
I find this subject absolutley facinating.
http://members.aol.com/celtic01/celtic01.htm
Craig Cockburn
Ann an sgriobhainn <52jia4$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sgriobh CELTIC01
<celt...@aol.com>
>The debate here concerning the history of Wicca and modern Druidism has
>brought up an interesting question:
>
>
>Did the art form consisting ofCeltic knotwork exist prior to the
>Christian illuminated manuscripts?
>
>Did the pagan metal worker and other craftsmen of Ireland use knotwork and
>interlacing prior to the arrival of St. Patrick?
>
St Columba in Scotland I believe.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Lowell McFarland
CELTIC01 wrote:
>
>
> Did the art form consisting ofCeltic knotwork exist prior to the
> Christian illuminated manuscripts?
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/celtic01/celtic01.htm
The Jelling Stone (Jelling, Denmark) is an example of prechristian
Celtic Knotwork.
I will find the citations (and Danes quickly, and with gusto, answer
questions about this monument at soc.culture.danish) and post them.
Apparently, upon the death of his father, the new Danish King had
these two stones carved over the grave of his father.
Eventually, he converted to Christianity and declared Denmark
Christian.
Jelling is spelled slightly differently in Danish.
Loch Sloy!
Lowell McFarland mcfa...@nai.net
gil
Knotwork is also found with the vikings, and the anglo saxons.
The artistic knotwork is used in macrame style crafts. The knots came
first, later they were stylized.
Knotwork - like braiding - is very ancient MUST be very ancient.
Cats' cradle - a very simple kind of knotwork game. All it takes is a string...
Sit any kid on the floor, near a fire with a piece of string,
and watch what happens.
That knotwork art was incorporated into manuscripts is no wonder:
Knotwork was used in the decoration of clothing - then, later, wood carving,
metal work. As the symbology evolved it evolved within the bounds of the
new medium and got progressively more stylized as artists experimented and
studied the theme.
This type of artistic growth is seen in many forms: one example is that
the acropolis is made of marble, but made as though it was built of wood.
( Another example, though one that is not so sure, is the fluting on columns.
I have been told that the fluting was first seen in ancient egypt, where
columns were carved to resemble columns made of bundles of reeds - as were
used to build the larger dwellings of local vips (priests, chiefs, etc)-
when the new medium arose, they shaped it in the form of what they knew. )
Through time, the form evolved furthur and furthur away from its origin.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Payson
g...@gilbaby.dinoco.de
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~gilbaby/
CELTIC01
Could someone shed some light to the Islamic connection to Celtic
Knotwork?
I am constantly finding samples of ISlamic art incorporating the Celtic
techniques to perfection yet are not mere clones of the MSS and stones.
I came across one border knot that is so simple yet I cannot find a sample
in either the MSS or stonework so I must assume that it was original. This
is not the ISLAMIC interlacing based on the hexagon but a pure sample of
Celtic technique.
Lowell McFarland
> CELTIC01 wrote:
[request for Arabic relativity to Celtic Knotwork] LMcF
Here are two additional sources for you that come to mind;
Celtic Art, George Bain, 1973, Dover Publications, New York,
ISBN: 0-486-22923-8
This is a standard source book on Celtic Art.
In the beginning it shows knotwork from Africa, China, Persia, Turkey,
Ukraine, etc., as well as standard Celtic lands.
More difficult to find but really exciting and fun,
The Grammar of Ornament, Owen Jones, 1856, Day & Son, London
Republished 1986, Studio Editions, Bestseller Publications,
London
ISBN 1 85170 048 X
Besides Celtic ornamentation there is Arabic, Chinese, Hindoo,
Savage, etc., ornamentation with many examples of non-Celtic knotwork.
AlexeiK
Lowell McFarland <mcfa...@nai.net>wrote:
>The Jelling Stone (Jelling, Denmark) is an example of >prechristian
>Celtic Knotwork.
Well, it's prechristian by Scandinavian standards, but not by European
standards. The Celtic world had long been thoroughly Christian and the
Hiberno-Saxon interlace style had long been developed, and had had a
considerable influence on the art of the Viking world.
AK
SWalker706
In article <B5$NnEALJ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The Picts did knotwork and they were doing this prior to the arrival of
>St Columba in Scotland I believe.
>--
The Picts were doing very elaborate knotwork carving very early but it is
doubtful that they predate Christian influence.
St. Columba began his mission to the Picts in 563 AD. The Cathach which is
the oldest known surviving Irish M. S. and can be plausibly attributed to
St. Columba probably before he went to Iona. The Cathach contains in it’s
ornament spiral and trumpet curves and some zoomorphic symbols but no
interlace. St. Ninian had contact with the Picts earlier so a definite
threshold cannot be given for either Christianizing the Picts or for the
emergence of ornamental knotwork.
The Aberlemno Stone from Angus has excellent and very elaborate knotwork
carving. The Battle scene on the back is thought by some to depict the
Battle of Nechtansmere, 685 A. D. The Aberlemno Stone is a cross slab that
also contains the mysterious Pictish symbols. Art history commentary on
Pictish stones often refers to these symbols in a way that is confusing
because the “z rod” double discs and other commonly used symbols of the
Picts are discussed in ways that give the impression that ornamental
knotwork, key patterns and spirals are also called Pictish symbols. It is
a convention of the art history crowd to refer to these as ornamental
designs even though there is symbolic meaning and they are on Pictish
stones.. If you read George Bain’s CELTIC ART and assume when he writes
about Pictish symbols that he means knotwork it is easy to get lost and
assume an older tradition for knotwork.
In the soc.culture.scottish FAQ there is a statement about Celtic Crosses
that further clouds the issue.
>>It isn't Christian nor Celtic - the Celtic cross predates Christ by at
least 1,000 years ...<<
This sort of perspective has been given so much play in recent years that
it is possible for the semi-informed to look at a monument like the
Aberlemno Cross slab and naively assume that it is pagan.
Stephen Walker
http://www.underbridge.com/market/walker
La...@ix.netcom.com
to tear them all down? The Celts pre-date Christianity by at least 2-3
thousand years maybe more. Celtic knotwork was found in other areas
found by archologists that pre-date Christianity. The fact is the
Christians claimed the artwork for themselves and destroyed the rest.
Christian did probably do some of the artwork themselves, but they took
it from the Celtic Pagan. The Early Christians did not have a good track
record for be nice open and sharing. The Celts were noted for their
music, physical appearence and artwork.
L.Lasner
> Stephen Walker
> http://www.underbridge.com/market/walker
SWalker706
In article <325F69...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>> Stephen Walker writes:
>> In the soc.culture.scottish FAQ there is a statement about Celtic
Crosses
>> that further clouds the issue.
>> >>It isn't Christian nor Celtic - the Celtic cross predates Christ by
at
>> least 1,000 years ...<<
>> This sort of perspective has been given so much play in recent years
that
>> it is possible for the semi-informed to look at a monument like the
>> Aberlemno Cross slab and naively assume that it is pagan.
> Actually, if the Celtic Cross was Christian, why did the Christians try
>to tear them all down?
It’s worse than I thought! I should have said that overemphasizing the
Pagan heritage of the Celtic Cross deluded some into thinking it NEVER was
Christian.
In 1640 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland ordered that
“idolatrous monuments” be demolished. It has been widely circulated that
this resulted in the Synod of Argyll ordering 60 crosses cast into the
sea that were on the Isle of Iona. Iona had been a Christian center for
over a thousand years by then. During the reformation the more extreme
Protestants in their zeal to rid the Church of graven images and anything
that smacked of Papacy caused the destruction of quite a lot of Christian
art treasures.
> The Celts pre-date Christianity by at least 2-3
>thousand years maybe more. Celtic knotwork was found in other areas
>found by archologists that pre-date Christianity.
The elaborate use of knotwork by in the style that has come to be called
Celtic does not predate the 6th century in Celtic territory. Christianity
was well established in Ireland by the end of the 5th century and in
Scotland and Northumbria by the 7th century.
>The fact is the
>Christians claimed the artwork for themselves and destroyed the rest.
>Christian did probably do some of the artwork themselves, but they took
>it from the Celtic Pagan.
The Celtic Pagans BECAME the Celtic Christians. Imperial Rome did not
convert the Celt in Ireland, Scotland and Wales with an invading army,
the Romans came to Britain as Pagans and retreated shortly after the
empire became officially Christian. The Pagan Germanic Angles and Saxons
wiped out most of what the Romans left behind quite quickly. The
conversion of the Celts was almost entirely a do-it-yourself enterprise
from within. Patrick was a foreigner to the Irish and Columba to the Picts
but besides these most of the early missionaries were native. Because of
this the Celtic Church maintained a tremendous continuity with the
pre-Christian culture and when the Roman Church later established
dominance they found much to criticize as Pagan holdovers.
> The Early Christians did not have a good track record for be nice open
and sharing.
THAT must be why the Romans threw them to the Lions.
> The Celts were noted for their music, physical appearance and artwork.
>
>L.Lasner
>
You got that last fact right at least.
There are some links to Celtic Cross sites at:
http://www.shsu.edu/~lib_maa/celt_crosses.html
Stephen Walker
http://www.underbridge.com/market/walker
La...@ix.netcom.com
SWalker706 wrote:
>
> In article <325F69...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >> Stephen Walker writes:
> >> In the soc.culture.scottish FAQ there is a statement about Celtic
> Crosses
> >> that further clouds the issue.
> >> >>It isn't Christian nor Celtic - the Celtic cross predates Christ by
> at
> >> least 1,000 years ...<<
> >> This sort of perspective has been given so much play in recent years
> that
> >> it is possible for the semi-informed to look at a monument like the
> >> Aberlemno Cross slab and naively assume that it is pagan.
>
> > Actually, if the Celtic Cross was Christian, why did the Christians try
>
> >to tear them all down?
>
> It’s worse than I thought! I should have said that overemphasizing the
> Pagan heritage of the Celtic Cross deluded some into thinking it NEVER was
> Christian.
It wasn't.
>
> In 1640 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland ordered that
> “idolatrous monuments” be demolished. It has been widely circulated that
> this resulted in the Synod of Argyll ordering 60 crosses cast into the
> sea that were on the Isle of Iona. Iona had been a Christian center for
> over a thousand years by then. During the reformation the more extreme
> Protestants in their zeal to rid the Church of graven images and anything
> that smacked of Papacy caused the destruction of quite a lot of Christian
> art treasures.
> They started ripping down and destorying Celtic pagan artifacts LONG
before that.
> > The Celts pre-date Christianity by at least 2-3
> >thousand years maybe more. Celtic knotwork was found in other areas
> >found by archologists that pre-date Christianity.
>
> The elaborate use of knotwork by in the style that has come to be called Celtic does not predate the 6th century in Celtic territory.
Christianity was well established in Ireland by the end of the 5th
century and in Scotland and Northumbria by the 7th century.
> Then according to you, the Celts did not start knotwork until they turned
Christian, which btw did not occur overnight and Christian's attempt to
convert Celtic Pagans was interrupted in the ninth century by the
invasion of the Vikings. The Celtics weren't converted by then,
therefore even though your dates are wrong, it was still done during that
overlapping period where Celtics were not Christian yet.
> >The fact is the
> >Christians claimed the artwork for themselves and destroyed the rest.
> >Christian did probably do some of the artwork themselves, but they took
> >it from the Celtic Pagan.
>
> The Celtic Pagans BECAME the Celtic Christians. Imperial Rome did not
> convert the Celt in Ireland, Scotland and Wales with an invading army,
> the Romans came to Britain as Pagans and retreated shortly after the
> empire became officially Christian. The Pagan Germanic Angles and Saxons wiped out most of what the Romans left behind quite quickly. The
> conversion of the Celts was almost entirely a do-it-yourself enterprise
> from within. Patrick was a foreigner to the Irish and Columba to the Picts but besides these most of the early missionaries were native.
Because of this the Celtic Church maintained a tremendous continuity with
the pre-Christian culture and when the Roman Church later established
> dominance they found much to criticize as Pagan holdovers.
>As said before the Celtic Pagans did not convert completely at first.
The Celts would take in parts of other religions they liked. For example
Diana who is a Roman Goddess someone found her way in the Celtic
Pantheon. The Celts took in the aspects of Christianity they liked. St.
Patrick also destroyed as much Irish Celtic artifacts he could finds. On
St. Patrick's day the myths is the he drove the snakes out of Ireland,
the snakes are symbolic of pagans. If you don't believe me, most of the
lineage of the Celtic gods can be trace except the Tuatha de Danann (the
Children of Danu) A/k/A the Irish, which is very difficult for me since I
practice Celtic Irish Tradition.
I'm not denying the Celtic Christians did the some ofsurviving artwork,
but give credit where credit is do to the pagans.
> > The Early Christians did not have a good track record for be nice open and sharing.
>
> THAT must be why the Romans threw them to the Lions.
>
> > The Celts were noted for their music, physical appearance and artwork.
> >
> >L.Lasner
History is written by the Winners
CELTIC01
After this debate concerning Celtic Knotwork, I will no longer refer to
them as Celtic. I will call a spade a spade and from now on refer to them
as Corley Knots. If they were created by George or Ian Bain then I will
refer to them as Bain Knots. If by Jerry Lewis then I will refer to them
as Lewis knots.
Saturday, some moron told me they were Roman knots. I give up!
Will Corley
La...@ix.netcom.com
Can Kenneth Branagh have his own knots we can call them Branknots.
Isn't it great that the Celtics couldn't do knotwork until they converted to
Christianity. If I converted you think I can actually draw well?
Keep fighting.
Lara Lasner.
SWalker706
In article <3261E2...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>SWalker706 wrote:
>>
>> It’s worse than I thought! I should have said that overemphasizing the
>> Pagan heritage of the Celtic Cross deluded some into thinking it NEVER
was
>> Christian.
>
and LaraL responded:
>It wasn't.
Do you really mean that you believe that the ancient High Crosses of
Ireland and Iona and the cross slabs of the Picts were not made by and
for Christians? Please explain how it is possible that the Celtic Cross
was never a Christian symbol.
CELTIC01
>>>
Can Kenneth Branagh have his own knots we can call them Branknots.
Isn't it great that the Celtics couldn't do knotwork until they converted
to
Christianity. If I converted you think I can actually draw well?
Keep fighting.
Lara Lasner.
<<<<
What I find hilarious is that where I am from (The Bible belt -shoes, tie
and pants as well), all the little nice xtians will have nothing to do
with Celtic Art because it looks Satantic. Maybe it has something to do
with the fact that the Book of Kells is filled from cover to cover with
Pagan symbolism!
Lets see....
Pagans created the traces.
The Romans burned that.
The Celtic Xtians buried that.
The Church of St Peter flung it in the sea.
The Saxons buried that.
The Vikings looted that.
The Normans smashed that.
The Reformation scribbled on top of that.
Sounds like what the Spainards found when they arrived in the new World.
They were amazed at the beautiful crosses they found amoung the natives.
Ohhhh....the Mormons have an explanation for that as well.
AlexeiK
La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>[Stephen Walker wrote] the Celts did not start knotwork >until they
turned
>Christian, which btw did not occur overnight and >Christian's attempt to
>convert Celtic Pagans was interrupted in the ninth >century by the
>invasion of the Vikings. The Celtics weren't converted by >then,
>therefore even though your dates are wrong, it was still >done during
that
>overlapping period where Celtics were not Christian yet.
No, the Celts didn't become Christian overnight, but the process was begun
pretty early (third-fourth century), and by the end of the seventh century
virtually all Celtic communities were Christian (or thought they were),
regardless of how much of their pre-Christian customs survived in their
practice. The Viking invasions did nothing to change this: Vikings weren't
trying to impose their religion on anyone, and they weren't particularly
campaigning against Christianity; they were just looting. There was no
weakening of Christianity during that period, no noticeable return to
pre-Christian religion on the part of the Celts. Those Vikings who did
settle in Ireland and Scotland made the transition to Christianity pretty
smoothly.
>The Celts would take in parts of other religions they >liked. For example
>Diana who is a Roman Goddess someone found her way in >the Celtic
>Pantheon.
What is your evidence for this? Diana was never a Celtic goddess. There
were shrines to Roman divinities in Roman-occupied Celtic lands, because
Roman state religion was imposed. It had nothing to do with the Celts
borrowing what they liked.
>The Celts took in the aspects of Christianity >they liked. St.
>Patrick also destroyed as much Irish Celtic artifacts he >could finds.
On
>St. Patrick's day the myths is the he drove the snakes out >of Ireland,
>the snakes are symbolic of pagans. If you don't believe >me, most of the
>lineage of the Celtic gods can be trace except the Tuatha >de Danann (the
>Children of Danu) A/k/A the Irish, which is very difficult >for me since
I
>practice Celtic Irish Tradition.
>I'm not denying the Celtic Christians did the some >ofsurviving artwork,
>but give credit where credit is do to the pagans.
The story of St Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland is not a very
old one, and started essentially as a twelfth-century joke. The idea that
snakes=pagans is a modern Neo-Pagan interpretation, and though it's become
very popular it's probably not historically accurate(St Patrick driving
out snakes seems to be modeled on earlier stories of saints driving out or
slaying demonic snakes, which in turn seem to be based on stories of pagan
heroes doing the same thing).
I'm not sure what you mean by "tracing the lineage" of Celtic gods.
Nobody is denying that there was a very beautiful, complex and flourishing
Celtic art tradition in pre-Christian times. All that's been said is that
the specific *knotwork* technique seems to have come in with Christianity.
AK
CELTIC01
>>>
I'm not sure what you mean by "tracing the lineage" of Celtic gods.
Nobody is denying that there was a very beautiful, complex and flourishing
Celtic art tradition in pre-Christian times. All that's been said is that
the specific *knotwork* technique seems to have come in with Christianity.
AK
<<<<
And just think, in a thousand years everyone will think that the 2-10-2
keyed fret was invented by Adolf Hitler!
What is interesting is what happened to the Native American Indians on the
West Coast when the Xtian Spainards xtianized them. One of the first
things was to keep the "heathen's hands busy" by recreating their
craftworks for the benefit of the Missions. If they didn't keep them busy
making crosses with Native American Motifs then who knows what they would
have done.
Christianity in Ireland or Scotland is not as clear cut as one states
here. In many instances the Chieftans went back to paganism and entire
tribes/clans did this for centuries.
I have read that one Chief did not convert from paganism (or even the
entire tribe in fact) until being on his death bed. Yet the Chief was
buried in a coffin that had been carved with "Jerry Lewis" knots. I guess
they had the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs during that time period
and imported the coffin (saphocas spelling?) from Taiwan.
The Book of Kells was the work of many.....a metalsmith was one (One with
a sense of humor as well), and the only reason we have it now is for the
simple fact that a looter ripped it out of its gold cover and left it.
(Even that Viking thought the Book of Kells was evil!)
The Book of Durrows was done completely by Christian scribes. (older and
lower quality plus a definite Roman influence)
LindisFarne! A Xtian Saxon! (Shall we call it Saxon knots?)
La...@ix.netcom.com
AlexeiK wrote:
>
> La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >[Stephen Walker wrote] the Celts did not start knotwork >until they
> turned
> >Christian, which btw did not occur overnight and >Christian's attempt to
> >convert Celtic Pagans was interrupted in the ninth >century by the
> >invasion of the Vikings. The Celtics weren't converted by >then,
> >therefore even though your dates are wrong, it was still >done during
> that
> >overlapping period where Celtics were not Christian yet.
>
> >The Celts would take in parts of other religions they >liked. For example
> >Diana who is a Roman Goddess someone found her way in >the Celtic
> >Pantheon.
> What is your evidence for this? Diana was never a Celtic goddess.
Originally, yes, but look at Shakespeare, in Henry IV part I, she is goddess of the
woods. The woods was connected with Celtic Paganism, not Roman Paganism, which had very
little bearing on Britian. The Celts were known for taking from other religions and
despite being very warlike were also very open.
> >The Celts took in the aspects of Christianity they liked. St.
> >Patrick also destroyed as much Irish Celtic artifacts he >could finds.
> On St. Patrick's day the myths is the he drove the snakes out >of Ireland,
> >the snakes are symbolic of pagans. If you don't believe >me, most of the
> >lineage of the Celtic gods can be trace except the Tuatha >de Danann (the
> >Children of Danu) A/k/A the Irish, which is very difficult >for me since
> I >practice Celtic Irish Tradition.
> >I'm not denying the Celtic Christians did the some >ofsurviving artwork,
> >but give credit where credit is do to the pagans.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "tracing the lineage" of Celtic gods.
In stories about the gods, gods were related to each other. The Tuatha de Danann's
relations with each other cannot be traced. For example, some books say that Dana and
Brigid are the same goddess, others say Brigid is the daughter. The god known as the
Horned one or the Green Man has NO name in the Irish because it was lost, because the
Christians were afraid that he would be a threat to their male god.
> Nobody is denying that there was a very beautiful, complex and flourishing
> Celtic art tradition in pre-Christian times. All that's been said is that
> the specific *knotwork* technique seems to have come in with Christianity.
But it seems the Christians want to claim it for themselves
> AK
Lara Lasner
CELTIC01
Knotwork was developed during the Sword Style of the La Tene period (190
bc). With the advance of the Romans, Germans and Dacians; the last remants
of that art form took refuge and flourished in the Isles only to be
"borrowed" centuries later by the early Celtic Christians (who by the
Church of St Peter were termed pagans with crosses).
Many of the borrowed motifs in the Book of Kells is typical pagan
symbolism even down to cute little Scot with the erect penis on the
Geneaology page!
The knot itself is druidry in motion! Meaning: (speculative) the all is
one, all things are interconnected. Past, Present, Future, Matter can
become one. Typical celtic beliefs prior to xtians!
AlexeiK
La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
([in response to:] Diana was never a Celtic goddess).
>Originally, yes, but look at Shakespeare, in Henry IV part >I, she is
goddess of the
>woods. The woods was connected with Celtic Paganism, >not Roman
Paganism, which had very
>little bearing on Britian.
Shakespeare was not a Pagan Celt, but an educated Englishman, who like all
educated people of his time was very well acquainted with Greek and Roman
mythology, and used it as a source of literary motifs. Chaucer was doing
the same thing centuries earlier. It is in no way a reflection of the
beliefs of their times, nor does it relate to anything Celtic.
>In stories about the gods, gods were related to each >other. The Tuatha
de Danann's
>relations with each other cannot be traced. For example, >some books say
that Dana and
>Brigid are the same goddess, others say Brigid is the >daughter. The god
known as the
>Horned one or the Green Man has NO name in the Irish >because it was
lost, because the
>Christians were afraid that he would be a threat to their >male god.
Look up the actual text of the Book of Invasions (the Irish Texts Society
has the original Irish with an English translation on the facing page),
and you will see page after page devoted to the lineages of the Tuatha De
Danann.
As for the stag god of the woods, think of Fionn Mac Cumhaill and the
Fianna!
AK
La...@ix.netcom.com
Ditto.
L.Lasner
SWalker706
In article <326499...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>[AlexeiK wrote:]
>> Nobody is denying that there was a very beautiful, complex and
flourishing
>> Celtic art tradition in pre-Christian times. All that's been said is
that
>> the specific *knotwork* technique seems to have come in with
Christianity.
>
>But it seems the Christians want to claim it for themselves
>
>Lara Lasner
>
As a Christian the claims I make are that Celtic Knotwork has it’s origin
in Christian times and in Christian context. I also claim, and this
discussion is proving me out, that many neo-pagans are determined to deny
the Christian heritage of all Celtic art. I do not claim that knotwork is
for Christians alone and hope that you find beauty and truth in it.
Whatever the actual historical evolution might have been, it is
unfortunate that most of what we see today in the way of knotwork is
directly copied from ancient sources, usually Christian manuscripts or
monuments. St. Columba was after all the Patron Saint of copyright
infringers. It is sad that the denial and ignorance of these Christian
sources has led many to believe some astonishingly fanciful ideas about
what it is all about.
If this heritage is to grow and prosper we need to see it not only as
what it was in the past but what it can be. In modern times knotwork has
become emblematic of Celtic heritage and whatever other symbolism it may
have it is most universally used as an expression of ethnic identity.
Celtic music is going places it has never been before and so it should be
with Celtic art
Pax
Stephen Walker
cmirel2
>As a Christian the claims I make are that Celtic Knotwork has it’s origin
>in Christian times and in Christian context. I also claim, and this
>discussion is proving me out, that many neo-pagans are determined to deny
>the Christian heritage of all Celtic art. I do not claim that knotwork is
>for Christians alone and hope that you find beauty and truth in it.
>Pax
>Stephen Walker
"To anybody giving a cursory glance at the five centuries which precede the
introduction of Christianity, it may seem that nothing happens over all those
years, that one just meets here and there some objects which have always
roughly the same type of design, a poverty-stricken tangle of curves and
spirals. In reality this is the time when the strange method which will be the
backbone of all the art of Christian times is slowly being elaborated."
Quotation taken from
IRISH ART in the Early Christian Period to A.D.800 by Francoise Henry
'
To claim that Celtic Knotwork or interlacing has its origin in any specific
timephase or evolved due to the specific influence of a particular form of
religious belief is naieve. The craftsmen who plied their trade did so for
centuries, passed on their trade to their sons who passed it on to theirs in
turn. The arrival of a new ideaology doesn't mean they would have upped sticks
and moved on because of this change. As the quotation from Francoise Henry's
excellent book suggests, Celtic Art was a continuous evolution which spanned
the decades previous to the introduction of christianity to Ireland, and has
continued even up to the present day. To me, perhaps i'm wrong, but i don't
see how a bunch of monks suddenly had mastered an ancient craft and started
producing this elaborate artwork if they hadn't had some background in that
trade, any more than a priest or monk would today set down to make a goblet
for a religious ceremony. That is not to say that the particular monk in
question could not have served apprenticeship and passed on the trade in that
manner. However, even if he had, what he had learned had to come from
someplace or someone else. I'm afraid that art, unlike religious dogmas and
beliefs, be they pagan, christian, buddhist or whatever, continues to evolve,
adapt and become a symbol of it's time, whereas religions wither and perish
continuously, which is borne out by history. Stephen, though you might scorn
the idea, had you lived 3,000 years ago somewhere in Europe you would have
been a follower of some pagan religious belief. After all there wouldn't have
been any christian religion then, would there?
Ní mar a shíltear a bhítear,
Brian Ó Cualáin
CELTIC01
Thank you Brian!
"To claim that Celtic Knotwork or interlacing has its origin in any
specific
timephase or evolved due to the specific influence of a particular form of
religious belief is naieve."
I think it is dangerous to the Celtic Art expression to start tagging it.
Afterall, it is call Corley Knots!
gil
SWalker706 (swalk...@aol.com) wrote:
: >
: >SWalker706 wrote:
: >>
: Ireland and Iona and the cross slabs of the Picts were not made by and
: for Christians? Please explain how it is possible that the Celtic Cross
Of course the cross was co-opted by the Christian faith. Prior to that,
it was co-opted by the Romans to ridicule an earlier sacrement.
BTW: Jesus was cruxified in a manner that was used earlier by Tyre
as holy sacrifice. Christianity was successful because it
was unimaginative with symbology, and VERY imaginative with politics.
(Read the "Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels sometime. Shows christianity
to be from a larger philosophic tradition that had winners, and losers)
It took a lot of converts in the beginning, because the people at the time
thought that this new God must be one very powerful God- Better set
another place at the alter.
You still have not answered by earlier comments about what
the resurrection of Jesus has to do with the Easter bunyy. :-)
gil
SWalker706 (swalk...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <3261E2...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
: Do you really mean that you believe that the ancient High Crosses of
: Ireland and Iona and the cross slabs of the Picts were not made by and
: for Christians? Please explain how it is possible that the Celtic Cross
: was never a Christian symbol.
I think that the Christians did wonderful things to existing symbology.
(The stones of Callanish from the air is mapped out in the form
of a perfect Celtic Cross. Lovely spot. They had good taste.)
BTW: I am not a "neo" anything. I just find it very hard to attribute originality
to Christianity - as a religion it stole more than it created. "Stole" is
to harsh here: "plagarized" is better. Christianity finds it impossible
to cede anything to evolving tradition: it violates the creed.
La...@ix.netcom.com
Don't forget Kirwanots that were created in on Fordham road in the Bronx
New York circ. 1990's.
failte bliadn nua
Mistress of evil and bowling
La...@ix.netcom.com
SWalker706 wrote:
>
> In article <326499...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >[AlexeiK wrote:]
> >> Nobody is denying that there was a very beautiful, complex and
> flourishing
> >> Celtic art tradition in pre-Christian times. All that's been said is
> that
> >> the specific *knotwork* technique seems to have come in with
> Christianity.
> >
> >But it seems the Christians want to claim it for themselves
> >
> >Lara Lasner
> >
>
> in Christian times and in Christian context. I also claim, and this
> discussion is proving me out, that many neo-pagans are determined to deny
> the Christian heritage of all Celtic art. I do not claim that knotwork is
> for Christians alone and hope that you find beauty and truth in it.
>
I am not denying Celtic Christian did Celtic Knotwork, but it's origins are with Celtic
PAGANS. Give credit where credit is do.
Other things Christians took from Pagans are the holidays: Christmas, All Souls day, a
number of saints used to be Pagan gods and goddess.
> Whatever the actual historical evolution might have been, it is
> unfortunate that most of what we see today in the way of knotwork is
> directly copied from ancient sources, usually Christian manuscripts
Considering that St. Patrick destroyed as much Irish paganism artifacts as he could. We
have a hard time finding "sources". However Monks-Scribes did write down pagan myths
and artwork. Therefore your Christian manuscripts could easily be a copy of a pagan
document.
> If this heritage is to grow and prosper we need to see it not only as
> what it was in the past but what it can be. In modern times knotwork has
> become emblematic of Celtic heritage and whatever other symbolism it may
> have it is most universally used as an expression of ethnic identity.
> Celtic music is going places it has never been before and so it should be
> with Celtic art
>
I agree that it has to grow, but you can't forget that the Celts were once pagan just
like I can't deny that there is Celtic Christainity.
> Pax
Laccitos dagos te, Bleidoni nouia
> Stephen Walker
Lara Lasner
La...@ix.netcom.com
You are the man
Mistress of Evil and Bowling
Lara Lasner
CELTIC01
>>>
The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
Mithrasianism almost took over.
<<<
I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be Celts once they
became christianized. Look at the classic definition of being "Celtic".
The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them unique from the
other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, a
culture...not a race.
One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the Celts is that
they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the classic sense).
The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in Ireland.
NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
They became Romans.
CELTIC01
>>>
BTW 'Pagan' means either believing in many gods or not believing in
any. It should not mean non-christian although I readily concede
that that is the popular belief. A special word meaning
non-Christian smacks of religious elitism to me.
--
Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer /
<<<
Generally speaking. Being a pagan means not worshiping the same god(s) the
winner does.
Remember...Rome considered the Celtic pagans heathens for human sacrafice
yet they themselves allowed sacrafices in Rome a century before the
conquest of the Gaul.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <326AB5...@ix.netcom.com>
La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> > Pax
BTW 'Pagan' means either believing in many gods or not believing in
any. It should not mean non-christian although I readily concede
that that is the popular belief. A special word meaning
non-Christian smacks of religious elitism to me.
--
Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
///
"Are you bravehearted enough to demand freedom?" ///
Charles Mcgregor
In message <54dv9p$e...@gilbaby.dinoco.de>
g...@gilbaby.dinoco.de (gil) writes:
> SWalker706 (swalk...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <3261E2...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> : Do you really mean that you believe that the ancient High Crosses of
> : Ireland and Iona and the cross slabs of the Picts were not made by and
> : for Christians? Please explain how it is possible that the Celtic Cross
> : was never a Christian symbol.
> I think that the Christians did wonderful things to existing symbology.
> (The stones of Callanish from the air is mapped out in the form
> of a perfect Celtic Cross. Lovely spot. They had good taste.)
> BTW: I am not a "neo" anything. I just find it very hard to
attribute originality
> to Christianity - as a religion it stole more than it created. "Stole" is
> to harsh here: "plagarized" is better. Christianity finds it impossible
> to cede anything to evolving tradition: it violates the creed.
Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point is being
missed here.
The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
Mithrasianism almost took over.
--
La...@ix.netcom.com
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>
>
> Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point is being
> missed here.
> The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
> probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
> Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> Mithrasianism almost took over.
>
into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries after Patrick,
they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, then completely
became Christian, then died out.
L.Lasner
La...@ix.netcom.com
> Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
> chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
> ///
> "Are you bravehearted enough to demand freedom?" ///
Christianity gave pagan that meaning. They also used it to refer to Jews
and Muslims. The modern term is a general one concerning people who have
taken the traditions of pre-Christian religions.
BTW, many pagans don't believe in MANY gods. But one god/dess with many
aspects both female and male.
Lara Lasner
Mistress of Evil and Bowling.
CELTIC01
Well, I finally got a copy of "Celtic Art:In Pagan and Christian Times" by
J Romilly Allen (1904) which is the source of much of George Bains
opinions concerning Celtic Art.
It seems that J. Romilly Allen and my conclusions are the same. Celtic
Christian Art did not start until 650 ad. Around the time of the Synod of
Whitby. So that puts the Book of Durrow and possibly Book of Kells into
Pagan hands.
I guess he considers anything prior to Rome's (stepping its foot down)
conquest of the religious heathens to be pagan.
Doesn't really matter...call it "Jerry Lewis" knots if you want. They are
beautiful and that is all that matters (and of course the truth).
Jeanne Cruden
CELTIC01 (celt...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>>
: The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
: probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
:
: Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
: another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
: Mithrasianism almost took over.
:
: I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be Celts once they
: became christianized. Look at the classic definition of being "Celtic".
Celt: member of one of those people speaking Welsh, Breton, Erse, Gaelic,
Manx or one of their prehistoric forerunners...
That's from the Penguin dictionnary... as far as I know Celt is more a
linguistic grouping term than anything else ( even the Romans divided the
Celts into three groups... ). I don't there's necessarily a qualifier that
you['re not Celtic if you're Christian.
: The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them unique from
the other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, a
: culture...not a race.
So they assimilated christianity into their culture, simple enough... read
some of the stuff written in the early middle ages in Ireland and you'll
plainly see that there is a lot of assimilation between old beliefs and
knew... hell go to Ireland and wander around there, check out the holy
wells.
: One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the Celts is that
: they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the classic sense).
Happens over time actually...
: The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in Ireland.
Actually, the Irish weren't very good at founding cities, Dublin etc. was
founded by the Vikings. I would hardly call Iona a vibrant city by the
way... or Skellig Michael (?).
: NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
: They became Romans.
Not in Ireland they didn't... the Romans didn't invade Ireland, remember?
Jeanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Crush-dane, the field and parish then were styl'd,
though time and clever tongues the name hath spoil'd"
Jeanne Cruden, University of Alberta, Canada.
'According to CBC the urban environment of 'Sesame Street' has become too
Americanized for Canadian audiences. And so, Canadian audiences will be
treated to 'an environmentally friendly Canadian park, with Canadian
Muppets embracing Canadian values that draw upon Canada's cultural and
regional diversity' '.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <54gukp$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01) writes:
> >>>
> The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
> probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
>
> Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> Mithrasianism almost took over.
> <<<
> I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be Celts once they
> became christianized. Look at the classic definition of being "Celtic".
> The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them unique from the
Their lifestyles were just as individual as before, the more so for
being Christian, but that has nothing to do with being Celtic.
> other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, a
> culture...not a race.
Being Celtic is only cultural, nothing to do with race, lifestyle
*or* religion.
> One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the Celts is that
> they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the classic sense).
> The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in Ireland.
'Nomadic' behaviour, although this is a misleading term for the very
large scale migrations and long length of stay in each region that
the Celts were known to undertake, were effectively stopped by the
Romans. e.g. the Helvetae. In fact the early Christian era saw a
return to this type of behaviour on the collapse of Rome. e.g. 'Y Gododdin'
Pre Christian Celtic colleges of considerable size already existed
e.g. one of over a thousand students on Uist, and probably formed the
basis of the first monasteries.
> NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
> They became Romans.
Europe is *still* essentially Celtic. compare the philosophies
enshrined in Greco/Roman mythology and Scandinavian/Germanic with
those of the Celts to the present days concepts of right/wrong.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <326C59...@ix.netcom.com>
La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> >
> >
> > Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point is being
> > missed here.
> > The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> > species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
> > probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
> > Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> > another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> > Mithrasianism almost took over.
> >
> > ///The Celts did not preach Christianity across
Europe. They were pushed
> into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries after Patrick,
> they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, then completely
> became Christian, then died out.
Better re-check those history books. Irish, Scottish and Brythonic
monks did convert
continental Northern Europe.
La...@ix.netcom.com
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>
> In message <326C59...@ix.netcom.com>
> La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> > Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point is being
> > > missed here.
> > > The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> > > species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
> > > probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
> > > Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> > > another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> > > Mithrasianism almost took over.
> > >
> > > ///The Celts did not preach Christianity across
> Europe. They were pushed
> > into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries after Patrick,
> > they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, then completely
> > became Christian, then died out.
>
> Better re-check those history books. Irish, Scottish and Brythonic
> monks did convert
> continental Northern Europe.
>
The Church did, but Celtics didn't. Remember there were other peoples
living in the British Isles at the time.
Mistress of Evil and Bowling
La...@ix.netcom.com
Three Cheers For Celtic01 Hip Hip Hooray, Hip Hip Hooray!
"Power to the people sang Johnny Lennon
20 Years Later, we're back at the beginnin'
Sick of waitin' round for divine intervention
Take to the Street if you're lookin' for redemption."
AlexeiK
La...@ixnetcom.com wrote:
>The Celts did not preach Christianity across Europe. They >were pushed
>into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries >after
Patrick,
>they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, >then completely
>became Christian, then died out.
The missionaries who preached Christianity across Europe beginning in the
sixth century were Irish Celts. They weren't the only Celts around: there
was a British Celtic (Welsh) population, too. which was no less "Celtic'.
I don't see why you imagine that they "died out", or what historical event
you see confirming this. There are plenty of Celtic-speaking communities
today whose traditions go back to the time you're talking about.
AK
AlexeiK
La...@ixnetcom.com wrote:
>Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>>
> >In message <326C59...@ix.netcom.com>
> > La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >
> >> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > > >Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point >is
being
> > > missed here.
> > > The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> > > species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were
quite
> > > probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in
Europe.
> > > Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> > > another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> > > Mithrasianism almost took over.
> > >
> > > ///The Celts did not preach Christianity across
> Europe. They were pushed
> > into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries after
Patrick,
> > they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, then
completely
> > became Christian, then died out.
>
>> Better re-check those history books. Irish, Scottish and B>rythonic
>> monks did convert
>> continental Northern Europe.
>
>The Church did, but Celtics didn't. Remember there were >other peoples
>living in the British Isles at the time.
What other peoples? The only non-Celtic people in the British Isles at the
time were the English, and in the sixth century they were still pagan and
not likely to support a missionary effort. The missionaries *were* all
Celts. And if you read the lives of the early ones (like Columbanus), you
will see that they got very little cooperation from the official Church!
AK
AlexeiK
CELTIC01 wrote:
>
> Thank you Brian!
>
> "To claim that Celtic Knotwork or interlacing has its origin in any
> specific
> timephase or evolved due to the specific influence of a particular form
of
> religious belief is naieve."
knotwork is somehow related to Christian ideology, or that it was
developed by Christians, or that it proves some kind of Christian vs.
Pagan superiority. It's just that in the *Celtic* context knotwork motifs
come in at the same time as Christianity (from areas further east where
they had a long tradition). This is a simple historical fact with no
religious significance that I can see.
AK
CELTIC01
>>>
The only non-Celtic people in the British Isles at the
time were the English, and in the sixth century they were still pagan and
not likely to support a missionary effort. The missionaries *were* all
Celts. And if you read the lives of the early ones (like Columbanus), you
will see that they got very little cooperation from the official Church!
AK
<<<
Another broad stroke of the brush. I wonder why they didn't get support?
Maybe Rome thought they were just as pagan as the Saxons? Must
be...because within a hundred years the Synod wiped everything off the
face of the earth that the early Celtic church did.
Rome saw it this way:
"At the edge of our crumbling empire there lies a nation where everyone is
resurrecting/healing everyone. Now...only Jesus can resurrect/heal ..so
either this nation is stretching the truth or they are in fact raising the
dead. Either way, they have to go!"
Where is this going?
Maybe they were raising the dead!
AlexeiK
celt...@aol.com wrote:
>I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be >Celts once
they
>became christianized. Look at the classic definition of >being "Celtic".
>The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them >unique from the
>other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, >a
>culture...not a race.>
>One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the >Celts is that
>they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the >classic
sense).
>The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in >Ireland.
>NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
>They became Romans.
Funny that you should be posting this on a newsgroup called
soc.culture.celtic if you believe that there are no Celts left. It sounds
like you get your information on Celtic history from sources like DJ
Conway.
The only 'classic' definition of 'being Celtic' that I know -- the one
used by Celtic scholars -- is of people who use Celtic languages.
Christianity did not wipe out Celtic language communities -- on the
contrary, it gave them a renewed vigour. Celtic languages, and the culture
they carry, survive to this very day.
The Iron Age Celts were not nomads, nor did Christianity turn their
culture into an urban one. The irish monasteries were never urban centres,
and there were no cities in Ireland until the Vikings established
settlements like Dublin and Cork.
The Western Empire had collapsed by the time Christianity was seriously
established in the British Isles, so there was no political pressure to
make Insular Celts into cultural Romans.
AK
La...@ix.netcom.com
AlexeiK wrote:
>
> La...@ixnetcom.com wrote:
> >The Celts did not preach Christianity across Europe. They >were pushed
> >into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries >after
> Patrick,
> >they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, >then completely
>
> >became Christian, then died out.
> sixth century were Irish Celts. They weren't the only Celts around: there
> was a British Celtic (Welsh) population, too. which was no less "Celtic'.
> I don't see why you imagine that they "died out", or what historical event
> you see confirming this. There are plenty of Celtic-speaking communities
> today whose traditions go back to the time you're talking about.
> AK
Died out is a little harsh, went underground sounds better
L.Lasner
La...@ix.netcom.com
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>
> In message <54rjc7$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01) writes:
>
> > >>>
> > The only non-Celtic people in the British Isles at the
> > time were the English, and in the sixth century they were still pagan and
> > not likely to support a missionary effort. The missionaries *were* all
> > Celts. And if you read the lives of the early ones (like Columbanus), you
> > will see that they got very little cooperation from the official Church!
> > AK
> > <<<
>
> > Another broad stroke of the brush. I wonder why they didn't get support?
> > Maybe Rome thought they were just as pagan as the Saxons? Must
> > be...because within a hundred years the Synod wiped everything off the
> > face of the earth that the early Celtic church did.
>
> Are you talking about the Whitby synod which was only about the date of Easter
> and which in any rate was at a time when celtic missionaries were
> still of paramount influence in Anglo-Saxon christianity (Like the
> missionaries of Lindisfarne)?. I suppose you must be since
> Anglo-Saxon society was irradicated not long after in 1066.
>
> > Rome saw it this way:
>
> > "At the edge of our crumbling empire there lies a nation where everyone is
> > resurrecting/healing everyone. Now...only Jesus can resurrect/heal ..so
> > either this nation is stretching the truth or they are in fact raising the
> > dead. Either way, they have to go!"
>
> > Where is this going?
>
> > Maybe they were raising the dead!
>
> Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
> chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
> ///
> "Are you bravehearted enough to demand freedom?" ///
It took even longer to convert the Irish.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <54r72b$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
ale...@aol.com (AlexeiK) writes:
Ehem... Germany owes most of it's conversion to Scottish monks.
Charles Mcgregor
> Where is this going?
--
CELTIC01
Where am I going with this?
Do a little research!
Find out how many of the Saints of the Celtic Church were druids before
converting? How many had parents that were druids? How many were first
trained by druids? The answer would shock you.
Why are they called Saints? What miracles did they do?
Again the answers would shock you.
Rome had no other choice but to destroy the druid influence of the Early
Celtic church. They had to destroy the image that "Jesus was a druid that
was crucified by Rome".
Before Rome became chic and adopted Xtanity, for an individual,it was far
better off to be a Christian than a Celtic Druid in the Celtic ISles. Do
we all agree on this one?
Shalloway lab
> It seems that J. Romilly Allen and my conclusions are the same. Celtic
> Christian Art did not start until 650 ad. Around the time of the Synod of
> Whitby. So that puts the Book of Durrow and possibly Book of Kells into
> Pagan hands.
Having missed most of this discussion, I don't know what your definition
of 'Celtic Christian Art' is. However, if you mean art made by celtic
christians, then how on earth could the Books of Durrow and Kells not be
celtic christian art? And whatever definition you are using, surely it is
utterly nonsensical to say that the book of Kells is 'in Pagan hands'.
I ASSUME that you know that these books are illustrated copies of the
gospels, that is, the Christian bible? How could the christian bible
possibly be considered Pagan?
all the best, Fiona
Lowell McFarland
I mentioned earlier that the oldest example of Pagan Knotwork
(that I knew) was 1350 BC, Egyptian art, in George Bain's book
of Celtic Art, ISBN 0-486-22923-8.
I rechecked several of Marija Gimbutas' books and found multiple
references to (pre-Christian) Pagan Knotwork.
One particularly interesting example is in her "The Civilization
of the Goddess," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, ISBN 0-06-250386-5, in
which she illustrates early (pre-Indo-European) spiral motifs
developing into a KNOTWORK motif.
It is Figure 2-16, page 26/, and entitled "During the early 6th
millennium B.C. spirals became a major motif in ceramic design,
enlivening Old European pottery with their fluid dynamism. These
early spiral motifs are painted dark brown on orange. Starcevo
5800-5500 B.C. (1) Starcevo and Vinkovi, N. Yugoslavia; (2)Anza II
near Stip, SE Yugoslavia."
I think it would be fair to say that about 8,000 years ago, before
alphabets were invented (before "history"), Pagan artists designed
and used beautiful Knotwork designs.
Loch Sloy!
Lowell McFarland mcfa...@nai.net
Charles Mcgregor
In message <54r6vi$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
ale...@aol.com (AlexeiK) writes:
> celt...@aol.com wrote:
> >I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be >Celts once
> they
> >became christianized. Look at the classic definition of >being "Celtic".
> >The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them >unique from the
> >other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, >a
> >culture...not a race.>
> >One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the >Celts is that
> >they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the >classic
> sense).
> >The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in >Ireland.
> >NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
> >They became Romans.
> Funny that you should be posting this on a newsgroup called
> soc.culture.celtic if you believe that there are no Celts left. It sounds
> like you get your information on Celtic history from sources like DJ
> Conway.
> The only 'classic' definition of 'being Celtic' that I know -- the one
> used by Celtic scholars -- is of people who use Celtic languages.
> Christianity did not wipe out Celtic language communities -- on the
> contrary, it gave them a renewed vigour. Celtic languages, and the culture
> they carry, survive to this very day.
You are probably correct, certainly as far as English celtic scholars
go, but remember the English for historical reasons, have a somewhat
exaggerated view on the importance of language after all they are
named after a language, and not only that, they are named after a
language of a people who were essentially removed from the scene by
the French invasion of England and who demonstrated little more than
barbarity prior to that, so of course it is in their interest to
extol the import of language,
OTOH Scotland has ever had a mix of languages, Gaelic, Pictish,
Welsh, French, English, Flemish. For this reason, to many Scots, the
essence of celtic culture is not linguistic but is one of standards,
ethos, the benchmarks that are used to judge what is right and what is wrong.
> The Iron Age Celts were not nomads, nor did Christianity turn their
> culture into an urban one. The irish monasteries were never urban centres,
> and there were no cities in Ireland until the Vikings established
> settlements like Dublin and Cork.
Yes, the vikings founded Dublin, but it was only a village until 200
years ago. by which time it certainly could not be called viking.
Even If it was the modern expansion of Dublin (gaelic..black pool or
estuary) has swamped the original village anyway.
> The Western Empire had collapsed by the time Christianity was seriously
> established in the British Isles, so there was no political pressure to
> make Insular Celts into cultural Romans.
Southern Britain had been under cultural pressure from Rome for 300
years before christianity.
The last 100 years of Roman occupation saw christianity in Britain.
Eastern England became dechristianised once more *after* the Roman
collapse due to the influx of pagan Anglo-Saxons from Denmark.
Within 200 years they had been rechristianised by the indigenous
celts as was most of Northern Europe.
CELTIC01
>>>
I ASSUME that you know that these books are illustrated copies of the
gospels, that is, the Christian bible? How could the christian bible
possibly be considered Pagan?
all the best, Fiona
<<<
We are speaking of the art form dear, not the content.
Janet Penelope Gunn
In <54vqkl$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01)
writes:
I think he was stating an obvious fact that
>if Rome had nothing to do with it then it was pagan.
To whom is this an "obvious fact"?
from the OED
Pagan:
"heathen", as opposed to Christian or Jewish
1.One of a nation or community that does not hold the true religion, or
does not worship the true God; a heathen (In earlier use practically =
"non-Christian", and so included Mohammedans and sometimes Jews)
I have never before seen anyone suggest that "pagan" was defined as
"not approved by Rome". It seems absurd to me.
Janet Gunn
CELTIC01
>>>
hen", as opposed to Christian or Jewish
1.One of a nation or community that does not hold the true religion, or
does not worship the true God; a heathen (In earlier use practically =
"non-Christian", and so included Mohammedans and sometimes Jews)
I have never before seen anyone suggest that "pagan" was defined as
"not approved by Rome". It seems absurd to me.
Janet Gunn
<<<<
I consider the statement "the true religion,the true God" typical ROMAN
and that is "heathen".
Care to twist more words?
Pagan at the time of "THE SYNOD" is to be considered by the ROMANS to be
ANY RELIGION, BELIEF, GODS, SAINTS, ABBOTS, "JESUS IS DRUID" FREAKS OR
MONKS that is not BACKED by the ROMAN CHURCH OF ST. PETER. PAGAN I.E., as
in need to wipe out, destroy, condemn, ridicule, smash, fling into the
sea.
Now I know why one must not discuss religion, politics or knots.
CELTIC01
>>>
Having missed most of this discussion, I don't know what your definition
of 'Celtic Christian Art' is. However, if you mean art made by celtic
christians, then how on earth could the Books of Durrow and Kells not be
celtic christian art? And whatever definition you are using, surely it is
utterly nonsensical to say that the book of Kells is 'in Pagan hands'.
<<
Lets rephrase.
Maybe I am reading between the lines but he states that "real" Christian
art exhibiting the celtic motifs did not occur until after the Synod.
Reading this, I must assume he considered the art of the early Christian
Celts as pagan in nature. This is only natural since the Church of Rome
considered their beliefs bordering on paganism. It is not that he didn't
know about the Book of Durrow. I think he was stating an obvious fact that
if Rome had nothing to do with it then it was pagan.
The Book of Durrow was before the synod.
Kells will be in debate until hell freezes over.
CELTIC01
>>>
Of course, with hindsight we can say that it was about Roman authority
and influence and that it marks Rome's first victory in the process of
regaining its control over celtic lands
<<<
Now you are using yer head! The Roman Church sided with the Saxons. It
could not side with either the Celtic tribes or even the Celtic Church.
Pay close attention to the few years after Augustine came to the isles.
Saxon chieftans were donating captured land to the Roman Church. Augustine
literally told the saxons to do what the wished with the Welch and Rome
will back them. They did! This is so obvious.
The Roman Church, to destroy the Celtic Church claimed they were pagan.
One of the bishops attending the infamous synod
accused the Celtic Church of the sin of Simon Magnus. (dahh...raising the
dead....wizardry....magic...ahhh....paganism).
Am I condeming the early Celtic Church. Hell no! That was the only real
Church of Christ. (Still pagan in many respects though and this was mainly
through the druid influence.)
More occured at that Synod than determining when the Easter Bunny will
arrive.
CELTIC01
>>>
I think there's no need to prove that *Pagans* used knotwork, and I don't
see that anyone was claiming that Christians invented the technique. The
point made was simply that the classic Celtic knotwork techniques
<<<
What started this was when one craftsmen couldn't understand why pagans
were buying his crafts since the art form was created by christians. If
pagans created underwear would christians refuse to wear it? Would he feel
better if the pagans purchased voodoo dolls?
The art form was not created by christians. It was created by crafts
people way before their time.
AlexeiK
I think there's no need to prove that *Pagans* used knotwork, and I don't
see that anyone was claiming that Christians invented the technique. The
point made was simply that the classic Celtic knotwork techniques (i.e.,
the specific ones found in Hiberno-Saxon illuminated manuscripts, and the
ones made popular by Bain's book) don't appear in *Celtic* art tradition
before the coming of Christianity. They were widespread before that in
Egypt, the Levant and the Black Sea area; and pre-Christian Celtic art
used many complex geometrical patterns (including some interlace), but not
the specific type of knotwork we now think of as characteristic of "Celtic
art".
AK
AlexeiK
celt...@aol.com wrote;
>Pagan at the time of "THE SYNOD" is to be considered by >the ROMANS to be
>ANY RELIGION, BELIEF, GODS, SAINTS, ABBOTS, "JESUS IS >DRUID" FREAKS OR
>MONKS that is not BACKED by the ROMAN CHURCH OF ST. >PETER. PAGAN I.E.,
as
>in need to wipe out, destroy, condemn, ridicule, smash, >fling into the
>sea.
Do you know what the Synod of Whitby was actually about? It's a very well
documented event. It was about divergent methods of calculating the date
of Easter. Nobody accused the Celtic Church of being Pagan, or even
heretic. And its immediate effect was felt only in Northumbria. Celtic
communities accepted the new date of Easter only gradually. The Welsh held
out for over a century before accepting it.
Of course, with hindsight we can say that it was about Roman authority
and influence and that it marks Rome's first victory in the process of
regaining its control over celtic lands -- and so represents a very
important event. But at the time it was not felt to be the kind of
watershed you suggest: Celtic beliefs and attitudes did not change
overnight, and native Celtic Christianity continued to develop for some
centuries yet.
AK
CELTIC01
>>>
Nobody accused the Celtic Church of being Pagan, or even
heretic. And its immediate effect was felt only in Northumbria. Celtic
communities accepted the new date of Easter only gradually. The Welsh held
out for over a century before accepting it.
<<<
No...the Celtic Church was accused of the sin of Simon Magnus which is
another way of saying "pagan".
Yes a century it took to wipe it out.
Sharon Krossa
In article <54dv9p$e...@gilbaby.dinoco.de>,
g...@gilbaby.dinoco.de (gil) wrote on 20 Oct 1996:
>SWalker706 (swalk...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <3261E2...@ix.netcom.com>, La...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>
>: Do you really mean that you believe that the ancient High Crosses of
>: Ireland and Iona and the cross slabs of the Picts were not made by and
>: for Christians? Please explain how it is possible that the Celtic Cross
>: was never a Christian symbol.
>
>I think that the Christians did wonderful things to existing symbology.
>
>(The stones of Callanish from the air is mapped out in the form
>of a perfect Celtic Cross. Lovely spot. They had good taste.)
>
>BTW: I am not a "neo" anything. I just find it very hard to attribute
>originality
>to Christianity - as a religion it stole more than it created. "Stole" is
>to harsh here: "plagarized" is better. Christianity finds it impossible
>to cede anything to evolving tradition: it violates the creed.
I'm afraid that you display rather a lot of ignorance both about
Christianity and the nature of human cultures with the above statements. Or
do you honestly think that any cultural aspect of humanity, be it religion,
art, whatever, does not evolve and adapt what has come before? How is
Christianity any different from the various pagan religions in this regard?
Yes, there is innovation, but I'm sorry, *nobody* every invents a culture
from scratch (even when they purposely set out to do just this, they, by
definition, fail.)
As for "Christianity finds it impossible to cede anything to evolving
tradition: it violates the creed." -- well, firstly, are you mistaking a
faith system for a sentient being? I don't quite see how "Christianity" can
cede or not cede anything. Individual Christians, perhaps, organizations of
Christians, perhaps, but not "Christianity".
Secondly, would you please point out to me where in any Christian creed it
says the concept of evolving tradition is a violation? In all my years of
Christian study and learning, I've never come across this one. In fact,
time and again I have come across explicit acknowledgement of the Christian
church's adaption of the form of pagan practice to the meaning and
significance of the Christian message. (There is a difference between
*form* and *faith*, you know.) Now, perhaps there are some Christian sects
or denominations that can't deal with that -- but they are just that --
groups of Christians, not all Christians, and certainly not "Christianity".
Sharon Krossa, constantly being surprised by what others think she
believes...
Sharon Krossa
In article <54gukp$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01) wrote on 21 Oct 1996:
>>>>
>The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
>species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
>probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
>
>Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
>another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
>Mithrasianism almost took over.
><<<
>
>I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be Celts once they
>became christianized. Look at the classic definition of being "Celtic".
>The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them unique from the
>other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, a
>culture...not a race.
>
>One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the Celts is that
>they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the classic sense).
>The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in Ireland.
>
>NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
>They became Romans.
Excuse me, but what exactly are you using for your definition of "Celt"?
And on what do you base this besides a desire to claim to be like a "Celt"
and yet avoid having to share the term with Christians? "Celt" and "Celtic"
have got to be among the most misused, overused, and useless terms employed
today. At times it even surpasses "feudalism" for shere lack of any
information conveyed.
In my opinion, the only semi-sensible use of the term "Celtic" is to refer
to a language group -- and only because that is the agreed on term, not
because there may or may not be any good reason to have chosen that term in
the first place. In this sense, "Celtic" refers not to a "lifestyle"
(lifestyle???!!!??? who had "lifestyles" in the 5th century!), nor a
"culture", but a group of related languages. Thus, Christianity neither
makes no breaks being "Celtic".
As far as Christianity turning the "Celts" (what Celts, exactly?) into a
bunch of city-slickers -- do you have any idea what the size of medieval
"cities" were in the relavent kingdoms? [Let me give you a hint... in the
*16th* century, Aberdeen was a major city in Scotland. It probably had
between 4000 and 6000 inhabitants...o]
Sharon Krossa, adding "Celtic" to her Terms I Hate list...
Sharon Krossa
In article <32702D...@ix.netcom.com>,
La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>CELTIC01 wrote:
>>
>> Well, I finally got a copy of "Celtic Art:In Pagan and Christian Times" by
>> J Romilly Allen (1904) which is the source of much of George Bains
>> opinions concerning Celtic Art.
>>
>> It seems that J. Romilly Allen and my conclusions are the same. Celtic
>> Christian Art did not start until 650 ad. Around the time of the Synod of
>> Whitby. So that puts the Book of Durrow and possibly Book of Kells into
>> Pagan hands.
Umm, let me get this right... those nice pagans were into copying out the
Gospels? Or weren't you aware of what the *text* of the Book of Kells is?
Sharon Krossa, truly boggled
Sharon Krossa
In article <54vqkl$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01) wrote:
Since when has "Christian" been defined as the church of Rome only? Even
unto this very day there are Christian (yea, even orthodox) churches that
have nothing to do with Rome. I would be inclined not to trust any author
who so obviously doesn't know the meaning of either Christian or pagan...
Sharon Krossa, even more boggled by the minute...
Sharon Krossa
In article <326C59...@ix.netcom.com>,
La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>>
>>
>> Excuse me for butting in, but I believe a very salient point is being
>> missed here.
>> The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
>> species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
>> probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
>> Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
>> another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
>> Mithrasianism almost took over.
>>
>> ///The Celts did not preach Christianity across Europe. They were pushed
>into Ireland and remained there. Other several centuries after Patrick,
>they developed a synthesis of Christianity and Paganism, then completely
>became Christian, then died out.
Among other things "Celtic" does not mean, it is not a reciprocal synonym
for "Irish". Otherwise, how exactly do you explain the 5 modern non-Irish
Celtic languages?
You might want to read some early church history -- many dark ages peoples
were converted to Christianity by missionaries from Ireland and other
Celtic language speaking areas.
Sharon Krossa, posting a lot again...
Sharon Krossa
In article <326C5B...@ix.netcom.com>,
La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>>
>> BTW 'Pagan' means either believing in many gods or not believing in
>> any. It should not mean non-christian although I readily concede
>> that that is the popular belief. A special word meaning
>> non-Christian smacks of religious elitism to me.
>
>Christianity gave pagan that meaning. They also used it to refer to Jews
>and Muslims. The modern term is a general one concerning people who have
>taken the traditions of pre-Christian religions.
>BTW, many pagans don't believe in MANY gods. But one god/dess with many
>aspects both female and male.
I think you'll find that "pagan" and "heathen" were/are used by Christians
to refer to religions that do not believe in the one true God -- therefore,
Jews and Muslims are not pagans as they believed (and still believe) in the
same God as Christians. Or rather, the Christians and Muslims believe in
the same God as the Jews.
Also, even if "Pagan" were used to mean simply "non-Christian", I don't
think it "smacks of religious elitism" -- I expect most religions have
"special words" to refer to those who aren't of the faith. For example,
Jews refer to Gentiles, as, interestingly, do Mormons (meaning everyone who
isn't Mormon, in their case). And even if they don't have a totally
seperate word, all religions have "non-whatever", whether it's
non-Christian, non-Muslim, non-Neo-Pagan, etc.. Being able to talk about
believers and non-believers is really quite useful, and it would get a bit
awkward if you had to list every known religion just to say "them what
don't believe what we do". There's nothing sinister or elitist about it --
just practical.
Sharon Krossa, non-Pagan, non-Muslim, non-Buddhist, Gentile (both senses),
etc.
Lisa L. Spangenberg
Random comments--
Pagan/paganus as a Latin word in Classical Latin meant "rural," or
"Country dweller." The associations we have in Modern English which attach
"non-Christian" to the word pagan are very late. I can't find them used to
mean non-christian in the Medieval Latin texts I have here.
The Book of Durrow is C. 675, The Book of Lindisfarne C. 700 , and The
Book of Kells is C 800, according to Janet Backhouse, Keeper of
Manuscripts at the British Museum. All three were created by monastic
artists; all three are Gospel texts, all three use the Celtic Knot, Celtic
interlace, or Hiberno-Saxon style of illumination.
Usually scholars argue over whether the style is German or Celtic; not
whether it is Christian or Pagan/non-Christian. I can't tell you how many
arguments I've heard and seen about whether the Sutton Hoo artifacts are
German or Celtic.
The endless knot and spiral patterns definitely occur on pre-Christian and
Pre-Roman artifacts found in Britain and Ireland, and Germany, including
La Tene and Hallstadt work. They have also been found in China, on
porcelain and in mathematical treatises.
But the designs are mathematical in nature, based on principles of
geometry, and they also occur in Arabic art, and African art. They also
appear to occur in certain natural chemical structures.
--
Lisa L. Spangenberg | Digital Medievalist
Lis...@Netcom.Com | My opinions are my own.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <AE9DCF129...@annex-p2.abdn.ac.uk>
s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa) writes:
> In article <54gukp$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> celt...@aol.com (CELTIC01) wrote on 21 Oct 1996:
> >>>>
> >The Celts were *still* Celts after becoming Christianised. A new
> >species did not materialise in Britain. In fact the Celts were quite
> >probably responsible for the ultimate dominance of Christianity in Europe.
> >
> >Without Celtic evangelicism, Christianity may well have been yet
> >another of the many short lived Roman religions. As it was
> >Mithrasianism almost took over.
> ><<<
> >
> >I don't that is a fair assumption. The Celts ceased to be Celts once they
> >became christianized. Look at the classic definition of being "Celtic".
> >The Celts no longer had the lifestyles that made them unique from the
> >other european cultural tribes. Being Celtic is a lifestyle, a
> >culture...not a race.
> >
> >One of the most dramatic impacts that xtanity had on the Celts is that
> >they ceased to be nomadic tribes and became urban (in the classic sense).
> >The monstaries formed the very first and largest cites in Ireland.
> >
> >NO...they were no longer Celtic in the classic sense.
> >They became Romans.
> Excuse me, but what exactly are you using for your definition of "Celt"?
> And on what do you base this besides a desire to claim to be like a "Celt"
> and yet avoid having to share the term with Christians? "Celt" and "Celtic"
> have got to be among the most misused, overused, and useless terms employed
> today. At times it even surpasses "feudalism" for shere lack of any
> information conveyed.
> In my opinion, the only semi-sensible use of the term "Celtic" is to refer
> to a language group -- and only because that is the agreed on term, not
> because there may or may not be any good reason to have chosen that term in
> the first place. In this sense, "Celtic" refers not to a "lifestyle"
> (lifestyle???!!!??? who had "lifestyles" in the 5th century!), nor a
> "culture", but a group of related languages. Thus, Christianity neither
> makes no breaks being "Celtic".
Here we disagree completely. I do not see a linguistic definition to
Celtic other than the popular misconception.
You did not see the cultural basis of the Celt because America
largely is Celtic as is Europe.
To understand what Celtic means, you need to study non-Celtic (maybe
there should be a word for it).
> As far as Christianity turning the "Celts" (what Celts, exactly?) into a
> bunch of city-slickers -- do you have any idea what the size of medieval
> "cities" were in the relavent kingdoms? [Let me give you a hint... in the
> *16th* century, Aberdeen was a major city in Scotland. It probably had
> between 4000 and 6000 inhabitants...o]
> Sharon Krossa, adding "Celtic" to her Terms I Hate list...
Sounds like Sharon has post study aversion. I couldn't touch a
physics text book for years after college.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <AE9DCF1D9...@annex-p2.abdn.ac.uk>
s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa) writes:
> In article <326C5B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> La...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> >>
> >> BTW 'Pagan' means either believing in many gods or not believing in
> >> any. It should not mean non-christian although I readily concede
> >> that that is the popular belief. A special word meaning
> >> non-Christian smacks of religious elitism to me.
> >
> >Christianity gave pagan that meaning. They also used it to refer to Jews
> >and Muslims. The modern term is a general one concerning people who have
> >taken the traditions of pre-Christian religions.
> >BTW, many pagans don't believe in MANY gods. But one god/dess with many
> >aspects both female and male.
Hey Shaz! welcome back, and you've come in on my side TWICE!
> I think you'll find that "pagan" and "heathen" were/are used by Christians
> to refer to religions that do not believe in the one true God -- therefore,
> Jews and Muslims are not pagans as they believed (and still believe) in the
> same God as Christians. Or rather, the Christians and Muslims believe in
> the same God as the Jews.
> Also, even if "Pagan" were used to mean simply "non-Christian", I don't
> think it "smacks of religious elitism" -- I expect most religions have
Och, too good to be true wasn't it? Shaz, re-read my post, I said IF
it simply meant
non Christian THEN it would ' smack of religious elitism'.
In the same way that 'Gentile' or 'Infadel' IMO 'smacks of religious
elitism', i.e. classifying all other religions together.
My comment was aimed at the 'neo-Pagans' (sub note: there's a lot of
apostrophes about, subsubnote to Neo-Pagans: that;'s nothing to do
with followers of Jesus) who inhabit this group who seem to think
that 1) Celtic = Pagan.
2) Pagan = non Christian.
So we are really I think, in agreement, almost except that if it DID
come to mean non-christian then IMO it would be as elitist as Gentile
or Infadel.
> "special words" to refer to those who aren't of the faith. For example,
> Jews refer to Gentiles, as, interestingly, do Mormons (meaning everyone who
> isn't Mormon, in their case). And even if they don't have a totally
> seperate word, all religions have "non-whatever", whether it's
> non-Christian, non-Muslim, non-Neo-Pagan, etc.. Being able to talk about
non-x is OK. It does not imply that that which is non x is a single
classification.
> believers and non-believers is really quite useful, and it would get a bit
> awkward if you had to list every known religion just to say "them what
> don't believe what we do". There's nothing sinister or elitist about it --
Tut tut, contriving bad English to support a claim of 'awkwardness'
is the oldest trick in the book.:-)
> just practical.
> Sharon Krossa, non-Pagan, non-Muslim, non-Buddhist, Gentile (both senses),
> etc.
--
CELTIC01
>>>The endless knot and spiral patterns definitely occur on pre-Christian
and
Pre-Roman artifacts found in Britain and Ireland, and Germany, including
La Tene and Hallstadt work. They have also been found in China, on
porcelain and in mathematical treatises.
<<<
End of debate.
CELTIC01
>>>
As far as Christianity turning the "Celts" (what Celts, exactly?) into a
> bunch of city-slickers -- do you have any idea what the size of medieval
> "cities" were in the relavent kingdoms? [Let me give you a hint... in
the
> *16th* century, Aberdeen was a major city in Scotland. It probably had
> between 4000 and 6000 inhabitants...o]
> Sharon Krossa, adding "Celtic" to her Terms I Hate list...
<<<
Sharon:
Prior to the introduction to Christianity to Ireland, they were tribal.
Period! Tara was a freaking chieftan outhouse in comparison to the towns,
villages and cites that developed around the early Celtic churches (Kidare
was just one example). Their entire culture changed. The word "URBANIZED"
is appropiate when in comparison to a tribal culture. I ain't talking
freaking City-States like Rome.
Their entire tribal system flew apart within a few centuries.
Lara Lasner
Sharon Krossa wrote:
Excuse me, but what exactly are you using for your definition of "Celt"?
And on what do you base this besides a desire to claim to be like a
"Celt" and yet avoid having to share the term with Christians? "Celt" and
"Celtic" have got to be among the most misused, overused, and useless
>
I will admit that The Celts incorporated Christianity in their religion.
That is the basis for Christianity. However, The Celts were Pagan for
at least 2000 years maybe more, and then the incorporated Christianity
and then the Protestents claim and that was the end of The Celts. At
least as a known group. You appear to have to opposite questions. Why
is that Christians want to forget the Celts were Pagan?
> As far as Christianity turning the "Celts" (what Celts, exactly?) into a bunch of city-slickers -- do you have any idea what the size of
medieval "cities" were in the relavent kingdoms? [Let me give you a
hint... in the*16th* century, Aberdeen was a major city in Scotland. It
probably had
> between 4000 and 6000 inhabitants...o]
>
> Sharon Krossa, adding "Celtic" to her Terms I Hate list...
If you hate it so much, why are you talking about it.
L.Lasner
--
WPCh
Georgie Stanford
Lowell McFarland (mcfa...@nai.net) wrote:
: I mentioned earlier that the oldest example of Pagan Knotwork
: (that I knew) was 1350 BC, Egyptian art, in George Bain's book
: of Celtic Art, ISBN 0-486-22923-8.
:
: I rechecked several of Marija Gimbutas' books and found multiple
: references to (pre-Christian) Pagan Knotwork.
:
: One particularly interesting example is in her "The Civilization
: of the Goddess," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, ISBN 0-06-250386-5, in
: which she illustrates early (pre-Indo-European) spiral motifs
: developing into a KNOTWORK motif.
:
: It is Figure 2-16, page 26/, and entitled "During the early 6th
: millennium B.C. spirals became a major motif in ceramic design,
: enlivening Old European pottery with their fluid dynamism. These
: early spiral motifs are painted dark brown on orange. Starcevo
: 5800-5500 B.C. (1) Starcevo and Vinkovi, N. Yugoslavia; (2)Anza II
: near Stip, SE Yugoslavia."
:
: I think it would be fair to say that about 8,000 years ago, before
: alphabets were invented (before "history"), Pagan artists designed
: and used beautiful Knotwork designs.
:
: Loch Sloy!
: Lowell McFarland mcfa...@nai.net
:
Lowell,
Henri Hubert in The Rise of the Celts, ISBN 0-88029-283-0, has some
fairly extuensive documentation of examples both in metal and ceramic of
the evolution of Celtic motifs. One can see both early wheelforms (the
precursor of the Celtic cross) and examples of spiral, triskele and
linework.
Georgie
Lara Lasner
Sharon Krossa wrote:
> Among other things "Celtic" does not mean, it is not a reciprocal synonym for "Irish". Otherwise, how exactly do you explain the 5 modern
non-Irish Celtic languages?
they ended (or at least went underground) The Celts origins were
probably in India and went across Europe. They are the most prominant in
Ireland and The British Isles.
> You might want to read some early church history -- many dark ages peoples
> were converted to Christianity by missionaries from Ireland and other
> Celtic language speaking areas.
Actually the Celts did not fully convert to Christianity. They took the
aspects of it they liked, it is the same reason, there are aspects of
Diana in the religion, because they took a little of the Greco-Roman
religion too. In the Tuatha De Danann, there is a goddess named
Branwen, who is the Celtic Venus. Also why are there Carveings of the
Green Man all over churches, if they were all Christians?
> Sharon Krossa, posting a lot again...Too Much.
Lisa L. Spangenberg
In article <327AE8...@ix.netcom.com>, Lara Lasner
<La...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Sharon Krossa wrote:
> > Among other things "Celtic" does not mean, it is not a reciprocal
synonym for "Irish". Otherwise, how exactly do you explain the 5 modern
> non-Irish Celtic languages?
>
> Dear, I did not say that all the Celts were Irish, merely that was where
> they ended (or at least went underground) The Celts origins were
> probably in India and went across Europe. They are the most prominant in
> Ireland and The British Isles.
> > You might want to read some early church history -- many dark ages peoples
> > were converted to Christianity by missionaries from Ireland and other
> > Celtic language speaking areas.
In academic, scholarly terms, the label Celtic is one based on linguistic
markers; that is, the term is applied to those people who speak or spoke a
Celtic language, whether insular or continental. We can't, really, speak
of a Celtic culture; it's too unified a term for a very large group of
peoples. Often the term is applied to cultures, but strictly speaking it
really is a label that is linguistic in nature.
> Actually the Celts did not fully convert to Christianity. They took the
> aspects of it they liked, it is the same reason, there are aspects of
> Diana in the religion, because they took a little of the Greco-Roman
> religion too. In the Tuatha De Danann, there is a goddess named
> Branwen, who is the Celtic Venus. Also why are there Carveings of the
> Green Man all over churches, if they were all Christians?
First of all, you really can't speak of a single Celtic religion; we don't
really know a great deal about what the religious practices of the Celts
were. What little we do know indicates that there was a great deal of
historical and geographic variances.
Secondly, Branwen is Welsh; she really can't be described as one of the
Tuatha de Dannan, who are decidedly Irish. And there are absolutely no
references in the Mabinogi or the Triads, which would make any scholar
describe her as a Celtic Venus. That's even a bit funny, if you really
think about Branwen and the second branch.
As for the green man, the caput floriae or head of a man engulfed by and
even spewing leaves is present in Mycenean and Arabic art; I don't think
we can definitely label it as Celtic. You might want to take a look at
Images of Lust: Sexual Carvings in Medival Churches by Anthony Weir and
James Jarman, which does a good job of examing the Green Man and Shee la
na Gigs. There's also a discussion of the figures in Hutton's Pagan
Religions of the Ancient British Isles, though I'm partial to Jarman's
book.
CELTIC01
>>>
Lowell,
Henri Hubert in The Rise of the Celts, ISBN 0-88029-283-0, has some
fairly extuensive documentation of examples both in metal and ceramic of
the evolution of Celtic motifs. One can see both early wheelforms (the
precursor of the Celtic cross) and examples of spiral, triskele and
linework.
Georgie
<<<
Also, many of the motifs (triskele) appeared on Celtic coins in circa
200bc. The cross also appeared in that time period on Celtic coins.
Yes, the celts not only had coins before the Roman invasion of Gaul but
used the cross as a symbol prior to the birth of Christ. (As did most
cultures)
CELTIC01
>>>
Sharon Krossa wrote:
Excuse me, but what exactly are you using for your definition of "Celt"?
And on what do you base this besides a desire to claim to be like a
"Celt" and yet avoid having to share the term with Christians? "Celt" and
"Celtic" have got to be among the most misused, overused, and useless
terms employee today. At times it even surpasses "feudalism" for shere
lack of any information conveyed.
>
I am neither pagan nor christian.
An irish mother wouldn't let her sons and daughters go to hell. That
statement is truly Celtic!
I do agree that the term "CELTIC" is being misused. Some profess that it
is the language that defines them. Some say race. Some say culture.
I say it was a way of life that no longer exists. Just as the way of life
for the native american indian is extint on reservations.
Maybe you need to use only the term Gaelic so you won't get confused as to
what it means.
I do see a smack of elitism when someone states that one cannot be CELTIC
unless one speaks the language. This is dangerous to the awakening.
ale...@aol.com
celt...@aol.com wrote:
>I do see a smack of elitism when someone states that one >cannot be
CELTIC
>unless one speaks the language. This is dangerous to the >awakening.
inextricably related, I don't see what's elitist about stating that Celtic
culture is the culture of people who speak (or whose ancestors recently
spoke) Celtic languages; it's just a recognition of specific identity. Is
it elitist to say that French culture is the culture of people who speak
French, or Italian culture the culture of people who speak Italian? If you
deny the link between Celtic language and tradition (which all Celtic
scholars recognise) you're just using the term 'Celtic' to refer to some
Anglo fantasy of the ancient Celtic world. When "Celtic' is used like this
(as it frequently is on a popular level), it quickly ceases to have any
objective meaning and to become just a nebulous projection of many
people's personal (and different) romantic notions. I can't imagine any
focused 'awakening' based on something so flimsy.
Gan teanga, gan tir
Heb iaith, heb galon
AK